the blue revolution

Blogging isn't easy. The amount of information to write about is staggering. I mean, just because I didn't blog about it, it doesn't mean that I wasn't aware or not interested in the following events:

• Mark Steyn's column on the countries we must defeat in the future on the War on Terror.

• Iraqis marching against terrorism in Baghdad.

• President Bush visiting the troops in Baghdad for Thanksgiving.

• Sinn Fein and DUP gaining seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly at the expense of the moderate parties.

• Terrorist suspects arrested in Britain, Italy and Germany.

• The outrageous cartoon of PM Sharon eating a baby being awarded in Britain.

It's just that I personally didn't have anything profound to say about these events that others haven't done already. Perhaps I can cut down on the commentary, but the point of this project is to write about my thoughts, not become some sort of Drudge Report. I enjoy being able to pick and choose, but then, I'm also a link whore and a counter addict, so I'm tempted to write less stuff on more things.

I wonder if the handful of readers I get (from the counter, I can tell there aren't many returning visitors) think it's better to go for a more Instapundit route (more links, less chat) or a more Andrew Sullivan route (more chat, less links). I prefer the latter, but, as I've said before, I'm a counter addict.

But in any case, I do know that I have six final exams in the next two weeks, and it's definitely time to stop being so addicted to my project. So besides the Daniel Pipes visit (I'm not even sure if I'll attend the PC merger vote), I'm going to stay away from blogging as much as possible. Heck, I'll even probably have to stop reading other blogs so that I don't get tempted.

Now if only I can improve upon the results of my last announcement of reduced blogging (which was following by more blogging than ever).

Today is, according to Adbusters, Buy Nothing Day. Of course, I intentionally start Christmas shopping at the same time.

This year, because Canada's third quarter GDP growth is a paltry 1.1% compared to the mind-boggling 8.2% of our southern neighbour, it was even more imperative to shop and make up for the loss of revenue from hippie counterculturalists. Unfortunately, the selection at the university bookstore today seem unimpressive compared to last year.

Then I went home, and saw Michele's call for If You Got It, Spend It Day. I was so moved that I rushed back and bought the two books I had originally wanted but didn't buy the first time around. In retrospect, it was a good idea: the stuff was already 20% off, and it'll be months before a bigger sale comes by.

Thanks, Michele. Because of you, Canada's GDP will have an extra $86.80 CAD this coming quarter!

Bill Whittle returns with an exceptional piece on the lives we have already saved in Iraq, and how we are paying back in Iraq the old debts of cutting and running when the shooting gets intense. As Bill is a long essay blogger, I can't summarize much more here, so please read the whole thing.

Charles Krauthammer slams the Geneva "Accord" to be signed by Israeli and Palestinian politicians (via LGF). He illustrates the political unpopularity of the major Israeli proponent of the pact, Yossi Beilin, and the dangerous concessions that this document would provide to the Palestinians if it was ever taken seriously.

However, it appears that the State Department is giving this sellout of Israel some positive encouragement. The US Embassy in Bern will be sending an observer to the signing, and Colin Powell himself has written to commend Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo, Beilin's Palestinian counterpart. He even plans to meet with them in the future.

That the people of Israel have rejected the treacherous strategies of Beilin and the Oslo process is encouraging. That the US State Department still stands by these paths to Israel's destruction is not.

Zimbabwe has been barred from the next Commonwealth summit. This is to the credit of the UK, Australia and New Zealand, who are spearheading the effort to isolate this horrendous regime and maintain a sense of legitimacy in the Commonwealth.

Zimbabwe is in shambles. Land grabs by black squatters have plunged the country into an agricultural crisis. The former breadbasket of southern Africa must now import the food it needs to survive. Meanwhile, the vast majority of whites in the country have been forced to flee the only home they knew. Human rights are trampled over by the one-party state, as oppressive laws restrict press freedom and vigilantes, encouraged by the state, intimidate those who do not tread the ZANU-PF line.

To lift the Commonwealth suspension on such a regime would be a travesty. But African Commonwealth members, including South Africa and Nigeria, have been lobbying for just that. This illustrates the short-sighted prejudices of many people and countries in Africa, believing that the remedy to their ills is to reject anything said or done by the former colonial powers. They see the situation in Zimbabwe as a liberation project of black Africans against the white oppressors. They are wrong: blacks are the people intimidating and oppressing Zimbabweans, and blacks are the ones who must pay the price of blood and hunger.

The Commonwealth is an institution built upon respect towards the principles of democracy and freedom that Britain spread around the world. Ending Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth is a slap to these principles and all human decency. Mugabe must never attend another Commonwealth event ever: Zimbabwe must remain barred until the Mugabe regime is removed and its leaders tried as the war criminals that they really are.

UPDATE (Nov 28, 09:10 PM): Mugabe now says that Zimbabwe will leave the Commonwealth if it continues to be barred from the group. Good riddance, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Mark Steyn, January 17th, 2002:

All that can be said with certainty is that Canada's latest Prime Minister-in-Waiting, Prince John the Manley, will a year or two or ten from now be standing at the microphone announcing that he's quitting politics to spend more time with his family.

And now? Yes, just shy of two years since that statement, John Manley is indeed gone.

I'll miss Manley: he was one of the few Liberals I saw that took his job seriously. Especially as Foreign Minister, it was obvious that he didn't believe in the Liberal orthodoxy that defining Canada involves routinely poking our southern neighbour in the eye. But it was clear that he does too much independent thinking for either Jean Chretien or Paul Martin to tolerate him for very long.

And may I just say: Mark Steyn is indeed a god.

This essay was inspired by Thomas Friedman's column in the NYT today (via Andrew Sullivan). Friedman questions the resolve of our Western leaders to fight this war and illustrates our failure, so far, to win over the hearts and minds of the Muslim world.

The War on Islamism is the third straight major ideological war in the past seventy years, after World War Two and the Cold War. Every war saw the forces for freedom and democracy on one side, and the latest threat to its existence on the other side. The first war was against Fascism, the perversion of love for one's country. The second war was against Communism, the perversion of love for one's neighbours. This war is against Islamism, the perversion of love for one's God.

Because every single one of these perversed ideologies attempt to appeal to basic human instincts, they cannot be merely beaten on the battlefield and contained, for the enemy will not cease in its objective. The total collapse of the enemies of freedom, in both matter and mind, is the only way to safeguard freedom and democracy.

Yet few are willing to commit to the totality of the war ahead of us. Why? Look back upon our last two wars, and one finds clues. In the Second World War, the cost was clear, spilled as the blood of many young men. The threat was also obvious, as the Rising Sun and the swastika spread around the world. The result, therefore, was a commitment to the total defeat of Fascism, and indeed such a defeat did take place.

The Cold War, meanwhile, was just as threatening, but not as costly. Nuclear Armageddon and the Red tide left no doubt as to the severity of the threat to our way of life. But this was a war whose price was much smaller: many less families saw their children shipped off to fight Communism in Korea and Vietnam than to fight on the tiny atolls of the Japanese Empire or the borders of the Third Reich. And for many who did not fire a shot, their way of life only grew better, through the expansion of the economies of free nations and advances in technology.

It is without surprise, therefore, that the Cold War saw many more people sympathetic to the cause of the enemy. In WWII, the handful of anti-Semites sympathetic to the Nazis were quickly ostracized and their threat neutralized. In the Cold War, an entire generation grew to fight against the very institutions that protected them, some even helping out the enemy directly, whether it be slipping the Soviets our nuclear secrets or standing side by side with North Vietnamese soldiers in Hanoi.

Nonetheless, the majority of America's population remained knowing in some degree to the importance of the conflict. This allowed visionary leaders, namely Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, to lead the free world to the final vanquishing of Communism.

So, in light of the past, where do we stand at the present? The threat of Islamism is much more vague and indeterminate than the threats of Fascism or Communism: centred upon a foreign faith, we find it hard to recognize it as a threat to ourselves. A long history of dogmatic religious tolerance has also astigmatized our vision, making it difficult for us to discern the difference between Muslims practicing their religion in peace and harmony, versus Islamists bent upon establishing the supremacy of their doctrine.

In terms of cost, we are even less burdened: although the pain of Septemeber 11 remains searing to most of America, it is but a distant memory in much of Europe, and the battles of this war, from Afghanistan to Iraq, has been miniscule in historical terms. The size of the armed forces of the free world is a fraction of what it was, and our way of life have been only marginally affected. Only in Israel has the cost of Islamist terrorism been felt to a significant level, but Israel is a small nation, and millennia of anti-Semitism have yet to be totally exorcised from Western thought.

With these considerations in mind, it is not surprising that the War on Islamism has proven to be the most difficult of the ideological wars to galvanize the population towards victory. The low cost of this war is to our credit: our parents would never want to burden us with the taxing costs of their war. In this objective they succeeded, but as a result we are nowhere near as committed as they were to fight the enemies of freedom. We must, therefore, have committed, faithful leaders, unwavering in their principles and beliefs, in order to lead us to defeat our enemies.

George W. Bush is an excellent candidate to be such a leader. His convictions are adamant and he was genuinely transformed by September 11 to be someone that will never willingly allow the Islamists to win. However, he is nonetheless a political man, and what we are seeing in Iraq will test those convictions. The battle in Iraq is the focal point of the War on Islamism. Unfortunately, for us, it seems like Iraq is merely a small war against a handful of suicide bombers and rocket launchers. For the enemy, however, they are fight a struggle for their most important faith. It is important, therefore, to consider what exactly is the battlefield that we find ourselves.

The War against Islamism, is, in every sense, the expansion of an Islamic civil war. Since the Battle of Lepanto, the Islamic world has been on a slide from greatness. As a result, Muslims have questioned endlessly why this has happened. However, the nature of Islamic faith makes it difficult, for centuries, for Muslims to be introspect and question their own way of life. The only solution, therefore, is to blame others for their woes: Wahhabi doctrine is the latest manifest of this worldview, demanding the expulsion of all "infidel" influence in search of a "pure" Islam.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is moving apace, and Muslims are forced to question why they have failed in their attempts to emulate others, from Fascism in the form of the Baath, to nationalism in the form of pan-Arabism, to socialism in the form of Nasserism. Many are at a loss, while others have taken courageous steps towards realizing the importance of freedom to developing their well-being.

The result: a fanatical movement to eradicate all foreign influences from the Muslim world, an intellectually bankrupt intelligentsia struggling to find the cause of Islamic decline, and a rising attempt to bring the best of the West into Islam, all vie for the minds and hearts of over a billion Muslims, many of which are confused and unsure of where their future lies.

Because this war is a war for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world, we cannot be compromised by associating with corrupt regimes, or be intimidated into not speaking out forcefully enough about our objective, to eliminate Islamism as a threat and allow the Muslim world to join the rest of the free nations in prosperity. Unfortunately, we are guilty on both accounts. As long as we associate and deal with such regimes as Baathist syria, fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, or the corrupt Palestinian Authority, we give them strength to indoctrinate their own people and reduce our credibility. Meanwhile, Western leaders continue to spew platitudes about the peaceful nature of Islam. It is not enough to commend peaceful, law-abiding Muslims, while failing to punish those who kill and brutalize in the name of Allah.

Why are we so weak and timid on trying to voice our position and convince the Muslim world? Because amongst us is a fifth column that fail to recognize the value of freedom and democracy, and the need to fight to preserve it. Recall when I pointed out that an entire generation grew up in an atmosphere of opposing the efforts of the free world to contain and eliminate Communism. Consider that this generation came as the second generation of the Cold War.

Now look at the present. The first generation of the War against Islamism finds itself split: while a strong portion in America understand the importance of fighting Islamism, another portion, heavily based in Europe, Canada, and large portions of America, is subverting the fight as we speak. Hundreds of thousands around the world marched against Operation Iraqi Freedom, both before and after Iraq's liberation, while failing to condemn Saddam's war against its very own people. Before that, they opposed the battle in Afghanistan, the most brutal theological regime seen in modern times. They blind themselves to the plight of the oppressed to score cheap points against their own protector.

With such a dangerous fifth column against us, the War against Islamism will prove itself harder to win than either World War Two or the Cold War. We on the side of freedom must be adamant in our conviction, and must give full support to the leaders who recognize the importance of this struggle, such as George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and John Howard. Only such support will ensure that they can bring about our victory. We must also realize the very possibility of a civil war within ourselves: not a war of bullets and guns, but a war for the minds of those who live in freedom but refuse to defend it. Finally, we must also accept nothing but the total defeat of our enemies; anything less will leave sparks alive for their fires to light again.

The War on Islamism is a daunting challenge to our future as men living in liberty. It can be won, but only if we recognize it for its true character and fight it with a determination that surpasses our forefathers in their struggles for freedom.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq, opposes the current political transition plan because it did not have direct elections for the interim government. He also calls for a political system that emphasizes "the role of Islam and the identity of the Muslim people."

I'm not sure what to make of this. Sistani has been relatively restrained in talking about the occupation authorities, which I'm thankful for. But considering the 60 percent Shiite majority and the continued lack of support for the US from the Sunnis, this smells a lot like Algeria's famous "one man, one vote, one time" strategy.

Even if the push for direct elections isn't a scam to introduce an Islamic regime, having direct elections in less than a year will likely deepen rifts between the ethnic and religious communities. The truth is that the Islamic clergies and ethnic organizations (such as the Kurdish parties) remain the only groups organized enough to get anywhere in a major election held in the near future. Having elections so soon will only entrench their position in Iraq's long-term political future, sowing the seeds for continued ethnic and religious strife and instability.

Enshrining the position of Islam? Out of the question. Turkey and Israel, the only two countries in the Middle East that can have any claim to the term "democratic", both have secular constitutions, despite being devoutly religious in demographics. And Iraq has, besides Lebanon, one of the larger non-Muslim populations in the Arab world. Islamic constitutions, meanwhile, are tried, tested, and truly horrendous. Thankfully, Bremer's officials say that a proposed bill of rights will remain in any new plans. That should hopefully counteract any attempt to write in Islam into the the new constitution.

If Sistani meant well for all of Iraq, I think he should be more realistic and accept a certain degree of indirectness in the political process. I understand that Saddam's decades of totalitarianism has made any degree of political abstraction or delay seem worrying, but the truth is that the days of Saddam have ended. The marathon for political reform requires a lot of warm-up.

Just wanted to point out that, being hosted on Blog*Spot, my relatives in China are unable to enjoy my endless river of writing (via Instapundit, Volokh). Of course, the language barrier makes this point moot, but it certainly doesn't justify what the Chinese government is doing.

Pretty much nothing to say that they haven't said already, but Rantingprofs' critique of the NYT's comparison of Iraq to Somalia is excellent. But hey, these guys are only trying to convince us that we have gotten nowhere in Iraq, so that we pack and run, and then yes, Iraq will be like Somalia. Just like the NYT tells us. Aren't self-fulfilling prophesies great?

First time in nearly three decades that Israel submits a draft of a UN resolution, one that condemns killing Israeli children through Palestinian terror, and it gets mangled beyond recognition and have to be withdrawn by Israel (via LGF).

Note to the obstructionists: the Cold War is over, guys, so stop calling yourself the "Non-Aligned Movement" and use something more descriptive, like "Countries Against Freedom and Morality".

I understand that Ambassador Gillerman is a diplomat and has to say things like "it's shameful that Egypt, which has a peace treaty with Israel, sabotaged this resolution." But, in all honesty, a country that's shipping weapons underground into Gaza is anything but a peaceful neighbour.

The IAEA passes a resolution condemning Iran's concealment of its nuclear program. In the same breath, of course, it praises Iran's recent "active cooperation and openness", which mostly consists of smoke and mirrors and showing what the IAEA wants to see. Remember, as is everything else handled by the UN, the next step after passing a strongly worded resolution is to do nothing and idle around.

"It's also a very good day for non-proliferation because the board sends a very powerful message on the need to respect fully the integrity of the non-proliferation regime and the non-proliferation treaty."

Huh? What message? A bunch of words? These guys have been deliberately hiding their nuclear program from you for two decades and all you can do about it is tell them they're naughty? Powerful message indeed; too bad it says "please develop nukes, since we're too spineless to care."

The United States is trimming its loans to Israel for building the security fence. The sheer stupidity of this is astounding: guess it's not just the bottom that's foggy at the State Department.

While checking my counter stats, I noticed someone searching on Google for Daniel Pipes' upcoming UBC visit. I think I should get the details out to as many people as possible.

War in the Holy Land: Where Do We Go from Here?
Dr. Daniel Pipes

Friday, December 5, 2003
12:00-1:20pm
Norm Theatre
Student Union Building
UBC

Free Public Lecture. General Seating.

Dr. Pipes is a renowned specialist in the field of Middle East Studies. He was recently appointed by President George Bush to the board of the United States Institute of Peace. He also serves as Director of the Middle East Forum and is on the “Special Task Force on Terrorism and Technology” at the Department of Defense. He has taught at Harvard and the University of Chicago and is the author of many books on Islamic fundamentalism. He is an award-winning columnist for the New York Post and the Jerusalem Post, and appears regularly as a commentator on television news shows around the globe. His Campus-Watch.org website has drawn praise and censure for its controversial tactics.

Sponsored by the Israel Advocacy Clubs of UBC, SFU and Langara.

For more information, please call (604) 224 4748.

If this doesn't creep you out about the prospects of "Iraqification", then you're either delusional or rooting for the bad guys.

"As soon as they leave, I'm taking off my hat," he said, tipping his red baseball cap emblazoned with the corps' emblem, "and putting on a yashmak," the head scarf sometimes worn by resistance fighters.

And then there's this:

Awad, 25, gaunt like the others, shook his head. It was a gesture at once confused and despairing. "We can quit working with the Americans. Fine," he said. "But will the clergy give us salaries?"

Mohammed grinned at the idea. "They pay us," he said, "and we'll stop working with the Americans."

Andrew Sullivan thinks that we need to be in Iraq with considerable numbers for around a decade, and I totally agree. There are places in Iraq where the locals can, and should, assume greater responsibility. These places, in the Sunni heartland, are far from that state.

One might argue that the current Iraqification fever is mostly focused on political reform, not military consideration. But these people are not likely to feel any allegiance to a new Iraqi government, and the security situation will only worsen if we are hoping for goodwill to replace cash and guns as the deciding factor in their loyalty.

I feel sorry for these people: imagine living in a place where your religion and your ethnicity, the two characteristics that defines you most, both telling you to shun the first true helping hand to reach your way for decades, and you are defined so much by these things that you don't even realize that you're working to cut off your lifeline.

It's time I returned the favour: my old friend Adam Yoshida is amongst the most die-hard right-winger ever to walk on the face of the earth. His blog is great for lampooning the left and challenging your liberal sensibilities (you know they're there!), with the best pull-no-punches attitude that I have ever seen. Plus he updates every day, and he writes a lot of stuff. What blogger wouldn't want to do that?

His latest work is an online book on the state of the Canadian nation and its foggy future, The Northern Abyss.

I'm sure some of you will want to send me hate mail decrying my association with Yoshida. My advice: don't bother. I've known him personally for over fourteen years, and I know what he is like. When he says something that's just plain wrong, I know it and you don't have to tell me. But if you're offended because he hurt your sensitive side, that's your business.

For the handful of people who actually read my blog, I apologize for the lack of updates. It is the final week of the school term and assignments are piling up. I don't expect to be able to do much blogging for this week, or maybe even the couple of weeks coming up, which will be final exams.

However, I will (hopefully) blog on political events that I will attend in the near future: Dr. Daniel Pipes visiting UBC on Dec. 5, and the local PC unity vote on Dec. 6.

Apologies again, and may your schedule not get too frantic in this most hectic month of the year.