The National Intelligence Estimate

I just read through the "Key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate......." I thought I'd address some of the accusations and goals of the so-called pacifist and the Left

1. "Bush's action have made America less safe":

This is an easy one, its in the FIRST SENTENCE of the NIE says:

United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qaida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qaida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization.

So according to the NIE, we have seriously damaged and disrupted their operation. (Although al-Qa'ida is still dangerous and a threat).

2. "We need to pull out of Iraq":
On the 2nd paragraph of page 2 (the first bullet point).

* The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" fjihadistssts, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

Ok, the first sentence is what the MSM has been reporting. Read the next sentencence.

Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

So if we win it will draw down their will to fight. The obvios corollary is that if we loose, it will inspire them to carry on the fight. Actually right before the MSM sound bite it says:

perceived jihadist success there [Iraq] would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

Repeating, if we follow the advice of the pacifist movement (and pull out), it would inspire more terrorists and decrease our safety. (I'm purposely narrowing my justification to this one aspect. believeive there are many other reasons as well).

With the 9/11 anniversary there were lots of specials. One thing that I saw mentioned frequently was that the Islamic mujahadeen's defeat of the USSR in Afghanistan had grown to a belief that they had been responsible for the fall of the USSR. This was one of the things that was frequently attributed to emboldening al-Qui'da. (And I don't doubt it).

Overall I think the NIE supports the cause more than hurts it. It was the NYT and others, through their selective publishing which made it appear damaging. (Granted it could be they only received, the damaging elements).

Interesting Piece

This piece (Observations on Arabs) written by someone who lived in Saudi Arabia for a year is quite interesting (for 2 reasons).

Point #1
One he talks about when he encounters someone and explains his views:

I went there with a certain sympathy for Arab grievances, a belief that America had earned a lot of hostility from "blowback" from our ham-handed interventionist foreign policy and support for Israel etc.

I came back with the gloomy opinion that over the long run we are going to have to hammer these people hard to get them to quit messing with Western Civilization.

To a large degree this parrallels my history. (I opposed Israel and supported the Palestinians, but history has changed my attitude). When he has encountered the 'rational' 'fairminded' and discussed his attitude:

not a damn one of them has asked me, "What in your experience caused you to change your mind?" Instead what I get are gratuitous insults followed by insufferably condescending lectures about how wrong I am.

Unfortunately this seems to be the direction which discord is taking. (Again from personal history). The so-called Pacifists I have encountered are not Pacifists,it is more thier hatred of Bush and his crew. Also their reluctance to discuss and debate the issues, they would rather gird up their anger.

Point #2

There Browne makes several observations about Arab culture. Based on my experiences with depression(and anger) and overcoming it, Arab culture is doing everything to promote them both. Unfortunately they have enough of a growth market to continually validate and refresh this pitty pot.

Aggression vs Assertiveness

In today's Western society, there seems to be confusion (mostly originating from the left), between aggression and assertiveness. Basically anything that disrupts harmony is conisdered agression and it inappropriate. The distinction is also based on the identity of the actor*.

Unfortunately most men get labeled as aggressive, even when they are doing something as simple as standing up for themselves. Take in point George Allen. A few days ago at a debate a member of the question panel challenged him on whether he is Jewish. I use the word "challenge" because they way she asked it sounded like Joseph McCarthy. Naturally he replied (some say angrily (I wouldn't blame him)).

This morning I came across the following article:
Allen's Gafe's Show Thin Skin, Mean Spirit....

In today's world for a man to show any anger, according to the left, he shows a "Thin skin" or is "Mean Spirit". Had he been mean spirited, he would have sulked and refused to deal with the reporter. Instead, he became angry (and asked why the question was asked), but he responded eloquently. He was assertive and declared his religion did not mater. Unfortunately for the people on the Left his 2 second of anger at the start was unacceptable.

Being assertive is taking care of yourself. Saying wait a second, "that is my opinion and I have a right to it" or "that has no bearing on the issue." Being aggressive is attacking, belittling, attacking an opponent. Unfortunately for the last 40-50 years there has been a get along and have consensus attitude. People standing up for themselves has been discouraged in favor of the continued tranquility.

This forced consensus leaves one side out and usually feeling resentful. When you push conflict under the rug it just gets bigger. Instead in a disagreement people should be able to air their grievance and speak their mind and find a solution.

Putting up resistance to being bull dozed is not aggression, it is being assertive (and its a right).

*Here are some examples, with accusations and disclaimers from the left:

• Bush's use of "Islamic Fascism" was agressive. Iran's use of Great Satan .... is ignored
• Draw a cartoon of Mohamad, its agression against Islam, blow up trains in London they are sassy
• Use a 400 years old quote (it gets misheard) you are attacking, protest and riot over it..you are just defending your religion.

Do you see a doule standard?? (If you look closely you can see a tie in with the Victim role, which I had previously writen about. Once someone defines their group as the victim or another group as the victimizer, they and the enablers will define any interaction based on that role. Think for a minute and try and figure out the 2 group which George Allen and the reporter belonged to).

The Defense/Victim Argument

In a box labelled "More Books", I have one called "Hitler, A Portrait in Evil" (or something similar). One of the things that I found most interesting, while reading it, was Hitler (at least in his eyes and speeches to the world) was the victim. It was British and French obstinance that forced him to invade the rest of Chekoslovakia and later Poland and Europe.

I find very disturbing parrallels with what I'm reading in recent news. "Its the pope's statement, which is making us attack", "It is an 'attack' on Islam". Fortunately many people are starting to say "wait a minute" and starting to look at the other side of the curtain.

Blogs are still full off reports of apologists (Drunken Blog), but people are starting to call the apologists on it. (Ironically I think this has driven the whiners even more over the brink. Look at Hugo Chavez speech, even CNN was reporting it as a bit extreem*)
*Though the BBC (at least this morning) had no comment on it at all

Talk of peace

I read through a very long news story yesterday on the Rwanda genocide a few years back. One thing that struck me was the Clinton (and UN, and Belgians, and .......) obsession with restoring the peace. Meanwhile, what they failed to understand was that one side did not want to restore the Peace It is a pattern that appears to be repeating in the Mid-East and the West (especially the UN, Europe, and the US Left), seem to be responding to it in the same way.

In her commentary on "Developing Bodhichitta" called "No Time to Loose" Pema Chodron talks about why people 'want' anger (or are rewarded by it), it provides a sense of energy and false empowerment and righteousness. IMO joining a mob of others all chanting for the same thing also provides a sense of belonging. (Studies have also shown that a large group tends to become more radical as the more fringe ideas become accepted by those wishing not to raise a fuss and become separate). In the end, in this situation, anger is not productive.

However currently, the Muslims (who are protesting) are addicted to anger, and as with any addict, one should not enable them. One one side Islamic leadership is rewarded by the anger and stokes it. (Much like a pusher who tells their customers, You liked the high (benefit) you got the first time, right?). On the other the traditional West Political goals are enabling the formation and actions of Radical Islam.

This technique has been used by those in or wanting power from time immemorial from the Russian pogroms (sp?), to Hitler, to Rwanda, and now in the Mid-East. Select a target, blame the target for everyone's woes, distract the populace and get/keep/stay in power, (This is even seen in some US domestic political issues).

The West's desire for peace is meaningless unless, we learn to stop enabling say "Enough, of this behavior!"

EDIT: Jihad Watch has a piece with some examples