The Redhunter

« June 2008 | Main | August 2008 »

July 31, 2008

Extremism Among British Muslim Students?

From CNS News

British students are rejecting as biased and unrepresentative a new report that finds large minorities of Muslim students at universities in the country hold extremist views. But a scholar who has been probing radicalism in British universities called the report "extremely significant - and extremely worrying." "Those polled are, by their nature, going to constitute Britain's future Muslim elite," said Prof. Anthony Glees of the Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies at London's Brunel University. The report, released at the weekend, has stoked a long-running debate over the broader issue of the extent to which members of Britain's Muslim community hold opinions at odds with Western norms - and what to do about it. Billed as the most comprehensive of its kind, the report by the conservative Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) is based on campus visits, attendance at meetings and face-to-face interviews. It is built around an opinion poll conducted by leading online polling firm YouGov, which in Glees' view "has an outstanding reputation for reliability." In its most startling finding, almost one in three Muslim students polled said it was justifiable to kill in the name of religion. Of that group, most said this was an acceptable action if their religion was under attack, while a small number said it was okay to kill to promote one's religion. Forty percent of respondents supported the incorporation of Islamic law (shari'a) law into British law, while 33 percent backed the introduction of a worldwide caliphate, based on shari'a. The poll surveyed 600 Muslim and 800 non-Muslim students at 12 prominent universities with active Islamic Societies (ISOCs), organizations claiming to represent the country's 90,000 Muslim students.

Wow. Let's go visit the website of the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) and see what we can find out.

You can download the reports directly from their website. Islam on Campus is 6.3 mb and 126 pages, which is a bit to read, but fortunately they've posted an Executive Summary which is only 3 pages.

Here are some of the key findings as taken from the summary:

Killing in the name of religion:

• Just under a third of Muslim students polled (32%) said killing in the name of religion can be justified - the majority of these said killing could be justified if the religion was under attack, and 4% of all respondents supported killing in order to promote and preserve that religion.


• 60% of active members of campus Islamic societies said killing in the name of religion can be justified. By contrast, only 2% of non-Muslims agreed.


• Apostasy:


• Half (50%) of Muslim students polled said they would be unsupportive of a friend's decision to leave Islam. A quarter (25%) said they would be supportive.


• Almost half (45%) of Muslim students polled said that apostates should be encouraged to reconsider their decision by Muslim elders and people that care about them.


• A minority (6%) said that apostates should be "punished in accordance with Sharia."

Views on women:

• Almost a quarter (24%) of Muslim student respondents do not feel that men and women are fully equal in the eyes of Allah.


• Female students (38%) were also more likely than males (27%) to perceive inequitable treatment of men and women in their local communities. While 37% of male Muslim students felt men and women were treated equally, only 26% of females felt the same.


• The majority (89%) of Muslim students polled said that men and women should be treated equally, 5% said they should not and 6% were unsure.


• Nearly three fifths (59%) of Muslim students polled felt it was important to Islam that Muslim women wear the hijab.


• Active members of university Islamic societies (51%) were over twice as likely as non-members (25%) to agree that "women should wear the hijab - female modesty is an important part of Islam."

Support for Sharia law in the UK and a worldwide Caliphate:

• Two fifths (40%) of Muslim students polled supported the introduction of Sharia into British law for Muslims.


• A third (33%) of Muslim students polled supported the introduction of a worldwide Caliphate based on Sharia law. A majority (58%) of active members of campus Islamic Societies supported this idea.


• Islam as a political project:


• Over a sixth (15%) of respondents said that Islam as a religion and Islamism as a political ideology were part of the same thing, and that politics is a big part of Islam. A quarter of active members of campus Islamic Societies agreed.


• Over half of Muslim students polled (54%) were supportive of an Islamic political party to represent the views of Muslims at Parliament. By contrast, over half (61%) of non-Muslims polled were unsupportive.

Compatibility of Islam with secularism and democracy:

• Over two fifths (43%) of Muslim students polled said Islam was compatible with secularism. Almost three in ten (28%) said they were incompatible and a further 29% were unsure.


• Over two thirds of Muslim students polled (68%) said Islam and the Western notion of democracy were compatible, with older students (age 35-54) being more likely (78%) than younger students (age 18-35) (67%) to agree. Active members of campus Islamic Societies (84%) were more likely (64%) than non-members to support this idea.


• Over three quarters of respondents (78%) said that it was possible to be both British and Muslim equally. Female Muslim students (81%) were more likely than males (73%) to say it is possible to be both British and Muslim equally.

Some of these are no big deal: "Half (50%) of Muslim students polled said they would be unsupportive of a friend's decision to leave Islam" is the type of thing you'll get if you survey members of any religion.

Other findings seem to be good news: "The majority (89%) of Muslim students polled said that men and women should be treated equally" is only partially tempered by "Almost a quarter (24%) of Muslim student respondents do not feel that men and women are fully equal in the eyes of Allah." The student's view of women is better than one might imagine. Unfortunately, it does seem at odds with most of what else I've read so it's hard to know what is going on.

"Over two thirds of Muslim students polled (68%) said Islam and the Western notion of democracy were compatible" is also generally good, though one wishes the number was still higher.

Much is bad news: "Two fifths (40%) of Muslim students polled supported the introduction of Sharia into British law for Muslims," "A third (33%) of Muslim students polled supported the introduction of a worldwide Caliphate based on Sharia law," "Just under a third of Muslim students polled (32%) said killing in the name of religion can be justified - the majority of these said killing could be justified if the religion was under attack", and "Over half of Muslim students polled (54%) were supportive of an Islamic political party to represent the views of Muslims at Parliament" are the most frightening.

The more involved in Muslim organizations, the worse the views: "A majority (58%) of active members of campus Islamic Societies supported (a worldwide Caliphate based on Sharia law)." This is disturbing because it is those who are active in politics who get their ideas put into practice.

There are several reasons to be wary of polls. The first of course are all the problems associated with bad polls; unrepresentative or insufficiently sized sample, poor questions, and biased researchers.

Second, people often don't want to tell the interviewer bad things, things that they know are overly controversial. Few people in the United States, for example, will tell a pollster that they are not going to vote for Barack Obama because he is black.

We also need to be aware that the fate of movements and ideas are not usually determined by poll numbers. Often in history a determined minority has held a majority hostage, or in extreme cases takes over a nation by revolution.

I don't have time to delve into each of these and other than stories in British newspapers announcing the story I can't find much about this poll on the internet, so take it for what it's worth. If I find more I'll post it.

On the other hand, polls showing this sort of attitude are nothing new. In February of 2006 I posted on a poll by the Sunday Telegraph that showed disturbing attitudes held by British Muslims. I've seen others as well. Read just about any article by American expatriate and gay-rights-activist Bruce Bawer on his website and you'll get the same picture.

Posted by Tom at 4:21 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 29, 2008

Not Mike Huckabee

I found this story in today's Washington Times irritating

Prominent evangelical leaders are warning Sen. John McCain against picking former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as his running mate, saying their troops will abandon the Republican ticket on Election Day if that happens.

They say Mr. Romney lacks trust on issues such as outlawing abortion and opposing same-sex marriage and because he is a Mormon. Opposition is particularly powerful among those who supported former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in the Republican presidential primaries earlier this year.

"McCain and Romney would be like oil and water," said evangelical novelist Tim LaHaye, who supported Mr. Huckabee. "We aren't against Mormonism, but Romney is not a thoroughgoing evangelical and his flip-flopping on issues is understandable in a liberal state like Massachusetts, but our people won't understand that."

The Rev. Rob McCoy, pastor of Calvary Chapel in Thousand Oaks, Calif., who speaks at evangelical events across the country, told The Washington Times, "I will vote for McCain unless he does one thing. You know what that is? If he puts Romney on the ticket as veep.

"It will alienate the entire evangelical community - 62 million self-professing evangelicals in this country, half of them registered to vote, are going to be deeply saddened," Mr. McCoy added.

Grrrr

The idea that these evangelicals would sabotoge the election by not voting for McCain is infuriating.

They can claim all they want that Mormonism is not an issue, but I think that it plays a role whether they want to admit it or not.

I'm not happy with Romney's recent conversion to the conservative side of the social issues either. But the real question in any "flip" is whether the conversion is real or whether it is done for political reasons. From what I've read Romney has offered genuine reasons for changing his mind that makes sense.

If people don't like Mitt Romney, fine. I like him and have never made any secret of it. Of all the Republican candidates he was the most reliably conservative on the most issues (once you got past the flips, anyway), and had experience to credibly claim he could put words to action. He's got more business and management experience than any of the other presidential candidates in either party.

There seems to be a segment who won't trust anyone who hasn't been a conservative their whole life. Kathryn Jean Lopez dealt with this pretty well, I think, over at The Corner earlier today:

Mitt Romney -- is an example of someone who came to the wisdom of conservatism through practical experience. He saw its reasonableness in the face of liberal overreach. We should want to embrace such conversions. We should want to encourage people to get Right.

Or we can fervently close the door to them and their contributions and fresh blood. What a good move for a movement that needs re-energization and recruits.

Maybe it's just me, but the Democrats never seem to undergo such angst when one of their own flips to a more liberal position. Al Gore was famously pro-life while a senator, and underwent miraculous conversion when he decided to run for his party's nomination. Joe Lieberman became more liberal when Gore selected him for the veep spot. But too many on the right almost seem not to want anyone to come round to our point of view.

But all this said we have to admit that there is a lot of opposition to Mitt ROmney. If you still want to not trust him because of his flips, fine. But to say you won't vote Republican if he's on the ticket is madness.

Frankly, it goes to show how narrow-minded some of these evangelicals really are.

Not that this trait is unique to them; far from it. The Democrats have their own problems with their own special interest groups, many of whom exhibit the same attitude on their own issues as do the evangelicals in this article.

How Meaningful is the Article?

Before we go too far we need to evaluate the article itself. I haven't studied the issue so only have the polls cited in the article to go on. I am not certain how much influence the evangelical leaders cited in this article really have.

My own church is affiliated with the Calvary Chapel cited in the article (rather than a traditional protestant denomination where all churches are part of the same organization, each church in the Calvary network is an independent entity). I listen to a few preachers on the radio such as Charles Stanley and Greg Laurie, and I like James Dobson, but while I enjoy their message of personal salvation there's no way I'm going to pay attention to what any of them say about whom I should vote for.

The question is, how many evangelicals will?

Some really do take the advice of leaders such as Rob McCoy. Evangelicals like Pat Robertson have more support than we upper-middle class suburbanites like to admit. In the end, though, I think that most will get over their inhibitions and vote for a McCain/Romney ticket.

I even have to wonder how many people who attend an evangelical church have even heard of the leaders cited in this article. I hadn't.

All this said, I'm not necessarily advocating Romney for the veep spot. He would bring a lot to the ticket, but I'm not sure if such a high-profile selection would gain McCain more than he'd lose. McCain desperately needs someone who can talk economics, but it may be safer to pick a relative unknown.

The Problem With Huckabee

The worst person McCain could pick is Mike Huckabee. For starters, Huckabee is or at least was a Babtist pastor, and I want to keep my pastors in the pulpit and out of politics.

The religion issue also makes him easy to attack. It'd be easy to paint him as a religious extremist.

McCain would lose far more votes by choosing Huckabee than he would gain. In order to win this election we need to solidify the conservative base but also to win the middle. Huckabee would lose the middle. Hillary supporters who might under the right circumstances support McCain will flee from a ticket that includes Huckabee.

Huckabee fails two legs of the three-legged conservative stool. He is right on the social issues, which is why the evangelicals love him. But he fails the other two; economics and foreign policy. The Cato Institute gave him a "D" for his fiscal policy while governor of Little Rock. From what I recall him saying during the primaries, his foreign policy would be closer to Carter than to Reagan.

Then there's the issue of his one-liners. Huckabee fancies himself a comedian, and is known for his clever quips. The problem with this is that all it takes is one inappropriate comment to land you in hot water, and Huckabee already has a few of those under his belt. A few more and Republicans would be in the embarrassing position of watching McCain disavow his own vice presidential selection.

So it's accurate to say I've taken a strong dislike to Mike Huckabee. That said, I'd vote for McCain if he chose him.

Conclusion

I doubt that McCain will select either Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney. While each would bring a particular strength to the ticket, each is controversial, and would alienate certain voters. The last thing McCain needs is that sort of controversy. I think he'll pick a relative no name who can talk economics and doesn't have a controversial background.

Posted by Tom at 8:45 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

July 28, 2008

Iraq Briefing - 24 July 2008 - Confident and Capable Iraqi Leadership

In February Col. Tom James gave one of the most powerful presentations that I've seen as part of his Iraq briefing. It is worth following the link and watching it for yourself.

I was therefore pleased last Thursday to see him give another Iraq briefing. Col James commands the 4th Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division. James' brigade deployed to Iraq sometime around November of 2007. The rest of the 3rd ID deployed to Iraq in early 2007, and, having completed it's mission, deployed back home to Fort Stewart GA in May of this year. I am not sure why the deployment of the 4th Brigade Combat Team does not match the rest of the 3rd ID, and frankly do not have time to reach why this is so.

Briefing us with Col James is Brigadier General Abdul Amir, who commands the 31st Iraqi Army Brigade. Gen Amir is responsible for security in the Babil province, which is located 50 kilometers south of Baghdad. Both are connected via telecommunications link from Baghdad to the Pentagon briefing room.

I believe that they are part of Multi-National Division - Center, which is headquartered by the 10th Mountain Division.

This video and others can be viewed at DODvClips. The transcript is at DefenseLink. More videos, briefings, and military news can be seen at The Pentagon Channel.

What is most interesting about this briefing, I think, is simply that it featured an Iraqi co-hosting with the American. I've noticed this happening more often in these briefings, and is hopefully a trend. It is important because Americans need to see and hear from the Iraqis, and because the Iraqis need to step up and brief the American people on what they are doing. Most importantly, the Iraqis in these recent briefings appear confident and capable.

GEN. AMIR: ...Another reason for security improvement is the people roles of supporting the Iraqi security forces and provide information to the Iraqi security forces and to the U.S. forces, and also this increases the trust between U.S. and the citizens. The Sons of Iraq program also played great roles in improving the security situation. Also, the U.S. forces provide enormous economical projects to support farmers, civilians, schools, roads and clean up canals for farmers. All this creates a good cooperation and a great environment with the Iraqi and the Iraqi citizens.

Sons of Iraq, previously Concerned Local Citizens, or simply CLCs. Vital to winning the "hearts and minds",it moves the Iraqi people from bystanders to participants, which is so vital getting them "off the fence" and into our camp.

Back to General Amir's opening statement:

In addition to the security improvement, there was a great improvement in the capability of the Iraqi army. Last year we were working with two battalions. This year we are working with four battalions. Next year we will have new equipment, such as artillery forces. At this moment, at this time, we also -- we have Lieutenant Colonel McDowell (sp)) training our -- one of our platoons on a route clearance method and such missions like that.

One reads this and thinks, ok, I'm happy this is happening, but didn't they have artillery before we showed up? How is it that it seems that we have to start from the ground up? Yes yes, we allowed the old Iraqi Army to melt away and maybe should have tried harder to keep it (easier said than done), but once we started their new army surely they had old stuff they could have reconstituted?

Following Gen Amir, Col James gave his opening statement. Following are excerpts:

COL. JAMES:...First, a quick orientation to our operating environment. Babil province is located 50 kilometers south of Baghdad, on the key avenues of approach into the capital city. The population is an estimated 1.2 million Iraqis, 70 percent Shi'a and 30 percent Sunni. The majority of the Sunni population resides in the northern portion of the province, in and around the towns of Jurf al-Sakhr, Iskandariyah, Jabella and and Diyara (ph). Currently the majority of our combat brigade is positioned in north Babil.

We maintain a Military Transition Team, as well, further in the provincial capital of Hillah, and we are partnered with the 31st Iraqi army brigade under General Abdul Amir's command and control. And we also work very closely with the Babil police throughout the province.

Our mission is, in partnership with the Iraqi security forces, to secure the population, defeat extremists and neutralize resistance groups, increase the professionalism of the Iraqi security forces, build the capacity of government institutions and economic programs, and transition security and local development tasks to the Iraqi security forces and government over time.

The essential point of what I want to make today is this: The population feels secure and the quality of life is improving. There are two main reasons for this current condition. First, the Iraqi security forces have improved significantly and in partnership with coalition forces have drastically improved the overall security situation in Babil province. Second, the improved security has enabled positive growth in governance and economic systems, creating tangible improvement in the daily lives of Babil citizens.
...

Security improvements are based on three key factors: first, a highly professional and greatly improved Iraqi security force; second, the Sons of Iraq program; and third, combined security forces. That is Iraqi security forces and coalition forces living with the population, on distributed patrol bases and joint security stations throughout our area of operations.
...

We are focused on several key tasks looking to the future -- first, successful execution of free, fair and safe elections; second, GOI-driven SOI or Sons of Iraq transition to other productive employment; and third, assisting with professionalization of the Iraqi security forces; fourth, assisting with local economic development to increase employment opportunity; and fifth, basing adjustments of the Iraqi army and police into key locations we see that's required for security -- all of these tasks while simultaneously conducting relentless pursuit of extremists with our Iraqi partners.

Iraq provincial elections are scheduled for October 1 2008 but might be delayed. They are key because ultimately the people have to believe that their government represents them and has their interests at heart.

On to the Q & A. First was a discussion of the remaining security threats:

Q This is David Morgan from Reuters. Can you please rank for us the security threats that you now face in Babil province in terms of their importance and give us an assessment of their numbers and capabilities?

COL. JAMES: We sure can. General Abdul Amir, I'd like to defer to you first for a comment on that. What do you see as the primary threats in our area of operation?

GEN. AMIR: Babil province area of operation and northern Babil -- as I mentioned in my brief, there were some areas used to live under the control completely of al Qaeda. Some areas used to be under the control of the sectarian violence, which Sunnis and Shi'a lived together in these areas. But because we conducted numerous amount of operations -- joint operation between U.S. forces and Iraqi army forces, we were able to disable all these cells and enemies. We detained most of al Qaeda leaders in all of the areas.

Recently, all the area is under our control. We are conducting basically daily patrolling in several areas -- such area that encounter some sectarian violence such as the Jabella area. We are working through the tribes and pushing them forward for the national reconciliation. And we are -- patronage and held all these conference and ceremony for these tribes and tribal leaders so we could create a real reconciliation between the fighting tribes.

I would love to say and I would like to say that all area of operation in northern Babil is under control 100 percent. There is no threat from al Qaeda. There is no threat from the extremist militia and the outlaw militias. Thank you.

COL. JAMES: And I'd like to add to what General Abdul Amir says. And he is tracking 100 percent. The key here, though, is that as we plan for a potential threat in Babil province, we see the number one threat being extremists that are influenced by al Qaeda, that could potentially attack us with suicide vests, bombs or IEDs, and as well vehicle-borne IEDs on concentrations of population that may be observing a religious festival or something like that. But for the most part we've seen that the Iraqi security forces have been able to take that under control and prevent that from happening in the recent past here.

So we continue to work with that. So that's the first one. And then as he mentioned as well, the militia. The militia threat -- they're much more capable with the EFP and potentially indirect fire systems, but we have not seen that in Babil province in the past month and a half to two months, based on an aggressive Iraqi security force campaign supported by coalition forces.

"There is no threat from al Qaeda. There is no threat from the extremist militia and the outlaw militias." Pretty confident. I hope he's right. Col James didn't go that far, saying that "The organization related to al Qaeda is severely disrupted, as described by General Abdul Amir, and as well the militia are as well in Babil province."

Interestingly, the reporters didn't really challenge this statement. Also, it is in keeping with what else I've been reading about Iraq from other sources.

Q I think you said that the pace of attacks has now fallen off to about one per week. What element is responsible for these attacks, by and large, would you say? And how would you describe the attacks themselves?

COL. JAMES: I would answer that and then pass off to General Abdul Amir. We see that the recent attacks are IEDs of a primitive nature. What we're seeing is IEDs that are affixed to vehicles, that are targeting SOIs. And these are typically influenced by al Qaeda. And what they want to do is discredit the Iraqi security forces. And they're going after mid- to lower-level leaders in that program. And so that's the primary threat that we've seen over the last couple of weeks, and that is what General Abdul Amir has oriented his focus in the operation he described earlier on. So we continue to focus on that, and that is our primary threat. But like I said, that is significantly decreased and we're seeing less than one a week.
...

And one other point is al Qaeda -- the weakening over time is obvious to us based on their ability to deliver an effective IED. Typically, we have seen in the past the suicide vest or the deep- buried IEDs. We're not seeing those anymore. We're seeing them to be much more primitive and much more less effective. And we see this as a very positive thing.

"recent attacks are IEDs of a primitive nature" This is significant, because from 2003-07 what we read was that IEDs got more sophisticated each year. If the insurgents are using "primitive" ones now, this can only mean that we've killed or captured their top bomb makers and now it's the second or third string trying to make do.

Back to the elections. As we'll recall, early in Iraq's post invasion history, the Sunnis held out and didn't vote in several of the elections.

Q This is Jim Mannion from Agence France-Presse. You mentioned that one of your missions was to prepare for upcoming elections, and I'm wondering what, if any, effect the prospect of elections is having on security -- the security situation in your area. And I was wondering if these attacks involving the SOI were interfactional, or is it Shi'a against SOI? ...

COL. JAMES: If I could just add a couple of points to that as well, I had the distinct pleasure of attending several planning sessions -- with General Abdul Amir and Major General Fadil, the police chief of Babil province -- related to election security.

They have just over 20 sites that are registration sites they're securing. And they have a very detailed plan. And they've allocated and distributed resources, to protect those sites, to allow both Shi'a and Sunni to participate in registration.

And that is a true good-news story that we're seeing in Babil province, that General Adbul Amir mentioned, was that the Sunni want to participate. They held out last time and they see the fruits of democracy and want to pursue them. So that is a very positive situation.

Going back to the tail end of your question, about factions and about the IED strikes that we've seen to this point over the last couple of weeks, we see that as al Qaeda, Sunni-based extremists trying to influence the Iraqi security forces, correction, not the Iraqi security forces -- Sons of Iraq program, which is predominantly Sunni.

So we're not seeing sectarian violence at all at the levels that were in the past; very minimal if at all in Babil province. So this is just a al Qaeda attempt to try to discredit the Sons of Iraq program.

Watch the entire briefing.

The security situation is, for now anyway, under control. It is important to seize the moment and push ahead politically and economically. All Iraqis need to feel that their government represents them and has their interests at heart. The economy needs to show visible signs of improvement so that Iraqis will believe that their interests are best served in pursuing legal employment and business opportunities.

It'll be interesting to see how the average Iraqi reacts if elections are in fact delayed. This hasn't been something I've followed much but will have to get more informed. Hopefully the assessment by our briefers that the Sunnis' will fully participate in upcoming elections will hold true.

Important to note for the future is how well General Amir's 31st Iraqi Army Brigade continues to perform, especially once Colonel James' brigade deploys back home. Right now, though, it's so far so good.

Posted by Tom at 7:30 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 25, 2008

Book Review - Liberal Fascism

At various points in my life I've read fairly extensively about Communism and Nazism. As a good Cold Warrior, I wanted to know as much as possible about the Soviet threat, as well as communist infiltration of the West. World War II was of great interest, and I studied not only the battles and weaponry but the Nazi leadership, ideology, and history as well.

The twentieth century being in large part a great struggle between democracy and Orwellian totalitarianism, this seemed to me natural. Today I read about Jihadism, and try to understand our enemy and their infiltration of the West. I think my book reviews show this pretty clearly.

But fascism was something that I never read much about. Part of this, I think, was that Mussolini's Italy was such a non-factor in World War II. Other fascist governments, such as Franco's Spain or Peronist Argentina, were not expansionist and relatively minor violators of human rights (relative I stress compared to what Hitler or Stalin wrought). As such I never studied them or fascist ideology. I had some vague notion that fascism was militarism coupled with extreme nationalism, but that was about it.

A few years ago I read a comment by Jonah Goldberg on National Review's The Corner blog that he was working on a book about fascism, and I thought "what a waste of time. We're in a war against radical Islam and he's investigating fascism? That can't be relevant to anything."

Was I ever wrong. The book that resulted from his years of research, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, is one of the most important books I've read about modern American liberalism, and its related twin, progressivism.

The book is now on many best seller lists, and Goldberg has a special Liberal Fascism Blog over at NRO where he answers readers questions and post news stories relevant to his thesis. Predictably, the book has thrown the left into a fit of rage, to the extent where Amazon had to delete several thousand "you suck" type "book reviews." The Amazon site was even hacked a few times and the photo of the book cover changed.

Unlike with most, the cover to this book is important. The fascism that Goldberg sees creeping up on us is not of the "hard" sort of a Mussolini or Hitler. Rather, it is the "soft" type of a Hillary Clinton.

The cartoon description of fascism which most people hold consists of two parts; 1) Extreme nationalism and 2) Militarization. While these are or can be aspects of fascism neither are central to it, at least in the way that most people think.

Book Objective and Thesis

Goldberg goes to some length to explain that no, he is not saying that all liberals are fascists or that being in favor of universal health-care coverage means that you are a fascist. Rather, his objective is to replace the cartoon image of fascism with a more historically based one, and in so doing demonstrate that it is modern liberalism, not modern conservatism that has its roots in fascism. More precisely, modern liberalism grew out of the progressive movement of the early twentieth-century, and progressivism in turn has it's roots in fascism and indeed in many cases was ideologically allied with it. Liberal fascism is different, Goldberg says, for what should be the obvious reason that modern liberals don't want to eliminate voting and line opponents up against the wall to be shot. This does not mean, however, that the ideological underpinnings are different.

Rather than go on and risk getting it wrong I think I'll just quote Goldberg himself:

In this book I have argued that modern liberalism is the offspring of twentieth-century progressivism, which in turn shares intellectual roots with European fascism. I have further argued that fascism was an international movement, or happening, expressing itself differently in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture. In Europe this communitarian impulse expressed itself in political movements that were nationalist, racist, militarist, and expansionist. In the united States the movement known elsewhere as fascism or Nazism took the form of progressivism - a softer form of totalitarianism that, while still nationalistic, and militarist in its crusading forms and outlook, was more in keeping with American culture. It was, in short, a kind of liberal fascism.

The term "liberal fascism" comes from a speech by H.G. Wells at Oxford University in 1932. He used it the term to describe what he called a need for a "phoenix rebirth of liberalism." Although known today as the science fiction writer who produced such works as "War of the Worlds", back then he was also known as a prominent progressive thinker. Today we see the term "fascism" as unreservedly evil, and the polar opposite of "liberal." What may surprise readers today is that his joining of the two - liberal and fascist - surprised no one in the audience, and was in fact well received.

Modern American liberalism is totalitarian but in a "smiley face" way, not like that of the twentieth century Orwellian nightmares; Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. By "totalitarian" Goldberg means that it wishes to control every aspect of our lives; from the food we eat to the light bulbs we can buy to the very words that are deemed acceptable (try using "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun and see what happens).

When liberals promote these totalitarian goals they claim that they are not ideologically driven, but are rather "listening to the experts", or seeking to overcome the left-right divide with a "Third Way".

Goldberg is not saying that simply caring about the environment or physical fitness makes you a liberal fascist. What makes you a liberal fascist is insisting that everybody else care too, or forcing everyone else to eat healthy and live a healthy lifestyle and using the power of the state to do it. The reason usually given is that it's all "for your own good," or "we all pay for it".

From here out the headings are the titles of the book's chapters.

Benito Mussolini: The Father of Fascism

The ultimate roots of fascism can be found in the Romantic nationalism of the eighteenth century, which culminated in the French Revolution. Jean Jacques Rousseau was the father of fascism and Maximilian Robespierre its executioner.

However, we all associate fascism with the Il Duce himself; Benito Mussolini. What may surprise people - it certainly surprised me - was his Fascist party's political platform. Here is some of it:

• Lowering the minimum voting age to eighteen, the minimum age for representatives to twenty-five, and universal suffrage, including for women.
• "The abolition of the Senate and the creation of a national technical council on intellectual and manual labor, industry, commerce, and labor."
• End of the draft.
• Repeal of titles of nobility.
• "A foreign policy aimed at expanding Italy's will and power in opposition to all foreign imperialism"
• The prompt enactment of a state law sanctioning a legal workday of eight actual hours of work for all workers.
• A minimum wage.
• A creation of various government bodies run by workers representatives.
• The creation of various government bodies run by workers' representatives.
• Reform of the old-age and pension system and the establishment of age limits for hazardous work.
• Forcing landowners to cultivate their lands or have them expropriated and given to veterans and farmers' cooperatives.
• The obligation of the state to build "rigidly secular" schools for the raising of "the proletariat's moral and cultural condition."
• "A large progressive tax on capital that would amount to a one-time partial expropriation of all riches.
• "The seizure of all goods belonging to religious congregations and the abolition of all episcopal revinues."
• The "review" of all military contracts and the "sequestration" of 85% of all war profits."
• The nationalization of all arms and explosives industries.

Amazing. When you just see this he seems like a pretty good guy.

What's important to understand is that these weren't just words to Mussolini; he meant it. He didn't just use this platform as a trick to get into power, because he implemented as much of it as he could once he was in power. None of this is to excuse him, it's just a statement of fact.

Mussolini started as a socialist and became a populist. "Populism" is not really right-wing, it's more a phenomenon of the left. Populism is a "power to the people" ideology, and is usually a force on the left.

Mussolini made a big deal about "getting beyond labels" and seeking a "third way" between left and right. He promoted himself as a pragmatist who "made the trains run on time." To be sure, he governed as a dictator. But he was no Hitler or Stalin in his level of brutality. He won reelection in 1924 in what were reasonably fair elections, and his granting of womans suffrage gained him applause from no less a source than The New York Times.

Mussolini defined fascism as "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State." Mussolini himself coined the word "totalitarianism" to describe his system, and it's important to note that he meant it in a benevolent manner, as he saw his system as a humane one in which everyone was taken care of.

When Mussolini finally did write out his economic theories in the early 1930s, they looked more like standard socialism than anything else. His goal was to either nationalize industry or regulate it into submission. This was called "corporatism", but it hardly meant that he was in league with big business. Far from it, he was their enemy.

Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left

As with Mussolini's Fascists, Hitler's Nazis tried to transcend left-right labeling and promoted themselves as representing a "Third Way." This said, they campaigned as socialists, stealing issues from the communists because they were trying to appeal to the same worker base. The Nazis chose red as the background for their flag precisely because it was the color the communists used.

What made National Socialism - Nazism - different than other left-wing movements was it's adherence to what we today would call identity politics. With the Nazis it was Aryan supremacy, today it is the ethnic identity of minority groups. This is today something associated with the political left. Again, Goldberg stresses that this does not make modern-day identity groups neo-Nazis. What it does say is that the roots of progressive identity politics go back to the Nazis.

Just because the Nazis were anti-Semites does not make them right-wing, as antisemitism is hardly a phenomenon reserved for the right. Stalin and Karl Marx were a vicious anti-Semites, while Mussolini protected the Jews as long as he could against Hitlers desire to get at them.

Woodrow Wilson and the Birth of Liberal Fascism

Mussolini wasn't the world's first fascist dictator; that honor goes to Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States 1912-1920. If this sounds over-the-top, consider that Wilson arrested or jailed more political dissidents than did Mussolini during his first ten years in power. Wilson's ministry of propaganda was better than Mussolini's. Wilson sent more goons to beat up and harass opponents than did Mussolini (again, during the latter's rule in the 1920s. Mussolini got worse in the 1930s).

The "goons" who carried out Wilson's orders called themselves progressives. Their agenda consisted of eugenics (racial purity and weeding out the unfit), social Darwinism, and imperialism (real imperialism, not the cartoon sort ascribed to President Bush today). They worshiped the State and political power, didn't like organized religion, and looked down on individualism. They thought the U.S. Constitution was outdated and in need of change because it's system of checks and balances impeded quick action.

In short, Woodrow Wilson and the progressive movement of the time had all the bad attributes and more that the left assigns to President Bush and the neocons today.

Theodore Roosevelt also exhibited fascist traits. Much of his appeal was based on a cult of personality. Roosevelt's America would be more like the militarist and welfare state of Prussia than anything else.

Although his campaign slogan in 1916 was "he kept us out of war", when Wilson pushed Congress to declare war on the Central Powers in 1917 almost all progressives supported him. President Wilson then proceeded to set up what can only be described as a fascist police state. His ministry of propaganda, the Committee on Public Information, or CPI, was positively Orwellian in nature. The mission of the CPI was not simply to explain the rationale for war, but to "inflame the American public into "one white-hot mass" under the banner of "100 percent Americanism."" The CPI had offices around the country, and turned out an impressive number of pamphlets, posters, buttons and the like in eleven languages not including English. It hired a hundred thousand "four minute men" who went around the country giving four minute speeches promoting Wilson and the war effort.

In addition to the "four minute men", tens of thousands more were hired to knock on doors and ask residents to sign loyalty oaths, or pledges not to use a certain luxury good that was needed for the war effort. This effort extended down to children, who were asked to sign a pledge called "A Little American's Promise."

Worse than any of this was Wilson's Sedition Act, which banned "uttering, printing, writing, or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States Government or the military." What this translated into was that any criticism of the war effort was forbidden. As an example of how it was enforced, the Postmaster General was given the authority to refuse to deliver any publication he deemed seditious, and there was no appeal to his decision. At least seventy-five periodicals were effectively banned by his refusal to deliver them.

Wilson's Justice Department created the American Protective League to enforce the Sedition Act. APL officers had the authority to read their neighbor's mail and tap their neighbors phones, all without a warrant. It had a "vigilante patrol" whose mission was put a stop to "seditious street oratory" and to physically assault draft dodgers. The Palmer Raids, named after Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, were part of all this.

It is estimated that some 175,000 Americans were arrested for some violation of the Sedition Act or failing to demonstrate appropriate patriotism. Many, though how many is not known exactly, went to jail.

In the end, of course, Wilson left office peacefully, so he was not a Mussolini or Hitler. But his administration was fascist nonetheless.

Franklin Roosevelt's Fascist New Deal

A lighter version of Wilsonian fascism occurred during the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the time of the Great Depression.

At the beginning of this review we noted H.G. Wells use of the term "Liberal Fascism" to describe his brand of socialism. Wells was an ardent admirer of FDR. The reason, of course, was that Wells saw Roosevelt as a liberal fascist.

As with Mussolini and Hitler, Roosevelt was obsessed with "the forgotten man". It wasn't a cynical act for any of them. All were genuinely concerned with the economic well being of the lower-middle classes. And indeed the economy prospered under Hitler. Again none of this is to excuse Hitler or Mussolini, it is just a statement of fact. Further, neither is it to insinuate that Roosevelt was no different than the two dictators. For all his flaws, Roosevelt, like Wilson, did respect the vote and the democratic process.

Many European fascists saw Roosevelt as a kindred spirit. Both Mussolini and Hitler saw their programmes as similar to Roosevelt's New Deal. Mussolini gave a good review of Roosevelt's book Looking Forward. The German press praised FDR and his New Deal.

A core tenant of fascism is the desire to militarize society whether there is an external war to fight or not. The whole point, in fact, of fascism is to mobilize. What is important to understand, though, is that it is society that is being mobilized, not the military. The military is usually involved, but it's participation is not really central to fascism. It is the cartoon version of fascism discussed above that only sees the military aspect of fascism.

The progressives supported American entry into World War I not because they wanted to defeat Germany, but because they saw it as an opportunity to advance their domestic policy goals at home. They wanted to militarize society. It was William James who came up with the term "moral equivalent of war" to justify mobilization for one cause or another.

The New Deal was all about the militarization of society. The premier New Deal project, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) had actually been started during World War I. The National Recovery Administration (NRA) was modeled on Wilson's War Industries Board. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) which constructed many city, state, and national parks, was the most explicitly fascist of all the programs. It's members wore uniforms and was rationalized as a program to "beef up the physical and moral fiber of an embryonic new army" (Goldberg's words).

Worse than the CCC was the NRA mentioned above. it was led by General Hugh "Iron Pants" Johnson, and man who questioned the patriotism of his critics in a manner that would have made Joe McCarthy blush. He continually referred to the NRA and it's mission in military terms, saying for example that "This is war - lethal and more menacing than any other crisis in our history." In fact, Johnson was an ardent admirer of Mussolini's fascist government.

The symbol of the NRA was the Blue Eagle. Usually depicted in textbooks as an innocent symbol that businesses put in their window to show that they went along with NRA guidelines("We do our Part" was the motto under the eagle), it was really the method by which Roosevelt and Johnson bullied businesses into joining. The NRA stuck it's tentacles into every aspect of daily life, or at least tried to. The Blue Eagle was used for propaganda in a way that Goldberg says is difficult to exaggerate, and indeed the whole thing was really more an exercise in state religion than economics. Heaven help any business that refused to sign up, because people were admonished by the government not to buy anything from businesses that didn't have the Blue Eagle in their window.

The bullying wasn't just verbal or economic; it often got quite physical. Johnson sent his goons to smash businesses that wouldn't sign up, and "G-Men" were used to spy on opponents. Goldberg says that "FDR used the post office to punish his enemies and lied repeatedly to maneuver the United States into war, and undermined Congress's war-making powers at several turns." The rationale was that as long as it was for the right cause the constitution didn't matter.

Goldberg is careful to note that despite the fascism in Wilson and Roosevelt's programs, at the end of the day they were not dictators. Neither sought to end elections, and neither cheated (at least not more than their opponents) to win. Theirs was a "nice" fascism.

The 1960s: Fascism Takes to the Streets

The New Left that arose during the 1960s and "took to the streets" had many characteristics of traditional fascism. It prided itself on it's call to unity, but "unity" is at best a morally neutral concept. The Mafia is "unified". Many of the calls to "direct action" were made without any concrete goals in mind, action itself being the objective.
The student groups that took over universities and ousted the faculty were using out and out fascist tactics.

While Nazism is evil, it does not follow that every Nazi was motivated by evil intent. Many Germans joined the Nazi party because they liked Hitler's economic populism, or thought that their country had been treated shabbily by the victors after World War I. But although one might say that Hitler's program had it's "good" parts, it obviously crossed the line into evil. As such, whatever the "good" parts of the New Left of the 1960s, much of it was outright fascist thuggery. '60s leaders such as Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, Mark Rudd, Bernadine Dohrn and others were continually calling for more violence and more destruction, and would have set up an Orwellian totalitarian state if they could have.

The left does not understand that love of country does not by itself lead to fascism. Patriotism is not fascism. During the 1960s the left got the idea that displays of patriotism were fascist and that criticizing one's country was patriotic. Outright anti-Americanism became fashionable among the elite during this time.

From Kennedy's Myth to Johnson's Dream: Liberal Fascism and the Cult of the State

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson did more than anyone else to establish the federal government as a sort of "state religion." Liberals have used the myth of Kennedy ("Camelot" and all that) to promote this idea, especially the idea that if he had lived we would never have gotten bogged down in Vietnam. The purpose of this was to expand federal power into all aspects of life.

Kennedy, like FDR, turned everything into a "crisis", the better which to whip up popular sentiment so he could get his programs passed. This crisis mongering is classic fascist behavior (though again this alone does not make him a fascist). Kennedy even created "crisis teams" to deal with issues and short-circuit the bureaucracy. Biographer Ted Sorensen counted sixteen "crises" in Kennedy's first 8 months in office alone.

"The Kennedy presidency represented...the final evolution of progressivism into a full-blown religion and national cult of the state." It was a rule by elites ("supermen") who had the special answers to our problems ("gnosticism"), all presided over by a "great man in the mold of Wilson and the Roosevelts" (cult of personality).

Remember, the progressives did not push their liberal totalitarianism because of the world wars or the Great Depression, they were glad that they occurred in that they gave them the opportunity to implement their existing ideas.

It was in the 1920s that American progressives redefined the term "liberal". Previously, the term had meant something along the lines of "individual and economic liberty without state control." It was "freedom from a dictatorial state". Led by John Dewey, they changed this to "freedom from want, from poverty, lack of education" etc. This meant that now the state had to get involved, and the idea of the activist state was born.

Liberal Racism: The Eugenic Ghost in the Fascist Machine

Modern-day liberals claim that they have always occupied the high ground on matters of race. Would that they knew their own history. It was the progressives, fathers of modern liberalism, who were the strongest backers of eugenics, one of the most racist and scary programs of the twentieth century.

If you're not familiar, eugenics is the idea that "human stock" can be improved through controlled breeding, much like we treat cattle or crops. While this might not seem too harmful on the surface, in actuality it led to practices such as state-enforced sterilization of the mentally retarded, those with Down's Syndrome and the like. It also led to much racism, as many white progressives wanted to "control the lesser races."

What is amazing is that the progressive infatuation with eugenics has been almost completely erased from history. We are supposed to believe that on matters of race, liberals have always been the good guys and conservatives the bad guys. In reality, close to the opposite was the truth. The fact is that it was the left that promoted eugenics, and conservatives who opposed it.

Progressives supported eugenics because it was one of the means by which they wanted to achieve their "utopia", or at least a better society. They saw it as all quite scientific. This may seem odd today, but remember that since progressives saw nations as bodies, and problems within them as a disease. Excise the disease and you cure the body.

Progressives admired Hitler's eugenics program. This, too, has been conveniently forgotten. But the reality is that until the truth about how far Hitler intended to go sank in, his ideas looked pretty good to progressives. As with all else, Goldberg stresses that this does not put progressives in league with Hitler, or make them Nazis. No progressive favored mass extermination. But it is a fact that many progressives of the 1930s admired Hitler's program.

In the now notorious case of Beck v Bell, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes supported forced sterilization with his infamous justification that "three generations of imbeciles are enough." The lone dissenter on the bench was Pierce Butler, usually described as an "arch conservative." Goldberg points out that it was the reasoning in Beck v Bellthat "endures in the often unspoken rationale for abortion."

To be sure, just because so many if not most progressives fifty to a hundred years ago were racists doesn't mean that their liberal heirs are too. But it does mean that modern liberalism was built on it, something that liberals are loath to acknowledge.

Margaret Sanger, whose American Birth Control League became Planned Parenthood, was a terrible racist who wanted to use eugenics and abortion to reduce the black population and anyone else she deemed "unfit." She said this directly in her 1922 book The Pivot of Civilization; "More children from the fit; less from the unfit - that is the chief issue of birth control... We want fewer and better children...and we cannot make the social life and the world-peace we are determined to make, with the ill-bred, ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens that you inflict on us." The very stated purpose of her "Negro Project" was to use birth control to reduce the black population.

The mindset that promoted eugenics is that same one that supports abortion. Though the holocaust discredited eugenics, the idea behind it did not really disappear. "Family planning" is simply the term used today for what amounts to something very similar. Indeed, in a way Planned Parenthood is more eugenic that the old eugenicists, as abortion ends more black lives than heart disease, cancer, accidents, AIDS, and violent crime combined.

Liberal Fascist Economics

It is perhaps in the area of economics that fascism is the most misunderstood. In the left's cartoon version, fascism occurs when right-wing politicians conspire with big business to oppress "the little guy," or that European fascists were tools of big business. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, as Goldberg demonstrates, "in the left's eternal vigilance to fend off fascism, they have in fact created it, albeit with a friendly face."

The fact is that the more free the market, the less fascist, and the more regulated and close to the political center, the more fascist. The far left, at outright government ownership, is socialist. Remember; it was Hitler and Mussolini who promoted themselves by claiming that they were neither left nor right but represented a "Third way."

Both Mussolini and Hitler were supported by small donations, and not, for the most part, by money from big corporations. Both denounced big business and the wealthy time and again, Hitler most notably in Mein Kampf. Their political platforms stressed regulating business and taxing the wealthy to benefit the working middle class.

Fascism is when the state says to business "You may stay in business and own your factories. In the spirit of cooperation and unity, we will even guarantee you profits and a lack of serious competition. In exchange, we expect you to agree with - and help implement, - our political agenda." This was not only the deal that Hitler and Mussolini made with big business in their respective countries, but it was pretty much the one that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt imposed during the First World War and Great Depression as well. None of this can be called "right wing."

Indeed, as part of his New Deal FDR asked big business to write the very laws under which they would be regulated, and they happily obliged. In doing so they managed things so as to eliminate as much competition as possible through the simple expedient of making the laws so stringent that only the biggest of corporations could implement them. Thus, smaller competitors were regulated out of business.

Even more shocking, New Deal progressives studied Mussolini's corporatism, admiringly, in order to find things that they could apply here. The feelings were reciprocated across the Atlantic, with both Italian fascists and German Nazis praising Roosevelt and the New Deal.

"Fascism is the cult of unity, within all spheres and between all spheres." Therefore, as long as they followed the political goals of the regime they could keep their businesses.

it is forgotten today, but the Nazis were what we today would call "health freaks." Among their many campaigns were ones to reduce alcohol consumption by replacing beer with fruit drinks, fight smoking (before anyone else they saw the link between smoking and cancer) and promote organic foods.

In Nazi Germany, businesses proved their bona fides by being "good corporate citizens", not too different than what we have in the United States today. To be sure, what constituted being loyal differed considerably, but the philosophy is the same. In Germany it was firing Jews, in the United States today it is promoting "diversity" or "environmentalism."

Brave New Village: Hillary Clinton and the Meaning of Liberal Fascism

Goldberg uses Hillary Clinton's 1996 book It Takes a Village to Raise a Child as the example par excellence of modern-day fascist thinking. It's very title, indeed, is about as fascist as you can get. If the motto of the Mussolini's fascism was "everything in the State, nothing outside the the State, then the implicit motto of It Takes a Village to Raise a Child is "everything in the village, nothing outside the village." The message is clear; your children belong to "everyone" which in the modern world means the state.

All this does not, he stresses, mean that Hillary is evil. Far from it, for hers is "nice fascism", all meant for good. That she means it for well, however, does not make it less fascist.

"Civil society" has traditionally meant free and open "independent associations of citizens who pursue their own interests and ambitions free from state interference or coercion" and "the way various groups, individuals, and families work for their own purposes, the result of which is to make the society healthily democratic." It consists of churches, labor unions, all those clubs and organizations that people form for their own purposes and as long as they are not outright criminal are outside the control of the state.

Hillary has a different view of civil society. To her it is a "term social scientists use to describe the way we work together for common purposes." This is factually incorrect and startlingly totalitarian. There are no truly free associations or clubs in Hillary's world, for everything in her "village" is managed or controlled by the state to achieve "common purposes."

Hillary's "politics of meaning" is therefore a totalitarian philosophy. Again, this is "nice totalitarianism", but totalitarianism nonetheless. Also important to note is that she claims that she is promoting a "Third Way" approach.

Hillary and her cohort Marian Wright Edelman justify everything by saying that it's "for the children." And it's not just that she wants to make their current situation better; to her the children are in a state of crisis. Indeed, to her childhood itself was a crisis. There is no better to erase the wall between government and the private sphere than to declare a crisis.

Using "the children" as a propaganda tool to advance their goals was a brilliant political stroke. For Hillary it was just an opening to a broader political agenda. To her, families are not private units. Indeed, she has said that "As adults we have to start thinking and believing that there isn't really any such thing as someone else's child...For that reason, we cannot permit discussions of children and families to be subverted by political or ideological debate." It is indeed a favorite trick of the left to declare that one of their political goals is not in fact political, as anyone who has debated a liberal on the issue of "diversity" or "multiculturalism" has discovered.

Liberalism's entire "cult of the child" is similar, Goldberg says, to fascist thought. Children are controlled by their passions and feelings. Fascism is driven by will (see Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will). Our youth culture is driven by narcissism, so was fascism.

The New Age: We're All Fascists Now

When I was in high school in the 1970s I read both George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Both impressed me, but the former more than the latter, because I saw 1984 as a metaphor for the Cold War, which I saw as more relevant. Over the years I've reread each work once or twice, and recently have come to believe that while Orwell's work was more relevant for the twentieth century, Brave New World is the better warning for what we face today.

It was therefore flattering yet unsurprising to read that Goldberg has reached the exact same conclusion. The totalitarianism of a Hillary Clinton or Al Gore is not that of Hitler or Stalin, but it deprives us of our freedom nonetheless. Today's totalitarianism, or Liberal Fascist State, is one in which everyone is at least nominally happy. All of our needs are met, and indeed no Gestapo or KGB will be coming to break down our doors.

Environmental Fascism

Environmentalism, Goldberg says, is fascistic partially because of it's "crisis mechanism." Al Gore and others preach the gospel of global warming and insist that the world will come to an end if we do not take immediate action. Anyone who demurs is denounced and called a 'denier" or worse. He and others like him will brook no debate. Worse, they insist on all sorts of measures that would create a sort of "economic dictatorship" of just the type that progressives have always wanted.

Environmentalism in general, and the "global warming" movement in particular, are totalitarian. Everything is or can be said to be an environmental issue. The new worry is our "carbon footprint", and every human activity is said to emit carbon, and therefore is to be regulated.

Environmentalism is also quite totalitarian because everything falls under it's aegis. Nothing is private, or out of the reach of environmentalism, because they see every activity as influencing the environment, and thus worthy of regulation. From the food you eat, to the material your sofa is made of, to the light bulbs in your house, they want to regulate it all.

There are many parallels with modern environmentalism and Nazism. Part of the Nazi program was centered on what we today would call "environmentalism." Nazi thinkers were worried about the whales, nature preserves, and "sustainable forestry". They were very concerned about eating habits, and there was a virtual "cult of the organic" among Nazi leaders. Hitler was a vegetarianism and Himmler pushed for animal rights legislation.

Interestingly, the Nazis used the same rationale that modern environmentalists use; "the common good supersedes the private good." A Hitler Youth manual instructed that "food is not a private matter!" and that "you have the duty to be healthy!" Today we hear smoking and trans-fats bans justified with the "we'll all pay" line.

The Tempting of Conservatism

Although fascism is a leftist ideology, and most fascist traits today can be found on the left, the right is not immune. Goldberg identifies three areas in modern conservatism where strains of fascism can be found.

The first is "nostalgia" to the extent that it romanticizes the past into something it was not. This leads to trouble when conservatives try and translate "traditional values" into national programs. Goldberg only devotes one short paragraph to this, and I'm not entirely sure what he means. Based on years of reading his writing at National Review, I know he's not saying that conservatives should not champion their values in response to the "kultursmog", or that anti-abortion laws are fascist.

The second area where Goldberg says conservatism gets into trouble is when in desperation it turns into "me too" conservatism. Here conservatives start to copy progressives, and it turns into a "liberal fascism light."

Lastly, conservatives are not immune to the temptation of identity politics. Sometimes conservatives are tempted to mirror-image liberal identity politics to give them a taste of their own medicine, such as a white conservative referring to himself as a "Euro-American" or some such. It is all very fine to hold conservative Christian values, for example, and of course to base one's voting or governance on such values. Proposing a Department of Judeo-Christian Culture, however, would be going too far.

Goldberg identifies Patrick J. Buchanan as the one conservative who has these characteristics. William F Buckley Jr, "officially" drummed Buchanan out of the conservative movement in 1991 by accusing him (and a few others) of Anti-Semitism in his book (and NRO article of the same title) In Search of Anti-Semitism. Ever though, Buchanan still hovers around the edges of the movement, and appears as a guest on certain conservative radio talk-shows.

Really more of a populist and neo-progressive than a conservative, Buchanan identifies himself as a "paleoconservative." Nevertheless, he has at various times come out against free market trading, the flat tax, in favor of capping executive pay, in support of higher unemployment benefits, and backs a "third way" type of governance. On foreign policy he is famously isolationist and generally opposes Israeli policies. The thesis of his latest book, Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, that World War II was an unnecessary war, is downright bizarre.

For what it's worth, I wrote off Buchanan some time ago. First it was his isolationist foreign policy. Then, however, I became less and less comfortable with his talk about immigrants and the need to preserve our culture. I'm as anti-illegal immigration as the next conservative, and I want English as the official language of our country, but Buchanan takes it all too far. And if WFB says he's an anti-Semite, that's good enough for me.

My Take

The danger is that immediately upon reading the book you tend to be hyper sensitive to anything in the news that appears in the slightest fascist. It is tempting to see something fascist in all movements you don't like. I'll try and resist the temptation in the weeks and months ahead.

This warning acknowledged, I would be remiss if I pretended that there was nothing in the news that did not smack of fascism. The anti-smoking movement has morphed from something laudable into fanaticism. It's all very well to promote healthy living, but we've crossed the line when legislators want to ban "trans fats." And can't we live our lives the way we want without some sort of enforced "national service" plan?

All in all this is one of the most important books I have read in the past several years, and comes highly recommended, whether you end up agreeing with all of his conclusions or not. Goldberg has defined and explained a political ideology of which I only had a vague notion. He has also explained much about the history of the progressive movement that I had not known about. Get this book and read it.

Posted by Tom at 8:00 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

July 23, 2008

Obama Wrong On Anbar

Senator Barack Obama wants us to believe that he would have been right about Iraq if only the Anbar Awakening had not occurred. Really.

I think that, I did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii'a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct.

Unfortunately for him, we have Steve Shippert of Threatswatch to explain what really happened. I had the pleasure once of meeting Steve, and have followed his work over at NRO's The Tank, and believe he knows what he's talking about. Here's Steve, (h/t The Corner):

Presidential Candidate Obama's statements in and about Iraq in the past 24 hours have been nothing less than shameless and disgraceful. While we strive to avoid political discussion at ThreatsWatch, criticism of his words transcends rank political partisanship if for no other reason than his claims are simply and flatly untrue, made in a war zone, during a time of war and while running to become the Commander in Chief of US Military Forces. This simply cannot stand unchallenged.

Not only does Senator Obama apparently think the Anbar Awakening and the Shi'a militia stand-downs that have occurred are somehow separate developments from the surge, which is a remarkable feat of logic in and of itself, but he is implying that they are part and parcel indigenous to what his 'plan' for 'political progress' would have afforded.
...

I would remind the candidate that the Anbar Salvation Council (which later grew exponentially and developed into al-Sahwa al-Iraq - the Iraq Awakening) started with one man, Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu al-Risha, and seventy men fighting al-Qaeda in defense of their families, not in pursuit of a 'political' anything. They simply wanted to live and end al-Qaeda's assassination and murdering spree against their families and tribe. Sheikh Abdul Sattar, later assassinated by al-Qaeda in Iraq, had seen 10 family members, including 4 brothers, killed by al-Qaeda for their cooperation with US forces. He had had enough.

Obama's plan - unoriginal and pieced together like a quilt from others against the Iraq war - was entirely Baghdad-centric, about laws and revenue sharing and conferences. The Anbar Awakening had nothing to do with Baghdad when they began and when they turned the neighborhood tides in Ramadi and elsewhere in Anbar province. It was about killing the terrorists before the terrorists killed them. One must, after all, live to ultimately see progress on any scale beyond one's neighborhoods.

Obama wanted laws written, press conferences, and an immediate pull back of US troops. As Senator Chuck Schumer so brilliantly said at the time about 'the plan,' US forces were to withdraw post-haste to the periphery "in more of a counterterrorism role." This would have abandoned the Anbar Salvation Council - and Anbar Sunnis and Shi'a alike - entirely. It would have been feeding them to the bloodthirsty wolves of al-Qaeda so that domestic American political figures could champion themselves as 'ending a war' and conducting business "in more of a counterterrorism role."

This is precisely what I tried to scream when I wrote "This Is Counterterrorism, Senator" over a year ago for National Review Online. And winning the counterinsurgency is about aligning a population with us. Neither of these, counterterrorism nor counterinsurgency, could have been successfully addressed by 'The Plan' put forth by Obama and others in opposition to The Surge. The Surge was all about protecting the population within their own neighborhoods, while 'The Plan' was about abandoning said population to complete animals unassisted. Yet Obama - and surely others - would oppose it all over again.

The Iraqis have done what they have done for themselves in spite of the likes of Obama, Schumer, Pelosi and all the rest. What's more, now that The Surge has accomplished much of what it set out to do to help the Iraqis - again in spite of Obama, Schumer, Pelosi and the rest - a presidential candidate who opposed the surge, would still oppose The Surge and had absolutely no clue about the Anbar Salvation Council when it was pleading and begging for US support (since at least September of 2006) wants to champion their success as somehow his brainchild and a sign of the political development he envisioned?

One is left to suppose that he overlooks the fact that so many in Anbar and throughout Iraq are alive in spite of attempts to push such a sacrificial 'Plan.' There's no other way to describe it. Dead people - crucified, baked and beheaded - do not live to contribute to 'political progress.' Sheikh Abdul Sattar - and today, his brother Sheikh Ahmed al-Rishawi - understood this. Too many Americans seem flip to dismiss this comfortably from afar.

The Anbar Salvation Council didn't have a damn thing to do with political resolution. It needed to simply survive first; family by family, town by town, tribe by tribe. The movement that eventually saved Iraq laid ignored and unsupported until General David Petraeus changed that when he arrived to command The Surge that Obama said he would still oppose.

Obama's (et al) 'plan' and 'political' demands would have fed them to the wolves, slaughtered with their families while we were to have breathed a sigh of relief that the war was finally over. Funny thing about the Iraqis: They want to live, no matter what our politicians profess.

Today's remarks simply could not be left to stand unchallenged.

An excellent history lesson. It's obvious Obama has no idea what he's talking about. Like someone who's spent his entire life pursuing politics, he doesn't understand anything that's not political. Like his fellow Democrats (and some Republicans), the military is a strange and alien thing that he cannot get his arms around. All he gets is big-government deal making and legislation.

What proved successful was not political deal making but securing the population. Security first, politics second. This is the lesson of counterinsurgency that Gen Petraeus and Lt. Gen. Odierno understood and implemented. It's the thesis of the U.S. Army / Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24; the one written by the team led by then Lt. Gen Petraeus in 2006 and is the basis for everything we've done in Iraq since then. You'd think that by this time Obama would get it.

Laid out more formally, let's once again go over the factors that have led to our success. In the February 11, 2008, print edition of National Review, Wesley Morgan identified four interconnected efforts:

1. The adoption of classic counterinsurgency tactics, with U.S. battalions spreading out among the population and earning their trust;
2. The grassroots reconciliation of many Sunni and some Shiite communities;
3. A series of meticulously planned corps-level offensives across Baghdad and its surrounding areas. All of these efforts have hinged on one major change:
4. During 2007, every echelon of the U.S. command -- from the four-star headquarters down through the critical corps and division levels to the brigades and battalions in the field -- was closely integrated into a cohesive whole. Without this integration, none of the four efforts that have brought Iraq forward would have made much difference.

Last December VOA reporter Al Pessin asked Maj Gen Walter Gaskin, the USMC commander in Anbar, about why the Anbar Awakening occurred and whether it would have occured without US troops and the Surge:

Q General, it's Al Pessin from Voice of America. I wanted to ask you about the Awakening, and you talked a little bit about how there's this blood feud, and how the Anbaris have rejected the brutality of al Qaeda. Would you say that the progress that we've seen this year in Anbar had to do with something that MNF-I did? Or was it entirely indigenous to the inner workings of the people who live in the province?

GEN. GASKIN: I think it's a combination. You know, you can't separate the fact that this multinational corps and force out here was designed to eliminate al Qaeda.

And al Qaeda is a part of why the Awakening came about, is to awake and see that you can have self-reliance. We can join with the coalition forces and rid ourselves of the brutality and the caliphate and the just plain disregard for how the Anbaris live.

Now, it kind of manifests itself out here in Anbar because these were Sunnis -- (audio break) -- and therefore, they resisted the Taliban-like life -- the life and ideology that al Qaeda was bringing to this area. But it did not come without a cost. Al Qaeda was very brutal to the sheikhs, and this is a very tribal society. As a matter of fact, the sheikhs often say that we were tribal before we were Muslim, and therefore, this is a(n) anchor point within our society. And so when al Qaeda attacked that, they did some very brutal things to the sheikhs, did not follow customs allowing the sheikhs to die in the desert and not burying them within 24 hours. That's what I mean by the blood feud and that they have created a schism that I don't think will ever be repaired.

And because they really want to return to a life where they can have control of their own destiny, I see this as an opportunity since -- (audio break) -- have joined with al Qaeda -- with the sheikhs and the people against al Qaeda. This is going to work, and I think it's enduring.

Q But General, might that not have happened anyway without MNF-I, without the surge, without the new counterinsurgency strategy?

GEN. GASKIN: I doubt it. I think if you -- if you look at the history of the fighting here, you will see that several times the sheikhs have attempted to rid themselves of al Qaeda.

They started in about 2005 out in al Qaim, where the sheikhs raised up, calling themselves the Desert Protectors, put down brutally by al Qaeda. It started again in and around Ramadi, where 11 sheikhs raised up to try to rid themselves of al Qaeda and its caliphate and shura law. And 11 of -- of those 11 -- (audio break) -- were put down brutally.

And so again, in Ramadi with Sheikhs Sattar Abu Risi (ph) who started the Sahwa Allah Iraq, which is the Awakening movement. He had lost two brothers and a father in that fight. So he realized, too, that the joining of the coalition who had there to aid them in getting rid of al Qaeda, that we were better equipped, better trained and had a better principle (sic) of what was happening to them and all of that. This joining of us with them would not have happened -- it definitely would not have happened in the time frame for which we are experiencing now because al Qaeda was better organized, better financed and a lot more brutal than the Anbaris ever expected in dealing with them.

And so I think this was a -- (audio break) -- and it's proved to be ridding them of al
Qaeda and allow them to get on with their economic development and governance of this province.

I rather take Maj Gen Gaskin's word over that of Sen Obama.

Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 22, 2008

Two Worthless Institutions

This story illustrates everything that is wrong with both the United Nations and the African Union:

ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA (AP) - The African Union will ask the U.N. Security Council to suspend action for a year on the indictment of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on Darfur genocide charges, Nigeria's foreign affairs minister said on Monday.

The African Union will make the request in an effort to allow progress in slow-moving negotiations to end the five-year-old conflict in Darfur, Nigerian Foreign Affairs Ojo Maduekwe told journalists.

He spoke after an emergency meeting of the African Union's Peace and Security Council, held to discuss the International Criminal Court's July 14 indictment of al-Bashir on charges of genocide and rape in Darfur.

The statute that set up the court allows the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution to defer or suspend for a year the investigation or prosecution of a case. The council can renew such a resolution.

I used to blog a lot more about Africa and Darfur than I do today. I don't much anymore because nothing seems to ever get done. Thousands die and all we get are "slow-moving negotiations" and UN resolutions that don't achieve anything.

Some will blame the West, but the Africans themselves don't care themselves, either about Darfur or their other big disaster, Zimbabwe. I think half the reason they have troops in Darfur is to make the West happy. Just about a year ago Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe got a standing ovation from fellow African leaders.

So now we have an ICC (International Criminal Court) indictment. Big deal.

Few Western leaders will stick their necks out for Darfur or Zimbabwe, not because there's no oil, but because they'll get nothing but grief for doing so. The Africans will object if we holler too loud, and anything stronger gets problematical.

Awareness campaigns? I think everyone already knows.

Sanctions on the Sudan? We've already done what we can and they haven't done any good. Sure, we could punish China hoping that they turn up the screws on Khartoom, but that'll hurt our economy and sour relations with China.

Put the navy off the coast with a targeted blockade? We'll never get UN approval, and the legality of unilateral action is messy. Those today who proclaim the loudest that they "care" will be the first to protest direct military action.

The whole thing seems intractable. My long term solution is to completely revamp our international institutions, dumping the UN and forming ones based on shared values. I've written at some length about all this and I've said it all before so won't go into it again. Interested parties can go here.

Posted by Tom at 8:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 19, 2008

Afghanistan Briefing - 16 July 2008 - Border Problems

This briefing was by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen. The former needs no introduction, and the latter is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Last week they visited Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

his video and others can be viewed at DODvClips. The transcript is at DefenseLink. More videos, briefings, and military news can be seen at The Pentagon Channel.

What was most interesting about this briefing was their frank discussion about the problems along the border with Pakistan. From Adm. Mullen's opening statement:

ADM. MULLEN:..As many of you know, I visited Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan last week. For me, the trip was all about expectations -- expectations I had going over and new expectations I formed while I was there.

In Iraq, for example, I fully expected to find security conditions much improved, and they were. I did not expect, however, that those conditions would be at such a level that I could walk the Jamila market in Sadr City, or visit an outpost in what had recently been one of the most violent neighborhoods in Mosul, or that Iraqi security forces would now have the confidence and the command to take the lead as much as they are.
...

In Afghanistan, as I expected, the fight remains tough and complicated. One need look no further than the well-coordinated attack on the Wanat outpost this weekend to see that the enemy in Afghanistan has grown bolder, more sophisticated and more diverse.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the loved ones of those killed in the attack. And my best wishes go to those, American and Afghani (sic), who were wounded.

The bottom line is this. We're seeing a greater number of insurgents and foreign fighters flowing, across the border with Pakistan, unmolested and unhindered. This movement needs to stop. We simply must all do a better job, of policing the border region and eliminating the safe havens, which serve today as launching pads for attacks on coalition forces.

On to the questions from the press corps

Q Mr. Secretary, Admiral Mullen, you were just in Pakistan. Can you tell us how much of this increase in violence, do you believe, is related to Pakistan and what your message was to them, as to how much they need to do more?

And can you afford to wait, until next season or next year, to send more U.S. reinforcements to the commanders there, who have made it clear that they really believe they need more troops now?

ADM. MULLEN: I think the complexity, which we've talked about frequently in recent weeks, of the attacks was certainly represented in what happened in Wanat. And that is, it's a more sophisticated group.

They've been able to train in a safer environment in the safe havens in Pakistan. So that is -- it has become a significant contribution, and it's the freedom of movement across that border.

The increase in violence is tied certainly to that. It's also tied to what I said in my statement, which is -- which is we're generating a lot of increased contact. In particular, the Marines from the two battalions have as well. But the border there is a really critical issue that we're going to have to solve. And certainly that's a message that I delivered to each of the leaders that I visited in Pakistan, and it has to be solved sooner rather than later.

Q And the troops -- U.S. troops?

ADM. MULLEN: Clearly -- and I talked with all our leaders there, and they all indicated that, you know, they need more troops. That's -- that's not inconsistent with what I've said over a significant period of time. It really is, however, that combination of progress -- I mean, I didn't ask them about making progress. They sought me out to ensure that I understood they were making progress. It's a tougher fight. It's a more complex fight. And they need more troops to have the long-term impact that we all want to have there.

We don't need to give up the fight in Iraq to send more troops to Afghanistan. What we need to do is increase the size of the U.S. military. This is the Bush Administration's biggest failure. When it became clear that there was an insurgency in Iraq, they should have gone to Congress and asked for more funds. They did not. The reason, I think, is that Secretary Rumsfeld gambled that they could defeat the insurgency before the strain on our troops took it's toll.

Obviously they lost the gamble. Any history of counterinsurgencies should have told them that fighting one was not like World War II or the Gulf War. They take a long time to defeat, and there are no shortcuts. In fact, as Lt Col. (Dr) David Kilcullen has noted, the shortest time in the twentieth century that it has taken to defeat an insurgency is 10 years. This does not mean that counterinsurgents need the same number of troops the entire 10 years, far from it as insurgencies tend to peter out, not end World War II style. But it does mean that you'll need some level of forces there for many years.

Q Or are you also considering unilateral cross-border operations?

SEC. GATES: We have not -- we will take defensive actions. We have taken defensive actions when fired upon from places right across the border. Generally that's been in counterartillery. And beyond that, I think I won't say.
...

Q Mr. Secretary and Chairman Mullen, can you tie the two thoughts together of more troops for Afghanistan yet significant issues with the Pakistan border? Is it fair to say that no matter how many U.S troops you put in or coalition troops you put in Afghanistan, without some clarity or some solution to the border issue in Pakistan, it's not going to really reduce the level of violence in Afghanistan?

SEC. GATES: Well, I wouldn't -- let me take a stab at it and then turn to Admiral Mullen. I wouldn't say that no matter how many troops you put in, it wouldn't make any difference. I think clearly it would make a significant difference if you had additional forces.

There is no question that the absence of pressure on the Pakistani side of the border is creating an opportunity for more people to cross the border and to launch attacks. There are efforts underway to try and improve that on both the Pakistani side and on the Afghan and coalition side in Afghanistan. But I think clearly, as the admiral said earlier, there is a real need to do something on the Pakistani side of the border to bring pressure to bear on the Taliban and some of these other violent groups.

ADM. MULLEN: What I would add to that, Tony, is that, you know, where I flew -- which was pretty close to the border -- and in discussions with the brigade commander who's been there for almost 15 months, it's very clear that additional troops will have a big impact on insurgents coming across that border. And I think that would be the case.

It would be much better, clearly, if there was that pressure on the Pakistani side than without it. But clearly, additional troops there would have a significant impact. And so if you -- to get to your question of would it make any difference no matter how many you put in there, absolutely, it would make a difference.

Yes, we need more troops, but as long as the insurgents have a sanctuary in Pakistan problems will continue. The problem needs to be attacked on both sides of the border.

It's all very easy to talk about "pressuring Pakistan", quite another to actually change their behavior. And beyond that, it's not as if someone in Islamabad can simply issue an order and presto it's all solved. Pakistan lacks the capability to "sweep" the border area and deal with all insurgents. Time and again since 2001 they've sent their army into the border regions only to see it defeated.

More to the point, the Pakistanis have internal political difficulties that prevent them from taking decisive action. There is simply much sympathy for Al Qaeda and the Taliban among the population and the army, and especially inside their intelligence service, the ISI (Inter Services Agency). The sobering fact is that the political leaders cannot just issue orders and expect them to be followed.

Q You opened up with a couple of promotions. Yesterday Colonel H.R. McMaster was nominated for his first star, after having been passed over a couple of times. That was just a bare-bones list. Do you care to elaborate on what this means, if anything?

SEC. GATES: Probably not. (Laughs.) (Laughter.)

ADM. MULLEN: Let me -- actually, the one thing I would take some issue with is that he's, quote-unquote, "been passed over." I come from a position when you get selected for admiral or general, you go into the zone and it's an enormously small percentage that get picked. And actually, as years in the service, I think he's either got 23 or 24, having been selected a couple years after that myself, I'm not sure that he's not more junior than many people think.

Delighted with his selection, and I think it says an awful lot about where we are, the kind of fights that we're in and the kind of focus that we need.

I haven't followed Col H.R. McMaster's career as well as I probably should have, but to say he is a rising star (double entendre alert) in the army would if anything be an understatement. I'm hardly sure of all the issues surrounding his possibly delayed promotion, but the bottom line is that I'm glad to learn that he was in fact promoted. We need to hang on to soldiers like him.

Q One question for each of you, if I might.

Mr. Secretary, President Bush said in his news conference at the White House yesterday, quote, "We are surging troops in Afghanistan." Is that true? And if so, where are we surging them? How is that surge unfolding?

SEC. GATES: Well, I think that what the president clearly was talking about was the fact that we've sent some 3,500 Marines there. We sent them in the spring. They will come home in November. And that has represented a significant contribution and addition to our capabilities in Afghanistan, if only for the current fighting season.

They have gone into areas in the south where coalition forces and government forces have not been in a long time. And one of the reasons, sadly, that we have suffered so many casualties is that they are engaged in heavy fighting in areas where we have not been engaged before. So I think that's the surge that the president was talking about.

But I would go back also to the beginning of last year, because at the beginning of last year one of my first acts was to extend the brigade of the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan, and then we added another brigade in Afghanistan. You've also seen the Germans and the French up the ante in terms of the number of troops that they are sending. Those troops are going to be flowing from now forward. So I think that there is an effort to bring a number of additional forces to bear.

Obviously we've got work to do in Afghanistan. Oddly, despite the overall smaller size of the insurgency there relative to Iraq, it's the tougher nut to crack. It hasn't really ever had a central government, the infrastructure is lacking even by the standards of the region, the allied command is fractured (most Europeans won't accept our tougher ROE), there is a horrendous and seemingly intractable drug problem that the Taliban use to make tons of money, and the insurgent terrorists have a sanctuary in Pakistan, which for complicated reasons we can't get at.

Winning in Afghanistan is going to take a long time. Even with more troops it'll probably take ten, twenty, or more years. Although this is the war we're all supposed to support, I've noted time and again (and again) that we've basically been betrayed by our "allies." And sorry, but I don't accept the notion that it's all because the evil Bush Administration made them all mad with the invasion of Iraq.

Posted by Tom at 8:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Iraq Briefing - 14 July 2008 - The British in Basra

UK Army Maj. Gen. Barney White-Spunner, general officer commanding, Multi-National Division-Southeast, spoike via satellite with reporters at the Pentagon, July 14, 2008. Gen White-Spunner was connected via telecommunications link to the Pentagon from Camp Victory in Baghdad.

From the MNF-Iraq website, "MND-SE operates in the southern most part of Iraq, including the cities of Basrah, An Nasiriyah, Al Amarah. The division is headquartered by elements of the British and Australian militaries."

This video and others can be viewed at DODvClips. The transcript is at DefenseLink. More videos, briefings, and military news can be seen at The Pentagon Channel.

What is most interesting about this briefing is simply that it was the first one I've seen conducted by a non-American general in this setting. I fully realize that there's been no small amount of controversy surrounding the question of just how much the British have done over the past year. I've seen many reports that they more or less retreated to their compound outside the city and let the locals have at it. Word is then that it wasn't until recent operations by the Iraqi Army that Basra was secured.

But my purpose here is not to go through all that again, but simply to see what the British general has to say and what we might make of it:

GEN. WHITE-SPUNNER... But I think what I want to say just to start off with is that the last four months have seen a really overwhelming change in Basra.

If you'd been there in the spring -- and some of you may have been -- you'd have found a very different situation, because since then the tide has well and truly turned. And as a result of the Operation Charge of the Knights, which Prime Minister Maliki launched at the end of March, the Iraqi security forces reasserted their authority over Basra, which did degree -- had experienced a degree of violence and lawlessness. And whereas not so long ago the militias controlled parts of Basra, we now find people free to go about their daily business without fear of intimidation.

And the situation you find in Basra today is very similar to many other Middle Eastern cities, let alone Iraqi cities. And an air of normality has returned and the government of Iraq has very carefully managed the humanitarian situation, not that it ever got very serious, with only minimal coalition support. The curfew's been lifted and water and fresh food are obviously in plentiful supply.
...

But even more significantly, from our perspective, what Charge of the Knights did was to show that there was very little deep support for the militia in Basra. And once the leadership fled, the ordinary rank-and-file militia, if you like, very soon returned to normal life, which supports our contention that they weren't committed terrorists or committed militiamen. They were poor Shi'as who didn't have opportunities for jobs or whatever and have been perverted by the militias.
...

I don't deny that at the beginning, some elements of Iraqi security forces did wobble a bit, but the Iraqi government soon brought in reinforcements. And with a combination of our help and planning -- coalition help and planning and provision of combat and logistic support, the situation was very soon under control, showing a degree of speed and flexibility as I think would have been impossible only a year ago.

Central to the progress has been this concept of MiTTs, these Military Transition Teams that we have embedded with the Iraqi forces in roughly platoon-sized groups, as that gives us a far greater situational awareness about what's going on and allows us to go every step of the way with the Iraqis. And these MiTTs are still embedded across the city today.

I think the -- where we've got security, what we're doing at the moment is ensuring that security stays. With the Iraqi forces, we're putting in place in Basra a counterterrorist structure so that when those violent extremist elements do try to come back -- and some inevitably will -- then they're ready for them.
...

...the real issue now confronting Basra is economics, something the Iraqi government very much accepts. And this is really the key to the long-term success of Basra. The -- we've got security now, and we're going to make certain that security lasts. And at the moment, opinion polling shows us that security -- whereas it was 23 percent of population's prime concern a month ago, now only 8 percent of the population say that it is a major concern.

So we've got that security. What we've got to do now is get economic success. We've got to create jobs.

The first question went to the heart of the security issue; how permanent are the security gains?

Q General, this is David Morgan from Reuters. Would you say that the extremists in Basra have been decisively defeated? And when you say that many of them fled the city, where does it appear that they have gone to?

GEN. WHITE-SPUNNER: Yeah. The sound isn't the greatest, but I think I got the gist of that.

When I say the extremists have been decisively defeated, I think what has happened decisively is that the militias have lost control of the areas of Basra that they control. I do not think you will see militias reestablish control over areas of Basra again.

I do think that violent extremists, some of whom -- the leadership of whom fled, will try to come back, and I think we need to be ready for them. And that is why we are concentrating, with the Iraqi security forces, in putting this counterterrorist structure in place.

So I think the militias -- I think the insurgency has been decisively defeated. I think there will be an ongoing terrorist campaign for some time, because there are violent extremists who have seen their aims frustrated by what the Iraqis and the coalition have done together, and they're the people we've got to be ready for.

During the interview, Gen White-Spunner said that logistics was still a problem for the Iraqi Army, something we've heard time and again in these briefings. In the next question, Mike Mount with CNN asks whether the Iraqi Army can handle operations on their own:

Q (Mike Mount with CNN) If I could follow up, how much of that control is now you all or U.K. troops as opposed to Iraqi troops?

GEN. WHITE-SPUNNER: It's us in support of Iraqi troops. It's Iraqi troops in the lead with us very much in support. And the plans see the Iraqi troops being there and the Iraqi security forces, I should say, because obviously when you come to things like the border, it's not just the Iraqi army. It's the Iraqi police and also the DBE, the department of border enforcement which includes the coastal border guard because, of course, there is a large water border in the Basra area.

So what we're trying to do here is to get sustainable structures in place. We're out in support at the moment, and the Iraqis are in the lead. There will come a time when the Iraqis won't need us.

But I would emphasize that it is us supporting them. They're very much in the lead. This is an issue which they are really concerned about and they're absolutely determined to get right.

The next big issue Iraq faces is the upcoming elections

Elections go the heart of legitimacy. If people see the government as legitimate and as representing them, they will get "off the fence" and support the government. If not, they'll allow the insurgency to come back.

From the U.S. Army / Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24 (Essentially the "bible" for our troops in Iraq since it was published in Dec of 2006. Gen. Petraeus led the team that wrote it). A few excerpts:

1-4 Long term success in COIN depends on the people taking charge of their own affairs and consenting to the government's rule.

1-113 LEGITIMACY IS THE MAIN OBJECTIVE. The primary objective of any COIN operation is to foster development of effective governance by a legitimate government.

"Essential though it is, the military action is secondary to the political one, its primary purpose bieng to afford the political power enough freedom to work safely with the population" David Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare, 1964

Here's the part of the briefing where they discussed elections:

Q This is Jim Mannion again. Did the provincial elections have any -- raise any special security concerns from your perspective?

GEN. WHITE-SPUNNER: Yeah. Elections are a big issue for us. What's really encouraging about elections is how seriously people are taking them, because if people weren't taking elections seriously, they wouldn't begin to take the results seriously, if you follow my logic. So the fact that there is so much interest in the elections, I think, is hugely encouraging. I think it shows how far Iraq has come. And it's really fitting in this current climate of increased security. So the elections -- i.e., the establishment of a democratic process -- should be so much to the fore, and I take enormous heart in that.

What are my particular concerns, to answer your question? I think to make certain that the voter registration goes ahead from the 15th of this month. We've got 34 voter registration centers across Basra province. And I'm confident -- having reviewed the plans of those in detail with the Iraqi security forces --I'm confident that that process will go ahead smoothly.

When we get to the elections themselves, I'm at the moment pretty confident that we will have free and fair elections here. Again, as I say, they're being taken very seriously. The security of the polling centers is something that's been taken very seriously by the Iraqis. So, if you like, concern in that we are determined that elections and the voter registration is going to go really well.

Specific concerns at the moment, not a huge number of detailed ones. You know, a few things like individual voting stations here and there, but nothing significant. Nothing at the moment that makes me think we're not going to have a really successful election in the autumn. And as soon as, of course, the election law is passed in Baghdad, then we'll be clear about a date for that.

Posted by Tom at 8:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 16, 2008

Obama Wrong on Iraq - Again

Senator Barack Obama gave us his plan for Iraq