In a world filled with so much darkness and suffering, it can be easy to fall into pessimism. At particular risk are those of us who pay close attention to the forces of evil at work in the world. Vigilance carries a price tag, and too often people with good intentions end up bitter, angry, and vengeful because all they focus on is the injustices in the world. But we must remember that there is more to the world than death and despair. There is light in the world as well as darkness, and if we spend too much time looking into the darkness we may end up suffocating in it. If we simply labor against the darkness, then we labor in vain. Trying to stop moral darkness is as pointless as trying to push physical darkness out of your house with your bare hands. You do not remove darkness, but rather replace it with light. We must understand the light as well as the dark if we stand a chance of reflecting it into the shadows.
Those of us who are Christians serve the Light of the world. We stand not just against the forces of evil but for our Redeemer. The day we set aside to remember Christ's resurrection seems as good a time as any to discuss this topic. The real story of Easter is that the hardest part is already finished. Jesus sacrificed himself on a cross and rose three days later so that the power of sin and death could be broken forever. Any challenges we face, from personal demons to conflicts between entire civilizations, pale in comparison.
Persecution is to be expected. Christ told the Church as much in John 15:18. But to become bitter or seek revenge is to miss the entire point of Christ's sacrifice. He didn't give his life so that the sinless people could have eternal life but so that the sinful and corrupt could be redeemed and made new. Even for those of you who are not Christians, the point still stands: people are capable of change. That is the entire reason we promote free will and individual liberty. It is often the enemies of truth become its greatest champions. Examples range from the Apostle Paul to former Communists like David Horowitz. It is the ideology and the evil actions promoted by that ideology that we must hate, but we must be willing to forgive our enemies. After all, if we do not expect to convince anyone of the rightness of our cause, why do we expend so much effort trying?
So happy Easter everyone. And God bless.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
Tragedy in Toulouse
I intended to do this post last week, but I was plagued by technical issues. This may no longer be breaking news, but it still bears careful examination.
Once again, a tragic shooting has rocked Europe. On March 19th, a gunman started shooting at a Jewish school, resulting in the deaths of three children and one adult male, the father of two of the young victims. Investigators discovered that the same weapon was used in the murders of three French paratroopers in two previous attacks, both quick hits in which the attacker used a motorcycle to escape into traffic after the shooting. Authorities closed in on the man, Mohamed Merah, believed responsible for the murders. This led to a 32-hour standoff between Merah and the police which ended with a police assault on his apartment. Two police officers were wounded in the firefight and Merah was killed by police while trying to flee the scene. Attention has shifted to Merah's brother Abdelkader, who police accuse of assisting Mohamed's rampage.
This incident has brought attention to two related phenomenon in Western Europe: the increasing radicalization and self-imposed isolation of Muslim immigrant communities and the drastic rise in anti-Semitism. As the Muslim populations within countries like France and England have exploded (no pun intended) over the past few decades, they have grown increasingly bold in their interactions with their fellow countrymen. From Sharia courts in London to the so-called "Sensitive Urban Zones" of Paris and other major French cities, the idea of Islamic superiority is on the march. Islamic "civil rights" groups have been popping up like crazy in the West, primarily to distort the media message and label anyone seeking an honest examination of the facts as a hate-monger. One of these groups, the Forsane Alizza group, has faced intense examination from French law enforcement because of alleged connections to Merah's attacks. Nineteen members were taken into custody, and the interior minister reported that stockpiles of assault rifles were found while searching these suspects' houses. This suggests that further attacks, possibly coordinated strikes by multiple gunmen, were planned. Counterterrorism experts have also warned that more so-called "lone wolf" attacks are on the way.
As ethnic tensions increase, anti-Semitism has rocketed in popularity. A recent report by the Anti-Defamation League found what they called "disturbingly high" surges of anti-Semitism in Austria, France, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The study shows that high percentages of the population, in many cases the majority, believe that Jews are not loyal enough and that they have too much power, particularly in business and finance. Please don't misunderstand, I am not saying that Muslims are the perpetrators of this. Far from it, many non-Muslim groups actually use Muslim militancy to call for crackdowns on Jewish populations. One French schoolteacher aroused controversy when she asked her class to pay respects to the murderer, saying his connection to al-Qaeda had been fabricated to frame him (I don't know what excuse she has for his armed standoff with police). As various evil factions, whether Communist, fascist, or Islamist, gain power and create chaos, we will see a sharp increase in assaults against European Jews. As popular novelist Andrew Klavan says, the nice thing about anti-Semitism is "it lets you know exactly who the dirtbags are." By observing such a rapid rise in anti-Semitism over the last few years, it shows a disturbing trend toward dirtbag-ism that cannot be ignored.
The loss of life in these attacks is tragic, but it would be even more tragic to simply observe such violence and then return to our lives believing that it is an anomaly that will not be repeated. Also, be on the lookout for a violent response of some kind like the Norway murders last year by one of the other major groups of bad guys trying to take power. The game is being rigged as we speak. Innocent, ignorant people will find themselves forced to take sides in a conflict between different sides of the same totalitarian coin. To quote the supercomputer from WarGames, "the only winning move is not to play." Look out for anyone trying to present you with a false choice, and ask the questions they don't want to answer.
Once again, a tragic shooting has rocked Europe. On March 19th, a gunman started shooting at a Jewish school, resulting in the deaths of three children and one adult male, the father of two of the young victims. Investigators discovered that the same weapon was used in the murders of three French paratroopers in two previous attacks, both quick hits in which the attacker used a motorcycle to escape into traffic after the shooting. Authorities closed in on the man, Mohamed Merah, believed responsible for the murders. This led to a 32-hour standoff between Merah and the police which ended with a police assault on his apartment. Two police officers were wounded in the firefight and Merah was killed by police while trying to flee the scene. Attention has shifted to Merah's brother Abdelkader, who police accuse of assisting Mohamed's rampage.
This incident has brought attention to two related phenomenon in Western Europe: the increasing radicalization and self-imposed isolation of Muslim immigrant communities and the drastic rise in anti-Semitism. As the Muslim populations within countries like France and England have exploded (no pun intended) over the past few decades, they have grown increasingly bold in their interactions with their fellow countrymen. From Sharia courts in London to the so-called "Sensitive Urban Zones" of Paris and other major French cities, the idea of Islamic superiority is on the march. Islamic "civil rights" groups have been popping up like crazy in the West, primarily to distort the media message and label anyone seeking an honest examination of the facts as a hate-monger. One of these groups, the Forsane Alizza group, has faced intense examination from French law enforcement because of alleged connections to Merah's attacks. Nineteen members were taken into custody, and the interior minister reported that stockpiles of assault rifles were found while searching these suspects' houses. This suggests that further attacks, possibly coordinated strikes by multiple gunmen, were planned. Counterterrorism experts have also warned that more so-called "lone wolf" attacks are on the way.
As ethnic tensions increase, anti-Semitism has rocketed in popularity. A recent report by the Anti-Defamation League found what they called "disturbingly high" surges of anti-Semitism in Austria, France, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The study shows that high percentages of the population, in many cases the majority, believe that Jews are not loyal enough and that they have too much power, particularly in business and finance. Please don't misunderstand, I am not saying that Muslims are the perpetrators of this. Far from it, many non-Muslim groups actually use Muslim militancy to call for crackdowns on Jewish populations. One French schoolteacher aroused controversy when she asked her class to pay respects to the murderer, saying his connection to al-Qaeda had been fabricated to frame him (I don't know what excuse she has for his armed standoff with police). As various evil factions, whether Communist, fascist, or Islamist, gain power and create chaos, we will see a sharp increase in assaults against European Jews. As popular novelist Andrew Klavan says, the nice thing about anti-Semitism is "it lets you know exactly who the dirtbags are." By observing such a rapid rise in anti-Semitism over the last few years, it shows a disturbing trend toward dirtbag-ism that cannot be ignored.
The loss of life in these attacks is tragic, but it would be even more tragic to simply observe such violence and then return to our lives believing that it is an anomaly that will not be repeated. Also, be on the lookout for a violent response of some kind like the Norway murders last year by one of the other major groups of bad guys trying to take power. The game is being rigged as we speak. Innocent, ignorant people will find themselves forced to take sides in a conflict between different sides of the same totalitarian coin. To quote the supercomputer from WarGames, "the only winning move is not to play." Look out for anyone trying to present you with a false choice, and ask the questions they don't want to answer.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
The Dangers of Intervention in Syria
Sorry I missed last week's post. I'll be back on normal schedule as soon as possible, I promise.
It's hard to believe that the Arab Spring movement has only been active for a little more than a year. Yet in that relatively short amount of time we've seen perhaps the greatest upheavals and revolutions since the fall of the Soviet Union. Three dictators who likely never imagined a day that they would be deposed have toppled from power. Meanwhile, the people of Syria have tried to add a fourth name to that list: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. However, Assad has no plans to step down like Mubarak did in Egypt, and it appears that his government was much more prepared for a potential civil war than Ghaddafi's Libya.
From the beginning, people in the media and in politics, as well as a number of Syrian-American organizations, have been calling for more active steps by the US government to help depose Assad. Those voices are louder than ever now, and include such notables as 2008 Republican Presidential candidate John McCain. And certainly, no one in the administration wants to be seen as either weak when dealing with foreign dictators or uncaring about the plight of the oppressed citizens of Syria. Not in an election year, anyway. But on the other hand, jumping into an unpopular military action has a way of bringing about unintended consequences, and if that action is taken too early those consequences may hurt re-election chances. It all comes down to the ruthless calculus of politics.
There are some who are bringing up Libya as an example of NATO intervention that helped bring down a totalitarian regime, but that is a dangerous game for several reasons. First of all, the Libya intervention never had the kind of support among the American people that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had. Second, Ghaddafi had a history of taking violent action against citizens of the United States and our interests, especially during the Cold War (something used by great effect by propagandists for the military action, who could bring up President Ronald Reagan's own military actions against Libya to block protests from the political right). Assad's regime, on the other hand, has engaged in no active campaigns against the United States (although they have been very supportive of groups that have committed acts against our allies, particularly Israel). Going to "kinetic military action" with a country that has never had an official beef against us could establish (or, rather, strengthen) a nasty precedent. Third, Libya has seen a dramatic collapse in social cohesion since the death of Ghaddafi, with a major portion of the country declaring semi-autonomy. We could actually see a civil war brought about because of the fall of Ghaddafi mere months after bringing the previous conflict to a close. Syria lies at the heart of perhaps the most volatile region on the planet, and such destabilization could cascade into other countries or lead to aggressive expansion on the part of Syria's neighbors willing to take advantage of the situation to gain territory and resources. It also must be considered that Syria is a much more powerful foe than Ghaddafi. Whereas the Libyan government stood largely on its own during the civil war, Syria has the explicit backing of Iran and Russia. This extra diplomatic weight has also translated to better technology for the Syrian military, particularly with the Russian-supplied air defense network.
The American military is not excited about the possibility of entering the conflict for several reasons. The first, as stated above, is Syria's air defense grid that would make a bombing campaign like the one that happened in Libya exponentially more complicated, in large part because the key structures for this network are located in or near large population centers and collateral damage would be unavoidable. Also, the Pentagon recognizes that military action in Syria could very easily escalate into a much larger proxy war against Iran or even Russia. Even the option of supplying and training the Syrian opposition is unpopular because of the deep divisions (not to mention divided loyalties and questionable motives) within the opposition movement. Military officials also expressed their disdain for the heated emotional rhetoric about potential intervention that ignores the basic reality on the ground.
Yes, it sucks that Assad is killing so many of his own people, but trying to give him the boot may lead to greater casualties and destruction. For a good analysis of the situation and the possibilities, watch the following segment of GBTV's "Real News": http://www.theblaze.com/stories/house-of-assad-real-news-panel-on-how-going-into-syria-could-exacerbate-the-ongoing-internal-conflict/
It's hard to believe that the Arab Spring movement has only been active for a little more than a year. Yet in that relatively short amount of time we've seen perhaps the greatest upheavals and revolutions since the fall of the Soviet Union. Three dictators who likely never imagined a day that they would be deposed have toppled from power. Meanwhile, the people of Syria have tried to add a fourth name to that list: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. However, Assad has no plans to step down like Mubarak did in Egypt, and it appears that his government was much more prepared for a potential civil war than Ghaddafi's Libya.
From the beginning, people in the media and in politics, as well as a number of Syrian-American organizations, have been calling for more active steps by the US government to help depose Assad. Those voices are louder than ever now, and include such notables as 2008 Republican Presidential candidate John McCain. And certainly, no one in the administration wants to be seen as either weak when dealing with foreign dictators or uncaring about the plight of the oppressed citizens of Syria. Not in an election year, anyway. But on the other hand, jumping into an unpopular military action has a way of bringing about unintended consequences, and if that action is taken too early those consequences may hurt re-election chances. It all comes down to the ruthless calculus of politics.
There are some who are bringing up Libya as an example of NATO intervention that helped bring down a totalitarian regime, but that is a dangerous game for several reasons. First of all, the Libya intervention never had the kind of support among the American people that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had. Second, Ghaddafi had a history of taking violent action against citizens of the United States and our interests, especially during the Cold War (something used by great effect by propagandists for the military action, who could bring up President Ronald Reagan's own military actions against Libya to block protests from the political right). Assad's regime, on the other hand, has engaged in no active campaigns against the United States (although they have been very supportive of groups that have committed acts against our allies, particularly Israel). Going to "kinetic military action" with a country that has never had an official beef against us could establish (or, rather, strengthen) a nasty precedent. Third, Libya has seen a dramatic collapse in social cohesion since the death of Ghaddafi, with a major portion of the country declaring semi-autonomy. We could actually see a civil war brought about because of the fall of Ghaddafi mere months after bringing the previous conflict to a close. Syria lies at the heart of perhaps the most volatile region on the planet, and such destabilization could cascade into other countries or lead to aggressive expansion on the part of Syria's neighbors willing to take advantage of the situation to gain territory and resources. It also must be considered that Syria is a much more powerful foe than Ghaddafi. Whereas the Libyan government stood largely on its own during the civil war, Syria has the explicit backing of Iran and Russia. This extra diplomatic weight has also translated to better technology for the Syrian military, particularly with the Russian-supplied air defense network.
The American military is not excited about the possibility of entering the conflict for several reasons. The first, as stated above, is Syria's air defense grid that would make a bombing campaign like the one that happened in Libya exponentially more complicated, in large part because the key structures for this network are located in or near large population centers and collateral damage would be unavoidable. Also, the Pentagon recognizes that military action in Syria could very easily escalate into a much larger proxy war against Iran or even Russia. Even the option of supplying and training the Syrian opposition is unpopular because of the deep divisions (not to mention divided loyalties and questionable motives) within the opposition movement. Military officials also expressed their disdain for the heated emotional rhetoric about potential intervention that ignores the basic reality on the ground.
Yes, it sucks that Assad is killing so many of his own people, but trying to give him the boot may lead to greater casualties and destruction. For a good analysis of the situation and the possibilities, watch the following segment of GBTV's "Real News": http://www.theblaze.com/stories/house-of-assad-real-news-panel-on-how-going-into-syria-could-exacerbate-the-ongoing-internal-conflict/
Monday, March 5, 2012
Death Before Dishonor Redux
Before I begin, I must apologize for my lengthy absence. My computer decided to take a little vacation without me, but everything should be fixed now and we can continue.
Last April, I wrote about the fundamental disconnect between the traditional Western ideal of personal honor and the Islamic ideal of collective honor. At the time, the conversation was relevant because of the reaction of militant Islamists to "Pastor" Terry Jones' burning of a Koran. Well, the past is seeming to repeat itself with a renewed series of terrorist attacks and violent riots sparked by the burning of a Koran at a NATO base in Afghanistan. But there are some new elements to this story that bear a closer look.
First, while Jones' act was an intentional insult, the incident at the NATO base was an accident. A collection of books, including Korans, from a prison lending library were being used by prisoners to pass messages to one another by writing in the margins. When this was discovered, the books were discarded and the soldiers responsible for disposing of the trash were told to get rid of them. Of course, these men are soldiers, not Koranic scholars, and they threw the whole collection of books into a fire pit. It was Afghanis working at the site that spotted the Korans in the flames and rushed to spread word of the Americans' "insult," which led to a series of attacks and riots that have left six Americans and thirty others dead. Gee, what great allies we have. Why didn't the Afghanis tell the soldiers not to put the Korans in the fire in the first place? Because that would deny them an excuse to kill and maim, and that's just how a lot of Afghanis like to get down. What is interesting is that disposal of desecrated Korans by fire is the accepted practice by Islamic scholars. So, in essence, the militants are rioting and murdering because we followed the crazy rules they put in place.
Now, it should go without saying that the traditional ideals of honor are not monolithic even within the same society. While the American military and its allies have shown tremendous courage and honor on the ground, the political classes have practically fallen over themselves trying to apologize for an accident rather than demand that murderous scumbags are held accountable for their actions. Our enemies have noticed this weakness and are pressing it with all of their strength. The Taliban launched an assault at Bagram Airfield, claiming of course to be doing it in simple retaliation for the insult to their Koran. Oh, okay. So what was their excuse before the Koran burning? Pastor Jones, Geert Wilders, Pope Benedict XVI, or Danish cartoons? It's not like the Taliban were just sitting around doing nothing until they heard about some guys at a NATO base having a Koran barbecue (I hear the pork's delicious). So why did President Obama apologize? I mean, it's getting to the point where President Obama is reflexively apologizing whenever he sees a Muslim on the street (or, more likely, on a golf course).
To add insult to injury, the Afghani government is demanding prosecution for the NATO personnel involved. And, in a stunningly gutless move, NATO is seriously considering throwing these poor men to the wolves in order to preserve the all-important goal of "Peace," whatever that means. Islamic clerics have demanded a public trial to condemn the soldiers in accordance with Afghani law, threatening a "storm of fury" if their demands are not met. What I would like to know is what these soldiers could possibly be charged with? NATO forces do not officially operate under Sharia law (yet), so "insulting the Holy Koran" is probably out. And it's hard to see how someone could charge these soldiers with "dereliction of duty" for following orders?
Now, just try to imagine the utter chaos that would take place if Christians discovered that Bibles were being burned by NATO troops. Why, we might even write letters of disapproval or call our representatives. Horrifying, to be sure. Except, the military has been burning any unsolicited Bibles or similar religious materials printed in Pashto and Dari, the two most common languages in Afghanistan. That decision was made because "it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslims," according to Lt. Col. Mark Wright of the Department of Defense. So we have to walk on eggshells to avoid making radical Islamists angry. I thought the point of this war was to kill these guys. Making them angry would be a great way to get them to come out of their hidey holes. Otherwise we're just waiting around for the next attack with whatever excuse the militants find convenient.
If Afghanistan is ever to become something more than a backwards hellhole, its people and leadership need to take responsibility. I find it interesting that the same people in the Afghan government who are screaming for blood about this matter are also the ones interested in peace talks with the Taliban. You know, the people who videotaped decapitations so they could put it on YouTube. Curiously, that never seems to come up in all of the condemnation over the Koran incident. Our diplomats, meanwhile, need to stop trying to make the United States and its allies the scapegoats for everything that goes wrong in Afghanistan. It takes two sides to fight a war, but right now only one side seems interested in fighting. Maybe it's time that we started focusing on the real enemies, for a change.
Last April, I wrote about the fundamental disconnect between the traditional Western ideal of personal honor and the Islamic ideal of collective honor. At the time, the conversation was relevant because of the reaction of militant Islamists to "Pastor" Terry Jones' burning of a Koran. Well, the past is seeming to repeat itself with a renewed series of terrorist attacks and violent riots sparked by the burning of a Koran at a NATO base in Afghanistan. But there are some new elements to this story that bear a closer look.
First, while Jones' act was an intentional insult, the incident at the NATO base was an accident. A collection of books, including Korans, from a prison lending library were being used by prisoners to pass messages to one another by writing in the margins. When this was discovered, the books were discarded and the soldiers responsible for disposing of the trash were told to get rid of them. Of course, these men are soldiers, not Koranic scholars, and they threw the whole collection of books into a fire pit. It was Afghanis working at the site that spotted the Korans in the flames and rushed to spread word of the Americans' "insult," which led to a series of attacks and riots that have left six Americans and thirty others dead. Gee, what great allies we have. Why didn't the Afghanis tell the soldiers not to put the Korans in the fire in the first place? Because that would deny them an excuse to kill and maim, and that's just how a lot of Afghanis like to get down. What is interesting is that disposal of desecrated Korans by fire is the accepted practice by Islamic scholars. So, in essence, the militants are rioting and murdering because we followed the crazy rules they put in place.
Now, it should go without saying that the traditional ideals of honor are not monolithic even within the same society. While the American military and its allies have shown tremendous courage and honor on the ground, the political classes have practically fallen over themselves trying to apologize for an accident rather than demand that murderous scumbags are held accountable for their actions. Our enemies have noticed this weakness and are pressing it with all of their strength. The Taliban launched an assault at Bagram Airfield, claiming of course to be doing it in simple retaliation for the insult to their Koran. Oh, okay. So what was their excuse before the Koran burning? Pastor Jones, Geert Wilders, Pope Benedict XVI, or Danish cartoons? It's not like the Taliban were just sitting around doing nothing until they heard about some guys at a NATO base having a Koran barbecue (I hear the pork's delicious). So why did President Obama apologize? I mean, it's getting to the point where President Obama is reflexively apologizing whenever he sees a Muslim on the street (or, more likely, on a golf course).
To add insult to injury, the Afghani government is demanding prosecution for the NATO personnel involved. And, in a stunningly gutless move, NATO is seriously considering throwing these poor men to the wolves in order to preserve the all-important goal of "Peace," whatever that means. Islamic clerics have demanded a public trial to condemn the soldiers in accordance with Afghani law, threatening a "storm of fury" if their demands are not met. What I would like to know is what these soldiers could possibly be charged with? NATO forces do not officially operate under Sharia law (yet), so "insulting the Holy Koran" is probably out. And it's hard to see how someone could charge these soldiers with "dereliction of duty" for following orders?
Now, just try to imagine the utter chaos that would take place if Christians discovered that Bibles were being burned by NATO troops. Why, we might even write letters of disapproval or call our representatives. Horrifying, to be sure. Except, the military has been burning any unsolicited Bibles or similar religious materials printed in Pashto and Dari, the two most common languages in Afghanistan. That decision was made because "it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslims," according to Lt. Col. Mark Wright of the Department of Defense. So we have to walk on eggshells to avoid making radical Islamists angry. I thought the point of this war was to kill these guys. Making them angry would be a great way to get them to come out of their hidey holes. Otherwise we're just waiting around for the next attack with whatever excuse the militants find convenient.
If Afghanistan is ever to become something more than a backwards hellhole, its people and leadership need to take responsibility. I find it interesting that the same people in the Afghan government who are screaming for blood about this matter are also the ones interested in peace talks with the Taliban. You know, the people who videotaped decapitations so they could put it on YouTube. Curiously, that never seems to come up in all of the condemnation over the Koran incident. Our diplomats, meanwhile, need to stop trying to make the United States and its allies the scapegoats for everything that goes wrong in Afghanistan. It takes two sides to fight a war, but right now only one side seems interested in fighting. Maybe it's time that we started focusing on the real enemies, for a change.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Happy Anniversary!
It's hard to believe it was one year ago today that I started this blog with a post entitled "Thoughts on the New Knighthood." I began this blog with a simple purpose: look at world events, particularly those involving Islamism, through the lens of history. It turns out I picked a great time to start writing about world events.
What a year it's been! The Arab Spring has turned from "peaceful" protests to open war in Libya and Syria. While many of us who were paying attention saw that coming a mile away, other events were hard to imagine twelve months ago. The death of Osama bin Laden, and to a lesser extent Anwar al-Awlaki, was surprising and certainly great news. Most events that I covered, however, were not as positive. Two stand out as frightening visions of possible things to come: the Norway murders by supposed radical nationalist Anders Breivik in July and the socialist-sparked London riots in August. Both of these events point to something I have feared for a couple of years now, namely that the economic and social stresses in Europe will split the continent between fascists, communists, and Islamists. The normal, freedom-loving (or at least not freedom-hating) Europeans will be squeezed into supporting one of these groups. In America, we have seen the idea of isolationism surge in popularity, represented in particular by Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Meanwhile, the Obama administration abandons allies like Israel while supporting groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.
This has been a great experience for me, and I hope it will continue for a long time. "May you live in interesting times," is an old Chinese curse (supposedly) and it is an apt description of current events. Make no mistake, 2012 will be "interesting times" and I will be here to cover it all. Stay tuned. We're not finished yet.
What a year it's been! The Arab Spring has turned from "peaceful" protests to open war in Libya and Syria. While many of us who were paying attention saw that coming a mile away, other events were hard to imagine twelve months ago. The death of Osama bin Laden, and to a lesser extent Anwar al-Awlaki, was surprising and certainly great news. Most events that I covered, however, were not as positive. Two stand out as frightening visions of possible things to come: the Norway murders by supposed radical nationalist Anders Breivik in July and the socialist-sparked London riots in August. Both of these events point to something I have feared for a couple of years now, namely that the economic and social stresses in Europe will split the continent between fascists, communists, and Islamists. The normal, freedom-loving (or at least not freedom-hating) Europeans will be squeezed into supporting one of these groups. In America, we have seen the idea of isolationism surge in popularity, represented in particular by Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Meanwhile, the Obama administration abandons allies like Israel while supporting groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.
This has been a great experience for me, and I hope it will continue for a long time. "May you live in interesting times," is an old Chinese curse (supposedly) and it is an apt description of current events. Make no mistake, 2012 will be "interesting times" and I will be here to cover it all. Stay tuned. We're not finished yet.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Israel's Unconventional War
As a nation faced with extermination since its founding, Israel knows the value of unconventional warfare. With the threat of war against Iran looming larger than ever, the Israelis have put what they have been learning to good use. Iran's nuclear program is a clear and present danger to the continued existence of the state of Israel, yet any sort of military strike will have devastating repercussions both for Israel and the United States. Hezbollah forces in Lebanon and Hamas forces in Gaza have been building up an extensive stockpile of missiles that would rain down on Israeli cities should Israel or the United States launch an air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. So Israel has been forced to seek a more creative method of slowing, if not halting, Iran's march toward a nuclear bomb. According to officials in the United States government, Mossad agents helped train the Iranian resistance group known as the People's Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK. The MEK used this training and some strategic guidance by the Mossad to assassinate prominent Iranian nuclear scientists (a conclusion I predicted as soon as news of the assassinations broke). If any American or European officials feel like climbing onto their high horse to condemn this tactic, remember how NATO support for the Libyan rebels led to the deaths of several high ranking members of Ghaddafi's government and indirectly led to the former Libyan ruler's murder "accidental" shooting.
But Israel has not limited itself to physical assaults against the Iranian nuclear program as these can be costly, difficult, and dangerous. Increasingly, the Israelis have taken to the Internet to release crippling viruses and denial-of-service attacks. The most famous case of this electronic warfare was the virus called Stuxnet which infiltrated and disrupted the computer systems at the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz in the summer of 2010. A more recent follow-up virus known as Duqu has wormed its way into the Iranian network, this time establishing "back doors" in the systems for hackers to exploit at any time rather than engage in the pure data destruction that Stuxnet did. It is believed that these combined attacks (along with the possibility of other such viruses that have not been discovered) have set the Iranian program back for years. If so, these relatively simple and cheap techniques were able to achieve something that sanctions and negotiations have not: delaying the advancement of the Iranian bomb. The Iranian nuclear program is not the only target for Israeli hackers. In response to cyber-attacks by Arab states (more on that below), a group of hackers calling themselves the "IDF Team" brought down the websites for the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency and the Abu Dhabi Stock Exchange. The "IDF Team" has stated that they will only continue their efforts if Israeli websites are attacked again.
Israel's enemies have not taken these electronic assaults lying down. Hackers in Saudi Arabia have engaged in a form of "cyber jihad" against Israeli web sites and financial institutions. A Saudi group
known as Group-XP also released the personal information of what they claim to be 400,000 Israeli citizens, although credit card companies analyzing the data said the number of compromised identities is much lower. And it's not just Arab or Muslim groups that are engaged in cyber-attacks against Israel. Anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-Semitic (let's just shorten it to "evil") hacker group "Anonymous" has also gotten into the game, threatening a "reign of terror" against Israeli networks. The group blamed Israel for "crimes against humanity... media deception and political bribery" and warned of a three step program against Israel, starting by wiping the Jewish state off the Internet (the electronic equivalent of "drive the Jews into the sea," I guess). The anarchist hacker group may regret threatening Israel, especially when a Mossad team is knocking on their front door.
The Israeli model of unconventional warfare should be examined by the United States, particularly as debates rage about budget cuts for the Department of Defense. The Chinese and North Koreans have substantial cyber-warfare divisions, and it would be foolish to assume that other nations have not followed suit. If the United States were to aggressively pursue this tactic, potential enemies would be forced to turn their cyber-warfare teams toward defending their own systems rather than maintaining a focus mainly on offensive capabilities. No matter what happens, the Israelis have proven that they are willing and capable of performing amazing feats in defense of their people, and this latest round of unconventional warfare is no different. Let's hope it gives the world enough time to come up with a more permanent solution to the threat of a nuclear Iran.
But Israel has not limited itself to physical assaults against the Iranian nuclear program as these can be costly, difficult, and dangerous. Increasingly, the Israelis have taken to the Internet to release crippling viruses and denial-of-service attacks. The most famous case of this electronic warfare was the virus called Stuxnet which infiltrated and disrupted the computer systems at the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz in the summer of 2010. A more recent follow-up virus known as Duqu has wormed its way into the Iranian network, this time establishing "back doors" in the systems for hackers to exploit at any time rather than engage in the pure data destruction that Stuxnet did. It is believed that these combined attacks (along with the possibility of other such viruses that have not been discovered) have set the Iranian program back for years. If so, these relatively simple and cheap techniques were able to achieve something that sanctions and negotiations have not: delaying the advancement of the Iranian bomb. The Iranian nuclear program is not the only target for Israeli hackers. In response to cyber-attacks by Arab states (more on that below), a group of hackers calling themselves the "IDF Team" brought down the websites for the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency and the Abu Dhabi Stock Exchange. The "IDF Team" has stated that they will only continue their efforts if Israeli websites are attacked again.
Israel's enemies have not taken these electronic assaults lying down. Hackers in Saudi Arabia have engaged in a form of "cyber jihad" against Israeli web sites and financial institutions. A Saudi group
known as Group-XP also released the personal information of what they claim to be 400,000 Israeli citizens, although credit card companies analyzing the data said the number of compromised identities is much lower. And it's not just Arab or Muslim groups that are engaged in cyber-attacks against Israel. Anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-Semitic (let's just shorten it to "evil") hacker group "Anonymous" has also gotten into the game, threatening a "reign of terror" against Israeli networks. The group blamed Israel for "crimes against humanity... media deception and political bribery" and warned of a three step program against Israel, starting by wiping the Jewish state off the Internet (the electronic equivalent of "drive the Jews into the sea," I guess). The anarchist hacker group may regret threatening Israel, especially when a Mossad team is knocking on their front door.
The Israeli model of unconventional warfare should be examined by the United States, particularly as debates rage about budget cuts for the Department of Defense. The Chinese and North Koreans have substantial cyber-warfare divisions, and it would be foolish to assume that other nations have not followed suit. If the United States were to aggressively pursue this tactic, potential enemies would be forced to turn their cyber-warfare teams toward defending their own systems rather than maintaining a focus mainly on offensive capabilities. No matter what happens, the Israelis have proven that they are willing and capable of performing amazing feats in defense of their people, and this latest round of unconventional warfare is no different. Let's hope it gives the world enough time to come up with a more permanent solution to the threat of a nuclear Iran.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
A Syria-ous Situation
It has been a little over a year since the so-called "Arab Spring" movement began toppling long-standing governments. Tunisia fell first, and Mubarak's regime in Egypt quickly followed. Then revolution came to Libya, and a relatively easy path of "protest" suddenly evolved into a brutal civil war. After bitter struggle (and intervention by NATO) Qaddafi was forced to run and was killed shortly thereafter. While the wave of revolution is still embroiling many Middle Eastern nations in conflict, Syria is without a doubt the current epicenter of dissent and violence.
President Bashar al-Assad has never been the most popular leader in the Arab world, and once neighboring regimes began to topple his government began a severe crackdown on any opposition to his rule in order to stop a revolution before it could begin. Unfortunately for him, the tide was too strong to stop and the actions of his government only worsened his reputation among his people. Furthermore, the crackdowns put international support largely behind the efforts of the protesters. The Arab League sent observers to the country to report on the increasing violence. Now, as a new government offensive sweeps through several major cities including Damascus, the Syrian capital, the Arab League has withdrawn their observers due to worsening conditions. If that does not tell you enough about how violent and unstable things have become, the United States is seriously considering closing its embassy in Damascus and evacuating its personnel.
Not every country has spoken out against Assad's regime. Syrian opposition leaders have accused Iran of providing assistance to the Syrian government. That should not come as any great surprise. After all, those despotic Islamists facing potential revolution have to stick together. Some groups have even gone as far as to say that Iranian Revolutionary Guard units have participated in the violent strikes against protesters, something the leadership in Tehran will not admit to. Besides the Iranians, perhaps the most outspoken supporters of Assad's regime are within the Russian government. Putin's government has experienced a wave of dissent recently, and as a result they are slow to call for the removal of any other government. If international support helps the opposition topple Assad, who's to say Putin won't be the next dictator (yes, I said it) out the door?
The situation in Syria is certainly worthy of our consideration. On the one hand, the protesters are calling for the removal of a dangerous regime that is no friend to the United States, Israel, or Europe. Just looking at the people who are coming out in Assad's defense should be enough to condemn him. But in our haste to see the despot overthrown, things could get much worse if highly organized Islamists were to gain control in Syria like they have in Libya and Egypt. Were a Muslim Brotherhood-esque group to seize power, it would put further pressure on Israel. Indeed, with Hezbollah running Lebanon to the north, Hamas in Gaza to the west, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to the south, the tiny island of democracy would be virtually surrounded by nations led by radical groups bent on the extermination of the Jewish people. Furthermore, pressure on the more moderate Jordan may result in an increased hostility toward Israel by the Jordanians if only to stem the potential outbreak of revolution in that country.
Regardless of whether the Syrian government weathers the storm or falters in the face of opposition, regional stability has been shattered. As we have seen in the recent past, Islamists and other totalitarians are quick to take advantage of chaos to, in the words of the Fabian Socialists, "remold the world closer to their heart's desire." Things are heating up quickly, and only time will tell exactly what the world will look like when it's all said and done.
President Bashar al-Assad has never been the most popular leader in the Arab world, and once neighboring regimes began to topple his government began a severe crackdown on any opposition to his rule in order to stop a revolution before it could begin. Unfortunately for him, the tide was too strong to stop and the actions of his government only worsened his reputation among his people. Furthermore, the crackdowns put international support largely behind the efforts of the protesters. The Arab League sent observers to the country to report on the increasing violence. Now, as a new government offensive sweeps through several major cities including Damascus, the Syrian capital, the Arab League has withdrawn their observers due to worsening conditions. If that does not tell you enough about how violent and unstable things have become, the United States is seriously considering closing its embassy in Damascus and evacuating its personnel.
Not every country has spoken out against Assad's regime. Syrian opposition leaders have accused Iran of providing assistance to the Syrian government. That should not come as any great surprise. After all, those despotic Islamists facing potential revolution have to stick together. Some groups have even gone as far as to say that Iranian Revolutionary Guard units have participated in the violent strikes against protesters, something the leadership in Tehran will not admit to. Besides the Iranians, perhaps the most outspoken supporters of Assad's regime are within the Russian government. Putin's government has experienced a wave of dissent recently, and as a result they are slow to call for the removal of any other government. If international support helps the opposition topple Assad, who's to say Putin won't be the next dictator (yes, I said it) out the door?
The situation in Syria is certainly worthy of our consideration. On the one hand, the protesters are calling for the removal of a dangerous regime that is no friend to the United States, Israel, or Europe. Just looking at the people who are coming out in Assad's defense should be enough to condemn him. But in our haste to see the despot overthrown, things could get much worse if highly organized Islamists were to gain control in Syria like they have in Libya and Egypt. Were a Muslim Brotherhood-esque group to seize power, it would put further pressure on Israel. Indeed, with Hezbollah running Lebanon to the north, Hamas in Gaza to the west, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to the south, the tiny island of democracy would be virtually surrounded by nations led by radical groups bent on the extermination of the Jewish people. Furthermore, pressure on the more moderate Jordan may result in an increased hostility toward Israel by the Jordanians if only to stem the potential outbreak of revolution in that country.
Regardless of whether the Syrian government weathers the storm or falters in the face of opposition, regional stability has been shattered. As we have seen in the recent past, Islamists and other totalitarians are quick to take advantage of chaos to, in the words of the Fabian Socialists, "remold the world closer to their heart's desire." Things are heating up quickly, and only time will tell exactly what the world will look like when it's all said and done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)