Completely OT: My new crossbow came in the mail today! YAAAY! All of a sudden, I feel protected...

Trademark of LLL response to criticism:

Smear the critic, ignore the factual points in the critique.

The United States cannot support driving all Palestinians from Israel.

The only real solution, in other words.

Is keeping news from the President that the NorKorComs admit having nuclear weapons serve the higher interests of the United States?

I suppose if you think the President is too stupid to handle the truth, it does.

Hey, I understand the world isn't as simple and black and white as Hollywood, but when people start refusing to face facts so the whole world stays happy and the UN doesn't think we're a cowboy nation, well.

I'll bet "ben" can't wait for a Howard Dean or Kucinich presidency. Maybe he'll become our first Secretary of Peace.

First: civics lesson.

Arrogance, right off the bat.

Sort of OT:

Palestinian voice : A Palestinian girl takes part in a demonstration against the latest US campaign against Palestinian Islamic groups in Gaza City. (AFP/Mohammed Abed)

AND

Gaza protest : Palestinians demonstrate against the latest US campaign against Palestinian Islamic groups in Gaza City. (AFP/Mohammed Abed)

Ben, this is tugging right at State's heartstrings, no?

The United States cannot support driving all Palestinians from Israel. The U.S. cannot accept a strategy of pure violence and coercion to "solve the Palestinian problem"

How about not asking Arafat for help in combatting terrorism.

This means nothing is black and white, there are no purely good guys and no purely bad guys, and awful compromises are sometimes necessary.

Wrong Ben. The Islamists have made it very clear what they desire and they will use any means to acheive it.

Purely Bad.

Get you head out of your ass and take look around. I've seen "both sides" of the issues as you request, and once there, someone without the deep cognitive powers of aState Dept employee, I figured out it was indeed black and white.

No wonder State is so F-d up. They believe the lies of the L³,

We armed Saddam Hussein, too. Of course we knew what a maniac and a murderer he was. But at the time, the Iranian Revolution was on the upswing, and we preferred to see it spend some of its energy in human-wave attacks into Iraq than on amphibious landings in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Then, again, we face those guns later.

During the Second World War, the world was forced to endure violence "on a scale that humanity ... would not condone," in part because of a cynical disinclination by diplomats to distinguish the good from the bad and to take unpopular radical measures in time.

We are likely to repeat that experience if we continue to make policy on the basis of factual errors, such as the President's recent statement that "Terrorists do not speak for the Palestinian people."

I'll bet "ben" can't wait for a Howard Dean or Kucinich presidency. Maybe he'll become our first Secretary of Peace.

The fact that Ben defended US policy in Afghanistan years ago makes me think he is not so left. Though IMPO, I would have preferred it if we would have left it alone. Too much trouble down the line for meddling. All the defending of the Saudis has only gotten us one good thing. So it is all about the money - and that makes the critics of the US right. (And crikey. The Soviets were a damn sight better than the Saudis.)

So all the wailing about US-Israeli policy will go nowhere. Those that have the oil won't stand for transfer or a host of other possibilities. Because it is all about the money.

Ben is not in the State Department -- he would know that the US did not "arm" Saddam to fight the Iranians. This notion is an Urban Legend.

The French and Soviets provided most of the Military Hardware -- tanks, small arms, artillery (SP and towed), etc -- check Jane's.

Ben is a fake.

It appears that LGF'ers, including myself, are bringing our critical thinking skills to the following paragraph:

The United States cannot support driving all Palestinians from Israel. The U.S. cannot accept a strategy of pure violence and coercion to "solve the Palestinian problem". An accord is necessary to create the stability necessary for economic growth in the region. "Ah! It's about money!" Hell, yes. Because until everyone in the region is participating in integrated economies, there's no hope for political evolution, progress, and peace. And therefore, it is necessary to continue to work with groups that everyone recognizes are awful.

First off, there are no Palestinians in Israel. There are Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, or Occupied Territories, if you prefer.

Now then, Ben's argument, on the whole pretty good, loses some luster in this statement. It is true that the US desires trading partners and economically viable nations. However, I would hardly think that is the strategic vision behind the Road Map at this time. The US certainly trades with Israel, and will not trade with Palestinians until they start making something that the US lacks, which will never happen.

Secondly, by appeasing and legitimizing terrorist organizations and by demanding that Israel negotiate with them, a precedent is created that encourages terrorism, thereby hindering future business prospects. Stability is the key word here, and terrorism attacks stability.

The "integrated economies" argument is also hard to swallow. The Saudis have had a flourishing oil business for much of the 20th century. They have all the money they need. But what did they do with it? Promote terrorism, anti-US and anti-Israel hatred. Osama was/is a rich boy. Hidden behind this angle of Ben's argument is the idea that terrorism comes from poverty. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Terrorism sprouts from hate ideology. That ideology must be dealt with firmly before peaceful democritization can occur.

GRS says Ben is a fake -- well, all I can tell you is that the IP he used did indeed trace to the State Department.

#8 reaganite: not to mention that the quote you cited 1) seems to really imply that we goaded Iran into attacking Iraq, and 2) seems awestruck by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' vast [snicker] amphibious warfare capability.

First: civics lesson.

Dont get me started on how many times i see the constitution abused by our governing body BEN.Supreme court doesnt make laws they are suppost to makes sure laws are constitutional.I know small example of unconstitutional behavior.Pffft!!!

The hear-hear readership of LGF is clearly in need of some critical thinking skills.

Dont insult us, when in fact we need a critical thinking state department.One that doesnt cower to jihadists and allows them to re-organize with the sole purpose to kill Americans and Israelis.BEN wheres the critical thinking now?

We armed Saddam Hussein, too... Then, again, we face those guns later. These are the consequences of events in a world that bears zero resemblance to the romantic fictions of Hollywood.

So tell me BEN wheres the critical thinking in your statement that i summarized.Wheres the critical thinking of the state department gone?I know you werent part of the mess,but our diplomatic history repeats itself too often, the record is getting old.

The State Department has the best long-term interests of the United States in mind at all times. It's moonbat conspiracy theory to think otherwise.

Well atleast we agree on something.

#5 SoCalJustice:

the latest US campaign against Palestinian Islamic groups

Those photos are just begging to be, ahem, touched up by that wascally PDM.

Regarding Ben's comment, perhaps if we did indeed live in a world in which folks like him and State were able to see things such as trapping little girls in a burning building rather than let them out onto the street with their heads uncovered (last year, in Saudi Arabia), state sanctioned and dessiminated anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism while at the same time receiving significant US aid (Egypt, etc.), and blowing up buses filled with children and civilians in more black and white terms, perhaps State wouldn't be so hamstrung in the region.

#2 Chicago Dan

Trademark of LLL response to criticism:

Smear the critic, ignore the factual points in the critique.

I noticed that, too, after reading the David Bedein piece and "Ben's" reply. Nowhere does Ben address any of the points David raises (what does Afghanistan or the Iran-Iraq war have to do with the hypocrisies Bedein was describing?).

Ben says:

The diplomats who serve the United States, who suffer for the United States, and who die in great numbers for the United States

I also hate it when Americans are killed. What I really hate even more are policies of appeasement that get Americans killed. Address Bedein's points. Stop recognizing the PLO, the PA, the PNC, and stop bowing to their demands, and there will be less Americans "immortalized" on State Dept. memorials.

Ben says:

We are in it to make a difference.

Diplomacy is "The Great Game", Ben. Americans don't need diplomats who are in it to "make a difference". We need diplomats who are in it to win it.

Ben says:

The United States cannot support driving all Palestinians from Israel. The U.S. cannot accept a strategy of pure violence and coercion to "solve the Palestinian problem". An accord is necessary to create the stability necessary for economic growth in the region.

Hey, Ben, what How about the Elon Peace Plan?

Or would that make the Sate Departments Saudi patrons to upset? After all, we can't upset the Saudis, now, can we?

Where does the nickname Foggy Bottom come from anyway? Sounds kinda like a gay bar. (not that there's anything wrong with that)

#14 OR

Iranian Revolutionary Guards' vast [snicker] amphibious warfare capability.

4 dhows, a dingy, and an innertube, yup, more than enough to take down Fraudi Arabia!

Ben;
It does not take a person's "critical thinking" skills to see COWARDICE and APPEASEMENT (as practiced by the State Dept) as something contrary to the intrests of The United States of America. Maybe if your department DID see things in issues of Black and White; solutions would and could be achieved. But then again that would not be good for "Diplomats". They would be out of jobs.

Meant to say:

the latest US campaign against Palestinian Islamic groups

What. The. Fuck. is that supposed to mean?

I think ben raised a great point. Anyone who impeded the administration's efforts would be gone in a second.

Think about that.

Ben is not in the State Department -- he would know that the US did not "arm" Saddam to fight the Iranians. This notion is an Urban Legend. The French and Soviets provided most of the Military Hardware -- tanks, small arms, artillery (SP and towed), etc -- check Jane's.

You are correct. The U.S. did not arm Saddam. I've seen the numbers and it's miniscule (1% - 3% of his armaments). But the Left has been spouting that lie for so long that now even our State Department guys believe it. Sad.

Though Ben is for real, and obviously intelligent, it speaks volumes about our State Department that he would mindlessly spout the same tire mantras you hear on the Left. Again, sad.

Ben,

OK. We'll all sit back, and counsel Israel to sit back, and take the body blows until the pals just plain get tired of murdering jews and realize there's a better way to a good economy.

Yeah, they're unsavoury characters, but we have to deal with them, cause the world will not condone war against them as easily as it condones the murder of jews, busload by busload.

It's thinking like that that makes people think you guys need to be out on your asses.

There is no other choice. None. War wouldn't do it, except on a scale that humanity, in 2003, would not condone.

If this is true State Department thinking, then we're screwed. The Islamic terrorists will whittle us down by one car (or truck or plane or train or bus) bomb at a time. The US will turn into one big prison where "national security" is a way of life and every one gets a strip search before they enter a plane or government building. But the terrorist will still strike us and slowly but surely the death toll from Islamic bombs will surpass the number of dead than the number of dead if we waged a real war against Islamic terrorists.

State Department needs to suck-it up like our fathers and uncles did during WWII and get down to some serious business of creating allies in our quest to find and destroy Islamic terrorism.

...slightly OT:
PA has frozen the bank accounts of Islamic charities. Is that for real? Hmmm, maybe some Palestineans are getting sick and tired of the Islamic terrorists and want to clean house. That would be good news for a change if that was true.

# 9 Douglas Bilodeau:

During the Second World War, the world was forced to endure violence . . . in part because of a cynical disinclination by diplomats to distinguish the good from the bad and to take unpopular radical measures in time.

Well said.

Sounds like our elected Congress now. The old saw comes through again: Either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. Charles' Churchillian quote is also apropos: “You have enemies ? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.”

State is beginning to stand for the UN, which in tautological terms means: State = UN = A Big Fat NOTHING.

Charles

GRS says Ben is a fake -- well, all I can tell you is that the IP he used did indeed trace to the State Department.

Then it seems to me that State is in worse shape than we ever imagined.

I know the State Dept. is Civil Service, but isn't it loaded up with Clinton appointees?

Now I remember why I switched from getting a degree in International Political Economy (so I could hopefully someday work at State) and instead got my MBA (so I can work with rational people).

What horrifies me is that 'Ben' really does believe what he wrote - and he is *our* representative. I need to take a shower to wash off the icky feeling that thought gives me.

Great post Yair.

Anyone have a link to the information concerning the numbers of who armed Iraq and to what capacity?

Or

Mabe your best guess?

#3 Q,

""The United States cannot support driving all Palestinians from Israel.""

The only real solution, in other words.

Actually, this is a classic strawman argument. Since this "solution" is advocated by almost no one, not even the Israelis, Ben sure looks pretty pontifical in proclaim the US cannot support it. What crap. Ben, you need some honing up on your reasoning skills. The only people advocating a solution like that is the Arabs, who want to drive all Israelis from Israel.

Now that's a solution our State Department probably could get behind.

Our used to believe our State Department represented US interests. I don't anymore.

I'm inclined to believe that, much like the State Department as a whole, Ben can't really see the forest for the trees in terms of U.S. interests, despite even the best of intentions. Think about it: just about everyone in the State Department is, essentially, a diplomat. The bulk of the people they deal with on a day-in-day-out basis are diplomats. From that perspective, its entirely understandable that they might conclude that the interests of the United States are the diplomatic interests of the United States. That which improves the U.S. diplomatic position is good and that which hurts it is bad. Hence, for State, the worst error a leader can make is to be undiplomatic. For the rest of us though, the diplomatic position of the U.S. is only a small portion of our national interests. The question, basically, is whether diplomacy is to be viewed as a means or an end.

#19 reaganite

you forgot about the flotsam fleet...

The United States cannot support driving all Palestinians from Israel. The U.S. cannot accept a strategy of pure violence and coercion to "solve the Palestinian problem".

I don't think it's fair to dismiss Pure Violence Strategy (PVS) without giving it a try, but never mind that ...

Driving all Palestinians from Israel is whose policy? I hope the State Department doesn't think it's the policy of Israel (a couple of phone calls would clear that up). But why should the State Department carry any water for the Palestinians, especially given the "realistic" approach to foreign policy that Ben describes?

The Palestinians represent no US interest whatsoever. On the contrary, they are relentlessly hostile to the United States and they openly support our enemies. And they are not friendly to Israel, either, and Israel is our primary ally in that region of the world. And the kicker is: there is no guarantee that fulfilling the wishes of Palestinian leaders will make the lives of the Pals any better, and would just as likely make them even more miserable. So why should a foreign policy realist waste a single memo to help out the oxymoronic Palestinian Authority?

A true realist, I think, would take the same line towards Israel that the ISM takes towards Hamas terrorists: We support the right of Israelis to defend themselves by any means necessary. While we prefer peaceful means, we will not dictate the means they must use.

This would signal the Pals that they cannot count on us to make Israel conform to their wishes, and might encourage them to abandon "pure violence and coercion" --- which is Hamas's strategy, not Israel's.

As several readers have pointed out, Ben's repetition of the "the US armed Saddam" urban legend pretty much torpedoes his credibility.

I pointed out to a peacenik that Carter armed the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in July 1979, five months before the Russia actually invaded...And that Carter did encourage Saddam in 1980--a over six months before the Carter-Reagan election.

He blocked his ears and started repeating "Rumsfeld" over and over. Rumsfeld armed them and was evil.

Truth hurts, it seems... I'm not sure why Mr. Peanut is such a role model, though... *hrumph*

My father works for State and there's nothing from Ben's post that makes it unlikely that he works there.

Yair #12 - Great post.

Ben also seems to forget one thing in his palestinian advocacy. While talking about how diplomacy is a shitty business wherein we support the lesser of two evils, he fails to discuss how supporting Israel (as opposed to the palestinians) would not be, at a minimum, supporting the lesser of two evils.

Incidentally, like most neo-conservatives, I reject on its face the contention that we have to accept the lesser of two evils in most instances.

I also would like Ben's opinion on the State Department's Saudi-sponsored retirement plan.

# 18 nyc

Fog·gy Bot·tom

noun

U.S. Department of State: the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C. ( informal )

[Mid-20th century. Originally referring to the Potomac River in Washington, D.C., which often produces local fog, the name later becoming a humorous pun on the government’s policies.]

Hey someone please help me here, i wana know the info on the arming saddam.:)

I wana see it for myself. PLEASE!!!..:P

Is this "Ben" person for real? He implies that David Bedein's article is not worth reading because the article provides no alternative solutions to what State is doing? How about "stop doing what you are doing" for a solution?

How about addressing some of the points that Bedein brought up: Insisting upon the release of dangerous prisoners. Agreeing that Yesha should be free of Jews. Support of PLO policies of incitment, training security forces with a history of terrorist activity, and monetary assistance to the PLO especially given its non-compliance with "the Roadmap". And the rest of our State Department's unsavory practices.

BTW, David Bedein grew up in my old neighborhood in Philadelphia. He went to school with one of my cousins. (I can't remember if he was the nerd with the geeky shoes or the geek with the nerdy shoes - just kidding, David! ;-) I assume that he, like many Israelis, kept his American citizenship. And I think that he and I, as American citizens, are entitled to question State Department policies that are clearly contrary to American interests.

Yo, "Ben"! You work for ME. I pay your salary. You need to explain why stabbing Israel in the back (as well as coddling the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia) serves the best interests of the people of The United States of America.

Glen Wishard,

From the State Dept POV, the pals are important, as the Saudis need the pals appeased in order to get the Islamic fundamentalists off theri back to some degree.

It's all about the oil. And Bush/Baker family buddies.

They really should turn off the computers there at Foggy Bottom, the cleaning staff are apparently abusing the internet.

The egotistical flag waving, condescending attitude and language use is typical of a pup. I'm not impressed.

People, this policy of transfer, trying to drive all the Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is a bunch of bullshit. It won't work and it isn't feasible. It will only provoke another region-wide war against Israel if attempted, a war that they don't want and a war that they would be alone on considering the reason the Arab world would start it. It would also cause Israel to lose its moral high ground which it currently stands on.

Now, on the other hand, a policy of violence against the terrorists and their state supporters IS feasible, and is absolutely the best option that we have right now. An Israeli campaign to knock out all the terrorists and dismantle the Arafat government is the ideal method in solving the problem, and a campaign of US pressure on Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia as well as the vile French to stop supporting the Palestinian terrorists is also what we should do. The US should launch a massive campaign to put as much pressure on the surrounding states as possible to cut off all Hamas, IJ, etc. funds before we release the hounds. If we start a big campaign to wipe out the terrorists before we get rid of their funding it will be impossible to convince anybody to stop funding them during the actual fighting.

Essentially what I want is a big US campaign to freeze all the money that goes into Hamas' coffers, then we totally back off Israel and let them dismantle the weakened orgs piece by piece.

#18 nyc 8/28/2003 09:32AM PST

Where does the nickname Foggy Bottom come from anyway? Sounds kinda like a gay bar. (not that there's anything wrong with that)

there's a neighborhood in D.C. called Foggy Bottom. Presumably the State Department offices are there?

Who ever Ben is, he is certainly an apologist.

Do I hear panic in the background? Is the state department having uneasy feelings?

I think if blogs like Charles' keep on posting the important information we've been reading it's going to have an effect.
We could all feel better if there was an overall housecleaning at the state department. They need to be reminded just who in the hell they really are. They are working for us, as their salaries come right out of our taxdollars.

I'd have liked for 'Ben' to explain how, exactly, Visa Express was supposed to be in our interest. And it was a program set up and defended to the point of being ridiculous by the State Department.

Ben, Ben, Ben.

Realize that there is a point at which pressure will cause anything to blow. Do you really want to pressure Israel to the point that they think they're Samson in the Philistine temple, blinded, bound and about to be killed? The consequences would be exactly the opposite of the stability you so crave.

Be careful. There's only so many knocks to the chin that Israel can be compelled to take. The exact opposite of your keep-Israel-under-thumb might result and how will you clean up the mess then?

Re: dead American diplomats. One of them was your own Cleo Noel, murdered by Yasser Arafat. It is your employer's own appeasement policies that encourage the murder of your department's employees.

It's fallacious to assume, like the jihadis do, that without them the USSR would still be standing tall and proud. They collapsed under their own weight and no one factor was the cause of it, and no one thing would have prevented it. In other words, it would have happened anyway.

So according to Ben turning a blind eye to Egypt's abetting the smuggling of illegal arms (according to what was signed by Rabin and Arafat) by way of tunnels from Egypt, into Gaza
is in the interests of an accord?
And this was an ally Foggy Bottom chose for the Administration's fight against terror!

BTW, the "shitty little neighborhood" reference is disturbing. Remind you of anything?

LGFNOOB,

Do a google on Stockholm and Iraq weapons. There is a Swedish organization website that has the list of who armed Iraq. A search on Instapundit will find it too.

As for what we do, well, Diplomacy is a shitty business at its core. We take unpalatable options in ugly environments with emotional and violent people and try to manage them in the best national interests of the United States. This means nothing is black and white, there are no purely good guys and no purely bad guys, and awful compromises are sometimes necessary. I hear the shrieks of protest already. Think about it.

Understood. It's often necessary to choose the "wrong that's more right". Unfortunately all too often the State Department endorses the "wrong that's more wrong" simply to placate certain actors within the international community. Heaven forbid Saudi Arabians applying for visas be inconvenienced to by "humiliating" and "intrusive" background checks and interviews to ensure that they do not pose a threat to national security. Heaven forbid the State Department should get involved in cases where American women and children, American citizens, are held against their will in foreign countries, namely Saudi Arabia. I'm curious as to how pandering to a country visibly, if not openly, hostile to American interests in the ME and throughout the world serves American interests. But your right, I guess I'm just too stupid to understand the "complexities" of diplomacy.

O/T:

Please read this article. Comments appreciated.

[Link: www.lrb.co.uk...]

No, it's not anti-semitic
Judith Butler defends the right to criticise Israel

Charles perhaps you can post this an another thread.

The hear-hear readership of LGF is clearly in need of some critical thinking skills.

Don't patronize us Ben. We're at least as smart as you are, and apparently more informed.

We armed Saddam, huh?

LOL

So? So what? What's your point?

Ariel:

While talking about how diplomacy is a shitty business wherein we support the lesser of two evils, he fails to discuss how supporting Israel (as opposed to the palestinians) would not be, at a minimum, supporting the lesser of two evils.

This is exactly the point. Realpolitik demands unflinching support of Israel, even more than "neocon moral crusading" does. Yes, it angers the Saudis. That only makes it better, because Realpolitik is partly about telling people: "You need us more than we need you, so why don't you STFU and STFD?"

Unless you suscribe to the Bizarro World foreign policy favored by fly-weight liberal intellectuals (see CLINTON, ADMINISTRATION OF) in which you deliberately favor whatever evil does the most harm to the United States, in hopes of making the entire world fall in love with your goofy bleeding heart.

After which everybody drops their weapons, and we all hold each other and have a good cry.

Thanx snopes...:)

And remember people, Ben isn't our enemy. I highly doubt he is somebody with any sort of authority in the State Dept. It is most likely he is a mid or low-level pencil pusher considering that he is on the net and reading through blogs, and also very likely that he is young, under 40 I'm assuming, considering the way he writes.

What we need to do is talk with Ben and inform him of the situation and why we need to change what we are doing. We need to engage in a little diplomacy of our own, not go into petty personal attacks. We need to engage in the battleground of ideas and facts. This site is very informative in and of itself and if you visit it frequently then chances are you are better able to form an opinion of the Islamist movements. We need to save our bile for our real opponents, the Islamist sympathizers. I don't think Ben is one of those people. He is just misguided and uninformed of a lot of the historical backround and motives of Yasser, the Palestinians, and their backers.

Anybody notice Ben's argument that State wasn't Arabist was throwing out some Jewish surnamed people like Abrams and Grossman that work there?

I suppose this means the ISM supports Israel because one of its founders was Adam Shapiro.

#39 LGFNOOB: Here are two links on where Saddam got his weapons.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Who Armed Saddam

The idea that realpolitik requires the U.S. to hold Israel's at arm's length is the same idea that realpolitik requires France to hold the U.S. at arm's length. Yet France's realpolitik was obviously infuriating to the president (who State works for, as Ben reminds us). But why should this have infuriated the president if we're fully prepared to have a policy of being treating our allies no better than France treats her allies (us)?

Also, if the reason why we must tiptoe through the tulips around Arab sensibilities is because they're so damned volatile, what if Israel became less pliable, more volatile, and more hostile ala the Arabs? Would realpolitik then require that we kiss Israel's ass?

What a strange world the State Department thinks it lives in.

John K-But then again that would not be good for "Diplomats". They would be out of jobs.

EXACTLY!

Because there is no diplomatic solution to the palestinian issue.
And there definitely isnt an economic solution as he seemed to be saying.

Yeah, lets just give the taliban more economic opportunities and then there will be political change. /sarcasm

(no they will just buy more weapons and recruit more 'martyrs' and their people will suffer more and more and hate us more and more because their corrupt leaders tell them to, and if ya dont believe them ya die!)

Too bad Muhammed didnt come along under the Clinton presidency, and live in Waco TX.

#57 Allah-Puncher

Good point. Let's not miss an opportunity here.

#30...
www.fas.org

#5 SoCal - actually, I liked the pictures of Elvis that the Pals had better than these. It was proof that these people have no clue what they're saying. And I like Elvis.

#49 Shlomo - isn't that the official French Government policy describing Israel?

Ben,
I'd like to have a perfect job but sometimes we do favors for customers that we don't like and sometimes we take abuse from suppliers that treat us badly. Sometimes we can't help customers we truely care for and maybe sometimes we bend rules and don't always tell the whole truth for a paycheck.

True...to err is human. But in foreign affairs, in this violent world, rather than face monitary punishment and loss of income, as in our day to day business, you must consider violent death, maiming, and untold mental suffering so your (our) State Department has a different standard.

That's why I have an issue with:

"the moral landscape is, simply put, a swamp. There's nothing we can do about this -- nothing."

If you've never heard someone give one of those 'You CAN make a difference.' inspirational talks, listen and take it to heart now. Do something big for your lizardoid brothers and sisters. Create - argue FOR a moral landscape. Do all that you can.

This "loser's" response is emblematic of the kind of perverse thinking which blights the DOS. In fact, it reminds me of a more appropriate acronym, namely STD. That's because these kinds of magical thinking remind me of someone racked with tertiary syphillis.

If "Ben" (are you really a 13 y.o. hacker?) can't distinguish between Jihad Johnny and the Israelis, me thinks the Syphillis has caused blindness too!

Clearly, Ben has very little understanding of the cultural norms or historical imperatives in the Middle East. It is precisely this policy of "appeasement" which has emboldened and fostered our enemies. Had the U.S. adopted a foreign policy which promoted our values, ethics, and enforced our laws, the world would be a very different place today.

We gave the mujihaddin SAMs to use on the Soviet HIND helicopters, and they helped bring down the USSR. We had to face the same fighters we trained 20 years later in our own Afghan war. Would you rather have had the USSR?

Well, sorry, did I miss the great MTV poll on that one? what gives you the right to think that the rest of the world has your same tastes? no really, the nerve. These arrogant, imperialist Americans... Of bloody course we would have rather had the secular, rational, reliable Soviet comrades instead of a bunch of crazy religious terrorists. Do you even have to ask? jeez.

/channelling Julie Burchill

These are the consequences of events in a world that bears zero resemblance to the romantic fictions of Hollywood.

*sniffs*

...but... but... I thought... that George Clooney had liberated Iraq and uncovered Saddam's treasure, you're not telling me it's not true?

*sigh*

Maybe you guys at State and the guys at Hollywood could, like, perhaps, trade jobs? Maybe they could bring more creative problem-solving to diplomacy than the usual deal-with-one-enemy-at-the-time, which is, honestly, so boringly Cold War, and you could bring some desperately needed down-to-earth cynical realism to movies.

Ok, well, it was just a suggestion.

- Seriously, senor Ben: apart from your inexcusable defense of that very bad mistake in not letting the Soviets take Afghanistan and live happily ever after, that was very interesting and entertainingly put. But I don't believe you really work for the US State Department. If you did, it'd be tragic. Spending time on the internet browsing discussion forums instead of working for El Presidente, tsk tsk... that's not really too patriotic is it?

They really should turn off the computers there at Foggy Bottom, the cleaning staff are apparently abusing the internet.

I was just thinking that "Ben" probably works for GSA or somesuch entity. Obviously he is a non-player, wannabe if he is using State's computers to feck around reading LGF, as he has nothing better to do.

Interns go back to GWU this week anyways, so perhaps that's the last we'll see of "Ben".

And what's all this about "diplomats" "dying" for the US? Diplomats are always the first ones out of any conflict zone, putz, and are usually responsible for mucking up a situation so badly that those who DO fight and die DO fight and die (see: North Korea, the very near future...thanks: Jimmy the Dhimmi and Bill Clinton).

#47 James: The USSR didn't look likely to collapse absent US opposition. They could have devoured Europe, and from there conceivably the world. What happened next would be interesting, but it would have been game over for everyone in the shorter term, barring our fighting the Cold War.
---
Actually, I'll stick up for the the main thrust of Ben's post, though there's a lot that could be picked apart. Right now, from State's perspective, there's no nation that's likely to be taken over militarily. WWII isn't a fair analogy, because there are no formidable conventional foes who are extending their sovereignty. So he's definitely right about the lack of the same level of support. And perhaps he's speaking from a more comfortable position that he knows if the state-backed jihadis take things just a few more nudges too far, we will be acting on a larger scale, with increased backing by the people of the West.

As far as the "expelled from Israel" bit, maybe he sees the Jordyptians as living in what ought to be Israel. Just a thought. Now of course there plenty of notions he puts forth that I disagree with, though it's hard at times to offer concrete proof. And while his tone was fairly smug, he seemed fairly approachable. I think I had a mild disagreement with this guy in another thread within the past week.

But Ben and State are behind the times, and expose themselves as well as us to risk by failing to update their views of the rubes back home. I'm not exactly getting my information once a week from newsreels in the theater before the Flash Gordon serial. And even the poor in America are moving beyond 24/7 news(!) and get it on demand, from the source(s) they want, with research of data from all around the globe just at the tip of their clickety-clicking fingertips. With forums available to test and temper the ideas the information generates.

So Ben, you and yours are going to have to do better than drawling "Don't you worry your purty little head over it darlin'." On the scale of State, surely 5, 20, 100, hell 1,000 deaths isn't worth pissing everything away. But when you know who the murderers are, and where, and we know as well, and you know that we know you know we know you know, you're going to have to do a better job of selling this at home. Got a good reason Hamas should be allowed to breathe? The Saudi Royals? The nuke-happy mullahs? I'm all ears. If you guys can't say, well, you've weighed the options and made your choices. Just don't act suprised when the politics at home gets ugly, and threatens to undermine your lofty goals, just because you thought you could do any of this without us.

And never forget, the defeat of a nation by infiltration, sabotage and propaganda is just as real as one conquered by a conventional army. We see more than just the lines on the map in motion.

And never forget, the defeat of a nation by infiltration, sabotage and propaganda is just as real as one conquered by a conventional army. We see more than just the lines on the map in motion.

Hear, hear.

;)

Model4 #68

That was both elegant and eloquent. (Wish I'da said that.)

And yes, economic integration is a good for keeping the peace. Problem is, you have to get to peace first. And establish the rule of law and security. Bombing the jihadis with WalMarts and loan applications right now will only help out when they actually land on the terrorists.

There are more than a few ironies in Ben's word -- but none that he would notice.

For one thing -- when he says that the United States would never tolerate the transfer of the Arabs, he is apparently ignorant of the fact that "transfer"
WAS ESPOUSED AS A PLAN BY PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT. (Quoted in *Israel in the Mind of America* by Peter Grose.)

And a when Ben refers to the "Palestinians in Israel" he is inadvertently recognizing Judea and Samaria as part of Israel.

And -- the US will not tolerate a humanitarian catastrophe? It tolerated the Holocaust with no problem at all.

In the early 1940s, the British Foreign Office wrote to the US State Department that "nothing should be done to help Jews to escape because nobody wants them." The answer frm the State Department was "You shouldn't put that in writing."

No. no, world be warned -- nothing unhumanitarian will be tolerated down there by the Foggy Bottom-feeders.

As some of you know, I am considering an offer on the table to join the State Department right now. Full disclosure...

I think many of the posters here have missed Ben's basic point. His point is that contrary to the overblown charges made by Newt Gingrich and the author of the column in question, it is not the case that State is advocating polices to "sabotage" the Bush Administration. State *is* the Bush Administration. If State was actively opposing the President, the President would win and heads would roll. Anyone who thinks otherwise should check out what just happened to the Ambassador who undercut Asst. Sec. Bolton's comments on the North Korea issue.

That said, this doesn't mean that State's current policies are *correct*, merely that they are not disloyal or undercutting the President. If you have a problem with Powell or State, you have a problem with the President. Period.

Also, keep in mind what State's portfolio is: it is diplomacy. *OF COURSE* State is in favor of trying to solve the problems through inter-action and diplomacy.
IF A PROBLEM THAT IS NOT SOLVABLE BY DIPLOMACY IS PERSUED BY ONLY DIPLOMATIC MEANS THROUGH THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THEN THE FAILURE TO CHOOSE THE RIGHT TOOL TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM IS THE FAILURE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Diplomacy is only one tool in the US arsenal. The decision to use that particular tool (i.e. the State Department) in the Isreali-Pali conflict is a decision of the chief executive. Again, if you have a problem with this, your gripe is with the President.

Now, within that scope, the issue is within the diplomatic realm, is the State Dept. doing a good job? I think the self-evident answer to that is "no". Many of the problems stem from a blindness of their role in thinking themselves the answer and not a tool to get to the answer. But, if you think men like Elliot Abrams and Paul Bremer are moral relativists, you're wrong.

The FACT is that the world doesnt' see the Isreali-Pali conflict the way we do. State has to deal with that reality, and must do diplomacy of the possible. This is what Ben meant by having to make lousy compromises and having to do business with idiots. We have to take the world as it is and work from there and not just say, "our way or the highway" unless you're willing to take on the role of American Empire, which most Americans are not willing to do.

State can and must do better. But let's keep in mind who they are and what their role is. And, for gosh's sake, let's not excuse the President from his responsibility. Yes, the PLO law is official US policy as set by Congress, but guess who signs the waivers each year waiving the enforcement?

A note of dissent --

I doubt that "Ben" is on the cleaning staff.

Cleaners actually DO useful things.

It's policymakers who are the dopey drones.

I found a little something by clear thinking Ben Stein (as opposed to our friend Foggy Ben) that might explain the muddled mindset at State, based on something his mother told him 30 years ago:

This, she said -- I am paraphrasing -- explains why government people and professors are so angry and resentful toward the society at large. Frightened people are angry people. And, she added smartly, envious people are weak, frightened people.

Now, at the time, I was a bit angry at her because of course I, her son, was a government lawyer. But I soon left that vale of tears and went out into the big wide world, where I still am. And it is true. People out here in the big wide world are a lot less angry and less jealous than people in government or the academy.

This, in a nutshell, I think, explains a lot about why professors and their students are so militantly left-wing and anti-American. They are sheltering in the academy from the chanciness and difficulty of the big wide world. They fear that world. And so they express their anger at it, the way frightened people often do.

[Link: www.spectator.org...]

Yesterday there was a post "May the Cannibals be be Cursed" on LFG.
It was from MEMRI and they translate an article from Al-Akhbar, the official Egyptian Govt. paper, They attack Us forces as cannibals.
My question for Ben : "Is this what you accept from your allies in the fight against terror?"

Seriously though, who at the state department had the bright idea to come up with the Road Map? Maybe it wasn't the State Dept at all, but whoever came up with it obviously has an incredibly short memory if they thought that the end result would be anything other than a Palestinian breach of the basic terms and a world-wide condemnation of Israel for trying to accomodate it and failing because they didn't concede enough.

Because until everyone in the region is participating in integrated economies, there's no hope for political evolution, progress, and peace. And therefore, it is necessary to continue to work with groups that everyone recognizes are awful...This means nothing is black and white, there are no purely good guys (except for Abu Mazen) and no purely bad guys (except for Ariel Sharon), and awful compromises are sometimes necessary - including making sure that Saudi kidnappers of American children go unpunished, that Israel is restrained from defeating its enemies, and that employees like myself are guaranteed unfettered access to Bandar-State cocktail parties and Saudi Largess.

See, I have some down time today (I just finished writing the latest "Israel must show restraint" speech for Colin - you'll hear it tonight on CNN), and since it's virtually impossible for me to lose my cushy government job and your tax dollars will keep coming, regardless, I've decided to come to this website and type some clichéd, meaningless lines from the character of "Useless Bureaucrat" in the Foggy Bottom script. Notice I haven't addressed a single thing of concern to LGFers, other than making it clear that Israel doesn't have the right to do what any democratic nation in its position would do: win the war being waged against it. (See, the world wouldn’t approve. And world approval has ALWAYS been a reflection of justice, especially when it comes to those damned Jews).

Thanks, Cliché Ben. Good to know there are enlightened minds -with empirical insights into geopolitics - like yours, running things. I’m certain you work for State. That celebrated brand of morally relativistic, uncommitted, disingenuous – B.S. – cum – round table spin – could only be spoken with aplomb by a Foggy Bottom flack like yourself.

You’re obviously on your way up. Who knows, maybe you’re Colin himself.

Tell me, do you moonlight as an NPR or New York Times writer when you’re not surfing the Internet from your comfortable, Saudi-Funded, $60 chair?

An I have another question: the whole, “no-good no-bad guy” thing, was that line being used when your heroic, selfless diplomats closed the doors to Jewish immigration during WWII, then opposed the creation of the state of Israel? Since you're an insider, I figure you can enlighten us to the mysterious, patriotic ways of your beloved branch of government, and it's proud strain of anti-Jewish policy that's been a mainstay throughout the decades.

Thanks again, Cliché Ben.

Aren't there a lot of leftover Klintonistas in State?

Cuz, that would really go a long way toward explaining Ben's amazing ability to skirt the issues, re-write history, and demonstrate his amazing powers of moral equivolence.

#52 so?:

So here's where here real agenda comes out:

I signed a petition framed in these terms, an 'Open Letter from American Jews', in which 3700 American Jews opposed the Israeli occupation, though in my view it was not nearly strong enough: it did not call for the end of Zionism...

OK. One more time. Pay attention. Anti-Zionism IS anti-Semitism. ANYONE who calls for the end of the movement for Jews to possess, inhabit and RUN AS THEY SEE FIT their own homeland is an anti-Semite on her face.

I don't care if she lays tefillin and goes to the mikveh every 5 minutes. She's a shonda far die goyim and a real Hitler success story.

Go out right now, so?, and buy Alan Dershowitz' new book, The Case For Israel. There's no better explanation out there of how disgusting and insidious this so-called "legitimate criticism" of Israel really is.

And yes, economic integration is a good for keeping the peace. Problem is, you have to get to peace first. And establish the rule of law and security. Bombing the jihadis with WalMarts and loan applications right now will only help out when they actually land on the terrorists.

In a world of rational actors these inducements work fine but in the swampy world of ME they don't seem to work at all. Case in point: The Palestinian Authority

Three years ago, before the current campaign of violence, the Palestinian economy showed great promise, in part due to trade with and Palestinians working in Israel. Now 50 percent of Palestinians live below the poverty line -- doubled since 2000 -- with unemployment tripled to 30 percent. Gross national income fell by at least $2.5 billion, effectively bankrupting the government. A Palestinian economist with the International Monetary Fund, commenting on the Palestinian economy's freefall since October 2000, pronounced it "catastrophic." Despite the Palestinian economy, 63 percent of Palestinians say the suicide bombings should continue, and a staggering 80 percent support the intifada.

The article was written in Janauary of this year but the principle remains intact; irrational actor can't be counted on to act rationally.
Jewish World Review

C'mon dave, do you honestly think that ben is taking kick-backs from the Sauds? The fact that he's young enough and bored enough to come to our blog and write responses to us tells me he is nobody of particular importance there.

And really, is it at all fair to blame him for our anti-Jewish policies? Seriously, do you think he's been working at the state department for more than a few years?

I'm not trying to be an apologist for everything Ben says, but let's at least be fair with him.

#5 SoCal

Photo #1 caption reads:
"We are not terrorists."

Better:
"We are not terrorists.
We just play them on TV."

Photo#2 caption reads:

"Let us live with dignity."

Better:

"Let us drive the Jews into the sea so we can live with dignity"

yeah, its all got to do with saudi arabia.

There is major power outage in London.
They say 'major grid failure'

#73 KevinV

Point taken re: State working for the president.

However that's the just the theoretical way it works. The fact is that State Department personell aren't changed with every presidential election. The State Department is a train that keeps on running and only the head is changed by the president. (And let's not assume that Colin's positions are reflective of the presidents; Colin is pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, was pro-caution in dealing with Iraq etc. -- yes, it was Bush's choice to try to reap policial capitol from appointing a popular black Republican, but that in no way means that if Colin says it Bush thinks it.)

Within the State Department are attitudes and ways of looking at the world that reflects the Department's worldview, not necessarily the presidents. So when Joe got his new job at State in 1950 he was taken under wing and instructed by John who'd been at State since 1936. In 1972 Joe was the old guy who showed Mike, the new guy, the ropes. In 1989 Mike was instructing Bill who will be showing the ropes to Kevin in 2003. There are institutionalised attitudes that don't change every four or eight years. To believe otherwise is silly.

True, the president has the authority to toss anyone out on their head and I suppose that's just what a president would do to anyone he deems as a serious underminer of his views (its arguable that Colin's unique position makes him virtually immune to presidential displeasure; the cost of forcing him to resign should it come to that would be high). The buck always does stop at the president's desk. However, as David Frum suggests, a president has a variety of advice to choose from and it often conflicts and it oftens sounds perfectly plausible either way. I don't believe for one minute that your average president comes pre-equipped with the knowledge to make good decisions or even to pick good advice about the middle east or, say, Liberia for that matter. In this way State does influence the president.

KevinV:

Also, keep in mind what State's portfolio is: it is diplomacy.

Yes, but keep in mind what Clauswitz wrote:

Blowing a massive horde of raucous assholes straight to Kingdom Come with a B-52 Arclight strike is merely a continuation of diplomacy by other means.

Or something like that. Anybody who's feeling pedantic today can go look up the exact words.

To all of the various comments deriding Ben for participating on this forum (calling him low-level, etc):

Think about it. You participate here. Does that mean you're dumb or low-level?!?

Ben could well work at the State Department and he might not even be all that junior - there's really no way of knowing. Like I said, my father works at State and he could have said the sorts of things Ben said very easily.

#82 Allah-Puncher

The fact that he's young enough and bored enough to come to our blog and write responses to us tells me he is nobody of particular importance there.

While you're probably right that he's not exactly a big shot at State, I don't think posting on a blog is ipso facto proof of unimportance. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if people you deem of sufficient importance also catch the bug to discuss issues of importance to them on the internet. There's no evidence that importance = unable to enjoy one of the enjoyable things about the internet. I only assume that such people don't generally sign their posts, say, Colin Powell*. But don't assume that everyone who has something public to say about such matter is a bored yutz.

*No I don't mean him literally; he or someone of his level would have to be pretty dumb to post on matters related to his job on the internet. But that doesn't preclude people who are are not high level cabinet secretaries.

# 85 James -

Point taken about institutional cultures, attitudes, the bureaucratic weight and influence of State, etc. I realize all those things are true. But what the author and Gingrich are saying is that State is disobeying the President and undermining him. There is no way GWB would put up with that, unless I misjudge him by a long shot.

My basic point is that the decision to use the "road map" approach is not one that could have been made by Colin Powell and/or the State Dept by itself. It was a Presidential decision. Anyone who has a serious problem with the "road map" has a problem with GWB and should vote accordingly.

James, I'm saying that he's probably a low-level guy because he's on the internet, which would mean he's probably much younger than most of the people in the state dept, and would also indicate that he's relatively new there, all pointing towards him being a lower-level guy. I'm not saying its concrete proof, I'm just saying its a probability that is greater than 50%. And I'm assuming that he is bored because he doesn't seem to be an LGFer, what it seems is that he just stumbled upon our site, read some of the stuff about his particular employer, and decided to respond. Judging by the content of his post and the fact that he attempts to defend the State Dept's current methods I'm assuming he probably does not frequent this site regularly.

I know for a fact that some very important columnists and other people that would be considered important in their various fields of work do visit this site and comment on the boards, but I doubt that Ben is one of them.

Re: Our Ben at State ~ One of the popular LLL delusions that passes for thinking in his mind seems to be the idea that the Mujahedin drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan. ~ The Soviets, after suffering heavy losses with large force of poorly trained draftees, sent special forces type troops against the Afghams began to basically "ethnically cleanse" that land. ~ It is commonly held that 2/3rds of the pre-war population of Afghanistan was either killed or driven out. ~ the soviets only w/drew as part of the calculus of having better relations w/ the West. ~ If Gorby hadn't thought winning concessions from Reagan was more important then pacifying Afghanistan then the Afghans would be as forgotten as the Crimean Tartars are today.

rayra, how could we possibly have encouraged Iran's involvement in the war? They didn't even want to be in the war. Saddam engaged them in a series of fake negotiations and then used that pretext to launch an unprovoked attack on them in order to take their oil fields and establish himself as a regional superpower, as well as to stem the rising tide of shiite fundamentalism. The Iranians were the last people that wanted that war.

The United States cannot support driving all Palestinians from Israel.

Which is the same unresloved policy the British Mandate concluded 120 years ago. I highly recommend Alan Dershowitz's new book The Case for Israel. Sheds a lot of light on what has been going on since the 1800's and clearifies the complexities in an organized and higly interesting fashion.

Matters were made worse when Secretary of State Colin Powell decided to turn the vast majority of the policy-making positions in his department over to Foreign Service officers and civil servants who were recruited and/or promoted to senior posts during the Clinton Administration. Not surprisingly, Foggy Bottom has been a hotbed of covert and occassionally overt opposition to much of President Bush's foreign and defense policy agenda.

This is from an August 11, 2003 article which is essential reading for this ongoing discussion.

I have quoted for you just the seventh paragraph of twelve from Divided Loyalties by Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy. Read the whole article.

There is major power outage in London.

...But it's not terrorism. Don't have an inkling as to what might have caused it, but we can categorically rule out terrorism!

OT:

Arab News Astronomy (warning: time sensitive link).

IHSoter, well who else drove the Mujahadeen out of Afghanistan? From all I've read it was similiar to our experiences in Vietnam, except the Russians were more bloodthirsty and genocidal than us and engaged in a systematic depopulation program. I do think that the US aid and training to the mujahadeen greatly aided their efforts to drive off the Soviets. It was also no good to them by the time we arrived, since we used totally different tactics than the Russians and all the weapons we'd given them from that time period were either nonfunctioning or irrelevant.

Err, who else drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, it should read. I gather you people figured that out by the context of my writing though.

PA has frozen the bank accounts of Islamic charities. Is that for real? Hmmm, maybe some Palestineans are getting sick and tired of the Islamic terrorists and want to clean house. That would be good news for a change if that was true.

Of course it is true. Not only were the accounts frozen but the PA took the money and started new accounts in different banks. So only the "good" parts of the charities can spend the money.

Now that that is out of the way I have a rather large bridge for sale. And if you aren't interested in bridges how would you like to make a fat comission helping me transfer some money?

"We will have to make deals and we will have to maximize our ability to work with everyone in a shitty little neighborhood that, alas, has massive geostrategic importance to us."
Ben

"During a conversation about the Middle East crisis with the owner of the Daily Telegraph newspaper, Conrad Black, ambassador Daniel Bernard is reported to have spoken about "that shitty little country Israel". "
From BBC

Hmmm

The President is, in theory, the head of the Federal Bureaucracy (sp?). But you're dealing with a civil service system. No one will directly oppose the President, that COULD get them fired, but - trust me - there are many, many ways to passively resist. We have a cartoon hanging in our office. It shows a trim young fencer ready to reform the Fed. The next panel shows him overwhelmed by a monsterous Philsbury Doughboy. Moving The Bureaucracy is like trying to push a rope. Especially if the top level Civil Servants aren't with you. One example is State's unconsciousable action of withholding from the President the knowledge that N Korea had nuclear weapons.

Perhaps, if Bush weren't dealing with the after effects of WTC, the Enron and Worldcom collapses, the recession, two overt wars and an covert war, he might have the time to curb the Foggy Bottoms, but folks, there's a lot going on out there and Bush is one man, something is bound to fall through the cracks from time to time.

Allah Puncher:

Satire and sarcasm is not meant to be taken literally.

I believe that Ben works for a spineless bureaucracy whose collective statements, stances, and actions in relation to the Arabs towards Jews and the Jewish state -requires no further elaboration. I believe Ben's post - which fails to address specific issues that are frequently discussed on this board (Saudi corruption of State, anti-Israel policy of state, etc.) - is revealing, and perfectly in sync - with his employer's culture and values.

I also believe that everything Ben does...especially Internet related...is monitored by said employer, and I don't doubt that this site is probably of interest to his starch-shirted, pension grabbing bosses. Ben is probably coming here to stir shit up and get a reaction, and this site is probably "of special notice" to people of state, being it has an anti-state disposition.

Maybe I'm paranoid...but I happen to believe that's the case.

Finally, I actually agree with and respect Ben's assertions about having to work with unsavory characters, bad guys, etc. It's an ugly world out there. However, in State speak, this language often goes further into "appeasement at Israel’s expense", especially when Saudi-funded terrorism is concerned, and I find that deplorable.

And last, but not least, is I DON’T believe Ben’s spin about “[State is aligned with Bush, or heads would roll]”. Does Ben think we are that naïve…that we have such a facile understanding of power politics?

So, Allah Puncher, I guess I'm saying that Ben really isn't being fair, or honest, with us...like you claim he is. He's a number defending his bureaucracy’s - and ultimately his own - reason for existing, without participating in a substantive discussion, as he excoriates an outspoken critic of his institution for "bias", while failing to acknowledge the haze on his own lenses.

I posted this on another thread by accident. This is what I meant to say on this thread..

This person ( Ben) expects us to accept the same old platitudes the State Department has been telling us for years in an attempt to justify its betrayal of Israel, our most loyal ally in the Middle East. These assumptions are as follows; Transfer is not acceptable; There is no military solution; The solution lies in economic cooperation... All of these assumptions have proven to be false with regard to the Palestinian Arabs.

1. Transfer was an acceptable solution for Jordan, Kuwait and any other Arab State where the Palestinians caused trouble in recent decades. In fact most of the Arabs now seeking Israel's land were "transferred" from these places by their Arab brothers and there was no protest by anyone in the world about it.

The Arab States did not hesitate to 'transfer" their Jewish populations after 1948 to anywhere they could go with nothing but the shirts on their backs. The fledgling State of Israel took something like 800,000 of these million plus Jewish refugees in. Certainly one or more of the huge underpopulated, wealthy, Arab States surrounding Israel could take in the Palestinian Arabs.

Furthermore, transfer has proven to be a humane and viable option for other populations displaced by wars in the last century, such as the Germans after WW2. Winston Churchill thought it was the most civilized solution for lasting peace between warring populations. So what is so wrong with transfer under these circumstances?

2. Military solutions have worked. In fact the IDF operations to reduce terrorist activity have done so dramatically, but they are never allowed to finish the job. Military actions can create deterrence which is invaluable everywhere but especially valued in the middle east where force and might are respected and appeasement seen as weakness.

If the IDF were allowed to finish the job and actually dismantle the terrorist orgs., kill or deport or arrest the leadership and anyone else who supports terror against Israel and disarm whoever remains until they show that they can live in peace, end incitement, establish a real government, etc., there would be an end to this murderous rampage and there may be a possibility of peace.
As it is, the land in question is way to small to accommodate a hostile population that seeks Israel's destruction. Surely this is obvious to most rational people.

The one thing that will never lead to peace is to try to appease the hostile Arabs by giving them more autonomy in their present state of barbarism and militancy and to claim some sort of equivalence between the activities of terrorists and the defensive actions of populations that they target. By promoting these policies the State Department has encouraged terrorism against Israel and encouraged terrorists all over the World.

3. Economic cooperation is not the answer to the Palestinian problem. That has been tried and has failed. This conflict isn't about money or land. Both of these have been offered to the Palestinians in spades. The solution needed is a real change in ideology and leadership among the Arabs waging this unilateral war against Israel, such as would come from their being soundly defeated.

This is a religious war being waged against Israel by Arabs who subscribe to a fascist version of Islam, similar to nazism. It is the same war being waged against the US and its allies all over the world. This is a "Jihad" and the expression of an ideology that seeks global domination. To continue to ignore these realities places Israel the entire civilized world in jeopardy.

  nyc  - Where does the nickname Foggy Bottom come from anyway? Sounds kinda like a gay bar. (not that there's anything wrong with that)

LOLOL! The image I get is some sort of a cocktail.

KevinV, James,

To clarify: the President absolutely does not have the power to fire State employees who disagree with him. There are good reasons for this (you don't want to encourage a culture of yes-men) and bad reasons for this (a very powerful union).

To everyone:

Ben is absolutely not dumb. I disagree with him strenuously but that does not make him dumb. Other then the casual bit of smugness in the beginning of his post, he expresses himself well and has some sort of backing to his point of view, however wrong I think it is. He is not a janitor. Please, people, just because someone disagrees with your POV does not mean that they are not as intelligent as you are.

Remember that college interns work at the State Dept. too. Ben may be one of these -- that would certainly fit the tone.

The State Deaprtment needs to be purged like an old man taking a laxative. This guy Ben is talking economics, the Jihadis are talking genocide!

OT: Fox News channel is running the following story.

'Baby Bush' Born in Baghdad

[...]

An Iraqi couple has named their 6-week-old baby boy George Bush (search) to show their appreciation for U.S. efforts to force Saddam Hussein (search) out of power.

"He saved us from Saddam and that's why we named our son after him," the baby's mother, Nadia Jergis Mohammed, told the Associated Press Television News. "It was George Bush who liberated us; without him it wouldn't have happened."

Baby Bush was born July 11 to Mohammed, 34, and her husband Abdul Kader Faris, 41. His full name is George Bush Abdul Kader Faris Abed El-Hussein.

If the couple had had twin boys, the father wanted to name the other baby Tony Blair (search), because he said both the U.S. and Britain liberated Iraq.

Well,
Immediately after reading Bens post I was going to make a comment but after watching the "critical thinking skills" of the LFG crowd (Ben, we like to think of them as "Brass-Knuckles Intelligencia") I see there is no need for me to comment on it.

The "argument" has been thoroughly eviscerated, and rightly so.

Ben, on the "hear-hear" mentality, most posters here share similiar views, although it is quite common to see raging debate over the minute details. Mayhaps you should spend some time reviewing the threads en'masse so you know what your getting into. NO-ONE is going to post a weak argument and get away with it, regardless of who you are.

Have a Nice Day®

Buh-Bye

To any of you who called me a loony paranoid when I said that Bush Sr. is still very much involved in making policy and asked me to provide proof... Here's a news item from today. [Link: story.news.yahoo.com...]

SLICE FROM STORY

Amid Tensions, Saudi Envoy Meets Bush Father, Cheney

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid serious strains in U.S.-Saudi relations, the Saudi ambassador to Washington met former President George Bush on Wednesday and will meet Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday, U.S. officials said.

The meetings coincide with efforts by Saudi Arabia, long a close U.S. ally and major oil supplier, to halt a slide in relations amid American concerns about links between some Saudis and attacks on the United States.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan had lunch with Bush -- father and close confidant of the current president -- in Kennebunkport, Maine, where the family has long had a vacation home.

Bush spokeswoman Jean Becker confirmed the meeting but said it was private, declining to provide further details. The former president has had a long relationship with Bandar, the veteran envoy in Washington, and worked closely with Saudi Arabia when he presided over the U.S.-led 1991 Gulf War.

Cheney's spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise said Bandar would meet the vice president on Thursday in Wyoming. She gave no further details.

davesax, I agree with basically everything you just said. I never said that Ben is being fair with us. If he was he might have at least tried to offer a realpolitik defense of the issues which we address in these forums and on this site on a daily basis. His post was just lackluster. I mean, if you are trying to defend the State's support of the Saudis, try to at least offer the most logical defense possible. Try to say that they are in a delicate situation and that if they push too hard the Saudis might be overthrown and replaced with a gov't much worse. I don't personally believe that would happen, or that the Saudi royals would ever let it happen, but if Ben wanted to garner a sympathetic ear he could have at least presented that basic argument.

Maybe he could have said that Arafat is better used as a tool to divide the Palestinians between loyalists and terrorist supporters and possibly using Arafat's greed to make him wage a civil war against the terrorists (which we know isn't the case, because he is a terrorist supporter himself) but he could have at least tried to make the argument that this was the supposed plan. I'd know it was bullshit, so would you, but at least he could have tried, ya know? :-)

A few posters above have asked for data on "Who armed Saddam?"

Lively has posted two excellent sources of information [#59].

Dissident Frogman has taken these same sources and created an outstanding bar-graph of the numbers.

This article made my blood boil:

"Human Shield" Speaks Out

Q: What happened once you reached Baghdad?

A: The human-shield protesters met and went over the places that the [United Nations] had designated as humanitarian sites. All [of them] had been totally destroyed during the gulf war. They were places like water-treatment plants, food silos, communications and power plants and oil refineries.

You wanna be a human shield and defend some real humanitarian sites, you ****? Go strap yourself into a seat on any bus in Haifa, Tel Aviv, or Jerusalem.

Q: Did you see Iraqis rejoice at Saddam’s fall from power?

A: Yes, people were relieved, but they were also concerned about what’s going on now. They worry if worse is coming. Their motto to America is: “Drink your oil, take your oil, bathe in oil, and get out.” I did not see people dancing through the streets.

Funny, I saw people dancing in the streets and rejoicing and I wasn't even there. Now the Iraqis, if nothing else, have the prospect of a better life. None of it would have been possible if you and your fellow human shields would have had their way.

Foggy Bottom refers to the D.C. neighborhood in which the State Department is headquartered.

Foggy Bottom is just east of Georgetown.

#43 Allah Puncher
"People, this policy of transfer, trying to drive all the Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is a bunch of bullshit. It won't work and it isn't feasible. It will only provoke another region-wide war against Israel if attempted, a war that they don't want and a war that they would be alone on considering the reason the Arab world would start it. It would also cause Israel to lose its moral high ground which it currently stands on."

Nevertheless, the idea of Transfer does seem to be gathering momentum.
Region wide war?
How about the global assymetrical war we're already engaged in?.

# 107 - Ariel

Yes, we know the President cannot just fire Civil Service or Foreign Service people at will. But that's not who we are talking about. We're talking political appointees, namely the SecState and his major deputies/assistants. And, also, if the President wished to, he could bring the Department to heel, much in the way he has done with the Dept. of the Army.

For those who believe that State is imposing the roadmap bullshit:

Is it your position that the Road Map plan policy pursued by the Bush Administration with regard to the Isreali-Palestinian/Arab conflict is a creation of the Department of State, its Civil and Foreign Service and its component bureaucracy?

Or is State pursuing it because it is the chosen policy of the President of the United States?

teacake, nyc

"Foggy Bottom" is the actual name of a broad low-lying area about two miles north & a little to the west of the Lincoln Memorial. The State Dept offices are there. It was named Foggy Bottom long before the offices were there.

IAEA conference to discuss Israeli nukes for first time...

The conference has been planned from Sept. 15 to Sept. 19, Middle East Newsline reported. They said the subject was placed at the behest of Arab and Islamic states.

Ya think?

#49 Solomon X

BTW, the "shitty little neighborhood" reference is disturbing. Remind you of anything?

Yes, I picked up on that too. I believe it was a carefully calculated reference.

#107 Ariel

Agree completely. It really turns me away when somebody writes a thoughtful post and everybody trashes him/her because they disagree. Abuse should be saved for truly moronic comments.

James, KevinV

Interesting as usual discussion about State -- I am learning much. I have to agree with James on this one, however.

From 120 AG in Houston's link:

The sources said the Arab League plans to distribute a study on Israel's nuclear programs to participants at the IAEA conference. The league will also demand that Israel sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

It's kind of cute that the Arab League plans to demand something of a country that 90% of its members don't even recognize.

I don't believe for one minute that your average president comes pre-equipped with the knowledge to make good decisions or even to pick good advice about the middle east or, say, Liberia for that matter. In this way State does influence the president.

Well put. This is the crux of the issue. It *is* difficult to divide blame, but that doesn't mean State shouldn't be on the receiving end.

Yair - I don't disagree with James. Everything he said was spot on. However, I think the President could move things if he wished, as he has already demonstrated in Veteran's Affairs, the Army Dept and (now, so I hear) the Navy Dept.

It's just this idea that Bush is blameless in the RoadMap fiasco and evil hidden democrats in State are to blame is ridiculous. The Road Map *is* the President's policy and I don't think we can use State as a whipping boy if we're not prepared to blame the guy who is giving the orders.

It's kind of cute that the Arab League plans to demand something of a country that 90% of its members don't even recognize.

Well they were just on the verge of recognizing Israel until their latest strikes against Hamas.

AG, I was just about to post that, luckily I just refreshed the page. lolol

I think that State has more influence and autonomy than Ben or Kevin is acknowledging. And, let's face it, they have members who are friendly with members of Congress.

That being said, it does not appear that State has changed its worldview after September 11. They may think that is a good thing, but I do not.

There is a dire need for clear and unequivocal articulation of principles to come from this country. When Gen. Abizaid (I think it was him) says that terrorists are coming into Iraq from Syria, and then State says that we are pleased with the support we are getting from Syria, that sends a mixed mesasage. When State kowtows to the murderer Arafat, who should be dead or in jail, that sends a mixed message. When we refuse to condemn the ingoing incitement of the Islamic clerics, instead granting economic aid to various countries (especially Egypt), that sends a message of weakness and shows a lack of resolve.

Mixed messages are very harmful in this current conflict. While diplomats may understand and appreciate the complexities, the terrorists in particular draw support from anything that is not an unequivocal condemnation of their practices, as we witnessed the other day in Indonesia.

This is where the Department of State is failing us. I think they could be a lot more clear on OUR behalf, and the message could still be a positive one in the region. In fact, the regional players would know full well, IN PUBLIC, what was desired of them.

And I doubt that the President micromanages what these guys say.

This oversensitivity to concerns plays right into the hands of Middle Eastern diplomats. At our expense.

Teacake

I am hoping to start of a strong 'hat tip' month.

#114 -

Wow. You mean they don't build T-72s in Dearborn, Michigan?

Does this mean they're not making Osama Bin Laden clones at Lawrence Livermore?

I don't know but I think Ben did address the Saudi issue. Cheap oil is in America's interests. Thus we placate the Saudis in any number of ways including policies to the detriment of Israel.

And if we're lucky, it will make you into practical contributors to the solution that still sits out there waiting for us.

And State will wait as long as it takes.

The solutions that have been presented our either unattainable or diffiucult to make. Doing nothing seems to be the position State likes best.

Jimmy the Dhimmi -

Again, you guys are confusing roles.

Defense Department = Bad Cops
State Department = Good Cops.

Syria does something shitty, like letting jihadis come to Iraq so we can kill them, Gen Abazaid gets the role.

Syria does something helpful, like helping on apprehending al-queda idiots, Sen Powell says something nice.

Mixed messages? Maybe. But somehow I think our guys are singing from the same hymnal. I think Powell told Assad exactly what would happen if he didn't deal with our issues diplomatically.

I am in no way discounting the institutional power of State. What I'm saying is that there is no way they could, for long, hold out if their policy was actively opposed by the President.

Well they were just on the verge of recognizing Israel until their latest strikes against Hamas.

LOLOL after about 150 years of objecting to Jews being on islamic holy soil, they suddenly made a real breakthough.

KevinV #118,

But that's not who we are talking about. We're talking political appointees, namely the SecState and his major deputies/assistants.

OK, sorry, perhaps I read your posts incorrectly then. It seemed to me that you were implying that lower-level employees were answerable to the President. I'd also note that it's only the top two or three levels (depending on the department) that are appointed by the President. So if a department has an institutional bias (which they all do), there's no way that the top two or three levels are going to be getting a fair and balanced view from the non-political appointees.

And, also, if the President wished to, he could bring the Department to heel, much in the way he has done with the Dept. of the Army.

That's not really clear to me. You have to consider the culture of the two departments. The Army (and the military more generally) is an organization where each person understands that they have to follow the orders of the person above them. So when Clinton ordered the military into Bosnia, even though many didn't love him, they did "out of respect for the office" (as one ex-military guy told me recently). Of course, operational details were left to the military, which still was "empowered" to take care of itself - except in Somalia, which ended up being a disaster. The State Department is an organization which emphasizes "empowerment" (in quotes because it is really a very bureaucratic organization) - if State employees don't feel empowered, they will do their jobs poorly; honestly, I would guess that this is part of what led to the failure of negotiation with Turkey for the rights to attack Iraq through Turkey. Even if employees feel compelled to do their jobs, they may choose to not do them as well because they are less interested in the outcome. And unlike in military situations - which are, to a first approximation, binary (victory vs loss) - diplomacy is a continuum.

Is it your position that the Road Map plan policy pursued by the Bush Administration with regard to the Isreali-Palestinian/Arab conflict is a creation of the Department of State, its Civil and Foreign Service and its component bureaucracy?

While I don't believe that the State Department is pursuing the Road Trap independent of Bush, I'd say that the optimistic scenario is that Bush is willing to let State have a try at solving the problem - as he did in Iraq. If State fails - well, then something else will be tried. Of course, that is the optimistic scenario. The more likely scenario, based on historical precedent, is that the Road Map to Treblinka v2 is launched.

Or is State pursuing it because it is the chosen policy of the President of the United States?

This gets back to the issue of empowerment. If the State Department (and/or Powell) feels like none of its major ideas are being listened to, Bush will lose the ability to negotiate - which in some cases is necessary.

I also think that Bush is pursuing this policy consciously. This makes me unsure of voting for him, though I can't see who on the other side I'd vote for. If there were a Republican challenger... well, maybe him. I'll probably just vote Libertarian. My vote, being a resident of the Soviet of Taxachusetts, does not matter anyway.

Incidentally, if you do join State, and if you are in any way a Republican, please make sure to keep that to yourself. It'll extend your career possibilities.

Note Ben's reference to "shitty little neighborhood?" Echoes of "shitty little country..."

Ben, what is your political affiliation? The State Dept. is chock full o' liberal transnational progressivist idealist who think America should stop being such a big fat bully stupidhead and hug and love everyone trying to kill us. Fools.

davesax - love it when you post man.

OT
American embassy staff photograph and inspect a makeshift rocket along with an Israeli policeman in the Israeli city of Ashkelon

This one broke a rather dubious record:

It was the furthest a Qassam had been fired into Israel since a Palestinian uprising for statehood began in 2000

#133 KevinV

I disagree with the need to engage in such games. In fact, I think that is exactly the wrong approach to take.

Every time you send the "Good Cop" in, the crooks take a breather. What do we get out of it? One terrorist arrested out of thousands?

This one broke a rather dubious record:

It was the furthest a Qassam had been fired into Israel since a Palestinian uprising for statehood began in 2000

I just wish someone would try to set such a record with a PA leader.

#133 KevinS

Good cop/ Bad cop is a Western construct. In the Middle East they don't understand "good cops". So you may be right that "we" are employing an elaborate game but its one thats entirely innapropriate for a world where Hama rules is the only way games are played.

Jimmy -

Again, this goes back to the point Ben was making: The State Dept is dealing with the real world, not the ideal world.

I agree strongly with you that, yes, in an ideal situation we would not play these games. We would say, "this is how it's gonna be..like it or lump it...and if you say 'lump it' then we're gonna invade and conquer you, so y'all better get used to the idea that you are now officially at peace with israel, you no longer support terror and your economies are now to be organized along free market lines...or else". That would work...theoretically.

But, as Ben said, we're not politically going to do that, nor are the American people willing to support that. Look,the puny problem of Iraq is taxing our resources and our patience! Imagine if we added Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, etc. to the list!

So, in this crappy situation, they're trying to use a mix of inducements to get the bad guys to do the right thing. If sweet talk brings Assad around, while the General threatens and the 101st Airborne has a strangle-hold on 70% of Syria's energy requirements, then, hell, it's worth it. If we accomplish our goals without firing a shot, it's worth the risk.

No to be insensitive to those "targetted" by such a rocket, but what a piece of shite! It looks like a piece of rusty plain steel pipe with fins attached by weld goobers a rookie could make on his first day of striking arcs! The nose is all compressed like an accordion, this is just plain mild steel.

Now don't get me wrong, if this thing just happened to hit you, it would be deadly. Any jihadis lobbing these should be killed with extreme prejudice.

The compleat Fisking of Note from inside the State Department. . . .
First: civics lesson. The three branches of government have equal status and separate functions. Congress makes the law -- often many, contradictory, overlapping and vague laws -- and the executive branch carries it out. *** Got it in one.
When there's a bad conflict on what the law is supposed to mean, the Supreme Court straightens it out. We at State don't work for Congress. We work for the President. Both the President and the Congress are elected by the people.
*** Actually State reports to the President but let me help you out just one little bit- you work for the people of the United States- Farmer and Barber, Atheist, Scientologist and Baptists- the attitude expressed in this single line conveys’ the dysfunctional mindset of State. All pay 1:270 millionth of your salary- your duty is to the Laws, Constitution and People. Your duty, when your direction is not clear is to faithfully represent a system of government that aspires to be a light unto the nations of the earth. Not that you care; you just posted so you could say you showed those darn Israel supporters when you next waste taxpayer dollars at the water cooler.
But anyway. The hear-hear readership

...

*** lord bless them their socks and clean underwear (for those that choose to wear underwear)
of LGF is clearly in need of some critical thinking skills.
***Full stop. We are the people. You are the less than faithful servant. See above. Some of the writings in and linked to this site are amongst some of the more profound I have ever seen; specifically Whittle’s EjectEjectEject. The problem is not our critical thinking its your moral compass.
Bedein is a good communicator, but he is a biased one.
*** Everyone has biases. Some biases are good and some are bad. I happen to despise diplomats who later go to work for foreign governments; that does not make me a bad person.
He is doing his job, which is presenting the point of view of a certain group in the most effective possible way. What puts his article in the "ho hum" read-later pile (along with the average editorial in the Egyptian press, say) is his failure to include or address any plausible alternative scenarios explaining the actions he describes, or differentiate between "sense of the Congress" non-binding declarations and actual bills.
*** Let’s talk about the Egyptian press- in what ranks as about the worst use ink on the planet, a despotic government (that votes with us all of 10% of the time in the UN, takes $2 billion a year in US funds and is poised to become an Islamic State or remain Mobarak Family Inc. and I don’t know which is less desirable. Either way, we lose.
The diplomats who serve the United States, who suffer for the United States, and who die in great numbers for the United States (I invite you to visit the lobby of the State Department on C Street in Washington DC and review the list of names chiseled into the walls.
***Like Cleo Noel and Ambassador Moore murdered on command by the very Yasir Arafat that State seeks to reinstate and award a State? Any and every attempt to bring this sorry truth to light always brings the “we have no evidence (but they do and choose to ignore it)” which only results in more names going up on the wall.
You'll have to make several trips, because there are too many to read in one visit) do it out of patriotism and a sense of service. We are in it to make a difference.
*** Great job containing Saddam, North Korea and Iran. Rwanda 1998 and Liberia have also been fabulous successes. And what difference State has made with Saudi Arabia- the only country where the US Ambassador is forbidden to speak the native language and every recent serving Ambassador has picked up his free copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and gone to work for the Saudis after leaving their post. In silence, State, whose job it is to watch and warn, sat and saw militant Islam rising like a virulent cancer in Saudi and not only did nothing, State’s apparatus willingly took the Saudi side and swept the truth of their rising hatred of our country under the rug.
Former US Diplomats are only too happy to blame Israel for Saudi problems ignoring the visible truth of the average Saudi GNP decreasing from $22000 over 15 years to $6000 while the princes of the House of Saud- 8000 little Udays waste fortunes and live the high life.
Otherwise we would make our money elsewhere.
***Politeness forbids me to do anything with this sentence.
As for what we do, well, Diplomacy is a shitty business at its core.
*** But you are paid to do the best you can. I remember there was once something called National Honor but this is an idea that seemed to perish during the cold war.
We take unpalatable options in ugly environments with emotional and violent people and try to manage them in the best national interests of the United States.
***This is the whole problem with State- we get into trouble when we “manage” these warlords and scoundrels- we never have the courage of our convictions to list regimes with asterisks- * hardly ever murders political opponents, *accepts US policy to the extent bribed etc.
but never do we just get told the truth.

This means nothing is black and white, there are no purely good guys and no purely bad guys, and awful compromises are sometimes necessary.
*** Really- is there some problem with Tony Blair or the British system of government that we should be aware of? Gerhard Schroeder is not what I would call an ideological fellow traveler but Germany’s government is a model of relatively open western democracy. But are you really saying that Mullah Omar, Khaddafy, Kim Jong Il, Saddam and Khameini have any redeeming qualities? If they do, please tell us, many on this blog have been laboring under the apparently mistaken impression that these guys were mass murdering criminal tyrants. We had no idea they write poetry and frequently help little old ladies across the street.
I hear the shrieks of protest already. Think about it.
*** We have thought about it; as I stated above, even if you do find yourself in a difficult position, State still has a duty to represent the aspirations of our system of government.
We gave the mujihaddin SAMs to use on the Soviet HIND helicopters, and they helped bring down the USSR. We had to face the same fighters we trained 20 years later in our own Afghan war. Would you rather have had the USSR? Are we somehow "pro-jihad" because we needed them at one time as part of a greater solution that was ultimately in the interests of the United States?
*** Now here you make an important point- our interests can change. In 1983 we helped some people defend themselves against genocide, State helped tie our efforts into the Pakistani ISI and we are still paying the price. State knew the international Jihadis were coming to Afghanistan and should have known the trouble such trained fighters might create. Rather than support training indigenous Afghan fighters, we helped ISI built a platform for global Jihad. Whoops! State has to pick America’s horses and, as we learned on September 11, 2001, we pay a price when you pick the wrong horse.
We armed Saddam Hussein, too. Of course we knew what a maniac and a murderer he was. But at the time, the Iranian Revolution was on the upswing, and we preferred to see it spend some of its energy in human-wave attacks into Iraq than on amphibious landings in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.
*** State’s record in the Middle East a unmatched- 22 tyrannical regimes and working for a 23d.
Then, again, we face those guns later. These are the consequences of events in a world that bears zero resemblance to the romantic fictions of Hollywood. The calculations are fraught with risk, the information is never complete, and the moral landscape is, simply put, a swamp. There's nothing we can do about this -- nothing.
*** Actually there is- we don’t have to mollycoddle sleazy dictators. We can punish them diplomatically push democracy. What a silly thought! Whoever heard of a State Employee advocating democracy for Egypt, Yemen and Syria?
It will never get simpler, or easier, or less complicated. U.S. interests will always be threatened, in one way or another. We will have to make deals and we will have to maximize our ability to work with everyone in a shitty little neighborhood that, alas, has massive geostrategic importance to us.

The United States cannot support driving all Palestinians from Israel.
*** Israel has never asked for this. Israel has actually agreed to import tens of thousands of Palestinians as part of the “right of return.” Your breadth of knowledge on this subject eminently qualifies you to work in Foggy Bottom.
The U.S. cannot accept a strategy of pure violence and coercion to "solve the Palestinian problem". An accord is necessary to create the stability necessary for economic growth in the region.
***No one has advocated a strategy of pure violence other than the Palestinian senior leadership and most of the terror groups. The PA, despite the heroic efforts of Madeline Albright, Warren Christopher and Colin Powell has never amended its genocidal charter. Thought I might mention that in case you ever thought about believing the PA’s promises.
"Ah! It's about money!" Hell, yes. Because until everyone in the region is participating in integrated economies, there's no hope for political evolution, progress, and peace.
*** Oh contraire mon frere! There is one country excluded form every international regional body and all regional trade, even though the country has the most to offer its neighbors. Israel’s “Red Cross” The Magen Adam is the ONLY such organization in the world that is excluded from the International Red Cross; it has applied but, for some reason, it can’t seem to be integrated into the regional structure.
And therefore, it is necessary to continue to work with groups that everyone recognizes are awful.
*** If you ever were able to look a leader in the eyes and say- “buddy, it’s our way or JDAM (they know what a JDAM is, every scum of the earth knows what all about JDAMs),” I can assure you they would get real polite, real quick. The problem is trying to “work with” these awful groups- if the US does not wan to kill the ones in the Middle East just give Israel a free hand, they’ll do it.
There is no other choice. None. War wouldn't do it
*** Do you know that as of April of this year, no major global terrorist organizations conduct training exercises in Afghanistan and Iraq? This incredible fact proves that war can very definitely solve certain societal differences. Israel and the Palestinians are about to have a very big war, because the Palestinians, who won’t be displaced by this war, don’t think it is immoral to indiscriminately launch artillery into civilian areas. This will erase the US created situation where Palestinian “good-guys” were looking the other way “powerless” to stop the bad guys.
, except on a scale that humanity, in 2003, would not condone.
*** Figure 2000 dead Palestinians and 200 dead Israeli soldiers. Whenever I hear experts predict the casualty count, they are ALWAYS wrong- in modern warfare, the attacking western army dusts the field with any enemies dumb enough to raise a rifle.
The State Department has the best long-term interests of the United States in mind at all times.
*** Man you made me spew the coffee. I am sure there are some people of honor in the Near East Department of the State, but I can categorically say they have sold out US interests in virtually every dealing with the Saudis and sold Israel out in every dealing they can. Please see my earlier comments re Former US Ambassadors to Saudi Arabia and million dollar a year consultant positions.
It's moonbat conspiracy theory to think otherwise. Assistant Secretary Burns, Undersecretary Grossman, (A/S Beth Jones, by the way, does Europe now -- better update your database. She isn't on the NEA beat anymore) Elliott Abrams at the NSC -- these people serve day to day at the pleasure of President Bush and Secretary Powell. This is not an administration that tolerates disloyalty. If they were somehow blocking U.S. policy, an accusation that itself is absurd, they would be gone in a second.
So anyway, to wrap up: I ask you to please use the impressive critical thinking skills you LGFers display elsewhere on this blog to evaluate information from all sides. At the very least, it will make it harder for your critics to dismiss you. And if we're lucky, it will make you into practical contributors to the solution that still sits out there waiting for us.

KevinV

A general question for you (or anyone else).

You write:

The State Dept is dealing with the real world, not the ideal world.

Ok. Fair enough. But in this "real world," despite State's best efforts to the contrary, the lion's share of the "real world" seems not to like us that much.

Should you take that job offer with State, I wouldn't be surprised if, during your orientation, you're prepped about the most frequent question that foreign nationals ask State Dept. employees/foreign service officers:

"Why do Jews control America's foreign policy?"

It seems State hasn't made too many inroads in explaining its diplomatic mission.

So my question is this:

Should the U.S. take advantage of its Superpower status, and, as a rule, dictate rather than appease when national security is on the line - since with our current State Dept. strategy, much of the world still "hates" us? What's the point of continuing down the road of appeasement?

Obviously we refused to appease Saddam - but that wasn't State's doing.

*** And let me add that State’s FBIS service, that translates the world’s press for America’s leaders, has provides a most useful tool to tell any State official everything that is wrong with other nations- the people at State act with knowledge, the soulless bureaucrats and weasels who sell out Democracy, Principle and the Jews (in no particular order) are the same vicious infighters that drove out heretics who called attention to genocide in Bosnia and dared us to act. Only public revulsion at the genocide in Kosovo got action. There are people of principle, but the corrosive and dishonest nature of diplomacy (how anyone can ever bring themselves to mistake a French diplomat as anything other than a lie in suit) creates indifference and eventually disloyalty in most.

The world must realign itself after the Cold War, no other nation can be allowed to rival American power and mankind has long outgrown the need for dictators.

/consider yourself thoroughly Fisked

Cliche Ben obviously was a hit and run poster.

Alright, so we get these state guys, whose statements are celebrated and defended on infamous media outlets like NPR, Charlie Rose, and Palestinian reality television; statements that are really just studies in the art of empty spin. Nothing substantive is addressed. Facts are ignored or whitewashed - soundbytes for an infinite speech along the lines of "things must me done, sacrifices must be made, Israel must show restraint, we must be nice to Bandar so that we get free lift tickets to Aspen, blah...blah...blah".

The status quo reigns.

We may never know who Cliche Ben is. He can be an intern, an escort from Georgetown giving some State flack an afternoon rubdown on the Saudi dime, or even Powell himself. He could be Bandar, sitting at Powell's computer before they go to lunch...

We will just NEVER KNOW. But we will be endlessly curious. And we will never forget this day, when Cliche Ben graced LGF with one posting packed with "there are no good guys or bad guys" analysis, and left.

We will all be forever changed by Cliche Ben.

We will love Cliche Ben forever.

#142 Kevin S

So, in this crappy situation, they're trying to use a mix of inducements to get the bad guys to do the right thing. If sweet talk brings Assad around, while the General threatens and the 101st Airborne has a strangle-hold on 70% of Syria's energy requirements, then, hell, it's worth it. If we accomplish our goals without firing a shot, it's worth the risk.

What you're saying is probably the theory behind it, but its based on a template that is inappropriate for dealing with Middle Eastern despots. The same way you wouldn't build trust with Maori warriors when initially meeting them by discussing the NFL, you don't get anywhere in the Middle East by being a good cop. We evidently don't understand this. We are talking football with Maori warriors when we do anything but shove our fist in Assad's face and threaten to rip his head off. That, he understands. Take it from a Semite.

OT: Also Thursday, nine Palestinians were wounded in clashes with Israeli troops in the West Bank city of Nablus. Three of the wounded — ages 19, 20 and 22 — were in serious condition. The Israeli military said that at times troops came under fire and had firebombs thrown at them. In two cases, Palestinians shoved ovens from ledges or roofs, trying to hit soldiers, the army said.

In the nearby town of Qabatiya, soldiers blew up the two-story house of an Islamic Jihad militant who died in a Jan. 1 shooting attack after killing an Israeli. Witnesses said 15 relatives left the house before it was demolished, a common action by the army intended to dissuade attacks.

[Link: www.foxnews.com...] - I do believe that it's time for Charles to resuscitate the famous flying toilet.

davesax,

LOL! Good to see you back.

Ayatollah Ghilmeini- Believe in the Victory - great series of posts!

Kevin,

No the alternative is not necessarily just to invade and conquer. For instance, we give Egypt two billions dollars a year not to invade Israel. We are paying protection money. And in return they continually incite against us, and (not so) covertly make war on Israel anyways. We should say, do more, do better, and the money is now starting to decrease until you comply.

What I'm getting at is that we have acted in opposition to our principles for decades, and now we are painting ourselves into a corner. If we can't change this modus operandi after September 11, when can we?

State has the duty and responsibility to help us see this, and to help us find a way out. They are tools of the administration, but also a self-aware entity. For instance, they did not help us to understand the culture of the Middle East, a culture with which they have been intimately familiar for the past decades. Instead, we have learned the scope of the problem from the conservative press, often in antagonistic posture with relation to the State Department.

And Iraq is taxing our resources because we choose to let it. There should be more clear calls to the Iraqis about their responsibilities to themselves and their new country. I wonder what we are telling those people. That is the responsibility of the State Department. I have no idea what we are telling them.

And I still think that as we negotiate these changes, State is not helping anywhere near as much as they could.

Did they distribute any literature to the Iraqis? How about a series of small booklets, some in English but more in Iraqi, of our founding documents and principles? Maybe some would find their way to other Arab countries.

And as far as good-bad, members of the military state American ideals and principles far better than the Department of State. Some of the reports from Iraq were far superior to anything I've heard from State in the last two years. Lt. Smash said it all.

Military grunts stating American ideals and positions and goals better than our top diplomats. Think about it. I think that they match the abstract to the real in a way that relates better than what a diplomat says.

Craig:

... what a piece of shite! It looks like a piece of rusty plain steel pipe with fins attached by weld goobers a rookie could make on his first day of striking arcs!

This is what they look like in factory-mint condition. As you can see, it is a piece of rusty steel pipe with crappily welded fins.

But we shouldn't make fun of other people's contributions to world culture ...

#128

Jimmy...very good points.

The goal of a diplomat is to exercise soft power and clearly articulate the policies and outlook of the current administration.

State's whitewashed ("nuanced") articulations display severe cognitive dissonance (schizophrenia) in this administration's policies and actually fuels anti-Americanism due to its perception abroad as hypocrisy (pronounced in Foggy Bottom "Diplomacy").

So, in this crappy situation, they're trying to use a mix of inducements to get the bad guys to do the right thing. If sweet talk brings Assad around, while the General threatens and the 101st Airborne has a strangle-hold on 70% of Syria's energy requirements, then, hell, it's worth it. If we accomplish our goals without firing a shot, it's worth the risk.

True, but it is the muscle behind the threat that makes the threat good. We happen to have an excellent stranglehold on Syria with the pipeline, but we don't have such inducements in other situations.

Let me add that the last time I brought up the point raised by James it ended up an insultfest after people kept reiterating "the buck stops with the prez" and missing my point. It's heartening to have this discussion once again in better manner.

RealPolitik is a necessary evil that the US must participate in to a greater or lesser extent. But that doesn't mean we play it *correctly* or play it when we don't have to.

As for the good cop/bad cop, well, the problem is every single country is wise to it. It's the bad cop, really, and the various sticks he carries, that encourage compliance. This may just be a semantic argument. If we threaten a trade embargo on a country, you could call that diplomatic pressure, but it is a major threat -- not like, you're gonna hurt our feelings if you don't comply.

The buck stops with the prez, but the prez is not going to nay say his advisors if he really doesn't have very strong personal views about a given crisis.

#135 Ariel
"being a resident of the Soviet of Taxachusetts,"

Ditto.
Blackstone Valley.
Close enough to throw a rock into R.I. & I can hear Thompson Speedway in Connecticut if the wind is right.
Where you at?

Wonder if there are enough LGFers in our area to warrant planning a BBQ.
(Can a BBQ be kosher?) {;~)

North Korea is going to announce its nuclear capability and to test nuclear weapons.

Indymedia is busy deleting all mentions of this story on the newswire.

"Why has the article on North Korea's upcoming nuclear test been suppressed? (english)
huh? 1:44pm Thu Aug 28 '03"

While you're there you can also read my post of why Howard Dean isn't a Jew, which most Indymidiots seem to think he is.

"...readership of LGF is clearly in need of some critical thinking skills...

The first sign of stupidity: arrogance.

Ben we can think very well thank you.

"The United States cannot support driving all Palestinians from Israel. The U.S. cannot accept a strategy of pure violence and coercion to "solve the Palestinian problem" "

Can't we support Israel in doing what Israel needs to do to fight back? The US is fighting back. Does the State Dept. think *we* should not?

Aren't we resorting to "pure violence and coercion"? Sometimes it's necessary. Another term is WAR.

War is terrible and to be avoided. Sometimes it can't be.

Sometimes the 'other side' doesn't want you to live. Should we lay down and allow ourselves to be killed because we hate war? I say no, we should not. Neither should Israel.

Jimmy the Dimmy:

For instance, we give Egypt two billions dollars a year not to invade Israel. We are paying protection money.

It's actually more bizarre than that. We're paying the Egyptians one of the largest aid packages in world history, in return for their promise not to embark on any more disastrous military adventures which will end with Israeli tanks on the west side of the Suez, causing the peace-loving International Community to pee in their striped trousers.

It's like paying a kid not to stick his face into a fan.

#161 Allah-Puncher

North Korea is going to announce its nuclear capability and to test nuclear weapons.

Now that's what I call successful diplomacy. No, I don't mean that sarcastically at all.

North Korea just pissed off several of its best supporters, including China. Even Comrade Roh may extract head from ass and decrease aid for his brothers in the North (although I wouldn't bet on it.) Whoever goaded the Norks into this statement is doing a great job.

"There is no other choice. None. War wouldn't do it, except on a scale that humanity, in 2003, would not condone. "

Does the State Dept. hire mind readers or psychics?
How do you know what 'humanity wouldn't condone'?

There's a group of people worldwide, in groups with a vraiety of names, that want everyone who is NOT like them dead. They have already proven they will kill to achive their goal of ushering in Sharia (sp?) law worldwide. Look around the globe. Notice the wars?

I'd be willing to bet good money the vast majority of us would want a war, on any scale, to get rid of this menance. Israel is one place this menance exists. There are many other countries. Let's get them while we can.

OT:

I am finishing reading "Exodus" by Leon Uris. I'd like to be lazy and save myself some effort. Does anyone know how much of this is fiction and how much is hard fact? Are there any websites that cover these events in detail where I can go to fact-check things? Thanks in advance for any help, folks.

Zaide #160,

I live in Brookline; just after I was born, my parents moved to Brooklyn, NY. When I lived in Sao Paulo (briefly), it was in the Brooklin neighborhood. I can't seem to get away from some variation of Brooklyn...

BBQ's can be kosher, as long as the hot dogs aren't pork. They can also be strictly kosher if you only use kosher meat and a kosher grill...

I've been thinking of organizing an LGF Taxachusetts Soviet Yahoo! Group, like the groups for NYC, Chicago, and San Fran... give me a few days and I'll try to set one up and then invite everyone in the area to join.

Atomic Redneck #168,

Exodus is pretty much fiction, though it is loosely based on reality. I haven't read it in a while, so I can't remember more clearly then that.

Glen- LOL!
The one referenced earlier either did not have an explosive payload, or was a dud. It looks like all it did was toss a little bit of dirt and a few rocks when it hit. This brings new meaning to the old Farside cartoon titled something like "we're no rocket scientists".
[Link: news.yahoo.com...]

Well, I guess I really stepped in it this time! Wow, so many posts to reply to...Here goes...

# 148 So Cal Justice

So Cal asks me to answer this question for him:

Should the U.S. take advantage of its Superpower status, and, as a rule, dictate rather than appease when national security is on the line - since with our current State Dept. strategy, much of the world still "hates" us? What's the point of continuing down the road of appeasement?

I would choose "dictate" over "appeasement" if those are my two choices, although I would do so cognizant of the inherent negatives in trying to dictate to others, Superpower status notwithstanding. Currently, for example, we are for all intents and purposes in dictatorial control in Iraq; you can see for yourself the shortcomings in that fact being the end-all-be-all answer to our problems.

There is, however, a third approach: power-backed diplomacy. This is, I believe, the Administration's approach. It has annihalated the Taliban and occupied Iraq. Now it will use its position to leverage diplomacy through suasion, pressure, and, when necessary, hardball tactics. For example, when Powell went to Syria he gave Assad a laundry list of actions he said the Syrians "must" make. So far, they have only partially complied. I expect an energy embargo next, followed by strikes if necessary. We are already seeing some benefits of this approach in Lebanon, where Syria has withdrawn some forces.

#151 - James

(I take it "Kevin S." is me.)

James makes a good point when he says

We are talking football with Maori warriors when we do anything but shove our fist in Assad's face and threaten to rip his head off. That, he understands.

I know that. You know that. However, the world at large doesn't know that. In fact, the rest of the world is content with Syria being in charge of the Security Council right now. It is State's job to craft a foreign policy which is in the US interest (in this case, anti-Syria) without losing the support of friends and allies.

There is no need to alienate those friends and allies when we have leverage in the form of energy shipments over Syria. Syria is dependent on Iraqi oil, thus, Syria is dependent on us. We can get our way here without unduly antagonizing the world like we did with Iraq. That's the thinking, anyway.

# 155 - Jimmy

I have no real disagreement with your post, Jimmy, just a different view of what is required. If the State Dept were to adopt a military-like approach to formulating American goals and ideals it would make us very happy and lower our influence in the world.

Let me give you a small example: at the firm I work with we had a British law clerk for a while. Great guy. Very British. He found heartfelt expressions of American patriotism unfathomable, uncomfortable and, frankly, embarrassing.

And this guy was a Brit!!!

We are a different people. Others do not understand us. In order to explain us to the world, our people have to adopt different strategies. Now, I agree, State is doing a poor job of this now, but that doesn't change the fact that the world does not see us as we see ourselves. Diplomats have to deal with this reality, and cannot just console themselves in thinking that they've done some good by speechifying and turning off everyone who was listening.

Plus, not all fit the State stereotype. Sometimes our people are quite good at standing up for our principles.

#159 Yair -

You're right: the bad cop is really the force that drives the engine of power. And, it's true, State seems to have forgotten this.

I think we agree that it is the President's job to balance the two approaches in a mix that makes sense. For instance, we had no leverage in Iraq because, as Wolfowitz put it, it is floating on a sea of oil and could always find a willing buyer. On Syria, we have more leverage. In North Korea, we have some leverage. In Iran, a different sort. Etc. Etc.

I think this approach is steady but sure. We should all keep in mind that the war approach is very fraught with risk, and even a clear case like Iraq left us divided and a major ally critically divided and quite possibly mortally wounded. Meanwhile, we find ourselves unable to summon the commitment to what it would take for actual full occupation of Iraq.

Compromise is never pretty, especially when it is with monsters. And knowing when that slides into appeasement takes some judgment. By the same token, however, not all diplomacy is "appeasement".

Still OT:

"Exodus" is worth rereading if you haven't read it recently. The section I'm in talks about an Israeli report on the Pali refugees right after the War for Independence. This "report" states that the refugees are the Arabs best weapon and that the Arab states have no interest in resettling the refugees when they can keep them in camps and use them as cannon fodder. Even if Uris made up the "report" completely, the original publication date of this book was in 1953 IIRC and I find it amazing that the current situation was so obvious even then.

#107 Ariel - Great point to everyone! I agree wholeheatedly.

You also hit one of the big nails when you correct the viewpoint that everyone in the Executive Branch serves at the true pleasure of the President.

State is one of the professional bureaucracies that exist in the government. Amongst the professionals in middle management - there is pride in organization that a path and approach is maintained regardless of the political appointee du jour. Like any bureaucracy, there is a certain amount of inertia to change - and the direction and action may be set from the SecState and UnderSecState, but the real course is on the implementation of the direction.

I remain convinced that State is full of well intentioned professional diplomats and bureaucrats that believe that what they are doing is in the best interests of the country - from their POV. I also am convinced, from examples of the Venona dispatches and other readings - that many of these well intentioned people don't have the same values / direction in mind.

Diplomacy is only effective when it is backed with a willingness to use strength (implied or real). If diplomacy is entered into with a basic believe agains the use of force, in the belief of multiculturism, or globalism, and a reluctance or idealism that does not assess the motives of the other party from their POV - then you have actions that do not represent the best interests of the people of the US.

Those whom I have met from State seem to have a belief that they are better, wiser, than most - yet in many ways are quite naive. They look down on soldiers, as they also look down on the "people" - or politicians that come and go. Many believe in the big lies (or help support it) in that the bad things that happen are the results of US actions. They believe in working from weakness rather than strength...being above the fray.

They remind me of a story I read a few weeks back about a Federal District Judge who was speaking to a 1st year law class in an East Coast Law School. He was encouraging these students to persue a career that would lead to the bench - for he believed that is where all the power really lies - for jurists can legislate and define law - regardless of the checks and balances in the constitution. He claimed that jurists really rule the world. He was also well intentioned.

But his beliefs, and actions, like those of many in State, do not really represent the interests of the US or the Constitition. He sees himself above the rest - and far too many in State seem to have the same disease. They have forgotten who they work for, and for why they work.

112 Teacake

I dont like these meetings at all

Why is Bandar meeting the Father?

why is this taking place in Maine?

Why is he meeting Cheney in Wyoming?

This smells bad!

Got One!

Is Bandar meeting with Fater and Cheney, to remind them what they both owe the Saudis?

Is Bandar meeting Father and Cheney to have them influence Dubya?

Is Bandar cashing in his 'markers'?

Is my tin hat on ok?...

BBQ's can be kosher, as long as the hot dogs aren't pork. They can also be
strictly kosher if you only use kosher meat and a kosher grill...

Isn't there a special exception in the talmud for pork to be kosher if it is used Chinese food? :-)

OK Kevin, you're off the hook - for now! But when you get your job, let us know so we can jump on you.

Really, what we're both saying has merit, I just wish we (the country) would speak in a more direct manner. Some of the fault for that does lie with the Bush administration, as opposed to strictly with State. Just look how often we here are trying to guess what they are up to.

Lazy Atomic Redneck...LOL

[Link: www.us-israel.org...]

look over this link...you will find a lot of info.

Jimmy -

I plan on staying in touch, even if I take the job, which is not a foregone conclusion. I know I'm a conservative walking into the Lion's Den, but I'm stupid enough to want to do it anyway. I'll probably regret it, but I want to serve in some way and do some good if I can, and I'm too darn old for military work these days.

State needs to do a better job. No damn doubt about it. Many of Newt's criticisms were well taken, so far as I can tell.

Let me tell you though: the people there I've met are committed, bright people who are doing their best, sometimes in very tough circumstances (say, Lagos, Nigeria for three years for example). They may be wrong, but they are very patriotic, just in a different way than my Navy buds of yester-year.

We'll see. It will be interesting to see how it works out. Now, if only they'd finish my national security background check...

171 KevinV

There is, however, a third approach: power-backed diplomacy.

I'd like to see more of that - headed in three directions (in no particular order): Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

#169 Ariel
Brookline! Ah, yes. A deli every 50 yards. And every one superb if you don't mind the askance glances because you look so bleedin' goyish. "What's he doin' in here?'

"BBQ's can be kosher."
I guess shrimp on the barbie would be right out, then?
/Chuckle
I wuz kidding, but, hey, chicken, hamburgers, porterhouse...BYOMBNT. (Bring your own meat but no treif.) And my wife once took the prize in The Great Potato Salad Showdown against my Chef brother at a large church picnic.

"I've been thinking of organizing an LGF Taxachusetts Soviet Yahoo!"
Good! Let's rattle some cages.

#177 piglet
"Chinese food?"
Lol.
A Rabbi friend once advised me that if I ever decided to try my hand in the restaurant trade, I should open a Chinese restaurant across the street from a synagogue.
At the time, I was still relatively naive about kashrut & thought he was serious.

Atomic Redneck

the real ship

"The ship sailed from the port of Site, near Marseilles, on July 11, 1947, with 4,515 immigrants, including 655 children, on board. As soon as it left the territorial waters of France, British destroyers accompanied it. On July 18, near the coast of Palestine but outside territorial waters, the British rammed the ship and boarded it, while the immigrants put up a desperate defense. Two immigrants and a crewman were killed in the battle, and 30 were wounded. The ship was towed to Haifa, where the immigrants were forced onto deportation ships bound for France. At Port-de-Bouc, in southern France, the would-be immigrants remained in the ships' holds for 24 days during a heat wave, refusing to disembark despite the shortage of food, the crowding and the abominable sanitary conditions. The French government refused to force them off the boat. Eventually, the British decided to return the would-be immigrants to Germany, and on August 22 the ship left for the port of Hamburg, then in the British occupation zone. The immigrants were forcibly taken off and transported to two camps near LŸŸbeck.

Journalists who covered the dramatic struggle described to the entire world the heartlessness and cruelty of the British. World public opinion was outraged and the British changed their policy. Illegal immigrants were not sent back to Europe; they were instead transported to detention camps in Cyprus. "

#177 Piglet
"used Chinese food?"

Some of it does look like that doesn't it.

Israel annexing the West Bank and Gaza and expelling the Palestinians.

Part of me is horrified by the idea but another part has a bit of morbid curiosity of exactly how this would unfold.

I'm guessing that this would mean a two prong operation for the IDF. First I'm assuming that they have to mobilize in a defensive posture against Egypt and Syria.

Then I'm assuming they have to go on the offensive against the remnents of the PA's security forces but this time, since Israel's going to get outright condemned by everybody anyway, they'll take the gloves off. If anybody hides in the Church of the Nativity, no more Church of the Nativity.

OK. The remnents of the PA are defeated, the IDF is in control of the West Bank and Gaza, and the Egyptians and Syrians are still holding back.

(and any rebellion among Israeli Jews has been put down).

What happens now. How do they *physically get the Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza* and where do they send them.

Do they line up tanks and infantry and pretty much say "walk in the direction of Jordan or you die?"

Do they load people onto buses?

And what happens when they've physically moved the refugees to the Jordanian border and the Jordanians say "fuck off we're not talking them?"

Do you declare war on Jordan and make them take the Palestinian refugees?

Or what happens to Jordan if they do take them?

Does this seriously destablize the monarchy? Does Abdullah get shot followed by the replacedment of the Hashamite monarchy of Jordan with the Islamic Republic of Jordan, which promptly declares war on Israel, gets it s ass kicked, then tries to pull in Egypt and Syria.

What does Bush do during all of it?

" The United States cannot support driving all Palestinians from Israel.

The only real solution, in other words.

#177 Piglet
"used Chinese food?"

Some of it does look like that doesn't it.

Of course that should have read
"used IN chinese food."

Fried rice is by nature somewhat recycled, and don't get me started on
"refried beans."

#183 Ploome
The images conjured by your post remind me of a novel, "Refiner's Fire: The Life and Adventures of Marshall Pearl, a Foundling", by Mark Helprin.
Like most, if not all of his stories, RF contains some elements of surreality, which he manages to pull off without damaging the flow of his otherwise believable story.
I heartily recommend it.
Make sure you have some Kleenex handy before you read the last few pages.

C'mon dave, do you honestly think that ben is taking kick-backs from the Sauds?

Somewhere up the food chain from him is someone with a Saudi pension plan.

Ben knows this, and desperately wants to advance up the ranks to secure one of his own.

As for the State Department being part of the administration: civil service regs. Without being able to fire the middle and lower-ranks of the bureaucracy, everything keeps running on auto-pilot.

Ben's part of the "stability" loving auto-pilot.

Where "stability" means terrorists keep killing children.

Ariel:

Ben is absolutely not dumb.

Agreed. He's just amoral.

Thanks Ploome. I'll go through those websites at length. They look really interesting.

KevinV: Good luck on your background check. My clearance took 18 months, but I seem to hold the length record based on everyone else I know. Most take 6-9 months. 3 months if you're lucky.

KevinV:

Again, this goes back to the point Ben was making: The State Dept is dealing with the real world, not the ideal world.

No, they're not.

The State Department considers letting a steady flow of Saudis through our borders to be in our national interest. Even after 9-11, they gladly accepted the word of a travel agent that a visa request came from a real person and not a pseudonym.

The State Department believes everything would be solved with enough talk. There are many, many problems for which this is true.

Islamic fascism and terrorism is not one of them.

#185 Sic et Non
No 2 ways about it; it would be a bitch!
First of all, the only way it will ever happen, Samson option notwithstanding, is if Israel becomes convinced that it's survival as a nation is in clear & present danger of being destroyed & no other defense is possible. At that point, even, even the Israeli LLL will have sobered up & any reluctance to employ a necessarily Draconian solution will have been overcome by reality.
The fulcrum issue lies in the definition of "clear & present danger". Obviously, Israeli leadership and, I guess, most LGFers are not yet convinced that the danger is either that clear or that imminent. I happen to be one of those who believe that it must happen sooner or later & that, in order to stop the slaughter of innocents, better sooner & better before the Arabs have time to prepare for the event.
As to the how, what, who, where details, I recuse myself as a mere armchair, over-the-hill, old fogey & defer to the brilliant minds of the IDF/IAF/Mossad/erc leaders & planners.

Remember theSix Day War? Entebbe?
They can do it. Eventually, they will have to do it.

It would be a good idea for the US to be very diplomatic in the months ahead seeing how we have all our military tied down overseas, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US Military is streched to the breaking point and cannot take on any more commitments, even one as minor as Liberia! The Administration seems finally to realize this and is swallowing its pride to approach the UN and get a new Security Council Resolution setting up a UN Command in Iraq with an American general in charge. Like the UN Command in the Korean and First Gulf Wars. Gen Shineshi was right when he said it would take two hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq. We have about 180,000 in Iraq now and 150,000 are US. Rumsfeld and
Wolfowitz were wrong and one or the other should resign, perferably Wolfowitz since he was the one who was insistent that the Iraqi people would greet us as Liberators and do whatever we said!

BTW: Gryphon #80, I am sorry, but criticizing Israel or even saying it is a bad idea is not the same as Anti-Semitism. I agree that a lot of Ant-Zionists are Anti-Semites, but not all by a long shot.

Finally, Gingrich and other critics of the State Department seem to think that it is somehow anti-American for State to give an Administration information that contradictes what the Administration believes. Evidently Gingrich & Co. believe that the various parts of the government should only report positive things to the White House. It seems what for Gingrich & Co. if the facts contradict their beliefs why just change the facts and everything will be fine! I believe this is what is referred to as shooting the messenger who dares bring bad news to the King. Persumerbly everything will be fine as long as the Head Person, (King, President, PM) is not aware of the bad news and therefore the bad news did not happen
!

#192

I actually don't think the US would be the problem. Bush (or Howard Dean or Kerry or Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush or whoever it would be) would have to go along with it. And they'll have to protect Israel from the Egyptians and Syrians if there's a war. If Bush is in office, it would mean Syria gets the Iraq treatment. If Howard Dean's in office, it would mean that he would bitch about it before finally using a sort of South Korea idea, shoot down anything that goes over the Egyptian or Syrian line, but don't cross them.

The alternative for the US would be Mogadishu on a grand scale, pulling out of a hotspot and encouraging 100 more Bin Ladens.

The problem, to me, would be the possibility of a civil war in Israel. The Israeli labor party would probably get bullied into going along with it, but there will be a big enough percentage of people in Israel (10% maybe?) who will openly rebel and will have to be put down by the IDF. You'd have IDF soldiers shooting Israeli Jews.

Then the problem would be that you'd be shifting into a permenant war against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. The compromise worked out by Carter/Sadet in the 70s would now be null and void.

Plus you'd have to kill thousands and thousands of Palestinians just to get them to move and then deal with the fact that Jordan wouldn't take them.

King Abdullah would be royally fucked. He'd probably be assassinated and Jordan would become an Islamic Republic.

If Bush is in office, you wouldn't have a problem right away, but eventually public opinion in the US will turn on the Israelis and eventually the Arab states surrounding Israel will wear Israel down (especially if the Stalinist solution towards the Palestinians causes a civil war or serious disturbances).

If Bush (Jeb or George) is in office, Jordan and Syria get the Iraq treatment. If public opinion in the US is decidedly against Israel, the Israelis use their nukes, and everybody's fucked.

Ben puts his trust in an "accord" between Israel and the Palis. In other words, if there is a Treaty of Hudaybiyah, it will solve the problem. What he doesn't realize is that the accord will have a short lifetime, and be broken when the Palis have enough strength to proceed to a new phase of war.

It is, more or less, the same sort of thinking that Chamberlain had when he waved a piece of paper that Hitler had signed, and convinced himself, and a lot of other people, that with that paper he had achieved peace in his time.

Ben does not realize the depth of feeling that exists not only among the Palis, but among the population in the Arab states in the region, to wipe out Israel and eliminate the Jews living in the Middle East. A piece of paper, even if it is called an accord or whatever, will not be able to paper over this murderous desire on the part of Israel's neighbors. Life does not work that way, Ben.

Ben, before you ask me for an alternative solution to this problem, let me point out that not all problems have a solution, just as not all diseases are curable. Sometimes, when there is no cure, the best that you can do is to manage the problem as best as you can.

But pretending that a piece of paper will solve the problem is just a fallacy of thinking.

# 191 - Robert Crawford

Your response to my post does not even begin to deal with the point I was making. If you're going to take the time to quote me, the least you can do is engage in the argument.

On the visa front, State's failures in this regard are well-documented, but not indicitive of evil intent. The old INS sent the damn 9/11 hijackers their visas months after the event; are they part of your evil Saudi conspiracy as well?

On that point, please provide a link to some evidence of Saudi funding of a private State department pension fund. Or are you talking about former State officials on the Saudi payroll in private consulting business? If the former, let's see it. If the latter, then let's hear you confirm that you think former President Bush is a traitor and Henry Kissinger working against the interest of the United States.

I'm quite willing to eat crow if you prove me wrong. We'll see how willing you are to back up your charges.

A new article by Caroline Glick, that involves thinking the unthinkable regarding Iran:
[Link: www.jpost.com...]

#197 KevinV
I would hesitate to call anyone a traitor.

But I think that the good of the country would be served if there were not even the odor of conflict of interest, when a government official, not long after serving the US, gets in bed with those who previously were lobbying the US.

BTW, I think that the same sort of reasoning should also apply to Congress. IMO there should be a long interval of time before a Congressperson accepts a position with an outfit that previously had lobbied Congress. Don't you agree? And by the same token, there should be a long interval of time before influential officials of the US executive branch accept an important relationship with a foreign power.

Traitor? I wouldn't say the word. But it just doesn't smell right.

#200 -EE

If someone, like the poster I was responding to, maintains that a person is sabotaging US policy deliberately to gain financial benefits from an enemy country, that poster is effectively calling that person a traitor.

I agree with you on the conflict issues. I think there are pretty extensive rules about who can lobby who and when.

However, i think the charge that President Bush is bought and paid for and will use his paternal influence to steer GWB is outright laughable and worthy of an Indymedia/Michael Moore freak rather than LGF.

#201 KevinV
I can only wish you good luck in seeking to join State.

Perhaps you can be a positive influence -- although I fear that if you do not follow the group-think it will cost you dearly career-wise.

Let me mention one occupational hazard that I think happens to people in State. Anybody who is in any occupation or profession naturally thinks highly of that work, and believes it is very important. State is no exception. And that, perhaps, leads them to overrate the importance of pieces of paper that are signed. Unless there are consequences for violating the words on a piece of paper, the paper itself does not really have much significance or importance.And when somebody pretends that a piece of paper will really be important -- even absent a system of imposing consequences for violations -- then it just makes that person look foolish.

#195 Iron Fist:

State seems to have forgotten their Machiavelli. They want everyone to love us.

How very true.

I also had classes where The Prince was required reading - both in high school (US and CDA) as well as in University.

My concern is that today - this isn't being taught. Machiavelli is someone that today's PC groupthink believe is inherently evil - while in reality - it is an excellent grasp of human nature and motivations. It is every bit as valid today, as it was when it was written.

The lessons if not followed, will be as painful as they were 500 years ago.

Damn, you all have been busy. I am not ignoring you, I'm sleeping. I actually work for State, but I'm posted 12 timezones away so I'm not quite on your schedule. Alas I didn't have time to read all these posts before breakfast today, and I've only got about five minutes before the next meeting, so I'll have be kinda brief here.

First off -- I do indeed work for State. Allah-Puncher's frighteningly on target. I had time to peruse LGF the other afternoon because I had three separate taskers waiting for the Ambassador's attention (I am not an Ambassador) and things can grind to a crawl in the bureaucratic heirarchy. It isn't that I don't have enough to do. Crap, that sounds defensive, doesn't it? Ah well, never mind.

Second -- Kevin, you're a smart guy and I hope you get your offer soon. Send me an email if you want some insider tips on life in the Department.

Third -- Appreciate your posts, Ariel. You have some insight. Too much faith by far in the power or authority of a staff-level diplomat, but insight nonetheless. On policy issues of importance -- especially NEA -- only the Deputy Assistant Secretary level officials and above are really able to contribute to what we finally do. Below that, you don't get to obstruct -- you can only execute. Anyone who didn't execute would be removed. Maybe not fired, not right away, but there are definitely ways to exile an obstructive, unprofessional, or useless worker. Point being, policy is happening between people who are serving at the pleasure of the President. And that policy, by the way, is being coordinated and overseen by the NSC every step of the way.

(running out of time here) My apologies for flip and/or arrogant comments that obviously provoked a strong reaction. Some of them ought to have been tended more carefully, or received some of that critical thinking I prescribed for LGF. Especially the "armed Saddam" comment, which I admit came straight out of my, um, elbow. I have no more than a vague memory of having read that someplace. God knows what I was thinking when I actually said it publicly. (Actually, I was thinking that being poster #51 in a days-old thread would probably not attract much attention.)

As you all probably figured out right away, I am not an NEA guy and my knowledge of MEPP issues especially is about 1 inch deep. I have other areas of expertise, and some experience with some good NEA folks, but I am not qualified to actually address the issues. Sorry. My concerns were, and are, more systemic. Bedein's piece, like other 'perfidious State' articles people love to read, attack State in general and often State officers in person in the context of extremely one-sided arguments. This is amusing when it's the North Korean press, but troublesome when it turns up in a forum (like say the Washington Times, or LGF) that has some credibility.

Not that it matters, but I'm a Republican. And I am not a moral relativist. I retract the statement about there being no "purely bad guys" because there absolutely are, and we shouldn't deal with them unless we have no other choice. My point was that the moral considerations of individuals or even an entire nation sometimes has nothing to do with the reality of attempting to solve problems on the ground. An Arclight strike, while being a just response in some cases, will often not also be an effective one over the longer term.

All right, that's about it. I am now late for my *&^%% meeting. I may get a chance to browse this forum again over the long weekend, but I doubt I'll be able to post -- please don't think of it as cowardice. I just have to work.

Good luck. -Ben

Sic et Non #185,

Part of me is horrified by the idea [of Israel expelling the palestinians] but another part has a bit of morbid curiosity of exactly how this would unfold.

The idea of transferring them, in a vaccuum, is a horrible idea. However, given the political realities - over 80% of palestinians don't believe in any possible peaceful solution with Israel - there's a great deal of reason to consider solutions which will solve the problem instead of prolonging it.

Then I'm assuming they have to go on the offensive against the remnents of the PA's security forces

This actually has to be done regardless of whether Israel transfers the palestinians.

(and any rebellion among Israeli Jews has been put down).

A very unlikely circumstance. Israelis believe in the rule of law. There aren't too many Israelis who, out of frustration with the government's positions, have taken matters into their own hands. I think they can be counted on the fingers of one hand, if even.

What happens now. How do they *physically get the Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza* and where do they send them.

The easiest way is to provide economic incentives for Jordan to re-grant citizenship to the palestinians living in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. If the palestinians stay peacefully, they can continue to live in Israel as Jordanians with no problems. If they become problematic (on a case by case basis) - and this is after the deNazification and an end to incitement so there's no reason that it would be a mass movement - they can be incarcerated or deported, as with any other non-national.

The most difficult way is to line up tanks and infantry and push them toward Jordan. If the Jordanians refuse to take them, well, they'll have maintained their record for having killed the most palestinians.

There are probably intermediate solutions. After deNazifying the palestinians, Israel, the US, and the Saudi entity (ha!) could co-sponsor "prosperity villages" in Jordan, which would develop Jordan's economy. As these villages succeeded, palestinians living in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza would feel an economic pressure to try to move to Jordan.

Another intermediate solution would be to give the palestinians the option of controlling Gaza and allow Judea and Samaria residents to move to Gaza or Jordan. One way to do this would be to force depopulation of Judean and Samarian villages which had sent out genocide bombers (successful or failed). It would be a smaller scale and more localized version of the tanks and infantry - which would give it a higher likelihood of success at a lower cost.

Incidentally, every possible solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict involves:
1) deNazification and an end to incitment
2) Killing the UNRWA and dismantling the refugee camps

Does this seriously destablize the monarchy? Does Abdullah get shot followed by the replacedment of the Hashamite monarchy of Jordan with the Islamic Republic of Jordan, which promptly declares war on Israel, gets it s ass kicked, then tries to pull in Egypt and Syria.

No, none of these are particularly likely. The Hashemites rule with an iron fist, so stability is probably not an issue. In any case, Jordan is over 70% palestinian and the next King will be half-palestinian, so there's little reason to believe that it would seriously change the dynamics of the country.

What does Bush do during all of it?

Preferably, what a good ally should do. Nothing at all unless asked for help.

#194,

Bush (or Howard Dean or Kerry or Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush or whoever it would be) would have to go along with it. And they'll have to protect Israel from the Egyptians and Syrians if there's a war.

On both counts, why's that? For the latter, Israel could comfortably handle Egypt and Syria, even while taking care of the terror-Nazis. This is based on history, where Israel has been able to handle Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq all at once. And the gap between Israel and the others has only widened.

The problem, to me, would be the possibility of a civil war in Israel. The Israeli labor party would probably get bullied into going along with it, but there will be a big enough percentage of people in Israel (10% maybe?) who will openly rebel and will have to be put down by the IDF. You'd have IDF soldiers shooting Israeli Jews.

Not a chance in a million. A good friend of my family used to be a Meretz MK (i.e. far-far-far-left-wing - they believe in pre-emptive surrender), but there's no way in hell he'd ever take up arms against his own country. Israel is a country with rule of law, first and foremost.

The worst that would happen is that the whole issue would get bogged down in Israel's court system.

Then the problem would be that you'd be shifting into a permenant war against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. The compromise worked out by Carter/Sadet in the 70s would now be null and void.

The Carter/Sadat compromise is already null and void, except for the expectation that the US give Egypt a huge chunk of aid every year. Egypt has not fulfilled its treaty obligations - from the Rafah tunnels going to Egyptian army bases, to incitement against Jews and Israel, to the ambassador being withdrawn from Israel for such a long time, to refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, to suggesting that if the Arab League raised a fantastic sum of money then Egypt would lead the jihad against Israel, there really is no evidence that Egypt is taking its side of the treaty seriously.

Permanent war would be unlikely, at least in the open sense. The Egyptians, Syrians, and Jordanians don't want to have to buy a new army again. Suicide by IDF is only fun for the first few tries. There's a fair chance that permanent war by terrorism would continue - but that's not different from the status quo. There's a higher chance (IMO) that terrorism would take a dramatic decline as the Arab states would understand that Israel means business.

If Bush is in office, you wouldn't have a problem right away, but eventually public opinion in the US will turn on the Israelis and eventually the Arab states surrounding Israel will wear Israel down (especially if the Stalinist solution towards the Palestinians causes a civil war or serious disturbances).

US opinion will not turn on Israel if the US is not fighting Israel's wars. There's no reason to believe that the US would do so, again, based on the historical record.

The Arab stats could try to wear Israel down - but they're already doing that. Since the Arab world most respects force, it's likely that this program would be greeted with a cessation or reduction in terror.

Ben #204,

Now I'm curious as to where you're posted. If you can tell us, I'd really like to know. Depending on your age, we might actually know each other or you might know my father.

Also, since all of my information that's non-public comes from my father, some of my misconceptions are probably explained by only having one source for insider perceptions.

On policy issues of importance -- especially NEA -- only the Deputy Assistant Secretary level officials and above are really able to contribute to what we finally do. Below that, you don't get to obstruct -- you can only execute. Anyone who didn't execute would be removed.

Yes, lower level folks can only execute policy. However, lower level officials are the ones who are often tasked with the actual writing of reports. And these reports are read by the higher-ups and can influence their decision-making process.

As an example, there's the widely known case where the palestinians "renovated" Joseph's Tomb, which had been a Jewish place of worship and made it into a Muslim one. In the State Department's report on religious tolerance, it castigated Israel for a variety of things - yet praised the palestinians for their "renovation". The word used was actually "renovation".

If you get a chance I would really like an answer to my question from #37:

While talking about how diplomacy is a shitty business wherein we support the lesser of two evils, he fails to discuss how supporting Israel (as opposed to the palestinians) would not be, at a minimum, supporting the lesser of two evils.

Even with the political restraints that they have to work within the state department is still very clearly in favor of the Arabs. As i see is there is no national interest in helping the Palestinians america has nothing to gain and a strong ally to lose and yet despite this and despite the Palestinians needing American help far more than American needs anything from Palestinians the state department falls over its self to condem Israel for its own self defense and to belive every lie that comes out of the PA. The Palestinians should be told that they must take real steps towards stopping terrorists if they want any sort of help from America, Only real pressure will get real results you can not expect them to change their ways out of the goodness of their heart as it just is not going to happen and any sort of resolution to the conflict in the current political climate would probably just make things worse for Israel anyway. in short Israel should be left to take effective measures to ensure its security, as an ally of Israel the state department should be supporting Israelis right to self defense and should only give help to the Palestinians when they have taken real steps towards stopping terrorism

Then again, all the Russians did by going all out against the Chechen rebels was to create the perfect breeding ground for Islamic terrorism.

"There's a higher chance (IMO) that terrorism would take a dramatic decline as the Arab states would understand that Israel means business."

Israel takes aggressive action against the Palestinians and it leads to a war with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Islamic radicals start attacking oil pipelines throughout the Middle East. This, in combination with a possible lowering of production of oil in retaliation for the Israeli war against Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, causes an oil shock and sends the prices in the US skyrocketting. The US economy, already in bad shape, goes into a deep recession, and some political figure in the US (Pat Buchanan?) focuses the issue squarely on Israel. The oil shock and the recession in the American mind are now clearly connected with Israel's aggressive actions. US public opinion then turns isolationist and against Israel.

In the short run, the Israelis win. In the long run, they're now a tiny little Russia surrounded by great big Chechnyas and President Buchanan in the US isn't going to lift a finger to help them.

"US opinion will not turn on Israel if the US is not fighting Israel's wars."

Ariel 206

In the State Department's report on religious tolerance, it castigated Israel for a variety of things - yet praised the palestinians for their "renovation". The word used was actually "renovation".

Thank g-d the State Dept. wasn't around to congratulate the Ummayids on their renovation of the Temple Mount.

Come to think of it, the Temple Mount is looking a bit tired these days, and could stand for some additional renovations.

Just kidding - but your post made me ill.

Ariel, send me an email and we can talk about where I'm posted, your dad, other sorts of personal things. My thoughts on the subjects in this blog are of interest to most here only because of where I work, no matter how loud my protestations that these do not represent official views in any way. I would prefer to limit the public dissemination of identifiable details.

And I don't know anything about the Saudi financial connection to State officers, to answer your question. Is it kind of like ex-military guys going to work for Lockheed or General Dynamics?

Ben:

I enjoyed your posts on this thread, more than the last.

Thank you for devoting some of your life to the service of our country.

You write:

And I don't know anything about the Saudi financial connection to State officers, to answer your question. Is it kind of like ex-military guys going to work for Lockheed or General Dynamics?

Well, perhaps, aside from the fact that Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics don't write anti-American/anti-Semitic textbooks for their children or allow their imams to preach a horror show of hate every friday - not to mention the state run newspapers...

Anyway, here's a CNN piece on one of your former colleagues getting nailed for taking bribes while still on the job:

Powell asks resignation of top assistant

the move comes amid growing Bush administration dissatisfaction with Ryan, capped by recent disclosures about fraudulently obtained visas being handed out in Qatar.

Ryan also was criticized for the "Visa Express" program that allowed Saudi Arabia residents to bypass some steps -- including an interview with an embassy official -- to get visas for entry into the United States.

It's CNN (a former employer of mine, btw), so please do the necessary reading between the lines.

Sic et Non #208,

Israel takes aggressive action against the Palestinians and it leads to a war with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.

Your biggest (and most easily falsfiable) assumption is that the Arab armies are interested in committing suicide by IDF again. I recommend taking a read of Netanyahu's A Durable Peace, in which he mentions that each war involved fewer participants attacking Israel. So in 1948, it was Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and one other. In 1967, it was Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. In 1973, it was Syria and Egypt. Now it's only war-by-proxy.

Israel can take aggressive action against the palestinians and the Arab response will be to whine and seethe, nothing else, I guarantee you.

Islamic radicals start attacking oil pipelines throughout the Middle East. This, in combination with a possible lowering of production of oil in retaliation for the Israeli war against Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, causes an oil shock and sends the prices in the US skyrocketting.

Extremely unlikely, even under your scenario. We're not in the 1970s any more. The Saudi entity, at the time, had a GDP/capita of $20K (+/-). Thanks to a high birth rate and no real growth of GDP, their GDP/capita is down to around $7K. In the 1970s, they were a creditor nation, now they are debtor nation. If they wanted to use the oil weapon, they would have to go deeper into debt - and since the only publicly available sources of debt are controlled by Western powers, they would probably have to issue public debt in large volume, which would kill their economy from inflation and make them into a true third world hellhole. In short, they'd be killing themselves to spite us.

There are no other Arab countries with oil sold to the US in significant quantities.

The US economy, already in bad shape, goes into a deep recession, and some political figure in the US (Pat Buchanan?) focuses the issue squarely on Israel. The oil shock and the recession in the American mind are now clearly connected with Israel's aggressive actions. US public opinion then turns isolationist and against Israel.

In the extremely unlikely scenario that they use an oil weapon, US opinion will probably turn more pro-Israel, as it did in the 1970s. Use of the oil weapon would renew Americans' perception of Israel as the embattled underdog.

Arab armies governed by US backed monarchies. How about Arab armies governed by Islamic governments? Isn't there some chance that Egypt could fall to a Bin Laden style government (since the US is basically proppring up Mubarak? Is it not?).

"Your biggest (and most easily falsfiable) assumption is that the Arab armies are interested in committing suicide by IDF again."

How about a series of minor oil shocks combined with increasing chaos in Iraq combined with the perception that Israel is pushing the US into a greater military involvement in the Middle East combined with an already bad US economy going back into recession? Wouldn't this eventually lead to an isolationist US government?

"In the extremely unlikely scenario that they use an oil weapon, US opinion will probably turn more pro-Israel, as it did in the 1970s. Use of the oil weapon would renew Americans' perception of Israel as the embattled underdog."

If this is true, then it's in the interests of the Israeli goverenment to expel the Palestinians now while Bush is still in office. Say this happens next month, once again, what does it look like in detail? Do the Israelis merely kick the Muslims out of Israel into the West Bank and build up their wall? Do they simply shoot Arafat and all the PA leadership and choose some US style puppets a la Iraq? Or do they actually expel the Palestinians from the West Bank and gaza?

Expand. As I said, I've got a morbid curiosity about what it would look like. Give me a novelist's perspective (since whoever is first to the market with the novel about the Palestinian trail of tears is a lock for the Booker Prize).

"Israel can take aggressive action against the palestinians and the Arab response will be to whine and seethe, nothing else, I guarantee you."

SoCalJustice #209, Ben, Kevin V,

Yeah the renovation thing was a really bad example of State supporting the palestinians in defiance of facts and logic. Which is what leads me to believe that there must be a reason to support the palestinians, which leads me to the Saudi connection... This article goes into all sorts of detail about how we don't respond to a variety of issues in the Saudi entity. I'll highlight this quote:

If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office", Bandar once observed, "you'd be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office.

Consider - only one ex-Ambassador to the Saudi entity has ever spoken out against the Saudis, and here's part of what he had to say:

There have been some people who really do go on the Saudi payroll, and they work as advisers and consultants. Prince Bandar is very good about massaging and promoting relationships like that. Money works wonders, and if you've got an awful lot of it, and a royal title-well, it's amusing to see how some Americans liquefy in front of a foreign potentate, just because he's called a prince.

The National Post looks at five former ambassadors and finds that they have carved out a fine living insulting their own countrymen while shilling for one of the most corrupt regimes on Earth

Daniel Pipes quotes National Review:

no other posting [then the Saudi entity] pays such rich dividends once one has left it, provided one is willing to become a public and private advocate of Saudi interests

Kevin V - you asked whether this makes them traitors. I would answer that it abso-f*cking-lutely makes these bastards the worst kind of traitors. This article by Daniel Pipes is probably the most thorough, characterizing behavior which would be inconsistent with any non-bribe explanation across a wide variety of dimensions. It then discusses how many of those who had been posted in the Saudi entity are aware that they can get a nice post-retirement pay package if they take care of the Saudis while they're there.

Ben - I'll send you an e-mail later today.

Shit, preview is my friend. Sorry about screwing up the thread. Hopefully, Charles will see this and fix it.

Meanwhile, I'll just link to the article here and quote this part:

If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office", Bandar once observed, "you'd be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office."

BTW. I've posted something similar to this on Pro-ISM websites and didn't get an answer.

I've said something like:

"Expand. As I said, I've got a morbid curiosity about what 'driving Israel into the sea' would look like. How do you actually get all the Jews into the sea? Do they all go to the US? Does this turn opinion in Europe against the Palestinians? Does Joe Palestinian continue to be more miserable against the kind of violent, Stalinist government that would be in charge than he was under Israeli occupation?"

They called me a troll. A few gave me some rhetoric. Didn't get my "novelist's perspective."

Now's your chance to show that you're more imaginative. Because my point is that if you could somehow magically get extremes to think through what their "blue skies" perspective would look like, you'd see how horrible it would be.

How would Boris Pasternak write about it?

("Expand. As I said, I've got a morbid curiosity about what it would look like. Give me a novelist's perspective (since whoever is first to the market with the novel about the Palestinian trail of tears is a lock for the Booker Prize").

Sic et Non #213,

Arab armies governed by US backed monarchies. How about Arab armies governed by Islamic governments? Isn't there some chance that Egypt could fall to a Bin Laden style government (since the US is basically proppring up Mubarak? Is it not?).

Is there some chance? Yes. Is it a high chance? Not really. It's not as though the Islamist forces aren't trying to gain control of these governments anyway. And Egypt has already brutally suppressed Islamist threats – remember the Egyptian Islamic Brotherhood? They don't exist in Egypt any more.

In short, you've bought into Arab propaganda, wherein each Arab government tries to portray itself as better then any other option – which is always an Islamist government. They've managed to create this perception that it's either them or radicals in every case, essentially a game of good cop, bad cop directed at us. There's really no evidence to suggest that it's more then that.

Incidentally, even if an Islamist government comes into power, suicide by IDF is not something that they would probably want to contemplate. Look at Algeria, Afghanistan, and Iran – none of them ever tried an open declaration war against Israel. There's also very little evidence that any of them are interested in anything other then a low-level terrorist war against Israel – again, because suicide by IDF is not a great way for a government to remain in control of its people. This becomes even more the case if you take the good cop, bad cop proposition at face value – in that case, governments really need their forces to maintain control.

How about a series of minor oil shocks combined with increasing chaos in Iraq combined with the perception that Israel is pushing the US into a greater military involvement in the Middle East combined with an already bad US economy going back into recession? Wouldn't this eventually lead to an isolationist US government?

I don't think so. If the US were pushed into a corner by oil shocks, I don't think we'd willingly go the isolationist route. Perhaps we would – and work on developing alternative energy, which would become competitive in that scenario. Perhaps not – and either import oil from non-OPEC countries or seize Arab oil fields. I don't think many Americans would feel obligated to protect the rights of a despotic government that's threatening us with an oil weapon when it costs them a significant chunk of their lifestyle. Witness how much resistance is had at even this website against any measures of conservation.

If this is true, then it's in the interests of the Israeli goverenment to expel the Palestinians now while Bush is still in office. Say this happens next month, once again, what does it look like in detail? Do the Israelis merely kick the Muslims out of Israel into the West Bank and build up their wall? Do they simply shoot Arafat and all the PA leadership and choose some US style puppets a la Iraq? Or do they actually expel the Palestinians from the West Bank and gaza?

There are many different options. I've already outlined a fair amount of them above. Every minimally effective solution would require killing Arafat and his friends and deNazifying the palestinians. This would probably minimally require US style puppets.

I think that most solutions would probably require Israel to expel the palestinians from Judea and Samaria (to either Jordan or Gaza). Different solutions can be had here. One could be economic incentives, which is the most humanitarian, combined with re-granting Jordanian citizenship. I'm not sure that you need more detail about this, but if you do, feel free to ask. The more militaristic option would push palestinians out of their "refugee" camps. The IDF would sweep through their towns and shoot anyone who had illegal weapons. People would be pushed toward the border, where the Jordanians could either kill them or they could sit on the border until they starve. Many palestinians would probably die during this process – OTOH, they've not really left many viable choices for Israel.

You seem to think that the possibility of transfer is ludicrous. Well, consider the other options:
1) Continue with the status quo – Israelis continue to die as do Palestinians
2) Get rid of Arafat, Hamas, and Jihad and install a puppet – would probably work for a short time, but what happens after that? UNRWA camps would probably continue, Arab governments would still promise the refugees that they could return to their homes in Tel Aviv, etc.
3) Pre-emptively surrender – Israelis die

From the Israeli perspective, #1 is bad, #2 delays the problems, and #3 is a death knell. So Israel has to make some tough choices – and given that Arab intransigence has really made it seem very unlikely that even in the case of #2, they would push the palestinians toward responsible behavior.

BTW, Sic et Non, can you tell that I'm not a novelist? I'm a strategist, not a tactician, and I always have been.

I've read all about the "transfer" of Germans and Poles west in 1945 by Stalin, so, no, I don't think the possibility is ludicrous.

"You seem to think that the possibility of transfer is ludicrous. "

This might be true. It might not be true. But you have an experiment going on right now in Iraq where the idea that a Western military (be it the Americans or the Israelis) can easily take over an Arab country with (or without) serious repurcussions. If it works, I'm sure Bush (or whoever) might just repeat the process in Syria. If it doesn't, then maybe the "Arab propaganda" I've "bought into" isn't really propaganda at all.

I've actually (to my mind) based my observations more Chechnya and the (Russian) occupation of Afghanistan than on "Arab propaganda." It seems to me that the Russians have already tried the LGF ideal towards Muslims and it hasn't worked. Just the opposite. Chechnya is now a chaotic wasteland and perfect breeding ground for Al Qaeda, is it not?

"In short, you've bought into Arab propaganda, wherein each Arab government tries to portray itself as better then any other option – which is always an Islamist government. They've managed to create this perception that it's either them or radicals in every case, essentially a game of good cop, bad cop directed at us."

Option 4) A stalemate where nobody (the Israelis, Palestinians, surrounding Arab states) feel as if they can win. Possible US/UN troops in order to protect said stalemate. Sooner or later, everybody gets sick of killing everybody else? The Israelis get to keep their Jewish state. The Palestinians get US aid and a chance not to live under an Arafat government. The surrounding Arab states get bought off and eventually democratized.

"1) Continue with the status quo – Israelis continue to die as do Palestinians"

As I said, I don't think either side really wants to think through the consequences of its blue skies proposal.

If I had a lot of money, I'd set up two literary prizes.

1.) Prize A: to be given to whatever Israeli can write the best fictionalized account of "tranferring" the Palestinians.

2.) Prize B: to be given to whatever Arab can write the best fictionalized account of what "driving Israel into the sea" would actually look like.

If I were teaching a comparative literature class and I had you and Charlotte Kates in facing chairs, I'd assign it as your homework.

I bet you'd both take an incomplete rather than do it :)

"BTW, Sic et Non, can you tell that I'm not a novelist? I'm a strategist, not a tactician, and I always have been."

Isn't that precisely what the American government has always done?

My impression of the typical American is a bit different from yours. I think that most Americans aren't terribly fond of the Israelis or their lobby in Washington.

But they hate the Arabs more.

It will take a lot to turn American public opinion actively against the Israelis, but, all I'm arguing, is that it's not going to happend because of some pro-Palestinian college kid getting run over by a bulldozer in Gaza.

It will happen because of a recession that's *perceived* to be the fault of the Israelis along with a charismatic right-wing isolationist like Pat Buchanan pushing the issue.

"I don't think many Americans would feel obligated to protect the rights of a despotic government that's threatening us with an oil weapon when it costs them a significant chunk of their lifestyle."

#219 sic et non

I've actually (to my mind) based my observations more Chechnya and the (Russian) occupation of Afghanistan than on "Arab propaganda." It seems to me that the Russians have already tried the LGF ideal towards Muslims and it hasn't worked. Just the opposite.

That's what I've been saying too...

It's been interesting to read the debate between you and Ariel. I find myself agreeing with both alternately on single points, or not sure who to agree with, which is good cos it makes one rethink and question things. But, I do believe you (and Ben) are right in saying that no matter what, why, who, when, etc., transfer is unfeasible. Daniel Pipes wrote on this in February:

The forceful removal of Palestinian Arabs from Israeli-controlled territories would indeed reduce Israeli casualties, but the political price, both abroad and within Israel, would be incalculable, rendering this option more fantastical than real. The voluntary departure of Palestinians is even more unrealistic. Jordan-is-Palestine is a non-starter for many reasons, of which the single most important is that neither Jordanians nor Palestinians show the slightest readiness to go along with it. Since there is no inclination among Palestinians to accept Jordan as a substitute for Palestine, much less Amman for Jerusalem, the only conceivable outcome of such a policy, were it somehow implemented, would be to add Jordan as a base for the Palestinian conquest of Israel.

sic et non..you say

I've actually (to my mind) based my observations more Chechnya and the (Russian) occupation of Afghanistan than on "Arab propaganda." It seems to me that the Russians have already tried the LGF ideal towards Muslims and it hasn't worked. Just the opposite. Chechnya is now a chaotic wasteland and perfect breeding ground for Al Qaeda, is it not?

so what works "towards Muslims"?

sit back and watch as the oil wealth nurtures the fantasy of the Kalfiate?

do nothing, as wave after wave of asylum seekers, flock to the west and demand sharia?

educating Muslims doesnt seem to make most of them more 'liberal' and less desireing of sharia.

the only agenda of Islam is submission to the will of Allah

the inner struggle (jihad) is a mirror of the outer struggle (itjihad)

and we all know there is no compulsion in Islam...the infidel is invited to join Islam with politeness and manners

If the infidel refuses, they must recognize the superiority of Islam and pay the Jizya and be subdued.(humiliated)

If anyone interferes or criticizes Islam, or abstructs the imposition of Islam as supreme,

it is an aggression and an attack...and then Muslims are mandated to fight a "defensive' war.

...Islam is designed to create a wasteland...It is a death cult

It took Islam 8 centuries to extinguish the major civilizations it conquered, to finally reach this point in its history.

The true face of Islam is to be seen in Arabia and Yemen, where Islam originated, and was not exposed to the outside world.

I don't even know what would work "towards" Judge Roy Moore.

But, try a little mental exercise and let's for the moment stick to the West Bank and Gaza and temporarily leave out Saudi Arabia.

I wave my magic wand over the West Bank and Gaza and instantly turn every Muslim into a Catholic.

Everything else remains exactly the same, same poverty, same Israeli occupation, same claustrophobic density of population.

What happens?

___

"so what works "towards Muslims"?"

sic and non...you present the classic muslim argument..

circular...and designed to mollify and appease and acquiesce.

"But, try a little mental exercise

...so you got a western education, left the tent, and no you are teaching?

and let's for the moment stick to the West Bank and Gaza and temporarily leave out Saudi Arabia.

...only if you leave out Chechnya...since you brought in another muslim country to demonstrate parallels

I wave my magic wand over the West Bank and Gaza and instantly turn every Muslim into a Catholic.

...if only

Everything else remains exactly the same,

...everything changes..the ignorance, the brutality, the wanton daily murder, the systemic dhimmiazation af all non Catholics...the passivity...the arrogance of entitlement...the believe that everthing that belongs to a non believer belongs to them by the world of G-d.

same poverty,

...no way..this poverty is due to the violence inherent in Islamic culture, the poverty is due to the fear Muslim societies have for innovation and outsider, knowing it is only through fear and coersion and ignorance and resentment, can Islam exist.

..how much of YOUR cash, would you use to invest in any commercial or industrial infrastructure in ANY Muslim country...(except for oil)?

same Israeli occupation

...the territories are disputed, and occupied by Israel as the result of a defensive war, against JORDAN who gave up all claims to the land west of the Jordan. There is no infrastructure in these territories willing or able to govern. No governing body able or willing to negotiate a peaceful border.

same claustrophobic density of population.

...do you think these people dont understand how babies are made.? Whats your point..Infant death rate not high enough? They fuck too much? Who is responsible for this obscene birth rate, when the people cant supply enough food, education or employment? Are WE obligated to support this horde in perpetuity?

What happens?

...they either decide to behave like civilized human beings, or they get bombed back to their fucking horis in raisin land...who the fuck cares what happens to them...

as long as they are nowhere near civilized people..

This is actually funny if you imagine it being spoken by John Cleese in a Monty Python skit about Catholics.

"...do you think these people dont understand how babies are made.? Whats your point..Infant death rate not high enough? They fuck too much? Who is responsible for this obscene birth rate, when the people cant supply enough food, education or employment? Are WE obligated to support this horde in perpetuity?"

Sic et Non #219,

Out of curiousity, since you've posted symmetric things here and on Indymedia, what's your stance?

I've read all about the "transfer" of Germans and Poles west in 1945 by Stalin, so, no, I don't think the possibility is ludicrous.

Have you read about the transfer of Turks and Greeks which ended that conflict? Or the transfer of Muslims and Hindus in India/Pakistan at the birth of those nations which reduced that conflict? There are many other examples.

But you have an experiment going on right now in Iraq where the idea that a Western military (be it the Americans or the Israelis) can easily take over an Arab country with (or without) serious repurcussions. If it works, I'm sure Bush (or whoever) might just repeat the process in Syria. If it doesn't, then maybe the "Arab propaganda" I've "bought into" isn't really propaganda at all.

I agree that this is an experiment to see whether serious repercussions will occur or not. However, it does not follow from that the Arab propganda is true (or false). If the US fails in Iraq, it does not (of necessity) mean that every Arab country has pressures from its home grown fundamentalists that it cannot control. In fact, it does not (of necessity) mean that any Arab country has pressures from its home grown fundamentalists that it cannot control.

Iraq will prove (to some degree and assuming we stay engaged) whether a Western power can create a democratic Arab state.

Iraq will not prove whether Arab despots are the only thing keeping fundamentalists at bay.

I've actually (to my mind) based my observations more Chechnya and the (Russian) occupation of Afghanistan than on "Arab propaganda." It seems to me that the Russians have already tried the LGF ideal towards Muslims and it hasn't worked. Just the opposite. Chechnya is now a chaotic wasteland and perfect breeding ground for Al Qaeda, is it not?

There is no "LGF ideal" toward Muslims. We all have our own views, some moderate, others extreme. I only speak for myself, not for any other LGFer.

Chechnya is an interesting case. The thing that differentiates Chechnya from other cases is that the Arab Afghans who fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan saw the USSR's withdrawal as a sign of the weakness of that power. The USSR's subsequent collapse could only have confirmed that view. The war in Chechnya is really the product of these failures.

The Russians have acted harshly toward the Chechnyans, of that there can be no doubt (though there can also be no doubt that the Chechens are at least as harsh). So if Russian harshness doesn't work, Israeli surrender (as in Lebanon) doesn't work, well what should the course of action be? It seems to me that the Russian harshness has made the Chechnyans responses much fewer and smaller scale then they would otherwise have been - or then they were. If militant Islam will only take reductions in attacks when it is attacked - and only increases the attacks if it is not - then the course of action is clear. Attack until they understand.

Incidentally, have you read Sam Huntington's Clash of Civilizations? At the time, 20 of 22 conflict worldwide were Islam vs something else. Now it's probably more.

Option 4) A stalemate where nobody (the Israelis, Palestinians, surrounding Arab states) feel as if they can win. Possible US/UN troops in order to protect said stalemate.

Congratulations! You've just discovered the PA's desired solution, aka the "carrier" strategy. The palestinians will be able to attack Israel from behind UN troops with impunity as it will be radical group A conducting the attacks. Meanwhile Israel will be unable to respond.

If the troops are Americans, not only will this happen, but they will be targets as well.

Sooner or later, everybody gets sick of killing everybody else?

The Israelis are already tired. That's why they've tried a variety of pre-emptive surrender options which don't involve suicide. None of them have worked.

The palestinians are not tired and there's no evidence to indicate that they will be any time soon.

#220,

As I said, I don't think either side really wants to think through the consequences of its blue skies proposal.

No, I'm aware of the consequences and have thought through them. But I'm a strategist, not a tactician. I can't say whether it'd be better to go through random village A before random village B.

I bet you'd both take an incomplete rather than do it :)

No, I could probably handle it. Incidentally, the Arabs know exactly what driving the Israelis into the sea will look like - and they're perfectly comfortable with it. I know what transfer will look like - and I'm very uncomfortable with it. I just don't see a better option that takes into consideration the political realities of the area.

#221

Isn't that precisely what the American government has always done?

I'm not sure what this in response to.

My impression of the typical American is a bit different from yours. I think that most Americans aren't terribly fond of the Israelis or their lobby in Washington.

But they hate the Arabs more.

Poll data doesn't support your assertion. You can see the Pew polls which show favorable/unfavorable opinions - if what you said was true, you'd expect like 40/60 for Israel and 10/90 for the Saudi entity. The actual numbers are more favorable of Israel:

Turkey, Russia, Israel, Egypt, South Korea, and France comprise the next group of countries in the list. All of these receive significantly more favorable than unfavorable ratings from Americans, although not as favorable as the countries discussed above.

Unfortunately, I can't find the original poll data, but I remember from when I read about it that the Saudi entity was more unfavorable then favorable.

It will happen because of a recession that's *perceived* to be the fault of the Israelis along with a charismatic right-wing isolationist like Pat Buchanan pushing the issue.

Pat Buchanan's been pushing it for a long while. If anything, his marginalization has only increased. He pushes it during recession, during expansion, or at any point in between. Everybody (all but 2% or so) still thinks he's a loon.

Anyway though, if what you're saying is true, if Islam is a death cult that thrives on blood and chaos, then any military solution short of outright extermination won't work, will it?

You'll have another Chechnya (oops, sorry). The more you bomb them, the more you drive them into the arms of Al Qaeda.

"...they either decide to behave like civilized human beings, or they get bombed back to their fucking horis in raisin land...who the fuck cares what happens to them..."

But if this is true, the answer is obvious, bombs won't work but Christianity will. So we pretty much need a two pronged attack.

1.) All of the Jews in Israel have to become Evangelical Christians (since Jews don't proselytize).

2.) They have to get to work converting the Muslims immediately and I myself will contribute 10,000 Jack Chick pamphlets collected over the years at various college campuses to your cause.

"...everything changes..the ignorance, the brutality, the wanton daily murder, the systemic dhimmiazation af all non Catholics...the passivity...the arrogance of entitlement...the believe that everthing that belongs to a non believer belongs to them by the world of G-d."

But if this is true, the answer is obvious, bombs won't work but Christianity will. So we pretty much need a two pronged attack.

we?

who is we?

YOU are not part of my we.

This is a muslim problem.

I think they should handle it

and given the Islamic agenda..

forbid building of Mosques

stop all muslim immigration

invite all muslims to leave

and begin in Dearborne..

when Muslim countries begin allowing Christian missionaries, then we can revisit this issue..

1.) All of the Jews in Israel have to become Evangelical Christians (since Jews don't proselytize).

over your dead body

Sic et Non #224,

I wave my magic wand over the West Bank and Gaza and instantly turn every Muslim into a Catholic.

Everything else remains exactly the same, same poverty, same Israeli occupation, same claustrophobic density of population.

What happens?

How many Tibetan suicide bombers do you know of? Would you say that Tibetan living conditions on the dimensions of:
* poverty
* occupation
are worse or better then in PA-controlled territories? (Population density has never been argued to be a cause of terrrorism - otherwise AUM Shinrikyo would have been in Kanto and not rural parts of Kansai.)

Would you say that before the palestinian-initiated-war on Israel the palestinian living conditions along the dimensions of:
* poverty
* occupation
were better or worse then after the start of their war?

Incidentally, instead of Tibetans feel free to substitute Kurds, Sahrawis, Berbers, Sudanese Christians, or Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar.

sic

You'll have another Chechnya (oops, sorry). The more you bomb them, the more you drive them into the arms of Al Qaeda.

no honey, the more you bomb them, the more of them die

#227 Ariel: just one thing (nice replies there) - if I'm not wrong, the war in Chechenya, and even the penetration of Islam, dates back longer than the invasion of Afghanistan.

You're right though that it intensified after the retreat of the Soviet Union (and with specifc suicide terrorist tactics). Afganistan was a triumph for Jihadis.

I think Chechenya is an instance of how a style of retaliation, developing into all-out bombing and massacre, hasn't really turned out to be effective. Not retaliation per se, as Sic et Non is saying.

Depends how, really.

(I don't know about comparing the rate of attacks before and after, but they are not limited to fighting the Russian army in Chechenyan territory as used to be more in the past, and of a clearer and stronger Jihadi nature...)

remember, Jihad is for everyone

there may be 1 billion muslims

but there are 5 billion non muslims

and we arent really pissed off yet

#232 ploome: heh...! that's undeniable.

235 zaza

only faster please...

(notice how they are always threatening us...)

Incidentally, in #227, I was quoting a Gallup poll, not a Pew poll. My mistake. That Gallup poll was also quoted by Pew, which was where I had seen it.

zaza #233,

if I'm not wrong, the war in Chechenya, and even the penetration of Islam, dates back longer than the invasion of Afghanistan.

Could be. Maybe it wasn't in the news or maybe I wasn't paying as much attention. Certainly attacks there increased after the fall of the USSR.

I think Chechenya is an instance of how a style of retaliation, developing into all-out bombing and massacre, hasn't really turned out to be effective. Not retaliation per se, as Sic et Non is saying.

Right, and I wouldn't advocate complete massacre as the Russians do. But I do advocate separating the populations, which is not something that the Russian have really tried - they're trying to kill all of the rebels they can find while trying to keep the rest of the Chechens working in the oil fields. It's not a very commonsense combination.

Born here of parents born here from parents the same, and their parents the same

You will hardly know who I am or what I mean,
But I shall be good health to you nevertheless.

___
we?

who is we?

YOU are not part of my we.

#237 Ariel: I just meant that the origins of the conflict date back from the last century even, and it's been going on all along, on and off. Terrorist attacks have increased, yes, so the fall of the Soviets sure had a role in that.

Was just being pedantic, that's all.

#238 sic et non:

YOU are not part of my we

eh? oh ok, I get it, but I think you got the lyrics wrong, it's:

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together...

...goo goo k'choo!

(sorry couldn't resist - ok am outta here now...)

238 Sic et Non

amazing how you revert to babbling

so as not to address the real issues

fantasy and threats are your response to reality

#211 - SoCal Justice: Sometimes there's nothing to see between the lines. Mary Ryan, a Career Ambassador and one of the greatest foreign service officers who ever did the job, ended up at the end of her career in a legitimate, professional dispute over U.S. policy. She had a specific philosophy about how we should administer our immigration/visa system overseas (she believed perpetually that the U.S. visa system was an unreasonable burden on legitimate travelers and an insufficient deterrent to malafide ones) and some even more specific philosophies about how we should not let the Bureau of Homeland Security get its hands on it. Also, she was in the Captain's Chair when the Sept. 11th murderers got their visas.

(though, despite the flap over "Visa Express" and all of the intense introspection that followed, it remains unclear how that outcome could have been avoided given the resource levels and statutory restraints imposed by Congress. We could debate that endlessly, so I encourage you to stipulate that the Immigration and Nationality Act is bad and contradictory, that the rules and regulations for implementing it (prior to 9/11) completely tied the hands of visa officers, that resource cuts at the State Department from the early 80s on ensured that there would never be enough bodies or facilities or computers to truly examine applicants, and that Congressional intervention at the individual visa interview level (a constant) crushed what enthusiasm was left for visa work among junior foreign service officers. It's better now, than it was, but it still isn't perfect. Imagine the scenario yourself: Terrorist Abu decides to get a visa in Cairo. He spends some dough on a nice haircut and a good suit, puts an expensive watch on his wrist, gets a manicure and a fake wedding ring, a wallet full of credit cards and some letterhead from a fortune 500 company, a few business cards, and asks for a visa a week or so before a major U.S. international trade show we know is going to attract 5 or 6 hundred thousand businessmen from all over. You're the visa officer. You have about fifty seconds to evaluate this package and decide if he's a risk. Nothing about him says "terrorist" so you hope that if he is a terrorist, someone in some other agency knows about him and will catch the name when it goes out over the computer for a final security check. He doesn't seem like an immigration risk, because his papers seem plausible, he's the wrong age to be skipping to the U.S., he doesn't have family there, and he has the little things right -- illegal immigrants don't usually blow what little coin they have on a watch, and they aren't usually married. So at that point, you figure he's a legitimate traveler and now your concern becomes a) how to inconvenience him least, and b) how to get to the 200 people in line behind him fastest. We're still waiting for that Jedi mind trick that will make them tell the truth in 30 seconds. And we laugh at the folks in the U.S. who imagine every visa interview like a scene in the interrogation room in NYPD Blue. We see seven million visa applications a year. Things may be different now -- I haven't actually seen a visa applicant in a mercifully long time -- but that's roughly how it went.)

Anyway, my point was that Mary Ryan ended up in a serious policy disagreement with the Secretary of State at a time when State was in a serious policy disagreement with Congress, and the Secretary and President ultimately decided that she had to go. There was no corruption there, none at all.

The corruption we periodically uncover in Consulates around the world is usually (not always) low-level, with our local national employees and occasional junior or mid-level officer taking bribes to give visas. It sucks, but we hunt it mercilessly and punish it severely. You don't get a transfer if you get caught selling visas. You go to jail. A former colleague of mine (we stamped visas together in Asia in the mid-90s) named Tom Carroll used to ask attractive young women to come back after hours to discuss their applications. We complained to the Ambassador about it, and he was booted out of the post. Because he hadn't taken money, and because we didn't have proof (no one had caught him in the act) he didn't get fired. But when he ultimately landed in South America, he graduated to actual visa selling. Diplomatic Security was on to him within a few months, built a case, and when he went home to Chicago for R&R his first year, U.S. Marshals were waiting for him. He's doing 5-10 years in federal prison now. The Qatari employees have similar problems (over the last 10-15 years we've wrapped up small-scale operations like this in Manila, Hanoi, Mexico City, Bombay, Beijing, Santo Domingo, and Ciudad Juarez. It happens every few years. DS almost always catches them.)

My point being, Mary Ryan wasn't corrupt. She may have been wrong, but she wasn't corrupt. To me the impressive thing there was first that she stood her ground when the President and Secretary said they didn't support her (which took courage) and second that the President and Secretary let her go, rather than shunt her off someplace to avoid the negative publicity. Leadership isn't displayed when you handle the easy stuff, it comes out when you have to take on the hard stuff.

God bless Saturday mornings. . . .

Ben - nice to see you back. Good Saturday to you, too.

I do not think for one moment that just because something worked in the past it will work again today, but --

There were Germans in the Suedentenland in 1938. In 1948, I believe, there were none or far fewer. There were Germans in the Ukraine in 1933. In 1938 there were far fewer.

In one instance, the Germans were forced out as instigators (actively as collaborators or passively as propaganda tools) of the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia by [Godwin's Law Invoked: Name Deleted]. The removal of the Germans came after the end of WWII, and the Germans had lost. And Bohemia became much more Czech and much less German.

In the other instance, the Germans (who had been invited in by a Russian Czarina, Catherine the Great, IIRC), were seen as a source of instability & insurrection & were either exiled, killed, or impoverished. And many of them were (eventually) returned to Germany in the 40s-70s. (My family among them.)

In both cases (among the many population transfers of the XX century), an ethnic group was removed from its residence. In one case, the transfer happened (relatively) peacefully.

Why wouldn't that work for Jorday/Egypt? AFAIK, the coastal area just to the south of Gaza City/Rafah is just like Gaza City/Rafah - so remove the entire area about 20 miles south. Give them cargo ships full of building supplies. Give them a desalinization plant. Give every family a free Yugo. And then give them 6 months to leave, or their house/business is simply razed.

Why wouldn't it work? The Gaza-ites are Egyptians; send 'em back to Egypt. (Why they think they have ANYTHING to do with the population of the West Bank is beyond me.)

And then do the same for the West Bank, but do it in stages - say, 1/3 of the population every 6 months. Send 'em back to their own country. They are simply citizens of Jordan on the wrong side of the armistice line.

#241 Ben

Thanks for responding to the question I had at #46. Surely, though, the State Department knew more than most of us (US citizens) knew about the problems with Saudi applicants as relates to terrorist activities, and that the threat was very real. I knew a little about bin Laden's threats, and when the second plane hit my first words were "bin Laden". It's our government's job to keep these people OUT. Why, exactly, were Saudi applicants handled so carelessly, given the information available to State?

J.D -

I think Ben answered your question, at least by implication. What Ben was saying above is that the visa workload is immense, the vast majority of it is for peaceful/business purposes vital to our economic way of life and our commitment to freedom of travel and personal interaction, and, to add to the burden, State labors under inconsistent laws that make enforcement of visa requirements a difficult job at best. The end result was insufficient time to deal with each individual application for a visa. Remember, literally millions visit the US each year, and that travel is a vital national interest.

I suspect things are going a bit differently now, but, prior to 9.11, there just wasn't any indication of the magnitude of the threat. Seemingly middle class, well-educated older Saudis, like the 9.11 bastards, just weren't going to set off alarm bells at that point in time.

Ben 241:

Happy weekend.

Good post.

You write:

You have about fifty seconds to evaluate this package and decide if he's a risk

Why only fifty seconds? Is it a numbers game - (i know you wrote 7 million applicants/year and budget cuts)? Too many applicants, too little time? Or did "visa express" speed up the process somewhat?

Did you address Ariel's 214 post?

I'd be interested in your perpective on that too.