The Bosque Boys

In an earlier post I questioned the wisdom of the UN cease-fire deal in Lebanon. Historian Arthur Herman gives his analysis here. Link from Powerline. Feeling like 1938.

One of Niebuhr's key insights in Christian Realism, is that organizations or structures lack the ability to transcend themselves and so are incapable of repentence. Individuals may repent, but not corporations. Human structures (private businesses or governments) only change behavior when forced to do so. In part this is because the imperative of self-interest applies to organizations at least as much as to individuals. An office set up to monitor workplace safety will not declare the workplace safe and abolish itself: it will find new "threats" to justify funding and new hiring. Put another way, the individuals who make up that office will continue to justify their own pay and power and seek to expand both. This is why government programs never are abolished; the organization itself operates out of self-interest and is not suicidal. This principle also explains why the State Department always pushes for a diplomatic solution even when such a solution may be bad for our national interest. Diplomacy is what State does.

The recent episode of the disappering Egyptian "students" should cause us to ask if it is time to challenge higher education in the name of the common good. Schools and colleges will continue to act in self-interest; it is in their self-interest to have more students paying tuition, getting grants, etc. Foreign students help pay the bills and increase enrollment. We cannot expect institutions of higher education to transcend themselves, repent, and confess that they have wronged the country by pushing for more and more Middle Eastern students. We the people, through our government, must push to cut down on the numbers of students from predominently Islamic countries to a number we can keep good track of.

From the UK Telegraph, an article by a Brit on what is good about America. Link here. Link from Wizbang.

I cannot for the life of me see what Israel gets from the UN sponsored cease-fire. Hezbollah has demonstrated already their willingness to disregard UN mandates to disarm. Hezbolah has demonstrated already their contempt for UN observers on the Lebanese border. Why should we think that the results of the current UN deal will be any different than past attempts to stabilize the border? And, what of the fate of the captured Israeli soldiers? Plus, the biggie--Iran is not punished for sponsoring a war against a UN member. (see my earlier post on Iran in the region) I do not know why Israel is accepting this cease-fire, unless the US pressured them unmercifully.

For an even more pessimistic view see this article reporting thoughts by Walid Phares. (link from JIhadwatch).

In the current war we fight not an ethnic group, or a race, but those who are motivated by a set of beliefs. (Although there are ethnic correlations.) This article from The Sun presents the life of one of the suspects arrested in the recent plot to bomb airplanes. He was a convert to Islam from Methodism. "Don Stewart-Whyte, 21, changed his name to Abdul Waheed and grew a bushy beard, said his neighbours." Profiling is needed, but cannot be enough because of converts such as Stewart-White. Plus, profiling is passive defense. If we are not already monitoring mosques in the West, why not?

You've probably seen this scene in the movies: the hero(es) shoot/slice/smash the monster(s), but instead of a dead monster there now are two live ones attacking. The War against Radical Islam can feel like this. We kill the fighters, capture or kill some of the leaders, and the attacking swarm seems to grow. So, how do we win? Or, to put it more broadly, how do we respond to the threat?

One option is to pretend the monster does not exist. If we walk quietly, dismiss the testimony of those who claim to have seen the monster, and live an ordinary non-threatening-to-anything life, then all will be well. You know how that turns out in the moview: that guy gets eaten/killed/turned into a mutant. In real life it is difficult to imagine a different alternative. Western civilization is an affront to devout Muslims especially for being non-Muslim. Islam sees the world as the Realm of Submission (Islamic) and the Realm of War (everywhere else). Muslims are under religious compulsion to turn the entire world into the realm of submission to the glory of Allah (if Allah wills). Christians and Jews traditionally are allowed a place in the Realm of Submission as second-class citizens, as dhimmis, but are to be made to feel subjected. Pretending there is no threat will not make the threat go away.

Another option is to resist, but to dismiss the idea of winning and try for a draw. If we can just contain the monster in the swamp, then life can go on elsewhere. The broad historical context for the current war is the nearly 1400 year long war between Islam and everyone else. The Middle East was Christian until conquered, as was North Africa, and Asia Minor (where Turkey now is). Spain was conquered, but won back its freedom in the reconquista. Western Europe preserved its freedom with decisive victories in southern France and Austria, and hung on through long centuries of back and forth warfare in the Mediterranean especially Sicily and the Italian penninsula. Greece eventually was liberated. We could simply try for a draw, fighting to preserve what we have. But, in the movies the monster usually will not be content merely to stay in the swamp; and in real life Islamic ideology demands imperialism. (cont.)

» Read More

An ancient Coptic monastery in Egypt threatened. Link.

An Iranian Muslim convert to Christianity arrested. Link.

From Jihadwatch.

How do you kill an octopus? I don't really know, but I assume that rather than cutting each tentacle you go for the head.

It is becoming more and more obvious each day that Iran is a serious combatant in the Middle East against Israel and against U.S. interests. Iran arms Hezbollah, has Revolutionary Guards fighting in Lebanon, and threatens to exterminate Israel. Iran is working to undermine U.S. progress in Iraq, especially in the Shiite south. So far Israel and the U.S. have hacked at the tentacles.

Should we attack Iran? That course of action has great risks. Our present policy also has great risks. We have invested 2500 American lives in Iraq. Not doing anything has great risks. At a minimum, I would think we should be actively undermining the Iranian regime and blocking their ability to build and acquire weapons and to fund terrorists.

Iraq has been compared, usually ill-advisedly in my opinion, to Vietnam. One comparison does bother me: allowing the enemy to maintain safe sanctuaries and to receive patronage from outside the theater of combat.

Sometimes its hard to be too paranoid. Now seems to be one of those times. In earlier posts I have called attention to the apocalyptic world-view of the mullahs of Iran. In one post I linked to a possible reason to think that August 22, the day the Iranians have said they will answer the West regarding nuclear weapons, may hold terrible significance. Now, the dean of Middle East scholars, Bernard Lewis of Princeton, warns what may be in store on that day. (Link from Drudge.) We live in interesting times. For my previous posts see here and here. Everything we know about Ahmadinejad, the ruler of Iran, indicates that he is driven primarily by religious motivation.
Here is the full text of Dr. Lewis' essay.

This article from the Havana Journal presents some of the rumors in Cuba regarding Castro and Santeria.