Before I shut it down for 2006 . . .

. . . I thought I’d relay an excellent Corner post by Andy McCarthy on the death penalty, and why executions for criminals (which I oppose) are different than for enemy combatants (which I support, including combatants that the government idiotically tosses into the criminal justice system where they do not belong):

National security cases, though, are different. Someone like Saddam is destabilizing in a war for national survival as long as he lives. Jihadists, similarly, become much more influential in the jihadist world when they have been convicted for acts of terrorism and are imprisoned . . . These “defendants” are enemy combatants, not just criminals. Their survival has to be weighed against the safety of the nation, not just individuals they might endanger. That tilts the scales, heavily in my view, in favor of their execution.

Read the whole thing here.

Saddam in Iraqi custody (UPDATE: Maybe not)

Why do I have this gnawing fear the next CNN report will be a Ba’athist-aided escape?

UPDATE: Reuters is saying the handover hasn’t happened yet.

Ethiopian-backed Somali troops enter Mogadishu

The secular Somali government entered Mogadishu, the nation’s capital, after it was abandoned by the al Qaedite Union of Islamic Courts, which is reeling from an offensive by the government’s Ethiopian allies (CTV). The success of said offensive led John J. Miller (National Review Online: The Corner) to ponder “whether we should airlift a few Ethiopian battalions into Baghdad.”

Iraq: Bush Didn’t Lie After All

Those of us who still believe the liberation of Iraq was the right thing to do have been pelted endlessly with derisive comments about the lack of “weapons of mass destruction” found in Iraq after Saddam’s regime was bounced. My usual response – that the weapons may have been smuggled into Syria – usually falls on deaf ears. Perhaps Olivier Guitta will have better luck (Washington Examiner), as he reveals that “Syria has been quietly – but quickly – advancing its own secret nuclear program.”

How, you ask? Thusly: “the well-informed Kuwaiti daily newspaper Al Seyassah . . . quoted European intelligence sources as saying that ‘Syria has an advanced nuclear program’ in a secret site located in the province of Al Hassaka, close to the Turkish and Iraqi borders . . . This nuclear weapons program is based on material that Saddam Hussein’s two sons shipped to Syria before – and during – the U.S. war against Iraq. According to the Kuwaiti newspaper, this explains why international investigative teams found no proof of Hussein’s nuclear program” (emphasis added – h/t Cliff May).

One thing that always worried me was that, if I was right, the Assad regime could greatly accelerate its own “nonconventional” weapons program (the old name for WMD), now that Saddam would be in no position to ask for it all back. Now my worst fears are being realized. It’s time we recognize the joint threat from Syria’s Ba’athists and Iran’s Khomeinists, and act accordingly.

As for Iraq, it should be fairly clear now that President Bush was a lot closer to the mark on Iraq’s nuclear threat than conventional wisdom (to say nothing of MSM) is willing to acknowledge. Let’s hope this gives the President added resolve to stand firm.

It’s time to return to principles

Much of the Virginia blogosphere has been consumed by Waldo-gate (or, for the left-wing part of the readership, GGD-gate). I’ve generally steered clear of this as much as I could, in part because I’m so new here (too new to even be on Waldo’s aggregator in the first place), but I think it’s time we in the ODBA (and the right side of the VA blogosphere in general) re-assess who we are, and why we do what we do.

We are not in this to engage in a belt-notching contest with the lefty blogs; we’re in this to advance the policies that will bring freedom, security, and prosperity to this Commonwealth and to the nation as a whole. When we lose sight of that, we lose. Period.

As much as I hate to say this, I think the Allen loss has caused some very deep scars that still haven’t healed. Yet the anger over the Allen debacle is, in my view, pointed in the wrong direction.

You want to know why George Allen lost? It wasn’t “macaca,” or the lefty blogs, or even the Washington Post. They made the race competitive for a brief time, but that was all they did. George Allen lost the race, and he lost it because he turned his campaign into an issue-free zone.

I know this from personal experience. In early August, Jim Webb publicly called for negotiations with Bashar Assad, the strongman of Syria and the man who most likely ordered the assassination of several anti-Syrian politicians in Lebanon. His explanation revealed a stunning ignorance of the situation: “There is a way to cut Syria away from Iran. It is not a natural alliance. The Sunnis are a secular society” (Washington Times – emphasis added). Apparently, Webb was completely unaware that the Assad family (both Bashar and his late father-predecessor Hafez) were Shi’ite, not Sunni. Leaving aside the highly debatable question of the Sunnis being “secular” (Wahhabism is a strain of Sunni Islam), it was a shocking error, and one I relayed to Allen’s campaign staff as quickly as I could.

I was thanked for the information, and then – nothing: no mention from the Allen campaign about his opponent making such a boneheaded mistake about the Middle East, and for that reason endorsing a policy of deal-making with the region’s leading political assassin. We heard about Webb’s comments on the Naval Academy from the 1980′s, book excerpts, and his Craney Island misstep, but on Webb’s misreading of fundamental realities in the most volatile region on Earth where over 150,000 American troops were fighting to protect us – absolute silence.

Webb defeated Allen by less than a third of one percent, or one voter for every 333; he had quite a few military folks voting him. Would they and others have still done so if they knew Webb’s Middle Eastern policy was in part based on not knowing the history of the Syria-Iran alliance?

Allen’s loss was as painful to me as it was any other Virginia Republican; perhaps even more so because I was one of the few who knew Webb’s Syrian folly. In fact, that’s the entire point. The Virginia voters – all Virginia voters – should have heard about this from Allen’s campaign. Instead, only the lucky few who followed my blog (and, to be fair, Shaun Kenney’s), were aware of this.

Folks, Waldo Jaquith had nothing to do with that.

So, with that in mind, let’s remember why we’re here. It’s about issues, not point-scoring. The more we focus on issues, the more we win; the more we get into personal battles, the more we lose.

The New Year is almost upon us. Unless I miss my guess (and it wouldn’t be the first time), it will soon come with a proposal from Governor Kaine for more “revenues for transportation” (i.e., higher taxes), never mind that the Commonwealth has been spending money like water for over half a decade. Meanwhile, the calls for surrender in Iraq will continue to multiply, never mind the horrific consequences.

So, instead of railing about Waldo’s aggregator, let’s wrap our brains around an effort to inform Virginians that fiscal restraint in Richmond can enable us to meet our future needs without socking the taxpayer, and that America can – and, in fact, must – complete the liberation of Iraq. If we focus on getting these messages out, we’ll have a very successful 2007.

The Ethiopian advance continues

The terrorists have abandoned Mogadishu without a fight (BBC).

The best line on this theatre in the Wahhabist-Ba’athist-Khomeinist War comes from James S. Robbins in National Review Online‘s The Corner: “Ethiopia is in it to win, nice to see a country in the developing world (or anywhere for that matter) that can take care of business.”

Indeed.

What is this war?

It has been more than five years since the 9/11/01 attacks, the outrage that, according to conventional wisdom, began the “War on Terror.” Ever since the term was coined, I have used it, but always felt a little uncomfortable with it. In fact, from this post forward, I won’t be using the term “War on Terror” anymore. That said, the alternatives that have popped up over these past years haven’t been very effective either.

To some, this may seem a ridiculous, academic exercise, but words mean something – especially now, when we rely on them as much as our military hardware to triumph over our enemies. Therefore, I think it best that we actually get the name of this war right.

The most important thing about it is to determine whom we are fighting. This why some of the more prevalent names – War on Terror, War against Violent Extremism, and War for the Free World – don’t work for me. Terror doesn’t describe an enemy, but rather a method the enemy uses. Moreover, we are not in fact, at war with all who use terror as a weapon. I know of no effort to exterminate the Irish Republican Army. Hugo Chavez’s goon squads are not on anyone target list (OK, not on any military‘s target list). Stalinist North Korea has been committing terrorism longer than the mullahs of Iran, yet war is the last thing anyone in Washington seems to want there. Thus, War on Terror falls short (as does War against Violent Extremism, for that matter).

As for War for the Free World (Frank Gaffney’s favorite) this may be more wishful thinking than an accurate description. Don’t get me wrong; I admire Gaffney a great deal, he is one of the few leading pundits in Washington who understands the threat from Communist China. However, that’s the entire point, he is one of the few. Hardly anyone in power is noticing that Communist China is the leading sponsor of terrorism on the planet, let alone taking the appropriate policies to combat this.

I do believe Communist China is fighting a cold war against us (I call it Cold War II), but that doesn’t help in describing this war. After all, Cold War I had two wars within it (Korea and Vietnam), so even if our enemies are being backed by Communist China (and they are), the name of this war still eludes me. That said, if this were a War for the Free World, Washington would get serious about the Communist threat, and that is not happening right now.

The other four monikers for this war – War against Islam, radical Islam, Islamism, or Islamo-fascism, actually try to describe our enemy, but I think they all fail.

To call this a War against Islam is far to broad a brush. The fact is, there is at least one spiritual “denomination” (the Sufi) who claim Islam is not a violent faith, and considers those Muslims to support violence to run counter to the true faith. Now, the blogosphere is full of arguments about the validity of this, but so long as there is an argument within Islam on this, one cannot call it a war against all Islam, or even “true” Islam.

Moreover, the War on Islam theme ignores the role of the secular Ba’ath Party in this war. Saddam Hussein’s regime had radical Muslim friends, but it was never an Islamic regime. Its most public face (besides Saddam himself) was Tariq Aziz, who was a practicing Catholic. This is not to say Saddam’s regime wasn’t dangerous (those would say so are wrong) or that the liberation of Iraq was unjustified (ditto – more on this in a future post). It is to say that the War on Islam moniker misses a very important enemy force, and thus is incomplete (this also applies to the other three: radical Islam, Islamism, or Islamo-fascism).

So how do we name our enemy? I would suggest we simply list them.

This wouldn’t the first time a war was named for its enemies. What the rest of the world calls the Seven Years War (1756-63), we still call the French and Indian War – named after the French and Indians defeated by the British and colonial forces. With that precedent in mind, who are we fighting?

Clearly, al Qaeda leads the list, but al Qaeda has ties to several other groups that we or our allies are fighting, be it in Somalia, the Philippines, India, Afghanistan, etc. What holds them together is the deeply ideological strain of Islam known as Wahhabism. The Wahhabists are among the most radical of all Muslims, and wherever they have gone (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan), they have created throwback tyrannies and breeding grounds for terrorists (or in the case of SA, terrorist financiers – see National Review Online). While I have repeatedly said Islam is not a violent faith, I give no such ground to Wahhabism. Given Saudi Arabia’s record as a fundraiser for terrorists (here’s more from the Christian Science Monitor), and Pakistan’s new coziness with the Taliban, I think one can safely say Wahhabism is an enemy, the protestations of the Saudi royal family notwithstanding.

Given Saddam’s regime, Ba’athism certainly should be added to the list. The actions of the lone Ba’athist regime left on earth (that would be Syria) would only further justify its inclusion (for the uninitiated, Ba’athism is a secular Arabist ideology brought to the Middle East during World War II by Vichy France – see Cliff May, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies).

The final enemy in the war is the mullahcracy of Iran, which is not only arming militias in Iraq to kill Americans (NRO: The Corner), but also had a hand in the Khobar Towers bombing of 1996 (NRO). However, the people of Iran have and most likely want nothing to do with this war. In fact, they want nothing to do with the mullahs who are running their country into the ground.

What drives the mullahcracy to tyrannize its own people and terrorize everyone else? It is the “teachings” of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the regime first theocratic ruler from 1979 until his death ten years later. Thus, I use the term Khomeinism to describe the last enemy, which would thus also cover the regime’s terrorist proxies: Hezbollah and Hamas.

Thus it becomes clear, we are at war with Wahhabists, Ba’athists, and Khomeinists. We face all three in Iraq, the first and last in Afghanistan, and the last two in Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine. The Wahhabists also lead the enemy charge in India, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Somalia.

Therefore, I would humbly submit the best description for this conflict is the Wahhabist-Ba’athist-Khomeinist War (or WBK War for short, hence the category name).

However, we must remember that our enemies have one common benefactor, the Chinese Communist Party. So long as the regime in Zhongnanhai, Beijing is given a free pass, neither Cold War II nor the WBK War will be won.

Let’s hear it for Ethiopia

UPDATE: Whoops! I forgot to add the link on the Ethiopian anti-terrorist offensive in Somalia. Here it is (Cliff May, National Review Online: the Corner).

Amidst the battle of Baghdad, Pakistan’s truce with the Taliban, and of course, that unfortunate event on November 7, the end of the year did provide us with some good news from the Horn of Africa.

This was supposed to be the year al Qaeda finally had a new safe haven, in Somalia, after the al-Qaeda backed Union of Islamic Courts captured most of the country. You may remember the wringing of hands in the media, the occasional Democrat chirping about Somalia falling due to the Bush Administration’s “obsession” with Iraq, etc., etc.

In all seriousness, though, an al-Qaeda-controlled Somalia (yes, Black Hawk Down Somalia) would have been a very big problem. It would be a major expansion for the terrorist group; it would have been a symbol of the western world’s inability to hold back the forces of terror; and it might have provided a place for Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to seek refuge, should Pakistan ever grow a spine (I’m not holding my breath).

Note that I said, “would have been.” Why? Because the al-Qaedites have been thrown back by secular Somali forces backed by Somalia’s neighbor: Ethiopia.

Now, most who remember the 1980s have one searing memory about Ethiopia: famine. The Ethiopian famine was a cause celebre among the chattering classes – especially given that Ethiopian strongman Mengistu Haile Mariam was a Communist and on the outs with the Reagan Administration. Bob Geldof went from an unknown Irish punk rocker to a household name with endless lectures to Americans calling on them, in effect, to help him help Ethiopia. They even did a Christmas song – for those of you who don’t remember, three words: “Feeeed the wooooooorld” (what is not as well known is that Mengistu was one of the cruelest and most blood-thirsty tyrants in Africa’s history; Geldof soon dropped the whole project in disgust over the behavior the Mengistu regime – can’t find a link, but I swear I saw it in National Review back then – but I digress).

Mengistu was ousted by anti-Communist rebels in 1991, and Ethiopia has been moving closer to the United States ever since. Now, a nation that was once the world’s best-known basket case has become a vital – and successful – ally in the Wahhabist-Ba’athist-Khomeinist War (also known as the War on Terror – more on my moniker later), marching where Bill Clinton feared to tread.

So, as we look at the year that was, let us remember it’s not a total loss, and let us also remember one nation that has refused to play the anti-American game.

Three cheers for Ethiopia!

Jimmy bin Carter

Yours truly returns to familiar territory (for me) with this post: ripping Jimmy Carter.

Just recently, Carter took a big step towards destroying his reputation as “the nation’s greatest ex-President” with a new book that basically slurs Israel for hundreds of pages. The head of his own Carter Center quit in disgust; Ambassador Dennis Ross accused him of plagiarism; and now blogger Melanie Phillips reveals Carter’s history of fundraising in Wahhabi central: Saudi Arabia.

Carter even has the name “bin Laden” in his donor list: “Carter has also found moneyed allies in the Bin Laden family, and in 2000 he secured a promise from ten of Osama bin Laden’s brothers for a $1 million contribution to his center. To be sure, there is no evidence that the Bin Ladens maintain any contact with their terrorist relation. But applying Carter’s own standard, his extensive contacts with the Saudi elite must make his views on the Middle East suspect” (emphasis added – h/t to my fellow Shotgun blogger EclectEcon).

I’ve hinted to it before (in comments) and will soon have a larger post expanding on this, but Saudi Arabia has done its best to ensure the only face of Islam most Americans see are terrorism apologists. Their exportation of Wahhabism to Pakistan was a direct cause of the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan (and the radicalization of most Pakistani Muslims in Great Britain).

The proper thing to do when faced with Saudi money is to treat it as an insult. Instead, Carter seems to think the Saudis are fine folks. That says everything you need to know about his views on the Wahhabist-Ba’athist-Khomeinist War.

Virgil, Virgil, Virgil . . .

When I first stumbled into the blogosphere early last year, I envisioned several possible roles for myself; defender of Islam wasn’t on the list. Yet I have been forced to do it before, and thanks to Congressman Virgil Goode, I must do so again. How did it ever come to this?

Anyhow, for anyone who has not heard yet, Congressman Goode has sent a de facto mass mailing to some of his constituents highlighting his restrictionist view on illegal immigration. For the record, I, too, am an illegal immigration restrictionist, but I am highly uncomfortable with his justification – namely the election of Muslim Democrat Keith Ellison, and Mr. Ellison’s insistence on taking his oath on the Koran rather than the Bible. Unless I miss my guess, Goode all but declares Islam incompatible with the American republic: “I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped” (via C-ville, emphasis added).

Now, I know next to nothing about Congressman-elect Ellison, except that he is a Minnesota Democrat not named Paul Wellstone (R.I.P.), which is bad enough me. However, Goode’s apparent assertion that Islam and the American republic cannot mix is flat out wrong. I know many Americans, including Virginians, have managed to convince themselves that Islam is an inherently tyrannical and violent faith – an understandable mistake given the violent and tyrannical folks who use Islam as a cover for their ambitions and bloodlust. However, it is still a mistake that could very well cost us in Afghanistan, Iraq, and throughout the Muslim world.

The fact is, our enemies in these places (and Iran, Syria, and Lebanon) do not represent Islam; they have perverted it. The ideology that drives al Qaeda, for example, is not “traditional Islam,” it is Wahhabism, a radical Saudi offshoot of the faith that is less than three centuries old. Likewise, the Shia who rule over Iran and Syria with an iron fist while killing Israelis, Lebanese, and Iraqis are either eccentrics shunned by regular believers (the Allawite Shia who control Syria) or radicals who reign based on an interpretation of the faith that is less than a century old (Khomeinism, in Iran). Meanwhile, the Muslims who have in fact developed Islam into a spiritual faith that is both tolerant of others and comfortable in modern society (known as Sufi Muslims – a spiritual path that bridged the Sunni-Shia divide and is over a thousand years old), is shunted to the side by all of these terrorists, because none of them want the world to see Islam can in fact be a peaceful faith.

If this sounds personal to me, that’s because it is. I have befriended many Uighur Muslims, whose people hail from East Turkestan. This is a central Asian nation rich in history and culture, but few know of its existence because it was occupied by Communist China in 1949. Of course, the Communists insist any Muslim (Uighur or otherwise) who opposes the Party is a “terrorist” – notwithstanding the fact that the Communists themselves are the most prolific supporters Islamo-fascist terrorism on the planet.

More to the point, what are we saying to the Iraqi, anti-Assad Lebanese, and Afghan Muslims who have risked life and limb to stand with us against the terrorists who pervert their faith? Or to the Iranians who bravely spoke truth to power when madman Mahmoud paid them a visit earlier this month?

What would Virgil Goode say to them?