Archive for January, 2005

Security efforts hold insurgents mostly at bay

A good, short summary by the NYT on election security strategy. “Read the whole thing”. One example I thought was simply brilliant:

Every soldier on election duty heard intelligence warnings that insurgents would try to slip bomb-laden suicide vests into polling places beneath the long gowns of an Iraqi woman or of a man in woman’s clothing. That presented a particular difficulty in a society where it is not acceptable for a man to search a woman, and there were hardly enough women in the Iraqi Interior Ministry to spend a day at every polling site conducting body searches. But American officers devised a solution. They agreed on a plan with Iraqi security forces, who were the visible presence inside each polling place, that one of the first women to arrive at larger polling places would be searched, and that woman would in turn be asked to search 10 others. One of those 10 would then search 10 others before voting, and so on in a daisy chain.

The solution was evidently 100% effective. But also consider the personal bravery of every Iraqi woman who undertook her assignment. If she found one of the vested terrorists she would almost certainly die.

Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commands the First Infantry Division, said in an e-mail message on Sunday night that the insurgents’ “ineffective attacks” hampered fewer than 3 percent of the 951 polling stations in the four provinces in north-central Iraq that his forces oversee. Commanders warned, however, against being lulled into any false sense of security after the voting. “The post-election period will still be a high-threat period as it is likely, in my opinion, that the insurgents will try to detract from the successes of today,” General Ham said. He predicted that insurgents now would single out voting officials, Iraqi security forces “and certainly the winners, once they are announced.”

A vote to persevere

Cori Dauber’s comment on today’s WaPo editorial was “I wish I could write like this”

This is the closing paragraph, RTWT:

Yesterday, however, Americans finally got a good look at who they are fighting for: millions of average people who have suffered for years under dictatorship and who now desperately want to live in a free and peaceful country. Their votes were an act of courage and faith — and an answer to the question of whether the mission in Iraq remains a just cause.

Conspiracy Theories for the Tsunami

MEMRI has a roundup of Arabic press conspiracy theories for the Tsunami. Here’s the featured items from Special Dispatch Series - No 842.
1. Palestinian Friday Sermon by Sheik Mudeiris: The Tsunami is Allah’s Revenge at Bangkok Corruption
2. Advisor to Saudi Arabia’s Justice Minister: The Nations were Destroyed for Lying, Sinning, and being Infidels
3. Saudi Professor Sheikh Fawzan Al-Fawzan: Allah Punishes for Homosexuality and Fornication at Christmas
4. Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-Munajjid: Allah Finished Off the Richter Scale in Revenge of Infidel Criminals
And my personal favorite theory:
5. Egyptian Nationalist Weekly- U.S.-Israel-India Nuclear Testing May have Caused Asian Tsunami; The Goal- Testing how to Liquidate Humanity

“But the scientific reports stated that there had been nuclear activity in this region- particularly after America’s recent decision to rely largely on the Australian desert- part of which is inside the ‘Ring of Fire’- for its secret nuclear testing. “Similarly, many international reports spoke of joint Indian-Israeli nuclear activity. Moreover, only this year Arab and Islamic countries intervened more than three times in the U.S. to stop this joint nuclear activity.

Friends of Democracy C-SPAN Panel

The C-SPAN live panel discussion has just finished. It was an emotional experience. Kudos to Jim Hake, Spirit of America, and the donor/supporters of Spirit of America for funding and organizing this event.


It is the first case of an historic event, that I’m aware of, where the public was able to receive direct, unfiltered reportage and commentary. This “truly free channel” bypassed the “legacy media” completely. So we were able to hear directly from Iraqis all over Iraq, from expats in the US, with objective studio commentary by serious people. Not in view were any network $6M-anchors spinning the story.


If you missed the live cable coverage, or the webcast, I believe you’ll be able to order the broadcast from the C-SPAN archives here [it takes a couple of weeks for the content to become available].


As I mentioned earlier Michael J. Totten was asked to serve as the “editor” of questions submitted from the web to the panelists. A description of the process and some snippets from the panel discussion are here on Michael’s site.
If you’re wondering from where Michael was receiving the online questions, that Friends of Democracy comments page is here. . Be warned that the comments are also un-filtered, there are some pro-Saddam comments in the mix.
There are also comments at Michael’s site.


I won’t close with a lot of “yes, but” qualifiers - there will be a quite ample supply of that reportage to be read/heard in the legacy media. For now I’m happy to celebrate with the Iraqis their success in today’s battle, just one battle of a long war against tyranny.

A Democracy is Born

A Democracy is Born“: This panel discussion is an excellent overview by some knowledgeable scholars. Panelists include:

Paul Gigot, moderator.

Michael Rubin - a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former official of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad.

Fouad Ajami - director of the Middle East Studies Program at Johns Hopkins University.

Daniel Henniger - deputy editor WSJ editorial board.

You can jump directly to the Full transcript:

CFR: Transition 2005: U.S. Policy Toward Iran

The Council on Foreign Relations has just published the seminar transcript for Transition 2005: U.S. Policy Toward Iran, held in DC on Jan 12, 2005. The panel is comprised of some serious thinkers who take on the hard questions, resulting in very useful and informed debate on the policy options.

Speaker: Kenneth M. Pollack, senior fellow and director of research, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, The Brookings Institution; author, “The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America”

Speaker: Mark Palmer, president and chief executive officer, Capital Development Company; member, Committee on the Present Danger

Speaker: David Kay, senior research fellow, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies Presider: Ray Takeyh, senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies, Council on Foreign Relations

E.g., in a discussion on support for the Iranian opposition, David Kay tackles the nuclear clock outpacing the regime-change clock:

KAY: Yeah, just a quick point, Ray. I think, Ray, when you talk about opposition groups, you have to realize–Ken said one thing that I strongly agree to and think you ought to keep in the forefront of your mind. There really are two clocks. There is a clock of regime change and there is a nuclear weapons program clock. The regime change, under any condition I can imagine, is a very slow-ticking clock. The nuclear weapons program clock is a very rapidly evolving clock. The focus of attention needs to be on: are there steps we can take that will defer the success of a nuclear weapons program in Iran? And the goal of success for the administration ought not to be the elimination of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. That’s not going to happen at this stage. It is that deferral, delay so that the regime change clock has a chance to catch up…

Later, in the realistic context of revived growth in nuclear power worldwide, David Kay comments on a proposal to offer to Iran a supply of enriched uranium:

KAY: Well, let me answer the question, but let me first say I think it would be a huge mistake to take the military option off the table. I think one of the difficulties in negotiating with the Europeans in getting a common framework is they will never agree to the military option–and yet we have to maintain it if we are to have any hope. Look, I think there is a potential of a yes-able deal with the Iranians in the nuclear issue. As much as some people in this room may not like it, there’s going to be a renaissance of nuclear energy, or we’re going to be floating–like California. The nuclear industry is coming back. This is the point: instead of telling the Iranians, “You shouldn’t have nuclear power, you’ve got gas, and you should just use that for your energy,” we should say to the Iranians, and I think we should say it to some other countries as well, “There is going to be a renaissance, we realize there’s a role for nuclear energy. The dangerous part of this for all of us is the enrichment area, and we’re proposing the creation of regional enrichment centers, in which you participate in the management.” I think the one for Iran ought to be in Russia…

Cori Dauber Critique of “Speech Unheard”

Cori Dauber posts a sharp critique at Ranting Profs. Dauber is a specialist in the analysis of rhetoric - she takes apart the Orlando Patterson oped paragraph by paragraph. An excellent rebuttal I thought - see what you think:

An oped in the Times today by a Harvard sociologist who is quite unimpressed with the inaugural. He sees it as the natural culmination of an argument trajectory that is deeply flawed. His argument: The stratagem began immediately after 9/11 with the president’s claims that the terrorist attacks were a deliberate assault on America’s freedom. The next stage of the argument came after no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, thus eliminating the reason for the war, and it took the form of a bogus syllogism: all terrorists are tyrants who hate freedom. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who hates freedom. Therefore Saddam Hussein is a terrorist whose downfall was a victory in the war against terrorism. Wow. That is a bad syllogism. It’s also such a complete caricature of anything the adminstration actually argued it’s hard to know where to begin.

Jeff Jarvis on Harvard Blogging Conference

Jeff Jarvis is live-blogging at the Harvard conference Blogging, Journalism & Credibility. I’m finding this exchange quite interesting. Together you have some of the blog-lords [Jeff Jarvis, Jay Rosen, Dave Winer, John Hinderaker, Dan Gillmor, to mention only a few], together with MSM senior folk [Jill Abramson, editor NY Times, Jim Kennedy, AP], and too many academic & law luminaries to list:

I’ll be blogging the confab as long as my sanity holds out.
: Alex Jones says that one (unfortunate) lesson that mainstream journalism can teach blogging is that credibility is fragile and mainstream journalism has lost too much of it in recent years.
: Jay Rosen is presenting his paper. He said the “war should be over between bloggers and journalists, the cartoon dialogue… Even though it makes for good feature stories and great blog posts, bloggers vs. journalists doesn’t help us much.” He said the tension between them will go on and its necessary and inevitable. But the tsunami story makes it “obvious that blogs have a role in journalism.”
Dave Winer said this morning that I was Jay’s Frankenstein. Jay said it’s the opposite. Jay’s right. He has made me think about media (read: my life) in new ways.
After summarizing his paper, he quotes Rebecca Blood saying that part of the reason for conflict is that blogging and journalism are in a “shared media space.” That is the reason the war is over because no one is leaving that space.
Jay is making a point he made on Brian Lehrer’s show a few weeks ago: that this not about the “media” but about the “press” and the press is now owned by the people. That is the real shift of power. “They have to share the press with the public.”
Isn’t that precisely the problem with CBS? Dan et al could not bear to share the press with the public. But the public demanded it. The public won that battle.
Jay says that journalists have been slow to recognize the debt they owe blogging and that is because this new medium — this new press — was not developed by them. The people who understand this new press — the ethic of the link, the art of conversation — are bloggers.
Jay recalls his first Bloggercon when Len Apcar, editor of NY Times digital, said that in 2002 a majority of NY Times readers are online yet even today a majority of the journalists at The Times think they work for the print product. “Actually, they’re working for an online newspaper that has a print edition.” Great line.

Human Shields as Election Workers?

Hat tip to Cori Dauber for this one! Lance Fizzell posted this Jan 15th tongue in cheek bit at Lance in Iraq:

Back in January ‘03, you may remember a group of Western liberals who volunteered to go to Iraq as human shields in case the US enforced UN resolutions that Saddam violated. Key graf:

“…they are willing to put themselves in the firing line should US and British forces bomb Iraq. They plan to identify potential bombing targets such as power stations and bridges and act as human shields to protect them.”

Well, I think I have just the job for these globe-travelers: Iraq Election Poll Worker. They are familiar with the terrain and people, they have a self-professed desire to help and they seem very articulate.

However, their biggest asset is bravery. If they are willing to hunker down between Coalition Forces and a bridge, standing between a foreign terrorist and a polling precinct should be no big deal. Any takers?






Bad Behavior has blocked 2444 access attempts in the last 7 days.