bin Ladens useful idiots

Writing about the so called Ground Zero Mosque Andy McCarthy of the NRO tries to torture out a thought experiment that goes something like this.

Some Christian nut cases fly a hijacked airliner into the Kaaba in Mecca. Later some less nutty Christian missionaries get it in their heads that they want to build a church near the ruins of the Kaaba as a means to attempt to reach out to Islam blah blah. Just imagine that willya? Imagine the reaction of the musselmen should such a thing occur!

A breathtakingly inapt "thought experiment". Al Quada did not attack Christianitys holiest shrine in its holiest city (if there were such a thing, St. Peters basilica comes closest but only for Catholics). Destroying the Kaaba would be deeply offensive and traumatic to all the worlds practicing muslims and would be miltarily/strategically/politically pointless. It would simply be an act of hatred towards a religion and its adherants.


bin Laden, being immeasurably smarter than McCarthy chose his targets with a clear (if ruthless and cruel) political objective in mind. He wanted to strike at the three pillars of US hegenomy over the middle east; the WTC representing American business, the Pentagon and (most likely) the Capital or the White House. McCarthy and his ilk dream up fantastical scenarios of doom whereby bin Laden wants to conquer the world and establish a global Caliphate. bin Laden doesn't give a shit about Chritianity, New York or Finland for that matter. All he wants is for the US, the west in general and especially Israel to evaporate from the middle east so they can live happily ever after in an 11th century paradise on earth. (All I said was bin Laden is/was immeasurably smarter than McCarthy, not that bin Laden isn't both stupid and insane himself).

Come to think of it McCarthy probably does think of the WTC, the Pentagon and the WH/Capital as the holiest shrines in the world

And So It Ends (Sort Of)

Yesterday the last US "combat" brigade left Iraq leaving only 50,000 "advisors". That's a hell of a lot of advice. I sort of recall an American general, probably Tommy Franks remarking just as the invasion started something like "So, somebody tell me how this is going to end?". Well, after;

2708 days of invasion and occupation
~100,000 - 1,000,000 dead Iraqi citizens
~5,000 dead invading regular military, and mercenaries (not contractors, mercenaries)
~2,000,000,000,000,000 USD of direct and long term costs
0 Weapons of Mass Destruction found

We got;

1 dead third world dictator

Plus a bunch of other things like the looting of the Iraqi National Museum which lost of thousands of priceless artifacts of the very origins of human civilization. Creating at least 7 years of hyperinflated oil prices. Immeasurably increasing the power and influence of Iran in the region. Untold misery and hardship for the Iraqis who didn't get killed with no end in sight.

And the beat goes on. Some blog commentator and I can't recall where I read it, who is clearly more witty than me said something like" why should we complain, we keep putting up ground zeros right next to mosques?"

Our Fearless Protectors

So McLatchy has a story about the alleged use of a Taser on a man in California who is wheelchair bound on account of having both his legs amputated. The story itself is pretty damning but I am just using it segue into a post about the ongoing degeneration of the moral authority of the police and armed forces when it comes to balancing their safety versus ours (civilians).

Cops and soldiers have a right and a responsibility to use reasonable means to ensure their own safety (after all if they keep getting themselves killed who will keep the bad guys at bay?). Their right to personal safety however ends or at least becomes reduced when my right as an innocent civilian to continue breathing comes into play.

When 4(!) fully trained, presumably fit, police officers Taser a guy wielding a stapler at least twice, maybe 4 times even though the guy hasn't harmed or threatened anyone they have crossed the line.

When NATO forces call in an air strike to destroy a couple of stolen fuel trucks and in the process kill scores of civilians they have crossed the line.

There are countless other examples but these two seem to demonstrate an attitude that the worst case scenario is risk of  injury or death to the security services people. We (the citizenry) grant extraordinary powers to the security services. They, for their part, must (or at least should) accept that with extraordinary powers comes extraordinary risks.

Missile Defence

According to the NYT;

President Obama announced on Thursday that he would scrap former President George W. Bush’s planned missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic and instead deploy a reconfigured system aimed more at intercepting shorter-range Iranian missiles.

I confess I've been steadily losing confidence that the Obama administration would mark the beginning of a return to sanity in the United States but I suppose even baby steps are steps. Still, however, two giant elephants continue to roam the room at will;

“President Bush was right that Iran’s ballistic missile program poses a significant threat,” Mr. Obama told reporters

No, Iran's ballistic missile program is the perfectly logical response to threats posed to Iran, specifically by the United States and Israel. It's not like they are subtle or anything, hardly a week goes by without an official spokesperson issuing threats that the US or Israel or both are prepared and willing to attack Iran pre-emptively. Iran of course also issues threats but no one sane takes them very seriously. Sure, the Iranian military could attempt something and the almost certain result would be UAD (Unilateral Assured Destruction).


Now before anyone thinks I am a supporter of the (mostly) bat-shit crazy Iranian regime let's make a clear distinction between the government and the nation of Iran.  The government of Iran is obliged to provide for the defence of the nation of Iran. We can wish that Iran had a visit from the liberal democracy fairy and becomes the Switzerland of the middle east tomorrow but I wouldn't count on it. So where does this leave us? Because we despise the government of Iran they are not even entitled to attempt to defend the nation of Iran from a clear and present danger posed by 2 countries who have in the last 5 years or so actually carried out threats to invade sovereign nations?


Elephant the second;

This new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack than the 2007 European missile defense program.

Again no, the only thing missile defence is "capable" of and "proven" to do is to move massive amounts of money from taxpayers to defence contractors.