Heretics' almanac

Window-dressing executions

Of all the horrible things that happen in Iraq, and indeed all over the world on a daily basis, the executions of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen, have caused particular outrage.

The hanging of Saddam was undignified, what with the heckling and arguments and the cell phone camera; and the accidental decapitation of Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti was horrifying to our sensibilities.

I really don't know where and how Western public opinion, or the press, got this idea that war and armed conflict can be made into sanitary events in which horrible things don't happen. And I'm particularly disgusted and amazed by this insistence that executions be "civilized," as if a clinical setting somehow eliminates the moral problems with capital punishment.

Chavez the dork

In this past week's Slate gabfest, Emily Bazelon, who I find utterly charming, at least on podcast, has no patience for the "pandering" of Nancy Pelosi and others who went against Hugo Chavez for his rant about Bush being the devil, the smell of sulphur, etc. She seemed to think that it made no sense for Pelosi or anyone else to condemn Chavez for voicing his criticism against Bush.

Of course, it's entirely possible that Pelosi and the others were shamelessly pandering, but I think you can be pretty harsh on Chavez, critical about Bush, and still maintain intellectual integrity.

The first thing I thought when I saw Chavez's rants was: "With enemies like that, Bush hardly needs friends." I thought it was irrelevant that he was in New York, though I did think it was relevant that he was at the United Nations. I already knew that he is in violent disagreement with Bush (to put it kindly), and he had absolutely every right to express that. But it was ridiculous and childish to cross himself and make a religious thing out of it.

Opening madness in Turtle Bay

The opening of the United Nations General Assembly sessions are always a circus, providing a bully pulpit (and entry visas) for all the world's despots.

Against the backdrop of Bush's no-news but still largely relevant speech, Ahmadinejad gave a speech addressed to the Arab world, fellow "non-aligned" despots, and the left wing. Hugo Chavez dispensed with formalities and simply called Bush "the devil."

Bolton really couldn't ask for a better case for why the US should mostly ignore the will of the United Nations, especially that General Assembly part of it.

But if Chavez came off like someone on a vendetta for getting his butt kicked too often in the playground, it's clear that the civilized world should not underestimate Ahmadinejad.

Meanwhile, in Israel...

If my wife and finances had allowed it, I would have spent the last few weeks in Israel. I'm not sure what I would have done - perhaps shlepping stuff to the north and people to the south. Being a human shield of sorts - if a katyusha rocket landed on me, perhaps Norwegians would have woken up to the fact that a Norwegian citizen - albeit a Jewish one - was a casualty of Hezbollah's attempt at genocide. A morbid fantasy, of course, and I'm still here in an office building in New York.

There are conflicting news about what actually happened in this war. Bush and Debka seem to think that Hizballah lost, and that this is a serious defeat for Iran. The emerging public opinion is that the senior command of the IDF was a huge disappointment, and that the last 48 hours made all the difference, if any.

Beirut, Lebanon

Expatriates and tourists in Beirut are abuzz with evacuation plans, and their respective embassies and foreign ministries are busy making arrangements to get them out of "Dodge."

Last week, another Norwegian "expert" was asked why the Lebanese government hadn't done more to disarm Hezbollah, and he answered that "no government would willingly start a civil war; and especially not one that had recently recovered from one." And he is probably right.

And I thought: well, the Lebanese government had to choose between two potential enemies, and it chose Israel.

Lebanon and Israel these days

Much can be written and is being written about the latest installment of the long long war in the Middle East, and most of it seems futile. Still, it seems strange to shut up about it, so here are some bulletpoints from me:

• It sucks. Neither the people of Lebanon or of Israel deserve to fear explosive devices falling from the sky. It's heartbreaking to know that yet another generation of children in this area will be burdened by such trauma.
• How many people have noticed that all this will end if the two missing Israeli soldiers (Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev) are returned to Israel?
• Much of what comes next depends on the payload capacity, accuracy, range, mobility, and quantity of "Katyusha" batteries and missiles held by Hizballah. The conventional wisdom is that Iran has supplied Hezbollah with these arms, and there is no question that Iran has missiles with a great deal of accuracy and range. One could almost speculate that Hezbollah only has rockets and missiles that can't reach Damascus or Iran, and that would limit the damage they could do.
• Besides, I have to imagine the IDF has a plan for putting these Katyusha rockets out of commission. This plan must - we can assume - include sophisticated means for identifying, targeting, and destroying them in short order, probably also with special forces.
• There are probably a lot of Israeli (and American) forces in Lebanon already, closing in on the Hezbollah elite's hiding place. Where I don't think they'll be taking a lot of prisoners.
• I don't know what precisely it means to destroy terrorist infrastructure, as Olmert has promised. We hear this a lot, but I still don't understand what the success criteria are for this.
• Notice how everyone is scrambling to evacuate Lebanon? You'd think Israel was a lot less safe; after all, Israel has the means to precisely target what they want to destroy; Hezbollah is simply throwing rockets in the general direction of Israeli cities, including Nazareth.
• If Hezbollah is in fact destroyed by this, wouldn't that be a good thing, for everyone? I can't imagine the Lebanese really want them around; Israel could certainly use a stable neighbor in the north; Iran and Syria will be significantly weakened in their support for terrorism; there will be an example of terrorist warlords being put out of commission.

What to call Bloody Thursday and why

Seven near-simultaneous bomb attacks in London is a formidable feat for Al-Qaeda and its partners-in-murder. 

Letters are now flowing to the BBC, challenging them to characterize the carnage as anything but terrorism, seeing that the news organization tends to soft-pedal terrorism that happens to others.  So far, they've avoided using the term in anything but attributed quotes, e.g., Blair's.  They also write that the victims "died."  We'll see if the British public notices.

A scan of the British press finds the following:

• The Telegraph characterizes it as terror bombs... that "killed" people.
• The Financial Times writes of a "series of terrorist attacks" that "killed"
• The Guardian headlines "terror blasts" that "killed"
• The Times (of London) noted that the "blasts" "brought" terror to London, "killing" people.
• The Scotsman is most unvarnished: "More than 33 killed in ... terror attacks"

Meanwhile, there are lots of heavily armed security troops visible at Grand Central (where I had my lunch today), and I suspect Penn Station will be fortified as well. 

Most newspapers believe that the attacks were intended to coincide with the G8 summit in Scotland, but I find it curious that nobody sees the connection with the announcement of the venue for the 2012 Olympic Games.

That would seem a plausible explanation, since it would create the impression in the public mind that Al Qaeda has the capability to launch a large-scale attack in any one of several cities on a day's notice.

Nannies and the war on terrorism

Bernard Kerik withdrew his name from "consideration" for Secretary of Homeland Defense because it became apparent that he'd employed a housekeeper and nanny who may not have been authorized to work (or even stay) in the U.S.

Whether or not you think Kerik was a good or bad choice for this position, his decision to withdraw seems to be based on whether he deserved it or not.  The logic is that if he violated immigration law (in a way that is - let's face it - tacitly accepted), he shouldn't be in charge of people who are hired to enforce it.  Never mind what the country actually needs.

In other words:

Is it right to deprive the U.S. of the best possible leadership in the war against terrorism because they're flawed human beings?

This episode is emblematic of a wider problem in American politics: the obsession over personalities rather than substance.

Failure or fear to act

What with all the discussion about intelligence overhaul, a recently retired CIA official told NPR the other day that the intelligence failure leading up to 9/11 had nothing to do with lack of information; it had everything to do with a failure to act.  This is why, he said, he favors a director of national intelligence - a single point of failure contact that will overcome the inertia of bloated government organizations.  (I'm trying to remember a single case in which such "czar" arrangements really worked and coming up short, but hey, it's always worth trying again.)

Does anyone remember a recent presidential campaign in which the candidates were held to an unreasonable standard of infallibility, and in which one of them said that he didn't think he'd made a single mistake in his time as president, and the other was accused of "flip-flopping" because he did?  Does anyone remember that Carter lost his reelection because he did act?

Today's political environment severely punishes mistakes, or at least appearances of mistakes.  The failure to act on 9/11 warnings was due to many things, but some of it had to do with risk aversion.  There is always some uncertainty related to risk assessments, and you'll usually get punished severely for acting on uncertainty. 

The Daily Show pointed out the other day that Rumsfeld owes his continuing role in the DOD on the fact that he committed a "colossal blunder," and firing him would amount to admitting as much.   Perhaps much of this can be blamed on particular shortcomings of the Bush administration, but an equal amount can be blamed on a media that doesn't understand the basic concept that taking risks means you sometimes fail. 

The press should be completely free and unfettered, but it's time to more openly discuss their responsibility.  I don't think there are any easy answers, but it's time to ask the questions.  Or else this director of national security will end up being more concerned about his next press conference than protecting people's lives.

More New York security

Today, another business call at a Manhattan office building not unlikely as a terrorist target.  Security here is very tight, and they even manage to confound potential perps by varying their routines to the point where it's never been the same in the 30-40 visits I've had there.  At any rate, my picture is unflatteringly accurate.  (The background has been Photoshopped a little to keep the place confidential):