The US could strike Iran’s nuclear facilities far more effectively than Israel could, but to do so would be foreign to every instinct of the Obama administration. It would also be hugely risky. But the risks of not acting are even greater. Nonetheless, the portents are strong that the Obama administration will dither. Taliban militants are increasingly using civilians as ‘human shields’ as they battle against a joint Afghan-Nato offensive, an Afghan general has said. Gen Mohiudin Ghori said his soldiers had seen Taliban fighters placing women and children on the roofs of buildings and firing from behind them. ... Gen Ghori, the senior commander for Afghan troops in the area, accused the Taliban of taking civilians hostage in Marjah and putting them in the line of fire. ‘Especially in the south of Marjah, the enemy is fighting from compounds where soldiers can very clearly see women or children on the roof or in a second-floor or third-floor window,’ he is quoted by Associated Press as saying. ‘They are trying to get us to fire on them and kill the civilians.’ As a result, his forces were having to make the choice either not to return fire, he said, or to advance much more slowly in order to distinguish militants from civilians. Where’s the UN Human Rights Council? Where’s Judge Goldstone? I don't rule out the possibility that Iran wants nuclear weapons, but I find the probability higher that the political leadership is divided over the issue. Merely the ability to enrich uranium already serves as a deterrent, and for some in the regime it might even be sufficient. If there is a desire to have the bomb, it certainly goes back to the 1980s and the threat coming from the Iraqi nuclear program at the time. But Iraq collapsed in 1991 and again in 2003, and if there is anything that makes me optimistic today, it is the notion that Iran, following the disarmament of Iraq, no longer has a security-related reason to acquire nuclear weapons [my emphasis]. A propos my post on Amnesty below, Evelyn Gordon makes an excellent point on the Commentary blog. She draws attention to two shocking pieces in the New York Times by Nicholas Krystof, here and here, on the war in the Congo. Gordon observes: The civil war in Congo, Krystof writes, has claimed almost seven million lives over the last dozen years. It has also created a whole new vocabulary to describe the other horrific abuses it has generated – such as ‘autocannibalism,’ which is when militiamen cut flesh from living victims and force the victims to eat it, or ‘re-rape,’ which applies to women and girls who are raped anew every time militiamen visit their town. Yet the world rarely hears about Congo — because groups such as Amnesty and HRW [Human Rights Watch] have left One could almost call it socialism. Novel! Can’t you just see that winning election poster now: ‘Forward to the past!’ So what are the characteristics of this ideology that will bring a post-Blairite clarity and radicalism to left-wing politics? The party’s goal should be ‘active equality’, challenging injustices in society as a means of enabling people to achieve their ambitions Wall Street Journal (Europe), 16 February 2010 On both sides of the Atlantic, a liberal political incumbent is in trouble. Yet the conservative opposition in both places is failing to present a clear alternative. In Britain, the Conservative Party led by David Cameron seemed until fairly recently to be on a roll. Republicans across the pond gazed enviously as Mr. Cameron successfully ‘rebranded’ the Tories. No longer were they the ‘nasty party’ representing the rich and reactionary. Now they championed progressive causes such as environmentalism, the National Health Service and rebuilding ‘broken Britain’ through compassionate conservatism. It was a tactic designed above all to neutralize the attacks by the liberal media, and for a while it worked. The all-powerful BBC in particular was charmed, and even the Guardian allowed itself to be interested. Yet the British public is less impressed. Mr. Cameron has failed to ’seal the deal.’ His poll lead is crumbling and falls short of what is needed to secure an overall majority in the House of Commons after this spring’s general election. This is all the more remarkable since Gordon Brown is in deep trouble, with voters determined to punish the Labour government for its serial incompetence and mendacity. But despite this open goal, a hung parliament, with no one party gaining an overall majority, looks like a distinct possibility. A series of fumbles has left Mr. Cameron appear as an unconvincing alternative to the man he wants to replace. First he seemed to retreat on his commitment to restore tax breaks for married couples, before hastily recommitting himself. Then, having earned plaudits for the political courage to propose deep spending cuts to tackle Britain’s public debt mountain, he quickly changed course, promising only timid initial savings. Mr. Cameron has now declared the Tories must ‘get a grip,’ implying that back-room arguments over strategy are the cause of such confusion. But the wobbles surely signal a far deeper problem: a failure to grasp what conservatism is. Examples of this profound incoherence include the Tories’ proposal to cut spending on defence but not on international aid or the bloated and failing NHS. At the same time, they declare that they will allow householders to kill burglars with impunity even if they are running away and no longer pose any threat. Thus they manage to sign up to left-wing shibboleths while simultaneously pandering to right-wing populism. The result is that nobody knows what they really stand for except egregious opportunism. Meanwhile the centerpiece of their new progressive image, ‘man-made global warming,’ has gone belly-up. Recent scandals exposing corruption and flakiness at the heart of the IPCC research base have finally destroyed the ‘consensus’ that warmist science was sound. Having seized upon environmentalism as a painless way of appearing progressive, the Cameroons now find that they have signed up to a charlatans’ charter. The British public, always skeptical about the imminent global apocalypse, takes a dim view of such frivolous misjudgment — especially when core conservative issues are being junked. People are dismayed, for example, that despite the institutionalized bullying of Christians or men by politically correct anti-discrimination laws that force adoption agencies to place children with gay couples or that require local constituencies to select women as parliamentary candidates, the Tories nevertheless support gay adoption and all-women political short-lists. Core conservatives also note that the Tories are nervous about discussing mass immigration, and all but silent about Islamism and the Orwellian moral inversion that tries to criminalize legitimate concerns about radical Islam as ‘Islamophobia.’ In Britain, these spurned core conservatives are likely to vote for fringe parties or for ‘none of the above.’ Similar frustration in the U.S. by folks who feel abandoned by the entire political class is being channeled into the Tea Party movement, which is unsettling not just the Democrats but the Republican establishment as well. The problem with today’s conservatives is that they appear to assume a divine right to rule, without understanding what it is they are so divinely placed upon this earth to do. Conservatism is not an ideology; it is rather a habit of mind that consists in defending against attack what is most to be valued. During the Cold War, conservatives knew they needed to defend liberty against totalitarian socialism. But with the defeat of the Soviet Union, they failed to recognize the continuing threat from the culture wars and the utopian desire to remake the world, of which environmentalism, multiculturalism and egalitarianism are examples. What the Cameroons in Britain and similarly minded Republicans in America fail to acknowledge is that there are conservative majorities in both countries. Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all came to power not because of their varying degrees of leftism — which were carefully disguised through ‘triangulation’ — but because people thought, however mistakenly, that they were more trusted than their opponents to defend essential values. Indeed, the fate of John McCain proves what happens when a so-called conservative takes liberal positions on issues such as big government, environmentalism and immigration. In response, ‘go with the flow’ conservatives say society is changing and that the core conservative vote is simply disappearing. True, divorce and illegitimacy are at epidemic levels and gay and cohabiting unions are now part of the landscape. But in Britain, at least, increased tolerance of irregular life styles owes much to a sense of bowing to the inevitable rather than changing mores. The damage done, however, by the general breakdown of traditional family values and the rise of ‘lifestyle choices’ is inestimable, and people know it. If conservatives will no longer defend truth against lies, freedom against coercion and the Judeo-Christian moral tradition against its enemies, then what is the point of conservatism at all? If what is required is the utopian agenda of a less than wholly benign nanny state, then why not vote for Labour or the Democrats, who do it so much better? In both countries, profound changes have been forced upon the people without their consent. In Britain it was mass immigration; in America, it was the courts’ enforcement of a woman’s ‘right’ to abortion. Even though abortion may now finally be losing its incendiary edge, riding roughshod over popular consent has created a sense of profound betrayal and political alienation. People are looking for clarity in defence of core values. Hence the appeal in the U.S. of Sarah Palin, who is shrewdly positioning herself at the head of the burgeoning Tea Party movement. In the U.K. — the home of afternoon tea — there is not yet any equivalent. The Tories have a plausible leader but no conservative agenda. In the US, Republicans have a conservative agenda provided by a grassrooots that has found its voice, but as yet no national leader to represent it. The frightening political alienation in Britain and America will only be addressed if conservatives find a leader who reconnects with the people and the reality they represent. Read the tea-leaves: it takes two to party.
Thursday, 18th February 2010
Read his lips. Why do so few do so?
2:15am
Excellent, if utterly chilling, analysis by the excellent Greg Sheridan in the Australian of the way in which the world is sitting on its hands while Iran proceeds to acquire nuclear weapons in order to realise its openly declared aim of destroying the west. His point is that not only will even more stringent sanctions not work, but that even if Israel bombs Iran’s nuclear facilities it can at best only delay Iran going nuclear. And the one country that could stop it will not:
...Yet another amazing surprise
1:25am
The BBC reports:Wednesday, 17th February 2010
Who'da thunk it
10:10pm
Hold the front page. Hans Blix has found something good to say about the removal of Saddam Hussein. He told Der Spiegel:Tuesday, 16th February 2010
The moral blindness of the 'human rights' industry
7:17am
...Forward to the past with post-Blairism
5:25am
James Purnell, the über-Blairite former Cabinet minister who quit the government last year calling on Gordon Brown to resign, clearly thinks of himself as having a Vision for the party of which the world needs to be made aware. Accordingly, he made a speech yesterday on the future of left-wing politics which is reported in the Telegraph. Apparently, Labour’s problem is that it doesn’t have an ideology. Describing the ideology he recommends, Purnell told his audience:
...
Thursday, 18 February 2010
February 17, 2010
Conservatives in crisis
Posts
