Author: Andrew Sullivan

An interesting post from a blogger who just heard Bernard Lewis speak. Money point:

I was struck with the matter-of-fact way Dr. Lewis referred to the Al Queda, and Wahabi, assumption that, of the two great super-powers, they had defeated the more menacing of the two. The Islamists not only have taken credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union, they have also assumed that the soft-Americans would be much easier to defeat. According to Bernard Lewis, the September 11 attacks were to have been the final, devastating blow to America. Twenty years of seeing American casualties at the hands of Islamist Jihadists followed by American retreat and withdrawal, gave them the impression that the same would happen when the fight was finally brought to American soil. The Arabs have been shocked at America’s reaction.
Surprisingly, Dr. Lewis attributes that shock to keeping the Jihadists from making any further attacks on American interests around the world since 9/11. By no means does he see it as assurance that future attacks won’t happen, certainly our vigilance is required. Instead he would have us look at the way the Islamists have responded.
To continue centuries of experience in playing two enemies off against each other, the Arabs needed to find a counter to America. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Arabs have increasingly looked to Europe and to factions within America to act as the counter force for them. Adding to Islam’s crisis is the practical inability of Europe to counter America’s power. Although they may have the will, they do not have the means. Predicting the Arabs’ response to that is one of our tasks.

Yes, the Islamist-European alliance is absolutely predictable. And doomed. We get so used to self-criticism we don’t yet see how much of the anger now directed at the U.S. is a function of this country’s extraordinary success in the war on terror so far. We have destroyed two evil regimes; and are busily rebuilding an entire country in the teeth of limited guerrilla warfare. Every casualty is awful – but the casualty rate in these wars (on both sides) is an historic low. Everyone knows this. And the enemy, knowing this, is actually afraid. We have to keep them that way.

The Volokh conspiracy thinks so.

Worst Swedish album covers. (Via Dave Barry.)

A timely reminder from a while back:

The war in the Persian Gulf could end within weeks, but what if it drags on? Many people assume that a protracted war will deepen the current recession, delaying the US recovery from late 1991 to mid-1992 and raising the peak unemployment rate from 7.5 per cent to as much as 9 per cent.
The lesson of history, however, is that wars cause booms not recessions.
Every US war in this century has been associated with rapid growth and falling unemployment.
The economic costs of war – primarily inflation – came after the peace treaties. Military conflict is awful, but it need not result in economic disaster.

Who produced this gem of politico-economic insight? Step forward … Paul Krugman, long-running prophet of wartime economic collapse. (The column ran in the Sunday Herald, February 3, 1991.) Maybe he’ll explain in a future column how things have changed in a decade.

How much money did Rahm Emmanuel make in the brief interlude between being a Clinton hack and a Congressman? In thirty months, $16.5 million. In an investment bank. For deals involving people he’d previously had political contact with. All legal. All familiar. But please tell him to shut up when he starts grandstanding about the corruption of “crony capitalism.” He was a crony. He’s now a capitalist.

Bush was dumb to have put that banner up (and dumber to say it had nothing to do with him). But if he was wrong, how wrong was Madeleine Albright, who trumpeted “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq in … 1998!

Just read the following paragraph:

Democratic strategists have blamed the Massachusetts senator more than his campaign, saying he is known to be a candidate who doesn’t take advice well or likes to split his staff into competing camps. Indeed, his presidential campaign is layered with high-priced advisers, some of whom have duplicative roles and are roughly divided into two factions: those based in Washington, where Kerry has been a senator for 18 years, and others from his home town of Boston.

If this is how he runs a campaign, how would he run an administration?

Here’s an important change in the conduct of the war. For the first time, Islamist terrorists – both in Iraq, in league with Baathists and now, in Saudi Arabia – are clearly targeting Arabs and fellow Muslims. Strictly speaking, this isn’t the first time, of course. Al Qaeda and the Egyptian Brotherhood, from whose lineage they spring, have killed heretical or wayward Muslims before. But in the context of the West’s declared war on them, this strikes me as a new and fundamental error on their part. Maybe it’s because our success at knocking al Qaeda off-stride means they have no option but to hit soft targets in the Muslim world, rather than hard targets over here. Maybe the pressure on them in Iraq is now forcing them to display some kind of “success,” even if it means murdering Muslim women and children. But whatever the reason, this is a propaganda coup for the good guys:

The tactic will not only backfire on al-Qa’eda, say security officials, but will help the intelligence services gain support in a conservative society where tribal taboos prevents people from informing on other clan members. In slaughtering women and children, the terrorists broke the code that binds tribal Muslims, handing police a unique opportunity to infiltrate the dozens of terrorist cells in Saudi Arabia, where al-Qa’eda gains much financial and ideological support. Information from tribal leaders and the public on terrorist activities soared following last May’s attacks on western compounds in Riyadh, enabling police to smash a huge number of cells and arrest more than 600 suspects in the past six months.

We’re at the very beginning of change, but there’s no reason that the Arab and Muslim world cannot wrest itself free from these pathologies in time.

George Soros has very rarely spoken to Jewish groups, but last week broke this rule to speak to a conference of the Jewish Funders Network, a philanthropic group. He shares Paul Krugman’s belief that rising anti-Semitism in Europe and Asia is in part the fault of the Bush administration, but Soros goes further and argues that, in fact, it’s also, in part, the fault of Jews:

When asked about anti-Semitism in Europe, Soros, who is Jewish, said European anti-Semitism is the result of the policies of Israel and the United States. “There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that,” Soros said. “It’s not specifically anti-Semitism, but it does manifest itself in anti-Semitism as well. I’m critical of those policies.” “If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish,” he said. “I can’t see how one could confront it directly.”

Refreshingly frank, I guess. Soros even blames himself for contributing to anti-Semitism by being a wealthy, er, Jew, who makes money on the currency markets, among other things:

The billionaire financier said he, too, bears some responsibility for the new anti-Semitism, citing last month’s speech by Malaysia’s outgoing prime minister, Mahathir Mohammad, who said, “Jews rule the world by proxy.” “I’m also very concerned about my own role because the new anti-Semitism holds that the Jews rule the world,” said Soros, whose projects and funding have influenced governments and promoted various political causes around the world. “As an unintended consequence of my actions,” he said, “I also contribute to that image.”

So wealthy Jews are somehow responsible because others observe their wealth and invent crack-pot notions of Jews ruling the world? Huh? Anti-semitism doesn’t fester in every climate. But it does particularly well when it is excused, rationalized or appeased. It seems to me that this is what George Soros has just done – and it’s the only thing for which he should feel in any way responsible.

They’re investigating how Arafat funds terror. I’m in shock.

ANOTHER IRAQI BLOGGER: They’re springing up all over. This new one writes:

Many people ask whether we have heard the President’s speech. Yes we have. Immediately the Chorus of AlJazeera, Al Arabiya, etc. and amazingly, CNN, BBC etc, started their spoiling, doubt-sewing, bitchy insinuations, interviewing this character from Egypt and that “analyst ” from Syria etc. (seldom is an Iraqi asked, or if they find one, a well known former close associate of the Saddam regime or someone like that). Pretending to be objective, pretending to be “balanced”, they try their best to kill the joy that the shining reassuring words bring to our frightened hearts.

I know how you feel, buddy. But just remember what the president said. In a couple decades’ time, maybe everyone will. One thing the blogger gets right: “American public opinion is a matter of life and death to us here, at this particular time.” That’s why some of us are still fighting in a different and far safer way over here as well.

BLOG FOR CHARITY: John Scalzi has a favor to ask of you.