“The Taliban’s collapse shattered two myths: Islamic invincibility and American weakness — myths amplified over eight years by the Clinton administration’s empty gestures and demonstrable impotence in the face of Islamic terror. The Islamic street exploded after Sept. 11, not because of rage — the rage is there always — but because of triumphalism.” Charles Krauthammer today manages to say in two sentences the core of what we now know. His advice to tackle terrorist cells in Africa before Iraq also makes sense to me. I hope the president reads this column and gets the message. I think – and trust – he does.
TWO MORE SENTENCES: “When the Europeans subsidize business we call it dirigisme. When Republicans do it they call it a stimulus package.” Don’t miss David Brooks’ superb evisceration of the hideous bill now almost destined to become law. Be depressed. Be very depressed.
MBEKI MADNESS, CTD: The one truly effective use of certain anti-HIV drugs is to prevent transmission of the virus from pregnant mother to child. Nevaripine is one such drug. It is free to the South African government, donated by the evil drug companies, and yet Pretoria is refusing to distribute it to a majority of its provinces for reasons that simply defy rational explanation. This is not a complex drug regimen – it’s one pill a day. The drug is not toxic and is taken for a limited length of time. It literally saves the lives of infants, 20,000 of whom are at risk of early death each year of AIDS in that country. So why is Pretoria stopping its distribution? They claim expense in the administration of the drug – but its administration is among the easiest there is, and the drug itself is free. They are also preventing private practitioners from dispensing it – something that would cost the country nothing. Remember: mother-to-infant transmission is by far the easiest method of preventing HIV from spreading. Yet this simplest of steps is being prevented in the only African country with the health infrastructure to make real progress against HIV. This is more Mbeki madness. And it highlights dramatically the fact that in Africa, the last group responsible for not tackling the AIDS crisis are the drug companies.
SLATE GOES WOBBLY: Steve Chapman writes a singularly unpersuasive piece in Slate against taking the war to Iraq. The basic argument is that deterrence works, and that Saddam would never actually use all the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons he’s been spending so much time and money constructing. The reason? Our ability to respond in kind prevents him. Only if we really pushed him into a corner would he be tempted to use such weapons. There are a few questions worth asking about this line of argument: a) why does Chapman think Saddam has gone to such great lengths to get these weapons – even to the point of watching his country pummeled by international sanctions – if he has no intention of using them against his most formidable enemy? b) he has used them – against his domestic enemies after the Gulf War debacle; c) why couldn’t he cooperate with al Qaeda or other terrorist groups to use these weapons indirectly and so avoid blame and therefore retaliation? To reassure us on the first two counts, Chapman relies on Saddam’s mental stability to argue that he wouldn’t do something irrational. Hmmm. And Hitler would never do something crazy like invade Russia, either. Let’s just say this wager is a lot more persuasive when the consequence of its being wrong isn’t the elimination of a major Western city.
THE CHEMICAL OPTION: Then there’s the simple possibility of Saddam using a third party to do the deed. Chapman bats this away. “[I]t strains belief to picture a secular Arab ruler giving the ultimate weapon to fanatical terrorists who want to establish Islamic theocracies across the region.” But not all fanatical terrorists are of this stripe. Some are motivated by hatred of Israel or the West for less fundamentalist reasons than bin Laden. And there’s plenty of evidence that Saddam has trafficked with these people in the past – including the first attempt to blow up the WTC, an attempt which involved a rudimentary, failed effort at chemical warfare. And what if we couldn’t determine who was behind the attack? How does deterrence theory work then? Chapman says it would be easy. Any chemical or biological attack would point directly to Saddam, like O.J. at the crime scene. Really? Chapman’s example to prove this is our ability quickly to pin-point al Qaeda as the source of 9/11. But the more salient example is the anthrax attack. As far as the public knows, we still have no clue who did this – despite several letters and several deaths. So why are we sure Saddam wouldn’t be able to pull the same thing off – or hasn’t already? If anything, the anthrax attacks have made this scenario more likely. I get the feeling from Chapman’s piece that he still doesn’t get it. This country is in grave and mortal peril. So far as we know, any major city could be subject to a devastating chemical or biological attack at any time. Two such attacks have already occurred in the last three months. What does it take to get our deterrence theorists and multilateralists to realize that the world has changed – and that inaction is the most dangerous and reckless option of all?
DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: “Exporting MTV would only serve to confirm Islam’s worst fears and most accurate suspicions about the West – that we are a people who exploit women in crueler and more effective ways than the Taliban ever considered. We turn them into sex objects. What we do to young people in general is no better. While the Islamists program their young people into becoming suicide bombers, MTV programs our children into self-destructive, sexual time bombs … MTV is not an ally of Western civilization in the war with competing ideologies. It can only provide our enemies with more ammunition to be used against us. And, because of its impact on our own kids, it represents a corrosive, fifth column assault on everything that has made America great and good.” – Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.
The Dish 