I’ve been a bit at a loss for something worthwhile to say about Benazir Bhutto’s assassination yesterday. I’ve long been worried about the future of Pakistan and its position in global politics, which is perplexing and complex. The only comment I had upon hearing the news was a short expletive that means nothing and says everything.

So perhaps her own words are the most fitting tribute:

The sanctity of the political process must not be allowed to be destroyed by the terrorists. Democracy and moderation must be restored to Pakistan, and the way to do that is through free and fair elections establishing a legitimate government with a popular mandate–leaders supported by the people. Intimidation by murdering cowards will not be allowed to derail Pakistan’s transition to democracy.

Far less encouraging is what she told the Wall Street Journal on a previous occasion: “The military regime needs the threat of al Qaeda and the militants to justify military rule, to justify the derailment of democracy … and also because it brings the money in. You see, if there is no threat, there is no money.”

If this is true — and there’s reason to believe it is — then Pakistan has not only lost a beloved political leader and agent for peaceful change, but also a real opportunity at ridding itself of the violence and destabilisation that Islamists and their terrorist cohorts inflict upon ordinary Pakistanis. Not to mention the nuclear threat they could pose, if they succeed. In its political analysis, the Journal calls Bhutto the Islamists’ biggest scalp since Anwar Sadat in 1981.

Don’t get me wrong. Benazir Bhutto was no saint. But one does not have to approve of a politician, or agree with all their politics and all their past actions, to mourn their loss to democracy. South Africans remember Chris Hani and the real fears of civil war and reprisal that followed his murder. Hani was no saint, but like Bhutto, he was a powerful force for peace and democratic change. My reaction to hearing of his death was, verbatim, the same as my reaction to Bhutto’s murder. At the risk of extending the comparison too far, I’d wager Americans remember JFK or MLK with similar sentiments.

Political assassinations are extremely painful, disturbing and unjust, no matter who the target is and what they stand for. I truly hope Pakistan will find peace and freedom through the crucible of their pain and grief.

I enjoyed this interview by Eric, over at the Tygrrrr Express, with John Podhoretz, the sometimes controversial but usually eloquent incoming editor of the neoconservative Commentary magazine, the publication his father Norman once edited.

In particular, his quip on uniting Americans is funny: “I, for one, have no interest in uniting with Michael Moore. I have no idea how to reduce the acrimony. People enjoy it more than they admit.” His view on Israel taking action against Iran’s nuclear programme also elicited a chuckle: “After Lebanon, I see no reason to have faith that Ehud Olmert knows how to find the men’s room.”

No wonder the issues in the US election campaign are turning towards economic concerns. Not only are there some (economic concerns, that is), but the core Bush-bashing issue of his presidency is starting to look rather limp. MoveOn.org had to turn to vicious slander in its effort to discredit the Congressional testimony of General Petreaus as propaganda for the White House. The media has, in general, been fairly reliably opposed to the Iraq war. Reporters have consistently hedged good news with bad, and are usually skeptical of any news of progress. Some outright suppress it, revelling in predictions of the inglorious defeat of the US-led coalition.

Yet the orthodox view of Iraq as a disaster is under threat. Even the BBC is pointing to statistics that — across the board, it says — show the situation in Iraq is improving:

Is Iraq getting better? The statistics say so, across the board.

Over the past three months, there has been a sharp and sustained drop in all forms of violence. The figures for dead and wounded, military and civilian, have also greatly improved.

All across Baghdad, which has seen the worst of the violence, streets are springing back to life. Shops and restaurants which closed down are back in business.

People walk in crowded streets in the evening, when just a few months ago they would have been huddled behind locked doors in their homes.

Everybody agrees that things are much better.

Except the BBC, of course:

But is the improvement only skin deep? And will it last once the American troops, whose “surge” has clearly made a difference, begin to scale down?

Several quotations in the article do support the view that security, progress and peace in Iraq remain dependent on coalition forces and reconstruction efforts. Which leads to only one conclusion: those calling for a rapid withdrawal (including presidential candidates that do) are willing to give up the gains made, condemn Iraq to rule by partisan or insurgent militias, and sacrifice the peace and prosperity of Iraqis on the altar of political expediency. Perversely, if that happens they’ll get to say, “I told you so,” instead of paying the price for their betrayal. I hope the American people won’t let that happen.

There’s a fascinating article over at The American Thinker, by Ray Robison. He analyses and places in context some events that have barely made headlines, but which suggest significant progress in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the fight against the Jihadists. Though the operations have been kept pretty quiet, the location will be familiar: Tora Bora.

Just one quotation from a long piece:

This cannot be overstated: it is the most crucial development since the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Cutting al Qaeda’s support in Pakistan has been a massive coup, of which our media has no clue of (sic) right now. It is the exact sort of thing that the Democrats and their media accomplices always complain that we are not doing and then completely ignore when we do it.

If what Robison writes is true, this has implications for the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and on terror in general, as well as for the hunt for Bin Laden himself. The outcome could be momentous.

There’s a new legend in the making. It’s set near Dayr az-Zawr in north-eastern Syria, and features Sayeret Mat’kal, a special operations unit of the Israeli Defence Force. Not only did Israel destroy, on 6 September 2007, a suspected nuclear weapons project on which North Korea was allegedly collaborating, but it sent commandos in to seize firm evidence first.

The Times of London has the story, and a great story it is. (Via Limbic Nutrition.)

It’s been 40 years since the Six Day War, in which Israel amazed (and mostly delighted) the world by defeating the Arab enemies vowed to its destruction. This feat, pulled off against overwhelming numerical disadvantage and with only “even-handedness” from the US and ill-disguised condemnation from the UN to counter full Soviet support for the Arab armies, is what put Israel on the map for the watching world. This was followed up by snatching victory from the jaws of defeat 34 years ago and the astounding Entebbe Raid three years later. And it’s been fully 26 years since a daring raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak entered the annals of military feats of the beleaguered state. Only then they didn’t have to get there on foot first.

Information remains sketchy about the Syrian operation. After the relative failure of last year’s attempt to eject the Iranian and Syrian-backed Hizbollah terrorist organisation from its entrenchment in the south of Lebanon, the details emerging from this assault suggest that the Israelis remain capable of defending their country, and aren’t ready to bow out of the fight against terrorism and unconventional weapons proliferation in the Middle East.

One commenter calls it “naked aggression”¹. This is typical of much of the modern world’s characterisation of any Israeli military action, no matter whether it’s defensive, retaliatory or placatory. I, for one, am looking forward to the book.

1. Update: it appears to have been deleted as at 26/9/2007 [↩]

George W Bush made a few important comparisons in his speech just before the weekend. The one that got all the press — though not the most important one — was his comparison of Iraq to Vietnam. I’ve often responded to people who claimed that Iraq is another Vietnam by saying that the comparison is true in only two respects: if it is lost, it will be lost by political pressure at home, rather than military defeat on the battlefield, and if America surrenders and leaves, the consequences — for the region, America, and the world — will be terrible.

Having lost the counsel of Karl Rove, the US president used this suggestion of mine, scoring a political master stroke by turning his critics’ favourite rhetorical weapon against them. (Just kidding. I doubt Bush realises he actually has a few supporters in South Africa. He certainly won’t know it from reading the local press.)

Beyond the headline-grabbing Vietnam comparison, Bush also made an interesting comparison with Japan, which is in many ways even more worth reading. The skepticism about establishing democracy in Japan sounds eerily familiar, yet not only did history prove the skeptics wrong, Japan would become one of the world’s most peaceful and prosperous countries — even scaring Americans with their sheer economic success.

He likewise used South Korea as an example, but missed an opportunity to include Germany in his list. After its defeat it was occupied for years, was described as a “quagmire” by the media several years after the end of the war, and yet today is a free, first-world country. I guess you can’t expect miracles from an illiterate redneck.

Reading Bush’s speech, I find it hard to understand why people who describe themselves as “liberal” (or, for that matter, “democrats”) are so implacably opposed to the Bush Doctrine. As I wrote in a comment over at Commentary South Africa, it’s all so simple to some people. The glee on the part of opponents of intervention in Iraq is almost palpable every time another bomb explodes, or another political setback happens.

Would those who advocate surrender, or predict the certainty of civil war, have said the same thing about South Africa in the wake of Boipatong and the breakdown of negotiations? Or after the rolling mass action campaign and the Bisho massacre? Or when Chris Hani was assassinated and civil war looked unavoidable? Would they have said that negotiations are futile, peace is an idealistic myth and the cause is lost? My guess is they would have.

Though the situation obviously differs in the sense that no foreign military intervention precipitated the fall of Apartheid, the fact is that political negotiations are complicated, sensitive and dangerous. The reasons for success, if it comes, will be many and complex. The reasons for failure, if that’s what it is to be, will be many and complex too.

The only thing that’s easy is the sort of ill-disguised I-told-you-so politics of war opponents. It does not suggest pragmatic realism, nor an understanding of the way forward, nor even the wisdom of hindsight. Instead, it shows a venal need to be proven right, rather than to be doing right.

But most importantly, war opponents and the advocates for a speedy withdrawal fail to see the larger historical picture. George W Bush does. They fail to appreciate that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. George W Bush does.

If you don’t believe me, do read his entire speech. It’s interesting, if nothing else. I include the speech here, starting after the opening niceties…

Read the rest of this entry »

Left-liberal politicians, media and chattering classes not only claim there is no progress in Afghanistan and Iraq, but need this politically. This traps them in the perverse moral bind that good news for America, Afghanistan and Iraq is bad news to them. It reduces their chances of defeating the hated George W. Bush. (Shh, don’t let on that he won’t be running in 2008.)

Here’s another brief overview report, from writer Ann Marlowe. Is Afghanistan threatening to challenge for first-world status? No. Did it ever? No. Will it soon? Not likely. But are things getting worse, as Democratic politicians claim? Writes Marlowe:

Sen. Hillary Clinton has cynically charged that we are “losing the fight to al Qaeda and bin Laden” in Afghanistan. But on my eighth trip to Afghanistan (last month) I saw that the trend lines are up, not down.

Read it and judge for yourself.

George W. Bush gave what I thought was an important speech yesterday in South Carolina. Speaking to an audience that considered it worth applauding the notion of victory, he directly addressed the surrender camp. A reporter in Baghdad afterwards was surprised that he had to spell out in such detail what to him appeared to be the obvious, simple truth:

Al Qaida in Iraq is a group founded by foreign terrorists, led largely by foreign terrorists, and loyal to a foreign terrorist leader — Osama bin Laden. They know they’re al Qaida. The Iraqi people know they are al Qaida. People across the Muslim world know they are al Qaida. And there’s a good reason they are called al Qaida in Iraq: They are al Qaida … in … Iraq.

He made a strong case for the honeypot theory of fighting Islamic extremism and terrorist groups, and why this makes the Iraq war central to the larger war against terrorism. He also repeated that, “…however difficult the fight is in Iraq, we must win it. And we can win it.” This article on the Strategy Page suggests Bush’s comments might be more than just political platitudes:

What most of the troops, and Iraqi civilians, notice is the lower level of violence. Since the surge offensive began four months ago, Iraqi (military and civilian) deaths have declined by more than 50 percent, and American casualties are down by over a third.

Whatever your position on whether or not Iraq was the right place at the right time, the reality today is that precipitous withdrawal would be disastrous for Iraq, and deal a severe blow to America’s ability to combat terror and tyranny in future. It will hasten the “moral paralysis” that Thomas Sowell sees in how the US deals with Iran, for example. His comparison with pre-WWII France has been made before, but it remains an object lesson on the danger of appeasement, and the stupidity of negotiating with leaders whom you know cannot be trusted to do so in good faith. Since the security, liberty and prosperity of the world depends on a strong, able America, these things matter to me.

This isn’t my idea, but it’s funny. Unless you’re J.K. Rowling pondering self-sacrifice, that is. Passport, the Foreign Policy blog, notes the SAS heavies lined up to protect her for an interview with an American TV station, and speculates that an attack on the author that caused all the trouble would be great publicity for Al Qaeda, but it would also galvanise “thousands of irate Potter-heads”. Would the terrorists last long in the face of an army of nerds with broomsticks and geek chicks with magic dust? In the hundred-mile queues for Harry Potter Vol. LXIX, The Bedpan of Bereavement, the faithful throngs have proven their consummate commitment and endless endurance. After four thousand pages, the protagonists still haven’t got laid, and yet the wizard wands stand strong as they stoically read on, and on, and on. Bin Laden and his band of merry dementors wouldn’t stand a chance.