Just The Links, Please

Wherein I write a sentence or three about each.

• I think the Tories missed an opportunity to win control of Parliament outright and Republicans risk doing the same. What must they do? Follow Barone's advice and propose a bold plan that cuts Fed spending to ~20% of GDP.

• Think moderation of radical Islam is inevitable? Think again.

• That Rush Limbaugh, he's pretty clever.

• Education reform--real reform, not the kind proposed by teachers' unions--remains one of my highest order priorities.

• What's up with Anglo-American relations? Nothing good.

• I'll just use the article title since it's sooo good: No, You Can't Keep Your Health Plan.

• When you make terrorists into run-of-the-mill criminals it does damage to both our ability to prevent terror acts and to American civil liberties.

• Islam and Trotsky.

• There are real limits to Obama/Reid/Pelosi's ability to tax-and-spend--whether they realize it or not.

• Hypocritical Democrats aren't the only ones selling American education down the river--some Republicans do it too. It will come as no surprise to most of you that these Republicans reside in Illinois.

• That awesome European model for what America could do and be? Not so awesome. Hey Krugman, are you paying attention?

• A little push-back on financial reform.

• The fundamental problem of government bureaucracy.

• What happens when you prioritize "fairness" over freedom.

• What's going on in North Korea? Obama doesn't really know.

• Another great school-choice column. Love this stuff.

• North vs. South--not the Civil War but Europe.

• Another of my favorite hobby-horses--shale-based energy--and how it's going to bring on an energy revolution. But not the kind my friend Sameer keeps rapping (literally) about.

Enjoy!

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Bret Stephens: Return Of The Neocons

Bret Stephens is always good. He's just good-er than usual this week:

... neocons are back because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il and Vladimir Putin never went away. A star may have shone in the east the day Barack Obama became president. But these three kings, at least, have yet to proffer the usual gifts of gold and incense and myrrh.

Instead, the presents have been of a different kind. North Korea claims to be in the final stages of building a uranium enrichment facility—its second route to an atomic bomb. Iran, again caught cheating on its Nonproliferation Treaty obligations, has responded by wagging a finger at the U.S. and firing a round of missiles. Syria continues to aid and abet jihadists operating in Iraq. NATO countries have generally refused to send more troops to Afghanistan, and are all the more reluctant to do so now that the administration is itself wavering on the war.

As for Russia, its ambassador to the U.N. last week bellyached that the U.S. "continues to be a rather difficult negotiating partner"—and that was after Mr. Obama cancelled the missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. Thus does the politics of concession meet with the logic of contempt.

All this must, at some level, come as a surprise to an administration so deeply in love with itself. "I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world," Mr. Obama told the U.N.'s General Assembly last week with his usual modesty. He added that those expectations were "rooted in hope—the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change."

Yet what sounds like "hope" in, say, Toronto or Barcelona tends to come across as fecklessness in Warsaw and Jerusalem. In Moscow and Tehran, it reads like credulity—and an opportunity to exploit the U.S. at a moment of economic weakness and political self-infatuation.

For those much-scorned neocons, none of this comes as a surprise. Neoconservatives generally take the view that the internal character of a regime usually predicts the nature of its foreign policy. Governments that are answerable to their own people and accountable to a rule of law tend to respect the rights of their neighbors, honor their treaty commitments, and abide by the international rules of the road. By contrast, regimes that prey on their own citizens are likely to prey on their neighbors as well. Their word is the opposite of their bond.

That's why neocons have no faith in any deals or "grand bargains" the U.S. might sign with North Korea or Iran over their nuclear programs: Cheating is in the DNA of both regimes, and the record is there to prove it. Nor do neocons put much stock in the notion that there's a "reset" button with the Kremlin. Russia is the quintessential spoiler state, seeking its advantage in America's troubles at home and abroad. Ditto for Syria, which has perfected the art of taking credit for solving problems of its own creation.

Where neocons do put their faith is in American power, not just military or economic power but also as an instrument of moral and political suasion. Disarmament? The last dictator to relinquish his nuclear program voluntarily was Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, who did so immediately following Saddam Hussein's capture. Democratization? Contrary to current conventional wisdom, democracy is often imposed, or at least facilitated, by U.S. pressure—in the Philippines, in the Balkans and, yes, in Iraq. Human rights? Anwar Ibrahim, the beleaguered Malaysian opposition leader, told me last week that "the only country that can stand up" to abusive regimes is the United States. "If they know the administration is taking a soft stance [on human rights], they will go on a rampage."

None of this is to say that neoconservatism represents some kind of infallible doctrine—or that it's even a doctrine. Neocons have erred in overestimating the U.S. public's willingness to engage in long struggles on behalf of other people. They have erred also in overestimating the willingness of other people to fight for themselves, or for their freedom.

But as the pendulum has swung to a U.S. foreign policy based on little more than the personal attractions of the president, it's little wonder that the world is casting about for an alternative. And a view of the world that understands that American power still furnishes the margin between freedom and tyranny, and between prosperity and chaos, is starting to look better all the time. Even in France.

One thing is clear: No amount of 'Hope' & 'Change' & 'Blame George W. Bush' can make Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, &c., go away.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

'Hopeychangers'' Pusillanimous Retreat In Eastern Europe

Mark Steyn:

In a sense, the health-care debate and the foreign-policy debacle are two sides of the same coin: For Britain and other great powers, the decision to build a hugely expensive welfare state at home entailed inevitably a long retreat from responsibilities abroad, with a thousand small betrayals of peripheral allies along the way. A few years ago, the great scholar Bernard Lewis warned, during the debate on withdrawal from Iraq, that America risked being seen as “harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.” In Moscow and Tehran, on one hand, and Warsaw and Prague, on the other, they’re drawing their own conclusions.

There's been a lot of talk lately that Barack Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

If only.

President Obama's posture towards North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Russia, Honduras, Afghanistan, etc., makes President Carter look positively potent.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

My Notes From A Seminar Address By Dr. Ronen Bergman

I was all prepared to type up this information following the Chatham House Rule, but Dr. Ronen Bergman graciously declined to invoke it at the conclusion of his remarks.

Thus, I will tell you, dear reader, forthrightly, that all of this information comes from Dr. Bergman and the opinions are strictly his, based on his experiences interacting with and reporting on events in Israel and the broader Middle East.

In my opinion, Dr. Bergman is the best investigative journalist on Israel-related affairs in the Middle East. Full stop.

[My handwriting is poor and barely legible even to me. Furthermore, my note-taking ability is not great. As a result, please excuse any deficiencies in these notes]

• role of intelligence in shaping history

• winning the intelligence battle is not always winning the war

• you cannot give a talk w/o a good story

• in 2003, a group of Israeli signals intelligence officers broke an Iranian code from the Iranian ministry of intelligence--a complicated cypher. Super computers cannot crack a code the way they could. It still takes 2-3 years to crack a code. There are different methods. One whole apparatus becomes transparent as a result of cracking this code--the Iranian ministry. Israel couldn't handle al lthe raw intel so they got MI6 involved. They got a profound understanding and lots of actionable intelligence. They let CIA know. CIA head of station in Baghdad met with Ahmed Chalabi while drinking in a pub--he had a job in an Iraqi ministry as a result of American pressure. (Sidenote: "Curveball"--defectors defect because they are defective) Head of Station and Chalabi are talking and the American tells Chalabi that they are reading Iranian stuff. Iran case office doesn't believe Chalabi. They set up a dummy thing in Baghdad. CIA, etc., are smart enough not to act on the intelligence without secondary corroboration so the Iranians think Chalabi is lying to them. Iranian ministry writes up a whole telegram about the lies Chalabi told about their intel being read by Mossad/MI6/CIA. CIA read it. CIA so zealous & political and desirous to embarrass the Department of Defense over Chalabi that they leaked it to the New York Times. Israel tried to get the NYT not to publish. NYT did anyway. Michael Mukaseywrote a letter of apology to Israeli operatives with Dr. Bergman has seen with his own eyes.

• Dr. Bergman wants to tell us that we, the West, are winning the intel war, but he can't. The last few years have seen recovery. 2002 was crucial. Maj. Gen. Meir Dagan was appointed head of Mossad. Former head of assisnation in Gaza in the 1970s. Sharon appointed him and told him he wanted Mossad with a knife between the teeth [ed. note: much of this part can be found in his WSJ column--though with more detail here]. Degan changed three things 1. the "blanket is too short" to cover all priorities--must narrow task list. 2. Iran/Hezbollah and its proxies & 3. Maj. Gen. Farkash becomes head of Military intelligence. Shifted resources from Syria to Iran and Hezbollah. Understood allocation of resources. As a result of all of this, the Iranians themselves have acknowledged some "strange things." 3 airplanes fell from the skies. Scientists have disappeared. Centrifuges explode. Computers die.

• July 2007 a miraculous mishap in one of the Iranian nuclear labs

• September of that year, Israeli jets destroyed the North Korean reactor in Syria--being built unnoticed from 2002-2007. Syrian President and son still believe that all electronic transmission is being intercepted by Israelis. As a result, they have erected and apparatus to bypass traditional communications--courier. Syrians used to find strange objects that would explode when they examined them. They called GRO and asked the Soviets to send experts. KGB came, examined the device and it exploded, killing 12 KGB agents. Syrian filed a complaint with the UN. Now they send communications by packet on motorcycle.

• April 2007 a joint investigation concludes that Syrian/North Korea are building a reactor to create a bomb. Given two options--tell UN or act. They decided not to give it to inspectors. Decided to strike. Worried Syria would attack. IDF was ordered to prepare for war with Syria to begin in September 2007. This then leaves them with decision of whether or not to take responsibility. The, 'kick the [scatological reference] out of the bully in the daylight or destroy his car in the middle of the night and only you and he know.' Israel called Turkey and had the Turkish minister call President Assad and tell him about this decision. After the fact, Benjamin Netanyahu said, "I don't know what happened, but I supported it." This is the only semi-official Israeli statement acknowledging their participation. Assad did not react.

• September 2008, someone replaced the back-seat of Imad Mughniyah, one of the leaders of Hezbollah. This was a guy who had been at the top of everyone's terror lists beforeOsama bin-Laden came along.

• Muhammad Suleiman, security advisor to Assad, went to take a smoke while on vacation. His wife made him step outside. This ended up being the most fatal cigarette he would ever smoke. A sniper from the sea shot him--this was a major loss for President Assad.

• January 2009, Hamas was surprised that their booby traps prepared in anticipation of Israeli attack/invasion of Gaza were all taken out from the air. One of Hamas's most powerful weapons is their ability to play Israeli public using IDF casualties.

• In the same period, Israel took out an arms convoy in Sudan that was destined for Hamas/Hezbollah. This was a result of collaboration between Egypt and Mossad.

• All of this represents a major recovery in the war between Israel and Iran and its proxies. If they hadn't taken out the Syrian reactor, a nuclear Syria would have changed the course of history.

• IAEA going to release a report next week saying Syria is in breach of non-proliferation.

• Arms continue to be smuggled through Sinai.

• In the last 6 months, Iranian nuke program has accelerated and they will soon have enough for a bomb.

• There is a major dispute about what Obama is saying--it's not very clear. Israeli decision makers want to think Obama is giving a vague signal (regarding their strike options against Iran). Obama told Newsweek he wasn't going to dictate and tell them how to defend themselves. Netanyahu told Obama Israel reserves the right to defend itself. Obama and Sec. Robert Gates agreed. Obama wants this as a threat (and possible Israeli strike) but they also want to be able to say that Israel is crazy/unpredictable (in their negotiations with Iran).

• Menachem Begin ordered an attack on the Iraqi nuke plant. Sam Lewis, sitting in his office, was in total shock when informed of this attack. An Israeli attack on Iranian nuke facilities probably won't happen in 2009 or during the US-Iran dialogue. But Israel probably still adheres to the Begin doctrine.

• Must understand the impact of the Holocaust--even to the point of irrationality. Striking the Syrian reactor reflects how Israel will respond to Iran. If Europe/US/UN/etc. don't stop Iran, Netanyahu will order a strike. This will tremendously affect the history of the Middle East and put Israel in the killing zone between Sunni and Shia.

• General Dagan has established deep cooperation with Europe and the US. They don't care if they share secrets because they face an existential threat. They'll work with former enemies. Jordan & Egypt intel agencies are talking about the Iranian threat the same way as Israeli intel agencies. They are afraid of Iran and want to stop them from getting nukes. There is a lot of hatred of Iran and collaboration/cooperation between Egyptian & Jordanian intel agencies and Mossad as a result. No overt cooperation between Israel and Egypt and Jordan, but covertly, it is happening now.

• On Obama's speech re: Iran nuclear power: 2 weeks ago, an Israeli delegation came to London to meet with their British counterparts. British official asked Israelis what they thought of US/Iran dialogue. Israel wasn't sure what to think. They are lagging behind US changes in policy. There will be conflict between Netanyahu and Obama about settlements (in the West Bank). Japan is 6 months away (given nuclear power plants) from creating nuclear weapons (if they wanted). Iran wants to be like Japan (possessing nuclear power). US says they can't because they lied about their ambitions in the past, but Obama said in his speech that Iran has the same right to nuclear power. Israel is afraid of dialogue and that they will continue enriching. Israel is most afraid of perceived "success" of the dialogue (by the Obama administration) than failure of the dialogue because the US will be on the wrong side and Iran will continue to enrich in secret.

• Shimon Peres was minister of defense at 31 years of age.

• David Ben-Gurion was always afraid that he would have assembled the remnants of the Holocaust and not done everything he could to defend Israel.

• Legally, Israel submits to 1945 British wartime law and as a result, journalists must submit everything to military censors. They have to say, for instance, that Israel has nuclear weapons "according to non-Israeli sources."

• Europe says, "we have lived under the Cold War with the nuclear threat and it came out alright." These (Iranians) aren't the same folks. Iran is building the bomb in part (if not solely) to ensure the preservation of the current regime. Cannot make the same assumptions about rationality and state preservation and MAD, etc.

• November 2007 NIE report--British intelligence went ballistic--report said that Part IV, the weaponizing group ceased its work in 2004. This was a minor and disputed point. They had all the parts, they just hadn't assembled the car. Brits have since persuaded Americans they were wrong.

• Watch and listen to Iran--they believe they are close.

• We only know what we know. Israel has a limited capability. Iran is heavily fortified and defended. Israel believes an attack on 3 sites would only delay Iran by 2-3 years.

• re: Syrian nuke program: What was on their (Syrian leadership's) mind? Syria made the job for attackers easy. Israel was surprised by Syrian--thought they were focused on missiles and chemical weapons. Syrians got 1.5 billion from Iran and paid North Korea after declining the services of A.Q. Khan. Israel is aware of what's going on in Syria.

• What can Intel do? Raid on Syrian reactor affected history. When it does not deal with social movement or economics, it can have major impact. Voices in Israel want to topple the Iranian regime. Dr. Bergman does not think we should do anything like that.

• Are you worried about being used by Israeli intelligence agencies? Intel agencies have an agenda and their information should be treated with suspicion. "I (first person) am not the favorite person of Mossad." Was interrogated just last week for having possession of classified documents. Made fun of them for their astute reading of "Top Secret" across the top of the documents included in his book. He has long-time sources he has come to trust.

Please see these recent articles by Dr. Bergman:

Israel's Secret War With Iran

It All Depends On Egypt

Letter From Tel Aviv: Netanyahu's Iranian Dilemma

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Sen. Tom Coburn On Gitmo, North Korea, Iran, Israel, &c.

These are my (mostly) unedited notes from the just-concluded conference call with Senator Coburn. As much as possible I tried to quote word-for-word but my slow typing sometimes required me to paraphrase.

Notes from the Senator's statement:

• I've stayed in several prisons, of my own volition, over the years and this is the nicest one. Unique in its position and mission. Don't know where in the world you could locate a prison and accomplish the same purposes.

• Well run facility. Individuals are being detained in the appropriate manner by high standards. 6000 calories a day. every opportunity to practice religious beliefs and access to medical care.

• We could contain them elsewhere, the issue is people getting into and making a political statement where the individuals are contained--especially if we moved them to the US. Other terrorists would be able to go there and demonstrate and blow themselves and make statements. In Leavenworth, for instance, there is a rail yard nearby and a school house nearby with many military children. How do you strengthen a facility to keep that from taking place? Guantanamo is the right place.

• Cost: it will cost hundreds of millions to replicate Gitmo elsewhere in the United States. Frankly, this is an expense we cannot afford at this time. We need to stop needless spending.

• This would actually slow down the military courts and tribunals if we moved them. It's all set up at Gitmo. You will have to replicate that system with secure video for interviewing witnesses from around the world and handling documents of a classified nature and handling the detainees in a secure way. It would slow down the administration of justice.

• Obama says they want to close Gitmo because of its "image around the world." it's really the fact that we're detaining them at all--it isn't Gitmo, per se, its that you're detaining them at all. Europe thinks they should have already been tried. If we move them but don't try them, the European objection remains. The Muslim world doesn't think we should be detaining them at all.

• Move them and the reason for objection remains--you just have a different prison name used as a rallying point.

• It is not in the best interest of the United States or best global interest to close Gitmo. They continue to fight in prison and if their released we know they'll fight on the battlefield.

Q&A Notes:

• Will they be confined in solitary or spread their radical jihadism? Geneva convention prohibits holding them near a prison population. This is a fertile ground for them to spread the gospel of terrorism. They'd have to be placed in solitary confinement--worse than Gitmo.

• On the Gallup poll showing Americans in favor of Gitmo: Americans want them to be held and not allowed back into the battle. Thinks Obama admin should look at the poll and say, "This is what the American people want even if it's not what the Europeans or Muslim world wants. Needs to remember Americans are his constituency and not the world."

• The Europeans have made such an issue of Gitmo but are unwilling to take the detainees. It's unfair criticism. If you're going to criticize, then what's your solution? Alright, if you're so mad about it, then let's move them to Paris. France took one detainee with some fanfare but it still leaves a lot. These guys want to continue to fight and continue to fight in prison. They are not "rehabilitated." Finally, the administration is backing off of this line.

• I don't know what they can come up with--certainly not within their time frame--to be able to get funding and move the detainees elsewhere. They needed to get the military commission going much faster if they were going to hit that timeline, but they just barely got it going 3 weeks ago.

• It's irresponsible for the administration to be trying to move detainees to the US or elsewhere when they have a safe, humane place now.

• 2 State solution does not provide Israel with a reliable partner--they cannot get security. We've seen what happened when Israel pulled out of Gaza--chaos--and would likely happen again if they pulled out of the West Bank. We need to engage with Jordan and Egypt. The Palestinians may not get what they want--a state--but they would get increased prosperity and security and some chance for political participation--certainly better than what they have now and what they would probably get if, indeed, Israel pulled out of the West Bank.

• President Obama is a liberal. I hate to state the obvious, but he is. He's probably the most, without question, most fully liberal who has been elected President in a long time--certainly a generation--and you're seeing that expressed in his foreign policy. To harang Israel, our best, democratic ally in a dangerous part of the world, is a mistake from a security perspective. And to suggest that it is OK for Iran to have a nuke program is the height of insecurity for the US and the world and will lead to a new nuke arms race in the Middle East. It has the risk of breaking into a new hot war in the Middle East. It is the height of irresponsibility on the security agenda. Look at the other thing, North Korea is trying two American citizens and preparing a missile which could reach American soil. They have shot a missile over Japan. Has the Obama administration done anything to slow this down or stop it? I've pleaded with them and we'll put it up in the FTA to reestablish N. Korea as a terrorist state. In the shadow of all of these provocative, aggressive acts, the Obama administration has done nothing. We're getting what you always get when appease your foes. The World is safest when America stands strong against these things.

• No matter what you call the War on Terror, it continues. They still want to fight in Gitmo and they are still fighting elsewhere in the world.

• I think the Obama administration cares about these things--Iran, N. Korea--but they are naive about it. They think the Bush admin talked to tough and that we just need to have a dialogue to get past our differences. I think it's naive and totally denies history and I think it's dangerous.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Civilization & Its Haters

Steyn sums up well the basic struggle between civilized nations and those bad actors seeking their (the civilized) overthrow:

As my colleague Andrew McCarthy wrote, “Civilization is not an evolution of mankind but the imposition of human good on human evil. It is not a historical inevitability. It is a battle that has to be fought every day, because evil doesn’t recede willingly before the wheels of progress.” Very true. Somalia, Iran, and North Korea are all less “civilized” than they were a couple of generations ago. And yet in one sense they have made undeniable progress: They have globalized their pathologies. Somali pirates seize vessels the size of aircraft carriers flying the ensigns of the great powers. Iranian proxies run Gaza and much of Lebanon. North Korea’s impoverished prison state provides nuclear technology to Damascus and Tehran. Unlovely as it is, Pyongyang nevertheless has friends on the Security Council. Powerful states protect one-man psycho states. One-man psycho states provide delivery systems to apocalyptic ideological states. Apocalyptic ideological states fund non-state actors around the world. And in Somalia and elsewhere non-state actors are constrained only by their ever increasing capabilities.

Ah, the appeasing fruits of liberal progressivism.

As McCarthy & Steyn so wonderfully illustrate, civilization--peace, democracy, the rule of law--is not the default condition of humanity.

These things cost blood & treasure to earn and more blood & treasure to maintain.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.