| |
|
23. mars 2004
|
|
Dick Clarke, stones, and glass houses
Mansoor Ijaz has seven questions he would like the 9/11 commission to ask Richard Clarke about his own role in the failures leading up to those fateful attacks. This is number 5 on the list:
Mr. Clarke, you then recommended bombing Sudan's al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant as the best response to the embassy attacks. Can you recount the evidence that led you to believe al-Shifa was producing nerve agents, and the evidence you had of its ownership and financing by bin Laden? Can you again help us to rectify your categorical statement now that there was no relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime, ever, when you previously argued that Iraq and Sudan were cooperating on the development of chemical and biological weapons at a pharmaceutical plant you claimed was owned and financed by bin Laden?
Now that you say it, that is a good question. And the answer better be good, too.
Link via Randy Barnett at the Volokh conspiracy, who has more. He points out the tragic fact that these important hearings will be severaly damaged by partisan fighting. That would be the case in any year, but in election year even more so.
The parties are more interested in dodging blame and placing blame than actually learning from the disaster. As many have pointed out, Clarke was in a position where it was his job to handle the growing al-Qaeda threat for eight years and was unable to avert the danger, yet he huffs and puffs about the mistakes the Bush administration did for eight months. Based on media reports, he is giving himself and the Clinton administration a clear pass. Let's be honest, there is enough blame to go around for all to share.
The real tragedy of this is that the Bush administration, their democratic opponents, the press, everybody are just busy spinning, counterspinning, covering their arses and placing the blame elsewhere, anywhere, instead of using the 9/11 commission as an opportunity to learn from mistakes and not repeat them.
Of course, expecting anything else would be totally unrealistic considering human nature.
5:00:43 PM 
|
|
Lindh killer sentenced to life
 Mijailo Mijailovic (picture), the 25 year old man that killed Sweden's foreign minister Anna Lindh in September last year, has been sentenced to life in prison.
Mijailovic confessed to inflicting the wounds that caused her death, but claimed he "heard voices" and his defence was to plead insanity. The psychiatric experts did not agree he was legally insane.
He will almost certainly appeal, but legal experts argue there is limited chance of success.
3:25:57 PM
|
|
Yassin assassination a tactically wise move?
I have no problem agreeing that the targeted killing of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was morally defensible. I am no expert in international law, but I doubt Israel or any sane country ever ratified a law saying that an individual sending thousands of armed men and suicide bombers into their cities are off limits to military strikes. I find the near-unanimous international condemnation absolutely hypocritical. I can't imagine any country putting up with such atrocities without reserving the right for a violent retaliation.
Another question entirely is whether it is wise for Israel to have killed the Hamas leader. After a bit of thought, I think Israel made a calculated risk assassment, and that they probably got it right. Yes, I am an optimist. Obviously, this event will shake up the political balance seriously, and the outcome can go either way, but it's not hard to sympathise with the Israeli position that it can hardly get much worse.
I actually wrote my master thesis on sect leadership succession. The following is based on the general tentative conclusions about sect succession I made in my study. Hamas is a sect (among other things). Sects have highly charismatic founders; that is well known. Founders attract men to the subordinate leadership positions who are good followers, not good leaders. The chosen successor (if there is one) almost never succeeds in obtaining the critical following, precisely because the qualities that has made the founder trust him are not the ideal qualities for a leader. Charismatic founders tend to be deeply suspicious of rivals, and are unlikely to put truly charismatic leaders in important roles. Few observers consider Abdul Aziz Rantisi, co-founder and likely successor, as able to fill Yassin's position.
When the founder of a sect dies, in the vast majority of cases the sect is broken up and disappears through the following power struggle. Of course, Hamas is such a political power in Palestine it can't just disappear. It can, however, disintegrate and splinter. Whether that will happen is an open question, but it would not surprise me if this is what Israel's government hopes for.
It is worth noting that even for sect movements that eventually prosper, the death of the founder is practically always followed by a leadership succession crisis and a power struggle. During this struggle, the movement will be seriously weakened.
However, in those cases where the sect survives the death of the founder, the eventual successor who vanquishes his opponents will almost always be a powerful and ruthless politician, an effective administrator, if not necessarily charismatic. If Hamas should succeed in uniting around such a successor after a relatively brief power struggle, the terrorist group could end up even more dangerous.
In that case, the IDF will have to trust its hellfire missiles again. But at that point, the organisation will probably be far less dependent on a single individual.
3:56:46 AM
|
|
The enemy within 
Here is a collection of signs that could be seen at the "peace march" in San Francisco March 20th, 2004. The above was one of the particularly hateful and disgusting posters carried, but it surely wasn't the only one.
Lt Smash, the IndePundit, also attended the march to observe, take pictures and have a look at who these marchers were. He managed to hold himself back while listening to (and recording) a speech by a young socialist named Rebecca:
And the first thing is that we need to support the Resistance of Iraqis in Iraq. (applause) Right. These are people who are risking their lives to get the United States out of their country. And we have to see them as our allies. We have to see them as our main allies.
As the professor tends to say, these people aren't opposed to war, they are just on the other side.
Exercising an amazing display of self discipline, Lt Smash actually interviewed the young woman afterwards. Absolutely brilliant, and an expose of the mindnumbing stupidity and fanaticism of the hardcore anti-war left.
Blogging at its best!
1:42:55 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2004 Jan Haugland.
Last update: 01.04.2004; 05:15:26.
|
|
|
