Right Wing Nut House

I didn’t post this yesterday - incredibly busy day. It’s my latest article for PJ Media and in it, I look at why we yanks are so enamored with royalty - specifically the British monarchy.

A sample:

The current incarnation of royalty who reside at Buckingham Palace are a loathsome example of giving people who don’t deserve it a lot of money and nothing much to do. Charles is a perfect example of this. The poor sot has nothing whatsoever to do except sit around and wait for mummy to die. He’s tried his hand as cultural critic, railing against modern British architecture (it is horrid but his idea of good architecture isn’t much better). He tried jumping on the global warming bandwagon but didn’t attract much notice. There were so many other more interesting people like Sting and Posh Spice who beat him to it.

Then there is his weird flirtation with alternative medicines. His “Foundation for Integrated Health” published some guides for general practitioners on how to combine traditional (scientific) medicine with alternative (witchcraft) medicine. A prominent member of the “complementary” medical community wrote a letter to the Times asking that the guides be recalled, saying “the majority of alternative therapies appear to be clinically ineffective, and many are downright dangerous.”

His very public, very naughty affair with Camilla Parker Bowles destroyed his marriage and drove his wife to suicidal thoughts. This is the sum total of the life of Charles, Prince of Wales, for which he receives not only taxpayer subsidies, but the free use of several castles, palaces, retreats, cabins, and a retinue of servants of which the Empress Dowager would be envious.

His son William — the one getting married — doesn’t appear to be a bad sort. He passed flight school and became a helicopter pilot in a search and rescue outfit. He has various charitable causes which he supports by exposing his person to the media so they can take his picture with AIDS patients, inner city youth, and endangered elephants.

I’ve got another Libya update at FrontPage.com. This one looks at the clusterfark this military adventure is becoming.

A sample:

So do we protect the pro-Gaddafi civilians or not? General Ham couldn’t answer that question, which is why this entire operation couldn’t be more muddled. We don’t know exactly who we are fighting, or even who we are fighting to protect, although it is likely that some of the rebel forces are made up of al-Qaeda fighters and other affiliated terrorist groups. We don’t know who we can bomb and who we should leave alone. We don’t know how to unite the rebel forces under a unified command to make them more effective. One rebel told Reuters, when asked who was in charge, “Nobody is. We are volunteers. We just come here. There is no plan.”

The same might be said for the United Nations’ forces themselves. The question of the day is: who is in charge? President Obama is determined that it won’t be America for much longer. “When this transition takes place, it is not going to be our planes that are maintaining the no-fly zone,” the president said in a news conference from El Salvador. “It is not going to be our ships that are necessarily enforcing the arms embargo. That’s precisely what the other nations are going to do,” he added.

The president can say that, but is NATO buying it? The administration is working very hard to “handoff” responsibility for the war to a NATO command structure, but the Daily Mail is reporting that NATO’s unity is coming more unraveled by the hour. The Germans have pulled assets out of the Mediterranean, expressing the fear that NATO would be drawn into the conflict even more heavily than they are engaged now. Turkey has made it clear that they believe coalition military action has exceeded their UN mandate. The Italians have accused the French of fighting for oil contracts, while making it clear they would support a NATO-led coalition or no coalition at all. Italy’s support is vital because we are using their air bases to launch attacks into Libya.

War is the definition of confusion. But this is incredible. After only four days, the coalition appears to be fraying badly, and it is not at all clear how much longer support among our allies and the Arab League can be maintained for the kind of bombing operations that we’re doing right now to support the rebels.

Regime change? Not on the table says everyone in the administration from Obama on down. Praytell, then, how do you “protect civilians” which is the ostensible rationale for the military action?

My head hurts.

I sum it up thusly:

There simply aren’t any answers coming from President Obama, the United Nations, the Arab League, or any other coalition member. The “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine under which the United Nations has authorized this action is silent about such messy endings. The unfortunate fact is that the United States committed to this war between breakfast and dinner a week ago, with apparently little thought given to any of these issues, except how the US could escape responsibility for the military action as quickly as possible — and how any political fallout from failure would miss hitting the president, who is now gearing up for a re-election fight.

When all is said and done, this adventure may go down as one of the most careless, reckless, incompetently prosecuted military actions in US history.

I support the president in this action but Holey Moley, Batman - this is getting ridiculous! The president said at a press conference yesterday that Gaddafi might be able to stay in power if he “reforms” his government. This, after nearly a month of insisting that Gaddafi has to go. What are they thinking up there? What is their plan? Do they have one?

Some on the right are saying we’re “outsourcing” our foreign policy. Not at all. In order to do that, you need a policy to begin with. And for this administration, if there is a policy, they are keeping it well hidden from friend and foe alike.

In a word - it’s complicated.

First and foremost, I am supporting the president because he is Commander in Chief and he has taken the United States to war. He didn’t take the Obama administration to war, or the Democratic party, or (many) liberals. He has taken the country to war - my country, our country. If we have disagreements - and believe me, I’ve got a ton - they can wait until after the war is over and won.

Simple minded? Sure. Blindly nationalistic? You bet. But I believe that if you begin to question the leader of our country about a decision he has made to commit the armed forces of the United States to battle, placing our children and neighbor’s children in harm’s way, you do nothing to alter that decision and only serve the purpose of the enemy to divide us at exactly the time we must be united.

It’s that simple now, it was that simple for Bush and Iraq, Clinton and Kosovo, Bush 41 and Kuwait, Reagan and Grenada, and on back to FDR and World War II. There may come a time where raising questions no longer primarily aids the enemy but would seek to save the country from its own stupidity as was done with Vietnam. But we are far, far from that point and doubt whether we need to worry about Libya in that regard.

I hasten to add that this is a personal view and does not mean I am calling those of you who disagree with the president’s decision traitors and anti-American. Each must search their consciences and find their own answers. But this simple, declarative notion that when the US goes to war, the nation stands behind the president and the armed forces is such a no-brainer I am having a hard time understanding the virulence of the opposition.

Much has been made about the hypocrisy of the president as his opposition to the “rush to war” in Iraq and other statements he made in the past has now come back to bite him. Who cares? After the war has been won, we can gleefully throw it all back in his face and watch him stutter like a schoolboy trying to defend himself. For now, on a list of important issues regarding the war in Libya, it is all the way at the bottom. It matters not a whit in supporting a man who needs a united nation to carry through to victory.

But beyond the practical reason of getting behind the president, there is the existential notion that America is “it” as far as the modern world’s policeman goes, and while we sometimes have a choice in where and how to throw our weight around, those choices are limited when confronted by the stark reality that innocents are at risk. It is a fact that when slaughter is threatened, nobody thinks of calling France, or Russia, or China, or even Great Britain. They dial the international calling code of “001″ - and America usually responds, Thus has it ever been so, and will continue to be. No amount of wishful thinking by the left that hanging with the rest of the world is the path to being loved will change this singular fact of existence.

They hate us for it no matter what we do, of course. We are usually heavy handed about it, going in and smashing things, and not being very delicate about it. We whine when no one appreciates what we’ve done. We bitch about how much it costs, how no other nation is pulling its weight in these “international coalitions” we keep forming to make us feel as if we are acting with the rest of the world. The truth is less appealing; we bear most of the brunt, most of the cost, and almost all the casualties while our “partners” kibitz on the sidelines criticizing everything we do.

We are not “First Among Equals” as President Obama is finding out and President Clinton discovered more than a decade ago. Both men sought to sincerely limit American involvement in the troubles of the world. Both sought to hand off responsibility for stepping into crisis situations to the United Nations and other, regional security bodies. This worked out badly. Rwandan genocide, Bosnian rape camps, Kosovo ethnic cleansing - either the UN or NATO fell flat on its face addressing those tragedies. It wasn’t until Clinton stepped up and put the US military out front that Bosnia was pacified and Kosovo saved from a terrible fate. By the time the world was ready to get its act together for Rwanda, it was too late for 800,000 Tutsi tribesmen. Clinton regrets to this day that he didn’t act with the few nations who were willing to try and prevent catastrophe.

All of our good intentions about internationalism and multi-lateral agreements came a cropper because the world order is not set up to be a touchy-feely place of international harmony and good will. It is a cold, hard, brutal, planet of thugs, crazy men, and oppressive autocrats who only understand the point of the sword. What few democratically inclined nations there are realistically find themselves drawn to the US orbit as an insurance policy against the darkness the thugs represent. They know better than to place their faith and trust for survival in the hands of the United Nations. They may as well ask the Tooth Fairy for an alliance if that were the case.

The vitriolic anti-American rhetoric used by most countries is for show. How do we know? When the Arab League passed their resolution last week asking the UN for help with Libya, can anyone doubt that they didn’t believe that America would be in the lead in any force that went into save the rebels, and innocent civilians? The most virulent, blood curdling anti-American rhetoric from Arab states can’t mask the sober logic of power politics; if you want something done, done quickly, and be sure that the invading crusader will leave when the job is done, you’ve got one choice.

I realize President Obama’s intent is to “hand off” responsibility for this campaign to the French and British in a “few days.” That’s the plan and I have every reason to believe him when he says he wants to do this. But if the goal is to “protect civilians” - that is the UN mandate - how is this to be done if the rebels come up short (a near certainty given the paucity of heavy arms compared to Gaddafi’s forces) and Gaddafi remains in power?

A physical buffer of troops are going to be necessary to protect civilians from the wrath of an aroused Gaddafi. We have already seen evidence of what happens when Gaddafi’s forces retake a town that had been held by the rebels. The foreign mercenaries move in and begin the process of cleansing the town of rebels and their sympathizers. No one knows how many have already been killed but we can expect this to be repeated in hundreds of towns and cities if Gaddafi is allowed to stay in power. Is the UN going to put troops in every town and city in Libya? What will be their rules of engagement? Will the be able to intervene to save civilians?

As it stands now, regime change is not on the menu. But as a practical matter, there can be no other outcome if the UN’s mandate of “protecting civilians” is to be fulfilled. In the end, the coalition will have to go in and physically remove the tyrant or risk having their efforts come to naught. Stopping short of regime change will give Gaddafi a victory, strengthen his position, and allow him to slaughter his people at his own leisure.

Can President Obama possibly turn down his coalition partners when it comes to removing Gaddafi? He’s already committed the US to war, and while his best intentions are to keep American ground troops out of the fray, a scenario is taking shape where, like Clinton in Kosovo who also promised no ground troops but was ready to commit them if Milosevic refused to step down, Obama will probably be forced into sending in our boys.

Unless we get lucky and Gaddafi’s own people take him out, or the rebels can be united and supplied with heavy weapons to challenge the pro-Gaddafi forces, there will be a moment of truth where Obama will feel the tap on the shoulder and history will demand he act.

When he does, I will still be behind him, supporting him because he’s the only president we’ve got and while I might wish he had acted differently, we’ve got to back his play to the end.

We are rightly proud of the accomplishments of western civilization over the past 500 years. We have not been perfect - not by a long shot. But gradually, western values and attitudes have permeated the planet, softening the rough edges of civilization, and providing a framework of law where the strong do not always ride roughshod over the weak.

Imperfect, but viable. Flawed, but as a practical matter, better than any alternative.

There is one glaring weakness from which the west suffers in particular that has been exposed time and time again over the last 70 years; our inability to deal with individuals who are determined to act outside the boundaries of “civilized” norms and commit acts of barbarism so profoundly disturbing that they shake our faith in our institutions and belief systems.

This is a consequence of being too civilized. When a Pol Pot, Idi Amin, or a Yakubu Gowon confront the west with the butchery of their own people, we are constrained in our response, stopping short of doing what is necessary to save the innocents from slaughter. It is not a lack of moral courage. Rather, it is the inability to do what is necessary to defeat the evil that is perpetrating such suffering.

It is our refusal to adopt the tactics and ruthlessness of evil in order to destroy it that makes us look weak and helpless in the face of such monumentally uncivilized behavior.

When confronted with evil — the real thing, not the exaggerated, partisan, politically motivated sort of “evil” that right and left believe emanates from their opponents — civilized man freezes like a deer in headlights and fails spectacularly in doing the things necessary to stop it.

It took truly barbaric tactics — including fire bombing German cities and leveling a great many French villages and towns — to defeat Adolf Hitler. Prior to the war, western governments realized in a vague way the threat posed by Hitler’s evil, but refused to lift a finger to stop him until it was far too late.

It took a barbaric weapon to defeat the evil Japanese militarists who literally raped their way across Asia in an orgy of slaughter. Prior to Pearl Harbor, the very cultured and decent Franklin Roosevelt refused to heed the admonitions of his own Japanese ambassador, Joseph Grew, about the threat posed to the world by the unholy alliance of the Imperial Army and corporate war mongers. It took one of the most decent men ever to serve as president - Harry Truman - to order the use of the most indecent weapon ever devised by man and end the militarist’s mad ambitions. We debate the morality of using that weapon and the tactics in Europe to this day.

Since the end of the Second World War, a procession of tin pot dictators, genocidal maniacs, coldly calculating mass murderers, and religious fanatics have marched across the world stage leaving a trail of blood and sorrow so massively beyond the scope of decent people’s understanding, that we failed to grasp the horror even while it was happening in front of our eyes. Pol Pot created a hell on earth in Cambodia and despite desperate cries for help from the lucky few who escaped the mass slaughter, western governments turned a deaf ear and stood by as the Communist butcher depopulated his own country.

The Rwandan genocide — 100 days of unspeakable bloodletting that took the lives of 800,000 Tutsi tribesmen — was known to the entire world and yet, debates raged for weeks at the United Nations whether the mass murder should be referred to “officially” as genocide. The US could have cut off radio broadcasts of the Hutu extremists who were egging on the gangs who were carrying out the killings but failed to do so because it might have violated international law.

Good, decent, civilized people stood by while 800,000 human beings were killed - many of them hacked to death by machete. Our own ingrained sense of civility and virtue prevented the kind of quick action that might have saved tens of thousands of lives.
The problem is obvious; in order to defeat that kind of evil, the tactics used by civilized people just don’t work. One must match evil for evil in order for civilization to win out in the end.

It has always been so. How could we have possibly intervened in Cambodia without causing enormous bloodshed of our own among civilians? The army, government, and population was in such close proximity that massive civilian casualties would have been unavoidable. Our intervention may also have triggered a much wider war with China coming to the aid of their ally. Pol Pot would have been gone, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Cambodians would have been saved, but because our notions of civilized warfare have grown to preclude that kind of mathematical judgment, the west failed to act and nearly 2 million Cambodians died.

Intervention in Rwanda would have been horribly messy. Many innocents would have lost their lives as well as those responsible for the massacres. The Hutu-led government would have almost certainly fought back which would have meant even more civilian casualties. The Tutsis would have resented not being able to take revenge on the Hutus, thus putting them at odds with their putative saviors. The conflict would have degenerated into a guerrilla war with both sides taking shots at the international force sent in to stop the violence. (A similar outcome might have been the case if we had intervened in the Sudan.)

Would it have turned out better than sitting by helplessly and doing nothing? This is a counterfactual where there isn’t enough historical evidence to say for certain either way. But our concern here is why we didn’t intervene. And the answer has to be, in part, that we don’t have it within us to fight evil by being as ruthless and cold hearted as the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity.

The first Gulf War ended after the “turkey shoot” along the Highway of Death horrified Colin Powell and George Bush Sr. to the point that they were concerned that slaughtering Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi army would not only be detrimental to America’s image but was inhumane. If we had continued blasting the trapped Iraqis, the massacre of the Kurds in the north and Shias in the south could probably have been avoided, and Hussein himself might have been removed by the military. Our hand was stayed by many factors, but the specter of a bloody march to Baghdad and the prospect of urban warfare with many thousands of innocent Iraqis killed certainly played a decisive role in that decision.

Instead, we gave in to our civilized impulses and not only stopped our attacks, but agreed that the Iraqi military could fly helicopters in the no fly zone for “humanitarian” purposes. This led directly to the slaughter of tens of thousands of Kurds and Shias who revolted against Saddam’s rule.

The results of our overthrow of Saddam in 2003 speak for themselves in this regard. The positive good of getting rid of one of the 20th century’s truly evil tyrants is usually overlooked when an accounting of the human cost of the war is discussed.

Now the civilized world is once again faced with a situation where a madman in Libya is violating every tenet of civilized behavior that the west has worked tirelessly to spread from one end of the earth to the other. There is talk of “no fly zones,” arming the Libyan opposition, sanctions, and other, even less effective ideas to stop Muammar Qadaffi in his insane desire to hang on to power.

But direct military intervention appears to be off the table. The United Nations seems even more inept, more irrelevant at times like this. Not only is it impossible for the world body to make up its mind on even the gravest of threats to innocent people, their collective decisions are so watered down that by the time a consensus is reached, the action recommended is meaningless.

It is left, as it always is, to western governments to take meaningful action. For all intents and purposes, this means the burden falls squarely on the United States of America — the only nation militarily capable and possessing the moral courage to sacrifice its men and treasure in a cause not directly related to its interests. We import only a tiny amount of oil from Libya, nor do we have any trade to speak of with Qaddafi. If we sent in the Marines, it would clearly be an act of self-abnegation.

But we won’t send in the Marines, nor will any western government send a military force into Libya to save the people from their own government. The butcher’s bill would only rise precipitously as Qaddafi’s men would use civilians as human shields to protect themselves. We may indeed rid the world of Qaddafi if we resorted to military force. But at what cost? The minions of evil know well our weakness and play upon it relentlessly.

So the body count in Libya will continue to rise while the world flails about unable to bring itself to ape the tactics and behavior of the evil they are fighting. We may see this as “progress” in the sense that an overly sensitive attitude toward civilian deaths, international law, and the rules of war prevents us, in a grossly rudimentary way, from becoming what we are fighting.

But do the people getting gunned down in the streets of Tripoli see it that way? I wonder.

This article was originally posted on The Moderate Voice.

My latest is up at FrontPage.com titled “Spy versus Pakistan” in which I detail the case of American diplomat Raymond Davis who is languishing illegally in a Pakistani jail as the result of his involvement in a shooting incident where two young men were killed on January 27th.

It should be noted that all we know about Mr. Davis does not add up. But the only thing that concerns us should be his legal status in Pakistan. Given that the consulate in Lahore where he was working has identified him as a “diplomat,” Pakistan should respect international law and give him immunity.

A sample:

The Pakistani court ruled that Davis must remain incarcerated for another 8 days while the police investigate the matter further. Police sources have already admitted that the incident appears to be a cut and dried case of self-defense. The windows on Davis’s car were shot out and a gun was found lying next to one of the dead robbers.

But the Pakistani people are unconvinced. The families of the victims want Davis brought up on terrorism charges and news about the incident has been on the front pages for a week. Opposition politicians are demanding that Davis be tried for murder and there have been several protests at the jail where Davis is being held.

The Pakistani people are already up in arms over what they see as American interference in Islamic justice. Recent efforts to spare the life of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman condemned to death for blasphemy, brought thousands of protesters into the streets demonstrating in favor of the law. Reform efforts collapsed when one of the major sponsors of the effort was gunned down. And recent drone strikes that have accidentally killed Pakistani tribesmen have received a great deal of coverage. In short, one of the most anti-American countries in the world has found even greater cause to increase its animosity toward the U.S.

The Pakistani High Court will determine whether Davis is entitled to immunity. But there are elements to this story that don’t quite fit, suggesting complexity to Davis and the incident itself that defies explanation.

Indeed, some of the background for Davis reads “intelligence” pretty strongly:

Pakistani authorities claim that Davis is ex-Special Forces, having served in Afghanistan for 4 years. His take-down of the two robbers was an awesome display of coolness under fire. Six of the seven shots from his pistol found their mark despite Davis taking fire from the thugs.

Then, there was this curious piece of information offered by Dawn in their first report on the shooting:

A senior police officer told Dawn that Raymond David was among four people who were detained by security personnel near Lahores Sherpao Bridge on Dec 9, 2009, when they were trying to enter the Cantonment area in a vehicle with tinted glasses. They were armed with sophisticated weapons. The intervention of the US consulate led to their release, the officer recalled.

There’s more. UPI is reporting that the two men who were killed by Davis were intelligence operatives connected to the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence service. An anonymous security official told Pakistan’s Express Tribune that “[t]hey found the activities of the American official detrimental to our national security.” He also hinted that the ISI was very upset over American accusations that it had helped facilitate the Mumbai massacre in 2008.

WaPo intel blogger Jeff Stein talked to a former State Department security specialist who thinks Davis might have been the victim of an intelligence double cross. Questions about his exact duties at the consulate as well as why he was armed and driving a rented car in one of the most dangerous areas in Lahore also hang over Davis.

None of this should matter. He may very well be some kind of intelligence agent, or contractor. But he has a diplomatic ID and that should suffice. Instead, he is sitting in a Pakistani jail waiting on the High Court to rule on his status.

He was hanging by his fingernails on Tuesday of this week when 2 million Egyptians poured into the streets to protest his odious rule.

But you don’t last for 30 years as dictator unless you acquire some survival skills along the way. Hosni Mubarak has put those skills to good use over the last couple of days, and by doing so, has firmed up a tenuous hold on power. Talk of his imminent demise has ceased except in the most idealistic and optimistic circles of the Egyptian revolt.

In short, Mubarak may have pulled a rabbit out of a hat and guaranteed his survival until his announced retirement in September. And he did it by granting the most niggardly of concessions to the opposition, and without compromising the all-important position of the military in the Egyptian government and society.

The New York Times is reporting that the administration is “negotiating” with elements of the Egyptian government to ease Mubarak’s leaving. This would be great news if the Egyptians cared a whit what we or any other western nation thought:

They cautioned that the outcome depended on several factors, not least Egypt’s own constitutional protocols and the mood of the protesters on the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities.

Some officials said there was not yet any indication that either Mr. Suleiman or the Egyptian military was willing to abandon Mr. Mubarak.

Even as the Obama administration is coalescing around a Mubarak-must-go-now posture in private conversations with Egyptian officials, Mr. Mubarak himself remains determined to stay until the election in September, American and Egyptian officials said. His backers forcibly pushed back on Thursday against what they viewed as American interference in Egypt’s internal affairs.

[...]

“What they’re asking cannot be done,” one senior Egyptian official said, citing clauses in the Egyptian Constitution that bar the vice president from assuming power. Under the Constitution, the speaker of Parliament would succeed the president. “That’s my technical answer,” the official added. “My political answer is they should mind their own business.”

Talks between Secretary Gates and the Egyptian military aren’t even concerned with a handover of power. Gates wants to make sure the Egyptian army doesn’t start a slaughter in Tahrir Square. Given the current efforts by the government to silence, intimidate, arrest, and coerce foreign and domestic media, anything is possible, including the kind of crackdown that would have probably saved the Shah in 1979, and did save the Chinese Communist government in 1989.

Mubarak’s rent-a-thug gambit has worked. The goons he sent into the streets on Wednesday to attack the opposition frightened ordinary Egyptians who might welcome a more democratic society but are opposed to the violence and bloodshed that exploded across their TV screens. Mubarak’s announcement the previous evening that he would not seek re-election placated many Egyptians who now wonder why the president has to leave immediately. In this context, the demands of the protestors seem petulant, rather than revolutionary.

The key, as it always has been, is the military. As Egypt slowly slipped into anarchy, the army was strangely quiescent - not moving to break up the demonstrations but not making much effort to stop the looting and pillaging by gangs either.

Then, when Mubarak’s goons went into the streets on Wednesday, they finally took a stand, coming down on the side of the pro-Mubarak forces. They didn’t take an active role in the battle for Tahrir Square but they proved invaluable allies to the street bullies. The army allowed their vehicles to be used as shelter against the rock throwing anti-Mubarak demonstrators, while also sealing off most of the exits from the Square, forcing confrontations between the two factions. The violent imagery did the cause of the anti-Mubarak demonstrators no good. The momentum of the protest seemed to ebb as fewer demonstrators had the physical courage to stand up to the state-sponsored violence being orchestrated by the government.

Mubarak’s concessions to the opposition were not designed to satisfy them, but rather satisfy the vast majority of Egyptians who want change but not bloody revolution. The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood and Mohamad ElBaradei spurned Mubarak’s offers of dialogue is immaterial. The western press has made far more of ElBaradei’s influence than is recognized by the average Egyptian. And while no one is sure of the Brotherhood’s strength on the street, there is no argument that a majority of Egyptians are opposed to their fundamentalist view of religion and political society. In other words, their refusal to negotiate with Mubarak is not an important gesture.

Other opposition groups may participate in talks.Haaretz reports that “some opposition groups had agreed to [Prime Minister] Shafiq’s invitation, including the liberal, nationalist Wafd party, which is a legal party.” If true, Mubarak would have successfully split the opposition and strengthened his position.

With his abandonment of the plan to elevate his son Gamal to the presidency, and the ascension of General Omar Suleiman to the position of vice president and putative successor, Mubarak cleverly removed one of the causes of opposition to his rule; the “inheritance of power” issue with his son. It has never been confirmed, but Gamal may have fled to London in the first hours of the revolt on January 26th. Suleiman’s elevation almost certainly took the younger Mubarak out of play where the September elections are concerned.

Some analysts, including the Naval Post Graduate School’s Robert Springborg, see the abandonment of Gamal as evidence that the military, long a power behind the throne in Egypt, is taking a more active role in political affairs. Writing in Foreign Policy, Springborg believes the Egyptian military high command “under no circumstances would submit to rule by civilians rooted in a representative system,” which is one reason why Gamal has either gone into hiding or exile. Either way, word that Gamal has resigned his membership in the National Democratic Party would indicate that his budding political career has ended.

The advantage of Mubarak’s rent-a-thug gambit is two fold; it keeps the military’s hands clean in any bloody crackdown while giving the regime an excuse to break up the protests in order to restore “peace.” It’s a nice trick; foment the violence and then get credit for restoring order.

The army can now safely move between the pro and anti-Mubarak groups and be seen as Egypt’s protectors rather than as the instrument of state control that they truly are. Washington, London, Paris, and the rest can jawbone all they want about “democracy” but restoring order in the streets of Cairo is now the number one priority. Businesses, including banks and food shops, have been closed for more than a week. Civil order must be restored or people will start rioting for food rather than freedom.

All this strengthens Mubarak and his hold on power. Unless there is a stunning turn of events, it is hard to see how he can be forced out now. He has cemented the loyalty of the army by choosing Suleiman as his successor while tossing out the technocrats in government ministries who never served in the military and were bringing western style capitalist methods to the Egyptian economy. He has not given in to the Brotherhood and their demands made by the fop ElBaradei. And while protestors are still in the streets, and may be there for a few more days, the bulk of the Egyptian people appear ready to return to normalcy.

It also appears that Mubarak has blunted any move toward real reform. When the government does negotiate with the opposition, it won’t be with ElBaradei or the Brotherhood. Those parties the government deigns to talk to will settle for scraps thrown to them by the army. Thus, any reforms will be window dressing rather than substantive change.

It is tempting to wonder if President Obama had done something differently that the outcome of the January 25 revolution in Egypt would have been different. Frankly, it’s hard to see how anything America could have done would have changed the conclusion. The clash of idealism and realism will always bring about unsatisfactory results, even if our actions or words could have had a material impact on the final outcome. We were torn between rooting for the protestors and recognizing the vital need for stability in the region. Our confusing, halting rhetoric and actions reflected that reality and Mubarak took advantage.

Mubarak’s recovery has been remarkable as it has been unexpected. We will see what events bring over the next few days, but whatever happens, there is a good chance that the president will be able to weather the storm and serve out his remaining term.

In the time honored tradition of dictators who have reached the end of their rope, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has decided to crack down on the demonstrations that have brought his regime to its knees.

Rather than use his army or uniformed police to do the dirty work, Mubarak has instituted a jobs program for thugs. He has hired several hundred - perhaps thousands - of bully boys to mix with pro-Mubarak demonstrators and beat the opposition senseless while being given free reign by the army to cavort through the streets tossing Molotov cocktails into the thickest concentration of protestors.

I guess that’s one way to address unemployment.

And from our “Only in Egypt” file, the street bullies used a novel method of, er, debating the anti-Mubarak forces. A company of light horse rode into Tahrir Square wielding clubs and sticks, beating and whipping the opposition while their mounts tried to do their part by trampling bystanders. Joining the war horses were battle camels - the one hump variety - whose ungainly gait might have been humorous but whose size and disregard for the lives and health of anyone who got in their way was decidedly not.

This Charge of the Rent-a-Thugs was not the high point of the day. As the battle raged during the afternoon, the pro-Mubarak forces began to lob dozens and dozens of Molotov cocktails into the opposition. Numerous fires were started and there were an unknown number of casualties. All the while, the army stood passively by, watching with apparent disinterest.

CNN is reporting that the pro-Mubarak demonstrators have been bought as well. Apparently, government workers couldn’t pick up their end of the month paychecks unless they went down to the square to protest a while. Judging by the sour looks on the faces of many, they didn’t much appreciate having to brave tear gas and the stray incendiary device in order to feed their families. It didn’t put them in the best of moods, which I’m sure was part of the psychology of the gambit.

The Guardian live blog of today’s events includes this description of what sounds like a quaisi-military operation, as the thugs and pro-Mubarak demonstrators worked to surround the opposition protestors and then attacked them:

They came into the square and we blocked them peacefully, forming a human line and peacefully pushing them back . A number of thugs had infiltrated behind our human line and all of a sudden 70 people from behind us started running towards us from behind the line and started throwing rocks and stones and picking up pieces of wood from their side. This was the signal for other ‘Pro-Mubarak’ side to start reponding by throwing rocks. Our people retreated, they came forward - the point of stopping was where the army tanks were [next to the Egyptian Museum] and as we came forward people started throwing stones at us from the side of those tanks. This is significant because the only way you can get there is with the permission of the army.

Stone throwing was happening - then suddenly someone gets up on the tank shouting “People, stop stop stop, we can’t behave like this! ‘ - and immediately another guy comes straight up holding a picture of Mubarak and the tank is swarmed with Mubarak supporters as if they’re trying to stop violence! That was clearly a photo op. Once that photo opportunity had happened the ‘Mubarak Protesters’ got down from top of the tanks all of a sudden.

Sounds like a perfectly spontaneous outpouring of love and devotion for Mubarak, eh?

We’ve seen this tactic a dozen times in the last few decades. Venezuala’s Hugo Chavez has perfected it. Other banana republic dictators are experts at it. Mix the hired thugs in with less violently inclined government workers or others who benefit from the regime’s largess and all the deaths and injuries are blamed on the riots, not on a coordinated campaign by the regime to terrorize the opposition. The tactic has the advantage of keeping the army and police hands clean, which blunts international condemnation and might even fool a few naive citizens that it’s actually the opposition who is the cause of the violence.

None of this is likely to work in Egypt. The people don’t care who starts the violence at this point. And judging by how the opposition reacted to the thugs and their tactics, if it is war they want, it is war they are going to get.

This blog post originally appears on The Moderate Voice

The administration is torn between two competing visions put forward by the foreign policy establishment in Washington of what the US should do and say about the crisis in Egypt, and as is typical, they have chosen to split the difference.

This Washington Post editorial represents what might be termed the idealistic faction:

The United States should be using all of its influence - including the more than $1 billion in aid it supplies annually to the Egyptian military - to ensure the latter [regime change] outcome. Yet, as so often has happened during the Arab uprising of the past several weeks, the Obama administration on Friday appeared to be behind events. It called for an end to the violence against demonstrators and for a lifting of the regime’s shutdown of the Internet and other communications. Encouragingly, the White House press secretary said that the administration “will review our assistance posture based on events that take place in the coming days.”

But U.S. statements assumed that the 30-year-long rule of the 82-year-old Mr. Mubarak would continue. After speaking to Mr. Mubarak, President Obama said Friday night that he would continue to work with the Egyptian president; he did not mention elections. Instead, in an apparent attempt to straddle the two sides, the administration suggested that the solution to the crisis would come through “engagement” between the regime and the protesters.

Representing the realists, Rep.Thaddeus McCotter issued a statement published in Human Events to the effect that we should stand behind Mubarak:

Though many will be tempted to superficially interpret the Egyptian demonstrations as an uprising for populist democracy, they must recall how such similar initial views of the 1979 Iranian Revolution were belied by the mullahs’ radical jackbooted murderers, who remain bent upon grasping regional hegemony and nuclear weaponry.

In this crisis, the American people deserve candor and action from President Obama, and President Hosni Mubarak and General Tantwai.

This is not a nostalgic “anti-colonial uprising” from within, of all places, the land of Nassar. Right now, freedom’s radicalized enemies are subverting Egypt and other our allies.

There are good arguments that can be made for both positions - with very large caveats. Standing behind Mubarak and stability might be the desired goal but is it realistic at this point? Preventing radical Islamists from ascending to power might be beneficial to the US and Israel, but at what cost? Is any cost worth what it will now take to beat down the protests?

Of course, WaPo’s suggestion invites the worst case scenario. We have the Iranian revolution as a guide in this respect and to imagine jihadists in charge of the largest Arab country in the world with the largest military - a nation that would then be at odds with Israel - would cause any president to lose a considerable amount of sleep.

It should be remembered that the situation in which we find ourselves was not created overnight. Thirty two years of backing this thug by Democratic and Republican presidents alike while giving his military tens of billions of dollars seemed a good tradeoff at the time but, as a famous scholar once opined, “the chickens have come home to roost.” It’s too late for either scenario above. We can’t pull the rug from underneath Mubarak and expect the demonstrators to love us. Nor can we continue to support the Egyptian president and not expect whatever government the mob throws up to view us with anything but contempt.

The world is about to change and the administration is unable to decide what to do to help shape the future to the benefit of US interests. Is it the nature of the crisis that this is so? Or is it that Obama and his State Department are like a deer in the headlights when it comes to proposing options?

I tend to believe the former; any response, any action we take will not materially affect events to our advantage. It may be emotionally satisfying if the president were to come out four-square in favor of “democracy” and the demonstrators. But like the Iranian uprising, to what end would the rhetoric be directed? Would it be to save Mubarak? Save lives? Save the Camp David Accords that Caroline Glick makes a good case for it being all but dead now?

And as we now see, all of its possible secular and Islamist successors either reject outright Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel or will owe their political power to the support of those who reject the peace with the Jewish state. So whether the Egyptian regime falls next week or next year or five years from now, the peace treaty is doomed.

Is this scenario overblown? Heather Hurlburt thinks so:

Some American commentators have argued that Al Jazeera is somehow fanning Islamism and anti-Americanism with its coverage. But as Marc Lynch has pointed out, Egyptian citizens, like Tunisians before them, are so—justifiably—angry at their governments that it’s hard to imagine what new provocations the station could come up with. Similarly, concern about the relative strength of the Muslim Brotherhood, which espouses a fundamentalist strain of Islam and has championed and employed violence in the past, should be balanced against three other facts: (1) The Brotherhood has renounced violence and it has been active in Egyptian politics, transformed by an internal debate about whether and how to participate, for some time now; (2) Thus far, observers on the ground report that it is young, secular Egyptians who are leading this revolt; (3) The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, the largest opposition organization in Egypt, is a first-rank enemy of Al Qaeda, and has been for decades. (A chapter in the recent “Self-Inflicted Wounds” from West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center lays out the feud, and how it has played out in Egypt, South Asia and elsewhere, in detail. Briefly, the Brotherhood’s goals have been more political and focused on individual governments—and thus less focused on what Bin Laden refers to as the “far enemy”—the United States homeland.) Meanwhile, it is reasonable to be concerned about the future role of radical extremists where other forces are weak, but this kind of scaremongering is actually quite ignorant; it’s also disheartening and potentially damaging to the true democrats—some of whom organize around Islam, and some of whom don’t—that are doing the struggling and dying right now. Americans, like others around the world, are instinctively cheering for them. They are right to do so.

Just because “secular oriented” young Egyptians appear to be in the forefront now, what are the chances that they will be a force in the new government? That kind of muddled, idealistic thinking is not helping. Blithely ignoring the Muslim Brotherhood’s anti-Semitism while downplaying their radical agenda (Hey! They hate al-Qaeda!) is more a demonstration of myopia than thoughtful analysis. Who cares if they hate Bin Laden? Is al-Qaeda the only Islamist group who wants to damage American interests or destroy Israel? I don’t want to make this an ideological critique but this kind of nonsense appears on the left far more than on the right. We are at war with radical Islam in all its forms.

Also, Hurlburt exhibits far too much faith in the wisdom of the mob. No one knows what might happen in a free and fair election, but if history is any guide, when given the choice, it is not unknown for Middle Eastern voters to choose the Islamists voluntarily. In Egypts case, where even Hurburt admits the Muslim Brotherhood is the most powerful and best organized opposition group, a victory by the Islamists, although not assured, would certainly be more than a possibility.

Hardly “scaremongering” or “ignorant” to point out he obvious.

I don’t know what the Obama administration could be doing that it isn’t doing right now. They might have tied the Vice President and gagged him. Biden’s statement about Mubarak not being a dictator was reminiscent of Carter’s New Year’s toast to the Shah, congratulating him for running a country that was an “island of stability” in the region. Within weeks, Carter was made to look like an idiot.

The State Department has ordered US diplomats out of the country. If Carter had done that, he may very well have won a second term - a counterfactual not lost on Obama. Their statements on the crisis reflect a divided establishment, which isn’t surprising given our 32 year support for Mubarak and the mix of rationalists and idealists.

Sometimes, you just have to get out of the way when history is rolling forward and pick up the pieces afterward. It is unsatisfying to contemplate doing nothing, but in this case, it may be the best way to do no further harm to our interests than has already been inflicted.

Parts of this blog post originally appeared at The American Thinker

A handpicked candidate for prime minister by Hezb’allah will likely win parliamentary approval today. Thus ends the independence of the Lebanese state.

Even the New York Times sees the writing on the wall with their headline, “Hezbollah Chooses Lebanon’s Next Prime Minister:”

A prime minister chosen by Hezbollah and its allies won enough support on Monday to form Lebanon’s government, unleashing angry protests, realigning politics and culminating the generation-long ascent of the Shiite Muslim movement from shadowy militant group to the country’s pre-eminent political and military force.

Hezbollah’s success served as a stark measure of the shifting constellation of power in this part of the Middle East, where the influence of the United States and its Arab allies - Egypt and Saudi Arabia - is seen by politicians and diplomats as receding, while Iran and Syria have become more assertive.

American diplomats tried to forestall the triumph of Hezbollah’s candidate, Najib Miqati. Although the final votes will be cast Tuesday, Mr. Miqati won the decisive vote from a politician who said he had to deal “with the reality on the ground.”

The government that Mr. Miqati, a billionaire and former prime minister, forms may in the end look much like past cabinets in this small Mediterranean country. Indeed, Mr. Miqati struck a conciliatory tone, calling himself a consensus candidate.

Mr. Miqati is hardly a “consensus” candidate. His “Glory Movement” party has precisely 2 seats in the parliament. In contrast, fallen PM Saad Hariri’s Future party has 71 seats. He was also seen as a “consensus” choice when he assumed the prime minister’s post in the immediate aftermath of the Syrian withdrawal in the spring of 2005. The problem was the same back then; suspected of having divided loyalties. He was chosen by Syria’s Assad to fill the post of interim prime minister. It would have been impossible to choose a candidate who did not meet with the Syrian president’s approval at the time.

Daniel Larison points out Miqati’s placement on Hariri’s list of allied candidates in the 2009 elections which, I suppose, ties him to the former PM in Larison’s eyes. Miqati was running for office from a district in Tripoli - a Suinni stronghold dominated by the Future party and, at the time, was the site of unrest as clashes between Sunnis and Shias were taking place. It was political expediency that forced Miqati to run as an Hariri ally and not any kind of ideological affinity for Hariri’s politics. This is not unknown in Lebanese politics, of course. But trying to put lipstick on a pig by saying that Miqati ran on Hariri’s list and inferring that this is somehow acceptable to the bulk of Sunnis or that he is not a danger to an independent Lebanon is too much of a stretch. He will do Hezb’allah’s bidding - especially as it relates to the Special Tribunal Lebanon (STL).

The STL, a UN sponsored tribunal looking into the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri (as well as the dozen or so other political murders in Lebanon since that date), was the cause of the fall of Hariri’s government in the first place. Their secret indictments, handed down last week, almost certainly name prominent Hezb’allah members as the guilty parties in carrying out the crime. Hezb’allah demanded that Hariri denounce the STL and make a statement to the effect that it is a US-Israeli plot to tarnish the squeaky clean reputation of the terrorist group/political party. Hariri refused, the Hez withdrew their cabinet ministers, and have now named the next prime minister.

Miqati’s first order of business will be to cut the cord between Lebanon and the STL. That would be a minimum demand from Hezb’allah for their support. Those indictments carry no weight now, and there will be no trials of the accused in Lebanon or elsewhere.

There are some observers who see Iran ascendant in Lebanon - perhaps even able to exert some kind of control over the tiny country. That may be true to some extent with regard to Lebanon’s relations with Israel, Iran, and Syria. But it is a little more complicated than Iran telling Miqati, or even Hezb’allah General Secretary Hassan Nasrallah what to do.

Nasrallah has his own agenda in Lebanon that at times, will work at cross purposes with his paymasters in Iran. It may even be true that Supreme Leader Khamenie would have preferred to see Hezb’allah remain in the background and not take such a prominent role in forming a government. It was reported that Khamenei was angry at Nasrallah for instigating the 2006 war with Israel, knowing full well that the militia could not go toe to toe with the IDF for any length of time. There was much grumbling by the Iranian people and leadership when they were forced to resupply Hezb’allah following the end of hostilities. Clearly, Nasrallah is far from being Iran’s puppet, although there are several areas where their vital interests intersect - most especially as those interests relate to Israel and its destruction.

It is Syrian president Bashar Assad who now holds the whip hand in Lebanon; not so much because he controls Nasrallah but because he has outsized influence on many prominent individuals in Nasrallah’s March 8 movement. Death threats and cash payoffs by Syria to key factions in Lebanon has cemented loyalty to Assad’s regime and means that the Syrian president has virtual control of much of the Lebanese parliament - at least enough to affect votes as they relate to Syria and their considerable economic interests in Lebanon.

What killed the Cedar Revolution? In the end, a lack of courage was March 14th’s downfall. It’s not really a criticism in that standing up to Syria, Iran, and Hezb’allah was more than likely to get you and your family killed. Few possess such otherworldly physical courage and to deride the Lebanese democrats for their failure in this regard isn’t fair unless you place yourself in their shoes and ask yourself how you would act.

But it would have taken more than courage to wrest Hezb’allah’s guns from their possession, or risk civil war in order to stand up to Hezb’allah and their political blackmail. At bottom, it came down to the same formula for power it always does; those with the guns and the demonstrated ability to use them usually win out in the end.

This post originally appears on The American Thinker

I have an article published at FrontPage.com today about the stand off between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, and how the incident is helping President Daniel Ortega in boosting his popularity ahead of the elections next year.

A sample:

Back in Managua, Ortega’s political fortunes rose dramatically. As recently as late last summer, former deadly foes from the Sandinista government of the 1980s and the Contra rebels had joined forces to present a united opposition of sorts to Ortega’s authoritarian government. These oddfellows had differing reasons for opposing the president, but found common ground in their agreement that Ortega was attempting to subvert the constitution in order to set up a dictatorship. Coupled with Ortega’s broad based unpopularity, there seemed to be a chance that Ortega would be confronted with the choice of stealing the election next year or going down to ignominious defeat.

The conflict with Costa Rica has changed that calculus. Whipped into a nationalistic frenzy by the Ortega government, the middle class has united behind the government, joining the Sandinistas and the desperately poor in supporting the president. Business leaders, formerly critical of Ortega’s naked power grab, have joined with university students to back the government. Opposition newspapers have cooled their rhetoric and have been praising Ortega’s stand. And perhaps most surprising of all, the National Assembly, only recently attacked by Ortega thugs, passed a unanimous resolution pledging full support for Ortega and his dispatching of troops to the border.

This support contrasts with the near civil war that broke out earlier this year following Ortega’s machinations with the Supreme Court. Sandinista judges overturned the presidential succession ban in return for an executive order from Ortega allowing them to stay in their offices beyond their own constitutionally mandated date of retirement. These are the same judges who will rule on any legal challenges during the 2011 election.

When the opposition squawked, Ortega sent his Sandinista thugs to the Supreme Court where opposition judges were forcibly removed. The action precipitated the forced marriage between the Sandinista faction that still believes in “revolutionary change” and the Contra faction that seeks adherence to constitutional principles. In the confusing and conflicted world of Nicaraguan politics, there are other factions from both sides who are serving in Ortega’s government, including a faction led by the legendary Eden Pastora, the charismatic Contra leader during the 1980’s who leads the small military force squatting on Calero island.

Not surprisingly, Ortega is being bankrolled by Hugo Chavez, who has engineered a very complex business arrangement that has placed more than a billion dollars in Ortega’s hands so that he can spread some wealth to the rural poor people in Nicaragua. The company that Ortega controls which is dispensing this largess has its fingers in several important sectors of the economy, thus giving him enormous leverage. It’s a carbon copy of the way Chavez was able to seize power and given the way in which Ortega has manipulated the Costa Rican crisis, will probably end up working in Nicaragua as well.