perfidy

The Ministry is experiencing some technical difficulties at the moment. I seem to be the only person who can use the site at the moment. There is no chance that I will abuse this power. None, I tell myself. None.

Commenting on Winds of Change, I was unnecessarily opaque with the "argues inductively" statement. I wrote:

Telenko argues inductively for the elimination of the other, where the permissible degree of otherness is inversely proportional to the capability of weapons.

Let me supply the underlying thinking. I'd like to note that I do not imply that Trent is directly arguing that we should commit genocide; this is why I use the term inductive.

An inductive proof is a weak form of mathematical proof. You prove a base case, then prove that it holds true for a successor to the base. You might then conclude that it holds true for _all_ cases (a bit more definition can be had at http://scom.hud.ac.uk/scomtlm/book/node125.html).

It is imperative that I note I am not well-read in military science. My co-blogger Buckethead is; with any luck he'll chime in at some point. I just work with the facts I have.

We are discussing the notion of a _survival_ war with Islamic radicals and their support network. There are two avenues by which danger can arrive on our shores: First, by the projection of conventional force. Second, by the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Conventional force is a conceivable survival threat, but only in the very long term. Radical islamic economies would have to develop to the point where they could compete with western economies, if conventional war is to be attempted. Certain tenets of radical islam make its competitiveness in this area highly unlikely (anti-woman, dictatorial, corrupt). It is possible that a huge _decline_ in western capabilities coupled with best-case rise in Islamic cultures might one day yield conventional military capabilities that could harm us, but I find it pretty unlikely.

WMD: Chemical won't do any significant damage. Nuclear is bad, but localized. Biological is the scariest, theoretically.

An isolated nuclear attack (a bomb in a city) is not a survival-level problem. If such an attack is committed the retribution will be terrible. The US will not allow a radical islamic state to achieve substantial missile capability; a MAD rerun is not likely to occur.

Biological weapons are quite terrifying. I really don't know what the state of the art is; I will simply assume that it's bad, and it's going to get a lot worse.

Trent believes (or I perceive him to believe) that deliberate action now is necessary to assure or increase the safety level of our culture. Both the urgency of that action and the severity of its effects are coupled to the nature of WMD -- because WMD can cause so much damage, there are certain forms of freedom of thought and action that we have greatly reduced tolerance for. I do not use the word "freedom" here in anything other than its strictest literal sense; freedom here is referring to activites that are more or less psychotic and evil.

The inductive part of this comes together as weapon power increases. The imminence and capability of the WMD threat to our culture increases over time. In order to maintain some perceived level of safety, we must engage tighter and tighter control over the freedoms of other cultures, and over individuals. As WMD technology improves, the resources required to marshal and deliver such an attack become within the capabilities of smaller and smaller groups.

Thus, the use of oppressive force to counter technology-driven WMD is, over the long run, likely to fail unless increasingly rigid control and suppression of opposition is executed.

Circling back around to the beginning, what this means is that using force to counter hate and prevent hate's access to WMD will require ever more effort and severity over time. We will place those resources efficiently, which means focusing on those cultures that are most different (least understandable, least trustworthy). The farthest extents of those target cultures will be eliminated over time; they will be evolved, via forceful methods to be closer to our own. Simultaneously, as reduction of the overt cultural enemy is performed, two things happen. First, the targets become progressive more difficult to identify (smaller clusters, too similar to "us"). Second, repressive forces will necessarily produce some level of backlash. These "internal" forces can become exceedingly dangerous.

At some point it gets hard to tell the difference between friend and foe.

I hope that's shed a little light on my thinking. It's not that I disagree, necessarily, with Trent's position that a hard pre-emptive strike can "teach a lesson". It can, and it will probably succeed on some levels. I remain more concerned over the long run with the evolution of technology.

I also remain convinced that a maximally successful, peaceful, and reasonably honorable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis will substantially reduce tensions and hatred in the Islamic world, thereby reducing danger to us. I hope I'm not wrong about this; otherwise, the problem is going to be very tough.

As far as the phrase "elimination of the other" goes, it didn't come from a book -- it just came out that way when I wrote that comment. I hope my use of the phrase is clearer, now.

On a related topic: If Israel were directly attacked by conventional military force today, wouldn't the US step in and defend her? I am quite sure we would, as would a good chunk of the rest of the world.

As far as I know, in the six day war, the US did _not_ intervene. US forces were repositioned to express neutrality. The Liberty incident may have clouded the situation. Why, during this engagement, was US support of Israel not a _given_?

ABC is reporting on the list of people and organizations who supported Saddam Hussein's regime and were given oil contracts as a result. All of the contracts were under the UN administered Oil for Food program, and were awarded between 1997 and the start of the war. The list was discovered in the files of the Iraqi Oil Ministry.

Investigators say none of the people involved would have actually taken possession of oil, but rather just the right to buy the oil at a discounted price, which could be resold to a legitimate broker or oil company, at an average profit of about 50 cents a barrel. ...

According to the document, France was the second-largest beneficiary, with tens of millions of barrels awarded to Patrick Maugein, a close political associate and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac.

Maugein, individually and through companies connected to him, received contracts for some 36 million barrels. Chirac's office said it was unaware of Maugein's deals, which Maugein told ABCNEWS are perfectly legal.

The single biggest set of contracts were given to the Russian government and Russian political figures, more than 1.3 billion barrels in all — including 92 million barrels to individual officials in the office of President Vladimir Putin.

George Galloway, British MP and vocal critic of the war, was on the list for 19 million barrels, though he denies any involvement. Most disturbing to me was the presence on the list of the Russian Orthodox Church. I wonder what defense they are offering.

I don't think anyone should be surprised about the French involvement.

Steve at Begging to Differ has found a wonderful, addictive internet timewaster:

Hit the Penguin

You are a Yeti. Your job is to whack the penguin as far as you can. The key is to get some air under him, but not too much. You need to skip him like a flat stone on a creek. So far, the record is 323.4 by Fred. Mine is 322.6.

There is another version of the game, Yeti on 'roids. Records there are 593.5, and 499.7 on the fly - both by BTD Steve. (I've gotten 591.3 and 498.1. So close, but yet so far away. As Vince Lombardi once said, second place is the first loser.)

[wik] And, while we're at it, here's another fun game: Moonlander, which is reminiscent of one of my favorite old school arcade games. If I could have any three classic arcade games, they would be Asteroids, Moonlander and Centipede.

[alsø wik] My wife informs me that there is also a super-steroid version.

On the recommendation of Trent Telenko and Tom Holsinger, commenters over at Winds of Change, I went out and got a copy of Lee Harris' book Civilization and its Enemies, The Next Stage of History. Over lunch, I got about 30 pages in, and I can tell you that it is an amazing book. I'll report back on this when I've absorbed a bit more, but I suggest you run to your local book purveyor and get yourself a copy.

In case anyone was wondering, the trackback function for Perfidy posts is now working. A small matter of configuration, and no HTML Gnomes were killed or injured in the effort to provide you with the highest quality perfidious service. (Several were subjected to vicious haranguing, and as a result had their feelings hurt.) Link on!

A vigorous exchange on Winds of Change left me wondering...exactly how many insults were thrown in my direction? I should, of course, count the insults I hurled in return as well. I might have been pre-emptive once or twice as well. ;)

"full of 'understanding' for the suicide bombers"
"bleeding-heart liberal"
"an enabler" (for terrorism)
"I fear the evils of our Islamo-facist enemies less than I fear what fools like Ross may make both inevitable and necessary"
"People like Ross are delaying the American quest for victory"
"secular-left apologist of suicide bombing"
"completely disassociated"
"you are not a serious person"

And here are my uber-insults:

"sanctimonious ass"
"frothing extremists"
"two-tone mental stance"
"As for my conjuration of smart remarks: Someone has to, and you're not holding up your end."
"save your "9/11 means nothing" bullshit for a little rally of like-minded jackboot-steppers"
"Make sure nobody gives Telenko the controls for the spaceship"

Darn it, I don't come out looking too good in the insult count. I believe I have hurled more than I have received, and that is piss-poor news for my purported civility.

I feel bad about the "frothing extremist" thing. That was totally unnecessary. Sorry Mary! Heat of the moment, Lord of the Flies, and all that.

As Johno has noted, Ross is in a pissing match with the good people over at Winds of Change. I wish there was some way to say, "Why can't we all just get along?" without sounding like a complete sap. Ross, Trent, and others have moved past the ability (at least in this exchange) to see the valid points in the other's comments. While I definitely trend toward Trent, Tom, Joe and the others in my assessment of the situation with the War on Terror (as my previous post should make obvious) I haven't felt the need to call Ross a fool, or an idiotarian. Yet.

Trent and the others are a little too eager to cast Ross and others into the outer darkness because of his liberal views, rather than argue. Ross is of course a little too eager to turn up the invective as well. Reasoned debate is a good thing; but it's a lot easier to get in person, with a beer in hand. (We've seen that before right here on this very blog, haven't we?)

Blackfive has some extensive notes on how to prepare for a deployment in Iraq.

James, of the indispensable Outside the Beltway, links to a New York Times/AP report that a high-ranking Al Qaida officer has been captured in Iraq by US and Kurdish forces.

Osama bin Laden's terror network is seeking a foothold in Iraq as evidenced by the recent arrest of a top al-Qaida operative trying to enter northern Iraq, the commander of coalition forces said Thursday. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez cited the capture of Hassan Ghul by U.S.-allied Kurdish forces as evidence of al-Qaida's interest in establishing operations in this country. Officials in Washington reported Ghul's arrest Saturday, describing him as a senior recruiter and facilitator for al-Qaida who reported directly to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, one of the architects of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks who was captured in March near Islamabad, Pakistan.

"The capture of Ghul is pretty strong proof that al-Qaida is trying to gain a foothold here to continue their murderous campaigns,'' Sanchez said. "Ghul's capture is great news for both the Iraqis, the coalition and the international community's war against terrorism.''

US officials have said that most of the attacks against coalition forces have come from the remnants of Saddam's Baathist regime. But recently, military officials have noted the use of "al-Qaida-like tactics," including suicide attacks.

Before the war, I heard many people argue that the religious fanatic al Qaida would never work with the secular Baathist. They denied any connection between Saddam's regime and al Qaida. This was obviously untrue at the time, and has become even less true over the last year. Even if the two groups absolutely hated each other, they would still have the common interest of defeating or at least attacking the US. And it is after all an Arab proverb, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." For decades, there has been a terrorist network. The IRA trained in Libya. Then the IRA trained Columbian drug cartels. The various Marxist or pseudo Marxist terror groups exchanged numbers while training in the USSR, or at Soviet sponsored training camps in the Middle East. Whether the terror groups were Marxist, Religious, Nationalist or just bugfuck, they all have each other’s numbers in the Rolodex.
And this network was in communication with the intelligence agencies of the nations that are or were state supporters of terror. We know that al Qaida met in the Czech Republic with mid level officers in Saddam’s intelligence apparatus. We know that Ansar Al-Islam has been operating in Iraq, and had training camps there. The capture of a ranking member of al Qaida is just one more piece of evidence.

We have been told to be careful in our denunciations of Islam. It’s only a few isolated, hateful wackos who are attacking us. We have also been told by some that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with and in fact was a distraction from the war on terror.

But the more I read, the more I believe that the problem is not so small. There is a continuum of Islamic terror that stretches from the terrorists themselves at one end; through the Imams who preach hatred for the west in particular and everything that isn’t Islam in general (witness my recent post on the murders of the Buddhist monks, and the Taliban’s destruction of the Buddhist statues); through the nominally secular Arab governments that support the terrorists with money and sanctuary, and whose media spread anti-semitism and hatred for America; to the ‘Arab Street’ that openly and loudly celebrates things like 9/11 or the Columbia accident; and on to the mass of the Islamic population that never says a word and thus gives tacit support for all the evil that is done in their name.

It is not enough to hunt down individual terrorists and their cells, destroy their training camps and cut off their funding. We might manage that, sometimes with and sometimes without the cooperation of the governments in the region. But that doesn’t end our problem. They still hate us, not just a few, but majorities in the polls I’ve seen. Granted, they’re being lied to by the official media and their religious leaders. But so were the Germans.

Trent Telenko and Wretchard are right when they fear that a successful large scale attack on the United States could cause widespread devastation in the Middle East. We have been restrained up til now, but there is little hope that we would be if we lost a city to a terrorist nuke. And that possibility is still very real. Libya’s nuclear program was shockingly far advanced, and we knew nothing of it.

We are fighting evil. There should be no doubt about this. People who target civilians for purposes of terror are evil. People who give aid and comfort to them are evil. And the population of Islam is complicit in that evil, because they celebrate when it succeeds, and never utter a word of criticism. Even among the Muslims in this country, we hear very little in the way of condemnation for terror, and we know that their views are not being suppressed by authoritarian governments.

That’s what we’re up against. The third totalitarian movement we have faced in the last century. And they have clearly stated that we are their enemies. We need to take them at their word, and defeat them. If Hitler had been opposed in the twenties, or even in the mid thirties, millions of lives would have been saved. We waited. Communism was worse, and there were many in the west who defended it, excused it, and lied about it. Nevertheless, we opposed it. Right now, Islamic totalitarianism is weak. Now is the time to stamp it out, before it gains the capability do us serious harm.