AMERICAN FUTURE

As most of probably already know, in most things I support President Bush. Sometimes, though, I wonder if he is even paying attention to base voters like myself. Case in point, the Washington Times reported yesterday “Bush seeks to ease visa requirement” for Central and Eastern European countries. According to this article the President wants to expand the Visa Waiver Program under which certain visitors to the U.S. can forgo the pre-screening of the visa process, based solely on nationality. While on a visit to Estonia the President remarked:

“I’m going to work with our Congress and our international partners to modify our Visa Waiver Program,” Mr. Bush said. “It’s a way to make sure that nations like Estonia qualify more quickly for the program and, at the same time, strengthen the program’s security components.”

In the picture accompanying the article Secretary of State Rice appears to be scratching her head and trying not to laugh. I can only imagine that the photo was taken at the exact moment the President made that remark. I mean, I thought he was kidding too.

Just for fun I checked out the vital statistics on Estonia in the CIA World Fact Book. Estonia is by no means a big country “slightly smaller than New Hampshire and Vermont combined” according to the folks at Langley. It has a population of 1,324,333 (July 2006 estimate) with an unemployment rate of 7.9%. The median income is approximately $9100 per year according to the World Bank. Keep in mind that $9100 is the median income—also according to the World Bank 6.7% of the population (or, more than 88,700 people) makes less than $2.00 per day. That is not the most damning factor, though—currently Estonia has an annual net loss in migration, that is, more people are fleeing than arriving. Big deal, right? So another 5,000 people a year might head to the U.S. to seek a better life.

Keep this in mind: Estonia is only one of the countries we are talking about. Try a Google News Search of the term “visa waiver program.” You’ll find news articles from countries like Romania, Latvia and a rash of other countries with low average incomes and net loss migration patterns. Where am I going with this? Let me ask you this—how much do you think a clerk in a passport office might make in a country with a median income of less than $10,000? How secure might the issuance practices of such countries be? Any chance an al Qaeda operative might be able to pick up a passport in such a country?

In an age when we are talking about building a massive fence along the southern border to keep people from coming to work in our onion fields does it really make sense to open the door further to European travelers without pre-screening, just because they are European? It would seem to me that we have enough to worry about just with the possibility that a group of jihadis carrying passports of the United Kingdom might find their way to New York without adding to the potential for disaster. Does anyone else remember that those who planned to simultaneously destroy up to 10 flights bound from the U.K to the U.S. last summer were “British citizens of Pakistani origin” according to the WaPo? Anyone want to bet that they were planning to use their Pakistani passports to make the trip? I didn’t think so.

Critics of any plan to put an end to the Visa Waiver Program all point to the same thing: other countries will make us get visas to go there. Shouldn’t be much of a problem, the Europeans love to point to the fact that the vast majority of Americans don’t have passports and claim it as an example of their superiority. Those who have passports will learn how to get visas. Most of the world already knows how, it might even endear us to them if we do the same (although I doubt it). Another argument is the cost to the economy if we scare people away. We might initially lose some tourism revenue, but we can take it out of the money we are still pouring into defending Europe, or our U.N. dues. Eventually people will become tired of the bombings in Bali, the stabbings in the Netherlands, the riots in Paris or any of the other threats to their vacation safety. To paraphrase the governor of California—they’ll be back.

In the meantime, the only question worth asking is this: why bother to build a fence when the door is unlocked and wide open?

Greetings all, sorry for the prolonged absence. Let me start by offering a belated “welcome” to Kris Sargent, I am looking forward to the posts to come.

By now most of you are more than likely familiar with the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a truly indispensable resource. If you are not yet checking this site regularly here is how they describe themselves:

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the region’s media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East.

MEMRI has long offered translations of televised events, radio broadcast and print media, as well as streaming video. They are now providing what may be their best service to date: “The Islamist Websites Monitor.” It has become almost passé to say that the jihadists have perfected the use of Western freedoms against us, and the Internet may be the ultimate tool in the kit for those who preach hatred of those who do not embrace the “religion of peace.” MEMRI, with this project, is providing a glimpse into the web as used by the likes of al Qaeda, or worse—the Dean of the Shari’a Academy of America Dr. Al-Sayed Al-Seely. As MEMRI reports in the first of the Website Monitor posts:

On October 4, 2006, an Islamic website published an interview with the dean of the Shari’a Academy of America in which the latter avoids condemning the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, instead, depicts those who carried out the attacks as “brave geniuses” and suggests that they should be esteemed. According to him the attackers were not terrorists, but rather people who, by their actions, “took revenge or claimed [their] right.” America should not expect people which it provoked to sit idle and not respond furiously to its provocation, he claims, adding that “What transpired in America stems, most importantly, from America’s support to the Jews…a fact that infuriated many [Muslims].”

For too long men like Al-Sayed Al-Seely have gone unchallenged, perhaps due to intellectual laziness on the part of the MSM (if not downright empathy), but more than anything because not many people knew what they were saying. Al-Sayed Al-Seely is protected by the First Amendment, but MEMRI has robbed him and those of his ilk of the ability to hide behind a language few Americans speak (which is in and of itself fodder for another post). Google News has no listing of the speech he gave, and a Google web search returns three hits, two of which are on the MEMRI site. I encourage all of you to add MEMRI to your regular reading. Much has been made about the lack of an “exit strategy” in the U.S. Spend a few minutes perusing the various posts and you’ll find things like this:

On November 3, 2006, Islamist websites posted information on constructing UAVs. In the message that prefaced the information, the writer apologized for relying on an illustrated manual for building remote-controlled model airplanes that was written by an apostate, but explained that he had decided to use this manual because the mujahideen still lack capabilities of their own in this field. As for what led him to take an interest in UAVs, he explains: “Assisting jihad is not [achieved] only by [wielding] a pen and sitting at a computer screen.”

Indeed, if you are a jihadi and sitting at a computer the least you can do is identify targets for the hard asses in your movement:

On October 19, 2006, Islamist websites posted a list of German sites which, according to the author, defame Islam and must therefore be shut down. The message that accompanies the list says: “[These websites] insult the God of glory and call Him the God of swine… they describe the Prophet as a rapist of young girls… and as a robber… Where are you, the lions of jihad [in] the media? Who is going to put this dog [ i.e. the individual behind these websites] in his place? Who will destroy his website and [the other] websites through which he disseminates his filth?… Isn’t there an Abu Mus’ab Al-Zarqawi [to take care of] this dog? Isn’t there a killer [who will kill] him, like the one who murdered the Dutch director [Theo Van Gogh]?... If you can’t slaughter him and kill him, at least destroy these websites…”

Or you can learn how to surveil airports using the web:

On October 17, 2006, an Islamist website posted a message titled “You Can Spy on the Enemies’ Airports Directly by Controlling the Cameras’ Direction.” The message contains a link to a screen showing what it claims to be a live view of various areas within Anchorage International Airport via several cameras.). The message gives directions for how to control the cameras and promises to provide links in the future for other airports as well.

If that is not enough, try this:

“My final message is [addressed] to those who have special skills and qualifications amongst the experts in [the fields of] chemistry, physics, management, electronics, communications and all the advanced specialties, particularly nuclear scientists and [experts] on explosives. I say [to them]: we have urgent need of you. The front of jihad will suit your aspirations. The American military bases, with their large areas, are an ideal environment for trying out your non-conventional bombs: the biological [bombs] and the so-called ‘dirty’ bombs…”

“Know thy Enemy” has long been a long been a maxim of warfare. Unfortunately we, that is, the West, have largely given up on “knowing” any foreign culture for fear of judging it. We have equally given up on warfare—we refuse to define the enemy and instead declare that we will defeat a tactic. Make no mistake about it, the other side has clearly defined their enemy, and it is we. Thank goodness that MEMRI has once again shed some light on their thinking.

Now if only more people would bother to open their eyes.

Dr. Demarche is absolutely right about MEMRI. I’ve regularly visited its website for at least three years and found it to be truly indispensable. It is a uniquely valuable resource. Heed the Doctor’s advice and visit it regularly.

If I am reading the news correctly the Taliban man at Yale may soon be heading home. It is not that he doesn’t like Yale (as far as I know) or that they don’t like him, but rather that he may soon have his old job back. It seems that the Taliban (or “Students of Islamic Knowledge Movement”) in Afghanistan is “resurgent” and have gained considerable power in the South and East of the country. The very informative Power and Interest News Report web site today published a report entitled, oddly enough, “The Resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan” discussing this very theme:

Some five years after the United States went to war to defeat the Taliban and three years after it declared an end to combat operations, the resurgence of the Taliban is haunting the U.S. military and its allies, and hopes for the emergence of a democratic Afghanistan are faltering. While the political institutions in the form of a constitution, a popularly-elected president, and a national parliament have been in place for some time now, their efficacy is increasingly being challenged by the rising violence and creeping fundamentalism. The present phase in violence is the most intense since the defeat of the Taliban in 2001.

Of course, this should come as no surprise, as the bombastic leaders of the Taliban have been promising for months that they were not yet ready to surrender, as this interview from the indispensable memri.org demonstrates:

Mullah Dadallah: “The infidels who have occupied our country and some other Muslim countries – not only Afghanistan – have hatched a great plot to destroy Islam. We resolved to expel the infidels from all Muslim countries, not only from Afghanistan. We will continue with this until our last breath.”

Interviewer: “Are there specific reasons for this escalation? Did you obtain new weapons? Did you receive support from neighboring countries, or from Islamic countries?” Mullah Dadallah: “Allah be praised, the Islamic countries don’t mind if we inflict losses upon the infidels and defeat them. America is the big snake that wants to bite everybody. Would you believe that some non-Islamic countries have offered us support? They offered [to help us] defeat the Americans.”

Interviewer: “Yes, but did any country actually help you in your recent operations?”

Mullah Dadallah: “These are matters of military tactics, which I cannot divulge. Doing so will not benefit us in any way. Some of them may have helped us in this.”

[...]

Mullah Dadallah: “Allah be praised, there are many Taliban members in these four states. To the best of my knowledge, 12,000 Taliban fighters participate in the attacks. Based on this, you can assume what happens in other regions. Allah be praised, there are huge numbers of mujahideen. The people as a whole has revolted. The people in its entirety has begun to participate in jihad against the infidels.”

[...]

“The government’s control over the region it rules is also weak. Allah be praised, Taliban is in control. The Americans rule in their bases and in Karzai’s palace. With these exceptions, we are the ones who control Afghanistan.”

If the PINR report and the Mullah are correct this resurgence of the Taliban does not bode well for Afghanistan, the future of democracy in the region or the “war on terror.” We might have a superior army, better weapons and more wealth, but in the end that might not matter. As a young man my hockey coach would always point out the strengths of the other team- maybe they were bigger, or faster, or passed better, or hit harder. He always found something they did better than us. Then he always told us that all mattered was whether or not we wanted it more than the other team did. If we did, we would win- if they were bigger we could duck their hits, if they were faster we would deliberately slow the pace of the game instead of trying to keep up. If they passed better we would play more man to man, and if they hit harder we would hurt more tomorrow. But if we really wanted it it more than then the other team they couldn’t beat us, period. More often than not, they didn’t. The Afghans have along history of wanting it more, and it just may be that the Taliban were at the heart of that drive.

It is by no means too late for the good people of Afghanistan to have a nation built on freedom and liberty and not on the Talibanic version of what their country should be, but with NATO taking over soon time is running short. It would not surprise me, however, to find that in two years (if not sooner) that we once again have to return to face the Taliban. Should they re-establish themselves in control of the nation we can be assured that they will quickly make welcome the various Islamic terrorist factions that stand in opposition to everything we believe in. It could just be that they want it more.

I have to say that I love the International Herald Tribune. I know that may sound strange coming from me, but when they publish headlines like this: “Iranian-born female space tourist inspiring women back in homeland” it is hard not to love them since all I have to do to make my point is type this: “... to flee the mullahcrocy for the United States of America .”

You see Anousheh Ansari became the first female space tourist, the first female Muslim in space and the first Iranian to venture off planet when she blasted off yesterday from Russia en route to the International Space Station. As you may know by know “Ansari and her family left Iran a few years after the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the pro-U.S. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and brought hard-line clerics to power, in part because the opportunities for a young girl to study science were becoming limited there.” Not only did Ansari study science in the United States, she turned that knowledge into billions of dollars. Hard to imagine what the morality police in Iran must think of all this if they even know about it—TIME is reporting that satellite dishes are being confiscated in Iran.

Unfortunately, the government of the United States failed to capitalize on this historic event. In a day and age where the Pope has to apologize for quoting a 14th century text in the face of violence (a nun killed and churches attacked, death threats made) the United States should be trumpeting the success of women such as Ansari. Her family could have fled anywhere in the world, and they chose the U.S., as millions of people have done and continue to do. Instead, we deny Ansari the chance to wear the Iranian flag with the American flag on her flight suit. This was a mistake for several reasons. First, she planned to wear the pre-revolution Iranian flag, and second, as our leaders have said so many times, our arguments are not with the people of countries such as Iran, but with their leaders. Imagine the power of the symbol that Ansari could have become as a Muslim woman who fled oppression to find love and fortune in the United States. I can picture her reminding the world that the new Iran is hardly improved, and that United States can still be the shining city upon the hill. Instead, we have demonstrated a knack for petty jealousy. Ansari’s story is still inspiring, don’t get me wrong. It is simply that you can’t make stuff like this up, and we have missed a golden opportunity.

It may only be mid-September, but it is time to start thinking about the holidays and those who are serving in our armed forces. Operation Gratitude has sent over 150,000 care packages to U.S. troops serving abroad to date and for the cost of a couple of Starbucks grandes you can help support Operation Gratitude and our men and women in uniform. I urge you to take a few minutes to look over this site and if possible make a donation. For the record, I am not in any way affiliated with this group, other than supporting them fully in their efforts to bring a little joy into the lives of our troops.

Well, it seems we can add one more thing to the list of inventions that Islam has given to the world- irony. Don’t believe me? Try this from a Reuters news report regarding recent comments by the Pope alluding to the use of force to spread Islam in its early days (emphasis mine):

“The Pope’s statements reflect his lack of wisdom. It is obvious from the statements that the Pope doesn’t have a correct understanding of Islam,” said Din Syamsuddin, chairman of Muhammadiyah, the second largest Islamic organization in Indonesia.

Syamsuddin said the remarks could hurt “harmonious” relations between Muslims and Catholics and urged Muslims against reacting excessively.

Reacting excessively? Whatever could he mean? Perhaps he means don’t shoot and stab a man in the street, or riot and kill your neighbors, or murder a foreign aid worker who is trying to help your children, or hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings, or blow up trains with commuters on them. He might even have meant that Muslims should not burn their neighborhoods for weeks on end, or that Muslims should not torture priests, or force journalists to convert to Islam at gunpoint (no comment on swords, though), or threaten to execute those who convert to Christianity. Syamsuddin, you see, has a “correct understanding of Islam.” He knows that in all likelihood that there will be “excessive reactions”, and that in fact they may have already begun. In the end that is OK too, after all America made the Pope give that speech.

The L.A. Times points out that the Pope’s remarks regarding religion and violence are hypocritical—and they are correct to do so. They stop short of the full idea, however. Both the L.A. Times and I can write about the violence in early (and not so early) Christianity without fear that Christians around the world will resort to violence to prove just how tolerant they really are.

It pains me to write this, but we are losing the war of ideas with Islam—no, we are surrendering. Around the world Christian leaders are either condemning, or expressing regret over, the Pope’s speech. I consider myself a Christian, while not a Catholic. If the Pope manages to stand up to this, though, I just might think about converting—at least until someone holds a gun to my head and forces me to become Muslim.

As the dawn of the fifth anniversary of 9/11 approaches we have been besieged with images, sounds and words that all attempt to put that day into perspective. Myself, I am not sure that we have yet gained enough distance to place that day into its proper historical context, even though many seem to have already forgotten it.

Here are my memories, in brief:

My boss called us all together to tell us a plane had hit the WTC. No one knew anything at the time- how big of a plane, was it an accident, etc. We all made it to TV just in time to see the second plane hit. The rest of the day was a blur of security drills in the embassy; multiple attempts to reach loved ones, especially those in or near NY and DC. After work, when it was deemed safe to go home, host country friends called and stopped by, bringing food and hugs, as if it was a wake. In a way I guess it was. My most poignant memory, though, is of my favorite street-food vendor. A few days after the attack I dropped by for an afternoon snack on my home from work. We’d had a friendly relationship- I liked his food and he liked my money. He knew where I worked, but it had never come up. That day, the first I’d seen him since 9/11, when I approached his stand he came out from behind it and wrapped his arms around me in a bear hug. Tears slid down his face as he kissed me on both cheeks and told me- “My brother, he is alive. He has been many years in NY, working. He called us today—he’ll be home soon. I hope you kill all the son’s of whores who did this.” We never really talked about it again, although I did meet the brother a short while later. He was wearing a ball cap with an American flag on it, as was my friend the street vendor. I have to wonder what he feels today.

I’ll remember that fateful September morning this Monday in another country far from home, but thoughts will be with those who perished that day, or lost a loved one, or answered the call to help protect America. I invite you all to remember the words of the late Pope John Paul, as addressed to the world on 12 September 2001. Neither our sorrows, nor our troubles are yet over.

Full Text of the Speech by Pope John Paul II from the Vatican on September 12, 2001

I cannot begin this audience without expressing my profound sorrow at the terrorist attacks which yesterday brought death and destruction to America, causing thousands of victims and injuring countless people. To the President of the United States and to all American citizens I express my heartfelt sorrow. In the face of such unspeakable horror we cannot but be deeply disturbed. I add my voice to all the voices raised in these hours to express indignant condemnation, and I strongly reiterate that the ways of violence will never lead to genuine solutions to humanity’s problems.

Yesterday was a dark day in the history of humanity, a terrible affront to human dignity. After receiving the news, I followed with intense concern the developing situation, with heartfelt prayers to the Lord. How is it possible to commit acts of such savage cruelty? The human heart has depths from which schemes of unheard-of ferocity sometimes emerge, capable of destroying in a moment the normal daily life of a people. But faith comes to our aid at these times when words seem to fail. Christ’s word is the only one that can give a response to the questions which trouble our spirit. Even if the forces of darkness appear to prevail, those who believe in God know that evil and death do not have the final say. Christian hope is based on this truth; at this time our prayerful trust draws strength from it.

With deeply felt sympathy I address myself to the beloved people of the United States in this moment of distress and consternation, when the courage of so many men and women of good will is being sorely tested. In a special way I reach out to the families of the dead and the injured, and assure them of my spiritual closeness. I entrust to the mercy of the Most High the helpless victims of this tragedy, for whom I offered Mass this morning, invoking upon them eternal rest. May God give courage to the survivors; may he sustain the rescue-workers and the many volunteers who are presently making an enormous effort to cope with such an immense emergency. I ask you, dear brothers and sisters, to join me in prayer for them. Let us beg the Lord that the spiral of hatred and violence will not prevail. May the Blessed Virgin, Mother of Mercy, fill the hearts of all with wise thoughts and peaceful intentions.

Today, my heartfelt sympathy is with the American people, subjected yesterday to inhuman terrorist attacks which have taken the lives of thousands of innocent human beings and caused unspeakable sorrow in the hearts of all men and women of good will. Yesterday was indeed a dark day in our history, an appalling offence against peace, a terrible assault against human dignity.

I invite you all to join me in commending the victims of this shocking tragedy to Almighty God’s eternal love. Let us implore his comfort upon the injured, the families involved, all who are doing their utmost to rescue survivors and help those affected. I ask God to grant the American people the strength and courage they need at this time of sorrow and trial.

There’s an old saying that goes along the lines of “do what you have always done and you will get what you have always gotten.” Like most homey sayings, this one too has a certain point at which it just doesn’t hold up. For Hezbollah, that point came not too long ago. As the AP notes:

A senior Hezbollah official said Tuesday the guerrillas did not expect Israel to react with an all-out offensive after the capture of two soldiers, the first acknowledgment by the group that it had miscalculated the consequences of the raid two weeks ago.

The truth is – let me say this clearly – we didn’t even expect (this) response … that (Israel) would exploit this operation for this big war against us,” said Komati.

I know that Marc touched briefly on this earlier today, but I want to offer my two cents as well, as I think this is a key concept that will have to be carried forward as the effort to eradicate terrorist organizations like Hezbollah continues. The idea is simple: nations cannot make statements, especially regarding terrorist behavior that they do not have the power and will to back up with action.

Israel has been roundly criticized for employing “disproportionate force” in the recent attacks against Hezbollah. Why the Israeli reaction is a surprise to anyone is beyond me. I simply wonder what took so long. As Marc pointed out more than a week ago, a WaPo editorial noted that:

When Israel withdrew its troops from southern Lebanon in 2000 after more than two decades of occupation, it also issued a warning: Any cross-border provocations by Hezbollah, the militant Shiite group, would elicit a severe military response.

Allow me to repeat: a severe military response. Israel gave fair warning, and spelled out the consequences, yet Hezbollah has continued to engage in cross border acts of terror. Now they accuse Israel of having had a plan for these attacks already drawn up and waiting- as if we should all be surprised and outraged by this. One would hope that Israel’s leadership did indeed have these plans ready to go. Israel issued a warning, which was ignored. Unfortunately this has had drastic results for the people of Lebanon, and after all the hope of the Cedar Revolution, it pains me to see this unfolding in that country. It does not pain me to see Israel keep her word.

Hezbollah and other non-state actors/ transnational terror organizations cannot be restrained with normal tools of state-craft such as economic sanctions. They have proven they cannot be bargained with and history shows us that appeasement only emboldens them. We live in a civilized world, even if these groups do not. Therefore it is proper to issues warnings when possible—but it is imperative to follow through on those warnings.

Hezbollah’s leadership, and unfortunately the people of Lebanon, are both learning that the Israelis already know this. We, the rest of the world united against such terror organizations, must also take this lesson to heart. Warnings are fine, but when the line is crossed, no quarter is to be given. I do not think that this alone will put a stop to organizations like al Qaeda or Hezbollah, but it may deprive them of potential bases and resources.

The time has come to stop doing what we have always done.

So, now I see that some commentators are saying that Israel’s bombing of Lebanese Hezbollah strong points and neighborhoods is “disproportionate.” The Israeli campaign, so this story goes, is bullying and terrorizing the Lebanese populace, and this is (so the argument goes) typical Israeli thug behavior.

Hmmm.

Let’s see. In World War II, the Germans bombed exactly no United States cities or towns. We bombed the hell out of them, day and night, for more than two years, including helping the British with firebombing Dresden, one of the most appalling civilian killings by a free people of all time.

Was it disproportionate? Well, no. The Nazis had bombed our allies, the British, in terror raids for years. They had started a world war. They had created a genocide unspeakable in human history. So, yes, there was horrible killing, but is anyone now saying it was disproportionate? Maybe a few, but not many.

The Japanese bombed exactly zero U.S. cities except for a few stray bombs on Honolulu. We firebombed every city we could find and used the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Was this disproportionate? No, because the Japanese had started a world war and caused unspeakable suffering through Asia and the Pacific. Bombing was what it took to end the war in both Europe and the Pacific.

Now, Israel is bombing Beirut. The Lebanese have been sheltering Hezbollah killers who have been rocketing and bombing Israel for ten years almost every day. The Lebanese have admitted the terrorists into dominant positions in their government. In every way, Lebanon has made itself a haven for terrorists bombing civilians day in and day out in Israel. Is Israel finally standing up and saying enough “disproportionate”? Yes, if you think Israel and Jews should be permanent victims who suffer, bleed, and die in silence the way the Nazis preferred. No, if you believe Jews have the same rights as other people to defend themselves.

Look, if the Israelis wanted to inflict a lot of casualties from the air, they could. They have the second best air force in the world. Clearly, they are showing restraint. Three hundred dead is a lot, and every human’s death is sad unless he’s a terrorist, but we were killing 30,000 in a few hours in World War II and glorying in it. No news shows were showing German civilians getting fried and saying how sad it was. It was war against butchers and war is horrible, but it’s war, and to defend human decency, sometimes war is necessary.

By any historic measure, Israel’s response to a decade of torment is extremely restrained—maybe too restrained. And it can stop any time the Hezbollah says they will use peaceful means to get their aims. I don’t hear them saying that. What I hear is a thousand Hezbollah rockets falling on exclusively civilian targets in Eretz Israel. There’s your answer about whether Israel’s response is disproportionate.

As the midterm elections for the second G.W. Bush administration draw near I have to imagine that the “L” word is being bandied about the White House with increasing frequency. I am not referring to the “L” of Frau Clinton running for the Oval Office, or even the “L” of the love that must not speak it’s name in the Cheney household. I am referring to the President’s legacy.

At this point in his tenure it appears that perhaps four things will define his time in office- September 11th, the war in Iraq, the deficit and immigration. Of the four it seems that the administration has decided that immigration (at least for now) has the most appeal for securing the Presidents place in the history books. How else do you explain the proposal to send unarmed Guardsmen to the border while the Congress debates the best plan to increase overall immigration?

If the President and his advisors are adamant about fixing the immigration issue here are my suggestions for several concrete steps they can take immediately:

First—truly secure the border. If this means that Reserve, National Guard or even active duty forces patrol the border while we train more Border Patrol agents, so be it. I have heard the argument that we can only train 2,500 new agents per year, and I find that hard to believe. We have trained 200,000 Iraqis in the middle of a civil war and can’t train more agents than that per year in the U.S? Let’s accept that number for now, though. Why can’t the Army and Marines train for anti-insurgency missions along the border? If they find any “insurgents” they can invite them in for MREs while they await the Patrol. You say Mexico won’t like it? I have news for you folks, Mexico is about to have an election this summer and their next President is likely to be a pal of guys named Castro and Chavez. You can bet that he will view the U.S. as a great relief valve when a return to the socialist agenda in Mexico fails to produce jobs and wealth.

Second—Increase “interior enforcement.” Every illegal alien knows that once he or she is inside the U.S. they are basically home free. No one is looking for them, and if they do get caught they will be released on their own recognizance until such time as a hearing can be arranged. How many of these people do you think come back so they can be deported? In almost every major city in America it is no secret where illegal aliens congregate. If the September 11 th hijackers could find them in Virginia to arrange false IDs so can the authorities. Once found they should be photographed, fingerprinted and deported. Not enough beds for them all to sleep in while awaiting deportation? Too bad. Grab a sleeping bag and find a clear spot. Municipal police forces should be encouraged to pick up the federal slack (and compensated for doing so). You say that arresting and holding them all will cost too much? Don’t worry; I have a solution for that too, keep reading.

Third—Implement and enforce employer sanctions. As it stands now most employers face a statistically insignificant chance of ever being raided. If they are raided they can always say that the alien in question had a social security card and ID that looked real to them. After all, how is your average landscaper to know if a document is legit or not? This will mean adopting some form of, gasp, a national ID card. It can be as simple as requiring every state issued ID or license to have key features, such as name, a photo, date and place of birth, and a fingerprint (or any other unique identifier) plus whatever features the states want, with the big three built into a database that also contains the same info for green card or work visa holders. Put this database online and allow employers to search for ID matches on prospective employees. If Bob Smith presents an ID I should be able to enter his name, date and place of birth and whatever type of ID number he has and be able to see this picture on file, and his employment status. If he matches the ID and the ID matches the database hire away. If not, and he is hired anyway, the penalties for the employer should be stiff and rigidly enforced.

Fourth—Develop a true entry/exit program. We have no idea where most of the people who hold visas to enter the U.S. are, and when, or even if, they have actually left the country. Studies have estimated that as many as 40% of the illegal aliens in the U.S. entered with valid tourist visas and simply never left. Assuming the much-touted figure of 11 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S is correct, that is nearly four and half million people who never set foot in the Mexican desert. Once the system is in place set harsh penalties for those who overstay in the form of being barred from entering the U.S. for periods ranging from years to being permanently barred.

Fifth—I realize that above solutions will cost money, and contrary to what many folks think, the U.S. government does not have any money of it’s own. It has my money, and your money, and I think we should get a say in how it is spent. Hospitals along the border are closing due to the cost of treating illegal aliens that the Border Patrol dumps in the emergency rooms. Schools are crowded with children that do not speak English. Property owners are being overrun. As it stands now there is no recourse for these folks, and that is not right. Our government has a duty to enforce the laws of the land and keep the border secure. When it fails to do so average citizens should not bear the burden. Establish an office in FEMA or some other agency to compensate these communities and individuals for their expenses and losses, and draw the funds from our foreign aid budget. By treating illegal aliens in our hospitals and educating their children we are providing relief to their homelands, so it only makes sense that the money come from the aid budget.

I understand that we will never be able to realistically deport the 11 million people already in the U.S. illegally, even if we could find them all. Too many of them, for example, have American citizen children- what will we do with perhaps millions of minor children when we send their parents home to a third world village? Some sort of compromise must be attained. But before we begin to talk about amnesty (or the current not-so secret code name for amnesty: “path to citizenship”) or increased legal immigration we must make sure the gate is tightly closed to future would be illegal aliens. The Gipper’s amnesty failed to do so, and look where we are today.

I am proud of the fact that my country is still a shining city upon a hill for much of the world’s population. I have served (and am currently serving) in places from which I too would be desperate to escape if only to ensure my family’s survival, and I admire the courage of those who risk death to mow lawns and bus tables. I believe that there should be legal methods for workers to find gainful employment in the States. I also, however, believe in the rule of law, and that every American has the right to expect the laws of the land to be upheld.

Sadly, September 11th is already history to many Americans, and just as sadly we will surely be attacked again despite our best efforts to prevent terrorists from striking. Iraq will eventually either stand or fall on her own. The deficit was not created by this President, and will certainly not be resolved by him. Of the four major legacy issues immigration presents the last best hope for President Bush.

Unfortunately I doubt that this administration has the cojones to take the steps necessary to make real progress towards a solution.

When it comes to describing the struggle between the Western world and Islamofascism perhaps British Prime Minister Tony Blair said it best:

This is not a clash between civilizations, it is a clash about civilization.

It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity in the modern world and those who reject its existence; between optimism and hope on the one hand; and pessimism and fear on the other.

The blogosphere and mainstream media teem with variations of the “is this a clash of civilizations or is it not” debate. I, for one, have finally made up my mind. It is not. It takes two to tango, after all, and I have become increasingly convinced that our opposition not only is uncivilized in broad terms, it also has no concept of civilization. They have a culture, to be sure, one of violence and fear, under which horrific acts are justified as supporting the will of God, but culture and civilization are not to be confused..

The killing of two Baghdad teachers in front of their students is only the latest in a string of unimaginable atrocities committed against the Iraqi people by so called Iraqi patriots. I realize that there are conflicting stories emerging regarding these killings, with some saying the teachers were beheaded in front of students and others saying one was actually a guard and that the teacher was shot, etc, etc (see here, here and here), and that there may have been no attack on a school at all (see here). I sincerely hope this last turns out to be a fact, that no school attack has taken place. In the meantime, however, I have no trouble believing that they beheaded a teacher or even two in front of the students, it is what I have come to expect, and that alone is disturbing to me.

After all, the daily news reports are full of headlines such as 20 Dead In Attacks Across Iraq, Iraqi market attack kills 26, Sectarian hatred forcing Iraqis from their homes, Mosque bombed in Iraq; 78 dead, Police recover 17 bullet-riddled bodies in Baghdad and on and on and on it goes—see The Religion of Peace for a running tally.

Now I can understand attacks aimed at foreign troops in Iraq—I do not for a second condone them, but I can see how a killing fervor could be whipped up against supposed “imperialist invaders.” For the life of me, though, I cannot see how one human being can conceive of attacking a market place full of women and children with the aim being expulsion of a foreign power. I am no social scientist, but it seems to me that the communal protection of those who, for whatever reason, are not in a position to defend themselves is one of the basic tenets of civilization and that any culture lacking that ideal can not in truth be considered civilized.

Therefore, we are not engaged in a clash of civilizations- we are engaged in a clash of cultures. While Islamic civilization has long been credited with giving much to the world, from coffee to algebra, and perhaps even chess, quilting and the windmill, the unique, singular civilization that brought those benefits came to halt at the battle of Vienna in 1683 if not sooner. Islam is now a multinational theology, with members living in and taking part in many civilized societies around the world, albeit many with a much greater degree of assimilation than others. The great cartoon debacle illustrates this perfectly; at least some Muslims living in civilized nations remain true to their culture of intolerance and rage, and thus immune to the civilizing factors of the society which surrounds them. At least a few European imams realize this today, but a large proportion of the “historical Islam as model” group seek a return of an idyllic Islamic civilization that ceased to be productive centuries ago, at the expense of their host nations and own people.

Am I a racist for thinking and saying these things? I don’t consider myself to be a racist or xenophobe, but I do consider myself to be a realist. I am often displeased by the actions of my government (seen the deficit lately?) but have never thought that perhaps some abhorrent act would advance my cause. As a realist I am growing increasingly pessimistic that anything approaching sectarian peace and democracy can take hold in Iraq and the Middle East. I am afraid that this clash of and within cultures precludes the possibility of a new peaceful and prosperous Muslim civilization emerging.

Referring back to the article linked to above that lists Muslim contributions to the world, the most recent contribution cited took place at least three centuries ago. In that time the world has changed dramatically. The failure of Islam to keep pace with those changes, to find an identity for itself as the definition of civilization has evolved has left Islam without a defining civilization, clinging to the tatters of a culture long moribund with little hope for regeneration.

Prime Minister Blair, again from the same piece as above:

I recall the video footage of Mohammed Sadiq Khan, the man who was the ringleader of the 7/7 bombers. There he was, complaining about the suppression of Muslims, the wickedness of America and Britain, calling on all fellow Muslims to fight us. And I thought: here is someone, brought up in this country, free to practice his religion, free to speak out, free to vote, with a good standard of living and every chance to raise a family in a decent way of life, talking about “us”, the British, when his whole experience of “us” that included himself has been the very opposite of the message he is preaching. And in so far as he is angry about Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan let Iraqi or Afghan Muslims decide whether to be angry or not by ballot.

There was something tragic, terrible but also ridiculous about such a diatribe. He may have been born here. But his ideology wasn’t. And that is why it has to be taken on, and taken on everywhere.

[snip]

This terrorism will not be defeated until its ideas, the poison that warps the minds of its adherents, are confronted, head-on, in their essence, at their core. By this I don’t mean telling these extremist that terrorism is wrong. I mean telling them their attitude to America is absurd; their concept of governance pre-feudal; their positions on women and other faiths, reactionary and regressive; and then since only by Muslims can this be done: standing up for and supporting those within Islam who will tell them all of this but more, namely that the extremist view of Islam is not just theologically backward but completely contrary to the spirit and teaching of the Koran.

But in order to do this, we must reject the thought that somehow we are the authors of our own distress; that if only we altered this decision or that, this extremism would fade away. In my judgement, the only way to win is: to recognize this phenomenon is a global ideology; to see all areas, in which it operates, as linked; and to defeat it by values and ideas set in opposition to those of the terrorists.

Unfortunately, I am beginning to doubt that we are equipped with either the means or the will to take on this ideology, at home or in the Middle East,in any meaningful way and that it is our very concept of civilization that keeps us from doing so. I don’t know what this means for the future, but I do know this- as long as markets and mosques are targets for jihadist terror without a massive uprising by those targeted we will not win this war. We cannot force civilization on the Islamofascists, at best we can hope to hold their “culture” at bay, and I am terribly saddened by that idea.

The Seattle Times reported today, in its local news section that Bellevue Community College President Jean Floten apologized yesterday for the use of this math problem on a practice test:

Condoleezza holds a watermelon just over the edge of the roof of the 300 -foot Federal Building, and tosses it up with a velocity of 20 feet per second. The height of the watermelon above the ground t seconds later is given by formula h= -16t2 + 20t + 300

a. How many seconds will it pass her (she’s standing at a height of 300 feet) on the way down?

b. When will the watermelon hit ground?

The word problem was brought to the College administration’s attention by a group of students, one of whom had this to say:

“It’s not just the question; it’s beyond the question,” Richardson said. “It’s the roots of where the question came from.”

Where it comes from is the deep rooted idea that conservatives only come in one color- white, and generally in one sex—male. From Spike Lee to USA Today to liberal talk radio the Secretary of State has taken a beating. Her predecessor, Colin Powell, didn’t fair much better. Don’t believe me that this is based on politics and not race? Substitute Rev. Jackson for Condoleeza and change Federal Building to church and try to imagine the media outcry. Now try to Google news search “Condoleeza” and “watermelon.” I got ONE return on that query (Google will return more, but they are almost all blogs).

The Reverend Wayne Perryman (who actually has a church and works as a reverend) is helping the concerned students at Bellevue Community in dealing with the college. I received the follwing letter by e-mail, asking for support in the form of e-mails addressed to the college. Feel free to drop them a line and let them know that this is not acceptable- if they have any questions refer them to Cornell University.

From: Rev. Wayne Perryman

Dear Friends

The following sample math problem was given to students as part of their final exam at Bellevue Community College in Washington State. I was asked by black students to represent them in this matter. Some of these students attend my church. I am asking all of you and your friends to e-mail the school at the following e-mail addresses and express your outrage: Advising@bcc.ctc.edu, tpritcha@bcc.ctc.edu, and amatsumo@bcc.ctc.edu

The following is the math problem given to the students.

The Problem: Condoleezza holds a watermelon just over the edge of the roof of the 300 -foot Federal Building, and tosses it up with a velocity of 20 feet per second. The height of the watermelon above the ground t seconds later is given by formula h= -16t2 + 20t + 300

a. How many seconds will it pass her (she’s standing at a height of 300 feet) on the way down?

b. When will the watermelon hit ground?

If they used this same problems and substituted Condoleezza’s name with Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, there would be mass protest and they would shut the college down. Because it was Condoleezza Rice, they wanted to ignore it until I showed up today. Please e-mail the college and express your outrage and your support of having me at the table to resolve this issue. I am demanding that the college to do several things to correct the problem.

This is serious. Please do not let me down, I want thousands of e-mails to come from all across the country. A CBS affiliate, KIRO TV did cover this story.

Rev. Wayne Perryman

The United States government now employs an untold number of people who are either responsible for enforcing immigration policy or supporting those who do, ranging from Consular Officers in far flung places to immigration inspectors in airports and border patrol agents combing the arid deserts. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people obey the law year in and year out while they wait in their home country for their chance to immigrate to America. All of these people, it seems, are fools.

Imagine that you are a Filipino, and that it has always been your dream to emigrate to America (or as the Dept. of State web site frames it “visiting permanently”), and that over twenty years ago your sister became an American citizen and filed an application for you to get a visa (visas for Filipinos are now available for “Brothers and Sisters of Adult Citizens” who had applications filed on their behalf in 1983). You have been waiting all these years, perhaps not so patiently, but obeying U.S. immigration law nevertheless. Today you turn on the news to find that the government of the United States is considering a bill to allow those in the U.S. illegally to remain there, if they pay a small fine and back taxes. They might even have a shot at U.S. citizenship, but don’t worry, it is not an amnesty. (By the way, no matter how much spin the White House puts on it, to the rest of the world this is an amnesty program.) What might your possible reaction be? Would it perhaps be enough to push you into the local anti-American camp?

Now imagine you are a border patrol agent, risking your life every night to comb the desert, never knowing if the shadows you are trailing are farmers looking for work or drug dealers packing more weaponry than you can imagine. Imagine catching the same person three times in one night and sending him back to Mexico each time knowing that you will see him again- and that if you don’t it does not mean that he has given up, only that he has made it past you and your colleagues and is safe inside the U.S., where not only is no one going to bother to try to find him but where there is now a chance that he will be welcomed here to stay. How willing will you be willing to continue to stalk groups of men in the night?

Setting aside the question of the impact any “non-amnesty but welcome to America potentially forever plan” might have on the morale of those who defend our borders and the justness of rewarding those who break the law, I find there are simply too many unanswered questions in the current debate regarding illegal immigrants to think that we can actually arrive at a viable solution at this point in time. For me the issue starts with a simple but profound question : “Why are we afraid to call them illegal aliens?” Call them “undocumented” if you like- but please recall that they are without documents only because they chose to do something illegal. Not to mention the fact that many of them are not “undocumented”- they carry the Mexican matricula consular (MC). Banks such as Wells Fargo, Bank of America and other large institutions have accepted the Mexican MC for years, and Wells Fargo is now accepting the Colombian version. So when we say undocumented, what we really mean is that they do not posses valid U.S. identification, but that does not make their presence in the U.S. any less of a violation of the law. We schizophrenically deny that they are illegal while demanding that the law be changed to legalize them.

The most popular current proposal calls for dividing the illegal population into three groups, based on how long they have been here illegally. Illegal aliens who have been here for less than two years will have to leave the country and get in line to apply for a visa- behind the next group in the plan. Can you envision the mad rush for the southern border? Me neither.

Those who have been here for between two and five years will also have to depart the country, briefly, to apply for visas or some other documentation which will allow them to return to the U.S. There are roughly 4,500,000 people in this group (Note: for consistency all immigration figures are drawn from here, unless otherwise stated). Let’s say that 80%, or 3,600,000, of these folks are Mexicans (although I’d bet it is much higher). Who is going to adjudicate all of these applications and ensure that these folks are not ineligible for return as currently required by law? According to the Department of State website the current wait time for a non-immigrant visa interview in Mexico is 115 days, plus 30 days of processing. What will happen to that wait time when over three and a half million more applicants are added to the mix? I can assure you that the Embassy and Consulates in Mexico are not physically equipped to handle such a massive influx of applicants, nor do they have the staffing needed to adjudicate such a number of applications in anything like a timely manner. Businesses in the States will be clamoring for the return of their work force, and congressional offices will flood the consulates with “help my constituent demands”and the pressure to rubber stamp these visa applications will be immense, contributing even more to the feeling that the life of an entry level diplomat is devoted to “doing dog’s work.”

Then there is the larger group of illegal immigrants involved- those who have been here for more than five years. They would not be required to depart the U.S. at all. That is right- break the law long enough and you can just apply to remain from your living room. Adjudicating all of the visa cases discussed above will require a monumental effort. Adjudicating this batch, though, will be a herculean one. How exactly, does an “undocumented” person prove that he or she has been here for longer than five years? Will a letter from an employer stating that Jose Sanchez has six years of faithful service be enough? What would stop every illegal in America from either forging or buying such a letter? Immigration fraud is likely to be rampant in these cases. From where will we draw the army of fraud investigators that will be needed to assure the integrity of the program? People in this category (and the above, I assume) will also have to pay back taxes, meaning that previously unreported income will have to be tabulated and verified and then taxed. Can you imagine auditing a return like that?

As President Clinton might have said, let’s not forget the children, either. How many American citizen children do think have been born to the seven plus million illegals who have been here for more than five years? The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that:

. . . there are currently between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and the size of the illegal alien population (between 8.7 and 11 million). In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year.

At least a portion of those kids, perhaps most, will have no knowledge of their parent’s homeland. Like it or not, these kids are Americans, and will strongly identify with American culture. Are we going to just send them back to a village in Mexico when dad’s visa expires?

Finally, how in the world are we going to pay for these reforms? All of this, from identifying who belongs to which category of illegal alien to interviewing them and adjudicating their cases, from levying fines to collecting taxes is going to be costly. I can’t imagine there won’t be an appeals process, and of course there is the matter of fraud investigation. The sheer number of man hours involved is staggering, not to mention the infrastructure needs. At least one, if not several, new layers of bureaucracy are going to have to be created to deal with this issue, and if there is one thing I have learned in Washington it is this: once new turf is created it can never be destroyed. Any government jobs created to deal with regularizing illegal immigrants will be with us for the long haul. I suppose at least one segment of the general population will benefit from this—immigration lawyers; you can rest assured that the minute a reform bill is signed into law the media will be saturated with advertisements for services to help illegals find a loophole in the system, and there will be many, but I digress.

I don’t propose to have the answers to all of the immigration issue questions. I do think, however, that it is incumbent on us and our political “leaders” to ask these and other questions before we rush to cobble together some compromise bill that manages to offend few and please none. I stick by my earlier sentiment that we should be focused on gaining control of our border before we worry too much about regularizing those who are already here. They have been here for a long, long time and aren’t going anywhere. In the meantime hundreds of thousands more illegal aliens arrive every year.

While working on gaining control of the border we should fix and expand the already existing “guest worker” program. (Note that much of the material appeared earlier at the Daily Demarche as part of a post called El Otro Lado). I would wager that most Americans have no idea that a guest worker program already exists in America- it is the H2 visa program. The H2 program as it exists today, however, is clearly broken. There are two H2 categories: H-2A applies to temporary or seasonal agricultural workers and H-2B, which applies to temporary or seasonal non agricultural workers. This classification requires a temporary labor certification issued by the Secretary of Labor and is limited to 66,000 per year. The process is convoluted (employers have to petition in advance, and prove that American labor is not available, applicants for the visa have to have a job offer before they apply) and much more expensive than hiring from the pool of available workers- almost no employer petitions without a lawyer involved.

This program should be expanded not just for Mexicans, but for all nationalities, national limits can be adjusted as necessary to replace global limits, and the national market economy would dictate these totals. Issuance of this new H2 visa should occur solely in the country of origin of the alien, no Chinese applying in London, please, and no exceptions for people already in the US illegally. The visa would include a taxpayer ID number tied into Social Security Administration system for verification of employability, providing for collection of taxes from these workers as well. When the initial term of the visa is up the holder will have to return to his or her home country for a set period of time before being eligible to apply again.

Once we have the border under control and an effective method of permitting more guest workers to enter as needed we will have to return to the issue at hand- the millions of illegals already here. In the meantime, we should not rush to a solution without carefully examining the costs and affects it will have on our deficit and society.

As I have watched the television coverage of the immigration reform protests over the past few days I have been struck by two things—the number of Mexican flags and the signs stating “We are not terrorists.” It would seem to me that if you are trying to make the point that you want to stay in America and celebrate all that America is and means that you would pick up the Stars and Stripes, and maybe chant the pledge of allegiance as you march in your thousands. But that is just me.

More telling to me are the signs regarding terrorism. I am fairly certain that no sane person has declared that the millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S. are terrorists. They are criminals, certainly, but the vast, vast majority of them are not of the “death to America” type. These folks are politically savvy, however, and play the terror card quite well. They also help draw attention to a very germane point, however unintentionally, that has largely been lost in the news coverage: if the combined might of the United States Government cannot keep a dirt farmer from Zacatecas from crossing the border illegally what chance do we hold of stopping a trained terrorist from hauling a dirty bomb into San Diego?

Surely, you might say, the Mexicans would help us with something like that; after all it is in their best interest that the U.S. economy remain robust as well. Think again. Last July a professor from New York University told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that:

“No border security is possible without Mexican cooperation” and “there can be no cooperation [from the Mexican government] without some sort of immigration reform package.

Just who was this professor? Some sort of fear mongering right-winger who slipped past the tenure board at NYU? Nope—it was former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda. Do you suppose that he created this idea from whole cloth just for the hearing, or that this is in fact a closely held tenet of Mexican policy? Myself, I favor the latter, even more so in light of a resolution made by the Mexican Congress this past February, and the full page ads that Mexican President Vicente Fox’s administration took out last week in the New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.

In these advertisements and the Mexican government’s resolution “Mexico and the Migration Phenomenon” (click here for a pdf of the ad and here for the statement) Fox’s administration makes the incredible claim that we have a “shared responsibility” for the illegal migration of poverty stricken Mexican nationals. The advertisements seem to tie Mexican migration to national security issues, but the resolution passed by the Mexican Congress makes it clear that this is not the case:

Mexico based its proposal on the principle of shared responsibility, which acknowledges that both countries must do their share in order to obtain the best results from the bilateral management of the migration phenomenon.” (emphasis original).

[snip]

In order for a guest workers program to be viable, Mexico should participate in its design, management, supervision and evaluation, under the principle of shared responsibility.” (emphasis original).

That’s right. Not only should we take on some of the burden of a failed economy that is the result of decades of corruption and mismanagement of resources in Mexico, we should also allow the Mexicans to help us design, manage and supervise the solution. After all, they have proven to be masters of public policy. Oh, and did I mention they want a

totalization of pension benefits, which will allow Mexicans working in the United States to collect their pension benefits in Mexico.

In other words, they want access to Social Security benefits as well, thus destroying the idea that additional temporary workers in the U.S. will help to offset the looming deficit in the Social Security program, not to mention the likely creation of an entirely new layer of bureaucracy specially designed to handle the delivery of benefits to millions of Mexicans (on top of the one that will be needed to administer any “guest worker” program—but that is another post for another time).

Clearly something has to be done about our inability to control our borders, and something has to be done about the illegal immigrant population in the United States. It is the height of foolishness, however, to think we can resolve the second issue before we have addressed the first. Further, we cannot allow any foreign government to dictate to us what our migration policy should include or how it should be managed, not the least one which has a record of assisting its own citizenry to break our laws.

When President Bush meets with President Fox next week in Cancun I sincerely hope that he brings along a copy of the comic book guide for illegal immigrants and a copy of the recent ads, along with the message that the Mexican government would do better to look after its own shortcomings than to rabble rouse north of the border. Since Fox and his compatriots are unlikely to heed this advice, though, perhaps President Bush can also drop off a few American flags and copies of the pledge of allegiance for the next mass gathering of criminals Fox’s government sponsors.

I once read a passage in a history of World War Two ( I think it was in the Stephen Ambrose book “Band of Brothers”) that has always stuck with me. The soldier speaking reflected on his first experience with the Germans, after landing on D-day and fighting the entire way into Germany- he realized that the Germans were more like us than were the French. He commented on the German’s cleanliness, integrity and industriousness in contrast to the “unclean” French who rolled over and allowed the Germans to dominate them and us to come and save them. This soldier found it strange that he and his friends were in Germany, fighting to save European nations that did not appear to deserve to be saved, just as his father had done. After all, Germany and the United States had a great deal in common.

The irony behind the recent decline in US/German relations is that we still do have much in common, including a closely shared recent history, but no one seems to notice, or to care enough to talk about that. All that matters are the differences. In the summer of 2004 I spent a week visiting a friend in Berlin, where we took in the German-American Volksfest- a forty something year old tradition that is a cross between a cultural event (the theme is a different a region of the U.S. each year) and a county fair complete with roller coasters and cotton candy. The event is held on what used to be called “Truman Platz” across the street from the U.S. Embassy Annex. If you have ever been to an “Octoberfest” in the U.S. imagine the mirror image of that in Germany and you will have a pretty good idea of what the event is like- earnest but somewhat cheesy.

After an early evening of good beer and a close approximation of bar-b-que ribs my friend and I, accompanied by several Americans and Germans who work with him, headed for the U-bahn (subway) to go downtown in search of more beer and food. On the train we were approached by a somewhat tipsy German fellow who mentioned, in impeccable American accented English, that he had seen us at the fair. He went on to say that the fair was not the same with the U.S. troops no longer in Berlin- followed almost casually by a quip that he was sorry to see his friends leave Berlin and to go on to massacre people all over the world. Why, he wondered, had the American people become such killers? We were all too stunned to really answer, so he asked again- where had we learned that this was the way to solve problems? After a beat or two had passed one of the Germans with us answered in a sad tone of voice “perhaps they learned it from us.” There ensued a brief argument in German too fast for me to follow, and we exited the train soon after. Later what bothered me the most was not that this unknown German had a low opinion of us, but that my friend’s colleague appeared to agree with the sentiment that we have become a too violent player on the world stage.

America has always had close ties to Germany, starting with the number of German immigrants who came to the colonies. In the aftermath of WWII, as the U.S. and our allies squared off against the Soviet Union, Germany, particularly Berlin, became the focal point of the Cold War and relations between America and Germany were quickly resotred in the face of a common enemy. When the Soviets cut off Berlin we airlifted food and supplies into the city, highlighted by then Lieutenant Gail S. Halvorsen’s candy parachute drops. President Kennedy declared himself, and by extension all of America to be Berliners (and not jelly doughnuts). Allied and Soviet troops stared each other down in huge numbers across the Fulda Gap and eye to eye across the street at Checkpoint Charlie. The world cheered when President Reagan famously challenged General Secretary Gorbachev to:

“Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! “

When the wall did come down no one outside of Germany cheered louder than we did here in America. So where did it all go awry?

Today the United States and Germany face very similar internal issues. Ongoing immigration and what to do with the existing, largely unassimilated, immigrant populations haunt both societies, with no easy answer in site for the Mexicans in the U.S. or the Turks in Germany. Both societies face graying populations and declining numbers of workers paying into increasingly expensive retirement support systems. Employment for the masses is a constant news topic in both lands, although the U.S problem is not as severe as the German. The threat from militant Islam, which so far has not directly affected Germany, indirectly threatens all Western nations. To quote the numbers presented by the German Embassy in D.C.:

• US travelers rank second only to visitors from the Netherlands in terms of overnight stays in Germany.

• In eastern Germany, more travelers come from the United States than any other country.

• About 10 percent of US investments in Germany are in the new federal states, making the US the largest investor in eastern Germany.

It seems that in the aftermath of the Cold War petty differences have blossomed and become major issues, on both sides of the Atlantic. I would venture to say that the average German has nothing against the average American, and vice versa (my U-bahn experience not withstanding). Elites on both sides of the ocean, fueled by, and at the same time fueling, the media propagate the idea that a vast gulf separates Americans and Europeans on issues such as climate change, the environment in general, terrorism, and foreign aid. There are specific differences to be sure- how members of each society view the state, for example, but in general the similarities outweigh the differences. It is up to us, Germans and Americans, to look for the similarities and to recognize that the differences do not make us enemies or mean that we can not work together to solve common problems, but rather that those differences may hold the key to reaching viable solutions.

The very tools that are often used to make the differences seem insurmountable- the Internet, satellite television and mass media- are the same tools that can bring us together, or better, make us realize that we never really drifted apart. Germany will play host to the largest party in the world this year with the World Cup to be played out across the country. Atlantic Review provides a link that I think bodes well for all of us: Americans among most popular World Cup guests. To my fellow Americans I say: go. Go to Germany and interact with the people. Learn about them and let them learn about you. Invite them to come and learn about us.

Governments come and go, but the people of a nation endure. The friendship between our two nations, rekindled in the hard days of the Cold War after WWII, was regained at great cost and should not be thrown away over misperceptions and sound bites. We will never agree on all things, I know. But if we continue to only seek the differences we will ever more find them increasing.

Please excuse the lag between posts; I’ve been a bit busy lately. Thanks to everyone who has sent in e-mails and links to articles, I am still working through them all. A lot has happened in the international arena since my last post, and Marc has done his usual admirable job of covering current geo-political events (I sometimes wonder if he ever sleeps.) For this post I am going to flash back a little bit to the Dubai ports deal and the current Dubai issue (see Dubai, Again) and offer my thoughts on what these situations might mean for the future.

Let me start by saying that I think the Dubai ports issue was poorly handled from the get go. Port security is, of course, a key element of our overall national security—but this deal was never about port security. It was about port management, and no private firm has port security as part of its portfolio; that responsibility rests with the U.S. government (Homeland Security, Coast Guard). In addition the vast majority of our ports, up to 80% of them, are managed by international firms. Our leadership and the media failed us when it comes to the facts and potential import of this deal on both our security at home and our efforts abroad.

The idea that any other foreign interest should not be involved in managing our infrastructure is probably the correct one (setting aside the fact that we currently lack the ability to manage our own ports). Our handling of this issue, however, was childish and dangerous. We singled out Dubai from among the many nations managing our ports because it is an Arab nation, plain and simple. What message do you think the average citizen on the “Arab street” took away from this? The fact that no rational voice arose from either side of the political aisle calling for a calm appraisal of the situation does not bode well for the future relationship between the United States and the Arab world. While I am well aware that Dubai is not a model of democracy or freedom, it is far and away one of the most liberal countries in the region, and our military presence in the Middle East depends in large part on our relationship with the government of the emirate.

The frenzied reaction the Dubai port deal was reminiscent of the protests we see whenever the WTO or other global finance organization meets—albeit a little bit better dressed and more polite. Both the street protests over globalization in general and the political wave making over this deal are based on emotional response- we mock the rock hurlers who oppose McDonalds but think nothing of hurling thoughtless sound bites. In this “globalized” age we will be hard pressed to draw the line at where foreign involvement in the business of America ceases to be appropriate. In doing so we must apply rational thought and not emotion—while at the same time realizing that this is an emotional issue at home and abroad. This is no easy task; it will require strong leaders and commitment.

Our leaders and media must ensure that we are presented with information over emotion and that when a decision is reached to exclude foreign interests from markets critical to our national security that such decisions are clearly explained to all parties involved. Our national security rests as much on the goodwill, or at least lack of enmity, of the rest of the world as it does on our policy. I have said repeatedly that we are losing the battle of public perception in the Middle East, and this latest go around is yet another shot in the foot for our public diplomacy efforts in the region. The port deal collapsed under its own weight, but there has been no resolution of the issue—the Doncasters deal mentioned at the top of this post is likely to become round two in our struggle to define where free markets end and security interests begin. Unfortunately the only message that most of the world will has taken away from this “debate” so far is that reason holds no sway in our decision making.

The time has come for both political parties to grow up and to cease their efforts to out “security conscience” the other and for them to get to work defining how our true security concerns come into play where foreign investment is concerned. Once the line is drawn we must then quickly move forward with explaining to the world how that decision was reached and what it means, for both our allies and our enemies.

One can always dream, I suppose.

The February 10th edition of Time Magazine features Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes in its “10 Questions” column- leaving much to be desired in both the questions and the answers. From Hughes opening quote:

“The morning after the President announced my appointment, the Vice President saw me and said, “Karen, my condolences. You just took the hardest job in government.”

To her observations that lots of kids around the world like soccer, there is very little in the way of substance in the piece. I realize that Time magazine is not a policy magazine, but Hughes does not often speak with the American press (which might be indicative of the lack of success she is having), making this article a waste of her time and the space it occupies in the magazine.

One of the ten questions though, or more accurately the answer to the question, leaps off the page as a shining example of the type of problem we face where public diplomacy is concerned:

Q: DO YOU SEE THE FURY OVER THE MUHAMMAD CARTOONS AS A SETBACK OR AN OPPORTUNITY?

A: Well, I think this highlights the need for dialogue. The violence is wrong and counterproductive. I can understand why people are offended. That said, in a free society, people have the right to speak out even if others are offended. With freedom of the press also comes responsibility. We need to do a better job of talking through these difficult issues in a peaceful way.

With all due respect to the Undersecretary and to the policy folks who are helping her, they have all missed the one glaring lesson we should be taking away from the “cartoon jihad.” The tens of thousands of people taking to the streets, burning Embassies and flags (where do you buy a Danish flag in Pakistan, anyway?), fighting with police and killing people (including an 8 year old boy) do not want a dialogue, they care nothing for freedom of the press or responsibility. They have no desire to be part of any “we” that Hughes, the President, Kofi Annan or anyone else might speak of. An un-named protester, quoted in the same issue of Time (“Fanning the Flames”) stated it clearly and succinctly: “We are calling for the death of Jews and Christians.” Such sentiments do not leave much room for dialogue.

We, the United States of America and the Western world, have made the current struggle in which we are engaged into our problem. It is not our problem- the problem belongs to the Muslim world, as does the solution. What the world is currently seeing, and largely condemning us for, is our solution. What we, the Western world and any and all moderate Muslims, need to do is to make it painfully clear to the the rest of the Muslim world that a peaceful solution to the current state of affairs can only be found through dialogue.

I am not pleased to see U.S. troops fighting and dying in foreign lands, I am not gladdened by the site of destroyed villages and dead and wounded civilians. But neither am I happy with the idea that our leaders think we can talk to the Islamofacsists from a position of weakness and expect them to change their stripes.

Our efforts in the Middle East must remain a blend of force and humanitarian aid. Every effort must be made to better the lives of the Iraqi and Afghan peoples; our aid dollars must be wisely spent and every success trumpeted loud and far- be it the reconstruction of a school or the completion of a major public works project. At the same time every threat or attack must be dealt with decisively. We must let the enemy know that we are ready to talk, but that the terms are not negotiable- violence on their part will not be met with pleas for tolerance and understanding from us, it will be met with efficient and ruthless destruction of those who perpetrate, plan and support such acts. The decision is theirs to make, not ours, and we should be hammering this fact home in our PD efforts in the region, not blaming ourselves by saying “we need to do a better job of talking through these… issues.”

We are losing the war of ideas, in fact in many ways we have already surrendered. The Japanese admiral who lead the assault on Pearl Harbor is reported to have said “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” He was right. There were no cries for better understanding of Japanese feelings- there was outrage and a general consensus that Imperial Japan had to be destroyed. Today there is none of that. Muslims burn embassies over cartoons and we worry about what we did to provoke it, and what we should have done to prevent it. What has changed in our character in the last 60 years? Why do we look to blame ourselves, first, last and always?

Repeat after me- it is not our fault.

It is time to get on message with our PD efforts, and to stay on message. If the overarching theme is that Islam has been hijacked by radicals, that is fine- but the bottom line has to be something along the lines of this: we stand ready to help all moderate Muslims to reclaim their religion and place in the world, but our patience is not boundless. Either you fix it, or we will. This mess is not our fault, but we will not stand by, wringing our hands, as it becomes worse.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The above quote, widely attributed to the French enlightenment writer Voltaire, is often used to paraphrase the ideals of freedom of speech and thought and the inherent sense of sacrifice found in Western democracy. Had Islam, as practiced and espoused by those currently burning Western embassies in the Middle East over cartoons they don’t like, produced such a man that quote might read as:

“I disapprove of what you say, and I condemn you to death for saying it.”

The international Muslim terrorist organizations and the less violent representatives of international Islam have become very adept at manipulating Western media and opinion since the September 11 th al Qaeda attacks on the United States. Bin Laden and his various lieutenants, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his murderous offspring and others who follow their lead by wreaking havoc and destruction have mastered the art of using the media, and increasingly the Internet, to spread their message and to sow doubt and fear. Groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) expertly play on our collective loathing of being labeled racists and “insensitive” to other cultures and belief systems—for example the CAIR homepage makes no mention of the embassy burnings today, but does link to an article about possible anti-Muslim behavior in Michigan.

From al Qaeda to CAIR, these groups all understand the power and value of a free press to their cause and have mastered the art of the press release and the sound bite (and in al Qaeda’s case the use of horrifying imagery) to advance their various agendas. The recent election to power of Hamas shows that they have also learned to play the democracy shell game. There can be no doubt, however, that they still revile the very ideals that make freedom and personal liberty possible and democracy meaningful, and that they view our free press as a mirror which they can use to reflect our own “hypocrisy” back at us, but in which we best dare not ask them to look at their own reflection.

The Muslim community writ large continues to scream at the world “we are the religion of peace” and to vociferously condemn any criticism of Islam, its teachings or its followers. Our leaders continue to tell us that Islam is not the enemy, and all the while the followers of Mohamed behead people on video, kidnap and execute aid workers sympathetic to their cause, murder those who produce works they object to and stone women to death for violating their religious law. These acts, and now the sacking and burning of embassies and the threats against the lives of cartoonists and even nationals of the countries that produced and reproduced the cartoons do not strike me as terribly peaceful. Clearly we, the non-Islamic world and our ideas of liberty and freedom, are anathema to the ideals of Islam as practiced by a great many people.

Through these cartoons and the Muslim reaction we have once again been permitted a glimpse of the vast chasm that separates the liberal culture of the West and the violent, repressive and reactionary culture of Islam in the Middle East and in many European countries. Violence has become the preferred method of protest of the religion of peace—violence not found in any other modern religion. In 1989 artist Andres Serrano produced a work of “art” in which he submerged a crucified Christ in a jar of urine and blood—charmingly entitled “Piss Christ” and 1996 Chris Ofili produced a mixed-media work entitled “The Holy Virgin Mary” using elephant dung to create the exposed breast of the mother of Christ. In both instances there was outcry and an attempt to censor the works. In both cases, rightly so, these attempts failed. In neither case was the artist murdered while riding his bike to work, no one took the streets to burn the museums that housed the works, or threatened to blow up the offices of those who promoted them. If Islam and the actions (and inactions) of Muslims do not define the enemy than who or what does?

Those offended by the images of Mohamed have every right to boycott Danish products, to protest outside of embassies and to write letters to the editor until their fingers ache. They are free to hold press conferences and discussion groups, to ask that the world outside their religion respect their traditions and to hold their beliefs dear. They have no right, however, to threaten and harass, to destroy embassies and to murder. In November 2004 I wrote about Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen who said the following in reaction to the van Gogh killing:

“Let’s call the kettle black and admit that there are some young Muslims of immigrant origin who have not understood the principles of democracy, tolerance and freedom of expression on which Danish society is based. And there is something wrong when people leave school with such attitudes intact . . .”

He went on to say he was against banning the expression of extreme Muslim opinions, however, since such a move “would only create a subculture.” Rasmussen was, at the time (and most of the world currently still is) in denial of the basic fact that a Islamic “subculture” already exists. It is a culture of intolerance and violence, stuck in the 16th century ideologically but armed with modern weapons and tools of propaganda. It is a culture very much at odds with the modern ideals of liberalism and freedom, and like it or not, it is a culture with which we are at war both ideologically and physically. This culture is lead by men who take great pride in using our greatest strengths—freedom and tolerance- against us, men who want nothing more than to see an end to the practice of those same ideals, and who do not shy away from mayhem and murder to achieve their goals.

The sooner we admit that, and truly begin to fight back, the sooner we demonstrate that liberal tolerance has its limits, the better chance we have to avoid a future 9/11, future London, Madrid and Bali bombings, and the future murder of those who seek to expose the current existence of the Islamic subculture that threatens liberal democracies everywhere.

Dear fellow citizen:

This guide tries to provide you with some practical advice that may be useful to you in case you have made the difficult decision to seek new work opportunities outside of your own country.

So begins The Guide for the Mexican Immigrant issued last year by the Government of Mexico (GOM) to those “willing workers” thinking about seeking new opportunities in the form of the “willing employers” just to the north. The guide (in Spanish here, and in English here) which was produced in the form of a comic book, opens by advising Mexican workers to obtain a passport and seek a visa if they want to work abroad, but then immediately follows that advice with this disingenuous statement:

However, we actually see many cases of Mexicans who try to cross the northern border without the necessary documentation…

Really? Many cases? My word, I had no idea they were seeing many cases!

The august advice provided by the guide includes the following:

If you get lost, guide yourself by light poles, railroad tracks or dirt roads.

and

Avoid noisy parties, the neighbors could become annoyed and call the police and you could be arrested.

I know that immigration, both the legal and the illegal type, is a hot button issue, but as I noted at the time the comic first appeared:

It is reasonable that the fear of our inability to keep out unsophisticated farm workers can be easily translated into an inability to keep out terrorists. No matter what the outcome of the illegal immigration issue we must control our borders. [emphasis added]

Congress, or at least some members of the House, seems to agree. A plethora of immigration reform ideas are winging around D.C, but the one garnering the most attention is a recently passed bill to build a wall/fence the length of the U.S. – Mexican border. Fellow FSO blogger Consul at Arms provides a link to a piece entitled “A Wall of Shame” from the Jamaica Observer which trumpets:

The Mexican President, Vincente Fox, has described it as a “wall of shame”. Foreign Ministers of 10 South and Central American countries, including Belize, denounced it on January 9th. US businessmen have criticised it. Yet, the majority in the US House of Representatives is determined to build a wall to separate Mexico from the US.

[snip]

Those who advocated the passage of this Bill have done so on a wave of populist sentiment that Mexican immigrants, in particular, are drug addicts and free loaders who are sneaking into the US to pollute the country, living off the social welfare system and committing crimes.

This view of the Mexicans has been spread by irresponsible and ill-informed media and religious groups who neglect to point out that many of these same Mexicans work as farm labourers, construction workers and domestic help – jobs most Americans won’t do, and without which the economy would decline.

This is a favorite refrain of those who seek to pardon illegal aliens- they do the jobs we won’t and we can’t survive without them, our economy would collapse. Now I am just a humble government employee, but if I understand this correctly, what they are saying is without the Mexican’s who are currently working in the U.S. illegally we would have the economy of…MEXICO.

Therein lies the rub for me: Vincente Fox calls our plans to control our border reason for shame, but no one ever points out that the shame in the fact that so many Mexicans feel the only way to earn a decent living is to flee from their country. Can it really be that there is no shame in having an economy so moribund that the funds the Diaspora sends back are the second greatest source of revenue for the country, and could become the primary source in the near future? There is no shame to be found in failing your population so miserably that you have to publish a guide to help them escape the grim reality of the ineptitude and corruption that has plagued their homeland since before the Alamo? After all, Mexico is a huge, fertile country rich with petroleum, and populated by clearly hard working and industrious people (after all they keep our economy afloat).

I ask you President Fox, where is the guide for the honest, industrious Mexican worker on rooting out and destroying corruption in his government? Where is the guide established to deter the Mexican military from running drugs for the cartels? Where is the guide to micro-credit offered by the GOM (and not through foreign aid) in order to launch an enterprise? Oh, I forgot, you spent that money on comic books.

Actually, that last bit is not 100% true; I know didn’t spend all of it on the books. You kept enough to celebrate the first anniversary of the comic book guide by publishing maps showing the best routes to take to el norte. I suppose we should be encouraged by the fact that you have only printed 70,000 maps; after all, you printed 1,000,000 comic books.

Of course you could also expect that the maps will be mailed back with some of the $20,000,000,000 that will be sent to Mexico this year from the U.S. Maybe you think of it as a recycling program- think globally (because there’s no work here) and act locally (because your cousin needs the map).

President Fox, if you want to consider the wall “a shame” consider this: we could offer jobs to tens of thousands of Mexican workers to build the wall that would keep them in, and they would do so. When you can offer jobs to tens of thousands of Mexican workers we won’t need to build a wall.

Posted by Dr. Demarche

The Foreign Service has been buzzing this last week in the aftermath of Secretary Rice’s recent speech regarding the administration’s planned focus on what has been termed “transformational diplomacy” (TD hereafter). The Secretary has offered the following explanation as to what this will mean to the world:

I would define the objective of transformational diplomacy this way: To work with our many partners around the world to build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that will respond to the needs of their people—and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system…Transformational diplomacy is rooted in partnership, not paternalism—in doing things with other people, not for them. We seek to use America’s diplomatic power to help foreign citizens to better their own lives, and to build their own nations, and to transform their own futures…Now, to advance transformational diplomacy all around the world, we in the State Department must rise to answer a new historic calling. We must begin to lay new diplomatic foundations to secure a future of freedom for all people. Like the great changes of the past, the new efforts we undertake today will not be completed tomorrow. Transforming the State Department is the work of a generation. But it is urgent work that cannot be deferred.

—Secretary Rice, January 18, 2006

The idea of TD as a policy (first floated nearly a year ago with follow up last summer is in many ways just what the doctor ordered for the Department of State and our diplomats abroad. Just as the military is often accused of preparing to fight the last war, the Department of State has been slow to react to the changes in global power and threats.

For far too long we have been concentrating our diplomatic efforts on the Cold War battlefields of Europe (and look at what those efforts have wrought). The EU, struggling under its own weight and largely powerless outside its own borders no longer demands out attention as it once did- the goals set after World War Two have been met, the Soviet giant has been slain and it is tome to shift our gaze elsewhere. Never the less, the capitals of Western Europe remain the shining gems in the Foreign Service. Our embassies in London, Paris and Berlin overflowing with senior diplomats while our missions in the places that should matter most to us, the Middle East, South East Asia and the “Stans” ( Pakistan, Kazakhstan, etc) are manned by entry level or junior mid-level officers. The Secretary’s TD plan would begin to rectify that situation, immediately stripping some of the fat from the Euro-zone missions and from Washington (approximately 100 positions) and directing them to where our need is greatest, with many more positions to follow in the future.

The TD plan, detailed here, will also redefine the manner in which our diplomats approach their work. There will be more hands-on work with local governments and a greater emphasis on public diplomacy, and an expanded use of technology to reach out to larger numbers of host country nationals. A greater emphasis will be placed on stabilization of a nation and empowering the people to shape and define their own destiny.

All of these steps are praiseworthy, and all are needed in the current practice of diplomacy, American style. The most striking point in the plan (besides human resource allocation), however, is referred to in the official TD material as Effective Forward Deployment, which is defined as

Diplomats…traveling to their area of responsibility more regularly than ever, using their expertise and experience more effectively abroad.

This one sentence speaks volumes as to the current state and practice of U.S. diplomacy. The section heading clearly implies, and in large part is correct in doing so, that our diplomatic resources are being used ineffectively. Too many of our diplomats, even in Western Europe, are desk bound, reporting back to Washington on events that are often covered in a more timely manner by CNN and the BBC. Our embassies and consulates are foreboding and inhospitable buildings, security concerns over ride almost every effort to present a welcoming face. Those of us serving abroad have almost no contact with the vast majority of the people who live in our host countries. We are hidden away behind massive walls and locked gates in only the capitals or largest cities, locked in the echo-chamber with the governing elites. I wrote about this last year on The Daily Demarche in response to a 2003 article by Thomas Friedman entitled Where Birds Don’t Fly. Friedman describes the new consulate in Istanbul as lacking only “a moat with alligators and a sign that says: “Attention! You are now approaching a U.S. Consulate. Any sudden movement and you will be shot. All visitors welcome.” Unfortunately this is becoming the norm around the world.

As a result, simply moving positions and declaring that an officer must speak at least two languages and take an occasional posting to a less than ideal post will not solve our problems. We must be able to reach out to the people in the places where we live, and in order to do so we need to rethink the manner in which our diplomats are trained and prepared for each assignment. While there is some mention of FSO training in the TD plan, there is not nearly enough. The Foreign Service needs a concrete training continuum, including language and cultural studies at advanced levels. An entry level officer may be trained in Urdu, for example, and will have to pass a test (graded on a 0-5 scale with 5 being professional translator) to prove that she has reached the minimum level of competency before heading off to post. For most languages that level of competency is a score of 3, although it is often 2 for the “hard languages” such as Urdu. After that, however, the officer is deemed prepared for the rest of her career to work in that language (in theory certain language scores demand a periodic re-test, but if an officer is deemed successful in working in the host language in her annual review no re-test is required).

Why are our officers not expected to improve their language skills while abroad? Why does the minimum skill level required not increase in proportion with responsibility? The sad fact is that many officers actually suffer a decline in language skill while abroad, as they have very little “official” contact with the local population, dealing instead almost exclusively with the local elite who have often studied in the U.S. and speak flawless English. Compound this with the fact that many of our administrative and technical employees overseas, known as Foreign Service Specialists, receive no language training and the problem is even larger. The State Department is adamant that every overseas employee is a diplomat and carries the responsibility for representing the United States abroad. No one seems to have noticed that it is difficult to do so in an effective manner if you cannot communicate with the locals. If every employee abroad is the face of America we should be highly concerned about the perception of arrogance- it is one thing for a tourist from the heartland who has never left the U.S. to assume that speaking slower and louder in English will make the locals understand, quite another for an Embassy employee to do so. Imagine meeting a foreign diplomat in the U.S. who did not speak English, at least at a basic level. What would you think of the country that sent that person abroad?

In an age when world affairs are increasingly shaped by what the policy wonks like to call “non-state actors”- a term which covers everything from Greenpeace to al-Qaeda- our diplomats need the tools and training to effectively deal with the people who comprise these groups. Simply ensuring that a host-country government is not hostile to us is no longer sufficient. Every contact with every host country national, by every American member of every mission abroad, must be an opportunity for that host country national to form a positive image of America and Americans. We should, of course, continue to work with the governments of the world, while at the same time reaching out to the butchers, bakers and candlestick makers they represent. These are the people who have the potential to pilot airplanes into skyscrapers or to bomb shopping malls. Our best and brightest hope is that they are able to form a positive image of us through the Americans they meet in their homeland, and that they share that positive image with their friends and families. We cannot allow something as mundane as the training budget to interfere with this process. The TD plan calls for diplomats to serve as Political Advisors to our military forces- I would argue that by the time our military is involved we have already wasted our best chance to make use of our “diplomatic and regional experience.”

The bottom line is that hearts and minds can only be won with hearts and minds. The Secretary’s plan to shift resources to the areas of the world that are of greatest concern is an admirable one. What happens after those positions are shifted- who fills them, what training they receive and the marching orders they receive will be critical. The Secretary has referred to the time frame for this transformation of the State Department as “generational.” I don’t think it is a coincidence that this is the same idea that bin Laden is said to have expressed as al-Qaeda’s vision of their struggle with the West, I just hope that we have the same resolve as those who seek our destruction.

Posted by Dr. Demarche

It was with great interest that I read the comments to my last post, regarding the influence of Islam in our children’s textbooks and in the continuing education classes that their teachers attend. Solomon2 cut right to the heart of my thesis:

…foreign supporters offer to pick up part of the tab for school expenses, just like our government does. Unlike our government, however, this support is discretionary, dependent both on the subject matter and how it is taught. Oil-gorged governments now have the resources to increase these efforts.

Critical thinking thus takes a back seat to raw indoctrination. If you tell your child to stick to the Enlightenment spirit of inquiry, proof, and reasoning you may discover that you are doing him or her a grave disservice, as the result may be low grades from the teacher or professor. The retreat to rote and regurgitation meshes perfect with the leftist need to avoid their failures in the twentieth century.

Stehpinkeln, never one to mince words however, dismissed the idea as “trivial and a non-problem”, with Alpha Otter agreeing that “the educational establishment can over-estimate its influence.” While the establishment may think more of itself than is merited, I disagree that there is no problem.

While I may have overstated the influence that groups like campus dawa can have, it is unlikely after all that they will have much success converting American kids into jihadists, just as Kitsune says in her comment. However, I find the foreign Islamic influence in our schools to be very pernicious. The Islamists have much more to gain, after all, than a few American al-Qaedas. At stake is the goodwill of generations to come—the hearts and minds, precisely the battle we are losing in the Islamic world. Our children are learning that there is no reason to question the religion of peace. They are not learning about the death penalty under sharia for the “crime” of being raped, they are not learning about the Taliban. They are learning to be acolytes of Juan Cole and Michael Moore. That is all the Islamists need.

This is a tried and true technique for making sweeping societal changes in America. Think back to the 1970’s—huge, gas guzzling cars with kids in the “way back” and an occasional candy wrapper tossed out the window with nary a second thought. Now think about the educational campaigns against pollution, for the use of seatbelts and energy conservation. Who were those campaigns aimed at? Need a hint? Ask Smokey the Bear (who, by the way, now teaches that forest fires are okay, but wildfires are bad).

The battle for hearts and minds might begin in our grade school classrooms, but it reaches its pinnacle in our colleges and universities. If you doubt this spend some time on the Campus Watch web site, where I found these facts concerning the balanced teaching of Islam in our institute of higher learning:

Middle East studies tend to evade, ignore, or apologize for topics that do not fit their politicized agenda:

• Internal repression in Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Iran , and the Palestinian Authority.

• Palestinian Authority support for suicide bombing against Israeli civilians.

• The long-term goals of Islamist movements.

• The suffering caused by insurgencies in Algeria and Turkey.

• The Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

• The anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic incitement that pervades state-run media through most of the region.

As an example of this evasion, out of the Middle East Studies Association’s four-day conference in November 2002 where more than 550 papers were presented, exactly one dealt with Al-Qaeda and one with “fundamentalism.” “Militant Islam” was not the subject of a single paper.

Of course it is not just through academic papers, books or teacher training that the “truth” about Islam reaches into our schools- we often facilitate the matter by inviting speakers from abroad to teach our kids. Case in point: Dr. Abdullah Muhammad Sindi, a Saudi professor of political science from King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia. Dr. Sindi has taught at the University of California in Irvine, California State University at Pomona, Cerritos College and Fullerton College. He has also been a United Nations Fellow. His claim to fame? Holocaust denial and Zionist conspiracy theories. Here are some of his more memorable quotes:

I agree wholeheartedly with President Ahmadinejad. There was no such a thing as the ‘holocaust.’ The so-called ‘holocaust’ is nothing but Jewish/Zionist propaganda. There is no proof whatsoever that any living Jew was ever gassed or burned in Nazi Germany or in any of the territories that Nazi Germany occupied during World War II.

The Jews and the Zionists control the Western media and the publishing houses, both in Europe and the U.S., and they prevent anyone from expressing a free opinion on the so-called ‘holocaust.’ I agree with President Ahmadinejad that no one in the entire West can prove any of the Jewish/Zionist lies on the “holocaust”.

Anyone who attacks Israel or its lies is either banned, attacked, labeled as racist, or loses his job and career. In short, Israel controls the West, and not the other way around. The Jews and the Zionists rule the world by proxy. That is exactly what former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamed said in October 2003 during the 10th Islamic Summit Conference in Malaysia.

If you want more from the good Doctor just Google his name to find his home page—hosted, I might add, by America Online. I will not provide a link to him.

As a follow up to Dr. Sindi’s theories I want you to ask yourself the following: what might the repercussions be if Bob Jones University dug up an old South African professor who claimed that black slavery in the Americas was a myth? Do you think that professor would have the chance to lecture at FOUR American colleges and universities? Would the U.N. name him a Fellow? Or would there be mass protests, perhaps riots and allegations of hate thought, speech and crimes?

The battle for hearts and minds is being fought in the United States every bit as aggressively as it is being fought abroad. Our excellent education system and freedom of thought, not to mention stingy school budgets and lack of choice in public education, are being used against us. The President recently announced the National Security Language Initiative (NSLI), a program aimed at expanding our pool of critical needs language speakers. While I think that this is an excellent program, $114 million dollars a year is pitiful, and at this rate all we will be doing is teaching Johnny how to read the Koran in Arabic for Professor Cole’s class