Essays against Appeasement

Threat to Western civilization from Islamist terror is ample reason for preemptive war

A just defence...depends on the existence of danger; and the danger must be estimated by the twofold consideration of the malice and the power of our enemies.
Edward Gibbon

ABC News: 20/20

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/

WATCH: Sex and the Political Wife

WATCH: Jenny Sanford Opens Up on Marriage, Family

WATCH: Jenny Sanford on Affair: 'I Was Stunned'

WATCH: Sanford Affair Thrust into Spotlight

WATCH: Jenny Sanford on Decision to Divorce

About
I'm a former director of SBS TV Australia and a writer on politics and international affairs

Home Page

Tuesday, 10 March 2009

Home Page

It was... praiseworthy to get one's blow first against someone who was going to do wrong
Thucydides

"Know thy Enemy"

In the battle of Etruria Hannibal defeated the Roman Consul Flaminius as a result of "knowing" the guiding principles and character of his enemy
Polybius

11 and the cogent convincing concerns of the Bush administration of a possible nexus in the near future between al Qaeda and its sundry affiliates with rogue states armed with weapons of mass destruction and nuclear ones, and the portentous and abysmal danger this would pose not only to the U.S. but to the world at large, the media has a “sacred” obligation to unite the American people behind its government of whatever political hue. No errors of judgment or mishandling the planning of the war by the Bush administration can excuse the media from abdicating from this historical responsibility.

There is no fogless war and no one can see and perceive and measure correctly all its dimensions. And the frailty of human nature further exacerbates this inability. But no Churchillian confidence in one’s actions and strategic acumen throws the towel because of mistakes. One corrects one’s errors and keeps intact his resolution to defeat the enemy with a new strategy. (And one has to be reminded that the greatest scientific discoveries have been built on a pile of mistakes.) It would be an indelible obloquy to one’s amour propre to even consider that these uncivilized obtuse fanatics, and seventy-two virgin pursuers, could come close to conceiving a strategy that would defeat the know-how and scientific mastery of Western civilization and its epitome the United States of America. Only a lack of resolve of its politicians and its opinion-makers, as a result of their fatal embrace with supine populism, appeasement, and pacifism, could lead to such shameful and historic defeat.

America at this critical juncture of its historical and Herculean task to defeat Islamofascism in a long, far from free of heavy casualties, painstaking arduous war needs a wise, imaginative, and resolute political and military leadership that will overcome all the difficulties and imponderables of war and will strike a decisive lethal blow to this determined suicidal enemy. The new “Surge” strategy of the resolute Bush administration implemented by that “superb commander”, according to his troops, General Petraeus, seems to be accomplishing its objectives. Two prominent and vehement critics of Bush Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of The Brookings Institution who had accused the President of mishandling the war, after an eight-day visit in Iraq talking to high officials now believe that we are fighting in “a war we just might win”. And Petraeus, like a stronger Atlas, is pushing the rise of the sun of victory in the up till now dark sky of Iraq. Hence, the courageous actions and sacrifices of U.S soldiers in Iraq are not wasted and will be written with adamantine letters in the military annals. At this momentous noteworthy victory all the President’s and the nation’s disablers will be cast into the pit of ignominy by history.


June 30, 2009

Obama Sails into Iranian Maelstrom under False Colours

By Con George-Kotzabasis

The Iranian political turbulence brought to the eyes of the world the Islamic Republic’s long incubation of its monster child of military dictatorship. The keepers of the quintessential Koran’s Justice disrobed themselves of their religious white garments and donned the black robes of Islamofascism to commit their injustice to their own people. To survive as the true guardians of Islam and its conferred political power the post-election torrential wave of dissent that rose against them, they are resorting, true to the nature of the ‘imamocracy,’ to the brutal instruments of the police baton and the gun against their own believers. In this unequal struggle between brute force and ‘slogan-armed’ civil disobedience it’s not hard to guess who is going to be the victim. But history might have its revenge: In this temporary victimization of civilians and ‘modern’ Iran might also be the hole in which the brutal imamocracy will be buried.

In this crucifixion of the Iranian people the Obama administration, both on moral and political grounds, cannot assume the role of Pontius Pilate and take the stand of intellectual, moral, and political neutrality on the grounds of political realism. The art of realpolitik is not only to react to events but more importantly to foresee the probable contours in which these events are shaping and be pro-active in their shaping. The Administration has failed abysmally in this art. Within one week of the events unfolding in Iran President Obama abandoned his initial cautious “meddling” argument and adopted, after the latter was overcome by events and as a result of internal criticism of his position, a less cautious course by calling on the Iranian government “to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people,’’ and warned it could not expect “the respect of the international community” if it failed to “respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.” But despite this apparently tougher position, President Obama still missed the mark, as we will explain further down.

There are a lot of eminent people who support this ‘realist’ position of Obama such as Henry Kissinger and Paul j. Saunders, CEO of the Nixon Centre , and the political commentator Taylor Marsh of the Huffington Post. The gist of their argument being that for Obama to have come out in support of the opposition would not have helped the latter as it would have been painted by Iranian propaganda as being agents of the U.S., Kissinger stating that showing “public support for the opposition would only be used by Ahmadinejad,” and would damage any prospect of a favourable diplomatic outcome on the grave issues between the United States and Iran in future negotiations. According to Kissinger the Administration would place itself in a great diplomatic handicap if it put itself behind the people who are behind Mousavi. Another argument being put by Taylor Marsh is that you have to accept the world as it is and you have to “engage your adversaries,” as if it was only a matter of accepting it without changing it by choosing the right time to engage your enemies. All of these arguments of course are respectable and fit to be put in the realist frame of politics. But in this case it’s a dusty frame and needs cleaning.

In all grave momentous political conflicts between opposing parties there is a process of polarization that definitively removes any doubting ‘Thomases.’ That is, there are no middle ground societal forces to which one of the opposing parties could appeal for its support that could tip the balance in its favour. Clearly therefore, in such a situation propaganda becomes redundant and obsolete as there is no middle ground to be influenced by it. And this is exactly the present situation in Iran. Moreover, in such polarized conflicts both sides are fighting for their political and physical survival and they will use all means that are conducive to it. Hence Ahmadinejad and the imamocracy will concoct all kinds of conspiracies and lies, including of course the lie that the ‘Great Satan’ is behind the opposition, but who is going to be convinced of the truthfulness of such a lie other than their own solid supporters? Kissinger of course is fully aware from his wide experience and sagacious nature of this process of polarization and its consequences, but remarkably in this case of Iran is drawing the wrong conclusions from it. I would argue on the contrary, since diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means, to paraphrase Clausewitz, that President Obama should calibrate his tougher response to the nascent military dictatorship in the following terms: That the United States and many other nations of the world would find it very difficult to engage with a regime that in the eyes of its own people and of the world is an illegitimate regime. Thus by casting a shadow of isolation from the world over the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad Theocracy, President Obama could tip the balance indirectly in favour of the ‘modernist’ opposition forces and the great potential this would have for the future of Iran, and indeed serve as a paradigm for all the Middle East. As such a statement by Obama could further spread the division among the ruling elite with the great possibility that some of its key members defecting to the opposition and thus opening an opportunity for the opposition to take over power. Thus Obama by taking this stronger stand could be the latent force that would facilitate the transfer of the governing power from the imamocracy to the reformist opposition which despite the conservative religious origins of its leaders could severe the up till now conflation of religion and politics. Due to the fact that this powerful movement behind the opposition is propelled by modernist forces of the young educated generation whose desire for real democracy in Iran is unabated and inextinguishable, more so by the present martyrdom of so many young Iranians whose embodiment is the beautiful and spiritually brave Neda Salehi Agha Soltan, who was shot by a goon of the military dictatorship.

Obama’s ‘Latter Day’ Criticism Ineffective and Too Late

President Obama in the last few days has escalated his criticism of the Iranian regime but he has done so at the ebb of the protest movement of the opposition when he should have done so at its flow and in stronger terms as has been suggested above. And like a conductor of an orchestra who has missed his notes, he aborted a potentially brilliant performance by bungling it. Instead of letting himself to be overcome by the rapidity of events he should not have missed the opportunity to at least ‘pilot,’ if not directly influence, these events to the favourable port of the opposition. But, alas, political short-sightedness pays a heavy price.

It is obvious that President Obama was more concerned to save his new foreign policy which is pivotal on his unconditional diplomacy with the adversaries of the United States than to imaginatively save the great potential for democratic change that the protest movement in Iran had not only for its own country, but next to Iraq, for the whole Middle East, including the resolution of the complex and intricate issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Instead Obama chose to sail into the rough seas of Iran under the false colours of his diplomacy. And already the sails of this diplomacy are in tatters as a result of the unfolding events in Iran, as we predicted in a short article ten days ago. David Axelrod, one of his most astute and chief advisors by now is touting and foreshadowing the Republican’s ‘spectre’ of conditions in any future talks with Iran.

But the danger of this naive unconditional diplomacy is still present if Obama continues to be hooked to it. And unlike Agamemnon who sacrificed his daughter Iphigenia to the goddess Artemis to propitiate the winds that would take him to his triumph at Troy, Obama might be sacrificing the long term strategic interests of his ‘daughter’ America on the altar of the faltered winds that will never raise his diplomacy to triumph.

I rest on my oars: Your turn now


June 23, 2009
Legendary Stork Brought an Unloved Child to White House

By Con George-Kotzabasis

A photo of Obama that tells it all about the latter’s ‘substance.’ Has anyone seen Obama’s photo in The Australian, April 29, 2009, when he was given the cap of the FBI at his visit in its headquarters? His expression is that of a toddler who has been given an ugly toy for a present. This photo will haunt Obama for the rest of his term.

The legendary stork has brought an unloved child in a basket to the American people. Abandoned as a toddler by his father, dumped as a child by his mother on his grandparents, he has been searching for love ever since. And finally he founded it in the initially warm embrace of the foster parenthood of the prattling classes, the politically disgruntled from the previous administration, and all the poor. And being laid in this ‘public’ bed of love and indulging its pleasures to the full Obama will eventually have to pay its high price. As to continue to be the recipient of this love, so existentially necessary for him, his agenda perforce has to be focused in satisfying these three groups simultaneously. That is why his grand social policies of universal health care, education, foreign policy, and climate change, are so important to him. But this is a task for one endowed with superior qualities and Obama has the ordinary qualities of a ‘community organiser’ dressed in ‘ivy clothes leaves.’ And in this inability to accomplish the great change that he promised to the American people the presently smitten with love public for Obama will turn against him and the latter will find himself bitten by the public adder on his path to political failure.

And the first signs of this failure are the dramatic events unfolding in the aftermath of the Iranian election which have turned his foreign policy and new diplomatic outreach to the foes of America and his hopes to placate them into shambles.

June16, 2009
Iran's Post-election Turmoil Heralds Obama's Diplomacy Stillborn

By Con George-Kotzabasis

The dramatic events unfolding after the election of Ahmadinejad, whether legitimately or not, are also crippling Obama’s diplomacy and his Alice in wonderland Cairo speech, that mesmerized the ‘cerebral’ classes, and putting them both on crutches. And all the ‘grand bargainers’ from Flyntt Leverret to Juan Cole and the “hyper-active Clemons,” who has so little to show from his hyper activity, not to mention the ‘disciples’ of The Washington Note of David Hume and Bertrand Russel, are totally and irreversibly discredited. For the question is, that while the Theocratic regime for its own survival will have to clamp down with an iron fist the modernist forces of Iran and its putative leaders such as Mousavi, Rafsanjani, and Khatami-I’m saying putative because although they are apparently the leaders of these forces they themselves are not part of that modernity-and incarcerate and jail, if not covertly kill, some of the members of the educated classes if they continue to threaten the existence of the Mullahcratic regime, how then would be possible for President Obama to proffer to the regime the olive branches of his diplomacy when the latter was in the process of deflowering democracy in Iran? How could he possibly claim, with any credibility, that America by showing to the world that it was living and practising its values-which according to his simplistic notion would transform anti-Americanism into a loving world –feast for America-would be changing its image, while at the same time was negotiating with the Mullahs at the tragic expense of the forces of modernity in Iran? When in fact Obama will be doing his own ‘Mossadegh act,’ launching his own “Operation Ajax,” which in his Cairo speech was one of the critical mea culpas of America, this time on the diplomatic domain which would be no less than a coup that would solidify and continue the existence of Iran as a dictatorship?

Alas, in such terms will be told the sad story of Obama’s stillborn diplomatic initiative toward rogue states and their sundry proxies.

June 10, 2009

Some American Liberals Descendants of Voodoo African Magic

By Con George-Kotzabasis

In the past the medicine man in primitive Africa would utter a word and evil would disappear. In modern America some of its intellectuals believe that by not uttering the word terrorism or nine-eleven, would make evil disappear. American intellectuals of this sort are the true descendants of African voodoo magic.

June 02, 2009
Obama's risen aloft 'Diplomatic Skirts' Alluring to Enemies of America

By Con George-Kotzabasis

For Obama to “co-opt” the N. Koreans into a “new dance,”presumably of diplomacy, as Steve Clemons of the Washington Note suggests, in which America’s skirts will be risen aloft in the air, like Marilyn Monroe’s, one would need modicum imagination to see what the short build but sharply sighted North Koreans would do to the long legged Americans.

More seriously, the U.S. of course cannot invade or take any military action against N. Korea. But it can take hard economic sanctions presently and suspend the six-party talks that gives to a rogue state the facade of legitimacy, which it so much desires, and even place a naval embargo on N. Korea and prevent it from exporting its nuclear technology to other rogue states. And thus by “harshly” punishing N. Korea President Obama will avoid the punishment of “a credibility collapse at home,” to quote Clemons.

While Clemons by implication concedes that a credibility collapse will damage the standing of his beloved president, especially when such a collapse will also have international ramifications, he nevertheless weirdly suggests “patience” toward the recalcitrant N. Koreans--that have already in the past violated earlier agreements they had compacted with previous administrations, such as The Agreed Framework, Pyongyang-Washington agreement, under President Clinton --as a “wise” measure, and indeed, as a “tough strategy,” to quote him again. The question that Clemons has to answer however is what kind of “patience” ever prevented a “credibility collapse.” But apparently for Clemons doing nothing or doing something that lacks strategic substance is a “tough strategy.”

The great danger is however that the N. Korean defiance has opened the bottle releasing the ‘meme’ that other rogue states such as Iran will adopt and replicate against the U.S. And one can only second-guess what the Mullahs will do to Obama’s diplomatic skirts.

legslong legslong l

May 23, 2009
A CURSE IS HAUNTING THE LEADERS OF EUROPE

By Con George-Kotzabasis

The following essay was written in March 2006 and first published on my blog Power Politics on the same date. I'm republishing it on this site hoping its readers will find it to be of some interest.

A revisiting curse is haunting the ruling elites of “old” Europe, the curse of Munich. The three witches of Macbeth have taken leave of their domicile on the Scottish highlands, to settle on the banks of the foggy politically putrid vapors of the Seine, the Neva and the Rhine, to brew their curse while singing in unison their ditty, "weakness is strength and strength is weakness". It’s this same ditty, that the diplomatic emissaries of the accursed triumvirate of Chirac, Putin, and Schroeder - the latter being now replaced by Angela Merkel who apparently would like to take a sturdier pro-American stand but she is politically constrained in doing so - will be singing too in the international forums that are attempting to deal with the critical situation that is unfolding in Iran. Tragically, however, the repetition of the disastrous policy of the Munich appeasement, which John Maynard Keynes called “unheroic cunctation”, in our century, is not going to be repeated the second time around as “farce”, as Marx presaged, but even as a greater tragedy than the trail of events that followed the appeasement of 1938. Alas, this is the “apocalyptic” threat that is posed against the West by Iran’s future acquisition of nuclear weapons, whose unappeasable fanatic president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in his pursuit to “wipe Israel off the map”, and to destroy even, Khomeini’s “Great Satan”, America, as a holy warrior would deploy with paradisiacal bliss against the infidels of the West. Especially, when he has made it translucently clear that he wants “to bring the reappearance of Imam Mahdi, the Messiah, who would herald the Last Judgment and the end of the world”, to quote Dr.Leanne Piggott, from the University of NSW. Moreover, the Islamic Jihadist “alliance” of Iran with a sundry of suicidal terrorist fanatics who operate on a global scale enhances this threat at an exponential rate and makes it even more ominously real.

How Western nations, especially the United States, will respond to this perilous threat emanating from the uncompromising fanatical stand of Iran’s president, is the most crucial issue of our times. There is no room for optimism that Iran’s “unbalanced act”, under its present leadership, will fall into the “net of diplomacy”. Especially, when its leadership is witnessing the lack of unity and discord that exists among some major Western nations, as well as with that powerful “outsider” China, as to the best way to frustrate and stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Its leaders therefore make the safe wager that these nations will be unable to consolidate a strong unshakable unity that would prevent Iran from entering the nuclear club. Thus the religious fanatic Ahmadinejad, is taking lessons from the most secular of modern dictators while the leaders of old Europe shut their eyes before these lessons. If the transmigration of souls, according to ancient belief, could bring back Hitler’s soul, this time embodied in the form of a lecturer giving seminars on topics of brinkmanship, political bluff and deception, in which he excelled, among his audience one would notice the peculiar absence of Europeans, with one exception, and the presence of a few Americans from a rare breed, considering their strong isolationist heritage, but not from the blue ribbon states. However, one could not miss the conspicuous presence of a swarthy southern Asian, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself, who being keen to learn the arts of diplomatic mendacity, dissembling, and cozenage, from a master virtuoso - who was able to “transfix” the Prime minister of a great country, Britain, in a state of irremediable illusions that played such a tragic part in not preventing the great catastrophe that would befall upon the world – was absorbing in a state of trance the imperative lessons that the transmigrated soul of Hitler was exuding. Thus it was, that the present leaders of old Europe, whose peoples in the recent past had suffered death and destruction on an immense scale, as a result of incomprehensible and unforgivable errors of judgment, a welter of unimaginable illusions, and a cowardly lack of resolve, by their political predecessors, are doltishly unable to comprehend the lessons of that tragic era. And deliberately are closing their eyes to the diplomatic debacles an ensemble arriviste European politicians had suffered in the hands of Hitler. Thus, Talleyrand’s touché about the Bourbons, “that they have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing”, completely applies to the present parvenu leaders of old Europe.

NO PARALLEL BETWEEN AHMADINEJAD AND HITLER?

But to respond in advance to those who argue that there is no parallel and no similarity between Hitler’s Germany and Ahmadinejad’s Iran, either in industrial-military power or in ideology (after all Ahmadinejad has not written his Mein Kampf), is to be purblind to the reality that in a war of a clash of civilizations between Islamofascism and Western freedom, the former as an aggressor does not have to be the equal in overall industrial or military might over his enemies, but only to be relatively “equal” in the ultimate destructive weapon. And his strength from the fanatic resolve that emanates from a fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran, which is the godly substitute of Mein Kampf, makes his ideology even more dangerous than the one of the Nazis. Moreover, Iran would possess an enormous strategic advantage over its infidel enemies by having at its disposal numerous suicidal fanatic terrorists, both from Muslim countries and those residing in the West, as fifth-columnists, whom once it had supplied with weapons of mass destruction, and indeed, with portable nuclear weapons, would deploy them lethally against the West.

The contention that the possession of nuclear weapons by Iran would not pose a threat to the West as the former would follow, like the Soviet Union, the logic of deterrence, the doctrine of mutual assured destruction, is completely wrong as it totally disregards the fundamental difference that propelled the geopolitical ambitions of The Soviet Union and those that propel Iran’s. The former, despite the rhetoric of its uncompromising ideology, from its inception always encompassed in its policies Western rationale and realpolitik, from Lenin’s NEP, New Economic Policy, to Stalin’s alliance with Hitler, which was epitomized by Stalin’s question, “how many divisions does the pope have?” Such a stand by the Soviets was hardly surprising, since the father of its ideology Karl Marx was profoundly steeped in the culture of Western civilization, not to mention the fact that Russia itself after Peter the great was part of that civilization. Also, a more recent example of realpolitik by the Russians was Krutchev’s “blinking” before Kennedy’s naval blockade of Cuba, and the threat this confrontation between the two superpowers portended for mankind.

Contrariwise, the Iranians under the fanatic leadership of Ahmadinejad, whose goal is to bring the City Of God on earth, rationality is overtly absent from its policies of aggression. Especially when it perceives that its enemies sui generis are morally and politically weak and would not be willing to jeopardize the comforts and luxuries that flow from an “unruffled” economic development by taking a stand of belligerence against it that would imperil their comfortable lives. An illustration of such a misconceived perception was first the belief of Osama bin Laden that he could directly attack the US without the latter retaliating against him and the Taliban with all the might of its military force. And secondly, Sadam Hussein’s belief, that by manipulating the peaceful propensities of the major European countries, of France, Germany, and Russia - since they were lavishly feeding themselves off from the trough of corruption that Saddam had provided for their insatiable greed, through the oil-for-food programme, they were careful not to “destabilize” this sumptuous trough - he would be able to check the Americans from attacking him. In both these cases it was the “irrational exuberance”, to use a term of the former Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan, of bin Laden and Saddam that brought their destruction. And it’s the same irrationality that enshrouds in its black veil Iran’s fanatic leadership. Indeed, president Ahmadinejad’s irrationality is even more deep-seated in view of his denial about the holocaust and his statement of “wiping Israel off the map”. It will also be much more dangerous if this irrationality is going to be armed with nuclear weapons, as it would threaten a great part of the world with annihilation including of course Iran.

To expect that deterrence would prevent such destruction from occurring is a wish of the will-o’-the-wisp. The concept of deterrence, in geopolitical terms, has its deep roots in rationality and can only affect and impact rational actors. It would be a great illusion to expect leaders, such as Ahmadinejad, who are ardent believers in final Last Judgment ideologies and whose only “rational” communication is with the “heavenly” clouds, would be prone to involve themselves in a rational discourse. This would be especially so, if they sense that their foes are disunited and weak and see themselves holding the upper hand. Indeed, the debility of its enemies in the minds of these fanatics, reassures them that the implacable and uncompromising hard stand against their foes has the imprimatur of their God. Moreover, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran and its jumping over all the diplomatic hurdles that so foolishly an impotent leadership of the West placed as a substitute for its lack of decisive action that would have prevented such acquisition, would make Ahmadinejad not only a hero, of almost a Saladinesque stature, among Iranians, but among all the Muslims of the world. Such a great political, diplomatic, and strategic victory over the pre-eminent powers of the West by Ahmadenijad would confer upon him such a political aura that would vouchsafe his presidency in perpetuity. Hence, all the blissful hopes of the West that a robust political opposition could oust the mullahs and Ahmadinejad from the helm of power would prove to be a mirage.

"KISS OF DEATH" DIPLOMACY

So there are two paramount questions that Western nations must answer. What kind of strategy, and which nation or nations could implement such a strategy that would effectively crash the insatiable desire of Iran’s leaders to acquire nuclear weapons? To answer the second question first, the only nation that irrefragably could implement such a strategy successfully is the United States. Supported by a number of nations and their peoples from Europe and Asia that would exclude however Spain, France, Russia, and possibly even Germany under its new government, since the solid support of an American strategy by the latter nations would be highly improbable. The reason being that these nations as lesser powers but with visions of grandeur-with the exclusion of Spain-view the US with envy if not with animosity. Moreover, in a world where the US is the sole hyper-power and these nations are not militarily threatened by another super-power, as they were during the Cold War, they consider themselves to have enough elbow room in the international arena to achieve their differentiated geopolitical interests without endorsing, and in opposition to, US interests. Another politically insurmountable problem is, particularly for France and Germany and some other south-western European nations, even if a new leadership arose within a short time among the latter with a desire to take a pro-American stand, this leadership would still be politically hoisted on their nations own petard - as Greece and more lately Germany have shown - as their peoples contaminated with the virus of anti-Americanism, that was so virulently propagated by their former political leaders and cultural elites, would frustrate such a desire. It’s for these important reasons therefore, that it would be a stupendous folly of any Administration of the US to believe that its strategy against Iran would be endorsed or supported by the above countries. However, this reasoning does not apply to nations with modicum means of power, as exemplified by many eastern European nations liberated from the Soviet Union’s bondage, as well as of nations which were forced to be parts of the USSR, and whose peoples overwhelmingly tend to have amicable feelings toward the United States. Furthermore, they realize that by being allies of America, the latter can protect their interests from the pressures and incursions of their more powerful neighbors, such as Russia and Germany. It’s no surprise therefore that some of the Eastern European countries, such as Poland, are deploying their troops in Iraq alongside the Americans.

The corollary of the above problematic, i.e., the lack of a diplomatic consensus between the US and the major nations of Europe and China, is that conventional diplomacy in this confrontation between the intransigent leadership of Iran and the leaderships of the US and the EU, cannot play a crucial role in stopping Iran from accumulating nuclear weapons. Hence, the US will be compelled tragically to use the cruel and violent means of war against Iran if it’s seriously concerned that Ahmadinejad armed with nuclear weapons will be a real and a deadly threat to Western civilization. But while “consensus diplomacy” will be absent, diplomacy will not cease, as it will be replaced by the “soloist” hyperactive and bellicose diplomacy of the Americans. While the date of the latter’s military attack against Iran will not be identified, the reality of such an attack will be forcefully announced by the US government, so that it will leave no doubt about its consummation in the hearing of the Iran leadership. However, before such an attack occurs, this “armed diplomacy” of the US will make quite clear to the Ahmadinejad regime that it will not only be targeting its nuclear plants, but, also, its political, religious, and military leadership aiming at its elimination. This “kiss of death” diplomacy forcefully pressed on the foreheads of this triangular leadership of Iran has a great potential of sowing the seeds of division in its ranks with the result of ousting the radicals of Ahmadinejad and replace them with moderates, who would be keen to accept the injunctions of this armed diplomacy.

Thus, a “palace revolt” against the theocratic regime could be instigated by means of diplomacy. And usher regime change in the most peaceful way. Of course, such diplomacy will not attract the support of the “ballet tip-toeing” nations of Europe. But this will not be an obstacle to the resolute leadership of the Bush administration. And the latter will obtain the backing of the coalition of the willing, which will be adequate on this high stakes issue. The probability of achieving this peaceful transformation of regime change is far from being a long shot. But if uncertainty, that rules in the affairs of mankind and beyond, uncannily plays its mischievous role and negates this probability, then there will be no other option for the Bush administration but to adhere to its “original principle of pre-emption”, to quote the British historian Niall Ferguson. The US will have no other option but to attack both Iran’s nuclear plants and its three-tier leadership.

It’s a terrible and tragic burden for any president to carry on his shoulders. But this is the price that statesmanship must pay in this most dangerous of times. Emanating from the coupling of terrorists and rogue theocratic states armed with nuclear weapons.

May 16, 2009

Anti-Terrorist Laws to Protect Australians Baneful to Soft Intellectuals

By Con George-Kotzabasis

Professor of jurisprudence George Williams demonstrates conclusively that it’s not the vocation of constitutional lawyers to either “understand thy enemy” or protect the public from his more than probable lethal attacks. He woefully laments that the anti-terror laws enacted by the previous Howard government and continue to be implemented by the present one without any revision, “imprison people for words rather than actions”. This quote of his reveals clearly that he is oblivious of the historical fact that it’s more often than not that it’s “words” that inspire and lead to action. And this happens to be truer in the case of terrorists who are inspired by the words of their fundamentalist imams and perpetrate their atrocious actions.

Further he seems to be unaware that in all critical situations and especially in war times, individual and collective liberties are ineluctably constrained. A simple example would be that in a collision of several cars in a highway the motorists’ ‘liberty’ to use this highway is temporarily abrogated. Likewise the anti-terror laws are a temporary repeal of few liberties until this great Islamist threat hovering over and lurking under the cities of Western civilization is extinguished.

May 08, 2009

Liberals Continue to Jab Cheney on Torture

By Con George-Kotzabasis

It's amusing to see all the passionate and incorrigible haters of Cheney to have a jab at him even "posthumously" Out of Office. Emily Bazelon on Slate Magazine speaks for all these haters but the context with 'revenge' belies what she says about Cheney. The latter did not say at anytime that the documents on torture should be 'declassified,' but once they were, they should not have been declassified selectively without also revealing the positive aspects of the harsh interrogations.

The Bush-Cheney administration prudently--knowing thy enemy--unlike the imprudent Obama who apparently lacks rudimentary knowledge of the kind of enemy America is fighting, were unwilling to disclose to their Islamist enemies some of the methods by which the key holy warriors held as enemy combatants were "spilling the beans."

Halliburton says

Since the memos thus far released were all part of FoIA filings, it was not up to the administration to release them. Based on the Obama administration's own FoIA policies, the memos had to be released. I might point out that Cheney's own FoIA request is selective, listing only two documents, and then only some of the pages from those documents.

The "disclosing of interrogation methods" meme is claptrap. All of the methods the Bush administration sought to use are centuries old; SERE-derived methods are duplicates of torture used by the Chinese and North Koreans during the Korean War. There's nothing new to disclose.

Kotzabasis says

Certainly you are right that the memos according to President Obama’s FoIA policies had to be released since in January 21, 2009 he loosened Bush’s Executive order of November 2001 pursuant to national interests by repealing some provisions of the order. Cheney’s selectivity is consistent in this respect with the political acumen of the previous administration in being determined not to reveal to the enemy—even out of office-- unlike Obama in office, its secret procedures in this matter.

As for the “disclosing of interrogation methods,” the sting of the “claptrap” is in you. To say, as you do, that these “methods...are centuries old...duplicates of torture used by the Chinese and North Koreans,” says more about the fertility of your imagination than of the complexity of the situation. Is it conceivable to you that Pentagon and CIA Intelligence confronting a unique enemy such as suicidal fanatical warriors would be using the same techniques and methods of the past without innovating new ones? But I suppose your intellectually barren answer would be “there is nothing new to disclose.”

Halliburton says

It's certain that Cheney wants to keep portions of the reports he wants released secret, but I don't have your faith in his judgment. After all, we are talking about the man who helped create the 1976 "Team B" report on the capabilities of the USSR, which was wrong on every detail, notably the nuclear-powered laser beam weapons the Soviets were supposedly building. Cheney also thought it a good idea to undercut Gorbachev in 1989, and Brent Scowcroft and James Baker squelched him. I'd be more likely to believe that Cheney doesn't want portions of those reports released because they might undercut his assertions.

My "infertile imagination" seeks exceptional proof in the case of exceptional claims. Nothing about Al Qaeda and its fellow travelers is unique in history. Your claim that the CIA has some "new" methods of torture - "enhanced interrogation" if you wish - is an exceptional one, and would require exceptional proof. Only disclosure would provide that. It's far more likely, however, that your imagination is overheated.

Kotzabasis says

I don’t want to go back to the past, mistakes can be made and only the Pope is infallible. And just as someone can be ‘serially’ correct in the past he is not bound to be correct all the time in the future. The same logic applies in inverse to Cheney.

But your belief is misplaced as already the portions of the reports released have “undercut” The Bush administration’s “assertions.” Cheney therefore is more concerned to prove that the “enhanced interrogation” did work in preventing the jihadists launching further attacks and releasing those memos that provide this evidence while ‘clinically’ isolating them from the overall intelligence that would be invaluable to the jihadists.

All the professionals in matters of war in contrast to laypersons consider al Qaeda to be a UNIQUE enemy. Of course there have been fanatics and their “fellow travelers” in all ages. But just give one example from ‘your own’ history where the mortal foes of a nation were operating within it clad in civilian clothes and in the carapace of cutting-edge technology and armed with the most modern deadly weapons, including potentially with nuclear ones, and crashing airbuses into the sky scrapers of a metropolis. If you cannot provide such an example of an enemy then you too must logically come to the conclusion that the holy warriors of Islam are verily unique foes.

In view of this incontrovertible fact do you consider an “exceptional claim” that needs “exceptional proof” that the intelligence services of a superpower such as America confronting such a ‘supernally’ dangerous enemy in times of asymmetrical warfare would not have developed new interrogation methods that would be appropriate in extracting vital information from their captives   saving thousands of lives? It would take lukewarm imagination to have come to this deduction.

Join the fray

April 28, 2009

N o Truckload of Carrots Will Persuade Iran unless it’s Accompanied

with a Truckload of Missiles

By Con George-Kotzabasis

A response to:

Talking to Iran is our Best Option

By Ivo Daalder and Phillip Gordon of the Brookings Institution, and advisers to Barack Obama

Washington Post, June 29, 2008

We cannot tolerate the survival of a political system which has both the increasing capacity and the inexorable desire to destroy us. We have no other option but to adopt the strategy of Cato (Delenda est Carthago)

Raymond Aron

Ivo Daalder and Phillip Gordon, the two savants of the Brookings Institution, have a brief to advise Barack Obama to start “talking to Iran without preconditions”, but they should not allowed to do so at the grief of America’s national interests and the security of the civilized world. The rationale of such advocacy is based in “rescuing a failed policy” of not talking to Iran for 7 ½ years that has made the latter, according to our two analysts, stronger and therefore more intransigent toward American and European demands encapsulated in the precondition that Iran suspends its nuclear enrichment program before any commencement of negotiations between the opposing parties. Further they claim that such diplomatic overture by the U.S. would enable the latter to “test that proposition” of the Iranians, that they “seek only the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the right to nuclear technology”.

It’s almost beyond belief that Daalder and Gordon would be proud to present themselves as the enfants terribles on the stage of diplomacy and in the art of Talleyrand, as their suggestion to “test” this dissembling proposition of Iran behind which is attempting to build its nuclear arsenal, is terribly infantile and politically doltish. It’s like a law officer testing a professional thief whether he has stolen the goods of a house by asking him to show him the master key that has opened the door of the house.

As for their claim that for the last 7 ½ years there have not been any talks with Iran is completely in opposition to the facts. The Europeans, and many of them enunciating and voicing the proposals of their American “ventriloquist”, have been speaking with the Iranians openly as well as sotto voce for a number of years. And have put their own, and indirectly American, proposals before them to no avail. Indeed, Daalder and Gordon concede this by saying that “all of them… [The Europeans] repeatedly presented Iran with a list of benefits Iran would receive if it suspended enrichment”. The latest truckload of carrots were transported to Tehran by Javier Solama, European Foreign Policy Chief few weeks ago only to be turned over and rejected by Iran’s unappeasable Mullahcracy. And this rejection was sealed when Gholam Hossein Elham, a spokesman of the government said that Iran would not comply with Security Council resolutions requiring it to stop enriching uranium.

It’s incomprehensible that Daalder and Gordon do not realize that Iran is undeviating in its goal and determination to acquire nuclear weapons as the latter is the sine qua non of Iran’s leadership of the Muslim people and the implementation of the religious doctrine of the Ninth Mahdi, i.e., the creation of a new world order under the Holy Crescent of Islam. This theological doctrinal lunge for power by Iran cannot be stopped by the humdrum conventional instruments of diplomacy, as the two analysts suggest, but only by diplomacy in the carapace of a bristling hedgehog. And such diplomacy can only be effective by setting certain preconditions at the outset before talks can begin. In the event that such preconditions are unacceptable by the Iranian regime, as presently is the case, then the latter must unambiguously understand that since all roads to diplomacy are closed a bridge too close to war is only open.

Further, Daalder and Gordon seem to be ill-equipped for the art of diplomacy since apparently aren’t aware of some of its cardinal principles. Once one has made strongly clear to his opponent one’s position that the diplomatic avenue can only be opened on meeting certain preconditions to back down from this initial stand is to irretrievably weaken one’s position in the diplomatic stakes as one would give the perception to his adversary that one enters the negotiations with cap in hand. The military analyst Francois Heisbourg of the International Institute for Strategic Studies comments drily that “dropping a unanimous Security Council condition (stop enriching uranium) would simply be interpreted by Iran and American allies as unconditional surrender”. (M.E.)

Do the two advisers to Barack Obama consider that by such “surrender” in the diplomatic field the U.S. would have a chance to achieve by talks the latter’s primary goal, i.e., to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear arsenal? Moreover, such advocacy for diplomacy rests on the assumption that the present Iranian leadership under Ahmadinejad is a rational actor, and its participation in such negotiations would be well-grounded in its hope to resolve the problems confronting the two parties in a reasonable manner. Such assumption however is contrary to all the evidence as the long-bearded Mullahcracy of Iran continues to load its inter-state relations and actions with the afflatus of millenarianism. This is illustrated both by its annihilation stand against Israel and its apocalyptic confrontation with the West and the Great Satan America. In such a situation for anyone to advocate that the wiles of conventional diplomacy could accomplish a benign turning point in the relations between the American-European condominium and Iran is to have one’s head in the clouds.

I rest on my oars: Your turn now

April 19, 2009
September 04, 2009August 23, 2009August 04, 2009July 27, 2009July 14, 2009June 30, 2009June 23, 2009June16, 2009June 10, 2009June 02, 2009May 23, 2009 May 16, 2009May 08, 2009April 28, 2009April 19, 2009

.

. .

. .

.. December 26, 2009December 19, 2009November 22, 2009November 12, 2009October 25, 2009October 01, 2009September 23, 2009September 04, 2009August 23, 2009August 04, 2009July 27, 2009July 14, 2009June 30, 2009June 23, 2009June16, 2009June 10, 2009June 02, 2009May 23, 2009 May 16, 2009May 08, 2009April 28, 2009April 19, 2009September 04, 2009August 23, 2009August 04, 2009July 27, 2009July 14, 2009June 30, 2009June 23, 2009June16, 2009June 10, 2009June 02, 2009May 23, 2009 May 16, 2009May 08, 2009April 28, 2009April 19, 2009

Threesome Debate of American Norwegian and Australian of what to Do about Somali Piracy

By Con George-Kotzabasis

Somali piracy needs speedy, decisive, and relentless action by the U.S. and its European allies. To wait for the ability of Somalis “to police their own territory” and Somali leaders “to take action against pirates,” to quote Secretary Clinton, involved in the only highly profitable enterprise in a poor country, is to fly in the face of reality. In the event that Somali leaders were willing to do so, their military capacity to achieve this would take years to consummate.

Further, an increase of U.S., European, and Asian vessels and a better coordination between them is totally inadequate to police such a huge “expanse of ocean” as Secretary Clinton herself remarks. To pursue such a policy as Secretary Clinton delineates in her speech is to pursue a chimera. What the U.S. and its allies must do is to attack by relentless means, i.e., by air and commando raids the Somali towns from which piracy stems, and at the same time placing the requisite armaments on merchant ships that will protect them from any approaching pirate vessels. No amount of “carrots” will dissuade the pirates to desist and stop them, repeat, from such lucrative business in such impoverished country. Only their decisive military defeat will persuade them to do so.

Dan Kervick says

I agree in part with C-G Kotzabasis's assessment. We certainly can't wait for the restoration of the ability (and inclination) of Somalis to police their own territory and to take action against pirates. Somalia is the most failed and dysfunctional of failed states. I also agree that the linchpin of the problem is that piracy in that part of the world is extremely lucrative. The piracy won't end until piracy is made an ill bargain for the pirates.

But, given that assessment, I have a different view on the best means for addressing the problem, and the chances of success of a coordinated international response.

Yes, the area to be policed is very large. But this isn't a matter of just sailing around hoping to encounter pirate ships, or hoping to be in the right place at the right time. I assume we have the ability to identify and track most of the ships belonging to these pirates, to share the needed information (though not the sources and methods) with merchant vessels, and to direct force where it is needed in a timely way, especially if we have a larger multinational force of ships in the area. I am also assuming that some of the tagging and tracking means available are clandestine, and are unlikely to be discussed in public.

I also suspect that the economic and other hurdles that need to be cleared so that merchant ships can better defend themselves can be cleared quickly with vigorous, multinational government involvement.

I am somewhat shocked that Kotzabasis would recommend air raids on the home towns of the Somali pirates. No honorable man would defend the intentional killing of the women and children of one's adversaries as a means of deterring those adversaries. I thought C-G was more chivalrous than that.

Maybe it's an old-fashioned American outlook based on too many cowboy movies, but I was brought up to believe there were certain acceptable and unacceptable ways of handling these kinds of problems with banditry. Arming and funding more people to ride shotgun on the stagecoach is certainly called for. And sending out posses to track and engage the bandits, and either apprehend or kill them, is also appropriate and in bounds. But sending people to shoot up the towns and encampments where the bandits' families are located? Not OK.

Kotzabasis says

Dan Kervick

Thanks for your intellectually amicable and positive response to my post. I'm however surprised that you so facilely assume that these raids will intentionally be killing women and children. The latter will be killed only if the pirates adopt the tactics of the terrorists and use women and children as human shields. So if there is no intentional killing my 'honor' and 'chivalry' are not besmirched.

Moreover, if you are prepared to put 'stagecoach shotguns' and send "out posses to track and engage the bandits" then you have to go the whole hog. You cannot exterminate the scourge of piracy by half measures or by chivalric ones.

Posted by Paul Norheim, Apr 16 2009, 7:54PM - Link

A comment to the exchange between Kotzabasis and Dan
Kervick.

Kotzabasis says:

"I'm however surprised that you so facilely assume that these
raids will intentionally be killing women and children. The
latter will be killed only if the pirates adopt the tactics of the
terrorists and use women and children as human shields.".

Of course no single innocent human being will be killed
intentionally by the Americans (that would be bad PR). But if you
attack by "relentless means, i.e., by air and commando raids the
Somali towns from which piracy stems", much more innocent
civilians are likely to die than those killed by pirates.

This is an excellent illustration of a certain paradox, namely
between those "irregular" elements who target non-combatants
(or, in direct terrorist operations: civilians), and a regular army
targeting the enemy in ways that inevitably kill a lot of civilians,
not because they are targets, but because the regular army
decides to target the enemy by means that often, and inevitably,
kill more civilians than the irregular elements (pirates/terrorists)
do.

When you look at the tactics and outcome of some recent
events (like the Israeli attack in Gaza, and the Sri Lanka`n army
against the Tamil Tigers), it is indeed very difficult to
distinguish between "terrorists (who) use women and children
as human shields", and states who send their armies to kill
indiscriminately. If you look at statistics regarding the
percentage of civilians killed in wars during the last hundred
years, you would come to the conclusion that the respect for
civilian lives seem to have diminished drastically - regardless of
terrorists, guerillas, or pirates. The regular armies and the
politicians behind them have their significant share in this
development.

There is no point in mentioning Dresden, Hiroshima, and
Nagasaki to prove that: Iraq is a fresh example.

How many innocent civilians did Saddam Hussein kill? And how
many innocent civilians did Clinton and Bush kill -
unintentionally?

To me it`s always been difficult to distinguish between terrorist
methods and Kotzabasis`"relentless means". For poor, innocent
women and children, hit unintentionally, I would imagine that
this distinction would make no sense.

Posted by Dan Kervick, Apr 16 2009, 9:49PM - Link

Kotzabasis,

I may have misinterpreted you. There are some people who have recently advocated the *intentional* targeting of the pirates' towns and kin in order to teach the pirates a lesson. You instead seem to be advocating going after the pirates themselves, and regard whatever happens to the communities around them as collateral damage brought on by the pirates decision to live among other people.

I appreciate that when you talk about "exterminating the scourge of piracy", you are only logically implying that it is the scourge that must be exterminated, not the people. I hope that's all you mean. Because as for the people themselves, I think experience with banditry shows that it is by no means necessary to exterminate all the bandits - even if such a thing were possible - in order the deter them from banditry. It is only necessary to change the cost-benefit analysis with which they operate. When it becomes to hard to profit from banditry, and too risky, the banditry ends.

This isn't a half-measure. It is just a question on of re-asserting the rule of law without inflicting more death and pain on our fellow human beings than is necessary.

Unlike the case with some terrorists perhaps, the pirates do not hide continually among civilian populations plotting their crimes. They frequently float around in boats on the open ocean. Thus, if they are to be targeted for attack, there is no excuse for not targeting them when they are out there on the high seas, away from innocent people. If one can kill or apprehend some transgressor in a way that doesn't risk the lives of innocents, then one should do so. It is not relevant whether we can pin the "fault" for the innocent deaths on the wrongdoer. What is relevant is that we avoid causing absolutely unnecessary deaths, whom ever is to be assigned the ultimate fault for those deaths.

Let's not build these bandits up into something more than they are. What is needed now is stepped-up global policing of international shipping lanes, and that calls for increased levels of economic, manpower and intelligence commitment. The pirates are not an army, and civilization isn't crumbling. We just need to invest more resources than we have previously.

Posted by kotzabasis, Apr 17 2009, 1:18AM - Link

Dan Kervick

Of course you don’t have “to exterminate all the bandits,” and your “cost-benefit analysis” is a perfect measure that would end such banditry. But to reach that measure that would deter the pirates from practicing their deadly enterprise one cannot do it by “half-measures.” It would be a half-measure to draw the gun and not shoot at your enemy. However, your “rule of law” is not a half-measure but no measure at all. These are lawless people that no law will ever restrain their actions.

I’m afraid you are too well- intentioned and too replete with humane genes that disqualify you from being a pragmatic strategist in deadly conflicts. No war has ever being fought clinically without the spilling of innocent blood. The price of freedom and the continuation of a civilized society at times is quite high. Nothing of great value is costless. The question always is whether people have the sagacity, the will, and mettle to pay the price.

Paul Norheim

This is a ‘straitjacket’ detachment from reality Paul. An “excellent illustration” that totally destroys your fabricated “paradox” is Iraq that by indisputable statistics shows that more civilians were killed by “irregular elements” i.e., by terrorists, than by the regular army of the U.S. and its allies. And to infer, sarcastically, that Americans don’t kill intentionally because that would give them “bad PR,” is to denigrate shamefully U.S. armed personnel who have been trained not to kill civilians, unlike the terrorists who are trained to kill them deliberately. .

Posted by Dan Kervick, Apr 17 2009, 7:37AM - Link

"These are lawless people that no law will ever restrain their actions."

You seem to be confusing enforcement of the rule of law with respect for the law, Kotzabasis. Obviously, these pirates have no motivation to obey the law simply because it is the law. They are not law-abiding people.

For such people, reassertion of the rule of law always requires the imposition of harsh, credible penalties. Some percentage might be deterred by the mere credible threat of these penalties. But others will only be prevented from violating the rules of the road on the high seas by the actual infliction of the penalties.

I didn't say that we should draw the gun and not use it. I said that in this case it seems likely that whatever force needs to be applied can be applied away from land, and away from innocent people. Yes, sometimes innocent people are killed in justifiable actions. But we shouldn't recklessly endanger innocent lives just to prove our "will" or "mettle", not when we can bring the required force to bear without endangering those innocents.

While the pirates aren't motivated by respect for international rules, they are, as you have pointed out, motivated by profit. As it becomes less and less likely for the pirates that they will profit from attempted acts of piracy, and more and more likely that they will lose their lives or liberty, their banditry will be brought to an end.

Posted by kotzabasis, Apr 17 2009, 9:45AM - Link

Dan Kervick

Lawless people are not concerned with what MIGHT HAPPEN to them if they break the law, but, as you correctly say, by the “actual infliction of the harsh penalties’ imposed upon them, and I would add in this case wherever they are, on sea or land. It would be strategically foolish and inutile to confine one’s tactical operations solely on the “high seas” as well as reveal one's tactics to one’s enemy. Just a thought experiment. If one had credible intelligence of a high concentration of pirates on land that by hitting them one would have inflicted upon them a devastating blow from which they could never recover, it would be utterly doltish not to use such an opportunity that would shorten the war and overall casualties just because it could entail that some innocent people would be killed.

I used the “draw of the gun” figuratively, not that you said it, in response to your “stagecoach” post, that if you draw it you have to shoot your deadly foe wherever he is, even in a ‘crowded street.’

War has too many imponderables to compute them beforehand with algorithmic precision. McNamara’s “fog of war” is the constant condition. That is why people, and even professional soldiers, avoid it justifiably like the plague. But once one has decided to ‘unsheathe the sword’ then like the “feudal knights one has to make “literal mincemeat of one’s enemies, leaving the clergy to handle the morals,” to quote the great Austrian writer Robert Musil.

Posted by Dan Kervick, Apr 17 2009, 10:25AM - Link

"Just a thought experiment. If one had credible intelligence of a high concentration of pirates on land that by hitting them one would have inflicted upon them a devastating blow from which they could never recover, it would be utterly doltish not to use such an opportunity that would shorten the war and overall casualties just because it could entail that some innocent people would be killed."

This sort of scenario paints an unrealistic picture of the pirates as some kind of "pirate army" that is best countered by attrition of their numbers until they surrender. I don't think it works that way. The pirates are fishermen, who have taken to using their fishing trawlers to mount pirate attacks. Piracy in the Gulf of Aden has become a lucrative profession, and people will continue to pursue that profession as long as it remains lucrative. There is no fixed supply of pirates, just as there is no fixed supply of investment bankers. There is no pirate army to defeat.

We can't bomb all the fishermen in Somalia, nor would that make sense. There is simply no need for this kind of overkill. The pirates attacked a US-flagged ship earlier this month, and that mistake resulted in an extended nuisance, the rescue of the captain, a week of media pants-wetting, three dead pirates and one captured pirate. This outcome is going to have a deterrent effect, and the pirates were dealt with out on the water. With stepped up resources and commitment, we can turn this piracy business into a non-viable enterprise.

Posted by kotzabasis, Apr 18 2009, 12:22AM - Link

It was a thought experiment and you missed its point.

You are digressing into 'softer areas' from your previous posts and I've nothing to add. Piracy now has become to you an 'economic' issue and merely an "extended nuisance" and an entertaining vaudevillian play, "media-pants wetting."

Join the debate