Robert Spencer: Insight and Insult

Remember Bowe Bergdahl, the naive young man who took a hike away from his U.S. army base while serving in Afghanistan? He was grabbed by the Taliban, held captive for some years, and tormented with ridiculous questions. Beckie Strum, of the New York Post (December 24, 2015), reports Bowe Bergdahl as saying: "Taliban asked me if Obama is gay,"

"They ask you, is Obama gay and sleeps with men?"

They ask you this over and over and over and over again. Sounds worse than waterboarding! More seriously, Robert Spencer steps in to offer some plausible analysis as to why the Taliban posed this question:

If Bergdahl is telling the truth, it is unlikely in the land of bacha bazi that these Taliban members were objecting to sleeping with men. They were asking if Obama was gay, i.e., did he sleep only with men - which exclusivity they would equate with weakness. Beyond lurid curiosity, they were most likely asking Bergdahl if the President was truly as weak as he appeared to be.

Spencer is an intelligent, educated fellow with a lot of serious insight - especially insight into Islam - so he may well be right on this point, but he then diminishes his gravity with this crude sight gag:

Spencer detests President Obama so much that he can't resist an opportunity to ridicule him even at the cost of making himself look bad. This is not a unique instance, either. Spencer always chooses the least flattering photo of Obama.

I'll keep reading Spencer for his important insights, and generally ignore his insults - not insults of me, of course, for he certainly doesn't know me - but I couldn't let this one pass, it was just too crude not to call him on it.

Russia was right?

Vladimir Putin
Wikipedia

Writing for The Spectator in "How Putin outwitted the West" (10 October 2015), the historian and writer Owen Matthews tells us that Russia was right:

Russia was right about Iraq and Libya, and America and Britain were dead wrong. Regime change doesn't seem to have changed Middle Eastern countries for the better, as Vladimir Putin has been warning for years. His policy is not to support any armed groups 'that attempt to resolve internal problems through force' - by which he means rebels, 'moderate' or otherwise. In his words, the Kremlin always has 'a nasty feeling that if such armed groups get support from abroad, the situation can end up deadlocked. We never know the true goals of these "freedom fighters" and we are concerned that the region could descend into chaos.'

Yet after a decade and a half of scolding the West for non-UN-sanctioned military interventions, Putin has now unilaterally committed Russian forces to what the former CIA director General David Petraeus calls the 'geopolitical Chernobyl' of Syria. Russia finds itself allied with Syria, Iraq and Iran - a new 'coalition' no less, as Syria's president Bashar al-Assad described it on Iranian state TV last week. How and why did Putin fail to take his own advice about the unintended consequences that breed in middle-eastern quagmires? And most importantly, how has he managed - so far at least - to make Russia's intervention in Syria into something close to a diplomatic triumph?

Russia's decisive intervention has left Barack Obama and David Cameron looking weak and confused. When the usually steadfastly patriotic readers of the New York Daily News were asked whether Putin or Obama had 'the stronger arguments', 96 per cent said Putin. In Britain even hawks like Sir Max Hastings - no friend of the Kremlin - are arguing that Russia can help beat Isis. And most importantly, Putin stole the show at the United Nations General Assembly last month with an impassioned speech denouncing the whole US-backed project of democracy in the Middle East at its very root.

The Arab Spring has been a catastrophe, Putin argued, and the western countries who encouraged Arab democrats to rise against their corrupt old rulers opened a Pandora's box of troubles. 'Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster,' he told assembled delegates, in remarks aimed squarely at the White House. 'Nobody cares about human rights, including the right to life. I cannot help asking those who have forced this situation, do you realise what you have done?' It was quite a sight: a Russian president taking the moral high ground against an American president - and getting away with it . . . . But fundamentally, Putin is much more interested in being seen to project Russian power than in fixing Syria's war. His aim is to hold up Britain and America as paper tigers whose indecision has created a policy vacuum on Syria, into which Putin has confidently stepped. The Russian operation is small and portable enough for Putin to be able to roll it up in a week - and declare victory if and when the going gets tough. That, as he knows, is more than Britain and America have been able to do in any of our recent wars.

Matthews argues that Russia is not entirely consistent in sending forces to Syria - to say the least - but Putin doesn't have to be consistent. He just needs to show Obama as weak and the US a paper tiger, and he thinks that whatever weakens the US is good for Russia, plus he can always claim to be cleaning up what Obama broke.

This might work in the short run, but will Russia look tough if it abruptly pulls out under pressure? Or will Russia double down?

President Obama and the Failure of Area Studies?

Michael Rubin
Commentary

Michael Rubin doesn't have the most positive opinion on area studies in "What Does [the] Current Morass Say About Middle East Studies?" (Commentary, March 30, 2015):

The Middle East is in chaos . . . [and] President Barack Obama and his team of advisors have effectively thrown fuel on the fire . . . [H]istorians will likely be . . . critical of Obama's decisions . . . and the[ir] impact . . . on countries like Syria, Libya, Yemen, Turkey, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Egypt . . . [On] paper, Obama might be expected to be the most international president, . . . [but in] the Middle East, he had little practical background. His introduction to the region appears to have occurred in American universities, . . . [perhaps] directly in Middle East Studies courses, . . . [or] through his friendship and close association with Middle East Studies luminaries like Rashid Khalidi and perhaps Edward Said . . . [If only he had known the scholarly work of] Martin Kramer, . . . [who published] in 2001 one of the best researched, [most] careful, and [most] damning assessments of Middle Eastern Studies, in which he traced the inverse relationship between its polemics and [its] relevance. Much of this [irrelevance] can be traced back to Edward Said. Said, is of course, famous for penning Orientalism, perhaps the most influential book in Middle East Studies in the last half century. Few people who cite Orientalism . . . have ever read it. If they had, they would readily see the emperor had no clothes, for Said's essay is so full of errors of both fact and logic as to suggest scholarly incompetence if not academic fraud. Quite simply, the reason why Said is so popular on campus today is because his argument became a blessing to prioritize polemic and politics above fact and scholarly rigor. For Said, . . . power was original sin.

Rashid Khalidi, a close friend of Obama from their mutual University of Chicago days, now holds a chair named in Said's honor at Columbia University. He has consistently argued that politicians and diplomats do not listen to those like himself who claim expertise in the Middle East . . . Khalidi, as with many others in his field, . . . sought to prioritize and amplify the importance of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. At the same time, he appears obsessed with post-colonial theory. American power is corrosive, and the road to Middle East peace runs through Jerusalem. Likewise, cultural equivalence predominates: what the West calls terrorism is not so black and white. Hateful ideologies? They are simply the result of grievance. [If it is truly committed to peace,] America should apologize and understand and accommodate to the position of the other . . . Obama entered office . . . [with] such beliefs. Rather than act as leader of the free world, he approached the Middle East as a zoning commissioner, . . . dispensing with decades of accumulated wisdom and experience of predecessors both Democrat and Republican. Rather than jump start the peace process, Obama succeeded in setting it back decades.

[As for] the U.S. military, . . . [one finds] few places with less trust and understanding than the university campus . . . [F]ew professors or students have any experience . . . with the military. The U.S. military is treated in an almost cartoonish, condescending fashion. Rather than see its projection as the enabler of peace, Obama . . . saw it as an arrow in the U.S. policy quiver with which past American presidents engaged in wars of choice and unjust gunboat diplomacy. [America's s]overeignty and [its] nationalism were enablers of evil . . . [T]he United Nations and other multilateral institutions . . . held the key to peace and justice, if only they might operate unimpeded by the United States . . . [W]hen put to the test, these assumptions failed completely. Obama's promise to withdraw from Iraq did not win that country peace and stability, but condemned it to a return to terror and war. His failure to intervene in Syria early [enough] transferred a situation that might have been resolved with minimum force into a cancer . . . spread[ing] throughout the region. His outreach to Iran has shaken decades-long alliances with Arab allies to the core, and broken a trust in the United States and its red lines which will take decades to restore. Never before . . . has the Middle East been so torn asunder . . . And yet, all Obama did was follow the prescriptions taught at so many American universities today: reconcile with Iran, condemn Israel, rationalize terror, trust Islamist movements, and refuse military solutions . . . Obama represents academe's first grand experiment, enabling area studies professors to see their ideas put into action on the world stage.

How does Rubin answer his own question, "What Does [the] Current Morass Say About Middle East Studies?" As we see in the third paragraph of the block quote above, the assumptions held by area studies experts on Middle Eastern problems "failed completely."

Those ideas in action thus don't look so good, but the area studies experts can always claim that their ideas weren't enacted correctly. Excuses come easily for failure these days.

North Korea's Racist Diatribe Against Obama

One Free Korea
(Click Image to Enlarge)

Joshua Stanton, a Washington, D.C. lawyer who maintains the blog One Free Korea, has translated a North Korean racist diatribe against President Obama to draw attention to the North's vulgar, crude barbarity. Here's a sample of the North's description of Obama:

Dark head-dome and dull gray eyes, cavernous nostrils, thick-lipped maw, the more I gaze at him, the more I see him as a monkey in a primeval African forest.

You can also see this passage in the image above (but go to OFK for the entire diatribe). Mr. Stanton has noted that some expressions were difficult to translate, and he has called for readers with Korean skills to check his translation and assist him in improving it.

Stanton's report has been picked up by the Washington Post.

David J. Danelo: Obama's 'Realist' Foreign Policy

David J. Danelo

FPRI

When David J. Danelo, writing in "The Thin Red Line: Policy Lessons from Iraqi Kurdistan" (E-Notes, FPRI, May 2014), referred to Obama's foreign policy as "realist," I stopped skimming the article, read more closely and carefully, and saw that "soft power realism" was meant: "President Obama's foreign policy has been lifted entirely from a soft power realist's playbook." The problem is that states like Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Syria don't believe that soft power will get them what they want -- unless it's America's soft power, which does get them what they want. Not that Danelo is quick to push any military buttons, but here's what he does think:

Great nations do not go to war recklessly, but they do not repeatedly draw rhetorical red lines without consequence. Beyond drone strikes and special operations raids, Obama Administration officials seems to view American military force -- and U.S. hard power in general -- as a necessary evil to be suffered rather than a tool to be prudently employed. In Syria, when the President imposed and removed a red line on chemical weapons, and Ukraine, when he bluntly stated the U.S. would not use direct military action to deter Russian aggression, the President has, in Adam Garfinkle's words, engaged in "gratuitous diplomatic self-mutilation."

Although the President lectures Americans that his Russian counterpart's bullying signifies weakness, eastern Ukraine's instability suggests the opposite. Having lost credibility twice (Syria, Ukraine) from Russian red line diplomatic maneuvering, the Obama Administration must demonstrate through actions, not rhetoric, what red lines it will fight for if crossed. Such a statement may come across as bombastic, but enlightened exploits are as critical to realism as practical restraint. In a multipolar world, such tactics must be part of a realist's policy calculus. Pragmatic choices after considering options represent wisdom; white flags after red lines denote spinelessness. Preserving peace requires preparing, and perhaps even posturing, for war.

Danelo's message is an old one: "If you want peace, prepare for war." In Latin, that's "Si vis pacem, para bellum," and it's said to be a rewording of a statement penned by Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus in Book 3 of his tract De Re Militari (4th or 5th century A.D.), not that I know very much about that.

Anyway, I doubt that the Obama administration will change much. Obama doesn't seem to like foreign policy, but sees himself as a domestic policy president instead, in which there are also problems . . .

Post-Masculine America?

Pajama Boy
Google Images

I became aware of Pajama Boy late in the day, I suppose, because every other blogger in the world has already blogged about him and undoubtedly come up with more interesting things to say than I will today, but since the image above so unselfconsciously depicts precisely what Camille Paglia thinks is wrong with America and the West -- an emasculation of males that produces boys instead of men -- I'd like to add a few (very few) words.

The individual who took on this PJ-role is a certain Ethan Krupp, about whom I know nothing, so he may be a decent fellow and all that, and anything that I say about Pajama Boy should not be taken as a reflection upon the actual individual Krupp.

Anyway, when I first did see this ad for Obamacare, I thought it was another conservative dig at President Obama that had used Photoshopping to make the President look foolish, for no serious politician would use such an infantile image and expect to gain anything other than laughs. But since the image was made in all seriousness, the message we're getting is that the people who made this image expect their target audience to be the sort of little boys who should be in bed but who have persuaded their mamas to fix them a final cup of hot chocolate before they go, and the mamas allow them that. Now, the little boy is supposed to be us, but who's the mama here? The Nanny-State who made the hot chocolate and promises to always take care of us? And our role? To e-mail everyone we've ever 'friended' and spread the word?

Call it the "New E-masculinity"! And get talking . . .

The 'New' Obama . . .

President Obama

Michael Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images
The Star

Jonathan Schell's article "Barack Obama has been brutalized by the presidency" (The Star, October 24, 2012) is the most insightful analysis of Obama's character that I've read in a long time. In response to some who claimed that the 'old' Obama was back after he had recovered the energy lacking in his lethargic first performance debating Romney, Schell demurs:

The Obama on display in the second debate -- and the third -- was harder, chillier, sadder, and more sombre. There was tension in the lines of his mouth. His speech was clipped, as if under continuous rigorous control. His rhetoric did not soar, could not soar. The smile was rare and constrained.

But his command of detail and argument was rock solid. His sentences parsed. He spoke with a cold, disciplined energy. In repose (as witnessed on the split screen in the reaction shots) he was often perfectly immobile, almost stony, as if posing for a portrait.

One word for all of this would be "presidential," in the sense of competent, seasoned, and sobered by reality. But that word also connotes the fearsome qualities of ruthlessness and brutality that any honest portrayal of the office of president of the United States must include in our day. Obama has inhabited the White House for four years; now the White House inhabits him.

The Obama schooled in reconciliation -- schooled in that through his own search for identity as one born and raised between races and between cultures -- has "gone forever," re-schooled and re-skilled in . . .

. . . violence and suppression of rights: drone strikes that have killed children as well as terrorists, the futile "surge" in Afghanistan, the continued operation of the prison at Guantánamo Bay, reliance on military tribunals, an unprecedented campaign against whistle blowers, and the assertion of a right to order the assassination of foreigners and Americans alike at his sole discretion.

Schell doesn't voice this word, but it's a postmodern tragedy: Obama, the man who would reconcile, confronted by "the long war" with an implacable foe and constrained to make pragmatic decisions that go against the grain of an identity he himself constructed, decisions that have shaved away so much of that old identity that only the hardest core remains.

No wonder he hates being the President. Who would ever want to be king?

Slandering Obama -- The UN Speech

Obama Jihadi?

Glenn McCoy

Look, I have my disagreements with President Obama on particular policies, and I'm all in favor of ridiculing Islamists and their totalitarian aim of suppressing free speech to shield Islam and its prophet from even a hint of criticism, but this political cartoon by Glenn McCoy entirely distorts the President's rather vigorous defense of free speech, which I blogged about two days ago. That defense forms the larger context to the words 'quoted' above, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam!" As for the actual quote (without exclamation mark!) in its more specific context, here's what President Obama really said:

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women -- it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country's resources -- it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

Unlike the shrill caricature in McCoy's partisan cartoon, President Obama gave no jihadi call to arms against free expression, but instead recalled Muslims to the inconsistency of their outrage, and in the larger context, the President's call is for free speech, on both principled and prudential grounds, as can be seen from my previous post on this or in the President's original speech.

Despite my differences from President Obama on a number of issues, I have only disdain for the sort of partisan distortion contrived in this political cartoon.

President Obama at the UN: Free Speech

President Obama
Google Images

I'm behind the curve on this, but I finally had an opportunity to read Obama's UN speech, and I'll just excerpt from the White House transcript what he said on free speech. But first this:

[Violence] is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

I think this choice of words generally appropriate. Obama speaks not for the US government, but for himself in rejecting the video's message, and I think that's consistent with the American separation of religion and state. With that point out of the way, let's see what he says about free expression:

I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech . . . . [I]n the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs . . . . Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views . . . may be threatened . . . . [and] because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities . . . . [T]he strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech . . . . I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech . . . . But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond? . . . [W]e must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence . . . . In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world. We empower the worst of us if that's how we respond.

I can,for the most part, agree with these words. The President defends a fairly vigorous version of free speech after the administration's somewhat faltering initial response a couple of weeks ago, somewhat as the assistant attorney general first faltered on, but later affirmed free expression last summer. Oddly, this is often the case with principles set down in the Constitution. People tend to forget them, falter in response to some difficult situation, but when reminded that Constitutional principles are at stake, they usually rally in support.

One expects the US government to rally with more alacrity on such a fundamental principle as free speech . . . but better late than never.

Robert Spencer Implying a Treasonous Obama?

President Obama

9/11 Memorial Service in NYC

(Image from US Embassy, Seoul, Korea)

I learn a lot about radical Islam from reading Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch, but I'm careful to remain my own man and keep my own counsel. I therefore read the posts on his site with a critical eye, especially when I come across a blog entry such as this recent one (September 12, 2011) by Mr. Spencer:

Obama reads Biblical passage at 9/11 ceremonies implying that 9/11 was an act of God

Obama reads Psalm 46, including verse 8: "Come, behold the works of the LORD, how he has wrought desolations in the earth."

The only people who think that 9/11 was an act of the Supreme Being wreaking desolations on the earth are . . . Islamic jihadists.

So why did Barack Obama pick this psalm out of 150 psalms, and out of innumerable appropriate Biblical passages, to read at the 9/11 ceremonies? 9/11, after all, was a day when there were indeed wrought desolations on the earth. Did Obama really mean to say that God did it, that it was an act of divine judgment, rather than a monstrous and unmitigated evil?

Or is this just another one of those funny coincidences, of which there are so very, very many when it comes to Barack Obama and his remarkable, unqualified and obvious affinity for Islam? 

In taking verse 8 of Psalm 46 as a reference to the destruction of September 11, 2001, Mr. Spencer has allowed his distaste for President Obama to cloud his better judgment. Here is what the President actually said in quoting the entirety of the scriptural passage:

Remarks by the President at the September 11th 10th Anniversary Commemoration

God is our refuge and strength,
a very present help in trouble.
Therefore, we will not fear,
even though the earth be removed,
and though the mountains be carried
into the midst of the sea.
Though its waters roar and be troubled,
though the mountains shake
with its swelling,
there's a river
whose streams shall make glad
the City of God,
the holy place of the Tabernacle
of the Most High.
God is in the midst of her.
She shall not be moved.
God shall help her
just at the break of dawn.
The nations raged,
the kingdoms were moved.
He uttered his voice.
The earth melted.
The Lord of Hosts is with us.
The God of Jacob is our refuge.
Come behold the works of the Lord
who has made desolations in the Earth.
He makes wars cease
to the ends of the Earth.
He breaks the bough
and cuts the spear in two.
He burns the chariot in fire.
Be still and know that I am God.
I will be exalted among the nations.
I will be exalted in the Earths.
The Lord of Hosts is with us.
The God of Jacob is our refuge. 

If we read the above passage carefully, we see that the only lines that might refer to the destruction of 9/11 are the following ones, and these clearly present God as a place of safety in troubled times when the earth is unstable and even the heights are brought down to the level of the seas:

God is our refuge and strength,
a very present help in trouble.
Therefore, we will not fear,
even though the earth be removed,
and though the mountains be carried
into the midst of the sea. 

This upheaval described above can be read as destruction by enemies, and therefore as a parallel to the 9/11 attacks, but the terrible destruction is countered in the verses that follow below by gladdening streams of water, a metaphor for God's blessing upon his people in a time of trouble, which can be applied to mean blessings upon America by drawing upon long-held traditions about America as a shining city on a hill, a new Jerusalem:

[T]here's a river
whose streams shall make glad
the City of God,
the holy place of the Tabernacle
of the Most High.
God is in the midst of her.
She shall not be moved.
God shall help her
just at the break of dawn.

In the verse that Mr. Spencer objects to, which follows in the verses below, President Obama is much more likely referring to God's assistance on America's side in defeating Al-Qaeda, for the term "nations" is used scripturally to refer to enemies, such as Al-Qaeda, which is indeed a multinational terrorist group:

The nations raged,
the kingdoms were moved.
He uttered his voice.
The earth melted.
The Lord of Hosts is with us.
The God of Jacob is our refuge.
Come behold the works of the Lord
who has made desolations in the Earth. 

In the context of this psalm, the Lord's desolation would far more likely be wrought upon America's enemies than upon America herself, for the God of Jacob could hardly be a refuge for Americans if He is attacking the United States. President Obama could more plausibly be accused of jingoism than treason in quoting this psalm, but I'll give him a pass on both. He's simply drawing upon scripture to offer comfort by reaching to metaphors of divine blessing upon those who have suffered from the 9/11 attacks. Here's the video of the entire ceremony (27:24), which includes Obama's recitation of scripture (starting at about 9 minutes).

The problem raised for Mr. Spencer is that his unlikely scriptural reading here in this psalm calls into question his general ability to provide sound hermeneutics of scripture, whether the Bible or the Qur'an. I don't think him incapable of a proper interpretation, for he's an intelligent and well-educated man, but I do think that his 'distastes' can cloud his judgment, so I advise a degree of caution in accepting his views.

In short, learn from him, but think for yourself, which is good advice in general.

Stanley McChrystal: The Thrown-Away General

Stanley McChrystal

(Image from Rolling Stone)

By now, everyone has surely heard of the Rolling Stone article by Michael Hastings, "The Runaway General," that served to deep-six General Stanley McChrystal's leadership role in Afghanistan and probably his military career.

Although I've had a link to the article for several days, I've not had time to read it until now, after the repercussions have all been felt, the ramifications have all been mapped, and the consequences have already worked themselves out, but to be frank, I think that the criticisms of McChrystal over this have exaggerated his statements, and many of the remarks most criticized were made by others, not directly by McChrystal himself.

Nevertheless, he's the leader, and he stepped over a line in even allowing a Rolling Stone reporter such unfettered access, demonstrating a degree of poor judgment in doing so. The question for me is thus why a clearly brilliant man well-versed in military intelligence -- especially one who's working in counterinsurgency and following a doctrine that emphatically teaches that soldiers should not unnecessarily make enemies out of civilians -- would so radically underestimate the impact of such an article in Rolling Stone, of all magazines to choose!

I'm just guessing, but I think that one thing to consider is the practice of embedding reporters within the military in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these individuals have bonded with the military and written deeply engaging, sometimes rough and biting, but generally favorable depictions of the men whose fighting they've covered. And Hastings does have some good words for McChrystal:

He speaks his mind with a candor rare for a high-ranking official. He asks for opinions, and seems genuinely interested in the response.

But Hastings never bonded so closely as many embedded reporters have, perhaps because he didn't come under enemy fire and experience the feeling of having his very life protected by the men about whom he was writing.

But I'm only speculating on that point, and be that as it may, I suspect another factor at play here. McChrystal is described by Hastings as a rebel who likes to push against limits, a characterization that McChrystal would have to acknowledge since he likes to quote Bruce Lee's words on going beyond limits:

"There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them."

Words are cheap; actions, however, can cost you. Let's reflect on the possible significance of McChrystal's rebellious character by looking at some of his actions:

The son of a general, McChrystal was also a ringleader of the campus dissidents -- a dual role that taught him how to thrive in a rigid, top-down environment while thumbing his nose at authority every chance he got. He accumulated more than 100 hours of demerits for drinking, partying and insubordination -- a record that his classmates boasted made him a "century man." One classmate, who asked not to be named, recalls finding McChrystal passed out in the shower after downing a case of beer he had hidden under the sink. The troublemaking almost got him kicked out, and he spent hours subjected to forced marches in the Area, a paved courtyard where unruly cadets were disciplined.

Despite his troublemaking, he made himself a career . . . by continuing to press against boundaries:

[A]s he moved up through the ranks, McChrystal relied on the skills he had learned as a troublemaking kid at West Point: knowing precisely how far he could go in a rigid military hierarchy without getting tossed out. Being a highly intelligent badass, he discovered, could take you far -- especially in the political chaos that followed September 11th.

Read the entire article for more details, particularly on his putative role in the cover-up of Pat Tillman's death by friendly fire, an experience that might have taught him that he had a charmed career since many a lesser man would have gone down in the controversy.

Whatever the truth about that incident, General McChrystal was brilliant enough, successful enough, and even irreplaceable enough to keep moving forward in his career despite having -- and using -- a sharp tongue, but his success appears to have blinded him to political risks outside the military, where he apparently didn't realize "precisely how far he could go . . . without getting tossed out," the irony being that not his actions, but rather his words ended up costing him, for when you speak or allow your subordinates to speak frankly and critically about powerful men like Special Envoy for Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, National Security Advisor James Jones, Vice-President Joseph Biden, and President Barack Obama, you won't have a career for very long.

As McChrystal found out . . . having gotten thrown away.

Obama-Inspired Kitsch!

President Barack Obama

(Image from En-Uk's Art Blog)

Yesterday morning, I showed En-Uk this website featuring "Bad Paintings of Barack Obama," and the aesthetic shock so unsettled little En-Uk that he simply had to add his own contribution . . . which looks somehow Peruvian, Egyptian, and Pentecostal simultaneously. It sort of serves to pep one up! At En-Uk's website, I commented:

Note Obama's cool, yet fiery aura!

And for those who like a soundtrack to accompany their kitsch, here's the You Tube version of "Bad Paintings of Barack Obama"! If I could only master up-loading videos, I would tape Sa-Rah playing my own "Yes, he can campaign" song as soundtrack to En-Uk's depiction of Obama and get millions of hits!

The Campaign Song

Oh, I think we may maintain
that Obama can campaign!
We hardly need explain
that he's got a campaign-brain!

Yes, he can campaign!
Yes, he can campaign!
Yes, he can!
Yes, he can!
Yes, he can campaign!

Oh, conservies, don't complain,
for Obama can campaign!
Why, he out-campaigned McCain!
Even Clinton felt his pain!

Yes, he can campaign!
Yes, he can campaign!
Yes, he can!
Yes, he can!
Yes, he can campaign!

Oh, we might sound not quite sane,
but Obama can campaign!
He'll prove each bane-foe vain
in an eight-year campaign-reign!

Yes, he can campaign!
Yes, he can campaign!
Yes, he can!
Yes, he can!
Yes, he can campaign!

Perhaps this would spark a new career that could turn out better than my previous one . . .

Reinhold Niebuhr in President Obama's Political Theology?

Reinhold Niebuhr

March 8, 1948

(Image from Time)

Although I haven't read a great deal of his writings, I first dipped into the works of the great theologian and political theorist Reinhold Niebuhr when I was studying with the historian Samuel Haber at UC Berkeley back in the mid-eighties. My slight familiarity with Niebuhr's views was just enough to make me wonder about the extent of Niebuhr's influence on President Obama's Nobel Prize Lecture and his political thought generally, an influence that the President has at times acknowledged.

Turns out, I'm not the only one thinking about Niebuhr here. In the New York Times article that I cited yesterday, Ted Widmer noted the influence of Niebuhr on the President's Nobel Lecture:

Yet another source, to my ears, was a writer who went unnamed -- Reinhold Niebuhr, whose 1944 classic, "The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness," probed deeply into the justice of war at a time when the most total war in our history was being waged. Despite the fact that he remains a saint of the American left, Niebuhr left no doubt that he approved war under the right circumstances, as Obama surely knows. (Widmer, "Obama's Nobel Speech: Sophisticated and Brave," New York Times, December 11, 2009).

Widmer's remark was published on the eleventh. The very next day, David Brooks puts President Obama in the tradition of so-called "Christian Realism" and cites Niebuhr as a precursor:

As the midcentury theologian Reinhold Niebuhr declared: "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." (Brooks, "Obama's Christian Realism," New York Times, December 12, 2009).

Widmer's reference to Niebuhr's book The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness might lead those who haven't read it to conclude that Niebuhr held so-called 'Manichaean' political views on good versus evil -- with "us" as the good guys and "them" as the bad guys -- but one point of the book was that we are all capable of great evil, even in the pursuit of great good. The citation from David Brooks fits with this view, and he calls it "Christian Realism" for its chastened understanding of human nature. Brooks suggests that President Obama's ethnicity played a role in his familiarity with Niebuhr and "the Christian realism that undergirded cold war liberal thinking":

Obama's race probably played a role here. As a young thoughtful black man, he would have become familiar with prophetic Christianity and the human tendency toward corruption; familiar with the tragic sensibility of Lincoln's second inaugural; familiar with the guarded pessimism of Niebuhr, who had such a profound influence on the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

In 2002, Obama spoke against the Iraq war, but from the vantage point of a cold war liberal. He said he was not against war per se, just this one, and he was booed by the crowd. In 2007, he spoke about the way Niebuhr formed his thinking: "I take away the compelling idea that there's serious evil in the world and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn't use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction."

Brooks would recall that quote well, for it came in an interview that he conducted in 2007 with then-candidate Barack Obama, who explained:

I take away [from Niebuhr] . . . the compelling idea that there's serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn't use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away . . . the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism. (Brooks, "Obama, Gospel and Verse," New York Times, April 26, 2007)

Candidate Obama's summary of Niebuhr led to an intellectual discussion of the extent to which the latter had truly influenced his political thought, along with the possibility that he was merely citing Niebuhr to 'pander' to Brooks and that his truer political theology was the social gospel. For those interested in this issue, go to the Pew Forum site on "Obama's Favorite Theologian? A Short Course on Reinhold Niebuhr," for the remarks of Wilfred M. McClay (University of Tennessee at Chattanooga) and the response of E. J. Dionne Jr. (The Washington Post), who agrees with Brooks that Barack Obama has genuinely been influenced by Niebuhr.

But I've said enough for now . . .

President Obama's Nobel Prize Lecture

President Obama

Nobel Prize Lecture

(Image from The White House)

I have finally watched a video of President Obama's Nobel Prize Lecture, about one week after it was given, and I've also read the transcript.

Without reservation, I find myself in full agreement with one of the President's opening remarks, that "compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize . . . [his] accomplishments are slight." Like President Obama himself, I believe that he hadn't deserved this honor . . . even if the Peace Prize has been derogated in recent years by some of its recipients and therefore confers less honor than it once did.

That said, I think the President made an excellent speech, one that, in the words of Ted Widmer, "was a most serious public utterance, delivered with appropriate solemnity, on the weightiest matter a head of state can reflect upon" ("Obama's Nobel Speech: Sophisticated and Brave," New York Times, December 11, 2009). That matter was war, about which Obama presented some hard truths, as Widmer notes:

It threw down gauntlets left and right, challenging lazy assumptions of his liberal base (that war is avoidable) and his conservative opposition (that war is glorious). It gently chided his European audience, reminding them that the remarkable achievement of 64 years of relative peace has been possible because America "helped underwrite" it. (Widmer, "Obama's Nobel Speech")

I'm not sure that so many conservatives argue that war is glorious, but I suppose that some do. Nor do all liberals assume that war is always avoidable. Still, Widmer accurately draws out several important points, so go and read his entire op-ed article if you want a quick, analytical summary of what the President said.

Whether addressing the left or the right, President Obama simply had to present a lecture explaining how war can be pursued in the cause of peace, for he was offering his remarks in response to having been awarded a prize for peace. He chose to cast his case for war explicitly in terms of just-war theory, as we see from the lecture itself:

War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence. (President Obama, "Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize," The White House, December 10, 2009)

This is a good summary of just-war theory and needed to be stated as a reminder to both left and right. Indeed, I thought that the following passages were what the left especially needed to hear:

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. (President Obama, "Remarks by the President")

All of this is well expressed, and has to be, for President Obama is speaking primarily to his liberal-left base . . . and perhaps to an earlier version of himself, using an argument that he's lived out in his own development. I don't know if it will convince those erstwhile supporters of his, but it at least gives them something to reflect upon, pointing them in the direction of a respectable intellectual tradition on the ethical imperative for those wars whose cause is just.

The lecture has a lot more to say than what I've quoted or summarized, but much of it concerns the moral appropriateness of force in an imperfect world that we strive to make a better place.

I'd urge those who haven't watched the speech yet to set aside 37 minutes and watch the President's lecture. Open up two browsers so that you can read the transcript as you follow the lecture -- if that helps you concentrate (as it helps me).

I certainly don't agree with President Obama on every issue, and I do worry a lot about the costs of our current economic policies, as well as the projected costs of the proposed health-care system, but on the issues broached in the President's Nobel Lecture, I largely agree.

We'll now see how things turn out in this imperfect world.

Niall Ferguson 'irons' Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman

Dec 7, 2008

(Image from Wikipedia)

In a recent Newsweek article, "An Empire at Risk" (December 7, 2009), Niall Ferguson offers a very bleak, even alarming analysis of America's economic future. I usually cast a cold eye toward alarmist prognostications on life, on death, especially those that casually refer to the US as an 'Empire', but Ferguson is not to be so readily scoffed at in his concerns over the American deficits. Besides, he admits that he didn't have to call America an 'empire':

Call the United States what you like -- superpower, hegemon, or empire.

I'd choose one of the first two, but perhaps Ferguson wanted to annoy some readers. Among readers that he apparently did want to annoy is Paul Krugman, as becomes clear in this passage:

Now, who said the following? "My prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the [fiscal] crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt. And as that temptation becomes obvious, interest rates will soar."

Seems pretty reasonable to me. The surprising thing is that this was none other than Paul Krugman, the high priest of Keynesianism, writing back in March 2003. A year and a half later he was comparing the U.S. deficit with Argentina's (at a time when it was 4.5 percent of GDP). Has the economic situation really changed so drastically that now the same Krugman believes it was "deficits that saved us," and wants to see an even larger deficit next year? Perhaps. But it might just be that the party in power has changed.

In other words, Krugman was against deficits when they were Bush's fault but in favor of deficits now that they are Obama's achievement.

Just a little 'ironing' to straighten Krugman out . . .

Vladimir Putin as Grand Inquisitor?

The Washington Post

I see that I'm not the only one reading The Brothers Karamazov these days, for David Ignatius of the Washington Post is drawing upon Dostoyevsky's famous novel to portray Vladimir Putin as "Russia's Grand Inquisitor" (July 1, 2009):

As Barack Obama packs for his trip to Russia next week, he should bring along a copy of "The Brothers Karamazov." For the modern Russia of Vladimir Putin is still struggling with the same political riddles that Fyodor Dostoyevsky described 130 years ago.

Human beings would happily trade their freedom for food and security, Dostoyevsky wrote in the novel's famous chapter, "The Grand Inquisitor." In place of this anarchic freedom, the Inquisitor offered the people "miracle, mystery and authority. And mankind rejoiced that they were once more led like sheep, and that at last such a terrible gift, which had brought them so much suffering, had been taken from their hearts."

There's a palpable sense here that Putin has brought "miracle, mystery and authority" to a Russia that was severely traumatized by the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. The country is certainly less free than it was under Boris Yeltsin, but Putin is immensely popular -- and nobody wants to return to the crazy, freewheeling time of transition.

Vladimir Putin as the Grand Inquisitor? But I thought that President Bush had looked into Putin's eyes and taken the measure of the man's soul. Apparently, Bush should have read Dostoyevsky first to acquire the properly standardized metric for measuring Putin to see how well the Russian leader's muscular frame might fit the ascetic Inquisitor's "coarse, old, monk's cassock" and how capable this former KGB agent might be of providing "miracle, mystery, and authority" for contemporary Russia.

Certainly, Putin has his authoritarian tendencies that have stood him in good stead in a culture that prizes strong leaders:

Putin is the tough guy who put a wounded country back together after the fall of communism. "Russia emerged from the chaos of 1991 with disproportionately large political and socio-psychological scars," explained Alexey Chesnakov, a former Putin adviser who is director of the Center for Current Policy. When Putin became president in 1999, he brought "authoritarianism by consensus," said the head of another Russian think tank.

Ignatius doesn't offer quotes on what the "miracle" and the "mystery" are. Perhaps the miracle was the oil-boom wealth and the mystery Putin's continuing popularity despite the oil-price bust. Or are the miracle and the mystery Putin's perhaps authentic affirmation of Russian Orthodox Christianity?

And who's Christ in this drama, anyway? In Dostoyevsky's version, the terrible Grand Inquisitor has to be confronted by the one "with a gentle smile of infinite compassion" that perhaps overcomes even the Inquisitor's cynicism. Would that be President Obama? I suppose that I could here descend to the level of joking about "Obamessiah" . . . but I won't. Instead, I'll simply quote again from the article by Ignatius, who . . .

. . . was pleased when yet another Putin adviser, a publisher who helped organize the conference, reassured the group that these problems [of freedom versus authority] go back more than a century: "This is a Russian conversation you can see since Dostoyevsky's time."

A conversation that sometimes grows as heated as an argument, admittedly. Anyway, I guess that I have chosen the precisely right time to re-read Dostoyevsky's great work since it's now required reading for Russia experts such as myself, and I trust that I am maintaining proper modesty in suggesting that President Obama ought to take me aboard as one of his advisors when he heads for Russia to talk with the inquisitive Putin.

President Obama's words in Cairo about 9/11

President Obama in Cairo

(Image from LA Times Blogs)

I haven't been carefully following President Obama's trip to the Middle East, but I am interested in what he said to the Muslim world in the major speech that he presented in Cairo. I've not yet read his words closely, for the end of the semester is upon us here in Korea, and grading starts today, but I did find this interesting passage by skimming the printed text:

I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with. (Available on Johanna Neuman's blog entry at LA Times Blogs)

I'm glad that President Obama emphasized this point because so many conspiracy theories constantly distract people from the fact that Al Qaeda has repeatedly taken credit for the attack. I've had students here in Korea who have asked if they can write their essays defending some conspiratorial point -- such as the rumor that no Jews showed up for work in the World Trade Center on 9/11, that the collapse of the WTC's two towers was due to controlled explosions, or that the US Government, the Mossad, or perhaps the Illuminati planned and carried out the attacks. I discourage students from writing such essays because they'll be defending something about which I am profoundly skeptical, rendering their task of persuasion more difficult than ordinary, and I tell them pointblank that they're likely to receive a poor grade unless they can write a very detailed, in-depth, fact-based persuasive essay that can adequately address questions and competently quell doubts. So far, they've all chosen to write on something else.

I don't expect President Obama's remarks to persuade those who believe in conspiracies other than the single correct conspiracy theory -- namely, that Al Qaeda conspired to carry out the 9/11 attacks -- but he at least addressed the issue directly in a place where false conspiracy theories are widely believed.

Enough on that, for my day must begin.

Expat Living: "Share some of that wealth -- with me!"

Obama and Family

February 10, 2007, Springfield, Illinois

". . . the start of a loooong campaign."

(Image from Wikipedia)

On this past Tuesday when I was away from my blog and my news sources, the Korea Herald published my most recent Expat Living column, so today's Gypsy Scholar post is a belated one.

Doubly belated, actually, for I submitted my article about a month ago, in the immediate wake of Obama's successful election -- an edit in the first line reflects this delay, and the column was retitled from "Yes, he can campaign!" Anyway, here it is, and regular readers of this blog will recognize "The Campaign Song" and a few other details:

Share some of that wealth -- with me!

With the presidential election now a month behind us, congratulations are surely overdue from this Expat Living language columnist to that other excellent orator and noteworthy wordsmith Barack Hussein Obama for overcoming the long-shot odds that he faced at the beginning of his long, long, loooong presidential campaign. And while some critics claim that Obama lacks experience, I would argue that he now has a lot of experience in campaigning and is therefore well prepared to wind down the U.S.-led military campaign in Iraq, to pursue the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan, to undertake the U.S.-led "war-on-poverty" campaign in the global financial sector, and to assume control of the various other U.S.-led campaigns currently underway worldwide.

Yes, the U. S. of A. is engaged in various campaigns, but Obama is ready for yet more campaigning, and if there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all campaigns are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founding campaigners is alive in our time, who still questions the power of a continuing Democratic campaign, then I propose the following campaign song as your answer:

The Campaign Song

Oh, I think we may maintain
that Obama can campaign!
We hardly need explain
that he's got a campaign-brain!

Yes, he can campaign!
Yes, he can campaign!
Yes, he can!
Yes, he can!
Yes, he can campaign!

Oh, conservies, don't complain,
for Obama can campaign!
Why, he out-campaigned McCain!
Even Clinton felt his pain!

Yes, he can campaign!
Yes, he can campaign!
Yes, he can!
Yes, he can!
Yes, he can campaign!

Oh, we might sound not quite sane,
but Obama can campaign!
He'll prove each bane-foe vain
in an eight-year campaign-reign!

Yes, he can campaign!
Yes, he can campaign!
Yes, he can!
Yes, he can!
Yes, he can campaign!

Now, if only President-elect Obama will adopt this little chant as his theme song, I shall be able to make scandalizing scads of money from the royalties and retire in luxurious style.

Not that some ill-disguised lust for luxury is my ulterior motive -- no, not at all. Any reader of this language column should certainly be able to perceive, from my very own words, that a life of carefree luxury is in fact my explicit and unambiguous aim.

Let there be no uncertainty about that.

Yet, I have other aims as well. Like Obama, I desire to bring people -- all kinds of people -- together.

Also like Obama, I believe in spreading the wealth. I especially urge wealthy readers to share their wealth with me, as much as they can afford -- which is likely a large amount -- but I am willing to have even poor readers share their poverty with me, for every little bit helps. And if every reader would just expend the modicum of effort required to write out a check, put the check into an envelope, paste a stamp onto that envelope, and post that envelope to me in care of The Korea Herald's Expat Living editor Matthew Lamers, then by all of our collective efforts, for I will also send a check, we would manage to make me a very rich man.

Or as yet another charismatic statesman sort of phrased it, "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for one of your countrymen."

And not only Americans, for I believe that each individual in this entire, globalized world deserves a "vote" toward sharing the wealth with me.

Big bucks -- or even small change you can believe in. Either way, together, we can make me rich.

Chant with me: "Yes, we can!"

Jeffery is a professor at Ewha Womans University and can be reached through his blog Gypsy Scholar at gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com - Ed

Since some folks might be the proofreading sort, I ought to explain an error that appears in the Korea Herald's version. I've corrected it here on my blog, but in the editorial process of changing my participles to infinitives, the the published version ended up with one participle unchanged (which I've red-fonted):

Also like Obama, I believe in spreading the wealth. I especially urge wealthy readers to share their wealth with me, as much as they can afford -- which is likely a large amount -- but I am willing to have even poor readers share their poverty with me, for every little bit helps. And if every reader would just expend the modicum of effort required to write out a check, put the check into an envelope, paste a stamp onto that envelope, and posting that envelope to me in care of The Korea Herald's Expat Living editor Matthew Lamers, then by all of our collective efforts, for I will also send a check, we would manage to make me a very rich man.

The original article that I sent the paper had this:

Also like Obama, I believe in spreading the wealth. I especially urge wealthy readers to share their wealth with me, as much as they can afford -- which is likely a large amount -- but I am willing to have even poor readers share their poverty with me, for every little bit helps, and if every reader would just expend the modicum of effort required for writing out a check, putting the check into an envelope, pasting a stamp onto that envelope, and posting that envelope to me in care of the Korea Herald's Expat Living Editor, then by all of our collective efforts, for I will also send a check, we would manage to make me a very rich man.

The editorial changes are generally fine, but as close readers of the published version would have noted that the word "posting" doesn't fit the string of infinitives, I thought that I should clarify the point here on my blog.

I'm not complaining, just explaining. Mistakes happen.

Al-Qaida's 'Charm' Offensive Against President-Elect Obama

Ayman al-Zawahri

Using the N-Word?

(Image from MSNBC)

MSNBC supplies an Associated Press release reporting on al-Qaida's ever-charming Ayman al-Zawahir and his view of President-Elect Obama: "Al-Qaida No. 2 insults Obama with race epithet":

In al-Qaida's first response to Obama's victory, al-Zawahri also called the president-elect -- along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice -- "house Negroes."

Speaking in Arabic, al-Zawahri uses the term "abeed al-beit," which literally translates as "house slaves." But al-Qaida supplied English subtitles of his speech that included the translation as "house Negroes."

Al-Qaida supplied that subtitle because even though the Arabic word "abeed" literally means "slave," it is also commonly used to refer to black Africans, an idiomatic legacy from 1400 years of Arab Muslims enslaving black Africans.

Why doesn't Zawahiri like Obama? Because Obama wants to go after Al-Qaida in Afghanistan (and possibly also in Pakistan), and Zawahiri thinks that this military policy is a bad idea:

He said Obama's plan to shift more troops to Afghanistan is doomed to failure, because Afghans will resist.

"Be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them," he said.

Am I misreading this, or does Zawahiri's expression "the dogs of Afghanistan" refer to those "Afghans [who] will resist"? Apparently, Zawahiri is so accustomed to speaking in insults that he inadvertently insults his own allies.

Thanks for the own goal, Zawahiri.

Congratulations President-Elect Barack Obama

President-Elect Barack Obama

. . . reputed to be 'inexperienced'

(Image from Wikipedia)

Congratulations are due to Barack Obama for overcoming the longshot odds that he faced at the beginning of his long, long, loooong campaign, and while some critics claim that Obama lacks experience, I would argue that he now has a lot of experience in campaigning and is therefore well prepared to wind down the U.S.-led military campaign in Iraq, to pursue the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan, to undertake the U.S.-led 'war-on-poverty' campaign in the financial sector, and to assume control of the various other U.S.-led campaigns currently underway.

Yes, the United States is engaged in various campaigns, but Obama is ready for more campaigning, and I propose the following campaign song:

The Campaign Song

Oh, I think we may maintain
that Obama can campaign!
We hardly need explain
that he's got a campaign-brain!

Yes, he can campaign!
Yes, he can campaign!
Yes, he can!
Yes, he can!
Yes, he can campaign!

Oh, conservies, don't complain,
for Obama can campaign!
Why, he out-campaigned McCain!
Even Clinton felt his pain!

Yes, he can campaign!
Yes, he can campaign!
Yes, he can!
Yes, he can!
Yes, he can campaign!

Oh, we might sound not quite sane,
but Obama can campaign!
He'll prove each bane-foe vain
in an eight-year campaign-reign!

Yes, he can campaign!
Yes, he can campaign!
Yes, he can!
Yes, he can!
Yes, he can campaign!

Now, if only President-Elect Obama will adopt this little chant as his theme song, I will be able to make scads of money from the royalties and retire in luxurious style.

All joking aside, congratulations to Barack Obama for making history yesterday . . . and good luck with what comes tomorrow.