Did my matzos come?

NRO has posted a symposium on "a poll indicating that support for suicide bombings is on the decline in the Muslim world, among other things." Some see good news in the poll results; count me among the skeptics. I especially favor Daniel Pipes's response:

First, as Muslims themselves (in such countries as Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, and Pakistan) become the victims of suicide bombings, they increasingly reject this tactic. . . .

Second, Muslims appear growingly aware that the terroristic ways of Osama bin Laden offer a less successful path to realizing the Islamist goals of imposing the Shari’a and creating a caliphate do than the political, lawful ways of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s newly-triumphantly reelected prime minister. Whereas terrorism stimulates its own antibodies and offers no plausible path to power, working through the system is proving successful in such diverse places as Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Iraq, and Bangladesh, as well as in the West.

Therefore, this survey has more subtle and ambiguous implications than first appear.
 

David Pryce-Jones:

Here’s a prophecy that bears thinking about under the shadow of Islamism, with the Pakistani — and soon Iranian — nuclear weapon now a reality. It’s from Aldous Huxley, one of the most humane men of the last century, with an all-round intelligence that made him responsive to other cultures. In June 1925, he visited Tunisia. After seeing the locals picking and packing the date crop, this is what he wrote to Norman Douglas, of course all in the language of a time when aesthetes like them could still take absolute freedom of expression for granted: "How tremendously European one feels when one has seen these devils in their native muck! And to think that we are busily teaching them all the mechanical arts of peace and war which gave us, in the past, superiority over their numbers. In fifty years time, it seems to me, Europe can’t fail to be wiped out by these monsters."
 

StrategyPage:

The surge has basically been chasing the terrorist and criminal gangs around the suburbs of Baghdad, or even into northern or western Iraq. This has taken its toll. Time spent in flight cannot be spent planting IEDs or killing people. Putting all these guys on the road, also makes them more susceptible to capture. A lot of important terrorists have been captured this way. The chief liaison between al Qaeda headquarters and al Qaeda in Iraq was nabbed, as well as many mid-level terrorist cell leaders.

What most of the troops, and Iraqi civilians, notice is the lower level of violence. Since the surge offensive began four months ago, Iraqi (military and civilian) deaths have declined by more than 50 percent, and American casualties are down by over a third. U.S. troops are still taking the lead in moving into hostile areas, and being exposed to ambush and IEDs. But U.S. tactics and training have made enemy efforts much less lethal. This has helped demoralize an increasing number of terrorists. Many are tired of killing Iraqi civilians, and the increasing difficulty at getting at American troops. . . . [A]n increasing number of Iraqi fighters are demoralized and quitting. Many either become informers, or surrender and speak freely. This is resulting in fresher intelligence, and raids that are catching terrorist cells preparing for operations, and in possession of weapons, bombs and incriminating documents.
 

Also:

The "surge" offensive in and around Baghdad is paying off, at least according to the casualties and bombs going off. In April, May and June, there were about four American combat deaths a day, but that is down to 2.7 for July. The main reason is that there are fewer roadside bombs (IEDs), and the reason for that is more of the IED factories, and specialists that make and plant them, are being taken out of action. Iraqi security forces and civilians are also suffering fewer casualties (from 3,000 in February to about a thousand for July).

Despite the publicity given to the increase in combat casualties during the surge operations, the biggest danger to American troops remains accidents and disease. Only 22 percent of patients flown to Germany for more advanced medical care, were combat injuries. The rest were accidents, and, most of all, diseases. There are a lot of microbes and viruses in Iraq and Afghanistan that Americans have little or no resistance to. This has been known since World War II, when thousands of American troops were stationed in the Persian Gulf to help move lend-lease aid (weapons and supplies) to the Russians.
 

One evening out in the maize-field, where we had been harvesting maize, breaking off the cobs and throwing them on to the ox-carts, to amuse myself, I spoke to the field labourers, who were mostly quite young, in Swaheli verse. There was no sense in the verse, it was made for the sake of the rhyme. . . .

It caught the interest of the boys, they formed a ring around me. They . . . waited eagerly for the rhyme, and laughed at it when it came. I tried to make them themselves find the rhyme and finish the poem when I had begun it, but they could not, or would not, do that, and turned away their heads. As they had become used to the idea of poetry, they begged: "Speak again. Speak like rain." Why they should feel verse to be like rain I do not know. It must have been, however, an expression of applause, since in Africa rain is always longed for and welcomed.
 

—Isak Dinesen, Out of Africa (quoted here)
 

Michael Rubin, 7/13/07:

Iran Celebrates US Congressional Resolution

In Persian, from the Fars News Agency and, more importantly, on al-Alam, the Arabic-language television, which Iran beams into Iraq. As damaging to the morale of our servicemen as this resolution is, far more tragic is the [aid] and comfort it gives to the insurgents and militiamen who now believe terrorism to be an effective way to affect policy.
 

Robert Haddick, who blogs as Westhawk, envisions "a profound change" in our national character when we leave Iraq:

For decades, U.S. foreign policy, and the employment of U.S. military power, has been guided most principally by the goal of bringing stability to chaotic situations. When the U.S. begins to withdraw from Iraq, it will do so after making the assumption that the chaos there will increase. Once the drawdown is underway, U.S. soldiers will necessarily be under orders from their civilian policymaking superiors to watch and do nothing while chaos rages in view. This situation will be a dramatic and unnerving departure from the aspirations of previous U.S. presidents, both Republican and Democrat. . . .

Al Qaeda and America's other enemies in Iraq have been notably skillful at using visual media to propagate their actions. And the global mainstream media, friends of neither the Bush administration nor the United States in general, will relish the opportunity to show the chaos left behind as the American army retreats.

Thus, the symbiotic relationship between the terrorists in Iraq and the global mainstream media will lead to an increase in violence in Iraq as the American presence recedes. But the fundamental revolution for both America's policymakers and for the American public will be the need to look on at the chaos and consciously do nothing about it. This will be a traumatic experience for policymakers of both parties.

Ghastly media images from around Iraq will run alongside images of American military convoys driving south to Kuwait or of American soldiers nonchalantly watching television or eating meals inside the barriers of their bases in Iraq. These contrasting images will create pressure for the U.S. to reenter the war on Iraq's streets. . . .

Assuming that the decision to disengage from Iraq survives the emotional challenges it will face, U.S. society will emerge from the ordeal with a changed character. The notion of idealism in foreign policy will be diminished. Events will have demonstrated to most Americans that the sacrifices to help Iraq form a modern society were naïve and misguided. America won't be in a mood to try that experiment again any time soon.

American policymakers will have also gone through the experience of ordering U.S. troops to repeatedly stand by, coldly aloof, while mayhem occurs within their sight. This too, in its own way, will be a learning experience.
 

Billy Collins
Old Man Eating Alone in a Chinese Restaurant

I am glad I resisted the temptation,
if it was a temptation when I was young,
to write a poem about an old man
eating alone at a corner table in a Chinese restaurant.

I would have gotten it all wrong
thinking: the poor bastard, not a friend in the world
and with only a book for a companion.
He'll probably pay the bill out of a change purse.

So glad I waited all these decades
to record how hot and sour the hot and sour
soup is here at Chang's this afternoon
and how cold the Chinese beer in a frosted glass.

And my book — José Saramago's Blindness
as it turns out — is so absorbing that I look up
from its escalating horrors only
when I am stunned by one of his gleaming sentences.

And I should mention the light
that falls through the big windows this time of day
italicizing everything it touches —
the plates and teapots, the immaculate tablecloths,

as well as the soft brown hair of the waitress
in the white blouse and short black skirt,
the one who is smiling now as she bears a cup of rice
and shredded beef with garlic to my favorite table in the corner.

—In the current issue of Poetry
 

Frank J. Gaffney Jr., citing a report "on, of all places, National Public Radio," noted that "it will take at least ten to fourteen months for the United States fully to withdraw from Iraq." And that time frame "is the best case."

I've long accepted three arguments against leaving Iraq before its military and police are able to keep the country's peace: 1) we have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people; 2) a weak Iraq will become a terrorist stronghold; and 3) if we abandon Iraq, no other nation will trust us. I now see a fourth argument: when we withdraw, we'll need the Iraqi forces to help safeguard our military. Otherwise, as Gaffney writes,

Americans will surely be retreating under fire. As Tom Bowman put it, Americans “would likely have to fight insurgents overland, all the way to Kuwait.” This endeavor, according to one officer quoted by NPR, would require “attack helicopters [and] recon helicopters in the air, possibly tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and, of course, armored Humvees [on the ground]” providing protection for the disengaging forces.

The result would almost certainly be calamitous.

So our troops need to stay, for their own sake, until the Iraqis are ready to defend themselves. I'm sure there are people smart enough to have predicted this turn, but I'm not one of them.
 

Mark Steyn (6/04/07):

I had hoped the Islamification of dear old New Hampshire might take another generation or two but at Amherst Middle School they dispensed with the white-bread production of Bye Bye Birdie in favor of a "Put On A Wahhabi Face" extravaganza!

For one night, on May 9, the quaint colonial town of Amherst, New Hampshire, was transformed into a Saudi Arabian Bedouin tent community, with the help of 80 seventh-graders at the Amherst Middle School. The weather cooperated, providing 85 degree temperatures to give an authentic Saudi feel to the evening...

Flowing fabrics hung from the ceiling separated the family and men-only dining sections. The tables were set on large rugs and lowered so that the diners sat on the floor.

Only the seventh-grade boys were allowed to host the food stations and the Arabic dancing, as the traditions of Saudi Arabia at this time prevent women from participating in these public roles.

Sadly, three sixth-grade girls didn't get the memo and had to be executed in Chop-Chop Square (formerly the quaint colonial town common) after being arrested by the mutaween (formerly the quaint colonial volunteer fire department) on the instructions of the Interior Minister Prince Bud bin Ernie al-Saud (formerly the quaint colonial Chair of the Board of Selectmen).
 

(Background: Iran has taken hostage five Americans, four of whom hold dual American and Iranian citizenship.)

John Derbyshire:

I yield to no-one in my dislike of the Iranian govt., and in my desire to have our govt. go and break some of their stuff. There's an aspect of this business about seizing U.S. citizens that nags at me, though. Which is, that they seem to be Iranian citizens also.

Does Iran recognize dual citizenship?

. . . [W]hether Iran does or not, we really should not. Rhetorically, we don't: My Oath of Citizenship required me to "entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen." Plainly these hostages violated that oath. However, in practice the U.S. approach to naturalized citizenship is a bit like one of those square-the-circle medieval formulas about Christ's nature: You may lawfully be a citizen of only one nation, and also of more than one, both at the same time.

Should we look after our own, even when it seems they have violated their Naturalization Oaths? I'm inclined, grudgingly, to think we should. If we had a less sloppy, more rigorous and consistent attitude to U.S . citizenship, though, we wouldn't lay ourselves open to these situations.
 

Michael Ledeen:

I too hate "dual citizenship." I fully agree with Derb that it's beside the point in the current hostage crisis. My position is that we should do everything possible to liberate the hostages in Iran. All 60-70 million of them.
 

Henry Payne at Planet Gore:

[A]s Joel M. Schwartz reveals in a National Center for Policy Analysis study[,] “pollutants have been reducing steadily for the past several decades.”

Schwartz points out that air quality in America's cities is better than it has been in more than a century. Between 1980 and 2005, lead air levels dropped 96 percent, sulfur dioxide reduced 63 percent, and carbon monoxide concentrations fell 74 percent. . . . [I]n all of last year, there was not a single code red ozone day. Not one. . . .

Of course, enviro-activists and their press allies will tell you none of this as their power relies on keeping the public spooked. But it also explains why Greens are trying to get carbon dioxide classified as a pollutant – because real pollutants are getting scarcer and scarcer.

David Pryce-Jones:

Under John Major, the previous Prime Minister, the government simply fell apart. It has done so again under Blair. Culture, education, health, transport, are at abysmal levels. Crime is such that there is no more room in prisons for the convicted. Through legal and illegal immigration the country has lost control of its borders. Agriculture is shattered. Blair allowed the mass slaughter of livestock, and banned fox hunting, a nasty measure of class war. He tinkered disastrously with the constitution, abolishing the House of Lords, devolving power to Brussels, to Scotland and to Wales. In Northern Ireland, at the expense of the moderates he has installed in power the rival Catholic and Protestant men of violence, which is disgusting in itself but also an invitation to Islamist terrorists. He packed committees and appointments with his cronies, some of whom have been arrested for their financial dealings. "I'm a pretty straight kind of guy," Blair once crowed, but the sleaze comes perilously close. Yes, Dickens had the measure of artful dodgers like this. With his usual accuracy Anthony Daniels hit upon the perfect phrase - Blair, he said, has "delusions of honesty."

Yet he got one thing right. He supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and committed British troops to that end. He understood that the United States is the ultimate protector of Europe. It is a horrid irony that his best decision is the cause of his unpopularity and downfall.
 

Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goldman accuses Clarence Thomas of hypocrisy for "scorn[ing]" affirmative action despite having "benefited from" it. James Taranto responds:

Ellen Goodman is a person of pallor, and her bio tells us that she finished college in 1963, the year before the Civil Rights Act became law. Thus she is old enough (sorry, Ellen) to have benefited from discrimination because she is white. Would anyone suggest that therefore she is morally obliged to support discrimination in favor of whites? Of course not.

In the white liberal's worldview, if a white past beneficiary of discrimination favors racial equality or even discrimination against whites, that is an act of atonement or principle. But if a black past beneficiary of discrimination favors equality, white liberals view him as a traitor to his race. To put it another way, white liberals expect blacks to act out of self-interest based on race, while they expect whites to act altruistically. They attack blacks like Thomas who rise above racial self-interest--and they do so in explicitly racial terms--while faulting whites who fail to do so.

This may be the most invidious racial view to remain respectable in 21st century America. The idea that whites are on a higher moral plane than blacks is a form of white supremacy; and the attacks on Thomas and other blacks who embrace equality and reject racial self-interest are an attempt to keep black people in their place.

(Via Matthew Franck.)
 

I must stop reading Gerard Baker. He's smart, and we basically agree on the need to confront the jihadists, but the man's too smug to bear. In his latest column he mentions "the occasional lethal clumsiness of US forces" in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Clumsiness"? As in, "Whoops, sorry, didn't mean to bomb your village"? What condescension. Our military is engaged in operations of extraordinary size, complexity, difficulty and danger. Of course we'll blunder. It's naive at best to imagine otherwise.

Let me supply an example of a true avoidable mistake. Here's another line from Baker's piece:

What I especially admired about the choreography of the Alan Johnston release was the way Ismail Haniya and his friends had clearly learnt the lessons of Britain’s recent little hostage crisis in Iran; play the magnanimous saviour for the TV cameras and you’ll have them eating out of your hand.

Grammarians of the world agree: the semicolon in that sentence should be a colon. So, with days to polish his essay, and with the help of editors and (I'd guess) at least one assistant, Baker can't even get his punctuation right. Yet he looks down, not for the first time, on people under fire who fall short of perfection. Baker "spent almost a decade in the employ of the BBC." Was he so snobby before working there, or do they instill the quality in everyone they hire? Not that it matters either way.

(Link via NRO.)
 

Caroline Glick:

In the course of its jihadist putsch in Gaza, Hamas took control not only of Fatah's US- and European-financed military arsenal and the CIA and MI-6 intelligence gathering equipment Fatah was lavished with. It also took control of Fatah's intelligence files and the personal files of Fatah leaders. This means that Hamas now has complete documentary evidence of Fatah's corruption; its involvement in terrorism; and its double dealing with the West, with rogue regimes like Iran, and with terror groups like Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida.

There can be no doubt that under the tutelage of the Iranian and Syrian intelligence directorates, Hamas will use its treasure trove of information in a manner that will block any move by Fatah to renew its support bases in Palestinian society.
 

Society expresses its sympathy for the geniuses of the past to distract attention from the fact that it has no intention of being sympathetic to the geniuses of the present.

Celia Green, The Decline and Fall of Science (found at Wikiquote)