Russian invasion of Ukraine - did Russia achieve its military goals?

Between US cable news, news from European news programs (Sky UK, France 24, and DW) streaming on YouTube, and checking out think tank web pages, have been trying to get a handle on the military objectives of the Russian invasion. 

Prior to the invasion, the opinion seemed to be falling into two categories: (1) Russia won't invade or (2) the invasion would be limited perhaps to just the eastern part. Some experts described what the "go big" invasion would look like but didn't think it likely they would go that far. 

As we all saw, Russia went all in with a multi-pronged invasion (see map 1).

Map 1 - possible end points of invasion plan

Objective 1 was to capture, kill, or force to flee the central government of Ukraine by seizing Kyiv.

Objective 2 was to cut the country in half by driving toward the Dnieper river and potentially trapping Ukrainian army units in the east of the country.

Objective 3 was to solidify control of the disputed regions of Luhansk and Donetsk. 

Objective 4 was to connect Crimea (annexed in 2014) to Russia with a direct land corridor with a north-easterly invasion.

Objective 5 was to deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea by heading north-west out of Crimea and taking the coastal port of Udesa.

How far did the Russian ground forces get? See map 2.

Map 2 - state of the invasion as of March 29, 2022

Objective 1? 

Russian forces have stalled in the outskirts of Kyiv. The Ukraine government remains in charge and in place in Kyiv.

Objective 2? 

Russian army has laid siege of Kharkiv but haven't advanced much beyond Kharkiv.

Objective 3? 

Haven't seen much news from this region probably because Western news services aren't able to get here suggesting Russia has these areas under control.

Objective 4? 

The siege of Mariupol has been the scene of tremendous destruction. If and when Russia takes control of the city, they will have their "land bridge" from Russia to Crimea.

Objective 5?

Russia has not reached Udesa and have gotten as far Kherson but does not appear able to advanced any further.

One unknown is the degree to which Russia can continue to sustain troop and equipment losses to achieve a revised limited set of aims. 

On the other side, how much material resources can Ukraine continue to receive and how much military personnel do they have to effectively deploy them?

When the cost of war eventually gets too high for both sides then the two side might come to a deal of some kind. It does not appear that point has been reached. Ukraine realizes it will not be joining NATO or the EU anytime soon so it may have to make some concessions when the time for negotiation arrives. Ukraine may accept loss of territory but as long as they have a "stalemate" on the battlefield, they will not accept demilitarization. In 2014, when Crimea was annexed, Ukraine was in no position to militarily oppose the Russians so they had to sign a deal. Since 2014, they built up their army and it is paying off so far as they have extracted a high price from Russia in this war. They will want to continue to build up their forces so that Russia would not be tempted to restart the war to gain more territory.

As for Europe, NATO, and USA, they realize the line has to be drawn here so they will continue to supplies both military and economic aide to Ukraine because if Ukraine collapses the next target could be a NATO member. 

#StandWithUkraine

COVID19 - a quick look at the numbers as of April 27, 2020

It is day 40 in California as the lockdown was declared on March 19.

Where are we now?

Here is a screen capture of the death per 1 million over at Real Clear Politics.

The first screen grab is a partial list of nations. Italy was hit hard very early and then Spain followed. Since Belgium is a rather small country it hasn't made the news, but relative to population, it has been hit very hard. The USA number though terrible indicate it could have been much worse. There undoubtedly will be many studies as to why some countries got struck so severely while others fared better. From media reports, the sense is that Italy was the "perfect storm" of the high density of the cities in northern Italy, the age of the population, and the slow initial response. Whether this set of circumstances will account for some of the other hard hit countries remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, in the USA, the states in the northeast had death rates comparable to Italy/Spain/Belgium with New York exceeding the worst of Europe. There will be many studies and second guessing as to what resulted in the calamitous march of COVID19 in the northeast USA in particular New York and New York City. Most pundits have cited the high density of New York City and the large numbers of international passenger travel.

The fatality rate of COVID19 remains a moving target. The number often cited for flu is 0.1% of people who get the flu die from the flu. Thus, in the USA, a nation of about 330 million, if 30 million catch the flu during a typical season, 30,000 may die of it. If you look at the CDC estimates, from 2010-2017, the range was 12,000 to 51,000. Flu viruses are constantly mutating and some years it is more dangerous than others. Additionally, in some years the mixture of strains put into the flu vaccine design is more effective and sometimes less so.

But what is the fatality rate for COVID19?

We don't know.

According to John Hopkins COVID19 dashboard as of April 27, there were 3 million cases worldwide with about 211 thousand deaths. That is a 7% fatality rate. However, it is generally acknowledged that testing is not robust enough at this time to really get a fix on the fatality rate. What happens is that the tests are generally given to people who have some symptoms or are at risk (medical personnel). Thus, the figure is very likely to be overstated.

Also, likely to lower the fatality rate is the hypothesis that a certain percentage (currently unknown) of the population got COVID19 but they either had no symptoms or the symptoms were mild such that they never got tested. This could explain how the disease spread so rapidly as people unwittingly passed it onto others.

As a government official setting public health policy, the fatality rate estimate - really a guess back in March - drove the decision making. If you need to decide for Los Angeles County, a region with 10 million people, what do you do?

If you think 10% of the population is going to catch COVID19; then, 1 million people could get sick. If you think the fatality rate is 1% (10x worse than the flu), then 10,000 people will die. If you are working with numbers in this range, you are going to lock everything down and hope for the best.

But if your public health team thinks that only 4% will get COVID19 as this very small study shows (1). Thus, 400,000 gets COVID19. And what if the fatality rate in your projection is only 0.2%, worse than the flu but not astronomical? This scenario yields 800 dead. If you think these are the "facts" on the ground back in March, you probably don't go for a total lock down (2)?

As of this writing, the LA County reports 942 deaths attributed to COVID19. LA County death per day is declining so the number will go up but not dramatically so. Thus, perhaps COVID19 infection rate might be a bit higher than 4% and the fatality rate might be a bit higher than 0.2% yielding a situation that is akin to a bad flu. But the government officials didn't know this back in March when the orders to lock down were issued. How much worse it would have been if there was no lock down is unknowable.

But what about New York City, I don't think anyone imaged it was going to get that bad!

New York City is currently estimating death at 17,000. New York City population is about 8.4 million. What happened there? How do you get that many fatalities? The population infection rate must be much higher in NYC? Perhaps, for some reason the fatality rate is higher?

Some scenarios:
40% infection + 0.4% fatality = 13,440 deaths
30% infection + 0.6% fatality = 15,120 deaths
50% infection + 0.4% fatality = 16,800 deaths
60% infection + 0.3% fatality = 15,120 deaths

It will take many more months of investigating to piece together what happened in New York City and places where the COVID19 swept in with such deadly force.

Given the limited information at hand, if I had to guess the fatality rate of SARS-Cov2/COVID19 will turn out to be higher than the typical flu, perhaps around 0.3 to 0.6% (3), and what will turn out to be the driver of fatalities is a high infection rate due to unique features of the locality in question.

UPDATES:
Decided to add a few things after thinking more about what I posted last evening.
(1) Some scientists have called into question the antibody kit used in the study as not fully validated and await better characterized kits and larger numbers in the test population. Will better test kits reveal higher or low percent infection in the general population?
(2) The "what if" we don't know is what the infection rate would have been without the total lock down? In Los Angeles County, if the number rises to 8% infection with 0.2% fatality, then you have 1600 deaths. If you are on the board of supervisors and that is what your public health people tell you, what do you do? It all comes down to the "best guess" at the time about infection rates and fatality rates and how many people is it "tolerable" to lose to the virus. Scale the infection percent and fatality percent to higher numbers and the impetus to lock down becomes very strong.
(3) One could also suspect specific vulnerable populations will be looked at. The fatality rate might turn out to be quite "low" for the population as a whole. But what is the fatality rate when it hits a nursing home? Or an apartment building with a higher percentage of senior citizens? And there will definitely be studies on health disparities in poorer communities that may have a much higher fatality rate. Populations aren't homogeneous. There will be more to the data than just simple density of people in a community.

World Cup 2018

Who is going to win?

Show me the numbers!

The stat heads over at 538 say Brazil, Spain, and Germany are the favorites.

The FIFA world rankings have Germany, Brazil, and Belgium as the top three.

If the Bovada odd's makers know anything, they have Brazil, Germany, and Spain listed 1-2-3.

If history is any guide:
2014 winner Germany (no one has defended a title since Brazil won 1958 and 1962)
2010 winner Spain (won 1 time so far)
2006 winner Italy (they didn't qualify this year)
2002 winner Brazil (won 5 times so far)
1998 winner France (won 1 time so far)

Looking further back into history, the only other nations to ever win a World Cup:
Argentina (1986, 1978)
England (1966)
Uruguay (1950, 1930)

From listening to sports people, Brazil, Spain, and Germany are the clear favorites. But in breaking news today, the manager of Spain has just been sacked.

Getting some mention are Belgium and France for having a collection of solid top level players.

Also mentioned are Portugal and Argentina since they respectively have a GOAT (greatest of all time) level player on their squads.

Am picking France, Brazil, Spain, and Germany in the final-four with Brazil winning the whole thing.

UPDATE: France won the whole thing! Germany didn't even get out of the group stage. Spain got booted on PK by Russia in the round of 16. Brazil lost to Belgium in the quarter finals.

Other quick observations:

1. Could Uruguay have dealt with France in the quarterfinal if they didn't lose Cavani to injury Probably not but it would have been more interesting.
2. Portugal and Argentina with one GOAT player each lost to teams with solid players across the starting XI. Yes, soccer is a team sport and a transcendent star needs some supporting cast members.
3. Brazil's Neymar has become a bit of a joke with his flopping.
4. Mexico's win over Germany was the highpoint but in the end they still couldn't get past the round of 16 and so the page will turn on their "golden generation" that carried their hopes of glory.
5. Russia had a magic carpet ride as is often the case of the host country. They took down Spain in PK and took Croatia to PK but came up short in a match of high drama! Not the greatest soccer but certainly the most dramatic!
6. Sweden showed what a group of modest talents can do when they play with a plan and play their game. If you had said they would get to the quarter finals before the competition started you would take it.
7. Columbia with James Rodriguez might have beaten England.
8. England to the semi-finals was a surprise. Unlike past England teams that wilted under the expectations and off-field/on-field controversy, this group went out there and had fun and played to their abilities. In the end, their youth and inexperience came up short against Croatia. Croatia had a few of those wily veterans who simply know how to win on their club that edged out the young lions of England.
9. How far would team USA have gotten? Well, CONCACAF didn't do much in the tournament. Panama and Costa Rica went without a win. In qualifications the USA lost TWICE to Costa Rica and beat Panama once and drew once. So maybe NOT making the World Cup spared them an embarrassing showing?

World: Should USA Take Syrian Refugees?

With the civil war in Syria, many people have fled and where they should be transferred to is an ongoing challenge.

The USA, separated by the Atlantic Ocean, hasn't taken in too many.

Of course, there are concerns about terrorism. In a group of refugees what is the possibility of some terrorists being among them who then conduct Paris-style attacks on some American city?

No governor or mayor wants to be in the position of having to go before the news cameras to report some terrorist incident was the result of the settlement of refugees in their city or state.

Thus, the key is how much "vetting" of refugees take place?

This news item over at CNBC suggests the vetting is pretty thorough.

Some interesting quotes:

One administration official admitted that a lack of records is often a problem for refugees, but "in contrast to that," Syrians and Iraqis tend to be "a very, very heavily documented population." Trained U.S. specialists examine their passports, family registries and military records to assess authenticity, that official said.
..........
"Refugees, including and especially those from Syria and the Middle East, are subject to the most intensive security screenings of anyone entering our country," said Betsy Fischer, deputy policy director at the International Refugee Assistance Project. "And because there are all of those security screenings, we think that calls for ceasing Syrian resettlement fundamentally betray a crucial American value."

Here is a clip of the Lynch, the head of the DOJ, testifying that it is challenging to vet refugees but procedures are in place to do so.

World: Hewitt Interview of Author of "Little America"

Another interview spanning the full broadcast was with Rajiv Chandrasekaren who wrote Little America: the war within the war for Afghanistan.

Rajiv covers the good, bad and ugly of the US effort in Afghanistan. No question a lot of good intentions, bravery in the battlefield but sadly there was poor policy choices in the "nation building" project.

One particularly aggravating example was USAID unwillingness to help the Afghans grow cotton because the US wants to protect its cotton industry.

Another was authorization of the surge in Afghanistan but not sending enough troops and then pulling them out so quickly indicating that Washington was half-hearted about the effort.

World: Hugh Hewitt Interview of Jake Tapper Author of "The Outpost"

Hewitt devoted his entire broadcast to hearing the story behind "The Outpost."

The book gives a ground level view of the battle at Combat Outpost Keating in Afghanistan. But beyond the battle itself, Tapper delves into the people there - those who survived and those who didn't - and the people back home who love them. He also went into the history of the base leading up to the fateful battle. A story of incredible valor and infuriating decision making that left those troops in such a precarious location.

Riveting radio.

Here is a video clip from Jake Tapper on his book tour launch explaining how he got started on writing the book.

  Watch More News Videos at ABC
  |
  2012 Presidential Election
  |
  Entertainment & Celebrity News

Here is another clip from the same book tour launch with remarks from some of the soldiers profiled in the book.

  Watch More News Videos at ABC
  |
  2012 Presidential Election
  |
  Entertainment & Celebrity News

World: Kony 2012

In 2007, I participated in an event hosted by Invisible Children called Displace Me.

Sadly, it is now 2012, and the problems in Uganda remain.

This issue has been recently highlighted by the viral video Kony 2012.

Our pastor has shared the following story on a few occasions:
You see lots of injured people in the river.  Some in your group will try to get the people out of the water and bring them to land and tend to their injuries.  This impulse is compassion.  Some in your group will want to go up river and find out who is harming these people and throwing them in to water and stop these people.  This impulse is justice.

Lord, may compassion and justice be done in this situation.

World: Iraq and the Vietnam Analogy

The US fought in Vietnam for a long time.  The last American troops left in 1973.  In 1975, Saigon fell.

Will Iraq be like Vietnam?

Some will say that South Vietnam's collapse was inevitable and that the American presence there just delayed it.

Some will say the same of Iraq.  The argument goes that Iraq was destined for civil war without a dictator like Hussein ruling with an iron fist. 

What is the "answer" to the historical "what if" regarding the Iraq war?

What would have happened if there was no war and Saddam Husein remained in power?
 
How would Afghanistan be today if instead of invading Iraq we had put in more troops in Afghanistan earlier on?

Would the governments of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya have fallen without the Iraq invasion?

Some will say, eventually Hussein would have died or someone would have staged a coup and civil war would break out with the support of the neighboring Iranians.

Some will say, whether American troops stayed in large numbers or not, the Taliban would have made a comeback sooner or later because the neighboring Pakistanis support the Taliban and enough people within Afghanistan want them in power.

Some will say that Egypt, Tunisia and Libya's authoritarian governments would eventually have died of old age or be overthrown by Jihad minded revolutionaries.  In either case, Jihad minded revolutionaries would take over eventually.

"Nation building" is very difficult.  Were the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq doomed to failure in the long run after the short term successes of ousting the Taliban and deposing Hussein?

Would it be cruel to suggest that the success stories of post-World War II Germany and Japan came as a result of the Allied armies essentially laying waste to both countries and forcing them to rebuild from scratch?  America defeated the Tailban and Iraq military forces on the field.  But those battles resulted in nowhere near the type of destruction the German and Japanese armies and population centers experienced.  Is it possible that nations can only be rebuilt into a new society if the old one is utterly destroyed?

Or is there something uniquely problematic about the Middle East and Central Asia?

Was nation building a fool's errand?

If this is the case, then the US should give up on Iraq and let them have their civil war and wait for the bloodied survivors to emerge.  Likewise, the US should leave Afghanistan and let forces in Kabul fight it out with the Taliban and wait for the blooded survivors to claim victory.

Is this the most moral thing to do?

Under this approach, the only scenario where US forces would intervene is to bomb and raid terrorist training camps that would probably start appearing in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I suppose if chemical weapons factories started showing up on satellite photos, those too would be legitimate targets.  But otherwise, the US should leave them alone and let them kill each other until they decide to stop when they have bled enough.

Is this more moral than what we have been doing?

Which is more moral, the inaction of the pacifist or isolationist or the intervention of the US global policeman?

This is depressing.

World: UBL raid reads like something from a Clancy novel

Details continue to come out and am looking forward to a documentary, long-form magazine accounts and probable future books and movies on the raid that killed UBL.

But the big geopolitical question is how many in Pakistan knew UBL was there and how high up in the government?

In the article, the closing paragraph was:
This discovery and subsequent death of bin Laden doesn't bode well for the Pakistan government. According to Martin, it will be hard for the Pakistanis to explain how bin Laden could have been living in a huge compound located in a densely populated suburb filled with retired military unnoticed.

Indeed, it appears that UBL was hiding in plain sight and not out in some rural mountainous caves.

World: UBL is dead!

Bin Laden killed just outside Islamabad by US special forces.

Details of the operation and the intelligence that led to the raid will undoubtedly be very interesting.

Highest commendations to the US armed forces and the intelligence teams that made this long awaited moment of justice possible.

Hats off to President Obama and his national security team that doggedly pursed UBL and their willingness to authorize this risky mission!

World: Terrorism in Stockholm

Not all bombings are performed by extreme Islamic individuals but many are.

Thus, eventually, the news reports confirmed such was likely the case in the bombing in a Stockholm shopping district this weekend.

Some people say that terrorism is driven by poverty. In some cases that is probably so. But time and again, we find out that the individuals often had what would be considered "normal lives" but turn out to be driven by extreme ideas.

The Telegraph of UK has a profile on the Stockholm suicide bomber. Excerpt:

It emerged last night that Abdulwahab, who was due to turn 29 yesterday, is a former physical therapy student at Bedfordshire University in Luton, and that his wife and three young children still live in the town.
.....
Tahir Hussain, 33, a taxi driver who lives nearby, said: “I used to see him around often. He didn’t say much but seemed nice. I used to see him walking with his kids.

“I was shocked when I heard what happened because I never thought he could do such a thing.”

Mr Hussain said that the couple had been living there for a year and that Abdulwahab used to go to Friday prayers at the Islamic Centre in Luton.

The BBC has an item on Taimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly.
Excerpt:

"He had a bomb belt on him, he had a backpack with a bomb and he was carrying an object that has been compared to a pressure cooker. If it had all blown up at the same time, it would have been very powerful," he said.

A car containing gas canisters blew up first in a busy shopping street in the area of Drottninggatan at 1700 local time (1600 GMT) followed minutes later by a explosion in a street about 300m (985ft) away that killed the bomber.

Abdaly was named as the registered owner of the car.
......
Mr Lindstrand said Abdaly was completely unknown to Swedish security services before the blasts.

However, he pointed out: "He didn't live in Sweden; he lived in the UK. He left Sweden maybe 10 years ago."

The UK Guardian reported that the bomber clashed with some of the leaders of the Mosque he was attending.

Qadeer Baksh, chairman of Luton Islamic centre, said Abdaly showed up at the mosque during Ramadan in 2006 or 2007 and made an instant impression with his "very bubbly character" but they soon clashed over his views.

"We were challenging his philosophical attitude to jihad," said Baksh. "He got so angry that he left. He was just supporting and propagating these incorrect foundations [of Islam], so I stepped in."

He said Abdaly believed scholars of Islam were "in the pocket of the government" and proposed a "physical jihad".

Baksh said he thought he had talked Abdaly round to a more moderate position but the Iraqi-born Swede then came back with more arguments. "I had no idea it would escalate to where it escalated," said Abdaly. "I thought that when he stormed off he was just angry at me. I heard afterwards that he was criticising the mosque in general and me in particular at the university. He said we were working for the British government and that we were in the pocket of Saudi Arabia. He was trying to defame our honour."

Despite the clashes, Baksh said it was not for him to report Abdaly to the police or security services. "It's the police's job, the intelligence service's job to follow these people up, not ours," he said. "You can't just inform on any Muslim having extreme views. In the past many Muslims have had extreme views but have become good balance Muslims."

I have visited Stockholm on three occasions and on each of those trips, I walked around that shopping district where the bomber struck. And that is what terrorists want to do: to bring fear into day-to-day life and to kill the infidel (unbeliever).

In our interconnected world, it is getting harder and harder to think of the terrorist problem as being "somewhere else." All it takes is a motivated individual to strike. And at the same time, organized terrorists bands plot for dramatic attacks to maximize death and chaos.

They love death as much as we love life so they believe we will cower in fear.

We do love life but we will not cower in fear.

World: Easiest to Describe, Hardest to Solve

Dennis Prager offers his analysis of the Middle East problem.

World: The 2 Minute Guide to Swedish Politics

In the USA, the political left lauds the effectiveness of large government as practiced in Sweden. The USA right complains that the US shouldn't go the way of Sweden's big socialism.

Of course, the reality of today's Sweden is a bit more nuanced as revealed by the latest elections.

The left leaning Social Democrats, according to the article, has ruled 65 of the last 78 years. However, for the first time, a non-socialist government appeared headed for re-election.

The current government is a coalition known as the Alliance comprising of the Moderate Party, Center Party, Liberal People's Party and Christian Democrats which has been leading Sweden slowly away from its big government socialist past.

The Social Democrats head a coalition consisting of the Social Democrats, Left Party and Green Party.

The wild card in the mix is the Sweden Democrats that have made headway on an anti-immigrant platform and are not aligned with either side. As of the current vote count, neither coalition has the votes to have complete control over the Parliament though the Alliance has more seats.

Moderate Party (M) 30,0% 107 seats
Centre Party (C) 6,6% 22 seats
Liberal Party (FP) 7,1% 24 seats
Christian Democrats (KD) 5,6% 19 seats
Governing coalition 49.3% of the vote, 172 seats

Social Democrats (S) 30,9% 113 seats
Left Party (V) 5,6% 19 seats
Green Party (MP) 7,2% 25 seats
Opposition coaltion 43.7% of the vote, 157 seats

Sweden Democrats (SD) 5,7% of the vote, 20 seats

Stay tuned for how events will unfold!

World: Who has the bomb?

With all the activity in DC about containing nuclear weapons, I was wondering: who actually has "the bomb?"

This briefing sums it up.

Not surprisingly, the "big" powers that have veto power in the UN:
China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States

These have tested their weapons:
India and Pakistan

Never tested but universally believed to have them:
Israel

Nations of concern developed or developing nuclear weapons:
North Korea, Iran, Syria

Had weapons but gave them back to Russia:
Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine

Had weapons programs but gave up for various reasons:
South Africa, Iraq, Libya, Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, and Taiwan

World: The Strong Horse, an interview with author Lee Smith

Got to give Hugh Hewitt a lot of credit for devoting an entire program to the discussion of a timely book about the Middle East like Strong Horse.

One just can't get that kind of in-depth conversation in a typical 90 sec to 3 minute news piece on television.

For me, the most chilling part was this exchange with Lee Smith where Hewitt reads from p. 153 of Smith's book and begins a discussion of some of the driving forces of radicalism in the Middle East:

HH: Now this is on, from Page 153, I’m going to read three or four paragraphs here, because it’s so different from what most people think about the Middle East, but it’s also important in terms of how we understand it, Americans do. “Masculine energy is a powerful force. It creates civilizations and destroys them. In every society, there are only two internal checks to the inchoate charisma of its young men, less they lose themselves in free-floating violence that takes everyone down with them. There are the male elders, and even more important, there are the women, mothers and wives. Every society must decide how best to use its manhood to create, govern and defend itself. None can afford it when either the elders or the women urge their young men to take them to the brink of extinction. Unfortunately, it isn’t just the male elders who have been pushing young men to violence. Perhaps the unhappiest fact of the Arabic-speaking Middle East is that Arab women have been as well. A 9/11 joke,” you write, “A woman sees a man coming out of the men’s room in Cairo or Riyadh or Damascus or Beirut or Baghdad, and asks him are you Osama bin Laden? Why no, says the man. Why would you think such a thing? Because, she says, he’s the only man left in the Arab world. It’s just a joke,” you write, “but it gets at something important about the Middle East, which is that often Arab women hold men in contempt if they’re not willing to kill and die for Arab honor. Arab women are complicit in the violence of Arab societies, and so it should come as no surprise that of late, Arab women have picked up the mantle of martyrdom and chosen to suicide themselves while killing innocents. After all, many have been sending their men to death for years.” That’s going to shock a lot of people, and I think probably the first thing you want to say is you’re not talking about Arab-American women. You’re not even talking about all Arab women.

LS: Right, right.

HH: You’re talking about this crazy sort of culture that’s taken hold there.

LS: Right.

HH: How do you change that?

LS: I don’t know. I mean, I really don’t know. But I mean, I think that this is one of the things, you know, for understandable reasons, we haven’t talked about…you know, Ayaan Hirsi Ali comes out with her wonderful books, her very, you know, courageous books about her courageous life. And so we’ve tended to look mostly at Muslim women, as Arab women, as victims. And yes, there is no doubt about it. In many ways, they are. But you know, when we see these different parades of young Palestinian, little Palestinian kids, infants, dressed up in suicide bomber outfits, it’s not just the dads were dressing them up, right? I mean, the moms are a part of it, too. So I think we need to look at it more. You know, it’s not just a couple of bad Arab guys who are responsible for this. There’s a lot of people who are complicit in this violence, and in this culture that it’s just sort of pushing itself towards the edge while it’s killing other people, too. So I think yeah, women have to be part of the solution.

HH: A couple of pages later, you write, “Maybe the question is not what went wrong with the Islam and the Arabs,” you’re quoting your friend here, “but what went right with the West. To ask what’s wrong with the Arabs is to take the West as the historical norm, and imagine that its progress is a trajectory that all societies must inevitably follow, leading towards freedom, democracy and respect for the inherent dignity of the individual human being. But since we have been handed all of these things for free, it is easy to overlook the sacrifices many generations made in blood along the way. Likewise, to forget how we got here is to trivialize the efforts of others elsewhere who strive for the same ideals, but met with little or no success.” Very pessimistic, Lee Smith. Very pessimistic.

LS: No, I don’t mean to be pessimistic. I mean, one of the things…okay, it’s pessimistic. But one of the things, again, one of the things that I want is for us to respect and admire what we have and who we are, and our forefathers, and the people, you know, our forefathers, the political officials, the people who died, who were burned at the stake, all the different people who led us on this path to get where we are today. It’s a remarkable story. It’s a remarkable narrative. It’s a great gift that we all enjoy. And we shouldn’t sell it short and assume that everyone else is capable of this. And also, I think we do need to give credit to these people who have tried the same thing but they failed. I mean, there are a lot of heroes in the Arab world. There have been a lot of Voltaires. But just because the Arab world doesn’t look, you know, doesn’t look like where you and I live, doesn’t mean that there haven’t been people who have tried. There are people who know that there are problems. I mean, I have a lot of friends still in Lebanon, in Egypt, all sorts of places who want something much, much better for their society. The sadness is I just don’t think they’re going to get it anytime soon.

Read the whole thing.

World: 40 years ago today ...

Watch CBS Videos Online

Profiled in this CBS news item is the guy who decided that things were still okay when the 1202 alarm went off while Apollo 11 was going in for the landing.

Roam around the the moon on Google Moon!

World: When a coup is not really a coup

When I had first heard the news from Honduras, I thought, too bad, its a return to the bad old days of military dictatorships.

However, having read this item, I'm wondering what is the USA doing supporting ousted Honduran President Zelaya?

What is going on in the US State Department and the White House?

Excerpt:
This illegality may entitle Zelaya to return to Honduras. But does it require that he be returned to power?

No. As noted, Article 239 states clearly that one who behaves as Zelaya did in attempting to change presidential succession ceases immediately to be president. If there were any doubt on that score, the Congress removed it by convening immediately after Zelaya's arrest, condemning his illegal conduct and overwhelmingly voting (122 to 6) to remove him from office. The Congress is led by Zelaya's own Liberal Party (although it is true that Zelaya and his party have grown apart as he has moved left). Because Zelaya's vice president had earlier quit to run in the November elections, the next person in the line of succession was Micheletti, the Liberal leader of Congress. He was named to complete the remaining months of Zelaya's term.

It cannot be right to call this a "coup." Micheletti was lawfully made president by the country's elected Congress. The president is a civilian. The Honduran Congress and courts continue to function as before. The armed forces are under civilian control. The elections scheduled for November are still scheduled for November. Indeed, after reviewing the Constitution and consulting with the Supreme Court, the Congress and the electoral tribunal, respected Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga recently stated that the only possible conclusion is that Zelaya had lawfully been ousted under Article 239 before he was arrested, and that democracy in Honduras continues fully to operate in accordance with law. All Honduran bishops joined Rodriguez in this pronouncement.

True, Zelaya should not have been arbitrarily exiled from his homeland. That, however, does not mean he must be reinstalled as president of Honduras. It merely makes him an indicted private citizen with a meritorious immigration beef against his country.

World: What will happen in Iran?

A week and a half ago, it was 20 years since the June 4 "incident" when the Chinese government sent in the tanks to end protests in Beijing.

Today, the situation in Iran feels vaguely similar as a long oppressed people are protesting a totalitarian government.

There is no way to know what will happen or for sure what is actually happening because the government controls so much of what goes on in Iran.

UPDATE: Foreign media banned from covering protests.

But unlike China in 1989, there is the internet.

Andrew Sullivan links to some YouTube videos of what is happening over there.





Hugh Hewitt devoted his entire 3 hour radio show to bringing on guests who have either some knowledge of Iran or world affairs in general.

As an American of Chinese ancestry, I had hopes for the protests in China in 1989 and do hope that some day in the future those brave souls will be publicly honored as heroes in the streets of Beijing.

My mind tells me that totalitarian governments don't give up power easily and that a brutal suppression could be already taking place or will take place in a matter of days. But then again, who would have thought the Berlin Wall would ever come down? Or that the Iron Curtain would be lifted?

World: Spin of the globes trouble spots

I'd hate to be working for the US State Department or any foreign ministry of a major country.

There are so many trouble spots in the world that could blow up!

North Korea has the bomb and is lobbing missiles while starving its own people. What can anybody do?

Making an analogy, if someone was holed up in their house randomly shooting a gun into the street while starving their kids, the police would surround the house and try to talk that someone into dropping the gun and letting the kids out. And if that didn't work, at some point they would probably raid the house.

But you can't "raid the house" when that country has nukes and an army of 700,000.

I suppose a strike on nuclear facilities is a possibility. But the fact that that hasn't been done suggests to me that in this case, it is probably too hard for it to be successful.

In 1981, the Israelis hit the Iraq nuclear plant at Osirak.

In 2007, Israeli hit a Syrian nuclear plant.

My impression is that if one is going to go with the military option, it has to be done when the nuclear facility is fairly small and not extensively built out yet.

In the case of North Korea, they already have the bomb and an extensive nuke program.

It looks like the Iranian nuke program is getting bigger and nobody can really stop that one either. It also doesn't help that Russia is actually helping them build the thing.

Thus, the same situation holds with Iran as North Korea, it might be too big to hit militarily from the air and the Iranians have 350,000 in their army so sending in ground forces to take down the plants would be difficult.

So it appears, the world will probably have to live with a nuclear Iran and North Korea. One can only hope that they will back track on their plans or at the very least open their plants to extremely vigorous inspection. Now, how do you get them to do that .... ???

World: Sometimes war in the answer?

Pakistani villagers fighting the Taliban.

Excerpt:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Hundreds of Pakistani villagers who have formed an anti-Taliban militia battled for the fourth day Tuesday to remove the Islamic militants from a region of northwest Pakistan.

The Pakistani military is supporting the militia, or "lashkar," in Upper Dir district on the request of local officials and tribal elders, military spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas told CNN.

Outraged over a suicide attack on a local mosque during Friday prayers, about 400 residents formed the militia early Saturday and began battling Taliban militants. The attack on the anti-Taliban mosque killed at least 40 people and wounded 80 others.

When it is possible, peaceful means should be used to resolve problems. But sometimes, people have to stand up and say, enough, we aren't going to take this anymore.

Hats off to these brave Pakistani villagers!