Detailed Abstractions

Responding to a recent increase in self-immolation (suicide by setting oneself on fire in protest) among Muslims, Muslim scholars in Egypt spoke out (here via Jordan Times):

CAIRO — Egypt’s Al-Azhar, the most prestigious centre of religious learning in the Sunni Muslim world, said on Tuesday that Islam bans suicide for any reason.

“Sharia law states that Islam categorically forbids suicide for any reason and does not accept the separation of souls from bodies as an expression of stress, anger or protest,” said Al-Azhar’s spokesman Mohammed Rifa al-Tahtawi in a statement on state news agency MENA.

“Al-Azhar cannot comment on the cases of people who had burned themselves, as these may be suffering from a mental or psychological condition that forced them to do so,” he said.

It might seem odd to some, but the Muslim scholars are actively pushing an idea which devalues the Islamic terrorists’ main weapon, suicide bombings.  & they do so in a very definitive way.  Even though the escape hatch of narrowly aiming their critiques to only self-immolation is obvious, they still don’t speak in political terms or try to limit themselves to suicide by fire.

Instead of taking the easy path; they took the moral one and stated directly that suicide in any form is forbidden under Islam and recent attacks may well involve psychological issues.

Which interestingly enough, brings us back to the Arizona shooting debate (DA post here) where I argue that rhetoric or guns can’t cause a free and moral people to suddenly and irrationally take up arms.  Indeed by proffering so, people are ignoring the fact that America, as well as many other semi-free countries, has a culture whereby the vast majority agree that killing is not an appropriate reaction to someone else exercising their free speech (agree vocally & through our legal system).

I juxtaposed American culture against some religious fundamentalist examples.  One, the Muslim online magazine (Inspire), which in mid-2010 was still pushing for revenge against Danish media for daring to print Mohammed cartoons.  Not only pushing, but the cleric writing the article stated (paraphrased) assassinations, bombings, killings, etc, are all valid responses to religious “slander”.  Additionally, I used the recent assassination of a provincial governor in Pakistan in which clerics (500+) issued decrees that anyone caught grieving for the slain governor can be punished.

The governor’s sin?  Agreeing with the national government of Pakistan that blasphemy laws currently on the books should be repealed.

Both are examples of a different a culture where killing in response to slander or blasphemy (both forms of speech) is acceptable.  Therefore, a culture in which vitriol about the blood of patriots or having to get your pitchforks out means something entirely different than it means in America.

So much in the same way that America isn’t culturally like a lot of Pakistan when it comes to the belief that violence is a respectable tool in almost any case, neither is Egypt.  As Egypt also has a societal belief, proven in their laws and willingness to prosecute terrorists (more…)

After some political arguing about who stands to gain what, why ratify a treaty in a lame duck session, the START Treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), was ratified in the Senate last week.  & now with praise from Russian President Dmitri A. Medvedev and movement in the Russian Parliament, it’s likely only a matter of time before the treaty between Russia & the United States is in full effect.

With all the rhetoric being pushed around however, true analysis tends to get lost in the noise…. which is where Stratfor enters; not only asking pertinent questions and attempting to answer them, but in giving the treaty the full historical context it deserves.

First, what is the START Treaty (whole thing here)?

….The original START was signed July 31, 1991, and reductions were completed in 2001. The treaty put a cap on the number of nuclear warheads that could be deployed. In addition to limiting the number of land- and submarine-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and strategic bombers, it capped the number of warheads that were available to launch at 6,000…. START I lapsed in 2009, and the new treaty is essentially designed to reinstate it….

What Sratfor notes however, is the difference in geopolitical relationships from START I to New START, mainly that the original treaty began in a very different climate in the 1980′s (article con’t):

…The political relationship that existed between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s is not the same as the relationship that exists today. Starting in the 1950s, the United States and Soviet Union were in a state of near-war….

In what was basically a balancing act by the two major global powers at the time, conventional and nuclear weapons, were built and deployed as the United States & Russia tried to gain an advantage (article con’t):

…The differences between them were geopolitically profound. The United States was afraid that the Soviets would seize Western Europe in an attack in order to change the global balance of power. Given that the balance of power ran against the Soviet Union, it was seen as possible that they would try to rectify it by war.

Since the United States had guaranteed Europe’s security with troops and the promise that it would use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union to block the conquest of Europe, it followed that the Soviet Union would initiate war by attempting to neutralize the American nuclear capability. This would require a surprise attack on the United States with Soviet missiles. It also followed that the United States, in order to protect Europe, might launch a pre-emptive strike against the Soviet military capability in order to protect the United States and the balance of power….

This process of seeking global influence, resulted in many things, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, Star-Wars (BMD), a build up in both strategic and tactical nuclear arsenals, and basically a stable, but highly tense situation of mutually assured destruction.

Then in 1991, the need for this policy was diminished for both sides with the implosion of the Soviet Union.   Even at that time one could argue the need for such a treaty was minimal, but when the process started during higher tensions in the 1980s, and given the level of fear around the world, going forward with the pact seemed reasonable.

Which brings us forward to today (article con’t): (more…)

FAILURE When your best just isn't good enough.

It’s not a complete measure of how effective terrorists are as a whole, but when they start taking credit for massive failures, it’s something to note (here):

A Yemen-based al Qaeda group is claiming responsibility for the international mail bomb plot uncovered late last week….

& in this case, not only are they taking credit for failures, but Al Qaeda has even taken credit for a bombing they didn’t do (here):

WASHINGTON: Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen was not behind the Sept. 3 crash of a UPS cargo plane in Dubai and falsely took responsibility for the incident, according to the FBI and Department of Homeland Security….

& to add insult to injury, one of their own provided the intelligence needed to prevent the plot (here):

Yemen has revealed that a former Guantánamo Bay detainee who fled to the country from Saudi Arabia after his release by the US tipped off authorities about the plot to send bombs on cargo planes….

Of course it’s hard to take credit for successes when none exist, but it’s interesting to note that their power has been reduced to such an extent, that failures are the only things for which credit can be taken.

& for some, looking at a terrorist group as you would any other political organization, might be unseemly,  but it is instructive nonetheless.  Recall just 9 short years ago, how everyone was certain we would be hit again. How we were warned about continuing policies.  How we were being pulled into quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq just like they wanted.

& now – admission of failures and fake admissions of success.  How time changes things.

Disclaimer:  None of this is intended to signal that I think vigilance isn’t necessary for our security successes to continue.

There’s an interesting research paper on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict by the Journal of Judgement and Decision Making (whole thing here):

The paper extends research on fixed-pie perceptions by suggesting that disputants may prefer proposals that are perceived to be equally attractive to both parties (i.e., balanced) rather than one-sided, because balanced agreements are seen as more likely to be successfully implemented. We test our predictions using data on Israeli support for the Geneva Accords, an agreement for a two state solution negotiated by unofficial delegations of Israel and the Palestinian Authority in 2003. The results demonstrate that Israelis are more likely to support agreements that are seen favorably by other Israelis, but — contrary to fixed-pie predictions — Israeli support for the accords does not diminish simply because a majority of Palestinians favors (rather than opposes) the accords. We show that implementation concerns create a demand among Israelis for balance in the degree to which each side favors (or opposes) the agreement. The effect of balance is noteworthy in that it creates considerable support for proposals even when a majority of Israelis and Palestinians OPPOSE the deal.

Or restated, it seems our sense of justice prefers balanced deals over seemingly one-sided deals, even if the balanced deal is opposed by the majorities of both interest groups.  Seems intuitive.

As has been widely reported today, two female suicide bombers attacked train stops in Moscow (via the Economist here):

TWO terrorist bombers on the Moscow metro killed at least 37 people and injured 102 in the morning rush hour on Monday March 29th. The first explosion, which killed 22 people and injured 12, struck just before 8am at the Lubyanka metro station, a few hundred feet from the Kremlin and next to the headquarters of the Federal Security Services, the successor to the KGB. The second bomb went off at Park Kultury, by the main circular road in central Moscow, killing at least 15.

The Russian security services said two female suicide bombers from the north Caucasus were responsible….

This seems to be a continuation of hostilities between Russia & Caucasus as Russia continues it’s movements to secure the sphere of Russian influence within eastern Europe.  Many former bloc countries have tried to maintain independence from Russia and Russia has responded.  In some cases, political and economic pressure could be enough, in other cases the military is being used as a foreign policy tool.  Right or wrong, all military objectives are just foreign policy goals through a military vehicle.

What does this have to do with equal rights?  To be honest I’m not sure, but reading Slate made me think I was wrong.  Under the category of “I don’t know what to think about this” Slate had two articles today: The Glass Ceiling for Female Terrorists & a reprint of an article asking if female suicide bombers get 72 virgins here.

While I do agree with the basic premise that Islamic fundamentalists treatment of women is horrendous & I believe firmly the world should be able to judge those countries which force women to be fully subjugated to men, I also believe the timing for these more lighthearted attempts at satire was not chosen wisely.

Please don’t misunderstand – I’m against almost all censorship (depends upon how you define censorship for me to say against “all”) & would never think I should be able to impose my beliefs on their editing decisions.

But as a value statement maybe we should ask: Was this a good idea considering innocents were just slaughtered for doing nothing more than trying to get to work?

Brown & Coakley election in MA:

Exit polling with race showing high turnout @ Boston.com

Does a loss affect Obama or is it just Coakley’s problem? @ LA Times

Or is “all politics local” still true? @ US News

Healthcare Reform:

Reason Foundation: Beware Of The ObamaCare Revolution

TCS Daily: Medicare Rationing Begins in 2011

Taliban Attacks in Afghanistan – what does the coordinated attack show?

Rueters via Yahoo News: Taliban attack shows tactical skill, military limits

Stratfor: The Kabul Attack: A Postmortem

AFL-CIO & Democrats – a revolving door of money – Unions give to Dems, Dems give to Unions:

Detailed Abstractions: Unions – Unionized Against Freedom

Cato:  No Taxes, Please, We’re Democrats

Will we continue to try to fix government caused crises with more government (re: Finance Reform)?

Reuters: Watchdog’s fate in Senate key to financial reform

Cato: Reforming Previous Reforms, ad Infinitum

In a story that might have more than it appears, GM announced it will not go through with a deal it announced in early summer to sell their German division Opel.

The story really first appears as the auto company bail-out was in full swing in the US.  GM had pushed a reorganization plan that cut jobs in all countries.  With German Chancellor Angela Merkel getting pressure due to the global economic crisis and facing a re-election, Opel became more important than first assumed (@BusinessWeek):

….On Tuesday, though, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Opel was not a “system-critical” corporation. “There are system-critical financial institutions,” she told her conservative party’s parliamentary group, according to the Rheinische Post newspaper. “But there are no system-critical industrial firms.” It was Merkel’s indirect way of saying that Opel is less important to Germany than its crisis-stricken banks. Her statements were intended to counter earlier comments made by the head of the left-leaning Social Democratic Party that Opel was indeed “system relevant.” She added, however, that Opel should be given a chance to survive and that like all companies, it has the “right to apply for state aid.”…

It not only became more important, but Chancellor Merkel started treating it as imperative to re-election (@France24.c0m):