This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Atlas Blogged

January 3, 2009

Being Reasonable--reaction from the Muslim family recently thrown off a flight by AirTrain

An interesting interview on NPR:

A Muslim-American passenger, one of nine members of a family detained and questioned at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport after fellow passengers on their AirTran flight reported hearing a suspicious conversation, says the family is trying not to be angry at what happened.

(interview is audio, 5:13 in duration)

After listening to this interview, I have to say that Atif Irfan sounds like he is much less frustrated and angry about this whole situation than I am. In fact, he sounds really, really understanding and reasonable about the whole thing, especially for a man who was born and raised in the United States to have been treated this way.

But me? I'm pretty angry about it.

I am ashamed of and angry with Mr. Irfan's fellow passengers, who are clearly morons.
I mean first rate xenophobic morons--the type who make all Americans look stupid, and probably still don't understand that they were wrong. As noted yesterday at PoliBlog,

[W]hy in the world would a set of terrorists come onto the plane and call attention to themselves by talking about the safest place to sit on the plane? Beyond that, did the passengers, AirTran officials and the air marshals actually think that these people planned to blow up the plane and ride the wreckage to the ground? Last time I checked, radical jihadists weren’t too concerned about surviving their attacks.

But oh, you know... better safe than sorry! The guy looks like what I think a terrorist probably looks like!

Morons.

Also, Airtrain's initial response to this situation was terrible. As I told my wife last night, if I had been forced to get off the plane and go through the TSA's asinine screening process a second time just because a Muslim family was discussing flight safety, I would refuse to ever do business with that airline again. In fact, I might have refused to get back on the plane. They need to play catchup on public relations, beyond the apology they have offered to Mr. Irfan.

Wulf Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)






August 1, 2007

Stick a Fork in Him… (updated)

obama.jpg


He’s done. In saying that he would be willing to send US troops* into Pakistan to attack al-Qaeda - regardless of how the Pakistani government feels about it – Barak Obama has again exposed his inexperience and naiveté. He might be an extremely charismatic guy, and he might even make a great president… some day. But there’s no possible way it will happen this cycle. The pack has, for the time being, left Hillary Clinton alone in the fore.

I’m curious to know how Senator Obama would have reacted if President Bush had said,
Let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again… If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

I’m a little curious to know how that would have gone over with those who are today defending Obama’s comments. By which I mean, I know exactly how that would have gone over with them, and I’m being a snarky prick about it.

It’s not even a matter of whether it would be right for US troops to invade Pakistan in order to carry out an act of vengeance arrest of Osama bin Laden. It’s a matter of whether Americans are going to be willing to vote for somebody who is making that kind of threat. Specifically, Americans who vote in Democratic primaries. I just can’t see that. Now, I never figured Barak Obama to be experienced enough to pull off the nomination, but as of today I’ll officially write him off as having any possibility this election cycle. No chance at all.


* for those who defend Obama by saying that he never mentioned sending in "troops" and never said the word "invade", get real. Would you accept such semantics from the current administration if Bush ordered an airstrike on a sovereign nation - an ally, mind you? And if the Pakistanis hanged Bush in effigy and burnt American flags in the streets, would you back him up? Or would you say he arrogantly blundered his way into more trouble and spawned a new generation of anti-American terrorists? Answer me if you like, I know exactly how that would have gone over with you, and I’m being a snarky prick about it.

Update 8/2 at 10:50:
Hillary Clinton last night on American Urban Radio News Network:

I’ve long believed that we needed tougher, smarter action against terrorists by deploying more troops to Afghanistan, and if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured. And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America… But clearly we have to be prepared — as my husband was when he fired on training camps and as we must be with special operations, with using technology like the Predator [unmanned aerial vehicle] — to be constantly on the hunt for bin Laden and the other al Qaeda leadership,

It’s being reported as Senator Clinton agreeing with Senator Obama, though I note she made a more political polished comment and specifically noted that the action could be done without even a single US aviator crossing into Pakistan. This isn’t the going-for-the-throat Hillary Clinton we thought we knew, because she certainly could have taken this opportunity to again emphasize Obama’s relative inexperience and naivete. I still think his comment will help keep him in a holding pattern well past the Democratic primaries. Edwards remains the most viable Democratic candidate for the extreme anti-war crowd, and I don’t think Obama has a chance to take the moderates from Clinton. He's done.

Wulf Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)






July 17, 2007

Economic Growth

Afghanistan's poppy crop set another record this growing season. I mean, it won't be official until the folks from Guinness verify it of course. But unofficially, we're talking a record crop.

That's a lot of cash flowing into Afghanistan. I hope most of it is going towards infrastructure and education.

Wulf Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)






April 29, 2007

Melted Steel

(Click on image for link to slideshow)

highway.jpg


Do you really expect me to believe that the I-beams and steel girders of this freeway could be melted by a simple gasoline fire? Hide your ignorance! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!

Wulf Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)






April 26, 2007

Barbarism and Beheadings

I’m not sure whether you have seen the reports of the Taliban kidnapping and beheading a Pakistani man they accuse of being a US spy. Video of the beheading was posted online this week, and the knife-wielder is, reportedly, a boy of approximately 12 years of age.

The good news is that this action is being condemned by Afghan tribal leaders and (as far as I can tell) average guys on the Muslim street. Pundits sometimes ask why the millions of peaceful Muslims around the world have allowed their religion to be hijacked by extremists and terrorists, so I hope they note this sort of statement:

"It's very wrong for the Taliban to use a small boy to behead a man," religious teacher Mullah Attullah told Reuters on Thursday.

"I appeal to the Taliban to please stop this because non-Muslims will think Islam is a cruel and terrorist religion.

"The Taliban do not follow the laws of Islam. They are taking advice from foreigners."

The situation over there is complicated. Of course, it’s easier for many people to think otherwise and paint all of Islam as a faith of hatred and murder. Some even go so far as to have a binary view of the Muslim world – “our Muslims” vs. the terrorists. Well, on some issues, maybe it really should be that cut-and-dry. This is one of them. It’s important to remember the true nature of this conflict, this “Global War on Terror”. It is not about Christianity vs Islam, or religion vs secularism. Before anything else, it’s about civility vs barbarism. Let’s not lose sight of that.

Wulf Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)






March 16, 2007

Russ Feingold Waxes Poetic About Somalia

Now, for those who won’t believe that [cutting off funding] has ever been done or that it can't -- or they'd say – it can't be done, let me cite an example from not that long ago. On October 1993, Congress enacted an amendment sponsored by the senior senator from West Virginia cutting off funding – cutting of funding – for military operations in Somalia effective March 31, 1994.

That’s US Senator Russ Feingold declaring yesterday that the Democrats are more interested in getting credit for the eventual withdrawal of US troops from Iraq than they are in having it done in the manner that would be best for our national security. This isn’t news, but it’s still a little shocking to see the bald language. Let it sink in: Russ Feingold just said that the manner in which our troops left Somalia is worth repeating in Iraq. Given the damage done to our reputation in Somalia, I don’t know language strong enough to denounce Feingold.

Consider what Osama bin Laden had to say about the situation to which Feingold refers:

America left [Somalia] faster than anyone expected. It forgot all that tremendous media fanfare about the new world order, that it is the master of that order, and that it does whatever it wants. It forgot all of these propositions, gathered up its army, and withdrew in defeat, thanks be to God… We pray to God to give us his support and to make America ever more reluctant. God is capable of that.

We can all say that we knew it was coming. Gateway Pundit noted it back in August. David Drake wrote about it in September. And today, Red State compares Feingold’s plan to bin Laden’s inspiration.

I say it again: I don’t know language strong enough to denounce Feingold. This is not the moral high ground, Senator.

Wulf Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)






February 27, 2007

Playing Politics with the Iraq Troop Surge

I really like it when the media frames a debate the way I would do. NPR’s Ron Elving was apparently willing to accommodate me for this piece on the Iraq troop surge.

I, unlike most self-described libertarians, recognize that it would be foolish for the Bush administration or military commanders to announce a pull-out date. But that doesn’t mean I am not looking forward to seeing the troops exit Baghdad. And that’s exactly what the troop surge would lead to if all goes well. As Elving notes:

The question now is not whether more U.S. troops will be committed but whether they will accomplish what most Americans want: an expedited disengagement.

While Democrats jockey to get the credit for the eventual troop withdrawal - Senate Democrats are considering legislation that would revoke the 2002 authorization of force that allowed the Iraq invasion, which would probably be followed by legislation revoking the laws of supply and demand so they can ram through some kind of socialist healthcare and attempt to nationalize Big Oil – the fact is that this has been the culmination of US efforts to get Iraq’s government on its feet all along, as I have noted before. The Bush administration has not been able to effectively convince Americans of the progress, partly because it brings up the obvious questions of when our troops will be done and get to leave Iraq – a question that the administration can answer in terms of benchmarks but not in terms of timetables, as Ron Elving and I have already mentioned to you.

In Elvings’ piece from this week (the one I quoted above), he implies that there are some who wish the American troop presence in Iraq could just go on and on – an indefinite pseudo-occupation that would presumably continue to take the lives of good American soldiers. Except that I don’t know anybody who wishes for that. But that’s my only complaint with Elvings’ view of the troop surge. As he ends;

So the surge will go forward. Those who want U.S. involvement to end as soon as possible must now wish for events in Iraq to render a clear verdict, pro or con. If the surge works well, the phased withdrawal so many Democrats demand (and for which so many Republicans wish) can still begin this year. If the surge fails utterly, withdrawal becomes inevitable.

The next task for Democrats and the media, really, is to write the story so that it looks like the troops only came home because the Democrats had the mandate of the people to shut off Bush/Cheney’s blood spigot. Just tell yourselves that otherwise, it never would have ended.

Wulf Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)






February 4, 2007

If We Could Just Redeploy...

I still keep hearing the argument from some that the violence in Iraq is caused by our presence. If we could just redeploy out of Iraq, they'd stop killing each other. I can't think of a more naive assessment of what's going on in Iraq. Just yesterday,

132 people were killed and 305 were wounded in the thunderous explosion that sent a column of smoke into the sky on the east bank of the Tigris River.

'It is a tragedy. The terrorists want to punish the Iraqi people. There was no police or American presence in this market yesterday,'

Of course our soldiers are targeted. Of course an argument can be made that our troops should be withdrawn sooner rather than later. But as has been noted repeatedly over the last couple of years, that will certainly escalate the violence, not end it.

Wulf Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)






January 30, 2007

On Benchmarks and Timetables

NPR Supervising Senior Washington Editor Ron Elving on Iraq:

This strategic timeframe, consistent back to the administration's earliest statements after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, does not necessarily require an open-ended military mission in Iraq. In fact, the full picture of administration statements on Iraq this month hints at something quite different: a prelude to disengagement.

Conjecture: President Bush, despite his mistakes, does in fact mean exactly what he says. The Surge is really, seriously, actually supposed to help suppress the insurgency in a vital time and place (now; Baghdad) while the Iraqi government further establishes itself… wait for it… wait for it… after which the US troops will withdraw and go home. They’re starting a withdrawal soon either way, as the Iraqi forces continue to take the lead in security operations and continue to take responsibility for security in the provinces. The exact time and date of the flights home would not be published on line for the same reason that exact troop placements are not posted on line – flexibility and security. That is, they would not be published even if they were inflexible, which would be immensely stupid. But the withdrawal is coming, pending a reasonably stable and capable government in Baghdad.

Call me crazy. Maybe referring to “benchmarks” instead of “timetables” might - just might - be because we are trying to tie our withdrawal to specific security goals (call them “benchmarks”) instead of a specific date.

Why are there people who don’t get this?

Wulf Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)






January 17, 2007

That's What I Said!

Zalmay Khalilzad (the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq), on The Surge:

We can be very patient, and we demonstrated that during the Cold War. But for patience to be sustained domestically, the American people have to believe that we have a strategy for success. I believe the American people know that Iraq is important. They have serious doubts with regard to our strategy.

(From an interview on NPR that aired today.)

Clearly, Khalilzad reads Atlas Blogged, because I think he said what I said.

Update 1/18 at 21:38: While I'll still claim Khalilzad has to be reading Atlas Blogged, I am crushed to learn that lawmakers are not. Of course, that might explain some of the achingly stupid things that roll off of Capitol Hill.

Wulf Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)






January 15, 2007

The Surge - Continuing Bush's Inability to Spell Anything Out for the Public

map-Iraqi-Progress6.gif

Does the American public have any idea what progress has been made by the Iraqi government in the last year? As the map above shows, progress has been made in training the Iraqi forces and in turning over some authority to the Iraqi government - clearly positive steps and a prelude to the eventual American withdrawl. Iraq might yet more closely resemble post-war Germany or Korea than Vietnam. (We can't really hope for another Japan, of course.)

But how aware is the American public whose opinion is solicited so carefully and frequently? Do they see more than the body count on TV? Is the message getting through?

By now we all know that President Bush has ordered a "surge" of 20,000 more troops to Iraq, and Congress is debating exactly how impotent it will be in protest. Polls show the American people are unhappy. But it matters whether this is an unhappiness borne of ignorance, or an informed decision that they disapprove of Bush's new strategery and the surge of troops to Baghdad.

I just read an instructive editorial in the Yakima-Herald:

Ever since America invaded Iraq nearly four years ago, the public has heard about the lack of exit strategies, insufficient military strength to fulfill an occupation role and misjudging the depth of the sectarian violence that would follow the departure of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime.

We've heard about the need to allow time for Iraqi security forces and the fledgling new government to get up to speed. We heard it again Wednesday evening from Bush.

Now it rings hollow.
Of course it does. This administration has made several big mistakes in foreign policy, especially in Iraq. They are not unforgivable, unfixable mistakes - except that the president has never attempted to really come clean about making them. This editorial is instructive because it highlights that the administration has never explained itself very well – it’s been a PR nightmare even when good is accomplished. Conservatives seem willing to chalk up the problem to a liberal media, but the buck has to stop on Mr. Bush’s desk, and the fact is that he’s been a terrible salesman all along.

Salesman?!? Oh, Wulf, you demean the War on Terror if you say that the president has to sell it like a can of beans.

Come on. This is politics. You can eradicate disease and still look like a villain if you are incapable of controlling your own image. As the editorial noted, the public has heard about the lack of exit strategies over and over and over again. Rather than have an exit strategy or even a clearly articulated goal, this administration has relied on platitudes and bromides. But Americans want more than appeals to patience and patriotism. They want to know when we leave Iraq, even if it isn’t right now. By refusing to talk about timelines, the administration has ceded the debate to those who invoke Vietnam. By refusing to focus on the progress of the fledgling new government – for example, the map above - the administration has ceded the debate to those who simply count casualties.

It's not that America doesn't have the stomach for a war. It's that America doesn't have the stomach for a war that appears open-ended and whose worth is uncertain.

Back to Yakima (I can’t believe I just said that):

What will come of this new effort? Do we go in with more troops, beat up on the insurgents, declare victory and then leave the country -- expecting things to level out and for the Iraqis to find peace as we define it?

Or do additional troops just make us more of an occupier -- a role history shows is not a good one for any superpower -- while we wait for the situation to improve?

How long must we wait?



Exactly the problem. Most people I’ve talked to just have no idea what the surge will do, or what it is supposed to do. Most of them think it’s pissing down the well to send 20,000 more troops to an area we want to be done with and withdraw from – an area that only ever seems to be on the news when Americans are shot at or blown up. The president has neglected the bully pulpit over the course of our time in Iraq. That he would do so seems unfathomably stupid, given how much the president has at stake here. Military success is very uncertain, and Bush also has a lot of domestic chips riding on this hand. That's a ballsy move for a lame duck whose party just lost both houses.

I don’t agree with the editorial that we should be looking for the U.N. to get involved. And I don’t agree with the main thesis - that it is "too late". But our troops will someday, somehow leave Iraq, and the question since day one has been how that will go down. There is only one person who should be able to give a definitive answer to that question. I consider it his biggest failure that he has not recognized the importance of that question and answered it to an acceptable degree.

Wulf Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)