Terrorists, Shmerrorists: I'm Here for Peace, Man! Jimmy Carter and Khalid Meshaal Meeting Today

Former President Jimmy Carter is trying to bring peace to the Middle East, by meeting with leaders of a terrorist organization. A noble goal, although I think that Former President Carter either doesn't understand what's happened in the last several decades, or doesn't care.

Terrorists, Shmerrorists: I'm Here for Peace!

Former President Jimmy Carter is in Syria today, meeting with a terrorist leader, presumably in the interests of a lasting peace in the Middle East.

A fine sentiment. And, I think, an achievable goal. Eventually. But not by making nice to terrorists.

Lately, I've found myself agreeing with people that I generally don't. Connecticut's Senator Joseph Lieberman joined the list yesterday. As Newsmax.com put it,
" Lieberman told Fox News on Thursday that 'at best, President Carter is being naive' for reaching out to a group directly linked to terrorism.

" 'There is a long list of people who thought they could reason with dictators and killers, going back to Neville Chamberlain and Hitler in the 1930s, but it has been shown to be absolutely wrong,' Lieberman said."

Attacking Neville Chamberlain after the effects of his "peace for our time" became obvious may be a sort of Monday morning quarterbacking. I think it's possible that Mr. Chamberlain was a well-intentioned, optimistic man who didn't understand what he was dealing with.

I think that Mr. Carter may have some of the same qualities.

There are differences, of course.

• Mr. Chamberlain was an official representative of a government, sent by that government to negotiate
• Mr. Carter has been asked by several sectors of the American government to not do what he's doing with Hamas
• Hitler's Germany did not, at the time of Chamberlain's meeting, have a decades-long track record of unwanted behavior
• Hamas does

Now, I read that an Israeli cabinet minister wants Jimmy Carter to pass a message to Hamas. What makes this remarkable is that Israel, with better reasons than most, is participating in the international isolation of Hamas.

The Israeli minister has a noble goal: freeing a prisoner or two. As the International Herald Tribune put it, "Cabinet Minister Eli Yishai says Friday that he asked former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to tell Hamas he wants to talk to the militant group. Yishai wants to win the release of a captured Israeli soldier. The minister says he wouldn't discuss a Israel-Gaza fighting so as not to go against a government ban on negotiating with Hamas."

I sympathize with cabinet minister Eli Yishai, but I think that Israel's prime minister has the right idea. Again, from the International Herald Tribune, "Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he did not meet Carter so as not to create the impression that he was negotiating with the Islamic militants. Israel considers Hamas a terrorist group."

Thanks to Eli Yishai's gesture, though, I think that this is what we'll be told about the Carter-Meshaal meeting: "Israel negotiating with Hamas through Carter" (Ya Libnan (April 18, 2008)). (I recommend the Ya Libnan post, for a more-than-usually detailed look at the Carter-Meshaal-Yishai-Hamas-Israel matter.)

Nevile Chamberlain's name has come up from time to time, in the context of imprudent negotiations and concessions involving terrorists. I do think that Former President Jimmy Carter's un-negotiations with terrorists permits - even encourages - a comparison between the wisdom of Carter and Chamberlain.

When I heard about the Israeli cabinet minister and Carter, I thought we might have another parallel between a prominent individual from the WWII era and someone in current events.

Actions Make a Difference: So Do Motives

I was relieved to read more about Cabinet Minister Eli Yishai and his communications with Hamas. Ya Libnan quoted him in the post I cited before: " 'I am ready to meet with all necessary Hamas members and with Shalit's captors, and I would be pleased if you can help,' Yishai told Carter at their meeting on Monday. 'I am volunteering myself for the task, and I ask you to convey a message: They also have prisoners and I am sure they want to see them released, and therefore it is proper to expedite the negotiations.' "

However, "Yishai opposes negotiating with the Palestinian leadership, led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, over a permanent-status arrangement, especially regarding Jerusalem."

Cabinet Minister Yishai seems to have some understanding of Israel's position, and concern for Israel's integrity.

That's a relief. Hearing that an Israeli official wanted to talk with terrorists whose policy is to obliterate Israel, I considered the possibility that we were looking at someone who was making personal arrangements with what he thought might be the winning side.

Flexibility and Treason: There's Difference

When I heard that an Israeli official was slipping a message to Hamas via Carter, I immediately thought of a prominent individual from the World War II era. As Germany, led by their new Chancellor and his party, took over management of European nations which it saw as insufficiently Aryan, some people decided to adapt to what they probably thought was the new big power.

In Norway, a man who admired Chancellor Hitler and his policies had pointed out the advantages of assuming control of Norway. After Germany added Norway to it's holdings, this man made himself Norway's leader, and told Norway's armed forces to stop resisting the Germans.

Although I generally approve of flexibility and adaptability in leaders, I think that this man made the wrong decisions. And I'm not alone. Instead of receiving a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to bring about a swift end of the war in Norway, this man was tried and executed, after the Norwegian resistance and the Allies ended WWII.

This man did, however, receive a sort of recognition for his efforts. His surname is now synonymous with "traitor" in some circles: Vidkum Quisling.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Former President Carter, Hamas, Khalid Meshaal: Definitely Not Routine

Former President Jimmy Carter is talking with Hamas leaders as I'm writing this. My understanding is that this is a prelude to his big meeting with Khalid Meshaal on Friday.

• The American State Department asked him not to
• Over 50 members of Congress asked him not to
• But, Mr. Carter wanted to go

And, as a free citizen, it's his right to ignore what government agencies and members of Congress say, and do what he wants.

I hope that he's a starry-eyed optimist, with no clue as to what "death to the Jews! death to the great Satan America!" means. Barring that, I hope that he's simply bucking for a second Nobel Peace Prize, or plans to release a best-selling book soon. Neither of these possibilities are as crazy as they may sound.

• Mr. Carter missed a shot at the Nobel Peace Prize, back in 1978 - he had to wait until 2002, for decades of "untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development."
• There is a potential best-seller here:
  • Between high-profile personalities, exotic locales, and the thrill of international intrigue, possible working titles could include
    • "Chamberlain, Schmamberlain: I Trust These Guys"
    • "Mid East Peace: I Did it My Way"
    • "I Kissed Khalid"
  • Coverage of Carter's trip to the Middle East would be a marketer's dream come true - you can't buy publicity like that

I certainly hope that this diplomatic adventure is not simply an effort to alleviate boredom, an exercise in egotism, or perhaps the result of anti-Semitism, as one blogger suggested.

We may learn, later today, what happened at today's meeting with Mahmoud al-Zahar and Saeed Seyam. Meanwhile, here's a selection of Mr. Carter in the news:

• "Carter set to meet with Hamas officials in Egypt"
  CNN (April 17, 2008)
  "CAIRO, Egypt (CNN) -- Former President Carter is expected to meet with two senior Hamas officials Thursday in the Egyptian capital, an encounter he calls a necessary step toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  "Former President Carter meets with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Thursday in Cairo.
  "But the likely meeting has rankled the Israeli and U.S. governments, which say it runs counter to their policies of not negotiating with terrorists.
  "Israel, the United States and European Union consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization."
• "Carter Meets With Hamas Leader Who Likens Israel to Nazi Germany"
  FOXNews (April 17, 2008)
  "Former President Jimmy Carter met another top Hamas official Thursday in a Cairo hotel, FOX News has confirmed.
  "In advance of Carter's planned meeting Friday with Hamas chief Khaled Meshal, 30 congressmen introduced a bipartisan resolution condemning Hamas for terrorist activities, including the murder of 26 Americans. Both the United States and Israel have designated Hamas a terror organization and refuse to negotiate with it.
  "The resolution, sponsored by Reps. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., is intended as a warning shot at Carter and follows letters from more than 50 congressmen urging the former president to abandon his visit to the Hamas head, who lives in exile in Syria."

I'll say this for Mr. Carter: He does his part to keep international affairs from becoming routine.

---

Update (April 17, 2008)

I found a remarkably detailed post on Mr. Carter's trip, with an informed discussion and links: "Carter, Once Again, Inspires Censure"
Snapshots a Camera^® Blog (April 17, 2008)

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

You Think American Courts are Crazy Now?

This ties in with the war on terror, really.

First, some of this week's headlines:

American Courts in the News

"Judge Orders Whites Out Of Atlanta Court"

WSB - Atlanta (March 28, 2008) "ATLANTA -- Judge Marvin Arrington insists he's not a racist; despite ordering white lawyers out of his courtroom on Thursday." (The judge's black, and as a member of two other ethnic minorities, I think he had a point: check out the article. What I think is crazy here is why Judge Arrington has to defend himself.)

"Judge Somma rethinks his resignation"

UnionLeader.com (April 2, 2008)

"Boston — A judge who resigned after being caught driving drunk in New Hampshire while in drag says he's reconsidering his decision to quit.

"U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Somma said in a letter to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly posted Tuesday that an outpouring of support from judges, lawyers and others led him to reconsider"

Courts Around the World in the News

"Malaysian man gets double whammy divorce"

Idaho Statesman (April 1, 2008)

"KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — When Roslan Ngah took a second wife, he might have wondered if she would get along with his first.

"He need not have worried. The two women got on so well they decided to leave him at the same time.

"Faced with their united stand, Roslan, a 44-year-old Malaysian Muslim, divorced his two wives, aged 46 and 35, in an Islamic Shariah Court in northeastern Terengganu state on Tuesday, a lawyer said Wednesday.

"According to Islamic law, a woman can submit a request to leave her husband, but the pronouncement of divorce must come from the man or a court. Islam allows a man to have four wives."

"Man, woman stoned to death in Pakistan"

United Press International (April 2, 2008)

"ISLAMABAD, Pakistan ... -- A man and a woman, sentenced to death by a Pakistani tribal court after being found guilty of adultery, reportedly were stoned to death by Taliban militants.

"The stoning was supposedly carried out Monday in the Khwezai-Baezai tribal area, Dawn newspaper reported. The area is part of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan.

"It was first such reported incident of a stoning by the militants, who usually put the accused before firing squads, the report said."

So We Become Part of a Caliphate: So What?

According to some of the 'deep thinkers' I've known, governments everywhere (with the possible exception of the Worker's Paradise) are pretty much the same: unless maybe American government institutions are more racist and oppressive.

I haven't talked with them recently, but my guess is that some would say that it wouldn't make much difference, if the American Congress was replaced with a council of Ayatollahs, and the Supreme Court justices were replaced by scholars well-versed in Sharia law.

The others would know enough about the shallow end of Islamic law to know that they wouldn't like it. American courts have their faults: but they do, in general, give a little wiggle room for human nature; and don't regard what goes on in the back seat of a car as a capital offense.

It Can't Happen Here

Don't be so sure.

Quite a few leaders around the world seem to regard Chamberlain as the paragon of international diplomacy.

Negotiation is great, it has a place in diplomacy: and really good negotiators have a shot at a Nobel Peace Prize. Speaking of which, have you noticed that negotiators like Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize, but not Generals, many of whom actually ended wars?¹

I'm genuinely concerned that the next American president, and many members of Congress, may try to achieve "peace for our time," rather than peace.

As I said, negotiation is great: but there are people who regard negotiation as an opportunity to delay their enemy. The National Socialist German Workers Party made effective use of negotiation, and Europe's fervent desire for peace, in 1938.

Seven decades later, many leaders are as desperate for peace as Nevil Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier, and others were. I hope that today's - and tomorrow's - negotiators learn the right lessons from history.

---

¹ To be fair, American Commander in Chiefs - Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter - got the prize: in 1906, 1919 and 2002, respectively.

EEEK! Guns! Hoplophobia and Foreign Policy

"French Logic, Islamic Reality" [URL no longer valid] is just a sort of cartoon, but the post may have a point.

The "Sear and Hammer" blog has an intriguing definition in its header: "Hoplophobia (n) - mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons." ¹

The post's picture is a speech balloon with a quote, "Security is the responsibility of the state. I am against the private ownership of firearms. If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he will use his weapon more effectively than you anyway, so you are risking your life." The speaker is a photo of French president Nikolas Sarkozy. The background image shows a street scene that could have been taken in the Middle East. (The photo was probably taken in one of the French cities where young Muslims have been expressing their feelings about French wisdom and policies in a crudely physical manner.)

The caption reads, "So...how's that working for you folks?"

How Not to End a War

This reminds me of European leaders' reaction to World Wars I and II. After "the war to end all wars," European leaders pondered how to prevent another conflict. Pooling their wisdom, they decided that the war happened because

• They'd had weapons
• They were developing more weapons
• And it was Germany's fault

So, the assembled luminaries at Versailles arranged punishments for Germany, and assurances that the civilized countries in Europe wouldn't have too many weapons.

Yes, I'm over-simplifying. A lot.

However, I think it's arguable that the Versailles party helped Germany's National Socialist party rise to power, by giving the German people something to be legitimately offended at. On top of that, the peace-loving nations of Europe now didn't have the military power to effectively negotiate with a Germany that wasn't quite so scrupulous about treaty obligations.

So, we got WWII.

'War to End All Wars' Number Two: Lessons Learned?

I'll give European leaders credit. After the Second World War,

• They formed NATO, a blatantly military alliance
• Germany got better treatment than after WWI - the half that wasn't given to the former Soviet Union, at least
• Japan wasn't treated too badly

Some of Japan's international help, a great deal of it from America, was admittedly intrusive. However, the intent was to get Japan re-built and on its feet. Since Japanese industries have been very serious competitors with American and European businesses, from Toyota to Nintendo, it seems that the efforts were successful.

Spirit of Versailles: Still Here

Back in Europe, though, I'd say that the spirit of Versailles is still alive and well in Europe. A plausible explanation for Europe's pervasive negotiate - and - conciliate preference is that the people of Europe got two horrible shocks, a generation apart, and so want to avoid armed conflict at any cost.

Besides, it feels so much nobler to plea for peace and hand out Nobel Peace Prizes, than to engage in the sort of rough and destructive military action that's occasionally necessary when dealing with leaders who are willing to kill and destroy.

Compromise: But Not Always

I don't see myself as a "hawk," politically.

I would very much prefer that conflicts be resolved by all parties sitting down and discussing - calmly, if possible - their differences. That way, a mutually acceptable compromise may be reached.

I've also studied enough history to realize that sometimes compromise isn't the best approach. The people who put the United States of America together in the aftermath of their revolution compromised on the issue of slavery. It took the suppression of another revolution, a century later, to settle the issue.

England's Prime Minister Chamberlain is best-known for his notorious compromise at that Munich meeting in 1938. The peace he won lasted a couple of days. Or, five and a half months, depending on which event you choose as the end of Chamberlain's peace: Germany

• Entering the Sudetenland on October 1, 1938
• Invading the remainder of Czechoslovakia, March 15, 1339

Back to the point of this post.

First, a couple of fairly obvious points

• Peace is nice. It would be nice if everyone would agree to settle differences peacefully.
• War isn't nice. Things get broken and people die. This is not good.
• Diplomacy can lead to mutually-acceptable compromise. This is good.

Second, it's hard to shake the impression that America and Europe have leaders and 'experts' who are afraid of weapons. Not sensibly cautious about getting shot by a tanked-up hunter or enthusiastic mugger: being afraid that the guns will shoot them.

Misplaced or exaggerated fear can make people do and write odd things. Palestinian 'activists' have a history of demanding a cease-fire when Israeli forces are hurting them. Then, after they've had a chance to resupply and regroup, it's back to "Death to Israel!"

This week, Hamas asked Israel to stop attacking terrorists. I think we can count on more headlines like "Olmert Rejects Hamas’ Offer of Cease-Fire," with the usual interpretation of unreasonable Jews rejecting peace-loving Palestinians - published by possibly- hoplophobic editors who seem more focused on achieving peace than avoiding genocide. (Yes, I'm biased.)

Third, compromise with others, letting them achieve some of their goals, is important. But sometimes compromise isn't the greatest good.

Finally, compromise with leaders who call for "Death to Israel!" and "Death to the great Satan America!" seems less than prudent.

---

¹ You're not likely to find "hoplophobia" on your bookshelf, uless you've got something like "Contemporary Diagnosis And Management of Anxiety Disorders" (Philip T. Ninan, MD, and Boadie W. Dunlop, MD). The idea that fear of weapons is not normal seems to be one that hasn't gained traction among America's best and brightest.

Nantanz Next? MOP Could Mop Up Nuclear Program

The bomb weighs around 30,000 pounds, is 20 feet long and has a three-and-a-half inch thick steel skin. It's designed to go as much as 200 feet underground before exploding. It's called "Massive Ordnance Penetrator," or MOP. Reporters call it a bunker-buster.

ABC News reporters discovered that U.S. military commanders wanted it for "an urgent operational need from theater commanders."

Some politicos seem to think that refitting B-2 bombers to hold the MOP is a plot.

ABC started its online article with:

"Tucked inside the White House's $196 billion emergency funding request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is an item that has some people wondering whether the administration is preparing for military action against Iran.

"The item: $88 million to modify B-2 stealth bombers so they can carry a newly developed 30,000-pound bomb called the massive ordnance penetrator, or, in military-speak, the MOP."

ABC says that stealth aircraft like the B-2 wouldn't be needed to take the MOP to tunnel complexes on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, but that a stealth bomber would be useful in an attack at the Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz.

I ran into a discussion on television this morning, where one politico was concerned about the White House trying to sneak in preparations for a raid on Iran's nuclear facilities, without consulting Congress.

Fair enough. Congress is supposed to be in the loop, where decisions like that are concerned.

I just hope that our leaders don't buy Iran's story about the Nantanz facility being "aimed at the eradication of deserts." It's about as likely to be true as Syria's claim that the Israeli jets blew up sand, an agricultural research station, an unused military building/warehouse, or (more plausible) nuclear reactor

It's just barely possible that Iran is run by nice people, and that Ahmadinejad's and other Iranian leaders' remarks about destroying Israel, their 'death to America' rallys and their habit of shelling Iraq are silly misunderstandings. Or, to use a currently popular word, misconstruings.

And, it's just barely possible that I'd buy a winning Minnesota Millionaire Raffle ticket down at Casey's today.

Serious matters can't be decided on the basis of wishful thinking and long odds. Well, they can: but it's a bad idea.

I think that the least-unlikely explanation for Iran's nuclear program is that Iranian rulers want nuclear weapons, and that they intend to use the things to make the world safe for Islam. Their version, that is.

If the leaders who follow in the steps of Chamberlain have their way, something like this could happen.

• America and other non-Islamic countries make resolutions, send delegations, and express concern, but do nothing to stop Iran's nuclear program.
• Ahmadinejad gets a Nobel Peace Prize for talking with the delegates (this is far from impossible: remember Arafat in 1994)
• Iran gets at least one nuclear weapon
• A city, probably in America, loses 10,000 or so people and several blocks of real estate, and has to evacuate the survivors.

Another option is to get as much proof as is practical that Iran is, in fact, developing a nuclear bomb. Then, destroy the facilities that Iran is using.

Obliterating the desert eradication/nuclear facilities that Iran's tucked under Nantanz and buried elsewhere won't end the underlying issues, but it will at least delay the bomb-making program.

The problem is that doing the rest of the world such a favor will leave the benefactor with a serious question: Was saving thousands of people's lives the right thing to do; or would it have been better to act like the good guy in stories, and let the bad guy strike first?

Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and the Sudetenland: Anybody Remember the Munich Pact?

Iran's only reason for maintaining a secret nuclear program for sixteen years is to generate electricity. That's according to Iran's President Ahmadinejad.

He's the same man who told students at Columbia University that there were no homosexuals in Iran. They didn't buy it, and I'm dubious about his claim that Iran's secret nuclear program is just for power generation.

It's not quite so secret now, of course. The outside world caught wind of what was going on about four years ago. The good news is that Iran is letting International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors take a look at the nuclear energy facilities that Iran officially has. The bad news is that IAEA inspectors aren't allowed to snoop around unless they ask the Iranian government first. Then, if they get permission, they have to wait until Iranian authorities say it's okay.

That situation does not fill me with reassurance.

The new French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, said yesterday that the world had a choice, according to ynetnews.com:

• The world's powers get very busy with diplomacy, putting controls on Iran's nuclear program.
• A messy alternative:
  "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran."

I was somewhat surprised to read that a French president considered an Iran with nuclear weapons as something that could really happen.

That's a mildly hopeful sign.

France has made its willingness to help nations set up non-military nuclear facilities. "France is ready to help any country which wants to possess civilian nuclear energy," French president Sarkozy said, according to "Energy Daily."

The way Iranian munitions show up in Iraq, exported with the intent of killing people who are helping Iraq set up a moderately stable government, I doubt that Iran would be satisfied with letting a nuclear stockpile go unused.

I want very much to believe that the situation with the Iranian ayatollahs and enriched uranium can be resolved peacefully.

Resolved without the sort of accommodation that Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini made in 1938. That 'peaceful resolution' lasted about a year: less, from the point of view of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia.

France Regaining its "High Historical and Cultural Position"

Yesterday, I posted about the peculiar circumstance of a French official saying that war was possible, and not blaming America. The matter at hand was the way that sanctions and negotiations and more sanctions and more negotiations hadn't had much effect on Iran's nuclear program.

Aside from giving Iranian diplomats something to do, and buying time for the allegedly civilian nuclear program.

A couple of Mohammeds voiced their opinions that France wasn't being as cultural and highly historical as it usually was, and that people shouldn't talk about using force.

Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner explained that he was "drawing attention to the gravity of the crisis." Monday, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon downplayed Kouchner’s comments even more. "France’s role is to lead the way to a peaceful solution."

Ah, mais oui! Naturellement! Il est très sophistiqué! Sûrement cette approche très intelligente réussira!

That's more like the French diplomacy we've come to know and love.

I sincerely hope that the French government succeeds. A peaceful solution would be nice. I also hope that the French government does not emulate the very diplomatic Neville Chamberlain, back in 1938.

Personally, I was impressed with the French Foreign Minister's original remarks. I took them as an indication that one person, at least, in the French government realized that the possibility of ayatollahs with first-strike nuclear capabilities was something to be avoided.

Six Years Ago, Tomorrow: Remembering 9/11

Six years ago tomorrow, people died when New York's World Trade Center towers collapsed. More died when the Pentagon's walls were breached by an airliner, and the passengers and crew of Flight 93 stopped terrorists from completing their mission.

Not that other countries haven't had trouble with airliners. Take Korea, for example.

In 1978, Korean Air's Flight 902 strayed into what was then Soviet airspace. Soviet air defense identified the airliner as a Boeing 747, then they shot at the airliner. Two passengers died, and the Korean pilots were forced to land on a frozen lake.

Korean Air Lines Flight 007 got too close to Soviet territory in 1983. This time everyone on board died. The airliner was shot down by the a Soviet fighter. This attack may be understandable. The fighter pilot's commanders were under the impression that it was an American spy plane.

Contrast these little misunderstandings with Flight 85, on September 11, 2001. This account takes a while to tell, but I think it's worthwhile to recount, as an example of what kind of a country America is.

By the time the Korean Air flight was approaching American airspace, American air traffic control and the U.S. military were already tense. Two hijacked airliners had crashed into the World Trade Center in New York. Another set of hijackers had rammed an airliner into the Pentagon. Passengers and crew of another airliner stopped the hijackers in their plane, but died in the process.

Air controllers in America and Canada were in the process of getting hundreds of airborne vehicles to the ground, safely, in as little time as possible.

Meanwhile, over the Pacific, Korean Air Flight 85 was headed for Anchorage, on its way to New York City. The airliner started transmitting a coded signal (HJK) which warned air traffic control that there were hijackers on board. Korean Air officials said that it was all a misunderstanding.

Downtown Anchorage was evacuated, and American fighters armed with guns and live missiles intercepted the airliner.

An extreme response? Under the circumstances, no. Not at all. There was no way of knowing how many rogue airliners were still in the air.

The sensible thing to do would have been to shoot Korean Air 85 out of the air while it was still over the Pacific.

Especially since, when asked by air traffic controllers, the Korean pilots declared themselves hijacked. That is, "they set their transponder, which transmits information about the flight to radars, to the four-digit universal code for hijacked - 7500."

Americans aren't sensible, not that way. While the airliner kept transmitting the hijacker signal, air traffic controllers, working with U.S. and Canadian military, gave the pilots maneuvering instructions, which they followed.

Despite the "7500" signal and what was going on in the eastern part of the USA, it seemed possible that there really weren't hijackers on the airliner.

US and Canadian officials decided to have the plane land at an isolated spot: Whitehorse International Airport.

The 747 crew may have been surprised at being diverted to a small town in western Canada, and more surprised when armed RCMP troopers ordered them out of the plane. They apparently didn't know that they were transmitting a hijacking warning.

With a nation under attack by hijacked airliners, an airliner whose radio was yelling "I'm hijacked!" was brought to a safe landing.

I think it's a good idea to remember realities like that, when reading words of journalistic wisdom like "There has never been an American army as violent and murderous as the one in Iraq" (Pulitzer-winning investigative journalist Seymour "My Lai" Hersh).

Back to 9/11.

Last year, I watched the president, the first lady, and a marine place a wreath of flowers on two pools of water in what New Yorkers called The Pit.

Bagpipers played while they walked from one pool to another, and as they walked away. Notes of "Oh Beautiful for Spacious Skies" bounced off walls of The Pit.

Those pools marked the World Trade Center tower footprints in lower Manhattan. The wreath-laying was the first memorial observance I noticed that year.

Finally, here are a few quotes that I can find comforting. It looks like folks weren't any more wise, or daft, in the past than they are now.

"The outcome of the war is in our hands; the outcome of words is in the council." (Homer (800 BC - 700 BC), in The Iliad

"Let him who desires peace prepare for war." Flavius Vegetius Renatus (about 375 AD), in De Rei Militari

"The name of peace is sweet, and the thing itself is beneficial, but there is a great difference between peace and servitude. Peace is freedom in tranquility, servitude is the worst of all evils, to be resisted not only by war, but even by death." Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC), in Philippica

"My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. And now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds." Neville Chamberlain (1869–1940), in a speech at Downing Street, London, after his return from making the Munich Pact. September 30, 1938

"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a programme would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators" Neville Chamberlain, in a speech to the House of Commons, justifying his policy. October 6, 1938

"Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided." Senator William Borah, (1865-1940, Idaho's Progressive Republican "Lion of Idaho"), when he heard that Hitler had invaded Poland. September of 1939

The Senate, Military Funding, and Iraq

Showing the sort of leadership we've come to expect over the last few months, the United States Senate pulled an all-nighter, and failed to pass military funding authorization in wartime.

The defense authorization bill that didn't pass would have included

• Pay raises for service members
• Missile defense programming
• Rules on habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo Bay detainees
• Equipment development plans

My hat's off to one of the major political parties. Even though they failed in their objective, they made a valiant effort to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The desire to end U.S. involvement in Iraq is understandable. It's been about four years now, and apart from

• Removing a brutal dictator
• Rebuilding much of the infrastructure neglected under his rule
• Removing the dictator's enforcers and launching a civilian police force in their place
• Re-training Iraqi armed forces for something other than genocide and pillaging operations and
• Helping Iraqi leaders build a working government while under fire from religious fanatics

...not much has been achieved in Iraq.

I wonder how many people remember that it took 11 years for the United States of America to move from the Articles of Confederation to the start of the Constitution we're using now?

There are times when I feel that there should be a Chamberlain Committee to award the "Peace for Our Time" medal to those who excel at ignoring the big picture.

Yes, I'm biased.

I don't think that religious fanatics who were trying to kill us before 9/11 will stop because we abandon a country with which were were not closely involved before 2001.

I don't think people who sincerely believe that their god wants them to kill people who don't follow their rules will stop because the United States decides to get out of their way.

I don't think that it is reasonable to expect this struggle between one segment of Islam and everyone else will end soon. I would be astonished if this conflict took less time to resolve than the seven decades during which the Soviet Union absorbed much of eastern Europe, threatened the rest of the world, and provided some self-described deep thinkers a shining beacon of hope in a competitive world.

Back to the U.S. Congress.

I'm being a bit unfair, of course. The U.S. Congress has one recent achievement to its credit. Together, the houses of Congress have managed to not only score lower than President Bush in job approval, but to outdistance the president in job disapproval as well:

Job Approval:
25.0% Congress
33.0% President

Job Disapproval:
66.0% Congress
62.8% President

(from Real Clear Politics for Presidential and Congressional numbers, reported on Fox News)

Another issue that came up in the recent Congressional mess was the use of earmarks. These convenient little dodges are another topic - and one that I won't get into. At least, not now.