Iranian Nukes, Israeli Attack, Diplomacy, and Common Sense

Yesterday's news told that Israel had conducted a large-scale exercise that might, or might not, be a practice run for attacking Iran's nuclear facilities.

Today's news says that the International Atomic Energy Agency head, Mohamed ElBaradei, is concerned about an attack on Iran. He colorfully compared the results in the Middle East to a "ball of fire."

And it would make Iran mad, too, he added.

I'd be surprised if someone hasn't already written or implied that leaving military action as an option is dangerous. It would be much wiser, (some) conventional wisdom has it, to assure the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and similar nations that under no circumstances would they be attacked.

It would make them feel better, you see. And that would let them calm down and be nice.

I think that deliberate, reasoned, diplomacy is a good idea. There should be an effort made to settle differences amicably, or at least peacefully. I also think that diplomacy which explicitly rejects military action as a starting point is not always a good idea.

Maybe I've studied too much history. I doubt that sort of diplomatic approach would have worked very well with Atilla the Hun. My Viking ancestors probably wouldn't have paid much attention to 'wisdom' like that either. In fact, I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't.

I don't think that human beings have changed all that much since the days when Leif Erickson was exiled from Iceland for unnecessary roughness.

There are still people around, in leadership positions, who don't play well with others, and have sublimated anger management issues. Stopping people who wanted control of other countries, and didn't mind killing people to get what they wanted, occupied quite a bit of the twentieth century. Much of the rest of the past century was spent, cleaning up the mess that followed.

Leaders who want what they want, and won't stop until they get it or are dead, present a problem to what I'll call parlor diplomacy.

Parlor diplomacy is the opposite of cowboy diplomacy. Parlor diplomacy is cautious, gentle, understanding, and above all peaceful. The idea behind parlor diplomacy is that deep down inside everybody is nice, and reasonable. All that is necessary to achieve a mutually acceptable settlement is to assure the other party that there is no danger whatsoever of military action, and everything will go smoothly.

To illustrate how parlor diplomacy works, I offer a hypothetical situation. The United States and a selection of other nations are dealing with Kraggothia. Kraggothia used to have another name, but when Kraggoth the Merciless took over, he re-named it.

Kraggothia has been building nuclear reactors, and has a missile development program which alarmists claim puts much of Europe and Africa in danger. These same alarmists claim that Kraggothia's reactors and centrifuges are intended to develop nuclear weapons.

It's possible: Kraggoth has gone to considerable expense to build his nuclear facilities underground.

Here's a flow chart, showing how parlor diplomacy works in a situation like this, to maintain peace through reason.



Looks good on paper, doesn't it? The top half, anyway.

From the News:

• "ElBaradei: Mideast could burn if Iran attacked"
  Associated Press (June 21, 2008)
  • "DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief warned in comments aired Saturday that any military strike on Iran could turn the Mideast into a "ball of fire" and lead the country to a more aggressive stance on its controversial nuclear program.
  • "The comments by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, came in an interview with an Arab television station aired a day after U.S. officials said they believed recent large Israeli military exercises may have been meant to show Israel's ability to hit Iran's nuclear sites.
  • " 'In my opinion, a military strike will be the worst ... it will turn the Middle East to a ball of fire,' ElBaradei said on Al-Arabiya television. It also could prompt Iran to press even harder to seek a nuclear program, and force him to resign, he said...."
• "Strike on Iran could turn Mideast into fireball, official says"
  CNN (June 21, 2008)
  • " DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief warned in comments aired Saturday that any military strike on Iran could turn the Mideast to a 'ball of fire' and lead Iran to a more aggressive stance on its controversial nuclear program....
  • "...Tzahi Hanegbi, chairman of the powerful Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in Israel's parliament, suggested steps including banning Iranian planes, ships and sports delegations from entering Western countries.
  • " 'There's a long way to go before diplomatic efforts are exhausted,' Hanegbi said. 'The sanctions aren't very strong; they are very shallow; there's a lot of room for enhancing them.'..."
• "Israeli Military Demonstrates Ability to Attack Iran, U.S. Officials Say"
  FOXNews (June 20, 2008)
  • "American military officials say Israel launched a major military exercise that appeared to be aimed in part at demonstrating its ability to stage an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
  • "Israel's military refused to publicly confirm or deny whether the exercise was a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack.
  • "But a senior Israeli Air Force official close to the operation told FOX News that the military is preparing for all possibilities with Iran, and during this exercise was testing its refueling capabilities. The source said helicopters were even used to practice how to respond to a downed plane....
  • "...There are precedents for unilateral Israeli action in such cases. In 1981, Israeli jets bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility to end dictator Saddam Hussein's nuclear program. And last September Israel bombed a facility in Syria that U.S. officials said was a nuclear reactor being constructed with North Korean assistance.
  • "A U.S. intelligence report released late last year concluded that Iran has suspended its nuclear weapons program, but Israeli intelligence believes that assessment is incorrect and that work is continuing."

---

Correction (June 22, 2008): I'd keyed in "Iraq" once, where I meant "Iran." Embarrassing. So, if you thought you'd read that I said that ElBaradei is concerned about an attack on Iraq, you were right.

More - What Else? - Dreadful News from Iraq

About a week ago, the Iraqi government decided to attack the Mehdi Army, radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's enforcers. Last Friday, a major news network told America how things are going.

I don't think anyone was surprised at the headline: "Analysis: Iraqis' Basra fight not going well"
CNN (March 28, 2008)

The body of the analysis was routine, too. Excerpts:

"The Iraqi military push into the southern city of Basra is not going as well as American officials had hoped, despite President Bush's high praise for the operation, several U.S. officials said Friday. ...."

"The president also hailed the operation as a sign of progress, emphasizing that the decision to mount the offensive was al-Maliki's."

"But since the beginning of the government offensive four days ago, violence also has picked up in a wide area of southern Iraq, including in Baghdad's International Zone -- also known as the Green Zone -- which has been targeted by rocket and mortar attacks."

Familiar Pattern: Military Force Doesn't Work

I recognize the pattern of thought, or association: America (or, in this case, a surrogate for America)

• Faces threat from armed and ideologically driven force
• Ignores opportunities to continue negotiations, talks, and talks about negotiations
• Decides to use military force against the armed ideologues
• The armed ideologues fight back
• Thus proving the dangers of using military force

Even today's headline isn't hopeful, once you read the article:

"Al-Sadr calls off fighting, orders compliance with Iraqi security"
CNN (March 30, 2008)

"Al-Sadr calls off fighting?" That sounds like good news. The first four paragraphs show that there's a catch:

1. "Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called on followers to stop shooting and cooperate with Iraqi security forces Sunday, a move Iraq's government praised as a step toward ending six days of fighting that has left hundreds dead.
2. " 'We announce our disavowal from anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party offices,' al-Sadr said in a nine-point statement issued by his headquarters in Najaf.
3. "The statement was accompanied by demands that the Iraqi government issue a general amnesty to his followers and release any being held. The statement was distributed across Iraq and posted on the Internet.
4. "The move was welcomed by Iraq's government, whose forces have been fighting al-Sadr's militia, the Mehdi Army, in six days of clashes with so-called "outlaws" who had taken control of much of the southern city of Basra. U.S. and coalition troops have been supporting the Iraqi offensive."

That's right: not surrender, another cease-fire.

And, the cease-fire is curiously limited. al-Sadr says his enforcers won't hit government institutions, charities and political party offices. That leaves a lot of potential targets.

Military Force, America, Iraq, and a Dangerous Cleric

So, the Iraqi government's use of military force is a failure, right?

Not necessarily.

Here's another analysis, from an international source, published today.

"New Shiite battle is a marked shift from the past"
International Herald Tribune (March 30, 2008)

This discusses the situation two days after the first analysis, but I think there's more than the developments of 48 hours involved here.

Excerpt:

"For starters, the Shiite rebels are mainly fighting Iraqi soldiers, not American 'infidels.' Their leader, Moktada al-Sadr [!], is not defending against attacks from a redoubt inside the country's most sacred shrine, but is issuing orders with a tarnished reputation from an undisclosed location. And Iraq's prime minister, a Shiite who Americans had all but despaired would ever act against militias of his own sect, is taking them on fiercely.

"The differences represent a shift in the war, whose early years were punctuated by uprisings against Americans by a vast, devoted group of Sadr's followers, who were largely respected by Shiites. As their tactics veered into protection rackets, oil smuggling and other scams, Sadr's followers began to resemble Mafia thugs more than religious warriors, splintering and forming their own gangs and networks, many beyond Sadr's direct control."

Military force isn't the only factor here. Muqtada al-Sadr made the same sort of mistake Al Qaeda did: bullying the people he depends on for support. But military had an effect.

Anti-War Enthusiasts Notwithstanding, There's Hope

Something like the al-Sadr/Basra situation happened last year.

Then, tribal leaders, fed up with Al Qaeda's treatment of Iraqis, formed groups like the Anbar Awakening. Meanwhile:

• The Surge made performing acts of terrorism inconvenient, at best
• Demonstrated to Iraqis and the Iraqi government that
  • The coalition was able and willing to act against terrorists
  • Military action against terrorists was possible, and produced terrorists who were no longer able to terrorize

I think that there's a lesson or two here.

• Military force can stop bad people from doing bad things
• The surge worked
  • Giving the Iraqi military time to prepare for action
  • Showing that terrorists can be defeated
• Diplomacy, defined here as unending talks, isn't effective against someone who doesn't want to give up

Finally, here's a pair of observations, and a thought.

Tribal leaders in Iraq, at considerable personal risk, formed organizations like the Anbar Awakening. As a result, Al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorists now have a much harder time spreading death and destruction.

A religious leader, Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mehdi Army, can reasonably be defined as a terrorist/crime lord and his enforcers.

Religious leaders have their place in any culture. That place is not a secular leaders.

Showdown at Basra

The British turned Basra over to Iraqi authorities in December, 2007, leaving the new government to deal with a three-way ongoing shootout.

Bad News in Basra

"CNN military analyst and retired Air Force Gen. Don Shepperd said the intra-Shiite struggles will have an impact on stability in Iraq, particularly in Basra.

" 'I think you're going to see significant combat in a very highly populated area of Basra. And, you're going to see a lot of innocent civilians killed as the militias war against Iraqi security forces. This is going to be ugly for the people of Basra.' "
(from "Iraqi forces battle militia fighters" CNN (March 26, 2008))

It sounds like some Shiite militias - or maybe militants - are settling disputes with other Shiites the old-fashioned way: by shooting people.

About 100 so far.

There's a New Sheriff in Town

Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, said the Shiite militants 72 hours to turn in their weapons. The situation reminds me of that scene in westerns, where the sheriff says something like, "Ah'm givin' you until sunset to get outa town, Bart."

According the American military, those "outlaws" or "rogue" militia members that Iraqi troops are fighting aren't Muqtada al-Sadr's militias. If they were, the 'cease fire' that's been on between the Sadr city Shiite and Iraq's government would be over.

And that would be trouble. Obviously.

I'm no expert, but my guess is that those "rogue" militia members are as likely to give up their weapons as Bart is to quietly leave town. Which means that this is going to be a bad weekend in Basra, and elsewhere.

I suppose that Prime Minister al-Maliki's 72-hour ultimatum could be seen as an example of cowboy diplomacy.

After all, the situation in Basra is supposed to be a three-way power struggle between

• Sadrists
  (that's Muqtada al-Sadr's bunch)
• The Fadhila party
  (short for Fadhila Islamia (Islamic Virtue), an Islamist group)
• Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq
  (ISCI - a group with an interesting history)¹

Conventional wisdom, in some quarters at least, would say that in a complex situation like this, the authorities should engage in meaningful dialog with representatives of the parties involved: Even if the talks were to discuss why the fighting is still going on.

Instead of that enlightened policy, al-Maliki's government has given the people who are killing each other, and Iraqis who get in their way, an ultimatum.

That isn't very "diplomatic." But it might work.

I don't mean to imply that what's going on in Basra is simple. It isn't.

The International Crisis Group ("Working to Prevent Conflict Worldwide") points out that ISCI has changed from "Iranian proxy militia to Iraqi governing party," and opines that the Bush administration is following a dangerous course by supporting them as a counter to Sadr's forces. The same group said that America "should take advantage of its privileged ties with the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) to moderate the party’s behaviour and curb its sectarian practices rather than use it as an instrument to confront the Sadrists." Reuters (November 15, 2007)

A post at "Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty" points out that, although the situation is dangerous, the Basra mess is an opportunity for the Iraqi government to show its strength and competence in dealing with a crisis. Problem is, if the Iraq's government doesn't succeed, there's likely going to be another round of assassinations, bombings, beheadings, and whatever other mayhem the various parties can dream up. ("Iraq: Al-Basrah Clashes Could Prove Ominous" Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, contributing analyst Sumedha Senanayake (March 26, 2008).

Showdown at Basra: Taming a Wild Town

But, complicated or not, I think that the first step to sorting out the mess is for the Iraqi government to establish order: or at least a situation where people can walk down the street without getting perforated.

---

¹The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq used to be the "Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Al-Majlis al-'Aala li al-Thawra al-Islamiya fi-l-Iraq) - in 2007, it dropped "Revolution" and became the much nicer-sounding Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (Al-Majlis al-'Aala al-Islami al-Iraqi)

---

Update March 27, 2008

" International Zone under curfew as attacks continue" CNN (March 27, 2008)

International Zone is another name for the Green Zone that's often in the news from Baghdad.

Among other people, an American government official has been killed in the recent attacks.

One thing that jumps out at me is that quite a few people in the Iraqi and American governments seem to be bending over backwards to make it look like Muqtada al-Sadr's militias aren't involved in the fighting.

CNN reports: "Fighting between Iraqi government troops and what officials call rogue or outlaw members of Shiite militias has spread through southern Iraq's Shiite heartland to Baghdad since the launch of a government crackdown in Basra on Tuesday." In context, the "officials" are probably Iraqi officials.

American's State Department's director of Iraq affairs, Richard Schmierer, said that Sadr's cease-fire wasn't collapsing, and blamed the violence on "marginal extremist elements" who've made themselves part of the Sadrist movement.

On the other hand, "dozens of gunmen kidnapped the spokesman for the Baghdad security plan, Tahseen Sheikhly. Three of his guards were killed and his house burned in the attack, which an Interior Ministry official said was carried out by "outlaws," a reference to al-Sadr's militia."

The only things that seems certain is that the situation in Iraq is complicated, and that there's going to be more fighting.

Oopsie! Saddam Hussein Didn't Count on Cowboy Diplomacy

"Interrogator: Invasion Surprised Saddam"

"(CBS) Saddam Hussein initially didn't think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen. The Iraqi dictator revealed this thinking to George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate him after his capture."

(That link includes a video clip.)

In a "60 Minutes" interview, Prio said: "He told me he initially miscalculated... President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998...a four-day aerial attack,"

"He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack."

"He didn't believe the U.S. would invade?" the interviewer asked "No, not initially" Piro replied.

So that's why it looked like Iraq had nuclear weapons. Hussein wanted Iran to be afraid of his non-existent nukes, and didn't think America would do more than a repeat of the 1998 bombardment.

Maybe America should have left Saddam and his party-boy sons in charge of Iraq. Okay, the FBI interrogator who interviewed Hussein said that the ex-dictator planned to re-start his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons program. "He wanted to pursue all of WMD ... to reconstitute his entire WMD program," was the way Piro put it.

That doesn't mean that Saddam Hussein actually would have.

Despite the embarrassment of

• A surge that worked
• An Iraq in the hands of a relatively representative government
• Iraqi infrastructure being rebuilt after decades of neglect
• Hospitals and schools being repaired, and used for something other than backdrops for video clips and sound bites

... on the whole, I think it's just as well that we'll never find out what Saddam would have done with nukes.

Iran's Gambit in the Strait of Hormuz: "Don't Do It" Again

Those Iranian speedboats that Iran says didn't do anything unusual in the Strait of Hormuz weren't blown out of the water. As it turns out, the American Navy's commanders' decision not to open fire was the right one.

Next time, the outcome could be different.

America's President Bush said that "all options are on the table" when protecting U.S. ships. About the boats: They "were very provocative and it was a dangerous gesture on their part. ... And they know our position, and that is: There will be serious consequences if they attack our ships, pure and simple. And my advice to them is don't do it."

President Bush's "don't do it" is quite blunt, direct, even monosyllabic. Particularly with a presidential election going on, I'd say it won't be long before someone says "cowboy diplomacy."

Wikipedia's definition of cowboy diplomacy, "a term used by critics to describe the resolution of international conflicts through brash risk-taking, intimidation, military deployment, or a combination of such tactics," is a pretty good fit with President Bush's statement. Apart from the "brash" part, in my opinion.

Diplomacy, in the form of interminable speeches, discussions of what shape a conference table should be, and exquisitely-worded letters, is a valuable tool for resolving differences.

But, that sort of diplomacy has its limitations. It seems to work best, when all parties in a dispute share a commitment to compromise and the peaceful resolution of disagreements.

With "death to Israel! Death to America!" Iran in the mix, I don't place much confidence in the gentile end of diplomacy. There's too great a chance that what gets dropped overboard the next time will be explosive, and not Sunday's harmless boxes.

I'd say that, right now, the Strait of Hormuz is a place better suited to the diplomacy that uses phrases like, "step away from the gun!"

---

Despite my views on the use of force as a diplomatic tool, I have a great deal of respect for pacifists. It takes a rare sort of courage to reject physical confrontation, and accept

• Defeat
• Death
• The destruction of cherished
  • Objects
  • People
  • Institutions
  • Laws and customs

I feel that pacifism is a philosophy which will thrive: as long as there are non-pacifists to defend its followers.

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.

Saudi Wisdom on Terrorism, Wife Beating

Before his meeting with the United Kingdom's Queen Elizabeth, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia said that Great Britain wasn't doing enough to fight terrorism. As proof, he said that Saudi Arabia had given British security information about a terrorist attack before an attack that killed 52 commuters and the four suicide bombers who gave their all for Allah.

The information that Saudi Arabia gave was about an entirely different attack, but never mind that.

The Saudi king's blame game didn't go over too well in England. The Independent's Robert Fisk wrote that:

"for King Abdullah to tell the world, as he did in a BBC interview yesterday, that Britain is not doing enough to counter 'terrorism', and that most countries are not taking it as seriously as his country is, is really pushing it. Weren't most of the 11 September 2001 hijackers from – er – Saudi Arabia? Is this the land that is really going to teach us lessons?"

(Saudi Arabia's response to all those Saudi terrorists was that there were no Saudi terrorists: See "Different Strokes for Different Folks: How Middle Eastern Culture Deals With Reality?." (November 2, 2007))

King Abdullah's chiding of the United Kingdom shouldn't be a surprise.

When Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal came to New York City with a $10,000,000 check after the 9/11 attack, he lectured Americans on their (our - I'm American) deficiencies and faults. He said that the United states "should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause...." As I recall, Mayor Giuliani stopped short of telling the prince where he could put the check: but did firmly refuse it.

(The U.S. stand has been, and will be - according to Condaleeza Rice - that there should be a Palestinian state. What Saudi Arabia thinks America should want, I have no idea.)

Meanwhile, back in Saudi Arabia, here's what "Dr." Muhammad Al-'Arifi said on a marriage advice show segment (in September, 2007):

"Admonish them – once, twice, three times, four times, ten times," he advised. "If this doesn't help, refuse to share their beds."

Let's say that doesn't work. What then?

"Beat them," said one of the good doctor's three young advisees.

"That's right," Al-'Arifi said.

(A video of the segment is available on MEMRITV.org.)

Muhammad Al-'Arifi is, presumably, an expert: he's an author and a cleric. Islamic cleric, I assume, since he's in Saudi Arabia and allowed on television.

Here's more of his advice:

"Beating in the face is forbidden, even when it comes to animals," he explained. "Even if you want your camel or donkey to start walking, you are not allowed to beat it in the face. If this is true for animals, it is all the more true when it comes to humans. So beatings should be light and not in the face."

Do I need to say this? I do not approve of wife beating. I'm just repeating what Muhammad Al-'Arifi said.

However, I think that the Saudi marriage expert's advice, the Saudi king's criticism of the United Kingdom, the Saudi Prince's tongue-lashing of Americans, and Dubai's remarkable attitude toward some kinds of rape show that Middle Eastern cultures have a sincerely 'alternative' approach to perceiving, and dealing with, the real world.

---

Oh, this is interesting. Saudi Arabia has a new plan for peace in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia and a consortium of Arab Gulf states are going to invite Iran to let Iran produce enriched uranium in a neutral third country, like Switzerland. "We have proposed a solution, which is to create a consortium for all users of enriched uranium to do it in a collective manner that would distribute (nuclear fuel) according to need," he said. "We hope the Iranians will accept this proposal."

He said that the proposed plant would be built in a neutral third country, like Switzerland.

It'll be interesting to see how this develops.

"Cowboy Diplomacy" and "Live Long and Prosper"

"Cowboy diplomacy" galloped into the news again. One candidate assured the throng that they would see no more cowboy diplomacy, should that candidate be voted into the oval office.

Now, a disclaimer of sorts.

"Another War-on-Terror Blog" is not a political blog. However, since the War on Terror and politics do sometimes collide, I can't avoid the topic entirely.

I make no claim to be unbiased. I don't believe that America is the cause of the global crisis of the month. I do enjoy living in a society where I'm not expected to put my wife under a burqa, or kill my children if they besmirch the family honor.

That said, here's the meat of this post.

I think that individuals matter. Particularly individuals who are in a position to make decisions.

"Cowboy diplomacy" has been used to describe the dangerous, big, rough way that President Bush has conducted international affairs. The Texas-raised president isn't even a lawyer. Unlike most of the better sort in Washington, this Texan went to Harvard: Harvard Business School.

Since words and phrases have specific meanings, I decided to look up just what "cowboy diplomacy" meant.

The "Cowboy diplomacy" article in Wikipedia is one of those with references: and an "orphaned" one, with "few or no other articles" linking to it.

According to Wikipedia, cowboy diplomacy is "a term used by critics to describe the resolution of international conflicts through brash risk-taking, intimidation, military deployment, or a combination of such tactics."

The term's current incarnation is as a quote from the wit and wisdom of Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise-D. Specifically, in the "Unification, Part II" episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, an American television series.

Back in the real world, American President Bush has caused much alarm and despondency - and anger - at his failure to follow time-honored standards of leadership. Instead of

• Directing diplomats to discuss the arrangement of tables at meetings (anybody remember Vietnam?)
• Forming study committees to investigate how to engage in dialog with all members of the international community regarding the complex issues
• Carefully considering the opinions of leaders in the international community: particularly the French

Instead, the current president has taken what many believe is a reckless approach.

• Making brash remarks like
  • "And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."
  • "But we're also tough and resolute. And now is an opportunity to do generations a favor, by coming together and whipping terrorism; hunting it down, finding it and holding them accountable."
  • "Terrorism against our nation will not stand."
• Unilaterally going it alone in attacking terror-supporting nations (the "uni" in unilaterally" must not mean "one" - a couple dozen nations have been involved in the 'coalition of the willing' at one point or another)
• Stubbornly refusing to let the seasoned wisdom of the international community - particularly France - determine American policy

I can see how the president seems to be a dangerous man.

On the other hand, I think that the conventional wisdom of avoiding armed conflict at all costs, or at least deferring it until someone else's watch, is dangerous, too.

America is a little over a year away from presidential elections. I expect to hear the phrase "cowboy diplomacy," coupled with an assurance that, should this or that candidate be elected, there will be no more such direct action.

There's a time and a place for seemingly endless rounds of meetings, resolutions, and declarations.

I also think that there is a place for taking action. And, I would prefer that the action take place before another 9/11 slips past law enforcement and the diplomatic corps.

Finally presidents practicing "cowboy diplomacy" predate the starship Enterprise by at least a generation. "The sources of international brutality, wherever they exist, must be absolutely and finally broken down. . . . We are going to win the war, and we are going to win the peace that follows." (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, December 9, 1941)

(see "Watch for Weird Words: Election's Coming Up!")

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.