Herbert London

Herbert London is the author of Decade of Denial (Lexington Books) and most recently America's Secular Challenge (Encounter Books), and publisher of American Outlook. He can be reached at: www.herblondon.org.

Fighting Jihadism At Home

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) recently revealed that the Ansar Al-Mujahideen jihadist forum issued a statement in praise of the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hassan. This statement was aimed at Muslim associations in the United States that condemned his murderous acts.

The statement reads:

. . . We issue this statement in support of the actions of brother Nidal Malik Hassan, as a congratulations for his brave and heroic deed, as well as the jealousness (i.e., zeal) he displayed for the pains suffered by the Muslim Ummah as a result of the modern Zionist-Christian Crusades against it. May Allah reward you, brother Nidal. We ask Allah to accept this great feat of yours and make you an example for others to follow.

As this statement goes on to note, Hassan's actions are not contrary to the religion of Islam, but are encouraged by it. Furthermore, there is the call for Muslims in the United States Army to repent for their apostasy and think of Hassan as a role model, instilling fear in the enemies of Allah and taking them by surprise wherever they may be.

What is one to make of this statement? It is obvious that Islam, or a branch of it, is at war with the United States and will use any method to threaten or destroy American assets and interests. Surely this situation cannot be tolerated. If the allegation that Saudi money has persuaded Muslims to join the Army as a quisling force aiding and abetting our enemies, Pentagon action is certainly warranted, albeit evidence for this allegation has not yet been uncovered. However, the complacent response of the FBI to incendiary emails sent by Colonel Hassan represents an intolerable "What me, worry?" attitude.

There is little doubt we must be vigilant in ferreting out enemies ensconced in our military services. If this violates General Casey's dedication to diversity, so be it. It is inconceivable that American soldiers should be put in harm's way in their own barracks.

If one accepts the febrile mental state of the jihadist, any act against the Zionist-Christian Crusade is acceptable. Presumably, it doesn't have to involve a crusade since the Koran specifically cites antipathy to apostates, i.e., nonbelievers of Islam. Once you are defined as less than human, any act is permissible. Here is the moral perversity of Holocaust logic all over again.

In a curious way American tolerance is the enemy when it cannot draw lines of acceptable behavior. There isn't any excuse or rationalization for Nidal Hassan's murders. If his religion compelled him to act, then we must reject that form of religion from the precincts of protected faith. The First Amendment should not tolerate murder.

That there are jihadists who value killing is evident from any reading of a daily newspaper. But we cannot allow this bloodthirsty sensibility to insinuate itself into our lives or institutions. Those who contend we can talk these people out of their fanatical beliefs do not understand our enemy. The best we can do is defeat these people on the global battlefield and separate ourselves from their potentially dangerous actions at home. To do any less plays directly into their hands, hands already covered with the blood of innocent American soldiers.

Tightening the Noose on Foreign Policy

As the plans for American foreign policy are being debated in the White House and the corridors of Congress, it is increasingly apparent that the options are limited.

It is not that options are limited by the lack of imagination, albeit that is a factor. The overarching concern is that foreign policy options are limited by the lack of resources.

The Obama initiatives to stimulate the economy and insinuate the government into the banking, financial services, automobile, insurance, and health care industries are tied inextricably to the decisions on the foreign policy front.

It would appear that intentionally or inadvertently domestic decisions are driving national security and foreign policy goals. How can you build a 300-ship navy when you require resources for universal health care? And how can you pay for sustained military deployments when the deficit is 40 percent of GDP?

It may be convenient for this administration to have an aggressive domestic stance, one that devours the bulk of the budget so that the president can pursue his desire for the incremental withdrawal of forces abroad and the cessation of new military hardware. Why even consider the F22, for example, when there are insufficient funds for the construction of this aircraft?

This is the pursuit of a global strategy using capital limitation as its justification. Just as it was fashionable in the 1990s to discuss overreach -- the worldwide deployment of troops that drained our resources -- it is now appropriate to describe present policy as underreach -- the belief that any deployment is beyond our present resource capability.

Where this strategy leads is obvious. The United States is on the highway to Great Britain of 1990, a once-great power that ruled the seas, but is relegated to marginal military status in the present. Should the U.S. pursue this goal to its logical conclusion, there will no longer be a global hegemon capable of shaping world affairs; there will only be regional powers and international instability.

Of course it should be noted that all foreign policy decisions are constrained by available capital. A nation incapable of generating wealth can only be a military power if it impoverishes its people. For democracies this tactic is unacceptable. If we have guns, we insist on butter as well. Hence an Obama plan that promises a lot of butter, limits and eliminates guns.

What differentiates President Obama from his predecessors is that domestic spending drives his agenda and offers a rationale for international timidity and conciliation. He embraces a view of U.S. imperial impulses that must be subdued, and he seeks to do so by spending on the domestic front, thereby forcing decisions on the international stage.

As the president has noted "we have run out of money." But we have only run out of money for defense preparations. The domestic agenda proceeds in an unrelenting fashion, oblivious to asymptotes. One Obama aide noted the only limit to our spending is in our imagination. Presumably that imagination has the dollar printing presses working overtime.

This condition has alarmed our putative allies and given comfort to our enemies. The president may appear as a sensible man doing only what the budget dictates. But, in truth, the budget is a political instrument that can be used to drive policy decisions. The nexus between domestic and foreign spending is palpable. In the Obama age only the former counts; it is the manifestation of his philosophical underpinnings and the rationale for his foreign policy decisions.

The Triumph of Hope Over Reality

President Obama went to Copenhagen with proclamations about reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the first time in more than a decade that an American administration has offered even a tentative proposal to reduce production of so-called climate-altering gases, the spin meisters in the White House have announced.

But what do these proclamations mean? Five major nations, India, China, South Africa, Brazil and the United States, forged a climate deal that doesn't legally commit any of the nations to gas emission targets. The deal asks the parties involved to list how they will cap emissions with set amounts, among other general and vague goals. Friends of the Earth tore into the arrangement as "a sham agreement with no real requirements." Moreover, the conference also turned into a bash capitalism festival. The biggest applause line came when Hugo Chavez, among others, said capitalism accounts for global warming and socialism is the cure.

In effect, the Copenhagen meeting has been transmogrified into a giant extortion racket with the poor nations demanding a pay-off for the profligacy of the West, a profligacy that accounts, in their febrile minds, for the problem. The president of the Sudan had the audacity to suggest that the $140 billion the U.S. offered to deal with global warming in the developing world was "not enough." In addition, such stalwart leaders as Robert Mugabe and Chavez have demanded funding to deal with the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in their respective nations, nations that have wantonly exploited environmental integrity.

The absurdity of the posturing in Copenhagen demonstrates a great deal about the hubris in the developing world, the naivete of President Obama and this administration, and an inability to distinguish between hope and reality. It has often been said that one of the great lies of our time is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." I guess there may have been times when the government has helped. The problem, of course, is that most issues are local and Washington is far away in distance and emotion, and Copenhagen is now a center for political rhetoric, not for addressing issues.

Just as William Buckley once said "I'd rather be ruled by the first one hundred names in the Boston telephone directory than the Harvard faculty," it is also the case that Harvard faculty, metaphorically of course, ends up in Washington, and does make judgments for the country. And as one might guess, hope invariably trumps reality.

The entire healthcare bill is also predicated on hope: hope that the expense can be absorbed without rationing; hope that adding the uninsured to the hospital rolls will not lead to an additional expense; and hope that the elderly who need care will still be able to receive it after Medicare is cut by $455 billion. The Congressional Budget Office estimates provide a reality check which suggests none of these hopes can be realized.

The government promised the American people that a $787 billion stimulus bill would create or save 3 million jobs, a number that gets smaller in size each week. Yet the unemployment rate has gone from 8 percent when the bill was enacted to over 10 percent at the moment. There were, of course, many detractors who argued that this stimulus is little more than pork barrel legislation that cannot possibly influence the unemployment rate. It seems these people were right. But does the government care? It operates on hope and continues to contend the stimulus is working.

Perhaps President Obama thinks his decision moves us closer to a solution for the dubious proposition of global warming. I'm sure he believes his actions will do so. But first the problem should be well understood. Exaggerated claims must be addressed. And, most significantly, the president should say that extortion is something Americans don't countenance. We should not transfer $140 billion dollars to satisfy feelings of guilt or to justify the manifestations of capitalism. Our economic engine benefited the entire world. That is nothing for which we should apologize, nor is it a condition that warrants an extortion payment.

One of the first rules of public policy should be don't let hope trump reality. I only wish this administration in its legislative overreach and the crowd in Copenhagen had taken this advice seriously.

"Race to the Top" Merely Another Education Gimmick

In the 11/25/09 issue of the Wall Street Journal three eminences of public education, Harold Ford Jr., Louis Gerstner Jr., and Eli Broad, reflect on ways to improve public education: "Race to the Top in Education." Alas, over the last several decades there has been a lot of racing, significant funding, and abysmal achievement. "Now, however," they note:

. . . President Obama has launched "Race to the Top," a competition that is parceling out $4.35 billion in new education funding to states that are committed to real [my italics] reform.

This package, notes the authors, augur well for meaningful change.

I beg to differ. Despite the emphasis on so-called "performance standards and competition," clearly goals that are needed, my guess is this initiative will fail as all of its predecessors have.

As I see it there are three principal reasons for failure: democracy, unions, and the culture.

Several years ago I was an advisor on educational matters for a mid-western state that had competency exams for 3rd, 5th, 8th, and 12th graders. I reviewed the exams that had reasonable requirements, although hardly excessive by Korean standards. In the first year this program was instituted less than a third of the students in the aggregate passed. Parents were outraged. "My Johnny is very bright; the exam is a foolish exercise," wrote one parent; letters of a similar variety came pouring into the governor's office like a gusher.

A governor, like every elected official, wants to be reelected. As you might guess, he asked to have the exams "modified" (read: made easier). Alas, this was done, not once but twice, until the reading and math passing scores exceeded 80 percent. Like those in Lake Woebegone everyone must be above average. It's good for politicians and a conclusion that satisfies parents. Unfortunately, Johnny doesn't read, write, and compute as well as mom and dad think.

Then we have the unions whose leadership is concerned with their constituencies solely. As Al Shenker of the AFT once noted, "when students start paying dues I'll be as interested in them as my teachers." Hence competition of any kind among teachers, such as merit pay, is anathema. Unless the NEA's grip on public education is broken, competition, genuine competition, cannot be implemented. Moreover, how can this administration, already beholden to the teachers' union for financial support, challenge the NEA?

Last, it should be noted that even the most dedicated and effective teachers cannot compete with the osmotic effect of the culture. Television, computer games, Facebook, sports, texting, diversions of every variety the mind can conjure vie for attention with scholarship. And if the general level of cultural ignorance is any measure, guess which side is winning?

Although it is unfair to generalize from a sample of one, I viewed a Jay Leno program in which he asked a teenager the country Christopher Columbus was from. His response, "Ohio." Well at least he knew Columbus is in Ohio. Admittedly my experience is anecdotal, but as I visit American universities I find students are more familiar with the words to the latest rap music -- if you can call it music -- than a Robert Lowell poem or the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. As Thorstein Veblen noted, "students are being trained in incapacity." In large part, this is the case because the culture forces deviancy down. This is America's accelerated dream of egalitarianism in which the bottom quartile moves slightly upward and the top quartile moves down creating a compression at the mean.

The gang of three -- Ford, Gerstner, Broad -- mean well. They are sincere in their desire to improve public education. But "Race to the Top" is no different from "No Child Left Behind" and dozens of predecessors. Until the real issues are addressed -- if they can be addressed -- don't count on any more success in education than we've encountered before.

Egyptian Chutzpah

I wonder how you spell chutzpah in Arabic? For years the Egyptian government railed against Israel for erecting a security fence in the West Bank. It protested the construction of this wall in the United Nations and in every other international body, usually employing the phrase "apartheid wall."

But now, mirabile dictu, Egypt in building a wall of its own along the border of the Gaza Strip. And, as one might guess, will not entertain any criticism of this project. The Israeli barrier was built to prevent suicide bombings and other terrorist activities against Israelis; by contrast, the Egyptian fence is designed to stop Palestinians living in Gaza from entering Egypt.

One might well ask why President Hosni Mubarak would want to keep his Arab brothers locked inside the poverty-stricken area of Gaza, among the most congested places on the globe. In fact, by keeping the border crossing into Egypt closed, Mubarak is sending the Palestinians to Israel for help. In the byzantine world of Middle East politics Arab leaders want the Gaza Strip to remain an Israeli problem exclusively.

The irony, of course, is that the millions of dollars required to build the new fence could have been employed to build hospitals, schools, and housing. Palestinians crossing the border generally do so in search of employment or to be reunited with families residing in Egypt. At the moment even medical and humanitarian aid cannot get through the Rafah border crossing and human rights activists are invariably stopped at the border as well.

Mubarak contends, with some legitimacy I might note, that Hamas' presence in Gaza could be a destabilizing factor in Egypt if the border were porous, albeit Hamas poses a threat to Israel more formidable than its threat to Egypt. The stated Hamas goal is "liberate Palestine," not occupy Egypt. Moreover, if Hamas were an existential threat to Egypt's national security, why has Mubarak been negotiating with Hamas leaders for years and why has he been at the center of talks over reconciliation with Fatah?

Recognizing the potential embarrassment of this security fence, Egyptian leaders denied its existence, until photographs made such denials risible. The Egyptian fence is actually a ten kilometer underground metal barrier that will cost approximately $500 million. Whether it turns out to be a real barrier remains to be seen. Palestinians involved in the smuggling of contraband material are very adept at bypassing barriers. If anything, the Egyptian wall will probably escalate tensions in Gaza since it is the metaphorical cap on a boiling pot of soup.

Palestinians in this tiny strip of land suffer from Hamas terrorism, lack of jobs, lack of basic facilities, congestion, and a host of corrupt and misguided leaders. Nonetheless, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas has defended Egypt's right to build a separation wall. Here is the irony of ironies. It was the same Abbas who condemned Israel's "apartheid wall" and urged the international community to tear it down.

In the Middle East wonders never cease. Lies are verbal instruments for manipulation. And as this event on the Gaza border suggests, it is not a matter of Israelis against Palestinians, but Arabs versus Palestinians.

The next time an Arab ambassador rises at the United Nations to criticize Israel, he should be reminded of the manifold ways Arabs contain, constrain, and exploit fellow Arabs. If the term "apartheid" is used as a condemnation of Israel, it should be hurled back at Egyptians who, sanctimoniously, engage in actions they once condemned. Hypocrisy thy name is Mubarak.

"A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired." --Alexander Hamilton