Strategy Page offers some insight into how a suicide bomber was able to get a car close enough to a crowd of police recruits to kill 125 of them last week.
Friday, March 4, 2005
Michael Ledeen gives us a good lesson in the recent history of democratic revolutions and urges that we pick up the pace:
These are exciting times, but we must not lose sight of the fact that success is far from assured. It will take perseverance and steady resolve to carry us through the inevitable setbacks ahead. Yet who can doubt the rightness of the cause? Who can seriously argue that we should give up, turn around, and go home, that a free and democratic Middle East and a severely truncated terrorist threat is not worth the cost? Who can today insist that our intervention, as clumsy as some aspects of it may have been, was a mistake?
If things fall apart, of course, then there will be recriminations aplenty, but if freedom really is "on the march" and if down the road Iran and Syria become true democracies at relative peace with their neighbors, the Bush administration, despite its mistakes, is going to go down as the most visionary, the greatest, administration in the history of this country.
The more things change with the Palestinians the more they stay the same. This article in the Jerusalem Post suggests that everything in the Middle-East is back very nearly to square one. Syria and Iran are sponsoring the murders of Israelis, and the PLO isn't inclined to do much about it:
So much for the hope that somehow now that Arafat is gone things would be different for the Palestinians and Israelis. The only way genuine change will occur in the Middle-East is if the tyrannical regimes in Syria and Iran are overthrown and replaced by functioning democracies. The end of the Baathists in Damascus and the mullacracy in Tehran is a necessary condition for peace in the region, and it's the only hope for both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Everything and anything else is simply a snare and a delusion.
David Adesnik at Oxblog has a good analysis of what was going on between Bush and Putin in Bratislava the other week. A lot of commentators said that Bush buckled under to Putin on the matter of Putin's indifference to democratic principles in Russia. I like Adesnik's take, however:
Adesnik's take on the press conference makes far more sense to us than the commentary we read and heard last week to the effect that George Bush, who hasn't flinched from much of anything in the years he's been president, caved to Vladimir Putin. It's much more likely that he was very diplomatically telling Putin that the whole world now knows what he has committed to. It pretty much locks him in to it, at least psychologically, and makes him look very bad if he reneges.