I've heard the following argument so many times I was actually starting to believe some of it.  You know the one I'm talking about.  The one that proclaims that what the West  needs to do is open a dialogue with the Islamic world.  And with that dialogue we could explain to the radicals, the jihadists, the terrorists (you know, the guys blowing up and beheading non-muslims) that we really don't hate them, and that we are sorry for all the horrible things we did to them over the past 1500 years or so starting with the Crusades.  Of course all the while we would be sharing ideas and culture with our new friends and in the end, we would all sit down and sip Turkish coffee together and realize what fools we in the West have been and then our differences would simply fade away like smoke from a peace pipe. 

There's just one problem with this.  Even IF the half truths above were true, it simply would not make a difference.  Not one iota.  Now don't get me wrong.  I'm all about peace and playing nice in the sandbox but the truth is our values in the West differ fundamentally from the Islamic world.  Most Americans assume that those we negotiate with will hold the same values in those negotiations.  They don't.  For instance just because we might show respect and acceptance of their religion and their culture, that respect and acceptance would not be reciprocated.   The following excerpt is from the German Magazine Der Welt, published a few years ago.  And although this is a single event, it is instructive in that it shows a fundamental difference in our value system. 

"The bishop of Hildesheim in Germany paid an imam a courtesy visit in his mosque. The imam handed the Catholic prelate a Koran, which he joyfully accepted. But when the bishop tried to present the imam with a Bible, the Muslim cleric just stared at him in horror and refused to even touch Christianity's holy book.

"The bishop was irritated because he perceived this behavior as a gross discourtesy," wrote Tibi, "but the imam had only acted according to his faith. For if an imam gives a bishop a Koran, he considers this a Da'Wa, or call to Islam."

And let us not forget.   The quest of converting the entire world to Islam is an immutable fixture of the Muslim worldview.  The term 'peace,' implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam  or 'House of Islam' to the entire world which is completely different from the concept of peace that dominates Western thought.  So, the very idea of talking peace as defined in the Western mindset holds a completely different meaning to Muslims. 

I'm not suggesting we not enter into a general dialogue, what I am suggesting is that we do so with our eyes very widely open and with a full understanding of what peace really means.

by JDICKSON

Coming on the heels of a report by the Russian News & Information Agency (RIA) that the Ukraine is set to sign deals with U.S. firms on supplies of nuclear fuel and equipment , Moscow is no doubt less than pleased that Poland is eliciting support from Germany for Kiev's attempt to join NATO.    The former Soviet Republic of Georgia is also making it known, it's desires for NATO membership.  This news, although not exactly on the front page of world news organizations, is significant in that this action will continue Russia's isolation from the West.  Russia largely stood idly by as it watched its former Warsaw Pact allies such as Poland, Hungary, and Romania were accepted into the NATO fold a few years ago.  We can't expect the same casual response if Moscow is forced to watch as its former Soviet States emerge as major players in this military alliance.   An emerging list of possible scenarios resulting from this isolation are frightening enough for the U.S. and its Western allies that most NATO countries are reticent in offering even tacit support for the plan. 

Make no mistake about it.  The further Moscow is pushed away, the closer their ties with China and more importantly, rogue terrorist sponsoring countries such as Iran and Syria will become.  What the U.S. and its allies do not need is an isolated Russia.  We have already wasted a great opportunity to welcome Russia as true ally.  Instead of treating our former foes as equals on the world stage after the demise of the USSR, we pushed, prodded, and humiliated them as we made it clear that our support was suddenly conditional.  Glasnost and Peristroika was replaced with McDonald's and good old American arrogance.  And if we have learned anything about Russia from its history, it is this: They are rabid about defending their motherland.  Results of invasions by the French and later the Germans are well imbeded in the national psyche.  Russia will react.  They will defend themselves.  Maybe not with force, but with its influence in other, much more terrifying and destructive ways.  

1. Radicals WANT to die.  Killing non-believers, especially through sacrificing oneself, is a guarantee to heaven.  The more killings, the higher the status.  "...kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (Koran 2:191).    *A little side note:   Compare this to the Bible which states "Thou shall not kill".  It doesn't state, "Thou shalt not kill, unless they are infedels, in which case you can blow them up...oh yeah, and their children too".
2. The war against Hitler and the cold war against the Soviets were "traditional".  You knew who the enemy was.  Against Germany, we defeated them on the field of battle.  Against the Soviets, we defeated them (or have we?) through economic means.  With the growing Radical Islamic threat, we often have no idea who, or where they are.  This is an ideology we face.  It doesn't have borders, it can't be located on a map.  The threat we face doesn't come in the form of State Terrorism such as from Nazi Germany, but instead is both State Sponsored, such as Iran and Syria, and from terrorist groups like Al Qaida who's support is largely not State Sponsored and is instead funded by other means, such as through threats, kidnappings, wealthy benefactors, and as in the case of Al Qaida, the sale of illegal drugs (think of the heroin trade from Afghanistan).
3. We provide monetary support to the terrorists.  During WWII as in all wars, trade blockades were the inevitable result which kept Japan and Germany from the badly needed resources to fight a long term war.  With Radical Islam, through oil purchases and other trade, we are funding the battle against us which we are trying to win.  We pay billions every month to Iran.  And lest we think that  our largest supplier of oil, Saudi Arabia, is an ally, let us not forget who flew the planes on 9/11 nor forget how our "ally" supports the teaching of Radical Islam in its schools and  supports Mosques world wide which promote extremism and calls for jihad.  What the heck.  At least they can say they smiled at us while they stuck the knife in.
4. We are politically fractured in the West.  The threat from terror is very real but we as a society are unwilling to fight effectively with one voice and one purpose.  Against the Nazi's we mobilized.  We sacrificed.  We understood the threat.  Today, we don't have a clue.  Republicans mobilize; Democrats mobilize...against each other.  The enmity and polarization, not just ideologically but emotionally, pushes each further in opposite directions.  As a result we have no resolve.  NONE.
5. We are apathetic.  Our success against terrorism....or better put, the terrorists' failure to succeed in attacking this country since 9/11 has given strength to those who doubt the threat exists at all.  It's easy to throw flowers when you aren't being blown up.  We are reactionary.  We respond well, but we don't plan.  We won't spend the resources necessary to win.  To be sure, we would ... for a time if we were to be attacked.  Remember how Americans, and entire West came together after 9/11?  Remember the standing ovations Bush received?  Or remember when he and the democaratic leaders held those series of love fests where kumbaya was the order of the day?  In fact, Bush was, for a time, the most popular President in our history.  But then something curious happened.  Time.

Well, it's time to WAKE UP AMERICA.  We need to act, not react. The battle is being waged now.  The time for bitter party politics is over, the time for action is past.  If we don't get this figured out, the effects of our inaction due to our own stupidity will be profound and it will be irreversable. 

I remember thinking when Obama's wife Michelle made her now famous remark that, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country..."  Now, could she have simply mispoke?  The answer is, not likely.  She has been described as a "fluent public speaker, independent-minded wife, devoted mother and professional woman" so it's hard to imagine that she would not have noticed the remark or the effect it might have during a review of the speech.  This was not an off the cuff comment.

Ok.  So we moved forward quickly from all that.  Now we have another invective, this time from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who was and is, Obama's Pastor.  Granted, Obama quickly denounced the most controversial statements made by the Rev. Wright, but why did he wait until the statements became front page news to condemn those statements?  It just leave a bad taste in my mouth.  It reminds me of the criminal, who while standing before the judge, professes his profound sorrow for his actions.  Was he sorry BEFORE he was caught?  Probably not.  Was Obama sorry?  Not, apparently, before it bacame news. 

Politicians on both sides of the isle must be asking this basic question.  It is, after all, one of the oft stated desired outcomes in Iraq.   Now that the U.S. has been on the ground there for five years, the time for asking this question should have been settled long ago. 

Its time to add a bit of common sense to the mix.   Don’t get me wrong.  I’m all about democracy as an institution and all, but how can we as a nation hope to force our form of government and our values on another country and try to do so when we have lost much or most of our credibility in the eyes of the world?  And what exactly are we offering?  A splintered and fractured political landscape where the major political parties are themselves split into factions and sub factions; A populace with so many different goals and dreams that its impossible to recognize any form of direction as a country; Religious intolerance and in some cases, forced tolerance; An economy which by most accounts is on a precipice….Based on all that, one wouldn’t know if I was writing about Iraq…..or the U.S.

But I digress.  The question is not whether our form of democracy should be instituted in Iraq but whether democracy, as an institution, can take root, grow, and hold up in Iraq over the long term.  For that we must look back at a bit of history as.  Unfortunately, we ventured into Iraq knowing (basically) how to win the war but knowing nothing of winning the peace.  A simple bit of high school research might have suggested to the policy makers that this would be, at best, an unlikely and costly outcome.  A basic question would have been, is there a BASIS for democracy in Iraqi history; something in its past that would in some way give us an idea as to the viability of our efforts?  The answer is yes, BUT, and the outcome should have been a window to our efforts.  From 1921 until 1958, Iraq adopted a parliamentary system modeled on that of its colonial master, the United Kingdom. Political parties existed, even in the opposition, and dissent and disagreement were generally tolerated. Debates in parliament occurred without the fear of retribution. Although the palace and the cabinet set the agenda, parliament often managed to influence policy. And there was a free press with dozens of independent newspapers.
But British meddling and Iraqi political corruption (sound familiar) discredited democracy in the eyes of many Iraqis. Iraq's army eventually terminated this democratic experiment with several coups and in 1968 Saddam Hussein seized power.

Democracy works, but it needs the tools in a stable environment in order for it to take root and grow.  When democracy was introduced to Yugoslavia in the 1990’s longstanding ethnic and religious tensions resulted in an explosion of violence just as it has in Iraq.  Yugoslavia didn’t have the stability and neither does Iraq, even after five years of occupation.  

Finally, Iraq’s middle class, which would be a base of support for democracy, has been severely reduced by the economic realities of the war and is now unable and now, unwilling to pressure its government to embrace the democratic changes the U.S. so desperately wants…and needs.  After all we are betting on that change…to the tune of several trillions of dollars.  The poorer the Iraqis get, the less support democracy recieves and consequently the more support the radicals recieve.  If paying homage to the local radicals is the price of putting food on your family's table, democracy WILL lose.  History is a great teacher…for those who listen to it.  Our leaders didn’t learn from the history of the French prior to our entry into Vietnam, and our leaders haven’t learned from the history of Iraq.

Government Benchmarks:
Perform constitutional review. - Unmet
Enact de-Ba'athification reform. - Partial
Form semi-autonomous regions. - Unmet
Hold provincial elections. - Unmet
Address amnesty. - Unmet
Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan. - Met
Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature. - Met
Keep Iraqi Security Forces free from partisan interference. - Unmet

Security Benchmarks:
Disarm militias. - Unmet
Provide military support in Baghdad. - Partial
Empower Iraqi Security Forces. - Partial
Ensure impartial law enforcement. - Unmet
Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan by Maliki government. - Unmet
Reduce sectarian violence. - Partial
Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad. - Met
Increase independent Iraqi Security Forces. - Unmet

Economic Benchmarks:
Implement oil legislation. - Unmet
Distribute Iraqi resources equitably. - Partial

Now, I understand that Iraqi culture is different from ours and that its THEIR country not ours...I get all that.  But their failures to meet the majority of the benchmarks means one of two things.  Either they can't or they won't.  Its really that simple.  Either way, how can we continue doing business this way with the Iraqi government.  Understandably, they have problems that are well documented as it applies to building a stable, democratic government.  But the lack of effort as evidenced by the (in)famous recess by their government while OUR troops are dying in the field, is enough to make even the most conservative of politicians throw their hands up in disgust.  As momentous a mistake of invading Iraq was, the Iraqi government knows our threats of pulling out funding OR troops is as hollow as Rumsfeld's skull.  And like it or not, irrespective of which political party is in power next year and irrespective of the Democrat's wailing to the contrary, we are there for the foreseeable future.  And it appears that the U.S., instead of making more threats, have instead adopted a new course, one of lowering the expectations.  U.S. officials in Iraq still talk about preserving the country's nascent democratic institutions, but they say their ambitions aren't as "lofty" as they once had been.

 I guess the old saying is true.  "If ya can't beat em....then lower your expectations to such a point that the new stated expectations are completely unrecognizeable to the original expectations - and if that still doesn't work, repeat the process until you can claim victory".

Studies published by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

1. The Missing $25 Billion
The unreconciled transactions are funds for which auditors cannot account: The government knows that $25 billion was spent by someone, somewhere, on something, but auditors do not know who spent it, where it was spent, or on what it was spent. Blaming these unreconciled transactions on the failure of federal agencies to report their expenditures adequately.
The unreconciled $25 billion could have funded the entire Department of Justice for an entire year.

2. Unused Flight Tickets Totaling $100 Million
A recent audit revealed that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 commercial airline tickets at a total cost of $100 million. Even worse, the Pentagon never bothered to get a refund for these fully refundable tickets. Auditors also found 27,000 transactions totaling $8 billion between 2001 and 2002 in which the Pentagon paid twice for the same ticket. (In one case, an employee who allegedly made seven false claims for airline tickets professed not to have noticed that $9,700 was deposited into his/her account).
This $108 million could have purchased seven Blackhawk helicopters, 17 M1 Abrams tanks, or a large supply of additional body armor for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

3. Embezzled Funds at the Department of Agriculture
A recent audit revealed that employees of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) diverted millions of dollars to personal purchases through their government-issued credit cards. Sampling 300 employees’ purchases over six months, investigators estimated that 15 percent abused their government credit cards at a cost of $5.8 million. Taxpayer-funded purchases included Ozzy Osbourne concert tickets, tattoos, lingerie, bartender school tuition, car payments, and cash advances.

4. Credit Card Abuse at the Department of Defense
The Defense Department has uncovered its own credit card scandal. Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 for admission to entertainment events, $48,250 for gambling, $69,300 for cruises, and $73,950 for exotic dance clubs and prostitutes

5. Medicare Overspending
For example, Medicare pays as much as eight times what other federal agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies. Medicare also overpays for drugs. In 2000, Medicare’s payments for 24 leading drugs were $1.9 billion higher than they would have been under the prices paid by the VA or other federal agencies. Basic payment errors—the results of deliberate fraud and administrative errors—cost $12.3 billion annually. As much as $7 billion owed to the program has gone uncollected or has been written off. Finally, while Medicare contracts claims processing and administration to several private companies, 19 cases of contractor fraud have been settled in recent years, with a maximum settlement of $76 million.

6. Funding Fictitious Colleges and Students
In 2002, the Department of Education received an application to certify the student loan participation of the Y’Hica Institute in London, England. After approving the certification, the department received and approved student loan applications from three Y’Hica students and disbursed $55,000.
The Education Department administrators overlooked one problem: Neither the Y’Hica Institute nor the three students who received the $55,000 existed. The fictitious college and students were created (on paper) by congressional investigators to test the Department of Education’s verification procedures.

7. Manipulating Data to Encourage Spending
Investigations by the GAO, The Washington Post, and several private organizations have found that The Army Corps of Engineers studies routinely contain dozens of basic arithmetic errors, computer errors, and ridiculous economic assumptions that artificially inflate the benefits of water projects by as much as 300 percent. These errors appear to reflect more deception than sloppiness. A Washington Post investigation uncovered managers ordering analysts to “get creative,” to “look for ways to get to yes as fast as possible,” and “not to take no for an answer.” After a public outcry, in 2002, the Corps suspended work on 150 projects to review the economics used to justify them.

8. State Abuse of Medicaid Funding Formulas
The GAO and the HHS Inspector General have also uncovered some states’ practice of recovering improper payments, retaining the funds, and then spending them on unrelated programs—a practice that costs the federal government well over $2 billion per year. Congress could enact legislation to prohibit these actions more effectively.
Minor reforms enacted by HHS in 2001 and 2002 are expected to save Medicaid $70 billion over the next decade. A small sample of financing schemes uncovered in a few states suggests that, if Congress acts, even larger savings are available.

9. Redundancy Piled on Redundancy
Government’s layering of new programs on top of old ones inherently creates duplication. Having several agencies perform similar duties is wasteful and confuses program beneficiaries who must navigate each program’s distinct rules and requirements.
342 economic development programs;
130 programs serving the disabled;
130 programs serving at-risk youth;
90 early childhood development programs;
75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities;
72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water;
50 homeless assistance programs;
45 federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations;
40 separate employment and training programs;
28 rural development programs;
27 teen pregnancy programs;
26 small, extraneous K–12 school grant programs;
23 agencies providing aid to the former Soviet republics;
19 programs fighting substance abuse;
17 rural water and waste-water programs in eight agencies;
17 trade agencies monitoring 400 international trade agreements;
12 food safety agencies;
11 principal statistics agencies; and
Four overlapping land management agencies.