BERNARD LEWIS:

During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: “What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?” . . .

From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, it is clear that they expected this second task, dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it seemed, confirmed by the American response to a whole series of attacks–on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000–all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited places.

Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam; Stage Two–to bring the war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary.

More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences–both for Islam and for America–will be deep, wide and lasting.

Perhaps our policy should take this into account.

JAMES LILEKS COVERS LOCAL POLITICS FOR THE STAR TRIBUNE: Er, the IowaHawkland Star Tribune, anyway. And from there, well, it’s just a question of a trend getting out of hand. . . .

RON PAUL acquires a challenger for his congressional seat.

INFORMATION WARFARE: Turning a battle into a war crime. It helps if the press is complicit.

DESPITE ALL THE TALK ABOUT AMERICAN IMPERIALISM, this sounds more like the real thing:

On the evening of March 4, 10 French paratroopers reached Birao, Central African Republic, and dropped near an airstrip captured by rebel militia. The paratroopers ambushed the rebels, killing several and reclaiming the airport for the government.

In France, neither the public nor parliament was informed of the attack for three weeks. Coordinating the mission was the “Cellule Africaine,” a three-person office nestled behind the Elysée, France’s presidential palace. This wasn’t the first time the office has been involved in the Central African Republic’s internal affairs: In 1979, France toppled the former colony’s self-proclaimed emperor and reinstalled his predecessor.
[Charles de Gaulle] GUARDING FRANCE’S AFRICAN FRONTIER

How French presidents from de Gaulle (right) to Chirac have handled the “African Cell” and France’s interests in Africa.

For the past half-century, the secretive and powerful “African Cell” has overseen France’s strategic interests in Africa, holding sway over a wide swath of former French colonies. Acting as a general command, the Cell uses France’s military as a hammer to install leaders it deems friendly to French interests. In return, these countries give French industries first crack at their oil and other natural resources. Sidestepping traditional diplomatic channels, the Cell reports only to one person: the president.

But with France’s new President Nicolas Sarkozy preparing to assume office later today, the African Cell’s days may be numbered. There are accusations the French military bears some responsibility for the genocide of 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994, charges the government strenuously denies. There’s fierce debate over the French military’s continuing presence in the Ivory Coast, where soldiers were dispatched in 2002 when rebels threatened to overthrow President Laurent Gbagbo.

The Cell’s close ties to oil giant Elf Aquitaine, where top executives were jailed on corruption charges, were a source of embarrassment. And a former Cell chief is now facing charges related to arms trafficking to Angola.

Critics say the Cell’s support of nondemocratic African regimes, an artifact of France’s colonial past, is preventing these nations from making progress to modernity. And Africa, once evidence of imperial grandeur, is now viewed by many French as the source of a continuing flood of poor immigrants.

Perhaps Bush should win over Democrats by urging a “more European” foreign policy.

It’s a pay story at the WSJ, but the link above should work for nonsubscribers for a while.

SILENCING CRITICS WITH LAWSUITS.

A CORDLESS IRON? At first I thought this represented a huge leap forward in battery technology. But no. Kind of like the cordless percolator.

COERCIVE INTERROGATION: A look at Japan’s not-very-pretty criminal justice system:

“Traditionally in Japan, confessions have been known as the king of evidence,” said Kenzo Akiyama, a lawyer who is a former judge. “Especially if it’s a big case, even if the accused hasn’t done anything, the authorities will seek a confession through psychological torture.”

The law allows the police to detain suspects for up to 23 days without an indictment. Suspects have almost no contact with the outside world and are subject to constant interrogation, a practice that has long drawn criticism from organizations like the United Nations Human Rights Committee and Amnesty International.

Suspects are strongly pressed to plead guilty, on the premise that confession is the first step toward rehabilitation.

The conviction rate in Japanese criminal cases — 99.8 percent — cannot be compared directly with that of the United States, because there is no plea bargaining in Japan and prosecutors bring only those cases they are confident of winning. But experts say that in court, where acquittals are considered harmful to the careers of prosecutors and judges alike, there is a presumption of guilt.

Read the whole thing, which may be news to a lot of people.

MAKER FAIRE: Sounds pretty cool.

IT’S LIKE BLOGGINGHEADS TV, ONLY WIDER: Jonah Goldberg vs. Peter Beinart.

MICHAEL YON EMAILS FROM ANBAR:

Every thing I am seeing in Anbar does support that there has been a very positive change out here. Attacks are way down, and lots more volunteers for police and Army. (Mostly police.) Marine officers and NCOs I talk with are optimistic — measured and not jubilant — but optimistic that if they keep getting good support, they can keep up the good progress. Just don’t cut off support too soon, or declare victory too soon. Still lots of work to go and tough days ahead.

Good to know.

HEH: “I love the smell of 20th-century modalities in the morning. It smells like . . . well, yeah. I’ll say it: Victory.”

A WAR CZAR? Jules Crittenden has some thoughts, and a roundup. My thoughts: (1) Not necessarily a bad idea: Matthew Ridgeway was used in this capacity in Korea, and it helped a lot; (2) The “czar” name — stupid; (3) Really, I thought the chain of command was supposed to do this sort of thing on its own.

MODERN RUSSIA: A state of denial?

(Via Samizdata).

JACOB COGAN has a new International Law blog.

ARNOLD KLING ON PROSTITUTION INSURANCE: I’m pretty sure you don’t want to go single-payor on that one. . . .

DO MSM BLOGS lean left?

Or do they just lean lame?

THE OLD LIBERAL-WHO’S-BEEN-MUGGED PHENOMENON, in Ohio:

It’s funny how a gun can instantly change your perspective on things, make you wish you could rewrite history.

State Rep. Michael DeBose, a southside Cleveland Democrat, discovered this lesson the night of May 1, when he thought he was going to die. That’s the night he wished he had that gun vote back. . . .

DeBose voted his conscience. He feared that CCW permits would lead to a massive influx of new guns in the streets and a jump in gun violence. He feared that Cleveland would become the O.K. Corral, patrolled by legions of freshly minted permit holders.

“I was wrong,” he said Friday.

“I’m going to get a permit and so is my wife.

“I’ve changed my mind. You need a way to protect yourself and your family.

“I don’t want to hurt anyone. But I never again want to be in the position where I’m approached by someone with a gun and I don’t have one.”

DeBose said he knows that a gun doesn’t solve Cleveland’s violence problem; it’s merely a street equalizer.

“There are too many people who are just evil and mean-spirited. They will hurt you for no reason. If more people were packing guns, it might serve as a deterrent.”

Indeed. (Via Dave Hardy).

DOUBLE STANDARDS in journalism. No!

WIRED: New Phytoplankton Model May Revise Warming Estimates.

TOYOTA, 100% HYBRID BY 2020? I remain very happy with my Toyota Hybrid, which now has over 28,000 miles.

FROM CARBON CREDITS to Carbon Debits.

OPIE AND ANTHONY suspended. Jim Treacher thinks it’s unfair.

AL GORE: Shill for the nuclear industry?