Over the months, I have pretty much come around to Steven Den Beste's diagnosis for the reasons behind Arab rage - which is pretty sobering considering that it comes between slighting remarks about people who ask 'why they hate us'.

The nations and the peoples within the zone of our enemy's culture are complete failures. Their economies are disasters. They make no contribution to the advance of science or engineering. They make no contribution to art or culture. They have no important diplomatic power. They are not respected. Most of their people are impoverished and miserable and filled with resentment, and those who are not impoverished are living a lie.

They hate us. They hate us because our culture is everything theirs is not. Our culture is vibrant and fecund; our economies are successful. Our achievements are magnificent. Our engineering and science are advancing at breathtaking speed. Our people are fat and happy (relatively speaking). We are influential, we are powerful, we are wealthy. "We" are the western democracies, but in particular "we" are the United States, which is the most successful of the western democracies by a long margin. America is the most successful nation in the history of the world, economically and technologically and militarily and even culturally. ...

We're everything that they think they should be, everything they once were, and by our power and success we throw their modern failure into stark contrast, especially because we've gotten to where we are by doing everything their religion says is wrong.

You could nitpick here and there, but it's probably better to throw the problem into stark relief. I would not dismiss those who are uncomfortable with the casual glorification of our culture and the dismissal of other cultures as merely politically correct - such concerns are in themselves one of the things we should be proud of, and they are born of hard experience with the idea of White Man's burden. For me at least, the acceptance of such a working hypothesis is a desperate measure called for by desperate times. It is the Arabs themselves who most often speak about humiliation.

This will, of course, make the successful rebuilding of Iraq more rather than less difficult. George W. Bush's reduction of the problem to a 'freedom deficit' was convenient, because a new government with different rules was something we already planned to set up. Although Steven Den Beste usually speaks well of Bush, the subtle difference in their description of the problem is important. Bush's solution follows more natuarally from Bush's version of the problem, and indeed was propounded after Bush's solution was already in the offering.

Of course, the creation of an open and stable government could reasonably be expected to lead to industrial development eventually, although we have taken no specific steps in that direction. The problem is ferociously hard, however, given the ethnic problems of Iraq. Could the Iraqi's on some level doubt themselves capable of solving it, lashing out blindly at each other and foreigners to salve what scraps of military pride they can?

We can't abandon Iraq. One major difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that the domino theory really is plausible here if we fail to finish what we started. Such a tangible defeat would cheer Al Qaeda globally, and might even create a relatively educated area with some modern engineers which might host and aid Al Qaeda in it's search for a nuclear bomb. But we may not have full success in Iraq until there has been more progress elsewhere in the Arab world.

This week, Tefen will host an international conference to promote Wertheimer's plan to establish 100 industrial parks on the Tefen model, in a joint project of Israel, Jordan, Turkey, the Palestinian Authority, and Lebanon, partly financed by the US.

Wertheimer said, "An industrial park costs $10 million to set up. Most of the investment is in education and technology training." The total cost of his plan is therefore $1 billion.

Wertheimer said, "The amount of US aid is unimportant. $10-20 million initially would be fine. The main thing is their commitment to the idea; that's it's not necessary to send money or weapons here, but to create jobs, which in the long run will enable people to make money."

This would be cheap in comparison to what will ultimately be spent in Iraq, even in comparison to what has been spend there already. And it would give Arab individuals genuine pride, as opposed to the touchy and combative sort that conceals feelings of inadequacy. Genuine reason for pride after all is the true antidote to feelings of humiliation, and perhaps the demonstration would give real enthusiasm to Iraqi's in the difficult struggle to rebuild their own country - difficult no matter how much help they may get.

I've been rereading Steven Den Beste's post on hive minds, and there's something very refreshing about it. The idea of being somehow assimilated by a supermind at the cost of your individuality, as with the Borg, seems to have a grip on many imaginations. More likely our individualities will be part of any hive mind we may form, much as the nature of ants and bees is ideally suited for the hive minds they form. Yet I'm not sure I completely agree with him.

We are affected by the emotions and ideas of those around us whether we chose to be or not, often meeting anger with anger without consciously willing it. This may in some sense be part of the operation of a global brain. At any rate, many of the problems we face are global in scope, and can only be solved at that level. Arguably we have already found solutions to all problems which can be solved on a lower level, and India and China are attempting to replicate and improve upon (at least from their perspective) the solution we have found (capitalism) to poverty. Yet disease can spread all over the world, so that if we don't have adaquate prevention for infectious diseases globally we don't have it at all. The dynamics of terrorism are even harder to deal with, but who can doubt today they are a global problem, requiring global awareness to solve? Some still question the impact of global warming, but we need to be capable of dealing with a problem on such a scale, even if this turned out not to be it. And we need to be able to deal with the dynamics that make the conviction that inaction is enough achieve success, although the majority of scientists who have studied it believe otherwise.

My translator later explains the importance of the Al-Buessa tribe in Falluja; its harsh, simple notions of honor, a hallmark of Al Anbar province. While Falluja s resistance is coloured by the leadership of the many ex-Baathists and regime members in the town, it is also marked by the fiercely proud credo of its tribes - in particular the al- Buessa, which claims responsibility for the downing of the Chinook.



It is the Al-Buessa too, Drinkwine says, who were behind an attack by rocket-propelled grenade on the mayor s office that injured two of his men in the 82nd. And it is the al-Buessa area by the bridge which is one of the most dangerous areas of Falluja for homemade bombs.



The Al-Buessa tribe are the biggest pain in the butt and the biggest problem, says Captain Love. When we first came to Falluja, the Al-Buessa leader in the area by the bridge, Sheikh Ghazi (Sami Al- Abed], was all over the previous guys here, giving barbecues and introducing us to this great guy. Our reaction was: Whoa. Who is this man and what does he want ?



The answer, believes Love, reveals a snapshot not just of Falluja, but of Iraq s resistance; how local political, tribal and financial struggles are finding their expression in the fight against the Coalition in a country that is increasingly hostile to the occupation.



The map drawn by Love of Falluja s fighters describes a battle for supremacy within the Al-Buessa tribe between Sheikh Ghazi Sami Al-Abed, who has the money but no power, and his cousin Saradran Barakat, who has the power but no money.



It has forced the two rivals into an unhappy partnership to protect their positions within the tribe with Ghazi - according to the 82nd - supplying the money, either voluntarily or under pressure, to fund the resistance, and the now arrested Barakat the muscle and the know-how. The full picture, Love believes, is completed by the presence in the city of members of the Muslim and Islamic Brotherhoods, Ansar Al-Islam and Wahhabi extremists, the latter helping to channel money from Arab radicals.

Although there are serious full time Arabic experts studying the multiple tribes of Iraq, ultimately the American people will need to support the efforts of the Iraqi people to avoid war and chaos. Anything that brings us a little bit closer to understanding the problem helps - and Fallujah is one of the main centers of conflict in Iraq.

Take this for what it's worth.

Who is Tides?

TIDES World Press Reports has recently been funded to directly support the efforts of the CPA in Iraq. Our newest report – the TIDES Iraq Reconstruction Report (TIRR) – is a synthesis of the TIDES Middle East Report (MER) and the Iraq Public Infrastructure and Humanitarian Assistance Report (IPIHAR), and more exclusively focused on internal issues of consequence to the safety and security of coalition forces in Iraq and on humanitarian assistance and reconstruction efforts.

Update: "Saudi Gazette" seems to be the address which forwarded an article in the British paper the Observer to TIDES.

Is this going to give new energy to extremists? Even if it doesn't, it's hard to see lasting benefit coming from it. Note the last paragraph I quote. Are they concerned Saudi's are believing what they hear about Saudi Arabia in the American media more than the Saudi Arabian media, or is this not targeted primarily at Saudi's at all?

Saudi Arabia has launched an all-news satellite television channel to present a new image of the Gulf Arab kingdom, the station's director has said.


Ikhbariya, inaugurated on Sunday by the kingdom's first female news presenter, will broadcast in Arabic for 12 hours a day before stepping up to round-the-clock programming, director Muhammad Barayan told Reuters.

"We want to tell the world about our country, to give a new image," he said. "The American media...put out things about Saudi Arabia that are not true - like that Saudi Arabia is not fighting fundamentalists."

What is happening in Iraq right now is not without precedent. When the constitution was being written, states with small populations wanted everyone to have an equal vote. States with large populations of course wanted the vote to be by size. A compromise was of course worked out, with two senators per state but representatives according to population, with electoral votes for President apportioned to give something extra to the smaller regions.

Why can't Iraq do the same? One reason is that ethnic and religios strife can be bitterer than regional strife, especially when there is a history of killing between the two groups. Additionally however, the States knew they had nobody but themselves to blame if they failed to create a government - and nobody to preserve them from the results. It must be tempting for Iraqis to blame us - and to feel we have to make things work out somehow to avoid seeming a failure to the world, thus saving each group of Iraqi's from making the difficult compromises necessary.

If they fail to do so, we may be in big trouble.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 11 — In a blow to White House plans for a smooth handover of power to an Iraqi transitional government by July 1, the most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq said today that members of an interim assembly had to be chosen through direct elections.

The cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, had called in November for direct elections to counter an American proposal to hold caucus-style elections, but had said he would reconsider his decision if a United Nations committee decided that general elections were not possible.

But in a statement issued today, Ayatollah Sistani essentially left no room for compromise by saying that elections could be held "within the next months with an acceptable level of transparency and credibility."

He added that an interim constitution being drafted by the Iraqi Governing Council would have to be approved by a directly elected assembly for it to have legitimacy.

Give up wanted men or face operation, tribals told

* Tribal chiefs seek 48 hours for consultation

By Iqbal Khattak

PESHAWAR: The government on Saturday warned chieftains of all Wazir tribes to hand over the persons responsible for an attack on an Army camp on Friday as well as the tribesmen believed to have sheltered Al Qaeda terrorists or face “an unprecedented Army operation”.

South Waziristan Agency Deputy Administrator Rehmatullah Wazir warned tribal elders at a jirga called in Wana, capital of the troubled South Waziristan Agency that they would be responsible for the consequences if the wanted men were not surrendered. “The elders will be responsible if the wanted men are not given up and the government takes action to capture them,” Mr Wazir told the jirga. The jirga was called after four soldiers were killed early on Friday after unidentified militants fired rockets on their camp.

(much of article deleted here, but click through to read)

Sources in Wana said the Zalikhel had asked all Wazir tribes to help them capture the wanted men to bring what a senior government official called “a grave situation” under control. “The Zalikhels have said they cannot capture the wanted men alone and sought the support of the other major tribes,” tribal sources said.

Whole chunks of the war on terror are going on outside our view, yet success or failure here could determine the fate of President Musharraf. Pakistani fundamentalists could become stirred up enough that Al Qaeda will find enough cannon fodder to make sure one of their attempts succeeds - or the government could prove themselves able to handle the fundamentalists.

I've been in some interesting discussions at Centerfield lately.

I've heard so much talk about McGovern recently I may need to read up. He certainly lost the election. If he hadn't been the peace candidate who could be beaten by an exit from Vietnam, I wonder if we would have exited as promptly, or spent more lives searching for 'peace with honor' while earning neither honor nor peace.

Here's a hard question. Suppose Bush has put us in a situation comparable to World War II, worse than after 9/11. Suppose we cannot win without massive increases in spending, so much so that we cannot borrow so much without seriously endangering our economic position. There's no question that a tax increase is not a popular proposal, but suppose that we really need the money and can only borrow some of it, as during WWII.

Where is the candidate who dares say that although he opposed the war, he respects those who supported it and believes they would have done so even if told the truth about the cost? For victory we may need to learn to consider paying taxes patriotic again - and whining about them unpatriotic. Who will call for sacrifice, ask those who support this war to consider joining the military, and those who cannot do that to pay their taxes ungrudgingly? I'm actually having a few doubts about Dean, but I'm thrilled that he sees no need to buy the support of middle class Democrats with short term payoffs. Dare I hope he will tell the other Democrats that he thinks primary voters are more interested in long term prosperity and will be insulted by demands to spare them?

DEBKAfile`s special report

January 6, 2004, 12:05 PM (GMT+02:00)

They got a harsh response from Prince Nayef, the interior minister who leads the war against al-Qaeda. “The weak can’t challenge the mighty. We are not a regime that wants people to be satisfied with us. We are here in Saudi Arabia in order to rule,” he declared last weekend during two stormy meetings with two separate reformist delegations, which included notables, intellectuals, academics, and senior business figures.

In response to Nayef’s remarks, one participant remarked “We should understand from what you are saying that you are a regime that is working against the people.” DEBKAfile sources report that this sharp exchange, which occurred at the beginning of the meeting, was later followed by a climactic outburst by a leading businessman who got up and said, “We haven’t gone down this whole road (of reform efforts) in order to regress now because of the way you are talking. If you want to throw us into prison, do it now before we leave this meeting.”

Such straight talking has not been heard before at meetings between members of the royal house and influential citizens. The royal family now faces double pressure: the war against al-Qaeda and a fast growing domestic demand for reform. The absence of essential reforms, and the refusal of members of the royal family even to discuss these reforms, is causing ever larger sections of the Saudi population to distance their support and themselves from the royal house. In such an atmosphere, young Saudis find themselves encouraged to join radical and militant opposition movements, such as al-Qaeda.



This is bad news (if this DEBKAfile report is correct) for gradual reform in Saudi Arabia on a number of counts. We are here in Saudi Arabia in order to rule? This hardly indicates a government willing to be voted out of power. Less obviously, "We" are the rulers, they do not consider themselves of the people.

For the United States the conundrum is harder still. The balance of the evidence indicates that a popular government would not be friendly to the United States. And a conference like this does not indicate a stable strongman either. A democratic government must be willing to accept the popular will - and an authoritarian one cannot stay in power unless people are afraid to speak out against it. I don't think a government can sustain free speech without democracy, or people are free to gather support for a revolution.

"There are already signs that Al Qaida is considering the country's petrochemical complexes; a joint CIA-Saudi effort in the summer of 2002 broke up a plot targeting Ras Tanura, and Saudi security arrested five men," the report said. "Even Ali Al Naimi, Saudi Aramco chairman and Minister of Petroleum and Natural Resources, has acknowledged the vulnerability of the oil infrastructure, admitting that, 'terminals and power systems could be a problem.'"

Is the true heart of the War on Terror in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? If so, you could understand why we only hear limited amounts about it - the Saudi government and even that of Pakistan might be further undermined by open news of cooperation between them and the CIA. It's a sober thought though - where even our friends are ambivalent, and our enemies hate us unshakably.

Yes, the CIA is involved.

CIA: Al-Qaida targeting Saudi royals
TOP-SECRET MEMO WARNS OF TERROR GOALS; OIL INSTABILITY WOULD HARM U.S. ECONOMY
By Jonathan S. Landay
Knight Ridder

WASHINGTON - The Al-Qaida terrorist network has decided to intensify its efforts to foment instability in Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, and overthrow the royal family, warns a new top-secret CIA assessment.

The highly classified CIA intelligence memorandum, portions of which have been provided to President Bush, was described to Knight Ridder by intelligence and other officials on the condition of anonymity.

Calpundit deliberately put this Instapundit post on Blogdex by asking other bloggers to write about it instead of doing so himself.

Or maybe not, but it's a great idea. Instapundit has published two updates, Glenn Reynolds doesn't admit to being embarrased in retorspect but he's published some abusive e-mail he got on the subject, perhaps to make himself look moderate in comparison.

Maybe Calpundit is just glad he happened to be busy when this post came out. Either way I'm happy to be one of the many people who brought it near the top of Blogdex.