From the WSJ Opinion Archives
You
Don't Say
"Bush May Use Force to Defeat Terror"--headline, Associated Press
dispatch, July 19
Who
Is Marla Ruzicka?
"Flaws in U.S. Air War Left Hundreds of Civilians Dead," blares the
lead headline of yesterday's New York Times. "The American air campaign
in Afghanistan, based on a high-tech, out-of-harm's way strategy, has produced
a pattern of mistakes that has killed hundreds of Afghan civilians," claims
reporter Dexter Filkins.
But the BBC reports that the Afghan government rejects Filkins's account: "A spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai told the BBC that fewer than 500 civilians were believed to have been killed in US air strikes--a low figure considering the size of the military campaign."
Whom to believe? This passage from the Times account gives ample reason to doubt Filkins's objectivity:
Field workers with Global Exchange, an American organization that has sent survey teams into Afghan villages, say they have compiled a list of 812 Afghan civilians who were killed by American airstrikes. They say they expect that number to grow as their survey teams reach more remote villages.
Marla Ruzicka, a Global Exchange field worker in Afghanistan, said the most common factor behind the civilian deaths has been an American reliance on incomplete information to decide on targets.
"Smart bombs are only as smart as people on the ground," Ms. Ruzicka said. "Before you bomb, you should be 100 percent certain of who you are bombing."
So what is this Global Exchange, which Filkins describes only as "an American organization"? A look at its Web site makes clear it's a far-left outfit that opposed any military intervention in Afghanistan. Blogger Michael Moynihan has more details on Marla Ruzicka, who turns out to be a fervent admirer of Fidel Castro. There's also a "report" on the 2000 election dispute from the World Socialist Web Site, which quotes her as suggesting Republicans are terrorists:
Marla Ruzicka, 23, an officially accredited observer from the Green Party, commented on the tactics of the Bush supporters. She described them as "really nasty. There was one guy with a bald head, like a skinhead. They surrounded me and called me a baby killer, because of my support for the right to abortion. When I pointed out Bush's presiding over the death penalty, they said: no, no, that's justice. They're scary. Maybe they're the ones who should be on the terrorist lists."
Ruzicka, of course, is entitled to her opinions--but surely her extremist political agenda is relevant to Filkins's readers in determining how much weight to give to her comments. Meanwhile, buried in the 16th paragraph of Filkins's story is an admission that the whole thing is trumped up: "Indeed, the extraordinary accuracy of American airstrikes since they began in October has produced few of the types of disasters that plagued past wars, when bombs aimed at one target hit something else instead." Oh well, never mind.
'Let's
Get Saddam!'
On Friday President Bush went to Fort Drum, N.Y., where he addressed soldiers
who've returned from Afghanistan. The New York Times has a nice vignette from
the speech:
As Mr. Bush stood surrounded by the camouflage-clad troops of the 10th Mountain Division, among the first sent to Uzbekistan and Afghanistan last fall, one of the soldiers yelled, "Let's get Saddam!" Mr. Bush, dressed in shirt sleeves, just smiled for a moment as a roar of approval raced through the crowd. He did not mention Iraq but hardly stepped in to quell the cheers.
"War with Iraq may come sooner than we think," argues Stephen Hayes in The Weekly Standard, who notes that, contrary to conventional wisdom, President Bush does not need to make a "public case" for overthrowing Saddam (most Americans are already persuaded) and may not even need congressional authorization, since the 1991 Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, also known as Public Law 102-1, is still in effect.
David Warren, meanwhile, says the Europeans are coming around, and we have the French, of all peoples, to thank for it. The defeat of the left in the recent French elections "allowed President Jacques Chirac to confirm an entirely new government of the centre-right, including a new foreign minister to replace Hubert Vidrine, a man whose visceral dislike of anything American (or Jewish) frequently interfered with his otherwise remarkably dubious judgement":
Official anti-American posturing was largely a function of the French domestic political need to assuage such sensibilities on the Left. In turn, German, Italian, Spanish and even British official pronouncements were crafted to assuage the official French need to assuage the French Left. Thus did the tail wag the dog.
While America is pondering when to go into Iraq, Spain has gone into a rock. The Weekly Standard's Christopher Caldwell has an entertaining account of the "battle" over Perejil (Spanish for "parsley"), a tiny island that is part of the Spanish African enclave of Ceuta and was inhabited only by goats and sheep until a dozen Moroccan soldiers arrived July 11. After failing to resolve the standoff diplomatically, "Spain attacked at dawn on July 17. It captured all six Moroccans remaining on the island."
"This comedy holds some serious lessons," writes Charles Krauthammer:
Europe berates the United States for holding on to primitive notions of sovereignty at a time when the sophisticated Europeans are yielding sovereignty to Brussels, adopting the euro, wallowing in Kyoto and, most recently, genuflecting to the newly established International Criminal Court. Yet here they are lining up in lockstep to defend Spanish sovereignty over a piece of worthless rock that only dubiously belongs to Spain, by supposed attachment to the other dubiously claimed Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, that in turn are little more than colonial anachronisms on the coast of North Africa. This same Europe heaps scorn on the United States for defending an infinitely more serious sovereign claim--to democratic legal jurisdiction over its own citizens and soldiers rather than yielding it to the arbitrariness of the new criminal court.
As for Iraq, the New York Times contradicts Warren's assessment and says European leaders are as wimpy as ever. The Times report is most notable for the revelation that the king of Jordan is a crybaby: "One European leader said King Abdullah II of Jordan came to him 'in tears' over recent reports that the Americans were thinking of attacking Iraq from Jordanian air bases at a time when Arab frustration with the lack of progress on the peace front is soaring."
Welcome
to America
The Associated Press has an inspiring report on Lance Cpl. Daniel Njoroge Wanjoh,
a U.S. Marine and citizen of Kenya:
Wanjoh said he decided to join the Marines in 1998, when Osama bin Laden's terrorist network attacked the U.S. Embassy in Kenya. He was on his way home from school when he heard the blast a few blocks away. Later, he learned two of his cousins were among the dead.
"That made me . . . want to become a Marine because the Marines fight terrorism," he said.
Wanjoh will become a U.S. citizen early next year, thanks to an order President Bush signed on Independence Day. It provides that any foreign national who was in the U.S. military as of Sept. 11--there were at least 15,000 of them--is immediately eligible to become an American.
They
Ran Through Iran
Canadian and French warships have picked up four suspected al Qaeda terrorists
at sea this month. "In both cases, the men had sailed from Iran,"
the Associated Press reports, citing two anonymous "defense officials."
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports from Buenos Aires that "the Iranian government organized and carried out the bombing of a Jewish community center here eight years ago that killed 85 people and then paid Argentina's president at the time, Carlos Saúl Menem, $10 million to cover it up, a witness in the case has said in sealed testimony."
In February, Jimmy Carter said it was "overly simplistic and counterproductive" to characterize Iran as part of an "axis of evil."
That
'Earth Is Round' Stuff Is Iffy, Too
"State Department: No Conclusive Evidence Arafat Backed Terror"--headline,
Jerusalem Post, July 21
Foggy
Bottom Gives In
"Over the weekend, Visa Express finally closed shop when its maker, the
U.S. State Department, officially declared that Saudis could no longer submit
their visa applications to travel agents and that all applicants, save for diplomats
and children, will be interviewed," National Review's Joel Mowbray reports,
though he adds that "Arab News reports that Saudi travel agents are not
yet aware of the program's demise, and the website for the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh
has not been updated."
Saudi
Chutzpah Watch
From an advice column in the Arab News by Adil Salahi:
Certainly there is nothing in the Qur'an to say that a mother has no right to her child and that all rights belong to the father who does what he wants. Besides, there is a clear injunction forbidding causing harm to a mother on account of her child. This is stated in verse 233 of Surah 2.
Islam gives both parents equal rights with regard to their children, and when a marriage ends in divorce, both parents have the right of access to their children. In the case of divorce, the child stays with his mother, and the father has to support the child, until the child is fully independent with regard to doing its essential things, such as eating, dressing, cleaning and bathing.
This is normally reached at the age of 7 or 9. At this stage, the child is given a choice to join either parent. The choice is by no means final. It may change as often as the child wants, which means that the child may go to its mother in the morning and to the father in the evening. His financial support remains the duty of the father, who should provide for his living and education. So there is no question of the father being able to deprive the mother of her right of access to her child.
This will certainly come as news to Pat Roush, Monica Stowers and the other American mothers whose children were snatched by their Saudi fathers with no apparent objection from Riyadh.
Try,
Try Again
Our Friday
item on Zacarias Moussaoui suggested that if the judge accepts his guilty
plea, he will not get a trial. Apparently we were mistaken; the New York Times
reports: "Under the federal death penalty statute, if Judge Brinkema allowed
him to plead guilty, a jury would then have to be empaneled to consider whether
he could be put to death, even though there was no jury for the trial itself.
The penalty phase before the jury would be, in effect, a full trial because
it would have to cover the same ground as a trial."
Of course, if Moussaoui is allowed to plead guilty to all counts, prosecutors will have to decide if it's worth going through a trial only to put him to death.
So
Help Me Me
"Richard Reid, the British 'shoe bomber' charged in America with attempted
mass murder aboard a transatlantic airliner, is to defend himself by arguing
that he was carrying out the work of Allah," London's Telegraph reports.
None of that "religion of peace" stuff for Reid. But will Allah appear
in court, and will he invoke the Fifth Amendment?
What
Was Their First Clue?
A Reuters dispatch refers to the Sept. 11 attacks "by suspected Islamic
militants that killed nearly 3,000 people." "Suspected Islamic militants"?
Is Reuters unsure that they were Islamic, or that they were militants?
The
Sincerest Form of Flattery
Check out this passage from an article in the Arab News by Jonathan Power:
Of the three serious wars that the US has fought since 1945--Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf War, one ended in defeat and two in draws--not exactly a glorious record.
An Iraq war likewise could end in stalemate. Saddam Hussein is not the Taleban. A war would require a large-scale land invasion of an American-British force that would undoubtedly suffer significant casualties. It would also need staging grounds and this time round Saudi Arabia, the main base for the Gulf War, is unlikely to agree to offer its services.
Now check out a passage from an article by Immanuel Wallerstein in Foreign Policy:
Bear in mind that of the three serious wars the U.S. military has fought since 1945 (Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War), one ended in defeat and two in draws--not exactly a glorious record.
Saddam Hussein's army is not that of the Taliban, and his internal military control is far more coherent. A U.S. invasion would necessarily involve a serious land force, one that would have to fight its way to Baghdad and would likely suffer significant casualties. Such a force would also need staging grounds, and Saudi Arabia has made clear that it will not serve in this capacity.
Well, great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ.
Yankee
Ingenuity
Time reports on the Pentagon's development of "weapons that stun, scare,
entangle or nauseate--anything but kill." Among the weapons under development:
- "Directed energy weapons," which fire energy beams that "do not burn flesh, but they do create an unbearably painful burning sensation."
- "U.S. Government Standard Bathroom Malodor," which "can quickly clear a public space of anyone who can breathe partygoers, rioters, even enemy forces."
- "WebShot, a 10-ft.-wide Kevlar net" that "can entangle targets as far away as 30 feet."
'A
Natural Reaction'
"A man armed with an assault-style rifle opened fire on a helicopter landing
in a residential neighborhood, thinking the chopper was carrying terrorists,"
the Associated Press reports from Williamsburg, Va. The pilot, John Sutton,
has been charged with reckless flying, a misdemeanor, and the gunman, John Chwaszczewski,
faces four counts and could spend eight years behind bars. "Chwaszczewski
told police the shooting was 'a natural reaction,' after having watched the
events of Sept. 11," the AP reports. Said he: "Maybe I overreacted, but
I did feel this was terrorism at its utmost."
Ending
the Reign of Blaine
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled "that the state of Washington
engaged in unlawful religious discrimination when it withdrew a state scholarship
it had awarded to a needy college student after determining the recipient is
studying theology at a Christian institution," the Washington Times reports.
"Washington's interest in avoiding conflict with its own constitutional
constraint against applying money to religious instruction is not a compelling
reason to withhold scholarship funds for a college education from an eligible
student just because he personally decides to pursue a degree in theology,"
writes Judge Pamela Ann Rymer in Davey
v. Locke (link in PDF format).
This could have big implications for the debate over school vouchers. Washington state's "constitutional constraint" is what is called a "Blaine Amendment," named for Rep. James Blaine, an anti-Catholic Maine Republican who in in 1875 proposed a constitutional amendment that would bar any government money from going to religious schools.
Blaine's amendment failed at the federal level but was a success in the states. "Variations on the Blaine language are found in the constitutions of 36 states and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico," the Institute for Justice reports. (Thanks to blogger Sasha Volokh for the link.) Twenty-nine states have constitutional provisions that provide, in the institute's words, that "no person shall be compelled to support any ministry without his or her consent." Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has found school vouchers constitutional, these provisions raise questions about whether they are permitted by state constitutions. And all but three states--Louisiana, North Carolina and Blaine's home state of Maine--have one or the other of these provisions.
The Ninth Circuit has taken the teeth out of Washington state's Blaine Amendment, holding that it must yield to the demand of government neutrality toward religion. The same principle would presumably apply to elementary and secondary education. In the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the National Education Association issued a statement vowing to "continue to fight . . . against vouchers . . . at the ballot box, in state legislatures, and in state courts." In the courts, at least, the union may find it tougher going than it anticipated.
Banner
Banners
"The U.S. Forest Service has told a tenant that his 20-foot flagpole is
unauthorized and has to go," the Los Angeles Times reports. David Knickerbocker
leases the site of his summer cabin in California's El Dorado National Forest,
and has flown a flag there for almost two decades. But a Forest Service spokesman
says, "If you're putting holes in the ground where Native Americans once
resided, that needs an archeological review."
Huh? Why should Native Americans object to the American flag?
Why
AOL Time Warner Is Tanking
The CNN/Money Web site seeks advice from a market maven:
Grammy award-winning singer and songwriter Billy Joel also weighed in with his opinion about the markets' recent volatility and the crisis of confidence in corporate America, telling CNNfn Friday that investors "have a good reason to be scared."
"It's not just the market fluctuation. It's also what's going on with these big companies," Joel said. "Everyone's got questions about this."
The 53-year-old crooner--who late last month checked out of a substance abuse and psychiatric hospital after a 10-day stay--said he does not have that much exposure to stocks in his own portfolio and said he is generally distrustful of large corporations.
"I know how big business works. I don't trust it," Joel said.
Prozac Needed
"Scientists Debate Cause of Mysterious Mile-Wide Depression in Rural Nebraska"--headline,
Associated Press dispatch, July 21
What's the big mystery? If you were a mile wide and stuck in rural Nebraska, wouldn't you be depressed?
(Elizabeth Crowley helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to James Champagne, Robert LeChevalier, Rosanne Klass, Sukumar Muralidharan, Michael Segal, Raghu Desikan, Richard Miniter, S.E. Brenner, Natalie Cohen, Damian Bennett, C.E. Dobkin, Rosslyn Smith, Zabelle Huss, Darren Gold, Michael Segal, Howard Weiser, Andrew Cooper, Mara Gold, Randy Schwartz, Joseph Braunfeld, Chana Lajcher, Carl Sherer, Hershel Ginsburg, Lesley Sigall, Jim Orheim, Kirk Petersen, Ted Frank, Jim Fehrle, Tom Elia, David Schlosser, Chris Nicastri, Kevin Nelson, Richard Haisley, Allan Toole, Brent Finley, Jeff Ensfield and Peter Melvoin. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outlook: Will Senate Democrats take up the cause of abortion on demand for teenagers?
- Robert Bartley: Ted Kennedy's "cure" would kill drug development
- Brendan Miniter: Jim Traficant learns the laughingstock market has crashed.
