May 23: 2954

June 12 3195 11:45 p
June 13 3210 10:30p
June 14 3228 7:30p
June 15 3238
June 16 3249 11:45p
June 18 3274 8 a.m.
June 18 3288 10p.m
June 20 3250 11p.m

June 20, 2007
U.S. Presses Blair to Become Mideast Envoy

By HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON, June 20 — The United States is pressing departing Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain to become a special envoy to the Middle East, Bush administration officials said today.

The appointment would be the most visible attempt at laying the groundwork for a Palestinian state since President Bill Clinton wrangled during the waning hours of his administration in 2001 with the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel.

If the proposal endorsed by President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice goes forward, Mr. Blair would represent the United States, European Union, the United Nations and Russia — known as the “quartet” — in working with Palestinian officials to build the institutions and apparatus necessary for a viable state. The proposal shows the renewed urgency in the international attempts to deal with the crisis in the Palestinian territories, where the Hamas faction has fought its way to ascendancy in Gaza and the Fatah faction under the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has set up a provisional government in the West Bank.

Mr. Bush has spoken to Mr. Blair about the proposal, and discussed it on Tuesday with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel, Bush administration and Israeli officials said. Senior Israeli officials said Mr. Olmert was very keen on the idea.

British officials said today that Mr. Blair has not yet decided whether he would take on the task, and they bristled that public comments from the Bush administration now were premature. Mr. Blair is set to step down as prime minister on June 27.

Part of the holdup appears to be some disagreement over exactly how expansive Mr. Blair’s role would be. American and Israeli officials want him to focus primarily on shoring up Palestinian institutions and governance, along with security issues in the West Bank. Israel is more squeamish about discussing the so-called “final status” issues, which have bedeviled peace negotiators since 1979: Jerusalem’s fate, a Palestinian state’s borders, and what to do about Palestinian refugees who fled or were forced to leave homes in Israel.

“Look, do you think Abbas is in any position right now to compromise on Jerusalem or refugees?” a senior Israeli official said. “Israelis are not going to discuss that yet.”

But that is the crux of why previous attempts to make progress on peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians have been unsuccessful, Middle East analysts said.

“The one thing we’ve learned is that it is impossible to distinguish between governance, security and politics,” said Robert Malley, the Middle East and North Africa director at the International Crisis Group. “If one doesn’t move, none of them move — that’s the reason why the road map never got off the ground.”

Mr. Malley was referring to President Bush’s “road map” for eventual peace between Israelis and Palestinians, which calls for the creation of a Palestinian state after Palestinian officials take certain steps.

The last envoy to represent the Quartet — James Wolfensohn, the former president of the World Bank — left the post last year, expressing frustration with the lack of progress on the road map.

Certainly, Mr. Blair would bring a higher profile to the job than Mr. Wolfensohn and may also bring a credibility — particularly within the Arab world — that an American may not be able to match.

During the Israeli-Hezbollah war in Lebanon last summer, for example, Mr. Blair offered to travel to the region and noted at the time that as prime minister of Britain he could say and do things that would not necessarily carry the baggage of similar actions by Mr. Bush or Ms. Rice, because of America’s close relationship with Israel.

U.S., Iraqi Troops Rescue Malnourished Boys From Baghdad Orphanage
American Forces Press Service
BAGHDAD, June 20, 2007 – U.S. and Iraqi army forces found an orphanage housing 24 severely malnourished and abused boys in Baghdad's Fajr neighborhood June 10, military officials reported today.

Army Staff Sgt. Kyle Richey cares for one of 24 starving boys in the back of an Iraqi army ambulance. Civic leaders escorted the abused and malnourished boys, found by U.S. and Iraqi soldiers in a Baghdad orphanage, to the Iskan Hospital for medical treatment. Photo by Lt. James Cook, USN  
(Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image available.The 24 boys, ranging in age from 3 to 15, were found naked in a darkened room without any windows. Many of the children were tied to their beds and were too weak to stand, officials said.
In a nearby locked room, the soldiers discovered food and clothing that could have been used to aid the children. Three women claiming to be the caretakers, and two men -- the orphanage director and a guard -- were on the site when the soldiers arrived.
The Iraqi soldiers notified members of the Fajr Neighborhood Advisory Council and escorted them to the orphanage to assist the boys. Paratroopers from Company B, 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, and a 492nd Civil Affairs Team also arrived at the orphanage with medics to treat the malnourished boys.
"The council members were crying at the sight of the starving boys," said Navy Lt. James Cook, a civil affairs officer. The neighborhood council arranged for three ambulances to take the boys to the Iskan Hospital for care.
"We're very grateful that this story unfolded the way that it did -- that none of these 24 boys lost their lives. This is a story of partnership, courageous action and compassion overcoming deplorable negligence," said Army Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, Multinational Division Baghdad's deputy commanding general.
"The role of the Iraqi soldiers and the community council was a key to this action being taken to save these young boys," Brooks said. "We're very fortunate to have the kind of soldiers we have who are willing to take action, even at personal risk, to save the lives of others. These soldiers in a literal and figurative sense are the best chance for Iraq, just as they were for these boys."
(From a Multinational Corps Iraq news release.)

Related Sites:
Multinational Corps Iraq

Taliban, al Qaeda Losing Influence in Afghanistan
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 20, 2007 – Afghanistan's citizens are rejecting the dark vision offered by Taliban and al Qaeda extremists and are embracing their central government, senior U.S. and Afghan military officers said today.

"The people of Afghanistan are now getting the opportunity to decide what they want," said Army Col. Martin P. Schweitzer, commander of the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division's 4th Brigade Combat Team, which is partnering with Afghan forces in the country's southeastern region.
The Taliban, the radical Islamic group that was forced from power in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom in late 2001 and early 2002, has since conducted a guerrilla war against the democratic Afghan government and its coalition partners.
Yet today, the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies are finding it increasingly difficult to coerce Afghans to support them, Schweitzer said, noting the two terror groups routinely employ threats against the Afghan population to advance their agenda.
The Afghans "are tired of the oppression, are tired of having their kids not being allowed to go to school, tired of their kids not being able to get medical treatment and tired of a way of life that is only threats," Schweitzer said from Afghanistan during a teleconference with Pentagon reporters.
Winning over the Afghan people is the key to victory over the terrorists, Schweitzer pointed out. And a vital component of that strategy is putting an Afghan "face" on counterinsurgency operations, the colonel said.
"We're trying to get the people of Afghanistan in the small villages and communities to no longer fall under the oppression of the Taliban and start working (with) and looking to their government for a better way of life," Schweitzer explained. "Initially, we were doing this with a heavy coalition presence."
However, in the past two years, Afghan troops under the command of Maj. Gen. Abdul Khaliq have increasingly taken the lead in anti-insurgent operations in southeastern Afghanistan and interfaced with Afghans living in remote areas, who'd previously been prime recruiting targets for the extremists. Khaliq is the commander of the 203rd Afghan Army Corps.
"Now, you're seeing the Afghan National Army down in those communities," Schweitzer said, noting its influence among the villagers has had a devastating effect on the Taliban's recruiting efforts.
A year ago, about 19 of the 83 districts within Schweitzer's area of operations supported the Afghan central government, the colonel said. Today, 60 of those districts support the Afghan government, he said.
Those districts that support the government and reject the extremists no longer accept recruitment of their children into the Taliban, Schweitzer pointed out.
"There's no better barometer than that, which indicates that these communities in these villages are looking toward their government now, versus the Taliban," the colonel said.
Schweitzer saluted Khaliq's leadership, noting the presence of Afghan soldiers has greatly assisted in diminishing the Taliban's influence among the local population.
"It is impressive that when we go into these villages they ask for the Afghan National Army and they're not asking for the coalition," the colonel said. "We think the right strategy is to have the Afghans develop the plan, apply the solution (toward) a better way of life for their communities."
And the terrorists' indiscriminate bombings that kill innocent people haven't garnered any friends among the Afghan population, Schweitzer pointed out.
"The Afghan people do not appreciate that particular (terrorist) approach," the colonel said. "They don't like it, they don't want to be a part of it, and they want more Afghan National Army forces on the ground securing their communities."
Schweitzer likened occasional reports of extremists taking over remote village centers as "grab and run" operations that quickly end when Afghan or coalition forces arrive to re-establish order.
Khaliq, who accompanied Schweitzer at the news conference, noted there are enough Afghan troops to secure his area, although he acknowledged the coalition is now providing much appreciated air strike and logistical support.
The Taliban continue to hang on, Khaliq said, because "they're not alone." The Taliban extremists, he explained, are connected to the al Qaeda terror network, and they're receiving money and other kinds of support from outside of Afghanistan.
Yet, the Afghan people don't want the Taliban's "dark policy," the general asserted.
"The people are hating (the Taliban)," Khaliq said, adding he's confident that the Taliban and al Qaeda will eventually be defeated as Afghan security forces grow in size and capability.
Although things are looking up in Afghanistan, more work still needs to be done, Schweitzer said.
"Is it going to take time? Absolutely, it's going to take time," Schweitzer said. "We're changing 10 to 15 years of oppression and 30 years of war in the minds of the villagers and communities."

The Role of Journalism Today
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Posted: Tuesday, June 19, 2007

SPEECHES
National Press Club (Washington)
Publication Date: June 18, 2007


Resident Fellow
Ayaan Hirsi Ali


The first time that I was at a gathering like this one, it was November 2005 at the Krasnapolsky hotel in Amsterdam; not quite like this one, though, because there is only one National Press Club. I was invited to a session on media coverage of Islam, and Submission was shown. Submission is a 10-minute film I made with Theo van Gogh. As many of you know, he was killed for it by a Muslim.

I found myself in the odd position of defending freedom of expression, free press, and the rights of women against Arab-Islamic journalists and commentators. I found it odd because the Western journalists whose conference it was were either quiet, mumbled something about free expression, or approached me after the session and whispered into my ear that I had done a good job. I noticed the embarrassment they felt at defending the very right from which they earn their bread.

I noticed the same sense of uneasiness in early 2006 among Western journalists, academics, politicians, and commentators on how to respond to the cartoons of Muhammad in Denmark. In fact, many seriously defended the assertion that Denmark had to apologize for the cartoons. This attitude was repeated in the fall of last year when the Pope quoted a Byzantine emperor who wrote that the founder of Islam spread his religion by the sword, and the New York Times urged the Pope to apologize.

It is not the end of history. The 21st century began with a battle of ideas, and this battle is about the values of the West versus those of Islam.

Tony Blair, a leader I admire, wrote in the first issue of this year's Foreign Affairs magazine that what we were facing after the 11th of September was a battle of ideas, a battle of values. In his article, Blair began by incisively outlining the most crucial conflict of our time, but then lost the line of his argument in inconsistency when he came to clarifying the parties involved in the war of values. He backpedaled against his argument and declared that the Koran is a great book, ahead of its time and good for women.

Why are Westerners so insecure about everything that is so wonderful about the West: political freedom, free press, freedom of expression, equal rights for women and men, gays and heterosexuals, critical thinking, and the great strength of scrutinizing ideas--and especially faith?

It is not the end of history. The 21st century began with a battle of ideas, and this battle is about the values of the West versus those of Islam. Tony Blair and the Pope should not be embarrassed in saying it, and you should stop self-censoring. Islam and liberal democracy are incompatible; cultures and religions are not equal. And perhaps most important of all, Muslims are not half-wits who can respond only in violence. The Koran is not a great book; it is reactionary and full of misogyny. The Byzantine emperor's analysis of Muhammad was correct: he spread his faith by the sword.

From this perspective journalists like all the rest of us face the unpleasant reality of taking sides or getting lost in the incoherence of the so-called middle ground. The role of journalists serving the West, who understand what this particular battle is about, will be to inform their audiences accordingly.

As I travel from country to country to testify from experience and observation that Islamic dogma creates a cult of death, a cage for women, and a curse against knowledge, I get both support and opposition. Europeans and Americans ask:

But what about the good Muslim living next to me? What about the different schools of thought in Islam? Is there no difference between the Muslims of Indonesia and the ones in Somalia, or the Muslims in Saudi Arabia and those in Turkey? Can we really generalize? What about the women who voluntarily wear the headscarf and the burqa and are happy to relinquish their freedom as their faith requires? If we give Catholics and Protestants and Jews their schools and their universities, isn't it only fair to give Muslims theirs, too? If generations of Jews, Italians, and Irish have assimilated, is it unreasonable to think that Muslims will assimilate too, eventually?" Isn't it more fruitful to engage in debate with your opponent and convince him through dialogue to take back his declaration of war than to attack him? Isn't it obvious that military attacks, such as those in Afghanistan after 9/11 and in Iraq, create more terrorists, and therefore more people who are determined to destroy the West than there would be if we had dialogue with them?

These questions are legitimate and deserve serious answers. Let's make a moral distinction between Islam and Muslims. Muslims are diverse. Some, like Irshad Manji and Tawfiq Hamid, want to reform their faith. Others want to spread their beliefs through persuasion, violence or both. Others are apathetic and do not care much for politics. Others want to leave it and convert to Christianity, like Nonie Darwish, or become atheist, like me.

Islam unreformed, as a set of beliefs, is hostile to everything Western.

In a free society, if Jews, Protestants, and Catholics have their own schools, then Muslims should have theirs, too. But how long should we ignore that in Muslim schools in the West, kids are taught to believe that Jews are pigs and dogs? Or that they should distance themselves from unbelievers and jihad is a virtue? Isn't it odd that everywhere in Europe with large Muslim organizations, demands are made not to teach kids about the Holocaust, while in mosques and Muslim bookshops The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is distributed?

And what about in Muslim lands, where Jews, Catholics, and Protestants cannot have their own schools, or churches, or graveyards? If Muslims can proselytize in Vatican City, why can't Christians proselytize in Mecca? Why do we find this acceptable? If Christians, Jews, and Atheists take to the streets in large numbers to protest against their own elected governments in objection to the war in Iraq, to the war against terror, why don't Muslims march in equally large number against the beheadings of Western aid workers? Why don't Muslims stand up for their own? Why are Jews and Christians and Atheists in the West the ones fighting genocide in Darfur? Why does it pass unnoticed in Muslim lands when Shias kill Sunnis and Sunnis, Shias by the thousands? It doesn't add up, does it? If you ask me, "What is the role of journalism today?" I would urge you to look into these questions.

As a woman in the West I have access to education. I have a job, and I can change jobs as I wish. I can marry the man of my choice, or I can choose not to marry at all. If nature allows it, I can have any number of children I want. I can manipulate nature and freeze my eggs. I can have an abortion. I can own property. I can travel wherever I want. I can read whichever book, newspaper, or magazine I wish. I can watch any movie I want or go to the museum of my choice. I can have an opinion on the moral choices of others and express my opinion, even publish it. And I can change my mind as time goes by. I can establish a political party or join an existing one; I am free to change parties or give up my membership. I can vote. I can choose not to vote. I can stand for election to office or go into business. This is what makes the West so great.

This obsession with subjugating women is one of the things that makes Islam so low. And the agents of Islam from Riyadh to Teheran, from Islamabad to Cairo know that any improvement in the lives of women will lead to the demise of Islam and a disappearance of their power.

In Muslim lands, except for a very lucky few, women are denied education, have no job, and are forced into marriage with strangers. In the name of Islam, women are denied the right to their bodies; they cannot choose whether to have children or how many to have. They have no rights to abortion, and often they die trying to get one. They cannot own property, trade, or travel without the risk of robbery or rape. Most women (and men) live in state and religious censorship on what to read (if they can read at all) and what films to watch, and they have hardly any museums or art they can enjoy. Of the 57 Muslim nations that are members of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference), only two are democracies. Both are frail and corrupt, and both face the risk of being overtaken by the agents of pure Islam. Turkey has a safety check in the shape of the army and Indonesia none. In none of these countries--except for the usual show-pieces to delude the West--are women allowed to establish their own political parties, play a meaningful role in one, vote, or run for office.

This obsession with subjugating women is one of the things that makes Islam so low. And the agents of Islam from Riyadh to Teheran, from Islamabad to Cairo know that any improvement in the lives of women will lead to the demise of Islam and a disappearance of their power. This is why, among other things, they are so desperate to cage in women. This is why they also hate the West.

Please don't be fooled by the few shrill voices--in or out of the veil--that enjoy the status quo and betray their fellow women.

If we do not understand the differences between Islam and the West--why one is so great and the other so low--and we don't fight back and win this battle of ideas in order to preserve our civilization, in my view there is no point to your profession or mine.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a resident fellow at AEI.