Ever since the recent suicide bombings in Turkey a lot has been written about al-Qaeda and its strategy. There seems to be a reasonable level of confusion about where the group currently is tactically and financially, and some question its ability to ever launch the major attack on US soil we have been anticipating since 9/11. And then there is some debate over the likelihood that the group is damaging itself with bomb attacks in which many innocent Muslim civilians are killed. There are two things that we should differentiate I think. One is the group’s strategy and current capability to execute on that strategy; the other one is the market for its ideas or: the feeding ground on which it relies for support and recruitment.

Donald Sensing has pointed out to us that al-Qaeda lacks a clear strategy, Steven Den Beste argued that in waging war against the infidels the group seeks to underline that they are true Muslims and in doing so they expect that divine intervention will manifest itself at some point during the battle and assist in accomplishing the goals that underlie their struggle or jihad. The particular goals of that battle remain vague, but given the evidence to date it seems that the re-establishment of the caliphate encompassing all Muslim countries is the core of the al-Qaeda vision. A battle to convert the rest of the world to Islam would no doubt follow shortly upon the establishment of such a strong and unified caliphate. Essentially, the strategy to achieve these goals is two-tiered: firstly, attack in Muslim countries where there is religious and historical significance such as Saudi Arabia or where there is an opportunity because of the unique political and religious circumstances. In the latter case we can think about secular Turkey, but also about countries like Algeria, Egypt and Pakistan where political instability is easy to foment. If that instability is achieved and exploited in countries with economic and demographic mass, all the better. The other tier is to attack the allies of those that al-Qaeda seeks to unseat, the United States has been the one nation singled out for this treatment, more recently the UK has become a target.

When you think about it, this strategy is not overly clever as it means spreading resources around various areas which may heighten the local impact and surprise the enemy, but it does not ensure a rapid regime change in for instance Saudi-Arabia, as a more concentrated and sustained effort would be required for that. Furthermore, the damage inflicted upon the US to date has resulted in a strong counter-attack that has not only affected al-Qaeda’s international capabilities, but also its on the ground strength in the Muslim world, think about the ways in which Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia are now co-operating in the war on terror. From that point of view their strategy has failed and it seems the group is reeling from this strategic miscalculation that was grounded in the belief that if we can defeat one superpower - the USSR in Afghanistan - then we can take on another. That brings me to the capabilities it currently has. Phil Carter a few weeks ago pointed out that al-Qaeda has been transformed from the pre 9/11 al-Qaeda 1.0 to al-Qaeda 2.0, the latter being the current edition that has been hampered in its operational capabilities and the evidence of that is that we now see relatively insignificant attacks on dispersed goals in the Muslim world and not any major attacks in the west. Carter goes on to warn us that complacency on our part could lead to the very lethal al-Qaeda 3.0, again conducting large scale operations. There are some merits in this line of thinking and I believe it is correct. The war on terror has yielded some early fruits and al-Qaeda has suffered some major setbacks. We will see some scattered attacks in the near future - the theory of an al-Qaeda franchise is instructive here - but four targeted attacks in one particular place are evidence to me that in spite of reduced operational effectiveness the group has not exactly lost its focus. On the contrary, by picking Jewish and Western targets in secular Turkey the group is pretty much underlining what we all think is their binding rationale: fighting a religious war by taking on the infidels and chose a locale where the impact may further the group’s basic strategic goals.

It is tempting to write al-Qaeda off as some fringe group like Baader-Meinhof, or even the IRA, killing innocent members of the people they claim to represent, in turn alienating those very groups. Maybe, but it occurs to me that both Baader-Meinhof and the IRA were in the end irrelevant groups because they could not realistically claim that they represented a cause shared by a sufficiently large cross-section of the population on whose behalf they said they were acting. There is a lot of resentment, poverty and disillusion in the Arab world for al-Qaeda to feed on. I have pointed before on these pages to the economic mechanics at work here, and they in turn are compounded by the demographic trends in most of the Muslim world. As some look at this conflict from their background in religion, I always look at it from my basic academic training in the field of economic history. My conclusion is that the al-Qaeda strategy may not be perfect and their operational capabilities may have suffered, the market for their ideas is still pretty much alive. And let us be clear on the innocents: Muslims killed in Riyadh or Istanbul can easily be qualified as collateral damage, in the first case they were westernized Arabs living in wealthy surroundings, and in the Istanbul case they were secular Turks who worked together with Jews and Brits. The argument that attacks in the Muslim world alienate Muslims thus does not hold water, on the contrary, the Muslims that die have been tainted by what they were and who they associated with. My bet is that the uneducated masses continue to have a deep fascination with the Osama bin-Laden figure as some sort of mystical folk hero; if evidence is required I would like to point to the Osama puppets currently available in the Palestinian Territories and the appearance of his likeness on T-shirts and shops in places as far as Indonesia. To the extent they are educated they have either attended madrassahs or are heavily indoctrinated by radical groups such as Hamas, the latter having successfully ventured into providing social services and education. And although Hamas is not al-Qaeda, they are a group that has perfected its strategy by underpinning the indiscriminate physical struggle with nurturing the grassroots of that battle. The moment al-Qaeda figures out how to venture into healthcare, education and related social services, and at some point they will, there will be real trouble in the Arab world and beyond.

The Muslim world is facing a fork in the road. Much like the Weimar Republic in the 1920s and 1930s, the choice is between totalitarianism and making a real effort to achieve a functioning, free and healthy democracy which means that compromises and co-operation are to be made working principles. Not an easy task. The Bush administration is aware of what could be a painful and lengthy implementation of democratic principles in Iraq as it requires more than putting a ballot-box on every street corner. So sweeping away the old order with democracy is not easy nor, as in the case of Saudi-Arabia, is it going to happen anytime soon. Indeed the very adoption of democracy may be the exact venue for radical groups to obtain power; Hitler triumphed in a democratic election as did the Islamic Front in Algeria in the early 1990s. Al-Qaeda and its political affiliates are aiming at destabilizing the old order through continued attacks and violence, knowing very well that they stand to benefit from a direct collapse of the old order, or they may benefit indirectly in a scenario where democracy replaces the old regime. We may not yet be at this point, but if historic analogies have any value we should maybe consider that al-Qaeda might adapt some worldly functions in order to realize its religious goals.

Not discounting the progress to date, I have a difficult time seeing how the current evolutionary phase in which al-Qaeda finds itself is evidence of the group’s demise. And even if they will fall apart or be destroyed there continues to be a huge opportunity to exploit their theories of a caliphate that will annihilate the old order, eliminate the Jewish state and send the Westerners packing. If not the elusive Osama bin-Laden himself, then any other leader who can translate his ideas into a more pragmatic approach can step into his void and catch the divine and popular winds that have been propelling the case for change in the Muslim world. That scenario would come very close to al-Qaeda 3.0.

A few weeks back I thought about doing a post on the merits of a Bush visit to Baghdad, but never got around to doing it. Well Bush did get around to it and today paid a surprise Thanksgiving Day visit to the troops in Iraq:

“ … Iraq's U.S. civil administrator L. Paul Bremer told the soldiers he was supposed to read the president's Thanksgiving proclamation to them but would instead defer to the most senior person on the premises, Reuters said. At that point, Bush emerged wearing a military jacket to great cheers …”

This is a very important gesture to the troops as well as to the people of Iraq. Following shortly after the announcement of more marines being deployed in Iraq it solidifies this President’s commitment to stay the course.

Update: I had a lump in my throat when I saw footage of the visit on CNN just now; and I think the President had one too. The difference between staged and scripted stuff like the “major combat is over” on the USS Lincoln and an impromptu Thanksgiving visit to the troops in Baghdad is phenomenal and I think we needed something like this to be reminded of that. It also again underlines in what zone Bush is comfortable, in a casual outfit among the guys and gals, shaking hands, padding shoulders. He’s is not just good at that, no, that’s who he is and it reminded me of his Ground Zero visit. It not only makes him a great unwavering wartime leader, it also makes him an extremely likely guy. Both traits will serve him and the US well in the period ahead.

Digesting some of the editorials in the European press on the collapse of the Stability Pact it occurred to me that in a way it is good news for Eurosceptics and bad news for those who believed in the European dream. While opponents would argue that the bullying by the Franco-German axis is evidence of the danger of giving up sovereignty, which is what I have been doing for a while now, it can equally be argued that yesterday’s developments made it clear that national interests will for the foreseeable future prevail over the communal rules. That’s the political fall-out and it may indeed point to the fact that the concept of one union is not as yet viable:

Anger about Tuesday's decision ran deep among smaller EU countries, opening a new divide on a Continent at odds over Iraq and a planned EU constitution and threatening the wider goal of building a European economy to rival that of the United States.

The economic fall-out looks to be more serious. The collapse of the Stability Pact does not mean that that the rules will be adapted or changed, no, they’re gone and each government is now free to set its own budgetary policies, based on each government’s own political preferences. It will leave those implementing monetary policy at the ECB in a very tough spot for their centralized function is now subject to a very fragmented set of political masters.

The team of Setting The World To Rights is hosting the Carnival this week and judging from their comments they were unprepared for the workload that comes with it. As I hosted the thing last week I know that the deluge of entries can be overwhelming. However, I was truly impressed with the way nearly all participants met the deadline I had set, and none of them had any unusual requests or comments. That made the job both manageable and enjoyable and I think it highlights the spirit of co-operation that characterizes the blogosphere. It’s good to be a part of that experience, now head over to the Carnival!

So it seems the EU Stability Pact is now dead and buried, despite long running efforts by especially Dutch Finance Minister Zalm to ensure that all the players abide by the rules like he had. In the end he was only supported by Austria, Finland and Spain. Here’s what happened:

The veteran Gerrit Zalm, Dutch finance minister, claimed Germany was exporting its excessive budget deficit to other countries through higher interest rates.

Hans Eichel, German finance minister, was unmoved. He refused to accept the humiliation of being told by the Commission, backed by the threat of sanctions, to make a further €6bn ($7bn, £4.2bn) of budget cuts next year.

France, also in the dock and facing an identical Commission recommendation, backed its ally, as did several other countries including Italy, holder of the rotating EU presidency.

There you go. The heavyweights have pulled it off as I have predicted a number of times, and this does not bode well for the future of the EU and it will no doubt force Downing Street to now indefinitely shelve a Euro referendum or any other plans in that direction. That’s the political fall-out, Megan takes a look at the latest developments from the economic side and believes that things are not as grim as they look. We’ll see, but I consider the Franco-German bulldozer a manifestation of everyone’s worst dreams. And note that the bulldozer won't restrict itself to just monetary matters.

The Carnival experience of last week led to my discovery of the Australian blog Dissecting Leftism, run by John Ray. John had some interesting comments on Peaktalk and especially on my hypothesis that the Dutch have more in common with Anglo-Saxons than with other Europeans:

I agree with his view that the Dutch have more in common with the Anglo-Saxons than other Europeans do. Dutch even has just about the same vowel sounds as British English, which is very unusual (though Dutch gutturals are another thing altogether). But the Anglo-Saxons who conquered Britain 1500 years age mostly set off from what is now the Netherlands so the affinities are less surprising than they might seem. There is even some DNA research (Weale et al., ‘Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration’, Molecular Biology and Evolution, 2002, vol. 19, pp.1008-21) showing that the Frisians (one part of the Netherlands) are genetically just about the same as the English.

Yes, and the Frisian language (the only officially recognized other language spoken in the Netherlands) bears some striking similarities to English. There are more connections, for instance the Bush ancestors set sail from the Netherlands when they crossed the Atlantic on their voyage to the new world as they - if I remember correctly - belonged to the pilgrims who were persecuted in England and had found refuge in the Netherlands, in Leiden to be precise. Not an entirely important piece of information but I thought it was an interesting factoid in this context.

Talking about Dutch history, Steven Den Beste has a very interesting post up on European history, with a large chunk of it devoted to Dutch history. In it he also addresses the question I get from time about the difference between Holland and The Netherlands, terms that are used interchangeably:

As to "Holland" versus "The Netherlands", "Holland" is a (couple of) province(s) of the Netherlands, but "The Netherlands" is a mouthful (not just in English; "Niederlande" in German, four syllables, for instance). "Holland" is a shorter, nicer word. Holland was also the dominant power in the Netherlands, since Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague were part of it. So "Holland" has long been used as an alternate name for the Netherlands, even though it isn't technically accurate.

Thanks Steven, couldn’t have done a better job myself, but then given your Dutch ancestry I expected you to be able to explain this. Read the entire post, it’s good.

OK, credit to Kevin, he managed to come up with at least one positive aspect of Wal-Mart’s international expansion. This is a subject that raises some interesting emotions judging from some of the e-mail I got, some arguing that the problem with Wal-Mart is the fact that they destroy jobs by exporting work to other countries, affecting American workers while abusing the low wage situation abroad. There are two distinct criticisms I can level against that.

First of all trying to protect American jobs is a pointless exercise in a globalized free-market. Advantages offered by regional differences make economies competitive and, in theory, forces them to be adaptable. Shifting labor around the world has a positive effect as it forces the regions that have lost jobs to reinvent themselves and focus on what they’re good at, this a dynamic process that has been around for as long as there has been life on earth. Although their objectives are different, the anti-globalization movement and trade unions have found each other in fighting those who want to give a free rein to this economic mechanism. They are prepared to do anything to turn back the clock and that makes them real conservatives, artificially protecting economies through barriers, tariffs and subsidies is the worst of conservatism and socialism combined. Canada has a history in this department and the cost has been phenomenal. What’s more, even after clear evidence of the enormous benefits of free trade to the Canadian economy during the 1990s, a significant portion of the electorate is still bemoaning this economic concept. For all my criticisms of the European Union I should note that in essence the fundamental idea of free movement of goods, people and capital that underpinned the European dream is a valid and commendable one, wealth is created by removing barriers that try to control and thwart such movement.

That brings me to cheap labor. Many emerging economies start to compete in the world market once they allow foreign investment to take advantage of low wages; in fact low wages are a key accelerator in any economic growth process. Take Asia for instance. Hong Kong as an economy started out a as a pool of cheap labor which combined with free capital flows ensured an early take-off and, once other cheap labor markets opened, a flexibility to adapt to the new world and build on the wealth it gained to retool its economy. Many present day wealthy Hong Kong Chinese descend from very poor and demoralized mainland refugees that were scraping by on lowly paid factory work. True, the Hong Kong case was unique and there were other factors at play, most of which were local and not imposed by foreign capitalists, yet that really proves that a dynamic adaptation of foreign capital inflows should lay the groundwork for future economic growth. Local governments and businesses thus play an equally important role in creating wealth and allowing workers to move up the social-economic ladder and blaming abysmal labor conditions on just Wal-Mart or other corporate giants, just does not fly.

And again a sizzling number, GDP growth at 8.2% for the third quarter which appears to be not just consumer driven. Great numbers and it is to be hoped that this creates real confidence in the business community which in turn would spur sustained investments and jobs.

As with any business that is unusually successful and profitable (Microsoft, Martha Stewart) the time has come to take on another icon of American capitalism and there has been a steady momentum over the past few months to take that battle to Wal-Mart. Yesterday Kevin Drum pitched in; pointing out that Wal-Mart’s ability to pay low wages to its workers (read: resist unionization) has created a squeezed and impoverished blue-collar workforce. The low-price level that Wal-Mart is able to compete with is creating value for the company’s shareholders and clients, but Kevin believes that rewarding the megastore’s chain workforce in line with union requirements would give them more money to spend and in turn create more wealth. Absent a union I think Kevin would still favor paying workers above market in order to create a growing class of people that can afford to buy the output of American businesses.

I do not agree with his position and I think the logic he uses is lost on me. Especially his implied assertion that the aggressive stand of Wal-Mart vis-à-vis unions creates a class of underpaid workers that ultimately can afford less as opposed to a unionized workforce that can afford more, needs a closer look. Regular readers will now how much I abhor unions as they are known to restrict not only market-driven downward movement on the socio-economic ladder, but more importantly they have a habit of destroying upward mobility. In addition, unions add, through collective bargaining a significant cost to the economic process that does not necessarily represent a concurrent gain in productivity. Unions did play a role at one point in time, think late 19th and early 20th century, but in a society where the largest social stratum is a middle class with an ability to migrate geographically as well as economically, unions are antiquated entities destroying opportunities rather than creating them, and to the extent they create them they come with a price-tag significantly higher than the cost. How come union membership in all western economies has been declining over the past few decades?

Wal-Marts ability to keep unions out of its doors and drive the prices of its suppliers down results in a very competitively priced product that allows their clients (ranging from low to high income groups) to spend more on other goods and thus increasing their purchasing power and wealth. Yes, Kevin, you can pay your employees more allowing them to buy the same amount of goods at a higher price point, but where’s the gain for them or for society at large? Note that not everybody is working for Wal-Mart and while I understand the existence of economic hardships for lower income groups, I do think that a flexible economy offers them a far better road to affluence than submission to rigid unionism that results in less career opportunities and reduced purchasing power. And if unions were absent, who would be likely be able to retain his or her employment in the long run: a check-out clerk working at market rates or one that is paid an above market wage?

Following the long spell of inactivity that has troubled Dilacerator and is now also affecting No Cameras I have been looking for other Dutch bloggers with some international exposure that write in English. Today via Jeff Jarvis I rediscovered Adam Curry a former MTV VJ and Dutch celebrity with American roots. We’re in the same age bracket, in the 1980s he was the benchmark for pop music on Dutch radio and TV and after a spell in New York he is now back in Europe from where, among other things, he runs a good weblog dealing with media, technology, Dutch stuff and from time to time politics. Today he has written a fairly interesting piece about Michael Jackson that takes an alternative point of view and is therefore definitely worth reading.

While we’re on the topic, I think Curry has a point in saying that we should be careful in pre-judging Jackson. Having said that I found the episode where Jackson dangled his hooded child from a Berlin hotel room far more alarming as it provided direct and visible evidence of serious abuse. It was appalling. Any other single parent engaging in such despicable behaviour would be dragged in front of a judge to hear that his child would be taken away from him and placed in an adoptive home. There’s a very good editorial in today’s Daily Telegraph that makes exactly that point:

There are those who will try to argue once more that Jackson is being unfairly persecuted because he is a superstar in the public eye. The very contrary is true: the blinding glare of Jackson's celebrity, talent and wealth has allowed him to escape with infinitely less censure than would any ordinary man.

Whether guilty of child molestation, yes or no, Jackson’s own children are most at risk as a result of the way they are being raised and the courts may now have a unique opportunity to do something about that. Go and read the whole thing.

One of the things that has always surprised me about life in Canada is that in some respects the country is hopelessly mired in the past. This is not a criticism that we should be overly worried about, I bet that I can find pockets of tardiness in both the US and Europe, but especially here in Vancouver there seems to be a deliberate willingness to embark on strategies that have been proven wrong in other countries many years ago. “We’re Canadian, we do things differently”, is the familiar and omnipresent self-defeating routine. Last year the Vancouver city council got a radical electoral make-over when years of conservative rule made way for an old fashioned, union-inspired, bunch of socialists.

They wasted no time to put signs visible to everyone entering the city that Vancouver is a “no-nuclear weapon” zone, the last time I witnessed such an redundant exercise was in Holland in, you guessed it, the 1980s. You can deal with stuff like this, although it is irritating and highlighting a deliberate waste of resources. The same is true for long debates on the war in Iraq which of course falls right into the jurisdiction of the Vancouver city council. Absurd, but I am not prepared to have my day spoilt when I read about the long and intense deliberations in the morning paper. It gets somewhat nastier when attempts are made to prevent the opening of a Wal-Mart store (it’s American, it discourages unions, all great reasons to try and bust a low-price retailer out of a low income neighborhood) and when the safety as well as the quality of life in the city is impacted directly as a result of willful negligence by the city council.

Here’s what’s at stake. Vancouver has a relatively high number of homeless people and a sizeable drug problem; both very often go hand in hand. There are many homeless here because of the relatively mild climate and their ranks have been growing rapidly ever since governments across the country have reduced welfare rolls in order to balance their books and encourage people to get back to work in order to make a living. Many have packed up and left the icy east to move to western urban centers. The net result is that downtown Vancouver has seen a noticeable increase in crime, aggressive panhandling and even more aggressive squeegee men, the latter setting up their own unions, allocating street corners. On top of that the homeless have established permanent tent camps in downtown parks and residential areas, making it very clear that they are not moving anywhere unless the government provides an acceptable alternative. I leave it to your imagination what a tent camp of drug addicted homeless people looks like and how the area around it is impacted. The city council however has refused to take direct action against these excesses, refusing to enforce bylaws on the homeless that every other citizen would have to endure if he or she would be camping in a city park, ignoring panhandling and sqeegeeing, all under the guise of caring for the poor and downtrodden. When prompted about his responsibility to keep the city clean and free of crime the Mayor, an ex-cop named Larry Campbell, would point to the provincial government and say, it’s their problem, they have acted irresponsibly by cutting social welfare spending let them fix it. When the situation escalated over the past few months when a number of elderly residents were mugged in the downtown area, calls for action increased, yet Campbell and his team have been loath to do anything. If ever there has been an example of an irresponsible negligence of duty it is right here in Vancouver, the culprits being the very city councilors that are supposed to enforce bylaws and protect citizens.

What makes it even more galling is that - and many critics have pointed this out - other large North American cities have gone through this problem and decided to act decisively in the face of decay, crime and lawlessness on their streets. The best example is of course the zero-tolerance and hard-tolerance approaches implemented by Rudy Giuliani in the 1990s that turned New York into a clean and livable city. Vancouver was a very livable city but things are getting rapidly out of hand, and ten years after the successful Giuliani approach one misguided ex-cop with a political agenda is turning this great city into a cesspool in order to make a political point. Of course, any political campaign pointing to an American success is destined to fail in a Canadian city, but chances that Campbell’s left-wing bullies and their poorly crafted agenda are going to earn another term have become questionable as Vancouverites are fiercely proud of their safe and clean city.

Conrad has over the past few weeks been active in pointing out that the climate for foreign investment in Indonesia is rapidly deteriorating. More evidence is the reintroduction of the old concept of “gijzeling” whereby anyone can be detained without trial until an alleged debt has been settled, and this is now being applied to collect “taxes” from expatriate workers. Not only is “gijzeling” a Dutch term (which translates literally as hostage taking), it is also a concept that originates in Dutch law and to this date is on the books in the Netherlands, though it is hardly ever used. Had this practice not been part of the legal infrastructure that the Dutch left behind in Indonesia, I have little doubt that somehow Indonesian authorities would at some point have discovered this technique of generating additional revenue. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that if ever the country comes under serious international criticism over this practice it will happily point to the old colonial master that introduced the practice in the first place.

These attacks are both horrific and significant. As far as I am aware this is the first time British interests, the consulate and an HSBC office, are directly attacked by al-Qaeda and related groups. It proves not only that the terrorists have lost none of their vigor, it also underlines - following the attacks last week - that Turkey has been chosen as a strategic battleground. It is driving a wedge right through Turkish society in order to create a maximum amount of instability in the one Muslim country that successfully separated state and Islam. If it is meant to give a signal to Bush and Blair, then the terrorists will have succeeded at further solidifying the bond between the two leaders and their resolve to defeat terrorism. So that’s not what these attacks were aimed at. The underlying strategic goal was to see how things were going to play out in continental European circles, as many will start to interpret this as an Anglo-Saxon conflict with the Muslim world and act accordingly. The terrorists are not just dividing the Muslim world; their attempts to drive a deep wedge between Europe and the US are starting to bear fruit. The political map of the world is being redrawn right in front of our eyes.

One of my regular readers has questioned my insistence that France and Germany are slowly bullying the rest of the EU into submission. Look at the evidence, first they are actively skirting the EU Stability Pact Rules, and now (assisted by lightweights but useful accomplices Belgium and Luxembourg) promoting a European defense force separate from NATO, paving the way for an unbridgeable gap between the EU and the US. The argument my reader put forward was, what about the smaller countries, and what about Spain, Portugal and Italy?

Well, it seems that little new entrant Poland is indeed playing hardball, but my argument is that in the case of the smaller countries such actions have a limited shelf life. The larger countries remain extremely influential when it comes to forking out the infamous subsidies and the Poles do not probably have a long breath here, sustained EU funding must be tempting for any government presiding over a weak economy. They can be bought. As for Italy, Portugal and Spain, their critical voice and pro-American stance has an expiry date: the next election. True, together the smaller countries could build a coalition but since unity among them is not compatible with all the issues, I fear that a divide-and-rule will be the order of the day in the New Europe.

Absent a well-organized and electable right-of-center opposition, Canadians relied to a certain extent on the media to formulate and disseminate a conservative voice. That voice was, until a few years ago, personified by the National Post and its owner Lord Black. Many therefore lamented that Black sold the paper following a very well publicized rift with Canada’s Prime-Minister and Black abandoning his Canadian citizenship to take up a seat in the House of Lords. I have linked before to Black’s articulate farewell-to-Canada speech; it is mandatory reading for anyone who wants to get a better understanding of where things have gone off-track for Canada. Judging from their gloating following his recent tribulations, the Globe and Mail has splashed the affair on its front pages for a few days now; Black has remained a scourge for the left in this country. Colby Cosh has a very good analysis of why things may not be as bad as they seem for Black, but his followers are concerned over his ability to retain business and thus editorial control over his other conservative papers. If Colby is right that may be false alarm, but it again highlights that those in a position of having considerable media influence should tread carefully in their business dealings and personal affairs (Limbaugh, Bennett). Although it may be a pyrrhic victory, the left in Canada is having, shortly after the Martin coronation, a blast this week no doubt convincing many on both sides of the political equation, “see, you can’t trust ‘em, those capitalists!”

The Madness Continues …

Are we mad? Are we crazy? Are we nuts? Have lost it spending hours in front of our computer writing, reading, commenting, trackbacking, permalinking and praying for traffic? Do the many e-mailers asking Glenn if he is some sort of weirdo have a point? Is it sane to forego news on TV, family life, a night on the town, work duties, and worst of all, sleep? All that just to immerse ourselves in what is called the blogosphere? Yes, the world of bloggers does indeed sometimes resemble some loosely organized meeting place for those who have collectively lost their minds. Or not? Is it a meeting of minds designed to enhance our knowledge of things which is finally bringing us that much dreamed of forum of direct democracy? Or, if some publisher is looking, an invite for a newspaper column or maybe even a book deal?

Maybe this week’s entries can shed some light on it!

Entertainment?
It seems that the quality of entertainment offered to us these days reflects this week’s theme, madness. It’s pretty bad indeed:

Mr. Cranky this week rants about the quality of local TV …

… and Israellycool alerts us the deteriorating quality of Arab TV …

… while Newman gives us some fair warnings before watching the new Matrix.

But not everyone is complaining of what can be seen and Rob Bernard produces a more balanced review of what’s on TV this season. Yet, instead of sitting in front of a screen, there are some other creative pursuits:

Matt Powell at Wheat and Chaff discusses anime and …

… Sneakeasy’s Joint discusses writing a poem.

Talking about poetry, what happens if you let children look at proverbs, asks Bussorah?

But then you can always make your own pornographic movie. Eric Berlin points out that you have to assume though that it will be made public at some point, and he has more solid advice for those that are commonly referred to as asshatted celebrities.

Or, is this Entertainment?
Many have long abandoned the box as a form of entertainment and visits to the theater are limited these days because of our busy lives. Yet, there are other ways to seek a break from day to day life:

Madfish Willie discusses a night on the town …

… and that brings me to Bogieblog’s time with the chickens.

Admiral Quixote at Solport discusses a sports event and true sportsmanship in this selfish world …

… as does the Sportsblog, rambling about a football junkie.

… whereas White Pebble’s Patti Niehoff ventures into very dangerous territory for a day-trip.

Or maybe we should just celebrate in Japanese style, says Lee of See the Donkey.

I really prefer to sit back and read a short story. Quibbles and Bits wants to share one with us this week called the Mailbox.

Wizbang’s Kevin prefers to stroll around computer expos, or does he? In any case he has some good advice on it.

But in the end, like the TV-critics I started with, it all depends on who is looking at what has been created. The Tears of Things describe two distinct reactions to a piece of art.

Basic Freedoms and Those That Defend It
Entertainment is to be enjoyed since we have the freedom to do that, yet very often this freedom comes under threat according to …

… James Griffith of Griffany who takes on the issue of ID-Cards as it impacts our freedom …

… as do the restrictions imposed on us by gun control, says The Smallest Minority.

And we should not ever forget those who die to defend that freedom says John Donovan at Argghhh!

And Blackfive adds to that that it is very often different generations of families that serve the forces, effectively creating a Warrior Caste.

The Lopsided Poopdeck talks about his mother who served in the armed forces.

In any case, there needs to be more attention for those brave armed forces and the Mudville Gazette has a rallying cry for those Military Blogs.

Freedom to do What?
We fight to preserve our freedom, and some of us die for it. But what do we do with our freedom once we have it?

We can chose to engage in unusual relationships like the folks at Taken in Hand, as Kathy, Stephen and Robin will explain to you.

Is their view of the role of women maybe traditional, women have changed says Bad Money, who discusses Yesterday’s Women and Today’s Women.

Some guys like Jim Peacock at Snooze Buttom Dreams however need to listen to a reggae classic to realize that women are not always the answer to everything and that things can still be all right.

Maybe an imaginary girlfriend is the solution, you can get them at eBay says Resonance.

Freedom can also be abused since we can manipulate science to further our political views, until someone uses his freedom to debunk it which is what John Ray does on his Dissect Left and PC Watch Blogs.

Which takes us to those weird protesters who get angry because they just could not get arrested, says Ilyka Damen.

Sometimes protest and a closer look are warranted says Angelweave after she read Fast Food Nation.

To some freedom means to get rid of your waste wherever you like it, Canadians dump their garbage across the border, says the Interested Participant.

And if you abuse your rights to engage in some serious hazing at a fraternity, the outcome maybe reason for concern says The Sake of Argument.

Freedom also allows us to make money and see it grow by adhering to some very, yes, the frugal Dutchman loves this, interesting guidelines according to the People’s Republic of Seabrook.

And then there’s religious freedom, spawning groups like Jews for Jesus, appropriately discussed by The Raving Atheist.

Yet those that live in slavery often have to imagine things in order to escape their brutal circumstances and dream of things in the future. The Speculist underlines the power of imagination and our ability to conceive things that do not exist as yet, ie. the future.

Presidential Politics
Freedom is also there to elect our leaders and that brings out much discussion, yet it surprises me that no one bothered to discuss JFK for this week's Carnival. That may be because another scion of a venerable family is writing history these days:

Andrew Ian Dodge alerts us to the Bush visit to London and the protesters that await him …

… while Q and O believes the Bush speech of two weeks back is of historical significance.

The candidates that seek to replace Bush meanwhile engage is acts that are not of real historical significance says Robert Tagorda, irritated by Democratic candidates’ pandering to youth culture.

The King of Fools tells us that one politician once slated to occupy the White House was sent packing this week with his pension papers.

And The Gunther Concept compares Bush and the slate of Democratic candidates on their language and grammar skills and comes to some interesting conclusions.

And then there are the great Presidents of the past, Red Ted compares Andrew Jackson and Ronald Reagan.

The Old Continent
As regular visitors to this blog will know, my ancestral grounds are a topic of hot debate these days.

Nikita Demosthenes takes on the irrational aspects of the EU.

… and Walloworld looks at this contradiction in terminus, Freedom in France.

And Peaktalk, yes that's me, points out that the EU’s defense plans may be the final nail in the coffin for NATO.

An Even Older Continent
While the old continent seems troubled, the older continent is deeply troubled which is why we are sowing the seeds of democracy in the land of the Tigris and Euphrates:

The Patriot Paradox discusses the situation in Iraq, saying the Iraqis are better off and …

… Earthly Passions takes on the dilemma posed to us by the Iraqi Fork, arguing that whichever path we take is going to be difficult.

That difficulty required Paul Bremer to return to Washington for some meetings, Norbizness thankfully has a transcript of what took place in the Oval Office.

Yes, the war in Iraq has enriched our language and A Voyage to Arcturus examines those Quaggers.

And since it seems the Quaggers may be wrong, the time has come to bring more international troops to Iraq, argues Blog Simmins.

Quaggers? Vietnam? Brian J. Noggle explains that the Vietnam analogy only works for certain age groups.

The effort to bring democracy to Iraq, in the end, was based on intelligence and the entire The Smarter Cop points out to us that whatever was in the contested memo about al-Qaeda and Saddam, that intelligence had been gathered during the Clinton years. What did they do with it?

Idler Yet points out that Slate needs to be convinced on some of the al-Qaeda – Saddam files that are out there.

There is a group of people that didn’t need any intelligence, the warbloggers knew the right course of action all along, but that has not prevented them from being ridiculed as “chickenhawks” says The American Mind.

In any case, there’s there should be more focus on good news from Iraq says Feste’s Fools Blog.

Politics and the Law, Church and State
If madness and freedom intersect, it is no doubt in the area where church, state and law meet each other.

This week the focus of attention was the ruling on gay marriage in Massachusetts and Trish Wilson was on the spot to cover this, just in time for the Carnival.

The Calico Cat discusses a Democratic filibuster of federal judicial nominees, and historical perspective on the Supreme Court packing scheme of the 1930s.

Fringeblog is deeply worried about the Supremes rapid departure of pure Constitutional ruling.

And it is good to finally hear from real Alabamian Anastasia at Southern Musings what she thinks about the controversy surrounding The Ten Commandments.

Legal affairs come close to home when you get a demand letter, Patterico points us to one that is especially scary.

But Above All, Human
In the end we’re all human and subject to these basic human instincts as Jay Solo discusses our rodent tendencies. So does that mean we are all the same?

No, of course not. We are different and can celebrate our humanity, our diversity under a banner of universalism. Or do we? The inherent tensions between patriotism, ethnic and national identity and universalism are discussed eloquently by KesherTalk’s Judith Weiss.

Was this madness? No, this is what you get if you put a few enthusiastic and engaged bloggers together in the proverbial room, lots of interesting stuff and a few quaint episodes. Of course, there’s some absurdity around and Fragments from Floyd tries to initiate a new exercise for bloggers around the “Where are you from” concept, adding that indeed it may be silly. But if you want real madness there’s always a blogger to propose it, and this week the award goes to Pete Holidian who invites us to participate in some more Blogger Madness. That’s it!

And remember to check in next week with the team of Setting The World To Rights who will be hosting the 62nd edition of the Carnival!

Someone hacked into blogrolling.com, other weblogs using this service have been affected it seems. I always had a feeling that this would happen at some point in time, well here it is, let's see if we can fix it.

Update: It has been fixed by the looks of it.

Following my comments on the fraying of the transatlantic security arrangements, it is interesting to note that Bush yesterday spoke out in favor of a good relationship between the US and Europe and a hope that a European defense arrangement would not necessarily undermine NATO. The problem is, it will, as it will make NATO redundant. Bush is setting the stage for his visit to Britain this week, remaining open to continental Europe, while at the same time hoping that Tony Blair can get some verbal assurances from the continent that the EU force will not undermine NATO. Any EU defense grouping would eventually make NATO irrelevant as NATO’s and the EU’s strategic defense priorities are not compatible as long as the US is a NATO member. By virtue of its charter, the US are and will be a NATO member unless it gets to the point that American membership becomes an exercise in futility and Americans decide it is wiser to abandon the transatlantic effort.

The key to this problem may well rest with Blair, by joining a European alliance the British would risk severing the important strategic link they have now forged with the US, something they are unlikely to do. From that perspective NATO may well see a different type of shake-up and transform itself into a loosely organized defense alliance for the Anglosphere with the US, Britain, Canada and potentially Australia and New Zealand as members while the Europeans go their own way. Not an entirely inconceivable scenario.

He has been plastered all over the Canadian press, Paul Martin, the freshly anointed leader of the Liberal Party who will step into Prime-Minister Jean Chrétien’s shoes in early January. I have got to hand it to the man, when he lost his job as finance minister I was one of many that predicted that given Chrétien’s long and protracted retirement Martin would not survive being out in the political wilderness for so long and probably lose his chance to become Canada’s next leader. Yet, for some reason he managed to pull it off, and convincingly at that, as he has some magic hold over the Liberal Party membership as well as over the many corporate contributors who filled his campaign coffers.

The real question will be what Martin will do once he is in office; many pundits are zooming in on healthcare, the federal-provincial relationship as well as budgetary plans with a particular focus on spending curbs. What is equally important is that Martin scores an invite to Crawford, the badly damaged relationship with the US should be one of his top priorities. To a large extent his credibility as the leader of a new and - which is what he plans to achieve - internationally engaged Canada depends on this. He could, if he played his cards right be another Blair, solidifying the strong bond with the US while at the same time ensuring that Canada can influence events on the world stage like it did in the 1950s and 1960s. Apart from the hiatus of the Mulroney-Reagan friendship in the 1980s, the Trudeau-Chrétien view of the world seriously damaged Canada’s reputation and potential role of influence in the world. Let’s see if the new king is able to fix that.

Again, this week the Carnival of the Vanities will be hosted right here at Peaktalk (with a small ’t’) and I continue to be taking submissions for this madness (as one submitting blogger has qualified it, no I won’t tell you who it was) all week, the deadline however is Tuesday, November 18, 2003 at 3:00 PM, Pacific Time. Let me have your Permalinks and blog URLs and tell me if I can use your name yes or no, some of us would like to remain anonymous. You can add in a description but I am not guaranteeing that I will use it; part of the fun of hosting the event will be to throw in some random editorial comments. The e-mail address is pieter-at-peaktalk-dot-com.

Following her return to the frontpages, Gretta Duisenberg got her day in court last week (link in Dutch only, but I will summarize it for you in English) when a judge ordered that a column about her is to be deleted from the writer’s website (it had appeared earlier in a Dutch daily called Metro) and instead lists a statement from Mrs. Duisenberg and the court. The judge however did not award her the $30,000 Euros in damages that she was looking for. I am always intrigued by judicial arguments and I will quickly explain why this journalist's right of free expression was curtailed by the court.

The writer of the column in question had extrapolated Mrs. Duisenberg’s statement that she wanted to be part of a ‘human shield’ to defend Arafat following Israel’s threat to dispose of him. The journalist in question, Luuk Koelman, had written a parody about how she would mount herself on top of the Palestinian leader after which the latter would exclaim that having Mrs. D. on top of him was an experience worse than any Israeli counter-attack. Whatever your taste is, this is the artistic license any writer has and yes, there is definitely some humor in it. Not according to Mrs. D. who interpreted the comments as ”hurtful” (which under Dutch law gives the court a certain privilege to curb freedom of expression, it's often used to protect the royal family from ridicule) and the judge backed her up on this. But here’s the argument they used: Duisenberg’s support for the Palestinian cause could not be interpreted to imply a personal affection for Mr. Arafat. I don’t know, but stating your intention to be someone’s human shield comes very close to personal affection in my book, and it seems that Dutch law was interpreted a little bit too freely in order to placate Mrs. D.

Many reports seem to suggest that the plan to accelerate a transfer of power to an Iraqi authority implies a U-turn in US policy and is a cut-and-run. Not at all, here’s Paul Bremer:

"Our presence here will change from an occupation to an invited presence. I'm sure the Iraqi government is going to want to have coalition forces here for its own security for some time to come."

Which in theory means that US troops will stay for as long as necessary, until such point in time that a democratically elected Iraqi government is stable enough to withstand any direct domestic or regional challenges. That may be a long time and for now it appears there’s a commitment to 2006 on the table.

My discussion earlier on the growing rift between Europe and the US did not elaborate on one of the crucial issues that will be instrumental in the widening of the gap between the two continents: defense. NATO has always been perceived - and to an extent - functioned as a military alliance of the free democratic western world against Soviet expansion, with Turkey functioning as a member of convenience. The ‘Red Threat’ disappeared and in a way NATO has been looking for a new role ever since. Simultaneously the fast integration and expansion of the European Union came with calls for a European defense force, or as one plan from former French President Mitterand and German Chancellor Kohl would have it, a rapid reaction force consisting of military personnel from EU member states. The argument that NATO was probably just that given the multiple membership overlaps never made any serious headway, and when during the 1990s Europe’s leaders failed to react very rapidly to the disintegration and genocide in Yugoslavia, it was the Clinton administration that dusted off good old NATO and gave it a role in the new world. Not for long though, NATO, despite an on the ground assignment in Afghanistan, seems once again relegated to the sidelines and any wishful thinking about a meaningful role for NATO in Iraq is not very likely, here’s Robert Kagan:

NATO probably will increase its involvement in Iraq, and it should. But no one should imagine a significant NATO role; it will probably be around the margins. It will be hard to get France, Belgium, Germany, and Luxembourg to sign up for any big NATO mission in Iraq.

That’s where the problem lies. A number of key NATO members have other plans; diplomatic discord earlier this year over Iraq was just the start of the fraying of the transatlantic western military alliance. The opponents of a joint US-European effort in the war against terror have given new life to the old Franco-German dream of a European military force - rapid or not - that would essentially function as the EU’s army:

Belgium, along with France, Germany and Luxembourg in April proposed an autonomous EU military planning and command centre which will be separate from NATO headquarters.

A scary prospect since we do not need a lot of imagination to project how such an alliance would position itself in global conflicts where the US in the name of freedom, stability and democracy would engage itself militarily. Under the expected visionary leadership emanating from Brussels, that military alliance would position itself on the sidelines, alienating the Americans and underlining that the rift between the two continents has become an unbridgeable gap.

Anyone who would argue that smaller European nations might resist this trend should take note of what has happened over the bending of the EU’s Stability Pact rules where France and Germany eventually got their way. The same mechanism will manifest itself in military affairs. Despite the celebrations over Poland and the Czech Republic signing up for NATO, we should take a look at their geographic and economic location on the map. From whom will they stand to benefit most economically, and who is the best counterweight to their greatest fear, Russian aggression? A distant US embroiled in a war against terror, or their next door neighbors who also happen to control the purse that fuels their economic reconstruction?

This situation will also once again put pressure on any British leader; a yes or no to adopting the Euro is only a prelude to an even more ominous abandonment of sovereignty: putting the fate of the United Kingdom into the hands of a military grouping dominated by a Franco-German axis. No wonder Blair is so close to Bush.

Meryl Yourish has some sensible comments about Bashir Assad. I have always considered him to be a figurehead who out of loyalty to his father ended up in a job that he did not really want to take on. Yet, the shy ophthalmologist is Syria’s President and he is no doubt a convenient front for his father’s henchmen who continue to run affairs from Damascus. He has essentially two options, like North Korea’s Kim Jong Il continue the reign of his father and try to outdo him, or genuinely take on the Baathist hardliners and seek reform in Syria. The first option is unlikely given the mental make-up of Bashir and what he have seen from him so far, the second route would involve a shake-up of Syria’s leadership structure, withdrawal from Lebanon, resuscitate peace negotiations with Israel and move closer to the west. He will have to take his chances and calculate what scenario gives him the best chance of long-term survival, my assessment, like Meryl, is that both the status quo and a move towards reform may lead to a very quick end for Boy Assad, as Mark Steyn affectionately calls him. A tough spot to be in, a life threatening dilemma indeed.

Steven Den Beste has some good comments in relation to the situation in Iraq, taking those to task who are suggesting that Bush is starting to blink in the face of ongoing terrorist attacks and guerilla warfare. His argument is that the Bush-Bremer team is adapting its plans along the way, showing a healthy dose of intelligence and flexibility when circumstances on the ground change. Yes, the entire effort in Iraq is sound in principle and needs adjustment from time to time, and in that sense is very comparable to any strategic business plan, you set a course and along the road variables change which in turn will prompt you to make some corrections, some of them drastic. That does not mean that the original strategy is basically wrong, if for instance it means that we need to bring in more joint-venture partners to share the risk, fine. The one problem is that with an upcoming election, Bush is facing ongoing media pressure that requires him to adapt and explain the strategy in a way so as to not alarm the electorate, which is what many media are trying to do. Last week I highlighted the fact that in the run-up to the invasion the pitch to the American public and the world at large was weak, and while the message has improved we have to look very carefully between the lines to understand what is really going on. For instance, anyone who believes that a panic has caused the Bush team to reduce the number of troops deployed in Iraq should take a look at this:

The administration is not suggesting that a speedier transfer of power to an Iraqi governing authority would mean an end to America's military presence in the country. Indeed, the reduction in troop levels envisioned by the Pentagon would still leave 105,000 American soldiers in Iraq next year, compared to the 130,000 there now.

While reducing troop levels would help in an election year, the numbers committed should still be sufficient to carry out the long-term strategic goal of stabilizing Iraq while ensuring that a steady handover to a democratically elected Iraqi administration takes place. William Kristol and Robert Kagan, however have serious doubts over this strategy, arguing it is in contradiction with itself: White House wanting to stay, Pentagon wanting out. Not necessarily so, the administration is adjusting plans such that with a slow reduction in US troop numbers, and a revamped strategy to bring in Iraqi security forces as well as international partners things will work out. Some will call that “gambling”, and some will qualify it as “blinking in the face of terror”. I admit, is has a bit of the former, but it surely is not the latter.

Plans are being adapted and we can argue the merits of these modifications but as Kristol and Kagan rightly contend, failure in Iraq would be a strategic calamity worse than America's retreat from Vietnam 30 years ago. That’s why the basic strategy will stay in place, and why there will be many adjustments and adaptations along the way. Fodder for the media, crucial to mission success.