Two Clear Winners for the Council

There were two clear winners for the week of November 24th, one in each section. American Future won in a walk for Our Rules of Engagement in Iraq.

In the recent avalanche of editorials, op-eds, commentaries, articles, and books on Iraq, there’s surprisingly little attention paid to our rules of engagement (ROE), much less to the impact of those rules on the effectiveness of our military actions...

After thoroughly delineating what those rules were and are, here is his summation —

...it’s clear that our intent has been to fight a “civilized” war. From a humanitarian standpoint, this objective is commendable. However, fighting with one hand tied behind our back (to borrow a phrase from the Vietnam era) has undoubtedly resulted in greater American casualties and made it more difficult to prevail against an enemy that obeys no rules. The limitations, by enhancing the ability of the insurgents and terrorists to carry on the fight, have probably resulted in more, not fewer, civilian casualties. If our rules of engagement were formulated, in part, to present a better face to the “international community,” they have failed. Nobody has commended us for our good behavior.

The rules of engagement we’ve followed in Iraq raise an issue than couldn’t be more fundamental. If our twenty-first century conflicts are going to pit us (or, I might add, Israel) against extremist groups whose tactics know no bounds and we allow our conduct to be constrained by the dictates of international law, as defined by such multilateral institutions as the UN, we are condemning ourselves to fighting protracted conflicts that erode American willpower, as has happened with Iraq. If we give precedence to conforming to international norms over winning, it won’t escape the notice of militants, who will use every opportunity to weaken us.

What no one can tell us is how to extricate ourselves from the noose that the corrupt and mendacious UN has tied for us.

Do we have anyone able to cut that Gordian knot?

You can be damned sure it won’t be our new Secretary of Defense. It will surprise me it he turns out to be more than a seat warmer. That’s about ten rungs below an armchair general.

On the non-council side, Daled Amos was first with Congressman Conyers and Islam. Conyers has been disgusting for a long, long time. With all the Saudi money behind him, he’s got life tenure in that seat in Michigan.

Mr. Amos points out:

John Conyers, D-MI, is likely to become new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Last year, just for practice, he held a mock impeachment hearing of President Bush in anticipation of the real thing.

But Conyers has other plans as well—especially on behalf of his Muslim constituency. Just take a look at his House Resolution 288:

Text of My Resolution Regarding Religious Intolerance

I received a large number of comments, and quite a spirited debate, concerning my resolution opposing religious intolerance, including desecration of the Quran. I appreciate all of the comments, both those supporting and opposing my actions. I continue to believe that given recent events, it is worthwhile for the Congress to actually express its support for the freedom of religion. The resolution was drafted to oppose all religious intolerance. To the extent it mentions the Quran and Islam specifically, that is obviously to respond to those who believe our nation would tolerate disrespect of that religion or its holy book. Clearly we should not, at least in my opinion. [emphasis added].

But that’s not the worst of it. If ever the devil was in the details, he’s taken up residence in Rep. Conyer’s resolution:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives-

(1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;

(2) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected;

(3) recognizes that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and

(4) calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith.

As Mr. Amos points out, there’s no need to protect Muslims:

The problem is that there is no reason to single out Islam as being especially deserving of respect and tolerance.

o For 2005 the FBI report on bias attacks indicates that 68.5 were anti-Jewish while only 11.1 were anti-Islamic. In other words, when it comes to bias attacks—Jews are far and away the group that is in greater danger and more in need of protection

o For 2004, the FBI report indicated that 67.8 were anti-Jewish and 12.7 showed anti-Islamic bias. This indicates that the trend shows that while anti-Jewish bias attacks were slightly up—anti-Islamic attacks actually went down.

o An investigation by Daniel Pipes of the anti-Islamic bias attacks reported by CAIR in 2004 showed “sloppiness, exaggeration, and distortion.” Two of the claims were actually cases of arson by Moslem store owners themselves, using the story of anti-Islamic bias to cover what they had done. The American Thinker describes a third such case. Other reported attacks lacked evidence or were actually reported by CAIR twice. Further incidences of falsified accounts of Muslim hate crimes going back to 2003 can be found on Michelle Malkin’s blog: Myth of the Muslim hate crime epidemic and More Muslim hate crime myths.

Mr. Amos even reports a critical piece on CAIR by NPR!!!

Most interesting, though, is Rep. Conyers’ ties to Hamas. Be sure to read the whole post, and pick up the links he has to other sites.

No wonder the 910 Group came together. The handwriting on the wall is in Arabic.

The Watcher’s Place has everyone else. As usual, it’s a myriad of subjects from a motley crew.