Independent Women's Forum - Research Areas > Foreign Policy (In General)

Freedom of Religion in Turkey

info@iwf.org (Halima Karzai) — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:55:00 EST

As a Muslim woman who has traveled to several "Islamic" countries, I can't imagine being able to practice my religion anywhere as freely or as comfortably as I can right here - in the United States. Apparently, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan agrees that the freedom of religion that exists in the U.S. was challenged in his own secular country of Turkey.

An article in today's Wall Street Journal reports:

When Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited us in New York a few years ago, he said his daughters chose to study in the U.S. in part because it was illegal to wear head scarves at Turkish universities. Saturday, Turkey's Parliament voted to lift that ban.

Our own view is that lifting the ban is a sign of Turkey's democratic maturity. Mr. Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP), which has Islamic roots, rightly argued that the restriction violated freedom of religion.

The AKP, in power since 2002, has already demonstrated that a government with Islamist roots can coexist with democracy and free markets. Our hope is that lifting the ban on head scarves is another move toward a modern Muslim state.

Iraq does have to be won by the Iraqis

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:47:00 EST

Besides his "the surge is working" comment from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today, Congressman John Murtha is telling the Iraqi central government what they need to hear. They do need to make progress, build bridges and clean up ministries that are not delivering results and that are hamstringing progress.

Also, in all honesty the folks on the ground—including those Pennsylvania troops Murtha met with last week—do have a desire to come home, but they have an even stronger sense of duty and conviction to get the job done right. They are being empowered to do the job right and the Congress needs to grant them the funding to accomplish this task.

The truth of the matter is the surge is working and has altered for the better the landscape that US diplomats and the US military are responding to.

However, publicized, Congressionally-prescribed timelines are not helpful to military planners and leaders working in a volatile and ever changing Iraq. Developing a sound exit strategy and publicizing it, for all to digest including insurgent groups, are two very different things.

The US cannot afford to repeat past actions that have withdrawn troops from vulnerable neighborhoods and sectors only to have to reclaim them militarily.

All this discussion of the surge and defense funding for military operations is buttressed by a new optimism among the American public regarding Iraq. A new survey out of The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press states:

A growing number [of Americans] says the U.S. war effort is going well, while greater percentages also believe the United States is making progress in reducing the number of Iraqi casualties, defeating the insurgents and preventing a civil war in Iraq.

Americans are becoming more optimistic about progress, but we should all be prepared that progress may not happen as quickly as we would like. The environment in Iraq is so complex and victories come in small quantities one by one, as is being illustrated on the streets of Baghdad daily.

Going back to Congressman Murtha, he makes a point that I am sure many on both sides of the aisle would agree with. Iraq has to be won by the Iraqis. They have to want it and they must seize the momentum ignited by the surge to make political progress toward stability and reconciliation.

FOX's Your World with Neil Cavuto: Is "good news" in Iraq "bad news" for the Democrats?

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:02:00 EST

Carrie Lukas along with Marc Lamont Hill joins Your World with Neil Cavuto today on Fox News Channel to debate the war in Iraq. With violence down and people moving back to Baghdad, is "good news" in Iraq "bad news" for the Democrats?

On Iraq Coverage, Don't Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:20:00 EDT

So we're talking about Iraq today. Well, Iraq is something I definitely have some opinions on and with all the Britney Spears coverage, SCHIP, Rush Limbaugh and-yes-Princess Diana coverage over the last few days on the news channels it hasn't really been at the top of the news feeds, though the papers have as always been plugging along on Iraq stories as Stanley Kurtz and apparently some others have noted.

But I am going to have to take issue with Stanley Kurtz on The Washington Post's series on IEDs.

I don't think this series is some kind of concerted effort by the Post to look backward at only the bad things happening in Iraq and somehow dismiss any progress during the last few months. Note this from the introduction to the four part series:

"The number of IED attacks declined in Iraq late this summer after five more U.S. brigades took the field as part of a troop "surge" ordered by the White House. American casualties from IEDs also dropped. Throughout Iraq, more than half of all makeshift bombs are found before they detonate."

If massive aerial bombing in World War II-reaching its final culmination in the release of the atomic bomb-was one of the lasting tactics of that brutal war, the rise of improvised explosive devices (IED's or roadside bombs as they are also known) have been a, if not the, defining tactic of the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a topic worthy of detailed coverage and defeating this weapon will have far reaching consequences beyond Iraq.

Although the series is not a bed of roses in its description of a complex issue it does include reporting on "heartening developments":

"We've saved a lot of lives," Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England said in an interview last month. "We've had people killed and injured, but we've probably saved five or 10 times that number of people by preventing attacks, or capturing and killing [insurgents], or getting caches of weapons, or disabling them."

I might also note that the author of the series Rick Atkinson is an solid reporter and historian who has earned his chops covering not only this conflict but his continuing trilogy on World War II is excellent-and it seems the people who give out Pulitzer Prizes for History agree with me. If you aren't familiar with his book on the North Africa Campaign, An Army at Dawn, and his just released on the invasion of Italy, The Day of Battle, they are worth a look.

Atkinson also wrote The Long Gray Line, a chronicle of the 1966 class of West Point and wrote an account of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, In the Company of Soldiers, where he was embedded with the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division then lead by one Major General David H. Petraeus, who everyone is very familiar with these days. If I recall correctly, it is from Atkinson's book where I learned of the General's penchant for pop tarts. But I digress.

Atkinson's series obviously took time and effort and the Post also obviously shelled out some bucks on it, so you can't really fault them for hyping it accordingly. Because much as we don't like to think about it sometimes, media is a business after all. Most other four-part, in-depth series would probably receive the front page treatment as well.

Detailed reporting that doesn't merely skim the surface of the real challenges in Iraq and that takes the time to relay the complexities of the situation the military and those working on the ground face every day is hard to come by. Don't discourage it when it does show up.

I think the bigger problem here is that certain folks may be intimidated by a four part series and as much as we American's talk about wanting in-depth, solid reporting, we don't always read it when it is available. We have other things on our minds. So as far as Post coverage on Iraq and its editorial placement, I just want to say, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. And if you didn't read the IED series, give it another chance. This new fangled thing called the internet makes it oh so easy to do.

I would also applaud Atkinson on making the effort to ask senior officials "to review the [article's] findings for accuracy and security considerations." Because when you publicize explicitly even the little things that places like JIEDDO (the Joint IED-Defeat Organization), and soldiers have discovered to combat and thwart IED attacks, they don't work anymore because terrorists and insurgents watch and read the news too.

The Week that Was

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:15:00 EDT

The Conventional Wisdom is that President Bush shouldn't deliver a speech on Iraq last night. For once, the conventional wisdom is right. No one can begrudge the president, who has had the courage not to go by his poll numbers, the right to speak. But his speech, which was so much like others he has given about Iraq, was unnecessary. Others had made the point for him better during a pivotal week.

Here is Charles Krauthammer on the Petraeus testimony:

For all the attempts by Democrats and the antiwar movement to discredit Petraeus, he won the congressional confrontation hands down. He demonstrated enough military progress from his new counterinsurgency strategy to conclude: 'I believe we have a realistic chance of achieving our objectives in Iraq.'
The American people are not antiwar. They are anti-losing. Which means they are also anti-drift. Adrift is where we were during most of 2006 -- the annus horribilis initiated by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's bringing down the Golden Mosque in Samarra -- until the new counterinsurgency strategy of 2007 (the 'surge') reversed the trajectory of the war.
It was being lost both in Iraq and at home.

Kimberley Strassel notes that 'good military policy is good politics.' The week was a turning point, she writes, but adds that there are still many hurdles, including:

Republicans would do well to absorb the military-success lesson, and quickly, because big challenges remain. The John Warners and Chuck Hagels of the world aren�t yet ready to relinquish their self-proclaimed roles as 'brave' GOP war dissenters; expect them to team up with Democrats on creative legislative language that might yet tie the military's hands. An even bigger challenge for Republicans will be to find the courage to follow President Bush's lead and make clear to the American public that true success in Iraq may involve a troop presence for many years.

And John Podhoretz is more positive on the president�s speech than I was:

The president's reduced standing among fellow Republicans and independents has run parallel to a corresponding rise of opposition to the Iraq war. They turned on the war because they believed the facts on the ground dictated an American defeat.
The facts on the ground tell a different story now. It's very difficult to turn pessimists into optimists, especially if they were optimists who gave up.
Bush has to try, and in his speech last night, he gave some pessimists reason to revisit their change of heart.

A National Review Online symposium also--by and large--gave the speech higher marks than I did. Clifford May thinks that the president did something important.

IWF Podcast: G8 Summit

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:44:00 EDT

IWF's Allison Kasic and Anne Trenolone discuss this week's G8 summit. Listen and get the scoop on the G8 protestors, Bono, development assistance, and world poverty.

Why the head of the World Bank should be an American

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Wed, 30 May 2007 00:00:00 EDT

Former US Trade Representative and former State Department number two Robert Zoellick has been tapped by President Bush to lead the World Bank. Since the announcement that outgoing Bank President Paul Wolfowitz would step down on June 30, 2007, politicos and development types alike have been buzzing over who would replace him. Tradition has dictated over the years this individual should be an American (the concession being that the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has traditionally been a European). A letter from four House Committee Chairmen even called on President Bush, appointer in chief in this matter, to cast a wide net among both international and American candidates "to identify the woman or man with the right mix of intellectual, management and diplomatic skills," regardless of their citizenship to fill the post.

It is not hard to get on board with the idea that the appointment should be merit-based as ideally every appointment should be, still we live in the real not the ideal world. And, yes, the position should be filled by an individual with proven knowledge of finance, development and diplomacy. Zoellick meets all of the above requirements. And despite all the rhetoric and speculation about whether or not the post should continue to be held by an American, Zoellick, a homegrown product of Naperville, Illinois, is indeed an American. In addition to a long list of qualifications that make him a qualified candidate for the post, the last his citizenship is also important. Here is why:

1.) The Bank provides more than $20 billion in grants and loans annually for humanitarian and infrastructure projects in developing countries. The US remains the World Bank's largest donor and shareholder (followed by Japan, Germany and the UK respectively). The money that helps the US consistently remain the largest shareholder comes from the US taxpayers.

2.) In Washington, the Bank's home town, who you know is important. Physical and geographical proximity does not ensure communication, cooperation and integration. Institutions separated by only a few blocks like the World Bank and the White House, regardless of who serves as president in either can get lost in their own bureaucracy and forget to reach out and engage with others. An American at the head of the World Bank ensures that all facets of the US government and the international policy making community, particularly inside the beltway, remain actively engaged in the workings of the bank helping it maintain relevancy in a dynamic world.

3.) The power of the American economy is bigger than the US government. World poverty will not be solved by the World Bank alone. An American World Bank president keeps the American people engaged in the process of poverty reduction and helps create a constituency for international aid and development assistance amongst the citizens of the richest nation on the planet.

The World Bank should not be run by an American to ensure that the US helps steer the global economy with solely US interests in mind. The president of the World Bank really does not or should not be focused on that. This work is better left to the US Executive Director who sits on the Bank�s Board and confirms the appointment of the Bank president along with 24 other Executive Directors from Bank member nations. These individuals all must weigh the interests of both donor and recipient nations a task where divorcing yourself from national interests is not always easy.

There are those who argue that the Bank should be more representative of poorer nations and the poor themselves and American leadership does not signal inclusiveness. I have no problem with integrating recipient nations into the World Bank system. In fact this kind of "ownership" has shown increased legitimacy and even effectiveness of aid and development programs for instance the Millennium Challenge Corporation has shown glimmers of hope in this area. But the World Bank should not be a fiscal United Nations and was indeed never designed as such. The UN, while it has lofty and laudable goals, is hardly a model of management and efficiency to be followed. Disparagement of the UN's slow crawl toward reform is not to say the World Bank is way out in front on the issues of reform and efficiency. Allegations of corruption and graft in and surrounding bank projects climb into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Paul Wolfowitz, while ill advised in approving the pay raise that was his ultimate downfall, was on track in this area. He was working to root out corruption (money withheld from suspicious projects in India and Kenya) and ensure the World Bank's money is improving the lives of the poor. Zoellick, the new sheriff in town should do the same.

How can they learn to love America?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 03 May 2007 07:47:00 EDT

Several Democratic hopefuls have expressed the touching belief that pouring billions of dollars into Third World countries to build schools would help reduce anti-Americanism. John McWhorter says this is the wrong therapy:

"[Anti-Americanism] is a gut impulse. None of these people acquired their sentiments from a blackboard, nor could anything on it teach them to reverse their thinking. Indeed, recent actions by America have reinforced anti-Americanism abroad. But that sentiment was already there- it is as typical as a David vs. Goliath underdog orientation, sparked by events much less polarizing than Iraq and blazing out of proportion.
"To the extent that a sentiment so deeply wired can be undercut at all, school will be of little help. Students spend most of their lives outside of the classroom. It would seem that more promising strategies would be ones in which America helps to improve the daily lives of poor Third Worlders.
"How about- take a deep breath- eliminating the subsidies to American farmers that keep Third World farmers from being able to make a living selling their products? Or, how about admitting that Rachel Carson was wrong about DDT and restoring its use in African countries to help beat back the malaria epidemic? Then, a targeted effort to resolve the Darfur conflict would be crucial, especially given that, of late, there are small signs of hope there."

Veto Power

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 02 May 2007 14:04:00 EDT

NRO has posted Bush’s remarks about why he vetoed the Iraq-war supplemental funding bill.

Check it out here.

If We Leave Iraq

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Wed, 02 May 2007 07:24:00 EDT

Speaker Pelosi was on the radio this morning saying that the president wants a "blank check" to pursue the war in Iraq. I think he simply realizes what the effect of failure would be. I hate to post an article that appeared yesterday today. But Dennis Prager got it right- even if you believe entering Iraq was a mistake, you should recognize that leaving would be a worse mistake.

"If we leave Iraq:

"It will be a great victory for the most dangerous ideology on earth today. The people running North Korea are presumably as evil as the Islamists. But there is no ideology emanating from North Korea that threatens mankind. We are fighting an ideology, supported by millions of people, that wishes to conquer the world and routinely engages in mass murder of the innocent -- especially the innocent -- to achieve its totalitarian goals.
"No one will trust America's commitment for the foreseeable future. Nations and forces aligned with America against freedom-hating enemies will conclude that it is actually quite easy to defeat the United States of America. Just kill relatively few of that country's soldiers, and the U.S.A. will soon abandon you.
"The very best Iraqis -- and members of their families -- will be slaughtered like animals."

It would also doom any hope for the rise of a more moderate Islam.

Dangerous Journey

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 07:57:00 EDT

I did not post a no-longer-available New York Sun article suggesting that Nancy Pelosi might be trying to make a separate peace in the Middle East. Even Pelosi, I reasoned, wouldn't do that. But her travels and behavior in that troubled region are nevertheless disturbing. Tom Sowell has a sobering column on the subject:

Congressman Tom Lantos, who is a member of the delegation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leading to Syria, put the mission clearly when he said: "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy."

"Democrats can have any foreign policy they want -- if and when they are elected to the White House.

"Until Nancy Pelosi came along, it was understood by all that we had only one president at a time and -- like him or not -- he alone had the Constitutional authority to speak for this country to foreign nations, especially in wartime.

"All that Pelosi's trip can accomplish is to advertise American disunity to a terrorist-sponsoring nation in the Middle East while we are in a war there. That in turn can only embolden the Syrians to exploit the lack of unified resolve in Washington by stepping up their efforts to destabilize Iraq and the Middle East in general."

Afghan Amnesty Bill Written by Criminals for Criminals

info@iwf.org (Halima Karzai) — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:00:00 EDT

Since the 2005 elections, allegedly reformed Afghan warlords, communists and Taliban have slithered their way back into Afghanistan's parliament as so-called representatives of their constituents. Early in the year, the lower and upper houses fancied a bill to pardon themselves and their social groups from being held responsible for the annihilation of fellow Afghans. The crafting of such a bill to pardon more criminals has raised the question: when is enough, enough?

In January, the 249-seat Wolesi Jirga (lower house) of Afghanistan's National Assembly approved a bill named the Law for National Reconciliation and Amnesty, which granted immunity to Afghans who committed war crimes from 1979-2002 during the Soviet occupation, the civil war that followed, and the Taliban rule up to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Weeks later, the bill slid with approval through the Meshrano Jirga (upper house), leaving the verdict in the hands of President Hamid Karzai. This month, as President Karzai modified and signed the bill into law, the international community looked on wearily to see what is to become of the once promising future for the post-Taliban Afghanistan.

The revised law retains the stipulation that the state will not prosecute war crimes up through 2002, but it leaves open the right of victims to pursue justice in the corrupted courts. In effect, the war criminals have received amnesty despite the bills modification. The victims initially had no say in deciding whether they are better off if their former torturers have amnesty, therefore the criminals end up paying no price--not even having to offer a simple apology or acknowledgement for their unspeakable actions. In turn, the message sent out to the millions of orphans, widows, refugees, disabled men, women, and children is that no one will be held accountable for the atrocities committed against them and- their fellow Afghans.

Unfortunately, today it is not the people, but the increasingly corrupt parliament that are deciding the fate of those criminals, themselves, who were voted into office too often through the use of bribery, threats, and intimidation. The law is yet another justification for Afghans to distance themselves from the government which is supposed to represent its people. It will be a major setback in maintaining international support for Afghanistan, since the law once again effectively glamorizes war criminals, murderers, rapists, and looters as heroes to those who are their admirers, contrary to the Afghan constitution and the same Islamic law the country is titled under.

How will the Afghan government face the international community for pleas of assistance when it is evident help is not given from within to its country's own citizens? It is once again evident that the former and existing warlords and communists who are in the parliament have no acknowledgement of the constituents they are supposedly representing or the disadvantaged country they are continuing to use to gain amnesty for themselves and those alike.

It is apparent that the MPs who have supported the passing of such a bill need not only retake a course in Democracy 101, but to more importantly understand and abide by the Afghan constitution -- and not only when it is to their own benefit.

Nevertheless, the newly passed law has once again silenced the voice of Afghan women, who have suffered the bulk of atrocities the past three decades. Without support from the state which under the law will not try the war-criminals, who will represent the women, girls and widows who have suffered resulting from actions taken by the human rights offenders when they are struggling to make a living without adequate means of food, healthcare, education, and work? One can only wonder what is to become of the orphans whose parents have been killed by the hands or under order of those who wrote the law while the Taliban and al-Qaeda offer them a brighter future with a few dollars and a bomb to strap to themselves to avenge the death of their loved ones.

This law appears to set a precedent in the future to Afghans that any crime committed by Afghans against humanity will have a blind eye turned towards it. The international community can only be left to speculate what's next, a carte blanche for the return of Taliban and Al-Qaeda?

Democrats stay the course despite evidence

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:00:00 EDT

Townhall

During the last election, Democrats lampooned the "stay the course" philosophy. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, head of the Democrat House campaign, consistently contrasted Republican "stay the course" with the Democrat "new direction." The criticism arguably stuck. With daily stories of American casualties and sectarian violence in Iraq, most Americans agreed that whatever the current war strategy, it wasn't working. Democrats didn't articulate what they would do differently, and they didn't have to. Vague promises of change were sufficient for voters who knew almost nothing of the war's details.

The election should educate Republicans to the reality that no policy can be justified merely by precedent; if voters believe-rightly or wrongly-that something is broken, they want it fixed. Unfortunately, on many of the major domestic policy challenges facing America, the Democrat party is slavishly "stay the course" even in the face of irrefutable evidence of past failures.

During the 1990s, Democrats staunchly defended the federal welfare system. Americans knew better. They understood that the existing system wasn't working, and was contributing to the problem of poverty by fostering dependency. The Republican Congress doggedly passed reform bill after reform bill until President Clinton finally relented. Welfare case loads fell by nearly 60 percent in the first five years after the program's implementation. Now the reform almost universally is acknowledged as a success.

Today, the Democrat party is again allowing ideology and special interest pressure to overwhelm common sense in its approach to K-12 education. For decades, Democrats have insisted more money will improve America's public schools. And government has heeded this call. Since 1980, per-pupil spending on K-12 students has increased by 70 percent after adjusting for inflation. Senator Kennedy and Rep. George Miller continue to call for billions more in new funding for No Child Left Behind. Yet there has been little to show for this investment; indeed, by many measures, things have gotten worse. The recent National Assessment of Educational Progress, for example, found reading scores for 12th graders declined between 1992 and 2005.

Americans increasingly recognize that throwing money at the problem doesn't work. Conservatives across the country have developed and pressed a new approach: injecting competition into education by giving parents power to select their children's schools. And school choice programs have shown results. Research has consistently shown that kids who use vouchers to go to private school outperform their peers.

Instead of defending the status quo, Democrats ought to take a step back and consider they would do if designing an education from scratch. Would they really force all 50 million five through seventeen-year-olds into government-run schools assigned by zip-code? Probably not, since most would consider this unfair to low-income families that can't afford to opt out of the public system or move to better neighborhoods. With a little perspective, it's clear that the status quo isn't serving our students well.

Social Security is another example of the Democrats' stubborn determination to "stay the course" regardless of where that course leads. For years, actuaries-Social Security's equivalent of generals on the ground-have warned of a coming financial crisis. People are living longer, the baby boomers are about to retire, and soon there will be too few workers to support Social Security crippling tax hikes.

How have Democrats responded? They've consciously avoided offering any proposal to address Social Security's financial shortfall and instead criticized anyone who dares admit Social Security's dire problems. Not just Republicans have been subject to the attacks, but also the few brave Democrats willing to engage in a frank discussion of Social Security's future.

Many Republicans-President Bush in particular-have attempted to talk honestly about the problems inherent in Social Security's financing scheme, which relies on taxes collected today to immediately pay beneficiaries, while saving nothing for the future.

Again, policymakers must ask: If creating a public pension system today, would this kind of financing make sense? The answer clearly is "no." The manager of any private pension fund run this way would quickly be thrown in jail; all honest experts agree that the key to true financial stability is pre-funding future benefits through responsible savings and investment. Yet Democrats consider it heresy to question the status quo, facts be damned.

Public frustration over Social Security's raw deal and failing public schools may not yet equal its disillusionment with Iraq. But truth is, many Democrat-beloved big government programs aren't working and eventually voters will see it. Party leaders would be wise to apply their rhetoric about Iraq on the home front by embracing a change of course.

This article was first published on Townhall.com.

Hillary and Iraq

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:08:00 EDT

Behold one of most amusing political cartoons I’ve seen in some time.

How did I miss that?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:19:00 EDT

Probably because - what with the protests - U.S. newspapers didn't find space for this important story:

"MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

"The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

"One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

"Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.

"By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.

"Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, said the findings pointed to progress. 'There is no widespread violence in the four southern provinces and the fact that the picture is more complex than the stereotype usually portrayed is reflected in today's poll,' she said."

By contrast, here is what the Washington Post served up today ("War's statistics prove fleeting," according to the Post - which adds that the only number that sticks is the number of U.S. casualties.). Interestingly the first blogger on the Iraq-is-better sought to dismiss it. But the story makes a good case. Five thousand is a good sampling, too.

The Media's War Games

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:08:00 EDT

If you - like me - think that we still MUST succeed in Iraq, you're probably no stranger to being hooted down by enlightened Washington types. Surprise - you may not be as lonely as you think:

"According to the latest IBD/TIPP poll, a majority of Americans recognize that the U.S. still has a lot of work left to do in Iraq. For example, the vast majority (82%) believe it's important for the U.S. and coalition countries to continue training Iraqi security and police forces.

"Beyond showing common sense, these findings also show that ordinary Americans are concerned about the security not only of our troops but also of Iraqis - people who, for the most part, they have little relation to or interaction with.

"Furthermore, our poll also found that 75% of Americans believe the U.S. should continue to provide economic aid to Iraq. And 71% believe we should continue to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.

"Interestingly, these percentages have remained consistent since June 2005, when we first started polling on these issues. What's more, when they first appeared two years ago, they generated considerable surprise among fellow pollsters who were used to seeing poll numbers that painted a darker picture.

"If nothing else, our figures demonstrate the compassion and generosity of the American people. They also demonstrate to me, as a pollster, that ordinary Americans see the war in Iraq, and the consequences of our actions or inaction in Iraq, in a clear light - clearer, perhaps, than the nation's media elites. Many of them seem to prefer to report on the negatives rather than the positives, and their analyses tend to always cast a dark shadow on reality.

"This bias is pervasive.

"Out of a random sampling of about 75 war-related news headlines drawn from 2006, 80% generally had a negative view of the war, while about 20% had some positive undertones.

"I haven't yet done any statistical analyses on this year's headlines. But one that accompanied a CNN story Tuesday night read, 'Poll: Less than half of Americans think U.S. can win in Iraq.'

"Do such headlines help anyone? Remember, we're in the middle of a war; we are not playing games."

WUSA Eye on Washington: Sen. Joe Biden's recent remarks and the increasing threat of Iran.

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:52:00 EST

Charlotte joins the roundtable discussion to discuss Sen. Joe Biden's recent remarks and the increasing threat of Iran.

FOX's Live Desk with Martha MacCullum: Sen. John Kerry's recent comments in Switzerland; Hezbollah leader Nasrallah's attacks on President Bush; and, random alcohol testing at school events.

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:37:00 EST

IWF Director of Campus Programs, Allison Kasic, joined the FOX News program, Live Desk with Martha MacCullum. Allison joined the roundtable discussion to weigh in on Sen. John Kerry's recent comments in Switzerland; Hezbollah leader Nasrallah's attacks on President Bush; and, random alcohol testing at school events.

State of the Union Assessment

Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:31:00 EST

The President's speech was stronger than I expected.

He avoided the typical State of the Union laundry list, and focused primarily on broad themes and big issues. He made important calls for spending restraint, entitlement reform, school choice, comprehensive immigration reform, and offered a specific proposal to improve our tax codes treatment of healthcare insurance.

Unlike other tedious State of the Unions, he didn't waste time proposing federal programs to reduce steroid use or curb gang violence, which, while they sound nice, are not federal issues. Instead he set a broad domestic policy agenda (that was entirely economic -- no social issues discussed at all) and focused on building support for the War on Terror and his foreign policy goals. That's entirely appropriate for a President.

He managed to strike a bipartisan, unconfrontational tone, but that also didn't seem like he was cowed by the new Congress or his sagging poll numbers. Overall, a solid showing for the President.

SOTU: My humble advice...

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:27:00 EST

I am dreading tomorrow night's State of the Union address. Bush is in such a weakened political state that reports indicate that he is going to do something he's never done before: propose a tax hike to provide health insurance for the uninsured. It will, of course, be called an initiative or some such foolishness; it will not make the media any nicer to Dubya than it was to dear old dad after he caved on taxes.

Bush has been rhetorically of his game lately. It's being reported that the president will avoid talking about Iraq tomorrow night (another mistake). He should talk about it, but he should incorporate the ideas of others who have been able to make the important points about Iraq better than he has. Henry Kissinger did this yesterday in the Washington Post. Sorry, I can't seem to find it today, but I am certain that the more technologically savvy will have no trouble doing so and here is a thought from Kissinger to get your engines going:

"The disenchantment of the American public with the burdens it has borne largely alone for nearly four years has generated growing demands for some type of unilateral withdrawal, usually expressed as benchmarks to be put to the Baghdad government that, if not fulfilled in specific time frames, would trigger American disengagement.

"But under present conditions, withdrawal is not an option. American forces are indispensable. They are in Iraq not as a favor to its government or as a reward for its conduct. They are there as an expression of the American national interest to prevent the Iranian combination of imperialism and fundamentalist ideology from dominating a region on which the energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend. An abrupt American departure would greatly complicate efforts to stem the terrorist tide far beyond Iraq; fragile governments from Lebanon to the Persian Gulf would be tempted into preemptive concessions."

I happen to think that Bush was right to believe better political institutions (known collectively as democracy) could have a domino effect in the Middle East. But we moved too fast with elections, never did pacify the country, listened to those talking exit before we entered. To go to war you have to be willing to do three things: anything it takes to win, kill, and be killed. We wanted to wage a kinder, gentler war, and it didn't work. But we can still succeed, and it is in our self-interest to do so.

Please say so, Mr. President.

Lessons Learned from Somalia

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:14:00 EST

Today, IWF's International Guru Yasmine Rassam has an article on Townhall.com about the recent attacks on Al-Qaeda in Somalia. Yasmine thinks the events in Somalia remind of us of certain lessons we should have learned by now:

"Lesson 1. The enemy in Iraq, like that in Afghanistan, in Europe, in America, or the Philippines, is the same. It may not share the same structure or leadership, but its nature doesn't vary much.

"Lesson 2. Retreating in the face of that enemy is construed by it as weakness on our part -- a weakness that was tested in 9/11, in London, in Madrid, and before, in Nairobi and Dar Essalam.

"Lesson 3. Our enemy's motivation is a hatred of modernism and a romantic, if perverted, notion of a return to a glorious past that exists only in their imagination. It has been a constant theme since the first manifestos of Al-Qaeda declared war on the 'Crusaders, Jews, and Nonbelievers.' The ideology has been laid clearly since then 1990s: Islam (an auto-invented version at least) must take over, and they, the leaders of Al-Qaeda, are the princes (emirs) and Islam's advance guards. Even the fiction that is used by some -- that the Palestinian cause is their primary motivation and that if we settle the Israeli/Palestinian issue, all will be kosher, does not withstand real scrutiny. Al-Qaeda has never operated in Palestine or in Israel. Some might attribute that to the efficiency of Israeli security but that is not enough when you consider the numbers of potential recruits among Palestinians.

"Lesson 4. Against such an enemy, globalized, young, and savvy in the ways of Western technology, relentless pressure must be brought upon that enemy: military, political, propagandistic, economic, educational, and moral.

"Lesson 5. The symbiotic nature of the enemy in Iraq in particular is worth emphasizing. Until recently most of the suicide attacks and beheadings in Iraq were committed by Al-Qaeda operatives recruited the world over by efficient networks working in broad daylight. The overall strategy of the fight against the Americans and the incipient Iraqi democracy on the other hand is mostly the work of the Saddamist remnants. The two groups worked in tandem but separating them now may be possible depending on the degree of pressure that each group is able to withstand before crying uncle. Similarly in Somalia, Al-Qaeda groups have allied themselves tactically with the Islamic Courts and the militias but once Ethiopian and Western pressure was brought to bear on them, each side tried to hightail it separately to safety as fast as they could."

Read Yasmine’s article here.

Christopher Hitchens on what would follow a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq...

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:37:00 EST

Christopher Hitchens talked to Hugh Hewitt about the bloodbath that will follow a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (and explains why Iraq was never Vietnam -- unless, as in Vietnam, we abandon those who allied themselves with America):

HH: So you believe the holocaust that would follow in Iraq from a precipitous American withdrawal would rival, or perhaps even exceed that of Pol Pot in Cambodia?

CH: It would be a very rash person who didn't think that that worst case would be the actual one. And look, i, the awful thing is some of it's happening as we speak. I mean, almost anyone in Baghdad now, at any rate, who has a qualification, or any money, or any education, or any resources of any sort, is already gone. Perhaps as many as a million and a half, we don't actually know, have moved to Jordan, some of them to Syrian, some even to Iran, anywhere to get out. Life is becoming intolerable there.

HH: Well given that, and this is a key question, given that you think it's certain that that kind of scale of horror would follow, do the people urging, whether it's Murtha or anybody else, urging the precipitous withdrawal, will they bear the moral culpability for the slaughter that follows, if in fact, we are obliged to leave?

CH: I know that there are some Democrats who wonder about this in a responsible way, and there are others who worry about it in a more politicized way, thinking in gee, how would we avoid getting blamed if that happened. What they will do is say well, we never asked for the war in the first place, the President cheated us into it, et cetera, et cetera. But that would be a pretty tinny thing to say, if the whole of Iraqi society is denuded and driven back to year zero.

Somalia Bombings Show Why We Must Destroy Al-Qaeda in Iraq

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:00:00 EST

Townhall

The recent Special Forces strike in Somalia illustrates once and again the foolhardiness of those who want us out of Iraq. While Ted Kennedy spouts his usual rhetoric in the National Press Club, drawing fatuous comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq, between the Viet Cong and the motley crew we face in Iraq, our enemy is being chased in the deserts of Somalia just as it is in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

As we hunt down the killers who attacked our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya long before there ever was an Iraq war, even long before September 11 finally awakened us to the shape of the new world we live in, we have to remind ourselves again and again that our enemies in the war on terrorism were not created by our action in Iraq, nor will they disappear after we leave that country to its own devices.

This is indeed a nonlinear war in more ways than one. As their original leadership, the Bin Laden-Zawahiri types, sit and contemplate events from the caves of the Afghani-Pakistan border, new Al-Qaeda leaderships sprout around the globe, wherever there are young, impressionable, Muslim men vulnerable to the persuasive tactics of ruthless, fanatic, and anti-Western mentors. With calculated opportunism, they choose their targets according to the vulnerabilities of the soft underbellies of Western societies, whether it is the public transportation systems in Europe or transatlantic airlines--or innocent civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan. The events in Somalia remind of us of certain lessons we should have learned by now.

Lesson 1. The enemy in Iraq, like that in Afghanistan, in Europe, in America, or the Philippines, is the same. It may not share the same structure or leadership, but its nature doesn't vary much.

Lesson 2. Retreating in the face of that enemy is construed by it as weakness on our part--a weakness that was tested in 9/11, in London, in Madrid, and before, in Nairobi and Dar Essalam.

Lesson 3. Our enemy's motivation is a hatred of modernism and a romantic, if perverted, notion of a return to a glorious past that exists only in their imagination. It has been a constant theme since the first manifestos of Al-Qaeda declared war on the "Crusaders, Jews, and Nonbelievers." The ideology has been laid clearly since then 1990's: Islam (an auto-invented version at least) must take over, and they, the leaders of Al-Qaeda, are the princes (emirs) and Islam's advance guards. Even the fiction that is used by some that the Palestinian cause is their primary motivation and that if we settle the Israeli/Palestinian issue, all will be kosher, does not withstand real scrutiny. Al-Qaeda has never operated in Palestine or in Israel. Some might attribute that to the efficiency of Israeli security but that is not enough when you consider the numbers of potential recruits among Palestinians.

Lesson 4. Against such an enemy, globalized, young, and savvy in the ways of Western technology, relentless pressure must be brought upon that enemy: military, political, propagandistic, economic, educational, and moral.

Lesson 5. The symbiotic nature of the enemy in Iraq in particular is worth emphasizing. Until recently most of the suicide attacks and beheadings in Iraq were committed by Al-Qaeda operatives recruited the world over by efficient networks working in broad daylight. The overall strategy of the fight against the Americans and the incipient Iraqi democracy on the other hand is mostly the work of the Saddamist remnants. The two groups worked in tandem but separating them now may be possible depending on the degree of pressure that each group is able to withstand before crying uncle. Similarly in Somalia, Al-Qaeda groups have allied themselves tactically with the Islamic Courts and the militias but once Ethiopian and Western pressure was brought to bear on them, each side tried to hightail it separately to safety as fast as they could.

Somalia is not Iraq; Iraq is not Vietnam; Afghanistan is not Philippines. Each fight is different requiring different tactics and alliances. To be simplistic in drawing analogies between different times and different geographies and enemies does a disservice to the debate we should be having about Iraq. That debate should not be about how fast we can get out of there but, rather, about how best we can defeat our enemies there.

Exterminating Al-Qaeda and its networks wherever they exist is the only possible solution to win the war on terror, and that stands true for Iraq as well.

Noemie Emery's great "Great Expectations" -- buy this book!

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:43:00 EST

The Weekly Standard hosted a book party to celebrate Noemie Emery's "Great Expectations, The Troubled Lives of Political Families." It was at the Tabard Inn and as everybody scooped up hummus or nibbled on tasty shrimp and other less easily identifiable delicacies, Editor-in-Chief Bill Kristol recalled that Emery was in the first issue of the magazine and has been a constant contributor (Kirstol also noted the originality of Emery's title, admitting he'd suggested "Fathers and Sons" -- but that was taken). Emery said she didn't really care if anybody at the party bought the book -- she is more interested in succeeding in Iraq.

Noble sentiment, but you should buy the book anyway. It's a good read. I particularly relished the chapter on the Adams family, which in the end "suffered a surfeit of porcelain, becoming refined at the cost of their vigor." The Washington Post's Carolyn See, never a soft touch, liked the book as much as I did:

"In 'Great Expectations,' Noemie Emery takes a look at five presidential dynastic families (including one family that -- so far -- hasn't gotten past the first generation) and shows, compassionately and insightfully, how these terrible yearnings and expectations play out. She shuns politics as such; her interests are human and personal. Her book is as heartbreaking as it is fascinating."

Let's All Go to the Movies

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:55:00 EST

Watching the Golden Globes last night it was clear that 2006 was an awesome year for movies. There was the nuanced comedy of "Little Miss Sunshine," the groundbreaking style of the hilarious "Borat," and Scorsese's brilliant mob epic, "The Departed." But what do we have to look forward to in 2007?

At first glance, the field looks bleak. Sure, I'm excited for another Frank Miller graphic novel ("300") to be turned into a movie, but my hopes are so high anything less than perfection will be a disappointment. Will Ferrell, normally my favorite actor, looks bound to disappoint in his take on the competitive world of figure skating, "Blades of Glory." Worst of all, someone thinks this is a good idea.

But the field isn't entirely bleak. One movie that looks promising is "Mine Your Own Business." There are special showings of the documentary coming up soon: New York on Jan. 19th and Washington, DC on Jan. 24th (information available here). Check out this description from the film's website:

"'Mine Your Own Business' exposes the dark side of environmentalism. The documentary hacks away at the cozy image of environmentalists as well meaning, harmless activists. 'Mine Your Own Business' is the first documentary which asks the hard questions of foreigners who lead campaigns to 'save' remote areas from development. Their answers are often disturbing, with racist overtones, but we, in the West, blindly support such campaigns that want to keep people in poverty. Now for the first time 'Mine Your Own Business' asks local people about their lives and what they want for the future.

"Their answers are very often different from what the foreign environmentalists say and what is reported in the mainstream international media.

"'Mine Your Own Business' is a journey through the dark side of environmentalism. It demolishes the cozy consensus that environmentalists are well meaning agenda free activists and shows them to be anti-development ideologues who think the poor are happy being poor and don't want the development that we, in the West, take for granted."