We have met the enemy, and this is them.

Americans are tired of war and military intervention in foreign countries. Some no doubt cast their vote for President in 2008 in part with that frustration in mind. And the weariness is understandable. No one can be blase about young American soldiers coming home in body bags.

It’s understandable, then to question why we are fighting. After all, it’s been almost a decade now since America was attacked by terrorists. Is the threat really still that serious?

It’s important to remember the nature of the foe we are facing. Unlike Americans, the terrorists do not weary of the struggle, because they do not have Xboxes and swimming pools and American Idol to go back to. They are not concerned with whether their goals can be practically achieved, because to them dying in the course of struggle is preferable to not struggling at all.

With this in mind I offer this article on Boko Haram, a homegrown Nigerian al Qaeda that unleashed five days of terror on a northern province of that country until federal authorities intervened. Boko Haram means “Western education is sinful,” and this is a brief glimpse at their program for mankind:

“He was taken from his house by Boko Haram. They stabbed him and he was losing blood…They insisted he was to convert to a Muslim. He refused, so on that basis they killed him.”

This philosophy at least has the virtue of simplicity.  Groups like Boko Haram do not spend much time and energy agonizing over ethics or human rights, or arguing about when violence is justified the way we do. In fact, they must enjoy quite a serenity after being brainwashed: the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, if you will.

Let’s recall that Nigeria is not a Middle Eastern country, and indeed is predominantly Muslim. This action had nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinians or US troops being in the Middle East. This was very simply a case of religious fanatics trying to violently impose their beliefs on fellow Muslims and non-Muslims alike in their own country. But it is in no way different from the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Lashkar in Pakistan, or any of the assorted Islamic terrorist groups. Let the point be underscored: These people cannot be appeased. They cannot be bought off. They cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be negotiated with. America’s abandonment of its international responsibilities and national security interests would not pacify the Boko Harams of the world. On the contrary, it would embolden them and spur them on to greater violence, knowing that the one consistent champion of peace and freedom in the world is out of the fight.

So if you wonder why we must send our troops overseas to fight in strange lands, here is my answer: So that it will not be your father getting the knife in the side of the stomach.

The inside story of the Sarah Palin nomination

I have been trying to avoid talking about Sarah Palin’s resignation as Governor of Alaska. Frankly, I’m not all that interested in Palin anymore, and I was disgusted by the Republicans who decided that the best thing they could do to revive the party’s fortunes was to publicly trash their recent Vice-Presidential nominee in the media. Apparently Reagan’s 11th Commandment has become passe these days.

More interesting for political junkies like myself is the inside story of how – and why – Palin was chosen to be McCain’s running mate. Today’s WashPost has an excerpt from a book on the 2008 election by Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson. They spoke with the top McCain advisors who were involved in the search process and the vetting of Palin to get the real story. Among other things, the piece explains how seriously the campaign considered picking Joe Lieberman, and why McCain decided to take a risk with Palin rather than go with the safe choice, Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty:

“She would not necessarily be ready on Jan. 20, 2009, to be vice president, but in his estimation few candidates ever are. 

“John, high risk, high reward.”

He said McCain replied, “You shouldn’t have told me that. I’ve been a risk-taker all of my life.”"

If, like me, you always want to know what is really going on behind the scenes at the highest levels of political decision making, this is a must read.

Venezuela takes another step toward Soviet-style totalitarianism

A few months ago I posted about the similarities between Nazi Germany under Hitler and the current regime in Venezuela under its strutting thug of a President, Hugo Chavez. Now comes word that Chavez has taken the next step in his gradual march toward Soviet-style communist totalitarianism: He’s forcing the closure of independent radio stations.

The excuse for the closures is that the stations’ broadcast licenses were not renewed. Of course, his government is the one that refused to renew them on the grounds that the stations had strayed from their mission to “serve the people”, which is code for adhering to the pro-Chavez propaganda line. Chavez’ goal is obvious – he wants to make sure that the only opinion that can be heard in Venezuela is his opinion, and the only facts Venezuelans will have access to are the ones he approves of – or invents.

Maybe Chavez should hire some of the sycophantic toadies at ABCNews to work in his socialist media paradise?

The new face of women’s rights: Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein

I want to introduce you to this brave Sudanese lady who is currently at the frontline of the battle for women’s rights. Ms. Hussein was arrested at a restaurant in the Sudanese capital city of Khartoum. Her crime? Wearing trousers – considered “indecent clothing” under a Sudanese law called Article 152. The punishment involves a fine and a number of lashes with a whip on the clothed body.

Such arrests are not unusual in the northern half of the country where the population is predominantly Muslim and sharia law governs. However, enforcement is haphazard. I’m betting that the authorities are already wishing that they hadn’t chosen Ms. Hussein to arrest that night. Unlike many Sudanese women who lack formal education and would be afraid to challenge authority, Ms. Hussein is a journalist who works for the United Nations. Instead of plea bargaining for a reduced sentence as other women who were arrested for the same crime have done, Ms. Hussein is appealing her sentence of 40 lashes, claiming that Article 152 is not only unconstitutional but un-Islamic as well:

“If some people refer to the sharia to justify flagellating women because of what they wear, then let them show me which Koranic verses or hadith say so. I haven’t found them.”

Ms. Hussein made a point of wearing the same outfit to her first court hearing that she was wearing when she was arrested, so that everyone present could judge for themselves whether her clothing was indecent. Here is a photo:

 (Photo credit: Agence France-Presse)

Even by Middle Eastern cultural standards regarding the exposure of flesh, it’s hard to argue this outfit is indecent. Ms. Hussein plans to appeal her case all the way to the top, and says she is prepared to take 40 or even 40,000 lashes if necessary.

The authorities, trying to avoid publicity, tried to see if Ms. Hussein’s position with the UN qualified her for diplomatic immunity, so they could make the whole thing go away without having the law challenged. However, Ms. Hussein threatened to quit her job if they did that and waived any right to immunity, as she wants to challenge the law once and for all.

What’s especially nice about this case is that it can’t be dismissed as a bunch of do-gooder human rights NGOs trying to impose Western values on a Muslim country. Ms. Hussein is clearly calling her own shots on this one, though she may be getting financial assistance. Rather than the challenge coming from outside, this is a Sudanese woman standing up for the rights of her countrywomen. I can only imagine how inspirational she must be for other Sudanese women – if they are even allowed to know about the case at all.