29 Comments

1. fedya:

One wonders if there isn’t an element of WANTING us to be tied down in Waziristan, et al, out of the way of danger, so to speak.

Sep 17, 2008 - 5:03 pm 2. Lifeofthemind:

They can not return home if they are dead. Body counts were discredited by the end of Vietnam and were an inappropriate way to measure the success of a Blitzkrieg like invasion like we executed in 2003. It is useful to keep track of how many Jihadis from where have been killed in the last 7 years. Does anybody have good numbers to offer? The Saudis were exporting their problem children in 2003-2006 then Bush suggested that was a poor showing and even poor courtesy. Now the products of the local madrassas have no where to go but commit Jihad in place. It would not surprise me if Sunni youth start causing more trouble in the Shia Eastern Province. That could blow up big time. Of course this event was not to the North but to the South and Yemen is not SA, apparantly it is worse.

Sep 17, 2008 - 5:32 pm 3. NahnCee:

Gee, might another word for “Arabian Peninsula” be another name for “Saudi Arabia”?

Sep 17, 2008 - 6:51 pm 4. Derek:

This is in fact one bad consequence of the defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq. Those who haven’t been killed will go elsewhere to create havoc.

And having learned an important tactical lesson: the US will kill as many as it finds. So spread out.

This isn’t over yet. Oddly enough, when the jihadis had power in numbers in Iraq, the locals eventually turned against them. I suspect that isn’t the case anywhere else, which gives them a large semi supportive population to hide in. This is the optimal tactical situation.

I think the situation right now is as dangerous as it was a year ago in Iraq before the surge. Everybody is a lot smarter.

Derek

Sep 17, 2008 - 7:28 pm 5. E. Nigma:

Like an army probing for tactical weakness against an opposing force by scouting and engaging with force, Al Qaeda is probing for a nation state that it can suborn and dominate.
They had Afghanistan, but were driven out.
They tried Iraq, and it was a graveyard for many jihadis.
They tried Somalia, and that has failed, too.
They are trying to swallow Pakistan, but it is too big and diverse. They are making major mischief in Waziristan, but I think that because of the ethnic differences between the Punjab and the Pashto, etc.; mountains and the city dwellers, they are ultimately doomed to fail in Pakistan.

So they are probing in Yemen. Will the government come after them? Will Al Qaeda strike again? How soon? How will the populace react? Is this the place that they can reform and launch the Jihad anew?

Sep 17, 2008 - 7:40 pm 6. Wadeusaf:

So they are probing in Yemen.

1. Will the government come after them? Yes
2. Will Al Qaeda strike again? Yes
3. How soon? Depends on the success of 1. and 4.
4. How will the populace react? warily but not nearly wearily enough.
5. Is this the place that they can reform and launch the Jihad anew?,/i> Perhaps it where they will be reformed or be knocked off.

Is the SA reform school effort seriously working on its returned jihad’s? Is there any data or determinations on recidivism rates.

Sep 17, 2008 - 8:24 pm 7. Alexis:

If the Saudi Kingdom were liberated, the main fountain of Islamist propaganda would be destroyed. Of course many Muslims would be enraged by American troops on the Arabian peninsula. Guess what? They would be enraged anyway, and at least Saudi money wouldn’t be poisoning Islam and American academe anymore. If anything, control over the Arabian peninsula may give Pax Americana legitimacy within the world of Islam.

The main argument against overthrowing the House of Saud and its Wahhabi state is that it would pave the way for Ahmadinejad & Co. to take over the Arabian peninsula. If this were true, the obvious response would be to overthrow both the Iranian and Saudi regimes. As it is, “balance of power” arrangements ironically make Iran and the Saudi Kingdom tacit strategic allies because their ostensible rivalry keeps the United States from focusing on overthrowing them both. A “balance of power” approach to the region assumes that Saudis and Iranians would never cooperate against the United States, but that just isn’t the case. Far from advancing America’s position, a “balance of power” approach to Middle Eastern politics effectively enhances the power of both of our enemies at our own expense.

Sep 17, 2008 - 8:43 pm 8. Wadeusaf:

Alexis,

Yemen is not KSA. There were a number of democratizing movements underfoot in the entire Gulf region faltering with the rise of the Iraqi insurgency and falling apart when the golden dome was destroyed. Kuwait is the only house associated with Al Saud which is still moving forward with democracy. But with the struggles of Iraq now taking on a more doable and realistic tone the other democracy movements may find new life. It will take a lot of political will on the part of the citizens and a long term secular change of heart of the leadership. That is the long term approach. Long L O N G term.

Sep 17, 2008 - 9:47 pm 9. Lifeofthemind:

@Alexis,
A little old fashioned System & Process analysis of the Gulf.
As I look at the map we have 3 major arab communities on the Arabian peninsula, Northern Sunni, Southern Sunni and Eastern Shia. I am leaving the mix of Lebanon to the West out of this. The Northern Sunni are a minority under the rule of Shia in Iraq and Syria (Alawite schismatics). The Southern Sunni are empowered in Yemen, Oman and the Gulf. In the KSA they are ruled by the House of Saud who are I believe actually from the North and imposed upon the natives of the Hejaz and Nejd. The Eastern Shia Arabs are empowered in Iraq (for now) and under Sunni rule in the Eastern Province of KSA. This seems to be part of the engine of perpetual grievance. It is the result of the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916.

It is not worth our time to postulate on grand rearrangements to produce more stable or pleasing arrangements. If such opportunities happen then fine but what we need to do is deal with the world as it is. The ability of KSA and Iran to play the US off between them is a good perception on your part. If new regimes took power in these countries they would still participate in a regional balancing system, with Iraq eventually being a player again. The current instability of Pakistan means that there is not a 5th power of comparable size able to participate in the regional balance for the Gulf. That decreases stability since a four power system lacks the freedom for members to switch alliances as frequently. As you pull back from the Gulf and include Turkey, Israel and India in the regional mix you do have enough comparable powers to provide alliance opportunities that increase stability.

If the virus of democracy that the US has introduced eventually produces regimes that are willing to ally with all parties, meaning with Israel, then a stable system could take root. Anything the US can do to encourage those changes, especially in KSA and Iran would be a step forward.

Sep 17, 2008 - 10:27 pm 10. ledger:

Speaking of terrorists trying to obtain nuclear weapons to destroy Israel, the USA, and most likely the Green zone in Iraq, I don’t know how to reconcile what CIA Director Michael Hayden said that the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.

Hayden takes great pride in telling of how Syria’s nuclear reactor was identified and destroyed with the help of the CIA – yet he goes easy on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Huh? What gives?

Or is this just a smart spook giving the enemy a head fake?

[Director Hayden]

“Thanks to some outstanding intelligence work, we were able last year to spoil a big secret, a project that could have provided Syria with plutonium for nuclear weapons. I’d like to cover it here because it’s an excellent example of how CIA and our Community colleagues attack the problem of nuclear proliferation.

“We knew that North Korea and Syria had been cooperating since the late 1990s in the nuclear field. The depth of that relationship was revealed in the spring of last year, when we identified a nuclear reactor at Al-Kibar in the eastern desert of Syria. It was similar to the one at Yongbyon in North Korea, but with its outer structure heavily disguised.

“The situation became critical late last summer, when we judged the facility could be nearing operation. The Al-Kibar reactor was destroyed the morning of 6 September 2007. The Syrians immediately cleared away the rubble and every trace of the building, stonewalling the IAEA when asked to explain. Their cover-up only underlined the intense secrecy of this project and the danger it had posed to a volatile region…”

[But]

“…We don’t have time to delve into the full scope of its findings, but here, very briefly, are the major judgments:

“Until the fall of 2003, elements of Iran’s military were working to develop nuclear weapons and a warhead capable of delivering such weapons.

“Tehran halted these efforts probably due to international scrutiny and exposure of previously undeclared nuclear work. We assessed that the nuclear weapons program had not resumed as of mid-2007, a conclusion that subsequent intelligence still supports.

“And finally, Tehran at a minimum is keeping open its option to develop nuclear weapons.

“What leads us to this last judgment? Again, it’s a matter of working back from actions.

“Why are they pushing forward with the uranium enrichment process at Natanz? They say it’s for civilian purposes, and yet they’ve rejected international offers of fissile material under proper controls. Iran’s behavior, coming as it does after years of nuclear activity they concealed and continue to deny, invites nothing but suspicion. Why are they slow-rolling the International Atomic Energy Agency by not being forthcoming? And why are they willing to defy the United Nations and pay such a heavy price in terms of international isolation?

“Those questions sound familiar. One could argue that Iraq under Saddam was just as confrontational and ultimately lacked the weapons we thought were there. But Iran’s leaders saw what happened to Saddam, and still they reject every opportunity to come clean with the world.”

See: Hayden’s prepared remarks open source

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/directors-remarks-at-lawac.html

Sep 18, 2008 - 2:31 am 11. Mike Sylwester:

Spain became rich by digging gold and silver out of the Americas during the 1500s but then wasted most of its wealth fighting economically, politically and militarily against the Protestant Reformation throughout Europe. Eventually Spain became one of the poorest and least influential countries of Western Europe.

Sep 18, 2008 - 5:23 am 12. cedarford:

Lifeofthemind – If the virus of democracy that the US has introduced eventually produces regimes that are willing to ally with all parties, meaning with Israel, then a stable system could take root. Anything the US can do to encourage those changes, especially in KSA and Iran would be a step forward.

There are plenty of stable democracies that do not feel obligated to ally with nations they detest.
The idea that the longer-lived and stable a democracy is, the greater their love of Zionism is, is pretty hokey.

=======================
Mike Sylwester:
Spain became rich by digging gold and silver out of the Americas during the 1500s but then wasted most of its wealth fighting economically, politically and militarily against the Protestant Reformation throughout Europe. Eventually Spain became one of the poorest and least influential countries of Western Europe.

A pretty good thing to remember. Bin Laden said he did not seek to militarily defeat the US. Just discombobulate it so it lost it’s economic priorities and place in the world then squandered it’s wealth attempting to put out low cost ideologically and religiously inspired resistance movements with hugely expensive military adventures until it was impoverished, then bankrupted.

He had the Soviet Union in mind, but what happened to Spain squandering its immense wealth and dominant place in the world fighting an ideology rather than co-opting it – is an even better example.

I think the Americans are quicker learners than the Catholic monarchs. It looks like the people of America have pretty much rejected the Neocon vision of endless, spreading American wars to defeat “evildoers” and keep our “Special Friend” doing what it wants to do.

Obama being elected slams the final door on the Era of the Neocons. And if McCain wins, he will have a near impossible mission if he re-embraces the Neocons and wants 2-3 new wars of choice. Congress and the People and of course the (arrogantly) dismissed community of other nations – will not support it. Only an imminent threat to the USA itself will allow a 3rd, 4th war to start.

And the news in Israel, from Ha’aretz, is Bush has nixed any Israeli attack on Iran. No big pile of JDAMs to that country, no tanker planes, and no air corridor through Iraq will be granted. Unless the Iraqi gov’t approves.

Sep 18, 2008 - 5:56 am 13. sirius_sir:

The magazine came within an ace of accidentally admitting that Al Qaeda’s strategic home is in the Arabian Peninsula, not in Afghanistan… But Newsweek couldn’t resist adding: “Are Al Qaeda fighters returning home…?

That seems pretty much an outright admission to me, albeit one the editors at Newsweek either didn’t intend or assumed the common reader wouldn’t *quite* grasp.

Sep 18, 2008 - 6:09 am 14. Robert Speirs:

“Neocon vision of endless, spreading American wars to defeat “evildoers””

I see Cedarford still hasn’t shaken his Neocon Derangement Syndrome (NDS). Yep, endless, spreading wars. Why oh why did we have to send thousands of troops into Tajikistan, Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Chechnya, Liberia, the Congo, Venezuela, Bolivia, East Timor, Kashmir, Sinkiang, Iran, Burma, Cuba and all those other places where evil was and is arguably triumphing? Withdraw now! What? We didn’t send troops to those places?

Sep 18, 2008 - 6:15 am 15. sirius_sir:

At some point a smart journalist somewhere in the majorly accreditted media will suddenly *discover* what most here already know–ie, that initiating regime change in Iraq, thereby injecting Western values into the heart of ME dysfunctionality, was in fact a stroke of genius that even now is hacking away at the Gordian Knot of Islamic radical extremism–acting directly against the two branches of Islam represented by the Sunni stronghold in Saudi Arabia and the Shiite theocracy in Iran.

The trick, of course, is figuring out how to identify and credit the genius of the initiative without identifying and crediting the genius behind the initiative.

Sep 18, 2008 - 6:29 am 16. Mike Sylwester:

cedarford:
“… what happened to Spain squandering its immense wealth and dominant place in the world fighting an ideology rather than co-opting it – is an even better example. … I think the Americans are quicker learners than the Catholic monarchs.”
———-

So, your historical analogy is that Spain is to the USA as the Protestant Reformation is to the current resurgence of Wahhabism?

The second part of your analogy has much validity. Each movement rejected a religious establishment that had compromised extensively with secular aristocracies and monarchies, and each movement based its teachings narrowly on the religion’s founding scriptures.

Thinking further about your analogy, the thought strikes me that perhaps Spain’s investment in the Counter-Reformation played a positive role that is underappreciated. Spain’s efforts exhausted not only Spain itself, but also the Protestants. Eventually more and more people on all sides became less and less willing to wage wars over religious doctrines.

In that case, perhaps your historical analogy indicates that the USA has had to play Spain’s role for a while in order to exhaust the Wahhabis, even though the USA itself has become exhausted by its own effort. Only Spain had the money to do what had to be done to exhaust the Protestants in 1500s and 1600s, just as only the USA has had the money to do what had to be done to exhaust the Wahhabis during the current period.

I’m just thinking aloud here.

Sep 18, 2008 - 6:51 am 17. Konyok:

Sylwester & Cedarford,

Facile silliness.

Spain squandered its American windfall because Spain rejected the Renaissance and the subsequent enlightenment.

Poor little England and Holland thrived because they embraced the enlightenment. Bourgeois capitalism developed in these countries apace with political freedoms. (Yes, C4. Tolerance of the Joooz played a big role … )

Funny, the United States, child of the European enlightenment, currently has a policy of evangelizing the same liberating bourgeois democracy, and you guys conjure an analogy with Hapsburg Spain. Jeez.

As for “exhausting” the protestants, balderdash. Because they survived, they won. The universal church tacitly accepted pluralism. (Hmmm, what does that remind me of? Oh, yeah. Islam’s claim as the final revelation, and Salafism’s within Islam.)

I’m sorry. Analogies are only useful for a single point of comparison for illustrative purposes. They are not reliable maps of complex space.

Sep 18, 2008 - 7:52 am 18. Mike Sylwester:

Konyok:
“Spain squandered its American windfall because Spain rejected the Renaissance and the subsequent enlightenment.”
———-

That is how it looks to us in 2001, but the Spaniards in the middle of the Counter-Revolution, in about 1600, had no concept that the future eventually would manifest a Rennaissance and an Englightenment.

Rather, the Spaniards perceived that they were resisting a bunch of self-appointed pseudo-intellectuals and easily manipulated peasants trying to overthrow the developed majesty of the Catholic Church’s Papacy, developed hierarchy, and traditional teachings.

The Spaniards perceived the typical Protestant about as we now perceive the typical Islamist — as an amazingly stupid, primitively-educated terrorist rabidly trying to wreck the World’s order.

Sep 18, 2008 - 8:07 am 19. Mike Sylwester:

Konyok:
“Analogies are only useful for a single point of comparison for illustrative purposes. ”
——-

That’s true. I suppose I should back out of this discussion as gracefully as I can right about now, before I reveal how pedestrian and amateurish my knowledge of history is.

Cedarford twisted my original analogy (Saudi Arabia is like Spain), and so I decided to play along for some intellectual fun. I have to be careful not to swim outside my own intellectual depth, however.

Sep 18, 2008 - 8:17 am 20. Konyok:

No, my friend.

The typical Islamist views us as the easily manipulated infidel who violates the divine order.

The American world order is the lineal descendent of the enlightenment: free and orderly markets, rule of law, political freedom, and pluralism. It says nothing about religion. It is more concerned with process than content.

The typical Islamist views this American vision as a mortal threat, as Spain saw its progenitor, the Protestant Revolution. Pluralism is such a profound existential threat that the Islamist feels that jihad is necessary to defend the one true universal faith.

Indeed, the Spanish empire depended on rentier wealth, extracting gold and silver from the New World. Islam today depends upon oil. The ambitious Persian Gulf states notwithstanding, both civilizations have discouraged wealth creation, in the capitalist sense, as unseemly and immoral.

There is no American inquisition seeking to extinguish islamism in its every manifestation. We have never even hinted at the merest shadow of disapproval of Turkey’s explicitly Islamic government. Our protege in Kabul is the “Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.” Our president refers to Islam as the “religion of peace.”

On the other hand, we have an organization, Al Qaeda, whose express goal is to restore Islam to its rightful monopoly in its traditional lands and to fulfill the koranic commandment to spread the true faith to the four corners of the world. AQ actively seeks opportunities to oppose any and all manifestations of European enlightenment values.

No, my friend. We are the same as we ever were. An apt analogy to your analogy is to suggest that Israel is Nazi Germany ….

Sep 18, 2008 - 8:36 am 21. Konyok:

Saudi Arabia as Spain works pretty well.

**

Saudi Arabia is the hard case for the Bush doctrine. It is hard for me to imagine a good outcome pushing for Saudi democracy. (Jeez, what would we even call the bloody country without the ibn Saud dynasty?)

Iraq is a much easier case. It actually has a shot at becoming a real country.

Sep 18, 2008 - 8:41 am 22. Mike Sylwester:

My intended analogy was Spain is to Saudi Arabia as the Protestant Reformation is to modern secular society, but I failed to state my analogy explicitly, because it was obvious to me. My idea was that Saudi Arabia is wasting its wealth like Spain did. I assume that you, Konyak, probably agree with my intended analogy.

Cedarford, however, impishly replaced Saudi Arabia with the USA in the analogy, and so I played along. Unfortunately, I am not well educated enough to debate the nuances of the Counter-Reformation and also the Rennaissance and Enlightenment. When the discussion seems to be going into those historical periods, I should turn back into a lurker and not embarrass myself.

Sep 18, 2008 - 9:04 am 23. Alexis:

Yemen is a backwater of the Arab world, and as such, tends to get the backwash of ideological movements further north.

By Arab standards, Yemen is a democracy, a dysfunctional democracy with feuding clans that own their own tanks and missile launchers, but a democracy nonetheless. There is still AQ activity there, though, if only because of its relative freedom and its sheer proximity to the Saudi Kingdom.

The geopolitical architecture of the Middle East is far more stable in last eighty years than it was in previous centuries. There were three major powers, the Ottoman Empire, the Persian Empire, and the Sea Empire*. They constantly jostled for position. It is the very existence of a Wahhabi kingdom stretching from Hasa to Hijaz that is the historical anomaly.

Democracy will not solve all problems in the Middle East; it probably won’t even solve most of them. Adopting democracy won’t even make the locals like us any better, but it would be an improvement over the status quo, even for Americans. Geopolitical rivalry is part of life, but so is ideology. A vicious ideology of anti-freedom has taken root in the Middle East, and this is important because ideological influences often attain a power greater than parochial rivalry.

An undue focus on parochial rivalry can often blind statesmen to the importance of the big picture. At present, our principal ideological enemies are the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood (sponsored by the House of Saud) and Khomeiniist Shi’ites, and the main reason for their rivalry with each other is precisely because they have so much in common. They are quite capable of allying against us though, if only in the sense of Nazis and Communists working together against western democracies between 1939 and 1941.

* The “Sea Empire” refers to the hegemonic power of the Indian Ocean. It could variously refer to Portugal, Oman, the British Empire, and presently the United States.

Sep 18, 2008 - 9:10 am 24. Konyok:

Alexis,

Do you ascribe the current stability with the weakening of the third force, the Ottoman empire factor? Both Nasser and Saddam aspired to a pan Arab state replacing the Ottomans.

I find the three legged architecture interesting – it reminds me of the situation in Iraq.

Mike,

Forgive me if I overreacted. Analogies are a real pet peeve of mine …

Sep 18, 2008 - 9:25 am 25. Alexis:

Konyok:

I ascribe the present “stability” to the existence of the United Nations and the post-1945 stasis of international boundaries. The major world powers agreed upon ideal of respecting international boundaries, however arbitrary those boundaries actually are. Although there have been exceptions such as Western Sahara, most of the boundaries that existed in 1950 still exist today.

This hasn’t kept major powers from invading other countries, but the principle has set parameters to the international acceptability of invasion. Thus, when Tanzania invaded Uganda and Vietnam invaded Cambodia in the late 1970’s, the goal was regime change, not annexation. Regime change may be frowned upon in international relations, but it can be acceptable in extreme circumstances.

In the Age of Empire, which ended sometime in the twentieth century, static boundaries existed only when rival empires could both police their claimed territory and respect each other’s strength. Woodrow Wilson’s “League of Nations” idea (resurrected as the “United Nations”) complicated international relations greatly, as it created a worldwide version of the Holy Roman Empire that promoted the tyranny of small princes against both the power of large states and the rights of common people.

I regard the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of the League of Nations as having little to do with each other; the events merely coincided. The problem many Arabs have with the League of Nations regime (which still exists now) is not that it had anything to do with the demise of the Ottoman Empire but rather that it frustrates the ability of Arabs to create any future caliphate.

The irony of democracy is that it is the ideal vehicle for the creation of a future Islamic caliphate. All that is necessary is for Muslim democracies to band together into a federation and vote peacefully for a new empire – a collective caliphate of the ummah. Islamic tradition since Muawiyah has favored tyrants who carve empires through conquest, yet the present international order prevents this from happening. Al-Qaeda is attempted to institute a caliphate the old fashioned way – through terrorism and conquest. And yet, its actions have postponed the time when any real caliphate can occur.

A caliphal democracy would not necessarily be in America’s geopolitical interests, of course, as it would become a world power through its sheer bulk. It would still be an improvement over the status quo, as it would promote accountability. I do find it ironic how those who presently claim to promote a caliphate are precisely those who are preventing any real caliphate from being established, while it is America’s promotion of liberal democracy that may actually lead to a future reemergence of an Islamic Empire.

Sep 18, 2008 - 12:49 pm 26. Konyok:

Fascinating analysis, Alexis. The notion of a democratic Caliphate seems a bit fanciful, but we are living in the days of miracle and wonder …

You underscore the dichotomy of the jihadi agenda: both insulate the ummah from outside influence and expand the frontiers of Islam. It would seem that those goals are mutually exclusive. (Eventually, such a modern Caliphate would confront the countervailing force of ethnicity. Iran is most decidedly muslim, but equally Persian and determined to remain so.)

The first goal would tend to the creation of a cultural preserve. In an informal way that might just be what we are seeing in Pashtunistan and it would explain some of the staying power of the Taliban.

I see some inchoate echoes of a desire for cultural preservation in the Western world as well. (No, not the obvious stuff like “English only.” That seems to me more a housekeeping measure to keep globalization manageable than a genuine desire for cultural isolation.) The more radical fringes of the environmental movement that call for a rollback to 1800’s technology and social organization seem to imply a similar nostalgia for simpler times. (Not too different from some of the fantasies of National Socialism … )

Anyway, such a democratic Caliphate may be a better road for Islam to come to terms with modernity, or, should I say post-modernity?

Sep 18, 2008 - 1:29 pm 27. Marzouq the Redneck Muslim:

Posters,

I had to come out of the woodwork. I congratulate you for your excellent posts.

Regarding Yemen: The casualties were Yemeni guards and civilians. Most of the damage was to surrounding structures. Al Queda made the collateral damage error and it must be capitalized on by western media. I doubt the MSM will but sites like this can.

On another note, please check out D-N-I.net for cogent analysis of the USA’s slouch toward socialism through taxpayer bailout of the failing financial sector. It makes me sick that the executive officers of Fannie and Freddie have those 10 to 14 million $$$ golden parachutes. It makes me sick the government of the USA is beginning to bail out those other financial institutions. It makes me sick congress abetted this scam. I wonder why and I suspect the congress critters have a lot of stock in those firms. Meanwhile my 401K is taking the hit from hell and I do not believe I will get a bailout. I screwed up and sold my oil stock about 5 years ago and I didn’ but any gold with it. At least I admit I lacked foresight and take responsibility for my decisions.

All I know is USA got over the tech bubble and will also get over this housing bubble. Please forgive me for going on that tangent but the financial strength of the USA is strategically important as noted in your posts.

Salaam eleikum Y’all!

Sep 19, 2008 - 4:55 am 28. Jay:

I agree with Marzouq about the implications of the bailouts. It is bipartisan theft plus economic stupidity. It will eventually lead to a true economic collapse.
The mortgage industry is still handing out dicey loans. I assume that they anticipate more bailouts if the loans go south.

Sep 19, 2008 - 7:06 am 29. NahnCee:

Reading overseas papers, I think the government was constrained to step in and do *something* to calm finances world-wide. The Dow is back up again today. I’d say that’s a Good Thing.

Sep 19, 2008 - 4:37 pm

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.