I hadn't planned on blogging this weekend but since I'm more of an early-riser than my wife or our friends, needed to do something quiet to pass the time until everyone else is up. I also wanted to mention something that happened on the flight yesterday, which, if I were Glenn Reynolds would place in the "A Pack not a Herd" category.

A short while into the flight my wife noticed that several people had wanted to use the restroom at the front of the plane but had found the door locked. During this time, more than fifteen minutes, no one had come out. It appeared as though someone was in the restroom for an unusually long time. When she mentioned this to me we decided to notify the stewardess. We saw her making her way toward us but before she reached our row, the man in the row in front of ours stopped her and told the very same thing we were going to tell her. She walked to the front and notified the stewardess in charge of that area of the plane, who knocked on the restroom door. When there was no answer, she opened it. As it turned out, she had locked the door before we boarded and simply forgotten to unlock it after the flight had taken off.

It turned out to be nothing. Had this happened two years ago it is likely no one would have even noticed anything. But people are more aware and more vigilant, more apt to notice something unusual. None of us wants to go and we're certainly no longer going to go without a fight. Sure, it was nothing. But had it been something...

Happy Valentine's Day! Probably won't be posting anything this weekend. We are going to be visiting friends in Colorado. I may attend the pro-war rally Sunday. If so, I will have a report but it might not be until after we return home Monday afternoon. Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend.

This post from Andrea Harris reminded me of a segment I heard on NPR. It was either the day of or the day before the State of the Union address. They had people who had contributed commentary within the past year explain what they wanted GWB to say in the SotU. I didn't hear all of them but the ones I did indicated it was a typical lefty whinefest. For example, they had an author who suggested that the only way Bush could prove he wasn't a racist would be to endorse slavery reparations and affirmative action.

There was also a high school teacher who believed that we should devote much more money for financial aid for college students. He spoke of a former student who was unable to secure a scholarship. The military was the only entity willing to supply him with money for college. So he joined and now he is unhappy and wants out. The teacher complained that the former student "should be in art school, not in the Army."

Excuse me?! Your complaint is that the only group willing to pay for his training in a marginally skill asked for something in return? A skill whose marketability is dependent more upon natural talent than formal education, no less. You're exactly right. There is something wrong. But it's not with the government's financial aid system. Hate to be the one to break it to you but no one owes you or your former student or anybody else a college education. If you can find someone with the means and the desire to help you pay for one, congratulations. If the only people willing to do so require you to give them something in return, well, welcome to the real world, where nothing is free and everything costs somebody something. Even in Ted Rall's fantasy land, education is paid for by someone.

Some people see the government as merely a bottomless well of money. This well exists solely for them to use to finance their dreams and desires. For the last few decades our government has done very little to discourage this attitude or the related belief that the federal government can solve any problem. To the contrary, nearly every piece of legislation anymore contains provisions allowing various special interests to drink from the government teat. And with precious few exceptions, the two major parties are differentiated less by their penchant for dispersing the funds extracted from taxpayers than by the amounts and upon which special interest groups they prefer these fruits of other people's labor to be bestowed. Thus, the discussion always revolves around how much money is to be spent to help this group or cause or that company or to solve this or that problem when, in most cases, it should be whether the government is the most efficient means or even has the legal authority to do so.

Another message from beyond the grave. Can it really be considered a prediction to prophesy something that has already happened?

Bin Laden is dead. Furthermore, both al Qaeda's leadership and our intelligence know this. But it is an unusual situation where each of the opposing sides perceives perpetuating the myth as beneficial to its cause.

The legend of bin Laden as the man who stood up to the superpower yet continues to elude them aids al Qaeda in recruiting and funding. For an organization grounded in religious fervor, bin Laden's ability to escape capture or death furthers the belief that his campaign is divinely endorsed.

We benefit as well from keeping keeping bin Laden "alive." There is a segment of the population, both in the US and Europe, that believes if we capture or kill bin Laden then the war on terror will be over. We will have found the man responsible for 9/11 so there would be no need for any further action to fight terrorism. Until the next attack occurs. They've failed to grasp the reality that this war was never about one man or even one organization. It was never about merely exacting punishment for a single event. It was never about revenge. 9/11 wasn't a crime, it was an act of war. A crime is dealt with by finding and punishing the perpetrators. A war is fought to destroy the enemy's ability to inflict further harm.

Okay, I decided to throw my two cents worth into the Cross-Blog Iraq Debate offered by The Truth Laid Bear and Stand Down. Since I am pro-war I answered the questions for the pro-war bloggers (I had to specify that because that kind logic is unusual for me). You'll have to forgive the length. Anyway, here goes:

1. Attacking Iraq has been publicly called a "pre-emption" of a threat from Saddam Hussein's regime, whose sins include launching regional wars of aggression. Do you think there is a clear and reliable difference between pre-emptive and aggressive warfare, and if so, what is it?

As far as a set of objective criteria, which, say, the United Nations could use to evaluate each and every instance, I don’t think that is possible. The UN is populated by too many authoritarian regimes and non-functional democracies that are motivated by regional alliances and self-interest to objectively evaluate any action. Remember, Hitler explained his attack on Poland as a response to a Polish attack, an assertion that was supported by his then-allies.

In addition, pre-emption is often best evaluated in a historical context. No rational person today could argue that it would have been unjustified for France or England to have initiated action against Germany before Hitler invaded Poland. Yet Nazi Germany may not have even met my criteria for justified pre-emption until it invaded Poland. Nevertheless, I believe that there are certain objective standards that can be applied to distinguish justified pre-emption from aggression.

Pre-emption is justified when the threat is from a country which

Has demonstrated, by word or deed or both, hostile intentions against the potential pre-emptor or allies the pre-emptor has agreed to protect,

Has exhibited a history of acting on its hostile intentions by initiating aggressive wars and/or has taken measures such as massing troops and materiel that preface an aggressive action, or supports non-state actors willing to carry out aggressive actions,

Has the means to act on its hostile intentions by conventional weapons or the possession or development of unconventional weapons and the means to deliver them by either its own technology or connections to proxy nations and/or non-state actors willing to carry out such aggressive actions for it.

Pre-emption is never legitimate when undertaken by an authoritarian regime or non-functional democracy against a functional democracy.

Note: I make a distinction between functional and non-functional democracies because merely holding or having held elections does not qualify a nation as a democracy. A functional democracy is one that not only has elections but also respects the rule of law and honors basic human rights, as well as the rights to freedom of speech and press and political rights of its people. For example, despite having held recent elections, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, Hussein's Iraq, and Chavez’s Venezuela are non-functional democracies.

2. What do you feel are the prospects that an invasion of Iraq will succeed in a) maintaining it as a stable entity and b) in turning it into a democracy? Are there any precedents in the past 50 years that influence your answer?

a) Stability, in and of itself, is not a legitimate goal of foreign policy. It is the quest for stability that led us to support oppressive authoritarian regimes in the Middle East who have fostered hatred against Israel and the United States to divert attention from their own failed governments and have covertly aided terrorists intent on destroying Western civilization. However, the government that emerges in Iraq, though maybe not as stable as to have the same ruler for decades, will certainly permit more political, economic, and social freedom for its people and be less of a threat to the rest of the world.

b) The chances of turning Iraq into a democracy are even greater than were the chances of doing the same in Japan after WWII. Although Iraq does not have a tradition of democracy, neither did pre-bellum Japan. Or Germany, for that matter. Before the Ba’athist coup that led to Saddam’s takeover, Iraq had a relatively vibrant economy and emerging middle class, despite the absence of a functional democracy. This, combined with assistance and commitment from Western democracies and exiled leaders, leads me to conclude that the chances of democracy emerging in Iraq are quite good. The lack of recent examples is less a reflection of the difficulty of the endeavor than of strategic goals that did not stress spreading democracy but, rather, countering the spread of Communism and/or fostering and enforcing stability.

3. How successful do you think the military operations and "regime change" in Afghanistan have been in achieving their stated objectives? Does this example affect your feelings about war in Iraq in any way?

Extremely successful. We removed the Taliban and its intertwined partner al Qaeda from control of the government. We are in the process of assisting the Afghans in establishing a government that respects the rule of law and rights of all of its citizens and promotes political, social, and economic freedom. There is still much to be done but it is absurd to think that in a mere fourteen months we could have turned a nation that had been decimated by a quarter century of warfare, ethnic and factional strife, corruption, and murderous theocratic totalitarianism (and the poverty resulting from these) into a functional democracy. One would do well to remember that it took several years before either Germany or Japan was fully democratized.

What has been achieved in Afghanistan gives me great optimism for Iraq. Its natural resource wealth will make establishing the necessary infrastructure much easier than it was in Afghanistan, Germany, or Japan. Regardless of what happens or happened in Afghanistan, however, I believe that the only successful conclusion to the war on terror involves the establishment of democratic systems that respect the rule of law and human rights in all of the terrorist-sponsoring states of the Middle East and elsewhere.

4. As a basis for war, the Bush Administration accuses Iraq of trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear), supporting terrorism, and brutalizing their own people. Since Iraq is not the only country engaged in these actions, under what circumstances should the US go to war with other such nations, in addition to going to war with Iraq?

As stated in my answer to the previous question, “that the only successful conclusion to the war on terror involves the establishment of democratic systems that respect the rule of law and human rights in all of the terrorist-sponsoring states of the Middle East and elsewhere.” It is my view that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq may be sufficient to convince other terrorist sponsors of the need to reform themselves. However, if this is not done, if we or our allies continue to suffer terrorist attacks, I believe the only effective means of eliminating terrorism is to force reform or regime change within terrorist-sponsoring states by whatever means necessary, including military force.

5. The Bush Administration has issued numerous allegations about the threat represented by Iraq, many of which have been criticized in some quarters as hearsay, speculation or misstatements. Which of the Administration's allegations do you feel stand up best to those criticisms?

The oppression of his people, his flouting of UN Security Council resolutions, and his refusal to disarm (required by the resolutions). Although not all of their claims of torture and oppression may be completely factual, there is enough evidence from various sources both outside and within Iraq to prove that his regime employs brutal methods of torture to stifle dissent and maintain his grasp on absolute power. As an example, no less a source than former-weapons-inspector-turned-Saddam-apologist Scott Ritter has spoken of children’s prisons and alluded to the inhuman conditions therein.

In the 90’s, the UN Security Council passed sixteen (16) resolutions requiring various actions by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Saddam violated these sixteen resolutions, a fact re-iterated in another resolution passed in November 2002. This resolution also allowed him one final opportunity to come into compliance. The heads of the two UN weapons inspection teams revealed that he has not complied with this latest resolution. Thus, at this point, Iraq under Saddam Hussein has violated seventeen (17) UNSC resolutions and shows no intention of complying with these or any other resolutions.

There can be no question that Saddam has not disarmed himself of weapons of mass destruction. When the UN inspectors left in 1998, it was well known that they left him in possession of amounts of certain toxic substances that were intended for use in chemical or biological weapons. In his most recent weapons declaration, these substances are unaccounted for. There are only two logical conclusions that can be drawn: 1) He remains in possession of these substances, or 2) He has given or sold them to another entity or entities. In other words, he either possesses banned weapons or is a proliferator of them. Each of these scenarios would constitute a serious breach of UN resolutions.

The war on terrorism and impending war in Iraq have caused dissent to be squashed and an increase in racism. By the anti-war movement.

Long-time activist and Iraqi war opponent Michael Lerner writes of the anti-Semitism and intolerance of dissenting views by the organizations leading the anti-war movement. The left is in such disarray that it is no longer surprising that an organization whose very name declares it opposes war and racism in reality supports violence and anti-Semitism.

According to this article, the military is planning to make a lightning push to Baghdad to get Saddam and secure the support of the Iraqi people.

The opening days of the war are planned as a massive air assault aimed at collapsing Saddam’s command structure, followed by a “rush for Baghdad” by ground forces. US special forces and CIA teams are already operating on the ground in Iraq. But if US forces cannot find Saddam or present credible evidence that he is dead, they will face stiffer resistance from the Iraqis. “If people think Saddam is still alive they will be frightened to come out and support us, even if he is powerless,” one US official said.

I disagree that we will face stiffer resistance until we know Saddam is dead. I believe that Iraqis can't wait to get rid of Saddam but are afraid of the consequences. They remember us watching while Saddam's troops brutally suppressed uprisings after the Gulf War cease-fire. They are fearful that another internal revolt would be a repeat.

But as soon as they know that we are serious, that the appeasers and dictator sycophants are not going to hold us back or stand in our way, that the US military is actually, really, truly, honestly coming to Baghdad to liberate them, they will take out Saddam and as many of his henchmen as they can get their hands on for us. Only the level of their mercy will determine if there is enough left of Saddam to be able to identify him when we arrive.

The government of North Korea may be in even worse shape than anyone thought. Check out the website Korea Online, which bills itself as the "Official site about North Korean culture, ideology, and tourism." At the very bottom, in small print,

after hours link: free sex sluts pictures.

Looks like Dear Leader is pulling out all the stops to generate cash. Sorry, I'm not going to reproduce the link here, you'll have to go there for it.

I can only dream of someday living in a place so enlightened as Saddam's Iraq. While armed vigilantes patrol the borders of the US preventing entry to fellow human beings searching only for a better life, Saddam opens his arms to welcome visitors in search of peace.

A group of around 50 Western anti-war activists received visas Tuesday to enter Iraq where they plan to form "human shields" in an effort to deter a possible U.S.-led attack on the Arab state.

The volunteers said at an impromptu news conference in the Turkish capital they hoped their presence and the possibility of Western casualties would encourage U.S. political leaders and military planners to re-think any plans to bomb Baghdad for its alleged development of weapons of mass destruction.

I feel sorry for these people, not for their naiveté or even for what may happen to them when Saddam uses them to shield legitimate military targets, but for what Iraqis who've been suffering under Saddam's oppression for decades will do to them once they are freed.

Does welfare cause terrorism? Brendan Miniter explores the effect of the European system on the Axis of Weasels' ability and willingness to prevent and punish terrorists and tyrants.

Germany labors under heavy socialist policies--high taxation and crushing regulations that suppress growth. Its economy can barely employ German citizens, and many immigrants--a lot of whom are Muslim--are prohibited from working, forced to sit idle for years on welfare. Germany needs to do a better job at assimilating its immigrants. It can do that by cutting taxes, removing obstacles to business expansion and allowing immigrants greater freedom in taking jobs and starting businesses.

This, of course, won't stamp out Islamic radicalism. To do that Germany needs tougher laws, tougher law enforcement and the moral courage to stand up to thugs and thug nations. It doesn't help that Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who won re-election last year on an anti-American platform, pursues a policy of appeasement with Saddam Hussein. Terrorists thrive on fecklessness.

Al Qaeda operatives are watching. And they can only be encouraged by the trial of accused Sept. 11 co-conspirator Mounir el Matassadeq, who is charged in Germany with more than 3,000 counts of accessory to murders. Prosecutors asked for the maximum sentence--15 years behind bars. By contrast, in America John Walker Lindh--who wasn't charged with treason or murder and wasn't connected to the Sept. 11 plot--cut a deal with the prosecution for a lenient sentence of 20 years.

Germany isn't alone in its blinkered priorities. French bureaucrats patrol the streets at night, looking for any business with the audacity to violate the 35-hour workweek. Meanwhile violent crime goes unchecked. Like other European countries, France refuses to assimilate immigrants. Consequently, there's a large population of Muslims--many from former French colonies--who are held in poverty collecting welfare checks for years.

France doesn't take crime seriously. Prisoners, even felons serving long sentences, are allowed to wear street clothes inside prison. This makes it relatively easy for prisoners to blend in with visitors and simply walk out the front door. That's how Ismael Berasategui Escudero, an alleged Basque terrorist, was able to trade places with his brother and escape from Paris's La Sante prison in August. Guards didn't even know he was gone until the brother stepped forward six days later.

That's hardly the most sensational French prison break in recent years. Prisoners have walked out after accomplices faxed in fake release papers. Others get out in escapes involving helicopters lowering ropes into the prison yard. That's how three convicts escaped from Draguignan prison, a Corsican drug lord got out of Borgo prison on the French Mediterranean island, and two convicts were able to flee the Aix-Luynes prison in Provence--all in 2001. "All of these were facilitated by rules prohibiting guards from shooting at helicopters so as to avoid civilian casualties," The Wall Street Journal reported in August.

France, Germany and other Europeans don't have the moral will to stand up to criminals at home or on the international stage. Terrorists know this, and depend on it.

This may explain why much of the al Qaeda-related law enforcement activity has occurred in Europe and why a cell in Germany figured so prominently the 9/11 attacks. It is simply much easier for terrorists to exist in Europe than in the US.

Few people outside of Saddam's inner circle know more about how he operates than Khidir Hamza. Mr. Hamza is not impressed with either the inspections process or the motives behind certain countries sudden and suddenly very vocal support for it.

My 20 years of work in Iraq's nuclear-weapons program and military industry were partly a training course in methods of deception and camouflage to keep the program secret. Given what I know about Saddam Hussein's commitment to developing and using weapons of mass destruction, the following two points are abundantly clear to me: First, the U.N. weapons inspectors will not find anything Saddam does not want them to find. Second, France, Germany, and to a degree, Russia, are opposed to U.S. military action in Iraq mainly because they maintain lucrative trade deals with Baghdad, many of which are arms-related.

Since the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 we have witnessed a tiny team of inspectors with a supposedly stronger mandate begging Iraq to disclose its weapons stockpiles and commence disarmament. The question that nags me is: How can a team of 200 inspectors "disarm" Iraq when 6,000 inspectors could not do so in the previous seven years of inspection?

Put simply, surprise inspections no longer work. With the Iraqis' current level of mobility and intelligence the whole point of inspecting sites is moot. This was made perfectly clear by Colin Powell in his presentation before the U.N. last week. But the inspectors, mindless of these changes, are still visiting old sites and interviewing marginal scientists. I can assure you, the core of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program has not even been touched. Yesterday's news that Iraq will "accept" U-2 surveillance flights is another sign that Saddam has confidence in his ability to hide what he's got.[...]

What has become obvious is that the U.N. inspection process was designed to delay any possible U.S. military action to disarm Iraq. Germany, France, and Russia, states we called "friendly" when I was in Baghdad, are also engaged in a strategy of delay and obstruction.

In the two decades before the Gulf War, I played a role in Iraq's efforts to acquire major technologies from friendly states. In 1974, I headed an Iraqi delegation to France to purchase a nuclear reactor. It was a 40-megawatt research reactor that our sources in the IAEA told us should cost no more than $50 million. But the French deal ended up costing Baghdad more than $200 million. The French-controlled Habbania Resort project cost Baghdad a whopping $750 million, and with the same huge profit margin. With these kinds of deals coming their way, is it any surprise that the French are so desperate to save Saddam's regime?

Germany was the hub of Iraq's military purchases in the 1980s. Our commercial attaché, Ali Abdul Mutalib, was allocated billions of dollars to spend each year on German military industry imports. These imports included many proscribed technologies with the German government looking the other way. In 1989, German engineer Karl Schaab sold us classified technology to build and operate the centrifuges we needed for our uranium-enrichment program. German authorities have since found Mr. Schaab guilty of selling nuclear secrets, but because the technology was considered "dual use" he was fined only $32,000 and given five years probation.

Meanwhile, other German firms have provided Iraq with the technology it needs to make missile parts. Mr. Blix's recent finding that Iraq is trying to enlarge the diameter of its missiles to a size capable of delivering nuclear weapons would not be feasible without this technology transfer.

Russia has long been a major supplier of conventional armaments to Iraq--yet again at exorbitant prices. Even the Kalashnikov rifles used by the Iraqi forces are sold to Iraq at several times the price of comparable guns sold by other suppliers.

Saddam's policy of squandering Iraq's resources by paying outrageous prices to friendly states seems to be paying off. The irresponsibility and lack of morality these states are displaying in trying to keep the world's worst butcher in power is perhaps indicative of a new world order. It is a world of winks and nods to emerging rogue states--for a price. It remains for the U.S. and its allies to institute an opposing order in which no price is high enough for dictators like Saddam to thrive.

Saddam has learned very well how to play the inspections game. Whenever pressured he gives in just enough to keep the game going without revealing anything. Agreeing to allow U-2 overflights is merely another example of this.

The highly-public opposition by France, Germany, and now Russia, to military action under any circumstances, and especially French and German opposition to NATO preparations to defend Turkey from Iraq, makes me very cynical of their motives.

As long as the Ba'athist regime, whether headed by Saddam or one of his sons or henchmen, remains in power in Iraq, this will not change. Disarmament is impossible without regime change. I don't believe that we can avoid war; we can only postpone it. If we do not take action to remove Saddam now while he is weakened and we are prepared, we will be forced to face him at a time of his choosing, after he has developed even more dangerous weapons and more effective means to deliver them.

I listened to the same NPR program yesterday morning claiming that Europe was on the verge of becoming a "rival superpower." At least I think it was the same one. There were two interviewees, each of whom had recently written a book on Europe. I got the impression that both of them were believers in the Mean Green Meme and that they felt Europe was closer to Green and the US was hopelessly Orange. (In other words, the European system is morally superior to that of the US.)

I had only a short time to ponder the moral superiority of the Europeans before I was once again reminded of the economic inferiority of its supposed engine of growth.

The showcase city of Berlin is in such a financial fix that it's firing teachers and closing swimming pools. Just four months after Schröder's reelection as Chancellor, his Social Democratic Party is so unpopular that it was clobbered in two key state elections on Feb. 2. Polls show Germans more pessimistic than they have been in decades.

The vaunted model of Rhineland capitalism, where the state and business work together, is in slow-motion collapse. Japan on the Rhine is a better way to describe what's going on. Germany has grown an average of 1.3% a year over the past decade--the lowest rate in Europe and not much better than Japan's rate of 1%. "In the '70s and '80s, Germany was the model of the world," says one leading executive. "Now we're being repeatedly referred to as the sick man of the world, the sick man of Europe."

As they enter a second decade of stagnation, Germans are beginning to wonder if the disease is chronic. What fooled many of them for a long time was that the real nature of the decline was often masked by short recoveries, global shocks, or outsize political promises that never materialized. There was usually a handy explanation for economic setbacks: a technology gap, a stock market bubble, or a slowdown somewhere else in the world. "The government always looks for reasons elsewhere," says Jürgen Donges, former chairman of Germany's five "wise men," the top council of economic advisers.

But now, decline has enveloped Germany's most vital institutions and industries. In the 1960s, the Germans were the world's No. 1 pharmaceutical producers. Now, the country that invented aspirin has no company in the top 15. In the 1980s, Frankfurt's elegant banks stood as bastions of stability. Now, Frankfurt's future as a major financial center is in doubt. Germany's once-hallowed universities are short of funds and overrun with mediocre students taking advantage of free tuition. Only a decade ago, when President Bill Clinton proposed a national medical system for the U.S., there were only two models worth looking at, Germany and Canada. Today, Germany's system is increasingly unaffordable, while the quality of care is declining. Germany's DAX 30 stock index was the worst-performing in the developed world last year. Bankruptcies are soaring. Even the trains don't run on time anymore.

If Germany's long slide into mediocrity were only robbing the future of 82.5 million Germans, that would be sad enough. But it's not that simple. As Europe's largest and richest nation and steward for the euro, Germany's failures radiate across the Continent, fraying the cords that have kept the sometimes fractious but workable Atlantic Alliance intact for half a century.

Not surprisingly, the reason Germany avoids economic reform may explain their policy concerning the Middle East.

So what prevented reform? In a sentence, a reverence for stability at any cost. Shaped by a tumultuous past, the entire country is wired to resist change. Politicians from Schröder down to the local Burgermeister bend over backward to avoid confrontation, particularly with labor. Amid a dire budget crisis in early January, for example, federal and local governments caved in to wage demands by public workers rather than risk a strike. Leading conservative politicians supported the capitulation.

As with the Middle East, the consequences of German conflict avoidance in dometic economic affairs may both reduce Germany's influence and harm its friends and allies.

If Germany cannot reignite growth, the implications for a two-speed Europe are profound. The European Central Bank, for example, cannot slash rates forever to prod Germany into growth, especially when smaller states like Ireland and Finland are prone to overheating. And if Germany can't patch up the holes in its budget, then the newfound strength of the euro also will be threatened.

The architects of Europe never planned for a weak Germany. They also failed to plan for the extraordinary changes in the world beyond Europe's borders. While they foresaw a United States of Europe, Kohl and Schröder--and France's François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac--never came to grips with the rise of China as the world's manufacturer. High-cost, slow-motion Europe--especially Germany--will find it increasingly hard to match its exports against those of China and other low-cost centers.

Germany will see its role in world affairs diminish further if it cannot address these issues. Schröder showed courage in 2001 by committing German forces to Afghanistan. But Berlin's refusal, even after September 11, to significantly boost its low defense expenditures still makes it a less reliable strategic partner, either for other Europeans or for the U.S.-led NATO. Now, an increasingly strapped Germany will find it hard to beef up the armed forces that would give it greater weight in foreign policy debates. "Germany would have a stronger role if we had a stronger military, there is no doubt," says a senior German diplomat.

The most likely outcome for Germany is that nothing will change substantially. When a country this rich and aging turns inward, it loses its claim on any vital role in world affairs. Stagnation even feels comfortable. You won't see masses of homeless on the streets; Munich will still celebrate Oktoberfest every year. But if they don't shake themselves up and figure out a way to revitalize growth, Germans will end up part of a once-great nation that's slipping into irrelevance.

Ironically, although Schröder campaigned on anti-Americanism to divert attention from his inability to repair Germany's economic problems, it may be anti-Americanism that brings him down.

Enaam Arnaout, the former head of Benevolence International Foundation, has pled guilty to racketeering charges.

A charity director allegedly linked to Osama bin Laden pled guilty to racketeering charges on Monday but did not admit any connection to the terrorist mastermind.[...]

The Justice Department claims to have found, in a search of BIF offices, evidence including notes from the 1998 meeting where al Qaeda was formed, files on mujahadeen fighters, and the text of the al Qaeda loyalty oath.

Arnaout, 41, acknowledged that he had sent some of the money raised through his Benevolence International Foundation to purchase boots and uniforms for rebels in Chechnya, who are fighting the Russian army.

He also acknowledged sending support for the purchase of boots, tents, uniforms and an ambulance for soldiers in Bosnia.

One more we won't have to worry about for a while.

E. Nough, who not only had a parody he had written picked up by Ha'aretz as a news story, as LGF notes, but also wrote this likely alternate 9/11 scenario, has his own blog.

The Axis of Weasels has a new member. France, Germany, and Belgium have blocked efforts to defend Turkey against attacks by Iraq.

Rifts deepened within the NATO alliance Monday after France, Germany and Belgium blocked efforts to plan for Turkey's defense in case Iraq attacked NATO's only Muslim member.

Turkey immediately requested emergency consultations under Article 4, NATO's mutual defense treaty, the first time a nation has done so in the alliance's 53-year history.[...]

The three countries argued moving NATO to a high state of preparedness would force the Iraqi crisis into a "logic of war" when diplomatic alternatives still stood a chance of success.

"It would signify that we have already entered into the logic of war, that ... any chance, any initiative to still resolve the conflict in a peaceful way was gone," said Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel.

This is ridiculous. Preparations have to be made before they are needed. If we wait until military action is necessary it will be too late. But to the Axis of Weasels, by definition the crisis will never reach the point where military action is necessary.

This is merely an attempt by the French and Germans to take another jab at the US and increase the costs of potential war, which would increase the attractiveness of their ridiculous proposal to occupy Iraq with UN peacekeepers. The French and German proposal indicates to me that their intention in Iraq is to maintain Saddam Hussein's regime at all costs. Even in the unlikely event that Saddam allowed the peacekeepers in Iraq, lightly-armed UN forces would have no chance if forced to face Saddam's troops, who are guarding all of his chemical and biological weapons. But discussion of this proposal in the UNSC and negotiations with Iraq could take months, delaying military action until it is no longer feasible.

Unfortunately for the French, Hans Blix may throw a wrench in their plans.

Chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix said Monday he saw no new evidence about Iraqi weapons during a visit to Baghdad and rejected European suggestions that more inspectors would help his hunt.

In an interview with Reuters at the end of a visit to Baghdad, Blix applauded some suggestions from Iraq to help his teams searching for weapons of mass destruction, but said all-out Iraqi cooperation was the only way for Baghdad to prove it did not have banned weapons.[...]

Asked if war was now inevitable, Blix replied: "That's not for me to answer. We are to report on the progress of inspections ... to the Security Council. And it is the council, its members and Iraq ... who determine whether we get to disarmament through inspections or disarmament through arms."

Asked whether more inspectors could do a better, faster job, he said: "The principal problem is not the number of inspectors but rather the active cooperation of the Iraqi side, as we have said many times."

I, for one, don't care what the French think. It's not like we really want them on our side anyway.