Attack in Yemen

Please don't sneer when people say that President Bush has done a good job of protecting us. What happened today in Yemen is a clear example of what Al Qaeda and other, similar groups would do on U.S. soil if they could only get the chance. (And no, I disagree with the New York Times, which reported that 'militants' opened fire on the embassy. These aren't 'militants,' they are terrorists.)

By the way, when a U.S. embassy is attacked, the people most at risk are the locally hired guards. They typically act with tremendous courage, and all too often sacrifice their lives to protect our embassies. That appears to have been the case in Sanaa: no Americans were killed, but six security guards were.

Free Speech Protection Act of 2008

Here are two articles supporting the Free Speech Protection Act, which I've discussed before. One is an editoral in the New York Times, the other an article by me on the website of Human Events. This bill has truly bipartisan support; today the American Civil Liberties Union joined some 20 other organizations supporting it.

Will the bill be adopted? Unclear - it's being considered as an amendment to the Senate version of the Defense Authorization Act. Keep your fingers crossed! We cannot allow foreign courts to undermine our First Amendment rights.

Reforming Islam: child marriage

At what age can a girl be married in Islam? There have been several challenges in Muslim countries recently to marrying off girls who are only 8 or 9 years old. Dhimmi Watch reports on one in Morocco.

Lawyer Mourad Bakouri argued that early marriages damaged children's human rights and the family and criminal codes by increasing the risk of rape. This situation, he said, undermines Islam. But Sheikh Mohammed ben Abderrahmen al-Maghrouai rebutted this argument on his website, saying that such marriages were sanctioned. As he put it, "I am a confirmed theologian and I have not made this up. It is the prophet who said it before me." And, indeed, he is correct on that point. (Readers who want the latest retelling of the story of Mohammed's child-wife Aisha will only have to wait a few more weeks for The Jewel of Medina...)

Obama's objectives in Iraq

According to journalist Amir Taheri (here, thanks to Josie), during Obama's July visit to Iraq, his main theme was that the Iraqis should delay conclusion of the agreement governing the status of U.S. forces in Iraq until a new U.S. administration is in place. Obama argued that the Congress should be involved in the negotiations, and that the Iraqis should not negotiate with a weakened, lame-duck administration. He made the pitch both to Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari and to General David Petraeus, but neither supported it.

This proposal had been reported at the time, but not as Obama's main interest. In and of itself, the story is very disturbing (U.S. presidential candidate directly undermines key objective of sitting president). But beyond that, as Taheri notes, it contradicts Obama's oft-stated key objective: getting U.S. troops out of Iraq. Delaying signature of the agreement could postpone any subsequent agreements on troop withdrawals significantly. So why did Obama propose it? I think someone should ask him.

UK and sharia law

According to an article in the London Times (thanks to Jeff), British courts are in fact already implementing decisions of British sharia courts, including ones that give male children twice the inheritance of female children, and have yet to require anything more than anger management classes and mentoring for domestic violence cases. The courts do so in accordance with their function of implementing the results of arbitration procedures.

UK commentator Melanie Phillips writes that, although the Times represents these procedures as novel, UK courts have been implementing the decisions of sharia courts for some time. They are, however, only supposed to enforce rulings that fall within British law. Certainly the case cited above regarding inheritance rights should not qualify. Last July Britain's chief justice, Lord Phillips, raised a ruckus when he spoke in favor of partial application of sharia law. What exactly, one wonders, did he mean?

Sharia courts were started up in 2007, and now operate in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester, with two more planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

What was Putin thinking?

The New York Times today described Putin, 'in tones that were alternately pugilistic and needy,' complaining about how little the West understands him. The Western media are bad enough, but even the Europeans have wounded the Russians by insisting that Russian troops be withdrawn from Georgia. And, as the article notes, it isn't only the West; China and Serbia have avoided supporting Russia's recognition of Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence.

There is also domestic criticism within Russia. Paul Goble, an expert on the Soviet Union and its successor states, summarizes a very interesting interview with Russian historian Dmitry Furman. Furman argues that, aside from euphoria, the Russians have very little to show for their invasion of Georgia. Putin wanted to re-establish Russia's domination of its neighborhood, yet has no ideology, such as the advancement of socialism, to provide an overall strategy.

More ominously for Putin, as Goble notes, the decline in the stock market and the value of the ruble, along with the drying up of foreign investment and credit, has caused Russian businessmen, who don't say much in public, to transfer their assets out of the country. (Thanks to Ken for the link.)

Accommodating Islam

You should have guessed that yesterday's entry would have exhausted my optimism. On a more somber note, columnist Diana West argues that the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent terrorists attacks in Madrid, London and elsewhere have, perversely, caused "an accelerated campaign of accommodation of Islam's law in the West."

As West notes: "Paradoxically, such fast-track accomodation has occurred even as any and all connection between jihadist acts and Islam - specifically Islamic war doctrine - have been emphatically ruled out by our leaders, both civilian and military." Americans seem to be asleep, not even noticing, let alone discussing, the advances made by Islamists.

Bush's critics, particularly those on the left, are right: this isn't a 'war on terror'. But they and the Bush administration are very, very wrong to downplay or deny the fact that terrorist actions are carried out in the name of a political Islamist ideology inimical to Western civilization. You can't win a war that you can't even name. As West points out, 9/11 shouldn't be viewed as a natural disaster, like a hurricane. It was indeed a deliberate day of infamy.