http://www.wikio.com/search=Amir Taheri Wikio - Amir Taheri http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=67965312 Amir TaheriArab Media A couple of weeks ago, I argued that it was unfair to describe President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic as a conservative because, in reality, he is a radical revolutionary. However, I did not mean to say that his rivals within the Khomeinist establishment could be regarded as conservatives in the mainstream meaning of the term Nevertheless, the article provoked a great deal of controversy, drawing criticism from both the mullahs who dislike Ahmadinejad and Iranian democrats who dislike the Khomeinist regime as a whole. To complicate matters further I also drew fire from the remnants of the Iranian left with claims that describing Ahmadinejad as a revolutionary was almost sacrilegious. Let me first deal with this last charge because it is easier to refute. There was a time when the term "revolution" had a certain romantic aura, especially in rich and conservative Western societies. In the 1960s, when we were students, a part of the Western youth smoked hashish and wore T-shirts decorated with the image of 'Che' Guevara, an Argentine-born adventurer and killer, who roamed Latin America and Africa killing people he did not agree with. As far as I am concerned, however, the term revolution is neither romantic nor sacrosanct. For I regard revolutions as moments of madness in human history. If you kill one man, you are a murderer. If you raise one fire, you are an arsonist. If you rob one bank, you are a thief. However, if thousands of people do those things together they become revolutionaries, because crimes, committed collectively, are dignified as revolution. Revolution is about killing people in large numbers. It is about destruction and looting. It is about locking up hundreds of thousands of people and forcing millions out of their homes. Every revolution generates war, mass poverty, oppression, and terror. There are no good revolutions. All revolutions, though they may be products of historical necessity, are ultimately evil. Men who have an ounce of decency and humanity left in them cannot survive within revolutionary elite for long. Think of Danton in France or Kamenev in Russia or our own clueless Mehdi Bazargan in Iran. They were too decent to remain at the centre of the revolutions they had helped bring about. The quintessential revolutionary is someone like Robespierre, Stalin, Hitler, Kim Il-sung, Lin Biao, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot and Ruhallah Khomeini. Thus, when I described Ahmadinejad as a revolutionary I was not paying him a compliment. All I wanted to point out was that he is a more legitimate product and representative of Khomeini's revolution than a wily businessman like Hashemi Rafsanjani or a confused mullah like Khatami. Some readers have asked what I actually meant by conservative. In the context of the Khomeinist regime, mullahs like Rafsanjani and Khatami may be regarded as conservatives in the sense that, fearing the loss of power and privileges, they do not support any major structural change in the system. They dislike Ahmadinejad because he threatens their power and privileges by advocating policies that could lead to structural changes in favour of military-security elements to the detriment of the clergy. In the broader political sense, however, neither Rafsanjani nor Khatami could be described as conservative. A genuine conservative is opposed to all revolutions, denying the legitimacy, though obviously not the reality, even of those that have already happened in history. Neither Rafsanjani nor Khatami, however, would be prepared to do what Boris Yeltsin had the courage to do: that is to declare the revolution as a national historical tragedy and invite the people to move beyond it. A genuine conservative is bestowed with the gift of what one might call strategic patience. He knows that change brought about by violence and terror is always worse than no change at all. Supporting reform rather than radical social and political surgery, the true conservative wants to preserve what is worth keeping and gradually abandoning what is no longer useful, relevant or dignified. While revolutionaries are pessimists, in the sense that they cannot trust human beings to have the intelligence or the will to look after their own affairs, a genuine conservative is an optimist. He trusts people to discover their own best interests and choose the wisest way to organise their individual and collective affairs. The key point is to keep the people informed, providing them with as many of the elements as needed for making their own judgment. A genuine conservative wants a relatively weak state alongside a very powerful society. For the conservative, the best economic policy is one that encourages individual enterprise, private property and free trade. He is against handouts and subsidies. He knows that giving a hungry man a fish would feed him for a day while teaching him how to fish could keep his table replenished for a lifetime. The conservative is also against high taxes. Because he wants a small government with a few limited but vital tasks, he opposes putting a large chunk of national wealth under state control. The conservative attaches great importance to allowing, and helping, the individual to make his voice heard. For him, freedom of expression is the baseline of all liberties. This is why he rejects political correctness, which is hypocrisy disguised as multicultural decorum. While the revolutionary dreams of world conquest and tries to "export" his ideology, the conservative is all for diversity within the human family. The revolutionary's dream of expansion always leads to war. The conservative's recognition of the rights of all peoples to manage their own affairs as they see fit, on the other hand, could promote peace. As always in human affairs, the ultimate difference is between war and peace. RSS 2.0: http://blogname.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default'alt=rss Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:31:27 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=67965312 2008-08-16T18:31:27Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=67756688 Amir Taheri: PAKISTAN'S economy is in free fall, while terrorists are trying to seize control of a chunk of its territory. The governing coalition's members can't agree on a common program - with some walking out of the government in fake protest and returning in even faker reconciliation. This is the time to start impeaching the president? Yes, Pakistan's new government has just made impeaching Pervez Musharraf its top priority. The absurd move could split the already fractious parliament and antagonize the military leaders who've always been reluctant to trust the politicians. It could encourage the Taliban-style groups that were crushed in last February's general election and lend credence to their claim that only they have the discipline a ruling party needs. A protracted battle over impeachment would distract the nation from the vital task of defeating the terrorists and consolidating the state's democratic foundations. And it will surely fail. To pass, impeachment needs two-thirds support in each house of parliament. In the lower house, the parties behind it can't master more than half of the 440 seats. In the upper, they may lack a simple majority. Sure, Musharraf is no choirboy. If he were, he'd never have reached the top of Pakistan's violent, intrigue-ridden politics. His 1999 coup d'etat was certainly illegal; his banishment of senior political leaders was despotic. His more recent eviction of senior High Court judges pushed the edge of illegality. And his decision last year to declare a state of emergency (later cancelled) can surely be painted as a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the constitution he himself wrote. That said, Musharraf was fairly elected president by direct (if not totally unblemished) vote. And he's done something no other Pakistani military ruler ever did: preside over free and fair elections that swept his political enemies to power. ... The problem is twofold. The two people pushing this bad idea are corrupt politicians who still are upset about being removed from office by the military. Perhaps they see Musharraf's removal as lessening an obstacle to their future corruption. There is also the problem of the emotional immaturity of many Pakistan politicians. Rather than focus on what should be their primary objective--removing the threat of Islamic religious bigots, they focus on old grudges. They just are not very smart. Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:18:00 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=67756688 2008-08-14T15:18:00Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=66875582 OBAMA’S AFGHAN ABSURDITIES By AMIR TAHERI SEN. Barack Obama’s plan to walk away from Iraq but in crease the US military role in Afghanistan may make political sense - satisfying his antiwar base while still coming off as forceful - but it’s a terrible strategy for his country. First, there’s no need to jettison the [...] Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:37:36 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=66875582 2008-08-06T17:37:36Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=66745413 Amir Taheri: SEN. Barack Obama 's plan to walk away from Iraq but in crease the US military role in Afghanistan may make political sense - satisfying his antiwar base while still coming off as forceful - but it's a terrible strategy for his country. First, there's no need to jettison the victory already won in Iraq - a victory that needs to be consolidated and made permanent. The United States has achieved its objectives - starting with ending the Ba'athist regime and enabling the Iraqis to devise a new system of government. It'd be foolish to abandon that magnificent success before the Iraqis themselves are able to defend it against internal and external enemies. But it's the Afghan angle that's the real puzzle. Obama says he wants to provide two more US brigades or battalions in Afghanistan. However, he doesn't seem to have asked himself what those troops are supposed to do . Such a force wouldn't be large enough to produce the "surge" effect witnessed in Iraq. But it would be large enough to persuade the NATO allies that they needn't bother to provide the added troops they've promised. Before Obama made his proposal, Germany promised 1,100 more troops; France, 800. Turkey, Poland and Italy also indicated readiness to send more men. By giving the impression that he wants to take over the war, Obama has let everyone else backtrack on promises of more troops and resources. His scheme also would give the impression that this is an "American war." Yet Afghanistan was for years a base for terrorist operations against many countries. The Chechen mujahedeen fighting Russia; the Islamic Liberation Party waging war on Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan; the anti-Indian Mujahedin in Kashmir, the Sword of Islam in the Philippines; the Islamic Front leading an armed revolt in Thailand and the Uighur jihadists fighting China in East Turkistan (Xingjian) - all had safe havens and training camps in Afghanistan. And many young Muslims with European passports have gone to Afghanistan for military training and political indoctrination. With the Afghan project serving the interests of so many nations, what the United States needs is a more dynamic diplomacy to mobilize greater international support for the effort. Giving the impression that America will do the job alone might also let the Afghans off the hook. President Hamid Karzai's government has lost much popularity and run out of ideas; it may see the arrival of more US troops as a signal it no longer needs to reform, reach out to the legitimate opposition or gird for a serious fight against the Taliban and other terror groups in the Pushtun provinces. ... The article does highlight Obama's lack of strategic vision. I am not sure that not sending troops would induce more from those who have failed to produce in the past. It is Obama's willingness to squander the strategic victory in Iraq that is most troublesome. since he opposed it he at best seems to want to ignore it. It should not be an either or choice. Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:52:00 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=66745413 2008-08-05T15:52:00Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=66954768 Amir Taheri, 5/8/08 While US presidential rivals John McCain and Barack Obama debate whether the “surge” has worked or not, the subject of their debate may no longer be relevant. The “surge” was about beefing up US troops in Iraq to enable the new Iraqi army to move onto the offensive against Al Qaida, the Sunni [...] Tue, 05 Aug 2008 06:26:06 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=66954768 2008-08-05T06:26:06Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=66216480 Amir Taheri Writed in the Times warns of rising Islamism in North Africa, especially Morocco : Women in jeans or mini-skirts have all but disappeared from public, along with all females who favoured the colourful dress of the Berber. One sees countless women draped in black that remind one of Hitchcock’s The Birds. … Fewer and fewer places serve alcohol, and parts of the main cities are becoming no-go areas for foreign tourists. Robert Sharp was in Morocco less that two weeks ago on holiday, and this doesn’t sound like the place he visited. here is her experience about Morocco. It was difficult, though not impossible, to get alcohol in the old Medinas, but outside the city walls it was not a problem. And I remember being surprised at seeing young, local girls in Western clothing - not hot-pants, admittedly, but certainly figure-hugging outfits, strappy tops, make-up and jeans. Likewise with the Berber outfits, of which we saw plenty. Indeed, it was the black-clad munaqqaba who stood out, because they were an unusual sight. Its true that hijabs reign, but that’s not in itself a sign of Islamic extremism. Nor did there appear to be any no-go areas for tourists. Indeed, our favourite afternoon was in Meknes, where we cautiously wandered into the back alleys of the Medina, to escape the pungent smell of the souqs . Far from feeling threatened or harassed, they were greeted with smiles and ‘hellos’ around every corner. Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:14:43 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=66216480 noreply@blogger.com (Moroccan Beauty) 2008-07-31T15:14:43Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=66094604 Amir Taheri, Times [UK]: On Monday the Iraqi Army launched a large-scale offensive in Diyala north of Baghdad to wipe out al-Qaeda's last remaining hideouts in the country. Since the tide of the war turned last winter, thousands of al-Qaeda jihadists have fled Iraq. Some returned home and resumed normal life. Others, looking for new places to pursue their holy war against “Zionists and Crusaders”, ended up in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Thailand and helped to reignite the fires of jihad. However, North Africa appears to have attracted the largest number of returnees. According to the buzz in jihadist circles, confirmed by officials and analysts, a new arc of terror is taking shape in Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Mauritania - the five countries of the so-called Arab Maghreb in North Africa. [...] MORE Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:44:00 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=66094604 noreply@blogger.com (Tim) 2008-07-30T18:44:00Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=66072300 Amir Taheri: On Monday the Iraqi Army launched a large-scale offensive in Diyala north of Baghdad to wipe out al-Qaeda's last remaining hideouts in the country. Since the tide of the war turned last winter, thousands of al-Qaeda jihadists have fled Iraq. Some returned home and resumed normal life. Others, looking for new places to pursue their holy war against “Zionists and Crusaders”, ended up in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Thailand and helped to reignite the fires of jihad. However, North Africa appears to have attracted the largest number of returnees. According to the buzz in jihadist circles, confirmed by officials and analysts, a new arc of terror is taking shape in Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Mauritania - the five countries of the so-called Arab Maghreb in North Africa. Algeria was first struck by Islamic terror in 1986. Seven years of violence were triggered by the Front for the Islamic Salvation (FIS) in 1992, but by 2000, the Army and groups of armed citizens had crushed the FIS and its more violent offshoots. In 2006 Algerian jihadists announced a merger with al-Qaeda to create al-Qaeda in the Maghreb. Since then they have received huge sums of money and quantities of arms from al-Qaeda sympathisers in the Gulf states, enabling them to make a timid - though no less deadly - comeback. By all accounts, Algeria may be facing a new round of the War against Terror as it faces mounting political and economic problems. In the first phase of the war, Algerian jihadists never used suicide tactics. In recent months they have carried out at least four such operations, indicating total adoption of al-Qaeda tactics. They have also tried to kill President Bouteflika on at least four occasions. The latest plot was uncovered last week, 24 hours before a provincial visit. Last month the President invited Ahmed Ouyahya, the architect of Algeria's victory against the terrorists, to assume the premiership again. His return acknowledges that the policy of cuddling the Islamists, preached by the former Premier, Abdulaziz Belkhadem, has failed. While Algeria is well prepared to face a resurgence of jihadism, Morocco, long recognised as one of the most moderate and peaceful countries in the Muslim world, may prove more vulnerable. Visitors returning after three or four years would be struck by changes in the urban scenery. The number of al-Qaeda-style beards has grown along with the number of neo-hijab headscarves designed to identify women as partisans of jihad. Women in jeans or mini-skirts have all but disappeared from public, along with all females who favoured the colourful dress of the Berber. One sees countless women draped in black that remind one of Hitchcock's The Birds. Jihadist propaganda is sold on the streets in stalls provided by the municipal authorities. Fewer and fewer places serve alcohol, and parts of the main cities are becoming no-go areas for foreign tourists. Over the past year, almost 1,000 people have been arrested in connection with terrorism after attacks that claimed at least 60 lives. ... This sounds like bad news for Rick's Place in Casablanca. Actually dressing women in funny clothes and making men wear facial hair is happening all over the middle east. It is the uniform of the enemies of civilization. But, if the story begins with a familiar lead, it is because the same story was written seven years ago when we messed up al Qaeda's play pen in Afghanistan. The cock roaches continue to scatter when the light is turned on them. Dispersal has not added much to al Qaeda's strength. In the end cock roaches can make a mess, but they can't take the house away. Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:48:00 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=66072300 2008-07-30T15:48:00Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=66066396 The NY Post’s Amir Taheri questions the purpose of Sen. Obama’s trip in his latest column. Consider it today’s must reading. Let Mr. Taheri’s excoriation begin: TERMED a “learning” trip, Sen. Barack Obama’s eight- day tour of eight nations in the Middle East and Europe turned out to be little more than a series of photo [...] Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:01:26 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=66066396 2008-07-30T15:01:26Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=65940354 Amir Taheri: TERMED a "learning" trip, Sen. Barack Obama 's eight- day tour of eight nations in the Middle East and Europe turned out to be little more than a series of photo ops to enhance his international credentials. "He looked like a man in a hurry," a source close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week. "He was not interested in what we had to say." Still, many Iraqis liked Obama's claim that the improved situation in Iraq owed to Iraqi efforts rather than the Gen. David Petraeus-led surge. In public and private comments, Obama tried to give the impression that the Iraqis would've achieved the same results even without the greater resources America has poured into the country since 2007. In private, though, Iraqi officials admit that Obama's analysis is "way off the mark." Without the surge, the Sunni tribes wouldn't have switched sides to help flush out al Qaeda. And the strong US military presence enabled the new Iraqi army to defeat Iran-backed Shiite militias in Basra and Baghdad. Nevertheless, in public at least, no Iraqi politician wants to appear more appreciative of American sacrifices than the man who may become the next US president. Iraqis were most surprised by Obama's apparent readiness to throw away all the gains made in Iraq simply to prove that he'd been right in opposing the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein. "He gave us the impression that the last thing he wanted was for Iraq to look anything like a success for the United States," a senior Iraqi official told me. "As far as he is concerned, this is Bush's war and must end in lack of success, if not actual defeat." Even so, Obama knows that most Americans believe they're still at war with an enemy prepared to use terror against them. So he can't do what his antiwar base wants - declare an end to the War on Terror and the start of a period of love and peace in which "citizens of the world" build bridges between civilizations. That's why Obama is trying to adopt Afghanistan as "his" war. He claims that Bush's focus on Iraq has left Afghanistan an orphan in need of love and attention. Even though US military strategy is to enable America to fight two major wars simultaneously, Obama seems to believe that only one war is possible at a time. ... Today, with the sole exception of Spain (where the mildly anti-American Socialist Party is in power), pro-US parties govern Europe. These parties feel pressure from the Bush administration to translate their pro-American claims into actual support for the Afghanistan war effort. By promising to shoulder the burden, Obama is letting the European allies off the hook. Obama doesn't seem to have noticed the European scene's subtleties. Despite his claim that he came to listen, he seems to have heard nothing of interest during his 10,000-mile trip. ... The Iraqis have reason to be troubled by Obama's position regardless of what they say in public. Obama's position is that they would be better off with a genocidal despot still in power, and barring that with a terror regime run by supporters of al Qaeda. His position that the Iraqis could have defeated al Qaeda without the US surge is ignorant on several levels. It shows an ignorance of cunterinsurgency warfare which is guided by tring to get the host nation forces into the battle. That was one of the principal accomplishments of Petreaus strategy. Getting the new Iraqi army forces into the action and flipping the "Sons of Iraq" forces created the force to space ration needed to cut off the enemy's movementto contact and it also protected the people so that the provided intelligence on enemy operations. Taheri's point on the Europeans is interesting too. In fact Obama is not only taking the pressure off them with his policy, he is also taking the pressure off of al Qaeda with his retreat from Iraq. Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:28:00 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=65940354 2008-07-29T15:28:00Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=65908849 According Amir Taheri, a noted authority on Middle East affairs, the Iraqi officials were not very impressed with the antiwar Illinois senator and said that Obama's analysis is "way off the mark." The US soldiers stationed in Iraq don't look so thrilled to be sitting with the the Far Left senator who still cannot admit the surge was a great success despite the incontrovertible evidence . Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, speaks with and enjoys breakfast with Lt. Col. Miguel Hobbs, a native of Columbia, Ill.; Spc. Anthony Graziani, a native of Chicago Heights, Ill.; and Sgt. Marquita Hollins of Chicago, Ill., at a dining facility in Baghdad’s International Zone, July 22, 2008. The Soldiers serve with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Multi-National Division – Baghdad. ( DVIDS ) Taheri's sources make Obama sound as loony and nuts as he did during the Couric interview . Amir Taheri at The New York Post reported: "He looked like a man in a hurry," a source close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week. "He was not interested in what we had to say." Still, many Iraqis liked Obama's claim that the improved situation in Iraq owed to Iraqi efforts rather than the Gen. David Petraeus-led surge. In public and private comments, Obama tried to give the impression that the Iraqis would've achieved the same results even without the greater resources America has poured into the country since 2007. In private, though, Iraqi officials admit that Obama's analysis is "way off the mark." Without the surge, the Sunni tribes wouldn't have switched sides to help flush out al Qaeda. And the strong US military presence enabled the new Iraqi army to defeat Iran-backed Shiite militias in Basra and Baghdad. Nevertheless, in public at least, no Iraqi politician wants to appear more appreciative of American sacrifices than the man who may become the next US president. Iraqis were most surprised by Obama's apparent readiness to throw away all the gains made in Iraq simply to prove that he'd been right in opposing the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein. "He gave us the impression that the last thing he wanted was for Iraq to look anything like a success for the United States," a senior Iraqi official told me. "As far as he is concerned, this is Bush's war and must end in lack of success, if not actual defeat." Even so, Obama knows that most Americans believe they're still at war with an enemy prepared to use terror against them. So he can't do what his antiwar base wants - declare an end to the War on Terror and the start of a period of love and peace in which "citizens of the world" build bridges between civilizations. Having announced his strategy before embarking on his "listening tour," he couldn't be expected to change his mind simply because facts on the ground offered a different picture. In Paris, a friendly reporter asked the Illinois senator if there was anything that he'd heard or seen during his visit that might persuade him to alter any aspect of his polices. Obama's answer was clear: no. Of course, most of us already knew that Obama and his Democratic colleagues were dead set against winning this war in Iraq. This is just further confirmation. Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:30:00 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=65908849 2008-07-29T12:30:00Z http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=65905866 He being, of course, the future President of Earth. Why should He listen to anybody when He has all the answers? Of course, those answers might be different tomorrow, depending on focus group polling and spin from his media handlers. Amir Taheri lays the smackdown on Obama's World Tour of Self-Absorption. Photo Ops and Fecklessness.TERMED a "learning" trip, Sen. Barack Obama's eight- day tour Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:27:00 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/Amir+Taheri?rinfoid=65905866 2008-07-29T11:27:00Z