A BITTER CLARK: I still haven't decided on which Presidentail candidate to back, but Kevin Drum notes this Fox News interview with Wesley Clark.

Fox: On Meet the Press you said the following: "President Bush has said [the war in Iraq] is the centerpiece for the war on terror. It isn't. It's a sideshow. It's simply their easiest means of access to attack American soldiers. That's all it is."

Do you really think Iraq is only a sideshow?

Clark: The war on terror is a terrible distraction. We should have gone directly after Osama bin Laden....We should be putting a full court press on finding Osama bin Laden....

Fox: While our men and women are dying in Iraq, is it proper to call it a sideshow?

Clark: Our men and women in Iraq are doing a fabulous job....Don't you dare twist word into disrespect for our men and women in uniform....You better take my words the right way....

A Democrat with a backbone--that's a first.

LANAT UPON THE HARABISTS: They don't care anymore. Al-Qaeda is ready and they aren't sparing anyone. Jews, Christians, Muslims, secularists. Anyone that doesn't agree to their twisted and misguided form of Islam is a target.

A bit of history here, Turkish Jews are the descendants of communities who fled the Reconquista and the Inquisition of Spain. They left the Iberian Peninsula along with Arabs and Muslims with whom they lived for centuries. They were persecuted by Christians, when its institutions were managed by ruthless theocracies. It was a Muslim Caliph who opened his lands to them. The highest Islamic institution, the Caliphate granted the authority to accept the Jews on Muslim lands. The Ottoman Sultan granted them political asylum and the right to live in security. And Muslims today should continue to do so.

UPDATE: Whatever my beef and huge disagreements with Chris Hitchens (he doesn't like to be called "Chris" I've heard), he basically adds to what I wrote earlier:

Whatever its faults, Turkey is a society with many elements of pluralism and democracy. (Just last week, in accordance with its expressed desire to conform with EU rules, it abolished capital punishment.) It also has a tradition of hospitality, offered in traditional Islamic terms, to the Jewish people. When expelled and dispossessed by Christian Europe, the Sephardim found refuge under the protection of the Caliph, in dominions of Islam as far apart as Bosnia and Baghdad. From this latest outrage, then, we can see how false the Bin Ladenists are, even to their own expressed reverence for a lost Muslim empire. The worshippers at the Neve Shalom were not killed for building a settlement in the West Bank: They were members of a very old and honorable community who were murdered for being Jews. Their Turkish neighbors were casually murdered as "collateral damage."

I still think Hitchens is dissillusional. He tries so incredibly hard to tie Hussein's Baathism to al-Qaeda's "Islamofascism," as he does in today's Slate.

In recent attacks from those gangs who have been busily fusing Saddamism with Bin Ladenism...

Just take a look at this Salon recountof the debate between Hitchens and journalist Mark Danner. As the article notes, he's become a party hack; he's lost grip on reality.

He's a loss though. Sigh.

NEWS ROUND-UP: Several Afghan newspapers have been reporting that there were student protests at Balkh University against the new draft of the constitution. The protestors walked through the streets of the Mazer-E-Sharif, stopping at the office of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Afghanistan and than demanded that a) Uzbek should be recognized as the official language of the country alongside Dari and Pashto b) balance among the languages should be applied as far as the national anthem, banknotes and military ranks c) the title of "Father of the Nation" (granted to the king Zahir Shah) should be given to a person who has made some achievements d) primary and higher education should be available free of charge to the people as in the past e) the process of elections should be monitored by the United Nations f) a national of Afghanistan should be called "Afghanistani" rather than "Afghan" g) the first language of the country should be determined by people's votes. Good news and very interesting, to say the least.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai issued a decree on the voters' registration for the 2004 election, on Wednesday. The decree set up rules for voter registration and creates the Joint Election Office to monitor and registrate voters. Registration is set to begin on December 1 and will continue into the middle of next year. The office's deputy Afran Abdul-Rahman of Mauritius, issued a special plea Thursday, asking Afghanistan's women to turn out for the registration and voting.

RFE/RL's Amin Tarzi has an analyse on women rights and the use of force under the draft of the new constitution. He also has the latest from Afghanistan.

ALL HAIL THE NY TIMES: A standing ovation for the New York Times, please. The paper has been notably absent on the Afghan front and they haven't been the only one. In Saturday's edition we find an excellent op-ed by Nicholas Kristof. I was ready to fisk it, but Kristof got everything right. The second op-ed focuses on the draft of the new constitution. It addresses " troubling aspects" and I tend to agree with some of the points.

[I]t says the members of the Supreme Court should be educated in either civil law or Islamic law, a provision that raises the possibility of more judges who base their rulings on the Koran rather than civil law. Finally, although women would become part of the government, there is no separate acknowledgment of rights for women, a basic need for a country with Afghanistan's painful history.

I already touched upon the Supreme Court, not because it bases rulings on the Qu'ran but since it has the ability to interpret the laws coming out of the Parliament.

The previous Afghan constitutions have basically said the same thing about women rights as this draft--nothing. They all speak of the rights of the "people;" not male or female. So I'm not quite sure if it would be feasible to be inserted in the final version.

One other thing I what bothered me was the degree of power that has been given to the provinces and districts. Numbers of provinces or districts have not been decided. The draft establishes 'Provincial Councils' headed by a chairman. It is not clear whether this chairman is to take up administrative tasks of the provincial government or serves as a head of the legislature. For example, if he is given executive powers then he is practically the governor of the province. In this case he would be wearing two hats, which is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. If Provincial Councils are legislatures, then the document should say so and expound on their responsibilities. It should then define the executive power for the province as well. A better system of distribution of power would have been giving the provinces the right to elect their own executives and the Provincial Councils to serve as local legislative assemblies.

BLAIR'S BETRAYAL: Sidney Blumenthal's column appeared in today's Guardian (originally read on Salon.com) and revealed the following:

Abu Mazen was scheduled to come to Washington to meet Bush a month later. For his political survival, he desperately required US pressure on the Sharon government to make concessions on building settlements on the West Bank. Abu Mazen sent a secret emissary to the White House: Khalil Shikaki. I met Shikaki in Ramallah, where he gave his account of this urgent trip. He met Elliot Abrams and laid out what support was needed from Bush if Abu Mazen - and therefore the road map - were to survive. Abrams told him, he says, that Bush "could not agree to anything" due to domestic political considerations: Bush's reliance on the religious right, his refusal to offend the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the demands of the upcoming election. Shikaki pleaded that Abu Mazen presented "a window of opportunity" and could not go on without US help. "He has to show he's capable of doing it himself," Abrams answered dismissively.

Inside the NSC, those in favour of the road map - CIA analysts Flynt Leverett and Ben Miller among others - were forced out. On September 6, Abu Mazen resigned, and the road map collapsed.

Two thing to note here: First, I'm simply astounded that Abbas would send someone like Shikaki as his envoy. Shikaki is widely hated in the occupied territories for misinterpreting polls it sure looks like Abbas could trust no one.

Secondly, note Elliot Abrams' role in undermining the road map. He's one to look out for in the future.

40 HOURS OF DEBATE AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY T-SHIRT: An Washington Post reporters' account of the 39-hour talkathon:

7:05 -- Downstairs, in the Mansfield Room, the Democrats are holding a pep rally for supporters, some of whom wear T-shirts that read: "We Confirmed 98% of Bush's Judges And All We Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt." Pumping his pasty fist into the air, Ted Kennedy bellows, "We are not going to be a rubber stamp for right-wing ideological judges."

From the same Style section...

"She probably needs to get laid." -- Britney Spears, offering an obsolete prescription for Kendel Ehrlich, pregnant wife of Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich, as reported by the New York Post. In October, Kendel made an off-the-cuff remark about shooting the singer.

Congress and Britney: today's rollmodels.

HIGH ON HEROIN: Even though the Qu'ran strongly forbids Muslims from producing or imbibing intoxicants (5:91, 92, and 2:219), the Taliban provided a safe haven for poppy farmers. The cultivation of opium, as stated by Abdul Rashid, the then-anti-drugs control force in Kandahar, was permissible only "because it is consumed by kafirs [unbelievers] in the West and not by Muslims or Afghans." Rashid knew well that by making sure that farmers could freely cultivate their poppies, heroin would be cheaper on the streets of New York. It also made sure that people wouldn't rebel against the Taliban.

The Taliban had quickly realized the need to formalize the drugs economy in order to raise revenue. After capturing Kandahar, the Taliban quickly began colleting Islamic tax, or zakar, on all farmers and dealers moving opium, but the Taliban had no religious qualms in collect 20% of the value of a truckload. It made Pakistani dealers rich and helped Taliban fund weapons, ammunition and fuel.

The cultivation of poppies was also a tool for blackmail. Between 1997 and 1999, the Taliban repeatedly offered to substitute poppies for cash crop if the United States and United Nations would give it international recognition. The huge increase in drug trafficking and addicts in neighboring Asian countries prompted the United Nations Drug Control Program (UNDCP) to conclude an agreement after 6 months of negotiating in October of 1997. The Taliban would squash opium cultivation if the international community would help substitute it for crops. The deal was welcomed optimistically, but the deal was never implemented. The Taliban failed to live up to its obligations, the international agency failed to back it with a bigger UNDCP-budget and U.N. agencies pulled out in 1998.

THE AFGHAN OPIUM BOOM: Yesterday, Afghan foreign minister Dr. Abdullah was at the Voice of America where he gave interviews to the Dari and Pashto services. I met and spoke to him briefly. He raised his concerns on the re-emergence of the Taliban and instability caused by the former in the southern provinces; he blamed Pakistani for ignoring the Taliban activity inside its borders. In the interviews, he also addressed the concern of poppy production.

On Monday, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime released a report in which it expected that Afghanistan was to produce 3,960 tons of opium worth about $2.3 billion, which is equal to half of Afghanistan's gross domestic product. No wonder the Afghan economy is in full bloom. I sympathize with the average Joe Mohammad, who cultivates poppies to make a living, to support his family and to survive. As this Washington Post article stresses, most poppy cultivators are simply small farmers. It's hard for the average Afghan farmer to ditch opium and live an honest earning, simply because there's a limited amount of alternatives. Unfortunately, it also feeds social ills and undermines the reconstruction. There's no easy solution and there won't be one for a while.

CONSTITUTION BRIEFING: What follows is a transcript of a press briefing by Dr. Farooq Wardak, Director of the Constitutional Commission Secretariat, in Kabul last Sunday. It might be of interest to some of you.

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I am very pleased to be with you. Thank you all for attending this meeting and thank you to UNAMA for arranging this facility which is one of the best to inform the international community about different important programmes, including the Constitution making process.

The draft Constitution was released on 3 November. So far, we have produced 7,000 official copies, of which 5,500 were distributed to the post office yesterday to be sent to all the provinces and districts. Each province will get 30 copies and each district will get 10 copies. Another 15,000 copies of our official publication, Asasi Qanoon, which contains both the draft and the report, will be sent out. Five thousand of these will go to regional and provincial offices and the remaining 10,000 will be distributed to embassies, ministries and different institutions. Another 100,000 copies are being printed which are in two sizes, a book size and a passport size. Out of this, 40,000 will be distributed by Killeed and Mursal, while the remaining 60,000 will be distributed by our own regional offices and the regional offices of UNAMA.

We have devised a comprehensive public education programme involving the offices of the Secretariat and the Commission. The Commission has assigned four committees, which are made up of members of the Commission. The first committee is media monitoring. This monitors all aspects of media reporting, collects information on the constitution, and briefs the Commission. The second is the rapid response unit, which explains the points that are under question or which need more clarity. The third is the writing of a book on the Constitution to orient the members of the Constitutional Loya Jirga.

The fourth committee, consisting of eight members, is responsible for going to the regional offices to educate voters during the election stage. Registration, which is the pre-requisite for the election, was completed on 5 November in all 32 provinces. This started on 21 September. So far, we have 73.2 percent of the voters registered and registration is taking place in our own offices and will go on up to five days before the election begins. This percentage that I have given you does not include data on Nangarhar, Kabul and Kandahar. It will be added later today to the percentage, which may then go up to 75 percent. Elections in two provinces, Badakhshan and Ghor, were already conducted and they went very well. Elections for special categories are going according to the timetable. Elections for women were completed yesterday for 15 provinces and in the remaining provinces it is on going. For the other four categories, such as refugees, internally displaced people, nomads and minorities, the election is going on in four different stages. The first is the composition of a national advisory committee, which is completed for all categories. The second is the identification of election zones for each of the categories as per the population of these people. Then there are phase one elections and phase two elections. A phase one election is an election for electors, and phase two is for the candidates. For all five categories, the first three stages have been completed, which means establishment of the advisory committees, identification of election zones and first phase elections. For some of the categories, the second phase of the election has been completed.

We have been faced with some problems, some intimidation and some security problems. I am sure you have been informed that in the Ghor election, a deputy minister of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs was elected. We did not know that he was sitting and a functioning deputy minister. After it was noted, we had to cancel his election and the re-election took place the day before yesterday in a successful way. There were other security incidents, which have been tackled in
adequate ways by the office of the Secretariat.

If there are any questions, I would be more than happy to respond.

Question: What has been the most frequent question on the draft constitution so far?

Dr. Wardak: We have been getting two types of comments. One type of comment that we have been getting from the majority of the people is praise for the Constitution, saying that it is really balanced and takes into account the hopes and needs of Afghanistan today and in the future. And of course we are getting some negative views from different parts as you may know. From some parts of the country we are getting, for example, questions as to why Pashtu is not the
national language. And from some parts they want a restoration of the monarchy. And some other places they were going for federalism. These are the three major types of comments that we are getting.

Question: You mentioned the security problems in Ghor when the election had to be redone but I understand there was a more serious security problem in Badakhshan with physical threats against the candidates? Do you know anything about that?

Dr. Wardak: Nothing of that nature has been reported to us by the international observers provided by UNAMA and the non-governmental organizations. No one has formally reported any serious intimidation in Badakhshan. Rather everyone has been speaking about it very well and that it took place in a very peaceful environment.

MUST-READS FOR TODAY: I usually don't link to blogposts without giving some context or commenting myself, but here are some things you should read today: Brian Ulrich has a story on the struggle of Afghan Hindus, and he also fisks Martin Kramer.

Dan Darling has an excellent analysis on the situation in Saudi Arabia. And finally, Aziz has a post on the meaning of jihad and the abuse of the term. He also links to an older comment piece written by him, and one I'm glad I have read, on what terrorism really is; harabah, and not jihad; making the perpetrators of terrorism harabists and not jihadists. From now on, I will refer to calls for jihad by bin Laden and ilk as hirabah and refer to those who answer the call as harabists.

BIRD EYE'S VIEW: From the Afghan newspaper Ayina-e Zan…

The text of the draft constitution of the country which is based on tenets of the holy religion of Islam, social justice, national sovereignty and democracy has been presented to the people after keeping them waiting for months.

What will be people's judgment about the text of the draft constitution is a separate issue, but the fact that the respectable Review Commission of the Constitution still says that the draft is not finalized and is asking for more views is a considerable issue.

How much have the members of the commission incorporated the views of the people in the existing draft? Although, the draft presents a law which is feasible in the current situation of Afghanistan, what will be the solution to differences between the president and the parliament once a parliament is formed and political parties are represented in it? This issue is vague and the draft constitution does not provide an answer to it. As long as fundamental rights and duties of citizens are concerned there are good articles about them and it is overall an appropriate law.

It merits a mention that due to a number of reasons this national document was handed over to the president secretly without holding a formal ceremony and in the absence of the Father of Nation (the former king Mohammad Zaher Shah), senior government officials and representatives of the diplomatic corps. What differences were brought to first draft after it was submitted to the head of state cannot be explained. But let us hope for the prosperity of the nation and welfare of the society. Otherwise, this national document will lose its quality and value and according to an analyst it will only be a piece of paper blackened.

THE CONTROVERSY OVER MISS AFGHANISTAN: You might be interested in what I have to say on Vida Samadzai, better known as Afghanistan. Ms. Samadazai will be the first person in more than 30 years to compete in the Miss Earth pageant next week. From burqa to bikini! "AMERICA 100, TALIBAN 0: This says it all," Glenn Reynolds enthusiastically proclaimed. But do I think this--an Afghan and Muslim woman to show off in a bikini in front of so many people--is a good thing? Yes and no. First off, a little bit of background on Islam in Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, it didn't matter whether you were rich or poor, king or mujahedin, Marxist or tribe leader: Afghans of all ways of life are Muslims. I acknowledge that I'm biased on this position, but Islam in Afghanistan has been traditionally tolerant. Tolerant to other faiths and tolerant to other sects. Until 1992, Hindus, Sikhs and Jews played a significant role in the country's economy. (Hindus and Sikhs arrived in Afghanistan with the British as camp followers in the 19th century. Afghan Jewry dates back 2,700 years.) Islam has deep roots in Afghanistan because Sharia governed the legal process until 1925, after which King Amanullah introduced civil legal code. Around 80% of Afghans belong to the Hanafi school of though, the more liberal of the four schools. Shiite Islam is predominant amongst the Hazaras, a handful of Pashtun tribes, and a few Tajik clans.

Another moderating factor for Islam in Afghanistan was the popularity of Sufism, the trend of mystical Islam. The two main Sufi orders, the Naqshbandiyah and Qaderiyah, both played major role in the jihad against Soviets. The main Sufi resistance leader and the only remaining member of his family, Sibghatullah Mujaddedi, teamed up with King Zahir Shah to form the Mahaz-e-Mili, but were sidelined by the CIA and the Pakistani ISI. Instead, both chose for far extremists like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and later the Taliban.

Moderation was standard, even throughout the jihad, until 1992. After 1992, brutal civil war destroyed moderation and consensus. The war divided Islamic sects, ethnic groups and tribes in a way never experienced before. In 1995, Ahmed Shah Massoud massacred Hazaras in Kabul; Hazaras and Tajik were massacred likewise by the Taliban in 1997; and Taliban did so likewise to Uzbeks in 1998. No side was left unharmed. These events and years of oppressive rule by the Taliban have left Afghanistan as one of the most conservative Muslim societies in the world. In addition to the religious norm, there's also the cultural norm. One such example is purdah: the concept of keeping women shrouded from unrelated men.

So it shouldn't be a surprising that the minister of women's affairs, the Supreme Court and the Kabul religious scholars' committee condemned Ms. Samadazai. Today's Afghan society does disapprove of Ms. Samadazai, but society should not decide a woman's freedom. Ms. Samadazai can go to the beach in a bikini, but she should not represent Afghanistan at the Miss Earth pageant. At least, not for now. Afghanistan will be ready for things like feminism and Miss Earth pageants. Women walking in high heels and skirts are not unprecedented and Zohra Daoud was the last Miss Afghanistan in 1972. There is, however, a middle ground between freedom and things like Joe Millionaire or Average Joe. Right now, women in bikinis will just give ammunition to the conservatives and slow the empowerment of women in Afghanistan.

There's a religious and cultural minefield in Afghanistan. And it will take a while until that field is safe to travel over.

NOTE: The Supreme Court's attempt to charge her with a non-existing (or some vaguely-described) crime is totally ridiculous. They should spent their time condeming and charging murderers--more than enough of those in Afghanistan.

CHARLES OF ARABIA: The Middle East Forum's (yes, the one started by Daniel Pipes) claims it aim is "to define and promote American interests in the Middle East." Their latest assessment of the least radical Islamic threat? Prince Charles may have converted to Islam. Imagine the horror.

TUMBS DOWN FROM NRO: Hmmm. The National Review Online's verdict on the new Afghan constitution? "Taliban-lite".

BAD MUSLIM VS BAD MUSLIM: I couldn't pass without discussing this weekends' bombings in Riyadh, which Tacitus mischaracterizes as a battle between "fanatical extremists" on both sides. No doubt that al-Qaeda's terrorists are fanatical extremists, but I think he's wrong when he paints the House of Sa'ud as fanatical extremists. A majority of Saudi princes are all Westernized, modernized, pro-capitalist, pro-American members of al-Sa'ud. Hence they are no different than the infidel Americans, in bin Laden's view. However, al-Qaeda isn't the only Islamic extremist enemy the Saudis have faced. The Ikhwan turned against King Abd-al-Aziz in 1930 because of continued modernization and the increased number of non-Muslims in the Kingdom. Sound familiar? The only reason the Saudis signed a deal with Osama bin Laden, the devil himself, was because of his continued criticism of the House of Sa'ud and increased popularity. Al-Qaeda's attempt to bring insecurity in the Kingdown, by targeting soft targets such as the Al-Nahkeel district, is also an attempt to bring down the House of Sa'ud.

The significance of this event is big. The BBC has a summary of responses to the bombings by Saudi and Arab newspapers. Some Saudi princes are asking the same questions we are asking. Islamists have condemned the bombing, including the Muslim Brotherhood. They've turned their biggest supporters into their worst enemy.

IRAQ LOYA JIRGA: Progress in Iraq has no limits. Apparently our colonial puppets the Iraqi Governing Council isn't functioning as we would like. And I don't blame them. What? You didn't think people like Ahmed Chalabi would be lining their pockets? Well, I don't blame you for being naive either.

The United States is deeply frustrated with its hand-picked council members because they have spent more time on their own political or economic interests than in planning for Iraq's political future, especially selecting a committee to write a new constitution, the officials added. "We're unhappy with all of them. They're not acting as a legislative or governing body, and we need to get moving," said a well-placed U.S. official who spoke on the condition anonymity. "They just don't make decisions when they need to."

Ambassador Robert Blackwill, the new National Security Council official overseeing Iraq's political transition, begins an unannounced trip this weekend to Iraq to meet with Iraqi politicians to drive home that point. He is also discussing U.S. options with L. Paul Bremer, civilian administrator of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, U.S. officials said.

And you know that things are really going bad when they consider something the French proposed...or even worse: something we're doing in Afghanistan!

The United States is even considering a French proposal, earlier rejected, to create an interim Iraqi leadership that would emulate the Afghan model, according to U.S. and French officials. During the debate before the new United Nations resolution on postwar Iraq was passed Oct. 17, France and other Security Council members had proposed holding a national conference -- like the Afghan loya jirga -- to select a provisional government that would have the rights of sovereignty.

Among several options, the administration is also considering changing the order of the transition if it looks as though it could drag on much longer than the United States had planned. The United States has long insisted that a new constitution was the essential first step and elections the final phase in handing over power.

But now U.S. officials are exploring the possibility, again backed by other Security Council members, of creating a provisional government with effective sovereignty to govern until a new constitution is written and elections held. This is again similar to Afghanistan, where President Hamid Karzai has governed while a new national charter is written. Elections are due there next June, two years after the fall of the Taliban.

I'm completely unfamiliar with the tribal culture and system in Iraq, so I'm unable to judge if an Iraqi Loya Jirga is an option. (Cue to Juan Cole!)

UPDATE: This Post article on what's happening on the road between Baghdad and Tehran has the following sub-heading: "Road From Baghdad Is Paved With Upheaval and Uncertainty." They should be happy: the road between Kabul and Kandahar is so heavily damaged that we needed the Saudis in helping us paving it! And by the way, the road is getting only one layer instead of the usual three. It has to be finished by the end of the year so President Bush can gloat over the accomplishments he's made in Afghanistan: a finished but unusable highway.

ROBERT SPENCER UNVEILED: Robert Spencer, anti-Islamic "expert" and author of books with titles as "Islam Unveiled" (in which he spends most of his time quoting Khomeini), has a blog up called "Jihad Watch" to wage his own jihad (or is it crusade?) against Islam. He wrote the following in response to President Bush's speech on democracy in Muslim countries:

[T]he problem with the states he mentioned [Turkey, Indonesia, Senegal, Albania, Niger, Sierra Leone], although each is quite different from the other, is that none of them are "Islamic democracies." .... All have stepped away from Sharia in varying degrees in order to establish, insofar as they have, democratic rule.

This, as convincing as it sounds, is not true. Sharia is practiced in Indonesia's family courts and in Aceh's criminal courts. Instead of moving away, Indonesia has moved towards Sharia. But you wouldn't learn that from Robert Spencer.

Islamic democracies are a new brand of democracy. There's no guarantee that they'll be pro-Western or liberal democracies as known in the West. That analogy--and I'm sure it's going to be made in the future--is a false one.

MOROCCO AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS: On Thursday, I expressed skepticism at political reforms in the Arab world. But Morocco's King Mohammed VI has a pretty solid record.

Today, Arabicnews.com reports that, for the first time, a woman gave a religious lecture before an audience of scholars and theologians.

For the first time in the history of Morocco, a woman has given a religious lecture at the traditional lectures organized every Ramadan (fasting month) by the king of Morocco.

Rajaa Naji Mekkaoui, a university teacher, presented her lecture before King Mohammed VI at the royal palace in Rabat, which serves as a venue for such event. Her lecture before an audience of scholars and theologians from the Muslim World was entitled "The universality of the family structure in a world of multiple distinctive features." In her analysis, Mrs Mekkaoui congratulated the monarch for his "great role" in reforming the family code that gives women more rights.

The Ramadan religious lectures were instituted by the late king Hassan II in the eighties. They are attended by members of the government, high ranking military officials, foreign ambassadors accredited to Rabat and guests from the Muslim World.

Excellent news, to say the least. And hopefully permanent.

This is unrelated but interestingly, the Riyadh Daily is reporting that the Arab League will sent a delegation to Iraq next week.

AFGHAN CONSTITUTION: Brian Ulrich has some comments on the draft constitution and he plays down the hype about a "Taliban-lite" regime. Several people have responded differently to the heavier Islamic tone, in contrast to earlier constitutions, that this draft caries. An Iranian friend of mine was heavily disappointed and told me he'd absolutely wanted to make sure that Iran's future government would be one with a separation between state and mosque. All by all, I disagree with Brian. It's much fuzz, although seriously legitimate fuzz, about little. Keep an eye, though, on the Supreme Court, which has the ability to interpret the laws coming out of the legislative organ. (If Iran comes to your mind, there's a valid reason for it.)

Anyway, this Economist article is spot on (although I disagree that "the 1964 constitution... set the country on the path to 23 years of war") and much in sync with Amin Tarzi's analyse.

The constitution will also lay out the framework for next year's elections (likely to be pushed back now, from summer to autumn). The monarchy is out for good, though the present king will keep his title of "Father of the Country". In the monarch's place will be a directly elected president and a bicameral legislature. The constitution differs from its American model in being avowedly centralised. Afghanistan is too weak, the drafters think, to tolerate federalism just yet.

How might all this play out? The finer points of the draft will probably be the subject of wearisome debate by December, as different groups ready themselves for the elections. Politicking has already begun, which is perhaps good news in a country where disputes have for so long been solved by violence. The ex-communists will rebrand themselves on the left. A monarchist party will appear on the right. In the centre will be a loose movement of self-styled 'national unity' headed by Hamid Karzai, the incumbent president. The only credible threat to this centrist block might come from the possible creation of a jihadi party made up of former anti-Soviet guerrillas with conservative social views, bankrolled by Tajiks and headed by a sellable Pushtun.

GULBUDDIN: There are unconfirmed reports that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who has teamed up with Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters against the Afghan government, has recentely had secret talks with Hezb-E-Islami Jamiat-E Islami leader Burhanuddin Rabbani. Reports allege that Gulbuddin would reach a deal and lend support to the Northern Alliance. More on this later.

UPDATE: Thanks to Zack for pointing out that Rabbani heads the Jamiat-E-Islami party (largely Northern Alliance); Gulbuddin of course leads Hezb-E-Islami. A quick note: Rabbani and Gulbuddin aren't unfamiliar to each other. Gulbuddin once served as Rabbani's Prime Minister; later they fought together against Abdul Rashid Dostum and the Taliban. Most of the time I ignore these kinds of rumors, but these may not be totally fabricated. I wouldn't be surprised if it really did happen.

GOOD DICTATORS, BAD DICTATORS: President Bush discussed "freedom in Iraq and the Middle East" at the National Endowment for Democracy. In his speech, he praised Morocco, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Yemen, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

In Saudi Arabia, the reforms are presented as a step toward new political openness, with partial municipal elections plan-ned by the end of 2004. In Egypt, the son (and likely succesor) of President Hosni Mubarak promised reform that would allow more freedom to political parties and unions. In Morocco, King Mohammed VI has proposed a multi-stage process of local council elections within a framework of other reforms that have been stalled since terrorist bombings in May. In Jordan, King Abdullah II has called for the establishment of a Centre for Human Rights, a Higher Media Council and revived parliament after a two-year hiatus. In Kuwait, there is an extensive debate in both the legislature and society at large about a women's bill of rights, as well as other reforms.

So how much reform are we really talking about in the Arab countries? A gift given is a gift that can be taken back. Arab regimes that are offering a small degree of political openness are doing this not as a matter of citizens' rights, but as a "noble" act of generosity done at the pleasure of Washington. The United states remains the guarantor of the survival of the old repressive Arab order, whose keepers will continue to use security and the excuse of conflict with Israel to delay real political and economic reform at home. As one unnamed Arab diplomat said: ''His treatment of the various governments reflects their policy towards the United States. The more you applaud him, the more democratic you are. It's transparent and it's ridiculous.''

The United States disregards human rights records in favor of praising pro-American dictators. What message does this send to the liberals and reformers?

UPDATE: Abu Aardvark agrees...

[T]he US has not often been on the side of democracy in the Middle East, and there is very little sign that this is changing. The fundamental problem has always been that real democracy could bring to power popular groups which are not supportive of American foreign policy. And faced with a choice between Arab democracy and national interests, the US has almost always chosen the latter, for better or for worse. That's the reality, which no amount of Presidential spin can change. And the complete collapse of public support for the US among Arab public opinion attests to the overwhelming skepticism about American intentions.

... and delivers these hard-hitting words.

If Bush genuinely wants to promote Arab change and democracy, great - and I really mean that. But look at the deeds, and see if they match the words. Arabs do. What does Bush actually say, and what does he actually do? There is, despite everything, absolutely nothing in the speech that suggests a serious willingness to prioritize democracy over support for American foreign policy goals. And, quite frankly, there is nothing in Bush's foreign policy team to suggest that they prioritize democracy (although I might make a partial exception for Paul Wolfowitz, for reasons I might get into later).

Did I tell you that Abu's blog is a must-read?

THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS: The race for the Presidency of Afghanistan has started. No, really. Apparently, the constitutional commision had prepared a fundamentally different consitution than the one that was presented on Monday. The Northern Alliance had presented a system with a President, Prime Minister and a parliament, in which parliament would have significantly more power. Apparently, Karzai and his cabinet nixed the idea and instead adopted a strong Presidency; one with a vice-President and less parlimanentary power. One Jamiat-e-Islami official described it as a "second dictatorship."

Here's an editorial from the Afghan newspaper Ayine-e Zan titled "Civilian or Military? It is your choice" from a week or so ago.

After the transitional government of Afghanistan identified the newly formed coalition of armed mojahedin in the north, it approved and promulgated the new law on political parties. It is beyond doubt that the said law is a baby born before his mother if we take an analytical look at it. It is due to the fact that our constitution is still undergoing a review process and the law on political parties needs to complete its implementation stage. Secondly, a number of political circles convinced the transitional government and its international friends that the 2004 elections should be held in a secure and transparent environment to achieve overall satisfaction. Afghanistan is a country that has constantly throughout its history experienced a bitter situation after suffering from an internal problem, therefore, the leaders of Afghanistan are required to promulgate the best laws. The new law on political parties can be considered a complete plan aimed at ending political, factional and military crisis. However, concerns about the implementation of such good laws remain. Will the political and military leaders who constitute 85 per cent of Mr Karzai's cabinet automatically adopt happy civilian faces by tearing up their membership cards? Or will it lead to another situation where not two but several water melons have to be held in one hand?

CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS IT IS NOT: A short follow-up on my first post on whether this is a clash of civilizations, which I think it is not.

One of the reasons there are so many pundits and prominent academics who think that we are engaged, or will so in the future, in a war, a clash, of civilizations is the overestimation of the role of religion—[militant] Islam—in today’s international affairs. It must be realized that the West’s political and cultural experiences do not serve as a universal model; other forms of political and cultural organizations may be just as valid and functional. A Muslim country's rejection of a liberal and secular government doesn't mean it’s anachronism for the past. The West grasps it only dimly because it’s rooted in a close connection between religions and politics; a connection the West does not make and/or finds uncomfortable. The same goes for the concept of Jihad. Both grossly mischaracterized and misinterpreted by dictionaries and so-called experts alike.

Until we don’t accept this perspective, we won’t be able to defend ourselves. And until we change our ways in this troubled part of the world, the Islamic world’s grievances against the United States will remain a dogma for Osama bin Laden.

MUQTADA AL-STREET THUG: Juan Cole translates an article from last Sunday's al-Zaman, an Iraqi newspaper, after I tipped him off via e-mail.

The prominent Shiite Iraqi leader Muqtada al-Sadr called upon the American troops in his country to spare lives, and called them to unity and brotherhood with the Iraqi people. He affrimed that "Saddam Hussein and his followers are the enemies of Iraq, not the Americans." In a statement distributed in Najaf, excerpts of which were published in the newspaper al-Sabah [Saturday], he characterized the presence of US troops in Iraq as "that of guests", and described the Americans as a "peace-loving people." He described Saddam as a "sinful aggressor." He said, "The Iraqi people want only good for the Americans, and there is no enemy of Iraq except Saddam and his followers."

Sadr's popularity is driven by three his populist rhetoric against the U.S. occupation, personal charisma and his father's legacy. Maybe it's a sign that Sadr's influence and power may be tapering off. Maybe not.

THE ISLAMIC MATRIX CONNECTION: Via the AP's The Matrix timeline:

2080-85 — Rioting and violence against machines prompts robots to flee major cities and establish their own community — known as Zero One — in a remote part of the Middle East.

That would explain their obsession with destroying Zion, wouldn't it?

SOME BREAKING NEWS HERE: Today we're having local elections here in Virginia. Our county, Fairfax Country, purchased 1,000 electronic voting machines of which around 950 went into use today. Local news just reported that more than a handful of these simply broke down and they were taking to the County Board where it was to be fixed. However, law prevents such action--moving the machines that is. Now get this: Republicans filed suit in court today this afternoon.

Flori-duh indeed.

(Local news also reported that a first-grade teacher left a bomb-threat at an elementary school. I kid you not.)

AFGHAN CONSTITUTION: You can read the English translation of the draft in Word here.

IRAQ AND VIETNAM AFGHANISTAN: The title of this Slate article seems far more appropriate than what some Democrats and even Republicans have been saying.

THREE HOORAYS FOR THE WASHINGTON POST: In addition to being the only newspaper that has its eye on the ball (the ball being Afghanistan, of course), it's now publishing editorials on Pakistan's continued support for the Taliban--from inside Pakistan. And they're quoting Ahmed Rashid:

THE PAKISTANI CITY of Quetta lately has become more than a provincial capital; it might also be described as the new headquarters of the extremist Taliban movement, which ruled Afghanistan and sheltered Osama bin Laden until two years ago. According to one recent report by the respected Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, "Thousands of Taliban fighters reside in mosques and madrassas with the full support of a provincial ruling party and militant Pakistani groups. Taliban leaders wanted by the U.S. and Kabul governments are living openly in nearby villages." Mr. Rashid quoted the provincial government's information minister as saying, "Only the Taliban can constitute the real government of Afghanistan." During a recent visit, The Post's John Lancaster met with a Taliban recruiter who described how he traveled with 14 other Pakistanis across the border into Afghanistan last summer to wage war against U.S. and Afghan government forces. "It's no problem at all to cross back and forth," the recruiter said.

So when will the liberal media start calling Quetta the "spiritual capital of the Taliban?"

AFGHAN CONSTITUTION: The draft of the Afghan constitution has finally been unveiled to the public. It will be published in Afghan newspapers on Tuesday and Wednesday. More on this soon.

A WAR OF CIVILIZATIONS: Are we in a war of civilizations? It's a topic of recent discussion and here's my attempt to answer the question:

First of, what does Osama bin Laden think? "This is a matter of religion and creed... there is no way to forget the hostility between us and the infidels. It is ideological." Pretty clear-cut, right? His effective melding of religious fervor, Muslim piety and a profound sense of grievances into his ideological force is an undeniable accomplishment. So does bin Laden hate Western-style democracy? Yes. Does he hate equality for women? Does he hate Jews and Christians? Does he hate American secularism? The answer is yes. But he has never said these things. Instead he has used the most selective and unpopular policies which have affected the Arab and Islamic world. The troops in Saudi Arabia, support for Israel's harsh policies against the Palestinians, sanctions against Iraq, the bombing of Iraq, the trigger happiness in attacking Somalia, Afghanistan and Sudan, controlling the Islamic worlds resources, and support for the Muslims world's absolutist kings and dictators. These are the average Muslim's and Arab's grievances against the United States. But it's not bin Laden's reason to order the mass-murdering of 3,000 Americans. The speeches he gives, in which he cites these "justifications," are to garner support for his aims. These are also ways to recruit the angry Muslim, may they be in the living along the southwestern Highway 16 in the Asir province of Saudi Arabia, near the border with Yemen or the Islamophobia-plagued streets of Brussels, the melting pot that keeps getting colder and colder.

Here's the best way to put it: there are two types of people who want to see America go down. There's type A; the average lower-class Arab/Muslims who directly experiences the actions of his government and its American support. Then there's type B; the anti-modernist and the anti-Westerner, who simply hates us for what the West is, does, and acts. Type A is where bin Laden gets his support and type B are the actual terrorists. Type B are usually brainwashed and radicalized; and Mohammad Atta is the ultimate example. He was a middle-class Egyptian who became an extremist in a Berlin mosque, not a Cairo mosque.

One more thing: a "war of civilizations" implies that two civilizations are each trying to destroy the other, not one civilization under attack. Islamofascism is not a civilization. Neither is Wahhabism or al-Qaeda. Sidenote: Assuming the West is out to destroy Islam and its believers, it would, well, impossible. Try invading 57 countries with growing, if not exploding, birth-rates. We're everywhere and growing faster than any other religion.

UPDATE: Aziz agrees.

GETTING MORE DESPERATE BY THE MINUTE: The Iraqi insurgents were so desperate this morning that they decided to shoot down a chopper, killing 15. Let me list the accomplishments and progress we've made in the last week: Paul Wolfowitz was targeted in the al-Rasheed hotel; the Red cross was targeted; 3 police stations were targetted; the deputy mayor of Baghdad was assassinated; a car-bomb killed 6 in Faluja; U.S. forces fought a two-day battle against guerillas in Abu Gharib; a U.S. military train shipment was partially blown up and looted; and 12 soldiers have died in the last 7 days excluding the chopper-attack. Two days into November, we've already lost 18 soldiers.

Progress? Tell that to the boys' families.

REFLECTIONS ON RABIN AND THE "PEACE" PROCESS: Many things have happened since Yitzhak Rabin has died, yet we've achieved so little. I was a staunch believer and supporter of the Oslo accords, but Oslo was, to put it very bluntly, a lie.

The Oslo accords's failure to address the causes of the conflict--the occupation itself, borders, settlements, the right of return and the settlements--attribute to the bloodshed going on today. A lot of people attribute the failures of Oslo to the Palestinians, alleging that they turned to violence instead of negotiating. But the Palestinian attacks don't occur in a vacuum. Instead of something similar to a workable Palestinian state, the Jewish settler population in the West Bank grew to 400,000; in the Jordan Valley, 5,000 Jewish settlers consumed 75% of the water, leaving the remainder for two million Palestinians; by 2000, Israel had built 250 miles of bypass roads ("Jew-only" roads) on Palestinian land to connect settlements and Israel; Israel's control over people's movement and goods increased.

Why should the Palestinians and Israelis waste their time on a political process that serves neither and only causes future problems? Reality comes down to this: attacks on Israeli civilians are unlikely to end until the conditions which encourage them are removed. It's a harsh reality but one that should be considered; not necessarily accepted.

So what's the peace-plan for the future? How to end the suffering for both people?

First of, Yasser Arafat is not a miracle worker. Neither is Mahmoud Abbas or Abu Queria or any other Abu you'll find. You need to deal with the issues and root causes. The current roadmap lacks a destination. Freeze the settlements? Alright. Ending terrorism? Of course. So what comes next? What about Jerusalem? How do the millions of refugees end up? How are you going to deal with the wall? What are the borders going to be? How are we going to guarantee to security? If none of these issues are addressed, we're going to end up in destination "unknown." Yeah, we all know that worked right? The Roadmap is a continuation of Oslo. Let's start with giving Ariel Sharon and Sheikh Yassin a Nobel Peace Prize! How about dodging issues and wishfully thinking than they will magically disappear?

Start dealing with the issues. The Geneva accords sounds nice and I'm sure it's workable. If issues aren't solved, you are left with a process without substance and a roadmap to nowhere.

ZIONIST HATE BRIGADE: Interested in reading an anti-Islamic rant? Go here. You may have heard the story about man in Sudan claiming that they lost their penises after shaking hands with foreigners. Funny, right? I thought so to! But Mark Steyn goes from missing penises...to Islamic victimhood? Even though Sudan is overwhelmingly Muslim, the story identifies the men only as "merchants." How do you think the response would be if something strange happened in, say, Israel and the a columnist would start speaking of "Jewish crimes?" Anyways, I shouldn't pay attention to somebody as disengenuous as Steyn. In fact, I should never devote any attention to plagarists.

AFGHAN CONSTITUTION: The draft for the Afghan constitution is set to be released next week and I have received a copy. (It's in Dari; I yet have to receive an English translation of it.) A brief review of what I noted:

First, it has a far more Islamic tone to it than any of the previous consitutions. There are a couple of vague descriptions of religious freedom. What has to be noted is that Afghanistan has always been an moderately Islamic country, but its population has been subjected to severe Soviet mistreatment and the influence of the Taliban. It's almost inevitable to have small group of radicalized Afghans with large influence.

Secondly and last, the form of government seems to be modeled after the American system with a President and Vice President; and two parliaments. Rumor was that in the new system, the government would have a President, who would have a symbolic role, and a Prime Minister, who would actually rule the country.

Anyways, I'd rather wait until the draft is officialy released. Meanwhile, let's hope that a constitutional monarchy doesn't become any more popular than it already is.

MICHAEL TOTTEN ON TAKING RISKS: Michael Totten, liberal turned hawk, is right on one issue: liberals are mad, but it's not because we "taking down" a dictator. In fact, I think uou could say that liberals are mad at Bush for every single thing he has one in Iraq, except removing Saddam Hussein.

I remember the day, and it wasn't so long ago, that liberals like me were attacking our government for supporting dictators. Now these new "liberals," or whatever they want to call themselves, attack our government for taking down dictators.

Yep. I suppose they could plead "isolationism" as an excuse for the inconsistency. But the left has never been isolationist. Never. That's the position of the old right. The tragedy of the liberals is that a whole swath has run off the farm to join Pat Buchanan in Palookaville. And I used to say that if Buchanan were elected president I'd have to move to Canada.

We invaded Iraq, because it was perceived a "growing and grave threat." We went in because Saddam supposedly had WmD which he could deliver to terroists at any time. But when no WmD were found, when no al-Qaeda members were found anywhere under Saddam's control, when Bush's case crumbled, the hawks flip-flopped. The justifications switched almost weekly. But when all their justifications were exposed as bogus, they found a place to duck when they were looking for cover.

We never went to war to remove a vicious dictator. We never went to war to liberate an oppresed people. Even if we did go to war because Saddam was such a miserable and vicious bastard, it wouldn't be worth it. Or so says Paul Wolfowitz.

The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two... The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.

While we're on the subject, what has America's most dastardly neocon and prime architect of the Iraq war been up to lately?

[Wolfowitz] praised past "great leaders" such as the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, King Hussein of Jordan and former Israeli leaders Shimon Perez and the assassinated Yitzhak Rabin. "The cause of peace in the Middle East will be enormously advanced if Israelis and Palestinians can demonstrate overwhelming numbers in support of compromise and in opposition to terrorism," Wolfowitz said.

He had harsh words for both sides, criticizing Israel for continuing settlements in the occupied territories and causing Palestinian suffering in those territories. He said Palestinians must stop terrorist attacks on Israel. "If the Palestinians would adopt the ways of Gandhi, I think they could, in fact, make enormous changes very, very quickly," Wolfowitz said. "I believe in the power of individuals demonstrating peacefully. The bombings and the violent response to the bombings in the last several months have certainly been a big setback, and we've got to get it back on track," Wolfowitz said. Wolfowitz also voiced support Thursday for an unofficial drive for a two-state solution to conflict in the Middle East, showing the administration's frustration with hard-line leaders on both sides.

Wolfowitz praised the petition drive by a prominent Palestinian moderate and the former head of Israel's secret service. Wolfowitz said he met last week with Israeli Adm. Ami Ayalon and Palestinian professor Sari Nusseibeh, who say they have collected 100,000 Israeli and 60,000 Palestinian signatures on their petition in just three months.

Their petition calls for Israel to withdraw to the borders it had before the 1967 war in which it captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The document calls for a demilitarized Palestinian state in those territories.

In a lecture at Georgetown University, Wolfowitz said the petition's principles "look very much like" the Bush administration's "road map" to a peaceful, two-state solution by 2005. "One of the keys to achieving peace is to somehow mobilize majorities on both sides so the extremists who oppose it can be isolated," Wolfowitz said. "As Americans, we know there are times when great changes can extend from the grass roots."

That's Jerusalem Post's "Man of the Year" for ya.

FILE THIS UNDER "IT WAS ABOUT TIME:" At least there are some clear-thinking people left in Jerusalem.

Israel's army commander was on a collision course with Ariel Sharon yesterday after he attacked the prime minister's hardline security policies for damaging "our strategic interests". Lt-Gen Moshe Ya'alon, the chief of staff, gave a detailed critique of every aspect of Mr Sharon's approach to the Palestinians. He called for the easing of travel restrictions in the West Bank and criticised the government's public debate on the future of Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader.

Gen Ya'alon's criticisms, delivered in a briefing to three Israeli newspapers, were all the more surprising because of his hawkish reputation. At the height of the intifada last year he argued for punitive measures to "sear into the Palestinian consciousness" that Israel was invincible. Yet Gen Ya'alon's latest words betray deep unease in the security establishment over Israel's failure to end the three-year uprising.

Yesterday he told Shaul Mofaz, the defence minister, that he was responsible for critical remarks attributed to "army officials" that appeared in Yedioth Ahronoth, the biggest-selling Israeli daily. Gen Ya'alon refused to retract any of his words, despite reports that Mr Sharon was "furious". The general told the newspaper that Israel's policies in the occupied territories were "operating contrary to our strategic interests".

Restrictions imposed on the West Bank prevent Palestinians from moving between cities or using the main road network and 482 military checkpoints divide the West Bank into 300 clusters.

Gen Ya'alon said these restrictions were increasing hatred of Israel and encouraging terrorism. He wanted them lifted, but the defence minister had vetoed anything more than minor adjustments. Gen Ya'alon said the Gaza Strip, which is fenced off from Israel, and Palestinian towns such as Bethlehem and Jericho, where few terrorist attacks are organised, should see most restrictions lifted. This proposal had also been blocked. "There is no hope, no expectations for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, nor in Bethlehem and Jericho," said Gen Ya'alon. He voiced unease over the "security fence" which Israel is building to keep out Palestinian suicide bombers by sealing off the West Bank.

Noted without comment.

BREAKING NEWS: You may have heard about the shutdown of three congressional buildings after a toy gun's image was seen on a X-Ray machine. I work about 300 yards from the Capitol, but the Cannon building is even beyond that and out of my sight. I have seen black SUVs (most likely SWAT teams) speed by and congressional staffers walk toward metro-stations. I guess this is a good sign and assurance of tight security.

UPDATE: In an un-related incident, two kids are shot in front of a high-school in south-east D.C. Guess it's all part of the daily life in Washington.

LEWIS & WOOLSEY: The Wall Street Journal has a joint editorial by Bernard Lewis and James Woolsey with a plan to bring back the old Hashemite family to rule Iraq. Yes, Jordan and Iraq; one country ruled by the Hashemites, at the same time implementing the 1925 Constitution with minor changes. This, of course, is ridicilous. Iraqis hate Jordanians and most cetainly hate this idea. If you want excellent commentary on this story and a good laugh... read Abu Aardvark.

Where have you gone, Prince Hassan of Jordan, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you, ooh ooh oooh... What's that you say, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Woolsey, Joltin' Hassan was replaced at the last minute by his brother's son Abdullah and is now cooling his heels thinking big thoughts all day... hey, hey, hey.

LESSON IN TERROR: Matthew Yglesias points to this little nugget by NRO's David Frum. Frum writes about the upside and the great lessons terrorism teaches us--or, to be more exact, Arabs.

The grisly events in Baghdad shock and horrify--but they also underscore the logic of the Iraq campaign. So long as the victims of terrorism were Westerners, it was not going to be easy to persuade the people of the Middle East of the moral wrongness of terror. You will sometimes hear moderate Palestinians condemn suicide bombing as "counter-productive," but almost never as "immoral." Alas, that's just how human beings are: We accept the sufferings of others with remarkable calm. Now, though, the Islamic extremists are turning their violence on the people of Baghdad and institutions that serve those people. It's as vivid a lesson as possible of what is at issue in the war on terror--and precisely the kind of lesson most likely to change minds in the Arab world.

So why didn't we just fly planes into buildings in Baghad or bomb heavily populated residential areas? Last time the terrorists killed innocent Iraqis at the United Nations, it was a good sign because they were hitting soft targets. Even if this wasn't an insane suggestion (and it is), it would inflame the anti-American sentiment.

I wonder if Frum agrees that 9/11 was a lesson for what the American government did in, say, Chile or Iran.

CIA CONTRACTORS KILLED: Does somebody know more about this? Apparently, two CIA contractors "tracking terrorists" have been killed in Afghanistan. But the CIA never publicly states that its agents (or contractors for that matter) have died nor does it release their names. I could be wrong here but it seems odd to me.

AFGHANISTAN UPDATE: I said it and I'll say it again. The Washington Post seems to be the only newspaper with decent coverage of Afghanistan.

Karzai has stepped up to the plate. These are decisive times. Can Karzai handle the warlords and will the warlords give up without a fight? As I've noted, warlords Abdul Rashid Dostum and Atta Mohammad have been battling for power in northern Afghanistan, especially around Mazer-e-Sharif. The two sides have fought numerous times last year and last month the battle heated up again. An instable cease-fire was declared but Karzai moved even further. On Monday, both Dostum and Mohammad were removed from power. In another move today, 300 newly trained police officers took over in Mazer-e-Sharif.

The man behind all of this seems to be Interior Minister Ali Ahmad Jalali. He's an exile who worked at the Voice of America and is close to Hamid Karzai. He was also behind the firing of the Kabul police-chief after a housing-scandal. Read both stories for the details.

UPDATE: Brian Ulrich is fact-checking my ass in the comments section. Dostum and Mohammad weren't removed, but low-level commanders were. When you hear and conflicting reports, you mess things up.

JEW-HATER: From Bruce Jackson's op-ed in the Washington Post...

In dollar terms, we are witnessing the largest illegal expropriation of Jewish property in _______ since the Nazi seizures during the 1930s.

Fill in the blank. Maybe we should have shift of focus on anti-Semitism, huh? He's responsible for major-crimes in Checnya, than tries to join the ummah and than this. Maybe the Left and the Right can join forces on this issue. It would be rair. Read the op-ed to find out what's to fill in the blank.

(Sorry for being absent lately. Start of Ramadan, work and family-business prevented me from being able to blog.)

TALIBAN'S COMEBACK: A couple of people have e-mailed me about different wire reports alleging that the Afghan government has been talking to "moderate" Taliban members in order to sway them to join the government and end the Taliban insurgence in southern provinces. I talked to several people who are more a bit more knowledgeable than me. This is what they had to say.

The Taliban is not only waging a guerilla war in the southern provinces of Zabul, Paktia and Kandahar, but has started a PR-offensive. The Taliban has come forward to journalists from several lesser-known news organizations and has been granting interviews to top officials. Balochistan and Waziristan are two provinces on the Pakistani side that have usually been totally closed off from Westerners and anyone from the Pakistani government. Things have changed though and now journalists are invited and talked to. The border towns on the Afghan-Pakistani border are solid staging grounds for Taliban and al-Qaeda who then infiltrate into Afghanistan.

The Afghan government and Western officials (Zalmay Khalilzad being the prime and only suspect) are seeking the cooperation of "moderate" Taliban officials (and this is surely not the first time) like Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil. Two reasons: The Bush administration has growing frustrated with the inability of restoring order in areas outside of the capital, even sending American troops to fight Taliban insurgents, and looked for other solutions. The second reasons: the present government in Kabul is far from being accepted by the Pashtuns in the south as adequately representing their interests. Having failed thus far in its efforts to find Pashtun political leaders, who would be acceptable to their community and at the same time be attentive to the interests of the West, they turned to earlier discarded ideas. But who's behind the new idea? Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf's idea of seeking the cooperation of what Musharraf describes as moderate Taliban was floated earlier to prevent the Northern Alliance from entering Kabul, something Musharraf feared would cause civil unrest in his own country. This, in addition to an expanded ISAF-force, is hoped to bring stability. Success is all but guaranteed mainly because the Taliban has a complex web of leadership.

Attention has turned to Iraq. The result? Better and more Taliban-cadres safely operating from their sanctuaries in Pakistan, with Musharraf unable and unwilling to move against them.

UPDATE: My prediction of what's going to happen to Muttawakil? Exile. Maybe Britain or some Arab country.

AFGHANISTAN UPDATE: The latest briefing on Afghanistan:

The Afghan government has officialy launched the UN-sponsored "Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Program" (DDR), kicking it off in the far northern province of Kunduz, which borders Uzbekistan. The program was formed to disarm the 100,000 militia loyal to different warlords and integrate them into civilian life. I am and remain pessimistic, but the Washington Post, which seems to be the only newspaper with decent coverage of Afghanistan, has a more optimistic piece. According to the story, in return for their weapons, "each fighter [is] handed a plastic ID card that entitled him to $200, a change of civilian clothes, a box of food and vocational training and employment counseling in such fields as land mine clearance, road construction and factory work." While Fahim-loyalist Gen. Daud Khan's (not the cousin of Zahir Shah, whom he disposed), disarmament of 1,000 fighters was a good, and mostly ceremonial sign, it won't be this easy in other places, I'm sure.

Defense Minister Mohammed Fahim is trying to ethnically and factionally balance his department to satisfy his critics. But he's still firmly in control with chief of staff Gen. Bismullah Khan beside him. Equal representation means nothing when you have tanks in the capital and defy the Bonn accord. It's about Fahim; what he does what he doesn't do; his opponents act according to Fahim's moves. This issue, too, comes down to the pacification of Afghanistan. With recent clashes between warlords (one loyal to Fahim) continuing despite cease-fires, the warlords will keep their arms as a deterrent and safe-guard from losing power.

The New York Times reviews Saira Shah's first book, "''The Storyteller's Daughter''. Shah is known most notably for her excellent documentary "Beneath the Veil," an undercover, under-burqa project that captured the brutality of the Taliban. Shah is the daughter of an aristocrat; an author and lyricist in the sufist tradition, Idries Shah. Idries Shah and Jelaluddin Rumi are two great Afghan sufis. I'm just sayin'.

NOT SO MODERATE MUSLIMS: Via the unvaluable Atrios, I read this transcript of an interview with John Loftus on the Olbermann show...

LOFTUS: Well, you know, it's a funny story. About a year-and-a-half ago, people in the intelligence community came and said-guys like Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian and other terrorists weren't being touched because they'd been ordered not to investigate the cases, not to prosecute them, because there were being funded by the Saudis and a political decision was being made at the highest levels, don't do anything that would embarrass the Saudi government. So, of course I immediately volunteered to do it and I filed a lawsuit, against al-Arian charging him with being a major terrorist for Islamic Jihad, most of his money came from Saudi charities in Virginia.

Now, Alamoudi's headquarters were in the same place, he was raided the same day, on March 20. An hour after I filed my lawsuit, the U.S. government finally got off its butt and they raided these offices. And, the stuff that they're taking out of there now is absolutely horrendous. Al-Arian has now, finally been indicted, an along with Alamoudi, today.

But, who was it that fixed the cases? How could these guys operate for more than a decade immune from prosecution? And, the answer is coming out in a very strange place. What Alamoudi and al-Arian have in common is a guy named Grover Norquist. He’s the super lobbyist. Newt Gingrich's guy, the one the NRA calls on, head of American taxpayers. He is the guy that was hired by Alamoudi to head up the Islamic institute and he's the registered agent for Alamoudi, personally, and for the Islamic Institute.

Grover Norquist's best friend is Karl Rove, the White House chief of staff, and apparently Norquist was able to fix things. He got extreme right wing Muslim people to be the gatekeepers in the White House. That's why moderate Americans couldn't speak out after 9/11. Moderate Muslims couldn't get into the White House because Norquist's friends were blocking their access.

OLBERMANN: How does this tie back into the thing that apparently pulled the stopper out of the drain, if you will-The developers at Guantanamo bay? How rotten is the system of the interpreters and the chaplains-the Muslim Chaplains that Alamoudi was involved in setting up?

LOFTUS: It's as rotten as it gets. Think of the Muslim chaplain's program that he set up as a spy service for al-Qaeda. The damage that's been done is extreme. It wasn't just sending home mom and dad messages from the prisoners. These guys, this network in Guantanamo, stole the CIA's briefing books. Everything that the CIA knew about al-Qaeda is now back in al-Qaeda hands. That's about as bad an intelligence setback as you can get.

OLBERMANN: John, how does this end up? How far will the investigation into this necessarily have to go to get to the bottom of it?

LOFTUS: There's a lot more to go. Norquist had a lot of other clients. There's a whole alphabet soup of Saudi agencies that funded terrorism in this country. They had an awful lot of protection. And, one of the things we may find about 9/11 is that people out in the field weren't allowed to connect the dots and questions will be asked whether guys like Grover Norquist were part of the problem?

Ignore all the other stuff as circumstantial and focus on the White House-Norquist-Alamoudi connection. Norquist makes sure that his Muslim friends, who say that they are moderate and representative of American Muslims, are the ones that get the photo-op with Bush and are close with the White House. I have heard this kind of talk about American-Muslim groups from the likes of National Review and Daniel Pipes so I always treated it as garbage. The recent arrest of Alamoudi has raised questions about the people who claim to represent our interests.

You can connect the dots and pull your conclusions, because I sure can't. It's circumstantial and suspect, but that doesn't mean it's not true. We shouldn't be afraid of asking questions, though.

HMMM: One of the visitors from Israel came here by searching for "haaretz hamas likud funded 70s." Hmmmm.

AFGHAN VOICE EXCLUSIVE: Here's an exclusive picture of Miss Afghanistan in traditional Afghan clothing. Remember--Afghan Voice brought it to you first!

UPDATE: ABC News story from December of 2001 on the first and, until a short while ago, the only Miss Afghanistan.

AL-SADR WATCH: Aziz Poonawalla tends to paint a more rosy picture of Muqtada al-Sadr. I have called him a street thug, because, well, that's what I think he is. I don't think he's interested in representing Iraqi Shiites (he doesn't) or living up to his father's (Iraq's grand ayatollah murdered by Saddam Hussein in February of 1999) legacy. Al-Sadr is out for power and has done everything to fill the void left by the precipitous fall of Saddam Hussein; I agree with him on that. Aziz also brings up the point of Khomeinism in Iraq and its potential of becoming reality. Do Iraq's Shiites want a Khomeini-style theocracy in Iraq? It's true we can only speculate but a good guess would be that most don't.

Aziz also debunks the notion that Al-Sadr wants to set up a Khomeini-style, but I think he relies on a minimal amount of quotes. There are contradictory claims from Juan Cole, for example, who writes in the Boston Review that both Sadr and the Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) seek "a clerically dominated Islamic republic in Iraq."

Al-Sadr may be openly challenging the United States-led occupation of Iraq, but he also has threathened the authority of clerics currently holding power. Last week, he (violently) challenged authority in Karbala. He failed.

MISS AFGHANISTAN: Meet my future wife. BBC says she studies in California. Maybe something closer to home, please?

THE SPIRIT OF RAMADAN: Searching for 'Ramadan' at Google News can be fun. Some of the uplifting stories you'll find.

U.S. plans to lift Baghdad curfew for Ramadan

Jakarta to stop forced evictions during Ramadan

Chirac named as best date in Cairo

But than there's this story: Plan to arrest maverick Iraqi cleric for murder

Coalition and Iraqi officials are preparing an arrest warrant for the firebrand Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr over his alleged involvement with the brutal murder of a rival cleric last spring, sources close to the Iraqi governing council told the Guardian yesterday. The warrant, which has yet to be finalised, cites Mr Sadr for instigating a deadly attack on Abdel Majid al-Khoei, who was stabbed to death by a mob in the Shia holy city of Najaf on April 10.

....It is said to be signed by Tahir Jalil Habboush - a senior mukhabarat officer under the former regime who now works with the coalition authorities - and is based on the confessions of 23 men who were involved in the killing. "The belief of the coalition is that al-Sadr is not containable," the council source said. "They believe there is enough evidence that Muqtada was involved in the Khoei assassination and want to act to clip his wings before he can cause any more damage."

..."If they go down to Najaf to arrest him, his house will be surrounded by a human shield, and there would be a massacre before they get him," said Murtadha Nouri, a journalist with the newspaper Al-Adala. He warned that the planned showdown could backfire: "Given the antipathy towards the US, that could well play into his hands."

...The bulk of the evidence against Mr Sadr is understood to be based on confessions from 23 men arrested after the attack. Three are reported to have confessed to the stabbing while another 20 said they prevented Mr Khoei from seeking help while bleeding to death. Under questioning, they admitted receiving direct instructions from the young cleric, the source said.

What's next? Desecrating Qu'rans? No, it couldn't be.

RUMMY'S DISSENT: Apparently USA Today got their hands on a Pentagon-memo written by Rumsfeld to General Dick Meyers, Paul Wolfowitz, Pete Pace and Doug Faith. InstaHack goes on to call it a leak, but the article itself (remember--always click on the link!) suggests no such thing. The memo isn't likely to be classified or anything of that matter and was given to three different members of Congress. In the memo he wrote the following:

Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

I wonder too. But Iraq isn't the place to find them.

(**UPDATE: Leaks get published on the Pentagon's website now? Thanks to Jesse.**)

Rumsfeld also points to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. A quick refresher course on Gulbuddin (he's often referred to by his first name, like many Afghans are): Gulbuddin leads the Hezb-i-Islami, which translates to "Party of Islam." He's a Sunni Pashtun and he was an early member of the Khalq and Parcham. He became a disaffected Marxists and started his Islamist movement in Pakistan. He used to be the darling of Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI and therefore received millions, if not billions, in CIA-money and a large amount of Stingers, I suspect. After the Soviet puppet-government fell in 1992, Gulbuddin became Prime Minister, serving under President, Burhanuddin Rabbani. Then in early 1994, he broke with the government and went on to shell Kabul together with Abdul Rashid Dostum, which was Gulbuddin's claim to fame. Liberate it and then bomb it once in a while. It was the most destructive of Kabul. Thousands were killed, while more were injured and forced to flee. A year later, Gulbuddin and Rabbani's Northern Alliance teamed together again, this time taking on Dostum and the Taliban. The Northern Alliance was forced north to Mazer-i-Sharif and Gulbuddin fled to take refuge in Iran. The Pakistanis switched sides and favored the Taliban. Some time after the Northern Alliance took Kabul; Gulbuddin returned to Afghanistan and was speculated to have teamed up with (mostly) Taliban and al-Qaeda. Although his relations with the Taliban went sour a long time ago, this claim is likely to be true. Technically, he isn't Taliban (as Rumsfeld claims he is part of) but another vicious power-mad warlord. The Hellfire missile that was fired at Gulbuddin in May of last year missed him, but it did send a signal.

Everyone claims that Gulbuddin is either the CIA's, Pakistan's or Taliban's puppet. But he's not. He has his own agenda and works for himself. As long as he's out there, he's a threat. And it's a good thing he's a target.

ELECTRONIC JIHAD: A message to Muslims around the world. It seems that Muslims have been the perpetrators behind this week's multiple Denial-of-Service attacks on Zionist propaganda conservative blogs. Please join me in condeming these horrible atta....

Or not. I actually thought funny how fast they blamed it on al-Qaeda. The time has ended when everybody would just blame it on the Canadians.

Warbloggers: Life. Get one.

VIDEO FROM AFGHANISTAN: You really have to take a look at the Washington Post's video series from Afghanistan. Pretty amazing.

HONEST REVIEWS: Earlier this week we had an honest conservative with an honest review of Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." Becky Miller called Franken's book "amazing." This time around we have an honest review of Alan Dershowitz's "The Case For Israel" by Adam Rubin, assistant professor of Jewish history at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Los Angeles. Look, I'm not into demonizing Israel's hard-core supporters (unless they do something that totally discredits themselves) because it's a) time-consuming b) childish and c) tiring. I'd just like to quote Rubin's review....

...it is the latest in a long tradition of hasbarah, propaganda, that is not unlike the material produced by the Israeli Office of Hasbarah in years past, or pamphlets issues today by various pro-Israel advocacy groups in the United States... In seeking to "make the case for Israel," Dershowitz, a professor of law at Harvard and prominent defense attorney, has abandoned any pretense of balance, nuance or objectivity, all of which are guiding values for professional historians.

[...]

Dershowitz also uses evidence from Morris to argue that the Arab leaders of Haifa encouraged their community to leave. What emerges from Dershowitz’s selective use of Morris’ book is an account of the refugee problem that places responsibility for the problem squarely on the shoulders of the Palestinians themselves.

However, Dershowitz neglects to mention Morris’ conclusion, based on detailed research and stated quite clearly in several of his books (including those cited by Dershowitz), that the majority of Palestinian refugees were in some cases expelled by Jewish forces and in others fled out of fear of expulsion or massacre by those forces. On the very same pages Dershowitz cites to make his argument for Palestinian culpability, Morris writes the following:

"During the second stage, while there was clearly no policy of expulsion, the Haganah’s Plan D clearly resulted in mass flight. Commanders were authorized to clear the populace out of villages and certain urban districts, and to raze the villages if they felt a military need. Many commanders identified with the aim of ending up with a Jewish State with as small an Arab minority as possible. Some generals, such as [Yigal] Allon, clearly acted as if driven by such a goal.... Ben-Gurion clearly wanted as few Arabs as possible to remain in the Jewish State. But there was still no systematic expulsion policy.... Yet Israeli troops ... were far more inclined to expel Palestinians than they had been during the first half of the war. In Operation Yoav, Allon took care to leave almost no Arab communities along his lines of advance."

Clearly, Morris’ argument is considerably more complicated and morally ambiguous than the simplistic version Dershowitz presents. The latter has violated a cardinal rule of historical scholarship: an author is responsible for weighing all evidence at his or her disposal before making a conclusion, even if some of that evidence contradicts one’s own argument or bias.

Norman Finkelstein recently accused Dershowitz of plagarism, saying that he had made extensive use of "From Time Immemorial," which turned out be one great hoax as exposed by Finkelstein.

SAUDI PUPPETS: John Cole is surprised by Mark Steyn's column in which Steyn says the following:

[Joseph Wilson, who's wife's name was leaked by two White House officials] was never an intelligence specialist, he's no longer a "career diplomat," but he is, like so many other retired ambassadors, on the House of Saud's payroll. And the Saudis were vehemently opposed to war with Saddam.

Does it sounds like defamation? Wilson is made out to be a Saudi puppet, because he's an scholar at the Middle East Institute. The Middle East Institute isn't the only one on the Saudi payroll: the Meridian International Center and the Middle East Policy Council are just two more. The interesting things is that all of "institutes", "centers" and "councils" are full of former government officials.

A couple of examples. Walter Cutler served as an ambassador to Saudi Arabia (twice) and now heads the Meridian International Center after having left the Foreign Service. Three other former Foreign Service members--Charles Freeman, Frank Carlucci, and Hermann Eilts--are on the Middle East Policy Council. Wyche Fowler and Ned Walker are the Chairman and President of the Middle East Institute, respectively. Both served as ambassadors to Saudi Arabia. Other members of the Middle East Institute including Defense secretary James Schlesinger and formber FBI and CIA Director William Webster. According to former CIA-operative Robert Baer, the Middle East Institute receives $200,000 of its $1.5 million budget from the House of Sa'ud. (Baer also claims that Colin Powell received $100,000 for a speech at Tufts University that was paid by Prince Sultan and Prince Turki through Issam Fares, the prime minister of Lebanon.)

But it all comes to this: Washington D.C. is dirty. Saudi money is used to curry favor with Washington officials by carefully and generously giving patronage to everything from presidential libraries, university chairs, Middle East study centers and think tanks to American defense contractors, arms makers, plane manufacturers, K Street lobbying firms, oil services, and construction companies such as Bechtel and Halliburton. Oh, and the White House. So why single out Wilson? He's not the only Saudi apologist.

Besides, it has nothing to do with the leaking of his wife's name.

HITCHENS: I have never refrained from bashing Christopher Hitchens, but if you've disagreed with me in the pact, maybe his latest piece will convince you that he's shrill.

Shorther Chris:

I hate religions of all sorts.

BOYKIN WORSHIPS PAGANS: I briefly commented on the General Boykin controversy and since then he has issued a non-apology put together by Pentagon lawyers. In the apology, Boykin argues that his reference to idol worship refers to Somali warlord Osman Ato's "worship of money and power." This, though, contradicts his original statement:

"He went on CNN and he laughed at us, and he said, 'They'll never get me because Allah will protect me. Allah will protect me.' Well, you know what, I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."

His apology is (reluctantly) accepted, but since these statements have been publicly noted, it--I suspect--will discourage a lot of patriotic Muslims of enlisting in the army or becoming linguists at the FBI.

In addition to that, Fareed Zakaria puts the smack-down on Boykin and suggests that he should be fired. Pointing to the findings of a commission set up by Bush, he notes that 12 percent of respondents surveyed in Arab and Muslim countries believed that "Americans respect Arab/Islamic values." Tolerating Boykin would definitely send the wrong message.

ARAB-AMERICANS' CHOICE: Even Arab-Americans like Howard Dean more than Joe Lieberman. Personally, I think that Bush has permanently lost the Arab vote, but he's gaining on the Jewish vote.

FRIEDMAN AND DEMOCRACY: I don't know about this guy, but he does sounds less moronic than usual. The first paragraph of his latest column just confuses me:

should have known something was up when a Saudi diplomat recently asked me, "Do you know what kind of woman is most sought after as a wife by Saudi men today?" No, I said, what kind? "A woman with a job."

Okay, admit it: Saudi Arabia would be the last Arab country you'd expect to start the implantation of the Arab Human Development Report. He says that it should implemented from the outside, while the authors of the report themselves think it should be done from the inside. But how is this related to 9/11 and the "cause of terrorism?" The thinking goes that there's something wrong in general in the Arab world which causes this huge resentment against the West and especially the United States. But is it? We can confirm the following: there is no Arab democracy, Arab women are uniformly an oppressed majority, and in science and technology every Arab state is behind the rest of the world. My question: how does this cause and create terrorism and terrorists? Mohammad Atta and 18 other men were cut off from their original countries for years. Atta was radicalized in a mosque in Berlin, not Cairo. After that, he was brainwashed in al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. Atta went to Berlin to get an engineering degree. To the Fareed Zakarias and Tom Friendmans out there: are the flaws pointed out in the report related to terrorism and if so, how?

And I'm still not sure how one democratic can change the whole region. Is Washington really serious about this whole deal? Brian Ulrich notes the same thing:

A current goal of U.S. foreign policy is to promote democracy in the Arab world. Egypt is one of the largest recipients of U.S. aid. Why is the Bush administration not pressuring Egypt to become more democratic?

Do the neo-cons really want a democratic Arab world or are they out to bring the Middle East crashing down, giving Mecca and Medina to Osama bin Laden and seize the Saudi oil-fields?

LATEST FROM AFGHANISTAN: Rumor is that former King Mohammad Zahir Shah will be moving back to his home in Rome. Almost hitting 90, he isn't the healties Afghan around. I have a question: will the Saudis continue to pay for the monthy cost of his life?

The new Afghan constition is on its way and it's a balancing act between democracy and Islam, but that doesn't mean that they're mutually exclusive. It still remains a balancing act watched closely by the Iraqis. The Loya Jirga, which I have touched upon in length earlier, will be held on December 10th. (And yes, I will have an translation of it as soon as it's released.)

Dissappointing news from Canada: Canadian Prime Minister Chretien said Canda won't be sending additional troops for the ISAF-expansion. I get the feeling that the Canadian military brass thinks otherwise. Germany (part of the irrelevant old Europe), on the other hand, will probably send 450 new soldiers, Deutsche Welle reports.

UPDATE: I decided to post excerpts from previous constitutions so we'll be able to compare them to the new one:

1923 Constitution
Article 1: Afghanistan is completely free and independent in the administration of its domestic and foreign affairs. All parts and areas of the country are under the authority of his majesty the king and are to be treated as a single unit without discrimination between different parts of the country.

Article 2: The religion of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam. Followers of other religions such as Jews and Hindus residing in Afghanistan are entitled to the full protection of the state provided they do not disturb the public peace.

Article 13: Subjects of Afghanistan shall have the right to submit individual or collective petitions to government officials for the redress of acts committed by officials or others against the Sharia [religious law] or other laws of the country.

1963 Constitution
Article 1: Afghanistan is a constitutional monarchy; an independent, unitary and indivisible state. Sovereignty in Afghanistan belongs to the nation.

Article 21: In case the King dies before his successor has completed twenty years of life, the Queen shall act as regent until his successor reaches the stipulated age. In case the Queen be not living, the Electoral College, provided under Article 19 of this Constitution, shall elect someone from amongst the male lineal descendants of his majesty Mohammad Nadir Shah, the martyr, to act as regent.

Article 32: Afghan citizens have the right to assemble unarmed, without prior permission of the state, for the achievement of legitimate and peaceful purposes. Afghan citizens have the right to form political parties, in accordance with the terms of the law, provided that: 1) The aims and activities of the party and the ideas on which the organization of the party is based are not opposed to the values embodied in this constitution.

1976 Constitution
Article 2: The exercise of power by the people, the majority of whom consists of farmers, workers, the enlightened people and the youth.

Article 8: The elimination of exploitation in all its forms and manifestations.

Article 27: All the people of Afghanistan, both women and men, without discrimination and privilege, have equal rights and obligations before the law.

Article 41: Work is the right, honor and duty of every Afghan who has the capability of doing it. The major purpose of the laws that shall be promulgated to regulate work is to reach the stage in which the rights and interests of all toilers, farmers, workers and trades are protected, suitable working conditions provided, and in which relations between the worker and the employer are regulated on a just and progressive basis. The choice of work and vocation is free, within the terms determined by the law.

1987 Constitution

Article 2: The sacred religion of Islam is the religion of Afghanistan. In the Republic of Afghanistan no law shall run counter to the principles of the sacred religion of Islam and other values enshrined in this constitution.

Article 6: The National Front of the Republic of Afghanistan, as the broadest, sociopolitical organization, unites political parties, social organizations and individual members enrolled in their ranks for ensuring their active participation in the social, political and civic spheres on the basis of a common program.

Article 19: In the Republic of Afghanistan, state, mixed, cooperative, religious trust, and private property as well as properties of political and social organizations exist. The state protects all forms of lawful properties.

Article 21: The state shall assist strengthening and expansion of cooperatives and shall encourage the voluntary participation of the people to this end.

Article 23: The state guarantees the right of ownership of land of the peasants and other land owners in accordance with the law. The state shall adopt necessary measures for the realization of democratic changes in agriculture keeping in view the interests of peasants and other land owners. The state encourages the establishment of big agricultural and
mechanized state, mixed and private farms and helps the reclamation of virgin lands.

Article 29: The hereditary right to property shall be guaranteed by law on the basis of Islamic Sharia.