Not Al(that)bright

"I'm an American," former Secretary Albright assured the audience, "but I'm not here to defend the administration." She added, "It's difficult always in a foreign setting, but I do think that the ways we're dealing with terrorists are, actually, maybe creating more of them."

Secretary Albright chose not to mention the successful elections in Iraq or Afghanistan, or the "cedar revolution" unfolding in Lebanon. Instead, she focused her attention on other matters, saying, "If you start a war, you have to bring it to a final victory so that you avoid disastrous effects like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib."

The above paragraphs are from an article in the Weekly Standard. So here we have our fearless former Secretary of State spouting the latest stupidities and trying to avoid the elephant in the room. Kim Jong-Il's former dance partner, a woman who smiled while the North Korean army formed a ballistic missile in a military performance for her behalf, and has gone on record as decrying the fact that America is now the lone super-power (gee, I long for the days when another country could nuke us to kingdom come in the matter of a day), says now that our actions are creating more terrorists.

Here is how the logic works. Al Queda had a very hard time recruiting people when the brochures sported pictures from camps in Afganistan where, along with 100 or so fellow recruits, you got to shoot at things in between praying to Allah. The brochures also provided pictures of Western property that they have successfully blown up, and the parties that followed them in the safe confines of the camp. Some lucky recruits were able to go on trips to Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq - all expenses paid, and very little need to remain somewhat covert. And back then, the brochure promised that only large-scale missions would require suicide. Ahh, the good old comfortable days - so hard to recruit people to a life of terrorist activity when no one was fighting back.

But now recruiting is so easy - recruits get to be volunteered for suicide missions on a much lower scale these days. Sure, you have virtually no chance of cavorting with fellow recruits in camp these days, which adds to the romanticism of the career. Prior to Bush opening up a can of whoop-ass on Afganistan and Iraq, your chances of being killed were basically nil unless you were voluntarily making that lunge for the 70 virgins in Allah's paradise; now those odds have increased to the point where the women you used to have to rape are so impressed by your obvious foolish courage that they'll sleep with you voluntarily. Sure, your expected lifespan as a terrorist just shortened by 50 years or so, but the girls will love you.

So what should we do? We should make the life of a terrorist even easier than it was prior to 9-11. Maybe we should send more poverty aid to the countries that used to provide them haven, so that their corrupt leaders could give Al Queda more money for more comfortable camps and better travel benefits. Then just sit back and watch their recruitment efforts crumble.

Can't argue with the logic there, but of course one can imagine the opposite reaction - that the attractiveness of the terrorist lifestyle goes down when you are forced into the caves of Afganistan for the rest of your life. So maybe it could go either way in the end, which means that maybe someone who humbly recognizes the possibility of the actual result deviating from her expectations might actually track the actual situation rather than sounding like an idiot in front of a bunch of European idiots who merely nod their heads in agreement. Maybe she could have read this article about the problems being faced by the Al Queda terrorists.

Nah, why bother - telling a bunch of Europeans that you were wrong and Bush was right will never land you a Nobel Peace Prize - just ask Jimmy. Just stick with your original instinct, and see if you can get another dance with Kim Jong Il. And remember, you'll always find a welcoming audience in Europe.

I could go on for another two days about the idiocy of wishing the U.S. wasn't the only super-power. In retrospect, when you look at the Clinton cabinet versus the Bush cabinet - is it not obvious that Clinton feared having anyone around him who was considered brighter, as it might deflect credit, whereas with Bush that is of no concern? Clinton was always the smartest guy in the room, but one thing that you'll notice in virtually any organization is that the smartest guy in the room is rarely ever the leader, and there is a reason why.