Israeli Proposal to Commemorate Armenian Genocide Causes Tension

At Los Angeles Times, "Tension over Israeli proposal to commemorate Armenian genocide."

Also at New York Times, "Turkey's Leader Counters French Law With Accusations of Colonial-Era Genocide."

Nigerian Explosion: Bombs Hit Churches in Christmas Day Terrorist Attacks

At Telegraph UK, "Coordinated bomb attacks across Nigeria kill at least 40," and "Boko Haram: the group behind the Nigerian attacks."

Also at London's Daily Mail, "Bombs kills 39 at Catholic churches during Christmas Day mass as series of explosions rock Nigeria."

And at New York Times, "Churches Are Hit in a Series of Bombings Across Nigeria." (Via Memeorandum and The Other McCain.)

Former Soviet Premiere Mikhail Gorbachev Calls on Russian President Vladimir Putin to Resign

The interesting thing is that the Soviet Union disintegrated exactly 20 years ago today.

See Telegraph UK, "Mikhail Gorbachev calls for Putin to resign."

Also at London's Daily Mail, "Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev calls on Putin to resign as 50,000 take to the streets of Moscow to protest over vote-rigging claims":

Mikhail Gorbachev, who resigned as Soviet president 20 years ago Sunday, has urged Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to follow his example and step down.

Gorbachev said if Putin resigned now, he would be remembered for the positive things he did during his 12 years in power.

The former Soviet leader spoke on Ekho Moskvy radio yesterday after a new wave of protests against alleged election fraud drew tens of thousands to Moscow's streets.

It was the largest show of public outrage since the protests in 1991 that brought down the Soviet Union.

A Blend of Cult and Coercion in North Korea

It's a question on the minds of many: What explains the almost macabre outpouring of grief at the death of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il?

Well, see New York Times, "North Korea’s Tears: A Blend of Cult, Culture and Coercion":

SEOUL, South Korea — Among countless mourners at a public square in North Korea, the kneeling middle-aged man in an off-white windbreaker stands out. The state broadcaster’s camera zooms in as he wails, rocking back and forth with clenched fists, his grief punctuated by the white puffs of his breath visible in the cold of the capital, Pyongyang.

The camera lingers a few seconds too long on this perfect mourner. A couple of rows away, two teenaged boys stand motionless, seemingly uncertain about how to behave. They look toward the man — perhaps even at the camera beyond him — then briefly away, before also dropping to their knees to weep.

A day after North Korea announced the death of its longtime ruler, Kim Jong-il, televised video and photographs distributed by the reclusive state on Tuesday showed scenes of mass hysteria and grief among citizens and soldiers across the capital. The images, many of them carefully selected by the state Korean Central News Agency, appeared to be part of an official campaign to build support for Mr. Kim’s successor, his third son, Kim Jong-un.

In his first public appearance since his father’s death, Kim Jong-un visited the mausoleum in Pyongyang where Kim Jong-il’s body lay in state, covered with a red blanket. The coffin was surrounded by white chrysanthemums and Kimjongilia, a flower named after the deceased leader.

Kim Jong-un was accompanied by a group of senior party and military officials, giving the outside world a hint about whom he might be relying on as he seeks to consolidate control over a dynasty that has controlled North Korea since it was founded by his grandfather, Kim Il-sung, whose death in 1994 led to even greater outpouring of public mourning.

Contrived as they might look to Western eyes, the wild expressions of grief at funerals — the convulsive sobbing, fist pounding and body-shaking bawling — are an accepted part of Korean Confucian culture, and can be witnessed at the funerals of the famous and the not famous alike in South Korea. But in the North, the culture of mourning has been magnified by a cult of personality in which the country’s leader is considered every North Korean’s father.

More at the link.

Death of Kim Jong Il Creates New Layer of Risk to East Asia

The Los Angeles Times examines the impact of Kim's death on the regional economy, "Kim Jong Il's death could upset regional economy in Asia."

And at New York Times, "In Kim's Death, an Extensive Intelligence Failure."

Also, this morning's Wall Street Journal has the don't miss lead editorial, "Breaking the Kim Dynasty":

Kim maintained power by promoting a sense of siege aimed at the U.S. and its "puppet regime" in South Korea. Demonstrating loyalty to reunification on Pyongyang's terms and to the Kim family that personifies this goal is the key to advancement in the North. Nuclear weapons are crucial to this agenda, both as a bargaining chip to seek cash from the West and as a deterrent to any attempt to promote regime change. That last point is a warning about the horrendous long-term cost of letting Iran get the bomb.

Kim's death is producing the inevitable hopes that his successors will change all this and seek an opening to the world. The immediate likelihood is remote. Power has been centralized in the Kim family, including Kim Jong Il's sister and her husband, who may play the role of regent during the coming years.

Kim only began to install his youngest son, the 20-something Kim Jong Eun, as successor in the last few years, but he has also quickly picked up the terror mantle. North Korean propaganda suggests that the youngest Kim was behind the unprovoked sinking of a South Korean navy ship and the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island last year. A measure of the regime's danger is that South Korea went on high alert upon news of Kim's death, and the White House issued a sensible statement pledging to maintain stability on the Korean peninsula and support America's allies in the region.

Don't expect much change under Kim the Younger.

And more at Wall Street Journal, from John Bolton, "'The Great Successor'," and Melanie Kirkpatrick, "The World's Most Repressive State."

Why Ron Paul Can't Win

From Kim Strassel, at Wall Street Journal. Strassel raises the interesting point that not that much has changed about Ron Paul from his earlier campaigns for the GOP nomination. The key significant difference is found not so much on the issues --- Paul has moderated a lot of his positions on domestic affairs --- but in the the candidate's seriousness:

Mr. Paul was largely written off in the past as an ideological crank, a man who ran primarily to have his views heard, and many political watchers have made the same mistake this time. But if there has been an overlooked theme in this race, it has been Mr. Paul's new seriousness about winning the nomination. The Ron Paul of 2012 is a different candidate from the Ron Paul of the past. Aware that his absolutist positions worry voters, the libertarian has been conducting a far more mainstream campaign.

Not that he's flipped on any major positions. The Paul campaign knows that its greatest opportunity is attracting voters who are dissatisfied with the other front-runners' policy timidity or lack of consistency. Mr. Paul is neither timid nor inconsistent, and it ought to make him a star....

Organizationally, the 2012 Paul campaign has also sloughed off its 2008 disdain of the establishment, and in Iowa at least Mr. Paul is engaging in retail politics, sitting down with party elders and activists. These are the efforts of a candidate newly willing to work within a certain framework, if it means a shot at the White House.

Except on foreign policy, where Mr. Paul does himself in. In discrete areas, Mr. Paul's "noninterventionist" approach resonates with those weary of war, or with the populist sentiment that we spend too much on foreign aid. And note that Mr. Paul has made small stabs at reassuring voters of his patriotism, as with a big national TV ad that highlighted his own military service and commitment to veterans.

But none of this has addressed voters' big concern over a Paul philosophy that fundamentally denies American exceptionalism and refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the U.S. homeland. Perhaps nothing hurt the candidate more in 2008 than his declaration that one reason terrorists attacked us on 9/11 is because "we've been in the Middle East."

Far from toning down such views, Mr. Paul has amped up the wattage, claiming this year that 9/11 prompted "glee" in a Bush administration looking for a pretext to "invade Iraq." He's condemned the Obama administration's killings of terrorists Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, and he insists the U.S. is "provoking" Iran.

Ron Paul's a freak.I posted on this last night: "Taking Ron Paul Seriously."

Added: From Linkmaster Smith at The Other McCain, "You See, Mr. Paul, History Does Not Support Scientific Experiments."

War in Iraq Officially Over

The main story is at New York Times, "U.S. War in Iraq Declared Officially Over." (At Memeorandum.)

Also, the president's speech at Fort Bragg is at the video here. I watched it. It's ceremonial and symbolically important.

What's bothersome is that Barack Obama, during his time in the U.S. Senate and as a candidate for the White House, held more outright hostility to the war than any other Democrat at the time --- and that's quite an achievement, given the extreme antipathy to the mission in Iraq among the shitwad hate-America dirtbags, murderers, and rapists who did everything in their power to sabotage the deployment. Screw these people. At the video above, Obama in 2008 chirps all the far-left talking points on the war. None grates more obnoxiously than the claim that the "failed" and "mistaken" mission in Iraq was "detracting" from the war in Afghanistan. No sooner did Obama come to power than the stab-America-in-the-back progressives start clamoring for an end to the Afghanistan war. Yes, we can claim we won in Iraq --- and that's what the president did Wednesday in North Carlolina --- but it's an especially triumphant victory given that we beat our foes on the ground in combat and our political foes here at home. The left's war on the Bush administration's national security policy was a treasonous display of hatred that is literally unforgivable for any decent citizen who recognizes the costs of the mission for the country, and especially for those who have fought it. I am not, however, joining the bandwagon of those criticizing the administration's withdrawal. The White House botched negotiations for a continued troop presence --- and no doubt Iran will be increasing its influence in Iraq and across the region by the day --- but our support will continue in other ways, such as the continued deployment of stand-by forces throughout the Persian Gulf theater of operations.

We always find a way to prevail despite the treacherous agenda of the domestic enemies at home.

See also American Glob from last year: "Let Me Be Clear: Obama Deserves ZERO Credit For Iraq."

RELATED: At Los Angeles Times, "U.S. military formally ends mission in Iraq."

70th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor Attack, December 7th, 1941

At USA Today, "Remembering Pearl Harbor, 70 years later." And the New York Times has a somber editorial, "Remembering Pearl Harbor."

Closer to home, at O.C. Register, "After 70 years, we honor Pearl Harbor heroes," and "Pearl Harbor casualties included O.C. men."

Bonus: A spectacular photo-essay at National Post, "Archival photos reveal horror of the Pearl Harbor on 70th anniversary of the attack."

Photos: Top, the attack on the USS Arizona. Bottom, the USS West Virginia burns (via Wikimedia Commons).

Iranian Officials Claim Possession of American UAV

It's not "shot down," as some reports indicated.

See Los Angeles Times, "Iran says its military has U.S. drone in its possession."

China's State-Led Model Showing Signs of Trouble

ICYMI, you might want to skim former SIEU chief Andy Stern's op-ed at the Wall Street Journal from earlier this week, "China's Superior Economic Model." I don't begrudge China's economic success, but I've never been one to fall head over heels for China's model, especially as a replacement for the American free-enterprise ideal. Stern's piece reminded me of the "Japan as Number One" school from the late-1980s and early-1990s. Back then I thought more reliance on industrial policy and governmental intervention might be a good thing. Then Japan collapse and by the end of the Clinton years the American economy was booming. Hardly anyone was championing the Japanese "developmental state" by that time. And thus, I mostly yawned when reading Andy Stern, and that was after a little chuckle, considering the former union boss was throwing his lot in with one the most murderous regimes in modern times.

In any case, the editors at Wall Street Journal throw some cold water on the Chinese economic system. See, "China's Hard Landing":

China is a poster child for the Austrian school of economics' theory of the business cycle. After undertaking the biggest stimulus program the world has ever seen in response to the global financial crisis, the country is drowning in unproductive investments financed with credit.

The government spent 15% of GDP largely on public works projects in inland regions, financed with loans from the state-owned banks. Investment as a share of GDP soared to 48.5% in 2010, and the M2 measure of money supply ballooned to 140% that of the U.S.

Now comes the hangover. The public works projects are winding down, unleashing a wave of unemployment and an uptick in social unrest. The banks' nonperforming loans are rising, and local governments are insolvent. The country is littered with luxurious county government offices, ghost cities of empty apartment blocks, unsafe high-speed rail lines and crumbling highways to nowhere.

One effect of negative real interest rates was a nationwide bubble in private housing, with the average price of an urban apartment reaching eight times the average annual income. Real estate is the most popular investment for the wealthy, according to a central bank survey in September. Millions of luxury apartments are vacant, even as there is a shortage of affordable housing for the poor....

There is no easy way to avoid the bust that is coming. The silver lining is that China's increasingly state-led growth model will be discredited, and a debate will begin on restarting the reforms that stalled in the mid-2000s. A financial sector that allocates credit based on politics rather than price signals led China into this mess. Popular pressure to dismantle crony capitalism is building, and the Communist Party would be wise to get in front of it while it can.

Melanie Phillips: Britain Impotently Warns Iran of 'Serious Consequences'

She's the best.

See, "Hague shakes his puny fist in the thirty years' invisible war":

For some thirty years, Britain and the west have experienced war waged upon them by Iran – but fantastically, have refused to acknowledge this fact. They refused to fight back. They refused therefore also to acknowledge what has been crystal clear for at least the past two decades: that it was never going to be a choice between war or peace with Iran. It was always going to be a choice between fighting that war sooner, when Iran was weaker and the west had more chance of minimising the fall-out, and fighting that war later, when Iran would be much stronger -- and possibly even a nuclear power -- and when the consequences for the west would be that much more terrible.

What the west refused to grasp was that there was never any chance of the Iranian regime seeing sense. That’s because what drives its dominant members at least is not conventional political impulse but an apocalyptic messianism. That means they actively seek to bring about a conflagration -- even if this consumes much of Iran -- since they believe that this apocalypse will prompt the return to earth of a religious messiah figure. They actually want to bring about the end of the world. But the west just didn’t take any of this remotely seriously.

The result has been catastrophic for the world. Iran has been outwitting the west at every turn, aided immeasurably by an American President who extended to these genocidal fanatics the hand of friendship while smashing his fist down on their principal prospective victim, Israel. As a result, Iran has enormously extended its power in the region and become seen there – disastrously -- as the strong horse which must be ridden, while the once-mighty US has become the enfeebled nag that is no longer prepared even to defend itself, let alone anyone else.

RTWT.

Early Results in Egypt Show Mandate for Islamists

At New York Times:

CAIRO — Islamists claimed a decisive victory on Wednesday as early election results put them on track to win a dominant majority in Egypt’s first Parliament since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, the most significant step yet in the religious movement’s rise since the start of the Arab Spring.

The party formed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s mainstream Islamist group, appeared to have taken about 40 percent of the vote, as expected. But a big surprise was the strong showing of ultraconservative Islamists, called Salafis, many of whom see most popular entertainment as sinful and reject women’s participation in voting or public life.

Analysts in the state-run news media said early returns indicated that Salafi groups could take as much as a quarter of the vote, giving the two groups of Islamists combined control of nearly 65 percent of the parliamentary seats.

That victory came at the expense of the liberal parties and youth activists who set off the revolution, affirming their fears that they would be unable to compete with Islamists who emerged from the Mubarak years organized and with an established following. Poorly organized and internally divided, the liberal parties could not compete with Islamists disciplined by decades as the sole opposition to Mr. Mubarak. “We were washed out,” said Shady el-Ghazaly Harb, one of the most politically active of the group.

Also, from Barry Rubin, "Flash: What, Me Pessimistic? Egyptian Election Outcome is Worse Than I Expected."

6 Ideas for the Ash Heap of History

From Tyler Cowen, at the new special issue of Foreign Policy, "100 Top Global Thinkers 2011":

4. The eurozone is for pretty much everyone in Europe. By now, it should be obvious that a 17-nation eurozone was a bad idea. The only questions left are how many countries do not belong and how painful will it be to push out those that shouldn't be there. Whether or not you think the current patchwork bailouts will work (probably not, see No. 5 below), just what, precisely, are those bailouts fighting to defend? No one knows anymore. The peripheral countries, like Greece and Portugal, used to think that if they suffered through a bit of deflation from eurozone membership, they still could benefit from the lower borrowing rates enjoyed by stronger economies like Germany. Now they're getting the deflationary pressures, stronger than ever before, but without the low borrowing rates. So what's in it for them to remain? What's in it for Germany and Finland and the Netherlands? It's hard to see.

Iranian Students Storm British Embassy in Tehran

The Lede followed the story all day, with lots of video, "Storming of British Embassy in Tehran Broadcast Live on State Television." Also at New York Times, "Protesters Storm British Embassy in Tehran."

And Telegraph UK reports on the obvious and troubling comparison to the United States, "Iran: British embassy attack brings to mind US siege":

Iranians stormed two British Embassy compounds in Tehran, bringing to mind the seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran by Iranian students on Nov 4 1979.

Here are details of that siege.

* Students helped spearhead the overthrow of the US-backed Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in the 1979 Islamic revolution. The Shah, who was already gravely ill, sought refuge overseas.

* Exiled cleric Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran in triumph to seal victory for a revolution whose mantra was "Death to America".

* Student activists in co-ordination with radical clerics stormed the U.S. embassy, taking 90 hostages. Fifty-two were held captive for 444 days with the students demanding the extradition of the deposed Shah from the United States.

* The siege prompted then U.S. President Jimmy Carter to freeze Iranian assets and sever all diplomatic ties with Tehran.

* On April 25, 1980, a US commando mission to rescue the hostages was abandoned in the desert with the loss of eight American lives when a helicopter collided with a tanker aircraft, politically damaging President Carter.

More at the link.

Also, "British relations with Iran sink to lowest in decades as Tehran embassies are stormed."

Regime Change Syria

From Max Boot, at Weekly Standard, "Assad Must Go":

The West could just sit back and watch this slow-motion catastrophe unfold. But doing so runs the risk of deepening fissures, in particular between Alawites (a Shiite offshoot) and the majority Sunnis, that could take decades to heal. We also run the risk that regional players will become more deeply embroiled in backing competing sides in what is fast becoming a Syrian civil war. If parts of Syria slip outside anyone’s control (as occurred in Iraq from 2003 to 2007), they could become havens for Sunni extremists such as al Qaeda.

On the other hand, if Assad goes, it will be a historic opportunity for a strategic realignment that takes Syria out of the Iranian camp and denies Hezbollah its main source of supply. It is almost certain that any Sunni regime that succeeds Assad will not be as close to Tehran as he has been. And, if we help bring about Assad’s downfall, we will have leverage with his successors that we would otherwise lack.

In some ways the current moment recalls the Balkans of the early 1990s—another situation where the West (and in particular the United States) tried to ignore a human-rights catastrophe but eventually intervened. That intervention stopped the killing and produced a delicate but durable peace accord. Might outside intervention be equally successful in Syria? It very well could be, which is why, despite the understandable reluctance in Washington to mount another Libya-style operation, it is time to start thinking seriously about what can be done to hasten Assad’s downfall. Obama has done a good job so far of isolating and sanctioning Syria, but more action is necessary.

In Fog of War, Rift Widens Between U.S. and Pakistan

At New York Times":

WASHINGTON — The NATO air attack that killed at least two dozen Pakistani soldiers over the weekend reflected a fundamental truth about American-Pakistani relations when it comes to securing the unruly border with Afghanistan: the tactics of war can easily undercut the broader strategy that leaders of both countries say they share.

The murky details complicated matters even more, with Pakistani officials saying the attack on two Pakistani border posts was unprovoked and Afghan officials asserting that Afghan and American commandos called in airstrikes after coming under fire from Pakistani territory. NATO has promised an investigation.

The reaction inside Pakistan nonetheless followed a now-familiar pattern of anger and tit-for-tat retaliation. So did the American response of regret laced with frustration and suspicion. Each side’s actions reflected a deepening distrust that gets harder to repair with each clash.

The question now, as one senior American official put it on Sunday, is “what kind of resilience is left” in a relationship that has sunk to new lows time after time this year — with the arrest in January of a C.I.A. officer, Raymond Davis, the killing of Osama bin Laden in May and the deaths of so many Pakistani soldiers.

Airstrike Over Pakistan Inflames Regional Tensions

At Washington Post, "Dozens of Pakistani troops die in NATO attack," and New York Times, "NATO Strikes Kill Pakistani Forces, Raising Tensions."

And at Fox News, "Pakistan Tells U.S. to 'Vacate' Air Base as Border Strike Inflames Tensions."

Islamists Expected to Win Big in Monday's Egypt Elections

At Los Angeles Times, "Political Islam at a crossroads in Egypt":

The call to prayer quiets in the minaret as Mohammad Abbas, a street protester turned candidate for parliament, steps out of a decrepit elevator and hurries to his office. He's still learning the art of politics but he can spin a sound bite better than most of his elders. Ask away:

Facebook activists?

"They sit in air-conditioned rooms but don't touch real Egyptians."

Young Islamists?

"Not yet strong enough to influence change."

The Muslim Brotherhood?

His eyes narrow, the banter hushes.

Abbas joined the Brotherhood, the Arab world's largest Islamic movement, when he was in college. But the group that brought the 27-year-old closer to God and honed his social conscience booted Abbas out in July when he made clear that his ambitions for a new Egypt were much different from those of his mentors.

The Brotherhood's moderate Freedom and Justice Party and its more conservative Islamic allies are likely to win big in parliamentary elections Monday; no other organizations are as disciplined or as connected to the masses. But the Brotherhood's unity, which buttressed it for decades against bans and repression by Hosni Mubarak's police state, is splintering as both young and established voices break away.

With about 6,000 candidates running for 498 seats, the elections are a crucial test for the Arab world's most populous nation. The outcome, along with a presidential election scheduled for next year, will reveal whether Egypt emerges as a democratic inspiration in a region clamoring for change or slips back into a military-dominated autocracy where only the faces and illicit bank accounts have changed.

Continue reading.

Added: At Legal Insurrection, "Egyptian Imam The NY Times called “moderate” holds “kill all the Jews” mass rally."

Egyptian Generals Apologize for Bloodshed but Reject Calls to Leave Power

At New York Times, "Egypt Military and Protesters Dig In for a Long Standoff."

Also, at Business Week, "Egyptian Army Says Holding Power Is a 'Curse' It Can't Escape."

GOP Voters Skeptical of Mitt Romney

At Los Angeles Times, "Mitt Romney still faces a trust deficit with GOP voters."

As other Republican candidates have stumbled their way toward the presidential primaries, Mitt Romney has put together what would seem to be all the elements of a winning campaign: an effective staff, a robust treasury and smooth, knowledgeable performances both in debates and on the trail.

But for months, the threshold of support for the former Massachusetts governor hasn't inched above a quarter of Republican voters in national polls. For many GOP voters in early primary states, hesitation about Romney comes back to one thing: their perception that he has routinely molded his views to suit the political mood, with ambition his overriding principle.

"He's not a person we could trust to lead our country," said Angela Cesar, a 41-year-old Republican from Ypsilanti, Mich., who said Romney had changed his position on too many issues. "He's going to be listening to voices outside. I want someone who can hear his own voice — a clear voice."

Steve Holroyd, a 54-year-old chef from Rye, N.H., was initially attracted to Romney's candidacy, but now describes him as evasive: "The more I listen to him, the more he just kind of flip-flops and doesn't know where he stands on anything."

Romney's advisors say the argument that their candidate is a political contortionist will not resonate because voters are concerned about the economy — and little else. But in his failed 2008 bid, when the issue was raised — as now — by opponents, it hit its mark not because of the issues involved but because of what Romney's flip-flops suggested about his character.

The campaign demonstrated sensitivity to the problem in this race: Romney has strongly defended the health insurance mandate that he instituted in Massachusetts, even though it is reviled by GOP voters, rather than reverse himself on it. Romney's aides have also leveled charges of flip-flopping at GOP rival Rick Perry and at President Obama, who Romney strategist Stuart Stevens said has "a new slogan and a new mission every day."

Asked about the criticism during a recent Michigan debate, Romney said: "I think people understand that I'm a man of steadiness and constancy."

Steadiness and constancy.

Right.

Video: Via Right Klik.