pipes - just the man for the job

August 22, 2003 6:17 PM

bush appoints pipes to head US Institute for Peace, in a recess move (dodging senate confirmation).
among his post sept 11 quotes are: ``What we need to do is inspire fear, not affection.''
Pipe's ideas for peace in the middle east are worth a look. Does this appointment say anything about the kind of peace bush is pursuing in the middle east?
posted by specialk420 (19 comments total)

From the post:

bush appoints pipes to head US Institute for Peace

From the article:

Bush appointed Daniel Pipes, director of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, to the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Step 1: Finish reading.
Step 2: Begin righteous indignation.
posted by ednopantz at 6:25 PM on August 22, 2003

There's something about the expression "peace in the Middle East" that doesn't sound like something one will ever hear.
posted by clevershark at 6:30 PM on August 22, 2003

Though the post suggests Pipes does not fit in with the Bush notion/plan for the ME, the events of the past few weeks suggest that it is Bush who may have to rethink things. I note just a few minutes ago that the Bush administration is freezing Hamas assets and asking other countries to do this too. My point: if the US has for some time listed Hamas as terror group, why has it not frozen their assets earlier?

Now I know this issue (ME) a tinderbox, so instead of making fun of those who post and do not believe as you do, why not instead offer your plan from bringing about peace in the region? and try to be constructive rather than amusing and clever...there are, afte all, people of all kinds dying in the region.
posted by Postroad at 6:34 PM on August 22, 2003

try to be constructive rather than amusing and clever... there are, [after] all, people of all kinds dying in the region.

Deep within every cynic is an erstwhile optimist crushed by the weight of reality, you know.

Fact is, ME is an instance in politics where everything has been tried and nothing has worked. Peace, war, occupying, giving back... we're witnessing a clash between two forces -- one which does not want peace, and one in such a precarious position, not to mentioned so attuned to self-protection, that it is starting to see peace as an obstacle to its survival against the former. And lots and lots of people caught in the middle who subscribe to neither point of view.

It gets harder and harder to imagine good coming out of that combination of factors.
posted by clevershark at 7:02 PM on August 22, 2003

First, let me pick my jaw up off the floor.

Now then, let me make sure I understand this correctly. It sounds suspiciously like Mr. Pipes has taken his plan for Middle East Peace straight out of the Old Testament, say about Exodus through Joshua. To whit: kill everyone that is not one of you and there will be peace.

Sadly, that is also what some of the Palestinians are thinking.

Step one to peace in the region is admitting that there has never been peace there in all of recorded history. Beyond that, you've got me. I once heard someone wiser than myself say on NPR that the Israelis want a a Jewish state, they want it right there, and they want peace, but realistically they can only have 2 out of 3.
posted by ilsa at 7:10 PM on August 22, 2003

Christopher Hitchens: Bush's nominee doesn't belong at the U.S. Institute for Peace.
posted by homunculus at 7:17 PM on August 22, 2003

I think this is what the term 'bigot eruption' was invented for: Pipes has every entry in the Bible that contains the word 'smite' marked in yellow highlighter. And you have to give Hitch his dues for this one.

My point: if the US has for some time listed Hamas as terror group, why has it not frozen their assets earlier?

Mainly because Hamas has long had wings that aren't ostensibly military, running hospitals, schools and orphanages in the occupied territories, as well as providing ad hoc policing against 'anti-social behaviour'; rather like the IRA, in fact, which got away with gathering money from the US in the 80s on similar grounds. The problem is that when Hamas is your source of charity and support and religious instruction, as it has been for thousands of Palestinian kids, it's too easy for them to feel that joining the military wing and killing Israelis is necessary payback: it might be perverse to say this, but think of the young people in the US who get military scholarships to put them through college and are now patrolling Iraq, most of whom had little thought of pointing a gun when the tuition cheques were rolling in. The circumstances (and morals) are very different, but the equation is similar.

Now, were the Palestinians in a position to look after their own without relying on Janus-faced organisations such as Hamas -- which, like the IRA, run their deprived turfs like mobsters -- they'd be less likely to be both indoctrinated by and indebted to the people who've educated and treated them. There's also the problem that Hamas's ideological purity is considered a better source of trust than Arafat.

But it's a sad truth that if you introduce charity in places of poverty, but with bundles of strings attached, people are more than likely to tie themselves up in them. It's well documented, for example, that many of the boy soldiers of West Africa are eager recruits because of the social structures and ego-boosting effects of going to war; and you could say the same of the gangs of LA.
posted by riviera at 8:12 PM on August 22, 2003

Daniel Pipes in his own words.
posted by samuelad at 8:24 PM on August 22, 2003

Pipes will make up about 10% of the board.
He will undoubtedly have powers of a magnitude as yet unseen on this earth.
posted by shoos at 8:45 PM on August 22, 2003

Pipes will not allow unedited comments on his own blog.
posted by troutfishing at 9:22 PM on August 22, 2003

Hey, at least Pipes has a blog that on quick examination he actually appears to write himself. Not that I care much for what he's written but...
posted by billsaysthis at 9:27 PM on August 22, 2003

at least in pipes' case hes got some company:

norton

poindexter

rumsfeld

perle


to name a few of the worst possible appointees for a given post....
posted by specialk420 at 10:53 PM on August 22, 2003

ouch. invoking Hitchins to discredit someone. it's like invoking Ann Coulter only not as good looking.
i went and listened to Pipes once, he gave a talk on campus.. He is quite naive, has good historical knowledge but no interesting solutions.
posted by bokononito at 11:23 PM on August 22, 2003

god, makes me sick.
posted by delmoi at 1:32 AM on August 23, 2003

It's worth calling Pipes on this prediction of his, made in April of 2003:

"The war in Iraq will lead to a reduction in terrorism. … I expect that Muslim anger will likewise diminish after an allied victory in Iraq. … A U.S. victory in Iraq, this means, will protect more than it harms. Today's furies can be ignored.

I then drew out the policy implications:

Now is a time not for fretting over future bin Ladens, but for finishing the job against Saddam Hussein."

Right-o, Daniel. If current trends continue, Pipes is 180 degrees off the mark.
posted by troutfishing at 5:54 AM on August 23, 2003

In the AP version of the story: "...was one of nine recess appointments he made Friday..."

Does anybody know who the other eight were?

I mean, if they weren't going to be approved by the Senate, for some reason, what are their stories? Were they 'slipped under the radar'?
posted by kablam at 8:24 AM on August 23, 2003

"They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution."
posted by specialk420 at 8:35 AM on August 23, 2003

Pipes would seem to be a perfect appointment to represent this administration. Let's hope he continues to spout his hateful spew. Give 'em enough rope.
posted by 2sheets at 10:38 AM on August 23, 2003

god, makes me sick.-- delmoi

God makes me sick, too :(
posted by dhoyt at 2:57 PM on August 23, 2003