Eye on the Watcher’s Council

As you may know the members of the Watcher’s Council each nominate one of his or her own posts and one non-Council post for consideration by the whole Council. The complete list of this week’s Council nominations is here.

As you might expect many of the posts this week have to do with 9/11.

Soccer Dad, “Three Strands Not Easily Broken”

Soccer Dad considers three of the factors that lead to the attacks on September 11, 2001: the ideology promulgated by Sayyid Qutb, rationalization of Palestinian terrorism against Israel, and bureaucracy. As he notes there are other factors and for my part I think that U. S. interest in the region was a major factor that should be taken more seriously.

The Glittering Eye, “America Does Diplomacy”

In my submission for this week I note how a meeting of two giants illustrates how the forces that have traditionally informed American foreign policy have operated synergistically to our benefit.

Rhymes With Right, “A Little Journalistic Arrogance”

Greg considers journalists protecting their sources. It’s not a right guaranteed by the Constitution (although it may be protected by shield laws in some states). My greatest gripe in cases like this is that it’s yet another instance of the assertion of technocracy which in my book is just another name for tyranny.

Joshuapundit, “9/11, Five Years Later”

In his submission for this week, with which I largely agree, Freedom Fighter delineates the shortcomings of our response so far to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Here’s the snippet with which I agree the most:

President Bush is a decent, principled man in my opinion, but he has failed in one of the primary duties of leadership, which is not only to make policy but to articulate and sell it to the country.

Socratic Rhythm Method, “Your Chance of Dying in a Terrorist Attack”

Matt reflects on our response to 9/11 and that considering the odds may not be all there is to it. Honestly, I’ve been baffled by those who’ve been making the “odds of being killed by a terrorist attack” argument who also advocate owning and carrying handguns for self-defense. What are the odds of their defending themselves or their loved ones successfully that way?

ShrinkWrapped, “9/11 Ambiguities”

I don’t completely buy any of the explanations offered by ShrinkWrapped (the criminal organization, the inherently violent religion, the anthropological explanation, the psychological explanation) in this very interesting consideration of the conflict we’re in. However, I’m completely behind the characterization he’s suggested of the Republican position and the Democratic position, respectively: the inarticulate on the one hand and the incoherent on the other.

If forced to digest my own view, I would tentatively explain it as that we’re facing a criminal organization with a religious patina which cannot be addressed with international coordination and policing because it has state support. A little terse but a start.

AbbaGav, “Angel M. Pabon and the 2,996”

In his submission this week Gavriel posts a tribute to Angel M. Pabon, one of those murdered in the attacks.

Right Wing Nut House, “The Tears No Longer Come”

Rick Moran considers his feelings about the attack and how they’ve changed in five years.

The Education Wonks, “The Terrorist Attacks of 9-11: Views from the Classroom”

How can a teacher approach presenting this material to his or her students?

Done With Mirrors, “Pronoun Trouble”

Callimachus muses on the selection of pronouns in a news story about a man physiologically a man but living as a woman. He does have a way with words: “eye shadow and 5 o’clock shadow”.

Gates of Vienna, “The Danish Face in the NATO Picture”

Dymphna reports on the contingent of Danish special forces who will be taking part in the NATO operations in Afghanistan.

The Sundries Shack, “Bush Only Confessed to a Crime If You Don’t Actually Read the Law or a Calendar”

Jimmie Bise wrestles with the claims that President Bush’s statements about the treatment of prisoners amounts to confession of a crime. Jimmie, Jimmie, Jimmie. That President Bush is a criminal is a premise rather than a conclusion. All that is needed is determining how to employ the law that way. Those you’re arguing against can’t tell their a priori from their a posteriori.
Well, I’ve decided which posts I’ll vote for. Which would get your vote?