In newsstands this week, both The New Yorker and The New Republic have high-profile articles claiming that al Qaeda is unraveling because its ranks are turning against the terror group’s brand of senseless slaughter—and, moreover, as a result, that it’s inspiring moderates within Islam to unite against the fundamentalist/jihadist wing.

Writing in The New Yorker, Lawrence Wright, author of The Looming Tower, the Pulitzer Prize–winning history of al Qaeda, says that, as current al Qaeda leaders wage violent jihad on the West, the group’s popularity is declining “in places where it formerly enjoyed great support.” He focuses specifically on Sayid Imam al-Sharif, a.k.a. “Dr. Fadl,” the influential founder of Egyptian Islamic Jihad—the organization that assassinated Anwar Sadat before partnering with al Qaeda—whose writings Wright says “indoctrinate recruits and justify killing.” (News of al-Sharif’s book-length recantation made a splash when it first appeared last July in The Guardian.)

Al-Sharif also appears in The New Republic’s piece—the cover story—which talks about the growing number of big-name “jihadists” (though how much they still qualify as such might be debatable) who are “alarmed by the targeting of civilians in the West, the senseless killings in Muslim countries, and . . . barbaric tactics in Iraq” that are trademarks of al Qaeda’s militancy. These erstwhile terrorism apologists, the piece argues, may not have “suddenly switched to particularly progressive forms of Islam or fallen in love with the United States,” but they have expressly renounced al Qaeda’s violent ideology, like its bloody-drenched attacks on innocent civilians, particularly Muslim passersby in Arab countries. “Their anti-Al Qaeda positions,” the story says, “are making Americans safer” because these deserters can “effectively debate” the terrorist organization’s leadership like Osama bin Laden.

“While there is undoubtedly some truth in their argument that—as we can see in Iraq—the mass killings of Muslims by al Qaeda are clearly turning increasing numbers of Muslims against it,” writes The Spectator’s Melanie Phillips, “the authors’ apparent naivety and ignorance have nevertheless led them to some dangerously wrong conclusions.”

She argues that Wright as well as Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, authors of The New Republic story, are slipping into a “trap of believing that the only extremists are al Qaeda and others who support terrorism,” thus “extol[ling] as moderates those who oppose al Qaeda and terrorism”—an “entirely false and indeed lethal dichotomy.” Islamists exist, she says, especially in England, who oppose al Qaeda’s presence in certain places (Iraq, England, etc.) as a tactical mistake but still want to return to a worldwide Caliphate, overturning Western democracy with sharia law.

As other pundits have noted, when two left-leaning magazines simultaneously run major pieces chronicling al Qaeda’s hemorrhaging (even if they explain it as internal disintegration as they downplay any buckling from external U.S.-led pressure), that must portend good for the War on Terror.

The secret – which Matt Drudge told, of course – is out: Britain’s rash and handsome Harry has fought behind Afghanistan’s front lines for the past two months. Now Britain is yanking her royal son from the Helmland and bringing him home.

The prince, a military academy grad and third in line to the British throne, couldn’t serve with his troops in Iraq so he cut a secret deal to go to Afghanistan instead. Red-headed bad boy and “playboy prince,” he’s always had a wicked flair his slightly balding, boring older brother William lacks. (William’s contribution to the Afghanistan fight: A letter saying Princess Di would have been proud.)

And this time, the world’s reaction is not to frown on the recklessness of a guy once dumb enough to dress up like a Nazi for a costume party. Kathryn Jean Lopez gushes on The Corner, “Prince Harry seems like such an impressive young man,” not just because of his bravery but also because he seems miraculously cured of his booze thirst. John Noonan writes on The Weekly Standard blog, “This kind of leadership impresses me no end.” Human Events writes, “Prince Harry the hero puts Europe to shame.” The Morning Journal says,“A prince obviously doesn’t have to do such things.” Allan Mallinson’s pride is palpable: “Well, now Cornet Wales can look every soldier in the eye. Indeed, he can look the whole country in the eye. And his gritty determination to do his bit ought to have recruits clamouring at every barracks gate.”

In an embarrassingly-timed column today, Abe Greenwald claims that democracy is superior to monarchy because good looks correlate with high intelligence: “Our radiant, twinkling, and smoldering candidates are clear indications of the health of our democracy.” Greenwald proves his point by unforgivably ignoring William and Harry’s good looks, choosing instead to compare our potential leaders with the unfortunate-faced Prince Charles. “Erase the great experiment of America,” he says, “and we’d be poised to kneel at the throne of this dull and cowardly man who makes Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich look like Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.”

But Britons are allowed to be a little smug today: Erase the great American experiment and you could have some national pride in a prince who makes American worthies look, well, cowardly and dull. Commanders-in-chief usually conduct wars so far removed from the fight it’s like playing a computer game — push a button, make some sterile, artificial gore. Years ago, though, the men in charge of starting wars actually fought them. It didn’t lead to fewer wars, but it may have made for bigger, braver men.

If you frequent Slate.com, then you’ve probably seen this short video up for several months. It’s called “The Taliban’s Secret Photos,” and it’s described as a photo essay by Thomas Dworzak, who, “during his coverage of the fall of Afghanistan’s Taliban regime in 2002 […] discovered a stash of pictures showing male Taliban members in curious, effeminate poses.”

I got so tired of seeing the images up on their main page that I decided to watch. What I found was more interesting than I expected. If you’re into art, irony, and the war on terror, you might enjoy it.

Carol Iannone, editor-at-large for Academic Questions and blogger for National Review, writes about a master’s thesis recently written by Stephen Coughlin for the National Defense Intelligence College.  Coughlin’s thesis, she says, argues something like this: Most Americans, including our leaders (including those on the left and the right), believe that Islamic extremists are only a small portion of the religion of Islam and they don’t represent that faith or its adherents very well.  Coughlin argues, rather thoroughly in his thesis, that terrorism is a fundamental part of all Islam and that both the left and right ignore this (wanting to be justly pluralistic) at all our peril. 

[Coughlin] says that we are hampered in dealing with the enemy and in producing good intelligence for our strategic plans because instead of listening to what the enemy is saying, we impose our own hopeful, optimistic kind of view on the Islamic world, that everyone is really like us at heart and that we will see this in the end. 

So, what will happen?  Will someone in the West call a spade a spade?  And if so, what would happen?

Over at the very respectable City Journal, Rudy Giuliani has just published an essay (more like a white paper) that is supposed to get him some attention in the presidential race. The subject, as expected, is homeland security, and most of it is very well-done, if boring - until the end. Giuliani says any homeland security plan needs to focus on “prevention, preparedness, and resilience,” and that’s what his essay discusses. The last one - resilience - is the freshest and most intriguing.

A resilient society depends on active, engaged citizens. The way for Washington to encourage resilience is not to throw more money at problems or to place new burdens on business. Government should harness the inherent strength of the American people and the private sector in order to build a society that may bend-but not break-if catastrophe does strike.

The American people are ready, willing, and able to take a more active role in our civil defense. As the White House’s own Lessons Learned report on the federal response to Hurricane Katrina notes, faith-based organizations and community groups successfully provided support to the victims of the hurricane “in spite of, not because of, the government.” Within 72 hours of Katrina’s hitting the Gulf Coast, for instance, a faith-based nonprofit organization-Helping Americans Needing Disaster Support (Hands)- formed to speed delivery of supplies to victims. Just a week after being created, Hands was sending 75 truckloads of supplies for every one FEMA truckload.

Giuliani’s secret weapon in this campaign is his focus on the future, on what’s to be done about this and that. Ron Paul sometimes seems stuck in the past (a rhetorical no-no if you’re trying to get people to elect you in the future), Huck and Mitt seem stuck in the present-tense of who’s the more likable Christian (another rhetorical no-no that lessens discussion of the future). Plans like Giuliani’s might seem less interesting than the Mormon vs. Baptist thing, but Giuliani keeps his rhetoric in the future tense (What’s to be done), and that just might get him elected.

Benazir Bhutto, the woman who’s been leading Pakistani opposition and gaining notice around the world, was murdered today in Islamabad.

Witnesses said Ms. Bhutto was fired upon by a gunman at close range before the blast, and an official from her party said Ms. Bhutto was further injured by the explosion, which was apparently caused by a suicide attacker.

Story here.

Mitchell Cohen says he is very left.  He doesn’t even really get too mad when you call him a socialist.  He says that there’s a kind of Leftist who doesn’t learn.

(more…)

So, that English (the nation, not the language) teacher in the Sudan was pardoned and released from prison, even after lots of Sudanese Muslims called for her execution because she named a class Teddy Bear after Muhammad.  This rather irreverent piece from National Review ties in this Sudanese situation with the Christmas situation closer to home.  Sudanese Muslims took offense at something, just like people over here take offense to phrases like “Merry Christmas” or “Your coffee will be $10.”  So why don’t we call for executions?  Mark Steyn writes, “The ability to give and take offense is what separates free societies from Sudan.”

The front page of the Times this morning has good news about Iraq.  In the print edition, there was even a picture of a wedding taking place in Baghdad (picture here - the other pictures are good, too).  What’s up with the Times?  Thanksgiving got them thinking of hearth and home, or what?  I’m worried about them and am thinking of subscribing.

Some people say that American culture killed communism and won the Cold War.  Can rock-and-roll and Coke and Die Hard movies and McDonald’s do that?  And if they did, can they win the War on Terror?  Here’s a quick precis of what some Americans think about that question. 

(And something else to think about: if rock-and-roll and Coke and Die Hard movies and McDonald’s won the Cold War, was that really a victory worth celebrating?  Sounds like baiting kids to church with cool PowerPoint sermons and donuts.)