Displaying posts published in

September 2017

The Red-Green Axis Goes Ballistic: Iran, North Korea, and Proliferation By Andrew E. Harrod

“It’s a match made in hell,” writes journalist Benny Avni of the nuclear weapon and ballistic missile proliferation nexus between Iran and North Korea. This international, potentially apocalyptic version of what is known as a “red-green alliance” between radical Islamic and leftist elements makes America’s often neglected missile defense efforts all the more urgent.

Various commentators have noted a “stark contrast” between the ideological natures of the Iranian and North Korean regimes. As Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies observes, the Islamic Republic of Iran is a theocracy, while North Korea is a hereditary tyranny with an anti-religious, Marxist ideology. Nonetheless, these two rogue state international outcasts, once included in President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil,” both “feel a serious threat from the United States and the West,” notes Harvard University’s Matthew Bunn.

Accordingly, Israeli analysts have observed that the “nuclear and ballistic interfaces between the two countries are long-lasting” since the carnage of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War. During the conflict, Iran internationally “was a pariah, desperate for military equipment and ammunition,” notes North Korean military analyst Joseph S. Bermudez, Jr. “If Iran has sometimes been desperate to buy arms and military technology, North Korea has always been desperate to sell arms and military technology,” given the country’s economic isolation, writes Cordesman. Thus, North Korea “needed money more than it needed anything else. Iran, which needed missiles more than anything else, was the ideal partner,” concludes the think-tank Geopolitical Futures.

The Iran-Iraq War began a relationship in which, one Israeli academic notes, “several analysts believe that Iran was the primary financial supporter of North Korea’s missile development program.” In exchange for Iranian oil wealth, North Korea provided Iran with Scud-B missiles that North Korea began producing in 1987 after having reverse-engineered them from missiles procured from Egypt in the late 1970s. By the end of the 1980s, Iran had received hundreds of Scud-B and Scud-C missiles.

Subsequently, Iran agreed in 1992 to provide North Korea with $500 million for joint nuclear weapons and ballistic missile development. As a result, North Korea fielded the Nodong missile in the 1990s while Iran deployed its clone, the Shahab-3, in 2003 after several years of testing. While North Korea’s Nodong missiles can hit parts of Japan, Representative Ted Poe (R-Texas) notes that from Iran, the Shahab-3 can strike Israel and Central Europe. North Korea’s Musudan missile, 19 of which Iran obtained sometime before 2007, has theoretically an even longer range, capable of striking from Iran targets like Berlin and Moscow.

While some analysts deny the existence of Iran-North Korea missile design collaboration or joint development, Iranian-North Korean ballistic cooperation extends beyond missiles themselves to fields such as test data exchanges. “It’s doubtful there has been a single Iranian missile test where North Korean scientists weren’t present, nor a North Korean test where Iranian scientists didn’t have a front row seat,” notes the American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Rubin. Missile test sites in Iran and North Korea also exhibit strong similarities.

Evidence concerning Iran-North Korea nuclear cooperation remains more indefinite, although both countries have used similar nuclear supply chains like that of Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. Despite numerous reports through the years of technical personnel exchanges and visits, sometimes involving hundreds of individuals, Cordesman notes that American intelligence has never confirmed such cooperation. Yet British officials on September 10 argued that the rapid progress of North Korea’s nuclear weapons development indicated foreign help from a country like Iran or Russia.

Saudi Arabia Lifts Ban on Women Driving King Salman issues decree allowing women to obtain licenses By Margherita Stancati and Summer Said

RIYADH—Saudi Arabia on Tuesday lifted the world’s only ban on women driving, removing a restriction in the deeply conservative kingdom that had become a symbol of women’s oppression.

In a royal decree, King Salman announced that women will be allowed to obtain driving licenses starting next June, after a government committee studies how to allow women onto the roads driving their own vehicles.

The decision, immediately condemned by many Saudi conservatives on social media, comes at a time of profound change championed by the Saudi monarch and his son, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who are leading efforts to relax the country’s strict social rules as they move to open up and modernize the country’s oil-dependent economy.

It also comes as the monarchy clamps down on perceived opposition: Saudi authorities have arrested dozens of people this month, from clerics to academics, in what the authorities described as a nascent antigovernment plot ahead of the king’s widely expected abdication in his son’s favor, the timing of which remains unclear.

“We refer to the negative consequences of not allowing women to drive, and the positive aspects of allowing them to do so, taking into consideration the necessary Shari’ah regulations and compliance with them,” King Salman said in the decree, referring to Islamic law.

The announcement caps a decadeslong campaign led by Saudi women to abolish a rule that drew widespread condemnation from both friends and foes of the kingdom, tarnishing its reputation internationally.

“We are very excited. We are over the moon,” said Hatoon al Fassi, a Saudi historian and one of the leaders of the campaign to let women drive. “Our struggle, the years of work have at last yielded a result, our right has been realized. It’s a historical moment. King Salman made a historical decision.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Stronger – A Review By Marilyn Penn

Talk about synchronicity – there are two pivotal scenes in Stronger in which the national anthem and the flag are integral to the importance of patriotism and heroism in the healing of wounded bodies and souls. One takes place at the baseball game at Fenway Park and I wondered what effect this movie would have on the healthy athletes of the NFL who have treated both these symbols of our nation’s freedom as convenient photo-ops for publicizing their own cause. Seeing this movie about Jeff Bauman who lost both legs in the terrorist bombing of the Boston Marathon, highlights the world of difference between our country after 9/11 and after Boston and our country since the surprise upset of our last election. We have lost the sincere appreciation for the bravery of men in uniform and have exaggerated the numbers of miscreants who pop up in police forces in our country. We have just learned that current homicide rates have gone up significantly, possibly due to police hesitancy to take forceful action now that they have been singled out as marks by disgruntled loners and activist groups.

Stronger is a searing and heartbreaking look at the random nature of terrorist acts and the long, painful process of recovery. It deals with one victim and his family but the implications for all other victims are obvious. It’s a movie that doesn’t shy away from the complications of damaged personalities who drink till they are blotto, manipulate each other in direct and subtle ways and yet, try falteringly to help and relate to each other. It’s a movie that shows you the stumps resulting from amputation as well as the blind self-indulgence of caregivers and the paralyzing self-pity and aftershock of PTSD The characters are believable because of these honest imperfections and their courage to persevere is more uplifting precisely because it comes after repeated failures. Jake Gyllenhaal and Miranda Richardson are exceptional as the double amputee and his mother and so is Tatiana Maslany who gives a quiet and intuitive performance as his ex and current girlfriend. The director, David Gordon Green juggles the various elements of plot and character in a straightforward manner, relying on the drama inherent to this story to do its job. It’s a movie that succeeds in keeping you in your seat for some time after it ends, waiting to recover from a powerful and emotional experience.

Exposing Differences on the “Deep State” by: Diana West

On September 15, I participated in a panel on “Exposing the Deep State,” hosted by Judicial Watch. Former Trump White House official Sebastian Gorka, the Washington Examiner’s Todd Shepherd, JW’s James Peterson, and I all delivered approximately 7-minute statements after which JW’s lead investigator, Chris Farrell, moderated a discussion. My written statement is here.

Not sure how much “Deep State” we were able to expose in one hour, although one thing that opened up was a bright shaft of daylight between my own and Sebastian Gorka’s approaches to the whole concept. To wit, Sebastian began his discussion seemingly negating the effort, “Exposing the Deep State,” by warning against “belief” in “conspiracy theories,” which “undermines clear-sighted analysis” — something he might like to pass along, for example, to those who prosecute organized crime on RICO conspiracy charges.

Here’s how he began:

Let me start with a caveat, if I may.

I love conspiracy theories, but I love them as entertainment.

I have a bookshelf of conspiracy theories at home. But there’s a very important part to that phrase, and it’s the second word, which is “theories.” They’re not facts. So, conspiracy theories and the belief in them, undermines clear-sighted analysis. So I’m not here to talk about the outre accusations that have been made against those who are not in favor of the cirrent administration. I want to talk about what actually happened so far … the first seven months of how the bureacracy responded to the administration of Donald J. Trump.

Let me start by saying I actually prefer the phrase “permanent state” to “deep state.” Because it’s not necessarily a function of something that’s hidden or deep. It was in our faces. It was arrogant. It was right there in the suraface of out policy discussion at the highest level of the White House. So it’s not hidden, it can be. But in many cases it’s overt. And it’s been there for a long time … this has been brewing for decades, truly decades.

His markers of this “permanent state” included:

(1) national security leaks — by his count, 125 in the first 126 days

(2) bureaucratic infighting to a point of intransigence. He used the example of his own experience with “unnamed sister agency” of the White House (sic) that refused his request “as a Deputy Assistant to the President, that [three] people be detailed over to me at the White House to work on key projects of import to Steve [Bannon] and the President … because the seventh floor of that agency, to quote a senior individual, looks at the White House as the enemy.”

Why would that be? Sebastian went on to talk about a lack of discipline when it comes to federal employees working for the new CEO/POTUS in town. He talked about NSA officials and others who ignore the president’s agenda and speeches, again identifying the main problems as something akin to insubordination, as well as the safety net of federal job security. His concluding words: “Today, we have a very large number of people in the US Government, not just SES but GS individuals, who think, `I’ve been here for 15 years, I’ll be here when the president leaves, I know better.’ That’s not democracy, and that’s not the American Way.”

My talk, linked here, proceeded quite differently, and not only because Chris Farrell cued it up by invoking my lengthy explication of mid-century Communist-“occupied” Washington in American Betrayal.

Nevertheless, I, too, wrestle with the term, “Deep State.” Having described what I think of when I hear it as “unconstitutional powers exercised by strange illegitimate branchlets of the government that are in no way restrained by the `balance of powers,’ ” I went on to note ideological links between the “Deep State” (also American culture more generally), and communist/Marxist objectives for America laid out over 80 years ago in Toward Soviet America, a 1932 tract by Communist Party USA Chairman William Z. Foster.

THE LABOUR PARTY – A SAFE SPACE FOR HATE: MELANIE PHILLIPS

What has been revealed about the Labour party at its annual conference in Brighton should make all decent people shudder.

A fringe meeting hosted a call for Labour to debate whether the Holocaust actually happened, the libelling of Israel as a racist, Nazi, apartheid and colonialist state and a demand that Jews who supported Israel should be kicked out of the Labour party.

What was so chilling was not just that the meeting, called Free Speech on Israel (aka Safe Space for Hate) provided bigots with the opportunity to spew their bile. It cheered and applauded them.

Israeli-American author Miko Peled told it Labour members should support the freedom to “discuss every issue, whether it’s the Holocaust, yes or no, whether it’s Palestine liberation – the entire spectrum. There should be no limits on the discussion.”

Michael Kalmanovitz, a member of the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, called for two pro-Israeli groups to be expelled from the party. He said: “The thing is, if you support Israel, you support apartheid. So what is the JLM (Jewish Labour Movement) and Labour Friends of Israel doing in our party? Kick them out.” The Mirror reported: “Loud cheers, applause and calls of ‘throw them out’ erupted in the room of around a hundred activists in response.”

Fringe meetings are not run by the party and Labour says it isn’t responsible for their content. Nevertheless, the event was advertised in official conference literature. It was chaired by an individual called Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi. Watch this clip of her addressing the conference plenary session to see just what a piece of work she is.

She was opposing the proposed rule change to make it easier to expel antisemites. In addition to ranting and raving about Israel with a breathtaking stream of defamatory falsehoods, distortions and smears – including a swipe at the Balfour Declaration – she was actually booed by journalists when she claimed that Jewish groups behind the rule change had been briefing certain newspapers. She then received a ecstatic standing ovation when she stated: “I am not an antisemite. This party does not have a problem with Jews”.

Ah, how the conference loved that. Look at their faces on the clip. They are beside themselves with joy that they are being given permission by a Jew to hate the collective Jew in the State of Israel.

The situation could not have been clearer or more disquieting. It is Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi who is the problem with the Labour party – the problem she denies exists. And in not only giving her a platform but ecstatically applauding her bigotry, the Labour party was showing that Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi is not in fact the issue. The real problem is the Labour party itself.

Like the venomously anti-Israel Israeli professor Avi Shlaim, who was speaking at the launch of yet another groupuscule Jewish Voices for Labour, Kalmanovitz said the claims of antisemitism in the party were part of a right-wing effort to undermine Jeremy Corbyn and the left. But people like him ensured we could all see for ourselves this could not be the case. For antisemitism was on rank display at those Corbynista meetings.

Those behind “Free Speech on Israel” showed their true colours on free speech by reportedly ordering those attending not to tweet or take photographs for fear of “hostile coverage”. Meanwhile leaflets were passed around claiming that concerns about rising antisemitism were a “manufactured moral panic”.

Yet elsewhere, one Jewish Labour activist reported that leaflets were being passed around the conference floor demanding the expulsion of the Jewish Labour Movement from the Party; and Izzy Lenga, the Vice-President of the National Union of Students tweeted: “I didn’t think it was possible, but I feel a whole lot more unsafe, uncomfortable and upset as a Jew on [the Labour Party Conference] floor right now than I do at NUS”.

Today, the party passed the rule change making antisemitic abuse and harassment by Labour members a punishable offence. The Guardian reported:

“The rule change proposed by the Jewish Labour Movement, which has been backed by the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn and the party’s national executive committee, will tighten explicitly the party’s stance towards members who are antisemitic or use other forms of hate speech, including racism, Islamophobia, sexism and homophobia.”

Yet this change is worse than meaningless. Yes, it enables the party to expel antisemites. But crucially, it leaves unresolved the definition of what antisemitism actually is. And you can bet your bottom dollar that Labour will never, ever accept that demonisation and delegitimisation of Israel is the contemporary form of the oldest hatred.

How could it accept that? Its members overwhelmingly subscribe to it – even though many of them haven’t the faintest clue that what they believe to be the truth about the Arab-Israel conflict is in fact a pack of lies from start to finish.

In maintaining this fictitious distinction, Labour wields what it believes to be the ultimate weapon: the anti-Zionist Jews who offer themselves as human shields to protect those who they hope will destroy the State of Israel through demonisation and delegitimisation.

The assumption is that no Jew can be an antisemite; so if Jews say Israel is a Nazi apartheid racist murderous colonialist state committing unspeakabke atrocities, that cannot be antisemitism.

But that’s rubbish. Antisemitism has unique characteristics, including double standards applied to no-one else but the Jews, systemic lies and falsehoods, imputation of a global conspiracy to harm the world in their own interests, blame for crimes of which they are not only innocent but are the victims, and so on. All these characteristics that make antisemitism a unique collective derangement apply to the demonisation of Israel.

Shocker: Toronto Palestine Film Festival rejects Israel boycott

“This development shows the utter failure of the BDS campaign in Canada,” said B’nai Brith Canada CEO Michael Mostyn on the Palestine Film Festival’s rejection of the anti-Israel boycott movement.

B’nai Brith Canada is recognizing that the Toronto Palestine Film Festival (TPFF) has defied the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. This year’s edition of TPFF, which took place on Sept. 20-24, featured no fewer than five Israeli films, demonstrating the lure of Israeli cinema for even non-traditional audiences.

Among the Israeli films shown at TPFF was In Between, a story about three very different Israeli-Arab women living together in Tel Aviv. In Between received financial support from the Israeli Film Fund, which was established by Israel’s Ministry of Culture and Sport. By contrast, the film has stirred controversy among Israeli-Arabs for its raw depiction of violence and misogyny among the more religiously conservative elements of that community.

The anti-Israel BDS movement calls for a blanket cultural boycott of all “projects involving Israel,” especially those supported by its government and other official agencies.

“This development shows the utter failure of the BDS campaign in Canada,” said Michael Mostyn, Chief Executive Officer of B’nai Brith Canada. “By showcasing Israeli cinema, TPFF has supported the Israeli economy and the arts, despite fierce opposition from some Palestinian-Canadian figures.

“A serious question must now be asked of those who promote the bigoted BDS agenda in Canada and abroad: If even Palestinians in the Diaspora can’t be bothered to boycott the Jewish State, why should anyone else, including Roger Waters?”

B’nai Brith has recently launched a campaign to counter former Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters‘ anti-Israel message by partnering with award-winning author/filmmaker Ian Halperin to present screenings of his latest film, Wish You Weren’t Here, across Canada.

By: Aidan Fishman, Interim National Director, B’nai Brith Canada League for Human Rights

Palestinian Arab Terrorist with Work Permit Murders 3 Israelis

A Palestinian employee shot and murdered three victims and wounded a fourth. The terrorist, who had a permit to work in Israel, was shot dead.

A Palestinian terrorist on Tuesday shot and murdered three Israelis – two security men and one Border Policeman – and seriously wounded another security guard in the community of Har Adar, just north of Jerusalem.

The incident occurred at the rear entrance to the community, as Palestinian employees were arriving, including the terrorist, who had a work permit. Security officials began suspecting him, at which point he extracted a weapon from his shirt and fired, hitting four.

They managed to fire back and eliminated the terrorist.

United Hatzalah EMS volunteers treated the four victims. Volunteer doctors, paramedics and EMTs from the Mevaseret chapter treated the injured, three of whom who were listed in critical condition. Only a few moments later, all three were pronounced dead at the scene. The fourth victim, in his early 30s, was evacuated to Hadassah Ein Kerem hospital in Jerusalem.

Moshir Abu Katish, a Muslim volunteer EMT with United Hatzalah who lives in the neighboring Arab-Israeli town of Abu Gosh, was one of the first responders on the scene. He described the victims as suffering from gunshot wounds to their upper bodies.

Palestinian sources identified the assailant as Mahmoud Ahmed Jamal, 37, a father of four.
A ‘New Phase in the Al-Quds Intifada’

The Hamas terror group praised the deadly attack and said it was a “new phase in the Al-Quds Intifada.”

Israel is in the midst of celebrating the High Holidays, a time when Israel’s security forces are on heightened alert. The attack occurred after weeks of relative quiet.

US President Donald Trump’s Special Representative for International Negotiations, Jason Greenblatt, returned to Israel on Monday amid media reports concerning a new peace plan.

President Reuven Rivlin said “the cruel terror attack proves once again the daily front that our security forces face in the most important mission — protecting and defending the safety of the citizens of Israel.”

This incident is the latest in a long series of Palestinian terror attacks over the past two years, claiming the lives of 55 victims and wounding some 700.

The Left’s (Brilliant) Scam Behind The NFL Anthem Protests by Jazz Shaw

It didn’t happen until last night. For the entire time that the recent spate of highly inflamed National Anthem protests on NFL playing fields has been unfolding this year, there’s been something nagging at the back of my mind. Watching liberal activists (not to be confused with rank and file voters who may happen to be registered Democrats but also enjoy sports) charging to the barricades over these displays of kneeling, sitting or otherwise acting disrespectfully during the playing of the anthem and the display of the American flag, something just didn’t seem right. But last night was when it hit me. This isn’t about protesting racism, police misconduct or anything of the sort. What we’re observing is potentially one of the greatest red herrings in the history of American political scams.

The question I was most confused over was… why this location? Why this particular time? The reality is that any of these well paid players could call a press conference or show up at any rally to talk about racism, police shootings and all the rest, and they would draw the attention of millions, along with the media. (God only knows ESPN would show up.) So why were the liberal activists insisting that it had to be at the start of a game while the National Anthem is playing and the flag is on display? It didn’t make sense. And then, suddenly, it did.

I think the light bulb finally went on when I was reading this piece on the subject from the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart. It wasn’t really so much what the author had to say because that was probably the fiftieth tirade of that sort I’d read in just the past week. No, it was more a matter of who was saying it. To his credit, Jonathan is honest enough to open the piece with a statement reminding people that he’s, “not much of a sports fan.” But that doesn’t begin to describe him. For those who ever watched Capehart fill in for Willie Geist on MSNBC’s old “Way Too Early” show, you’ll know what I mean. It became something of a running gag (which Jonathan engaged in with a great sense of humor) to watch him attempt to read the teleprompter on Monday morning and describe what had happened around the NFL the day before. Frequently he had to be rescued by Bill Karins, jumping in to offer some commentary from the perspective of somebody who had actually seen the game and knew how football worked. (Keep in mind that Bill is the meteorologist, not the sports analyst, although he did compete in several sports in school.)

With that complete lack of engagement in professional football, why would Jonathan and so many of his progressive colleagues be so completely driven to support and gin up protests taking place on the gridiron? Why did they suddenly care so much about the intersection of racial identity politics and football?

The answer is that they don’t. This has little or nothing to do with police shootings, racial profiling or any of the rest of it. What we’re seeing is an almost brilliant and concerted effort to damage, if not eliminate, the National Football League.

Why? Because the activist Left has despised the NFL for years. They hate everything about it. It’s a game filled with big, tough, manly men engaging in the closest thing to warfare you can manage without guns. It’s a game rife with symbolism and, yes… nationalism. Even people who would never buy an album from a country singer could feel their blood heating up when Hank Williams used to sing, Are you Ready for Some Football. The military loves football and they fly jets over the stadiums in formation and send our nation’s finest out to pay tribute. And it’s not just the military. Our police and other first responders are frequently called out for honors at the games. Everything about it screams of apple pie, fireworks and patriotism. (Or, if you prefer, God, guns and flags.) And the activist Left hates it. Probably the only sporting event they despise more is NASCAR.

And this isn’t the first ginned up attack on the NFL that the Left has orchestrated. Observe the running debate, mostly driven by liberals, about how concussions and other long-term physical effects on players make the sport “unsafe.” Do you honestly think it’s because they care about the health of the players? Activists have gone so far as to point out that even “micro concussions” caused by repeated, far lighter taps to the head are too much of a risk.

Take a Knee to PC By David Randall

David Randall is Director of Communications at the National Association of Scholars.https://amgreatness.com/2017/09/26/take-a-knee-to-pc/

It’s time to stop listening in silence to the social justice catechism—the propagandists take silence as consent, and so do your fellow Americans. It’s time to let everyone know that we do not consent to nonstop progressive hectoring and that we do not regard it as simple virtue.

Colin Kaepernick shows us what we need to do. Take a knee.

Take a knee when your college’s convocation speaker is a co-founder of Black Lives Matter. Take a knee when your university’s commencement speaker calls for amnestying illegal immigrants. Take a knee when the college president calls on you to work for social justice.

And proudly wear a t-shirt that says “Liberty Matters.”

Take a knee when your teacher spends class time ranting against the president. Take a knee when you’re forced to undergo “diversity training” at your new job. Take a knee when you listen to the chairman of a corporation that fires its employees for speaking up against PC.

Take a knee every time your conscience tells you “I do not assent and I will not let my silence be taken as consent.”

Take a knee, and invite your friends and neighbors to join you.

Take a knee, and when the henchmen of the authoritarian Left try to fire you, shun you, yell at you, or simply beat you up—

Then is the time to stand up and sing the national anthem.

The U.N. Is Designed to Fail By Henry I. Miller

Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology.

The annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly last week, and President Trump’s widely noted remarks there, focused much-needed attention on the organization. The dithering and inaction on critical international problems Trump noted served as a reminder that the U.N. has long been dysfunctional and disappointing. That is not surprising: It was designed to fail.https://amgreatness.com/2017/09/26/the-u-n-is-designed-to-fail/

Best-known for its so-called “peace-keeping” efforts in areas of conflict—where it enjoys a mixed record, at best—the organization’s other agencies, commissions and panels have a dismal record of accomplishment, especially while acting as the world’s regulator-wannabe for all manner of products and processes. The U.N. regularly panders to activists and, not coincidentally, adopts policies that expand its own scope and responsibilities. Science routinely gets short shrift in U.N. brokered international agreements, where everything becomes an exercise in international horse-trading.

As both a candidate and as president, Donald Trump has criticized the under-performance and lavish self-indulgence of U.N. bureaucrats. The United States has long been a hugely disproportionate funder of U.N. activities—our mandatory assessment and voluntary contributions totaling some $8 billion each year—but the era of America as the U.N. sugar-daddy is about to end. In the Spring, State department staffers were instructed to find significant cuts in U.S. funding for U.N. programs (above the mandatory assessment). That was the first signal of long-overdue belt-tightening.

Why are incompetence and profligacy rife within the sprawling organization? In several respects, it’s in the U.N.’s DNA.

First, the U.N. is essentially a monopoly. Inefficiency and incompetence are not punished by “consumers” of their products. It is not as if the services of the U.N. can be spurned in favor of patronizing a more efficient and competent competitor. On the contrary, it is not uncommon in these kinds of bureaucracies for failure to be rewarded with additional resources. Contrary to good business practice, if a program isn’t working, government bureaucrats clamor to make it bigger.