THE DIGNIFIED RANT
NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS DECEMBER 2003 ARCHIVES
Return to National Security Affairs
Return to National Security Affairs Archives
“Embedding Reporters”
(Posted
Listening to CNN tonight it is discouraging to hear Aaron Brown discuss the problem of embedding reporters with American units during the Iraq War. Heavens, the reporters got “too close” to the soldiers and learned to respect them and identify with them.
Imagine that. American reporters learned to respect American soldiers on a mission to destroy a monster to his own people and a threat to the American people.
This is a controversy amongst the media elite, apparently.
Yet I hear nothing—zero—about the reporters embedded in dictatorial regimes. No debate over the ethical and professional lapses of news organizations that refuse to report on what is happening in order to maintain their presence in the country.
After a couple stories about this problem, I hoped that there might be a debate on this problem.
In this new year, when we face
foreign regimes that lie and kill, I hope that our news media will report the
news and, if they are kicked out of some
Happy New Year. May more victories follow in 2004.
“Libyan Diplomacy”
(Posted
The diplomacy
that so many credit
U.S.
and British intelligence services in late September discovered that a freighter
bound for Libya was hauling thousands of parts for centrifuges, a key component
for producing nuclear weapons, senior
Amazingly, some Americans (in State?) thought that
intercepting equipment bound for
Other
I have to believe that only intensive training in the art of diplomacy can give this kind of insight.
“Wild Card” (Posted
December 31, 2003)
We
worry about Musharraf and what might happen if
Islamists stage a coup in
Administration
officials would not discuss their contingency plans for Pakistan, but several
said the White House was revisiting an effort begun just after the Sept. 11,
2001, attacks to help Pakistan improve the security of its nuclear arsenal and
to prevent Al Qaeda or extremists within the
Pakistani military or intelligence services from gaining access to the
country's weapons and fissile material.
Right now, if the article is to be believed, a
Ideally, helping the Pakistanis secure their nuclear arsenal includes finding out where it is and creating plans to land Army paratroopers and Rangers, Marines, and special operations people to lift them out in case of chaos.
We’d need help from the friendly elements in the Pakistani army who likely don’t want nukes in the hands of nutjobs.
But until we can push
And after, too, for that matter.
Elections aren’t a cure-all for the problem of an Islamist coup. But it will
keep the Islamists from posing as the champions of democracy.
“Blowback” (Posted
Sometimes people who criticize what we do like to pretend
that blowback only affects
The Saudis are experiencing some blowback for their support of Islamists. And the Islamists are helping the Saudis to decide to fight with us:
Islamic militants in
It has taken some time to pull the Saudis into fighting what they have created, but we seem—with al Qaeda’s help—to be succeeding. I do believe we are far better off with this situation than having treated the Saudis as an enemy as some advocated in the aftermath of 9-11.
We must fight, negotiate, and persuade.
“Pacifying
This author calls for a gentler approach. Sort of. He also recognizes that we must ruthlessly go after the fighters. He basically reflects my own instincts on what is going on. Counter-insurgency requires a low level of force as a police and intelligence operation. Heavy weapons ideally have no place in settled areas where innocents may be killed.
Yet we can’t afford to let up on the enemy. Nor can we assume that Sunnis will take the opportunity to help us only based on our good works. We have a gentler approach in Kurdish and Shia areas. We tried to go easy on the Sunni areas at the end of July and were repaid with a resurgence of attacks on our forces.
We do seem to have eased up on heavy weapons. But until Sunnis show us that they are willing to work with us (and there are indications this is starting to happen) we can’t drop the benefits that fear of us provide.
But it is a tough call for when and where to apply heavy force and when we can be gentle. Both can be necessary for victory and both can encourage resistance. I just don’t know when to make that call.
“Why Do They Hate Us”
(Posted
Hanson is good as usual. This time on the strangely parallel views of Islamists and Western intellectuals:
The so-called Arab street and its phony intellectuals sense that
influential progressive Westerners will never censure Middle Eastern felonies
if there is a chance to rage about Western misdemeanors. It is precisely this
parasitic relationship between the foreign and domestic critics of the West
that explains much of the strange confidence of those who planned September 11.
It was the genius of bin Laden, after all, that he suspected after he had
incinerated 3,000 Westerners an elite would be more likely to blame itself for
the calamity — searching for “root causes” than marshalling its legions to
defeat a tribe that embraced theocracy, autocracy, gender apartheid, polygamy,
anti-Semitism, and religious intolerance. And why not after Lebanon, the first
World Trade Center bombing, the embassies in Africa, murder in Saudi Arabia,
and the USS Cole? It was the
folly of bin Laden only that he assumed the United States was as far gone as
Europe and that a minority of its ashamed elites had completely assumed control
of American political, cultural, and spiritual life.
Wrong indeed. It doesn’t matter that the intellectuals hate us. It doesn’t matter that the Islamists want to kill us.
We are on the march. And winning.
Bad call, Osama.
“Missile Imports” (Posted
The LA Times report (via Andrewsullivan.com with Drezner guest-blogging) on Iraqi weapons imports through Syria gives an amazing portrait of a state determined to get around the sanctions and another state determined to earn a place on the podium of the Axis of Evil.
But most interesting is the article’s description of one December 2002 import:
A Polish company, Evax, signed four contracts
with
SAM-2 missile engines? Engines for obsolete anti-aircraft missiles? Missiles we learned how to dodge 30+ years ago. Good choice for the Iraqis if they wanted to resist our shock and awe, eh? The article just mentions this item with no context.
But wait, I think this isn’t what it seems. The Iraqis used SAM-2 missile engines to build surface-to-surface missiles with ranges far exceeding that allowed by the ceasefire resolution:
Iraq
attempted to convert the Volga/SA-2 anti-aircraft missile into the Al-Fahd-300,
a 300 km range SRBM with an SA-2 engine and a solid-propellant booster. The
project was reportedly abandoned in research and development.
In
its resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, the Security Council decided that
Iraq should unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering
harmless, under international supervision, of all ballistic missiles with a
range greater than 150 kilometers, and related major parts and repair and
production facilities. The Fahd missiles were
proscribed weapons with declared ranges of 300 or 500 kilometers.
The Iraqis wanted long-range missiles. Fancy that.
I suppose somebody is going to try to tell me Saddam wanted WMD, too.
“A
I like Powell, I really do. I have issues with State and I have some issues with the Secretary of State, but he is a diplomat. He will act differently than Rumsfeld.
So be it. But this story is just beyond parody. It reeks of the handbook for dignified surrender to aliens coupled with a good aid program followed by the Corps Diplomatique Terrestrienne. Check it out:
Iranian leaders have agreed to allow surprise inspections of the
country's nuclear energy program, have made overtures to moderate Arab
governments and, in the past week, have
accepted direct U.S. help as the country struggles with the effects of a
devastating earthquake.
This is significant in CDT-think. Powell actually thinks their willingness to accept our help is some breakthrough! Now that’s a concession, eh! They’ll cash our check.
Pity the Iranian mullahs shot down this folly so quickly:
President Mohammad Khatami
thanked the
At first, when I read some commentary that the Bam earthquake would work to de-legitimize the government, I scoffed. The reports said the government was actually reacting well in deploying resources. But this information makes me wonder. Although the Shah banned house construction on a known earthquake site:
The
revolutionary turmoil of 1978-79 provided racketeers with an opportunity to seize
large chunks of land in Bam and use it for poorly designed and badly
constructed houses and shops. The racket was backed by a group of powerful
mullahs who, in exchange for a cut in the proceeds, issued fatwas (religious opinions)
that canceled government orders that banned house-building in the city.
The
mullahs claimed that the shah had wished to keep Bam empty because of a secret
plan under which the city would be turned into a Zoroastrian center. They also
dismissed warnings from the
Thus,
more than half of those who died in the earthquake could be regarded as victims
of a racket ran by mullahs and their associates with the help of religious
prejudice and superstition.
Most
Iranians knew nothing of the racket that the earthquake has exposed. The
discovery that so many people died because cynical developers and bribe-taking
mullahs sought a fast buck has sent a shock wave throughout the country.
Corruption by the mullahs is responsible for tens of thousands of dead? Could be rough on the mullahs. Sure hope so.
“Tipping Point?”
(Posted December 29, 2003)
Some good
trends reported here on the
The Baathist Sunnis are tiring, it seems.
I read or heard (I can’t remember which) that some Sunni
tribal leaders previously silent are publicly calling for cooperation with us
as they react to Saddam’s capture. As I’ve noted before, the Sunnis would
probably rather deal with us than the Kurds and Shias
in July 2004. They don’t have a lot of time before they lose an opportunity to
come on board the new
The Islamists are another matter. Smaller in number yet
fanatical, they need to be killed off. Iraqis can be a great help here.
“North Koreans”
(Posted
We may or may not have new talks with the North Koreans over their nuclear ambitions. Yet there is this little perception problem:
A
new round of talks were not mentioned in a tough statement transmitted from
Pyongyang, the capital, on Monday by the North Korean news agency KCNA, which
said that "this year the U.S. imperialists have escalated tensions on the
Korean Peninsula, pursuant to a hostile policy towards" North Korea.
Referring
to a series of international meetings, the statement said, "The
It
concluded by saying that "all these facts go to prove once again that the
[North Korean] government was just when it took the measure to build up its
nuclear deterrent force this year . . . clearly seeing through the true
aggressive nature of the U.S. imperialists."
Now I’m not trained to be wise in the ways of diplomacy, but explain to me again why the North Koreans want a US guarantee that we won’t attack them. Doesn’t talk like this kind of undercut the value to them of our guarantees?
As far as I’m concerned, we need to contain and squeeze the North Koreans until they collapse. Talks are just a means to keep them from launching a war to solve their internal problems.
“Credit Where Credit
is Due” (Posted
All too often, the accomplishment of our Army and Marines in taking Baghdad in three weeks is ridiculed as expected against such a weak foe as Saddam. Of course, they also predicted disaster before and during the war, but no matter. Such critics are fools.
Our military is just plain freaking good, head and shoulders above our enemies:
The 23 day campaign to defeat
Victory is not our birthright and we have worked hard to win “easy” victories.
We need to keep working hard.
“Chinese Invasion
Intent” (Posted
I’m tardy in my part 2 on the Chinese invasion of
If
I’ve seen it bandied about that
Speed is the key for
I just need a little time to pull together the part 2. Maybe tomorrow.
“Incomplete Victory”
(Posted
This is the price you pay for incomplete victories that don’t end with your soldiers marching on the capital and driving the rulers out of power:
Hardline Serb nationalists
led by a jailed war crimes suspect won Sunday's general election but failed to
obtain the majority needed to form a government on its own, partial results
showed.
On the radio a reporter said that Milosevic, who is on trial
for war crimes in
And with the trial dragging on so long, I would not be
surprised if the legal retentive people pretending to dispense justice let the
man go home to
Just wait.
Oh! Oh! I forgot. Not to worry. The Euro-corps will save the day if the Serbs decide to get nostalgic for rapin’, killin’, and pillagin’, right?
“Disbanding the Baathist Resistance” (Posted
This bit of news will help us split away the larger Sunni population from the Baathist thugs still fighting us:
Senior
The Sunnis don’t know what their
future holds. Remember that the Sunnis were oppressed, too. Only selected
Sunnis were favored by the Baathists under Saddam.
Nabbing Saddam and providing opportunities in a new
Then there are the Islamists with suicide bombs who don’t care
about Saddam but that should be an easier task with friendly Iraqis helping
us.
“Disbanding the Iraqi
Army” (Posted
From Strategypage, yet another note on the silly allegations of error in “disbanding” the Iraqi army in May:
The Iraqi army was disbanded right after the war because it was known
that it's officers had been selected mainly for their
loyalty to Saddam. Most of the officers were also Sunni Arabs. Leaving the army
intact would have created a Sunni Arab militia, a large body of armed men
resentful of the American presence in the country. Although many of the troops
were Shia Arabs, they were terrorized and dominated
by Sunni officers and NCOs. If the Iraqi army were left intact, the Sunni
officers would have to deal with unrest in the ranks as well as devising ways
to continue the fight against the Americans.
I’m getting nostalgic for plastic
“Terror War” (Posted
I’ve often gotten annoyed at the complaints that the attacks on the Taliban and Saddam Hussein’s regime “distracted” us from the war on terror. Those campaigns were military campaigns using assets for the most part irrelevant to the war on terror except in small numbers, for short periods. The fight against terrorists is a police and intelligence problem for the most part. The quiet campaign in the Horn of Africa is one exception but it is not a big affair (1,800 troops) for the military. Certainly, taking down the state sponsors in very helpful but terrorists can go on with fairly small amounts of money earned in illegal activities. And with modern technology, they could kill large numbers if they get lucky.
I bring this up because I haven’t written much on the terror
level and the reported plots we’ve intercepted or are worried are being
executed even now. I continue to believe getting the states that can multiply
the effectiveness of guys who would otherwise just impotently bitch about
Anyway, obviously the fight against terrorists is crucial and I trust we are on the offensive here.
On the bigger problem of dealing with threatening states, we’ve destroyed the Taliban and Saddam regimes; we’ve preserved Pakistan in the friendly column (though the fate of this nuclear-armed state worries me tremendously); we’ve helped the Philippines combat Islamists; we’ve put pressure on the teetering North Korean regime with our allies (yet we give some humanitarian aid, which I believe works to convince Pyongyang it can ride out the downward trend. It isn’t enough to raise them up and disguises their downward trend); we’ve turned Libya and demonstrate how even a minor state can pursue nukes without our awareness (and show others that they can stop fighting us and come in from the cold); and we have, with optimism here, pressured the Iranians to go along with a European initiative to control their nuclear programs. At worst, since I think we won’t be ready to go after Iran until early 2005, we’ve bought some time to persuade allies that we must do something about Iran’s mullahs and to give those mullahs the chance to show their duplicity. In the meantime, I hope we open our hearts to the Iranians for the massive earthquake and send aid quickly. The people there should know we care about what happens to them.
The war goes on. But we are winning. The main reason, of course, is that we are fighting. We always had the power to win, just not the awareness that we were at war with enemies who want kill us in the millions.
“Christmas” (Posted
It was a good Christmas.
And for this luxury I thank (via Instapundit) our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen who are far from home defending us; those at home struggling to recover from their wounds; and those who have died and whose families must struggle on with only memories of their loved ones.
Merry Christmas.
“Stop It Already!”
(Posted
I’m really tired of talking heads on TV asserting that we made a big mistake “disbanding” the Iraqi army back in May.
Repeat after me: there was no Iraqi army in May. They
deserted in March and April rather than fight the
Let me further add, that had we been able to retain units of the Iraqi army, the very same critics would have complained that we were putting the former torturers in positions of authority over the former victims.
“Death Watch” (Posted
Now that he has announced he will come in from the cold, Khadaffi better watch his back. Khadaffi
may have survived with
Libya has agreed to submit to U.N. weapons inspections and to provide
full details of programs to develop nuclear and chemical weapons that were more
advanced than suspected by the United States and Britain, which conducted nine
months of secret talks to work out the arrangement.
I bet some of them don’t want it known that they were friends and business associates of Khadaffi.
“Fear? Or Diplomacy?”
(Posted
Jeez Oh Pete, the skeptics are out downplaying the example
of American and British resolve in convincing
Yet, this is Khaddafi’s attitude as the Italian prime minister relates back in September:
A
spokesman for Mr Berlusconi said the prime minister
had been telephoned recently by
As our General Sherman said, “Fear is the beginning of wisdom.”
I don’t believe he mentioned anything at all about multi-lateral diplomacy founded on the principles of sovereignty as set forth in the Westphalian state system, with due regard to the fifth subparagraph of obscure UN Charter chapter …..
With all due respect, that leads to twelve years of
toothless sanctions and several well-catered conferences in
I say, chalk one up to the power of fear.
“Level
We are now at Threat Level Orange:
Federal
officials said yesterday that because fresh intelligence suggests al Qaeda is planning multiple catastrophic terrorist attacks
in the United States, they were raising the national threat alert status to
"high risk," or code orange, a step administration officials
previously had said they were reluctant to take except in the most unusual circumstances.
This was done, it was reported, because:
al Qaeda terrorists around the globe were
saying in telephone calls and e-mails that they expected a series of
synchronized attacks in the
Two years and more after 9-11, it is sometimes amazing we have not suffered more. Truly, it is as if al Qaeda truly expected we would collapse as a society along with the buildings they targeted. Rather than preparing to hit us further after that dreadful day, they sat back and waited to reap the fruits of their year-and-a-half-old plan. At some point, perhaps when they were in headlong flight just ahead of our special forces and JDAMs, the thugs realized we would fight.
So now they may be ready to strike after two years of renewed planning.
The difference is this time we have some warnings that we will act on and we have procedures for stepping up defensive measures and the means and will to go after them to stop them.
Our enemies may strike us again. And even hurt us badly. But we will not be defeated. We are at war with the bastards and we won’t stop until they are all dead or cooling their heels in Gitmo hoping that the 9th Circuit will set them free.
“
Hoagland
writes that the administration does not yet know quite what to do about
But now that Rice is spearheading the president's most ambitious
foreign policy initiative -- the political transformation of the greater
In the short run, sure. But
I still believe
In the meantime, there’s no reason to excessively telegraph
our intentions; and diplomatic moves might work (as they appear to have with
If nothing positive happens in the next year and a half, we
will hopefully have reduced our commitment to
Regardless of the uncertainty of what to do about
“
We are going to change course in Afghanistan to spread our forces out so as to better exploit the money Congress appropriated for reconstruction in that country:
Nine joint civilian-military units charged with creating
islands of stability in troubled regions are already in place. But most of the
so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams are located in relatively secure
northern and central
The
This certainly shows we are committed to rebuilding
Still, the Taliban “resurgence” doesn’t seem to be much of a
threat to our interests. We bust them up when they mass inside
Now, attempting to make
So we upped the ante. We are going to try and get a big win here. Be prepared for more casualties in the short run. And be careful we don’t creep up our presence and mission to make it look like an occupation.
This holds the promise for the big win, of course, so we’ll
see.
“Less Interesting But
Tiresome Nonetheless” (Posted
The trial of Saddam already has those disappointed he was
captured spouting off about how
Those making this charge have no clue.
The
Europeans were far more complicit in providing Saddam with
chemical arms. One problem with this argument is that civilian-use equipment
and material are all you need and it is difficult to separate them out. The
same goes for the Anthrax issue. Yes, we supplied Anthrax to
We did fail to vigorously condemn
Plus, we really must remember that the Iraqis were fighting
the Ayatollah’s
In the end, we got a draw that didn’t send the oil fields of
the region into flames, kept
But blaming us for Saddam is plain stupid.
“Interesting” (Posted
British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Bush, in back-to-back
appearances late Friday in Britain and at the White House, announced that
Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi
had agreed after nine months of secret talks to halt his nation's drive for
such weapons and the long-range missiles to deliver them.
The series of negotiations and onsite inspections by
This is interesting. Especially that we and the Brits have
been talking with the Libyans since March. I’ve written repeatedly that I’d
like to see
Khaddafi is no longer the
aggressive terrorist he once was. Adventures across
Although letting Khaddafi live out
the rest of his life in peace seemed an affront for all his past actions, I
figured it would be a needed sign to rulers in the Arab world and Arabs and
Moslems generally that we are not on a Crusade to “get” all anti-American
rulers with JDAMs. We needed to send a signal that
your only choices aren’t having lice picked from your head by a
The president sought to nudge other regimes with both the
threat of "unwelcome consequences," if weapons pursuits are not
abandoned, and the offer — if they are — of "an open path to better
relations with the
If we must let go of one of the lesser evils as long as he behaves himself, so be it. We have to be grownups here. The issue is protecting our people from terror and WMD.
Besides, the Libyan people might one day end his rule given the trends in the area. We may yet get to eat our cake and have it too.
For the rest of the world, we show how a state can hide WMD programs. The Libyans are admitting to the whole enchilada: chemicals, biologicals (although little evidence was found on this front, admittedly), nukes, and missiles.
We also proved that the idea that confronting our enemies
will only cause others to dig in their heels is false. Sure, some like
And hey, shouldn’t a whole lot of people in
“So That’s Why I Felt Safer” (Posted
A glorious day (Thursday) when the best and brightest of the Parisian elite weren’t plotting our destruction:
French
diplomats held their second one-day strike in three weeks on Thursday to
protest against planned budget cuts.
Actually, the French people were probably a lot safer for a day, too.
“Exploiting Military
Success” (Posted
As we exploit the success of capturing Saddam and roll up the Baathists resisting us, never forget that in a stabilization mission, military success buys time for political measures to succeed.
We need to turn a functioning
The Bush administration has a golden opportunity -- actually, a clear
need -- to accelerate the granting of significant new authority and power to an
interim Iraqi government in advance of the formal transfer of sovereignty next
June. Failure to empower Iraqis now to deal with the dictator's fate will make
the occupation even more unpopular and difficult to manage.
The Shias need to gain powers as the Kurds have developed over the last decade under our protection. The Sunnis need a place in Iraq as well—just not the Baathists.
“What?!” (Posted
Has Friedman forgotten what Saddam has done to the Iraqis? How can Friedman even pretend to be taken seriously on this subject of whether Saddam should be executed (following conviction of course) when he says this:
I hope we don't hear any more chants from Iraqis of "Death to
Saddam." He's now as good as dead. It's time for Iraqis to stop telling us
whom they want to die. Now we have to hear how they
want to live and whom they want to live with.
He writes plenty more to take issue with in his brief article but the audacity of basically telling Iraqis to stop whining and get over three decades of brutal killing and torturing is just a bit much for me to swallow without a small facial tic developing.
“Death to Saddam” seems quite reasonable under the circumstances.
“The Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties” (Posted
From the Clinton era, natch:
The
Just pointing it out. ‘Cause like, you know, secular Iraqi Baathists could never cooperate with Islamist terrorists.
"Betrayal?" (Posted
This
articulates part of my unease at the whole Bush/Taiwan referendum issue.
We should defend
Yet we don't want to fight if
we don't have to, of course. And certainly not now when we
have
Thus, I couldn't get too
upset with Bush over his remarks. Indeed, they are understandable as long as
Basically,
Invoking
principles of democracy and self-determination, it is easy for pro-Taiwan
Americans to declare that democratic
We are still
Friends don't let friends
drive drunk, remember?
"Feeling Sorry for Saddam" (Posted
The
Lee Harris (via Instapundit) explains why this is rot.
Really, at the heart of this
is the elevation of feeling over thinking. During the nineties, feeling your
pain was promoted above understanding your pain by studying it. If you care,
what else matters? Certainly not effectiveness. Certainly not cost.
We see that one old man in
custody is grubby and a little dazed and it is natural to feel sorry for him.
That flickered even in me.
Those in our society who
value the cult of feeling pain react to this perceived humiliation. They fail
to exercis a higher level of compassion, however, in
this continued "compassion." For in the end, we know that man killed
several hundred thousand of his own people—some in the most gruesome and cruel
fashion. We know hundreds of thousands of others died in two wars of aggression
under his rule. We know about the women raped, the dissidents shredded, the
enemies torn to shreds by hungry dogs. But we only know those facts—we never
saw and felt those deaths.
Saddam isn't an old man being
handled roughly. He is a mass murderer, despot, and sadist. Moral sensitivity
is not displayed by showing compassion for what we see but by showing
compassion for what we know:
Yet it is a task that we
must all force ourselves to accomplish if we are to become true moral agents,
and not merely moral automatons. We must not only react unthinkingly to the
suffering before us, we must take into consideration the suffering that we
cannot see, and especially, as in the case of Saddam Hussein, when the visible
sufferer was the cause of so much invisible suffering. But the only way we can
do this is to keep our moral imagination in good repair, and to refuse to
permit our moral instincts, no matter how well-meaning, to displace our
capacity for reflective judgment. We must feel, but we must also think --
otherwise we fall short of our full moral humanity.
If ever we must suppress the
cult of feeling for the club of thinking, this is it.
“Clarify This Please”
(Posted
Let me see. Iraqis may have freedom now and don’t have to
fear torture and murder by the Baathists, but our
invasion and overthrow of Saddam just brought terror to
We, on the other hand, should risk terrorism by abandoning the mild restrictions on our civil liberties that the Patriot Act provides.
So what gives? Is stability to be preferred over freedom or vice versa?
Or are Iraqis undeserving of freedom while Americans are undeserving of safety?
Maybe I better go read the message boards at Democratic
Underground to clear my head.
“Carrot and Stick”
(Posted
We are properly hammering Baathist strongholds:
The raid, launched before dawn and lasting
until midmorning, targeted the city of
Counter-insurgency must always seek to kill or capture the active fighters. We can’t carpet bomb in cities to do this, however, which can alienate others. For the sympathizers of the insurgents we need to give them hope enough to cooperate with us and fear enough to take the hope. For neutrals we need to make sure they know they are better off choosing our side. And for our friends, rewards must be real and visible.
I don’t know what the balance is but even as we reduce the attacks per day and pile on the pressure, we need to find that balance. And it isn’t easy. We let up at the end of July thinking we’d broken the Baathists only to see the dead-enders ramp up the fighting after that.
We are winning, however, that at least seems apparent.
“Well, That Objection
Died Fast” (Posted
Huh. Well what do you know:
A
special envoy from President Bush won unspecified pledges Tuesday from the
leaders of
It seems mere days ago that administration critics charged
that the decision to bar specified countries unhelpful in the Iraq War and
aftermath from US-funded reconstruction contracts would make it impossible to
gain debt relief for Iraq from those same countries.
Oh well. There will be more complaints.
But seriously, these countries had to know that the debts
are pretty much history. Better for them to forgive some to
guarantee repayment of the rest than lose it all. Even more important,
as I noted,
French companies are owed about $5 billion by
All in all, it doesn’t hurt to remind our former allies that the old games are over and we just reset the rules. Screw us and you no longer get an apology from us for failing to understand their big complex European brains.
Catching Saddam probably didn’t hurt either. Both as a symbol of our success and the reelection chances of the President; and as an excuse for Europeans to forgive debt without looking like they are bending to our plans.
“Another Matter of
Faith” (Posted
Seeing Saddam surrender meekly was humiliating
for many Arabs (and
There is a serious problem in the Arab and Moslem worlds if
the defeat and capture of the bloody tyrant Saddam is seen as depressing. There
is a reason the President has rejected the policy of the last sixty years that
supported friendly tyrants in support of stability over freedom.
“It’s a Matter of
Faith” (Posted
I like to stick to foreign affairs and security matters here. Domestic policies, about which I certainly have opinions, I leave to others. A man has to know his limits, as they say.
But global warming is one item that deserves at least a
little comment. Our refusal to ratify the
My main problem with the idea of global warming is that even accepting that we are causing the warming (even when we know the planet has been warmer and cooler in the past without our intervention) and even if we can do something about it (which, given our limits of knowledge on natural fluctuations is debatable), isn’t it rather time-centric to believe we must move heaven and earth to maintain today’s temperature? I mean, if one average global temperature is better than another, can’t the environmentalists tell us what that is? Good gracious, what if the ideal average temperature is 2 degrees cooler? Or even 1 degree? Or five? If so, shouldn’t the environmentalists be pushing to cause volcanic eruptions to put debris in the air to cut down on sunlight? Or couldn’t the ideal temperature be 2 degrees higher?
But no, by an amazing coincidence we live precisely in the age when the average global temperature is exactly right. We must cripple our economies to defend it at all costs.
What rot.
So Michael Crichton’s speech (via Instapundit) on this and related topics of environmental purism and its body of faith is worth reading. I don’t trust the environmental lobby and if they keep going the way they are, I just won’t—even if they manage to stumble upon the right problem and solution by chance. As Crichton said near the end:
How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of
religion, and back to a scientific discipline? There's a simple answer: we must
institute far more stringent requirements for what constitutes knowledge in the
environmental realm. I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that
simply aren't true. It isn't that these "facts" are exaggerations of
an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their
case to present it in the strongest way. Not at all---what more and more groups
are doing is putting out is lies, pure and simple. Falsehoods
that they know to be false.
As he noted, there are real problems out there.
Unfortunately, the environmentalists who pretend to care more than the rest of
us have no idea what they are or what the solutions are.
“Who We Fight”
(Posted
Iraqi dead-enders ambushed
our troops in
Two gunmen on motorcycles opened fire on
American vehicles, and then took cover among children leaving school. The
attackers used a roadside bomb, automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades
in the attack but inflicted no casualties on the patrol, the military said in a
statement.
We lost no troops. Killed 11 of the attackers. And killed no civilians in the crossfire.
This is who we are. Deadly to our enemies and careful of innocents.
This is also shows who our enemy is. They count it a victory if they kill one of our troops or if we accidentally kill one of their children.
The article also notes pro-Saddam demonstrations. Those cities, or neighborhoods in them if localized, need to be
shut down and filtered. Reward friends in proportion to their help. Punish
enemies in proportion to their harm. Make sure neutrals know that they should
choose to be our friends. This works in
“Carrier
Availability” (Posted
The carrier Carl Vinson will be overhauled later than planned to make it available in 2005 (see my October 11 post on this).
Now the Eisenhower will be refueled and overhauled by the end of 2004. It will be free in 2005. Of course, this isn’t a change, except that the completion date is later due to factors beyond the control of the Navy. Nonetheless, the carrier will be available in 2005.
Plus we have reoriented our plans for our carriers for surges of large numbers of carrier groups instead of steady overseas presence.
I don’t know, but it seems like we are gearing up for possible military action in 2005.
Target:
Either Iranians overthrow the mullahcracy or we destroy the nuclear facilities ourselves.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Stopping the nutjobs from getting their first nuke trumps stopping the nutjob from getting his third nuke.
“New Army T-Shirt
Idea” (Posted
Our Army troops are the best in the world. And they deserve the very best slogans on their t-shirts. When a Governing Council member confronted Saddam, he berated Saddam:
"Why didn't you fight?" one Governing Council member asked
Hussein as their meeting ended. Hussein gestured toward the
“Would you fight them?” has a nice ring to it don’t you think? With the proper graphics, of course.
Because honestly, fighting American soldiers in suicidal attacks is really just for the little people.
Good lessons for a lot of people to learn.
“Justice” (Posted
Listening to coverage of the Saddam capture and what to do with him is just wearying. Too many commentators seem to want an OJ trial.
Way back when, I wrote that I wanted the Iraqis to try Baathists for crimes during the Saddam regime. I believed that doing this would help bind Iraqis to our side and make sure that the new Iraqi government could never say that they are neutral in the war between insurgents and the US and Coalition forces. I also worried that it would be too dangerous for the Iraqis to try Saddam when caught and other top Baathists. I thought we needed to do that to demonstrate that the murderers of the past were buried safely.
I think the passage of time has made it possible to trust that Iraqis will not be intimidated or infiltrated by Baathists to destroy the trials.
Iraqis, with our help and others who would help, can convict and execute Saddam.
Talk of “international justice” is insulting.
“International justice” was of the “Saddam is bad but…” variety.
The international community didn’t think Saddam was a threat to them, so why
should the international community try him? The international community thought
that Iraqis should deal with Saddam and not the
And the international community would approach this trial in exactly the wrong way. Are some of the commentators I listened to serious when they said that we must use the international community to legitimize the trial? What will the international community do now for justice? The international community failed the Iraqis for many years now and should not be given a chance to muck up this important mission.
Just what facts are in dispute here? Is there any real question that Saddam is a mass murderer? A torturer? Good Lord, taking that SOB out back tonight and shooting him in the forehead would not be a miscarriage of justice.
But no, the legal fetishists say we need international
jurists. I can see it now: Chirac as a character witness; excuses that Saddam
was brutalized as a child; complaints that sanctions only allowed him to eat
Twinkies and so twisted his thoughts. And Baghdad Bob will swear that the two
of them were renting videos at the local Blockbuster when the Kurds were being
gassed, so there’s no way Saddam is guilty. Oh, and of course, the Shias fell down the stairs. The trial would last six years
and consist of long diatribes against the
Of course, we will make sure the Iraqis try him according to the forms of our justice system. Prosecutors will present evidence. Defense counsel will make sure the rules are followed. And Saddam will be sentenced according to his crimes. But make no mistake, this is no trial for some usual suspect rounded up to solve the murder of a local shopkeeper. Such a trial requires the presumption of innocence to make the state prove the crime. But in Saddam’s case, there is no doubt of guilt. We will try him to show Iraqis that the justice system will punish the worst and most powerful of their former oppressors. With this knowledge, we can work to get the many victims of Baathist horrors to work within the police and court system rather than gain justice by private revenge.
Question Saddam for the information we need. Try him speedily for his long and brutal rule. Execute him soon thereafter to provide the beginning of justice.
In that order, of course. I wouldn’t want to insult the international community’s sense of justice.
“Reaction” (Posted
I’ve been reading on and via Instapundit various sad reactions by many media people and war opponents.
I do believe I will read Ted Rall’s next column. That scumbag will sadly speak for many when he laments this great day.
Saddam’s capture should tell many who claimed a trial would
“embarrass” the
His capture makes it easier to reach our July deadline of
turning over
It will be easier to see a smaller footprint of US troops by the summer of 2005.
Iraqis will step up for a new
The success will insulate us from the impact of any big
strike by the Baathists or Islamists. Note how the
bombing in
And I think it will discourage the Baathists. Some are already trying to spin this as a good thing for the dead-enders because it will allow the Baathists to disassociate themselves from Saddam and create a “national resistance.” What rot. The Baathists tried to portray Saddam as the puppet master directing a brilliant resistance. Why else would they have done that unless they needed people to believe Saddam would be back? And the Baathists who kept Saddam on the move insisted on portraying Saddam as a resistance leader when Saddam was really a hunted and scared war criminal not directing anything.
Watch who is happy and who is sad about this.
“Ladies and
Gentlemen, We Got Him” (Posted
US forces captured Saddam Hussein.
He was captured hiding in the bottom of a pit. He seemed more an object of superstition to be preserved by his supporters to bring them—and their privilege—back to power rather than a wily insurgent directing Baathist resistance.
Iraqis were joyous:
Joy greeted final proof that the man who terrorized his
people for 30 years and led them into three disastrous wars was now behind bars
and facing trial, even possible execution, at Iraqi hands.
This is tremendous news.
I could be wrong, but I think the Baathists
will quickly grow too dispirited to fight. This will also be an opportunity for
Sunnis and rank-and-file Baathists to get off the
fence and join the new
The Islamists will keep fighting but they are easier to find and kill or capture in isolation.
Pile on the pressure to exploit this victory. Push the fighting Baathists hard while they are reeling from the news. Hammer them, hammer them.
“Tipping Point”
(Posted
We are winning in
This
war against the Islamofascists and autocrats of the
Such
a cynical assessment need not mean that we must deprecate the power of ideas, or
must subscribe to such an amoral creed ourselves; but rather that we must not
be naïve when we discover new allies who admire us for our strength and
military prowess rather than our ideals and values. The reason that states are
not rushing to install imams as rulers or open their borders to al Qaeda training camps is not that they like democracy, but
rather that they are just now beginning to fear the dire consequences of such
action.
Our
enemies instead are now reeling — if ever so insidiously. They have lost the
free use of
And when the victory comes, those carping about “quagmire” and “disaster” will quietly retreat and fall silent. For a bit, anyway.
Remember how they trembled when the Soviets pointed missiles
at us. Remember their predictions of disasters when we set out to destroy the
Taliban and strangle al Qaeda in its mountain
hideouts. Remember the disasters they predicted before we crossed into
Remember. For the trembling visionaries who advocate defeat
in
This of course assumes we retain the stomach to use our power for victory. We can still lose if the factions who deny we are even at war gain influence.
“No, Seriously, Are
They Stoned?” (Posted
The president correctly has stood by his guns on the denial of contracts to allies who checked out of the Iraq War and aftermath and reserving them for our friends who stood by our side.
Now I expect the French, Russians, and Germans to whine. Shoot, even the Canadians might get grumpy. I even expect several candidates for president to express outrage that we might not shovel money to those who oppose us. But the Weekly Standard? William Kristol and Robert Kagan want the President to reverse the ban. This is amazingly silly.
They say it is stupid. They say that we should have quietly
awarded contracts to allies without the public denial of access to the weasels.
They say wisdom would have opened up contracts to all to encourage cooperation
in
They are quite simply wrong on all counts.
Magnanimity requires victory to exercise it and our so-called allies have not conceded anything at all.
And after seven months of trying to gain cooperation after
the end of major combat operations, I think we know how much
Nor are all avenues for contracts dried up. We are hardly
insisting that other donations be tied up in our requirements. If the French
and Germans want contracts, they will be free to pursue those funded by the
Japanese, South Koreans, and Saudis. Shoot, the Euro and a half the EU threw in
for reconstruction are just dangling out there for
The authors’ suggestion that we should have quietly given contracts to friends ignores the likely reaction here at home. Will the loyal opposition just accept that we would grant contracts without competitive bidding? When they think the whole war was a scheme to provide Halliburton with a 3.6% profit margin? Honestly, gentlemen, whose policy is stupid?
And the authors have it precisely wrong when they say we
will have difficulty getting the holders of
The basic problem is what kind of signal would reversing course send to our friends, allies, competitors, and enemies? Screw us and leave us in the lurch and then you get to avoid the casualties and expense of war and reap the cash rewards after. Sacrifice with us and you will be treated no better than the weasels that work against us. Is this really what we want nations to believe in the next crisis? I think not.
Are Kagan and Kristol
serious? I think they picked the wrong week to go off crystal meth.
“Weekly News Roundup
on the Iraqi Protests” (Posted
This is the <a href=“deafeningvoid”>roundup</a> of major headlines
today on the thousands of Iraqis who marched to protest terrorism, condemn
coverage of
Amazing.
“What Part of ‘Former Soviet Bloc’ Don’t They Get?”
(Posted December 10, 2003)
The Russians are upset that we may base some troops in new NATO countries that used to be in the old Soviet bloc.
Once again, we have people unclear on the concept.
We won. The Eastern Europeans are our allies, now.
The Russians better behave if they ever want our help when
the Chinese decide to retake the Pacific territories that Czarist Russia pealed
away from a declining
“What Part of ‘Bugger
Off’ Don’t They Understand?” (Posted
Honestly,
Wow.
They undermine the sanctions against Saddam in the decade prior.
They threaten vetoes of actions to enforce UN resolutions in the Security Council.
They actively campaign against our diplomatic efforts to gain international support.
They sell arms to Saddam.
They refuse to commit any forces to help us in the war to overthrow Saddam.
They refuse to help with any significant cash to rebuild
They refuse to send troops to help stabilize
They insist that all the money they loaned to Saddam for his hideous regime’s murderous reign of terror be repaid.
They continue to insist on ‘up’ when we say ‘down’ and demand ‘down’ when we say ‘up.’
And after all that, they get their panties in a twist
because we stiff arm them on contracts funded by our taxpayers. Not the money
pledged by other countries—just ours. And not
Good for the administration on this call. These countries need a dose of reality if they seriously believe that after all their obstruction we should be funneling money to them! In what fantasy world does such betrayal lead to lip-biting apologies from us followed by pleading with them to take our money to make up for it? Oh yeah, I forgot. Geez, the article says we are provoking the trans-Atlantic rift because of this decision!
In the meantime, the Japanese show what
it means to be an ally by deciding to send troops to
“Taiwanese Decision”
(Posted
We have warned Taiwan not to exercise democracy in a “provocative” way.
Yes, we do want to stall a confrontation between
We also need to allow
These are all valid reasons to warn
I believe the unintended consequence of this will be to give
On the other hand, if independence is truly the will of the
majority of Taiwanese,
I think
“Delicate” (Posted
I sure hope we were clear that although we may
not want
It will take some time for
“Bite Me” (Posted
Excuse me, but how am I supposed to react when a bunch of UN
types get all cranky that the Internet is dominated by
Well, sorrrry. I’m a little upset that the UN is dominated by thug-states that pretend they are countries.
The good news is the nimrods put off the discussion until 2005 so they can study it further. Wonder what they’ll conclude in two years?
Shoot, we pay for both and only get to run one. I think we have the best deal, but just tell those yahoos to collectively bite us.
And send it by email.
“This Guy Annoys Me” (Posted December 8, 2003)
Given his views, I’m always shocked that Korb hangs on to the credibility on defense issues that being in the Reagan administration provides.
His op-ed is silly. Any war would be a “choice” under his thinking, apparently. But I just want to comment on one thing (it is late, give me a break). He notes:
Powell, then [during Desert Shield/Desert Storm] chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, as well as such defense hawks as Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), wanted to give sanctions more time to work before
invading Iraq. (If it was so necessary, why did the administration of the elder
Bush not invade until it got other nations to fund the war?)
Funny, huh, how taking the time to get other nations to send troops and contribute money is proof that the threat wasn’t terribly real. I wonder what Korb would have said if Bush I had gone to war in 1991 without the UN’s approval and without Egyptians, Syrians, British, and French deployed with us?
Korb’s reference to sanctions to bolster his article is baffling. After decimating the Iraqi military in 1991, the Iraqi regime managed to survive twelve more years of sanctions before we finally destroyed it. How much longer could the Iraqis have survived had we not gone to war in 1991?
Oh, and for the record, in 1991, the only allied force that counted for a tinker’s damn was the British—just like in 2003. (no offense to the Australians and others who provided much appreciated smaller forces, but I’m talking volume of high quality forces able to take over frontage)
I just can’t bear to read his stuff.
“Chemical Rockets”
(Posted
Lt-Col al-Dabbagh, 40, who was the head of an Iraqi air defence unit in the western desert, said that cases
containing WMD warheads were delivered to front-line units, including his own,
towards the end of last year.
He said
they were to be used by Saddam's Fedayeen
paramilitaries and units of the Special Republican Guard when the war with
coalition troops reached "a critical stage".
This
article (via NRO) says that Iraqis were issued short-range chemical rockets
but that the plan to use them fell apart when the Iraqi army fell apart. The
rockets are still in
On the way home, NPR had a Western reporter describing what appeared to be a chemical shell carried by some of the Baathists resisting us. They claim they are looking for a way to fire it and a good target. It sure sounds like a single precious round that they cart around. As such it is unlikely to be effective since a single round just won’t cause mass casualties.
With one, there are probably others, eh? Of course, if
“Tough Tactics in
As the Sunnis failed to turn in their brethren in the Baathist cells still fighting us, I argued we had to get tough.
We have. We are isolating some villages that are hotbeds of resistance.
This is good, but I think the image of blowing up empty
buildings as punishment is too associated with
But the get tough approach can work if it is limited and if it also provides a way out for the vast apathetic majority who could swing either way. And keep the sight of the harsher measures from being reported to the rest of the country.
Counter-insurgency is a blend of killing and capturing the actively resisting; discouraging the supporters; swaying the neutrals; and rewarding the cooperating. I don’t pretend to know how to balance that but we seem to be cracking down locally in response to local problems without just doing a blanketed crackdown that does more harm than good.
One advantage is that we aren’t trying to keep the
territory, just keep the Baathists down so that a
friendly Iraqi government can take over.
“Wonderful” (Posted
There are 8-mile unguided rockets packed with radioactive materials unaccounted for:
TIRASPOL,
Moldova -- In the ethnic conflicts that surrounded the
collapse of the Soviet Union, fighters in several countries seized upon an
unlikely new weapon: a small, thin rocket known as the Alazan.
Originally built for weather experiments, the Alazan
rockets were packed with explosives and lobbed into cities. Military records
show that at least 38 Alazan warheads were modified
to carry radioactive material, effectively creating the world's first
surface-to-surface dirty bomb.
A few dozen are loose. Unfreakingwonderful.
“Army Readiness”
(Posted
Four Army divisions will
be rated low on readiness when they return from
The
four divisions -- the 82nd Airborne, the 101st Airborne, the 1st Armored and
the 4th Infantry -- are to return from Iraq next spring, to be replaced by
three others, with a fourth rotating into Afghanistan. That would leave only
two active-duty divisions available to fight in other parts of the world.
Briefing
reporters at the Pentagon, the official said the four returning divisions will
be rated either C-3 or C-4, the Army's two lowest readiness categories, for 120
to 180 days after they return as vehicles and helicopters are overhauled and
troops are rested and retrained.
C-3
means a division is capable of performing only some of its combat missions, and
C-4 means a division needs additional manpower, training or equipment to fight
a major regional war.
It is unfortunate but unavoidable. Troops need leave time and time to attend military schools. Others will be getting out as terms expire. New soldiers will need to be trained up to standards. Equipment needs intensive overhauling and maintenance. We are at war and we can’t help but use up divisions like this.
But remember that this doesn’t mean that the units are worthless. Our readiness standards are pretty strict. Most armies have the opposite problem and rulers think they have trained units when they are in fact just crap.
We would need time to send divisions with all their organic strength, but each division could probably put together a large brigade by combining units. So we could probably send a couple smaller divisions augmented by non-divisional units to make up for some of the units unready. Then the units left behind could be beefed up for reinforcements. Plus, we still have Marines who can scrape a couple brigades together, I’m sure.
Although this leaves us empty if we have to send two unused
ready divisions to
That said, we could use two more Army divisions, easily. Some may try to score political points by exaggerating the situation, but unless they support expanding the Army, the only way to have avoided this situation was to have either mobilized Guard divisions already or not go to war at all.
“This is Getting
Insulting” (Posted
Earlier, in Landfill, I wrote about the bizarre mix of political mailings that I have gotten recently.
This week the ACLU has written to me twice, warning me of the urgent need to fight John Ashcroft. Their letters started out, “Dear Friend of Freedom:”, which is accurate, although I shudder about what their definition is. But then it gets just silly:
Attorney General John Ashcroft is waging a relentless campaign to
undermine our freedom, shamelessly using the “war on terror” as cover for his
assault.
As I’ve said before, I guess if you are so convinced that we are really in peacetime that you must use quote marks around war on terror, than it is actually fairly reasonable to be upset by wartime measures. (Although by standards of wartime past, ours are mild.)
What boggles my mind is how they can sincerely believe that people are not out there trying to kill us. I really don’t get why they can believe that our military operations over the last two years have kind of just happened. Seeing no provocations worthy of fighting over, they seek bizarre explanations of empire, Halliburton profits, and re-election strategies.
But then the mail gets more insulting.
Americans for Peace Now (the Israeli group Peace Now) wrote me also with a long and boring explanation of why they aren’t like Neville Chamberlain and why they aren’t fools to trust in hopes instead of clear-headed agreements that don’t rely on thugs for your safety (ok, I know that was biased).
What really bugs me is that the address information for the Americans for Peace Now mailing is the same as the ACLU mailing. So the ACLU, which claims to be fighting for my privacy, sold or gave my name and address to the “peace” group.
Thanks.
I don’t feel very guilty at all returning both postage-paid envelopes (empty of course) to the ACLU.
That’s my blow for privacy.
“Another Deadline”
(Posted
The Iraqis are going to prosecute and punish Baathists for crimes against Iraqis during Saddam’s long bloody rule.
Good. This is yet another deadline looming for those passive
Sunnis to push them to decide whether they will move on in a new
I’ve been eager for the Iraqis we liberated to convict Baathists to bind them to our side. Justice demands it, of course, but the practical matter of making sure Iraqis don’t just stay neutral as we battle the Baathists is at stake.
The internationalists who thought Iraqis should have risen up on their own to overthrow Saddam without our tainted assistance are also upset that Iraqis will mete out justice:
Richard Dicker, director of the international justice
program at Human Rights Watch, said he was concerned officials didn't consider
bringing in judges who have worked on major war crimes trials in other
countries.
"After three decades of Baath
Party rule, the capacity of Iraqi judges to conduct incredibly complicated
trials has been greatly diminished," he said by telephone from New York.
He said he worried about the tribunal's ability to provide fair trials.
I guess the lesson for future dictators is make sure you decimate your legal system so that some human rights nitwits will argue that nobody is around competent enough to try you. That’s a nervy argument to make, like the child who kills his parents and begs the judge for mercy because he is an orphan.
Of course, that only applies if
The UN, which has done so much already, should butt out and let the Iraqis cleanse their country:
Sandra Hodgkinson, director of
the coalition authority's human rights and justice office, said she believed an
Iraqi court system — with some training from international experts — will work.
"Iraqis want it that way, and they're capable of doing
it that way," she said. "There is no need to have an international
tribunal when the local population is willing and able to do it."
Adnan Jabbar al-Saadi, a lawyer with
the Iraqi Human Rights Ministry who said he expected to argue some of the
tribunal cases, agreed.
"I think it's very important for people to see the
criminals who killed their families in court," he said. "The United
Nations asked us if they should give money to people so they would feel better,
and I told them nothing will make them feel better except seeing the
responsible criminals in prison."
The tendency of the UN fetishists to value process over form is amazing. Saddam’s regime was “legal” after all, and our invasion is still resented.
Try them and execute them. (The Baathists, of course!)
For the sake of process, let’s do it in that order.
“Go Army. Beat Navy”
(Posted
The Army-Navy football game is this Saturday and the cadets haven’t won a game this year.
I want Army to win, but those young men have a lot to do and a lot more important things to worry about than football. The character of these student officer candidates is amazing.
And in wartime, learning composure in difficult times is a lesson that will pay dividends. Could they be the first NCAA football team to go a season without a win? Yes. It might happen.
But those cadets should hold their heads high. They play for pride. They will fight for us.
Go Army! Beat Navy!
But mostly, just thank you, cadets, for preparing for war.
“Bandwidth” (Posted
Yep. It’s an Instalanche. (Thanks for the link, Instapundit).
Keep scrolling down to December 1 for the post on John Burns.
That’s right, you have to work for it. Use the scroll bar. I don’t have that fancy blog software to work with. I just type it on a manual and scan it in the way God intended people to blog.
“Follow the Money”
(Posted
It seems that the
I imagine the Baathists don’t want
to waste the hard currency on fighting and instead it is their retirement fund
when they decide to get out of town.
“Saddam’s Crimes” (Posted
You’d think that people wouldn’t have to be reminded of Saddam’s massive crimes. But the fact is that too many people still think, "Yes, Saddam was bad and I suppose it is good he is gone, but….” This doesn’t mean one can’t criticize the conduct of the war or the post-war. But come on.
The author, Steven Vincent, details the death and depravity that is already well known but seemingly forgotten by many. He follows:
STORIES LIKE these, defining the reality of
Iraq under Saddam Hussein, made me begin to wonder how Iraqis were dealing with
the fact that many outsiders seemed to question the value of their country’s
liberation. Among those I talked to, the prevalent reaction was sheer
disbelief. "If they had lived for five minutes under Saddam they wouldn’t
think like this," expostulated an Iraqi translator for the
I met "humanitarian workers" in
I asked Hasan what
he thought of the seemingly worldwide resistance to acknowledging the horrible
reality of Saddam Hussein’s crimes. He began by reminding me that some Iraqis
practiced their own form of denial: for the most part, these were
small-business owners, older artists, and intellectuals who, while not actively
collaborating with the Baathists, had nevertheless
thrived on their support. (I had encountered a number of such individuals
myself.) Then he turned for wisdom to Shakespeare. "People who ‘forget’
about Saddam are like Gertrude in Hamlet.
She chose to ‘forget’ about the murder of her husband to get on with her life,
and encouraged her son to do the same. But the voices of the dead will not be
silent. Like the ghost of Hamlet’s father, they will not rest until some sort
of justice is brought to
Yes, I do want to know why there weren’t chemical weapons ready to go on the eve of war, but there is no doubt that Saddam was violating his commitments to the UN and that he was striving for WMD.
And as we debate this important question, never ever forget that his regime was evil. That judgment is not simplistic and should remain unchanged no matter what you think of our president.
“Planning for the
Post War” (Posted
There seems to be a cottage industry of bloggers
posting articles about the disaster developing in post-World War II Germany in
the months after
I’m quite pleased with this trend. One line of attack on
Bush has been that he failed to plan for the post-war situation. They point to
the fine
Except that despite all those years of detailed planning,
our post-war reality in 1946
Remember that we had years to plan because it took so long
to win the war! Perhaps we weren’t as lucky as our fathers to have 2-1/2 years
of bloody war before the Nazis were defeated. (Good news men! The Germans
counter-attacked in
Just our awful luck, we crashed into
History is only neat in the history books. There wasn’t
anything inevitable about succeeding in
We’re making our own history right now. And we’re winning.
“The Chinese are
Serious” (Posted
Seriously, the Chinese regard taking over
Listen to this:
[Major]
General Peng listed the Olympics, loss of foreign
investment, deterioration in foreign relations, economic slowdown or recession
and "necessary" casualties by the army as costs
As I’ve said before, were I in charge of Chinese strategy, I’d
invade
“
The
Some call this risky. Perhaps. But
it is only a battalion. This is not about to create forces available for civil
war. After all, these militia already exist and would
be more available for civil war where they are right now. And it will scare the
Sunni Baathists in
There is one big risk. We’d better be prepared for some ugly incidents when the paramilitary unit engages Baathists. I suspect they will not want to grant quarter.
“Democracy
Not For Everyone?” (Posted
I hope to God this
story is false. After the President himself declared we would do what it
takes to defend
Would we really say that
I guarantee
If the United States tells Beijing that it will not defend Taiwan in
the event of a "provocation," this can only serve as an inducement to
Beijing to threaten to use force, or perhaps actually to use force, on any
occasion that Beijing deems Taiwan's behavior "provocative." After
all, what constitutes a "provocation"?
And then either we shock the Chinese by rightly defending
The President must not do this. It is wrong, plain and simple. And it is dangerous and counter to our ideals and security interests.
“Stryker” (Posted
This is how
we are preparing our Stryker vehicles for
Designed to be airlifted into an ongoing sudden war to
bridge the gap between paratroopers and Abrams tanks to stop an enemy invasion
of an ally, we shipped Strykers into
Just what is the point in putting these vehicles into
“Adventures in Psycholand” (Posted
The North Koreans are truly trapped in their Cold War 1950s
mindset. They don’t like our recon flights around
"Those acts clearly prove that the U.S.
imperialist war hawks are watching for an opportunity to crush the DPRK with
arms, clinging to their anachronistic hostile policy toward it as usual, though
they are loudmouthed about 'a solution to an issue' through negotiations,"
KCNA said.
"The
Talk to them? Sure. Agree to something? Hell no.
Squeeze them. They are brittle and teetering. Push them
over.
“Iraqification”
(Posted
As good as it is to zap the fedayeen
when they come out like they did in
I had some worry about our summer 2004 deadline for turning over authority to the Iraqis since I’ve read the Shias are angling for advantage knowing we are lame ducks. This is worrisome.
But to our advantage is that the Sunnis now have a deadline too. Perhaps too literally. At some point, the Sunnis will have to decide whether they want to keep resisting and put themselves at the mercies of the majority Shias and Kurds as we transfer authority to the Iraqis. Oh sure, it was fun for the Sunni Baathists to slaughter Shias and Kurds when the Sunnis had tanks and helicopters and poison gas just in case. But next year the Sunnis will just have small arms and the Shias and Kurds will have the firepower and anger to get revenge.
The Shias and Kurds are friendly, so their angling for advantage is annoying rather than a threat. The Sunnis have a big decision to make: come in from the cold and collect the Saddam reward or face their former victims with the short end of the stick this time.
Interesting choice, eh?
Hmm. On another topic, I think we’ve
lost 4 KIA in the last ten days. Down to June levels, I think. Only ten days
but this is good.
“Listening to Iraqis”
(Posted
Listening to NPR on the way into work this morning and on
the way home was pure discouragement. The story was “One Small town. Two
versions of what happened.” (or something like that)
The topic was the
Actually, I would have been happy with balance since the story dwelled mostly on the Iraqis who provided the anti-American sound bites that NPR so craves. The reporter barely noted that the town was part of the Baathist heartland. The reporter certainly didn’t note that Iraqis might not be the most friendly or even simply forthcoming.
It was a most discouraging piece of journalism.
Then we have the story by John Burns that doesn’t settle for the sound bites that feed the Baathist/NPR views..
In this article we have local Iraqis in a Sunni area giving
us the usual “down, down,
John Burns kept talking to the Iraqis. As he noted:
Knowing what ordinary Iraqis thought was never easy for Western
reporters when Saddam Hussein bestrode the land. Now his secret police and
information ministry minders are gone, but not Mr. Hussein himself. So his
terror still radiates among Iraqis, many of whom condition their words and
actions against the possibility he may return.
Burns went on, with the talk starting from we love Saddam to
we hate him to please
It is well to remember this conversation when you see
reports of Iraqis denouncing the
One wonders what we have to do to get good press. We kill and capture far more than we lose in the skirmishes yet the press pretends we are just getting hit again and again. In this battle we ripped out the hearts of a serious ambush and the press is upset that we killed Iraqis. If we had lost 50+ in an ambush, the press would declare that this was the start of our final defeat. The enemy loses this many and the press just about treats it as a crime scene with the US Army on trial.
Is it clear why the military doesn’t release body counts?