THE DIGNIFIED RANT
NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS JULY 2003 ARCHIVES
Return to National Security Affairs
Return to National Security Affairs Archives
"
Good Steyn piece on
It’s precisely the lack of any national interest that makes it
appealing to the progressive mind. By intervening in
Three weeks! And Bush is still just talking! The Times spent 14 months
deploring the ‘rush to war’ in
None of the sides in the
Liberian civil war are worth the bones of one healthy Kansas Marine. Who are we to
choose among them? And if we don't, how the heck do we get out in only a few
months? We are essentially asking our troops to die for the approval of people
who normally call our troops baby killers. We have every right to ask our
soldiers to lay down their lives to protect
This ain't
it.
Unless the price for U.S.
Marines in
"Chinese Military Modernization" (Posted
The Chinese continue to push
ahead in military
modernization. The Pentagon's annual report on
Chinese military developments is out. The Chinese have placed special emphasis
on forces designed to capture
Yet we shouldn't worry about
this development since, according to Adam Segal, project director for a recent
study by the Council on Foreign Relations on Chinese military developments:
That's a pretty impressive conclusion
that flies in the face of
Even though the Pentagon
report says military action would most likely be used to coerce
Aware
that
We need to get
When the Chinese want
something very badly and that objective is "the primary driver for
It will take time for the
Taiwanese military to acquire and integrate the new weapons we are selling
Get those weapons to the
Taiwanese—fast. And keep up the transfer of our fleet elements from the
Watch the Chinese. It wasn't
so long ago that our strategic partner in the war on terror was holding an
American airplane and crew on
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAJUL2003ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA31JUL03A
"Go Win One for the Rapers" (Posted
Saddam's confirmation
of his sons' deaths did us a favor. Who can doubt that Uday
and Qusay are dead when their old man admits it? Our
credibility went up. I can't imagine the
rest of the tape did the Baathist cause much good,
either.
Check this out, from Saddam:
I announce to you,
Oh brothers and sons, and break the good news [of the deaths of the boys],
which is the wish of every honest, believing fighter for God's sake, as another
group of noble souls of the martyrs have ascended to their creator."
Saddam is happy is sons died.
He says this is a good thing. Who wants to actually win when you can aspire to
martyrdom like the sicko twins? We're right with you,
Saddam. You go ahead while we get our Kalashnikovs. It is one thing to talk
about shared sacrifice to defeat the enemy when you are fighting tooth and
nail. Quite another when you just got clobbered. Just how many Iraqis will wish
to join the Saddam boys in facing their creator? Increasingly, the wish of
every honest, believing Iraqi is to get on with their lives free from terror.
Saddam praises his sons in
their last stand:
"The
aggression armies surrounding them with all kinds of weapons and ground troops
were not able to conquer them until they used their warplanes on the house that
they were in."
Yep, you grab your AK-47 and
don't mind the Americans with their TOW missiles, and A-10s, and helicopter gunships, and night vision gear. And especially don't mind
those grim troopers surrounding you and using it all. Good inspirational pep talk!
Saddam is finished with his
version of the "win one for the Gipper
speech." He says:
"Even if
Saddam Hussein has 100 sons other than Odai and Qusai, Saddam Hussein would offer them the same path. Duty
and right deserve that ... That is the hope of every fighter for God's sake, as
another group of noble souls of the martyrs has ascended to their
creator."
Darn the luck that Saddam
doesn't have more sons. 'Cause he'd sacrifice them in a heart beat if only he
could. Huh? Why didn't they eagerly die in an attack on an American convoy and
instead died hiding out in a luxury home? Um, I'm sure they were on their way
out to find an Abrams when they were cornered. But that's history; I'm talking
the future, here. Not to worry, Saddam knows that every Iraqi is eager to die
in the absence of more Saddam sons. It hurts each and every time a loyal Iraqi
(or foreign Jihadist) dies at the hands of the
infidels.
So you head on out there! Do
it for the boys. Win one for the rapers! I've gotta
go. Two Men and a Truck arrived early.
"Saudi Cooperation" (Posted
The question
of Saudi complicity in the 9-11 attacks and their cooperation in fighting al Qaeda are interesting—and vital—questions that bear on the
war on terror. Lots of people are worked up about the Saudis and demand heads
on pikes right now. The blocked 28 pages from the 9-11 report are raising lots
of questions and many—especially opponents of the president but hardly exclusively—assert
this deletion is to protect the Saudis.
Hold on there, partner. Not
so fast.
The assumption is that the
Saudis were indirectly or directly behind the 9-11 attacks and that the
President is shielding them and oil industry buddies from facing the truth.
I suppose that is possible,
but wouldn't the President be taking a giant risk of being discovered if he did
that? Are the critics saying that the president is risking our security and
very lives for personal and political gain? (Or are they projecting?)
I'm willing to be
"charitable" and assume the president is trying to beat the
terrorists and this deletion is advancing the goal. So what would the
explanation for this 28-page deletion be?
Perhaps there really is damning
information in the deletions and we are quietly pressuring the Saudis to help
us. News leaks suggest this is so. That fits in with the Saudi desire to only
help us behind the scenes. Is that annoying? Yes. Is it better than no
cooperation? You bet. Arrests and gun battles in
Regardless, this is not the
time for a confrontation. We still have troops and facilities in
In addition, Saudi oil is
important to our well being however much that might annoy some. I'll feel
better risking Saudi production when
Or are those arguing that
Yes, we need to solve the
Saudi problem fully. Their support of the most extreme Moslem teachings must
end. Who knows, maybe before we need to take drastic action, the Saudis will
see the light and judge their self interest lies in suppressing the Wahhabi
fanatics their money supports.
As long as we have bigger
problems to solve, I'll settle for the Saudis being more cooperative. We don't
need to try to solve all problems at once—thus ensuring failure in most.
I'll give the President a
pass on this one for now.
"Sending Troops to
Sending American troops on a
peacekeeping mission to
When global threats emerge, from
international terrorism to Saddam Hussein, only the
The UN's eagerness to
intervene here without giving all means short of military intervention a
chance, as they wanted in
There is a lot of peace to be kept in
the world today. Peace-loving nations, working together, can accomplish a lot.
But asking one nation to do it all will result in nothing being done properly.
Other nations must take responsibility for some of these other operations — so
that the
Can we help? Yes. Should we
send troops? No way. Save them for better uses. We've got plenty. Haven't you
heard that there's a war going on?
"Winning the War" (Posted
You don't often read or hear
this in the papers. Yet here it is in
the Post, an article about the success in our counter-insurgent war since
Saddam's statues were toppled. Aggressive tactics and operations have answered
the threat posed by the die-hards and we are pressing them day and night. How
successfully? Here's the summary of our efforts:
Senior
I've long argued we are doing
far more than just sitting and taking it as the repeated news reports about
ambushes suggest. Indeed, we are doing more than I thought. I figured special forces were dominating the shadow offensive. But
regulars are part of the offensive, too.
We are winning. I am not
ready to declare victory in the post-war fight. But we crushed the Baathist military and won the war in the face of relentless
press predictions of doom; and we seem to be doing the same now in the post-war
fight to completely defeat the Baathists themselves.
Would I be happier if raids
looking for Saddam did not
kill bystanders? Yes. If it happened, of course. I
do not assume we did shoot up innocents who happened to roll by the operation.
(Shoot, it was only recently that I noticed a photograph caption that casually noted
that the
The important thing is that
we are winning. At some point, I assume even the most fervent anti-warrior will
get a little ashamed of suggesting the war was an error—or wrong. Or will
MoveOn.org, in a few years, suggest we turn
I've been wrong before in
assessing their shame level.
"American Occupation" (Posted July 25, 2003)
Amidst the outcry of the horrible American occupation of Iraq in some quarters, shouldn't this tell people something?
Pictures of Saddam Hussein still hang in Tarek Saber's restaurant in Tikrit, the former president's home town. Locals munch on kebabs and hummus underneath the portraits, unafraid to talk of their loyalty to him.
Now that cruel Americans are in charge, supporters of our arch enemy feel free to express support and devotion to Saddam.
The contrast to Saddam's intolerance of anything but the most slavish devotion to himself is striking to me. Not to a whole lot of people, though.
Amazing.
"Outrage?" (Posted July 25, 2003)
Let me see, images of the murder of Danny Pearl, American casualties in the Iraq War, and Israeli dead from suicide bombings seem to get lots of play in certain Islamic circles. Yet to showing the dead bodies of the Saddam boys:
Televised images of the bodies of Saddam Hussein's sons shocked many Arabs on Friday, who said it was un-Islamic to exhibit corpses, however much the brothers were loathed.
Arab and international networks showed the bodies identified as Uday and Qusay, laid out at the makeshift airport morgue, their faces partly rebuilt to repair wounds.
Un-Islamic. Right. Yet the Islamic networks showed the bodies on TV, just as they have shown lots of other bodies. I am sorry that we had to do this. I hope there are exactly 5 exceptions to our rule against showing dead bodies: Uday and Qusay, Saddam, Osama, and Mullah Omar. But people in Iraq need to see the psycho boys dead. To know that they will not come back to torment, rape, and kill the Iraqi people. Our troops need to exploit the knowledge that they are dead to suppress lingering resistance by the Baathists.
And what to make of this:
Another [Saudi] civil servant Hasan Hammoud, 35, said: "America always spoils its own image by doing something like this. What is the advantage of showing these bodies? Didn't they think about the humanitarian aspect? About their mother and the rest of their family when they see these images?"
What about their mother and the rest of the Saddam family? I hope they are crying and ripping their hair from their heads. Who the F** cares about Saddam's "humanitarian aspect" of seeing their dead bodies? I hope despair is all they know right now. After 300,000 dead Iraqis they should be pretty used to causing death.
After all the complaints of the anti-war side that we failed to "get" Osama and Mullah Omar, you'd think they'd be happy we got the Hussein boys.
On with the war. The silliness of the complaints is giving me a headache.
"It's So Convenient to
be
Jesse Jackson apparently
thinks it is racist for
Jesse Jackson said Wednesday
the Bush administration's reluctance to deploy troops to strife-torn Liberia (news
- web
sites) proves that race remains "a significant factor" in the way
America relates to the world.
Wow. When we intervene in
another country, it is racist. When we don't…it's still racist.
The
We're at war, people.
Diversity Interventions should be put off at least a bit. At least long enough
for the anti-war side to stop crying "quagmire" over
"Army Rotation" (Posted
The Army is going to start
rotating troops soon. I feel for the 3rd ID soldiers who feel they
have done enough. But this is nothing new. The Army troops who beat Hitler's
legions were none too happy with the news that they would need to go to the
Pacific to invade
This is the map of
what we have now in
The briefing notes that of
the Army's 33 active brigades (Hmm, could of sworn we had 34…), 24 are deployed
overseas. Fifteen of the Army National Guard's 45 enhanced Separate Brigade
battalions are also overseas. I read an account that referred to a unit of the
Florida ARNG in
The rotation planned will
reduce the active component brigades in
Also note that 1st
MEF has fewer than 9,000 troops and is shown as a division. In the invasion, it
had 60,000 and was still listed as a "division." Remember that a MEF
is normally a division-sized unit as the Army defines it but that for the war
it was bulked up to a corps-sized formation with most of the Marine Corps'
combat units in it.
Things are on track to reduce
our presence in
"Homeland Defense" (Posted
The USA PATRIOT Act has
driven some to flights of hysteria.
We stand poised for the dark
age of burning books and liberal-hunting excursions to
If you believe the shrieking nutsos who forget we are actually at war.
Honestly, I too want civil
liberties. I'm not pining to be thrown in jail. I'm not eager to set up
relocation camps. But we have freedoms during wartime that most people only
dream of when at peace. Hysterical cries of impending peril make a reasoned
debate about how to balance security with freedom nigh well impossible.
Can't we at least admit that
it is proper to tighten up a bit in wartime? Defeating the nutballs
overseas will be the best way to go back and see about loosening our laws. And
that will happen.
If the crazies are building
hidden hiding places behind fake walls to avoid Ashcroft's gestapo,
they should use a wine cellar design so it will get some use after they've
calmed down.
"The Last Time on This Topic" (Posted
I restrained myself from
reading Krugman yesterday and so am well on my way to
fulfilling a pledge to write no more on the SOTU controversy. It is silly. It
is really just fighting the pre-war debate all over. I am going to try to say
nothing else this month and see if I can go on from there "16 words
free." But first a word from President Clinton. I
don't have a whole lot of respect for the man, but I never fell into the
Clinton-hater mode. I know this because a true
KING: President, maybe I can get an area
where you may disagree. Do you join, President Clinton, your fellow Democrats,
in complaining about the portion of the State of the Union address that dealt
with nuclear weaponry in
First of all, the White House said -- Mr. Fleischer said -- that on balance
they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between
British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was
British intelligence that said it. And then they said,
well, maybe they shouldn't have put it in.
Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount
of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the
first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the
inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British
for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half
of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was
prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to
let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could
be regime change, not just continued sanctions.
I mean, we're all more sensitive to any possible stocks of chemical and
biological weapons. So there's a difference between British -- British
intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. I
don't know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House did the
right thing in just saying, Well, we probably
shouldn't have said that. And I think we ought to focus on where we are and
what the right thing to do for
President Clinton could have
taken the easy way out and repeated the "Bush Lied" charge and nobody
on the left would have called him on it. And those on the right would have been
dismissed as Clinton-haters. Let's see how much media play this gets.
"Don't Go" (Posted
Don't go to
But even if we have a
national interest in intervening in
Let me say right here that
Ted Rall—who is an idiot—favors
intervening in Liberia. Every other intervention is bad and tied to oil and
empire in his mind, but this one is good. Rall says
Liberian actually want us to intervene. I say what is more important is that Liberians
blame us for Liberians killing each other already! And
we've yet to intervene:
Enraged Liberians angry at US President
George W. Bush (news
- web
sites)'s failure to respond to international pressure to lead a
peacekeeping force into
"Shame on you," they screamed.
Shame on
us. That's what they screamed.
So what kind of
nation-building will this be?
The kind we shouldn't do.
Help others go in, sure. But keep our over-stretched troops out.
"The Best Argument for Regime Change I've Read Yet" (Posted
Former Sec Def William Perry
wants us to negotiate to end
For several decades
Shortly after the
But the North Koreans never gave up their
desire for nuclear weapons. Even as they complied with the freeze at Yongbyon, they covertly started a second nuclear program at
a different location. American intelligence discovered signs of this program
and last fall confronted the North Koreans, who did not dispute the charge. The
administration responded by stopping fuel oil deliveries called for under the
old agreement, to which the North Koreans responded by reopening Yongbyon and racing to get nuclear weapons.
Nonetheless, despite the
history of
I am not afraid to
negotiate—as long as the Japanese and South Koreans and Chinese are there, too.
But I fear the pressure to agree to something—anything—once negotiations begin.
I would add that we should never be afraid to walk away from the table. Once
negotiations begin, there will be tremendous pressure from allies and from
people here to ignore any cheating and to agree to anything that can be signed.
Reagan walked away from
Any agreement must be so
intrusive that there is no doubt we know what they are doing. And even then,
any agreement can only be seen as buying time. Any agreement should be a means
to an end—not the end. Because if you read Perry's piece, you see that he
clearly recognizes that the North Koreans are unlikely to negotiate away their
fervent desire to have nuclear weapons. Ever.
Ultimately, regime change is
the only way to end
I've said it before. This
decade sucks.
"Saddam's
Sons Dead" (Posted
Good.
I hope they knew genuine fear
in the firefight before they died. I hope they knew with certainty that they
were going to die at the hands of our soldiers.
This will dishearten the
resistance. Some will give up hope of returning to power and stop fighting.
Some will lash out harder for a while but will notice that they are
increasingly alone. Then they, too, will give up. Some will feel the lifting of
the fear that compelled them to fight even though they did not want to.
And Iraqis, who are already
helping us, will grow bolder in getting on with their lives. These people will
move on and we are helping them live free.
I'm only disappointed that 3rd
ID didn't get the chance to be the ones to nail Uday
and Qusay. Maybe they'll get Saddam.
"Call Your Attorney" (Posted
The
constant calls by opponents of the Iraq War for the
The North Koreans are upset
we will soon commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Korean War
cease fire (no peace treaty, remember):
"The
North Korea's legal accusations date back
to the early months of the Korean War, when Northern invaders quickly occupied
most of the
Wow,
This is the mindset, people.
Trip up us in red tape. Use our faith in law to undermine us. Use our law and
our habit of following the rule of law to beat us. They will do what it takes
to win. We must read them their Miranda rights. That's how they like to play
the game. And that's how too many people here view the game.
Keep this in mind when the
talk of some treaty with those
"SOTU" (Posted
The anti-war
coalition is unwrapping their puppets and tuning
up their bongos:
Both
United for Peace and Justice and Win Without War, the largest mainstream
antiwar coalitions, with hundreds of member groups, including the National
Council of Churches and the AFL-CIO, have launched campaigns that include
petitions demanding an investigation into the intelligence that led to war, print
and television ads that accuse Bush of misleading the nation with discredited
or unproven claims about Iraq's nuclear arsenal and suggestions for organizing
at the local level to reinvigorate the broad movement that developed in the
weeks before the war.
Misleading the nation?
Let's fire up the Wayback Machine and recall this 1998
State of the Union Address:
Together we must also confront the new hazards of
chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and
organized criminals seeking to acquire them.
Saddam Hussein has spent the better part
of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi
people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the
missiles to deliver them.
The United Nations weapons inspectors have
done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of
I know I speak for everyone in this
chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You
cannot defy the will of the world," and when I say to him, "You have used
weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity
to use them again."
This was said at the
beginning of the year. By the end, we had struck
We are to believe that either
the president lied in 1998 about the threat or that the strikes destroyed what
was left. We are to believe that the Iraqis stopped cooperating with
inspectors, leading to their withdrawal to refuse to participate in sham
"inspections" because they had nothing to hide. We are to believe
that after spending the 90's seeking to build new and hide old WMD programs,
the Iraqis since 1998 dismantled all that they had left yet refused to do it
publicly to prove their compliance with the Persian Gulf War cease fire.
Sadly, five years later,
President Clinton's words do not speak for everyone in that chamber—nor
even for himself for that matter. Now, his party says Saddam should have been
allowed to defy the will of the world—such as it is; and many here were not in
fact determined to deny Saddam the capacity to use them again. So depleted is
that will and determination that opponents of the war still deny what the
President believed and acted on (half-heartedly) in 1998.
In 2003, we acted decisively,
and those who stood with the President in 1998 now attack the President for
acting on the very same convictions—but this time in the light of 9-11.
The President in 1998 saw a
glimmer of what the future held for us:
We must exercise responsibility not just at home but around the world. On the eve of a
new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and
security. But make no mistake about it; today's possibilities are not
tomorrow's guarantees.
We have a different axis now,
and one termed evil rather than unholy, but we are using our power to build a
new era of peace and security. One that will stop thugs and
thug regimes from plotting nuclear 9-11s. And the President was right
that there are no guarantees. We have much work to do in
Were those misled today
misled in 1998? Are those willing to stand beside Saddam prior to the war against
I did not feel misled then
and do not now. What about the MoveOn-niks? I'd like
to know.
"Blowback" (Posted
One of the unintended results
of the ridiculous campaign to convince people that
Another scary gambit is mentioning a
transfer to
The first scary gambit was
threatening to set them loose in
I cannot tell you how pleased
I am that the howling lies of the "peace" activists have been turned
to our advantage to help win the post-war. How rare for them to support U.S.
interests.
"Post-War Debates"
(Posted
I remain perplexed at how
opposition to American action against a brutal dictator morphs into bizarre
defenses of the dictator. But we're done with that. I didn't understand that
tendency of the anti-war side and never will. Now we're into the bizarre
refusal to stop debating going to war even after the war was won. What gives?
Before Kosovo in 1999, I was
against intervening in what I believed to be a European crisis based more on
humanitarian grounds than national interests. NATO credibility seemed to be a
weak reason for war. Why would going to war against a nation for no particular
national interest bolster a shaky alliance?
But once at war, I stopped
arguing about whether we could go to war. I then argued about the means to
victory. I felt the air strategy could be defeated and that only a ground
invasion with a
Although the air offensive
never did destroy the rump Yugoslavian army, or even cripple it based on its
rapid withdrawal in good order from Kosovo (and I'll never forget the picture
of one of our victorious strikes—an M-36 Jackson tank destroyer of World War II
vintage better placed in front of an American Legion post than in an army).
Nonetheless, though the reason why Milosevic withdrew are
still murky, our air power was the primary military means that compelled Serb
defeat. Once we won, I ceased arguing
over how to win and gave my thoughts over to winning the peace and learning
from the military campaign.
In short, I stopped arguing
when there was no point to arguing. Nor did I, I will add, demonize the
What drives today's anti-war
side to never quit a debate once joined? Are they incapable of conceding defeat
or error or just moving on in a practical manner? I don't get it.
"Reasons for War"
(Posted
In spite of the full blown
furor over whether we were tricked into war, I guess I am fully satisfied that
we went to war with
In the 1990s, liberal Democrats joined
the international Left in support of the idea of "humanitarian war."
Having watched international organizations and the liberal democracies stand
idly by as genocide was wrought in Rwanda and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans,
liberals rallied behind the notion of using the armed forces of nation-states
not to further the national interests of particular states — the classical
understanding of the uses of state power — but for humanitarian, altruistic
ends.
If Iraq was truly no threat
to us and hence defeating Saddam was of no use to supporting American
interests, the left would be celebrating the destruction of a brutal murdering Iraqi
dictator who killed far more Iraqis than ethnic Albanians were killed in Kosovo
and probably less than ethnic Tutsis who died in Rwanda. Indeed, the fact that
one minority (Sunnis) lorded it over the rest and
practiced ecological devastation to destroy another ancient minority and their
very lifestyle (Marsh Arabs) should have endeared President Bush to the
anti-war left. Heck, even mentioning Saddam's poison gas use against yet
another minority group (the Kurds) would have been pure gravy for their
consciences. Why even mention rape as a professional occupation in Saddam's
regime when they don't even have football to promote such a culture of rape?
With so much evil ended, the left could pick and choose reasons, leaving many
out, and still have ample
justification for war on humanitarian grounds alone.
But no, the left still
opposes the Iraq War. In their gut, the anti-war left knows that this war was
in American interests for the reasons given before the war. And any Iraqis
saved by ending Saddam's regime are inconvenient facts that the left must
ignore to battle against the horrible notion that military force should be used
to further our national interests and security.
When the MoveOn-niks urge us
all to celebrate the end of Saddam's death machine and focus on rebuilding
Let's see if that MASH guy
goes on television to urge us to keep our hands off
"Responsibility for Waging War" (Posted July 18, 2003)
The President tricked us into war, eh? We rushed into it? Let's look at the facts.
The President faced a dictator who brutalized ethnic groups not of his own power base. We had no evidence that he had WMD, but invasion seemed the only answer. We believed he was a threat to our allies in the region and to his own people. Our air power had spent considerable time attacking the enemy. Yet Saddam's brutality continued.. While NATO was supportive, few supported a ground attack. We had to go with a coalition of the willing if we were to do this right. Prime Minister Blair of Britain was solidly in favor of drastic action, but few others would help. The French were dangerously sympathetic to the enemy. The Russians were upset we were threatening to destroy a friendly regime. Supporters of the President argued that the US troops sent to jumping off points on two sides were psychological pressure only and that the dictator still had time to back down without war. Co-religionists of the dictator appeared on TV arguing that American intervention would harm Christianity in the struggle between Islam and the Christian West. The President's Congressional allies were solidly behind him but the opposition questioned the tactics and sometimes even the reason for attacking.
The fighting itself, touted as a cake walk that would be won in days with the surrender of the dictator, stretched on with no resolution. We apparently gamed it wrong and one general said, "We called this one absolutely wrong." We had to scramble to focus more power on the enemy. Clearly, we did not commit enough of our military at the outset of war. Some Americans were captured in an ambush and unexpected though still minor American losses caused people to question what was going on. Air attacks struck civilian targets the breadth of the nation, including bridges and the electrical grid. With the President within days of ordering a ground attack, he realized he had only a week to convince Congress and the American people that an invasion was the only way to preserve a vital multinational organization's credibility and save countless lives from death.
In the end, we won the war but American troops clearly would be stuck there for years. How we'd deal with the hatreds and revenge killings was a mystery but we stuck to it. Even the opposition stopped complaining after victory. The dictator survived but eventually was tried for war crimes as he deserved. Heck, Hollywood rallied to the President and Sheryl Crow played for the troops in the former combat zone and exclaimed that playing for an audience other than American troops would be less than fulfilling to say the least.
What am I talking about? I lost you at the end?
Oh wait, substitute Milosevic for Saddam and think back to 1999 and the Kosovo campaign.
Remember that war? We preemptively struck before the Serbs could slaughter ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. We worried that violence could destabilize the Balkans and that it was unacceptable to have war in Europe.
And where was the debate? According to Sandy Berger, cited in this article [sorry, just the abstract and citation is free for the June 9, 2000 article, "Clinton's Massive Ground Invasion That Almost Was"], air power was the preferred method since otherwise, "the alternative was a public debate, within the United States and among NATO members..." When air power did not compel capitulation, "The American public didn't know it, but Clinton had been within days of launching full preparations for an invasion." And he would have done it even without NATO consensus. The President would have invaded with whatever allies he could persuade to go along, "forming a new coalition on the spot."
Were we "tricked" into war in Kosovo in 1999 over a genocide that was not happening? Were we going to invade without even a proper debate? Without the backing of NATO or the UN? Were we going to risk antagonizing Russia? Apparently.
Once upon a time, the Democratic party understood that waging war is difficult, information is hazy, and allies are balky.
"Correction to Krugman Slam" (Posted July 17, 2003)
I hate to have to do this but I left out 1st Armored Division from the units in Iraq. How I did that I do not know. This ups the brigade count to 16, which is still just under half of the active duty brigades but not horribly so. I stand by the combat power portion, however. The Army in Iraq is nowhere near to representing more than half of its combat power.
It is very humbling to have to correct a piece attacking Krugman.
"
Western reporters in
Neither the wishful thinking of part of
the Arab media, long in the pay of Saddam, nor the visceral dislike of part of
the Western media for George W. Bush and Tony Blair changes the facts on the
ground in Iraq.
ONE fact is that a visitor to
There are many complaints, mostly in
Another fact is that the violence we have
witnessed, especially against American troops, in the past six weeks is limited
to less than 1 percent of the Iraqi territory, in the so-called "Sunni
Triangle," which includes parts of
Elsewhere, the coalition presence is
either accepted as a fact of life or welcomed. On the 4th of July some shops
and private homes in various parts of
"We see our liberation as the start
of a friendship with the
In the early days of the liberation, some
mosque preachers tested the waters by speaking against "occupation."
They soon realized that their congregations had a different idea. Today, the
main theme in sermons at the mosques is about a partnership between the Iraqi
people and the coalition to rebuild the war-shattered country and put it on the
path of democracy.
Even the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr now says that
"some good" could come out of the coalition's presence in
We will beat the insurgents.
Most insurgencies fail and the one in
And we will help Iraqis
rebuild a normal country.
I wish the critics had a
sense of perspective. Do we make mistakes? Yes. Should we discuss them and
learn from them? Of course. But the strident screams
of disaster that arise when any speed bumps are encountered are simply
outrageous. But hey, for reporters schooled in the art of terming any decrease
in the rate of funding increases for a pet program as a "crisis" what
must they think of the real problems of getting
"This is Getting Tiring" (Posted
After so many people have
corrected the critics who say that forged Niger documents prove President Bush
lied in his SOTU address, continued assertions that the President claimed Iraq
was seeking to buy uranium from Niger in the SOTU address are just willful lie.
What to make of Meyerson's claim:
There are no stubborn facts in the Bush White House, just stubborn men.
This is an administration that will not be cowed by the truth.
After all, it's not as if the president's baseless assertion in his
State of the Union address that
So what do we know about the flap?
So why is a prudent decision
to go with the track record and more prudent claim a lie?
Partisan hackery—stubbornly
immune to the truth—is behind this "lies"
attack. It is shameful.
Hmm, the latest
to pick up on the "lie" campaign"
The
speaker on the tape played Thursday lashed out at Bush and British Prime
Minister Tony Blair (news
- web
sites), saying they tricked their people to justify the war.
"What
will they say to their people and to mankind? What will the chorus of lies say
to those that backed them?" said the voice. "What will they say to
the world after they devised the scenario of lies against
"The
lies were known to the
The speaker was Saddam
Hussein. Nice to see how these talking points make the
rounds.
"Sao Tome & Principe" (Posted
This tiny island may sit on
lots of oil. It is also conveniently nearby the West African oil fields that
increasingly supply us with our energy needs. We have been in talks with the
country to establish a base there.
This is why the news of a
coup there was disturbing. Although the leader of the country appears to a
couple pages shy of a butterfly ballot, a military takeover is not the answer.
Luckily, local nations may
intervene to reverse the coup. That would be nice. Any Marines thinking of
going to
The way interests and countries
get linked is truly amazing.
"North Korean Talks" (Posted
We should not back down from
including our allies in the discussions. We want them by our side if it comes
to war and a united front will keep them with us and let Kim Jong-Il know that
we won't be divided from our allies.
"The Goods on VIPS" (
When they first raised their
heads, I thought the name "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity" had that smarter-than-thou whiff of a hard left group. Bingo.
Check this out:
VIPS
does not seem to have a website, but its email is vips@counterpunch.org, and their open
letter appears to have been published at CounterPunch
(run by Alexander Cockburn, the Nation columnist), an outfit whose staple is
stuff comparing Bush to Hitler. VIPS also published an open
letter in opposition to the war at Common
Dreams back in February. The spokesman for VIPS is Raymond McGovern, a
retired CIA analyst. McGovern's email is also at CounterPunch.
He is giving a briefing today [Tuesday] with Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
McGovern has compared the Iraq war to Vietnam, even saying that it could lead to nuclear war. He
has charged that if WMDs are found in
Another
member of the VIPS steering committee is William Christison,
who among other things believes that the Bush administration is attempting to colonize the Middle East, jointly with
None
of this proves that VIPS is evil, or even wrong. It does say that Kristof is trying to pass off a fairly left-wing group as a
group of non-partisan "professionals."
In fact, they are worse than
I thought. I was tempted to go after Kristof's
article instead of Krugman's yesterday. Nice to see a good rip on Kristof, too.
He can be as offensive as Krugman. But he can also
provide some good solid stories. This one was the former. Talk about relying on
bad sources for your statements! Just how did the beliefs of this fanatical VIPS
group get into a major columnist's article? In a major
newspaper no less.
Shocking.
"WMD
Investigations" (Posted
One can hear the sawing going on over the din of
the "Bush lied" crowd out on that limb. Said David Kay, in charge of
the WMD search in
I think in six months from now, we’ll
have a considerable amount of evidence, and we’ll be starting to reveal that
evidence. Will we get to the bottom of the program? It took them over twelve
years to build this program. This is a tough country to work in. They hid a
lot. I think we’ll probably still be finding stuff well beyond six months. I
think we will have a substantial body of evidence before six months.
Of course, the die hard
anti-war people will still argue, absurdly in light of the clear intelligence problem
we had with Iraqi WMD, that we should not have acted
against Saddam until the WMD threat was "imminent." That was their point and never mine. Saddam was a threat who
killed, raped, and jailed on an industrial scale and we ended his regime and
his desire for WMD to further his plans for glory.
The Iraq War was a good war.
Just need to kill Saddam and
the die hards still harassing our troops.
"Krugman's
Tanned, Rested, and Ready to Rant!" (Posted
He really gives ranting a bad
name.
But Krugman did not
disappoint me in his column on Tuesday.
Oh where oh where to begin? His column is entitled "Pattern of Corruption."
I at first assumed it was autobiographical, but I soon (ok, immediately)
learned he was back to attack. Said Krugman:
More
than half of the
So much error in
the first paragraph. A target-rich environment to be
sure. Let's see, he says more than half of the Army's combat strength is
bogged down in
No significant WMD? Well, very narrowly he has a point. We have not found WMD. Yet. Krugman could still fall on this point. Yet we know Saddam had the ability, raw materials, and the track record—a pattern, dare I say it—of WMD use. He could weaponize chemical weapons rather quickly I think. Nukes and bugs would have taken years but we were pretty sure this was true prior to the war for the former and unsure on the latter. But Saddam would have had them all in due time if we did not invade.
The al Qaeda-Iraq
link seems to get stronger, not weaker, as reports from
As for militarily significant help,
who other than the British could put a full division into the field beside us?
The British are the only militarily meaningful support available for distant
intervention, other than
How
did we get into this mess? The case of the bogus uranium purchases wasn't an
isolated instance. It was part of a broad pattern of politicized, corrupted
intelligence.
Krugman asserts that the uranium
story was part of a pattern, lightly glossing over the question of whether the
claim is even a deception! It was an error—maybe. The British still stand by
the claim. Even if wrong, all it was was an error.
What corrupted intelligence is he talking about? We accepted the UN's
assessment of what was not accounted for and demanded an accounting. That we
and the UN differed on what should be done about
Literally
before the dust had settled, Bush administration officials began trying to use
9/11 to justify an attack on
More drivel. Who the heck are
people "around" the White House? Usually that refers to unwashed
bongo players playing with puppets and chanting. I take it at least that these people
are not "in" the White House. Further, although I respect Clark and
his difficult Kosovo War, why would the White House turn to possibly the only
Democrat with that many stars? (And perhaps Krugman should ask did President
Clinton hype the so-called genocide going on in Kosovo to justify war) How is this a smoking gun for deception, anyway? And even if true,
the administration was up front all along that threats like Saddam had to be
looked at in a new light after 9-11. I damn sure hope that planning to attack
But
an honest intelligence assessment would have raised questions about why we were
going after a country that hadn't attacked us. It would also have suggested the
strong possibility that an invasion of
An honest writer would note that
So
the
He again alleges intel slants without saying what
they are. Just the uranium non-flap. He actually
complains that nobody connected the dots before 9-11 about that terror attack
and that after 9-11 we connected dots about
The
story of how the threat from
As
Greg Thielmann, a former State Department
intelligence official, said last week,
And
during the run-up to war, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, was willing to
provide cover for his bosses — just as he did last weekend. In an October 2002
letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, he made what looked like an
assertion that there really were meaningful connections between Saddam and Osama. Read closely, the letter is evasive, but it served
the administration's purpose.
Not evasive. Just
recognizing the gray areas in intelligence. It was all gray before 9-11,
so would Krugman now change his mind about the failure to get all alarmist about distant, poor
What
about the risk that an invasion of
Who said 30-60 days? And why is
this one voice the voice of authority? Sure, in a perfect world that might be
true. So what? One official said this. How many more said years? How many said
months? How many said we simply can't know? We simply did not know for sure. We still
don't. I never expected suburban bliss immediately after Saddam fell. Is the
Army strained? Yes. It just fought a war and still watches
It
gets worse. Knight Ridder
newspapers report that a "small circle of senior civilians in the Defense
Department" were sure that their favorite, Ahmad Chalabi, could easily be
installed in power. They were able to prevent skeptics from getting a
hearing — and they had no backup plan when efforts to anoint Mr. Chalabi, a
millionaire businessman, degenerated into farce.
So??? Let
the Iraqis decide. If we installed Chalabi over the objections of the Iraqis,
would Krugman applaud this? So some Pentagon people hoped he would be acclaimed
by the people of
So
who will be held accountable? Mr. Tenet betrayed his office by tailoring
statements to reflect the interests of his political masters, rather than the
assessments of his staff — but that's not why he may soon be fired. Yesterday
Not
that the committees are likely to press very hard: Senator Pat Roberts, the
chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, seems more concerned about protecting
his party's leader than protecting the country. "What concerns me
most," he says, is "what appears to be a campaign of press leaks by
the C.I.A. in an effort to discredit the president."
So is Tenet a Bush lackey who will
alter intelligence to suit the President or a threat who will betray Bush?
Doesn't the act of being a lackey make it more likely Tenet will side with Bush
to avoid getting nailed himself for the alleged dirty deed? And if Congress
will not investigate hard anyway, as Krugman alleges, why would Tenet need to
be fired? And why shouldn't Roberts be concerned that ridiculous assertions are
being made to discredit our president—not party leader? This mish mash of
mutually contradictory allegations is head-spinning in its sheer silliness.
In
short, those who politicized intelligence in order to lead us into war, at the
expense of national security, hope to cover their tracks by corrupting the
system even further.
I just knew Krugman wouldn't
disappoint me when he returned. Slanted,
politicized, corrupted work he knows, alright. He clearly writes what he knows.
Max Boot has a good
column. For the record, I didn't savage President Clinton for his attack on
the
If we can get beyond this
ridiculous lying charge maybe we can debate the real question of how we gather
and interpret intelligence. I still want to know why we thought Saddam had
chemical weapons ready to fire. That is important to know. But it might only
provide useful information that can save American lives rather than provide
another club to beat the administration.
I really need to just skip reading Krugman. Complete time suck. This time for sure, I swear.
"This is Torquing Me
Off" (Posted
The Department of Homeland
Security is going
after child predators. I guess the kids don't need to be protected from
terrorists. Reynolds whacks
the move, though I am not sure whether a stand-alone department is a bad
idea. Yet doesn't this argue for disbanding the department now that terror has
receded behind child abuse as a threat?
Honestly, this is so dumb on
so many levels that I don't know what to say.
If—no, when—there is another
terror attack on our shores, Ridge will have some explaining to do as to why
resources were devoted to this law enforcement rather than securing our
homeland.
"Partisan Folly"
(Posted
The descent into partisan
fury over the non-issue of the African uranium comment is a disgrace for the
anti-war left. When they charge lying on such a simple issue of a perhaps
incorrect intelligence "bit" out of a sea of damning evidence against
Saddam, they make it difficult to have any reasoned disagreement over foreign
policy. They kill their credibility in my eyes. As this author
noted:
In
short, the overheated rhetoric about the 16 words concerning Saddam's shopping
sprees in
This does not bode well for
the country's reaction to the next terror attack on our shores—and it will
come. With partisan attacks that claim civil liberties are being destroyed in
the fight against terror at the same time those critics claim the US is not
doing enough to fight terror, I expect the worst. I do not believe our country
will rally after the next attack. The far left, which has taken over the
national Democratic party, will see such a disaster as just another club with
which to beat the President. That is shameful.
If the opposition wants their
dissent to be taken seriously (or do they prefer their mock oppressed dissident
shtick?), they have a responsibility to be sane dissenters. We need debate on
our policies and the shrill attacks on this issue are irresponsible.
"Bastille Day" (Posted July 14, 2003)
Ok, I got my (somewhat) cheap shot out of the way. I do extend thanks to the French for their work with us in Afghanistan. And I wish them luck in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I am not sure what France and America are anymore. But enemies we are not as long as we can still fight together in regions we see common interests.
But I am baffled that Paris opposes us in areas that seem self-evidently common. I hope we can be allies once again. On their day, I'll leave it at that.
"German Leads Tanks
Through
On this Bastille
Day:
In a gesture of European unity, a German
general headed
French citizens promised the
general full cooperation, so I've heard.
Well, it isn't actually the
first time a German has led tanks through
I'm just saying.
"Not Just Targets"
(Posted
Again from strategypage.com,
confirmation that our troops are dishing it out big time in those clashes in
Attacks on American troops are
increasing, with some 25 "serious incidents" a day in central
Those captured provide
information. Keep it up, Army.
"Cubans Jamming Our
Transmissions to
Funny how
the thugs cooperate.
US government officials,
Iranian-American expatriates and communications satellite operators confirm
that all US-based satellite broadcasts to
Almost axis-like, one might
say.
Honestly, you'd think the
Cubans would welcome a US-Iran showdown. Then Castro could crack down hard on
dissidents again, just like he did during the Iraq War.
But with
Squeeze that SOB Castro.
"Trained
Terrorists" (Posted
A Congressional probe says Al
Qaeda has trained 70,000 to 120,000
terrorists and that some are here.
Hogwash. Lots of kids go to Space Camp but that doesn't mean
I bet most of the al Qaeda wannabees went for the thrill and the ability to
boast to the babes and friends that they are tough guys ready to do battle with
the Great Satan just as soon as Osama gives the word.
If even one percent are really committed enough to fight, I'll be surprised. I
don't mean to under-estimate the threat. It is real and we must kill and
capture them. But if true, the world is really doing a great job of hunting
them and stopping attacks. I guess we haven't angered the world that much over
the Iraq War.
Also, if true, we better
strengthen the USA PATRIOT Act to prevent the faux hawks from arguing we have
"lost focus" on the war on terror. But the critics complain about
that act, too. I keep forgetting that their definition of fighting the war on
terror means more federal money for mass transit in
Few of the purported trained
terrorists will accept our President's challenge to bring 'em
on, I dare say.
"
Peters is optimistic.
Babbitt is worried.
What to think?
I think Peters is right to be
an optimist. He points out many big trends going our way. Babbitt is right to
point out problems but he is too focused on the problems here and now and fails
to have some faith that we will adapt and drive on. If all the things he says
are problems (and they are, I concede) remain problems then yes, we could fail.
But I do not see that happening.
But good things are
happening. A governing
council of Iraqis is up and running:
The council
includes 13 Shiites, five Kurds, five Sunnis, one Christian and one Turkoman. Three members are women. Shiites make up a 60
percent majority of Iraq's 24 million population, but they have never ruled the
country and suffered deeply under Saddam's minority Sunni government.
The UN representative's
reaction was noted:
Sergio Vieira de
Mello, the U.N. special representative to Iraq, called the day
"historic," and said the country was "moving back to where it
rightfully belongs, at peace with itself and a member of the community of
nations."
Indeed it is historic. And so soon after the fall of Saddam.
Good governance, security,
and economic opportunity must be created in
Being optimistic does not
mean one sticks your head in the sand. Yet problems do not mean failure. I am
shocked that so many people who opposed the war are eager to surrender now. I
guess defeat for us and misery for Iraqis is better than working for success
and admitting error.
We are winning. The Iraqis, too, for that matter.
"Reservist Burdens"
(Posted
Latest Army magazine issue (July) has a letter to
the editor from me. Hey, it is printed and widely distributed.
Col. Baumgarten, in his
letter (May), ignores the main point of examining the proper role of the
reserve components. Obviously, when a reservist is called up, his duty is to
salute and show up. I don’t believe anybody is arguing that even multiple
call-ups relieve an individual soldier of the duty and obligation to put on the
uniform and deploy; but to dismiss this issue as frivolous is hardly
intellectual grumbling.
For citizen-soldiers who have civilian careers (remember, they chose reserve
duty and not active duty), failure to address the issue of repeated call-ups is
to refuse to face a real problem, for even though these soldiers will continue
to show up, when it comes time to sign on the dotted line for another term of
service, frequent deployment will absolutely be a factor in their decision.
I signed up for the Army National Guard in 1987 because I felt that my place
was with the Army if the Soviets decided that they were going to roll through
the Fulda Gap. In that era, calling up the reserves
was a big deal. Short of a major conventional war, I didn’t expect to be called
up for anything other than a bad snow storm. I don’t think I would have joined
if I thought that I would likely be called away from my chosen civilian life to
serve in a peacekeeping mission or occupation duty every few years because the
active component was too small to do the job.
Reservists should not be cheap day laborers called up for the dirty jobs and
then sent home to rest up (at low pay) for the next peacekeeping rotation. They
get the worst of both worlds: interruptions of their civilian career and the
poorer compensation and military opportunities of the military reserves. If
reservists are going to be sent off at the same pace as full time soldiers (who
get full time pay and benefits), why will reservists continue to sign on the
dotted line?
In my view, many of the current mobilizations are a reminder of why units
properly in the reserves during the Cold War should now be in the active
component. The War on Terror is a different environment and an Army active/reserve
balance designed for the Cold War has not been updated for the post-Cold War
world, let alone the age of terrorism. The active Army needs to be larger with
more of what are currently reserve functions on active duty. I’m not sure what
is so unclear about that. That was the point I believe Maj. Faith made in his
letter.
BRIAN J. DUNN
Ann Arbor,
I do worry about the Army. It
is stretched taut. Who will join the reserves when it is a full time job?
Given my lame
writing-for-publication habits since I started this blog,
I'll take it.
"Cosmic Justice?" (Posted July 13, 2003)
Let me just note that I think my office will be taking on an intern from France. I swear I will try to be polite to her. It would help if we weren't under a pay freeze. It would help if I could drink at lunch. Shoot, it would only help if she was Iranian or North Korean.
God truly has a sick sense of humor.
"Of Course, Carter Favors Intervening in Liberia" (Posted July 13, 2003)
Former President Carter favors intervening in Liberia. Hey, he already has the Peace Prize so I guess he is free to be a warmonger now. What else to think of a man who lauded the pre-chaos minority government of the Amero-Liberians who Lorded it over the unwashed local tribes. But they were Baptist like Carter, so I guess it was ok.
For an opinion piece advocating intervention, he spends precious little time saying why we should go in. He provides a pointless historical summary that includes noting, "The Carter Center adopted Liberia as one of its peace efforts in Africa, and I began visiting the country in 1990, working closely with the Economic Community of West African States and its military arm." What a shock, a country adopted by Carter gets worse. And they were such peaceful people according to Carter. What is it about Carter that inspired them to hack people to bits? Didn't they know how much he cared? Yet Carter boasts:
As the prime monitors, we encouraged a liberal interpretation of voter registration, and there were no disputes among the candidates about this procedure.
Carter Center monitors visited polling sites throughout Liberia on Election Day in July 1997, and were impressed with the overwhelming commitment to peace and democracy. Rosalynn and I began our day at a large open-sided shed near the capital, and we had tears in our eyes when we saw people, overwhelming numbers of registered voters, lined up in the dark, in a steady rain, long before the polls opened. At the end of the day, Charles Taylor received about 75 percent of the total vote -- because of strong support of people whom he had dominated in the rural areas and because others in Monrovia felt that he might resort to violence if he lost.
That's nice. No care for voter fraud. No care for voter intimidation. No care that a psycho won. He freaking cried because people went through the motions of voting. He winds up by asserting that we can intervene because Taylor says he will leave. Carter trusts this thug will keep his word.
If I had any small doubts that intervening in Liberia is a bad idea, Carter just ended them.
I could cry that this man was our president.
"Links" (Posted July 11, 2003)Interesting stuff on bin Laden-Saddam link. I think the limbs on which the anti-war side had climbed out will all be sawed off in time.
"African Uranium" (Posted July 11, 2003)
I can hardly wait for Krugman to get back from vacation and write on the non-issue of the so-called 'Bush lied' story. You just know it will be completely ill-informed and Rall-like.
"Liberia and Iraq" (Posted July 11, 2003)
I still think intervening in Liberia is folly. But if we go in, we should exact a price in UN and world support for our efforts in Iraq. I hate to make such a deal but a short entry of Marines to gain UN approval may be worth it.
Hey, just wondering why the African elite is so upset over our overthrowing Saddam's brutal regime. Were the African elite upset that Tanzania overthrew Idi Amin's regime in Uganda n 1979, fought regime holdouts until they were defeated, and remained in Uganda for two years to ensure a post-Amin Uganda less nutso and threatening? Just wondering.
If we go in, Marine snipers should shoot the SOB Taylor on day one. If he doesn't leave by then, boom. We don't need that psychopath playing games.
Oh, and I appreciate the commentary on my complaint that "peace" protesters can always support some war--as long as it has absolutely no bearing on American security interests. Such peaceniks are willing to let American soldiers be targets but will send them off to the ICC if they harm one cannibalistic, raping thuglet hopped up on whatever the locals consume to get high. Even Dean wants us to go into Liberia. I guess we gave peace enough of a chance...
"We Hate You! Now Help
Us" (Posted
I don't know why only
President Bush received a cool reception
today in the capital of
Bush has come to this long-struggling
region with the promise of billions of dollars for development,
disease-fighting and counter-terrorism efforts, and he carries the prestige of
making only the third sub-Saharan
I'm honestly tempted to just
tell them to take care of their own damned problems, but their foolish
attitudes are no reason to abandon doing what is right and in our interests.
The whole continent cannot be written off.
But send our troops to risk
their lives when the ICC is high on African leaders' complaints? On this one—screw
'em. Let's provide support and advice—like don't let
your troops hurt anyone lest they get hauled before the ICC on trumped up
charges—but stay out of
"
Bloody threats and oppressive
tactics kept the
Over here, sympathy protests
failed to attract the attention of ANSWER, Amnesty International, Jesse
Jackson, or any of the other committed protesters devoted to peace and justice.
No human shields for the
Iranian protesters either, I guess.
Instapundit put it
well:
NOT MUCH BIG-MEDIA ATTENTION FOR THE IRANIAN PROTESTS:
Nothing on the
front pages of the New York Times
and
The
Question: If
there were protests against the
Some questions
answer themselves
There is time yet for
Iranians to seize the moment and overthrow the thugs. I do not believe we will
stand by and let
"Oh Yeah" (Posted
Sometimes when you are
involved in following a debate you forget the obvious. Namely, the issue of
whether the President used a lie to get us into war when he stated in his State
of the Union address that
Then Lt. Smash, who only recently heard of the
issue, chimes in with some needed perspective borne from relative isolation:
You
see, I wasn’t home that night[of
the SOTU address]. I was here in the
Sandbox, busy getting ready for war. A war, I might add, for which I had been
actively preparing for two months. A conflict which had been
debated—and authorized—in the
Duh. What was I thinking? Yes, the war had already been
authorized by Congress and the UN Security Council had already declared that
some sort of severe non-French consequences would flow from failing to abide by
past UNSC resolutions.
One fact in Saddam's litany
of crimes was wrong—period. And asserted after the decision for war was made.
Feel silly for missing the
bloody obvious on this one.
"Iraqi Casualties" (Posted July 9, 2003)
I read that we are deliberately not reporting Iraqi casualties in clashes to avoid body count syndrome. I feel better now. Perhaps the ROE aren't that bad.
"Arrested for NOT Protesting"
(Posted
Student leaders in
"
Today is supposed to be a day
of protests in
I have no real stories or
insights today (no comments on that one, please) on
I hope they succeed. I hope
we help them. I hope our troops can stop learning ditties about an evil Iran.
"Breakup?" (Posted
Is
I've had no means to decide
whether I think
All very
interesting. We may have wanted a
Chinese democratic constituency to develop in China but the Chinese fight
freedoms at every turn, shutting down web sites and organizations, arrests,
etc. But at the same time the Chinese government brought democracy advocates in
themselves when they took over
"Bring 'em On?" (Posted
I have no problem with the
President's self-assured statement of confidence in our soldiers to smash our
enemies. I welcome it. (The line was repeated by Franks in his departing
comments! Good job, Tommy, we'll miss you. Our enemies won't, sadly) What the loyal opposition is even talking about when they
complain about this is beyond me—we are fighting a war, ya
know. Jeez, I suppose Churchill's admittedly more eloquent "Fight them on
the beaches" swagger would not have gone over well with the quagmirists, either. But when the Islamists and Baathist come to fight, how do we crush them with only
confidence? Apparently, we have trouble shooting back. This would explain my nagging wonder at why the news doesn't report on enemy casualties very often in the ambushes. Doesn't mean there aren't any, of course, but still, makes me wonder. This from strategypage.com:
Marine and Army troops in
Yes, I know, some green rear
echelon types might spray a school with fire if they take fire from the general
area. We want to avoid that, but can't we at least let the MPs and combat troops stay locked and loaded—and look it? Speak softly and
carry a big stick, remember? By all means be warm and fuzzy on patrol and don't
abuse the locals, but be loaded for bear and make those convoys look like a
rolling Death Star for God's sake!
"Get the SOB"
(Posted
Seriously, get Saddam. His
personal fate was irrelevant during the war when simple lack of effective
command and control was all we needed. But during rebuilding, we need to
capture or, preferably, kill Saddam Hussein. People there are understandably
afraid that they and their family could be the ones who put the mass graves
body count over the 300,000 mark:
After weeks of jubilation over Hussein's
ouster -- during which people here blithely lampooned him, toppled his statues
and seized offices of his once-ruling Baath Party --
many Iraqis have become increasingly spooked that the former dictator and his
loyalists are plotting a return to power. That concern has escalated in recent
days with the release of a recorded message purportedly from Hussein as well as
a surge in violent attacks against both
Get Saddam and the other top
ranked Baathist thugs. Get the senior Baathists out of positions of power. We must not lose the
assistance of the people in hunting down Saddam's people. We need information.
The people provide it. Don't let the thugs shut that down or we could lose this
fight. This has to be a non-Baathist Iraqi/US fight.
Not that I am worried. Things
go well and it is early yet in the post-war phase. But it is a potential
problem.
"Steady, Lads"
(Posted
No
more US troops are needed for
I want the
More to the point, our troops
don't like doing this police work. Get Iraqis doing this work as soon as
possible. The world's finest soldiers shouldn't be doing this kind of work.
Spoils the training, don't you know.
With lots more troops, we'd
have a vicious cycle of having an oppressive presence on every street that incites
Iraqis and more targets for angry Iraqis to hit. We'd have more chances to lash
out blindly in frustration and increase Iraqi anger.
The bottom line is that I
don't believe the press impressions that we are just sitting on our butts
getting attacked are true. Offensive missions are taking place. And the fact
that we aren't reading about them is good. Special forces
and intel are scouring
We don't need more troops and
they would be counter-productive if sent.
"Gut Check" (Posted
We are facing another gut
check in our counter-offensive against nuclear terrorism.
The first counter-attack and
gut check came on September 11.
The Islamists thought that
Our second campaign destroyed
the lair of the regime that harbored the terrorists and destroyed the base that
bin Laden had created.
The third campaign destroyed
Saddam's death machine before it could turn our nightmares into nuclear
reality.
In all three, we must fight
to preserve our gains even as we move forward in a fourth campaign. But the
next is critical. We cannot rest, basking in our achievements thus far. The
campaigns have been victorious but the war is not yet won.
The Iranian people must be
supported. We are in the fourth campaign, right now. Fight it.
"Post-War
Rebuilding" (Posted
Interesting
stuff
here on post-World War II Germany.
One notion I've read about is
that our pristine war is harming post-war stability operations. Having not
witnessed first-hand the destruction of their army and neighborhoods, Iraqis
are less inclined to cooperate, the argument goes. The idea that Iraqis were
not really "defeated" in their hearts because of the focused nature
of the war is bull. We smashed up
"Focus on Africa" (Posted July 5, 2003)
We are focusing more of our military and intelligence assets on Africa. The fear is that al Qaeda will take advantage of weak central governments to create new bases as we shut the terrorists down in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
In a sense this is prudent. European-based units can be useful in African missions (as I argue in a forthcoming article on United States Army Europe). However, not all chaos is a threat to our security. Not all failed states must be set right with our troops. Most will be tragedies, to be sure, but we cannot intervene militarily everywhere to create suburban bliss. Assistance to African countries with AIDS prevention, training their militaries and police and courts, improving their economies, and sharing intelligence, must be the primary focus with US troops intervention a rarity to stomp al Qaeda or save a pro-West regime.
Rotating light infantry, Stryker teams and task forces, and special forces through African countries, and Marine Expeditionary Units sailing off of West Africa (and off of East Africa on occasion, too, since Persian Gulf deployments probably aren't necessary with the US in control of Iraq). Really, MEUs patrolling the Med. aren't really useful anymore. Europe-based Army units can probably be airlifted in for many missions the Marines used to handle in the Med region.
Certainly, intervening in Liberia will signal this new focus. And new basing agreements and deployment patterns will follow regardless of the Liberia decision. Tugged by history and believing we can stay for a short time with a MEU only, we probably will lead a force in. I hope we get out soon.
We just don't have enough horses for another mission that does not defend vital interests. Liberia is a luxury. I hope we can afford it.
"Reservists" (Posted July 4, 2003)
One thought on making modern reserve duty more acceptable when frequent call-ups are the rule: Pay them more. Different soldiers with the same rank get paid different amounts as it is what with bonuses, housing and family allowances, hardship posts, and whatever else. Why not pay reservists called up what they earn in their civilian career, if more than their military pay? You could set caps for different military jobs. Doctors, nurses, and pilots could get the most and clerk-typists the least. Or if not direct pay, pay their mortgage for the duration. More expensive, yes; but it keeps needed troops on the payroll and makes deployment less of a worry financially. Is it really better to keep training new people and losing experience?
"Liberia" (Posted July 4, 2003)
Well, it looks like we will go into Liberia. Historic ties are trumping common sense. Although some critics of the administration say that Afghanistan and Iraq already show that the US is willing to get into the nebulous world of nation-building, this mis-states the issue. In Afghanistan and Iraq, we defeated the governments and are rebuilding them. The nation-building critique was about getting involved in the middle of a civil war and trying to forge a nation with a peacekeeping attitude that doesn't want any side to win. This is the problem in Liberia. All sides are pretty sickening and although the people are caught in the middle and hope a superpower America can solve their problems, we cannot:
If U.S. troops go ashore in Liberia, their task will be to end a civil war that has
defied years of mediation efforts, devastated one of Africa's most prosperous
countries and been marked by atrocities committed by all sides.
No side that holds actual power is even close to being acceptable, really. And we are supposed to choose, apparently. The best hope is that we can turn this nightmare over to the UN and the regional states before we lose too many troops. For the "peace protesters" here, all I ask is that when our troops have to shoot to kill, try not to complain too much. This is their kind of war after all, a feel good nothing to do with our interests mission. The peaceniks owe it to the troops to stand by them.
Godspeed. Marines could be in a position to move in about a week or so.
"WMD Analysis"
(Posted
Well, so far another
"Bush Lied" argument appears to be falling apart. Intel people did not
change analysis under pressure from the administration:
Current, reliable
information on Iraq (news
- web
sites)'s weapons efforts was sometimes lacking but U.S. intelligence
analysts did not exaggerate their findings under pressure from Bush
administration officials trying to build a case for war, says Richard Kerr, who
is heading the intelligence community's internal review of its prewar
performance on Iraq.
Intel
is a fuzzy business. I still want to know why we erred on the chemical weapons
in firing condition question, but this is not a scandal. We did the right
thing. We will find the WMD programs and, I bet, banned weapons.
"
Seriously, there is a
"red line" that we should not cross in pressuring
China and Russia sought today to delay a
Security Council condemnation of North Korea's nuclear arms program, a day after
a top North Korean general said any sanctions or blockades initiated by the
The letter added that if the
We are certainly in a better
position now to defend
Yet I feel that
This is touchy, people. We've
got a psychopath in
"
The
Officials
said they are considering sending 500 to 2,000 American troops, a number that
will be determined after a decision is made about the force's precise mission.
But we have had to mobilize
200,000 reservists to maintain what we have deployed now. And I don't think
this is a vital interest. Sure, it would be nice to do, if we had the luxury of
peacetime, but now? I hope we aren't getting involved here to soothe the
nervous types over our power. I suspect we intervened in
Now mind you, if we go in, I
would never say we are morally wrong to intervene and that poor dictator Taylor
is being victimized. Nor will I march with communists or national socialists
who want to protest US actions. I won't even claim debate is being suppressed.
(see, "peace" protesters can always back
some military interventions) No, I will hope for the best and support
completing the mission and getting out. All you bongo players out there take
note.
I assume a Marine
Expeditionary Unit (a reinforced battalion) will get the mission since 173rd
AB brigade and the Rangers out of
"The Army Needs to Become Expeditionary?"
(Posted
This article
torques me off a bit. It starts out by noting the strain on our Army in this
war:
Not only has the long, varied deployment
been too much of a strain on the Army soldiers and their families, it’s also
highly unusual for the Army or any service. Consider that when Navy personnel
do tours overseas with their families for six months at a time, they do so only
once every few years. Or that the Air Force tries to make sure that only two of
its ten “air and space expeditionary forces” are deployed at any one time.
The recognition that the Army
is too small is welcome. We need to enlarge the Army and place more combat
support and combat service support units in the active component. We need more
Military Police for stability and security operations to free up line combat
units. But then the author takes a cheap shot:
Given the country’s post-Sept. 11 needs
for warfighting and long-lasting stability
operations, the days of the “garrison Army” may be behind us. The service needs
to join the Navy, Air Force and Marines in becoming an “expeditionary force.”
Note that the Navy, Air
Force, and Marine Corps plan for only a fraction of their forces to be ready at
a moment's notice. The Army is expected to have all ten active divisions and the separate brigades ready to roll.
The Army has never had the luxury of needing only 2 or 3 divisions combat
ready. Further, the Army is really reliant on the Navy and Air Force to get it
to the fight. Implying the Army is too slow is unfair.
The Army is going to get away
from replacing individuals in units to building units and letting them train
together. This Unit
Manning Initiative will keep brigades together as teams to ensure better
unit cohesion. This means that some units at the beginning of a cycle will not
be combat ready as they bring in new troops and train up to standards. (see the Unit Manning Task Force
for more) Of course, while making ready units better, we pay the price with
unready units. We could use more divisional flags unless we do the Breaking the Phalanx concept of brigade
combat teams. For my suggestion on more divisional flags, see my "The Path to the
Future Army" in Military Review.
(the editors garbled a couple sentences when they
stripped supporting charts. See my corrected
version here with the supporting graphics).
It's numbers, not a lack of expedionariness, or whatever.
The Navy and Air Force still have to get the Army to the fight.
But that is out of the Army's hands.
"Iraqi Elections" (Posted July 1, 2003)
I have to agree that halting local elections in Iraq is a mistake. It's just putting them in charge of garbage collection and local stuff for God's sake. Don't give the Baathists a chance to say, "Hey, at least other Iraqis were in charge before the war!" Sure, they can't be put in charge of larger areas until de-Baathification is done and Saddam is dead, but let's start in the neighborhoods. Get the Iraqis involved, busy, and responsible for making their lives better.
"Malawi" (Posted July 1, 2003)
They really do need to start acting more like the "religion of peace." Malawi Moslems rioted because we got 5 al Qaeda killers out of their country. What a great thing to riot and attack Christians over. Seriously, they have a problem with turning over killers to receive justice? Even if they are really, really upset with the procedures, alleging not all the paperwork was in order, why would reasonable people attack Christians to make their point? I try to understand. I really do.
"Post-War
Ralph Peters has an excellent
essay on our success
thus far in Iraq and the nonsensical complaints that elevate scattered
attacks into a quagmire:
As one pal of mine serving in
We shouldn't be surprised that the last
embittered thugs are engaging in occasional acts of terrorism against us - on
the contrary, we should be relieved that we see so little continuing resistance. After toppling a totalitarian
regime that ruled a population of 25 million for over a generation, it's
amazing that we face only one or two attacks every few days. We could be
suffering hundreds of incidents daily, if the population stood behind Saddam
& Co.
On our worst day last week, when two
convoys came under attack, more than 600 other
Are the Iraqis "turning against
us"? Bull. Our best sources of intelligence continue to be Iraqis who are
glad the regime is gone and don't want it to come back in any way, shape or
form.
I certainly agree we should
keep the French out and should remain in control. Yet we should get other
countries, and even the UN's non-political organizations, to work under our
direction. Maintain control. Spread responsibility and the desire for success.
We have a lot of work to do in
And for goodness sake, get
local elections going. And friendly television and radio,
too, for that matter. And of course, Iraqi local
police and light infantry. That will do for a start to get the Iraqis
involved in and responsible for security so that rebuilding can occur.
But mostly, remember that the
professional surrenderers have predicted failures and disasters many times
since September 11.
We are winning, people.
