Pharsalia

2005-10-14T09:41:00.000-07:00

Al Reuters with their usual 'coverage' of vote

This is a historic weekend. Iraqis are going to the polls to decide on their new constitution, and with the recent deal cut with a major Sunni group it seems destined for passage. For the first time in history, an Arab nation is about to have an actual constitution that doesnt 'constitute' a sick joke. Our friends at Al Reuters are all over it (via Yahoo.com, for the world to see):

Western Iraq polling sites said hard to find

Thanks Reuters! We needed that perspective. 25 million Iraqis are heading for the ballot box, but you guys managed to find the real story, the durst of polling centers in sparsely populated, but viscously violent Western Iraq. Thank you for alerting us to the important news of the day. Jerkoffs.

2005-07-28T06:50:00.000-07:00

Bad ideas in the Terror War

One of the problems with war is that you are usually obliged to form ranks with nations or idealogies that are incompatible with your own. We fought WW2 allied to a butcher every bit as heinous as Hitler who was actively sowing our government and society with spies and propagandists. We spent the next 50 years trying to correct the repurcussions.

Many serious thinkers have come to the conclusion that unless moderate Islam comes out full tilt against violence and extremism, the war cannot be won no matter what we do. That may be true. The problem is that 'moderate' Arabs tend to two groups: fascists such as the Sauds and Mubareks, and communist trans-nationalists.

This article (via Andrew Sullivan guest blogger Judith Apter Klinghoffer) gives us an insight into the price the 'moderates' are essentially demanding.

For example, in February 2005, a group of reformists submitted to the U.N. a request that it establish an international court to judge Muslim clerics who incite to violence and bloodshed. The request was examined by the U.N. legal counsel and distributed to the U.N. Security Council.

Cloaked in the veil of reasonableness is a pretty scary precident. This is a suggestion, currently under consideration, to establish a supernational court whos soul purpose is to monitor (and assumedly punish) speech. Now Muslim hate speech is certainly something we need to address, but to anyone who knows anything about the UN its pretty obvious that the real violence inciting hate will be the last thing they concentrate on. There is zero doubt in my mind that just like the International Criminal Court, this court will quickly morph into typical 'get America' mode.

First of all there is no way this court will be confined to Muslim hate speech. That simply runs counter to every politically correct leaning of the transnationalists that infest the UN. They would elect Saddam Hussein the next UN Secretary before encoding (or even recognizing) the fact one cultures extremism is more deadly than another. No. This will be an open ended pervue that will ecompass anything the unelected court considers Hate Speech.

At the end of the day, what does this mean? There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that such a Court would look to circumvent our American 1st Amendment rights (doubtlessly aided by extremist American judges looking to conform to International Law over the Constitutional protections they are sworn to uphold) and try to bring down those they really consider threats: Evangelical Christians, Jews and other Israel supporters, and certainly neocons and other hawks.

Congressman Tancredo would be a perfect target for a court like this. Undoubtedly while claiming to be 'even handed', the transnationalists will spend the resources of this court to silence those who are actually fighting the War on Terror politically. Have no doubt about it, this is a trojan horse.

2005-07-21T08:02:00.000-07:00

Bombs in London Again

Reports are sketchy, but apparently only the detonaters have gone off. A bus and 3 metro stops again. The question is, were these real bombs badly designed, or dummy bombs as is being floated at the moment. If the latter, why? In military parlance, the word that comes to mind is Demonstration. I hope the emergency crews have their eyes open. I suppose its possible that the bomb maker was either inept or had a change of heart. Very strange, whatever the case.
It is often said that God favors fools, drunks, and Americans. I hope some of that luck has rubbed off on our cousins, the Londoners, today.

2005-07-14T06:44:00.000-07:00

The Candy Wars II

One of the inevitable aspects of war is action and reaction. As one side innovates the other side innovates in response, less they collapse altogether. Nothing focuses the mind quite like the imminent prospect of death and defeat. Last month I wrote of the powerful impact individual acts of kindness and generosity by American soldiers was having on the Iraqi people, particularly the children. Tens of thousands of next generation Iraqis will have the fuzzy memory of a giant smiling American handing them candy bars, shoes, or coloring books. That good will is a deadly danger for the long term viability of the jihadi movement.

True to form, Al Qaeda has adapted to the Candy War in the most horrifying way possible. Yesterday, jihadis in a poor neighborhood in Baghdad set off a carbomb to attract an American patrol, and more importantly to attract the children that flock to bomb scenes looking for treats. A suicide bomber driving an SUV packed with explosives waited until several dozen children were gathered around, pressed on the accelerator, and detonating his lethal cargo in the midst of the Iraqi children.

At least two dozen were killed instantly. Many more maimed. One American soldier was killed. There are no words in elvish, entish, or the tongues of men to describe such infamy.

The intent is clear. The terrorists seek to divide the coalition forces from the Iraqi people. Americans are making inroads to Iraqi adults through kindness to their children, and the way to stop that is to make Iraqis fear for their childrens lives. There is a definite sick logic to it.

There is a famous scene in Apocalypse Now where Kurtz recalls the following:

We went into a camp to inoculate the children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for Polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms...
And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger.

Some have proported that this is a true story, passed on from military advisors to Copola. Whatever the case may be, Kurtz was wrong. True soldiers risk death for causes, and therein lies their strength. A warrior who begins to prey on the innocent while avoiding the strong is quickly unmanned. Aside from the literal sadists, Nazis manning concentration camps took to alcoholism and suicide almost to a man. A warrior reduced to atrocity will lose his ability to act, which is precisely why insurgents attempt to goad occupiers into brutality.

In this, Al Qaeda has failed miserably, and in so doing completely lost their path. Instead of provoking Americans, AQ has succeeding in provoking Iraqis against them, while causing Americans to pity Iraqis, the opposite of their intent. Drugging up some Morrocan and having him drive into a preschool is not a sign of moral clarity and mental strength. It is a sign of impotence and confusion of purpose.

2005-07-13T08:30:00.000-07:00

The White House Press Corp Loses it

What liberal media? This one. The press basically flipped out and ambushed Scott McClellan yesterday. Michael Goodwin makes the case that they have openly taken sides. I'd say he's right. In a week where London has been bombed and a critical Supreme Court decision looms, the press spends basically an entire press conference grilling the spokesman about what is probably not even a crime, and quite possibly not even ethically wrong in any way. Sickening. There is a strong chance that everyone in that room knew that Valarie Plame worked for the CIA before the Novak story broke, it was the worst kept secret in Washington. The press corp has abandoned even the semblance of objectivity and openly declared war on the White House.

So what should Bush do? Give press credentials to bloggers. The White House is under no obligation to keep being harrassed by the same dinosaur relics of an age gone by. Believe me, no-one (even in Manhattan) is waiting to see what brilliant query the shrill and senile Helen Thomas is about to produce. Lets get some new blood in there that is going to start asking the important questions. How about Mickey Kaus or Andrew Sullivan? Austin Bay? David Corn? Drudge? All of those guys have (or should have) the credentials and the respect to do the job. We need some fresh blood in the press room, and to hell with the snobs who would rail against it. The press has a serious job and an important responsibility during war, and this fundamentally silly and biased corp is not cutting it.

2005-07-11T13:27:00.000-07:00

This is too rich

The ever mercurial Andrew Sullivan writes on the virtues of stoicism. Soon to follow: Bill O'Reilly on the importance of humility, Chris Matthews on civil discourse, and Ann Coulter on the evils of hyperbole.

2005-07-07T10:18:00.000-07:00

A Bad Qaeda Mistake

Bombing London was a disasterously stupid move for our Al Qaeda enemies. The Brits are now in this up to their ears, and for their own reasons.

Andrew Sullivan posts this email from a British reader:

Londoners (Brits) will fight back. That is obvious. Always have always will. One thing I've got to disagree with you on is that there will be a push for policy change but not for the reason Galloway and others suggest. Brits will demand that we hand over the calm south to Iraqis and move troops (in particular SAS) to Afghanistan. There are some people in the mountains that we need to settle a score with.

This may well be true. It will cause us some problems in Iraq, but it will cause some major Al Qaeda problems everywhere else on the globe. The Brits dont play around. Its been grimly humerous to hear all the criticism of American tactics in places like Guantanimo, when such tactics are a joke compared to what the British and French intelligence agencies resort to when necessary.
I think the main thing that is going to happen is that the Brits are going to step out of the second fiddle role and start running things their way. That is bad news for AQ in Afghanistand and Pakistan, the SAS is the best special forces formation in the world and the English are liable to have all kinds of historic ties and connections in the region. If the Americans are worried about Pakistani soveriegnty, I doubt the British will have such compunction at this point. American objections arent going to slow down the SAS if and when they are let off the leash.

Things are a bit shaky in Afghanistan right now. The Taliban seem to have gotten used to American doctrine and may be resurgent. Several thousand angry Brits rolling in country is not going to help their outlook. We have very different ways of doing things, and a change of pace is a good way of keeping the enemy off balance, perhaps toppling him once and for all.

2005-07-07T08:38:00.000-07:00

London Bombing

My heart and prayers are with the British people. As things develop i will have something to add, but for now that is all there is to say.

2005-07-06T09:24:00.000-07:00

Supreme Court Follies

The impending retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor has launched the obligatory beltway tizzy fit. Both sides are lining up their soldiers, and it looks like big guns are being brought to bear. Bush has enlisted the ever popular former senator Fred Thompson to shepherd his pick through the confirmation. The White House certainly already knows who their selection is, and anybody who respects the machinations of Karl Rove doesnt doubt that his end game will have be well vetted and brilliant.

Drudge is reporting that Senate Judicial Committee member Chuck Schumer was overheard on his cell phone claiming that a fillibuster was inevitable, no matter the candidate:

“It's not about an individual judge… It's about how it affects the overall makeup of the court.”

The chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was overheard on a long cellphone conversation with an unknown political ally, and the DRUDGE REPORT was there!

Schumer proudly declared: “We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over this.”

So much for Bush bringing the parties together if only he'd appoint a moderate! The Democrats are obviously plotting their usual instant opposition even before a name is announced. This is going to bite the Dems in the rear, they still havent realized how utterly predictable they are, and how Rove uses that to play them like a violin. This 'admission' by Schumer is something less than a smoking gun, but it does make the Gang of 14 Democrats look like flat out liars and cheaters.

This is like watching a boxer get lured into a knockout punch. I dont think that the Democrats know or care that if they are perceived as having forged the last deal in total bad faith, they are going down hard to the mat plus the President will get his choice in justices. Schumer and the rest have done something Bush and the party leadership could never do, rope the moderate and renegade republicans back into the fold with a nasty taste in their mouths. Instead of divide and conquer the Democrats are initiating a full frontal assault they cant win.

Bush's run of inexplicably stupid opponents continues.

2005-07-05T07:29:00.000-07:00

Landmines have killed thousands of Iraqis

Not just any landmines, American landmines. How you ask? By sitting harmlessly in their arsenals gathering dust.

It has become increasingly clear that suicide bombing is public enemy number one for the Iraqi people. Thousands have been killed and more maimed, and it is acknowledged that foriegn jihadis constitute the vast bulk of these attacks. Most come from Saudi Arabia or Syria, meaning they must have crossed the border at some point.

Sealing even the Syrian border alone is a massive undertaking. It is hundreds of miles long along inhospital terrain. At best we have been able to patrol the border and squeeze off some of the choke points. We have had more luck at attacking the infastructure of safe houses and the ratlines leading to the heart of Iraq, but even that has done little to slow the flow of bombers.

What we need to do is make a real effort to seal the border in a serious way. Short of charging our entire Iraq force with the job, there is no way to do that without a force multiplier. That is where land mines come in. Mines have gotten a really bad rap in recent years, and had become the celeb cause de jure for a while. In some sense this was deserved, typical landmines dont have an expiration date and tend to blow people up years after a conflict ends.

American mines are different, they are built to shut themselves off after a certain length of time. Landmines have persisted throughout modern history for a very simple reason, they work. Extremely well. Creating a no-mans land in a swath of the border, clearly marked with signs and barbed wire is our best hope of closing down the jihadi-railroad. Just the sight of a minefield is enough to turn back most of the enemy, and those stupid enough to try to push through wont be a problem for long.

The cost cannot be ignored, of course. Without a doubt, some innocents will wander foolishly past the barbed wire, past the multitide of warning signs, and blow themselves up. That is unfortunate. But consider the cost jihadis bring to innocents now. Is it not wise to trade a handful of lives to landmines in exchange for thousands killed by foriegn bombers? Not a nice choice, but in war they rarely are.

I dont think this is likely to happen, whatever safe guards are emplaced. Landmines have gained too bad of a rap lately, and no matter how many lives they can save the row their deployment would cause would make Guantanamo look like a minor disagreement of opinion. Aside from SUVs, landmines probably have the mantle of the most evil objects on the planet.

It's too bad. They could save a lot of lives. Which means their nondeployment is costing a lot of lives.

2005-07-02T17:00:00.000-07:00

Live 8

So you ask me, how was the much anticipated Live 8? Excellent question. But despite giving up 10 hours of my Saturday to check it out, I still have no idea. Little tip to the idiot MTV producers who patched together the vapid, ADD laced abortion that was this broadcast... show the music at least a glimmer of respect. Pink Floyd reunites and I get Comfortably Numb cut off, and even that talked over by some idiot VJs busy telling us how monumental this reunion is? I know its monumental, thats why you have to shut up! And Floyd was the only band that got any kind of air time.
That being said, what bits and peices of music that did manage to somehow sneak into the broadcast between clueless hosts pretend they have a clue what they are trying to accomplish with the event and interviews with even more clueless bands... was good! Even inspired. Look, I get it, the music is the lure, the movement is what counts. I'm happy to listen to Bobby Geldof, or Bono, or anybody with two thoughts to rub together. But if the choice is insipid VJ X fawning over Mariah Carey for her opinion on global poverty (and her outfit), and seeing an actual, well, perfomance... i'll take the music thank very much. Even if it is antithetical to all MTV stands for these days. Youd think with an 11 hour broadcast featuring world class bands in half a dozen cities around the world, a little music might make its way in. Particular when it became brutally clear that the VJ hosts had exhausted their knowledge of the issues well within the first 2 minutes of the broadcast. Personally i'd rather hear Cold Play tune their guitars for 10 minutes rather than Vanessa parrot some garbled demands to G8 for the 1000th time.
Well, maybe in another 20 years when we've dumped another trillion into the African thugacracies coffers and the next concert is scheduled someone who actually appreciates music will be running the telecast.

2005-07-01T07:56:00.000-07:00

On Bad Ideas

One of the consequences of Bush's refusal to debate policy details in Iraq is that bad ideas are brought into the public square with dangerous regularity. They can be effectively shot down, as the timetable meme was, but after a while such a strategy simply makes the White House look negative and inflexible. The mantra 'this is a bad idea, stay the course' should be replaced with 'this is a bad idea, here's why, and here is what we are going to do instead'.

Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings institute is a serious man with serious ideas about Iraq and the War on Terror. His Op-ed "Five Ways to Win Back Iraq " in todays New York Times, however, is chocked full of bad and potentially disasterous ideas.

"Think safety first A main point of counterinsurgency operations is that ensuring the safety of the people and giving them an economic and political incentive to oppose the insurgency is more important than fighting the insurgents themselves."

"We should instead be building safe zones in cities and rural areas, and guarding communications and transportation sites, to allow Iraq's political and economic life to revive."

While it is true to a point that safeguarding civilian reconstruction is a critical component to beating the insurgents, it is a deadly dangerous idea to go defensive at this time. Pollack is a big one for learning historical lessons, but apparently he has forgotten the lessons of Fallujah. When you let the enemy sit back in safe zones and attack you on his schedule, you are going to eventually find yourself in deep trouble.

Pollack shouldnt cherry pick his truisms for how to defeat an insurgency. One of the anti-insurgency commandments is 'thou shalt not allow your enemy a sanctuary'.

Achieving these goals will require more than the 155,000 troops in the country, and it is time for the Bush administration to bite the bullet, whether by deploying additional standing forces, calling up reserves, or spurring recruitment by increasing pay and benefits

This is another bad idea. Two years ago, it would have been wise to bring significantly more troops to Iraq, but that train has sailed. Bringing more troops into Iraq will incite the very people Pollack earlier claimed were vital to victory. As I have blogged about before it is critical that we demonstrate to the Iraqis that we are not interested in staying in Iraq indefinately. Bringing in more troops will send the opposite signal, and quite possibly start to chaff the Shiia which would will put us in true danger of defeat. We need to be speaking of metrics by which the security and liberty of Iraq can be confirmed, and hence we can draw down troops. Pollack's suggestion promises the exact opposite result.

In the shorter term, however, we can put a big dent in the insurgency by reaching out to Sunni tribal leaders and paying them protection money.

In the remainder of the article, Pollack makes suggestions for ideas we are either currently already doing (joint foot patrols with Iraqi army units, read a milblog Ken) or strategies that have been tried and discarded, in this case paying off the local Poobahs. Again, nice idea in theory, in practice Iraqi Shieks dont stay bought. Millions have been spent bribing tribal leaders, sometimes it shows results but much more often the Shieks take the money and plead innocence and ignorance when the EIDs go off in their towns. Human beings respond to fear and greed. Fear of being blown to bits by a foriegn lunatic or rival Iraqi will always outweigh whatever bribe we drop on them. Pollack should know that.

Ideas are good things, and even bad ones add to the dialog. But when they arent effectively countered they tend to take on lives of their own. The stakes are just too high to allow seemingly prudent tactics that history has shown to be dangerously counterproductive to have any possibility of catching fire.

2005-06-30T13:59:00.000-07:00

So What Now?

Bush's speech was mearly OK. It did what it needed to do, but an opportunity was missed. Bush made the mistake of answering a question the country wasnt asking. Poll numbers arent going down because people have forgotten how and why Iraq is now central to the war on terrorism. Poll numbers are dropping because the people haven't been sufficiently and honestly told where we stand, what our goals are, and how we plan to get to them.

Now Bush touched on this to some degree, but it should have been the focus of his entire speech. The few Democrats that arent still arguing over why we shouldn't have gone to Iraq in the first place (a moot, unserious, pointless debate that has devoured the left) bring up 'facts' and issues that the White House doesnt address very well.

To their credit, Joe Biden and John Kerry are looking at Iraq as a problem to be solved instead of a political loadstone that must be firmly fitted to the President. To their shame, their talking points range from the immaterial to the flatly false. But Bush has broken one of his own political rules by not immediately addressing these arguments with overwhelming force. When Joe Biden says:

"the answer is that there are very few of those Iraqis who are trained to the only standard that counts, that is, the ability to take over for an American troop."

It's a reasonable point. But where is the correct reply, that at this moment we dont need Iraqi forces up to American standards, with perfect logistics and command and control. Who is noting that although only three IA battalions are what is considered 'combat ready' by our standards, we dont need them to have the heavy weapons and tanks required for such a certification just yet? Who is countering Biden by noting that over 40,000 Iraqi troops at this moment have taken over controlling Baghdad in Operation Thunder and Operation Lightning, have in fact freed up enough US forces so we could carry out Operation New Market and Operation Spear hence bringing the fight to the enemy at a far greater tempo then we have yet seen?

These are the kind of strategic issues the average voter doesnt know about, much less understand. Bush needs to explain the we dont yet need Iraqi forces totally prepared to send American boys home. That is at least 18 months off, by the most optimistic estimates. Bush needs to tell us that there are already tens of thousands of Iraqi troops in the field despite what Biden says. Tell us where they are, how many attacks they have stopped, how many terrorists detained. Bush should explain the ramifications of thousands of newly freed up American troops policing the borders and launching strikes, and how every unit untied from garrison duty is just as good as a fresh unit brought in theater. In fact better.

In short, Bush needs to explain why, although the insurgency may be no weaker, we grow stronger. The insurgents are becoming relatively, if not absolutely, weaker. The American public needs to be told that every day we get closer to victory, because every day Iraqis get closer to security and justice. If 1000 Iraqi rifles can replace only 100 American, thats still 100 more American GIs and marines who can go out hunting terror instead of garrisoning checkpoints. Think about what that will mean in 6 weeks, in 6 months, in 2 years.

The White House hasnt made this simple yet critical point. Insugents win by slowly becoming stronger until they match and overwhelm their target. An insurgency that gets weaker over time is doomed. Tell the people what the plan is, and how it works. We know why we are there, now tell us what we are doing to get our boys and girls home victorious.

2005-06-28T13:26:00.000-07:00

Remind me not to get in a snark fight with Jonah Goldberg

Ouch. Jonah Goldberg absolutely fillets this young Muslim Harvard student who somehow managed to pomposs her way into this NYT op-ed. And Al Gore gets caught in the collateral backblast. Wrong place wrong time Al, no good deed goes unpunished after all.

Jonah is priceless, but even being blistered by wit cannot atone for the utter gall of the NYT in publishing this tripe.

Because I work out with my scarf on, people stare - just as they do on the streets of Cambridge

Well, duh. When I work out in my snowsuit and mittens people stare too. Sorry but most folks just arent that exposed to Muslims, particularly those devout enough to work out in front of men, but wear the hijab for modesty. Sorry, am I judging? Ever wonder if Jews get stared at on occasion for wearing their yamakas? Or Hindus for their bindi? Personally im guessing my Mexican Wrestling mask draws some stares when im blasting my tri's at the Bally's, but im too busy checking out my guns to notice.

And I'm supposed to believe this sort of seething intolerance at a healthclub in Cambridge? Short of Berkeley I cant think of a much more welcoming place. Heck, being dragged into the street by her brothers and lit on fire as an honor killing would probably draw scattered applause from the humanities department. 'Way to uphold your ancient culture fellas! Hey, whats with those rocks?'

Mr. Gore had gotten off his machine behind me, picked up my keys, handed them to me and then resumed his workout. It was nothing more than a kind gesture, but at that moment Mr. Gore's act represented all that I yearned for - acceptance and acknowledgment.

Thank god he was there. And surely this whole story of angst and persecution wasnt concocted later as a meaningful preamble to Al Gore picking her up keys. Surely not.

Its hard to imagine what kind of a person feels empowered by the inventor of the internet handing over a set of keys, but doesnt seem particularly enfranchised being enrolled in the most reknowned institution of higher learning in the nation (take that Yalee!). This is how America treats its lowest caste, we send them to Havard and give them ink to waste in the New York Times. Fine, I wear it with pride.

2005-06-27T13:02:00.000-07:00

The Timeline

President Bush may have painted himself into an unfortunate corner. Last week, the presidented rejected the call from Congressional Democrats to disclose a timeline for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. He was right to do so, the type of timeline the political opposition has in mind would be an invitation for the jihadis to wait us out. Such inflexability is one of the hallmarks of military defeat, we need to be able to react to evolving circumstances without a rigid deadline that could spell doom for all we have done to date.

But (you knew there was a but coming), the concept of a timeline in general is a good idea, and perhaps a critical idea. Military historians point to the British experience in Malaya as the textbook for how to defeat an insurgency. The Malayan Emergency dealt with many of the same hurdles we see in Iraq, an indigenous enemy with aid from idiologically sypathetic neighbors, ancient ethnic strife, and a nontraditional victory condition, ie, winning not so the troops can stay, but winning so they can leave (lets not forget how odd that is historically). One of the generally recognized keys to the British victory was... setting a timeline for ultimate British withdrawal.

In this case (as it should be in ours) the timeline was not set in months or years, but rather corresponded to certain conditions being met on the ground. The Brits promised to leave once the insurgency was defeated and a stable, multiethnic government could maintain itself. This agreement was kept and the British relations with the Malaysians remains strong to this day.

In Iraq, reports are coming in that major parts of the Sunni insurgency may be ready to cut a deal. It is extremely interesting that the major demand they have made (indeed the centerpeice of their demands) is a schedule of US withdrawal.

The newspaper said the insurgents "had agreed beforehand to focus their main demand" on a guaranteed timetable of U.S. withdrawal. "We told them it did not matter whether we are talking about one year or a five-year plan but that we insisted on having a timetable nonetheless," one of the Iraqi sources was quoted as saying.

This is no small matter. The insurgents could have asked for freeing of detainees, withdrawl from Sunni towns, or any number of demands which would have strengthened their hand. Instead they asked for something for which they have something of a legitimate greviance. The US has never said when it would leave Iraq, indeed President Bush has never gone so far as to say directly that we intended to leave. That is a big mistake.

Many of the Sunni insurgents are truly fighting to get foriegners off of their land, just as untold numbers of men have risen up in the past, regardless of the larger picture. Foriegners are here when they should be there has been a reason de guerre since the dawn of time. If we can get a wedge into that sentiment, assure the suspicious Iraqis we are going to leave, we can break off the Sunnis and possibly even turn them against the foriegners. That is what their negotitations hint at. Understanding our enemy is vital, and it is entirely too facile to continue to parrot the idea that the Sunnis want the country back for themselves and that is why they fight. We may be disasterously wrong in believing that to be the prime motivation.

What we need is a timetable, not one composed of dates certain, but a timeline composed of events. The President needs to make clear that we have no intention of keeping a single GI in Iraq once the government is stable and the insurgency defeated. From there, further breakdowns are possible. We should negotiate with the Sunni insurgents by making it clear to them that our drawdown will be based largely on their actions. For instance, once the Sunnis participate in the next elections and an all Iraqi government sits under the new constitution early next year, we will withdraw a small force as a token of trust. Further drawdowns will be related to similar events, or even nonevents. When attacks fall below certain levels, or when Al Qaeda cells are handed over to us or 'dealt with', troops will be drawn down as a reward. We have little to lose here. The Iraqi Army is stronger every day and able to take up much of the slack already. Better yet we can move our troops to nearby Kuwait where they can quickly respond to a crisis.

The bottom line is that the Sunni's have a point. We have addressed many issues in Iraq relating to justice and law, but we have yet to specifically address our own responsibilities to leave the Iraqis in peace. Words count for little with the Sunnis, but they are better than nothing. We can forge a relationship and build up trust a little at a time, all the while gaining strength. Then when the time comes we can leave Iraq permanantly and with honor. There are other places to build military bases. It's important that the President not miss this opportunity just because the opposition brought it up (if in a flawed form and dubious motivation). After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

2005-06-24T12:04:00.000-07:00

Off for the Weekend

I do sound for a cover band here in Chicago as a sideline (really a hobby at this point), so weekends tend to be pretty busy, especially keeping up the band drinking quota. There wont be much if any blogging this weekend, although I have considered inventing Sound Board Blogging, which would probably consist of making fun of botched lyrics and dropped beats. And of course who the pretty girls are ogling the Mix Master Mark (ok that rarely [never]happens).

Get some sun man!

2005-06-24T08:00:00.000-07:00

The Schmozz Comes to Washington

The term 'schmozz' (or screwjob) comes to us from the world of professional wrestling. A schmozz is usually considered a cheap out, where at the logical finale of a match some form of artificial (moreso than usual) confusion is introduced to prevent a clean ending. This often (but not always) takes the form of a number of wrestlers not involved in that particular match storming the ring and spurring a double disqualification. The schmozz is usually considered poor booking by smart wrestling fans, because:

1. It is uncreative. The schmozz has been done to death.
2. It promises a resolution and then denies it to us. Nobody likes a tease.
3. It is almost always done to protect the reputations of the wrestlers ('heat'), as opposed to giving the fans what they paid for.

But the main reason people hate the schmozz is because it is a clear indication that the writers didn't know what else to do.

Well, i've always said that wrastling is just a form of politics with cooler outfits. The schmozz wasnt invented by wrestlers, they just coined the term. Its the oldest trick in the book in politics as well. To wit:

"The war to remove the Taliban government from power was over in 2001 and the president has said the mission was a success," said Jennifer Crider, Mrs. Pelosi's press secretary.

Actually, the famous 'mission accomplished' banner referred to Iraq, and in fact even that wasnt an accurate attack, as the banner belonged to the ship, which was returning to port. A schmozz inside a schmozz.

That, of course, is just one small example of what the opposition has been reduced to. We see it constantly in the torture allegations, when discussing conditions at Guantanamo, allegations relating to Abu Ghraib or Iraq always sneak into the discussion as though they were the same place. Someone invariably brings up the dozens of deaths in detention, when to our best knowledge no prisoner has ever died at Guantanamo Bay. Democrats and their media allies happily mix and match Iraq, Afghanistan, and the GWOT as it suits them, while often reminding us that Iraq is not the same as Afghanistan. Brazen hypocracy. Pelosi, Durbin, and the rest of the 'anti-war but wont admit it crowd' have taken the intellectual gloves off and are throwing everything against the wall hoping something will stick. It is a schmozz in every sense of the word. Call them on it. Demand a point by point explanation of their arguments, and object when the ad hominem begins (almost instantly you can bet). The Schmozz works in wrestling because its a story being told, not a dialog. We need to make sure the dialog continues and the idiotarian propaganda is challenged at every turn.

2005-06-23T11:45:00.000-07:00

A Study in Incoherence

Nancy Pelosi is the gift that keeps on giving. Confirming that Galt's Law is firmly at work, the Democrats Minority Leader of the House made some really strange comments recently:

"I assume that the war in Afghanistan is over, or is the contention that you have that it continues?" she said to a reporter. A few moments later, she said: "This isn't about the duration of the war. The war in Afghanistan is over."

Huh? I assume Pelosi knows we have many thousands of US troops in Afghanistan who would beg to differ with her. From Stratedy Page:

AFGHANISTAN: Taliban Camp Wiped Out
June 23, 2005: In several days of fighting, American warplanes, and Afghan troops, chased several dozen Taliban from a town in southern Afghanistan, found their camp and attacked it. Some 76 Taliban were killed, and another 30 were captured, including several leaders.

Is it just me, or might it seem to the average American (not to mention the soldiers in country) that Pelosi is more interested in making hay about Guantanamo than in dealing with very real threats in Afghanistan? Combine this with Dick Durbin and you might just get the idea that a new plank in the DNC platform is Terrorists Rights. Good luck in '06.

But aside from being flip and unserious, Pelosi compounds her inanity with this, via her spokeswoman Jennifer Crider:

"One of the main reasons that our troops continue to be attacked by al Qaeda and Taliban fighters today is because President Bush decided to invade Iraq, diverting critical resources needed to secure Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the demands of the war in Iraq have made the job of our brave troops in Afghanistan much more difficult," the spokeswoman said.

That's part of her defense for why she said the war was over in Afghanistan. Completely incoherent. The war is over, but we are still fighting the enemy, and even though we won we still didnt provide enough troops (due to Iraq) and hence we are still fighting the war. The war that is over. Can anybody make heads or tails of this? My best guess is that the talking points from'03 got mixed up with the current ones, but it's hard to say.

2005-06-23T09:01:00.000-07:00

Remember, the Enemy's gate is down

The ever underrated Bill Roggio of Winds of Change is discussing this report on the improving skills of the insugency.

The latest report indicates that terrorists are gaining “a broad range of skills, from car bombings and assassinations to coordinated conventional attacks on police and military targets” and are likely to take their skills with them to their home countries, and even infiltrate Western societies “once the insurgency ends.”

I think I speak for anyone with a knowledge of military history when I say "DUH". The enemy that we are fighting becomes better at what they do as get more experience? And this is news? Once again, we are seeing the results of a press and political class that simply have no knowledge or experience when it comes to things military. Someone should write a primer, and if they do make sure one of the lessons is that 'when you fight you risk killing off your stupid enemies and endowing your smart ones with experience, should they survive'. Sorry, that ones nonnegotiable unless you can find some way to make sure you kill or capture every single opponent. So we are back to the zero defects demand for our military.

So what is missing from this analysis? Well, the fact that there are less terrorists in raw numbers because their experience is dearly bought, for one thing. If we are in fact 'creating' more terrorists as some claim, the newbies certainly dont bring skills and experience to the table that can replace the veterans we kill on a daily basis. Raw numbers count for little.

Secondly, and more importantly, we are getting much better. Yes indeed, its not a bad idea to consider both sides of the equation when you are talking about who's winning. Several hundred thousands US troops have become extremely proficient in fighting insurgents. Our guys survive to fight another day far more often than the terrorists do, and it shows. They get better, and we get better, that is how wars go, but we are getting better faster. The bad news for the insurgents is that we are far better able to pass our knowledge and skill on to the new Iraqi Army compared to whatever dregs of Middle Eastern society the bad guys can trick, bribe, or intimidate into joining their ranks. Its hard to find experienced suicide bombers, at least ones that are any good at their craft.

2005-06-22T18:12:00.000-07:00

The Candy War

This war (and make no mistake, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the GWOT will be intractably intertwined in the history books) is being won by the soldiers on the ground. I know, its rote that every war is won by the grunts, and there is truth to that. Some wars are won because the commanders managed not to lose it before their troops could win. Some are won because some genius general turned his army into an extension of his will and imposed himself on the enemy. This war will fall into the former catagory, but uniquely its not the bullets and the bombs that will do the enemy the most damage and our friends the most good.

Jdhooshi produced a sack of candy and began giving it to the flock of children that appeared. The kids mobbed him but he’s an experienced candy man.- Austin Bay in Afghanistan

Just one example of thousands, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Read the soldiers blogs and the candy ritual is everpresent. Bush said long ago that this war would take years, perhaps a generation. He's right. And when this generation grows up they will remember it was the religious zealots who brought death and destruction, and it was the American soldiers who brought candy and hope.

2005-06-22T17:37:00.000-07:00

Andrew Sullivan is being intellectually dishonest.

at the same time, the dehumanization of detainees by U.S. interrogators, as cited by Durbin, is indeed something that could have happened under totalitarian regimes and is pragmatically and morally indefensible

In the big picture, he has a point. In Durbin's specific case, he is rushing blindly to defend the indefensible. The bottom line is that for what Durbin specifically said to be true, you have to believe that the acts in the FBI report he read rose, not only to the level of torture, but to the level of torture we would expect out of the worst regimes in history. Its simply absurd.

Sullivan is spinning the argument breathlessly, trying to toss every allegation of US mistreatment in Iraq and elsewhere over the last 5 years. That is not the argument Durbin made, and hence Sullivan is introducing irrelevant and inflamatory charges into the debate. No judge in the country would allow that.

The reason Sullivan feels the need to do this is because he knows how silly it is to try to convince the American people that the acts witnessed in that FBI report are out of bounds when dealing with bloody handed Al Qaeda terrorists captured on battlefields and on their way to kill American children.

When you read the account Durbin was citing you notice an important thing: the detainees were thoroughly dehumanized, robbed of any personal dignity, left in extremes of heat and cold, shackled, covered in their own urine and excrement, with one having apparently torn parts of his hair out, and left without food or water for up to 24 sleepless hours.

We can debate that all we want, of course. But politically, its a lost cause. There is simply no way, Sullivan's apoplexy notwithstanding, that the American people are going to equate this with the pulling of fingernails or electricution of genitals commonly understood to be torture. Its not going to happen. Because it is silly.

If you had been told that prisoners had been found in this state in one of Saddam's or Stalin's jails, would you have believed it? Of course, you would.

Actually no, I would find the techniques particularly mild. Here's the real question, if I told you these acts had been carried out by the British, French, or Israeli intelligence services interrogating captured terrorists in their own battles against terror, would you believe it? Of course, you would.

Andrew, your mate in the foxhole has put down his shovel. You should do the same.

2005-06-22T06:22:00.000-07:00

Ohhhh good.

The AC fan went out on my jeep this morning. Sposed to get up to around 90 here in Chicagoland. Sweet.

2005-06-21T13:15:00.000-07:00

Pope to march for poverty?

Well, probably not, but Bob Geldof wants him to:

Geldof says wants Pope to join G8 poverty march

The real question is, will His Holiness be riding in this:

New Pope-mobile?

I will not rest until I convince the world that Ratzinger is in fact The Emperor.

2005-06-21T12:43:00.000-07:00

Reuters strikes again

Troops to stay in Iraq despite 'progress'

By Charles Aldinger 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite reported successes against the insurgency in Iraq, a top U.S. military commander said on Tuesday the United States was unlikely to begin reducing its 135,000 troops there before elections late this year

Scare quotes, spin, 'reported successes'. Got to love Reuters for a fair and balanced story. Lets see how long it stays in this form up on Yahoo's main page, they have been pretty good about getting these things changed when people start complaining. They have lots of experience trying to carry Reuters and AP headlines, thats certain. The ironic part is, they point to the possible military drawdown as something that anyone was seriously considering before the end of this year. Nothing like spinning good news as bad news. Thanks Reuters, now go round up some more jihadis to string for you.

2005-06-21T07:38:00.000-07:00

Andrew Sullivan is out seconding Dick Durbin's torture allegations. -Sigh- Fisking clearly required.

DURBIN SAID NOTHING WRONG: I've now read and re-read Senator Dick Durbin's comments on interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. They are completely, perfectly respectable
Respectable? Aside from a blazen disregard for Godwin's Law, is obvious hyperbole involving the conduct of our troops ever perfectly respectable?
The rank hysteria being perpetrated by some on the right is what is shameful.
Pot, this is my friend kettle. We're about to see some rank hysteria.
Hugh Hewitt should answer one single question: does he doubt the FBI interrogator who witnessed the appalling treatment of some detainees at Guantanamo?
I will take the liberty of answer for Hugh. No. He does not doubt the FBI agent.
Is Hewitt arguing that the interrogator was lying?
Again, the answer is No.
Does he believe that the kind of tactics used against this prisoner are worthy of the United States?
Ah! Now we're on to something, and I had better step out of Hugh's shoes and speak for myself. Yes. The answer is Yes Andrew. When interrogating terrorists captured on battle fields such as OBL's bodyguards and the 20th hijacker, yes, the methods described by Senator Durbin are entirely worthy of the United States.
If he were told this story and informed that it occurred in, say, Serbia under Milosevic, would he be surprised?
If I were told this story and informed it occured under Milosevic, I would be rather surprised at the lack of, well torture, much less mass murder. Turn and turn about Andrew: if you were told this story and informed it occurred in a Special Forces training excercise, would you be surprised?
Hewitt should then answer the same question about the 5 detainees which the U.S. government itself has acknowledged were tortured to death by U.S. interrogators, and the scores of others who died in detention during or after "interrogation".
There are many things wrong with this sentance. First of all, it is entirely irresponsible to imply the US government ever endorsed, defended, or encouraged murdering detainees. There is zero evidence of said, and in fact there are US soldiers sitting in prison at this moment for abusing and killing prisoners. Secondly the slur about 'scores' of prisoners has been addressed by Hewitt and many others. As anyone not blinded by Torture Tunnel Vision (Sullivan Syndrome?) should know, almost all of those deaths occurred do to either war wounds sustained on the battlefield, or prison breaks. It is simply wrong to toss out accusations like this without context. Finally, and most importantly, Dick Durbin made specific comparisons to a specific document. He was speaking about Guantanamo bay, and the FBI agents report. Tossing Abu Ghraib and every other alleged mistreatment of prisoners against the wall is intellectually dishonest. To my knowledge, no-one has died at Guantanamo, and I am positive the FBI account specifically and intentionally sited by Durbin alleged nothing remotely close to that.
It is this administration that has brought indelible shame on America, and it's people like Dick Durbin who prove that some can actually stand up against this stain on American honor and call it what it is. Good for him. Thank God for him.
Sure. We need more like him. If we're going to lose this war and prove to our enemies just how soft we are. Sorry Andrew, Durbin directly stated that reading an account of Al Qaeda terrorists being handcuffed and shackled (ask the prison guard in New York who lost an eye to a caged terrorist if thats necessary), made to sit in hot rooms, and not being able to eat or drink for less than a day while enduring Christina Aguilerra made him think that Nazis or Stalinists had been at work. That was exactly Durbin's claim. Sullivan isnt just white washing, he's throwing even more crap at the wall hoping to hide Durbin's actual words in a sea of allegations. That is unfair. Look at what the Senator said and what he cited as his evidence. That is how one engages in logical debate. If one is not suffering from Sullivan Syndrome.

2005-06-20T14:03:00.000-07:00

CONSPIRACY!

This is some explosive stuff, so I cant guarantee anyones safety after viewing this.

So, brave knights, if you do doubt your courage or your strength, come no further, for death awaits you all with nasty big pointy teeth:

Pope or Palp? Click to enlarge... if you dare.

2004-04-13T08:50:00.000-07:00

The First

Welcome friends.