Thank God for Journalism!

My, this (quoting a Washington Post article is a puzzler (tip to Transterrestrial Musings):

Yonathan Melaku was sneaking through Fort Myer and Arlington National Cemetery, his backpack filled with plastic bags of ammonium nitrate, a notebook containing jihadist messages, and a can of black spray paint. The 23-year-old former Marine was heading to the graves of the nation’s most recent heroes, aiming to desecrate the stones with Arabic statements and leave handfuls of explosive material nearby as a message.

Before police foiled the plan in June, the vandalism was to be Melaku’s sixth attack, months after he went on a mysterious shooting spree that targeted the Pentagon, the National Museum of the Marine Corps and two other military buildings in Northern Virginia. A video found after Melaku’s arrest showed him wearing a black mask and shooting a 9mm handgun out of his Acura’s passenger window as he drove along Interstate 95, shouting “Allahu Akbar!”

It was all part of a solitary campaign of “fear and terror,” federal prosecutors said. But authorities and Melaku’s defense attorney said no one knows for sure what led Melaku — a naturalized U.S. citizen from Ethi­o­pia, local high school graduate and former Marine Corps Reservist — down that path or what message he was trying to send.

Huh. How on Earth are we supposed to figure out just what would have motivated this man? My God, if only we had clues that might indicate his motivation! Maybe then we could act to combat others like him (or is he just a lone nutjob?). If only we had ways to teach people who write articles how to do it properly? Perhaps we could call them "journalism schools."

Ah well, perhaps some things are just not knowable.

But until we can figure it out, it would be safest to assume he is motivated by Tea Party hate and urge Tea Partiers to tone down their rhetoric. After all, the Department of Homeland Security has warned us of the violent tendencies of military veterans.

Or maybe--if you sympathize with the man--he might clearly be concerned with income inequality and only wants to show his solidarity with the 99 percent. Best enact the Buffet Rule now. Just to be safe.

Me? Until proven otherwise, I blame global warming.

Fighting in the Gulf

If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for Western sanctions that target Iran's oil exports, we will have to fight in the Persian Gulf. But we don't want to put our carriers in the Gulf since that is too close to Iranian shore-based assets. We need the maneuvering room of the Arabian Sea.

But we will need to fight in the Gulf and we are outfitting a ship--Ponce--that can do that without risking a carrier or other high value targets that would provide a propaganda coup for Iran:

The Navy is converting an amphibious transport and docking ship to serve as a floating base for military operations and humanitarian assistance, with deployment expected this summer to waters in the Middle East, Pentagon officials said Friday. ...

Officials said the staging base would allow commandos, helicopters, speedboats and even aircraft with a short-takeoff capability to operate in regions where the United States does not have access to installations on land.

Iran is not mentioned in this article, but the potential is clear. Indeed, we did this before with smaller assets, in the 1987-1988 Tanker War (the naval war part of the Iran-Iraq War) to protect shipping in the Persian Gulf. Then, we outfitted two smaller barges as platforms for service in the Gulf:

Each barge would have a mixture of patrol craft, including Vietnam-era riverine patrol boats (PBRs), Navy SEALs, and a Marine platoon. Should the Iranians directly challenge the barges, positions would be reinforced with metal plating and sandbags while the marines manned various weapons: 50 caliber machine-guns, MK–19 grenade launchers, a TOW missile, 81mm mortars, and Stinger missiles. With the addition of an explosive ordnance team and a Marine Corps radio reconnaissance linguistic and
communication detachment, Hercules and Wimbrown VII would carry complements of 177 and 132, respectively.

Barges would be moved randomly every few days among the Saudi islands and oil platforms and have a layered defense. Helicopters would interdict any target out to 50 nautical miles while MK–III patrol boats covered the mid-distances and smaller Seafoxes and PBRs safeguarded for the first five miles. If all else failed, the Marine security force would man the decks with machine guns, rifles, and side arms.

In practice, the patrol boats only operating out to 16 miles rather than 25. The article describes how we fought with those barges as the persistent frontline force backed by traditional naval assets (including aircraft) further back, which should provide a guide to how we would use Ponce in a clash with Iran.

So we have a history of using these types of floating bases. But now we will have a bigger vessel. Whether bigger is better remains to be seen. But one thing (adjusted for inflation) holds true. Worried that these barges would be "floating Beirut barracks" that would provide a target for Iran, barge proponents countered:

“Would you rather risk losing two oil barges or a billion dollar ship?” The threat of mines or an errant missile from an Iraqi aircraft simply made the northern Gulf too risky for a gray hull.

Oh, and ponder the fact that we built the Littoral Combat Ship to get in close to shore to fight. But even these ships are too expensive to be considered expendible. Sure, it is better to risk an LCS than an Aegis destroyer or cruiser (or carrier), but they are not appropriate for the Gulf in the early stages of a conflict with Iran. I'd still rather risk losing the converted Ponce than a half billion dollar warship (those mission modules aren't free, remember) that is neither cheap enough or survivable enough for the mission.

We have to fight in the Gulf to beat Iran. But we still need options for what we use in the Gulf to fight Iran.

Who's to Blame?

This writer says that chaos in Honduras is the fault of America for not backing Zelaya in 2009.

This is hogwash. If problems in Honduras are the fault of America, it lies not in the failure to back Zelaya who himself was trying to destroy the Honduran constitution, but in failing to fully back the Hondurans who successfully stopped Zelaya from carrying out a coup to join hands with his Leftist friends in Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela.

Given the pedigree of the writer, no doubt she is upset that the Leftists in Honduras were thwarted in their attempted coup.

Travel Safely

Well, so far President Obama's campaign stop in my city hasn't disrupted my movements.

That's good. But I wouldn't have complained if it did. As far as I'm concerned, our presidents are targets and they should have a security bubble around them as they travel. You just don't take chances with our presidents.

The only bad thing I want to happen to this president is waking up after the election in November to find he has lost his reelection bid.

The Deceit is Settled

Some scientists have penned an op-ed attacking the idea that climate change science is settled (tip to Instapundit):

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The sky is not falling. And if it does, the solution that the Warmists advocate is wrong anyway.

Do read it all.

Hell No, I Won't Go

So President Obama is extolling military virtues that he thinks all Americans should show to support his programs?

Perhaps now you can fully appreciate this quote.

Gosh, I feel so honored that our President is in my home town today. Consider me a conscientious objector to his metaphorical wars.

Ask, and I Shall Receive

I asked. Now I may receive:

The Washington Post reported on Thursday that negotiations that would lead to a return of U.S. bases to the Philippines were in the early stages. Officials from both governments were quoted as saying they were favorably inclined toward a deal.

It seems to me that we are more likely to be trying to get US forces to rotate into the Philippines to keep the bases warm rather than return to a permanent US presence there. Which may be good enough.

As long as I seem to be getting what I ask for, hey Summer Glau? Call me.

Hey, I'd settle for less than permanent basing, too.

Downsized

America's ground forces will take a hit in the budget:

The Army would shrink by 80,000 soldiers, from 570,000 today to 490,000 by 2017. That is slightly larger than the Army on 9/11.

The Marine Corps would drop from today's 202,000 to 182,000 — also above the level on 9/11.

If memory serves me, we had about 470,000 (480,000-my memory did not fully serve me) pre-9/11 and that was insufficient by about 40- or 50,000 to fully man our force structure of 32 combat brigades. I expected we'd lose some troops but hoped to retain something on the order of 520,000 to at least fully staff the pre-war Army (while painfully aware that we are not yet "post-war," although the reductions won't fully take effect until 2017--unless more cuts are heaped on top of this one).

This means that the Army's 45 brigades will shrink by 8 to 13:

The U.S. Army plans to slash the number of combat brigades from 45 to as low as 32 in a broad restructuring of its fighting force aimed at cutting costs and reducing the service by about 80,000 soldiers, according to U.S. officials familiar with the plans.

Officials said the sweeping changes will likely increase the size of each combat brigade -- generally by adding another battalion -- in an effort to ensure that those remaining brigades have the fighting capabilities they need when they go to war. A brigade is usually about 3,500 soldiers, but can be as large as 5,000 for the heavily armored units. A battalion is usually between 600 to 800 soldiers.

Keep in mind that right now, our brigades have two line battalions with a third small "recon" battalion (a really light targeting and surveillance outfit) instead of the older "triangular formation of three line battalions. So adding a battalion just gets us back to what we had per brigade pre-9/11 rather than representing an advantage over the older brigades.

Although the brigades may be bigger if the battalions are retaining their new organization of 4 line companies per battalion (that is, a heavy battalion now has 4 companies--2 armor and 2 mechanized infantry) rather than the older triangular structure of 3 line companies per battalion. Or are we not just shrinking the Army but reorganizing root and branch one more time?

Personally, I'd rather have more of the two-battalion brigades than fewer three-battalion brigades. German practice in World War II showed two-battalion regiments worked just fine in conventional warfare. And since we have apparently assumed we won't be fighting insurgents anymore, why do we need beefed up brigades? And if we do need beefed up brigades, we do have the Army National Guard which could contribute battalions to active brigades.

I need a lot more details. Hopefully, Strategypage will address the questions that the press won't even think to ask.

Spring Comes Early to Tibet?

I read about an incident involving China's Tibetans, but didn't note it since it seemed small.

Apparently the Chinese don't think it is a small thing:

A Tibetan-inhabited region of China appeared to be under lockdown Thursday after it was rocked by deadly clashes, as exile groups gave grisly details of how the unrest unfolded.

The west of Sichuan province, which has big populations of ethnic Tibetans, many of whom complain of repression, was earlier this week hit by some of the worst unrest since huge protests against Chinese rule in 2008.

Security forces fired into two separate crowds of protesters in Luhuo and Seda towns on Monday and Tuesday in the remote prefecture of Ganzi, which borders Tibet.

If news is leaking out of this interior location, it must be big.

UPDATE: More on the growing tensions and violence:

The three clashes, all in the past week, killed several Tibetans and injured dozens. They mark an escalation of a protest movement that for months expressed itself mainly through scattered individual self-immolations.

It's the result of growing desperation among Tibetans and a harsh crackdown by security forces that scholars and pro-Tibet activists contend only breeds more rage and despair.

Remember that China's leaders consider controlling Tibet a core interest of the state. Check out a map and consider how the Chinese would feel with a pro-India Tibet jutting into China's most populous regions. Then consider what that would do for separatist feelings in the northwest. And then consider whether China would be a major power if it is pushed out of range of influencing Central Asia to become more of a coastal state.

Whatever the Chinese do, it won't be letting Tibet go free.

Americans at Heart

Strategypage writes about the success of immigrant recruits in the American armed forces:

In the last decade, the U.S. military has enlisted some 70,000 non-citizens, about five percent of all recruits. These foreigners made better soldiers than American citizens. The foreigners are tossed out during their first three months of service at half the rate of their citizen counterparts. After three years of service, 72 percent of citizens were still in uniform, compared to 84 percent of non-citizen troops. The foreign troops are more patriotic and work harder than their citizen counterparts. Non-citizen troops have another incentive, as they can apply for citizenship because of good service in the military. Any foreign recruit forced out for medical reasons (because of combat or non-combat injuries) can still obtain citizenship more quickly. Most foreign troops obtain citizenship as soon as they can while in the military, because many jobs require a security clearance and only citizens can get one of those.

For those who worry that these are foreigners doing a job Americans won't--or that we are creating a civil-military divide--we used to have a much higher percentage of foreigners in our military.

As far as I'm concerned, we should have recruiting stations abroad to bring in the Americans-at-heart who live in nuanced nations that don't believe defending Western civilization is any concern of theirs.

When our jihadi enemies recruit not from a national pool but from an international pool of recruits who fight us even though their own governments may be our allies, why can't we do the same?

Target: Baalbek

Israel screwed the pooch in 2006 when they fought on Hezbollah's terms in Lebanon and engaged in shallow, small-unit frontal attacks on small Hezbollah light infantry units that fought from prepared defenses to shield their missile launching sites.

Sure, you can call it a tactical victory because Israel inflicted more casualties on Hezbollah than they endured, but that is no way to measure victory against an enemy that values lives so cheaply.

The next time there is a war with Hezbollah, Israel will fight it way differently, I think:

I assume that any war will be a multi-division push north of the Litani that will take advantage of the fact that Hezbollah, after 2006, wrongly believes it can go toe-to-toe with Israeli troops and so will fight as light infantry rather than as insurgents. For a while, Israel will be able to really pound Hizbollah ground forces as the Israelis take over rocket-launch sites and armories with troops.

Further, I'd guess the Israelis will push rapidly into the Bekaa Valley as far as Baalbek to tear up Hezbollah's rear area to slow down rearmament after the war is over. Air strikes would take place north of that, if necessary, I'd guess.

The Gaza Winter War of 2008-2009 provides a hint of how the Israelis will approach that war. Israel may or may not have stopped in 2009 too early, but their ground forces did very well, in contrast to 2006.

And this makes me sure that the Israelis will go deep:

Israel recently held its first large scale airborne assault exercise since the 1990s. Over a thousand soldiers of the Paratrooper Brigade jumped. Since the 1990s, only small groups of paratroopers have dropped, and the mass jump is part of an effort to prepare the Paratrooper Brigade to carry out large scale jumps. This is part of a new policy to increase the ground forces ability to fight conventional war.

Drop paratroopers in Baalbek to hit and secure the Hezbollah rear area, drop troops by helicopters at key points between Baalbek and the Israeli border to facilitate movement north, and unleash mechanized units to advance around Hezbollah light infantry in the south to link up with the paratroopers (and smash up the isolated Hezbollah infantry left behind), and the next war will be very unlike the airpower-centric failure that 2006 was.

Will We Have Enough?

Our ground force presence in Europe will be reduced to a parachute brigade and a Stryker brigade:

Panetta is quoted in a press release on the Defense Department website as saying two of the four BCTs that are permanently stationed in Europe will be replaced with rotational units, similar to the way Marines and Special Forces units staff their European requirements.

I'd guess that battalion-sized units will occasionally rotate through Bulgaria and Romania, based on plans that I read about years ago.

I'd rather have a full corps retained in Europe (with forward elements providing 5 combat brigades), but that isn't happening.

And we no longer have the prepositioned equipment in Europe that we used to have in the Cold War when the plan was to fly in troops rapidly to meet up with equipment stored in Europe to halt a Soviet invasion.

Now we are down to a single heavy brigade of equipment in Europe. We used to have more. But I found a PowerPoint presentation dated 15 MAR 10 that said the European APS-2 has just a single heavy brigade set. This is what we are working with:

APS-5 (SWA)

• Infantry BN (Afghanistan)
• Heavy Brigade Combat Team (Kuwait)
• Sustainment BDE (Kuwait)
• Sustainment BDE (Qatar)
• Fires BDE (Qatar)

APS-3 (Afloat)

• Download Sustainment BDE
• 9 Large Medium Speed Roll-on Roll-off Ships
• Infantry Brigade Combat Team
• Sustainment BDE
• Infantry Brigade Combat Team
• Sustainment BDE
• 2- Ammo Ships

APS-4 (NEA)

• Heavy Brigade Combat Team
• Sustainment BDE (Korea/Japan)

APS-2 (Europe)

• Heavy Brigade Combat Team

Let me note that "APS-1" is the entire continental United States (CONUS) and has no unit sets.

Interesting that Afghanistan has a battalion set so we could fly in a battalion if we really needed some reinforcements fast.

I'd feel better about our reductions in Europe if we at least replaced the two departing brigades with prepositioned equipment for a couple heavy brigades and put them in southern Poland.

I hope we never need them, but that is what insurance is for, right?

Saving My Sanity

I didn't listen to President Obama's State of the Union address. It would have just raised my blood pressure. Here are several reasons why (tip to Instapundit).

The President has nothing to say to me. I don't trust him or anything he says.

UPDATE: Also via Instapundit, his cabinet has nothing to say to me (OK, maybe Panetta does). Face it, the economy wasn't worse than the administration thought, as they like to explain it away now--their response was worse than they admitted. To us, anyway. At the time, I figured the spending spree from the liberal wish list was wrong but the White House perhaps believed the stimulus would work.

Is it better or worse that they knew what they were doing was counter-productive or ineffective?

UPDATE: I guess there is a reason President Obama has nothing to say to me:

This should have been a serious speech addressing the economic problems facing the United States. Instead it was a laundry list of half-baked proposals designed to appease the Left. The president should have been talking about reining in spending, lowering taxes, and fostering greater economic freedom, but he opted for policies that will speed America’s decline, not reverse it.

OK, I'm done with this. I can feel my blood pressure rising just listening to sound bites on the morning news.

It's time to go back to talking about despots and terrorists who I expect to want to harm America.

The Spirit is Willing

American special forces rescued an American and a Dane held by Somalia pirates, suffering no losses in the mission:

Military helicopters ferried elite troops to the pirate camp in scrubland close to Haradheere, a major pirate base in central Somalia, Washington's Germany-based Africa Command (AFRICOM) said in a statement.

"All nine captors were killed during the assault," it said.

It's a good thing to rescue hostages. But raids like this and defensive successes at sea are just the cost of doing business to the pirate bosses. Obviously, the people rescued think it is the best thing in the world, but until somebody goes into Somalia to kill a lot more than nine pirates and control the ground where the pirates are based, the piracy will continue.

Who Wins This Battle?

This EU problem is interesting. Scotland might like to secede from Great Britain and the British might be fine with someone else paying for Scotland. But Spain doesn't want Scotland to get a free ride into the EU lest it encourage Spanish separatists (tip to Instapundit):

For the Spanish government, the calculation is simple. Spain is full of restive regions that want to go their own way: Catalonia and the Basque country in particular have strong independence movements. One argument that separatists in European countries use is that because the newly independent countries could join the EU, independence is a low cost, low risk step.

As far as I'm concerned secession movements are a dream come true for the European Union:

Consider this incentive to divide a feature of the European Union rather than a bug. The Brussels transnational elites will laugh all the way to their new undemocratic empire while the silly people atomize their once-influential nation-states into little ethnic theme parks.

Let the people have their postage stamps and flags, the EU overlords likely think! The power will lie in Brussels, and who will be large enough to stop them?

It will be interesting to see if the EU allows a mere nation like Spain to stop small pieces of Europe from joining the new European empire that the Brussels transnational elites are building.

Protect Our Troops

As the subject of a film, the scope of the problem may be grossly exaggerated. Few film makers are military-friendly. But if there is a problem with rapes in the military, we owe it to every female member of the military (and some male, apparently) who enlists to defend our nation to make sure that the threats to their lives and well being only come from enemies and not those who wear the same uniform.

Remember, the military is an honorable institution. But honor requires the dishonorable members to be removed rather than ignoring them out of fear that the whole institution will be branded dishonorable because of their actions. In the end, the failure of honorable leaders to punish the dishonorable is what brands an institution as lacking honor rather than the dishonorable themselves (because every institution has dishonorable members).

Allow Them to Elect Good Men

The Twittering class did not win the actual elections in Egypt:

Deputies in Egypt's first post-revolution parliament on Monday elected Saad al-Katatni, a leading member of the powerful Muslim Brotherhood, as speaker.

Katatni won 399 votes out of 496 in the first session of the lower house of parliament since it was dissolved following a popular uprising that ousted veteran president Hosni Mubarak.

The Islamists had the street cred from long opposition to the Mubarak regime. And they were organized. It isn't shocking that they won.

But it isn't a reason to deny Egyptians democracy. What we need is not to engineer particular victors but to engineer rule of law that makes sure there are more free elections. The Arab Spring is a long-term project. It isn't a reality show that wraps up after 26 episodes.

Katatni is saying good things about democracy. Let's work to make sure those words come true. If we can do that, over time the Islamists will have to submit to voter audit of their policies and the people will have a chance to decide if the Islamists are truly deserving of power.

In a free society, people are free to make mistakes. If the mistake doesn't end democracy, a free society provides the tools to fix the mistake.

War Happened

You know what happened in Haditha, Iraq, on November 19, 2005? War happened:

A Marine accused of killing unarmed Iraqi women and children pleaded guilty to dereliction of duty on Monday, reaching a deal that will mean a maximum of three months confinement and end the largest and longest-running criminal case against U.S. troops to emerge from the Iraq War. ...

Six squad members have had charges dropped or dismissed, including some in exchange for testifying at the trial. One was acquitted.

So in the heat of battle, against an enemy that did not wear uniforms and hid amongst civilians to use them as cover, a squad of Marines killed some civilians by mistake.

I was initially willing to believe that something bad might have happened, even as I was outraged that anti-war people used the allegations of one incident to tar all of our fighting men and women as killers or potential killers. But there was no war crime by our Marines--just an accident that happens in war.

So the actions of those Marines made in a heart beat have been scrutinized for six years by people not being shot at. This is a problem, as I've written.

Funny thing about war. War happens and even innocent people die. Or have their reputations soiled for a mistake that while it had tragic results, was no crime.

We could go a long way to undoing the damage done by the anti-war side to the honor of our military by renaming one of our ships that honors a Congressman all too painfully eager to believe that Haditha was a war crime.

The Year of the Mouse that Roared

The Year of the Dragon is beginning and many people think China is breathing fire down our neck as they prepare to pass us by.

Not so fast, sport. Via Instapundit, Drezner disagrees. Anything that starts like this deserves to be read:

Let's face it, there's a general anxiety about the future of America. There's Tom Friedman's column today, which my doctors have now forbade me from critiquing in order to keep my blood pressure down.

Thanks for the warning. I'll tend to my health and avert my eyes from even a glance at whatever drivel Friedman has come up with.

Anyway, Drezner writes:

So, America is doomed, right?

To be honest, this sounds like a lot of pious baloney. As Michael Beckley points out in a new article in International Security, "The United States is not in decline; in fact, it is now wealthier, more innovative, and more militarily powerful compared to China than it was in 1991."

Huh. Not doomed. I keep writing that. And recently warned about believing we are doomed so we are relieved of the responsibility of working hard to defend our lead.

An interesting article by Drezner. But let's get to the Beckley piece. Basically, in measures of wealth, innovation, and military power, we are extending our lead and not losing it. China is surely better off than China was before, but that isn't the same as saying they are going to pass us by. While you should read the paper, let me cut to the conclusion:

The first step toward sound strategy is to recognize that the status quo for the United States is pretty good: it does not face a hegemonic rival, and the trends favor continued U.S. dominance. The overarching goal of American foreign policy should be to preserve this state of affairs. Declinists claim the United States should “adopt a neomercantilist international economic policy” and “disengage from current alliance commitments in East Asia and Europe.”161 But the fact that the United States rose relative to China while propping up the world economy and maintaining a hegemonic presence abroad casts doubt on the wisdom of such calls for radical policy change.

And here's something from Beckley relevant to assessing the US-China balance:

One can argue that it is unfair to compare defense budgets because America’s military resources are dispersed across the globe while China’s are concentrated in Asia. China, however, does not devote all, and perhaps not even a majority, of its military resources to contingencies involving the United States. China shares sea or land borders with nineteen countries, ªve of which fought wars against China within the last century; its northern and western borders are porous and populated by disaffected minority groups; and its government faces a constant threat of domestic rebellion. As a result, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) devotes substantial resources to internal security and requires 300,000 troops just to police China’s borders.

Yes, there is that aspect.

Beckley's measure of military power ignores nuclear weapons, which I think is right for this level of analysis.

So we aren't declining relative to China and aren't doomed to second place. As Beckley wrote, perhaps there is some advantage to believing we are doomed as long as enough people react by trying harder rather than giving up. So far, in the face of other prophets of doom, we've dispatched our supposed rivals whose threats to pass us by and bury us were said to be imminent. As long as we regain a correct view of the actual balance before we or China do something stupid in the false belief that China is about to become the dominant power on the planet, it will be a helpful delusion.

But the idea that we are doomed is a delusion. Don't be so quick to write America off just because a number of smart people (they say so themselves!) think we are doomed.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Iranian Bomb

Wow, one of the dimmer bulbs in the NYT writing pool thinks bombing Iran would create a nuclear Iran:

The point of tough sanctions, of course, is to force Iranians to the bargaining table, where we can do a deal that removes the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran. (You can find some thoughts on what such a deal might entail on my blog.) But the mistrust is so deep, and the election-year pressure to act with manly resolve is so intense, that it’s hard to imagine the administration would feel free to accept an overture from Tehran. Anything short of a humiliating, unilateral Iranian climb-down would be portrayed by the armchair warriors as an Obama surrender. Likewise, if Israel does decide to strike out on its own, Bibi Netanyahu knows that candidate Obama will feel immense pressure to go along.

That short-term paradox comes wrapped up in a long-term paradox: an attack on Iran is almost certain to unify the Iranian people around the mullahs and provoke the supreme leader to redouble Iran’s nuclear pursuits, only deeper underground this time, and without international inspectors around. Over at the Pentagon, you sometimes hear it put this way: Bombing Iran is the best way to guarantee exactly what we are trying to prevent.

Tough sanctions years ago might have had a chance to stop Iran. But the lesson of Iraq is that tough sanctions--or even mild sanctions--can be portrayed as starving little children even as the regime finds money for what it wants.

Keller can talk about how he'd negotiate a deal, but this armchair diplomat is negotiating with himself--not actual Iranians who have been amazingly diligent in pursuing nuclear weapons despite world opposition to their plans. Good God, man, if the Iranians believe they need nukes to deter an invasion that we've apparently been perfecting for three decades now, they might actually believe we'd lie to them in order to trick the Iranians into giving up their nuclear weapons program. Hmm?

And Keller's description of getting anything less than denuclearization of Iran as something that can be portrayed by President Obama's foes as a surrender rather than being an actual foreign policy defeat is mind boggling. Yes, Mr. Keller, anything short of Iran giving up nuclear weapons plans would be a defeat for us. And any President who lets Iran go nuclear should properly be condemned for putting America's safety at risk.

The idea that attacking Iran will unify the people of Iran--who mostly hate the regime--is an article of faith in some circles. But while there will surely be some "rally around the flag" effect, when that wears off Iranians will ask why they have a government that provokes attack--or at least can't protect them despite all the claims about super weapons that Iran has been building for decades now. Or did I miss the resolute support that liberals enthusiastically provided George W. Bush for 7 years after the 9/11 attacks to bolster his efforts to protect us? Further, I'll ask this question again: what good does it do us to have a nuclear-armed Iran with rulers who hate us but with people who don't like the regime? Would poor poll ratings deter the mullahs from using a nuke? Would we really feel comforted if the people of Iran mostly felt really, really bad if their rulers used a nuke on Charleston?

And Keller's protest that Iran will continue their efforts if we attack is pointless. Unless that magical diplomacy works, Iran will get nukes eventually if we don't attack. If we knock them down far enough, redoubling their efforts will still mean they won't reach their nuclear destination as fast as they would have without our attack. And so what if our attack forces Iran deeper underground? If we refuse to attack, it could all be on the surface for all that matters. If Iran digs deeper, that at least takes more time and effort--which slows them down.

Further, what's with the wringing of hands over whether international inspectors are in Iran or not? With those inspectors, Iran is advancing toward nuclear weapons! Is Keller so confused that he forgets that the purpose of international inspectors is to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons? Does he think that the purpose of having international inspectors in Iran is to have international inspectors in Iran?

And I don't care if "sometimes" you hear in the Pentagon the line of thinking that bombing Iran will make them go nuclear. Sometimes Pentagon officials can be wrong or liberal.

Bombing Iran won't solve the problem of Iran wanting nuclear weapons. What it does is buy time. In the end, we need a regime change in Tehran. Get a non-mullah regime in Iran and they might decide it isn't worth the effort to build nuclear weapons. And at worst, having a non-nutball regime with nukes is far better than having a nutball regime with nukes.

Good grief. Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons right now. Bombing Iran will slow Iran down by an uncertain amount, it is true. But the fact that Iran will likely resume work on nuclear weapons doesn't mean that we caused that attempt to go nuclear. Is Maureen Dowd off today, or something?

You want a paradox? How do you write an op-ed without a functioning brain stem? How's that for a paradox? I bet you might even hear that question around the Pentagon sometimes.

UPDATE: Iran wants nukes and only wants to talk to mask their progress to getting nukes.

But that's too simple for the smart guys with the big desks to accept.

Let Liberals Rejoice!

Liberals can rejoice if it is true that the hated George W. Bush's democracy project in Iraq is failing:

Iraq is falling back into authoritarianism and headed towards becoming a police state, despite US claims that it has helped establish democracy in the country, Human Rights Watch said on Sunday.

Human Rights Watch could very well be stretching the facts to reach their conclusion. But events are cause for some concern. For years, I've said that promoting rule of law would be our hardest task after defeating the terrorists and insurgents. I've wanted our continued military presence to help foster rule of law and entrench it. Without presidential interest and without our military on the ground, it is likely that Iraq's democracy will have difficulty holding its own. I won't say that Iraq is doomed to become a police state (although it is unlikely to be anywhere near as bad as Saddam's police state), but democracy and rule of law could definitely take a hit.

But this should make liberals happy, shouldn't it? I mean, that's why the Obama administration is running from Iraq, right? If they won't allow a pipeline from Canada to ship hated oil to us in order to make radical environmentalist campaign donors happy, surely they will refuse to defend the hated Iraq War's victory to keep radical anti-war campaign donors happy.

Besides, how can they complain about an authoritarian Iraq? They kept saying we should make a deal with Saddam Hussein rather than fight him. Who, the anti-war people asked, was Saddam going to sell his oil to if not us? Remember how they kept going on about foreign policy "realism?"

And truth be told, even an authoritarian Iraq that is friendly to America is an improvement over Saddam's Iraq which was our enemy. But if that is all we wanted to settle for, we could have pulled out our troops many thousands of casualties ago and simply given the Shia majority a green light to kill and torture their way to victory over the Sunni Arab resistance (and screw the Kurds, too).

Our troops fought and died to give Iraqis a chance at real freedom, and to set an example for the entire Arab and Moslem worlds that they have another choice besides Islamism and authoritarianism to govern their lives. But we decided to risk all that to have a bullet point on the President Obama reelection web site that says we "responsibly ended" the Iraq War.

If Iraqis succeed in building democracy despite our apparent lack of interest in helping them, I hope liberals won't be too disappointed.

UPDATE: Rule of law is threatened:

Violence and political instability have escalated across Iraq since the withdrawal of American forces, as political and sectarian factions have fought for power and influence in a struggle that, within weeks, has threatened to undo the stability that allowed the pullout in the first place.

This is why so many people--including me--wanted our troops to stay in Iraq. It is too soon for the Iraqis to run a democracy without a safety net. Too many Iraqis fear the old rules can come back and could be too nervous about that prospect to play by the new rules of democracy and rule of law. Our troops provided an assurance to all Iraqi factions that nobody would be allowed to break the rules (how far you could bend them was the main tactic) to win.

Get the Iraqis to agree to a return of our ground troops! Come on, President Obama! Bust a gut to lead on this. What are we paying you for, anyway?

Clearly Lacking Nuance

Libyans are unhappy with their new government over an important issue:

Protesters stormed the Benghazi headquarters of Libya's ruling National Transitional Council (NTC) Saturday while its chairman was still in the building.

People in Benghazi, birthplace of the revolt which forced out former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, have been protesting for weeks to demand the sacking of Gaddafi-era officials and more transparency about how the NTC is spending Libyan assets.

The attack is a serious blow to the self-appointed but internationally recognized NTC, and underscores growing discontent over the way it is running the country.

Remember how so many people said that purging Iraq of Baathists contributed to Iraq's civil unrest? I thought that was BS, personally, since you could hardly expect the millions of Iraq victims of the Baathists to just accept the continued dominance of the Baathists--but just as well paid technocrats. You can debate what extent de-Baathification should have been. But not the general idea.

And now Libyans, who were blessed by leaders who understood how counter-productive it is to purge the government of former exploiters and prison wardens, are strangely upset that after struggling to free themselves from the exploiters and wardens that the exploiters and wardens seem to still have an important role in the new exploiter- and warden-free Libya. And without government transparency, who knows what those "ex" Khaddafi loyalists might be up to.

Silly Libyans. Just because they "won" the civil war they expect their enemy to have "lost?"

They really need to fully digest that nuance thing.

UPDATE: So failing to purge Khaddafi supporters is angering the anti-Khaddafi winners and it is failing to prevent Khaddafi loyalists from resisting:

Supporters of ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi seized control of the town of Bani Walid on Monday after clashes with a militia loyal to the new government in which four people were killed, witnesses told Reuters.

A resident of Bani Walid, about 200 km (120 miles) south-east of Tripoli, said the sides fought using heavy weaponry, including 106 mm anti-tank weapons, and that 20 people were wounded.

Not to worry, the Libyan air force is preparing to cope.

Or is that no-fly zone to protect the Libyan people from (the new) government's air power still in force? Just wondering.

UPDATE: And now the new government is thumbing their nose at the international community:

Libya said on Monday that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi would face trial at home, threatening a showdown with the International Criminal Court which may decide to prosecute the son of Libya's former dictator in The Hague.

I'm beginning to think that Arabic lacks the word for nuance. Doesn't the new Libyan government know that blood-stained henchmen everywhere respect the rulings of the ICC and simply hang their heads in shame rather than fight when the ICC says they've been bad boys?

Mullahcare

I find it interesting that Iran's mullahs have adopted the Obama administration's reasoning on requiring Americans to purchase health insurance:

A planned European oil embargo and other efforts to halt Iran's nuclear program, including new U.S. sanctions, are "economic war," a top Iranian official said.

So the West must buy their oil? Or else? Yep, just like Obamacare.

And there is no question that Iran has death panels.