I had saved post archives in my email before the old Yahoo!Geocities died. But years ago they seemed to be gibberish. A number were not available on the Internet Archives and I thought they were lost.
I recently checked my email archive of pre-Blogger posts and they were all legible. So I am restoring the gaps in my archives. Obviously all of the post permalinks are dead and artifacts of my ersatz-blog format back then. These were what I had formerly categorized as "national security affairs."
"Liberia" (Posted July 31, 2003)
Good Steyn piece on Liberia. I'm not on board with the idea we should commit ourselves to a 30-year stay to stabilize the whole West African region, but his take on the anti-war side in Iraq now calling for immediate intervention in Liberia is good:
It’s precisely the lack of any national interest that makes it appealing to the progressive mind. By intervening in Liberia, you’re demonstrating your moral purity. That’s why all the folks most vehemently opposed to American intervention in Iraq — from Kofi Annan to the Congressional Black Caucus — are suddenly demanding American intervention in Liberia. The New York Times is itching to get in: ‘Three weeks have passed since President Bush called on the Liberian President, Charles Taylor, to step aside, and pledged American assistance in restoring security. But there has been no definitive word here on how or when….
Three weeks! And Bush is still just talking! The Times spent 14 months deploring the ‘rush to war’ in Iraq, but mulling over Liberia for three weeks is the worst kind of irresponsible dithering.
None of the sides in the Liberian civil war are worth the bones of one healthy Kansas Marine. Who are we to choose among them? And if we don't, how the heck do we get out in only a few months? We are essentially asking our troops to die for the approval of people who normally call our troops baby killers. We have every right to ask our soldiers to lay down their lives to protect America.
This ain't it.
Unless the price for U.S. Marines in Liberia for three months is a UN resolution post-facto authorizing our occupation of Iraq. Then, our Marines truly will be risking their lives for something that defends America. Damn the "international community" for exacting this price, but pay it we will. Because Iraq is important.
"Chinese Military Modernization" (Posted July 31, 2003)
The Chinese continue to push ahead in military modernization. The Pentagon's annual report on Chinese military developments is out. The Chinese have placed special emphasis on forces designed to capture Taiwan and prevent American intervention.
Yet we shouldn't worry about this development since, according to Adam Segal, project director for a recent study by the Council on Foreign Relations on Chinese military developments:
China's goal "is not to invade Taiwan, but to use force to coerce Taiwan back to the negotiating table."
That's a pretty impressive conclusion that flies in the face of China's military investments. Will China invade Taiwan this year? No. Will China invade Taiwan at some point when it has sufficient military power to attack Taiwan and complicate American intervention? I don't know but Segal says 'no' to that as well.
Even though the Pentagon report says military action would most likely be used to coerce Taiwan, I think building up a military force across from Taiwan is for the bleeding obvious purpose of invading Taiwan. As the Pentagon report says:
Aware that China's overriding foreign policy objective remains the return of Taiwan, which China considers a breakaway province, the report states that a potential conflict in the Taiwan Strait is "the primary driver for China's military modernization."
We need to get Taiwan's air defenses and Navy up to par to hold off Chinese blockades and air attacks. We should probably look at China's capabilities not in the light of how we would conduct an amphibious and airborne assault but on how the Chinese could do it with what they have. By our standards, the German invasions of Norway and Crete during World War II were impossible and reckless—yet successful.
When the Chinese want something very badly and that objective is "the primary driver for China's military modernization," we would be wise not to discount their willingness to risk using the force they are building to achieve their "overriding foreign policy objective."
It will take time for the Taiwanese military to acquire and integrate the new weapons we are selling Taiwan. I think the run up to the 2008 Olympic games in China will be a period of maximum danger for Taiwan. Most think the pride of hosting the Olympics will keep Peking quiet. I would consider the Olympics a good distraction to obtain my overriding foreign policy objective were I king.
Get those weapons to the Taiwanese—fast. And keep up the transfer of our fleet elements from the Atlantic to the Pacific. If we are ever going to fight a major blue water naval war in the next twenty years, the Western Pacific is the place. And make sure Air Force Air Expeditionary Forces are prepared to go to Taiwan and the western Pacific to support those new Stryker brigades we are building. More and more, the main combat capabilities for these units seem suited for airlifting into Taiwan to fight light Chinese paratroopers and amphibious forces. (and for stabilization operations, too, of course)
Watch the Chinese. It wasn't so long ago that our strategic partner in the war on terror was holding an American airplane and crew on Hainan Island.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAJUL2003ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA31JUL03A
"Go Win One for the Rapers" (Posted July 30, 2003)
Saddam's confirmation of his sons' deaths did us a favor. Who can doubt that Uday and Qusay are dead when their old man admits it? Our credibility went up. I can't imagine the rest of the tape did the Baathist cause much good, either.
Check this out, from Saddam:
I announce to you, Oh brothers and sons, and break the good news [of the deaths of the boys], which is the wish of every honest, believing fighter for God's sake, as another group of noble souls of the martyrs have ascended to their creator."
Saddam is happy is sons died. He says this is a good thing. Who wants to actually win when you can aspire to martyrdom like the sicko twins? We're right with you, Saddam. You go ahead while we get our Kalashnikovs. It is one thing to talk about shared sacrifice to defeat the enemy when you are fighting tooth and nail. Quite another when you just got clobbered. Just how many Iraqis will wish to join the Saddam boys in facing their creator? Increasingly, the wish of every honest, believing Iraqi is to get on with their lives free from terror.
Saddam praises his sons in their last stand:
"The aggression armies surrounding them with all kinds of weapons and ground troops were not able to conquer them until they used their warplanes on the house that they were in."
Yep, you grab your AK-47 and don't mind the Americans with their TOW missiles, and A-10s, and helicopter gunships, and night vision gear. And especially don't mind those grim troopers surrounding you and using it all. Good inspirational pep talk!
Saddam is finished with his version of the "win one for the Gipper speech." He says:
"Even if Saddam Hussein has 100 sons other than Odai and Qusai, Saddam Hussein would offer them the same path. Duty and right deserve that ... That is the hope of every fighter for God's sake, as another group of noble souls of the martyrs has ascended to their creator."
Darn the luck that Saddam doesn't have more sons. 'Cause he'd sacrifice them in a heart beat if only he could. Huh? Why didn't they eagerly die in an attack on an American convoy and instead died hiding out in a luxury home? Um, I'm sure they were on their way out to find an Abrams when they were cornered. But that's history; I'm talking the future, here. Not to worry, Saddam knows that every Iraqi is eager to die in the absence of more Saddam sons. It hurts each and every time a loyal Iraqi (or foreign Jihadist) dies at the hands of the infidels.
So you head on out there! Do it for the boys. Win one for the rapers! I've gotta go. Two Men and a Truck arrived early.
"Saudi Cooperation" (Posted July 30, 2003)
The question of Saudi complicity in the 9-11 attacks and their cooperation in fighting al Qaeda are interesting—and vital—questions that bear on the war on terror. Lots of people are worked up about the Saudis and demand heads on pikes right now. The blocked 28 pages from the 9-11 report are raising lots of questions and many—especially opponents of the president but hardly exclusively—assert this deletion is to protect the Saudis.
Hold on there, partner. Not so fast.
The assumption is that the Saudis were indirectly or directly behind the 9-11 attacks and that the President is shielding them and oil industry buddies from facing the truth.
I suppose that is possible, but wouldn't the President be taking a giant risk of being discovered if he did that? Are the critics saying that the president is risking our security and very lives for personal and political gain? (Or are they projecting?)
I'm willing to be "charitable" and assume the president is trying to beat the terrorists and this deletion is advancing the goal. So what would the explanation for this 28-page deletion be?
Perhaps there really is damning information in the deletions and we are quietly pressuring the Saudis to help us. News leaks suggest this is so. That fits in with the Saudi desire to only help us behind the scenes. Is that annoying? Yes. Is it better than no cooperation? You bet. Arrests and gun battles in Saudi Arabia show that something is getting better. Wouldn't it be better to mine this while it is paying off rather than risk losing all cooperation period? Shoot, it is even just possible that there is no real smoking gun and the Saudi protests that this should be released is genuine. Maybe we are withholding the pages to make it look like the Saudis are more complicit in order to pressure the Saudis to do more. We'll release the 28 pages when the Saudis increase cooperation in specified areas. It's possible.
Regardless, this is not the time for a confrontation. We still have troops and facilities in Saudi Arabia despite our announcement that we will withdraw. I'd rather clear the decks before we provoke a crisis.
In addition, Saudi oil is important to our well being however much that might annoy some. I'll feel better risking Saudi production when Iraq is fully online and pumping oil. If our pressure fuels either a collapse our outright hostility, this would be a foolish move. Sure, the Saudis need to sell oil to us but what if they can't? Civil war or coup could cripple the fields and facilities. Nutsos taking over might not care that they need to sell us oil. Who says they must do what is in their interest? Or that they'll agree with our western view of their interest? What if they want a pure, sand-poor, Islamic existence for the sake of their souls?
Or are those arguing that Saudi Arabia is the prime problem arguing that we should invade? If the Saudis don't buckle to our threats and pressure, what would we do? Walk away? That would look good, huh? It may feel good to pound on the Saudis now but it will do no good right now. We are getting help from them now and we are not ready to lance this boil or cope with the fallout of trying.
Yes, we need to solve the Saudi problem fully. Their support of the most extreme Moslem teachings must end. Who knows, maybe before we need to take drastic action, the Saudis will see the light and judge their self interest lies in suppressing the Wahhabi fanatics their money supports.
As long as we have bigger problems to solve, I'll settle for the Saudis being more cooperative. We don't need to try to solve all problems at once—thus ensuring failure in most.
I'll give the President a pass on this one for now.
"Sending Troops to Liberia is a Mistake" (Posted July 29, 2003)
Sending American troops on a peacekeeping mission to Liberia is a mistake. Lots of other countries, including the regional ECOWAS states, can do peacekeeping. We cannot afford to get sucked into humanitarian missions when nobody else can replace our capacity to suppress inter-state wars and destroy thug regimes that threaten others. This article says it well:
When global threats emerge, from international terrorism to Saddam Hussein, only the U.S. can respond quickly and restore order. No one likes war, and throwing military resources at a crisis is not always the answer; indeed, it is rarely the answer. But only the U.S. can conduct large-scale expeditionary warfare when it is needed to address major threats and bring peace.
The UN's eagerness to intervene here without giving all means short of military intervention a chance, as they wanted in Iraq, makes the prospect of intervening in Liberia enraging and not just a bad idea. Let others take the lead:
There is a lot of peace to be kept in the world today. Peace-loving nations, working together, can accomplish a lot. But asking one nation to do it all will result in nothing being done properly. Other nations must take responsibility for some of these other operations — so that the U.S. can keep the big peace.
Can we help? Yes. Should we send troops? No way. Save them for better uses. We've got plenty. Haven't you heard that there's a war going on?
"Winning the War" (Posted July 28, 2003)
You don't often read or hear this in the papers. Yet here it is in the Post, an article about the success in our counter-insurgent war since Saddam's statues were toppled. Aggressive tactics and operations have answered the threat posed by the die-hards and we are pressing them day and night. How successfully? Here's the summary of our efforts:
Senior U.S. commanders here are so confident about their recent successes that they have begun debating whether victory is in sight. "I think we're at the hump" now, a senior Central Command official said. "I think we could be over the hump fairly quickly" -- possibly within a couple of months, he added.
I've long argued we are doing far more than just sitting and taking it as the repeated news reports about ambushes suggest. Indeed, we are doing more than I thought. I figured special forces were dominating the shadow offensive. But regulars are part of the offensive, too.
We are winning. I am not ready to declare victory in the post-war fight. But we crushed the Baathist military and won the war in the face of relentless press predictions of doom; and we seem to be doing the same now in the post-war fight to completely defeat the Baathists themselves.
Would I be happier if raids looking for Saddam did not kill bystanders? Yes. If it happened, of course. I do not assume we did shoot up innocents who happened to roll by the operation. (Shoot, it was only recently that I noticed a photograph caption that casually noted that the Baghdad market "missile attacks" during the war were clearly Iraqi jobs designed to discredit us! How did I miss that headline?) Baathists are not above lying about any encounter knowing they will get a receptive nod from the BBC and their ilk. I'm just saying, be careful in the operations. That is good advice regardless of what happened at the suspected Saddam hideout.
The important thing is that we are winning. At some point, I assume even the most fervent anti-warrior will get a little ashamed of suggesting the war was an error—or wrong. Or will MoveOn.org, in a few years, suggest we turn Iraq over to the last haggard Baathist thug to surrender to the new Iraqi government?
I've been wrong before in assessing their shame level.
"American Occupation" (Posted July 25, 2003)
Amidst the outcry of the horrible American occupation of Iraq in some quarters, shouldn't this tell people something?
Pictures of Saddam Hussein still hang in Tarek Saber's restaurant in Tikrit, the former president's home town. Locals munch on kebabs and hummus underneath the portraits, unafraid to talk of their loyalty to him.
Now that cruel Americans are in charge, supporters of our arch enemy feel free to express support and devotion to Saddam.
The contrast to Saddam's intolerance of anything but the most slavish devotion to himself is striking to me. Not to a whole lot of people, though.
Amazing.
"Outrage?" (Posted July 25, 2003)
Let me see, images of the murder of Danny Pearl, American casualties in the Iraq War, and Israeli dead from suicide bombings seem to get lots of play in certain Islamic circles. Yet to showing the dead bodies of the Saddam boys:
Televised images of the bodies of Saddam Hussein's sons shocked many Arabs on Friday, who said it was un-Islamic to exhibit corpses, however much the brothers were loathed.
Arab and international networks showed the bodies identified as Uday and Qusay, laid out at the makeshift airport morgue, their faces partly rebuilt to repair wounds.
Un-Islamic. Right. Yet the Islamic networks showed the bodies on TV, just as they have shown lots of other bodies. I am sorry that we had to do this. I hope there are exactly 5 exceptions to our rule against showing dead bodies: Uday and Qusay, Saddam, Osama, and Mullah Omar. But people in Iraq need to see the psycho boys dead. To know that they will not come back to torment, rape, and kill the Iraqi people. Our troops need to exploit the knowledge that they are dead to suppress lingering resistance by the Baathists.
And what to make of this:
Another [Saudi] civil servant Hasan Hammoud, 35, said: "America always spoils its own image by doing something like this. What is the advantage of showing these bodies? Didn't they think about the humanitarian aspect? About their mother and the rest of their family when they see these images?"
What about their mother and the rest of the Saddam family? I hope they are crying and ripping their hair from their heads. Who the F** cares about Saddam's "humanitarian aspect" of seeing their dead bodies? I hope despair is all they know right now. After 300,000 dead Iraqis they should be pretty used to causing death.
After all the complaints of the anti-war side that we failed to "get" Osama and Mullah Omar, you'd think they'd be happy we got the Hussein boys.
On with the war. The silliness of the complaints is giving me a headache.
"It's So Convenient to be Jackson" (Posted July 24, 2003)
Jesse Jackson apparently thinks it is racist for America not to intervene in Liberia:
Jesse Jackson said Wednesday the Bush administration's reluctance to deploy troops to strife-torn Liberia (news - web sites) proves that race remains "a significant factor" in the way America relates to the world.
Wow. When we intervene in another country, it is racist. When we don't…it's still racist. Jackson doesn't even need to actually analyze a situation or try to judge the merits of it—just assert race drives a decision he doesn't like.
The United States military is not some international rescue agency with check boxes for the race of the caller. The United States military is for protecting America. Anything else is a luxury to be done when it is convenient for us.
We're at war, people. Diversity Interventions should be put off at least a bit. At least long enough for the anti-war side to stop crying "quagmire" over Iraq.
"Army Rotation" (Posted July 24, 2003)
The Army is going to start rotating troops soon. I feel for the 3rd ID soldiers who feel they have done enough. But this is nothing new. The Army troops who beat Hitler's legions were none too happy with the news that they would need to go to the Pacific to invade Japan. And 3rd ID may have had a tough fight to Baghdad but they did it with few casualties and in three weeks, so we're not talking about a division that is deep into combat fatigue. Some commentators have noted that in Korea and Vietnam, soldiers went home as individuals. This was an error in those wars and I am glad that the Army will not wreck unit cohesion by pulling out individuals and plugging them in. We are going to rotate units.
This is the map of what we have now in Iraq.
The briefing notes that of the Army's 33 active brigades (Hmm, could of sworn we had 34…), 24 are deployed overseas. Fifteen of the Army National Guard's 45 enhanced Separate Brigade battalions are also overseas. I read an account that referred to a unit of the Florida ARNG in Iraq but did not realize so many are overseas. Are some guarding bases in Germany?
The rotation planned will reduce the active component brigades in Iraq from what looks like 15 active Army brigades now in Iraq to 8 by spring 2004 (plus two ARNG brigades). The Marines are pulling out completely by the fall of 2003. Allied units will move in to replace some of these departing troops. I assume MP units will also be in Iraq in significant strength.
Also note that 1st MEF has fewer than 9,000 troops and is shown as a division. In the invasion, it had 60,000 and was still listed as a "division." Remember that a MEF is normally a division-sized unit as the Army defines it but that for the war it was bulked up to a corps-sized formation with most of the Marine Corps' combat units in it.
Things are on track to reduce our presence in Iraq. I figured in two years we'd have a corps of 7 brigades in Iraq as a garrison and we are on the way toward that goal. Events can change this plan of course, and winning is the number one goal. That will drive the numbers. Luckily, we are winning.
"Homeland Defense" (Posted July 24, 2003)
The USA PATRIOT Act has driven some to flights of hysteria.
We stand poised for the dark age of burning books and liberal-hunting excursions to San Francisco by Red-state gun nuts.
If you believe the shrieking nutsos who forget we are actually at war.
Honestly, I too want civil liberties. I'm not pining to be thrown in jail. I'm not eager to set up relocation camps. But we have freedoms during wartime that most people only dream of when at peace. Hysterical cries of impending peril make a reasoned debate about how to balance security with freedom nigh well impossible.
Can't we at least admit that it is proper to tighten up a bit in wartime? Defeating the nutballs overseas will be the best way to go back and see about loosening our laws. And that will happen.
If the crazies are building hidden hiding places behind fake walls to avoid Ashcroft's gestapo, they should use a wine cellar design so it will get some use after they've calmed down.
"The Last Time on This Topic" (Posted July 23, 2003)
I restrained myself from reading Krugman yesterday and so am well on my way to fulfilling a pledge to write no more on the SOTU controversy. It is silly. It is really just fighting the pre-war debate all over. I am going to try to say nothing else this month and see if I can go on from there "16 words free." But first a word from President Clinton. I don't have a whole lot of respect for the man, but I never fell into the Clinton-hater mode. I know this because a true Clinton hater accused me of being essentially a fool and a traitor for not wanting President' Clinton's head on a pike. Anyway, though I'd not accuse him of ruining the country I'd give him credit for precious little good. Nonetheless, I salute him for his courage in saying this:
KING: President, maybe I can get an area where you may disagree. Do you join, President Clinton, your fellow Democrats, in complaining about the portion of the State of the Union address that dealt with nuclear weaponry in Africa?
CLINTON: Well, I have a little different take on it, I think, than either side.
First
of all, the White House said -- Mr. Fleischer said -- that on balance
they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened,
often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence
and American intelligence. The president said it was British
intelligence that said it. And then they said, well, maybe they shouldn't have put it in.
Let
me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial
amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at
the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was
destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then
we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten
it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of
it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to
go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors
in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime
change, not just continued sanctions.
I
mean, we're all more sensitive to any possible stocks of chemical and
biological weapons. So there's a difference between British -- British
intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true.
I don't know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House
did the right thing in just saying, Well, we probably shouldn't have said that. And I think we ought to focus on where we are and what the right thing to do for Iraq is now. That's what I think.
President Clinton could have taken the easy way out and repeated the "Bush Lied" charge and nobody on the left would have called him on it. And those on the right would have been dismissed as Clinton-haters. Let's see how much media play this gets.
"Don't Go" (Posted July 23, 2003)
Don't go to Liberia, that is. The pressure is building for Bush to decide to intervene. Intervene for what? This is exactly the type of nation-building that I oppose. The cries that President Bush's endeavors in nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan show he realizes the error of his ways is a crock. Liberia is not like Iraq and Afghanistan. First of all, the reasons to go in are different. There is no national security interest in intervening there. Or at least a highly debatable one. Inconveniently for the "peace" protesters who want us to go in here, it involves oil—the growing importance of West African oil to our economy.
But even if we have a national interest in intervening in Liberia, the way we are going to do it is classic nation-building as I have learned to hate it. Nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan follows in the tradition of Germany and Japan—rebuilding and reshaping after victory in war. Liberia follows the pattern of countless UN-desired missions that see no side as deserving of victory. You'll probably hear about this as "peace enforcement" which was bandied about in the 1990s. (see my Army article from 1996 on this folly) This kind of nation-building sees war as the enemy and the goal is to stop the fighting. This preserves all sides—good and bad—and lets them rev up for the next round when we get tired of losing troops for no real reason and pull out.
Let me say right here that Ted Rall—who is an idiot—favors intervening in Liberia. Every other intervention is bad and tied to oil and empire in his mind, but this one is good. Rall says Liberian actually want us to intervene. I say what is more important is that Liberians blame us for Liberians killing each other already! And we've yet to intervene:
Enraged Liberians angry at US President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s failure to respond to international pressure to lead a peacekeeping force into Liberia piled up dead bodies outside the complex.
"Shame on you," they screamed.
Shame on us. That's what they screamed.
So what kind of nation-building will this be?
The kind we shouldn't do. Help others go in, sure. But keep our over-stretched troops out.
"The Best Argument for Regime Change I've Read Yet" (Posted July 23, 2003)
Former Sec Def William Perry wants us to negotiate to end North Korea's nuclear threat to us. He may be right, as a tactic, but his opinion piece actually has one of the strongest arguments for regime change as the ultimate in nuclear disarmament that I have read:
For several decades North Korea has aspired to have nuclear weapons. During that period successive administrations have, through a combination of threats and inducements, curtailed their program but never their aspirations. In the late 1980s the first Bush administration saw the potential danger and persuaded the Soviet Union to pressure North Korea to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and subject its nuclear facilities to international inspection. The North Koreans complied, but they stalled long enough to give them time to make and store enough plutonium for one or two nuclear bombs before the inspectors arrived.
Shortly after the Clinton administration took office, they tried again. As spent fuel was being taken from the nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, the North Koreans ejected the inspectors and began preparations for reprocessing. This would have given them enough plutonium for five or six additional nuclear bombs. President Clinton considered this sufficiently dangerous that he declared reprocessing a "red line." In response, I had the Joint Chiefs prepare a plan to use military force if necessary to prevent this outcome. When Kim Il Sung offered to negotiate the issue, Clinton responded that he would negotiate only if the North Koreans froze all activity at Yongbyon during the negotiation. In the end, military force was not necessary. The agreement that ended this crisis was far from perfect, but in its absence North Korea could today have 50 to 100 nuclear weapons.
But the North Koreans never gave up their desire for nuclear weapons. Even as they complied with the freeze at Yongbyon, they covertly started a second nuclear program at a different location. American intelligence discovered signs of this program and last fall confronted the North Koreans, who did not dispute the charge. The administration responded by stopping fuel oil deliveries called for under the old agreement, to which the North Koreans responded by reopening Yongbyon and racing to get nuclear weapons.
Nonetheless, despite the history of Pyongyang lies and the clear determination to do what they have to do to get nukes, Perry says we must negotiate. Force or pressure are too risky. He quotes Kennedy to bolster his view, "We should never negotiate from fear, but we should never fear to negotiate."
I am not afraid to negotiate—as long as the Japanese and South Koreans and Chinese are there, too. But I fear the pressure to agree to something—anything—once negotiations begin. I would add that we should never be afraid to walk away from the table. Once negotiations begin, there will be tremendous pressure from allies and from people here to ignore any cheating and to agree to anything that can be signed. Reagan walked away from Reykjavik when the Soviets offered too little and demanded too much as the price for a treaty on nuclear weapons. Best negotiating move we ever made.
Any agreement must be so intrusive that there is no doubt we know what they are doing. And even then, any agreement can only be seen as buying time. Any agreement should be a means to an end—not the end. Because if you read Perry's piece, you see that he clearly recognizes that the North Koreans are unlikely to negotiate away their fervent desire to have nuclear weapons. Ever.
Ultimately, regime change is the only way to end North Korea's nuclear ambitions. A North Korean collapse is the preferred way. We can't rule out war if the alternative is a nuclear-armed and exporting North Korea.
I've said it before. This decade sucks.
"Saddam's Sons Dead" (Posted July 23, 2003)
Good.
I hope they knew genuine fear in the firefight before they died. I hope they knew with certainty that they were going to die at the hands of our soldiers.
This will dishearten the resistance. Some will give up hope of returning to power and stop fighting. Some will lash out harder for a while but will notice that they are increasingly alone. Then they, too, will give up. Some will feel the lifting of the fear that compelled them to fight even though they did not want to.
And Iraqis, who are already helping us, will grow bolder in getting on with their lives. These people will move on and we are helping them live free.
I'm only disappointed that 3rd ID didn't get the chance to be the ones to nail Uday and Qusay. Maybe they'll get Saddam.
"Call Your Attorney" (Posted July 23, 2003)
The constant calls by opponents of the Iraq War for the US to dot every "I" and cross every "t" in a legal checklist before acting while ignoring the blatant violations of international law and decency by Iraq amazed me. I guess this is nothing new:
The North Koreans are upset we will soon commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Korean War cease fire (no peace treaty, remember):
"The U.S. should stop its unseemly farce of holding the commemorative event in the name of the U.N. Command with no legal justification," North Korea said in a statement carried by its news agency, KCNA.
North Korea's legal accusations date back to the early months of the Korean War, when Northern invaders quickly occupied most of the Korean Peninsula. President Harry Truman mustered a U.S.-dominated international force after getting approval from the U.N. Security Council, but North Korea claims Washington did not follow proper procedures for seeking a U.N. mandate.
Wow, North Korea went and invaded South Korea and they think we had the nerve to defeat them without following proper UN procedures. They way they did, apparently.
This is the mindset, people. Trip up us in red tape. Use our faith in law to undermine us. Use our law and our habit of following the rule of law to beat us. They will do what it takes to win. We must read them their Miranda rights. That's how they like to play the game. And that's how too many people here view the game.
Keep this in mind when the talk of some treaty with those Pyongyang thugs comes up.
"SOTU" (Posted July 22, 2003)
The anti-war coalition is unwrapping their puppets and tuning up their bongos:
Both United for Peace and Justice and Win Without War, the largest mainstream antiwar coalitions, with hundreds of member groups, including the National Council of Churches and the AFL-CIO, have launched campaigns that include petitions demanding an investigation into the intelligence that led to war, print and television ads that accuse Bush of misleading the nation with discredited or unproven claims about Iraq's nuclear arsenal and suggestions for organizing at the local level to reinvigorate the broad movement that developed in the weeks before the war.
Misleading the nation?
Let's fire up the Wayback Machine and recall this 1998 State of the Union Address:
Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them.
Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.
The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission.
I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world," and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again."
This was said at the beginning of the year. By the end, we had struck Iraq in Operation Desert Fox to cripple what the President believed was Saddam's WMD programs and weapons.
We are to believe that either the president lied in 1998 about the threat or that the strikes destroyed what was left. We are to believe that the Iraqis stopped cooperating with inspectors, leading to their withdrawal to refuse to participate in sham "inspections" because they had nothing to hide. We are to believe that after spending the 90's seeking to build new and hide old WMD programs, the Iraqis since 1998 dismantled all that they had left yet refused to do it publicly to prove their compliance with the Persian Gulf War cease fire.
Sadly, five years later, President Clinton's words do not speak for everyone in that chamber—nor even for himself for that matter. Now, his party says Saddam should have been allowed to defy the will of the world—such as it is; and many here were not in fact determined to deny Saddam the capacity to use them again. So depleted is that will and determination that opponents of the war still deny what the President believed and acted on (half-heartedly) in 1998.
In 2003, we acted decisively, and those who stood with the President in 1998 now attack the President for acting on the very same convictions—but this time in the light of 9-11.
The President in 1998 saw a glimmer of what the future held for us:
We must exercise responsibility not just at home but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security. But make no mistake about it; today's possibilities are not tomorrow's guarantees. America must stand against the poisoned appeals of extreme nationalism. We must combat an unholy access [sic: "axis"] of new threats from terrorists, international criminals and drug traffickers.
We have a different axis now, and one termed evil rather than unholy, but we are using our power to build a new era of peace and security. One that will stop thugs and thug regimes from plotting nuclear 9-11s. And the President was right that there are no guarantees. We have much work to do in Afghanistan and Iraq despite tremendous initial victories. Other tasks and crises await us in Iran and North Korea and the war against international terrorists.
Were those misled today misled in 1998? Are those willing to stand beside Saddam prior to the war against America to "give peace a chance" now unwilling to stand with the President against Baathist attempts to disrupt the peace? If not, why the change? Are they for "peace" or just against the President when he is of the opposite party?
I did not feel misled then and do not now. What about the MoveOn-niks? I'd like to know.
"Blowback" (Posted July 22, 2003)
One of the unintended results of the ridiculous campaign to convince people that Guantanamo Bay detention facility is really Auschwitz (so why do our prisoners leave a dozen pounds heavier than when they entered?) is that Iraqi Baathists are scared witless of being sent there. This is good when questioning them, as strategypage.com notes:
Another scary gambit is mentioning a transfer to Guantanamo. The Arab media has been conjuring up all manner of fantasies about Guantanamo, and to many of the currently unindicted, being sent there is seen as tantamount to a death sentence, or worse.
The first scary gambit was threatening to set them loose in Basra where they can face the tender mercies of their former Shia victims.
I cannot tell you how pleased I am that the howling lies of the "peace" activists have been turned to our advantage to help win the post-war. How rare for them to support U.S. interests.
"Post-War Debates" (Posted July 21, 2003)
I remain perplexed at how opposition to American action against a brutal dictator morphs into bizarre defenses of the dictator. But we're done with that. I didn't understand that tendency of the anti-war side and never will. Now we're into the bizarre refusal to stop debating going to war even after the war was won. What gives?
Before Kosovo in 1999, I was against intervening in what I believed to be a European crisis based more on humanitarian grounds than national interests. NATO credibility seemed to be a weak reason for war. Why would going to war against a nation for no particular national interest bolster a shaky alliance?
But once at war, I stopped arguing about whether we could go to war. I then argued about the means to victory. I felt the air strategy could be defeated and that only a ground invasion with a US corps as the main strike force could guarantee victory by marching on Belgrade.
Although the air offensive never did destroy the rump Yugoslavian army, or even cripple it based on its rapid withdrawal in good order from Kosovo (and I'll never forget the picture of one of our victorious strikes—an M-36 Jackson tank destroyer of World War II vintage better placed in front of an American Legion post than in an army). Nonetheless, though the reason why Milosevic withdrew are still murky, our air power was the primary military means that compelled Serb defeat. Once we won, I ceased arguing over how to win and gave my thoughts over to winning the peace and learning from the military campaign.
In short, I stopped arguing when there was no point to arguing. Nor did I, I will add, demonize the Clinton administration. The vile nature of Milosevic never made destroying his regime immoral. I only questioned the wisdom of it, the methods, and how to learn from the war.
What drives today's anti-war side to never quit a debate once joined? Are they incapable of conceding defeat or error or just moving on in a practical manner? I don't get it.
"Reasons for War" (Posted July 21, 2003)
In spite of the full blown furor over whether we were tricked into war, I guess I am fully satisfied that we went to war with Iraq in our national interests. Given the continued bitter opposition to the war that the anti-war left is still waging, how could I conclude otherwise? As was pointed out here , during the 1990s the left argued that our use of force was only justified when it was not tainted by mere American interest. Rwanda, Kosovo, and Haiti are all examples of interventions urged or carried out for humanitarian reasons:
In the 1990s, liberal Democrats joined the international Left in support of the idea of "humanitarian war." Having watched international organizations and the liberal democracies stand idly by as genocide was wrought in Rwanda and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, liberals rallied behind the notion of using the armed forces of nation-states not to further the national interests of particular states — the classical understanding of the uses of state power — but for humanitarian, altruistic ends.
If Iraq was truly no threat to us and hence defeating Saddam was of no use to supporting American interests, the left would be celebrating the destruction of a brutal murdering Iraqi dictator who killed far more Iraqis than ethnic Albanians were killed in Kosovo and probably less than ethnic Tutsis who died in Rwanda. Indeed, the fact that one minority (Sunnis) lorded it over the rest and practiced ecological devastation to destroy another ancient minority and their very lifestyle (Marsh Arabs) should have endeared President Bush to the anti-war left. Heck, even mentioning Saddam's poison gas use against yet another minority group (the Kurds) would have been pure gravy for their consciences. Why even mention rape as a professional occupation in Saddam's regime when they don't even have football to promote such a culture of rape? With so much evil ended, the left could pick and choose reasons, leaving many out, and still have ample justification for war on humanitarian grounds alone.
But no, the left still opposes the Iraq War. In their gut, the anti-war left knows that this war was in American interests for the reasons given before the war. And any Iraqis saved by ending Saddam's regime are inconvenient facts that the left must ignore to battle against the horrible notion that military force should be used to further our national interests and security.
When the MoveOn-niks urge us all to celebrate the end of Saddam's death machine and focus on rebuilding Iraq, then I'll wonder what we did. Heck, they are ones who are supposed to "care" while cold-hearted SOBs like myself argue whether intervention is in our interest, first.
Let's see if that MASH guy goes on television to urge us to keep our hands off Liberia and let them—or even other African states—solve their own problems.
"Responsibility for Waging War" (Posted July 18, 2003)
The President tricked us into war, eh? We rushed into it? Let's look at the facts.
The President faced a dictator who brutalized ethnic groups not of his own power base. We had no evidence that he had WMD, but invasion seemed the only answer. We believed he was a threat to our allies in the region and to his own people. Our air power had spent considerable time attacking the enemy. Yet Saddam's brutality continued.. While NATO was supportive, few supported a ground attack. We had to go with a coalition of the willing if we were to do this right. Prime Minister Blair of Britain was solidly in favor of drastic action, but few others would help. The French were dangerously sympathetic to the enemy. The Russians were upset we were threatening to destroy a friendly regime. Supporters of the President argued that the US troops sent to jumping off points on two sides were psychological pressure only and that the dictator still had time to back down without war. Co-religionists of the dictator appeared on TV arguing that American intervention would harm Christianity in the struggle between Islam and the Christian West. The President's Congressional allies were solidly behind him but the opposition questioned the tactics and sometimes even the reason for attacking.
The fighting itself, touted as a cake walk that would be won in days with the surrender of the dictator, stretched on with no resolution. We apparently gamed it wrong and one general said, "We called this one absolutely wrong." We had to scramble to focus more power on the enemy. Clearly, we did not commit enough of our military at the outset of war. Some Americans were captured in an ambush and unexpected though still minor American losses caused people to question what was going on. Air attacks struck civilian targets the breadth of the nation, including bridges and the electrical grid. With the President within days of ordering a ground attack, he realized he had only a week to convince Congress and the American people that an invasion was the only way to preserve a vital multinational organization's credibility and save countless lives from death.
In the end, we won the war but American troops clearly would be stuck there for years. How we'd deal with the hatreds and revenge killings was a mystery but we stuck to it. Even the opposition stopped complaining after victory. The dictator survived but eventually was tried for war crimes as he deserved. Heck, Hollywood rallied to the President and Sheryl Crow played for the troops in the former combat zone and exclaimed that playing for an audience other than American troops would be less than fulfilling to say the least.
What am I talking about? I lost you at the end?
Oh wait, substitute Milosevic for Saddam and think back to 1999 and the Kosovo campaign.
Remember that war? We preemptively struck before the Serbs could slaughter ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. We worried that violence could destabilize the Balkans and that it was unacceptable to have war in Europe.
And where was the debate? According to Sandy Berger, cited in this article [sorry, just the abstract and citation is free for the June 9, 2000 article, "Clinton's Massive Ground Invasion That Almost Was"], air power was the preferred method since otherwise, "the alternative was a public debate, within the United States and among NATO members..." When air power did not compel capitulation, "The American public didn't know it, but Clinton had been within days of launching full preparations for an invasion." And he would have done it even without NATO consensus. The President would have invaded with whatever allies he could persuade to go along, "forming a new coalition on the spot."
Were we "tricked" into war in Kosovo in 1999 over a genocide that was not happening? Were we going to invade without even a proper debate? Without the backing of NATO or the UN? Were we going to risk antagonizing Russia? Apparently.
Once upon a time, the Democratic party understood that waging war is difficult, information is hazy, and allies are balky.
"Correction to Krugman Slam" (Posted July 17, 2003)
I hate to have to do this but I left out 1st Armored Division from the units in Iraq. How I did that I do not know. This ups the brigade count to 16, which is still just under half of the active duty brigades but not horribly so. I stand by the combat power portion, however. The Army in Iraq is nowhere near to representing more than half of its combat power.
It is very humbling to have to correct a piece attacking Krugman.
"Iraq is Better, Now, Really" (Posted July 17, 2003)
Western reporters in Baghdad assume that since the capital is no longer being gorged at the expensed of the rest of the country, things are worse in Iraq. The situation is getting better and the Iraqis are not turning on us. The press that tried to turn week two of the war as the Great Saddam Counter-offensive are now trying to convince us that we are losing the war. But read this:
Neither the wishful thinking of part of the Arab media, long in the pay of Saddam, nor the visceral dislike of part of the Western media for George W. Bush and Tony Blair changes the facts on the ground in Iraq.
ONE fact is that a visitor to Iraq these days never finds anyone who wants Saddam back.
There are many complaints, mostly in Baghdad, about lack of security and power cuts. There is anxiety about the future at a time that middle-class unemployment is estimated at 40 percent. Iraqis also wonder why it is that the coalition does not communicate with them more effectively. That does not mean that there is popular support for violent action against the coalition.
Another fact is that the violence we have witnessed, especially against American troops, in the past six weeks is limited to less than 1 percent of the Iraqi territory, in the so-called "Sunni Triangle," which includes parts of Baghdad.
Elsewhere, the coalition presence is either accepted as a fact of life or welcomed. On the 4th of July some shops and private homes in various parts of Iraq, including the Kurdish areas and cities in the Shiite heartland, put up the star-spangled flag as a show of gratitude to the United States.
"We see our liberation as the start of a friendship with the U.S. and the U.K. that should last a thousand years," says Khalid Kishtaini, one of Iraq's leading novelists. "The U.S. and the U.K. showed that a friend in need is a friend indeed. Nothing can change that."
In the early days of the liberation, some mosque preachers tested the waters by speaking against "occupation." They soon realized that their congregations had a different idea. Today, the main theme in sermons at the mosques is about a partnership between the Iraqi people and the coalition to rebuild the war-shattered country and put it on the path of democracy.
Even the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr now says that "some good" could come out of the coalition's presence in Iraq. "The coalition must help us stabilize the situation," he says. "The healing period that we need would not be possible if we are suddenly left alone."
We will beat the insurgents. Most insurgencies fail and the one in Iraq does not have the ingredients to become a successful insurgency let alone a new Vietnam (Saigon fell to a conventional North Vietnamese tank-led assault, remember, not pajama-clad guerrillas).
And we will help Iraqis rebuild a normal country.
I wish the critics had a sense of perspective. Do we make mistakes? Yes. Should we discuss them and learn from them? Of course. But the strident screams of disaster that arise when any speed bumps are encountered are simply outrageous. But hey, for reporters schooled in the art of terming any decrease in the rate of funding increases for a pet program as a "crisis" what must they think of the real problems of getting Iraq moving forward? The poor dears are out of their league.
"This is Getting Tiring" (Posted July 17, 2003)
After so many people have corrected the critics who say that forged Niger documents prove President Bush lied in his SOTU address, continued assertions that the President claimed Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Niger in the SOTU address are just willful lie. What to make of Meyerson's claim:
There are no stubborn facts in the Bush White House, just stubborn men. This is an administration that will not be cowed by the truth.
After all, it's not as if the president's baseless assertion in his State of the Union address that Iraq had sought to acquire "yellowcake" uranium from Niger was the last we heard of this claim.
So what do we know about the flap?
- The President said the British know that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in "Africa." He did name claim from Niger.
- We know the Iraqis purchased uranium from African states in the past.
- The British still claim there information is solid.
- We didn't claim Niger precisely because we could not verify that particular claim.
So why is a prudent decision to go with the track record and more prudent claim a lie?
Partisan hackery—stubbornly immune to the truth—is behind this "lies" attack. It is shameful.
Hmm, the latest to pick up on the "lie" campaign"
The speaker on the tape played Thursday lashed out at Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites), saying they tricked their people to justify the war.
"What will they say to their people and to mankind? What will the chorus of lies say to those that backed them?" said the voice. "What will they say to the world after they devised the scenario of lies against Iraq's people, leadership and culture?"
"The lies were known to the U.S. president and the British prime minister when they decided to launch a war and aggression," said the tape.
The speaker was Saddam Hussein. Nice to see how these talking points make the rounds.
"Sao Tome & Principe" (Posted July 17, 2003)
This tiny island may sit on lots of oil. It is also conveniently nearby the West African oil fields that increasingly supply us with our energy needs. We have been in talks with the country to establish a base there.
This is why the news of a coup there was disturbing. Although the leader of the country appears to a couple pages shy of a butterfly ballot, a military takeover is not the answer. Luckily, local nations may intervene to reverse the coup. That would be nice. Any Marines thinking of going to Liberia should help there first before we even think of getting dragged into Liberia. Although talk of getting a UN mandate for Iraq to provide cover for France, Germany, India, and others to send troops may be related to our going into Liberia. I wonder what Kofi Annan and the President discussed in their meeting?
The way interests and countries get linked is truly amazing.
"North Korean Talks" (Posted July 17, 2003)
China is reporting that North Korea is willing to talk with the US and China over North Korea's nuclear ambitions. We insist Japan and South Korea be involved.
We should not back down from including our allies in the discussions. We want them by our side if it comes to war and a united front will keep them with us and let Kim Jong-Il know that we won't be divided from our allies.
"The Goods on VIPS" (July 17, 2003)
When they first raised their heads, I thought the name "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity" had that smarter-than-thou whiff of a hard left group. Bingo.
Check this out:
VIPS does not seem to have a website, but its email is vips@counterpunch.org, and their open letter appears to have been published at CounterPunch (run by Alexander Cockburn, the Nation columnist), an outfit whose staple is stuff comparing Bush to Hitler. VIPS also published an open letter in opposition to the war at Common Dreams back in February. The spokesman for VIPS is Raymond McGovern, a retired CIA analyst. McGovern's email is also at CounterPunch. He is giving a briefing today [Tuesday] with Rep. Dennis Kucinich. McGovern has compared the Iraq war to Vietnam, even saying that it could lead to nuclear war. He has charged that if WMDs are found in Iraq, they may well have been planted. He believes Tenet's job is safe because if Tenet were fired, he would reveal that the White House ignored intelligence warnings pre-9/11. McGovern has urged CIA analysts to illegally release classified documents to show what he believes to be true, specifically citing Daniel Ellsberg.
Another member of the VIPS steering committee is William Christison, who among other things believes that the Bush administration is attempting to colonize the Middle East, jointly with Israel. He believes that the war on terror is being used to turn the US into a military dictatorship. He is also a backer of the left-wing UrgentCall, along with people such as Noam Chomsky, Barbara Kingsolver, Julian Bond, and Jonathan Schell.
None of this proves that VIPS is evil, or even wrong. It does say that Kristof is trying to pass off a fairly left-wing group as a group of non-partisan "professionals."
In fact, they are worse than I thought. I was tempted to go after Kristof's article instead of Krugman's yesterday. Nice to see a good rip on Kristof, too. He can be as offensive as Krugman. But he can also provide some good solid stories. This one was the former. Talk about relying on bad sources for your statements! Just how did the beliefs of this fanatical VIPS group get into a major columnist's article? In a major newspaper no less.
Shocking.
"WMD Investigations" (Posted July 16, 2003)
One can hear the sawing going on over the din of the "Bush lied" crowd out on that limb. Said David Kay, in charge of the WMD search in Iraq"
I think in six months from now, we’ll have a considerable amount of evidence, and we’ll be starting to reveal that evidence. Will we get to the bottom of the program? It took them over twelve years to build this program. This is a tough country to work in. They hid a lot. I think we’ll probably still be finding stuff well beyond six months. I think we will have a substantial body of evidence before six months.
Of course, the die hard anti-war people will still argue, absurdly in light of the clear intelligence problem we had with Iraqi WMD, that we should not have acted against Saddam until the WMD threat was "imminent." That was their point and never mine. Saddam was a threat who killed, raped, and jailed on an industrial scale and we ended his regime and his desire for WMD to further his plans for glory.
The Iraq War was a good war.
Just need to kill Saddam and the die hards still harassing our troops.
"Krugman's Tanned, Rested, and Ready to Rant!" (Posted July 16, 2003)
He really gives ranting a bad name.
But Krugman did not disappoint me in his column on Tuesday. Oh where oh where to begin? His column is entitled "Pattern of Corruption." I at first assumed it was autobiographical, but I soon (ok, immediately) learned he was back to attack. Said Krugman:
More than half of the U.S. Army's combat strength is now bogged down in Iraq, which didn't have significant weapons of mass destruction and wasn't supporting Al Qaeda. We have lost all credibility with allies who might have provided meaningful support; Tony Blair is still with us, but has lost the trust of his public. All this puts us in a very weak position for dealing with real threats. Did I mention that North Korea has been extracting fissionable material from its fuel rods?
So much error in the first paragraph. A target-rich environment to be sure. Let's see, he says more than half of the Army's combat strength is bogged down in Iraq . That would be 51% or more I assume. Let's see, 101st AB, 3rd ID, 4th ID, 173rd AB, a brigade of 82nd AB, a couple ACRs, and I'll throw in odds and sods for another brigade equivalent. That would be 14 brigades out of the active component's 34 brigades. That's 41%. Throw in the National Guard and you more than double the total brigade strength for the denominator. Plus he really doesn't mean "combat strength" which includes attack helicopter and separate artillery units and air defense units, etc. This again would increase the denominator. He really means line brigades. But let's not nitpick over even a 10-point spread. Krugman is an economist for Pete's sake, not a military guy, so let's not insist he know math stuff. Are they bogged down as he says? Hmm, Marines are already leaving. 3rd ID will be coming home fairly soon. And the low-scale fighting is localized to Sunni areas. I guess if you stretch "bogged" to mean they aren't leaving yet, then yes they are "bogged." Fighting is in a narrow band and is low level. This is not a bog. I assumed many American troops would be based in Iraq for years just to defend the country and to project power out from Iraq . I don't know how long it will be before troops go from being an occupation force to just being based there, but either way we will have troops there for a decade or probably more.
No significant WMD? Well, very narrowly he has a point. We have not found WMD. Yet. Krugman could still fall on this point. Yet we know Saddam had the ability, raw materials, and the track record—a pattern, dare I say it—of WMD use. He could weaponize chemical weapons rather quickly I think. Nukes and bugs would have taken years but we were pretty sure this was true prior to the war for the former and unsure on the latter. But Saddam would have had them all in due time if we did not invade.
The al Qaeda-Iraq link seems to get stronger, not weaker, as reports from Iraq come out. Yet this is far more than the administration claimed. Krugman refutes direct Iraqi support for al Qaeda that the administration did not claim. Krugman also ignores non-al Qaeda terrorists that Saddam supported.
As for militarily significant help, who other than the British could put a full division into the field beside us? The British are the only militarily meaningful support available for distant intervention, other than France . And their Persian Gulf War help was still fairly minor. We clearly did just fine without them this round, thank you. As for post-war help, once we get the UN okey dokey, French, German, and Indian troops will follow, I dare say. Iraqi contracts will beckon once a UN fig leaf is in place. Krugman says the administration's alleged "corruption" will make it more difficult to deal with real threats. He says North Korea is a real threat. Is he suggesting that South Korea will not help us if the North invades them? Is he suggesting that anybody else would but for the Iraq War? Who? I want names and unit IDs. Also note that Krugman accepts that North Korea is a threat right now based on pretty uncertain intelligence reports. Why does he snap up the North-has-nukes claim yet blast the administration for accepting the universally agreed upon assessment that Iraq had WMD? Is Krugman right or part of a pattern of corrupt deception on North Korea ?
How did we get into this mess? The case of the bogus uranium purchases wasn't an isolated instance. It was part of a broad pattern of politicized, corrupted intelligence.
Krugman asserts that the uranium story was part of a pattern, lightly glossing over the question of whether the claim is even a deception! It was an error—maybe. The British still stand by the claim. Even if wrong, all it was was an error. What corrupted intelligence is he talking about? We accepted the UN's assessment of what was not accounted for and demanded an accounting. That we and the UN differed on what should be done about Iraq is not the same as corrupting intelligence. Was the Clinton administration corrupt for relying on the same intelligence in deciding what to do in 1998?
Literally before the dust had settled, Bush administration officials began trying to use 9/11 to justify an attack on Iraq. Gen. Wesley Clark says that he received calls on Sept. 11 from "people around the White House" urging him to link that assault to Saddam Hussein. His account seems to back up a CBS.com report last September, headlined "Plans for Iraq Attack Began on 9/11," which quoted notes taken by aides to Donald Rumsfeld on the day of the attack: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
More drivel. Who the heck are people "around" the White House? Usually that refers to unwashed bongo players playing with puppets and chanting. I take it at least that these people are not "in" the White House. Further, although I respect Clark and his difficult Kosovo War, why would the White House turn to possibly the only Democrat with that many stars? (And perhaps Krugman should ask did President Clinton hype the so-called genocide going on in Kosovo to justify war) How is this a smoking gun for deception, anyway? And even if true, the administration was up front all along that threats like Saddam had to be looked at in a new light after 9-11. I damn sure hope that planning to attack Iraq was going on long before 9-11 given what we knew about Iraq . Indeed, in 1998 we hit Iraq hard for four days of air strikes. Krugman acts like this Iraq threat thing came from nowhere. And once we lost 3,000 dead I sure am glad the first response was to go massive and clean up our enemies everywhere lest it happen again. Or does Krugman think a salvo of cruise missiles and a stern presidential "don't do that again" would have been the appropriate response to 9-11?
But an honest intelligence assessment would have raised questions about why we were going after a country that hadn't attacked us. It would also have suggested the strong possibility that an invasion of Iraq would hurt, not help, U.S. security.
An honest writer would note that Iraq did invade a friend and that the ceasefire required Iraq to carry out certain tasks to end the war formally. He'd have to admit the assassination attempt on former President Bush. He'd have to admit repeated Iraqi threats and actual attacks on US forces for years by the Iraqis. As for an attack hurting the US , that was raised often in the debate that Krugman claims this nation never had and his side lost—and our security is better now in my judgment. We have air and naval power freed up to take on the threat Krugman sees in North Korea . Iraq sure isn't a threat now. We are less "bogged down" in the Persian Gulf since we no longer need to be ready to project power to Kuwait quickly as we have for the last decade.
So the Iraq hawks set out to corrupt the process of intelligence assessment. On one side, nobody was held accountable for the failure to predict or prevent 9/11; on the other side, top intelligence officials were expected to support the case for an Iraq war.
He again alleges intel slants without saying what they are. Just the uranium non-flap. He actually complains that nobody connected the dots before 9-11 about that terror attack and that after 9-11 we connected dots about Iraq !
The story of how the threat from Iraq's alleged W.M.D.'s was hyped is now, finally, coming out. But let's not forget the persistent claim that Saddam was allied with Al Qaeda, which allowed the hawks to pretend that the Iraq war had something to do with fighting terrorism.
As Greg Thielmann, a former State Department intelligence official, said last week, U.S. intelligence analysts have consistently agreed that Saddam did not have a "meaningful connection" to Al Qaeda. Yet administration officials continually asserted such a connection, even as they suppressed evidence showing real links between Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia.
Iraq 's WMD were not hyped. Everybody, from us to the British to the French, assumed Saddam still had WMD since he had not accounted for all his WMD as the UN verified. He repeats the al Qaeda claim even though I don't recall the Iraq-al Qaeda link being hyped. There was some evidence of links but the White House played them down. Probably too much. The loudest voices were Krugman's ilk who shouted "NO LINK!" in an empty theater. What was said was that in light of what al Qaeda did to us, can we risk our safety relying on a faith that Saddam would not let terrorists use WMD he developed? Krugman may disagree that the answer is "no, we cannot risk that" but that is not deception. Does Krugman really claim to have that much faith in Saddam? And do we really want to rest all of our safety on State Department intel officers? Why are they uniquely qualified to offer unbiased analysis? Finally, you have to know that if we ever target Saudi Arabia , Krugman will be there arguing it is unjust. Or unwise. Or something. Saudi Arabia is a problem, there is no doubt. But should we have done everything at once? Let's not tackle all our problems at once for God's sake.
And during the run-up to war, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, was willing to provide cover for his bosses — just as he did last weekend. In an October 2002 letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, he made what looked like an assertion that there really were meaningful connections between Saddam and Osama. Read closely, the letter is evasive, but it served the administration's purpose.
Not evasive. Just recognizing the gray areas in intelligence. It was all gray before 9-11, so would Krugman now change his mind about the failure to get all alarmist about distant, poor Afghanistan which had no WMD at all?
What about the risk that an invasion of Iraq would weaken America's security? Warnings from military experts that an extended postwar occupation might severely strain U.S. forces have proved precisely on the mark. But the hawks prevented any consideration of this possibility. Before the war, one official told Newsweek that the occupation might last no more than 30 to 60 days.
Who said 30-60 days? And why is this one voice the voice of authority? Sure, in a perfect world that might be true. So what? One official said this. How many more said years? How many said months? How many said we simply can't know? We simply did not know for sure. We still don't. I never expected suburban bliss immediately after Saddam fell. Is the Army strained? Yes. It just fought a war and still watches North Korea plus the Balkans and Afghanistan demand attention. The proper solution to a too-small Army is to enlarge it and not just avoid using it to defeat our enemies! And again, defeating Iraq means at least our Navy and Air Force are freed up for North Korea . In time, with allied and Iraqi help, our forces in Iraq will transition from occupation duty to garrison duty. In time, people. It's only been three month.
It gets worse. Knight Ridder newspapers report that a "small circle of senior civilians in the Defense Department" were sure that their favorite, Ahmad Chalabi, could easily be installed in power. They were able to prevent skeptics from getting a hearing — and they had no backup plan when efforts to anoint Mr. Chalabi, a millionaire businessman, degenerated into farce.
So??? Let the Iraqis decide. If we installed Chalabi over the objections of the Iraqis, would Krugman applaud this? So some Pentagon people hoped he would be acclaimed by the people of Iraq ? He has not been so far. He may be elected in the future. He may never be. So what? The point is that the Iraqis can choose. Only Saddam could boast 100% voter support.
So who will be held accountable? Mr. Tenet betrayed his office by tailoring statements to reflect the interests of his political masters, rather than the assessments of his staff — but that's not why he may soon be fired. Yesterday USA Today reported that "some in the Bush administration are arguing privately for a C.I.A. director who will be unquestioningly loyal to the White House as committees demand documents and call witnesses."
Not that the committees are likely to press very hard: Senator Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, seems more concerned about protecting his party's leader than protecting the country. "What concerns me most," he says, is "what appears to be a campaign of press leaks by the C.I.A. in an effort to discredit the president."
So is Tenet a Bush lackey who will alter intelligence to suit the President or a threat who will betray Bush? Doesn't the act of being a lackey make it more likely Tenet will side with Bush to avoid getting nailed himself for the alleged dirty deed? And if Congress will not investigate hard anyway, as Krugman alleges, why would Tenet need to be fired? And why shouldn't Roberts be concerned that ridiculous assertions are being made to discredit our president—not party leader? This mish mash of mutually contradictory allegations is head-spinning in its sheer silliness.
In short, those who politicized intelligence in order to lead us into war, at the expense of national security, hope to cover their tracks by corrupting the system even further.
I just knew Krugman wouldn't disappoint me when he returned. Slanted, politicized, corrupted work he knows, alright. He clearly writes what he knows.
Max Boot has a good column. For the record, I didn't savage President Clinton for his attack on the Sudan pharmaceutical plant and gave him the benefit of the doubt that his intel said it was a poison gas plant.
If we can get beyond this ridiculous lying charge maybe we can debate the real question of how we gather and interpret intelligence. I still want to know why we thought Saddam had chemical weapons ready to fire. That is important to know. But it might only provide useful information that can save American lives rather than provide another club to beat the administration.
I really need to just skip reading Krugman. Complete time suck. This time for sure, I swear.
"This is Torquing Me Off" (Posted July 15, 2003)
The Department of Homeland Security is going after child predators. I guess the kids don't need to be protected from terrorists. Reynolds whacks the move, though I am not sure whether a stand-alone department is a bad idea. Yet doesn't this argue for disbanding the department now that terror has receded behind child abuse as a threat?
Honestly, this is so dumb on so many levels that I don't know what to say.
If—no, when—there is another terror attack on our shores, Ridge will have some explaining to do as to why resources were devoted to this law enforcement rather than securing our homeland.
"Partisan Folly" (Posted July 15, 2003)
The descent into partisan fury over the non-issue of the African uranium comment is a disgrace for the anti-war left. When they charge lying on such a simple issue of a perhaps incorrect intelligence "bit" out of a sea of damning evidence against Saddam, they make it difficult to have any reasoned disagreement over foreign policy. They kill their credibility in my eyes. As this author noted:
In short, the overheated rhetoric about the 16 words concerning Saddam's shopping sprees in Africa tucked into the State of the Union's lengthy discussion of his WMD programs amounts to much ado about not very much. Actually, it is rank partisanship of the most unseemly kind.
This does not bode well for the country's reaction to the next terror attack on our shores—and it will come. With partisan attacks that claim civil liberties are being destroyed in the fight against terror at the same time those critics claim the US is not doing enough to fight terror, I expect the worst. I do not believe our country will rally after the next attack. The far left, which has taken over the national Democratic party, will see such a disaster as just another club with which to beat the President. That is shameful.
If the opposition wants their dissent to be taken seriously (or do they prefer their mock oppressed dissident shtick?), they have a responsibility to be sane dissenters. We need debate on our policies and the shrill attacks on this issue are irresponsible.
"Bastille Day" (Posted July 14, 2003)
Ok, I got my (somewhat) cheap shot out of the way. I do extend thanks to the French for their work with us in Afghanistan. And I wish them luck in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I am not sure what France and America are anymore. But enemies we are not as long as we can still fight together in regions we see common interests.
But I am baffled that Paris opposes us in areas that seem self-evidently common. I hope we can be allies once again. On their day, I'll leave it at that.
"German Leads Tanks Through Paris" (Posted July 14, 2003)
On this Bastille Day:
In a gesture of European unity, a German general headed France's Bastille Day military parade Monday for the first time.
French citizens promised the general full cooperation, so I've heard.
Well, it isn't actually the first time a German has led tanks through Paris to unify the continent. I can understand why the tanks were festooned with French flags.
I'm just saying.
"Not Just Targets" (Posted July 14, 2003)
Again from strategypage.com, confirmation that our troops are dishing it out big time in those clashes in Iraq:
Attacks on American troops are increasing, with some 25 "serious incidents" a day in central Iraq, where nearly all the attacks take place. Most of these do not produce any American casualties, but do result in attackers being captured or killed. Interrogations of the prisoners indicates that there is an organized program by Baath party members to create disorder and discontent so that Baath can again take control. American troops are setting up traps and ambushes for the attackers. A growing network of informers is providing more information on the location of Baath party fighters, and plans for future attacks. This kind of combat is something the troops do train for, consisting of combat patrols and ambush missions.
Those captured provide information. Keep it up, Army.
"Cubans Jamming Our Transmissions to Iran" (Posted July 14, 2003)
Funny how the thugs cooperate.
US government officials, Iranian-American expatriates and communications satellite operators confirm that all US-based satellite broadcasts to Iran were being jammed out of Cuba. Loral Skynet operates the Telstar-12 satellite used by the broadcasters, which was being effected by jamming probably emanating from "the vicinity of Havana, Cuba." Cuba's main electronic eavesdropping base, at Bejucal, is about 32 kilometers outside of the Cuban capital.
Almost axis-like, one might say.
Honestly, you'd think the Cubans would welcome a US-Iran showdown. Then Castro could crack down hard on dissidents again, just like he did during the Iraq War.
But with Iran supplying Cuba with oil, Castro may think he is running out of patrons to keep him afloat.
Squeeze that SOB Castro.
"Trained Terrorists" (Posted July 14, 2003)
A Congressional probe says Al Qaeda has trained 70,000 to 120,000 terrorists and that some are here.
Hogwash. Lots of kids go to Space Camp but that doesn't mean America has 200,000 trained astronauts.
I bet most of the al Qaeda wannabees went for the thrill and the ability to boast to the babes and friends that they are tough guys ready to do battle with the Great Satan just as soon as Osama gives the word. If even one percent are really committed enough to fight, I'll be surprised. I don't mean to under-estimate the threat. It is real and we must kill and capture them. But if true, the world is really doing a great job of hunting them and stopping attacks. I guess we haven't angered the world that much over the Iraq War.
Also, if true, we better strengthen the USA PATRIOT Act to prevent the faux hawks from arguing we have "lost focus" on the war on terror. But the critics complain about that act, too. I keep forgetting that their definition of fighting the war on terror means more federal money for mass transit in San Francisco.
Few of the purported trained terrorists will accept our President's challenge to bring 'em on, I dare say.
"Iraq and the Future" (Posted July 14, 2003)
Peters is optimistic. Babbitt is worried. What to think?
I think Peters is right to be an optimist. He points out many big trends going our way. Babbitt is right to point out problems but he is too focused on the problems here and now and fails to have some faith that we will adapt and drive on. If all the things he says are problems (and they are, I concede) remain problems then yes, we could fail. But I do not see that happening.
But good things are happening. A governing council of Iraqis is up and running:
The council includes 13 Shiites, five Kurds, five Sunnis, one Christian and one Turkoman. Three members are women. Shiites make up a 60 percent majority of Iraq's 24 million population, but they have never ruled the country and suffered deeply under Saddam's minority Sunni government.
The UN representative's reaction was noted:
Sergio Vieira de Mello, the U.N. special representative to Iraq, called the day "historic," and said the country was "moving back to where it rightfully belongs, at peace with itself and a member of the community of nations."
Indeed it is historic. And so soon after the fall of Saddam.
Good governance, security, and economic opportunity must be created in Iraq.
Being optimistic does not mean one sticks your head in the sand. Yet problems do not mean failure. I am shocked that so many people who opposed the war are eager to surrender now. I guess defeat for us and misery for Iraqis is better than working for success and admitting error.
We are winning. The Iraqis, too, for that matter.
"Reservist Burdens" (Posted July 14, 2003)
Latest Army magazine issue (July) has a letter to the editor from me. Hey, it is printed and widely distributed.
Col. Baumgarten,
in his letter (May), ignores the main point of examining the proper
role of the reserve components. Obviously, when a reservist is called
up, his duty is to salute and show up. I don’t believe anybody is
arguing that even multiple call-ups relieve an individual soldier of the
duty and obligation to put on the uniform and deploy; but to dismiss
this issue as frivolous is hardly intellectual grumbling.
For
citizen-soldiers who have civilian careers (remember, they chose reserve
duty and not active duty), failure to address the issue of repeated
call-ups is to refuse to face a real problem, for even though these
soldiers will continue to show up, when it comes time to sign on the
dotted line for another term of service, frequent deployment will
absolutely be a factor in their decision.
I signed up for the
Army National Guard in 1987 because I felt that my place was with the
Army if the Soviets decided that they were going to roll through the Fulda
Gap. In that era, calling up the reserves was a big deal. Short of a
major conventional war, I didn’t expect to be called up for anything
other than a bad snow storm. I don’t think I would have joined if I
thought that I would likely be called away from my chosen civilian life
to serve in a peacekeeping mission or occupation duty every few years
because the active component was too small to do the job.
Reservists
should not be cheap day laborers called up for the dirty jobs and then
sent home to rest up (at low pay) for the next peacekeeping rotation.
They get the worst of both worlds: interruptions of their civilian
career and the poorer compensation and military opportunities of the
military reserves. If reservists are going to be sent off at the same
pace as full time soldiers (who get full time pay and benefits), why
will reservists continue to sign on the dotted line?
In my view,
many of the current mobilizations are a reminder of why units properly
in the reserves during the Cold War should now be in the active
component. The War on Terror is a different environment and an Army
active/reserve balance designed for the Cold War has not been updated
for the post-Cold War world, let alone the age of terrorism. The active
Army needs to be larger with more of what are currently reserve
functions on active duty. I’m not sure what is so unclear about that.
That was the point I believe Maj. Faith made in his letter.
BRIAN J. DUNN
Ann Arbor, Mich.
I do worry about the Army. It is stretched taut. Who will join the reserves when it is a full time job?
Given my lame writing-for-publication habits since I started this blog, I'll take it.
"Cosmic Justice?" (Posted July 13, 2003)
Let me just note that I think my office will be taking on an intern from France. I swear I will try to be polite to her. It would help if we weren't under a pay freeze. It would help if I could drink at lunch. Shoot, it would only help if she was Iranian or North Korean.
God truly has a sick sense of humor.
"Of Course, Carter Favors Intervening in Liberia" (Posted July 13, 2003)
Former President Carter favors intervening in Liberia. Hey, he already has the Peace Prize so I guess he is free to be a warmonger now. What else to think of a man who lauded the pre-chaos minority government of the Amero-Liberians who Lorded it over the unwashed local tribes. But they were Baptist like Carter, so I guess it was ok.
For an opinion piece advocating intervention, he spends precious little time saying why we should go in. He provides a pointless historical summary that includes noting, "The Carter Center adopted Liberia as one of its peace efforts in Africa, and I began visiting the country in 1990, working closely with the Economic Community of West African States and its military arm." What a shock, a country adopted by Carter gets worse. And they were such peaceful people according to Carter. What is it about Carter that inspired them to hack people to bits? Didn't they know how much he cared? Yet Carter boasts:
As the prime monitors, we encouraged a liberal interpretation of voter registration, and there were no disputes among the candidates about this procedure.
Carter Center monitors visited polling sites throughout Liberia on Election Day in July 1997, and were impressed with the overwhelming commitment to peace and democracy. Rosalynn and I began our day at a large open-sided shed near the capital, and we had tears in our eyes when we saw people, overwhelming numbers of registered voters, lined up in the dark, in a steady rain, long before the polls opened. At the end of the day, Charles Taylor received about 75 percent of the total vote -- because of strong support of people whom he had dominated in the rural areas and because others in Monrovia felt that he might resort to violence if he lost.
That's nice. No care for voter fraud. No care for voter intimidation. No care that a psycho won. He freaking cried because people went through the motions of voting. He winds up by asserting that we can intervene because Taylor says he will leave. Carter trusts this thug will keep his word.
If I had any small doubts that intervening in Liberia is a bad idea, Carter just ended them.
I could cry that this man was our president.
"Links" (Posted July 11, 2003)Interesting stuff on bin Laden-Saddam link. I think the limbs on which the anti-war side had climbed out will all be sawed off in time.
"African Uranium" (Posted July 11, 2003)
I can hardly wait for Krugman to get back from vacation and write on the non-issue of the so-called 'Bush lied' story. You just know it will be completely ill-informed and Rall-like.
"Liberia and Iraq" (Posted July 11, 2003)
I still think intervening in Liberia is folly. But if we go in, we should exact a price in UN and world support for our efforts in Iraq. I hate to make such a deal but a short entry of Marines to gain UN approval may be worth it.
Hey, just wondering why the African elite is so upset over our overthrowing Saddam's brutal regime. Were the African elite upset that Tanzania overthrew Idi Amin's regime in Uganda n 1979, fought regime holdouts until they were defeated, and remained in Uganda for two years to ensure a post-Amin Uganda less nutso and threatening? Just wondering.
If we go in, Marine snipers should shoot the SOB Taylor on day one. If he doesn't leave by then, boom. We don't need that psychopath playing games.
Oh, and I appreciate the commentary on my complaint that "peace" protesters can always support some war--as long as it has absolutely no bearing on American security interests. Such peaceniks are willing to let American soldiers be targets but will send them off to the ICC if they harm one cannibalistic, raping thuglet hopped up on whatever the locals consume to get high. Even Dean wants us to go into Liberia. I guess we gave peace enough of a chance...
"We Hate You! Now Help Us" (Posted July 10, 2003)
I don't know why only Ivory Coast has taken up with a French name. The whole blighted continent is apparently afflicted with the French disease:
President Bush received a cool reception today in the capital of Africa's largest economic power, as opinion leaders here and across the continent complained about his policies on Iraq, AIDS and the International Criminal Court.
Bush has come to this long-struggling region with the promise of billions of dollars for development, disease-fighting and counter-terrorism efforts, and he carries the prestige of making only the third sub-Saharan Africa tour by a U.S. president. But Africans have responded with anti-Bush demonstrations, diplomatic snubs and critical media coverage.
I'm honestly tempted to just tell them to take care of their own damned problems, but their foolish attitudes are no reason to abandon doing what is right and in our interests. The whole continent cannot be written off.
But send our troops to risk their lives when the ICC is high on African leaders' complaints? On this one—screw 'em. Let's provide support and advice—like don't let your troops hurt anyone lest they get hauled before the ICC on trumped up charges—but stay out of Liberia. We should choose between warring thugs? I think not.
"Iran" (Posted July 10, 2003)
Bloody threats and oppressive tactics kept the Iran protests to containable size.
Over here, sympathy protests failed to attract the attention of ANSWER, Amnesty International, Jesse Jackson, or any of the other committed protesters devoted to peace and justice.
No human shields for the Iranian protesters either, I guess.
Instapundit put it well:
NOT MUCH BIG-MEDIA ATTENTION FOR THE IRANIAN PROTESTS:
Nothing on the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post (the web editions, anyway), though they do have stories inside here (Times) and here (Post). Nothing on the BBC homepage, either, though there is a front-page story on the funeral arrangements for the conjoined twins. (Inside, there's a story on how the Iranian press has "reluctantly complied" with the Mullarchy's demands to downplay the story. What's everybody else's excuse?)
The Los Angeles Times does link, though not headline, this story on its web edition's front page.
Question: If there were protests against the United States of this size in Iraq, would they get bigger play? If the United States repressed them with equivalent violence and "disappeared" the leaders, would it get more attention?
Some questions answer themselves
There is time yet for Iranians to seize the moment and overthrow the thugs. I do not believe we will stand by and let Iran get nuclear weapons. Before the Air Force and special forces go in to destroy the facilities, the Iranians need to pull their country back from the edge of the mullah-constructed abyss.
"Oh Yeah" (Posted July 10, 2003)
Sometimes when you are involved in following a debate you forget the obvious. Namely, the issue of whether the President used a lie to get us into war when he stated in his State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy Uranium from Africa. Sure, this is ridiculous, but one gets bogged down in a discussion of who knew what and what intel really is (and isn't).
Then Lt. Smash, who only recently heard of the issue, chimes in with some needed perspective borne from relative isolation:
You see, I wasn’t home that night[of the SOTU address]. I was here in the Sandbox, busy getting ready for war. A war, I might add, for which I had been actively preparing for two months. A conflict which had been debated—and authorized—in the United States Congress last October.
Duh. What was I thinking? Yes, the war had already been authorized by Congress and the UN Security Council had already declared that some sort of severe non-French consequences would flow from failing to abide by past UNSC resolutions.
One fact in Saddam's litany of crimes was wrong—period. And asserted after the decision for war was made.
Feel silly for missing the bloody obvious on this one.
"Iraqi Casualties" (Posted July 9, 2003)
I read that we are deliberately not reporting Iraqi casualties in clashes to avoid body count syndrome. I feel better now. Perhaps the ROE aren't that bad.
"Arrested for NOT Protesting" (Posted July 9, 2003)
Student leaders in Iran announced planned protests are cancelled and are arrested (or is the right word "kidnapped" given that vigilantes did the work?) by the regime anyway. Looks like no crisis today, but this incident will perhaps be a lesson to those who resist the Tehran thugreocracy: when you strike a king, kill him.
"Iran" (Posted July 9, 2003)
Today is supposed to be a day of protests in Iran. The regime is working overtime to make sure it doesn't happen. Don't know which way it will go.
I have no real stories or insights today (no comments on that one, please) on Iran's situation. But it is so different than fifteen years ago when I was in Army basic training. Then, one of our marching songs was about Khomeini and Iran. Specifically the Army's role in smashing that psycho country up. It seemed that every Iranian child was taught to yell "Death to America!" when the cameras were turned on. I was in basic training when U.S.S. Vincennes shot down the Iranian Airbus. Everyone seemed to think we were going to be shipped off to war. I knew it was hooey but to young basic trainees who didn't know the difference between being a real soldier and just wearing the uniform, it seemed all too plausible. Anyway, fifteen years later we watch as Iranians like America and desperately want to get rid of their psycho regime.
I hope they succeed. I hope we help them. I hope our troops can stop learning ditties about an evil Iran.
"Breakup?" (Posted July 9, 2003)
Is China poised to break up, with the Communists finally collapsing? Is this what the Hong Kong demonstrations mean?
I've had no means to decide whether I think China will be a superpower or collapse into smaller states. Both could be very bad, though I'd rather have the latter—I think—if I had to choose between only those two options. The recent Chinese conclusion that they lack the logistics to invade North Korea (now where did I read that? Darn) is comforting since a Chinese lunge at Taiwan to bolster a cracking government should fail. If overland is too much, by sea and air—in the face of US assistance to Taiwan—should be beyond the Chinese. The PLA might be ordered to do so anyway, but failure would accelerate collapse.
All very interesting. We may have wanted a Chinese democratic constituency to develop in China but the Chinese fight freedoms at every turn, shutting down web sites and organizations, arrests, etc. But at the same time the Chinese government brought democracy advocates in themselves when they took over Hong Kong. I feared China would smother Hong Kong given time. I wonder if time will be enough for that sad end. It would be delightful if this Trojan Horse infected China with democracy.
"Bring 'em On?" (Posted July 8, 2003)
I have no problem with the President's self-assured statement of confidence in our soldiers to smash our enemies. I welcome it. (The line was repeated by Franks in his departing comments! Good job, Tommy, we'll miss you. Our enemies won't, sadly) What the loyal opposition is even talking about when they complain about this is beyond me—we are fighting a war, ya know. Jeez, I suppose Churchill's admittedly more eloquent "Fight them on the beaches" swagger would not have gone over well with the quagmirists, either. But when the Islamists and Baathist come to fight, how do we crush them with only confidence? Apparently, we have trouble shooting back. This would explain my nagging wonder at why the news doesn't report on enemy casualties very often in the ambushes. Doesn't mean there aren't any, of course, but still, makes me wonder. This from strategypage.com:
Marine and Army troops in Iraq are upset over Rules of Engagement (ROEs) being implemented by Army commanders. While Marines are allowed to carry their weapons, both rifles and machine-guns, ready to use, Army units, especially non-combat ones (including Military Police) are being increasingly restrictive rules regarding the use and handling of weapons. Unlike the Marines, Army convoys do not display any weapons, making it appear as if the convoy is unarmed. For the Marines, this is madness. Marine convoys bristle with weapons, making it clear what will happen if anyone should be so foolish as to attack them. Army MPs are under orders not to handle their machine-guns while on roadblock duty unless they received orders from their headquarters. Army troops are allowed to carry only two M-16 magazines, the rest being kept locked up. Marines are incredulous when they encounter this. Since Marines and Army troops control adjacent sectors, there is ample opportunities for troops from the two services to run into each other and compare notes. It has not gone unnoticed by American troops, or the Iraqis that are attacking them, that nearly all the Americans attacked are Army troops. The Army ROEs tell the Iraqis that Army troops are an easier targets, equipped with an ROE that also serves as a virtual placard saying "shoot me, I have a hard time shooting back."
Yes, I know, some green rear echelon types might spray a school with fire if they take fire from the general area. We want to avoid that, but can't we at least let the MPs and combat troops stay locked and loaded—and look it? Speak softly and carry a big stick, remember? By all means be warm and fuzzy on patrol and don't abuse the locals, but be loaded for bear and make those convoys look like a rolling Death Star for God's sake!
"Get the SOB" (Posted July 7, 2003)
Seriously, get Saddam. His personal fate was irrelevant during the war when simple lack of effective command and control was all we needed. But during rebuilding, we need to capture or, preferably, kill Saddam Hussein. People there are understandably afraid that they and their family could be the ones who put the mass graves body count over the 300,000 mark:
After weeks of jubilation over Hussein's ouster -- during which people here blithely lampooned him, toppled his statues and seized offices of his once-ruling Baath Party -- many Iraqis have become increasingly spooked that the former dictator and his loyalists are plotting a return to power. That concern has escalated in recent days with the release of a recorded message purportedly from Hussein as well as a surge in violent attacks against both U.S. troops and Iraqis who have cooperated with U.S. forces.
Get Saddam and the other top ranked Baathist thugs. Get the senior Baathists out of positions of power. We must not lose the assistance of the people in hunting down Saddam's people. We need information. The people provide it. Don't let the thugs shut that down or we could lose this fight. This has to be a non-Baathist Iraqi/US fight.
Not that I am worried. Things go well and it is early yet in the post-war phase. But it is a potential problem.
"Steady, Lads" (Posted July 7, 2003)
No more US troops are needed for Iraq. Period. Too many people who thought a small number of troops could enforce intrusive inspections; who believed the war would be a bloody stalemate and then defeat, are arguing for more troops now.
I want the US troops out of the house searching business. Sure, comments about our "cultural insensitivity" are fairly ridiculous. I doubt the 290,000 people dumped in mass graves under Saddam's regime got there after the death squads made a proper entrance. And if they did, does that make the slaughter culturally sensitive? Remember, too, that these complaints seem to come from the Saddam strongholds west of Baghdad. They may well have not been subjected to such behavior when they were top dogs (excuse the culturally insensitive "dog" reference), but I bet they didn't complain about the insensitivity to the Kurds or Shias—or Anti-Saddam Sunnis. Finally, if the opponents of the US didn't use their homes to hide weapons, I'd honor their homes more.
More to the point, our troops don't like doing this police work. Get Iraqis doing this work as soon as possible. The world's finest soldiers shouldn't be doing this kind of work. Spoils the training, don't you know.
With lots more troops, we'd have a vicious cycle of having an oppressive presence on every street that incites Iraqis and more targets for angry Iraqis to hit. We'd have more chances to lash out blindly in frustration and increase Iraqi anger.
The bottom line is that I don't believe the press impressions that we are just sitting on our butts getting attacked are true. Offensive missions are taking place. And the fact that we aren't reading about them is good. Special forces and intel are scouring Iraq for Baathists, without a doubt. As long as the offensive is out of the media, it will not incite Iraqis. Unfortunately, the perennial panickers get all nervous, too. By all means, bring in allies and train Iraqis to get our troops off the patrols and checkpoints. They are targets. But let's give this time.
We don't need more troops and they would be counter-productive if sent.
"Gut Check" (Posted July 7, 2003)
We are facing another gut check in our counter-offensive against nuclear terrorism. Iran's July 9th commemoration is coming and we must push the mullahs out. Iraq must be pacified. Al Qaeda must be pursued. Moslem governments that harbor terrorists must be made to see the light or be destroyed. (North Korea would be a stand-alone problem but for the fear they will be the ones to sell whackos a nuke)
The first counter-attack and gut check came on September 11.
The Islamists thought that America would run screaming in fear to Canada if our military, economic, and political pillars were attacked. But our first counter-attack in the war took place in the skies over Pennsylvania by the passengers of Flight 93. Not fearful, but complacent, Americans were galvanized by the collapse of the Twin Towers.
Our second campaign destroyed the lair of the regime that harbored the terrorists and destroyed the base that bin Laden had created.
The third campaign destroyed Saddam's death machine before it could turn our nightmares into nuclear reality.
In all three, we must fight to preserve our gains even as we move forward in a fourth campaign. But the next is critical. We cannot rest, basking in our achievements thus far. The campaigns have been victorious but the war is not yet won.
Iran's mullahs must go. They have tested a 810-mile-range missile, indicating that Iraq was hardly Iran's sole focus and reason for WMD dreams. Stop them before they get the nuclear warhead for their missile.
The Iranian people must be supported. We are in the fourth campaign, right now. Fight it.
"Post-War Rebuilding" (Posted July 7, 2003)
Interesting stuff here on post-World War II Germany.
One notion I've read about is that our pristine war is harming post-war stability operations. Having not witnessed first-hand the destruction of their army and neighborhoods, Iraqis are less inclined to cooperate, the argument goes. The idea that Iraqis were not really "defeated" in their hearts because of the focused nature of the war is bull. We smashed up Germany pretty good and they still had lots of good Nazis pining for glory days after the war. I'm not saying we can't fail, but it is early—this will take years.
"Focus on Africa" (Posted July 5, 2003)
We are focusing more of our military and intelligence assets on Africa. The fear is that al Qaeda will take advantage of weak central governments to create new bases as we shut the terrorists down in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
In a sense this is prudent. European-based units can be useful in African missions (as I argue in a forthcoming article on United States Army Europe). However, not all chaos is a threat to our security. Not all failed states must be set right with our troops. Most will be tragedies, to be sure, but we cannot intervene militarily everywhere to create suburban bliss. Assistance to African countries with AIDS prevention, training their militaries and police and courts, improving their economies, and sharing intelligence, must be the primary focus with US troops intervention a rarity to stomp al Qaeda or save a pro-West regime.
Rotating light infantry, Stryker teams and task forces, and special forces through African countries, and Marine Expeditionary Units sailing off of West Africa (and off of East Africa on occasion, too, since Persian Gulf deployments probably aren't necessary with the US in control of Iraq). Really, MEUs patrolling the Med. aren't really useful anymore. Europe-based Army units can probably be airlifted in for many missions the Marines used to handle in the Med region.
Certainly, intervening in Liberia will signal this new focus. And new basing agreements and deployment patterns will follow regardless of the Liberia decision. Tugged by history and believing we can stay for a short time with a MEU only, we probably will lead a force in. I hope we get out soon.
We just don't have enough horses for another mission that does not defend vital interests. Liberia is a luxury. I hope we can afford it.
"Reservists" (Posted July 4, 2003)
One thought on making modern reserve duty more acceptable when frequent call-ups are the rule: Pay them more. Different soldiers with the same rank get paid different amounts as it is what with bonuses, housing and family allowances, hardship posts, and whatever else. Why not pay reservists called up what they earn in their civilian career, if more than their military pay? You could set caps for different military jobs. Doctors, nurses, and pilots could get the most and clerk-typists the least. Or if not direct pay, pay their mortgage for the duration. More expensive, yes; but it keeps needed troops on the payroll and makes deployment less of a worry financially. Is it really better to keep training new people and losing experience?
"Liberia" (Posted July 4, 2003)
Well, it looks like we will go into Liberia. Historic ties are trumping common sense. Although some critics of the administration say that Afghanistan and Iraq already show that the US is willing to get into the nebulous world of nation-building, this mis-states the issue. In Afghanistan and Iraq, we defeated the governments and are rebuilding them. The nation-building critique was about getting involved in the middle of a civil war and trying to forge a nation with a peacekeeping attitude that doesn't want any side to win. This is the problem in Liberia. All sides are pretty sickening and although the people are caught in the middle and hope a superpower America can solve their problems, we cannot:
If U.S. troops go ashore in Liberia, their task will be to end a civil war that has defied years of mediation efforts, devastated one of Africa's most prosperous countries and been marked by atrocities committed by all sides.
No side that holds actual power is even close to being acceptable, really. And we are supposed to choose, apparently. The best hope is that we can turn this nightmare over to the UN and the regional states before we lose too many troops. For the "peace protesters" here, all I ask is that when our troops have to shoot to kill, try not to complain too much. This is their kind of war after all, a feel good nothing to do with our interests mission. The peaceniks owe it to the troops to stand by them.
Godspeed. Marines could be in a position to move in about a week or so.
"WMD Analysis" (Posted July 3, 2003)
Well, so far another "Bush Lied" argument appears to be falling apart. Intel people did not change analysis under pressure from the administration:
Current, reliable information on Iraq (news - web sites)'s weapons efforts was sometimes lacking but U.S. intelligence analysts did not exaggerate their findings under pressure from Bush administration officials trying to build a case for war, says Richard Kerr, who is heading the intelligence community's internal review of its prewar performance on Iraq.
Intel is a fuzzy business. I still want to know why we erred on the chemical weapons in firing condition question, but this is not a scandal. We did the right thing. We will find the WMD programs and, I bet, banned weapons.
"North Korea" (Posted July 3, 2003)
Seriously, there is a "red line" that we should not cross in pressuring North Korea. I think a formal rebuke by the UN would be a mistake. Don't let UN worship lead us to go this route in the name of appearing all nice and multi-lateral:
China and Russia sought today to delay a Security Council condemnation of North Korea's nuclear arms program, a day after a top North Korean general said any sanctions or blockades initiated by the United States would be considered a "complete breach" of the truce that ended hostilities on the peninsula 50 years ago.
The letter added that if the United States took such actions, the North Korean army would "immediately take strong and merciless retaliatory measures" and promised that "horrible disasters" would befall the South Korean population.
We are certainly in a better position now to defend South Korea should the North strike, but avoiding a war here is better than successfully fighting one if the North attacks. Second ID could be backed up by 25th ID and 1st Cavalry to create a corps for offensive operations. Plus a Marine division, too. Our air power is freed up again as is our Navy. These would be powerful forces to bolster the large and good quality Republic of Korea forces. Thank God we aren't still hovered around Iraq waiting for another Blix report.
Yet I feel that North Korea will crumble under pressure. It is a race against time to see if we can push them quietly over the edge without prompting them to roll the dice and attack south. Quietly pressure the North. Nothing so in their face as a UN condemnation.
This is touchy, people. We've got a psychopath in Pyongyang with a gun holding a lot of people hostage. Wait him out. He'll fall asleep eventually. Prepare for the head shot if it comes to that, of course, but let's be careful.
"Liberia" (Posted July 3, 2003)
The US is considering sending troops to Liberia. Sure, it doesn't seem like much:
Officials said they are considering sending 500 to 2,000 American troops, a number that will be determined after a decision is made about the force's precise mission.
But we have had to mobilize 200,000 reservists to maintain what we have deployed now. And I don't think this is a vital interest. Sure, it would be nice to do, if we had the luxury of peacetime, but now? I hope we aren't getting involved here to soothe the nervous types over our power. I suspect we intervened in Somalia to prove we'd risk troops for people without oil.
Now mind you, if we go in, I would never say we are morally wrong to intervene and that poor dictator Taylor is being victimized. Nor will I march with communists or national socialists who want to protest US actions. I won't even claim debate is being suppressed. (see, "peace" protesters can always back some military interventions) No, I will hope for the best and support completing the mission and getting out. All you bongo players out there take note.
I assume a Marine Expeditionary Unit (a reinforced battalion) will get the mission since 173rd AB brigade and the Rangers out of Europe are kind of busy now in Iraq.
"The Army Needs to Become Expeditionary?" (Posted July 3, 2003)
This article torques me off a bit. It starts out by noting the strain on our Army in this war:
Not only has the long, varied deployment been too much of a strain on the Army soldiers and their families, it’s also highly unusual for the Army or any service. Consider that when Navy personnel do tours overseas with their families for six months at a time, they do so only once every few years. Or that the Air Force tries to make sure that only two of its ten “air and space expeditionary forces” are deployed at any one time.
The recognition that the Army is too small is welcome. We need to enlarge the Army and place more combat support and combat service support units in the active component. We need more Military Police for stability and security operations to free up line combat units. But then the author takes a cheap shot:
Given the country’s post-Sept. 11 needs for warfighting and long-lasting stability operations, the days of the “garrison Army” may be behind us. The service needs to join the Navy, Air Force and Marines in becoming an “expeditionary force.”
Note that the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps plan for only a fraction of their forces to be ready at a moment's notice. The Army is expected to have all ten active divisions and the separate brigades ready to roll. The Army has never had the luxury of needing only 2 or 3 divisions combat ready. Further, the Army is really reliant on the Navy and Air Force to get it to the fight. Implying the Army is too slow is unfair.
The Army is going to get away from replacing individuals in units to building units and letting them train together. This Unit Manning Initiative will keep brigades together as teams to ensure better unit cohesion. This means that some units at the beginning of a cycle will not be combat ready as they bring in new troops and train up to standards. (see the Unit Manning Task Force for more) Of course, while making ready units better, we pay the price with unready units. We could use more divisional flags unless we do the Breaking the Phalanx concept of brigade combat teams. For my suggestion on more divisional flags, see my "The Path to the Future Army" in Military Review. (the editors garbled a couple sentences when they stripped supporting charts. See my corrected version here with the supporting graphics).
It's numbers, not a lack of expedionariness, or whatever.
The Navy and Air Force still have to get the Army to the fight. But that is out of the Army's hands.
"Iraqi Elections" (Posted July 1, 2003)
I have to agree that halting local elections in Iraq is a mistake. It's just putting them in charge of garbage collection and local stuff for God's sake. Don't give the Baathists a chance to say, "Hey, at least other Iraqis were in charge before the war!" Sure, they can't be put in charge of larger areas until de-Baathification is done and Saddam is dead, but let's start in the neighborhoods. Get the Iraqis involved, busy, and responsible for making their lives better.
"Malawi" (Posted July 1, 2003)
They really do need to start acting more like the "religion of peace." Malawi Moslems rioted because we got 5 al Qaeda killers out of their country. What a great thing to riot and attack Christians over. Seriously, they have a problem with turning over killers to receive justice? Even if they are really, really upset with the procedures, alleging not all the paperwork was in order, why would reasonable people attack Christians to make their point? I try to understand. I really do.
"Post-War Iraq" (Posted July 1, 2003)
Ralph Peters has an excellent essay on our success thus far in Iraq and the nonsensical complaints that elevate scattered attacks into a quagmire:
As one pal of mine serving in Iraq puts it, the attacks on U.S. forces are foolish acts of desperation. The last hardcore loyalists - those whose futures and fortunes were tied to Saddam - have recognized how unexpectedly smoothly the U.S. occupation has been going (Saddam's guys don't read the Western press, so they don't realize we're doomed to failure). And they're trying everything they can to disrupt things.
We shouldn't be surprised that the last embittered thugs are engaging in occasional acts of terrorism against us - on the contrary, we should be relieved that we see so little continuing resistance. After toppling a totalitarian regime that ruled a population of 25 million for over a generation, it's amazing that we face only one or two attacks every few days. We could be suffering hundreds of incidents daily, if the population stood behind Saddam & Co.
On our worst day last week, when two convoys came under attack, more than 600 other U.S. convoys didn't hear a single shot. Two patrols got into firefights. The other 500 patrols didn't even get hit with a water balloon.
Are the Iraqis "turning against us"? Bull. Our best sources of intelligence continue to be Iraqis who are glad the regime is gone and don't want it to come back in any way, shape or form.
I certainly agree we should keep the French out and should remain in control. Yet we should get other countries, and even the UN's non-political organizations, to work under our direction. Maintain control. Spread responsibility and the desire for success. We have a lot of work to do in Iraq and the world will not stop and wait for us while we focus on Iraq. (Like North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Colombia, Cuba, Palestinians, China, and let us not forget Afghanistan—it's a heck of a lot better than the Taliban days but promised aid is too slow, I think.)
And for goodness sake, get local elections going. And friendly television and radio, too, for that matter. And of course, Iraqi local police and light infantry. That will do for a start to get the Iraqis involved in and responsible for security so that rebuilding can occur.
But mostly, remember that the professional surrenderers have predicted failures and disasters many times since September 11.
We are winning, people.
