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."
Embedding Reporters (Posted December 31, 2003)
Listening to CNN tonight it is discouraging to hear Aaron Brown discuss the problem of embedding reporters with American units during the Iraq War. Heavens, the reporters got too close to the soldiers and learned to respect them and identify with them.
Imagine that. American reporters learned to respect American soldiers on a mission to destroy a monster to his own people and a threat to the American people.
This is a controversy amongst the media elite, apparently.
Yet I hear nothingzeroabout the reporters embedded in dictatorial regimes. No debate over the ethical and professional lapses of news organizations that refuse to report on what is happening in order to maintain their presence in the country.
After a couple stories about this problem, I hoped that there might be a debate on this problem.
In this new year, when we face foreign regimes that lie and kill, I hope that our news media will report the news and, if they are kicked out of some Third World hell hole, I hope they wear that as a badge of honor.
Happy New Year. May more victories follow in 2004.
Libyan Diplomacy (Posted December 31, 2003)
The diplomacy that so many credit Libya s coming clean on its WMD programs has been revealed:
U.S. and British intelligence services in late September discovered that a freighter bound for Libya was hauling thousands of parts for centrifuges, a key component for producing nuclear weapons, senior U.S. officials said Wednesday. Officials said the interception of the cargo, worth tens of millions of dollars, was a factor in squeezing Libya to give up its deadliest weapons programs.
Amazingly, some Americans (in State?) thought that intercepting equipment bound for Libya designed to create nukes might have interfered with Libya s heartfelt desire to stop building nuclear weapons:
Other U.S. officials, however, said they were concerned at the time that the seizure might undermine the attempt to win Libya's cooperation. "Quite the contrary. It could have derailed the effort," said a well-placed U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
I have to believe that only intensive training in the art of diplomacy can give this kind of insight.
Wild Card (Posted December 31, 2003)
We worry about Musharraf and what might happen if Islamists stage a coup in Pakistan and gain control of Pakistan s nuclear arsenal:
Administration officials would not discuss their contingency plans for Pakistan, but several said the White House was revisiting an effort begun just after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to help Pakistan improve the security of its nuclear arsenal and to prevent Al Qaeda or extremists within the Pakistani military or intelligence services from gaining access to the country's weapons and fissile material.
Right now, if the article is to be believed, a US military option to secure Pakistani nukes is somewhere between very hard and impossible.
Ideally, helping the Pakistanis secure their nuclear arsenal includes finding out where it is and creating plans to land Army paratroopers and Rangers, Marines, and special operations people to lift them out in case of chaos.
Wed need help from the friendly elements in the Pakistani army who likely dont want nukes in the hands of nutjobs.
But until we can push Pakistan to the rule of law and democracy while the Islamists are a small minority, this will be a worry.
And after, too, for that matter. Elections arent a cure-all for the problem of an Islamist coup. But it will keep the Islamists from posing as the champions of democracy.
Blowback (Posted December 31, 2003)
Sometimes people who criticize what we do like to pretend that blowback only affects America . First of all, I think the concept of blowback is overblown. All it is really saying is that actions have consequences that we cannot predict. Or inaction for that matter. Welcome to life.
The Saudis are experiencing some blowback for their support of Islamists. And the Islamists are helping the Saudis to decide to fight with us:
Islamic militants in Saudi Arabia with links to Al Qaeda appear to be making a concerted new effort to destabilize the Saudi government by assassinating top security officials, according to senior American officials.
It has taken some time to pull the Saudis into fighting what they have created, but we seemwith al Qaedas helpto be succeeding. I do believe we are far better off with this situation than having treated the Saudis as an enemy as some advocated in the aftermath of 9-11.
We must fight, negotiate, and persuade.
Pacifying Iraq (Posted December 31, 2003)
This author calls for a gentler approach. Sort of. He also recognizes that we must ruthlessly go after the fighters. He basically reflects my own instincts on what is going on. Counter-insurgency requires a low level of force as a police and intelligence operation. Heavy weapons ideally have no place in settled areas where innocents may be killed.
Yet we cant afford to let up on the enemy. Nor can we assume that Sunnis will take the opportunity to help us only based on our good works. We have a gentler approach in Kurdish and Shia areas. We tried to go easy on the Sunni areas at the end of July and were repaid with a resurgence of attacks on our forces.
We do seem to have eased up on heavy weapons. But until Sunnis show us that they are willing to work with us (and there are indications this is starting to happen) we cant drop the benefits that fear of us provide.
But it is a tough call for when and where to apply heavy force and when we can be gentle. Both can be necessary for victory and both can encourage resistance. I just dont know when to make that call.
Why Do They Hate Us (Posted December 30, 2003)
Hanson is good as usual. This time on the strangely parallel views of Islamists and Western intellectuals:
The so-called Arab street and its phony intellectuals sense that influential progressive Westerners will never censure Middle Eastern felonies if there is a chance to rage about Western misdemeanors. It is precisely this parasitic relationship between the foreign and domestic critics of the West that explains much of the strange confidence of those who planned September 11. It was the genius of bin Laden, after all, that he suspected after he had incinerated 3,000 Westerners an elite would be more likely to blame itself for the calamity searching for root causes than marshalling its legions to defeat a tribe that embraced theocracy, autocracy, gender apartheid, polygamy, anti-Semitism, and religious intolerance. And why not after Lebanon, the first World Trade Center bombing, the embassies in Africa, murder in Saudi Arabia, and the USS Cole? It was the folly of bin Laden only that he assumed the United States was as far gone as Europe and that a minority of its ashamed elites had completely assumed control of American political, cultural, and spiritual life.
Wrong indeed. It doesnt matter that the intellectuals hate us. It doesnt matter that the Islamists want to kill us.
We are on the march. And winning.
Bad call, Osama.
Missile Imports (Posted December 30, 2003)
The LA Times report (via Andrewsullivan.com with Drezner guest-blogging) on Iraqi weapons imports through Syria gives an amazing portrait of a state determined to get around the sanctions and another state determined to earn a place on the podium of the Axis of Evil.
But most interesting is the articles description of one December 2002 import:
A Polish company, Evax, signed four contracts with Iraq and successfully shipped up to 380 surface-to-air Volga/SA-2 missile engines to Baghdad through Syria. The last batch was delivered in December 2002, a month after the U.N. Security Council warned Iraq that it faced "serious consequences" if it continued to violate U.N. resolutions.
SAM-2 missile engines? Engines for obsolete anti-aircraft missiles? Missiles we learned how to dodge 30+ years ago. Good choice for the Iraqis if they wanted to resist our shock and awe, eh? The article just mentions this item with no context.
But wait, I think this isnt what it seems. The Iraqis used SAM-2 missile engines to build surface-to-surface missiles with ranges far exceeding that allowed by the ceasefire resolution:
Iraq attempted to convert the Volga/SA-2 anti-aircraft missile into the Al-Fahd-300, a 300 km range SRBM with an SA-2 engine and a solid-propellant booster. The project was reportedly abandoned in research and development.
In its resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, the Security Council decided that Iraq should unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and related major parts and repair and production facilities. The Fahd missiles were proscribed weapons with declared ranges of 300 or 500 kilometers.
The Iraqis wanted long-range missiles. Fancy that.
I suppose somebody is going to try to tell me Saddam wanted WMD, too.
A Mission for Retief (Posted December 30, 2003)
I like Powell, I really do. I have issues with State and I have some issues with the Secretary of State, but he is a diplomat. He will act differently than Rumsfeld.
So be it. But this story is just beyond parody. It reeks of the handbook for dignified surrender to aliens coupled with a good aid program followed by the Corps Diplomatique Terrestrienne. Check it out:
Iranian leaders have agreed to allow surprise inspections of the country's nuclear energy program, have made overtures to moderate Arab governments and, in the past week, have accepted direct U.S. help as the country struggles with the effects of a devastating earthquake.
This is significant in CDT-think. Powell actually thinks their willingness to accept our help is some breakthrough! Now thats a concession, eh! Theyll cash our check.
Pity the Iranian mullahs shot down this folly so quickly:
President Mohammad Khatami thanked the United States for aid but played down talk that Washington's contribution would thaw frosty relations.
At first, when I read some commentary that the Bam earthquake would work to de-legitimize the government, I scoffed. The reports said the government was actually reacting well in deploying resources. But this information makes me wonder. Although the Shah banned house construction on a known earthquake site:
The revolutionary turmoil of 1978-79 provided racketeers with an opportunity to seize large chunks of land in Bam and use it for poorly designed and badly constructed houses and shops. The racket was backed by a group of powerful mullahs who, in exchange for a cut in the proceeds, issued fatwas (religious opinions) that canceled government orders that banned house-building in the city.
The mullahs claimed that the shah had wished to keep Bam empty because of a secret plan under which the city would be turned into a Zoroastrian center. They also dismissed warnings from the National Seismological Center in Tehran that opposed the repopulation of Bam. The mullahs claimed that the Hidden Imam would protect the new inhabitants of the city against all disasters.
Thus, more than half of those who died in the earthquake could be regarded as victims of a racket ran by mullahs and their associates with the help of religious prejudice and superstition.
Most Iranians knew nothing of the racket that the earthquake has exposed. The discovery that so many people died because cynical developers and bribe-taking mullahs sought a fast buck has sent a shock wave throughout the country.
Corruption by the mullahs is responsible for tens of thousands of dead? Could be rough on the mullahs. Sure hope so.
Tipping Point? (Posted December 29, 2003)
Some good trends reported here on the Iraq situation. Poorer quality weapons being found when we nail Baathists. Money seized. Leaders captured. Prices for lower quality attacks on US forces going up. This on top of the downward trend in attacks and friendly casualties that seemed to be developing even before Saddam was found.
The Baathist Sunnis are tiring, it seems.
I read or heard (I cant remember which) that some Sunni tribal leaders previously silent are publicly calling for cooperation with us as they react to Saddams capture. As Ive noted before, the Sunnis would probably rather deal with us than the Kurds and Shias in July 2004. They dont have a lot of time before they lose an opportunity to come on board the new Iraq .
The Islamists are another matter. Smaller in number yet fanatical, they need to be killed off. Iraqis can be a great help here.
North Koreans (Posted December 29, 2003)
We may or may not have new talks with the North Koreans over their nuclear ambitions. Yet there is this little perception problem:
A new round of talks were not mentioned in a tough statement transmitted from Pyongyang, the capital, on Monday by the North Korean news agency KCNA, which said that "this year the U.S. imperialists have escalated tensions on the Korean Peninsula, pursuant to a hostile policy towards" North Korea.
Referring to a series of international meetings, the statement said, "The U.S. has craftily worked to exploit those meetings for the settlement of the nuclear issue between [North Korea] and the U.S. as a leverage for attaining its sinister aim."
It concluded by saying that "all these facts go to prove once again that the [North Korean] government was just when it took the measure to build up its nuclear deterrent force this year . . . clearly seeing through the true aggressive nature of the U.S. imperialists."
Now Im not trained to be wise in the ways of diplomacy, but explain to me again why the North Koreans want a US guarantee that we wont attack them. Doesnt talk like this kind of undercut the value to them of our guarantees?
As far as Im concerned, we need to contain and squeeze the North Koreans until they collapse. Talks are just a means to keep them from launching a war to solve their internal problems.
Credit Where Credit is Due (Posted December 29, 2003)
All too often, the accomplishment of our Army and Marines in taking Baghdad in three weeks is ridiculed as expected against such a weak foe as Saddam. Of course, they also predicted disaster before and during the war, but no matter. Such critics are fools.
Our military is just plain freaking good, head and shoulders above our enemies:
The 23 day campaign to defeat Iraq in 2003 is now being examined by all the participants to determine what made the big difference. Researchers at the Army War College did a study, interviewing 176 participants (including Iraqis) and concluded that the major factors were the new technologies (GPS smart bombs and satellite communications like Blue Force tracker) and the much higher skill levels of coalition troops. The Iraqis had expected smart bombs, but they were unable to cope with the sheer speed of the advance and the fighting. And when the Iraqis fought, and they often did, and quite steadfastly, the better trained American troops just blew them away. The Iraqis were in shock from all this, and after about 20 days, resistance collapsed. The word got around that to fight the Americans was to die quickly. Nothing worked against them, and they would keep coming at you and kill you.
Victory is not our birthright and we have worked hard to win easy victories.
We need to keep working hard.
Chinese Invasion Intent (Posted December 29, 2003)
Im tardy in my part 2 on the Chinese invasion of Taiwan (See The Taiwan ShowdownPart I (Intentions) (Posted November 27, 2003 )). This Strategypage article reminds me to at least mention the issue for now:
If China attacked, it would be massive and quick, and the Taiwanese armed forces would have to be trained and equipped to deal with that kind of war. Chinese military leaders have been studying the wars of the last few decades, as well as China's extensive military history. America's ability to quickly muster and apply massive military power has been noted, as has the success of ancient Chinese generals in using the same approach and using surprise and deception as well.
Ive seen it bandied about that China cant invade Taiwan and wont have the ability for many years, perhaps decades. I think that is hogwash. Why on earth would the Chinese embark on a lengthy missile campaign or blockade when that plays to our strengths in air power and sea power?
China may or may not be able to pull off an invasion next week, but when they do, it will be sudden and designed to conquer Taiwan quickly before we can react effectively.
Speed is the key for China and wed do well to remember that the Chinese will consider themselves capable of invading by their standardsnot by our advanced and tested amphibious warfare standards.
I just need a little time to pull together the part 2. Maybe tomorrow.
Incomplete Victory (Posted December 28, 2003)
This is the price you pay for incomplete victories that dont end with your soldiers marching on the capital and driving the rulers out of power:
Hardline Serb nationalists led by a jailed war crimes suspect won Sunday's general election but failed to obtain the majority needed to form a government on its own, partial results showed.
On the radio a reporter said that Milosevic, who is on trial for war crimes in The Hague , may gain a seat in parliament.
And with the trial dragging on so long, I would not be surprised if the legal retentive people pretending to dispense justice let the man go home to Serbia unpunished for his crimes.
Just wait.
Oh! Oh! I forgot. Not to worry. The Euro-corps will save the day if the Serbs decide to get nostalgic for rapin, killin, and pillagin, right?
Disbanding the Baathist Resistance (Posted December 26, 2003)
This bit of news will help us split away the larger Sunni population from the Baathist thugs still fighting us:
Senior U.S. officers said they were surprised to discover -- clue by clue over six months -- that the upper and middle ranks of the resistance were filled by members of five extended families from a few villages within a 12-mile radius of the volatile city of Tikrit along the Tigris River. Top operatives drawn from these families organized the resistance network, dispatching information to individual cells and supervising financial channels, the officers said. They also protected Hussein and passed information to and from the former president while he was on the run.
The Sunnis dont know what their future holds. Remember that the Sunnis were oppressed, too. Only selected Sunnis were favored by the Baathists under Saddam. Nabbing Saddam and providing opportunities in a new Iraq for Sunnis not affiliated with Saddam will go a long way to settling Iraq down and ending the Baathist attacks.
Then there are the Islamists with suicide bombs who dont care about Saddam but that should be an easier task with friendly Iraqis helping us.
Disbanding the Iraqi Army (Posted December 26, 2003)
From Strategypage, yet another note on the silly allegations of error in disbanding the Iraqi army in May:
The Iraqi army was disbanded right after the war because it was known that it's officers had been selected mainly for their loyalty to Saddam. Most of the officers were also Sunni Arabs. Leaving the army intact would have created a Sunni Arab militia, a large body of armed men resentful of the American presence in the country. Although many of the troops were Shia Arabs, they were terrorized and dominated by Sunni officers and NCOs. If the Iraqi army were left intact, the Sunni officers would have to deal with unrest in the ranks as well as devising ways to continue the fight against the Americans.
Im getting nostalgic for plastic Turkey stories. Please bring on a new complaint. Since we successfully pulled off Christmas, I guess any allegations we nabbed Santa and not Saddam will be put to rest.
Terror War (Posted December 26, 2003)
Ive often gotten annoyed at the complaints that the attacks on the Taliban and Saddam Husseins regime distracted us from the war on terror. Those campaigns were military campaigns using assets for the most part irrelevant to the war on terror except in small numbers, for short periods. The fight against terrorists is a police and intelligence problem for the most part. The quiet campaign in the Horn of Africa is one exception but it is not a big affair (1,800 troops) for the military. Certainly, taking down the state sponsors in very helpful but terrorists can go on with fairly small amounts of money earned in illegal activities. And with modern technology, they could kill large numbers if they get lucky.
I bring this up because I havent written much on the terror level and the reported plots weve intercepted or are worried are being executed even now. I continue to believe getting the states that can multiply the effectiveness of guys who would otherwise just impotently bitch about America in bars, in mosques, or in caves, is the most important class of action we can do to defeat threats to us. Terrorists on their own can kill us at some rate, but the bottom line is that I dont believe they can defeat us. Even an attack that destroys a city and kills 10,000 people, as in Iran , will not destroy a state. As awful as that is, it does not destroy a country. I know that a politically motivated destruction of a city is way different in perception to a natural disaster, but with a wartime outlook in place for over two years, I suspect even another 9-11 will not have nearly the same impact on our public. The terrorists claim it will break our back but it would just push us to break them ruthlessly. In addition, I just dont know that much about intelligence topics, so it slows me down from commenting.
Anyway, obviously the fight against terrorists is crucial and I trust we are on the offensive here.
On the bigger problem of dealing with threatening states, weve destroyed the Taliban and Saddam regimes; weve preserved Pakistan in the friendly column (though the fate of this nuclear-armed state worries me tremendously); weve helped the Philippines combat Islamists; weve put pressure on the teetering North Korean regime with our allies (yet we give some humanitarian aid, which I believe works to convince Pyongyang it can ride out the downward trend. It isnt enough to raise them up and disguises their downward trend); weve turned Libya and demonstrate how even a minor state can pursue nukes without our awareness (and show others that they can stop fighting us and come in from the cold); and we have, with optimism here, pressured the Iranians to go along with a European initiative to control their nuclear programs. At worst, since I think we wont be ready to go after Iran until early 2005, weve bought some time to persuade allies that we must do something about Irans mullahs and to give those mullahs the chance to show their duplicity. In the meantime, I hope we open our hearts to the Iranians for the massive earthquake and send aid quickly. The people there should know we care about what happens to them.
The war goes on. But we are winning. The main reason, of course, is that we are fighting. We always had the power to win, just not the awareness that we were at war with enemies who want kill us in the millions.
Christmas (Posted December 25, 2003)
It was a good Christmas.
And for this luxury I thank (via Instapundit) our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen who are far from home defending us; those at home struggling to recover from their wounds; and those who have died and whose families must struggle on with only memories of their loved ones.
Merry Christmas.
Stop It Already! (Posted December 23, 2003)
Im really tired of talking heads on TV asserting that we made a big mistake disbanding the Iraqi army back in May.
Repeat after me: there was no Iraqi army in May. They deserted in March and April rather than fight the US invasion. Disbanding it was purely a formality.
Let me further add, that had we been able to retain units of the Iraqi army, the very same critics would have complained that we were putting the former torturers in positions of authority over the former victims.
Death Watch (Posted December 23, 2003)
Now that he has announced he will come in from the cold, Khadaffi better watch his back. Khadaffi may have survived with America as his foe these last two decades, but I think he is in more danger from his former friends and business associates:
Libya has agreed to submit to U.N. weapons inspections and to provide full details of programs to develop nuclear and chemical weapons that were more advanced than suspected by the United States and Britain, which conducted nine months of secret talks to work out the arrangement.
I bet some of them dont want it known that they were friends and business associates of Khadaffi.
Fear? Or Diplomacy? (Posted December 22, 2003)
Jeez Oh Pete, the skeptics are out downplaying the example of American and British resolve in convincing Libya to abandon WMD. The Iraq War is a mere coincidence, apparently.
Yet, this is Khaddafis attitude as the Italian prime minister relates back in September:
A spokesman for Mr Berlusconi said the prime minister had been telephoned recently by Col Gaddafi of Libya, who said: "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."
As our General Sherman said, Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I dont believe he mentioned anything at all about multi-lateral diplomacy founded on the principles of sovereignty as set forth in the Westphalian state system, with due regard to the fifth subparagraph of obscure UN Charter chapter ..
With all due respect, that leads to twelve years of toothless sanctions and several well-catered conferences in Zurich .
I say, chalk one up to the power of fear.
Level Orange (Posted December 21, 2003)
We are now at Threat Level Orange:
Federal officials said yesterday that because fresh intelligence suggests al Qaeda is planning multiple catastrophic terrorist attacks in the United States, they were raising the national threat alert status to "high risk," or code orange, a step administration officials previously had said they were reluctant to take except in the most unusual circumstances.
This was done, it was reported, because:
al Qaeda terrorists around the globe were saying in telephone calls and e-mails that they expected a series of synchronized attacks in the United States around the holidays, officials said.
Two years and more after 9-11, it is sometimes amazing we have not suffered more. Truly, it is as if al Qaeda truly expected we would collapse as a society along with the buildings they targeted. Rather than preparing to hit us further after that dreadful day, they sat back and waited to reap the fruits of their year-and-a-half-old plan. At some point, perhaps when they were in headlong flight just ahead of our special forces and JDAMs, the thugs realized we would fight.
So now they may be ready to strike after two years of renewed planning.
The difference is this time we have some warnings that we will act on and we have procedures for stepping up defensive measures and the means and will to go after them to stop them.
Our enemies may strike us again. And even hurt us badly. But we will not be defeated. We are at war with the bastards and we wont stop until they are all dead or cooling their heels in Gitmo hoping that the 9th Circuit will set them free.
Iran Policy in Flux (Posted December 21, 2003)
Hoagland writes that the administration does not yet know quite what to do about Iran :
But now that Rice is spearheading the president's most ambitious foreign policy initiative -- the political transformation of the greater Middle East and, indirectly, the Muslim world -- Iran cannot for long be left as a blank to be filled in later. Events, especially in Iraq, are dragging the Persians and the Americans toward either new accommodation or bitter and dangerous conflict.
In the short run, sure. But Iran is on the Axis of Evil list for a reason. And they are still pursuing nukes despite the recent agreement to allow inspections. They are not weary of the struggle as Khaddafi appears to be. They still want to kill Americans.
I still believe Iran is next on the list to compel an exit from the axis list. But I dont think that we will consider active military actions until spring 2005. Ive gone over the reasons many times and wont repeat them (but sadly, as I lack permalinks, I cant easily point to those posts. Ya gotta work for themmonthly archives and the search feature of your browser, Im afraid).
In the meantime, theres no reason to excessively telegraph our intentions; and diplomatic moves might work (as they appear to have with Libya ) to gain a peaceful exit. At the very least, the Europeans and other allies will have to concede we tried the peaceful route and admit the Iranians just wont halt their nuclear and missile programs (or, if they remain stubbornly oblivious to Irans intentions, well be able to argue at home that once again we tried the international route). Remember, Europe will be vulnerable to Iranian nuclear missiles long before we will. And we will likely have a missile defense by then. Will Europe ? Hah! Or perhaps the long-suffering Iranian people will finally rise up and pull down the mullah statues.
If nothing positive happens in the next year and a half, we will hopefully have reduced our commitment to Iraq and put our armed forces back into good shape for a conflict with Iran . Then we will need to decide between a serious air offensive to buy us a decade to find a lasting solution; a ground invasion like Iraq (except this time we will face tougher resistance in rougher terrain); a ground invasion like Afghanistan (if we can persuade army units to defect and fight the Pasdaran and Basij regime loyalists in concert with a popular revolt); support a coup and back the new government in the subsequent civil war; or support some combination.
Regardless of the uncertainty of what to do about Iran s regime, Iran is on the list and we will find a solution to their support for terrorism and their drive for nuclear-tipped long-range missiles.
Afghanistan (Posted December 20, 2003)
We are going to change course in Afghanistan to spread our forces out so as to better exploit the money Congress appropriated for reconstruction in that country:
Nine joint civilian-military units charged with creating islands of stability in troubled regions are already in place. But most of the so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams are located in relatively secure northern and central Afghanistan.
The U.S. military is now deploying teams across a broad swath of the country dominated by Pashtuns, Afghanistan's largest ethnic group from which the Taliban draw their main support
This certainly shows we are committed to rebuilding Afghanistan .
Still, the Taliban resurgence doesnt seem to be much of a threat to our interests. We bust them up when they mass inside Afghanistan and as long as they have a semi-sanctuary in Pakistan , we will have great difficulty stamping them out. The central government is slowly organizing and the country is not a base for attacks against us. Our troops could stay low profile, avoiding the impression of occupying Afghanistan and busting up any Taliban who do mass. This is a major success.
Now, attempting to make Afghanistan better will put our people out in the boonies potentially vulnerable to being attacked. Now our major combat forces will need to be ready to go out and rescue these outposts if the outposts come under attack. In doing so, they will be vulnerable to ambush, of course.
So we upped the ante. We are going to try and get a big win here. Be prepared for more casualties in the short run. And be careful we dont creep up our presence and mission to make it look like an occupation.
This holds the promise for the big win, of course, so well see.
Less Interesting But Tiresome Nonetheless (Posted December 20, 2003)
The trial of Saddam already has those disappointed he was captured spouting off about how America armed Iraq and supplied his regime with chemical weapons and biological weapons. The basic claim, of course, is that we are responsible for Saddam and so who are we to try Saddam for war crimes and crimes against humanity?
Those making this charge have no clue.
The United States sold virtually no weapons to Iraq . The Iraqis used French and Russian aircraft, Russian and Chinese armor, Brazilian armored cars, and assorted other equipment from various suppliers. America is notably absent.
Europeans were far more complicit in providing Saddam with chemical arms. One problem with this argument is that civilian-use equipment and material are all you need and it is difficult to separate them out. The same goes for the Anthrax issue. Yes, we supplied Anthrax to Iraq as we did for any other country that asked for them. Back then Anthrax was viewed as an agricultural problem and we were in the business of helping other countries combat infections.
We did fail to vigorously condemn Iraq for using chemical arms on the battlefield against Iranians but we did make our displeasure known. This is why Iraq was never open about using chemicals and why they used them only in desperate situations (until the end phase of the war anyway, when the Iraqis went in for the kill). The world was far more complicit and far more quiet about Iraqi chemical use.
Plus, we really must remember that the Iraqis were fighting the Ayatollahs Iran , which was eager to spread their revolution to the rest of the Gulf region. Is it really so hard to understand that we would have preferred that Iran not win? Nor were we going all out to get Iraq to win. Indeed, some complained about our cynicism of balancing between them.
In the end, we got a draw that didnt send the oil fields of the region into flames, kept Iran in check, and thwarted Iraq s ambitions to lead the Gulf, the Arab world, and the Third World . Not too bad actually for unsophisticated American foreign policy.
But blaming us for Saddam is plain stupid.
Interesting (Posted December 20, 2003)
Libya is being given a chance to come in from the cold:
British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Bush, in back-to-back appearances late Friday in Britain and at the White House, announced that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi had agreed after nine months of secret talks to halt his nation's drive for such weapons and the long-range missiles to deliver them.
The series of negotiations and onsite inspections by U.S. and British experts were initiated by the long-reviled Gadhafi in March, shortly after he agreed to a settlement in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jetliner over Lockerbie, Scotland.
This is interesting. Especially that we and the Brits have been talking with the Libyans since March. Ive written repeatedly that Id like to see Libya turned rather than destroyed. Libya s hideous past made this an uncomfortable stand for me to take but I believed it made sense in the big picture. Libya is a small fry that we can afford to let go if it serves a bigger purpose.
Khaddafi is no longer the aggressive terrorist he once was. Adventures across Africa are a thing of the past. Bizarre confrontations are history. Support for terror seems gone. The example of Saddam is probably sobering, too. A lot of rulers thought being president for life was a pretty good deal until we started working the equation by treating the life part as highly variable.
Although letting Khaddafi live out the rest of his life in peace seemed an affront for all his past actions, I figured it would be a needed sign to rulers in the Arab world and Arabs and Moslems generally that we are not on a Crusade to get all anti-American rulers with JDAMs. We needed to send a signal that your only choices arent having lice picked from your head by a US military doctor or bringing our government down with terrorism. You can come in from the cold. As the President noted:
The president sought to nudge other regimes with both the threat of "unwelcome consequences," if weapons pursuits are not abandoned, and the offer if they are of "an open path to better relations with the United States and other free nations."
If we must let go of one of the lesser evils as long as he behaves himself, so be it. We have to be grownups here. The issue is protecting our people from terror and WMD.
Besides, the Libyan people might one day end his rule given the trends in the area. We may yet get to eat our cake and have it too.
For the rest of the world, we show how a state can hide WMD programs. The Libyans are admitting to the whole enchilada: chemicals, biologicals (although little evidence was found on this front, admittedly), nukes, and missiles.
We also proved that the idea that confronting our enemies will only cause others to dig in their heels is false. Sure, some like Iran and North Korea are hell bent on getting nukes, but they were before 9-11 and they still are. Our actions were irrelevant. But a lot of others are persuadable by carrots and sticks.
And hey, shouldnt a whole lot of people in Europe and the anti-war movement here give the President a lot of credit for a sophisticated foreign policy? They keep saying we are too simplistic, right?
So Thats Why I Felt Safer (Posted December 19, 2003)
A glorious day (Thursday) when the best and brightest of the Parisian elite werent plotting our destruction:
French diplomats held their second one-day strike in three weeks on Thursday to protest against planned budget cuts.
Actually, the French people were probably a lot safer for a day, too.
Exploiting Military Success (Posted December 19, 2003)
As we exploit the success of capturing Saddam and roll up the Baathists resisting us, never forget that in a stabilization mission, military success buys time for political measures to succeed.
We need to turn a functioning Iraq over to the Iraqis so they can hunt down the Islamist and Baathist scum that terrorize Iraqis and attack our troops. As Hoagland notes:
The Bush administration has a golden opportunity -- actually, a clear need -- to accelerate the granting of significant new authority and power to an interim Iraqi government in advance of the formal transfer of sovereignty next June. Failure to empower Iraqis now to deal with the dictator's fate will make the occupation even more unpopular and difficult to manage.
The Shias need to gain powers as the Kurds have developed over the last decade under our protection. The Sunnis need a place in Iraq as welljust not the Baathists.
Iraq doesnt have to be Vermont for us to step back and scale down our presence, just friendly and on the road to pacifying the country, building democracy, and rebuilding the country and economy.
What?! (Posted December 19, 2003)
Has Friedman forgotten what Saddam has done to the Iraqis? How can Friedman even pretend to be taken seriously on this subject of whether Saddam should be executed (following conviction of course) when he says this:
I hope we don't hear any more chants from Iraqis of "Death to Saddam." He's now as good as dead. It's time for Iraqis to stop telling us whom they want to die. Now we have to hear how they want to live and whom they want to live with.
He writes plenty more to take issue with in his brief article but the audacity of basically telling Iraqis to stop whining and get over three decades of brutal killing and torturing is just a bit much for me to swallow without a small facial tic developing.
Death to Saddam seems quite reasonable under the circumstances.
The Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties (Posted December 19, 2003)
From the Clinton era, natch:
The Clinton administration also warned the American public about those ties and defended its response to al Qaeda terror [the 1998 Sudan and Afghanistan bombings] by citing an Iraqi connection.
Just pointing it out. Cause like, you know, secular Iraqi Baathists could never cooperate with Islamist terrorists.
"Betrayal?" (Posted December 18, 2003)
This articulates part of my unease at the whole Bush/Taiwan referendum issue.
We should defend Taiwan from the mainland Chinese for a host of reasons. And better yet, sell the weapons Taiwan needs to defend itself. It hurt to see our President stand with China's dictator and chastise our Taiwanese friends.
Yet we don't want to fight if we don't have to, of course. And certainly not now when we have Iran and North Korea to deal with before they get worse. As long As China isn't interested in pushing the issue of Taiwan, we want this issue dormant. We need time for both the Taiwan issue and more pressing issues to be resolved.
Thus, I couldn't get too upset with Bush over his remarks. Indeed, they are understandable as long as Peking doesn't get confused and think they got the green light to hammer Taiwan.
Basically, Taiwan's president has been irresponsible in pushing the envelope when he darned well should know what his country's best friend needs right now:
Invoking principles of democracy and self-determination, it is easy for pro-Taiwan Americans to declare that democratic Taiwan should have the right to hold any referendum it wishes. In fact, many of us favor such moves. But right now, when the vital interests of its U.S. security guarantor are in jeopardy, is not the time.
We are still Taiwan's best friend despite the crisis. We needed to remind the Taiwanese that we didn't issue them a blank check.
Friends don't let friends drive drunk, remember?
"Feeling Sorry for Saddam" (Posted December 18, 2003)
The Vatican official spoke for many when he said we should feel pity and compassion for the image of a broken Saddam shown on television.
Lee Harris (via Instapundit) explains why this is rot.
Really, at the heart of this is the elevation of feeling over thinking. During the nineties, feeling your pain was promoted above understanding your pain by studying it. If you care, what else matters? Certainly not effectiveness. Certainly not cost.
We see that one old man in custody is grubby and a little dazed and it is natural to feel sorry for him.
That flickered even in me.
Those in our society who value the cult of feeling pain react to this perceived humiliation. They fail to exercis a higher level of compassion, however, in this continued "compassion." For in the end, we know that man killed several hundred thousand of his own peoplesome in the most gruesome and cruel fashion. We know hundreds of thousands of others died in two wars of aggression under his rule. We know about the women raped, the dissidents shredded, the enemies torn to shreds by hungry dogs. But we only know those factswe never saw and felt those deaths.
Saddam isn't an old man being handled roughly. He is a mass murderer, despot, and sadist. Moral sensitivity is not displayed by showing compassion for what we see but by showing compassion for what we know:
Yet it is a task that we must all force ourselves to accomplish if we are to become true moral agents, and not merely moral automatons. We must not only react unthinkingly to the suffering before us, we must take into consideration the suffering that we cannot see, and especially, as in the case of Saddam Hussein, when the visible sufferer was the cause of so much invisible suffering. But the only way we can do this is to keep our moral imagination in good repair, and to refuse to permit our moral instincts, no matter how well-meaning, to displace our capacity for reflective judgment. We must feel, but we must also think -- otherwise we fall short of our full moral humanity.
If ever we must suppress the cult of feeling for the club of thinking, this is it.
Clarify This Please (Posted December 17, 2003)
Let me see. Iraqis may have freedom now and dont have to fear torture and murder by the Baathists, but our invasion and overthrow of Saddam just brought terror to Iraq . They were better off with the numbing stability that Saddam provided.
We, on the other hand, should risk terrorism by abandoning the mild restrictions on our civil liberties that the Patriot Act provides.
So what gives? Is stability to be preferred over freedom or vice versa?
Or are Iraqis undeserving of freedom while Americans are undeserving of safety?
Maybe I better go read the message boards at Democratic Underground to clear my head.
Carrot and Stick (Posted December 17, 2003)
We are properly hammering Baathist strongholds:
The raid, launched before dawn and lasting until midmorning, targeted the city of Samarra, north of Baghdad. U.S. officials say some 1,500 fighters operate in Samarra, making it one of the persistent hotspots in the so-called Sunni Triangle.
Counter-insurgency must always seek to kill or capture the active fighters. We cant carpet bomb in cities to do this, however, which can alienate others. For the sympathizers of the insurgents we need to give them hope enough to cooperate with us and fear enough to take the hope. For neutrals we need to make sure they know they are better off choosing our side. And for our friends, rewards must be real and visible.
I dont know what the balance is but even as we reduce the attacks per day and pile on the pressure, we need to find that balance. And it isnt easy. We let up at the end of July thinking wed broken the Baathists only to see the dead-enders ramp up the fighting after that.
We are winning, however, that at least seems apparent.
Well, That Objection Died Fast (Posted December 17, 2003)
Huh. Well what do you know:
A special envoy from President Bush won unspecified pledges Tuesday from the leaders of France and Germany to reduce Iraq's crushing foreign debt, U.S. and European officials said. The moves appeared to signal a new willingness by two of the major antiwar nations to improve relations with the United States.
It seems mere days ago that administration critics charged that the decision to bar specified countries unhelpful in the Iraq War and aftermath from US-funded reconstruction contracts would make it impossible to gain debt relief for Iraq from those same countries.
Oh well. There will be more complaints.
But seriously, these countries had to know that the debts are pretty much history. Better for them to forgive some to guarantee repayment of the rest than lose it all. Even more important, as I noted, Iraq will be signing contracts for a generation rebuilding Iraq and it is wiser to get in on that than pine away for bad debts unwisely given to a brutal dictator. Even the companies that loaned money would be better off with this policy:
French companies are owed about $5 billion by Iraq, but many French analysts have said creditors gave up long ago trying to recoup any of that money. More important for France than the debt would be oil contracts, analysts here said. The French oil giant Total has been negotiating to explore and develop two sites and had signed agreements known as pre-contracts, but no actual contracts could be signed because of U.N. sanctions against Iraq.
All in all, it doesnt hurt to remind our former allies that the old games are over and we just reset the rules. Screw us and you no longer get an apology from us for failing to understand their big complex European brains.
Catching Saddam probably didnt hurt either. Both as a symbol of our success and the reelection chances of the President; and as an excuse for Europeans to forgive debt without looking like they are bending to our plans.
Another Matter of Faith (Posted December 16, 2003)
Seeing Saddam surrender meekly was humiliating for many Arabs (and Vatican officials too, apparently) according to this article. As Lileks noted (sorry, no link), one wonders just how many Arabs and Moslems must one man kill before it negates the acclaim he gets for standing up to America.
There is a serious problem in the Arab and Moslem worlds if the defeat and capture of the bloody tyrant Saddam is seen as depressing. There is a reason the President has rejected the policy of the last sixty years that supported friendly tyrants in support of stability over freedom.
Its a Matter of Faith (Posted December 16, 2003)
I like to stick to foreign affairs and security matters here. Domestic policies, about which I certainly have opinions, I leave to others. A man has to know his limits, as they say.
But global warming is one item that deserves at least a little comment. Our refusal to ratify the Kyoto treaty on greenhouse emissions is regularly used to bash us for being unilateral. Abiding by the provisions would cripple our economy and harm our ability to pay for our defense.
My main problem with the idea of global warming is that even accepting that we are causing the warming (even when we know the planet has been warmer and cooler in the past without our intervention) and even if we can do something about it (which, given our limits of knowledge on natural fluctuations is debatable), isnt it rather time-centric to believe we must move heaven and earth to maintain todays temperature? I mean, if one average global temperature is better than another, cant the environmentalists tell us what that is? Good gracious, what if the ideal average temperature is 2 degrees cooler? Or even 1 degree? Or five? If so, shouldnt the environmentalists be pushing to cause volcanic eruptions to put debris in the air to cut down on sunlight? Or couldnt the ideal temperature be 2 degrees higher?
But no, by an amazing coincidence we live precisely in the age when the average global temperature is exactly right. We must cripple our economies to defend it at all costs.
What rot.
So Michael Crichtons speech (via Instapundit) on this and related topics of environmental purism and its body of faith is worth reading. I dont trust the environmental lobby and if they keep going the way they are, I just wonteven if they manage to stumble upon the right problem and solution by chance. As Crichton said near the end:
How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of religion, and back to a scientific discipline? There's a simple answer: we must institute far more stringent requirements for what constitutes knowledge in the environmental realm. I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that simply aren't true. It isn't that these "facts" are exaggerations of an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their case to present it in the strongest way. Not at all---what more and more groups are doing is putting out is lies, pure and simple. Falsehoods that they know to be false.
As he noted, there are real problems out there. Unfortunately, the environmentalists who pretend to care more than the rest of us have no idea what they are or what the solutions are.
Who We Fight (Posted December 16, 2003)
Iraqi dead-enders ambushed our troops in Mosul . Ah, the noble Iraqi resistance:
Two gunmen on motorcycles opened fire on American vehicles, and then took cover among children leaving school. The attackers used a roadside bomb, automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades in the attack but inflicted no casualties on the patrol, the military said in a statement.
We lost no troops. Killed 11 of the attackers. And killed no civilians in the crossfire.
This is who we are. Deadly to our enemies and careful of innocents.
This is also shows who our enemy is. They count it a victory if they kill one of our troops or if we accidentally kill one of their children.
The article also notes pro-Saddam demonstrations. Those cities, or neighborhoods in them if localized, need to be shut down and filtered. Reward friends in proportion to their help. Punish enemies in proportion to their harm. Make sure neutrals know that they should choose to be our friends. This works in Iraq and in the world.
Carrier Availability (Posted December 16, 2003)
The carrier Carl Vinson will be overhauled later than planned to make it available in 2005 (see my October 11 post on this).
Now the Eisenhower will be refueled and overhauled by the end of 2004. It will be free in 2005. Of course, this isnt a change, except that the completion date is later due to factors beyond the control of the Navy. Nonetheless, the carrier will be available in 2005.
Plus we have reoriented our plans for our carriers for surges of large numbers of carrier groups instead of steady overseas presence.
I dont know, but it seems like we are gearing up for possible military action in 2005.
Target: Iran .
Either Iranians overthrow the mullahcracy or we destroy the nuclear facilities ourselves.
Ive said it before and Ill say it again: Stopping the nutjobs from getting their first nuke trumps stopping the nutjob from getting his third nuke.
New Army T-Shirt Idea (Posted December 15, 2003)
Our Army troops are the best in the world. And they deserve the very best slogans on their t-shirts. When a Governing Council member confronted Saddam, he berated Saddam:
"Why didn't you fight?" one Governing Council member asked Hussein as their meeting ended. Hussein gestured toward the U.S. soldiers guarding him and asked his own question: "Would you fight them?"
Would you fight them? has a nice ring to it dont you think? With the proper graphics, of course.
Because honestly, fighting American soldiers in suicidal attacks is really just for the little people.
Good lessons for a lot of people to learn.
Justice (Posted December 15, 2003)
Listening to coverage of the Saddam capture and what to do with him is just wearying. Too many commentators seem to want an OJ trial.
Way back when, I wrote that I wanted the Iraqis to try Baathists for crimes during the Saddam regime. I believed that doing this would help bind Iraqis to our side and make sure that the new Iraqi government could never say that they are neutral in the war between insurgents and the US and Coalition forces. I also worried that it would be too dangerous for the Iraqis to try Saddam when caught and other top Baathists. I thought we needed to do that to demonstrate that the murderers of the past were buried safely.
I think the passage of time has made it possible to trust that Iraqis will not be intimidated or infiltrated by Baathists to destroy the trials.
Iraqis, with our help and others who would help, can convict and execute Saddam.
Talk of international justice is insulting.
International justice was of the Saddam is bad but variety. The international community didnt think Saddam was a threat to them, so why should the international community try him? The international community thought that Iraqis should deal with Saddam and not the United States , right? Why shouldnt this view still hold true?
And the international community would approach this trial in exactly the wrong way. Are some of the commentators I listened to serious when they said that we must use the international community to legitimize the trial? What will the international community do now for justice? The international community failed the Iraqis for many years now and should not be given a chance to muck up this important mission.
Just what facts are in dispute here? Is there any real question that Saddam is a mass murderer? A torturer? Good Lord, taking that SOB out back tonight and shooting him in the forehead would not be a miscarriage of justice.
But no, the legal fetishists say we need international jurists. I can see it now: Chirac as a character witness; excuses that Saddam was brutalized as a child; complaints that sanctions only allowed him to eat Twinkies and so twisted his thoughts. And Baghdad Bob will swear that the two of them were renting videos at the local Blockbuster when the Kurds were being gassed, so theres no way Saddam is guilty. Oh, and of course, the Shias fell down the stairs. The trial would last six years and consist of long diatribes against the US , the Jews, and Saddams victims. That would be a circus to attack America and not justice.
Of course, we will make sure the Iraqis try him according to the forms of our justice system. Prosecutors will present evidence. Defense counsel will make sure the rules are followed. And Saddam will be sentenced according to his crimes. But make no mistake, this is no trial for some usual suspect rounded up to solve the murder of a local shopkeeper. Such a trial requires the presumption of innocence to make the state prove the crime. But in Saddams case, there is no doubt of guilt. We will try him to show Iraqis that the justice system will punish the worst and most powerful of their former oppressors. With this knowledge, we can work to get the many victims of Baathist horrors to work within the police and court system rather than gain justice by private revenge.
Question Saddam for the information we need. Try him speedily for his long and brutal rule. Execute him soon thereafter to provide the beginning of justice.
In that order, of course. I wouldnt want to insult the international communitys sense of justice.
Reaction (Posted December 14, 2003)
Ive been reading on and via Instapundit various sad reactions by many media people and war opponents.
I do believe I will read Ted Ralls next column. That scumbag will sadly speak for many when he laments this great day.
Saddams capture should tell many who claimed a trial would embarrass the United States that this was a silly argument. We could have killed Saddam. We did not. What comes out will embarrass a lot of nations and rulersbut not apparently America .
His capture makes it easier to reach our July deadline of turning over Iraq to Iraqi authorities. It will be hard to portray it as cutting and running.
It will be easier to see a smaller footprint of US troops by the summer of 2005.
Iraqis will step up for a new Iraq .
US troops will be able to transition to garrison forces rather than fighting forces.
The success will insulate us from the impact of any big strike by the Baathists or Islamists. Note how the bombing in Iraq at the same time was ignored. With suicide bombers bent like Hell lately to pull a Beirut barracks-scale bombing on us, even if they succeed, it will be kept in perspective by our public.
And I think it will discourage the Baathists. Some are already trying to spin this as a good thing for the dead-enders because it will allow the Baathists to disassociate themselves from Saddam and create a national resistance. What rot. The Baathists tried to portray Saddam as the puppet master directing a brilliant resistance. Why else would they have done that unless they needed people to believe Saddam would be back? And the Baathists who kept Saddam on the move insisted on portraying Saddam as a resistance leader when Saddam was really a hunted and scared war criminal not directing anything.
Watch who is happy and who is sad about this.
Ladies and Gentlemen, We Got Him (Posted December 14, 2003)
US forces captured Saddam Hussein.
He was captured hiding in the bottom of a pit. He seemed more an object of superstition to be preserved by his supporters to bring themand their privilegeback to power rather than a wily insurgent directing Baathist resistance.
Iraqis were joyous:
Joy greeted final proof that the man who terrorized his people for 30 years and led them into three disastrous wars was now behind bars and facing trial, even possible execution, at Iraqi hands.
This is tremendous news.
I could be wrong, but I think the Baathists will quickly grow too dispirited to fight. This will also be an opportunity for Sunnis and rank-and-file Baathists to get off the fence and join the new Iraq . And they should be given the chance.
The Islamists will keep fighting but they are easier to find and kill or capture in isolation.
Pile on the pressure to exploit this victory. Push the fighting Baathists hard while they are reeling from the news. Hammer them, hammer them.
Tipping Point (Posted December 12, 2003)
We are winning in Iraq and in the war on terror. And when it is clear we are winning, people will want to be on the winning side. Ive long argued this was an important factor for going after Saddam. It is one thing to sacrifice your life when you think history is on your side; it is quite another to give your life for a cause that is doomed. When you are on the losing side, no monuments will be erected in your honor and the history books will not glorify you or your cause. Hanson sees it coming in this war as it has come in all wars:
This war against the Islamofascists and autocrats of the Middle East is no different. Do not be cowered by their sick videos, the bombs with rat poison and screws, or the promise of a new Dark Age run by the likes of bin Laden. If we are now dismayed by Islamist terrorists from Turkey to Indonesia, and from the West Bank to the Sunni Triangle, it doesn't mean it will always or even for long be so, given our increasing success and the unchanging nature of mankind that values power over principles, often quite tragically so.
Such a cynical assessment need not mean that we must deprecate the power of ideas, or must subscribe to such an amoral creed ourselves; but rather that we must not be nave when we discover new allies who admire us for our strength and military prowess rather than our ideals and values. The reason that states are not rushing to install imams as rulers or open their borders to al Qaeda training camps is not that they like democracy, but rather that they are just now beginning to fear the dire consequences of such action.
Our enemies instead are now reeling if ever so insidiously. They have lost the free use of Afghanistan. Saddam's Baathists are little more than criminals and thugs in hideouts soon to follow the fate of Saddam's progeny, statues, and "Hammurabi Division." Gone are Iraqi subsidies for suicide murderers, help for al Qaeda, and the stockpiling of huge caches of imported weaponry.
And when the victory comes, those carping about quagmire and disaster will quietly retreat and fall silent. For a bit, anyway.
Remember how they trembled when the Soviets pointed missiles at us. Remember their predictions of disasters when we set out to destroy the Taliban and strangle al Qaeda in its mountain hideouts. Remember the disasters they predicted before we crossed into Iraq and which they argued should stay our hand against Saddam.
Remember. For the trembling visionaries who advocate defeat in Iraq will not.
This of course assumes we retain the stomach to use our power for victory. We can still lose if the factions who deny we are even at war gain influence.
No, Seriously, Are They Stoned? (Posted December 11, 2003)
The president correctly has stood by his guns on the denial of contracts to allies who checked out of the Iraq War and aftermath and reserving them for our friends who stood by our side.
Now I expect the French, Russians, and Germans to whine. Shoot, even the Canadians might get grumpy. I even expect several candidates for president to express outrage that we might not shovel money to those who oppose us. But the Weekly Standard? William Kristol and Robert Kagan want the President to reverse the ban. This is amazingly silly.
They say it is stupid. They say that we should have quietly awarded contracts to allies without the public denial of access to the weasels. They say wisdom would have opened up contracts to all to encourage cooperation in Iraq . They say we need to be magnanimous and that this policy will make it more difficult to gain cancellation of Iraq s huge external debt.
They are quite simply wrong on all counts.
Magnanimity requires victory to exercise it and our so-called allies have not conceded anything at all.
And after seven months of trying to gain cooperation after the end of major combat operations, I think we know how much France and Germany want to help in Iraq .
Nor are all avenues for contracts dried up. We are hardly insisting that other donations be tied up in our requirements. If the French and Germans want contracts, they will be free to pursue those funded by the Japanese, South Koreans, and Saudis. Shoot, the Euro and a half the EU threw in for reconstruction are just dangling out there for Belgium , no?
The authors suggestion that we should have quietly given contracts to friends ignores the likely reaction here at home. Will the loyal opposition just accept that we would grant contracts without competitive bidding? When they think the whole war was a scheme to provide Halliburton with a 3.6% profit margin? Honestly, gentlemen, whose policy is stupid?
And the authors have it precisely wrong when they say we will have difficulty getting the holders of Iraq s debts to cancel them with this policy of exclusion. I dare say that even a belated attempt by the weasels to cooperate with us will get them into the contract game. Consider that each can weigh whether they want to exclude themselves from a generation of contracts with an oil-rich Iraq and insist on getting paid 5-8 billion dollars; or they can abandon debt that might be repudiated as odious anyway and get in on the ground floor for far greater amounts of money.
The basic problem is what kind of signal would reversing course send to our friends, allies, competitors, and enemies? Screw us and leave us in the lurch and then you get to avoid the casualties and expense of war and reap the cash rewards after. Sacrifice with us and you will be treated no better than the weasels that work against us. Is this really what we want nations to believe in the next crisis? I think not.
Are Kagan and Kristol serious? I think they picked the wrong week to go off crystal meth.
Weekly News Roundup on the Iraqi Protests (Posted December 11, 2003)
This is the <a href=deafeningvoid>roundup</a> of major headlines today on the thousands of Iraqis who marched to protest terrorism, condemn coverage of Iraq , and generally show support for the US .
Amazing.
What Part of Former Soviet Bloc Dont They Get? (Posted December 10, 2003)
The Russians are upset that we may base some troops in new NATO countries that used to be in the old Soviet bloc.
Once again, we have people unclear on the concept.
We won. The Eastern Europeans are our allies, now.
The Russians better behave if they ever want our help when the Chinese decide to retake the Pacific territories that Czarist Russia pealed away from a declining China .
What Part of Bugger Off Dont They Understand? (Posted December 10, 2003)
Honestly, Russia , France , and Germany are upset that we are denying them the opportunity to bid for contracts funded by US taxpayers?
Wow.
They undermine the sanctions against Saddam in the decade prior.
They threaten vetoes of actions to enforce UN resolutions in the Security Council.
They actively campaign against our diplomatic efforts to gain international support.
They sell arms to Saddam.
They refuse to commit any forces to help us in the war to overthrow Saddam.
They refuse to help with any significant cash to rebuild Iraq .
They refuse to send troops to help stabilize Iraq .
They insist that all the money they loaned to Saddam for his hideous regimes murderous reign of terror be repaid.
They continue to insist on up when we say down and demand down when we say up.
And after all that, they get their panties in a twist because we stiff arm them on contracts funded by our taxpayers. Not the money pledged by other countriesjust ours. And not Afghanistan contracts, apparently, where they do help us.
Good for the administration on this call. These countries need a dose of reality if they seriously believe that after all their obstruction we should be funneling money to them! In what fantasy world does such betrayal lead to lip-biting apologies from us followed by pleading with them to take our money to make up for it? Oh yeah, I forgot. Geez, the article says we are provoking the trans-Atlantic rift because of this decision!
In the meantime, the Japanese show what it means to be an ally by deciding to send troops to Iraq .
Taiwanese Decision (Posted December 9, 2003)
We have warned Taiwan not to exercise democracy in a provocative way.
Yes, we do want to stall a confrontation between Taiwan and China . Ideally, forever; but certainly long enough to end our campaign in Iraq and after any further confrontations with the Axis of Evil Twins. We dont need to make a decision on war in the Taiwan Strait while we fight in Afghanistan , Iraq , and possibly North Korea if that nutjob dictator has a go at Seoul .
We also need to allow Taiwan time to absorb the weapons we are selling them and reorganize their military to repel the Chinese whether they attack by air and missiles, blockade, or invasion. Once Taiwan has more ability to hold off the Chinese, we have the luxury of time to decide whether and how to intervene. In an ideal world, we could symbolically deploy aircraft carriers while the Taiwanese sink the Chinese naval forces attacking or blockading them and shoot down the aircraft that try to bomb them.
These are all valid reasons to warn Taiwan to stay quiet over the next decade. Yet consequences may well be felt that we will not like.
I believe the unintended consequence of this will be to give Taiwan a stark choice. They might accept that we will not back their independence and that they must be content with the status quo, believing we will defend them.
On the other hand, if independence is truly the will of the majority of Taiwanese, Taiwan may worry about our commitment to defending them and may think that 1.2 billion unfree Chinese consumers count for more to us than 20+ million free Taiwanese. The Taiwanese may decide that only nuclear missiles can preserve them from their large communist neighbor that denies that they have the right to an independent existence.
I think Peking made a mistake insisting that President Bush warn Taiwan publicly about moving toward formal independence. I think the Taiwanese will go nuclear over this. One day well wake up and Taiwan will announce they have an unspecified nuclear deterrent.
China will find that if the Taiwanese are denied the ability to vote for a formal request to Peking to remove Chinese missiles threatening Taiwan , the Taiwanese may simply deploy their own missiles.
Delicate (Posted December 8, 2003)
I sure hope we were clear that although we may not want Taiwan to discuss independence, we will fight any Chinese effort to coerce or attack Taiwan .
It will take some time for Taiwan to buy and absorb the weapons needed to counter China s build up.
Bite Me (Posted December 8, 2003)
Excuse me, but how am I supposed to react when a bunch of UN types get all cranky that the Internet is dominated by America ? They want the UN to run it.
Well, sorrrry. Im a little upset that the UN is dominated by thug-states that pretend they are countries.
The good news is the nimrods put off the discussion until 2005 so they can study it further. Wonder what theyll conclude in two years?
Shoot, we pay for both and only get to run one. I think we have the best deal, but just tell those yahoos to collectively bite us.
And send it by email.
This Guy Annoys Me (Posted December 8, 2003)
Given his views, Im always shocked that Korb hangs on to the credibility on defense issues that being in the Reagan administration provides.
His op-ed is silly. Any war would be a choice under his thinking, apparently. But I just want to comment on one thing (it is late, give me a break). He notes:
Powell, then [during Desert Shield/Desert Storm] chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as such defense hawks as Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), wanted to give sanctions more time to work before invading Iraq. (If it was so necessary, why did the administration of the elder Bush not invade until it got other nations to fund the war?)
Funny, huh, how taking the time to get other nations to send troops and contribute money is proof that the threat wasnt terribly real. I wonder what Korb would have said if Bush I had gone to war in 1991 without the UNs approval and without Egyptians, Syrians, British, and French deployed with us?
Korbs reference to sanctions to bolster his article is baffling. After decimating the Iraqi military in 1991, the Iraqi regime managed to survive twelve more years of sanctions before we finally destroyed it. How much longer could the Iraqis have survived had we not gone to war in 1991?
Oh, and for the record, in 1991, the only allied force that counted for a tinkers damn was the Britishjust like in 2003. (no offense to the Australians and others who provided much appreciated smaller forces, but Im talking volume of high quality forces able to take over frontage)
I just cant bear to read his stuff.
Chemical Rockets (Posted December 8, 2003)
Lt-Col al-Dabbagh, 40, who was the head of an Iraqi air defence unit in the western desert, said that cases containing WMD warheads were delivered to front-line units, including his own, towards the end of last year.
He said they were to be used by Saddam's Fedayeen paramilitaries and units of the Special Republican Guard when the war with coalition troops reached "a critical stage".
This article (via NRO) says that Iraqis were issued short-range chemical rockets but that the plan to use them fell apart when the Iraqi army fell apart. The rockets are still in Iraq , the Iraqi said. They might be in Syria , too.
On the way home, NPR had a Western reporter describing what appeared to be a chemical shell carried by some of the Baathists resisting us. They claim they are looking for a way to fire it and a good target. It sure sounds like a single precious round that they cart around. As such it is unlikely to be effective since a single round just wont cause mass casualties.
With one, there are probably others, eh? Of course, if Iraq didnt have chemical arms before our invasion, who gave it to this group?
Tough Tactics in Iraq (Posted December 7, 2003)
As the Sunnis failed to turn in their brethren in the Baathist cells still fighting us, I argued we had to get tough.
We have. We are isolating some villages that are hotbeds of resistance.
This is good, but I think the image of blowing up empty buildings as punishment is too associated with Israel to help us in the long run with an Arab Moslem population.
But the get tough approach can work if it is limited and if it also provides a way out for the vast apathetic majority who could swing either way. And keep the sight of the harsher measures from being reported to the rest of the country.
Counter-insurgency is a blend of killing and capturing the actively resisting; discouraging the supporters; swaying the neutrals; and rewarding the cooperating. I dont pretend to know how to balance that but we seem to be cracking down locally in response to local problems without just doing a blanketed crackdown that does more harm than good.
One advantage is that we arent trying to keep the territory, just keep the Baathists down so that a friendly Iraqi government can take over.
Wonderful (Posted December 7, 2003)
There are 8-mile unguided rockets packed with radioactive materials unaccounted for:
TIRASPOL, Moldova -- In the ethnic conflicts that surrounded the collapse of the Soviet Union, fighters in several countries seized upon an unlikely new weapon: a small, thin rocket known as the Alazan. Originally built for weather experiments, the Alazan rockets were packed with explosives and lobbed into cities. Military records show that at least 38 Alazan warheads were modified to carry radioactive material, effectively creating the world's first surface-to-surface dirty bomb.
A few dozen are loose. Unfreakingwonderful.
Army Readiness (Posted December 6, 2003)
Four Army divisions will be rated low on readiness when they return from Iraq . Said the article:
The four divisions -- the 82nd Airborne, the 101st Airborne, the 1st Armored and the 4th Infantry -- are to return from Iraq next spring, to be replaced by three others, with a fourth rotating into Afghanistan. That would leave only two active-duty divisions available to fight in other parts of the world.
Briefing reporters at the Pentagon, the official said the four returning divisions will be rated either C-3 or C-4, the Army's two lowest readiness categories, for 120 to 180 days after they return as vehicles and helicopters are overhauled and troops are rested and retrained.
C-3 means a division is capable of performing only some of its combat missions, and C-4 means a division needs additional manpower, training or equipment to fight a major regional war.
It is unfortunate but unavoidable. Troops need leave time and time to attend military schools. Others will be getting out as terms expire. New soldiers will need to be trained up to standards. Equipment needs intensive overhauling and maintenance. We are at war and we cant help but use up divisions like this.
But remember that this doesnt mean that the units are worthless. Our readiness standards are pretty strict. Most armies have the opposite problem and rulers think they have trained units when they are in fact just crap.
We would need time to send divisions with all their organic strength, but each division could probably put together a large brigade by combining units. So we could probably send a couple smaller divisions augmented by non-divisional units to make up for some of the units unready. Then the units left behind could be beefed up for reinforcements. Plus, we still have Marines who can scrape a couple brigades together, Im sure.
Although this leaves us empty if we have to send two unused ready divisions to Korea , plus a couple scraped together divisions, and a couple Marine brigades. We would have to mobilize at least a couple of our Army National Guard divisions completely to train up for duty. This would take a year but they could be used to free up active units. Even our ARNG divisions are pretty good compared to foreign active units. (But not compared to our active divisions.)
That said, we could use two more Army divisions, easily. Some may try to score political points by exaggerating the situation, but unless they support expanding the Army, the only way to have avoided this situation was to have either mobilized Guard divisions already or not go to war at all.
This is Getting Insulting (Posted December 6, 2003)
Earlier, in Landfill, I wrote about the bizarre mix of political mailings that I have gotten recently.
This week the ACLU has written to me twice, warning me of the urgent need to fight John Ashcroft. Their letters started out, Dear Friend of Freedom:, which is accurate, although I shudder about what their definition is. But then it gets just silly:
Attorney General John Ashcroft is waging a relentless campaign to undermine our freedom, shamelessly using the war on terror as cover for his assault.
As Ive said before, I guess if you are so convinced that we are really in peacetime that you must use quote marks around war on terror, than it is actually fairly reasonable to be upset by wartime measures. (Although by standards of wartime past, ours are mild.)
What boggles my mind is how they can sincerely believe that people are not out there trying to kill us. I really dont get why they can believe that our military operations over the last two years have kind of just happened. Seeing no provocations worthy of fighting over, they seek bizarre explanations of empire, Halliburton profits, and re-election strategies.
But then the mail gets more insulting.
Americans for Peace Now (the Israeli group Peace Now) wrote me also with a long and boring explanation of why they arent like Neville Chamberlain and why they arent fools to trust in hopes instead of clear-headed agreements that dont rely on thugs for your safety (ok, I know that was biased).
What really bugs me is that the address information for the Americans for Peace Now mailing is the same as the ACLU mailing. So the ACLU, which claims to be fighting for my privacy, sold or gave my name and address to the peace group.
Thanks.
I dont feel very guilty at all returning both postage-paid envelopes (empty of course) to the ACLU.
Thats my blow for privacy.
Another Deadline (Posted December 5, 2003)
The Iraqis are going to prosecute and punish Baathists for crimes against Iraqis during Saddams long bloody rule.
Good. This is yet another deadline looming for those passive Sunnis to push them to decide whether they will move on in a new Iraq or face the music for their complicity in Saddams brutal rule. Many say they were just as oppressed. Fine. Get on board and turn in the dead enders.
Ive been eager for the Iraqis we liberated to convict Baathists to bind them to our side. Justice demands it, of course, but the practical matter of making sure Iraqis dont just stay neutral as we battle the Baathists is at stake.
The internationalists who thought Iraqis should have risen up on their own to overthrow Saddam without our tainted assistance are also upset that Iraqis will mete out justice:
Richard Dicker, director of the international justice program at Human Rights Watch, said he was concerned officials didn't consider bringing in judges who have worked on major war crimes trials in other countries.
"After three decades of Baath Party rule, the capacity of Iraqi judges to conduct incredibly complicated trials has been greatly diminished," he said by telephone from New York. He said he worried about the tribunal's ability to provide fair trials.
I guess the lesson for future dictators is make sure you decimate your legal system so that some human rights nitwits will argue that nobody is around competent enough to try you. Thats a nervy argument to make, like the child who kills his parents and begs the judge for mercy because he is an orphan.
Of course, that only applies if America liberates the country. Should the Russians or Chinese do the regime change, rest assured the regime loyalists and their families who survive the razing of their country will just disappear.
The UN, which has done so much already, should butt out and let the Iraqis cleanse their country:
Sandra Hodgkinson, director of the coalition authority's human rights and justice office, said she believed an Iraqi court system with some training from international experts will work.
"Iraqis want it that way, and they're capable of doing it that way," she said. "There is no need to have an international tribunal when the local population is willing and able to do it."
Adnan Jabbar al-Saadi, a lawyer with the Iraqi Human Rights Ministry who said he expected to argue some of the tribunal cases, agreed.
"I think it's very important for people to see the criminals who killed their families in court," he said. "The United Nations asked us if they should give money to people so they would feel better, and I told them nothing will make them feel better except seeing the responsible criminals in prison."
The tendency of the UN fetishists to value process over form is amazing. Saddams regime was legal after all, and our invasion is still resented.
Try them and execute them. (The Baathists, of course!)
For the sake of process, lets do it in that order.
Go Army. Beat Navy (Posted December 4, 2003)
The Army-Navy football game is this Saturday and the cadets havent won a game this year.
I want Army to win, but those young men have a lot to do and a lot more important things to worry about than football. The character of these student officer candidates is amazing.
And in wartime, learning composure in difficult times is a lesson that will pay dividends. Could they be the first NCAA football team to go a season without a win? Yes. It might happen.
But those cadets should hold their heads high. They play for pride. They will fight for us.
Go Army! Beat Navy!
But mostly, just thank you, cadets, for preparing for war.
Bandwidth (Posted December 4, 2003)
Yep. Its an Instalanche. (Thanks for the link, Instapundit).
Keep scrolling down to December 1 for the post on John Burns.
Thats right, you have to work for it. Use the scroll bar. I dont have that fancy blog software to work with. I just type it on a manual and scan it in the way God intended people to blog.
Follow the Money (Posted December 4, 2003)
It seems that the Samarra ambush really was a desperate bank hit. With a new Iraqi currency about to make the Saddam cash stash obsolete, we are hitting smuggling to deny the Baathists money to pay for attacks. The U.S.-led raids have seized more than $100 million since the end of major combat May 1, the coalition military official said.
I imagine the Baathists dont want to waste the hard currency on fighting and instead it is their retirement fund when they decide to get out of town.
Saddams Crimes (Posted December 4, 2003)
Youd think that people wouldnt have to be reminded of Saddams massive crimes. But the fact is that too many people still think, "Yes, Saddam was bad and I suppose it is good he is gone, but. This doesnt mean one cant criticize the conduct of the war or the post-war. But come on.
The author, Steven Vincent, details the death and depravity that is already well known but seemingly forgotten by many. He follows:
STORIES LIKE these, defining the reality of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, made me begin to wonder how Iraqis were dealing with the fact that many outsiders seemed to question the value of their countrys liberation. Among those I talked to, the prevalent reaction was sheer disbelief. "If they had lived for five minutes under Saddam they wouldnt think like this," expostulated an Iraqi translator for the U.S. military. Yet right in Baghdad itself there were quite a few such people: journalists, representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), peace activists, and others who seemed to ignore the record of Saddams crimes as they vented their anger against the war.
I met "humanitarian workers" in Baghdad who, even as they decried the U.S. "occupation" of the country, would fall into an embarrassed silence when I mentioned Saddams atrocities, and "peace activists" who suggested that the terrible image the world has of Saddam Hussein was largely the creation of "U.S. propaganda." One Dutch photographer argued that Saddams attack on Iran was no worse than "Americas invasion of Vietnam" and that Baath-party members were mostly "guys just looking for jobs." When I tried to describe to a worker for a Canadian NGO some of the findings of the human-rights association, he shrugged and waggled his hand as if to say, "Yeah, yeah, weve heard all this before." Impatiently, he burst out: "Yours is the real rogue nation."
I asked Hasan what he thought of the seemingly worldwide resistance to acknowledging the horrible reality of Saddam Husseins crimes. He began by reminding me that some Iraqis practiced their own form of denial: for the most part, these were small-business owners, older artists, and intellectuals who, while not actively collaborating with the Baathists, had nevertheless thrived on their support. (I had encountered a number of such individuals myself.) Then he turned for wisdom to Shakespeare. "People who forget about Saddam are like Gertrude in Hamlet. She chose to forget about the murder of her husband to get on with her life, and encouraged her son to do the same. But the voices of the dead will not be silent. Like the ghost of Hamlets father, they will not rest until some sort of justice is brought to Iraq."
Yes, I do want to know why there werent chemical weapons ready to go on the eve of war, but there is no doubt that Saddam was violating his commitments to the UN and that he was striving for WMD.
And as we debate this important question, never ever forget that his regime was evil. That judgment is not simplistic and should remain unchanged no matter what you think of our president.
Planning for the Post War (Posted December 3, 2003)
There seems to be a cottage industry of bloggers posting articles about the disaster developing in post-World War II Germany in the months after Berlin fell. This is the latest Ive seen (via Instapundit).Unrest with the Germans. Protesting American soldiers who want to go home. Attacks and threats against Germans cooperating with us.
Im quite pleased with this trend. One line of attack on Bush has been that he failed to plan for the post-war situation. They point to the fine Germany we have now and note that we spent years planning in detail for what would happen after we won the war. If only we had done this, they say, wed be doing as well as we did in Germany .
Except that despite all those years of detailed planning, our post-war reality in 1946 Germany looked like a disaster to many contemporary observers. So, if we had taken the time to make the detailed plans for post-war Iraq , there was apparently no guarantee those plans would have worked any better than they did in 1946. Also, wed still be about two years from invading Iraq .
Remember that we had years to plan because it took so long to win the war! Perhaps we werent as lucky as our fathers to have 2-1/2 years of bloody war before the Nazis were defeated. (Good news men! The Germans counter-attacked in Belgium ! I think well have time to flesh out that zip code project after all!)
Just our awful luck, we crashed into Baghdad three weeks after our offensive kicked off.
History is only neat in the history books. There wasnt anything inevitable about succeeding in Germany in 1946. I dare say our chances in Iraq looking forward are better than they looked from January 1946 in Germany .
Were making our own history right now. And were winning.
The Chinese are Serious (Posted December 3, 2003)
Seriously, the Chinese regard taking over Taiwan as so important that everything else is secondary. The fact that theyve been saying they want Taiwan for fifty years doesnt mean they arent serious, it means theyve been unable to invade. Id say that fifty years of saying something means they want that thing.
Listen to this:
[Major] General Peng listed the Olympics, loss of foreign investment, deterioration in foreign relations, economic slowdown or recession and "necessary" casualties by the army as costs China would willingly bear to reunify the mainland. He belittled the idea that China would not dare use military force against Taiwan before the 2008 Olympics, which it campaigned for many years to hold.
As Ive said before, were I in charge of Chinese strategy, Id invade Taiwan on the eve of the Olympics.
Iraq Deadline Advancing (Posted December 3, 2003)
The United States will set up a paramilitary battalion composed of Iraqi party militia. Seven parties will contribute to units that will be commanded or advised by US Special Forces. I read it will be committed to Baghdad after some training.
Some call this risky. Perhaps. But it is only a battalion. This is not about to create forces available for civil war. After all, these militia already exist and would be more available for civil war where they are right now. And it will scare the Sunni Baathists in Baghdad , giving them a taste of summer 2004 when the enemies of the Baathists will assume sovereignty. This may push Sunnis, just as the old Saddam money becomes worthless, to join the new Iraq and abandon hope that Saddam will return them to their former glory days of raping and pillaging Iraq .
There is one big risk. Wed better be prepared for some ugly incidents when the paramilitary unit engages Baathists. I suspect they will not want to grant quarter.
Democracy Not For Everyone? (Posted December 2, 2003)
I hope to God this story is false. After the President himself declared we would do what it takes to defend Taiwan from China , I hope this reported betrayal of Taiwan is false.
Would we really say that Taiwan can never be independent? Would we really agree that Taiwan might do something provocative enough to justify a Chinese invasion that we would let happen? Good Lord, State and Defense oppose this plan! How on earth is a betrayal of our principles and of a democratic ally good for us?
I guarantee China will read this as a green light and we will get a war over the Taiwan Strait . As the article notes:
If the United States tells Beijing that it will not defend Taiwan in the event of a "provocation," this can only serve as an inducement to Beijing to threaten to use force, or perhaps actually to use force, on any occasion that Beijing deems Taiwan's behavior "provocative." After all, what constitutes a "provocation"? Beijing believes Taiwan's current status of de facto independence is already unacceptable.
And then either we shock the Chinese by rightly defending Taiwan or we see our influence in Asia shattered by allowing China to crush a real democracy in Asia .
The President must not do this. It is wrong, plain and simple. And it is dangerous and counter to our ideals and security interests.
Stryker (Posted December 1, 2003)
This is how we are preparing our Stryker vehicles for Iraq .
Designed to be airlifted into an ongoing sudden war to bridge the gap between paratroopers and Abrams tanks to stop an enemy invasion of an ally, we shipped Strykers into Kuwait by sea for a planned troop rotation and are now up-armoring them with slat armor to survive RPGs once they reach Iraq s Sunni triangle.
Just what is the point in putting these vehicles into Iraq under these circumstances? This is not the scenario for which they were designed. Ive got a bad feeling about this.
Adventures in Psycholand (Posted December 1, 2003)
The North Koreans are truly trapped in their Cold War 1950s mindset. They dont like our recon flights around North Korea and complained:
"Those acts clearly prove that the U.S. imperialist war hawks are watching for an opportunity to crush the DPRK with arms, clinging to their anachronistic hostile policy toward it as usual, though they are loudmouthed about 'a solution to an issue' through negotiations," KCNA said.
North Korea promised in 1994 to end their nuke programs while they pressed ahead secretly because they claim they fear America will attack them and they need nukes to deter us. Just pay us money and promise not to attack and we wont need nukes, they say. Some in the West blindly believe the North Koreans. Then the North Koreans undermine the whole bribery/blackmail scam by asserting:
"The U.S. demand that the DPRK drop 'the nuclear program first' means that the DPRK should lay down arms and work for the U.S. as a servant. The DPRK can never accept it. It would rather die than having peace in exchange for slavery," North Korea said in a commentary carried by the official news agency, KCNA.
Talk to them? Sure. Agree to something? Hell no.
Squeeze them. They are brittle and teetering. Push them over.
Iraqification (Posted December 1, 2003)
As good as it is to zap the fedayeen when they come out like they did in Samarra , even victories like this are not the metric of success in the long run. Keep rebuilding so that an Iraqi economy provides jobs and an Iraqi military can fight the Baathists. The calls for more US troops are wrong plain and simple. How many American troops helped the Salvadoran military defeat the communist guerrillas there? Under 100. And they were advisors with little more than radios to call in the AC-130s. The Iraqis will do just fine.
I had some worry about our summer 2004 deadline for turning over authority to the Iraqis since Ive read the Shias are angling for advantage knowing we are lame ducks. This is worrisome.
But to our advantage is that the Sunnis now have a deadline too. Perhaps too literally. At some point, the Sunnis will have to decide whether they want to keep resisting and put themselves at the mercies of the majority Shias and Kurds as we transfer authority to the Iraqis. Oh sure, it was fun for the Sunni Baathists to slaughter Shias and Kurds when the Sunnis had tanks and helicopters and poison gas just in case. But next year the Sunnis will just have small arms and the Shias and Kurds will have the firepower and anger to get revenge.
The Shias and Kurds are friendly, so their angling for advantage is annoying rather than a threat. The Sunnis have a big decision to make: come in from the cold and collect the Saddam reward or face their former victims with the short end of the stick this time.
Interesting choice, eh?
Hmm. On another topic, I think weve lost 4 KIA in the last ten days. Down to June levels, I think. Only ten days but this is good.
Listening to Iraqis (Posted December 1, 2003)
Listening to NPR on the way into work this morning and on the way home was pure discouragement. The story was One Small town. Two versions of what happened. (or something like that) The topic was the Samarra ambush. The reporter engaged in the hideous balance of treating the US militarys version of the fight as suspect since local Iraqis claimed that there was no ambush, that only a few fighters ambushed us, that the locals joined in the fight after the ambush started, that US troops fired indiscriminately, that we mortared a mosque, and that this would unite all Iraqis against America.
Actually, I would have been happy with balance since the story dwelled mostly on the Iraqis who provided the anti-American sound bites that NPR so craves. The reporter barely noted that the town was part of the Baathist heartland. The reporter certainly didnt note that Iraqis might not be the most friendly or even simply forthcoming.
It was a most discouraging piece of journalism.
Then we have the story by John Burns that doesnt settle for the sound bites that feed the Baathist/NPR views..
In this article we have local Iraqis in a Sunni area giving us the usual down, down, USA spiel. Now an NPR reporter would have smiled at the quotes and left, eager to bolster the Vietnam angle.
John Burns kept talking to the Iraqis. As he noted:
Knowing what ordinary Iraqis thought was never easy for Western reporters when Saddam Hussein bestrode the land. Now his secret police and information ministry minders are gone, but not Mr. Hussein himself. So his terror still radiates among Iraqis, many of whom condition their words and actions against the possibility he may return.
Burns went on, with the talk starting from we love Saddam to we hate him to please America stay and help us get on our feet.
It is well to remember this conversation when you see reports of Iraqis denouncing the US . They dont speak for the rest of the Iraqis. And sadly, after decades of brutality, they often dont speak for themselves.
One wonders what we have to do to get good press. We kill and capture far more than we lose in the skirmishes yet the press pretends we are just getting hit again and again. In this battle we ripped out the hearts of a serious ambush and the press is upset that we killed Iraqis. If we had lost 50+ in an ambush, the press would declare that this was the start of our final defeat. The enemy loses this many and the press just about treats it as a crime scene with the US Army on trial.
Is it clear why the military doesnt release body counts?
