“Iraqi WMD Programs” (Posted March 31, 2004)
We continue to search for WMD in Iraq.
Duelfer, the man who replaced Kay testified:
Mr.
Duelfer said Monday that inspectors had uncovered new
information that Iraq had in place before the war at least the technical
ability to use civilian facilities to quickly produce the biological and
chemical agents needed for weapons.
Still,
Mr. Duelfer said: "We do not know whether Saddam
was concealing W.M.D. in the final years or planning to resume production once
more sanctions were lifted. We do not know what he ordered his senior ministers
to undertake. We do not know how the disparate activities we have identified
link together."
Most disturbing is that the Iraqis involved still aren’t
talking. I thought each would be racing to avoid being the last to talk for
fear of being prosecuted for war crimes. Apparently, they are silent because
they fear prosecution or fear the regime’s people still. They must be induced
to talk.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA31MAR04C
Iran
is pushing
for nukes and stalling Western reaction to buy time to get those nukes:
New intelligence on Iran has fueled
suspicions the Islamic Republic has a secret uranium- enrichment program,
possibly aimed at producing fuel for an atom bomb program, Western diplomats
say.
A secret nuclear program that is only
“possibly” aimed at making atom bombs. Yeah, there’s that secret sewer
program and the top secret immunization program and the most secret teddy bear
factory program.
Honestly, why else would Iran
have secret enrichment programs?
We haven’t much time. The article says the Iranians want
their first nuke by the end of 2005. If we topple the regime in early 2005, we
may stop those madmen.
I hope to God we are targeting Iran’s mullahs next year.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA31MAR04B
I am in awe of the respect
that Islamists accord the dead:
An enraged mob attacked four American contractors here today, shooting
them to death, burning their vehicles, dragging their bodies through the
downtown streets and then hanging the charred corpses from a bridge over the Euphrates River.
The Iraqis bravely mutilated the corpses—the only Americans
that they can safely fight.
If the rules of engagement don’t let us shoot those who
would string up the dead on bridges, we need a revision real fast.
I’m getting tired of complaining about Fallujah.
I think I’ve noted the hostility there since last April and commented on the
need for harsher methods there since then. While I’m in full agreement with the
need to win hearts and minds; and the need to fight the Baathists
and their new Islamist friends with the lowest amount of firepower possible;
the soft approach we’ve used in Fallujah has to go.
There is no evidence that we’ve impacted the hearts and minds of Fallujah residents. It’s long past time we cracked down
hard.
Cut off the city. Cut the phone lines. Issue
ration and ID cards. Issue food, water, and electricity and check out
everybody who comes to collect their rations. Make the land around the city a
free-fire zone and only let people in and out through checkpoints. Impose a
strict curfew and arrest or shoot anybody outside during curfew. Sift those
left for Islamists and Baathists by going door to
door, block by block. How do we expect anybody in Fallujah
to help us when the insurgents there are handled with kid gloves? When the
insurgents seem to operate with impunity? At some point, we have to admit that
this is an enemy stronghold and treat the area as enemy-held and not just filled
with misguided people who can be persuaded with good deeds to side with us.
This does not negate the fact that most Iraqis are friendly and that this is
the right approach in much of the country. In Fallujah,
however, we don’t have friends. And if we have them, they are ineffective. Pull
any Iraqis who helped us out of there for their safety while we crack down.
Second, I’m ashamed that the Army turned over a city in this
condition to the Marines. I worried about our strategy of pulling out of this
city and turning over security to the local police and ICDC. In general, we
need to do this, but it seemed premature in Fallujah.
The bankruptcy of this approach is all the more apparent
when you note that there was no security reaction to the attack on the civilian
contractors. No Iraqi police or ICDC. And worse, no Marines responded. How are
the Marines to teach the insurgents that they have no worse enemy if the
Marines concede the city to the insurgents?
Yeah, I’m far away and I could be way off on this. The
Marines seem to think things are going well enough. But I don’t see any
indication that we can win hearts and minds by being nice in this cesspool.
Grab them by the balls. Their hearts and minds will follow.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA31MAR04A
Although we had problems getting allies to help in the heavy
lifting in the Iraq War, allies
are coming:
NATO and the UN are discussing a joint operation to send more
peacekeepers to Iraq. While both organizations have loudly condemned the American led
coalition that overthrew Saddam Hussein, it's becoming clear that Iraq is headed for peace, prosperity and
democracy. While the news media accentuates the violence of Saddam loyalists
and Islamic radicals, European and UN officials are aware of the fact that the
Iraqi economy is reviving at a robust rate and that most of the country is at
peace and awaiting elections. While neither NATO nor the UN will admit, any
time soon, that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of
democracy there will do more to defuse Islamic radicalism than anything else
being done, they don't want to be frozen out of the process either. Eventually,
kudos will be handed out, and they want their share.
It was once said that we needed the legitimacy conferred by
NATO and especially the UN in order to succeed in Iraq.
Now, as success in Iraq
accelerates without much help from these bodies, they want to rush in to avoid
having success without them rubbed in their faces.
I’ll welcome help when offered. But let us not forget cause
and effect when we recall the success of Iraq.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA30MAR04D
The British have arrested some
would-be bombers:
Police arrested eight men and seized half a
ton of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer compound used in the Oklahoma City
bombing, in raids by hundreds of officers — one of the biggest anti-terrorism
operations in Britain since the Sept. 11 attacks.
And the reaction of a British Moslem
spiritual leader?
Home Secretary David Blunkett,
who has warned for months that London is a prime terrorist target, said the
arrests Tuesday were a "timely reminder" of the threat from al-Qaida. But a Muslim leader warned that the
headline-grabbing dawn raids risked demonizing the whole community.
I see. Arresting bombers could demonize the Moslem
community. Plotting to blow up innocents isn’t any risk for demonization,
apparently.
And then a local resident gives another opinion of the
arrests:
"From what I heard, the police came here at about 5 o'clock kicking doors down like (the British police
TV series) 'The Sweeney.' There are young children in those houses. What do
they need to do this for? It's over the top."
Yes. An hour-long operation (I’m guessing) to arrest
terrorists was an awful experience for the children who witnessed it. Seeing
their elders amassing the ingredients for bombs and talking about death to the
infidels was just good citizenship training.
Finally, we have this complaint:
Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission,
said such high-profile police operations fostered an impression that many
Muslims supported terrorism.
The chutzpah is amazing. First of all, complaining that
arresting terrorists is worse than actually being terrorists would seem to me
the main way the Islamic community in Britain
fosters an impression that many Moslems support terrorism. Second, although an
“Islamic Human Rights Commission” exists, I highly doubt that it actually seeks
to protect the human rights of people who live in Islamic cultures. I’m just
guessing here, but I bet the esteemed IHRC exists to shield young would-be
terrorists living in the West from the long arm of the law. I bet it exists to
use the very legal protections of our Western society in an effort to protect
those who would destroy those rights in a new caliphate of Greater London if
they could achieve that.
We have a lot of work to do, quite clearly.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA30MAR04C
The long-predicted reaction of Arab public opinion to our
wars against Islamists and dictatorships is beginning
to be evident:
The
most underreported and encouraging story in the Middle East in the past year has been the emergence in
public of homegrown civic movements demanding political change. Two years ago
they were nonexistent or in jail. Now they are out in the open even in the most
politically backward places in the region: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria. They are made up not only of intellectuals
but of businessmen, women, students, teachers and journalists. Unlike their
governments -- and the old school of U.S. and European Arabists
-- they don't believe that change should be gradual, and they reject the
dictators' claim that democracy would only empower Islamic extremists. It is
the delay of change, they say, that is increasingly dangerous.
These
people weren't created by George W. Bush. They are the homegrown answer to a
decadent political order, and they ride a powerful historical current. But they
will tell you frankly: The new U.S. democratization policy, far from being an
unwanted imposition, has given them a voice, an audience and at least a partial
shield against repression -- three things they didn't have one year ago.
"In
the Middle East today, you talk about food, you talk about
football -- and you talk about democracy," says Mohammed Kamal, a young political scientist from Egypt. "Some people condemn the Americans,
others say, 'Look at the other side, these are universal values.' The point is
that for the first time in many years, there is a serious debate going on in
the Arab world about their own societies. The United States has triggered this debate, it keeps the
debate going, and this is a very healthy development."
Like US calls of support to Soviet dissidents and to Polish dissidents, the US
may respond to and endorse a recent declaration of Arab civic groups who met in
Alexandria, Egypt,
for democracy, civil rights, and freedom. As one Egyptian political scientist
and participant of the Alexandria
meeting said:
"If your governments refer to the Alexandria declaration it will strengthen and promote
this trend for reform," he said. The very idea of it made him grin.
"I like this," he added. "This would be very good."
Funny that support from America
doesn’t seem counter-productive to the reformers.
I may overstate the point, but it seems that rather than
creating a thousand bin Ladens, our war on terror has
created an undetermined amount of Thomas Jeffersons.
Mostly, I just want to know why thinking Arabs deserve
democracy and freedom is cultural imperialism.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA30MAR04B
This is the action
of a dictatorial regime:
All told, hundreds of civil servants have been fired over
the past six weeks for signing the recall petition, violating their
constitutional rights to vote, unionists charge. The
number could be in the thousands if doctors at public hospitals and teachers
are counted, they say.
That’s right, Venezuela’s
Hugo Chavez—not President Bush—is creating a climate of fear where people under
his thumb could actually benefit by fleeing to France.
That’s right, a buddy of Fidel. Not you two. Not anybody in this country.
Attack the government in this country and you get on best-seller lists.
So grow up and recognize that dissenting doesn’t mean
everybody else has to fawn over your “courage.”
In Axis of El Vil state Venezuela,
dissent takes courage. Here, in a real functioning democracy with
well-established freedoms, you just need a good publicist.
Meanwhile, the senior
partner in the axis has paraded relatives of imprisoned activists to deny
that their relatives are being mistreated:
Rejecting charges that 75 imprisoned
dissidents were being mistreated, Cuba's foreign
minister showed foreign reporters Thursday videotaped interviews with relatives
of seven inmates who said their loved ones were fine.
Uh huh. I’d say the bargain is
clear—say nice things or your relatives will be mistreated.
And in the Axis of El Vil default
position, leftist
rebels/drug dealers and their supposed polar opposite paramilitaries
all exhibit the thuggery of vileness that earns one
membership.
I fear Colombia
just isn’t serious about putting the numbers of troops into the field to
actually suppress this insurgent activity. As long as the government is only
interested in keeping the insurgents at bay, our help won’t win that war. It’s
up to them to put men into uniform. We’ve done better in Iraq
in one year than the Colombians have in four decades.
And in the farcical aspect of the region, Caribbean
states go
to bat for Axis of El Vil
wannabe Aristide:
The 15-nation Caribbean Community
withheld recognition from Haiti's U.S.-backed
interim government Saturday as leaders closed a summit renewing calls for a
U.N. investigation into the ouster of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
Truly, it speaks volumes about this group that they expend
efforts to defend a minor league thug when the Cuban human rights travesty
carries on in their midst with nary a protest. “The Caribbean Community,
raising irrelevancy to higher levels.”®
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA30MAR04A
Although Spain
remains committed to withdrawing its 1,300 troops from Iraq
unless the UN is in charge there (though what that could mean in Spain’s
eyes is unclear), they will double
their Afghanistan commitment to 250 troops.
Thank you, Spain.
I am sincere in this. I am also deeply disappointed that Spain
is leaving Iraq,
but nonetheless happy for increased support in Afghanistan.
Take our help where we can, I say. This is a long war and we
shouldn’t alienate allies by declaring them unfit because they don’t contribute
as we would wish. Nor should we obsess over the exact level of commitment. Support
will ebb and flow, just as it did in the Cold War (even in our own country),
but the objective must be kept in mind at all times. Heck, Spain
was a late addition to NATO after all.
I am curious, however, about how pulling out of the fight in
Iraq will
appease the Islamists yet increasing troops in Afghanistan
won’t torque off al Qaeda.
Ah, nuance. Sadly it escapes my grasp.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA29MAR04E
NATO
expands into the former Soviet Baltic states:
With the addition of Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, NATO's
membership grows from 19 countries to 26. The new members will take part in
their first meeting Friday in Brussels. Three other
nations — Albania, Croatia and Macedonia — hope to join.
This represents not just a victory over Soviet communism,
solidifying the West’s gains and guarding against a resurgent hostile Russia,
but a victory over those who insisted that NATO expansion eastward would
provoke Russian hostility. The former Soviet colonies were supposed to stay in
a kind of no-man’s land, in effect recognizing that Moscow
had special rights to police the area. Exercising full rights of sovereignty by
joining NATO was not to be allowed. Indeed, some argued that expanding into the
former Soviet Union should not even be considered.
I always felt that getting rid of that gray zone would deter
adventurous Russians from one day trying to rekindle the glory days of a Red Empire
by playing in Eastern Europe. Instead, the most powerful
alliance in the world ends that outlet for visions of renewed empire. Shoot,
the Russians already pulled out of Kosovo after their 1999 flirtation with visions
of past glories as the big brother of Balkan Slavs.
The Russians may not like it but we are moving east all the
way to the Baltic states, and four NATO F-16s will be based in Lithuania as
part of NATO’s efforts to help bolster the new members’ air defenses. It is
just symbolic, of course, but so too was our defense of West Berlin
in the Cold War. And the Russians now say they will only get really worried if
we build up large forces there. Not an unreasonable position, really:
Konstantin Kosachyov, head of the international affairs committee in
Russia's lower house of parliament, said there is "an unfriendly
character" to NATO expansion and that if significant NATO bases appear
near Russia's border, "then we can't exclude that Russia will consider the
possibility of taking corresponding action."
But in the meantime, all is well, and the West gained some
small but brave nations that emerged from Soviet communist domination (well, Slovenia
didn’t have Soviet domination, just Yugoslavian communism) and are building
democracy.
Welcome to the best club in the world!
And Moscow?
Look east, guys. The real threat to you is in your Far East,
not NATO. The East is Red; and I hate to break this to you, but you aren’t red
anymore.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA29MAR04D
"If the empowerment goes relatively smoothly and the
Shiites handle their new power and more significant role well, it can be a
source of both the reassertion of Iraqi Shiism's
leadership role and a source of pride for many Shiites, especially those in the
Gulf," said John L. Esposito of Georgetown University.
And if we market ourselves as the helper of that pride, we
may gain a lot of good will in Shia communities. There could be a Shia realignment
in our favor. And if Shias feel that they deserve
civil rights with American power bolstering them, we may well see a wedge for
reform in Sunni Arab autocracies. And it will be safe for the Sunnis, really,
since they will still be the majority (except in Bahrain).
All the more reason to help the
downtrodden Shias of Iran in their struggle with the
mullah overlords.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA29MAR04C
Good:
The U.S.-led coalition on Sunday shut down a
weekly newspaper run by followers of a hardline
Shiite Muslim cleric, saying its articles were increasing the threat of
violence against occupation forces.
Sadr’s followers protested:
What is happening now is what used to happen
during the days of Saddam. No freedom of opinion. It is like the days of the Baath," said Hussam Abdel-Kadhim, 25, a vendor who took part in the
demonstration, referring to the Baath Party that
ruled Iraq for 35 years until Saddam Hussein was ousted a year ago.
Sadr and his followers need to
understand that “freedom” doesn’t mean you can plot insurrection and murder
without being stopped. Stopping torture doesn’t mean that all legitimate and
lawful enforcement of order is gone.
Sadr is dangerous and it looks
like we are preparing to neutralize him. Getting rid of the formal militias of
the factions more friendly to us is a start and
justifies action against Sadr’s more dangerous goons.
I don’t know whether we do it before June 30 or whether this is a task for the
new Iraqi government with our support after turnover. But it must be done.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA29MAR04B
Iran
has announced it is building
no more centrifuges:
"The Islamic Republic of Iran has voluntarily
expanded (the enrichment) suspension to include the production of components
and assembly," state television quoted Aghazadeh
as saying on its Web site.
An official of the Atomic Energy Organization explained
that this referred to centrifuges and said it had been done to build greater
trust with the U.N. agency, the International Atomic Energy Organization, and
with Iran's European partners.
First of all, there is the question of whether this is true.
We Americans should be pretty good at parsing by now. So they will no longer
produce components and will no longer assemble them. First, let’s note that
they have only suspended voluntarily this limitation. It could end at any time.
Second, maybe they slapped together as many as they could since we started
complaining about this hole in their promises and they will innocently “test”
and “repair” the components already technically “built.” Or maybe they will buy
whatever number they need from sources abroad. Like, oh, North
Korea for example.
Even if what they say is true all the way around in that no
more centrifuges will exist at the end of the day, so what?
It is unclear how many centrifuges Iran has produced.
IAEA inspectors have previously reported finding "hundreds" of
centrifuges, but well below the number needed to build nuclear bombs.
I dare say, if the Iranians have really stopped building
centrifuges, the Iranians have all the centrifuges they need to proceed with
their plans to build nuclear weapons.
We have little time to deal with Iran.
Perhaps a year? Two? I have
to believe we are gearing up to deal with this component of the Axis of Evil.
And I trust this administration takes its responsibility to protect us
seriously and that the Axis of Evil label, though not used much anymore, still
means something. Were I calling the shots (to be fair, really easy for me to
say from my desk), I’d be pushing for a takeover by the Iranian military in the
new year, with help from American forces during the rotation of forces in Iraq.
US forces could
move in to secure nuclear and other WMD sites and to back up the Iranian
military. I read that the polls are good for us in Iran.
I read that elements of the military are favorably disposed toward us. I read
that the mullahs don’t trust the regular military and don’t really trust the Pasdaran—what might be considered analogous to Saddam’s
Republican Guards as far as trust is concerned. Instead, like Saddam with his Fedayeen, the mullahs have imported foreigners to man the Basij paramilitaries to terrorize dissidents.
Topple the mullahs.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA29MAR04A
We are working to secure
our ports against attacks. Why?
The
threat they envision is a catastrophic attack on a major American port by a
ship bearing a bomb. Al Qaeda has sought for seven
years to use commercial ships to attack the United States at home and abroad, public records show.
A
seaborne terrorist attack could cost thousands of lives and inflict billions of
dollars in damage, maritime security experts say, while closing major American
ports at a cost to world trade measured in tens or hundreds of billions of
dollars.
And so what are we doing?
The
response to this threat is a new law of the sea, spurred by Admiral Loy, passed
by Congress and signed by President Bush 16 months ago. A parallel global code
was adopted days later under American pressure by the United Nations's International Maritime Organization.
The
law and the code set a July 1 deadline for all of the world's ships and ports
to create counterterrorism systems — computers, communications gear,
surveillance cameras, security patrols — to help secure America against an
attack.
The
cost of compliance at home and abroad will be many billions of dollars. Many
American and foreign ports lack the funds to comply. But the cost of not
complying could be steeper still. The law's demands create a stark
confrontation between world trade and national security.
If
a ship, or any one of the last 10 ports it visited, does not meet the new
security standards, it can be turned away from American waters. If a port falls
short, no ship leaving it can enter American harbors. That
means ports, and their nations, can be barred from trading with the United States.
Of course, we’re being “bad” doing this:
"The
developing world is saying that the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the
world is exporting the cost of protecting itself onto some of the world's
poorest countries," said Stephen E. Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander
and a maritime security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.
I guess multilateralism isn’t always good. (But we knew that
already with North Korea.
It’s just so confusing…)
The July 1 deadline will not be met. Of course, just
mentioning that “developing” countries will have problems will inspire attacks
on us that we are heartless to their suffering. So we will have to decide what
to do. We need trade. We need security. I don’t know when we get to the
objective or what a realistic date is. But some deadline needs to be imposed.
And sadly, if we delay the date and we are attacked after July 1 but before the
new deadline, the loyal opposition will run with it.
I’m not feeling too guilty that foreign ports need to
upgrade to keep one of our port cities from going up in a fireball or choking
in a cloud of gas. Their failure
means we pay the price in lives. And
since our trade is very lucrative for so many nations, I dare say they will pay
to retain access.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA28MAR04A
Casualties in Iraq
have gone up again since the lull at the end of February. I was surprised by
the lull since the troop rotation should have been a time of increased
casualties as inexperienced troops came in and more troops were on the road,
vulnerable to attack.
And the Marines are taking casualties, too, as they experience
the Sunni triangle:
For the last three days, marines have been patrolling into the center
of the pro-Saddam Sunni Arab town of Fallujah. Each time, armed Iraqis would fire on the
marines and hours of shooting would commence until the Iraqis retreated back
into their civilian guises. The marines just took over the area from the army
82nd Airborne division. The army had decided to stay
out of the center of Fallujah most of the time. But
the marines decided to resume patrols there to test the Iraqi capabilities and
to let the pro-Saddam locals know who they were dealing with. The marines have
returned to Iraq with some different ideas on how to handle the Iraqi resistance. For
one thing, the marines will put more emphasis on establishing close
relationships with friendly Iraqis, and being more aggressive with hostile
Iraqis. This is because the hostile Iraqis are directing most of their violence
at Iraqis who support the new government or work for the coalition forces. So
the marines are in downtown Fallujah every day,
hunting down the bad guys and fighting terror with terror against those who
shoot at them. Today's casualties in Fallujah were 13
dead (including one marine) and many more wounded.
I give the Marines credit. I was uncomfortable with the Army
withdrawal from the city center. While in theory, Iraqis must take over
security functions, I didn’t know if the Iraqi police there could handle being
on their own so soon in this hotbed of hostility. I thought harsh measures
needed to be meted out to the Fallujah residents to
compel them to cooperate out of fear since the promise of a new Iraq
didn’t seem to work there. I worried that we were going easy on the city to
reduce casualties rather than from confidence in the local police. It was
difficult, however, to know whether I worried too much.
But the Marines don’t think that Fallujah
is safe to leave on its own. And the Marines are now going after the Baathists and Islamists holding out in the city. That is
one benefit of fresh forces—they are eager to show their stuff. Rip their
hearts out, I MEF. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA27MAR04H
Guam is gaining
importance as a base again, as we redeploy forces to the Pacific. Air Force
and Navy elements are going to Guam again:
Guam’s Back. Six B-52Hs from the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota were stationed at Guam last month and will remain there on a rotating basis, highlighting the
island’s return to importance after a decade of downsizing after the Cold War.
The bombers have been moved into place to offset troop withdrawals to support
activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, Pacific Command is evaluating basing fighter jets and
other support planes on Guam since the island is roughly 2400 kilometers
from two key Pacific flashpoints, North Korea and the Taiwan Straits. In addition, the U.S. Navy has based two attack submarines at Guam with a third to be home ported there this year and is considering
basing an aircraft carrier group there.
North Korea
and the Taiwan Strait are within range.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA27MAR04G
Saddam will
have a defense attorney. Prior to his execution, of course:
A French lawyer, known for defending
terrorists and a Nazi leader, said Saturday he will defend Saddam Hussein
At this point, I would have been hugely disappointed if
somebody other than a Frenchman had volunteered for the task.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA27MAR04F
The North Koreans have emphasized that they really don’t
wish to give up their nuclear weapons:
The
statement carried by Radio Pyongyang and monitored by news agencies in South Korea came just after a visit to North Korea by China's foreign minister, Li Zhaoxing,
and shortly before a visit to the region by Vice President Dick Cheney that is
planned for April. It used typically unrestrained language in accusing the United States of secretly planning a war.
"The
present situation on the Korean peninsula remains dangerous owing to the
reckless moves of the U.S. war hawks and their followers to unleash a war of
aggression against the D.P.R.K. so that a nuclear war may break there
anytime," it said, using the initials of North Korea's official name, the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Mr.
Li said this week that North Korea was ready to "push forward" with a third round of talks
involving the United States, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia. North Korea has said it is willing to end its nuclear
programs. But in the latest statement, it appears to be setting the stage for
another inconclusive effort.
The
statement rejected the American demand for a "complete, verifiable,
irreversible dismantling" of the country's nuclear programs. Bush
administration officials have repeatedly stated that they will not sign any
agreement with North Korea that does not use that wording. The administration has also said it
will not provide aid or other benefits to North Korea before it scraps all its nuclear programs
and allows rigorous inspections.
While
North
Korea
often harshly criticizes the United States for what it considers an inflexible stance,
the Saturday announcement seemed to go further. It put North Korea on record as saying that it could not
accept the main goals President Bush and his negotiators have insisted on in
the first two rounds of talks.
So what exactly did the North Koreans expect to discuss,
whether they would accept MasterCard or Visa for the tribute we were expected
to pay? Did the North Koreans honestly expect direct talks with us to lead to
more money?
And most disturbing, this North Korean outburst happened
after a meeting with the Chinese. Just what are the Chinese telling the North
Koreans? In the long run, I don’t think that it is in China’s
interest to have a nuclear North Korea
prompt Japan, South
Korea, and Taiwan
to go nuclear. But on the other hand, if China
plans on invading Taiwan
in the next four years, having a nuclear-armed North
Korea to keep America
busy on the Korean peninsula would be very convenient. A North Korean invasion
at the same time China hits Taiwan would end the chances that North Korea could
be a threat for a while (since we’d decimate the country from the air if
nothing else), South Korea (since it would be rebuilding for a generation after
even a successful war), Taiwan (by capturing the island), and Japan (if Japan
is cowed by the sheer power of seeing China capture Taiwan and egg on an
invasion of South Korea).
We need to keep slowly tightening the noose around the
Pillsbury Nuke Boy’s throat. That gulag with a UN seat will crumble.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA27MAR04E
Via Winds of Change, this article (how’d I
miss it? That’s what I like about blogs. Read other blogs by people interested in the same thing and they will
highlight stuff you may have missed) about “disbanding”
Iraqi militias:
Members of the two forces -- the Shiite
Muslim Badr Organization and the Kurdish pesh merga --
will be offered a chance to work in Iraq's new security services or claim
substantial retirement benefits as incentives to disarm and disband. Members of
smaller militias will also be allowed to apply for positions with the new
security services, but those that choose not to disband will be confronted and
disarmed, by force if necessary, senior U.S. officials said.
This is not the silver bullet to the problem of keeping
religious and regional rivalries from breaking out into combat. But it is a
good step. Yes, some will still be around and still in arms in some fashion,
but they will be paid from the central government and so in time loyalties will
shift a bit. And if in the meantime all Iraqis get used to losing gracefully
knowing that death and impoverishment aren’t the price for losing, in time the
idea of resorting to force will atrophy.
Plus, agreement to transform the relatively friendly
militias in the south and the friendly Kurdish groups in the north will allow
that final point noted above, disarming the hostile groups we allowed:
Of
particular concern to the occupation authority and the U.S. military is the Mehdi
Army, a militia controlled by Moqtada Sadr, a Shiite cleric who has called for U.S. forces to leave Iraq. The Mehdi Army,
estimated to have a few thousand members, has sought to assert control in
several cities in Shiite-dominated southern Iraq. The group is also alleged to have been
responsible for an October ambush in a Baghdad slum that killed two U.S. soldiers.
"They're
just thuggish, fundamentalist fighters," the U.S. official said.
The
official said the presence of the Mehdi Army has made
it more difficult for the Badr Organization to
demobilize because of fears Sadr will use his group
to exert pressure on members of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution.
"If
we can crack that nut and take them out, it would be a turning point," the
official said. "If they're no longer a factor, the Badr
would be more amenable to demobilization."
Sadr has been a thorn in our side.
In a free Iraq,
he should be free to call for us to leave. He should not be free to make his
point with armed goons.
But remember, just because we don’t leap to a solution in
one bound doesn’t mean that first steps aren’t important.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA27MAR04D
In light of warnings that al Qaeda
will use a ship to strike; and in light of the unrest in Venezuela
(with its increasingly thuggish and anti-American Chavez in power) where lots
of tankers head to US ports, this is sobering:
Security was tight
early Thursday at petrochemical plants along the Gulf of Mexico following a caution issued by
the FBI.
Striking Texas
would of course be icing on the cake for Islamists. If an attack does occur,
I’d follow the tanker or ship back and look very carefully to see if Chavez had
anything to do with sheltering whatever group takes credit.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA27MAR04C
Normally, if a Moslems dies in the vicinity of an American,
al Jazeera TV will be all over the event. Nice
close-ups of the wounds will be shown. Plenty of quotes of people
who think the US
did it, or the dead man was just minding his own business, will be shown.
Al Qaeda-linked
militants have executed eight Pakistani soldiers taken hostage in fighting near
the Afghan border, officials said on Saturday, raising the temperature in an
offensive on Islamic radicals.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the intensive coverage by
AJ we’ve come to know and love.
Remember, all the talk by the Islamists about it being
against Islam to kill Moslems only applies to other Moslems killing Islamists.
The Islamists freely use the “you’re not a real Moslem when we say you’re not”
loop hole. The Pakistanis need to kill these guys—not negotiate.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA27MAR04B
For Taiwan,
a state that China
considers part of China:
On Friday, Beijing warned that it
would not "look on unconcerned" if Taiwan's political
crisis worsens following a disputed election. Beijing, which claims Taiwan as
its territory and has threatened in the past to invade, didn't say what it
might do, and it wasn't clear whether the statement was more than a ritual
declaration of the mainland's rights over the island.
Just a reminder that the Taiwanese can play at being a
pretend little country, but that the Chinese really will intervene when the
Chinese think the situation challenges them.
For Japan,
a state that China
worries will help contain Chinese power:
Meanwhile, Beijing rejected the
arrest of seven Chinese activists by Japan's coast guard on
a disputed island chain, known to China as the Diaoyu and to Japan as the Senkaku.
"We think that it is illegal and it is a challenge to
Chinese territorial sovereignty," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan.
The activists were returned to the mainland Friday and
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi
acknowledged that Tokyo wanted to avoid
aggravating relations with Beijing.
It may just be little rocks, but the Japanese cannot afford
to just turn them over to a hostile China.
Who on earth believes those seven “activists” weren’t acting on Peking’s
orders? The Chinese want Japan
to know that Peking is watching. And ready to pounce.
And just to make it clear, even when China
does something to provoke a crisis, even a little one like the Senkaku incident, the Chinese expect the Japanese to shut
up and behave. This lesson would apply to a bigger crisis, of course, say over
Chinese “concern” over Taiwan’s
internal situation.
Of course, we can count on an American academic to, if not
excuse China’s
behavior, at least to make it seem understandable and reasonable:
Despite its assertive statements, Beijing is merely
reacting to unfolding events, said Andrew Nathan, a Chinese politics specialist
at Columbia University.
"It's not an offense, it's a defense," Nathan
said. "When challenged across a band of territorially related issues, the Beijing leadership
responds in a way that is consistent."
And finally, for the people of Hong Kong,
now in the crushing embrace of their communist masters in Peking,
the Chinese remind the bastion of freedom that the light of freedom is
flickering only for a little longer:
Also Friday, China said it would
soon "give interpretations" of Hong Kong constitutional
law on choosing the territory's leader and lawmakers — an issue that has
prompted public protests.
Critics say such a step could check progress toward the
full democracy the former British colony was promised in the mini-constitution
written for it by Beijing when it reverted
to Chinese rule in 1997.
Activists want Hong Kong's leader to be
directly elected in 2007, instead of picked by a small assembly approved by the
mainland. The activists also seek voting for all lawmakers the following year.
Nathan doesn’t like what China
is doing, mind you. He comments:
"I don't think that they can solve the problem that
they face in Hong Kong and Taiwan with just this
kind of reaction, but they can slow the momentum of the events running against
them," said Nathan. "In the short-term it's a useful tool, but not
enough in the long-term."
I don’t know what he’s talking about. China
just needs short term solutions for these problems. In the long run, Peking
will crush Hong Kong. The ghosts of 9,000 dead at Tiananmen
Square loom over every standoff between the people of Hong
Kong and the thugs of Peking. And the
Chinese only need short-term success with Taiwan
as Peking prepares for a military solution to the
problem of Taiwan
drifting toward independence. And since Peking
anticipates ruling Taiwan,
they are deeply disturbed that the Taiwanese might get the freedom
bug deeply engrained:
In Taiwan's biggest-ever protest, 500,000
supporters of defeated presidential challenger Lien Chan massed in Taipei on
Saturday to dispute his loss as China vowed not to tolerate turmoil on the
island.
As for Japan,
in the short run, the Chinese need only sow doubt to delay Japanese resolve in case of conflict over Taiwan
and Hong Kong. After a weekend of killing and arresting Hong
Kong democracy activists and a fortnight of overwhelming Taiwan,
cowing Japan
will occur naturally.
China
may yet collapse or break apart. Or it could unify itself through subjugating Taiwan
and Hong Kong and breaking the US-Japan alliance, thus
pushing America
back from the western Pacific a bit. And sadly, our so-called friends in Europe
are
about to make things more difficult for us:
The reason: Our European allies might well approve plans to sell China advanced weaponry at the March 25-26
European Union summit that begins today.
The
repercussions would be disastrous. Not only could China use new weapons from Europe against Taiwan, but Chinese generals have said they're prepared to confront U.S. forces in the Pacific if America tries to help Taiwan.
Why
would NATO allies put the United States in this position? Money is one reason. But
European commentators suspect that France and China want to build a multipolar
alliance to counter American "hegemony."
This
rings true, if only because the justifications Europeans proffer for renewed
arms sales are patently fraudulent. Like the United States, the EU embargoed all arms sales to China after the bloody suppression of
pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square
in 1989. Since then, Beijing
has steadily introduced market reforms for China's economy, but its
political, religious, and labor suppression has, if anything, worsened.
Senior
Chinese diplomats recently held talks with EU officials to persuade them to
lift the ban. They hint that if the EU lifts the sanctions, China will steer its big-ticket civilian
purchases, including aircraft, power stations, and mass transit, away from
American vendors to EU firms.
Should the Chinese launch a war, more Americans will die and
the Chinese will gain the time they need to conquer Taiwan.
We need to seriously rethink how we deal with our so-called allies.
We also need more of our military power in the Pacific. We
need to be able to react effectively and quickly to a Chinese threat to Taiwan.
And we need to support democracy activists in Hong Kong
and elsewhere to pin down the Chinese as they try to keep what they have
already. And who knows, maybe the freedom bug could spread widely to the
mainland.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA27MAR04A
Chavez’s people have shut
down the peaceful means of opposing the increasingly thuggish rule of
Chavez in Venezuela:
Venezuela's opposition
wants Chavez recalled and claims to have presented more than 3 million
signatures in December, more than the 2.4 million required to hold a recall
vote. But the National Electoral Council decided that 870,000 of the signatures
cannot be deemed valid unless citizens come forward to confirm them. The
opposition said that requirement created a logistics nightmare that dooms the
recall attempt.
There is one last chance for an appeal, apparently, but I
can’t imagine there is much hope of that happening. Or if it
does, of the ruling being obeyed.
Will the opposition just walk away as their legal means of
opposing the government is torn from their hands?
Will Chavez pull in more Cubans to bolster his regime?
The Axis of El Vil could be about
to compel our attention.
I hope we’ve been busy bolstering our friends since the ’02
coup attempt.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA24MAR04B
Opponents of the Iraq War are still fighting about the
decision to go to war. They argue that while they oppose the Iraq War, the
acrimony is all the President’s fault for failing to
do X or to get Y’s cooperation. If only we could have just stuck with the universally
supported war on al Qaeda and the Taliban, they argue,
we’d be one big unified country.
But back then, many of the usual
suspects argued against going to war against the Taliban:
While
most of the recent media attention has focused on early internal debates about
Iraqi involvement, in fact the early public debate about 9/11 was over whether
Bush was rash in declaring "war" on the terrorists. Most experts and
pundits -- especially among our allies -- still clung to the
"counterterrorism as law enforcement" mind-set. And viewed from that
frame, it was foolhardy to declare war.
For
starters, declaring war seemed to elevate the terrorists to co-combatants,
rather than leaving them as criminals to be dealt with by police dragnet. The
decision to invade Afghanistan was even more controversial. Suddenly armchair experts were quoting
Kipling and ruminating on how the Afghans had twice defeated reigning military
powers, first the British
Empire and then the
Soviet Empire.
Some even recall the Persian Gulf War with nostalgia as a
great coalition when in 1990 and 1991, they opposed the war.
And the Cold War was a struggle we all supported, they say,
conveniently forgetting their opposition to the weapons and strategies to
oppose the Soviet Union. Then, while the cold war raged,
we were “morally equivalent.”
I dare say, it won’t be long before we must debate what to
do about Iran, and the “anti-war” side will rush to oppose any forceful action,
defending their opposition behind the shield of recalling the unity of the last
war—the Iraq War of 2003.
Really, as a general rule, it is only the proposed war to
defend ourselves that the loyal opposition opposes, not the past victories.
When these people say war is the last resort, they mean it far more literally
than anyone could possibly believe.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA24MAR04A
The Islamists still want to kill us in large numbers. Or somebody, at least. The attacks since 9-11 show the
Islamists are not too picky about their victims.
And this
report is pretty sobering about the likelihood of Islamists attacking a
port by sea:
What would happen to global trade if Al-Qaeda or one of its fanatical emulators successfully
detonated a nuclear or radiological bomb in a major port-city? This is one of
the nightmare scenarios for officials in the United States who warn that
the next big attack on America could come by
sea, not by air, and that it may involve chemical, biological, radiological or
nuclear (CBRN) weapons. Historically, shipping has played a pivotal role in
world trade. Yet for all its global significance, the shipping industry is
vast, poorly regulated, frequently beyond the reach of the law, and often
secretive in its operations. Despite a raft of new maritime-based anti-terror
legislation, the world's oceans and the shipping industry remain
an attractive domain for terrorist operations.
Strategypage has this to say, which gives me hope:
The amphibious component of Canada's commando organization
(Joint Task Force 2, or JTF2) have been practicing dealing with hijacked and ships and cargo ships. It is
believed that al Qaeda has plans to seize offshore
oil rigs and ships carrying dangerous chemicals (including gasoline or Liquid
Natural Gas) and turn them into terrorist weapons.
Even the Canadians are preparing for this next crisis. The
US and Britain
are thought to be preparing, too.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA23MAR04D
Just a day before 9-11, the administration finished its plan
to deal with the Taliban and al Qaeda:
Not until the day before the attacks did U.S. officials settle
on a strategy to overthrow the Taliban Afghan government in case a final
diplomatic push failed. That strategy was expected to take three years, the
independent commission investigating the attacks said in one of two preliminary
reports.
This account says it foresaw diplomatic overtures to get bin
Laden, and then aid to internal opposition to overthrow them, and if all
failed, a military option to overthrow the Taliban with direct action. This was
to take place by the end of the administration’s first term of office.
Are the anti-war people going to argue that we also planned
on taking down Saddam militarily in the first term?
Seriously, while the administration probably did plan to
more actively seek the regime change in Iraq that US law stated was US policy,
I think it is fairly obvious that a president who won in such a tight election
was not about to embark on a war against Saddam with all the uncertainties that
would have entailed. 9-11 is what changed that calculation of risk. And even
then, we took down the Taliban and gored al Qaeda first.
No fixation on Iraq distracting us from Islamist terrorism.
Please bring on the next plastic turkey.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA23MAR04C
I was able to listen to part of the 9-11 Commission
testimony today. I heard most of former Secretary of Defense Cohen’s testimony.
I’ve always respected Cohen. He seems decent. He asserted that it was difficult
to gain actionable intelligence and that there was no hesitancy about going
after al Qaeda had we gained actionable intelligence.
I think Cohen over-estimates the willingness of the past
administration to go after our enemies. The 8-year record in this matter
highlights the reluctance he says was not there.
I grant that preemptively going after the enemy before they
killed thousands of us at once was problematic. But I don’t think the mindset
of going on offense was ever there. I don’t remember any effort to galvanize
the American people to go on the offensive.
Indeed, an article in the Washington Post on July 26, 1999, entitled “Preparing for a Grave
New World,” (no link, another paper article I dug up while cleaning out my
office) by Secretary Cohen is a great window on administration thinking nearly
a year and a half after bin Laden’s declaration of
war on us. Nearly a year after the Africa embassy bombings.
Half a year after the aerial punishment of Iraq in
Desert Fox for interfering with disarmament inspections. The
administration did see a threat:
We cannot afford a case of farsightedness that precludes us from
focusing on threats closer to home, such as the potential danger of a chemical
or biological attack on U.S. soil. …
At least 25 countries, including Iraq and North Korea, now have—or are in the process of
acquiring and developing—weapons of mass destruction.
So the administration did see a threat more pressing than
rogue computer hackers. The administration also worried about terrorists:
Also looming is the chance that these terror weapons will find their
way into the hands of individuals and independent groups—fanatical terrorists
and religious zealots beyond our borders, brooding loners and self-proclaimed
apocalyptic prophets at home.
So a grave new world was looming. Nutjobs
wanted to kill Americans. Nutjob regimes were
developing WMD. And the nutjobs might work together.
He went on to describe the horrors of a biological attack
and how resources to cope would be overwhelmed.
So what was the administration’s answer to this threat? One
which the secretary said, “Someday, one will be real.” Surely, the
administration pledged to seek out our enemies wherever they were to kill them
before they can strike? No? Then surely they proposed to strengthen law
enforcement at home to at least attempt to defend against such psychos? No,
again? What then was the answer to this problem?
We have to prepare.
Cohen wrote that preparation alone would deter our enemies
by minimizing the carnage they could inflict with chemicals or bio weapons. He
then offered specifics:
As part of a federal interagency effort launched last year by President
Clinton and led by the National Security Council, the Defense Department is
doing its part to prepare the nation for the catastrophic consequences of an
attack that unleashes these horrific weapons. Because it has long prepared to
face this grim possibility on the battlefield, the military has unique capabilities
to offer in the domestic arena as well.
So we must focus on coping
with an attack that sickens or poisons thousands of Americans? Surely, an
Op-Ed in the Post by our Defense Secretary would not just fatalistically warn
that all we can do to face this threat is to tend to the injured and bury our
dead? He goes on:
But merely managing the consequences of an attack is not sufficient. We
must be vigilant in seeking to interdict and defeat the efforts of those who
seek to inflict mass destruction on us. This will require greater international
cooperation, intelligence collection abroad and greater information gathering
by law enforcement agencies at home.
Oh! So close.
Yes, intel
is needed but this is all passive playing defense stuff. No hint of seeking out
our enemies. Just spotting them, interdicting them, and cleaning up after they
douse us with bugs or gas.
Oh. And one more part for those who kept thinking they heard
the word “imminent” from the administration as we debated going to war with Iraq:
The race is on between our preparations and those of our adversaries.
[NOTE: let’s not be hasty and call them “enemies.”] We are preparing for the possibility of a chemical or biological attack
on American soil because we must. There is not a moment to lose.
I bring this up not to cast blame. Clinton
would have had great difficulty rousing the nation for sustained offensive
action. Most thought history had ended. Our enemies had given up. President
Clinton never tried to rally the nation, true, but I’m more interested in
working the problem and stopping future attacks. But when the loyal opposition
pretends that the threats we fight today were dreamed up on the Crawford ranch
in January 2001 for partisan political purposes, or oil, or empire-building, or
sheer fascist joy in dropping bombs, I just want to, well, rant.
We’ve known the threats for a decade. We only just started
fighting seriously in this administration.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA23MAR04B
Oops. Yesterday I referenced this article, thinking I’d
already posted it.
We have a recent report that the Chinese have embarked on a crash
naval building program in order to have the ability to invade Taiwan:
For
the past 18 months, foreign military experts have observed, the military has
concentrated particularly on strengthening its sea power. The main reason, they
say, is to provide the government in Beijing with a credible military option if Taiwan crosses Beijing's red line -- a formal declaration of
independence -- and brings the long-simmering standoff to a boil.
"These
people are building ships like nobody's business," a military attache in Beijing
said. "It's mind-boggling."
Construction
has begun on about 70 military ships over the last 12 months, including a
number of landing craft, and China is considering acquisition of another two
Soviet-designed Sovremenny-class destroyers to
complement the three it already owns, he added. More Kilo-class submarines are
the subject of negotiations or already purchased, adding to the four bought
several years ago.
The goal?
Foreign military experts in contact with Chinese officers have
concluded that the goal of the Taiwan-oriented military modernization is to
provide the leadership with the ability to inflict some kind of attack should
the need arise, while at the same time making any U.S. intervention to protect
the self-governing island at least a little dangerous, forcing Washington to
think twice.
The article notes that the Pentagon judges that the Chinese
have the ability to lift 10,000 troops with their military sealift.
The Chinese need lots of ships soon?
The Taiwanese need to develop a serious sense of purpose
very quickly. Us too.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA23MAR04A
The Chinese know that the Taiwanese lean heavily toward
independence or maintaining the status quo. President
Chen has been pushing independence for Taiwan
and the Chinese know that the trend is not going to be reversed. Taiwanese are
just not going to pine for the mainland.
But Taiwan’s
constitution is still based on the fiction of reunification and needs fixing.
So:
To
settle these matters, Chen has proposed a new constitution, to be submitted to
the people in a referendum in 2006, and to take effect at the time of the next
presidential election in the spring of 2008. The new constitution, however, is
seen by China and the U.S. as a parcel of high explosives, since it
will, as any constitution must, contain some firm definition of what Taiwan actually is. That would blow away the "strategic ambiguity"
under which Taiwan has survived and prospered through the post-Mao, post-Chiang period of
Chinese history. (Mao and Chiang died within a few months of each other.) It
would do so, furthermore, just as China's Communists were about to hold a huge
politico-nationalistic orgy to legitimate their rule — the 2008 Summer Olympics
in Beijing.
The Chinese are on a crash-building program for their navy.
The Chinese want Taiwan
under their control. They can see Taiwan
rearming and getting a relevant defense force under our prodding. They can see
that the Taiwanese don’t want to be part of China.
They know Taiwan
could go nuclear if it chose to do so, making conquest a costly endeavor for China.
And they see a deadline coming up in 2008 with a new constitution that will
abandon the pretense that the Taiwan Strait divides two
parts of one China.
As I’ve said before, if the Chinese are sincere about Taiwan
being more important than anything, they will strike Taiwan
before the 2008 Olympics. They would use the preparation for the Olympics to cover
their attack and quickly crush Taiwan
before they can go too far. And before they can build defenses to hold off the
Chinese until America
can intervene.
I take the Chinese at their word. They see absorbing Taiwan
as more important than anything else.
Chen cannot back up his independence talk yet. He needs to
buy time to defend his words. Not that Taiwan
doesn’t deserve independence, but we live in the real world. Saying that
Chen’s actions could trigger a wholly unwarranted war is not blaming the victim.
If we can’t restrain Chen, we may end up in a war with China
over Taiwan in
early 2008.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA22MAR04B
Ah, the press has hauled out their next plastic turkey
pseudo-scandal. It’s always so exciting waiting for the next bogus charges to
come rolling out.
Richard Clarke says that the White House ignored the Clinton
administration’s warnings about Al Qaeda and their
plans to go after bin Laden.
Yeah right. He has a book to sell and we’re supposed to buy
his charges. Rice has a nice
piece taking his charges apart. The bottom line:
Let us be clear. Even their most ardent advocates did not contend that
these ideas, even taken together, would have destroyed al Qaeda.
We judged that the collection of ideas presented to us were insufficient for
the strategy President Bush sought. The president wanted more than a laundry
list of ideas simply to contain al Qaeda or
"roll back" the threat. Once in office, we quickly began crafting a comprehensive
new strategy to "eliminate" the al Qaeda
network. The president wanted more than occasional, retaliatory cruise missile
strikes. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies."
Clarke would have us believe that he warned Bush’s people to
no avail and that the failure of the administration to crush al Qaeda in the 8 months before 9-11 is proof of failure to
appreciate the threat.
One would think that somebody in the press would ask if the
warnings were so dire and the plans so good and the threat so clear, why didn’t
the previous administration do something to implement those plans in
its 8 years? Why was their resolve so carefully hidden from the public? One
would have thought that they only wanted to lob cruise missiles at empty tents
and pharmaceutical plants and issue lip-biting apologies for our neglect. Oh,
and mourn publicly to show how much they care. Can’t forget
that.
It is nice, I admit, to see the loyal opposition arguing for
a preemptive strategy. I’m sure there would have been no complaints by Clarke
and his friends if we had attacked the Taliban to overthrow them in June 2001.
Just maybe they could have held their tongues. But then when
9-11 happened, the loyal opposition would have claimed we caused the attack. Despite its long planning time. Guarantee it.
And surely, if we had scrutinized every Moslem entering our
country, I’m sure that Clarke and his ilk would have somberly agreed that this
was a prudent precaution to take given the great threat to us. I hope nobody
would suggest that the loyal opposition would complain of a new fascist regime
going on a witch hunt against peaceful visitors just trying to better
themselves by learning to take off and turn jumbo jets.
Not much of a new plastic turkey. But they never are, are
they?
Next.
We’ve already seen how 9-11 was based in Europe.
I’ve mentioned before how Islamists are produced in Europe.
I even have sympathy for the French headscarf ban.
This is nice bedtime reading sure to disturb
your sleep:
The jihadists
of Europe have drunk deeply from the virulently anti-American
left-wing currents of Continental thought and mixed it with the Islamic emotions
of 1,400 years of competition with the Christian West. It's a Molotov cocktail
of the third-world socialist Frantz Fanon and the Muslim Brother Sayyid Qutb. Muslims elsewhere
have gone through similar conversions--the United States, too, has had its Muslim jihadists
and will, no doubt, produce more. And the globalization of this virulent strain
of fundamentalist, usually Saudi-financed, Islam is real and probably getting
worse. But the modern European experience seems much more likely to produce
violent young Muslims than the American. Europe may be
competitive with the worst breeding grounds in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.
And the author notes that this radicalization has nothing to
do with the Iraq War, or the Palestinian cause, or Americans in Saudi
Arabia, or any of the other dozen reasons
from the last ten years alone that the “what did we do to deserve this” school
opines on. And this homegrown nature makes sense, since none of the actions America
has taken to protect Moslems seems to have had an impact on defusing their
radicalism.
I’ve never liked the European policy of keeping their
immigrants foreigners even in the third generation. For all our problems, our
immigrants become Americans. And if not them, then their
children. And these new citizens fight for their new country—not for the
sick green flag of a murderous brand of Islam. Whatever our immigration
problems, they’re nothing compared to what the Europeans have. And we can at
least draw comfort that we gain from our immigrants.
The author worries that the Euro-Islamists really don’t hate
enough to bomb anybody but Americans. He thinks that bombing mere Europeans is
beneath them. Personally, I doubt that the hate of European-born Islamists is
so easily compartmentalized. But maybe the Islamist threat to Europe
is mainly Middle Eastern and North African in origin, while the Euro-scum are a threat to us. If so, you’d think the Europeans would
be eager to fight overseas to destroy the Islamists that threaten them.
As frustrating as it is that Europe
will not help us in the Middle East and Central
Asia in any significant manner, just as we want Middle Eastern
states to focus on combating Islamists in their own countries, perhaps we
should settle for the Europeans being vigorous in their own backyard. That
might be the most important thing the Europeans can do for the war on terror
under the circumstances.
So what if the author’s analysis is right? What if European
Moslems are really our problem and not Europe’s problem. Worse, what if the Europeans won’t suppress the
Homegrown Islamists? Maybe the Europeans are not nearly as enthusiastic as we
are about taking the fight to the source of Islamism because they fear the
precedent. For if the Europeans agree that going after the Islamists where they
plot is just, and if the Europeans try to ignore their murderers, they might “see”
B-2s in the skies over Europe one day, preemptively striking Islamists
preparing to attack America. And given the problems of assimilation, perhaps
the law enforcement solution in Europe is too daunting
for the Europeans to vigorously pursue.
Of course, even if the Europeans are not up to an effective
counter-Islamism fight at home, it would sure help if the Europeans would at
least stop carping and nipping at our heels as we fight the Islamists in the
arc of crisis from Africa to Southeast Asia. Not only does this fight protect
us, it protects the Europeans.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA21MAR04A
Chavez is one. Of course. It goes
without saying that Castro is another solid leg. The third?
Aristide is tempting but he is too penny ante to be on any list. The new
Spanish prime minister is a tempting target but he’s just clueless, really. The
third has to be the Colombian leftist/drug dealer insurgents.
These axis members don’t warrant discussion as evil since
they are not threats to us in the same league as Iran,
North Korea, or
as Iraq was.
But they are states of concern, shall we say, that can distract us from our
main fight against Islamist nuclear terror yet remain significant problems.
Oh, and “El Vil” means “the vile
one” in Spanish. It was just too good not to use. I had to Google
it and I appear to be the first to coin it. Heh.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA20MAR04D
Yesterday on the way home, NPR had a guest on, Martin Indyk (of the Clinton administration), who was supposed to
counter the idea that Libya gave up its entire WMD program—including a nuclear
program we didn’t know about—as a result of the Iraq War putting the fear of
XVIII Airborne Corps into him.
Indyk related that Libya
had opened discussions with the US
in 1999 to get rid of its chemical weapons. They went nowhere but the NPR guy
seemed determined to insist that this was the real reason Libya
agreed to give up everything in 2003. To his credit, Indyk
did not play is planned role of debunker. Despite being led to say so, Indyk would not assert that Libya
was ready to give up its WMD long ago and that the war was irrelevant. Indyk would only say that he could confirm that there were
talks going on.
He also noted that in 1999, Libya
did not have a nuclear program.
So, Libya
wanted sanctions ended. Libya
was willing to give up chemical weapons. (And who knows,
maybe the Desert Fox strikes of 1998 influenced Khadaffi
to give up his chemical arms lest the US strike him, too.) Libya
still embarked on a nuclear program. Which was kind of clever since he would
look clean by giving up a known WMD program—chemicals—while pursuing an unknown—nuclear.
Saddam tried that with biological weapons after all, and we figured that out
only several years after the Persian Gulf War when a defector fingered the
unknown program.
And only in 2003, after the Iraq War, did Libya
agree to give up everything.
Haven’t we learned from the Iranians and North Koreans that
people determined to get nukes are more than willing to negotiate if it buys
them time and/or gets them material benefits?
NPR was determined to refute the lesson of strength and
ended up supporting the lesson of strength.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA20MAR04C
The Pakistanis are going hammer
and tongs at al Qaeda and Islamists holed up in a
number of mud-brick fortresses near the Afghan border. US
and Afghan forces on the Afghan side of the border are waiting if any flee.
The thugs made a big mistake holding their position. Several
hundred thugs could have been a serious problem in small groups fighting as
irregulars. It could have taken years to run them down.
Instead, perhaps because they are defending a “high value
target” (Probably Al-Zawahri), they are
fighting a conventional battle. In this fight, they are just a crappy infantry
battalion taking on a much larger conventional force. Big
mistake on their part. Even if the high value target escapes, killing or
capturing so many Islamists in one battle will be a big victory for the good
guys.
I am amused that the thugs are warning us to stop chasing
them or they’ll attack us (dang. Can’t find the link).
It was good for a laugh but they are a bit off in their lesson: if we stop
chasing them, then they will attack. This is a big lesson in all warfare. When
an enemy is beaten, pursue them and destroy them ruthlessly. False compassion
may lead you to hold off but if they do not surrender, they must be killed. If
they are not pursued and killed, one day they will stop running, regain their
courage, pick up their weapons, and rejoin the fight.
Remember that the Taliban made this mistake with the Northern
Alliance, allowing them to live on in a small portion of Afghanistan.
Apparently beaten, once resupplied and bolstered by
American special forces, the Northern
Alliance swept the Taliban from power.
Chase down the Taliban and al Qaeda
while they are running. They are easier to kill when running. And if we fail to
kill them, they will attack us again.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA20MAR04B
Last night one year ago, the first strike of the Iraq War commenced. Mark Steyn really says it all.
And I stand by my posts in February 2003 where I laid out
the case for war as I saw it. The first. The second.
I know that some say we are losing more people now than
before 9-11 (conveniently skipping that one day, of course). I just wonder what
these people would have said in 1942. Goodness, we lost more military people at
the hands of the Germans and Japanese than we had in 1941. Wasn’t this proof we
were making things worse? And in 1943, we lost even more than the prior
year. Sure, we knocked Italy
out of the war but that was just a distraction from Germany,
right? How strong was Italy?
And in 1944? Sheesh. D-Day was bloody and the Battle
of the Bulge seemed to show we hadn’t beat the Germans as much as we wanted.
Then in 1945, the Japanese were still fighting like mad on Okinawa
and the war was looking like it would drag on into 1946. But in 1945, we won.
And in 1946, casualties went down to hardly any.
We have lost fewer than 400 killed in action in Iraq
in one year. Scores in Afghanistan. This is a scale that represents individual and family
tragedy, not quagmire. Yes, as long as we refused to fight, we “just” lost
relative handfuls every year to terrorists. Now we fight so lose soldiers. But
our enemy is losing lots. And we are on the offensive now. One day we will win.
And the losses of 9-11 should show us that had we done nothing, those acceptable
losses would have grown and grown. And if we didn’t start to seriously crush
enemies who insist on going nuclear, the risk of a truly devastating attack
would have grown every day.
One year on, let the “peace protesters” whine that Iraqis
are free. That they are no longer tortured and raped and robbed of their
nation’s riches. My God, consciences that could still protest after all we have
learned about Saddam are truly unplugged from reality.
It was a good war.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA20MAR04A
Is al Qaeda issuing
commands?
The Islamic militant group that claimed
responsibility for last week's Madrid train bombings has warned that its next
targets could be the United States, Japan, Italy, Britain or Australia, an
Arabic newspaper reported Thursday. …
In its statement, Abu Hafs al-Masri said it was calling a truce in Spain to give the
socialist government that was elected Sunday, three days after the train
attacks, time to carry out its pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq.
I always thought of al Qaeda as
more of a brand name that essentially franchised its name to thugs willing to
kill in the name of the organization. Bin Laden had some company-owned
terrorists but he has been put out of action. Local groups who love the brand
name kill innocents happily enough, but will they really follow this guidance?
Sure, the Islamists would love to hit the named countries. I’m sure they’d love
to hit countries they’ve named in the past. Or any others if
they can.
And most importantly, can statements like this really
restrain any Spain-based terrorists? Won’t they want to strike again despite
the promised withdrawal from Iraq?
Is Spain’s
presence really their only sin in al Qaeda’s eyes?
If the Islamists fail to strike again in Spain,
it will be because the Spanish authorities are putting too much pressure on
them.
Oh, and we may be on to something around
Afghanistan:
Pakistani forces believe they have cornered
and perhaps wounded Osama bin Laden's
deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri,
in a major battle near the Afghan border, an area where many believe the
world's most wanted terrorist has been hiding, three senior Pakistani officials
said Thursday.
Some paramilitaries down there are
fighting awfully hard to hold some nondescript mud-brick compounds.
I knew I had a good feeling about
this new effort.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA18MAR04C
One third of Latin America’s Axis of
El Vil is determined to deny
his opponents a peaceful means of protesting Chavez’s increasingly
oppressive rule:
Venezuela's government
opened an investigation Wednesday that could lead to the removal of three
Supreme Court magistrates who ruled that signatures on petition for a vote to
recall President Hugo Chavez were valid.
This will get ugly. I hope we’re prepared to support our
friends down there.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA18MAR04B
I love it when the North Koreans open
their mouths.
We’re supposed to be negotiating with North
Korea about the amount of our tribute to
them so that they will not go nuclear—or rather, more nuclear:
North Korea says it has reprocessed 8,000 spent nuclear
fuel rods in a process that could yield enough plutonium for several nuclear
bombs, in addition to the one or two it is believed to already possess.
That the North Koreans pledged this ten years ago is not
relevant, apparently, to the position of some that we must pay. The outline of
the deal is supposedly this:
North Korea said it would
allow inspections and dismantle its nuclear programs only if the United States provides economic
aid and written guarantees that U.S.
forces won't not invade.
But then the North Koreans go and open their mouths. The
appeasers over here could do so much better if the North Koreans would just let
them do their public speaking. Check out North
Korea’s statement:
"What has happened in Iraq shows that if we
agree to disarmament through unjustified inspections, it will not prevent a war
but actually invite one," said KCNA, North Korea's official news
agency.
So, basically, North Korea
wants money from us. They want a guarantee we won’t invade them. And in return…
Oh wait, there isn’t anything in return since they said that
they really don’t trust us to promise not to invade.
So let’s see, what is the revised North Korean negotiating
position? Ah, yes, shell out money to North
Korea and just shut up about anything else.
You Japanese especially are being unhelpful for bringing up that whole
kidnapping thing again and again.
The Pillsbury Nuke Boy is tiresome. Squeeze him, slowly, and
his regime will crack.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA18MAR04A
Spain
may or may not leave Iraq.
We shall see. But if Spain
carries out its pledge to abandon us in Iraq,
it will have an impact. We can’t just shrug and say European militaries are
insignificant anyway so why bother paying attention to them. Europe
is a prize we can lose.
Applebaum notes that we can’t just
ignore the impact of our war on terror on our European allies. As she
notes:
We may still "win" in Iraq, over time. That is, we may eventually see Iraq become a relatively stable, relatively
liberal society, living in relative peace with its neighbors. But if, in doing
so, we "lose" Europe, that will be a Pyrrhic
victory indeed.
They may not be militarily significant but collectively, the
European states are part of the West we defend. And if such a big part of the
West drifts away? What will we be defending? What new burdens will we then
carry?
Yes, we must beat the terrorists and destroy the states that
might give them the means to kill millions of us. The mission must not be
compromised for the coalition. Process must never triumph or results in a
struggle with such high stakes.
To say this does not mean that we cannot simultaneously
fight to maintain our European alliances. It is too easy to just say they are
wimps or Venusians or whatever, and go our own way. Shoot, I find it very easy
to do with the French. But as we take care of our objectives, we should not
skimp on the effort to smooth ruffled feathers. Brooks
notes that the Spanish election will constrain our actions as the Europeans
pull back from active measures to fight terror. Note the tone
of resignation to enduring further Islamist attacks that the Europeans
display!
But although the politicians, the police and
the people of Europe know another attack on the scale of the Madrid is nearly certain
-- the only questions being when and where -- many were sanguine about the risk
and the response.
Where is the determination to kill the bastards first? Why
can’t the Europeans see that we can’t just double the guards and hope we can
cope with the inevitable suffering?
Brooks notes that we
are not guiltless in this drift:
Nor
is America itself without blame. Where was our State
Department? Why hasn't Colin Powell spent the past few years crisscrossing Europe so that voters there would at least know the arguments for the
liberation of Iraq, would at least have some accurate picture of Americans, rather than
the crude cowboy stereotype propagated by the European media? Why does the Bush
administration make it so hard for its friends? Why is it so unable to reach
out?
It is important to keep Europe in the
Western camp and not let it drift into hostility or even just neutrality. It is
easy to forget, as we complain they do not pull their weight in defense issues,
that Europe is a prize itself. During the Cold War, we
knew we could not let the scientific and productive center of Western
Europe fall into enemy hands. In World War II and World War I, we
too fought to keep a hostile power from organizing Europe
to project power across the Atlantic to threaten us. In
the post-Cold War world, we have pressed Europe to be an
active ally around the world and have forgotten that Europe
still is an objective to fight for.
But instead of a hostile power taking over the continent we
must worry about the Europeans turning hostile from within. We must fight this
battle. And the State Department must take the lead in fighting this battle. We
could start by reversing our support for European integration. The EU
bureaucracy is hostile toward us and so why on earth would we encourage this?
Then go on to explaining our policies again and again and again.
And it is not a hopeless fight. There are signs of hope in
all the European states—old and new. There are even
hopeful signs in Spain:
Thousands of protesters accused Spain's new prime
minister of being "the president of al-Qaida"
in demonstrations Wednesday to support the defeated party of outgoing leader
Jose Maria Aznar.
The State Department has a role in this war. It is failing.
And the administration is failing by not making it work for us.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA17MAR04A
Do the French have no shame? That they would team up with China
in naval maneuvers that are attempting to intimidate Taiwan
is just awful. This Reuters article (via NRO link, but the email link died. I
sent the text to myself so here’s part):
China and France will hold rare joint naval exercises off
the mainland's eastern coast on Tuesday, just four days before Beijing's rival, Taiwan, holds presidential elections.
This is particularly interesting:
French President Jacques Chirac, keen to strengthen ties with China and
win French business a firm footing in the rapidly growing market, sided with China in January in opposing Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian's
plan to hold a referendum on missile defense alongside presidential elections
on March 20.
How shocking! France
would side with a dictator for contracts? They would side with a thug regime
that we might have to fight?
Oh yeah, no Iraq
contracts for France.
Paris is darned good
at reminding me why we cannot forget their treachery.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA16MAR04C
The referendum on whether Chavez will remain
dictator/president/psycho of Venezuela
is heading
to court.
Will the court keep the path of peaceful constitutional
change open? Or will it leave the opposition no legal means to oppose Chavez’s
increasingly thuggish rule?
And if the court gives the green light to the referendum,
what will Chavez do?
The world’s middling problems are never so kind as to shut
the heck up while we cope with the big problems.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA16MAR04B
While it is certainly important to know what motivated the
Spanish voters to vote the socialists into power, Islamists will conclude that
they did indeed overthrow an American ally by killing enough Spanish citizens.
Indeed, many leftists in Europe and here in America
will rejoice that a pro-war government has fallen. While properly regretting
the civilian deaths, I’m sure.
The new Spanish government lifts the spirits of the “anti-war”
side because the socialists have pledged to pull Spain’s
troops out of Iraq.
The worry we have is that other allies will be so afraid of similar bombings
that they too will pull out of Iraq.
But what if the European fear of similar “retribution” leads
them to pressure Spain
to remain in Iraq?
Really. Hear me out.
If Spain
carries out its threat to pull out, the Islamists will have no doubt that sufficiently
bloody attacks on democracies can compel the voters to place compliant
governments into power. The Islamists will look for new targets in Europe.
European governments might decide that it is safer to pressure Spain
to stay in Iraq
than to pull their own troops out of Iraq
to appease the Islamists. After all, not all the European political parties are
so deluded as to believe that the Islamists are reasonable terrorists with
identifiable demands that can be safely satisfied. As fun as bashing America
might be in public, their quiet cooperation away from Iraq
shows the Europeans know we must destroy the terror networks and cells. They
know that the Islamists
will target Europeans whether or not they support us in Iraq.
So, by doing nothing while Spain
pulls out, other European states paint targets on their backs. But if Spain’s
socialist government is willing to stay in Iraq,
what hope will the Islamists have that they can change other countries’
policies? The Islamists might look for easier and more fruitful targets. Like
insufficiently “pure” Moslems that they’ve taken to killing lately.
The coming sovereignty turnover, the introduction of an
official NATO role, and even the return of the UN for limited purposes may all
provide cover
for Spain to keep troops in Iraq:
"Even this incoming Spanish government would not be
willing to...abandon Iraq, and so putting
its troops under a NATO umbrella could be a face-saving formula," said one
diplomat.
Let me make it clear, Spain
has sinned many times over many centuries in the eyes of the Islamists, so
asserting that alliance with America
caused the attack is ridiculous. Grievances are everywhere. The Spanish might
want to return Parsley
Island back
to Morocco. Just in case. And that whole women voting stuff will have to
go. You never know what will tick the Islamists off, after all.
I’m just saying that European fear might work for us this
time. Sheer idle, contrarian speculation, of course, but who knows?
And as a bonus, maybe those who believe in a European-style,
police-based war on terror will realize that sitting on the defensive as the
Spanish voted to carry out is exactly the strategy that failed Spain
on 3-11. Apparently, its failure on 9-11 wasn’t enough.
Make our enemies fear what we will do to them.
So sue me, I’m an optimist.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA16MAR04A
We are pushing
hard in Afghanistan. The increased troop levels are basically special forces formerly occupied in Iraq
looking for high value targets.
The rumors of a spring offensive said Rangers and an
aircraft carrier were to be deployed to go on the offensive in Afghanistan.
We are moving in Afghanistan
with no sign of these forces (which I argued were not needed in Afghanistan—and
in the case of the carrier, made no sense).
But a Somalia
offensive could use Rangers and a carrier, plus a Marine Expeditionary Unit as
part of an amphibious strike group and the Djibouti-based US and allied forces,
to hit al Qaeda in the Horn region. These units could
support special forces and CIA operatives in a widespread operation designed to
nail Islamists all over the Horn region after they fled there following our
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Allies such as Kenya,
and perhaps Tanzania
if they are up to it, could coordinate actions against domestic Islamists to
spread the net.
I’ve urged some type of offensive soon to maintain the
momentum of attacking the enemy. We cannot let our people or our enemies forget
we are still coming after the Islamists. Yes, avoid the really tough ones like Iran
and North Korea
until after the elections in November (and Syria
and Saudi Arabia
for that matter) but we must strike someplace now. Before the “anti-war” side
here argues an operation is an October surprise (can we count on terrorists to
similarly show restraint as they indicate who they’d prefer in the White
House?) This will also have the advantage of not stressing our main
conventional units as they recover from Iraq.
I liken a Somalia
operation to the North African invasion in 1942. We needed visible movement in
the war yet could not go after the enemy in its home lair yet.
We are at war. This is no time to rest on our laurels.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA15MAR04C
The Afghan campaign, with its terrible fighting through the
Islamic holy season, was supposed to ignite the Arab street in a frenzy of
anti-American violence that would pull down nominally pro-American rulers and
enflame anti-American states into active violence against us.
The Iraq War, too, though it did ignite members of the European
Street, similarly failed to inspire the
Arab/Moslem street to wage unrelenting jihad.
But now, we see the street
stirring:
Ever since the United States invaded Iraq (news
- web
sites), some Arab leaders have been acting out of character, talking about
big changes in the works and using all the proper keywords: democracy,
transparency, choice, human rights. …
The Arab world's baby steps toward reform actually began
after the Sept. 11 attacks, when some senior Arab figures recognized the link
between the absence of democracy and the rise of religious fanaticism.
It picked up pace after Baghdad fell to the American-led
coalition in April and Bush's grand design for the Middle East became clearer.
In November, Bush declared that Western governments had
been wrong for decades in backing undemocratic, corrupt leaders in the Middle East. As long as the
region has no freedom, he said, "it will remain a
place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export."
This is where the enemy center of gravity is. We must stay
on the offensive. Militarily to crush the current enemies—state and non-state
enemies—who want to kill our people and who seek the capacity to count our dead
in mega-deaths.
But we must also push for rule of law, economic growth, and
democracy (in that order more or less) in authoritarian states that give their
people poverty and no hope for change except through Islamism.
This need to go on the offensive is one obvious answer to
Islamist terrorism and I am forever astounded that the left in this country
cannot see this. They do not want us to go on the offensive and they do not
want us to be able to effectively stand on the defense by their opposition to
the Patriot Act (actually, they oppose their fevered delusions of what the act
does). Can they not see the problem of opposing both? And I’m not even going
into discussing the folly of trying to successfully win the war on terror while
ceding the initiative to the enemy by remaining on the defensive.
Victory, with safety and civil rights in our country the
objective, depends on winning on the offensive in the recruiting grounds of the
Islamists and their state backers that could give them the means of killing
millions of us.
Stirrings of freedom in the Arab street are one sign that
the offensive is having an effect.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA15MAR04B
The Spanish may
pull their troops out of Iraq
on June 30:
Spain's incoming leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said Monday he would probably pull Madrid's troops
out of the "disastrous" occupation of Iraq (news
- web
sites), in a major swing from his predecessor's pro-American foreign
policy.
They were also scheduled to take command of the
multi-national division now commanded by Poland.
Poland is
stepping up to retain command another year. I sure hope the Poles are
benefiting from US-funded contracts to rebuild Iraq.
For however much the French and Germans remind us they fight with us in Afghanistan
(and I thank them for that), those countries have opted out of Iraq
and so should not be eligible for Iraq
contracts. Afghan contracts, sure—but not Iraq.
Save those for allies on the ground. And remember that Poland
is punching above its weight. France
and Germany are
way below.
Should Spain
be penalized in contracting? Well, they were with us in the first crucial year
and that still counts for a lot in my book. Benefits of alliance and
cooperation should not be the same as for allies on the ground, however. With
luck, the Spanish will decide that the June 30 turnover will prove that the
occupation is not in fact disastrous and that Spain
will continue to help a new democracy emerging from fascist rule. This should
appeal to the Spanish socialists, shouldn’t it?
This is a disturbing development if it goes forth as it
appears it will. The Spanish election and decision will be interpreted by the
Islamists as a lesson that terror works. And not just against other states. Sure,
we can probably look forward to attacks here as our enemies gain added motives
to get Bush out of office, but Spain
just painted a bigger target on themselves. Do the Spanish think that their
cooperation in Iraq
was their only sin? What grander demands will al Qaeda
have? Spain is
a NATO member. Spain
occupies Moslem land (and not just the Parsley
Island that Spain
recently recaptured from Morocco
after a near-farcical crisis. Spain
occupies Spain
for Pete’s sake! Former Moslem land! Spain
has earned the distinction of being the one Western power to permanently retake
Moslem land. Will this be forgotten by the Islamists?
Running from the war will not save Spain.
America did not
start the war—we merely decided to wage the war offensively.
I hoped Spain
would stand with us. I dare say they will again. When they realize that there
is no appeasing an enemy determined to kill us. The Spanish may or may not
realize this by June 30.
I still mourn with the Spanish for their dead. Luckily,
however, we are not all Spaniards.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA15MAR04A
The Spanish opposition won
today’s election. It appears that a public backlash against the government
for supporting America
on the Iraq
question has occurred. The Spanish people believe they were targeted because
they sided with us:
Spain's opposition
Socialists have swept to power in a sensational election upset sparked by
popular anger over the government's handling of a suspected al Qaeda attack on commuter trains that killed 200 people.
Once again, we see that an attack on a country does not just
inspire the public to rally around the flag and close ranks against the foreign
attacker. I’d hoped this time I’d be wrong and that the Spanish public would
take a gut check and fight on.
Perhaps they still will after this venting at the polls is
over.
I hope so. Hiding will not save them. I know they took a
terrible blow on the 11th. I grieve with them. They did not deserve
this attack. But do the Spanish really think the Islamists will forgive the
Spanish for expelling the Moslems from Spain
in the 15th century? The publicized claim of al Qaeda
responsibility for the Madrid
bombings may or may not be legitimate, but this sentiment surely reflects the Islamist
view of Spain:
"This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader,
and America's ally in its war
against Islam," the claim said.
The Spanish are a target. And we didn’t make them a target.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA14MAR04B
The British organization Military
Policy Research lists the articles in the January 1999 Army Magazine. Mine was one of them and it highlights it by quoting
from my article, “A Total Army for Total War: The Guard Divisions Role”:
"Amazingly, nobody
considers whether we may need to fight a large-scale war as we did in 1861-65,
1917-18 or 1941-45... While a peer competitor is not anticipated in the near
term, reserves capable of fighting a larger-than-MTW threat must be
maintained... Counting on a safe environment for the next two decades is itself
too optimistic (p10)... The United
States exhibits hubris by assuming
nobody can challenge it in a conventional fight" (p12).
The following commentary savaged my essay:
The threat is conjured up in
purely abstract terms, without the slightest effort at substantiation. If the
author sees reason to fear all-out war, he should have the gumption to state
it, not indulge in sarcastic 'amazement' that nobody else has seen fit to do it
for him. To argue for a particular level of reserve component training and
readiness is one thing; to preclude any attempt to match national military
power to defensive needs, on the basis of such reasoning as this is quite
another! The fact that this article tied for third prize in the 1998 Army
Magazine essay contest suggests a deficiency of strategic vision in some US
Army circles.
I don’t know when this was written. I discovered the brief
critique in March 2004. I have a web page, so I will respond to what is stated.
I must wonder if the reviewer read my article. The reviewer
complains that I spoke of the threat in only abstract terms and states I may
not have had the “gumption” to write that I feared all-out war. The reviewer
felt I was indulging in sarcasm for expressing amazement that we were not
preparing for a larger war.
The reviewer misses my point completely.
I was not speculating about any particular threat. I was
not, for example, hinting that we might have to fight China
by invading and therefore need a continental-sized army. That said, China
certainly could be an enemy. Or India.
Or any of a number of countries in the arc of crisis from North Africa to Northeast Asia that might
field a large army. My point was that our military strategy did not even
include our Guard divisions in our war plans. We had capped the largest
conceivable war as a major theater war that would call upon only five Army
divisions and one or two Marine Expeditionary Forces to rapidly win. Given that
we’d fought three large-scale wars against large conventional enemies in our
history, I was amazed that we felt safe enough to make the assumption that we’d
only face a Desert Storm Light conflict. I explicitly stated that I was not
advocating a World War II-sized Army—or even the Army of 1990. I clearly stated
that combat-focused Guard divisions were needed as a hedge against strategic surprise—not to fight a particular
enemy coming down the pike. My point was that I could not predict the future
and didn’t believe others could either—and that the Guard divisions were our
only insurance policy so we’d best prepare it.
In addition to worrying about strategic surprise, I was concerned
that even a predicted major theater war could stress our assumptions if we
faced setbacks. If we endured heavy casualties and needed fresh forces, our
theoretical ability to respond to a second war would be severely crippled. The
need to rotate fresh divisions would require combat-focused Guard divisions to
preserve our strategic reserve and deter a second war.
This was also the time of a peacekeeping focus for our Army
and I was worried that assuming that the worst case scenario we might face was
a short, decisive, and virtually bloodless major theater war was hubris. I thought
I could see the beginnings of the victory disease being incubated and that a
peacekeeping mindset would set us up for defeat in the initial battle of a war
against a determined foe. I thought it would be wise to train and prepare for
something worse than Desert Storm II (smaller version). The worst consequence
of preparing for a tough enemy would be that we’d win faster and with fewer
casualties if we did not face anything worse than our anticipated enemies.
Finally, I wanted the Guard included in our war plans
because I value the bridging role of our reserve forces. Going to war should
require the Guard to promote debate and to make sure that our leaders believe
going to war is worth calling up our civilian reservists.
Is all this is a deficiency of strategic thinking? The
strategic surprise did indeed take place on 9-11. I’d say that the war on
terror has shown that our assumptions about how much landpower
we need were inadequate. Instead of a rapid, contained victory followed by a
fast return home, we face a generation of potential conflict. We do indeed need
ground forces to rotate troops through Iraq
and Afghanistan
after the initial rapid, decisive conventional victories required continued
fighting against irregulars to secure the war gains. The next rotation into Iraq
in 2005 has already alerted a Guard division’s headquarters. And we went from
considering a cut of two divisions in our active Army to considering adding two
divisions. We may need more infantry divisions in the Guard as opposed to heavy
divisions as I assumed in 1999, but we still need the divisions for warfighting purposes. I would not be surprised if the 2006
rotation puts two Guard divisions into Iraq
(though by then I think it will be more of a garrison than a fighting force)
and not require any active divisions at all.
I’d say the deficiency in strategic thinking—or at least
imagination—rests elsewhere.
Still, I confess that getting ripped is kind of fun. It at
least showed somebody was paying attention.
The synopsis as I wrote it is here.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA14MAR04A
More foreigners resisting US pressure by standing with their
thug regime.
Well, no. Once again the opposition seems to be immune to
the nuanced thinking that says US
pressure is counter-productive. This time in Syria
(via Instapundit), riots in Kurdish
areas:
Friday's incident represents the most
violent wave of protests in Syria in recent memory. They follow
U.S. threats to take sanctions against Damascus for its support of terror
organizations, coupled with American suspicions that Syria is not do all it can
to prevent Saddam loyalists from entering Iraq through its border
Eighty dead according to the Kurds.
AP has
a story, too. This says the death toll is much smaller but notes:
Spontaneous demonstrations are extremely unusual in Syria, where the Baath party has maintained tight political control for more
than 30 years. A riot by Kurds, who dominate Syria's underdeveloped
northeast, would be especially sensitive for authorities.
Don’t these Syrian people know they’re supposed to resent US
pressure for more freedoms?
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA13MAR04F
Using laws to protect themselves when they themselves would
not be bound them is standard operating practice for dictators.
The government of President Hugo Chavez said
Wednesday it will file
a complaint with the Organization of American States, accusing the United States of meddling in Venezuela's domestic
affairs.
This can work. Because of people, nations, and international
organizations that believe process is more important than substance. And for
states that do not pose mortal threats to us, this can work.
But dabbling with terrorists, colluding with Castro, and
threatening our oil imports can combine to elevate the threat.
And the United States,
luckily for us, is willing to act in the face of process tying us up in knots
(to the horror of the process anal retentive).
We shall see.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA13MAR04E
Via NRO, this
article has the goods on the idiot who acted for the Iraqi government is an
effort to undermine US policy and aid the Baathists (while
eagerly noting that she is White House chief of staff Card’s distant cousin,
the national
press ignores her pedigree):
Susan
Lindauer, 41, of Takoma
Park, Md., allegedly met with Iraqi Intelligence Service members during visits
from October 1999 through March 2002 to the Iraqi Mission to the United Nations
in New York City; met with Iraqi officials in Baghdad in February or March
2002; and passed documents to an undercover FBI agent with whom she'd talked
about helping post-war Iraqi resistance groups.
Staffer to left-wing members of Congress,
journalist, and “peace activist.” Wow! Three for one!
Just a coincidence, I’m sure. No need for the press to
mention her background. I mean, if she was a gun-owning, white supremacist,
investment banker, I bet the press would have gone into long essays about how
those characteristics made it pretty much inevitable that she’d betray her
country.
The only way it could better is if she’s a Vegan, or works
for Alec Baldwin, or something similarly odd.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA13MAR04D
With the blogosphere prompt with
expressions of support for our friends who suffer at the hands of terrorists,
it would be nice to have something positive to celebrate.
I’d say Iraq’s
birthday, on June 30 when power is officially transferred to the new Iraq,
would be a great occasion for bloggers to send happy
birthday wishes to the new Iraq.
It could be quite a bi-national celebration for years to come. A new
democracy’s birthday followed less than a week later by the birthday of our old
democracy.
According to the US State Department, “Official Iraqi
representation and consular service in the United
States have not been established.” I’ll have
to find out what their Interest Section is, if any. I found one address on the
web but don’t know if it is good. I emailed State Department. I’ll post the
address when I get it.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA13MAR04C
The American Thinker, via Instapundit,
thinks the Saudis are waging a silent
war on President Bush in the hopes that a Kerry presidency will be more
pliant:
By restricting OPEC output since the end of
hostilities in Iraq, the Saudis
have forced oil prices up over the past several months. The American economic
recovery is being slowly, almost imperceptibly, throttled. From a low of $23.61
per barrel in May, 2003, average crude oil prices have risen rather steadily,
to $31.03 last month, up nearly one-third in eight months. If this rate of
increase continues over the next eight months, the economic consequences for America will be grim.
On the surface it is plausible. The Saudis used the oil
weapon after the 1973 Arab-Israeli War to punish the US
for supporting Israel.
The Saudis used the oil weapon in the Iran-Iraq War to drive down the price of
oil to harm Iran,
which relied on oil exports for revenue to fund the war (while Iraq
could get loans). Setting aside whether these worked as it is assumed (Alaskan
oil may have has as much to do with the price drop as Saudi production), that
the Saudis believe they worked is some circumstantial evidence that the Saudis
could be waging another oil war today.
Certainly, the Saudis aren’t doing us any favors by not
turning on the spigots, but is it a silent war? The Saudis need cash to keep
them in the lifestyles to which they have become accustomed. And they gained a
pretty hefty habit in the days when oil prices where sky high. And it isn’t
just for fun that they need this money. They need to spread money around to
keep themselves in power. And with restless Shias in Saudi
Arabia seeing their brethren freed in Iraq
and restless young people eager for more freedom seeing freedom arrive next
door, the Saudi need for money becomes clear. Add this to the decline in the
value of the dollar, which oil prices are tied to, Saudi profits go down when
the value of the dollar goes down. Keeping the price of oil up can also be seen
as a means of making up for the dollar’s drop in value. I don’t have to like
this—hey, I by a hundred gallons of gas every month—but it doesn’t mean there
is a dark reason for the price level.
Plus, the author highlights the monetary ties of many
Americans to the Saudi government. The Saudis buy influence and this is clear.
But after buying such friendship, wouldn’t the Saudis be more likely to seek to
preserve their rule by working through these bought-and-paid-for ex-officials? Isn’t
counting on a Kerry administration to be nicer to them a little risky? Haven’t
the loyal opposition types hammered Bush since 9-11 over “coddling” the Saudis?
Wouldn’t it be safer to rely on the paid friends rather than provoking a cowboy
president who might just send in the 82nd Airborne to seize the oil
fields rather than just sit and take it? We wouldn’t invade over mere price,
but lots of people believe the “nuanced’ European interpretation of US policies
and would believe anything bad about us.
We also have to ask whether the Saudis can really make
things that bad for us. Can they really drive up prices enough to hurt our huge
economy and deprive Bush re-election?
National Review Online describes the decreasing
role of oil inputs to our economic outputs:
The average national price of gasoline has risen from $1.47 per gallon
in mid-December to $1.74 in the latest week. This surge has reawakened fears
that increased energy costs will put the brakes on economic growth. There are
bound to be some negative effects from the higher prices, but they do not pose
a serious hurdle for the economy.
Energy's role in the economy has changed substantially since the oil
shocks of the 1970s. The economy consumed 16.7 thousand BTUs (or standard
units) of energy per real dollar of gross domestic product in 1975, but that
dropped to about 9.4 thousand in 2003, about a 44 percent decline. The drop is even
more impressive when the energy source is petroleum, which fell from 7.6
thousand BTUs in 1975 to about 3.7 thousand in 2003 — a more than 50 percent
decrease.
Not to say that higher prices don’t have an impact. Higher
prices for inputs are higher inputs. But thus far, the author believes the
effect is a “light braking” rather than a skid-to-a-halt impact.
Plus, this chart (and
for the life of me I cannot remember the Hat Tip for this—I did not find it.
Sorry) puts oil prices in perspective. In constant dollars, oil prices are not
sky high. Mind you, I’d still pressure the Saudis to lower prices. Lower prices
would help but we should not panic. We don’t have to like the recent increases,
but how can this level be crippling? Coupled with the reduced oil input, the
actual cost of gas is much less. I’m sure I’d be squawking more if my gas
mileage was as bad as 1970s cars.
Certainly, oil pumped from West Africa,
Venezuela, Russia,
Libya, and
right through Caribou carcasses in Alaska
if we need to, becomes more important if we are to bypass the Saudi chokepoint.
Regardless of Saudi motives, we need to lessen their role in he world economy
to give us greater freedom of action to address their real problems and their
impact on our security.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA13MAR04B
My heart goes out to the people of Spain.
The tears of sorrow and rage that followed 9-11 could not be suppressed as I
saw the stories of what the Spanish endured on March 11. The train
bombings in Madrid were acts of terrorism designed to kill as many Spanish
people as possible. There is no grievance that the Spanish can appease. No
message to be heard. No injustice to be redressed. Just a
killing spree.
As if we needed any more evidence that we are at war with
scum committed to killing as many of us as they can. Some, sadly, will claim Spain
was targeted because of their alliance with America.
Actually, some people do need to be reminded. As even the
French briefly realized after 9-11, we are all Americans now. We are all
Spaniards. We are all Australians. We are all Iraqis. We are all Moroccans. We
are all Indonesians. We are all the “other” who are unworthy of life in the
black hearts of the Islamists who have room in their universe for only the pure
Moslems as they define “pure.”
The Spanish response of anger rather than a maddening “what
did we do to deserve this” response was heartening.
The American people stand with the Spanish people as friends
and allies. As we prosecute the war, we cannot tire of fighting. We cannot
forget that only the means to kill us in the millions are lacking in our
enemies—not the will. Recognize that we have enemies. Pursue our enemies. Kill
them. Make their families grieve over their bodies. Make the Islamists fear us
more than they fear Allah’s “commands” to kill the infidels.
We are at war. Is this not clear enough?
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA13MAR04A
The US
gave
in to the EUs softer approach to Iranian nuclear
ambitions. We won’t confront them over Iranian violations of their commitments
to remain non-nuclear.
Those wise in the ways of nuance know that this will be
appreciated by the “moderates” in Iran.
They will reciprocate with reasonable steps to thank us for our sophistication.
Sadly, the Iranians announce they will proceed with enriching
Uranium:
Iran said Wednesday it would resume uranium
enrichment and warned it may quit cooperating with the International Atomic
Energy Agency, which it accused of kowtowing to Washington at a crucial
meeting in Vienna.
Big, sophisticated, European-trained brains understand the
nuances of this diplomatic victory.
I am truly in awe.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA10MAR04C
Ok, I knew it wasn’t
likely that they were tourists.
They may be mercs.
Mugabe says he may execute them.
I eagerly await the outrage of the world community at this
high-handed decision. I mean, the death penalty? How
primitive. I’m sure the African Union will have something to say by way of
condemnation. No. Maybe not. They’re all busy trying
to work up good Third World outrage over Aristide’s just
ouster.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA10MAR04B
This truly torques me off. Thug dictators terrorize their
people in violation of the flimsy domestic protections offered by their laws
and constitutions and contrary to international norms of decency. Then, they
thwart the international community, which treats pieces of paper as real
protections, as the international community futilely bleats about the thugs latest outrages.
Aristide
is just one of the pettier thugs to follow this route. He even has attorneys!
Aristide believes he is still president of Haiti and will
use the courts in his fight to return home, American lawyer Brian Concannon said in Paris after meeting
Aristide in the Central African Republic.
In the United States, "there are
preparations for a kidnapping case against the American authorities," Concannon said without elaborating.
Another American lawyer for Aristide, Ira Kurzban, wrote to Attorney General John Ashcroft (news
- web
sites) asking the Justice Department (news
- web
sites) to investigate the circumstances of Aristide's Feb. 29 departure.
Sadly, his allies in this country are nothing new in the history
of foreign thugs who can count on fools in this country to idealize their
favorite thug. The fools will ignore the body count as long as they are able to
pretend that the thug has a glorious vision. Or, in a pinch,
if the thug is just anti-American.
And South Africa,
eager to forfeit whatever moral standing it had from overcoming the Apartheid
regime, wants
a probe of the whole incident.
And the African Union, bored with having nothing to do after
solving Africa’s festering problems of AIDS, civil war, dictatorships,
genocide, corruption, and poverty, have decided that it must do
something to erase the injustice of having American Marines, French Foreign
Legionnaires, and Canadian soldiers preventing massacres and giving the
Haitians a chance—however slight—to have a decent future:
Now in exile in the Central African
Republic, Aristide insists the United States abducted him and
forced him to leave his troubled Caribbean nation amid a weeks long insurgency. The United States has dismissed the
allegations.
The 53-member AU, which is headquartered in Addis Ababa, said the way
Aristide "was removed set a dangerous precedent for duly elected
persons."
Clearly, that must not stand.
I say the precedent that is so dangerous to the AU is that
if you are thuggish enough in your rule, US Marines may escort you from the
premises.
We should have shot Aristide’s sorry ass. Or
dropped him in the Atlantic on the plane ride to Africa. We really needed to establish a precedent of how dangerous
it is to be a thug ruler.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA10MAR04A
One complaint that the “anti-war” side likes to make is that
we should talk to thug regimes and avoid siding with the opposition because
that will “play into the hands of the hardliners.” Their theory is that any
words of encouragement by the US
for democrats or human rights activists will just taint those activists and
democrats.
We know this is wrong. After all, did 9-11 cause the loyal
opposition to abandon their hatred of the administration and demand the blood
of those who killed 3,000 of our fellow citizens? Well, no. In fact, it caused
the opposition to wonder what we did to deserve this attack.
And we now have yet another
indication that our actions can embolden dissidents and give them hope—not
taint them! Not drive them to rally around the local dictator rather than
accept the support of America!
Aktham Naisse, who leads the Committees for the Defense of
Democratic Liberties and Human Rights in Syria, said Monday's sit-in outside
parliament was a success even though police quickly detained all the
demonstrators.
"As activists, we were able to send a clear message to
the Syrian street, and to international public opinion, that we are serious
about our demands and program," Naisse told The
Associated Press in an interview. "We embarrassed the Syrian authorities which, unfortunately, showed they are unable and unwilling
to meet our demands."
This is just another reminder that confronting our enemies
doesn’t just automatically strengthen the hardliners and weaken our friends.
Have we learned nothing? We give heart to the democratic resistance when we
stand up to thugs.
I wish foreign attacks inspired a rally around the flag
effect more thoroughly here.
I guess foreigners who oppose their dictatorial governments
aren’t nearly as nuanced as our own opposition to our elected government.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA09MAR04E
The United States
has not, apparently, sent mercenaries
to overthrow Mugabe:
A cargo plane impounded in Zimbabwe on suspicion of
carrying 64 mercenaries is believed to have departed from South Africa and may have had
South African nationals on board, authorities said Tuesday.
Not that he
wouldn’t deserve it.
And I would like to note that we
get criticized for picking up unlawful combatants off the battlefields of Afghanistan; and Mugabe gets a pass for
stopping a bunch of guys with camping gear and a can of Mace.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA09MAR04D
The charge my some is that we’ve alienated our allies and
that we couldn’t expect any of our former friends to come to our aid. Senator Kyl answers that we are getting help. Most recently in Haiti.
And by whom?
Well,
France, I guess. And Canada. Not to mention the more than 70 nations
that are with us in the war against terrorism (including every one of the
countries he mentioned). Or the 49 nations standing with us
in Iraq.
This is a problem for opponents of US policy--do all those nations cooperate with America
because it is in their own interest? If this is true, they will likely
keep cooperating regardless of our so-called unilateralism. Or, do these
nations cooperate as a favor to us? This would kind of undercut the
"driving our allies away" argument.Unless the “anti-war” critics are trying to suggest that all these countries are diabolically sucking us into a massive trap by embarking on a campaign of feigned cooperation until they can betray us with the big sting, their arguments that we have alienated the world are just silly.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA09MAR04C
Things seemed to be going well in Afghanistan, with troops closing on bin Laden. I think we were doing
fine with our strategy of letting the Afghan central government take the lead
in getting the provinces into the government while our troops hammered any
large concentrations of Taliban to break them up and keep them from massing
troops to overrun government police posts and villages. Doing this would keep Afghanistan
from becoming a training ground for terrorists.
Recently, we changed our strategy to spread our forces out
in the remaining troublesome provinces to do classic counter-insurgency by
mingling with the population, doing civic improvements, patrolling, and
otherwise reassuring the locals to cooperate with us. It seemed a more
ambitious strategy to me.
Well, apparently, the situation has improved
tremendously and this may be why we have the confidence to spread out and
stamp out the smoldering pro-Taliban sentiment. Our top general in Europe,
Jones, said:
"But
we should be clear about the fact that the war against al Qaeda
and the Taliban as fighters is virtually, almost complete," he said in
testimony to a Belgian Senate committee.
"If
you were to color code Afghanistan today...green meaning secure and stable, yellow meaning somewhat
dangerous and red meaning very dangerous, three-quarters of the entire country
would be green by any evaluation today."
Jones
said last month after briefings at the headquarters of the U.S.-led Operation
Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan that the number of hard-core Taliban and al Qaeda
guerrillas had dropped below 1,000 and their strength appeared to be waning.
I have to believe he’s serious. Normally, I’d expect senior
officers to be cautiously optimistic at best. His willingness to proclaim such
success is a heck of a good sign.
My good feeling about nailing bin Laden may be quite well
placed.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA09MAR04B
I was happy to note that our casualties in Iraq
have plummeted. I think we’ve had two killed in action from February 20 to
today. This is especially remarkable since the big rotation is going on. More
troops on the road. Newer troops replacing the year-old
veterans. The military warned there might be an upsurge in attacks. But
instead, we’ve had a couple over nearly three weeks.
While good news, I worried that we were possibly pulling
back from an offensive posture to gain a respite from the daily death toll. But
my nagging doubts were for nothing according to Strategypage.
Training, adaptability, and intelligence have rocked the Baathists back on their heels. The
result?
A lot of Sunni Arabs, the usual participants in these attacks, simply
won't take on American troops any more. Too many attackers have been caught in
the act and killed. Making attacks at night is particularly scary for Iraqis,
because of the abundance of night vision devices the Americans have, and use
enthusiastically. Moreover, at night you cannot see the UAVs
circling overhead with their night vision videocam
pointed earthward.
Keep the pressure on the Baathists
and hunt down the Islamists.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA09MAR04A
This story
is odd:
Zimbabwean authorities have seized a
U.S.-registered cargo plane carrying 64 "suspected mercenaries" and
military equipment, the Home Affairs minister said Monday.
I seriously doubt we are up to anything. There are plenty of
mercenary companies out there and I suppose it is possible we or somebody
friendly hired some people for action in the region. But if so, I can’t believe
we’d fly through Zimbabwe
given Mugabe’s instability.
Could just be somebody’s new bodyguard detail making an
ill-chosen stopover.
Quite curious.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA08MAR04D
Seriously, Chavez is just too annoying to remain in office.
Look at what that Castro-wannabe
is saying:
President Hugo Chavez on Sunday vowed to
freeze oil exports to the United States and wage a
"100-year war" if Washington ever tried to
invade Venezuela.
The United States has repeatedly
denied ever trying to overthrow Chavez, but the leftist leader accuses Washington of being behind a
failed 2002 coup and of funding opposition groups seeking a recall referendum
on his presidency.
Chavez accused the United States of ousting former
Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and warned Washington not to "even
think about trying something similar in Venezuela."
Venezuela "has enough
allies on this continent to start a 100-year war," Chavez said during his
weekly television show.
He added that "U.S. citizens could
forget about ever getting Venezuelan oil" if the United States ever tried to
invade.
Sure, invading Venezuela
isn’t really in the cards. Even though three of our brigades could take apart
the Venezuelan military, we can’t easily afford to get involved in South
America when we have more pressing national security issues to
address. The oil is important to our economy, but this would be a war of
choice.
But that doesn’t
mean we are helpless. Since we are being accused of interfering, let’s go
for it. Support the opposition openly with diplomatic and financial backing.
Just remember, in light of our failure to back the last coup
that momentarily ousted Chaves, that when you strike a king, kill him.
And don’t let the yahoo snipe at us from exile. We pay a
price when we are nice to thugs. Like
one is doing. No good deed goes unpunished, eh? Seriously, if we can get
rid of Chavez we should do it. Some look at Aristide and complain
we are not living up to our commitment to democracy in Latin America:
Aristide's Haiti was no poster
child for democracy. There was little respect for free speech or tolerance of
political opponents. The country's 2000 legislative elections were flawed.
Aristide's own victory in a presidential election that year was tainted by an
opposition boycott, low turnout and charges of intimidation.
Yet, the world recognized Aristide as Haiti's legitimate
leader. And the days were supposed to be long-gone when democratically elected
Latin American leaders were forced from office under the threat of violence.
The author confuses recognition with democracy. Apartheid-era
South Africa was
recognized. Soviet Russia
was recognized. Heck, Saddam’s Iraq,
Iran’s mullacracy, and the Pillsbury Nuke Boy’s North
Korea are recognized by the vaunted world
community. I say the days when dictators could count on the stamp of approval
from the international community to keep them in power should be long gone.
Let’s not protect Chavez.
Hmm. What does my 1999-2000 The Military Balance say about Venezuela?
It’s within arm’s reach…
An army of 34,000 with 27,000 of them conscripts. They have
81 old French AMX-30 main battle tanks, 75 World War II-era M-18 tank
destroyers better suited to sitting in front of American Legion posts, 30
AMX-13 French light tanks that last saw successful use in the 1967 Six Day War,
and 80 Scorpion 90s. British light armor, I believe. Some wheeled APCs and some artillery. The navy has 5,000 marines plus 6
frigates and 2 submarines. I rather doubt they are more than nominally
seaworthy. The air force has about 50 F-16s, Mirages, and F-5s. This could be
the most formidable branch, but a couple carriers should be able to embark
sufficient aircraft to destroy the Venezuelan air force and quickly nullify it
if necessary. B-2s might destroy them in advance.
Now I’m not saying it is wise to go to war to overthrow
Chavez. I think we should apply non-military means to get rid of this thug.
But somebody needs to explain to El Maximum Dope’ that the
Venezuelan military is not up to the task of waging war for 100 hours let alone
100 years.
Of course, if we find that Chavez is playing with the Devil
and opening up his country to Islamists and Castro, Chavez could promote
himself from tinpot dictator status too petty to
address up to actual threat worthy of dealing with.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA08MAR04C
The Iraqis agreed to an interim
constitution. The impression I’ve gotten from some commentary on NPR
tonight on the way home is that this was darned lucky. We were on the edge of
disaster and boy is Bush lucky he escaped this disaster.
Please.
This was a wonderful occasion and the document is the best
you’ll see in the Arab world. And even better, it has the best chance of
actually being followed. Much work remains to be done but it is indeed a great
day.
I wonder how well we would do if we had to write a new
constitution today?
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA08MAR04B
According to TV news Sunday, the Pakistanis came close to
nabbing Bin Laden recently. I’ve long thought Osama
was dead. In the last couple months I’ve started to think he might still be
kicking. Which makes his failure to hit us again a pretty big deal rather than
being the natural consequences of being dead.
With recent comments that capturing Osama
too close to the election or too close to the conventions or too close to
Martha’s appeal, or whatever, I sure hope we aren’t putting our troops in
danger taking risks trying to get him now to forestall opposition complaints of
timing. It has taken time for the Pakistanis to get their troops into the
tribal areas without provoking resistance. Now that the Pakistanis have bribed
or blackmailed the tribal leaders into cooperation, we can seriously beat the
bushes for al Qaeda remnants.
But as I said, I’m feeling strangely optimistic about the
prospects of Osama’s capture soon.
And capture will be very humiliating for the Islamists after
his lengthy inaction.
I think we’ll get that waste of oxygen soon. Personally, I
hope we shoot him on sight.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA08MAR04A
With all due respect to the personal losses, those
complaining about the brief image of Ground Zero in a Bush ad are making
arguments that are worthless to me. I won’t go into the politics of those
complaining. Others
have.
I will settle for noting that this was an act of war against
our entire country—not a crime against their loved ones. That’s why the
taxpayers of the entire country are paying them millions in compensation.
That’s why the taxpayers are paying tens of billions to New
York. That’s why the Air Force patrols their skies
and that is why our military reached out and crushed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Some say that this is the equivalent of showing bodies of
our soldiers returning from Iraq.
Bull. That would be the equivalent of a Bush ad showing desperate people diving
to their certain deaths from the World
Trade Center.
That would be the equivalent of playing the tapes of the resisting passengers
on Flight 93 as they prevented a fourth suicide attack from taking place.
Let the opposition use images of 9-11 and argue they will do
better.
September 11 was an attack on our entire nation and if we
aren’t supposed to discuss the proper response to the attack and how we can
prevent even worse attacks, I don’t know what is.
Pupil testing, I suppose.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA06MAR04D
Good. I think time is on our side with North
Korea. Via Instapundit,
this
article notes that the North Koreans think Kerry would give them a better
deal and would prefer to put off a deal until January 2005:
In the past few weeks, speeches by the Massachusetts senator have been
broadcast on Radio Pyongyang and reported in
glowing terms by the Korea Central News
Agency (KCNA), the official mouthpiece of Mr Kim's
communist regime.
The apparent enthusiasm for Mr Kerry may reflect little more than a "better the
devil you don't know" mentality among the North Korean apparatchiks.
Rather than dealing with President George W. Bush and hawkish officials in his
administration, Pyongyang seems to hope
victory for the Democratic candidate on November 2 would lead to a softening in
US policy towards
the country's nuclear weapons programme.
We want to delay to let them rot and deal with more pressing
concerns; and North Korea
wants to delay to get a Kerry presidency and a better deal.
North Korea
will be weaker in a Bush second term and the North Koreans will be faced with
four more years of clear-headed opposition to them. Before the end of Bush’s
second term, the North Koreans will also likely be the last charter Axis of
Evil member left standing.
North Korea’s
criminal regime is drinking champagne and feasing on caviar resting upon a foundation that is rotting
away from within and their only hope of survival is foreign aid.
Counting on a better deal with another president is a major
mistake on their part.
But shoot, who knows, maybe we will get stupid again and
save them from themselves. It’s always possible, Heaven forbid.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA06MAR04C
The headline
says “Taiwan Leader
Proposes to Slash Military.”
This is what the Taiwan
president said:
"We hope to cut the number of people in the army from
385,000 to 270,000," Chen said Saturday in a
30-minute televised address.
This isn’t quite “slashing.” This is really the recognition
that Taiwan
does not need a large army just in case it needs to return to the mainland,
march on Peking, and finally win the civil war after the
fifty-year setback of temporarily retreating to the island.
Indeed, one could have the exact
same headline for China,
which is slashing its massive leg infantry army. But the
headline is “China's Army Show New Sophistication.”
Twenty Chinese water purification troops are in Liberia and the Liberians respond by
cutting ties to Taiwan. First of all, the battle of aid
for diplomatic recognition is a long-running battle between China and Taiwan. Nothing new.
Second, the article notes that the Chinese plan to
cut their army by hundreds of thousands. It would have been just as
misleading to say the Chinese are slashing their army. China
is shedding excess landpower. China
doesn’t need to worry about Russia
driving deep into Manchuria as they did in the Soviet
days; and can instead focus on naval and air power to fight the US
and capture Taiwan.
This certainly hurts us. It would be nice if Russia
becomes a real democracy (though I’m not nearly as pessimistic as many seem to
be about the future of democracy in Russia)
and bolsters land forces in the Far East again. India
and Vietnam can
tie down Chinese land power, too, as can South
Korea. South
Korea will need a large land army even when North
Korea collapses since the Chinese will be
their neighbor.
And third, it is ludicrous to
call these water purification troops “elite” as the article does. They may very
well be well-trained, but elite? Please. “Elite” is a term used by so many
reporters who have no idea what elite troops are.
But back to Taiwan.
Just as China
doesn’t need masses of infantry any more, neither does Taiwan
need all those army troops. The Taiwanese need a better trained and equipped,
but smaller, army and the Taiwanese really needs air power and sea power to
protect themselves from a Chinese invasion or
blockade. They really need missile defenses. They really need bunkers for their
air force to preserve them from mainland bombardment, the ability to repair
damage to airfields, and robust communications that will allow the Taiwanese to
move their forces to counter a Chinese attack and communicate with the US
in a crisis.
“Reforming” their military would be a better word.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA06MAR04B
When dictators escape justice they can cause problems for
us. Saddam’s existence motivated Baathists after the
fall of Baghdad. Since his capture,
the Baathist resistance seems to have lost heart.
Now, with Aristide sitting in exile instead of sitting in
prison or a grave, his supporters still dream
of returning him to power:
Meanwhile, Aristide's Paris-based lawyer said the former
president was forced from office. Attorney Gilbert Collard said Aristide told
him he did not resign, adding to his supporters' hopes he might return to Haiti.
Aristide, who remains in secluded asylum in the Central
African Republic, acknowledged writing "a note
indicating that if his departure prevented a bloodbath, he would
leave," Collard said. But the ex-leader also said that "if he had to
resign, he would have done it according to the constitution and not with the
push of a foreign power."
Collard said he was working with a U.S.-based lawyer to try
to determine whether the United States, and perhaps France, violated
international law by pressing Aristide to step down.
Is this what our world has come to? A thug is forced from
power after having demonstrated his absolute contempt for justice, rule of law,
and good governance, and the thug is consulting with attorneys to see if every
T was crossed and every I dotted? Is it truly possible
that America
and France
could have run afoul of international law and that will be the most important
factor in this crisis and not the bankruptcy of the Aristide regime? Will people
here really attack the administration on these grounds?
The Libyans came clean on WMD when they saw what happened to
the Baathists and their master, Saddam. Fear prompted
Khadaffi’s abandonment of WMD. Would fear of comfy
exile have motivated him? We’d still be arguing over the evidence instead of
knowing this for example:
Libya acknowledged
stockpiling 44,000 pounds of mustard gas and disclosed the location of a
production plant in a declaration submitted Friday to the world's chemical
weapons watchdog.
Chavez is worrying
about the US as he struggles to maintain his worthless regime in power.
How many thugs will quake in fear if Aristide’s ouster is
treated as an outrage of international law?
I wasn’t too keen on the intervention before we went in, but
I’d have to remove my brain stem to ever believe that what we did was immoral.
We should be getting praised for getting a petty dictator out of the way.
Truly, thugs worldwide will sleep a little better at night
if they think we are hamstrung in dealing with their misdeeds by pieces of
paper that protect them. Thug regimes ignore the pieces of paper that protect
their victims, whether domestic or in other countries. The thugs should get no
better consideration.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA06MAR04A
Via Andrew Sullivan, this complaint in MSNBC that we could have
bombed the guy who carried out the Karbala
and Baghdad bombings this week:
In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida
had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and
cyanide.
The Pentagon quickly
drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes
and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the
National Security Council.
“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to
support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,”
said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.
Maybe
we didn’t strike because we'd had futile experience sending cruise
missiles into mountains to get one guy. Maybe we didn’t strike back then
because we didn't want to scatter them before we invaded and went after
them with ground forces, too. Remember, we cruise missiled them and
sent in special forces and Kurds. The survivors did scatter into Iran.If I recall, I think I wanted to hit the camp before we went to war with Iraq. But I give the administration the benefit of the doubt on deciding not to attack.
Shoot, I can imagine the howls of protest from those who would claim we were starting the war before even giving the UN a chance to persuade Saddam to give in. I can see Tony Blair getting too much heat over our pre-preemptive strike to side with us in the war.
War is not a game. It is not easy. And it sure isn’t nearly as clear cut as the article suggests.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA04MAR04D
From my Jane’s email service, just this: “Somalia's
warlords are making haste to present a united front, but that may not stop US
strikes.” While I assumed the warlord solidarity would grease the skids to
intervention rather than be a hindrance, the key thing is the assumption that
we will strike Somali territory.
I’ve been advocating such a move for a while now. The signs
all seem to be there.
This spring, I should think.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA04MAR04C
It is conventional wisdom of people who opposed the Iraq War
that we created terrorists who wouldn’t have otherwise existed if we hadn’t
invaded Iraq.
Like the Aristide supporters, they only reluctantly agree that Iraq
is better off without Saddam.
But riddle me this, Batman. If overthrowing Saddam created
Islamist enemies that wouldn’t otherwise have existed because our troops over
there inspired violent anti-Americanism amongst happy shopkeepers and farmers,
how come the Islamists are killing Shias and Sunnis?
Call me crazy, but I’d have thought killing fellow Moslems would be unlikely
for Islamists hopped up on anti-Americanism and filled with Moslem solidarity.
I thought there
is a problem with Islamist radicals twisting Islam in order to justify
killing Jews, Americans, Shias, or even any Sunni
Moslems who don’t think killing those in the earlier categories is just dandy.
What do I know?
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA04MAR04B
Get rid of Chavez of Venezuela, that is. I wasn’t sure what
we should do before, but the lunatic reaction to the departure/ouster of
Aristide of Haiti has convince me that we might as well get rid of Chavez if we
can count on the CIA to pull it off. He’s our enemy and he is arguably opening
his country to Islamists and giving them a safe haven in our hemisphere. What
on earth do we have to lose?
Caribbean states are so upset
with the “how” of Aristide’s departure that even UN authorization and French
approval aren’t enough to get them to help in Haiti.
They actually worry about the precedent of removing a dictator. No worries
about the precedent of tolerating dictators, apparently.
Seriously, we might as well do something since we
can’t win with some types. We’ll be blamed regardless of what we do. And
I’m not even talking about Ted
Rall lunacy. Look at what they say:
Larry Birns, of the
Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs, blamed the Bush administration
for Aristide's exit. With a tilt to the left in Latin America in recent years,
he worried it would encourage right-wing U.S. officials to go
after leaders such as Chavez.
"Haiti was not about a
flawed president but about a flawed (U.S.) foreign
policy," said the director of the liberal think tank. "The Haiti pattern shows
this administration is capable of anything. It will have an enormous negative
reaction throughout Latin America and Chavez has cause to lose sleep."
U.S. officials have
struggled this week to stave off concerns Chavez could meet Aristide's fate. In
2002, the Bush administration initially appeared to welcome a short-lived coup
against the friend of Cuban leader Fidel Castro (news
- web
sites) and has persistently criticized him while backing opposition demands
for a recall vote against him.
“Blame?” We should get credit for
easing that Mini Nutball out of power. Instead we get
complaints?! And further, we get complaints that poor Chavez could unjustly be
next?!
Are these people serious. A “liberal think tank,” eh? Liberal, perhaps, though I’d
hope that slavish devotion to anti-American dictators isn’t the norm. But there’s
no thinking going on there. And no tanks would ever be involved, I can only
assume (and I doubt they can tell a tank from an IFV, anyway). But Lord, when
they get caught up in arguing whether we told Aristide to go or told him we
would not protect him so he’d better go if he didn’t want the mob outside to
kill him, those making that argument are just nuts.
Haiti
will be better off with Aristide gone. Until the next
dictator comes along, of course. We can’t work magic in that cursed half
of an island.
And why on earth should we be staving off any concerns that
Chavez could meet Aristide’s fate? We should encourage that fear. Does the
Venezuelan ambassador to the UN who just resigned
in protest know something?
We probably won’t do anything so we don’t “waste” a major
intervention on a non-Axis of Evil state or AoE
wannabe, but it sure would be nice if we could do something.
God save me from idiots.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA04MAR04A
The Venezuelan opposition is being squashed
by the hemisphere’s second-tier anti-American dictator, Chavez, as he engineers
a dismissal of the petition drive to force a referendum on his awful rule:
Venezuela's opposition appealed to the Organization of
American States, the U.S.-based Carter Center and other
countries with an interest in the stability of the world's No. 5 oil exporter
to reverse Tuesday's ruling.
Unless we can walk into his office and order Chavez to board
a plane for African exile, I’m not sure what we can do here. But I am pretty
sure that when the opposition is reduced to asking former president Carter for
help, they are probably screwed.
Still, much like we dithered in Panama,
allowing possible coups against Noriega to crumble before we acted decisively;
perhaps after refusing to back the last coup that actually unseated Chavez
briefly, this time we will be resolute if the opposition moves. Not an
invasion, mind you, as in Panama, but solid diplomatic and moral support if the
opposition decides to take on Chavez when he rules out democratic means of addressing
his rule.
It would be nice if a major oil exporter could avoid getting
torn apart in a destructive civil war.
It would be really nice if we could get the referendum going
soon to prompt a new election and not just let the puppet vice president take
over for the remainder of the term.
Why do oil exporters seem to get afflicted so easily with nutballs for rulers?
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA03MAR04B
Right. Differences between the US
and EU over how to deal with Iran’s
violations of its commitments to stay a non-nuclear state under international
agreement is a difference
of strategy.
Specifically, the European strategy is to cave and
surrender. While we want to call Iran
on its violation of its treaty obligations:
U.S. officials and experts fear that failing to take action
against Iran would undermine the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, a bedrock against the spread of nuclear weapons.
Now U.S. officials said
they are looking to have the IAEA board adopt a statement that keeps Iran on the agenda and
underscores concern about the new revelations.
"We want to be tougher (than the Europeans) and call Iran to task for past
failures. The question is whether it will be tough enough to meet our standards
and to convince Iran we really do mean
business," one U.S. official said.
And we’re the ones who are not good multilateralists
committed to maintaining international agreements?
Seriously, I think we will deal with Iran
in early 2005. Another troop rotation in Iraq
will temporarily increase our troop strength on the ground just in case. I’ve
read reports from several sources over the last months talking about the
friendship toward the US
that exists in the Iranian armed forces and among the Iranian people. Other
reports say that Iran
could go nuclear next year. Plus, it will be safely past the election so the
ANSWER sympathetic types can’t drone on about “endless” wars.
Dealing with Iran
in early 2005 makes sense.
We really need to start dragging the Europeans along with
us. I think we’ll pull them to our side as they see the futility of appeasing
the Iranian hardliners. Then we’ll help the Iranians help themselves in early
2005 to knock off another member of the Axis of Evil.
Of course, I’ve been wrong before about the reasonableness
of the Europeans (and I say this as the collective EU sense of the word—not in
regard to individual countries in Europe).
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA03MAR04A
Assessments by the US
of the deteriorating
Chinese human rights record were rejected angrily by Peking.
Punctuating their anger, they have compiled there own Bizarro
World human rights report on America.
I can only assume our charges stung since they worked so hard to pretend we
have human rights problems here. I mean other than Alec Baldwin
being shepherded from safe house to safe house in Hollywood,
desperate to escape to France
before Ashcroft’s storm troopers arrest him.
Keep hammering them on this issue.
The Chinese are far more likely to be our enemy, in my
judgment, than they are to be our strategic partner as long as they are run by
a dictatorship. Hammering them on human rights may one day push their communist
system over and hasten the day when they are our friends. Or it may weaken a
communist state determined to take us on in the not-so-distant future.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA02MAR04B
Somebody wants Shias in Iraq
dead. Lots of them. Coordinated
attacks in Karbala
and Baghdad left more than one
hundred dead. The question is, who did it? Sunni
Islamists who hate Shias and who want to provoke the Shias in order to rally Sunnis to resistance? Secular Baathists who want to ride Sunni fear in the resulting
civil war to power? Iranian Shias who want a
religious war to radicalize Iraq’s
Shias and gain influence as their protectors?
I’d guess foreign Islamists. Next likely,
the Iranians. Who knows, maybe the rigged election of the hardliners was
the green light the mullahs needed to seriously fight us in Iraq.
Shoot, even if the Islamists hope to spark a civil war,
there strategy might backfire. What if the prospect of being blamed for vicious
attacks scares the crap out of the Sunnis? The Turnover date for Iraqi
sovereignty is coming soon and the Sunnis might be driven to cooperate in
hunting down the terrorists just to prove they aren’t behind the attacks.
Luckily, we captured
some suicide bombers who apparently didn’t completely grasp the concept and
were captured. Perhaps they failed because it does take time to train these
people and if they are indigenously recruited, they may have been rushed
through training without it sticking. But we will find out where they came
from. Failing to kill even yourself has to be quite demoralizing to a captured
suicide bomber.
Sunni Islamist hatred of Shias
should not be underestimated. In
Pakistan, Shias suffered an attack too.
Like I’ve said, we could really turn the Shias
to our friends if they can get past some of the loopy conspiracy theories that
hold we carried out the carnage.
Of course (via NRO), loopy conspiracies are not
restricted to insulated poverty-stricken Shias. I
wish we were so powerful that we could order thug presidents to get out of
town. If we could, I’d start with Chavez
in Venezuela, who is a pro-Castro thug who is no friend of ours to say the
least. Well, maybe third anyway. (And this is ahead of Chirac on my lucid
days!)
On Iraq,
regardless of who did it, we must ensure that the Shias
(and Kurds, too, who suffered bombings) do not pick up the theme of civil war.
We must make sure that a transitional Shia-majority
government takes over June 30 and reassure the Shias
that elections will take place reasonably soon.
The Kurds are another balancing act for us.
Even as trends go well slowly for us, we must guard against
setbacks such as this that can threaten our progress.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA02MAR04A
Our reserves are quite possibly the best in the world. They
surpass the quality of all but a few active duty forces. They would be
recognized for their excellence but for being compared to the best ground
forces in the world—the US Army and Marine Corps.
Yet the quality is there. For the next rotation in Iraq,
a divisional headquarters of the Army
National Guard has been alerted as have three separate brigade-sized
separate units:
The major commands being alerted are the 42nd Infantry
Division Headquarters from New York, the 256th Separate Infantry
Brigade from Louisiana, the 116th Separate Armored Brigade from Idaho and the
278th Armored Cavalry Regiment from Tennessee.
In the Iraq War, Guard battalions served well bolstering the
active forces. In the current rotation of forces, Guard brigades are serving in
active divisions. In the next rotation, a Guard division will command forces.
This doesn’t indicate if the three Guard units will serve under the Guard
division. Perhaps it is uncertain whether we will dedicate one sector to the
Guard or split up the brigades mixed with active brigades. The Guard division
might command active component units as the Army has done in Bosnia
with success.
Oh, and regarding the rotation, this
comment by an American Staff Sergeant amused me:
"That drive to Kuwait from Tikrit is the only concern for me," he said. The insurgents' "usual methods of attack are mere cowardice,
where they use IEDs. (improvised
explosive devices) and RPGs (rocket propelled
grenades). They don't confront us face-to-face."
Remember when the Taliban complained that we bombed them and
that if we would only fight on the ground, they’d show us who was the boss? And then we arrived on the ground to hunt them
down and chased them out of their mountain redoubts.
And then Saddam said that when we went man-to-man, he’d show
our troops to be cowards and not capable of fighting his warriors? And then we
chased his vaunted Fedayeen into the cities and
killed them. And his Special Republican Guards wet their pants when 3rd
ID and I MEF pounded on the gates of Baghdad.
And even when we set aside our air power and artillery after
we captured Baghdad and fought the Baathists with small arms and courage alone, we
bloodied their noses so much that they shrank from directly confronting us.
Be careful what you wish for. Isn’t that the saying?
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA01MAR04C
Well, we went in. I was unsympathetic to the mission. But it
won’t be tough. Haitian rebels are no Islamists. And it won’t break the force
or the bank to go in in battalion strength for a bit
until a non-US force comes in. This is our
mission:
At
the request of the new president of Haiti, President Bush has ordered the deployment
to Haiti of a contingent of U.S. Marines as the leading element of a
multinational interim force.
The
mission of the U.S. forces being deployed is to secure key sites in the Haitian capital of
Port au Prince for the purposes of:
·
Contributing
to a more secure and stable environment in the Haitian capital to help promote
the constitutional political process;
·
Assisting
as may be needed to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance;
·
Protecting
U.S. citizens as may be required.
·
Facilitating
the repatriation of any Haitian migrants interdicted at sea;
·
Helping
create the conditions for the anticipated arrival of a U.N. multinational
force.
These are reasonable missions all things considered. We are
basically trying to provide a peaceful transition between one group of thugs
and another group that we hope will be less thuglike.
I would never argue that the Haitians don’t deserve a chance
for peace. Nor would I ever argue our mission is immoral.
I suppose I could argue endlessly about the decision already
made, but instead, I wish the Marines, French, and Canadians who are there now
Godspeed. May they make a difference. May they
accomplish their mission.
This attitude is how one supports the troops. Just for
future reference.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA01MAR04B
It occurs to me that with casualties down in Iraq,
oil
production up, and a temporary constitution
agreed to, Sunni resistance may be ripe for giving
up the ghost.
I’ve suggested that the June 30 turnover, as it gets closer,
will force the Sunnis to make a choice between resisting the majority Shias after they get the organs of state power in their
hands or accept a diminished role in a democratic Iraq
while the US is
still there to influence the process to protect minority rights. Angry Shias or reasonable Americans?
Quite the choice. You have little time in which to
make it.
With the Marine Corps taking over from the Army west of
Baghdad in that hotbed of Baathist resistance, the
Sunnis will both face a force with an imposing reputation (and that is with the
knowledge that the Army has beaten them down this past year) and have an excuse
to give up fighting. The Marines will be a new force, with a different approach
that could be well suited to persuading the dwindling resistance fighters to
just give up. A new Army force might be a challenge that the Baathists might still feel they must accept. The Marines
were not the ones chasing them down and killing them the past year and so may
be seen as a chance for a fresh start with no face to lose for giving them a
chance.
Maybe not. It’s just a thought. But
I’ll watch for this one as the Marines rotate in.
The foreign Islamists are a different matter, of course. But
without Sunnis helping them or at least looking the other way, they will be
easier to pick off.
And the Marines are still a little eager for revenge against
the Islamists. Remember the Beirut Marine barracks bombing? The Marines sure as
Hell do.
Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAMAR2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA01MAR04A