Salman Rushdie makes the liberal case for war. Hear, hear. While I quibble with his dismissal of the Iraqi threat to our interests, his puzzlement over the venom with which anti-war zealots attack America is something I share. Truly, the overthrow of the Iraqi regime seems to be a no-brainer where national interests and what is right so clearly and nearly completely overlap. This is the domestic version of the strange behavior of our allies who consider American power to be a greater threat than Iraq. How can protesters even argue that it is morally wrong to attack Iraq? What level of Saddam depravity would it take to make them say, yeah, it is right to overthrow his regime and root out the Baathist thugs from Tikrit who have misruled Iraq? This crowd is taken by the slogan of "if you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem." Well I say, apply it to Iraq. I can understand wondering whether the price we will pay to oust Saddam is worth it. We are balancing two unknown numbers: the price of inaction versus the price of action. But to take to the streets to defend the Iraqi regime? That is just sick. And those who pretend that they have the moral high ground are mind-numbingly wrong. This whole anti-war movement seems to be like one of those "Beatles Experience" tours where a bunch of(ok, four) guys dressed like the band play their songs. It is all quite the experience for aging boomers and youngsters who wish they had experienced the Beatles. This new "Vietnam Experience" appeals to aging protesters from Vietnam and younger folks who constantly bemoan their lack of a similar defining moment. They want "their" anti-war movement and by God, if they have to defend a butcher regime just because the American government, backed by the voice of the people as represented by Congress, wants to destroy Saddam, then so be it. That is sick. It really is. It is a self-centered notion of morality that holds that the act of protesting something marks you as morally superior.
I sleep just fine at night, thank you. Things may go wrong, but they sure as heck won’t go right if we listen to the protesters. I also share Rushdie’s concern that we must try to impose democracy and rule of law in Iraq and not just rely on our own strongman. This is a nation we must build.
So enjoy your experience, protesters. I’m sure you’ll have quite the tale to tell your children and grandkids one day. Meanwhile we have a job to do.
On to Baghdad.
Friday, November 01, 2002
Thursday, October 31, 2002
Always Reasons to Dither
The writer in this article uses another variation of the tendency of every opponent of war to say doing anything will cause bad things. He talks about past actions by America such as Kuwait, Somalia (which he says accurately was a "selfless" act on our part), and the former Yugoslavia and says all gave Islamist reasons to fight us. Iraq, of course, will do the same if we destroy Saddam’s regime. Wow. Apparently, anything we do encourages the enemy. He even says by implication that it might be best to let Saddam keep his chemicals and bio weapons because in the chaos of defeat they might be "privatized." That should deter us—perhaps—according to the writer. What an amazing thing to argue, that it is better to have these horrible weapons in the tender mercies of Saddam rather than risk others getting them in the wake of our Army crushing Iraq.
Well, as long as anything we might do will give Islamists reason to fight us, we might as well crush Iraq. What’s the difference? And then kill every damn Islamist that even thinks of raising arms against the American people. Death should discourage even the most committed Islamist.
Well, as long as anything we might do will give Islamists reason to fight us, we might as well crush Iraq. What’s the difference? And then kill every damn Islamist that even thinks of raising arms against the American people. Death should discourage even the most committed Islamist.
The Real Issue
Other countries don’t trust us. This is amazing. This is what the article said:
How is it possible that our so-called allies look at Saddam’s Iraq, and then us, and then decide that stopping us from destroying that criminal regime is the right choice? Heck, the ridiculous French thought the war in Congo around the Great Lakes region was all an American plot to replace French influence with our influence. Yeah, that’s a huge geopolitical prize. I guess I can’t rule out some fanciful French scenario where our occupation of Baghdad is the final piece in some elaborate plan that let’s us shout "Check mate! Hand over your smelly cheeses and continue to use ‘le internet’ and other English words! Or else!" Honestly, I though they already knew that proliferating McDonalds throughout France (under cover of the EuroDisney deception plan in the heart of Frogland) is our plan to destroy them. Ok, sure, Iraq is part of the plan to undermine French-speaking Quebec, but that’s another plan altogether. Seriously, we need to have a reckoning with our allies about what being an ally means. Seeing America as the bigger threat is an outrage. They’d better worry that we start to agree with them. They don’t want us as an enemy.
On the actual invasion, given that the Iraqis seem to have largely decided to keep ground troops out of the south, I wonder if our invasion timetable will be faster than I thought. Why wait to fill the vacuum in the south when we can gain valuable time in the march on Baghdad? I’d previously thought a week to ten days of air strikes would precede ground invasion. But since the Iraqis seem to have ceded everything but the core Sunni area, moving into Iraq as soon as the air strikes begin could also get them out of their Kuwaiti base areas that are likely already targeted for Iraq’s limited missile stocks. Getting our troops moving will make them less vulnerable to chemical strikes given Iraq’s very limited tactical intelligence capability. They may be limited to striking targets plotted before the war begins. I’m no expert on special forces methods, but I’d guess they will (if they have not already) recon areas in southern Iraq and prepare the area to receive large numbers of conventional forces. Thus, the air campaign and march to Baghdad may largely overlap. Oh, my Janes email news says the invasion starts just before or after Christmas.
On to Baghdad. Then Paris (just kidding).
Was down with a virus and quite busy with home life too. Strange feeling of guilt for not posting. Jeez, I need a twelve step program or something.
"The whole debate is about two issues," said an envoy whose country is one of the five permanent Security Council members. "One is Iraq. The other is U.S. power in the world. The second issue is the bigger part of the debate."
How is it possible that our so-called allies look at Saddam’s Iraq, and then us, and then decide that stopping us from destroying that criminal regime is the right choice? Heck, the ridiculous French thought the war in Congo around the Great Lakes region was all an American plot to replace French influence with our influence. Yeah, that’s a huge geopolitical prize. I guess I can’t rule out some fanciful French scenario where our occupation of Baghdad is the final piece in some elaborate plan that let’s us shout "Check mate! Hand over your smelly cheeses and continue to use ‘le internet’ and other English words! Or else!" Honestly, I though they already knew that proliferating McDonalds throughout France (under cover of the EuroDisney deception plan in the heart of Frogland) is our plan to destroy them. Ok, sure, Iraq is part of the plan to undermine French-speaking Quebec, but that’s another plan altogether. Seriously, we need to have a reckoning with our allies about what being an ally means. Seeing America as the bigger threat is an outrage. They’d better worry that we start to agree with them. They don’t want us as an enemy.
On the actual invasion, given that the Iraqis seem to have largely decided to keep ground troops out of the south, I wonder if our invasion timetable will be faster than I thought. Why wait to fill the vacuum in the south when we can gain valuable time in the march on Baghdad? I’d previously thought a week to ten days of air strikes would precede ground invasion. But since the Iraqis seem to have ceded everything but the core Sunni area, moving into Iraq as soon as the air strikes begin could also get them out of their Kuwaiti base areas that are likely already targeted for Iraq’s limited missile stocks. Getting our troops moving will make them less vulnerable to chemical strikes given Iraq’s very limited tactical intelligence capability. They may be limited to striking targets plotted before the war begins. I’m no expert on special forces methods, but I’d guess they will (if they have not already) recon areas in southern Iraq and prepare the area to receive large numbers of conventional forces. Thus, the air campaign and march to Baghdad may largely overlap. Oh, my Janes email news says the invasion starts just before or after Christmas.
On to Baghdad. Then Paris (just kidding).
Was down with a virus and quite busy with home life too. Strange feeling of guilt for not posting. Jeez, I need a twelve step program or something.
Sunday, October 27, 2002
Unable to Learn
Wow. Former president Carter thinks the 1994 agreement with North Korea should be the basis of renewed talks and agreements. He still thinks in terms of some peace agreement with North Korea. He learns nothing from his mistakes. He continues to think the North Koreans can be trusted.
And if we came to some comprehensive peace agreement? Well that just bolsters the murderous Kim Jong Il regime, now doesn’t it? Carter doesn’t care. Leaving those thugs in power and giving them the means to prolong their rule is just dandy for him. Heck, if he got a peace prize for the ’94 agreement, the committee will just burst with joy if he negotiates another sham agreement.
Does recognition that a treaty is meaningless mean we invade? Of course not. Although the justice of it would not be in question, the casualties would be great. There is another response between invasion and appeasement. This regime can be contained. We have contained it for fifty years. If we keep this up, eventually they will collapse of their own weight. And since the balance of conventional power continues to build in the South’s favor, there is little to fear from putting off a day of reckoning. Our nukes will probably deter their nukes. Would North Korea use their nukes? Maybe, but their best hope was always to conquer the South, not bring about mutual suicide. We will have a limited missile defense system to protect ourselves and our allies soon. For the North, nukes were always a good bet to keep a war conventional where their former superiority could be used. That time is past. They can’t win conventionally and so we won’t feel compelled to go nuclear anyway. Their nuclear deterrent becomes irrelevant because we don’t need to threaten nukes to defend the South.
No, wait them out. Isolate them. Let them collapse.
For God’s sake, keep Carter away from the area. He’s done enough.
And if we came to some comprehensive peace agreement? Well that just bolsters the murderous Kim Jong Il regime, now doesn’t it? Carter doesn’t care. Leaving those thugs in power and giving them the means to prolong their rule is just dandy for him. Heck, if he got a peace prize for the ’94 agreement, the committee will just burst with joy if he negotiates another sham agreement.
Does recognition that a treaty is meaningless mean we invade? Of course not. Although the justice of it would not be in question, the casualties would be great. There is another response between invasion and appeasement. This regime can be contained. We have contained it for fifty years. If we keep this up, eventually they will collapse of their own weight. And since the balance of conventional power continues to build in the South’s favor, there is little to fear from putting off a day of reckoning. Our nukes will probably deter their nukes. Would North Korea use their nukes? Maybe, but their best hope was always to conquer the South, not bring about mutual suicide. We will have a limited missile defense system to protect ourselves and our allies soon. For the North, nukes were always a good bet to keep a war conventional where their former superiority could be used. That time is past. They can’t win conventionally and so we won’t feel compelled to go nuclear anyway. Their nuclear deterrent becomes irrelevant because we don’t need to threaten nukes to defend the South.
No, wait them out. Isolate them. Let them collapse.
For God’s sake, keep Carter away from the area. He’s done enough.
Saturday, October 26, 2002
The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel
I heard Bishop Thomas Gumbleton on NPR yesterday. I’ve grown up knowing that name.
I have little respect for him.
On any given foreign policy issue he opposes the American government. If he ever had anything to say about the horrors of Soviet Russia, or any lesser communist state, he certainly wasn’t motivated enough to be this vocal about it. Defending Saddam Hussein’s government does motivate him. And make no mistake, he is running interference for Saddam’s regime, though the bishop would not think of it that way.
But he feels the "injustice" of the coming war against Iraq. He believes it is wrong to invade Iraq and free the Iraqi people and is giddy with the prospect of protests to halt the war. He says that the people of America don’t want war, relying on anecdotal evidence from a large meeting for a very left wing U.S. Representative. He dismisses the polls. He said that while, yes, the polls show that a clear majority favors war to end the threat from Iraq, support goes down if you ask whether high casualties would change their minds. Then support goes down. This, the good bishop says, shows the pro-war side isn’t as committed. The anti-war side is totally committed, he said with pride.
Yes, the pro-war side can be persuaded by higher costs to oppose war.
The anti-war side cannot be swayed.
How is that rigidity superior? He is boasting that his side cannot be persuaded to support overthrowing Saddam’s regime by his invasions of his neighbors? By his mass executions and brutal repression? By his liberal use of poison gas? By his blind pursuit of nuclear weapons at the expense of his people’s health? By his personality cult? By his reliance on a small Sunni power base and exclusion of the majority from the benefits of Iraq’s wealth? By his support of terrorists? His attempt to assassinate President Bush 41? By his refusal to agree to the cease-fire terms of 1991? By his repeated threats since 1991 against Kuwait? None of these, Gumbleton apparently proudly asserts, could change the minds of the anti-war crowd. Since a hypothetical casualty question was used to illustrate how pro-war people can be swayed, what if Saddam sent poison gas to terrorists who then used them in the Sears Tower and killed 10,000 people? Is that enough to make them think Saddam should be destroyed?
Probably not. They are "committed" after all.
It is said so often that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I’ll not dispute the dubious broadness of that claim here (after all, those who quote it only seem to be upset over American patriotism). But by Gumbleton’s own judgment (and I realize I’m on weak ground basing an argument on his judgment) the pro-war side is not made up of inflexible "my country right-or-wrong" types. They can be persuaded to be against the war. But what about the anti-war types? What kind of scoundrels are they that they cannot be convinced by any argument that war against Iraq is just and in our interests? How is this inflexibility morally superior?
Truly, militant pacifism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
On something I wrote earlier (although maybe it was in defense issues, I forget. Anyway, I don't think we have even a full Stryker Brigade ready for combat to airlift into Iraq. I wouldn't rule out scraping up a battalion task force just to see how it could be used.
I have little respect for him.
On any given foreign policy issue he opposes the American government. If he ever had anything to say about the horrors of Soviet Russia, or any lesser communist state, he certainly wasn’t motivated enough to be this vocal about it. Defending Saddam Hussein’s government does motivate him. And make no mistake, he is running interference for Saddam’s regime, though the bishop would not think of it that way.
But he feels the "injustice" of the coming war against Iraq. He believes it is wrong to invade Iraq and free the Iraqi people and is giddy with the prospect of protests to halt the war. He says that the people of America don’t want war, relying on anecdotal evidence from a large meeting for a very left wing U.S. Representative. He dismisses the polls. He said that while, yes, the polls show that a clear majority favors war to end the threat from Iraq, support goes down if you ask whether high casualties would change their minds. Then support goes down. This, the good bishop says, shows the pro-war side isn’t as committed. The anti-war side is totally committed, he said with pride.
Yes, the pro-war side can be persuaded by higher costs to oppose war.
The anti-war side cannot be swayed.
How is that rigidity superior? He is boasting that his side cannot be persuaded to support overthrowing Saddam’s regime by his invasions of his neighbors? By his mass executions and brutal repression? By his liberal use of poison gas? By his blind pursuit of nuclear weapons at the expense of his people’s health? By his personality cult? By his reliance on a small Sunni power base and exclusion of the majority from the benefits of Iraq’s wealth? By his support of terrorists? His attempt to assassinate President Bush 41? By his refusal to agree to the cease-fire terms of 1991? By his repeated threats since 1991 against Kuwait? None of these, Gumbleton apparently proudly asserts, could change the minds of the anti-war crowd. Since a hypothetical casualty question was used to illustrate how pro-war people can be swayed, what if Saddam sent poison gas to terrorists who then used them in the Sears Tower and killed 10,000 people? Is that enough to make them think Saddam should be destroyed?
Probably not. They are "committed" after all.
It is said so often that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I’ll not dispute the dubious broadness of that claim here (after all, those who quote it only seem to be upset over American patriotism). But by Gumbleton’s own judgment (and I realize I’m on weak ground basing an argument on his judgment) the pro-war side is not made up of inflexible "my country right-or-wrong" types. They can be persuaded to be against the war. But what about the anti-war types? What kind of scoundrels are they that they cannot be convinced by any argument that war against Iraq is just and in our interests? How is this inflexibility morally superior?
Truly, militant pacifism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
On something I wrote earlier (although maybe it was in defense issues, I forget. Anyway, I don't think we have even a full Stryker Brigade ready for combat to airlift into Iraq. I wouldn't rule out scraping up a battalion task force just to see how it could be used.
Thursday, October 24, 2002
Those Unreasonable Japanese
The Japanese would like their citizens kidnapped by the North Koreans to stay in Japan (the survivors, anyway; the rest died in various tragic and unlikely accidents). However:
What an interesting window into North Korea. Japan is “overreacting.” Just like the North Korean reaction to being caught cheating, they feel aggrieved! Threaten neighbors with destruction and actually secretly build the means to carry out those threats? In defiance of international agreements? Kidnap foreigners to help spy on other nations more effectively? All part of the diplomatic game, don’t you know? Kind of like diplomats illegally parking under the protection of their immunity. It would be wrong to pass out tickets for that. This is just the same, right?
We can certainly sit around over coffee and kimchee and discuss the different viewpoints we hold on the justness of kidnapping innocent individuals and compelling them to work against their own country. We can work out the meaning of “we will not develop nuclear weapons,” right? Probably just cultural or language issues. We say TOE-MAY-TOE, and you say WE’LL TURN SEOUL INTO A FIRESTORM. We’re all just reasonable people after all. No difference at all.
Certainly no reason to overreact.
According to media reports, a North Korean Foreign Ministry official said Pyongyang will allow the five Japanese to return to Japan permanently with their children if they choose.
But the reports said the official balked at returning the children to Japan right away and criticized Japan for overreacting to the abductions.
What an interesting window into North Korea. Japan is “overreacting.” Just like the North Korean reaction to being caught cheating, they feel aggrieved! Threaten neighbors with destruction and actually secretly build the means to carry out those threats? In defiance of international agreements? Kidnap foreigners to help spy on other nations more effectively? All part of the diplomatic game, don’t you know? Kind of like diplomats illegally parking under the protection of their immunity. It would be wrong to pass out tickets for that. This is just the same, right?
We can certainly sit around over coffee and kimchee and discuss the different viewpoints we hold on the justness of kidnapping innocent individuals and compelling them to work against their own country. We can work out the meaning of “we will not develop nuclear weapons,” right? Probably just cultural or language issues. We say TOE-MAY-TOE, and you say WE’LL TURN SEOUL INTO A FIRESTORM. We’re all just reasonable people after all. No difference at all.
Certainly no reason to overreact.
A Kick in the Leg
I guess the North Korean admission of their nuclear program could be construed as a kick in the leg to those who would deal with dictators and trust them to behave in a civilized manner. As William Safire noted: “"It was kind of like a miracle," breathed Jimmy Carter about his supposed conversion of the North Korean leader from lion to lamb on live TV.” At what point does failure to learn from experience go from mere foolishness to willful obstruction?
Oh, and I am waiting for Saddam’s Chinese-style security crackdown/massacre to disabuse the Iraqi people of any notions that Saddam is losing his bloodlust. How the people react to that will be a big question. How loyally his minions carry out the orders to shoot at civilians is a question too.
Hmm, Saddam ordering the families of his diplomats home? It will be interesting if they comply or not. I hope a bunch decide to jump ship. I’ll go out on a limb and say they will. Like the prison release, that will show Saddam’s fragility and not his power. Man, the stories they will tell us.
Oh, and I am waiting for Saddam’s Chinese-style security crackdown/massacre to disabuse the Iraqi people of any notions that Saddam is losing his bloodlust. How the people react to that will be a big question. How loyally his minions carry out the orders to shoot at civilians is a question too.
Hmm, Saddam ordering the families of his diplomats home? It will be interesting if they comply or not. I hope a bunch decide to jump ship. I’ll go out on a limb and say they will. Like the prison release, that will show Saddam’s fragility and not his power. Man, the stories they will tell us.
Wednesday, October 23, 2002
Stryker Brigades
I'm not comfortable with the organization of the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (formerly Interim Brigade Combat Teams: IBCTs). Yes, we need something between walking infantry that is strategically mobile yet tactically immobile with little combat power and heavy armor that is strategically immobile but tactically mobile and highly lethal and survivable. The Stryker Brigades are the medium forces we are fielding that are supposed to bridge that gap.
Essentially a light mechanized brigade, a Stryker Brigade is more strategically mobile than a heavy brigade and has good tactical mobility. It has good firepower too, but lacks the survivability of heavy forces. It has lots of infantry for peace operations. Designed to be flown in after other forces have seized an airhead, the Stryker Brigades will provide significant firepower quickly; but will hand off the main battle to heavy forces when they finally arrive. How quickly is a question of debate since they are fairly heavy despite being lighter than a heavy brigade. And just how much Air Force airlift can the Army count on to get one overseas in a crisis? They will also be test beds for operating concepts for the Objective Force, the future army that will use light, lethal, and survivable combat platforms not even designed yet. I’ve already offered my thoughts at Military Review on this subject.
One problem is the different requirements for different operations foreseen for the brigades. Peace operations can be done at our leisure. We can basically ship over what we want on our time frame. The lightness of the Stryker Brigade is largely irrelevant to this mission. The wheeled vehicles and large infantry component are great for patrolling and will not stress the local roads and bridges, so this is one advantage. Yet the lightness is meant to allow the brigade to be rushed to a theater to deter or halt an invasion when paratroopers are the only alternative (which are just trip wires incapable of mounting serious resistance to an armored attack). Part of the problem of getting somewhere fast is sustainment. All that infantry has to be fed and provided with medical assistance, not to mention potable water, showers, ammunition, etc.
If we are trying to halt an armored assault with the Stryker Brigade, the high infantry component makes less sense. Why not add more of the 105mm-armed Strykers at the expense of the infantry carriers? Put TOWs on them too and now we're talking. Build the brigades with three battalion task forces each containing two 105mm companies and one infantry company. Or perhaps two smaller companies of each to allow each battalion to fight with two balanced task forces. Add the other recon and targeting, artillery, and support stuff already there, and we have a unit that can be airlifted fast yet better suited to stopping armor. I'd still rather have heavy armor but if we have to be there tomorrow, the heavy stuff just won't be there (unless we park it there well before the conflict).
The factors that make the brigades useful for peacekeeping could also be useful for urban combat. Lots of infantry, wheeled vehicles, superior communications and recon abilities, all are suited for city fighting. Indeed I’m wondering if one or two will debut in Iraq.
Still, long term we might want mix and match Stryker Brigades with anti-tank and infantry versions. I’m just not satisfied with the current unit.
[NOTE: This is from the former Defense Issues category from my original blog. Also, all the link from the original post is dead so I didn't try to enable it.]
Essentially a light mechanized brigade, a Stryker Brigade is more strategically mobile than a heavy brigade and has good tactical mobility. It has good firepower too, but lacks the survivability of heavy forces. It has lots of infantry for peace operations. Designed to be flown in after other forces have seized an airhead, the Stryker Brigades will provide significant firepower quickly; but will hand off the main battle to heavy forces when they finally arrive. How quickly is a question of debate since they are fairly heavy despite being lighter than a heavy brigade. And just how much Air Force airlift can the Army count on to get one overseas in a crisis? They will also be test beds for operating concepts for the Objective Force, the future army that will use light, lethal, and survivable combat platforms not even designed yet. I’ve already offered my thoughts at Military Review on this subject.
One problem is the different requirements for different operations foreseen for the brigades. Peace operations can be done at our leisure. We can basically ship over what we want on our time frame. The lightness of the Stryker Brigade is largely irrelevant to this mission. The wheeled vehicles and large infantry component are great for patrolling and will not stress the local roads and bridges, so this is one advantage. Yet the lightness is meant to allow the brigade to be rushed to a theater to deter or halt an invasion when paratroopers are the only alternative (which are just trip wires incapable of mounting serious resistance to an armored attack). Part of the problem of getting somewhere fast is sustainment. All that infantry has to be fed and provided with medical assistance, not to mention potable water, showers, ammunition, etc.
If we are trying to halt an armored assault with the Stryker Brigade, the high infantry component makes less sense. Why not add more of the 105mm-armed Strykers at the expense of the infantry carriers? Put TOWs on them too and now we're talking. Build the brigades with three battalion task forces each containing two 105mm companies and one infantry company. Or perhaps two smaller companies of each to allow each battalion to fight with two balanced task forces. Add the other recon and targeting, artillery, and support stuff already there, and we have a unit that can be airlifted fast yet better suited to stopping armor. I'd still rather have heavy armor but if we have to be there tomorrow, the heavy stuff just won't be there (unless we park it there well before the conflict).
The factors that make the brigades useful for peacekeeping could also be useful for urban combat. Lots of infantry, wheeled vehicles, superior communications and recon abilities, all are suited for city fighting. Indeed I’m wondering if one or two will debut in Iraq.
Still, long term we might want mix and match Stryker Brigades with anti-tank and infantry versions. I’m just not satisfied with the current unit.
[NOTE: This is from the former Defense Issues category from my original blog. Also, all the link from the original post is dead so I didn't try to enable it.]
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
Urban Warfare
American infantry is training hard for urban warfare. It appears that there is some reason to believe it won’t be as bad as some critics assert, even if Saddam convinces his die-hards to fight it out. Fighting in cities is certainly to be avoided, but this gives me some confidence that a worst-case scenario of bitter resistance can be overcome without the bloodbath that can happen with a determined and entrenched enemy.
The article raises another possibility for massing troops quickly. The new Stryker Brigades could be airlifted into an airfield near Baghdad once our ground forces capture them. Although I do not particularly think these brigades are configured for the rapid response role they claim to be made for—they have too much infantry and are still too heavy—they may be just the ticket for urban warfare. They are basically mechanized infantry brigades but with wheeled armored vehicles instead of tracks and really good targeting and surveillance capability. Wheeled vehicles are better in urban combat because they don’t get trapped as easily as big tracked vehicles. Blow a track off and the tank is immobile. Blow a wheel and you can still hobble out in reverse. They don’t have nearly the armor of an Abrams main battle tank, so that is a disadvantage, but they could be used. Do we have two now ready for combat? Do we have the airlift? The Air Force is going to be darned busy and that is a major roadblock. We probably don’t have the airlift to lift that brigade in and do everything else too. Or maybe we’ve already gotten much of what we need into the Gulf so airlift will be free. We’ll see. They would be useful.
On another issue, do people really think that the North Korean nukes information was withheld to support the vote to fight Iraq? Personally, I think this is in the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” category. How many opponents of war with Iraq would have cried, “You are bringing up a totally irrelevant and separate issue designed to scare us into voting for war with Iraq! And why reveal it now?!” Yep. And would they have really reacted to this “greater threat” by deciding to invade North Korea instead? It seems that any development is reason for not attacking Iraq, according to some.
And further information on Iraqi prisoners. Saddam now says all is forgiven to Iraqi exiles. They can now come home in dignity and peace. I think Saddam is a bit confused on who needs to forgive whom. Not to worry, they will be coming home in dignity and peace—but as translators and liaisons with the Army and Marines. And all is not forgiven as far as they are concerned. Oh, and if any exiles are tempted to believe this offer, remember that the prisons are kind of empty now…
The article raises another possibility for massing troops quickly. The new Stryker Brigades could be airlifted into an airfield near Baghdad once our ground forces capture them. Although I do not particularly think these brigades are configured for the rapid response role they claim to be made for—they have too much infantry and are still too heavy—they may be just the ticket for urban warfare. They are basically mechanized infantry brigades but with wheeled armored vehicles instead of tracks and really good targeting and surveillance capability. Wheeled vehicles are better in urban combat because they don’t get trapped as easily as big tracked vehicles. Blow a track off and the tank is immobile. Blow a wheel and you can still hobble out in reverse. They don’t have nearly the armor of an Abrams main battle tank, so that is a disadvantage, but they could be used. Do we have two now ready for combat? Do we have the airlift? The Air Force is going to be darned busy and that is a major roadblock. We probably don’t have the airlift to lift that brigade in and do everything else too. Or maybe we’ve already gotten much of what we need into the Gulf so airlift will be free. We’ll see. They would be useful.
On another issue, do people really think that the North Korean nukes information was withheld to support the vote to fight Iraq? Personally, I think this is in the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” category. How many opponents of war with Iraq would have cried, “You are bringing up a totally irrelevant and separate issue designed to scare us into voting for war with Iraq! And why reveal it now?!” Yep. And would they have really reacted to this “greater threat” by deciding to invade North Korea instead? It seems that any development is reason for not attacking Iraq, according to some.
And further information on Iraqi prisoners. Saddam now says all is forgiven to Iraqi exiles. They can now come home in dignity and peace. I think Saddam is a bit confused on who needs to forgive whom. Not to worry, they will be coming home in dignity and peace—but as translators and liaisons with the Army and Marines. And all is not forgiven as far as they are concerned. Oh, and if any exiles are tempted to believe this offer, remember that the prisons are kind of empty now…
Monday, October 21, 2002
Collapse?
Good grief, is Iraq going to collapse under the pressure of our looming invasion? The Iraqi prison release is as bizarre in its details as it is in its motivation. What is happening?
Note the evaporation of fear. The crowds surged into the prisons—fortresses that the people usually avoid out of fear that they might end up in there, disappeared from their families. Guards and ordinary people who lost their fear rescued their family members in jail. No orderly reviews by committees of judges.
I’m grateful to have gotten the link from andrewsullivan.com after seeing a reference to it on National Review Online earlier today.
What is going on? Whatever it is, it is not generosity. Saddam must be feeling some fear to loosen his grip like this. He could not have expected this:
It is perhaps too much to hope that a Romania-like meltdown will happen. But if it does, the Army and Marines better be prepared to move in fast to occupy Iraq.
Good grief, are the Iraqis losing their fear of Saddam?
At the Abu Ghraib prison, a sprawling compound on the desert floor 20 miles west of Baghdad that has become a notorious symbol of fear among Iraqis for its history of mass executions and allegations of torture, the heavy steel gates gave way under the crush of a huge crowd of relatives who rushed to the jail within an hour of the amnesty broadcast. All semblance of order vanished as a cheering mob surged through the compound, in some cases joining prison guards in smashing cell-block walls to free weeping inmates. But some inmates were killed in the chaos today.
The scenes were repeated at other prisons across the country, including the Khadhemiya prison for women in Baghdad, and those in other major cities, including Basra in the south and Mosul and Kirkuk in the north.
Mr. Hussein's decree specified that committees of judges would have 48 hours to rule on individual releases, excepting only "Zionist and American spies," murderers who have not settled the "blood money" owed to victims' families under Islamic legal precepts, and debtors who have not satisfied their creditors. But the mob scenes that developed at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere appeared to have overwhelmed the prisons and caused a mass exodus.
Note the evaporation of fear. The crowds surged into the prisons—fortresses that the people usually avoid out of fear that they might end up in there, disappeared from their families. Guards and ordinary people who lost their fear rescued their family members in jail. No orderly reviews by committees of judges.
I’m grateful to have gotten the link from andrewsullivan.com after seeing a reference to it on National Review Online earlier today.
What is going on? Whatever it is, it is not generosity. Saddam must be feeling some fear to loosen his grip like this. He could not have expected this:
Once the prison gates collapsed, the mood changed. Seeing watchtowers abandoned and the prison guards standing passively by or actively supporting them as they charged into the cell blocks, the crowd seemed to realize that they were experiencing, if only briefly, a new Iraq, where the people, not the government, was sovereign. Chants of "Down Bush! Down Sharon!" referring to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, faded. In one cell block, a guard smiled broadly at an American photographer, raised his thumb, and said, "Bush! Bush!" Elsewhere, guards offered an English word almost never heard in Iraq. "Free!" they said. "Free!"
It is perhaps too much to hope that a Romania-like meltdown will happen. But if it does, the Army and Marines better be prepared to move in fast to occupy Iraq.
Good grief, are the Iraqis losing their fear of Saddam?
Yep, Our Fault
It hasn’t taken long for someone to give the “from North Korea’s” perspective on North Korea’s secret abandonment of the 1994 Agreed Framework.
The author states, “Both (Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il) have made entreaties -- though sometimes rough and blustery -- to see if they could reach accommodation with Washington without jeopardizing the personality cult that has kept them in power.” Get that, nuclear threats against Japan and South Korea, not to mention us, are just rustic golly gee “rough and blustery” talk! And a mere “personality cult” as if it were mere vanity rather than the core of a brutal dictatorship. How insensitive of us to not support that personality cult. My word, it might be a self esteem issue here!
The author reports without comment the perspective from the North:
That little war thing—the author does realize that the North invaded the South and to this day does not recognize the Republic of Korea? The article makes it sound like we instigated a war there. As for our “massed and ready” troops on the border? Well, we have two brigades of the 2nd Division there. And it is there because Seoul is so close to the border. And it is ready because the North is massed just north of the border. The author even lists the Pueblo Incident, when the North Koreans seized one of our ships while it was in international waters and held the survivors for a year! And we point satellites at them? Egad! This is an outrage? How can the author not point out these problems with North Korea’s perspective? Sure, they may believe it, but why does the author need to lend it credibility?
The author even seems to give credibility to their fear that North Korea is next on our list: “When that rhetoric is coupled with U.S. willingness to send troops to remote places, such as Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans, the regime sees every reason to believe it is next on the list.” Right. We went into remote Afghanistan because terrorists based out of that country killed 3,000 of us. The “remote” Balkans are right in Europe. And Iraq remains a threat to us and our friends that cannot be managed. How “remote” is someplace that is in the heart of the world’s energy resources?
One problem with the “it’s our fault” line, though: If North Korea really did violate the agreement to get us to talk, why the secrecy? For so long? Saying that North Korea told us about their nuclear program to get us to talk requires one to ignore that North Korea didn’t actually tell us. We confronted them and then they denied breaking the agreement only to reverse themselves a day later. That is, North Korea was doing this in secret—for years. A more reasonable conclusion is that North Korea wanted a potent “bolt from the blue” weapon to unleash/reveal at the time of its choosing. Given the hair trigger posture of the North Korean army, massed in an offensive deployment on the border, can we really talk ourselves into seeing ourselves at fault?
As for Iraq, in a world of the internet and 24-hour news, Iraq’s leadership is convinced we are alone in wanting to oust the Tikriti mafia from Baghdad. They believe they have allies. They will not yield to us and disarm because they are convinced we will falter.
Big mistake. We are going to Baghdad. And Saddam will make it easy for us to get allies.
The author states, “Both (Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il) have made entreaties -- though sometimes rough and blustery -- to see if they could reach accommodation with Washington without jeopardizing the personality cult that has kept them in power.” Get that, nuclear threats against Japan and South Korea, not to mention us, are just rustic golly gee “rough and blustery” talk! And a mere “personality cult” as if it were mere vanity rather than the core of a brutal dictatorship. How insensitive of us to not support that personality cult. My word, it might be a self esteem issue here!
The author reports without comment the perspective from the North:
The United States fought a war against North Korea in 1950-53 and maintains one of its largest contingents of overseas troops massed and ready on the Korean Demilitarized Zone, facing North Korea. It has spy ships, like the USS Pueblo captured by North Korea in 1968, and satellites trained on North Korea.
That little war thing—the author does realize that the North invaded the South and to this day does not recognize the Republic of Korea? The article makes it sound like we instigated a war there. As for our “massed and ready” troops on the border? Well, we have two brigades of the 2nd Division there. And it is there because Seoul is so close to the border. And it is ready because the North is massed just north of the border. The author even lists the Pueblo Incident, when the North Koreans seized one of our ships while it was in international waters and held the survivors for a year! And we point satellites at them? Egad! This is an outrage? How can the author not point out these problems with North Korea’s perspective? Sure, they may believe it, but why does the author need to lend it credibility?
The author even seems to give credibility to their fear that North Korea is next on our list: “When that rhetoric is coupled with U.S. willingness to send troops to remote places, such as Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans, the regime sees every reason to believe it is next on the list.” Right. We went into remote Afghanistan because terrorists based out of that country killed 3,000 of us. The “remote” Balkans are right in Europe. And Iraq remains a threat to us and our friends that cannot be managed. How “remote” is someplace that is in the heart of the world’s energy resources?
One problem with the “it’s our fault” line, though: If North Korea really did violate the agreement to get us to talk, why the secrecy? For so long? Saying that North Korea told us about their nuclear program to get us to talk requires one to ignore that North Korea didn’t actually tell us. We confronted them and then they denied breaking the agreement only to reverse themselves a day later. That is, North Korea was doing this in secret—for years. A more reasonable conclusion is that North Korea wanted a potent “bolt from the blue” weapon to unleash/reveal at the time of its choosing. Given the hair trigger posture of the North Korean army, massed in an offensive deployment on the border, can we really talk ourselves into seeing ourselves at fault?
As for Iraq, in a world of the internet and 24-hour news, Iraq’s leadership is convinced we are alone in wanting to oust the Tikriti mafia from Baghdad. They believe they have allies. They will not yield to us and disarm because they are convinced we will falter.
Big mistake. We are going to Baghdad. And Saddam will make it easy for us to get allies.
Sunday, October 20, 2002
Simplistic Hawk or Blinded by Ideology?
Mary McGrory is apparently upset that we will not invade North Korea. She is upset that our president hasn’t blasted North Korea with the same rhetoric he uses against Iraq. If she wasn’t opposed to that rhetoric against Iraq I might think she is sincere. But we all know she doesn’t raise this difference to argue for war against both; she wants nothing done about both.
She raises irrelevant points about our ability to find the DC shooter as if Iraq should be put off until every crime is solved and prevented (but won’t that trigger an Ashcroft hysteria alert?). She amazingly seems to blame Bush because an "eyewitness" turns out to have fabricated his statements. And she makes a ridiculous comparison to Alexander the Great, arguing Bush wants to conquer the known world.
What is her deal?
Aside from her silly attacks, she rattles off a number of questions over why we are treating North Korea more gently than Iraq. She asks, "Is it because North Korea has a million men under arms? Is it because Kim Jong Il never threatened to kill Bush's father, or because he has no oil, or is not a Muslim? Maybe we should ask the advocates who dreamed for 10 years of invading Iraq. Do Richard Perle, Richard Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz believe in equal opportunity for tyrants?"
Does North Korea’s army shape our caution? You’re darned right it does. And after opponents of war have spent so much time accusing Bush of simplicity for lumping Iran, Iraq, and North Korea into an Axis of Evil, you’d think they’d welcome a foreign policy that recognizes the differences. The million-man North Korean army is relevant because South Koreans would die in huge numbers in a war and because we do not have a military large enough to even consider regime change against Iraq and North Korea at the same time. Is McGrory really prepared to say we should go to war against both, at once? When that would ensure failure or at least costly success? Is she even willing to support war against North Korea first, since she says they are more of a threat? Right now, we have more than enough to do taking out Iraq. Maybe later, we can decide on a more forceful response if circumstances warrant it. I say it makes more sense to hit the dictator who doesn’t have the bomb—yet, rather than hit a state that does and allow the one that doesn’t time to get one. Is it really an inferior strategy to go after one nuclear-armed thug than two?
As for the assassination attempt against Bush 41, is she saying that a murder attempt against any president is not cause for war? Even President Clinton lobbed some cruise missiles at Iraq even though Clinton was unrelated to Bush. This is typical bull, claiming this is all personal. Iraq is a threat and Bush is acting on it. Trying to assassinate a former president is an act of war, and President Clinton is to be criticized for letting it pass with only a pro forma cruise missile strike. Why did President Clinton attack in 1998, arguing that Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear weapons was unacceptable to our security? Or is it acceptable for McGrory to launch only ineffective attacks in defense of our interests?
The oil argument is stale and ridiculous. If oil was our motive, maybe we’d invade Venezuela. We get little of our oil from the Middle East. Shoot, the Japanese and Europeans should be leading the charge for war if that was the reason. Indeed, McGrory makes this charge with no shame in light of the French and Russian opposition to war precisely because of their oil interests? Why not raise the charge, "No Tyranny for Oil!" That has far more credibility.
And the Moslem charge? Good grief, I earlier ran through all the Moslem countries we’ve helped over the years. Her charge is hogwash. Given the implicit charge of racism she is making, you’d think North Korea was colonized by blonde, Christian Swedes. I’m at least glad she thinks Bush is only racist versus Moslems and not against Asians too.
So McGrory wants equal opportunity for tyrants. Give the President time, Ms. McGrory. We can’t conquer the known world all at once. I look forward to her support for regime change if that is what we need to do.
But first, on to Baghdad.
She raises irrelevant points about our ability to find the DC shooter as if Iraq should be put off until every crime is solved and prevented (but won’t that trigger an Ashcroft hysteria alert?). She amazingly seems to blame Bush because an "eyewitness" turns out to have fabricated his statements. And she makes a ridiculous comparison to Alexander the Great, arguing Bush wants to conquer the known world.
What is her deal?
Aside from her silly attacks, she rattles off a number of questions over why we are treating North Korea more gently than Iraq. She asks, "Is it because North Korea has a million men under arms? Is it because Kim Jong Il never threatened to kill Bush's father, or because he has no oil, or is not a Muslim? Maybe we should ask the advocates who dreamed for 10 years of invading Iraq. Do Richard Perle, Richard Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz believe in equal opportunity for tyrants?"
Does North Korea’s army shape our caution? You’re darned right it does. And after opponents of war have spent so much time accusing Bush of simplicity for lumping Iran, Iraq, and North Korea into an Axis of Evil, you’d think they’d welcome a foreign policy that recognizes the differences. The million-man North Korean army is relevant because South Koreans would die in huge numbers in a war and because we do not have a military large enough to even consider regime change against Iraq and North Korea at the same time. Is McGrory really prepared to say we should go to war against both, at once? When that would ensure failure or at least costly success? Is she even willing to support war against North Korea first, since she says they are more of a threat? Right now, we have more than enough to do taking out Iraq. Maybe later, we can decide on a more forceful response if circumstances warrant it. I say it makes more sense to hit the dictator who doesn’t have the bomb—yet, rather than hit a state that does and allow the one that doesn’t time to get one. Is it really an inferior strategy to go after one nuclear-armed thug than two?
As for the assassination attempt against Bush 41, is she saying that a murder attempt against any president is not cause for war? Even President Clinton lobbed some cruise missiles at Iraq even though Clinton was unrelated to Bush. This is typical bull, claiming this is all personal. Iraq is a threat and Bush is acting on it. Trying to assassinate a former president is an act of war, and President Clinton is to be criticized for letting it pass with only a pro forma cruise missile strike. Why did President Clinton attack in 1998, arguing that Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear weapons was unacceptable to our security? Or is it acceptable for McGrory to launch only ineffective attacks in defense of our interests?
The oil argument is stale and ridiculous. If oil was our motive, maybe we’d invade Venezuela. We get little of our oil from the Middle East. Shoot, the Japanese and Europeans should be leading the charge for war if that was the reason. Indeed, McGrory makes this charge with no shame in light of the French and Russian opposition to war precisely because of their oil interests? Why not raise the charge, "No Tyranny for Oil!" That has far more credibility.
And the Moslem charge? Good grief, I earlier ran through all the Moslem countries we’ve helped over the years. Her charge is hogwash. Given the implicit charge of racism she is making, you’d think North Korea was colonized by blonde, Christian Swedes. I’m at least glad she thinks Bush is only racist versus Moslems and not against Asians too.
So McGrory wants equal opportunity for tyrants. Give the President time, Ms. McGrory. We can’t conquer the known world all at once. I look forward to her support for regime change if that is what we need to do.
But first, on to Baghdad.
Friday, October 18, 2002
Predictable
Our friends at Global Exchange, who oppose virtually any war the United States might need to fight, call our decision to use diplomacy to contain North Korea “hypocrisy.”
As if they’d be happy campers if President Bush had announced that we would invade North Korea just as soon as we finished with Iraq, and right before we invaded Iran. That would be consistent, right? And Global Exchange is oh so concerned about treating all of the axis of evil the same, right? Forgive me if I assume too much, but I imagine the word “simplistic” was used rather freely by the Global Exchange people when the president declared Iran, Iraq, and North Korea to be an axis of evil. “They are different, how can the president lump them all together as if one strategy fits each of them?” was probably their talking point at the time. And having complained about the cost of war against Iraq, Global Exchange complains that we are letting the potential cost of attacking North Korea stay our hand. Well what is it, should or should not the cost be factored in? The author says we cannot go around the world preemptively striking states pursuing nuclear weapons, when all we are doing so far is preparing to strike one of those states. Who said this is step one of a war against all states? I know Global Exchange fears this but should we then accept their premise when they argue against their own misperceptions?
The author states, “The only solution to dealing with Iraq and North Korea is to use diplomacy, regional pressure and the United Nations (news - web sites) as ways to press for disarmament.” I see, and the example of North Korea’s shameless duplicity of violating the agreed framework and then stating that the agreement is now null (I guess it only becomes null when we discover it, an interesting point of view that should teach Global Exchange something useful) means we need more agreements? Can’t we see how much they are worth?
His (hmm, or is Medea a woman’s name?) last conclusion is good too, "Finally, we can't continue to say that other countries must not develop weapons of mass destruction while we, by far the mightiest military power in the world, continue to refine these deadly weapons.” So, here the author displays his complete inability to distinguish between a brutal, expansionist, and aggressive dictatorship and our constitutional democracy. That’s the scary part. In Benjamin’s mind, there is no difference. I just can’t take the arguments of such a man at all. He lacks something very basic for a rational discussion of the issue. His line may be predictable, but it is still sickening.
Oh, and Benjamin probably thinks the debate is suppressed. After all, s/he was only in USA Today.
As if they’d be happy campers if President Bush had announced that we would invade North Korea just as soon as we finished with Iraq, and right before we invaded Iran. That would be consistent, right? And Global Exchange is oh so concerned about treating all of the axis of evil the same, right? Forgive me if I assume too much, but I imagine the word “simplistic” was used rather freely by the Global Exchange people when the president declared Iran, Iraq, and North Korea to be an axis of evil. “They are different, how can the president lump them all together as if one strategy fits each of them?” was probably their talking point at the time. And having complained about the cost of war against Iraq, Global Exchange complains that we are letting the potential cost of attacking North Korea stay our hand. Well what is it, should or should not the cost be factored in? The author says we cannot go around the world preemptively striking states pursuing nuclear weapons, when all we are doing so far is preparing to strike one of those states. Who said this is step one of a war against all states? I know Global Exchange fears this but should we then accept their premise when they argue against their own misperceptions?
The author states, “The only solution to dealing with Iraq and North Korea is to use diplomacy, regional pressure and the United Nations (news - web sites) as ways to press for disarmament.” I see, and the example of North Korea’s shameless duplicity of violating the agreed framework and then stating that the agreement is now null (I guess it only becomes null when we discover it, an interesting point of view that should teach Global Exchange something useful) means we need more agreements? Can’t we see how much they are worth?
His (hmm, or is Medea a woman’s name?) last conclusion is good too, "Finally, we can't continue to say that other countries must not develop weapons of mass destruction while we, by far the mightiest military power in the world, continue to refine these deadly weapons.” So, here the author displays his complete inability to distinguish between a brutal, expansionist, and aggressive dictatorship and our constitutional democracy. That’s the scary part. In Benjamin’s mind, there is no difference. I just can’t take the arguments of such a man at all. He lacks something very basic for a rational discussion of the issue. His line may be predictable, but it is still sickening.
Oh, and Benjamin probably thinks the debate is suppressed. After all, s/he was only in USA Today.
Western Iraq
As I noted earlier, I figured the way we would keep Israel quiet during a war with Iraq would be to put American special forces on the ground in western Iraq to hunt SCUDs and to let the Israelis join us. This is more effective than letting the Israeli air force go after the Iraqis and far less visible.
President Bush has pledged to put US troops on the ground there to do just that. Since the article stated that Israeli special forces had gone in over the summer, we can conclude that we will let the Israelis participate too. And Jordan must be on board to have allowed Israelis through their country to go to Iraq.
The pieces fall into place. I’m not worried about the wrangling at the United Nations. Some worry we are capitulating. I don’t. I figure we asked for far more than we need in order to “retreat” under pressure from the French and Russians. They are more interested in the process so giving them such a victory will be sufficient for them to go away happy. I imagine we will get what we need. And if we don’t? So what? We can argue that our “allies” won’t meet us halfway, pack our papers, and go home. We have sufficient authority in existing UN resolutions on Iraq. We have Congressional authorization. If the Security Council won’t give us new ones adequate for going to war, we’ll let them sit this one out. Let the Russians and French try to get their Iraq debts paid if that happens!
President Bush has pledged to put US troops on the ground there to do just that. Since the article stated that Israeli special forces had gone in over the summer, we can conclude that we will let the Israelis participate too. And Jordan must be on board to have allowed Israelis through their country to go to Iraq.
The pieces fall into place. I’m not worried about the wrangling at the United Nations. Some worry we are capitulating. I don’t. I figure we asked for far more than we need in order to “retreat” under pressure from the French and Russians. They are more interested in the process so giving them such a victory will be sufficient for them to go away happy. I imagine we will get what we need. And if we don’t? So what? We can argue that our “allies” won’t meet us halfway, pack our papers, and go home. We have sufficient authority in existing UN resolutions on Iraq. We have Congressional authorization. If the Security Council won’t give us new ones adequate for going to war, we’ll let them sit this one out. Let the Russians and French try to get their Iraq debts paid if that happens!
Thursday, October 17, 2002
Relax! The UN is ‘Concerned’
The UN is deeply concerned that North Korea may have a nuclear weapons program. It seems that North Korea never admitted to one before. But do we really want to trust the IAEA people to resolve this? We confront the North Koreans with evidence that we know they are violating the 1994 agreement with us and are, in fact, pursuing nuclear weapons. The North Koreans deny, then, say yes we are—so what?
And what does the International Atomic Energy Agency say?
According to the article, "The International Atomic Energy Agency said the assertions, if true, meant Pyongyang had been misleading the United Nations…" If true? Are they serious? The North Koreans confess and the IAEA is unsure of what conclusion to draw? They picked a fine time to go all skeptical about the North Korean ability to tell the truth.
"We are urgently seeking information from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in response to this report, as well as information from the United States that will allow us to follow up on this very serious allegation," said IAEA Director General Mohamed Elbaradei. Again, this is just an allegation. Why on earth would the North Koreans claim they are pursuing nuclear weapons if they are not? I’m still a little shocked they admitted it at all.
But hey, the IAEA is willing to make lemonade out of lemons. Faced with the fact that there was apparently a very good reason the North Koreans never let the IAEA carry out thorough inspections to verify the 1994 agreement, they see a silver lining. They hope the confession will lead to those intrusive inspections. It will only take them, they say, 3 or 4 years to determine if their 10-year old declaration is accurate.
Assuming the North Koreans don’t lie and hide their program, of course.
Now what were the Iraq war protesters saying about the ability of the West to monitor nuclear programs and the willingness of dictators to carry out such programs? Oh yeah, they think it is a splendid idea.
On the way home today, with the skies getting grayer and the temperatures dropping, I considered the benefits of a winter war: the protesters will be cold and wet. Sadly, their papier mache puppets may wilt in the rain and snow.
And what does the International Atomic Energy Agency say?
According to the article, "The International Atomic Energy Agency said the assertions, if true, meant Pyongyang had been misleading the United Nations…" If true? Are they serious? The North Koreans confess and the IAEA is unsure of what conclusion to draw? They picked a fine time to go all skeptical about the North Korean ability to tell the truth.
"We are urgently seeking information from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in response to this report, as well as information from the United States that will allow us to follow up on this very serious allegation," said IAEA Director General Mohamed Elbaradei. Again, this is just an allegation. Why on earth would the North Koreans claim they are pursuing nuclear weapons if they are not? I’m still a little shocked they admitted it at all.
But hey, the IAEA is willing to make lemonade out of lemons. Faced with the fact that there was apparently a very good reason the North Koreans never let the IAEA carry out thorough inspections to verify the 1994 agreement, they see a silver lining. They hope the confession will lead to those intrusive inspections. It will only take them, they say, 3 or 4 years to determine if their 10-year old declaration is accurate.
Assuming the North Koreans don’t lie and hide their program, of course.
Now what were the Iraq war protesters saying about the ability of the West to monitor nuclear programs and the willingness of dictators to carry out such programs? Oh yeah, they think it is a splendid idea.
On the way home today, with the skies getting grayer and the temperatures dropping, I considered the benefits of a winter war: the protesters will be cold and wet. Sadly, their papier mache puppets may wilt in the rain and snow.
Haggling Over the Price
The glorious international community, that bastion of high-minded morality that must be allowed to judge whether we may take military actions to defend ourselves against states that place themselves outside of international law, is considering whether to back us in the Security Council.
America is bargaining:
As the joke goes, we know what they are, now we’re just haggling over their price.
Seriously, if the guardians of all that is right and lawful can be bought, why is it that we need their approval? I would think that principled opposition is just that—a refusal to go along because it is wrong pure and simple. How our invasion becomes morally just and internationally sanctioned just because we pay the price that France, Russia, and China want is beyond me. We’ll just leave our payment on the night stand when we leave, ok?
On another topic, I’m glad that the New York Times at least stopped fronting for the Iraqis—they let the Iraqi ambassador to the UN make Saddam’s case directly. When our soon-to-be enemy gets precious space in a major paper, can opponents of war still say there is no debate?
America is bargaining:
The Bush administration is mounting a campaign of public pressure and private diplomatic and economic concessions to persuade France and other skeptical members of the United Nations Security Council to go along with a single resolution threatening military force against Iraq.
As the joke goes, we know what they are, now we’re just haggling over their price.
Seriously, if the guardians of all that is right and lawful can be bought, why is it that we need their approval? I would think that principled opposition is just that—a refusal to go along because it is wrong pure and simple. How our invasion becomes morally just and internationally sanctioned just because we pay the price that France, Russia, and China want is beyond me. We’ll just leave our payment on the night stand when we leave, ok?
On another topic, I’m glad that the New York Times at least stopped fronting for the Iraqis—they let the Iraqi ambassador to the UN make Saddam’s case directly. When our soon-to-be enemy gets precious space in a major paper, can opponents of war still say there is no debate?
Wednesday, October 16, 2002
Axis of Evil
Can we all just agree that North Korea deserves its place on the axis of evil?
This just in: North Korea does have a secret nuclear weapons program notwithstanding their agreement not to pursue nuclear weapons. Gosh, isn’t this shocking that a brutal dictatorship would lie to us? Heavens, what is the proper multilateralist to think? Quickly now, let’s sign another agreement with them! Send Jimmy Carter!
How much more simply can we present the North Koreans before the world gives us a little respect on this issue? The horrible famines that have killed and wasted an entire population have not been viewed as humanitarian crises but as embarrassments to Pyongyang. The rulers hid the problem that they created lest somebody doubt the regime’s wisdom and capacity to govern. If this is not evil, what is?
And if a hidden famine and the threat of nuclear devastation from the "Dear Leader" are not disturbing, five Japanese abducted by the psycho North Korean regime were allowed to return to Japan for a week—their families are kept in North Korea to ensure their return. Does this not at least put a human face on the regime’s evil? An easily graspable symbol of the horrors of North Korea? Good God, I hope so.
Does this mean we must invade? No. You do what is achievable; and North Korean military power and Seoul’s unfortunate proximity to the border argue against a military solution to the North Korean problem. But isolating the regime should be a must. Sunshine as the South Koreans practice it is not the answer. It can only be part of the solution if it is designed to forestall a desperate North Korean invasion yet not significantly strengthen and prolong the North’s grip on power. Then, eventually North Korea will collapse, perhaps quite suddenly.
I hope it happens soon enough so we do not have to decide whether to launch an air campaign to delay their fielding of usable nuclear missiles. I also hope we will attack Iraq with enough force to quickly win so we can regroup our forces before North Korea is tempted to attack. They’d lose even if we were involved in Iraq, but the South Koreans would suffer tremendously until we could intervene. The South is powerful enough to win, but we are needed to keep the cost from being the ruination of their country.
On another note, my deepest sympathies to the Australians for their loss of life at Bali. Remember that much of our press would not like to emphasize your loss lest the deaths propel us to war against Iraq faster. Australia’s friendship is deeply appreciated and we will win this war together. We fought together on the ground in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. Our troops have crawled across the cold mountains of Afghanistan together. We will win this war too.
This just in: North Korea does have a secret nuclear weapons program notwithstanding their agreement not to pursue nuclear weapons. Gosh, isn’t this shocking that a brutal dictatorship would lie to us? Heavens, what is the proper multilateralist to think? Quickly now, let’s sign another agreement with them! Send Jimmy Carter!
How much more simply can we present the North Koreans before the world gives us a little respect on this issue? The horrible famines that have killed and wasted an entire population have not been viewed as humanitarian crises but as embarrassments to Pyongyang. The rulers hid the problem that they created lest somebody doubt the regime’s wisdom and capacity to govern. If this is not evil, what is?
And if a hidden famine and the threat of nuclear devastation from the "Dear Leader" are not disturbing, five Japanese abducted by the psycho North Korean regime were allowed to return to Japan for a week—their families are kept in North Korea to ensure their return. Does this not at least put a human face on the regime’s evil? An easily graspable symbol of the horrors of North Korea? Good God, I hope so.
Does this mean we must invade? No. You do what is achievable; and North Korean military power and Seoul’s unfortunate proximity to the border argue against a military solution to the North Korean problem. But isolating the regime should be a must. Sunshine as the South Koreans practice it is not the answer. It can only be part of the solution if it is designed to forestall a desperate North Korean invasion yet not significantly strengthen and prolong the North’s grip on power. Then, eventually North Korea will collapse, perhaps quite suddenly.
I hope it happens soon enough so we do not have to decide whether to launch an air campaign to delay their fielding of usable nuclear missiles. I also hope we will attack Iraq with enough force to quickly win so we can regroup our forces before North Korea is tempted to attack. They’d lose even if we were involved in Iraq, but the South Koreans would suffer tremendously until we could intervene. The South is powerful enough to win, but we are needed to keep the cost from being the ruination of their country.
On another note, my deepest sympathies to the Australians for their loss of life at Bali. Remember that much of our press would not like to emphasize your loss lest the deaths propel us to war against Iraq faster. Australia’s friendship is deeply appreciated and we will win this war together. We fought together on the ground in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. Our troops have crawled across the cold mountains of Afghanistan together. We will win this war too.
The Results Are In!
Yes, political junkies, the suspense is over. The Iraqis have announced the results of their election. Every single registered voter cast a ballot. An amazing percentage. Not one registered voter was out of town on business or visiting relatives. Not one was in the hospital suffering from lack of medicine. Not one was on their deathbed suffering from the results of depleted uranium munitions. Not one was lingering on their death bed because they had no x-ray machines or blood transfusion. Nobody was ministering to a sick child or elderly relative. Nobody was too weak from lack of food. Not one even forgot to vote. Everyone voted.
Either Saddam is exaggerating the turnout just a teensy bit or he is completely lying about the effects of sanctions. Or both.
Just as amazing, Saddam received 100% of the vote! Nobody was confused by the yes or no ballot. Nobody got too nervous to vote. Nobody voted for a protest candidate. No votes were lost. I bet Jimmy Carter will praise the orderly nature of the vote.
I really hope this is material for a Saturday Night Live skit. I gave my best shot at Landfill yesterday.
Seriously, who is fooled by this charade? Certainly not the Iraqis. Certainly not us. Will the UN be fooled? Is Saddam fooled? Does he really think he was just endorsed? Do his aides tell him he is loved and the people will die fighting house-to-house for him? If so, invasion is inevitable. "Voters" may shed a little blood to mark their ballots but I guarantee they won’t shed any in his defense when our heavy armor rolls in.
Either Saddam is exaggerating the turnout just a teensy bit or he is completely lying about the effects of sanctions. Or both.
Just as amazing, Saddam received 100% of the vote! Nobody was confused by the yes or no ballot. Nobody got too nervous to vote. Nobody voted for a protest candidate. No votes were lost. I bet Jimmy Carter will praise the orderly nature of the vote.
I really hope this is material for a Saturday Night Live skit. I gave my best shot at Landfill yesterday.
Seriously, who is fooled by this charade? Certainly not the Iraqis. Certainly not us. Will the UN be fooled? Is Saddam fooled? Does he really think he was just endorsed? Do his aides tell him he is loved and the people will die fighting house-to-house for him? If so, invasion is inevitable. "Voters" may shed a little blood to mark their ballots but I guarantee they won’t shed any in his defense when our heavy armor rolls in.
Tuesday, October 15, 2002
Hijacker on Saudi Plane Thwarted!
Ok, how many people do you think, when they first saw this report, said to themselves, “Oh my God, some crazed Christian decided to get revenge on Islam!”
(sound of crickets)*
Let me start off by saying, of course Islam itself isn’t guilty for what its members do. I don’t think Islam as a religion is guilty. But Christianity has mostly lost the fervor that leads to mass murder. No need to go into history for times when Christianity was militant—we’re talking about today, people. And yes, Tim McVeigh wasn’t Islamic, but he was an anti-federal government chucklehead and not a Christian soldier. You have to admit, Islam does have plenty of fanatics today. That’s why nobody thought a Westerner had done the deed. Even if a Westerner had done it, the first impulse would not have been that some Christian had tried to hijack the plane. So there, ritual disclaimer finished.
Back to the lesson of the hijacking. Do people who think they have only to disagree with America’s war against Islamic fascism to become immune to said Islamic fascists? With terrorists striking in small attacks around the world, predictably some are saying this is so. “Just avert our eyes from Americans dying and refuse to help that madman Bush and we’ll sleep safely in our homes at night,” they seem to argue. Helping America didn’t get Australians killed in Bali. Being Western got them killed. The terrorists hit a French tanker despite their “sophisticated” criticisms of our war. And of course, the Saudis get hit too, because even they are not “pure” enough for the terrorists. The Grand Mosque seizure by fanatics over twenty years ago got the Saudis pretty darned nervous, but even their subsequent support for the Islamic fanatics has not earned them immunity.
A whole lot of people, including a whole bunch in San Francisco who think they protest for peace, need to understand that our enemies are granting no quarter. But these protesters get to protest, feel morally superior, and avoid the consequences of their actions because America is fighting the terrorists and their state sponsors and America will win. The terrorists will kill us until we kill them. Let’s get on with it, eh?
Fill up Gitmo. On to Baghdad.
*Ok, not original, but I saw Lileks do this once and it struck me as quite funny-not sure why.
(sound of crickets)*
Let me start off by saying, of course Islam itself isn’t guilty for what its members do. I don’t think Islam as a religion is guilty. But Christianity has mostly lost the fervor that leads to mass murder. No need to go into history for times when Christianity was militant—we’re talking about today, people. And yes, Tim McVeigh wasn’t Islamic, but he was an anti-federal government chucklehead and not a Christian soldier. You have to admit, Islam does have plenty of fanatics today. That’s why nobody thought a Westerner had done the deed. Even if a Westerner had done it, the first impulse would not have been that some Christian had tried to hijack the plane. So there, ritual disclaimer finished.
Back to the lesson of the hijacking. Do people who think they have only to disagree with America’s war against Islamic fascism to become immune to said Islamic fascists? With terrorists striking in small attacks around the world, predictably some are saying this is so. “Just avert our eyes from Americans dying and refuse to help that madman Bush and we’ll sleep safely in our homes at night,” they seem to argue. Helping America didn’t get Australians killed in Bali. Being Western got them killed. The terrorists hit a French tanker despite their “sophisticated” criticisms of our war. And of course, the Saudis get hit too, because even they are not “pure” enough for the terrorists. The Grand Mosque seizure by fanatics over twenty years ago got the Saudis pretty darned nervous, but even their subsequent support for the Islamic fanatics has not earned them immunity.
A whole lot of people, including a whole bunch in San Francisco who think they protest for peace, need to understand that our enemies are granting no quarter. But these protesters get to protest, feel morally superior, and avoid the consequences of their actions because America is fighting the terrorists and their state sponsors and America will win. The terrorists will kill us until we kill them. Let’s get on with it, eh?
Fill up Gitmo. On to Baghdad.
*Ok, not original, but I saw Lileks do this once and it struck me as quite funny-not sure why.
Monday, October 14, 2002
Deterrence
Well, it seems that the iron-clad logic of deterrence fails when one side is nuts. Fidel Castro wanted to take a spear in the chest for the communist team. He apparently thought Cuba's demise in a nuclear war between America and the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis was a small price to pay. Heck, even the Soviets were worried about what Castro would do. But we’re to trust that Saddam is rational. Please, he apparently has so little concept of what democracy is that he thinks the sham election he will hold Tuesday really means something and is what a real election looks like. Shoot, even the ABC projection of Saddam’s victory is accurate. I guess I won’t stay up late waiting for late returns from Basra.
I’m waiting to hear some apologist claim the election is genuine and should stay our hand. Anybody going to take any bets for France? Or maybe some "peace" organization based in San Francisco?
I’m waiting to hear some apologist claim the election is genuine and should stay our hand. Anybody going to take any bets for France? Or maybe some "peace" organization based in San Francisco?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
