Shia-Cons

This TCS Tech Central column has an interesting little bit:

In recent weeks heightened discussion in Washington, and in centers of Islamic debate I visited, such as Jakarta, focused on these claims. Muslims knew the Sunnis would prefer to take advantage of their new right to vote, and would favor a constitutional order in Iraq rather than continued violence. The meddling of the Saudis was considered gross and embarrassing. Muslim leaders I met were more interested in the future of the "Shia-con" phenomenon, i.e. of Iraqi Shias aligned with the U.S. neoconservatives.

What does it mean to be a "Shia-con?" Nothing very different from what it means to be an ordinary neoconservative: bedrock belief in governmental and personal accountability, entrepreneurship, popular sovereignty, and a place for religion in public life. Sunni intellectuals with whom I met pointed out that "neocon" has become a term of abuse in the Muslim world no less than in the West. But when exposed to the foundations of neoconservative thought, they expressed approval.

Shia-Cons! I never heard this until now. But back in June 2004, I wrote that we might see the Shias realigning to our side based on our actions since 9-11:

I think we can take advantage of what could be a Shia realignment to our side. See this piece for US Shias siding with America over Iraq. Based on freeing the Shias of Iraq and Iran (in 2005), with Shia-majority Bahrain on our side and the sizable Shia population in a friendly UAE, we could see Shias looking to us as friends. This friendliness could be the pressure point that helps us secure the oil-rich Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia where Shias and foreigners dominate; while the Sunni Wahhabis can enjoy their holy sites in the west uncontaminated by a Western presence. Heck, maybe we can toss some border areas of Saudi Arabia to the Jordanians, Iraqis, Yemenis, and Oman. Why should we be too upset if a family enterprise masquerading as a country is broken up? Saudi affluence and gaudy consumption may well keep the broader and far poorer Sunni world from getting upset too deeply—especially if the holy sites stay beyond our power.

One day we may need to deal with the hideous ideology that Saudi Arabia has spawned. If the Saudi rulers won't smother the jihadi ideology on their own, we may need to do it for them.

And the Shias could very well be the key to destroying the jihadi perversion of Islam.

What the International Community Values

The Hariri assasination report of the UN will be out soon. According to this article, Kofi Annan's highest goal is to avoid fanning tension between Lebanon and Syria:

The Lebanese opposition has accused Syria of playing a role in Hariri's Feb. 14 death in a car bombing, allegations Damascus repeatedly has denied. Annan said he expected to receive a report on the investigation into the slaying on Friday.

"I know there has been lots of political commentary and lots of discussions about it but from where I sit, I'm determined to make it as technical as possible and not allow a politicization of the process," Annan said.

I find this fascinating and instructive. I mean, Syria stands accused of Hariri's spectacular death in an effort to intimidate and punish Lebanon for daring to wish to live without Syrian domination. And Annan thinks that an investigation into this should not fan any tensions between Lebanon and Syria. What could Lebanon possibly be upset about if the accusation is true? But for Annan, the truth of the investigation is secondary to making sure nobody upsets the apple cart by getting angry and expecting justice for the crime. That would be "political" I guess.

Can nothing offend the morality of the guardian of the international community?

Don't even talk to me about the moral superiority of the so-called "international community." Not ever. And don't ever defend the top ten floors of that God-awful institution.

Not Just a Bluff

Donald Sensing refers to a Samizdata post that links to a posting that reminds us that Saddam paid the price for bluffing that he had weapons of mass destruction:

I don't understand how the failure to find weapons of mass destruction makes the war unjustified. It's not like Bush made up the idea of WMD. Saddam Hussein is the guy you ought to be mad at. Saddam Hussein acted as if he had or was working on nuclear capability. He's the guy who employed nuclear scientists. He's the guy who convinced the UN that he wanted nukes. He's the guy who resisted weapons inspections. He's the guy who said you can look over here but not over there. Why did he do all these things? Either because he actually had nuclear capability or was close to it, or because he wanted to fool people into thinking he was more important than he was. He managed to fool Bill Clinton, the United Nations, George Bush and Israel into thinking he had a desire for WMD. It appears now to have been something of a ruse. Probably. Should Bush have ignored the behavior of Saddam on the grounds that the whole thing was probably a hoax to enhance his self-image? I don't think so. That certainly turned out to be a mistake with Osama. His talk wasn't cheap.

We're still translating lots of documents and the Baathists who'd know about any weapons are still resisting so not likely to talk. We telegraphed our invasion and gave Saddam time to prepare. So I don't assume that this whole thing was a bluff. Not yet. To conclude that, we have to assume that every intelligence agency called this wrong. Every one of them.

But assuming this was a bluff, we have to remember that Saddam bluffed because he believed he needed those weapons to survive. And with all his material, money, and knowledge, does anybody believe that Saddam would not have converted his bluff into reality as soon as he could? Remember, Saddam thought he needed them to survive. He would not have been satisfied with a bluff for longer than he had to.

And does anybody really think that Saddam wouldn't have been free to build WMD had we not invaded? In the spring of 2001, we were already talking of "smart sanctions" to try and salvage the sanctions regime. This would have theoretically kept sanctions on just weapons imports while lifting sanctions generally. Sanctions were crumbling.

And we now know that the French and Russians were benefitting from oil-for-food and so know that they would have pushed for the end of sanctions. Better to preserve their profits if Saddam survives and keeps quiet about their roles. Further, the UN itself had reason to keep Saddam in power in order to hide their criminal enterprises in oil-for-food. Ah, the international community! Such a moral exemplar!

The bottom line is that we stopped a future in which Saddam or his psychopath sons had weapons of mass destruction. And that includes nukes.

We have brought freedom to Iraq.

We discredited the jihadis.

And have triggered reforms in the region.

Not a bad day's work if you ask me.

Mistakes in Iraq

VDH reminds me of another mistake in Iraq that the Zawahiri letter highlights:

Many of al-Zarqawi or Dr. Zawahiri’s intercepted letters and communiqués reveal paranoid fears that Iraq is indeed becoming lost — but to the terrorists. The enemy speaks of constantly shifting tactics — try beheading contractors; no, turn to slaughtering Shiites; no, butcher teachers and school kids; no, go back to try to blow up American convoys. In contrast, we are consistent in our strategy — go after jihadists, train Iraqi security forces, promote consensual government so Iraq becomes an autonomous republic free to determine its own future.

The rest of Hanson's piece is excellent, but this reminder of a basic truth of war is useful: it is better to resolutely carry out a mediocre strategy than to rapidly shift strategy looking for the perfect strategy. This is exactly what the insurgents and terrorists have done. Shifting targets before one can really judge whether that target is being seriously affected has spared each of their targets from reaching their breaking point. By constantly changing targets, the enemy has failed to put pressure on one point long enough to do real damage.

Meanwhile, the new Iraq gets stronger and stronger every day. And one day soon, we will be able to pull out of most of the day-to-day fight and the enemy will never really know it since the pressure will be just as great as it was six months ago when we were the almost-exclusive offensive force.

There have been lots of mistakes made in the fight in Iraq. But the most critical mistakes have been made by our enemies. This is what victory looks like.

What Does This Mean?

The voting in Iraq seems to have been achieved without very much in the way of enemy resistance:

Insurgents fought gunbattles with Iraqi and U.S. forces in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, but throughout the capital and much of the rest of the country, voting appeared to go smoothly and securely, with polls set to close at 5 p.m. (1400 GMT). ...

It was in marked contrast to the elections in January, when guerrillas carried out more than a hundred attacks on the day, including suicide bombings, killing at least 40 people.

Now does this mean that few attacks were made against polling facilities or that few attacks were made at all? The story seems to imply the latter. If that is the case, that seems like a major failure on the part of the enemy. Since the Sunnis are divided on the constitution question, would anybody say that the people opposed are not associated with the insurgency and the Sunnis for the constitution are associated and so that explains the lull?

And the jihadis are opposed so why didn't they launch a surge as they did in January? Indeed, I thought that there were several hundred attacks per day in the period around the election in January rather than the 100+ that this article notes.

Now, off with my son to the University of Michigan game against Penn State. We really should have maize and blue ink to dip our fingers in for a proper "V" sign.

UPDATE: A quick news item on TV said that about a dozen attacks contrasted sharply with the 300 attacks on the day of the January elections. This is quite a change.

And Michigan won. 27 - 25 in the last play of the game begun with one second left. My son and I were in the end zone seats right in front of the touchdown play.

Best. Game. Ever.

Ok, Now I Am Worried

Krauthammer has an article about something I recently read about:

It was announced last week that U.S. scientists have just created a living, killing copy of the 1918 "Spanish" flu.

This is big. Very big.

When I first read this story my reaction was, "holy crap, what on Earth do they think they're doing? These scientists are playing with fire! Will they bring about what they think they are working to stop? A worldwide pandemic?"

But that first article raised no worries. All is under control. This is wonderful progress.

But Krauthammer notes that beyond the sheer amazing science quality of this development:

Which brings us to the second element of this story: Beyond the brilliance lies the sheer terror. We have brought back to life an agent of near-biblical destruction. It killed more people in six months than were killed in the four years of World War I. It killed more humans than any other disease of similar duration in the history of the world, says Alfred W. Crosby, who wrote a history of the 1918 pandemic. And, notes New Scientist magazine, when the re-created virus was given to mice in heavily quarantined laboratories in Atlanta, it killed the mice more quickly than any other flu virus ever tested .

Now that I have your attention, consider, with appropriate trepidation, the third element of this story: What to do with this knowledge? Not only has the virus been physically re-created, but its entire genome has also now been published for the whole world, good people and very bad, to see.

Now I'm back to thinking holy crap. This decade may suck more than I've possibly feared. It may suck really big. Very big, in fact.

Um, Yeah, It Was a Taiwanese Sub

Strategypage note this good development:

October 15, 2005: Taiwan is equipping its two Dutch built submarines subs with Harpoon anti-ship missiles (launched via the torpedo tubes.) The Taiwanese originally wanted six of these boats, but diplomatic pressure by China in the early 1990s caused the Dutch to back off after only two were built. The two boats the Taiwanese do have are twenty years old. The Harpoon missiles will make them much more effective in any future war, especially against Chinese ships trying to invade Taiwan.

As I've said before, I'm a fan of having Taiwan in possession of subs that use our weapons.

If the Chinese try to invade Taiwan and at least one Taiwanese sub makes it to sea, then if Harpoons start smashing into Chinese ships, we can openly marvel at the storage capacity of the Dutch-built boat. I mean, some people might speculate that American subs are launching them, too, but that would be idle speculation best left for historians to examine decades after the Taiwanese fend off the invasion attempt.

These boats are twenty years old, of course, and the other two Taiwanese boats are museum pieces that should never put to sea. So I really hope the Taiwanese get new boats very soon.

But in the short run, putting Harpoons on the two subs that can fight will bring a very important capability to the Taiwanese.

I Don't Want to Believe This

Two National Defense University authors have concluded that we may have to live with a nuclear-armed Iran:

"Can the United States live with a nuclear-armed Iran? Despite its rhetoric, it may have no choice," concluded the report by Judith Yaphe and Air Force Col. Charles Lutes, which was released on Thursday.

The potential for rolling back Iran's program, once it produces a nuclear weapon, "is lower than preventing it in the first place and the costs of rollback may be higher than the costs of deterring and containing a nuclear Iran," they said.

Live with a nuclear-armed Iran? Like they're some less annoying version of nuclear-armed France? This is truly a horrifying thought.

And the report takes a way too optimistic view of the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran:

However, the U.S. researchers warned that a U.S. or Israeli pre-emptive military strike likely would rally Iranians around a religious fundamentalist government in Tehran that they might otherwise want to replace, spur new attacks by Iran-allied groups like Hizbollah.

They also warned that if Washington sought to change the government in Tehran -- as it did in Iraq -- there is an "extremely high risk that the Iranian regime would use its nuclear weapon in a last-ditch effort to save itself."

On living with a nuclear-armed Iran, the analysts said Tehran was unlikely to use its nuclear capability unless facing an overwhelming threat and while it might become more assertive in the region, superior U.S. capabilities could probably deter significant mischief.

So let me get his straight. Why would we care if a disarming strike rallies Iranians around the government? What good is having a population that hates the government if the government will nuke us anyway? I'd rather have a nuclear-free Iran with a population that is ticked off at us for a while. I dare say the mullahs will make the people of Iran remember why they hated the mullahs after a while. And who says this would automatically rally the people to the mullah's side. How solid is that judgment anyway?

Second, we could deter "significant" Iranian mischief? Seizing our embassy wasn't significant, I guess. Or Khobar Towers. Or supplying the Idiot Sadr in Iraq. Or arming Hizbollah in Lebanon. Or any of the other terrorist tricks the mullahs have pulled in the last twenty-five years. Funny how we couldn't deter Iran from this crap when Iran didn't even have nukes. Just what are the authors of the study willing to accept as insignificant when the Iranians have a nuclear deterrent of their own? Is Topeka significant?

Still, there is hope. The report notes that the price of keeping Iran from having nukes will be much higher once Iran gets nukes. That is, it is better to stop Iran before it gets nukes than roll back a nuclear fact. Indeed, once Iran gets nukes they'll use them rather than lose power, the authors say.

So is this a head fake? Are we setting the stage to support an uprising in Iran while denying we had anything to do with it? (No way! We were prepared to live with Iran's nukes! Didn't you see the report?)

I have nothing to go on but faith that the administration is serious about protecting us from the mullahs who have given us no reason to trust their good intentions. So when I discount this report, I know I'm seeing what I want to see.

Good God, I hope I'm right.

Unilateral, Error-Filled Quagmire in Iraq

While the anti-war side here continues to fixate on purported mistakes that America made in the war, the recent Zawahiri letter (via Austin Bay) is fascinating in its admission of jihadi mistakes in Iraq.

According to this letter, after we abandon Iraq the jihadis see the second task is to:

Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.

The Baathists think they are using the jihadis to regain power but the jihadis have another plan altogether and it involves un-Islamic Baathists getting their heads chopped. Really, the Baathists are lucky we will win and not them. The jihadis wouldn't have been as kind as our side will be. Pretty poor post-war planning if you ask me.

The letter also shows that some jihadis realize that they have attacked the wrong targets in Iraq and have just alienated the people they are claiming to liberate:

If we are in agreement that the victory of Islam and the establishment of a caliphate in the manner of the Prophet will not be achieved except through jihad against the apostate rulers and their removal, then this goal will not be accomplished by the mujahed movement while it is cut off from public support, even if the Jihadist movement pursues the method of sudden overthrow. This is because such an overthrow would not take place without some minimum of popular support and some condition of public discontent which offers the mujahed movement what it needs in terms of capabilities in the quickest fashion.

Zawahiri discusses that the bloody swathe the jihadis are cutting through Iraq's Shia community and says it is counter-productive. The Shias rallied to our side and the Sunnis began to be disgusted and fearful of the Shia reaction.

Indeed, last summer while we were hip deep in turning back the insurgent and jihadi offensives and some seemed deeply worried, I wrote that the enemy's choice of a wrong center of gravity would lose them this war:

I think the main reason for our success is that the Islamists with their foreign jihadis have screwed things up for the Baathists. That is, if the insurgents (or regime remnants or whatever you want to call them) had been able to target Americans and our allies without other complications, the vast majority of Iraqis might have decided to sit out the war as neutrals and just watch passively to see who will win. Absent a really ruthless American campaign, we would never win if we fought enemies in a sea of apathy that slowly turned against us as the violence continued.

The Islamists screwed up this possible path to Baathist victory. The Zarqawi memo highlighted the idea that the Islamists wanted to target the Shias in order to force the Sunnis to rise up out of fear. Then there would be a nice civil war and the Islamists would have their happy hunting ground of chaos in which to kill Americans. With high enough casualties and really bad press coverage, we might then have pulled out in defeat. Defeating us somewhere—anywhere—is the Islamist goal—not Islamizing Iraq in particular. Remember the reports that al Qaeda was turning their focus on Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan? The fight is the focus. Note, too, that the memo says that the Islamists would have to find another battleground if they cannot win in Iraq. The Islamists may not have had a choice since they don’t number very many. How could they take on the Army and Marines directly? Attacking civilians is a heck of a lot easier.

Zawahiri seems to recognize that they have lost sight of the fact that America is their enemy. Instead, they went on a Shia-killing spree. As the saying goes, business before pleasure, and the Sunni jihadis forgot that lesson:

One of the most important factors of success is that you don't let your eyes lose sight of the target, and that it should stand before you always. Otherwise you deviate from the general line through a policy of reaction. And this is a lifetime's experience, and I will not conceal from you the fact that we suffered a lot through following this policy of reaction, then we suffered a lot another time because we tried to return to the original line.

And the gruesome killing spree has done more than just turned Iraqis against them, but has begun to turn Moslem world opinion against the jihadis.

The letter argues that trying to match us in combat will fail and that only by fighting in a manner that allows the media to portray them favorably can bring them victory (Hmm, I think our media got this letter quite a while ago ...). He writes:

However, despite all of this, I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma. And that however far our capabilities reach, they will never be equal to one thousandth of the capabilities of the kingdom of Satan that is waging war on us.

One of the more interesting things is that the jihadis no longer talk of bugging out of Iraq if democracy comes to Iraq. Now, winning in Iraq is the basis of their plans for world domination. Why? Earlier, the jihadis argued that they'd have to leave Iraq once democracy came to Iraq and find another battlefield. Then, just fighting us somewhere was step one. Now the jihadis are determined to stay and fight in Iraq.

I never bought the idea that we deliberately invaded and liberated Iraq in a deliberate attempt to create a battlefield to fight the jihadis. If we had we'd have behaved differently in the immediate months following the capture of Baghdad. But this is what Iraq has become by the jihadis' own decisions. And in spite of the fact that the jihadis judged that success could not be achieved once democracy came to Iraq, the jihadis think they can win in Iraq.

Perhaps there are no greener pastures. Perhaps the jihadis considered moving the battleground elsewhere but they could see no alternative to fighting in Iraq. I mean, no alternative other than halting their jihad and living in peace. When thugs decide that they will continue to fight in a particular place even though they believed they would not be able to win there, can we say they are in a quagmire?

So let's sum up, then.

One, the jihadis are fighting a brutal war that does not shield those they are "liberating" and by their violence drove them to our side.

Two, the jihadis have a war plan and post-war plan that are at best delusional in their assumptions (Step One: Acquire an all-powerful device that defeats America. All else follows logically).

Three, the jihadis have been sucked into a losing war that they don't see a way of exiting (insert "quagmire" reference here).

And four, the jihadis have alienated their traditional allies in the Sunni world (see the Pew poll).

Dang, you'd think that unilateral, warmongering cowboys were running the jihad.

Boy, this sure looks like the writ of indictment that the anti-war side flings at the pro-war side again and again. All we need is some Fallujah-based Al Aburton company that has gotten no-bid contracts for long scimitars because of Zawahiri connections, and we will have a perfect mirror image.

Lord knows, we've made mistakes in Iraq. That happens in war. But our mistakes have been relatively minor in historic context. Further, we've reacted and adapted quite well and rather speedily. But the enemy has made the biggest mistakes. And the enemy doesn't seem like it will adapt any time soon.

Sadly, our much smaller mistakes are amplified by our press while only Allah knows how much our enemy is hurt. Little bits like the Zawahiri letter come out on occasion but it is far tougher to see the enemy's errors. And I assume that most of what we learn is kept classified.

We are winning. And our enemies are doing a remarkable job of losing the way our anti-war side says we are losing. At some point you have to wonder how hard they have to try to be that wrong. Oh yeah, they rely on our vaunted press.

UPDATE: Oh wait, there's a fifth mistake the jihadis are making that really make their war a mirror image of the fantasy errors our anti-war side claims. Stage 4 according to the letter is go to war with Israel. So aren't the jihadis making a mistake by failing to solve their version of the Palestinian problem before fighting in Iraq? Fascinating. Actually, the Palestinians-first objection to toppling Saddam was always a mystery to me. No Moslem country ever put a problem on hold until the Palestinian problem was solved. Indeed, the Iranians often claimed during the Iran-Iraq War that they were going to go to Jerusalem through Baghdad. Must Be the Neo-Jihadis fault.

We Are the World, We Are the ...

Lileks has a good screed and the condensed humor and insight in this passage must be memorized and passed down to our children:

The pious leftism of the international nomenklatura is a religion. The United States may not be their Great Satan, but it’s the devil they know. The bureaucrats and the EU anointed are the priesthood - and the Nobel peace prize is the means of bestowing sainthood.

One day the Nobel people will dispense with their not-so-subtle messages aimed at delivering a kick in the leg to the United States and just bestow the whole Nobel prize-category to Osama. Eveery one from physics to literature. I mean, giving a peace prize to former President Carter just didn't have the oomph the Nobel people hoped for. And the only people who know who Pilger is already hate America.

Say it with me, Osama in '06. Even now the Nobel committee members are nodding, "Yah, that makes sense."

Our German Problem

The outgoing chancellor of Germany unloaded a juvenile rant on America (and Britain, too). (Via Instapundit)

So we defeated the Nazis in 1945 and instead of razing the country that spawned such hideous and murderous beliefs and salting the earth so that nothing as awful as Nazism could grow again, we built up West Germany into an ally.

Through the long Cold War, our soldiers stood on their border, daring the Soviets to attack and declaring our willingness to risk New York to defend West Berlin and Bonn.

And when we won that long struggle, we supported reunification of West and East Germany when the Soviets warned against it and when the sophisticated analysts warned that it would be too destabilizing.

And what did we get when we needed Germany to just shut the hell up when we decided to take down Saddam? Hatred and insults for cheap electoral advantage. We didn't even ask for military help. Just act like a damn ally. And the German people ate it up in 2002. You'd think the Germans would be ashamed of themselves for this monumental ingratitude.

But his German audience appeared to back his outgoing rant.

We should have insisted that East Germany remain a separate country. It might have become a friendly country as other East Europeans became instead of a source of socialist voters to drag Germany to the left. I guess we were stupid to expect the Germans to be thankful for what we did for them. We effed up. We trusted them.

Is it too mean spirited to regret that we pounded the Germans only twice in the last century?

I'm a Piker

I have little respect for the military knowledge of about 99% of the reporters who are assigned to cover the war. They think anything big and green is a "tank" and beyond that they are clueless. Nor do they seem to care enough to learn more. They've certainly had time to learn since the Afghan campaign commenced four years ago, yet in their circles ignorance of the military may very well be a badge of honor. You'd never see somebody covering sports or arts with similar ignorance so unconcerned about learning about their beats.

And though I despair of actually getting good information from our press, my criticisms of the press cannot approach Tony Blankley's opinion:

One doesn't mind, so much, mainstream journalists being b-st-rds. It's being such dumb b-st-rds that one finds so irksome.

The media's collective yawn over the President's recent speech on the war and the decision to basically ignore it prompted this conclusion.

But really, it could have been written at any time in the last thirty years. All I ask of our press is to report on what is happening, who is doing it, when it happened, where it happened, and why if they think they have the understanding to convey that. I'll make up my mind what to think about that information. But somewhere along the way, reporting the facts became beneath our press and they now filter what they present to shape the message. Or work up anger to show they care. I don't care if they care. I don't want to know their opinions--unless they are clearly opinion pieces. I just want to know what is happening in some corner of the world that I can't see.

Is that too much to ask?

Ming Cun Shi Wang?

This writer thinks that people power will topple the Chinese communist government:

When it comes to power, for the current Communist elite it is a case of ming cun shi wang : "The name remains, but the reality is gone."

Nor can the Chinese Communist Party regain its once near-total control of China by any of the methods now being used or discussed -- whether by expansion of armed internal security forces, more arrests and attempted control of all media including the Internet; by stimulation of the economy; or even by internal reform of the party.

Today only the people can anoint a leader and government that will enjoy real power in China, and that can happen only through an open political process. Beijing's power has been slipping since the provinces received new autonomy after the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. Now the "governance without politics" that has existed since strongman Deng Xiaoping died in 1997 is approaching its limits.

Well, here's hoping. But people power only works when the authorities lack the will to respond to waving banners and slogans with brute force and bullets. Are the limits of current governing policy being reached? Yeah, probably. Given the increase in protests across China (via Winds of Change), I imagine this is right.

But I don't think that communist party surrender or collapse are the only alternatives to an outbreak of people power. The Chinese communists have had a long time to study the lessons of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. And to compare Russia's response to China's time of testing at Tiananmen in 1989 when brute force crushed people power.

If there is an insert-your-color-here revolution in China, the government will not hesitate to use brutal and sustained violence to preserve its rule. The only weak link will be the question of whether the PLA and the People's Armed Police obey orders from above to shoot-to-kill.

If the security apparatus remains loyal, the people are gone.

I don't know the Chinese expression for that thought. But I bet the CCP does.

How Does Power Flow Through Pipelines?

Russian energy exports to Western Europe will make Europe bend to Russia's wishes according to this article (via Real Clear Politics):

Blair is panicked, as are other European leaders, about the encircling arms of the Russian bear. Putin may have taken a moment to gloat.

A confluence of circumstance and geography is making Europe dangerously dependent on Russian oil and natural gas for its survival.

Already, 50 percent of the oil burned in Europe and 30 percent of the natural gas comes from Russia. The natural gas percentage is likely to rise dramatically with the new northern pipeline, under the Baltic Sea, extending all the way to Britain. Some countries, such as Germany, are likely to become entirely dependent on Russia for gas. They will also be dependent on Russia for some of their electricity because most new electric generation that has been installed relies on gas turbines.

The effect of Russia's energy dominance of Europe is a massive geopolitical change, binding Europe to Russia at the expense of its old alliances.

Perhaps this is worrisome. But Russia is not the old Soviet Union. Russia is militarily weak and greatly in need of the money that energy sales provide. Had the Soviet Union, with massive numbers of troops poised to invade NATO, earned this money from sales of energy to NATO countries, I'd have worried about the Western European reliance on Moscow.

The reality is that even a post-Cold War Europe stupidly convinced that mere military power is obsolete is much more powerful than Russia. As long as Russia is a geographically vast but hobbled giant, the Russians should worry more that European reliance on Russian energy will lead Europe to exert influence on Moscow to ensure reliable supplies. The Russians should worry that Europe will see its economic and military superiority as tools to compel Russia to keep the energy flowing. Does anybody worry that Canada or Venezuela or Mexico exert undue influence over America because they export energy to us? Do people worry that Sudan will pull China's strings because China is exploiting oil fields there? Sure, Saudi Arabia's position as the largest exporter stays our hand but not because the Saudis sell oil to us. It is because they have such a large share of the total exports that any disruptions will ripple across the globe. And recall, too, that thirty years ago there was talk of whether we would invade Saudi Arabia to ensure oil supplies if the Saudis cut us off. Even Saudi influence has limits. Power disparities matter.

Look, I want Russia thinking of the West as its natural home. Perhaps the income from the oil sales will make Russia value its position as a European state and Russian rulers will start thinking of Russia as a European state.

Perhaps this development is worrisome, but given that circumstances are different now than in 1988, I am not worked up about this. Indeed, I tend to think this can work to our advantage.

Lord, Give Me Strength

As I've noted with frustration, what won't offend Islamists and those living in the West who are sympathetic toward the Islamists? I mean, every damn little thing sets them off.

Mark Steyn notes that many in the West's Leftist ranks show as much eagerness to understand and accomodate every whacko grievance of the Islamists as they they show glee in ridiculing Christianity. Even the symbol of England offends. In England:

Thus, Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British understanding, already feels Ms Owers's ban is insufficient. The cross of St George, he explains, is offensive to Muslims because it was carried by English crusaders in the 11th century.

Hmm. Would that be the 11th century that ended nine and a bit centuries ago? When a fellow's got hang-ups about things that happened a millennium ago, there's no point trying to assuage them; he'll only unearth some earlier grievance, demanding the Natural History Museum be dismantled because some stegosaurus was disrespectful to Muslims back in the Jurassic era.

How is it possible for Westerners to be so darned sensitive?

I'm tired of the West's untiring efforts to understand every loony complaint about Western lack of sensitivity. Let's practice acceptance of diversity but adopt a "reasonable Moslem" standard for judging offense. At one end we'll have discrimination against Moslems in housing and flushing Korans as obviously bad things. At the other end we'll have complaints about Piglet mugs as just too stupid to even acknowledge.

Just once, I'd like to see some worries from Moslems that head chopping, suicide bombings, and honor killings of women offend us. And Piglet bans, too.

These things do offend all of us in the West, don't they?

Bird Flu

Via Real Clear Politics, an interesting map of the bird flu.

The map shows that only birds have gotten sick in China. I just don't trust that we will get the full story of what is happening inside China from the Chinese government.

If that government conceals a spreading epidemic out of fear of bad publicity, will the flu grow too large to contain when outsiders looking in can finally see what is happening?

Our Military Reserves

Sometimes the press treats our military reserves like a bunch of innocent civilians who have somehow--God knows how--found themselves at war. Poor dumb victims of the Green Machine, or something.

This article trumpets the fact that American casualties have increasingly been reservists, up from the lower levels of the invasion and first rotation. The article says:

The Army National Guard, Army Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve accounted for more than half of all U.S. deaths in August and in September — the first time that has happened in consecutive months. The only other month in which it even approached 50 percent was June 2004.

At least the article provides some context to explain this heralded fact:

At present, of the approximately 152,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about half are reservists: 49,000 Army National Guard, 22,000 Army Reserve and 4,000 Marine Reserve, according to figures provided by those organizations.

So half of our troops in Iraq are reservists? Might explain the higher casualties, eh?

And of course, the article hints at the structure of our military--the Abrams Doctrine--which requires use of the reserves for any large or lengthy war:

Since the Vietnam era, the military has given the Guard and Reserve more vital support functions like military police and engineers, so that any major conflict would involve more than just the active-duty force. Thus it was inevitable that a sizable portion of the force in Iraq would be Guard and Reserve; what has made the Iraq experience so different is the large numbers of reservists getting killed and wounded.

And keep in mind that we have large numbers of reserve combat formations in Iraq in order to allow the regular active component to reorganize into the new brigade combat teams:

Lt. Gen. James Lovelace, the Army's deputy chief of staff for operations, said in an interview that the increased reliance on the Guard and Reserve in 2005 was deliberately planned to allow active-duty units like the 3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne Division to complete a reorganization before they returned to Iraq.

So before you think that you know what the real story of this article is, consider that we have lots of reservists in Iraq so it is natural that reservist casualties are higher now. And remember that reliance on the reserves is a feature--not a bug--designed to make sure that draftees aren't sent to war without reminding the public that we are at war. Reservists being called up make sure that the public cannot just let the nation go to war without feeling the pain of pulling productive people out of our society. War is not undertaken lightly under these circumstances.

And remember that the military is putting a higher burden on the reserves in order to reorganize the active component. This factor will disappear after this year and reserve casualties will go down as the active component takes the lead again. This would happen even if we are not able to draw down our forces as Iraqis take the lead.

But his focus on body counts misses the real story.

Our reserves have taken the lead in our major theater of war and have led our military effort during a very difficult year. And the result is that we are closer to victory. What other country could have placed the responsibility for its central front in the hands of reservists and achieved such results?

Our reservists are not victims. They are our military reserves and we have planned to use them in war. And they have fought with skill and brought great honor to their communities. The active component beat Saddam; and the reserves beat back the insurgents and terrorists, buying time for the Iraqis to assume the lead role.

We can be proud of our soldiers and Marines--active and reserve--who have brought us to the verge of total victory in Iraq.

We must not let them down by retreating even as we win this fight.

Poor Post-War Planning

The Sunni Baathists who want to reclaim their role as top body shredders, rapers, and plunderers think that they are using the foreign jihadis to break our will and compel us to leave Iraq.

The jihadis are not just going to high five the ex-Saddam guys, throw flowers, let the Baathists resume UN-recognized thuggery, and retire to their French villas to write their memoirs. As a recent letter from Zawahiri captured by the US military warning about Zarquawi's slaughter-fest states:

"And it is that the Mujaheddin must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us," the letter reportedly says.

The jihadis are using the Baathists, too, and should we pull out of Iraq too soon, the fighting would not die down in kite-flying happiness. What happens after our hoped-for departure may not be terribly clear to the Baathists but it is clear to the jihadis.

It might justify an investigation into poor post-war planning by the Baathists.

Borderline Insanity

The Russian border dispute with China has been put off, but not resolved, [UPDATE: Link to now-dead article in Internet Archives] by the Russian-Chinese Treaty of 2001. The treaty can be broken by either side after twenty years.

As the article notes, both sides have reason to keep the border quiet for now. China is focusing on Taiwan and Russia is too broke to defend itself. Russia clearly hopes that the balance of forces will shift its way by 2021. Either Russia is economically strong enough to defend their Far East or China gets blasted a bit by the US and Japan in a war over Taiwan (a war the Russians seem determined to facilitate). China must either hope to own Taiwan by then or be strong enough economically to build a military strong enough to cope with both threats at the same time.

Clearly, we need to make sure that China can't capture Taiwan by 2021. And we have to get Russia to think of itself as a Western nation and encourage its economic and political evolution. If China can't do a smash and grab on Taiwan in the next fifteen years and if Russian recovery as a part of the West can be achieved, China will have to start diverting resources to defend their border with Russia whether the Taiwan issue is solved or not.

So can Russia revive economically, stay reasonably democratic, and integrate with the West? This thinking is not encouraging:

In the view of Sholban Kara-ool, Chairman of the Tuvan Parliament and Deputy Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of Russia’s Federation Council, “The erratic nature of US foreign policy has been a contributing factor. When (your) foreign policy is unpredictable, it means we must plan based upon the worst case scenario.”

Remember, however, before you go off on an anti-Bush rant about how Iraq has spoiled all our friendships, that this treaty dates to 2001. So the erratic nature of our foreign policy must be a 1990s issue for Russia. Given Russia's risky moves to protect their Serb brethren after the Kosovo War, this adventure might have been the deciding factor in Russia's view of our foreign policy. Really, since September 11, our foreign policy has been pretty predictable: we will not accept anti-American states or groups that carry out terrorism, inspire terrorism, or pursue nuclear weapons. Russia may not like the effects of that policy but it is hardly unpredictable.

Yet seeking the warm embrace of the rising Dragon of China will not let the Bear slumber at peace in its period of hibernation:

According to former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, “strategic partnership between Moscow and Beijing is no more than a slogan. In fact, Russia can be only a junior partner there, and it would never agree to that.” There is a basis for these misgivings. China’s army is double the size of Russia’s, and Chinese officials have articulated their plans for a massive (17.7 percent) increase in defense spending. It is no wonder that one Western diplomat, in describing the Russia- China relationship, put it this way: “When they get together, it’s all smiles and bear hugs, but beneath that, there is still profound mistrust between the two.”

Many Russians realize that this treaty is a short-term measure and that things could change for the worst in time:

Others take an even dimmer view. In the words of the late Gen. Alexandr Lebed, one-time candidate for the Russian presidency and governor of Krasnoyarsk:

The current Russian policy (toward China) is not understandable. Our brilliant minds in the military are selling them aircraft. These aircraft will bring bombs one day to our heads.

And though Russia does not see itself as Western, the fear of China may yet compel a reassessment of their policies that value opposing the West more than defending against China:

A March 2001 interview with Sergei Karaganov, Chairman of the Foreign and Defense Policy Council, a prominent Russian think tank with ties to the Russian government, illustrates this: Question: “What should Russia’s attitude be toward NATO eastward expansion?”Karaganov: “We should oppose it. Of course, we could spend tremendous effort and resources on fighting this ‘Evil,’ but it is the same as trying to restrict population growth in China from the outside. By the way, the latter is potentially more dangerous for Russia.”

The Russians fear the demographics of the Far East but numbers of Chinese in Russia seem hard to nail down. It is either a real problem or a nightmare vision that is real only in the imaginations of Russians. Either way, the disparity of numbers on either side of the map line indicate that should the Chinese government decide to flood Russia with Chinese settlers to create facts on the ground, Russia would be swamped and provide a nice excuse for Peking to intervene.

I hope we can push China to look inward toward Asia and away from Taiwan. If not, we need to make sure that China knows it can't win in the Taiwan Strait until the growing strength of Russia makes them look over the shoulders a little bit.

And we need to get Russia to think of itself as a Western power. The Great Wall of Putin will not keep Russia safe.

Fist of God?

The earthquake in Pakistan is horrible. Tens of thousand appear to have died. It is difficult to comprehend how so many people could be snuffed out so quickly.

Amidst the tragedy, I find it hard to believe that we might have gotten extremely lucky in snuffing out somebody who would love to kill hundreds of thousands of us in a flash:

The quake shook the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where bin Laden is believed to be hiding. However, authorities at this point have no information indicating he's been injured or killed, said a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the information's sensitivity.

Normally, it would not even have occurred to me that a golden boulder could have pounded that bastard bin Laden into paste. But I don't get why there is even a story. Why is information that nothing happened "sensitive?" How does "no information" get forwarded to US authorities?