AFRICOM Model

My Jane's email updates notes a success story in the world of Islam and democracy:

Contrary to Western stereotypes of the Muslim world, Senegal is among both the most democratic and devout Islamic states in sub-Saharan Africa. Combining a staunch commitment to secularism inherited from French colonial rule with a deep attachment to the faith networks pervading society, it presents a paradoxical success story of tolerance and political adaptability.

I can't say I know much about Senegal. I'm sure AFRICOM does. And I'm sad to say that if Senegal is indeed the success story of Islam and democracy that Jane's says it is, it will be a target for al Qaeda and other jihadis.

I may not think we really need AFRICOM, but as long as it exists, I dare say Senegal will be of high interest to us as an asset to protect.

Two Interesting Things

If we were going to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, one problem is that we wouldn't want to kill Russian technicians at the main facility at Bushehr.

So this is interesting:

The representatives — a European diplomat and a U.S. official — said a large number of Russian technicians, engineers and other specialists have returned to Moscow in the past week, at about the same time senior Russian and Iranian officials tried unsuccessfully to resolve financial differences over the Bushehr nuclear reactor. They spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because their information was confidential.

"A good number of them have left recently," said the U.S. official, of the approximately 2,000 Russian workers on site of the nearly completed reactor outside the southern city of Bushehr. The European diplomat, who is accredited to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, said a large number had left as recently as last week.

Quite interesting. Could the Russians have made a quick calculation of costs about their help to the Iranian nuclear project? I guess eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat would eliminate the need to put anti-missiles in Eastern Europe--a move the Russians have protested with much gusto.

Of course, if we strike Iran, they will strike back--probably against Israel with forces in Lebanon and perhaps with long-range missiles from Iran that survive our assault.

So this is interesting, too. The Israelis are staging a huge civil defense drill:

A total of 5,000 police, or 25 percent of the overall operational force, and 6,000 soldiers were to take part in the drill, security officials said. About 130 communities will be involved in the operation, Rosenfeld said.

If I was really suspicious, I'd say these are connected events. But I've thought I've seen signs of impending assault on Iran many times in the last three years. A couple dots do not make a full picture. Except in retrospect when everyone should have seen it coming based on those two dots. It is too easy to connect dots to create the picture you expect to see.

But you never know.

A Losing Hand

The Iranian government is upset over the movie "300" concerning the Battle of Thermopylae:

Iranian cultural adviser Javad Shangari calls the Warner Bros. film, which isn't being shown in Iran, "part of a comprehensive U.S. psychological warfare aimed at Iranian culture," Variety said Wednesday.


A Warner Bros. spokesman said "300" is a work of fiction inspired by the Frank Miller graphic novel and only "loosely based" on an historical event in ancient Persia. The movie is not meant to "disparage an ethnicity or culture or make any sort of political statement," the spokesman said.

That didn't stop the Iranian daily Ayandeh-No to trumpet the headline "Hollywood declares war on Iranians." There also is an online petition with 35,000 signatures headed Warner Brothers' way.

Hollywood declares war on Iranians? I wish.

But really, a pair of tens and a three (300 Spartans) just doesn't beat three fours (444 days held hostage) as a winning hand.

Happy Persian New Year

Well, it looks like the Iranian new year started without any surprises from the mullahs.

Demanding a Second Surrender

The Spanish surrendered once to the jihadis after their 11-M attack by withdrawing from Iraq.

The Spanish sent troops to Afghanistan, but even though the Spanish government doesn't actually let those troops fight, the jihadis are angry:

In response to the latest Islamist threat against Spain, the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (Partido Socialista Obrero Español - PSOE) thought it appropriate to assure Spaniards that "Afghanistan is not Iraq." PSOE officials told news agencies that while the war in Iraq was "illegal," the mission in Afghanistan is being supported by the UN and includes 37 countries. It turns out Islamic terrorists don't care all that much about the distinction.

In a video issued this month by the Global Islamic Media Front, a hooded man warns that the presence of Spanish troops in Afghanistan "exposes Spain again to threats." The terrorist also delivers a message to all those Spaniards who flocked to the polls to elect the Socialists after the March 11 Madrid bombings: "The Spanish people have been tricked by a Socialist government which withdrew troops from Iraq and sent 600 to Afghanistan." So much for Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's assurances that the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq would make the country safer.

Huh. Jihadis who think Spain itself should be part of the caliphate are upset that Spain fights in the "good" and "legal" war?

Those jihadis lack some serious nuance, I think. But what do you expect from Consider their simplistic views about Spain:

In fact, the danger facing Spain is greater today than it was on March 11, 2003. Fernando Reinares, former terrorism advisor to the Interior Ministry and senior analyst at the Elcano Royal Institute, told the Los Angeles Times, "It is undoubtedly true that Spain is much more of a target today than before." One reason for the increased threat level is that Al Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri, has been calling for the reconquest of Spain about as much as Hamas leaders call for the destruction of Israel. Last month he exhorted Islamists in the Maghreb -- the northwestern part of Africa where 80 % of the 300 terrorist suspects arrested in Spain since March 11 come from -- "to once again feel the soil of Al Ándalus beneath your feet." Previously Zawahiri had called for liberating Muslim land "from Iraq to Al Ándalus."

At what point do the Spanish government and people stop trying to figure out just how to surrender to the jihadis and instead resolve to fight them and kill them?

Because according to the jihadis, there isn't much difference between "over there" and "over here" when it comes to Spain itself. I know that lacks nuance, but there it is.

When What You Don't See Really Exists

Today's multiculturalism as practiced by our Left and European institutional society refuses to acknowledge that killers exist in the Moslem world. Fearful of unfairly tainting the entire Islamic religion with the crimes of the few Moslems, the multiculturalists' solution is to refuse to admit the minority is guilty at all. Why do they hate us, the multiculturalists ask? Surely, such behavior as suicide bombings, stabbings, and beheadings must be caused by something we did.

Yet by refusing to admit that a minority of Islam is guilty of crimes through no fault of our own, this outlook contributes to the popular view that Moslems are guilty collectively. By arguing that it taints all Moslems to simply point out that a minority of Moslems are guilty of waging war on us, it is logical to assume that the minority fights in the name of all. After all, nobody is confused about who the terrorists are. They are Moslem terrorists. But if the Left won't identify them, fearful of tainting all Moslems, many can wrongly but logically assume all Moslems must be guilty rather than a minority. Why else would the majority be offended by noting that some Moslems are thug killers?

This fraud can go on for a while. But eventually the majority will react against the refusal to fight the terrorists and their ideology.

We in America see little of this frustration against Moslems in our people because we allow our Moslems to integrate better and because we are fighting the terrorists actively. But in Europe, where any active and open help against Islamic terrorism is hard to get, the people are more prone (tip to Instapundit) to reacting against all Moslems:

Although the EU warns against "Islamophobia," those who live in the real world know that there has been an explosion of violent infidelophobia in Western Europe staged by Muslim immigrants. This wave of violence especially targets Jews, but the attacks against Christians that are going on in the Middle East are increasingly spreading to Europe as well. In more and more cities across the continent, non-Muslims are being harassed, robbed, mugged, raped, stabbed and even killed by Muslims. Native Europeans are slowly becoming second-rate citizens in their own countries.

This violence by Muslims is usually labelled simply as "crime," but I believe it should more accurately be called Jihad. Those who know early Islamic history, as described in books such as The Truth About Muhammad by Robert Spencer, know that looting and stealing the property of non-Muslims has been part and parcel of Jihad from the very beginning. In fact, so much of the behavior of Muhammad himself and the early Muslims could be deemed criminal that it is difficult to know exactly where crime ends and Jihad begins. In the city of Oslo, for instance, it is documented that some of the criminal Muslim gangs also have close ties to radical religious groups at home and abroad. As Dutch Arabist Hans Jansen points out, the Koran is seen by some Muslims as a God-given "hunting licence," granting them the right to assault and even murder non-Muslims. It is hardly accidental that while Muslims make up about 10% of the population in France, they make up an estimated 70% of French prison inmates.

As I've argued, I don't think Europe will be swamped by Moslems as Steyn writes. Before Moslems can take over, I think native Europeans will react with the brutal violence that the Europeans have shown themselves able to inflict on others (and each other). Bosnia and Kosovo are just hints of what all Europeans can do when they feel their backs are against the wall. Even the Swedes who seem eager to surrender to the immigrants could rebound. There are Swedish graves deep inside Russia that harken back to the days when Swedish armies invaded Russia.

Yet the European elites who seek to impose suicidal multiculturalism even as they are insulated (in the short run) from the effects of that policy will resist a popular revolt against local jihad to maintain the multiculturalist ideology. The elite's view of democracy is amazingly up front:

European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso expressed unease with the prospect of a second Dutch constitution referendum. "Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more complicated and less predictable," he said "If a referendum had been held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the Euro, do you think these would have passed?"

Yes, ask the voters and they might not agree with you. Best not to ask, eh? The elites really do think they've identified the problem (European voters) and the solution (don't let the voters affect what the elites will do).

But if the European elites won't confront the Islamist killers in their midst as the people insist, the first target of the popular reaction to go up against a wall may well be the European elites. This will be necessary to throw off the tyranny of Brussels that sides with Islamic thugs.

Backs. Meet wall.

Show and Tell

We are continuing with our foolish policy of letting the Chinese military see our military forces up close:

Similarly, Adm. William Fallon, who has just left the Pacific Command in Hawai'i to take over the Central Command that is fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said in his final report to the U.S. Congress that the objective of Sino-U.S. exchanges was "to increase transparency between our respective militaries."

Further, he said such military exchanges, which were gradually expanded during his watch at Pacific Command, were intended "to break down barriers to understanding and reduce the potential for miscalculation."

Adm. Timothy Keating, who is scheduled to replace Fallon later this month, told a congressional committee that he planned to continue "a series of robust engagement with, principally, the People's Liberation Army." Referring to the China-Taiwan confrontation, Keating said: "If we deal with some frequency at several levels with the Chinese, if we exercise with them -- all services -- if we ensure they are aware of our capabilities and our intent, I think we will go a long way to diffusing potential strife across the Strait of Taiwan."

I think this is a terrible mistake.

The Chinese know we are more powerful than they are. They know that we have better technology. The even know we have better training. Yet we think that showing them our fleet and air power up close will make them fear tangling with us?

Hogwash.

If the Chinese go to war with us--over Taiwan for example--they will do so not because they think that they are militarily superior to us. They will go to war because they think they can beat us. That's a big difference.

If the Chinese go to war with us, they will believe that some factor outweighs our military superiority according to standard measures. They may believe we are too far to mass our power in time to make a difference. They may believe our fear of casualties will prevent us from fighting and a quick kill of one of our carriers will deter us. They may believe they have some super weapon that nullifies our advantages. They may simply believe we are too morally weak to fight.

I don't know what the reasons for Chinese confidence will be, but if they risk war with us they will by definition believe they can counter our apparent advantage.

And giving the Chinese a look at our forces will likely just give the Chinese reasons to believe they can overcome our defenses rather than believe they should just meekly accept the status quo over Taiwan or whatever else the Chinese would like to fight over. Remember, a Chinese decision to go to war with us needs to be rational as they see it--not as we see it. Shoot, I'm not even sure who the decisionmakers are on the question of war.

I was stunned a year ago when I read we were restarting these visits. I have not changed my mind. This program is a grave error on our part. The Chinese won't learn what we want to teach them.

Nuts! (Translated from Arabic)

Polling of Iraqis doesn't suggest the hopeless air of despair and defeat that Congress is trying to ensure this year so far. (Tip to Instapundit). The poll suggests this fight is not the hopeless quagmire that our press would have you believe:

The poll shows that despite the horrendous personal security problems only 26% of the country preferred life under the previous regime of Saddam Hussein, with almost half (49%) preferring life under the current political system. As one may expect, it is the Sunnis who are most likely to back the previous regime (51%) with the Shias (66%) preferring the current arrangements.

First off, since most Kurds are Sunni, it would have been more helpful to survey based on Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, and Kurds, rather than by religion and then separately by Arab or Kurd. It is tought to figure out how they overlap.

Regardless, an interesting poll result is this:

Nationally a small majority (53%) feels that the security situation in Iraq will get better in the immediate weeks following a withdrawal of the MNF. A quarter (26%) believes the situation will deteriorate with the remainder predicting no change or answering "Don't know."

It is in the South where people most strongly believe that the withdrawal of the MNF will see the security situation improve. By a ratio of nearly seven to one the Shia dominated South feels that the situation will get "a great deal/little better" (69%) rather than "worse" (10%). In the Sunni North however opinion is more evenly divided – 46% feel it will get better and 37% feel it will get worse.

Given that in the south the people aren't the victims of violence, but mostly only hear about Sunni-Shia violence in the central region, I bet that those Shias are reflecting the view that if Americans just got out of the way, the Shias could kill or expel the Sunni Arabs and end their terror campaign the traditional way of dealing with insurrection. My guess is that's what they define as our withdrawal leading to the situation "improving."

In support of this theory, note that only 8% in the Shia south feel that Iraq is in a state of civil war and that 75% of those in the Shia south feel today's government is better than life under Saddam.

Yet as a nation gripped by violence, there is naturally plenty of bad news to emphasize. And this article sure does serve up a heaping helping of despair to fuel a retreat:

The optimism that helped sustain Iraqis during the first few years of the war has dissolved into widespread fear, anger and distress amid unrelenting violence, a survey found.

And on the way home I had to listen really closely to realize that NPR's report was about this poll. They stated that the poll said a majority of Iraqis thought Iraq under Saddam was better.

Given that most violence is restricted to the areas around Baghdad plus Anbar, one wonders about this poll result (from the poll, not the dreadful article):

While 63 percent said they felt very safe in their neighborhoods in late 2005, only 26 percent feel that way now.

Fighting has not spread to the rest of Iraq. Is this reduced feeling of safety driven by reading and watching reports of violence in other areas of Iraq? Is this linked to the view by southern Shias that things would improve if our troops left? Makes sense to me.

Still, remember that for all the stress of the current times, darned few Iraqis pine for those kite-flying days of legend. Heck, according to the poll, 54% of those surveyed in Baghdad--the focal point of terrorism in Iraq--think things are better now than under Saddam.

So I guess the calls for us to just surrender Iraq to the enemy have been met by a resounding rebuke of "Nuts!" by the Iraqis themselves, despite the very real price they are paying to fight those jihadi, Baathist, and Persian-directed killers who would destroy all they hope to achieve.

UPDATE: Indeed, the Iraqis who see our "invasion" as the liberation it was from a despot who enjoyed killing his many enemies and even more numerous imagined enemies, do not wish to surrender to the killers no matter what are Congressonal leaders want them to do:

No doubt people who follow the news as it is being reported in the West get the impression that we’re fighting a lost war, and I feel that there won’t be a day when our struggle to live a normal life and what we achieve in this path will make headlines that run above those of death.

You look around in Baghdad now and see hundreds of men working in the streets to pick up garbage; to plant flowers and paint the blast walls in joyful colors. Many of Baghdad’s squares are becoming green and clean. The picture isn’t perfect, but it’s a clear attempt to beat violence and ease pain through giving the spring a chance to shine.

Nights in Baghdad now are far from quiet, but the sounds cause less anxiety for me than they did before. I recognize the rumble of armor and thump of guns and they assure me that the gangs and militias do not dominate the night as they once did.

When Arabs or westerners ask me about the situation and I answer that hope remains and that we’re looking forward to a better future most would say ‘Are you living in this world?’ I answer, ‘Yes, it’s you who live in the parallel world the media built for you with images of only death and destruction’.

If it surprised some of them that a poll found Iraqis optimistic, then I’m surprised that someone finally bothered to ask Iraqis how they feel.

Just as free birds would never return to the cage, we don’t want to return to the days of the tyrant. Birds do not care that beasts roam outside and would not feel nostalgic for a home or meal mixed with humiliation.

All that a free bird cares about is to spread wings and fly as it pleases.

Many on the Left drone on about "doing something" about the death in Darfur. Yet they only support doing something in the magical sense of imagining that we could stop the slaughter in Darfur without American soldiers and Marines fighting, killing, and dying to defeat the evil thugs who kill for fun and profit. I know this because our Marines and soldiers are on the ground every day in Iraq fighting the Mesopotamian branch of the evil killers and the same Left that implores the President to do something about the killers in Darfur don't want us to do anything to stop the killers in Iraq.

Don't abandon Iraqis who want a free Iraq. We are building a free ally that even now is standing with us. Those who say Iraqis are doing enough are fools. They are fighting, dying, and suffering to defeat the evil thugs who know no boundaries for killing decent people and a promising future.

CORRECTION: The NPR report was not the same British poll but another poll by ABC. While more pessimistic in tone, NPR did not ignore the more positive opinions noted in the original subject of this post.

CORRECTION: Ah. And the AP article I cited as heaping up despair is about the ABC poll, too. Sorry 'bout that, chief.

Caloric Credits?

Truly, the religious nature of the global warming movement can hardly be denied when the faithful consume energy at an ever expanding rate yet claim to be green because they've paid somebody else to consume less energy:

Leo and Al then portentously announced that for the first time ever, the Academy Awards ceremony had gone green. What did that mean? Solar panels in the designer gowns? It turns out that the Academy neutralized the evening's "carbon footprint" by buying carbon credits. That means it sent money to a "carbon broker," who promised, after taking his cut, to reduce carbon emissions somewhere on the planet equivalent to what the stars spewed into the atmosphere while flying in on their private planes.

In other words, the rich reduce their carbon output by not one ounce. But drawing on the hundreds of millions of net worth in the Kodak Theatre, they pull out lunch money to buy ecological indulgences. The last time the selling of pardons was prevalent--in a predecessor religion to environmentalism called Christianity--Martin Luther lost his temper and launched the Reformation.

Next, you'll be telling me that Al Gore and Michael Moore are actually well within their body mass index limits because they've purchased caloric offsets from poor Third World children.

They probably purchase some Cocaine Offsets, too, from some Buddhist monestary. [Let me clarify some late St. Patrick's Day blogging. The "they" is a slam at the Hollywood types in the cited article who boasted of their Academy offsets--not VP Gore and Moore. Although the monestary reference could have been a clue without this clarification.]

Because really, sacrificing your lifestyle is for the little people. Most of the world has so little already, what's a little less for billions of unfashionably poor so that the truly concerned can light up the neighborhood and drive home in air-conditioned limousine comfort?

To say I have contempt for these people doesn't do justice to what I think.

Another Pants Stuffer

Our National Archives people lost some more presidential documents:

An intern with the National Archives stole about 165 Civil War documents — including the War Department's announcement of President Lincoln's death — and sold most of them on eBay, prosecutors charged Thursday.

As the Sandy Berger precedent has established, this is no big deal. So the overzealous Civil War buff will surely be slapped on the wrist for his tiny mistake and sent on his way to steal no more!

If the intern is actually punished for this crime, we may have to consider just what mistake of the Clinton administration was that intern trying to hide by stealing those documents? Otherwise, you might have to consider that Sandy Berger got away with murder!

And that can't happen! I mean, there aren't two Americas out there for stealing documents from the National Archives, are there?

No Answer for ANSWER

International ANSWER, the communist group that loves North Korea and Iran, organized an anti-war rally in Washington, D.C. They said tens of thousands would join them. But the group could only manage about their own pathetic membership and some Vietnam-era retreads. Counter-protesters shadowed them:

The anti-war group carried signs saying "U.S. Out of Iraq Now," "Stop Iraq War, No Iran War, Impeach." The other side carried signs saying "al-Qaida Appeasers On Parade" and "Fight Jihad Not GIs."

The article doesn't mention International ANSWER, but the signs give the game away. Apparently the reporters in the linked story weren't curious enough to find out who organized this "anti-war" rally and who attended. But details like that would interfere with the intended message that mom and pop America are turning on our troops and our mission. No Iran war, indeed.

As for the Iraq War, I believe the protesters should be marching in Tehran, Damascus, and in small towns in Anbar. If they stop shooting, bombing, and gassing, the war will end.

But of course, the protesters aren't really anti-war. Just anti-American. These are the nutroots that our new Congress is suddenly listening to.

Americans may be tired that we haven't won yet and question the conduct of the war, but they aren't really anti-war. Given the way the press reports wrongly on the war and the failure of the administration to wage a full public campaign to maintain support, it is actually fairly amazing to me that the protests are so weak four years after we launched Operation Iraqi Freedom and 5-1/2 years after we struck the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I think that in part it is because of the blogosphere. With the press and the elites constantly portraying a losing war effort, without the blogosphere, war supporters and neutrals would not know that they are joined by tens of millions of others who don't want to surrender and who believe we either are winning or should win. I'm but a small voice on this side, but that is why I do this ultimately.

There is no substitute for victory.

Or there shouldn't be, anyway.

UPDATE: Instapundit notes a Washington Post article that highlights the size of the pro-victory marchers and the identity of the anti-war organizers.

The victory supporters, thousands of them and many veterans, made the the anti-American protesters feel unwelcome in our nation's capital:

The vets turned both sides of Constitution into a bitter, charged gantlet for the war protesters. "Jihadists!" some vets screamed. "You're brain-dead!" Others chanted, "Workers World traitors must hang!" -- a reference to the Communist newspaper. Some broke into "The Star-Spangled Banner" as war protesters sought to hand out pamphlets.

The early reports of low turnout for the communist-organized rally combined with this report of unexpected support for the war hints that the communist front people may have been outnumbered. The lack of a comparison of the two groups in the Post article also suggests that this could be so--or at least parity. If the anti-victory side had more people I find it hard to believe that the writers and editors wouldn't have put that little context in there.

Instapundit also notes the origins of the group that organized this "anti-war" rally in an article describing International ANSWER's role [link updated] in the protests prior to the war:

The demonstration was essentially organized by the Workers World Party, a small political sect that years ago split from the Socialist Workers Party to support the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. The party advocates socialist revolution and abolishing private property. It is a fan of Fidel Castro’s regime in Cuba, and it hails North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il for preserving his country’s “socialist system,” which, according to the party’s newspaper, has kept North Korea “from falling under the sway of the transnational banks and corporations that dictate to most of the world.” The WWP has campaigned against the war-crimes trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. A recent Workers World editorial declared, “Iraq has done absolutely nothing wrong.”

Officially, the organizer of the Washington demonstration was International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism). But ANSWER is run by WWP activists, to such an extent that it seems fair to dub it a WWP front. Several key ANSWER officials — including spokesperson Brian Becker — are WWP members. Many local offices for ANSWER’s protest were housed in WWP offices. Earlier this year, when ANSWER conducted a press briefing, at least five of the 13 speakers were WWP activists. They were each identified, though, in other ways, including as members of the International Action Center.

And as to my theory that blogs are helping keep support for the war stronger than it normally would be with our history of war weariness after three years, the Post article states:

The large turnout surprised even some counter-demonstrators. Polls show public opinion turning against the war in Iraq, and the November election was widely seen as a repudiation of the administration's policy.

"I've never been to a war rally. I hoped I'd never have to," said Jim Wilson, 62, a Vietnam vet from New Hampshire. "We're like what they used to call the silent majority."

Would such supporters have known their numbers with the press taking the side of the anti-war people and without the Internet to share their views and know they are not isolated?

The keyboard brigades are doing our job of maintaining the trinity of people, state, and military in support of the war. This could be an amazing story to be examined when this war is won.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers. In a coincidence, I think I must have been updating to link Instapundit a little before Instapundit linked here.

Remember, anti-Americans have the right to dissent, but that doesn't mean you should ignore that dissent has a price.

Let's Talk About Killing Us

The Germans think we should discuss putting anti-missile defenses in Europe:

The German foreign minister suggested Saturday that the U.S. plan to build a missile defense system in Europe has merits, but said an open discussion was needed to address concerns from all sides.

The U.S. plan envisions 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar base in the neighboring Czech Republic to protect Europe and the east coast of the U.S. from the possibility of rockets launched from the Middle East.

We are worried about Iranian missiles striking our allies in Europe. The Russians have expressed worries that they might not be able to nuke the Europeans.

So the Germans think we should address the concerns of all sides. Iranians want the ability to nuke Europe. The Russians want the ability to nuke Europe. We want the ability to stop the Iranians from nuking Europe.

Erm, what are we supposed to be discussing? Shouldn't it be disturbing to the Germans that the Russians are throwing a nuclear tantrum over ten missiles that might reduce by a small amount the nuclear rubble that Russia could create?

Truly, the fetish to discuss everything rather than act has been carried to yet another ridiculous extreme by our European friends.

Fine. We'll discuss it with the Russians and Germans. Perhaps we can align the missile radars so they only face an arc directly in the path of Iranians missiles. We'll offer to keep a nice clear path from Russia to Germany so the Germans won't have to insult the Russians by making the Russians think they can't nuke Germany into a full glow.

Everybody happy now?

People, not everybody's "concerns" should be assumed to be legitimate.

Terror

The jihadis in Iraq are resorting more to poison gas in their attacks:

Three suicide bombers driving chlorine-laden trucks struck in the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Anbar province, killing two policemen and forcing about 350 Iraqi civilians and six U.S. troops to seek treatment for exposure to the gas, the military said Saturday.

The attacks came after back-to-back bombings last month released chlorine gas, prompting the U.S. military to warn that insurgents are adopting new tactics in a campaign to spread panic.

Just after 4 p.m. Friday, a driver detonated explosives in a pickup truck northeast of Ramadi, wounding one U.S. service member and one Iraqi civilian, the military said in a statement.

That was followed by a similar explosion involving a dump truck south of Fallujah in Amiriyah that killed two policemen and left as many as 100 local citizens showing signs of chlorine exposure, with symptoms ranging from minor skin and lung irritations to vomiting, the military said.

Less than 10 miles away, another suicide bomber detonated a dump truck containing a 200-gallon chlorine tank rigged with explosives at 7:13 p.m., also south of Fallujah in the Albu Issa tribal region, the military said. U.S. forces responded to the attack and found about 250 local civilians, including seven children, suffering from symptoms related to chlorine exposure, according to the statement.

Our enemies are pretty sick monsters. The idea that they would go back to college and finish their accounting degree if only we'd leave Iraq is juvenile. And if the fact that we've liberated Iraqis from the thug Saddam and given them the chance for democracy has angered a number of Moslems, that is all the more reason to kill them.

But remember that gas is a terror weapon. Whether in World War I or the Iran-Iraq War, the use of gas killed a very tiny proportion of the total killed in those wars. Notice that in these statistics, few died while many were injured. I assume most of the injured will walk out of the hospitals.

Explosions disperse the gas and in the open wind carries it away. That is why it isn't that effective of a battlefield weapon. Though all suited up you are more likely to die from conventional weapons because you can't see or hear what is going on around you.

Our injured troops this year are probably the first injured by poison gas since the Bari disaster in World War II (where the German aircraft hit a ship carrying mustard gas in the port--which we kept on hand in case the Germans used gas--that spread into the town).

The use of gas will harden the Iraqis against the jihadis--especially the Kurds who were gassed by Saddam's forces in large numbers.

Even Sunni Arabs in central Iraq may finally get with the program and earn some credit with the Kurds and Shias by actively fighting the jihadis.

I have to believe that many Iranians will recoil from this sight given the number of Iranian soldiers who were hit by gas attacks in the 1980s. Will the mullah government's support for those monsters disgust enough Iranians?

Also consider that since the death tolls are lower with gas attacks, the standard press metric of measuring Iraqi casualties will go down if such attacks replace conventional bomb attacks.

Americans seeing our enemies using gas attacks may wonder just who in Iraq provided the expertise to fashion these home-made gas bombs. Fighting the enemy over there rather than over here may again be seen as the wise course of action that it is.

So while our enemies show they are disgusting pieces of living garbage who must be killed wherever we find them, this tactic should backfire on them on a number of fronts.

UPDATE: The attacks (tip to Instapundit) were directed against pro-government Sunni Arabs.

Will the Sunni Arabs of central Iraq be affected by the atrocities carried out on fellow Sunni Arabs by those who they stand with?

This is a Joke, Right?

I'm sorry but this just cracked me up.

It is a Defense Department news briefing with the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics from the Pentagon.

It is an ordinary press conference. On defense acquisition, technology, and logistics.

The briefer is ... wait for it! ... Mr. Ken Krieg.

That would be Mr. War for our German readers. It could only be better if he has a PhD and we could call him Doctor Krieg.

Sometimes you just can't make this stuff up. No offense intended to Mr. Krieg, who is surely a fine man and dedicated undersecretary.

The Real Shortage in Iraq

General Abizaid comments on the war in Iraq and the wider Long War:

How do you win a "long war" against Islamic extremism if your country has a short attention span? That's an overarching concern for Abizaid regarding a conflict in which time -- not troops, not tactics -- is the true strategic resource. "The biggest problem we've got is lack of patience," he says. "When we take upon ourselves the task of rebuilding shattered societies, we need not to be in a hurry. We need to be patient, but our patience is limited. That makes it difficult to accomplish our purposes."

Like I often say, I'd rather surge patience than troops. Now if Congress would hold hearings on that shortage and vow to ship over as much as our troops need, Congress might do some good.

So, What's Your Car Bomb Footprint?

The global warming crowd is basically the 700 Club without the bad press. They really do resemble "the end is nigh" freaks more than anything else.

And amazingly enough, these global warming fanatics truly believe that rising temperatures are more dire and imminent than evil men plotting right now to kill us in the millions if they can and in the dozens or scores until then just to keep in practice.

This is my one guilty pleasure that I indulge in now and again on the flimsy pretense that since the world bashes us over Kyoto it is kind of an international affairs issue.

I guess I also like to post on this issue since I think it shows that my analysis of events is not unduly swayed by conventional wisdom. I like to believe that I can avoid pressure and call events as I see them. When my reading of the issue leads me to question the global warming "consensus" and realize that there is no such consensus anyway, it makes me feel better that I can resist the temptation to alter my analysis of foreign events to match my biases. Certainly, I want to win the war we are in, but I hope that I don't just substitute desires for facts. I hope.

And it reassures me that yes, the press can get a big story wrong day after day and year after year. As long as they are all wrong the same way they never notice.

Anyway, Orson Scott Card has a nice essay on the hockey stick fraud that is the key argument for global warming scare tactics. My enjoyment was lessened by knowing what he was getting at from the start.

Card finishes up:

It is time for us to laugh at the ideologues who try to pretend that any criticism of Global Warming alarmism is idiotic and unscientific. They are the ones who ignore the data; they are the ones who believe on faith alone, without evidence; and, most important, they are the ones who are trying to stifle the opposition without answering it.

The Global Warming alarmists are the anti-science religion that is trying to forcibly indoctrinate and convert everyone while suppressing dissent. And the news media are their patsies, their stooges, their puppets.

The sad thing is that not all of the global warmer's goals are bad. But they demand the full acceptance of their entire belief set. Anything less is heresy and they will crusade against any deviation from their one holy and apostolic science.

Carbon neutral Americans? I'm more concerned about jihadis becoming car bomb neutral.

War Plan Orange-08

The Taiwanese believe they have to defend their island on their own for only a short time before American and possibly Japanese forces arrive to drive off the Chinese attackers.

The Chinese believe a rapid conquest of Taiwan before we can intervene will present us with a choice of liberating Taiwan or accepting the new status quo. The Chinese seem to believe we may fight to defend a still resisting Taiwan but that we won't liberate a conquered Taiwan.

As time passes, the military balance is tilting more toward the Chinese as the Chinese expand their military capabilities and the Taiwanese stagnate in many important areas. Greater Chinese capabilities also introduce uncertainty to the question of how fast we can respond. If the Chinese can deploy assets that can attack our forces as they approach the Taiwan area of operations, we will need to debate the risks of intervening more and be more cautious in approaching Taiwan. These factors will delay our intervention. Perhaps fatally if the Chinese are right.

Despite China's growing strength, we are still far more powerful than China and will be for decades more. China may never actually catch up with us given that we increase our power, too. But this isn't entirely relevant to the question at hand. Keeping Taiwan resisting long enough for us to concentrate our power to fight at their side is the key problem.

The situation that our military faced in the Philippines in 1941 is remarkably similar. Our Navy was far from the theater, the Japanese were close, some hoped air power (with new B-17s located in the Philippines) would savage the Japanese invasion force, and our Navy would lunge across the Pacific to rescue the defenders by engaging and defeating the Japanese navy.

The key then to allow this train of events to unfold was for the American ground forces to hold the critical Manila Bay to deny Japan the primary strategic asset of the islands until our forces could arrive. This was the heart of our War Plan Orange:

Under WPO-3, American troops were not to fight anywhere but in Central Luzon. (See Map 4.) The mission of the Philippine garrison was to hold the entrance to Manila Bay and deny its use to Japanese naval forces. U.S. Army forces, constituting an Initial Protective Force, consisting of regular U.S. Army troops, had the main task of preventing enemy landings. Failing in this, they were to defeat those Japanese forces which succeeded in landing. If, despite these attempts, the enemy proved successful, the Initial Protective Force was to engage in delaying action but not at the expense of the primary mission, the defense of Manila Bay. The Americans were to make every attempt to hold back the Japanese advance while withdrawing to the Bataan Peninsula. Bataan, recognized as the key to the control of Manila Bay, was to be defended to the "last extremity."

The Americans would need to hold for six months, for by then:

... the U.S. Pacific Fleet would have fought its way across the Pacific, won a victory over the Combined Fleet, and made secure the line of communications. The men and supplies collected on the west coast during that time would then begin to reach the Philippines in a steady stream. The Philippine garrison, thus reinforced, could then counter-attack and drive the enemy into the sea.

In practice, our top leaders knew we couldn't just lunge across the Pacific in less than a couple years time. But our Navy today could lunge across the Pacific in short order, so the theoretical assumption of 1941 is fine to retain for today's comparison purposes.

Our pre-war war plans in actually called for abandoning the Philippines to focus on defeating Germany first. But General MacArthur hoped to defend the islands without necessarily having to fall back on Bataan. He trained more Filipino troops, gathered supplies, had a small fleet, and had brand new B-17 long range bombers. He hoped to win with what he had.

But the Japanese knocked out our B-17s and our Asiatic Fleet bugged out rather than get sunk by the locally superior Japanese navy. The poorly trained and ill-equipped Philippine army could not face the Japanese, and the Japanese--despite having little in the way of specialized amphibious warfare assets--landed in strength and advanced off the beachheads quickly. It was back to War Plan Orange concepts of holding a toe hold until relieved.

Of course, despite the bravery of the American and Filipino defenders, Bataan could not hold until our fleet arrived--it was broken at Pearl Harbor and so there was no opportunity to even consider a relief expedition. And even without Japanese success at Pearl Harbor, our fleet could not have rescued our forces in the Philippines. Those forces were doomed. The island fortress of Corregidor fell to a Japanes assault a month after Bataan fell.

Today, Taiwan's air force and navy could share the fate of our Philippines-based forces in 1941. Like the Japanese who technically lacked dedicated amphibious warfare assets, the Chinese might make it ashore with a combination of naval and impressed civilian assets. Perhaps the Taiwanese army will be unable to stop the Chinese from carving out beachheads and airheads.

The one big difference is that our Navy certainly can respond in weeks rather than the months MacArthur hoped for or the two years our 1941 Navy assumed were needed.

So if the Taiwanese can't stop the PLAN from hitting Taiwan and coming ashore, what are Taiwan's Bataan and Corregidor that will let them keep the flame of Taiwanese democracy lit until help can arrive? And frankly, to possibly shame us into acting by denying China a quick victory and nullifying our peace movement the ability to argue that it is too late to do anything about the tragic but inevitable loss.

Could the Taiwanese replicate Bataan and build a fortress around one of their east coast ports? There, the Taiwanese could attempt to hold until US and Japanese forces could arrive in force. Our naval forces could counter-blockade Taiwan to keep the Chinese from supplying their occupation forces and let them wither until joint US and Taiwanese ground forces could counter-attack. With the Taiwanese drawing down their forces uselessly deployed to Quemoy and Matsu back to the main island, there would be additional forces to commit to the defense of a last-ditch bastion.

Taiwanese and American special forces acting as stay-behind forces could organize resistance on the remainder of the island, conduct attacks on PLAN rear areas that call in precision missiles from high flying bombers and submarines, and provide intelligence for the eventual counter-offensive.

Further, could the Taiwanese replicate Corregidor and use a small island further east as a last bastion for a remnant of a free Taiwan in case even this Bataan fell before help arrived? I don't even know if Taiwan has anything out east (the Pescadores to the west are unsuitable since they would likely be an early target for the Chinese. If not, Taiwan has money. They could buy a small island from somebody and equip it to hold and defend a shadow government of lower level officials (it should never be a haven for the top leadership which might tempt them to flee rather than fight).

And this concept shouldn't mean that the Taiwanese abandon efforts to sink the invasion force, shoot down the airborne forces, and rapidly (this is key) counter-attack any Chinese footholds in the early hours of entry when the enemy will be most vulnerable. Honestly, this is my main worry. The Taiwanese navy and air force will fight well, I think. But the army has to have the training, morale, and equipment to hit the Chinese fast. There should be no leisurely build up before counter-attacking--the Taiwanese need to strike early with whatever they have available to eliminate and not just contain PLAN footholds. But if Taiwan's defenses do crack early, they have to do what it takes to keep China from occupying the whole island.

I don't know nearly enough about Taiwan's geography to say where their Bataan should be other than to argue it should be on the east coast. But if the question is whether Taiwan can hold out long enough for American help to arrive, I think the concept is worthy of consideration.

A Torn Piece of Paper

The permanent five of the UN Security Council plus Germany have agreed on language for a new round of penalties aimed at Iran to punish them for pursuing nuclear programs with weapons applications:

The measure, which may be adopted next week, would penalize Tehran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment. Enriched uranium can be used in nuclear bombs or for peaceful ends.

The major-power agreement includes a ban on Iranian arms exports, an assets freeze on individuals and firms involved in Tehran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs and a call to nations and institutions to bar new grants or loans.

The mild sanctions on Iran may have a bigger impact on Iran than I figured simply due to the mismanagement of the mullahs and Ahmadinejad that has done more harm to their own economy than the international community could ever agree to do in the UN.

I do find it interesting that the resolution bans Iranian weapons exports. Under this resolution, when we identify Iranian weapons in southern Lebanon or in Iraq, we can point to an Iranian violation of a UN ban as a basis for acting against Tehran. It won't matter whether the Iranian government is exporting the weapons from the top or if lower levels are doing it on their own. That debate was always pointless and now it won't matter, if I'm drawing the right conclusion from the article.

The British are the sponsors of the resolution.

Ahmadinejad may call it a torn piece of paper, but the legal fetishists who scurry through the halls of the UN live or die by these pieces of paper. And if a torn piece of paper gives us authority to stop Iran's nuclear threat, then we'll have that torn piece of paper.

A Failure to Recognize Success?

One potential spark for a major problem for Iraq is the status of the Kurdish region. Iraq will be just fine with a loosely affiliated Kurdish region, but outright secession could spark a major problem. Do the Kurds realize how good they have it or will they over-reach and trigger forces they will not be able to handle?

The problem is that Kurds in Turkey might restart terrorism on a larger scale to win their own independence or to join the Kurds of Iraq (I actually doubt that the latter is likely given rivalries between the various groups of Kurds even within Iraq). Sadly, some of our politicians are foolishly promoting division of Iraq in a misguided effort to get us out of Iraq. This would likely prompt Turkish military intervention in northern Iraq. Unfortunately, triggers far less than independence for the Kurdish regions could spark conflict:

It would be ironic if, while the surge is beginning to show success in Baghdad, Senate leaders undercut Iraq's integrity. The Biden-Gelb plan may look good on paper. So did the Oslo Accords and, for that matter, the Bush administration's emphasis on holding free elections where they had never before been held. But in each case, good intentions were undermined by the same Achilles' heel: the unwillingness of U.S. officials to adopt a zero tolerance policy toward incitement and terrorism.

Iraqi Kurdish leaders continue to shelter the PKK. Whether their support is active or passive is irrelevant, for there are no acceptable levels of support for terror. Nor is it responsible to undercut the security of a long-term NATO ally like Turkey. Until Iraqi Kurdish leaders expel terrorists in their midst and renounce interests beyond Iraq's border, any congressional encouragement of ethnic federalism risks plunging the region into chaos.

We can't encourage the Iraqi Kurds to separate. And we can't let the Kurds actively or passively support terrorism in Turkey. The Turks will strike into Iraq if they continue to be hit by terrorists that are receiving sanctuary (even if just passively) in Kurdish regions. We can pressure the Turks to hold off only so long.

Any extra violence in Iraq--no matter what the cause or impact--will be treated as a sign of failure by our anti-war side. And Turkey will not accept terrorism coming out of Iraq any more than we would be happy to endure it. We may endure it from Pakistan, Syria, and Iran just as Turkey endures it from Iraq for now, but patience wears out in time without a solution.

We are not oblivious to the threat, of course:

Retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, a special envoy tasked with countering the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, said Wednesday in an Associated Press interview that U.S. pressure has resulted in moves against the group's operations by Iraqi and European authorities.

Turkish officials repeatedly have accused the United States of insufficient efforts to prevent attacks into Turkey from Iraq by the PKK, which has waged a guerrilla war for autonomy since 1984 at a cost of 37,000 lives. Turkey also has threatened military incursions into Iraq against the rebels, which the United States fears would alienate Iraqi Kurds, the most pro-American ethnic group in the region.

Ralston said the United States has not yet met Turkish demands for the capture of PKK operatives and destruction of a rebel base in a mountainous area of Iraq near the Turkish and Iranian border. He said, however, that the United States would consider options against the group available to a U.S. military stretched by many challenges in Iraq.

"All options are on the table," he said. "The PKK is a terrorist organization and needs to be put out of business."

We must keep the Iraqi Kurds from wrecking the positive future they have in their current status. Are the Kurds so used to being screwed over that they can't accept their current success? The Kurds can't succeed without our help and if the Kurds spark a larger war, all guarantees for them are off. The Kurds must have patience. And we and they must take enough action against PKK terrorists to keep Turkey below their intervention threshold.

Foreign policy is never simple. Competing interests compel us to balance what we do. Which is of course why I have some sympathy for the Pakistanis concerning the Afghan campaign. We want the Pakistanis to control their side of the border to keep Taliban and al Qaeda from hurting us in Afghansitan, but the Pakistani locals aren't cooperative or terrribly friendly about hunting the jihadis in their midst. And too much effort in the wild and barely controlled border regions by Pakistan could rebound against the very existence of a friendly Pakistani government.

If it isn't one thing, it's another.

Heresy

You know, for a "science" that only Halliburton stockholders deny, the Gorian faith of man-caused global warming sure takes a lot of hits in this documentary. As an article about the movie states:

The main cause of warming is, not surprisingly, the sun.

"The analogy I use," says Dr. Tim Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, "is my car's not running very well, so I'm going to ignore the engine, which is the sun, and I'm going to ignore the transmission, which is the water vapour and I'm going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel which is the human produced CO2. The science is that bad."

The film starts off covering indisputable facts. There was a Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than today -- that led to incredible wealth in Europe when the bulk of the continent's great cathedrals were built and when Britain had thriving vineyards. Then came the Little Ice Age that started in the 17th century and was so cold London's Thames River would freeze so solidly festivals were held on it.

About 10,000 years ago, during a time known as the Holocene Maximum, it was much warmer even than the Medieval times.

Apparently I am not, as my ex-wife calls me (in good nature, I should add), the last person on Earth not to think that man-made global warming is real.

Even if we are causing the planet to get warmer, why is it bad and why should we cripple our economy to try to maintain our current climate? Until somebody can tell me what the ideal planetary average temperature is, I don't give the Gorists much credibility. Our climate has always changed over time and it will continue to do so.

And if you are wondering why, for goodness sake, remember the big hot thing in the sky. It just might have something to do with how warm we are. Just maybe. It kind of even makes sort of sense, ya know?