Family Values

A fifteen-year-old suicide bomber who died while killing his brother and four others was sent by his al Qaeda father and encouraged by his mother:

"During investigations those five gave confessions, including that the boy's mother told him 'God be with you and we will meet in paradise,'" al-Issawi quoted the suspects as saying.

How delightful. The proud dad sends his own kid. That's a true believer. And a jihadi mother's love is special.

Foreign policy "realists" say we shouldn't worry about the civil war within Islam that seeks to determine whether parents will send their children to school or to murder.

President Bush wants to undermine this Islamofascist ideology before they can get the weapons to match their hatred.

So who is being realistic here?

Let the Why Do They Hate Us Questions Begin!

Al Qaeda supporters have questions for al-Qaida's Ayman al-Zawahri.

The article's questions are a fascinating exercise in who the jihadis hate:

Should followers be focusing their jihad, or holy war, against Arab regimes, or against Americans?

"When we will see the men of al-Qaida waging holy war in Palestine? Because frankly our situation has become very bad," writes one, with the username "Seeking the Path." "As for al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia," he asks, "are there efforts to revive jihadi action there after the blows that hurt us?"

Another, signed "Osama the Lion," asks: "Why doesn't al-Qaida open a front in Egypt, where there are wide opportunities and fertile ground for drawing in mujahedeen?"

Another, called "Knight of Islam," asks, "We are awaiting a strike against American soil. Why has that not been done? Why are the Jews in the world not struck?"

A few who write in claim to be active fighters in militant groups. One, with the username "Phenixshadow," says he is a member of the al-Qaida branch in North Africa that has been blamed for attacks in Algeria.

"What do you expect from us? Should we follow the instruction of the mother organization to target the 'far enemy' — the Zionist-Crusader (America) — or do we focus our efforts on the apostate regime (Algeria)? Or do you advise a middle path of striking both enemies?" he asks.

Another, signed "Alfirati60," says he is a Syrian who joined al-Qaida in Iraq before its leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed in a U.S. airstrike in 2006. The writer complains bitterly about al-Qaida's decision to form an umbrella group with other Iraqi insurgents known as "The Islamic State of Iraq."

"Things got worse after the organization joined the Islamic State, when Iraqis took over all the issues," he writes. The Iraqis care "only about liberating Iraq not about establishing God's law," an apparent reference to the al-Qaida goal of a single Islamic state.

"Indeed, they neglected many of the (non-Iraqi) brothers since they care only about the safety of Iraqis and Iraq."

"So I ask you, our sheik, is this just?" he writes. "There are many, many violations of Sharia Islamic law that those (Iraqis) who join the Islamic State commit, like failing to kill spies or apostates" — those who work with Americans — "because they are Iraqis."

He writes that he left Iraq and returned to "Sham," the old Arabic name for Syria and Lebanon. "I'm sorry to go on and on, our sheik, but you should be informed of what's going on" in Iraq, he says. "We want to act in the Sham, and we are ready to do so. We lack only the material and moral support from you."

Check out all the people that jihadis want to target! America, of course. And Israel. What self-respecting jihadi doesn't dream of killing Jews. But also Arab regimes that don't want to be part of the caliphate. Specifically mentioned in this article are Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Iraqi jihadis, Syria, and Lebanon.

It isn't just America that the jihadis hate and want to kill. So stop thinking that they hate us because of our foreign policy. Stop thinking that we can somehow reason with them. They are ar war with the world for purposes that don't depend on what we do or don't do.

But they aren't really at war with the whole world. Look at who jihadis would like to target but who won't be hit because al Qaeda has an alliance with them:

Another hot topic is Iran. Several ask why al-Qaida does not attack the mainly Shiite nation. They express concern over rumors of an understanding between al-Qaida and Iran. "One of the lies spread to fight al-Qaida is that al-Qaida is linked to Iran," one writes. "They point to your failure to attack the Iranian regime."

Our enemies hate so many people and don't seem to hate natural traditional enemies. Stop looking for reasons to avoid fighting and killing the jihadis.

UPDATE: More on who they hate:

Most nations don't appreciate just how much Islamic radicals hate the UN, seeing it as an infidel (non-Moslem) controlled organization that is supported by the rulers of Islamic nations that the terrorists want to overthrow. Al Qaeda also sees the UN as a high value target, in that any attack on this infidel organization is sure to get maximum coverage in the international media. In other worlds, killing UN staff is great for recruiting.

There's another reason for going after the UN. Because of the many good works the UN has done in Moslem countries, al Qaeda also sees a need to demonize the international organization. The UN is especially active in taking care of refugees, a group the terrorists rely on for recruits, especially for high risk missions (suicide bombers.)

The UN employees are in a bind. The jihadis hate them and the thug member states of the UN don't want to anger the jihadis enough to support our efforts to kill jihadis.

Spoiled Brats

Israel has cut off Gaza in an effort to halt Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. The European Union and other progressive entities are upset--at the Israeli blockade:

Radical and pro-Western Arab governments alike called for urgent international intervention to secure an end to the closure which plunged much of Gaza City into darkness on Sunday night and has left hospitals with dwindling fuel stocks.

EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero Waldner accused Israel of the "collective punishment" of Gaza's aid-dependent population of 1.5 million people as the UN agency for Palestinian refugees warned it would be forced to stop food distribution within days if the lockdown continued.

The EU commissioner warned that neither the blockade nor the deadly air and ground strikes of the past week would bring Israel security from militant rocket fire.

"Only a credible political agreement this year ... can turn Palestinians away from violence," she said.

Israel withdrew from Gaza and was prepared to negotiate over the West Bank's borders. Hamas even killed off Fatah in Gaza. What political agreement short of shoving the Jews into the sea would satisfy Hamas?

Hamas is in charge of Gaza. Hamas would rather bombard Jews than run their de facto state. And European anger of Israel refusing to subsidize Hamas attacks on Israeli villages is just bizarre. Where is Euro anger at the rocket attacks?

The Palestinians are just a bunch of spoiled brats who want to kill the Jews while the Jews supply Hamas with fuel for their power plants. And the EU indulges this tantrum.

I say let the Palestinians enjoy their Hamas-run killing campaign against the Jews (and Fatah too, in practice) in the cold and darkness that they've earned.

UPDATE: Despite the ongoing conflict, I think Israel is better off with their Gaza problem being a de facto interstate problem and not one of occupation.

The Invisible Army

Even the Navy has gotten into the act to establish ground forces despite declining manpower (planned and not from any lack of recruiting, I should add):

The new U.S. Navy has, in two years built a new ground combat force, staffed by 40,000 sailors. This is NECC (Navy Expeditionary Combat Command), which is capable of operating along the coast and up rivers, as well as further inland. NECC units are already in Iraq, and ready to deploy anywhere else they are needed. The 1,200 sailors in the EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) teams are particularly sought after, because of increased use of roadside bombs and booby traps by the enemy. NECC has also organized three Riverine Squadrons, and two have already served in Iraq. NECC basically consists of most of the combat support units the navy has traditionally put ashore, plus some coastal and river patrol units that have usually only been organized in wartime.

A year ago, there were only 20,000. Mostly this is packaging existing forces. But the riverine squadrons and light infantry are new forces. This frees up Army and Marine units to carry out their primary duties instead of supporting the Navy ashore or operating on inland waters. The importance of this force and the need for it is indicated by efforts to make NECC a career path in the Navy.

From blue water focus during the Cold War, the Navy has looked to the shorelines with a green water focus, then a brown water focus of inland waters, and now the Navy is going ashore in strength.

This not only demonstrates the needs of the Long War but the dominance of our Navy in the blue waters that they can comes ashore with 40,000 sailors.

East of Suez

The French are going to establish a base in the United Arab Emirates:

President Nicolas Sarkozy has announced that France next year will become the only Western country other than the U.S. to have a permanent defense facility in the Gulf.

The deal comes at a time when Gulf countries want to protect themselves against a resurgent Iran. At the same time, they don't want to rely just on the U.S., with American prestige in the Middle East running low and the fear that U.S.-Iranian rivalry could drag the region into war.

That's all fine. Until the British withdrew from the Gulf, we didn't really operate there much. Our objective was (and is) stability and if others provided it, we were fine. We operate in the Gulf because the British couldn't afford it anymore and Iran--our chosen ally to fill the vacuum left by Britain's withdrawal--turned from a bulwark of stability to the primary source of instability when the mullahs overthrew the Shah of Iran.

Our presence has increased from a token 5-ship presence in the Gulf prior to our expansion in the late 1980s and air power only in distant Diego Garcia to the Fifth Fleet, hundreds of aircraft in land bases in the Gulf, and half of our Army plus a sizable chunk of our Marine Corps there as well. Once the Iraq fight is won, our forces will decline again but still remain sizable as long as Iran is a threat.

But the rest of the analysis is silly. The Arabs in the Gulf fear Iran yet prefer France to America? Our prestige is running low? Well explain this from the same article:

France's new base will house up to 500 soldiers, sailors and airmen. By comparison, the United States maintains about 40,000 U.S. troops on bases across the Gulf — including Kuwait, the key staging ground for Iraq, and Bahrain, which hosts the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet headquarters.

The United States has been the dominant outside power in the Gulf since Britain closed its permanent bases in 1971. The Arabs are keenly aware that no European country can supplant the Americans as the primary protector of the oil-rich Gulf states.

If the Gulf states prefer help other than American help, why is the ratio of US to (proposed) French forces 40,000 to 500?

Why portray the new French base as a response to mistrust when the article reports that the Gulf states "are keenly aware" that there is no alternative to American protection? Sure, the Western and Arab-language press has portrayed our fight in Iraq as anything other than the defense of freedom and democracy for Arabs (and Kurds) under attack from Persians and Sunni jihadis that it is. But shouldn't our steadfast fight convince Gulf nations of our reliability? I mean, when France under Chirac was called to fight Saddam, what did France do? I mean other than burning their records about Oil for Food bribery deals with Saddam.

I'm perfectly happy to have a French base in the Gulf. French forces are good. France is our ally. And Sarkozy acts like an ally.

Remember What "Sea Level" Means

I heard this story on NPR a few mornings ago, with the claim that sea levels off China are caused by global warming. This story explains a bit more:

Waters off the industrial port city of Tianjin, 60 miles southeast of Beijing, rose by 7.72 inches over the past three decades, the administration said.

Seas off the business hub of Shanghai have risen by 4.53 inches over the same period, the report said.

Administration experts said global climate change and the sinking of coastal land due to the pumping of ground water were the major causes behind rising water levels.

"Sea level rises worldwide cannot be reversed, so Chinese city officials and planners must take measures to adapt to the change," Chen Manchun, an administration researcher, was quoted as saying on the central government's official Web site.

Globally, rising seas threaten to submerge low-lying island groups, erode coastlines and force the construction of vast new levees. Some scientists have warned that melting of the vast glaciers of Greenland could cause a 13-foot rise in sea levels in coming centuries.

Higher sea levels and sinking land caused by dropping water table levels complicate Shanghai's already difficult task of providing safe water supplies to its 20 million people due to salt water leaching into its aquifer, the administration said.

Along China's 11,185 miles of coastline, sea levels have risen by an average of 3.54 inches, while average coastal water temperatures were slightly warmer, the report said.

Waters levels have risen more quickly in the country's north, the report said, but gave no reasons for the disparity.

Ah, human activities have lowered the land mass rather a bit, eh? But if the rest is global warming why hasn't the rest of the globe seen that rise? And why are there different levels along China's coast? Shouldn't a rise in the global sea level cause a rise in the level of the sea globally? Isn't that the very definition of sea level?

And until thirty years ago, global temperatures were cooling, remember? Why should the very moment temperatures started to rise should the sea be rising off China? Remember, even the claim that melting land ice could raise sea levels is a future claim and not a current description. So shouldn't we be skeptical that the sea is rising right now (and over the last three decades) and start looking for why the land is changing?

Hey, I've go an idea. Maybe the Chinese could stop doing things that cause their land to sink rather than just blame global warming--which the Chinese refuse to do anything about, blaming it all on the West--for their waterfront property problems. Of course, plenty of Westerners will believe that argument and insist we must reduce carbon emissions to balance out Chinese practices that suck the water out of the ground.

Talking Past Us

Russia reminds us of their conventional military strength weakness:

"We do not intend to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand ... that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons," Baluyevsky said at a military conference in a remark broadcast on state-run cable channel Vesti-24.

According to the state-run news agency RIA-Novosti, Baluyevsky added that Russia would use nuclear weapons and carry out preventive strikes only in accordance with Russia's military doctrine.

The military doctrine adopted in 2000 says Russia may use nuclear weapons to counter a nuclear attack on Russia or an ally, or a large-scale conventional attack that poses a critical risk to Russia's security.

Yes, this is nothing new. And while the words are directed at the West, this is sheer nonsense:

Baluyevsky spoke amid persistent disputes between Moscow and the West over issues including U.S. plans for missile defense facilities in former Soviet satellites, NATO members' refusal to ratify an updated European conventional arms treaty, and Kosovo's bid for independence from Serbia.

Like Golts, Moscow-based military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer said Russia plays up its nuclear deterrent because of its weakness in terms of conventional arms. "We threaten the West that in any kind of serious conflict, we'll go nuclear almost immediately," he said.

But in the absence of a real threat from the West, he said, "It's just talk."

While the words were said to the West, the real problem lies to Russia's east and that's who the Russians where really talking to. Without nukes, Russia can't defend their Far East against a serious Chinese attack.

But it is easier to rattle such nuclear sabres against the West which doesn't threaten Russia than directly to China which might take offense at a direct threat.

Making Soft Kills Permanent Kills

One of the issues in warfare is knocking out enemy armored vehicles. Offense versus defense has been a constant race. Our heavy armor is pretty much invulnerable in their frontal arc. Even our light forces like Strykers can fend off rockets with their added slat armor. Reactive armor and new active protection systems compete with top-attack rounds that target thin top armor and multiple warheads that punch through defenses and then hit the vehicle.

One factor that isn't discussed much is the value of controlling the battlefield after the rounds stop flying. This Strategypage article notes an interesting feature of the insurgencise in Iraq:

While nearly 2,000 troops have been killed by these bombs, more than ten times as many vehicles have been damaged, but not destroyed, by these attacks. In fact, most roadside bombs that go off don't kill, or even injure, any troops. The vehicles are more frequently damaged, sometimes badly, but not so much that the vehicle cannot be repaired. But that calculation has to take into account transport costs, to get the busted vehicle to the repair shop. With the large quantity of banged up vehicles, it quickly became obvious that it would be cheaper to bring the repair crews and their equipment (tools and replacement parts) to the Persian Gulf.

Can you imagine the impact of our having lost 20,000 vehicles in combat? But we have been able to recover and repair almost all of those damaged vehicles and return them to service. The crews survive those hits and can man them again once repaired.

This highlights a feature of armored warfare long evident. Controlling the battlefield is key to winning the campaign. If you control the battlefield, you can recover the 90% or more of vehicles lost from minor hits, mechanical breakdown, or just getting stuck and abandoned. Just as important, you keep the enemy from recovering their immobilized vehicles. Keep doing that battle after battle and the balance of forces can swing dramatically through attrition. Controlling the battlefield, as we do in Iraq, provides dramatic benefits for us.

This leads to another issue, how we kill enemy armor (or defend our own). While the most obvious way to kill enemy armor is to penetrate its armor to detonate ammunition and fuel with a dramatic explosion that sends a turret spinning through the air to land 50 meters away, soft kills knock out a tank just as surely in the short run.

In situations where we can reasonably predict that we will control the battlefield for at least a week or so, we can afford to kill enemy vehicles with soft kills. Given time, our troops can blow up enemy vehicles damaged or tow them away to repair and use them. And recover and repair our own, of course, to send them back into battle.

On the other hand, in situations where we won't be controlling the battlefield, we will need to actually blow up enemy vehicles to keep them from just being temporary losses.

Of course, even soft kills against the enemy are useful during the actual battle. I'm not saying that we shouldn't knock out enemy vehicles for even a short time in an effort to kill permanently fewer enemy vehicles. But in those cases we will need to focus assets on follow-up rocket or aerial attacks that seek out the damaged enemy vehicles in order to make them permanent losses with nice big explosions.

We call the Army the Green Machine. (Or at least we did when I was in.) How little did I know! Re-use and recycling of armored vehicles makes me feel very environmentally correct.

Pretending to be a Reporter

An AP reporter pretends to report on the pretend Cuban elections:

There is no mudslinging or million-dollar war chest. No party nominations, dirty tricks or battles for key endorsements.

In fact, there's no campaigning at all — and the most famous candidate, Fidel Castro, hasn't been seen in public for almost 18 months.

Still, more than 90 percent of voters are expected to turn out Sunday for parliamentary elections — a key step in determining whether the ailing Castro remains as head of state.

The 81-year-old Castro is up for re-election to the legislature, as is his younger brother Raul, who has run the government since July 2006.

Fidel Castro, who is recovering from an undisclosed illness, has been the island's unchallenged leader since the 1959 revolution that overthrew dictator Fulgencio Batista.

Isn't this clever? Our elections are messy. And sometimes it looks ugly. Cuba's are "orderly" and don't have those revolting features of our elections like mudslinging. Of course, one of those revolting features is that the elections in America are real.

Cuba'a elections are a sham that go through the motions of democracy without being democracy.

I find it revolting the news organizations can go through the motions of reporting without actually reporting.

I find it even more revolting that so many Western so-called "progressives" pretend to believe the pretend reporting about Cuba's pretend democracy.

UPDATE: Via Instapundit, more pretend reporting. If our enemies did it directly, we'd call it "propaganda." Insert fawning and sympathetic reporters between the source and the viewers and suddenly it is "news." Or at least we pretend that's what it is.

Fighting to the Death

I had noted during the summer that jihadis of al Qaeda were starting to surrender. This was a good sign that the enemy was breaking. Although part of trend was because jihadis were recruiting less reliable kids, that too was a good trend.


But with the less committed jihadis giving up and going home or surrendering, and new recruits not coming from the community or abroad, the remaining jihadis are true believers ready to fight to the death. These are going to take a toll on our troops:

The al Qaeda strategy of fleeing to more hospitable areas in northern Iraq (just below the closely guarded Kurdish region) backfired. This was taking the war to areas that had been relatively quiet, unvisited and pro-Saddam. The new hideouts were quickly found, and Iraqi and American forces went after them. This strategy has caused an increase in U.S. casualties, because the battles are with the hard core now. During the first half of January, there were about a hundred U.S. troops killed or wounded, nearly as many as for the entire month of December.

Many Sunni Arabs are surrendering and switching sides. But some proportion must be hunted down and killed. The trend of our casualties is down, but it will spike upward as we find those fanatics who must be killed. Or until the Iraqis can almost fully replace our combat troops.

Torture

Strategypage has a useful post on the issue of torture. The public debate on this has gone beyond reason, with the definition of torture broadened to just about include placing a stale chocolate on the prisoner's pillow.

One, torture will get a prisoner to talk. If the prisoner is someone you know has information, torture works.

Two, what doesn't work is routine torture of people swept up in a broad dragnet. In this case, since everyone will talk and most people being tortured know nothing, they will talk about anything they believe will stop the torture. This does not work.

Three, as a general rule, we should not torture. We are better than that.

Four, torture must be defined and it should not include merely harsh measures of questioning under pressure. While we must have limits to what we do, those limits should not allow our enemies to carry out their plans.

Five, as much as this is revolting, we should accept that there will be rare cases where we need to torture to save a lot of people. It is suicidal to say that even in extreme cases we won't torture to save American lives.

If these factors are part of the debate on torture, it will preserve our safety while preserving our values.

If we forget these issues, the "torture" debate is only a matter of trying to harm our war effort. That is exactly the point for many of the "anti-torture" side.

Taking a Spear for the Team

Iraqi cult members attacked Iraqi Shias and security forces in a bizarre ritual doomed to fail:

The group's bloody aims are seen as a bid to bring the return of the "Hidden Imam" — also known as the Mahdi — a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad who disappeared as a child in the 9th century. Shiites believe he will return one day to bring justice to Earth.

Friday's attack began when militants carrying yellow flags or wearing yellow headbands, the cult's color, fired mortars at a police station in Nasiriyah, about 200 miles south of Baghdad. A shootout with police followed.

A police officer said at least 10 people were killed — seven policemen, including two senior officers, two female civilians and one gunman. He also said more than 50 people were injured after gunmen stormed the building of a quick reaction force in the city. The officer spoke on condition of anonymity because they were no authorized to release information.

Street battles also broke out in Basra, 340 miles southeast of Baghdad, after cultists opened fire on a police patrol. Police torched a mosque belonging to the cult after militants fired at officers from inside, authorities said.

The militant cult members also shot at Shiite worshippers taking part in Ashoura observances, according to Basra Gov. Mohammed al-Waili. No injuries were reported.

There was no point to this attack. What could it accomplish? Could they seize the government? Spark a revolt of Shias? This group tried this last year. It is violence for the sake of violence, in the belief that killing will somehow bring prophecies to life right now.

So what could happen when the leader of a nation holds such beliefs?

And what if that leader gets nuclear weapons?

Don't rule out Iranian support for these nutballs. And remember what belief can motivate.

Exercise in Futility

General Petraeus isn't the only one who will advise the president on troop strength in Iraq:

Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters traveling with him on the last stop of a six-day trip that the Joint Chiefs will take into account a range of issues beyond the security situation in Iraq.

They will consider, for example, the effects of growing strain on troops and their families from multiple tours in Iraq, as well as the outlook for troop requirements in Afghanistan and elsewhere, Mullen said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced at the Pentagon on Thursday that he had asked the Joint Chiefs for their Iraq assessment, to coincide with recommendations from Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, as well as Adm. William J. Fallon, the commander of American forces in the Middle East.

Remember that unfortunately this report will reflect the views of those responsible for maintaining our Army and not those responsible for winning in Iraq. You'd think that they'd be just as focused on victory in Iraq as General Petraeus, but they are not. These generals will make recommendations on troops rotations that can be sustained.

I don't give a damn about their recommendations. If the President accepts advice from the Pentagon that contradicts recommendations from the field that asks for more troops to solidify our victory, we will lose the war and break the Army. Defeat in Iraq will break the Army more surely what stress will not, if in the end we win in Iraq.

Petraeus should recommend troop levels--period.

The Joint Chiefs should recommend policies to the president to meet those requested levels.

And then the President and Congress must weigh what is needed in the field, what is needed to support those numbers in the field, and what we can afford as a nation.

And in the end, the Army is a tool. If we must break it to win in Iraq, that's what we need to do. That's what every officer does when told to carry out a mission, whether it is taking a hill or taking down an enemy regime.

The mission always comes first. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have forgotten that in their narrow and unrealistic focus on relieving the stress on the Army.

Ths spirit of the Age

I'm working on a project and in the course of it I ran across an older post from my old site that I want here in case I'm searching (the old site is tough to search).

While I think Mark Steyn is right to worry about unassimilated Moslems overtaking Europeans demographically, I don't think the end result will be an Islamic Europe. When we look at how pacifist Europeans are with their hopes for a post-warfare world, it may be hard to argue against the worst outcome.

Personally, I think the Europeans will let the problem get worse while they ignore it.

And then they'll go all Medieval on the jihadis inside Europe:

A strange Green-Green alliance that seeks to stifle debate over the impact of unassimilated Moslems in Europe grips Europe and prevents constructive responses.

Lack of assimilation if these Moslems and the various no-go zones in European cities from France to Sweden seem to argue that the Moslems will change Europe and take over in the face of soft Europeans who will allow themselves to be killed off and kicked out of power.

I think history teaches us something else. This is not the first time that Europeans have seemed soft. Edward Creasy, in 1851, wrote, "It is an honorable characteristic of the spirit of this age, that projects of violence and warfare are regarded among civilized states with gradually increasing aversion." These are the people who had another round of colony grabbing and two world wars of immense slaughter ahead of them. The Europeans got over that aversion to violence and warfare with some enthusiasm. Or at least skill.

I think history teaches us that the continent that has organized violence with the most skill and enthusiasm of anybody else will react to the threat of Islam gunning them down in their homes with sustained violence until they win. If Islam thinks they will take Europe from within, they will find that Europeans will be ruthless (again) in their own defense. And the EU will make sure the defense will be coordinated and not ripe for playing one European state off another as the Islamic world did for so long when Islam was far stronger than they are today.

Europe's pacifism came after the bloodletting of two world wars and the constant fear of a third during the Cold War plus the ability to safely let American defend them while they licked their wounds from the 20th Century.

Unless we succeed in helping Islam cure itself of the jihadi fever that explodes in European suburbs, we won't be able to defend Europe from the growing threat from within. So when the Europeans realize that they are in danger, they will do what is necessary--and probably a whole lot more in the brutality department--to end the threat. It will be the spirit of that age, I think.

Yin, Yang, and Ban

The sainted international community recognizes improvements in Iraq:

Ban, who wrote his report prior to Rice's visit, said "the reduction in the overall number of attacks reported across Iraq is a welcome development."

But he said continued improvement in the security situation is likely to depend on engagement by Iraqi security forces and the U.S.-led multinational force, an extension of a temporary cease-fire by radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr, and developments related to the Awakening Councils, Sunni Arab groups that switched sides to join U.S. forces against al-Qaida in Iraq.

The secretary-general cautioned, however, that attacks causing mass casualties "are a sobering reminder that those using terrorism in pursuit of their political aims have no regard for human rights or human life."

He lamented that the political process has not shown the "degree of progress" that many had hoped for.

"In order to sustain recent improvements in the security situation, similar improvements in the political arena are needed," Ban said.

Of course, there are still problems so the UN hardly declared victory. I'm happy enough to see Ban recognize good and bad.

Our domestic opposition is incapable of admitting any success. As nearly worthless as the UN is, at least they can admit some success. Apparently they aren't (or are no longer) committed to our defeat in Iraq.

As an aside, the threat of Sadr to unleash his militias decrease each day. With other enemy forces in the field weakening, restarting his war means his side is a lot lonelier on the battlefield. Would Sadr really want to take on Coalition forces when there aren't as many Baathists and jihadis to distract us from killing his men?

Rumsfeld Redux

Secretary Gates got in a bit of trouble essentially complaining that NATO forces aren't really fighting in Afghanistan. I don't care what anyone says, but that's why U.S. Marines are going to Afghanistan. NATO could not scrape up a single battalion that would fight.

So Gates apologized:

This deployment of Marines does not reflect dissatisfaction about the military performance in Afghanistan of allied forces from other nations. I mention this because there have been several recent media reports of discontent in the United States and among other NATO members about operations in Afghanistan. This does not reflect reality or, I believe, the views of our government. As I said before the House Armed Services Committee last month, allied forces from the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, Denmark and other nations have stepped up to the plate and are playing a significant and powerful role in Afghanistan. They have rolled back the Taliban from previous strongholds in the south. They are taking the fight to the enemy in some of the most grueling conditions imaginable.

It is significant that Gates named only the countries who actually fight in Afghanistan with us rather than just being war tourists watching the fight. I'm going to assume Denmark is named because they fight, though I hadn't seen them mentioned before. Or perhaps he tossed in one non-fighting country. I'll watch for information about this. Obviously, not all NATO troops are avoiding combat. American troops are part of a NATO country, obviously. And it isn't that the NATO troops watching the war couldn't fight--their governments keep them out.

Of course, given the trouble that Rumsfeld got in for discussing "old Europe" and their lack of contribution to the war, I guess we can excuse Gates for not pointing a finger at the slackers. Granted, these NATO forces serve a useful function with what they do. And I remain firm in my view that we should be grateful for help willingly given whatever the level of help. If they don't want to fight, we're not going to make them.

But the truth is, not all our allies are sacrificing at our side for what is supposed to be a common enemy. They should have let Gates' initial comments just slide and taken the rebuke with a little humbleness given the truth of it.

Across the Yalu (Again?)

China could invade North Korea to secure nuclear weapons should the Pyongyang regime collapse:

According to a new report, Beijing would send in the People’s Liberation Army if it felt threatened by a rapid breakdown in Kim Jong-il’s rule over the country. ...

According to PLA academics quoted by the report, which was written by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies and the US Institute of Peace, the army has three “missions” in a failing North Korea.

One would be humanitarian — to deal with refugees or the consequences of natural disaster.

The second is peacekeeping and maintaining order, and the third requires it to deal with contamination from a military strike on North Korea’s nuclear facilities, and to secure nuclear weapons and materials to prevent them getting into the “wrong hands”.

The report said that there were disagreements among its sources as to whether China still wished to preserve its “special relationship” with North Korea, the only country with which it has a formal, mutual defence alliance.

But they agreed that Beijing would neither intervene to replace Kim Jong-il, nor to prevent him being replaced by others.

I admit that China's unusual focus on training could also apply to North Korea--but only in part. Not only would troops on a peacekeeping mission to a collapsed state not need intensive combat training, air and naval forces wouldn't be needed for this scenario in ways that would stress them. And it doesn't explain mock-ups of Taiwanese airfields being used for training by China.

I assume China has had quiet discussions with us, South Korea, Japan, and Russia about this. Could the partition of North Korea be envisioned to satisfy competing interests?

The Beginning of the Taliban Campaign

Pakistan needs an awakening of their own to fight the new Taliban Campaign that spans the Afghanistan and Pakistan campaigns, drawing from the same base of support.

The need for Pakistan to face the problem head on and not seek to excuse or ignore their jihadi problem is clear from this defeat:

"Around midnight 400 miscreants attacked the Frontier Corps at Sararogha. The fort was captured by militants, we are taking stock of the situation," chief military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas told AFP.

"There are reports of 40 to 50 dead miscreants, while seven personnel embraced martyrdom." The attack, believed to be the first time Pakistan has lost one of its tribal area forts, highlighted growing insecurity ahead of elections on February 18 which were postponed because of unrest sparked by Bhutto's killing.

Military sources said the Islamist fighters besieged the remote post in darkness before blowing up part of the walls using explosives, storming inside and taking control of the building. Abbas said soldiers responded with artillery before fleeing.

Of 42 troops manning the fort, 15 had escaped to a separate base while the whereabouts of the remaining "stragglers" was not known, he added.

This is bad. The enemy needs to be atomized so they can't overrun bases like this. Yet even in the face of this disaster, some Pakistanis remain in denial:

Pakistan's foreign ministry Wednesday issued a stern warning against any international military strikes on Pakistani territory, following reports that Washington was considering covert action in the tribal areas.

"Without Pakistan's permission, without Pakistan's involvement, any action by a foreign government on Pakistan's territory will be an enemy act," foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Sadiq told a weekly briefing.

Yet this permission may be on the way:

They see they've got real problems internally," Fallon said in a 20-minute interview with three reporters accompanying Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a private conference here of military chiefs from Middle Eastern countries, hosted by Fallon.

"My sense is there is an increased willingness to address these problems, and we're going to try to help them," he said, adding that U.S. assistance would be "more robust," but offering few details. "There is more willingness to do that now" on Pakistan's part, he said.

The Bush administration's anxiety about Pakistan's stability has grown in recent months, not only because of its potential implications for U.S. stability efforts in neighboring Afghanistan but also because of worry about the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Fallon said expanded U.S. military assistance to Pakistan would include, but is not limited to, a U.S. training program for tribal groups in the federally administered tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

The Pakistanis need American surveillance, communications, and firepower that will tear up war bands that hit isolated outposts until those war bands don't dare mass. This might mean special forces teams operating within Pakistani units out there in the bush.

We Can Hear You Now

The President is making sure our Navy can train to fight submarines despite the lawfare by environmentalists that would cripple our Navy:

The Navy announced today that two important steps have been taken under existing law and regulations to allow it to conduct effective, integrated training with sonar off the coast of southern California after a federal court earlier this month imposed untenable restrictions on such training.

In accordance with the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and at the recommendation of the Secretary of Commerce, the President concluded that continuing these vital exercises without the restrictions imposed by the district court is in the paramount interests of the United States. He signed an exemption from the requirements of the CZMA for the Navy’s continued use of mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar in a series of exercises scheduled to take place off the coast of California through January 2009.

Thank goodness. This follows a court victory on the same subject back in the late summer.

Submarines are the main threat to our fleet. If we can't train to find and fight them, sailors and Marines will die if it comes to a shooting war with an enemy that sends submarines to sea to battle us.

I remain horrified that some of our citizens would value the lives of our sailors and Marines so little and value so little our ultimate victory at sea should it come to war.

External Threats

For much the same reason that we have allies in NATO or through bilateral treaties or agreements, the Iraqis will need us to deter foreign threats for quite some time:

In an interview with the New York Times, Abdul-Qader al-Obeidi said Iraqi forces would be able handle domestic security by 2012 but would not be fully prepared to defend against an external threat until at least 2018.

Al-Obeidi’s comments represent the most specific assessment of the future of the American presence in Iraq to come from either Washington or Baghdad, though various officials have made varying pronouncements in recent weeks.

“According to our calculations and our timelines, we think that from the first quarter of 2009 until 2012 we will be able to take full control of the internal affairs of the country,” al-Obeidi said in the Monday interview.

“In regard to the borders, regarding protection from any external threats, our calculation appears that we are not going to be able to answer to any external threats until 2018 to 2020,” al-Obeidi said.

For anyone paying attention, this has been the plan for Iraq all along. It's been our plan wherever our military has gone, for the most part.

Of course, the only real external threat is Iran. So you could get our troops out of Iraq much faster if the nutso mullah Tehran regime wasn't in power ...