How the Good War Will Become Bad

If we are not fighting in Iraq, I've long held, the so-called "good war" in Afghanistan will become bad in the views of our anti-war side. Now the anti-war side protests Iraq and claims that they oppose Iraq in order to commit resources to the "real" fight in Afghanistan.

Europeans, already uncomfortable with the war in Afghanistan despite triggering the NATO collective defense provisions to help us, will increasingly turn on the Afghanistan campaign as they are prodded to commit more resources:

Britain's new deployment of about 230 engineers, logistical staff and military trainers to Afghanistan will boost the number of British forces in the country to more than 8,000, most based in Helmand province in the south.

As these forces take casualties, the European home front will actively turn on the war. (As an aside, kudos to the Canadians for holding firm despite losses.) And our Left, which loves the European pacifist view, will be emboldened to tack to opposing the Afghanistan War.

And when the Taliban carry out media operations by loudly proclaiming captures that will be quietly reversed when we counter-attack, the cries of we're doomed to lose Afghanistan will rise, unmuffled by the until-now louder anti-Iraq War cries of doom:

Hundreds of Taliban fighters took over several villages in southern Afghanistan on Monday just outside the region's largest city, and NATO and Afghan forces were redeploying to meet the threat, officials said.

The enemy has done this before. They mass and ride into a remote town, driving out the small police force. The press is notified which runs "the sky is falling" stories for a couple days. Then American, NATO, or Afghan troops and aircraft arrive to drive away or kill the Taliban gunmen. Thus ends the Taliban offensive. They are, in fact, just media operations.

These media operations support our Left's refrain for the last several years that we are on the verge of losing in Afghanistan. An American officer who led ISAF in Afghanistan comments on this talking point of our Left:

When I came in we had a force -- 36, 37 nations and an aggregate number of troops that was about 36,000. When I left, we were up to 40 nations declared. There are actually a few more that don't really advertise they're there, but there's a few more than 40. NATO recognizes 40. And the figure was a lot closer to 52,000.

And I bring that point up just to remind all that much of the reports about Afghanistan in late 2006, 2007 had to do with the alliance will fracture, the alliance is frayed and the alliance cannot get this job done. And in fact, that has proven not to be the case. The alliance is a far more capable force and, certainly in aggregate numbers, far more bigger than it was when we first took over last year.

The news also at that time had the Taliban as a resurgent force, as the force on the battlefield. They were coming with a spring offensive, which did not pan out. Then next, they were coming with a summer offensive in '07 which did not pan out, then an Eid offensive, then a Ramadan offensive, then a winter offensive and all. It simply didn't happen. And I believe that's a statement that the combination of the international force, the OEF forces along with their Afghan brothers are indeed the credible force on the battlefield today.

It was all imminent defeat, all the time, for our Left. And yet we've smashed up the Taliban time and again. Still, remember that complaints about Afghanistan were always about providing an excuse to abandon Iraq. It was never about winning in Afghanistan.

So our Left is already primed to run from Afghanistan when they can get away with it. The shift to opposing the Afghanistan War can't really take place in our Left until the Iraq War is won. Once that happens, the louder noise of the war in Iraq smothers the Left's complaints of failure in Afghanistan. And our Left will get that Iraq War victory, as evidenced by the main metric that has been used to track winning and losing is going our way:

Signs are emerging that Iraq has reached a turning point. Violence is down, armed extremists are in disarray, government confidence is rising and sectarian communities are gearing up for a battle at the polls rather than slaughter in the streets.

It isn't just casualties. The Economist, while taking the usual jab at mythical "blunders" in the war, recognizes that we are winning in Iraq:

AFTER all the blood and blunders, people are right to be sceptical when good news is announced from Iraq. Yet it is now plain that over the past several months, while Americans have been distracted by their presidential primaries, many things in Iraq have at long last started to go right.

With Iraq doing better and the Afghanistan campaign still raging, we will see more of these months:

Last month, for the first time, more coalition forces were killed in Afghanistan than were killed in Iraq. And just since we have gathered here in Brussels, three more coalition soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan. It's important that we live up to our pledges, in both civilian and military spheres, necessary for success in Afghanistan.

When these months become routine, the hand off will take place. Our Left is anti-war. They are most comfortable when our military loses. They are only pro-Afghanistan War because they need a crutch to support their efforts to lose the Iraq War. It would look bad to the majority of Americans who like victory if the Left was openly against both wars, since that would merely make our Left appear as defeatists rather than wise stewards of our security who want to cut our losses in the doomed distraction from the real war in Afghanistan.

I'm not sure who they think they are fooling by making this claim. Indeed, for a while last year, when our Left felt that they would soon succeed in losing the war in Iraq, they thought the Afghanistan War was about to become the only war they had to oppose. Then, in those heady days when Congress led the flight to the rear, some on the Left started making premature noises against the Afghanistan War:

When they won control of Congress in November, Democrats pressed their case to withdraw troops from Iraq and refocus on Afghanistan, but some are growing impatient with U.S. operations in Afghanistan as well.

A few congressional Democrats go so far as suggesting that the Pentagon should pull out of Afghanistan now, while others say that troop withdrawal will be addressed after the military is out of Iraq.

But for the purpose of judging Afghanistan, winning or losing Iraq is irrelevant. It is only relevant that the Iraq War end, and then our Left will feel compelled to oppose the fight in Afghanistan. Like they did in the opening weeks of the war in 2001 when we were doomed, had to declare a Ramadan truce, and were urged to let the UN try Osama bin Laden. Remember when they toted up reports of Afghanistan casualties and tried to argue our war had to end when Afghan casualties matched our 9/11 deaths? As if Operation Enduring Freedom was about biblical retribution and not self defense. That was our Left in action before Afghanistan became the good war on March 19, 2003.

You wait, when the Iraq War is won, our Left will be opposed to the only war we've got--the "good war" in Afghanistan. Our Left can never find a war they can support. But that's a statement about them and not our wars.

Jokers to the Right

While my primary venom is directed at our Left for their determination to lose the Iraq War, I've sometimes noted that our hard Right, too, opposes the war. But I don't usually address them since their calls are not amplified the same way by a sympathetic left-slanting mass media. The Right's anti-war voices don't carry very far. The Clowns on the Left are given credibility and publicity by our press.

But Pat Buchanan's ability to turn World War II into a bad war of choice reflects the strain on the Right that I detest as much as I do the Left, even though I recognize the Left must take priority given the weight our Left is given by our press.

What happened to Buchanan and his strain on the Right? They could once recognize evil when the Soviet Union existed. Without the Soviets to focus their ire, they seem to despise America and the West.

Cherry Picking

Instapundit notes Kirchick's take on the partisan-tinged way the recent Senate report on pre-war administration statements about Iraq under Saddam:

If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

And a YouTube stroll down memory lane for the real connoisseurs of fruit salad.

We had many reasons to destroy the Saddam regime and I am glad we rid the world of that despot and his demon spawn. Hold fast despite our casualties and expenses to collect the rewards that flow from that result and we will make the world safer for us and better as a whole. Lose in Iraq, and of course the sacrifice won't have been worth it. That's true of any war no matter how noble the cause.

Ultimately, knowing the other side refuses to address the entire issue and focuses only on the Bush administration demonstrates the utter falsity of their charge that Bush lied.

Leaning Forward

President Karzai of Afghanistan is expressing very specific anger at Pakistan's inability or refusal to keep Pakistan from acting as a rear area for the Taliban and al Qaeda attacks on Afghanistan:

Karzai said Afghanistan has the right to self defense, and because militants cross over from Pakistan "to come and kill Afghan and kill coalition troops, it exactly gives us the right to do the same."

Speaking at a Sunday news conference, Karzai warned Pakistan-based Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud that Afghan forces would target him on his home turf. Mehsud is suspected in last year's assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

"Baitullah Mehsud should know that we will go after him now and hit him in his house," Karzai said.

"And the other fellow, (Taliban leader) Mullah Omar of Pakistan should know the same," Karzai continued. "This is a two-way road in this case, and Afghans are good at the two-way road journey. We will complete the journey and we will get them and we will defeat them. We will avenge all that they have done to Afghanistan for the past so many years."

In Pakistan, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said his country is a sovereign state that wants good relations with its neighbors. But he said the Afghan-Pakistan border is too long to prevent people from crossing, "even if Pakistan puts its entire army along the border."

"Neither do we interfere in anyone else's matters, nor will we allow anyone to interfere in our territorial limits and our affairs," Gilani told The Associated Press. "We want a stable Afghanistan. It is in our interest. How can we go to destabilize our brotherly country? Such kind of statements will not be taken well by the people of both countries."

Is Karzai reflecting the growing US-Afghan determination to wage war inside Pakistan against our common enemy? If discussions have geen going on, it would be natural for Karzai to feel a little more confident about speaking his mind on the problem.

It makes sense for us to try a new approach to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda who we are whacking about but not crushing because they go home to Pakistan and regenerate:

If we can't get Islamabad to control the frontier area, it is time to bypass Islamabad and deal directly with the tribes who don't recognize the control of Islamabad in the first place. We cannot allow the fictions of sovereignty to keep us from defending ourselves from fanatics who straddle the gray boundary that lies between reality and international law.

Using limited military assets such as special forces and drones to back civilian armed assets such as the CIA or contract personnel (with either former or seconded special forces from Western countries, or perhaps even hiring security companies to provide the personnel) or even Arab special forces that would live and work inside the frontier areas, we may be able to turn the frontier tribes against the jihadis who target us.

But would we really wage such a war in the face of Pakistani opposition without cutting the Gordian Knot that keeps us from establishing a more secure supply line to Afghanistan that bypasses Pakistan?

The Long Cyber-March

Strategypage traces the 8-year Chinese effort at cyber-warfare against the West. After 8 years we know it is China and not just Chinese private hackers. They show signs of professionalism and that aspect is increasing:

The Chinese cyber army keeps getting better, and that includes covering their tracks. It may take a defector or three to make it definite that China is waging a stealthy war over the Internet. Meanwhile, the Chinese reap enormous economic and political benefits from their raids on economic and technical secrets in the West.

This is not trivial and we need to wage offensive cyber-warfare and not just attempt to parry their attacks. The Chinese have no incentive to stop until we inflict pain on them with our own attacks.

The Chinese are learning just by attacking us, even aside from whatever they bring back home.

Chasing Mookie

The Iraqis are preparing to move into Amarah where many of the Shia thugs have fled after getting roughed up by the Iraqis and our forces in Basra and Badghad and other points south:

Helicopters blanketed Amarah with pamphlets Saturday urging residents to cooperate with Iraqi security forces as they prepare for a new operation against Shiite militia fighters in the oil-producing southern city.

The pamphlets urged residents to provide information about "the hideouts of outlaws" and warned them to stay indoors when the new operation dubbed "Imposing Law" starts, two local police officers said on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release information to the media.

No kickoff date for the operation was provided in the pamphlets.

Iraqi soldiers accompanied by American military advisers have begun moving into Amarah, capital of Maysan province and the purported hub of weapons smuggling from nearby Iran.

U.S. and Iraqi commanders also say many militia chiefs have fled to Amarah — a longtime safe haven for anti-U.S. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia — and Iran after security operations against them in Basra and Baghdad's Sadr City district.

With al Qaeda running from Mosul to Syria and Sadrists running to Iran, we are approaching the time when Iraq's enemies will be mostly based across their borders. This is not a good thing in the long run, but it is better than the recent past when enemies had places to hide inside Iraq. And in the long run, Iran and Syria will have to face the consequences of a much better Iraqi military backed by American power seeking to curtail whatever sanctuaries Iran and Syria allow.

Increasingly, it appears that only direct Syrian and Iranian military action can reverse our progress. And that option counts on weak American will to absorb the first blow and go on to destroy the attacking formation. Sadly, I don't know if that assumption is ridiculous or not.

UPDATE: It does not look like the Shia thugs are making a last stand in Amarah:

"Our military forces ... have completed their deployment to ensure control of the whole city," the Iraqi Army's deputy chief of staff, Nasir al-Abadi, said in a statement.

The show of force in Amara, a stronghold of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army militia, is the latest stage in a government drive to extend its authority to areas that had been controlled by Shi'ite militias or Sunni Arab insurgents.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has given "outlaws" and "criminals" in Amara and the rest of the southern province of Maysan until Wednesday to surrender and hand over weapons.

He has authorized security forces to launch major operations from Thursday, saying the state must end "chaos" and crime in the impoverished province bordering Iran.

As their forward elements are driven back toward Iran, the mullahs are liable to get a little nervous. If the Shia thugs surrender the Iraqis learn what Iran is doing. And if the Shia thugs run to Iran, Iran is exposed as harboring the thugs.

At what point does Iran figure they need to cut their losses and kill off their fleeing pawns to keep them from being an embarassment to Tehran?

What are We Seeing?

China is continuing its charm offensive with Taiwan, appearing to offer the hope of a cross-strait detente that will end the decades-long standoff. But is it what it appears to be?

Only a few short years ago, China passed anti-secession legislation making the reconquest of Taiwan seem far more imminent.

Yet the Chinese seek to explain this recent charm offensive as a sign of China's evolving position on Taiwan:

A Chinese economist whose contrarian views have previously caught the leadership's eye has suggested Beijing revise its "one country, two systems" formula for Taiwan and consider a federation or confederation.

The contentious idea for a rethink of China's policy towards self-ruled Taiwan, which Beijing claims as its own, is almost certain to trigger a heated debate in the Communist Party, the government and academia.

Most ordinary Chinese buy the government's official line about the inevitable return to the fold for Taiwan, a rival to the mainland since their split in 1949 amid civil war.

"It's one country, two governments," Lu De, the eldest son of the late reform-minded vice-premier Lu Dingyi, told Reuters in a rare interview.

"To resolve the cross-Strait problem, (we) must create new concepts and thinking or else it would give rise to contradictions and chaos in policy, thinking and action," said Lu, a board member of Beijing's semi-official China Council for Promoting Peaceful Reunification.

China and Taiwan signed a landmark deal last week to launch regular flights as politics were put aside in favour of practicalities in their first formal talks in almost a decade.

Nonetheless, Lu called for bold new thinking on how to deal with Taiwan's new President Ma Ying-jeou, who has vowed "not to unify (with China), not to declare independence and not to go to war".

In a deviation from conventional thinking, Lu said the "one country, two systems" formula, under which Hong Kong and Macau reverted to Chinese rule in 1997 and 1999 respectively, was unfit for Taiwan.

Lu is hardly a member of the ruling class. But he is allowed to speak his view. Is there really a debate within China about confederation with Taiwan that grants Taiwan independence in all but name, with separate economic and policital systems sustained by separate governing and military institutions, and ends the longstanding threat of force? Just when China's military is gaining the ability to invade?

Or is this charm offensive far less than hopeful?

Far be it from me to belittle a charm offensive by a regime that has in the past shown no sympathy for Taiwan's continued de facto independence, but might not the Chinese have heard of Sun Tzu? If near, appear far. And who would suspect anything amiss amidst the warm feelings spawned by Taiwanese sympathy for the China earthquake victims and the Chinese charm offensive that suddenly sees no rush to resolving the Taiwan issue.

I predicted a charm offensive would be part of a pre-war campaign to lull Taiwan, the United States, and the world prior to striking Taiwan, just part of the plan to conquer Taiwan:

Surprise will be important. The Taiwanese military has problems but it is far from toothless. And US and Japanese naval and air power are capable of defeating the Chinese at sea and in the air. With tensions high over the obviously increased Chinese military capabilities and their long history of saying that Taiwan must be absorbed into China, a nice charm offensive will be in order to lull potential enemies. In late 2007, China could initiate or accept more cross-Strait talks on various issues. They might even—in the spirit of the Olympics—suggest talks on how to have the Taiwan athletes march in the opening ceremonies. Perhaps behind a symbolic contingent of all Chinese marching under the PRC flag, the remaining Chinese athletes will march in under flags of their home provinces, so the Taiwanese could march under the Taiwanese flag. Whatever the details, the point will be that the warm fuzzy of the Olympics will be used to create a false thaw after years of tension.

The first link above about the anti-secession legislation quotes a Chinese official who specified that force would be the last resort after peaceful methods for reunification are exhausted. If the extraordinary level of Chinese soft-talk fail to persuade Taiwan to accept reunification even under terms that on the surface appear generous, would that signify under Chinese law that peaceful means are exhausted?

Is it too much for Taiwanese to hope that China is abandoning their longstanding threat to conquer Taiwan? After enduring such a threat looming over their tiny nation for so long, reaching out for this hope surely reflects human nature to believe a happy ending is possible. To believe in the basic goodness of foes who are just like them may suppress caution to a dangerous degree in Taiwan.

We can see what China is doing. They are being very nice. And after more than a decade of building up forces capable of attacking Taiwan, which is not noted so much these days. The question is, why are they doing all this?

Von Clausenetwitz

I really have little respect for warfare theorists who claim that terrorists like al Qaeda are fourth generation netwarriors operating in a flat organization that can get inside our decision-making loop. I've written this before:

The terrorists are supposedly masters of "netwar." But they're just another bunch of terrorists and insurgents, but with Internet access and gullible Western academics willing to read deep thinking into their observed actions. I guess being "diffused" and "flat" isn't what Western theorists have it made out to be. Netwits.

So let's have a laugh at the jihadi documents that give us a look inside al Qaeda in Iraq:

Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll, the American military's spokesman in Baghdad, says the document trove is unique, "a kind of comprehensive snapshot" of al-Qaeda during its peak.

"It reveals," Driscoll said, "first of all, a pretty robust command and control system, if you will. I was kind of surprised when I saw the degree of documentation for everything -- pay records, those kind of things -- and that [al Qaeda in Iraq] was obviously a well-established network." ...

Be it then, in 2006, or be it now, al Qaeda in Iraq is nothing if not bureaucratic.

Included in the headquarters of the security prince, Faris, are bundles of pay sheets for entire brigades, hundreds of men carved into infantry battalions and a fire support -- or rocket and mortar -- battalion. To join those ranks, recruits had to complete membership forms.

"These are the application forms filled in by the people who join al Qaeda," Abu Saif said, holding one of the documents obtained by CNN. Until recently, Abu Saif was himself a senior-level al Qaeda commander.

"They took information about [the recruits], and if the applicant lied about something -- because they were investigated -- they would whip him," Abu Saif said.

Induction into al Qaeda, he said, would take up to four months. In one case, Abu Saif recounted, an applicant lived for four months at the home of what he thought was a local supporter of the organization providing a safe house. Finally accepted and called to a cell leaders' meeting, he discovered that his host was actually a senior recruiter who'd been studying his every move for those four months.

Al Qaeda's bookkeeping was orderly and expansive: death lists of opponents, rosters of prisoners al Qaeda was holding, along with the verdicts and sentences (normally execution) the prisoners received, plus phone numbers from a telephone exchange of those who'd called the American tip line to inform on insurgents, and motor pool records of vehicle roadworthiness.

Good grief people. Experts went on about a bunch of thugs as wonder terrorists running circles around our stovepiped defense organization. They had email! And web sites! Ooooh. New and improved! It was netwar! They had mastered it and we had not. We were doomed.

In reality, al Qaeda just about had a Department of Redundancy Department. What kind of flat netwarror is so anal retentive about keeping records? They had membership applications, for Pete's sake!

A lot of Western academics made money and reputations building a bunch of petty but brutal bureaucrats into some magical self-organizing enemy that had discovered a new way of war that we couldn't cope with unless we abandoned our traditional defense organization and mimic them--or mimic what our academics said they looked like. Our academics didn't have a friggin' clue.

Instead, we're kicking their terrorist asses across Iraq and killing them in Afghanistan whenever they appear. With traditional methods time-tested in past campaigns against other irregulars and terrorists who think they should kill their way to power.

Weapons change. Warfare does not.

The Army Air Force Grows

The Army (and the Marines to a lesser extent) is building its own air force of UAVs to supplement helicopters to conduct missions over the battlefield that the Air Force never really made a priority. I remain pleased with how well the Air Force has adapted to providing accurate bombing and recon support to the Army, but it is much better if this aerial capability is organic to the Army combat units. With UAVs, recon and strike missions become organic capabilities of Army combat brigades.

And the UAVs are providing another service--mini satellites to extend FM radio range during operations:

The U.S. Army, seeking to improve communications ranges in Iraq and Afghanistan, had a 20 pound communications relay device built for use on its Shadow 200 UAVs. This enables FM radios, used by ground troops, to increase their range (several times) to over 150 kilometers. More importantly, obstacles like mountains and tall buildings would less frequently interfere.

Recon, strike, and communications. And all organic to brigades and battalions. Not to mention that smaller UAVs that give companies and platoons local aerial views.

It is not a bad thing that the Army can do all these things on their own. The Air Force needs to get over this and become our Space Force.

Moving the SOFA

The Iraqi military cannot handle external threats without our conventional military power or fully fight internal threats without our logistical help. The Kurds and Sunni Arabs want us to keep the Shias from exploiting their numerical edge outside of the democratic process.

And if a status of forces agreement (SOFA) isn't signed this year, there is a real possibility that Iraq will not get a status of forces agreement that actually helps Iraq defend their country or fragile democracy.

The Iraqis know all this. Which makes it hard for me to accept this apparent difficulty at face value:

In his strongest comments yet on the debate, Nouri al-Maliki echoed concern by Iraqi lawmakers that the U.S. proposals would give Washington too much political and military leverage on Iraqi affairs.

"The first drafts presented left us at a dead end and deadlock," he told reporters in Amman, Jordan. "So, we left these first drafts and the negotiations will continue with new ideas until the sides reach a formula that preserves Iraq's sovereignty."

The security agreement would provide a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. Failure to strike a deal would leave the future of the American military presence here to the next administration.

To me, it seems as if the Iraqis are kicking up protests now to deprive opponenst inside Iraq of ammuntiion later to derail the agreement once negotiated. The goverment can point to their protests of June to defend what emerges in July or August.

Remember, Iran's friends inside Iraq will complain no matter what the terms of the agreement are, and will allege they betray Iraq's sovereignty. Best for the government to bluster right now in defense of rights not under attack in order to disarm the Persian lap dogs of one line of attack.

So the Iraqi government will insist that we move the SOFA a little more to the left; then a little back; then a little to the right; and then a little closer. Voila! Perfectly placed!

233

Happy Birthday United States Army.

A friend sent the picture. I don't know the source. It is from 1918 in Iowa and is composed of 18,000 Army officers and men. The caption on the right reads:

Human Statue of Liberty
18,000 officers and men
at
Camp Dodge, Des Moines IA
Col. Wes Newman, Commanding
Col. Rush S. Wells, Directing

Defending liberty for 233 years, your United States Army.

Damn proud to have been associated with such a fine organization.

No-Launch Zone

The North Korean military threat to South Korea is drying up.

North Korea's military has been melting away as Pyongyang seeks bribe money in exchange for ending their nuclear programs. It is getting worse:

Many, if not most, North Korean army units have cancelled the majority of their training exercises this year, and shifted to growing food. This further reduces their combat capabilities.

North Korea needs nukes to really threaten South Korea. The rotting of the army makes nukes even more important to sustain a threat against South Korea to provide an incentive for the rich South Koreans to funnel money north. Which is why I don't believe North Korea will really give up all their nuke programs.

Yet if talks and a deal at least keep North Korean nukes limited, and America and Japan field real missile defenses, North Korea with or without nukes will find their only threat is their vast array of tube and rocket artillery looming over Seoul just across the DMZ. Using chemicals or just high explosives, North Korea could level Seoul in time.

If a crisis erupts on the Korean peninsula and the North Koreans fire even a warning barrage at Seoul, I expect the South Korean army to march north of the DMZ and carve out a no-launch zone in an arc around Seoul to protect their capital and home to a quarter of the population from North Korean artillery. And if the attack is focused just on a no-launch zone, will Pyongyang unleash nukes that might be shot down and which would trigger an American nuclear retaliation?

The North Korean army will soon be too weak to even defend their territory let alone conquer South Korea.

Counting the Days

Pakistan is our ally only because we have little choice right now but to put up with their double-dealing.

Pakistani reaction to the air strike that Pakistan killed some innocent soldiers continues:

Pakistan, a staunch ally in the U.S.-led war on terrorism, denounced Tuesday's attack on a border post in the Mohmand tribal region as "unprovoked and cowardly" and said it could undermine the cooperation in the battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Elders from ethnic Pashtun tribes in Mohmand, one of seven semi-autonomous tribal regions, issued a statement late on Thursday condemning the attack as "naked aggression" and said they were ready to raise a "lashkar," or army.

The Pakistani frontier force troops killed were probably helping the Taliban as they tried to escape.

Really, when you summarize our situation in trying to defend Afghan territory from jihadis crossing in from Pakistan, we have a front line that runs the Afghan-Pakistan border and our supply line actually runs forward through enemy territory and down to the Arabian Sea.

We really need a supply line that goes to our rear and through friendly territory. I have a candidate.

Tell me you wouldn't enjoy the day we can tell the Pakistanis to help us fully or good luck on your own.

Just in Time to Say Goodbye

Based on examining enemy documents captured in Iraq, our media admits al Qaeda in Iraq exists:

According to the internal al Qaeda correspondence in the files, Iraqis have taken to, and effectively run, al Qaeda in Iraq. Foreign fighters' roles seem mostly relegated to the canon [sic]fodder of suicide attacks.

Though the upper tiers of the organization are still dominated by non-Iraqis, in Anbar, at least, all the princes and brigade and battalion commanders are homegrown.

They do try, though, to ignore this. This says Iraqis run the organization then the next sentence says foreigners run the organization.

And yes, Iraqis began joining al Qaeda. As the Baathists and nationalists starting losing, the more jihadi-friendly types started to migrate to al Qaeda. This is known. It may be news to CNN but it is not new.

It is fortunate that the media now sees that al Qaeda in Iraq is no neocon myth and more than just a minor nuisance lost in the sea of a "national resistance" against our "occupation."

Because that cannon fodder (or maybe they really meant canon fodder given the religious fanaticism involved) is staying home:

"Foreign suicide bombers have fallen off in 2008 compared to 2007 rather significantly," Gen. Keane said. "Motivation to come to Iraq is down in the Sunnis Arab states because many believe the [al Qaeda] operation in Iraq is a lost cause. Also it is well known that it is far more likely they will not accomplish the mission because [al Qaeda's] capacity to receive them and protect them is diminished greatly."

We are beating al Qaeda on their chosen battlefield in Iraq and the loss is affecting recruiting.

Remember, only ineffective military action creates more terrorists. As I've repeatedly argued, killing the jihadis and, more importantly, depriving them of any hope of victory, really does discourage jihadis from joining up.

Drooling Idiocy in a Lovely Hat

Madeleine Albright is our worst Secretary of State in my living memory.

She is in the paper again, blaming the lack of international response to the Burma regime's refusal to allow foreign aid to help with the May cyclone victims on--wait for it!--George Bush.

Seriously, it's our fault according to her:

The invasion of Iraq, with the administration's grandiose rhetoric about pre-emption, was another matter, however. It generated a negative reaction that has weakened support for cross-border interventions even for worthy purposes. Governments, especially in the developing world, are now determined to preserve the principle of sovereignty, even when the human costs of doing so are high.

Thus, Myanmar's leaders have been shielded from the repercussions of their outrageous actions.

You see, until Iraq, the world was growing supportive of humanitarian interventions and national sovereignty was being discarded by despots and democrats alike. Not that the international community supported our 1999 Kosovo intervention, of course.

So why can't the rest of the world intervene in Burma without us? If the rest of the world is repulsed by our liberation of Iraq, they can just join a coalition of the willing and morally clean to fix Burma the right way. We won't veto the UNSC resolution, I promise.

Hell, we should introduce the resolution authorizng Chapter VII intervention in Burma. Our allies with few exceptions aren't exactly burdened by their commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan, so surely they can spare some troops for a feel-good intervention without our troops tainting their moral purity. Let them intevene. Dare them to intervene to show us how to invade a country the right way. We'll cheer them on and wish them well. Put up or shut up, I say.

But no, that won't happen, because America alone has the moral obligation to intervene when proper EUrophied Europeans decide we should unleash our military power.

And from my first link above, absorb this quote--in my update--from a national security expert from the US Institute for Peace explaining how we are alienating allies:

“You can get away with unilateralism for only the briefest of times,” he says. “You can’t have it both ways—pushing for greater globalization but not supporting things like an international criminal court or the United Nations”

That was from September 2000 during Albright's tenure, when our allies were learning to accept our role in the world, according to Albright. Before we squandered our good will, according to Albright.

Seriously, Albright is a fool. But she has lovely hats.

Sending the Viceroy

China and Taiwan will exchange offices:

Representatives of Taiwan and China have agreed to set up permanent offices in each other's territory to handle contacts through their quasi-official negotiating bodies.

Call me cynical if you will, but don't be too surprised if this office looks a lot like a provincial governor's office.

You know, just in case the need arises.

Dumbfounding Our Enemies

Our enemies have learned that fighting our soldiers and Marines, backed by our airmen and sailors, is sure suicide and a one-way ticket to Paradise.

So for the survivors of their war with us, it must be simply astounding that our leaders work overtime to undo what our warriors achieve.

Like the Senate Intelligence Committee that put out a misleading and wholly inaccurate "report" that is either a lie or reflective of the complete idiocy of the authors. I declined to delve into the extensive exercise in obscuring history. Thankfully, somebody had more intestinal fortitude than I:

Democrats and two useful Republican idiots on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) have colluded in a disgraceful sham, published late last week as a report on “whether public statements regarding Iraq by U.S. government officials were substantiated by intelligence information” prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

All one really needs to know about this exercise in legerdemain is revealed by SSCI Chairman Jay Rockefeller’s diktat — over Republican protest and adopted without a vote — that the Committee would focus myopically on prewar statements made by administration officials. That is, the SSCI opted to overlook the overflowing stream of bellicose commentary, often less restrained, by Democrats.

Do read it all. The abuse of power that the committee majority engineered in the service of partisan political purpose that our enemies are surely stunned to receive as more ammunition in their propaganda war is revolting and unworthy of our Senate. They run the risk of running afoul of McCain-Feingold limits on political advertising with this exercise in erasing history.

Just as amazing from our enemies' point of view is our Supreme Court's ruling that unlawful enemy combatants must have access to our courts:

It has been the objective of the left-wing bar to fight aspects of this war in our courtrooms, where it knew it would have a decent chance at victory. So complete is the Court's disregard for the Constitution and even its own precedent now that anything is possible. And what was once considered inconceivable is now compelled by the Constitution, or so five justices have ruled. I fear for my country. I really do. And AP, among others, reports this story as a defeat for "the Bush administration." Really? I see it as a defeat for the nation.

Our enemies must be dumbfounded that they can gain so much help from within our country even as they get their jihadi asses kicked on the battlefield. No wonder the jihadis believe God is on their side.

This is truly a depressing week for the good guys.

Drive the Snakes Out

Irish voters have the future of the European Union treaty on their shoulders today:

Ireland's citizens voted Thursday on whether to accept or reject the European Union's new reform treaty, a painstakingly negotiated pact that would be damaged or destroyed by an Irish "No."

The Lisbon Treaty seeks to reshape EU institutions and powers to cope with the bloc's near-doubling in size over the past four years from 15 to 27 nations with 495 million people. It contains many of the same reform plans as the EU's previous master plan: a constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005.

This time, among EU nations, only Ireland's 3 million registered voters present a serious threat to ratification. The other 26 members are requiring approval only through their national governments and so far, 18 EU members have done so.

The EU is just Soviet Union Lite as far as I'm concerned. It will snuff out the freedoms of Europeans, strangled in the red tape of a distant and unresponsive parliament. I can only hope that the Irish do their duty and kill the treaty--for a couple years anyway. It will be brought back again just as it is back now after the Dutch and French voters "killed" it.

The BBC this morning on NPR was simply awful. The BBC reporter asked why 3 million voters should decide the fate of 300 million. I ask, why are only 3 million voting on such an important issue? The question answers itself. The EU is anti-democratic and doesn't want people to have a say.

The BBC reporter went on to argue with the interviewee that the treaty was really too complex for voters and that it really shouldn't be up for a vote. That's nice. Let me just say that if you can't explain the basics to voters, the explainer is an idiot or doesn't want the voters to understand. Further, I'd bet that darned few of the "nobility" in either the national parliaments or the EU parliament understand the treaty. Tell me that the members of the 18 parliaments that approved the union understand what they've agreed to.

Anti-Americanism is the unifying ideology of Europe. European nations can be our friends. And Europeans can be our friends. But Europe will not be our friend.

Come on Irish, kill this. Much like the mob, once you are in Europe you can't get out.

UPDATE: Irish voters have spoken--the only voters speaking this round:

Electoral officials say Irish voters have rejected the European Union reform treaty with a national "No" vote of 53.4 percent.

Brussels will win in the end, I'm afraid. Perhaps Brussels will send out a notice of changes of terms and conditions like credit card companies do. Nobody reads those.

Still, the 3 Million held the pass against the imperial advance for a short spell. Perhaps the time bought will allow a bigger state the opportunity to change their mind about the whole damned project.

Only Nixon Can Go to China?

My Jane's defense email updates reports:

Taiwan's Ministry of National Defence (MND) has said that recent "goodwill" gestures by Beijing towards the island "do not mean lasting peace across the Taiwan Strait" and that it will continue to develop its own weapons systems and procure high-technology systems from the United States. Speaking at a Legislative Committee meeting on 4 June, the newly appointed Minister of Defence Chen Chao-min said that "Taiwan's defence build-up and battle readiness remain necessary" and that further military development remained "the basic action [Taiwan] must take" ...

I hope that this is true. But if China insists that warmer relations can only happen if Taiwan foregoes defensive modernization, can President Ma stick to this position?

Perhaps only Ma can buy advanced weapons. And perhaps only the KMT can really become disillusioned with the mainland when it becomes apparent that no amount of warming can satisfy China's demand for Taiwan's submission to Peking.

Can a democratically elected ruler truly just sell out their own country?

Problem Child

Pakistan surely helps us in the war on terror. And we couldn't fight in Afghanistan without Pakistan's cooperation and supply lines running through Pakistan.

But Pakistan is a post-9/11 convert to our side in this fight and continues to support the Taliban:

Pakistani intelligence agents and paramilitary forces have helped train Taliban insurgents and have given them information about American troop movements in Afghanistan, said a report published Monday by a U.S. think tank.

The study by the RAND Corp. also warned that the U.S. will face "crippling, long-term consequences" in Afghanistan if Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan are not eliminated.

We can't push Pakistan too hard to rein in these agents who support the Taliban and make the war in Afghanistan harder to fight. If you think we have problems without full Pakistan help, imagine how hard it would be without much help at all.

Or, we could try a less ambitious and less dangerous Lexington Campaign. Although this route clearly is problematic.

There is one way to cut the Gordian Knot, however.

UPDATE: Fighting a post-Westphalian Lexington Campaign won't be easy at all if the Pakistani government just check out of the war:

On the Afghan border, a battle between Taliban, Pakistani border guards, Afghan and U.S. troops left at least eleven Pakistani troops. The dead were paramilitaries, recruited from local troops. Fights on the border usually start as Afghan or U.S. troops pursue fleeing Taliban (who are trying to reach safety in Pakistani territory). Sometimes the Pakistani troops will open fire on the pursuers. Sometimes the Pakistani border guards basically side with the Taliban, but are usually careful in who they take on. Firing on NATO troops risks bring in the smart bombs, which is what happened this time. The U.S. apologized, but refused to promise it would not happen again, because it will.

It might not be so bad if the Pakistanis wouldn't simultaneously refuse to enforce their sovereignty over the Taliban on the border areas and complain when we cross the border to try to impose some sort of friendly order.

Tell me our strategic options wouldn't be dramatically better if we cut that Gordian Knot.