The Pushing-Old-Ladies-Around Fallacy

Jonah Goldberg is spot on with his critique that President Obama seems immune to events in his determination to "stay the course" on his ISIL war plan, but it is wrong to compare this president's sorry performance in Turkey to Bush 43's refusal to admit mistakes in Iraq.

Our president was surely not up to expectations of presidential stature while he answered questions in Turkey.

But is this really a good comparison?

Obama’s bloodlessly detached and condescendingly professorial remarks seemed oddly reminiscent of those excruciating news conferences during the Iraq War when George W. Bush couldn’t bring himself to admit he made any mistakes.

As somebody wiser than myself has noted, it is not proper to say that a person who pushes an old lady in front of an oncoming bus and a person who pushes an old lady out of the way of an oncoming bus both like to push around old ladies.

Remember, whether or not Bush ever formally admitted to mistakes in Iraq, he did ultimately implicitly concede mistakes by ordering the Surge offensive that changed our strategy.

Of course, I think the "mistakes" analysis ignores that we did successfully defeat a succession of threats in Iraq (and we did win the war by 2008, so perfectly normal for wartime mistakes were not fatal to the outcome). The Surge offensive was simply one more type of threat that we had to overcome and we adapted to do that.

And it ignores the issue of timing for that major strategy change--the Awakening that took place at the end of 2006 and into 2007 was a crucial complement. We had surged troops into Baghdad earlier in 2006 after sectarian violence took off post-Golden Mosque bombing in an effort to adapt to the new threat, but with no effect on the security situation there. The timing of the Surge change was important.

But more important, the criticism of Bush ignores the difference between calls to admit error and change strategy then and now.

Can anyone doubt that the critics of today want the president to admit mistakes in order to do a better job of fighting and winning the war against ISIL?

Can anyone doubt that the critics of Bush 43 wanted him to admit mistakes in order to lose the war in Iraq?

Remember, Democratic opposition to the war intensified as Bush implicitly admitted mistakes and put in place the Surge strategy enabled by the Sunni Arab Awakening.

Even as the plan showed signs of success in summer 2007, Democrats refused to believe good results were being seen.

And even after we won the war, Democratic war opponents did their best to lose Iraq by getting out too soon.

If President Bush didn't want to admit mistakes, it was because he wanted to win and understood the insincerity of the claims by the loyal opposition that he should just admit mistakes so we could move on.

If President Obama does not want to admit mistakes, is it because of his devotion to victory or his devotion to not losing his title of "He Who Responsibly Ends Wars" while not actually losing on his watch?

Remember, despite all the mistakes in Iraq through two administrations, we do have at least a partial success in Iraq of an ally fighting at our side in the war on terror rather than an enemy who supported terror and sought to dominate the region at the expense of our allies.

Heck, even Iraq's imperfect democracy despite losses to ISIL is a factor in the Middle East:

Iraq is being keenly watched by the Arab world. It's one of only few Arab states to have held free and fair elections lately. Iraq, however, is in the center of the Arab world, and its success, or failure, as a democracy, will determine how well democracy will fair in the region. Thus the current struggle with ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) takes on an added urgency.

So perhaps you can say that both President Bush and President Obama don't like to admit mistakes in their handling of the war they are responsible for waging.

But to suggest that the refusals to admit mistakes are from the same motivation is wrong and also ignores the motivations for those who want an admission of error and a change in policy.

By all means, read all of Jonah's piece. Aside from my quibble over that quoted paragraph, it is quite good.

Free Tibet!?

Instead of Free Tibet, the Left has gotten its marching orders to replace that bumper sticker with COEXIST Tibet.

There's always another struggle other than the fight we are in to get the attention of liberals:

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, said on Tuesday an opportunity exists to find "common ground" with Chinese authorities on Tibet, which it has ruled since 1950.

Pelosi, a long-time critic of China's human rights record, took a group of House Democrats to China this month, on a trip that included a rare visit to Tibet.

Pelosi said that while Chinese President Xi Jinping had rejected independence for Tibet, the United States and Tibet's exiled spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, only wanted autonomy.

"So if they (Chinese authorities) think it is about independence, he (Dalai Lama) says it's about autonomy, we only support autonomy ... then I think there is an opportunity to find common ground," she told a news conference.

China considers Tibet a "core interest" that does not allow for compromise.  Local "autonomy" is as much an assault on Chinese Communist Party control as independence, really. China will control the territory and send in non-Tibetans to dilute the local ethnic Tibetans to the point where some day Tibetan culture will just something you see in Han-run museums and gift shops.

But by all means, spend your time looking for ways to come to an agreement with China over their 1950 Tibet conquest instead of dealing with the war on Islamist terrorists we are in now.

Echelon Above Reality

Fight jihadis. Kill jihadis. Defeat the jihad.

God save us from professors in global studies:

The problem is that, as the Paris killings and the French counterattack indicate, the Islamic State is partly a totalitarian state and partly a transnational terrorist organization. As a state it can be attacked and defeated, at least temporarily. And yet, paradoxically, the more we in the West attack the state, the more its appeal as a terrorist organization will grow among those who see the West as an enemy.

Forgive me, but I'm going to use a technical term to describe her error. Her argument is "stupid."

Throughout the history of warfare, killing enemies has been job one of defeating them.

It may not be the only part of the job, but it is the start of the job.

This nonsense has permeated the Left's discomfort with the war on terror since September 11, 2001. They truly believe that fighting back against jihadis just makes more jihadis.

This is wrong. In fact, only ineffectively fighting jihadis creates more jihadis.

Bomb their tents with cruise missiles in the middle of the night? That encourages the recruitment of jihadis by demonstrating that our response is weak and the level of threat to jihadis is low.

I've argued many times that only ineffective use of force is counter-productive. Like here. Or here.

I argued that point again in August 2014 as I made this point:

Let me apply the clue bat: the Islamic State is prepared to morph into a transnational terrorist threat and only our passivity in the face of that organization's advances in Iraq and Syria will allow them to do so.

And here we are. Burying the dead from Paris, Beirut, and the Sinai--as well as in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, and Libya--and wondering where ISIL might strike again.

Attack the jihadis, kill them, and drive them from the territory that they hold, as we did in Iraq by 2009. In 2008, our CIA could say this about our effective use of force:

While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.

All that has changed, Hayden said in an interview with The Washington Post this week that coincided with the start of his third year at the helm of the CIA.

"On balance, we are doing pretty well," he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam," he said.

After that--along with the killing of bin Laden--we get a president who boasted of our victory and that al Qaeda was on their heels and on the run:

And it’s useful to remember what we’ve done. Four years ago, I told you we’d end the war in Iraq -- and we did. (Applause.) I said that we’d end the war in Afghanistan -- and we are. I said that we’d refocus on the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 -- and today, al Qaeda is on its heels and Osama bin Laden is dead.

Sadly, after years of taking our eye off the ball, the jihad was no longer on its heels when he made that claim.

And remember that our Awakening success that helped the success of the 2007 Surge offensive in Iraq took place in the Sunni Arab communuity we targeted in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 which ended their minority-led government of privilege and oppression of the Shias and Kurds. The same people whose Sunni jihadi champions we killed wherever we found them from 2003 to 2006 when we decided to carry out the Surge that escalated the effective violence against the Sunni Arab jihadis.

Why didn't that history of fighting Sunni Arab jihadis (and Baathists) create more Sunni Arab jihadis? Why did it convince Sunni Arabs in Anbar to stop fighting us and actually join us in fighting jihadis?

It's almost as if defeating jihadis has a depressing effect on potential jihadi recruits by denying them the ability to think the jihad is the strong horse in the struggle.

Heck, let me cite President Obama on this issue:

Obama noted at his press conference that when ISIS racks up victories on the battlefield, it attracts foreign fighters looking to join the clear path to paradise. When it loses ground, the recruits decline. This is why the military dimension of this fight is important: to make ISIS a less appealing receptacle for radical jihadis’ dreams of glory or martyrdom.

Even fanatics prefer to fight for the strong horse. Following the weak--or dead--horse just isn't as appealing.

Mind you, the author has a point. It's lost in the stupidity of the notion that fighting back is counter-productive. But it is a point: We don't want to respond to jihadi attacks who claim to speak for Islam by persecuting or killing those Moslems who aren't jihadis or their active supporters.

If we simply kill them all and let Allah sort them out, then yes, absent a near-genocidal level of killing, we will create enough jihadis to replace those we kill. Indeed, it is a form of ineffective use of force. But fighting back with focused violence isn't the same as killing civilians indiscriminately.

Fight them? We're barely back to that stage after a good start during the Bush administration. I dream of effectively fighting them. According to this professor's side of the debate, we can't even screen refugees for them.

Face it, discrediting their ideology of hatred starts with crushing the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria--and any other sanctuary they create (like in Libya).

Fight and defeat the jihadis. And ignore the stupid notions in the left-wing university echelon above reality that values safe spaces for pampered college snowflakes but doesn't think that we need defended safe spaces against jihadi terrorists.

The war will be long enough if we make no mistakes. Let's not make it longer by listening to fools who couldn't pour water out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.

Open the French Sector

France should lead a smaller mission in Libya against ISIL that can accomplish something rather than add their firepower to an unbelievably small American-led effort in Syria that won't accomplish much.

Other than demonstrating the will to strike back, France's expanded air missions over Syria are pointless militarily and it is folly to think that France can push America to do something decisive in Syria:

France needed to demonstrate that it was willing and able to strike, and that the perpetrators should not feel too safe in their hideouts in the Middle East.

However, the real value of these strikes is negligible. A much larger bombing campaign against the Islamic State has been going on for months, with rather limited impact. Additional French firepower in this campaign is useful and welcome, but it won't turn a halfhearted campaign into a military success. Most other European countries are absent from the operation.

But even if more countries joined in, the net effect would be limited, as airpower alone is incapable of delivering the outcome that would make a difference: diminishing the foothold that the Islamic State has established in the Syrian and Iraqi lands it has occupied. That could be achieved only through a massive military buildup, including a significant number of ground troops. No one in Europe wants this. And even if the Europeans did want it, there is very little they could deploy. The options would be limited even if the political will and public support existed, which is not the case.

A serious military operation could really only be conducted in alliance with the United States, a country staunchly opposed to any armed entanglement on the ground in the region.

The French air strikes should merely be a placeholder until France can organize a bigger effort that includes ground power. And that effort should be aimed at defeating jihadis in Libya and eliminating the ISIL mini-state in central Libya along the coast in Khadaffi's former stronghold.

Cleaning up Libya and helping sane forces exercise control over the territory would have a lot of advantages.

It would deprive ISIL of a sanctuary.

It would slow down recruiting of jihadis.

It would gain control of the former Khadaffi arsenal.

It would end a source of instability to Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, and points to the southwest in France's former colonies where France maintains security relations and troops to defend these countries.

It would slow down the flow of migrants heading to Europe from the south.

It would add oil production to the world supply.

French marines, paratroopers, and Foreign Legion troops would suffice to operate in the south to help suppress jihadi influence that spills out to neighbors (as it did in Mali after the fall of Khadaffi's government).

French forces could also operate out of the east or west where more reasonable Libyan elements dominate in order to clean out jihadis and drive into the central coastal areas to ultimately deny ISIL control of that region.

Ideally, France leverages relations with Saudi Arabia and Egypt (the Saudis bought for Egypt the Mistral amphibious vessels originally built for Russia) to get the Saudis to finance an Egyptian ground force of a mechanized division and special forces supported by air power to support Libyan forces in the east to defeat jihadis there.

France can support operations from the sea (move the French carrier there from the Gulf) and from NATO land bases in Sicily and Crete.

America could provide support as we did in the original Libya war.

Face it, France can't do the job against ISIL in their homeland spanning Iraq and Syria; and their contribution to any fight there is pointless. Only our level of effort can be decisive at this point. If we make the effort, France is irrelevant to success. And if we don't make the effort, France can't make the effort decisive with what it brings to the table.

Short of nuking Raqqa, of course.

But France has good troops who can make a difference on a front where smaller numbers can be decisive. France showed what they can do in Libya in 2011 and in Mali in 2013. What they need is a sector in the ISIL front where they can be decisive.

With forces in Libya that can be supported, and with Egyptian help that at best includes ground power, special forces, and air power (and at least includes special forces and air power), France can make a decisive effort against ISIL that will hurt the terrorist group and help stabilize a region of importance to France.

Open the French sector.

UPDATE: Speaking of Mali:

Islamist gunmen stormed a luxury hotel packed with foreigners in Mali's capital Bamako on Friday, taking 170 hostages in a former French colony that has been battling rebels allied with al Qaeda for several years.

A senior security source said some of the hostages had been freed after being made to recite verses from the Koran. The French newspaper Le Monde quoted the Malian security ministry as saying at least three hostages had been killed.

This is still going on. I dare say settling Libya down and securing its territory would help reduce the scope of the threat in Mali and the region.

UPDATE: Strategypage discusses Libya:

The mess in Libya is not helped by the presence of ISIL (al Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant). ISIL has found Libya an excellent place to be. For one thing ISIL can finance its operations in Libya largely through people smuggling. This is a growth industry, going from practically nothing in 2011 to over thousand paying illegal migrants a day. ...

ISIL attracts the more fanatic men from other militias and has concentrated this evil in a few places (Sirte, Derna and Benghazi) and wherever ISIL is it is under attack by local militias.

And the Mali connection:

Across the southern border in Mali Libya based Islamic terrorists attacked a major hotel in the Mali capital and killed 19 people The Al Qaeda second-in-command in Libya, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, took credit for the attack. Belmokhtar also took credit for a similar attack on another Mali hotel in August. Belmokhtar was also behind the January 2013 natural gas facility attack in southern Algeria that got 37 workers killed. He has also survived several attempts to kill him and has a reputation for being elusive. He survived such attacks in 2013, 2014 and early 2015. Since 2013 his al Mourabitoun faction has been using bases in southern Libya and has been seen operating in northern Mali and Niger. The U.S. is offering a $5 million reward for information that would lead to the death or capture of Belmokhtar. Al Mourabitoun continues to survive in Libya because of the chaos there.

Seriously, France should focus on the Libya Front to battle ISIL rather than try to ramp up an effort in Syria that will be futile unless we decide to go all out.

Of Course It Won't Be a Treaty

President Obama will not consider any agreement on carbon emissions as a treaty. Well, fair is fair.

If you didn't see this coming, you weren't paying attention:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has poured cold water on the looming Paris climate talks, telling the FT that there is “definitively not going to be a treaty.”

That's okay. Why should it be a treaty? After all, whatever agreement comes out of Paris won't be effective even if you assume all that the global warmers claim:

Even if every nation in the world adheres to its climate change commitments by 2030 the only difference it will make to “global warming” by the end of this century will be to reduce the world’s temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F).

Or are the nations gathering in Paris expected to agree to achieve the latest 5-year plan in just 4 years, or something more ambitious than they've claimed they will achieve?

Ah! Science! I just don't think that word means what they think it means.

It's All Smart Diplomacy, All the Time, These Days

God, our Syria policy sucks. Thankfully, Secretary of State Kerry has a dizzying intellect.

As France recovers from the Paris terror attacks, Russia tells France "you've got a guided missile cruiser:"

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday ordered the Russian missile cruiser Moskva, currently in the Mediterranean, to start cooperating with the French military on operations in Syria.

So Russia begins to pry apart Western will to resist the Assad regime. As I've said, I don't believe Russia's small military intervention can save Assad. For that objective, Russia needs John "you've got a friend" Kerry.

And God help us, but I think Kerry will once again (as he did with the faux Syrian chemical weapons deal hammered out with Russia's Lavrov) help Russia save Assad's regime:

Speaking to reporters at the residence of the U.S. ambassador to France, Kerry said the ceasefire envisioned by the political process agreed upon in Vienna on Saturday would exponentially help efforts to fight the Islamic State group, which has claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks that killed 129 people, as well as end the drawn-out Syrian conflict, which has gone on for over four years.

"That's a gigantic step," Kerry said. "If we can get that done, that opens up the aperture for a whole bunch of things. We're weeks away conceivably from the possibility of a big transition for Syria, and I don't think enough people necessarily notice that. But that's the reality."

If there is a deal, it will revolve around Assad retiring as a symbolic Western victory ("Assad has to go") while preserving the Assad regime below him with Western help.

I called it two years ago after the faux chemical weapons deal:

[Stalling the chemical weapons deal] will allow Assad to string out the process as long as he possibly can to buy time to defeat the moderate rebels and leverage the role of jihadis into a Western acceptance that Assad is the lesser of two evils.

Yes indeed, Assad is managing to become the enemy of our enemy.

Think about it. Assad is the one who pulled off a Potomac Awakening to flip us to his side! And this despite his slaughter of his own people, including with chemical weapons!

I'm in freaking awe of Assad's diplomacy. At this rate, Assad will share the Nobel-fricking Peace Prize with a stiffly smiling John Kerry (who will actually believe he deserves the prize).

That my friends, would be Smart Diplomacy.

This from the man who said that the November 13th attacks were incomprehensible in contrast to the more understandable motives for the Charlie Hebdo/Jewish deli attacks at the beginning of the year in Paris:

"There's something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that," he said in remarks at the U.S. Embassy in Paris. "There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of - not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, 'Okay, they're really angry because of this and that.' This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate."

Cartoons and Jews. Who can blame the jihadis, really, right John?

What an idiot. Worst. Secretary of State. Ever.

We should let Putin flail in his military adventure in Syria. But no, John Kerry will help Russia achieve their objective of keeping a pro-Russian entity on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea where Russia can have a port and air bases; and Iran's objective of maintaining an outpost to support Hezbollah in Lebanon.

But since Assad formally steps down, Kerry will be able to pretend he is a brilliant diplomat.

We should have stepped up to be the ally France needed to in order to strike back at ISIL in Syria (and point them in a more productive direction, after).

The only potential bright side is in Iraq, where after painfully long delays, we finally appear to be stirring into action. It appears almost subliminal in nature, but I retain hope.

God, our foreign policy sucks. And Kerry is a force multiplier in increasing the suck factor.

UPDATE: Seriously, why is this man still our top diplomat?

There really is no way of reading these comments other than as a craven ranking of outrages. Forget Kerry’s brief flirtation with the word “legitimacy” and assume that he said “rationale” from the start. That changes precisely nothing. The top diplomat in the United States just publicly argued that because the victims at Charlie Hebdo had spoken risqué words but the victims at the Bataclan had not, the violence against the former was more comprehensible than the violence against the latter. Has he lost his mind?

In a time that France has decided to join the war on Islamo-fascists, the charge of "cheese-eating surrender monkey" can be directed at our own top diplomat.

UPDATE: John Kerry and turning the stupid up to 11.

UPDATE: What the heck, I think this administration goes to 12:

Secretary of State John Kerry believes that al Qaeda’s “top leadership” has been “neutralize[d]” as “an effective force.” He made the claim while discussing the administration’s strategy, or lack thereof, for combating the Islamic State (ISIS), which is al Qaeda’s jihadist rival. Kerry believes that the U.S. and its allies can finish off ISIS quicker than al Qaeda. There’s just one problem: It is not true that al Qaeda or its top leaders have been “neutralize[d].”

What did we do to deserve such a monumentally awful secretary of state?

Non-State Versus Non-State

The hacker group Anonymous has declared war in ISIL:

The hacker group Anonymous has apparently responded to the attacks on Paris by posting a video declaration of war against ISIS.

In the as-yet-unverified video, posted on YouTube, a spokesperson wearing the group's signature Guy Fawkes mask said the group of hackers would use its expertise to wage "war" on the militant group.

Which is a form of privatized warfare, as much as jihadi groups represent that, too.

How long before Western groups begin waging private warfare in the physical world as well?

The Important First Step

All this talk of how we can't defeat ISIL militarily and we must defeat them ideologically misses the point that ISIL actually has a state to defeat and that crushing that state will be a good start to defeating them ideologically.

I keep hearing Nuanced Americans say that we can't defeat ISIL on the battlefield. Why not?

Did we engage the Nazis ideologically from 1941 to 1945? Is that how we defeated them? Did we send telegrams to Nazis and convince them of the error of their Aryan ways?

Or did we kill the Nazis and their supporters, drive them back into Germany, occupy their country, and force them to ban the ideology that spawned their aggression through an occupation that still goes on 70 years after the war was responsibly ended?

Yeah, it was the latter. I know I'm not the first to state this obvious fact, but it bears repeating.

Face it, part of the appeal of ISIL is that they have a state--the Islamic State--that spans large sections of Iraq and Syria. Plus they have franchise operations spreading across the Middle East and have the ability to bomb planes and attack Paris and Beirut.

Smashing their sanctuary in Iraq and Syria will be a good start in delegitimizing their ideology. Let's adopt my Iraq-first strategy that we actually seem to be finally starting in Iraq.

As for Syria, prepare for the long run post-Assad by supporting non-jihadi rebels and the Kurds. And while it is too late to set up a no-fly zone because of the risk of clashes with the Russian air force, we could set up fire-support zones with long-range rockets in Turkey and Jordan using aircraft flying along the border and drones inside Syria to help guide them against Syrian army, Hezbollah, and Iranian units, as I noted here:

Oh, and given that it will be difficult to safely provide air support for rebels in the western part of Syria because of Russia's planes and air defenses, why not use MLRS-launched ATACM long-range precision missiles placed in Turkey and Jordan? They have a range of 180 miles.

These long range missiles would help support rebels without risking air-to-air combat.

And if rebels start pushing away from the borders? Well, by then the Russians will be evacuating their forces and the skies will be cleared for our air power.

And set France to the task of cleaning up Libya. We'll help, I'm sure. France does not have the military to make a real difference in Syria. France has the military to make a difference in Libya, especially if France can get Egypt's help.

Remember, we did such a good job against al Qaeda by smashing them first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq where al Qaeda decided to make their main effort that President Obama boasted in his reelection campaign that al Qaeda was on their heels and on the run.

But we let up the pressure to maintain the election campaign fiction that the president had "responsibly ended" the war. And so al Qaeda in Iraq was reborn as ISIL (with Baathist help, don't forget).

So even smashing ISIL in their caliphate and denying them a state won't be enough. We have to keep going after the jihadis who believe in ISIL wherever they are so that potential recruits turn down the Internet offer to go die in an unmarked grave in some Hell hole because one of our JDAMs or special operators killed them.

And maybe Moslem soccer fans won't feel so emboldened that they mock the deaths of Westerners by chanting "Allahu-Akbar" during a moment of silence.

We have to keep going after the jihadis so that moderate Moslems have the security to define Islam their way rather than the way ISIL and other jihadis want to define Islam.

So do we have to defeat Islamo-fascists ideologically? You bet we do.

And smashing their jihadi caliphate is the first step toward doing that. Let's get on with it. It's a long war.

Organizing for Anarchy

I noted the often-communist organizers of protest movements. There's a new player on the block organizing them.

Smart. These people say never waste a crisis to do what you want to do anyway.

They've taken it one step further to avoid having to wait for the proper crisis and actually create the crisis and the people to demand the things you want to do anyway.

UPDATE: Are the university leaders cowardly caving in to the mob?

Angry mobs have roiled more than three dozen American campuses in recent weeks, disrupting student life with long lists of demands — with no end in sight.

Indeed, it’s sure to keep up as long as cowardly university “leaders” keep kowtowing to the campus fascists.

Or are administrators just using the mob's demands to do what they've wished to do all along?

Either way, by rewarding mob tactics, colleges will get more mobs.

And if the left-wing "leaders" haven't noticed, the even-more-left-wing mobs see the administrators as class enemies, too.

Begone Puny Mortals!

So President Obama on Monday while in Turkey mocked his critics who think little of his strategy against ISIL by asking if they get better advice than his Joint Chiefs of Staff provide. Oh, please. Stop hiding behind the men in uniform who have to salute and drive on.

Really? Our military advised the president to carry out the current strategy against ISIL? They were given a clean-slate order to come up with the best plan and this is it? I think not. There is no way our military would advise this type of slow-motion, arms-length intervention.

Yes, they wrote the plans for what we are doing. But they knew exactly the parameters of what they would be allowed to carry out. They saluted and drove on to do what they could rather than do nothing while asking to do what they think we must.

And I don't blame them. I don't actually think we should send ground force maneuver units to Iraq and Syria to fight ISIL. Yes, our troops could scatter ISIL and deny them control of their caliphate.

But the Iraq War exposed that even when we go to war against evil with the full support of both parties in Congress, public opinion, and a large coalition, when the going gets tough, the not-so-tough get amnesia.

Let's remember for them, shall we?



Tip to Instapundit.

But then they decided we were "lied" into war, neglecting that they asserted those so-called "lies" as confidently as any hated NeoCon.

So no, I'm not going to hang our troops out to dry by advocating sending them into a ground war that I know they will not be allowed to win--just to die for.

But we can do more. We can bomb more effectively, with forward air controllers and advisors on the ground with Iraqi troops, and with better rules of engagement that emphasize killing the enemy rather than avoiding bad headlines for dead civilians held as human shields.

And remember, unlike before the Iraq War, Iraq is--however imperfectly--on our side in the fight against jihadis rather than being a magnet and training site for them as Iraq was when Saddam Hussein ran the place.

So when once we needed American maneuver units in large numbers to win, now we have the option of using Iraqi units for the bulk of the ground fight. Thank Bush 43 for that.

Thank our current president for letting that success erode so much after 2011.

Despite that own-goal, we can still create mobile forces to lead the advance in Iraq with our air power in support to kill jihadis in large numbers, and allow the less-trained remainder of the Iraqi ground forces to follow and hold terrain taken.

Some Iraqi units will be good enough for this role. Perhaps some allies can be convinced to contribute if they think we are serious about actually winning. And perhaps if all else fails we can organize mercenary battalions to lead parts of the advance.

So the notion that critics want 150,000 American troops inside Iraq is a straw man argument that the president makes. And hiding behind our top military officers as if  our current course was their best advice is nonsense.

Our president has good military advice. The problem is the civilian decision-making above the military.

UPDATE: So, France is our oldest ally and we are both members of NATO. In France's hour of need, the French decide that they'd like an ally at least willing to fight:

France and Russia bombed Islamic State targets in Syria on Tuesday, punishing the group for attacks in Paris and against a Russian airliner that together killed 353 people, and made the first tentative steps toward a possible military alliance.

After the Charlie Hebdo slaughter, John Kerry unleashed James Taylor to let the French know they have a friend. But as everyone knows, if you want a friend in Washington, D.C., get a dog. France finds they would rather have an ally, it seems.

UPDATE: It was not a presidential performance we witnessed in Turkey.

The Army Fire Corps

As the Air Force continues to demonstrate that it isn't really committed to providing air support to ground troops except under the conditions that the Air Force thinks is appropriate, let's look at one way the Army is making air support less necessary on the battlefield.

Precision is moving down the food chain to the squad level:

An American firm (Raytheon) has successfully tested a new revolutionary weapon; the Pike 40mm laser guided missile. Pike is another step in the constant shrinking of precision guided munitions, much like the miniaturization of personal electronic devices everyone is familiar with. 40mm Pike is a major step in further miniaturization of laser guided missiles especially for infantry and ground vehicles. Pike will be much cheaper than heavier existing systems like Javelin. The tiny 0.7 kg (1.5 pound) and 43 centimeter (17 inch) long Pike can reach targets up to two kilometers distant and come within 4.5 meters (14.5 feet) of the designated target. The major advantage of this missile is that it can be fired from some of the already existing 40mm grenade launchers, like the M320 and FN EGLM. All that is needed is a second soldier with pistol sized laser designator illuminating a target for the missile, and thanks to the semi active laser homing and parabolic trajectory of the missile, the target needs to be illuminated only about 15 seconds after the missile is launched.

We have precision at the platoon level.

And don't forget company-level precision.

All this precision being pushed down will speed up the tempo of operations (at the battalion level in that case), which will put a world of hurt on our enemies (although as this precision proliferates, we will eventually fight enemies with similar capabilities).

I'm starting to think that the retention of the A-10 is necessary only to bridge the gap between needing air power for precision support to having the Army provide precision fire support from long-range rockets and artillery to drones and infantry weapons.

The Air Force wants to aim high, as their recruiting slogan once held. Perhaps they should.

Solar System Warming

The Western Sahara used to have rivers that drained into the Atlantic. Behold the global warming link.

This is interesting:

Using orbital radar satellite imagery, Charlotte Skonieczny of the L'Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer and her colleagues looked beneath today’s bone-dry, sandy desert to geological features beneath. These ancient features helped them map a river system some 320 miles long that lines up perfectly with the sediments and underwater canyon.

This started 245,000 years ago.

But don't worry. Of course there is a global warming angle:

The Sahara's climate shift was driven by subtle variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun, the researchers say. That such a drastic shift could arise from such minute variations in sunlight is "Yet another reminder," the researchers write, "in the context of the growing greenhouse gases emissions (another external forcing), of how sensitive the climate system is."

Yeah, no big research money for orbital variations, I assume.

You know what else that Sahara climate shift is a reminder of? The importance of that big hot thing up in the sky that we call the Sun on the climate of our planet.

When the energy reaching Earth from that massive ball of nuclear fusion changes, our climate changes. It's the damnedest thing.

But variations in the Earth's orbit isn't a factor that can be affected by forcing people to mindlessly sort trash into multi-colored bins. So it is only a reminder of something else that some people can pretend will affect the climate.

Joining the War

It took the September 11, 2001 attack to convince Americans we are at war with jihadis. Jihadis had thought that way before, but few here agreed. The November 13, 2015 attacks seem to have convinced the French that they are at war with jihadis:

France is at war. At war against a terrorism that is totalitarian, blind and horribly murderous. We’ve known it since the attacks against Charlie Hebdo and the kosher supermarket in Paris in January.

Yeah, those peace sign Eiffel Towers are lovely. But unless Moslems are slapping them on their car bumpers in ISIL controlled territory, in Saudi Arabia, and in Iran, just what's the point?

The French should put that symbol on their expeditionary forces' uniforms and equipment sent to fight ISIL.

After the September 11 attacks here, the French famously asserted "we are all Americans, now." Now others are claiming to be French, in solidarity.

Well, not everyone.

The French didn't really mean it when they said it in 2001, of course. Sure, there was sincere sympathy. I never doubted that. But it was heavily tinged with a "you had it coming, you know" nuance.

Think about it. The French have known they are at war since the early 2015 Charlie Hebdo terror attack.

Not since 2001 when they declared we are all Americans. In 2015 they realized they were at war.

As I wrote on the day of the November 13 attacks in Paris, "now, we are all Americans."

The jihadis cannot be contained. But they can be killed.

So let's start killing them and defeating them. France should focus on Libya, I think.

And we should help France fight. The French don't need weepy symbolic gestures that assure them they have a friend. They need an ally.

With a sense of urgency, please, since there is no excuse not to see what our enemies want to do to us. It's been translated into French, now, so even John Kerry should understand that the global test has finally been passed, right?

Fight them. Kill them. Defeat them. Discredit them.

Crusades, Syria, Cartoons, Wines, or Whatever

The Paris attacks were convenient for Iran, given the wine dispute with France.

Iran's chief nutball won't go to Paris as planned:

Hassan Rouhani on Saturday postponed what would have been the first visit to Europe by an Iranian president in 10 years after attacks in Paris that he described as "crimes against humanity."

No doubt, the news video of him grinning like a kid in a candy store as he tries to show proper sadness would be too much for him. Too soon, as the expression goes.

Rouhani's hand puppet, Assad, had no such restraint:

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said Saturday that French policy had contributed to the "spread of terrorism" that culminated in attacks claimed by the Islamic State group which killed 128 people in Paris.

Bad form. And wrong. If it isn't the military campaign France participates in--or the cartoons--it could just be the menu that works up the Easily Excitable.

You recall this dispute pre-11/13, right? (tip to Instapundit):

French officials have reportedly canceled plans for a formal dinner with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in Paris next week following a dispute over the menu.

Mr. Rouhani was set to dine with French President François Hollande during a landmark trip to Europe, but the Iranian, according to France’s RTL radio, insisted on an alcohol-free meal with halal meat, according to traditional Islamic customs.

Seriously, good on France for standing up to this attempt at religious bullying.

Will we bow to Iran?

The nuclear deal between world powers and Iran could lead to better relations between Tehran and Washington and the eventual re-opening of embassies in both capitals, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was quoted as saying on Thursday.

However, he said he expected the United States to apologize to Iranians before diplomatic relations could be restored.

It's not enough that we paved the way for Iran to get nuclear weapons and money to sow chaos and death in the region. We have to say we're sorry.

I'd give good money to have the State Department issue a statement saying "we're sorry you're a bunch of barbaric nutballs."

If only the West in general had the spine to defend all of our Western heritage with the same confidence as France defended their wine selection for dinner.

We'll see how France--and the rest of the world as it descends into faux hashtag and Eiffel Tower peace sign solidarity after the Paris slaughter--responds to well over a hundred dead because of the Sunni flavor of jihadi nutballery.

That's Not a March

This is a march. Heh.

Well, those college marchers are just failing to check their civilian privilege.

Tip to National Review Online.

Oh, and do enjoy the extended bitch slap that Jonah Goldberg inflicts on the baby proto-commissars stamping their feet on our campuses.

France Should Have Their Own Sector to Command in the War on ISIL

The French seem determined to react to the Paris slaughter like they are at war. Rather than escalate their fight in Iraq and Syria, France should take the lead in eliminating the ISIL presence in Libya and helping Libyans unify their country to keep jihadis under control.

So France will finally act like they are at war:

The defense ministers of France and the United States agreed Sunday on "concrete steps" to intensify cooperation against the Islamic State group, the Pentagon said.

France has struck already:

France launched "massive" air strikes on the Islamic State group's de-facto capital in Syria Sunday night, destroying a jihadi training camp and a munitions dump in the city of Raqqa, where Iraqi intelligence officials say the attacks on Paris were planned.

Twelve aircraft including 10 fighter jets dropped a total of 20 bombs in the biggest air strikes since France extended its bombing campaign against the extremist group to Syria in September, a Defense Ministry statement said. The jets launched from sites in Jordan and the Persian Gulf, in coordination with U.S. forces.

This "massive" effort is a rounding error in what we can do. What's the point other than to look like they are reacting to the Paris death toll? Did France strike targets we couldn't hit because we don't have enough military power in the area? I don't think so.


I think it is absolutely a mistake to react to the ISIL attack on Paris by simply increasing France's role in the Iraq-Syria front.

Given that France took the lead in overthrowing Khadaffi back in 2011 and endured the blowback from that war in Mali, where the French led a counter-attack in 2013 against jihadis who had taken over the northern part of Mali, it makes sense to me that France should take the lead in Libya where ISIL has carved out territory rather than up their role in the Iraq-Syria campaign from 3% of coalition air strikes to 5%--or whatever the actual small percentages might be.

We can handle the fight in Iraq and Syria with other allies--if we get a sense of urgency.

No, we should work with France to help them cobble an alliance together with Egypt--which just suffered from ISIL in the Sinai airliner bombing and the ongoing Sinai terrorism--and with Saudi Arabia--which bankrolls Egypt and which is already engaged in Yemen and Syria--in order to support Haftar's efforts in eastern Libya and enable these forces to push into central Libya where ISIL has staked out territory.

With French air power at sea with their aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean Sea and other planes operating from Italian territory, France could support an Egyptian ground force intervention from the east. French and other allied special forces would assist, too.

France could even assist with mobile forces sent into southwest Libya from the French troops scattered throughout northwestern Africa in order to help western-based Libyan forces clean up and secure that region.

If Libya can be settled down under non-jihadi control, the bad effects of post-Khadaffi chaos in Libya would be reduced. This would help stabilize northwest Africa and reduce an avenue for migrants heading north to Europe and tamp down a source of jihadi recruits.

France could take the lead in Libya, but in Iraq and Syria, France would just be a minor contributor to the main effort we lead. We should help France in such a Libya campaign with logistics and intelligence where they can strike a real blow against ISIL rather than encourage France to step up in Iraq and Syria.

UPDATE: We might get UN blessings for this mission:

All sides in Libya's conflict are committing breaches of international law that may amount to war crimes, including abductions, torture and the killing of civilians, the United Nations said on Monday.

Islamic State forces have gained and consolidated control over swathes of territory, "committing gross abuses including public summary executions of individuals based on their religion or political allegiance", said the joint report by the U.N. human rights office and U.N. Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL).

And it would be nice to help non-jihadis win. And sooner rather than later.

But for now, France is rounding up the usual suspects at home:

Police raided homes of suspected Islamist militants across France overnight following Friday's Paris attacks, and a source close to the investigation said a Belgian national in Syria was the possible mastermind.

And don't forget to look around in the occupied territories. Tip to Instapundit.

UPDATE: Bombing ISIL in Syria is certainly appropriate as a short-term French response to the Paris attacks planned in ISIL's Syria stronghold:

They "were decided and planned in Syria, prepared and organised in Belgium and perpetrated on our soil with French complicity", he said.

In response, France would "intensify" operations in Syria, Hollande said a day after French jets pounded IS targets in the group's Syrian stronghold of Raqa, its first military response to the Paris carnage.

"We will continue the strikes in the weeks to come," Hollande told lawmakers.

But this really should be a weeks-long effort. What, I ask, is France attacking that we can't with our current resources? We don't need more planes dropping bombs. We need better rules of engagement, a better approach to the ground component, and a sense of urgency to get on with visibly smashing ISIL's caliphate, but we don't need a dozen more planes with the tricolor on their fuselages.

While France strikes back in Syria, I hope they look to the months ahead and open up their own front against ISIL in Libya, and work with the Egyptians and other NATO allies to put somebody sane in charge of Libya who can control their territory and keep it from being a playground for jihadis.

By All Means, Bring On the Great Game

Should India and American work together to fight the "great game" in Central Asia? Well, yeah.

India should compete in Central Asia in cooperation with America:

India recognizes that its greatest strategic rival in the region is China. Muzalevsky calls China the greatest “barrier” to India’s emergence as a power in Central Asia and a global great power. Indeed, India views Chinese strategy here as one of geopolitical encirclement. Muzalevsky writes:

To that purpose, China has . . . used its growing economic and security partnerships with Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar to India’s northeast; Sri-Lanka, Thailand, and Malaysia to India’s southeast; Pakistan and Afghanistan to India’s northwest; and Central Asia to India’s northwest.

This landward geographical encirclement coupled with China’s expanded role in the Indian Ocean poses insurmountable dilemmas for India’s plans to expand its influence in Central Asia unless it eschews non-alignment and, Muzalevsky suggests, strategically partners with the United States.

I'm not even that committed to winning the great game in Central Asia, truth be told. Although if India wants to win that game, I'd help them.

But basically I just want China to commit to Central Asia at the expense of their seaward focus that runs right into American interests.

And making the seaward side a tougher nut to crack can help push the Chinese inland, eh? So help the Taiwanese get submarines. Submarines would both help Taiwan sink Chinese navy assets trying to blockade Taiwan and help sink shipping going to and from China.

Remember, our pivot of military assets to Asia and the Pacific is just one way to restore the balance of power with China in our favor. Getting China to pivot away from the Pacific to the interior of Asia is the other way.

No Endless War

One reason I want to press the war overseas to kill jihadis and help the Moslem world win their civil war to define Islam as a religion of peace rather than a religion of jihad, beheadings, and rape as al Qaeda, ISIL, and their ilk want is that a war that drags on without victory erodes our civil liberties at home.

In France, because of the Friday slaughter in Paris, they have a state of emergency unheard of in the last five decades. This should be a reminder of what happens when a war against terrorists drags on without end. Just what is enough security?

As I wrote back in 2003, and have touched on now and again since then, we need to win the war against jihadis in order to secure our freedoms here:

As long as we fight our enemies our civil liberties will be reduced. That is what happens in war. One of the mundane aspect of this threat level hit me yesterday. I received a rejection letter from a defense journal for an article I submitted (oh well, I'm one for two for the submissions I made in the fall). What really struck me were the two copies of my paper that they returned. They were yellowed. Then I remembered, oh yeah, as a government outfit they would have to zap every mail package with whatever device they use to neutralize Anthrax. This process yellows the paper.

This is just one of the prices we pay for defending against terrorists. And if we are to pull back into fortress America, how many police and soldiers will be needed on our streets? How many questions will we need to answer as government security people question us wherever we move? How many public places will be closed off to the public to keep terrorists from destroying our monuments and buildings?

Loss of privacy and freedom are the prices we will pay for letting our enemies live to plot against us. And every time they strike, we will crack down more. By sitting on the defensive, we guarantee that our enemies will eventually strike us successfully. Defense can only slow the pace, not end the attacks against us. Would these opponents of war say that we should do nothing to prevent attacks? Will they say that exploding malls and occasional plagues are the price we should pay to arrive at the airport five minutes before our flight?

If we want our liberties back fully, if we want the luxury of not having our mail irradiated because nutballs would kill us by mail, we must take the offensive and go after our enemies. Al Qaeda and the states that support them because of their common hatred of America must be destroyed.

Then we can debate our civil liberties and go on with our lives.

Let's finally get serious about the war. We give our enemies time, and as Paris and Beirut and the Sinai and countless other places around the world (remember #bringbackourgirls in Nigeria?), they use it to kill innocent people. Let's actually defeat them. And then we can take the steps we need to fully protect our civil liberties without unduly risking carnage in our streets or in our skies.

That quoted post is from my old Yahoo Geocities site. I cut and pasted it into Blogger. But if you want to see the original you can go here to the Undead Archives and scroll down.

To the Shores of Tripoli Again

American F-15s struck ISIL in Libya on Friday:

The strike in the town of Darnah in eastern Libya was aimed at Abu Nabil, also known as Wissam Najm Abd Zayd al Zubaydi. He is an Iraqi national who led Qaeda operations in western Iraq, along the corridor between Falluja and Ramadi, from 2004 until 2010. He later moved to eastern Libya to lead Islamic State operations there, the officials said.

The planes are based in Britain. It is not clear if the planes flew directly from Britain with aerial refueling or if they staged to a base in Greece or Italy first. Nor is it clear how many aircraft participated, with only the plural "planes" in the story implying at least a pair.

We apparently believe we killed Nabil.

The attack was planned before the ISIL strike on Paris.

You may also know the city as Derne. I think American forces were last there in 1805.

UPDATE: The notion that enemies will try to attack and win rather than patiently wait for us to set up the perfect killing blow seems to elude people:

Defying Western efforts to confront the Islamic State on the battlefield, the group has evolved in its reach and organizational ability, with increasingly dangerous hubs outside Iraq and Syria and strategies that call for using spectacular acts of violence against civilians.

I just don't understand why it is so shocking that an enemy will use time when we grant them that most precious commodity in war.

From the Department of Bad Timing

President Obama said in a Friday morning broadcast of an interview that ISIL is contained:

"I don't think they're gaining strength," Obama said of ISIS. "What is true, from the start our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq and in Syria they'll come in, they'll leave. But you don't see this systemic march by ISIL across the terrain."

Of course, our idiot savant secretary of state had something to say about the war on ISIL:

US Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday warned the Islamic State jihadist group its "days are numbered", following an American strike in Syria targeting British militant "Jihadi John".

And then the jihadis marched across the terrain in Paris on Friday night.

If we were actually taking decisive efforts to defeat ISIL, we wouldn't have to elevate minor (but gratifying) successes like killing "Jihadi John" into decisive Iwo Jima moments.

Although to be fair to Kerry, a really large number is still a number. So no need to fact check that statement.

Then of course, we have the new Canadian leader who, after winning the election, vowed to take Canada out of the fight against ISIL:

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Friday it was too soon to say whether the deadly attacks in Paris would prompt him to reconsider his pledge to withdraw Canada from airstrikes against Islamic State militants in the Middle East.

Because not making eye contact with the nutballs is the way to protect Canadians. Or maybe not. Too soon to say.

And in Norway:

Norway's police, who have been authorised to carry firearms for the past year due to a heightened threat of Islamist attacks, will be unarmed again now that the threat level has been lowered, police said Friday.

National police chief Odd Reidar Humlegard told reporters the measure would take effect on November 17.

Yeah, about that:

Norway's security service PST says two men have been arrested for suspected links to the Islamic State militant group.

In a short period of time, ISIL has downed a Russian airliner taking off from Egypt, bombed Beirut, and attacked Paris.

But no worries. The French and Norwegians are the ones who deserve this type of treatment. Maybe even the Canadians. And India, too (you remember Mumbai/Bombay). Right? No need to worry about America.

Wait. What?

Fox News reports that jihadi web sites are rejoicing over today’s terrorist attacks in Paris. The line we have heard more than once from ISIS-related sites is, “The American blood is best, and we will taste it soon.”

Dang. Where the heck did that come from? Perhaps these ISIL misunderstood lost souls simply haven't heard the inspiring words of our president's 2009 outreach speech to the Islamic world. Didn't that solve our jihadi problem?

Yeah, the jihadis are on the run, all right. They're running through the streets of our cities and would love to run here.

A little sense of urgency in killing and defeating these jihadi bastards is in order, no?