Worrying Too Much?

In general, I think it is absolutely correct to get Iraqi units into the fight so they can replace our units in the fight. This is classic counter-insurgency for an allied country. We can't win for them--we must help them win. I've noted this for over two years now.

Yet I have sympathy for the view of those who worry that we are planning to draw down our combat forces in Iraq too soon. I've mentioned this worry already as this possibility becomes real.

And this Weekly Standard blog piece repeats the basic concern: as we stand up Iraqi army units, rather than stand down our units, we should use them to attack the enemy and break them down.

Yet I can't shake the feeling that this is similar to other helpful suggestions in that they are suggesting we do what we are already doing. Consider that our troops strength has not dropped even as we've stood up Iraqi units. We are simply not replacing them depsite the fear of some that we will pull out too soon. The fact that we have been able to deploy units to go after the enemy in al Anbar in a persistent fashion the last several months demonstrates that we are not standing down as Iraqis stand up. If we were, we might have stood down 60-70,000 troops by now.

The Weekly Standard piece says we need to hit the enemy with the extra forces. We are doing this. As we atomize the enemy out west and Iraqi units come in behind us to pacify population centers, at some point we simply won't need to keep as many units in Iraq since we won't have targets for offensive action. We will be able to start pulling units out without relinquishing the edge we have to maintain the initiative and go after the enemy.

Clearly, as we've deployed Iraqi units we have not pulled out our units thus far. It is a theoretical worry that we will draw down prematurely. I just don't know where we stand as far as having more American units than we need to press the offensive, and therefore be able to afford to pull out units.

We'll see.

UPDATE: Ralph Peters is uneasy as well:

Perhaps we'll legitimately be able to draw down our forces below 100,000 by next summer. If so, we'll all be delighted. But if the situation continues to demand 120,000 troops or more, we need to focus on the mission — not on election-year special effects. Defeating terrorists is far more important than defeating Democrats (who are perfectly capable of defeating themselves).

Victory must always take priority over politics--for both parties.

Quadrennial Defense Review 2006

The new QDR will retain the need to be able to fight two wars at once--one on the offense and one on defense:

The Pentagon, in a major four-year decision, has decided to stick with having the capability of being able to fight two major conflicts at once, The Washington Times has learned.

Two officials said that when the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is completed next month, it will retain the requirement that the Pentagon maintain active forces and reserves able to repel and occupy an enemy in one war and defeat a second enemy but not necessarily occupy the capital.


The decision is one of the most important that Pentagon leaders make every four years in the congressionally mandated QDR. From the two-war requirement, other major decisions flow, such as the number of active and reserve troops, fighter air wings and Navy carrier battle groups, and major weapons systems to be procured.

I'm a little puzzled about this:

Officials think that transforming the 10-division active Army into 70 mobile brigades allows the service to meet future challenges with fewer soldiers.

"The new brigades are so much more mobile and lethal than they used to be," said a senior defense official, citing better precision-guided weapons, improved intelligence links and shorter logistics tail. "They are easier to get to the fight.

... A new Army brigade has more firepower than an old Army division."

Seventy brigades? We are going from 33 (not counting the Ranger regiment) to 43 by adding one brigade combat team to each division. We may add five more to reach 48 brigade combat teams in the active force without adding to end strength. By moving some jobs to civilians and reconfiguring types of units no longer needed,we are freeing up troops to fill out new combat units. Our National Guard will be reorganized to have 34 brigades. So the reference to 70 brigades is too many to refer to our line units in the active component but not enough to refer to the Total Force. What's up? Is this counting the various support brigades, too?

And a new brigade will have as much firepower as an old Army division? Surely when they say "old" division they don't mean the divisions of 2003 prior to the reorganization. Are they talking about our 1980s-style divisions?

And when they say the new brigades, are they talking about the current reorganized brigade combat teams or the future ones based on the Future Combat Systems? I'm really curious about this comparison.

Anyway, I'm glad the two-war goal is being retained. I look forward to seeing the QDR to answer my questions raised by the article.

Honoring Dissent

The Left dissents from the war in Iraq. They snipe and complain and demand retreat on a timetable, assuring those of us who support the war that dissent such as theirs is highly patriotic.

I quibble with their spin on this situation, but let's let it stand for now just to observe the Left in action when somebody dissents from their line on Iraq. One, in fact, who ran on the Democratic ticket with Al Gore in 2000--Senator Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman supports the war:

Mr. Lieberman particularly infuriated his colleagues when he pointed out at a conference here that President Bush would be commander in chief for three more years and said that "it's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that."

"We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril," Mr. Lieberman said.

His colleagues should be racing to honor a man for dissenting from their party's major position on the war. They should be hailing is patriotic credentials for his refusal to go along with the mood of his own party.

But you'd only think that if you know nothing of the modern Left. The leaders of the Left will not tolerate a lone dissenter and are attacking Senator Lieberman for his heresy:

Much of the open criticism has been from liberal groups and House members. But his comments have also rankled Democrats in the Senate. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, phoned Mr. Lieberman this week to express concerns with his views, Mr. Reid's aide said. ...

"I completely disagree with Mr. Lieberman," Ms. Pelosi said at a news conference. "I believe that we have a responsibility to speak out if we think that the course of action that our country is on is not making the American people safer." ...

This week, for example, former Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. criticized his continued support of the Iraq war and said that if no candidate challenged the senator on it next year, he would consider running. ...

Mr. Lieberman faces trouble in other quarters in his home state. Although few elected Democrats would criticize him publicly, several Democratic activists promised retaliation at the polls.

James H. Dean, brother of Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, lives in Connecticut and heads Democracy for America, a group that is gathering signatures on the Internet for a letter that criticizes the senator.

An aide to James Dean said he and others from the group would deliver the letter to Mr. Lieberman's office in Hartford on Tuesday. The aide said the letter had 30,000 signatures.

Other Democratic activists warned that they might try to organize a primary challenge against Mr. Lieberman, specifically because of his position on the war.

Tom Matzzie, the Washington director for MoveOn.org, a liberal advocacy group with 10,000 members in Connecticut, said it would consider a challenge if the right candidate came along.

"It's like a betrayal," Mr. Matzzie said of Mr. Lieberman's stand on the war. "He is cheering the Bush Iraq policy at a time when Republicans are running away from the president."

Senator Lieberman knows what he has done:

Mr. Lieberman, who remains immensely popular in his home state, is aware of the hornet's nest he has stirred.

"Some Democrats said I was being a traitor," he said in an interview on Friday, adding that he was not surprised by the reaction, "given the depth of feeling about the war."

When the only dissent you tolerate is the kind of dissent that supports our enemies rather than dissent that support our troops, isn't it time you hit the dictionary to see what that "dissent" word means?

Because I don't think it means what they think it means.

I Am Just a Thick-Headed Knuckle Dragger

Really. I just fail to get the whole big-brained nuanced thinking that our anti-war side engages in when discussing Iraq.

The blogosphere has jumped on Senator Kerry's statement that appears to be a retread of his Vietnam War-era testimony to Congress about the "Ghengis Khan" atrocities he claimed American troops routinely inflicted on the Vietnamese people:

You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs.

Not that he shouldn't be damned and mocked for this statement charging Americans are terrorizing women and childen. He richly deserves condemnation for this delusional attack on our troops.

But what hasn't been mentioned is his total disregard for the Iraqi people being "terrorized." You see, as part of this outrage, the good Senator from the world's greatest debilitated body continued his thought (from the same CBS transcript):

Whether you like it or not Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.

The "that" being terrorizing the Iraqis. Senator Kerry isn't upset that Iraqi children are being terrorized, and their religious and historic customs violated--it's that Americans are doing it. He's fine with Iraqi soldiers doing the terrorizing! Indeed, he seems offended that the authority to terrorize Iraqi civilians hasn't been transferred to the Iraqis after 2-1/2 years of training! Perhaps he'll call for an investigation of why we've been wasting our time teaching Iraqis how to fight when we should have been showing them the terrorizing skills they lack! This is truly a WTF moment in deep thinking.

And the fact that I just can't appreciate the deep nuance of this position condemns me to membership in the knuckle-dragging class of citizens who shouldn't be trusted with sharp objects or the right to vote. My God, the clock on my VCR/DVD player is probably blinking "12:00" even as I type.

And of course, Kerry repeats his call to withdraw 20,000 US troops after the election in Iraq, oblivious to the fact that this has been our plan for many months now. We overlapped troop rotations this fall to increase our strength on the ground by 20,000 troops and as the troops scheduled to leave Iraq go, our strength will go back to the pre-rotation level. Yet Kerry insists, contrary to reality, that the administration did not mention this until after he advocated this move! After Bob Schieffer actually quoted Rumsfeld saying troops would come out soon, Kerry said:

That had never been said until it was said that Sunday, which followed almost directly on the speech I gave at Georgetown University, where I called on the drawdown and told them precisely why they could do that.

Does Kerry seriously think Rumsfeld heard the news of Kerry's so-called proposal and leaped to react lest the brilliant Senator from France (and who served in Vietnam, you know) score some debating point? This is just political posturing by Kerry and is shameful. Or Kerry truly doesn't understand what is happening. Which is entirely plausible, I concede.

I await my next lesson in big-brained nuance from the whackjobs on the extreme Left. I nurse faint hopes that I, too, can understand the depths of nuanced thinking, despite my limitations.

Reputation 101

Romesh Ratnesar is 100% wrong about his criticisms of the President's refusal to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

It is not possible to set a deadline for victory—only for defeat. For although we can decide to stop fighting on our schedule, we cannot force the enemy to stop fighting on our schedule. Ratnesar is plain wrong in believing that a timetable for withdrawal is our best hope for victory. And I don’t even care about his level of sincerity.

I was going to go after his entire piece, but let me just focus on one. I’m one blogger and there is much idiocy out there to ridicule, after all. So here's his first debunking:

The trouble is, all three of Bush's arguments against a timetable are highly dubious. Take the first one: that setting a deadline would "send a message to the world that the United States is a weak and unreliable ally." Given that nearly every country whose troops remain in Iraq — including the U.K. — has signaled an intention to draw down or withraw their forces in 2006, it's hard to know which allies the President is talking about.

Ratnesar denies the claim by President Bush that setting a deadline divorced from victory would send a signal that we are a weak and unreliable ally. Ratnesar says that since all of our allies will draw down troops in Iraq in 2006, he does not understand who this signal would affect. Well no doubt Ratnesar can’t see this.

First of all, our allies in Iraq will withdraw from the quieter Shia regions in the south where we don’t even see a need to station troops to fight. As long as the Iraqis can hold that ground, the allied contingents are unneeded. They can leave before we do without damaging the war effort. Indeed, it is our strategy to turn over battlespace to the Iraqis in the easier areas first.

Second, and more importantly, the signal we should be worried about is to others in the future who might have to decide whether to fight with us or stand neutral. For example, if it comes to a fight with China over Taiwan, we might want a reputation for steadfast commitment to victory as we try to convince India, Singapore, Thailand, Australia, Indonesia, South Korea, and Japan--and the Taiwanese for that matter--to fight with us. That a foreign policy writer cannot see beyond the Shia south of Iraq when determining effects is simply amazing.

In regard to our Iraqi allies, Ratnesar also states that a signal to withdraw would encourage the Shias and Kurds to take care of themselves, citing the recent Arab League-backed statement by Iraqi leaders that they want us to withdraw. If Ratnesar doesn’t know that this statement was just a cheap giveaway to the Sunnis by the Shias as a token concession—when the Shias actually count on us to stay until the Iraqi military is capable of fighting without us—he has no business analyzing foreign affairs for a major American newsmagazine.

The Time article is just an astoundingly dense piece.

Check Their Pulse

We are not prepared to cope with an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack (via The Corner):

The United States is highly vulnerable to attack from electronic pulses caused by a nuclear blast in space, according to a new book on threats to U.S. security.

A single nuclear weapon carried by a ballistic missile and detonated a few hundred miles over the United States would cause "catastrophe for the nation" by damaging electricity-based networks and infrastructure, including computers and telecommunications, according to "War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World."

Let me remember, who was toying with this weapon recently?

Ah yes, the Iranians! Whoa, that was close! I mean, it's not like they are dangerous or anything!

Really, they are peace-loving guys. They just have a sort of nuclear-edged Turette's Syndrome:

"The president has to choose his words carefully. He can convey his message to the world in better language tone," Hamid Reza Taraqi, a leader of a hard-line party, the Islamic Coalition Society, told The Associated Press.

I happen to believe that we should listen to these guys and not try to redefine what they say so we can sleep at night secure in the knowledge that we need do nothing to stop them.

They are conveying their message pretty accurately, people. Listen to them and believe them. And look at the tools they might use to carry out what they proudly proclaim is their duty to do.

Pursuit

The Chinese government killed perhaps a score of civilians in Dongzhou village in Guangdong Province who were protesting eminent domain with what they believed was inadequate compensation:

Armed with guns and shields, hundreds of riot police sealed off a southern Chinese village after fatally shooting as many as 20 demonstrators and were searching for the protest organizers, according to villagers and a newspaper report Saturday.

What seems most significant is that this doesn't appear to be an accident. Instead of pulling back to consider their horrible error, the Chinese government is locking down the village and pursuing the protesters, trying to nail the organizers.

Amnesty International is mildly upset at Peking's method of dispute resolution, but I'm sure they won't let this cut into their staff work on investigating American failure to refill the rice pilaf bowls at Gitmo. One must have priorities.

On a personal note, with a reader in Shezhen in this province who has regularly machine translated my blog, this hits home a little more. While I remain convinced that we must resist Peking's attempts to confront us, I do retain some hope that the Chinese people will be our friends one day. Once we were allies, as the Flying Tigers represented a real commitment of Americans to defend China before we entered World War II.

How long can the Chinese government get away with this behavior?

UPDATE: Via Instapundit, lots of links to the situation. Apparently, seventy dead civilians and armor and machine guns posted in the village. With tanks involved, I assume this is the PLA and not the People's Armed Police. This would indicate a level of seriousness I did not suspect at first.

Will Dean Surrender to Lora Croft?

As some in our loyal opposition seek to surrender to somebody in Iraq, as we succeed there will be a real problem of finding someone to take our sword if offered.

A few months ago I noted that the Iraq insurgency is going backwards down the escalation ladder, from small-unit attacks, to ambushes, to mortar attacks and IEDs, and then to pure terrorism against civilians. In time, I figured this process would continue to the point where most insurgencies start:

Only the massive amounts of money and weapons inside Iraq before the war and accessible to the Sunnis have made this fight drag on as long as it has. Absent these factors, the tiny community upset with the overthrow of Saddam could not have resisted for long.

And even with the advantages of money and arms and foreign jihadis, the so-called rebellion is dropping down the escalation ladder. How long will it be before the insurgency is just a jihadi version of Democratic Underground?

Strategypage observes:

As the terrorists have been losing battles on the ground in Iraq, they have tried to make up for it by increasing their attacks via the Internet. Here, they can create fictional victories and, to an extent, get away with it. So far this year, al Qaeda has increased the number of postings on the net (messages, audio and video files) from 145 in January, to 825 in November. A lot of the increase comes from newly formed, but not very lethal, terrorist groups making false claims. [Some] of these wannabe terrorists are not even in Iraq, but claim to be, and doctor videos to prove that the attacks they claim to have made, actually took place.

We have apparently reached the beginning of the jihadi DU stage. No wonder the anti-war side is so strident about surrendering now. In time, Dean will have to surrender to a web site warrior.

Shadows on the Perimeter

The nutballs in Venezuela think they see American plots everywhere. Hugo's allies in Venezuela's parliament spouted off:

An undetermined number of active and former army officers, joined by civilians, planned to attack military bases and assassinate government officials last week as part of a plot to "destabilize" the country and force the suspension of congressional elections, National Assembly President Nicolas Maduro said.

Like nervous sentries peering into the darkness who mistake bushes for attackers creeping up on their positions, the Venezualan Chavezistas peer north and see a Bush ready to pounce on them, constantly plotting against their beloved nutball ruler, Hugo Chavez.

Inflated in their self-importance beyond all reality, the Chavez people fail to realize that President Bush has far more serious foreign problems than some delusional nutcase down south. There are no plots to overthrow Chavez (though there probably should be).

But convinced that they are constantly averting crisis, these nutballs will eventually lash out at us in the firm conviction that they are finally striking back after enduring repeated assaults on their rule.

Then, of course, that huge group of plotters we call Southern Command will have to respond.

Like I said, we have more important things to worry about. But Chavez is screwing up his courage to strike us (or a Dutch island--to make paradise safe for blonde American women), I think, on the fully delusional belief that we are constantly out to get him.

Man, this decade sucks.

Stand Nobly

A while back, I quoted Thomas Paine's comments on those who failed to stand with the Patriots as the British threatened to crush us. I remain frustrated that on the verge of victory, there are people who believe and advocate for our inevitable defeat:

This should not be a Red State war. We all prosper or fail as one. And I do fear that the split in our country is deepening to be an irrevocable long-lasting feature of our political culture. The calls to withdraw from Iraq even as we are winning is shameful. It betrays our national interests and the troops who fight and risk their lives for a nation that by its actions is not sure it values their determination to win and their willingness to die trying.

It also saddens me that words written when real Patriots struggled in the face of defeat after defeat against a superpower, are necessary to bolster Americans today even as we, a superpower, win our war against a barbarian enemy.

Is it really possible that we should experience a winter of discontent in the middle of summer as we show that we are indeed conquering hell?

Exit strategies are for losers. Victory is what a confident people who are sure that their civilization is just and who are confident that their soldiers will achieve call for even in difficult times.

Via The Corner is this wonderful piece by Podhortetz. He recounts Thomas Paine's frustrations and disgust with those Americans who supported the British; those who remained neutral but voiced support for the British; and those who supported the Patriots in the first hopeful months but who counseled defeat when the fight for our freedom grew tough and defeat actually loomed:

And so, “quitting this class of men . . . who see not the full extent of the evil that threatens them,” Paine turned “to those who have nobly stood, and are yet determined to stand the matter out,” and rested his hopes on them.

These hopes, we know and thank God for it, were not disappointed. And neither will be the hopes of those today who likewise see “the full extent of the evil that threatens” us; who understand the necessity of the war that our country has been waging against it; who recognize the moral, political, and intellectual boldness of how George W. Bush has chosen to fight this war; and who take pride in the nobility of what the United States, at whose birth Tom Paine assisted, is now, more than 200 years later, battling to achieve in Iraq and, in the fullness of time, in the entire region of which Iraq is so crucial a part

Stand nobly with our troops who do not have the luxury of doubting our just cause when our enemies seek to kill them and throttle the democracy being born in the cradle of civilization. Stand nobly recognizing that our troops are winning this war for us. Stand nobly for a war that is just and that holds the hope of creating a better future for so many and which will protect us better than doubling our military budget.

And stand nobly for those who live under despotism who quietly hope that we will win this war, and thus strike a blow for freedom that may yet reach their own corner of the world.

What's the Frequency, Kenneth?

Ok, give me my occasional global warming rant:

As I listen to the opinions and arguments expressed here, I am struck by the lack of interest in exactly how much (or should I say, how little?) the currently proposed policies are going to stave off any future warming trends. Instead, what seems to be the most important are the good intentions of the policy pushers-consequences be damned. To examine whether we can actually "get there from here" would involve some math and science skills. I suspect many of these college graduates barely made it through those courses. It is sufficient at COP-11 simply to believe that if a policy is good for business it is bad for the Earth. Since business interests are only out for themselves, business success couldn't be related to the material needs and desires of those served by businesses.

Until the people who want me to support their economy-killing proposals to possibly slow global warming can tell me what the perfect temperature the Earth should be, they can just bite me. I don't care how much they purport to care about the Earth.

The Blind Reporting on the Blind

I continue to be amazed that our enemies are credited with deep strategic thinking by our media elite and anti-war types.

J. R. Dunn (I can't put my finger on why I think his analysis is so spot on...) states:

The way the media plays it, you’d think Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the greatest Muslim strategist since Saladin. Every car bomb is a Jacob’s Ford, every massacre a Hattin every move a masterstroke against the clumsy and inept Crusaders. He makes no errors and suffers no setbacks, and his victory, when it inevitably comes to pass, will be well-earned.

This interpretation of events has become the conventional wisdom, so widespread and ingrained as to excite no comment whatsoever (even some conservative voices have joined this chorus), despite the fact that it’s next to impossible to discern any strategy, method, or pattern behind Zarqawi’s activities beyond the urge to kill as many people as brutally as possible.

These guys are murderous clowns. They are fighting an insurgency backwards and are sliding down the escalation ladder to Howard Dean screams.

But you wait. The media will portray bus bombings in Iraq as the latest brilliant tactic of our enemy that will inevitably lead to our well-earned defeat.

Self Defense?

This is interesting. Why is the Iranian fleet leaving port?

Apparently the Iranian Navy has been unusually active the past few days, with a significant portion of its vessels underway. What this means is uncertain – no exercises had been announced, but it could be a surprise alert. None of the other Iranian forces seem to be engaging in any unusual activity. There are some major training exercises planned in the south, using, for the most part, ground forces.

One might sortie your fleet to keep it from getting destroyed in port if you anticipate war.

Yet the other Iranian services are not doing anything unusual.

And based on our clashes with the Iranian fleet in 1988, I find it hard to believe that they think that safety can be found at sea.

Of course, your fleet assets could be threatened by more than air and sea attack. If in port, people on the ground can be a threat to your ship. And I keep remembering that an Iranian warship dipped its flag on an anniversary of 9-11 when passing one of our ships. Add to this that I desperately want to believe that we are planning to do something about Iran when they are far closer to an atomic bomb than many insisted, and I hope I see the sign of a pro-American fleet getting out of harm's way for when the hammer falls.

Or I could be connecting dots that aren't connected or even there in the first place.

UPDATE: Strategypage says nothing unusual happened:

The Iranian navy activity turned out to be part of large scale military training exercises, that did get announced, and publicized.

Sometimes identifying what are dots is pretty tricky--let alone connecting them.

A Tough, Hawkish, Strategist in Bizarro World

Representative Murtha is emerging as another poster boy for the Left. McGovern and Kerry were there first, of course. And now Murtha provides a shield to urge retreat and defeat by those whose credentials on defending our country are less than convincing to the public.

I do not worship at the altar of Murtha. Yes, his service to our country was exemplary back in his day. But that does not shield him from the fact that now he urges retreat, defeat, and inane strategic thinking. As a young man his sacrifice and the sacrifice of his comrades was abandoned by a Congress that could not make the extra effort to win after nearly 60,000 troops died in Vietnam. Now, as a Congressman, Murtha urges the same abandonment of our troops and allies after 2,000 dead.

Yet our press cooperates in portraying this man as a tough battle-hardened warrior, reluctantly turning against a war plagued by mistakes, and offering sage advice on how to retrieve our security. That article is actually headlined "Murtha's Tough Stand Boosts His Profile."

In what Bizarro World is urging retreat considered a "tough stand?" Why yes, bravely, Brave Sir Robin, bravely ran away. No more than a Congressman should get a break for corruption based on past bravery; a Congressman should not get a break for idiocy and defeatism based on past bravery.

Murtha is not called on this lengthy record of advocating retreat in Iraq. Nor is he called on the carpet for stating sheer idiocy about his so-called plan for Iraq:

Now, my plan says redeploy to the periphery, to Kuwait, to Okinawa, and if there's a terrorist activity that affects our allies or affects the United States' national security, we can then go back in.

Can you imagine the reaction of the Press if President Bush had said Okinawa is on the periphery of Iraq? Iceland is on the periphery of Iraq as much as Okinawa is! And let's not go into the strategic insight necessary to advocate putting more US forces on Okinawa when we have been negotiating to reduce our presence at the insistence of locals! My what a big brain he has!

And to run away but then pretend to toughness by asserting we will go in again if the situation gets worse to defend our interests?

Truly, Murtha has a stunning intellect. And he's tough. And wise. A genuine hawk. Yep, one of the best and the brightest. A shining star in the firmament of Congress who illuminates the darkness and leads us to victory from the forces of idiocy. All bow down to Representative Murtha. We are not worthy!

Everything is possible in Bizarro World.

Yes, This Will Be Interesting

I think the Iraq War is going well. Tougher than I anticipated in 2002 (but this was a common error), but we are winning on the ground. It seems almost self-evident to me. For most it is not.

Not that things can't go wrong even if our domestic support holds firm and allows us to prosecute the fight to the end. In the end it will be up to the Iraqis to build a better Iraq. We can't guarantee that. But I think we can guarantee them the chance to succeed or fail. And even a failed Iraqi experiment in democracy will leave us with a less threatening and more friendly Iraq, in my opinion.

So it is perplexing to me how so many outside the military can look at events and think "quagmire" or "retreat." Even a respected military historian (see this) can seem pessimistic contrary to the facts as I see them. Strategypage notes:

Differences of opinion about how well things are going in Iraq has created some strange situations. For example, many Americans, and most Europeans consider the Iraq war a disaster. Iraqis and American troops over there disagree.

So it will be interesting how historians will explain that following disaster after disaster brought on by American blunders and blindness, that we won anyway:

Looking at this as a piece of history in the making, it’s obvious that many books will be written trying to explain how the pessimists justified their departure from the facts on the ground. At this point in time, one can only conclude that politics, and political faith, does strange things to people.

I suppose the easiest way will be to ignore what Iraq was like under Saddam and insist that Iraq is no better off because women are under-represented in parliament or some other such statistic that they can find to show failure to reach perfection in Iraq. I doubt that most historians will ever try to explain any departure from facts because they will deny any departure from facts in the first place. Indeed, they will likely simply deny we won at all.

But it will be interesting.

To Hell With the Rant-to-Dignified Ratio

Let's dial up to eleven, shall we?

Are the jihadi nutballs completely stupid?

Al-Jazeera television said Wednesday that kidnappers who have threatened to kill four Christian peace activists have extended the deadline for the U.S. and Britain to meet their demand to free all Iraqi prisoners.

I would pay good money to have the President announce that we will drop as many MOABs as we have to to kill the kidnappers and will kill as many of the enemy as we have to in order to avenge the deaths of the "peace activists." Indeed, we should put a reward on the heads of the kidnappers.

This should really have a two-fer effect: scare the terrorists and really annoy the "peace activists" that we would kill to avenge their deaths at the hands of their buddies.

And then we have Saddam and his Baathist minions, on trial for slaughtering hundreds of thousands, torturing and abusing hundreds of thousands, and oppressing and terrorizing millions:

One of Saddam's seven co-defendants lashed out at conditions of his own detention, saying guards offered only "the worst brands" of cigarettes.

I'm no hotshot attorney like Ramsey Clark, but isn't complaining about your brand of cigarettes as a crime a little short-sighted when you are on trial for mass murder and torture on a scale not seen since Stalin's Russia? Just who do they think will feel sorry for them? I mean, it's not like they are complaining that Shias are stubbing out the worst brands of cigarettes on their skin about twenty times an hour.

I'd really pay good money to skip ahead to the shooting part.

And finally, our Pillsbury Nuke Boy, Kim Jong-Il's nutty North Korean regime is in the news. It seems the South Koreans are upset our ambassador called the North a "criminal regime."

"It's up to North Korea to end the behavior that led to those sanctions," U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Alexander Vershbow told the National Press Club in Seoul. "This is a criminal regime and we can't somehow remove our sanctions as a political gesture."

His description of the North provoked strong criticism from a top South Korean official.

"It's not desirable to publicly characterize the other side," Son Min-soon, South Korea's chief negotiator at six-party talks over the North's nuclear ambitions, told The Associated Press in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. "If North Korea makes a similar characterization, would that be good?"

Must ... restrain ... fist ... of ... death.

If North Korea's victory wouldn't cause us so many problems, it might be worth it to just let those idiots in South Korea who think crazy old Uncle Kim is really harmless get a good reality lesson by experiencing the tender mercies of a Nuke Boy invasion.

Is there not one corner of the world where actual friggin' logic and reason hold sway?

Has the world gone completely mad? Or is it really just me?

What is the Pentagon Reading?

I think we have enough troops in Iraq. And I think we are clearly winning.

But could we really be thinking about largely cancelling the deployments of two brigade combat teams to Iraq and one to Afghansitan?

That's what this article says:

Under the plan, deployment of the 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, based at Fort Riley, Kan., would be canceled. Instead, for the first time, portions of the brigade would be divided into 10- or 11-member military transition teams that would be sent separately into Iraq to work with Iraqi security forces.

Also, some other members of the brigade would go to Iraq to do security duty, such as guarding high profile targets.

The second unit that would not deploy to Iraq is the 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, which is currently in Kuwait and is usually based in Germany. Under the plan, up to two-thirds of the brigade would return to Germany, while the rest would stay in Kuwait, prepared to respond to any emergency in Iraq.

The 4th Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, based at Fort Polk, La., would not go to Afghanistan.

Since critics of the administration have been predicting President Bush would bug out of Iraq since the hand over to an interim Iraqi government in mid-2004, I like to think that all decisions are solidly based. Still, I'm nervous as long as we are still on the offensive in al Anbar.

But the cancellation of troops deployments to Iraq are based on perhaps the best-case election reaction. So I won't assume this contingency plan is likely.

And what would the deployment to Afghanistan have to do with Iraqi elections? Or is the NATO expansion--including a Canadian battalion--going to reduce the need for our troops?

Interesting, to be sure. But any leaked contingency plan would be interesting.

What Can We Learn From This Story?

The Indian Air Force did well in exercises against American pilots, using Russian-made planes. The Indians in the exercises displayed the results of good training:

Maj. Mark A. Snowden, the 3rd Wing's chief of air-to-air tactics and a participant in Cope India 2004, admitted that the US Air Force underestimated the Indians. "The outcome of the [2004] exercise boils down to [the fact that] they ran tactics that were more advanced than we expected," he told Aviation Week last year. "They had done some training with the French that we knew about, but we did not expect them to be a very well-trained air force. That was silly."

This should not be a shock to anybody. Hardware is the least important aspect of war. But this story doesn't really tell us what happened. I was going to write about the restrictive rules that denied us our edges, the need to stroke the ego of a budding ally, the difference between an air force that fights as an entire system and aircraft, and the need to instill fear in the hearts of Congressional appropriations officials to get the Raptor funded up. But Winds of Change does a nice job for me.

So just go there.

Short story: the Indians have good pilots and our Air Force hasn't degenerated into second class status.

UPDATE: Strategypage adds a couple other useful points that I should have made (and which I assumed were so obvious that I failed to think them worthy of mention). First (and BVR means "beyond visual range. AMRAAM is our latest missile to strike BVR):

But there’s also the security aspect. Other air forces also have BVR missiles (usually Russian), and the American pilots don’t want to give away the electronic tricks and tactics they would use to defeat the Russian missiles, and ensure that AMRAAM would succeed.

That's always a problem when we use the stuff in war--others will watch and we'll lose the element of surprise the next time up. This applies in exercises, too. Which is one reason I hate the exchanges with PLA officers who visit US ships. Our government thinks we are scaring them into not fighting with us by displaying our technological superiority. The Chinese think they are just getting insights into how to fight us. Hopefully we had our best stuff when showing off to a potential enemy as much as we hide our stuff when exercising against a potential ally. But I digress. Point two of Strategypgage that I want to add:

For the Indian Air Force, such training exercises are good because it allows them to train against F-16s (which their long time foe, Pakistan, has). For the American pilots, they get to operate against Su-30s (which China has.) For all concerned, it’s a chance to fight against pilots from a different culture, who may use different, and sometimes superior, tactics and methods.

It is always better to exercise against the type of equipment and tactics of a potential enemy rather than against mirror images who look and think like you do.

Like I said, don't panic over this. Lots going on that the press just doesn't understand. This lesson applies to lots of things the press reports on.

The End of the Road

Iran is a few months away from a nuclear bomb (via Caerdroia):

IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei on Monday confirmed Israel's assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb.

If Teheran indeed resumed its uranium enrichment in other plants, as threatened, it will take it only "a few months" to produce a nuclear bomb, El-Baradei told The Independent.

We've been told repeatedly by those who oppose dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions that since an Iranian nuclear bomb is perhaps a decade away, we can kick this can down the road and worry later. And in the meantime we can let the Euros play "let's pretend" by negotiating with the Iranians. The Iranians, it seems, weren't actually serious about negotiating away their nukes--no really, it's true.

I've worried that we can't know how close Iran is and that Iran's delaying tactics may be to get them the few years they need to go nuclear. Well, Iran's been delaying for a couple years now and the IAEA seems to think Iran could go nuclear in several months.

I've almost completely lost hope that we are planning to do something about Iran.

Happy freaking holidays.

Use All the Numbers

I think we have enough forces to win in Iraq and our progress toward winning the war validates my confidence.

This RAND analysis (via the Weekly Standard blog) concludes we have way too few troops in Iraq to pacify the angry population, arguing that our ratio of 6.1 American security forces per 1,000 people doesn't come close to reaching the minimum of 20 per 1,000 people that historical evidence shows is necessary:

It turns out that the number of "world policemen" required is roughly proportional to the size of the population being protected or controlled. At the low end of the scale is the proportion of police officers required for day-to-day law enforcement duties among generally peaceful populations such as those in the United States. Peaceful populations require force ratios of somewhere between one and four police officers per thousand residents. The United States as a whole has about 2.3 sworn police officers per thousand residents. Larger cities tend to have higher ratios of police to population.

For cases drastic enough to warrant outside intervention, the required force ratio is much higher. Although numbers alone do not constitute a security strategy, successful strategies for population security and control have required force ratios either as large as or larger than 20 security personnel (troops and police combined) per thousand inhabitants. This figure is roughly 10 times the ratio required for simple policing of a tranquil population.

The British are acknowledged as the most experienced practitioners of the stabilization art. To maintain stability in Northern Ireland, the British deployed a security force (consisting of British army troops plus police from the Royal Ulster Constabulary) at a ratio of about 20 per thousand inhabitants. This is about the same force ratio that the British deployed during the Malayan counterinsurgency in the middle of the 20th century.

I've addressed the numbers game before in some detail, most recently here, but let me try another shorter version based on this RAND study.

I have a question. Why aren't non-American forces counted by RAND? I'm reasonably certain that the Malaya operation counted locals in the total count and even the author of the RAND study says police should be included in the force total examined, so it can't be that he doesn't count Iraqi police because they aren't troops. The author counts local police in the Northern Ireland example, if you'll notice. So why only count American combat troops in Iraq when other outsiders are involved and when Iraqis are involved?

I count 160,000 US troops in Iraq right now. Add 23,000 Coalition, 20,000 contract security, and 212,000 Iraqi security forcs, and we have 415,000 troops, police, and guards. This alone gets us to 16.6 troops per 1,000 for all of Iraq. This is far better than the 6.1 ratio the study says we have. Still, this is shy of the minimum of 20 that history shows is needed for tougher opponents.

But as I noted, I think we are clearly winning. So how do you explain this in the face of failing to meet the minimum troop-to-population ratio?

Let me ask a second question. Why are we assuming that the standard of 20 security personnel per 1000 people applies to the entire country? Aren't the Shias and Kurds more accurately termed "generally peaceful" rather than hostile requiring the highest force ratios? The study author even notes that although the US has a ratio of 2.3, cities may have higher ratios. Why? Because local differences require different levels of security forces. Mayberry, for example, needed one wise sheriff and a poorly trained but well meaning deputy who was allowed to carry one bullet in his pocket--not a dozen heavily armored and armed Marines patrolling the streets with generous rules of engagement.

Surely, we shouldn't need 20 per 1000 people in the Kurdish north or Shia south. Yet the 5 million Sunnis aren't all in one homogenous area, so we can't say the population to be pacified is only 5 million. Subtracting the 3 million Kurds in the north and the 8 million Shias in the south, we have 5 million Sunnis plus 2 million Kurds and 7 million Shias in the ethnically mixed center. This totals 14 million people. (I'm going by memory from when I first looked this up)

To reach the minimum ratio of 20 for the 14 million in the pacification area, we would need 280,000 of the 415,000 security forces available. Let's say 300,000 for a little extra just in case. This leaves 115,000 for the almost purely Shia and Kurdish regions. Yet we really shouldn't count the Kurdish region as needing troops, since the security totals I cite don't include the Pesh Merga that provide regional security. So the 115,000 extra forces we have for the non-mixed area need to protect 8 million Shias in the south. These forces provide a ratio of 14.4 to protect the Shias--well above the peaceful range of the US as a baseline, yet getting fairly close to the ratio needed for a tough area.

You can do the math right every time, but if you don't have the right numbers, the results just don't make sense compared to the real world situation of a winning war effort in Iraq.

We have enough troops in Iraq.

Metrics for Winning

I think we are winning in Iraq. I've consistenly stated that our military force cannot win on their own, but can only provide a shield behind which the Iraqis can organize their own society, government, and security forces. Once mature, these factors will combine to defeat the internal enemies of the Iraqi government.

I believe that tracking statistics such as US monthly casualties or attacks per day to see if we are winning is misleading. These statistics track intensity of battle and do not measure whether we are winning the war.

In World War II, I dare say that our casualties and combat contacts would have shown levels getting higher every month starting in 1942, picking up with the counter-offensive in the Pacific and the North Africa and Italy operations in 1943, and accelerating through 1944 operations in both theaters that closed in on the enemy's homelands through 1945, right until the numbers dropped off to near zero after the formal surrenders of Germany in May 1945 and Japan in September 1945.

The metric of winning was the advancing forces of the US and the Allies as we drove toward Berlin and Tokyo. The metric was easily grasped by anybody just by looking at a map. But divorced from the map, the high levels of casualties and combat that actually increased from year to year--until the final victory--would have indicated quagmire or even defeat.

So in Iraq, while final victory will see attacks and casualties for all forces--Iraqi and US--dwindle, until then, these two metrics may very well remain high. But these are statistics of battle--not victory metrics.

Behind the shield of US forces, the real metrics of progress in society, the economy, government, and security advance. The population remains optimistic about the future; and Sunnis start to abandon resistance. The economy grows and consumer goods fly out the doors. Elections are held with people voting for officials and a constitution; and Iraqis long excluded from governing learn the ropes in the executive branch and courts. Iraqi police and troops increase in numbers and training, taking over more of the security burden; and the enemy is atomized, reduced to terrorism and kidnapping rather than proper insurgency.

These are the real metrics of success. With these metrics firmly trending toward our victory, we will win. And then the statistics of combat and casualties will trail off--either slowly or perhaps dramatically, as I suspect--as the result of our victory.

Future Built on Past and Present

Pro-freedom marchers are demanding freedom in defiance of Peking's campaign to roll back democracy in Hong Kong:

Between 60,000 and 250,000 people -depending on the source- demonstrated in downtown Hong Kong this Sunday , in demand of universal suffrage and against the political reforms proposed by the city's chief executive and the Chinese government which are viewed as far from sufficient.

These people remember when they had freedom. As the Chinese government grinds away, eroding that freedom, the people of Hong Kong demonstrate that they remember they were once free, miss what they've lost already, and want it all back.

In Taiwan, for all the flaws that impede their ability to defend their freedom, the democracy on Taiwan demonstrates that Chinese people can participate in a democracy and run their own affairs. Right now. They prove that Asians do not prefer stable tyranny to chaotic freedom. And prove that the apparent chaos is fully compatible with economic prosperity.

Meanwhile, on the mainland, the Chinese government denies all but symbols of freedom for its people, suppresses minorities in Tibet and the far west who see their lands colonized and Han-ified, and offers their people the cheap violent thrill of xenophobia in place of real freedom.

We must make sure the Chinese people under the heel of the moldy communist dictatorship in Peking see that Chinese people elsewhere have a past with freedom and a present with freedom.

We must encourage the Chinese and ethnic minorities to believe they, too, can enjoy the thrill and responsibilities of ruling themselves in their own names. With examples of freedom in their past and present and with bolstering from America right now, a future of freedom can come to more than a billion Chinese.

Ultimately, our first line of defense against a hostile and powerful China must be the Chinese people themselves, who will assert their right to prosper in freedom and safety with America as a friend.

Ok, So Now He Gets Brave?

Saddam got all defiant at his trial:

Saddam Hussein told the judge at his trial Monday that "I am not afraid of execution" during a chaotic court session in which the first witness took the stand and testified that the former president's agents carried out random arrests, torture and killings. The outburst was one of several by Saddam or his co-defendants at the trial that also saw a brief walkout by his defense lawyers. At one point, Saddam appeared to threaten the judge, saying: "When the revolution of the heroic Iraq arrives, you will be held accountable."

He issued threats? Old habits die hard, I guess. Excuse me, however, for noting this; but wasn't the time for Saddam to display defiance and bravery the day American troops pulled the grubby ex-dictator from his spider hole with loaded weapons unused? It is pretty easy to shout down his common accusers when Saddam knows he will not be fed into a plastic shredder for his defiance.

It is good that Saddam is not afraid of execution. Now is the time for him to sit, down, shut up, and get used to the idea that he is now being held accountable for his crimes and faces a future of either a bullet or a noose.

You see, Saddam seems to fail to understand that the revolution--one of democracy and freedom--did come to Iraq. And the sight of common victims of a governments reign of terror and death testifying against a dictator, and then seeing that dictator buried six feet under in partial payment according to legal proceedings, will shake the neighborhood, I dare say.

Politics is an Extension of War by Other Means

It is hard to escape the truth of this observation:

When he took the nation’s highest office, George W. Bush famously called himself a uniter, not a divider, signaling a kinder, gentler approach to Washington politics. Fat lot of good it did him. He faces opponents who offer no quarter, even when the national interest is at stake. It is well past time to take off the gloves and return fire.

We are at war and the President and his administration must vigorously defend our war effort and attack those who would have us retreat and lose. Dissent may be patriotic, as those whose ability to dissent seems to be their only component of patriotism; but encouraging our enemies to win is not dissent. It should be an administration free-fire zone to take on those who urge retreat.

And I don't care if they cry "suppression of speech!" Pointing out their errors, the logical consequences of their suggestions, or the identity of those they stand with proudly is not suppressing speech--it is that "debate" thing they claim they want so much. Go after them:

President Bush needs to stand up on this war and defend it as the just and good war it is. Just as important, he has to stop treating his most extreme anti-war opponents as if they deserve respect. They deserve only comtempt. Go after their positions. Remind the American people of who they stand with. Highlight who we stand with and what they try to build with our help. Remind our people of the soldiers and Marines who have given their lives as heroes so that others might live free and so that we might live in safety. Proudly proclaim that we are on the right side of history and that we must win this war. Don't be ashamed of being right! To Hell with Wilson and the media that pretends he tells the truth.

If the war opponents get rightfully too ashamed to defend their positions, that is not suppression of dissent. That's a guilty conscience kicking in at long last. Or perhaps I hope for too much. But given the three-year screech-fest that the anti-war side has engaged in over Iraq, I'd settle for their pausing to draw breath now and again.

Your troops are fighting and dying to defend us, Mr. President. You owe it to them to engage the advocates of defeat here at home and give them no quarter. And if it makes you feel better, they won't give you quarter if you falter.

Cub Scouts at a Knife Fight

No wonder the European professional diplomats feared the terrors that the finger-wagging John Bolton could unleash on them should he gain the keys to the UN executive washroom.

Apparently, a stern talking to by our top diplomat is enough to rattle them:

Rice began the year on her first foreign trip as secretary of state wooing European allies with a charm offensive that set a new tone for relations after disputes over Iraq.

But the top diplomat from the sole superpower can also get tough with her European counterparts.

U.S. diplomats recount how her successful stance against EU plans to lift an arms embargo against China unnerved Europeans, as she sternly told them not to sell weapons that could end up being aimed at U.S. forces in Asia.

One foreign minister spilled his drink when she delivered that warning over coffee in Brussels, a senior U.S. official said.

Spilled his drink? Or wet his pants with the spilled drink the convenient cover story?

The European diplomats must be in sheer terror in every meeting with their ruthless Iranian counterparts over Iran's nuclear programs. Is it any wonder the Europeans haven't convinced the terrorists of Tehran to forego nukes?

Chaos in an Artificial Country?

Canada's leftish government has fallen and the Canadians can look forward to a snap election campaign this holiday season.

Barone wonders why America's media isn't covering it more. He notes that Captain's Quarters is covering this news better than the media.

While I haven't covered this, I have followed the events with interest. And I do care what happens. I like Canada. I like to vacation there and I don't even blame Canada for the Bell's Palsy that hit me while I strolled through Toronto this summer (it went away rather quickly and completely I must say, thank you). I followed the surge of support in Quebec for separation very closely some years ago (and no, the fact that I was fully in love with Wendy Mesley on Canadian news had no impact on my nightly viewing of Canadian news).

I do care about the soft woods issue. I suspect Canada is right on this.

And I care about Canadian cooperation on continental missile defense; stopping Chinese penetration of Canada; Canadian vigilence in policing jihadis coming in to Canada to keep them from slipping in here; Canadian defense postures to participate in our common defense; and keeping a close oil supply in the hands of non-psycho regimes which seems so common these days.

But I just don't worry about Canada that much. These issues we will deal with and regardless of who wins, Canada will not build the fourth largest navy in the world or field an entire army to fight with us. Nor do I think that Canada can become more than annoyingly anti-American in their attitudes. Even a Quebec that might declare independence (which seems unlikely nowadays) is no Sunni triangle. So there is probably a fairly narrow band in which Canadian policy can swing in regard to the issues at hand.

Canada will not become a hostile country and I have bigger worries to think about.

Goodlife

Ramsey Clark is a disgusting piece of breathing trash, as one can conclude from Hitchens.

I'd say more but then my ratio of rant to dignified would get way too high even for my own comfort level.

Goal Posts on a Lazy Susan

If we weren't at war the ability of the anti-war side and their press cheer leaders to constantly change the goal posts would be amusing.

Condemn the president for failing to connect the dots before 9-11 and preemptively attack Afghanistan; and also condemn the president for connecting the dots to attack Iraq.

Condemn the President for failing to put enough troops into Afghanistan to win; and condemn the President for putting so many troops in Iraq that we alienate the locals and therefore cannot win.

Indeed, they can condemn the President for failing to put enought troops into Iraq after the fall of Baghdad to keep resistance from developing; while now condemning us for having so many troops in Iraq that we provoke resistance.

So let's add another. The anti-war side says we rely too much on firepower and don't use infantry to patrol; while condemning the US for failing to equip the Iraqis with modern tanks and other high tech weapons. Some say we don't trust the Iraqis enough to give them good weapons on par with our Abrams and Bradleys.

I bring this up because I've stated over and over again that we need to create a counter-insurgency focused Iraqi military to suppress the Baathists, Sunnis, and jihadis who fight us in Iraq. We can take care of external defense until the domestic front is quiet. At that point, the Iraqis can decide what they want their army and military in general to look like.

LTG Dempsey put it well in this press conference:

Q General, this is Bob Burns from AP. I wonder if you would look ahead into the future. And what is the plan for the end state in terms of the size of the Iraqi army, the size of the other elements of the military -- Iraqi military, the Iraqi police? And when do you foresee getting there?


GEN. DEMPSEY: We've got a force that we've agreed upon with the current sitting government. And of course, when the new government comes in, we'll have some opportunities there to discuss that with them, as well.


Right now we're building a 10-division army. It's a light infantry army with some enablers that will allow it to have some ability to project force around the country, and at end state, it will number approximately 160,000.


The police -- to talk about the MOI forces, we really have to break it down into the separate components. There are special police, and there's approximately 25,000 of those. They're almost at end state now, and those are commandos and public order battalions. And then there is the what you and I would describe as the station-house police. And based on a ratio of approximately one to 200 by population, that number comes out to about 135,000. And we're right at about 75,000 trained and equipped right now. We train about 3,500 every couple of months at a variety of institutions both inside Iraq and out. Then there's also border police. We need 27,000 border police; we're at 18,000. There's a 6,000-man highway patrol; we have 3,000.


I think the simplest way to answer your question about end state is that that force as I just described it is the agreed-upon force. We call it the objective COIN force, counterinsurgency force, because it has the necessary capabilities broadly to provide internal security. And the army will largely be built out in '06 and the police will be largely built out in the first half of '07.


Q Can I follow up, just a quick follow-up?


MR. WHITMAN: Sure.


Q General, Bob Burns again. On the Air Force. Are you planning to train and develop an Air Force that would include Iraqi attack air crews?


GEN. DEMPSEY: Well, I'm glad you brought that up because it allows me to mention that what we've got is we've got essentially three phases here in terms of Iraq's national security. We've got this objective counterinsurgency force, which is largely, as you might expect, a ground-centric force, and yet we also have a five-year plan inside of a 10-year vision. And we're working with our Iraqi counterparts to determine what force they will over time require to account for their external security as well.


And in doing so, we realize that they will -- as we discuss this with them, they're going to have to make some decisions, as any nation does, about what size ground force can they afford in order to modernize what they have and also to put money into other than ground forces. So, stated another way, they have 10 divisions out through '06, '07, but they may not end up with 10 divisions in the future as they decide how to account for the budget share from their economy and apply it to modernization and to the addition of things like aircraft.

Go it? We are creating a counter-insurgency force first because there are insurgents and terrorists to defeat. Conventional forces to fight organized conventional militaries must wait. The biggest mistake we made in the post-major combat phase was the year-long effort to jump right to a small regular army on the assumption that we could beat the Baathist dead enders largely on our own with the help of ad hoc Iraqi civil defense units.

As we realized that the insurgency (which I think is now downgraded to a terrorist campaign with good press agents) was the main threat, we retooled our program to train a security force able to go after an internal enemy. In time, the Iraqis can think about a military--including an air force--able to defend their national territory from external enemies, be we aren't there yet. Luckily for the Iraqis, we can carry the burden of defending their national territory until they can. We are carrying the burden of internal defense, too, as we build the COIN force.

So admit it. You know it is true. If we were creating a mini-me version of our military right now, before the internal enemy is defeated, our press would be deriding our efforts as much as they deride them now for focusing on a force to defeat internal enemies.

The only thing we can do to quiet these people is to win the war.

They Get By With a Little Help

The purported number 3 man in al Qaeda was vaporized in a missile strike in Pakistan's wild frontier area across from Afghanistan:

One of al-Qaida's top five leaders, said to be responsible for planning overseas strikes, was killed by Pakistani security forces in a rocket attack near the Afghan border with U.S. help, American and Pakistani officials said Saturday.

Said the Pakistanis:

A senior Pakistani intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media, said a missile attack triggered a huge explosion in a stockpile of bomb-making materials, grenades and other munitions.

Other Pakistani intelligence officials, also not identifying themselves for the same reason, said U.S. assistance played a critical role in tracking down Rabia and "eliminating the threat" that he posed.

It is impolite to say this, but the division of labor probably started with US recon assets following up Pakistani leads (I may be generous here, since Pakistani intelligence is rather fond of the jihadis. So maybe US intelligence got wind of Rabia.), followed by the actual launch by US agents or forces of drones with missiles. Meanwhile, higher flying US recon aircraft kept watch over the area to confirm the target. The US drone operators put their birds into position and verified their target. At this point, the US commander of the operation gave permission to fire Hellfire missiles from the drones. Then, the Pakistani liaisson officer pushed the red button that the American staff sergeant drone operator pointed to, sending the American-made missile into the building, setting off secondary explosions.

Because we would never operate in Pakistani territory, we only provided a minor albeit "critical role" such as I described, I'm sure.

You really can get by with a little help from your friends.

Hysterian

Really, what is Van Creveld thinking? I have respect for him as a military historian but how can he honestly look at Iraq and say we are losing and that the parallel is Vietnam? That the President misled us into war? And that this is the most foolish war since 9 B.C. when the Romans lost their Legions in the German wilderness?

As Jeff says:

This is not serious military analysis: it is blind, unthinking panic.

I guess a military historian able to analyze events solidly established in the past isn't able to distance himself from the politics of the war being waged.

UPDATE: Really, based on Van Creveld's standards, the very existence of Israel--which has required a military campaign to establish and defend for nearly sixty years now--would have to rank as the most foolish war since 9 B.C. I mean, talk about crossing the Rhine into hostile territory and being surrounded and attacked by enemies. Casualties continue to climb, there really is no end in sight to the fighting, and getting even ceasefires with some let alone all of their neighbors is proving to be difficult.

When will Van Creveld recommend the Israelis bug out to a safer location in a classic withdrawal? And how will they guard against civil war on their former territory and the emergence of a radical anti-Western regime? Won't it become a hornet's nest of jihadis? Truly, by Van Creveld's standards, the Israelis need a different and more competent team in charge in Jerusalem to pull this off. Then they can start on the war crimes trials for putting the Jews in such danger in Palestine in the first place.

Let me tell you, I have trouble working up a high degree of worry over the human transmission postential of bird flu when Bush Derangement Syndrome is spreading so rapidly from human to human. Indeed, those who I assumed had the necessary immunity are displaying the most lethal syndromes. I hope Van Creveld gets well soon and in five years he writes an insightful history of how we won the Iraq War.

Cyberbooters

China apparently thinks it can slam our warfighting capabilities by launching a cyber attack on our civilian and military networks.

The Chinese are not so invulnerable to a counter-strike:

While China makes no secret of its intention of using Cyber War in any future conflict with the United States, it seems to be ignoring the fact that such tactics work both ways. China is becoming increasingly dependent on the Internet, with over a hundred million users and much of the nation’s economy dependent on being connected. How is that a problem? How about because this year some 80 percent of Chinese PCs were found to be infected with one kind of virus or another. That’s actually the good news. Last year, the infection rate was some 88 percent. The problem has been noted, both by the Chinese government, and potential Chinese enemies. The Chinese realize that if hackers and cyber criminals can get viruses into that many PCs, so can Cyber Warriors from the United States.

This whole situation raises a number of questions for me.

Remember in 1999 how Serbian and American computer users waged a low-level cyber war during the Kosovo campaign? It was basically cyber-defacing efforts to paint slogans on the other guy's walls, but it showed that warfare could become decentralized and cease to be a near-monopoly of sovereign governments. Already we see private mercenary companies with more influence. They can overthrow or protect governments. We've hired them for security in Iraq, anti-piracy duties in the Horn of Africa, and to plan the fast Croation campaign (Operation Storm) in 1995 that retook regions of Croatia held by Serbs during the Bosnia air strikes.

So if the Chinese go to war with America, it is likely that American civilian computer users will launch massive attacks on the Chinese network even as the Chinese and American professionals wage cyber war.

Will this cyber militia complement or interfere with the official US efforts? I tend to think civilian efforts would help by flooding the Chinese network with so many attacks that our guys will be tougher to find in the sea of amateurs.

This raises the issue of whether Chinese intelligence would try to physically attack civilians that they are able to identify who seem particularly effective.

And beyond a war against a recognized enemy, what happens if the old freebooting tradition of conducting independent foreign policies at odds with American interests arises? We have had citizens going off for adventure in Central America and even had an abortive Irish-American plan to invade British Canada.

What happens when members of our many ethnic communities decide to band together to seriously attack other countries' networks? If computer users can break a dam by messing with the computers that control them, how is it that different in effect from going off and planting a bomb to break the dam?

When the target is our enemy like Serbia was in 1999, it is no big deal. Nor is it vital to address when the attacks were merely cyber spray painting as it was in 1999. But as networks become more vital to economies and militaries, as tools to damage those networks get better and actually replicate the effects of conventional attack, and as civilians gain the skill and tools to actually damage networks seriously, what does our government do?

Will these computer users be a cyber militia to help defend our nation? Or will they be cyber freebooters carrying out independent foreign policies and even waging a kind of war contrary to US foreign policy?

Privateers

Tolerating piracy in the Horn of Africa region while we have interests and assets there seemed ridiculous to me.

Apparently, since private enterprise navies attack civilian ships (we call them pirates), we are sending private enterprise ships to combat the pirates (call them privateers, I guess). Top Cat Marine Security has a two-year contract with us:

While no one is saying it, the United States is basically taking over coastal security duties for Somalia. The Transitional Government there has no money for this sort of thing, so it appears that the U.S. is picking up the tab. This could get interesting, for the Somali warlords who operate along the coast are not going to take kindly to some foreigners trying to interfere. The first priority of the new coast guard is to put the pirate gangs, and especially the two larger "mother ships", that are supporting attacks far out at sea, out of action.

Interesting.

A Strait is a Littoral, You Know

The first smaller combatant of the Navy known as the littoral combat ship (LCS) will be based in San Diego.

It will be interesting to see if basing moves west to Japan, Singapore, or Guam in the future. While the littorals in the Gulf region seem prime candidates for this ship, this region is not the only place the LCS could be valuable.

Right now, our ships are too high value to operate in the restricted waters of the Taiwan Strait. Despite some who see US warships lunging into the Taiwan Strait to shield Taiwan from a Chinese attack, we aren't putting our current ships in that constricted water during a war.

So the LCS would work nicely in the Taiwan Strait. Conventionally powered submarines would also work very well there if based close by.

Commander in Chief's Trophy

The Army-Navy football series is all tied up at 49-49-7. Each team has beat Air Force this year, so the series bragging rights and the Commander in Chief's Trophy are on the line today in Philadelphia.

GO ARMY!

BEAT NAVY!

And thanks to both on this day to compete against each other in good spirits when off the field they stand together battling our enemies.

UPDATE: After going ahead 10-7, Army ended up losing by a sizable margin to the cadets. Army kept battling, as one would expect, to the end. Congratulations, Navy. See you on the field next year.

Predicting Insurgency

I am getting tired of the anti-war side deriding the pro-war side for failing to see the scale of the Iraqi resistance that would follow the war.

Prior to the war, I did not address the issue for the simple reason that I thought that since the Sunni 20% of the population could police the other hostile 80% under Saddam's rule, 80% could certainly police the 20% dethroned. And when the Special Republican Guards collapsed rather than turn Baghdad into Stalingrad-on-the-Tigris as many war opponents warned (and which I stated was unlikely), I had some hope that the 20% did not have the will to fight on.

So the resistance was not entirely unforeseen. I just assumed it could be dealt with as a lesser problem than defeating Saddam in the first place (or deciding to overthrow Saddam to step back a bit). But what was shocking to me was the effectiveness of the Baathists. Large sums of money, weapons, and explosives allowed the Baathists to fuel the fight beyond what their numbers would indicate they were capable of fighting. Foreign jihadis aided them as well in ramping up violence (though it carried the seeds of their own defeat by alienating the majority).

But what angers me is the assumption that the anti-war side predicted this insurgency, and if only we'd listened to them we'd have avoided the problem. I remember quite a different discussion prior to the war. I remember anti-war types claiming the Bush administration only wanted war against Iraq rather than Iran or North Korea in order to gain an easy win over an easy target in order to gain political advantage in future elections.

So spare me claims of amazing predictive powers. Shoot, these same people thought the best answer to Saddam's WMD was to deter his use of them as we deterred the Soviet Union rather than invade.

The predictive power of the anti-war side is nothing they should be boasting about.

Who Is Breaking?

Representative Murtha says our military is breaking in Iraq at the hands of the enemy:

Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group.

Opponents of the war like to say this a lot. Yes, if the Army and Marines of 2003 were left to indefinitely fight this war at this level it could not do so. But the ground forces are adapting to fight this war and the war will not remain at a steady state for us. Increases in deployable brigades are increasing the ability of our military to rotate forces to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan; while increases in Iraqi and Afghan security forces, as well as an evolving situation as we win, will reduce the stress we need to overcome.

It amazes me that opponents profess such concern for our troops breaking and simultaneously say that the jihadis are gaining experience--essentially "being trained by the fight against us"--when they are being slaughtered and arrested in vastly higher casualty rates than we face. Yet we are breaking and the enemy is getting better? And let's not even discuss how suicide bombers are getting experience. Now they are down to inept Belgians for their storm troopers?

I think our military will emerge strengthened from Iraq despite the stress it is enduring. The enemy, on the other hand, isn't being stressed so much as being killed.

Not Ever Immoral

I won't try to summarize the excellent article by Victor Hanson. Just read it for all he has to say about what we are achieving by winning in Iraq.

But I will say that the pretensions of the Left to oppose this war on moral grounds has always struck me as deeply wrong. I think the war was necessary for our security but I concede it is at least a debatable point. But trying to argue that freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam was immoral strikes me as immoral itself. How can freeing people from the likes of Saddam and his butcher boys and thugs be anything but a good thing? Says Hanson:

Saddam’s trial will remind the world of his butchery. Despite all the ankle-biting by human-rights groups about proper jurisprudence, the Iraqis will try him and convict him much more quickly than the Europeans will do the same to Milosevic (not to mention the other killers still loose like Gen. Mladic and Mr. Karadzic), posing the question: What is the real morality — trying a mass murderer and having him pay for his crimes, or engaging in legal niceties for years while the ghosts of his victims cry for justice?

Debate the cost to us? Sure. The wisdom of invading? Go ahead. But argue that our invasion was immoral and I just won't listen to you. For I doubt you have the ability to even judge morality if you can even begin to argue that keeping Saddam in power was moral.

Bunching Up?

Crud:

A roadside bomb killed 10 Marines and wounded 11 others on a foot patrol near Fallujah, the U.S. military announced Friday. It was the deadliest attack against American troops in four months.

It hurts to lose so many in one blast. But while losing a number in a helicopter downing or armored vehicle loss is to be expected (and far fewer have happened than I would have expected over these many months), 21 casualties at once seems to indicate bunching up.

Why weren't they dispersed? Why didn't the unit's leader keep them apart? There may yet be a good reason like the multiple warheads being dispersed in a trap the way they thought we'd spread out. But it sure seems like a leadership error here.

In war, mistakes are paid for in blood.

Truly, They Have a Dizzying Intellect

Jeff Goldstein (via Instpaundit) notes this loyal opposition analysis of our mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan:

Former DNC Chairman Terry Mcauliffe, appearing moments ago on FOXNews’ “The Big Story,” laid out Democratic criticism of the administration’s GWOT strategy (paraphrasing):

1) We now see that the Taliban is reorganizing in Afghanistan—all because Bush (the inaccurate argument goes) “pulled the troops too soon” and “rushed them into Iraq” before the Afghan job was completed. In short, leaving to allow a sovereign Afghanistan to try to stand on its own two feet was a disastrous mistake.

2) The US needs to pull troops out of Iraq so that the Iraqis can handle the problems themselves and become a legitimate sovereign country rather than the protectorate of an imperialist US military. In short, leaving to allow a sovereign Iraq to stand on its own two feet is a moral, political, and strategic imperative.

Jeff asks how this can be explained. The explanation is simple, really. Nuance. Lots and lots of nuance. You have to have big-brained nuance seeping from your royal pores to understand thinking like this. So much nuance that you know everything is gray, baby.

I suggest we who are humbled by this deep thinking simply thank the Gods that there are those out there on the Left who have a truly dizzying intellect (Go to scene 5). Just wait 'til they get going!

Willing to Fight After All

A Belgian woman died carrying out a suicide bombing attack in Iraq:

Muriel Degauque, who grew up near the industrial city of Charleroi, entered Iraq from Syria last month and carried out a suicide bombing against U.S. troops. She was the only one killed in the blast.

Never let it be said again that Belgians won't fight for their friends overseas.

Muriel Degauque--Belgian Expeditionary Force.

UPDATE: It occurs to me that this episode is more than just a chance to beat up on the Belgians.

First, how desperate must the terrorists be for cannon fodder that they opted for a Belgian woman who was married to some Algerian guy? Not exactly the stuff to inspire little proto-jihadis. I mean, if they feel threatened by women who drive what must this do to their already shaky cojones? And really, maybe a native Moslem woman might shame some into joining but a Westerner?

And more importantly, what does this tell us about our ability to negotiate with the jihadis to settle our differences peacefully? This man marries a lovely young lass who he has the power to convince to to anything for him and he chooses that she charge at the US military?

Any reasonable, rational man with that power would start with dinner on the table at 5:30 sharp. Or maybe a little starch in the shirt collar. Or a love of football (either our kind or the silly European version). Or one night out with the guys every week with no complaints. Or maybe even--if he is really good at persuasion--some of the more unfashionable kinky love practices that he reads about in Belgian porn.

But no, he sends her off to die in Iraq. We seriously can't reason with these nutjobs.

The Antidote

Reverend Sensing is concerned that Secretary Rumsfeld may be showing signs of a common bureaucratic ailment:

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has now fully succumbed to the disease known as verbiosis bureacratitis.

"The Pentagon’s long struggle over how to describe the war in Iraq moved to new ground Tuesday as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said he wanted to retire the term 'insurgents' in favor of 'enemies of the legitimate Iraqi government.'"

Ah, that adds clarity.

But the Pentagon has the cure! It is acronymitus militarius.

Rest assured, if Rumsfeld's terminology hangs on a little longer, ELIGs will be our enemy in Iraq and it will be in the big book of acronyms that the DoD thoughtfully provides.

Rally 'Round the Flag, Boys

Opponents of helping overthrow Iran's mullahs like to argue our aid will only cause dissidents to rally to the government they fear and hate.

I've already pointed out that our Left has not rallied to our government because we were attacked. many seem eager for our defeat in Iraq.

Syria's opposition seems to be emboldened by outside pressure on the regime.

And I'd like to point out that when foreign jihadis intervened in Iraq and started killing Iraqis, the Baathists embraced the jihadis rather than rally to the government's side to oppose the whackjobs coming across the border.

I really just want to know why Iranian dissidents appear to be so uniquely particular in their choice of friends, allies, and enemies.

Did AP Just Admit We Did Something Good?

This article highlights that Ukraine and Bulgaria will leave Iraq. They make it sound like it is a recent failure of the coalition when in fact, as the article does admit way down, Ukraine stated they would withdraw last year after the Orange Revolution. To our credit, we prefered a clean freely elected government in Kiev over the corrupt regime that put troops into Iraq with us.

Then we get to the real gem of the article:

Although the nearly 160,000-member U.S. force in Iraq dwarfs the second-largest contingent — Britain's 8,000 in Iraq and 2,000 elsewhere in the Gulf region — its support has shrunk substantially.

In the months after the March 2003 invasion, the multinational force numbered about 300,000 soldiers from 38 countries. That figure is now just under 24,000 mostly non-combat personnel from 27 countries. The coalition has steadily unraveled as the death toll rises and angry publics clamor for troops to leave.

Get that? To emphasize the loss of a couple coalition members, the writer ignores past press complaints that we "unilaterally" invaded Iraq by claiming we had a "multinational force" in Iraq right after the invasion! And the author inflates by at least 100,000 the number of troops we had in the invasion force and immediate reinforcements that flowed in to the theater! If my memory serves me correctly, the US had 140,000 and the British had 40,000, plus smaller contingents of Aussies and Poles. Other US forces such as 4th ID and 3rd ACR flowed in for the occupation as Baghdad fell.

Unfreakingbelievable! I've noted this before, but the press will only admit we did something well if they want to condemn us for losing that something.

It really is amazing how much the press collectively just despises America and our war to free Iraq. Not content to say something we are doing is bad or being done poorly (whether their complaint is true or false is irrelevant for my point), they have to deny that they said the situation was bad or done poorly in the past in order to create a bigger contrast of purported failure today! Oh, and note what they named the link for the article: "iraq_crumbling_coalition." Subtle, huh?

But it is nice to see the press finally abandoning the silly "unilateral" meme at long last and admit we had a coalition to overthrow Saddam.

UPDATE: Jim L. points out that the article actually clearly implies, by comparing 24,000 allies in Iraq now to 300,000 coalition troops just after the invasion, that we've lost 276,000 allied troops since the end of major combat operations. Now, anybody that has paid close attention to the war knows that this is not true, but the article really is worse than I first assumed. People not familiar with the troop numbers could easily assume we once had 300,000 allied troops in Iraq in May 2003. I guess we need to debate whether this is sloppy, ignorant, or deliberately misleading reporting.

Let me add that I think the numbers of allies has been pretty constant since the British pulled out the bulk of their troops after the invasion. And our allies--other than the British--have suffered very few casualties.