I'm on record as thinking the Chinese are preparing to invade Taiwan. Indeed, if I was in charge, I'd invade on the eve of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Peking.
Not that I am predicting this is what the Chinese will do, I should add. Although I wouldn't be surprised at all. My basic point is that once the Chinese had no chance of successfully putting ground forces on Taiwan. At some point in the future, the Chinese will clearly have the ability to cross the strait. We are now in an in-between stage. I think the Chinese could throw troops across the strait now and have a decent chance of winning if they are prepared to endure the casualties to win.
Arthur K. emailed this interview with a Taiwanese expert on China, Lin Chong-Pin. Some of the questions and answers, after the anti-satellite questions:
How strong is the U.S. commitment to help defend Taiwan?
I think right now it still remains pretty strong. Washington has said officially that if there is a conflict not caused by Taipei’s provocation, then the U.S. is obliged to intervene. But when you compare the statements over the years, you can see that the resolve of partner states is gradually weakening. Of course we understand, [the U.S.] has a bleeding war abroad and a triple deficit at home. So you have to think twice about [intervening in a Taiwan conflict] in the future.
Lin starts off saying we are committed then immediately back tracks. But not if Taiwan "provokes" a crisis (Like declaring independence from China. I do wish Taiwan had done that in 1996 during the missile crisis). And he says that our being at war reduces our commitment. Plus trade and budget deficits (what is the third deficit anyway? The national debt?) Taiwan should have a greater sense of urgency under these circumstances.
Could China be calculating that the United States might stay out of a Taiwan conflict?
That doesn’t seem to be the case. China’s new grand strategy is to squeeze out the leading influence of the United States in East Asia without war, but with economy and culture. The rapidly modernizing military capabilities of [China’s People’s Liberation Army] will serve as a backbone of Beijing’s extra-military instruments, like diplomacy.
There’s a very strong consensus among the leaders in Beijing [that] the most important thing for China now is to seize this window of opportunity, which has not occurred in centuries: “There’s no serious threat outside China, this is the time when we can make economic growth.” So they want to have a peaceful environment and achieve economic growth first.
This seems too convenient, to me. China is too focused on getting rich so don't worry about their expanding military capabilities? They will just support the Chinese economic and cultural offensive that will conquer Taiwan? The way Peking whips up xenophobia as a replacement for democracy does not bode well for the future. If the rulers ever have a choice between control and war with Taiwan and maybe America on the one hand and revolution and no external war, don't be confused about what they will choose. They aren't the Soviets of 1989-1991 and they will not go that route of capitulation to events.
How much has the cross-strait military balance tilted in China’s favor?
We can say that the naval qualitative crossover has already occurred. The [Taiwanese] Air Force is still there competing, it’s balancing, but if Taiwan does not try harder, it will be tipped over. And in ballistic missiles, there’s no comparison: They have them, we don’t.
As I said, there is movement for China and against Taiwan. I think the ground forces are tilted toward China, too. And if the naval balance favors China and the air balance is competitive, those troops might get across the strait. One would think this would inspire the Taiwanese to greater efforts in their own defense.
Given these trends, what should Taiwan do?
Well, militarily speaking, it’s very simple: we should buy weapons. But it’s not that easy. Our economy is not doing well, and the prevailing sentiment of society does not support the purchase of expensive weapons. Young people don’t like military service. And most people do not even think about the military competition.
Taiwan's economy is not doing well? Really? Yes, in the game of life, you get lots of points if your bank account is really full when the communists take over. If the Taiwanese don't like military service so much that we don't believe they will fight for themselves, we will not go to war with China just to find that we arrive to see banners strung up by the PLA saying "Welcome to the PRC." Taiwan's economy is doing great and could support a military that would buy the time we need to help Taiwan remain free. If the Taiwanese don't believe that, as that balance continues to tilt toward Peking, Taiwan will go down.
How likely is it that the cross-strait standoff will lead to war?
Less and less likely. Beijing’s highest priority on Taiwan is what I would call absorption without war. Beijing has an increasing number of instruments to do that, including economy, cultural exchanges, manipulation of media, strangulation of Taiwan’s international space and psychological warfare.
Additionally, if there was a war, Beijing would face the result of bloodshed in Taiwan and the damage to the economic infrastructure. After a conquest, Beijing would have to face a rebellious population … The military option is the last option. And even the military option has never been to strike the U.S. and destroy Taiwan. Rather, it’s to deter the U.S. from coming in, and to seize Taiwan—like grabbing a beautiful, smiling bride into your embrace. That’s the idea.
One, it is certainly possible that even a small invasion force could topple a Taiwanese government unwilling to fight for its freedom. Two, I don't think Peking cares if it conquers a smoking hole where Taiwan once was. And three, that's a bizarre allusion to the US grabbing the Taiwanese bride from the Chinese. Apparently the Taiwanese really just want that shotgun marriage.
How successful has China's strategy been so far?
I’ll give you one example. Before, when Taiwanese leaders inched toward independence, either in rhetoric or in action, Beijing would go ballistic. Now, they do nothing. Then Washington comes out the very next day, jumps up and issues a warning to Taipei. This is what I call going through Washington to contain Taipei. And it’s working.
It is working only if it weakens our commitment. If it keeps the Chinese away in the netherworld of neither independent nor conquered, this is just fine--as long as the Taiwanese can defend themselves, of course.
What about Japan? It’s also seeking a larger security role in the region. What direction do you see China-Japan relations taking?
In November 2004, [China-Japan] tensions rose because of the submarine intrusion [when a Chinese submarine entered Japanese waters]. In the very same month, Tokyo announced to the world that Japan’s trade with China surpassed that between Japan and the United States. It was a point of no return … Japan realized that its economic recovery after 10 years of slump in the 1990s was largely due to its trade with China. And the business community also put a lot of pressure on the government in Tokyo to improve relations. So political relations have already warmed up. But pessimists say that China and Japan’s interests will inevitably clash.
Beijing knows very well they would lose a war with Japan. They know how good the Japanese Navy, and even its Air Force, are. So they’ll try to avoid military confrontation.
While it is true that Japan could beat China with its superior air and naval forces, if the Chinese think they can defeat America--which is far more powerful--they will believe their superior will could break aging Japan dependent on sea lines of communication going past China.
The United States intends to pull back some forces to Guam, and reduce its presence in South Korea and Japan. How will that affect regional security?
For now, I think Beijing prefers to see the presence of the U.S. military in this region, because Beijing is worried about Japan, and thinks the U.S. can restrain Japan. But as the U.S. voluntarily withdraws, because of a lack of capabilities or a lack of economic wherewithal, somebody will have to step in. Will it be Japan, China or both? I think by that time, they will work out something together, because it’s in their best interests … Growing economic interdependence will become more and more important as time goes on, and will constrain military confrontation. And the trend has already begun.
Interesting. We restrain Japan by remaining in the area? True, as long as Japan believes our nuclear deterrent works they will not go nuclear. But if we pull back, Lin says then Japan will come to some agreement with China? That seems contradictory. Plus, moving Marines from Okinawa to Guam is not a retreat. It is pulling them back from a vulnerable front line as Chinese capabilities grow. Defending a line doesn't mean you pile your troops in the front trench--you have outposts with your main strength further back. Keeping our troops on Okinawa just meant that they could be hit early.
I'm not sure what to make of this expert's comments. Am I really to believe that China sees us pulling back from the western Pacific, sees Japan seeking agreement with China, sees the military balance tilting away from Taiwan and toward China, sees America less willing to defend Taiwan, sees Taiwanese unwilling to fight, and yet thinks that China will just let these trends go to waste in order to absorb Taiwan by some nebulous manner that relies on the Taiwanes just becoming Chinese at some undefined point in the future?
I don't buy it. I don't know who Lin is, but I don't buy his analysis as a whole.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
If an Iranian EFP Goes Off in Iraq, Does a Liberal Hear It?
I hate to ask such philosophical questions, but the situation demands it. It has been clear for years that the Iranians are supporting terrorists inside Iraq who kill our troops and Iraqi civilians.
Our military has set out our case (Link updated. I hate it when they rewrite on the same link and eliminate what I quoted) on one type of weapon that is killing our troops:
Personally, I think it is a no-brainer to acknowledge the reality of the situation. What we do about this knowledge is a separate thing. I think that accepting that Iran is at war with us should guide our actions.
But watch how the Left will deny it is even true. For them, simply admitting the obvious about Iranian complicity in the death in Iraq is too much. It makes it more difficult to justify running away as fast as we can "redeploy." No, there is no war with Iran and admitting that Iranians are killing us is unacceptable to our Left.
And the Left claims to be the "reality-based community."
UPDATE: The "hear no evil" chorus has begun:
Fascinating. Don't blame the government! This is against Iran's interests! We might justify war again by admitting it! We want more proof!
And Ahmadinejad, knowing that no amount of proof will be sufficient for those determined not to hear, plays the street punk role who knows more about the law than a second-year law student:
And the Iranian foreign minister added:
That's right. The Iranian nutbjobs say they didn't do it! It is against our interests! Don't justify war again! Prove it!
"Reality-based," indeed.
UPDATE: As you can see, some are more worried that we might do something to stop the Iranians from killing our troops and innocent Iraqis than they are worried that Iranians are waging war against Iraq and our forces.
That's quite a reality to base one's community on.
Our military has set out our case (Link updated. I hate it when they rewrite on the same link and eliminate what I quoted) on one type of weapon that is killing our troops:
The deadly and highly sophisticated weapons the U.S. military said it traced to Iran are known as "explosively formed penetrators," or EFPs.
The presentation was the result of weeks of preparation and revisions as U.S. officials put together a package of material to support the Bush administration's claims of Iranian intercession on behalf of militant Iraqis fighting American forces.
Senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad said the display was prompted by the military's concern for "force protection," which, they said, was guaranteed under the United Nations resolution that authorizes American soldiers to be in Iraq.
Personally, I think it is a no-brainer to acknowledge the reality of the situation. What we do about this knowledge is a separate thing. I think that accepting that Iran is at war with us should guide our actions.
But watch how the Left will deny it is even true. For them, simply admitting the obvious about Iranian complicity in the death in Iraq is too much. It makes it more difficult to justify running away as fast as we can "redeploy." No, there is no war with Iran and admitting that Iranians are killing us is unacceptable to our Left.
And the Left claims to be the "reality-based community."
UPDATE: The "hear no evil" chorus has begun:
Explosives seem to be flowing into Iraq from Iran, but does it stem from a deliberate government policy or rogue elements within the Iranian government? asked Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said that ultimately Iran wants a stable Iraq and that the United States needs to engage in diplomacy.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said the administration could be laying the groundwork for an attack on Iran and that "I'm worried about that. That's how we got into the mess in Iraq," by relying on what Dodd called "doctored information."
Senate Intelligence Committee member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said "the administration is engaged in a drumbeat with Iran that is much like the drumbeat that they did with Iraq. We're going to insist on accountability."
Fascinating. Don't blame the government! This is against Iran's interests! We might justify war again by admitting it! We want more proof!
And Ahmadinejad, knowing that no amount of proof will be sufficient for those determined not to hear, plays the street punk role who knows more about the law than a second-year law student:
"There should be a court to prove the case and to verify the case. The position of our government ... is also the same. We are opposed to any kind of conflict in Iraq," Ahmadinejad told ABC's "Good Morning America."
And the Iranian foreign minister added:
"Such accusations cannot be relied upon or be presented as evidence. The United States has a long history in fabricating evidence. Such charges are unacceptable," Hosseini told reporters in Tehran.
That's right. The Iranian nutbjobs say they didn't do it! It is against our interests! Don't justify war again! Prove it!
"Reality-based," indeed.
UPDATE: As you can see, some are more worried that we might do something to stop the Iranians from killing our troops and innocent Iraqis than they are worried that Iranians are waging war against Iraq and our forces.
That's quite a reality to base one's community on.
This Is Not the One
Four days ago, I wrote about a hacking attack on 13 computers that help manage the Internet. I argued that it shows that a physical attack on these sites would probably be more fruitful than hacking them.
Strategypage writes about that attack and says that I am wrong on this (Well, not me personally. I doubt they are responding to my post.):
So these sites aren't critical enough to bring down the Internet. I am definitely wrong about this hacking attack and those thirteen computers.
But I'm reasonably sure that there are such critical physical choke points. Recently, a cut cable screwed up Internet traffic on Taiwan for a bit. Taiwan is an extreme example as a place at the end of a major connection with little room for rerouting on high-capacity lines, so it is not typical. But the event shows that destruction of physical links can be effective in theory. So my concept as a theory is not bad. It just depends on whether America, too, is vulnerable to such a loss.
And I still recall reading an article in pre-blog days that our Internet infrastructure is different than the original defense-related web. I read that we have concentrated nodes in single buildings for ease of maintenance and environmental control. So nodes that in the past would be scattered are now concentrated. Then, if a node broke down from an attack, traffic would reroute through another node a hundred miles away. Today, if a node breaks down on its own from a simple non-hostile fault, one ten feet away in the same bulding may be the one that takes over. That's no problem in peacetime. But if the building is destroyed, a lot of backups will go down, too.
Of course, my memory could be faulty. Or the situation could have gotten better since I read that article.
Bottom line: I'm wrong about this particular post. But I'm not willing to discount my memory of what I read about the structure of the Internet. I really should devote some time to research this. I'll report back.
Strategypage writes about that attack and says that I am wrong on this (Well, not me personally. I doubt they are responding to my post.):
With regard to a cyberwar, if all the root servers were physically destroyed, the Internet could actually continue to function, as the vast majority of domain names don't change.
So these sites aren't critical enough to bring down the Internet. I am definitely wrong about this hacking attack and those thirteen computers.
But I'm reasonably sure that there are such critical physical choke points. Recently, a cut cable screwed up Internet traffic on Taiwan for a bit. Taiwan is an extreme example as a place at the end of a major connection with little room for rerouting on high-capacity lines, so it is not typical. But the event shows that destruction of physical links can be effective in theory. So my concept as a theory is not bad. It just depends on whether America, too, is vulnerable to such a loss.
And I still recall reading an article in pre-blog days that our Internet infrastructure is different than the original defense-related web. I read that we have concentrated nodes in single buildings for ease of maintenance and environmental control. So nodes that in the past would be scattered are now concentrated. Then, if a node broke down from an attack, traffic would reroute through another node a hundred miles away. Today, if a node breaks down on its own from a simple non-hostile fault, one ten feet away in the same bulding may be the one that takes over. That's no problem in peacetime. But if the building is destroyed, a lot of backups will go down, too.
Of course, my memory could be faulty. Or the situation could have gotten better since I read that article.
Bottom line: I'm wrong about this particular post. But I'm not willing to discount my memory of what I read about the structure of the Internet. I really should devote some time to research this. I'll report back.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Nothing New?
I wondered if the recent clump of helicopter losses was more than a statistical fluke.
Some speculate that the Iranians have added new capabilities.
The military doesn't think so:
Of course, though the general said that people are making too much of this, the trend he speaks of could mean one of increasing Iranian-supplied capabilities for the enemy.
If the general is right, over time we will look back and see this as a clump with no broader significance. I sure hope that is the case.
Some speculate that the Iranians have added new capabilities.
The military doesn't think so:
"I see no change in trends" on the part of the insurgent's targeting efforts, "and I see no capability gaps" on the part of U.S. forces, Gen. Richard Cody said in an interview en route to this air base north of Kabul, Afghanistan's capital.
Of course, though the general said that people are making too much of this, the trend he speaks of could mean one of increasing Iranian-supplied capabilities for the enemy.
If the general is right, over time we will look back and see this as a clump with no broader significance. I sure hope that is the case.
Why We Need Journalism Schools
When the first reports of the IG report on Defense Department analysis efforts that contradicted or questioned CIA assessments came out, I noticed they said the DOD did nothing wrong.
The next day, reports started saying that the report said the DOD was wrong to carry out those efforts. I guess your own groupthink is acceptable. I was going to question it, but I noticed that the second-day articles seemed to quote Senator Levin rather than the report in guiding the headlines. That was odd, I thought. Typical, mind you--but odd. But I was tired of trying to win small victories over individual reports by pointing out problems. I'll stick generally to commenting on the war itself and foreign affairs.
But I am glad other bloggers have this interest. So Instapundit's link to this was informative:
The reporters confused a war critic's comments about the report for the actual report?
One of these days we'll establish formal programs for training reporters--I've suggested calling them "journalism schools"--and we will avoid these embarassing mistakes of basic reporting.
I mean, it's almost as if our reporters currently think their own beliefs should dominate their reporting!
The next day, reports started saying that the report said the DOD was wrong to carry out those efforts. I guess your own groupthink is acceptable. I was going to question it, but I noticed that the second-day articles seemed to quote Senator Levin rather than the report in guiding the headlines. That was odd, I thought. Typical, mind you--but odd. But I was tired of trying to win small victories over individual reports by pointing out problems. I'll stick generally to commenting on the war itself and foreign affairs.
But I am glad other bloggers have this interest. So Instapundit's link to this was informative:
A Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general's report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith's office producing "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" and that the office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith's office drew on "both reliable and unreliable reporting" to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration" were also from Levin's report.
The reporters confused a war critic's comments about the report for the actual report?
One of these days we'll establish formal programs for training reporters--I've suggested calling them "journalism schools"--and we will avoid these embarassing mistakes of basic reporting.
I mean, it's almost as if our reporters currently think their own beliefs should dominate their reporting!
Oh, What a Bloody Giveaway!
President Putin blasted American use of force, but only mentioned our planned missile defense system in Eastern European NATO countries rather than the campaigns in Iraq or Afghanistan. And he criticized NATO expansion (into the sphere of influence of the former Soviet Union, of course).
Amusingly enough, Putin gave the game away with this comment:
What a fascinating word choice that "hide" is (assuming the translation captured the nuance), don't you think?
Putin didn't say that we are harming the ability of the vaunted "international community" to uphold freedom, and human rights, and democracy. He didn't use any positive word that might indicate a higher purpose of international law that so many in the West like to pretend actually exists.
By using the word "hide" Putin expressed the fears of autocrats and thugs all over the world who have UN seats. They want to be free to do whatever the Hell they want inside their borders (or in the case of China, the border they pretend includes Taiwan) without any outside interference. "Sovereignty" means never having to say you're sorry for killing or abusing your own people or any subset of that population. It certainlyshouldn't mean being held accountable for that.
The victims of thug states do not fear the loss of a shield based on this interpretation of international law behind which thug rulers can abuse, exploit, and kill their own people with impunity.
It is the thug rulers who saw Saddam chased from his palace paid for by the international community, dragged from his hole without the protection of the international community, tried by his former victims for his crimes with no help from the international community, and hung by the neck until dead with the international community only able to yak about the circumstances who are the ones scared of the trend we have started.
Putin fears that democracy and membership in NATO will continue to expand through the former domains of thugs that Moscow once ruled. Putin fears that the thug states who buy his arms will fall to our ideological appeal and fall from the orbit of Moscow's new alliance of rogue states. Funny that despite all the talk that we've ruined our international reputation that Putin fears our influence rather than discounts it.
The one thing I want to know is whether Putin is just worried about former satellites and new clients aligning with us, or whether he worries that our influence can reach all the way to Moscow itself.
Amusingly enough, Putin gave the game away with this comment:
"This is very dangerous, nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law," Putin told the gathering.
What a fascinating word choice that "hide" is (assuming the translation captured the nuance), don't you think?
Putin didn't say that we are harming the ability of the vaunted "international community" to uphold freedom, and human rights, and democracy. He didn't use any positive word that might indicate a higher purpose of international law that so many in the West like to pretend actually exists.
By using the word "hide" Putin expressed the fears of autocrats and thugs all over the world who have UN seats. They want to be free to do whatever the Hell they want inside their borders (or in the case of China, the border they pretend includes Taiwan) without any outside interference. "Sovereignty" means never having to say you're sorry for killing or abusing your own people or any subset of that population. It certainlyshouldn't mean being held accountable for that.
The victims of thug states do not fear the loss of a shield based on this interpretation of international law behind which thug rulers can abuse, exploit, and kill their own people with impunity.
It is the thug rulers who saw Saddam chased from his palace paid for by the international community, dragged from his hole without the protection of the international community, tried by his former victims for his crimes with no help from the international community, and hung by the neck until dead with the international community only able to yak about the circumstances who are the ones scared of the trend we have started.
Putin fears that democracy and membership in NATO will continue to expand through the former domains of thugs that Moscow once ruled. Putin fears that the thug states who buy his arms will fall to our ideological appeal and fall from the orbit of Moscow's new alliance of rogue states. Funny that despite all the talk that we've ruined our international reputation that Putin fears our influence rather than discounts it.
The one thing I want to know is whether Putin is just worried about former satellites and new clients aligning with us, or whether he worries that our influence can reach all the way to Moscow itself.
The Other Surge
We are asking our NATO allies for more troops for Afghanistan and we have significantly increased our troops strength in Afghanistan.
We've announced that we want to be ready for a Taliban spring offensive. Which makes sense since the spring is when the enemy comes out of their shelters to strike. Many were recruited last year in Pakistan and came across the border to die in large numbers. But they did some damage while they were out.
Yet consider that we did slaughter large numbers of them, which hasn't helped recruiting for this year.
And we went on a winter campaign to pursue the enemy rather than just wait for them to get ready in the spring. So we've not let them rest as much as they'd like.
And we've strengthened our operations on the border to catch the enemy coming across.
And the Pakistanis are committed to striking in the tribal areas where the Taliban are preparing. This should cut down on the number even trying to enter Afghanistan.
So with all these preparations that seem to indicate the Taliban will have trouble rivaling last spring's offensive, why would we need even more troops this spring?
Are we being cautious?
Or are we trying to get extra troops in Afghanistan so we'll have some forces to strike west into Iran while retaining enough troops to handle the Taliban? And this could be true whether we plan to hit Iran or whether we think Iran may strike and we want the ability to counter-attack.
Suspicious minds want to know.
We've announced that we want to be ready for a Taliban spring offensive. Which makes sense since the spring is when the enemy comes out of their shelters to strike. Many were recruited last year in Pakistan and came across the border to die in large numbers. But they did some damage while they were out.
Yet consider that we did slaughter large numbers of them, which hasn't helped recruiting for this year.
And we went on a winter campaign to pursue the enemy rather than just wait for them to get ready in the spring. So we've not let them rest as much as they'd like.
And we've strengthened our operations on the border to catch the enemy coming across.
And the Pakistanis are committed to striking in the tribal areas where the Taliban are preparing. This should cut down on the number even trying to enter Afghanistan.
So with all these preparations that seem to indicate the Taliban will have trouble rivaling last spring's offensive, why would we need even more troops this spring?
Are we being cautious?
Or are we trying to get extra troops in Afghanistan so we'll have some forces to strike west into Iran while retaining enough troops to handle the Taliban? And this could be true whether we plan to hit Iran or whether we think Iran may strike and we want the ability to counter-attack.
Suspicious minds want to know.
Sitzkrieg
We want our NATO allies to commit more troops to Afghanistan.
Our allies don't think much of this idea:
Since these countries don't actually let their troops fight, I can see how they'd be confused about why sending more troops to sit around and watch real soldiers kill the bad guys could possibly be a good idea.
Our allies don't think much of this idea:
France and Germany are questioning the wisdom of sending more soldiers, while Spain, Italy and Turkey have also been wary of providing more troops.
Since these countries don't actually let their troops fight, I can see how they'd be confused about why sending more troops to sit around and watch real soldiers kill the bad guys could possibly be a good idea.
Friday, February 09, 2007
So They Admit They Suck?
This is too good. The Society for Ethnomusicology:
As someone who, as a child, was taken to an "Up With People" so-called concert, I appreciate the lasting harm that involuntary exposure to really awful music can inflict. (Sometimes, when it is really quiet, I can still hear <> inside my head < / shudder > "Up, up, with people! You see them wherever you go. Up, up, with people ....)
But I suspect that this is less a case of being morally opposed to torture as it is being horrifed at the possiblity a member of the society will be fingered as the author of music bad enough to get committed jihadis to renounce their god and way of life.
Professional pride is taking quite a beating here, eh?
demands that the United States government and its agencies cease using music as an instrument of physical and psychological torture.
As someone who, as a child, was taken to an "Up With People" so-called concert, I appreciate the lasting harm that involuntary exposure to really awful music can inflict. (Sometimes, when it is really quiet, I can still hear <> inside my head < / shudder > "Up, up, with people! You see them wherever you go. Up, up, with people ....)
But I suspect that this is less a case of being morally opposed to torture as it is being horrifed at the possiblity a member of the society will be fingered as the author of music bad enough to get committed jihadis to renounce their god and way of life.
Professional pride is taking quite a beating here, eh?
Completely Backassward
We fight in Afghanistan as do the Canadians, British, and Dutch.
The rest of our NATO allies think that fighting even in the "good war" is a bit too much to ask of them. Per Strategypage:
Talk about confusion.
Listen up, ya chowderheads. Fighting to keep freed people from becoming subjects of the thug Taliban is called "liberating" Afghans.
Sitting in a base in Afghanistan while doing nothing other than sipping chai tea or whatever they do, is "occupying" territory. And not occupying it very productively, I might add.
Indeed, just sitting there, they are a burden on the logistical system that must feed and house them.
Thanks a bunch, allies. Thank goodness this is the "good war."
The rest of our NATO allies think that fighting even in the "good war" is a bit too much to ask of them. Per Strategypage:
Claiming they are, "liberators not occupiers," Germany, France, Italy and Spain have dug in their heels and affirmed their refusal to allow their peacekeeping troops in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban.
Talk about confusion.
Listen up, ya chowderheads. Fighting to keep freed people from becoming subjects of the thug Taliban is called "liberating" Afghans.
Sitting in a base in Afghanistan while doing nothing other than sipping chai tea or whatever they do, is "occupying" territory. And not occupying it very productively, I might add.
Indeed, just sitting there, they are a burden on the logistical system that must feed and house them.
Thanks a bunch, allies. Thank goodness this is the "good war."
Under Protest
I was compelled to switch to the new blogger.
Trying to back into the dashboard from viewing the site and trying to edit an individual post didn't work.
I'm not happy with being forced to switch. We shall see how this goes.
Trying to back into the dashboard from viewing the site and trying to edit an individual post didn't work.
I'm not happy with being forced to switch. We shall see how this goes.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Not the Great Satan Anymore
It is common for opponents of confronting Iran over its nuclear program to argue that any American pressure on Iran--any pressure at all--will just force Iranians to rally to the government.
Our recent declaration that we will build up our forces in the region with an eye toward Iran should have led to that rally-around-the-flag effect. Indeed, the Iranian leadership is threatening us should we attack them.
So I take great pleasure in linking to this:
How is it possible that Iranians unhappy with their government are failing to fall in line with the mullah goveernment? I mean, here in America even Nancy Pelosi has embraced the Bush administration in a stirring display of solidarity in the face of jihadi threats.
Oh wait. Speaker Pelosi is still trying to retreat. And Iranians who oppose the mullahs haven't suddenly discovered that they love the mullahs even though we increase pressure on the mullahs.
You know, sometimes people view foreign support as an asset to defeat domestic enemies rather than a threat that compels them to unite with hated domestic enemies. So far the American and Iranian experience verifies this observation.
Our recent declaration that we will build up our forces in the region with an eye toward Iran should have led to that rally-around-the-flag effect. Indeed, the Iranian leadership is threatening us should we attack them.
So I take great pleasure in linking to this:
But many in Iran say they fear attack. Iranian media and Web sites have almost daily commentaries on a possible U.S. attack — some of them blaming hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the deterioration in the already sour U.S.-Iranian relations by his provocative rhetoric against America and Israel.
How is it possible that Iranians unhappy with their government are failing to fall in line with the mullah goveernment? I mean, here in America even Nancy Pelosi has embraced the Bush administration in a stirring display of solidarity in the face of jihadi threats.
Oh wait. Speaker Pelosi is still trying to retreat. And Iranians who oppose the mullahs haven't suddenly discovered that they love the mullahs even though we increase pressure on the mullahs.
You know, sometimes people view foreign support as an asset to defeat domestic enemies rather than a threat that compels them to unite with hated domestic enemies. So far the American and Iranian experience verifies this observation.
Taking the "Nuke" Out of Pillsbury Nuke Boy?
I don't want to be afraid to take "yes" for an answer, but what's up with the news on a possible breakthrough regarding North Korea?
I have no doubt we can sign an agreement with North Korea. The question is whether North Korea will obey it.
And since I hope our strategy in regard to North Korea is to squeeze them until they collapse rather than help that gulag with a UN seat to survive, I worry that a deal will save the northern regime.
But this is just a first step and I don't assume that the North Koreans will agree to anything that will satisfy us or the Japanese.
Quite honestly, Kim Jong-Il could sign his name incorrectly on any document and it would satisfy the South Koreans, Chinese, and Russians. So only our opinion and Japan's opinion really matters.
So don't break out the champagne yet.
UPDATE: Indeed, the Japanese aren't too impressed:
So don't celebrate yet.
Envoys from six nations are trying to agree on steps to implement a September 2005 deal in which North Korea pledged to disarm in exchange for aid and security guarantees. The 2005 deal — the only one to emerge since negotiations began in 2003 — was a broad statement of principles that did not outline any concrete steps for dismantling North Korea's nuclear program.
I have no doubt we can sign an agreement with North Korea. The question is whether North Korea will obey it.
And since I hope our strategy in regard to North Korea is to squeeze them until they collapse rather than help that gulag with a UN seat to survive, I worry that a deal will save the northern regime.
But this is just a first step and I don't assume that the North Koreans will agree to anything that will satisfy us or the Japanese.
Quite honestly, Kim Jong-Il could sign his name incorrectly on any document and it would satisfy the South Koreans, Chinese, and Russians. So only our opinion and Japan's opinion really matters.
So don't break out the champagne yet.
UPDATE: Indeed, the Japanese aren't too impressed:
Kenichiro Sasae, Japan's top nuclear envoy, said he did not think there would be an agreement, after a day spent discussing the Chinese proposal for a set of reciprocal steps aimed at implementing a 2005 deal that calls for North Korea to disarm in exchange for security guarantees and aid.
So don't celebrate yet.
Why is This Concept a Mystery?
I continue to be perplexed why the press and much of the political opposition fails to understand that we have indeed made progress in the war in Iraq and that the need to change strategy stems from making progress and not from failure.
I outlined this progress in this post.
The problem stems from talk of the "insurgency" as a single entity. In fact, there are multiple components of "the insurgency": Baathists, foreign Sunni jihadis, local Sunni jihadis, Sunni "nationalists", Shia jihadis, criminals, and corruption in general. All of these elements contribute to the general level of violence that is reported as a whole. Iranian and Syrian help for factions inside Iraq help the violence along.
We've defeated the Baathists, the Sunni jihadis have alienated the majority with their violence against civilians, and the Sunni nationalists have made deals with us to fight the jihadis in Anbar. And as we've fought these enemies we've held them off long enough for the Iraqi government to set up security forces and governmental entities.
The primary enemies left are the Sunni and Shia jihadis aided by Iran and Syria. The Sunni jihadis cannot take over against the Shia majority and Kurdish allies. But they do allow the Shia jihadis to thrive as protectors of the Shias. This "protection" unfortunately takes the form of killing Sunni Arabs, which retards the progress toward getting the Sunnis to essentially surrender. Which in turn gives the Shia thugs the excuse to keep killing Sunni Arabs. And as long as the Shia jihadis thrive and have Iranian support, they remain the primary internal threat to the Iraqi government and the development of democracy. This is the reason the Arab Syrians and Persian Iranians ally to supply both Shia and Sunni jihadis.
The corruption and criminals are there, too, but are lesser threats for the moment.
We are changing strategy with the surge to focus on these remaining threats. We are trying to halt the Shia jihadis from killing innocent Sunni Arabs and neutralize the Shia jihadis, hitting the Sunni Jihadis (especially in Anbar), and working to stop foreign aid for the remaining enemies.
In this light, this article that notes how the Baathists have been supplanted by jihadis as the main Sunni insurgent threat is welcome. Our press/anti-war crowd doesn't seem to understand the war, but it is worse than that:
We can knock down the latest threat. And we must. But we have to stand and fight to do so. Redeploying is too suspiciously like retreat to win this war. And if we fail to understand what we are fighting, too many will not understand what we would retreat from if we fail to fight.
Perhaps we could establish schools and programs that would prepare reporters to write stories that inform our public rather than just serve as vehicles for reporter opinions and biases. We could call them "journalism schools" or something. Think about it. Could be a good idea if we ever want to dispel the mysteries of war.
I outlined this progress in this post.
The problem stems from talk of the "insurgency" as a single entity. In fact, there are multiple components of "the insurgency": Baathists, foreign Sunni jihadis, local Sunni jihadis, Sunni "nationalists", Shia jihadis, criminals, and corruption in general. All of these elements contribute to the general level of violence that is reported as a whole. Iranian and Syrian help for factions inside Iraq help the violence along.
We've defeated the Baathists, the Sunni jihadis have alienated the majority with their violence against civilians, and the Sunni nationalists have made deals with us to fight the jihadis in Anbar. And as we've fought these enemies we've held them off long enough for the Iraqi government to set up security forces and governmental entities.
The primary enemies left are the Sunni and Shia jihadis aided by Iran and Syria. The Sunni jihadis cannot take over against the Shia majority and Kurdish allies. But they do allow the Shia jihadis to thrive as protectors of the Shias. This "protection" unfortunately takes the form of killing Sunni Arabs, which retards the progress toward getting the Sunnis to essentially surrender. Which in turn gives the Shia thugs the excuse to keep killing Sunni Arabs. And as long as the Shia jihadis thrive and have Iranian support, they remain the primary internal threat to the Iraqi government and the development of democracy. This is the reason the Arab Syrians and Persian Iranians ally to supply both Shia and Sunni jihadis.
The corruption and criminals are there, too, but are lesser threats for the moment.
We are changing strategy with the surge to focus on these remaining threats. We are trying to halt the Shia jihadis from killing innocent Sunni Arabs and neutralize the Shia jihadis, hitting the Sunni Jihadis (especially in Anbar), and working to stop foreign aid for the remaining enemies.
In this light, this article that notes how the Baathists have been supplanted by jihadis as the main Sunni insurgent threat is welcome. Our press/anti-war crowd doesn't seem to understand the war, but it is worse than that:
But it's not only the anti-war crowd in the press that doesn't want the American people to know that America's soldiers are fighting an Al Qaeda-led insurgency in Iraq. The Central Intelligence Agency and most of America's intelligence community don't want to do that either, according to a major scoop reported by the Sun's own Eli Lake on Monday. Mr. Lake writes that the CIA and others are still concluding that the insurgency is, for the most part, Baathist in nature, while those actually battling the insurgency on the ground, namely the intelligence arms of the Army and the Marines, are contesting that assertion claiming instead that the Sunni insurgency is largely driven by Al Qaeda.
The generic term "insurgent" — preferred by most press organs — is bland and insipid, while the term Al Qaeda may strike an emotional note with many Americans. It is one thing for congressional Democrats and presidential hopefuls to pledge withdrawing the American military from a melee with insurgents, and a whole different thing for them to sound a retreat in the face of an Al Qaeda offensive.
We can knock down the latest threat. And we must. But we have to stand and fight to do so. Redeploying is too suspiciously like retreat to win this war. And if we fail to understand what we are fighting, too many will not understand what we would retreat from if we fail to fight.
Perhaps we could establish schools and programs that would prepare reporters to write stories that inform our public rather than just serve as vehicles for reporter opinions and biases. We could call them "journalism schools" or something. Think about it. Could be a good idea if we ever want to dispel the mysteries of war.
PPHHHHTTTTT!!!
Dang. Another mouthful of perfectly good brew goes across my computer screen.
It stems from the first paragraph of a recent article:
Let me break out the clue pills for the authors of this Washington Post piece.
If this option has not been assessed very much, it is because it is viewed as the Eleventh Commandment brought down from the mountain of conventional wisdom. What on Earth do the authors think we have been doing the last decade and more with Iran? Under two presidents no less!
But this is the problem with our foreign policy realists. Critics of engagement have been questioning the assumptions of talking to Iran and the realists refuse to admit there is any assessment going on at all!
But the lack of reality comes through loud and clear. I don't understand how the authors can argue this:
Really? Yet just prior to this statement the authors justify such a policy by recalling containment of the Soviet Union:
I know the Cold War. I remember the Cold War. And this description, sirs, is no Cold War.
Are these authors seriously trying to tell us that containment was based around the dual concepts of unconditional dialogue and sanctions relief regarding the Soviet Union? I seem to remember it based on confronting Moscow with our military and political resolve, undermining their economy, fomenting revolt in their satellite states, and opposing them around the globe in proxy wars to prevent their power and ideology from expanding. And we struck back where we could. We only talked to avoid nuclear armageddon as we waged this cold war.
If these two authors want to use our Cold War experience to argue for the aggressive containment that seeks to defeat Iran, then we're talking real policy.
But they aren't talking about victory. They're talking about dressing up surrender as success.
The Cold War didn't start until thirty years after the Bolshevik revolution. And the policy of containment was first viewed as something that would take years to work and not the four decades it ultimately required (not to mention that we stood on the edge of nuclear war during that time and fought hot wars in Korea and Vietnam to win it).
We are in a race against time. Iran's mullahs may get the bomb or the Iranian people may revolt against the mullahs. But the realists wouldn't dream of trying to speed up that revolt with action. And this despite the statement in the article that "Iran has long appeared ready for democracy." Or are the authors claiming that democracy is imminent in Iran? Is it more imminent than Soviet collapse appeared to be in the late 1940s?
The very comparison to the Cold War against the Soviet Union makes it clear that the authors don't understand that our goal is to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons and not to figure out how to contain a nuclear-armed Iran.
Or maybe they understand just fine. Maybe they think that mullahs with atomic weapons is perfectly acceptable to them.
Damn. Another mouthful of beer lost with that thought.
Yes, lovely decade we're having.
It stems from the first paragraph of a recent article:
As Iran crosses successive nuclear demarcations and mischievously intervenes in Iraq, the question of how to address the Islamic republic is once more preoccupying Washington. Economic sanctions, international ostracism, military strikes and even support for hopeless exiles are all contemplated with vigor and seriousness. One option, however, is rarely assessed: engagement as a means of achieving a more pluralistic and responsible government in Tehran.
Let me break out the clue pills for the authors of this Washington Post piece.
If this option has not been assessed very much, it is because it is viewed as the Eleventh Commandment brought down from the mountain of conventional wisdom. What on Earth do the authors think we have been doing the last decade and more with Iran? Under two presidents no less!
But this is the problem with our foreign policy realists. Critics of engagement have been questioning the assumptions of talking to Iran and the realists refuse to admit there is any assessment going on at all!
But the lack of reality comes through loud and clear. I don't understand how the authors can argue this:
Paradoxically, to liberalize the theocratic state, the United States would do better to shelve its containment strategy and embark on a policy of unconditional dialogue and sanctions relief. A reduced American threat would deprive the hard-liners of the conflict they need to justify their concentration of power.
Really? Yet just prior to this statement the authors justify such a policy by recalling containment of the Soviet Union:
For too long, Washington has thought that a policy of coercion and sanctions applied to Iran would eventually yield a responsible and representative regime. Events in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe suggest that containment eventually generates sufficient pressure to force autocratic elites to accommodate both international mandates and the aspirations of their restless constituents.
I know the Cold War. I remember the Cold War. And this description, sirs, is no Cold War.
Are these authors seriously trying to tell us that containment was based around the dual concepts of unconditional dialogue and sanctions relief regarding the Soviet Union? I seem to remember it based on confronting Moscow with our military and political resolve, undermining their economy, fomenting revolt in their satellite states, and opposing them around the globe in proxy wars to prevent their power and ideology from expanding. And we struck back where we could. We only talked to avoid nuclear armageddon as we waged this cold war.
If these two authors want to use our Cold War experience to argue for the aggressive containment that seeks to defeat Iran, then we're talking real policy.
But they aren't talking about victory. They're talking about dressing up surrender as success.
The Cold War didn't start until thirty years after the Bolshevik revolution. And the policy of containment was first viewed as something that would take years to work and not the four decades it ultimately required (not to mention that we stood on the edge of nuclear war during that time and fought hot wars in Korea and Vietnam to win it).
We are in a race against time. Iran's mullahs may get the bomb or the Iranian people may revolt against the mullahs. But the realists wouldn't dream of trying to speed up that revolt with action. And this despite the statement in the article that "Iran has long appeared ready for democracy." Or are the authors claiming that democracy is imminent in Iran? Is it more imminent than Soviet collapse appeared to be in the late 1940s?
The very comparison to the Cold War against the Soviet Union makes it clear that the authors don't understand that our goal is to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons and not to figure out how to contain a nuclear-armed Iran.
Or maybe they understand just fine. Maybe they think that mullahs with atomic weapons is perfectly acceptable to them.
Damn. Another mouthful of beer lost with that thought.
Yes, lovely decade we're having.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
The Other Gulf
As early as July 2003, I noted that we were discussing a base on Sao Tome in the Gulf of Guinea.
This would be useful to protect the oil of the area and to watch for terrorists trying to set up shop in West Africa.
We are talking with Africans in a meeting in Senegal:
Given that AFRICOM will be set up to put a single American commander in charge of military relations on the continent, this makes sense I guess. Though I still think it makes more sense to keep Africa split between existing commands. Egypt will remain in CENTCOM. Yet now the Horn will be in AFRICOM. I still like my solution.
But with AFRICOM being based in Europe until it finds a home in Africa, I wonder if Sao Tome is still under discussion?
This would be useful to protect the oil of the area and to watch for terrorists trying to set up shop in West Africa.
We are talking with Africans in a meeting in Senegal:
"The conference has started and with the objective of setting up mechanisms to fight against terrorist threats," Senegalese army spokesman Colonel Antoine Wardini told AFP.
The meeting is being held under the aegis of the Trans-Saharan Counter-Terrorism Partnership (TSCTP) -- a counter-insurgency network grouping the US and nine countries in the Sahel and Maghreb regions of Africa.
Given that AFRICOM will be set up to put a single American commander in charge of military relations on the continent, this makes sense I guess. Though I still think it makes more sense to keep Africa split between existing commands. Egypt will remain in CENTCOM. Yet now the Horn will be in AFRICOM. I still like my solution.
But with AFRICOM being based in Europe until it finds a home in Africa, I wonder if Sao Tome is still under discussion?
Would You Believe Two and a Half?
I mentioned before that we should cut to the chase and go for a three-state solution for Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. Noting the East Pakistan experience, I wrote we should have two Palestinian states:
Strategypage says that is where we are heading:
The post goes on to say that Israel would reoccupy Gaza to take down Hamas.
I don't know about that. Perhaps for a short time. But Israel pulled out because they didn't want to occupy the place. Israel might take advantage of the vulnerabilities of a sovereign Gaza to punish them from across the border. If the West Bank is able to prosper they might look the other way.
So with Hamas stronger in Gaza and Fatah stronger in the West Bank, why are we speaking of "a" future Palestinian state. All the convoluted talk of building an elevated highway to link Gaza and the West Bank or some other mechanism to link the two parts just highlights how artificial this assumption is. Prior to 1967, the West Bank was Jordanian and Gaza was Egyptian. Nobody talked then of one Palestinian state (well, they did, but then they meant destroying Israel and just taking over--without Gaza and the West Bank, of course).
Strategypage says that is where we are heading:
The most likely outcome of all this will be Fatah taking control of the West Bank, and Hamas taking control of Gaza.
The post goes on to say that Israel would reoccupy Gaza to take down Hamas.
I don't know about that. Perhaps for a short time. But Israel pulled out because they didn't want to occupy the place. Israel might take advantage of the vulnerabilities of a sovereign Gaza to punish them from across the border. If the West Bank is able to prosper they might look the other way.
The Enemy Got Confused
Irregulars cannot afford to have base areas so valuable that they try to defend them against conventional forces. Insurgents must abandon bases and scatter. Better to save the men and have to rebuild stocks than lose men and the stocks in a futile effort to defend the supplies.
I wondered about a fight recently where we killed a whole bunch of the enemy:
Strategypage explains:
They decided to defend a base. And they got pasted for their troubles, pretty much. For an insurgency nearly four years old, that's a rookie mistake.
Why did these insurgents stand and fight? I think it is important to know why. Are they new? If so, are they an additional group separate from the older and more experienced groups? Or are they replacements for experienced insurgents who have been killed, fled, or quit?
I wondered about a fight recently where we killed a whole bunch of the enemy:
In ten days of operations, we took down 150 of them?
They didn't scatter and run? Blend in with the population?
What happened here?
Strategypage explains:
For example, a battalion of troops from the U.S. 82nd Airborne division spent nine days last month (January 4-9), in a Sunni area about 70 kilometers northeast of Baghdad. The U.S. troops worked their way through several small villages, that turned out to be a base area for one of the Sunni terrorist organizations. The terrorists thought the area worth fighting for, and a hundred of them were killed, including six known terrorist leaders. Another 54 terrorist suspected were arrested. Found in the area were 1,100 107mm rockets, 1,500 RPG rockets, 500 mortar shells and lots of bomb making materials. Two American soldiers were killed in the fighting, and over a dozen were wounded.
They decided to defend a base. And they got pasted for their troubles, pretty much. For an insurgency nearly four years old, that's a rookie mistake.
Why did these insurgents stand and fight? I think it is important to know why. Are they new? If so, are they an additional group separate from the older and more experienced groups? Or are they replacements for experienced insurgents who have been killed, fled, or quit?
Chutzpah
The UN High Commissioner on Refugees wants the world to help Syria and Jordan support Sunni Arab refugees from Iraq:
While one could make an argument that Jordan deserves support, the idea that Syria-which is causing the refugee crisis by fomenting terrorism in Iraq--should get our help is outrageous.
Tell Damascus to take the money they are using to kill American troops and Iraqi civilians and buy some tents and food instead. Before long, the refugees will go back to Iraq.
Really. What's that joke about the man who kills his parents and then asks the judge for mercy because he's an orphan? That kid had nothing on boy Assad's chutzpah.
But who can blame a despot for trying to get the world to pay for the blowback of Assad's terror campaign? There will be Westerners who will fall for it. Maybe enough. Who knows?
So what's the UN's excuse for making this argument? Oh yeah, same excuse.
"I want to strongly appeal to the international community to support the countries that are making such a huge sacrifice, particularly Jordan and Syria," Guterres said in Amman Wednesday before visiting Damascus.
"The sacrifices made by these countries are remarkable and the international community needs to assume full responsibility in supporting them," he added
While one could make an argument that Jordan deserves support, the idea that Syria-which is causing the refugee crisis by fomenting terrorism in Iraq--should get our help is outrageous.
Tell Damascus to take the money they are using to kill American troops and Iraqi civilians and buy some tents and food instead. Before long, the refugees will go back to Iraq.
Really. What's that joke about the man who kills his parents and then asks the judge for mercy because he's an orphan? That kid had nothing on boy Assad's chutzpah.
But who can blame a despot for trying to get the world to pay for the blowback of Assad's terror campaign? There will be Westerners who will fall for it. Maybe enough. Who knows?
So what's the UN's excuse for making this argument? Oh yeah, same excuse.
Stuck in the Web
The Internet was attacked yesterday:
So was this a practice attack (with China the prime suspect, if so, I should think)?
If so, I think the hackers are confused. Once upon a time, the Internet was a diffused system of links that could easily reroute the limited traffic around any breakage in the many links.
But with so much commerce relying on the Internet, relying on a diffuse system designed to endure a nuclear attack and still function sufficiently to let us fight back did not make much sense. It made more sense to concentrate computing power in single buildings to route the traffic. This is the difference between war where redundancy is God and commerce where efficiency is paramount. Note the article says that 3 of 13 computers that help to manage global traffic were overwhelmed.
Thirteen! That's the target list, people. That isn't a web. It isn't even much of a net. And yet somebody thinks that it is important to practice attacking those thirteen critical computers by hacking them.
Look, it is one thing to hack around looking for information. That's great for the country with the hackers. And that should absolutely be done over the Internet.
But if I was in charge of the plans to take down the Internet because the enemy could exploit it more than I can, I'd knock out those thirteen critical computer sites--the chokepoints of the Internet--with regular ol' missiles rather than worry about training legions of hackers to overwhelm them with cyber-bombs.
When facing such a system as we have now that relies on thirteen crucial computer sites, using real bombs is the real way to knock out the Internet. People are getting so wound up in exploiting cyber-warfare that they forget that physical infrastructure is best destroyed by high explosives and not by hacking into the system and tricking the refrigerator and toaster to overheat and burn the place down.
I know that sounds so obsolete in our new age, but physical computers blow up real good.
UPDATE: See my back track here. I still think I am right in theory, but this particular group of computers is not the weak link of the Internet.
Hackers briefly overwhelmed at least three of the 13 computers that help manage global computer traffic Tuesday in one of the most significant attacks against the Internet since 2002.
Experts said the unusually powerful attacks lasted as long as 12 hours but passed largely unnoticed by most computer users, a testament to the resiliency of the Internet. Behind the scenes, computer scientists worldwide raced to cope with enormous volumes of data that threatened to saturate some of the Internet's most vital pipelines.
So was this a practice attack (with China the prime suspect, if so, I should think)?
If so, I think the hackers are confused. Once upon a time, the Internet was a diffused system of links that could easily reroute the limited traffic around any breakage in the many links.
But with so much commerce relying on the Internet, relying on a diffuse system designed to endure a nuclear attack and still function sufficiently to let us fight back did not make much sense. It made more sense to concentrate computing power in single buildings to route the traffic. This is the difference between war where redundancy is God and commerce where efficiency is paramount. Note the article says that 3 of 13 computers that help to manage global traffic were overwhelmed.
Thirteen! That's the target list, people. That isn't a web. It isn't even much of a net. And yet somebody thinks that it is important to practice attacking those thirteen critical computers by hacking them.
Look, it is one thing to hack around looking for information. That's great for the country with the hackers. And that should absolutely be done over the Internet.
But if I was in charge of the plans to take down the Internet because the enemy could exploit it more than I can, I'd knock out those thirteen critical computer sites--the chokepoints of the Internet--with regular ol' missiles rather than worry about training legions of hackers to overwhelm them with cyber-bombs.
When facing such a system as we have now that relies on thirteen crucial computer sites, using real bombs is the real way to knock out the Internet. People are getting so wound up in exploiting cyber-warfare that they forget that physical infrastructure is best destroyed by high explosives and not by hacking into the system and tricking the refrigerator and toaster to overheat and burn the place down.
I know that sounds so obsolete in our new age, but physical computers blow up real good.
UPDATE: See my back track here. I still think I am right in theory, but this particular group of computers is not the weak link of the Internet.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
The Papua Threat?
Japan and Australia are working on a defense agreement. But the Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, says the Chinese aren't the target of the agreement:
Heavens, who comes up with these things? Aimed at China? Pshaw!
Really, it was a mere coincidence that the Australian and Japanese representatives were standing together pointing at China. You know how it goes when you are just staring off into space and somebody moves into your field of vision and then they ask why you are looking at them? When they simply happened to move where you were looking? Happens all the time.
And I'm sure the agreement does not name China. The agreement will probably apply to any five-letter nation whose name ends in "A". Oh, and which has a population in excess of one billion people and whose name also does not begin with "I". Surely that's a large class of potential enemies. Why would Peking dream up that this agreement envisions any provision applying to China?
I'm sure that the Chinese are just being paranoid. Why would anyone at all worry about China given their track record of high-minded and enlightened foreign and domestic policy? It isn't as if they suppress minorities, have aggressive intent on neighbors, suck up to rogue states and thug regimes, stifle democracy with a view that its existence is a threat to their rulers, and have a record of killing tens of millions of their own people.
Hmm, how was that focus of the agreement defined, again?
Prime Minister John Howard is expected to sign the accord with his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe during a visit to Japan next month, national radio reported.
Downer said the agreement would not have treaty status and that any joint military exercises would focus on counter-terrorism, disaster relief and peacekeeping.
"It's not a statement which is designed to... prepare for war," he told reporters.
Downer said the agreement, which was still being negotiated, should not worry Beijing.
"We certainly have always said we have no policy of containment or isolation for China -- quite the contrary. We believe the more we engage China bilaterally, within our region and beyond, the better that is.
"There's no need for them to be upset. It's not directed at China."
Heavens, who comes up with these things? Aimed at China? Pshaw!
Really, it was a mere coincidence that the Australian and Japanese representatives were standing together pointing at China. You know how it goes when you are just staring off into space and somebody moves into your field of vision and then they ask why you are looking at them? When they simply happened to move where you were looking? Happens all the time.
And I'm sure the agreement does not name China. The agreement will probably apply to any five-letter nation whose name ends in "A". Oh, and which has a population in excess of one billion people and whose name also does not begin with "I". Surely that's a large class of potential enemies. Why would Peking dream up that this agreement envisions any provision applying to China?
I'm sure that the Chinese are just being paranoid. Why would anyone at all worry about China given their track record of high-minded and enlightened foreign and domestic policy? It isn't as if they suppress minorities, have aggressive intent on neighbors, suck up to rogue states and thug regimes, stifle democracy with a view that its existence is a threat to their rulers, and have a record of killing tens of millions of their own people.
Hmm, how was that focus of the agreement defined, again?
2012
The goal of having 48 Army brigades in the active force won't be achieved until 2012.
Getting two more Army modular brigades soon is being done by accelerating a planned addition.
Getting another regimental combat team for the Marines looks more near term, too. I imagine this can be done by combining a couple additional battalions already formed since 9/11 and putting in the odds and sods that round out a regimental combat team. Or maybe the Marines will just build two more battalions with their annual increase in recruits. That isn't clear to me.
Regardless, any efforts to increase the time at home will still have to rely on reducing our combat role in Iraq over the next couple years. New active forces won't be on line for a bit and our reserves will still be a touchy source despite the change in mobilization policy for reservists.
Getting two more Army modular brigades soon is being done by accelerating a planned addition.
Getting another regimental combat team for the Marines looks more near term, too. I imagine this can be done by combining a couple additional battalions already formed since 9/11 and putting in the odds and sods that round out a regimental combat team. Or maybe the Marines will just build two more battalions with their annual increase in recruits. That isn't clear to me.
Regardless, any efforts to increase the time at home will still have to rely on reducing our combat role in Iraq over the next couple years. New active forces won't be on line for a bit and our reserves will still be a touchy source despite the change in mobilization policy for reservists.
Working the Problem
I've been frustrated that even war supporters are referring to the surge in Iraq as "one last effort to win."
One, I think we are winning. Although the Shia militia problem is a new wrinkle we must cope with. I think their killing spree has undermined our efforts to get the Sunni Arabs to essentially surrender.
Two, I am worried that our surge--though it may certainly work given the new strategy that seems likely to be implemented--lacks achievable metrics to judge it a success. While ultimate victory will depend on clamping down on violence in Iraq, I don't know if we are at the point where we can put our prestige on the line to do so in Baghdad. It is far easier to blow people up than to prevent people from being blown up by terrorists.
Three, if the surge does not work the proper response is to work the problem and do something else, or do the same thing longer, or something in between. The important thing is to focus on winning.
So I'm glad that Secretary Gates is focused on winning:
Prime Minister Maliki, reacting to violence before the long-telegraphed surge starts, seems to be working the problem, too:
The prime minister wants the Baghdad effort to get moving now.
Why this effort is the one that is a last effort to stop that always imminent civil war the anti-war press talks about is a mystery to me. But much of what they do is a mystery. They may very well be right that this time Iraq truly is on the verge of civil war, but their past pronouncements leave me no reason to think this is so.
But at least reporters don't seem to be asking the Iraqis what they will do if this plan fails--turning themselves over to the tender mercies of al Qaeda and the Baathists doesn't seem wise. The Iraqi government will work the problem.
Of course, if it ever comes to a real full-blown civil war, the Sunni Arabs of Iraq will simply be expelled or (for the ones too slow or stupid) killed.
One way or the other, we and the Iraqis will work the problem. I still think we can build a democracy in Iraq. Our enemies are fighting hard to stop us. But that is why they are enemies and not the League of Women Voters.
One, I think we are winning. Although the Shia militia problem is a new wrinkle we must cope with. I think their killing spree has undermined our efforts to get the Sunni Arabs to essentially surrender.
Two, I am worried that our surge--though it may certainly work given the new strategy that seems likely to be implemented--lacks achievable metrics to judge it a success. While ultimate victory will depend on clamping down on violence in Iraq, I don't know if we are at the point where we can put our prestige on the line to do so in Baghdad. It is far easier to blow people up than to prevent people from being blown up by terrorists.
Three, if the surge does not work the proper response is to work the problem and do something else, or do the same thing longer, or something in between. The important thing is to focus on winning.
So I'm glad that Secretary Gates is focused on winning:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted Tuesday the increase in U.S. forces in Iraq is "not the last chance" to succeed and conceded he's considering what steps to take if the buildup doesn't work.
"I would be irresponsible if I weren't thinking about what the alternatives might be," Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Prime Minister Maliki, reacting to violence before the long-telegraphed surge starts, seems to be working the problem, too:
Addressing Iraqi generals over what he called a "delay" in a plan seen as a last-ditch effort to prevent Iraq from pitching into all-out civil war, Maliki said: "I call on you to quickly finish the preparations so that we don't disappoint people."
The prime minister wants the Baghdad effort to get moving now.
Why this effort is the one that is a last effort to stop that always imminent civil war the anti-war press talks about is a mystery to me. But much of what they do is a mystery. They may very well be right that this time Iraq truly is on the verge of civil war, but their past pronouncements leave me no reason to think this is so.
But at least reporters don't seem to be asking the Iraqis what they will do if this plan fails--turning themselves over to the tender mercies of al Qaeda and the Baathists doesn't seem wise. The Iraqi government will work the problem.
Of course, if it ever comes to a real full-blown civil war, the Sunni Arabs of Iraq will simply be expelled or (for the ones too slow or stupid) killed.
One way or the other, we and the Iraqis will work the problem. I still think we can build a democracy in Iraq. Our enemies are fighting hard to stop us. But that is why they are enemies and not the League of Women Voters.
Please Contact Our Ambassador in Tehran
The Iranians claim we (or Iraqis reporting to our military) abducted one of their diplomats:
First of all, I doubt we snagged a diplomat knowingly.
Second, in a just world, Our State Department's Irony Desk would inform the Iranians that they should file a formal complaint at our embassy in Tehran.
We'll get back to them in 444 days.
The Iranian government condemned the seizure of Jalal Sharafi, the second secretary at the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, saying he was seized Sunday by gunmen who "operate under the supervision of the American forces in Iraq," the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran strongly condemns this aggressive act which is in violation of international law," IRNA quoted Hosseini as saying. "Iran holds American forces in Iraq responsible for the safety and life of the Iranian diplomat."
First of all, I doubt we snagged a diplomat knowingly.
Second, in a just world, Our State Department's Irony Desk would inform the Iranians that they should file a formal complaint at our embassy in Tehran.
We'll get back to them in 444 days.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Troop Support: Verified!
I know I've expressed some skepticism about how much our anti-war side really supports the troops.
Well, I stand corrected. Here is one troop the anti-war side enthusiastically supports:
He is so supported that celebrities are backing him!
Weasel? How judgmental! Weasel-American, please.
Watada apparently enlisted in March 2003. After our Congress declared war. When all but the least mossiest of rocks understood that we were going to war with Saddam's Iraq. Watada is either the stupidest junior officer in the entire United States Army or the brightest star in the anti-war firmament (hey, he's competing with Sean Penn, do your really want to argue this point?).
May Watada enjoy Leavenworth. He is a disgrace to the uniform he continues to wear.
But as I noted, this is exactly the sort of so-called soldier that our Left supports.
They deserve each other. In a day of expressing contempt, add another category.
UPDATE: I believe my question has been answered in favor of the stupidest junior officer (technically) in the Army:
"Did not fully understand a document he signed ..." Given that he enlisted in March 2003 several months after a Democratic Senate and Republican House passed the authorization to use force resolution in regard to Iraq, I'd say that not fully understanding documents is a basic problem that Lt. Watada may want to focus on while in Leavenworth.
My opinion of Lt. Watada would have to go up considerably for me to hold him in contempt.
Well, I stand corrected. Here is one troop the anti-war side enthusiastically supports:
1st Lt. Ehren Watada, 28, of Honolulu is charged with missing movement for refusing to ship out with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He also faces charges of conduct unbecoming an officer for accusing the Army of war crimes and denouncing the administration for conducting an "illegal war" founded on "lies."
He is so supported that celebrities are backing him!
Outside the base, a small group that included actor Sean Penn demonstrated in support of Watada. A few others demonstrated against him, including one man who carried a sign calling Watada a "weasel."
Weasel? How judgmental! Weasel-American, please.
Watada apparently enlisted in March 2003. After our Congress declared war. When all but the least mossiest of rocks understood that we were going to war with Saddam's Iraq. Watada is either the stupidest junior officer in the entire United States Army or the brightest star in the anti-war firmament (hey, he's competing with Sean Penn, do your really want to argue this point?).
May Watada enjoy Leavenworth. He is a disgrace to the uniform he continues to wear.
But as I noted, this is exactly the sort of so-called soldier that our Left supports.
They deserve each other. In a day of expressing contempt, add another category.
UPDATE: I believe my question has been answered in favor of the stupidest junior officer (technically) in the Army:
A judge declared a mistrial Wednesday in the court-martial of an Army lieutenant who refused to deploy to Iraq, saying the soldier did not fully understand a document he signed in which he admitted to elements of the charges.
"Did not fully understand a document he signed ..." Given that he enlisted in March 2003 several months after a Democratic Senate and Republican House passed the authorization to use force resolution in regard to Iraq, I'd say that not fully understanding documents is a basic problem that Lt. Watada may want to focus on while in Leavenworth.
My opinion of Lt. Watada would have to go up considerably for me to hold him in contempt.
Why the Press Sucks: Part X
If you wonder why I don't trust the press on the big things like how the war is going, check out their reporting skills on a narrow item that should be fairly easy to report on.
Consider the Senate maneuverings over an anti-surge resolution. The article states:
Ah yes, the evil Republicans are blocking "debate" according to the article. And the loyal opposition is trying to change course and not retreat or surrender, if you believe the press. And of course, the casualty figure for US troops lost in Iraq is made rather than something else that places the loss in context either with the length of the war or the accomplishments achieved through those casualties.
In reality, the Republicans are blocking a vote on the specific resolution. In fact, the form of this blocking is the refusal to end debate. In fact, the Republicans are refusing to end debate on the specific measure in question because the majority party won't allow debate over competing resolutions.
So really, whatever you think about the war, who is stifling "debate" and who wants more of it?
So when you wonder why I have utter and near absolute contempt for our press corps as an institution, remember this small easily digested story of how the press cannot seem to tell the story straight without letting their anti-war bias color how they describe "the news."
The press is useful as a means of broadcasting information only if you have sufficient knowledge of politics and history to see through the bullshit that the media passes off as information. As journalism majors, it is beneath them to just report on what happened and when, they must interpret what happened for the poor dumb masses unenlightened with journalism degrees which allow such graduates to use the tilde key with confidence.
My God. They just make me sick.
UPDATE: Minutes later, another reason (via Instapundit) why those losers with journalism degrees couuldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel:
May our press rot in Hell. Really.
Oh, and this judgment does not excuse President Bush for his absolute failure to counter this sickening press outlook. In the end, we go to war with the press we have and not the press we wish we had. President Bush knows this. And yet he has failed to consistently rally our nation to fight this war despite the surrender monkeys banging away on their keyboards. In time, these journalists may get Shakespeare, but they sure as heck aren't going to get an accurate picture of Iraq.
Consider the Senate maneuverings over an anti-surge resolution. The article states:
Republicans blocked a full-fledged Senate debate over Iraq on Monday, but Democrats vowed they would eventually find a way to force President Bush to change course in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops.
Ah yes, the evil Republicans are blocking "debate" according to the article. And the loyal opposition is trying to change course and not retreat or surrender, if you believe the press. And of course, the casualty figure for US troops lost in Iraq is made rather than something else that places the loss in context either with the length of the war or the accomplishments achieved through those casualties.
In reality, the Republicans are blocking a vote on the specific resolution. In fact, the form of this blocking is the refusal to end debate. In fact, the Republicans are refusing to end debate on the specific measure in question because the majority party won't allow debate over competing resolutions.
So really, whatever you think about the war, who is stifling "debate" and who wants more of it?
So when you wonder why I have utter and near absolute contempt for our press corps as an institution, remember this small easily digested story of how the press cannot seem to tell the story straight without letting their anti-war bias color how they describe "the news."
The press is useful as a means of broadcasting information only if you have sufficient knowledge of politics and history to see through the bullshit that the media passes off as information. As journalism majors, it is beneath them to just report on what happened and when, they must interpret what happened for the poor dumb masses unenlightened with journalism degrees which allow such graduates to use the tilde key with confidence.
My God. They just make me sick.
UPDATE: Minutes later, another reason (via Instapundit) why those losers with journalism degrees couuldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel:
Read the account from Baghdad in the Jan. 30 [New York] Times about a battle the previous weekend in the city of Najaf - one of the biggest engagements of the war - and you'd think that U.S. and Iraqi forces had suffered a terrible defeat at the hands of what was described as "an obscure renegade militia."
"Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity" of the fighters arrayed against them, read the piece by correspondent Marc Santora, who added, "They needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed."
Not until the article's sixth paragraph - 200 words into the 1,100-word piece - did this sentence appear: "The Iraqis and Americans eventually prevailed in the battle."
Or, as Wellington said after defeating Napoleon at Waterloo, "It was a damned close-run thing" - but the good guys won.
So why wasn't this the lead of the Times' story? Given the way things have been going, it would seem to be an unusual enough development to warrant prominent attention.
Maybe because the Times doesn't want America to win in Iraq.
May our press rot in Hell. Really.
Oh, and this judgment does not excuse President Bush for his absolute failure to counter this sickening press outlook. In the end, we go to war with the press we have and not the press we wish we had. President Bush knows this. And yet he has failed to consistently rally our nation to fight this war despite the surrender monkeys banging away on their keyboards. In time, these journalists may get Shakespeare, but they sure as heck aren't going to get an accurate picture of Iraq.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Change of Command
Oh, bad timing for the Taliban who captured Musa Qala by breaking a truce with the British. An American took over command of the NATO forces following the departure of the British commander who had made the deal.
Homey don't play that game:
The Taliban will likely not survive their success. Though just taking a town will cause us a problem in the future if locals believe the Taliban will come in like Musa Qala.
I would also like to note that our troop level is at an all-time high:
In addition:
The British and Canadians fight. I think the Dutch do, too.
Also, this might be relevant:
I've long said that if we are going to take on Iran, we'd want more troops in both Afghanistan and in Iraq. With a surge planned for Iraq which I don't believe needs all five Army brigades and troop strength up in Afghanistan, with an American four-star in charge of NATO forces in Afghanistan, and the apparent European acceptance that Iran will not negotiate no matter what we offer, are we about to see something happen to end the Iranian nuclear threat?
The President doesn't like small ball, as I've noted.
Homey don't play that game:
One American military officer who labeled McNeill a "warfighter to the bone" said his arrival likely signals the end of such deals, saying they would go under "much greater scrutiny." The official asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.
A senior Afghan military official, meanwhile, said the Defense Ministry expected McNeill to implement a policy of "strong military action." Other American officials said they expected a stronger approach under McNeill without specifying what that would be.
The Taliban will likely not survive their success. Though just taking a town will cause us a problem in the future if locals believe the Taliban will come in like Musa Qala.
I would also like to note that our troop level is at an all-time high:
There are now 26,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the highest number ever. About 14,000 American forces fall under the command of NATO's International Security Assistance Force; 12,000 troops focused on training Afghan forces and special operations fall under the U.S.-led coalition.
In addition:
The United States supplies the largest number of foreign troops backing the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai, followed by Britain (5,200), Germany (3,000), Canada (2,500) and the Netherlands (2,200). Thirty-two other countries provide some troops.
The British and Canadians fight. I think the Dutch do, too.
Also, this might be relevant:
The appointment of McNeill, one of only 11 four-star generals in the Army, raises the profile of the American mission here two weeks after the Defense Department extended the tour of 3,200 10th Mountain Division soldiers.
I've long said that if we are going to take on Iran, we'd want more troops in both Afghanistan and in Iraq. With a surge planned for Iraq which I don't believe needs all five Army brigades and troop strength up in Afghanistan, with an American four-star in charge of NATO forces in Afghanistan, and the apparent European acceptance that Iran will not negotiate no matter what we offer, are we about to see something happen to end the Iranian nuclear threat?
The President doesn't like small ball, as I've noted.
So This Wasn't Predictable?
The British had cut a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan over making Musa Qala a neutral town. It didn't work out as the British intended:
The Taliban did not honor that truce. I doubt they intended to honor it longer than it would take to get NATO forces away from the town.
If you are shocked by this slap in the face to the power of just sitting down and talking to our enemies, I want you to go sit in the corner for a half hour and contemplate your utter foolishness. There is simply no excuse for that kind of failure in reasoning after more than five years of war with these thugs.
And in case you miss the point, the only difference between negotiating with our Taliban enemies and our Iranian or North Korean enemies is the scope of the consequences once the enemy breaks the agreement we think we have.
So NATO troops will have to retake the town. And some will die. And some Afghan civilians will die and others will have become a little more reluctant to aid the government (at least for a time) after essentially being abandoned to the tender mercies of the Taliban.
Musa Qala on Thursday was overrun by an estimated 200 Taliban fighters who disarmed local police, ransacked the district center and hoisted their trademark white flag.
The town had been subject to a peace deal brokered last October between village elders and the Helmand provincial government that prevented NATO, Afghan and Taliban fighters from coming within 3 miles of the town center.
The Taliban did not honor that truce. I doubt they intended to honor it longer than it would take to get NATO forces away from the town.
If you are shocked by this slap in the face to the power of just sitting down and talking to our enemies, I want you to go sit in the corner for a half hour and contemplate your utter foolishness. There is simply no excuse for that kind of failure in reasoning after more than five years of war with these thugs.
And in case you miss the point, the only difference between negotiating with our Taliban enemies and our Iranian or North Korean enemies is the scope of the consequences once the enemy breaks the agreement we think we have.
So NATO troops will have to retake the town. And some will die. And some Afghan civilians will die and others will have become a little more reluctant to aid the government (at least for a time) after essentially being abandoned to the tender mercies of the Taliban.
What But Not Why
I mentioned that our recent helicopter losses in Iraq represent a cluster of losses.
It is important to understand why they were lost.
Our military is looking into this but has only answered the "what" part:
I assumed from the reports that they were shot down. That's why I am worried about these losses. Good grief, I know the enemy has long wanted to shoot down our helicopters! But why the recent success? Luck? Errors in our usage? Better enemy tactics?
Or, as I suspect (simply from the rash of reports of Iranian agents active in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and the Gulf), are the Iranians involved in improving enemy capabilities through the supply of anti-aircraft weapons or even the men to use them?
The way the administration has backed away from the recent but brief display of backbone to confront Iranian warmaking in Iraq, I can see how the military would back away from saying openly why the helicopters were lost if the results point to Iran.
If Iran is responsible, we simply must respond. We've already all but declared it is open season on our troops with no penalty to pay. Will we accept another escalation, too?
Are we unserious about fighting?
It is important to understand why they were lost.
Our military is looking into this but has only answered the "what" part:
Maj. Gen. William Caldwell told reporters that the investigations into the crashes are incomplete but "it does appear they were all the result of some kind of anti-Iraqi ground fire that did bring those helicopters down."
"We don't see this as a focus just on the multinational force," Caldwell said. "There's been an ongoing effort since we've been here to target our helicopters. Based on what we have seen, we're already making adjustments in our tactics and techniques and procedures as to how we employ our helicopters."
I assumed from the reports that they were shot down. That's why I am worried about these losses. Good grief, I know the enemy has long wanted to shoot down our helicopters! But why the recent success? Luck? Errors in our usage? Better enemy tactics?
Or, as I suspect (simply from the rash of reports of Iranian agents active in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and the Gulf), are the Iranians involved in improving enemy capabilities through the supply of anti-aircraft weapons or even the men to use them?
The way the administration has backed away from the recent but brief display of backbone to confront Iranian warmaking in Iraq, I can see how the military would back away from saying openly why the helicopters were lost if the results point to Iran.
If Iran is responsible, we simply must respond. We've already all but declared it is open season on our troops with no penalty to pay. Will we accept another escalation, too?
Are we unserious about fighting?
Faux Pas
China paid for a new stadium on Grenada and went to the ceremonies. The Grenada government struck up the band to honor their guests. The Chinese guests certainly recognized the music:
Heh. This one is for Mad Minerva in case she missed it.
Chinese Ambassador Qian Hongshan and scores of blue-uniformed Chinese laborers who built the $40 million Queen's Park stadium as a gift were visibly uncomfortable as Taiwan's anthem echoed inside the 20,000-seat venue.
Heh. This one is for Mad Minerva in case she missed it.
Their Position is Nothing New
The anti-war side is pumped up today to defeat us in Iraq where our enemies cannot.
They like to claim their opposition is something new based on the errors of the current war.
But it is nothing new. I wrote this in March 2004 (from my old site):
I was premature in judging that war opponents would recall the glorious consensus on the Iraq War--but I don't think I am wrong. It will take longer to win in Iraq and so longer for Iraq to be the last war that the anti-war side can recall with fondness. But with the talk of Afghanistan as the "good war" now, when once it was a rushed wrong answer to 9/11 for these people should be instructive.
The vast majority of the anti-war side simply doesn't like to admit they don't like to fight in defense of our country unless the polls show they can safely do so.
They like to claim their opposition is something new based on the errors of the current war.
But it is nothing new. I wrote this in March 2004 (from my old site):
Opponents of the Iraq War are still fighting about the decision to go to war. They argue that while they oppose the Iraq War, the acrimony is all the President’s fault for failing to do X or to get Y’s cooperation. If only we could have just stuck with the universally supported war on al Qaeda and the Taliban, they argue, we’d be one big unified country.
But back then, many of the usual suspects argued against going to war against the Taliban:
While most of the recent media attention has focused on early internal debates about Iraqi involvement, in fact the early public debate about 9/11 was over whether Bush was rash in declaring "war" on the terrorists. Most experts and pundits -- especially among our allies -- still clung to the "counterterrorism as law enforcement" mind-set. And viewed from that frame, it was foolhardy to declare war.
For starters, declaring war seemed to elevate the terrorists to co-combatants, rather than leaving them as criminals to be dealt with by police dragnet. The decision to invade Afghanistan was even more controversial. Suddenly armchair experts were quoting Kipling and ruminating on how the Afghans had twice defeated reigning military powers, first the British Empire and then the Soviet Empire.
Some even recall the Persian Gulf War with nostalgia as a great coalition when in 1990 and 1991, they opposed the war.
And the Cold War was a struggle we all supported, they say, conveniently forgetting their opposition to the weapons and strategies to oppose the Soviet Union. Then, while the cold war raged, we were “morally equivalent.”
I dare say, it won’t be long before we must debate what to do about Iran, and the “anti-war” side will rush to oppose any forceful action, defending their opposition behind the shield of recalling the unity of the last war—the Iraq War of 2003.
Really, as a general rule, it is only the proposed war to defend ourselves that the loyal opposition opposes, not the past victories. When these people say war is the last resort, they mean it far more literally than anyone could possibly believe.
I was premature in judging that war opponents would recall the glorious consensus on the Iraq War--but I don't think I am wrong. It will take longer to win in Iraq and so longer for Iraq to be the last war that the anti-war side can recall with fondness. But with the talk of Afghanistan as the "good war" now, when once it was a rushed wrong answer to 9/11 for these people should be instructive.
The vast majority of the anti-war side simply doesn't like to admit they don't like to fight in defense of our country unless the polls show they can safely do so.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Fair is Fair, After All
Being Iran's sock puppet isn't all glory as Syria is finding out. A million Iraqi Sunni Arabs have fled to Syria to escape the terrorism in Iraq that Syria has promoted:
Human Rights Watch wants us to pay to help out. Perhaps Human Rights Watch could be a little less freaking stupid and direct their entreaties to Damascus to stop creating the refugees that plague Damascus.
This is similar to a past problem, the article notes:
Indeed. I noted that the Iraqi Sunni Arabs were truly stupid enough to become the New Palestinians. The Old Palestinians nearly toppled the Jordanian government with their presence more than 30 years ago. Perhaps the New Palestinians will do the same for Syria's Baathist dictatorship.
Perhaps we should help that process along.
Syria is poor and lacking in jobs, and many Syrians grumble about the newcomers pushing up the cost of food and housing. The U.N. refugee agency says it is struggling to help the Iraqis, many of whom are poor and running out of the meager funds they brought.
Human Rights Watch wants us to pay to help out. Perhaps Human Rights Watch could be a little less freaking stupid and direct their entreaties to Damascus to stop creating the refugees that plague Damascus.
This is similar to a past problem, the article notes:
Decades after the Middle East was hit by the mass uprooting of Palestinians, it is again struggling with a gigantic refugee problem — this time from Iraq.
Indeed. I noted that the Iraqi Sunni Arabs were truly stupid enough to become the New Palestinians. The Old Palestinians nearly toppled the Jordanian government with their presence more than 30 years ago. Perhaps the New Palestinians will do the same for Syria's Baathist dictatorship.
Perhaps we should help that process along.
Brain Drain
A couple weeks ago, Ardeshir Hosseinpour, an Iranian junior scientist involved in The Uranium Conversion Facility at Isfahan died suspiciously.
There is speculation that Israel may be behind it as an alternative to striking Iran militarily to halt or slow their nuclear program. I did mention almost a year ago that killing Iranian scientists could be one part of a campaign to cripple Iran's nuclear program.
And there is precedent. Though it should be noted that in the end that effort failed and Israel ended up striking Iraq's Osirak reactor to stop their progress.
I don't think we will be lucky enough to escape the need for more forceful action by simply seeing Iranian scientists mysteriously die.
But every little bit helps.
There is speculation that Israel may be behind it as an alternative to striking Iran militarily to halt or slow their nuclear program. I did mention almost a year ago that killing Iranian scientists could be one part of a campaign to cripple Iran's nuclear program.
And there is precedent. Though it should be noted that in the end that effort failed and Israel ended up striking Iraq's Osirak reactor to stop their progress.
I don't think we will be lucky enough to escape the need for more forceful action by simply seeing Iranian scientists mysteriously die.
But every little bit helps.
Look, Hu's Coming to Dinner
China's president, Hu Jintao, is visiting Africa again:
The Chinese will support any thug on the continent if it can secure the resources of Africa.
We should do more to block them, I should think.
The Chinese leader is on an eight-nation tour of Africa -- his third to the continent since coming to power in 2003 -- in a bid to increase China's share of Africa's oil and energy resources.
The Chinese will support any thug on the continent if it can secure the resources of Africa.
We should do more to block them, I should think.
I'm Feeling So Environmentally Friendly!
I may have been too hasty in dismissing the global warmers.
I mean, what if it is really bad that our planet's temperature has gone up a degree over the last century? And what if it is really bad that it will go up another couple degrees in the next century?
And if it is so important that we stop this rise that we must do things that we don't like to stop it, let me suggest something.
Let me see, the use of nuclear weapons will cause a nuclear winter, right? So how many nuclear strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities would it take to cause our planet's temperature to drop by a degree or two?
I'm just wondering. Because if you aren't part of the solution you must be part of the problem.
So come on, let's nuke the mullahs for Mother Earth. It's the green thing to do.
I mean, what if it is really bad that our planet's temperature has gone up a degree over the last century? And what if it is really bad that it will go up another couple degrees in the next century?
And if it is so important that we stop this rise that we must do things that we don't like to stop it, let me suggest something.
Let me see, the use of nuclear weapons will cause a nuclear winter, right? So how many nuclear strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities would it take to cause our planet's temperature to drop by a degree or two?
I'm just wondering. Because if you aren't part of the solution you must be part of the problem.
So come on, let's nuke the mullahs for Mother Earth. It's the green thing to do.
So About That Iraqi Army We "Disbanded"
I've long complained that we did not disband the Iraqi army after we captured Baghdad and deposed the Baathist regime. Further, even if the army existed, it should have been disbanded since we could not trust it. I shudder to think of what could have happened in spring 2004 during the twin jihadi and Sadr uprisings if Baathist-dominated Iraqi army units had been around. We could have had a real Sepoy Mutiny and would have faced Iraqi army units defecting to the enemy. We would have wished that the Iraq army had disintegrated as they did in fact.
So while going through a pile of old magazines this morning (I've been working the last half year to reduce my pile of old military journals that have piled up over the last three or four years), I ran across an article in the January 2004 issue of Army. Written by General Edward Atkeson (who I met, actually, about ten years ago), the relevant portion (pg. 27) states:
The general goes on to speculate that this means that the insurgency was planned. Information since that time clearly shows that the Iraqis didn't plan an insurgency on the assumption they'd be defeated. Saddam assumed he'd hold at Baghdad at worst if we invaded, and that jihadis and Baathists would harass our rear until we withdrew under pressure from France and Russia (bribed by Oil-for-Food). Scattered arms depots were to counter our air power and make sure weapons were available to reconquer the Shia south. This was in reaction to Saddam's lessons of 1991 when he had trouble reasserting control of the south. Reconquering the south would need to be done even if Iraq faced only a Desert Fox II air-only attack.
The important thing is that the author recounts that there were no Iraqi army units sitting around in their barracks wondering if they could work for the new management. They went home.
Sure, you can argue that we should have reconstituted the Iraqi army as it was organized and led, but then you have to answer my second objection that keeping that army would have been a huge error.
And you have to remember that we recruited new soldiers and civil defense units (which eventually were rolled into the army) from the ranks of the old army because they had some training. So we did in fact employ some of those soldiers.
The fact is that a hard core of Baathists were determined to regain power and no stipends would have deterred them from trying to bomb their way back into the palaces. They were determined not to be the generation of Sunni Arabs to lose to the hated and despised Shias after four centuries of ruling them as God clearly intended.
So there. We did not disband the army. With this basic situation being questioned now as a so-called error, it is difficult for me to argue against it since it has been internalized for so long that I don't even remember where I originally got that information. So an article written not long after the campaign is useful to see what was assumed. I really should delve into this more thoroughly, but until I do, an article I chanced to come across will have to do.
So while going through a pile of old magazines this morning (I've been working the last half year to reduce my pile of old military journals that have piled up over the last three or four years), I ran across an article in the January 2004 issue of Army. Written by General Edward Atkeson (who I met, actually, about ten years ago), the relevant portion (pg. 27) states:
What happened to the Iraqi army last April? Did it stand and fight? Not really. For the most part it sought small engagements of American supply trains in which it could inflict casualties and disrupt the momentum of the U.S. assault to some extent. And then what? The Iraqi army evaporated. There were no large pockets of prisoners to round up, as in the 1991 war. Most of the Iraqis simply went home, taking their individual weapons with them.
The general goes on to speculate that this means that the insurgency was planned. Information since that time clearly shows that the Iraqis didn't plan an insurgency on the assumption they'd be defeated. Saddam assumed he'd hold at Baghdad at worst if we invaded, and that jihadis and Baathists would harass our rear until we withdrew under pressure from France and Russia (bribed by Oil-for-Food). Scattered arms depots were to counter our air power and make sure weapons were available to reconquer the Shia south. This was in reaction to Saddam's lessons of 1991 when he had trouble reasserting control of the south. Reconquering the south would need to be done even if Iraq faced only a Desert Fox II air-only attack.
The important thing is that the author recounts that there were no Iraqi army units sitting around in their barracks wondering if they could work for the new management. They went home.
Sure, you can argue that we should have reconstituted the Iraqi army as it was organized and led, but then you have to answer my second objection that keeping that army would have been a huge error.
And you have to remember that we recruited new soldiers and civil defense units (which eventually were rolled into the army) from the ranks of the old army because they had some training. So we did in fact employ some of those soldiers.
The fact is that a hard core of Baathists were determined to regain power and no stipends would have deterred them from trying to bomb their way back into the palaces. They were determined not to be the generation of Sunni Arabs to lose to the hated and despised Shias after four centuries of ruling them as God clearly intended.
So there. We did not disband the army. With this basic situation being questioned now as a so-called error, it is difficult for me to argue against it since it has been internalized for so long that I don't even remember where I originally got that information. So an article written not long after the campaign is useful to see what was assumed. I really should delve into this more thoroughly, but until I do, an article I chanced to come across will have to do.
Surge Size
General Casey testified that he thought a surge to Baghdad smaller than what the President has resolved to carry out would be sufficient. He thought two brigades to Baghdad (7,000) instead of the five planned (17,500) would work.
Casey's estimate is more in line with what I thought was good enough (5,000) in my take-down Sadr option when I speculated what we might do if we surge.
I stand by my opinion that a new strategy does not require new troops--but new troops will certainly make the military tasks easier to accomplish.
The whole Senate debate reflects my worries over the non-military repercussions of adding troops even temporarily. We need a surge of patience and not troops and this surge may cost us more on the patience side than it will gain for us tactically. The race between winning in Iraq and losing hope of winning just got more complicated.
I started to think that the surge would help Iraqi morale by seeing a visible sign of commitment that a change in strategy wouldn't provide, that troop morale might be improved seeing a visible sign of commitment to victory, and that the enemy might be discouraged seeing the opposite of a withdrawal taking place even after our November election results.
But the debate taking place in Congress will wreck those potential benefits, I think. Rather than seeing more troops as a commitment to stay in Iraq a figurative "eleven years," the surge might be viewed as a last gasp that just has to be endured for a short time.
And unfortunately, the opposition has crossed the Rubicon prodded by the so-called surge. They are now emboldened to advocate retreat openly and are looking ahead to presidential primaries. The outcome of the debate about blocking the surge might mean we will have accelerated the rate of our shrinking reservoir of patience that we had before the surge was announced.
The surge can certainly work in conjunction with the new strategy. But the debate over the surge is harming our war effort. Once again our anti-war side is demonstrating the price of dissent that they clearly value more than victory.
Casey's estimate is more in line with what I thought was good enough (5,000) in my take-down Sadr option when I speculated what we might do if we surge.
I stand by my opinion that a new strategy does not require new troops--but new troops will certainly make the military tasks easier to accomplish.
The whole Senate debate reflects my worries over the non-military repercussions of adding troops even temporarily. We need a surge of patience and not troops and this surge may cost us more on the patience side than it will gain for us tactically. The race between winning in Iraq and losing hope of winning just got more complicated.
I started to think that the surge would help Iraqi morale by seeing a visible sign of commitment that a change in strategy wouldn't provide, that troop morale might be improved seeing a visible sign of commitment to victory, and that the enemy might be discouraged seeing the opposite of a withdrawal taking place even after our November election results.
But the debate taking place in Congress will wreck those potential benefits, I think. Rather than seeing more troops as a commitment to stay in Iraq a figurative "eleven years," the surge might be viewed as a last gasp that just has to be endured for a short time.
And unfortunately, the opposition has crossed the Rubicon prodded by the so-called surge. They are now emboldened to advocate retreat openly and are looking ahead to presidential primaries. The outcome of the debate about blocking the surge might mean we will have accelerated the rate of our shrinking reservoir of patience that we had before the surge was announced.
The surge can certainly work in conjunction with the new strategy. But the debate over the surge is harming our war effort. Once again our anti-war side is demonstrating the price of dissent that they clearly value more than victory.
Friday, February 02, 2007
My Guilty Pleasure
Ok, let me rant on global warming. The world likes to beat us about the head and shoulders over this so I give myself a pass to rant on it now and again.
Let me repeat my basic position:
One, I'm not convinced that the temperatures today are higher over a long enough period to be considered the highest ever rather than a blip in the long run.
Two, I'm not convinced that people are at fault for any rise even if there is a significant rise in temperatures this century.
And three, and this is the most important part, I think the idea that we must cripple economic growth in order to slow any increase in temperatures is sheer stupidity. Coping with change is cheaper and more effective than trying to stem the incoming tide.
So what does the first sentence of this article about the latest pronouncemnt on the subject coming out of France say? (And all the radio stories I've hear thus far, too.)
And later, this:
Well, that settles it. We cause global warming with little doubt about it.
But wait, there's another sentence in that story we might want to consider:
Wait a minute! So humans are responsible for the increase in greenhouse gasses? I don't doubt that. I never have. We are the only ones burning fossil fuel, eh? Silly to deny that.
What I doubt is that we know that greenhouse gasses are responsible for the warming that we can measure--if the measurements are significant (so why were global temperatures constant during the Bush administration? And why did they decrease from 1940 to 1970?).
Is the report saying that greenhouse gasses are the major reason for the globe to be warming up? That isn't clear at all from the stories I've heard. The report just seems to be saying that--duh--we produce carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. The global warming advocates just seem to be letting us make the leap in logic that if we are the ones burning oil, then logically we must be warming the planet.
When the source of 99.9% of our planet's warmth comes from the big hot thing up in the sky, I am hesitant, to say the least, that we should cripple our economy by engineering a massive reduction in carbon dioxide production.
Wake me when the global warmers advocate more nuclear power plants as a partial solution to the problem of greenhouse gas production. Then I'll know they are serious about thinking this is a crisis rather than a means to ensuring funding for their pet projects or their anti-capitalism goals. Neal Boortz has a good column about his skepticism.
Still, I guess we can all be grateful that we didn't follow the advice of some scientists in the early 1970s to spread black soot over the polar caps to absorb sunlight in order to reverse that looming ice age they predicted (remember that 1940-1970 temperature drop). Thank goodness scientists are no longer the drooling, moronic, panic-mongers they were back then!
Oh, and also, don't just gloss over that little bit that says that temperatures will rise for centuries no matter what we do. I mean, it's science after all.
UPDATE: Oh, and I forgot to mention one important thing that I believe is crucial before we embark on a program to combat global warming: just what is the ideal planetary temperature?
I mean, if we're going to move heaven and earth to stop the planet's temperature from rising, what is our goal? Do we stop it at whatever level it reaches in a century or two hence? Do we roll it back to the level of a century ago? Or to today's temperature? Surely the scientists who assure us they know that being a bit warmer is bad can tell us what temperature is good?
I mean, they could tell us what the ideal temperature should be if this global warming issue was based on science and not merely a post-God faith that persecutes heresy from their one true universal faith.
UPDATE: Mark Steyn has some thoughts as well:
That's a new one on me. No wonder the North Koreans are hanging tough in the six-party talks! Climate scientists predict Pyongyang will outstrip our economy in a mere 93 years! So any day now we'll see North Korea accelerate so fast that we'll all have joy brigades!
And Instapundit, though he thinks moving from carbon fuels to others is wise, isn't convinced about the global warming case:
The global warmers like to pretend the case is closed by belittling those who haven't bought their story hook, line, and sinker. If their solutions weren't all so predictably leftist, I might think they have a point.
Seriously, Al Gore and the rest of his global warming crowd are so out of it that they should try out their plans in Second Life before they inflict them on a real world of people who will be harmed by their lousy grasp of economics and reality.
Let me repeat my basic position:
One, I'm not convinced that the temperatures today are higher over a long enough period to be considered the highest ever rather than a blip in the long run.
Two, I'm not convinced that people are at fault for any rise even if there is a significant rise in temperatures this century.
And three, and this is the most important part, I think the idea that we must cripple economic growth in order to slow any increase in temperatures is sheer stupidity. Coping with change is cheaper and more effective than trying to stem the incoming tide.
So what does the first sentence of this article about the latest pronouncemnt on the subject coming out of France say? (And all the radio stories I've hear thus far, too.)
Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.
And later, this:
The scientists said global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity, a phrase that translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that it is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.
Well, that settles it. We cause global warming with little doubt about it.
But wait, there's another sentence in that story we might want to consider:
A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."
Wait a minute! So humans are responsible for the increase in greenhouse gasses? I don't doubt that. I never have. We are the only ones burning fossil fuel, eh? Silly to deny that.
What I doubt is that we know that greenhouse gasses are responsible for the warming that we can measure--if the measurements are significant (so why were global temperatures constant during the Bush administration? And why did they decrease from 1940 to 1970?).
Is the report saying that greenhouse gasses are the major reason for the globe to be warming up? That isn't clear at all from the stories I've heard. The report just seems to be saying that--duh--we produce carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. The global warming advocates just seem to be letting us make the leap in logic that if we are the ones burning oil, then logically we must be warming the planet.
When the source of 99.9% of our planet's warmth comes from the big hot thing up in the sky, I am hesitant, to say the least, that we should cripple our economy by engineering a massive reduction in carbon dioxide production.
Wake me when the global warmers advocate more nuclear power plants as a partial solution to the problem of greenhouse gas production. Then I'll know they are serious about thinking this is a crisis rather than a means to ensuring funding for their pet projects or their anti-capitalism goals. Neal Boortz has a good column about his skepticism.
Still, I guess we can all be grateful that we didn't follow the advice of some scientists in the early 1970s to spread black soot over the polar caps to absorb sunlight in order to reverse that looming ice age they predicted (remember that 1940-1970 temperature drop). Thank goodness scientists are no longer the drooling, moronic, panic-mongers they were back then!
Oh, and also, don't just gloss over that little bit that says that temperatures will rise for centuries no matter what we do. I mean, it's science after all.
UPDATE: Oh, and I forgot to mention one important thing that I believe is crucial before we embark on a program to combat global warming: just what is the ideal planetary temperature?
I mean, if we're going to move heaven and earth to stop the planet's temperature from rising, what is our goal? Do we stop it at whatever level it reaches in a century or two hence? Do we roll it back to the level of a century ago? Or to today's temperature? Surely the scientists who assure us they know that being a bit warmer is bad can tell us what temperature is good?
I mean, they could tell us what the ideal temperature should be if this global warming issue was based on science and not merely a post-God faith that persecutes heresy from their one true universal faith.
UPDATE: Mark Steyn has some thoughts as well:
If "global warming" is real and if man is responsible, why then do so many "experts" need to rely on obviously fraudulent data? The famous "hockey stick" graph showed the planet's climate history as basically one long bungalow with the Empire State Building tacked on the end. Completely false. In evaluating industrial impact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used GDP estimates based on exchange rates rather than purchasing power: As a result, they assume by the year 2100 that not only South Africans but also North Koreans will have a higher per capita income than Americans. That's why the climate-change computer models look scary. That's how "solid" the science is: It's predicated on the North Korean economy overtaking the United States.
Could happen. Who knows?
But that's the point: Who knows? You could take every dime spent by every government and NGO and eco-group to investigate "climate change" and spend it on Internet porn instead, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what the climate will be in 2050.
That's a new one on me. No wonder the North Koreans are hanging tough in the six-party talks! Climate scientists predict Pyongyang will outstrip our economy in a mere 93 years! So any day now we'll see North Korea accelerate so fast that we'll all have joy brigades!
And Instapundit, though he thinks moving from carbon fuels to others is wise, isn't convinced about the global warming case:
Do I "believe in " global warming? In the sense that the world seems to be warmer now than in recent history, yes. The more apocalyptic scenarios seem to me to remain unproven, but certainly cause for concern.
Do I believe that global warming is anthropogenic? Not so clear. Plausible, but still far from certain.
The global warmers like to pretend the case is closed by belittling those who haven't bought their story hook, line, and sinker. If their solutions weren't all so predictably leftist, I might think they have a point.
Seriously, Al Gore and the rest of his global warming crowd are so out of it that they should try out their plans in Second Life before they inflict them on a real world of people who will be harmed by their lousy grasp of economics and reality.
Why is Important
This is new and I want to know why:
Our losses of helicopters in the war have been rare. Another article I read said 50 so far (and half were accidents and not shoot downs). So when we lose three in two weeks (and add in a private security firm's loss recently) I want to know why. If it is just bad luck, the cluster will be just a statistical anomoly.
My gut feeling is that Iran has decided to supply anti-aircraft weapons to our enemies in Iraq or that Iranians with anti-aircraft weapons have entered Iraq to escalate their campaign against us.
This is important to know and to know quickly. If the President's words about preventing Iran from waging war on us are to mean anything, we have to respond to this if Iran is responsible.
Three helicopters have been lost in Iraq in the past two weeks, including one that went down on Sunday during fighting near Najaf, killing the two crew members, and a Black Hawk helicopter that crashed in Diyala province, killing 12 soldiers aboard. Both were believed to have been shot down, but the military has not confirmed the cause of the crash.
Our losses of helicopters in the war have been rare. Another article I read said 50 so far (and half were accidents and not shoot downs). So when we lose three in two weeks (and add in a private security firm's loss recently) I want to know why. If it is just bad luck, the cluster will be just a statistical anomoly.
My gut feeling is that Iran has decided to supply anti-aircraft weapons to our enemies in Iraq or that Iranians with anti-aircraft weapons have entered Iraq to escalate their campaign against us.
This is important to know and to know quickly. If the President's words about preventing Iran from waging war on us are to mean anything, we have to respond to this if Iran is responsible.
Iraq Estimate
The new intelligence assessment of Iraq is out:
This is entirely consistent with my recent Iraq assessment. And it does not say we have been losing the war or haven't made progress. The new problems we must face do not reverse the real achievements we've made in Iraq already. They are simply new problems to overcome.
We are in a new phase of the war and we must adjust to this new situation to defeat the latest challenges to victory.
Get a grip out there. Stop looking for excuses to retreat! Work the damn problem!
Patton's arm would be tired slapping all the people who need slapping today.
Months in the making, the assessment says that growing and entrenched polarization between Shia and Sunni Muslims, inadequate Iraqi security forces, weak leaders, and the success of extremists' efforts to use violence to exacerbate the sectarian war all create a situation that will be difficult to improve.
This is entirely consistent with my recent Iraq assessment. And it does not say we have been losing the war or haven't made progress. The new problems we must face do not reverse the real achievements we've made in Iraq already. They are simply new problems to overcome.
We are in a new phase of the war and we must adjust to this new situation to defeat the latest challenges to victory.
Get a grip out there. Stop looking for excuses to retreat! Work the damn problem!
Patton's arm would be tired slapping all the people who need slapping today.
Speaking Truth to Power
I've heard many administation officials and generals trot up to the new Congress and, like defendants in a communist show trial, confess their crimes by saying Iraq is bad and getting worse.
I disagree strongly with this assessment that represents the new conventional wisdom.
General Casey has not played along with his show trial:
Good for the general. The Senators may wanted to hear confessions of guilt but what they got was his honest opinion that we face problems but that we've done much already that has not been undone because of the Baghdad violence that has followed the Samarra bombing last year.
I disagree strongly with this assessment that represents the new conventional wisdom.
General Casey has not played along with his show trial:
Questioned by Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, Gen. Casey repeatedly defended his 21/2-year command, conceding that Baghdad fell into cycles of relentless killing during his term and that "the situation is definitely deteriorating in Baghdad." But he said much of Iraq has made progress.
"I believe the president's new strategy will enhance the policy that we have," he said of Mr. Bush's Jan. 10 plan to send 21,500 additional troops into Iraq, most to Baghdad.
As Gen. Casey testified, a bipartisan group of senators put the finishing touches on a nonbinding resolution opposing Mr. Bush's troop boost. Sponsored by Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, and backed by Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and Armed Services Committee chairman, the measure would also oppose a cutoff of war funds, an action demanded by some anti-war liberals.
I t was not clear yesterday whether Mr. Warner has the 60 votes needed to clear the resolution for a floor vote.
Gen. Casey broke with comments by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who has said the United States is not winning, and with Navy Adm. William Fallon, who told the same committee this week that the strategy was not working. Adm. Fallon is to be the next Middle East commander.
The general did not stop there. Asked about Mr. Bush's assessment that his Iraq policy was headed to "slow failure," Gen. Casey said, "I actually don't see it as a slow failure. I actually see it as slow progress."
Good for the general. The Senators may wanted to hear confessions of guilt but what they got was his honest opinion that we face problems but that we've done much already that has not been undone because of the Baghdad violence that has followed the Samarra bombing last year.
Squeeze Bleating Surrender Monkeys
With the world's greatest debilitated body about to debate whether to censure our President in time of war for acting as the commander-in-chief to win that war, I do hope the President is putting maximum pressure on senators who have decided that they'd rather not support the war any more.
If war supporters can't stand up and shield the troops from this measure by fillibustering the measure to deny a vote, I don't know why they deserve to regain the majority. The only issue that matters to me at the national level is the war. If the one party that seemed serious about waging it joins the other side, why on Earth should they get the support of war supporters in two years?
I hope Hewitt's effort to pressure those who suddenly talk of withdrawal and limits to our warmaking capabilities bears fruit.
If war supporters can't stand up and shield the troops from this measure by fillibustering the measure to deny a vote, I don't know why they deserve to regain the majority. The only issue that matters to me at the national level is the war. If the one party that seemed serious about waging it joins the other side, why on Earth should they get the support of war supporters in two years?
I hope Hewitt's effort to pressure those who suddenly talk of withdrawal and limits to our warmaking capabilities bears fruit.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Apples and Oranges
Back when the Ethiopians blitzed through the jihadis in Somalia, there was some breathless talk about how the Ethiopians were showing us how to use overwhelming force (as opposed to our supposedly too small force in Iraq).
Strategypage reports that the Ethiopians are pulling their troops out of Somalia:
Anywhere from 5k to 10k troops were involved. Like I wrote back at the time:
I was using an assumption of 5,000 troops per brigade just for numbers. So 15,000 troops seemed way too much. It looks like the Ethiopians did indeed have three brigades involved (implied to me by their withdrawal of a third of their forces--three brigades per division usually), so I'm shocked at that. But the total number of troops is well under the level that would have shocked me (15,000). If I remember my assumptions correctly, I think I was assuming three groups of forces that in total were fewer than 5,000 troops. So Ethiopia committed more troops than I thought, but not more than I figured was beyond a reasonable estimate.
Remember, those waxing on about the Ethiopians were comparing their major combat operations phase with our counter-insurgency (and counter-terrorism) phase rather than with our major combat operations phase. When a rabble pretends it is an army, a real army will smash the pretend army every time.
The job of stabilizing Somalia will be tough. Knocking off the Islamic Courts thugs was necessary and a victory, but it isn't neatly wrapped up (as most successes are not neatly wrapped up).
Strategypage reports that the Ethiopians are pulling their troops out of Somalia:
Ethiopia said that "the first contingents" of its troops in Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, have begun withdrawing from Somalia and heading back to Ethiopia. Ethiopia said that it had already reduced "by a third" the number of Ethiopian troops in Mogadishu. Most sources believe Ethiopia committed 5,000 to 8,000 troops to the war in Somalia (with 10,000 a possibility).
Anywhere from 5k to 10k troops were involved. Like I wrote back at the time:
The "heavy footprint" point is ridiculous. If the Ethiopians have three brigades
involved, I'll be shocked.
I was using an assumption of 5,000 troops per brigade just for numbers. So 15,000 troops seemed way too much. It looks like the Ethiopians did indeed have three brigades involved (implied to me by their withdrawal of a third of their forces--three brigades per division usually), so I'm shocked at that. But the total number of troops is well under the level that would have shocked me (15,000). If I remember my assumptions correctly, I think I was assuming three groups of forces that in total were fewer than 5,000 troops. So Ethiopia committed more troops than I thought, but not more than I figured was beyond a reasonable estimate.
Remember, those waxing on about the Ethiopians were comparing their major combat operations phase with our counter-insurgency (and counter-terrorism) phase rather than with our major combat operations phase. When a rabble pretends it is an army, a real army will smash the pretend army every time.
The job of stabilizing Somalia will be tough. Knocking off the Islamic Courts thugs was necessary and a victory, but it isn't neatly wrapped up (as most successes are not neatly wrapped up).
Guam On the Line
Guam is becoming our major outpost in the western Pacific (via DID):
As I wrote before, locating on Guam provides a base close enough to intervene quickly to support frontline forces in South Korea and Okinawa (and Taiwan) but far enough away not to be an easy target for a surprise attack. Guam, Australia, and Alaska provide forces and bases that back up the front and are well forward of main bases in Hawaii or CONUS:
This is not a retreat or a smaller commitment to Asia, or anything like that. This is good repositioning.
The 2006 agreement between the United States and Japan to shift 8,000 U.S. Marines from bases in Japan to the island of Guam by 2014 is likely to have more far-reaching implications than just a change of address for some units of the Marine Corps’ III Marine Expeditionary Force (III MEF). The move is accelerating the return to prominence of Guam in the U.S. defense posture and fostering a higher level of cooperation among the U.S. armed forces in the Pacific region. ...
Guam, which is located 3,500 miles west of Hawaii and 1,300 miles southeast of Japan, is the largest and southernmost island of the Marianas Island chain. With a population of 160,000, Guam hosts more than 12,000 military personnel and their family members. The island supports two major facilities: Naval Base Guam, home to three attack submarines and a submarine tender, and Anderson Air Force Base, home to a Navy helicopter squadron and rotating deployments of Air Force bombers and tankers. ...
“There’s some value in distance in that you are out of immediate strike range of China’s power-projection capabilities,” he said. Guam “could certainly serve as an excellent patrol base and important inter-theater staging base, and relatively secure rear area in event of a crisis or conflict, particularly one extending over a period of time.”
As I wrote before, locating on Guam provides a base close enough to intervene quickly to support frontline forces in South Korea and Okinawa (and Taiwan) but far enough away not to be an easy target for a surprise attack. Guam, Australia, and Alaska provide forces and bases that back up the front and are well forward of main bases in Hawaii or CONUS:
This intermediate line of defense makes it less likely that China will think it can successfully carry out their own Pearl Harbor on our most forward forces since we will not be pushed back to Hawaii at a stroke.
This is not a retreat or a smaller commitment to Asia, or anything like that. This is good repositioning.
The Ultimate Aim
I wasn't one of the people who complained too much about Britain's decision to turn Hong Kong over to Peking ten years ago. The British didn't have much choice.
Oh sure, they could have held the tiny island itself since the British held that under a lease that never expired, but most of Hong Kong was spread out to the mainland on a lease about to expire. Was Britain really expected to defend the enclave?
But the idea that China would respect the Hong Kong system was a farce. And after ten years, it is obviously a farce:
And China, with an eye toward Taiwan, is on their best behavior. Can you imagine what China would do to Hong Kong if they weren't trying to look their best? (Oh yeah, that would look like Chinese policy toward Tibet). The Taiwanese should take note:
In the shadow of China's looming power, defending democracy and freedom is no easy task. But it is worth it. Ask the people of Hong Kong who knew freedom and now watch it being wrested from their grasp a little bit more each day.
In the end, one China allows for only one system. That is the ultimate aim.
Oh sure, they could have held the tiny island itself since the British held that under a lease that never expired, but most of Hong Kong was spread out to the mainland on a lease about to expire. Was Britain really expected to defend the enclave?
But the idea that China would respect the Hong Kong system was a farce. And after ten years, it is obviously a farce:
While Taiwan has moved peacefully from dictatorship to democracy, Hong Kong's democratic development is stalled indefinitely. Only half of the legislature's seats are elected and the chief executive is chosen by Beijing and ratified by a committee of 800 people most of whom are also chosen by Beijing. The purported commitment to democracy Beijing made in its 1984 agreement with Great Britain over the island's return, in fact, only made it a vague, "ultimate aim."
And China, with an eye toward Taiwan, is on their best behavior. Can you imagine what China would do to Hong Kong if they weren't trying to look their best? (Oh yeah, that would look like Chinese policy toward Tibet). The Taiwanese should take note:
Beijing wants its "Taiwan compatriots" to come back to the "motherland." Its dubious methods of persuasion include not only missile volleys and international isolation, but also the "negative lesson" of Hong Kong's experience under Chinese rule.
In the shadow of China's looming power, defending democracy and freedom is no easy task. But it is worth it. Ask the people of Hong Kong who knew freedom and now watch it being wrested from their grasp a little bit more each day.
In the end, one China allows for only one system. That is the ultimate aim.
They Really Believe They Support the Troops
Bill Arkin thinks he supports the troops. Arkin is one confused man:
Those "obscene amenities" help keep our troops alive. So I guess that's one category of items that Arkin doesn't want to support our troops with.
As for civilians rolling over and playing dead, no, that isn't the issue. For me, the issue is that the declaration of war on Iraq had no expiration date. I assumed we fight until we win. Arkin doesn't think that way.
And that's his right. His complaint that he and his ilk are expected to give up their rights is silly given the volume and shrillness of their constant complaints about every plastic turkey issue they can make up. If the anti-war people feel under pressure to shut up, they don't show it. They really just don't like anybody disagreeing with them. But the key point is that dissent as practiced by the anti-war crowd has a price.
And finally, no, the anti-war people are not supporting the troops in every possible way. The anti-war side is actually feeling fairly superior just for not spitting on wounded soldiers they see on the street. The anti-war side does not support our soldiers in the one way that they'd really appreciate--by wanting America to win the war against bitter enemies who will kill us whether we fight them in Iraq or not.
Lileks has a great take on Arkin's apparent view of our troops:
That indeed is the impression Arkin leaves. The Washington Post should be so proud of their national and homeland defense analyst.
I've never thought much of Bill Arkin as a military analyst. Now I don't think much of him as a man.
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?
Those "obscene amenities" help keep our troops alive. So I guess that's one category of items that Arkin doesn't want to support our troops with.
As for civilians rolling over and playing dead, no, that isn't the issue. For me, the issue is that the declaration of war on Iraq had no expiration date. I assumed we fight until we win. Arkin doesn't think that way.
And that's his right. His complaint that he and his ilk are expected to give up their rights is silly given the volume and shrillness of their constant complaints about every plastic turkey issue they can make up. If the anti-war people feel under pressure to shut up, they don't show it. They really just don't like anybody disagreeing with them. But the key point is that dissent as practiced by the anti-war crowd has a price.
And finally, no, the anti-war people are not supporting the troops in every possible way. The anti-war side is actually feeling fairly superior just for not spitting on wounded soldiers they see on the street. The anti-war side does not support our soldiers in the one way that they'd really appreciate--by wanting America to win the war against bitter enemies who will kill us whether we fight them in Iraq or not.
Lileks has a great take on Arkin's apparent view of our troops:
They ought to be damn glad we don’t regard them all as man-stackers and baby stabbers, I guess. Every time they’re not spit upon in an airport, they ought to offer up a silent prayer.
That indeed is the impression Arkin leaves. The Washington Post should be so proud of their national and homeland defense analyst.
I've never thought much of Bill Arkin as a military analyst. Now I don't think much of him as a man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
