Why We Must Stay

The long-term American presence is under debate. Some want us out fast and never mind the consequences. But even as we win on the battlefield, we will be needed for years to complete the battlefield victories and fight the governing battles:

Iraq is a unique experiment. Democracy has never worked for the Arabs. Past attempts have quickly turned into dictatorships, kept in power with terror and violence. Iraq is already headed in the same direction, with several Shia warlords seeking to gain total power. While the Sunni Arab groups are the most vicious, they are also greatly outnumbered. Only about ten percent of the population is now Sunni Arab, versus 20 percent in 2003. Most Sunni Arabs agree that they are beaten, and are seeking to make a deal, or to flee. But a minority will fight on, and die, along with any civilians in the vicinity. There are many Iraqis who realize that a working democracy is the best path to peace and prosperity. But to make that happen, all the fanatics with guns have to be killed or disarmed. Then you have to do something about the corruption. Again, many Iraqis know, by experience in the West, or looking at the statistics, that the less corrupt a society is, the more prosperity it has. If the democrats lose, Iraqi slides back into the muck. Will that happen? No one knows for sure.

Given that our refusal to stay engaged in Europe after 1918 may have doomed us to another world war, you'd think that we wouldn't risk the results of our troop sacrifice by leaving Iraq too fast.

Given that our presence in Europe after 1945 contributed to the peace on that violent continent, you'd think staying in Iraq would be a no-brainer.

Given that just a little more effort in 1974 and 1975 could have likely saved South Vietnam from a North Vietnamese invasion, you'd think that we'd recognize that starting to fight a war should mean a commitment to finishing it with victory.

Given that many of the critics of the Iraq War also say we should have stayed engaged in Afghanistan after we helped drive the Soviets out, and kept the Taliban from winning control (and providing a safe haven for al Qaeda to launch the 9/11 attacks, you'd think staying in Iraq would be an easy call to make.

Given that those same critics also say we've paid insufficient attention to Afghanistan since the successful 2001 campaign to overthrow the Taliban/al Qaeda regime, committing sufficient resources to hold Iraq would not even be a question.

Instead, the administration must still battle those who would run from a victory in Iraq just as fast as their stubby little legs can carry them.

We might not get a free and democratic Iraq even if we stay in Iraq. We might get a free and democratic Iraq if we leave.

Heck, even a non-Saddam authoritarian regime friendly to us would be a minimal victory.

But the gains to be realized from relatively little additional effort if we can bolster real democracy in Iraq should mean we will decide to stay in Iraq for at least another decade to try and instill the habits of rule of law.

The Silicon Jihad

I speculated that the Air Force's mission of cyber-warfare might justify a silicon militia where computer owners volunteer their own computers to be part of wartime American botnets to fight in cyberspace.

Apparently, the jihadis have tried to do this:

After a decade of effort, Islamic terrorists are making slow progress in developing Cyber War weapons. The latest one to appear is a program users volunteer to install on their PC, turning it into a zombie. Such a PC can be controlled by a remote operator for all manner of Cyber War tools and weapons. But this "Electronic Program of Jihad" turned out to be poorly constructed, and not yet ready for prime time.

So I guess my idea isn't fanciful. I assume we'd do a better job of this.

Chinese Carriers

There seems to be some buzz about Chinese carrier plans (tip to the NRO Tank):

China remains the only major global power without aircraft carriers in its fleet. For years, military leaders have weighed the pride that such vessels would bring the nation with the costs and complexity of operating the giant ships, continually postponing a decision. But now public sentiment is running strongly in favor of launching a program to build aircraft carriers, and some military experts say construction may be inevitable.

"Actually it has almost been decided that the Chinese navy will build carriers," said Xu Guangyu, an analyst and the director of the government-backed China Arms Control and Disarmament Association.

China's military has grown at double-digit rates for nearly two decades and now wields supersonic missiles and nuclear submarines. When it comes to aircraft carriers, though, it's not so much military leaders voicing an operational need as an impatient public demanding construction, experts said.

"There's a feeling among the Chinese public that their nation is a great power, and great powers have aircraft carriers," said Andrew S. Erickson, a civilian scholar at the China Maritime Studies Institute of the Naval War College in Rhode Island. "We've seen grass-roots campaigns that say, 'Everyone contribute some money so we can have an aircraft carrier.' "

The article notes that the Chinese have the smaller Kiev and Minsk plus the larger Varyag. The first two are floating theme parks for tourists.

Years ago, I read that China was buildng carriers and might have one battle group in service by 2008. I've read other reports of massive Chinese shipbuilding that don't seem to have panned out in the years since they were published.

So, China's naval power is expanding. And China will one day have actual carriers. But the Chinese appear in no hurry to build carriers and a blue water navy.

One reason is that China doesn't need carriers for their near-term mission of conquering Taiwan.

Second, until China has Taiwan, trying to deploy aircraft carriers out to sea runs the risk of having to run a gauntlet leaving and entering port. Heck, even with Taiwan in Chinese hands, any bases in enemy hands from Vietnam to the Philippines to Guam to Okinawa/Japan and Sourth Korea will still make moving a carrier away from China's shores difficult for Peking.

So I'm not terribly worried about Chinese plans to build conventional carriers.

I'd watch those three existing carriers closely. Surely, the Chinese have studied them (and the former Australian carrier Melbourne before breaking her up) enough for their long-range goal of having carriers for prestige and limited power projection.

But given that I think that our carriers will be increasingly obsolete should we have to fight an enemy with networked anti-ship missiles and shore-based aircraft, how much of a chance would Chinese carriers have against our missile-rich surface ship and submarines, aircraft carriers, and shore-based aircraft networked with our superior surveillance capabilities? Their carriers would have a short, glorious sail like the Bismarck sortie in World War II, if you ask me.

In the short run, those three nonoperational Chinese carriers could serve a very valuable function in an invasion of Taiwan if they were prepared as mobile offshore bases (MOBs):

If China is truly interested in conquering Taiwan in the near future, might not the Varyag be useful as a staging base--a cheap MOB--that could be towed close to Taiwan? Load it with troops, SAMs, supplies, and helicopters, and tow it close to Taiwan where it will ferry troops to the beachheads? Ship in troops to the floating base using civilian vessels and then load them on military helicopters or smaller amphibious warfare vessels based on the jury-rigged MOB and get them ashore.

A cheap, made-in-China MOB could be one of many items that slip past our radar as we look for conventional amphibious warfare developments. The Varyag may be in play for a large Chinese throw of the dice, but it probably won't be a floating casino that emerges from Dalian.

The other two hulls are still there, too. If the Chinese start moving these ships to make room for Olympic-related shipping, I'd keep a very close watch on them.

The Taiwan Strait Vault might be the only Olympics event China is interested in winning.

To Be, or Not to Be?

Is Iran suicidal? Would they take a hit for the Islamic team in order to rid the world of Israel?

Scoblete says no:

No one in their right mind would argue that the Iranian regime is a peaceful and beneficial force in Middle Eastern affairs, but are they therefore willing to start World War III, as President Bush suggested in a recent news conference? Are they prepared, as a nation, to become a nuclear suicide bomb just to deal a grievous blow to the United States?

No one can know for sure, but we do have a precedent here. After all, Islamic fundamentalists have ruled Iran for more than a generation, more than enough time to take the measure of their behavior. Here's what we know: since seizing power, the Mullahs ruling Iran have been aggressive. Their first act upon taking power was the seizing of American hostages. They have violently lashed out against America's influence in the region, using their Hezbollah surrogate to attack a Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 and a housing complex occupied by U.S. airmen in Saudi Arabia in 1996.

The fact that Iran has wielded force through proxies and not through its conventional military, however, is a strong indication that the regime understands its strengths and weaknesses.

The problem is that speaking of Iran as a unitary actor is a mistake:

Many of Iran's neighbors are not as worried about Iranian nukes as they are concerned about a more aggressive Iran attempting to seize bits of disputed terrain throughout the region (as it has already been doing with small islands in the Persian Gulf), and asserting its traditional role as the regional superpower. Iran already has weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons developed during the 1980s war with Iraq), but has never put them in play. Iran has never let terrorist groups have any of their chemical weapons, nor has it openly threatened to use this stuff against its neighbors. This is consistent with past behavior of Iranian leaders, who are not known for rashness. Iranian extremists, especially the Islamic militants, are another matter. They are kept under control, just barely. They are the wildcard that makes everyone, including many Iranians, nervous.

Has Iran been cautious? It all depends. Was it reckless or cautious to attack Jews in Argentina or Israel and Americans in Tehran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq? I'd say attacking nuclear-armed nations is reckless. Of course, they've gotten away with it, so perhaps we aren't the best judges of what is reckless.

But we never know who will make the decision over using Iranian nukes. If god is on their side, is anything truly reckless?

Another problem is that Scoblete says that Iran has never used its conventional military aggressively. This just isn't so.

During the Iran-Iraq War, when Iraqi aircraft struck Iranian oil tankers in an effort to strangle Iranian oil exports, Iran refrained from striking neutral shipping that supplied Iraq. That was the rational thing to do. Iran even managed to stay rational while the United States led a Western naval armada that essentially protected Iraqi trade by escorting neutral shipping.

But eventually, Iran lashed out in frustration during the Iran-Iraq War:

Iran's response was limited to two attacks on Iraqi civilians in October, including a two-missile strike against Baghdad on October 5, 1987. In addition to striking her enemy of seven years, Iran lashed out at others in October 1987. The frustration of failing to crush Iraq, of witnessing America lead the West into the Gulf in force, of enduring air attacks against her oil lifeline, and of seeing the militarily weak but wealth Arab Gulf states funnel money to prop up Iraq's military pushed Iran to the brink of irrationality. When Iraq was the country that had invaded Iran in the first place back in 1980 this seemed too unjust and proof that the world was against their revolution. On top of this, Iran received no sympathy when, in July, Saudi security forces bloodily suppressed Iranian "pilgrims" after they tried to mobilize a pro-Iranian demonstration in the heart of Saudi Arabia. On October 3, 1987, Iran crossed the line into irrationality. Unable to defeat her one enemy Iraq, Iran massed between 30 and 50 speedboats for an attack on Saudi Arabia's off-shore oil terminal at Khafji--the one used by the Kuwaitis and Saudis to sell oil in Iraq's name. Saudi Arabia responded by deploying warships and fighter aircraft. Iran pulled back but five days later in another confrontation the Saudis sank three speedboats.

Iran, apparently not satisfied with defeat at the hands of Iraq and then Saudi Arabia, even struck an American flagged tanker, Sea Isle City, with a Silkworm missile while it lay in Kuwaiti waters. The United States retaliated with Operation Nimble Archer on October 19, 1987, during which three Iranian oil platform bases were attacked. Many Iranians knew that a course of confrontation with America was foolish but the short term satisfaction of striking out at those who helped Iraq--even the United States--was beginning to win out over reason.

In October, the Iranians claimed to have troops massed for another try at Basra and on November 1, 1987, Rafsanjani stated that no settlement with Iraq was possible until Iran struck a decisive blow. Three days later, Iran declared a week of mobilization and issued demands that Iraq be labeled the aggressor in the war and that Iraq pay reparations. Iran added that she might keep some of the Iraqi land she held at that point. Given the nearly ten months that had passed since the most recent final offensive, these were strong words indeed.

The naval war continued amidst the Western naval presence. On January 15, 1988, Iraqi warplanes struck three more tankers engaged in the Iranian oil trade. Iraq had what she needed now--a naval shield for shipping traffic that supported the Iraqi war effort through neutral Kuwait. From behind that shield Iraqi planes struck Iranian tankers. In addition, another war of the cities began on February 29, 1988. The attacks included an Iraqi missile strike against Tehran, a first for the war.

While Iran continued to insist that ultimately it would be infantry who would decide the war, Iran had already let the usual season pass without launching a major offensive. This failure began to raise questions about what Iran was doing. One answer came in April 1988 when, after fewer than two days of fighting, Iraq recaptured the Fao peninsula with Operation Ramadan. Iraqi regular troops and Republican Guard forces backed by 2,000 tanks and 600 heavy guns plowed south and struck from the Gulf with a supporting amphibious assault. The Iranians were overwhelmed and showed no spirit of resistance. While it is true that the Iraqis outnumbered the Iranians by 8 to 1 odds, the contrast is amazing between April 1988 and February 1986, when Iranians fought hammer and tong for every square inch of worthless swamp on that peninsula. The day that Iranian infantry could not exact a heavy price for the terrain on which they stood was the day that Iran lost the war. April 18, 1988 was that day.

At the same time that Iran was losing on the ground, Iran's navy sailed on its death ride. The naval battle was prompted by the mining of U.S.S. Samuel B. Roberts on April 14, 1988 in the first mine incident since November 1987. Five days later, America responded with Operation Praying Mantis. Designed as a proportional response to the damaged U.S. frigate, the operation involved the destruction of two Iranian oil platform bases. The Sassan platform was demolished by a Marine landing team while the Sirri platform was destroyed by naval gunfire. During this operation, an Iranian patrol boat was sunk and F-4 Phantom fighter bombers were driven off by American surface to air missile fire. Iran's response set off a chain of events that left perhaps three of her patrol boats at the bottom of the Gulf and two modern frigates smashed. American forces dodged more Iranian attacks including the impressive evasion of five Silkworms by Jack Williams. The Only American loss, a Sea Cobra attack helicopter, was lost by accident and not hostile action. The final insult to Iran took place on April 26, 1988, when the cautious Saudis broke diplomatic relations with Iran.

Iran is a broken society, wrecked by three decades of jihadi insanity. It is not an Iran sitting on a record of centuries of Persian caution.

A mullah minority rules an empire of foreigners and a majority that despises mullah rule. The mullahs themselves are divided with some displaying at least some traditional Persian caution and others with a messianic conviction that they are on a mission from god.

We'd like to empower the majority of Iranians who like America and want nothing to do with expansion or national suicide. Unfortunately, our State Department appears to be ruling that out.

If the majority of Iranians ran Iran, I wouldn't be happy about another case of nuclear proliferation (which would likely lead Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia to go nuclear), but I wouldn't worry about Iran using them irrationally--so wouldn't think about war to stop them--any more than I worry about France using them on us--even under Chirac.

Heck, Iran under the majority might very well decide having nukes is too expensive. Talking really could work under those circumstances.

National suicide is not an Iranian goal. It is not even a mullahcracy goal. Most would rather win with terror and nuclear blackmail. But there are madmen in Iran who would sacrifice those unworthy Moslems in the majority in order to rid the world of Israel and possibly, if they can cripple the global economy, America too. And some of the mullahs who don't now support using nukes only because they think god will grant them victory without nukes, might change their mind and go along with the extremists.

What really scares me, is that so many Westerners find the idea that Iran poses a threat to us and that we might need to use force to protect ourselves unthinkable.

Is a path to national suicide unthinkable for Iran? Or the West?

Depends on who is doing the thinking, now doesn't it?

French Kiss

President Sarkozy of France spoke in our Congress of a renewed French-American friendship:

This is no time for theological quarrels but for pragmatic responses to make our security tools more effective and operational in the face of crises. The EU and NATO must march hand in hand.

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to be your friend, your ally and your partner. But a friend who stands on his own two feet. An independent ally. A free partner.

This is good. But let's not get carried away. When you drop a weight you long carried, the absence of that burden seems to lighten you. But it does not make you stronger.

And Sarkozy states incorrectly that Europe is our friend. I heartily disagree. Europeans can be our friends. Europe, as embodied in the European Union, will not be our friend. We cannot let down our guard on this issue just because France no longer spurns us.

France dropped Chirac, and so our burden is lifted. We can indeed go farther without them dragging us down. So I'm grateful for this alone.

But I hope Sarkozy can make France a contributing ally in this Long War that we fight. Yes indeed, long live French-American friendship.

They Are All Europeans, Now?

This article rightly notes that Europe punches below its weight with a military ill-suited to projecting power to the crisis spots around the world to defend the West.

During the Cold War, European defense structures benefitted (if that is the right word) from having the world's most important crisis spot their own front yard. Europe did not need to project power to defend the West--they had merely to drive out of their bases and start shooting at Soviet tanks.

Thus far, the Europeans have failed to transform their military into a force that can fight where the new potential theaters exist in the arc of crisis from West Africa to Central Asia.

But forging a single defense force is not the solution, as the article's author sets forth:

First, Europe must recognize that the days when every country could maintain "full spectrum" military capabilities is gone. It is neither necessary nor desirable for every country to have an air force, a navy, or (in some cases) an army. What purpose does it serve that Belgium has a squadron or two of F-16s (or Eurofighters, a plane that provides F-16 capabilities at F-22 prices)? Why does the Netherlands need four very expensive diesel electric submarines that can only operate in and around the North Sea? Why does Portugal need tanks? Given the cost of acquiring and operating advanced military hardware, the time has come to consider a rational division of labor among the countries of Europe, with some countries specializing, e.g., in tactical air force, others in naval warfare, others in mine countermeasures, etc. Making this work will require development of a single, integrated European defense policy, which in turn impinges on issues of national sovereignty--real countries have their own armies, navies, and air forces, and they do not cede control of these things to other countries or international organizations. Europe needs to decide if it wants to be a single entity or a federation of nation-states.

Why would Portugal need tanks? Well, if the Germans are given the job of developing armored units as their specialty (excuse the stereotypping), what if Portugal needs tanks for an operation to protect themselves and the Germans don't want to commit their tanks to fighting for Portugal? What if Germany sends the panzers but puts caveats on their use that makes them less than useless?

Consolidate a European defense force? That's the last thing we need. The price for getting more usable military forces would be far less willingness to use that power at our side. Europe is not our friend.

Each nation in Europe should decide what they need to defend themselves and create a national force that has those capabilities. Should alliance needs require power above that, the Portugese are free to add those unneeded national capabilities in the name of alliance solidarity. But eliminate national defense capabilities and trust the EU to fill the void? They'd be fools to do so. Truth be told, Portugal probably doesn't need tanks--or at least not many.

Europe surely needs to decide whether it is one country or an alliance of nation-states. I think the nation-states that make up Europe would be better off in an alliance and not a province of a politically united European Union.

And we need to recognize that it is in our national interest to promote Europe as an alliance of friendly nation-states.

Line of Supply

I mentioned that we have been constrained in our efforts to push Pakistan toward rule of law and democracy by our reliance on Pakistan to supply our forces in Afghanistan. Lieutenant General Ham confirms this reliance and puts numbers on it:

Well, Pakistan of course has been a great partner so far in the war on terror. And there are a couple of things that from a military operations standpoint are pretty important to us.

First and foremost is the cooperation along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Those military operations conducted by forces on either side of the border are done with increasing openness, collaboration, synchronization. There's good communication between U.S. and Afghan forces on the one and the Pakistan forces on the other, and we would certainly not want to see that jeopardized in any way. So that's a very valuable piece of what we've got.

Secondly, not surprisingly U.S. and other forces in Afghanistan receive much of their supply and reinforcements through Pakistan, both ground and air, so that would -- we obviously are very interested in making sure that that stays open as well.

So I would say those are -- from an operational standpoint, those are the two most significant concerns. ...

... well over half of the supplies the sustainment for forces in Afghanistan come either through or over Pakistan, so it is very, very important to us in that regard.

We may want Pakistan to do more in their frontier regions, but Pakistan could do a lot less if we push too hard.

There is a way to cut this Gordian Knot, of course.

Man, this decade really sucks. And that's even if we get everything right.

The Center Can Hold

Our top commander in Baghdad thinks we've broken the jihadis in Baghdad and that the Iraqis can hold the gains with a reduced American presence:

Major-General Joseph Fil, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, said al Qaeda in Iraq no longer had a foothold in any part of the city of 7 million people. The group is blamed for most big car bombings that have killed thousands.

Death squad killings in Baghdad were also down 80 percent from their peak while roadside bombings had fallen 70 percent, Fil told foreign reporters without giving specific timeframes.

"I think there is going to come a day when certainly we will need less coalition troops in Baghdad," Fil said.

Asked when that would be, he said: "Already we are at a point where we'll see that as the surge forces depart the city, we'll see a natural decline in numbers and I'm very comfortable where that comes to, with that gradual attrition of forces."

The Iraqis will have to step up and Fil thinks they can, in part with the help of local citizens (I have advocated local defense forces to spread a wide net of pro-government forces that will ensnare any enemies trying to operate):

But while fewer coalition troops would be required, more Iraqi security forces would be needed to fill any gaps, he said.

He said the Iraqi security forces had become "much, much more effective," while volunteers who patrolled their own neighborhoods in coordination with the Iraqi security forces had had a positive impact.

Given two other attempts to calm Baghdad in 2006 that failed after only a few weeks of reduced violence, this assessment demonstrates some confidence, it seems.

We are clearly winning this war. But I'm still looking for the appearance of a new threat that will spoil the victory parade. So far, so good, but I remain cautious and will watch developments closely.

Surviving the Blitz

My Jane's email updates has this bit of commentary:

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his close advisers appear to be taking the US war rhetoric seriously. However, Khamenei is not preparing his nation to withstand the US militarily, but to simply groom the regime's security forces to cope with the post-attack phase[.]

Interesting that the regime feels it will need to focus on the post-attack phase. I thought an attack would make the regime more secure by rallying the population?

And if the mullahs worry about what happens after a clash with us, all the more reason I hope that our primary method of ending the mullah threat is to end the mullah regime.

Still, given that the Iranians are convinced we are serious about war, you have to admire the mullahs' commitment to clean and green nuclear energy.

Our String of Pearls is a Choker

While China sets up bases to one day protect their energy lifeline from the Persian Gulf to China, China is facing a much bigger string encircling them.

Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Japan already form a formidable string of concerned countries that block Chinese military ambitions.

And as I've mentioned many times, India is worried enough about China to quietly join the grouping:

A militarily capable India with a record for defense cooperation with the United States would give an aggressive, hegemonic China -- should that rogue elephant ever emerge -- great pause.

OK, don't call it an alliance. Call it two former British colonies, one global and the other going global, that are interested in maintaining peaceful, prosperous "equilibrium" conditions.

That's ok, don't call it an alliance. I don't assume China must be our future enemy, either. Though I'm not one to ignore the potential threat. And India on our side complicates China's problems a great deal.

The Coalition of the Worried (about China) isn't an alliance. Some have formal bilateral defense ties with us. Others don't but know we worry about the same threat. Even without a formal structure, our role holds the string together.

Our string of pearls is much more impressive and effective.

Nuance Lessons from NYT Editors

Nuance is a difficult concept for me to grasp. Martial law in Pakistan raises my inability to grasp Leftist nuance once again.

We are constantly told that supporting regime opponents in Iran (or in any other anti-American dictatorship, for that matter) is the kiss of death for the opponents and just lets the regime paint their domestic opposition as tools of America.

So of course, this editorial from the Times is predictable:

Ultimately, democracy, not dictatorship, is the best hope for a stable Pakistan. Reviving General Musharraf’s back-room deal with the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, however distasteful, may be a way back from the abyss if it includes a real commitment to elections by the general, if Ms. Bhutto insists that the eletions be open to all parties and if Mr. Bush gives her strong backing.

Support Bhutto? Strongly? And taint her opposition? Shouldn't we stand aside and let the purity of her opposition win out over guns and prisons? Won't US support just cause those anti-Musharraf protesters to rally to the government? That's what Iranian regime opponents are said to be like by our Left.

And aren't we supposed to be abandoning Iraqi democracy to put in a strongman who will be friendly to us rather than try to instill democracy in a Moslem land not ready for our concepts of liberty and rule of law? Shouldn't the Times editors insist we back Musharraf as long as he sides with us (even imperfectly)? But now a Moslem nation is ready for democracy?

Not that I disagree with the editorial's thrust that we must support democracy in Pakistan. But the Times' refusal to embrace a chance for foreign policy realism in action given our need for Pakistani support to fight in Afghanistan is a bit much to accept.

It's almost as if President Bush's foreign policy is to be opposed by our Left no matter what he does. Truly, this nuance thing is confusing to me. But not, it seems, to our Left.

Missing the Point

Iran is going forward on nuclear technology. Ahmadinejad is quite clear on that:

"The Iranian nation has entered the phase of industrial scale of nuclear fuel (production) and the train of the Iranian nation's progress is irreversible," Ahmadinejad told a rally in South Khorasan province broadcast live on state television.

"Today, we've reached 3,000 centrifuges," he said.

Experts expressed doubts about the number and whether they are working in a manner to produce nuclear weapon-grade material.

This misses the point. I find it aggravating that the debate often comes down to counting the number of angels on the head of a pin.

The point is, Iran will not stop their efforts. Iran will continue on with a program purportedly for economic reasons no matter the economic harm that comes to them from Western sanctions.

Clearly, Iran wants nuclear weapons.

Less clear is our resolve to keep the madman Ahmadinejad from getting nuclear weapons.

America OnMYline?

Let me digress.

For the last six hours, I've been getting a lot of site hits to my pages largely like this:

http://64.236.64.206:82/prc0/0/774/igtime69432.7480002539

The Sitemeter package tells me this is the AOL Transit Data Network running Microsoft Windows Server 2003.

A quick search on AOL and igtime only got me hits to a couple confused people with the same hits.

Very perplexing (to me).

A Failure to Recruit

The vast majority of suicide bombers historically came from a few Arab states:

About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.

Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency.

He said 50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers.

So is this a sign that the fervor to enlist in the Arab world for the great jihad in Iraq is waning?

A Europe-wide sweep disrupted an Islamic cell that was recruiting potential suicide bombers for attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, Italian police said Tuesday, announcing the arrests of 20 terror suspects.

If recruiting in the Arab heartland is waning, relying on European recruits is far more dangerous for the terrorists since the Europeans are not reluctant to use their extensive police powers to crack down on jihadis. Remember, they'd rather treat the war as a police problem, and boy do they have a lot of police powers. Europeans would wet their pants if they had to fight internal jihadis with our relatively weak police powers.

Oh, and the Italians say the group has been indoctrinating in militant Islamism since 1998, back in the sensitive decade and well before the Iraq War.

Big Meanies

Our Left apparently thinks we can't be mean to people who plot our deaths in the thousands and pray for the ability to kill millions of us at once.

In their efforts to undermine the war against Islamist terrorism, the Left is convincing more people that we torture the enemy.

How do they do this despite our constant denials? By defining harsh measures as torture:

The left has succeeded, through a relentless media campaign (is there any other kind?) in obscuring this distinction. According to the latest criteria, torture is anything unpleasant that occurs to a prisoner while in American custody. (Overseas it's different. It's very, very difficult -- almost impossible, in fact -- for any developing or left-of-center regime to commit torture, no matter what they do to their prisoners. Unless, as in the rendition uproar, the U.S. is somehow involved.)

This campaign had its start with Abu Ghraib. According to the media narrative, the prisoners abused were "tortured". In truth, they suffered no such thing -- they were humiliated, which is something completely different. The backwoods types overseeing them did exactly what backwoods types will do when under inadequate supervision. (The commanding officer, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, was said never to have set foot in the actual prison). This might well have progressed to something resembling actual torture over time, as they grew bored and sought more excitement. But they were discovered before that could happen.

Quite right. What happened at Abu Ghraib was wrong. But it was not torture. It was not even violent. And we punished the guilty.

But if naked prisoner pyramids were torture, slapping some jihadi and turning up the air conditioning is surely ultra torture or something.

We should not torture except in extraordinary circumstances. I've long argued that routine torture of random people swept up in order to fish for information is not effective. Completely innocent people will confess to killing Trotsky to stop the pain and will finger imaginary cell members who helped. But given the stakes of the war and the desire of our enemies to kill us in large numbers, I cannot rule out torture in all cases if we have a specific individual who we are pretty sure has information we have to get in order to save thousands or even millions of lives. Torture will work on someone who knows something but isn't talking.

In the vast majority of cases that fall short of that atomic bomb scenario, I have no problem with being mean with our enemies that we capture in order to get them to talk.

I just wish we were having a torture debate. We are not. We are having a debate over whether we can fight our enemies--about whether we must treat stone cold killers like house guests.

Very Persian of Them

Is Iran giving up on winning in Iraq?

Already, it seems like Iran and their local proxies are scaling back their violence:

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker has held three rounds of talks this year with his Iranian counterpart on security in Iraq, ending a diplomatic freeze that had lasted almost 30 years but with little to show for the often frank dialogue.

Crocker said on Saturday he expected a further round of meetings in the next few weeks. The talks would focus on Iraqi security and again would not touch on Tehran's nuclear plans.

Crocker signaled a possible change in tack in U.S. dealings with Iran when he noted on October 25 that there had been several positive developments in Iran's involvement in Iraq.

While saying Iran's involvement was still a "mixed, cloudy picture," Crocker noted the ceasefire ordered by Moqtada al- Sadr, the head of the feared Shi'ite Mehdi Army militia, in August and the sharp drop in mortar attacks on Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.

In light of these US-Iran developments, this Iraq-Iran line of talk is interesting (tip to the Corner):

Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Mohammad-Reza Baqeri said on Tuesday that officials of Iraq's Foreign Ministry are expected to visit Iran soon to discuss ways of executing the agreement.

The 1975 Algiers Agreement is a treaty signed by the previous regime of Iran and Iraq on March 6, 1975. The agreement settled disputes concerning many areas between the countries.

The Algiers Agreement, among other things, established the boundary of the Shatt-al-Arab river that marks the southern border between iran and Iraq based on the thalweg principle rather than lying on the east bank of the river. (Note that the Wikipedia article misstates thalweg as the midpoint of the river.)

Controlling this river was vital to Iraqi trade given their short coastline on the Gulf. Accepting the thalweg principle meant that the boundary was drawn down the middle of the deepest navigable channel of the river, abandoning complete control.

The agreement was achieved because Iran under the Shah backed the Kurdish revolt in the early 1970s and then abandoned the Kurds when they got post-Saddam Iraq's agreement to Iran's position on the river border.

In 1980, Iraq invaded Iran citing this unfair agreement as one reason for going to war.

So today, with Iran still supporting Shia thugs in Iraq but at a lower level, is Iran going to Plan B by giving up on hopes of seizing control of Iraq?

Will the implementation of border controls under the Algiers Agreement to keep subversives from infiltrating across the border (that is, in practice from Iran into Iraq) be the price Iraq demands for accepting this Saddam-era treaty rather than renouncing it as a pre-democracy relic?

Is Tehran abandoning the Shia thugs in order to get the traditional Iranian definition of the river border again accepted by Iraq? If Iran gives up, only the far less threatening Syrian support of subversive elements within Iraq will remain to stir the pot.

UPDATE: Is a general deal being made that concludes Iran's war on us in Iraq?

Nine Iranians being held in Iraq would be released soon, the U.S. military said on Tuesday, just days after U.S. officials signaled a possible change in approach by noting positive Iranian developments in Iraq.

Personally, I think that the two missing US soldiers snatched some months ago were hauled off to Iran. If so, I'd expect to see them turn up although probably not directly from Iranian officials.

I've Got Questions

Too many people are obsessed with the question of why jihadis hate us.

Christopher Hitchens doesn't think much of the idea that jihadis flock to shoot at us in Afghanistan or Iraq because we have troops in those places. After all, such an explanation wouldn't explain the jihad in Thailand:

Perhaps someone will identify for me which Thai and Buddhist—or Western imperialist—crimes have led to this sudden development. Or perhaps it will be admitted, however grudgingly and belatedly, that there is something sui generis about Islamist fanaticism: something that is looking for a confrontation with every non-Muslim society in the world and is determined to pursue it with the utmost violence and cruelty. It is also seeking a confrontation with some Muslim states and societies.

I make the latter point with deliberation. Afghanistan has a constitution that reserves special privileges for Islam. Most Afghan women still cover at least their heads. Even those who fought long and hard against the Taliban and al-Qaida—the Northern Alliance forces, for instance, or the Shiite Hazara—are intensely Muslim by any non-Muslim standard. But that does not suffice to protect them from the attentions of suicide-murderers and throat-cutters, recruited from as far away as Chechnya or even the Muslim areas of China. So, can we hear a bit less about how the jihadists are responding only to those who "target" Muslims or who are "Islamophobic"?

Really, we need to simply ask why jihadis hate.

And if I get to ask another question, I'd really like to know why our Left loves the jihadis so much.

Hitchens answers one of my questions. I hope he answers my other questions.

Straight Talk

The Chinese government is refreshingly frank about what they think about Taiwan's future:

If the Taiwanese authorities stick to its path for independence or de jure independence, separating China and damaging the vital co-interests of China, I think 1.3 billion Chinese people will by no means agree to that. Hence this prospect will be determined by 1.3 billion Chinese people.

And he who obviously hopes for separation of the country will receive historical sin on this aspect and will be cast away by 1.3 billion Chinese people. The Chinese government will act in accordance with the anti-secession law to take any necessary actions to maintain the unification of the country and safeguard peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits.

Of course, Minister Cao is with their Ministry of National Defense and so is less skilled at sounding blandly pacifistic regarding Taiwan.

The Chinese are getting ready and they are getting set. The only question is when they go.

Yet when Peking makes a military grab for Taiwan, people here will express surprise.

Ninety Nukes

I've been hoping for the best regarding martial law in Pakistan.

While unhappy with the development, I had some hope that the purpose of martial law was to battle the jihadis and not to suppress the regime opponents pressing for elections.

Unfortunately, the whole operation seems aimed at the non-jihadi population that opposes military rule:

Police fired tear gas and battered thousands of lawyers protesting President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's decision to impose emergency rule, as Western allies threatened to review aid to the troubled Muslim nation. More than 1,500 people have been arrested in 48 hours, and authorities put a stranglehold on independent media.

We are constrained in our reaction by our need for Pakistan's help just to have access to our military forces fighting in landlocked Afghanistan:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, visiting China, said Monday that the U.S. may take other steps but both he and Rice suggested the administration doesn't want to disrupt its partnership with Pakistan in fighting al-Qaida and other militants — a relationship that dates back to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"We are reviewing all of our assistance programs, although we are mindful not to do anything that would undermine ongoing counterterrorism efforts," Gates said on Monday.

A day earlier, Rice noted that a significant portion of U.S. aid "is directly related to the counterterrorism mission" and said that while the aid program to Islamabad must be reviewed in the wake of the Musharraf move, "I would be very surprised if anyone wants the president to ignore of set aside our concerns about terrorism."

The Pakistanis know they have us by the short hairs. We can't protest what they do too strongly or our entire war effort in Afghanistan is at risk. (Which is why talk of forcefully going after bin Laden in Pakistan was always a foolish suggestion. Without our supply lines through Pakistan, we'd have few options to supply our troops in Afghanistan.) This is the price of foreign policy realism.

Of course, if we had a friendly Iran that would allow us to supply our forces in Afghanistan, we'd cut the Gordian Knot that plagues us in fighting bin Laden and pushing a nuclear-armed Pakistan toward democracy, clean government, and greater stability:

Now, our access to Afghanistan is from the north through the unstable "Stans" and back through an increasingly unfriendly Russia; or through Pakistan which we have to coddle to keep land-locked Afghanistan from being cut off from us.

Open up a supply route through Iran to Afghanistan and suddenly we don't need to be quite so reliant on our Central Asian bases or so careful with a Pakistan that will not crack down on the Taliban who hide and organize inside Pakistan. We won't have to be so shy when it comes to hunting bin Laden there, either.

I want Pakistan to defeat their jihadis and remain a friend of ours. But we are in a tough position because of Afghanistan's geography in pushing Pakistan toward a normal existence free of jihadi influence. Reduce Pakistan's importance in fighting in Afghanistan and they have less leverage to resist our pressure to reform and crack down on the fanatics.

Free Iran from the rule of the mullahs and our freedom of action in the region expands greatly.

But please don't think this is all about us and how we react. India sits in the shadow of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal with missile flight times to targets in India measured in mere minutes. Would somebody in Pakistan seek a fight with India to distract the people? Would Islamists manage to fire a nuke off. Might India worry so much about either that they try a preemptive strike?

Strategypage states that Pakistan has more than 90 nuclear warheads in their arsenal. So this isn't just another game of musical chairs in some Third World backwater palace that doesn't really affect us.

Have a nice day.

Do as We Say, Not as We Do

Continued insistence by our Congress on political benchmarks as a condition for continuing American support for the Iraqi government is bizarre:

How much does it matter that the Iraqi parliament has not yet passed an oil law? According to war critics, it is the only thing that matters: Iraqis' failure to complete "reconciliation" by passing "benchmark" legislation as required by Washington is evidence not only that the current strategy has failed, but also that any strategy will fail and the United States should simply leave now. Underlying this argument is the belief that a stable peace in Iraq can occur only after the Iraqis have worked out their own basic problems. This is a remarkably unrealistic claim.

The suggestion is that American forces must keep fighting in Iraq until the Arabs and Kurds have put aside their differences, resolved their internal tensions, and started singing "kumbaya" in Arabic. But even the president's most ambitious aims involved only establishing a stable and peaceful democracy in Iraq--which is very different from resolving all tensions, as anyone who knows anything about democracy can tell you. For the United States, reconciliation should mean persuading the peoples of Iraq to address their problems and power struggles peacefully, through a political process rather than through violence, and to reject and oppose those who seek to use force to gain leverage in the political process. That is exactly what we are now in the midst of doing.

This Congressional benchmarking idea has always seemed like a way to provide an excuse for retreat more than anything else. I hope nobody thinks this was an honest effort to pursue victory.

But as this article says, why is reconciliation even a goal? Isn't establishing nonviolent and democratic means to determine how state resources are divided good enough?

For me, the idea of reconciliation is even worse than the article's point of establishing democracy. Since our Left is incapable of reconciling with the President after the perfectly lawful though understandably frustrating 2000 election, who are they to insist that Iraqis reconcile? Some of the Left even believe 2004 was rigged. Others were sure that 2006 would be rigged with those infamous Diebold machines. That claim, at least, as fallen into disrepute given the seemingly impossible wins by Democrats in the House and Senate.

Yet despite a domestic Left's obsession with imaginary crimes in our recent past, Shias and Kurds are supposed to shrug and let go of centuries of Sunni Arab domination and exploitation, decades of Baathist oppression and murder, and years of terrorism? Fascinating.

Democracy so far is enduring in Iraq. Is this not a success we can be proud of achieving without insisting that they do something that we would never enshrine as a national objective?

The Media Awakening

Our media has been unable to understand how we could be winning in Iraq with car bombs going off within hearing range of their hotels. With flames and dead bodies to film, these reporters remained mesmerized by the bomb of the day and could not see the trends.

Even as our Sunni Arab enemies have been beaten and switched sides, beginning with the Anbar Awakening and continuing with similar awakenings in central and southern Iraq by other Sunnis and Shias, too, our press has been mostly oblivious to the success:

The current achievements, and they are achievements, are being treated as almost an embarrassment in certain quarters. The entire context of the contest for the Democratic nomination for president has been based on the conclusion that Iraq is an absolute disaster and the first task of the next president is to extricate the United States at maximum speed. Democrats who voted for the war have either repudiated their past support completely (John Edwards) or engaged in a convoluted partial retraction (Hillary Clinton). Congressional Democrats have spent most of this year trying (and failing) to impose a timetable for an outright exit.

Our press has gone along with this view and promoted it, perhaps oblivious to their negative cheerleading efforts. Although it is possible that in another sense, our press contributed to our victory by leading the enemy to think their objective was to get on TV instead of achieving war aims.

Yet as I've noted over the last couple months, there have been surprising admissions of progress in our media. Just moments of clarity rather than a clear view, but this could be building into a trend:

Lt. General Raymond Ordierno on Thursday reported significant progress in reduced violence in Iraq, but of the broadcast network evening newscasts only ABC's World News bothered to cover the positive trend as anchor Charles Gibson introduced a full story on how “military officials gave one of the most upbeat assessments of the security situation in Iraq that we have heard since the opening months of the war.” The CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly skipped the positive trend, but CBS had time for a story on the investigation of the September shooting of civilians by Blackwater and NBC aired a piece on Hillary Clinton “playing the gender card.” The Washington Post and New York Times on Friday also made very different news judgments on the importance of the positive direction as the Post put the news on its front page while the Times hid it in a story, on an inside page, about Iran's role in Iraq.

This was the third time in less than two weeks that ABC has uniquely highlighted positive developments in Iraq. On Tuesday, ABC ran a piece about “booming” shopping markets and significantly improving life in Baghdad and eight days earlier World News showcased Fallujah's “extraordinary comeback story.”

Of course, with the media failing to use their journalism degrees to ferret out this trend in the war until after it has been getting too obvious to ignore, it would be nice if the reporters got over their degrees and went back to reporting what is happening without trying to provide us with an understanding of war that they are ill equipped to provide us.

UPDATE: Well, a media awakening won't happen with tribal leaders who think like this:

It's time for the current generation of journalists – at times seemingly obsessed with Martha Stewart, O.J. Simpson, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and the like – to use that power more vigilantly, and more firmly, with the public interest in mind.

I would hope that the public has an interest in accurate reporting of what is happening rather than trusting the high priests of journalism to use their power in "the public interest." Their interest just isn't mine.

If You Break It, You Own It

I've been arguing for some time that the trend in Iraq is toward an American/Iraqi victory. The Sunnis have been losing and the Shias no longer seem interested in pro-Iranian factions.

Indeed, this is why I wasn't initially a supporter of the idea of a surge. I worried we'd have a pointless surge that would just add troops and squander our dwindling patience without doing anything of use. As the surge was proposed, my worries eased a lot though I worried what we could do given the heightened expectations.

But the surge has accelerated the trends already in place and while I am not bold enough to claim victory, I'm surely comfortable saying our pace of winning has accelerated after nearly stalling in the period summer 2006 to summer 2007.

Strategypage has a very good piece summarizing these features of the war:

While much was made of the "surge offensive" of the last six months, this was not the key factor in reducing American casualties. The big deal was the collapse of the Sunni Arab resistance, and this has been building for over a year.

And:

Finally, the radical Shia militias (the Badr and Sadr crews) have backed off on their attacks on American troops. Even Iran has stopped sending terrorism supplies to the Badr and Sadr followers. The enemy, in a word, has broken.

Or rather, our enemies have broken.

We have to pursue our broken enemies lest they regain their composure. As with the question of whether we have won or are winning, breaking the enemy is not the same as declaring victory.

Remember, while much of our Congress broke in the spring, the enemy was unable to push the whole institution into full-bore retreat. Our Congress regained its composure and since then, our military and the Iraqis have made the accumulating victory more apparent.

Victory is within our grasp.

UPDATE: We pursue our enemies still:

American and Iraqi forces on Monday launched a massive assault targeting Al-Qaeda fighters in four northern provinces of Iraq, the US military said.

It did not name the provinces but said only that the "Task Force Iron" operation was in the north. The US forces' northern command has troops in provinces including Salaheddin, Nineveh, Kirkuk and Diyala.

The statement did not give precise numbers of the troops involved, but said three US brigade combat teams and three Iraqi army divisions were taking part.

"This operation is a relentless pursuit of Al-Qaeda, who we have seen attempting to move into new areas and disrupt the security of the local populace," said commander Brigadier General Jim Boozer in the statement.

This is no time to let up the pressure. Kill them all.

War Anniversary

The historically challenged worry about America launching a war on Iran over the nuclear ambitions of the mullahs even as Iran continues a terror campaign against us that includes the current effort to kill Americans in Iraq and extends back to the Khobar Towers bombing, the Tanker War in the Gulf, and the Beirtut barracks bombing.

So perhaps we schould remember that this is the 28th anniversary of the mullah war on America:

Thousands of Iranians nationwide demonstrated Sunday to celebrate the 28th anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy by militant students, state television reported.

Demonstrators in the capital, Tehran, including elementary school students, gathered outside the former U.S. Embassy, chanting anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli slogans. They burned the two countries' flags and warned Washington to learn from the hostile incident.

The takeover, which occurred during Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, severely damaged relations between the two countries. The 52 Americans who were held hostage during the crisis were returned after 444 days, but the U.S. cut off diplomatic ties with Iran to protest the incident.

The assault and capture of our embassy was an invasion of sovereign American territory and represented an act of war. Just because we've refused to acknowledge this war does not make it any less of a war from Iran's point of view.

Double Dog Dare

Since the summer, the Taliban are massing for larger battles. One is going on now:

Afghan forces battled hundreds of Taliban fighters for a fifth day in the west of the country on Friday, as insurgent offensives challenged claims the rebels are ineffective in conventional clashes. ...

"The Taliban are fighting Afghan forces in large numbers. We estimate there are about 700 Taliban in the attacking force with 50 4x4 vehicles in Bakwa and Gulistan districts," Maolavi Yahya, the district chief of neighboring Delaram, told Reuters.

I wondered why the Taliban were massing and attacking:

After the Taliban spring offensive has fizzled, pretend conquests of towns failed to provide an image of victory, and locals forced by the Taliban to claim NATO indiscriminate attacks on civilians failed to halt NATO firepower, the Taliban seem to be willing to expend lives in a desperate attempt to defeat a NATO outpost.

Some have claimed the larger death toll shows we are losing and the Taliban are "resurgent."

This article explains that I'm not imagining things:

Along with the rise in Taliban--and to some extent, al Qaeda violence--has come a sharp increase in the number of insurgents killed by Coalition (mostly American and Australian) troops and Afghan security forces. The Afghan diplomat said about 3,500 Taliban have been killed this year, and several top commanders captured.

There's been a major tactical shift recently in how the Taliban insurgency attacks Coalition forces. Of course, IEDs and suicide bombings are up 20 percent over last year's 5,388 total, but there have also been a number of large-scale engagements waged against allied patrols that wind up resulting in high enemy losses. It seems anathema to the usual tactics of an insurgency, where small hit-and-run attacks prove most effective at driving government forces and their allies out of the fight. And it speaks to a growing trend of military incompetence within a Taliban depleted of its experienced, native-born fighters. ...

So, why the sudden wave of mass attacks? A lot has been made in recent news reports of the increase in foreign fighters joining the ranks of the Taliban, with some of those stories insinuating that the development is a measure of the insurgency's growing strength and influence. The New York Times reported on October 29 that the foreign fighters "are not only bolstering the ranks of the insurgency. They are more violent, uncontrollable and extreme than their locally bred allies."

But a top American commander based in Kandahar--where the Taliban movement was born--explained that from his perspective the foreign fighter influx is actually a sign of weakness. The high body count is a result of "ineptitude" he said, and stems from the fighters' lack of experience and training.

"In this type of war, when you mass against forces like us . . . without firepower, we're able to destroy them quite easily and we've shown that over the last six to seven months," said Col. Thomas McGrath, the American commander in charge of training Afghan security forces near Kandahar. "They're bringing in cohorts of young men who really don't know any better and it's been a colossal failure for them."

With Pakistan remaining a sanctuary for the enemy, enemy forces can continue to gather and then enter Afghanistan to fight. Fortunately for us, these enemies are tactical idiots. They mass and then we kill them in large numbers. I'd rather they didn't come, but as long as they insist, I'm glad they bunch up to make it easier to kill them.

As the first quoted paragraph notes, it is almost as if the Taliban are insulted by claims they can't fight in direct combat. And by using SUVs to move about, they are making themselves more vulnerable to our smart bombs.

It is a strange war when the enemy dies in larger numbers and the fact that this is a higher level of deaths leads some to conclude we are losing.

Axis of El Vil Reforms

Hugo Chavez is cementing his hold on power:

Venezuela's pro-government National Assembly overwhelmingly approved constitutional reforms on Friday that would greatly expand the power of President Hugo Chavez and permit him to run for re-election indefinitely.

More power. No limits to his holding office:

All but seven of the assembly's 167 lawmakers voted for the changes by a show of hands.

"Today the Venezuelan people have a pencil in their hands to write their own history, and it's not going to be the history of the elite," said pro-Chavez lawmaker Earle Herrera.

Concerns that the measures will weaken civil liberties have been raised by university students, opposition parties, human rights groups and representatives of Venezuela's Roman Catholic Church.

Critics also worry the reforms would allow Chavez to remain in power for decades like his close friend Fidel Castro of Cuba.

These are what pass for "reforms" in Venezuelan electoral law. Use some populist slogans and some people (in the United States) will be distracted by the shiny object into thinking that this really is a great thing for democracy.

A Different Risk

Musharraf has declared a state of emergency in Pakistan:

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on Saturday ahead of a crucial Supreme Court decision on whether to overturn his recent election win and amid rising Islamic militant violence.

The government blocked transmissions of private news channels in several cities and telephone services in the capital, Islamabad, were cut. Dozens of police blocked the road in front of the Supreme Court building where judges were believed to be inside.

"The chief of army staff has proclaimed a state of emergency and issued a provisional constitutional order," a newscaster on Pakistan TV said, adding that he would address the nation later Saturday.

Hopefully, this is related to fighting the jihadis whose emotional appeal could crumble the pillars of state security if not beaten. If so, then we simply have a different risk we are running from the old risk of doing too little while the jihadis expanded their appeal. But at least the state of emergency could end with the jihadis beaten down.

If this is directed at democratic opposition, then the jihadi appeal will only grow stronger as an alternative to military rule. This alternative will be worse for Pakistanis in the long run, but in the short run this will draw many people desperate for something different.

So we'll have to wait and see how this plays out.

And let's see if the loyal opposition welcomes this Realpolitik move to strengthen a friendly despot or see it as just another opportunity to bash the Bush administration.

UPDATE: Musharraf says this move is to fight Islamists:

In his televised address late Saturday, Musharraf, looking somber and composed, said Pakistan was at a "dangerous" juncture, and that its government was threatened by Islamic extremists who were "imposing their obsolete ideas on moderates."

But this doesn't look like a crackdown on Islamists:

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said the extraordinary measures would remain in place "as long as it is necessary." He also said parliamentary elections could be postponed up to a year, but no such decision had been made.

Aziz also said that up to 500 opposition activists had been arrested in the last 24 hours.

The problem with the lack of democracy and the plentiful corrupition in Pakistan is that Islamists have been able to pose as brave opponents of autocracy and corruption.

So instead of fighting for the allegiance of the people who look for somebody to correct the corruption and autocracy, Musharraf is attacking the people. This will drive more people to choose the Islamists over the military-backed government.

It is early. Perhaps Musharraf is securing his rear area before moving against the Islamists.

Or perhaps this is just screwing up Pakistan even more.

Did I mention that Pakistan has nukes?

SSGNs

I keep reading vague references to our new SSGNs and when they will be ready. I thought a couple might have been ready now.

Nope. Just one:

The U.S. Navy has completed the conversion of the first of four Ohio class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), to cruise missile submarines (SSGN). After four years of work, the USS Ohio, has begun operating in the Pacific. The other three boats are being readied for service. Each of these boats now carries 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, and provides space (for living, working and training) for 66 commandos (usually SEALs) and their equipment.

And the second won't be available until 2008.

Unless we can rush the process, of course.

If You're Not With Them ...

I have always been amazed by the heat the President Bush has taken for his statement, regarding our fight against terrorists, that you're either with us or against us. The Left jumped all over that. It was always obviously a rhetorical device to separate friends from foes rather than a threat to nations to fully support us or feel our wrath.

Our experience proves this. Since 9/11, nations have waxed and waned in their support for us in either Iraq or Afghanistan or in general cooperation, and we remain committed to letting friends decide on their level of support. This is the best way to avoid resentment and to get enthusiasm for the support offered. Do we ask for more help quietly? I'm sure we do. But when Japan pulls out their naval support for logistics in the Indian Ocean, we don't berate the Japanese. They'll either change their mind--or not. And we'll drive on. Or maybe they'll do more in a couple years.

But our enemies are the ones who actually believe this idea that you are either with them fully or you are against them. Their ability to kill so many fellow Moslems who don't go along with the al Qaeda caliphate plan demonstrates this clearly.

And now al Qaeda has turned their wrath on Libya (!):

In the 28-minute audio tape called "Unity of the Ranks," Ayman al-Zawahri also announced that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group was joining ranks with al-Qaida.

"The Islamic nation is witnessing a blessed step ... The brothers are escalating the confrontation against the enemies of Islam: Gadhafi and his masters, the Washington crusaders," al-Zawahri said in the audio tape. The recording could not be independently verified, but it appeared on a Web site commonly used by insurgents and carried the logo of al-Qaida's media production house, as-Sahab.

The recording also carried a message from Abu Laith al-Libi, a Libyan al-Qaida commander in Afghanistan who accused Gadhafi of decades of tyranny.

"He is the tyranny of Libya and is dragging the country to the swamp," al-Libi said in the recording that also featured old video footage of him walking with other masked gunmen.

"After long years, he (Gadhafi) discovered suddenly that America is not an enemy ... and is turning Libya into another crusader base," said al-Libi, who has appeared in several recent al-Qaida videos.

So al Qaeda will add another member to the coalition of the willing. Out of self defense, Libya will continue to cooperate with us and may get used to that status.

Many Arab or Moslem nations have learned what it means to be against al Qaeda. And how little it takes to be labeled "against" them.

Cold War

The Arctic is opening up as a region for competition among a number of states seeking claims to the regions's resources and use the navigable waters:

Countries around the Arctic Ocean -- the United States, Russia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Iceland -- are rushing to stake out the Polar Basin's seabed, fishing rights and maritime routes.

When global warming alarmists warned that nations would compete for resources, I thought they meant depleting resources--not new ones. Go figure.

Fortunately, apart from Russia, the competitors are all friends and allies.

Eventually, I think Russia will be incorporated into the West as Germany, Eastern Europe, Japan and South Korea have been since World War II.

But amidst all the fake threats that Russia claims come from the West, this dispute could put off the day of reconciliation.

Or maybe an agreement to parcel out the resources will hasten the day.

This Cold War will likely be one fought mostly with lawyers and diplomats, I suspect.

Bolder Than I

Although in many ways I've said much the same thing over the years, at this delicate stage I'm not ready to repeat this view:

THERE is a reason Iraq has almost disappeared as an election issue.

Here it is: The battle is actually over. Iraq has been won.

I know this will seem to many of you an insane claim. Ridiculous!

After all, haven't you read countless stories that Iraq is a "disaster", turned by a "civil war" into a "killing field"?

Didn't Labor leader Kevin Rudd, in one of his few campaign references to Iraq, say it was the "greatest ... national security policy disaster that our country has seen since Vietnam"?

You have. And you have been misled.

In the past, I've argued that we turned back the major efforts by the Baathists, jihadis, and Sadrists to take control of Iraq. I figured we'd won and "only" knocking out the remaining forces that continued to kill without hope of winning was the job. Which is why I never got upset that Vice President Cheney said a couple years ago that the enemy was in its last throes. Indeed they were. And still are. They are dying hard but they are dying. And Bolt does clarify his meaning of winning exactly as I have:

How angry so many are to hear good news from Iraq. And how suspicious is their reaction. Don't we all actually wish for Iraq to be democratic, safe and free from tyranny?

But, they'll splutter, but, but, but...

I can hear them already.

But the bloodshed in Iraq is terrible! Call that victory?

And, yes, the killings are ghastly. Iraq is nowhere near safe, and our help is still needed to make it so. Yet the violence now does not threaten the country or its government.

But it has been difficult for people to accept the idea that in a winning war the enemy would continue to stubbornly (and stupidly) kill thousands of innocent civilians. So I've not made the victory claim.

But we are winning. I'm not shy about claiming that. And we have been winning at a greater or lesser pace since March 2003. So I guess Bolt isn't so much bolder than in what we've claimed--indeed I've claimed this much longer--but he is bolder in how he phrases his opinion. I don't rule out our enemies could slow down our pace with something unexpected. Heck, maybe the Iranians will overtly invade Iraq in a desperate bid to win. You never can tell what they're thinking.

If you haven't realized that we are winning in Iraq, it is because you have been misled. Misled by a press and punditry class that has virtually no understanding of history or warfare.

Good grief people, who have you been reading to get your news on Iraq? Film critics and Enron economists?

Setting the Parameters

Diplomacy is setting the stage for Turkish intervention in northern Iraq.

About 100,000 Turkish troops are very visibly deployed along the Iraqi border amidst concerns that Kurdish rebels are staging out of northern Iraq.

The Iraqis don't want the Turks to invade:

Turkey has threatened a major cross-border assault on PKK bases in northern Iraq if Baghdad and Washington fail to make good on promises to crack down on the rebels there.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned Monday that such a move could have "disastrous consequences" and would be met with stiff Iraqi resistance.

"They are talking about a large-scale military incursion which is getting people extremely, extremely nervous and worried," Zebari told the BBC in an interview.

If the Turks really wanted to go in on a large scale, it seems that the Turks would have been better served by doing it suddenly without much warning. Instead, the Turks are loudly proclaiming their intention to hit the PKK.

My guess is that the Turks don't want to invade, either. But they do want help dealing with the PKK. So in response to the Turkish sabre rattling, the Iraqis promise some help:

"There is an increase in checkpoints to prevent the PKK from getting food and fuel. There are measures to prevent them from reaching populated cities," Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari, himself a Kurd, told a news conference in Baghdad.

We understand the Iraqi position as well as the Turkish concern and so don't expect the Iraqis to crack down on the PKK:

Washington, Ankara's NATO ally, has said it does not expect Iraq to take military action against the PKK, but wants Baghdad to establish a "lookout list" of rebel leaders and take steps to disrupt their supply lines.

Perhaps more helpful, we are providing intelligence to the Turks which logically would allow the Turks to target rebels rather than beating the bush with a large force:

Pentagon officials are now starting to say publicly that the U.S. is flying manned spy planes over the border area, providing Turkey with more intelligence information, and that there are standing orders for American forces to capture rebels they find.

And we've promised unspecified help:

"We all need to redouble our efforts and the United States is committed to redoubling our efforts," Rice told a news conference with Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan.

So with the Iraqis not wanting an invasion, the Turks not wanting an invasion but wanting to hurt the PKK, and the US and Iraq providing some help, perhaps this announcement by the Turkish foreign minister demonstrates that there will be no large-scale operation:

Ali Babacan said a meeting Monday between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Bush "will determine the steps that Turkey would take." If Turkey decides to send its troops into Iraq, "any cross-border attack would be aimed at hitting terrorist bases and would not be an invasion," he said.

Given that Turkish forces are already inside Iraq, and have been for quite some time, perhaps this meeting will establish the ground rules for a Turkish response that helps Turkey hurt the PKK without compelling the Iraqis to officially notice the operation. Armed with our intelligence, the Turks may be able to use light infantry and special forces inside Iraq while keeping the heavy stuff inside Turkey.

Considering that this isn't the best time of year for operations in the northern mountains with heavy armor, perhaps this is what Turkey wanted all along.

UPDATE: Remember, those 100,000 Turkish soldiers are already busy fighting within Turkey:

In past months, the military has declared large regions of rugged, sparsely populated territory in eastern Turkey to be "security zones," meaning that civilians are barred from entry. It is virtually impossible to assess what kind of military activity is going on in those areas, where rebels of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, might be active. ...

The rebels, who demand more rights for Turkey's Kurdish minority, traditionally end their annual fighting season at this time of year, before winter snows make it difficult to move around in the rugged terrain. Their strength has diminished since the peak of their powers in the mid-1990s, when they set up highway checkpoints and effectively controlled many areas by night when military patrols withdrew to their barracks.

All the threats, which have gotten the Iraqis and our government to promise help, may be more useful to pin the PKK in place within Turkey. And remember when you think this crisis is huge, even with northern Iraq as a sanctuary (which it has been since the mid-1980s, PKK strength is down from a decade ago. So Turkey is not reacting to an unprecedented situation calling for unprecedented means.

UPDATE: Pressure for Turkey to exceed these developing parameters has just eased:

Eight Turkish soldiers captured last month by Kurdish guerrillas were released in northern Iraq on Sunday, a move which could ease public pressure on Turkey's government to launch a major cross-border incursion.

The timing just doesn't seem right for a major incursion in multi-division strength. I think Turkey has gotten enough from diplomacy to make only minor moves with special forces and aircraft inside Iraq while the bulk of the forces on the border instead seek out the PKK inside Turkey.

The Other Space Force

Reacting to their shrinking market share in other missions as ground forces exploit technology to add precision strike and battlefield reconnaissance to their line units, the Air Force is staking out cyberspace as a new field:

The current Air Force Cyberspace Task Force is being reorganized as the 8th Air Force, otherwise known as the Air Force Cyberspace Command (AFCYBER). The newly established Internet operations organizations will be combined with some of the older electronic warfare ones. The air force already has several Internet monitoring and Cyber War operations, which contain a lot of high priced civilian contractors (many of them former air force personnel who went looking for more money and opportunities in the civilian world.) The air force found that the rapidly expanding adoption of the Internet not only caused a lot of their Internet specialists to go over to the commercial side, but forced the air force to pay much more money to get some of these hot shots back.

Thousands of existing air force electronic warfare specialists will be assigned, or offered, jobs in AFCYBER. This will include units operating U2 strategic reconnaissance aircraft, EC-135 electronic-eavesdropping aircraft, EC-130E Commando Solo radio/TV broadcasting aircraft, and the EC-130H Compass Call radio-jamming aircraft. Since AFCYBER will have over 20,000 personnel, the air force is recruiting officers and airmen from all over the air force for careers in Cyber War jobs.

This is excellent. Heck, maybe the Air Force could recruit civilian computers for a silicon militia. I'm not sure what value it would have in the real world, but it would certainly be great advertising and possibly a good recruiting tool for the computer owners. The Air Force could combine the silicon militia with an online game that simulates cyber warfare the way the Army uses their online game.

And of course, I still think the Air Force should aim high and embrace actual space as their natural field, and become the Aerospace Force.

Eventually, they could become the Space Force and extend our reach to the solar system.

Bluffing?

There has been a lot of talk about a pending US strike on Iran. After years of doing nothing, does this signal a new resolve to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities?

Or is it an effort solely focused on ending Iranian support for Shia death squads in Iraq?

Secretary Gates says Iran promised the Iraqis to stop sending weapons to Iraqi death squads:

"It is my understanding that they have provided such assurances," Gates told a Pentagon news conference. "I don't know whether to believe them. I'll wait and see." He said he did not know who in Tehran made the promise.

And Odierno says EFP attacks, the most lethal weapon Iran has exported, have declined:

In separate remarks Thursday to reporters at the Pentagon, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq said there has been a sharp decline in the number of EFPs found in Iraq in the last three months. Last month there were 30 attacks involving EFPs and 23 more were found unexploded for a total of 53, said Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno.

That compares with 99 in July, 78 in August and 52 in September, Odierno said by videoconference from Baghdad.

Increased Shia attacks had masked the decline in attacks we faced from the Sunni terrorists and insurgents. Now the Shia thugs appear a bit defanged, explaining the drop in casualties.

Did we bluff the Iranians into reducing support for the Sadr boys out of fear we'd use the support as an excuse to bomb Iran?

And note to those who deny Iran helps the thugs in Iraq: a promise to reduce support implies a previous commitment to supporting those Shia thugs.

Why Do They Hate Us?

The Left is again worrying about the US military and their dangerous tendency to be more conservative than your average news room:

Andrew Sullivan seems worried, as does Glen Greenwald, “about Malkinian rhetoric from a military public affairs officer. The drift toward a nakedly partisan military, operating primarily through partisan blogs and partisan journalists, is truly disturbing.”

Of course, it’s worrisome. Firm civilian control of the military has helped spare the United States a number of problems, ranging from the juntas of Latin America to the militarism of the Prussian General Staff. Yet, I wonder if it is fair to lay all the blame with the military.

One wonders why the first reaction of the Left isn't to ask why the military hates them. No, this time it is purely the military's fault. Self-flagellation is clearly misintepreted as just for those who defend our flag.

Me? Why wouldn't our military be suspicious of a political spectrum that would vote to send them to war and then assert that the declaration of war has expired?

So the question is, when giving consent to wage war, don't those who give that consent have an obligation to maintain that consent until victory? Was there a clause in the Congressional declaration that said it sunsets in 2006 or is there a subsection that allows for a reversal at the 2,000th casualty? And the American people whose support for winning is dropping, the same criticism holds. If our enemies ever believe our people have a particular threshold where we retreat, we guarantee resistance to reach that threshold.

As for worries about our military, they at least are free to believe as they wish. If you wan't to worry about a drift toward naked partisanhip, why don't you look to our universities for examples of the Vanguard of the Baccalaureate in action?

The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism.

Why do they hate us, indeed.

Now That's a Pilot!

Sometimes our pilots are called on to buzz the enemy in Afghanistan to scare them into running (so we can kill them) instead of bombing them first and risking civilian casualties:

So the air force is increasingly using "non-lethal weapons" on the Taliban. This usually involves a low, high speed pass by an F-16. Dispersing some flares (normally used to deceive heat seeking missiles) while doing so, often encourages the Taliban to move, or separates them from their civilian cover. The noise and light show of such a low pass is quite impressive. But the most impressive use of this tactic was the one time an adventurous B-1 bomber agreed to make such a pass when some troops were in trouble down below. The 180 ton bomber came down low and fast, filling the mountain valley with an ear-splitting roar. The pilot got chewed out when his boss found out, but the army troops, and the surviving Taliban, will never forget it.

Dang. That would make one heck of a YouTube film!

I'm glad the pilot got his wrist slapped. Can't encourage that type of flying with expensive warplanes like the Lancer. But I hope the pilot considers it a mark of honor and just the price of being a warrior.

A Bad Attitude

Strategypage notes the trend that has been obvious for years--that the Sunni Arabs were losing their war to bomb their way back into power:

It's all about trends. In Iraq, the trends are going against the terrorists. Take IEDs (roadside bombs). There are fewer of them, and more of them are being detected before they can hurt anyone. Thus U.S. casualties from IEDs are down 80 percent compared to last Spring. Overall American casualties have not been this low since May, 2003, right after the fall of Saddam's government. Iraqi military and civilian casualties are also down over 70 percent, compared to last Spring. Most of this was due to so many Iraqis finally taking control of their own security. Iraqis, particularly Sunni Arabs, have basically said "enough!" Over 60,000 Iraqis have volunteered to help with security.

Unfortunately, as I've worried about for years as I wondered how the Sunni Arabs could stupidly resist and kill in a doomed effort to win, all those Shia deaths may be interfering with the ability of the Sunni Arabs to essentially surrender:

Meanwhile, in Baghdad the decision has already been made to screw the Sunni Arabs, in as many ways as possible. No oil for those bastards, and not many government jobs either. It they are lucky, maybe we'll let them live.

While guilty Sunni Arabs must be captured and tried for their crimes in this insurgency and from Saddam's era (or they could flee into exile to escape such justice), we have to convince the Shias (especially) and the Kurds to restrict anti-Sunni Arab measures to the high-ranking Baathists. These people should not be allowed in the government and instead pension them off and monitor them to keep them from causing trouble. Lower ranking Baathists should be allowed to rehabilitate themselves with public service. Other Sunni Arabs just as screwed over as the Shias and Kurds because they were not part of the Tikriti mafia, should be welcomed into the new Iraq.

While the Shias will win a fight to the death, this could kill our efforts to plant democracy in Iraq for a generation. A lot more people than the Sunni Arabs would be screwed should this happen.