Big Trouble in Littler China

One reason that seems to motivate people who argue we should retreat in the world is the idea that China will overtake us so we'd best get used to second-class status now and perhaps gain a little good will from our soon-to-be superiors.

Well, put away those made-in-China surrender flags:

In a little-noticed mid-summer announcement, the Asian Development Bank presented official survey results indicating China’s economy is smaller and poorer than established estimates say. The announcement cited the first authoritative measure of China’s size using purchasing power parity methods. The results tell us that when the World Bank announces its expected PPP data revisions later this year, China’s economy will turn out to be 40 per cent smaller than previously stated.

This more accurate picture of China clarifies why Beijing concentrates so heavily on domestic priorities such as growth, public investment, pollution control and poverty reduction. The number of people in China living below the World Bank’s dollar-a-day poverty line is 300m – three times larger than currently estimated.

Why such a large revision in the estimates of China’s economic condition? Until recently, China had never participated in the careful price surveys needed to convert accurately its gross domestic product into PPP dollars.

The World Bank’s estimates based on summary data from the late 1980s probably overstated China’s PPP gross domestic product even then. Up to now, the bank has revised its estimate very little. In the meantime, China has repeatedly raised the prices of food, housing, healthcare and a range of other non-traded goods and services. These reforms should have lowered the PPP adjustment, but the bank left it basically unchanged.

So China isn't the giant once thought? And a quarter of their population lives on less than a dollar a day? Yeah, quake in your sandals, oh nervous ones.

Of course, I've never been all that impressed with China's economic performance and potential to overtake us for global dominance:

I don't think that China will overtake us. At worst, they will become a power that can dominate Asia but they will not gain a global reach. And in Asia, there will be local pillars of power to resist them as well as American power to contain China.

Never count America out. It looks like communist China will definitely grow old before they have a chance to grow rich.

Oh, and if those who say China would never spoil their Olympics by invading Taiwan because the Olympic games are China's opportunity to show off their shiny new economy, what if their economy isn't quite the sparkling gem we've been told it is?

The Trend is Finally Solidifying

I've often said that the trend toward our victory in Iraq has been clear if you look at the big picture.

This article discusses the Shia-Sunni alliance against al Qaeda in Iraq:

Commanders in the field think they have tapped into a genuine public expression of reconciliation that has outpaced the elected government's progress on mending the sectarian rift.

"What you find is these people have lived together for decades with no problem until the terrorists arrived and tried to instigate the problem," said Lt. Col. Valery Keaveny, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 509th Airborne unit in the Iskandariya area south of Baghdad. "So they are perfectly willing to work together to keep the terrorists out.

"As late as this summer, there were no Shiites in the community policing groups. Today, there are about 15,000 in 24 all-Shiite groups and 18 mixed groups, senior U.S. military officials say. More are joining daily.

Here in Qarghulia, a rural community east of Baghdad, the results are palpable. Killings are down dramatically and public confidence is reviving."Sunnis-Shiites, no problem," said Obede Ali Hussein, 22, who stood at a checkpoint built by the U.S. Army along the Diyala River. "We want to protect our neighborhood."

One problem with spotting a trend is that predicting when the trend will bear fruit is more difficult. More than two years ago, citing posts that I wrote nearly three years ago and the summer of 2004 even, I could see the beginnings of what the LAT writes about today:

As sovereignty passes more and more to the Iraqis in concrete terms, it will be easier for the non-Baathist Sunnis to join other Iraqis to kill and expel the foreign invaders--the Islamists--and subdue the Baathists who aid the foreign invaders.

The Baathists screwed up big allying with the Islamists (as I noted in "Center of Gravity" in June 2004). They thought they could use the Islamists to spark a national revolt against American forces but instead the Islamists are giving all Iraqis a foreign enemy to rally against.

This will be our enemy's critical error in this war. Rumsfeld should be grateful he isn't their defense chief.

I wrote that in January 2005.

On this trend, Jack Kelly writes about the jihadi campaign of errors that turned Iraq into a quagmire:

We're floundering in a quagmire in Iraq. Our strategy is flawed, and it's too late to change it. Our resources have been squandered, our best people killed, we're hated by the natives and our reputation around the world is circling the drain. We must withdraw.

No, I'm not channeling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. I'm channeling Osama bin Laden, for whom the war in Iraq has been a catastrophe. Al-Qaida had little presence in Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein. But once he was toppled, al-Qaida's chieftains decided to make Iraq the central front in the global jihad against the Great Satan.

Indeed, back in October 2005 it was clear that Iraq had become a quagmire for al Qaeda. Zawahiri was depressed about events in Iraq, and I wrote:

One of the more interesting things is that the jihadis no longer talk of bugging out of Iraq if democracy comes to Iraq. Now, winning in Iraq is the basis of their plans for world domination. Why? Earlier, the jihadis argued that they'd have to leave Iraq once democracy came to Iraq and find another battlefield. Then, just fighting us somewhere was step one. Now the jihadis are determined to stay and fight in Iraq.

I never bought the idea that we deliberately invaded and liberated Iraq in a deliberate attempt to create a battlefield to fight the jihadis. If we had we'd have behaved differently in the immediate months following the capture of Baghdad. But this is what Iraq has become by the jihadis' own decisions. And in spite of the fact that the jihadis judged that success could not be achieved once democracy came to Iraq, the jihadis think they can win in Iraq.

Perhaps there are no greener pastures. Perhaps the jihadis considered moving the battleground elsewhere but they could see no alternative to fighting in Iraq. I mean, no alternative other than halting their jihad and living in peace. When thugs decide that they will continue to fight in a particular place even though they believed they would not be able to win there, can we say they are in a quagmire?

And today, with the surge hastening their downfall, the jihadis are being pursued by Americans and Iraqis--including their former allies from the heady days of spring 2004.

If we can avoid shrieking and giving in to the panic that still pushes too many to believe we must run away as fast as we can, we will win the war in Iraq. And build on this success in the wider Islamic world by showing that not only is bin Laden not the strong horse but that he isn't even in the race any more.

The trend is good. I never could understand why people have been so nervous the last several years. Can we lose? Sure. No war is guaranteed. But losing this war would require us to surrender to corpses.

I admit, with disgust, that losing at this late date is a feat that isn't beyond the ability of our Congress to achieve.

Disciplined Disarmament

In "Disciplined Defense," Richard Betts thinks that we spend too much on our national defense in the post-soviet world:

Summary: The United States now spends almost as much on defense in real dollars as it ever has before -- even though it has no plausible rationale for using most of its impressive military forces. Why? Because without political incentives for restraint, policymakers have lost the ability to think clearly about defense policy. Washington's new mantra should be "Half a trillion dollars is more than enough.

What exactly is perplexing to Betts?

If Rip Van Winkle had fallen asleep in the Pentagon's budgeting office 20 years ago and awoke today, his first reaction would be that nothing had changed. President George W. Bush has asked for $505 billion for the peacetime U.S. military establishment in 2008 -- almost exactly the amount, in real dollars, that President Ronald Reagan sought in 1988. Rip would start scratching his head, however, when he discovered that the Soviet empire and the Soviet Union itself had imploded more than 15 years ago and that Washington now spends almost as much on its military power as the rest of the world combined and five times more than all its potential enemies together.

To answer the query of the learned Dr. Winkle, one has only to consult the changes in our world from 20 years ago rather than make a comparison between today and a score years ago assuming a static generation in between.

Twenty years ago, we spent far more of our GDP on defense and would have counted ourselves lucky to emerge from a bloody conventional war still holding the charred ruins of Western Europe.

Today, we face an environment where we want to fight our enemies as far from our heartland as possible and with as few casualties as possible. Oh, and if we could not kill too many of the enemy or wreck their cities that we will rebuild after, that would be just great.

Our standards for defining a victory have gone up tremendously and so our defense spending has not continued its 1990s decline. Plus we are at war, of course.

Look, if we become "disciplined" enough in our ideas of national defense to accept higher casualties, we could cut our defense spending a great deal. Robots? Precision long-range weapons? Passive and active protection for troops? Training and pay/benefits? All could be slashed if we would only accept higher casualties--ours, theirs, and innocents caught in the middle.

If we could become "disciplined" enough in our ideas of self defense to accept that we should not contemplate fighting far from our shores and instead just focus on meeting any enemy that comes within 1,000 miles of our shores, we could slash our defense spending tremendously.

Honestly people, accept the "discipline" of being unable to help defend Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, or the Persian Gulf and our defense needs melt away.

Have the "discipline" to abandon the ability to carry out an Afghanistan campaign! We can have a Vegas policy! What happens in Waziristan, stays in Waziristan!

And yes, it is appropriate to note that even today our burden of defense as a portion of our GDP is much smaller than twenty years ago. Betts discounts that inconvenient truth, but he'd have to in order to argue that our defense budget is too big for our needs and capacity to afford.

So there you go. Just have the "discipline" to risk defeat and we can cut our defense spending tremendously. "Disciplined" that may be. But it really weakens the whole "defense" concept.

We can afford to defend ourselves. Count our blessings instead of trying to level the playing field in favor of other nations that can't afford our standards of security.

I swear, why are proponents of disarmament so dishonest in their arguments that they don't just say they think we spend too much? Instead, they have to come up with some catchy term that tries to hide their real views. "Disciplined defense" joins "vigorous diplomacy" as another idea for retreat dressed up in the garb of a warrior.

The Surge Will Go On

Even as our surge troops begin to draw down in Iraq, the surge is not over:

NARWAN, Iraq — As sunset prayers played through a mosque tower’s loudspeakers across the street, soldiers worked on sprucing up their new home.

Combat Outpost Salie still needs a few finishing touches, but the 3rd Infantry Division began moving soldiers to its newest post Thursday.

A couple of years ago, U.S. commanders pondered “smaller footprints” and isolated bases in Iraq. Combat Outpost Salie is about 50 yards away from a large outdoor market and it is surrounded by homes, businesses and a communications tower. It also connects to an Iraqi police station.

Its existence is a reflection of the Army’s new counterinsurgency strategy to live within neighborhoods instead of just patrolling them, say officers from the 3rd Brigade’s 1st Battalion, 10th Field Artillery.

I still think that we were winning prior to the surge. The Anbar Awakening is one piece of that evidence to support my view. This has accelerated our progress but it was not a result of the surge.

Remember that the surge was always more about tactics than numbers. Given that the surge has been more successful than I expected, I think we can hold the gains we've made and continue winning after the troop surge has expired. And if the Iraqis make more progress in their security forces, the progress will continue as we draw down from even pre-surge strength.

Democracy in Iraq

By chance, I ran across a forgotten post of mine from February 2003 on my original site regarding the prospects of democracy in Iraq. 

My views haven't changed since then. Any acceptance I have of something less than democracy in the short run is no post-insurgency fallback position (and I link to the President's message on democracy in Iraq so it is no post-WMD justification on his part as some assert). 

And I still think that successfully planting democracy in Iraq could lead to far greater victories. 

[UPDATE: Michael Barone puts it well: "An Iraq that is reasonably stable, fairly democratic, more prosperous, and productive than the Middle Eastern standard: This seems to be at least one possible trajectory from the success of the surge. That would be a considerable achievement, with positive reverberations for decades to come. "] 

So here it is in its entirety: 

"After the War" (Posted February 27, 2003) 

The President spoke of our pursuit of democracy in the Middle East. Some think this is unrealistic. 

Actually, I'm kind of amused when critics of invading Iraq ridicule the idea of democracy in Iraq. They often say it is folly to think we can implant "Jeffersonian democracy" in a region with no history of democracy. Yet I do believe such critics would be horrified if we did implant "Jeffersonian" democracy: voting by white, property-owning, 21-year-old men, in a society that allowed slavery and which had the upper chamber of its Congress selected by state legislators and not by direct vote (and then there is that electoral college thing for president). I'm not really mocking such critics but rather pointing out that democracy in Iraq—or anywhere else for that matter—is a long-term project. We can start with imposing rule of law, with training-wheel democracy under our guidance. Iraq has wealth and education as well as exhaustion from more than two decades of Saddam's murder, depravity, war, and privation to make them eager for an alternative. If they still aren't ready for an alternative, they may doom themselves to another lost generation of opportunity. 

Truth be told, however, I'd be happy enough to suppress the tendency of despots in the region to goad their people into hatred of America as a means of deflecting anger at the local regime. A regime in Baghdad that doesn't dip dissidents in acid or rape family members as a lesson to behave would be sufficient. A government that doesn't dream of the day it can slaughter ten thousand of us in one blow would be nice. Yet I do think we can get more than that minimum. 

Why is democracy out of reach for Arabs and Iranians? What tradition of democracy was there in Eastern Europe, where democracy is growing? In Latin America outside of Cuba (and Venezuela, for the moment)? In South Korea? In Taiwan? In the Philippines? In Japan? In Germany? In Spain? In Turkey? In India? Critics even now say that the 1945 militaristic, emperor-worshipping, dictatorial, fanatical Japanese are a bad example to hold out in arguing for Iraqi democracy because the Japanese actually had a democratic tradition. Just squint a little and turn your head just so. 

Well, I guarantee that if we succeed in Iraq, those scholars will identify some local Babylonian councils of elders meeting along the banks of the Tigris every third high tide, or something, that in hindsight were proto-democratic bodies that provided the seed for full-blown democracy in the 21st century. I guarantee it. 

And as long as I'm dissing the notion that some people are just not capable of democracy; what about the notion that a democratic Iraq could inspire democracy elsewhere in the region? This, the critics say, is just too much like the "discredited" domino theory. What of that theory? After South Vietnam fell to the communists, Cambodia and Laos fell. Mass murder, reeducation camps, and boat people followed. And Burma became the Chinese client, Myanmyar, noted for its brutality. Keegan, the noted military historian, once noted (I heard it on the radio once, I really should see if he put it in print) that he thought our war in Vietnam gave others the time to prepare; and had we not blunted the momentum of communism in the rice paddies of Southeast Asia, other states might have succumbed. Then there of course was that little-noted domino of Hungary opening its borders in 1989, which set the dominos of Eastern Europe tumbling, reaching even to the dissolution of the Soviet Union two years later. 

So could Iraq spark dominos from Iran to Syria and from Egypt to Saudi Arabia? I hope so. It certainly isn't out of the question given the history of the "discredited" domino theory. With Islamofascism crumbling in Iran, perhaps the region is ripe for the democratic counter-offensive. Shoot, just batting .300 would be pretty good. The ironic thing is, though tipping the domino of Iraq could start a chain reaction for rule of law and democracy in the Islamic world; the Iranian mullahs hoped tipping Iraq the other way, during the Iran Iraq War in the 1980s (the real First Gulf War) would be the first domino to turn the Islamic world into Iranian-inspired and led fanatics. The Iraqis may have held the line long enough to blunt the murderous, Islam-distorting philosophy that today motivates al Qaeda and prepared the region for the day very soon when we reach out our finger and tip the domino the other way. No wonder al Qaeda hates Saddam almost as much as the West. 

I hope for democracy in the Moslem world. I'm realistic enough not to try to implant democracy overnight in Iraq; yet optimistic enough to think that there is no such thing as a people "not ready for democracy," as so many critics condescendingly imply. I'm also realistic enough to accept as a success far less in the short run. Iraq as a place where people aren't trying to flee bloody tyranny, where the rulers don't dream of expansionist glory, and where thugs don't find sanctuary to plot our murder in the thousands, is fine by me. Even a democratic Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq, or elsewhere, would be pure cake. We might even do better than that in the long run. 

On to Baghdad.

UNdacted

Yes, the film Redacted is about an actual American crime in Iraq. But why focus on this crime that is only known because we punish such rare crimes by our troops? Why not make a film about the routine war crimes of our enemies that the enemy celebrates with their own online snuff films?

Sure, those guys might hunt you down and kill you and your family for speaking truth to terror, so perhaps it is safer not to point out their depravity.

But why not make a film about rape that United Nations troops conduct on a routine basis? They're a safe target. Heck, they don't do anything about anybody. No fear of retribution there, right? And you could show poor Third World victims of actual uniformed soldiers!

Why indeed? It's almost like our Hollywood industry chooses which crimes to highlight based on who they hate the most?

Western War Propaganda

You remember the shot seen 'round the world of a young Palestinian boy shot by the evil Jews as his father vainly tried to shield him with his body? French television was all over the story with a heart rending film catching the crime as it happened.

Well, the tyke never bought the farm, it seems (tip to the Corner). He could easily be available for Redacted II:

Suffice it to say here that the iconic image of the child Mohammed al Durah, pictured crouching with his father behind a barrel next to a concrete wall in an apparently vain attempt to shelter from the gun-battle between Israel and the Palestinians that was raging around them before he was allegedly shot dead by the Israelis, served to incite terrorist violence and atrocities around the world after it was transmitted by France 2 at the beginning of the second intifada. Yet it is clear to anyone looking at this in detail that the whole thing was staged, not least from the devastating evidence here which shows the boy raising his arm and peeping through his fingers seconds after the France 2 correspondent Charles Enderlin said he had been shot dead.

Given that any little thing will incite jihadis to riot and kill, you have to wonder why they had to go for the staged money shot of a dead kid. Fake but accurate, I'm sure.

Unfortunately, we go to war with the news industry we have and not the news industry we wish we had.

Sometimes I long for the good old days when our side's propaganda was used to help our side in a war. Good God, am I a dinosaur or what?

Thank You Air Force

The Air Force maintains air supremacy and we hardly notice it because they've done it for so long.

And now the Air Force will increase its contribution on the ground in Iraq to help out the Army and Marines cope with frequent depoyments:

Since March 2004, the Air Force has provided airmen to serve combat support roles. The airmen include civil engineers, security forces officers and intelligence analysts serving six-month tours or longer. Many doing six-month tours can expect to return home for a year and then return to Iraq, Bosworth said.

The current 1,500 may triple.

I extend my thanks. Your efforts in the air and on the ground don't go unnoticed. Remember, my urging to aim high is made with respect and not malice.

Alienating Allies

Congress likes to claim that we have alienated our allies because of the Iraq War.

Yet Congress annoys the Turks by raising the killing of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire.

Seems determined to abandon Colombia because they have a soft spot for Leftist Cocaine dealing terrorists.

And now wants to alienate Ethiopia--the country that put an end to the Islamic Courts movement in Somalia a year ago. Eritrea is aiding those jihadis and is encouraging rebels in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia. So of course Congress is out to hurt Ethiopia:

Sadly, Congress is poised to fuel the march toward war by passing a bill that threatens to cut off technical assistance to Ethiopia, one of our closest allies, if it does not, among other things, release political prisoners, ensure that the judiciary operates independently and permit the news media to operate freely. Ethiopia has already freed opposition leaders, reformed parliamentary rules to give opposition parties greater legislative responsibility and approved a new media law that meets international standards. By singling out Ethiopia for public embarrassment, the bill puts Congress unwittingly on the side of Islamic jihadists and insurgents.

But they'll put the Congressional stamp of approval on Syria. And urge talks with Iran.

We'll be at war with Canada in six months given the way our Congress is going.

UPDATE: Will Congress punish Colombia for being our ally and defeating leftist insurgents?

Between Iraq and a Hard Place

Baghdad and the belts are being cleansed of jihadis.

One place al Qaeda is running to is the Mosul region:

Meanwhile, the Kurds have another problem, as the remnants of al Qaeda gather in the Sunni Arab neighborhoods of northern Iraq. Many of these areas are the target of Kurdish attempts to drive the Sunni Arabs out. In the 1990s, Saddam began expelling Kurds from areas around the northern oil fields (where about half of Iraqi oil is), and bringing in Sunni Arabs from the south, to take over the Kurdish homes and lands. The Kurds were driven farther north. Now the Kurdish refugees are trying to reclaim their homes, but in many areas the Sunni Arabs have organized militias and are defending themselves. The government is under pressure to stop the ethnic cleansing, but the Kurds in the north generally agree with the policy of driving the Sunni Arabs out. Al Qaeda is welcome in these Sunni Arab neighborhoods, as long as all the terror attacks are against Kurds or government forces.

Al Qaeda can't go much further north since they run into the Kurdish provinces and would surely die if they flee there. So we will have a more intense fight in Mosul in the months ahead.

The same thing happened three years ago after we drove the jihadis from Fallujah. We killed a lot. Many escaped. And when these survivors arrived in Mosul they attacked, and I think every Iraqi police station in the city collapsed. Since then, we gradually restored order.

This time around, the Iraqi security forces should hold much better and the fight will be intense but surely much faster as the jihadis realize the city will not be a safe haven for them. And when the jihadis decide to run from the Mosul region, I'd like to think that 100,000 Turks along the Iraq border using real time intelligence that we are providing will be useful in constraining their movements and killing more of them.

And remember that the enemy could not flee west to Anbar after being driven from Baghdad because of the Awakening there. We smashed up jihadi efforts to reestablish their presence. Going south to the Shia regions was not going to happen. That's why al Qaeda went north.

So do the jihadis run for Iran once it gets too hot in Mosul? If so, you will see more action in the Kurdish regions (that the press will surely portray as a defeat for us rather than the result of bad guys running through previously quiet areas).

Do they fight to the death when they've been giving up when cornered for many months now when cornered?

We need to keep pursuing our enemies. And kill them, of course.

UPDATE: The military mentions the issue:

Despite a decline in violence in Iraq, northern Iraq has become more violent than other regions as al-Qaida and other militants move there to avoid coalition operations elsewhere, the region's top U.S. commander said Monday. Army Maj. Gen. Mark P. Hertling said al-Qaida cells still operate in all the key cities in the north.

"What you're seeing is the enemy shifting," Hertling told Pentagon reporters in a video conference from outside Tikrit in northern Iraq.

Hertling said militants have been pushed east to his area from Anbar by the so-called Awakening movement, in which local tribes have allied with the coalition against al-Qaida. Others have been pushed north to his area from the Baghdad region, where this year's U.S. troops escalation has made more operations possible.

Still, he said roadside bomb attacks last month were half of the June total. So with terrorist refugees from the south and east going to Mosul, just who has been knocked down to mean reduced numbers of attacks? Or are the terrorists just starting to show up this month?

The Wrath of Neptune

My Jane's email update reports this:

The first of four US Navy (USN) Ohio-class strategic ballistic missile submarines to be converted to cruise missile platforms is gearing up for its inaugural deployment in its new role. The crew of the former Trident D5 nuclear missile boat USS Ohio have embarked for final training off Hawaii in preparation for deployment in the western Pacific Ocean.

That's a large package of firepower that can show up unseen on somebody's door step.

Job Security

Robert Farley argues against an independent Air Force (tip to Arthur K.).

Farley writes in the American Prospect, which bills itself as "liberal intelligence." Perhaps that's their version of "compassionate conservatism." Nice to know each side can be just as foolish in opening up some space for the charge of oxymoron.

I start off in this sneering fashion despite my arguments with the Air Force's pre-Long War priorities relative to supporting ground operations. I do this because Farley starts out his case like this:

In August of this year, reports emerged that British Army officers in Afghanistan had requested an end to American airstrikes in Helmand Province because the strikes were killing too many civilians there. In Iraq, the Lancet Study of Iraqi civilian casualties of the war suggested that airstrikes have been responsible for roughly 13 percent of those casualties, or somewhere in the range of 50,000 to 100,000 deaths.

Anybody who doesn't know that the Taliban routinely lie about civilian casualties and who thinks the Lancet "study" reflects reality is a moron. Or perhaps an idiot. Hard to say which. But surely not qualified to advise on the separate existence of our Air Force.

To believe that we've killed as many civilians as the Lancet claims or that our rare and precise air strikes directed by Americans who observe the laws of war killed up to 100,000 Iraqi civilians is quite bizarre.

That's what you get when an assistant professor of diplomacy and international commerce tries his hand at military affairs, I suppose. His judgment that the Air Force is unneeded is suspect from the start as far as I'm concerned. (Though he does no worse than the editors of the New York Times, I suppose.)

I've certainly argued that the Air Force should give up their dominance of recon and strike missions to Army-controlled UAVs and helicopters which do the job more cheaply and more responsively. I've argued this despite my clear impression that the Air Force has actually done a very good job of providing direct support to the Army and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the pilots doing the supporting are clear on what they need to do:

“We’ve a sign in the squadron that says “The mission, fuckhead, is supporting the 18 year old with the rifle.” We know that we’re here to put bombs on bad guys so they don’t kill American soldiers.”

What critics like Farley fail to appreciate is the Air Force role in maintaining our air supremacy that allows our pilots to support 18-year old privates. That is not a strategic given despite our holding of such superiority since about 1944. I don't think an Army-controlled air force would give this task the resources it deserves.

A separate Air Force pays attention to that vital mission and has ensured air superiority since World War II. And with the great strides we've made in joint operations, Farley is perhaps two decades or more out of date in moaning about inter-service rivalry.

The Air Force needs to aim high, no doubt. But I want our separate Air Force, which has served us so well, to continue ruling the skies and space above our ground forces. And yes, for now, they should continue to help with ground support with planes since Army aviation may never completely replace aircraft.

Why fire the Air Force for doing their job too successfully?

Self-Centered Blithering Egotistical Idiot

This is an attitude that really annoys me about our Left:

Lions for Lambs, the new movie directed by and starring Robert Redford, is designed to move us away from the "black-and-white" rhetoric of the war on terror and instead draw our focus to the "gray areas." This is necessary so that there can be a debate on issues--a debate we have been "denied" over the past six years.

I know this because I heard Robert Redford say it before a screening of Lions for Lambs at the Museum of Modern Art, where the movie was met with rapturous applause by an audience studded with has-beens, including a Mohawk-sporting Randy Quaid, Andrew (Pretty in Pink) McCarthy, Adam (Counting Crows) Duritz, and Janine (Northern Exposure) Turner. Redford's main hope, he said just before his film unspooled itself over the course of 88 of the most barren minutes anyone has ever spent at MOMA, is that his new film will make us think. That is, indeed, a noble purpose. So let me say on behalf of the American filmgoing public that we collectively owe an inexpressible debt to Redford for deigning to slalom down from his pristine Utah mountaintop to compel us to make unaccustomed use of our underutilized gray matter.

There hasn't been debate in this country about Iraq?

You may think this claim is nonsense since we've been debating and thinking about Iraq since 1990 and that debate includes two authorizations to use force against Saddam's Iraq (1991 and 2003) and Congressional passage of a law signed by the President in 1998 that stated overthrowing Saddam Hussein was our nation's official policy. It seems obvious to you. We debated. We even thought about the subject.

But you neglect the Left's definition of "debate" and "think."

For our Left, which continues to debate the question of whether we should invade Iraq in March 2003 as if it is February 2003, a debate never really ends until their conservative opponents give up and the Left's arguments are accepted. By their definition, if you haven't agreed with the Left's view, you couldn't possibly have thought about the issue at all. And if you haven't agreed with the Left, it is because there hasn't been a proper debate.

Of course, that means that a thinking debate can only be judged to have occurred once you agree with the Left. At that point--and that point only--the Left will admit that their opponents have finally thought about the issue. And then the debate is closed. For good.

That is why as evidence of winning in Iraq continues to grow, their argument is shifting to the cost--asserting that our achievement isn't worth the price we have paid.

And eventually, no matter what we achieve in Iraq and the region, they will argue that we really didn't win at all.

Lions for Lambs? Please. More like Sh*t for Sheep.

Did the House Cut Off War Funding?

Our glorious House of Representatives wants to mandate a withdrawal from Iraq. Since we are already drawing down the troops sent in early 2007 as part of the surge, I can only assume that this reflects the desire of our Left to make our troops run from Iraq in defeat rather than simply withdraw when their missions are completed.

Based on early press reports, I assumed that the Pentagon could reprogram money from the regular budget to the war for many months well into the new year.

Secretary Gates says that is not the case:

Well, I think that there is -- for two reasons, just speaking quite frankly. I think first, I think there is this misperception that now that we have a 2008 appropriations bill, that somehow we can shuffle the money around and find a way to get ourselves to April or May or some period of time. And what I'm just trying to say is I believe the appropriators understand that is not the case.

Those who are not involved in the appropriations process for Defense may not understand just how limited our ability to transfer funds around the department is -- the $3.7 billion that I talked about. And so they may not understand just how complicated and how -- the situation is, and also how restrictive.

To be honest, I think that there's probably also a sense that things like I talked about today is the Department of Defense crying wolf, that somehow we always figure out a way to make it work. Well, the way we always figure out a way to make it work is because the chiefs and the service secretaries have to jump through hoops to figure out ways to try and be prepared for a cutoff of funds. We come right up to the edge of the precipice. And then just like at the end of last May, we got the supplemental.

So we didn't have to do a lot of the dramatic things that we -- we did a lot of things and scared a lot of people who thought they were going to be furloughed and so on. I mean, we send a lot of signals to people as we try to get ready for these things. But you know, it's a little bit "The Perils of Pauline." And so far, at least in the last -- in my time here, we have gotten the relief from the Congress at the last minute, but it was at the last minute. And as I said before, we were working off of a $70 billion bridge fund last spring as well.

Just great. Our Defense Department really will have to hold a bake sale to buy bullets.

Eagle Claw

Something is up in Iraq:

U.S. helicopters dropped 600 troops into two villages south of Baghdad before sunrise Friday, launching an assault on militants believed to be involved in the May kidnapping of three American soldiers, the military said.

The raids took place around 4 a.m. in the villages of Owesap and Betra, about 12 miles south of the Iraqi capital.

"These are areas where we believe al-Qaida was staging attacks, and we also believe they have ties to the May 12th attack," said Maj. Alayne Conway, spokeswoman for the Army's 3rd Infantry Division.

Three U.S. soldiers were kidnapped after their patrol was ambushed May 12 near Mahmoudiya, also south of Baghdad. Four other Americans and an Iraqi interpreter were killed in the attack, and an al-Qaida-linked group claimed responsibility.

Two soldiers remain missing, and the body of the third was found in the Euphrates River nearly two weeks later.

If my sheer speculation that the release of 9 Iranians was based on Iran's promise to release the two Americans I assume they hold from that attack, perhaps the price is that Iran doesn't admit to holding hostages since that is a sensitive subject given that whole Embassy thing and officially Iran doesn't admit to mucking around in Iraq.

Did Iran tell us that the two soldiers have been dropped off in the area? That would justify an entire battalion assault into the area for a rescue mission for darn sure.

Platoon-Level Precision

My Jane's email updates reports this:

The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and BAE Systems displayed their ODAM (Optically Designated Attack Munition) 60 mm guided mortar bomb [.]

Given that infantry has to haul around everything they use, one-shot kills with a mortar round will mean a weapons squad.

When an infantry platoon has short-range precision indirect firepower like this available, our infantry will be much more lethal.

Slowing the Accelerants

We continue to go after the Sunni jihadis and Shia thugs who tried very hard in 2006 to spark a civil war by slaughtering civilians.

US forces nailed some al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq:

"During a series of coordinated operations west of Tarmiyah, coalition forces targeted associates of senior Al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders believed to be in the area," the statement said.

"(US forces) observed several armed men in the target area and, perceiving hostile intent, called for supporting aircraft to engage," it said.

Fighting by ground forces and strikes by aircraft killed 25 suspected Al-Qaeda fighters and wounded four. The wounded were among 21 people taken prisoner.

Two large arms caches were uncovered during the operation, the military said.

I'm always interested to see that the jihadis continue to surrender rather than fight to the death.

And we scored a success against Iran's minions:

In a separate statement, the US military said that on November 4 it had arrested the leader of the "special groups" in Diyala province, northwest of Baghdad.

US commanders accuse secret cells of Shiite militias, known as "special groups", of smuggling sophisticated weapons into Iraq with the support of Tehran and using them against American troops.

Keep pursuing these, guys and the very significant trend for lower casualties that we are experiencing will accelerate.

A Needed Supply of Clarity

I've mentioned that we kinf of need supply lines through Pakistan to fight in Afghanistan. The DOD puts some harder figures on this reliance:

I've had a chance to check for you -- on the issue of supply lines from Pakistan into Afghanistan. That is a very real area of concern for our commanders in Afghanistan because 75 percent of all of our supplies for our troops in Afghanistan flow either through or over Pakistan, including 40 percent of all fuel, which comes from Pakistani refineries.

But at least we have an option of going north at higher cost (but at Russia's pleasure, ultimately).

This is one reason why I am uncomortable with putting too many troops into Afghanistan. They are potentially hostage to politcial upheavals.

But perhaps this real world example will finally end the chowderheaded talk of pulling our forces out of most of Iraq and concentrating them in the friendly Kurdish areas where they will be just as vulnerable to being cut off from sources of supply.

Price Fixing

As opponents of the Iraq War press with their fallback position that the cost of victory in Iraq is too high, CBS goes to bat in support of this line, reporting that veteran suicide rates are about double our civilian rate:

They survived the hell that's Iraq and then they come home only to lose their life.

There is a major problem with making that comparison, of course. Male suicide rates are about 4 times the female rate and the veteran population is about 13 times more male than female. So the actual rate of veteran suicide is probably only a bit above our civilian rate.

And to put it in greater perspective, the suicide-inducing trauma of fighting our wars is apparently a lot less than the trauma of being a civilian in Estonia, Finland, Belgium, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Japan, Latvia, Hungary, Slovenia, Khazakstan, Russia, Belarus, and Lithuania. And this leaves out a lot of countries with no reliable data. Sri Lanka, the home of the suicide bomber, is understandable. But the rest aren't exactly shooting galleries (I'll let slide a chance for a cheap shot at Belgians). Some of the countries with higher suicide rates than our veterans are downright Scandanavian. Our so-called survivors of hell are more balanced than the citizens of these countries.

Look, these veteran suicides are tragedies for the individuals and their families. We should take steps to address the impact of combat on our veterans and help them deal with life after their military service.

But the story is a hit piece. The data doesn't even distinguish between combat veterans and noncombat veterans. If the argument is that combat in Iraq is causing the problem, then the data simply does not appear to demonstrate that connection.

But still, nice try, CBS. Fake but accurate, I'm sure.

Anschlose?

Despite Putin's hostile rhetoric, I said we should only worry about Russia when they conduct an anschluss with Belorus.

This is getting darned close:

A senior general warned Wednesday that Russia could deploy short-range missiles to Belarus as part of efforts to counter the planned deployment of U.S. missile defense sites in Europe, Russian news reports said.

Too many "former" Soviets in senior positions are too nostalgic for the way the world used to be prior to 1989.

When do these relics of the Cold War die off, anyway?

No More Mister Nice Guy?

I hoped that Pakistan would focus on wiping out the jihadis in the frontier areas given that these thugs were given as the reason for martial law. Up to now it seemed like Musharraf was focusing on domestic opponents.

If Pakistan was not only failing to put down the tribal jihadis but also give the jihadis more support in the rest of the country, this could be the worst of both worlds.

So this is encouraging (tip to Instapundit). The post says that the Pakistanis are about to, in the next few days, begin a major offensive in the tribal areas. And our forces in Afghanistan could be the anvil against which the Pakistani hammer falls, crushing the jihadis that try to flee.

Could Pakistan be the last jihad, after all?

The Do Little Raids

The Iranian-supported Shia death squads are being whittled down and seem in no position to mount a large operation.

Al Qaeda is down in Iraq but not yet out.

So it would be smart to expect the jihadis to try for a spectacular strike either to kill large numbers of civilians or to hit an American military force and inflict heavy casualties.

The blow would be militarily pointless against the tide of defeats the jihadis are enduring, but such a blow would boost jihadi morale badly in need of a success and could give heart to the forces in our Congress who persist in trying to lose the Iraq war:

The Democratic-led House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq, defying President George W. Bush by tying the measure to $50 billion in new war funds.

Of course, it is a pointless legislative blow by Pelosi and her allies since Congress passed the regular defense budget and allowed the President to use that money for ongoing operations. So even if this bill is passed by the Senate too and the president vetoes it, the war will not be starved of funds for many months.

I don't know why anyone would call our Congressional leaders wimps. They sure are tenacious in pursuing their goal of scuttling victory in Iraq. Hopefully, this is just an exercise in boosting nutroots morale badly in need of a success.

Still, it is fascinating how the two forces need each other. Al Qaeda is on the ropes in Iraq and needs an outside force like Congress to save them. And Congress is on the ropes in the face of our growing victory in Iraq and needs something that looks like a defeat in Iraq to give them a real chance to cut off funds for the war and lose it once and for all.

Then they can each go on to fighting for their real objectives--the caliphate and the White House.

The Conveyor Belt to Paradise

Fighting continues in Afghanistan, though the enemy suffers massively in these efforts:

Afghan and U.S.-led coalition forces killed dozens of Taliban fighters in the south of the country after an ambush by a large group of insurgents, the U.S. military said on Wednesday.

Despite the high casualty rates among Taliban rebels whenever they clash directly with Afghan and foreign troops, the insurgency shows no sign of abating, but instead has spread from the south and east to areas previously considered safe.

They die like this because they are tribal warriors and not real guerrilla fighters. They know scream and leap tactics, pretty much. That's the good news.

The problem is, there are plenty of young men in Pakistan to recruit and send across the border even though a large percentage never come home again on this one-way ticket to paradise. Without this sanctuary, the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan would be nuisances.

Worse, even enemy deaths at high rates threaten the will of shakier NATO allies like Germany, since they are viewed as some nebulous "violence" we can't suppress.

And even here, I imagine that the Left will protest Afghanistan as much as they protest Iraq once Iraq settled down. Watch for the tipping point when Afghanistan casualties in a month exceed our Iraq casualties because Iraq calms.

Eventually, assuming Pakistan doesn't shut down the frontier sanctuaries, solving the problem will have to rely on local Afghan political and military strength to deny local support.

Until then, we should continue to send the jihadis to their paradise.

Victoryish

More people are getting bolder in asserting victory. Tony Blankley is one:

I think one can claim a very real expectation that next year, the world may see a genuine, old-fashioned victory in the Iraq war. In five years, we will have overturned Saddam Hussein's government, killed, captured or driven out almost all al-Qaida terrorists, suppressed the violent Shiite militias, induced the Sunni tribal leaders and their people to shun resistance and send their sons into the army and police and seek peaceful resolution of disputes -- and we will have stood up a multisectarian, tribally inclusive army capable of maintaining the peace that our troops established.

All I will commit to is that the trend is very good. But I've thought the trend was good for the past 4-1/2 years (at faster or slower paces, to be sure). My only point of worry on the battlefield was the summer of 2004, but we passed that challenge successfully and strengthened our hand in the end.

I'd like to say we have victory in sight, but you never can tell how an enemy will react to losing. They want to win, and unknowns are too strong right now to predict actual victory before we achieve it.

Duty, Honor, Country

Our troops could very well be the best troops we've ever fielded in a war.

This story doesn't involve zippoing hootches or naked pyramids, so our press in uninterested.

But you need to know what our troops do in Iraq. In an effort to grab soldiers, bodies, and headlines as Congress listened to the Petraeus report, al Qaeda struck a 4-man observation post of the 82nd Airborne Division:

According to the available evidence, nearly 40 al Qaeda were directly involved in the assault on Reaper's position (they believed the team on the roof comprised nearly a dozen American soldiers). During the firefight, which lasted less than ten total minutes, Corriveau and Moser had killed at least ten enemy fighters -- possibly as many as fifteen -- and had not only kept themselves alive, but, against all odds, had prevented al Qaeda from succeeding in their real goal: to kidnap the soldiers on the rooftop, and to make a public spectacle of their imprisonment and murder, just two weeks before General Petraeus's internationally viewed testimony on Iraq before the U.S. Congress. The suspicion that kidnapping was the fighters' intent was confirmed by a final piece of intelligence that Charlie Company received just after the incident: an announcement, crafted by the Islamic State of Iraq (al Qaeda's Iraqi front), stating that nine U.S. soldiers had been kidnapped in Samarra, and had been beheaded and had their bodies thrown into Thar-Thar lake (to the southwest of the city).

Thanks to the strength, courage, discipline, and unwillingness to give up in the face of seemingly impossible odds of Chris Corriveau and Eric Moser, the ISI had spoken too soon. There would be no trophy, no public relations victory to thrust in the face of those in America and around the world whose attention would in the next few weeks be focused again on Iraq. Instead, there would only be death or capture, as the ISI members responsible were hunted down, one by one, by Captain Ferris and his company of very motivated, and exceptionally lethal, paratroopers who, as Corriveau and Moser had demonstrated during the fight of their lives on the rooftop that fateful morning, would never, ever give up, whatever the odds.

Our press would rather print nothing at all than let the easily led rubes in flyover country know that their troops are worthy of a great nation and will take second place to no other generation's troops:

Oh, if you turned to the inner pages of the "leading" newspapers, you found grudging mention of the fact that roadside-bomb attacks are down by half and indirect-fire attacks by three-quarters while the number of suicide bombings has plummeted.

Far fewer Iraqi civilians are dying at the hands of extremists. U.S. and Coalition casualty rates have fallen dramatically. The situation has changed so unmistakably and so swiftly that we should be reading proud headlines daily.

Where are they? Is it really so painful for all those war-porno journos to accept that our military - and the Iraqis - may have turned the situation around? Shouldn't we read and see and hear a bit of praise for today's soldiers and the progress they're making?

The media's new trick is to concentrate coverage on our wounded, mouthing platitudes while using military amputees as props to suggest that, no matter what happens in Iraq, everything's still a disaster.

Our enemies believe the Congress is our weak link. Their mistake was believing four American soldiers were just as easy a target.

You think we should retreat from Iraq and believe that nothing we could win is worth the price?

Go tell the All-Americans. But what do I know? I'm one of the Stupid Americans.

Drafting Your Computer

I've written recently about a silicon militia:

Why can't our government recruit bots from willing Americans to be ready to wage our own cyber war? Remember how you could enlist your computer to harness distributed computing power to help analyze SETI data with the SETI-AT-home project?

And how the jihadis tried this idea and failed.

Apparently, some are bouncing around the idea to give the government the legal authorization to seize CPUs in wartime for military botnets to wage cyber war:

Military users of botnets are very quiet about their work, because turning a PC into a zombie, without the permission of the user, is a crime. There has been some quiet talk, in democracies, of passing laws allowing the military to infect lots of computers, and form botherds, in the event of a national emergency. Police states, like China, don't worry so much about laws. Intelligence agencies are developing contacts in the Internet criminal underground, to make arrangements for renting existing botnets in wartime.

I'd still like to try the volunteer route. Though I admit that if only poor Windows 95 computers with few options in the civilian workplace dominate such a volunteer silicon miltia, I'd be willing to consider a draft to make sure that even Macs go to war.

Oops. He Did It Again

Iran insists it is pursuing nuclear technology regardless of the economic consequences because they really need clean, nuclear-generated electricity.

So this is a bit awkward for Tehran and all those who believe Iran only wants clean, nuclear-generated electricity:

Iran has met a key demand of the U.N. nuclear agency, handing over long-sought blueprints showing how to mold uranium metal into the shape of warheads, diplomats said Tuesday. ...

The agency has been seeking possession of the blueprints since 2005, when it stumbled upon them among a batch of other documents during its examination of suspect Iranian nuclear activities. While agency inspectors had been allowed to examine them in the country, Tehran had up to now refused to let the IAEA have a copy for closer perusal. ...

Iran maintains it was given the papers without asking for them during its black market purchases of nuclear equipment decades ago that now serve as the backbone of its program to enrich uranium — a process that can generate both power or create the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

Yeah, those "buy one enrichment equipment package and get one nuclear warhead blueprint free" deals are pretty common in that part of the world.

I got one when I bought an iPod. Really, the paperwork to return the unwanted item is more hassle than its worth. Just stick it in the desk and forget about it, I say.

That would also explain the two-year delay in forking over the document. It just got shoved under the cyclotron extended warranty agreement. No conspiracy there.

I hate it when that happens.

The Old War

Russian belligerence is clear:

World headlines announce Le Carré-esque tales of irradiated expatriates, gunned-down journalists, and poisoned politicians, all of whom were guilty of the unforgivable crime of opposing Moscow. The bald-faced euphemism of Eastern dictatorship has returned in the form of Russia's post-millennial "managed democracy." Gas and oil pipelines have been made hostage to the pro-Russian sentiments of Caucasian peoples who rely on them stay warm in winter. A Baltic state and NATO ally has been subjected to a costly cyberwar, with at least a few soldiers of the invading army residing, according to their virtual signatures, in the fortified offices of the Kremlin. And Vladimir Putin, the KGB Tsar who has presided over all these episodes of intimidation and repression--and likely plans, as prime minister, to preside over many more--happily finances a Middle Eastern theocracy's "peaceful" wish to explore the varied uses of the atom. Yet it's soft brinkmanship when the U.S. announces plans to construct a defensive missile shield on European soil.

The question is whether this hostility means Russia is returning to the Cold War days to take up the fight that Soviet Russia abruptly dropped in 1991.

The September 2007 Naval Institute Proceedings included a disturbing article by Norman Friedman who asked it Putin was resurrecting the stab-in-the-back theory of post-World War I Germany to explain away their Cold War defeat and (not by design, but by effect) pave the way for round two to restore their glory.

Of course, today's Russia is an economic lightweight held up by high oil prices.

And Russia has a lot farther to march just to reach central Europe with NATO pushing east and even promising to incorporate Ukraine into the alliance.

Right now, the rherotic of Putin seems more designed to bolster domestic power. And Russian military power is virtually meaningless below the level of nuclear war and above the level of nuclear poisoning.

But that could change if the people of Russia are fed a diet of paranoia long enough.

Should there be an anschluss with Belorus on day, putting Russian forces on the border of Poland (and excepting their Kalingrad enclave), I think we would be well advised to update our European war plans.

Warnings not to prepare for the last war notwithstanding.

American Military Express

The Joint Economic Committee has released an analysis of the economic price of Long War since 2003. It is difficult to extract usable data from it since it apparently tries to obscure the costs of the "good" war in Afghanistan and flips between actual and projected costs.

Don't hold your breath waiting for this methodology on cost to be adopted for any other government spending.

But I digress.

Overall, the idea is we are charging up a storm on the war. With up to $3.5 trillion over 15 years out to 2017:

One war in Iraq: $607 billion.

One war in Afghanistan: $197 billion.

Increase oil prices, caring for our wounded, paying our troops, lost investments, and maintaining our military equipment: $700 billion.

Interest on debt: $220 billion.

Killing psychopathic jihadi monsters before they can attack us at home again: Priceless.

American Military Express.

Don't leave home without it!

People, our GDP is nearly $14 trillion. Extend this out to whatever year you want for total national income to compare it to the price this JEC committee uses. Is even $3.5 trillion that much of a defense burden for an economy that will generate over $200 trillion in GDP over that time?

I dare say this is an affordable price. This all part of the anti-war side's Plan B.

Even if you accept the shaky foundations of this study, if we can't afford the price of defending ourselves, why do we have a government? Stick to Plan A. Win this war.

UPDATE: Cue the partisan hack. E. J. Dionne picks up the storyline:

It's time that we subject the Iraq war to the same cost-benefit analysis that we are called upon to impose on other government endeavors. We are supposed to repeal or revise domestic programs that don't work. Shouldn't a troubled war policy be treated the same way?

The only trouble--from his point of view--is that we are winning. The idea that President Bush could get credit for liberating 25 million Iraqis is too high a price to pay for a victory in Iraq.

Shrinkage

Are our troops dying for a corrupt Iraqi government?

On the surface, this seems like a fair question:

Two truths have emerged from Iraq in recent months. First, corruption is so pervasive in Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government that political progress in Iraq may be impossible. Second, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and our embassy in Baghdad are inexplicably neglecting this corrosive threat.

Confronting these facts is difficult. Nearly 4,000 American soldiers have been killed and another 28,000 wounded in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. No one wants to believe that these sacrifices were made to establish and support a regime riddled with fraud and graft. But as President Bush asks for an additional $153 billion for the war, we can't shrink from this reality.

Yes, we must address this issue. Establishing rule of law is critical for the long run in Iraq. I've long held that we'd have to face the task of fighting corruption one day when the insurgencies were beaten down. It is clearly a vital task at the appropriate time, but one that always had to take a back seat to killing and defeating terrorists and insurgents. We do not get any credit if jihadis, Sadrists, or Baathists kill honest rulers and take control of Iraq. There are no "style" points in war. You win or lose.

Our troops have fought and died to end the threat of Saddam's Iraq, destroy an attempt by al Qaeda to conquer Iraq, stifle Iran's imperial ambitions, and build a democratic Iraq that will demonstrate a third way between autocracy and mullah rule in the Arab Moslem world.

The only reason that corruption can be the focus of Congressional hearings is that our actual armed enemies in Iraq are shrinking in importance as obstacles to victory.

But in the reality of our current Congress, a third-tier Iraqi corruption problem (which reflects the entire Arab world and is not unique to Iraq) is being offered as the latest excuse to give up and run away from Iraq.

For God's sake, people, grow a friggin' pair.

Freeing the Hostages

American forces will soon (in five years) be safely away from the DMZ in South Korea as the South Koreans take responsibility for defending themselves from North Korea (and good thing Seoul time was slower than Washington time in this case).

We will move a large base housing our major headquarters from Seoul to a location further south:

About 28,000 U.S. troops are now based in South Korea. The number will drop to 25,000 by the end of 2008 as the troops' main role shifts to offering the South's military aerial and naval support to deter any aggression by the North.

The new facility at Pyeongtaek will be home to 17,000 of the remaining troops, along with attached South Korean military, support staff and families for a total 43,000 people.

The U.S. has already begun consolidating its bases and moving away from the heavily armed Demilitarized Zone that divides the North and South.

One thing that stays our hand when contemplating military action against North Korean nuclear facilities is that the North Koreans could kill many Americans just by shelling our troops near the DMZ.

With our forces too far away for such an easy retalitation option, we will have a more credible military threat should North Korea cheat on their nuclear disarmament agreement now being hammered out.

Pursuing the PKK

The Turks have been threatening to strike northern Iraq to get at PKK terrorists seeking sanctuary there.

Indeed, the Turks just struck with a helicopter air strike:

Turkish helicopter gunships attacked abandoned villages inside Iraq on Tuesday, Iraqi officials said, the first such airstrike since border tensions have escalated in recent months.

But there might not be many PKK in Iraq to hit:

Thousands of PKK Kurdish rebels are leaving northern Iraq and crossing into Iran, where they will hide from a threatened Turkish invasion.

Given that Iran has already set the ground rules by striking into Iraq to hit Iran's Kurdish rebels, could Turkish troops go east rather than south?

And would that destabilize Tehran as much as some worry a Turkish attack could destabilize Iraq?

They'll Make it Up in DVD Sales in Waziristan

Our public has not been eager to see anti-war movies preaching that American troops are evil.

Apparently our enemies aren't evil enough, according to one man, who presumably parrots what he hears in his social circle.

But the film people know why:

The wave of recent films set against the backdrop of war in Iraq and post-9/11 security has failed to win over film-goers keen to escape grim news headlines when they go to the movies, analysts say.

Well, the headlines aren't quite so grim anymore.

But more to the point, perhaps this analysis reveals a whole lot about the differences between our Hollywood culture and our national culture.

Hollywood sees grim headlines about violent death in Iraq (and there have been many in the last 4-1/2 years) and blames the violence on American troops.

Our public perhaps understands better that our enemies are the ones who either deliberately kill civilians in gruesome fashions or fight amongst civilians. That is, the enemy is to blame for the violence. Should we lose in Iraq, the enemy would continue killing innocents. When we win, innocents in Iraq will not be killed.

Or perhaps our Hollywood elites understand our campaign finance laws pretty darned well. Maybe making films that portray America or American troops as evil are just a giant in-kind contribution to convincing the rubes not to voter for people who admire American military personnel. We may be missing the point when we chortle over their box office flops.

UPDATE: If a filmmaker wants a good movie on the Iraq War, I suggest the epic defense of Objective Curly in April 2003 (from the June 6th entry):

The desperate fighting to secure the supply line of 3rd ID as it drove into Baghdad to end the war was touch and go. (See "Baghdad: The Crossroads" in the June Army) Outnumbered and in danger of running out of fuel and ammo themselves, the troops defending Objective Curly fought a Roarke's Drift-like battle without the benefit of field fortifications. Their long stand and ultimate victory despite being surrounded and outnumbered by fanatical attackers who tried small arms, RPGs, and even car bombs to win is a rebuke to those who said (once the war was won—before they said we'd face a bloodbath) that of course we would win, defeating Iraq was beneath us.

TF 3-15’s job was to secure the avenue of attack and main line of communication from the south along Highway 8, by holding three key intersections -- Objectives Moe, Larry and Curly. The most southern, Curly, was considered the least defended and dangerous of the three, so it was given to TF 3-15 headquarters elements augmented by one mechanized platoon from Company B, 3-15 Infantry. Company B, 4-64 Armor was given Objective Larry, and Company A, 3-15 Infantry was given Objective Moe. (The remainder of Company B, 3-15 Infantry, had the initial mission to secure the 2nd BCT’s rear that day, but another of its platoons would reinforce Objective Curly when the outcome teetered in the balance.)

Lt. Col. Stephen Twitty, the TF 3-15 commander, in a radio call to all elements as they lined up on the highway said, "They know we’re coming. We’ve been probing, clearing mines, and we just shot MLRS (multiple-launch rocket system) rockets. They definitely know we’re coming." They did. Throughout that day, TF 3-15 would be engaged in some of the most intense close-combat fighting of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

That would make a fine movie.

Yes Indeed, And Then What?

I've thought for several years now that President Bush is determined to end the Iranian threat before he leaves office.

But efforts to build up Arab Gulf states and our missile defenses planned for Eastern Europe seem to argue that we will instead try to deter an Iran armed with atomic weapons.

Some here are pleased with this change. Others simply don't think it is possible to end the Iranian nuclear threat with an attack:

David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector, and his colleague Jacqueline Shire conclude that “a military attack is not an option”, even for the US. They say that even if Iran’s known nuclear sites were bombed, nuclear knowhow, components and fuel could be preserved or replicated – and Tehran would be all the more set on developing the bomb. “In such a case, the United States would likely be forced to launch and sustain a long, costly war against Iran,” they write.

It is quite true that we can't know for sure if we've hit everything. I've said as much myself. Indeed, crucial parts of Iran's nuclear program might not even be in Iran.

Once struck, the mullah regime must then be destroyed. So a narrowly focused surgical strike must be ruled out. But wrecking Iran's nuclear program and regime support elements only buys us time to later achieve the goal of changing the regime. I'd rather do regime change instead, or regime change while striking the nuclear programs, but I'd settle for buying time.

I'd also ask the question "then what?" of the option of letting Iran under the mullahs go nuclear.

Would we really be able to rely on deterrence to stay Iran's nuckear hand? Would the Iranians be even more free to sponsor terror behind a nuclear shield? Does a nuclear-armed Iran get a pass for terrror attacks using poision gas? Then what?

And what if Iran uses a nuke? Then what?

What if Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia seek nukes in self defense? Then what?

Of course, the very threats that we vaguely make that Iranians strongly believe might be straining the people of Iran to the breaking point:

Months of propaganda inside Iran, predicting a U.S. attack on Iran (to stop the nuclear weapons program Iran insists it has not got), have had the unintended effect of causing widespread anxiety about such a military operation. For their part, American leaders see little or no benefit in bombing Iran. This news is not widely reported in Iran. But more and more Iranians worry about the consequences of such an attack.

If the Iranian government gets paranoid enough, it might start to do really counter-productive things that drive a worried population or military to overthrow the regime.

The Surge Is Not Ending

The first American forces are pulling out of Iraq to reverse the addition of 5 brigades of troops begun in the early part of the year:

The current total of 20 combat brigades is shrinking to 19 as the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, operating in volatile Diyala province, leaves. The U.S. command in Baghdad announced on Saturday that the brigade had begun heading home to Fort Hood, Texas, and that its battle space will be taken by another brigade already operating in Iraq.

The troops were not the surge. As I and many other observers have noted (but the press seems resistant to understanding), the key was the new approach that did not rely on Iraqi forces to hold the gains we made:

U.S. commanders assert that it is not just the larger number of U.S. troops that has made a difference but also the way those troops operate — closer to the Iraqi population now rather than from big, isolated U.S. bases. Living among the Iraqis, they say, allows for a building of greater trust.

The Iraqi forces will have had more than a year to grow larger and gain experience to help with the holding and eventually take over that role:

Brig. Gen. Stephen Gledhill, the second-in-command for training Iraqi forces, says he is confident that conditions have improved to the point where the Iraqis are capable of filling any U.S. gaps.

"Our answer is that they not only will be able to — they already are, and will continue to do so as they gain experience, capabilities and capacity, and not only here in Baghdad but all around the country," Gledhill said in an e-mail.

Just as important, our surge has perhaps crippled the enemy enough to allow the Iraqi forces to hold:

Last month saw 369 "indirect fire" attacks — the lowest number since February 2006. October's total was half of what it was in the same month a year ago. And it marked the third month in a row of sharply reduced insurgent activity, the military said.

And even with only 15 US brigades, after knocking back the enemy this much, the same number of brigades as we had in January 2007 will be able to do far more when our numbers return to 15 brigades in July 2008. Remember, the way we use our forces is more imporant than the number.

We are winning. And the pace of winning has picked up considerably this fall.

Hot and Bothered

With their Nobel Peace Prize in hand, the IPCC is issuing another report.

And the top UN guy on climate change is on fire:

"Failing to recognize the urgency of this message and act on it would be nothing less that criminally irresponsible" and a direct attack on the world's poorest people, De Boer said.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is to attend the launch of the report, which will provide the factual underpinning for a crucial meeting next month in Bali, Indonesia.

A "crucial" meeting of a UN body? Please. These guys need to get over themselves.

Personally, I think the socialist, economy-killing, no-growth policies that global warmers want to impose on the world's advanced economies will do far more harm to the world's poor than any temperature rise could do.

Although I guess I'll have to be hauled before a Green Court for my criminally irresponsible refusal to believe in the religion of a fiery and wrathful Sun god that believes climate change began in the adminstration of Ronald Reagan.

I'm far more worried about the moon than I am about the Sun.

Americans In Deed

These are the type of people we need as new citizens:

Sixty U.S. service members from countries including Cuba, Ethiopia, the Philippines and Vietnam became American citizens on Monday during a ceremony in Afghanistan. ...

A day earlier, more than 150 American soldiers in Iraq were sworn in as U.S. citizens during a ceremony at the Balad Air Base in Balad, north of Baghdad.

Citizenship is not a requirement to join the U.S. military, but serving in the armed forces is a way to qualify for citizenship, said spokesman Maj. Chris Belcher.

There's a reason you don't earn American citizenship by working in an American newsroom or on the set of an American movie or television series.

I'm damn proud to call these new citizens Americans.

Frank, My Dear, I Don't Give a Damn

Frank Rich actually seems to believe he offers valuable commentary on international and national politics. He really is quite worthless in this role.

This is how Rich conclude his Veterans Day column in a piece that combines Musharraf and Mukasey with little to connect them in the real world but Rich's mental health issues:

We are a people in clinical depression. Americans know that the ideals that once set our nation apart from the world have been vandalized, and no matter which party they belong to, they do not see a restoration anytime soon.

Who's this "we", Kemosabe?

Why the Times readers should be held hostage while their film critic works through his personal mental health issues is beyond me.

That's all I have to say about his piece. Fisking it would be a waste of energy better spent reading TV Guide.

All I know for sure is that when the likes of Frank Rich are depressed about America, I'm giddy as can be.

UPDATE: Lileks comments:

If there’s one conviction that afflicts the keenest mind as it ages, it’s the belief that Things Were Better Then, and Things Are Horrible Now, usually because no one has learned the lessons of your own generation and insisted on experiencing the world for themselves. (Frank Rich provided a neat example of this a few days ago, when he diagnosed Americans as “clinically depressed” and unable to capture the glories of his demographic, which Took It To the Streets, Man. And blew up a few buildings while they were at it, but you can’t make an omelette without breaking into a farmer’s coop, stealing his chickens, setting fire to the coop and running off with the eggs, all of which you later misplaced because you were high.)

And this was just an offhand comment. He then goes on to really hammer Garrison Keillor.

Good times ... Good times ...

The Criminal Element

Iraq is apparently too complex for our press to understand.

Prime Minister al-Maliki says that terrorism is declining:

Al-Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, told reporters that "terrorist acts" including car bombings and suicide attacks have dropped by 77 percent from last year's high, a sign that Sunni-Shiite violence "is closed now."

"When the sectarian strife is over, then I will not fear the gangs who are running between the provinces," al-Maliki said, an apparent reference to al-Qaida and other Sunni religious extremists that have been driven from the capital. [Emphasis added]

"The majority of these terrorists are fleeing to nearby countries, and I warned our brothers in the Islamic and Arab countries to be aware in order that they not harm these countries," he said.

I don't know why AP offers their opinion that a reference to gangs means al Qaeda and Sunni insurgents. I assumed that when Maliki said "gangs" he was referring to actual criminal gangs.

You see, the criminal gangs are one part of the violence problem in Iraq. Their kidnappings, murders, and other crimes have simply merged with the overall political violence as viewed from the outside. With the government focused on the far more dangerous politically motivated violence, the criminal gangs have been able to go on their own crime spree that has added to the image of a violence-wracked society without much resistance from the authorities.

But with the insurgents and terrorists knocked back, the criminal gangs can now be addressed by the government. These guys are motivated by profit. So when the government can go after them, they will likely fold much faster than the terrorists and insurgents.

So thanks for that deep insight, Associated Press. Thank goodness for journalism majors.

UPDATE: Ok, let me retract his one. I misfired here. While I had been thinking about the next step of focusing on criminal gangs and the idiocy of our press corps in general, I was wrong on this charge of idiocy. The reporter, I am sure, was accurately describing Maliki's remarks as applying to the jihadis as the last paragraph indicates.

There really are criminal gangs in Iraq that must be dealt with. But this article was not about the criminal gangs despite my thinking about the topic at that moment. I apologize to the reporter (as if he ever read this to be offended in the first place, I admit).

Veterans and Future Veterans

Today is the day set aside to salute our veterans. Thank you all, from all our wars.

Yesterday was the Marine Corps' birthday. Happy birthday, jarheads. Ya done good.

During war, every day should be a day to reflect on the sacrifices our military personnel make to protect us.

Not Evil Enough?!

Anti-American Hollywood films are tanking (tip to Instapundit).

And one of our dimmer bulbs in Tinsel Town knows why viewers aren't going to see these movies:

Only veteran TV producer Steven Bochco comes remotely close to this point, when he observes that "World War II was hugely romanticized in terms of its fiction. There were unambiguous villains, and the feeling we were fighting the right people over the right issues, as opposed to this war, which many people feel is misguided."

Nazis, fascists, and militarists were unambiguous villains. Ok, I buy that. And "we" who were fighting these villains included the equally villainous Soviet Union.

But in the Iraq War we are not fighting unambiguous villains?

Let's see.

Baathists: Mass graves of victims, use of poison gas on Iranians and Kurds, plastic shredders for people, rape as a weapon, attempted extermination of Marsh Arabs by literally draining their swamp. These guys were so bad that international human rights groups had to officially take notice.

Al Qaeda: The authors of 9/11 sent their leaders to Iraq to organize some good Shia hunting and the killing of more Americans. They hate Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Americans, Shias, gays, free women, freedom of speech, Shias, and 98% of Sunni Moslems. They enjoy beheading enemies and suicide bombings, especially. For a while, they liked using chlorine bombs on Sunni Arabs who dared break with them.

Sunni Arab jihadis: Locals who could get into the whole Shia-killing and head-lopping programs and agree with the other basic hatreds of al Qaeda even though they weren't part of al Qaeda Prime in 2001.

Sunni Arabs: They supported all the Baathist killing and believe they deserve to rule and exploit the scum Shia, as they've done for centuries.

Shia death squads supported by Iran: They enjoyed going out at night and killing Sunnis by shooting them in the head. Their Iranian sponsors should get their own heading, and distinguish themselves as being at war with us since they took our embassy and continuing with bombings against us in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Killing Jews from Argentina to Gaza and Lebanon is also part of their mission.

Excuse me for noticing this, but these bastards are darn near comic book-level evil villains.

What would it take for Bochco to think these scum are unambiguously villains? What it would it take for his colleagues to stop romanticizing our fictionalized enemies in their stories?

And we've freed these people, for Pete's sake! Giving them a chance for a future and freedom? Yeah, those are suspicious goals, Steve.

Hey, maybe Bochco is suffering from the writers' strike and was just winging it on his own.

That would explain a lot. Misguided, indeed.

UPDATE: And no post on how some of our own citizens see the enemy as the good guys and our troops as the bad guys would be complete without a slam on our media:

As Bing West has observed, “there will be no true glory for our soldiers in Iraq until they are recognized not as victims, but as aggressive warriors. Stories of their bravery deserve to be recorded and read by the next generation. Unsung, the noblest deeds will die.” On this Veterans Day, media folk predisposed to believe the worst about the American fighting man when the evidence is so clearly in his favor need to get out and meet a few more.

Our troops are fighting--and defeating--enemies who are as evil as you can get without a script. And our media empires still don't have a clue about who the bad guys are.

We Are Not Amused

At a summit of Spanish and Portugese speaking nations:

Axis of El Vil El Maximo Supremo Leader Hugo Chavez: [Spanish Prime Minister] Aznar, a conservative who was an ally of Bush as prime minister, "is a fascist," Chavez said in a speech at the Ibero-American summit in Santiago, Chile. "Fascists are not human. A snake is more human."

Current Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero: "Former President Aznar was democratically elected by the Spanish people and was a legitimate representative of the Spanish people," he said, eliciting applause from the gathered heads of state.

Axis of El Vil El Maximo Supremo Leader Hugo Chavez: Chavez repeatedly tried to interrupt, but his microphone was off.

Spanish King Juan Carlos: "Why don't you shut up?"

A bit later:

Axis of El Vil El Maximo Supremo Leader Hugo Chavez: "I do not offend by telling the truth," he said. "The Venezuelan government reserves the right to respond to any aggression, anywhere, in any space and in any manner."

Yes, those brutal Spanish are certainly aggressive toward Hugo. Hugo's bravery is truly awe inspiring.

Hugo is a complete nut who will wreck Venezuela if he manages to get his foolish followers to give him the post for life. Chavez's crackpot economic theories make even standard socialism look good.

When the Venezuelan people finally realize that Hugo's "21st Century Socialism" simply means 19th century socialism with 21st century oil prices to mask the complete and total idiocy of his theory, they'll notice they have a jihadi-loving buffoon for a president.

The Separation of Church and Hate

Ultimately, Moslems in America need to submit to our norms and requirements.

Orson Scott Card makes an excellent point about our absurd toleration of the intolerable when it comes to Islam's more outrageous beliefs (and I assure you he will get irate hate mail from San Francisco on this one):

It is time for Islam to join the civilized world -- the world where people can preach for and believe in and join with, argue against and doubt and quit any religion they want. Freedom of religion is a recent and hard-won concept, so it would be absurd to criticize Islam for being a few hundred years behind the West on this issue.

However, the time has come, with people committing barbaric crimes around the world in the name of the Muslim right-to-kill doctrine, for the peaceful majority of Muslims to commit to their opposition to that doctrine -- and to organize themselves so that they can excommunicate (disqualify as Muslims) any Muslim who does not reject that teaching.

Up to now, the only way that Muslims could kick a Muslim out of the Muslim faith was to kill him. It's time for them to set up an authoritative mechanism to allows them to excommunicate those who make all Muslims look barbaric.

Then, when Muslims themselves are able to excommunicate the barbarians and forbid them to call themselves legitimate Muslims, the religion of Islam can be accepted and trusted as another civilized religion, worthy of the protections of the Constitution.

Meanwhile, however, it is time for is to stop extending the protection of the Constitution to those who, under the guise of religion, are actively promoting the right to deprive Americans of their civil rights -- including the right to continue breathing.

Quite true. Our anti-religion Left seems to have a bizarre tolerance for one religion's crimes, excusing them out of cultural sensitivity and probably a good dose of guilt over our imaginary crimes (as if even actual Western crimes would somehow excuse the anti-Gay, anti-freedom, and anti-women actions of the jihadi faithful).

This strikes me as the equivalent of the British actions against Hindu practices that ran counter to their rule of law, as related by Mark Steyn:

You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.

Of course, we'd probably have to replace "tie a rope around their necks and we hang them" with "provide them with an attorney and tie up the courts for a decade until we put them in a comfy prison for life until the ACLU gets the lads out on a tecnnicality". That isn't nearly as impressive, I suppose.

But it would be helpful to deny religious status for the purposes of our tax laws to mosques that preach the killing of ex-Moslems or other violent actions. It would help if our feminists would work up the same outrage over Islam's anti-women tenets as they do over stray comments by Harvard University presidents. My fear is that our society won't stand up for this battle.

My hope is that American Moslems will eventually fight this battle on their own. I see in my own town Moslem women driving minivans. This is something that the Wahhabis would consider a stoning offense--for both the woman and the husband who allowed his wife to drive.

Perhaps based on an accumulation of such ordinary actions, our Moslems will in time formally renounce the vision of a desert-based, expansionist, cruel, and rigid Islam and forge a new American Islam compatible with suburban living that really will coexist in peace with other religions.