Green Light?

Did President Obama give what was perceived by the rulers in Tehran as a green light to butcher election protesters (Tip to Weekly Standard)?

One Iranian political figure has told a Western intermediary that the Obama administration may have unwittingly encouraged the regime's power grab by sending two letters to Khamenei before the June election. The first, delivered through Iran's mission to the United Nations, was a general invitation to dialogue. Khamenei is said to have taken a month to answer, and then only in vague terms. A second Obama administration letter reiterated U.S. interest in engagement. According to the Iranian political figure, this may have emboldened Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to think they had a free hand on June 12.

It's just speculation, but as our president has lectured, words have meaning. What meaning did the Iranians read into our president's words?

Send in the Lawyers

Abhkazia's ports legally aren't supposed to be used for trade that Georgia doesn't approve, notwithstanding Russia's forcible incorporation of that region and South Ossetia after invading Georgia last year.

But Georgia is making a mistake using force to interrupt the trade:

Rising tensions between Russia and Georgia over shipping rights to a breakaway Georgian region have opened a potential new theater for conflict between the countries, a little more than a year after they went to war.

Georgia’s coast guard has commandeered five merchant vessels from various countries this year for violating Georgian laws on shipping to a Black Sea port in Abkhazia, the breakaway region.

Last week, a Georgian court sentenced the captain of a Turkish cargo ship to 24 years in prison for border violations, though he was quickly released at Turkey’s behest.

The Georgians are playing with fire. They aren't ready to resist another Russian invasion and we aren't about to go to war over something that escalates from this issue.

Georgia needs to raise the cost of Russia using Buket by filing court cases against companies and their home countries for damages, and not by putting their tiny coast guard in harm's way.

We need to make the Georgians understand that getting their lost regions back has got to be a long-term goal and not something they try to achieve now at the risk of war.

Quite honestly, the regions aren't worth a single Georgian grenadier. If Georgia focuses on building up their fortunes, one day the Georgians will probably be the one's refusing the requests of two backward parts of Russia for entry into EU and NATO member Georgia.

Why We Fight

I'm sorry, but the whiners who complain we're still fighting 8 years after we were attacked on 9/11 need a big hit with the reality stick:

Source: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blogphotos/Blog_911_Statue_Liberty.jpg

We were brutally attacked that day eight years ago .

Don't forget we were hit many times before, though we didn't really feel those hits enough to really respond. Since our enemies have been killing us for far longer than 8 years, what kind of chance do you think there is that they'll stop trying to kill us if we pull back to our shores?

Today I remember that we are at war. And I remember that I'm still furious at the bastards who did this. And I know that there are more of those lunatics out there ready to kill whoever is handy--whether American or Moslem. So today I give thinks that we have outstanding men and women out there every day at the sharp end of the spear fighting our jihadi enemies.

And I want to win the war we are fighting. And more than that, we need to win.

UPDATE: Peters has a stick handy. Truly, we fight Islamo-fascism on inertia only--killing our enemies in campaigns that started before we forgot 9/11 and started granting rights to our terrorist enemies and reaching out to the thug states that support them. We want the war to be over, and so try to pretend it is over.

Our enemies do not suffer from such idiocy. Whatever else we can say about their depravity, they never forget that they want to kill lots of us and even destroy and conquer us, as insane as that seems to our ears.

New York City has not experienced the nightmare vision of urban terrorism turning the city into a fortress that so many assumed was the city's future. Yet this success, too, may yet falter as the inertia that propels our efforts to defeat the jihadis peters out.

But inertia will carry us a little farther, because our troops have not forgotten why they fight:

It's nearly eight years since U.S. forces invaded to oust the Taliban and hunt for al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, who remains at large. Now soldiers like Applegate are fighting a war that is shifting its focus amid waning public support.

Many troops called Friday's anniversary a galvanizing event, and said marking the day reminds them that the U.S. mission here is important.

"It's still one of the reasons why we're here. Sept. 11 is part of it. For those of us who see the repercussions of fighting, it's still there every day," said Air Force Capt. Christopher Dupuis, 26, of Lacey, Washington.

God love them. Even when our civilian leaders forget why we fight, our troops carry on, motivated to do their duty and kill our enemies. They still know why we fight.

UPDATE: Related thoughts from the next day.

Support the Process and Not the Man

Some concrete results are taking place after accusations of voter fraud in Afghanistan's presidential election:

The commission investigating reports of vote fraud in Afghanistan's presidential election is invalidating the ballots from polling stations in two provinces.

The U.N.-backed Electoral Complaints Commission announced Thursday that it is excluding votes from 32 polling stations in Ghazni and Paktika provinces.

In a statement explaining its decision, the ECC cited "clear and convincing evidence of fraud," including unfolded ballots, uniformity of markings and lists of voters with fictitious card numbers.

The commission has also ordered recounts for ballots from some polling locations.

I don't understand why some think that we face a dilemma over the voter fraud in Afghanistan.

We should support the process no matter who gets burned. If Karzai is implicated in voter fraud, let Afghan law deal with him.

In a perfect world, tossing out votes puts Karzai below 50% and gives Afghans essentially a do-over to rethink their choice. And we'll know where to put more resources to monitor the next round of voting.

Heck, if Karzai is dirty and insists on staying in office, maybe it will be a blessing in disguise if we send aid to the provinces instead of funneling it through his corrupt government.

Not that the locals are less corrupt, but we can at least cut out the middleman's cut in our aid and have the corrupt people beholden to us and not Karzai.

The Precious Gift of Time

We keep giving Iran's mullahs the precious gift of time (and yes, this criticism applies to Bush, who I counted on to remove the Iranian problem despite the shrill harping of the loyal opposition back then):

Obama's diplomacy has already offered the Islamic Republic eight months free of international pressures and new sanctions. The day Obama was sworn in as president, it was operating 3,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. By last week, that number had reached 7,500.

The breathing space has also enabled Tehran to embark on massive imports of gasoline to forestall moves to deprive Iran of some 40 percent of its daily needs. According to Ahmad Tavakkoli, a member of Iran's ersatz parliament, Tehran has tripled its gasoline imports, raising the strategic reserves from three months to six.

A year or two of talks with Obama would give Iran enough time to complete its huge program of building new refineries with help from China, India, Russia, Austria and Brazil. That would remove the regime's fear of facing gasoline shortages provoked by sanctions. Ahmadinejad claims that, by 2011, Iran will be a net exporter of refined petroleum products.

Iran also needs another year or two to achieve "surge capacity" -- that is, to have all the technical and industrial means to build a nuclear-weapons arsenal.

Taheri writes that the only question now is whether the Iranians pretend that they aren't winning or decide to rub our nose in our defeat over their nuclear programs.

I think the Iranian nutballs are needlessly wasting energy. Our Left will spin whatever Iran does as proof of the powers of smart diplomacy. I'm sure roger Cohen and Tom Friedman will be right on the case.

A Dangerous Buffoon

Hugo Chavez needs to be promoted up from his clown status as head of the Axis of El Vil to full Axis of Evil member:

In a speech at The Brookings Institution, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau said investigations by his office show Iran is using Venezuela's established banking network to skirt international sanctions and acquire the materials needed for its nuclear program.

And get this:

At the same time, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez wants to build a "nuclear village" in Venezuela with Iran's help, according to Morgenthau, who said such a development would be a "destabilizing force" in Latin America.

And note as well:

Morgenthau said Iranian-owned and operated factories have sprung up in remote and undeveloped areas of Venezuela. While there's little known about what's going on inside these plants, "we should be concerned that illegal activity might be taking place," he said.

A lovely man. I will not cry at his funeral.

Cheap and Clean Explosives-Based Electricity?

I'm sure that this is just a minor bump in the road as the Iranians attempt to unclench that fist and reach out to us in peace:

The discovery of a weapons cache in western Afghanistan has raised concerns that Iran is interfering in the war-torn country, much like it did in Iraq, by supplying weapons used to attack and kill U.S. and coalition troops, U.S. officials tell FOX News.

Afghan and NATO forces uncovered the weapons cache on Aug. 29 in Herat. It included a small number of Iranian-made "explosively formed penetrators," hyper-powerful roadside bombs similar to the weapons used to kill U.S. forces in Iraq, a senior U.S. Defense Official told FOX News.

Also seized during the raid were 107 Iranian-made BM-1 rockets and dozens of blocks of Iranian C4 plastic explosives.

I eagerly await the explanation for the peaceful uses of these items.

Sometimes it seems like the recipients of our smart diplomacy just don't appreciate the nuance of it all.

So You're On Your Own, Then?

The Taliban kidnapped two journalists in Afghanistan and held them around presumably innocent civilians. Unfortunately, the British soldiers who mounted a rescue mission failed to shoot the Kalashnikovs out of the enemies' hands with single shots.

So naturally, some are upset at the British and not the Taliban:

Criticism mounted on Thursday of the dramatic airborne rescue from Taliban territory of a kidnapped Western journalist who walked free as four others, including his Afghan colleague, were killed.

Negotiators were deep in talks with the Taliban to free New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell and appeared to be progressing well when British commandos intervened with the rescue operation, a source told AFP.

Farrell, who has dual British-Irish nationality, was freed unharmed, but his Afghan colleague, father-of-two Sultan Munadi, as well as a British soldier and an Afghan woman and child were killed.

In Afghanistan, journalists expressed anger over the death of Munadi, saying it was "inhumane" that his bullet-riddled body had been abandoned at the scene.

I'm sure the jihadi kidnappers were honorably negotiating and anybody who doubts their good hearts is a monster.

I'm sorry the Afghan journalist died, as I am about the British soldier and even the Afghan civilians.

But blaming the British is not the way to go. Had the hostages been relocated into the hills, I'm sure nobody would be attacking the British for failing to strike while the hostages were in reach, right?

Be grateful we got out one journalist and no money--that would purchase lots of dead innocents as victims of Taliban violence--went to the enemy.

The British can surely learn lessons by reviewing their mission--but that's a matter of learning from the fortunes of war and not a basis for blaming the British for trying to save the victims of the Taliban.

Stupid, Simplistic Dissidents!

Senator Webb's foray into diplomacy with Burma was obviously idiocy on ice (which of course means it makes perfect sense to our State Department).

And now Burma's best known dissident and the opposition want us to know that our diplomacy is idiocy on ice:

The left may be content to see the Obama administration pursue a policy of engagement with America's enemies, but we are now starting to see the consequences of such policies as a former political prisoner and democratic activist is forced to take to the op-ed page to insist that he "will not be cowed or coerced into participating in a fatally flawed political process that robs [us] of the freedom for which we struggle."

Stupid dissidents! How simplisme can you get? I mean, really.

I'm sure our State Department is even now writing up reports on how these Burmese dissidents lack the nuance to understand that our support would taint them.

Best all around to engage the Burmese junta with smart diplomacy and let the dissidents and opposition maintain their untainted image under the heel of the misguided government until hope and change really kicks into high gear.

No Hope and No Change

Thomas Friedman continues to be a twit.

He will likely always be a twit. Even if the enlightened dictatorship of his wet dreams takes away his palatial estate to save the planet.

/NOTHING FOLLOWS/

UPDATE: OK, one thing follows. Mad Minerva has a nice rant on the King of the Doofi (which, as anybody as sophisticated as Thomas Friedman knows, is the Latin plural for Doofus).

UPDATE: OK, any discussion of Friedman's proposed Great Leap Greenward must include Steyn.

Paying the Price

I wrote that we'd pay the price for restricting our firepower in Afghanistan. We are hobbled in battle.

Here's part of the price:

Sniper rounds snapped off rocks and sizzled overhead. Explosions of recoilless rifle rounds echoed through the valley, while bullets inched closer to the rock wall behind which I crouched with a handful U.S. and Afghan officers.

Lt. Fabayo and several other soldiers later said they'd seen women and children in the village shuttling ammunition to fighters positioned in windows and roofs. Across the valley and from their ridgeline outposts, the Afghans and Americans fired back.

At 5:50 a.m. , Army Capt. Will Swenson , of Seattle, WA , the trainer of the Afghan Border Police unit in Shakani, began calling for air support or artillery fire from a unit of the Army's 10th Mountain Division . The responses came back: No helicopters were available.

"This is unbelievable. We have a platoon (of Afghan army) out there and we've got no Hotel Echo ," Swenson shouted above the din of gunfire, using the military acronym for high explosive artillery shells. "We're pinned down."

Four of our Marines died there. Note how the enemy "civilians"--even children--supported the enemy. Yet they were off limits as targets and shielded the shooters.

Still, short-term losses like this are necessary in a counter-insurgency. We aim to win the war--not all of the battles. We need leaders and troops well trained and disciplined enough to understand the trade off we need to make to win the war.

This doesn't mean that we can't learn from losses like this to adjust our rules for using firepower or adapt our tactics to counter the enemy's exploitation of our rules of engagement.

But it is frustrating. And deadly for our troops. I can only hope that in the long run their sacrifice saves others who won't be shot at by an Afghan who isn't made angry by too much firepower.

Good Will and Two Bits

I guess I'll give the president credit for this development:

Among those polled in the European Union and Turkey, about three-fourths, on average, said they supported Obama's handling of foreign policy compared with about a fifth who said the same for Bush last year, according to the survey. It was conducted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a nonpartisan policy institution that promotes trans-Atlantic cooperation, and the Compagnia di San Paolo, a research center in Turin, Italy.

The results were especially pronounced in Germany, where support shot up 80 percentage points to 92 percent, and in France, where it rose 77 percentage points to 88 percent.

But given the idea amongst the global Left that President Bush's war efforts were mainly responsible for our bad image, just what has changed in our foreign policy to affect those views? We still have lots of troops in Iraq. They aren't fighting, grant you, but we won. We are escalating the fight in Afghanistan. And many other Bush policies on fighting terrorism are continued virtually unchanged. Are the so-called nuanced Europeans so dense that mere presentation soothes them?

But more importantly, are the Europeans more willing to fight with us now that they have a far more positive view of us?

The answer is clearly "no." And I don't know how much longer our European friends will stick with us in Afghanistan--their new starry-eyed views of us notwithstanding.

As I long argued, Europe's lack of cooperation had nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with the Europeans themselves. Bush was just their excuse. We shall see who they blame now for their lack of commitment.

When You Can't Kill the Ones You Hate

On the eve of another 9/11 anniversary, let's re-examine the whole "why do they hate us" question from that day we were attacked. The case is Thailand, where terrorism is up despite the success of the Thais in protecting the non-Moslems of the south where the jihadis operate:

In response, the terrorists are using more bombs, and more attacks on Moslem southerners (who are not guarded as heavily as the 20 percent of southerners who are not Moslem.)

There you go. More bombs and, of course, hate the ones you can kill if the people you hate are too difficult to kill.

So are Thailand's Moslems wailing and rending their garments trying to figure out why the jihadis hate them, assuming the victims must have done something to anger the bombers?

Mission Creep

Mohamed ElBaradei is on his way out as the head of the IAEA. And I'd like to be the first to advise him not to let the door hit him in the butt on the way out.

While formally in charge of ensuring that Iran doesn't develop nuclear weapons, ElBaradei seemed more interested in keeping evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons development from reaching the West. His personal mission certainly seems to have evolved from the stated mission on paper.

The man seems consistent to the end:

This is Mohamed ElBaradei’s last year addressing the annual conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

He will not be universally missed. Long chided for being soft on Iran, he goes into this year’s conference amid a diplomatic storm over whether he has deliberately hidden evidence of Iran’s work on a nuclear bomb.

France and Israel have led the charge against Dr ElBaradei, saying that his latest report on Iran’s nuclear programme omitted evidence that the agency had been given about an alleged covert weaponisation plan.

If the UN didn't exist, our enemies would have to invent it. I fear that ElBaradei was only too successful in his quest.

What Hell will result from his actions?

Germans Unclear on the Concept

Germans are uncomfortable with their limited role in the Afghanistan campaign. Why?

According to recent polls, the majority of Germans are opposed to the Afghan mission and want their troops to be sent home. Scarred by the legacy of World War II, most Germans are skeptical of the increasingly offensive role their country's forces are taking in Afghanistan, and Merkel's government has been criticized for failing to explain to voters the purpose of Germany's Afghan mission.

Huh.

Let me get this straight, the German people think that their experience rampaging across Europe under a genocidal tyrant trying to conquer and hold the continent from 1939 to 1945 is a legitimate reason to be wary of fighting bloodthirsty jihadis in Afghanistan as part of the greatest democratic military alliance ever constructed?

Huh.

Just what are German children taught in school?

Deadly Threats?

This news is interesting:

Israeli officials say there is a "strong possibility" that the United States will leave missile defense systems in the Jewish state after a joint missile defense exercise planned for October is concluded, according to The Jerusalem Post.

The U.S. missiles, part of the Ballistic Defense Program, would almost certainly remain under U.S. control, but it was not clear whether they would participate in defending Israel against Iranian missiles.

The report indicated that the Americans may deploy the missiles in Israel rather than in the Czech Republic and Poland as planned, in deference to Russia's vehement objections to having U.S. missile systems so close to its border.

So what does this tell us that our administration believes?

One, that Iran really does pose a potential nuclear threat notwithstanding Ahmadinejad's protests that they just want cheap and clean nuclear energy.

And two, the Russians are right to believe our proposed missile defense in eastern European NATO countries is a threat to Russia.

It may also tell us that the new NATO members aren't considered as important as older NATO states, since Poland especially is left hanging near Russia without a very visible symbol of American protection.

It is also odd that there is a question of whether the missiles in Israel would help defend Israel. why would the Israelis allow them to remain if their only role was to defend Europe and the United States? I don't think the missiles to remain are a type that could defend anybody but Israel.

As I said, interesting.

What's the Frequency, Kenneth?

I still want an answer to the basic question of what our objective in Afghanistan is:

I'd like to offer my opinion on whether we can win in Afghanistan but I can't. I don't know what we fight for. The document the administration put out early on is just too vague for me to know what it means for our military strategy even if it generally sounds pretty reasonable--as long as speaking of supporting "Afghanistan" doesn't mean trying to build a strong central government but just "Afghanistan" collectively as a loose confederaton of provincial tribal-based governments and a weak central government able to resist jihadi influence.

I know that as long as we're willing to pay the blood and treasure to fight, our troops will continue to beat our enemies on the battlefield. But that's not war. That's just organized violence. And I know that the far Left will bail fast on that path. And with the casualties we'll likely endure with the escalation, more Americans will follow.

Adding troops to Afghanistan--even at the risk of fighting at the end of a shaky supply line--can be a help as long as it is for an achievable goal that in part buys time for the Afghans to be built up to take over the fight by atomizing the enemy inside Afghanistan and reducing the flow of men and supplies into Afghanistan. And that doesn't include bringing Afghanistan into the 21st century--the 18th century will do just fine.

I'm not alone, it seems:

The heart of the problem, soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and some officials in Washington told McClatchy , is that neither Barack Obama's White House nor the Pentagon has clearly defined America's mission in Afghanistan . As a result, some soldiers in the field said, they aren't sure what their objectives are.

That's quite the problem. I'm willing to support Pentagon requests for more troops despite my misgivings about our supply lines--but I assume that we will have an appropriate objective for those troops.

And as I've long warned, whatever we determine our objective to be, we will have difficulty squelching violence as long as jihadis feel at home in Pakistan:

Even the limited goal of eradicating al Qaida requires substantially more cooperation from Pakistan than the country has provided so far — or than U.S. military and intelligence officials and diplomats privately say they expect amid mounting anti-Americanism there.

U.S. officials say the electronic components for improvised explosives are being assembled and smuggled in from Pakistan , and cross-border infiltration continues unchecked, including now into northern Afghanistan . Mullah Mohammed Omar and other Taliban leaders based in Quetta, Pakistan , and allied with al Qaida remain free to direct the insurgency, and other insurgents continue to shuttle young Islamist recruits from radical mosques and schools in Pakistan to training camps near the Afghan border and then into Afghanistan.

Witness the continuing violence in Iraq despite our victory over the terrorists because Syria and Iran continue to support the remnants of once-powerful groups, if you want to see a glimmer of what we'd face. But Iraq is stronger than Afghanistan will ever be and the sanctuary in Pakistan is stronger than Iran or Syria are willing to provide.

And the Pakistanis are only willing to do as much as we pay them to do (from my Jane's email updates):

Pakistan has urged the United States to expedite the payment of outstanding military aid that it said is valued at USD1.6 billion. In meetings with visiting senior officials from US Senate's Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees on 1 September, Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari said the payment of Coalition Support Funds (CSF) was necessary to continue military operations against militants, state media reported[.]

That's comforting, isn't it?

And it gets worse. The persistence of the jihadi presence in Pakistan isn't just a threat to keeping Afghanistan from reverting to a terrorist haven that threatens us. Pakistan is a terrorist haven that is now a threat to us:

A plot to blow up at least seven transatlantic aircraft using liquid bombs was masterminded from Pakistan, intelligence services said as more details emerged Tuesday of the complex planned attacks.

Yet there are hints that we are at least leaving the option open of strengthening actors within the borders of Westphalian Afghanistan so they may resist the jihadis independent of the central government (also from my Jane's email updates):

As discussion continues over the need to increase the numbers within Afghanistan's army and police, a new form of ground-level security force is being trialled in Wardak province, neighbouring Kabul. Despite initial negative expectations, the small force has succeeded in gaining a foothold[.]

Just to keep Afghanistan from being a haven for jihadis in Pakistan, we need to win in Afghanistan. But what does victory mean for our military operations?

This is the basic question we need to answer before we can even address the questions of troop strength, strategy, and whether we are winning. But all we are debating is how many troops to send to (or pull from) Afghanistan.

Given the questions we need to answer first, the question of troop strength doesn't even make sense to me.

Waste This Crisis, Please

The Left likes to minimize the importance of military action or preparedness and emphasize civilian spending, whether at home or abroad at war.

Whether it is the question of whether counter-insurgency needs to emphasize development over military actions or the question of making sure our economy is strong enough to support our military power, the Left has a point. But they take it too far by then arguing that the military side is either unimportant or even counter-productive to winning our wars or defending our position in the world.

And I'd feel better about their efforts to reduce the burden of military spending (and yes, however necessary it is, military spending is a burden), if the people in charge weren't doing enough damage to our economy that is the bedrock of our soft and hard power (tip to Instapundit):

There are "troubling similarities" between the US President's actions since taking office and those which in the 1930s sent the US and much of the world spiralling into the worst economic collapse in recorded history, says the new pamphlet, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs.

In particular, the authors, economists Charles Rowley of George Mason University and Nathanael Smith of the Locke Institute, claim that the White House's plans to pour hundreds of billions of dollars of cash into the economy will undermine it in the long run. They say that by employing deficit spending and increased state intervention President Obama will ultimately hamper the long-term growth potential of the US economy and may risk delaying full economic recovery by several years.

We surely needed to intervene last fall in our economy and financial sector to avoid collapse. But the question is, was that intervention temporary or an evolution to new government control using the financial crisis as an excuse to do what they would have wanted to do absent a crisis?

American power depends on our economy remaining strong. Let's not blow in a generation what took over two centuries to build.

UPDATE: A contrary assessment that sees a roaring recovery (though with worries about spending that isn't causing that recovery).

Now About Those Sanctions

One leading liberal politician has called for sanctions on Britain if there was anything fishy with the Scottish release of the Libyan Lockerbie bombing prisoner.

The British are saying not so fast on the outrage coming out of Washington:

‘The US was kept fully in touch about everything that was going on with regard to Britain’s discussions with Libya in recent years and about Megrahi,’ said the Whitehall aide.

‘We would never do anything about Lockerbie without discussing it with the US. It is disingenuous of them to act as though Megrahi’s return was out of the blue.

'They knew about our prisoner transfer agreement with Libya and they knew that the Scots were considering Megrahi’s case.

So what's the deal? Did the British pull a fast one or is our administration just stunned at the reaction of ordinary people to this action and trying to cover their butts.

If the former, will Senator Schumer support "sanctions" against the administration? Perhaps refusing to fund their pet spending projects to punish the administration?

The adminstration's stunned reactions to tea party protests, health care opposition, and the whole Van Jones issue tends to indicate the latter, I'd say. They seem to have no clue how ordinary Americans view their actions.

Still, who am I to condemn our new nuanced, "smart diplomacy" that will repair the damage George W. Bush did to our standing in the world?

Annoyance

The whole issue of the president's speech to our children tomorrow is annoying me.

One, there's nothing wrong with the president addressing our school children to exhort them to do well in school and be good. That's all it is right now. Those on the right should calm down over this.

On the other hand, the fact that it is just a feel good speech is in part due to the anger over the details of the original reports of the speech. It is annoying that the press is ignoring the original stories that prompted anger on the right and the history of the adminstration that has lost it much good will in the country.

One, with the federal government trying to expand into more areas of our life, the idea that the president would try to move into education too much isn't that outlandish.

And more to the point, the origninal Department of Education ideas related to the speech were ridiculous. The students were to write down what they could do to support the president. And these ideas were to be revisited later to see how they were doing on that pledge.

Is the media too blind to see that there is a problem there?

Right now, after the fuss raised by those on the right, the speech by President Obama is no big deal and, really, a nice thing for him to do. Kids could use encouragement to do well in school. But don't forget that the original news about the event deserved that fuss.

UPDATE: The last time a stink was raised by a presidential speech to school children. Can you imagine the furor had it been George W. Bush?

UPDATE: E.J. Dionne is a walking annoyance. Is it really so hard to see why some would not like the suggested lesson plan for the event? And he's part of the "reality-based" community?

Good War. Bad Behavior

The left doesn't understand war. In Iraq, we witnessed an incredibly well disciplined American force wage a tough war against brutal enemies with only rare break downs in discipline that led to crimes against civilians. These rare crimes led the Left to condemn our entire military and entire war effort.

Thank God these types weren't influential in the greatest generation's conduct of the biggest good war of all--World War II. Our troops did things in World War II that are lost in the haze of weepy remembrances. And saying that our army still behaved far better than the historic norm would not reduce the shock of our current Left if they wanted to compare troop behavior.

War is hell. We do our best to minimize that hell for innocents with rules of warfare (which is one reason that granting unlawful combatants the benefits of rules they reject is wrong), but the hell will still be there to some degree.

So our Left, which is already bailing on the supposed "good war" in Afghanistan as it becomes the only war they have to protest, will see this report as more reason to judge Afghanistan a "bad war:"

On Monday, the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan said the U.S. Army's 10th Mountain Division forced their way into the charity's hospital without permission to look for insurgents in Wardak province, southwest of Kabul.

"This is a clear violation of internationally recognized rules and principles," said Anders Fange, the charity's country director. He said it also went against an agreement between NATO forces and charities working in the area.

The U.S. troops came to the hospital looking for Taliban insurgents late at night last Wednesday. Fange said they kicked in doors, tied up four hospital guards and two people visiting hospitalized relatives, and forced patients out of beds during their search.

I am not judging our troops here. They may be completely innocent. I would not be surprised at all if the Swedish charity hospital was effectively part of the Taliban support network. The complaints of civilian casualties fall in this area as the press corps (for ideology, fear, or money) plays up rare civilian casualties as a virtual slaughter carried out by NATO forces.

But the point is, stuff happens. No matter how careful we are and no matter how strict our rules of engagement are. And if nothing happens, the enemy makes it up anyway and we get the bad press regardless.

If you really believe Afghanistan has been some sort of unique "good war," you have to believe that even when bad things happen or appear to happen.

UPDATE: We deny we did anything wrong:

Soldiers from the U.S. Army's 10th Mountain Division searched the hospital in Wardak Province in east-central Afghanistan with the permission of hospital administrators, two senior defense officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk on the record.

The troops were searching for a militant they believed was hiding in the hospital after taking part in a nearby roadside bombing attack on a convoy that killed a civilian, one official said.

I eagerly await more information on how the Swedes operate their hospital. I will be surprised if jihadis don't form a significant portion of their patient intake.

Lanzado Bajo el Autobús

National Review is rightly outraged at our treatment of the Hondurans who have defended their constitution from Zelaya and his Axis of El Vil allies, as well as from the sainted international community and our State Department:

Let’s see if we understand this: In order to be considered “legitimate,” the Honduran elections must be overseen by a Hugo Chávez disciple who was ousted from the presidency for (as Honduran supreme court chairman José Tomás Arita wrote in the arrest order) “acting against the established form of government, treason against the country, abuse of authority, and usurpation of power.” The Obama administration has effectively turned Zelaya into a symbol of democracy. He is exactly the opposite. ...

As for the Obama administration, its mistreatment of the interim Honduran government is an ongoing travesty. In removing Zelaya from office, Honduran officials took a legal, constitutionally authorized stand against Chávez-style authoritarianism. They deserve praise, not punishment.

As I've written from day one, our behavior is both incomprehensible and shameful.

The Honduran democrats will need to win this one on their own. We've thrown them under the bus for the crime of not being anti-American leftist nutcases.

In For a Pound

We must win in Afghanistan.

We can't let it become a haven for al Qaeda or other jihadi terrorists again. And we can't let it be the rear area for jihadis seeking to destabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan.

I have doubts about whether we are trying to do too much in Afghanistan.

I don't think we can pacify Afghanistan without also having the Pakistani frontier pacified to keep it from being the Taliban rear area.

And I am deeply concerned about putting too many troops into landlocked Afghanistan at the end of supply lines that basically go through Pakistan or Russia. Not the gold standard for my comfort level, to say the least.

I've written about each of these worries many times over the last couple years.

With US troops planned to reach 68,000 by the end of this year, our new commander in Afghanistan would like up to 45,000 more:

Although General McChrystal included no specific force proposals in his review, officials expect him to send a separate request in the coming weeks. Military strategists, including one who has advised General McChrystal, said he might offer three options. The smallest proposed reinforcement, from 10,000 to 15,000 troops, would be described as the high-risk option. A medium-risk option would involve sending about 25,000 more troops, and a low-risk option would call for sending about 45,000 troops.

Notwithstanding my many doubts as to how we will fight the planned campaign. I have to trust the Pentagon understands the problem. I can't see most of what they see. I won't pretend to be a four-star.

And if adding 45,000 troops can achieve enough results fast enough to let us then draw down to 30,000 or so troops than adding lesser amounts, then we might as well attempt victory. Lesser amounts mean we need more time. And with the pack of ninnies we have in Congress these days, I don't know how long we can keep them from running away just as fast as they can.

Pound the enemy. Protect the people. Go for the win.

UPDATE: Although I disagree with the portrayal of Afghanistan as "grave and deteriorating," I'd sign this letter urging enough troops and resources to win.

And This News is Unremarkable

Who says we are losing the Long War?

Contemplate this:

Iraq's prime minister pressed the U.N. envoy Sunday for action on his request for an international tribunal to try suspects in last month's suicide truck bombings at government targets.

The premier, Nouri al-Maliki, also briefed the special envoy on the intensifying dispute with neighboring Syria sparked by the attacks, state TV reported.

The news that Syria is sponsoring terror is hardly new, of course. And the idea that an Iraqi prime minister would try to get Syria to stop killing Iraqis isn't too shocking.

Although expecting the United Nations to do something constructive is rather farcical.

But that isn't the really amazing thing at all. This is:

Al-Maliki is also hoping to hold onto his job after January's national elections and had touted recent security improvements in his public appearances. He has faced criticism over the security lapses revealed by the attacks — one suspect said in a televised confession that the bombers got past checkpoints by paying bribes.

Can you imagine? After Saddam's long reign of terror an Iraqi leader is actually motivated by the need to appease his voters? That, my friends, is priceless progress.

Of course, democratizing Iraq was always part of the plan--and not a hastily assembled rationalization when we did not find WMD ready to fire in Iraq after the invasion.

The Wisdom of Crowds

We will continue to insist that North Korea deal with the world through the six-party talks and not one-on-one talks with America only:

Bosworth told reporters that following "very useful" conversations with Seoul officials, the two sides had agreed to continue to push for the North's nuclear disarmament within the existing framework of six-party talks.

The North has been seeking bilateral talks with the United States since it quit the six-way process grouping the two Koreas, the US, Japan, Russia and China in April in protest at the UN censure of a rocket launch.

"Because of the nature of this issue, its regional implications and its global implications, this is a problem that requires a multilateral solution," Bosworth said Sunday, wrapping up his Seoul visit.

For whatever reason, the administration doesn't believe Pyongyang would succumb to the soothing balms of hope and change delivered in dulcet tones by the president in a prime time speech.

I remain grateful for victories when I can get them.

Collateral Damage

You'll recall the unfortunate civilian casualties in that recent air strike on a captured fuel tanker in Afghanistan. The German ground troops directed the US aircraft to the target.

The Germans are displaying more anger against us in the dispute than the Germans seem to muster against the formal enemy on the ground:

An airstrike by U.S. fighter jets that appears to have killed Afghan civilians could turn into a major dispute for NATO allies Germany and the United States, as tensions began rising between them Sunday over Germany's role in ordering the attack.

Afghan officials say up to 70 people were killed in the early morning airstrike Friday in the northern province of Kunduz after Taliban militants stole two tanker trucks of fuel and villagers gathered to siphon off gas.

Afghan and NATO investigations are just beginning, but both German and U.S. officials already appeared to be trying to deflect blame.

This is not a sign of a healthy fighting alliance.

It's hard not to see this as being made into an excuse for the Germans to withdraw their troops.

I'm King of the World!

Cue the Titanic sound track for this news:

Looking for a quick and easy boost in the polls, President Obama has decided to go to the one place where merit bears no relationship to adulation: the United Nations. On September 24, the president will take the unprecedented step of presiding over a meeting of the UN Security Council.

No American president has ever attempted to acquire the image of King of the Universe by officiating at a meeting of the UN’s highest body. But Obama apparently believes that being flanked by council-member heads of state like Col. Moammar Qaddafi — who is expected to be seated five seats to Obama’s right — will cast a sufficiently blinding spell on the American taxpayer that the perilous state of the nation’s economy, the health-care fiasco, and a summer of “post-racial” scapegoating will pale by comparison.

After all, who among us is not for world peace?

Yes, yes, the president will enter the Star Wars bar to rally the sainted international community around that lofty goal getting rid of nuclear weapons (a goal which is, for the president, conveniently too distant to be judged on in three years).

But the president is forgetting that old saying to never wrestle with a pig—you get dirty and the pig likes it.

Or several pigs in this case.

A Reminder From Our Enemies

The Indonesians thought they had radical Islam under control. The July 17 terror attacks they endured showed they were wrong:

Islamic terrorists are paying a high price for the July 17th bombings. Police have made dozens of arrests, and killed several key terrorist operatives (who opened fire when the police came after them.) Much carefully hidden terrorist infrastructure has been destroyed. Operatives who took years to recruit and train are now dead or in prison. Most importantly, the politicians and police have gotten a reality check. They had mistaken an absence of terrorist attacks with an absence of terrorist activity. Always ready to ease off on Islamic radicals (Indonesia is a pretty tolerant place), to avoid more Islamic conservative protests and demonstrations, the politicians now realize that the hard core Islamic radicals are implacable, and will not give up on their murderous goals.

Too many here mistake the absence of terrorist attacks on us at home with an absence of terrorist activity.

Shame

We should be ashamed about what our government is doing to Honduras. The Hondurans defended their democracy from the thug Zelaya and should have expected our grateful support:

But the U.S., along with other nations, misread the Honduran Constitution and called it a coup. They vowed to force Honduras to take back Zelaya. The U.S. pulled visas for Honduran officials and businesses. It expelled Honduran diplomats who didn't support Zelaya.

Now it's pulled $30 million in aid and threatens to extend this crisis to forever by not recognizing Honduras' November elections.

It thinks it's part of a group:"This is a regional and international effort," a senior administration official told IBD Thursday. "We've talked to the Europeans . . . so if anything, we'll be redoubling efforts moving forward on this. And no, we're not isolated at all."

But as Honduras remains firm, the rest of the world, sees this and has started to restore normal ties. If this continues, the U.S. will be left holding the bag as the world's bad cop bully.

The Hondurans have manned up and refused to buckle. And the rest of the world is starting to accept what the Hondurans have done.

Hugo Chavez is happy with our State Department's decision:

Chavez says "it's about time" Washington took action against the government that has been in charge in Honduras since a June 28 coup ousted his ally, President Manuel Zelaya.

Hugo is busy on his global thug tour, apparently determined to get promoted from his Axis of El Vil status to full Axis of Evil:

Stymied in trying to advance his anti-US agenda in Latin America, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is tightening the screws at home — and touring friendly autocratic regimes abroad.

It should cause us to question our policies when such awful people as Chavez praise us.

But then, our current government has great trouble distinguishing between friends and foes.

We're trying to throw a small country under the bus for the crime of defending their constitution. I'm shamed by our government's actions in regard to Honduras.

UPDATE: Ralph Peters, too, thinks our government's actions toward Honduras is shameful.

Watch the LDF Expiration Date

Local defense forces aren't a silver bullet to defeating insurgents. As necessary as they are, they will outlive their usefulness with either success or time and a lack of oversight.

In Iraq, at one time I counted Shia militias as part of the government's forces since they fought Sunni terrorists (or just defended against them). But they eventually morphed into a hostile force, in part from prodding and support from Iran.

I recently posted on a Strategypage post on Thailand's success against their jihadis by using local defense forces.

Strategypage also writes about problems with these local forces:

The militias have kept the Islamic terrorists out of a lot of villages, where they would either receive, or simply take, food and other supplies. But now the police and army have a growing problem with the vengeful Buddhist militiamen killing neighboring Moslem villagers whenever the terrorists kill a Buddhist. If the security forces cannot contain this violence, they risk seeing their militiamen (most of whom are Moslem) using their weapons for a widespread civil war. Solutions often create more problems.

Which is why I don't blame the Iraqi government for being wary of the Sons of Iraq Sunni militias that defected during the surge. These militias need to be absorbed and regulated or disbanded and disarmed when unneeded. And those kept around need to be supervised closely.

Arming friendly civilians is good when enemy terrorists and insurgents are a threat. But this is always a necessary evil that should be wound down when possible.

Fall is Back!

Fall is back! Mister is certainly disappointed that school starts after this weekend, but we've had good weather for a last hurrah at the pool the last couple days. And tomorrow and Labor Day should be good, too.

And, of course, we're back at the Big House for a new year of Michigan football. On a hot and sunny day. My son loves it there:

As we approached the stadium, I looked at my son and said, "See, even with school starting, we have this again." And he smiled. There was no hiding his happiness that we were back at Michigan Stadium to be part (with his grandad) of the biggest crowd to watch a college game today.

We played Western Michigan University and the team looked really good. We didn't try to pile up the score so the second half was pretty tame, really (though we held off a couple long WMU drives that were nerve wracking).

And it did my heart good to hear the crowd chant the coach's name in happiness that our season is starting out with hope. The team also got to rush over to the student section for the new tradition Rodriguez has started.

The WMU fan who stalked out loudly wishing we'd enjoy our 5 and 10 record didn't do his school any favors with that mathematical display (hint, we don't play 15 games ...). As I said to another fan by us, I didn't even know how to respond to that insult.

The walk back home from the stadium is always easy and enjoyable after a victory.

We won't be great this year, but we can see great from where we are.

The Proof is in the Putting

Syria continues to support al Qaeda terrorism inside Iraq, although at a far lower level than at the height of the war. Iraq isn't happy. Syria demands proof and denies everything.

The Iraqis are responding by putting more forces on the border with Syria:

Iraq has deployed thousands of reinforcements along its border with Syria to prevent insurgents from crossing the desert frontier, as the government said Friday it has provided Syria with evidence linking Iraqis there to bombings.

Extra police were sent to the border this week on the prime minister's orders in response to the government's assertion that former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party based in Syria planned and financed last month's attacks against the foreign and finance ministries, said Maj. Gen. Tariq Youssef, the police commander in western Iraq.

Iraq is seeking the extradition of two suspects, but Syria has refused, demanding to see proof of their involvement. The dispute has strained relations between the two countries and again put Syria on the defensive over accusations it is not doing enough to stop cross-border attacks.

The Aug. 19 truck bombings outside the government ministries in Baghdad killed about 100 people. Iraq has blamed an alliance between al-Qaida in Iraq and the outlawed Baath Party.

Syria has been an enemy of Iraq for some time, siding with Iran in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War and serving as Iran's loyal tamed Arab poodle since the overthrow of Saddam.

In time, Iraq forces will be good enough to cross the border and go after Iraqi Baathists or Syrian targets involved in this Syrian aggression. They'll do it safe in the knowledge that American forces are right there to deter Syrian reaction.

And eventually, the Iraqis will be strong enough to march into Syria. Iraq has a long list of reasons to destroy the Baathist regime in Damascus and will put up with Syria's outrages only as long as they have to.

Consider this force deployment a down payment on the future.

America at War

From the beginning when President Obama was elected, I wrote that I hoped that America was doing so well in 4 years that Americans would happily re-elect him.

This doesn't mean that I think it is mandatory (or even wise) to support his programs. What I had in mind was President Clinton, who lacked a real moral or political compass and easily shifted policies when confronted with opposition. Republicans were reduced to complaining that he was stealing their ideas. We should all have problems like that. President Clinton won reelection easily.

But one thing should be beyond politics--the war. Much of the former loyal opposition was unable to support the troops by supporting the war. I remain grateful that the clear majority of those opposed to the Iraq War did indeed avoid descending into Leftist madness to condemn the troops--though the common idea of troops as child victims edged darn close in my opinion.

So when I hear hints that the current loyal opposition is calling the Afghanistan Campaign "Obama's war," I cringe. To be fair, for many of these people on the right, I suspect they only suppressed their anti-war views out of party loyalty when Bush was in office. Now ideology and party considerations make it easy to oppose the Afghan war.

But that is something that should be resisted. Afghanistan is America's war:

Republicans should resist the reflex that all opposition parties have, which is to oppose the stands of a president of the other party because he is a member of the other party. In this instance, President Obama has acted in a way that advances America's national security interests and its deepest values. Republicans should say so. As things become even more difficult in Central Asia, it's important to keep bad political patterns we have seen before from re-emerging.

Obama doesn't fail if America loses the Afghan war--America fails. And America benefits regardless of whether the president benefits--and more power to him if he benefits from winning that campaign. Especially given the opposition to the war already building in his own party:

Key Senate Democrats signaled Friday that any push by President Barack Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan is likely to hit resistance on Capitol Hill, deepening a growing political divide on the war even within his own party.

I'm certainly all on board in debating what we should set as our objective in Afghanistan. But as I've argued before, there should be no expiration date on supporting the war until victory. We owe it to our troops and we owe it to our nation. And we owe it to the Afghans who've bet their lives and futures on supporting us.

Good grief, people, be grateful that President Obama isn't retreating from our wars. Support the president to win our wars.

Tinderbox

India is stepping up their defenses against the most likely place that China might attack them--territory China considers part of Tibet (which China conquered):

Though little known to the outside world, Tawang is the biggest tinderbox in relations between the world’s two most populous nations. It is the focus of China’s most delicate land-border dispute, a conflict rooted in Chinese claims of sovereignty over all of historical Tibet.

In recent months, both countries have stepped up efforts to secure their rights over this rugged patch of land. China tried to block a $2.9 billion loan to India from the Asian Development Bank on the grounds that part of the loan was destined for water projects in Arunachal Pradesh, the state that includes Tawang. It was the first time China had sought to influence the territorial dispute through a multilateral institution. Then the governor of Arunachal Pradesh announced that the Indian military was deploying extra troops and fighter jets in the area.

This is an ongoing issue and nothing coming out of the blue, of course.

India needs to defend this area. Pakistan is no longer the main threat to India and India's defense posture must change to reflect this.

India's offensive options include supporting insurgents in Tibet and cutting off Chinese access to oil and raw material passing through the Indian Ocean. The problem is that these take time to have an effect and in the short run the Chinese might overrun Arunachal Pradesh.

In the longer run, it would be useful to India to have Vietnam and Taiwan as allies in case India needs to hit China's naval facilities on Hainan Island.

The Newest Frontier

The Times of London describes players at the newest frontier:

The Arctic Five - the US, Russia, Norway, Canada and Denmark (Greenland) - are scrambling to secure territorial rights to disputed and hitherto unclaimed parts of the world’s last great wilderness. This is partly because the retreat of local sea ice is opening up to exploitation what many leading experts think could be massive reserves of petroleum- even as much as 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of its undiscovered natural gas.

Exploiting many of these reserves would not currently be commercially viable: Russia’s Shtokman gas complex and Norway’s Goliath oil field, both in the Barents Sea, have proved to be extremely expensive to develop, and stand at the very verge of what is technically achievable. But the ‘Arctic Five’ know that, over the coming decades, new engineering techniques could conceivably realise what can currently only be dreamt of, just as today’s deep sea ventures in the North Sea and elsewhere would once have been scoffed at.

It wouldn't hurt to have an institution focused on surviving and fighting in the harsh environment of the north. Which is why we could use a Polar Command.

No Going Back

Does anybody really believe North Korea can be talked out of nukes?

North Korea announced Friday that its process of enriching uranium is nearly complete, giving it a new way to make nuclear bombs as the U.S. and regional powers discuss how to bring the communist country back to disarmament talks.

The move raises concerns that North Korea may soon produce uranium-based bombs in addition to those made from plutonium.

The only way this will work out well for us is if we can squeeze North Korea until the regime or country collapses. Talking can only be a means to this end.

Japan's Stealth Carriers

Japan is considering building a 763-foot long, 25,000 ton "carrier," based on the success of launching two 18,000 ton 610-foot long "helicopter-carrying destroyers," the Ise and Hyuga (named after Japanese battleships converted to carriers in World War II!).

Enemies can see them, of course, but Japan's constitutional prohibitions against aircraft carriers apparently can't.

Glory Be

China is acting all friendly-like, so naturally Taiwan responds by refraining from doing anything that would provoke their new friend into a raging frenzy:

Taiwan will drop for the first time in 17 years its annual bid to join the United Nations as island President Ma Ying-jeou seeks peace with long-time rival and U.N. heavyweight China, the foreign ministry said on Friday.

Ah, right. China has limits on that "international space" they're prepared to grant Taiwan.

Who doesn't have a friend prone to smashing your face in whenever you protest that he really can't just waltz into your house and make himself at home? I mean, if he has a nice smile other times, that counts for a lot. Right?

Taiwan is confused (or Ma and the KMT anyway). China does not want "peace." China wants Taiwan.

And the lengths Taiwan is expected by Peking to go to in order to avoid angering China should make it clear that smiles are not the same as friendship.

This is a dangerous time for Taiwan. With democracy growing roots in Taiwan, time is not on Peking's side for absorbing Taiwan without difficulty. Yet China's rulers are likely feeling pretty good that the military balance in the Taiwan Strait is finally moving their way. Even if there is no guarantee that the Chinese could pull off an invasion, just having the ability to take the shot might make them a bit cocky if push comes to shove.

And the push might be around the corner. Is China cooking their books to keep a lid on domestic unrest? Are the Chinese gambling that their overseas customers--especially in America and Europe--will start buying again before the people wise up to the real conditions of China?

Once Chinese citizens no longer believe that the economy is doing well, social unrest and more widespread worker riots -- already increasing in scope and severity -- are likely. That's something that China will have a harder time hiding. And then we'll know whether China's statistical manipulation was a smart move or a disastrous mistake.

If so, the nationalism that China has been simmering on the back burner to rally legitimacy for the Chinese Communist Party's rule should economic growth falter might be turned on high.

You can see the new slogan already. Yes comrade, it is surely glorious to get rich. But getting Taiwan is spectacular...

Just More Water Under the Bridge

I've always said that the idea that Iranians will automatically rally to the mullahs if we openly oppose the mullahs is nonsense. People in opposition will often turn to foreign sources of help without worrying that they'll be tainted. Local enemies are enemies and distant friends are useful.

Interestingly enough, some brave American dissidents opposing the Reagan regime sought out foreign help, without worrying that they would be tainted by that support, by reaching out to the Soviets:

Kennedy's message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election.

A lovely man. A far cry from bearing any burden to oppose the Soviets.

Although the paying any price part was apparently still operative.

Just a Teething Problem

Whoa:

ABC's Teddy Davis reports: An already ugly health-care debate got even uglier on Wednesday evening when a 65-year old opponent of Democratic reform proposals had his finger bitten off at a vigil organized by MoveOn.org in Thousand Oaks, Calif.

"My understanding is that it was a supporter of health care reform who got into a confrontation with a non-supporter and the non-supporter got his finger bit off," Capt. Bruce Norris of the Ventura County Sheriff's Department told ABC News. "My understanding is that the event was organized by MoveOn.org."

Remember kids, guns at health care events don't kill people, teeth do.

Scheer Idiotic Nonsense

I'm always amazed that Leftists insist whatever war we are in is the newest Vietnam since these people don't have a clue about what the actual Vietnam War was all about.

Robert Scheer is against the good war. For all I know, he always was. Regardless, his view will soon be the view of many who--as they did regarding Iraq--supported Afghanistan once but eventually turned on it, urging our retreat and defeat.

I won't comment on his Vietnam analogy--I've addressed it often enough--but I would like to highlight this nonsense:

The Vietnamese communists were not an extension of an inevitably hostile, unified international communist enemy, as evidenced by the fact that communist Vietnam and communist China are both our close trading partners today. Nor should the Taliban be considered simply an extension of a Mideast-based al Qaeda movement, whose operatives the United States recruited in the first place to go to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.

Good grief. That's a lot of idiocy in one paragraph.

One, why does the enemy have to be part of a unified enemy to be our enemy capable of causing us harm? Were Germany and Japan really that unified in World War II? It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.

Two, was it then wrong to support the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany in World War II?

And three, is Scheer saying that the status of Germany, Japan, and Italy as our allies today is evidence that fighting them in World War II was needless or a mistake? Or wrong?

The man reported on the Vietnam War and he has no clue about Vietnam. Which puts him right in their with his colleagues at the time and today, I suppose.

When Sightseeing Becomes Reconnaissance

The Taiwanese should worry about this:

Here's an eye opening, but perhaps not that surprising, consequence to expanded tourism between China and Taiwan - many mainland visitors go to the island and just... disappear. According to CRI English, roughly ten people have pulled this vanishing act in recent months.

Some of those ten could be checking out just how far they can go before they are noticed missing. That would be useful for the PLA to know. And no, this is not surprising at all:

Imagine several days of such tour groups arriving, sporting short hair cuts and suspiciously almost all male, spreading out across key Taiwanese ports and Taepei? Nine thousand men would be about 20 light infantry battalions. If the PLA stocks warehouses on Taiwan with weapons and equipment, the first wave suddenly materializes. If they can hold the ports long enough, other hidden invaders could land quickly.

So just what could China do with a first wave on the ground before the first Taiwanese orders to resist a Chinese attack are even given?

The Taiwanese better keep track of those tourists, or one day they will be the pre-H Hour infiltration of special forces types.

Remember, it isn't just accurate missiles that can knock out key targets on the island before the invasion officially kicks off.

Fast Movers in the Strait

Strategypage reports that China is buying four big hovercraft useful for an amphibious invasion of Taiwan:

The Zubrs can carry about 150 tons of cargo, including tanks (three of them). Alternately, ten smaller armored vehicles can be carried, or trucks, or up to 500 troops. The big advantage of the Zubr is that it moves over coastal waters at speeds of up to 110 kilometers an hour (nearly a hundred kilometers an hour sustained.) Range is about 480 kilometers, mainly because a craft like this consumes enormous quantities of fuel. Armament consists of a 30mm autocannon for defense against anti-ship missiles, and two quad launchers with SA-N-5 anti-aircraft missiles (with 6,000 meter range.) Zubr is also designed to carry 140mm unguided rockets, or up to 80 naval mines.

Three years ago, I reported a story that China was going to buy six of these craft. (And wonder of wonders, the link to the Defensetech story still works. I hate it when links on old posts die.)

So is this a reduction of the original planned order or four more?

So Crazy It Just Might Work

Iran wants to talk:

"Iran has prepared an updated nuclear proposal and is ready to resume negotiations with world powers," al-Alam, Iran's Arabic-language satellite channel, quoted chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili as saying.

The official IRNA news agency quoted him as saying Iran was ready to use its "capacities to remove common concerns on the international scene."

Such language may cause suspicion in Western capitals that Iran's proposal, like others before, fails to specifically address their concerns about its nuclear ambitions and is a ruse to buy time and avert the threat of more punitive measures.

If I may explain, Iran is willing to lie to us if we're willing to believe their lies.

Honolulu seeking to ban 'BO' on buses

This headline is shocking on the surface, given how blue the state is:

Honolulu seeking to ban 'BO' on buses

But then I figured, the way their state's favorite son keeps throwing people under buses, no doubt it's a wise safety precaution.

Who Goes There?

I don't understand how our government and much of Western society can fail to comprehend the distinction between friends and foes. Whether it is throwing CIA field agents, Honduras, or Israel under the bus or reaching out to terrorists and nutball regimes as if they're just friends we haven't made yet (both of the jihadi and non-jihadi variety), we don't seem to have any clue about how to recognize the good guys and bad guys.

Sowell and Peters each have pieces addressing this mystery. They're worth the time.

In the Guard, we'd be tested on identifying friendly from enemy armored vehicles, using flash cards (I confess I always said "it depends" when the French AMX-30 came up). Maybe we need flash cards for the upper echelons of our government to tell friends from foes.

Or maybe not. If they are also in charge of making them, God knows what they'd come up with. It's all pretty relative to them.

UPDATE: Examples so soon! The great willingness to punish our best ally:

Sen. Chuck Schumer yesterday called for sanctions against Britain if there was a quid-pro-quo" involving the release of the Lockerbie bomber and Libya's approval of a multibillion-dollar oil deal.

And then there's this ad, which trivializes 9/11 as just a minor irritant compared to natural disasters (though the WWF did not authorize it, apparently).

Victor Hanson reflects on our periodic bouts of thinking we don't have enemies and so don't need to defend ourselves.

Although we might forget who our enemies and friends are, our enemies never forget we are their enemy. When these enemies of America compel us to remember this with attacks or atrocities so terrible even the densest of us can't ignore, we'll finally confront them.

The question then, of course, will be how many friends that we've forgotten will still stand with us at crunch time?

We need a Good Objective for the Good War

Will rightly notes that Afghanistan has never had a central government with any real authority and calls for us to withdraw from Afghanistan and rely on cruise missiles and special forces to keep al Qaeda from regrouping in Afghanistan:

America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Kristol doesn't think much of the withdrawal option:

But would this succeed in preventing the re-establishment of terror bases? This “comprehensively revised policy” doesn't sound much more engaged than U.S. Afghan policy in the 1990s. Will would have to explain why it would work better this time--or why the price of failure wouldn’t be higher than the price of continuing to prosecute the war with a revised counterinsugency strategy of the sort Gen. Stanley McChrystal has suggested.

And he notes as I have noted through two wars now, that not all troops have to be American to defeat an insurgency or terrorism campaign. (Just how did Sri Lanka defeat the Tamils, for one notable recent example, if that is the case?)

He also indicates that if Afghanistan is really the good war, then the time we've taken to win shouldn't be the stumbling block to winning.

The right question (and one I've asked since last year when it became clear we'd escalate) is what is our objective and what do we need to do to achieve that objective? I don't think that keeping Afghanistan from becoming a sanctuary for al Qaeda requires us to pacify and modernize the entire country.

Yet we can't abandon Afghanistan as we did after helping drive the Soviets out. As Kristol explains, Afghanistan is as much a rear area for the Pakistan Taliban as Pakistan is for the Afghan Taliban. If we let Afghanistan serve as a rear area for the Taliban of Pakistan by relying on cruise missiles (and face it, special forces won't be plopped down in the middle of nowhere with no US conventional forces around for intelligence and muscle), Pakistan will lose what bare determination to defeat their own Taliban that they are displaying this year.

But our military mission remains mysterious in regard to our stated goal of keeping al Qaeda out of Afghanistan. Yet more troops will likely pour into remote and landlocked Afghanistan to pursue the Iraq-proven counter-insurgency:

On Monday, McChrystal sent his assessment of the situation in Afghanistan to the Pentagon , the U.S. Central Command, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and NATO . Although the assessment didn't include any request for more troops, senior military officials said they expect McChrystal later in September to seek between 21,000 and 45,000 more troops. There currently are 62,000 American troops in Afghanistan .

Never mind the differences between the two places, we'll protect the population.

And American public resolve to fight is waning. And Congress will no doubt revolt next year over the war. And then we'll have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan relying on the will of President Obama to achieve victory when I still have no idea how our military achieves that victory.

The cost will exceed Iraq's war costs, even with fewer troops, since supplying one soldier in Afghanistan costs much more than supplying one in Iraq did. Everything has to be shipped into Afghanistan, which has little infrastructure to handle that flow of supplies.

Once, the anti-war side complained that we went into Iraq without proper planning. But at least we had an objective--overthrow Saddam and put a democratic government in place. We did that. It took longer and it was a higher price than I certainly expected, but we did it.

The anti-war side will have a target rich environment for the Afghan escalation. No plan and no clear objective--yet the troops are fighting and dying and waiting for more troops.

I'd like to offer my opinion on whether we can win in Afghanistan but I can't. I don't know what we fight for. The document the administration put out early on is just too vague for me to know what it means for our military strategy even if it generally sounds pretty reasonable--as long as speaking of supporting "Afghanistan" doesn't mean trying to build a strong central government but just "Afghanistan" collectively as a loose confederaton of provincial tribal-based governments and a weak central government able to resist jihadi influence.

I know that as long as we're willing to pay the blood and treasure to fight, our troops will continue to beat our enemies on the battlefield. But that's not war. That's just organized violence. And I know that the far Left will bail fast on that path. And with the casualties we'll likely endure with the escalation, more Americans will follow.

Adding troops to Afghanistan--even at the risk of fighting at the end of a shaky supply line--can be a help as long as it is for an achievable goal that in part buys time for the Afghans to be built up to take over the fight by atomizing the enemy inside Afghanistan and reducing the flow of men and supplies into Afghanistan. And that doesn't include bringing Afghanistan into the 21st century--the 18th century will do just fine.

Then we need to reduce our forces to make emergency air supply for the whole force feasible, with enough force present to bolster the Afghans in securing their confederation and keep it al Qaeda free.

The troops are rolling and fighting. Shouldn't we hurry up our debate here about what we want them to achieve?

When Non-aggression is Deadly

Russia and Germany sign a non-aggression pact and Poland died. Seventy years ago, today.

Although you'll have to wait a couple weeks for the Russian stab in the back that finished off Poland.

If you wonder why the Poles want American missile defense to solidify our protection, this anniversary might offer a clue.

Russia's invasion of Georgia last year was a reminder of events 70 years ago. As I've mentioned, Putin's Russia gives me an eerie inter-war feeling.

Sending Their Regrets

Iran may regret the violence in Iraq, crying crocodile tears about how it is so awful for regional stability, but that doesn't stop the Iranians from fomenting that violence:

"We are always finding large amounts of ammunition, including rockets, IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) and sticky bombs. The last one was a week ago," Major Aziz al-Amarah, commander of a rapid response police force in the southern province of Wasit, told Reuters.

Amarah believed some of the weapons were made in Iran.

"Sometimes they try to remove labels that refer to Iran but we can make out the words from what is left," he said.

Tehran denies arming Iraqi militias from across its long and porous border with Iraq. Iraq has also struggled since the U.S. invasion to stem the entry of Sunni militants from Iraq's western neighbors.

Tehran denies a lot of things. It is undeniable that the region and the world would be better off without the mullah regime in Tehran.

Relish This Color Coded Plastic Turkey

When the accusations that the Bush administration wanted to raise the alert level just prior to the November 2004 elections for political reasons were levied, I figured this was just another plastic turkey issue to bash Bush with. I was horrified that Ridge would have made the charge,as the stories related his soon-to-be-released book.

Ridge doesn't really seem to think much of it:

Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Monday people "are hyperventilating" about his assertion that politics played a role in talk of raising the terror alert before the 2004 elections.

"A consensus was reached. We didn't go up. The process worked," Ridge said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

The former Pennsylvania governor, however, did not take back the statement in his new book, "The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege," that he worried at the time that politics was a consideration in discussions among high-level officials about whether to raise the color-coded terror alert to a higher level. He acknowledged there was a lively debate about it, but repeated that it was not done, and thus not an issue.

To me, it hardly seems odd that 8 months after al Qaeda bombed trains in Madrid to successfully influence the Spanish elections to put a pro-retreat government in power we'd worry our elections might similarly be targetted.

And would it be odd for someone in the administration to note that, like the Spanish government, our government might suffer from the fallout if we failed to take any visible action?

The alert levels were an art--not a science--so it is natural that there would be debate.

I'm still disappointed by Ridge, who may have allowed publicity efforts to sell his book imply far more than he meant.

But move on to the next plastic turkey issue, please.

Is Our Press Corps Still in Iran?

I have to wonder whether our press corps is even in Iran to report on events or whether Ledeen's post on the shakiness of the Iranian regime accurately indicates that the regime could fall soon:

The regime’s internal enemies are getting stronger and more brazen, despite the bloody crackdown of recent months. The protests against the supreme leader, the president, and the top leaders of the regime, encompass every major city in the country. Every night chants of “Death to the Dictator!” ring out from rooftops and from within prisons. Whenever large numbers of people congregate, it becomes an occasion for an anti-regime demonstration, as took place in Tehran the other night during a soccer game in Azadi stadium.

Sabotage of a fuel plant, broadening public protests, and cracks within the ruling elites?

How could this not be making it into our news?