To Provide for the Common Defense

Is our Congress this dense?

Call it “pay as you fight.”

After months of listening to conservatives caterwaul over deficits and health care, senior House Democrats want a graduated surtax on individuals and corporations to pay for another big drain on the treasury: the Afghanistan war.

Lord knows I'm no legal scholar wise in the ways of Washington, but isn't providing for the common defense one of the first things our government is supposed to provide?

How is it that paying to fight the war we are in is from borrowed money? Isn't that pile of money one of the first things we take out of what we actually collect as tax revenue?

If national defense isn't considered paid by actual revenue but borrowed money, what exactly in our budget is paid for by revenue? The arts? Highways? Public television? Education funding to the states? Stimulus payments to non-existent congressional districts? An Energy Department that doesn't want to look for energy? Polar bear mating habit research?

Any money we currently spend on national defense should not be considered borrowed money.

So Wise in the Ways of Science

Ah, science! That Climate Research Unit data dump doesn't put those climate change scientists in a very good light, now does it?

For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in.

Silly skeptics! Those who are wise in the ways of science won't question the scientists' methods.



"The planet is warming out of control! The models prove it! Kill the economy!"

But hasn't the planet stopped warming the last decade?

"Well, it got better."

They're "deniers!" Buuurn them!

The scientists ought to just end the pretense, take off their lab coats, and put on robes.

And then walk about slamming copies of Al Gore's latest book against their foreheads.

UPDATE: I only aspire to mildly clever. This is funny.

UPDATE: And a serious take on the politics of global warming "scientists." My God, those jokers really are (figuratively) suggesting that coconuts are migratory.

Reaching Out to the Moslem World

The New York trials of 9/11 plotters, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be just another opportunity for those jihadis to hurt America:

The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said Sunday the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

Where once KSM was ready to plead guilty and die out of the glare of television camera lights in a military trial, now he sees opportunities for continuing the war through our legal system.

Our strategic geniuses in Washington don't even think this is a problem:

"I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is," Holder told the committee. "I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial — and no one else needs to be, either."

Oh really?

Sure, defenders of the civilian terrorist trials insist that we just give them an opportunity to spout their gibberish reasons for waging war and expose their hate to the world, but it is far more likely that the lawyers will get the terrorists to shut up and let legal counsel make the trials a prosecution of American strategy and tactics at war. Much of the world (and far too many of our citizens) will eat that up. They'll love it all.

And even if the lawyers can't get KSM and his minions to pipe down, do you really think that loud ululating expressions of hate for America, Jews, Hindus, and descriptions of outlandish American plots against Islam dating back to the Crusades will be met with revulsion?

Hah! Too many in the Moslem world will nod in agreement, even if they aren't prone to volunteering for the great jihad. And a fair proportion of our Left will concede they do have a point, there, now don't they?

Too many Moslems on 9/11 danced with joy over the news of the attacks because they believed in all sorts of bizarre American conspiracies to keep them poor and backward. And too many Westerners think the jihadis had good reason to hate us even if they don't back the attacks themselves. The "why do they (we) hate us (them)?" questions will be all the rage again.

Hijacking our courts won't be as much fun for the jihadis as flying a plane into one of our buildings, but the jihadis will hit their target this time.

UPDATE: I'm sure this American will see the jihadis for the cowards they are, eh?



Sigh. No wonder our enemies think God is on their side. How could you fail to conclude that when you see how we treat our enemies?

Shot Across the Bow

While Iraq is not strong enough to compel Syria to behave, with America still wooing Boy Assad, we won't use our strength to stop Syrian aid to suicide bombers in Iraq.

But that doesn't mean that Iraq eventually won't take action. I've long figured that Iraq would eventually take on Syria and recently noted concrete steps in that direction.

So consider this a warning to Syria of what Iraq will do to Syria unless Syria stops aiding jihadis and Baathists inside Iraq:

Iraq has had enough. Faced with ongoing attacks from forces supported by Syria, the Iraqis are taking an increasingly hard line and are refusing to back down. They are fully aware that a confrontation brings the risk of further instability, but the Iraqis recognize that the only way to ultimately stop the violence is to stop those enabling it. Already, their new stance towards Syria is bringing results, while the U.S. keeps rewarding Syria through inaction — a silent way of confirming to the Syrians that we understand that our security is dependent upon them.

It will be many years before Iraq can take on Syria in a war, but that day will arrive. Syria will be no more ready for war with Iraq then than they are now--and will likely be worse off as their armed forces further deteriorate. And even before then, Iraq will be able to wage low level war back across the border with American forces shielding Iraq from massive Syrian retaliation.

Damascus needs to end their war on Iraq before Abrams tanks smash into Damascus. Iraqi Abrams tanks, of course, but the result will be the same--if not worse--than if they are American.

Building Her Resume'

Lynne Stewart will be going to jail for a while for her over-enthusiastic work for her jihadi clients:

Defiant to the end as she embraced emotional supporters outside the federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan, Lynne F. Stewart, the radical lawyer known for defending unpopular clients, surrendered on Thursday evening to begin serving her 28-month sentence for assisting terrorism.

“This is the day they executed Joe Hill, and his words were, ‘Don’t mourn me, organize,’ ” Ms. Stewart said as she walked toward the courthouse, referring to the labor organizer executed on Nov. 19, 1915, after a controversial trial. “I hope that will be the message that I send, too.”

After a lengthy trial, a jury in 2005 convicted Ms. Stewart, now 70, of providing material aid to terrorism and of lying to the government while helping an imprisoned client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, communicate with his followers in Egypt.

Organize? No need. That organization already exists. It's called al Qaeda.

But don't worry about poor martyred Stewart.

Consider her time in jail as just a prerequisite for a post-prison job with the Department of Justice. It is so George W. Bush to think you're either with us or against us. With enough nuance, you can be both!

The Basis of Another Surge

It is COIN 101 to put local allies into the fight against insurgents.

So it has boggled my mind that so many have opposed siding with "warlords" in Afghanistan. That's how we overthrew the Taliban in 2001, why not use them now?

And how can we get the numbers of troops to police the country, provide security to the people, and provide eyes and ears to see Taliban movement, given the cost of a national force and the difficulty of putting Western forces into the place?

So this is good to see. We are hiring and organizing local defense forcess to fight our common enemy:

The American and Afghan officials say they are hoping the plan, called the Community Defense Initiative, will bring together thousands of gunmen to protect their neighborhoods from Taliban insurgents. Already there are hundreds of Afghans who are acting on their own against the Taliban, officials say.

The endeavor represents one of the most ambitious — and one of the riskiest — plans for regaining the initiative against the Taliban, who are fighting more vigorously than at any time since 2001.

Risky? Please. It's risky to try to win the war without trying to bring in more locals on our side. How can we argue it is too risky to arm the people we are defending from the Taliban?

We can't just use such low quality forces to win--but they are essential to winning since only Afghan local defense forces can be in every village.

UPDATE: Strategypage addresses this change:

U.S. and NATO commanders have given up on the Afghan national government, which is more interested in stealing than healing. So, the new strategy is to deal with the tribes, and exploit the very real disputes between the tribes. The biggest beef is the pro-Taliban tribes attempt to take control of the country again. Not only do most Afghans not want this to happen (again), but they are also angry at the bloodthirsty tactics the Taliban are using. A third beef is the alliance of the drug gangs and the Taliban. While the drug business makes a few Afghans rich, the gang related violence and growing number of addicts makes a lot more Afghans miserable and angry. So foreign commanders are going to increase backing for tribal militias that are most enthusiastic about driving the Taliban away.

Remember that going local should not mean that we stiff the central government--just that we go around it when it is an obstacle rather than an asset.

But at least this may be putting to rest the ridiculous notion that Afghan central government corruption is an excuse to give up the fight if we can't transform the central government into a model outfit before we send additional troops.

Destroying the Science in Order to Save It

The recent data dump of hacked emails and documents of a leading global warming center appears to be pretty damning (with the caveat, if they are authentic):

•First, a real attempt by a small group of scientists to subvert the peer-review process and suppress dissenting voices. (For another look at this, by a respected climate scientist who was one of the targets, see these posts on Roger Pielke Sr.’s blog.) This is at best massively unethical.

•Second, a willingness to manipulate the data to make a political case. This is certainly misconduct and possibly scientific fraud. This, if it proves true, should make these scientists subject to strong disciplinary action, even termination of their tenured positions.

•Third, what gives every appearance of an actual conspiracy to prevent data from being released as required by the Freedom of Information Acts in the US and UK. If this is proven true, that is a federal crime.

The global warmers try to act is if anyone who is a "scientist" is pure of political motive and that we should adopt policies advocated by scientists following the results of the science. But clearly the romantic notion of data-driven pure scientists is ridiculous--scientists are people and they have biases. That's why their research is supposed to be checked by other scientists with different biases. But the global warming science hasn't been opened for review and checking to see if results can be duplicated.

I wonder if other climate change data will be hacked and released.

And I wonder if other climate change organizations will decide that they can't risk the world seeing their internal conversations that bolster the three tentative conclusions of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit information.

UPDATE: And let me ask, as I like to when told we have to spend untold trillions of dollars to halt the increase in temperatures from today, how is that we are so lucky to live exactly at the moment of the perfect global temperature?

Sure, I understand that we've adapted to the current temperature, broadly speaking. But if we really can't adapt to higher temperatures, and must fight to keep temperatures from going up, why not damn the torpedoes and try to achieve the optimum temperature? What if the best temperature is a couple degrees warmer? Or a couple degrees cooler?

I mean, if we're going to wreck our economy to try and hold the planetary thermostat at a particular point, why not wreck our economy trying to achieve the best temperature?

Don't Enlighten Peking

This editorial of Taipei Times ridicules the notion that Taiwanese are bound, in the long run, to accept reunification with China; and that continued mainland Chinese contact with Taiwanese will finally teach them that the Chinese can't count on Taiwan to join the mainland:

China’s top theoreticians have turned out in force in an attempt to use cross-strait academic exchanges to spread their propaganda and brainwash the Taiwanese public, laying the foundation for “unification.” Their efforts, however, have had little effect.

These people’s problem is that they were born under a dictatorship. Their heads are filled with dictatorial ideology and they only know how to serve their autocratic regime. Public opinion means nothing to them, nor do they understand what Taiwanese think.

That is why Zheng — China’s standard bearer on this Taiwan visit — revealed his ignorance of Taiwan’s history and mainstream public opinion as soon as he opened his mouth, along with his arrogant and high-handed manner.

Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, which, through its state institutions, exercises full sovereignty and government over its own territory. In Taiwan, public opinion comes first, and the mainstream public opinion identifies with Taiwan. Only a handful of people in Taiwan still favor unification.

Zheng’s claim that “the Taiwanese independence trend will inevitably go into decline” is an ignorant lie that will not fool anyone in Taiwan. Even these Chinese theoreticians, after seeing Taiwanese society up close, may now understand that identification with Taiwan is the mainstream of public opinion, and that Taiwan’s sovereignty and independence are an undeniable reality.

The implications of this are very dangerous for Taiwan.

Consider that the military balance in the strait is tilting toward China as Taiwan has let its defenses slide for the last decade, relative to China.

But China's growing ability to invade Taiwan does not mean that China will succeed if it invades nor does it mean that the cost isn't too high for them to make the fateful decision to attack.

The potential cost of winning (in casualties, cost, foreign relations, trade, etc., not to mention that the cost of losing that invasion could be dangerous to the regime itself) may be considered too high if the assumption of the top theoreticians and leaders in Peking is that there is no need to risk all those costs if Taiwan inevitably will join China.

But if repeated contact with Taiwanese people really does convince the theoreticians and leaders of China that Taiwan is unlikely to voluntarily join the mainland, the calculation of acceptable costs to conquer Taiwan changes dramatically, doesn't it?

The Taiwanese need to seriously reconsider their policy of encouraging contacts between the mainlanders and Taiwanese, which probably will lead to the mainlanders understanding that Taiwanese believe independence and sovereignty are too important to give up.

It would be far better for Taiwan's safety to keep their Chinese neighbors at a distance so that they can continue to believe that the Taiwanese will, of course, eventually want to join China.

The Two-Edged Sword

Moslem-Americans are pretty loyal as a group, and their integration is all the more remarkable when you consider the views of Moslems in Europe and the record of ethnic minorities in America in past conflicts. And the length of time we have been at war with jihadis adds to this good record. It helps that there essentially has been no backlash against Moslems here, despite CAIR's blithering idiocy on the matter and our coastal liberal elites' constant worrying about "clingers" (guns and God) in fly-over country.

So when we look for jihadis in our midst, it isn't a sign of the coming repression of Moslems. And when we find someone who has betrayed us to support jihad, it doesn't erase the general truism that as a whole American Moslems want nothing to do with terrorism.

And never forget that having loyal Moslem Americans is an asset when fighting jihadis, just as having any loyal immigrants from a country we have been at war with has been.

Strategypage has an excellent post with an overview on this subject, with a good summary of the World War II ethnic Japanese issue. Yes, there was a reason for what we did, even if FDR over-reacted.

Units Are Not Individuals

It would seem like stating the obvious to note that Army units are made up of people, but when I read statements like this I have to wonder if people understand that distinction:

Of the 14 active-duty brigades that will be available for deployment in December, five have already served three tours abroad since 2002 and four have already served two. If either the 3rd brigade of the 101st Airborne Division or the 1st brigade of the 10th Mountain Division are asked to deploy to Afghanistan, it will be their fifth tour since 2002.*

If I noted that the New York Yankees have won 27 World Series titles since 1927, would you then conclude that those players must sure be tired by now?

No. Obviously the players in the 1927 team are different than the players in the 2009 team even thought the unit known as the "Yankees" went to the World Series and won those 27 times.

Don't get me wrong, we need to avoid the stress on individuals when we deploy our Army. Some do face multiple tours. They may go out as a private and next time they're a squad leader and then a platoon sergeant. But not all go back in the same role. They are promoted and may not even be in a combat unit out on the line every day as they were when they were first deployed.

Remember that when a brigade deploys, 60% (by memory, so excuse me if the number is off a bit--but the point remains) of its personnel are on their first deployment, being new enlistees. It matters not one bit that their unit has gone overseas to fight 1 time or 5 times.

And let me repeat what I've argued many times--the Army exists to fight and win our wars--not to exist as a pristine force. If we need to break the Army to win our wars, so be it. I don't think the choice is either/or, since we can do things to lessen the strains on the Army and its soldiers, but if we face that choice--break the Army to win.

If we lose a war, that will break the Army. How many will get out or not enlist because they wonder if risking their lives to fight a war we won't win isn't worth it? And if we win, repairing what is broken is far easier than repairing an Army broken from losing.

Within the limits of what we plan to do, I think that with the active Army and Marines plus our reserve components, we can handle the escalation in Afghanistan when we speak of rotating units. The initial article's indication that a number of National Guard brigades are in Iraq (I assume not sent as a complete brigade but broken down for security missions--either base or route protection) challenges my assumptions about unit rotations, but not by much. And as we draw down in Iraq, I assume those units will draw down quite a bit, too, freeing up units for rotations to Afghanistan.

And yes, we won't have many free units to deploy to a crisis, but if there is a crisis that bad we can call on units preparing to go overseas while accelerating units recovering from deployment to take their place--or even mobilize more reservists. We have options if you assume the current administration would actually decide to fight someplace else.

This doesn't mean the individuals within our units don't need our attention. But that is a separate issue.

Yes, Let's Talk Stature of Leaders

Speaker Pelosi clearly wants to run away from the fight in Afghanistan, since she's now claiming that Karzai is an unworthy ally:

She told NPR she had asked fellow Democrats to give President Barack Obama room to decide his Afghan strategy, which is expected to be announced in the coming weeks. Once Obama, also a Democrat, announces his decision, lawmakers would "not be shy" about responding, she said.

"The president of Afghanistan has proven to be an unworthy partner. We cannot fund a mission where we don't have a reliable partner and where whatever civilian investments we want to make, which are so necessary, will be diverted for a corrupt purpose," Pelosi told NPR News' Morning Edition.

"How can we ask the American people to pay a big price in lives and limbs and also in dollars if we don't have a connection to a reliable partner?"

Since our Speaker thinks we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan during the Bush presidency, just when did Karzai become unworthy of eying?

A second question for the speaker, so concerned over where our money goes, would be just how is that stimulus oversight going?

And third, does the speaker still think Assad and Ahmadinejad are worthy of being negotiating partners?

No, she won't be Bashful about opposing adding troops to Afghanistan. I fear she's Dopey, however.

What a joke of a speaker. If she ever got a clue she'd be truly dangerous.

Just How High Does Their Form of Patriotism Go?

Does anybody find it disturbing that legal counsel in our Department of Justice find it a conflict of interest to work for prosecuting jihadis because in their civilian life they worked to defend jihadis in our court system?

How can we possibly convict Major Hasan of any crimes? His actions in favor of jihadis are surely orders of magnitude greater than any DOJ lawyer's legal work, but they both worked for the same side, didn't they?

I know our president wanted to reach out to the Islamic world, but this is ridiculous. Sure, lawyers are free to defend jihadis--this is a free country. But should we then turn around and hire these lawyers to represent us in the war against those jihadis?

The Pieces Come Together

So Iran may be far closer than we thought to a workable nuclear warhead design.

And of course, we all know they have that Uranium enrichment thing going.

And the long-range ballistic missile thing is not insurmountable:

Iran plans to launch a communications satellite by late 2011 with no outside help, a top Iranian official said Friday, after Italy and Russia declined to put it into orbit.

The move reflected Tehran's frustration with the two countries as it tries to push ahead with an ambitious space program, which has worried world powers because the same rocket technology used to launch satellites can also be used for military purposes.

Yeah, who needs a ballistic missile defense system in Eastern Europe that can defend the eastern United States?

And more to the point, how effing stupid are our leaders to believe we're just one diplomatic breakthrough away from talking Iran out of nuclear weapons?

CSI: Battlefield

New technology to create a battlefield Internet will do wonders for increasing the capabilities of our combat forces:

The latest gear provides Blue Force Tracker (icons showing where all friendly troops are) capability, as well as wireless updates of maps and transmission of video. The latter is important for commanders and intelligence operatives, who can make key decisions, or analyses, more quickly if they can see what the troops in combat are seeing. This is not meant to be used for micromanagement, but to share experience, as well as information. If the troops come across something they are not sure of, sending a vid back to the boss or the intel pukes, is likely to get a better answer to what they are looking at.

But that data could also be used to persecute American soldiers. That war is Hell is no mere platitude. But for Leftist lawyers who can spend years poring over what happened in a fraction of a second, what is normal on a battlefield can be portrayed as war crimes. And it will all be recorded:

So what do we do with situations that in the past would have never been seen? Incidents that officers might have overlooked based on the people involved being good soldiers who made a mistake or acted criminally but under extenuating circumstances? Incidents that nobody saw but a small group or even an individual responsible? People who might carry guilt the rest of their lives yet try to live good lives to make up for snapping in a moment of weakness?

How do we get our military to win when human rights groups might get a hold of tapes that show fatal mistakes and even isolated crimes?

We want our troops to fight clean but when even a good war like World War II would be flyspecked in our day, how do we deal with all this recorded material and how do we bring our troops home with their heads held high over a war well fought and won?

I don't have any answers at the moment, but we need to think about how we will treat our soldiers when their every step in an inherently chaotic environment is scrutinized for errors or wrongdoing. Perhaps years after the events.

Years ago I worried about this trend, and I still don't know how we can protect our troops who are just doing what they are supposed to do.

The New Pentagon Papers?

This could be very entertaining. I eagerly await the stories that mine this data dump, if they are genuine (as early evidence seems to indicate).

But I won't believe this signals the end of the Global Warming religion until I see Al Gore selling pamphlets at airports.

Fancy That

Well what do you know? After years of talks with Iran, mostly through those professional talkers in Europe, we are no closer to resolving Iran's nuclear ambitions than we were before.

And after nearly a year of the Obama administration believing that Lucy wouldn't pull the football away, falling flat on it's back may be confirming what we Neanderthal Americans have argued for years--Iran wants nuclear weapons. Period.

And worse, the main alternative to war is unlikely to be implemented, let alone change Iran's mind:

The Obama administration is shifting the focus of its Iran policy from talk to sanctions, but the prospect of winning early international support for toughened new penalties appears dim.

Equally problematic is finding a set of sanctions that would have a significant impact on the prime target of American and international worry: Iran's suspected pursuit of an atom bomb. Three rounds of U.N. sanctions, dating to December 2006 and aimed mainly at squeezing Iran's nuclear work, have had little apparent effect.

The administration may get an early indication of its prospects at a huddle Friday in Brussels with senior diplomats from the four other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — Russia, China, Britain and France — plus Germany. Any decisions on new Iran sanctions, though, are likely weeks away.

For most of the Euro talkers (and their North American kindred), it will be a relief when Iran finally goes nuclear so they can give up the embarrassing failure to get Iran to halt their nuclear work through talks. No longer will these appeasers be in the position of holding the clearly untenable position that a little more talking will relieve us of the need to use military force to halt Iran's nuclear drive.

Once Iran has nukes, they can shift to the argument that Iran's possession of nukes means it is too late to use military force.

And then the talking with Iran can shift focus to other topics--like an arms control treaty that sets upper limits to Iran's arsenal. Mission Accomplished!

Making Halal Sausage

Iraq's January elections are in danger of being delayed:

Parliament is to vote Saturday on how to resolve the crisis triggered by Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi's veto of the legislation earlier this week. Al-Hashemi, a Sunni Arab, wants more seats allocated for Iraqis living abroad, many of whom are Sunni.

Lawmakers spent weeks wrangling over the long-delayed bill before finally passing it on Nov. 8, much to the relief of Iraqi leaders and the United States.

But the veto threw into question whether the vote can be held by the end of January, as mandated in Iraq's constitution.

Let's not get all gloomy. Is somebody barricaded somewhere with their militia, holding elections hostage? Did someone decree a decision outraging all about flouting laws? No. They are legislating. And as the saying goes, the process doesn't look pretty.

While it would be nice to have Iraq's upcoming national elections solidified, the mere fact of delay should not be dismaying to us. After all, the delay is due to parliamentary maneuvering and executive actions within the law.

I for one am heartened when I see Iraqis maneuvering to gain advantage within their government and parliament rather than using bombs and guns.

You want quick decisions? Support a dictatorship.

You want rule of law? Have patience because it isn't always quick and it isn't always even very pretty to watch.

Getting Chummy With Our Enemies

A policy of trying to befriend enemies and stiff-arm friends isn't increasing our security:

Add it all up and there is a growing sense that America is in fact hemorrhaging - as both friends and enemies abroad smell blood in the water. The president through conciliation and concession - not to mention constant talk - is trying to superficially restore the influence we once earned by virtue of our economic power and self-confidence in our exceptional past and singular values.

But being both loud and vulnerable is not a winning combination, since political influence and military power are ultimately predicated on economic strength.

Who knew that a policy of speaking eloquently (and often) but forgetting just where you set down that stick wouldn't impress foreign actors?

The Appearance of Ultra Nuance

I was fairly impressed with our nuanced class by their ability to argue with a straight face that only they understand how doomed we are in Afghanistan, so it is wise realism to retreat as soon as possible.

These deep thinkers are pikers, however, when you read this nuanced argument that turns the sophistication dial to 11:

The U.S. presence is the Afghan government's safety net, protecting it from the need to take responsibility for the fight against the Taliban. Until Karzai's government sees its survival at stake, it will not play its best game.

So let's fail in Afghanistan. Fail in the right way now, and the Afghans will have a chance of succeeding.

Wow! Reduce our troop strength and pull them out of combat. The Taliban would be doomed. It's so obvious now!

If only such wise advice had been given to us in 1943! Can you imagine the pummeling we would have inflicted on the Nazis if we'd reversed our build up in Britain and kept our troops over paid, over-sexed, and over there, refusing to cross the English Channel? That would have taught the Brits a lesson. A little less tea production and a little more munitions, you free loaders, and you can do it on your own. I mean, it isn't like we guaranteed Polish sovereignty in 1939.

I've been impressed with the big-brained arguments thus far, but this is truly impressive. I bestow the title Ultra Nuance on this new iteration of sophisticated retreatism. Fareed Zakaria is no doubt kicking himself that he hadn't thought of this line first.

You Just Know This Will be a Clusterfuck

The trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow terrorists in a civilian court is going to be an intelligence bonanza for our jihadi enemies.

And it will be a propaganda opportunity unmatched since the world watched al Qaeda strike us on 9/11.

Sure, defenders of the civilian terrorist trials insist that we just give them an opportunity to spout their gibberish reasons for waging war and expose their hate to the world, but it is far more likely that the lawyers will get the terrorists to shut up and let legal counsel make the trials a prosecution of American strategy and tactics at war. Much of the world (and far too many of our citizens) will eat that up. They'll love it all.

And even if the lawyers can't get KSM and his minions to pipe down, do you really think that loud ululating expressions of hate for America, Jews, Hindus, and descriptions of outlandish American plots against Islam dating back to the Crusades will be met with revulsion?

Hah! Too many in the Moslem world will nod in agreement, even if they aren't prone to volunteering for the great jihad. And a fair proportion of our Left will concede they do have a point, there, now don't they?

We're giving our enemies a global platform to once again make their case for the Great Osama Jihad.

I hope I'm wrong, and all sorts of wonderful things flow from this administration decision, but I think it's going to be a clusterfuck.

And we're doing it to ourselves. My only question is whether this is a bug or a feature of the decision.

UDPATE: No good will come of this.

UPDATE: More from Krauthammer.

Overseas Contingency Opbearation

We all remember the president's speech in the woods last March reaching out to the Ursine community to undo the damage George W. Bush did with his cowboy diplomacy.

President Obama reminded us of all the contributions that bears have made to Western civilization and culture, decrying crude stereotypes "before he was president" that portrayed bears as greedy picnic basket stealers:

Source: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YogiBear

And, of course, our president's determination to save the polar bears from drowning was a concrete demonstration of our new commitment to restore our reputation in the Ursine world.

I'm pleased to announce that this outreach has paid great dividends, with Ursine forces now fighting side-by-side against jihadis with no caveats impeding their contribution:

In Indian Kashmir, an Islamic terrorist leader, and one of his followers was killed by a black bear. Two other terrorists were wounded, but were able to flee to a nearby village. Although the terrorists were armed with assault rifles, the bear attacked quickly, and at night, and the men were unable to use their weapons in the restricted confines of the cave.

Score one for hope and change.

UPDATE: We're proving to be a bad ally for Britain? Ah, screw the Brits, eh? Why would we give them the time of day when we have thug regimes to woo?

Who needs our best ally? We've got some friggin' awesome bears, now.

UPDATE: Yes, yes. No need to remind me that George W. Bush constantly referred to bears as the "carnivores of peace." But it's still his fault we didn't have bear help back then--everyone--and every bear--knows those were just words, and he secretly wanted their skins on the Oval Office floor.

UPDATE: Ursine slaughter porn isn't helping our efforts to cultivate our new bear allies. But consider the source--the Brits. Clearly they're trying to regain their prime alliance spot by alienating the bears.

OK, I promise I'll stop beating this dead bear. Post over.

Building an Alliance

As much as a worry that our foreign policy is for all practical purposes an exercise in alienating friends, I'll give the Obama administration a tip of the hat for working to forge closer US-India relations as Prime Minister Singh comes to Washington on a official state visit:

In the wake of the landmark civil nuclear deal signed during the second Bush administration, Indian and American officials have been working on building a closer defense relationship. The United States has been pressing India for several years to sign a defense logistics support agreement that would make it easier to hold more joint military exercises, work together on regional maritime security and to sell vital equipment to Indian forces.

Also on the agenda during talks between the two leaders will be enhanced counterterrorism cooperation in hopes of preventing a similar attack like the one a year ago in Mumbai.

India is an important ally to cultivate, and I'm glad that India isn't tainted as far as the Obama administration is concerned by being an initiative that President Bush worked to achieve.

T-Triple Al

Al Gore has visions of a future where our world is on fire and the oceans rise to drown us.

His new book on global warming offers us the basic choice, "come with me if you want to live."

Actually, I fully expect Gore to start building an ark pretty soon.

Can You Hear Me Now?

Russia is absorbing Abkhazia's area code:

Georgia's breakaway Abkhazia region, recognized as an independent state by Russia, has cut another of its ties with Georgia by adopting Russia's international dialing code.

I do believe we've got five bars in understanding Moscow's message.

What Allah Knows

Victory in Afghanistan is no long-shot gamble, if we'll just keep our heads about us.

Austin Bay addresses two major points that seem to drive the retreatists on Afghanistan, in his discussion of al Qaeda in general:

Napoleon understood the importance of assessing his opposition's position. He wrote in 1809, "In war one sees his own troubles, not those of the enemy." Focusing on one's own troubles and those of allies thwarts the clear-headed analysis of a diplomatic or military conflict Napoleon insisted was the mark of an effective senior commander.

American media have made a business of touting America's troubles in the War on Terror. Tales of doom, fright and angry despair are audience-grabbers. Would that doom, fear and despair were the sole traits. An "it must be our fault and we made them angry" argument threads the cable TV carnival of doom. In the case of Hasan, this shtick became a discussion of his "alienation" and "isolation."

Ah, the classics of the retreat genre.

One: we're doomed to be defeated by our relentless enemies.

And two: it's our fault they're our enemies.

With that type of analysis, it is easy to see why they believe they are the only ones smart enough to understand that retreating before inevitably victorious and morally superior foes is "reality based" or some such rot.

I know it is fruitless to try to convince our nuanced class that we are the good guys in this fight with Islamo-fascists, but do look at the war from the enemy's side:

Measured by the grand map of the would-be caliphate, al-Qaida has arguably lost significant ground since 2001. Several Sunni and Shia conflicts continue, but the strife Zarqawi sought to fatally ignite failed to shatter Iraq. He did incite defeatists in the U.S., but it was Zarqawi who was defeated in Iraq.

Read the whole thing, as they say.

Or consider that even O'Hanlon doesn't think we are doomed in Afghanistan specifically.

Bay points to the lament of Zarqawi when all the bright kids were crowing that we were doomed to defeat in Iraq. I wrote of this, too, at the height of sectarian violence in Iraq (and I first brought it up in mid-2005), quoting not Napoleon but Kipling:

Man cannot tell but Allah knows
How much the other side is hurt.

Our nuanced class thought we were doomed in Iraq even as our enemies showed desperation in avoiding defeat. We won that war.

And now our nuanced class has focused their big-brained analytical abilities on getting us to run from Afghanistan even though our enemies are hurt.

I just don't see reason to panic about our fortunes in Afghanistan. Let's cut the nuance and focus on a simple thing--victory in Afghanistan.

A Fistful of Dullards

My, my, how times have changed.

Once, the global Left here and abroad blamed cowboy foreign policy under George W. Bush for all our ills.

Do I detect a little bit of regret cropping up among the global Left that they got exactly what they wanted in President Obama? They thought nuance is just what the doctor ordered, but the fools in charge of our foreign policy don't seem to have a clue about promoting American or Western interests in the face of Chinese resistance to hope and change.

You can't satisfy some people, apparently. They don't like Bush. They don't like anti-Bush.

Maybe some day we'll conclude that it isn't our fault when foreigners dislike our actions or inaction.

Death Wish

Hugo Chavez wouldn't be the first thug ruler to think a quick foreign adventure would bolster his domestic rule.

I figured the Dutch would be a prime candidate for such an adventure.

But Chavez might have his sights set on Colombia and is issuing threats:

Should Chavez be taken seriously? Yes, says Maruja Tarre, former international relations professor with a degree from Harvard Kennedy School and now a Caracas-based consultant to multinational firms.

With his revolution losing popularity amid rising inflation, rampant crime, a stagnant economy, and frequent water shortages and power outages, Chavez needs a galvanizing event, she says. A border skirmish, if not a full-fledged war, would solidify his support base ahead of next year's legislative elections and give his Bolivarian Revolution the heroic episode that it lacks.

Would Chavez be stupid enough to engage in a war with Colombia? A border skirmish, Chavez could survive, if he strikes first and hard.

But if Chavez can't end the conflict quickly, Colombia would clean his clock. the idiot savante Chavez has spent his rule crippling his armed forces by imposing his own theories of warfare on their doctrine.

I can't believe Chavez would be dumb enough to provoke a war with Colombia. But you never know.

Gaming Mexico

Stratfor has a pretty interesting discussion of Mexico, with the geography of defending Mexico a fascinating read if you grew up on board games (even just Risk).

The Peace of Retreat

I've figured our president is so totally focused on his domestic agenda that foreign policy and wars are only of interest depending on how he figures they'll hurt or help his domestic agenda.

Iraq? Afghanistan? Is it more trouble to win or lose? On Iraq, he'd have to go out of his way to lose--so complete the victory it shall be.

On Afghanistan, three months of debate and the jury is still out on whether we want to win. Will losing or fighting to win hurt his domestic vision more?

Saying that foreign policy is a distant second in priorities for this administration might seem an odd thing to say for a president who has traveled abroad so much already.

But it makes sense if you think of the trips abroad as efforts to disengage from foes and retreat a bit by giving our foes what they want in order to buy time to pass domestic legislation.

Understand that when you retreat, it takes a while for an enemy to pursue you and fill the vacuum. And that time it takes for the enemy to re-engage will surely be much quieter.

And if you want to, you can argue that the period of quiet while the enemy approaches is actually "peace." It isn't peace, but you can pretend for a while that it is so you can focus on domestic issues.

And if conflict erupts after the domestic agenda is achieved? Oh well. Breaking eggs and making omelets, right?

Heck, never waste a crisis, right? Maybe that will be an excuse for even more far-reaching changes at home or simply refusing to reconsider the passed legislation since don't you know there's a war on?

The Final Check on the Bucket List

This is rather creepy:

The Swiss government, concerned that Switzerland is becoming a destination for "suicide tourism," wants to tighten its decades-old assisted-suicide law, considered to be the most liberal of its kind in the world.

Still, you'd think this would have possibilities for the Swisst tourism industry to launch an ad campaign. How many places can boast that visitors would die to (OK, not "to" but "after" if you want to be picky) visit their country? Seriously, picture a hills (but not you, for long) are alive with the sound of music opening. "Switzerland! You come for a visit but never want to leave!"

On Your Mark! Get Set! Run Away!

If we run from the war formerly known as good in Afghanistan, I think we can trust that the reason will be spun as being caused by Afghanistan government corruption. Hey, it isn't really running away as much as it is cold, steely, nuanced evaluation of our chances--and why fight for a doomed war?

Yes, Afghanistan is corrupt. But lots of places are.

And note that another really corrupt place is Iraq--yet we won that war notwithstanding the very real problem of corruption.

And a number of those high corruption states have functioning governments that manage to suppress the opposition.

But what the heck, if our government is determined to run from Afghanistan, one transparent excuse is as good as another. Corruption it is!

Gosh, I can just feel the nuance radiating from the White House!

There is a God

And He loves me:

New Tim Horton's restaurant expected to arrive on Washtenaw Avenue in Ann Arbor

I've lamented that I have to go out to the township for firearms, strippers, and fresh donuts. But now Tim Hortons will return to the city!

I haven't been this happy since the year they reversed the cancellation of "Sledge Hammer."

Yep, Heading for the Exits

I remain fearful that our president is simply looking for an excuse to retreat from Afghanistan. I'm not the only one.

And the defeat chorus is just warming up to shove the president out:

The California Democratic Party just sent a loud message to President Obama, who is pondering the next U.S. move in Afghanistan: Get out.

The state's Dems have gone on record with a Get Out message before -- like at their confab last summer. But this one is more specific. And bolder. Marin County activist and media critic Norman Solomon passes on that the CDP's 300-member statewide exec boardpassed a resolution Sunday called: "End the U.S. Occupation and Air War in Afghanistan." You can find the resolution here.

Huh. The Left wants to run? Who'd have thought that?

Like I've written for the last 3 or 4 years, I knew the "good war" wouldn't remain good once the Iraq War was over. Now the "war of necessity" (as opposed to the Iraq "war of choice" in their logic) is just an "occupation" and an "air war."

I fear the only thing under debate at the White House is how to avoid being visibly defeated prior to early November 2012.

Masters of Their Domain, Apparently

Spain's birth rate is about half replacement rate.

I guess this news makes that statistic a little more understandable:

In late October, the regional government of Extremadura in southwestern Spain launched a new sexual-education campaign designed to facilitate the "development of healthy habits, self-esteem and safety." Although the publicly funded campaign includes the publication of pamphlets and an online magazine, the highlight is a series of workshops for 14-to-17-year-olds aimed at educating participants on anatomy, body image, safe-sex practices, gender equality and, in the mildly celebratory words of an early press release (since redacted), "sexual self-exploration and erotic self-knowledge." Or, in other words, masturbation.

Kids these days with their video games and entrancing lava lamps! In my day and age all you needed was a color bra advertisement from a junk mail Sears catalog and it was off to the races. What worlds would have opened up with state funding?! Although I admit a state pamphlet might have taken the edge off, instead.

And Spanish teens need a freaking seminar just to identify the relevant body parts? What are they doing? Rubbing their elbows and shrugging their shoulders when nothing happens?

If Spanish kids haven't mastered this, what hope is there of actually bumping up that birth rate?

About That Million-Man Swim

I know it is traditional to mock China's ambitions to invade Taiwan by calling the PLA's plan the million-man swim, but I dare say that with this type of capacity, the Chinese might be able to scrape up the civilian craft to cobble together an invasion even if it doesn't meet our standards:

Sooner than anyone expected, China has surpassed South Korea as the world's largest shipbuilder. Currently, Chinese firms have orders for 54.96 million CGT of ships, compared to 53.63 million CGT. Thus China has 34.7 percent of the world market.

And the Chinese are developing the weapons to spearhead an invasion. Here's another:

China has produced a line of amphibious artillery systems that are mounted in the 20 ton ZBD amphibious tracked armored vehicle. The latest model mounts a 122mm howitzer in the chassis. An earlier one mounted a 122mm gun in a small turret.

And more generally, China's military power is advancing quite nicely:

According to at least one high-ranking official, the United States has systematically underestimated the pace and scope of Chinese military modernization for years. On Oct. 21 in an interview with the Voice of America, the incoming Commander of U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM), Admiral Robert F. Willard, USN, told reporters that, "In the past decade or so, China has exceeded most of our intelligence estimates of their military capability and capacity, every year. ... They've grown at an unprecedented rate in those capabilities. And, they've developed some asymmetric capabilities that are concerning to the region, some anti-access capabilities and so on."

Indeed.

And we have to stop comforting ourselves that China has a long way to go before becoming a peer competitor. China doesn't need to be a peer competitor to be a threat to us any more than Germany or Japan had to be peers to threaten us in World War II. Heck, Japan had a GDP about a tenth of ours at the start of the war, and they reached out to hammer us in Hawaii. China only needs to reach as far a Guam to hit us enough to buy the time Peking needs to conquer Taiwan.

Whether or not China invades Taiwan is no longer a matter of debating capability to do so--it all comes down to a political decision to risk the casualties and political fallout of invading.

What Exactly is Russia's Final Point?

Russia is saying things that might indicate they could conceivably move to some form of action to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions:

Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's president, said his country agreed that progress on talks with Iran was too slow and that "other options" might have to be pursued. That can be taken as a reference to more sanctions on the Iranian regime. "In case we fail, the other options remain on the table, in order to move the process in a different direction," Mr Medvedev said after meeting Barack Obama, US president, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit in Singapore.

"As reasonable politicians, we understand that any process should have a final point," said Mr Medvedev. The process of talks exists not for the pleasure of talking but for achieving practical goals."

I'm not encouraged by more Russian words that seem to serve the purpose only of stringing us along, which buys tome for Iran.

And more to the point, while our "final point" is to stop Iran under the mullahs from going nuclear, why do we think Russia's "final point" is the same thing? What if Russia's "final point" is a nuclear-armed rogue Iran that serves as a loose cannon to keep us off balance while Russia seeks to recover some of their lost Soviet glory and lost empire?

Let's Employ the Clue Bat, Shall We?

Our president isn't happy about being accused of "dithering" over the decision about troop strength in Afghanistan:

President Barack Obama made no effort to conceal his irritation when his press corps used the first question of his maiden Far East trip to ask what was taking him so long on Afghanistan.

Jennifer Loven of The Associated Press had asked: “Can you explain to people watching and criticizing your deliberations what piece of information you're still lacking to make that call.”

“With respect to Afghanistan, Jennifer,” the president scolded, “I don't think this is a matter of some datum of information that I'm waiting on. … Critics of the process … tend not to be folks who … are directly involved in what's happening in Afghanistan. Those who are, recognize the gravity of the situation and recognize the importance of us getting this right.”

The cool president’s heated response reflected second-guessing from the press and Pentagon about a process that has spanned eight formal meetings with his war cabinet, totaling about 20 hours.

The White House has been deliberately portraying the process as thorough, emphasizing the opposing views the president has considered, as a way of positing a contrast with President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

Let's address this issue of contrast with the Iraq War debate.

One, there is the difference between a debate before the war begins and a debate dragging out as our troops fight and die in an ongoing war.

And two, there was no "rush to war" in Iraq as the argument deployed by the White House asserts. The national debate lasted about a year from after the fall of Kabul to the invasion of Iraq, and included a Congressional debate and declaration of war and long efforts at the UN that got us a resolution reaffirming post-Desert Storm UN resolutions insisting Iraq prove it no longer had WMD or else. We had a long debate on starting that war, and the so-called "rush to war" was quite possibly the most telegraphed war in history.

Oh, and as a delicious bonus, is the president really saying that people outside the White House can't judge the Afghanistan War because of lack of information or responsibility? If so, I'd like a do-over on the Iraq War debates that commenced in 2002 and continues until today.

The president may not like being accused of dithering, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that he's striving to vote "present" when his title of commander-in-chief of the armed forces says it all--he is the chief commander and everybody else must wait on his commands.

There, just three swings with the clue bat. That wasn't so difficult, was it?

I Regret Nothing!

I find it amazing that former President Carter can defend his actions regarding Iran's taking of hostages 30 years ago:

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said Monday he had no regrets about his handling of the Iran hostage crisis more than 30 years ago, saying he didn't attack the country as his advisers proposed because thousands of people would have died.

Islamic militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on Nov. 4, 1979, and seized its occupants. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days.

And this is just a sad commentary on who we trusted to lead us and defend us:

Carter said one proposed option was a military strike on Iran, but he chose to stick with negotiations to prevent bloodshed and bring the hostages home safely.

"My main advisers insisted that I should attack Iran," he said. "I could have destroyed Iran with my weaponry. But I felt in the process it was likely the hostages' lives would be lost, and I didn't want to kill 20,000 Iranians. So I didn't attack."

Iran resorts to war against us (embassy territory is US territory under internationl law) and the president wanted to stick to diplomacy. Yeah, that worked out well. One of the alumni of that crisis now crows about Iran's nuclear ambitions:

Ahmadinejad said the West would have to come to terms with Iran's nuclear progress, Iran's state broadcaster quoted the president as saying on his website. ...

"Enemies have politicised the nuclear issue using all of their abilities to try to make the Iranian nation surrender, but they have been defeated," Ahmadinejad said.

Back to our other alumni of that crisis, is President Carter seriously saying that the only military option involved 20,000 dead Iranians? (Presumably dead civilian Iranians) Really?

That's just BS. Maybe a full scale invasion of Iran leading to American troops in Tehran, but that was hardly the only option presented to him.

And the hypocricy of his purported concern for innocent Iranian civilians doesn't square with Operation Eagle Claw, which President Carter ordered. We were going to plant a small foce in downtown Tehran to rescue our people. Only an imbecile could believe that this option would not have required the utter destruction of blocks of buildings around the embassy grounds to prevent a large mob of Iranians or mullah security forces from charging in to stop the rescue. Thousands of Iranian civilians would have died if we hadn't aborted the mission under the mission that our president did authorize. So it is a bit farcical for him to play the tortured humanitarian.

And we may yet come to appreciate that even 20,000 dead Iranians in 1980 would have beat the death toll that mullahs with atomic bombs will inflict.

Middle Kingdoms

This analysis describes the differences within China:

This week, President Obama makes his first state visit to China. What kind of country will he find there? We tend to imagine China as a monolith: 1.3 billion people sharing the same language, history, and culture. The truth is far more interesting. China is a mosaic of several distinct regions, each with its own resources, dynamics, and historical character.

Although the article's title of the nine nations of China is not meant to suggest political fragmentation, I don't see why this description of China doesn't provide the basis for such a possible split:

With a state both cruel and failing economically, governing a continent-sized population with a history of fragmentation, I don't know why we need to guess which course the government of China will follow. The continent of China is big enough that it could follow all the possible paths.

A Pacific Century doesn't automatically fall into Peking's lap--even if we try to give it to them.

Perfect Harmony

If our outstretched hand to the likes of Iran demonstrates our administration's insistence that foes are just friends we haven't made yet, our treatment of friends seems to define them as neutrals we haven't alienated yet.

So let the Pacific Century begin with a big dose of nuanced alienation, as we insist we are making China are friend but just serve notice to friends that we can't be counted on:

As a result of misunderstanding the Chinese, America is losing friends in Asia fast. Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, who ended the decades-long reign of the Liberal Democratic party in September, has signaled he wants to reorient Japan's foreign policy toward China. And some policy-makers in New Delhi, noticing Obama's unusually soft approach, are pushing their country away from America as they feel India too now needs to placate the Chinese. Washington, in a real sense, is undermining its own role in Asia.

Why shouldn't President Obama's China trip be a success with this outlook? The Chinese will be happy with a foreign policy of American retreat in perfect harmony with their own ambitions.

Our foreign policy people really just act as if diplomacy is all a giant Coke commercial.

A Chinese Tradition

The president is in China:

President Barack Obama is walking a tightrope on his first trip to China, seeking to enlist help in tackling urgent global problems while weighing when and how — or if — he should raise traditional human rights concerns.

Huh. "Traditional human rights concerns." Isn't that an interesting expression?

Because traditionally the Chinese communist regime abuses human rights.

Traditionally.

So it has gone on a while now and is likely to continue.

I mean, Lord knows the Chinese aren't about to screw with tradition.

Real Strategery

So, we gave in to Russia's paranoid hissy fit over our planned ballistic missile defenses in Eastern Europe so that Russia would help us on other issues.

We already can see that Russia won't help us pressure Iran.

And the other issue we supposedly got cooperation on with Russia isn't panning out yet, either:

When he met President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia in April, President Obama sought to open an important new supply corridor for Afghanistan by flying American troops and weapons through Russian airspace. Visiting Moscow in July, he sealed a deal for as many as 4,500 flights a year, in what he called a “substantial contribution” to the war and a sign of improving relations with Russia.

Seven months after the idea was raised and four months after the agreement was signed, the number of American flights that have actually traversed Russian airspace?

One. And that was for show.

The failure so far to translate words into reality amid bureaucratic delays, including one involving a Russian agency insisting on charging air navigation fees that the Kremlin had said would be waived, underscores the challenges of Mr. Obama’s effort to transform ties between Washington and Moscow. For all of the lofty sentiments expressed at high-profile summit meetings, actual change has never been easy to deliver.

Smart diplomacy is starting to look a lot like giving away the store in the hopes that foes get sated and want no more from us.

That's a bad bet, I'd say.

Smart Diplomacy

Russia is so broke--despite oil revenue--that they can't afford to maintain their nuclear weapons levels.

So naturally we appear eager to make concessions to get Russia to agree to a new arms control agreement:

A major pact within tantalizing reach, President Barack Obama aims to nudge forward an arms-control deal in talks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

I imagine the Russians sometimes just look at each other in wonder, amazed at the naive amateurs that run our foreign policy these days.

UPDATE: Strategypage writes:

While Russia got the new Topol M ICBM into service since 1991, this was a Cold War era project, meant to replace the older, and much less effective and reliable ICBMs. While Russia has several thousand nuclear warheads, most are undeliverable because of the post-Cold War military meltdown. In fact, they can launch only a few hundred warheads, with any assurance that these will land anywhere near where they are aimed. That's still a significant deterrent, but it is more vulnerable to anti-ballistic-missile (ABM) defenses (which are more complex and expensive than the missiles they defend against). Thus the great relief in Russian military circles when the U.S. agreed to cancel the anti-missile system planned for installation in Poland (to protect Europe from Iranian missiles).

You'd think we could have gotten something from Moscow for cancelling our missile plan in Poland and the Czech Republic.

And you'd think we could get something from Moscow for agreeing to reduce nukes we can afford in exchange for Moscow reducing nukes that would disappear anyway from lack of maintenance.

You know that "smart" diplomacy we keep hearing we now have? I don't think that word means what they think it means.

Thank You Sir, May I Have Another?

If tea party protesters did it here, I shudder to think of how this welcome for the president in China would be treated:

Sunday's arrival of a U.S. president admired for his charisma is already a source of profit and brief fame for some Chinese.

Strangest is the burning Obama, tucked away in a Beijing warehouse. Artist Liu Bolin hopes Obama can take time from his visit to drop by.

"He's so hot right now, so I wanted to translate that through my work," said Liu, who was inspired by the idea of the first black U.S. president.

The bronze Obama bust is modeled on Time magazine's "Man of the Year" cover and is speckled with holes for gas that ignites every couple of minutes.

So ... the Chinese artist burned our president in effigy to welcome him?

The artist claims it is a positive statement notwithstanding the usual interpretation of a flaming man.

I'd say the Chinese artist got the symbolism exactly right to greet a man determined not to worry the Chinese one bit about our capabilities and intentions to halt Chinese ambitions.

The Chinese are happy to welcome a president they see as determined to change America's posture in the western Pacific to the fetal position.

Urgenty Furyski

Russia's invasion of Georgia in August 2008 was troubling. And not just because our ally the Georgians got knocked about. Georgia really lost nothing that they already hadn't lost to Russia. The invasion just solidified the loss.

I'm troubled by the wider implications. Oh, not because I think that this means Russia will start conquering countries formerly part of the old Soviet Union--thought it is surely more likely now should an opportunity arise.

But I am troubled because it may represent a change in how Russia's leaders sees the former Soviet republics. Russia before the invasion of Georgia may have been the low tide of post-Soviet Russia, angry at their loss of empire but unwilling to do anything about it. And with the invasion, we may be at the starting point of a new Russia built on picking up as much of their loss lands as possible.

Remember that our invasion of Grenada in 1983 under President Reagan was hardly the signal that a miltiary rollback against Soviet communism was kicking off. But taking that small island from the communists was a signal that we no longer accepted that a country gone communist was forever lost to the West--we would take them back if we could.

And knowing that new American view, were anti-communists in Eastern Europe encouraged just a bit that their nightmare could end?

So now, pro-Russian minorities in the former Soviet Union may think that yes, they could rejoin mother Russia under the right circumstances.

So what bit of Mother Russia will be the next to rejoin Moscow?

20 CCs of Nuance, Stat!

I know I lack the nuance gene when I contemplate health care legislation.

Sure, I understand that it could be good to improve quality, increase efficiency, and expand access. Those are all fine goals in theory.

But as I understand it, the main concern is that there is supposed to be a population of tens of millions who cannot get health insurance, and so do not have access to health care.

Given that a massive health care bureaucracy is planned to get insurance to those people who can't get insurance, why does the legislation envision fining these people for failing to buy health insurance--with the threat of jail time for failing to pay their fines?

I mean, if the issue is that these people can't get health insurance, why is there a need to compel them to buy what will be made available to them?

Like I said, I clearly lack the nuance gene.

Looking Forward to Nothing?

I'm hoping for a quiet weekend. I need the rest. All I have to do is get an oil change, get my son a hair cut, and do laundry. That's it.

Last weekend lasted four days. I took off Thursday and Friday since my Ex had to go out of town. It seemed like a glorious opportunity to relax. It was not to be.

Oh, sure, Thursday afternoon was good. But life soon intruded. Mister had a concert that night (cello) and so I had to quickly make dinner and get Mister to school. There was no hitch in the plans the way there was last year in the race against time to buy a white shirt, dress belt, and black pants for Mister (we barely made it on time after getting the last pants and shirt at the second store we went to). But Mister did need black shoes this time. Luckily, a pair of shoes I no longer use actually fit Mister, so he was good to go with dress shoes.

I was again amazed at how much better than the 6th graders the 7th graders are. One year of practice sure makes a difference between a recognizable melody and strangling cats.Then I got to put together lunch for the kids (I rarely have to do that) and feed Swimmy, the fish, at my Ex's house.

Friday is the day that the pace of the weekend became apparent. I had no down time since I went on Mister's field trip to Hill Auditorium to see a painful body band performance geared to children. Funny enough, Lamb was there too on a field trip, but I didn't know that's where she was going. I helped direct students to and from the buses and otherwise showed my face at the school, That's never bad. I had about an hour and a half to myself and then it was time to pick up children from schools and begin the evening of fish feeding and dinner, and whatnot.

Oh, and we had to go out and get a present for Lamb's classmate since we had a party to go to on Sunday. Luckily, as I asked, Lamb found out what her friend likes.

Saturday was the day of the game against Purdue. Ah, it was such a great day for a football game and we had high hopes walking to the stadium! It was a fine day to be at a Michigan game.

Alas, it was not to be. I can't believe we let that game slip away. We didn't collapse, since we had a chance to tie it up and then one last chance to somehow close the two-point gap, but the game should have been ours. Mister was despondent. My famous "perspective" was unwanted, so I just let him vent his misery on the way home.

The walk is always longer if we lose. At least our home record is much better than our away record this year. And the evening was subdued. I get over a loss pretty quickly. You know, that "perspective" thing I have. But I always feel worse for Mister, knowing how important it is to him.

Sunday was the day of the great Build-a-Bear birthday party. Lamb was insistent that I take her even though mom was finally home from her trip. I think Lamb sees me as an ATM. Not that I spoil her with toys. I just don't buy toys as a matter of habit when we're out. Indeed, it is rare. But since I took her to Build-a-Bear for her own birthday a scant couple weeks ago, I think she associated me with paying for bears. Not that it cost us anything (well, other than getting a bigger present than I'd normally spring for since I figured Lamb would come home with a free bear), but Lamb didn't realize that.

So I left Mister at home to avoid the little girl-fest, and Lamb's mom took the chance to do some mall shopping while I hung out at the party. It was a hit with the girls, and Lamb now has "Cookie" (the bear) to keep "Pinky" (the unicorn) company:



The girls all got to put a fabric heart of their own into the bear of the birthday girl. It was that sweet.

My wisdom in leaving Mister at home was verified as we left the store to go to a common area in the mall to open presents and eat a cookie cake. Two quiet and sullen looking teens were slouched in comfy chairs when the parade of bear-wielding elementary school girls in various shades of pink and purple party finery skipped into their world. I swear I only looked away for a moment and when I looked back, the boys were already out of sight. So I flipped their chairs around and we had a nice leather chair amphitheater for the final phase of the party. It was, of course, a hit with the girls. Surely, another trip to the place will be in store for me this Christmas.

The final phase of the busy weekend was a tour I booked on Friday when I realize that my Ex would be home Sunday. I've wanted to take Mister on an Alumni Association tour of Michigan Stadium for a couple years now but it never quite worked out. but knowing my Ex would not be at work on Sunday, I worked it out for me to take Mister on the tour. The 3:00 tour, the last of the year, was open, so I grabbed two spaces. At the time I thought it would work out great with plenty of time after the party and after what I assumed would be a happy occasion of a victory on Saturday.

On Saturday, Mister did not want to go on the tour. And on Sunday he was less than enthusiastic. But I insisted. A young Wolverine fan needed this, I figured, more than ever.

So we drove down there and listened to an interesting talk by an author of a book on the building of the stadium. Mister liked it so much that I bought him the autographed book when we got a chance.

The best part for me was running on to the field, which we got to do through the tunnel that our players use:



And then getting on the field itself. Wow! It's just so big down there--especially side to side. Mister was happy as a clam, in his reserved sort of way. Boy did he like being out there. It was a beautiful day for the tour. We even ran goal line to goal line, and when Mister tried to claim he beat me, we ran it again. Yeah, dad won. He may be a hair shy of being as tall as me already but the old man can still sprint faster than the kid.

Then we got to go in the locker room. ("Look," I said in mock reverence while waving my hand, "the urinals of the players.")

We heard brief words from a quarterback under Bo who hadn't been back in the locker room since his player days. He got emotional explaining how important Michigan was to him and the opportunities he had from graduating from here. Yeah, this is what a young Wolverine needed to hear.

And the tour had gear from some of the players out. Mister tried on the gear of Forcier and Minor:



He was amazed at how heavy the helmet was. Sure. That's how I felt about the steel pot and Kevlar things. It was a relief to take the bloody things off.

We got the book here, and when the tour was over, we headed back to the car. Mister really liked the tour. It was what the doctor ordered, no doubt about it. I highly recommend the tour if you get the chance.

So a long weekend was essentially over. All I had left was a trip to Steak and Shake for less-than-healthy dinner with Mister and Lamb (which, as Mister noted, is a little unsettling with the height guide by the door so the cameras can record the height of criminals fleeing the scene), and then took the kids back to mom's.

I do indeed love being a dad, but man it can tire a guy out. going back to work was almost a relief.

Of course, I did run into an old college friend, Anu, at the tour with his son (and a friend of his son's I think). I haven't seen him in a few years, and I got his email and a resolve to get a bar night up and running again at least a little bit. So next week we're scheduled to hoist a few and catch up. Hopefully we get a good turn out since it has been a while.

The four days was a blur of activity, it seemed. But I know that it will be no time at all before the kids are grown up and they don't need me to take them to tours or parties or go on field trips, or even make or take them to dinner. Being a dad is such a great thing that I don't know how I'll adjust to the less intense and involved role of a dad when Mister and Lamb are all grown up. The time to that day will fly, I fear. And then my weekends and even weekdays will no longer be scheduled to wear me out.

But we aren't there, yet. I'll enjoy the job description and schedule of dad/daddy while I can.

Reviving Tradition?

In the face of bolder Somali pirate raids, could the pressure to do something finally be building?

Some NATO members, led by Spain, are urging a change in tactics against the Somali pirates. Spain wants the three ports, where the mother ships are based, to be blockaded (warships prevent any ships from entering or leaving), and greater efforts made to find and seize or destroy the mother ship (or ships) that are making the speedboat attacks possible far off the Somali coast. The foreign nations supporting the anti-piracy patrol do not want to go ashore and destroy pirate bases. That's because the Somalis are enthusiastic and persistent fighters. The Somalis have been pacified in the past, but using methods that are politically unacceptable today.

Perhaps one day we'll see a coalition of the willing that will convoy civilian shipping, blockade pirate ports, hunt down pirate mother ships, sink pirate speed boats, bomb and shell pirates, and even go ashore to destroy piracy-related facilities and kill pirate leaders. Heck, if it makes you feel better we can ever arrest some of the survivors and try them in court!

Depending on your appetite for doing something, surely there'd be a role for the meekest and the boldest with all these tasks to complete.

And for the land missions, perhaps a couple American Marine Expeditionary Units could spearhead an Egyptian and Indian brigade landing that goes into the pirate havens to put a little fear of the civilized world into the pirates. And if jihadis die, too, in the operation, I won't shed tears.

Egyptian and Indian troops could get away with this mission given their status as non-Western states. Each has an interest in pacifying the Indian Ocean's Horn region to, respectively, safeguard Suez Canal traffic and suppress private sea-going gangs that might moonlight by slipping men and material ashore in India. India would also like to minimize outside powers' navies in what they see as "their" ocean, which won't happen while pirates seize ships for ransom.

Yeah, I know. Killing pirates is so 19th century. But I guy can dream, can't he?

Excuse Me?

This story addresses problems of morale in Afghanistan.

Morale is surely important, but I tend to be skeptical of conclusions drawn by journalists from surveys since the issue of morale in Iraq seemed to be heavily used to undermine our war effort there. I suspect much the same will be done with this information now that Afghanistan is no longer the "good war."

That said, we surely need to support troop morale. But this part of the story is absolutely ridiculous:

Efforts already under way to get more health workers to the Afghan war could be hampered somewhat by last week's shooting. The psychiatrist charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder was slated to go to Afghanistan. Some of the dead and wounded also were to deploy there to bolster psychological services for
soldiers.

Yeah, darn the bad luck on that, eh? Is this author seriously asserting that the killer psychiatrist Major Hasan would have been an asset to any troubled soldier or Marine in Afghanistan, but for his unfortunate little murder spree at Fort Hood? Really?

Note that the author isn't just saying that the murder and wounding of some mental health workers by Hasan will cause difficulties. No, that is another effect mentioned. The first effect that will harm our efforts is that Hasan was slated to go to Afghanistan--but now won't go.

Now just where did I put my clue bat?