Start? Stop!

If you want a concrete example why we can take our time to get a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia, this is as good as any--and it was broadcast to the world:

Russia's new nuclear-capable missile suffered another failed test launch, the defence ministry said Thursday, solving the mystery of a spectacular plume of white light that appeared over Norway.

The Bulava missile was test-fired from the submarine Dmitry Donskoi in the White Sea early Wednesday but failed at the third stage, the defence ministry said in a statement.

The pre-dawn morning launch coincided with the appearance of an extraordinary light over northern Norway that captivated observers....

This was the 12th test launch of the Bulava and the seventh time the firing has ended in failure, the Interfax news agency said.

The submarine-launched missile is central to Russia's plan to revamp its ageing weapons arsenal but is beset by development problems. ...

Felgenhauer said that it had dealt a serious blow to Russia's bid to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent.

"By the year 2030, Russia could lose its position as a global nuclear power if the problems are not solved. And it could be that these missiles will never fly properly.

"The Russian defence industry has disintegrated to such an extent that it simply cannot make such a complicated system work. Technology and expertise have been lost," he said.

Russia's arsenal deteriorates every day. If they want us to draw down so their disintegration isn't as obvious, the Russians can be pressured into our terms for reductions and verification. Moscow needs this agreement far more than we do.

Ka -Ching!

I hoped that President Obama's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize would be a Norwegian license to kill.

So this is utterly delicious:

Newly enshrined among the world's great peacemakers, President Barack Obama offered a striking defense of war. Eleven months into his presidency, a fresh Obama doctrine. Evil must be vigorously opposed, he declared as he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on Thursday. At the same time, he made an impassioned case for building a "just and lasting peace."


"I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people," Obama told his audience in Oslo's soaring City Hall. "For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."

Pronouncing himself humbled by such an honor so early in "my labors on the world stage," Obama nevertheless turned his Nobel moment into an unapologetic defense of armed intervention in times of self defense or moral necessity. The hawkish message was an inevitable nod to the controversy defining his selection: an American president, lauded for peace just as he escalates the long, costly war in Afghanistan.

Well I'll be a ...
 
Evil exists, he told the Euros. And America will fight it. President Obama just flashed his Norwegian license to kill.
 
Huh.
 
Funny, he doesn't look Neoconish.
 
Seriously, I salute the president. I reserve the right to mock the Norwegians for giving the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama and to mock his supporters for fervently believing he earned it.
 
But the president took what could have been a ridiculous moment that accepted the constraints the Norwegians tried to place on our foreign policy and instead defended America and our motives for fighting.

C.H.R.I.S.T.M.A.S. Is Here!

I love this time of year.

It is Christmas! I get to put up the decorations and tree. And the kids both like picking out ornaments. (I have them take turns picking ornaments before they start so there isn't a rush to throw on bulbs to make sure they aren't shortchanged by a faster sibling.)

And at the end, I lift up Lamb to place the star on top. Voila!

And the lying, of course. I relish the lying. Mister is too old to buy any of it, but Lamb believes. And I lie through my teeth. Lamb already excidedly told me that she hopes the reindeer aren't as messy this year.

Yes, I rabbit chew carrots to leave bits on the floor by the fireplace. Eating the cookies we bake and drinking the milk (or egg nog) we leave is definitely a better part for me. And perhaps the NORAD Santa site which really impressed Mister back in the day.

And presents! I don't need anything. Heck, I shocked my sister when I recently told her I still use a shirt she bought me in high school (and we won't discuss the 1984 (I think. It might be 1980) Olympics lip balm in my desk drawer at work). But I do enjoy getting presents for my children. I tend not to just buy stuff during the year, saving the present experience for birthdays and Christmas. I've been to stores, and packages have arrived, and more are to be delivered. And I'll be back at stores again--even on Christmas Eve when I shop whistling the same tunes that drove my batty when they played in stores the day after Halloween.

And Christmas doesn't even include the weekend's events like Mister's concert which we went to (he plays cello) or the birthday party Lamb went to at a play place.

The party room she was in was the Tiger Room. If you had to ask. And yes, I gave up trying to position her head a little bit lower for a better effect. She'd done a lot of running around the habitrail, at that point. And don't think I didn't tell her I noticed we took the long way through the maze so I could help her with one sliding device.

I do love my children dearly. I'm a lucky dad.

So stop your whining and complaining and enjoy the holiday. Any holiday. Wish me a happy or joyous or merry whatever-it-is you celebrate. I'll take it with the good intentions it is surely motivating you. But for those who still object to Christmas as a Christian holiday somehow oppressing others, I say Merry C.H.R.I.S.T.M.A.S. That's an acronym, so I can't be punished by pulling that wall between church and state down upon my fragile human body. I enjoy wishing cashiers a cheery Merry Christmas, with most looking about to make sure a manager hasn't observed them receiving the greeting that shall not be spoken.

The acronym, if you must know, is Collective Holiday Reflecting Individual Sentiments To Mark Another Season. I came up with that a decade ago at work to try and replace the monstrous non-denominational official parties we'd have. I still shudder over the YEG (Year End Gathering). The BYG when we had to delay it to January one year was just revolting. I was ready to just call it Festivus and give up. But under a challenge I came up with C.H.R.I.S.T.M.A.S. I was universally saluted for the sheer genius of it, but nobody ever dared use it. So my lonely crusade for C.H.R.I.S.T.M.A.S. staggers on, unappreciated an unadopted by the masses in government and corporate employment where suggesting Jesus might be involved is strictly verboten..

Remember That Whole Stiff Upper Lip Thing

Britian has been our best ally for a long time. I certainly don't hold that bit of unpleasantness in the 18th century (and 19th century) against them.

Our president famously promised to restore our image in the world. Unfortunately, the president's outreach to the evil, useless, or merely rude hasn't included Britain. The British are noticing:

He insults our troops and PM while sucking up to the French and Germans. But, says NILE GARDINER, the President needs to remember who his friends are . . .

You see, our first European President of America believes institutional "Europe" is our natural ally:

The Obama administration is far happier doing business with Brussels than it is with Britain.

It's no coincidence that some of Obama's closest advisers on European affairs, both inside the Pentagon and the State Department, are fervent believers in the idea of a federal Europe and are certainly helping those leading the charge towards a European super-state.

As a result, the Obama administration has already given its enthusiastic support to the Lisbon Treaty, the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, and the European Security and Defence Policy - all pan-EU initiatives.

He also seems keener on currying favour with France and Germany - the two nations that did most to oppose America's incursion into Iraq and who have singularly failed to provide adequate support in Afghanistan - than he is with Britain.

Institutional Europe may be a friend to President Obama, who aspires to make us the New World Europe, but Europe cannot be America's friend. European states can be our friend--but not "Europe." It should be our goal to stop the European Union, whose anti-American elites will smother the pro-American embers that still burn on the continent.

Britain is a brother, friend, and ally. It pains me that our president thinks nothing of our common history and achievements, but our president is not America, though he leads us for now. Many Americans still see Britain as our best ally in a dangerous world.

Eventually, we'll elect a president who will not reject our common heritage. That American president will appreciate Britain all the more for your ability to endure the current slights you have faced from a president who knows too little history to guide his actions.
Heck, who knows? Maybe President Obama will be that president if he can pull his head out of his--ah, "State Department."

Twelve More Dots

Get ready to wake up one morning and find that a passenger plane here in America has been flown into a building:

Rumors continued to circulate Monday via e-mail and the Internet about what exactly happened on an AirTran flight at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in November.

At the time, AirTran told Channel 2 Action News that an unruly passenger on a cell phone forced the pilot to take the plane back to the gate. Monday, a passenger said the situation went well beyond that.

“It was extremely intense. I’ve never experienced anything like that,” said passenger Brent Brown.

Brown runs a security consultant company and is a frequent flier. But even for him, he said the events of Flight 297 were disturbing and frightening. As the Houston-bound flight taxied to the runway, several in a group of about a dozen men of Middle Eastern descent started walking the aisles and using their cell phones, Brown said.

Perhaps jihadis have learned from 9/11 that they need more muscle to keep the passengers from counter-attacking.

If true, of course. I'm sure there's a logical explanation that doesn't involve slaughtering infidels.

If this incident on Flight 297 was a dry run, remember it isn't the first phase. Another group already carried out that mission, making it extremely difficult to even ask why several in a group of about a dozen men of Middle Eastern decent would start walking the aisles in a plane during an emergency.

So remember this incident when we have to ask why we didn't connect the dots to prevent another mass-murder of Americans on our own soil.

Hello China

The mystery aircraft over Afghanistan is confirmed American:

The US Air Force on Tuesday confirmed for the first time that it is flying a stealth unmanned aircraft known as the "Beast of Kandahar," a drone spotted in photos and shrouded in secrecy.

The RQ-170 Sentinel is being developed by Lockheed Martin and is designed "to provide reconnaissance and surveillance support to forward deployed combat forces," the air force said in a brief statement.

Why we'd need to fly it there to test it makes no sense to me unless we're testing it by bumping up against (or through, I suppose) Chinese air defenses.

UPDATE: Strategypage guesses it is going through it's paces over Iran. I wouldn't think that Iran's air defense radars would be so great that they'd be a major test for such an advanced bird, but depending on where it flies it could surely photograph and map areas of interest, as well as sucking up whatever other signals it can record for later use.

A Poem for Copenhagen

Al Gore is dabbling in poetry to inspire us to save the planet.

My eco-muse calls.

Al Gore feels Earth’s pain

Will save us if we let him

But at least he’s rich

I feel the waters receding and the Earth healing.
 
You're welcome.
 
OK, really, this has to be my last global warming post for the year.

UPDATE: Loop hole! I'm inspired. I call this one "Leeches"

Earth has a fever

Gore wants to bleed the patient

We need more cow bell

I feel the fever!

UPDATE: Since I'm taking a break from mocking global warmers, let me say that though I am a "denier," my basic problems with the whole global warming issue is 1) I don't think that the climate scientists have proven that man has caused global warming (I won't deny that we have pumped CO2--a very small component of greenhouse gasses--into the atmosphere but I see no evidence that this is close to being a cause of temperature rises we've seen); that climate change is catastrophic; or that socialist responses to attempt to stop climate change are a sane response to a problem.

So if the climate scientists would free the data and actually conduct science, I could be persuaded that we are experiencing either dangerous or man-made global warming. Which places me in a more scientific frame of mind than the actual climate scientists who have appeared to practice religion more than science. I admit, however, that even if I am persuaded that the climate scientists have made their case that global warming is real, dangerous, and man-caused, I won't be persuaded that socialist policies that reduce our freedoms and cripple our economy are the appropriate response. But I guess that makes me a wild-eyed denier.

How Cute is This?

Lamb went on a field trip to the main library this week.

So two days ago, after work, I find that Lamb has set up a little library complete with a wand (a small flashlight) to check books in and out, a sheet of paper labeled for name, book title, and dates for check out and return, and a work station (a box lid) to type information in. Plus her new library card.

So I spent some time browsing her library and checking books out and in, with Lamb dutifully recording information. When I gave my name as "dad" she amended it with "my" as a prefix, noting that it might be confusing if other dads used her library.

That's my girl. Always thinking. Hopefully this experience might move her away from the toy store career track she currently has in mind.

The Sky Is Falling!

Oh. My. God. Why did I ever doubt global warming? This just in from London:

The Met Office on Tuesday released data from hundreds of monitoring stations worldwide showing that the global surface temperature has risen significantly over the last 150 years.

Actual data shows this. I know that temperatures declined from the 1940s through the 1970s (hence the new ice age climate change scare back then), but we're talking about temperatures rising since 1850 according to the release!

Kill our economy! Turn over all political power to Al Gore so he'll save us! I want to live, damn it!

Just where is that cloth tote bag I got as a present ten years ago?!

Wait. Did they say temperatures have been rising since 1850? Why does that year seem so important?

Oh yeah:

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after a warmer era known as the Medieval Warm Period. While not a true ice age, the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[1] Climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. Some sources confine the Little Ice Age to approximately the 16th century to the mid-19th century.[2] It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.

If you start your trend analysis at the end of a cooling period, of course you are going to show temperatures rising since then.

So Mr. Gore, give me back the keys. I guess I'm not willing to let your crazed minions drive the economy over a cliff, after all.

Oh, and I do apologize for the recent flurry of climate change related posts. I've always felt free to rant about the issue from time to time given that it was an issue that touches on foreign policy, given how often we were beaten about the head and shoulder over failing to address it (notwithstanding the inconvenient truth that global temperatures did not rise during the Bush administration!). But my God, this is truly a target-rich environment since Climategate. Grant me life's little pleasures.

A Mullah Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Moment

Recently, Iran ran exercises to demonstrate their air defense prowess should America or Israel decide to attack their "peaceful nuclear programs."

I didn't blog on it since Iranian maneuvers are largely of the "scream and leap" variety designed to convince locals and gullible foreigners that the Persian Empire is mean and lean.

Sadly for Iran, the exercises simply demonstrated that they suck:

The Iranian exercise had air and air-defense units go through the motions of dealing with a hostile air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

The Iranian generals who organized the exercise were surprised at how uncoordinated and ill prepared their forces were for such an attack. Communications were spotty (due to equipment failures and poor training), and weapons (aircraft and missile systems) did not perform as expected.

Well then. That could be inconvenient for the Iranian nutjobs since Israel could strike Iran, even if it could not do the job as good as we can.

And any indication that Iran is less capable of resisting gives the Israelis a little more margin of error in carrying out the strike analysis.

The Cost of the Good War

As the Iraq War raged and anti-war activists insisted that we had to end the costly Iraq War to focus on the good war in Afghanistan, I protested that if cost is your issue, you shouldn't want to fight in Afghanistan where transportation costs make supporting one soldier far more expensive than a soldier in Iraq. Even if we had only half the troops in Afghansitan as we had in Iraq at the peak, the costs for Afghanistan would be higher.

The cost is about 2-1/2 time higher, in fact. At least:

Lacking a nearby seaport, bulk cargo shipped to Karachi must be driven through Pakistan into Afghanistan - past chokepoints that insurgents have attacked. Once in theater, rough terrain and bad roads increase the reliance on helicopters, which are expensive to bring into the country via cargo plane and expensive to operate after arrival.

"It's a very complicated logistics line that keeps our troops supplied there," said Todd Harrison, senior budget fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment in Washington.

The difficulty of getting to and around Afghanistan drives logistics costs to about $1 million per troop per year, far more than the roughly $400,000 it costs to supply troops in Iraq, according to a recent analysis by Harrison.

And that estimate may be conservative. The CSBA analyst found that it cost the Pentagon $25 to $45 per gallon of fuel consumed in Afghanistan, but others say the real price tag is far higher. The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Conway, told a military energy forum in October that a gallon of fuel the government buys for $1.05 can cost $400 once it's poured into a gas tank in Afghanistan. Last summer, Marines in Helmand were burning 88,000 gallons a day.

So to win the good war, we'll likely need to spend at quite a good pace. More than in Iraq once we get all the new troops in, depending on the level of fighting that the enemy can maintain.

And never forget also that we spend money to avoid spending blood--both ours and civilians who could be caught in the crossfire.

Now Go and Emit No More

Althouse is astonished that global warmers are affirming their faith in climate change despite the Climategate emails and code.

"Affirm? We're doing affirmations now? "Skeptics"... affirmations... is this religion?"

Why, yes. Yes it is a religion.

Affirmation of faith is just the tip of the iceberg floating away from the poles to destroy us all.

Consider:

The Green Pope: Al Gore.

The Anti-Gore: George W. Bush.

Their bible: The IPCC report.

Their prophets: James Hansen and Michael Mann, among others. President Obama himself has promised to heal the planet and make the waters recede

They have loyal scribes in the media like Andrew Revkin hand-copying the texts of the prophets and their acolytes brought down from the mountain tops.

Their original sin that taints us all: Use of carbon--specifically oil and coal that emit carbon in large amounts--rather than the bite of an apple.

They have churches: Organic markets and re-use stores.

They even have revival meetings, like the mass "conference" going on in Copenhagen. Or in Kyoto. Just no tents--five star hotels, natch.

Not enough? I'm just getting started, baby!

Their religious order monks toil away secretly in monestaries, debating figurative angels on pinheads, in places like the East Anglia Climatic Research Institute, NASA, EPA, and Penn State.

They even have their own holiday! In a combination of Easter and Christmas, this religion has Earth Day.

They have holy relics: The mythical "hockey stick."  The East Anglia Shroud of Data that nobody can examine. An Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

And do I have to mention how much they loved burning Bush?

They have their monuments, too: Solar cell farms and wind mills. And the Prius, of course (PBUI).

Sacraments? Of course! Mindlessly sorting green, brown, and clear glass before throwing it out. Recycling oracles at the curb for their sinful paper offerings. And composting muck to really show you're in deep. Don't forget gazing at twisty light bulbs instead of rows of little candles!

For those who can't live the green lifestyle in purity, they can buy carbon offset indulgences to clear the decks of eco-sin and allow even private jets and mansions to be colored green.

Incantations for the masses, too: Instead of "Amen" and "Thanks be to God," this religion has "Consensus" and "Peer Review." And for high ceremonies, "The Science is Settled."

They even have banned chapters of their bible written by earlier believers, but now deemed heresy.

The Warmist Inquisition, of course, is reserved for use against individuals and journals that stray from the true faith. The faithful will redefine peer review journals and blacklist writers to keep the faith pure.

As for the ignorant masses who persist in heresy? They are "deniers." Some, ah, "over-enthusiastic" believers have dreamed of arresting, trying and punishing (but not always in that order) these people for crimes against the climate.

Why this alarmism and extemism? Because end times are nigh if we don't end our evil ways. We face either burning in Hell on Earth with runaway rising temperatures or drowning in a new flood. Heck, they're already testing an Ark. Or we might all freeze because of global warming. Whatever. The important thing is that bad things will happen if we don't stop sinning. Now!

And last but not least, they have their Devil: Beelzecarbon. In all it's forms, seductive though it may be with air conditioning and all that.

So yes, Professor Althouse, yes it is a religion.

Now go and emit no more.

New and Old Iraq

Iraq stands between democracy and rule of law on the one hand and civil war and despotism on the other.

Iraq has set national elections after negotiations settled on terms for the election:

The presidential council on Tuesday postponed Iraq's parliamentary elections by seven weeks and set March 6 as the date for the vote, in a delay that has raised concerns about an increase in violence in the country.

But there are still terrorists out to destroy the Iraq that is being built one brick of rule of law at a time:

The decision on the election date came as a series of coordinated attacks killed at least 102 people and wounded 197 in Baghdad. It was the worst day of violence in the Iraqi capital in more than two months.

Three car bombs struck near government sites in the Iraqi capital, the third time since August that government buildings were targeted by multiple blasts that brought massive casualties. U.S. and Iraqi military officials had warned of the chance of increased pre-election violence aimed at destabilizing the government.

Don't forget that in the face of this violence and unhappiness over the original election process, enough bricks existed in the new Iraq to use rule of law rather than violence to set the terms for the elections:

Iraq was able to set the election date only after parliament approved a new law on balloting guidelines during an emergency session convened just before a midnight deadline Sunday.

Iraq has continued to defy pessimists who believe Iraq will fail as a democracy. Much can certainly go wrong--even if we stick around to fully help the Iraqis build and entrench rule of law--but much could go right, too. You don't even have to look Neoconish to think that would be a good thing.

Who Is Fighting Ineffectively Now?

I've long argued that fighting back against the jihadis is not counter-productive. It is fighting back ineffectively that creates more jihadis. Fighting and winning kills jihadis and discourages recruits.

Stratfor writes that the jihadis--and not Amercia--have fought ineffectively. As much as many Americans might believe we aren't winning the wider war, try looking at it from the enemy's side. The conclusion:

Oddly enough, as much as the United States is uncomfortable in the position it is in, the jihadists are in a much worse position.

Read it all, as they say.

The Moslem "street" did not rise up against us and our allied Arab governments to sweep jihadis into power after we began our counter-attacks into the Moslem world. Instead, friendly Arab governments have worked with us to fight our common jihadi enemies. The enemy made the mistake of believing that if you can't kill the one you hate (America, for the most part), hate the ones you can kill (local Moslems who don't fully share the jihadis' belief system).

Yes, our image has faltered in the Moslem world since 9/11. But given that we will continue to fight jihadis even under President Obama, his short-lived outreach will fail to maintain the spike in our image as long as the source of our poor image is the refusal of many Moslems to consider our fight to protect ourselves from jihadis as legitimate. That's really an issue for Moslems to address, isn't it? We must defend ourselves regardless of their opinion of our defense.

The jihadis are losing. We are winning. This is no time to let up the pressure by declaring victory (or declaring domestic needs are more important) and going home.

Nu, Lana

Well, all right. Russia might have some reality creeping in:

Newly appointed Chief of Staff of the Russian Land Forces, Lieutenant-General Sergey Skokov, recently made a statement that caused a major sensation across the Russian Federation. Speaking about possible conflicts that Russia may face in the future, he outlined three distinct scenarios: fighting in the "western, southern" and eastern" directions.

There is no realistic cause for concern over conflict in the western direction unless Moscow initiates the conflict.

The south, where the frontier of Islam meets Russia, is surely a cause of concern.

But the east, ah yes. There's the real threat. A modernizing and growing China meets Russia's distant and sparsely propulated provinces (much taken from China).

China is now one of three threats the Russians see. I count this as progress.

Your Guide to Copenhagen

Apparently, the "neat trick" to "hide the decline" isn't just science talk for working really hard to make the science work. It is not common practice for actual scientists. Which, since it seems to be common among climate scientists, should tell us a lot.

I humbly request that the lexicon entry for "oxymoron" be amended to delete "military intelligence" and replace it with "climate scientist."

It can go along with this devil's dictionary of climate science-like talk.

And if you don't want to wait for the authoritative conference report on how the planet is heating up, you can check out this CIA report on climate change.

Oh, but it is from 1974. And about global cooling.

Ah, climate scientists!

A Transparent Line of Supply

Getting supplies to a theater is only part of the struggle a logistics team faces. Making sure everyone knows where those supplies are (to go get them or just to know that you don't need to ship another because what is needed is a day away from the requesting unit) has always been a problem for militaries.

We've worked hard to make our supply situation a little different from that Indiana Jones scene with the artifact going into the huge warehouse with identical crates as far as the eye could see:

A larger problem, keeping track of stuff that is in the long supply pipeline from the United States to wherever the fighting is, has made use of a new technology that has been adopted more slowly by commercial firms. It's RFID (radio-frequency identification), which has been in development for years, to replace bar codes, the previous revolution in keeping track of stuff. RFID uses small labels containing a cheap (less than a buck now, headed towards pennies each) electronic device that contains information about what is inside whatever it is attached to. The RFID is written to by a PC equipped with RFID writer hardware and software, or, in the latest generation of RFID chips, via a wireless device. What makes it all work is the ability of RFID to broadcast back when an electronic RFID reader is within range (at least ten feet) of an RFID tag.

This isn't as fascinating as a new weapon system. But it is more important since a fancy new weapon without the $5.00 failed grommet that makes it work won't do too much if you can't get that grommet.

I never forget the story I read that the Iranian war effort against Iraq (1980-1988) for two years or so was hampered by the quick thinking of our departing advisors who left after the Islamic revolution in Iran. We'd armed up the Shah and he had warehouses full of spare parts and supplies. But we erased the data showing where items were. It took two years (if I recall the time frame right) for the Iranians to recover that data in order to use those supplies.

Let me Be Clear. Bring Them On?

I applaud the president's decision to attempt to win in Afghanistan. Still, I admit it would be nice if he appeared committed in his heart to victory.

I never understood why President Bush was slammed for his "bring them on" comment when post-Saddam violence in Iraq cropped up in mid-2003. What was he supposed to do? Cower and beg our enemies to leave us alone? Promise we'd start leaving in 18 months? Insist he's just as eager as our enemies that we bring our troops home?

A little swagger is good in war president. President Obama might want to be a little clearer on that.

UPDATE: Fareed Zakaria calls the president the anti-Churchill. And as you might expect for someone who couldn't find his posterior with both hands and a GPS signal, Zakaria thinks that is a good thing:

This first year of his presidency has been a window into Obama's worldview. Once most presidents get hold of the bully pulpit, they cannot resist the temptation to become Winston Churchill. They gravitate toward grand rhetoric about freedom and tyranny and embrace the moral drama of their role as leaders of the free world. Not Obama. He has been cool and calculating, whether dealing with Russia, Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan. Obama is a realist by temperament, learning and instinct. More than any president since Richard Nixon, he has focused on defining American interests carefully, providing resources to achieve them and keeping his eyes on the prize.

War is not a law review article or debating society. Real people fight and die--and win--for causes they believe in. In Zakaria's world--whatever it is--being the anti-Churchill is a good thing. In the real world, Churchill has his place.

Unable to See the Forest for the Dead Tree

Our eco-minders in the press will kill a lot of trees in support of the Copenhagen "conference." Quoting The Guardian:

Tomorrow 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency....

This sounds so familiar:



Sadly, I quickly found I was not the first to think of this. Well played, Mr. Bartlett.

It's hard not to be impressed by all those conference attendees all focused on the entire planet's health, isn't it?

Well, it's not hard for me not to be impressed. But I'm cynical that way. Indeed, I wonder if the attendees can see the forest for the tree, upstanding individuals though they may be.

One tree in Siberia--selected for its implications rather than being representative of the forest--is the basis for our climate panic being dignified as a scientific conference in Copenhagen this month:

In other words, what has become arguably the most influential set of evidence used to support the case that the world faces unprecedented global warming, developed, copied and promoted hundreds of times, has now been as definitively kicked into touch as was Mann's "hockey stick" before it. Yet it is on a blind acceptance of this kind of evidence that 16,500 politicians, officials, scientists and environmental activists will be gathering in Copenhagen to discuss measures which, if adopted, would require us all in the West to cut back on our carbon dioxide emissions by anything up to 80 per cent, utterly transforming the world economy.

My British slang isn't up to par. I'll have to look up kicked into touch. Ah!

And what a conference of eco-minded individuals it will be!

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.

And even the local hookers who see the delegate emissions spewing out all over Copenhagen (I meant "carbon", get out of the gutter!)  are getting in the act ("My, you do have a large carbon footprint, don't you Mr. Gore!"):

Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass.

Living the dream, eh? Private jets, limos, gourmet food, 5 star hotels, and free sex. Who wouldn't want to be a global warmer? I assume former President Clinton is working to get Al Gore's tickets since the latter said he won't attend after all.

But don't get all excited about your glamorous future as a climate change believer. The joys of Copenhagen (and the mansions the delegates return home to after) are restricted to the priesthood of the sect.

For the rest of us, we'll have eco-Trabants and will be denied even the simple joys of flimsy plastic bags that we've become accustomed to getting from stores in order to carry our non-gourmet groceries home.

I guess our climate betters figured that they needed to come up with a use for all those public radio cloth tote bags the little people have stuffed in closets across America.

Too Close, Too Fast?

Will Taiwan step back from aggressive policies designed to give the illusion that cross-strait relations have warmed?

Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou may slow down an aggressive push for improved ties with China after the island's voters showed disquiet with his policies in local elections, analysts said.

Seventeen counties and cities were contested in Saturday's poll, and Ma's Kuomintang (KMT) party lost control of two, while the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which favours formal independence, gained one.

"Ma will have to adjust or slow down the pace of his policy of boosting China ties," said Hsu Yung-ming, a political scientist at Soochow University in Taipei.

The election was widely seen as a proxy referendum on Ma's performance since he assumed office in May 2008, ending eight years in opposition for the KMT.

For China, better relations ultimately end with Taiwan as a province of China. Perhaps there is a growing realization of that simple fact.
Mid-term elections can compel mid-course corrections. It's good to remember that.

A Day That Should Live in Infamy

Iranian students protesting their stolen elections, refuse to die quietly so the West can get on with meaningful dialog with Ahmadinejad over his nuclear ambitions:

Security forces and militiamen clashed with thousands of protesters shouting "death to the dictator" outside Tehran University on Monday, beating them with batons and firing tear gas on a day of nationwide student demonstrations, witnesses said.

The protests were the largest in months, as university students — a bedrock of support for the pro-reform movement — sought to energize the opposition with rallies at campuses across the country. The opposition has been reeling under a fierce crackdown since turmoil erupted over the disputed presidential election in June.

But we've made our choice. We assume the regime will win, even though the mullahs have inconveniently for our State Department failed to win yet.

If the regime doesn't win, will the democracy protesters still be pro-American? Will a post-mullah Iran that once boasted one of the few Islamic countries to have a positive view of America remember our abandonment with anger or appreciation that we didn't "taint" them with even words of support for them or cautions to the regime to refrain from human rights abuses?

Nuance isn't as easy as it looks, you know.

Three Army Combat Brigades?

There were initial rumors that we'd send 35,000 troops to Afghanistan, including 3 Army combat brigades and a Marine regimental combat team or expeditionary brigade. I assumed these would be formed combat units and that any brigades sent as trainers would be in addition to the combat brigades.

When the decision to send 30,000 troops came out, I assumed that this must mean only 2 Army combat brigades in the mix.

But stories came out that the president's decision to send 30,000 might end up being 35,000. So what would that mean for combat brigades?

Now this story, noting the difficulty the military will have getting equipment sent and facilities to receive these troops over the next six months, also states:

The Marines will send a Regimental Combat Team from Camp Lejeune, N.C. to Helmand province. Most of the remaining forces will travel to Kandahar province, the birthplace of the Taliban. Army officials said that next week they'd begin notifying the three Army brigades that will be sent.

So does this mean three Army brigades sent as units plus another brigade broken up for training teams? Or does this mean that trainers will come from one of these three brigades? And was my initial assumption of three formed combat brigades in error, for that matter.

Perhaps it is just my incorrect assumption that when you speak of brigades/regiments that means formed units sent to fight as units. Perhaps the stories all along just meant units sent regardless of what they look like once there.

The More or Less Loyal Opposition

While opposition to war is a normal condition presidents waging war have to face, this war is different. The president will face opposition to the war in Afghanistan largely from within his own party. In Vietnam, Nixon faced the opposition party that became anti-war and under Ford we were compelled to lose that war. In similar partisan fashion, however, we won the Philippine Insurrection despite the strident opposition.

I have no idea how this will play out. There could be a virtual civil war within the president's party as loyalists defend his war effort at the side of Republicans. The Left will increasingly voice their anger both at the president and at Congress, putting pressure on war supportive Democrats to swing against the war. Mere cooperation with Republicans to support the war will be seen as a sign of betrayal.

Some Republicans will side against the war as well, as they support a policy of "more rubble means less trouble." And as the 2010 elections get closer, more will decide that opposing the president on the war is necessary for reelection.

So the president will need to juggle votes with an anti-war leadership and members of both parties opposing and supporting him. It might actually be in the president's interests to have his party lose one house in Congress in 2010 so at least one house will be in control of the committees to back the war effort, at least. And in the end, the president might face a primary challenge from the anti-war wing of his party.

Assuming the president holds firm in his determination to win what he now says is the necessary war.

And this virtual civil war that we must win in order to win on the battlefield will play out with our infighting broadcast around the world into the deepest cave in Afghanistan. How can they not believe God is on their side when they see that?

Only we can beat us. And we might do just that. We shall see.

I Got Your Peace Right Here

So is it awkward for the president to receive the Nobel Peace Prize even as he escalates our troop commitment to Afghanistan?

The memory is only days' old of Obama's address at West Point, where he told cadets and the rest of the world that he was escalating the war in Afghanistan so he could stabilize it and then try to end it. Under his watch, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan has grown from 34,000 to around 70,000, and now, is on its way to about 100,000.


All that is the backdrop for the imagery the world is about see: an American president to be toasted for peace, awarded a storied Nobel medal, treated to a torch-lit procession and feted at a five-course banquet filled with people in tuxedos and gowns.

In the spirit of making lemonade when you get lemons, I think this is great. The president gave the Nobel committee a desert and they called it peace.

I think the president got a Norwegian license to kill.

The Surge Begins in Order to End

Knowing that reinforcements are on the way to Afghanistan, and perhaps seeking to exploit any enemy discouragement from hearing that 40,000 more Western troops are on the way to kill them, Marine Corps and British units with Afghans in a minor supporting role (this will need to be reversed in time) have launched an offensive:

Operation "Cobra's Anger," which involves 900 U.S. Marines and sailors, British troops and 150 Afghan soldiers and police, pushed into the Now Zad district of southern Helmand province, an insurgent stronghold depopulated after years of heavy fighting.


The advancing Marines killed several militants and seized bombs and weapons in the first day of the operation, which begin with an airborne assault on Friday, said Major Bill Pelletier, spokesman for the Marine Expeditionary Brigade in Helmand.

We're a long way from success, but we know what it looks like, because we can see it in Iraq:
 

Terrorist violence is down, and the attacks that are being made are using smaller and less sophisticated bombs. The terrorist groups are not doing very well. In the north, where the bombings were the worst over the last year, efforts to dry up terrorist funding (from sources in Syria and Jordan, as well as local scams, like stealing oil from pipelines and trucking it out of the country) have succeeded. ... Increased security along the Syrian border has kept out most of the terrorist volunteers (commonly used as suicide bombers). Those that are already in Iraq, finding no one to set them up for a glorious suicide bombing attack, are going home, or trying to get to Afghanistan (where there is still a demand for their skill set.)

 
The crime gangs that once provided services to terrorists are returning to their civilian criminal efforts.
 
About six months since we effectively left Iraq's cities and then formally ended our combat role in the center and south, Iraqis have managed--with setbacks that can't be helped--to continue the job our surge started.
 
The fight in Afghanistan will be tougher in some senses since the Taliban are better fighters than the Sunni and Shia Arab insurgents in Iraq were (and are). At some point, we will lose a platoon or even a company to a Taliban enemy assault that overruns our position. The enemy has tried and failed, but they will get lucky or we will get sufficiently sloppy--or the odds will catch up with us even if we do nothing wrong and the enemy doesn't get lucky.
 
But the Taliban don't have the cash that the Sunni Arab terrrorists had. Nor will the Taliban have access to the same level of technical expertise to fully replicate the IED and suicide bombing campaign that seriously rocked Iraq in 2006 and 2007.
 
And I doubt our press will cover the Afghanistan war with the same level of full-color video coverage that helped define Iraq in our media as a "quagmire." One, Afghanistan is more remote and more primitive--who wants to work there? Two, President Bush isn't waging the war so there is no media motive to undermine the president. And three, the legacy media is going broke and it won't want to spend the money to send the full crews there to cover the war across the country.
 
We need to dry up the enemy finances in Helmand, choke off the center of power in Kandahar, prevent Taliban from Pakistan from keeping the Afghanistan Taliban alive despite our efforts, and keep the more secure areas of Afghanistan free of Taliban refugees who will flee our efforts to suppress them in the south (as al Qaeda did after our assault on Fallujah in 2004 when they fled to the Mosul region). And build up national, regional, and local governing structures to prevent a political vacuum from being an invitation to the Taliban to set up shadow governments. Oh, and we need to make some economic progress to make a peaceful life of trade or farming a better option than signing up as Taliban cannon fodder for a glorious but brief career as a soldier of Allah.
 
Our Afghanistan surge will end, in time. Let's support a victory before that happens. Heck, we've done it already despite the best efforts of our Retreatist Americans.

Your Money or Your Life

The criminal enterprise with a UN seat that is the North Korean regime is unhappy that some of its people managed to srurvive and even get a bit ahead in the impoversihed disaster area their country has become under Stalinist rule (but give them credit, their carbon footprint is minimal, eh?).

The North Koreans changed their currency to catch those who made money. And now the North Korean regime has decided that it would be simpler to just shoot anybody trying to leave than to catch them, "try" them, and then work them to death in penal camps:

The National Defense Commission — the top government body headed by North Korean leader Kim Jong Il — recently instructed soldiers to kill unauthorized border crossers on the spot, South Korea's mass-circulation Chosun Ilbo newspaper said, citing unidentified sources inside the North.

It said the order could be an attempt by the communist government to stop members of North Korea's middle class who are angry over suddenly being deprived of their money from leaving the country. ...

The reported move came amid signs of growing anger among North Korean citizens left with hoards of worthless bills.

On Monday, the government informed citizens and foreign embassies that it would redenominate the national currency, the won. But it limited the maximum amount of old bills that could be converted into new ones, telling residents to deposit the rest in government-run banks, according to media reports and diplomats.

There are widespread doubts among North Koreans whether they would be able to get their money back, they said.

Angry citizens burned piles of old bills at two separate locations in the eastern coastal city of Hamhung on Monday, the Daily NK, a Seoul-based online news outlet that focuses on North Korean affairs, reported Thursday, citing an unidentified North Korean resident.

It quoted the resident as saying he saw graffiti and leaflets criticizing North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in and around a college in Hamhung — a rare move in a country where the totalitarian government keeps tight control over its 24 million people.

I've stopped trying to predict when North Korea will collapse, although like this news the signs of collapse getting closer keep cropping up.

But as long as we don't save them from their own stupid policies, it is clear that North Korea is in a long collapse.

The Enemy Will Fight

I didn't think much of the idea that our enemies in Afghanistan would decide not to fight to wait for us to leave Afghanistan:

[Laying] low just gives us the time and peace to round up the enemy. Being quiet may be indistinguishable from losing for the average Afghan villager. There is a risk to laying low while we entrench security and governing forces and build infrastructure throughout the country. No, the enemy will fight us regardless of whether they think we might start withdrawing in a year and a half. They can't afford not to.

General McChrystal doesn't think the Taliban will do that, either:

If the Taliban simply "melt away" for the 18 months, that would provide a window for the Afghan government to demonstrate its effectiveness and turn the tide, he said.

"The insurgent cannot afford to leave the battlefield while the government of Afghanistan expands its capability, expands its legitimacy, expands its control."

We should hope our enemies are dense enought to give us 18 months of peace and quiet to hunt them down and bolster Afghanistan's security and economy.

Regional Pier Competitor

If the Russians manage to rebuild their military power, and if they move into the hostile rather than friendly category, we can at least take comfort that they are both pushed east and that they will be a regional power (granted, the regions would be "Eurasia") lacking the ability to cut the lines of supply between North America and European NATO:

The Russian public is becoming aware of the fact that they won't have much of a navy in 5-10 years. The problem is that, in that period, most of the Cold War era warships that now comprise the fleet, will have to be retired. These ships are falling apart, as there was not any money, since the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, for repairs and upgrades. The Russian parliament is calling for more money, to build enough surface ships to maintain a respectable fleet. That is proving difficult. ...

The new fleet, even if construction picks up, will be much smaller. The Russian fleet will go from 170 ships and subs now, to less than a third of that. This is not popular with most Russians, but the money, capability and will is not there to do much more.

The Soviets during the Cold War needed to cut off American and Canadian reinforcements from reaching the front if the Red Army was to win a war. A much smaller Russian army would now have to face the prospect of facing major ground reinforcements arriving if the war lasted long enough, since the Russian fleet will be hard pressed to defend their long coast let alone project power into the North Atlantic.

Not that the Russians should be viewing NATO as a potential enemy. The Russians really should worry more about their Far East and China. Heck, if Moscow could get that reality through their thick skulls, I'd welcome a modernized Russian military.

It's Possible to Be Less Cooperative?

Iran is unhappy with the wimpy attention being focused on them lately:

A nuclear official said Friday Iran will not answer to the U.N. nuclear watchdog about its plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment sites beyond the barest minimum required under the international nonproliferation treaty.


The comments by Abolfazl Zohrehvand, an adviser to the country's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, came days after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran was considering whether to scale back cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency after it approved a resolution censuring Iran over its nuclear program.

So let me get this straight. Iran is in the IAEA, which means it is supposed to only pursue civilian nuclear energy programs. But even as a state within the IAEA, Iran is seeking to get nuclear weapons.

So how exactly could Iran be less cooperative?

The Weakest Link

During the Cold War, European NATO members had a couple worries about our nuclear deterrent.

One, they worried about whether we'd risk New York City to defend West Berlin. That is, would we really use nuclear weapons against the Soviets if they were defeating us in conventional war when the price might be a crater where New York City is? If we weren't willing to do that, the Soviets would be more likely to invade NATO.

Two, they worried we would use our nuclear weapons and turn central Europe into a nuclear battlefield under some tacit agreement with the Soviets not to escalate to attacks on each other's national territory.

France and Britain had independent nuclear forces that could be used that would trigger America's use of nuclear weapons should Moscow then use them. The logic might be insane but it fit the need for deterrence. If we wouldn't nuke Soviet territory in the face of Soviet conventional victory, France or Britain might. More uncertaintly was added to the question of whether the USSR could launch a conventional invasion without triggering nuclear war.

We had even more nuclear linkage than I realized (or perhaps this is something I once knew--or assumed--but forgot). Indeed, we still have 200 thermonuclear bombs in Europe that, in theory, the Belgians (!), Dutch, Italians, and Germans could use:

Under a NATO agreement struck during the Cold War, the bombs, which are technically owned by the U.S., can be transferred to the control of a host nation's air force in times of conflict. Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Dutch, Belgian, Italian and German pilots remain ready to engage in nuclear war.

Disarmament types are in a lather over this.

The need to link our nuclear arsenal to the defense of Europe doesn't seem terribly urgent, I admit. However, while they are unlikely to be needed against the Soviets, it might be good for the Iranians to know that Europeans might get access to enough bombs to flatten them should Iran want to threaten Europe with a nuclear sea of fire.

No Excuses

Given that General McChrystal asked for 40,000 troops, I found it a little odd that our president didn't grant that request. If we end up losing (and there is no reason we can't win, I should add), it would be easy for critics to claim that a decision to send only 35,000--or 30,000 in this case--was the cause of our defeat. For want of a nail, and all that. I disagree with that simple causation speculation, but it would be a simple matter to protect himself from any charge that he shortchanged the surge by instead sending 40,000 as requested.

But he did not. Our allies, of course, can make up the difference, right?

"Nations are backing up their words with deeds," NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told a news conference after talks with NATO foreign ministers.

"At least 25 countries will send more forces to the mission in 2010. They have offered around 7,000 new forces with more to come ... That is solidarity in action and it will have a powerful effect on the ground."

Oh, so close. That only gets us to 37,000 and not 40,000. On such small numbers, accusations of losing Afghanistan could rest.

But our 30,000 isn't just 30,000, per the president's order for the surge:

Gates can increase the number by 10 percent, or 3,000 troops, without additional White House approval or announcement, the official said, adding that "this authority is designed to give him the flexibility to better manage the force and provide the commander with additional resources."

A senior military official said that the final number could go as high as 35,000 to allow for additional support personnel such as engineers, medevac units and route-clearance teams, which comb roads for bombs. Both officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss understandings between the Pentagon and the White House.

Interesting. This makes sense though I confess I don't undestand how ten percent can get us as high as 35,000. But I'm just an ex-math major. Regardless of that, we will get the 3,000 gap closed, at least. So we'll have the troops numbers we need--assuming the allied contingents can actually replace what American troops would do.

And as an aside, this article mentions the 71,000 US troops in Afghanistan figure I've seen lately:
 

In a pre-speech briefing Tuesday, a senior administration official said 33,000 new troops had been "committed this year" -- a total that the Pentagon said included 11,000 authorized in the waning days of the Bush administration and deployed this year, and 21,700 authorized and deployed by Obama.


That adds up to 64,700, short of the 68,000 often cited by administration officials as the current troop level. The Pentagon says more than 71,000 American troops were in Afghanistan at the end of November.

 
That 71K is a figure for troops on the ground at the end of November which probably includes troops coming in as others go out so there is overlap as troops rotate. I'll stick with 68,000 as the best figure. But it actually is a difficult number to nail down. So don't worry about the precise number cited.

Besides, how we use the troops (and whether we have the will to use them to win) and not the precise number in battle is the important thing. This isn't engineering where we can calculate safety factors with margins of error. Or calculate when we will win, of course.

Minsk in the Cross Hairs

I think that Russia's August 2008 invasion (well, really a raid) of Georgia signalled a new outlook by Russia's leaders. They have crossed a threshold and are now willing to use force to restore as much of their empire as possible:

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.

I wondered who would be brought back into the empire.
 
I've had my suspicions. I think we have our definitive answer:
 

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Thursday said further economic preferences for Belarus would depend on the degree of political integration between the two countries in a union state.

 
Ah, the anschluss of our age.

Between NATO and NYETO

The Russians don't like NATO and would rather it just go away.

NATO isn't gone, but it is stalled in expansion and is shamefully not even prepared to defend our newest additions:

[It] became shockingly clear following the Georgia conflict that there had been no serious NATO contingency planning for the territorial defense of the new, post-Cold War allies. That would seem like the bare minimum due to all members who have pledged in Article V of their treaty to regard an attack on one as an attack on all--the more so given their participation in the Afghanistan mission.

NATO is currently involved in drafting a new "strategic concept" to guide the alliance in the years to come. Nothing wrong with that, but NATO is currently fighting an actual shooting war against a tenacious set of adversaries in Afghanistan and has yet to develop credible plans for defending all its members. Winning the war you are fighting and making sure you can deliver on the alliance's core promise of collective self-defense are not bad strategic concepts. First things first.

We can't let Russian paranoia prevent us from even planning how we'd defend our newest allies.

There must not be two tiers of NATO members--those we'll defend and those we won't.

UPDATE: Notwithstanding our attempt to reset relations, concessions are unlikely to make Russia an ally. They may not be our enemy, but they sure do assume we could be. Our common interests are few and far between, really.

The Quiet Campaign

The surge in Afghanistan needs Pakistan to control its side of the border. It was the part of the war effort that President Obama glossed over in his West Point speech. But it is crucial:

Mr. Obama could not be very specific about his Pakistan strategy, his advisers conceded on Monday evening. American operations there are classified, most run by the Central Intelligence Agency. Any overt American presence would only fuel anti-Americanism in a country that reacts sharply to every missile strike against extremists that kills civilians as well, and that fears the United States is plotting to run its government and seize its nuclear weapons.

Yet quietly, Mr. Obama has authorized an expansion of the war in Pakistan as well — if only he can get a weak, divided, suspicious Pakistani government to agree to the terms.

In recent months, in addition to providing White House officials with classified assessments about Afghanistan, the C.I.A. delivered a plan for widening the campaign of strikes against militants by drone aircraft in Pakistan, sending additional spies there and securing a White House commitment to bulk up the C.I.A.’s budget for operations inside the country.

If Pakistan won't help us fully, it will harm our efforts, but the Predator strikes may just be the most visible part of an alternate strategy to disrupt the Taliban in Pakistan's frontier areas to prevent them from at least being a decisive factor in the Afghan fight. Certainly, the president famously said he'd "invade" Pakistan to win the war. I never believed he meant an actual "invasion" but it shows he is open to "operating in" Pakistan, regardless of Pakistan's overt cooperation.

We need to do something inside Pakistan with our without Pakistan's full cooperation. Without preventing Pakistan from being an enemy base, my concerns about putting too many troops into a landlocked place vulnerable to being cut off from supplies and forced to fight for years on end at a disadvantage because of a Pakistan enemy sanctuary will surely keep many an officer in the Pentagon sleepless nights.

But Pakistan domestic policy will always mean this can't be advertised. So by all means, keep it quiet.

Rotating the Nutjobs

I think we can all be happy that President Obama has not, in fact, faced a rash of death threats from Confederate flag-waving, gun-toting, Bible-thumping, inbred Red staters:

Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, testifying today about the state dinner security breach, refuted stories that President Obama has received more threats than previous presidents.


"The threats are not up," Sullivan said, adding that they receive about the same amount of threats against Obama as they did for presidents Clinton and Bush.

So there you go. The gun and God clingers are no more nutso than the BDS sufferers and the militia types of past years. Everyone gets a turn to be seriously in need of a life (and Secret Service visit)!

Which is strangely comforting, actually. The fringe actors are called that for a reason.

But For the Grace of DOD

The Chinese berated and humiliated the Canadian prime minister on his visit to Peking:

Fresh off the triumph of their humiliation of President Obama during his Asian trip, this week the Chinese decided to stomp on America's Hat. I am, of course, referring to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's public dressing down of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper during their joint appearance in Beijing today. Wen apparently stunned diplomatic and media onlookers with his uncharacteristic (for him) rudeness toward the Canadian leader, who was making his first visit to China since taking office in 2006. The apparent source of Chinese unhappiness was a distinct failure by the barbarians to come calling at court in a timely fashion.

Yes, the Middle Kingdom demands a certain amount of groveling when you come to the center of their universe. That's how the Chinese prefer the foreigners.

And you can be sure that however poorly we think we did in China on our visit, there is only one reason we didn't get the Canadian treatment.

Our government should consider how their policies reduce our national power relative to China.

Because That's Where the Money Is

One counter-insurgent expert expresses doubts about our major move into Helmand province in Afghanistan:

In a matter of weeks, a Marine Regimental Combat Team will be heading to Afghanistan’s Helmand province, to reinforce the thousands of marines already patrolling this poppy-growing heartland. It’s a move Nagl — and some other military observers — find questionable. Helmand is relatively-sparsely populated. And it pales in importance to neighboring Kandahar province, the capital of Afghanistan’s south and the birthplace of the Taliban. “I didn’t understand putting the first troops into Helmand this summer,” Nagl says. “I’m having a hard time trying to convince myself of it now.”

I don't understand what the confusion is based on. Al Capone robbed banks because that's where the money is. Helmand is the First Bank of Omar. The paragraph itself notes the poppies. That's where the Taliban get a lot of money to buy their bombs and rabble gunmen. Not that Kandahar isn't important, too, or that it is game over by winning in Helmand:

This doesn't mean that the results are immediate. But in the long run, denying the Taliban the money from opium and "taxes" will reduce their ability to bribe tribal leaders, pay for gunmen, and pay for roadside bombings.

I just don't get why trying to cut off a major source of Taliban revenue that also locks in a lot of farmers to the Taliban cause (because they grow and sell poppies) is a bad first step.

Too Smart to Win

One of the things that really annoys me to no end is the disturbing tendency of Retreatist Americans to pretend their urge to run away is based on their big-brained, nuanced understanding of the world:

One of the psychological defenses our anti-war side uses to rationalize their advocacy of retreat is the comforting illusion that we are doomed to defeat. Urging retreat and defeat under those circumstances isn't cowardly or anti-American, but wise in minimizing losses in a losing effort.

I didn't know that half of it:
 

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the last few years has been the stunningly large number of American thinkers, strategists and pundits who have been perfectly prepared to lose wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. People talk about American decline these days, but it is not in the basic measurements of national power that American decline is to be found. It is in the willingness of the intellectual and foreign policy establishments to accept both decline and defeat.

There is a new doctrine out there that seems to enjoy enormous cache among the smart foreign policy set: fight wars until they get hard, then quit.

So if you want to understand why, in my gut, I did not want to leap to criticize the president's decision to reinforce our troops in Afghanistan, I think I understood that he may be virtually alone among his cadre of advisors brought into the White House from outside in thinking we can win this war:
 

The Obama administration’s ranks are filled with people, fresh from the academy and the think tanks, who talk about the need to manage American decline, and even boast about how much more sophisticated they are than the Bush people on this score. They do say all this off the record, however. Perhaps they know that many Americans would not applaud them for their sophistication. Let’s hope the man in the Oval Office knows it, too.

So I'm willing to cut the president some slack and let him fight the war in Afghanistan. He likely has few enough allies inside the White House. Those outside who believe there is no alternative to victory must support him and prod him to make more decisions that push victory rather than calibrate the precise point we can exit the war in defeat.

Win this war, Mr. President, despite what your big-brained, sophisticated aides tell you. Let our enemies work for our decline.

Time to Step Back

I freely admit I've enjoyed the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit affair. Over the years, I have found the pro-global warming side insufferable in their arrogance and their refusal to actually defend their positions by insisting the science is settled and anyone who raises doubts is an eco-criminal. And since their solutions were suspiciously socialist in nature, their science results seemed far too conventient for them.

The data dump does not, I must admit, prove the global warmers are wrong. But it does show that the global warmers have not proven global warming sufficiently to justify their socialist solutions that intrude into our lives and freedoms. Their methods and motives are too sloppy and underhanded. The data dump shows that they have not been practicing science.

I'll repeat what I wrote three years ago:

One, I'm not convinced that the temperatures today are higher over a long enough period to be considered the highest ever rather than a blip in the long run.


Two, I'm not convinced that people are at fault for any rise even if there is a significant rise in temperatures this century.

And three, and this is the most important part, I think the idea that we must cripple economic growth in order to slow any increase in temperatures is sheer stupidity. Coping with change is cheaper and more effective than trying to stem the incoming tide.

I'm game. Let the global warmers start over with the data freed for all to look at, and we'll try to do actual science on the questions instead of acting like this is a religion and skeptics are just heretics who haven't been burned yet.
 
Not that I'll stop enjoying the global warmers squirm some more.

UPDATE: Watermelons--the whole lot of them. Don't worry about them. If the communists turned greens lose their latest reason for controlling our lives because of Climategate, they'll just switch to full-blown religion and claim God wants us to stop emitting carbon dioxide. Remember, no one expects the Global Warming Inquisition!

UPDATE: Hey! Actual hockey stick graphs! Now that's something that might weigh on the president's mind at Copenhagen.

The Answer is Yes. Yes He Is

Is Chris Matthews a total, drooling idiot? A man who actually makes Thomas Friedman look wise?

You tell me:



West Point is "enemy territory" for the president?

No reinforcing of the evil Republican stereotype of Democrats as anti-defense there, eh?

UPDATE: To his credit, Matthews apologized for his poor word choice.

Into the Hindu Kush

President Obama addressed the nation last night, pledging 30,000 new troops in an Afghanistan surge to buy time for Afghanistan to win the fight. Hopefully, we knock down the enemy enough and stand up government and pro-government forces enough that our side can win with a diminishing US/allied direct combat role (though we'd need to support our side with logistics, planning, firepower, intel/recon, etc.)

Good. I'll not quibble over wording of this or that. The point is that we are going to give the military the tools to win.

And I won't even complain--as many are--over the planned withdrawal of troops starting in mid-2011, depending on conditions. Remember, our Iraq surge had at least an implicit ending point given that we couldn't maintain the commitment of 20 brigades there for more than one tour of duty. And Congress worked from the start to defund or limit the surge in the summer of 2007, yet that didn't give our enemies a reason to lay low and wait us out. We beat them in Iraq.

Besides, laying low just gives us the time and peace to round up the enemy. Being quiet may be indistinguishable from losing for the average Afghan villager. There is a risk to laying low while we entrench security and governing forces and build infrastructure throughout the country. No, the enemy will fight us regardless of whether they think we might start withdrawing in a year and a half. They can't afford not to.

I do admit that when it comes to a surge of troops, Bush had the advantage over Obama in that he was viewed as wanting (stubbornly, as critics put it) to win, while Obama has a reputation that requires him to prove he wants to win even if the going gets tough. Clearly, this harms his credibility on this surge. But our troops in the field will have a big say on whether the enemy believes we will or won't win.

And Europe is stepping up in a baby-steps sort of way given their meager power projection capabilities. We'll get a whole 5,000 troops from the entire continental alliance and friends there. The article has a lot of numbers on force levels, although I'm not sure what they're counting when it comes to US troops since they call our strength 71,000 (it may be they are counting forces north of Afghanistan who support the logistics line).

Pakistan continues to fight on their side of the border. We'll need that.

And if it makes the president and conservatives fell better about what our president plans, the most over-rated strategic thinker of our age opposes the president's surge. Now that's as close to a guarantee of success that you can get in this world!

Finally, stop calling this Obama's war. And don't minimize it by calling it an inherited (from Bush) war. This is America's war. America wins or loses it, depending on how the fight goes in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Let's win this war. Support the president.

UPDATE: I'd just like to note that a lot of people on the right have criticized the president over his decision or speech wording or tone. I sympathize. It would be very easy to join in, and would probably be very satisfying. But I really do try to analyze what the president does in foreign policy apart from my general views of his presidency or his rhetoric. If I descend into Obama Derangement Syndrome, I hope I have the decency to quit blogging.

But don't expect me to develop respect for Thomas Friedman. I'm only human.

Counter-Anti-Access

As China attempts to hold off our carrier battle groups--should we attempt to intervene against a PLA invasion of Taiwan--with their own land-based missiles and navy venturing into blue waters, the classic response is to extend the range of our own weapons so we don't have to venture within the range of their weapons to hit them. I noted our refinement of our Tomahawk cruise missiles to strike Chinese vessels, and Strategypage has more:

[The] latest version of U.S. Tomahawk (BGM-109 Block 4) missile, is getting upgraded so that it can hit moving targets. This is mainly intended to turn the Tomahawk into an anti-ship missile, although it can also hit moving land targets. Currently, the Block 4 Tomahawk costs about $1.7 million each, weighs 1.4 tons, has a range of 1,500 kilometers and carries a half ton warhead. It moves to its target at a speed of 880 kilometers an hour. Since production began four years ago, 1,300 have been made since.

The United States is developing a successor to the Tomahawk cruise missile, that will be heavier (2.2 tons, versus 1.4 tons), have a longer range (2,000 kilometers versus 1,500) and a one ton warhead (twice the size of the Tomahawks.) The new missile will be stealthier, and use a combination of guidance and targeting systems (to improve the chances of success). Price will probably be the key factor in whether this new missile ever enters service. The new Cruise Missile XR (for Extended Range) will probably cost twice that, or more.

Moves and counter-moves. This doesn't address the problem of getting air cover for Taiwan in the face of China's modernizing air force, but it does address Chinese ships in the Taiwan Strait.

300

Hugo Chavez could very well work himself up in his paranoid frenzy to attacking Colombia:

Chavez continues to push his belief that the United States, using Colombia as a staging area, is preparing to invade Venezuela. Most South American politicians think Chavez is nuts, but are too polite (and politically astute) to criticize anyone who is badmouthing the "Colossus of the North." The U.S. has long been a favorite punching bag down south, and the usual suspect whenever anything goes wrong.

Venezuela refuses to talk directly with Colombia over the perceived threat from Colombia. Instead, Chavez points out that he expects to receive a shipment of 300 Russian armored vehicles soon, and that these will eventually (in a few months, at the earliest) be sent to the Colombian border. This has got regional diplomats concerned that Chavez may do something really foolish and trigger a border war with Colombia. This is a war Venezuela would lose, because Chavez has ruined his armed forces by dismissing any officers of dubious loyalty. The replacements were selected on the basis of loyalty, not military competence. Chavez has also ordered the armed forces reorganized, according to his own novel ideas on how the world should work.

When he gets those 300 tanks and armored fighting vehicles to his army, will Chavez believe he can finally put an end to the mythical threat that keeps him up at night?

I hope we are prepared to help Colombia with logistics and reconnaissance--and possibly fighter air cover--should Chavez go full-blown nutso and attack Colombia.

Not that Colombia couldn't win without us, but it would be nice to lower Colombian casualties and really humiliate Chavez with a seriously bloody nose.

The Other CRU Scandal

The China Research "Unit," that is. China pressures academics to write only nice things about China:

As stated by one academic economist, "Academics who study China . . . habitually please the Chinese Communist Party, sometimes consciously, and often unconsciously . . . the incentives for academics all go one way: one does not upset the Party."

One of the punitive tools that the Chinese government may employ to intimidate foreign academics is the denial of visas to enter China to conduct research. Although the PRC will not officially acknowledge doing so, elements within the Chinese government have clearly placed a number of foreign academics on a visa denial "blacklist" due to their publishing on topics that hit a nerve with Beijing.

Ah yes, they conform what they say to maintain "access" in their field. This is bad whether it is climate research, reporting from Saddam's Baghdad, or being an area specialist on China.

This is another reason that I approach broad recommendations from renowned specialists with skepticism even as I appreciate their knowledge of the details of their subject of study.

Bias with supporting facts can just be well-footnoted bias.

Not Worth the Bones of a Single Blue State Grenadier?

I don't know how anybody could have been confused about the long history of anti-Iraq War types claiming that they really wanted to fight the good war in Afghanistan. It has always been clear that they'd turn on the war in Afghansitan as soon as they didn't need to protest the Iraq War.

And oh how they have turned:

At West Point tonight, when Barack Obama formally announces he is sending tens of thousands more American troops to Afghanistan, he’ll be doing so against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party. Sending more troops will fulfill a key Obama campaign pledge, but it will also expose a deep rift in the party — and highlight its habit of dissembling on the war.

Once the anti-Iraq War side (falsely) claimed we'd taken our eye off the ball. But now that they have the ball, they don't want to play at all.

This had best be one heck of a speech tonight to reach the Retreat Americans who backed his candidacy. The objectives of the Cairo speech looks like child's play by comparison.

Thirty Thousand for Afghanistan

Here's a little preview of the president's speech.

Based on this and other scattered bits I've heard, it looks like we'll reinforce our 68,000 troops and 42,000 allied troops with 30,000 more troops by mid-August. This seems faster than I thought given what I thought was a pace of one combat brigade per month. Four brigades plus supporting units would take a year. But it looks like we're talking no more than eight months.

But it looks like my earlier assumption that we'd have three Army brigades and one Marine brigade in the rumored 35,000 will only be three brigades total (2 Army and 1 Marine). So three combat brigades in the time frame anticipated is only slightly accelerated from what I thought was possible.

Add in 5 to10 thousand NATO troops expected and that rounds out the new surge. I'll not complain about the troops numbers (but as always, I worry about supplying all these troops in landlocked Afghanistan).

Good for the president for committing troops. Now he just has to commit himself to victory. As I've long argued, "exit strategies" are for losers who just want to define when we quit.

Pacific Sentinel

Guam is getting its air defenses beefed up as it prepares to be a major Marine Corps base alongside the Navy and Air Force:

As the United States moves 8,000 marines from Okinawa to Guam, the air defenses of that American island are being improved.

THAAD, Patriot, and SLAMRAAM, to be specific.