Support the Arts

Durwood Coffey just had an opening night of his art work. I have a couple of his pieces (tree frog for me and a powder blue tang for Lamb, who loves fish), and it isn't just because I get a family discount.

If you like wildlife paintings--especially sea life--he's your man. And he's a good guy (former Marine) too, so you know your money is going to the right place in the art world. Check him out.

Here's one for a taste:

If you like the domestic versions, he has branched a bit into that:

Sorry that one is small but I don't want to expand it to make it look fuzzy.

Coffey picked a bad time to start devoting his time to his art, since Michigan led the nation into recession long before 2008. So he already has the suffering part of the equation down. I have no doubt his reputation will gain as people notice his work.

Stop the Nuance! It Burns!

The failure of the West to at least clearly condemn the Syrian government as it slaughters and arrests its way back to "stability" is just sickening. I've mentioned before that we foolishly value the so-called stability of this murderous regime and continue to hope that Assad is a reformer deep down.

This article states that viewpoint well:

Until the uprising began, Assad -- a minority Shi'ite Alawite -- had been emerging from Western isolation after defying the United States in Iraq and re-enforcing the alliance with Iran, raising fears among Syria's Sunni majority.

The attack on Banias this weekend raised sectarian tensions.

The West has been working on rehabilitating Assad on the international stage for the last three years in return for what it described as a change of Syria's regional behavior, but Europe and the United States have stepped up their criticism.

Don't you love that? "Defying" America in Iraq. For those not wise in the ways of Reuterspeak, that means funneling suicide bombers to al Qaeda in Iraq and hosting Iraqi Baathists so that our enemies could kill tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and security forces and thousands of American troops. Syria didn't stop doing that as a favor as much as recognize that our victory in Iraq made Syrian efforts to destabilize Iraq pointless and possibly dangerous.

Yes, criticism has stepped up. But not by much. By our actions, we clearly prefer the devil we know because we've coped with his regime and too many don't want to risk a better Syria just in case we can't handle the changes that a regime collapse would lead to.

Tolerating Assad in the hopes he will reform have given us nearly 600 dead Syrian civilians so far. Imagine what Assad can achieve if we continue to prefer the devil we know.

All Quiet on the Libya Front

In Libya, nobody is trying to defeat the other side. Each is focusing on survival for the next round without NATO.

Fighting has heated up, taking place in the west against rebels southwest and west of Tripoli, and most noticeably around Misrata where the loyalists have destroyed critical fuel storage tanks and have used helicopters marked with red crosses and crescents to mine the port area. Clearly, if you are going to be sent to trial for war crimes, what the heck--why follow any rules of war? I'd seriously start worrying about Khaddafi's use of mustard gas. Although that might be enough of a shock to provoke Western ground intervention, you can never tell what the loyalists in the bunker might think is a good idea.

I still haven't heard anything else about who controls oil facilities in the deep southeast or cities southeast of Ajdabiya. There were initial reports of Khaddafi forces entering the towns and then nothing.

Also, it is interesting that the coastal front west of Ajdabiya has been very quiet. Loyalists control the oil facilities and don't think it is worth it to risk NATO air power to attack to the east. But also, the rebels have restrained themselves from lunging west before they are ready to take on the loyalists. I'd guess the 40 or so NATO (British, French, and Italian) advisers in Benghazi had a role in that.

This war could go on a while as the loyalists focus on nailing down their territory (which they think should include Misrata) and the rebels try to create an actual army and government in their territory, rather than either side trying for a knockout blow at the other side's base of power. By then, NATO won't be involved in the war as they declare victory (to the world--but we'll all know they are just tired) and go home outwardly proud of a mission accomplished.

UPDATE: This points out the fighting to the southwest of Tripoli is not getting much NATO help. It also adds the interesting fact that the loyalists used crop-dusting planes to bomb those fuel storage tanks. Fighting away from the cameras and with non-military assets shows further adaptation by the loyalists of fighting under the NATO air umbrella.

威厳のある怒号

Interesting.

UPDATE: Oh, and the title of this post seems to be my blog name, which translated means "Majestic Roar." I like that.

Thank You

Oh, and I should thank German Chancellor Merkel for stating--in defiance of the majority of pansies in her own country--that she is glad we killed Osama bin Laden:

A Hamburg judge has filed a criminal complaint against Chancellor Angela Merkel for "endorsing a crime" after she stated she was "glad" that Osama bin Laden was killed by US forces. Meanwhile a new poll reveals that a majority of Germans do not see the terrorist's death as a reason to celebrate.

What happened to Germans? When they were our enemies through two world wars, they fought hammer and tong and were quite possibly the best soldiers in the world, man for man.

Now, as a paper ally, they remain efficient bureaucrats and build nice cars, but refuse to even let us fight our enemies without shrieking in little girl voices over what we do to defend ourselves--let alone fight at our side.

From the roar of panzers to the high-pitched whining of pansies in just three generations. Good grief, the French could beat them now.

On the bright side, given our record of transforming defeated enemies, perhaps this means that in the long run we can look forward to the idea of jihad really being an introspective quest to better oneself.

More Justice

I'm not willing to quibble over whether President Obama has taken a victory lap over the killing of Osama bin Laden, or to question taking 16 hours to issue the go order rather than instantly sending in the mission (now, if he had an instant to decide and then took 16 hours, get back to me), and even the administration confusion following the successful CIA/military mission is not a deal-breaker for me. The president did the right thing and it worked. Good for him. Good enough for government work, as the saying goes. I won't begrudge him any credit he gets.

But after many years of Bush Derangement Syndrome, which propelled our current president into the White House, this is much appreciated:

And conservatives can take more joy from the outrage that Europeans are feeling over this mission:

If Europeans could vote for U.S. president, Barack Obama would have carried that continent by a landslide in 2008. Who can forget the cheering in Berlin for the “proud citizen of the world?” Youthful, urbane, and broadly in agreement with European views of Guantanamo and “enhanced interrogation,” Obama had been in office only a few months when a select group of Norwegians gave him the Nobel Peace Prize.

But now many of Obama’s erstwhile Euro-fans are feeling a twinge of buyer’s remorse. By ordering a covert raid on Pakistan that resulted in Osama bin Laden’s death at the hands of Navy SEALs, Obama has earned the kind of condemnation Europe’s cognoscenti once reserved for his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Oh do read the rest for the full measure of enjoyment. Remember, the lamentation part is always the best.

Let's just be happy that President Obama is willing to read from the BushePrompter and congratulate him and give him full credit when he does.

UPDATE: Ah, the court jester of the Left (who prompted my initial lamentations part post just above) frets about the terrible precedent of killing an enemy who slaughtered thousands of us.

Honest to God, if I hear another nuanced leftist complain that we tried Nazis after we won the war and occupied their country and so should have captured and tried Osama during the war we are still waging, I will resort to interpretive dance to express my frustration. We killed plenty of Nazis during the war. And if the jihadis of al Qaeda surrender, I'll be more than happy to take custody of them, try them, and execute them, in that proper, nuanced, and appropriate-for-the-timing sequence.

UPDATE: Michael Moore gives lessons in patriotism, demonstrating that he fails to understand the difference between war and law enforcement. To say he is an ignorant jerk would be an insult to ignorant jerks everywhere. And shame on him for saying his upbringing in an Irish Catholic home taught him these views. All I can say is that I was brought up in an Irish Catholic home, too. Perhaps I had the benefit of lessons in history and the bleeding obvious, as well.

Good God, Michael Moore is stupid and ugly--yet rich. And he has complaints about America?

I'm telling you, I'm just that much closer to interpretive dance.

Expiration Date

The Italians say that the Libya War will last several days to four more weeks, saying:

Frattini, speaking at the Rome meeting, insisted the NATO strikes had produced progress, destroying '40 per cent of the arsenal' at the disposal of Gaddafi's forces.

The Italian foreign minister's confidence, if based on that statistic, is grossly misplaced.

My feeling is that if the Libyan loyalists hold out four weeks, the Italian determination to wage war will falter.

UPDATE: Well, at least Italy has a plan to end their participation:

Libyan rebels fighting to oust Muammar Gaddafi said Saturday they have reached an agreement with Italy to supply them with whatever weapons they need, a rebel spokesman said.

There is at least logic, even if the rebels are unlikely to be strong enough in a month to stand on their own.

The Gift That Keeps On Giving

When I heard the news of Osama bin Laden's death, my first thought was happiness that the scumbag was finally dead. But second, I wondered what information we gathered from the raid to kill more jihadis. Neanderthal that I am, I think the only good jihadi is a dead jihadi. And the death of Osama--while a shot of justice, no doubt--does not mean the war is over. Because evil will not grow tired of killing us (and other Moslems not worthy of being called good, jihadi-loving Moslems), we need to kill Islamo-fascism:

Now, it is one thing to have an argument about whether [the war on terror is] over. It’s quite another to claim that our reaching this happy day — during which we can even be debating whether victory has been achieved — has nothing to do with the war on terror of the previous decade. Al-Qaeda is not subsiding on its own. It is not retiring from the field, having seen the error of its ways. It is not disappearing because of some inexorable law of history or nature. It is in retreat because of the terrible defeats it suffered once America decided to take up arms against it, a campaign (once) known as the war on terror.

As an aside, one of the things that annoys me about those claiming that the war on terror was unnecessary is that to make this argument they rely on the fact that we are winning because we have spent a decade waging relentless war on those terrorists. These fools, like Beinart and Douthat who Krauthammer mentions in the article above, don't seem to have much of a grasp of cause and effect. People like them came out of the woodwork when the Soviet Union collapsed, too, believing it proved that the entire Cold War was unnecessary. I'm sure there were some people claiming in June 1945 that the whole war against Nazism was a mistake since the death of Hitler proved he'd have fallen anyway without our help. You'd mock someone who leaves a hospital with a ruptured appendix removed if they claimed the absence of that organ proved the operation was unnecessary. But in foreign policy, such people are called nuanced deep thinkers. Well, not by me. But that's how they make their living. (Again, unlike me.)

Anyway. So we need to kill jihadis in our current war. That isn't the only part of the war on terror, since killing the ideology is most important in the long run. But have no doubt that killing jihadis is a critical part of defeating the ideology. And we need information to kill jihadis in precise missions. News came out that we did indeed grab electronic storage devices and other material. Strategypages discusses this:

The recent raid on Osama bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan yielded, as expected, a massive amount of data. Anyone with any connection to al Qaeda, and particularly bin Laden, knew what that meant. In short, you had better run, and stay away from anyone else so connected, until the aftereffects of all this damaging data have run its course. This is all because of what happened in Iraq. Most Americans are not aware of this intelligence angle, but the word has gotten around in terrorist circles.

There will definitely be more good jihadis coming out of this raid. Evil won't repent and go home on its own. So we do what we must.

Oh, Now It Counts

Funny how when someone wants to count the financial cost of killing Osama bin Laden, the Iraq War suddenly counts as part of the war on terror.

Tiring of Jihad

Despite the claims coming from the anti-war side that our war in Afghanistan just radicalizes Pakistanis, Pakistanis in general don't seem too worked up over Osama bin Laden's death:

The Pakistani public, though by no means enthusiastic about the U.S. action in Abbottabad, seems to have lost its taste for the jihadi ideology that has evolved over the years in the course of the fight against the Russians in Afghanistan and the Indians in Kashmir. The once-palpable enthusiasm for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban has diminished after waves of suicide attacks on cities, mosques, schools, markets, and other public and private places.

In a shrewd assessment of the public mood, the religious parties, always searching for excuses to bring the people into the streets, have opted to remain silent on the killing of bin Laden, once a hero for most of them.

To know Osama is to hate him, I guess. It was all fun and games when the jihadi fanboys could cheer attacks against distant "enemies of Islam," but when those enemies turned out to be their own cities and people? Well, that's not so much fun, now is it?

So I guess that despite some high-profile mourning gatherings in Pakistan by the committed jihadis, far more can't seem to work up a proper outrage over the gangly dork's death.

Really, the European "street" seems more openly upset about Osama's death than the Moslem street.

He Was in Great Peril

Sadly, he was freed before the spanking:

A mayor in Germany helped rescue a man who became trapped in a women's prison after mistaking it for a shortcut to a nearby park, police in the northern city of Hildesheim said on Wednesday.

It was a Grail-shaped beacon that he followed, I'm sure:



Later, the man was quoted as saying, "Well, I could stay a bit longer."

A House Divided?

Protests continue in Syria. This is interesting:

More than 565 civilians and 100 soldiers have been killed since an anti-regime uprising, inspired by revolts in Tunisia and Egypt, began in March, according to rights groups.

One hundred troops killed? Really? Clearly, to get a body count that high against the almost completely unarmed opposition visible on the streets, those deaths had to happen in battle with other troops (or security forces). That is, troops that cracked and would not shoot civilians.

There have already been reports of troops refusing to shoot and actually fighting loyalist forces. This is the first number I've seen indicating the scope. By comparison, in Afghanistan our highest monthly casualty count is 65. And there were only 7 months during the Iraq War where our casualties reached 100 or more. Sure, that number represents casualties on both sides of the clashes, but it does indicate that there is a problem.

This military pillar of the regime hasn't collapsed, but it is taking hits.

They Didn't Get the Memo

I always enjoyed how anti-war people insisted that the presence of so few al Qaeda inside Afghanistan means that destroying the Afghan Taliban was irrelevant. This requires you to ignore the role the Taliban had in hosting al Qaeda before we overthrew the Taliban regime ten years ago, of course. And it fails to consider what the Taliban might do if they again control Afghanistan. The fact is, defeating the Taliban version of the jihadi nutjobs is necessary to defeat the al Qaeda version.

Funny enough, the Afghan Taliban aren't interested in playing along with the anti-war talking point:

"Even if the news of Osama bin Laden's martyrdom is true, it will not change our jihad policy ... if it is true that he is dead, it will give us more motivation to continue our jihad," one fighter said in Pashto on the video.

The fighters spoke on condition that their names and location were not disclosed. Reuters obtained the footage from a source in southern Afghanistan.

Whatever is said about the Taliban "distancing" themselves from al Qaeda, deep down they loved him and love his jihad and love killing in the name of the jihad.

Reaction to What?

Russia on Libya:

After talks with his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the U.N. Security Council resolution that authorized military intervention in Libya "directly and unequivocally rules out" ground operations.

"The position of the Russian Federation remains absolutely unchanged," he said.

Why are China and Russia discussing Western ground intervention? I thought the West had ruled that out.

But unless we want to count on luck, that is what should happen to avoid Khaddafi surviving this war. I'll say it again, a good division-sized force could march on Tripoli and drive Khaddafi from power. Then the only question is whether loyalists could maintain a terror campaign or insurgency against a new government.

UPDATE: Oh, and the New York Times editorializes about the war. But unlike the Russians and Chinese who understand what breaking the stalemate would require, the NYT editors rely on their vast ciphering abilities on issues of strategery to give their best advice. One, NATO should speak as one voice. Two, somehow--with magic perhaps or by saying "pretty please" or something--we need to convince Khaddafi loyalists to defect.

Oh, and they're fine with bombings that might kill the dictator's children and grandchildren. Funny what is acceptable when your own man is in office. (I don't doubt we can legally target such "command and control" locations, but I find the practice counter-productive in the propaganda war.)

But it is the bombing part of their advice that is really funny and shows that they really have no business opining on military matters:

But the Pentagon needs to send America’s specialized low-flying attack planes, the A-10 and the AC-130, back into action against Libyan Army tanks. These are far more effective at destroying enemy vehicles and avoiding friendly ones.

One, the problem isn't that we can't identify tanks at high altitudes. We don't need to go low to do that.

Two, going low isn't ideal. We learned that in the Persian Gulf War when some of our planes (and the British) used low attack profiles and got hammered with anti-aircraft guns while the high-flyers avoided that simple but numerous flak. No, we fly high and drop smart bombs.

Three, unless it is an extremely low threat environment, we don't fly low. The AC-130 flies at between 5,500 and 10,500 feet for their missions. This is in no way "low-level." But this is still within range of anti-aircraft guns so the planes usually operate at night. Indeed, future versions will be missile-only armed to allow them to fly higher and still destroy targets on the ground. The A-10, which in the 1970s was designed to fly low to use its 30mm chain gun, is also being upgraded to allow it to fly high while loitering over the battlefield to use a targeting pod to identify targets far below. Basically, flying low just gets our pilots killed without providing any military advantage. So what a shock, the editors' military advice is absolutely worthless.

Seriously, the last place to go to for military advice is anyone associated with this paper's editorial board. Honestly, an accordion would be a better choice if you go to war than taking these guys' advice.

Take That!

The lords of lost items suffered a defeat today.

I took some film to be developed today. Yes, I still use that sometimes. If it makes you feel better about my tech level, it probably has pictures from holidays going back two years, unless I miss my guess. Anyway, I walked there on a circuitous route that had me 2/3 the way home when I stopped in the drug store. I had the film but not the loyalty card that I had set on the stairs with the film. So where was it? At home on the stair step? Or somewhere over the last couple miles?

So I leave my film and head home rather than retrace my steps. Probably sitting right inside my door. Or maybe outside it if I dropped the card while fiddling with my wallet or keys.

But no, it was not at either of those places. Or on my table. Or in my pants I'd worn earlier. Or in my coat pocket from the morning. It had to be on the first part of my walk.

So I had a cup of coffee. I'd go over the same ground tomorrow running (and walking--I'm easing into the full run so I don't give myself a heart attack), so why look now? Well, it might rain. Or just get damp from morning dew. Or picked up.

What the heck. It's a nice day. I grab my music and go. Sure enough, about 3/4 of a mile along the route I walked before I found the card lying on the sidewalk. I only had one real false alarm before that. So I'm home with my loyalty card intact.

And I found a lost sock! Well, no. That I didn't do. But they have to be somewhere too, I just know it.

It's the small victories that really keep us going, right?

Face Palm 6

So we left a new stealth helicopter in the Osama compound? Clearly, we didn't destroy it well enough and the pieces will go to China--just like pieces of the F-117 that went down in 1999 in Serbia and wasn't even bombed to smash up the pieces during Allied Force.

Or maybe our friends the Pakistanis will return all of the pieces to us.

Ok, I've stopped laughing at that thought.

Seriously, why didn't we lift out the wreckage or do a more thorough job of blowing it to bits in a fire that would melt much of the details?

Billions and Billions

I just came back from a school field trip with Lamb. They went to a planetarium, which gave a pretty good show.

It didn't really feel like I went on a field trip since I went in my own car and met the bus there. So I saw Lamb get off the bus, walked with her inside while chatting with Lamb and some of her friends, told Lamb to sit with her classmates rather than me (I don't want to smother her, eh?), and then lost track of her in the dark while we had the show (nicely done, too). The lights went up, I walked with Lamb back to the bus for the return to school, and then I was off to Kroger for weekly shopping.

But I was there. And Lamb knows I made it. So some parental credit adds up. Sometimes, just being there is what counts.

Never Has So Little Been Owed to So Few

Do you really think the British-French led intervention in Libya can last long enough to overthrow the Khaddafi regime when the British can't afford combat pay for their small number of pilots engaged in the fight?

Britain is pleading poverty for not paying their Typhoon and Tornado pilots in Libya the $48 a day "dangerous duty" bonus that pilots receive in Afghanistan, or anywhere they are getting shot at. This has not helped pilot morale, because the dangers from ground fire are actually higher in Libya than in Afghanistan.

In the field of human kinetic activity, this is just embarrassing all the way around.

Whack-a-Mole?

The Syrians claim they've nailed down southern Daraa and are now moving on coastal Banias to suppress protesters:

The Syrian army said Thursday it has begun withdrawing from a city at the heart of the country's uprising, but the regime expanded its crackdown elsewhere by deploying soldiers and arresting hundreds ahead of a fresh wave of anti-government protests.

Protesters say Daraa may be quiet but hardly pacified.

Stratfor has a useful background piece on Alawite domination of Syria. Short take away: until one of the four foundations of Assad's power fracture (Assad family unity, Alawite unity, Alawite control of intelligence and military forces, and Alawite control of the Baath Party), the regime has the means to fight the unrest and ultimately defeat the protesters.

I still wonder if the military piece isn't the most critical. I don't know how many of the military units are loyal enough to kill civilians. If there aren't enough to go around, can the protesters eventually break the military pillar by continuing protests widespread enough to keep the loyal units on the move massing to suppress one location and then moving off to another? Would that shake the morale of even loyal units or cause less reliable units to openly revolt?

The advantage still lies with Assad, it seems, but that could change if the regime doesn't quiet this unrest.

I Guess the Problem Wasn't With Bush

Why, yes, as long as you asked. The answer is definitely yes.

You'd have to be an idiot to answer otherwise. Or European, of course. Sheesh, even our press corps isn't that addled.

Yet another demonsration of why I believe Europeans can be our friends but not Europe as a single entity.

I've said all along that the problems we've had with our traditional "old European" allies wasn't the fault of President George W. Bush. Now we know for sure.

UPDATE: Charles Krauthammer addresses the twaddle of those who are tut-tutting American happiness at the death of bin Laden. Good. I don't have the patience for it. My God, if you don't understand the difference between being happy that we killed an enemy responsible for thousand of our dead and who prayed to his god for the opportunity to kill millions of us on the one hand; and the happiness of foreign crowds over the deaths of thousands that bin Laden killed on 9/11, well, you're just ... well, Old European at heart.

Grid Coordinates, People. Think!

This paper reports that Pakistani Islamists heart broken over the death of Osama bin Laden gathered in their grief:

These were the angry scenes across Pakistan today as Muslims staged protests against the killing of Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.

Hundreds of people marched through Multan, burning U.S. flags and waving placards as they warned the terrorist's death could produce many more radical figures to take his place.

It comes after crowds of weeping mourners were pictured offering funeral prayers for the Al Qaeda mastermind widely blamed for thousands of deaths at 9/11.

The pictures of sad jihadi-lovers are great. Don't get me wrong. I like a weeping Islamist as much as the next guy. But having grid coordinates for these gatherings would be much better so we can reach out to these thugs and show them what we think of their grief.

Keep this up, and Pakistanis are going to make me wonder if they are our friends and allies.

Idiots of the Anarcho-Syndicalist Commune

The House progressive community--all six of them--demonstrated their mastery of strategery by asking President Obama to withdraw from Afghanistan. You know, since we killed Osama bin Laden.

I am eager to hear how they would redeploy our security assets to secure our nation, as they say they want to do, once our troops aren't killing our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Twits.

UPDATE: Oh, I was so focused on the inanity of the policy advice that I forgot what prompted the title. Note that every one of them is a co-chair of something.

The Cult

Whenever I walk by the Apple Store in the mall, with their uniformed, perky associates waiting to pounce, I always keep my distance from the store entry because I feel they will pester me to take a free personality test.

Return on Investment

China reaps a clear benefit from backing their little psycho regime in Pyongyang:

South Korea has halted projects designed to make their navy a high seas force, as well as air force efforts to acquire aerial refueling and other capabilities allowing for very long range operations. It all has to do with the need to pay more attention to North Korean threat. ...

So money is being diverted to projects that will make the military more effective in dealing what whatever new nastiness the North Koreans might come up with. That means new sensors for detecting submarines, and more anti-missile systems. There is more training for civil defense workers and those assigned the task of dealing with North Korean commandos landing far south of the North Korean border.

In the long run, this support for North Korea just encourages countries to be angry with China and build up their militaries to cope with both, but for many in Peking, this will give them a nice warm and fuzzy feeling.

Preparing to Break the Stalemate?

If the Libya War is settling into a stalemate, could the British be getting ready for the unthinkable--a ground war to overthrow Khaddafi? (from my Jane's email updates)

The UK Royal Navy (RN) is reinforcing its inaugural Response Force Task Group (RFTG) deployment in the Mediterranean Sea with an additional four amphibious and logistic ships together with WAH-64D Apache AH.1 attack helicopters. Although the new assets, led by the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean and its embarked Apaches, could potentially be made available for operations off Libya, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has insisted that the deployment is not linked to events in North Africa[.]

Yeah, there are plenty of reasons the task force could be in the Mediterranean Sea. I assume this is the same task force I mentioned a few weeks ago. This means a Marine battalion will be on station. The British could fly in additional paratroopers or leg infantry plus some supporting forces to round it up to a composite brigade. Add in two or three more brigades from the French, Italians, Spanish, or Germans, and you have a composite division that I think is enough to drive Khaddafi from power in Tripoli.

Perhaps the recent Italian talk of limiting the time of the NATO intervention isn't about retiring from the war in defeat but doing what it takes in a limited time to win. I may have been unkind to suggest the former.

You Know This Had to Happen

Conspiracy theories are flying already over the question of the killing of Osama bin Laden:

Among the radical assertions bouncing around the Internet: bin Laden was dead before the attack; he is still alive; the DNA that was supposed to be bin Laden's was inconclusive; and that the White House concocted a raid just to ensure President Obama's reelection. That's just to name a few.

All nutty, to be sure. But the theory that Osama was really killed in Kenya is so way out that I can't possibly believe there is even a grain of truth to it.

Of Betting and Horses

Fouad Ajami  (tip to Mad Minerva) writes that the killing of Osama bin Laden highlights his own quote about whether people will bet on the strong or weak horse. America is clearly the strong horse in this analogy.

I won't enter into the debate about whether Moslems will believe we are the strong or weak horse now. But I can conclude that Osama is the dead horse. Never bet on a dead horse over any other horse--weak or strong.

From the Cairo to the Abbottabad Outreach--And Back Again

Despite all the hope in the Islamic world that President Obama's Cairo outreach would largely consist of America giving up the fight against jihadis, don't say our president didn't warn them of what we'd do:

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

And President Obama ultimately dealt with those facts. It is a small distance from that determination to his statement about the May 1st raid (although a large distance from broad international support to a US-only mission that did not even notify Pakistan, where the kill mission took place):

Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

And for those who think this success means we can bug out from Afghanistan, I will conclude with the president's words from that Cairo speech:

Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We ... seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case. [NOTE: The gap in the quote above cuts out a part where the president clearly used the wrong word and then retraced his way through the text.]

It is still not yet the case. Continue the mission. Our success in getting Osama bin Laden should be a warning to other enemies that we will never stop trying to defeat them--not a comfort that we will declare victory and come home.

UPDATE: This attitude isn't helpful for outreach, although it hardly represents the concerns of a majority as far as can be determined:

Some Arabs have misgivings about how U.S. forces summarily killed Osama bin Laden and disposed of his body in the ocean, even if many are far more preoccupied by the popular uprisings convulsing the Middle East.

If outrage over our killing of a mass terrorist and the way we buried bin Laden spreads in the Moslem world, our attempts to distinguish our war against jihadis as a war against a narrow subset of Islam is going to fail.

Really?

This is a problem?

Loretta Tuell, staff director and chief counsel for the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, said Tuesday it was inappropriate to link Geronimo, whom she called "one of the greatest Native American heroes," with one of the most hated enemies of the United States.

Oh God, give me strength.

Look, as a proud member of the Irish-American community, I hereby give the United States government permission to designate the next al Qaeda target on our kill-list with the code name "Leprechaun" without having to worry that my fragile ego and self esteem might be damaged by having that word associated with a victory in the war on terror.

Are You Sure You Want to Argue This?

So let me get this straight. Killing Osama bin Laden was so important that it allows us to end the war in Afghanistan or even the entire war on terror. Yet to achieve that momentous result, we should never consider enhanced interrogation methods (broadening the definition of "torture" to do that)--or even admit these methods including waterboarding (in the rare cases they were used) contributed to the killing of Osama bin Laden?

Finally, for those eager to run from Afghanistan, let me just stay that P.L. 107-40 (or try this--the PDF link seems loopy) did not declare war on Osama bin Laden:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Did we defeat all the nations, organizations, or persons that did or might in the future carry our or assist in future attacks? No.

Those idiots unfurling the "mission accomplished" banner after we killed bin Laden have such a limited grasp of strategery that it defies common sense to listen to them about anything more significant than what they'd prefer to have for dinner.

Continue the mission.

UPDATE: Oh, and if we want to kill the ideas of Osama bin Laden and ultimately defeat that ideology of hate, checking out of the war is exactly the wrong message to send. Jihadis will see Osama's death as one of a martyr who in the end defeated America simply by dying for the cause and exposing the hollowness of American will to win.

I'm Feeling All Outreachy

With the happiness of killing that goat-loving SOB Osama bin Laden still fresh, let me speak to a couple complaints about our foreign policy in the spirit of resets and outreach.

First, the Russians are in need of some loving:

Romania and the United States have been negotiating for more than a year about the deployment of ballistic missile interceptors, which should be operational by 2015.

"We have decided that the anti-missile shield will be deployed at the former airbase at Deveselu," Romanian President Traian Basescu said in a televised address.

Moscow, which fears the shield could be turned against Russia, swiftly demanded assurances from Washington.

"In this situation, US legal guarantees on their intention not to deploy a missile defence system aimed at the strategic nuclear forces of Russia is becoming even more relevant," Russian Foreign ministry said quoted by news agencies.

Silly Russians. I say we provide our highest assurances that if Russia tries to nuke one of our Eastern European NATO allies, we will shoot down as many Russian nuclear-tipped missiles as we can. Although I must say that I'm a tad disturbed that maintaining the ability to nuke NATO countries is so important to Russia. I'm sure that is but a minor glitch in our whole reset program.

Pakistan, too, is a bit miffed with us over the recent unpleasantness:

Pakistan criticized the American raid that killed Osama bin Laden as an "unauthorized unilateral action" and warned Washington on Tuesday not to launch similar operations in the future.

Fine. In the spirit of our new hopey age, I say we reassure Pakistan that we will not conduct another raid to kill Osama bin Laden should we find that Pakistan is harboring the man who attacked us on 9/11. We're sorry we did it once. Really. It won't happen again.

Gosh, I feel so nuanced!

Do we have time for one more? Oh, let's!

Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said the U.S. can no longer keep troops to the region under the pretext of fighting terrorism now that Osama bin Laden is dead. The al-Qaida leader was killed in a raid by elite U.S. forces in Pakistan.

Who knew the Iranians were so understanding all these years? Sadly, Mehmanparast seems to have gotten ahead of American progressives who are edging toward the same conclusion. The endorsement by the Iranians of this new talking point might be a tad inconvenient, to say the least.

Still, despite the nuance just oozing from my pores these days, I can't quite work up any outreach for this request. I say we remind the Iranians that SEAL Team 6 (as it is being called) suddenly has time on its hands and that Iran's rulers shouldn't stand near open windows, just in case we want to reach out to them.

Hey, don't expect too much from me. I can only reset so much.

Frankly My Dear

Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari protests that Pakistan is a good ally in the war against terrorism and he cites the statistics of their sacrifice to prove it:

Let us be frank. Pakistan has paid an enormous price for its stand against terrorism. More of our soldiers have died than all of NATO’s casualties combined. Two thousand police officers, as many as 30,000 innocent civilians and a generation of social progress for our people have been lost. And for me, justice against bin Laden was not just political; it was also personal, as the terrorists murdered our greatest leader, the mother of my children.

That would be a wonderful argument if Pakistan was consistently fighting at our side trying to win. But they aren't. Surely, as President Zardari wrote, it is nice that truth, justice and the forces of history are on our side. But you'll notice that Pakistan is absent from his list.

The sad fact is, Pakistan plays both sides of the war. Yes, a lot of their people and soldiers have died. but a lot of them are dead because rather than trying all out to defeat the jihadis, the Pakistani government fights the jihadis half-heartedly, letting the enemy recover to fight more, and even helps the enemy in other ways to fight us. So a lot of the price Pakistan has paid has been charged by the Pakistani government itself.

Let me be frank. We have to put up with Pakistan's failure to whole-heartedly side with us in the war against the Taliban. I'd always rather have Pakistan as a friend rather than a nuclear-armed enemy or failed state, of course. But eventually we will be able to set standards for our friendship without having to look the other way while Pakistan supports jihadis just because Pakistan also helps us defeat jihadis just enough to make it worth our while to support Pakistan. That may be a way to keep our money coming, but it is no way to earn our friendship.

Yippee Ki-Ay, European

I guess Europeans still think we are cowboys:

While many world leaders applauded the U.S. operation that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, there were concerns in parts of Europe that the United States was wrong to act as policeman, judge and executioner.

They wanted a trial, naturally.

Allow me, in the name of our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president, to reply with a hearty "bugger off" to these Europeans and Europeans-at-heart.

As for the human rights industry inquiry about our rules of engagement during the raid, let me clarify it. The mission was to shoot Osama bin Laden. Shoot him again. And then continue shooting until he was dead.

But our SEALs are good shots so only two rounds were needed, apparently. FYI.

Dumping his body in the sea was just for laughs, of course.

Yippe ki-ay.

And the Other Peace Partner

Hamas already weighed in with their denunciation of our killing of Osama bin Laden. Now the "respectable" part of the Palestinians' rulers (Fatah) give their thoughts:

In their announcement, a copy of which reached MAAN [private Palestinian news agency], the [Al-Aqsa Martyrs'] Brigades said: 'The Islamic nation awoke to a catastrophe the reports of the Shahid - (Martyr-) death of the Sheikh, Jihad-fighter Osama bin Laden, in a treacherous manner, by the gangs of the heretics and those who stray.'

We can safely assume that sailors of the Carl Vinson buried our peace partner at sea right after they dumped Osama's body.

Old School

Khaddafi's forces strike at Benghazi despite a no-fly zone that keeps loyalists planes grounded:

A car bomb exploded near the headquarters of Libya's rebels in their eastern bastion of Benghazi on Tuesday night, causing no confirmed casualties, but unsettling nerves in the generally peaceful city.

I assume it was a loyalist bomb attack. Where there is a will, there's a way.

I Knew What She Meant

The other day, as I was taking Lamb home from school, she chatted about a funny looking bike she called--"you know, one of those 'cucumber' bikes."

I refrained from chuckling. I said, "I think you mean a 'recumbent' bike."

Yep, that was what she meant.

I could totally, like, translate for a living.

UPDATE: Oh, and if it isn't obvious, I thought it was tremendously cute. Kids do that sort of thing with unfamiliar words.

Compare and Contrast

I really do have to give credit to President Obama for ordering a unilateral ground raid into Pakistan without bothering to get Islamabad's permission. Even better was the order to kill Osama bin Laden rather than "arrest" him to bring him out for some international UN-sanctioned tribunal to try him in a court. No, we just iced him and dumped his body. Sure, we washed his body and wrapped him in white cloth, but that might have consisted of hosing his carcass over the side with fire hoses after letting crew graffiti the white cloth with appropriate goodbyes (I don't really think that happened, but no matter that we claim this was done in accordance with Moslem practices, this was hardly the spirit of the law if nothing else, and I don't care anyway).

This presidential decision, admittedly gutsy, does not erase my unease with the president, even though I repeatedly write that I do support some of the things the president does and that I am relieved he is not as bad as I feared he would be on war issues. On domestic affairs, I am very unhappy, however.

It occurred to me that I am happiest with President Obama in the areas where Obama follows Bush policies in war issues that I supported then (even if today they might be just a shadow of them and done without apparent resolve since much of what the president does now was damned by his base when Bush did them as Iowahawk so amusingly sends up) and I am most upset with President Obama where he follows Bush policies or impulses in the domestic realm, which is how I see Obama spending and policy initiatives. Yes, in scale the current initiatives dwarf Bush spending and government intrusion into our lives and take place in a time when we can afford them even less. The Bush emphasis on "compassionate" conservatism always seemed like liberalism lite in practice.

So there you go. I am happiest with Obama where his policies are most like Bush's--but worried Obama just goes through the motions without really feeling like a war president. And I'm most unhappy with Obama in domestic issues where he is most like Bush--but worried that Obama has accelerated such policies to a degree that can bankrupt us.

For Bush, his positives on foreign policy (and my basic trust I had in him) outweighed my reservations about his domestic policies.

For Obama, I'm horrified by his domestic policies but my tentative relief over his foreign policy does not outweigh my horror over domestic issues because of the scale of that horror and because I have little trust in President Obama's resolve to finish what he is pursuing now in many war-related areas.

For what it's worth, there you go.

Osama Enters Rehabilitation in the Sea

Good people don't rip other people's arms off.

Still Not America

If Canada likes to define itself on how unlike America it is, as it is sometimes said (sorry for that passive diffusion of sources) the election of Barack Obama perhaps guaranteed this result in yesterday's national elections:

Canada voted yesterday, and Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, at the head of minority governments after the elections of 2006 and 2008, has now seen his party win an absolute majority in the House of Commons.

Give the Canadians six more years of an Obama administration and Canadian special forces will be swooping into Pakistani towns to unilaterally kill terrorists.

Supply and Demand

Today's nations are losing their monopoly on the use of force as non-state actors fill the vacuum left by states that refuse to use their monopoly to maintain security. The Somalia pirate situation is just one of those situations. Yet the formal law--confused as it is--preserves the state monopoly:

Over the last two centuries, the use of military force at sea has become largely the preserve of states. The legal basis under which modern-day cargo ships -- with their often multinational crews and ownership structures -- can use lethal weaponry is far from clear, and the IMO [NOTE: the UN's The International Maritime Organization] guidelines [advising against carrying arms] have no weight in international law.

National navies patrol but can't be everywhere to stop pirates, yet countries with patrolling ships refuse to order their ships to shoot pirates on sight when they do encounter them to discourage piracy; or to land in Somalia and destroy the pirate nests. So it should be no shock that the idea of arming merchant ships is growing in acceptance to fill that security vacuum:

The worsening situation, say experts, has made it almost inevitable that today's merchant ships will buy in their own armed protection. "Nation-states don't appear to have the ability or the enthusiasm to solve the root problem," says Nikolas Gvosdev, professor of national security studies at the U.S. Naval War College in Rhode Island. "That leaves the private sector having to manage effectively on its own."

There is a need for security at sea and national navies aren't filling that need. What do you expect will happen? The rise of privatized military capabilities is a natural result.

If we revert to a pre-Western view of the legitimacy of non-state military forces, it will be our own fault for failing to fulfill the responsibilities that our laws impose on us.

The Exception That Proves the Rule?

I've expected the coalition fighting Khaddafi to fracture. This is good news in the other direction:

Turkey's prime minister said Tuesday that Moammar Gadhafi must "immediately step down," a major escalation of Turkish pressure on the Libyan leader with whom Turkey has long-standing ties.

In a perfect world, this reflects the resolve of the coalition and means that in the long run, we defeat Khaddafi.

On the other hand, if Turkey's declaration is the exception that proves the rule, the short or medium term problems will take place before the long-run victory can be achieved.

I'm betting on the latter. But we could get lucky, I admit.

UPDATE: Italy teeters:

Italy pledged on Tuesday to seek an end date for NATO's Libya operations as Premier Silvio Berlusconi sought to placate a key government partner opposed to Italian participation in the bombing missions.

Foreign Minister Franco Frattini told reporters that Rome "will try, along with international organizations, and until, until I'm proven wrong, NATO, and its allies, to set an end" date for the operations.

Rome recently agreed to allow its warplanes to participate in NATO bombing missions as a way to increase pressure on the Libyan regime of Moammar Gadhafi.

There is also the matter of Italy's air bases that the coalition uses to attack Khaddafi's forces.

That's What I Call a Dead Terrorist

Some jihadis insist that Osama bin Laden is just resting:

"As the Americans did not provide any acceptable evidence to back up their claim, and as the other aides close to Osama bin Laden have not confirmed or denied the death ... therefore the Islamic Emirate consider any assertion premature," said a statement emailed to media by Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid.

He's just very quiet, apparently:



This is an ex-parrot.

Friends of Osama

This is disturbing:

Osama bin Laden lived for the past five to six years in the compound deep inside Pakistan where the al Qaeda leader was killed by U.S. forces, President Barack Obama's counterterrorism adviser said on Tuesday.

Our failure to find Osama bin Laden once led me to speculate that he wasn't even in Pakistan and that someone outside of Pakistan gave him sanctuary. I honestly wouldn't have been shocked to find that he was somewhere inside Russia, held in safety there just in case they needed him.

The apparent fact that bin Laden lived in Pakistan in one location for many years indicates that he thought he had protection from powerful people inside Pakistan.

We need to find these people hedging their bets by waging war on both sides. And remove their power. I know that Pakistan has paid a price in high casualties--both civilian victims and security forces--fighting domestic jihadis. But this doesn't excuse the double-dealing of Pakistanis in positions of power. Indeed, for the Pakistani people who have paid the price in blood while not enjoying the money involved in the double-dealing, that price should anger the Pakistani people and not make them indignant that we insist the Pakistani government do more.

The Pakistanis need to understand that they have to act like a real ally. Their leaders may think that they are oh so clever by reaping American money to fight jihadis while buying legitimacy and protection by aiding Islamists, but this is a dangerous game they are playing. If they continue to go through the motions of helping us--doing the bare minimum to avoid an open break with America--they will find that when we don't need to put up with this crap we'll drop them in a New York minute.

Enjoy the Moment

Twitter jokes about bin Laden's death.

My favorite? "RIP Osama bin Laden, World Hide and Go Seek Champion (2001-2011)"

Laugh, and then continue the mission. The idea that some want to peddle that the war is over and we can come home is so stupid that it is hard to believe that anyone with a working brain stem and two or three brain cells to rub together could make it.

Oh sure, they can dress it up with the idea that the simplistic notion that we face a single jihadi enemy ideology fails to understand the nuance of the divisions within the jihadi world, which means that we are foolish to think we are fighting a unified enemy. But this is false knowledge if we try to believe that those divisions mean our enemies don't have a common enemy--America--that overrides their divisions. Exploiting those divisions is a tactical matter and not a strategic factor that nullifies the factions as our collective enemy. Even though these pundits peddle the soothing notion that we can continue to wage this not-war quietly and with intelligence and police work without thinking of it as a war, our enemies sure think of it as a war. And they will continue to wage it. Just because we might say it is over doesn't make it over.

By this faux nuanced thinking of our reality-based community we can pretend to return to normal and turn inward to fixate on shark summers and celebrity gossip and even midnight basketball programs, or whatnot. But it is a fantasy world that only appears to exist until the moment our enemy hits us at home again big and makes the idiotic notion that we are too focused on jihadi enemies once again clear to us.

Killing Osama bin Laden and dumping his carcass in the ocean was a necessary task (and one done with such good timing to take place during the Arab Spring's rejection of Islamism which reduces the image of martyrdom after his death that I wonder--if only just a little, mind you--if this was more than just good luck on the timing) but it is not the war.

We are still at war. Don't become confused on this point. We can enjoy this moment. But it is just a moment.

UPDATE: Speaking of people without a working brain stem or with fewer than a three brain cells to rub together, Barney Frank and his ilk want to declare mission accomplished and come home. Idiots.

In a World Without Fanatical Murderers

Lamb sometimes likes me to build a tent across our dining table and a couple chairs. I use an old bed spread. Inside, Lamb staffed a happy world of fluffy friends:

It isn't all pure innocence, of course. The finned object is a foam football among her personal arsenal in that green bag. It has binoculars, a periscope, a dart gun and darts, and various other implements of pretend war. Nobody gets hurt. And her army fights only for good.

Lamb is too young to realize that a war is being waged around the world to protect the furry innocents. Oh, she understands that on Memorial Day we honor those who have died to protect us. But just who could be so evil as to require protection from is beyond her experience (thankfully).

I wish that she could grow older without appreciating what is out there that hates her without even meeting her and knowing her. But I'm not one of the furry innocents living in a pretend world of pretend war. I know better. And so will Lamb.

Damn Osama bin Laden for that. Dying doesn't erase all the harm he has caused.

Ask Me If I Care

Some Islamic scholars are upset that we dumped garbage at sea:

Muslim clerics said Monday that Osama bin Laden's burial at sea was a violation of Islamic tradition that may further provoke militant calls for revenge attacks against American targets.

Well we're even then. Our religious traditions don't allow for dying in civilian planes used as weapons or by being crushed by collapsing buildings struck by those planes. We also frown on beheadings.

We're funny that way.

Continuing the Mission

As I suspected, we have a lot of material to analyze and exploit from the Osama raid:

An additional update on materials, quite a bit of materials that were found at the sight and collected: Those materials are currently being exploited and analyzed. And a task force is being set up at CIA to conduct that task, given the volume of materials collected at the raid site.

This information isn't as satisfying as the violent end of bin Laden, but it is probably more important in the long run to dismantle al Qaeda and find their enablers.

The really funny thing is, we'll learn a lot as we watch even if we retrieved no material, since other al Qaeda may not be able to sit tight and hope we learned nothing.

UPDATE: Without any specific information, just watching for jihadis to go on the move gives us a chance to kill them. Perhaps in their haste to avenge the death of their leader, Afghan forces nailed infiltrators in a battle:

Overnight. Afghan troops in the east, caught a large group of armed Arabs, Chechens and Pakistanis crossing the border. In the subsequent fighting, at least 25 of the al Qaeda (most likely) gunmen were killed or wounded. The remainder fled back into Pakistan. The Afghan troops were out watching crossing points on the border because of intel warnings that al Qaeda forces in Pakistan would move to Afghanistan and try to stage attacks on Americans to avenge the recent death of al Qaeda founded Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

Remember that all those threats that al Qaeda will "retaliate" are opportunities to kill them. Continue the mission.

Pretext for What?

Iran makes an interesting accusation:

Iranian state television ran a report Monday saying Israeli military aircraft were massing at a U.S. air base in Iraq for a strike on Iran.

The report appeared on the website of Press TV. Israel said it had no knowledge of such a strike plan and Iraq's air force commander denied the Iranian report.

Press TV quoted what it said was a source close to the movement of Moqtada al-Sadr, an Iraqi Shi'ite cleric who opposes the U.S. presence in Iraq and has close ties to Iran's leaders.

So is this just another round of propaganda for no other purpose than that is what they do?

Or is is an excuse to justify a Hezbollah and/or Hamas attack on Israel that might give Bashar Assad a foreign enemy to distract his rebellious people?

Or, does the source indicate that Iran is trying to stop any movement by Iraq to ask American forces to stay in Iraq after this year?

One of the Benefits of Being Exceptional

Victor Hanson wonders if our administration has chosen the path of decline for America, believing our best days are behind us, so why resist? Let's just try to adjust to the new reality.

What President Obama and his team believe isn't that important to me, in the long run. I keep in mind that in the 1970s, many of our elites believed the American Century was going to have an abbreviated run and that the Soviets would take the lead. Then, statecraft was viewed as managing our decline and getting the best deal we could locked in while we retained an advantage.

America is exceptional. In our natural resources, we have tremendous advantages. Most important, our people don't really believe we are doomed to second place. Americans will revive our fortunes despite the convictions of our so-called leaders that we should accept second place and "leading" from behind.

Americans don't give up. Not even when our "betters" in the government and society believe we should give up and tell us to get used to it. That's the biggest part of American exceptionalism, after all.

UPDATE: Europeans (and those who think like Europeans) have derided our war against Islamist terrorism and their enablers as simplisme and lacking in nuance. In their thinking, we should simply endure the occasional terror attacks with a sophisticated shrug of the shoulders and get on with our lives, relying on intelligence agencies and police methods (and unsaid but the natural consequence of passive defenses, the narrowing of our civil liberties) to keep the frequency of attacks down to tolerable levels.

Funny enough, as the Arab Spring rings with calls for freedom and democracy rather than Sharia (whether or not those calling for the former can achieve those lofty goals), and the world sees our persistence in pursuing Osama bin Laden finally pay off, Europeans are having second thoughts about whether by our "over-reaction" to a petty terror threat we are really hastening our decline:

The news about the US attack on a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that killed Mr. bin Laden comes after a season of Arab uprisings that are largely democratic in sentiment, received support from US and European leaders, and appeared to take place without Islamist or Al Qaeda backing. To some analysts, it holds out hope for the end of a chapter of global violent jihad started by bin Laden in the 1990s – and may enhance a larger swing toward sympathy with democratic values and a larger antipathy toward extremism.

“Seen from Europe, this is part of the return of America. The story a few years ago was America’s relative decline, but this shows a return,” argues Dominique Moisi, a leading intellectual at the French Institute of International Relations. “We see that democracy prevails as an aspiration and democracy prevails as a force. The way bin Laden was disposed of, not by a drone or a missile … that makes a difference.”

Whatever else you want to say about the Iraq War, fighting the war clearly did not raise the legitimacy and appeal of Osama bin Laden's jihad or taint the idea of democracy in the Arab world.

One day, perhaps our elites will ponder the question of whether the war in Iraq, which defeated al Qaeda in battle and planted fragile shoots of democracy as an alternative to despotism or Islamism is positively related to this Arab Spring. What was once "unilateral" may be seen as "exceptional" in helping to end the chapter of jihad that Osama bin Laden represents.

This Arab Spring may falter in whole or just in part, but even in failure it won't be the last round in the struggle for the heart and soul of the Arab Moslem world. But it was named the Long War for a reason, even if some fools want to declare premature "mission accomplished" and come home.

The New May Day

Nine Eleven passed

Osama bin Laden's death

Was never in doubt

Sorrow in Gaza

Hamas is upset:

The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas on Monday condemned the killing by U.S. forces of Osama bin Laden and mourned him as an "Arab holy warrior."

I'm sure they are still a peace partner, right?

What About the Medium Term?

Strategypage thinks Khaddafi is doomed in the long run:

The war is a stalemate, although long term the Kaddafi forces are likely to lose. But in the meantime Kaddafi has long experience in playing the international media and foreign diplomats in general. Kaddafi has dwindling resources, and his only way out is to either make an amnesty deal (which allows him and his family to retire somewhere with some of their stolen fortune) or to re-conquer the country. Both outcomes are unlikely.

Their judgment seems to depend on the assumption that Khaddafi will run out of money to paper over the fractures in his western rump realm. I hope they are correct.

But I'm not as optimistic about Khaddafi running out of resources to resist. Other tyrants seem to find ways to get money to keep going. And Khaddafi has plenty of foreign friends to help him out, despite boasts of how the world community is united to defeat Khaddafi. The lure of oil money in the future, at the very least, will keep some money flowing to Khaddafi.

Further, the assessment seems to rely on NATO continuing the pressure since it will take a long time for the rebels to get their act together. I'm guessing that NATO's effort falters before the loyalists crack.

It also assumes that the eastern rebels won't decide that they'd settle for having their own country rather than paying the price to defeat the loyalists and take over Libya completely.

In the long run we are all dead, as the saying goes. Khaddafi is surely included in that. And hey, as the death of Osama bin Laden demonstrates, we're persistent enough when we have the incentive to pursue someone.

But in the short or medium run? Unless we get lucky, I think Khaddafi survives this war.

UPDATE: It occurs to me that Khaddafi reportedly flipped because he was greatly affected by our forces pulling Saddam Hussein from his hiding hole inside Iraq. Could the killing of Osama bin Laden have a similar impact today and convince him to flee Libya? Might Khaddafi worry that he and his sons could face the same fate one day, and worry that he'll live in his palace in fear of American special forces attacking him? Or will Khaddafi fear that fate only if he leaves Libya for a mansion in exile and believe that holding on to power is the only way to maintain the resources to survive and avoid bin Laden's fate?

Justice

American special forces raided Osama bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan and Navy SEALs fired the shot that killed him:

U.S. helicopters ferrying elite counter-terrorism troops into the compound identified by the CIA as bin Laden's hideout — and back out again in less than 40 minutes. Bin Laden was shot in the head, officials said, after he and his bodyguards resisted the assault.

We dumped his body at sea.

Our State Department issued apologies to Satan for his new unwelcome guest.

One of our helicopters went down in the assault but I've heard no reports of friendly casualties.

Congratulations to our military for pulling this off. Remember that while this is good news, it is not victory. I'll settle for justice, for now, and be happy for our success.

UPDATE: Four helicopters were used in this CIA operation with a SEAL team on loan. No US casualties, although one helicopter was lost due to a mechanical malfunction.

I assume that other operations are going on now based on captured storage devices that I also assume we pulled from the mansion.

I'm sorry that bin Laden wasn't literally living in a cave somewhere.

I am very frustrated that he lived in luxury in the heart of Pakistan. I want to know who was shielding him while he lived there. This is the beginning of justice related to Osama bin Laden.

And good for the president for ordering the assault. I'm glad the order was to kill him, too. We didn't need a circus of a trial. Dead and dumped in the sea is best all the way around.

UPDATE: I'm also relieved that the loss of one of four helicopters didn't doom the raid, as helicopter losses doomed the Desert One hostage rescue mission three decades ago inside Iran. I wonder if another helicopter was sent in to replace the one lost to extract the troops and agents, or whether we got by with the remaining three.

The timing of the mission, so soon after the Taliban proclaimed their so-called spring offensive in Afghanistan, sends a nice message to the enemy.

Celebrate. And continue the mission. This is still a long war.

UPDATE: Perhaps fittingly, the raid was liveblogged on Twitter.

UPDATE: Oh, and I'm especially pleased that Osama died knowing that Americans found him and killed him.

UPDATE: As far as I'm concerned, May 1, 2011 is the day President Obama earned that Nobel Peace Prize.

UPDATE: One man's facial hair vigil comes to an end. He never forgot. He did not falter. And he never shaved. Until after yesterday's CIA/SEAL raid.

UPDATE: In an amazing coincidence, Casey on Chuck tonight was carrying a bin Laden target for target shooting.

Memo to Campus Communists

Of omelets and eggs:

Mr Dikötter, who has been studying Chinese rural history from 1958 to 1962, when the nation was facing a famine, compared the systematic torture, brutality, starvation and killing of Chinese peasants to the Second World War in its magnitude. At least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in China over these four years[.]

Now that China's rulers are reasonably enlightened, that won't happen any more.

Happy freaking May Day.

That Sounds Like a Threat To Me

Watch the Iranians:

One of Iran's top military commanders warned Saudi Arabia on Sunday that its decision to send forces to Bahrain to quell protests by Shiite Muslims would spark unrest at home, a semiofficial Iranian news agency reported.

Stirring up trouble in Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabia has a substantial Shia population in their eastern oil-producing regsion) would certainly provide a distraction for Iran to help Syria use maximum bloodshed to put down the spreading unrest in Syria.

UPDATE: This could be related:

Syrian security forces besieging the city of Dara have been ordered to use "any means necessary" to crush the rebellion that sparked the weeks-long uprising against the regime of President Bashar Assad, a Syrian military source said Saturday.

Perhaps just the threat of Iranian subversion in Saudi Arabia will keep the Saudis quiet as an Alawite (fringe Shia) regime slaughters Sunni Arabs in Dara.

My guess is that there will be far less world outrage over the destruction of Dara than there was over the "Jenin massacre."

They Peaked Already

Afghanistan Taliban continue to fight:

Taliban-led insurgents killed at least 11 people across Afghanistan in a renewed springtime offensive on Sunday despite a huge security clampdown, hours after the United Nations pleaded for all sides to avoid civilian casualties.

The hardline Islamists have warned civilians to stay away from public gatherings, military bases and convoys, as well as government offices, because those sites would be the target of a wave of attacks beginning on Sunday.

One, the Taliban don't care about civilian casualties. That's what they do.

And two, when you have to announce that you are starting an offensive it indicates that the announcement was probably the high point of the offensive.

Remember, Taliban spring offensives are legendary for being hyped and then amounting to simply more rounds of getting their asses kicked.

UPDATE: Ah, the Taliban! They started their offensive with a 12-year-ols suicide bomber who killed 4 civilians.

The Final Option?

As the Chinese build up their military, making their ability to invade Taiwan more likely to succeed, the general build up of military forces causes problems for the defense of Taiwan even if Taiwan matches China's build up (and Taiwan isn't). As the general level of force goes up around Taiwan--even if in balance--we will find it more difficult to sail close to Taiwan to support them with our fleet. Oh, we can reach Taiwan, but we would take risks to do it quickly and if we take steps to lower the risk, we will take longer to get there.

So in the long run, Taiwan needs another method than their own conventional military strength to defeat a Chinese invasion. Preemptive surrender is one option, of course, to stop the destruction of war. But are the Taiwanese really prepared to give up their freedom?

Basing American and/or Japanese forces on the island of Taiwan before a war is an option, too, if it can be done without provoking an immediate Chinese invasion.

Getting China to no longer want to invade Taiwan is another way out. Although that might require regime change in Peking, so I'm not saying this is an easy solution. But it is in theory a way out of Taiwan's dilemma.

Building nuclear weapons is another option for Taiwan. Of course, openly doing that could lead to a quick Chinese invasion attempt or even preemptive nuclear attack to disarm Taiwan. So if this option is chosen by Taiwan, it would have to be done quietly so that China only suspects the capability which Taiwan can mention after the deed is done, either openly once done or during a crisis. I don't think matching Israel's ambiguous stance is an option, since Israel has the advantage of conventional military superiority in any short conventional war, at least.

This quiet, I suppose:

A government official revealed that Taiwan had developed a IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile) with a range of 2,000 kilometers. The missile was successfully tested three years ago. Nothing was said about production. Seven years ago, Taiwanese officials discussed developing a 2,000 kilometer range IRBM, and manufacturing 30 of them[.] ...

Taiwan does not have nuclear weapons, although the nation possess the technical resources to develop such weapons, and perform the engineering work to make these nukes function in a ballistic missile.

Thirty longer range ballistic missiles don't do much to affect the balance if armed with conventional warheads. But having them ready to go in case Taiwan gets nuclear warheads to mount on them would speed up deployment and reduce that dangerous period between open intent to have a nuclear deterrent and having nukes to deter an enemy.

Which makes our "accidental" shipment to Taiwan of nuclear warhead triggers a couple years ago (I noted it as an aside in this post) seem less of an accident than a way to let Taiwan get a good look at the trigger and/or increase Taiwan's deterrence by injecting some uncertainty about just what Taiwan has.

Two Words on India's Figher Decision

American-Indian relations certainly don't ride on this decision, but I think India made a mistake from the perspective of their own self-interests in knocking out the American entries in their fighter-buy competition:

India eliminated the U.S. F-18 and F-16 from the competition to sell India 126 jet fighters. The U.S. aircraft lost out, not on technical grounds, but because India believed that America could not be relied on to continue supporting the aircraft if India got into a war (like with Pakistan) that the U.S. did not agree with. India sees the U.S. economic sanctions against India in the late 1990s, after India revealed its nuclear weapons program, as an example of this. India has long accused the U.S. of "tilting" towards Pakistan diplomatically. The two remaining fighters (Rafale and Typhoon) are built in Europe, a region that India sees as more dependable when the chips are down.

Europe is more reliable? I have a one word answer to that: Taiwan:

But if it comes to Hindi-Chini Bang Bang, who is more likely to cave in to Chinese pressure to cut off technical support and weapons and spare parts supply: Sweden, France, the EU, or America? If you wonder, consider who still sells to Taiwan over Chinese objections. And who would be more likely to send their own fighter squadrons to India's aid if it came to war? I'm not saying that India would either want our help or that it would necessarily be in our interests to do so, depending on the circumstances; but just in the theoretical level, the question is easy to answer as well.

This is far more than a fighter plane decision, as important as that is on its own. It is a decision about the shape of India's total defense environment for a generation.

Europe has already largely exited the market for Taiwanese big ticket arms purchases, and America is the last supplier standing. Europe is not nearly as steady as India thinks.

And if India thinks a European supplier would help them in time of war, I have another word: Libya. Just look at the Libya War and see how much air power Europe has scraped together to operate out of European air bases.

India will get high quality planes no matter what choice they make. But India is making this plane decision affected by lingering attitudes from the Cold War era, I think.

Of course, as the Strategypage post notes, perhaps it is about bribery opportunities. Strategic considerations fall away completely if that is the angle.

Seeking Less Resistance

Libyan loyalists operating southeast of Ajdabiyah were hit by NATO air strikes:

A NATO air strike destroyed 45 vehicles of Muammar Gaddafi's forces after they had killed at least five civilians in fighting in two east Libyan towns, an oil official and a rebel spokesman said on Sunday.

Gaddafi forces entered the towns of Jalu and Awlijah, south of the eastern frontline near Ajdabiyah, early on Saturday and opened fire, killing at least five civilians and wounding more than 10, the rebel military spokesman said.

That was a hefty convoy by Libya War standards. The loyalists made a mistake by not dispersing. Perhaps they thought that by being well away from the coast they were immune to NATO attack. It is surely more difficult for NATO to spot, track, and attack that far inland, but not tough enough to protect loyalist units.

As the article notes, taking those towns would hem in the rebels into the northeast. Controlling this area would also allow the loyalists to cut off oil flows from the deep southeast around Kufrah. I still haven't heard anything more about the clashes from a few days ago there. That area is both outside the no-fly zone and so far inland that it probably really is mostly secure from NATO air strikes other than pre-planned strikes.

If the loyalists take Jalu, they would cut off the north-south road and isolate any rebels in the south from receiving support from the main rebel bastion on the coast.