It Isn't Domestic Spying

Our Left refuses to debate actual issues, instead they insist on mischaracterizing the issue to make debate seem, dare I say it, un-American.

The current phone "spying" bill is a case in point:

Warrantless wiretapping, which went on for almost six years after the Sept. 11 attacks, was revealed publicly in late 2005 by The New York Times and then discontinued in January 2007. Some 40 lawsuits have been filed against the companies by groups and individuals who think the Bush administration illegally monitored their phone calls or e-mails.

The White House had threatened to veto any bill that did not shield the companies, which tapped lines at the behest of the president and attorney general but without permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the special panel established for that purpose under the 1978 law.

This has always been about foreign communications that only happen to cross our territory because of the structure of the global communications network.

It is not "domestic" spying, and the program raised no opposition at first. It is foreign intelligence collection designed to prevent another 9/11. But that isn't how our press describes it.

How our Left can expend so much effort to undermine our defenses is beyond me.

Governing Temps

Can a private company clean up the Somalia pirates?

For the second time in three years, the Somali government (a ramshackle collection of clans and warlords that represent about half the population) is negotiating for a private security company to patrol its coasts and suppress the piracy that is now rampant out there.

The money for the company would bypass the corrupt government.

Actually, I don't know why more Third World governments interested in clean government don't contract with companies to run their mineral extraction operations and build infrastrucuture with the bulk of the profits, turning over only a fraction to the hiring government's general fund.

Right now, Nigeria is a cess pool of corruption and declining oil production. The people are impoverished and the environment is polluted.

Why couldn't a foreign company run their oil industry, use mercenaries to run off the gangs, and build roads, health clinic, schools, and telecom networks with the funds?

Perhaps after a generation during which the corrupt politicians who siphoned off oil wealth retire or die off, return the operation to the national government (or better yet, sell it to private companies).

Do the same in Congo or other poor nations cursed with a valuable mineral that seems to be enriching the elite without reaching the people.

When Tyrants Pout

So delays in selling arms to Taiwan are coming from our government now?

And a posting on Strategypage says:

The U.S. ambassador to China, Clark T. "Sandy" Randt, opposes Bush administration plans to sell advanced F-16 jets to Taiwan because of concerns that Beijing has grown "angry" over protests and harsh reaction around the world to China's Olympic torch relay.

So let me get this straight. China is attracting the ire of many groups that notice China's various forms of tyranny. China doesn't like that attention. China is mad at us about that attention.

And we are the ones who are supposed to change our behavior in response by stalling F-16 sales?

And it gets more bizarre:

Taiwan's government privately had requested that the administration not send the notifications in the next few weeks as China and Taiwan complete negotiations on launching charter flights and expanding tourism between the two countries, according to diplomatic sources familiar with the discussions. But top officials such as Rice were irritated by Taiwan's protracted domestic wrangling over the sale and appear wary of irritating China during the negotiations over North Korea's nuclear programs.

At stake are $11 billion in weapons deals, including 30 Apache helicopters, 60 Black Hawk helicopters, eight diesel-electric submarines and four Patriot air defense missile batteries, which Taiwan's legislature approved in separate budgets in June and December of last year. For two years, the administration has also refused to accept a "letter of request" from Taiwan for 66 F-16 C/D fighters -- estimated to cost $5 billion -- that would lead to a potential sale.

So the Taiwanese government wants a delay? And we think China might not help on North Korea if we sell arms as we always have?

The former reason is just astounding given that this charm offensive might just be to get Taiwan to let down their guard.

The latter is idiotic considering that it is a vital Chinese interest and not a favor to America to keep North Korea from going nuclear.

Oh, narrowly speaking, China wouldn't mind if North Korea had nukes pointing at us and Japan, and the issue stopped right there. But in response to a North Korean nuclear arsenal, Japan and South Korea--and maybe Taiwan--would go nuclear in the years to follow. It is the latter that China fears. So stop thinking China is doing us a favor by working with us to halt North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

The scary thing is, this appeasement of Peking over Taiwan makes sense to our State Department.

Dumb Enough and Crass Enough, Thank God

Ireland rejected the European Union political union, technically killing it (but don't you believe that the EU is permanently dead--it may stink but it is just very, very quiet for now).

Roger Cohen pens some idiocy regarding Ireland's voters:

Europeans have spent a lot of time in recent years asking Americans how they could be dumb enough to make the same mistake twice in electing George W. Bush. But when it comes to sheer electoral crassness, it’s hard to beat what the Irish have just done.

I can’t think of a country that’s benefited from European Union membership more than Ireland. It has catapulted itself in a few decades from beer-soaked backwater to the Celtic Tiger whose growth rates, foreign investment and rags-to-riches story were the envy of every languishing small nation with a thirst for a makeover.

Ireland did not owe it to the European Union to approve a proto-empire that will suppress democracy and freedom in Europe. And it isn't just the BDS-tinged preamble to a story on the European Union that tips a reader off that this article's point is absurd.

Why is it dumb or crass for Ireland to have rejected the EU superstate? Why is success in the past and current EU an obligation to approve a future EU that is a political as well as economic and monetary union?

Heck, perhaps it is a sign of Irish gratitude for what the old EU did for them that they killed the future EU that will undo the good that the old but less ambitious EU did for Ireland.

And to add insult to injeury, the Irish did it with the vote of their people--an error the EU tried mightily to avoid in their hatred of democracy. They will not make the same mistake again.

Europe was within a few percentage points of Irish voters in seeing the lights go out all over Europe, as far as I'm concerned.

The EU bureaucrats will no doubt succeed in their goal in time, but you won't be able to blame the Irish for that. They tried to save Europe.

Is You Is or Is You Ain't?

I'm confused. Is Iran innocent and talk of attacking Iran is just NeoCon warmongering? Or is Iran such a big threat that we dare not attack them? Pick only one, please.

I already wrote that Iran would fight back if we strike them. We should not assume a passive response. The Christian Science Monitor examines this as well.

I personally think the retaliation will be mostly in the Gulf, Iraq, and Israel, using air and naval assets, terrorist bombs and rockets/missiles, and rockets from Lebanon and Gaza, respectively.

This talk is probably fanciful:

"One very important issue from a US intelligence perspective, [the Iranian reaction] is probably more unpredictable than the Al Qaeda threat," says Magnus Ranstorp at the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defense College in Stockholm.

"I doubt very much our ability to manage some of the consequences," says Mr. Ranstorp, noting that Iranian revenge attacks in the past have been marked by "plausible deniability" and have had global reach.

"If you attack Iran you are unleashing a firestorm of reaction internally that will only strengthen revolutionary forces, and externally in the region," says Ranstorp. "It's a nightmare scenario for any contingency planner, and I think you really enter the twilight zone if you strike Iran."

Recall that prior to both the 1991 and 2003 wars against Saddam, that analysts predicted a global terrorism counter-attack by Iraq. Despite Iraq's ties to terrorists, nothing came of that threat.

Perhaps Iran is more capable, but this worry should not be the reason that stays our hand if we think we need to strike.

The Audacity of Hopelessness

Israel may be concluding that America is not going to do anything about Iran's drive for nuclear weapons:

Earlier this month, Israel conducted training missions over the Mediterranean Sea and Greek territory, the New York Times reported on its Web site last night. The tests were conducted at the same distance required of Israeli jets to fly to Iran, and included helicopters in case any jets were downed and pilots had to be rescued, according to the Times.

The military training missions come as Israeli officials are speaking more openly about ending Iran's nuclear ambitions. Earlier this month, the Islamic Republic refused an offer from the five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council to build a peaceful nuclear energy facility in exchange for halting the enrichment of uranium in Natanz.

As I've noted before, our refusal to act does not mean that there will be no action--just that it will be less effective. Any attack that could also weaken the mullahs and destroy much of their retaliatory capability can only be done by America.

An Israeli strike could narrowly disrupt the nuclear missile threat to Israel, but that is not the end of the problem with Iran. A problem that we will then continue to face at perhaps a more intense level in the years following the Israeli strike.

Israel must defend itself, confident that our irrational hopes offer Israel no hope at all.

Clinging to God and Guns

The recent Grand Taliban Mega Offensive is over, it seems. The Taliban had their hats handed to them:

Afghan and NATO forces killed or wounded several hundred Taliban who had come together south of Kandahar, and tried to take over seven villages. As usual, an examination of the dead, and interrogation of prisoners, showed that most of the gunmen were from Pakistan, recruited from Pushtun tribes, and religious schools for boys. Not exactly a great source of skilled warriors. Give them an AK-47, a few days training, a pep talk by a preacher and send them across the border. If they don't come back, and many don't, declare them martyrs for the cause.

The press continues to speak of this event as evidence of the persistence of the Taliban resistance in Afghanistan.

But really, it isn't "resistance" when the cannon fodder is imported from Pakistan, now is it?

This is about the persistence of the jihadi ideology that allows a discredited ideology in Afghanistan to fight on despite the casualties the cause endures inside Afghanistan.

Which is why we can't settle for a tactical victory over al Qaeda in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Pakistan. We need to destroy the ideology that allows thugs to recruit idiots to go and die in a foreign land.

Yes, the tactical victories are important, but unless we destroy the ideology, much like young men travel to Afghanistan to kill again and again, young jihadis will again reach our shores to kill us again in large numbers.

Why Do They Hate Them?

My Jane's email update reports:

Al-Qaeda 'likely to attack Denmark'
Al-Qaeda has become more organised and a planned attack in Denmark is likely in the short term, the Danish Police Intelligence Service (Politiets Efterretningstjeneste: PET) announced on 13 June. According to the agency, terrorist attacks in Denmark are being planned and directed by Al-Qaeda's leadership[.]

Well, at least you have to admit they have it coming.

I mean, really. Cartoon-drawing Crusaders deserve what they get, right?

Explain to me again how invading Iraq is the reason that jihadis get that tingly gotta-kill-a-Westerner feeling?

Solving the Amphibious Lift Problem

China has not apparently built a dedicated amphibious invasion force. I don't think it is necessary for China to emulate our thinking to invade Taiwan, so this is interesting:

Taiwan will discuss opening a direct sea link with China to cut the cost and time of shipping across the Taiwan Strait, a newspaper said on Thursday. The move comes after the decision to open a direct air link with China earlier this month.

Chiang Ping-kun, Taiwan's top negotiator with China, was quoted in The Commercial Times as saying the establishment of a direct sea link will be among the issues discussed in the second round of Taipei- Beijing talks to be held in autumn in Taipei.

Five thousand cargo ships per year cross the strait, stopping in Okinawa formally on the journey. With about 14 ships per day on that route, the PLA could jam quite a few light infantry battalions into the ships that could be the initial wave of an invasion disembarking in Taiwanese ports coupled with similar forces coming in as tourists on new air flights.

This initial wave of forces carried on civilian ships and planes directed at Taiwanese ports and airports would be followed up with conventional airborne assaults and an amphibious assault aimed at the ports using converted obsolete warships, civilian ships, amphibious warfare ships, and other unconventional assets to reinforce and exploit the surprise seizure of the initial bridgeheads and airheads.

Of course, the timing of the planned links for the autumn may mean that the Olympics will go ahead as planned. So perhaps it will instead be an October surprise after all, this fall.

You and What Army?

Moqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army complain a lot about the ongoing campaign against the Shia thugs, but in the end we keep nailing them:

Iraqi troops on Thursday arrested the top official in Amarah, a Muqtada al-Sadr loyalist, officials said, drawing swift condemnations from followers of the anti-U.S. cleric and raising tensions as a military operation against Shiite militias got under way.

Rafia Abdul-Jabbar, who also was acting deputy governor for Maysan province, was seized from his office Thursday morning along with a member of the provincial council, a local official said.

The arrest came as Iraqi troops fanned out and gunmen tossed weapons on the streets or in canals with the official launch of the military crackdown in Amarah, a stronghold of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia and the purported center of weapons smuggling from neighboring Iran.

The military action came a day after the expiration of a four-day deadline for militants in Amarah to surrender their arms or face arrest.

Yet Sadr retains his image of strength. Go figure.

They Forgot Cynicism

Global warming is responsible for everything from hurricanes to polar bear extinction. For all I know, it is the reason I seem to be attracted to women who are emotionally, ah, challenged. But perhaps I've revealed too much.

Anyway, I know that with all the things that have been blamed on global warming, you are tempted to ask whether there is anything that global warming can't accomplish?


Well, this site compiles all the things that have been blamed on global warming. (Tip to NRO)


The compilers of the lists forgot one thing that global warming has created: cynicism.


When I see scientists and global warmers advocating socialist economic and governing policies--this time in the name of saving the planet--I develop an attitude that would look with suspicion on a scientific claim that beer and pretzels are good for my heart and cholesterol levels.


The scientists and near-scientists and drooling idiots promoting global warming are just another liberal advocacy group, and I see no reason to give them special deference just because "it's science, damn it!"

Curse you, global warming! My trust is just another casualty.

So what is Courteney Love doing these days?

Plan B

I would bet good money (were I a betting man) that Iran was ultimately behind the Samarra Golden Dome bombing in February 2006. Iran and Syria wanted a Shia-Sunni civil war in Iraq and that darned near provoked one, fueled by Syrian-supported Sunni al Qaeda suicide bombers and Iranian-supported Shia Sadrist death squads.

Our surge crippled al Qaeda in Baghdad, so I was a little surprised by the recent bombing that killed over 60 Shias in Hurriyah. I assumed it must have been al Qaeda, but wondered how they'd penetrated Baghdad again. It certainly isn't impossible, but I wondered how we slipped up. Isn't al Qaeda rather under a lot of pressure and just evading at this point? Have they managed to strike out even as they flee from the Mosul area operations?

But we think it was carried out by Shia thugs:

No group claimed responsibility for the blast, which devastated a bustling commercial street in Hurriyah, scene of some of the bloodiest Shiite-Sunni slaughter in 2006. That fueled speculation Sunni extremists may have been behind the attack.

However, U.S. spokesman Lt. Col. Steven Stover said the American command believed the bombing was carried out by a Shiite splinter group led by Haydar Mehdi Khadum al-Fawadi, also known as Haydar al-Majidi, who has been sought for months for kidnapping, murder and other offenses.

"We believe he ordered the attack to incite (Shiite) violence against Sunnis; that his intent was to disrupt Sunni resettlement in Hurriyah in order to maintain extortion of real estate rental income to support his nefarious activities," Stover said in an e-mail.

While the Iraqis aren't convinced, this makes sense. Somebody on the Iranian payroll is trying for that low odds civil war project. And if you can't get Sunnis to murder Shias, get loyal Shias to do the deed.

Apparently, the Sunnis never really operated in that section od the city. And we suspect Shias carried out a similar bombing back in November, pretending to be al Qaeda.

One day soon, we really need to make the mullahs of Iran pay for their crimes.

FATA Attraction

The Taliban Campaign is approaching, with signs of a post-Westphalian campaign inside Pakistan's frontier tribal areas taking shape, perhaps without much Pakistani help. Al Qaeda is attempting to regenerate its ability to attack our homeland, which has gained added urgency given our defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq. With the Pakistanis unwilling to pacify the area and with our inability to invade and pacify the area, the only alternative left to win is to focus on the tribes of Pakistan and get them to fight al Qaeda.

Michael Hirsch has a bit of useful information regarding this in a piece that is mostly just drivel (Gee, Pakistanis blaming their tribal area problems on George Bush distracted by Iraq? Shocking!):

NEWSWEEK has learned that the energetic Petraeus is already informally involved in talks with the new Pakistani government, including its ambassador to Washington, Husain Haqqani, about counterinsurgency plans for the tribal regions, where Taliban and Al Qaeda elements still hold sway. And in his discussions with the Pakistanis, Petraeus has indicated he would add up to two additional Coalition brigades to Afghanistan once he takes over CENTCOM, according to a senior diplomatic official in Washington who spoke on condition of anonymity owing to political sensitivities.

An offensive that requires only up to two additional Coalition brigades, which may mean only one will be American, does not rely on drastic reductions in American combat brigades in Iraq. Remember, our Army is still growing to its 48 brigade target. Further, we really don't want to put too many troops into Afghanistan when the supply line is tenuous at best.

Yet we are drawn in for lack of alternatives other than just giving up. This will be a delicate operation requiring persistence, restraint in the direct application of Coalition force unless a decisive opportunity presents itself, and a lot of diplomacy to keep Pakistan quiet while we work on the tribes in the Federally Administerd Tribal Areas.

Both presidential candidates are fully committed to fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan and even in Pakistan. For one candidate, this may well be the curse of getting what he wished for.

The Trouble With Tribbles

China may be a rising power but their rulers sure do seem nervous about their stability:

Floods sweeping southern China seem to have fulfilled the final stanza of an Internet curse involving Beijing's Olympic mascots, but censors have been quick to remove postings that might fuel the superstition.

After a devastating earthquake struck Sichuan province last month, Internet users tied four of the five "Fuwa" mascots to the calamities that have struck China in the run-up to the Games, which begin in August. One Fuwa is a panda, the totem of Sichuan.

Apparently there is chatter on the Internet with one user quoted wondering what they should do with the curse apparently taking shape.

That and similar posts have disappeared quickly this week. China's censors monitor the Internet carefully and remove any posts deemed inflammatory or not in line with government policy.

Major calamities, earthquakes in particular, were viewed in imperial China as a sign that a dynasty had lost the mandate of Heaven.

Although the Communist Party has tried to stamp out "feudal superstition" since it took power in 1949, the Beijing Games will start on the auspicious moment of 8:08 pm, on August 8 2008. Eight is a lucky number in Chinese.

It's like the Japanese getting all sweaty over Hello Kitty omens.

It's like the four horsemen of the Apocalypse with cute cartoony heads storming the castle. Yet for the Chinese rulers, this is deadly serious. If everyone believes the superstition, they will act is if it is real.

And then the government loses the mandate of Heaven.

Get Him While We Can

Back in 2004, it wasn't uncommon for political opponents of President Bush to wonder if we had Osama bin Laden in custody to spring him in an October surprise to swing the November election. Those were foul accusations based on the assumption that our President is as political as his opponents, who would use any tool to gain the White House.

So I take this report with a grain of salt:

President George W Bush has enlisted British special forces in a final attempt to capture Osama Bin Laden before he leaves the White House.

Defence and intelligence sources in Washington and London confirmed that a renewed hunt was on for the leader of the September 11 attacks. “If he [Bush] can say he has killed Saddam Hussein and captured Bin Laden, he can claim to have left the world a safer place,” said a US intelligence source.

We are clearly preparing to fight inside Pakistan. But I can guarantee that it isn't because President Bush wants to get bin Laden for any personal reason.

Perhaps the report is an attempt to deflect the enemy inside Pakistan from understanding the scope of the pending campaign, relying on our press bias to broadcast an unflattering reason for the preparations.

Or maybe it is as simple as worrying that the next president might not be interested in fighting the "good war" no matter what they say now.

Given that executing Saddam depressed the Baathists in Iraq, it is not out of line to think that killing or capturing bin Laden after their drubbing in Iraq will really depress the jihadi world.

Not to mention the satisfaction of finally nailing that murdering bastard.

But for Iraq?

It seems that a recent thread in the Left's complaints about Iraq is that focusing on Iraq prevented us from stopping the rise of Iran's threat.

First, good for our Left in admitting that Iran is a threat. All this time their cries of "prove Iran is making nukes or shipping IEDs to Iraq" made me think they viewed Ahmadinejad as a friendly if outspoken friend. Soo good for them! Reality does have a place in their community.

But the biggest problem with the claim that Bush has made the problem worse is the implied result that Bush could have--with the anti-war side's support--ended the Iranian threat.

What world of delusion to you have to inhabit to believe the anti-war side would have supported any effort to defang Iran and stop their nuclear progress?

Sanctions? Blockade? Air strikes? Covert operations? Coup? Give me a break. The Left's idea of "solving" the Iran problem consists of shoveling money at Tehran and then pretending to believe Ahmadinejad's solemn vow that he will never develop nuclear weapons.

And obviously, their plan of just giving up is not inhibited by any number of troops fighting in Iraq.

Try a more plausible line of attack, please.

Wrong Number

Strategypage writes that we are sending a message to North Korea:

The U.S. Air Force is sending a message to North Korea this month, as 90 warplanes fly into South Korea to demonstrate how quickly (about four days) forces can be brought in from Guam, Hawaii and Alaska, and North America. The aircraft will include AWACS, B-52s, F-15s, F-16s, A-10s and KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft. Such a wide ranging "surge" of aerial reinforcements has never been carried out before.

Four days? Why the rush? As the Strategypage post notes:

South Korea has a large, modern, well trained and led air force. The South Korean are expected to destroy most of the North Korean Air Force (which is poorly trained because of a decade of fuel shortages). Most of the American reinforcements are for supporting the South Korean counterattack.

The South Koreans are not going to start a counter-offensive that quickly, I dare say.

I have a suspicious mind, so whenever we practice or write about moving forces to South Korea from the United States these days, I assume we are actually talking about moving forces to the equally distant Taiwan. Given North Korea's eroding army, defending Taiwan is the only scenario that requires fast reinforcements from a standing start to avert defeat.

The four-days timetable kind of gives it away:

According to U.S.-Taiwan defense doctrine, the Taiwanese military would have to fight an invasion alone for at least four days until American naval forces arrive.

Personally, I think the Taiwanese need to be prepared to fight alone longer given the increasing need for time to fight our way through Chinese blocking forces (air, surface, and submarine assets). But perhaps psychologically we need to get something on Taiwan fast to keep the Taiwanese military fighting. Just knowing that the first elements of America's military is moving to help could keep the Taiwanese from giving up from hopelessness.

Yes, we dialed Pyongyang's number. But we know that the phone will ring in Peking.

This At Least is Debatable

The heart of the war on terror is whether you believe we are at war or not with jihadists. I think we are, and must fight them. Others think we are not and must arrest them. This is the debate at its core:

What 911 really did was shift the counter-terrorism argument from, "we have to cope with the terrorists," to, "we have to deal with them." Even before 911, Islamic radicals with long memories tried to warn Osama not to mess with the Westerners, because they will eventually mess you back, big time. The black bird is on Osama's back for now.

But many people, especially outside the United States, are trying to convince America to go along with the more popular "coping with terrorism" approach, rather than chasing after the bad guys with military forces. That's because this approach could, according to many non-Americans, create more "Black Swans". But counter-terrorism experts in the United States disagree with this more passive approach, because they fear that, without the pressure provided by the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Islamic terrorists would come up with more "Black Swans". No one is sure which approach is right, and the loser here will get a "Black Swan" as an unwelcome prize.

[The "black swan" is the unanticipated event that our Pentagon is trying to anticipate.]

The heart of the difference is whether we cope with attacks, hoping our enemies don't hurt us too badly, and hoping our enemies tire of attacking us on the assumption that if we don't provide reasons for them to attack us they won't come up with excuses of their own; or attempt to stop the attacks by killing the enemy and actively discouraging them before they really hurt us badly. The assumption of the latter approach is that our acts or non-actions are merely excuses to kill us.

On the latter side there is also a division over whether we should fight this as a narrowly focused battle against jihadis or whether we need to reform Islam to keep it from sending out jihadis.

This is at least a useful debate to have instead of the vile accusations masqerading as a debate that Bush lied us into war. I wonder what our Left wants to have? A debate about our national security or a Bush-bashing therapy session?

No Mobilization Surge

The first thing I thought when I read this release that showed we had mobilized 115,950 reservists, my first thought was that we'd called up 16,000 troops in one week, since last week's number was 99,159!

But the recent release explained:

DoD will now publish the number of National Guard and Reserve personnel activated in both a voluntarily and involuntarily status, as well as the total of all reservists deactivated since Sept. 11, 2001. Previously, the majority of the reservists who were voluntarily activated for federal service were not counted in the weekly report.

So we are up only 158 over last week. And amazingly enough, a quarter of our mobilized reservists are volunteers for active duty.

A Reporting Quagmire

The Associated Press rewrites the Taliban press release about their recent occupation of a number of villages in Afghanistan:

Taliban militants destroyed bridges and planted mines in several villages they control outside southern Afghanistan's largest city in apparent preparation for battle, residents and officials said Tuesday. ...

The Taliban assault Monday on the outskirts of Kandahar was the latest display of strength by the militants despite a record number of U.S. and NATO troops in the country.

Another demonstration of their strength? Ah yes, the always imminent American defeat in Afghanistan that our press and Left have been droning on about these last six-plus years.

Do recall the actual events of the last couple years:

When I came in we had a force -- 36, 37 nations and an aggregate number of troops that was about 36,000. When I left, we were up to 40 nations declared. There are actually a few more that don't really advertise they're there, but there's a few more than 40. NATO recognizes 40. And the figure was a lot closer to 52,000.

And I bring that point up just to remind all that much of the reports about Afghanistan in late 2006, 2007 had to do with the alliance will fracture, the alliance is frayed and the alliance cannot get this job done. And in fact, that has proven not to be the case. The alliance is a far more capable force and, certainly in aggregate numbers, far more bigger than it was when we first took over last year.

The news also at that time had the Taliban as a resurgent force, as the force on the battlefield. They were coming with a spring offensive, which did not pan out. Then next, they were coming with a summer offensive in '07 which did not pan out, then an Eid offensive, then a Ramadan offensive, then a winter offensive and all. It simply didn't happen. And I believe that's a statement that the combination of the international force, the OEF forces along with their Afghan brothers are indeed the credible force on the battlefield today.

If the Taliban actually abandon their past practice of bugging out ahead of the NATO counter-attack, sticking around in their "conquests" only long enough to get the press reports like the one above, I will be shocked. Taliban "strength" tends to consist of running off the local constables, issuing a press release while posing with ammo belts across their chests, and then running as fast as their warrior legs can carry them when they think actual military forces are approaching.

If they are gearing up for a fight against Canadian and Afghan forces backed by American air power, those Taliban are already dead. But in the media war, they will always live on as resurgent warriors.

UPDATE: The Pentagon can't confirm the presence of a Taliban occupation force (It is from a June 17, 2008 press conference that isn't yet available online):

Q Geoff, as I think you're probably aware, there's been a lot of conflicting reports that have been coming out of Afghanistan. And I'm wondering if you could clarify to any degree some of the reports we're hearing where we're hearing that hundreds of families, thousands of people may be fleeing, that the Taliban may have taken over several of the towns in that area and yet the military there is putting out releases saying they're seeing none of this. The contradictions are pretty dramatic. Is there anything you can tell us?

MR. MORRELL: Lita, I don't know that I can offer much more clarity other than to tell you I've seen the reports you've seen. I've read the press accounts, as you've read them. And they do not jibe with what the commanders in the field are telling us.

And I think you'll notice that they went to the unusual step of releasing a press release to characterize the situation on the ground. And they talk about how -- this is from Bagram Air Field, that the Afghan National Police and coalition forces completed a patrol of the Arghandab district of Kandahar province today and found no evidence that militants control the area.

While in the area, coalition forces moved freely and met no resistance. Recent reports of militant control in the area appear to be unfounded.

So that is what we're left with. The commanders on the ground are telling us that their patrols have seen no sign of increased Taliban control of any areas, and yet I know the press reports are saying otherwise. I defer to the commanders in this case.

The Taliban press release seems to be a work of fiction that our press fell for hook, line, and sinker. Our press falls for the ploy every single time, learning nothing from previous false claims of enemy success. Our enemies know how to play our Western press and play to their bias.

I'm not saying our enemies can't hurt us in Afghanistan. But don't believe those first reports of spectacular enemy success before you let the initial propaganda broadside subside.

UPDATE: By Wednesday, the situation is still unclear as to the level of Taliban activity:

Troops in Arghandab district just outside of Kandahar, southern Afghanistan's largest city, exchanged fire with militants during "a few minor contacts," NATO spokesman Mark Laity said.

The Afghan Defense Ministry said more than 20 Taliban fighters had been killed in Tabin, a village in Arghandab, while three other fighters were killed in second village. Two Afghan soldiers also were killed, the ministry said in a statement. ...

Canadian military officials who patrolled through Arghandab over the last day reported "no obvious signs" of insurgent activity. But that didn't mean there were no Taliban there, a NATO news release said. Pentagon officials said reports of hundreds of Taliban in Arghandab were being overstated.

Just because we haven't found them yet doesn't mean somebody isn't there, but I'd think that a large number of Taliban claiming to control a large number of villages with mines and blown bridges would be easy to spot.

So wait a bit before judging an imminent catastrophe for the good guys.

UPDATE: By Thursday, when the NATO/Afghan counter-offensive kicked off, it looks like the Grand Taliban June Mega-Super-Offensive is rolled back already:

NATO has said the offensive, which began on Wednesday, was expected to last until the weekend, and it estimated that some 600 Taliban fighters had slipped into the Arghandab valley.

Kandahar provincial governor Assadullah Khalid told a news conference that the Taliban had been driven out, and troops were searching villagers' houses for fighters left behind.

"The Taliban have been cleared totally from Arghandab district," Khalid said.

"They have suffered hundreds of dead and wounded and many of their casualties are Pakistanis," he said.

Defense Ministry spokesman Zaher Azimi also said Arghandab district had been retaken, and 56 insurgents killed. Azimi said two Afghan army officers had been killed and two wounded.

Yet, NATO officials said there had been no major encounters or heavy ombardments and it was too early to agree with Governor Khalid's assessment that the Taliban had been evicted.

I'll still wait to see if the Afghan statements are close to the truth or whether the counter-attack is really just getting under way.

But that isn't stopping the press from assuming the Taliban are strong foes, as The Economist notes:

There is a risk of terrorist attacks in Kandahar in the coming week. But there is no realistic chance that Kandahar city will fall, and the insurgents are unlikely to stand and fight long in Arghandab. In the nearby district of Punjwai, up to 1,500 Taliban were killed in September 2006 when they rashly concentrated their forces around the village of Pashmul. NATO spokesmen boast of the speed with which a battalion of Afghan National Army soldiers was deployed to Kandahar. They said it showed the improving capability of Afghan security forces. That may be true. But in the war of perceptions, the Taliban will consider that they have had the best of the past week. [Emphasis added]

The enemy does not beat us but knows the press will do their duty and inflate any Taliban activity--even those that result in high enemy casualties--into a week of stories about the "resurgent" Taliban.