Just What Is He Talking About?

Thomas Friedman has to be the most over-rated thinker of our time. Sometimes he gets something right but it must be sheer chance, rare moments of clarity, or accurately taking notes when he talks to somebody who does know what he's talking about.

When Friedman says he wants to talk about Iraq, just what the heck is he talking about? Let me just take one portion of his column:

Our core problem in Iraq remains Donald Rumsfeld's disastrous decision - endorsed by President Bush - to invade Iraq on the cheap. From the day the looting started, it has been obvious that we did not have enough troops there. We have never fully controlled the terrain. Almost every problem we face in Iraq today - the rise of ethnic militias, the weakness of the economy, the shortages of gas and electricity, the kidnappings, the flight of middle-class professionals - flows from not having gone into Iraq with the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force.

Yes, yes, I know we are training Iraqi soldiers by the battalions, but I don't think this is the key. Who is training the insurgent-fascists? Nobody. And yet they are doing daily damage to U.S. and Iraqi forces. Training is overrated, in my book. Where you have motivated officers and soldiers, you have an army punching above its weight. Where you don't have motivated officers and soldiers, you have an army punching a clock.

We won the conventional war in three weeks. Decisively. With few friendly casualties. In what way was this not going in with overwhelming force? Ah, but Friedman says we didn't have enough troops. Right away Friedman betrays that he doesn't know the difference between high intensity warfare and counter-insurgency.

And what of blaming everything on not having enough troops inside Iraq?

Looting? We could have shot a couple hundred but then we'd hear about our "atrocities" and the anti-war side would say that we caused the insurgency by our heavy handedness.

Ethnic militias? So Friedman is saying we'd be better off if we had enough troops to wage war on the Shia and Kurdish militias to disarm them? Just how would have making the other 80% of Iraqis our enemies in addition to the Arab Sunnis been a wise use of extra troops?

The weakness of the economy? Ok, Friedman is pulling my leg, right? How on God's green Earth would more troops have helped the economy unless he's suggesting every soldier and Marine would have a personal maid, butler, cook, gopher, and hooker?

Shortages of gas and electricity? Well this is just getting sad now. Gas shortages come from the artificial low gas prices that has led to a black market where gasoline is actually purchased at the subsidized Iraq price and then exported. Electricity shortages come from 40 years of neglect by the Iraqi government. Or was our elite 101st Oil and Electricy Division going to be the source of magical energy generation capability?

Kidnappings? After Saddam emptied his prisons of common criminals in fall 2002, that genie was out of the bottle. We need good Iraqi cops and detectives to track them down and more US troops would have had exactly zero impact on this problem.

And just how would the flight of middle class professionals have been stopped with a huge American invasion force? I can't even imagine the tenuous causal link that Friedman is asserting.

And then Friedman betrays his complete ignorance by claiming that training for troops is overrated! This is so back assward that I am stunned. Motivation is the key and training is overrated? Recall the highly motivated but poorly trained Basij and Pasdaran that Iran flung against the better-trained Iraqi regulars in the Iran-Iraq War. The Iranians were mowed down by the hundreds of thousands. Training is the most important factor for troop effectiveness. You can't measure it easily and you can't easily tell in peacetime when you fail to do it, but in war training becomes apparent.

And Friedman asks what our strategy is. No doubt he does. Why should he have any more clue about that than anything else he rambles on about in this article. As for his strategy of doubling our troops strength right now, I won't even go beyond asking where we get this troop contingent. While we need more combat brigades generally, Friedman's claim that we need more troops in Iraq makes me feel better about my consistent argument that we have enough troops to win the counter-insurgency fight. Other than Victor Davis Hanson, I've read few who agree with me.

If Friedman wants a clue about our strategy to win, he could hardly go wrong starting here with Mackubin Owens (via Powerline):

The rapid tempo of Coalition operations will likely continue. Indeed, as U.S. and Iraqi forces shut down these ratlines, the insurgency will likely fall back on its "strategic rear" in Syria. Thus, "hot pursuit" into Syria may soon become an issue.

The U.S. strategy in Iraq is limited by a number of factors: the U.S. forces available, Iraqi politics and the time it is taking to create a competent Iraqi military. But the ongoing river campaign indicates that America has chosen to go on the offensive, taking advantage of the success in Fallujah to deny the insurgents respite. The high operational tempo is intended to rapidly degrade the rebels' lines of communication at both ends of the two river corridors, while killing and capturing as many of the enemy as possible.

But while military operations have weakened the insurgency, military means alone cannot defeat an insurgency. That is why it is necessary to bring the Sunnis into the government. Recent evidence suggests that the steps so far have already begun to drive a wedge between the Sunni and the foreign jihadis who have come to fight for Zarqawi.

Indeed, one of the reasons U.S. forces have been able to go on the offensive — despite the fact that U.S. troop strength is actually lower than it was earlier this year — is an improvement in actionable intelligence. Some of this is coming from captured insurgents. But much of it is coming from Sunnis who realize that their best chance for a future requires them to choose the new Iraqi government and reject the jihadis.

If current trends can be sustained, Zarqawi and his jihadi murderers will soon run out of time and space.

Military and political means will win this war. We are winning.

And somebody tell me why Friedman has the reputation for having a big, sophisticated, liberal brain.

Rally 'Round the Flag, Sunnis

The US and Iraqi governments are working on an amnesty policy to bring in the less reprehensible elements in the Sunni insurgency:

Negotiations have just begun between U.S. and Iraqi officials on drafting an amnesty policy, which would reach out to Iraqi militants fighting U.S. forces, say officials in both the Iraqi and American governments.

But foreign extremists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, responsible for Iraq's bloodiest attacks, would not be offered any amnesty, the Iraqi and U.S. authorities told The Associated Press in recent days.

The amnesty proposal is seen as a key weapon to split the insurgency between Iraqi and non-Iraqi lines and further alienate foreign fighters like al-Zarqawi.

Iraq's minister for national security said Sunday an amnesty policy is being drawn up, but he said insurgent groups first must do more to convince authorities they are serious about making peace.

"Those who had committed homicides and caused blood shedding for the innocents will be excluded from this amnesty," said the minister, Abdul Karim al-Inizi. "Talking about issuing an amnesty soon is premature as this depends on whether the insurgents want to take a step forward."

Sometimes, people over here react with disgust that we would talk to the people who have killed our soldiers and Marines:

The issue is politically charged with the potential to enrage many Iraqis and Americans.

This is ridiculous. Remember the objective. We are trying to end the insurgency--not kill everyone who ever fought us:

"Any successful counterinsurgency strategy requires the U.S. and Iraqi authorities to do everything possible to split the insurgency and persuade as many Sunni elements as possible to join the peaceful political process," said Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who says he has been involved in informal talks.

"This does not mean blanket amnesty," he said. It could, however, mean negotiations that lead to "pardoning or ignoring the actions of movements and opposition elements that supported the insurgency when this was done out of nationalism, fear," Cordesman said.

We did not kill all the Loyalists after the Revolution. We did not kill all the Confederates after the Civil War. We did not kill all the Nazis and Japanese militarists after World War II.

The jihadis will not get amnesty. They will be hunted down. And Baathist leaders will either be captured and tried or essentially exiled. Others may stay in Iraq if they have not done too much and don't attract the attention of Shias or Kurds seeking revenge. They may not get government jobs but they can stay. And others will just be forgotten and allowed to participate in free Iraq as long as they do nothing new against the government and cooperate against the foreign jihadis and the Baathists and Sunnis who will not give up.

As I wrote in January, referring to what I predicted in June 2004:

As sovereignty passes more and more to the Iraqis in concrete terms, it will be easier for the non-Baathist Sunnis to join other Iraqis to kill and expel the foreign invaders--the Islamists--and subdue the Baathists who aid the foreign invaders.

The Baathists screwed up big allying with the Islamists (as I noted in "Center of Gravity" in June 2004). They thought they could use the Islamists to spark a national revolt against American forces but instead the Islamists are giving all Iraqis a foreign enemy to rally against.

This will be our enemy's critical error in this war.

It is taking time to exploit this enemy error but slowly we are doing so.

Must ... Restrain ... Fist ... of ... Death

When you argue that the Saudi-financed madrassas that teach the most extreme form of Wahabbi Islam have nothing to do with promoting terrorism, you must have lots of degrees following your name. Truly, it takes a lot of extensive and expensive education to argue that:

While madrassas may breed fundamentalists who have learned to recite the Koran in Arabic by rote, such schools do not teach the technical or linguistic skills necessary to be an effective terrorist. Indeed, there is little or no evidence that madrassas produce terrorists capable of attacking the West. And as a matter of national security, the United States doesn't need to worry about Muslim fundamentalists with whom we may disagree, but about terrorists who want to attack us.

Let me also say that there is no evidence that getting a bachelor's degree produces people capable of practicing medicine. Nor does such a degree prepare you to be lawyer. So is a four-year degree irrelevant to these professions? I mean, undergraduates don't learn the technical or linguistic skills to do either work. So I ask again, is a BA irrelevant to the advanced degrees? Of course not. You'd feel foolish even uttering these things.

But Bergen and Pandey argue that madrassas have nothing to do with preparing terrorists. And they are serious. No embarassment at all is apparent. The fact that nobody has argued that madrassas have actual bomb-making classes should make it clear that these two guys are arguing against a non-existent claim.

Is there an outbreak of idiocy out there?

Keep Guantanamo Bay Open

Look, we could shoot the people we hold at Gitmo with no conflict under international law. They are not POWS, they are terrorists and unlawful combatants. Nor do we have to charge them with crimes. They are not civilian defendants.

Instead, we treat them pretty darned well. I have little patience for the "gulag" crowd that wants to close this prison because they claim we torture there.

For our enemies and the press and NGOs that bolster them, if we didn't have Gitmo, they'd have to invent one.

As indeed they did.

Don't go all wobbly on this.

UPDATE (DECEMBER 2, 2008): A UK outfit has linked to this post. The point of my post was to serve as a preamble to the linked article where the actual arguments were made, and not be a stand-alone piece. This is a blog and not a journal. We do that linking thing to highlight articles that we believe reflect our thoughts or are repulsive, as it suits us. We may just link to something we think is interesting without taking a stand one way or the other. Though you'll find many reasoned and researched posts here (if I may humbly assert that), you'll also find (dignified) rants about things that just torque me off.

This post was a response to specific outrageous criticism of Guantanamo that was in our news at that time. Which is another feature of blogs--you need to be aware of the context of the time.

Which brings us to another feature of blogs as opposed to articles--they evolve. Those using the Intute PPT were referred to this post that has responded to the implied criticisms of the Intute product--and therefore changed--by pointing out that the PPT really misses the purpose of my post and seemingly judges it in terms applicable to articles.

And one question. Has the PPT become invalid because the focus of one Intute page is no longer the page originally highlighted?

Still, thanks to Intute for the link. I've been wondering about the stream of hits on this post without any apparent referring location.

230

Happy Birthday Army! Today the Army is 230 years old, predating our country. Said the SecDef:

For over 200 years, the Army has been at the forefront of defending the freedom that makes our country such a very special place. The Army story is America's story, where men and women are judged not by race or religion or family heritage, but by merit; where anyone with a desire to serve and anyone with the drive and talent can excel.

Since our early days, through the generations that followed, and amid the conflicts, hardships, millions of Americans have risked what the Founders called their lives, their fortune and their sacred honor. They risked it to defend America's ideals and its missions.

Now that duty, that burden -- indeed, that privilege -- falls to this generation, just as it had to earlier generations in past eras and to the veterans we just recognized earlier. Every man and women (sic) serving in uniform is helping to write a new chapter in that glorious history, and I know you will make it a proud chapter.

May God bless the men and women in the United States Army, and may God continue to bless our wonderful country. Thank you very much.

Don't worry if you didn't buy a card to give the Army. If they wanted one, they'd issue you one to give.

Why No Conditions?

El Baradei will get a third term as the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency:

The United States has given up on trying to deny him a third four-year term as it has no backing for this from its fellow members on the agency's 35-nation board, diplomats said.

Diplomats had wondered, however, what conditions the United States might put on his getting a third term.

"None at all," his spokeswoman, Melissa Fleming, said when the question was put to her.

No conditions? So, after viewing El Baradei as ineffective, are we giving up on putting an effective leader into the IAEA because we have decided to go along with the Europeans and just accept a nuclear Iran?

Or because we are going to take the mullahs down and the IAEA will soon be irrelevant to the Iran question?

The Horror of Puppets!

Let me state up front that I don't think we should torture detainees. It is wrong and we are better than that. And it doesn't work. Nor do I think we should render prisoners to other nations to let them torture prisoners. Although why the Left doesn't give us credit for being culturally sensitive to other nations' non-Western practices, I do not know.

There. Disclaimer plus out of the way.

The idea that we are torturing prisoners at Gitmo is ludicrous. Sure, one can disagree with some practices and just what exactly is allowable is certainly debatable. Some things are clearly torture. Some things not. In the middle it can get fuzzy. And if something goes over the line, it is in the context of a process that tries not to go over the line. It is in the context of a nation--America--that cares very much to play by the rules and play morally.

Lileks has an excellent screed on this subject. In describing a Time article that recounts the horrors of being a terrorist detained by America, Lileks quotes this:

According to the log, his handlers at one point perform a puppet show “satirizing the detainee’s involvement with al-Qaeda.”

The horror. Puppet shows.

This must be one of those practices that Amnesty International wanted to find out about. Gulag, indeed.

This is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Imagine the performance art! Interpretive dance!! Good God, could they be so cruel as to inflict NPR pledge drive week on these lost souls of Gitmo? What about those ribbon-dragging gymnastics? I shudder at the thought. What man could stand that sort of punishing cruelty?

We are truly a confused nation when our reporters have an expose' like this and think that they just struck Pulitzer gold. And did the author really think that "space invaded by female" is a torture? I have to order those vids in the mail, for Pete's sake (just kidding, here).

Read the whole thing, enjoy Lileks' writing and wit, and be very mad at our press for thinking this is a horror show.

Oh, and keep in mind that our enemies have no fuzzy areas. They have torture. And they have beheading. Their middle ground is where to transition from torture to beheading. Remember that, will you? These people are our enemies.

No Good Can Come of This

Well isn't this nice?

The Russians have sent their ambassador to Iraq to meet with that two-time insurrectionist and murderer, Muqtada al-Sadr.

The Russians are seriously bugging me. When they took that horrible attack at Beslan, I wrote my sympathies to the Russian embassy here and donated some money to the victims. But actions like this seriously erode my level of friendship. Sadr is probably an Iranian tool and he deserves to swing from a gallows for the deaths he has caused. I don't trust Sadr. I don't trust Putin's government. And I sure as heck don't trust the two having tea together.

The Russians are no friends of ours to do this.

And if the Russians think they are paying us back for President Bush visiting former Soviet republics on the assumption that this was encroaching on Russia's sphere, Moscow better end their pretense that Russians were victims of Soviet communism rather than the proponents and beneficiaries of communism.

State Department, take note: Russians beaten and not victimized.

CIA and PLA

Arthur K. wrote to make me aware of a follow-up Powerline post where a former CIA analyst defends the CIA against charges from an earlier Powerline post that the intel people have underestimated a decade of Chinese military buildup. I had linked to that Powerline post in this post of mine.

Point taken. As I've noted in the past, I am no expert on the CIA, so I am willing to accept that the charge in the Gertz article cited is either wrong or overblown.

Nonetheless, I believe that my statement that China is a greater threat than they are generally credited with posing remains true. Despite our general superiority over the People's Liberation Army, we are not immune to defeats in narrow areas--especially if we cannot bring our superior power to bear in time over in China's backyard. I will repeat what I wrote in my earlier post:

I think some of the discussion about whether China can become a rival superpower misses the point that China could be a threat even if it only manages to become a regional power. Recall that in 1941, Japan's economy was perhaps a tenth of America's and that huge imbalance in power didn't prevent Japan from driving us from the western Pacific and forcing us into nearly four years of war to defeat them. So don't get so caught up in precisely measuring China's military budget and comparing it to ours. Look at their despotic form of government and their hostility and intentions.

As the Gertz article noted, the overdue Pentagon report on Chinese military power could be quite interesting in addressing whether the intelligence slipped up or not. I eagerly await its publication.

Rising--But How Far?

A month ago I wrote that I think that this century will still be America's century. China, I wrote, has a whole lot of problems more likely to sink them than to propel them to supremacy.

Mark Steyn (via Instapundit) writes a good article on China, concluding:

China won't advance to the First World with its present borders intact. In a billion-strong state with an 80 per cent rural population cut off from the coastal boom and prevented from participating in it, "One country, two systems" will lead to two or three countries, three or four systems. The 21st century will be an Anglosphere century, with America, India and Australia leading the way. Anti-Americans betting on Beijing will find the China shop is in the end mostly a lot of bull.

I'm surely biased but I wouldn't bet against America. As I wrote:

Don't bet against America so easily, people. We've left a lot of challengers in a heap by the door.

Place your bets, people. The game is on.

They Work That Hard

With the North Koreans coming back to the six-party talks, one wonders if the North Koreans are pulling out all the stops to get loyal or gullible reporters in the West to report on how wonderful the PDRK is and that we would be lucky to get Pyongyang to agree to anything at all in exchange for accepting our aid.

Yesterday, I wrote about these two gems. Today I have another that is just astounding in its complete flight from reality. This guy thinks that North Korea is "prospering." He writes:

North Korea has the feel of China in the early 1980s, when the economic liberalization and market reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping were beginning to take hold, when people discarded their drab Mao jackets and began wearing brighter clothes, when commercial advertisements instead of political slogans appeared on the billboards.

I am too stunned to even reply. The country is literally shrinking with people starving and those still alive looking like 12-year olds at the age of 20, yet the author spots a man in a 1970s-era lime green leisure suit rather than the usual Mao jacket and calls that progress. But go ahead and read all of this gem from this towering intellect. And if you can't, just contemplate this conclusion:

Of course, any progress could be set back by a repeat of the famine of the early 1990s in which a tenth of the population may have died. International food donations are said to be way down because of worldwide opposition to Pyongyang’s nuclear program. More city workers than usual are being dispatched to the countrywide to work on farms.

But if the North can get through this harvest year it may continue to prosper. When one thinks about it, how could a country surrounded by three “miracle” economies -- China, Japan and South Korea – fail to prosper? They must have had to work very hard at it.

Kind of hard to avoid mentioning that whole famine thing. A tenth of the population died and people are being sent to the countryside to avert a repeat. Yet North Korea is prospering as it progresses.

Dude, North Korea is literally dying. And yes, the North Korean communists work very hard to destroy their country.

Let it die.

China Threat Looming

I think some of the discussion about whether China can become a rival superpower misses the point that China could be a threat even if it only manages to become a regional power. Recall that in 1941, Japan's economy was perhaps a tenth of America's and that huge imbalance in power didn't prevent Japan from driving us from the western Pacific and forcing us into nearly four years of war to defeat them. So don't get so caught up in precisely measuring China's military budget and comparing it to ours. Look at their despotic form of government and their hostility and intentions.

This article (via Real Clear Politics) is one of many that argues that China is a looming threat:

In a brilliant new book by the late Constantine Menges, Ph.D., titled China: The Gathering Threat, the former special assistant for national security affairs to President Reagan and national intelligence officer at the CIA soberly outlines the threat China already has become and persuasively argues how America can use its economic and moral weapons to stop the world's biggest nation without a shot being fired.

Menges writes that China has defined America as its ''main enemy'' and can now launch nuclear weapons at the United States that are capable of killing 100 million of us. China's effective espionage operation in the U.S. has managed to steal the designs of nearly all nuclear warheads and other military secrets, he says.

China has threatened to destroy entire American cities if the U.S. helps Taiwan defend itself against a military assault or invasion, Menges writes. China also buys weapons from Russia that are designed to sink U.S. aircraft carriers. It controls more than $200 billion in U.S. debt and sells more than 40 percent of its exports to America, using the profits to strengthen its economy and advanced weapons systems aimed at the U.S.

And consider that whatever the exact number for China's military expenditures (and the fact that they hide the true number should tell us something all by itself), we have been underestimating Chinese military growth for a decade. Among the weapons we failed to appreciate that are highlighted in the study (via Powerline):

•China's development of a new long-range cruise missile.
•The deployment of a new warship equipped with a stolen Chinese version of the U.S. Aegis battle management technology.
•Deployment of a new attack submarine known as the Yuan class that was missed by U.S. intelligence until photos of the submarine appeared on the Internet.
•Development of precision-guided munitions, including new air-to-ground missiles and new, more accurate warheads.
•China's development of surface-to-surface missiles for targeting U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups.
•The importation of advanced weaponry, including Russian submarines, warships and fighter-bombers.

According to officials familiar with the intelligence report, the word "surprise" is used more than a dozen times to describe U.S. failures to anticipate or discover Chinese arms development.

Many of the missed military developments will be contained in the Pentagon's annual report to Congress on the Chinese military, which was due out March 1 but delayed by interagency disputes over its contents.

Weapons all useful for a clash at sea to hold off the US Navy and Japanese fleet long enough to conquer Taiwan, in my opinion.

Of course, we are not blind. Secretary Rumsfeld has noted the threat and we are moving military assets and carrying out diplomatic moves to gain allies. I've already mentioned our growing Japan alliance. And our budding relationships with India will greatly help. China can build up their navy all they want to push their protected sea lines of communication hundreds of miles but if we or our allies can interrupt the flow of tankers between the Middle East and China's ports, we win. This development by India would make China very vulnerable indeed:

Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee opened the first phase of India's giant western naval base INS Kadamba in Karwar, Karnataka state, on May 31, saying it would protect the country's Arabian Sea maritime routes. Kadamba will become India's third operational naval base after Mumbai and Visakhapatnam. Also taking part in the commissioning were six frontline Indian naval ships, including frigates and destroyers. They were detached from the flotilla of 12 vessels that are presently taking part in routine exercises in the Arabian Sea.

The Kadamba base is being built in the southern state as part of India's ambitious RUP 350 billion (USD $8.13 billion) "Project Seabird," which will include the naval base plus an air force station, a naval armament depot, and missile silos when it is completed in the next five years. Mr. Mukherjee admitted that the project had to overcome many impediments since it was sanctioned by the government in 1985 (it was originally slated for completion in 1995).

And closer to China's doorstep, our relations with Vietnam which has been a strong landpower able to resist Chinese military strength are improving:

U.S. Assistant Defense Secretary Peter Rodman held talks with Vietnam's Defense Minister Pham Van Tra and his deputy Nguyen Huy Hieu on Tuesday at the start of the two-day visit, the defense ministry-run Quan Doi Nhan Dan daily said.

A front-page article in the newspaper quoted Tra as telling Rodman that he believed the visit "would contribute to enhancing friendship and mutual understanding between the two armies."

I would never trade strategic positions with China but that doesn't mean they aren't a threat. Even a victorious war would cost us. And unfortunately, with nukes in the mix the threat of nuclear war could again put us under a cloud.

Watch China very closely.

Foundation Threats

While our military and economic power are not seriously challenged, these two pillars of our strength could be undermined by two exotic threats.

Disease has been a longtime threat to human society, and despite out medical progress it is not just of historic interest. Even aside from any human-engineered bugs that might be used deliberately, natural disease could again (via Real Clear Politics) spread across the planet:

The H5N1 avian flu virus first crossed into human beings in 1997, but it has clearly been mutating in recent years in ways that make it more capable of moving from birds to people. The spate of human infections in mid 2003 in China and Southeast Asia was so serious that more than 100 million domestic birds were killed or died in those countries before it subsided in early 2004, but there was only a few months' respite before bird-to-human transmission began again last June.

The virus has now appeared in wild birds which can carry the virus far beyond its original reservoir in domestic chickens in southern China and Southeast Asia. In late May China closed all its nature parks after 178 migratory geese were found dead from the virus in Qinghai province in the northwest. The most recent outbreak has so far killed 53 people in Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia. And even more ominously, the first probable case of human-to-human transmission was recorded last September in Vietnam.

The danger of a global flu pandemic that could be as bad as, or worse, than the "Spanish influenza" outbreak of 1918-19 (which killed 40 million to 50 million people, half of them young, healthy adults) comes from the fact that a strain of influenza virus that normally affects only birds can swap genes with a strain that is highly infectious between human beings. If people with the human type of influenza should also be infected with the avian type (through direct contact with infected poultry), the gene swap can easily occur - and direct human-to-human transmission becomes possible.

At that point, given current patterns of international travel, the world might be only weeks away from a global pandemic.

We don't know if avian flu viruses swapping genes with human types caused the lethal Spanish influenza, but that was certainly the source of the much milder "Asian flu" outbreak in 1957-58 (which killed 70,000 people in the United States alone) and the "Hong Kong flu" pandemic in 1968-69 (50,000 U.S. deaths). Given the rate at which influenza viruses mutate, we are overdue for another pandemic - and this one could be a monster.

The H5N1 virus is resistant to most anti-viral drugs, and in the avian form it has been getting steadily stronger. Early outbreaks killed around 10 percent of poultry flocks; more recent ones have been killing up to 90 percent.

In people who have caught avian flu, the death rate has been horrendous: 50 to 75 percent of those infected.

Not only defensive methods such as detection, containment, quarantine, and medication are necessary. We need to get Chinese peasants to stop living with their chickens. A good reason to hope that China does succeed in modernizing (although it needs to become free as well, to avoid beng a military threat).

Another exotic threat is definitely a man-inflicted one but it too could strike at our economy and depending on our vulnerability and capabities of recovering, could kill many of us if our economy breaks down for some period of time. From Winds of Change is this discussion of the threat of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapon:

Unfortunately, such a scenario is not far-fetched. According to a report issued last summer by a blue-ribbon, Congressionally-mandated commission, a single specialized nuclear weapon delivered to an altitude of a few hundred miles over the United States by a ballistic missile would be "capable of causing catastrophe for the nation." The source of such a cataclysm might be considered the ultimate "weapon of mass destruction" (WMD) - yet it is hardly ever mentioned in the litany of dangerous WMDs we face today. It is known as electromagnetic pulse (EMP). [link in article to map added in quote by me]

I do remember this threat discussed during the Cold War but now the spread of technology means that this type of weapon could be within the reach of a lot of other actors.

Redundancy for critical elements of our infrastructure, repair capabilities, and even a limited ballistic missile defense capability will help protect us from or cope with the threat of an EMP attack.

Two exotic threats that we know about. What other attacks are our enemies planning? They want to kill us and as we strengthen defenses in one area they will look to others. That's why the ultimate defense means we have to go after our enemies and kill them and deprive them of more killers. If we ever try to rely on passive defensive measures, we just guarantee that our enemies will think of a way to attack us that we haven't considered.

Proof That God is American

God is American. How else do you explain this poll:

Whatever the cause, nearly 40 percent of French men told a recent survey that they would, science permitting, like to become pregnant.

The poll, conducted by Ipsos and published in the current issue of Children Magazine (Enfants Magazine), showed that 38 percent of the more than 500 fathers of children up to seven interviewed by phone said they would like, or would have liked, to be the one to carry their offspring to term.

To quote Monty Python, "You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?! "

You know that de Villepin has to be in the 40 percent category. This article does say he wants to carry out radical reform of France's labor laws, after all. Heh.

So we'll call "France" by her new name "Loretta" and let the French men fight for their right to have babies.

If God is not American, I don't know how to explain how a poll like this even gets commissioned.

I'm just so very happy.

Never Ever Join the ICC

We owe it to our troops to never join the International Criminal Court and subject them to the tender mercies of anti-American judges. When I saw this article on Tuesday I wanted to rant on it but I'm just too tired. These people wear me down. One enlightened jurist wants to question three soldiers for actions we've deemed were within bounds:

A Spanish judge wants to question three U.S. soldiers as suspects in the death of a Spanish cameraman who was killed when a U.S. tank fired on a hotel housing foreign journalists during the 2003 assault on Baghdad.

Some would criminalize the ordinary friction and fog of war and go after American military personnel for simply fighting. Not that they'd go after our enemies! Oh, no, perish the thought. They can hack and kill and behead with nary a worry their social betters in the EU will give them so much as a cross look.

But things like this make it even more important than ever to answer the question I posed a while back about how our troops will fight under a microscope.

The first article made me proud of our State Department when asked if our soldiers would have to answer the judge's questions:

"It would be a very, very cold day in hell before that would ever happen," said a State Department official, who asked not to be named.

This attitude will help. Part of the answer is also to never ever join the ICC. But there has to be a lot more to it than that.

Sheer Rock-Pounding Stupidity

When you look at the Korean peninsula what do you see? A psychopathic gulag-state on the north side of the demilitarized zone and a worried too-fretful democracy south of the border? At which the above-mentioned psycho state is pointing nukes?

Hah! You clearly haven't got a degree in Korean studies. Listen (via Real Clear Politics) to this less-than-brilliant essay:

SOMETHING extraordinary is happening in Korea, and Washington appears to be paying no attention. The two Koreas have plunged headlong in to unknown territory: reunification. For 50 years, aside from the occasional defector, it was impossible to cross the demilitarized zone dividing the Korean Peninsula.

Of course, the path to this happy time isn't obstacle free:

True, the heavily militarized DMZ that separates the two Koreas is still there. North Korea hasn't given up its nuclear weapons. The Bush administration still considers North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, a disreputable negotiating partner and Pyongyang an ''outpost of tyranny." North Korea recently labeled Vice President Dick Cheney a ''bloodthirsty beast."

North Korea is nuclear armed and, of course, Americans calling North Korea what it is has spoiled the whole hand-holding festival planned for, oh, the year 2055.

What's that, you say? 2055 or abouts? Why yes:

According to conventional wisdom, German reunification started with the Berlin Wall's collapse and was cemented by elections and mass celebrations. Koreans don't want a bang. Besides, the German experience turned out to be much more expensive than anyone expected. When translated into the Korean context, it would cost more than Seoul could afford. A ''big bang" collapse of North Korea would unleash an economic shock, a potential outflow of refugees, and an uncertain future for an unknown number of weapons of mass destruction.

Because of its fear of the ''big bang," South Korea would prefer a gradual phasing in of reunification instead of a single, explosive event. Indeed, the leaders of both Koreas speak of reunification as a decades-long project that will only gradually bridge the large economic, political, and cultural gaps between their countries. That's what happened in the German case: dozens of years of exchanges and economic cooperation before reunification became a possibility.

South Korea doesn't want unification, so they want North Korea to survive. If reunification comes they want it in the distant future when North Korea has caught up with the south. Or if that can't happen since there is no way a psychopathic regime with starving people like North Korea could ever catch up with prospering South Korea, then at worst a goal at least several decades away puts the problem to the next generation of politicians to avoid in their turn. Faced with the prospect of North Korea collapsing, the South Koreans don't even want victory!

As for North Korea, you can understand why they like this approach. They of course always wanted the "big bang" approach to unification. With the North Korean army conveniently located just north of Seoul poised to do the banging big time. Alas, weakness has all but eliminated their chance to march south and conquer South Korea. No fuel for the tanks. Shrinking food-deprived army recruits. And weaponry so old that it wouldn't even cut it for display in front of a North Korean VFW post. Even if America stands aside and lets the Koreas fight it out, South Korea would likely repel any invasion handily. Buying time for a nice bout of student-driven civil unrest to cripple the southern military while seeing what goodies the south will give the north to rebuild the North Korean military is all the Pillsbury Nuke Boy can do at the moment.Just bide their time and hope the South screws up. Heck, if your enemy lets you get away with that, why not?

But really, a slow-motion reunification? Feffer and Greco need to lay off the kimchee binges. This is possibly the dumbest analysis of the peninsula I have seen since the last time I read a Selig Harrison article.

And speaking of Selig. He's been on another pilgrimage (again, via RCP) to the north (Gee, I wonder why the Pillsbury Nuke Boy keeps letting him in? Hmmm. Nine times for Selig Harrison and none for John Bolton. That is a world-class mystery. Have to ponder that tough one …). This is what Selig observes:

In the standard U.S. image, North Korea is a monolithic, Stalin-style dictatorship controlled by one man, Kim Jong Il. But the key reason for North Korean intransigence in the nuclear crisis with the United States is that Kim does not have unchallenged control over foreign and defense policy. The North Korean power structure is deeply divided between pragmatists who favor a nuclear deal with the United States and increasingly assertive hard-liners who argue that a tough posture is needed to stop the Bush administration from pursuing "regime change" in Pyongyang.

Silly me! And I thought North Korea was a Stalin-style dictatorship controlled by one man! Really, it's just like a League of Women Voters state chapter where proper debate and cookies and tea are served! No torture going on at all! Next he'll tell me the whole gulag stuff is really an extensive Jenny Craig campgrounds network. Well, he doesn't go that far, to be fair. But he does patiently explain that North Korea is going nuclear only because bad old President Bush wants regime change. We'll ignore the fact that the decades-long Northern nuclear program predates the Bush 43 administration by quite a bit. We'll ignore the fact that we have just one brigade of Army troops on the peninsula and that the South Koreans will not under any circumstances follow it north of the DMZ as our brigade slashes its way up to Pyongyang and digs Kim Jong-Il out of his bunker. Nope. The mythical pragmatists of Pyongyang would like to get along without nuclear weapons—really—but that Bush just mucks everything up.

Selig is horrified by the evidence of this that he sees in the north:

My most disturbing finding on a recent visit to North Korea was that a showdown over nuclear policy occurred in early February between the "dealers," led by First Deputy Foreign Minister Kang Sok Ju, the principal foreign policy adviser to Kim, and a coalition of hard-line generals and Workers' Party leaders. The hard-liners prevailed. On Feb. 10 Pyongyang made its pronouncement that it has manufactured nukes" and is a "nuclear weapons state." Then a March 31 declaration served notice that North Korea will no longer discuss dismantling its nuclear weapons capabilities until the United States normalizes economic and diplomatic relations with the Kim regime.

The ascendancy of the hard-liners is the direct result of the Bush administration's ideologically driven North Korea policy and can be reversed only if the United States makes a fresh start attuned to the conciliatory engagement approach now being pursued by South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun, who is scheduled to meet President Bush today.

Wow. This is big news for the Bush bashers if a happy-go-lucky nation of joyful peasants can go from nuclear-free status in November 2000 prior to Bush's first electoral victory to a nuclear missile-armed state only four short years later. And all because the "hard liners" overcame the objections of "moderates" who seem to have sprung from nowhere to be a force in early 2005 only to lose the policy debate. And we can only change this by pouring money into Pyongyang (that's what "conciliatory" means in Surrenderspeak).

This is serious rock-pounding stupidity. I'm honestly not sure if it exceeds the previous article or not since they cover different subjects (though in both the common fault lies with President Bush). Comparing stupid apples with stupid oranges isn't easy.

In the end, I think I have to give the edge to Selig for turning the "stupid dial" to eleven. He shows why I sometimes get so frustrated with area experts. They go native. They learn so much about the local thugs that they can divine differences between the 90% psychos and the 95% psychos. And they seriously think this difference is significant. In the end, the experts such as Selig use their insights in order to identify who we should surrender to. As Selig notes:

In the February showdown, I was told by several of those involved, the dealers argued in favor of preserving ambiguity concerning the extent of North Korean nuclear capabilities as part of a continued effort to get economic quid pro quos in return for step-by-step denuclearization.

See? They just want aid and respect? Not nukes! Oh, no! Well actually, the pragmatists just didn't want to admit to having nukes. That's not nearly the same. They wanted ambiguity to get goodies out of us. Really, I prefer the honesty of the hardliners to the "dealers'" willingness to appear moderate. At least we know where we stand and there is no denying the threat Kim Jong-Il poses.

So all we have to do is pay the north and all will be well. The North Koreans wouldn't lie to a man who has been to North Korea nine times, would they?

Ignore the likes of these three gullible dupes. Squeeze those psychos in Pyongyang quietly and they will implode. Don't let them up off the mat just because fools say a peaceful, unified, non-nuclear Korea will arrive if only we weren't so mean to the Pillsbury Nuke Boy. The North desperately needs us to save them from their own wretched domestic policies and I see no reason to throw a life line.

As If!

Instpundit notes a Captain's Quarters post that notes Amnesty International's call to arrest the President and senior administration figures (for crimes that AI admits they have no evidence happened--though they'd be interested in finding out):

If the US government continues to shirk its responsibility, Amnesty International calls on foreign governments to uphold their obligations under international law by investigating all senior US officials involved in the torture scandal. And if those investigations support prosecution, the governments should arrest any official who enters their territory and begin legal proceedings against them. The apparent high-level architects of torture should think twice before planning their next vacation to places like Acapulco or the French Riviera because they may find themselves under arrest as Augusto Pinochet famously did in London in 1998.

The French Riviera? What a bloody giveaway!

Conservative bloggers have been noting that Amnesty International has become little more than a branch of MoveOn.org and this announcement gives the game away. This pretty much proves it.

Calls to arrest American officials vacationing in the south of France? What do they think this is, the Kerry administration? This isn't going to happen. Rumsfeld will not be sunbathing in France. So the Belgian bounty hunter team under contract with Amnesty might as well pack up and go home. Or whatever it is that Belgians do when they aren't being a pain in the butt to America.

Because if they ever try to slap the cuffs on at a NASCAR race the guardians of the international community's legal standards are in for a world of hurt.

Jihad Memorial Center

If our Islamist enemies could win and implement their dream of an Islamic caliphate under their tender mercies, what kind of memorial might they erect (or rather, contract with some infidel dhimmi firm from South Korea to build) to celebrate their 9-11 triumph?

Well they couldn't go too wrong by going with this approach (via Powerline) as the basic template:

The World Trade Center Memorial Cultural Complex will be an imposing edifice wedged in the place where the Twin Towers once stood. It will serve as the primary "gateway" to the underground area where the names of the lost are chiseled into concrete. The organizers of its principal tenant, the International Freedom Center (IFC), have stated that they intend to take us on "a journey through the history of freedom" -- but do not be fooled into thinking that their idea of freedom is the same as that of those Marines. To the IFC's organizers, it is not only history's triumphs that illuminate, but also its failures. The public will have come to see 9/11 but will be given a high-tech, multimedia tutorial about man's inhumanity to man, from Native American genocide to the lynchings and cross-burnings of the Jim Crow South, from the Third Reich's Final Solution to the Soviet gulags and beyond. This is a history all should know and learn, but dispensing it over the ashes of Ground Zero is like creating a Museum of Tolerance over the sunken graves of the USS Arizona.

Toss in some "allahu akbars" and the de rigour "Death to America" multi-media presentation plus a snack bar serving symbolic cups of 72 raisins and you'd be all set.

As I noted before regarding the Gitmo controversy, sometime I get the impression that those writing the news think the wrong side is winning.

And we have a Vietnam comparison to toss in on this subject, as well (again, via Powerline).

Lovely, eh?

Hosting the International Community

Right now, America hosts the UN in New York City. Delegates enjoy the high life in our largest city and are well placed for espionage.

As we consider how to reform the UN (and get Bolton to the UN now for goodness sake), I have a suggestion to help improve the body and keep it out of trouble.

Put the UN on American Samoa. It is American territory and so we can still keep an eye on it; but the UN potentates can cool their heels in a backwater instead of having the neon of Times Square distracting them.

Oh, keep some of the UN in New York. The useful technical bodies for example . But the General Assembly, Security Council, and certainly the human rights outfit whatever that outrage is called could go to Samoa.

Either they'll work or they'll be miserable. Or they won't bother to show up. Win-win-win, I'd say. Hey, we pay for the place. Move it where we want.

Elephants, Dragons, and Monsters

Prime Minister Blair wants to focus on Africa to combat the poverty on that continent. President Bush has expressed some support for this idea. This is a good thing. We need to combat poverty in Africa and work to make functioning democracies where rule of law is supreme.

Right now, images of poverty, AIDS, genocide, and war are interrupted only by the terror of thug states like Zimbabwe, a once prospering nation that has been dragged down to starvation and despotism. Bright spots are few, far in between, and tenuous.

America has national security interests on the continent. Not that poverty causes terrorism. But poverty and despotism can create failed states where terrorists with money and guns can set up shop to plot death and destruction.

Blair's project can help alleviate the conditions that lead to failed states. America can help.

In addition to aid for development and combating AIDS, American military forces are trying to strengthen local governments so they can hunt down terrorists:

The training exercise began Monday in Chad, Mauritania, Mali, Niger and, for the first time, Algeria, from where Islamic insurgents linked to the al-Qaida network began a raid into Mauritania that left two dozen dead. Five other countries will take part by the time the program finishes in two weeks.

The Mauritania raid is an example of why nations in the region "have to work together now," said Maj. Holly Silkman, a spokeswoman for the Germany-based U.S. European Command, or EUCOM, which is responsible for operations in most of Africa.

"They're a threat to stability and security in this region," Silkman said of Algeria's Salafist Group for Call and Combat, which is listed by the Washington as a terrorist organization. "And the Africans are well aware of that."

And if you doubt the importance of the continent from the security angle or humanitarian angle, consider this:

Africa is being eyed anew for potential "elephants" in the oil and gas sector, riding on the back of soaring oil prices, the depletion of resources elsewhere and newfound stability in many countries, experts say.

And of course, with Zimbabwe already befriended by China and Sudan a virtual client, the fact that China is looking to expand its influence in Africa should spur us to action:

Unfortunately for many Africans, China’s record of resource exploitation and global obstructionism point to an uncertain future. China’s long record of human rights violations in Hong Kong and Tibet; suppression of religious and political freedoms; history of weapons proliferation; support of brutal regimes in North Korea and Iran; and its disregard for indigenous markets, raise legitimate questions regarding its long-term intentions on the continent and its commitment to the African people.

China seems to ally with the very worst of nations and if China gets a foothold in Africa we can look forward to more misery and tyranny on the continent.

Blair wants to leave a legacy and we owe him support on his project. It is the right thing to do. And it serves our security interests. Hard to argue against this project.