The Question of China

China is rising but it has many potential problems that could trip it up or hem it in and keep China from acting like a global superpower. Let me post a copy of a post from my old site from June 2004:

The New China
We have been reminded about the growing Chinese military power with the latest installment of the DoD annual report on Chinese military power (see earlier post). We still don’t know whether China is developing into a strategic rival or friend. It could go either way. Much is up to them.

But as we consider the potential of a China as an enemy, it would be helpful to remember that China has not grown in power without a price. At one time, China was just a giant lump of proletarian fury. If we killed 100 million Chinese in a nuclear strike, they professed not to care since they’d have hundreds of millions left. If Russians invaded, the Chinese would fade into the countryside to wage guerrilla war and absorb the blow until Russia got tired. Tens of millions might die but the Chinese leaders said they would not be the ones to tire first. Chinas was self-reliant, if poor, and filled with ideological fury that motivated them to endure.

China is different now. By 2007, China will import half of its oil. One fifth of all the world’s bulk freighters haul raw materials to China. Wal-Mart keeps us aware of China’s exports. Truly, China needs trade and has critical imports that cannot be interrupted if China is to keep moving forward and maintain social and political stability.

China’s growing power leads some to worry that China will use that power to guarantee access to vital raw materials and oil coming from overseas. This is certainly likely.

But let’s not forget the vulnerabilities that China has developed. Even if China develops oil in the contested Spratley Island region, this would still be vulnerable to hostile naval and air action. And if the Chinese have to get the oil from the Middle East, well that’s quite a gauntlet through the Indian Ocean, Indonesian waters, and the South China Sea in order to reach China. Indian and American forces aided by nations not too friendly to China all along that route could wreak havoc. Of course, pipelines through Central Asia might help but then American forces are there too after 9-11 and the Russians are coming back a bit. Russia won’t appease China forever and in time the Russians will be more forceful with Peking. China would need quite the navy to protect a sea route and with Russia recovering, China will have land powers in Vietnam, India, South Korea, and Russia to worry about even as they try to build a blue water navy to protect their imports.

America and Britain could become global naval powers because we never had to simultaneously build large armies to protect our homelands. The Kaiser’s Germany and the Soviet Union could build up a navy to rival the best, but the demands of land defense crushed their attempts in time. China, too, will find itself caught between being a dominant land power and a dominant sea power. They will fail at one or both aims.

And with the one-child policy, how eager will Chinese parents be to send their only children to war?

Plus, the very progress that makes China more dangerous makes China more vulnerable. Precision weapons make this vulnerability of factories, ports, and infrastructure more acute. For a Chinese leadership used to thinking of themselves as just a devoted mass of people virtually invulnerable to even nuclear attack, this new vulnerability may not even be fully appreciated as they revel in their new emerging power to project military forces away from the mainland. Although America’s economy is far more advanced and complicated, and hence vulnerable, we defend far away from our homeland. Any attacks on our homeland from the Chinese will be difficult to engineer and sporadic. Unless China conquers Russia’s Far Eastern provinces, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Australia, and India, China will face the prospect of defending its homeland from direct land and air attack from day one of a war.

I would not want to trade strategic positions with China no matter how much talk there is of a rising China.

And we haven’t even discussed whether the Chinese can hold the lid on a population that might want political freedoms along with its economic freedoms. Political freedom might be nice to protect their only children, too.

Or maybe China will evolve into a friendly democracy. Stranger things have happened.

I'm not in the "sky is falling" camp about China. I doubt they will surpass America in power. And if they do, not only will it be quite a while before that time arrives, but they have a lot more to worry about than we do. But, as I've said many times, China does not have to reach rough parity with America to be a threat to us and challenge our allies and forces in China's backyard. Recall that Japan in 1941 had an economy that was a tenth of America's (I'm going on memory, so don't hold me to a hard number). Yes, we won by 1945. But Japan's determination to fight on let them punch above their weight and cost us dearly to beat them even if you can say it was an "inevitable" victory based on economic disparity.

So be wary of China. Yes, we are far mor powerful and if we apply our power we can win a fight with the PLA. But they do have the capability of beating us in localized conflicts, even today. No guarantees since I can't know how each side will fight, who will fight, where the fight will be, what the fight will be about, and how determined each side will be.

We need to make sure our power is strong enough to reassure allies to remain with us and to persuade others to join us. Reach out to allies and potential allies to cooperate. We aren't the only ones to worry about China's intentions and power. Japan draws closer. Australia, too. India sees advantage to joining us. Vietnam would like a friend, too. Singapore looks solid for us. I worry about South Korea but right now they are still with us. Even Russia, I think, will in time become strong enough to stop their junior appeasing partner mode. Moscow may have some vague hope that America and China will fight to bring us both down a notch compared to Russia; but in time Russia's fear of China will reassert itself. And Taiwan, too, will likely stick with us. The question is whether they will pay to defend themselves long enough to make that attitude matter. And the only situation where Taiwan might want to join China voluntarily is if China is a free democracy. Then we won't care.

But don't panic. Don't assume China will rise past us. They have lots of problems, too.

Statistics, Tragedies, Outrage, Whatever

I certainly hope the Iraqi government looks into prisoner abuse charges.

But what am I to make of this?

"In light of the apparently systemic nature and magnitude of that problem, and the importance of public confidence in any inquiry, I urge authorities to consider calling for an international inquiry," said Louise Arbour, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights.

So there are 174 suspected victims and the UN commission is upset over the systemic nature and magnitude of the problem.

The UN commission that puts human rights violators on its panel.

Which is a commission of a body that never seemed to work up outrage over Saddam's role in killing several hundred thousand Iraqis, torturing routinely, and terrorizing his people.

The international body whose general secretary said he could do business with Saddam and whose corruption supplied Saddam with the money to maintain his regime and continue the reign of terror a little longer.

And now the commission is focused on abuses in Iraq. Because only now do they think the alleged abuse is systemic and the magnitude is sufficiently large to warrant attention.

I suggest the Iraqi government tell the Sunnis who still slaughter Iraqis that they need to take a number and wait. I believe the Iraqi government will get to number 300,174 in around the year 2056.

Now the UN high commissioner on human rights focuses on Iraq. How nice.

I'm going to hope the human rights commission has its offices on one of the top ten floors of the UN.

Whistling Past Our Graves

My assumption that we would take down the mullah regime in Iran this fall has proven false. And the absence of action has not been because Iran is moderating its behavior and proving it is no threat to innocents.

While it is surely tiresome to remind the world of the sheer awfulness of Iran's regime, let's give it another try, shall we? Even the UN is uncomfortable with the mullahs:

A U.N. committee passed a resolution Friday expressing concern about human rights violations in Iran, deploring its use of torture, discrimination against women and intimidation of political opponents.

Not that a UN resolution means much in a practical manner.

But with the depravity of the regime clear even to the UN, consider this evidence of nuclear ambitions in Tehran:

The U.N. atomic watchdog agency revealed Friday that Iran received black market nuclear designs that diplomats say appear to be blueprints for the core of a nuclear warhead — a finding expected to used by Washington and its allies in their push to have Tehran referred to the U.N. Security Council.

I'm sure it was something innocent. Iran puts out a bid for nuclear technology for electricity generation and some guy just tosses in the warhead design as a bonus. Kind of like one of those cosmetic counter gift bags that come with the purchase of $50 worth of lip gloss. Can Iran really be blamed for this?

I am horrified that we might try to live with this murderous thug regime and accept that its possession of nuclear weapons is acceptable. I am seriously getting depressed.

And no, referral to the UNSC won't make me feel better.

The American Crisis

Thomas Paine's writing in December 1776 to bolster American morale in the face of defeat after defeat is a classic.

His description of his generation's supporters of the enemy (the Tories), who give heart to the enemy but who would never join him in battle; and his description of those who still support freedom is instructive today:

And what is a Tory? Good GOD! what is he? I should not be afraid to go with a hundred Whigs against a thousand Tories, were they to attempt to get into arms. Every Tory is a coward, for a servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.

But before the line of irrecoverable separation be drawn between us, let us reason the matter together: Your conduct is an invitation to the enemy, yet not one in a thousand of you has heart enough to join him.

[break]

Quitting this class of men [i.e., Tories], I turn with the warm ardour of a friend to those who have nobly stood yet determined to stand the matter out; I call not upon a few, but upon all; not on THIS state or THAT truth but on EVERY state; up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake. Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, come forth to meet and to repulse it. Say not, that thousands are gone, turn out your tens of thousands; throw not the bur hen of the day upon Providence, but "Shew your faith by your works," that God may bless you. It matters not where you live, or what rank of life you hold, the evil or the blessing will reach you all. The far and the near, the home counties and the back, the rich and the poor, shall suffer or rejoice alike.

This should not be a Red State war. We all prosper or fail as one. And I do fear that the split in our country is deepening to be an irrevocable long-lasting feature of our political culture. The calls to withdraw from Iraq even as we are winning is shameful. It betrays our national interests and the troops who fight and risk their lives for a nation that by its actions is not sure it values their determination to win and their willingness to die trying.

It also saddens me that words written when real Patriots struggled in the face of defeat after defeat against a superpower, are necessary to bolster Americans today even as we, a superpower, win our war against a barbarian enemy.

Is it really possible that we should experience a winter of discontent in the middle of summer as we show that we are indeed conquering hell?

Exit strategies are for losers. Victory is what a confident people who are sure that their civilization is just and who are confident that their soldiers will achieve call for even in difficult times.

Working Hard to Make Their Prediction True

As the anti-war side continues to peddle the "Iraq is Vietnam" nonsense and convince the public that lies led to our war in Iraq, in one sense the "Iraq War is Vietnam" charge is in danger of coming true. The Left is trying to get us to lose at home when the enemy cannot beat us on the battlefield. Mackubin Owens (via NRO) says it well as he describes the result of ending our support for Saigon:

Only three years after blunting the communist Easter Offensive, and despite the heroic performance of some ARVN units, South Vietnam collapsed against a much weaker, cobbled-together PAVN offensive. And South Vietnam ceased to exist, consigning millions of souls to communist tyranny and weakening the United States for a decade.

Things are improving in Iraq. Iraqi forces are getting betterm and political trends are moving in the right direction. But all signs are that our adversaries are counting on a repeat of our abandonment of Vietnam.

We owe it to the American soldiers who have been killed or wounded in Iraq and the Iraqis who have fought to create a new state to see this effort through to the end, preventing a replay of that disgraceful episode three decades ago. The Senate should be ashamed of itself.

If the Left can cause our defeat in Iraq they will boast about their prescience.

And like in Vietnam before our betrayal, we are winning. Strategypage describes the losing fight of the enemy in Iraq:

However, the last two years has been a time of constant defeat. Now, with American and Iraqi troops moving through the Sunni Arab heartland at will, and aggressively seeking terrorists, many more Sunni Arabs have given up. In other words, recruiting for terrorist groups is getting more difficult with each passing month. Some of the terrorist leaders have tried to establish themselves as warlords, demanding cash, and other support, from the local Sunni Arabs that he “protects.” But everyone knows that the protection is a sham, and that if American or, or even Iraqi, troops roll into the area, the newly minted warlord either has to get out of town, or die in place.

Victory is not that far away. Again, Strategypage:

How much longer the Sunni Arabs will be able to use cash, coercion and revenge to keep their people killing, remains to be seen. But they can’t keep it up forever, and the trends are moving against the terrorist groups.

Perhaps the ferocity of the Left in their outrageously false charges is a sign that they realize that they do not have much time left to derail our victory and use the momentum to reach their own ultimate objective: the White House.

Waiting for Conventional Wisdom 5.0

I've said repeatedly that I don't accept the new consensus view that Saddam did not have WMD immediately before the Iraq War. We know they weren't destroyed in 1991, 1998, or the inspections in between. So they evaporated, or what?

Saddam had them at the turn of the millenium and in the long telegraphed punch to knock out Saddam, I believe the Baathists hid or destroyed what they had. In the months before the war, I feared that we were giving the Baathists the most critical of assets--time. And I feared what Saddam would use with the time we gave him. The Big Lie floated by the anti-war side that we were misled into war may be the fruits of Saddam's efforts.

I believe--and have said this as well--that when the Baathist insurgency finally is defeated, those who know what happened to the WMD will finally tell us what happened. There is still too much fear of retribution or hope for ultimate victory that keeps this secret hidden.

Bill Tierney (via Powerline) tells us what he thinks:

I believe that once the pertinent sources have a sense of security, a whole lot of people are going to have egg on their face. I believe the Iraqis had a WMD program, and I am not changing my story, no matter how many times Chris Matthews hyperventilates.

Bill Tierney is "a former military intelligence officer and Arabic speaker who worked at Guantanamo Bay in 2002 and as a counter-infiltration operator in Baghdad in 2004. He was also an inspector (1996-1998) for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) for overseeing the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles in Iraq. He worked on the most intrusive inspections during this period and either participated in or planned inspections that led to four of the seventeen resolutions against Iraq."

And I'll repeat what I believed before the war:

1. Saddam had chemical weapons and missiles. This I was sure of since Saddam had and used chemicals and missiles. This wasn't a great leap of faith to make.

2. Saddam had a biological weapons program. and the uncertainty of something that can be hidden in a basement made me worry that it could be advanced.

3. And I believed Saddam had the technical and scientific capability to build nuclear weapons. I did not know if he had the material or machinery to build a nuke, since those are tougher to hide. But it was only a matter of time. And while I thought it unlikely that Saddam was close to a nuke, the shock of discovering in 1991 how close Saddam was made me wary of counting on years.

So excuse me if I refuse to join the new conventional wisdom that says Saddam was toothless when we invaded. We found too much damning evidence of WMD programs after we conquered Saddam's regime even with the big scrub the Iraqis carried out (with French or Russian help to hide their tracks?) for me to believe Saddam's regime was innocent. We saw too much in the inspections as Tierney describes in the article.

This groupthink that Saddam had no WMD in March 2003 replaces the conventional wisdom that Saddam's scientists were all bluffing a psychopathic mass murderer by pretending to have WMD programs; which itself was a replacement for the theory that Saddam was purely bluffing all of us. And this, of course, replaces the conventional wisdom held by both parties for nearly a decade that Saddam had WMD in defiance of UNSC resolutions demanding he disarm.

We'll find the WMD yet or what happened to them. Mark my words.

Semper Phooey

Debate is not possible in this climate.

The Vice President attacks those who claim lies were used to trick the Congress and people into a war in Iraq:

Vice President Dick Cheney jumped into the fray Wednesday by assailing Democrats who contend the Bush administration manipulated intelligence on Iraq, calling their criticism "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

And a former supporter of the war and wounded Vietnam veteran, Representative John Murtha, responds with this:

Murtha, a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam, angrily shot back at Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

So how does this respond to what VP Cheney said? In what way was the VP saying the administration doesn't want to hear suggestions about what needs to be done? In what way is this answering in any way the charge that the anti-war side is dishonestly rewriting history about the Iraq War debate?

Murtha will introduce legislation to withdraw our troops in six months, he said.

Oh, and when I say "former supporter" of the war you have to go back a way notwithstanding the impression of this article and other press accounts that Murtha is only now turning on the war. In May 2004, Murtha called the Iraq War unwinnable (Via NRO). So when you read that a "hawkish Democrat" now opposes the war, please realize this is nothing recent. Although to be fair, somebody who has been a defeatist only since May 2004 may actually count as "hawkish" in his circles.

Murtha was wounded twice in Vietnam, and then saw his war lost because Congress would not spend the money to bolster Saigon after we left to validate the blood and treasure we expended to defend South Vietnam.

And now Murtha is planning on doing the same to another generation of his fellow Marines as they carry out their duty in western al Anbar province to root out and kill the enemy.

Semper Fi? Not even close.

Fire Support

Way to go, Air Force!

I've long liked artillery because it was accurate and responsive in any weather; and it was a dedicated Army resource that doesn't rely on the Air Force (which had other priorities higher than fire support). Marines, on the other hand, had artillery and their own airplanes committed to supporting their own people to get the best of both worlds.

To be fair to the Air Force, in the past accurate air support meant getting in the weeds where planes were vulnerable to rapid-fire 23mm anti-aircraft weapons. It was somewhat understandable that the Air Force disliked ground support and that the Army didn't trust the Air Force to supply the needed ground support.

But times have changed. Strategypage says that the Army is sold on JDAMs delivered by the Air Force:

The air force controllers, and the bombers overhead, are getting smart bombs on target so quickly and accurately, that ground commanders are favoring the bombs over calling their artillery. This is partly because of the new 500 pound JDAM, which is a one shot solution to the typical terrorist tactic of running into a building to make a glorious last stand. The enemy gunmen never seem to catch on to the fact that going into a building, simply brings down a smart bomb within ten minutes. One bomb, one building. Artillery requires several shells to do the job, and our troops know that the enemy is more likely to survive a shelling than a bombing.

Able to loiter above bad weather in relative safety, air power is now able to accurately and reliably kill the bad guys when the good guys on the ground need it to happen. And the warheads on the Air Force stuff is far bigger than the Army's artillery shells--even the small diameter bomb is much bigger than our biggest tube rounds. So even guided rounds won't make artillery the first love of infantrymen again.

Already the Army is getting rid of excess separate artillery brigades. As long as we retain absolute air supremacy, will we even need artillery in the future? When troops call in fire support and don't even care what the source of the explosion is, the need for artillery will drop more than it has now.

Of course, if we ever face an enemy with the capability of hindering our aircraft and if our naval fire support assets are too far away, we'll need Army artillery to provide the fire support. But for now, my reasons for favoring traditional tube artillery are fading. And the proof is on the ground provided by the troops who now believe they can count on responsive and accurate fire support from the Air Force.

French Offered Forces for Iraq War

We all know that the French stayed out of the Iraq War even though they participated in the Persian Gulf War twelve years earlier and were even participants in the no-fly zones over Iraq for several years after the war was suspended.

I expected the French to ultimately participate in 2003 and was surprised when France did not.

Strategypage has the goods on this:

Pentagon rumor, however, might explain why the French came to oppose the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. In December, 2002, a French staff officer visited the Pentagon with a proposal from his government. France would send 18,000 troops (about what they contributed in 1991) to join the Iraq invasion force. However, France wanted a specific area of occupation after the war, with full authority in that area for as long as Iraq needed to be occupied. The American State Department backed the French proposal, but the Department of Defense didn’t trust the French, and were suspicious of their motives. So the French officer went home empty handed, and the French government decided that invading Iraq was really an evil thing to do.

But before you go all "unilateral" and complain about how we blocked French participation in the war, consider who the French would have really been fighting for:

What exactly were the French up to? No one is sure, but the most plausible theory was that the French wanted to be in Iraq, after Saddam fell, to make sure no embarrassing documents, or witnesses, showed up. France had been supplying Saddam with weapons, and other assistance, for over three decades. Moreover, how better to help get the Sunni Arabs back in power, than to have 18,000 French troops occupying, say, western Iraq. This sort of arrangement is nothing new for the French. Although France participated in the Balkans peacekeeping of the 1990s, France was known to be pro-Serb, and French officers were later caught helping out the Serbs in illegal ways. Very embarrassing, but not unexpected. The Pentagon was well aware of how the French pulled their pro-Serb stunts in the 1990s, and apparently wanted no more of that nonsense in Iraq.

Way too sophisticated for my tastes. Fortunately, we did not allow Paris to play their European games at our expense. I know there's an expression that it is better to have an opponent inside the tent p*ssing out rather than outside p*ssing into the tent, but that wasn't an option. Better the French outside Iraq p*ssing in, than France inside Iraq spinning around fouling everything as they did their business.

Capabilities and Missions

As I've noted before, our presence in Iraq will evolve as our mission changes to cover areas the developing Iraqi security forces cannot yet handle.

The Iraqis (via Real Clear Politics) understand this:

Iraqi Defense Ministry analyst Mohammed Askari said Iraqi forces — if provided equipment such as helicopters, tanks and artillery — could protect the country from internal threats within six months. But he added: "Maybe we need American troops for the next few years to protect us from external invasions, because there are various countries with ill intentions against Iraq."

The Iraqis have an immediate threat of an insurgency to fight so they are naturally focused internally. Defeating invasion by enemy conventional forces rightly takes a back seat as long as we fulfill that external defense role for the Iraqis.

Given the squawking by the anti-war side and the failure of the sunshine patriots to maintain support for the war for longer than the flower-throwing phase, the Iraqis must know we will need them to stand on their own at some finite time in the near future without a formal timetable to get out.

Our declining role in fighting will likely be relatively dramatic when the time comes to pull back and let the Iraqis take the lead. But our presence in Iraq must be reduced far more slowly. Reducing our mission and casualties, fortunatley, will reduce the domestic pressure to leave long before we really do start to leave when the Iraqis can stand mostly on their own.

In For a Penny, In for a Pound

In war, while you want your forces to focus all their efforts to achieving a particular objective--say, capturing the city of Baghdad as an example--you want to remain flexible in how you do it. Ideally you have multiple lines of advance that keep the enemy guessing and give you flexibility in reaching the objective. We had Fifth Corps and 1 MEF in the south with a special forces/Kurd effort in the north and an effort in the west out of Jordan to keep Saddam guessing where the killing blow would come from.

Certainly, one advance will be the main effort, but if that line of advance meets resistance and a secondary advance meets success, your plan should allow the diversion of resources to exploit the new main effort while the original main effort becomes a supporting one. The objective is the same in either case. This is called "reinforcing success."

So how does al Qaeda measure up to this standard of waging war?

The Weekly Standard brings up an interesting bit of information that may relate to this:

Amidst the reporting on the Amman bombings, the Associated Press noted this anecdote with regard to the Radisson SAS hotel, one of the buildings targeted by the suicide bombers: "U.S. officials believe al-Zarqawi and bin Laden operations chief Abu Zubaydah were chief organizers of a foiled plot to bomb the Radisson SAS. The attack was to take place during millennium celebrations, but Jordanian authorities stopped it in late 1999." If this is the case, then the bombing of the Radisson SAS and the two other Amman hotels last week should not be seen so much as an outgrowth of the Iraqi insurgency as much as a tell-tale al Qaeda modus operandi: continuing to target a given location until the attack is carried out successfully (recall the 1993 World Trade Center bombing).

So al Qaeda keeps going after a target until they finally hit it? Even if it takes years? What does this tell us?

Well, it looks like al Qaeda does not reinforce success, but instead blunders headlong into targets that avoided being hit the first time. If their objective is to expel America from the Middle East by hurting us enough to retreat, it doesn't really matter what al Qaeda hits as long as they keep hitting us. This would mean real amateur hour in al Qaeda's ability to wage their war. So please, please, stop telling me how we've fallen into bin Laden's deeply clever trap by waxing his butt all over the world with a global counter-offensive. We and our allies have left the gangly murderer crouched in some cave in North Whositstan without even a decent recording studio to shake his fist at us on a regular basis.


Or it means that the al Qaeda leadership confuses objectives with means. You want to focus on achieving the objective while being flexible on means. Instead, al Qaeda has been flexible on objectives (which varies from getting US troops out of Saudi Arabia, or fighting to defend Afghanistan, or fighting in Iraq to drive us out, or defending the Palestinians, or--what day is it anyway?) while focusing on specific attacks ruthlessly until they hit it. This focus continues regardless of the objective. Does hitting the Jordanian hotel in 1999 really support the same goal as hitting it this year? The same can be said of the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001.

Finally, it may mean that al Qaeda's resources are so thin that they can't afford to discard intelligence, planning, and deployed resources if the first effort fails. To al Qaeda, even a plot that is discovered cannot be cancelled despite the fact that the target should be more prepared for the next strike. In a perfect jihadi world, you'd switch to a new target that is not aware of your intentions to strike it. Since breaking our morale is the apparent goal for whatever objective they have, if you can afford it you switch to an easier target. But they continue frontal assaults right up the middle.

Really, these guys are amateurs and fantacists. Sadly, they are also stone cold killers, so we must hunt them down and kill them. And we should also focus resources on any target the enemy focuses on even after we foil the first attempt. They may not have a Plan B.

They Aren't Embarassed to Argue This?

A few days ago, in response to a Milbank and Pincus article responding to the President's counter-offensive, I was stunned at the Post writers' argument:

So these fine inquiring minds of a leading American newspaper are trying to tell me that a decision by Congress to authorize the use of force against Saddam's Iraq, in the light of a law that Congress passed and the prior president signed four years earlier that makes regime change in Iraq our official policy, was incomprehensibly twisted by the President into a war to change the regime in Iraq? Do these two writers really think the Congressional vote was about another round of pounding Iraq without actually going all the way?

Are the anti-war people truly arguing they were too dense to understand the debate we had in 2002? Truly I was stunned that this was the basis for their argument that we were misled into war.

So too is Christopher Hitchens (via Real Clear Politics):

But then there is the really superb pedantry and literal-mindedness on which the remainder of the case depends. This achieved something close to an apotheosis on the front page of the Washington Post on Nov. 12, where Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus brought complete gravity to bear. Is it true, as the president claimed in his Veterans Day speech, that Congress saw the same intelligence sources before the war, and is it true that independent commissions have concluded that there was no willful misrepresentation? Top form was reached on the inside page:

"But in trying to set the record straight, [Bush] asserted: 'When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support.'

The October 2002 joint resolution authorized the use of force in Iraq, but it did not directly mention the removal of Hussein from power."

A prize, then, for investigative courage, to Milbank and Pincus. They have identified the same problem, though this time upside down, as that which arose from the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act, during the Clinton-Gore administration, in 1998. That legislation—which passed the Senate without a dissenting vote—did expressly call for the removal of Saddam Hussein but did not actually mention the use of direct U.S. military force.

Let us suppose, then, that we can find a senator who voted for the 1998 act to remove Saddam Hussein yet did not anticipate that it might entail the use of force, and who later voted for the 2002 resolution and did not appreciate that the authorization of force would entail the removal of Saddam Hussein! Would this senator kindly stand up and take a bow? He or she embodies all the moral and intellectual force of the anti-war movement. And don't be bashful, ladies and gentlemen of the "shocked, shocked" faction, we already know who you are.

Truly an astounding foundation upon which to base the false "Bush lied" charge.

Not that I want to suppress freedom of speech. But really, given the contradictory statements and beliefs of the loyal opposition over the last ten years on the subject of Iraq, Saddam, and WMD, they are fully capable of debating amongst themselves without bothering the rest of us.

I hope to make this my last post on the outrageous tactics the anti-war side is using to restart their endless debate over whether we should invade Iraq and end the Saddam regime. The President and his team are fully engaged in refuting this and I really hate to stray into politcal territory rather than just comment on foreign affairs and policy.

But Lord, they try my patience.

The Games (Anti-War) People Play

I don't mind criticism of the war effort even when I disagree with the criticism. What I object to are criticisms that I don't think are intended to help us win. Too many people see our troops in Iraq as a tool to leverage political advantage.

Let's take a look at one I mentioned a while earlier, shall we?

From The Corner comes a campaign to call for the withdrawal of 20,000 American troops after the mid-December Iraq elections:

Today in the Senate, facing a Democratic resolution on Iraq, the Republicans offered their own call for President Bush to come up with a plan. They didn't go nearly far enough, but clearly our call for a concrete plan is gaining momentum.

It's time for the next step. Help our "20,000 troops home over the holidays" campaign place billboards in the home districts of Republican leaders.

Help place billboards in Republican leaders' home districts

To date, over a quarter of a million people have signed our call to withdraw 20,000 troops from Iraq over the holidays. That withdrawal should be linked to the completion of December elections in Iraq - and it should be the first step in the concrete plan for Iraq that President George W. Bush owes the American people.

We shouldn't let America's brave men and women go another day without having such a plan in place. That's why we're turning up the heat with our Billboards and House Signs campaign over the next month.

Will you add your voice and your financial support to this effort right now?

Well that's nice.

You should understand what is happening now in Iraq as we timed rotations of units into and out of Iraq to provide additional security for the October and December votes:

The usual troop level this year has been about 138,000, although that has been strengthened to about 160,000 this fall out of concern for extra violence during voting in October and December.

Got that? We have temporarily increased troop strength in Iraq by about 20,000 troops by timing the rotation of troops. Without any change in policy, our strength will decline by about 20,000 in the new year. No campaigns are necessary for this to happen. No need to go out in inclement weather and plant signs. No need to donate money. In fact, there is no need for any honesty on the part of those promoting this campaign at all.

Will these campaign sponsors claim victory when our troop strength comes down? Will they claim it is a beginning of the big bug out?

People are playing games with our troops. I hope the press calls critical attention to these partisans who see the White House as the ultimate objective of their war--and to Hell with the troops who are mere cannon fodder in their plans.

Admit Mistakes and Move On

The President continues to hammer at the loyal opposition which has developed amnesia over their recent statements. The President reminded three of the brightest lights in the firmament of lies of their former views:

He quoted pre-war remarks by three senior Democrats as evidence of that Democrats had shared the administration's fears that were the rationale for invading Iraq in 2003. Bush did not name them, but White House counselor Dan Bartlett filled in the blanks.

_"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons." — Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

_"The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as (Saddam Hussein) is in power." — Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

_"Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion." — Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., then the Democratic whip.

Said the President:

"The truth is that investigations of the intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world — and that person was Saddam Hussein," Bush charged.

But instead of admitting mistakes over their overwrought charge of misleading the American people into war (oh, and Halliburton!!!!, just in case), the opposition is stubbornly following a flawed and failed plan:

On Capitol Hill, top Democrats stood their ground in claiming Bush misled Congress and the country. "The war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history," Kerry told a news conference.

On the other hand, the opposition has a pliant press corps to peddle their twisted version of history. The President still has a heck of a battle on his hands.

I don't like commenting on the political battles between the two parties. I hate it, in fact. But the opposition is being so dishonest in its charges that they cannot be excused as simply playing politics. Lives are on the line and their slanderous charges cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. The opposition needs to admit their mistakes in the "lying charge" and move on. Haven't they given the same advice for two years?

And for the record, I still don't buy that the intelligence was wrong. Were all the intelligence agencies of the world and the UN uniformly wrong in concluding Saddam had WMD?

We did not find WMD when we invaded but I don't think we should simply accept the new conventional wisdom that there were no WMD in Iraq. The Baathists who would know what happened to the chemical weapons that Saddam had prior to the war are still fighting and so not talking. In the long telegraphed punch that removed Saddam, the Baathists had plenty of time to scrub Iraq. Duelfer found much evidence of WMD efforts even though Saddam had time to hide what he had.

I think we'll find out what happened to the WMD and I don't think the final explanation will be that he had none in March 2003.

Coalition of the Willing

There are many fronts in the war on terror and many ways to fight terrorism.

So when a country will not help in one area, such as Iraq, I try to remember that we don't need everyone's help, everywhere, and at the same time; just enough of some of them everywhere at the same time.

Canada is stepping up in Afghanistan:

Canadian troops (about a thousand of them) have moved from Kabul to Kandahar, which is the largest city in the most pro-Taliban part of the country. Over the next three months, Canada will increase its troops strength in Kandahar to 2,000.

I do thank the Canadians for help willingly given in Afghanistan even as I wonder how so many Canadians can believe the EUroDeanian view of our fight in Iraq.

But we really aren't an empire able to coerce troop contributions from subject nations, despite the feverish rantings of some. We really are a Coalition of the Willing.

There is No Second Place

Cliff May reports on the distasteful experience of going to Dublin to debate the America-haters in Europe:

We had gathered at the venerable University Philosophical Society of Trinity College, Dublin to debate the resolution: “This house believes that George W. Bush is a danger to world stability.”

But those tasked with defending the resolution were disinclined even to discuss what they clearly considered gross understatement.

It is simply astounding that this should be a quesion to debate by people who benefit from our defense of our civilization. That minds supposedly trained for critical inquiry could basically assume this statement is not only true but grossly understated is equally amazing.

But what I really find amazing is the title of the article, "Blaming America First."

While I'll grant that this is not a blow-by-blow account, I didn't see anybody else blamed for anything at all in this university debate. To be first, isn't a second required? I'd be perfectly happy to get into a rousing chant of "We're Number One!" but we seem to be the only country in the contest.

Really, America is the all-purpose culprit for anything that happens or does not happen anywhere in the world.

A Reason for Hate

Via Instapundit, Dr. Sanity, a blogger in my own backyard, discusses Bush Derangement Syndrome:

The number of things that Bush has been blamed for in this world since 9/11 (even acts of God like Tsunamis, hurricanes and other natural disasters) is the stuff of major comedy. You name the horrible event, and he is identified as the etiologic agent.

He is blamed when he does something (anything) and he is blamed when he does nothing. He is blamed for things that ocurred even before he was President, as well as everything that has happened since. He is blamed for things he says; and for things he doesn't say.

What makes Bush Hatred completely insane however, is the almost delusional degree of unremitting certitude of Bush's evil; while simultaneously believing that the TRUE perpetrators of evil in the world are somehow good and decent human beings with the world's intersts at heart.

This psychological defense mechanism is referred to as "displacement".

Listen. She uses the word "etiologic" for goodness sake.

But I guess I must stand corrected. I thought the Bush haters were just effing idiots. Who knew they're clinically nuts?

Second Thoughts

Even as so many in the West who oppose the Iraq War insist we are just now alienating the Moslem world, the Moslem world is turning on the killers now that the killing is directed at Moslems. The "failed" wife half of a husband-wife suicide bombing team confesses on TV:

Looking nervous and wringing her hands, al-Rishawi described the attack on the Radisson. The Grand Hyatt and Days Inn hotels also were bombed.

"My husband detonated (his bomb) and I tried to explode my belt but it wouldn't," she said. "People fled running and I left running with them."

Her husband, Ali Hussein Ali al-Shamari, 35, was identified Sunday as one of three Iraqi men who carried out the bombings.

I'd guess second thoughts rather than a convenient technical flaw in the belt.

Rather illustrative of the wider trends in the Moslem world. She is much like the Moslem world that is nervous now that jihadis kill them without remorse. She, too, was taught to hate by the jihadis who show how to kill. And she, too, now runs from the death and mayhem she used to believe was right and just.

The hatred for us in the Moslem world was there before we destroyed Saddam's regime. September 11, 2001 was the ultimate in the free hate that the Moslem world indulged in. They watched it on al Jazeera and cheered. Jordan's continued support for the killers was an anomaly in the Moslem world that is shifting slowly away from the death cult that slaughters in their name.

But now an Arab wedding party was blown apart, shattering lives that looked to the future with hope. Now even Jordanians are repulsed. Now the hate is in their neighborhoods. The bombers are in their cities. Their hotels explode in flame. And the death is something they must mourn and not celebrate.

The willing wives of killers are running away from death, wringing their hands over the road they traveled down willingly in the darkness of their rage, but which now seems so frightening in the light of day. This is a good thing.

Kicking Ass and Taking Names

The President is not going to take the opposition's distortions and memory lapses over Iraq without fighting back. And when you're talking memory-impaired asses, Ted Kennedy's name naturally comes to mind:

Bush is thumping Ted Kennedy for his irresponsible statements on the war. "It is also regrettable that Senator Kennedy has found more time to say negative things about President Bush then he ever did about Saddam Hussein." Kennedy deserves it.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

The Crying Game

American and Iraqi forces continue to attack in the Sunni regions of al Anbar province. Holding and clearing ahead of the December elections, our forces are depriving the enemy of their planning and staging bases.

Not surpsisingly, the enemy is feeling the pain and trying to play the victim:

Officials in several Sunni Arab groups charged that U.S. and Iraqi forces are pursuing combat and police operations aimed at cowing Sunni Arab communities.

Salih al-Mutlaq, a spokesman for the National Dialogue Front and one of the Sunni Arabs who helped draft the new constitution, said military offensives in Sunni Arab areas are meant to prevent Sunnis from voting in the Dec. 15 election.

"We strongly condemn the military operations and demand that they are halted immediately," al-Mutlaq said. "We demand that the United Nations, the Arab League and humanitarian organizations stop these massacres."

U.S. commanders insist the offensives are intended to encourage Sunni Arabs to vote by removing the threat of Sunni-dominated insurgents who want to scuttle the ballot.

Ayad al-Izi, a member of the Islamic Iraqi Party, complained about the deployment of Interior Ministry troops to Diyala province, where more than 310 people have been arrested. He charged the arrests were politically motivated.

"Such practices are aimed at foiling the political process in the country and they ignite the strife in such areas," he said.

Harith al-Obeidi, a senior member in another Sunni political party, the General Conference of the People of Iraq, also criticized the raids.

In Diyala, Maj. Gen. Mahdi Sabyh Ibrahim said Saturday that 310 people had been arrested in the province northeast of Baghdad after a series of car bombings, ambushes and other acts of violence. He said the Interior Ministry troops were acting on tips from local residents.

At another news conference, the Association of Muslims Scholars, a Sunni clerical group, condemned both the raids in Diyala and the U.S.-Iraqi offensive along the Syrian border. They called on Shiite religious leaders to join in condemning the operations.

Sheik Mohammed Bashar Al-Faydhi, the group's spokesman, reiterated that it would not participate in politics as long as foreign forces were in Iraq, or until a withdrawal timetable was announced.

This is good stuff--demanding that entities outside stop alleged abuse--when these thugs slaughtered hundreds of thousands whose graves are still being found.

Sadly, many in the West truly feel sorry for the so-called "downtrodden" Sunnis. But look a little closer and--Surprise!--the true killers are revealed. Truly, it takes a lot of balls for the Sunnis to claim victim status. They don't want to vote? Then don't. I won't cry for you. As the saying goes, when in a hole--stop digging. The Sunnis are just digging their own graves if they keep fighting. Once we do leave the fighting to the Iraqis, the Iraqi government will be far less kind to the Baathists than we are.

Drive on. Kill the enemy. Secure the west. Cow the enemy, as the enemy fears we are doing. And utterly defeat the Sunnis who still dream of stomping Shias and Kurds as their God-given right.

Victory is the only acceptable outcome.