Hmm. After a couple years of hearing estimates of the enemy insurgent strength in Iraq at 20,000, in the last few days I've read a couple references to 10,000 enemy.
What gives? I know that these are estimates and highly imprecise, but what has led to an apparent decrease in the number cited (by a couple writers anyway)?
The fighting seems to be raging as much as before. So are the less committed fading away leaving the hard core killers to continue the fight? Did we change our methodology?
Whether 10,000 or 20,000, this is a small rebellion. As I've said repeatedly, this is based out of 15 to 20 percent of the population (and the real supporters are only a fraction of this number of Sunnis), and so the Shias and Kurds won't lose to them. The Sunni Baathists, "nationalists," and jihadis are only effective out of proportion to their numbers because of the vast amounts of money available and the arms scattered throughout Iraq from the Saddam era.
I will look for more authoritative references and reasonings for the numbers as the weeks go on.
UPDATE: Strategypage notes that the less committed Sunnis are the ones fleeing Iraq completely or to pure Sunni areas. This could bolster my thought that the less committed Sunnis (who would have been the source of the less effective fighters) have left Iraq or moved to safer areas where they would not participate in attacks, while the remaining hard core Sunnis continue to support the smaller number of thugs who would have killed the most anyway. (Plus, we are taking the fight to the enemy more than earlier in the year.)
The post also notes that ethnically cleansing the Sunnis from Iraq would be the consequence of our withdrawal before we can anchor a democratic experiment in the heart of the Arab Moslem world. I've mentioned that before, too.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
The Southern Enemy
They took our land and delayed our statehood. The game is on today at 3:30.
Our conventions to ratify statehood took place in Ann Arbor, I should note. We defend more than 100 yards of turf in this annual fight.
Still, though we lost Toledo, our resistance to the high-handed thievery approved by our Congress resulted in Michigan gaining the western 4/5 of the Upper Peninsula, increasing our strategic depth and gaining important sources of iron ore should our lost citizens of Toledo rise up against their overlords and require our assistance.
So today, Wolverines march through the Toledo Strip. And we keep going until we reach Columbus.
I'm sorry that Bo Schembechler won't see today's game with us.
UPDATE: Drat. One heck of a game but we lost 39 to 42--the second highest score total in our two teams mutual meetings. With the way our defense has played all season, if you'd told me before the game that we'd score 39 on OSU, I'd assume we'd win. But two mistakes by our defense on run plays led to two touchdowns, and even though we sent Smith to the turf numerous times, it wasn't enough to stop him from connecting.
With any luck, we'll have a rematch in two months. That would be pretty cool.
OK, back to national defense and national security issues.
Go Blue!
Beat Ohio!
Our conventions to ratify statehood took place in Ann Arbor, I should note. We defend more than 100 yards of turf in this annual fight.
Still, though we lost Toledo, our resistance to the high-handed thievery approved by our Congress resulted in Michigan gaining the western 4/5 of the Upper Peninsula, increasing our strategic depth and gaining important sources of iron ore should our lost citizens of Toledo rise up against their overlords and require our assistance.
So today, Wolverines march through the Toledo Strip. And we keep going until we reach Columbus.
I'm sorry that Bo Schembechler won't see today's game with us.
UPDATE: Drat. One heck of a game but we lost 39 to 42--the second highest score total in our two teams mutual meetings. With the way our defense has played all season, if you'd told me before the game that we'd score 39 on OSU, I'd assume we'd win. But two mistakes by our defense on run plays led to two touchdowns, and even though we sent Smith to the turf numerous times, it wasn't enough to stop him from connecting.
With any luck, we'll have a rematch in two months. That would be pretty cool.
OK, back to national defense and national security issues.
This Could Expand With Or Without Us
I've mentioned that a wide-ranging offensive with relatively small numbers of troops in the Horn region could be necessary to smash up al Qaeda types that are gathering strength.
Lest you think we would simply be making things worse by initiating open warfare in a pastoral kite-flying region, Strategypage notes that regional nations are getting worried about Somalia:
Add in Ethiopia and Eretria already involved on opposite sides, and I assume Kenya at some level which is right next door and various Arab nations that are the source of jihadis, and we have the potential for Somalia to be a battleground just as the Democratic Republic of Congo has been a battlefield for other countries.
So if we get involved, I don't wan't to hear any nonsense about how we "started" a war in the region. Heck, since this isn't Iraq, some of our usual anti-war suspects might even count this as part of the war on terror.
UPDATE: I assumed Kenya would be involved. They are:
I really doubt that Kenya's involvement is limited to cutting off a source of income from a Kenyan product sold in Somalia.
And as for possible action by America:
At some point, our hammer has to fall here. Certainly, not every solution to our jihadi problem is a hammer. But when al Qaeda is involved, there is no question that we have to nail them.
Lest you think we would simply be making things worse by initiating open warfare in a pastoral kite-flying region, Strategypage notes that regional nations are getting worried about Somalia:
Soldiers from the Ugandan Army (UPDF, Uganda Peoples Defense Forces) are apparently operating "inside Somalia." The Ugandan troops were helping train supporters of the Somali Transitional Government. Uganda belongs to IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development), an East African regional development cooperative. The Ugandan troops were supporting the Transitional Government as part of an IGAD-initiated training team. The Ugandan soldiers are not deployed as a fighting force but are "entitled to defend themselves" if attacked. The presence of Ugandan troops in Somalia is another indicator that an attempt by the Islamic Courts in Somalia to destroy Somalia's Transitional Government could produce a wider regional war.
Add in Ethiopia and Eretria already involved on opposite sides, and I assume Kenya at some level which is right next door and various Arab nations that are the source of jihadis, and we have the potential for Somalia to be a battleground just as the Democratic Republic of Congo has been a battlefield for other countries.
So if we get involved, I don't wan't to hear any nonsense about how we "started" a war in the region. Heck, since this isn't Iraq, some of our usual anti-war suspects might even count this as part of the war on terror.
UPDATE: I assumed Kenya would be involved. They are:
Kenya has halted flights carrying the narcotic leaf Khat, into Mogadishu. This has cut off the supply of Khat, and left thousands of addicts very unhappy. Khat gives you more of a buzz than caffeine or nicotine, but less than stronger drugs. For the last 16 years, Khat chewing has made militiamen more surly and trigger happy than they would normally be.
I really doubt that Kenya's involvement is limited to cutting off a source of income from a Kenyan product sold in Somalia.
And as for possible action by America:
The United States has a large counter-terrorism force just north of Somalia, in Djibouti. These forces have not been heard from yet, although U.S. operators have been inside Somalia collecting information, or running Somali agents to do it for them. Many known al Qaeda personalities have been spotted inside Somalia, hanging with the Islamic Courts. Presumably, once a solid enough case has been built, to prove that the Islamic Courts is providing a new base for al Qaeda, the American hammer will fall. Just how this will play out is either secret, or undecided.
At some point, our hammer has to fall here. Certainly, not every solution to our jihadi problem is a hammer. But when al Qaeda is involved, there is no question that we have to nail them.
A Republic. Can They Keep It?
Charles Krauthammer is pessimistic that the Iraqis can keep the republic that we have given them a chance to build without major progress in suppressing sectarian divisions:
I am not pessimistic as Krauthammer is, though I used the same Franklin reference in an earlier post.
The divisions within Iraq aren't the problem. Indeed, the divisions could be what ensures a democracy by denying any one faction a majority to ram government policies through a structure of democracy that benefits just that faction and denies the benefits of self-government to the minority. If coalitions between the major groups are necessary to win passage of legislation and support for policies, the groups can learn negotiating habits.
The problem is that the factions right now use bullets rather than ballots to settle their differences.
This is a political problem and our military is a shield behind which the Iraqi government must strengthen its capacity to govern. We are trying to get the Iraqi military to stand nearly on its own as that shield. Eventually, the Iraqi government must get the Sunnis and Sadr boys in the Shia community to stop killing each other. They don't have to like each other or vote for each other--just stop shooting at each other.
If these two parties stop fighting, cleaning up the jihadis and criminals will be child's play by comparison.
Don't mistake continued fighting for losing. Until we win, we must fight. That's the way wars go.
Iraq's first truly democratic government turned out to be hopelessly feeble and fractured, little more than a collection of ministries handed over to various parties, militias and strongmen.
The problem is not, as we endlessly argue about, the number of American troops. Or of Iraqi troops. The problem is the allegiance of the Iraqi troops. Some serve the abstraction called Iraq. But many swear fealty to political parties, religious sects or militia leaders.
I am not pessimistic as Krauthammer is, though I used the same Franklin reference in an earlier post.
The divisions within Iraq aren't the problem. Indeed, the divisions could be what ensures a democracy by denying any one faction a majority to ram government policies through a structure of democracy that benefits just that faction and denies the benefits of self-government to the minority. If coalitions between the major groups are necessary to win passage of legislation and support for policies, the groups can learn negotiating habits.
The problem is that the factions right now use bullets rather than ballots to settle their differences.
This is a political problem and our military is a shield behind which the Iraqi government must strengthen its capacity to govern. We are trying to get the Iraqi military to stand nearly on its own as that shield. Eventually, the Iraqi government must get the Sunnis and Sadr boys in the Shia community to stop killing each other. They don't have to like each other or vote for each other--just stop shooting at each other.
If these two parties stop fighting, cleaning up the jihadis and criminals will be child's play by comparison.
Don't mistake continued fighting for losing. Until we win, we must fight. That's the way wars go.
Friday, November 17, 2006
End of An Era
Bo Schembechler died this morning. He was at a television studio talking about the team he loved when he had to be rushed to the hospital with a heart problem. He will have the best seat for the game, though it will be rather high up.
More than any other coach, Bo was the embodiment of Michigan football. That's who I saw pacing the sidelines when I was attending Michigan. He will always be Michigan football in my mind.
We shall miss him.
The game he should have seen is on tomorrow at 3:30.
Go Blue!
Beat Ohio!
More than any other coach, Bo was the embodiment of Michigan football. That's who I saw pacing the sidelines when I was attending Michigan. He will always be Michigan football in my mind.
We shall miss him.
The game he should have seen is on tomorrow at 3:30.
Go Blue!
Beat Ohio!
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Because of Iraq
Even though jihadis get all the best press and sought-after time slots for their messages of hate and videos of beheadings and what not, moderate Moslems are increasingly resisting according to Strategypage:
Good. It is already apparent that Moslem governments are fighting back against the jihadis since the jihadis want the Moslem governments destroyed, too, and with America much harder to strike, the local Moslem rulers will do as targets. It is good that this attitude is in the general population, too. Once, Moslems could draw some strange comfort from jihadis striking Westerners when the violence was mere theater on their television screens. Now the violence is in their neighborhoods and it isn't as fun to watch.
We need to encourage this trend. If we are to help Moslems save their religion from being taken over by the fanatics and keep us from deciding to destroy the Islamic world in self defense, these moderate Moslems must forcefully reject the jihadis. And amazingly enough, this trend has happened despite our war in Iraq.
Heck, some might even crazily argue that fighting the enemy over there has reminded Moslems of the price of supporting jihadi fanatics who hate 99% of Moslems in addition to 100% of infidels!
The antics of Islamic radicals, and the responses of moderate Moslems, is becoming more widely known in the Moslem world. Even if the mass media tends to ignore these things. As a result, the Islamic radicals are facing a growing threat in their own "homeland." But this is a cycle that has been playing out for centuries. Only historians even recognize it, but we will all be able to observe it this time around.
Good. It is already apparent that Moslem governments are fighting back against the jihadis since the jihadis want the Moslem governments destroyed, too, and with America much harder to strike, the local Moslem rulers will do as targets. It is good that this attitude is in the general population, too. Once, Moslems could draw some strange comfort from jihadis striking Westerners when the violence was mere theater on their television screens. Now the violence is in their neighborhoods and it isn't as fun to watch.
We need to encourage this trend. If we are to help Moslems save their religion from being taken over by the fanatics and keep us from deciding to destroy the Islamic world in self defense, these moderate Moslems must forcefully reject the jihadis. And amazingly enough, this trend has happened despite our war in Iraq.
Heck, some might even crazily argue that fighting the enemy over there has reminded Moslems of the price of supporting jihadi fanatics who hate 99% of Moslems in addition to 100% of infidels!
The Opposite of Freedom is Responsibility
Victor Hanson wonders if the war won't change very much despite the post-election anticipation by some of being saved from the prospect of having to actually fight in order to defeat a bloody and determined enemy:
I mentioned a similar theory.
A book I read some time ago--some sci fi thing, I think--had a bit where the main character offered his opinion that the opposite of freedom isn't slavery--for a slave has so little to lose that they are free to do what they want. The opposite of freedom is in fact responsibility, because your choices are constrained by the knowledge of the impact you will have on others you are responsible for with the decisions you make. Now, I have serious doubts about whether the first part is terribly true in any sense meaningful to actual people rather than philosophers, but there is something to that responsibility being the opposite of freedom.
For the last three years, the opposition was free to just complain about the war. Now the opposition has responsibility. We shall see whether they prefer the responsibility the voters gave them to the freedom they once had.
Will the Democrats' new control of the House and Senate shake things up that much abroad? They certainly will have plenty of opportunities to alter the present American course of fighting terrorists, the war in Iraq and our overall foreign policy.
For over three years, partisan opponents of the Bush administration have made two arguments against its conduct of the "global war on terror." [That Iraq has made the terrorist threat worse and that our own government with its policies to fight the so-called war are worse than anything actual terrorists could do to us.] ...
In short, despite the election posturing, the Democrats in charge of ensuring a lasting majority are, as of now, somewhat quiet. Can it be that they are seeing that the only choices we have had after Sept. 11 have been mostly either bad or worse - and that, for those in power hoping both to prevent another such attack on our soil and not to "lose Iraq," there aren't any easy solutions?
I mentioned a similar theory.
A book I read some time ago--some sci fi thing, I think--had a bit where the main character offered his opinion that the opposite of freedom isn't slavery--for a slave has so little to lose that they are free to do what they want. The opposite of freedom is in fact responsibility, because your choices are constrained by the knowledge of the impact you will have on others you are responsible for with the decisions you make. Now, I have serious doubts about whether the first part is terribly true in any sense meaningful to actual people rather than philosophers, but there is something to that responsibility being the opposite of freedom.
For the last three years, the opposition was free to just complain about the war. Now the opposition has responsibility. We shall see whether they prefer the responsibility the voters gave them to the freedom they once had.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
The Ice Age Cometh
When the vaunted international community, which couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel, agrees on something, I think we can all agree that reality is 180 degrees from what the international community decrees.
So basically, after reading what Kofi Annan said recently about global warming, I'm keeping an eye out for glaciers returning to my state:
I proudly remain out of step and if we are out of time why don't these annoying people just go away and leave us alone since we are all doomed anyway.
Like so many areas, America will save the world from its own stupidity by fighting the lonely fight against the socialist economic policies that the vaunted international community says are the only things standing between us and warmer weather and disaster.
Or maybe Annan's just angling for a UN Carbon for Food Program that he can profit from. The international community is funny that way.
So basically, after reading what Kofi Annan said recently about global warming, I'm keeping an eye out for glaciers returning to my state:
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the conference earlier Wednesday that those who would deny global warming or delay taking action against it are "out of step" and "out of time."
I proudly remain out of step and if we are out of time why don't these annoying people just go away and leave us alone since we are all doomed anyway.
Like so many areas, America will save the world from its own stupidity by fighting the lonely fight against the socialist economic policies that the vaunted international community says are the only things standing between us and warmer weather and disaster.
Or maybe Annan's just angling for a UN Carbon for Food Program that he can profit from. The international community is funny that way.
Speaking Truth to Power
General Abizaid testified to a Senate panel on what we need to do to win in Iraq. The Senators did not like it that our general tried to instruct the senators on Insurgency 101 principles:
Our general, who wants to win, told Congress that we need to stay the course in Iraq and continue to fight while we stand up Iraqi forces to take over the fight against the jihadis, Baathists, and Iranian stooges. Then we can pull back. But Senator McCain wanted to hear the general call for taking over the war and adding tens of thousands of troops. Senator Clinton wanted to hear that we are losing and so why bother going down this path any longer.
We only need to make the Iraqi security forces better than the terrorists and insurgents--not equal to our forces. If advisors spread throughout the Iraqi military and police are needed, let's do it. (The Russians did this in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq War, by the way, to help Iraqi units hold off the Iranians.)
I do want to disagree with General Abizaid on one thing. While it would be good to tamp down violence in Baghdad in the next 4 to 6 months, I reject the idea that we have this time to win and no more. The war goes on until one side or the other wins. There is no time limit. We fight until we win. There is no objective reason why Americans and/or Iraqis can't be fighting this battle inside Baghdad in six years time. I'd rather win in 6 months but there is no reason to call it a defeat if that victory timeline isn't met. I'm not sure at all why Abizaid said that.
I know our senators don't like to hear that the inflated opinions of members of the world's greatest debilitated body aren't needed to save the situation in Iraq, but there it is.
Our war effort would be well served by passing out Ritilan to our senators. They really need to focus.
In one of the day's most contentious clashes, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., challenged Abizaid on his analysis of the situation and complained that he was advocating no major changes in U.S. policy. McCain, a possible 2008 presidential candidate, has called for adding thousands more U.S. combat troops in Iraq to help fight the insurgency and halt sectarian violence in Baghdad.
"I'm of course disappointed that basically you're advocating the status quo here today, which I think the American people in the last election said that is not an acceptable condition," McCain said.
In response, Abizaid said he was not arguing for the status quo. He said the key change that is needed now is to place more U.S. troops inside the Iraqi army and police units to train and advise these forces in planning and executing missions.
Our general, who wants to win, told Congress that we need to stay the course in Iraq and continue to fight while we stand up Iraqi forces to take over the fight against the jihadis, Baathists, and Iranian stooges. Then we can pull back. But Senator McCain wanted to hear the general call for taking over the war and adding tens of thousands of troops. Senator Clinton wanted to hear that we are losing and so why bother going down this path any longer.
We only need to make the Iraqi security forces better than the terrorists and insurgents--not equal to our forces. If advisors spread throughout the Iraqi military and police are needed, let's do it. (The Russians did this in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq War, by the way, to help Iraqi units hold off the Iranians.)
I do want to disagree with General Abizaid on one thing. While it would be good to tamp down violence in Baghdad in the next 4 to 6 months, I reject the idea that we have this time to win and no more. The war goes on until one side or the other wins. There is no time limit. We fight until we win. There is no objective reason why Americans and/or Iraqis can't be fighting this battle inside Baghdad in six years time. I'd rather win in 6 months but there is no reason to call it a defeat if that victory timeline isn't met. I'm not sure at all why Abizaid said that.
I know our senators don't like to hear that the inflated opinions of members of the world's greatest debilitated body aren't needed to save the situation in Iraq, but there it is.
Our war effort would be well served by passing out Ritilan to our senators. They really need to focus.
Whipping Out the Check Book
For some reason, members of Congress are unhappy that North Korea is slowly collapsing as it weakens under our slow squeezing of the Pillsbury Nuke Boy's regime. They want a bold and new approach. Egads, check for your wallets. "Bold and new" approaches to our enemies always involve old-fashioned bribery with lots of zeros after the first digits, I fear:
As a bonus, we are being told by our leaders that we need to prove our peaceful intent. That we haven't nuked North Korea for fifty years is irrelevant, I guess. No word on what North Korea has to do to prove their peaceful intent toward America, South Korea, and Japan.
Honestly, to those who consider talking an objective and not a means to an objective, I imagine the idea that there is a diplomatic stalemate seems like a defeat. It is not. We smile at them, they try to get us to write a check while we smile, and as time goes on the North Korean system slowly erodes. We smile some more at that development.
As to the inane question of why we might want to isolate North Korea? So they don't export nuclear weapons and so their hideous regime will erode, collapse, and die. Jeez dude, don't you attend any of the committee briefings?
Keep the check book in your pockets. The last thing we need is an earmark for a Bridge to Pyongyang.
Congressional Democrats, demanding a bold new approach to end a diplomatic standoff, urged the Bush administration on Wednesday to send the top U.S. negotiator to North Korea and press for an end to its nuclear weapons program.
Such a mission by Christopher Hill would demonstrate "our peaceful intent," said California Rep. Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record), the top Democrat on the House International Relations Committee. Panel members quizzed Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns about the so-far futile effort to halt North Korea's nuclear weapons and missiles programs. ...Supported by several Democrats on the committee and one Republican, Rep. Jim Leach (news, bio, voting record) of Iowa, Lantos said, "The White House must try a new and bold approach to the vexing North Korean problem."
"I don't understand why it is in the United States' interest to keep them isolated," Leach said.
As a bonus, we are being told by our leaders that we need to prove our peaceful intent. That we haven't nuked North Korea for fifty years is irrelevant, I guess. No word on what North Korea has to do to prove their peaceful intent toward America, South Korea, and Japan.
Honestly, to those who consider talking an objective and not a means to an objective, I imagine the idea that there is a diplomatic stalemate seems like a defeat. It is not. We smile at them, they try to get us to write a check while we smile, and as time goes on the North Korean system slowly erodes. We smile some more at that development.
As to the inane question of why we might want to isolate North Korea? So they don't export nuclear weapons and so their hideous regime will erode, collapse, and die. Jeez dude, don't you attend any of the committee briefings?
Keep the check book in your pockets. The last thing we need is an earmark for a Bridge to Pyongyang.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
My, This is a Head Scratcher
There are enigmas.
There are enigmas within enigmas.
Iran isn't either one of those.
The Ultra Nuanced are still confused. See how the international community is on top of the Iran nuclear situation:
What an outrageous suggestion! Making nuclear weapons? How absurd! Why indeed would Iran want plutonium and enriched uranium?
Great international minds will continue to ponder the nuanced motivations of Iran's mullahs.
I cannot believe we debate letting the sick mullah regime get nuclear weapons.
There are enigmas within enigmas.
Iran isn't either one of those.
The Ultra Nuanced are still confused. See how the international community is on top of the Iran nuclear situation:
New traces of plutonium and enriched uranium — potential material for atomic warheads — have been found in a nuclear waste facility in Iran, a revelation that came Tuesday as the Iranian president boasted his country's nuclear fuel program will soon be completed. ...
The IAEA board in February referred Iran to the Security Council, suggesting it had breached the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and might be trying to make nuclear weapons.
What an outrageous suggestion! Making nuclear weapons? How absurd! Why indeed would Iran want plutonium and enriched uranium?
Great international minds will continue to ponder the nuanced motivations of Iran's mullahs.
I cannot believe we debate letting the sick mullah regime get nuclear weapons.
The Price of Dissent
Yes, yes, opponents of the war in Iraq have every right to dissent. Thomas Jefferson didn't say dissent is the highest form of patriotism, but the Left hardly needs a dead white male to sanctify freedom of speech, I should think.
Yet as the saying goes, freedom isn't free. And neither is dissent. We and the Iraqis are paying the price for the uncertainty of American staying power that our dissenters portrays to others. Amir Taheri writes:
Iraq's Shias, Kurds, and Sunnis are all uncertain of our willingness to stay until a democratic Iraq can stand on its feet. So they hedge their bets to cope just in case we leave too early, meaning our progress is slower than it could be. Arab countries are uncertain that they need to even establish formal ties with an Iraq that might fail without American support lasting long enough to make a difference, slowing progress further. And slow progress in Iraq taxes American patience. Talk about a cycle of violence!
My hope is that the higher price isn't so great that we fail to win in Iraq. I still think we can and will win, but dissent has clearly increased the cost of victory.
I'm not arguing that we should have banned dissent in order to fight more effectively. This would also stifle criticisms of failures, and correcting errors is necessary to win. Freedom of speech may certainly be bent but should not be broken in wartime.
But I do hope that most dissenters--who simply criticize what they know nothing about without offering alternatives--don't confuse their dissent with constructive criticism. Bitching isn't strategery. The American people certainly know that the opposition has no actual plan despite more than three years of criticizing the conduct of the war.
Nobody should fool themselves into thinking that the exercise of their right to dissent over the war has no cost. We see the price every day on our television stations that broadcast from Baghdad.
Yet as the saying goes, freedom isn't free. And neither is dissent. We and the Iraqis are paying the price for the uncertainty of American staying power that our dissenters portrays to others. Amir Taheri writes:
Had there been no uncertainty in Iraq, there would have been none in America either, and vice versa. It is urgent to end at least one of the two.
Clearly, the easier uncertainty to end is that concerning U.S. policies. With the elections over, Democrats should see Iraq for what it is: a success that is challenged by powerful enemies, and inadequately supported by friends and allies who doubt America's commitment. The first step needed is to dispel those doubts.
For Democrats, Iraq was a stick with which to beat Bush and regain control of the Congress. But working to make Iraq a failure would harm the strategic interests of the United States and its allies in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.
Iraq's Shias, Kurds, and Sunnis are all uncertain of our willingness to stay until a democratic Iraq can stand on its feet. So they hedge their bets to cope just in case we leave too early, meaning our progress is slower than it could be. Arab countries are uncertain that they need to even establish formal ties with an Iraq that might fail without American support lasting long enough to make a difference, slowing progress further. And slow progress in Iraq taxes American patience. Talk about a cycle of violence!
My hope is that the higher price isn't so great that we fail to win in Iraq. I still think we can and will win, but dissent has clearly increased the cost of victory.
I'm not arguing that we should have banned dissent in order to fight more effectively. This would also stifle criticisms of failures, and correcting errors is necessary to win. Freedom of speech may certainly be bent but should not be broken in wartime.
But I do hope that most dissenters--who simply criticize what they know nothing about without offering alternatives--don't confuse their dissent with constructive criticism. Bitching isn't strategery. The American people certainly know that the opposition has no actual plan despite more than three years of criticizing the conduct of the war.
Nobody should fool themselves into thinking that the exercise of their right to dissent over the war has no cost. We see the price every day on our television stations that broadcast from Baghdad.
Torch II
The Horn of Africa is a far more dangerous place because the Islamists are advancing in Somalia:
All the more reason we should conduct a more overt military operation in the region to knock the jihadis back on their heels so we can get back to winning hearts and minds.
A UN report asserts that the Islamic Courts have been receiving money and weapons from several Moslem countries, including Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Egypt, Eritrea, Djibouti and Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the core of the Islamic Courts fighting force consists of about a thousand Islamic militants, many of them Al Qaeda members. These gunmen are often Somalis who had gone off to fight for Islamic terrorism in other countries. But now that the Islamic Courts has plenty of cash, they were able to hire these experienced fighters, and get them to return to Somalia.
All the more reason we should conduct a more overt military operation in the region to knock the jihadis back on their heels so we can get back to winning hearts and minds.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Still Pursuing Victory
With the Baker commision report coming out on Iraq strategy, I worry that we'll abandon our steady push toward victory in Iraq. I've wanted to believe we won't abandon victory over the next two years when I think it is clearly within our grasp, but I remain nervous until I see what is laid out for the future.
Fred Barnes writes that President Bush is still pro-victory:
Barnes thinks that Rumsfeld was sacrificed in order to win the war. I wrote when Rumsfeld was fired that this is acceptable if true. Rumsfeld is no more immune from being sacrificed for victory than any soldier on patrol in Iraq. I worry his departure just whets the appetite for further retreat but we shall see, I guess.
This is all good if true. And just as I noted here, President Bush is far more relevant following the opposition party's Congressional victory than President Clinton was after 1994. Being commander-in-chief while we are at war automatically gives President Bush far more power and influence.
So remember that there is but one proper response to those calling for our retreat and surrender over Iraq.
I think we are broadly speaking on the correct course in Iraq--training Iraqis to take over the fight. The key is figuring out how to get there in the face of enemy attacks and sectarian violence.
So let's get that blueprint for victory out there that confirms the basic strategy with enough new buzz words to satisfy the desire for change. We don't want our troops left out there wondering if they are fighting for victory or whether they should start thinking about just coming home in one piece.
UPDATE: Austin Bay makes me feel better. He outlines reports of what I hope is true about the Baker commission:
We're fighting the war correctly. We just need to provide enough cover for the less bitter opponents of the war to embrace the "new and improved" strategy.
Ya do what ya gotta do.
Fred Barnes writes that President Bush is still pro-victory:
Rather than change the strategy in Iraq, he changed the strategist. This is not the first step in a disguised retreat from Iraq, Bush aides insist, nor does it represent a turnover of national security policy to the "realists," as opposed to an idealist like Bush, who ran foreign affairs under Bush's father. The president told Rumsfeld's successor, Bob Gates, the goal is still to create a stable democratic Iraq that can defend itself--in other words, victory.
Barnes thinks that Rumsfeld was sacrificed in order to win the war. I wrote when Rumsfeld was fired that this is acceptable if true. Rumsfeld is no more immune from being sacrificed for victory than any soldier on patrol in Iraq. I worry his departure just whets the appetite for further retreat but we shall see, I guess.
This is all good if true. And just as I noted here, President Bush is far more relevant following the opposition party's Congressional victory than President Clinton was after 1994. Being commander-in-chief while we are at war automatically gives President Bush far more power and influence.
So remember that there is but one proper response to those calling for our retreat and surrender over Iraq.
I think we are broadly speaking on the correct course in Iraq--training Iraqis to take over the fight. The key is figuring out how to get there in the face of enemy attacks and sectarian violence.
So let's get that blueprint for victory out there that confirms the basic strategy with enough new buzz words to satisfy the desire for change. We don't want our troops left out there wondering if they are fighting for victory or whether they should start thinking about just coming home in one piece.
UPDATE: Austin Bay makes me feel better. He outlines reports of what I hope is true about the Baker commission:
What Baker and Hamilton provide is political cover for Democrats. Our plan has been a sound one — build Iraqi security and political institutions to the point US and coalition forces move to “strategic overwatch.” ...
If we are lucky, the Baker-Hamilton magic show will drop a scarf over the top hat and with a the ”poof” of a New York Times headline produce a “unifying” policy of words that will let the Democrats join the war, despite the howls of their blogosphere nutsroots.
Then the military will continue to do what it’s been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and the new Iraqi government will continue to learn by doing — and in the ordeal of war that will mean learn by bleeding, suffering, and sweating.
We're fighting the war correctly. We just need to provide enough cover for the less bitter opponents of the war to embrace the "new and improved" strategy.
Ya do what ya gotta do.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
We Can Win. Or We Can Destroy
The alternative to winning in Iraq for America isn't surrendering, it is destroying our enemies and all those around them.
Despite the gnashing of teeth over the fear that we might skedaddle from Iraq after fewer than 3,000 casualties, in the bigger picture, I don't worry that we will ultimately lose even if we retreat from Iraq. Our enemies won't stop at Iraq even if the Shias fail to exterminate the Sunnis from Iraq after we leave and the jihadis win in Iraq.
No, we can't lose because even if one of the more excitable Baldwin brothers hands them our sword, the jihadis won't take our surrender. They want us dead or properly Wahabbi Moslem.
Really, we will either defeat our enemies by helping moderate Moslems strangle the radical jihadis; or--after we take a particularly hard hit at home--we will destroy the jihadi enemies embedded within the Moslem world, and the collateral damage will destroy the Islamic world in the process.
I remain convinced that we aren't discouraged by 3,000 dead Americans, but by the failure to destroy our enemies or advance toward a win in an obvious manner. We don't like stalemate. And if we are denied victory in Iraq, we will in the end kill as many as we have to in order to destroy our enemies.
For the record, I still think we have the advantage and should win in Iraq. As long as our troops don't lose faith in our government's commitment to winning, I think we will prevail.
Despite the gnashing of teeth over the fear that we might skedaddle from Iraq after fewer than 3,000 casualties, in the bigger picture, I don't worry that we will ultimately lose even if we retreat from Iraq. Our enemies won't stop at Iraq even if the Shias fail to exterminate the Sunnis from Iraq after we leave and the jihadis win in Iraq.
No, we can't lose because even if one of the more excitable Baldwin brothers hands them our sword, the jihadis won't take our surrender. They want us dead or properly Wahabbi Moslem.
Really, we will either defeat our enemies by helping moderate Moslems strangle the radical jihadis; or--after we take a particularly hard hit at home--we will destroy the jihadi enemies embedded within the Moslem world, and the collateral damage will destroy the Islamic world in the process.
I remain convinced that we aren't discouraged by 3,000 dead Americans, but by the failure to destroy our enemies or advance toward a win in an obvious manner. We don't like stalemate. And if we are denied victory in Iraq, we will in the end kill as many as we have to in order to destroy our enemies.
For the record, I still think we have the advantage and should win in Iraq. As long as our troops don't lose faith in our government's commitment to winning, I think we will prevail.
The Limits of Misery
So many like to say we should never help dissidents against dictators. We can't impose freedom and democracy, these critics say. It must come from inside the country.
You know, we should have just let the Shias rise up on their own to overthrow the Baathists. Back in 2002, the opponents of regime change in Iraq said the Baathists were so feeble and unpopular that the people should change the regime themselves. Just how that could have happened against the ruthless Sunnis, I don't know.
In Zimbabwe, we see how the regime opponents of a regime that is bloody, driving the economy to ruin, and and alienating the world are doing to topple the Mugabe regime:
Hmm. Not so well as it turns out.
And today, we don't need to contemplate attacking Iran, changing the regime, or even imposing non-trivial sanctions. We can just count on the Iranian people, who hate the inept and violent mullah regime, to overthrow that regime on their own and save us from a future of nuclear-armed mullahs!
And to think I was worried!
You know, we should have just let the Shias rise up on their own to overthrow the Baathists. Back in 2002, the opponents of regime change in Iraq said the Baathists were so feeble and unpopular that the people should change the regime themselves. Just how that could have happened against the ruthless Sunnis, I don't know.
In Zimbabwe, we see how the regime opponents of a regime that is bloody, driving the economy to ruin, and and alienating the world are doing to topple the Mugabe regime:
Once seen as a good bet to wrest the reins of power from the Zimbabwe African National Union - Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) is now divided into two factions and appears to be expending as much energy on internal battles as ending Mugabe's 26-year rule.
"The MDC can never be the same again," Harare-based political scientist Edmund Masunungure told AFP.
"The MDC is obviously weaker since the split. Each of the two factions has its own strengths but it is not the same as the strength of the two groups combined."
Hmm. Not so well as it turns out.
And today, we don't need to contemplate attacking Iran, changing the regime, or even imposing non-trivial sanctions. We can just count on the Iranian people, who hate the inept and violent mullah regime, to overthrow that regime on their own and save us from a future of nuclear-armed mullahs!
And to think I was worried!
No Forgetting. No Forgiving.
Just when the French are having a few more problems with their Moslem population (who largely come from North Africa), the Algerians are recalling France's past bloody war against Algeria and urging the French to admit their crimes:
Uh oh. I don't want to jump to conclusions or anything, but given the record of Moslem fanatics in recalling even the Crusades (a Western campaign to recapture the Holy Land from Moslem conquerers) as a reason to hate America, I'd be a little nervous in Paris when the Algerians start to ponder their mutual past. (And as an aside, when no offense real or imagined is ever forgotten in some Islamist circles, how is it that so many in the West have trouble remembering 9/11?)
I mean seriously, given jihadi history, I can certainly accept that they won't forget the Algerian War, but are we to believe that the jihadis have any capacity at all to forgive? Granted, Belkhadem didn't say that Algerians would forget--just that they can forget. I'll grant the theoretical possibility of that outcome in the same spirit that I guess I could date Parker Posey.
I've often mentioned that the Moslem world has seemed to forgive France for their past slaughter of Moslems. But I may have been hasty. I guess selling out the West (again) is no protection in the long run.
Really, the path of future French-Algerian relations is all too predictable, is it not? One day in the future, in a manner that mimics their post-9/11 headline, French papers will proclaim "We are all Moslems, now." The difference between that day and the 9/12 edition of Le Monde will be that the future edition will be quite literally true.
C'est al vie, I guess.
Prime Minister Abdelaziz Belkhadem, speaking at a Saturday party conference ahead of Monday's start of a two-day visit by French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, said France and Algeria have "friendly" relations.
But "these relations cannot mask collective memory," he said.
Algeria is "ready," to cooperate with France "so that it recognizes crimes committed against Algerians ... The Algerian can forgive, but will never forget," Belkhadem said.
Uh oh. I don't want to jump to conclusions or anything, but given the record of Moslem fanatics in recalling even the Crusades (a Western campaign to recapture the Holy Land from Moslem conquerers) as a reason to hate America, I'd be a little nervous in Paris when the Algerians start to ponder their mutual past. (And as an aside, when no offense real or imagined is ever forgotten in some Islamist circles, how is it that so many in the West have trouble remembering 9/11?)
I mean seriously, given jihadi history, I can certainly accept that they won't forget the Algerian War, but are we to believe that the jihadis have any capacity at all to forgive? Granted, Belkhadem didn't say that Algerians would forget--just that they can forget. I'll grant the theoretical possibility of that outcome in the same spirit that I guess I could date Parker Posey.
I've often mentioned that the Moslem world has seemed to forgive France for their past slaughter of Moslems. But I may have been hasty. I guess selling out the West (again) is no protection in the long run.
Really, the path of future French-Algerian relations is all too predictable, is it not? One day in the future, in a manner that mimics their post-9/11 headline, French papers will proclaim "We are all Moslems, now." The difference between that day and the 9/12 edition of Le Monde will be that the future edition will be quite literally true.
C'est al vie, I guess.
Why They Hate Us--Part N + 1
Some in the West spend a lot of time pondering the eternal question of why jihadi nutballs and their sympathizers in the Moslem world hate us. They have lots of nifty theories from supporting Israel to Britney Spear's navel, from trade policies to Bart Simpson, from letting women drive cars to letting women walk outside and feel sunshine on their faces. From comic strips and beauty pageants to girls attempting to flee a burning building when men might catch sight of that fetching bare burning face skin and giant ancient Buddha statues.
Oh, and Iraq. Never forget Iraq. (But never mention Afghanistan, which even few on the American Left fail to call the "good war.").
Let's add another jihadi grievance against the West to the list that includes Spain's control of the Parsley Islands (and control of Spain itself, of course):
Can you even believe how evil we are? We try to vaccinate their children at no cost to them in order to save those children from death and crippling disease. And when the Islamists say begone you infidels, we actually try to vaccinate the children anyway!
As I ask on many occasions, what won't tick them off and inspire them to kill us?
Oh, and another question often pops into my mind: Is there any outrage that Islamists can commit that some Westerners can't excuse as somehow a justified (albeit misguided) reaction to something we did wrong?
It's a funny world, people. A funny world.
Oh, and Iraq. Never forget Iraq. (But never mention Afghanistan, which even few on the American Left fail to call the "good war.").
Let's add another jihadi grievance against the West to the list that includes Spain's control of the Parsley Islands (and control of Spain itself, of course):
A good example, of how self-destructive Islamic radicalism is, can be seen in the continuing campaign to stop polio vaccinations. Several years ago, Islamic conservatives in Nigeria began urging parents to refuse polio vaccinations for their children. Eventually, this thwarted the worldwide effort to wipe out polio, because dozens of new cases appeared in Nigeria. All this comes from paranoid rumors that the medicine was a Western attempt to sterilize Moslem children. The Nigerian government put pressure on conservative Islamic leaders to stop preaching against the vaccination program, with mixed results. Islamic radicals are preaching against other types of vaccinations as well, causing something of an "Islamic Plague" among the growing number of unvaccinated children.
Can you even believe how evil we are? We try to vaccinate their children at no cost to them in order to save those children from death and crippling disease. And when the Islamists say begone you infidels, we actually try to vaccinate the children anyway!
As I ask on many occasions, what won't tick them off and inspire them to kill us?
Oh, and another question often pops into my mind: Is there any outrage that Islamists can commit that some Westerners can't excuse as somehow a justified (albeit misguided) reaction to something we did wrong?
It's a funny world, people. A funny world.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Convenient Distraction?
Will raw political considerations lead the new Congress to support staying in Iraq to let our troops win the war?
I do worry that our troops overseas will see our elections as not a rejection of the Republicans or the President, but as a rejection of our commitment to win in Iraq.
Nobody wants to die for a lost cause, and if our troops see the Democrats as just wanting to get out and who cares what happens in Iraq, will the troops react to this? Will their morale plummet? Will troops no longer re-enlist? Will our troops stop fighting to win? Will their discipline falter?
I hope the Democratic leadership in Congress make it clear that they want victory in Iraq. They may have different ideas about how to win, but they should loudly proclaim that winning is their goal.
And really, fighting in Iraq might be in the Democrats' best interest. Seriously. Consider that by having both houses of Congress, the Democrats can't simply obstruct the President and a Republican-controlled Senate over Iraq. If the Democrats only held the House they could hold hearings to their hearts' content but still not be responsible for the war. They could please their base with subpoenas and avoid responsibility for choosing paths in Iraq by shrugging that the Senate still supports "the President's" war. Win-win for the Democratic Party.
In addition, after claiming that Iraq "distracts" us from dealing with Iran and North Korea, if the Democrats succeed in getting our troops out of Iraq fast, might not the Democrats be under pressure to do something with our freed up ground forces in regard to Iran and North Korea? They have claimed we are too tied down to deal with these two countries.
I've long said that the Left always favors the past war or the potential future war--never the war we are in. Now the Left says Afghanistan is the good war. Then, the war was unnecessary and doomed to failure. Then, Desert Storm was a mistake and we should be ashamed that allies paid us to fight. Now, Desert Storm was a wonderful UN-approved war with a real coalition and look how little it cost us! Then, Vietnam was a giant ongoing war crime. Now, well we all remember the band of brothers reporting for duty. i seem to recall lots of flags.
And of course, now Iraq distracts us from sending appropriate force to Afghanistan and keeps us from properly threatening Iran and North Korea--the real threats.
Really, from a political point of view, fighting in Iraq might be too convenient a "distraction" for the new leadership in Congress that will save them from putting their proclaimed convictions about being willing to fight the "right" war into practice.
Staying in Iraq to fight just might be a common position for both sides--for different reasons.
So let's see those hand puppets and chants: "Hell no, we won't go!"
I do worry that our troops overseas will see our elections as not a rejection of the Republicans or the President, but as a rejection of our commitment to win in Iraq.
Nobody wants to die for a lost cause, and if our troops see the Democrats as just wanting to get out and who cares what happens in Iraq, will the troops react to this? Will their morale plummet? Will troops no longer re-enlist? Will our troops stop fighting to win? Will their discipline falter?
I hope the Democratic leadership in Congress make it clear that they want victory in Iraq. They may have different ideas about how to win, but they should loudly proclaim that winning is their goal.
And really, fighting in Iraq might be in the Democrats' best interest. Seriously. Consider that by having both houses of Congress, the Democrats can't simply obstruct the President and a Republican-controlled Senate over Iraq. If the Democrats only held the House they could hold hearings to their hearts' content but still not be responsible for the war. They could please their base with subpoenas and avoid responsibility for choosing paths in Iraq by shrugging that the Senate still supports "the President's" war. Win-win for the Democratic Party.
In addition, after claiming that Iraq "distracts" us from dealing with Iran and North Korea, if the Democrats succeed in getting our troops out of Iraq fast, might not the Democrats be under pressure to do something with our freed up ground forces in regard to Iran and North Korea? They have claimed we are too tied down to deal with these two countries.
I've long said that the Left always favors the past war or the potential future war--never the war we are in. Now the Left says Afghanistan is the good war. Then, the war was unnecessary and doomed to failure. Then, Desert Storm was a mistake and we should be ashamed that allies paid us to fight. Now, Desert Storm was a wonderful UN-approved war with a real coalition and look how little it cost us! Then, Vietnam was a giant ongoing war crime. Now, well we all remember the band of brothers reporting for duty. i seem to recall lots of flags.
And of course, now Iraq distracts us from sending appropriate force to Afghanistan and keeps us from properly threatening Iran and North Korea--the real threats.
Really, from a political point of view, fighting in Iraq might be too convenient a "distraction" for the new leadership in Congress that will save them from putting their proclaimed convictions about being willing to fight the "right" war into practice.
Staying in Iraq to fight just might be a common position for both sides--for different reasons.
So let's see those hand puppets and chants: "Hell no, we won't go!"
Attacking the Convenient Satans
While America is supposedly inspiring the hatred of jihadis and purportedly recruiting jihadis by fighting the jihadis, in practice the jihadis are more than willing to strike the nuanced Europeans despite the European opposition to much of our overt war against jihadis and jihadi-sponsoring states.
Behold:
We are the Great Satan and the Europeans hate Jews just about as much as your average madrassa student, yet the jihadis are willing to hit Europeans.
Really, one dead infidel is as good as the next. The Europeans can retreat far enough or surrender fast enough to take themselves off the target list. The Conveniently Close Satans may not have "provoked" the jihadis like we have, but if you can't kill the one you hate, hate the one you can kill, right?
Behold:
Al Qaeda may be planning to attack rail and air travel in Europe -- possibly targeting the busy holiday travel season -- according to intelligence findings, the "CBS Evening News" reported on Friday.
We are the Great Satan and the Europeans hate Jews just about as much as your average madrassa student, yet the jihadis are willing to hit Europeans.
Really, one dead infidel is as good as the next. The Europeans can retreat far enough or surrender fast enough to take themselves off the target list. The Conveniently Close Satans may not have "provoked" the jihadis like we have, but if you can't kill the one you hate, hate the one you can kill, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
