The Winning Side

Sometimes, war supporters seem to think that unless our military is razing the cities around them, it means we are fighting with our hands tied behind our back. Discussions of needing non-military progress as the key are sometimes dismissed as wishy washy.

While I think we have fought with too many restriction over the last year, it is still true that military action is a necessary but not sufficient component of winning a counter-insurgent and counter-terrorist war. We do need political and economic progress as the main weapon, enabled by successful security measures.

This article discusses the progress in Anbar as a result of the deals made with local Sunni Arab tribal sheiks, at the prodding of Sheik Sattar Bazeaa Fatikhan, to fight the jihadis with us:

After Sunni insurgents killed his father and four of his brothers last year, Fatikhan declared war against the insurgency.

He convened a summit of about a dozen prominent sheiks. From that meeting came a document called "The Awakening," in which Fatikhan persuaded all but one sheik to join him in opposition to the insurgency.

The sheiks pledged to encourage young men to join the police force and even the Shiite-led army. The document states that killing an American is the same as killing a member of their tribes. Since the gathering, Fatikhan said, the sheiks have "eliminated" a number of insurgents.

The Sunni Arab sheiks in Anbar do not seem to think we are losing this war. The jihadis succeeded only in turning more Iraqis against them by their brutal tactics and horrible goals. The jihadis killed Anbar Sunni Arabs and the Sunni Arabs turned on the jihadis.

We would have seen the same thing in central Iraq by now if not for the Sadr puppet boys killing Sunni Arabs at Tehran's order in large numbers since February 2006. These Sunni Arabs sought Sunni terrorist protection since these terrorists are the only sympathic force available to fight back against Shia death squads.

That is why the need to nail Sadr and the other poodles of Iran is so necessary to winning in Iraq. One way or the other, we must neutralize the Shia death squads. Do that and we can spread the Iraqi national resistance to foreign invasion to countering Iran and Syria.

Political progress isn't a substitute for military action. But success can make military action more effective. By gaining allies and depriving the enemy of a support and recruiting base, we make sure that the enemy loses gunmen faster than they can be replaced and so reduce the enemy strength in the field. This makes it easier for our side to track down the smaller numbers of the enemy. It is a virtuous cycle with each component accelerating the other component.

We can see the same thing happening against us. The enemy kills us but we replace our losses easily and continue to kill the enemy. So the enemy is trying to gain allies and deprive us of support to decrease our numbers faster than we can replace them. This is done by trying to discourage us and fool us into thinking we cannot win. This is having an effect and in time will reduce our strength in the field fighting the enemy.

So we are in a race against time. But I remain confident that we and our Iraqi allies can win faster than our domestic opposition can surrender for us.

OIL for Peace

The Iraqi government has explained the coming operation in Baghdad:

In a speech to parliament, Nuri al-Maliki urged politicians on all sides to support his security plan, backed by 17,000 U.S. military reinforcements and seen by many as a last chance to halt sectarian violence in the capital.

"There will be no safe haven -- no school, no home, no (Sunni) mosque or Shi'ite osque. They will all be raided if they are turned into a launch pad for terrorism, even the headquarters of political parties," he said.

Much depends on how well the Iraqis carry out this fight. The parliament passed it unanimously, I heard elsewhere, which is certainly a good sign.

An earlier article I read that has since disappeared referred to the Iraqi code name as Operation Imposing Law. I do wish that the name of the operation didn't have such an unfortunate acronym. The nutroots will have a field day with this.

UPDATE: The field day is upon us. Conspiracy mongers should note that the English rendering of the Arabic name is probably the biggest problem. Somebody writing the story I cited might have been having a little politically motivated fun with their OIL translation.

Note the official name and a different translation here:

The government of Iraq and the coalition officially announced the name for the Baghdad security plan yesterday. The operation is named “Fardh Al-Qanoon,” an Iraqi phrase that translates to “Enforcing the Law.”

The title was agreed upon by the Iraqi government, with the support of coalition leaders, and reflects the Iraqi-led nature of the operation, military officials said.

"The plan is imposing the law on anyone who violates it," Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said.

The "reality-based" community really needs to get a grip.

Reality-Based Objectives

The critics of the President uniformly fail to see that our change in plan isn't because our past plans have failed but because we succeeded in past plans.

The President recognizes this basic fact that so many critics seem unable to grasp:

In the last two years, we've seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East -- and we have been sobered by the enemy's fierce reaction. In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution, they drove out the Syrian occupiers and chose new leaders in free elections. In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections, choosing a transitional government, adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world, and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity that we should never forget. (Applause.)

A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon's legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia -- and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in. Every one of us wishes this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. (Applause.) Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. Let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory. (Applause.)

We're carrying out a new strategy in Iraq -- a plan that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.

We had successes in 2005, and in 2006 we've had setbacks in a new environment. We first hoped the Iraqis could contain the new problem through the early summer, then tried to subdue Baghdad under the existing combat parameters at the end of the summer, and now we are committed to a different approach that recognizes that Sadr and his foreign patrons must be confronted and destroyed.

New primary enemy. New strategy. It is very simple. Yet the so-called intellectual superiors of our President either cannot accept this or do not recognize this fact as the basis of debate.

Victor Hanson too speaks of different wars in Iraq, though he takes a broader view than my discussion of war phases since 2003 (and I personally prefer to call the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988 as the First Gulf War).

But whether we are speaking of the changes from 2005 to 2006 as the President did (who also spoke more broadly than just Iraq), the broad sweep of the conflict with Iraq since 1991 as Victor Hanson does, or the changes in the Iraq War since 2003 as I did, the common thread is that in Iraq we faced a new threat in 2006--after the February Samarra bombing.

As 2007 begins, we are embarking on a new approach to defeating this new threat. It is not the war we entered in 2003. But it is the war we are in now.

How can the opponents of the war blindly insist nothing is different? How can they fail to see how we have faced past threats and are now facing a new threat?

It's almost as if they just want us to lose this war. But that couldn't be true, could it?

We've done much. We have more to do. We must not throw away the victory that we are achieving.

UPDATE: Dennis Byrne doesn't understand the inability of some to see what is different in our current plan:

How can so many people--Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), the Boston Globe, Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson, anti-war senators and on and on--be so ignorant about such a simple concept?

They are acting as if President George W. Bush's "new strategy" in Iraq is just to "escalate the war" by sending in 20,000 more troops. As anyone one notch above simpleminded ought to be able to understand, the core of Bush's new strategy is about how to fight the enemy.

Ah yes, the nuanced thinking skills of the reality-debased community.

Once Upon a Time

There was once a time when proper leftists condemned the brutal Baathist regime in Iraq and slammed America for doing nothing about Saddam.

That all changed in 1990 once America began doing something about Saddam.

That's pretty darned nuanced for me. But I'm on record as admitting I need nuance instruction.

More to the point, trying to satisfy our foreign critics is a fool's errand.

Now This Is a Rant

After reading this I can barely dignify my posts as rants.

I stand in awe. Bravo.

And the author of the article being blasted surely deserves the rant, I should add.

A Little Insurance

Our Strategic Petroleum Reserve is full and getting bigger. And general stocks of oil are increasing at a 4-year high rate (I don't think this article is saying the stocks themselves are at a four year high). See this article:

The market's demand worries appeared overblown, however, when the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported Wednesday that the nation's crude inventories rose 700,000 barrels to 322.2 million barrels last week — building on the previous week's increase, which was the biggest in more than four years.

Gasoline inventories rose 4 million barrels to 220.8 million barrels. Distillate fuels, which include heating oil and diesel, rose 700,000 barrels to 142.6 million barrels. Heating oil inventories slipped, but a huge rise in diesel fuel more than offset the loss.

I've thought that the increase in the SPR was significant in the past, possibly indicating pending military action against Iran, but was wrong.

I can't always be wrong on this, can I?

Not Deep--But Far

I speculated that Iran's nuclear infrastructure was not so much buried deep but dispersed wide to other countries.

I named North Korea as a prime suspect.

So what do you know?

North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year.

Under the terms of a new understanding between the two countries, the North Koreans have agreed to share all the data and information they received from their successful test last October with Teheran's nuclear scientists.

The Iranians are busy, too:

"The Iranians are working closely with the North Koreans to study the results of last year's North Korean nuclear bomb test," said the European defence official.

"We have identified increased activity at all of Iran's nuclear facilities since the turn of the year," he said.

"All the indications are that the Iranians are working hard to prepare for their own underground nuclear test."

It's almost like they have something planned.

The Taliban "Surge"

In Afghanistan, the Taliban surge in the spring to kill and intimidate Afghans (and last summer, to be killed in large numbers by government, American, and NATO forces).

And over this winter, unlike past winters, we have been going on the offensive to seek out the enemy and kill them while they are trying to keep warm and prepare for the spring.

Keep in mind that these enemy surges are temporary and that the last one was bigger not because we are faltering in Afghanistan, but because Taliban recruited in Pakistan were sent to be slaughtered. And this happened not because Pakistan is looking the other way, but because the Pakistani intelligence service has ramped up their support for the Taliban:

The recent capture, in Afghanistan, of Taliban communications director, Abdul Haq, has led to some embarrassing revelations. Haq, who has held his job for about 14 months, admitted that the recent increase in Taliban activity was facilitated by Pakistani intelligence (the CIA-like ISI). Pakistan has long denied this, but then they have to do that. ISI is an organization that has long been tainted by the disease (Islamic radicalism) that it is assigned to control. Very curious situation, but the same could be said of Pakistani politics in general.

Pakistan is a net asset in the war on Islamist terrorism. But sometimes it seems like a close call.

Band of Brooders

The story about the reply to the SOTU did not even await the actual SOTU.

The President spoke eloquently of seeking victory in Iraq. That is all I care about. All the other bullet points are mere details to be haggled over in committee rooms. They matter little in the big picture. The war is what matters.

So what does the loyal opposition say?

"The president took us into this war recklessly," the Democrats' chosen messenger, Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, said in his prepared response to Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday evening. "We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable — and predicted — disarray that has followed."

Recklessly? The UN route verified that Saddam had not obeyed prior UN resolutions to verify his destruction of WMD. Congressional debate led to a declaration of war based on widely held intelligence from around the world that Saddam had WMD. The debate in Congress was lengthy and a Republican-held House and Democratic-held Senate in 2002 voted overwhelmingly on numerous grounds to go to war and depose Saddam's sick regime.

If the disarray that followed our victory in April 2003 was predicted, why did the loyal opposition vote for war? The truth of that vote is that many lacked the courage to vote their true feelings. They assumed an easy war and did not wish to be on record as being opposed to ending a tyrant's rule. For these people I have nothing but contempt.

And for those who did support the war, but who now bail because it does not follow their notions of a perfect war, grow up. Enemies fight back. So we must kill more of them to win.

The truth is that war is never certain in its course or outcome. Webb has forgotten that war is not a story to be pitched to a publisher and written according to an outline. Yet once begun it must be fought until won.

Our Congress voted to go to war. This should have meant that we all resolved to wage war until victory.

But many in Congress now recant their vote. Are our representatives in Congress really telling us that they find defeat acceptable? And so now our nation's military in Iraq is held hostage to the predictable--and predicted--second thoughts that have led too many in Congress to quail at what real war is and not what they thought war was after two antiseptic (for us) bombing wars in the Balkans.

Yes, it is difficult. Yet not as costly as past wars. And we fight it well and not incompetently as some recklessly and ignorantly charge. Stop all the nitpicking and wringing of hands over the course of this war. We are winning this war in Iraq.

And we must win it. The cost of failure is too high.

UPDATE: A small band in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has spoken:

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a nonbinding measure saying President Bush's plan to increase troops in Iraq is "not in the national interest of the United States."

I wouldn't trust this bunch to recognize our national interest if it flew into our tallest building and brought it crashing to the ground, killing thousands.

Preparing for the Next War

After the summer Hizbollah War, I noted that Israel would learn from its failure to pulverize Hizbollah in Lebanon and that the next time Israel would be prepared to win. This is one way the Israelis are preparing to win in a new city they built:

For Israeli troops frustrated by last summer's war in Lebanon, it was the perfect place for practicing how to avoid another inconclusive outcome.

"We're definitely training for the next war," said Sgt. Shalev Nachum, a medic who fought in the Lebanon campaign. "Next time, it will be different."

The $40 million Urban Training Center, built with help from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was unveiled as Israel named a new army chief of staff. Gabi Ashkenazi, a retired general, succeeds Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, who resigned last week over the failure of Israeli's largest operation since 1982.

The next war seems fairly inevitable. Peaceful protesting for these thugs is never more than a pause before striking:

Hezbollah-led protesters burned tires and cars and clashed with government supporters Tuesday, paralyzing Beirut and areas across Lebanon in the worst violence yet in the pro-Iranian group's campaign to topple U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fuad Saniora.

Given that the Hizbollah-Syria-Iran axis is trying to recover their lost ground in Lebanon after the Cedar Revolution expelled the Syrian army, that war could arrive fairly soon.

Unless you still think UNIFAIL will solve the problem in southern Lebanon.

The Cost of Iraq

As the cost of fighting in Iraq goes up, keep in mind that some of the costs are not really war costs. But with a war on, the military can do things that it might not otherwise be able to do if they did not charge it to the war account.

Case in point:

As DID's past coverage has noted, the RESET process takes used vehicles apart, inspects the parts, then replaces any defective parts and refurbishes the equipment to like-new condition. Sometimes upgrades are also performed. RESET and related processes like remanufacture/upgrades are being performed on M1 Abrams tanks, Bradley IFV/CFVs, HMMWV jeeps, et. al., and even attack helicopters. It usually takes place when the vehicles return from the front lines in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations where sand damage and increased wear have taken their toll.

Many of these vehicles were also produced in the 1980s, and are reaching an age where this would be a wise measure regardless.

Refurbishing is necessary because the war causes wear and tear. The upgrades are good to have but are not a direct cost of the war. But that is how the ledgers are written up.

Oh, and also keep in mind that one of the reasons our casualties are so low in our campaigns in Iraq and Afghnistan is that we spend lavishly. It is far cheaper to send a new private into a room to check it out than to use all manner of technology to do so whenever possible or to equip the private with as much equipment as possible for him to survive that peek if a soldier or Marine must enter. But the human cost of saving money would be pretty high. So complain about casualties or complain about spending--but try not to do both in the same breath.

And we haven't even begun to explore the costs of retreating from Iraq.

UPDATE: Strategypage notes this cost of the war, too:

A lot of those billions are also going into research and development. Nothing sneaky here, the R&D is directly related to conditions in Iraq (dealing with roadside bombs and the special intelligence needs for running down terrorist groups.) The new techniques developed include lots of computers and cutting-edge sensors. This stuff will be useful in any kind of war, and the army is getting the money to develop and build this advanced gear years before they could expect it in peacetime. Moreover, they can take the new equipment and test it under combat conditions. So, while the war is expensive, the army is seeing to it that lots of the money goes to fund long range needs.

Given that this money is going to keeping troops alive in combat, I find it amusing (in a horrified sort of way, of course) that the people complaining about the cost of the war are generally the same people who ignorantly or maliciously charge that our troops have gone to war poorly equipped or trained.

Still Waiting

The Libby trial is under way over L'Affaire Plame.

There is still only one question I want answered in this entire affair.

Our press remains wholly uncurious about this question.

So Tu Brute?

The President will give the State of the Union address tonight.

New and rude Senator Webb will rebut the speech:

Facing a major political showdown over his strategy, Bush said in remarks prepared for his State of the Union address that "the consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching." Democrats — and even some Republicans — scoffed at his policy.

"They don't have a plan," said freshman Sen. Jim Webb, picked by the Democrats to deliver their response to Bush. "What they have put on the table is more a tactical adjustment." Webb, a former Vietnam veteran, opposed Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Giving somebody who is either unaware of the plan or unwilling to recognize the plan the slot to rebut the SOTU is sad. Tactical adjustment, indeed. When opponents of the new plan can't even bring themselves to debate the plan by hiding behind the flimsy excuse that there is no plan, the depths to which the opposition will sink becomes all too obvious.

Senator Webb is highly misinformed. There is a new plan. And we've had a plan all along. But circumstances change and so we must adapt. Reality-based, indeed.

Buying Time

Taiwan counts on America intervening in a matter of days should China invade.

China can mass superior power in the short run around Taiwan, but that edge cannot last. China counts on toppling the Taiwanese government before we can bring to bear our superior overall power. Assassin's Mace weapons nothwithstanding (notional weapons designed to defeat our strengths), China can only delay our accumulation of superior power and not nullify it.

The question is whether Taiwan lasts long enough for us to bring our power to bear.

We have a weapon to slow the Chinese down, too:

The U.S. Air Force recently held, and publicized, a B-52 training mission that involved dropping naval mines. This is something the air force has been doing since World War II, and with great success.

The mines we used are for shallow waters. I assume we have others for deep waters. Even before we have to decide whether to shoot at Chinese ships and planes heading for Taiwan, I imagine we could drop mines between China and Taiwan.

Shoot, we could drop garbage cans partially filled with metal scraps and the Chinese would have to slow down to clear them.

The Chinese need time to conquer Taiwan. The Taiwanese need time for us to reach them with sufficient power. And we need time to actually decide to intervene on Taiwan's side.

We are buying time. China is buying time.

Only Taiwan is not buying time. They continue to assume that our cavalry will reach the homestead before the hostiles burn their home to the ground.

Which means Taiwan is living on borrowed time.

Nancy Boys

A small number of Republicans are joining Speaker Pelosi's war against the Iraq War.

And al Qaeda's so-called taunts about President Bush's plan for Iraq fail to rise to the level of a third-tier Dail Kos poster.

But remember, even though they have similar goals and a common enemy does not mean there is any operational link between the two.

Of course, that isn't entirely relevant.

Overdrawn

Barry McCaffrey built up quite the line of credit with me based on his setting the land-speed record in the Middle East as commander of the 24th Infantry Division (and attached armored cavalry regiment that he used like a subordinate brigade under the division flag) in 1991. He drove into southern Iraq and--after the cease fire--completed the destruction of a Republican Guard division in his sector. This was good work.

But his early panic as a television commentator at the first delay during the drive on Baghdad in March 2003 made me wonder about him. So too have more recent remarks (like here and here).

But his 1991 work led me to excuse him. I wonder about him not simply for disagreeing with me, I hasten to add. I had disagreements, but surely we wanted the same thing--victory. But just being wrong on things that he should know makes me doubt that assumption.

With these remarks, McCaffrey has officially exhausted my respect for him. I will always thank him for his work as a division commander in 1991 and his military service in general. But it no longer carries over into his current role as commentator. I don't know what he believes in, but given his blatant inaccuracies over the war, I find it hard to accept that he believes we should win the war we are in.

I'm sure he doesn't care. But I do. So his account his closed.

If It Is So Bad, Why Make It Up?

I apologized for stating that Jamil Hussein did not seem to exist. Well, I didn't really doubt he existed as much as I doubted who he really worked for. I tempered my apology by noting my limited interest in Le Affaire Jamil Hussein as a distraction from recognizing the enemy disinformation campaigns that our media falls for every day.

The Left hauled out and displayed the "mission accomplished" banner when AP claimed to have proof he exists. That proclamation seems premature--at least in the sense that he is a real Iraqi police officer--since nobody has seen him since the so-called confirmation.

More importantly, the Left never addressed the apparent faked news stories attributed to him.

The Lefty bloggers merely retorted that Iraq was so bad that even if Hussein't stories are faked, Iraq is still really bad. So, they say, so what? (Shades of fake but accurate, here.)

So I ask, if Iraq is so bad, why not simply report on the many horrible things that do happen rather than take the risk of getting caught faking news that isn't necessary to prove the terrible nature of the war in Iraq?

There is an insurgency and terror campaign being waged by Baathists, jihadis, and Sadrists aided by Syria, Sunni Arabs outside of Iraq, and Iran. The death toll is real and terrible. I do not doubt that. Accurately reporting on all that would paint a grim picture.

But what it wouldn't paint, apparently, is a picture of an Iraq beyond hope that is spiraling into civil war as Shias hunt down Sunni Arabs and an Iraq where the government of Iraq can't protect innocent Sunnis from this fate. This is a picture that supports the attempt by our enemies to keep the Sunni-Shia fight going and to push Sunnis away from cooperating with the government. This is the picture that Jamil Hussein wanted to be created in his wide-ranging detective work. A picture AP was all too willing develop.

I don't doubt that Captain Hussein exists. He may even be in the Iraqi police force. But who ultimately pays him? Tehran?

All war is ugly--including Iraq. But very few wars are unwinnable--including Iraq.

Reaping What They Sow

We are moving forward with putting missile defenses in Eastern Europe:

The United States has entered a decisive phase in a plan to set up missile defense sites in Eastern Europe — a system Washington says is aimed at protecting itself and its allies against potential attacks from the Middle East.

Eastern European governmens will need to agree, of course. They are allies and not subject peoples.

The Russians aren't happy:

But the prospect of sophisticated U.S. radar and interceptor systems in formerly communist Eastern Europe has led Russian military leaders to warn of a new arms race. The system "would create a clear threat for Russia," Col. Gen. Vladimir Popovkin, the chief of Russia's Space Forces, warned Monday.

I hate to point out the freaking obvious to the good Colonel General Popovkin, but if his blasted country wasn't helping the Iranians get nuclear weapons we wouldn't really worry about putting missiles into Europe to defend ourselves and our allies, now would we?

Nor is the fact that our new Eastern European allies are "former communists" mean anything--other than that communism lost the Cold War. Just because the Soviets used to run them does not give Moscow the right to dictate their behavior. Not anymore.

And the Russians might want to consider that the money they are making from selling nuclear technology and conventional arms won't pay for their side of the arms race they foolishly assert we are starting.

Actually, I think we'll be better off when we are dealing with Russians and not former Soviets. Until then, the reflex to help our enemies will linger on.

RIP 38

May Gerald R. Ford rest in peace. His sense of duty was inspiring.

He may not have had much time to be president, but I believe he had time enough to restore enough faith in our country to put us on the path to victory in the Cold War.

From our nadir of the withdrawal from South Vietnam and the fall of Saigon, his integrity almost single-handedly pulled us out of our defeatism and allowed us to celebrate our Bicentennial with pride and confidence in the future of our nation. That optimism is justified.

I thank President Ford for that contribution to our country in his short tenure as our 38th president.

I was waiting for the resolution to be introduced rather than comment before.

The Clooney Brigade

George Clooney wants the US to intervene in Darfur, as do a lot of other concerned types.

Consider that the tools of private warfare are advancing and the ability to put private combat brigades into operation exists too:

A year ago, Blackwater USA, one of the major providers of security personnel in Iraq, offered to provide a brigade of peacekeepers for any operation, anywhere in the world. In particular, Blackwater said that it could provide a brigade in a place like Darfur for much less money than it would cost NATO to provide the same number of troops. Blackwater proposed providing peacekeepers, not conventional combat troops. This proposal was based on Blackwaters two years of experience in Iraq, where it provided thousands of foreign and Iraqi security personnel. Blackwater hires former military personnel, especially those who have been in Special Operations units, for its security jobs.

A generation ago, rock groups sang to raise money to alleviate the effects of war.

Might a new generation raise money to raise such brigades and send them to Darfur instead of lobbying?

And might not activists with "Save Darfur" bumper stickers get the opportunity to enlist in such a brigade? Perhaps tie-dye shirts and sandals could be the uniform of the day!

I think the answer to the first question is yes. The Spanish Civil War shows that it is possible.

The Spanish Civil War shows the latter question could be answered with a yes, too.

And of course, there will be a lot of "chicken doves" who'd rather not translate their "Save X" bumper sticker into volunteering. I look forward to the opportunity to mock when that day comes.