A year after their intervention with our backing, the Ethiopians continue to battle jihadi clans in Somalia.
I'll admit that I am surprised that Ethiopian troops remain to fight the jihadis. While I don't think many Ethiopians are in Somalia, I figured once the Ethiopians broke the back of the Islamic Courts Movement that the locals could handle the remaining jihadis, leaving Ethiopia free to leave in a few months time.
Ethiopia remains, with her troops doing good work in busting up the jihadis whose tribal tactics can't match Ethiopian training and organization. Clearly, logistics aren't a strain. There must not be very many Ethiopian troops in Somalia.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
An Inconvenient Poof
Global warming is my guilty pleasure for blogging. My basic position is this:
Indeed, I don't know why people think that our puny presence on the planet has more impact than the big hot thing in the sky. I already noted that under President Bush, the global average temperature has not budged.
This trend has continued, as Sensing notes, quoting a scientist:
So we're at nine years under Bush the Carbon Emitter with global temperatures static. No bad for single-handedly destroying Kyoto, eh?
It's actually funny that a Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Al Gore for his alarmist twaddle about global nonwarming. With the planet stabilizing and possibly about to enter a cooling phase, watch for the mass movement of global warming believers to crumble.
The true believers will of course deny all since they believe. Oh, and they care. What else matters? Certainly not the science. Face it, those people have issues.
On the verge of victory in Iraq and global cooling. Does being a Neanderthal American derided by the majority's belief in the conventional wisdom get any better than at this moment in time?
One, I'm not convinced that the temperatures today are higher over a long enough period to be considered the highest ever rather than a blip in the long run.
Two, I'm not convinced that people are at fault for any rise even if there is a significant rise in temperatures this century.
And three, and this is the most important part, I think the idea that we must cripple economic growth in order to slow any increase in temperatures is sheer stupidity. Coping with change is cheaper and more effective than trying to stem the incoming tide.
Indeed, I don't know why people think that our puny presence on the planet has more impact than the big hot thing in the sky. I already noted that under President Bush, the global average temperature has not budged.
This trend has continued, as Sensing notes, quoting a scientist:
Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder.
So we're at nine years under Bush the Carbon Emitter with global temperatures static. No bad for single-handedly destroying Kyoto, eh?
It's actually funny that a Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Al Gore for his alarmist twaddle about global nonwarming. With the planet stabilizing and possibly about to enter a cooling phase, watch for the mass movement of global warming believers to crumble.
The true believers will of course deny all since they believe. Oh, and they care. What else matters? Certainly not the science. Face it, those people have issues.
On the verge of victory in Iraq and global cooling. Does being a Neanderthal American derided by the majority's belief in the conventional wisdom get any better than at this moment in time?
Disengage
South Korea's new president isn't going to be as generous with North Korea as Seoul has been for a decade:
Not that he is a rollback kind of guy, but he is more prone to demand more concrete action from North Korea for what they get from South Korea.
President-elect Lee Myung-bak said Thursday he would not shy from criticizing North Korea's authoritarian regime, ending a taboo by a decade of liberal South Korean leaders who have aggressively sought closer ties with Pyongyang.
Lee, who won a landslide victory in Wednesday's vote, represents the conservative opposition Grand National Party that has been heavily critical of the South's engagement policy toward the North.
Not that he is a rollback kind of guy, but he is more prone to demand more concrete action from North Korea for what they get from South Korea.
Still a Target
Russia will fuel up the Iranian reactor that is being built at Bushehr:
Once loaded with nuclear fuel, I assume that striking the facility is rather ruled out lest radiation escape and contaminate the area.
So fall 2008 is the last time to hit the facility with an air strike should that option be under consideration.
Still, that doesn't mean that the reactor is a no-go zone. We have many ways of taking out Iranian nuclear facilities. Perhaps a Marine Expeditionary Brigade gets the task of seizing the reactor located along the Gulf while technicians disable the reactor safely.
Could we withdraw the fuel, too, if we had a week to do so?
"I can say with certainty that the plant won't be launched before late 2008," Sergei Shmatko, the head of the Atomstroiexport company building the nuclear plant, said on a trip to China, according to the ITAR-Tass, RIA Novosti and Interfax news agencies.
Russia on Monday made its first shipment of nuclear fuel to the Bushehr plant, paving the way for the long-delayed startup of the 1,000-megawatt light-water reactor.
Russian officials have said that fuel deliveries would begin about a half year before Bushehr was expected to go into service, but they remained coy about the precise launch date.
Once loaded with nuclear fuel, I assume that striking the facility is rather ruled out lest radiation escape and contaminate the area.
So fall 2008 is the last time to hit the facility with an air strike should that option be under consideration.
Still, that doesn't mean that the reactor is a no-go zone. We have many ways of taking out Iranian nuclear facilities. Perhaps a Marine Expeditionary Brigade gets the task of seizing the reactor located along the Gulf while technicians disable the reactor safely.
Could we withdraw the fuel, too, if we had a week to do so?
The Reality-Resistant Community
The Left has an easy explanation for the recent dramatic decrease in Iraqi civilian casualties.
You see, according to them, the killers ran out of targets. The Sunnis are all ethnically cleansed from the mixed neighborhoods and so the killings naturally drop.
There is a smidgen on truth in this explanation. Surely, some of the decrease is due to Sunnis getting the heck out of Dodge. And if this is truly the real explanation, then the Left is implying that this decrease in killing is in fact a permanent decrease and not a lull. If the Sunnis aren't there to be killed, the violence clearly can't resume. War over, eh?
But in fact there are still Sunni Arabs in Iraq and Baghdad. So why aren't the Shia death squads pursuing the Sunnis to drive them from the rest of Baghdad? Hatred should be motivation enough to follow them given that Sunnis from all over the Moslem world have enough hate to travel to iraq to kill Shias.
And the dramatic decline of al Qaeda suicide bombing attacks is explained how?
And are reduced American troop casualties due to a decline in the number of American troops in Iraq?
The Weekly Standard addresses this issue of how some are denying military success by providing fanciful excuses for the decline in civilian casualties:
And this posting shows that it is more than just our military operations:
The Left used to say that Iraqis were too secular to cooperate with jihadis. Now the Left says the Iraqis are too hopped up on religious differences to stop killing each other. In fact, the killing was instigated by foreigners coming in from outside to fight their war on a new battlefield. Iraqis are still capable of ending violence despite the ample reasons they have to be angry.
Clearly, killings are down because our enemies are knocked back and knocked back hard. Clearly, Iraqis feel secure enough to declare their desire for peace. I don't know if our enemies in Iraq can reverse these separate trends, but these trends are real. Iraq is being depopulated of enemies--not people.
You see, according to them, the killers ran out of targets. The Sunnis are all ethnically cleansed from the mixed neighborhoods and so the killings naturally drop.
There is a smidgen on truth in this explanation. Surely, some of the decrease is due to Sunnis getting the heck out of Dodge. And if this is truly the real explanation, then the Left is implying that this decrease in killing is in fact a permanent decrease and not a lull. If the Sunnis aren't there to be killed, the violence clearly can't resume. War over, eh?
But in fact there are still Sunni Arabs in Iraq and Baghdad. So why aren't the Shia death squads pursuing the Sunnis to drive them from the rest of Baghdad? Hatred should be motivation enough to follow them given that Sunnis from all over the Moslem world have enough hate to travel to iraq to kill Shias.
And the dramatic decline of al Qaeda suicide bombing attacks is explained how?
And are reduced American troop casualties due to a decline in the number of American troops in Iraq?
The Weekly Standard addresses this issue of how some are denying military success by providing fanciful excuses for the decline in civilian casualties:
The decline in violence was attributed to a number of factors, but primarily the fact that, as Gibbs said, "we have defeated al Qaeda in Rashid, and what little that are here, are low level soldiers that are without leadership or supply." He said they'd "taken out all of those leaders," and that he's "not worried about al Qaeda anymore." On the other hand, Gibbs did say that Shia extremists groups were a serious concern. But he qualified that statement by saying even there the violence has been kept to a minimum:
"The people are tired of the violence, and whenever it comes up, they very quickly, within 24-48 hours, tell us who did it, where they're at, and we go in and get them."
These tips are a major contributor to the reduction in violence, he said, but he was quick to point out that just as important was the Coalition's targeting of senior insurgent leaders.
Other "really good news for us," Gibbs said, was that the people of Rashid have "embraced reconciliation." I asked him how he would respond to the charge that any reduction in violence might be attributed to massive ethnic cleansing, which has segregated Baghdad's neighborhoods. His response:
"I dispute that claim that ethnic cleansing is already done. We have lots of mixed areas, we do have some Sunni only areas--and when I say Sunni only I mean 80 percent Sunni, the rest is Shia and others--but we're not seeing any violence in those mixed neighborhoods. And that's attributable to the reconciliation efforts we have ongoing here."
Another theory I bounced off him, which was put forward in a recent issue of Newsweek, was that the Iraqis are merely getting better at hiding the bodies (Iraq's Marlo Stansfields as FP Passport put it). Gibbs's response:
"We have pretty good techniques for finding bodies--and again, dead bodies equal violence, and the people are telling us about the violence when it happens, and we're getting in there very quickly to confirm or deny those reports."
And this posting shows that it is more than just our military operations:
We can all agree that the politicians in Iraq are not stepping up, but ordinary Iraqis certainly are -- with the help of the U.S. military. Here's how the Guardian's Michael Howard in Baghdad describes them:
"Muhammad, a Sunni Arab, and his Shia colleagues in the neighbourhood watch group are determined to reverse the ethnic cleansing. Last month, the group agreed to protect a Sunni mosque in his street from local Shia militias. They have also been mediating between the divided communities either side of the highway."
The reporter explains why this is important: "The result was an understanding: Sunni families would return to their former homes in the heavily Shia areas, while Shia families crossed back into the mainly Sunni streets. The two communities agreed to guarantee the safety of the returnees. Such was the popular backing for the deal that even the local Mahdi army commander had to acquiesce."
And about those unfixable ancient hatreds that so many people said were the root of the problems in Iraq: "'We've been neighbours for 25 years and we feel like brothers,' said Muhammad. 'We will help them to guard and respect their mosques, and they won't harm me or my family'."
The Left used to say that Iraqis were too secular to cooperate with jihadis. Now the Left says the Iraqis are too hopped up on religious differences to stop killing each other. In fact, the killing was instigated by foreigners coming in from outside to fight their war on a new battlefield. Iraqis are still capable of ending violence despite the ample reasons they have to be angry.
Clearly, killings are down because our enemies are knocked back and knocked back hard. Clearly, Iraqis feel secure enough to declare their desire for peace. I don't know if our enemies in Iraq can reverse these separate trends, but these trends are real. Iraq is being depopulated of enemies--not people.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
An Aircraft for the Second Largest Carrier Fleet
The Weekly Standard wonders why we want the F-35B STOVL (short take off and vertical landing) fighter-bomber, citing another article:
Building an airfield takes a long time. That won't happen in the early hours of an attack. Capturing an enemy airfield and using it to stage F-35s closer to the front or using a section of highway is more likely than the notion we'd land in a rock-filled field. Heck, we might face an enemy with anti-ship missiles that prevent us from getting big carriers too close initially. So I think the F-35B's ability to operate from less than pristine facilities is a good capability to have.
But mostly, I like the F-35B for the capability it gives us to equip our hidden aircraft carrier reserve fleet:
If we don't need to lift a Marine Expeditionary Force with one wave, we'll have these vessels available even though they don't rate a mention as a part of our carrier fleet, yet are comparable to those small carriers of our allies and potential foes. And the F-35B is recognized even in this critiwue as appropriate for those small carriers.
We have a reserve carrier fleet hiding in plain sight needing only an aircraft to be able to strike hard against enemy sea and land targets and control the air.
Build those F-35Bs.
Go read the whole thing for yourself, but I've never found the rationale for STOVL very convincing. The Marines want to be able to operate from remote bases close to the battle, but a first-class Navy ought to be able to seize and build landing strips, position aircraft carriers, refuel in mid-air, etc., so as to obviate the need for STOVL. Our allies, the British and the Italians specifically, operate small carriers that rely on STOVL aircraft. So it makes a lot of sense as an export. But the added cost in R&D is substantial, and it has long since become a serious drag on an already expensive program.
If the Marines ever get into a situation where they are dependent on STOVL for close air support, we will have already lost the battle.
Building an airfield takes a long time. That won't happen in the early hours of an attack. Capturing an enemy airfield and using it to stage F-35s closer to the front or using a section of highway is more likely than the notion we'd land in a rock-filled field. Heck, we might face an enemy with anti-ship missiles that prevent us from getting big carriers too close initially. So I think the F-35B's ability to operate from less than pristine facilities is a good capability to have.
But mostly, I like the F-35B for the capability it gives us to equip our hidden aircraft carrier reserve fleet:
These [small carriers equipped with F-35s] will outclass anybody else's actual fleet carriers. And we don't even really count them as carriers. Yet they'd do perfectly fine as carriers in a pinch and would be able to carry out various escort and ASW tasks quite well and free up the big decks for offensive action. They will be able to lead expeditionary strike groups.
If we don't need to lift a Marine Expeditionary Force with one wave, we'll have these vessels available even though they don't rate a mention as a part of our carrier fleet, yet are comparable to those small carriers of our allies and potential foes. And the F-35B is recognized even in this critiwue as appropriate for those small carriers.
We have a reserve carrier fleet hiding in plain sight needing only an aircraft to be able to strike hard against enemy sea and land targets and control the air.
Build those F-35Bs.
The Blessings of the International Community
Conventional wisdom says that we must have international support for our wars. This is what makes Afghanistan the "good" war while Iraq is a unilateral "bad" war.
People forget that the UN has repeatedly blessed our Iraq mission even if we didn't get a second resolution during 2003 (on top of the unfulfilled resolutions of 19990 and 1991):
Yet despite the blessings of the international community, our Left insists we are in a unilateral mission.
And speaking of the blessings of the international community, how's the international community doing on that UN-sanctioned and NATO-authorized Afghanistan mission?
I'm not feeling the love. Nor am I feeling the value of the international community's support. Indeed, Europeans seem to oppose our "good" war nearly as much as our "bad" war.
Many blame President Bush for the growing distance between us and our European allies. But when you see our alliances with Japan, India, and Australia strengthened in the same period, is it us? It is equally tempting to blame Europe for not spending enough on their own defense. This is true, but it was also true during the Cold War.
Remember, Europe was central to our defense alliance in the Cold War not because they would go wherever needed globally to fight with us, but because Europe was the potential theater of war. War would come to Europe if the Soviet Union went to war no matter what Europe spent. Europe had no choice but to fight at our side.
Now, by contrast, Europe must travel to the war and if they don't spend enough they can't get to the war--not even the miniscule effort in Afghanistan is easily sustainable based on their capabilities and willpower. Maybe it is more accurate to simply blame the times we live in for our trans-Atlantic divide:
Which is true enough, though I hardly see the fluctuating common interests leading to war with allies. But it is true that our Western alliance may be beyond the control of any president. In peace it may look fine, but in war our alliances may mean little. And if our alliance partners are this unreliable, how will we get the international community to agree with us? We'll be forced to craft an alliance of the willing (call it "selective co-operation" if you must to avoid giving Bush any credit, but it is the same thing) for most everything we might want to do.
And funny enough, we are closer to winning our "bad" war with only Iraqis fighting at our side and a dwindling coalition of the willing helping us than we are in Afghanistan with the official blessings of the UN and NATO that haven't provided very much actual combat power.
But as long as our Congress does its job by appropriating the needed money, we'll do fine with our wars without the blessings of the sainted international community by cobbling together willing allies for specific missions--just as we have done these last six years.
Ultimately, we have to fight our wars with our own efforts without hoping allies will do the heavy lifting for us. Hoping for more from the international community may not be realistic no matter what foreign policy realists believe.
People forget that the UN has repeatedly blessed our Iraq mission even if we didn't get a second resolution during 2003 (on top of the unfulfilled resolutions of 19990 and 1991):
The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Tuesday to extend the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq for one year, a move that Iraq's prime minister said would be his nation's "final request" for help.
Yet despite the blessings of the international community, our Left insists we are in a unilateral mission.
And speaking of the blessings of the international community, how's the international community doing on that UN-sanctioned and NATO-authorized Afghanistan mission?
The U.S. is upset that NATO countries have failed to deliver three infantry battalions, 3,000 trainers and 20 transport and attack helicopters they promised to send. The reasons are part political (the Afghan operations are unpopular in Europe) and partly practical (the Cold War era forces most NATO nations have are not organized or equipped situations like Afghanistan. ... To further complicate matters, Holland announced that they were withdrawing their troops from Afghanistan in 2010, no matter what. Many Europeans believe that if they just ignore Afghanistan, there will be no problem. Americans are more inclined to see the country becoming another base for international terrorism if the Islamic radicals are not neutralized (one way or another.)
I'm not feeling the love. Nor am I feeling the value of the international community's support. Indeed, Europeans seem to oppose our "good" war nearly as much as our "bad" war.
Many blame President Bush for the growing distance between us and our European allies. But when you see our alliances with Japan, India, and Australia strengthened in the same period, is it us? It is equally tempting to blame Europe for not spending enough on their own defense. This is true, but it was also true during the Cold War.
Remember, Europe was central to our defense alliance in the Cold War not because they would go wherever needed globally to fight with us, but because Europe was the potential theater of war. War would come to Europe if the Soviet Union went to war no matter what Europe spent. Europe had no choice but to fight at our side.
Now, by contrast, Europe must travel to the war and if they don't spend enough they can't get to the war--not even the miniscule effort in Afghanistan is easily sustainable based on their capabilities and willpower. Maybe it is more accurate to simply blame the times we live in for our trans-Atlantic divide:
Alliances require predictability: of threat, outlook and obligations. But it is precisely this characteristic that is likely to be in short supply in a world defined by shifting threats, differing perceptions and societies with widely divergent readiness to maintain and use military force. The 21st-century world is far more dynamic and fluid than the relatively stable and predictable period of the cold war.
This is in no way meant to defend or advocate unilateralism. But it is a recognition that many in Europe disagree with some US objectives, with how the US goes about realising them, or both. As a result, the US often will be unable to count on the support of its traditional allies. Also weakening Europe’s centrality to US foreign policy is that its capacity for global intervention is diminishing, especially in the military field. That is true even for occasions in which it does find itself inclined to act with, or in support of, the US. Afghanistan is becoming a case in point. The strengthening of European Union foreign policy institutions will help but will not be enough to reverse this trend.
Instead, we now face a future of “selective co-operation”. We are entering an era of foreign policy and international relations where countries are neither automatically predictable adversaries nor allies. They may be active partners on one issue on one day and largely inactive observers on another issue the next. Or they may carry out alternative or opposing policies.
Which is true enough, though I hardly see the fluctuating common interests leading to war with allies. But it is true that our Western alliance may be beyond the control of any president. In peace it may look fine, but in war our alliances may mean little. And if our alliance partners are this unreliable, how will we get the international community to agree with us? We'll be forced to craft an alliance of the willing (call it "selective co-operation" if you must to avoid giving Bush any credit, but it is the same thing) for most everything we might want to do.
And funny enough, we are closer to winning our "bad" war with only Iraqis fighting at our side and a dwindling coalition of the willing helping us than we are in Afghanistan with the official blessings of the UN and NATO that haven't provided very much actual combat power.
But as long as our Congress does its job by appropriating the needed money, we'll do fine with our wars without the blessings of the sainted international community by cobbling together willing allies for specific missions--just as we have done these last six years.
Ultimately, we have to fight our wars with our own efforts without hoping allies will do the heavy lifting for us. Hoping for more from the international community may not be realistic no matter what foreign policy realists believe.
Vremya
Time's man of the year is Vladimir Putin:
What can I say? Our media elites love their foreign despots. Our elites confuse sullen, hopeless, passivity in the face of massive state power for "stability."
Putin has been happy to grab more power while he is popular. But the power he gets now will not be relinquished should the people change their mind about Putin.
And it does no good to say that the man of the year designation is not an "honor" but rather a recognition of his impact. There is no objective calculation involved here. Time decided that Putin should be named and all their biases came into play here.
The designation, based on subjective criteria, could have noted the achievements of anybody else without the adverse impact this non-honor will have on the promotion of democracy.
Putin will see it as an honor and so will much of the world. This is shameful. Remember, corpses are stable. Don't overrate stability.
Time magazine on Wednesday named Russian President Vladimir Putin its 2007 "Person of the Year."
The nod went to the Russian leader because of Putin's "extraordinary feat of leadership in taking a country that was in chaos and bringing it stability," said Richard Stengel, Time's managing editor.
What can I say? Our media elites love their foreign despots. Our elites confuse sullen, hopeless, passivity in the face of massive state power for "stability."
Putin has been happy to grab more power while he is popular. But the power he gets now will not be relinquished should the people change their mind about Putin.
And it does no good to say that the man of the year designation is not an "honor" but rather a recognition of his impact. There is no objective calculation involved here. Time decided that Putin should be named and all their biases came into play here.
The designation, based on subjective criteria, could have noted the achievements of anybody else without the adverse impact this non-honor will have on the promotion of democracy.
Putin will see it as an honor and so will much of the world. This is shameful. Remember, corpses are stable. Don't overrate stability.
Moving Through Water
Our strategy of the surge is working. Logically, many contend, this would have worked if done years ago:
That leap of logic is wrong. It may ultimately be a correct judgment, but just as likely it is all wrong. Just as invading Normandy and driving into the heart of the Reich was a good strategy in June 1944, such a strategy in June 1942 or June 1943 would have spelled an Allied disaster and quite possibly led to German victory in World War II. And if done in 1945, we might have been met by Russian troops twenty miles inland. Timing is everything.
Consider that after the surge we believe the correct strategy for Iraq is to turn over fighting duties to Iraqis gradually, yet before the surge we can see that Iraqis were not capable of doing the exact same mission. If turning over fighting to Iraqis in 2008 and 2009 is right, does it mean doing the exact same thing in 2006 and 2007 would have been right? Obviously not since we had to use the surge strategy to get us to where we are today.
Consider further that our war effort hung by the thread of a few votes in the Senate that halted the Congresisonal retreat long enough for our new strategy to bring evidence of victory. Could the additional casualties we would have suffered in a different environment that may not have produced the same results that we are seeing now have made the difference in those critical summer votes?
Victor Hanson writes about our expectations of war and the judgments of mistakes:
While it would be wrong to say we are merely at the next point in a well thought our plan, it is probably far more accurate to say that we are applying the right strategy now and this success has been built on the foundation of past success in different environments.
Perhaps we made a mistake in not applying the surge strategy earlier. But since we are winning now, I wouldn't want to go back in time and rerun the war with that change. The important thing is that I have always accepted that we cannot fight a war perfectly. The trend has been good in the big picture despite fluctuations that could make a particular month or week look like defeat. And I have wanted to win and believed we deserved to win this war. Hanson concludes:
As long as we win this war, going over the what-might-have-beens will be as entertaining as it is for World War II decisions. Just win and I won't mind all the books that will assure us we could have won better or faster if the author's chosen course of action had been taken.
Efforts to stop IEDs by targeting the insurgent networks that finance, build and plant the bombs showed results only after the Bush administration adopted a broader counterinsurgency strategy this year — and sent 30,000 more troops to Iraq to support it.
But a USA TODAY investigation shows that the strategy now used to defeat the bombmaking networks and stabilize Iraq was ignored or rejected for years by key decision-makers. As early as 2004, when roadside bombs already were killing scores of troops, a top military consultant invited to address two dozen generals offered a "strategic alternative" for beating the insurgency and IEDs.
That plan and others mirroring the counterinsurgency blueprint that the Pentagon now hails as a success were pitched repeatedly in memos and presentations during the following two years, at meetings that included then-Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
The core of the strategy: Clear insurgents from key areas and provide security to win over Iraqis, who would respond by helping U.S. forces break IED networks and defeat the insurgency.
That leap of logic is wrong. It may ultimately be a correct judgment, but just as likely it is all wrong. Just as invading Normandy and driving into the heart of the Reich was a good strategy in June 1944, such a strategy in June 1942 or June 1943 would have spelled an Allied disaster and quite possibly led to German victory in World War II. And if done in 1945, we might have been met by Russian troops twenty miles inland. Timing is everything.
Consider that after the surge we believe the correct strategy for Iraq is to turn over fighting duties to Iraqis gradually, yet before the surge we can see that Iraqis were not capable of doing the exact same mission. If turning over fighting to Iraqis in 2008 and 2009 is right, does it mean doing the exact same thing in 2006 and 2007 would have been right? Obviously not since we had to use the surge strategy to get us to where we are today.
Consider further that our war effort hung by the thread of a few votes in the Senate that halted the Congresisonal retreat long enough for our new strategy to bring evidence of victory. Could the additional casualties we would have suffered in a different environment that may not have produced the same results that we are seeing now have made the difference in those critical summer votes?
Victor Hanson writes about our expectations of war and the judgments of mistakes:
By the same token, for every purported blunder in Iraq, there is at least an understandable reason why errors occurred in the context of human imperfection, emotion, and fear. Such considerations do not mitigate the enormity of military mistakes, but they should foster understanding of how and why they occur. Such recognition might lend humility to critics and wisdom to the perpetrators—and prepare us to accept and deal with similar human fallibility in the future. So shoot looters—and CNN immediately would have libeled the occupation forces as recycled Saddamites. Level Fallujah—and Iraqis would have compared us to the Soviets in Afghanistan. Had we kept together the Republican Guard—if that were even possible—charges of perpetuating the agents of Saddam's genocidal regime would have followed, with unfavorable contrasts to our successful de-Nazification program after World War II. Granted, there were not enough American troops to close borders, monitor ammunition depots, and maintain order. But as a result, there were enough deployed elsewhere to discourage trouble in the Korean peninsula, reassure Europe and Japan of our material commitment to their security, fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, help keep order in the Balkans, and man dozens of bases worldwide.
While it would be wrong to say we are merely at the next point in a well thought our plan, it is probably far more accurate to say that we are applying the right strategy now and this success has been built on the foundation of past success in different environments.
Perhaps we made a mistake in not applying the surge strategy earlier. But since we are winning now, I wouldn't want to go back in time and rerun the war with that change. The important thing is that I have always accepted that we cannot fight a war perfectly. The trend has been good in the big picture despite fluctuations that could make a particular month or week look like defeat. And I have wanted to win and believed we deserved to win this war. Hanson concludes:
[We must] reestablish our national wartime objective as victory, a goal that brings with it the acceptance of tragic errors as well as appreciation of heroic and brilliant conduct.
As long as we win this war, going over the what-might-have-beens will be as entertaining as it is for World War II decisions. Just win and I won't mind all the books that will assure us we could have won better or faster if the author's chosen course of action had been taken.
He Had Them at Hello
I almost immediately suspected an Iranian defector named Asgari as the source of the NIE judgment that Iran halted their narrowly defined nuclear weapons program in fall 2003.
Yet it made no sense for somebody to defect in order to tell us they halted their nuclear weapons program. That's why I assumed he was spilling his guts about ongoing programs. Why wouldn't he have just called a Chinese or Russian friend and asked them to pass along the relevant information to Washington?
So, on the assumption that Asgari was the source of the information, the only logical conclusion is that Asgari was a plant by the Tehran mullahs to get us to back off.
I'm not the only one to think these things:
The effort to mislead us seems pretty transparent. Yet Iran's effort, if Asgari is an Iranian agent and the NIE change is based on Asgari's report, has the invaluable quality of being exactly what our foreign policy elites wanted to hear--a reason to avoid tackling the problem of Iran's nuclear weapons programs and goals.
Yet it made no sense for somebody to defect in order to tell us they halted their nuclear weapons program. That's why I assumed he was spilling his guts about ongoing programs. Why wouldn't he have just called a Chinese or Russian friend and asked them to pass along the relevant information to Washington?
So, on the assumption that Asgari was the source of the information, the only logical conclusion is that Asgari was a plant by the Tehran mullahs to get us to back off.
I'm not the only one to think these things:
The assessment appears to have been triggered primarily by recent humint input. Worrisome is the weight given to what may well be a counter-intelligence effort by Tehran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The humint relied upon is a claim by senior IRGC official Ali Rez Asgari who defected during a February trip to Turkey. Mr. Asgari told a foreign intelligence agency all activity on Iran's nuclear weapons program stopped four years ago. His claim purportedly was supported by intercepted communications among Iranian officials.
The effort to mislead us seems pretty transparent. Yet Iran's effort, if Asgari is an Iranian agent and the NIE change is based on Asgari's report, has the invaluable quality of being exactly what our foreign policy elites wanted to hear--a reason to avoid tackling the problem of Iran's nuclear weapons programs and goals.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
In the On Deck Circle
The surge has bought time for Iraq's elected politicians to craft reconciliation laws. This has not happened so war opponents are eager to claim defeat. They forget that the political settlement was supposed to cause casualties to go down. The casualties are going down anyway based on grass-roots reconciliation.
This grass roots movement could yet supplant stubborn politicians at the center:
I called this possibility already:
This could apply to Shia leaders too, of course, as Shias reject Iranian domination as promoted by Sadr.
In a democracy, leaders can be replaced. Do the members of Iraq's parliament appreciate that they will face voters again in two years? And worse, face local leaders who actually have gained the respect of the voters?
This grass roots movement could yet supplant stubborn politicians at the center:
The Shia and Sunni party coalitions that entered Parliament in December 2005, have started to come apart. Meanwhile, a new alliance of Sunni Arab tribes in western Iraq further mixes things up. The tribal alliance has not automatically joined with existing Sunni Arab parties, so new alliances are beginning to emerge, and some may succeed in crossing sectarian and regional divides.
I called this possibility already:
A political settlement with the remnant Sunni Arab population would help isolate the remaining fanatics. If leaders from the bottom up keep cutting deals with our forces, pretty soon Sunni Arab "leaders" may find they need to catch up before they are irrelevant.
This could apply to Shia leaders too, of course, as Shias reject Iranian domination as promoted by Sadr.
In a democracy, leaders can be replaced. Do the members of Iraq's parliament appreciate that they will face voters again in two years? And worse, face local leaders who actually have gained the respect of the voters?
Get Off My Lawn?
China's rising power is coinciding with rapid aging of their population:
Certainly, in a country as large as China, this will translate into many men of military age despite the dramatic change in the age pyramid.
But will an aging China not as prosperous as once thought be as eager for foreign adventures? Or will a larger economy and sheer size provide just the means for China to defend itself without having the will to attack neighbors to expand their power or territory?
China's rapidly aging population could wipe out the country's low-cost labor advantage within the next few decades and stifle economic growth, state media said Tuesday.
The China Daily, quoting a report by the China National Committee on Aging, said that sometime between 2030 and 2050, there will be only two workers for every retiree — down from the current ratio of six workers to one retiree.
Certainly, in a country as large as China, this will translate into many men of military age despite the dramatic change in the age pyramid.
But will an aging China not as prosperous as once thought be as eager for foreign adventures? Or will a larger economy and sheer size provide just the means for China to defend itself without having the will to attack neighbors to expand their power or territory?
The Spectre of Defeat
H.D.S. Greenway tries to paint the war on terror as an American defeat, but doesn't pull it off very well. Once you get past his spectacularly idiotic "ghost" vehicle for condemning President Bush, we get to the heart of Greenway's lament:
Let's examine this, shall we?
Iraq was an unnecessary war. Let's see. The war began in 1991 and was authorized by the United Nations, which saw Saddam as a threat to world peace. Saddam failed to comply with the ceasefire that suspended that war and so the UN's reasons for that war were never eliminated entirely. Since 1991, we contained Iraq even as Saddam threatened Kuwait on at least two occasions and hit the Kurds and otherwise loomed over them. Saddam allowed al Qaeda into Iraq after the Afghan campaign, letting them function in Baghdad to support their camp. Saddam was caught pursuing WMD and longer-ranged missiles during the period of the ceasefire and obstructed UN inspectors attempting to verify Iraq's destruction of WMD programs. Saddam attempted to murder President Bush 41. The declaration of war listed many reasons. And American law enacted and signed in the 1990s made overthrowing Saddam's regime our official policy. In the aftermath of 9/11, was leaving such a thug ruler in power really a good idea? And if we succeed in creating a prosperous Iraq that undermines the appeal of autocracy and jihad, this war will be viewed as very necessary. It was and remains a good idea to get rid of a regime that was busting out of sanctions and would have resumed its record of aggression and continued its record of oppression. It has always been morally right. Ask the Iraqis if the war was necessary or right. Even with the terror campaigns that our enemies direct at civilians, majorities agree the war has been worth it.
There is no end in sight in Iraq and the fighting will last longer than the Vietnam War. Perhaps. But the fight began in 1990. Or perhaps in the 1970s if you count the Kurdish insurgency. And the fight will increasingly be done by Iraqis because Iraq has gone from enemy to ally because of the liberation. Many wars go on for decades or more. The level of fighting will decline, however. even more than it has already. But why limit ourselves to a comparison to Vietnam (except for the fetish war opponents have for Vietnam despite their inability to understand Iraq or Vietnam or how one may be compared to the other)? Why not say that the war may go on longer than the Korean war? Oh yeah, that UN-sanctioned war is still in a ceasefire today and we are attempting to cope with a maniac ruler out for nukes who is a proliferation danger. Let's see, the UN authorized that war in 1950 and the blue UN flag still flies over the DMZ. If the Korean War ends tomorrow, the Iraq war--authorized in 1991--will have 41 more years to go to match the duration of that UN-blessed war. Funny how the only two UN-sanctioned wars are still dragging on with no conclusion yet. You'd almost think the sainted international community was conflicted over fighting thug regimes and hates to see them go.
The Iraq war has radicalized Moslems. Moslems, by polling results, increasingly reject al Qaeda, bin Laden, and terrorism. Moslem governments cooperate with us more against jihadi terrorism than at any point prior to 9/11. And if Greenway hasn't noticed, Moslems have been radicalized for many decades prior to March 2003 based on heavy Saudi financing of a hitherto fringe 18th century vision of Islam that drives today's jihadis. Indeed, containing Iraq led tens of thousands of jihadis to go to Afghanistan to receive terrorism training during the 1990s. Saddam imported thousands of jihadis in the 1990s to help him terrorize Shias in the south. Yet Greenway thinks we've radicalized Moslems? When pretty much anything sets those jokers off? Is the concept of pissing in the ocean familiar to Greenway?
The Iraq war has strengthened Iran. Iran's military is weak. It has not gotten stronger this decade. The Iranian people as a whole reject their government. Nations friendly to us surround Iran, as do our forces. Arab Gulf states are allied with us to contain Iran. The Iranian economy is getting worse despite high oil prices. Worse, Iranian Shias are returning from pilgrimages to Iraq with stories of more freedom and democracy in Iraq. And if you believe the 2007 NIE, Iran has no nuclear weapons programs! Oh, Iran can still issue a scary press release praising imaginary new weapons, but other than that, Iran is weaker now than in 2000 but is trying to draw to an inside straight by getting nuclear missiles. In what way is Iran strengthened by the Iraq war? It's a mystery to me and to Greenway, too, apparently, since he offers no example.
We may lose Afghanistan. Any war could be lost. Yet Iraq war opponents have been yelling of imminent defeat in Afghanistan since the days our forces first attacked the Taliban regime back in October 2001. Have we won yet? No, not with Pakistan a sanctuary for jihadis. But with Afghanistan's government out of the terrorism business, I don't see Afghanistan becoming a terror sanctuary any time soon. My goals for Afghanistan are considerably lower than for Iraq, and we are exceeding those limited goals easily.
The world is in worse shape than Bush found it in January 2001. First of all, Greenway is a bit confused. Which shouldn't be shocking. The president is an American president sworn to defend American interests and not elected to promote a nebulous better world (define that concept given our rogue's gallery of a United Nations). I'd say we are far better off in terms of security than we were in January 2001. Being oblivious to the threats we faced in January 2001 isn't the same as actually being safe. Though I can believe Greenway was ignorant enought to have believed we were safe on December 31, 2000. But if we must discuss the world, how is the world worse off without Saddam? How is the world worse off with an Iraq that is truly building democracy? I suppose from the viewpoint of the world's thug regimes, that is bad. But why is that bad for America? Or bad for the people of the world who must suffer under thug dictators blessed by the sainted international community yet now see that even the most brutal dictator can meet his end at the end of a rope? When you take out the farcical unsupported conclusions from his piece, I don't see how you can argue the world is worse off.
Ultimately, Greenway thinks he sees a ghost. In reality, he is just flinching from shadows.
Iraq may be more stable now, but it was an unnecessary war in the first place and there is no end in sight. It is destined to drag on long after Bush has left the stage, perhaps longer than the Vietnam War, radicalizing another generation of Muslims, and immeasurably empowering Iran. And under Bush's leadership, the war in Afghanistan may be lost too. It will be hard to argue that Bush has left the world in better shape than when he found it.
Let's examine this, shall we?
Iraq was an unnecessary war. Let's see. The war began in 1991 and was authorized by the United Nations, which saw Saddam as a threat to world peace. Saddam failed to comply with the ceasefire that suspended that war and so the UN's reasons for that war were never eliminated entirely. Since 1991, we contained Iraq even as Saddam threatened Kuwait on at least two occasions and hit the Kurds and otherwise loomed over them. Saddam allowed al Qaeda into Iraq after the Afghan campaign, letting them function in Baghdad to support their camp. Saddam was caught pursuing WMD and longer-ranged missiles during the period of the ceasefire and obstructed UN inspectors attempting to verify Iraq's destruction of WMD programs. Saddam attempted to murder President Bush 41. The declaration of war listed many reasons. And American law enacted and signed in the 1990s made overthrowing Saddam's regime our official policy. In the aftermath of 9/11, was leaving such a thug ruler in power really a good idea? And if we succeed in creating a prosperous Iraq that undermines the appeal of autocracy and jihad, this war will be viewed as very necessary. It was and remains a good idea to get rid of a regime that was busting out of sanctions and would have resumed its record of aggression and continued its record of oppression. It has always been morally right. Ask the Iraqis if the war was necessary or right. Even with the terror campaigns that our enemies direct at civilians, majorities agree the war has been worth it.
There is no end in sight in Iraq and the fighting will last longer than the Vietnam War. Perhaps. But the fight began in 1990. Or perhaps in the 1970s if you count the Kurdish insurgency. And the fight will increasingly be done by Iraqis because Iraq has gone from enemy to ally because of the liberation. Many wars go on for decades or more. The level of fighting will decline, however. even more than it has already. But why limit ourselves to a comparison to Vietnam (except for the fetish war opponents have for Vietnam despite their inability to understand Iraq or Vietnam or how one may be compared to the other)? Why not say that the war may go on longer than the Korean war? Oh yeah, that UN-sanctioned war is still in a ceasefire today and we are attempting to cope with a maniac ruler out for nukes who is a proliferation danger. Let's see, the UN authorized that war in 1950 and the blue UN flag still flies over the DMZ. If the Korean War ends tomorrow, the Iraq war--authorized in 1991--will have 41 more years to go to match the duration of that UN-blessed war. Funny how the only two UN-sanctioned wars are still dragging on with no conclusion yet. You'd almost think the sainted international community was conflicted over fighting thug regimes and hates to see them go.
The Iraq war has radicalized Moslems. Moslems, by polling results, increasingly reject al Qaeda, bin Laden, and terrorism. Moslem governments cooperate with us more against jihadi terrorism than at any point prior to 9/11. And if Greenway hasn't noticed, Moslems have been radicalized for many decades prior to March 2003 based on heavy Saudi financing of a hitherto fringe 18th century vision of Islam that drives today's jihadis. Indeed, containing Iraq led tens of thousands of jihadis to go to Afghanistan to receive terrorism training during the 1990s. Saddam imported thousands of jihadis in the 1990s to help him terrorize Shias in the south. Yet Greenway thinks we've radicalized Moslems? When pretty much anything sets those jokers off? Is the concept of pissing in the ocean familiar to Greenway?
The Iraq war has strengthened Iran. Iran's military is weak. It has not gotten stronger this decade. The Iranian people as a whole reject their government. Nations friendly to us surround Iran, as do our forces. Arab Gulf states are allied with us to contain Iran. The Iranian economy is getting worse despite high oil prices. Worse, Iranian Shias are returning from pilgrimages to Iraq with stories of more freedom and democracy in Iraq. And if you believe the 2007 NIE, Iran has no nuclear weapons programs! Oh, Iran can still issue a scary press release praising imaginary new weapons, but other than that, Iran is weaker now than in 2000 but is trying to draw to an inside straight by getting nuclear missiles. In what way is Iran strengthened by the Iraq war? It's a mystery to me and to Greenway, too, apparently, since he offers no example.
We may lose Afghanistan. Any war could be lost. Yet Iraq war opponents have been yelling of imminent defeat in Afghanistan since the days our forces first attacked the Taliban regime back in October 2001. Have we won yet? No, not with Pakistan a sanctuary for jihadis. But with Afghanistan's government out of the terrorism business, I don't see Afghanistan becoming a terror sanctuary any time soon. My goals for Afghanistan are considerably lower than for Iraq, and we are exceeding those limited goals easily.
The world is in worse shape than Bush found it in January 2001. First of all, Greenway is a bit confused. Which shouldn't be shocking. The president is an American president sworn to defend American interests and not elected to promote a nebulous better world (define that concept given our rogue's gallery of a United Nations). I'd say we are far better off in terms of security than we were in January 2001. Being oblivious to the threats we faced in January 2001 isn't the same as actually being safe. Though I can believe Greenway was ignorant enought to have believed we were safe on December 31, 2000. But if we must discuss the world, how is the world worse off without Saddam? How is the world worse off with an Iraq that is truly building democracy? I suppose from the viewpoint of the world's thug regimes, that is bad. But why is that bad for America? Or bad for the people of the world who must suffer under thug dictators blessed by the sainted international community yet now see that even the most brutal dictator can meet his end at the end of a rope? When you take out the farcical unsupported conclusions from his piece, I don't see how you can argue the world is worse off.
Ultimately, Greenway thinks he sees a ghost. In reality, he is just flinching from shadows.
The New Front
While some critics have been claiming that the Afghan campaign is failing, I have not been persuaded despite the cries of near panic. These critics have been saying the same thing for six years now. I see no reason to believe they are right in this latest rendition.
I think we've been doing well enough. And I also think that the enemy will turn to Pakistan as their Iraqi and Afghan adventures fail.
So when border violence is declining, this could be a sign that my conjecture about the new campaign is accurate:
Remember, the vast majority of those 6,000 deaths in Afghanistan this year are Taliban terrorists. This article is rare in even hinting that this number isn't just victims.
More important, in addition to interdicting the border and the coming winter, one cause of the decline is the perception that the enemy is focusing on Pakistan more. This could yet be the last jihad.
I think we've been doing well enough. And I also think that the enemy will turn to Pakistan as their Iraqi and Afghan adventures fail.
So when border violence is declining, this could be a sign that my conjecture about the new campaign is accurate:
A top American general said Sunday that attacks along the Afghan-Pakistan border have dropped more than 40 percent since July and the U.S. and its allies are making progress in the fight against the Taliban.
Brig. Gen. Joseph Votel said the decrease in insurgent activity along the border could be attributed to the onset of winter, a rise in insurgent attacks in Pakistan and an increase in communication and coordination among NATO, Afghan and Pakistani forces.
Recent media and analysts' reports have said the international mission is not succeeding and Afghanistan is becoming increasingly unstable. This year has been the deadliest since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion, with more than 6,300 people killed in the violence, mostly militants, according to an Associated Press count based on official figures.
The country has also seen a record number of suicide bomb attacks — more than 140 — this year.
But Votel, the deputy commanding general of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, said Sunday that the international mission is making progress.
"I don't agree that we're moving in a negative direction," Votel told journalists at Bagram, the main U.S. base.
"I think we are making progress. This is a long-term proposition and there is a long way to go in security and development and other aspects here, but we are making progress and moving forward," he said. ...
Asked if al-Qaida fighters could be moving from Iraq into the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, he said it was a "distinct possibility."
Remember, the vast majority of those 6,000 deaths in Afghanistan this year are Taliban terrorists. This article is rare in even hinting that this number isn't just victims.
More important, in addition to interdicting the border and the coming winter, one cause of the decline is the perception that the enemy is focusing on Pakistan more. This could yet be the last jihad.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Liberal Minded is Not Open Minded
The Left, which constantly claims the Right is destroying free speech and liberty, always seems to do so more enthusiastically when they get a little bit of power. Mark Steyn's problem with so-called Canadian human rights commissions is a case in point:
If you "care" enough, you can get away with murder. Or even just suppression of free speech. When there aren't enough Nazis to pester, they come for the rest of us.
And the really funny thing is that there are Islamo-fascists out there--but "caring" people only want to "understand" such thugs. Suppression of speech that is underway in Western Europe is taking place in Canada, too.
Are we naive enough to think that we can remain secure within our borders when the basic freedom to say what you think is snuffed out from the fear of the cost of defending what you might say?
How have we gotten to this point? Is nobody mad as Hell? Don't we even care?
These days in Canada, if you're feeling down and blue, and you think somebody hates you, you bring your case to a Human Rights Tribunal. And the people you think hate you get that knock on the door, celebrated in the literature of the Soviet Gulag, and wherever else ideology triumphed over humanity in the 20th century's painful course. Your daddy, your mommy, your brubber, or more likely some newspaper pundit gets dragged before a committee of smug, leftwing, humourless, jargon-blathering adjudicators. After long delays that are costly only to the defendant and the taxpayer (and justice delayed is justice denied), you will have the satisfaction of making your enemy squirm, in a kangaroo court where he is stripped of the right to due process, in which there are no fixed rules of evidence, in which the ridiculously biased “judges” make up the law as they go along, and impose penalties restricted only by their grimly limited imaginations -- such as ruinous fines, and lifetime "cease and desist" orders, such that, if you ever open your mouth again on a given topic, you stand to go to prison.
If you "care" enough, you can get away with murder. Or even just suppression of free speech. When there aren't enough Nazis to pester, they come for the rest of us.
And the really funny thing is that there are Islamo-fascists out there--but "caring" people only want to "understand" such thugs. Suppression of speech that is underway in Western Europe is taking place in Canada, too.
Are we naive enough to think that we can remain secure within our borders when the basic freedom to say what you think is snuffed out from the fear of the cost of defending what you might say?
How have we gotten to this point? Is nobody mad as Hell? Don't we even care?
Sergeant God
Our scientists have developed a sound-based weapon, LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device), that can inflict pain to get people to run:
Our technicians also figured out a way to use it to communicate:
And in Iraq, our troops have figured a way to mess with our enemies:
This is hilarious. How about a little voice telling one terrorist that the guy next to him is really an infidel and must be killed immediately?
LRAD is basically a focused beam of sound. Originally, it was designed to emit a very loud sound. Anyone whose head was touched by this beam, heard a painfully loud sound. Anyone standing next to them heard nothing. But those hit by the beam promptly fled, or fell to the ground in pain.
Our technicians also figured out a way to use it to communicate:
LRAD can also broadcast speech for up to 300 meters. The navy planned to use LRAD to warn ships to get out of the way. This was needed in places like the crowded coastal waters of the northern Persian Gulf, where the navy patrols. Many small fishing and cargo boats ply these waters, and it's often hard to get the attention of the crews. With LRAD, you just aim it at a member of the crew, and have an interpreter "speak" to the sailor.
And in Iraq, our troops have figured a way to mess with our enemies:
It appears that some of the troops in Iraq are using "spoken" (as opposed to "screeching") LRAD to mess with enemy fighters. Islamic terrorists tend to be superstitious and, of course, very religious. LRAD can put the "word of God" into their heads. If God, in the form of a voice that only you can hear, tells you to surrender, or run away, what are you gonna do?
This is hilarious. How about a little voice telling one terrorist that the guy next to him is really an infidel and must be killed immediately?
Not This Year
Not long ago, people were worrying that Turkey would invade Iraq and wreck the country by pursuing Turkish Kurdish terrorists that operate out of northern Iraq.
I didn't assume this would wreck our progress since Iraq has hit Kurds in northern Iraq even under Saddam.
So as the Turks massed troops, I figured all the crisis amounted to was setting the parameters for low-level Turkish strikes using small numbers of troops and aircraft.
The Turks have struck:
I assume Turkish special forces are involved more quietly, too. And some Turkish units have been inside Iraq all along and they remain. So the Turks have hit the Kurdish PKK and there is no invasion. And with winter closing in, the option for a big multi-brigade or larger operation this year is closed. If it was ever really open, of course.
We worked the problem and bought some more time for the rest of Iraq to improve.
UPDATE: About 300 Turkish troops crossed the border, though whether to conduct an operation or to rotate troops already inside Iraq is unclear. The article also describes the Turkish presence inside Iraq:
So this won't be the event that causes Iraq to unravel as many thought in the fall.
I didn't assume this would wreck our progress since Iraq has hit Kurds in northern Iraq even under Saddam.
So as the Turks massed troops, I figured all the crisis amounted to was setting the parameters for low-level Turkish strikes using small numbers of troops and aircraft.
The Turks have struck:
The air strikes were at least the second Turkish operation against the PKK inside Iraq this month. Turkish helicopters pounded suspected rebel bases on December 1.
Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Cicek warned Turkey would launch more cross-border strikes if necessary.
"The government, working in harmony with all state institutions, primarily the armed forces, is determined to take this scourge off the country's agenda," the Anatolia news agency quoted him as saying.
The Turkish parliament authorised cross-border operations in October, but Ankara has so far held back from any ground assault amid strong lobbying by Washington.
I assume Turkish special forces are involved more quietly, too. And some Turkish units have been inside Iraq all along and they remain. So the Turks have hit the Kurdish PKK and there is no invasion. And with winter closing in, the option for a big multi-brigade or larger operation this year is closed. If it was ever really open, of course.
We worked the problem and bought some more time for the rest of Iraq to improve.
UPDATE: About 300 Turkish troops crossed the border, though whether to conduct an operation or to rotate troops already inside Iraq is unclear. The article also describes the Turkish presence inside Iraq:
"They are going there as reinforcements, they are not returning," the official said on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to speak to the media.
About 1,200 Turkish military monitors have operated in northern Iraq since 1996 with permission from local authorities. A tank battalion has been stationed at a former airport at the border town of Bamerni and a few other military outposts were scattered in the region. Ankara rotates the troops there.
So this won't be the event that causes Iraq to unravel as many thought in the fall.
Wait For It
The goal in Iraq is to get the Iraqis ready to control their own battlespace and fight the dwindling insurgents and terrorists without much direct American combat involvement.
Basra has been turned over to the Iraqis:
The article notes that President Bush has predicted that Iraqis would assume control of all provinces by last month. This actually makes me feel better about the Basra turnover.
If we had reached the goal of the president's prediction, I'd worry that we were just meeting an arbitrary deadline apart from reality on the ground. We have not done so. I assume that despite the very real problems that must be confronted in the south that we have not turned over Basra without a basis of confidence that the Iraqis can control the situation.
Remember, the Iraqi government is much more capable now than they were even a year ago, and are getting better every month even as enemies wither.
Basra has been turned over to the Iraqis:
The U.S.-led coalition has been gradually transferring control of security to the Iraqi government and Britain's handover of southern Basra was the latest in a series that began in July 2006. The coalition retains control over half of Iraq's 18 provinces, including Anbar and central areas where violence has flagged but not stopped.
"This is a step toward resuming security responsibilities in all of Iraq's provinces that is due in the middle of next year," Iraqi National Security adviser Mouwaffak al-Rubaie said in Basra. He represented Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at the handover ceremony in the capital of the oil-rich region.
The article notes that President Bush has predicted that Iraqis would assume control of all provinces by last month. This actually makes me feel better about the Basra turnover.
If we had reached the goal of the president's prediction, I'd worry that we were just meeting an arbitrary deadline apart from reality on the ground. We have not done so. I assume that despite the very real problems that must be confronted in the south that we have not turned over Basra without a basis of confidence that the Iraqis can control the situation.
Remember, the Iraqi government is much more capable now than they were even a year ago, and are getting better every month even as enemies wither.
Correlation of Forces
Violence in Iraq is dwindling:
Lieutenant General Odierno summed up the situation in Iraq perfectly with very few words:
This is it exactly. It isn't just that we have reduced violence to the levels that predate the jihadi and extremist Shia violence when basically the Baathists were the only enemy in the field. While the enemies in Iraq surged their violence and were beaten back in turn and defeated since early 2004, while we were "losing" the war (according to the anti-war side), the Iraqi government and security forces have grown tremendously despite the violence. We atomized the enemy and molecularized the government forces.
We are winning. And our accumulating victory is accelerating.
Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the man responsible for the ground campaign in Iraq, said that the first six months of 2007 were probably the most violent period since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. The past six months, however, had seen some of the lowest levels of violence since the conflict began, Odierno said, attributing the change to an increase in both American troops and better-trained Iraqi forces.
Lieutenant General Odierno summed up the situation in Iraq perfectly with very few words:
"I feel we are back in '03 and early '04. Frankly I was here then, and the environment is about the same in terms of security in my opinion," he said. "What is different from then is that the Iraqi security forces are significantly more mature."
This is it exactly. It isn't just that we have reduced violence to the levels that predate the jihadi and extremist Shia violence when basically the Baathists were the only enemy in the field. While the enemies in Iraq surged their violence and were beaten back in turn and defeated since early 2004, while we were "losing" the war (according to the anti-war side), the Iraqi government and security forces have grown tremendously despite the violence. We atomized the enemy and molecularized the government forces.
We are winning. And our accumulating victory is accelerating.
Hope Amidst the Ruins
Sadr and other militant Shia factions are emerging as the main threat to Iraq's constitutional government now that the Sunni terrorists and insurgents are surrendering, defecting, or dying:
Yet as long as foreigners do not use these factions for their own ends, can they threaten the government? The Iraqi security forces are far stronger now and they will have to face only the Shia fanatics who do not represent the majority of Shias even collectively let alone as individual factions.
As long as the armed factions can be controlled and restrained, this Shia factionalism may be a blessing. If Iraqi competition is limited to the ballot, having many Shia power centers will give Kurds and Sunnis a chance to make legislative deals with various Shia parties. Instead of a monolithic Shia bloc that votes as it wants over Sunni and Kurd objection, this will make Iraqi politics less religion- and ethnicity-based.
Again, this relies on keeping the radical factions from using bullets. This relies on fostering rule of law. But I think I'd be far more worried about the prospects of a democratic Iraq if the Shia were a monolithic bloc.
Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi army has been quiet. It has not been idle. Sadr has been purging his force of unruly or disloyal elements, which has resulted in some violence. Police and U.S. troops ignored it, as it was just a bunch of Sadrs thugs killing each other. Sadr would like to produce a force of similar strength, discipline and independence as the Lebanese Hizbollah. But Sadr is not the only religious fanatic trying to impose his will on others. There are dozens of religious leaders trying to make everyone follow their vision of what Islam should be, and willing to kill those who do not comply. Now that the Sunni Arab terrorists have been beaten down, the Shia Arab fanatics have come out to kill and destroy.
Yet as long as foreigners do not use these factions for their own ends, can they threaten the government? The Iraqi security forces are far stronger now and they will have to face only the Shia fanatics who do not represent the majority of Shias even collectively let alone as individual factions.
As long as the armed factions can be controlled and restrained, this Shia factionalism may be a blessing. If Iraqi competition is limited to the ballot, having many Shia power centers will give Kurds and Sunnis a chance to make legislative deals with various Shia parties. Instead of a monolithic Shia bloc that votes as it wants over Sunni and Kurd objection, this will make Iraqi politics less religion- and ethnicity-based.
Again, this relies on keeping the radical factions from using bullets. This relies on fostering rule of law. But I think I'd be far more worried about the prospects of a democratic Iraq if the Shia were a monolithic bloc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
