Rule of Law Above All Else

Many elections around the world are corrupt and rigged. Democracy requires rule of law as well as elections.

Many critics of democracy promotion point to Hamas winning elections in Gaza as Exhibit A-Z for why elections are bad. I don't get that view. It isn't democracy if it is one vote used to justify a dictatorship of the winner. If Hamas rigs new elections or doesn't allow another election, that is not democracy and does not invalidate the pursuit of democracy.

And if Hamas wins a largely free election, it strips away the excuse that the people of Gaza bear no responsibility for the actions of Hamas.

Lately, the Afghan elections have been up for severe criticism. There was rampant vote fraud, mostly carried out by President Karzai's supporters:

U.N.-backed fraud investigators on Monday threw out nearly a third President Hamid Karzai's votes from the country's disputed August election. The findings set the stage for a runoff between him and his top challenger.

It was unclear, however, whether the Afghan-led Independent Election Commission would accept the findings of the fraud panel and announce a runoff. Karzai's spokesman said it was too soon to make a judgment based on the figures released by the panel.

Some have argued for pushing Karzai out as punishment for the fraud. Others for accepting the rigged result for the sake of "stability."

Patience, oh skittish ones.

We should do neither. We cannot strip away the legitimacy of tne next ruler, whether Karzai, Abdullah, or someone else, by making him seem like the choice of America. And that is exactly what we'd do if we push out Karzai because of the fraud or validate his rule despite the fraud.

Let the election process proceed under Afghan law despite our impatience. We should use our influence to make sure the laws are followed and not for getting the "right" result.

And don't hold our troop and strategy decisions hostage to election results. That signals to Afghans that the result and not the lawful process is the most important thing about democracy.

Sending more US troops will take time. By the time a new runoff election is held and finalized, our troops will only start to arrive in strength even if we decide today to send more troops.

Besides, I don't think we should focus so much on the central government as the sole source of governing legitimacy. I fear this entire issue is just an excuse to run away from the war.

Rule of law can take time, and a ruler with damaged credibility because of the fraud that delayed results is better than a ruler installed now with no credibility. The very act of identifying fraud and acting to correct it is a fine signal to send to Afghans in a world of sham elections. That is worthy of our military support.

UPDATE: There will be a runoff election:

Afghanistan's election commission Tuesday ordered a Nov. 7 runoff in the disputed presidential poll after a fraud investigation dropped incumbent Hamid Karzai's votes below 50 percent of the total. Karzai accepted the finding and agreed to a second-round vote.

The announcement came two months to the day after the first-round vote and follows weeks of political uncertainty at a time when Taliban strength is growing.

Karzai said final results showing the need for a runoff were "legitimate, legal and according to the constitution of Afghanistan."

Good. We can't expect perfection. But we can insist on legitimacy, legality, and constitutionality. That emphasis on rule of law is a sound basis to go forward.

The Next Round is On Europe, Right?

Proper Europeans only like American military action when we act for the Europeans. Like in 1995, when American airpower dominated Operation Deliberate Force against the Bosnian Serbs.

Europe couldn't do the job so we were sent in. We provided 65.9% of the sorties against the Bosnian Serbs. Britain provided 9.3% and was the second largest contributor.

And this underestimates our dominance since only 39% of the sorties were combat air support or battlefield air interdiction strikes. The fact sheet doesn't explain this but I'd bet good money that few NATO aircraft other than the British and French carried out strike missions (and the French reportedly made up for that alliance help by passing on information to the Bosnian Serbs. CORRECTION: actually, I think the rumor was about Kosovo and not Bosnia). Killing people and breaking things was our mission.

But since the 1990s when America fought in the Balkans to keep Europe stable (remember the 1999 air campaign in Kosovo, also dominated by American air power), the Europeans have turned against American use of power in areas the Europeans believed concerned them not at all.

Sadly for the Europeans, the Balkans aren't as quiet as they'd like:

Bosnia is heading for a new civil war as a constitutional crisis threatens to cause the collapse of the political system, the country's leaders have warned.

The concerns have been triggered by Bosnian Serb leaders who have stepped up their demands for independence with a warning the country is no longer "sustainable".

The growing ethnic divisions have raised fears of a return to the fighting which claimed the lives of up to 110,000 people between 1992 and 1995.

If Bosnia blows up, I say we wish the Europeans well--and stay out of combat missions. We're busy, after all. Besides, some Belgian judge would probably just charge us with war crimes, right?

If Europe won't help us outside of Europe with more than token support, the least they can do is keep their own damn house in order without us.

We'll see how well that works out.

The Source of All Their Woes?

Russia reports more violence north of Georgia:

Four militants have been killed in two separate gun battles in Russia's volatile North Caucasus while bombs went off in both the capital of a third region and under a gas pipeline, Russian news agencies reported.

Violence has surged in the South Russian regions with the latest violence in three of the most volatile, Dagestan, Chechnya, and Ingushetia, raising questions about the Kremlin's ability to keep control of the mainly Muslim area.

I expect incidents like this to be the source of the excuse for Russia to launch round two against Georgia.

UPDATE: We've let the Russians know we aren't happy they haven't pulled their troops out of occupied territory and that neutral observers haven't been allowed in:

Russia is not complying with the cease-fire that ended last year's war with Georgia, a U.S. defense official said Tuesday, adding that Washington wants international observers in Russian-controlled territories.

The statement by U.S. Assistant Defense Secretary Alexander Vershbow underlined one of the touchiest disputes overshadowing the U.S. and Russian leadership's desire for improved relations.

We need a sense of urgency to provide Georgia with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons to hold territory against a second Russian offensive.

I Got Your Enriched Uranium Right Here

Iran won't cooperate with our outstretched hand:

Iran signaled ahead of international talks Monday that it will not meet Western demands for a deal that would move most of its enriched uranium out of the country and delay its gaining the ability to make a nuclear bomb.

This is actually a shock to the Obama administration.

This is going to work just swell, I'm sure.

UPDATE: As I said, this development is a shock to the Obama administration.

The administration thinks that throwing Iranian protesters to the wolves was a price we could pay to get a nuclear weapons-free Iran. That's smart foreign policy realism! What could go wrong?

We'll get a nuclear-armed mullah-run Iran with dissidents dead, in jail, or raped and abused into submission.

UPDATE: If we achieve this "victory," will we really just be saving Iran's enrichment program?

Since you're probably not a regular reader of the trade publication Nucleonics Week, let me summarize an article that appeared in its Oct. 8 issue. It reported that Iran's supply of low-enriched uranium -- the potential feedstock for nuclear bombs -- appears to have certain "impurities" that "could cause centrifuges to fail" if the Iranians try to boost it to weapons grade.

Now that's interesting. The seeming breakthrough in negotiations on Oct. 1 in Geneva -- where Iran agreed to send most of its estimated 1,500 kilograms of low-enriched uranium abroad for further enrichment -- may not have been exactly what it appeared. Iran may have had no alternative but to seek foreign help in enrichment because its own centrifuges wouldn't work.

The Iranians resist doing this to make it seem like a concesson to us, it seems. I'm betting we'll pretend it is victory to avoid looking like fools.

Cat's Paws

This is ominous:

Arab media in the Persian Gulf have been reporting that Syria, apparently on the orders of Iran, has turned over about 300 long range ballistic missiles to Hezbollah control. The missiles have apparently not left Syria (they would be hard to miss, being driven around southern Lebanon). The reports add that Hezbollah personnel are being trained to operate the missiles.

Syria has underground storage and launch facilities for its arsenal of over a thousand SCUD missiles. Armed with half ton high explosive and cluster bomb warheads, the missiles have ranges of 500-700 kilometers.

Were I the Israelis, I'd respond to any Hezbollah use of SCUD missiles on Israeli targets with an assault on Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Attacks on Hezbollah in southern Lebanon should focus on clearing the ground where SCUDs are launched. Attacks on Syria should be limited to interdicting supply lines into Lebanon.

Iran would prefer to fight Israel to the last Arab (Shia or not), but Israel shouldn't play that game. Iran is the power behind Syria and Hezbollah (and Gaza, too, for that matter).

They Know Democracy?

Leftists in Latin America continue to oppose real elections in Honduras:

Leaders of a bloc of leftist Latin American governments urged the international community Saturday to reject the presidential election planned by Honduras' interim government next month.

The leaders of the Boliviarian Alternative group also denounced Colombia's plan to give the U.S. military expanded use of bases in that South American nation, calling it a threat to the region's security.

Is our foreign policy really aligned with these communists, socialists, and/or thugs?

The Hondurans need to defend their constitution. And clarify procedures for ousting a president who violates it.

An Issue of Timing

I swear, some lefty analysts really couldn't pour water out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel:

My colleagues at the Center for American Progress and I have been arguing for several years that the best hope for creating a stable Iraq and enhancing our ability to deal with the critical threats to our security-particularly in Afghanistan-was to set a specific date for withdrawal of U.S. forces. Although we were severely criticized by the Bush administration and its acolytes for "cutting and running," we were vindicated when President George W. Bush, in November 2008, signed the security agreement that was part of the Status of Forces Agreement. The SOFA stipulated that all American troops would withdraw from the Iraqi cities to their bases by June 30, 2009 and not conduct independent military operations after that date. The United States also agreed to leave the country completely by the end of 2011.

After his election, President Barack Obama began implementing the strategic agreement and began to fulfill his campaign promise by agreeing to withdraw all combat troops by August 31, 2010 and all remaining troops by the end of 2011.

Lawrence Korb, who wrote the above, is one of those clueless analysts. Is he truly saying that withdrawing according to a fairly set schedule after winning--which we are doing (and based on no bad surprises so far to alter our plan)--is the same as setting a timetable for withdrawal while the fight was raging at its peak? Which is what the president wanted, of course--withdraw before we won and pray for victory.

Yet Korb thinks doing the former is the same as the latter--"vindicating" his advocacy for withdrawal based on a timetable before the surge took effect. The fact is, President Obama could not carry out his campaign promise because we won the war--which I marked as the date of the SOFA signing--before he took office.

So Korb's claim of vindication is like saying that calling for a withdrawal timetable for our troops in Europe would make no difference whether it took place in May 1944 or May 1945, ignoring the difference that the fighting from D-Day to the fall of Berlin made. The diffence, of course, is that the former would have been "cutting and running" while the latter was "victory." CAP should look into the nuances of that difference.

Korb truly is that dense. Honestly, I don't know if I've ever read anything by him that wasn't drivel.

I eagerly await his impressions of Iraq, where he currently is.

Second Thoughts on the End of the World

I've been skeptical about the global warming hysteria. Sure, we are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but I have had no faith that our impact outweighs natural changes over decades or centuries based on factors beyond our control.

And even if we are responsible for warming the globe, I have absolutely no faith in the socialist solutions that the warmers demand we adopt. Further, the warmists have acted too much like cultists for me to be confident that "science" motivates them.

Heresy is creeping into the media over global warming:

It has finally happened. We have reached the “tipping point.”

2009 can now be officially declared the year the media lost their faith in man-made global warming fears.

Significant organs of the mainstream media are now officially abandoning one-sided man-made global warming fear promotion and alleged claims that the "debate is over."

The stunning media reversal has accelerated in recent weeks as top UN scientists have raised the specter of continued global cooling. See: UN Fears (More) Global Cooling Commeth! IPCC Scientist Warns UN: We may be about to enter 'one or even 2 decades during which temps cool' – Sept. 5, 2009

It appears at long last that media's faith is waning. Appeals to authority about the alleged global warming “consensus” are now being met with a healthy dose of skepticism by increasing large portions of the mainstream media. Statements like UN IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth that the UN IPCC "has spoken" no longer have the comforting effect on many key members of the journalistic flock. [Disclaimer: This declaration does not mean the battle to improve the media's coverage of global warming is over. But it does mean that there have been significant developments in 2009 with the media's coverage of climate change. Promoters of man-made climate fears will now need a major reformation to win back the faith of key members of the media.]

If this keeps up, I won't face the Warmish Inquisition after all!

Modulating Genocide

Brace yourselves. The Obama administration has decided against confronting a genocidal regime:

After lengthy debate, the Obama administration has settled on a policy toward Sudan that offers a dramatically softer approach than the president had advocated on the campaign trail -- but steers clear of the conciliatory tone advocated by his special envoy to the country.

The new U.S. policy, which will be formally unveiled Monday, calls for a campaign of "pressure and incentives" to cajole the government in Khartoum into pursuing peace in the troubled Darfur region, settling disputes with the autonomous government in southern Sudan and providing the United States greater cooperation in stemming international terrorism, according to administration officials briefed on the plan. It also provides Khartoum with a path to improved relations with the United States if it begins to address long-standing U.S. concerns.

Yeah, this makes sense. Because committing genocide is a cooly calculated policy not driven by any religious or racial hatred at all. Surely, the regime in Khartoum could be convinced to not slaughter residents of Darfur with more finely nuanced cajoling by the Obama administration.

And mind you, this policy was decided upon after "lengthy debate."

Reading Between the Lines

It is interesting to see who our Army thinks they might need to fight (or deal with) in the near future.

But the Army can't be so impolite as to mention names. But it is fairly clear who they mean in the draft document (which is not meant to be authoritative so it should not be quoted as defining US doctrine. But I'm not commenting on anything other than the definitions of our focus) "Operating under Conditions of Uncertainty and 15 Complexity in an Era of Persistent Conflict," the draft document on Army focus:

Power struggle in WMD-capable failing state: A hostile failing state government is thrown into chaos by infighting among leadership factions, resulting in instability, potential WMD proliferation issues, and likely threat to key regional U.S. allies. Critical security challenges include anti-access capabilities, WMD proliferation, state use of proxies, hostile, failing states that harbor terrorist and criminal safe havens, and border tensions.

This is likely either Pakistan or North Korea. North Korea is probably the prime suspect here given the threat to US ally part, but the terrorism angle applies more to Pakistan. Although Russia could fit in here, too, God forbid.

Ally launches a pre-emptive surgical strike against a threatening hostile state: This results in regional military conflict, global economic instability, and blocked access to shipping lanes. Critical security challenges include anti-access capabilities, WMD proliferation, hybrid threats, terrorist organizations, state use of proxies, hostile state, and violent extremist organizations.

This means Israel striking Iran's nuclear facilities. In time, it might mean Japan or South Korea attacking North Korea.

Terrorists acquire WMD through transnational criminal organizations: Supported by transnational organized criminal networks, several terrorist groups acquire WMD materials. Critical security challenges include WMD proliferation, terrorist organizations, violent extremist organizations, and criminal enterprises.

This is the bread and butter of the war on terror, recognizing that criminal gangs (likely drug gangs) might assist jihadis in getting and using WMD.

Intra-state insurgency expands beyond state borders to entire region: This threatens UN and U.S. forces conducting counterinsurgency and stability operations. Critical security challenges include terrorist organizations, state use of proxies, hostile state, failing or failed state, violent extremist organization, safe havens, and border tension.

This means Afghanistan and Pakistan. Basically the impact of the latter on the former, but vice versa to some extent.

U.S. ally is threatened by violent extremist organization activities emanating from safe havens in a bordering state: This results in state-on-state conflict. Critical security challenges include terrorist organizations, state use of proxies, hostile state, violent extremist organization, and safe havens.

Colombia was my first thought. But it almost certainly is meant to focus on Iraq. It could even be a different way of talking about Afghanistan.

Advanced hostile state launches an economic attack on U.S. firms: By dumping economic assets and conducting a concurrent wide-ranging cyber attack, an advanced hostile state can create critical security challenges including state use of proxies, cyber attack, unrestricted warfare, and resource competition.

China. That's it. Russia could be cyber-foe but the Russians don't have the economic assets to dump to make it a multi-dimensional assault.

And keep in mind that this is an Army document, so any talk of potential warfare between America and China would be more likely in a Navy, Marine Corps, or Air Force document. But it could mean that we really don't have any plans to ship in Stryker brigades to Taiwan in case China invades Taiwan.

Narco-criminal gang violence along the U.S. borders: This creates instability in border towns and cities and increases illegal immigration due to people fleeing the violence. Critical security challenges include civil security, violent extremist organizations, criminal enterprises, and border tension.

Mexico. And thank you, Canada, for being a stable friend.

Catastrophic natural disaster: The United States suffers a 7.0 or greater magnitude earthquake devastating infrastructure across a large region, triggering internally displaced persons, widespread crime, and large scale civil support responses. Critical security challenges include humanitarian assistance and civil security.

Katrina. Or something like this. The military and federal government won't wait for a state to ask for help next time.

So this is how the Army wants to look at the future, at this point, to guide issues of equipment, organization, training, and deployment.

While this wouldn't be exclusive, since surprises always happen, we'd have to react to other crises within the mindsets and capabilities set forth in this document when it is finalized.

Which means I'd certainly like a generic statement of operations to defend a NATO ally from external threat, even though that is probably a low odds threat. That would mean Russia.

Getting Away With Mass Murder

Dreams from my cultural revolution.

UPDATE: Where the long march is heading.

Is This the Beginning of the End?

Thirty thousand Pakistani troops are moving into South Waziristan in another effort to take down the Taliban that threaten both Pakistan and Afghanistan:

After months of aerial bombing, troops moved into the region Saturday from several directions, heading to the insurgent bases of Ladha and Makeen among other targets, intelligence and military officials said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic or because they were not allowed to brief the media.

They said the operation was expected to last around two months.

Pakistani army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas confirmed Saturday evening that a full-fledged ground operation was under way and said that it aimed to "uproot" the Pakistani Taliban. He said it was too early to discuss what sort of resistance the army was meeting.

The Pakistanis have been intermittently trying to defeat their Taliban (and al Qaeda allies), but have always backed off before the job was done. I imagine our $7.5 billion aid package is designed to keep the Pakistanis at it until they win. We've certainly been working to get the Pakistanis to keep at the job.

The recent Taliban bombing effort apparently failed to halt the attack. We'll see if Pakistani morale holds. Opinion polls so far show good support for fighting the jihadis, according to the article.

And we'll see if Pakistan's efforts encourage President Obama to commit American forces to finish the job on Afghanistan's side of the border.

I can see both America and Pakistan as being reluctant to commit troops and suffer casualties only to see the other fail to control their side of the border. The problem is that Afghanistan can be the rear area sanctuary for Pakistan's Taliban as much as Pakistan is a sanctuary for Afghan jihadis. And the current offensive appears to mean that our summer effort to convince Pakistan that we're in this to win paid off.

I can't imagine that our renewed debate on winning in Afghanistan was terribly helpful in getting Pakistan to move. Unless it is a good cop/bad cop move to persuade Pakistan to move lest our president use Pakistani passivity as an excuse to back off his until recent commitment to win in Afghanistan. Maybe this offensive means we have checked off a box on the checklist to sending more troops.

Right now, the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater is ground zero for the jihad. If America/NATO and Pakistan are resolute and grant no quarter to our enemies, could this be the beginning of the last jihad?

That Smarts All Right

Krauthammer scans our "smart" diplomacy, with special emphasis on Russia and the people who believe our president is too smart not to achieve greatness:

The Russian leadership, hardly believing its luck, needs no interpreter to understand that when the Obama team clownishly rushes in bearing gifts and "reset" buttons, there is nothing ulterior, diabolical, clever or even serious behind it. It is amateurishness, wrapped in naivete, inside credulity. In short, the very stuff of Nobels.

I wish we were so lucky that this is the result of amateurishness. If so, our foreign policy elites might learn from experience. Shoot, even President Carter learned (but when out of office forgot all he learned and degenerated into the caricature of idiocy that he is today). But the Obama team learned everything they need to know in kindergarten. Learning would force them to admit they do not already know everything:

I wish I could say this was amateur hour in the White House. But that would imply that they'll eventually learn. No, this isn't going to get better. What we are seeing is based on ideology that thinks America is almost always wrong and American power is a force for evil.

Early steps that seemed to indicate a more pragmatic foreign policy, such as retaining domestic security laws, completing the war in Iraq, and winning in Afghanistan are clearly--as I thought--just things to be done to avoid being blamed for disaster in the short run that might hinder the project of transforming our domestic economy and politics leftward. Avoiding television reports of defeat through the 2010 mid-term elections is our only foreign policy objective, I fear.

Yes, Secretary Gates will be allowed to finish the war in Iraq and keep fighting in Afghanistan (Gates I think sincerely cares about our troops and does not want to lose those wars, making our losses pointless), but at the price of providing legitimacy to generally lowering our defenses on the theory that in the medium term we face no real threats.

But outside of those three security areas, we are seeing the basic leftist thinking of our administration assert itself. Apologies all around, the love of talk over results, anti-Israel positions, sucking up to Latin American communists and thugs, wondering again why Islamo-fascists hate us, sucking up to Iran's thugs and various mini-thugs like Syria and Burma, hating missile defenses (think Reagan), letting our defenses erode, and generally treating our friends as suspect.

Face it, our leaders truly believe that retreat and concession--let's not shy from that word "appeasement"--will win us friends and influence rogue people.

They're Kidding, Right?

Are the Chinese really protesting a visit by the Indian prime minister to Indian territory?

Apparently so:

The row between India and China over their disputed eastern and northern borders has been simmering for decades. But it was reignited earlier this week when senior Chinese officials publicly attacked a visit by Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister, to Arunachal Pradesh to campaign in its state election.

China's foreign ministry accused Mr Singh of triggering "a disturbance" in the disputed region where the border had "never [been] officially settled."

"China is strongly dissatisfied with the visit to the disputed region by the Indian leader disregarding China's serious concerns," said Ma Zhaoxu, a spokesman in Beijing.

His comments were followed by an editorial in the state-owned Global Times newspaper, which described Mr Singh's visit as a "provocative and dangerous" move aimed at putting a disputed territory under "de facto administration of India".

Wow. This is how China acts when it just anticipates being a major power with power projection capabilities. Imagine how they'll act and what they'll demand when they have actual offensive military power?

The world likes to complain about America. The world will one day discover what a true problem superpower acts like.

Whither Hearts and Minds

Pakistani jihadis struck Lahore:

Islamist militants launched coordinated assaults on three police compounds in Pakistan's second largest city Thursday, the latest in a wave of attacks by insurgents bringing the war to the country's heartland ahead of an expected offensive against their Afghan border sanctuary.

The dramatic escalation in violence appears to be an attempt by the Taliban- and al-Qaida-led insurgency to seize the initiative from the army and deliver a warning to the U.S.-backed civilian government: Attack us in South Waziristan and we will fight back in your cities.

The jihadis believe that by striking the lowland population centers, they show Pakistanis the results of fighting the jihadis in the frontier areas. The jihadis believe this will change popular opinion to force the government to halt the pending offensive in South Waziristan.

Maybe that will work. Or maybe it will stiffen the resolve of the population to destroy the jihadis.

I personally think the jihadis would be better served by striking at government and military targets in the tribal areas. This would provide the publicity in the lowlands of jihadi strength without making the people in the cities feel the pain of attacks and perhaps want revenge.

Remember, jihadi exploits tend to resonate more with a public watching them against somebody else on TV rather than feeling the blast and seeing the blood-stained pavement weeks after the attack is over.

From the Sea

The Chinese also have a new amphibious assault vehicle that can haul a squad ashore at high speed and then fight inland:

China recently displayed, for the first time, a number of new locally designed military vehicles at its 60th anniversary celebrations. Among these new items was the ZBD2000 Amphibious Infantry Fighting Vehicle, designed for beach assault and/or accompanying infantry as they move inland. The tracked vehicle comes in 3 different versions and serves the Chinese (PLA) Marine Corps.

In its primary configuration as an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, the 8 ton ZBD2000 is armed with a central positioned angular turret comprising a 30mm cannon, 7.62mm machine gun and single anti-tank guided missile launcher. Also, 2 sets of smoke grenade dischargers sit on either side of the main gun.

This will come in handy for an invasion of Taiwan. And really, what other purpose could it have? Invading Japan? I rather doubt it.

Sure, it would be useful to invade North Korea by hitting the west coast while troops drive south from the border, but the obvious reason for building these is to invade Taiwan.

We Can't Surge Better Geography

I've written again and again that it is risky to put too many troops into Afghanistan. I'm willing to go along with the military's request for more troops, since they have to live with the logistics reality that I just comment on, but I'm still very uneasy.

The press is starting to catch up with this problem:

The first bottleneck between the Oval Office and Afghanistan is the country's lack of sea ports (the nearest harbor is some 400 miles away) and a dearth of airports.

Plus, once in country, the enemy is making it difficult to use land lines of supply to move supplies and troops:

"We're resupplying between 30% and 40% of our forward operating bases by air because we just can't get to them on the ground," says a senior Army logistician, speaking on condition of anonymity, referring to the roughly 180 U.S. outposts around the country. That's because the Taliban control much of the "ring road," a circular route that links Afghanistan's few major cities. "Trucking contractors trying to supply some of them aren't making it," he adds. "The Taliban are just wiping them out." Such constraints will limit the flow of troops to Afghanistan to about one brigade — some 4,000 troops — a month.

The ring road is key, I believe. It featured prominently in my guess back in January for how our surge would work (with the troops already committed).

We need to secure that ring road to supply our troops, allow us to move troops rapidly, and to help defeat the Taliban by increasing economic opportunities for Afghans. Roads are a counter-insurgent's best friend--but only if they are kept secure from insurgent attacks.

Afghanistan is a tough place to fight in--and that's before we get around to fighting.

A Father's Grief Cannot Drive Policy

What can I say about a father who believes his son died because our rules of engagement are too restrictive?

Bernard's criticism is aimed at new rules of engagement imposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the senior American commander in Afghanistan, five weeks before Joshua Bernard was killed. They limit the use of airstrikes and require troops to break off combat when civilians are present, even if it means letting the enemy escape. They also call for greater cooperation with the Afghan National Army.

Under those rules, John Bernard said, Marines and soldiers are being denied artillery and air support for fear of killing civilians, and the Taliban is using that to its tactical advantage. In a letter to his congressman and Maine's U.S. senators, Bernard condemned "the insanity of the current situation and the suicidal position this administration has placed these warriors in."

It may be that the rules were not properly followed in that battle and that fire support should have been supplied. Certainly, where appropriate, firepower is a useful and necessary tool to defeat insurgents.

It may be that the rules need to be adjusted to account for Taliban adaptation and errors in drafting the rules. Nothing can be static in what we do since even a correct policy can become the wrong policy six months--or even a day--later.

It may even be that nothing changed in our ROE would have saved that one Marine on that day. Good men and women die in war. That's a constant.

But in the big picture, the rules--however they evolve to account for experience in practice--are absolutely the right thing to do to win the war:

Still, short-term losses like this are necessary in a counter-insurgency. We aim to win the war--not all of the battles. We need leaders and troops well trained and disciplined enough to understand the trade off we need to make to win the war.

This doesn't mean that we can't learn from losses like this to adjust our rules for using firepower or adapt our tactics to counter the enemy's exploitation of our rules
of engagement.

But it is frustrating. And deadly for our troops. I can only hope that in the long run their sacrifice saves others who won't be shot at by an Afghan who isn't made angry by too much firepower.

We'd expect a Marine to understand why sacrificing their life to charge a bunker is necessary to win. Winning a war isn't about compiling the best kill ratio in battle--ask the Germans about their experience from 1939 to 1945 if you doubt me.

But in the long run, firepower restraint in a counter-insurgency will give us a better kill ratio and victory. There will be fewer insurgents driven to fight us because we killed their family member with a bomb just not needed to win that battle. Winning the war is what matters, in the end.

I can't possibly tell this grieving father how to mourn his loss (any more than I could hate Cindy Sheehan for her actions). What happened on that particular day to that unit and that young Marine may have been a mistake for any number of reasons.

But the bigger picture is valid despite his pain and his loss. There will be other Marines and soldiers who come home alive from that war because that particular Marine died in that battle on that day. Just as fellow Marines would live because one died destroying a bunker raking their platoon with fire.

Pining for the Vietnam of Their Dreams

The Vietnam analogy doesn't work well for analyzing Afghanistan. Any valid comparisons arise from the simple fact that Vietnam was a war and any friggin' war will share some characteristics!

As max Boot wrote:

Far be it from me--a military historian--to dispute the usefulness of history in policymaking. Properly applied, the study of past wars can be essential in guiding the course of current and future conflicts. But the key is to take lessons selectively and intelligently and not become enthralled by lazy reasoning along the lines of "Vietnam was an American war; X is an American war; therefore, X will be another Vietnam."

Indeed, I've addressed this simple fact before:

Any similarities to Vietnam are simply those shared with any war. Well, there is one potential similarity: defeat can be snatched from the jaws of victory by those too dim to see that they can cause defeat--not predict it.

The only relevant comparison between Afghanistan and Vietnam for the purpose of deciding our course of action is that in both cases, there were or are a lot of Americans all too willing to ensure that their predictions of doom and defeat come true.

Fighting Words

Amazingly, after the European report on the Russo-Georgian War of 2008 that bizarrely blamed Georgia for the war, Russia still feels it is necessary to lay the groundwork for justifying another invasion of Georgia:

"Tapes found belonging to militants testify that they, together with al Qaeda, established contact with representatives of Georgian special services," Alexander Bortnikov, head of the FSB, successor to the KGB, told Russian media.

Georgia has helped train and move "terrorists" from Georgia to southern Russia's volatile, mainly Muslim republic of Chechnya, which it borders, he said.

Georgia swiftly denied the claim, saying Russia was trying to stoke tensions with its ex-Soviet neighbour, with whom it fought a brief war in August 2008 over Georgian breakaway region South Ossetia.

"It's an absurd, baseless, ridiculous statement, but it's not new in terms of Russian propaganda," Georgian National Security Council Secretary Eka Tkeshelashvili told Reuters.

I'm sure the Russians have tapes. I'm sure they can pull out all kinds of "evidence" from their bag of tricks to justify their next invasion of Georgia.