The Wrong Consensus

I'm sure the global warmers who go on about climate change being "settled" and about letting "science guide our policies" won't agree that science is either settled or should guide our policies on this issue (tip to Instapundit), quoting a ScienceNow article:

A controversial method of drilling for natural gas, called fracking, has boomed in recent years—as have concerns over its potential to cause environmental contamination and harm human health. But a major review of the practice, released today, uncovered no signs that it is causing trouble below ground. “We found no direct evidence that fracking itself has contaminated groundwater,” said Charles Groat of the University of Texas, Austin, who led the study. ...

As part of the review, 16 researchers at UT Austin, in fields ranging from air quality to hydrology, reviewed the scientific literature and regulatory documents for three major areas of fracking, in Texas, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania and New York. They could not find evidence of drilling fluids leaking deep underground, and methane in water wells in some areas is probably due to natural sources. The team did not see a need for new regulations specific to fracking, but for better enforcement of existing regulations of drilling in general—such as those covering well casing and disposal of wastewater from drilling.

Perhaps I'm too cynical. But after Greens went from supporting natural gas usage as a lower-carbon alternative to oil as a bridge leading to their alternative energy Utopia to opposing newly abundant natural gas because of fracking--which threatens to be the destination of an oil alternative rather than a bridge--I think I'm entitled.

Another Long War

Some wars are just long. The Afghanistan debate is being played out in Colombia:

Helped by billions of dollars in U.S. aid during the last decade, Colombia's armed forces have used better intelligence and mobility to batter guerrilla armies, pushing their fighters into ever more remote hideouts.

The largest group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, has adjusted its tactics, however, by returning to its guerrilla roots and using smaller units - in contrast to the 1990s when it seized swathes of territory.

So while the army has killed top FARC commanders such as Raul Reyes in 2008, Mono Jojoy in 2010 and Alfonso Cano in 2011, the war goes on.

Military and civilian sources familiar with the new strategy say the main change is to increase the focus on the FARC's logistics and financial operations, as well as its main fighting units. ...

"Mono Jojoy died and nothing happened, the FARC continued. Cano died and nothing happened either. There was demoralization and a weakening, but the rebels aren't finished." ...

The revamped strategy is to dismantle the fronts [NOTE: "fronts" are what FARC calls their units in the field, analagous to battalions, it seems, in organization if not size, I'd guess] involved in cocaine smuggling, arms trafficking, the manufacture of bombs and illegal mineral mining, as well as specialist combat units such as the feared Teofilo Forero mobile front, the sources said.

I haven't followed Colombia's war on insurgents and narco-terrorists. It has gone on my entire adult life with the insurgents and/or drug dealers sometimes controlling large parts of the country.

I'd recall that Colombia was a functioning (if truncated) state despite the ongoing violence (including right-wing militias that played as dirty as the insurgents) as the debate over Iraq sometimes ridiculously raged over whether Iraq could completely suppress the terrorists and insurgents Iraq's government faced--as if that was the only measure of victory.

Colombia has had success in going into the insurgent strongholds and breaking up their control. The enemy was atomized and resorted more to terror than population and land control to fight the government. The enemy also became more of a criminal enterprise with a political fig leaf rather than a communist insurgency with drug gang allies who provided money.

After atomizing the enemy, the government had success in killing leaders of the down-but-not-out insurgents. But the enemy still does not quit. Perhaps thinking that they could duplicate the success Peru had in really crippling the Shining Path in Peru by killing its charismatic leader, Colombia tried the "counter-terrorism" strategy of going after leadership.

But it isn't working. Oh, going after the leadership is necessary since it gets rid of more experienced leaders and disrupts the enemy while they bring up new leaders. But it isn't enough.

So the Colombians have to do something different. No that the Colombians are losing--they're just facing different circumstances. The fact that the Colombians have briefed CIA director Petraeus, who orchestrated the "counter-insurgency" approaches in Iraq and Afghanistan to focus on protecting the people from insurgents (or more broadly, separating the people from the insurgents, which then includes the situation where the local population supports the insurgents rather than simply needing protection from the insurgents), makes it seem like our old debate about counter-terrorism (relying on special forces and drones to hammer leadership) versus counter-insurgency (separating the insurgents from the people) is taking place.

But in fact, that isn't the debate. Colombia has secured the population. FARC no longer terrorizes the cities nominally under government control and FARC no longer controls the remote productive countryside that was a de facto FARC state. This is more of a Vietnam debate, really.

In Vietnam, we always had two wars: the classic counter-insurgency against the Viet Cong (including--and increasingly after Tet--North Vietnamese infiltrators) to secure the population centers and root out insurgent networks; and the big war fights out in the bush where we fought large and organized conventional enemy forces. Vietnam comparisons regarding Iraq always frustrated me because so many people only remembered the former war without remembering the latter. In Iraq, we never had the latter. For the most part, we never faced enemies massed in larger than platoon strength. We never had to worry about our spread out forces being overwhelmed by a larger force. Even in Afghanistan where the enemy can come across the border with Pakistan in larger numbers, we've rarely faced this situation. And in every one we have, our forces held their outposts in the face of the attacks.

But this isn't even about the small unit/big unit Vietnam wars since FARC doesn't have big units in the field. They were defeated in the last decade by a greatly expanded Colombian military trained and equipped by the United States. For decades, FARC thrived because the army wasn't big enough to secure the population centers let alone to go after FARC in their home territory. But that finally changed and Colombia did go into the enemy home territory and broke their control. No, this is more about going into the last sanctuaries of the FARC in the remote wilderness to scatter them so they cannot reconstitute if left alone and come back down to threaten the populated areas.

As I noted, the small unit war in Vietnam required us to spread our forces out to control the population. But the enemy big units in the field could sweep up those scattered small units. So we needed some forces concentrated to keep the enemy big units at bay. Our "incursion" into Cambodia was simply part of keeping the enemy big units at bay--in that case to allow our withdrawal unhindered.

So Colombia is figuratively going into Cambodia. They need to hammer the remaining enemy units (whether combat or logistics) that have retreated into their wilderness sanctuary to hide and hope that time will allow them to reverse their defeats. Our experience in Afghanistan in 2001 of raising the near-dead Northern Alliance up (after it was defeated but not scattered in the 1990s by the Taliban) to spearhead our offensive against the Taliban regime is a lesson on this issue.

But then again, maybe this is an Afghanistan debate. Despite cries from the anti-war side (and some isolationists on the right) that the inability to completely wipe out the Taliban in Afghanistan means our enemy is winning, we have smashed up the Taliban quite a bit. Indeed, the Taliban in Pakistan want a ceasefire with Pakistan to rescue their Afghan brethren:

The head of the Haqqani Network (based in North Waziristan) confirmed that there was a ceasefire deal with Pakistani security forces. ... The Haqqani leaders are complaining about how difficult it is to get the many Islamic terror groups to abide by the ceasefire deal. Haqqani also confirmed that the main purpose of the ceasefire was to provide aid for the beleaguered Afghan Taliban forces.

We haven't smashed the enemy. Which is why we need another fighting season to smash up the enemy in Regional Command East where the Taliban draw support from inside Pakistan. But I don't know if our newly revealed plans to quit our combat missions by summer 2013 includes a full effort this year in the east to go with another year of building up the Afghan security forces to handle the atomized threat.

And even if we do have a fighting season in Regional Command East, another problem looms as much as it does for Colombia, assuming they successfully pursue the FARC into the wilderness and break them up. The enemy still lives on in Pakistan. For Colombia, the enemy has new rear areas in Venezuela and Ecuador (which Colombia raided not too long ago) and probably in Peru.

Unfortunately, we'll have to live with a long war in Afghanistan just as Colombia has endured a long war with FARC. FARC had their own remote areas as a sanctuary while Afghanistan has to endure the Taliban with a sanctuary in Pakistan. And as the Haqqani ceasefire with Pakistan shows, we can't count on Pakistan to control their side of the border. Indeed, the same Strategypage link shows that the Obama administration has made it more difficult for Pakistan to control their side of the border:

A long-banned anti-American group; "The Defense of Pakistan Council" has been revived. The group has been holding large anti-American demonstrations. This is apparently in response to U.S. threats to halt the billions of dollars in economic and military aid for Pakistan. Many Pakistanis are angered by this threat, and are responding with hostility. But the big change in Pakistan is the enormous shift in attitude against the army and intelligence services (ISI). This has been growing for years, but last year's American raid into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden changed everything. The revelations that bin Laden had been living in a military town for years, despite constant army insistence that they did not know where bin Laden was. Years of growing hostility against military lies and corruption now had convincing confirmation.

Not that I think we shouldn't have killed Osama bin Laden. We had to. But it was neigher nuanced nor smart diplomacy. Heck, I never thought our drone strikes begun during the last year of the Bush administration was anything more than keeping the Taliban off balance during the presidential transition. I thought that the Pakistani public reaction against violating their sovereignty would outweigh the benefits of killing jihadi leaders in the long run. But the strikes didn't lead to such a reaction and they have continued. I assume there was no public reaction because Pakistan's military agreed to who we targeted, and so they didn't stoke public resentment. But by getting bin Laden, we did target someone that Pakistan's military (and intelligence services) didn't want us to target. So Pakistan's military didn't like that. And the inability of Pakistan's military to stop us angered the Pakistani public without any stoking--but the anger includes the Pakistani military as well. So stoking anger against America is their only recourse (well, other than completely siding with us to defeat the jihadis, apparently). So we can't count on Pakistan to help us crush the last Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan.

So as we head for the exits in Afghanistan, remember that this war will go on for decades since beating the enemy inside Afghanistan is only part of the battle. We will need to remain on guard against the enemy reconsituting in Pakistan and returning to Afghanistan. If all goes well and we remain attentive and involved, we won't be suffering casualties any more than we have been in Colombia's long war. But we can't just walk away too soon unless we want to risk Afghanistan again becoming a sanctuary for jihadis who want to kill us at home.

UPDATE: Strategypage notes the new approach and emphasizes the financial and logistics angle. That fits with the Cambodia comparison, but the comparison only extends so far. For Colombia, it is trying to go for the kill to keep the enemy from regenerating rather than buying time like a spoiling attack the way the Cambodia Incursion really was.

When You Need to Know

So at about 4:00, there is a news report that the Libyan government has dispatched troops to the Kufrah region to suppress clashes between tribal groups:

Libya has sent military forces to stem clashes between rival tribes over control of territory in the far southeast of Libya, the armed forces chief said on Saturday, as more people were reported killed in the violence.

Funny enough, my statistics package tells me that at 1:44 p.m. my time, someone from Libya searching for "kufrah map" hit this page. The search was in English. I wonder if it was the article's author?

Glad to be of service, Mr. 41.254.5.# .

In For a Penny

China is building a force of large amphibious warfare vessels (071 class) that can each land and support a battalion of troops:

These LPDs are 210 meter (689 foot) long, 20,000 ton amphibious ships with a flight deck for up to four helicopters and a well in the rear for landing craft. It normally carries four hovercraft in the well and two smaller landing craft suspended on davits. The ship can carry up to 800 troops (500 are more common) and up to 20 armored vehicles.

The Chinese have two, with a third nearing completion, and a fourth on order. All four could land a brigade's worth of troops but for a Taiwan invasion scenario, I don't think traditional amphibious warfare vessels are the weapon of choice given the scale of the task.

The ships fit with the Chinese plans for the South China Sea where small islands would be the target.

Since Taiwan and the South China Sea are considered "core interests" of China, for which war is an option to resolve the interest in China's favor, I'd expect China to hit the key islands of the South China Sea while they invade Taiwan if it becomes quickly clear that America will intervene on Taiwan's side. (If we stand down, China might prefer to let post-conquest diplomacy and fear work their magic on attitude adjustment of small nations that think they can rely on America.) The world will either be angry or cowed by the Chinese invasion of Taiwan (which one may depend on what we do), so why not get the core interests out of the way all at once regardless of the world reaction?

Actually, if I was a really ambitious despot, I'd try to solve the Tibet core interest too shortly after the dust settles on Taiwan if I successfully grab the island and deter an American counter-invasion.

Not that China's efforts regarding the South China Sea will naturally succeed just because Peking considers them a core interest. Vietnam is buying submarines from Russia. The Philippines is negotiating with America to host American forces on training missions. Singapore will host one of our new Littoral Combat Ships (and I assume more will follow). And Australia is going to host an American Marine Expeditionary Unit in northwest Australia. Oh, and Australia's defense plans include building forces capable of power projection. Austalia is small so to be significant, the objectives have to be bite-sized rather than continental in scope. Like small islands, for example.

So while the Chinese consider the South China Sea to be their sea, nations surrounding the South China Sea on three sides disagree strongly.

Marketing for the Director's Cut Blu Ray

Don't get me wrong. I really like Jennifer Aniston. She's hot.

But her films have not exactly been the high point of her career for some reason.

This movie news, I think speaks to the continuation of that trend of appearing in bad movies:

Jennifer Aniston had her naked boobs pulled from her new movie "Wanderlust," putting a last-minute kibosh on a frontal topless scene out of consideration for her boyfriend and "Wanderlust" co-star, Justin Theroux, an insider tells TheWrap.

One, the story advertises a tamer version of the topless scene. Never mind what you might hear about the movie before you see them it!

Two, once you've seen them it, you might still buy the disc when the less tame version of the movie scene  is released.

Marketing (yes, marketing!) is a wonder to behold.

Why?

We arrested a wannabe jihadi on his way to bomb Congress (Note to the executive branch in light of Fast and Furious: It would look really bad if you screw up and a would-be jihadi actually hits the target of another branch of government, notwithstanding that you think the jihadi just has a fake bomb. Or is that considered a "silver lining" to a plan gone awry?):

The FBI arrested a man suspected of planning to carry out a suicide attack against the U.S. Capitol on Friday. But the would-be suicide bomber, identified as a Moroccan national who resided in Alexandria, Virginia, was the target of a lengthy FBI undercover investigation and the public was never in any danger, FBI and Justice Department officials stressed.

I don't mind these operations despite worries that they are "entrapment" of otherwise law-abiding people. While we need to watch these operations to make sure they don't cross the lines to do that, these do increase the level of uncertainty for actual jihadis in seeking help and deter pro-jihadi people from acting on their feelings.

But my question is why did this young man want to bomb us? I mean, Bush is long gone from the White House; President Obama gave a lovely speech in Cairo to reach out to Moslems everywhere with an open extended hand of friendship; and we are completely out of Iraq--which supposedly was the one thing that really inspired Moslems to become jihadis. Heck, we even "led from behind" on Libya, where jihadis seem to be quite happy with the opportunities they now have there without American boots on the ground to defeat them.

What's their excuse now for wanting to kill us?

Oh yeah. I keep forgetting. The question isn't what sets them off. The question is what doesn't set them off?

Boomba

A company has found an alternative to mirrors on sticks for checking for bombs under vehicles based on robotic vacuum cleaners. It is called "Ferret." The Dignified Rant deplores their lack of imagination.

Really, this post was all about the title.

Death Will Follow in Their Wake

Two Iranian vessels entered the Mediterranean Sea after passing through the Suez Canal:

The destroyer and a supply ship could be on their way to the Syrian coast[.]

I assume the supply ship is carrying arms for Syria. The ships will unload and after some time to get the weapons and ammunition to where Assad wants it, a lot more Syrians will die at the hands of their government.

UPDATE: Interesting. Yesterday I heard the Iranian ships had left the Mediterranean, which seemed to indicate a time in port too brief for unloading anything significantly large. Now I hear that the Iranian ships never made it to a Syrian port--or any port. So what's up? Did the ships drop small arms cargoes to float to Gaza? Did the captains get word that they need to get to home waters ASAP? Or to positions in the Red Sea to be in a position to interdict oil traffic that attempts to bypass Hormuz?

I Hesitate to Mention This

I'm not a basketball fan--at all. Until the 1980s, I did follow the Pistons. But I lost interest. I am aware of the Jeremy Lin phenomenon. By all accounts, he is excellent. And in a rarity for basketball, an Asian American of Taiwanese ancestry (leading to something of a feud between Taiwan and China to "claim" him, it seems). So he is blazing a trail, too.

Lin plays for the New York Knicks. But when I heard some sports guy mention he plays at "MSG," I nearly did a spit-take. Was this some type of ethnic insensitivity here?

Apparently not. I didn't realize that the Knicks' arena, Madison Square Garden, is often just called "MSG". Which has nothing to do with the food additive that is infamous in Chinese food.

I wish Lin well. But if Lin goes to another team, it will be easy to imagine a lot of sports page headlines.

Is the War Being Run from Chicago?

The Department of Defense announced that a number of brigades would go to Afghanistan organized for an advisory role:

The Army announced today a new mission to meet requirements in Afghanistan. Four brigade combat teams (BCTs), one separate brigade and an Army command, each in a modified configuration, will deploy between April and August 2012. Approximately 1,460 active component officers and senior non-commissioned officers along with approximately 300 DoD civilians will deploy in 18-person teams to provide training assistance to Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).

This article fleshes this out:

Each brigade will deploy with fewer than half its assigned number of soldiers and will be comprised only of officers and senior noncommissioned officers, along with a contingent of Defense Department civilians. Once in Afghanistan they will operate in 18-person teams in a train-and-advise role.

A lot fewer than half, if the DOD announcement is right that the total is about 1,800 people, including about 300 civilians. Unless I misunderstand and each brigade will send about 1,500 troops. But since I thought that Afghanistan had far fewer than 100 battalions, a total of 1,800 fits that since you could have teams with each battalion, with brigade and higher headquarters, and with support headquarters of other battalions.

Of course, I thought we were still going to be fighting through the summer of 2013 and end after that. Does this mean the transition begins this April and we fade out over the next year or so, instead? I guess our military isn't getting the fighting season they said they needed to knock down the Taliban so that Afghan security forces can handle them.

Before I assume that this deployment of advisers is instead of new combat forces rotating in, I'll wait to read more. I hope the article is giving the wrong impression.

But I won't be shocked if the Afghanistan campaign is being run from Chicago and not Central Command.

UPDATE: Have we begun to draw back from combat already? I only ask because I noticed that my casualty notices have been getting pretty thin lately. Mind you, that's a cause for relief in one sense. But is the low casualty rate recently some short term luck and skill or is it a sign we've started avoiding missions that might cause casualties? I checked the stats and we've lost only 5 dead so far this month. Last year we lost 18 for the entire month, so perhaps this is just a seasonal low. Or a single (but rare) helicopter crash could take place by the end of the month. I'm happy for lower casualties but not if we are simply avoiding combat. We should fight to win, and putting troops in the field where they can be killed--but not allowing them to fight to win just for the optics of fewer killed troops would be pretty cold.

So if our casualties pick up, I'll get to feel both depressed that our troops are dying and relieved that increased casualties likely means we have not decided not to win. Oh, and a healthy portion of guilt for being relieved. Which is why I'm relieved not to have the responsibility for ordering troops to their deaths. Punditry is easy, that way.

Thank God For Hanging Chads

Al Gore thinks our capitalism needs more regulation because it is "unsustainable":

"While we believe that capitalism is fundamentally superior to any other system for organizing economic activity, it is also clear that some of the ways in which it is now practiced do not incorporate sufficient regard for its impact on people, society and the planet," Gore said.

Conveniently, when it comes time to writing the regulations to achieve his Utopian vision of what is sustainable, he'll be one of the people deciding what is good in the long run in regard to the impact on people, society, and the planet. So, no, in practice, he does not believe capitalism is fundamentally superior. He believes he is fundamentally superior.

The Economist notes that our economy is being strangled by regulation:

The home of laissez-faire is being suffocated by excessive and badly written regulation[.]

And what's really unsustainable? Our Budget deficit. At least according to our Secretary of Treasury:

“Even if Congress were to enact this budget we would still be left with–in the outer decades as millions of Americans retire–what are still unsustainable commitments in Medicare and Medicaid.”

Our federal government is just too damn big.

Keep It Simple: Is Hashemi Guilty?

We can't try to be too clever trying to engineer sectarian community relations in Iraq as if questions of individual guilt are irrelevant.

There is Sunni Arab-sponsored and Sunni Arab-tolerated terrorism in Iraq. Vice President Hashemi's guilt is being confused by making his prosecution a matter of determining Sunni-Shia relationships in Iraq. But the question is whether he is guilty of either sponsoring terrorism or tolerating it among his employees. This Iraqi judicial panel says he did this:

An Iraqi judicial panel said Thursday that Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi and his employees ran death squads that for years carried out deadly attacks on security officials and Shiite pilgrims.

The nine-judge committee's findings, which are not legally binding, offered the first independent assessment of a case that has touched off a political crisis along sectarian lines and nearly brought the Iraqi government's work to a halt. Al-Hashemi has denied the allegations, and accuses Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of coordinating a smear campaign as part of a power grab.

If convicting a Sunni Arab leader of committing terrorism harms sectarian relations, the sectarian relations aren't worth defending. We need to help Iraqis determine the truth behind the allegations regardless of where the truth leads.

Sectarian relations will suffer either if a guilty man goes unpunished as much as they would if an innocent man is punished. And we may need to be creative to make sure that a judgment of guilt is accepted by the Sunni Arabs or that a judgment of not-guilt is accepted by the Shias.

Time to Play War Crime/Not a War Crime

Some of our troops committed what amounted to fraternity hazing at Abu Ghraib during the Iraq War (and I'm not defending it, of course, just providing perspective) and the world called it torture.

In Syria we are seeing true war crimes as a matter of government policy, according to the UN Secretary General:

Speaking to reporters in Vienna, Ban demanded the Syrian regime stop using indiscriminate force against civilians caught up in fighting between government troops and Assad's opponents.

"We see neighborhoods shelled indiscriminately, hospitals used as torture centers, children as young as 10 years old chained and abused," Ban told reporters in Vienna. "We see almost a certain crime against humanity."

You'd think that the Global Left would have time to get outraged about this situation. Especially since they don't seem to be too worried about Guantanamo Bay now that Bush is out of office.

Schrödinger's Revenue

The Obamacare "revenue" stream is an amazing thing: when you look at it directly, it either is or isn't a tax according to administration officials depending on the audience.

Perhaps the Horse Will Sing

Israel would have a hard time inflicting a lasting blow against Iran's nuclear program. I've long figured that while we could carry out a war lasting weeks, Israel could manage only minutes over Iran and maybe some follow-up ballistic and cruise missile strikes over the next hours, or if an air attack is supplemented by a commando raid from the sea to smash disable the Bushehr reactor without melting it down from damage in an air strike.

So this article discussing difficulties is nothing new. But the author misses the point when he writes:

The ultimate question, of course, is once Israeli planes have flown back, won't Iran be able to repair the damage and accelerate the nuclear programme? Or does Israel assume that the U.S. will pick up where they left and start a long-term war with Iran?

That is not the ultimate question. If Israel fears Iran will nuke Israel (or even if Israel just fears that Iran going nuclear will provoke a number of Arab states to go nuclear, raising the risk that some nutball will get a nuke to "solve" the Israel problem), Israel may strike even if Iran immediately begins to rebuild.

One, it appears that our four-day strike against Iraq in Desert Fox at the end of 1998 did way more than set back Iraq's nuclear program by a year--which is what we said at the time was our assumption (if my memory serves me on that specific point, although in general we said we only hoped to "erode" or "degrade" Iraq's WMD capabilities). We apparently crippled it enough for Saddam to be unable to resurrect it until sanctions could be lifted. So perhaps Israel could do more than we think.

But if we were willing to simply buy a year of time striking Iraq which could not have destroyed America even if Iraq got and used an atomic weapon, what calculation do you think Israel would make regarding Iran when Iran's ruler dreams of erasing Israel from the map--when Israel's portion of the map is pretty small?

Israel will think that buying half a decade of time--or even a year--of nuclear-free Iran is well worth the risk. Even if Israel has no hope of continuing the war on their own for a more lasting solution and even if Israel has no hope of America picking up the ball, Israel can always hope that maybe the horse will sing.

Oh, and the author is missing another point: what does he mean when he says the US will "start" a long-term war with Iran? Iran seems to believe they are at war with us already even if they aren't actively shooting in the open right now. From capturing our embassy and holding our diplomats hostage to plotting to plant bombs in Washington, D.C., Iran seems very much at war with America already.

In the long run, we need a new Iranian government that either doesn't want nuclear weapons (either to use or just to shield their terrorism and aggression) or is someone we won't worry will use nuclear weapons. But in the short run, are you really willing to risk what will happen if Iran gets nuclear weapons? Are you really ready to face a Middle East with nuclear weapons deployed in a triangle bounded by Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan, and many points inside? I dare say domestic debates over fracking and pipelines from Canada won't seem quite so debatable in that future.

Unclear on the Concept

Oliver Stone's son converted to Islam while in Iran. The young Stone seems confused about what he did:

"The conversion to Islam is not abandoning Christianity or Judaism, which I was born with. It means I have accepted Mohammad and other prophets."

Um, don't say that first part too loudly while you are in Iran. Sean Stone is surely free to do what he wants. But in their concept of Islam, Stone submitted to Mohammed and most surely did abandon the religion he were born with. I also assume Stone became a Shia Moslem since he converted while in Iran.

Oh, and Islam is the religion Stone will surely die with. There is no going back as far as the Islamist nutjobs are concerned. Accept that, too.

I assume Ali Stone will live in the West where it is much safer to be a religious minority. If he's smart, he won't even want to live in a Sunni dominated Moslem country, for that matter.

The Invisible Hand Wins

Carbon markets crack me up.

Statists set these up to prove that market forces can pave the way to a green future.

And even with the government hand trying to create supply and demand for carbon credits, the market in Europe--throught the ETS: European Trading Scheme--has failed (tip to Instapundit):

Johannes Teyssen, chief executive of Eon, the German energy group that is one of Europe’s largest, stunned an audience in Brussels last week when he pronounced the market broken. “Let’s talk real,” he said. “The ETS is bust, it’s dead.”

The market is broken? I beg to differ. The market worked perfectly. A system of trading a worthless product that nobody wanted couldn't stagger along for long even with government sponsorship.

Adam Smith wins.

The war goes on, of course, even if this battle is over. The Europeans would like to "fix" the market with more government controls. Hang on to your wallets, Europe!

Their Best Shot?

We're supposed to worry that Iran will unleash sleeper cells who will conduct an orgy of skilled and deadly terrorist violence against the West if we attack Iran to prevent their mullah regime from getting nuclear weapons.

Iran already failed in an attack in Washington, D.C. And now the Iranians, having unleashed their terrorists on the hated enemy Israel in retaliation for the subliminal war on Iran's nuclear program, aren't looking quite as awesome as we fear:

Israeli officials ramped up accusations Wednesday that Iran was launching covert attack plots, saying "sticky" bombs found in a Thai house rented by Iranians were similar to devices used against Israeli diplomats in India and Georgia. ...

Thailand's government was struggling to piece together what a trio of Iranian men were plotting when a cache of explosives detonated by mistake in their home in Bangkok's busy Sukhumvit Road area a day earlier. ...

On Monday in New Delhi, an explosion tore through an Israeli diplomatic vehicle, wounding the driver and a diplomat's wife, according to Indian officials. On the same day in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, authorities say attackers planted an explosive device on the car of a driver for the Israeli Embassy, but it was discovered and defused before it went off.

So this is what they've got? A wounding (that could alienate India, which has been fairly friendly with Iran), a discovered attack in a small nearby country, and a shot in their own foot are what the Iranians unleash on the hated Jews who are targeting Iran's most prized program?

Iran is surely a supporter of terrorism. And in areas with lots of supporters and given time, Iran can rack up a body count. But the idea that Iran has a bunch of terror cells with advanced plans held in readiness for a signal from Tehran is ridiculous. In two wars with Iraq, people warned that Saddam would unleash a wave of terrorism in the West if attacked. Saddam didn't manage that.

Obviously, Iran will fight back if we strike them to knock out their nuclear program. Which is why we should take them seriously and treat this as a war that ends with Iran's mullahs overthrown and not a knuckle-rapping of a naughty boy caught with gum in class.

But the Iranians aren't terror and asymmetric masterminds who will run circles around our intelligence and military assets.

UPDATE: Oh, toss in a failed plot in Azerbaijan:

Piece by piece, the tools for an alleged Iranian-directed murder team were smuggled into Azerbaijan on the Caspian Sea. A sniper rifle with silencer. Pistols. Sixteen pieces of plastic explosives and detonators.

Finally came a dossier with photos, names and exacting details — down to workplace drawings — for Israeli targets in the capital of Azerbaijan.

Iranian agents aren't ten feet tall.

Why I'm Conservative

If this incident of government control doesn't reach the level of erecting a multitude of new offices, and sending hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance, I don't know what does:

A North Carolina preschooler was fed cafeteria chicken nuggets after a state employee decided that her homemade lunch was not nutritious enough, the Carolina Journal reported.

The West Hoke Elementary School student's lunch box -- which contained a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips and apple juice -- was inspected by a state agent in the girl's classroom and deemed not to meet the nutrition guidelines set by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), according to the report Tuesday.

And the girl's parent was charged $1.25 for the nuggets.

Why do I suddenly recall that Saddam would charge the families of those he murdered the cost of the bullets used to kill their relative?

Seriously, you really think our fiscal problems stem from too little taxation? When our schools have a "state agent" who inspects pre-schoolers' lunches? Face it. Our federal government has taken on too many responsibilities. It's just too damned big.

UPDATE: Lileks is properly outraged--if the story is true, he rightly cautions.

But if true, we're less of a nation for not routinely laughing these clowns out of town.

UPDATE: Mark Steyn comments and completes the Declaration of Independence allusion. The title alone is worth the price of admission.

Dear Britain

Please excuse Sean Penn. He is an idiot who is useful to any anti-American ruler who needs a little publicity. And he isn't the brightest star in the firmament, to say the least.

But you know that.