...to a new venue:
www.julescrittenden.com
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
You're a Wienie ...
... if you haven't had it peeled yet.
Nigel Barley on penis peeling and pain.
-- Anthropologist and pain scholar Nigel Barley.
UPDATE: If you care to comment and/or get your penis peeled, the party's shifted over to www.julescrittenden.com.
Nigel Barley on penis peeling and pain.
"They came in the night and grabbed me, took me outside and tore my shirt off. That annoyed me - you know how hard it is to get a decent shirt in the village - but they were all masked so I didn’t know who it was. Then one of them beat me on the back with those sharp reeds that really cut you and pushed me in the bullrushes - you know the ones whose sting lasts for days. Then they dragged me down to the lake to a muddy bit where the crocodiles live and threw me in the water, shouting that the crocodiles were coming. They held my head under the water till I nearly drowned and something sharp grabbed my leg and when I was hysterical they ran away, laughing. I dragged myself home and collapsed. The cuts all got infected and I couldn’t move for three days. The pain was terrible and I got a fever that nearly killed me. It was a wonderful spiritual experience."
... Anthropologists have been beaten and scarified, circumcised and starved, spat on and rubbed in excrement, all in the name of getting inside the skin of local people, understanding the way they think and feel. Pain is the ultimate proof of seriousness of purpose, of sympathy and empathy, the absolute core of the participant observation that is virtually the only intellectual capital of the subject. It is assumed that people who go to Africa or Asia to study exotic cultures must feel pain as the ultimate "being there." You just know that any anthropologist worth the name who was working on Christianity would absolutely insist on being nailed to a cross.
Yet, as my colleague’s words show, you are not supposed to make too much of it. It was a wonderful experience ... To live amongst a people, suffer pain and hardship at their hands and not love them and their way of life is to be simply an ungrateful tourist who failed to grasp the local viewpoint. You are the equivalent of someone who went to Paris and couldn’t be bothered to go up the Eiffel Tower. I once worked among a people where the central rite of a man’s life was to have his penis peeled for its entire length. It literally sorted the men from the boys. Without undergoing it, you were a snivelling child, wet and smelly, as contemptible as a mere woman. After the transformation, you were a real man, the finest thing God had created and allowed to swagger and swear oaths on the knife of circumcision. I sat up all one night worrying about whether to become a "real" man or - more seriously - a "real" hairy-chested anthropologist. Then, I paid a fine of six bottles of beer to the men to be classed as "honorary circumcised." I still think it is the best deal I ever made.
Wait, there's more.
Then there is the pain of the «natives». That, too, is everywhere. Pain is a resource that is deployed lavishly in human culture. In the Third World, we think immediately of a government monopoly of pain, the torturers in their dark rooms who live hand in glove with military dictatorships and absolutist regimes and deploy their batons, castor oil and electrodes in the loyal service of the state. One day, we smuggly believe, progress will sweep them away and everyone will enjoy universal human rights.
Yet pain is not just an aberration within imperfect nation states. In villages and townships, cattle camps and nomadic encampments, pain is proudly and openly deployed in traditional ways. Boys have their penes cut to open like flowers when they have an erection or drive pins through their noses and tongues. Men slash at their genitals with glass. Girls have their clitores sliced off, their lips pierced and their feet hobbled. Backs and faces and stomachs are pricked and carved and tattooed with blunt nails. People are mutilated and maimed and disfigured.
Human culture drips with blood and inflicted pain and the surprising thing is that most of it is voluntary. For pain is an important cultural resource and even in the West, we are raised in an economy of pain. As a child, I was assured that Christ suffered for me. I was to be redeemed by suffering myself and when I suffered I should accept it and offer up my pain to him. The explanation and colonisation of pain is a principal concern of all religions. I once bought a poignant T-shirt. "Shit happens," it declared. "Catholics say shit happens because of original sin. Jews say shit happens because I don’t love my mother. Protestants say shit happens because I don’t work harder. Hindus say here’s that same old shit coming round again. Buddhists say: What shit?"
-- Anthropologist and pain scholar Nigel Barley.
UPDATE: If you care to comment and/or get your penis peeled, the party's shifted over to www.julescrittenden.com.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Saudis in Iraq?
The Saudis would very much like us to stay in Iraq. We're holding Iran at bay, and preventing a Sunni bloodbath. We are doing their work for them. Again. Thus far, they've paid lip service to those goals, but reportedly have failed to stop money from flowing to the Sunni insurgents who kill Americans and Shiites, outcomes that do nothing to help us help them.
There is also the matter of the Muslim world's failure to address its own problems. Iraq is a great example.
As much as I would like to see Arab nations step up to the plate and behave responsibly, any Saudi role that is not part of a comprehensive involvement of sufficiently responsible Shia and Sunni Muslim nations would need to be sharply limited to Sunni areas, where they might be useful, considering the amount of baksheesh to Sunni insurgents they represent.
Stratfor.com on the Saudi position (Nov. 30, still relevant today):
So the Saudis are interested in stepping in. I'd like to hear from anyone who knows anything about the Saudi military. While their police and special ops have been aggressive and effective on al Qaeda in Riyadh in recent years, I'd be very curious to know what thoughts people who are directly familiar with them have about their potential usefulness, lack thereof or potential for hindrance is in Iraq.
GlobalSecurity.org on the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Apparently not weekend warriors, sound somewhat squared away and it sounds like you want to keep them away from the Shia.
GlobalSecurity's take on the Saudi regular army, less enthusiastic.
Meanwhile, the UK Telegraph's view of Iran in Basra, whence the Brits would like to split.
Al Qaeda headed for Diyala. So says Pajamas Media, as Omar had said earlier. This means a predictable game of whack-a-mole for the surge force. Allowing them to lie low is not an option.
Gateway totes up who's with us and who's with them on the Bush surge plan.
There is also the matter of the Muslim world's failure to address its own problems. Iraq is a great example.
As much as I would like to see Arab nations step up to the plate and behave responsibly, any Saudi role that is not part of a comprehensive involvement of sufficiently responsible Shia and Sunni Muslim nations would need to be sharply limited to Sunni areas, where they might be useful, considering the amount of baksheesh to Sunni insurgents they represent.
Stratfor.com on the Saudi position (Nov. 30, still relevant today):
Saudi Arabia's top strategic adviser warned Nov. 29 that Riyadh will intervene in Iraq to prevent Iran from gaining a foothold there if the United States withdraws its forces. The only viable option for intervention the Saudis have is to back jihadist forces against the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad. In the short term, this could benefit both the Saudis and Washington, as it could lessen Iranian influence in Iraq; however, in the long term, it will empower transnational Islamist militants who will threaten both Saudi and U.S. interests.
Saudi Arabia will use money, oil and support for Sunni militants to thwart Iranian efforts to dominate Iraq in the wake of a U.S. military pullout, the kingdom's top strategic adviser wrote in the Nov. 29 edition of the Washington Post. In a blunt op-ed piece, Nawaf Obaid, managing director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project -- a Riyadh-based government consultancy -- acknowledged that such a move on Riyadh's part could precipitate a regional war, but wrote, "So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse."
So the Saudis are interested in stepping in. I'd like to hear from anyone who knows anything about the Saudi military. While their police and special ops have been aggressive and effective on al Qaeda in Riyadh in recent years, I'd be very curious to know what thoughts people who are directly familiar with them have about their potential usefulness, lack thereof or potential for hindrance is in Iraq.
GlobalSecurity.org on the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Apparently not weekend warriors, sound somewhat squared away and it sounds like you want to keep them away from the Shia.
GlobalSecurity's take on the Saudi regular army, less enthusiastic.
Meanwhile, the UK Telegraph's view of Iran in Basra, whence the Brits would like to split.
Al Qaeda headed for Diyala. So says Pajamas Media, as Omar had said earlier. This means a predictable game of whack-a-mole for the surge force. Allowing them to lie low is not an option.
Gateway totes up who's with us and who's with them on the Bush surge plan.
Paks attack
Pakistan whacks al-Qaeda on the Afghan border. The heat has been on Pakistan. As wonderful as it is to see them take out several terrorist compounds, Pakistan remains a marginally productive partner who, as Gates noted, needs to do a lot more.
Slightly off topic, the 165th anniversary of Gandamak and the last stand of the 44th Foot just passed on Jan. 13, marking the end of the poorly led, ill-fated British 1839 invasion of Afghanistan. Not counting Dr. Bryson's ride into Jallalabad later that day.
Back in 2001, this was one of the incidents everyone pointed to, along with the Russian invasion of 1979, crying quagmire before it started. Entirely different situations, cautionary in the sense that no Afghan adventure should be entered lightly. Nor Iraqi, it would appear. Our Afghan war, though its had its missteps and setbacks, shows no signs of going the way of either of those. Yet.
UPDATE: change of venue to www.julescrittenden.com. Come check out the new site.
Slightly off topic, the 165th anniversary of Gandamak and the last stand of the 44th Foot just passed on Jan. 13, marking the end of the poorly led, ill-fated British 1839 invasion of Afghanistan. Not counting Dr. Bryson's ride into Jallalabad later that day.
Back in 2001, this was one of the incidents everyone pointed to, along with the Russian invasion of 1979, crying quagmire before it started. Entirely different situations, cautionary in the sense that no Afghan adventure should be entered lightly. Nor Iraqi, it would appear. Our Afghan war, though its had its missteps and setbacks, shows no signs of going the way of either of those. Yet.
UPDATE: change of venue to www.julescrittenden.com. Come check out the new site.
Iranian Logic
Stratfor.com examines Iranian support for Sunni insurgents and posits it is part of a two-pronged strategy: use Sunnis to keep the U.S. tied down, while keeping the heat off Iran's primary proxies, the Shiite militias, while Iran strengthens them. But it is a dangerous game that provides openings for the United States:
Iran's primary militant assets in Iraq are Shiite militias and unaffiliated gunmen. But Iran's support for the Iraq insurgency is not limited to its Shiite allies. Tehran also has been providing support to segments of the Sunni insurgency. Though it might sound like a contradiction for Shiite Iran to support Sunni groups in Iraq, it is not unprecedented -- and there is a certain logic behind the groups the Iranians choose to support.
... By offering support in the form of training, weapons and logistics to these groups, Iran has been able to influence Sunni militants and encourage attacks that suit its interests. Such groups are willing to accept assistance from wherever it may come in order to enhance their own positions within the insurgent movement, and are unlikely to become Iranian proxies. They have their own agendas, which they see as being served through cooperation with Iran. Some of these groups feel that the United States is a far greater threat than Iran, while others simply want access to the sophisticated technology the Iranians have to offer.
... Iranian support for Sunni militants will further complicate an already complex insurgency, making it all the more difficult for U.S. and Iraqi forces to contain it. It will also create suspicions and rifts among various Sunni groups that will cause intra-Sunni violence. On the other hand, the situation provides an opportunity for Washington to drive a wedge between the Iranians and their Iraqi Shiite allies by showing that Tehran has actually been backing their enemies. This is why Iran has tried to encourage the Sunni militants it supports to focus on U.S. and other non-Shiite targets.
UPDATE: change of venue to www.julescrittenden.com. Come check out the new site.
Iran's primary militant assets in Iraq are Shiite militias and unaffiliated gunmen. But Iran's support for the Iraq insurgency is not limited to its Shiite allies. Tehran also has been providing support to segments of the Sunni insurgency. Though it might sound like a contradiction for Shiite Iran to support Sunni groups in Iraq, it is not unprecedented -- and there is a certain logic behind the groups the Iranians choose to support.
... By offering support in the form of training, weapons and logistics to these groups, Iran has been able to influence Sunni militants and encourage attacks that suit its interests. Such groups are willing to accept assistance from wherever it may come in order to enhance their own positions within the insurgent movement, and are unlikely to become Iranian proxies. They have their own agendas, which they see as being served through cooperation with Iran. Some of these groups feel that the United States is a far greater threat than Iran, while others simply want access to the sophisticated technology the Iranians have to offer.
... Iranian support for Sunni militants will further complicate an already complex insurgency, making it all the more difficult for U.S. and Iraqi forces to contain it. It will also create suspicions and rifts among various Sunni groups that will cause intra-Sunni violence. On the other hand, the situation provides an opportunity for Washington to drive a wedge between the Iranians and their Iraqi Shiite allies by showing that Tehran has actually been backing their enemies. This is why Iran has tried to encourage the Sunni militants it supports to focus on U.S. and other non-Shiite targets.
UPDATE: change of venue to www.julescrittenden.com. Come check out the new site.
Wind direction
UPDATE: change of venue to www.julescrittenden.com. Come check out the new site.
Great news for those who like to govern by poll. USA Today: Americans 'more pessimistic' after Bush's Iraq speech.
So Americans responding to whatever kind of questions USA Today put in front of them don't like Bush's plan. Why would they? They're on an intravenous "abandon all hope" drip, with tsking docs around the deathbed offering up disaster prognoses.
OK. More people think Bush has a clear plan now than before the speech, and fewer people think Congress does. But what Democratic plan is that 21 percent talking about?
There are also a couple of questions they apparently forgot to ask.
If the United States follows the Democratic plan for Iraq, do you believe:
(a) Iraq will descend into greater chaos and violence, destabilizing the entire region.
(b) Iraq will return to the Eden-like state of peace and security enjoyed under Saddam Hussein, destabilizing the entire region.
(c) Don't give a damn.
Post-abandonment, Iran will:
(a) see the error of its ways, stop sponsoring violence in Iraq and Lebanon and abandon its nuclear weapons program.
(b) launch a large-scale bloodbath in Iraq, install a Shiite puppet, effectively control a large share of the world's oil supply and menace the region with its nuclear weapons.
(c) don't give a damn.
Chicago Boyz on sports vs. news reporting:
"A reporter who consistently attempted to sabotage the local team’s game plans would quickly be looking for work in a different discipline. Fans have too much invested in their teams to let that kind of behaviour continue.
Thus my broader view for the day — America will get the MSM it wants when America takes its national security as seriously as its football."
Don Surber on the UN's Iraqi death estimate. And other stuff.
Great news for those who like to govern by poll. USA Today: Americans 'more pessimistic' after Bush's Iraq speech.
"President Bush's address to the nation last week outlining a 'new way forward' in Iraq failed to move public opinion in support of his plan to increase U.S. troop levels and left Americans more pessimistic about the likely outcome of the war," USA TODAY Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page writes this afternoon.
She adds that "in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, more than 6 of 10 back the idea of a non-binding congressional resolution expressing opposition to Bush's plan to commit an additional 21,500 U.S. troops to Iraq."
• 47% said it is "certain" or "likely" the U.S. will "win" in Iraq, vs. 50% who said that before Bush's speech.
• 49% said it is "unlikely" the U.S. will win or "certain" it will not, vs. 46% who said that before Bush's speech.
• 29% said the president does have a "clear plan" for handling the situation in Iraq, vs. 25% who said that before the speech.
• 69% said the president does not have a "clear plan," vs. 72% who said that before the speech.
So Americans responding to whatever kind of questions USA Today put in front of them don't like Bush's plan. Why would they? They're on an intravenous "abandon all hope" drip, with tsking docs around the deathbed offering up disaster prognoses.
• 21% said Democrats in Congress have a "clear plan" for Iraq, vs. 25% who said that before the speech.
• 75% said Democrats in Congress do not have a "clear plan" for Iraq, vs. 66% who said that before the speech.
OK. More people think Bush has a clear plan now than before the speech, and fewer people think Congress does. But what Democratic plan is that 21 percent talking about?
There are also a couple of questions they apparently forgot to ask.
If the United States follows the Democratic plan for Iraq, do you believe:
(a) Iraq will descend into greater chaos and violence, destabilizing the entire region.
(b) Iraq will return to the Eden-like state of peace and security enjoyed under Saddam Hussein, destabilizing the entire region.
(c) Don't give a damn.
Post-abandonment, Iran will:
(a) see the error of its ways, stop sponsoring violence in Iraq and Lebanon and abandon its nuclear weapons program.
(b) launch a large-scale bloodbath in Iraq, install a Shiite puppet, effectively control a large share of the world's oil supply and menace the region with its nuclear weapons.
(c) don't give a damn.
Chicago Boyz on sports vs. news reporting:
"A reporter who consistently attempted to sabotage the local team’s game plans would quickly be looking for work in a different discipline. Fans have too much invested in their teams to let that kind of behaviour continue.
Thus my broader view for the day — America will get the MSM it wants when America takes its national security as seriously as its football."
Don Surber on the UN's Iraqi death estimate. And other stuff.
A Rifle In Every Pot
Glenn Reynolds in support of mandating gun ownership. Cuts down on burglaries. Yeah, but what about the right not to own a gun. And the right to get burglarized. I thought Glenn was a libertarian.
Heads You Lose
UPDATE: change of venue to www.julescrittenden.com. Come check out the new site.
Washington Post headline:
Iraqi Hangings Bring More Denunciations
Head of Hussein's Half Brother Is Severed
Both halves of Saddam's half-brother taken to Auja, the family's bucolic retreat.
I'm beginning to think that if you don't draw denunciations in this world, you're probably not really doing anything worthwhile. Here are some reax:
Other reviews:
Alaa Makki, a Sunni legislator, cut the baby in half, as it were: Justice was done but the manner of the execution was disturbing.
Elsewhere, the Moroccan Human Rights Association said they were a "criminal political assassination masterminded by American imperialism." I'd be curious to know what statements they issued about Saddam during his regime, if anyone out there has been paying attention.
A U.N. spokesman expressed regret that Secretary General Ban Ki Moon's request to spare the two men's lives was not granted. Not about the head-body separation issue, however.
Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, the European Union's executive arm, said after the hangings that he would back an Italian initiative for a worldwide moratorium on capital punishment under U.N. auspices. Also apparently silent on the head thing.
Washington Post headline:
Iraqi Hangings Bring More Denunciations
Head of Hussein's Half Brother Is Severed
Both halves of Saddam's half-brother taken to Auja, the family's bucolic retreat.
I'm beginning to think that if you don't draw denunciations in this world, you're probably not really doing anything worthwhile. Here are some reax:
"We knew that he would be executed and would join a parade of heroes, but Maliki, why did you behead him?" asked Salam al-Tikriti, 41, a relative of Ibrahim. "Why did you insult his body? Are you still afraid of him even after he is dead? We will cut your heads the same way that you are cutting the heads of the heroes of Iraq."
Other reviews:
Alaa Makki, a Sunni legislator, cut the baby in half, as it were: Justice was done but the manner of the execution was disturbing.
"Everybody knows that when you hang people, rarely the head will be decapitated from the body," he said, criticizing what he called a "revenge on the body."
Elsewhere, the Moroccan Human Rights Association said they were a "criminal political assassination masterminded by American imperialism." I'd be curious to know what statements they issued about Saddam during his regime, if anyone out there has been paying attention.
A U.N. spokesman expressed regret that Secretary General Ban Ki Moon's request to spare the two men's lives was not granted. Not about the head-body separation issue, however.
Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, the European Union's executive arm, said after the hangings that he would back an Italian initiative for a worldwide moratorium on capital punishment under U.N. auspices. Also apparently silent on the head thing.
Monday, January 15, 2007
You Say Ug, I say Ugh ... Let's Call The Whole Thing Off
Romanian skull dated to plus 35,000 years could be the product of Human-Neanderthal intercave love. I'm guessing this kid got beat up a lot. By humans and Neanderthals. Because cave children can be cruel.
UPDATE: change of venue to www.julescrittenden.com. Come check out the new site.
UPDATE: change of venue to www.julescrittenden.com. Come check out the new site.
Heads Up, Iran!
UPDATE: change of venue to www.julescrittenden.com. Come check out the new site.
Gates says all that stuff moving into the Gulf is a message to Iran. We're not tied down in Iraq. UK Guardian:
Works for me.
Bummer for them.
Not really, but whatever.
Otherwise, opportunities for engagement of the destructive variety.
Blue Crab: it's bad enough Ahmadinejad has an Allied fleet crusing offshore, now he's got trouble at home. More from the UK Guardian.
Gates says all that stuff moving into the Gulf is a message to Iran. We're not tied down in Iraq. UK Guardian:
The defence secretary, Robert Gates, told reporters that the decision to deploy a Patriot missile battalion and a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf in conjunction with a "surge" of troops in Iraq was designed to show Iran that the US was not "overcommitted" in Iraq.
... His remarks followed tough comments on Iran at the weekend from other senior US officials. The vice-president, Dick Cheney, accused Iran of "fishing in troubled waters inside Iraq", while the national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said the US was "going to need to deal with what Iran is doing inside Iraq".
Such remarks, following the prospect of "hot pursuit" raids into Iran as raised by George Bush in his televised address last week, have fuelled speculation that the US is softening up the American public for possible action against Tehran.
Works for me.
The increasingly confrontational pose struck by the US is a repudiation of one of the key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which called for the start of a dialogue with Iran and Syria in an effort to extricate the US from Iraq.
Bummer for them.
Mr Gates, who as recently as 2004 publicly called for diplomatic engagement with Iran, said the situation was now different. In 2004, Iran was concerned by the presence of US forces on its eastern and western borders, in Iraq and Afghanistan, but its behaviour had changed.
Not really, but whatever.
"The Iranians clearly believe that we are tied down in Iraq, that they have the initiative, that they are in position to press us in many ways," he said. "They are doing nothing to be constructive in Iraq at this point."
"And so the Iranians are acting in a very negative way in many respects. My view is that when the Iranians are prepared to play a constructive role in dealing with some of these problems then there might be opportunities for engagement."
Otherwise, opportunities for engagement of the destructive variety.
Blue Crab: it's bad enough Ahmadinejad has an Allied fleet crusing offshore, now he's got trouble at home. More from the UK Guardian.
By Fighting Them and Killing Them
Bill Ardolino's interview with an Iraqi cop in Fallujah.
INDC: What would happen if America left Iraq and Fallujah right now? What would happen?
Mohammed: "It's going to be a disaster."
INDC: How so?
Mohammed: "There will be revenge from everybody. And now they are trying to (form the) Islamic Emirate right here."
INDC: What do you think can be done to stop the insurgents?
Mohammed: "By fighting them back and killing them."
Read the whole thing. h/t patterico.
Michael Yon in Mosul on Pundit Radio.
"Iraq is winnable."
INDC: What would happen if America left Iraq and Fallujah right now? What would happen?
Mohammed: "It's going to be a disaster."
INDC: How so?
Mohammed: "There will be revenge from everybody. And now they are trying to (form the) Islamic Emirate right here."
INDC: What do you think can be done to stop the insurgents?
Mohammed: "By fighting them back and killing them."
Read the whole thing. h/t patterico.
Michael Yon in Mosul on Pundit Radio.
"Iraq is winnable."
Coup
UPDATE: change of venue to www.julescrittenden.com. Come check out the new site.
If they aren't talking about it, they should be.
It is increasingly clear that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will continue to obstruct U.S. efforts to take down the greatest threat to stability in Iraq, Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. At present, the U.S. military is in fact strengthening al-Sadr in Baghdad with attacks on Sunni insurgents in the Haifa Street area. Nothing wrong with taking down Sunni insurgents, but not if al-Sadr and his militia are allowed to survive and benefit from it.
The current US military leadership under Gen. Casey, now handing off to Gen. Petraeus, is operating in Baghdad with its hands reportedly tied by a joint command by committee of US and Iraqi forces, in which US officers say al-Maliki and his generals are obstructing US plans for the surge.
If that command structure is allowed to continue under Petraeus, it has to be brought under control. Perhaps by the expedient of smile, nod and ignore, while US forces proceed with actions to provoke al-Sadr and compromise al-Maliki.
Because al-Maliki, like al-Sadr, has shown he is part of the problem. He has chosen to align himself with a murderous, destabilizing, Iranian-backed criminal element. He is not acting in the interest of the Iraqi people, he is acting in the interest of a violent faction. If Iraq is to have any chance at security, al-Maliki has to be removed from power.
Late last year, there was a lot of talk about forming a new moderate governing coalition, described in news reports as a parliamentary coup that would sideline al-Maliki and al-Sadr. Pro-US Shiite cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, an al-Sadr rival, was the power behind the scenes of this effort. It failed and dropped out of the news in December.
We can only assume the CIA, the State Department and the US military are actively exploring parliamentary coup options, and with the surge, trying to set favorable terms for such a coup to take place.
The administration's democratic ideals and objectives prevent direct involvement in a military coup, or any overt links to one. It is unclear how much support there might be within the Iraqi forces, actively controlled by al-Maliki. Probably none within the police, some within the army. It could provoke open civil war, but that might not be the worst thing, if it gave the US military the opportunity it needs to destroy al-Sadr's militia.
Baghdad has been rotten with coup rumors ever since Iraq's new government took over. Speculation now is that the Bush administration's aggressive new strategy, in addition to targeting the Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents, also targets al-Maliki.
When Bush announced his strategy last week, the NYT's John Burns added at the end of his Iraqi reaction article:
Munir Chalabi, a London-based Iraqi analyst associated with Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation, citing the ISG's call to end de-Baathification, says the US and British are planning a "Baathist coup." He predict the dissolution or suspension of the Iraqi parliament in the first three to six months of this year. Chalabi's article has a strong air of conspiracy theory paranoia around it and would require the Bush administration to entirely and public abandon its democracy project.
But among the big questions that remain to be answered are, is the Bush administration willing to do that, and accept yet another massive public relations blow that could have severe political consequences? Or can a change of leadership in Iraq be handled in a manner that avoids an Iraqi constitutional crisis, whether by parliamentary coup or a suspension of elected government that does not abandon it? In either case, who will step into power, with what public legitimacy and what degree of reliability? What then is the path to democracy in the Middle East, or is that agenda abandoned? What are the risks and benefits? Open civil war has its benefits -- freedom of military action -- as well as its drawbacks in greater potential for innocent bloodshed and uncertain outcomes. Does the United States have sufficient forces to deal with a generalized conflict in relatively short order and bring stability that might make up for a lack of democratic niceties?
It is a highly volatile situation, but that is nothing new Iraq. It was highly volatile before we got there. And we've already established, from the invasion to last week's announcement of the new strategy, that it is not US policy to handle it gingerly. But unless there is a dramatic change soon in the behavior of Nouri al-Maliki, he has to go.
If they aren't talking about it, they should be.
It is increasingly clear that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will continue to obstruct U.S. efforts to take down the greatest threat to stability in Iraq, Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. At present, the U.S. military is in fact strengthening al-Sadr in Baghdad with attacks on Sunni insurgents in the Haifa Street area. Nothing wrong with taking down Sunni insurgents, but not if al-Sadr and his militia are allowed to survive and benefit from it.
The current US military leadership under Gen. Casey, now handing off to Gen. Petraeus, is operating in Baghdad with its hands reportedly tied by a joint command by committee of US and Iraqi forces, in which US officers say al-Maliki and his generals are obstructing US plans for the surge.
If that command structure is allowed to continue under Petraeus, it has to be brought under control. Perhaps by the expedient of smile, nod and ignore, while US forces proceed with actions to provoke al-Sadr and compromise al-Maliki.
Because al-Maliki, like al-Sadr, has shown he is part of the problem. He has chosen to align himself with a murderous, destabilizing, Iranian-backed criminal element. He is not acting in the interest of the Iraqi people, he is acting in the interest of a violent faction. If Iraq is to have any chance at security, al-Maliki has to be removed from power.
Late last year, there was a lot of talk about forming a new moderate governing coalition, described in news reports as a parliamentary coup that would sideline al-Maliki and al-Sadr. Pro-US Shiite cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, an al-Sadr rival, was the power behind the scenes of this effort. It failed and dropped out of the news in December.
We can only assume the CIA, the State Department and the US military are actively exploring parliamentary coup options, and with the surge, trying to set favorable terms for such a coup to take place.
The administration's democratic ideals and objectives prevent direct involvement in a military coup, or any overt links to one. It is unclear how much support there might be within the Iraqi forces, actively controlled by al-Maliki. Probably none within the police, some within the army. It could provoke open civil war, but that might not be the worst thing, if it gave the US military the opportunity it needs to destroy al-Sadr's militia.
Baghdad has been rotten with coup rumors ever since Iraq's new government took over. Speculation now is that the Bush administration's aggressive new strategy, in addition to targeting the Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents, also targets al-Maliki.
When Bush announced his strategy last week, the NYT's John Burns added at the end of his Iraqi reaction article:
A Shiite political leader who has worked closely with the Americans in the past said the Bush benchmarks appeared to have been drawn up in the expectation that Mr. Maliki would not meet them. “He cannot deliver the disarming of the militias,” the politician said, asking that he not be named because he did not want to be seen as publicly criticizing the prime minister. “He cannot deliver a good program for the economy and reconstruction. He cannot deliver on services. This is a matter of fact. There is a common understanding on the American side and the Iraqi side.”
Views such as these — increasingly common among the political class in Baghdad — are often accompanied by predictions that Mr. Maliki will be forced out as the crisis over the militias builds. The Shiite politician who described him as incapable of disarming militias suggested he might resign; others have pointed to an American effort in recent weeks to line up a “moderate front” of Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish political leaders outside the government, and said that the front might be a vehicle for mounting a parliamentary coup against Mr. Maliki, with behind-the-scenes American support.
Munir Chalabi, a London-based Iraqi analyst associated with Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation, citing the ISG's call to end de-Baathification, says the US and British are planning a "Baathist coup." He predict the dissolution or suspension of the Iraqi parliament in the first three to six months of this year. Chalabi's article has a strong air of conspiracy theory paranoia around it and would require the Bush administration to entirely and public abandon its democracy project.
But among the big questions that remain to be answered are, is the Bush administration willing to do that, and accept yet another massive public relations blow that could have severe political consequences? Or can a change of leadership in Iraq be handled in a manner that avoids an Iraqi constitutional crisis, whether by parliamentary coup or a suspension of elected government that does not abandon it? In either case, who will step into power, with what public legitimacy and what degree of reliability? What then is the path to democracy in the Middle East, or is that agenda abandoned? What are the risks and benefits? Open civil war has its benefits -- freedom of military action -- as well as its drawbacks in greater potential for innocent bloodshed and uncertain outcomes. Does the United States have sufficient forces to deal with a generalized conflict in relatively short order and bring stability that might make up for a lack of democratic niceties?
It is a highly volatile situation, but that is nothing new Iraq. It was highly volatile before we got there. And we've already established, from the invasion to last week's announcement of the new strategy, that it is not US policy to handle it gingerly. But unless there is a dramatic change soon in the behavior of Nouri al-Maliki, he has to go.
Trouble in Paradise
John Burns at the NYT reports that Iraqi government officials are balking at aspects of the U.S. surge plan. Sounds like time for another "Come to Jesus" chat with al-Maliki, and similar chats all the way down the line.
OK, how about playing them back. Force the issue. Forget the niceties and provoke al-Sadr. Take a page from al-Maliki's book: Smile, nod, then do what you were going to do anyway.
Dan Riehl says give al-Maliki 60-to-90 days to get with the program, or start the pullout. I wouldn't throw al-Maliki into that briarpatch. The stakes are too high to let him get away with it.
Politburo Diktat 2.0 is eager to start the surrender festivities.
Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek quoting LTC Steven Duke: The Mahdi Army "is sitting on the 50-yard line eating popcorn, watching us do their work for them." Again, the stakes are too high to let a Shiite-dominated Iraqi government that is in bed with al-Sadr call the shots. Time for tough love.
... the signs so far have unnerved some Americans working on the plan, who have described a web of problems — ranging from a contested chain of command to how to protect American troops deployed in some of Baghdad’s most dangerous districts — that some fear could hobble the effort before it begins.
First among the American concerns is a Shiite-led government that has been so dogmatic in its attitude that the Americans worry that they will be frustrated in their aim of cracking down equally on Shiite and Sunni extremists, a strategy President Bush has declared central to the plan.
“We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem,” said an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. “We are being played like a pawn.”
OK, how about playing them back. Force the issue. Forget the niceties and provoke al-Sadr. Take a page from al-Maliki's book: Smile, nod, then do what you were going to do anyway.
Dan Riehl says give al-Maliki 60-to-90 days to get with the program, or start the pullout. I wouldn't throw al-Maliki into that briarpatch. The stakes are too high to let him get away with it.
Politburo Diktat 2.0 is eager to start the surrender festivities.
Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek quoting LTC Steven Duke: The Mahdi Army "is sitting on the 50-yard line eating popcorn, watching us do their work for them." Again, the stakes are too high to let a Shiite-dominated Iraqi government that is in bed with al-Sadr call the shots. Time for tough love.
Anbar Dividend
... is also the result of long, hard bloody work in Anbar, by and large not reflected in news reports but brought to us periodically by embedded bloggers such as Michael Yon, Bill Roggio, and now Bill Ardolino.
USA Today reports that recruiting for Iraqi forces is up in Anbar. Via Powerline.
Reports have been emerging for sometime that the tribal leaders in Anbar are tired of al-Qaeda and want to play ball. As Powerline notes, the news in recent weeks that Bush is making a go of it has to have had an effect. And perhaps, the Sunnis have finally done the math and figured out that in chaos and open warfare, they lose.
USA Today reports that recruiting for Iraqi forces is up in Anbar. Via Powerline.
The U.S. military is reporting a dramatic and unexpected increase in the number of police recruits in Anbar province, the center of Sunni insurgent activity in Iraq.
In the past two weeks, more than 1,000 applicants have sought police jobs in Ramadi, the provincial capital. Eight hundred signed up last month in Ramadi, said Army Maj. Thomas Shoffner, operations officer for the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division.
Those figures compare with only "a few dozen" recruits in September, the U.S. military said.
Reports have been emerging for sometime that the tribal leaders in Anbar are tired of al-Qaeda and want to play ball. As Powerline notes, the news in recent weeks that Bush is making a go of it has to have had an effect. And perhaps, the Sunnis have finally done the math and figured out that in chaos and open warfare, they lose.
Dynasty to Indy
I'm a total football moron and even I could tell that was a great game. Trainwreck gets back on the rails. All your Pats coverage here.
Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
A great man, great words, and great actions that ended great injustices in our nation.
Now I have a dream that we can, four decades later, finally dispense with race-based policies that judge people on the color of their skin, not the content of their character.
A great man, great words, and great actions that ended great injustices in our nation.
Now I have a dream that we can, four decades later, finally dispense with race-based policies that judge people on the color of their skin, not the content of their character.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Short Rope, Long Drop x 2
UPDATE: change of venue to www.julescrittenden.com. Come check out the new site.
AP is reporting that Saddam's half-brother and the head of his kangaroo court system have been hanged. They were initially spared so Saddam could have his own special day.
The AP wants to make sure you know that there was some international protest by people who didn't like Saddam being made fun of prior to his drop; also, people who weren't satisfied with his guilt and thought he should keep drawing breath. The AP fails to mention that the predicted outburst of pro-Saddam violence never happened, and that Iraqi street reaction leaned heavily to favorable.
Updates:
Gateway Pundit has art of the pair at trial.
Reuters "Botched Hanging Raises Arab Suspicions." Low safety standards of Iraqi executioners has fatal consequences for Saddam kin.
More Reuters. Cowardly murderers "appeared frightened" as they faced the music.
Reuters turns out to be the mass murderer execution news service of record this morning: Hanging mishap an "Act of God."
This article also discusses the tricky intricacies of the executioner's art, giving 'em enough rope to snap the neck without pulling the head off. This clearly calls for an investigation into who caused this man to be killed by an improperly strung noose!
AP is reporting that Saddam's half-brother and the head of his kangaroo court system have been hanged. They were initially spared so Saddam could have his own special day.
The AP wants to make sure you know that there was some international protest by people who didn't like Saddam being made fun of prior to his drop; also, people who weren't satisfied with his guilt and thought he should keep drawing breath. The AP fails to mention that the predicted outburst of pro-Saddam violence never happened, and that Iraqi street reaction leaned heavily to favorable.
Updates:
Gateway Pundit has art of the pair at trial.
Reuters "Botched Hanging Raises Arab Suspicions." Low safety standards of Iraqi executioners has fatal consequences for Saddam kin.
More Reuters. Cowardly murderers "appeared frightened" as they faced the music.
Reuters turns out to be the mass murderer execution news service of record this morning: Hanging mishap an "Act of God."
Government adviser Bassam al-Husseini said the damage to the body was "an act of God". During his trial for crimes against humanity over the killings of 148 Shi'ites from Dujail, a witness said Barzan's agents put people in a meat grinder.
This article also discusses the tricky intricacies of the executioner's art, giving 'em enough rope to snap the neck without pulling the head off. This clearly calls for an investigation into who caused this man to be killed by an improperly strung noose!
Extended Faith
Blue Crab just learned his son's tour has been extended. The younger Crab is an Army reservist with a transportation unit in Iraq. Convoy duty.
read the rest.
Richard at Hyscience, who also has a son over there, on the traitors in our midst.
One of the hardest things for me this past year has been watching the erosion of support for the men and women serving in this war. I remember watching almost the same scenes play out during the Vietnam war. Support flagging at home leading to morale problems, leading to more erosion at home, and on and on in a spiral. The media not helping then or now. And I know it troubles my son and his fellow soldiers. Because they are keeping the faith for those back home.
.... too many are here are growing weary of a war they are not even really fighting.
read the rest.
Richard at Hyscience, who also has a son over there, on the traitors in our midst.
Border Agents Facing Time for Doing Job
Grassfire.org is circulating a petition for clemency for two Border Patrol agents charged after a apparent exchange of shots with a drug smuggler.
h/t Ingrid
h/t Ingrid
Thank You, Ms. Hess
UPDATE: change of venue to www.julescrittenden.com. Come check out the new site.
"What happens if we lose?" The question no one in the media ... except me* and a few others, in fairness to us ... is asking.
“If as a reporter you do ask the national security question, all of a sudden you’re carrying Bush’s water.”
Pamela Hess of UPI just pointed out the the Imperial media is naked.
Why is no one asking this question? It is a fundamental tenet of journalism that you have to examine all sides of an issue. This one gets lip service, brief mentions as a nod to fairness to the hated administration and its supporters.
As Hess notes, the media is distracted by the shiny object of the political fight. The major news organizations, with a few exceptions, have not accepted that we are engaged in a necessary war, and are opposed to the Bush administration on this and other issues. Their reporting makes it clear they consider it an unnecessary war within a conflict they believe should be handled as a police matter.
Other ignored facts about the Iraq war.
Had we not invaded Iraq, the sanctions regime would have collapsed by now, and Saddam, like the Iranians, would have an active nuclear weapons program. We would be looking at two murderous regimes in an arms race, not one.
Iraq's ethnic tensions would presumeably still be simmering quietly under Saddam's program of murder and torture. That status quo would last exactly as long as Saddam did. Then, it would explode. Only it would be exploding into open civil war that would make Bosnia look like a picnic, instead of the severely constrained sectarian violence we see today. Syria and Iran would also be involved. We would not be involved. Good, yes?
No. We would have little ability to control and influence events in one of the most critical regions of the world, the one where all the oil is, the one that produces the bulk of the world's terrorism.
These are not hypotheticals. Key elements of the above could still come true. All we have to do is walk away.
*Past posts:
US Tribal Feuds Fuel Iraqi Sectarian Violence
How It Ends
On Reflection
The Betrayal Part
Abandonment With Honor
There's more, but you get the point
Meanwhile, here are some of the others:
Don Surber, herd mentality.
Ed Williams, "What if U.S. just pulled out of Iraq? Conflict might erupt into more than just a civil war between Iraqis"
"What happens if we lose?" The question no one in the media ... except me* and a few others, in fairness to us ... is asking.
“If as a reporter you do ask the national security question, all of a sudden you’re carrying Bush’s water.”
Pamela Hess of UPI just pointed out the the Imperial media is naked.
Why is no one asking this question? It is a fundamental tenet of journalism that you have to examine all sides of an issue. This one gets lip service, brief mentions as a nod to fairness to the hated administration and its supporters.
As Hess notes, the media is distracted by the shiny object of the political fight. The major news organizations, with a few exceptions, have not accepted that we are engaged in a necessary war, and are opposed to the Bush administration on this and other issues. Their reporting makes it clear they consider it an unnecessary war within a conflict they believe should be handled as a police matter.
Other ignored facts about the Iraq war.
Had we not invaded Iraq, the sanctions regime would have collapsed by now, and Saddam, like the Iranians, would have an active nuclear weapons program. We would be looking at two murderous regimes in an arms race, not one.
Iraq's ethnic tensions would presumeably still be simmering quietly under Saddam's program of murder and torture. That status quo would last exactly as long as Saddam did. Then, it would explode. Only it would be exploding into open civil war that would make Bosnia look like a picnic, instead of the severely constrained sectarian violence we see today. Syria and Iran would also be involved. We would not be involved. Good, yes?
No. We would have little ability to control and influence events in one of the most critical regions of the world, the one where all the oil is, the one that produces the bulk of the world's terrorism.
These are not hypotheticals. Key elements of the above could still come true. All we have to do is walk away.
*Past posts:
US Tribal Feuds Fuel Iraqi Sectarian Violence
How It Ends
On Reflection
The Betrayal Part
Abandonment With Honor
There's more, but you get the point
Meanwhile, here are some of the others:
Don Surber, herd mentality.
Ed Williams, "What if U.S. just pulled out of Iraq? Conflict might erupt into more than just a civil war between Iraqis"
Breathing In History
Patterico brings us another great GI writer. Here are Teflon Don's thoughts on breathing the dust-laden air of Iraq.
You literally breathe it and taste it constantly there, and I had the same thoughts, because it tastes exactly like the ashes of death and history and reminds you constantly that you are being absorbed by that history. Don stole a march on me with this one, and he did it beautifully.
You breathe a lot of other things in Iraq. Recent death. Sewage. Some people used say the United States had poisoned the entire nation of Iraq with depleted uranium, and I used to tell people they'd have to live on top of it for days and snort it up their noses for it to have any negative effect. Then, guess what, I got to live on top of it for three days, an area that had been heavily worked over by A-10s, where the air was sickly sweet with recent death.
Regarding romanticizing history and Iraq, a nod of respect to anyone who is over there or has been. But I don't know how you take the romance out of history or Iraq, as terrible as both can be. In "Dispatches," Herr recounts how multiply-wounded war junkie and photog Tim Page, in a wheelchair, with a steel plate in his head, was asked to cooperate on a gritty book that proposed to take the romance out of war. Page got PO'd, and said something to the effect of: "Take the romance out of war? How do you take the romance out of war? Why would you want to take the romance out of war?"
Anyone who has been anywhere near a war can point to situations that sucked the romance right out it. And yet, there it always is.
This region is steeped in history. We walk on it; we breathe it in. Eons of history surround us, infiltrate us, and turn to dust beneath our feet. The ashes of countless cultures, civilizations, and rulers dreams lie under the earth. With each breath, I inhale a few molecules of the dying gasp of Cyrus II, the Persian “Constantine of the East”. In the howling wind I can almost hear the cries of a countless multitude dying on killing grounds that bridge across the ages. The same wind carries the red dust that might yet hold a few drops of blood from the battle at Carrhae- the first, crushing defeat for Rome’s red blooded legions. Under my heel, a speck grinds into dust: the last grain of sand that remains of the Hanging Gardens at Babylon that are now known only in legend. Some of the world’s oldest religions tell us that somewhere in this ancient Cradle of life, God himself breathed on this dust, and it became man, the father of us all. Whatever path we take here, we walk on history.
You literally breathe it and taste it constantly there, and I had the same thoughts, because it tastes exactly like the ashes of death and history and reminds you constantly that you are being absorbed by that history. Don stole a march on me with this one, and he did it beautifully.
You breathe a lot of other things in Iraq. Recent death. Sewage. Some people used say the United States had poisoned the entire nation of Iraq with depleted uranium, and I used to tell people they'd have to live on top of it for days and snort it up their noses for it to have any negative effect. Then, guess what, I got to live on top of it for three days, an area that had been heavily worked over by A-10s, where the air was sickly sweet with recent death.
Regarding romanticizing history and Iraq, a nod of respect to anyone who is over there or has been. But I don't know how you take the romance out of history or Iraq, as terrible as both can be. In "Dispatches," Herr recounts how multiply-wounded war junkie and photog Tim Page, in a wheelchair, with a steel plate in his head, was asked to cooperate on a gritty book that proposed to take the romance out of war. Page got PO'd, and said something to the effect of: "Take the romance out of war? How do you take the romance out of war? Why would you want to take the romance out of war?"
Anyone who has been anywhere near a war can point to situations that sucked the romance right out it. And yet, there it always is.
Classic Support for Troops
Pinups for Vets. Your calendar here. Thanks for reminding me, Tim.
Here's one for the ladies.
Maybe this will start something. The old-people-getting-naked-for-charity thing is running out of steam. Not a moment too soon.
Tim's readers also moved this into the competitive arena: right-wing babes vs. women of Gaia. I suggest adding a charitable element. Right-wing babes can raise money for wounded GIs. Left-wing babes can raise money for Iranian shaped charges.
You can also support the troops here! In a manner of speaking.
Here's one for the ladies.
Maybe this will start something. The old-people-getting-naked-for-charity thing is running out of steam. Not a moment too soon.
Tim's readers also moved this into the competitive arena: right-wing babes vs. women of Gaia. I suggest adding a charitable element. Right-wing babes can raise money for wounded GIs. Left-wing babes can raise money for Iranian shaped charges.
You can also support the troops here! In a manner of speaking.
Mahdi Army Went Thataway
Who said surging troops won't have any effect on sectarian violence?
Mahdi Army out of uniforms, hiding weapons, dismantling checkpoints. Whistling and trying to act normal. Large numbers of Shiite thugs suddenly remembered they need to rearrange the stamp collection now that US troops are enroute to kick Mahdi ass.
This is why they will have to be provoked. Their leaders need to be seized. Their homes need to be raided. So that this persistent criminal Iranian-backed threat to stability in Iraq can be destroyed.
Omar at Iraq the Model says terrorist cells are hightailing it for Diyala province.
Belmont Club notes sneaky acts of war by Iran vs. U.S. Of course, the Iranians like to have other people do their dirty work for them.
Speaking of which, Ace wants to know why the Dems want George Bush to do their dirty work for them.
The shining beacon of democracy in Iraq is burning dim at present, but Bush is accomplishing something else. Dividing and conquering in the Middle East. WSJ.
Mahdi Army out of uniforms, hiding weapons, dismantling checkpoints. Whistling and trying to act normal. Large numbers of Shiite thugs suddenly remembered they need to rearrange the stamp collection now that US troops are enroute to kick Mahdi ass.
This is why they will have to be provoked. Their leaders need to be seized. Their homes need to be raided. So that this persistent criminal Iranian-backed threat to stability in Iraq can be destroyed.
Omar at Iraq the Model says terrorist cells are hightailing it for Diyala province.
Belmont Club notes sneaky acts of war by Iran vs. U.S. Of course, the Iranians like to have other people do their dirty work for them.
Speaking of which, Ace wants to know why the Dems want George Bush to do their dirty work for them.
The shining beacon of democracy in Iraq is burning dim at present, but Bush is accomplishing something else. Dividing and conquering in the Middle East. WSJ.
Woman is the N-word of the World
Apparently a woman's choice to pursue a career and forgo motherhood is only to be supported if she toes the correct political line. San Francisco lesbians back Barbara Boxer when she "speaks truth to power" by bashing Condoleeza Rice's childlessness.
Fair enough. Noted for future reference. Any time you say what you feel, its OK. It's what democracy looks like. Also, speaking truth to power is a great way to find common ground. Makes sense! OK, let's go!
John Lennon said it, turns out he was right. Who would have thought a San Francisco Democrat would be showing us the ugly truth?
Dr Sanity analyzes the problem.
Here's what Rice has to say about it in Jerusalem:
Boxer, defending herself against critics from the right, said Friday that she was "speaking truth to power" at a Senate hearing Thursday when she confronted the secretary of state -- who is unmarried and childless -- noting that neither she nor Rice will "pay a price" personally for sending more American troops to war.
"I was just saying what I felt," the California Democrat said. She said she would not apologize for the exchange because "I delivered a very strong message and tried to find common ground with her ... and I tried to draw us together, and not apart.''
... Gloria Nieto, a Bay Area activist and former chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee gay and lesbian caucus, said the administration's sharp reaction -- and the heated reaction by conservative media -- was hypocritical and suggested undue sensitivity about Rice's personal status.
She said that White House spokesman Snow is hardly a "defender of feminism'' and that he should realize that "this is what democracy looks like.''
Fair enough. Noted for future reference. Any time you say what you feel, its OK. It's what democracy looks like. Also, speaking truth to power is a great way to find common ground. Makes sense! OK, let's go!
John Lennon said it, turns out he was right. Who would have thought a San Francisco Democrat would be showing us the ugly truth?
Dr Sanity analyzes the problem.
Here's what Rice has to say about it in Jerusalem:
“As two single women,” NBC's Andrea Mitchell shouted as the two were about to walk out of the room, “Do you think that being without children in any way hinders your ability to understand the sacrifices of American families losing their children in war?”
Rice paused, heaved a sigh and turned back to the cameras, a pained expression on her face.
“No,” she said adamantly. “And I also think that being a single woman does not in any way make me incapable of understanding not just those sacrifices, but that nothing of value is ever won without sacrifice.”
A Mother's Pride: The War In My Town
What would you say if your son, 32 and recently married, told you in December of 2003, as the insurgency heated up in Iraq, that he had just enlisted in the United States Army?
Now he's 35, has a 10-month-old son, and is ... no great surprise ... in Iraq.
How would you feel? Alarmed and terrified, that your flesh-and-blood is on the line in George Bush's great, tragic misadventure in Iraq, when everyone just wants to pull out? Angry?
"I was just filled with pride. He put it to us that it was his duty and he was going," said Marion Beckwith of Marshfield, Mass. Her son, Spec. Bryan Beckwith, is with the 1st Cavalry Division in Baghdad. As a mother, she's frightened. But as a mother and an American, she recognizes that some things come first.
Bryan Beckwith is like a lot of soldiers we only hear occasionally. The ones who enlisted in mid-life, after the invasion of Iraq. I know some others. Their reasons are complex. Bryan's family says he hasn't talked much about it. He didn't drape himself in the flag. He discussed it with his wife for a year, he signed on the line, and then he told his parents.
"He said he was able to, so he should," said his wife Leslie, at home with their 10-month-old son John Charles, named after his grandfathers. "He wouldn't use the word patriotic, but that was what he was trying to say."
A graduate of New Hampshire's Plymouth State College, Bryan had figured out in short order that he didn't like office life. He spent the late 1990s landscaping and working at ski areas to support his new passion. The rugged life, as much life as you can take from it. He hiked the Appalachian Trail and met Leslie, a Delta flight attendant, on the way. Both of them hiked it again, and then the Pacific Crest Trail. Sept. 11 happened, and then the invasion of Iraq. He had met some old soldiers on the trail who talked about the soldier's life. He remembered his own dream of living it.
"We were stunned. He really surprised us," his father, John Beckwith, said about the cal he got in December, 2003. "You worry about what could happen. But I was extremely proud of what he was doing."
You may have read about the alarm some military parents felt last week when they heard about President Bush's aggressive new strategy. The Beckwiths received it with the kind of quiet determination their son has exhibited.
"We'd love to have him home. But even he would think that is not going to work," said John Beckwith, who likes the plan Bush laid out last week and is impressed by Gen. David Petraeus, the man chosen to execute it.
"He wants to complete the mission," Beckwith said about his son. Of pulling out, he said, "It's unthinkable. What would follow?"
Leslie Beckwith has supported her husband all the way, though she doesn't like the war he is a part of, and has never been a fan of Bush and his policies. But of the controversy over Bush's war plan, she said, "I wish they could pull them out, but I'm not sure it would be the right thing."
Marion Beckwith says the president's "heart has always been in the right place ... Congress and a lot of the American people are looking at the shorter picture. The administration is looking at what we need to do to prevent future attacks."
Which is where their son and husband comes in.
Crossposted at www.bostonherald.com.
Postscript: The Beckwiths live about a mile from my house in Marshfield, Massachusetts, and used to be my nextdoor neighbors. I think of them when I hear about how much America hates this war and wants out. I figured it was time the rest of you get to know them. No hoo-ah flag-waving, nothing like that. Just good neighbors that you can rely on. We've had people like that in my town going back to King Phillip's War.
Some Iraq/GWOT developments:
Meet KIA Maj. Mike Mundell, via Solder's Angel. And make sure you visit angel's main page for what you can do.
Jason Dunham earned his Medal of Honor by giving his life to save his friends. By his death, he shows us how one lives one's life.
A Lumberjack in the Desert down a few digits, and due to lose more, but still typing. Blackfive tells you where you can donate.
Bush: "To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible."
Bush: Toppling Saddam was no mistake.
Gateway on who the US raid in Irbil snagged. Dan Riehl wants American liberals to know what the Iranian Islamists think about them.
WSJ, Daniel Henninger: "The Petraeus command is the overdue beginning of the counterinsurgency."
WaPo: The fight with al-Sadr starts within the ranks of the Iraqi Army.
In the Captain's Quarters, a thoughtful counterpoint to surge.
CO of Marine RCT7 running the worst parts of Anbar describes progress. As you'll recall did Roggio, embedded there.
"I went to Iraq Prepared to Die ..." A soldier's thoughts as he considers signing up again.
"This was how Baghdad looked to me." Mohammed, at the incomparable Iraq the Model.
Ron Rosenbaum at Pajamasmedia talks about Iraq and Cambodia, and the Soviet lies he believed when he was young.
Barcepundit, a small light in a nation that has surrendered to the darkness of terrorism, knows of what he speaks.
Ronery. She's so ronery. The Weekly Standard would have you believe that Hillary has not repudiated her October 2002 vote to invade Iraq and now occupies the lonely middle. But I think she did, and still, Clintonesque, wants it both ways.
Buyer's regret, wanting it both ways, or is McCain just saying too much to the wrong people?
Somalia: America's Boots on the Ground.
I hate to send anyone to my sworn enemy, The Boston Glob, but you have to read this: Dems want to shutter war prisons. I suggest boarding al-Qaeda suspects with Dem Cong.
Talabani: Overcoming sectarian violence is Iraq's job. Terrorism, everyone's job. Thank you, Bush, for the help.
Just go read everything at Castle Argghhh!!! especially if you're a right-wing gun nut.
Now he's 35, has a 10-month-old son, and is ... no great surprise ... in Iraq.
How would you feel? Alarmed and terrified, that your flesh-and-blood is on the line in George Bush's great, tragic misadventure in Iraq, when everyone just wants to pull out? Angry?
"I was just filled with pride. He put it to us that it was his duty and he was going," said Marion Beckwith of Marshfield, Mass. Her son, Spec. Bryan Beckwith, is with the 1st Cavalry Division in Baghdad. As a mother, she's frightened. But as a mother and an American, she recognizes that some things come first.
Bryan Beckwith is like a lot of soldiers we only hear occasionally. The ones who enlisted in mid-life, after the invasion of Iraq. I know some others. Their reasons are complex. Bryan's family says he hasn't talked much about it. He didn't drape himself in the flag. He discussed it with his wife for a year, he signed on the line, and then he told his parents.
"He said he was able to, so he should," said his wife Leslie, at home with their 10-month-old son John Charles, named after his grandfathers. "He wouldn't use the word patriotic, but that was what he was trying to say."
A graduate of New Hampshire's Plymouth State College, Bryan had figured out in short order that he didn't like office life. He spent the late 1990s landscaping and working at ski areas to support his new passion. The rugged life, as much life as you can take from it. He hiked the Appalachian Trail and met Leslie, a Delta flight attendant, on the way. Both of them hiked it again, and then the Pacific Crest Trail. Sept. 11 happened, and then the invasion of Iraq. He had met some old soldiers on the trail who talked about the soldier's life. He remembered his own dream of living it.
"We were stunned. He really surprised us," his father, John Beckwith, said about the cal he got in December, 2003. "You worry about what could happen. But I was extremely proud of what he was doing."
You may have read about the alarm some military parents felt last week when they heard about President Bush's aggressive new strategy. The Beckwiths received it with the kind of quiet determination their son has exhibited.
"We'd love to have him home. But even he would think that is not going to work," said John Beckwith, who likes the plan Bush laid out last week and is impressed by Gen. David Petraeus, the man chosen to execute it.
"He wants to complete the mission," Beckwith said about his son. Of pulling out, he said, "It's unthinkable. What would follow?"
Leslie Beckwith has supported her husband all the way, though she doesn't like the war he is a part of, and has never been a fan of Bush and his policies. But of the controversy over Bush's war plan, she said, "I wish they could pull them out, but I'm not sure it would be the right thing."
Marion Beckwith says the president's "heart has always been in the right place ... Congress and a lot of the American people are looking at the shorter picture. The administration is looking at what we need to do to prevent future attacks."
Which is where their son and husband comes in.
Crossposted at www.bostonherald.com.
Postscript: The Beckwiths live about a mile from my house in Marshfield, Massachusetts, and used to be my nextdoor neighbors. I think of them when I hear about how much America hates this war and wants out. I figured it was time the rest of you get to know them. No hoo-ah flag-waving, nothing like that. Just good neighbors that you can rely on. We've had people like that in my town going back to King Phillip's War.
Some Iraq/GWOT developments:
Meet KIA Maj. Mike Mundell, via Solder's Angel. And make sure you visit angel's main page for what you can do.
Jason Dunham earned his Medal of Honor by giving his life to save his friends. By his death, he shows us how one lives one's life.
A Lumberjack in the Desert down a few digits, and due to lose more, but still typing. Blackfive tells you where you can donate.
Bush: "To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible."
Bush: Toppling Saddam was no mistake.
Gateway on who the US raid in Irbil snagged. Dan Riehl wants American liberals to know what the Iranian Islamists think about them.
WSJ, Daniel Henninger: "The Petraeus command is the overdue beginning of the counterinsurgency."
WaPo: The fight with al-Sadr starts within the ranks of the Iraqi Army.
In the Captain's Quarters, a thoughtful counterpoint to surge.
CO of Marine RCT7 running the worst parts of Anbar describes progress. As you'll recall did Roggio, embedded there.
"I went to Iraq Prepared to Die ..." A soldier's thoughts as he considers signing up again.
"This was how Baghdad looked to me." Mohammed, at the incomparable Iraq the Model.
Ron Rosenbaum at Pajamasmedia talks about Iraq and Cambodia, and the Soviet lies he believed when he was young.
Barcepundit, a small light in a nation that has surrendered to the darkness of terrorism, knows of what he speaks.
Ronery. She's so ronery. The Weekly Standard would have you believe that Hillary has not repudiated her October 2002 vote to invade Iraq and now occupies the lonely middle. But I think she did, and still, Clintonesque, wants it both ways.
Buyer's regret, wanting it both ways, or is McCain just saying too much to the wrong people?
Somalia: America's Boots on the Ground.
I hate to send anyone to my sworn enemy, The Boston Glob, but you have to read this: Dems want to shutter war prisons. I suggest boarding al-Qaeda suspects with Dem Cong.
Talabani: Overcoming sectarian violence is Iraq's job. Terrorism, everyone's job. Thank you, Bush, for the help.
Just go read everything at Castle Argghhh!!! especially if you're a right-wing gun nut.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Hadn't The Hippies Tried to Tell My Generation This?
Another wienie bails, when it turns out war is hard.*
Here's someone who thinks he'll stick with it. More with it than Dreher ever was. "I went to Iraq prepared to die ..." A soldier's thoughts.
Riehl elaborates.
*Many thanks to Greenwald, who is greatly inspired by this exemplar of spinelessness, for bringing it to us.
Here's someone who thinks he'll stick with it. More with it than Dreher ever was. "I went to Iraq prepared to die ..." A soldier's thoughts.
Riehl elaborates.
*Many thanks to Greenwald, who is greatly inspired by this exemplar of spinelessness, for bringing it to us.
NYT to Al-Qaeda: Banking Alert!
Good news: The people who are doing everything they can to keep us safe from people who want to kill us all haven't been cowed by the ACLU or the Dem Cong. The Pentagon is using some obscure legal authority to spy on suspected enemy bank accounts and financial activity. Bad news: the New York Times, al-Qaeda's favorite headsup news outlet, has made sure any terrorist who might be banking in the United States knows this. All the news that's fit for enemy planning purposes.
This is important: Anyone who feels their civil rights are being violated should immediately contact the families of 9/11 victims, and see if they give a damn.
Links:
Digby at Hullabaloo doesn't appear to be aware there's a war on.
TalkLeft is afraid someone will find out his aunt left him a pile.
Bark Bark Woof Woof wants his country back. Let's see how long he gets to keep it after the big Iraq pullout and the dismantling of intelligence operations.
Daily Kos admits to being a traitor.
This is important: Anyone who feels their civil rights are being violated should immediately contact the families of 9/11 victims, and see if they give a damn.
Links:
Digby at Hullabaloo doesn't appear to be aware there's a war on.
TalkLeft is afraid someone will find out his aunt left him a pile.
Bark Bark Woof Woof wants his country back. Let's see how long he gets to keep it after the big Iraq pullout and the dismantling of intelligence operations.
Daily Kos admits to being a traitor.
Freelance Genius
... turns out to be a moron. Idiot vidstore clerk/blogger Freelance Genius mixes work and play online, and gets fired. Inappropriate remarks about a client, who happened to be Tucker Carlson. h/t patterico.
Juan Cole's Briarpatch Fears
Myopic Middle East expert, surrender enthusiast and leftie prof. Juan Cole asks over at Salon, "Did the U.S. just provoke Iran?" Well, yeah. You need to ask? But don't expect Iran to rise to the bait. The mullahs like war. They just don't like to fight. They like other people to do it for them.
Cole proceeds to talk about what a great idea the raid in Irbil was and how it helped Bush in many quarters. But he concludes it was a near disaster because some people were momentarily piqued and someone might have gotten shot or something.
Meanwhile, it's done tremendous damage to our relations with the Iranians. They summoned the Swiss to complain! Otherwise, so far, they're taking it quietly. Too bad. US vs Iran, guess who loses. US vs Iranian proxies, ditto. Iran understands it is entering a very dangerous period right now in which it may actually face consequences for the murder, hatred and chaos it has sown.
Cole proceeds to talk about what a great idea the raid in Irbil was and how it helped Bush in many quarters. But he concludes it was a near disaster because some people were momentarily piqued and someone might have gotten shot or something.
Meanwhile, it's done tremendous damage to our relations with the Iranians. They summoned the Swiss to complain! Otherwise, so far, they're taking it quietly. Too bad. US vs Iran, guess who loses. US vs Iranian proxies, ditto. Iran understands it is entering a very dangerous period right now in which it may actually face consequences for the murder, hatred and chaos it has sown.
Boxer Short on the Concept
Once you get past the disgusting part, the funny part about Barbara Boxer hitting Condoleeza Rice with a modified chickenhawk accusation for being childless, is that Boxer thinks this war will be over soon.
Guess again. Especially if you yank the troops out of Iraq with the job undone. The grandkid will most definitely have to study hard and go to college to avoid getting stuck somewhere killing jihadis.
Links:
Brad is interested in numbers, short-term. How many dead GIs now. Not how many dead jihadis now, not how many dead Iraqi and American innocents later, or dead GIs after a pullout comes back to bite us in the ass. Because, like Babs, he doesn't get it.
The Strata-sphere likes seeing Barbara, among others, laid bare.
John Cole is astonished that Boxer, lib from San Francisco, would question a single childless woman's right to make policy. Wonder what all the single childless women in San Francisco think about that. If they're anything like Barbara, they're hypocrites, so she's fine.
Viking pundit plants his battle axe in Boxer's excuse for an excuse.
Joe Hughes over at TMPCsomething-or-other is indignant about rightwing name-calling and hot-and-botheredness. He and his pals are the only ones who have a right to do that. Sort of like Barbara should not be considered a hypocrite for attacking an unmarried career woman's failure to breed because ... Barbara is a champion of unmarried non-breeding career women.
"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young," Boxer said.
Guess again. Especially if you yank the troops out of Iraq with the job undone. The grandkid will most definitely have to study hard and go to college to avoid getting stuck somewhere killing jihadis.
Links:
Brad is interested in numbers, short-term. How many dead GIs now. Not how many dead jihadis now, not how many dead Iraqi and American innocents later, or dead GIs after a pullout comes back to bite us in the ass. Because, like Babs, he doesn't get it.
The Strata-sphere likes seeing Barbara, among others, laid bare.
John Cole is astonished that Boxer, lib from San Francisco, would question a single childless woman's right to make policy. Wonder what all the single childless women in San Francisco think about that. If they're anything like Barbara, they're hypocrites, so she's fine.
Viking pundit plants his battle axe in Boxer's excuse for an excuse.
Joe Hughes over at TMPCsomething-or-other is indignant about rightwing name-calling and hot-and-botheredness. He and his pals are the only ones who have a right to do that. Sort of like Barbara should not be considered a hypocrite for attacking an unmarried career woman's failure to breed because ... Barbara is a champion of unmarried non-breeding career women.
US Tribal Feuds Fuel Iraqi Sectarian Violence
But now that Sheik al-Bush is back from the wilderness, there is new hope. Amir Taheri in the NY Post:
Read the whole thing.
Meanwhile, Michael Moore pushes himself away from the buffet table long enough to make some wiseass remarks. What he doesn't get is, if you want millions of Iraqis dead, you don't send in 26 million Americans. You just pull 150,000 out.
The fear that the United States, bedeviled by internecine feuds, might cut and run has been at the root of the violence since Iraq's liberation in 2003.
Jihadists have fought not because they hope to win on the battlefield, but to strengthen the antiwar lobbies in the United States and Britain. Some in the new political elite have become fence sitters because they regard the United States as a fickle power that could suddenly change course. Others have created or expanded militias, in case the United States abandons Iraq before it can defend itself against internal foes and predatory neighbors.
The new Bush plan has raised Iraqi morale to levels not known for a year.
Read the whole thing.
Meanwhile, Michael Moore pushes himself away from the buffet table long enough to make some wiseass remarks. What he doesn't get is, if you want millions of Iraqis dead, you don't send in 26 million Americans. You just pull 150,000 out.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Al-Jazeera ... Champion of Democratic Values
You know how al-Jazeera execs always claim they are on a mission to get the hate-mongering out of Arab media? Big step in moving the Middle East forward, out of the Middle Ages. But one must face facts. The Great Satan's democracy, this AJ interviewer posits to Iraqi MP Iyad Jamal al-Din, is responsible for Iraq's woes. Al-Din begs to differ.
Ayad Jamal al-Din, by the way, is a Shiite cleric and pol committed to secularism and democracy, MEMRI informs us. I'm guessing that means everyone hates him.
AJ: "How can the Iraqi public, which is anti-American, and which believes the U.S. is the Great Satan, support people who talk the way you do?"
Al-Din: "... I do not consider the U.S. to be the Great Satan. I view it as the sponsor and founder of the project of democracy, and the defender of democracy in Iraq. You can be sure that if America were to withdraw today, there would be Shiite massacres of Shiites, Sunni massacres of Sunnis, and Kurdish massacres of Kurds. The strong would again devour the weak, until somebody would be back the next day - there's no doubt about it. We are still far from democracy."
AJ: "On what do you base your trust of the U.S. and its plans for the region?"
Al-Din: "Democracy is the religion of the dollar and serves its global interests ... the dollar cannot thrive in dictatorial countries, but only in democracies. For the sake of their global economy, [the Americans] establish democracy.
"We, the oppressed and slaughtered peoples, have seen nothing but stupid dictators or wise dictators. It's one of the two. Wise dictators pave roads and build houses, but they are still dictators. On the other hand, there are stupid dictators, like our friend who has gone. We are very far from democracy. It is inconceivable that we endured this humiliation and tyranny for 1,400 years, yet we are unable to create a democracy. Even after 1,400 years, our culture is still..."
AJ: "Democracy has resulted in what is now happening in Iraq."
Al-Din: "The result of democracy ... Do we even know what to do with the values of liberty? The moment Saddam's club was lifted from over our heads, each and every one of us wanted to assume Saddam's personality. We had one Saddam, and now we have six, seven, 10, or 15 Saddams. We now have local mini-Saddams.
"... in my opinion, democracy can be established in our region only through force. Democracy must be established by force, and only America can do it."
Ayad Jamal al-Din, by the way, is a Shiite cleric and pol committed to secularism and democracy, MEMRI informs us. I'm guessing that means everyone hates him.
Bush Ordered Iranian Takedown
What was that I was saying about leadership the other day?
Bush personally ordered the military to take out Iranian operatives in Iraq.
Ironically, here is a U.S. president at longlast doing what Jimmy Carter refused to do, take tough action on Iranian Islamists, against the advice of his National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a failure that kicked off our 28-year-war with Iran and Islamic extremism. But who is Zbig criticizing today?
They laugh at him because he doesn't speak well. Makes funny faces and looks like a chimp. Made mistakes in the execution of this war, a war his short-sighted critics say never should have happened. But he gets it and finally, he's acting on it.
Bill Kristol on the "Boneless Wonders" of Congress:
AP: No Plan to Attack Iran.
Take note that in the NYT link that tops this post, Sen. Biden comes down firmly on Iran's side. The vote to authorize action in Iraq doesn't cover attacks or pursuit into Iran.
I believe that goes somewhat beyond simple spinelessness.
Eye Raki has some inside soccer on the Shiites. Al-Sistani still behind al-Sadr.
Hammorabi's thoughts on bolstering Iraq's ability to help Iraq, and the common interests of the Dem Cong and al-Qaeda.
Back to the future: MEMRI on Russia's interest in Syria and Iran, and Syria and Iran's interest in Russia. As a counterbalance to us. Remeber when Bush looked into Putin's soul? Time for another look.
Bush personally ordered the military to take out Iranian operatives in Iraq.
Ironically, here is a U.S. president at longlast doing what Jimmy Carter refused to do, take tough action on Iranian Islamists, against the advice of his National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a failure that kicked off our 28-year-war with Iran and Islamic extremism. But who is Zbig criticizing today?
They laugh at him because he doesn't speak well. Makes funny faces and looks like a chimp. Made mistakes in the execution of this war, a war his short-sighted critics say never should have happened. But he gets it and finally, he's acting on it.
Bill Kristol on the "Boneless Wonders" of Congress:
Say you're an average congressman. How do you react to President Bush's Iraq speech? You suspect, deep down, that he's probably doing more or less what he needs to do. We can't just click our heels and get out of Iraq--the consequences would be disastrous. And the current strategy isn't working. You have said so yourself. Last fall you called for replacing Rumsfeld. You've complained that there weren't enough troops. What's more, you've heard good things about General David Petraeus from colleagues with military expertise. So now Bush has fired Rumsfeld, put Petraeus in command, and sent in more troops. Maybe this new approach deserves a chance to work?
But, hey . . . look at those polls! And those op-ed pages! You didn't come to Washington to support an unpopular president conducting an unpopular war.
AP: No Plan to Attack Iran.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that while U.S. forces are trying to prevent Iran and Syria from disrupting U.S. forces in Iraq, there were no immediate plans for an attack.
"We believe that we can interrupt these networks that are providing support through actions inside the territory of Iraq, that there is no need to attack targets in Iran itself," Gates told the panel, adding that he continues to believe that "any kind of military action inside Iran itself, that would be a very last resort."
Pace said special operations forces are continually battling insurgents who are getting aid from Iran.
"I think one of the reasons you keep hearing about Iran is because we keep finding their stuff in Iraq," Pace said.
Take note that in the NYT link that tops this post, Sen. Biden comes down firmly on Iran's side. The vote to authorize action in Iraq doesn't cover attacks or pursuit into Iran.
"I just want the record to show — and I would like to have a legal response from the State Department if they think they have authority to pursue networks or anything else across the border into Iran and Iraq — that will generate a constitutional confrontation here in the Senate, I predict to you," Mr. Biden said.
I believe that goes somewhat beyond simple spinelessness.
Eye Raki has some inside soccer on the Shiites. Al-Sistani still behind al-Sadr.
Hammorabi's thoughts on bolstering Iraq's ability to help Iraq, and the common interests of the Dem Cong and al-Qaeda.
Back to the future: MEMRI on Russia's interest in Syria and Iran, and Syria and Iran's interest in Russia. As a counterbalance to us. Remeber when Bush looked into Putin's soul? Time for another look.
"It's My Job"
This highway worker and grandfather didn't hesitate to put himself and his heavy paving truck in the past of a runaway semi to save a state trooper he knew would be killed if he didn't.
As The Globe Spins
I like the way this guy thinks. Brian at Snapped Shot:
Read the rest
Speaking of snapped shots and shameless self-promotion, sports fans are invited to make my advertiser happy and go click on Bobby Orr.
The Boston Globe, competitor of Mr. Crittenden's far superior paper, is celebrating the Democrats' return to power in the Congress fairly openly. I mean, how else would you explain the following passage, other than as a loving ode ... For comparison, let's consider how the Globe handled the Republicans' truly historic (first time in 40 years) of the Congress in 1994, via the Globe's own archives ...
Read the rest
Speaking of snapped shots and shameless self-promotion, sports fans are invited to make my advertiser happy and go click on Bobby Orr.
Blast From the Past
Barcepundit has the Madrid security cam vid of the latest ETA blast that shows innocent bystanders escaping only seconds from death. A chilling reminder of how a seemingly ordinary day can go wrong.
The Basque separatists ETA, who've been at it since the 1970s, had been going the way of the IRA to a negotiated end, but someone wants to derail that.
The Basque separatists ETA, who've been at it since the 1970s, had been going the way of the IRA to a negotiated end, but someone wants to derail that.
Top 10 Things You Can Do to Keep Guantanamo Open
Amnesty International is celebrating the 5th anniversary of free tropical vacations for terrorists, away from all the cares of martyrdom, with a call to close the place.
These are Amnesty's suggestions, modified to make sense.
STEP 1– Send an email to your US ambassador. Or if you're a Yank, to your US rep. Tell them you are pleased the United States is humanely removing terrorists from circulation, on those occasions when it fails to kill them on the spot. If you need assistance, see Amnesty's helpfully provided letter. Copy it in mirror-writing, like Leonardi DaVinci, and send it off. If that's too difficult, just write "not" in all the right places.
STEP 2 – Phone in. See Amnesty International's link to the hated Crusader government's list of US embassies, call the nearest one up, and tell them how much you love Gitmo.
Say that you are pleased that hundreds of detainees remain held in the camp, at no charge, for the duration of hostilities, with decent and humane treatment. Just like prisoners of war. Even though as terrorists and unlawful combatants, they aren't even entitled to it. Thank the person you are speaking to for giving you their time.
STEP 3 – Ask your friends to do the same today!
The three steps above actually constitute one step in Amnesty-think, which is confusing, but its their list, so whatever. Next:
2. Send an email to President George W. Bush. The helpfully provided Amnesty International dummy email will also need some re-write. Tell the Leader of the Free World he's doing a bang-up job, and you hope Surge Iraq 2007 and Somalia Redux will produce more guests for Gitmo!
3. Sail, fly, windsurf with the Close Guantánamo flotilla. Apparently these nut jobs have some kind of Sail Cuba vacation planned. Get on board, see if you can get some earnest peacenik chick action in the runup, and at the opportune moment, whip out your "I (HEART) GITMO!" banner!
This extraordinary journey, a unique opportunity to express your opposition to, excuse me, support for Guantánamo, could get you laid and let you show your support for freedom!
Invite your friends to travel with you to thwart Amnesty's stupidity!
4. Get involved locally
Find an event near you or contact your nearest Amnesty International office. Then show up with your "I (HEART) GITMO!" sign.
Visit their "Close Guantánamo" blog for opportunities to disrupt their activism in many countries, and for laughs.
5. Say "Close Guantánamo" on camera. Do it with milk coming out your nose, pencils in your ears, maybe a clown hat, I don't know. Be creative.
You want Guantánamo to stay open? Say/sing/act "I (HEART) GITMO!" on camera in a 5 to 10 seconds video clip! If you can, shoot your video at a recognizable landmark from your city or your country. The Eiffel Tower would be good. The Kremlin. The Reichstag. Tiananmen Square. Some place that embodies the spirit of your nation. The first infidel to shoot one in front of the Kabaa gets honorable mention!
Amnesty International has a compilation of some of the videos received so far. I suggest watching these for inspiration. You might see something good to mock.
6. Speak out and praise Guantanamo
Alert all your email contacts. Write to your local newspapers, magazines and on-line media, or contact your local radio and TV station expressing your support for Guantánamo and asking them to link to your 'I (HEART) GITMO' website.
7. Tell your friends about Guantánamo Bay. How great it is.
8. Check out to Amnesty International's free E-Magazine. Boring as crap, but you might get more good ideas for subverting this ridiculous campaign there.
9. Learn more about Guantánamo. How its being under-utilitized, for example, and how they feed these terrorists so well they are getting fat.
10.Put an "I (HEART) GITMO" banner on your site or blog.
Remember, the 5th anniversary of Guantanamo marks the 5th anniversary of the fall of the hated Taliban regime, which beat women for eating ice cream, not to mention the beheadings. This occasion should be celebrated!
UPDATES
While you're loving Gitmo, don't forget the hated Crusader Gulag's hardworking turnkeys, guards and interrogators. From reader Penny:
Gateway has photo roundup of orange jumpsuit protests, plus where-are-they now on prior Guantanamo guests.
Slightly off topic, but Shrinkwrapped analyzes stupid politician tricks.
These are Amnesty's suggestions, modified to make sense.
STEP 1– Send an email to your US ambassador. Or if you're a Yank, to your US rep. Tell them you are pleased the United States is humanely removing terrorists from circulation, on those occasions when it fails to kill them on the spot. If you need assistance, see Amnesty's helpfully provided letter. Copy it in mirror-writing, like Leonardi DaVinci, and send it off. If that's too difficult, just write "not" in all the right places.
STEP 2 – Phone in. See Amnesty International's link to the hated Crusader government's list of US embassies, call the nearest one up, and tell them how much you love Gitmo.
Say that you are pleased that hundreds of detainees remain held in the camp, at no charge, for the duration of hostilities, with decent and humane treatment. Just like prisoners of war. Even though as terrorists and unlawful combatants, they aren't even entitled to it. Thank the person you are speaking to for giving you their time.
STEP 3 – Ask your friends to do the same today!
The three steps above actually constitute one step in Amnesty-think, which is confusing, but its their list, so whatever. Next:
2. Send an email to President George W. Bush. The helpfully provided Amnesty International dummy email will also need some re-write. Tell the Leader of the Free World he's doing a bang-up job, and you hope Surge Iraq 2007 and Somalia Redux will produce more guests for Gitmo!
3. Sail, fly, windsurf with the Close Guantánamo flotilla. Apparently these nut jobs have some kind of Sail Cuba vacation planned. Get on board, see if you can get some earnest peacenik chick action in the runup, and at the opportune moment, whip out your "I (HEART) GITMO!" banner!
This extraordinary journey, a unique opportunity to express your opposition to, excuse me, support for Guantánamo, could get you laid and let you show your support for freedom!
Invite your friends to travel with you to thwart Amnesty's stupidity!
4. Get involved locally
Find an event near you or contact your nearest Amnesty International office. Then show up with your "I (HEART) GITMO!" sign.
Visit their "Close Guantánamo" blog for opportunities to disrupt their activism in many countries, and for laughs.
5. Say "Close Guantánamo" on camera. Do it with milk coming out your nose, pencils in your ears, maybe a clown hat, I don't know. Be creative.
You want Guantánamo to stay open? Say/sing/act "I (HEART) GITMO!" on camera in a 5 to 10 seconds video clip! If you can, shoot your video at a recognizable landmark from your city or your country. The Eiffel Tower would be good. The Kremlin. The Reichstag. Tiananmen Square. Some place that embodies the spirit of your nation. The first infidel to shoot one in front of the Kabaa gets honorable mention!
Amnesty International has a compilation of some of the videos received so far. I suggest watching these for inspiration. You might see something good to mock.
6. Speak out and praise Guantanamo
Alert all your email contacts. Write to your local newspapers, magazines and on-line media, or contact your local radio and TV station expressing your support for Guantánamo and asking them to link to your 'I (HEART) GITMO' website.
7. Tell your friends about Guantánamo Bay. How great it is.
8. Check out to Amnesty International's free E-Magazine. Boring as crap, but you might get more good ideas for subverting this ridiculous campaign there.
9. Learn more about Guantánamo. How its being under-utilitized, for example, and how they feed these terrorists so well they are getting fat.
10.Put an "I (HEART) GITMO" banner on your site or blog.
Remember, the 5th anniversary of Guantanamo marks the 5th anniversary of the fall of the hated Taliban regime, which beat women for eating ice cream, not to mention the beheadings. This occasion should be celebrated!
UPDATES
While you're loving Gitmo, don't forget the hated Crusader Gulag's hardworking turnkeys, guards and interrogators. From reader Penny:
around christmastime, i saw a piece on line somewhere that said the gitmo prisoners were getting more mail than the soldiers ... the address is Any Soldier, JTF GTMO, APO AE 09360... a regular stamp will do the trick ( preferably one with the flag on it i think).
Gateway has photo roundup of orange jumpsuit protests, plus where-are-they now on prior Guantanamo guests.
Slightly off topic, but Shrinkwrapped analyzes stupid politician tricks.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Shared Intentionality
Apparently is a key cognitive difference between us and apes. Gives us culture. It works like this:
I don't know. A lot of humans I know sound more like those apes. There's more here. John Hawks, of course.
... apes are mostly concerned with their own individual goals. They use or exploit others - by gathering information from them, manipulating them as social tools, coordinating actions with them for their own benefit - and often compete with them as well. Human children, on the other hand, often are concerned with sharing psychological states with others by providing them with helpful information, forming shared intentions and attention with them, and learning from demonstrations produced for their benefit. The emergence of these skills and motives for shared intentionality during human evolution did not create totally new cognitive skills. Rather, what it did was to take existing skills of, for example, gaze following, manipulative communication, group action, and social learning, and transform them into their collectively based counterparts of joint attention, cooperative communication, collaborative action, and instructed learning - cornerstones of cultural living. Shared intentionality is a small psychological difference that made a huge difference in human evolution in the way that humans conduct their lives ...
I don't know. A lot of humans I know sound more like those apes. There's more here. John Hawks, of course.
Nuke Iran
... Before Iran nukes itself.
Jawa is reporting nuclear strength explosion(s) in Iran, but it's not entirely clear what the source is on this. There's also the Roswellistan explanation (hit link and scroll down).
News reports are a tad more subdued.
I'm guessing the nuke blasts are a lot like last week's report at al-Khamenei was dead. Somewhat exaggerated. Either that or the mullahs are engaging in weird disinformation. Top mullah dead/not dead. Just to unsettle us, test our reaction. Fake nuke blasts, maybe to make us think twice about attacking them. All reports to date have suggested, unlike Krazy Kim, the mullahs aren't quite there yet on the nukes. Maybe they want us to think they are.
Then again, maybe they were just blowing up mines, like they said.
Or, more interesting scenario, maybe someone else was blowing stuff up in Iran. Who could that possibly be?
Meanwhile, in Somalia, some other people who are not quite dead yet.
Jawa is reporting nuclear strength explosion(s) in Iran, but it's not entirely clear what the source is on this. There's also the Roswellistan explanation (hit link and scroll down).
News reports are a tad more subdued.
I'm guessing the nuke blasts are a lot like last week's report at al-Khamenei was dead. Somewhat exaggerated. Either that or the mullahs are engaging in weird disinformation. Top mullah dead/not dead. Just to unsettle us, test our reaction. Fake nuke blasts, maybe to make us think twice about attacking them. All reports to date have suggested, unlike Krazy Kim, the mullahs aren't quite there yet on the nukes. Maybe they want us to think they are.
Then again, maybe they were just blowing up mines, like they said.
Or, more interesting scenario, maybe someone else was blowing stuff up in Iran. Who could that possibly be?
Meanwhile, in Somalia, some other people who are not quite dead yet.
The Greatest Enemy Is Time
Embedded blogger Bill Roggio brings the word to Bush-bashing Deutschland. Here's his translated Weltwoche article:
By my watch that gives us about 5 1/2 years to go. Though some targeted action in certain quarters could cut that significantly. The key date for major progress, of course, is any time in the next year and a half.
Read the rest.
The average life of an insurgency is about nine years. In Iraq, the insurgents and al-Qaeda hope to wear down the will of the American government and people, and precipitate a premature withdrawal. When I talk to American troops about Iraq, their greatest concern isn't for their safety, but they are worried the American public has given up on the war before they can complete their mission. They watch the news - CNN, MSNBC and FOX News are beamed into the mess halls, some even possess satellite dishes with access to BBC World, Al Jazeera and hundreds of programs at their fingertips. Internet is readily available in many areas. I surfed the web in the center of Fallujah on wireless Internet.
American troops watch the news and follow the debate in real time. They will tell you the war they see on television isn't the war they are fighting. To the troops, the war as portrayed on television is oversimplified and digested into sound bites. The soldiers are portrayed as victims and the violence is grossly exaggerated.
From my own experiences with two months in Iraq out of a year, I had not personally witnessed an ambush, a roadside bombing or other attack. The closest action I saw were some poorly aimed mortar attacks in Fallujah, or a near by patrol getting hit (the bullets and RPGs never made contact). And this is in Anbar province, the most dangerous region in Iraq. I make it a point to accompany the troops on foot and mounted patrols on daily basis. This is not to say attacks do not occur on a daily basis in Anbar – they do,and Anbar is a dangerous place, but just not to every soldier at every minute on every day in every city and town.
The nature of the insurgency in Iraq is complex, and cannot be simply framed as a sectarian war or a war against "U.S. occupation." The insurgency is designed to destroy any semblance of a democratically elected Iraqi government...
By my watch that gives us about 5 1/2 years to go. Though some targeted action in certain quarters could cut that significantly. The key date for major progress, of course, is any time in the next year and a half.
Read the rest.
Smackdown
I told you the jury was still out on Jamil Hussein.
Flopping Aces informs us that the Iraqi Ministry of Interior's Khalaf, who was disbelieved by AP before he was believed, now says he never told AP what AP wants us to believe.
Here's Confederate Yankee on Jamil X.
I'd say the jury remains out. But it sure stinks over by defense counsel's table.
Flopping Aces informs us that the Iraqi Ministry of Interior's Khalaf, who was disbelieved by AP before he was believed, now says he never told AP what AP wants us to believe.
Here's Confederate Yankee on Jamil X.
I'd say the jury remains out. But it sure stinks over by defense counsel's table.
The Correct Degree of Aggression
All this talk about cranking up the heat in Iraq has me thinking. How many people really understand the mental attitude that is necessary to go into battle, if you hope to prevail?
I'm thinking about my friend, Maj. Philip Wolford. He was a captain commanding a tank company when I knew him in Iraq. His tanks, Assassin Company, usually led the battalion's assaults. Wolford became the butt of ribbing by other officers, because from the commander's hatch of his M1A1 Abrams tank, he was using his 9mm pistol and hand grenades against the enemy as often as he used his 120 mm main gun and his .50 cal. That's because Wolford got in close.
Wolford saved my life and those of the men I was riding with at al-Hindiyah, when our Bradley's guns jammed as an Iraqi recoilless rifle crew was about to open fire on us from our right rear quarter -- a high-velocity armor-piercing round that would have bounced around inside, cuisinarting me and Smitty in the rear compartment. Wolford reached down into his box of grenades, pulled the pin and threw one to take out the recoilless crew, which was too close by the roadside for him to angle his guns down on them.
The day before Hindiyah, this is what Wolford told his platoon leaders, platoon sergeants and tank commanders:
"Once the fighting starts, if there are people in the streets, in civilian or military clothing, they are the enemy and they will die," Wolford said, noting that other units had encountered Iraqi fighters in civilian clothes and civilian vehicles.
"There are some towers and high ground. We will shoot all towers," Wolford said. "They have used car bombs and suicide bombers ... If they don’t stop, fire a burst of .762. If they turn around, then they were probably going to the store to get some Saddam beer. If they don’t stop, kill them."
He talked about the paramilitaries, believed to be civilians who were forced into the fight against the Americans in Nasiriyah and Samiwah when the Saddam Fedayeen took their families hostage.
"I don’t think they are fighting for the regime. I don’t think they are fighting for the freedom of Iraq. But make no mistake about it. They will fight," Wolford said. "Like I told you a thousand times, they put one round on you, you put one thousand rounds on them, until those pajama-wearing motherfuckers stop firing. They put one AT (anti-tank) round on us, you blow the whole block up. There is no collateral damage concern that will stop us carrying our mission out. When we’re done, we’ll rename the place Assassin town, because we’ll own it.
"The brigade commander doesn’t say he wants the enemy captured. He doesn’t say he wants the enemy on the run. He says he wants the enemy destroyed. So kill him."
Turning to the map, Wolford pointed out the road that had been dubbed "Route Bruins."
"My intent is to quickly seize this crossing point at the canal, start a fight with the enemy and fucking kill him," Wolford said. "We’re not going to be jackshitting around. We’re going to be quick."
And that's what he did. I was happy to ride with Wolford and men like Platoon Sgt. Jonathan Lustig. I knew they had their wits about them, and the correct degree of aggression that would keep us alive. I should say that I repeatedly saw these men exercise caution in the midst of fire, endangering themselves by withholding fire to prevent civilian deaths. But when they attacked, and when they met resistance, they were quick and ruthless. As the invasion progressed, I realized I was willing to follow them anywhere, and I did, even on a day when we expected to die. In the company of men like that, it would have been a privilege.
Listening to the debate of the past few weeks, it is apparent to me that the Democratic congressional leadership does not understand the correct degree of aggression that is necessary to prosecute a war. I believe, from everything I'm seeing now, that our commander-in-chief does.
Links:
Michelle in Baghdad.
I'm thinking about my friend, Maj. Philip Wolford. He was a captain commanding a tank company when I knew him in Iraq. His tanks, Assassin Company, usually led the battalion's assaults. Wolford became the butt of ribbing by other officers, because from the commander's hatch of his M1A1 Abrams tank, he was using his 9mm pistol and hand grenades against the enemy as often as he used his 120 mm main gun and his .50 cal. That's because Wolford got in close.
Wolford saved my life and those of the men I was riding with at al-Hindiyah, when our Bradley's guns jammed as an Iraqi recoilless rifle crew was about to open fire on us from our right rear quarter -- a high-velocity armor-piercing round that would have bounced around inside, cuisinarting me and Smitty in the rear compartment. Wolford reached down into his box of grenades, pulled the pin and threw one to take out the recoilless crew, which was too close by the roadside for him to angle his guns down on them.
The day before Hindiyah, this is what Wolford told his platoon leaders, platoon sergeants and tank commanders:
"Once the fighting starts, if there are people in the streets, in civilian or military clothing, they are the enemy and they will die," Wolford said, noting that other units had encountered Iraqi fighters in civilian clothes and civilian vehicles.
"There are some towers and high ground. We will shoot all towers," Wolford said. "They have used car bombs and suicide bombers ... If they don’t stop, fire a burst of .762. If they turn around, then they were probably going to the store to get some Saddam beer. If they don’t stop, kill them."
He talked about the paramilitaries, believed to be civilians who were forced into the fight against the Americans in Nasiriyah and Samiwah when the Saddam Fedayeen took their families hostage.
"I don’t think they are fighting for the regime. I don’t think they are fighting for the freedom of Iraq. But make no mistake about it. They will fight," Wolford said. "Like I told you a thousand times, they put one round on you, you put one thousand rounds on them, until those pajama-wearing motherfuckers stop firing. They put one AT (anti-tank) round on us, you blow the whole block up. There is no collateral damage concern that will stop us carrying our mission out. When we’re done, we’ll rename the place Assassin town, because we’ll own it.
"The brigade commander doesn’t say he wants the enemy captured. He doesn’t say he wants the enemy on the run. He says he wants the enemy destroyed. So kill him."
Turning to the map, Wolford pointed out the road that had been dubbed "Route Bruins."
"My intent is to quickly seize this crossing point at the canal, start a fight with the enemy and fucking kill him," Wolford said. "We’re not going to be jackshitting around. We’re going to be quick."
And that's what he did. I was happy to ride with Wolford and men like Platoon Sgt. Jonathan Lustig. I knew they had their wits about them, and the correct degree of aggression that would keep us alive. I should say that I repeatedly saw these men exercise caution in the midst of fire, endangering themselves by withholding fire to prevent civilian deaths. But when they attacked, and when they met resistance, they were quick and ruthless. As the invasion progressed, I realized I was willing to follow them anywhere, and I did, even on a day when we expected to die. In the company of men like that, it would have been a privilege.
Listening to the debate of the past few weeks, it is apparent to me that the Democratic congressional leadership does not understand the correct degree of aggression that is necessary to prosecute a war. I believe, from everything I'm seeing now, that our commander-in-chief does.
Links:
Michelle in Baghdad.
How It Is Done
The Washington Post reports U.S. troops raided an Iranian consulate in Iraq and seized a number of Iranians suspected of aiding the insurgency. No doubt the Iranians will squawk about the violation of diplomatic immunity, incursion on sovereign Iranian territory, international law, blah blah blah. I encourage them then to raid our embassy and consulates in Iran. ...oh yeah, we don't have any. Remember why? This is an early indicator that the gloves are in fact off, which is the key component to success in this change of strategy.
Another Washington Post report warns that sending large numbers of U.S. and Iraqi troops into trouble spots to take down militias will lead to a big urban battle and casualties. The Post, apparently not clear on the concept, seems to suggest this is a bad thing. Worst of all, it may put us in a big fight with feared militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr, who is scary and mustn't be piqued!
Meanwhile, the AP reports al-Maliki is following the Bush script and has put the Shiite militias on notice. Disarm or else. This should be taken as seriously as anything else out of al-Maliki's mouth, which is not at all. It is simply a warning to his pals to cool it for a while, the heat's on.
The good news in this is not that al-Maliki is turning on al-Sadr, but that he has just publicly given the United States the green light.
Mohammed at Iraq the Model tells us what it sounds like in Baghdad, and offers this interesting note. For all the telling intensity of fire, notably 30mm, the Iraqi government says it has not started yet. Can't wait to hear what it sounds like when they do start.
Cassandra at Villainous Company on the homefront.
Thunder Run rounds up the reax.
The Washington Note: "Did Bush declare secret war on Syria and Iran?"
I dunno. I kind of picked up on it. How secret can it be?
Another Washington Post report warns that sending large numbers of U.S. and Iraqi troops into trouble spots to take down militias will lead to a big urban battle and casualties. The Post, apparently not clear on the concept, seems to suggest this is a bad thing. Worst of all, it may put us in a big fight with feared militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr, who is scary and mustn't be piqued!
Meanwhile, the AP reports al-Maliki is following the Bush script and has put the Shiite militias on notice. Disarm or else. This should be taken as seriously as anything else out of al-Maliki's mouth, which is not at all. It is simply a warning to his pals to cool it for a while, the heat's on.
The good news in this is not that al-Maliki is turning on al-Sadr, but that he has just publicly given the United States the green light.
Mohammed at Iraq the Model tells us what it sounds like in Baghdad, and offers this interesting note. For all the telling intensity of fire, notably 30mm, the Iraqi government says it has not started yet. Can't wait to hear what it sounds like when they do start.
Cassandra at Villainous Company on the homefront.
Thunder Run rounds up the reax.
The Washington Note: "Did Bush declare secret war on Syria and Iran?"
Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.
I dunno. I kind of picked up on it. How secret can it be?
The Tigger Footage
As you may be aware, Tigger has been accused of assault. Dan Riehl suggests Tigger may in fact be the victim of assault himself, and was only acting defensively. He deconstructs the Tigger video.
Leadership
That's what it looks like. It's not exercised by committee. It doesn't waffle on polls. It does not take dictation.
A leader does take the counsel of grey hairs and the people's representatives, among many others. But then a leader, all by himself, with no one but himself to turn to in the end, makes a decision. A sometimes very difficult decision. There is a reason why our founding fathers set it up this way. They had spent enough time arguing with each other in committee to know that ultimately, one man all alone has to make the hardest decisions. As one of their heirs said a century and a half later, "The buck stops here."
There is not a lot that needs to be said about what George Bush said last night, except that it was the right thing. At long last, the key pieces are moving into play.
It isn't really about the number of troops. It is good that 21,500 tested, but rested combat troops are going in.
It's about what they will do with them. Aggressive leaders with a mandate to attack and kill will pair them with 10,000 to 12,000 Iraqi troops and throw them at the militias and the insurgents.
There are potential pitfalls to this approach. One of them is not that some of these soon-to-be-deployed soldiers will die ... and don't worry, you can rely on the AP to start a tally of the deaths of the newly deployed.
In war, death is a given. If and when it happens, it will mean that our soldiers have found and engaged the enemy, which I predict will die in much greater numbers.
The most immediate pitfall I see looming is that enemy has a headsup, and will attempt to melt away, using its advantage as an irregular native force to cache its weapons and stand on the street corner, whistling and acting normal, to bide its time.
This is why there must be provocations to draw them out. For starters, the beseiging and seizure of Moqtada al-Sadr and other criminal leaders, responsible for the murder of thousands. Relentless raids on their stronghold neighborhoods.
It won't be pretty. As he said, there will be bloody days ahead.
Bush also indicated that we can expect action on Iranian and Syrian soil, and he refered to the Stennis carrier group now underway to join the Eisenhower. He suggested this action will be related to the movement of weapons and terrorists harbored by Iran and Syria. As stated before, I strongly suspect they are contemplating stronger action against Iran's WMD sites. But first things first. Take down Iran's proxies in Iraq.
The only other thing I want to say tonight is that I found it somewhat telling that as I drove home around 11 p.m., the BBC's report on public radio was more relevant and balanced than what the Associated Press had sent over. The AP was actually breaking left of the BBC.
The BBC report I heard let George Bush lay out his war strategy and discussed its merits at length, seriously and without the usual badgering, before bringing in the pols to bash it. BBC's print version, with links to radio here. The Associated Press report's lede focused heavily on George Bush admitting mistakes -- something they stress every time he does, as though its something new and exciting. It's here. The president of the United States, addressing the nation on a critical matter of war, was barely allowed to get a few sentences out about what he actually plans to do before the AP jumped into the politics, crowing about his admissions of error and trumpeting the opposition's efforts to thwart him. An important part of the story, no doubt. But I'm sure the Democrats in Congress will be gratified to see the Associated Press is more interested in sideshow politics than it is in the heart of the matter: how do we move forward, for the security of our nation, for the security of the world and the region, in the face of very real threats.
AP wasn't the only one who felt bashing Chimpy McHilterburton rather than actually listening to him was the way to go. Here's the Chicago Trib. Newspapers all the way to Australia can't believe this man refuses to give up on the Iraqi people when the polls suggest people are frustrated by death and war and his political opposition is annoyed with him.
Here's what he actually said: full text.
Some quick answers on the gist of it from Michelle Malkin.
Don Surber is depressed. Sees it as more or less a withdrawal in a surge burkha. "Bush to Iraq: We had an Election Here, You Guys Lost."
Blue Crab gives Bush a B+, and thinks he also outmanuevered the opposition. They can't undercut him without looking like defeatist losers.
Outside the Beltway went inside for a pre-speech blogger briefing by Tony Snow. Joyner's summary here.
ABC: The surge is already underway, with advance elements of the 82nd Airborne already in Baghdad and a battalion arriving today.
WakeUpAmerica gives us the White House fact sheet.
Instapundit likes an Iraqi oil trust. Says about time.
No roundup is complete without a clueless dingbat, so here's a twofer: The Democratic Daily on Kerry's reaction.
A leader does take the counsel of grey hairs and the people's representatives, among many others. But then a leader, all by himself, with no one but himself to turn to in the end, makes a decision. A sometimes very difficult decision. There is a reason why our founding fathers set it up this way. They had spent enough time arguing with each other in committee to know that ultimately, one man all alone has to make the hardest decisions. As one of their heirs said a century and a half later, "The buck stops here."
There is not a lot that needs to be said about what George Bush said last night, except that it was the right thing. At long last, the key pieces are moving into play.
It isn't really about the number of troops. It is good that 21,500 tested, but rested combat troops are going in.
It's about what they will do with them. Aggressive leaders with a mandate to attack and kill will pair them with 10,000 to 12,000 Iraqi troops and throw them at the militias and the insurgents.
There are potential pitfalls to this approach. One of them is not that some of these soon-to-be-deployed soldiers will die ... and don't worry, you can rely on the AP to start a tally of the deaths of the newly deployed.
In war, death is a given. If and when it happens, it will mean that our soldiers have found and engaged the enemy, which I predict will die in much greater numbers.
The most immediate pitfall I see looming is that enemy has a headsup, and will attempt to melt away, using its advantage as an irregular native force to cache its weapons and stand on the street corner, whistling and acting normal, to bide its time.
This is why there must be provocations to draw them out. For starters, the beseiging and seizure of Moqtada al-Sadr and other criminal leaders, responsible for the murder of thousands. Relentless raids on their stronghold neighborhoods.
It won't be pretty. As he said, there will be bloody days ahead.
Bush also indicated that we can expect action on Iranian and Syrian soil, and he refered to the Stennis carrier group now underway to join the Eisenhower. He suggested this action will be related to the movement of weapons and terrorists harbored by Iran and Syria. As stated before, I strongly suspect they are contemplating stronger action against Iran's WMD sites. But first things first. Take down Iran's proxies in Iraq.
The only other thing I want to say tonight is that I found it somewhat telling that as I drove home around 11 p.m., the BBC's report on public radio was more relevant and balanced than what the Associated Press had sent over. The AP was actually breaking left of the BBC.
The BBC report I heard let George Bush lay out his war strategy and discussed its merits at length, seriously and without the usual badgering, before bringing in the pols to bash it. BBC's print version, with links to radio here. The Associated Press report's lede focused heavily on George Bush admitting mistakes -- something they stress every time he does, as though its something new and exciting. It's here. The president of the United States, addressing the nation on a critical matter of war, was barely allowed to get a few sentences out about what he actually plans to do before the AP jumped into the politics, crowing about his admissions of error and trumpeting the opposition's efforts to thwart him. An important part of the story, no doubt. But I'm sure the Democrats in Congress will be gratified to see the Associated Press is more interested in sideshow politics than it is in the heart of the matter: how do we move forward, for the security of our nation, for the security of the world and the region, in the face of very real threats.
AP wasn't the only one who felt bashing Chimpy McHilterburton rather than actually listening to him was the way to go. Here's the Chicago Trib. Newspapers all the way to Australia can't believe this man refuses to give up on the Iraqi people when the polls suggest people are frustrated by death and war and his political opposition is annoyed with him.
Here's what he actually said: full text.
Some quick answers on the gist of it from Michelle Malkin.
Don Surber is depressed. Sees it as more or less a withdrawal in a surge burkha. "Bush to Iraq: We had an Election Here, You Guys Lost."
Blue Crab gives Bush a B+, and thinks he also outmanuevered the opposition. They can't undercut him without looking like defeatist losers.
Outside the Beltway went inside for a pre-speech blogger briefing by Tony Snow. Joyner's summary here.
ABC: The surge is already underway, with advance elements of the 82nd Airborne already in Baghdad and a battalion arriving today.
WakeUpAmerica gives us the White House fact sheet.
Instapundit likes an Iraqi oil trust. Says about time.
No roundup is complete without a clueless dingbat, so here's a twofer: The Democratic Daily on Kerry's reaction.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
How It Ends
"Scarecrow" at leftie blog Firedoglake snarks on Gen. Petraeus' line, "Tell me how this ends," with a picture of the Vietnam Memorial wall.
All of our wars have ended that way, with an honoring of the men and women who gave their lives for their country, for our freedom, and for the freedom of others.
But wars, in fact, generally don't end. At least not on the dates listed in history books. The famous scene at Appomattox Court House was followed by a century of terrorism and strife. World War I took a breather, then came its bastard child, World War II. World War II, thanks to a bad deal at Yalta, morphed into the Cold War, which had its hotter moments in Korea and Vietnam, not to mention Africa and Central America. Our abandonment of Vietnam of course emboldened the Soviets to invade Afghanistan, emboldened the Iranians to ... well, you know where all of that led.
I don't know how this war ends. But I have a pretty good idea how it ends if we follow FDL's prefered route. Just like the Vietnam War. Only here.
All of our wars have ended that way, with an honoring of the men and women who gave their lives for their country, for our freedom, and for the freedom of others.
But wars, in fact, generally don't end. At least not on the dates listed in history books. The famous scene at Appomattox Court House was followed by a century of terrorism and strife. World War I took a breather, then came its bastard child, World War II. World War II, thanks to a bad deal at Yalta, morphed into the Cold War, which had its hotter moments in Korea and Vietnam, not to mention Africa and Central America. Our abandonment of Vietnam of course emboldened the Soviets to invade Afghanistan, emboldened the Iranians to ... well, you know where all of that led.
I don't know how this war ends. But I have a pretty good idea how it ends if we follow FDL's prefered route. Just like the Vietnam War. Only here.
Somali Kill Zone
... produces a high-value target, who won't be down for humus.
Somalia wants us back. I'm fine with that. As shocking as it seemed at the time, the death toll in the al-Qaeda-linked "Black Hawk Down" incident of October of 1993, when viewed as one of the opening engagements in this long war, was no disaster. We lost 18 men, a terrible toll on any day, a stunning loss in time of "peace." The other side lost an estimated 500 or more. But that is war. The disaster was the decision to disengage with lawlessness and militant Islam, a decision that greatly encouraged Osama bin Laden.
A senior al Qaeda suspect wanted for bombing U.S. embassies in East Africa has been killed, a Somali official said Wednesday as witnesses said U.S forces launched a third day of airstrikes.
Also Wednesday, Somalia's Deputy Prime Minister said American troops were needed on the ground to root extremists from his troubled country, and he expected the troops soon.
The death of al Qaeda suspect Fazul Abdullah Mohammed was detailed in an American intelligence report passed on to the Somali authorities. Mohammed, one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists who has evaded capture for eight years, was allegedly harbored by a Somali Islamic movement that had challenged this country's Ethiopian-backed government for power.
"I have received a report from the American side chronicling the targets and list of damage," Abdirizak Hassan, the Somali president's chief of staff, said. "One of the items they were claiming was that Fazul Abdullah Mohammed is dead."
Somalia wants us back. I'm fine with that. As shocking as it seemed at the time, the death toll in the al-Qaeda-linked "Black Hawk Down" incident of October of 1993, when viewed as one of the opening engagements in this long war, was no disaster. We lost 18 men, a terrible toll on any day, a stunning loss in time of "peace." The other side lost an estimated 500 or more. But that is war. The disaster was the decision to disengage with lawlessness and militant Islam, a decision that greatly encouraged Osama bin Laden.
View With Rooms
The essential Michael Totten takes us into Hezbollah territory. "So this is our victory." Great, insightful read with a lot of pics, and a plea at the end from a Lebanese who is tired of it.
Jules Hussein
A troll gleefully noted the following citation in E&P regarding Jamilgate and AP's claim to have resolved it. E&P, of course, states the existence of said Hussein has been "proven." My standards are somewhat higher than theirs, and I'm not convinced we're there yet. Meanwhile, I'd like to correct another error of theirs. While I'm accurately quoted in the first two graphs below, the third graph is from comments, which the scribbers at E&P apparently don't know how to distinguish from the body of a blogpost:
I've asked E&P to correct this but given this trade magazine's devolution into a shrill partisan political rag with little interest in accuracy under the reptilian leadership of Greg Mitchell, I'm not sure whether they'll do it.
Thank you, troll, for calling my attention to this.
UPDATE: E&P will correct. Reptilian Greg Mitchell here:
Thank you, Greg. Now, about your trade magazine's devolution into a shrill partisan political rag ...
Jamilgate Update:
Curt's latest at Flopping Aces. Is the AP wrong about being right?
Backgrounder and thoughts from another leading Jamil doubter, Confederate Yankee.
A prime Jamil Hussein doubter, Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald, had written on his blog on Tuesday, "If Jamil Hussein's apparent failure to exist is ever acknowledged, it will be buried. The AP's clients, by and large, don't care. Nor do the 'ethics' gatekeepers in the business."
Tonight he writes, "The existence of cops with several variations of the name Jamil Hussein of varying ranks in several police stations around Baghdad was reported by bloggers several weeks ago. None quite matched. I'd suggest the jury is still out on this guy."
He adds: "Where the proof? All I've seen is just another round of assertions. How about a page out of an AP reporter's notebook with a Jamil Hussein contact and info for a particular story on a particular day? Reporters are meticulous about their notebooks and retain them for years."
I've asked E&P to correct this but given this trade magazine's devolution into a shrill partisan political rag with little interest in accuracy under the reptilian leadership of Greg Mitchell, I'm not sure whether they'll do it.
Thank you, troll, for calling my attention to this.
UPDATE: E&P will correct. Reptilian Greg Mitchell here:
Sorry, will correct immediately. As on many blogs, it is often hard to tell when the blog host is weighing in, responding to something, but will try harder next time. Again, apologies. Correction should show up within half an hour. GM
Thank you, Greg. Now, about your trade magazine's devolution into a shrill partisan political rag ...
Jamilgate Update:
Curt's latest at Flopping Aces. Is the AP wrong about being right?
Backgrounder and thoughts from another leading Jamil doubter, Confederate Yankee.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
On Reflection
George Bush will address us tonight, and show us the way forward. The general outline has been floated: Up to 20,000 more troops, ready to move in by the end of the month. Hammer time for Baghdad and Anbar, already underway with 80 insurgents killed on Haifa Street since Saturday.
Haifa Street. I know that place. Funny how a news report of 80 dead can make you wistful. Importuning Iraqis at the wire, including one who asked my buddy Pasto, "Will we all be Americans now?" Pasto thought about it. "Maybe," he said. Stray RPGs and machine gun fire flying up the street from a fight with some Syrians holed up in a mosque, and an unseen guy with a pistol harrassing us with potshots in Shuhada Square. I ignored him, figuring he couldn't hit me with a pistol if he wanted to. "Try harder, Achmed." Until I heard the "zing" by my head and the "splat" of the bullet against the wall behind me. "Ooh. Achmed's good!" The GIs killed some fedayeen there. I saw the Iraqi slum dwellers carrying their limp, torn bodies off the blast-damaged tenement balcony from which they had intended to fire their RPG.
Sorry, digression. That was a lifetime ago, April 2003, when this started.
Just a month ago, the Iraq Study Group issued its recommendations, of which I have been dismissive. Particularly of the "Talk to Syria and Iran" part. But on reflection, I've thought better of that. The ISG correctly recognized that the attitudes of Iran and Syria are key to achieving stability and peace in Iraq.
We need to talk to Iran, most immediately. The conversation starts like this:
The Mahdi Army is engaged and destroyed. Without mercy, without ceasefire, without deals this time. Moqtada al-Sadr may be smart enough not to create a convenient provocation. That's OK. He is the criminal head of an armed criminal force. We create the provocation. He may be killed, or if it is deemed inadvisable to martyr him like his old man, he can be thrown into Saddam's old cell.
"Iran. We are speaking to you... Do you hear us?"
The aircraft carrier group Eisenhower has been diverted to Somalia, but that is temporary. Soon the carrier group Stennis will join Eisenhower in the Persian Gulf. Two decks, two fleets. ... So many aircraft, so many cruise missiles.
"Iran, we have more that we would like to say to you... Do you hear us?"
If Iran proves to be hard of hearing, we can increase the volume. Perhaps with attention to Iran's oil-production infrastructure.
"Iran. Do you understand what we are saying to you?"
It is important to speak to people in a language that they understand.
The ISG called for a phased withdrawal from Iraq. Agreed. This is an important goal. The ISG's has-beens, as they called themselves, just forgot to mention Phase One. The victory part.
It begins with the introduction of up to 20,000 more troops, aggressive rules of engagement, a massive and hopefully more effective influx of baksheesh for jobs and economic development. Because terrorism, like common crime, is greatly amplified by the lack of something better to do.
We are fortunate that these measures will be implemented by tough, smart generals who are very familiar with their subject matter: counter-insurgency, Iraq and the Iraqis.
OK, all seriousness aside, there is something else I need to address tonight.
From out of my own state, the shameless Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has called Iraq "George Bush's Vietnam."
I'd like to consider this a joke, but on reflection, I can't.
The towering irony, that it is Kennedy and his ilk who seek to create a Vietnam in Iraq, apparently is lost on them.
The last time this happened, Congress cut the funding for the war in Vietnam. U.S. troops and the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, with American advisors, had largely destroyed the Viet Cong and pushed back the North Vietnamese Army, when an angry Congress intervened to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. Much as this Congress would like to do now. This is recent history, and the cost of this kind of action is quite clear. Millions killed, imprisoned and enslaved in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Afghanistan, invaded by an emboldened Soviet Union, which knew we would do nothing about it. Our embassy and our people in Iran seized by student thugs, encouraged by their Islamic extremist government, because they knew we would do nothing about it.
As a reporter and now an editor in Massachusetts for more than 20 years, I've had periodic dealings with Kennedy and his staff. The low regard in which I hold him has only plummeted with his antics and bizarre statements in the course of the Iraq war. Now, he wants to provoke a constitutional crisis, on top of a disastrous and massively deadly abandonment of Iraq.
U.S. Rep Martin Meehan, D-Mass., has his own resolution. I knew Marty 16 years ago in Lowell, long before he was a congressman. He was a political animal, but I liked him, found him principled, and as this war progressed, respected his earnest and measured positions eve when I didn't agree with them. That respect is at an end with his cheap, copycat ploy, a House resolution calling on the president of the United States, in time of war, to ask the permission of Congress before he deploys any more troops into battle.
Tonight, our president is expected, once again, to defy the logic of polls and popularity, and dole out the bitter medicine. What must be done. What should have been done a long time ago. I remain confident in our future and the future of Iraq, because for now, we have a president who will do this.
The links are here, if you haven't seen all of this already.
MSNBC on Bush's plan, and Kennedy's.
Kennedy's "Vietnam" speech here.
Meehan's resolution here.
One other thing. The junior senator from my state seems to be flying under the radar. No noise in the last couple of days that I could find on the surge business. Odd, for a presidential hopeful who would like to convince us of his leadership potential, but I see something interesting in this. Kerry prefers riding coattails to walking, but more than that likes to know which way the wind is blowing. Kerry's instincts may tell him that the American people will respond when the president tells them he intends to win, and here's how.
UPDATE: For those who think Massachusetts is all Blue, you should be aware that 30 percent ot 40 percent routinely vote against the abovementioned in statewide elections. Meanwhile, here's another view from another Mass pol: Mitt likes George on Iraq.
Sigmund, Carl and Alfred would like Congress to be accountable. For Vietnam.
The Anchoress notes Kerry-like behavior by Pelosi.
Blackfive makes the very good point that Teddy's right: a surge alone won't do it. The part Teddy doesn't want to talk about is what those troops need to do. It starts with a boot and ends with Mookie's ass. Among other things.
Dan Riehl revisits Vietnam, and what Kennedy said about it then and now.
Secondhand Conjecture sorts through the WaPo view: He was against seeking advise before he ignored it. Put another way, going big was good until Bush wanted it.
Haifa Street. I know that place. Funny how a news report of 80 dead can make you wistful. Importuning Iraqis at the wire, including one who asked my buddy Pasto, "Will we all be Americans now?" Pasto thought about it. "Maybe," he said. Stray RPGs and machine gun fire flying up the street from a fight with some Syrians holed up in a mosque, and an unseen guy with a pistol harrassing us with potshots in Shuhada Square. I ignored him, figuring he couldn't hit me with a pistol if he wanted to. "Try harder, Achmed." Until I heard the "zing" by my head and the "splat" of the bullet against the wall behind me. "Ooh. Achmed's good!" The GIs killed some fedayeen there. I saw the Iraqi slum dwellers carrying their limp, torn bodies off the blast-damaged tenement balcony from which they had intended to fire their RPG.
Sorry, digression. That was a lifetime ago, April 2003, when this started.
Just a month ago, the Iraq Study Group issued its recommendations, of which I have been dismissive. Particularly of the "Talk to Syria and Iran" part. But on reflection, I've thought better of that. The ISG correctly recognized that the attitudes of Iran and Syria are key to achieving stability and peace in Iraq.
We need to talk to Iran, most immediately. The conversation starts like this:
The Mahdi Army is engaged and destroyed. Without mercy, without ceasefire, without deals this time. Moqtada al-Sadr may be smart enough not to create a convenient provocation. That's OK. He is the criminal head of an armed criminal force. We create the provocation. He may be killed, or if it is deemed inadvisable to martyr him like his old man, he can be thrown into Saddam's old cell.
"Iran. We are speaking to you... Do you hear us?"
The aircraft carrier group Eisenhower has been diverted to Somalia, but that is temporary. Soon the carrier group Stennis will join Eisenhower in the Persian Gulf. Two decks, two fleets. ... So many aircraft, so many cruise missiles.
"Iran, we have more that we would like to say to you... Do you hear us?"
If Iran proves to be hard of hearing, we can increase the volume. Perhaps with attention to Iran's oil-production infrastructure.
"Iran. Do you understand what we are saying to you?"
It is important to speak to people in a language that they understand.
The ISG called for a phased withdrawal from Iraq. Agreed. This is an important goal. The ISG's has-beens, as they called themselves, just forgot to mention Phase One. The victory part.
It begins with the introduction of up to 20,000 more troops, aggressive rules of engagement, a massive and hopefully more effective influx of baksheesh for jobs and economic development. Because terrorism, like common crime, is greatly amplified by the lack of something better to do.
We are fortunate that these measures will be implemented by tough, smart generals who are very familiar with their subject matter: counter-insurgency, Iraq and the Iraqis.
OK, all seriousness aside, there is something else I need to address tonight.
From out of my own state, the shameless Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has called Iraq "George Bush's Vietnam."
I'd like to consider this a joke, but on reflection, I can't.
The towering irony, that it is Kennedy and his ilk who seek to create a Vietnam in Iraq, apparently is lost on them.
The last time this happened, Congress cut the funding for the war in Vietnam. U.S. troops and the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, with American advisors, had largely destroyed the Viet Cong and pushed back the North Vietnamese Army, when an angry Congress intervened to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. Much as this Congress would like to do now. This is recent history, and the cost of this kind of action is quite clear. Millions killed, imprisoned and enslaved in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Afghanistan, invaded by an emboldened Soviet Union, which knew we would do nothing about it. Our embassy and our people in Iran seized by student thugs, encouraged by their Islamic extremist government, because they knew we would do nothing about it.
As a reporter and now an editor in Massachusetts for more than 20 years, I've had periodic dealings with Kennedy and his staff. The low regard in which I hold him has only plummeted with his antics and bizarre statements in the course of the Iraq war. Now, he wants to provoke a constitutional crisis, on top of a disastrous and massively deadly abandonment of Iraq.
U.S. Rep Martin Meehan, D-Mass., has his own resolution. I knew Marty 16 years ago in Lowell, long before he was a congressman. He was a political animal, but I liked him, found him principled, and as this war progressed, respected his earnest and measured positions eve when I didn't agree with them. That respect is at an end with his cheap, copycat ploy, a House resolution calling on the president of the United States, in time of war, to ask the permission of Congress before he deploys any more troops into battle.
Tonight, our president is expected, once again, to defy the logic of polls and popularity, and dole out the bitter medicine. What must be done. What should have been done a long time ago. I remain confident in our future and the future of Iraq, because for now, we have a president who will do this.
The links are here, if you haven't seen all of this already.
MSNBC on Bush's plan, and Kennedy's.
Kennedy's "Vietnam" speech here.
Meehan's resolution here.
One other thing. The junior senator from my state seems to be flying under the radar. No noise in the last couple of days that I could find on the surge business. Odd, for a presidential hopeful who would like to convince us of his leadership potential, but I see something interesting in this. Kerry prefers riding coattails to walking, but more than that likes to know which way the wind is blowing. Kerry's instincts may tell him that the American people will respond when the president tells them he intends to win, and here's how.
UPDATE: For those who think Massachusetts is all Blue, you should be aware that 30 percent ot 40 percent routinely vote against the abovementioned in statewide elections. Meanwhile, here's another view from another Mass pol: Mitt likes George on Iraq.
Sigmund, Carl and Alfred would like Congress to be accountable. For Vietnam.
The Anchoress notes Kerry-like behavior by Pelosi.
Blackfive makes the very good point that Teddy's right: a surge alone won't do it. The part Teddy doesn't want to talk about is what those troops need to do. It starts with a boot and ends with Mookie's ass. Among other things.
Dan Riehl revisits Vietnam, and what Kennedy said about it then and now.
Secondhand Conjecture sorts through the WaPo view: He was against seeking advise before he ignored it. Put another way, going big was good until Bush wanted it.
More Somalia
Apaches whack al-Qaeda in Somalia. AP via UK Guardian. To quote another symbol of hated American imperialism, "I'm lovin' it:"
Here's more from our Qaeda-lovin' pals at the Guardian, who headlined this report this " 'Britons hurt' in Somalia Strife." A quick scan assures us they meant to write " 'British Terrorists Whacked, Captured' in Righteous Crusader Operations on the Horn of Africa."
Earlier developments and roundup at "Very Bad for al-Qaeda."
A Somali official says U.S. helicopter gunships have launched new attacks against suspected al-Qaida terrorists. An earlier U.S. airstrike hit targets in southern Somalia where Islamic militants were believed to be sheltering suspects in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies, Somali officials and witnesses said Tuesday. Many people were reported killed.
Monday's attack was the first overt military action by the U.S. in Somalia since it led a U.N. force in the 1990s that intervened in Somalia in an effort to fight famine. The mission led to clashes between U.N. forces and Somali warlords, including the ``Black Hawk Down'' battle that left 18 U.S. servicemen dead.
Helicopter gunships launched new attacks Tuesday near the scene of a U.S. airstrike in the village of Hayi, although it was not clear if they were American or Ethiopian aircraft, and it was not known if there were any casualties.
Two helicopters ``fired several rockets toward the road that leads to the Kenyan border,'' said Ali Seed Yusuf, a resident of the town of Afmadow in southern Somalia.
Here's more from our Qaeda-lovin' pals at the Guardian, who headlined this report this " 'Britons hurt' in Somalia Strife." A quick scan assures us they meant to write " 'British Terrorists Whacked, Captured' in Righteous Crusader Operations on the Horn of Africa."
Earlier developments and roundup at "Very Bad for al-Qaeda."
A Hedge Against Logic
I have been ignoring former NYT scribbler Chris Hedges ever since, just before the Iraq War, he began disparaging the Pentagon's embed program. He bragged about how only he and a handful of others actually knew anything about covering war. Everyone else always stayed in the hotels. OK, true. I have respect for anyone who puts himself on the line, regardless of his politics. Hedges continued that the embeds wouldn't get anywhere near the fighting, and would be led around by the nose by the U.S. military. This was not true, was not at all what the Pentagon was talking about, and not what happened. But Hedges would have nothing to do with it, and disparaged those of us who were getting ready to put our lives on the line.
He missed out. Just about anyone and everyone from any news organization who wanted to got all the war they wanted. As a result, we probably have more reporters now with firsthand experience with intense combat and intimate knowledge of the workings and character of the U.S. military than at any time since World War II. Even many of those who now criticize the war have respect for the United States military and the American soldier. And if you care to take that walk, you don't even have to work for a news organization any more. It isn't easy or safe, but bloggers such as Roggio, Ardolino and Yon who can drum up the cash and a loose affiliation with a news organization are doing it. Sadly, the embed program has fallen out of popularity, in part due to the normalization of war three years on, in part due to staff and budget cuts in news organizations everywhere, in part due to bureaucratic and logistical obstacles created by the Pentagon. Too bad. It was a great program and has given Americans and the world some of the most telling insights into the Iraq war.
Sorry, I'm digressing. Hedges, whose career since then I know little about, beyond the predictable Bush- and Iraq-bashing, apparently decided the great unreported threat to America is the religious Right. Never mind that his book came out just in time for the godless Left's takeover of Congress, suggesting democracy remains somewhat active in the United States. Never mind that our nation is actively engaged in a global war with people who want to kill all of us, to whom Hedges' leftie pals would very much like to capitulate. I suspect Hedges here is as full of it as he was about the Iraq war and the embed program.
On this winter's must-ignore list of books not to read: "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America."
He missed out. Just about anyone and everyone from any news organization who wanted to got all the war they wanted. As a result, we probably have more reporters now with firsthand experience with intense combat and intimate knowledge of the workings and character of the U.S. military than at any time since World War II. Even many of those who now criticize the war have respect for the United States military and the American soldier. And if you care to take that walk, you don't even have to work for a news organization any more. It isn't easy or safe, but bloggers such as Roggio, Ardolino and Yon who can drum up the cash and a loose affiliation with a news organization are doing it. Sadly, the embed program has fallen out of popularity, in part due to the normalization of war three years on, in part due to staff and budget cuts in news organizations everywhere, in part due to bureaucratic and logistical obstacles created by the Pentagon. Too bad. It was a great program and has given Americans and the world some of the most telling insights into the Iraq war.
Sorry, I'm digressing. Hedges, whose career since then I know little about, beyond the predictable Bush- and Iraq-bashing, apparently decided the great unreported threat to America is the religious Right. Never mind that his book came out just in time for the godless Left's takeover of Congress, suggesting democracy remains somewhat active in the United States. Never mind that our nation is actively engaged in a global war with people who want to kill all of us, to whom Hedges' leftie pals would very much like to capitulate. I suspect Hedges here is as full of it as he was about the Iraq war and the embed program.
On this winter's must-ignore list of books not to read: "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America."
Democratic War Plan
Democratic War Plan here.*
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on how the Democrats plan to execute their war plan here.
"We have a platform we didn't have before, Leader Pelosi and I, and we're going to ... focus attention on this war in many different ways," said Reid. (see Democratic War Plan, here.)
More detail from Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, here: "They will say we're micromanaging the Defense Department. Well they need to be micromanaged," he said. "What we decide is the direction of the country on this war."
Because the Democratic majority in Congress is the President of the United States. And the Democrats have a plan. It's here.
* Keep clicking on that link. I'm pretty sure there is a Democratic War Plan, and that you'll be able to find it there. If you don't, try clicking here. Or here. Wait a minute. I think it's here.
Whoa...Sister Toldjah says it's here.
Larwyn attempts to understand the Pelosi mindset. Finds insight here.
Director Blue is working on it, not having any luck.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on how the Democrats plan to execute their war plan here.
"We have a platform we didn't have before, Leader Pelosi and I, and we're going to ... focus attention on this war in many different ways," said Reid. (see Democratic War Plan, here.)
More detail from Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, here: "They will say we're micromanaging the Defense Department. Well they need to be micromanaged," he said. "What we decide is the direction of the country on this war."
Because the Democratic majority in Congress is the President of the United States. And the Democrats have a plan. It's here.
* Keep clicking on that link. I'm pretty sure there is a Democratic War Plan, and that you'll be able to find it there. If you don't, try clicking here. Or here. Wait a minute. I think it's here.
Whoa...Sister Toldjah says it's here.
Larwyn attempts to understand the Pelosi mindset. Finds insight here.
Director Blue is working on it, not having any luck.
Very Bad for Al-Qaeda
AC-130 gunship takes apart suspected al-Qaeda target, sounds a lot like the notorious al-Qaeda hangout at Ras Kamboni mentioned in other reports, where Islamist found themselves trapped between Kenyan troops on the border, the U.S. Navy offshore, with Ethiopian and Somali troops moving in. Two al-Qaeda operatives, repsponsible for the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombing sand attacks on Israelis in Mombasa, are thought to be there. Maybe, maybe not. But Somali and Ethiopian troops had been heavily engaged there, taking casualties, and the target apparently is quieter now. Which is not a big surprise, if you are familiar with the AC-130. Very bad for al-Qaeda. Very very bad.
CBS here.
CNN here.
Background from an earlier AP report:
And what is it all about. Here's a Somali journalist Bashir Goth on that. Compliments of MEMRI:
Gateway's roundup here, with graphics.
Dr. Sanity's diagnosis here.
Boogie with Capt. Ed to the extended dance mix.
CBS here.
CNN here.
Background from an earlier AP report:
In Washington, a government official confirmed that the U.S. military launched a strike against several suspected members of al-Qaida in Somalia, using at least one AC-130 gunship. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the operation.
The official did not say where the attack took place. Earlier, a CBS News report citing Pentagon sources said the attack at a site at the southern tip of Somalia targeted the senior al-Qaida leader in East Africa and an al-Qaida operative wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
The U.S. had accused the Islamic militia that had controlled Mogadishu until recently of harboring the al-Qaida suspects.
Yusuf's troops and their Ethiopian allies appeared close to defeating the main Islamic force making a stand in a jungle region in the far south that is a suspected al-Qaida base.
Earlier on Monday, the defense minister, Col. Barre "Hirale" Aden Shire, said troops were poised to enter Ras Kamboni, on the southernmost tip of Somalia between the sea and the Kenyan border, after a fierce two-day battle. U.S. warships patrolled off shore and the Kenyan military guarded the border to watch for fleeing militants.
Shire said skirmishes were still taking place outside Ras Kamboni and both sides had suffered heavy casualties.
U.S. officials said after the Sept. 11 attacks that extremists with ties to al-Qaida operated a training camp at Ras Kamboni and al-Qaida members are believed to have visited it. The alleged mastermind of the embassy bombings in East Africa, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, escaped to Ras Kamboni, according to testimony from one of the convicted bombers.
And what is it all about. Here's a Somali journalist Bashir Goth on that. Compliments of MEMRI:
"The nightmare is over. Yes, I mean the Union of Islamic Courts, UIC. They had their day under the sun and they blew it. They had the support of all Somali people when they stormed to power, routed the notorious warlords, restored peace in Mogadishu, opened the airports and seaports, started addressing looted property issues and began looking like a wise authority.
"But instead of capitalizing on the people's genuine support and willingness to give in and give up everything, they had become power lusty, belligerent and fatwa-crazy. Instead of building bridges with the community, improving services, opening hospitals, winning the trust of international organizations and NGOs to help them with projects to generate employment, they burned all bridges. They alienated the youth by banning all types of entertainment, segregated women and deprived tens of thousands of families from their only livelihood by banning khat without bringing an alternative source of income. They even embittered traditional Islamic scholars with their characteristic Wahhabi style of self-righteousness and condescending attitude to mainstream Islam.
"Not only did they become more warlords than the ones they had defeated, but they emblazoned their belligerency with Islam and brandished the sword of Jihad, thus projecting themselves in the model of Taliban and regurgitating the tired jihadist rhetoric of Al Qaeda."
Gateway's roundup here, with graphics.
Dr. Sanity's diagnosis here.
Boogie with Capt. Ed to the extended dance mix.
Monday, January 8, 2007
Snails, Fungus, Cellmate's Internal Organs
It's all on the menu. Blue Crab brings us some French cannibalism.
Honor
If you haven't already, meet Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham, KIA, soon to be posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. Powerline nicely rounds up his story with photos and links.
Another American hero who, in death, has shown us how to live.
More at Pundit Radio.
On patrol on April 14, 2004, Cpl. Dunham found himself engaged in hand-to-hand combat with an insurgent near the Syrian border. When his attacker dropped a live hand grenade, the Marine made the split-second decision to cover the weapon with his own helmet, shielding two of his men from its full explosive force.
The other Marines staggered away from the blast, injured but alive. Cpl. Dunham suffered deep shrapnel wounds to the brain. He survived eight days in a coma, only to die with his parents at his bedside. He was 22 years old.
"There's not a day that goes by that I don't think about it," said Cpl. William Hampton, one of the Marines fighting beside Cpl. Dunham when the grenade exploded. The explosion left Cpl. Hampton, a 24-year-old from Woodinville, Wash., peppered with shrapnel. "I see my arms, I see my leg. I'm always reminded of it."
Another American hero who, in death, has shown us how to live.
More at Pundit Radio.
Northern Clarity
Three great ones by my uncle, Canadian soldier, war correspondent and Toronto Sun columnist Peter Worthington,* on courage, clarity of thought, cowardice and some Canadians worth knowing about.
On Canadian civil libertarian Alan Borovoy:
On Chris Alexander, 34-year-old Canadian diplomat now with the U.N., and why Canada should listen to him at a time at a time when some Canandian pols are interested in more of a "non-fighting role" in Afghanistan:
On a case of cowardice in Afghanistan, and when it is appropriate for a war correspondent to set aside the notebook. It includes this gem from Peter's own war experience:
Read the whole thing.
*Technically, Peter is my step-uncle. All I know is he's a good guy, gracious and engaging, I keep running into him at family events and I am glad to know him.
h/t Capt. H, thanks for pointing me to Peter's latest.
On Canadian civil libertarian Alan Borovoy:
Alan Borovoy is one of those rare individuals who defies easy categorizing.
As general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) he reacts to some human rights issues the way one might expect, while on other issues he takes a stand that challenges the convictions of those who usually support him.
... Borovoy has a new book out -- Categorically Incorrect: Ethical Fallacies in Canada's War on Terror -- that advances the view that Canada has been "needlessly dovish abroad and excessively hawkish at home."
...Among his fallacies is the idea that UN approval somehow makes going to war legal, while UN disapproval makes going to war illegal. To Borovoy (and people like me) it's "a gross misconception" that the UN "embodies the rule of law."
...Borovoy cites various views of the war against Iraq (to atone for Bush's dad's failure, for oil, to guarantee American military might, U.S. imperialism, etc.), and deflates them: "Was it not possible that America was doing the right thing for the wrong reasons?"
...Offensive to the pathologically logical Borovoy is what he calls "Equivalence Mongering" -- such as equating America's nuclear capacity with Iran's nuclear ambitions, or equating America's behaviour with "the behaviour of tyrants and terrorists."
On Chris Alexander, 34-year-old Canadian diplomat now with the U.N., and why Canada should listen to him at a time at a time when some Canandian pols are interested in more of a "non-fighting role" in Afghanistan:
Alexander feels positively about Afghanistan's future, and says the opium poppy trade doesn't make farmers rich; that headway is being made to reduce that evil trade. Profits from Afghanistan's opium don't help the small producer, but those up the distribution line.
As for the resurgence of the Taliban, he feels they must be soundly beaten before peace and security reign. He says they are being beaten -- largely by Canadian forces who've gone after them in the field and have kicked the Taliban's ass.
On a case of cowardice in Afghanistan, and when it is appropriate for a war correspondent to set aside the notebook. It includes this gem from Peter's own war experience:
As a platoon commander in the Korean War, I had a couple of soldiers who did everything possible to get charged in order to escape the trenches. Every man under my command was curious to see if the ploy of sleeping on sentry duty, insubordination, ignoring orders would work. My cure was to take each guy into an empty bunker and offer to have it out with him.
Troops understood
When each declined I said I was not going to charge him, but if he continued his attitude I would send him on every patrol and assignment until he was killed.
One of the guys straightened up immediately, the other went berserk and was evacuated. Morale survived.
The troops understood exactly what was going on.
Journalists covering wars, rebellions and violence know that some members of their trade never leave their hotels and avoid risky situations. They usually don’t write about them, and have disdain for those who pretend in print that they were there.
Soldiers feel similarly.
Read the whole thing.
*Technically, Peter is my step-uncle. All I know is he's a good guy, gracious and engaging, I keep running into him at family events and I am glad to know him.
h/t Capt. H, thanks for pointing me to Peter's latest.
Bollygoggles on Afghanistan
Afghan Lord has a bone to pick with Bollywood. Bollywood dissed the Hazaras. Dialog from "Kabul Express," courtesy of a PO'd Afghan Lord:
Afghan Lord says: "The movie is a complete humiliation and insolence for Afghanistan in common and Hazara in particular. In the movie, they refer to Hazara as bandits, looters and sodomites."
I can see how the Hazaras don't like that much, but it sounds like this movie has all the rollicking India vs. Pakistan vs. Afghanistan action you could ask for, presumeably with a dance number or two or 12 thrown in. Looks to be inspired by several real-life incidents of Indian journalists encountering difficulties in Afghanistan, several decades of real-life interference by Pakistan in Afghan affairs, and real-life Afghan banditry. No comment on the sodomy and looting parts. And no opinion on whether Afghanistan viewed through Bollygoggles represents anything like reality. Afghan Lord says no.
The rest of the dialog, with vid, here. Apparently bootlegged in an Indian theater.
"They were Hazaras. They would have looted and naked you. Then would have hit you in the head with the nail. Then would have sold your car in Pakistan."
"Light a cigarette!"
"Thanks for saving our life."
"No need for thanks. If you got killed, getting on the road might have been difficult for me."
"Son of a bitch! What’s the difference between you and these dogs? You people can shoot anyone for your interest…Bastard! You pissed in front of me. Now I will shoot you and throw you among these dogs… before dying, tell who started the war first?"
"We did!"
"What?"
"Pakistan…"
Afghan Lord says: "The movie is a complete humiliation and insolence for Afghanistan in common and Hazara in particular. In the movie, they refer to Hazara as bandits, looters and sodomites."
I can see how the Hazaras don't like that much, but it sounds like this movie has all the rollicking India vs. Pakistan vs. Afghanistan action you could ask for, presumeably with a dance number or two or 12 thrown in. Looks to be inspired by several real-life incidents of Indian journalists encountering difficulties in Afghanistan, several decades of real-life interference by Pakistan in Afghan affairs, and real-life Afghan banditry. No comment on the sodomy and looting parts. And no opinion on whether Afghanistan viewed through Bollygoggles represents anything like reality. Afghan Lord says no.
The rest of the dialog, with vid, here. Apparently bootlegged in an Indian theater.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Business As Usual
Turns out the religion didn't take in Bush's "Come to Jesus" chat with al-Maliki. He may need another talking to.
Al-Maliki has promised to go after both Sunni and Shia. But today's AP report out of Baghdad suggests al-Maliki's notion of how to quell sectarian violence doesn't include al-Sadr.
Reuters has Gen. Raymond Odierno, who's been down this road before, calling for balance:
So they want to sent Kurdish and Shiite units to take on the militias, and keep the Americans out of it. That sounds like a plan to target Sunni Arabs, and not very effectively at that.
It turns out we can't entirely blame al-Maliki if he's not sufficiently clear on the need to kill al-Sadr and his gang. The Americans apparently have been sending mixed messages:
Not clear to me by what definition the head of a murderous, Iranian-backed militia that is fueling much of the violence is "working within the political system."
It had looked like the Iraqi parliament was getting organized to remove al-Sadr's stooge. It didn't happen. Now it looks like the United States isn't very serious about dealing with al-Sadr, either. That needs to change. I'm also surprised to see an offensive underway apparently before the forces are in place.
Put all that happy hopeful talk about Petraeus below on hold till they sort this thing out.
More:
NYT's Burns on Odierno. War could last two or three years. I'd call that optimistic.
Further note re Odierno and Petraeus. It's early, they have strong reputations, and it is too early to judge based on a couple of interviews and early reports of action, however troubling they may be. Commenter notes it could represent disinformation. More likely political cover to a strong behind-the-scenes persuasion effort, as generals have to be political beasts as much as they are military ones. But I believe the only route to a political solution lies through robust and unrelenting military action. In a bad neighborhood, that's what you have to do if you want respect. And I highly doubt, ultimately, a viable political solution is possible with the murderous Iranian stooge al-Sadr.
Omar likes it better than I do. Or at least was taking them at their word yesterday.
NYT's WWPD: What Would Petraeus Do?
Al-Maliki has promised to go after both Sunni and Shia. But today's AP report out of Baghdad suggests al-Maliki's notion of how to quell sectarian violence doesn't include al-Sadr.
The sectarian attacks continued despite the major drive to tame Baghdad. The Iraqi army reported killing 30 militants late Saturday in a Sunni insurgent stronghold in the center of the city, just to the north of the heavily fortified Green Zone.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ... announced his intention for the relentless and open-ended bid to crush militant fighters bedeviling Baghdad.
Hassan al-Suneid, a key aide and member of al-Maliki's Dawa Party ... said the new drive to free Baghdad from the grip of sectarian violence would focus initially on Sunni insurgent strongholds in western Baghdad.
Sunnis were likely to cry foul, given that a large measure of today's violence in Baghdad is the work of Shiite militias, loyal to al-Maliki's key political backer, Muqtada al-Sadr.
Reuters has Gen. Raymond Odierno, who's been down this road before, calling for balance:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The Iraqi government plans to bring in troop reinforcements to take part in a major security plan for Baghdad but a U.S. general said on Sunday the key to success would be a balanced approach rather than sheer force.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced a major security plan for Baghdad on Saturday, vowing to crush illegal armed groups "regardless of sect or politics" -- suggesting he may be ready to tackle militias loyal to his fellow Shi'ites, as demanded by Washington and the once dominant Sunni minority.
Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, the new commander of U.S. combat troops in Iraq, said a previous U.S. operation launched in August to secure Baghdad had flaws.
"We were able to clear the areas. We were not able to hold the areas," he told reporters. "You have to go after both Shia and Sunni neighbourhoods and 'Together Forward' was focused mostly on Sunni neighbourhoods and we've got to do both."
"We have to have a balanced approach about going after both Shia and Sunni extremists," he said.
Odierno said U.S. commanders had also "overestimated the availability of Iraqi security forces" in the earlier operation and said U.S. troops would also remain in neighbourhoods to ensure Iraqi forces did not pursue their own sectarian agendas.
Sami al-Askari, an adviser to Maliki, said two brigades from northern Iraq, comprising mostly Kurdish soldiers, and one from the mainly Shi'ite south, would be sent to Baghdad to help implement the plan. Iraqi brigades number around 1,200 soldiers.
The plan foresees Iraqi forces taking responsibility for inner Baghdad while U.S. forces will be in charge of the surrounding areas, Askari said. Odierno said that he hoped U.S. troops could be mainly on the outskirts by summer.
... Washington has identified the Mahdi Army militia of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr as the biggest threat to security.
Sadr, whose supporters played a key role in Maliki's appointment as a compromise prime minister in April, denies supporting violence. Maliki has repeatedly rejected criticism that he has not confronted the Mehdi Army before now, saying the Shi'ite armed groups can be tamed through political dialogue.
So they want to sent Kurdish and Shiite units to take on the militias, and keep the Americans out of it. That sounds like a plan to target Sunni Arabs, and not very effectively at that.
It turns out we can't entirely blame al-Maliki if he's not sufficiently clear on the need to kill al-Sadr and his gang. The Americans apparently have been sending mixed messages:
Odierno said U.S. forces would leave dealing with Sadr to Iraqi authorities. "I'm not sure we take him down," Odierno said.
"There are some extreme elements (of the Mahdi Army) ... and we will go after them. I will allow the government to decide whether (Sadr) is part of it or not. He is currently working within the political system."
Not clear to me by what definition the head of a murderous, Iranian-backed militia that is fueling much of the violence is "working within the political system."
It had looked like the Iraqi parliament was getting organized to remove al-Sadr's stooge. It didn't happen. Now it looks like the United States isn't very serious about dealing with al-Sadr, either. That needs to change. I'm also surprised to see an offensive underway apparently before the forces are in place.
Put all that happy hopeful talk about Petraeus below on hold till they sort this thing out.
More:
NYT's Burns on Odierno. War could last two or three years. I'd call that optimistic.
Further note re Odierno and Petraeus. It's early, they have strong reputations, and it is too early to judge based on a couple of interviews and early reports of action, however troubling they may be. Commenter notes it could represent disinformation. More likely political cover to a strong behind-the-scenes persuasion effort, as generals have to be political beasts as much as they are military ones. But I believe the only route to a political solution lies through robust and unrelenting military action. In a bad neighborhood, that's what you have to do if you want respect. And I highly doubt, ultimately, a viable political solution is possible with the murderous Iranian stooge al-Sadr.
Omar likes it better than I do. Or at least was taking them at their word yesterday.
NYT's WWPD: What Would Petraeus Do?
It's His to Win
Meet the man who gets Iraq now. Gen. David H. Petraeus. By all accounts tough, a soldier's soldier, a counter-insurgency scholar, and has extensive dealings with the Iraqi military. Maybe, with sufficient backing, he can do it. In any case, as Barry McCaffrey says in this Washington Post article:
I don't know. Bosnia went from open warfare and mass graves to uneasy peace. Not so bad if he can pull that off.
"... I'm sure he'll say to himself, 'I'm not going to be the last soldier off the roof of the embassy in the Green Zone.'
...Petraeus, if controversial among some peers who deem him arrogant or excessively ambitious, is seen by many others as perhaps the last, best hope for success in Iraq. "If anyone can pick up the baton and run with it, it is David Petraeus," said retired Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, a former Army chief of staff.
After spending 2 1/2 of the past four years in Iraq, as a division commander and then as the officer overseeing the initial reconstruction of Iraqi security forces, Petraeus is known to believe that a stable, pacified Iraq is still possible -- if not probable -- but not without dramatically improved security. Having also served in Bosnia after the catastrophic civil war there, he has told friends that he sees troubling parallels between that country and Iraq. Two months ago, he said, "I actually stay awake occasionally at night trying to figure out the path ahead."
I don't know. Bosnia went from open warfare and mass graves to uneasy peace. Not so bad if he can pull that off.
It Sucked For Him
Fascinating article here by Burns and some others at the New York Times about the runup to Saddam's date with the hemp. Have to say, with all this back and forth about when, how, why and with what exchange of unpleasantries Saddam should have dropped, I can't help think about the hundreds of thousands who got not one of those considerations.
Corner of England Henceforth a Foreign Field
I knew there was a reason my people left Old Blighty. They must have seen it coming. Snapped Shot informs us the Raj is well and truly over, and Bobbies, notified of assault, will say: "You are just being racist and you have to remember that it’s cultural with them."
Crossroads
We've arrived at a crossroads in history. The choices are simple.
In a letter to President Bush Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate President Harry Reid said they want out of Iraq. It's over. The American people are sick of it. There is no reason and no will to keep fighting this.
At the American Enterprise Institute the same day, senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman came out for a big, sustained surge of troops into Iraq. They made the case for fighting. Key word: "Winnable." They outlined the consequences of accepting defeat. Key word: "Catastrophic."
We are sharply divided as a nation. There will be no governing by consensus. Only by hardnosed leadership. This week, we'll find out what it is going to be. Neither of our options is attractive. But that's war.
Option One: Pull out. Achieve short-term gratification for those who believe our absence from Iraq will solve our problems. Watch Iraq descend into further violence. Watch a nuclear-armed Iran come to dominate Iraq and the world's richest oil fields.
No longer a world power, discredited by our own choice, we can watch the pile of bodies mount. Maybe we'll be restored to our national senses, as we were a decade after Vietnam, when we woke up and realized we never really had the luxury of disengaging from the fight.
This time, it will be harder. It won't be so neatly contained as it was then. The only good side to this is the army gets to rest. Don't count on the Democratic Congress to refit or build it up, or to do anything but dither when we need to use it again.
More likely, a dispirited people, our army broken by defeat, we'll just wait to see who emerges as the new world power. It will be a while before there is one, and much longer before there is one we would care to live under. I predict a dark age, in which brutal second-rate powers such as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea do what they choose to whom they choose without restraint. An age of modern warlords, with no over-arching, feared power to keep them in check. We can watch the sick man that is Europe slowly succumb. We can watch small free nations try to fend for themselves. We can await the inevitable nuclear crisis.
Does that sound at all medieval or apocalyptic? It is. Don't think we can't go back to that.
Does it sound overly melodramatic and alarmist? If so, you're a fool with no understanding of history. I have bad news for you. The fight against evil in this world is business as usual. It never ends.
We've faced this kind of choice before. We have not always chosen well. You know people who lived through such a time, when the failure to act against evil early led to more horrific bloodshed later. You may have relatives who died because of that. I do. In our lifetimes, we've never been more than a few inches from the abyss, however comfortable and safe our lives seem today. If you're an adult, then you've lived through a time when the evil of communism was held at bay. But only just, and millions died. Millions remain enslaved.
Which brings us to Option Two: Fight now. Fight harder. Expend our precious blood and money now, so we don't have to spend more blood and more money later. Fight now, while we can.
They're simple choices, not easy choices. But we are fortunate. The Democratic Congress, so eager to abandon Iraq, is fortunate. The world that seems to revile us no matter what we do is also fortunate. Because it will not be their decision.
We have a president who understands what is at stake. This week he will tell us what it is going to be. All signs indicate he recognizes the mistakes of the past, errors such as are often made in war, and he intends to do what is right. That would be the harder choice, to fight now, when we are tired and feel spent. But, as another American once said, we have not yet begun to fight.
It is his decision to make, and it will fall to a small number of our fellow Americans to execute. It falls to each of us to join the fight in the best way we can. We can be grateful that we still have men and women who are willing to face death for us, who make their choice every day. We are very fortunate to have them. Because Option One, accepting surrender and defeat, is no option at all.
Crossposted at Boston Herald here.
A shout out to my friend Paco and the son he raised, who is now a United States Marine.
Related:
Ralph Peters at the New York Post notices a swab is taking over CentCom and he thinks he knows why. Iran.
On that subject, here's my Jan. 4 post, "Iran Wants War." Iran just doesn't want to fight it. Iran's campaign to sow chaos and create the conditions for our failure in Iraq.
here's my Dec. 27 post about naval forces moving into place for a possible attack on Iran's WMD and air defense sites, with ground surge to protect our flank in Iraq from Iran's proxies there. Stuff Happening.
DEBKAfile has Bush on an all out push: "President George W. Bush is poised to stake every US resource to hand on a no-holds-barred military operation all the way to victory in Iraq, after first bringing Baghdad under control. The chips should all be lined up by the time he goes public next week on his new strategy for Iraq and the Middle East at large."
Times of London has the Israelis ready for a tactical nuke strike on Iranian nuke facilities. A tad ironic, but it works for me. Again, I doubt we'll see Israeli involvement. Update: Israelis say its bunk.
Tigerhawk thinks the Dems are trying to be clever:
Flopping Aces excerpts Tom Snodgrass' examination of historic American warfighting doctrine that is directly relevant to our problems today. Read it.
Don Surber totals up the direct costs of surrender:
Dan Riehl thinks our differences, our choices and the consequences are not so dire as I've painted them. We'll muddle through somehow.
Pelosi won't support funding for more troops if Bush surges. Good. So we get to have a debate on the merits of surrender, and see whether Americans prefer quitting to winning. So the Dems have to take responsiblity for defeat and for undercutting American troops in the field. Pelosi's pro-surrender instincts have not served her well so far, with her support for leading Defeatocrat John Murtha for majority leader.
The guy who beat Murtha, Steny Hoyer, meanwhile, says a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. The Dem Cong leadership better figure out what their message is going to be, if they plan on exerting any kind of leadership. Iran won't be disarmed short of military action. Iraq is a playground for Iranian proxies. Iraq, in any action against Iran, is our flank. You want to deal with Iran? You have to deal with Iraq. It's that simple.
Gateway: Pelosi makes preparations for Iraqi Killing Fields.
In a letter to President Bush Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate President Harry Reid said they want out of Iraq. It's over. The American people are sick of it. There is no reason and no will to keep fighting this.
At the American Enterprise Institute the same day, senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman came out for a big, sustained surge of troops into Iraq. They made the case for fighting. Key word: "Winnable." They outlined the consequences of accepting defeat. Key word: "Catastrophic."
We are sharply divided as a nation. There will be no governing by consensus. Only by hardnosed leadership. This week, we'll find out what it is going to be. Neither of our options is attractive. But that's war.
Option One: Pull out. Achieve short-term gratification for those who believe our absence from Iraq will solve our problems. Watch Iraq descend into further violence. Watch a nuclear-armed Iran come to dominate Iraq and the world's richest oil fields.
No longer a world power, discredited by our own choice, we can watch the pile of bodies mount. Maybe we'll be restored to our national senses, as we were a decade after Vietnam, when we woke up and realized we never really had the luxury of disengaging from the fight.
This time, it will be harder. It won't be so neatly contained as it was then. The only good side to this is the army gets to rest. Don't count on the Democratic Congress to refit or build it up, or to do anything but dither when we need to use it again.
More likely, a dispirited people, our army broken by defeat, we'll just wait to see who emerges as the new world power. It will be a while before there is one, and much longer before there is one we would care to live under. I predict a dark age, in which brutal second-rate powers such as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea do what they choose to whom they choose without restraint. An age of modern warlords, with no over-arching, feared power to keep them in check. We can watch the sick man that is Europe slowly succumb. We can watch small free nations try to fend for themselves. We can await the inevitable nuclear crisis.
Does that sound at all medieval or apocalyptic? It is. Don't think we can't go back to that.
Does it sound overly melodramatic and alarmist? If so, you're a fool with no understanding of history. I have bad news for you. The fight against evil in this world is business as usual. It never ends.
We've faced this kind of choice before. We have not always chosen well. You know people who lived through such a time, when the failure to act against evil early led to more horrific bloodshed later. You may have relatives who died because of that. I do. In our lifetimes, we've never been more than a few inches from the abyss, however comfortable and safe our lives seem today. If you're an adult, then you've lived through a time when the evil of communism was held at bay. But only just, and millions died. Millions remain enslaved.
Which brings us to Option Two: Fight now. Fight harder. Expend our precious blood and money now, so we don't have to spend more blood and more money later. Fight now, while we can.
They're simple choices, not easy choices. But we are fortunate. The Democratic Congress, so eager to abandon Iraq, is fortunate. The world that seems to revile us no matter what we do is also fortunate. Because it will not be their decision.
We have a president who understands what is at stake. This week he will tell us what it is going to be. All signs indicate he recognizes the mistakes of the past, errors such as are often made in war, and he intends to do what is right. That would be the harder choice, to fight now, when we are tired and feel spent. But, as another American once said, we have not yet begun to fight.
It is his decision to make, and it will fall to a small number of our fellow Americans to execute. It falls to each of us to join the fight in the best way we can. We can be grateful that we still have men and women who are willing to face death for us, who make their choice every day. We are very fortunate to have them. Because Option One, accepting surrender and defeat, is no option at all.
Crossposted at Boston Herald here.
A shout out to my friend Paco and the son he raised, who is now a United States Marine.
Related:
Ralph Peters at the New York Post notices a swab is taking over CentCom and he thinks he knows why. Iran.
On that subject, here's my Jan. 4 post, "Iran Wants War." Iran just doesn't want to fight it. Iran's campaign to sow chaos and create the conditions for our failure in Iraq.
here's my Dec. 27 post about naval forces moving into place for a possible attack on Iran's WMD and air defense sites, with ground surge to protect our flank in Iraq from Iran's proxies there. Stuff Happening.
DEBKAfile has Bush on an all out push: "President George W. Bush is poised to stake every US resource to hand on a no-holds-barred military operation all the way to victory in Iraq, after first bringing Baghdad under control. The chips should all be lined up by the time he goes public next week on his new strategy for Iraq and the Middle East at large."
Times of London has the Israelis ready for a tactical nuke strike on Iranian nuke facilities. A tad ironic, but it works for me. Again, I doubt we'll see Israeli involvement. Update: Israelis say its bunk.
Tigerhawk thinks the Dems are trying to be clever:
"Given that the surge does not preclude the option of withdrawal down the road, why are the Democrats pushing so hard right now? I think it is because they believe that they have a shot at winning the White House in 2008, and that their chances are enhanced if we withdraw today. Why? First, if we withdraw during 2007 Democratic candidates will not then have to engage in their own civil war over what to do about Iraq or come off like yellow-bellies in the general election. Second, if after American withdrawal Iraq melts down into a genuine bloodbath that causes voters to wish we had stayed in, the Democrats hope that voters will blame Republicans."
Flopping Aces excerpts Tom Snodgrass' examination of historic American warfighting doctrine that is directly relevant to our problems today. Read it.
Don Surber totals up the direct costs of surrender:
...the penalty for early withdrawal is cataclysmic. The Fall of Saigon led to 2 million deaths in Cambodia alone. Stopping short of Baghdad 16 years ago cost a quarter-million lives directly, plus whatever number of deaths they tag on to the Oil for Food scandal.
Childish demands for "Peace Now" ignore history and reality and the welfare of the Iraqi people.
And our own soldiers. We could have had Iraq for free in 1991. What's it cost us to return? 3,000 lives? A half-trillion dollars?
Dan Riehl thinks our differences, our choices and the consequences are not so dire as I've painted them. We'll muddle through somehow.
Pelosi won't support funding for more troops if Bush surges. Good. So we get to have a debate on the merits of surrender, and see whether Americans prefer quitting to winning. So the Dems have to take responsiblity for defeat and for undercutting American troops in the field. Pelosi's pro-surrender instincts have not served her well so far, with her support for leading Defeatocrat John Murtha for majority leader.
The guy who beat Murtha, Steny Hoyer, meanwhile, says a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. The Dem Cong leadership better figure out what their message is going to be, if they plan on exerting any kind of leadership. Iran won't be disarmed short of military action. Iraq is a playground for Iranian proxies. Iraq, in any action against Iran, is our flank. You want to deal with Iran? You have to deal with Iraq. It's that simple.
Gateway: Pelosi makes preparations for Iraqi Killing Fields.
Good Move
Libya is going to build a statue of Saddam. I can't think of a better place, seeing as all the other ones have been pulled down in Iraq. And I like the sound of the design. It was Saddam's finest moment:
Too bad about the resistance leader, to be stuck on the pedestal with a shitbird like this, but I have to say for all the squawking about the inappropriateness of Saddam's execution and the tut-tuts about the vidphone footage, I enjoyed watching him suddenly disappear off the screen.
My only question is, how come Khaddafi suddenly loves Saddam? I know he loved him back in the day. But I thought Mad Mo was resolved to be a good dictator now. Think maybe he's feeling a little sheepish about giving away the farm the minute Saddam's other statue toppled?
It would show him standing on the gallows with a Libyan resistance leader who fought Italian occupation, executed in 1931, Libya's Jana news agency said.
Too bad about the resistance leader, to be stuck on the pedestal with a shitbird like this, but I have to say for all the squawking about the inappropriateness of Saddam's execution and the tut-tuts about the vidphone footage, I enjoyed watching him suddenly disappear off the screen.
My only question is, how come Khaddafi suddenly loves Saddam? I know he loved him back in the day. But I thought Mad Mo was resolved to be a good dictator now. Think maybe he's feeling a little sheepish about giving away the farm the minute Saddam's other statue toppled?
Saturday, January 6, 2007
Life, Death, Comedy: Weird, Complex, Beside the Point
Here's something kind of touching Chevy Chase wrote about Gerald Ford. Ford makes a Ford joke:
Apparently, Chevy Chase also said some unnecessary and unpleasant things in a fit of annoyance after Ford's death:
Whatever. Chevy Chase was funny doing Ford pratfalls. Ford was a big enough man to laugh about it and became his friend. I don't know what Chevy Chase is so annoyed about. He's rich, successful and not dead yet. And Ford did make his career.
“No, no, Chevy. Don’t even think about it. I’ll probably get electrocuted, and you’ll be picked up and arrested for murder.”
Apparently, Chevy Chase also said some unnecessary and unpleasant things in a fit of annoyance after Ford's death:
"I'm just a guy who made some fun of Gerald Ford in 1976 and I prefer to be left alone, really," the 63-year-old comedian told Reuters this week from a Colorado ski resort where he had been skiing with his daughter.
Chase, who has starred in many Hollywood film comedies and written for television shows, said he gets upset when people say that Ford "made" his career.
"The man who 'made my career' did not do 'Fletch,' did not do 'Caddyshack,' did not write for the 'Smothers Brothers' before he wrote for 'Saturday Night Live,' did not write for 12 years before that and win Writers Guild awards.
Whatever. Chevy Chase was funny doing Ford pratfalls. Ford was a big enough man to laugh about it and became his friend. I don't know what Chevy Chase is so annoyed about. He's rich, successful and not dead yet. And Ford did make his career.
Softly, Silently, Naturally Deadly ... Cotton
You know how I've been talking about the forces moving into position to whack Iran? Yeah. Well, wait till the rugweavers see this baby. Or ... till they don't see it. Yeah, that's what I mean.
While you're at the Weekly World News site, don't miss this important story about Post-Euphoric Bliss Disorder:
While you're at the Weekly World News site, don't miss this important story about Post-Euphoric Bliss Disorder:
"The biggest risk faced by victims of the disease is the recurrence of the original rapture in flashbacks," Dr. Leveran said. "For instance, if birthday fireworks ignite a bliss-sufferer's fifty-room mansion, or his private jet suddenly stalls at 40,000 feet, he's often too distracted by flashbacks of prior happiness to save his own life."
Here We Go
Moqtada Al-Sadr has a big fat target on him. That's the only explanation for al-Maliki announcing he's going after all sectarian militias, and then actually appearing to do so. Sounds like, with Bush about to announce a major surge, al-Maliki got religion. Or as Captain Ed put it, the vidphone chat between Bush and al-Maliki would have been of the "Come to Jesus" variety.
NYT's Sanger says Bush will send "as many as 20,000" troops to Baghdad, and wants Congress to give him $1 billion for an Iraqi jobs program. Sounds like a plan, when you consider how massive unemployment fuels despair, terrorism, insurgency. Congress is eager for Bush to accept defeat. I doubt they have the stones to seize it from the jaws of victory themselves. If Congress chooses to obstruct on a positive measure of this sort, it will look very very bad.
Whether or not Congress approves the jobs dough, Bush has all the authority he needs to put troops in the field, and it will become very difficult then for Congress to refuse Americans in combat the support they'll need.
So at this moment, as forces are being put into play, the most important elements will be aggression and perseverence. No deals with militias that don't involve aggressive disarming and seizure and prosecution of key leaders. No backing down, as in 2004. It may get ugly, but that is war. And we already know what the alternative is.
Meanwhile, John Dickerson has an interesting take at Slate, re the politics of surge. John McCain has long supported the war and, correctly in my view, slammed the tactics. With Bush going McCain's way, with McCain's blessing, McCain is going to own whatever happens in Iraq in the runup to 2008. McCain also has an 18-year-old son in the Marines who is likely to find himself in Iraq, executing his father's will. Big gamble on McCain's part, but McCain, whether you like what he says or not, generally goes with his gut.
Gateway has a very interesting post on an Iraqi citing developments over there: "Saddam’s execution starts an era of change for Iraq and the surrounding area."
NYT's Sanger says Bush will send "as many as 20,000" troops to Baghdad, and wants Congress to give him $1 billion for an Iraqi jobs program. Sounds like a plan, when you consider how massive unemployment fuels despair, terrorism, insurgency. Congress is eager for Bush to accept defeat. I doubt they have the stones to seize it from the jaws of victory themselves. If Congress chooses to obstruct on a positive measure of this sort, it will look very very bad.
Whether or not Congress approves the jobs dough, Bush has all the authority he needs to put troops in the field, and it will become very difficult then for Congress to refuse Americans in combat the support they'll need.
So at this moment, as forces are being put into play, the most important elements will be aggression and perseverence. No deals with militias that don't involve aggressive disarming and seizure and prosecution of key leaders. No backing down, as in 2004. It may get ugly, but that is war. And we already know what the alternative is.
Meanwhile, John Dickerson has an interesting take at Slate, re the politics of surge. John McCain has long supported the war and, correctly in my view, slammed the tactics. With Bush going McCain's way, with McCain's blessing, McCain is going to own whatever happens in Iraq in the runup to 2008. McCain also has an 18-year-old son in the Marines who is likely to find himself in Iraq, executing his father's will. Big gamble on McCain's part, but McCain, whether you like what he says or not, generally goes with his gut.
Gateway has a very interesting post on an Iraqi citing developments over there: "Saddam’s execution starts an era of change for Iraq and the surrounding area."
Sorry Kerry
Dan Riehl apologizes to John Kerry for making fun of him being snubbed by the troops. Turns out, Dan notes, Kerry wasn't being snubbed by the troops. He just prefered to dine with the Times. Dan cruelly goes on to note that Kerry has a history of spending as little time with the troops in combat zones as possible.
Wind Blows Which Way?
Our first woman to serve as House Speaker starts off her honeymoon with a 43 percent approval rating. A tad underwhelming, and for those who believe in governing by poll, not much of a mandate. It's time for those who believe in governing by poll to get on board with Bush, because at 45 percent the unpopular stooge who fell for Cheney-Rumsfeld-Halliburton's diabolical Rovian plot is flogging their girl.
Hold up! Volokh deconstructs the latest Bush-Pelosi popularity numbers and finds Bush wanting:
Darn. But I wanted to be governed by poll! Turns out Pelosi's in charge after all, not President Chimpy!
The abovementioned Surber post here: "Don't quit the day job, Nancy."
Hold up! Volokh deconstructs the latest Bush-Pelosi popularity numbers and finds Bush wanting:
Well, that's half the numbers. Filling in the other half (which, to Surber's credit, is linked from his post), we see that Bush is at 45% job approval and 54% disapproval, while Pelosi is at 43% favorable and 39% unfavorable. So Pelosi seems ahead of Bush (+4 vs. -9) rather than behind. And the talk in the Surber post about the media's "false ... impressions," media "conventional wisdom [being] flushed down the toilet," and media "lies," seems like something of an overstatement.
The broader lesson: When you see survey results, don't look just to one number.
Darn. But I wanted to be governed by poll! Turns out Pelosi's in charge after all, not President Chimpy!
The abovementioned Surber post here: "Don't quit the day job, Nancy."
Shut Up and Read
Byline's back on the E&P Jamil articles, now that "Capt. Jamil Hussein" has been "found."
Carroll asks a very good question. The AP publishes hundreds of stories a day. Why should anyone give a damn if any of them are accurate? Grubby impertinent news reader people. Just because the AP's claim of four mosques torched and six people burned to death as troops looked on was outlandish, remains unsubstantiated and government officials said the source didn't exist.
E&P scribbler Joe Strupp and Carroll enthusiastically repeat several times that "Hussein" has been threatened with arrest for talking to reporters. They fail to mention that's for unauthorized blather about incidents that may not have actually occurred and could represent insurgent propaganda. If in fact Jamil exists, of course. The Ministry of Interior's record on that is spotty and the AP seems to have lost track of him just as he's been "found."
Strupp also fails to include any quotes or material supporting his lede's claim that Jamil's "life" ... if in fact he has one ... is in danger as a result of the blogosphere's attention.
Here's the rest of this E&P/AP lovefest. Don't miss the picture of Carroll with her "Hussein currently exists" grin on.
Tapscott at the Examiner.
Bill needs more than just the AP's word for it.
What's the matter with these grubby pajama-clad bloggers? The AP's word not good enough? It was good enough for E&P, which considers Jamil's existence "proven." Curt at Flopping Aces also impertinently demands independent verification.
Confederate Yankee wonders at how the silent have found their tongues. Meanwhile, ConfYank delves into the heart of the matter: it's not just about whether this guy "exists," it's about what he "said."
LGF is touched by Carroll's concern for Jamil.
Jawa finds Carroll's concern about Jamil's exposure on the blogosphere odd, seeing as the AP put his name in front of a lot more people than the pajama-wearing watercooler set ever did.
Protein Wisdom examines Jamil's past.
Flopping Aces has an update out of Baghdad that answers a few questions.
By Joe Strupp
NEW YORK -- Associated Press Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll on Friday criticized those who questioned the existence of an AP Iraq source, who was proven this week to be real, saying the scrutiny has now endangered the man's life.
"I never quite understood why people chose to disbelieve us about this particular man on this particular story," Carroll told E&P, referring to Jamil Hussein, an Iraq police captain. "AP runs hundreds of stories a day, and has run thousands of stories about things that have happened in Iraq."
Carroll asks a very good question. The AP publishes hundreds of stories a day. Why should anyone give a damn if any of them are accurate? Grubby impertinent news reader people. Just because the AP's claim of four mosques torched and six people burned to death as troops looked on was outlandish, remains unsubstantiated and government officials said the source didn't exist.
E&P scribbler Joe Strupp and Carroll enthusiastically repeat several times that "Hussein" has been threatened with arrest for talking to reporters. They fail to mention that's for unauthorized blather about incidents that may not have actually occurred and could represent insurgent propaganda. If in fact Jamil exists, of course. The Ministry of Interior's record on that is spotty and the AP seems to have lost track of him just as he's been "found."
Strupp also fails to include any quotes or material supporting his lede's claim that Jamil's "life" ... if in fact he has one ... is in danger as a result of the blogosphere's attention.
Here's the rest of this E&P/AP lovefest. Don't miss the picture of Carroll with her "Hussein currently exists" grin on.
Tapscott at the Examiner.
Bill needs more than just the AP's word for it.
What's the matter with these grubby pajama-clad bloggers? The AP's word not good enough? It was good enough for E&P, which considers Jamil's existence "proven." Curt at Flopping Aces also impertinently demands independent verification.
Confederate Yankee wonders at how the silent have found their tongues. Meanwhile, ConfYank delves into the heart of the matter: it's not just about whether this guy "exists," it's about what he "said."
LGF is touched by Carroll's concern for Jamil.
Jawa finds Carroll's concern about Jamil's exposure on the blogosphere odd, seeing as the AP put his name in front of a lot more people than the pajama-wearing watercooler set ever did.
Protein Wisdom examines Jamil's past.
Flopping Aces has an update out of Baghdad that answers a few questions.
Getting It
So, the Pelosi-Reid surrender letter wasn't a joke. I mean, it was meant to be serious.
Fortunately, there are other people in public office, John McCain and Joe Lieberman, for example, who get it. As well as the only one who matters in this equation, the president of the United States.
While Pelosi and Reid were exhibiting their lack of any viable alternative, McCain and Lieberman were at the American Enterprise Institute, making the case for an unavoidable fight:
Here's the rest of it.
Here's another take. Stop me if I'm reading too much between the lines here, but this looks to me like the work of someone who is barely able to disguise his own enthusiasm for surrender, and can't understand why others don't want to surrender, too.
LA Times: Bush urged to avoid compromise. Good advice.
Fortunately, there are other people in public office, John McCain and Joe Lieberman, for example, who get it. As well as the only one who matters in this equation, the president of the United States.
While Pelosi and Reid were exhibiting their lack of any viable alternative, McCain and Lieberman were at the American Enterprise Institute, making the case for an unavoidable fight:
WASHINGTON -- Warning that failure would be "catastrophic" and spread instability throughout the Middle East, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., on Friday expressed their support for a troop "surge" in Iraq - the plan reportedly being developed by the Bush administration to address growing insurgent violence.
"I believe that the war is still winnable, but to prevail we'll have to do everything right and the Iraqis will have to do their part," McCain said ...
"The surge must be substantial, and it must be sustained," McCain said, recommending an increase of four to six brigades, mostly concentrated in Baghdad, which has seen the greatest amount of violence. It could mean an increase of around 20,000 troops.
"Even if we send additional troops to Iraq in large numbers for a sustained period," McCain said, "there is no guarantee for success in Iraq." He added, however, that he believed success was "still possible" even though it would be difficult.
Lieberman said a withdrawal would signal concession. If the United States hoped to win the broader war on terrorism, it must finish the job in Iraq ...
Lieberman said a withdrawal would "lead to Iranian expansionism, the creation of an al Qaeda base in Iraq and even more significantly the intimidation of the moderate forces throughout the region and a drop of confidence in the credibility and the strength of the United States of America."
Here's the rest of it.
Here's another take. Stop me if I'm reading too much between the lines here, but this looks to me like the work of someone who is barely able to disguise his own enthusiasm for surrender, and can't understand why others don't want to surrender, too.
LA Times: Bush urged to avoid compromise. Good advice.
Friday, January 5, 2007
Dear Mr. President
Please, give up now. Letter from Pelosi and Reid at HuffPo begs President Bush to capitulate. Because war is really hard:
But I think this might be my favorite part:
You know the old saying. If at first you don't succeed, quit.
Frankly, I'm not sure if this is real, some kind of satire, or wishful thinking on HuffPo's part, and I can't be bothered expending the energy to find out. Read the whole nauseating thing and guess for yourself.
UPDATE: Good Lord, this is no satire. Here it is on her own website.
This is also good. Biden wants to blame the quitting on the Bush administration:
Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.
But I think this might be my favorite part:
Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake.
You know the old saying. If at first you don't succeed, quit.
Frankly, I'm not sure if this is real, some kind of satire, or wishful thinking on HuffPo's part, and I can't be bothered expending the energy to find out. Read the whole nauseating thing and guess for yourself.
UPDATE: Good Lord, this is no satire. Here it is on her own website.
This is also good. Biden wants to blame the quitting on the Bush administration:
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Thursday that he believes top officials in the Bush administration have privately concluded they have lost Iraq and are simply trying to postpone disaster so the next president will "be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof," in a chaotic withdrawal reminiscent of Vietnam.
"I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost," Biden said. "They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy -- literally, not figuratively."
Another Mass Gift to the World
Everything else aside, I've respected Barney Frank in the past for speaking his mind in direct, cutting fashion. He's good at it. Particularly when, despite his anti-war stance, he called out Eason Jordan at Davos in 2005 for slandering U.S. troops as murderers. So what's with this? Bush practicing "ethnic cleansing by inaction" in the wake of Katrina. Very clever. But as Bryan at Hotair notes, there's no way that isn't a genocide charge. And there's no way that isn't cynical race-baiting.
Related: Here's a New York Sun editorial on Frank as the new Dem chairman of Banking.
Related: Here's a New York Sun editorial on Frank as the new Dem chairman of Banking.
Ba-doing
Massachusetts has made a gift of former Gov./2008 Candidate Mitt Romney to the nation. All yours. Have a party. Yesterday, Gov. Deval Patrick was inaugurated. First Democratic governor in Massachusetts in 16 years, though sometimes it was hard to tell. Here's Howie Carr on his speech:
My prediction: Obama Lite, who trotted out Obama a couple of times during his campaign to make sure we all got the point, will be about as committed to serving his state in the corner office as Obama 2008 is to serving his state in the Senate. This elective neophyte's eye is on other prizes. Kennedy's seat, Kerry's seat and beyond. The governorship of Massachusetts has been used as a springboard for the last 20 years, and that hasn't changed. It just hasn't been used very well.
Deval's Inaugural Ball was heavily attended by marginal special interests but short on the beet-faced powerbrokers and lumpen-politariat that dominate the Legislature. They're all Democrats, but in the Legislature it's often less about the politics and more about the power. Deval is not in with that crowd, and the first words out of the House Speaker and the Senate President's mouths post-oath was a shot across Deval's bow: The "Together We Can" line won't fly. No money for pie in the sky. Deval's own people have started to figure that out for themselves, and I suspect this whole governor thing will soon become a great frustration.
Related:
Steyn and Hewitt on Romney: Least burdened in the top tier for 2008.
Kinsellagh at American Thinker with more Mass myopia.
If you listened to the entire 17 minutes or so, you don’t have to go to church Sunday. You’ve heard your sermon for the week. Every time he said, “Let’s reach for that!” (four times, if you were keeping score at home), I reached for my wallet. There are going to be a lot of second collections over the next four years.
My prediction: Obama Lite, who trotted out Obama a couple of times during his campaign to make sure we all got the point, will be about as committed to serving his state in the corner office as Obama 2008 is to serving his state in the Senate. This elective neophyte's eye is on other prizes. Kennedy's seat, Kerry's seat and beyond. The governorship of Massachusetts has been used as a springboard for the last 20 years, and that hasn't changed. It just hasn't been used very well.
Deval's Inaugural Ball was heavily attended by marginal special interests but short on the beet-faced powerbrokers and lumpen-politariat that dominate the Legislature. They're all Democrats, but in the Legislature it's often less about the politics and more about the power. Deval is not in with that crowd, and the first words out of the House Speaker and the Senate President's mouths post-oath was a shot across Deval's bow: The "Together We Can" line won't fly. No money for pie in the sky. Deval's own people have started to figure that out for themselves, and I suspect this whole governor thing will soon become a great frustration.
Related:
Steyn and Hewitt on Romney: Least burdened in the top tier for 2008.
Kinsellagh at American Thinker with more Mass myopia.
Top Annoyances of 2006
John Hawkins' no-holds-barred 21 Most Annoying People on the Right in 2006 list at Right Wing News:
Here's his 20 Most Annoying Liberals list (the Right got 21 because he forgot to add Michael Savage). So many to choose from. I like this one:
11) George Bush: I really hate to ding the President on a list like this, but he showed a level of political incompetence last year that hasn't been seen since the Carter Administration and that had a lot to do with the drubbing Republicans took in 2006. Moreover, there's the out-of-control spending, his incredibly obnoxious position on illegal immigration, and his seeming reluctance to get serious about Iran, Syria, North Korea and Muqtada al-Sadr is getting to be a real drag.
Here's his 20 Most Annoying Liberals list (the Right got 21 because he forgot to add Michael Savage). So many to choose from. I like this one:
Let's be honest: you could train a monkey to amble into a White House press conference, pick nits out of his hair, and then hold up a sheet with a question on it for the White House Press Secretary to answer. So, there's nothing special about the people doing that job, but some of them, like David Gregory, are camera hounds who want to make a name for themselves by being obnoxious creeps in front of a room of reporters. So, every so often, when he's not calling in drunk to the Don Imus show, David Gregory manages to draw a little attention to himself by making a scene at a press conference.
Here's the type of "journalism" you get from confrontational clowns like David Gregory:
Defining Conversation: Scott McClellan: "Hold on, the cameras aren't on right now. You can do this later."
David Gregory: "Don't accuse me of trying to pose to the cameras. Don't be a jerk to me personally when I'm asking you a serious question."
Scott McClellan: "You don't have to yell."
David Gregory: "I will yell. If you want to use that podium to try to take shots at me personally, which I don't appreciate, then I will raise my voice, because that's wrong."
Scott McClellan: "Calm down, Dave. Calm down."
Zionists in Space
Zionists want to colonize the Moon.
This is great news, because we already know Zionists are good at turning wastelands into lands of milk and honey. We also know the Zionists aren't going to take any crap from any space aliens. And the likelihood that any of their terrestial problems will figure out how to follow them up there is pretty much nil.
Jews on the moon will probably really piss some people off.
But George Bush wants us to go to the moon. Uh, sorry, I mean, George Bush wants us to go to the moon. I say let's bring some Zionists.
Don't believe it? Here's the vid. Thanks, Don Surber.
This is great news, because we already know Zionists are good at turning wastelands into lands of milk and honey. We also know the Zionists aren't going to take any crap from any space aliens. And the likelihood that any of their terrestial problems will figure out how to follow them up there is pretty much nil.
Jews on the moon will probably really piss some people off.
But George Bush wants us to go to the moon. Uh, sorry, I mean, George Bush wants us to go to the moon. I say let's bring some Zionists.
Don't believe it? Here's the vid. Thanks, Don Surber.
Hey Ug, What Inside That Coconut?
John Hawks weighs in on Richard Dawkins' suggestion in an LA Times op-ed that Saddam should have been kept alive for purposes of studying the megalomaniacal mass murderer's psyche. Hawks is repulsed by the notion, not least because it subverts justice for quackery.
Hawks has been busy and has some other good reads. Having more kids makes you die younger. But will being better educated will help you live longer? A mystery. Orangs who don't have enough stuff end up with smaller brains, which makes me wonder what happens to humans who don't have enough stuff. Meanwhile, let's quit messing around and domesticate the pandas.
Hawks' anthroblog is a must for any caveman who has ever pondered the meaning of it all.
Hawks has been busy and has some other good reads. Having more kids makes you die younger. But will being better educated will help you live longer? A mystery. Orangs who don't have enough stuff end up with smaller brains, which makes me wonder what happens to humans who don't have enough stuff. Meanwhile, let's quit messing around and domesticate the pandas.
Hawks' anthroblog is a must for any caveman who has ever pondered the meaning of it all.
Sheepish
You know that look? That "Yeah, you caught me having intimate relations with your livestock" look?
... No? Well, here it is.
... No? Well, here it is.
Thursday, January 4, 2007
Emblogging
Bill Ardolino is embedded and blogging in Fallujah. Some nice photos and a grunt's eye view. The normalcy of abnormality:
Check it out. More good stuff there. h/t Blackfive.
Update: Ardolino's Examiner account of corpsmen at work on an Iraqi sniper victim.
...it's almost odd how "normal" operations seem here, with folks just doing their jobs, calmly and professionally. The food is good and morale seems high. The number one answer to "How do you like being a Marine?" is "I love it, sir."
Check it out. More good stuff there. h/t Blackfive.
Update: Ardolino's Examiner account of corpsmen at work on an Iraqi sniper victim.
Jamilblog
UPDATE: AP reports that Iraqi Ministry of Interior is getting ready to arrest Capt. Jamil Hussein, who the AP says the MOI says now exists. If so, then it is possible the AP might not be guilty of using a bogus source. Putting forward false and exaggerated reports, open question. Arrogance and bias, guilty.
My big question: If we were supposed to believe the AP when the AP said the MOI's Khalaf didn't know what he was talking about, why are we supposed to believe Khalaf now that the AP says he does know what he's talking about? Especially when the AP, which has stalwartly stood by Jamil Hussein's existence as a source, has backed off what Hussein told them about four mosques burning?
Just asking. Has this thing morphed from false but true to true but false?
The existence of cops with several variations of the name Jamil Hussein of varying ranks in several police stations around Baghdad was reported by bloggers several weeks ago. None quite matched. I'd suggest the jury is still out on this guy. The reliability of the AP's Baghdad bureau and its stable of local stringers remain in question.
Confederate Yankee says great, now Jamil can be questioned about all 61 AP stories he was quoted in. If, as ConfYank notes, he actually exists.
Curt at Flopping Aces also has some questions and nagging inconsistencies he'd like to point out.
Patterico doesn't care whether jamil exists or not. He just wants to know how full of it he is.
This holds, by the way, from last time someone "found" Jamil. No Crow, Thanks.
Greyhawk at Mudville isn't happy. He wants to be the first to say it. "Free Jamil Hussein." He's got a point. Provided Jamil isn't an insurgent-loving propagandizing liar. Provided he actually exists.
Editor & Publisher, home to AP/Hussein-loving Greg Mitchell, crows about the latest Jamil-spotting report. Oddly, no one is signing their name to this one this time. Will it remain up if the story goes south or disappear into the abyss as others have in the maleable past?
Kaus at Slate: "Capt. Jamil Hussein, controversial AP source, seems to exist. That's one important component of credibility! ... "
Other Jamilabilia:
Who says there's no such thing as Jamil Hussein. He's right here. Blogging:
h/t cassandra.
Of course, we've already seen Jamil Hussein.
Ace has standup Jamil Hussein at the Ramadi Laff Factory:
My big question: If we were supposed to believe the AP when the AP said the MOI's Khalaf didn't know what he was talking about, why are we supposed to believe Khalaf now that the AP says he does know what he's talking about? Especially when the AP, which has stalwartly stood by Jamil Hussein's existence as a source, has backed off what Hussein told them about four mosques burning?
Just asking. Has this thing morphed from false but true to true but false?
The existence of cops with several variations of the name Jamil Hussein of varying ranks in several police stations around Baghdad was reported by bloggers several weeks ago. None quite matched. I'd suggest the jury is still out on this guy. The reliability of the AP's Baghdad bureau and its stable of local stringers remain in question.
Confederate Yankee says great, now Jamil can be questioned about all 61 AP stories he was quoted in. If, as ConfYank notes, he actually exists.
Curt at Flopping Aces also has some questions and nagging inconsistencies he'd like to point out.
Patterico doesn't care whether jamil exists or not. He just wants to know how full of it he is.
This holds, by the way, from last time someone "found" Jamil. No Crow, Thanks.
Greyhawk at Mudville isn't happy. He wants to be the first to say it. "Free Jamil Hussein." He's got a point. Provided Jamil isn't an insurgent-loving propagandizing liar. Provided he actually exists.
Editor & Publisher, home to AP/Hussein-loving Greg Mitchell, crows about the latest Jamil-spotting report. Oddly, no one is signing their name to this one this time. Will it remain up if the story goes south or disappear into the abyss as others have in the maleable past?
Kaus at Slate: "Capt. Jamil Hussein, controversial AP source, seems to exist. That's one important component of credibility! ... "
Other Jamilabilia:
Who says there's no such thing as Jamil Hussein. He's right here. Blogging:
Media Opportunities
By Capt. Jamil Hussein
I am very interested in developing new relationships with media representatives in Baghdad. I would especially be interested in on-air opportunities with Western broadcast media. I have fluency in English and can also converse in German.
As an Iraqi police captain I see many, many bad things. Just this morning I saw a Sadr City street brawl erupt into gunfire over a discussion about whether Cheetos Lip Balm is haram. Yesterday I witnessed a dog having sex with a sheep. Truly Iraq is descending into madness. I have many compelling stories to tell.
Please contact me through this website.
h/t cassandra.
Of course, we've already seen Jamil Hussein.
Ace has standup Jamil Hussein at the Ramadi Laff Factory:
Stop me if you have heard of this one before:
A Shiite, a Sunni, and a Sadrite each walk into a mosque - the mosque is destroyed by the fire of the infidel. On this point you must believe me.
I am making the funny ...
What do you call six Shias and two gallons of kerosene and a match?
A good start ....
This is funny because of its truthfulness ....
Say, I ask you: What goes clip-clop, clip-clop, clip-clop KABOOM?
A martyr's oxcart the moment before he experiences the joy of Allah.
Say - how many people are here from out of town?
Talk, Not Cheap
Umran Javed experiences Jihader's regret in the dock.
Bahrain's Gulf News:
h/t Jihad Watch, where Robert remarks: "... he just got carried away, you see. And why should anyone take him seriously? After all, it isn't as if there have been jihadist bombings on British and American soil. What's that? 9/11 and 7/7? What are you, some kind of evil Islamophobe?"
Bahrain's Gulf News:
Javed, who is on trial accused of soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred, told London's Old Bailey criminal court he got carried away during last February's demonstration outside the Danish Embassy in the British capital.
He said he had not intended to say anything at the protest, prompted by the publication of cartoons in a Danish newspaper that many Muslims considered insulting to Islam, until a megaphone was thrust into his hands.
"I regret saying these things, they were just soundbites, slogans," said Javed, 27.
"I do not want to see Denmark being bombed or the USA. I was disappointed I said these things. I made the statements in an emotionally charged atmosphere. These things were the only thing that came into my mind."
Prosecutors said there was no doubt he had intended to incite murder and racial hatred. The demonstration, where some protesters waved placards praising the 2005 London bombings by four Islamists which killed 52 people, attracted widespread condemnation.
h/t Jihad Watch, where Robert remarks: "... he just got carried away, you see. And why should anyone take him seriously? After all, it isn't as if there have been jihadist bombings on British and American soil. What's that? 9/11 and 7/7? What are you, some kind of evil Islamophobe?"
Iran Wants War
Iran just doesn't want to fight it. The New York Sun reports that the U.S. military has captured documents providing evidence that Iran is backing Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. Against each other.
Now that doesn't make sense, does it? Shiite Iran backing Sunni insurgents who kill Shiite Iraqis. Except that until last year, they weren't fighting each other, at least not enough, and that didn't suit Iran at all.
This is because Iran benefits from chaos and violence that (a) ties down the United States and could lead to U.S. political failure in Iraq, and (b) ties down Iraq in Iraq and could lead to Iraqi political failure in Iraq. Perfect conditions for a Shiite strongman/Iranian stooge to take power in 60 percent Shiite Iraq. But it's a win-win as long as chaos and unspeakable violence continue. Iran is setting the conditions to discredit the United States, boot the United States from the region, and weaken the United States globally, while dominating Iraq and ultimately the Arab world. Where the rest of the oil is.
If the value of the blood and treasure we are expending in Iraq and our vital national interests there are not now evident, I don't know what it will take.
Skeptics, please note that Iran also wants nuclear weapons. As stated here earlier, U.S. naval and land forces appear to be moving into positions that could allow them to destory much of Iran's WMD development capability and air defenses, while defending Iraq and our forces there from a flanking attack by Iran's proxies (see above).
There are some people who are of the opinion this is our own doing, because we invaded Iraq. That position ignores the fact that Saddam had corrupted the sanctions regime and was awaiting its imminent collapse to resume his WMD programs. It ignores the fact that the Iranian nuclear program was already underway. It would have been a race to see who gets there first.
We have already derailed half of that problem. We have the ability to derail the other half, if we have the will. Just as we have the ability to bring something approaching peace and stability to Iraq, a nation that was doomed to tear itself apart violently on sectarian lines, just as it is doing now, with Iranian meddling, in our absence. With our presence, we can keep it a controlled burn and even begin to stamp it out. If we have the will.
Or, we can let Iran defeat us, without even fighting us.
BIG UPDATE: Khamenei reportedly dead. Stay tuned.
My own recent posts on the above:
Next Order of Business
Surge Talk
Stuff Happening
Others:
Iranwatcher Michael Ledeen of AEI at PJM express. "There is no escape from the war Iran is waging against us, the war that started in 1979 and is intensifying with every passing hour."
I'm waiting for Ledeen's take on Khamenei's departure from this vale of tears, meanwhile, he said in the abovelinked piece before that news broke, the jockeying for power was already under way, and that's a good thing:
Captain's Quarters:
Michael Rubin at NYDN: More "Axis of Evil" rhetoric and diplomatic pressure on Europe, Ahmadinejad could do the job.
Tracinski at RCP: The path to victory in Iraq runs through Teheran. I like the following three sentences a lot, and the rest of them, too:
Read the whole thing.
The Daily Mirror has Reuel Marc Gerecht saying Israel does it for us within the next two years. I'm guessing sooner rather than later, by us. An Israeli attack comes with more political problems, without giving us any real benefit of cover or deniability, and there's a matter of proximity and probably firepower.
Now that doesn't make sense, does it? Shiite Iran backing Sunni insurgents who kill Shiite Iraqis. Except that until last year, they weren't fighting each other, at least not enough, and that didn't suit Iran at all.
This is because Iran benefits from chaos and violence that (a) ties down the United States and could lead to U.S. political failure in Iraq, and (b) ties down Iraq in Iraq and could lead to Iraqi political failure in Iraq. Perfect conditions for a Shiite strongman/Iranian stooge to take power in 60 percent Shiite Iraq. But it's a win-win as long as chaos and unspeakable violence continue. Iran is setting the conditions to discredit the United States, boot the United States from the region, and weaken the United States globally, while dominating Iraq and ultimately the Arab world. Where the rest of the oil is.
If the value of the blood and treasure we are expending in Iraq and our vital national interests there are not now evident, I don't know what it will take.
Skeptics, please note that Iran also wants nuclear weapons. As stated here earlier, U.S. naval and land forces appear to be moving into positions that could allow them to destory much of Iran's WMD development capability and air defenses, while defending Iraq and our forces there from a flanking attack by Iran's proxies (see above).
There are some people who are of the opinion this is our own doing, because we invaded Iraq. That position ignores the fact that Saddam had corrupted the sanctions regime and was awaiting its imminent collapse to resume his WMD programs. It ignores the fact that the Iranian nuclear program was already underway. It would have been a race to see who gets there first.
We have already derailed half of that problem. We have the ability to derail the other half, if we have the will. Just as we have the ability to bring something approaching peace and stability to Iraq, a nation that was doomed to tear itself apart violently on sectarian lines, just as it is doing now, with Iranian meddling, in our absence. With our presence, we can keep it a controlled burn and even begin to stamp it out. If we have the will.
Or, we can let Iran defeat us, without even fighting us.
BIG UPDATE: Khamenei reportedly dead. Stay tuned.
My own recent posts on the above:
Next Order of Business
Surge Talk
Stuff Happening
Others:
Iranwatcher Michael Ledeen of AEI at PJM express. "There is no escape from the war Iran is waging against us, the war that started in 1979 and is intensifying with every passing hour."
I'm waiting for Ledeen's take on Khamenei's departure from this vale of tears, meanwhile, he said in the abovelinked piece before that news broke, the jockeying for power was already under way, and that's a good thing:
As it happens, this is a particularly good moment to go after the mullahs, because they are deeply engaged in a war of all against all within Iran. I wrote in NRO two weeks ago that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had been carted off to the hospital–a major event, of which the Intelligence Community was totally unaware–and his prognosis is very poor. That information has now trickled out, and I found it today in the Italian press and on an Iranian web site. The mullahs are maneuvering for position, and Ahmadi-Nezhad’s ever more frantic rhetoric bespeaks the intensity of the power struggle, which includes former president Rafsanjani, Khamenei’s son, and Ahmadi-Nezhad’s favorite nut ayatollah. We should propose another option to the Iranian people: freedom.
Captain's Quarters:
"When we finally realized after 9/11 that we had been in a war against radical Islamist terrorists for several years, the need to address Iran was obvious. However, we have mostly tried to convince ourselves that we could compartmentalize the war on terror to specific battlefields: Afghanistan and Iraq. It's not going to be that simple, and in truth it never was.
We have to face the fact that we are already in a big war, a World War of its own kind. Does that mean we stage a massive attack against Iran? No, but it does mean that we have to at least recognize them as the enemy behind most of the terrorists we fight, and quit fooling ourselves into thinking that they have a stake in a peaceful democratic world."
Michael Rubin at NYDN: More "Axis of Evil" rhetoric and diplomatic pressure on Europe, Ahmadinejad could do the job.
Tracinski at RCP: The path to victory in Iraq runs through Teheran. I like the following three sentences a lot, and the rest of them, too:
The president's current opportunity should not be underestimated. As weak as he seems, politically, President Bush has no real competition in setting policy for Iraq. Between the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, the Iraq Study Group had its 15 minutes of fame and faded away without having any significant effect on the debate over the war. The Democrats who take control of Congress this month have no unified message on Iraq other than a vague, general defeatism, and they offer no definite plan for what America should do--except, of course, their usual plan to carp about whatever the administration does.
Read the whole thing.
The Daily Mirror has Reuel Marc Gerecht saying Israel does it for us within the next two years. I'm guessing sooner rather than later, by us. An Israeli attack comes with more political problems, without giving us any real benefit of cover or deniability, and there's a matter of proximity and probably firepower.
Cindy Sheehan vs Insufficiently Anti-War Dems
Happy to see her annoying them for a change. Maybe she'll be camping in the ditch outside Pelosi's house now.
Democrats.com, "The Aggressive Progressives," are cheering Cindy on! Me, too. Tear your own party apart!
American Street wants his people to book flights to DC and practice "direct daily democracy." Good luck with that!
Democrats.com, "The Aggressive Progressives," are cheering Cindy on! Me, too. Tear your own party apart!
American Street wants his people to book flights to DC and practice "direct daily democracy." Good luck with that!
Bear facts
Don Surber, citing WSJ, says there are at least five times as many newly endangered polar bears now as there were in the 1950s. And why, he wonders, do the environmentalists hate baby seals so much.
Roman Noes
Great essay at American Thinker/RealClearPolitics by J.R. Dunn on the ridiculousness and pitfalls of frivolous denunciations of the United States as an imperial power. The descriptions of Roman issues and American ones are a bit simplistic but a good read and the overall point is spot-on.
Read the rest.
"They have made a desolation, and they call it peace."
-Tacitus
Much in the way of criticism of the United States comes in the form of accusations of imperialism. According to this view, echoed by everyone from Harold Pinter to Noam Chomsky to the Arab press, the U.S. has for decades run roughshod over the globe, in defiance of agreements and civilized norms. Enforcing its policies unilaterally and always for its own benefit, the U.S. has effectively colonized huge swathes of the planet, if not through direct military action, then by economic exploitation or diplomatic chicanery. No one dares raise a hand against this; any show of independence is met by cruise missiles at the very least, if not armored divisions or carrier battle groups. Today it's Iraq, tomorrow... who knows? America is the third-millennial Rome, brutal, implacable, infinitely corrupt.
... It's difficult to match any of this with the actual record. The America that takes on the dirty jobs, the jobs no one else will touch - Serbia, Kuwait, Somalia - the country that comes to the rescue when disaster strikes, as with the Indian Ocean tsunami or the Pakistan earthquake, either goes unmentioned or has its actions attributed to somebody else (as in Kofi Annan's taking credit for tsunami relief operations in his farewell speech).
Regarding defiance, within certain limits crossed only by the Taliban and Saddam Hussein (and not yet by Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il), it comprises one of the safer bets for any ambitious third-world demagogue, as Chavez and Morales plainly reveal. It's a solid career move -- there is no danger of any comeback (as long as you don't actually act on your rhetoric), and you gain plenty of sympathy and support from the international left, including its American branch. The myth of the U.S. as Rome has proven useful on all sorts of levels.
But the world's anti-Americans should take care that their fantasies don't catch up with them. Myths have a way of coming true.
Read the rest.
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Jamil Blowback
Austin Bay takes the ball Eason Jordan swatted at AP and tosses it back into his court.
Bay:
Thanks, Austin. Some of those soldiers Jordan slandered are friends of mine who have been slandered by irresponsible aspersions cast by media watchdog groups, and remain targets of a Spanish war crimes investigation.
Hot Air on Jordan, Boehlert, Jamil:
Michelle Malkin is going to Iraq on a Jamil quest and other business, on her own dime, not Jordan's. Smarter course, and she suggests that Jordan give the travel stipend he offered her to the AP's Kathleen Carroll, so Carroll no longer has to bravely type her disparagements from New York. There are a couple of people Michelle wants to talk to.
Bay:
I was struck by this line in Jordan’s latest report:
"Having learned from my own successes and failures and those of others, I know that a journalistic scandal can be handled effectively only when the news organization’s management deals with it proactively, constructively, and transparently, with a readiness to admit any mistake, to apologize for it, and to take appropriate corrective action."
Will Jordan now agree to release the tape of his statement at Davos? He accused the US military of “targeting” journalists. That statement, in my opinion, was a slander. He ended up resigning from CNN rather than providing a copy of the tape and taking the heat for his opinion. (He certainly produced no evidence to back up his scurrilous assertion.)
Mr. Jordan, thank you for encouraging thorough investigation and disclosure. I recognize there is a difference between your situation and the AP’s. You were stating an opinion — but it was an opinion expressed in an international forum in war time that alleged war crimes. Then, when challenged, you disappeared. Please show us the Davos tape. And if you have no evidence of journalists being “targeted” by the US military, then retract the statement.
Marc Danziger’s coverage of the Jamil Husein story has been excellent. Marc has thoughts on Jordan and Jamil.
Thanks, Austin. Some of those soldiers Jordan slandered are friends of mine who have been slandered by irresponsible aspersions cast by media watchdog groups, and remain targets of a Spanish war crimes investigation.
Hot Air on Jordan, Boehlert, Jamil:
No righty blogger will ever trust him, but give him credit for pushing this knowing that it won’t endear him to his remaining fans. I look forward to Eric Boehlert’s next dopey exercise in What Warbloggers Believe, in which Eric explains how a guy who once accused U.S. troops of trying to murder journalists is actually a neocon Bush-booster busying himself with minutiae to avoid facing the hard facts on the ground.
Expect some sniping at him from the left tomorrow, too, with nastiness inversely proportional to familiarity with the details of the case. Everything in Iraq is as bad as it could be, especially the things that never happened, and anyone who says otherwise is a tendentious liar who’d happily betray the Larger Truth for the, um, actual truth.
Michelle Malkin is going to Iraq on a Jamil quest and other business, on her own dime, not Jordan's. Smarter course, and she suggests that Jordan give the travel stipend he offered her to the AP's Kathleen Carroll, so Carroll no longer has to bravely type her disparagements from New York. There are a couple of people Michelle wants to talk to.
Jesus, Mahdi Hanging Out, Back Soon
The Prophet Ahmadinejad informs us that Jesus and the Mahdi will be returning together to wipe out oppression. Sounds like Jesus is with Iran in this one.
"I wish all the Christians a very happy new year and I wish to ask them a question as well," said Ahmadinejad, according to an Iranian Student News Agency report cited by YnetNews.comH/t Right Truth at Freddom's Zone, who asks: "What Would the Mahdi Do?"
"My one question from the Christians is: What would Jesus do if he were present in the world today? What would he do before some of the oppressive powers of the world who are in fact residing in Christian countries? Which powers would he revive and which of them would he destroy?" asked the Iranian leader.
Ahmadinejad then made a connection between Jesus and the Imam Mahdi, believed by Shiites to have disappeared as a child in A.D. 941. When the Mahdi returns, they contend, he will reign on earth for seven years before bringing about a final judgment and the end of the world.
"All I want to say is that the age of hardship, threat and spite will come to an end someday and, God willing, Jesus would return to the world along with the emergence of the descendant of the Islam's holy prophet, Imam Mahdi, and wipe away every tinge of oppression, pain and agony from the face of the world," Ahmadinejad said.
Matchless Pluck Strikes Admiration
What you've been missing if your attendance has lapsed at your local Juche Idea Study Group:
Meanwhile, from Japan:
The Chongryon guys, by the way, pledge to give "priority to the ideological work in face of the evermore vicious suppression of it by the enemies in Japan and abroad" in hopes of "bravely frustrating the moves of the Japanese authorities and reactionaries."
Important Days of DPRK Observed
Pyongyang, January 1 (KCNA) -- Meetings, lectures, film shows and music appreciation meetings took place in Mongolia, Indonesia, Zimbabwe, India, the Czech Republic and the Philippines between Dec. 16 and 24 in 2006 on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of leader Kim Jong Il's assumption of the supreme commandership of the Korean People's Army ...
Participants of the film shows watched "Brilliant History of Great Leadership", "The Korean People's Army, Steel-like Ranks" and other Korean films.
... The chairman of the Juche Idea Study Society of Delhi, India, said at a film show that the strategy and grit of Kim Jong Il help the DPRK make its history of always winning victories in the confrontation with the U.S. Under his wise leadership the KPA will reliably defend the security of the country and the people and more highly display its might.
Meanwhile, from Japan:
Pyongyang, January 1 (KCNA) -- Leader Kim Jong Il received a congratulatory message from the Central Standing Committee of the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan (Chongryon) on Monday on the occasion of the New Year Juche 96 (2007). The message noted that last year the people in the homeland fully demonstrated the grandiose might of Juche Korea under the Songun leadership of Kim Jong Il to strike the whole world with admiration.
"You accomplished the great cause of turning our homeland into a nuclear weapons state guaranteeing peace of the Korean Peninsula and its people's happiness for all ages with your far-sightedness, matchless pluck and outstanding Songun revolutionary leadership," the message stressed ...
The Chongryon guys, by the way, pledge to give "priority to the ideological work in face of the evermore vicious suppression of it by the enemies in Japan and abroad" in hopes of "bravely frustrating the moves of the Japanese authorities and reactionaries."
9/11 Evidence Not Found
MEMRI, which usually brings us unusual insight into faraway people and places, sometimes casts a light closer to home. Here's a Beantown prof, BC and Brandeis, who wonders whether OBL really had anything to do with 9/11.
Natana DeLong-Bas: "I Do Not Find Any Evidence that Would Make Me Agree that Osama bin Laden Was Behind the Attack on the Twin Towers."
She's also down with Wahabbism.
Natana DeLong-Bas: "I Do Not Find Any Evidence that Would Make Me Agree that Osama bin Laden Was Behind the Attack on the Twin Towers."
She's also down with Wahabbism.
Hey Ug, Look, Me Find Fire
John Hawks reviews his 2006 predictions and makes some for 2007. Just reading them makes me feel like a Neanderthal.
These ones look interesting:
9. Two words: Holocene* evolution.
3. A big year for Miocene** apes, which will look increasingly important in the story of human brain evolution.
2. Maturation rate in early Homo becomes a dead issue, because of the variation in dental and skeletal maturation in living people.
1. The year will end without a single new hominid species having been named.
BONUS: A dramatic development in the problem of pre-2.0-million-year-old Homo.
* Last 10,000 years, since the last Ice Age.
** Roughly 5 million to 23 million years before present.
These ones look interesting:
9. Two words: Holocene* evolution.
3. A big year for Miocene** apes, which will look increasingly important in the story of human brain evolution.
2. Maturation rate in early Homo becomes a dead issue, because of the variation in dental and skeletal maturation in living people.
1. The year will end without a single new hominid species having been named.
BONUS: A dramatic development in the problem of pre-2.0-million-year-old Homo.
* Last 10,000 years, since the last Ice Age.
** Roughly 5 million to 23 million years before present.
Ix-Nay on the Ebate-Day!
In his isolation cell at Guantanamo, Walter Shapiro apparently didn't get the memo. It's the Democrats who want to stifle debate.
Shapiro at Salon, "Zombie Nation Wakes Up: Bush has stifled the political debate about important issues. In 2007, it's up to Democrats to stir the nation back to life."
The article is disappointly short on good zombie rhetoric, which would at least make it interesting, though the first half stumbles around and grasps like the Living Dead. One startlingly relevant admission: "Even though the Democratic Congress is not responsible politically or constitutionally for running foreign policy ... "
Dem Cong, take note.
Meanwhile, at the Wall Street Journal, George Bush suggests the DC work with him on some "common-sense principles."
Yeah. That's what they want to do.
Correction re Shapiro/Guantanamo. My mistake. Despite his seditious dissent re the debate-stifling Bush regime, Shapiro remains at large and at liberty to blather as he chooses.
Shapiro at Salon, "Zombie Nation Wakes Up: Bush has stifled the political debate about important issues. In 2007, it's up to Democrats to stir the nation back to life."
The article is disappointly short on good zombie rhetoric, which would at least make it interesting, though the first half stumbles around and grasps like the Living Dead. One startlingly relevant admission: "Even though the Democratic Congress is not responsible politically or constitutionally for running foreign policy ... "
Dem Cong, take note.
Meanwhile, at the Wall Street Journal, George Bush suggests the DC work with him on some "common-sense principles."
Yeah. That's what they want to do.
Correction re Shapiro/Guantanamo. My mistake. Despite his seditious dissent re the debate-stifling Bush regime, Shapiro remains at large and at liberty to blather as he chooses.
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Iran: Hitler Was a Jew
Ynet is reporting that rabid Ramin, a top Ahmadinejad aide, says Hitler was a Jew and founded Israel. MEMRI post here. Ramin's a repeat guest at MEMRI. You'll remember him as the guy who will head the big World Foundation for Holocaust Studies in Berlin that the Iranians are planning.
It's a neat bit of anti-Semitic Holocaust-denying gymnastics. It works like this: even though the Holocaust never happened, any regretable murder of Jews in World War II was a Jewish plot. And the Israelis are Nazis.
There are in fact some plausible theories out there that Hitler had Jewish blood, probably like a lot of his fellow Aryans, and that this was tied up in their self-loathing murder thing. Ramin isn't ready to go that quite far, seeing instead a more benevolent Hitler who, heavily influenced by Britain and all the Jews in his life, engineered World War II as a means to shoving all of Europe's Jews off on Palestine.
I can see this really taking off in various Palo-symp, push-them-into-the-sea circles, where they already call the Israelis Nazis. Now it's firm historical basis has been established by a premier Jew-hating Iranian whackjob.
It's a neat bit of anti-Semitic Holocaust-denying gymnastics. It works like this: even though the Holocaust never happened, any regretable murder of Jews in World War II was a Jewish plot. And the Israelis are Nazis.
There are in fact some plausible theories out there that Hitler had Jewish blood, probably like a lot of his fellow Aryans, and that this was tied up in their self-loathing murder thing. Ramin isn't ready to go that quite far, seeing instead a more benevolent Hitler who, heavily influenced by Britain and all the Jews in his life, engineered World War II as a means to shoving all of Europe's Jews off on Palestine.
I can see this really taking off in various Palo-symp, push-them-into-the-sea circles, where they already call the Israelis Nazis. Now it's firm historical basis has been established by a premier Jew-hating Iranian whackjob.
Team EJ Turns Up Zip
Eason Jordan, disgraced CNN news chief, knows of what he speaks when he tells AP the Jamil thing will haunt them. Jordan, now operating at the sloggily named website Iraqslogger, offered to pay for Michelle Malkin's trip to go looking for the elusive Iraqi "cop" with Team Jordan, now says there is no evidence this guy exists.
Actually, I doubt it will haunt them much. The AP will plow ahead, and remain the AP. If Jamil Hussein's apparent failure to exist is ever acknowledged, it will be buried. The AP's clients, by and large, don't care. Nor to the "ethics" gatekeepers in the business. A search of the Poynter and CJR websites turns up exactly zip on the subject. Greg Mitchell at Editor & Publisher of course is rabid Jamil believer. The NYT touched on it, at arm's length, nose held, but doesn't care.
For anyone not familiar with the story line to date, links to the running Jamildrama here.
Confederate Yankee does the grunt work to map out the sordid tale here: Gone in 60 stories.
E&P has taken Greg Mitchell off the job, presumeably while he tries to work his foot out of his mouth. Joe Strupp says the AP still likes Jamil.
Actually, I doubt it will haunt them much. The AP will plow ahead, and remain the AP. If Jamil Hussein's apparent failure to exist is ever acknowledged, it will be buried. The AP's clients, by and large, don't care. Nor to the "ethics" gatekeepers in the business. A search of the Poynter and CJR websites turns up exactly zip on the subject. Greg Mitchell at Editor & Publisher of course is rabid Jamil believer. The NYT touched on it, at arm's length, nose held, but doesn't care.
For anyone not familiar with the story line to date, links to the running Jamildrama here.
Confederate Yankee does the grunt work to map out the sordid tale here: Gone in 60 stories.
E&P has taken Greg Mitchell off the job, presumeably while he tries to work his foot out of his mouth. Joe Strupp says the AP still likes Jamil.
Full Speed Ahead
Never mind the iceberg. WaPo reports that Dems plan to sideline Republicans and ram through their agenda. I'd say the diabolical Rovian plot of giving them enough rope to hang themselves in time for 2008 is on track.
Lost in Translation
The Japanese Imperial family is celebrating the birth of young Prince Pikachu. Or whatever his name is. Emperor Akihito spent the last four months honing his haiku on the subject:
"Rejoicing with us ... on the birth of our grandson ... The voices of the people ... I am happy hearing them."
That guy rocks. Princess Hello Kitty has proven her worth and Prince Kagemusha will not have to disembowel himself.
Update: Only people who disapprove of Monty Python abuse of royals and references to Prince Charles and other royals as horse-faced are allowed to call me racist. Exception to above: those racists who are calling me racist because the royals, excuse me, imperials I'm mocking are Japanese. They need to come to terms with their own racism. But Charles is correct on one point: that haiku is a tanker.
"Rejoicing with us ... on the birth of our grandson ... The voices of the people ... I am happy hearing them."
That guy rocks. Princess Hello Kitty has proven her worth and Prince Kagemusha will not have to disembowel himself.
Update: Only people who disapprove of Monty Python abuse of royals and references to Prince Charles and other royals as horse-faced are allowed to call me racist. Exception to above: those racists who are calling me racist because the royals, excuse me, imperials I'm mocking are Japanese. They need to come to terms with their own racism. But Charles is correct on one point: that haiku is a tanker.
Monday, January 1, 2007
Bad News!
Deaths are way down in Iraq.
What the enraged crowds of several hundred Sunnis in several different places and Saddam on a rope have to do with it, I'm not entirely sure, but it sure makes it look worse! Here's the bad news for al-P and other defeat fans: Deaths are down in Iraq. With the Lancet poll estimate at 655,000 dead since the US-led invasion of 2003, that means the average of more than 200,000 a year has dropped virtually off the charts! Even if you look at the worst case scenario, that the October 2004 estimate of only 100,000 dead is correct, that means we're down from an annual average of more than 65,000!
This is terrible news. It means there may actually be reason for hope in Iraq!
Related links:
Prairie Pundit wants to know: Who killed who?
Some jackass gets off on Hiroshima, which apparently is linked in his mind to Iraq.
Totally fitting and worth a look for purposes of contemplating how moronic people actually can be. They dwell among us.
Gatewaypundit also invokes Hiroshima, offering some perspective.
Dan Riehl recounts a crass joke about how much Americans don't care. Of course the real joke is that people who profess to care about real dead Iraqis are making up fake ones. They may want to try making up dead blondes instead.
Don Surber: War still beats 'peace' under Saddam.
As enraged crowds protested the hanging of Saddam Hussein across Iraq's Sunni heartland Monday, government officials reported that 16,273 Iraqi civilians, soldiers and police died violent deaths in 2006, a figure larger than an independent Associated Press count for the year by more than 2,500.
... The Associated Press accounting, gleaned from daily news reports from Baghdad, arrived at a total of 13,738 deaths. The United Nations has said as many as 100 Iraqis die violently each day, which translates into 36,500 deaths annually.
What the enraged crowds of several hundred Sunnis in several different places and Saddam on a rope have to do with it, I'm not entirely sure, but it sure makes it look worse! Here's the bad news for al-P and other defeat fans: Deaths are down in Iraq. With the Lancet poll estimate at 655,000 dead since the US-led invasion of 2003, that means the average of more than 200,000 a year has dropped virtually off the charts! Even if you look at the worst case scenario, that the October 2004 estimate of only 100,000 dead is correct, that means we're down from an annual average of more than 65,000!
This is terrible news. It means there may actually be reason for hope in Iraq!
Related links:
Prairie Pundit wants to know: Who killed who?
Some jackass gets off on Hiroshima, which apparently is linked in his mind to Iraq.
An excellent hung-over New Year's Day activity: screening Kinji Fukasaku's brilliant Battles Without Honor & Humanity six-film epic about the Japanese mafia. Out of the atomic destruction of Hiroshima comes the nihilistic fury of social atomization. There's no apology in Fukasaku -- just lots of betrayal, paranoia and swords chopping off arms. Fitting stuff after the Iraq war murdered 16,273 Iraqis and nearly 1,000 Americans this year.
Totally fitting and worth a look for purposes of contemplating how moronic people actually can be. They dwell among us.
Gatewaypundit also invokes Hiroshima, offering some perspective.
Dan Riehl recounts a crass joke about how much Americans don't care. Of course the real joke is that people who profess to care about real dead Iraqis are making up fake ones. They may want to try making up dead blondes instead.
Don Surber: War still beats 'peace' under Saddam.
Bar Moved
The talk before Saddam's execution was that it might cause a spike in violence. So far, it hasn't.
Hence al-Reuters' indignation that it failed to reduce violence. Also, of course, that three years and a trial later, it was rushed. This wire service article makes an interesting case stuy in the way it utterly dispenses with any consideration of a non-partisan presentation of the news, instead provding Reuters clientele with newsitorial:
By the way, 20-odd paragraphs down:
There remain, of course, deeply troubling ongoing questions about Saddam's guilt, and Reuters adds;
Hence al-Reuters' indignation that it failed to reduce violence. Also, of course, that three years and a trial later, it was rushed. This wire service article makes an interesting case stuy in the way it utterly dispenses with any consideration of a non-partisan presentation of the news, instead provding Reuters clientele with newsitorial:
Saddam Hanged but No Let-Up in Iraq Violence
By REUTERS
Published: December 30, 2006
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein was hanged at dawn on Saturday for crimes against humanity after Iraq's prime minister rushed through an execution few believed would help stem the sectarian violence tearing the country apart.
The former president, toppled by the U.S. invasion four years ago, was shown on state television going calmly to his death on the scaffold. He was to be buried within hours near his home city of Tikrit.
... The bearded Saddam, still robust at 69, refused a hood and declined to have a cleric present, but said a brief prayer on the gallows once used by his own secret police.
Three decades after Saddam established his personal rule by force, the execution closed a chapter in Iraq's history marked by war with Iran and a 1990 invasion of Kuwait that turned him from ally to enemy of the United States and impoverished his oil-rich nation.
However, as President Bush said in a statement, sectarian violence pushing Iraq toward civil war had not ended.
By the way, 20-odd paragraphs down:
A witness in the Dujail trial said he was shown the body at Maliki's office: ``When I saw the body in the coffin, I cried. I remembered my three brothers and my father whom he had killed.''
Saddam was convicted of killing, torture and other crimes against the population of Dujail after militants from Maliki's Dawa party tried to assassinate him there in 1982.
There remain, of course, deeply troubling ongoing questions about Saddam's guilt, and Reuters adds;
After complaints of interference by Shi'ite politicians in the trial, the speed of the execution may add to unease about the fairness of the U.S.-sponsored process.
Past, Future, Whatever
The Boston Glob's odious James Carroll, surrender enthusiast extraordinaire and Kumbayah choir leader, sheds light on the world view that informs his positions:
"The future and the past exist only in your mind."
Apparently he's never attended family day at a Balkan or a Middle Eastern mass grave. Don't bother to click the above link. It's meandering drivel. Below you'll find some examples of the past as it exists in Carroll's mind:
The odd and tragic thing is that the world before Bush was actually nearing consensus on how to manage the problem of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and had begun to put in place promising structures designed to prevent such spread.
Such as the deal Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton negotiated with Kim Jong Il. Also, the 12 years of sanctions to contain Saddam Hussein, though somewhat complicated by impending collapse and UN corruption. Maybe he means the Iranian nuclear program, already in germination. To offset the evil Israelis. Maybe he even means the full-blown and tested Indian and Pakistani nuclear detente ... actually a measured success, though dangerously marred by A.Q. Khan's bargain basement proliferation operation.
That column is from several years past, and only exists in the mind. In today's past/future/mind column, which still exists in the tomorrow's fishwrap, Carroll counsels that we start the wishful thinking well in advance of any Iran war or polar bear extinction crisis. Meanwhile, here's a good one from last week. Also only in the mind, though possibly still wrapping not yet entirely rotten fish. It's about Christmas, God's rebuke of the United States of America:
The birth of Jesus is the reversal of the imperial order. The story of that birth is told and told again because the imperial order is always attempting a comeback, always needing to be challenged.
Empire lives in the United States of America, and, despite assumptions of many Christian Americans, Christmas still rebukes the empire. The implications of Mary's statement for contemporary politics are obvious. Violence marks power as much as ever. Hunger and poverty among masses of people are inevitable byproducts of a market system that rewards the few.
There's more. But that's enough Carroll for the present. Past and future Carroll, in the mind, only a disturbing hallucination. Newsbusters.org, which also enjoyed the Christmas piece, offers a little bit of the past that constitutes Carroll's mind. Or, in which Carroll's mind dwelt. I'm still working the metaphysics, not my strong suit. In any case, it's worth a look. You couldn't dream that stuff up.
Related:
Dr Sanity, Top Ten Ways the Left Enables Terrorism
Right Wing Nation notes Edwards' mental weakness on past and future regarding Bush admin's aid to Africa. RWN also notes that the French are being creative in their description of the present.
"The future and the past exist only in your mind."
Apparently he's never attended family day at a Balkan or a Middle Eastern mass grave. Don't bother to click the above link. It's meandering drivel. Below you'll find some examples of the past as it exists in Carroll's mind:
The odd and tragic thing is that the world before Bush was actually nearing consensus on how to manage the problem of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and had begun to put in place promising structures designed to prevent such spread.
Such as the deal Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton negotiated with Kim Jong Il. Also, the 12 years of sanctions to contain Saddam Hussein, though somewhat complicated by impending collapse and UN corruption. Maybe he means the Iranian nuclear program, already in germination. To offset the evil Israelis. Maybe he even means the full-blown and tested Indian and Pakistani nuclear detente ... actually a measured success, though dangerously marred by A.Q. Khan's bargain basement proliferation operation.
That column is from several years past, and only exists in the mind. In today's past/future/mind column, which still exists in the tomorrow's fishwrap, Carroll counsels that we start the wishful thinking well in advance of any Iran war or polar bear extinction crisis. Meanwhile, here's a good one from last week. Also only in the mind, though possibly still wrapping not yet entirely rotten fish. It's about Christmas, God's rebuke of the United States of America:
The birth of Jesus is the reversal of the imperial order. The story of that birth is told and told again because the imperial order is always attempting a comeback, always needing to be challenged.
Empire lives in the United States of America, and, despite assumptions of many Christian Americans, Christmas still rebukes the empire. The implications of Mary's statement for contemporary politics are obvious. Violence marks power as much as ever. Hunger and poverty among masses of people are inevitable byproducts of a market system that rewards the few.
There's more. But that's enough Carroll for the present. Past and future Carroll, in the mind, only a disturbing hallucination. Newsbusters.org, which also enjoyed the Christmas piece, offers a little bit of the past that constitutes Carroll's mind. Or, in which Carroll's mind dwelt. I'm still working the metaphysics, not my strong suit. In any case, it's worth a look. You couldn't dream that stuff up.
Related:
Dr Sanity, Top Ten Ways the Left Enables Terrorism
Right Wing Nation notes Edwards' mental weakness on past and future regarding Bush admin's aid to Africa. RWN also notes that the French are being creative in their description of the present.
Islamoutta Here
Islamists hightailing it out of Kismayo for Kenyan border. Like I said, its a start. It's the Somali government's ball to drop now.
Update: Somalis, Somali govt want peacekeepers. Europe? Africa? You're up.
Powerline: turning history on its ear like this isn't going to help al-Qaeda recruiting.
Op-For likes justice even when it's been delayed a little. Reports the Somalis may be closing in on three al-Qaeda embassy bombers.
Hot Air makes light of Islamo-terror's discomfort with non-victim opposition.
Update: Somalis, Somali govt want peacekeepers. Europe? Africa? You're up.
Powerline: turning history on its ear like this isn't going to help al-Qaeda recruiting.
Op-For likes justice even when it's been delayed a little. Reports the Somalis may be closing in on three al-Qaeda embassy bombers.
Hot Air makes light of Islamo-terror's discomfort with non-victim opposition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
