UNRELIEVEDLY TERRIBLE

The world has turned to unrelieved negativity and terror...hatred and random slaughter is everywhere....and freedom is on the run all over the world, although as yet it's not obvious to all, and few of the "free" have come to understand the danger.

It's soon to be Christmas time...and I ran across this image on the web. "The Holy Family with the infant St. John the Baptist ", by Michaelangelo is an unforgettable creation that we saw in the Uffizi Gallery in Florence. This image doesn't do justice to the reality, which is so striking that of all the works of art I've ever seen, it is to me one of the most unforgettable.

Take this for what it's worth to you. If you choose, see it as a religious symbol of hope....or if you're not religiously inclined just as a beautiful painting.

For myself, I take this painting to represent the highest form of human resistance to the darkness of our collective history.

After centuries of the Dark Ages, the Italians of The Renaissance found within the human heart, its soul, and from it they recreated Western Civilization.

This painting is not nothing. It came from somewhere. It was conceived and then created by a man...a mere mortal...who found it somewhere within himself. It tells us that there is always that hope.

I fear we'll need it again.

A VDH SLAM DUNK

Victor Davis Hansen, as always, has a perceptive and "right on the money" piece which summarizes much of what we've got to understand about any Iraq policy....but, he adds an answer to a question that's been on my mind for years, and it resonates truth. Read the whole thing.

Whatever the United States does is suspect; and journalists without responsibility for governance, either for setting policy or for its implementation, are always brighter than generals, politicians, and policy planners saddled with it.

The truth is that wealthy Western elites in the media have evolved beyond worry over the basics of their civilization. They are so insulated, even after September 11, that they don’t believe there is much connection between liberty, freedom, consensual government, freedom of expression, and the everyday mundane things they depend on — whether excellent medical care, clean water, nice cars, neat electronic gadgets, eating out, or safety in their streets. A nuclear Iran, a missile-laden North Korea, a theocracy in oil-rich Iraq, an unleashed terrorist-sponsoring Syria, and an emboldened Hezbollah — all these could still never quite take away their good life, so strong is the assurance of their never-ending comfort zone that they could not conceive of ever losing it. And thus the most vehement and angry critics find it possible, even desirable, to nibble away at their own civilization’s efforts, on the understanding that a loss in Iraq would be only an apparent loss.

That defeat would not entail any material detriment to themselves, but surely would enhance their own sense of contrarian self-righteousness and self-worth, as they boldly caricature the very culture that so empowered them.So yes, let us talk about sending more troops, or taking them out altogether, or cry about bad news coverage. But the truth is that, if they were given more tactical leeway to go on the offensive, we would already have enough soldiers in Iraq to win a victory that even a hostile media will have to acknowledge and enemies watching must respect — but only if we persevere here at home in this latest climate of renewed hysteria.

A PRIMER OF FOOT SHOOTING...

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.

In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.

Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the Nov. 7 election.

I have nothing to say. The military doesn't want a draft. The draftees don't want a draft. Liberal Dems want a draft. Today's young people will be fighting to abandon their Dems. Bring 'em on.

I didn't have anything to say...but I can't resist quoting what another blogger had to say...try this for a reasonable response to Sir Rangel.

... why not? If the Democrats really want the draft back, then why not let them have it? We’re sure all of the voters who pulled the lever for them will be thrilled pink to see their call for a “New Direction” heeded.

Not to mention that the mere thought of a bunch of unkempt, unwashed, latte-swilling trust fund kiddies dragged from their Starbucks, given a haircut and a hosing and forced into uniform fills my evil heart with all kinds of fuzzy feelings.

Hey, who knows? Maybe we can actually turn the retards into citizens rather than liabilities?

Two years of drills, forced marches, physical exercise and active duty does wonders to snivelling, whiny MTV zombies.

If they survive, of course.

If they don’t, society wins anyway.

If you actually care about this issue, be sure to see this post on Michele Malkin's blog. She's really nailed this issue.

WHO'LL BLINK FIRST?

"The Australian" reports that our "friends" the Saudis are threatening the British Government over its discovery of a huge fraudulent "slush fund" that was used to bribe Saudi Royals to buy British.

SAUDI Arabia is threatening to suspend diplomatic ties with Britain unless Downing Street blocks an investigation into a £60 million ($148 million) "slush fund" allegedly set up for members of its royal family.

A senior Saudi diplomat in London has delivered an ultimatum to Tony Blair that unless the inquiry into an allegedly corrupt military deal is dropped, diplomatic links between Britain and Saudi Arabia will be severed, a defence source has disclosed.

The Saudis, key allies in the Middle East, have also threatened to cut intelligence co-operation over al-Qai'da. ...
...The Saudis are furious about the Serious Fraud Office's criminal investigation into allegations that BAE Systems, Britain's biggest military supply company, set up the slush fund to support the extravagant lifestyle of members of the Saudi royal family.

The payments, in the form of holidays, luxury cars including a gold Rolls-Royce, rented apartments and other perks, are alleged to have been paid to ensure the Saudis continued to buy from BAE under the Al-Yamamah military supply deal.
"They are claiming the deal is protected by sovereign national immunity, and that the British have no right to poke around in their private financial affairs."

The Brits can't really be seen to fold, or can they? Will the Saudis really cut off ties to the financial center of Europe? Or can they? Very interesting, and worth following.

One thing is certain...the Saudis are NOBODY'S friend...and the issue of alliances with any of those lying Arab bastards ought to have been settled long ago. We may need them, but they need us, too. Paying blackmail may work for a while, but it's never worth the payoff.

Our "alliance" is a marriage of convenience, and nothing more. They should be told in no uncertain terms that if they screw us, we'll ream them a total new asshole, and show them what screwing really means.

Another blogger, commenting on the same story, states it more gently...

This should be a warning to the West as to the fragility of Saudi support on the efforts to stop radical Islamism ... such as it is. They appear to only support the war as long as their endless supply of luxury items, supplied by fraud and corruption, continues without interruption. Counting on their efforts in the long run is a bad strategy. We need to do what we can to avoid antagonizing them, but we had better start working on alternate strategies to work around their petulant obstructionism.

I stand by my comments, but there's no doubt that this is a significant issue, not a simple petulant obstuctionism.

It's natural to wonder if there are U.S. issues like this British one? Ya think?

DEFINE THE LUNATIC LEFT

I think I can be criticized for imprecision...for lack of definition of a term I've used frequently and with joy, and verve..."The Lunatic Left."

Just in case you don't really, really understand who these people are....well, remember that they think that THEY are the Democrat Party, and read this:


Lest anyone have any doubts about exactly where the lunatic left stands, I urge you to read this incredible column up at Daily Kos, touting the wonderfulness of Iran (in comparison to the U.S., of course). You guessed it! Iran is a veritable "progressive" paradise!

Iran has invested its oil wealth in universal education, healthcare, infrastructure bringing clean water and electricity to more than 98 percent of its people, and economic progress. Military spending is a paltry $91 per capita compared to more than $1,500 per capita in the United States and Israel. The social and economic achievements of the revolutionary regime in Iran in the past 25 years look quite progressive in reducing poverty and social inequalities, and as the society liberalises toward a more secular democratic regime, even better progress can be expected in the future. Compared to rising inequality in the United States and Israel, ranked numbers one and two for social inequality among developed nations, the Iranians look pretty damn good.

Read the whole thing. Dr. Santy is an academic Psychiatrist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Her blog is worth reading regularly, though perhaps a bit too much mental healthwize for my taste...she's spot on most of the time, particularly here.


BEFORE YOU GO!

I've been critical of Europe....in the past...complaining of fecklessness, ignorance, self-delusion, jealousy, you know, the usual suspects. However, I'm a fair man, and it's only fair to point out that there are millions of decent people "over there," and that some good ideas must be generated by somebody.

Among my favorite targets has been the Danes. They have a teeny-weeny country that can't defend itself, and barely survived a Muslim assault for the crime of cartooning. However, here's a really great idea that should be high on the Supreme Court's agenda for importation into U.S. law, consistent with "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind." Click Here.

A PIG IN A POKE

As I said in a previous post, now the Dems have won, and they HAVE to decide what to do. The past diversity of thought on Iraq won't wash when it's matched to power. And now, as though to make comedy out of tragedy, they're already fighting with themselves over Iraq...Hoyer vs. Murtha in the House. When the war isn't ended, as it won't be soon, and the fight begins between the Webbs and Hoyers and the lunatic base of their party, it'll become all but comical. Not to worry, it'll be soon, as Kuchinich has already called for defunding our troops in the field.


"I want to say that there's one solution here, and it's not to engage in a debate with the President, who has taken us down a path of disaster in Iraq, but it's for Congress to assume the full power that it has under the Constitution to cut off funds. We don't need to keep indulging in this debate about what to do, because as long as we keep temporizing, the situation gets worse in Iraq.

"We have to determine that the time has come to cut off funds. There’s enough money in the pipeline to achieve the orderly withdrawal that Senator McGovern is talking about. But cut off funds, we must.


Byron York refreshes our memory "Does the new Democratic leadership in the House have a clue about what to do in Iraq?... Read the whole thing)

Last December, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was asked by the Washington Post what Democrats would do about the war if they were to win power.

This is the Post’s account of her answer:

“Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. ‘There is no one Democratic voice ... and there is no one Democratic position,’ Pelosi said.” ...There still isn’t. The only thing that is different is that Pelosi will soon be Speaker of the House.

Last November and December, when Rep. Murtha (D-Pa.) came up with his proposal to “redeploy” U.S. troops out of Iraq — “My plan says redeploy to the periphery, to Kuwait, to Okinawa, and if there’s a terrorist activity that affects our allies or affects the United States’s national security, we can then go back in” — few, if any, Democrats dared to publicly embrace his idea. But then Pelosi spoke up. “I’m endorsing what Mr. Murtha is saying,” she said. “I believe that a majority of our caucus clearly supports Mr. Murtha.”

...a party leader who not only doesn’t know what to do about the war — she doesn’t even know what to call it...“This isn’t a war to win,” Pelosi told Fox News’s Brit Hume last week. “It’s a situation to be solved.”

...it’s fair to conclude that Pelosi believes the way to solve the situation is to redeploy from the situation.

It leads one to wonder: What kind of policies would Pelosi have advocated had she been in power during...World Situation II? (When the U.S. was actually fighting in Okinawa and could have redeployed to the periphery in Iraq.)

Now, while it’s completely fair to say that Pelosi does not appear to have any idea what to do in Iraq, it’s not fair to say that she’s alone in that. Most Republicans seem to be in roughly the same boat. And in the days ahead we’ll probably find out that the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group doesn’t really know, either. But the difference is that Pelosi and her colleagues are now in power...


These "leaders" can deny Victory, but as for leadership of this country, "there's no there, there." It won't be long before Official Washington starts fretting over what will the electorate do when they awaken to find out what a pig they've bought from the Dem's poke.

If it weren't so scary, it'd be fun.

"OUR NAIVE VERSION OF WARTIME MORALITY"

General Batiste spoke of dealing with the murderous militias in Iraq..."or crush them."

Then crush them. We've taken Falluja and Mookie Al Sadr twice, and released them for political reasons, in the belief that the murderous bastards on all sides, could be brought to "democracy."

GWB and Ms. Rice may be correct in their belief that most people want a stable form of life that "democracy" of some kind can bring them, but these poor people are powerless in the face of a barbarism that we haven't seen since the Holocaust, and which defies "Western" imagination or understanding.

Tens of thousands of innocent people killed by their own neighbors....their elected "government" talking, making deals, covering their future asses ...their police co-opted or worse, while the only force capable of stopping the carnage is on standby...building schools and hospitals, and taking casualties. For what?

Victory means winning....victory means victory....that means killing our enemies and the killers of our friends, and of those tens of thousands of innocents. Anything less is worth nothing. Period. Not one American life, or U.S. dollar.

Victory, on the other hand, is worth everything we have to pay for it. It means saving our future and the future of the Middle East; an outcome that first destabilizes the "realists" miserable reality of the past forty years, and which enforces, a new "reality." Enforces. By killing those who resist. The old fashioned way of warfare. The Ghengis Kahn way. The Keyser Soze Rule.

The "press" and the Washington Elite harp on the question of too many or too few troops....on whether or not we should have disbanded Saddam's army....or this or that ..and all of it is meaninless. Meaningless, since what we lack in Iraq is not a plan, not an exit strategy, not a coalition, not a vision, but a determination to destroy our enemy. Since they disdain victory, those anus-sucking politicos who love power more than they love America don't complain of lack of determination, but only of Bush and Rumsfeld's mistakes."
If only "mistakes" had not been made, all would be just peachy, thank you. As Pelosi said, Iraq is a situation to be handled, not a war to be won.

Our lack of determination means that we sacrifice our soldiers lives to prevent "needless" deaths....we execute the plan cleanly...."morally" by some strange definition....and ever with an eye to what the useless U.N. or whomever will think of us. To worry about what people think of us has caused us to allow this barbarism to continue.

Hearts and minds, my ass. "Take them by the balls; their hearts and minds will follow," as they say. That's worth paying for.


Ralph Peters makes the case better than anyone else has. Straight up. Straight out. Read the whole thing.

"YESTERDAY, 80 terrorists in police uniforms raided an Iraqi research institute in Baghdad, rounded up 100-plus male students, loaded them into vehicles in broad daylight and drove away. They couldn't have pulled it off without the complicity of key elements within the Iraqi security services and the government: "our guys."

...Apart from highlighting the type of regime of which both Shia and Sunni Arab extremists dream - a land of disciplined ignorance and slavish devotion - the mass kidnapping also highlights the feebleness of our attempts to overcome ruthless enemies with generosity and good manners.

With Iraqi society decomposing - or, at best, reverting to a medieval state with cell phones - the debate in Washington over whether to try to save the day by deploying more troops or withdrawing some is of secondary relevance.

What really matters is what our forces are ordered - and permitted - to do. With political correctness permeating our government and even the upper echelons of the military, we never tried the one technique that has a solid track record of defeating insurgents if applied consistently: the rigorous imposition of public order.

That means killing the bad guys. Not winning their hearts and minds, placating them or bringing them into the government. Killing them.

...With the situation in Iraq deteriorating daily, sending more troops would simply offer our enemies more targets - unless we decided to use our soldiers and Marines for the primary purpose for which they exist: To fight.

...From the Iraqi perspective, we're of less and less relevance. They're sure we'll leave. And every faction is determined to do as much damage as possible to the other before we go. Our troops have become human shields for our enemies.

To master Iraq now - if it could be done - we'd have to fight every faction except the Kurds. Are we willing to do that? Are we willing to kill mass murderers and cold-blooded executioners on the spot? If not, we can't win, no matter what else we do.

Arrest them? We've tried that. Iraq's judges are so partisan or so terrified (or both) that they release the worst thugs within weeks - sometimes within days.

...Our "humanity" is cowardice masquerading as morality. We're protecting self-appointed religious executioners with our emphasis on a "universal code of behavior" that only exists in our fantasies. By letting the thugs run the streets, we've abandoned the millions of Iraqis who really would prefer peaceful lives and a modicum of progress.

We're blind to the fundamental moral travesty in Iraq (and elsewhere): Spare the killers in the name of human rights, and you deprive the overwhelming majority of the population of their human rights. Instead of being proud of ourselves for our "moral superiority," we should be ashamed to the depths of our souls.

We're not really the enemy of the terrorists, militiamen and insurgents. We're their enablers. ...Our naive version of wartime morality handed Iraq to the murderers. Will our excuse for a sectarian bloodbath be that we "behaved with restraint?"

Any code of ethics that squanders the lives of tens of thousands and the future of millions so we can "claim the moral high ground" is hypocrisy worthy of the Europeans who made excuses for the Holocaust.

If we want to give Iraq's silent - and terrified - majority a last chance, we would have to accept the world's condemnation for killing the killers. If we are unwilling to do that, Iraq's finished."

Well, is it true, Iraq's finished? Who really thinks the Dems will allow such a course? If not, it's possible that it's WE who are finished, as the consequences of anything other than victory are all but unimaginable.

We're not talking politics here, folks. We're talking survival.

Ours.

ABSENT A CHURCHILL, TRY THIS

The Dems won. Now they HAVE to decide on whether or not to WIN the Iraq war, and they'll be torn apart by their lunatic base when the James Webbs among them stand up for America after sitting out the first six years.

On the assumption that even the Dems cannot all be traitors, after the dust settles "The Elected Ones" will find themselves in need of an actual alternative plan...not the same mouthing the mantra of the lunatic left, but an actual plan.

There are serious disagreements on HOW to win the Iraq war. There’s no certainty that the current strategy is the correct one. There may be many others beside General Batiste's plan. The Dems have offered NOTHING but Bush Hatred as an alternative, and so far they have failed the very idea of a two party system of American governance.

Here’s a serious criticism. John Batiste knows from personal experience what’s going on in Iraq. I’ve heard of nobody, nobody, who’s commented on Gen. Batiste’s performance or character who does not commend him on both, and if there’s to be a “new” discussion on Iraq, it should start here.

Nancy Pelosi says “it depends on how you define victory.” "What the meaning of is, is."

My ass. Victory is non-negotiable. The President's definition of a country that's free of terrorists, able to govern and defend itself is a good one. The strategy he's used isn't working well. Mr. Rumsfeld himself agrees. Bush supporters know that, and it's not disloyalty to our ideals to recognize it. In addition to General Batiste's critique (I like a guy who says it right out and straight up), there may be others, or other strategies, or modifications of this one. We probably don't need a draft, for example.

But the idea that we are fighting for our Civilization without rallying the whole country and calling for sacrifice from all of us, doing it on the cheap is more reminiscent of Lyndon Johnson than of Abraham Lincoln. It’s unworthy of GW Bush, and wrong for America.

President Bush got a lot right, and I have no doubt about his correct judgement to fight this war, but he’s not been a good War Leader. He rallies the troops, but not The People. Perhaps he's too loyal to his subordinates. Perhaps his flaw IS his religious faith...perhaps he actually believes in Human Redemption...and actually believes that KGB's Putin is a man he can trust, and "do business with," and that Vincente Fox is his "friend."

Still, I maintain that the way to deal with an employees weaknesses...oh, by the way, introduce me to the Perfect Man who has no area of weakness... is to identify them and help him, and to find alternative strength elsewhere to cover his areas of weakness.

As I've said before, we need a Winston Churchill.
Absent that, consider this.

Alternative strategy for war in Iraq

BY JOHN BATISTE
Iraq is a failed state created by the United States. Our senior leadership did this to Iraq, to ourselves and to our allies. America is losing a battalion's worth of dead and wounded Americans (as many as 800 men and women) every month and spending up to $2 billion a week on a failed strategy. We are hemorrhaging our national treasure in blood and dollars without anything of relevance to show for it.

The Bush administration continues to get the strategy wrong and to understate the magnitude of the task in Iraq. Most congressional Democrats do not recognize the gravity of the threat, and their Republican counterparts long ago abrogated their constitutional responsibility to oversee the executive branch. Congress has allowed the administration to fight what has essentially been a secret war and to deceive all of us about its supposed causes, progress and cost.

If we permit this to continue, we will guarantee that we fail. Victory will require the kind of leadership, sacrifice and commitment that Americans have not demonstrated since World War II.

It is not too late, however. Victory is nonnegotiable, and we must finish what we started in Iraq with new leadership and a new strategy. We no longer can fight this war on the cheap.

Allow me to offer an alternative strategy and way ahead for debate in the weeks ahead.

• Fix Iraq's huge unemployment problem. Since America cannot increase troop strength in Iraq fast enough, the only alternative is to deny the insurgents an enormous manpower pool by drafting large numbers of combat-age Iraqi men into national service and paying them attractive wages.

• Give tribal sheiks incentives to be part of the solution. This will encourage them to cooperate with the Iraqi government at a price that pales in comparison to the amount of money we are wasting today. The sheiks wield enormous influence, so the tribal structure must play a major role in a representative government.

• Secure the borders with Iran and Syria and stop the flow of support to the insurgency from both countries. Consider recruiting a special border-security force of 100,000 or more by hiring ex-military from NATO contributing nations and/or give the Saudis, Jordanians and Egyptians, who already have an enormous stake in stabilizing Iraq, incentives to provide forces.

• Get serious about standing up the Iraqi security forces. This is our No. 1 challenge in Iraq. Pour into the Iraqi army, police and border-security forces the right quantity of resources. Select our very best officers and noncommissioned officers to embed with Iraqi security forces and equip the Iraqis to succeed.

• Until the Iraqi security forces can take control, get a sufficient number of coalition troops into Iraq to establish security. Tens of thousands additional coalition troops may be required. There can be no sanctuary for terrorists and militias in Iraq, and the practice of shifting forces from one province to another does not work and defies counterinsurgency doctrine.

• Federalize Iraq and help the Iraqis construct their own form of representative government. The current European parliamentary model that the CPA imposed on Iraq is not working. Devise a federal system with three regions with preconditions designed to influence behavior. Accept that the Iraqi structure is not likely to resemble our democracy.

• Provide incentives to encourage militias to disband and become part of the solution, or crush them.

• Engage with friendly and unfriendly governments to get Iraq under control and to strengthen and build coalitions. Dialogue is fundamental, and we must engage with all countries, including Iran and Syria. We must get closer to our enemies.

• Finally, put our government on a wartime footing. Consider alternative ways to finance the war with rationing programs and fuel surcharges. Our leaders need to step up and explain the ''what, why, how long and what it will cost'' to each and every one of us.

Properly resource our military in force structure and dollars. Our high-performing Army and Marine Corps are far too small for our national strategy. They are at a breaking point and no longer are in a position to respond to other worldwide contingencies. Indeed, a draft may be required to win a protracted war on terror.

The war in Iraq must be above partisan politics if America is to win the war on terror, prevent a meltdown of the Middle East and prevent a catastrophic WMD attack on our homeland. We owe this to our incredible military, their families, our nation and ourselves.
________________________________________
Maj. Gen. John Batiste (retired) commanded the Army's First Infantry Division, both in Iraq and in Kosovo.