HAPPY NEW YEAR!

The Plan....it was proposed earlier...is consistent with what others think, they being really smart and "on the scene' guys. Here's Michael Ledeen, again.

If you want to understand the failure of the Bush Administration to understand the real war, a couple of quotations tell you everything you need to know.

The United States is now holding, apparently for the first time, Iranians who it suspects of planning attacks. One senior administration official said, “This is going to be a tense but clarifying moment.”

The heart jumps for a moment, wondering if, at long last, this “clarifying moment” will catalyze some sort of American effort to directly challenge the clerical fascist regime in Tehran. But then the heart sinks, as the senior official explains: it’s not about us at all. It’s all about the Iraqis. I’ve put in the boldface for the visually challenged:

“It’s our position that the Iraqis have to seize this opportunity to sort out with the Iranians just what kind of behavior they are going to tolerate,” the official said…“They are going to have to confront the evidence that the Iranians are deeply involved in some of the acts of violence.”

How bad is that? I conjure up an image of Rice or Hadley on the phone to Maliki and Talabani, telling the Iraqis that we’ve captured senior Iranian military officials (one will get you five we’re talking here about officers from the Revolutionary Guards Corps), and it’s just made the New York Times, and so Maliki and Talabani had better figure out what to do.

And then I imagine a parent of an American soldier in Iraq shrieking at Rice and Hadley “what do you mean, they? The Iranians are killing our kids, how dare you run away from this?”

Those killer quotes from the Times show once again the failure of strategic vision that has plagued us from the beginning of the war. We can only win the war—the real war, the regional-or-maybe-even-global war—if we stop playing defense in Iraq and go after regime change in Damascus and Tehran. Everyone in the region, above all, the Iraqis, knows this. And everyone in the region is looking for evidence that we might be able to muster the will to win this thing

Here's a blogger from Baghdad, writing in the Wall Street Journal.

...What I'm trying to say here is that the military component we need at this particular stage should be different from the routine military operations that U.S. and Iraqi military had been conducting so far. ...the way forward requires maintaining the basic course of the political process and empowering (and cleaning) the current government and its head then the only way to do this is to relieve Mr. Maliki, his party and the rest of the Shia alliance from the dominance and influence of Sadr, and there are two ways to accomplish this: either persuade Mr. Maliki and his team and promise them great support and protection from Sadr's reach, or deal a lethal blow to Sadr and his militia in order to render him unable to inflict harm on Mr. Maliki and other members of the United Iraqi Alliance. ... it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out that the first way isn't working out right, what's needed now is to take the decision to try the second way and deal with the biggest threat to stability in Iraq in the way we should.
Together we succeeded in reducing the threat posed by al Qaeda when it was identified as the biggest threat to Iraq's stability and security. Now together we can do the same with Sadr and other thugs. We understand the question, and we have a diagnosis that seems sound; it's time to proceed with the treatment.

We're waiting for the President to decide. If you think the future of the world doesn't depend on this, consider this from Nial Ferguson, a Brit Professor of History...I've said this before, but not nearly so well...and mostly in the context of my own life, from 1933-45. Here's a bigger picture of our last century.

The hundred years after 1900 were without question the bloodiest century in modern history, far more violent in relative as well as absolute terms than any previous era. Significantly larger percentages of the world's population were killed in the two world wars that dominated the century than had been killed in any previous conflict of comparable geopolitical magnitude. Although wars between 'great powers' were more frequent in earlier centuries, the world wars were unparalleled in their severity (battle deaths per year) and concentration (battle deaths per nation-year). By any measure the Second World War was the greatest man-made catastrophe of all time. And yet, for all the attention they have attracted from historians, the world wars were only two of many twentieth-century conflicts. Death tolls quite probably passed the million mark in more than a dozen others.* Comparable fatalities were caused by the genocidal or 'politicidal' wars waged against civilian populations by the Young Turk regime during the First World War, the Soviet regime from the 1920s until the 1950s and the National Socialist regime in Germany between 1933 and 1945, to say nothing of the tyranny of Pol Pot in Cambodia. There was not a single year before, between, or after the world wars that did not see large-scale organized violence in one part of the world or another.

And the perspective from Hugh Hewitt.

It is against that backdrop that Iran's thrust for nukes must be understood. All of the carnage of the previous century was completed with the only uses of a WMD at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Project forward the same level of violence of the last century into the new one, but imagine even four or five of the aggressors or factions possessing WMD, and the picture of what is ahead in the next 93 years is bleak beyond description.

There is no persuasive reason to believe the world will be a better place over the next 100 years than it was in the past 100. Indeed, given the willingness of some to erase the past in order to better prepare to repeat it and the rise of a suicidal fanaticism among large numbers of industrial-age, educated people, there are many reasons to expect that their will be many people eager for the violence of the 21rst century to far outstrip that of the 20th.

Thus history compels the United States to deny WMD to those most likely to use them in wars or civil wars. Saddam was one such tyrant, and Iraq even in its chaos and its toll in American lives is much less dangerous to the world and the U.S. than Saddam's Iraq or the Iraq of his sons when they succeeded him.

While the "Descent of the West" may already have begun, I'm betting it won't be finished for a while....and that it might even be possible to reverse it.

Not likely, but possible.

And so tomorrow's another day; next year, another year, and for now Happy New Year Everyone....

We're off to see our Kansas grandchildren. For pix of the Glory of Isaiah's first Christmas, look here.

DEMS DENY IT?

I'm waiting...it's been twenty four hours, so far...to see the U.S. Democrat Party officially reject the Al-Quaeda's explicit statement that it was they who are responsible for the recent electoral results. We've heard all the U.S. postmortem blather, but now Ayman al Zawahiri weighs in with the REAL answer.

Al Qaeda has sent a message to leaders of the Democratic party that credit for the defeat of congressional Republicans belongs to the terrorists.

In a portion of the tape from al Qaeda No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri, made available only today, Zawahri says he has two messages for American Democrats.

"The first is that you aren't the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen -- the Muslim Ummah's vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq -- are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost," Zawahri said, according to a full transcript obtained by ABC News.

It'd be real nice, even reassuring, if the Dems had fallen all over themselves, yelling "NO, WE'RE AMERICANS. WE WON'T DEAL WITH YOU SCUM UNDER ANY CONDITION."

Maybe now that the Blogs are covering the statement, and their lack of response, they'll blame the bloggers and then deny it.

See a wetted finger in the wind before they comment. "Which way is it blowing? What will Iran think? Who's side are they on anyway? Shia? Sunni? I forgot. O never mind."

Another blogger said it this way:

I wonder how it feels to be a recently elected Democrat, knowing that your electoral success is perceived by al Qaeda to be their handiwork? And I assume that this message was intended for the newly empowered Democrats as well:

In an audiotape posted on Islamic Web sites Friday, a speaker identified as Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Mujahideen Shura Council, said that if U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq immediately and leave their heavy weaponry behind, "we will allow your withdrawal to complete without anyone targeting you with any explosive or anything else."

"We say to Bush not to waste this historic opportunity that will guarantee you a safe withdrawal," al-Baghdadi said on the audiotape.

The United States was given two weeks to respond to the offer.

The Mujahideen Shura Council is an umbrella group formed in late 2005 that includes several terrorist and insurgent groups, including al Qaeda in Iraq.

There is simply no escaping it: al Qaeda is in Iraq, and the recent elections in America (and the recent ISG report) have them feeling downright giddy.

WE MUST BEHAVE LIKE VICTORS

This post is part of a thread that started several days ago, and needs to be read in context of previous missives.

http://patriotspoints.blogspot.com/2006/12/everyone-else-has-plan-heres-mine.html
http://patriotspoints.blogspot.com/2006/12/no-mr-bond-i-want-you-to-die.html
http://patriotspoints.blogspot.com/2006/12/give-killing-our-enemies-chance.html
http://patriotspoints.blogspot.com/2006/12/toying-with-genocide.html


Several posts ago, I proposed A Plan of what to do in Iraq. Basically, it was to get out of those parts of Iraq that are not worth saving, let them fight it out among themselves, reserving our assistance to those who prove able and willing to assist us. But we cannot leave Iraq. Furthermore, I've added that we should enlarge the war, USING Iraq as a base to extend it to our real enemies. We paid for it; we get it; let's use it.

As the public debate continues, there are whispers of support for elements of my plan. The Washington Times' Diana West writes:

...two options, neither of which has occurred to Iraq Study Groupies calling for peace parleys with Hezbollah boosters and Holocaust deniers, or to hawkish proponents of "winning" Iraq (or at least Baghdad) with more troops. But maybe that's because neither group dares to reckon with the two greatest obstacles to our efforts in the region: namely, Islam (culturally unsuited to Westernity) and our own politically correct ROE, or rules of engagement (strategically unsuited to victory).

The first option is military, but it carries a seemingly insurmountable cultural override. The fact is, the United States has an arsenal that could obliterate any jihad threat in the region once and for all, whether that threat is bands of IED-exploding "insurgents" in Ramadi, the deadly so-called Mahdi Army in Sadr City, or genocidal maniacs in Tehran. In other words, it's a disgrace for military brass to talk about the 21st-century struggle with Islam as necessarily being a 50- to 100-year war. Ridiculous. It could be over in two weeks if we cared enough to blast our way off the list of endangered civilizations.

As a culture, however, the West is paralyzed by the specter of civilian casualties, massive or not, ...So, the military solution...is out, unless or until our desperation level rises to some unsupportably manic level. ... Our fathers saved us from having to say, "Sieg Heil," but what's next--"Allahu akbar"?

Not necessarily. There's another Middle Eastern strategy to deter expansionist Islam: Get out of the way. Get out of the way of Sunnis and Shi'ites killing each other. As a sectarian conflict more than 1,000 years old, this is not only one fight we didn't start, but it's one we can't end. And why should we? ...With the two main sects of Islam preoccupied with an internecine battle of epic proportions, the non-Muslim world gets some breathing room. And we sure could use it--to plan for the next round.

OK....what's the "next round?" See The Plan.

I abhor the idea of being run off the battlefield by a band of 12th century fanatics armed with our weapons, purchased with our money...and I counsel deploying to continue the fight. BUT to fight better.

But defining the nature of the fight remains. Today, the Army has a "new counterinsurgency manual," which both infuriates and offers hope. Infuriates because of the time it's taken to come to the realization that:

Insurgents in Iraq cannot be coerced. They must be killed or captured. That is the view of one of the authors of the military's new counterinsurgency manual.

Released today, the document is the first significant update of America's counterinsurgency doctrine in more than two decades. It comes more than three years into the insurgency in Iraq, and during a time when President Bush is rethinking his Iraq strategy.

The manual is blunt. ...While it is written for counterinsurgencies around the world, Nagl said they did learn specific lessons about Iraq.

Roadside and other bomb attacks "are not aimed at killing U.S. soldiers," he says. Instead Nagl asserts the insurgents conduct the attacks for propaganda.

"They want those pictures to show up on TVs in America, and they use it to recruit on the Internet," the lieutenant colonel says.

..."The enemy in a counterinsurgency campaign will do almost anything. He's unconstrained by the rules of normal civilized behavior," Nagl says. "He will kill innocent civilians in a heartbeat in order to prevent security and stability and freedom from taking root."

While many of the tenets of COIN have been used successfully for decades, Nagl says this new edition looks at the globalization of insurgency as "information flows almost instantaneously."

Indeed....it's comforting to know that our soldiers understand the nature of the enemy, and most of the "new" doctrine is about information as a battlefield, not only that we must destroy the enemy. It is not comforting to find that it's only NOW that the understanding is finding its way into the rule book. (Read Ralph Peters' discussion of this doctrinal change in military thinking).

It remains to be seen if our Political Leaders understand it. There's much talk in the media about "surges' of troops to pacify Baghdad. McCain has pushed this for a long time, and it may be necessary.

The problem is that our Generals see it differently.

...with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq. The option is being discussed as an element in a range of bigger packages, the officials said.

But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.

The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.

They may need more forces in the long run, including a larger standing Army, but what they most need is clear direction and a change in their mission to include killing our enemies as a first priority. With no change in the Rules of Engagement, more forces will simply be more IED targets. Let our Armed Forces secure the battlespace and kill our enemies. That's a start.

Ralph Peters' latest comments come to the point, again.

....the Army leadership has one reasonable request: A clear mission.

Here in Washington, the brigade of civilian "experts" insists that the answer to our Iraq problem is to surge our forces from stateside bases back to Baghdad to restore security. Sounds good . . . until you ask them exactly how they would use those troops.

What would the specific tasks be? "Restore security" is too vague - we need to identify no-nonsense objectives. And which new tactics would be authorized? Would the rules of engagement change?

How would we handle prisoners, given that a crackdown would generate tens of thousands (and the Iraqi system releases the worst offenders)? What if the Maliki government rejects our plan?

At that point, the think-tank boys give you a deer-in-the-headlights look and spurt empty generalities. Our military is supposed to figure out the pesky details.

But it's the details that make the difference between succeeding and failing. If you don't nail down the goals - and the methods to reach them - you're ducking the make-or-break issues. Our soldiers can't evade such questions.

Generalities and platitudes won't fix Iraq. But they will kill our men and women in uniform to no good purpose. Before we send them on such a difficult mission, we should at least be willing to face the difficult questions.

Army generals worry that frantic politicos want to send more troops to Iraq as a p.r. stunt, to appear to be taking decisive action. Our uniformed leadership is rightly loathe to have our troops used to give anyone's approval ratings a temporary boost. They'll do what they're ordered to do and do it well. They just want the mission to have a chance of success that justifies the human and strategic cost.

Could an increase of 20,000 to 40,000 troops make a difference?

Yes - but only if they're assigned a clear, achievable mission and our government stands behind them solidly as they carry it out. Sending more troops in the vague hope that it will magically improve the situation would be a travesty.

...Which brings us to the one approach that could make Baghdad a secure, livable city: Zero tolerance.

...We've never been willing to do all it takes to win. Now the clock's running out. Without a comprehensive crackdown, Baghdad (and Iraq) will be lost irrevocably in 2007....

Suppose we do ask our under-strength, under-funded Army to send 40,000 more troops to secure Baghdad. Below are just a few examples of the kind of hard-to-swallow and hard-to-do measures President Bush would need to back, if the deployment were meant as more than a forlorn hope:

* Zero tolerance for weapons possession in the streets or in vehicles. The authorities must have a monopoly on force.

* Foot patrols - soldiers must get out of their vehicles and "walk the beats." Initially, this could cause a spurt in casualties - but there's no alternative to knowing the turf. Once average citizens as well as our enemies know we're serious and that we're staying on the block, attacks will drop. Presence rules. We have to occupy neighborhoods.

* Automatic, no-early-release prison terms for the possession, transfer or transport of military weapons and related paraphernalia. (I'd prefer a "shoot on sight" policy -- JG)

* Rigid enforcement of all public-space laws, from shutting down black markets in gasoline to enforcing traffic codes.

* Temporary movement restrictions, with passes required for any person desiring to leave his neighborhood and enter another. Identify who belongs where.

* Simultaneous crackdowns on Shia militia and Sunni insurgent strongholds. Establish the principle that we go where we want, when we want - and stay as long as we want. (I favor destruction of these militias. We must have a monopoly of the use of force -- JG)

* Thorough searches of every building in Baghdad. No safe havens - not even mosques (trusted Iraqis can help). Structures used as weapons-storage facilities or safe houses for armed factions to be leveled.

* Disarmament of all private security elements in Baghdad not vetted by U.S. authorities. Foreign security contractors subject to Iraqi law.

If we're unwilling to take such stern measures, we won't make durable progress, no matter how many troops we send.

Who would resist such a program? There's the problem. The partisan Maliki government would refuse to go along with a crackdown on Shia militias. Unless we're willing to overrule the regime we recently celebrated, none of this can happen.

And, of course, the media would accuse us of a war crime every five minutes. The global media want Iraq to fail and revel in the current level of suffering. If we're unwilling to defy the media, Iraq is finished.

Oh, and that increase in troop strength would have to last two years. (So stop talking about "surges." Honesty with ourselves is a place to start,too.--JG)

It all comes back to President Bush. If he won't lay out clear goals, then approve a serious plan to achieve them, sending more soldiers to Iraq would only worsen our problems in the long term. If a troop boost failed to produce results, it would further encourage our enemies while crippling our worked-to-the-bone ground forces.

Send more troops? Only if we mean it.

Can it actually be, that after all the blood shed, and the billions of dollars spent and stolen, we now find out that our soldiers are operating under rules that keep them from killing our enemies? Can it be that our Generals still wish for clarity of their mission? Can it be that our people actually want to surrender? Color me pissed if it's so.

"It all comes back to President Bush." That's only part of the truth. President Bush for sure, but much of the rest of our government has been asleep and ignorant of the threat to the nation.

A new Congress has been elected, and responsibility for oversight has been transferred. But so far, congressional appointments demonstrate only "politics as usual." The petty and spiteful bypassing Jane Harman for Chairmanship of the Intelligence committee is an example. The selection of Mr. Reyes, who this week has been shown to be totally ignorant of basics, after years..years..on that committee, is all the proof necessary. Even USA Today has this comment:

These are just the latest signs that official Washington has been cavalier about the war on terror.

Congress' inclination is to hand out anti-terror funds based more on political considerations than real risk, at one point producing a formula that gave New York $15.54 per person and Wyoming $27.80.

In Baghdad, only six of 1,000 U.S. Embassy staff members are fluent in Arabic, according to the Iraq Study Group.

Overcoming such shortcomings requires first a seriousness of purpose about the war on terror that places it beyond the workaday pork-barreling and power games of Washington politics. It then demands that Congress exercise responsible oversight, something that has been lacking since 9/11 because Republican members of Congress feared embarrassing a Republican president.

Perhaps the new Congress will change that dismal picture, but the Reyes appointment suggests that some Democrats also have much to learn. Thoughtless oversight is as bad as none at all.

Nor are the Courts relieved of responsibility. The granting of Geneva Convention rights to non-uniformed individuals, and non-state sanctioned, armed gangs and terrorist groups is a travesty. The Geneva Conventions specifically define those people as NOT covered. Congress should act to specify by law who is defined as our enemy, and we need to quit fretting about aggressive interrogation where needed.

In a lifetime of Neurosurgery, I learned some lessons that others may never have to learn. One was The Lesson of Heros and Goats.

It starts like this....one is going about life in the standard way, when something unanticipated and horrible happens to somebody else. Countless factors are unknowable, but not responding or deferring action is not an option. The issues are stark; someone lives or dies, or worse. Someone MUST act, as not doing so is an action in itself. From the moment the telephone rings, you are responsible for the outcome, whatever happens. It's yours.

If you're lucky, you're knowledgeable, and have at your disposal all the technological wherewithal available. You have a capable staff to help, and excellent advice from the best consultants around. Some of the consultants disagree with others. You must choose between them.

Using all these, you make a plan, and dealing with the unknowns as best you can you execute the plan. The desired outcome is known, but the unknowns may make it necessary to alter the plan "on the fly." When finally done, you wait for the outcome. It matters not that you did your best, nor that no one had a better plan or a better execution. If it works, you're a hero. If it fails, you're a goat.

You may ask for the key to the riddle but the answer is always the same...you're a hero, or you're a goat. The riddle is "why me?" I didn't cause it. I didn't order it or define it. I didn't want it, nor did I hope to have to confront it. And the answer is always the same: "Quit whining. You chose this life. You're either a hero or a goat."

President Bush, who was on call and picked up the 9/11 phone call, has had more than enough experience being the goat. It's time for him to be a hero. He must act, and he must act as a Warrior President. He must redefine the rules for our soldiers. He must stand up to his critics by forcing them to confront the third option. They never agree that they want to surrender, but we're facing an implacable enemy; withdrawal IS surrender. There's only one other choice, or do the opponents really want to force the War Of The Worlds Scenario?

Most important, President Bush must accept that Iraq is not a sovereign state. Its government exists because we finance it and bleed for it. There's nothing sacred about whoever holds title there, if they are unable to provide the most elemental functions of a sovereign state. We cannot be bound by their imperatives. If Mr. Malaki doesn't like our taking out Mookie Al Sadr's thugs, then take out Mr. Malaki. That'll take a real rethinking of what Mr. Bush wishes were true, that elections are all that's necessary to legitimize power. Unfortunately that's not true anywhere in the Arab world, where elected governments hold power by force, often by brutal force. Think Egypt.

We, not Malaki, must determine the course of events. Winning Iraqi hearts and minds doesn't mean that they must love us. Winning them means convincing them that their interests and ours are the same. We must protect them, and stop the killing, to legitimize whatever government we install.

Those who oppose us with words and ideas can be brought into the discussion. Those who oppose us with explosives and guns must be killed. Killed. Dead. No more fretting about whether or not a terrorist, like Zarquawi did, lived awhile after being shot or whether we were diligent in getting him medical care. Killed. Dead.

We'll know when we've been defeated in Iraq. It'll be when the US Army starts losing the fights. Till then, keep them fighting, and it'll be the "bad guys" who choose to withdraw.

Who else has a role in this? You do. You and I, and everyone else. If you agree with me, stand up and say so.

All of us live within a circle in which we influence others and are influenced by them. Our circles always overlap, so while we influence our small circle, by contiguity those influences may spread. There's your chance. Influence your own circle. That's not too much. The next time you hear a snide remark at a social event, don't keep quiet; confront the source and ask if he's willing to accept the third option. Simply by speaking you defy their assumption that "everybody knows we've lost Irag. The NY Times says so."

We as individuals must speak up or leave the field to the lazy, to the uninvolved and uninformed, to the cowards and to the enemies of our America.

Frankly, that's why I continue this blog. I doubt that anyone reads it regularly. Comments are rare. But I continue to try to influence a small circle. Whatever the outcome, win or lose, proven right or wrong by history, I'm going to try to influence my circle. One reader, maybe the only reader from the greater blogosphere, commented:

...This war is not lost on the battlefields of Iraq but in the homes of America in a time that echoes Lincoln's truism that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." We are not witnessing Armageddon but the whimpering of victimhood by a culture on its way out. The strong usually push out the weak. That's how we got here, and that's how our successors will get here.

Time is short, and we all have to stand up. Find your circle.

THREATS AND EMPTY THREATS

An earlier post on this subject I asked "Who'll Blink First?" Now we know, and the answer is:

Britain Surrenders to Saudi Blackmail

"A Serious Fraud Office investigation into a multi-billion pounds arms deal has been abandoned 15 days after Saudi Arabia issued an ultimatum. The Saudis gave Britain 10 days to call off the inquiry or lose a 10 billion-pounds deal for Typhoon Eurofighters," the Daily Telegraph reports.

Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, said the SFO was "discontinuing" its inquiry into alleged fraud involving companies linked to BAE Systems in relation to the Al Yamamah Saudi defence contract. He said: "It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest. No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest." A question-mark over 50,000 British defence jobs has now been removed.

The Saudis were said to be "outraged" by the investigation into alleged illegal payments made to members of the Saudi royal family and their agents.

The question-mark over the jobs was not removed, it was simply placed over the British commitment to survive the next Saudi Threat. The threat is predictably available any time, in the event of another attempt by the British to maintain their culture and independence.

The issue for us isn't what the Brits do or don't do.....rather it's illustrative of a successful way to deal with those who offend us. Saudi diplomacy worked. Deal with it; learn from it.

Blackmail, withdrawal of financial or military support, actions that degrade the quality of your opponents lives, ultimately threatening war....they're all threats, but they're called "diplomacy." Threats work only when your opponent believes you; if he doesn't believe you, they're called "empty threats." The Brits believed the Saudis, and accepted their threats as real.

Our opponents don't believe us. We're considered weak, risk averse, unreliable, unwilling to fight if it means either killing or dying, and our threats, our diplomacy, are empty. Huge numbers of Americans, detached or unthinking and indifferent to consequences, are now demanding we quit the fight. A "Study Group" recommends surrender by a different name. Everyone knows this. Osama knows it, and is counting on it.

Whatever change in our "course" comes from the current reviews being conducted by the President and his staff MUST be accompanied by a change in our WILLINGNESS to fight and to resist. There's no doubt anywhere of our capacity. There must be no question of our intent or will. Rules of Engagement for our troops must be changed. Our enemies, in Iraq, Iran, Syria and elsewhere must be forced to believe us. More troops...to do what, more Social Work? More on this later.

TOYING WITH GENOCIDE

I've said in previous posts that we have only three options: 1) The Gradual Reform Thru Introduction of Modern Self Governance Option (The ChimpyBushHitler Gambit); 2) Letting "Them" Have Their Way Option (Suicide) and 3) The Impossible To Conceive-of Conflagration, (War of The Worlds Scenario).

So far, nobody has a different analysis....and if you still think I'm nuts, read this. This is conventional thinking from a former Radical Lefty of the Sixties... If that's all that bothers you, read the comments.

Just what is to be lost if we allow the President's plan to fail is foretold here. It's nearly impossible to overstate the importance of this...a discussion that's not ever going to be had in the open space of public debate.

I'd add another scenario. Consider a couple of million Americans, including Liberal Ones, knocking off Muslims on the streets of this country. Don't doubt that it's possible...all it'll take is a couple of more 9/11 style attacks and widespread public panic and disorder.

Consider the panic over "second hand smoke" or some pig shitting on the lettuce as illustrative of how our risk averse, pantywaist society now reacts to very remote threats. Then project that to include real, demonstrable, and immediate risk; it's not a pretty sight.

We simply cannot allow our policy as stated by President Bush to fail. To do so is so irresponsible as to be immoral and ought to be criminal. To promote that failure as a matter of partisan political power-seeking is treasonous. If there were some other course of action, it'd be one thing....but absent any other alternative (Baker/Hamilton suggesting the Missionary Position Before Surrender proves there is none)

We WILL have to change how we do it, but we must not fail. Period.

More on what to change, later.

GIVE WAR A CHANCE

The defeatists and already defeated among our media opinion formers and "leaders" are on the verge of creating a historical catastrophe, primarily because the rest of us haven't the balls to insist that they allow our soldiers to fight, and because we've allowed them to rule out winning this damn war.

If the President stood up and said so, it'd be refreshing, but that seems beyond him. So, instead, listen to this active-duty Infantry NCO with multiple Iraq tours, writing in one of the best milblogs, Blackfive.

Soldiers in Iraq do not feel they are making a difference. They feel things are out of control. They are scared, and they are angry. They want to come home.

But let me also tell you what they do not feel: Powerless, weak, satisfied.

As news agencies dance around with Baghdad talking about the escalating sectarian violence, I take pictures of dead bodies left in the wake. As CNN talks about Sadr city residents threatening uprisings if Bush meets with the prime minister of Iraq, I listen to rockets pound Sunni mulhalas. I track their splashes. I chase firing all over Baghdad. Guess what I haven’t done. Kill anyone.

Do I feel unable to face the violence? No, that is not the case. I am frustrated that I am here, and no one will let me fight.

Let me tell you a little something about ROE (Rules of Engagement). In Baghdad thousands of people are moving around all the time. Many houses, all of them, have guns. On a general scale, none of them are planning any wrongdoing at all. But they don’t think that Americans can accomplish anything, either, because they know we can’t search at will, can’t shoot at will, can’t detain at will.

I can’t even tell you how pissed it makes me to hear a JAG officer suck in breath as he tries to think real hard how to explain the murky depths of our ROE. A system that used to be a way of allowing soldiers to avoid hurting civilians by using certain weapon systems at certain times has once again degenerated into a complex “Cover Your Ass” legal trick for higher command. Believe me, it isn’t there because Colonels and Generals WANT us to fight this way, it is there because YOU do.

That is right. If you are an American, and you are reading this, you share fault. Give CNN ratings, fall in line with those that have hounded the steps of the American Soldier criticizing his every fault while looking away from the success of his missions, and heralding at the tops of their lungs the number of dead without ever talking about the value of the lives lost. Long after specials on fallen soldiers and the human toll are just file footage, soldiers such as I will remember the deaths of the ones we cared about, and know the price of that cost. And while they talk about how out of control the violence in Baghdad has become, soldiers grind their teeth wishing they could just do the job they know. Wishing they could take all the weapons from the people in this city, clear every house, stop all traffic, and most of all, secure Sadr city.

Shia Imams preach the control of Iraq and Iranian support. They talk about the weakness of Americans, and the things they will do if America continues to interfere with their destruction of the Sunni. And the media of my home laps it up. They sing doom on every station, until it has gotten to the point even soldiers begin to hear and believe that nothing can be done in this stupid country.

So here it is people. My permission form, my request, perhaps my last act. I want to take back Baghdad, because living here and not doing anything is just making it easier for me to be killed. Because a straight fight gives me better odds than waiting for the IED. Because I am tired of my friends being hurt while criminals hide in mosques laughing about how easy it is to put in shots on the Americans. Because I have to order a soldier to get in a turret to wait for a sniper to shoot him in the face or throw a grenade at him, but if I order him to shoot at a car, I will be investigated and jailed. Because I know better than Wulf Blitzer what the American Army can do to our Enemies, and I volunteered to do it.

You have no idea the levels of suck I am prepared to take to get a real mission done. You have no idea how little food, sleep, and comfort I will take on to ensure that the people who want to hurt me die. And the only X Factor in this, the only brakes, is you.

If the people at home stopped merely wishing things would get better, and tell us to make them better no matter what, it would. We are ready to fight, are you?

That is the real question that the entire world is waiting to have answered.

They're waiting in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and in caves in Pakistan. Bin Laden says No, and has staked his life on it. This NCO says, "Yes, I am."

Frankly, I say that most Americans have their heads up their asses, are consumed with trivia and self-absorption, and haven't thought beyond next weekend's NFL game. These people won't fight.

Bin Laden will smirk to the End of History unless there are more of "us" than "them" left in America.

We'll see. Where do you stand?

"NO, MR. BOND. I WAN'T YOU TO DIE"

Michael Ledeen has been writing for years about the Iranian threat, making the point that Iran has been the fount of terrorism and anti American vitriol in the Mideast, since they declared war upon us 27 years ago. From a current article:

“Do you expect me to talk?” he yells. “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die,” Goldfinger replies.

You never realized Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton were auditioning to be the next Bond, did you? But that’s the scene they’re playing. They act as if they think the mullahs want, or would be willing, to reason together, but the mullahs don’t want us to be reasonable, they want us dead or dominated. And they’re pursuing their mission with the singleminded obsession that characterizes the true fanatic. There’s a dynamite story in the Israeli Hebrew-language newspaper, Yediot Aharanot, about the latest real information about their nuclear project. You know, the one they say is for peaceful energy generation, the one we’ve been pretending to negotiate about. Here are a few spicy excerpts:

Updated satellite photographs…which are published here for the first time, reveal unprecedented construction at all nuclear sites in Iran. Among other things, the imagery reveals extensive construction work going on at the centrifuge site at Natanz, including tunnels and bunkers; significant progress in building the heavy-water reactor in Arak; production of UF6 gas in Isfahan which, according to intelligence reports, is supposed to be enough for two atom bombs; and worrying information has also been received on advanced tests of a high-powered explosive that is designed for use in the fission mechanism.

Along with all these things, if anyone still has any doubts about the seriousness of Iranian intentions, the satellite photos reveal the deployment of numerous antiaircraft missile batteries, in a way that is perhaps unprecedented, around the nuclear sites. European intelligence information also points to the presence of Iranian scientists at the recent nuclear test in North Korea. All these things leave no room for doubt that Iran is closer than ever before to putting together the first Shiite atomic bomb.

We dither away, variously threatening sanctions and offering rewards if only the mullahs will give up their mad dream of atomic bombs and stop enriching uranium. They sometimes pretend to negotiate, and sometimes tell us to go to hell, but the enrichment program continues, along with the crash programs on other essential elements of a nuclear weapons project.

…extensive construction work has also been going on in Parchin recently. The photos reveal a series of underground tunnels and digging whose enormous scale is indicated by the amounts of earth dug up. The photos also show the area to which IAEA inspectors were not permitted access: special chambers that are used to test the assembly of a nuclear warhead’s explosives. Identical chambers were photographed over the years close to facilities where the Soviet Union developed and manufactured its nuclear warheads.

Read the whole thing, as they say. It’s an important article, in many ways a unique article because it’s so coldly analytical. It reveals that the Iranians are working on a plutonium device and an enriched uranium weapon, it reminds us that the Iranians are getting plenty of international cooperation, and, without the usual adjectives and breathless prose, conveys a proper sense of urgency.

All of which brings us to the policy question. We are now about to enter the seventh year of the Bush presidency, and there is still no Iran policy, aside from talking. Talking to ourselves, talking to the Europeans, talking to the Iranians themselves (don’t kid yourself, we’ve been talking to them all along). This article brutally and factually shows us that we’ve been talking too long and acting too little.

It really baffles me, this paralysis. It’s not unique to the Bush Administration; it’s been going on for 27 years. It has gripped Republicans and Democrats, lefties and righties, neos and paleos. It’s been talk, talk, talk, and never so much as fifty cents to the Iranian student movement, the Iranian trade unions, the Iranian teachers and journalists, even an amazing number of mullahs and ayatollahs, so many of whom hate the regime and are willing to risk their lives to bring it down. The nuclear program is not a problem all by itself, it simply adds urgency to the Iranian war, the war they have been waging against us all along, the war in which we stubbornly refuse to get engaged.

Faster, Please!

As Ledeen points out, there are some things that can/could have been done short of a military strike. Just yesterday, Mad-Mahmoud was booed and jeered by students. Iranian blogs indicate substantial internal opposition to the mullahs.

I've maintained since 9/11 that we had to "fight them there or fight them here, but we'll have to fight them," and I believed that Iraq wasn't the most direct way to The Source.

I figured that the Bush Administration expected that internal and domestic issues would bring the Iranians down, and that we should first attend to Saddam. But it's naive to think that a dictatorship that controls all the guns can be brought down without external assistance to internal dissidents. I naively thought we were doing this, covertly at least, but Ledeen claims otherwise.

Ledeen's made this indictment before. It looks like he's right.

War is Hell, and mistakes are made....coulda, shoulda, wooda is the coward's bitch, and I believe that an aggressive clearheaded strategy to destroy our enemy can still prevail in Iraq. It'll have to be much more deadly now than it had to be before, since so much time has been wasted but it's doable.

Leaving the field to the Iranians, however, makes no sense whatever. It's not "fog of war" mistake, but a fundamental misunderstanding of leadership.

That's a indictable error. Limited resources are relative. A united American has sufficient resources when political will and leadership rally us to the task.

In WW2, at the times of crisis and despair...Pearl Harbor and Bataan, the Fall of the Phillipines and Singapore...during the four year slog through Europe while millions died...President FDR engaged us in weekly "fireside chats," to rally the American people and maintain morale and commitment. There was an anti-War movement then, and it might have prevailed, had it not been for FDR's leadership.

That's why we all, Democrats and Republicans, farmers, workers, businessmen, young and old people owed him a respect and love that continued for the rest of the century. Nobody cared much about his errors or personal foibles, and policy differences ceased to be divisive. "Politics stops at the waters' edge," we agreed.

GWB has not done so. He's a reasonable CEO, a decider, and he's surely committed to the right things. But stating the goals and expecting his plan to be executed is not sufficient or effective in rallying the entirety of America to follow. Free Americans don't have to follow. They must be convinced and led to do the right thing.

Our current hour of crisis is a crisis of will and of soul; we need another source of inspiration. Right now it's got to be fear of the real world, as it is revealed to us daily, and that's good enough for me right now. But it's not going to last. The center we've built won't hold.

Richard Fernandez wrote this:

...Some kind of brain fog has descended upon Western Civilization, a species of madness or abstraction that makes victory against the enemy impossible, not simply because victory is inconceivable, but the very concept of an enemy or warfare has become unthinkable to the postmodern bureaucratic mind. It is the very thought of fighting a foe -- fighting under any circumstances, however justified -- that has become the ultimate taboo. War has been banished, not from reality, but from the list of allowable thoughts. It has become a Thoughtcrime and it is expunged from the Newspeak of our times. Welcome to our Perfect World. While it lasts."

Have you an answer to "while it lasts?"

ANOTHER REASON TO EAT BEEF

FROM LONDON: THE ONLINE "INDEPENDENT"

In full, for your morning's entertainment.

Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.

Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.

Wastes from feedlots and fertilisers used to grow their feed overnourish water, causing weeds to choke all other life. And the pesticides, antibiotics and hormones used to treat them get into drinking water and endanger human health.

The pollution washes down to the sea, killing coral reefs and creating "dead zones" devoid of life. One is up to 21,000sqkm, in the Gulf of Mexico, where much of the waste from US beef production is carried down the Mississippi.

The report concludes that, unless drastic changes are made, the massive damage done by livestock will more than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases.

Waddya wanna bet their recommendation includes a U.N. Conference, from which will be formed a Committee which blames Western appetites, particularly the U.S, which "consumes" so much more of Mother Gaia's Bounty than anyone else. This to be followed by a set of "guidelines," implementation of which will require another U.N. Conference.

HELLO. ANYBODY HOME?

Americans have probably already forgotten that a few months ago, Israelis were rocketed from Lebanon by Hezbollah, and responded with air attacks on the rocket launchers. When this failed, troops invaded. Much of the Dhimmi World pretended to be horrified at the effects on "civilians." I commented on my page on Asymmetrical Warfare.

Today's Wall Street Journal comments on a report and documentation from the "post war" debriefing (I hesitate to use the world PostWar, as this war will soon be reinstituted in full fury).

Whose War Crimes?
Evidence from Lebanon about how terrorists use civilians.

A few scenes from modern warfare:

Mohammad Abd al-Hamid Srour moved missiles across southern Lebanon under cover of a white flag. Hussein Ali Mahmoud Suleiman used the porch of a private home to fire rockets. Maher Hassan Mahmoud Kourani dressed in civilian clothes, hid his Kalashnikov in a tote bag and stored anti-aircraft missiles in the back of a green unmarked Volvo. The three men, all members of Hezbollah, were captured by Israel during last summer's war.

Now their videotaped interviews form part of a remarkable report by retired Lieutenant Colonel Reuven Erlich of Israel's Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. Relying heavily on captured Hezbollah documents, onsite and aerial photography and other first-hand evidence, the report shows how the Shiite group put innocent civilians at risk by deliberately deploying its forces in cities, towns and often private homes.

Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, has accused Israel's military of "indiscriminate warfare" and "a disturbing disregard for the lives of Lebanese civilians." Mr. Erlich demolishes that claim, and in the process shows the asymmetric strategy of Islamist radicals.

The most persuasive evidence here is photographic, so we urge readers to access the report itself on the Web site of the American Jewish Congress (ajcongress.org). Hezbollah's headquarters in Aita al-Shaab, for instance, sits in the heart of the village. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah's office and home are in a densely built neighborhood of Beirut. In the town of Qana--site of an Israeli bombing on July 30 that killed 28 and that Hezbollah's apologists were quick to label a "massacre"--an arms warehouse can be seen adjacent to a mosque. There are photographs of rockets in the back seats of cars, missile launchers adjacent to farm houses, storage bunkers hidden beneath homes. There is also a trove of before-and-after photography demonstrating the precision of most Israeli bombing.

The report also shows how the use of civilian cover was explicitly part of Hezbollah's strategy. "[The organization's operatives] live in their houses, in their schools, in their churches, in their fields, in their farms and in their factories," said Mr. Nasrallah in a TV interview on May 27, several weeks before the war. "You can't destroy them in the same way you would destroy an army."

Beyond the war in Lebanon, these images suggest how Islamists seek to use the restraint of Western powers against them. They shoot at our civilians from the safety of their own civilian enclaves that they know we are reluctant to attack. Then if by chance their civilians are killed, they call in CNN and al-Jazeera cameras and wait for the likes of Mr. Roth to denounce America or Israel for war crimes.

...None of this means the U.S. shouldn't continue to fight with discrimination and avoid civilian casualties. But it means our political leadership needs to speak as candidly as Israelis now are speaking about this enemy strategy, so the American people can understand and be steeled against this new civilian battleground. Details here

This doesn't come as a surprise to those who remember that in their war on Iraq. the Iranians used bands of children as human minesweepers to trigger land mines in advance of troops . As I've said, we do not inhabit the same Moral Universe as these people.

We 'll understand it better when we're fignting in our own streets, as planned by Abu Abdullah.

Everytime I think I"m finished illustrating the obvious, it gets worse. This from today's Calgary Sun Online. The thing speaks for itself.

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip -- Palestinian gunmen killed three young children of a senior Palestinian intelligence officer yesterday.

The drive-by shooting on a street crowded with hundreds of school children is an unprecedented attack that could ignite widespread factional fighting.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility.

In the attack, the gunmen pumped dozens of bullets into a car carrying the children of intelligence officer Baha Balousheh, a loyalist of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement.

A decade ago, Balousheh was a lead interrogator in a crackdown on the now-ruling Islamic militant Hamas movement.

Three of Balousheh's children, ranging in age from six to 10, were killed, in addition to their driver, hospital officials said.

KNOWN BY THE COMPANY YOU KEEP

Anybody who thinks it can't get worse than Patriot's Points, here's a tidbit for your edification

But, it doesn't take satire to make the point re: Baker/Hamilton, just read what our enemy thinks. Yes, Virginia, there is an enemy. From WorldNetDaily, an online paper.

The militants, from the largest Palestinian terror groups in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, welcomed the policies outlined by the Iraq Study Group, which they claim recognizes Islam is the "new giant of the world."


"The report proves that this is the era of Islam and of jihad," said Abu Ayman, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin.

The Islamic Jihad terror group is responsible for every suicide bombing in Israel during the past two years.

"[With the Iraq Study Group report], the Americans came to the conclusion that Islam is the new giant of the world and it would be clever to reduce hostilities with this giant. In the Quran the principle of the rotation is clear and according to this principle the end of the Americans and of all non-believers is getting closer," Abu Ayman said.

According to Abu Abdullah, a senior leader of Hamas' so-called military wing, Baker's report is a victory for Islam brought about by "Allah and his angels."

"It is not just a simple victory. It is a great one. The big superpower of the world is defeated by a small group of mujahedeen (fighters). Did you see the mujahedeens' clothes and weapons in comparison with the huge individual military arsenal and supply that was carrying every American soldier?" exclaimed Abu Abdullah, who is considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department.

"It is no doubt that Allah and his angels were fighting with them (insurgents) against the Americans. It is a sign to all those who keep saying that America, Israel and the West in general cannot be defeated on the ground so let us negotiate with them," Abu Abdullah said.

Abu Abdullah said following a withdrawal from Iraq, the U.S. will be defeated on its own soil.

"America must understand that with anti-American governments in Latin America and with Islam growing and reinforcing, including in the U.S. itself, the next step would be a total defeat on their (American) land, not a relative one like they are facing in Iraq," he said.

Like I said...we fight 'em there, or we fight 'em here. So long as they've got the will, there'll be a fight. We have to fight them before they get the means.

Give War A Chance!

WHY DON'T WE JUST TALK? TALK? TALK?

Back Talk Blog calls the question:

Iran sets conditions for talks with U.S. on Iraq
Tehran says it will only engage in dialogue if U.S. unveils withdrawal plan

MANAMA, Bahrain - Iran will only hold direct talks with the United States on Iraq if Washington announces plans to pull its troops out, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Saturday.
...
“Iran is ready to help the administration to withdraw its troops from Iraq,” he said...

I think it is completely fair to put the following question to John Murtha, John Kerry, and the Iraq Study Group:

Should we, despite being forbidden from setting preconditions of our own for talks with the Iranians, obey the precondition that they have set? Yes or no?

It's a simple question! Either we should obediently comply with their instructions or we shouldn't. Which is it?

I love the analysis of the current situation in Iraq that the Iraq Study Group provided, but their recommended solutions (such as talking with the Iranians) are quite silly. I'd like to thank the Iranian foreign minister for making that perfectly clear.

IT DIDN'T TAKE LONG

For some time, readers of this blog have heard me point out that the End Game is closer than we admit, and that anyone who expects the Jews of Israel to walk calmly into the ovens for the second time in a hundred years is delusional.

U.S. politics counts. It's not been a game, whatever the lunatic left and the Bush Haters may make of it. Ideas have consequences, and since the U.S. election, the weakening of the Bush Administration,with the advent of a new U.S. Secy. of Defense, and now the ISG Report, the pace of events has been accelerated by a magnitude, and the danger brought closer than anyone in our "mainstream" has publicly stated.

Today, in the Jerusalem Post, an Israeli Journalist, Caroline Glick, explains it from the point of view of those who Baker-Hamilton expect to go quietly, once more, into the Zyklon-B "showers."

Read the whole thing, but here are the salient points.

When the history of our times is written, this week will be remembered as the week that Washington decided to let the Islamic Republic of Iran go nuclear. Hopefully it will also be remembered as the moment the Jews arose and refused to allow Iran to go nuclear.

With the publication of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group chaired by former US secretary of state James Baker III and former congressman Lee Hamilton, the debate about the war in Iraq changed. From a war for victory against Islamofascism and for democracy and freedom, the war became reduced to a conflict to be managed by appeasing the US's sworn enemies in the interests of stability, and at the expense of America's allies.

… But it isn't only Israel that is harmed by their actions. The US too, will be imperiled if their views become administration policy.
Although Baker - and incoming Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who served on his commission until Bush announced his appointment last month - believes that there is a deal to be done that will end Iranian and Syrian aggression against the US, its vital interests and its allies, the fact of the matter is that there is no such deal. Contrary to what the Baker report argues and what Gates said in his Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday, Iran is not analogous to the Soviet Union and the war against the global jihad is not a new cold war.

… Worse than that, from a US perspective, although Gates admitted Tuesday that he cannot guarantee that Iran will not attack Israel with nuclear weapons, he ignored the fact that Iran - whose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad daily calls for the destruction of the US - may also attack the US with nuclear weapons.
Gates admitted in his Senate hearing that Iran is producing many bombs - not just one.

Since it is possible to destroy Israel with just one bomb, the Americans should be asking themselves what Iran needs all those other bombs for. There are senior military sources in the US who have been warning the administration to take into consideration that the day that Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear bomb, 10 cities in the US and Europe are liable to also be attacked with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, no one is listening to these voices today.

… WHAT MUST Israel do? First, it must plan an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities and regime command and control centers. To pave the way for such an attack, the IDF must move now to neutralize second order threats like the Palestinian rocket squads and the Syrian ballistic missile arsenals in order to limit the public's exposure to attack during the course of or in the aftermath of an Israeli attack on Iran.

Second, Israel must work to topple the Iranian regime.

… Thirdly, in his testimony in the Senate on Tuesday, Gates casually mentioned that Israel has nuclear weapons. In so doing, he unceremoniously removed four decades of ambiguity over Israel's nuclear status. While his statement caused dismay in Jerusalem, perhaps Israel should see this as an opportunity.
With the threat of nuclear destruction hanging over us, it makes sense to conduct a debate about an Israeli second strike.

Americans like Baker, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and their European friends need to understand that as goes Israel so go the Persian Gulf's oil fields.

… In a few months, Iran may well be in possession of nuclear weapons which it will use to destroy the Jewish state. With the US withdrawing from the war and Israel in the hands of incompetents, the time has come for the Jewish people to rise up.

GUARANTEEING our survival begins with each of us deciding that we are willing to fight to survive. And today the challenge facing us is clear.

… America just abdicated its responsibility to defend itself against Iran and so left Israel high and dry. Nevertheless, the Jewish people is far from powerless. And the State of Israel also is capable of defending itself. But we must act and act immediately.

The details are here for all to see, but you must also read the comments at the end of her piece, and follow the thoughts of the ordinary people who respond. These people are not kidding. They see themselves as having everything to lose.

As soon as they see themselves as having NOTHING to lose, the world as we knew it will be History. I said it earlier, but I'll say it again..."Realism" and Reality are not the same thing.

Please comment by clicking on the Comment Link below. I'm sure others will be interested in your opinions, too.

THERE'S A METPHOR IN HERE, SOMEWHERE

"IT'S WORTH A SHOT"

"Realists" would have us "engage" and "dialogue" with these guys.

According to the pro-Hariri newspaper al-Mustaqbal, the members of the new group were sent to Lebanon by the Assad regime to assassinate 36 Lebanese political figures. They were reportedly deployed in refugee camps in the north and in Beirut's southern suburb (Bourj al Barajnah). Once in Lebanon, they were told to coordinate their actions with Fatah Intifada's number two, Khaled al-Emleh.

Investigations with two arrested members of Fatah Islam apparently unveiled the plot, prompting Fatah Intifada to quickly disassociate itself from the new movement, which also quickly declared its independence from Fatah Intifada after using their offices for more than 56 days. Interestingly, the arrested members, a Syrian and a Saudi, identified themselves as Fatah Intifada members.

Fatah Intifada is practically run by Syrian intelligence, and has "bases" along the Syrian border, from which they occasionally shoot at Lebanese army soldiers if they dare approach their "territory".

Al-Mustaqbal said Lebanese army intelligence arrested the two members following their involvement in the killing of other Palestinian militants in the Baddawi camp in the north four days ago. They both carried Syrian passports issued in Damascus. They reportedly confessed to being members of a 200-strong group led by Syrian intelligence agent Mahmoud Kolaghasi.

To quote Lee Hamilton, "It's worth a shot" Indeed, IT IS worth a shot , from a .50 cal. Barrett M107 rifle.


In reaction, the French, who have troops in Lebanon as part of a U.N. brokered "peacekeeping force," sponsored another "Resolution."

In New York, French U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere on Thursday asked the Security Council to adopt a statement extending "its full support for the legitimate and democratically elected government of Lebanon."

The statement would also condemn any unlawful effort to topple the government or "intervene in Lebanon's internal affairs," according to a copy of the text obtained by Reuters.

Oh, goody goody. These are the guys who are supposed to guarantee Israeli defense interests. Is there any question that the Israelis won't fall for that one again? Anybody say 200 Israeli "nukes?"

Life imitates a Peter Sellers movie.

"REALISM" IS NOT "REALITY"

Ralph Peters makes some points that won't get to the Mainstream Press, and which are important to remember. If we're at a Terrible Tipping Point, it's because realism isn't the same as reality. Read the whole thing.

...Baker is the dean emeritus of a reactionary school of diplomats--inaccurately labeled "realists"--whose support of the shah of Iran, the Saudi royal family, Anwar Sadat, then Hosni Mubarak, and, not least, Saddam Hussein delivered short-term stability that proved illusory in the long run. It was the "realist" elevation of stability above all other strategic factors--echoing Prince Metternich--that gave us not only the radical regime in Iran, but, ultimately, al Qaeda and 9/11.

...One of the many tragedies of our experience in Iraq is that the incompetence of the Bush administration's occupation policy has obscured the necessity of igniting change in the Middle East. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was both an intelligent act and a moral one. But the aftermath was so badly botched that many in Washington now long--as did those powdered cynics in Vienna--for the status quo antebellum. They would renew our commitment to Saudi Arabia and other autocracies, while quietly selling out the Lebanese, the Kurds, and the region's moderates in order to get us out of Iraq. We would return to a version of the old order and might gain a brief respite from our troubles in the region. But the greater effects of a renewed stability-über-alles doctrine would play into the recruitment schemes of the most radical Islamist elements in the region, while instigating human rights violations on a breathtaking scale. We would throw away any hope of a better future for a brief timeout today.

...Yesterday's solutions--Jim Baker's solutions--didn't work yesterday. They certainly won't work today.

Since the end of the Cold War, every one of our military engagements has come in response to failing states and flawed borders: Desert Storm, Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq . . . we send our men and women in uniform to defend a world designed in Berlin and Versailles according to the macabre political philosophy of Metternich. The greatest democracy in history has been conned by its own political elite into fighting for the carto graphic legacy of dead czars, kings, kaisers, and emperors.

...There are no good solutions to Iraq, but some "solutions" are markedly worse than others. Any formula that attempts to extend the lives of dictatorships and oligarchies at the expense of already restive populations will end in disaster--even should it promise us the illusion of a "decent interval."

And this is why, of the three themes I wrote of earlier, victory, suicide, or a Bloodbath of Civilizations, there is only one real way out. The way out is to continue through to the other side. . Bringing the troops "home" is a temporary illusion of "peace."

Win the War.

A TERRIBLE TIPPING POINT

Mark Steyn has an article in the current National Review that cannot be read online, but I think it's important enough that it should be read by all serious persons. I can add nothing to this of my own other than to recommend it to you as serious analysis.

*******************

A Terrible Tipping Point

Whatever the “realists” may say, nations talk to each other all the time. Unfortunately, when Nation A opens its mouth, Nation B doesn’t always get the message, no matter how loud and clear it is. Syria and Iran, for example, have subverted post-Saddam Iraq for three years now. Rather quietly at first. But, like a kid playing gangsta rap in his bedroom, if there are no complaints, you might as well crank up the volume. So Iran began openly threatening genocide against a neighboring state. And Syria had one of its opponents in Lebanon, Pierre Gemayel, assassinated.

Syria and Iran are talking, but are we listening?

Likewise, Russia. These days, we talk to the Bear incessantly, to the point of holding the G8 photo-op on Vladimir Putin’s turf. The old KGB man’s pals are also back in the assassination game, not just in his backyard but in London, too. As do Syria and Iran, Russia spoke loud and clear: Alexander Litvinenko, a political opponent, was poisoned by the rarest of substances and left to die a lingering death across the pages of Fleet Street’s newspapers in a very brazen and public way. Certainly as public as, say, Her Majesty the Queen making a visit to the Hermitage accompanied by President Putin and giving a speech on the renewed warmth of Anglo-Russian friendship. The British authorities, nominally charged with “solving” the murder of Mr. Litvinenko (who was, after all, a British subject), wish the whole business would just go away, so they can get back to holding talks and signing joint communiqués with Mr. Putin.

The question is: Which is the real snapshot of Russo-Western relations? The affable buddy-buddy kibitzing between Bush and Putin at the ranch in Crawford? One president looking deep into the eyes of the other and getting “a sense of his soul” (if you’ll forgive a touch of geopolitical homoeroticism)? Or the liquidation of Moscow’s enemies on foreign soil?

And, even when we don’t get the message, plenty of third parties do. If you were a run-of-the-mill Third World basket case, what would you conclude watching the “international community” warn North Korea that there will be stern consequences if it conducts a nuclear test and, okay, even sterner super-duper-mega-consequences if it conducts a second nuclear test? If you were, say, the president of Sudan, to whom Iran has already offered its technology, you might reasonably posit that you too could go nuclear with impunity. So might Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. As for that brave band of foreign leaders who have been happy to identify themselves as American allies — the Kurds in northern Iraq, for example — that’s not looking such a desirable club to belong to. As the great Bernard Lewis said of the Baker-Scowcroft betrayal of Iraqi rebels in the first Gulf War, the lesson was plain: America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.

Loud and clear
The danger in the years ahead is a kind of malign convergence. In Mexico during stops on the National Review cruise the other day, I wandered through the teeming streets and found myself thinking that if I were the jihad strategists I’d spend some serious Saudi-Iranian walking-around money in these cities and try to convert to Islam, oh, let’s say just a modest 3–5 percent of Mexico’s population. That would be more than enough to add a whole new wrinkle to the “undocumented” problem.

Speaking softly — as in State Department–softly — is fine if you’re carrying the big stick. But, when your big stick is a snapped-off twig, it makes less sense. In a way, you’ve already spoken volumes. There are differences within the “Talks Now!” faction, from outright defeatists to those who figure a weak hand is better played round the poker table than in a fist fight. But for the most part “realism” is a euphemism for inertia. And too many “realists” have already accepted a nuclear North Korea, a nuclear Iran, a resurgent neo-totalitarian Russia, a reSyrianized Lebanon, a perceived American defeat in Iraq. The talks would be merely the signing ceremony.

In Britain in the Eighties, Margaret Thatcher faced a very particular problem. No matter how she and her colleagues transformed the country’s economic fortunes, too many of the citizenry were unable to rouse themselves from post-war fatalism: They had come to believe in the irreversibility of British decline to the point that, even when the decline had been reversed, they were still mired in it. Britain, you’d hear, could never make a go of it in the world; it had no choice but to throw its lot in with a European ersatz-federation profoundly incompatible with British values. One hears it still.

In America today, we face the opposite problem. After 9/11, the president told the world: You’re either with us or against us. Most of the world flipped him the bird. Some “allies,” such as the Belgians and New Zealanders, said, “Actually, we’re neither with you nor against you.” Other “allies,” such as the Saudis and Pakistanis, said, “Actually, we’re both with you and against you. What you gonna do about it?” And, when it became obvious that there was no price to be paid for obstructing American aims, the world got the message.

Yet at home too many Americans are wedded to an absurd proposition: that somehow the lone “superpower” can choose to lose yet another war and there will be no consequences, except for Bush and sundry discredited “neocons”; that no matter how America stumbles in the world it can stay rich and happy and technologically advanced even as it becomes a laughingstock in Tehran and Damascus and Pyongyang and Caracas and Moscow and on, and on, and on.

Not so. We are on the brink of a terrible tipping point.