I SAID IT BEFORE I DIDN'T SAY IT. GOT IT?

Must be true. The New York Times says:

"President Jacques Chirac said this week that if Iran had one or two nuclear weapons, it would not pose a big danger, and that if Iran were to launch a nuclear weapon against a country like Israel, it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran."

"The remarks, made in an interview on Monday with The New York Times, The International Herald Tribune and Le Nouvel Observateur, a weekly magazine, were vastly different from stated French policy and what Mr. Chirac has often said."

"On Tuesday, Mr. Chirac summoned the same journalists back to Élysée Palace to retract many of his remarks."

Mr. Chirac said repeatedly during the second interview that he had spoken casually and quickly the day before because he believed he had been talking about Iran off the record.

Well, now isn't that special? Never mind that mad Mahmoud might well be willing to trade Tehran for the destruction for the entire state of Israel. It's only a couple of bombs...(surely he won't make more than two, right?)...can't be all that bad. Use one on Israel, keep one "in the bank" to threaten the rest of the neighborhood, and see, there won't be any left for France. Not to worry. See? Tres cool.

Anyway, just because I said it....doesn't mean I mean it...it's "off the record." Didn't happen. King's X...my fingers were crossed....yes they were too. I don't care if you didn't see them crossed, I did. So there.

Is your mind blown yet? No? Well consider this. The Los Angeles times published a "provocative" article by David A. Bell, a Professor of History...yes, History...which maintains that the United States is "over reacting" to the attack of 9/11/2001.

"if we look at nothing but our enemies' objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States."

Never mind the obvious truth that these "hate filled fanatics" are still trying to acquire those means, and that the war isn't over yet. Desire and capacity are not the same, but one leads to another if you can buy the capacity. These fanatics have huge amounts of money with which to purchase that capacity, and are working diligently to do so. To prevent that eventuality we are fighting a war in Iraq.

The Professor further elaborates:

"...by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States. As an instance of mass murder, the attacks were unspeakable, but they still pale in comparison with any number of military assaults on civilian targets of the recent past, from Hiroshima on down."

"Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents."

"....Yet as the comparison with the Soviet experience should remind us, the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all... It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler."

Indeed, this war is Chicken Feed. Hey, Kerry got his wish! This terrorism stuff has been turned into a nuisance. It turns out that the Dems breast beating about US casualties is just political poppycock...hardly anybody's dying, it seems. Compared to the 20,000,000 or so Russians killed in WW2, this doesn't even register. Hey, boy, call me when you get into a real war.

This horse shit is beyond explanation except when it's seen in light of Chirac's enlightenment. It's clear that both Chirac and Bell are preparing for the next stage of the abandonment of our defense.

Iraq is one piece in the greater War. As we abandon that battlefield, led into ignominy and defeat by the cowards and liars of our political class, we'll soon find ourselves in an accelerated downward spiral to an America none of us has ever seen or imagined. As Chirac and Bell must understand, that will require some some ground preparation.

These people are just turning the soil. The real work of destruction of our civilization comes later.

Upon such men rests the fate of the entire world.

Comfy?

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

Bob Sheiffer, Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric and a tough old U.S. Marine sergeant were all captured by terrorists in Iraq. The leader of the terrorists told them that he would grant them each one last request before they were beheaded.

Sheiffer said, "I'd like one last bowl of hot spicy chili." The leader nodded to an underling who left and returned with the chili. Sheiffer ate it and said, "Now I can die content."

Brokaw said, "I'd like to hear the song "America the Beautiful" one last time." The leader nodded to a terrorist who had studied the Western world and knew the music. He returned with some rag-tag musicians and played the anthem. Brokaw sighed and declared he could now die peacefully.

Couric said, "I'm a reporter to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here and what's about to happen. Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job till the end."

The leader agreed and Couric dictated some comments. She then said, "Now I can die happy."

The leader turned and said, "And now, Mr. U.S. Marine, what is your final wish?"

"Kick me in the ass," said the Marine.

"What?" asked the leader. "Will you mock us in your last hour?"

"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the ass," insisted the Marine. So the leader shoved him into the open, and kicked him in the ass.

The Marine went sprawling, but rolled to his knees, pulled a 9mm pistol from inside his cammies, and shot the leader dead. In the resulting confusion, he leapt to his knapsack, pulled out his M4 carbine and sprayed the Iraqis with gunfire. In a flash, all the Iraqis were either dead or fleeing for their lives.

As the Marine was untying the three news anchors, "Ms Perky" asked him, "Why didn't you just shoot them in the beginning? Why did you ask them to kick you in the ass first?"

"What," replied the Marine, "And have you three assholes report that I was the aggressor?"

"KILLING IS THE SINE QUA NON OF WAR"

My calls for a strategy that kills the enemy, my repeated disgust at rules of engagement that use "minimal force," my acceptance of the brutality of what we must do to save our civilization are at odds with many of my friends views, and with their wishful thinking. My view is that the harsher the policy, the shorter the time and the less the killing. Minimal Force kills more slowly, and for longer, and is greater in total bloodshed. There is no place for Minimal Force in self-preservation. Period.

Donald Sensing is a Methodist Minister from Tennessee, who I think has a son in Iraq. He writes a well regarded blog, and I recommend a look at his writing from time to time. Click on his links to his Main page and Essays to see the kind of man he is. Here is a serious man's view of today's issue.

“Killing is the sine qua non of war.” So wrote Europe’s premier war theorist, Carl von Clausewitz, which he amplified thus, “Without killing there is no war.” This should seem self evident, but its truth is easy to lose, and easiest for the civilians who (rightfully) finally command our military. Even senior military officers, removed by distance and time from personal battle experience, can fail to remember that truism.

Of all the failings of the previous “strategy” in Iraq, directed by the commanders whom Gen. David Petraeus will very soon replace, the main failing was not keeping the main thing the main thing. In counterinsurgency, as with any other kind of fight, the main thing is killing the insurgents, for which civil assistance to Iraqis must play the supporting, not primary role.

Hence, the “surge” of 21,500 more soldiers and Marines being sent to Iraq does in fact represent a new strategy in the recent history of this war, though not new in the history of warfare. Gen. Petraeus, asked recently by one of the Congress’ armed services committees whether 21,500 was enough new troops, replied that how the new troops are used is more important than the number sent.

And lethality is the focus now, as we saw from the release of an unclassified version of the strategy by the plan’s authors themselves, which I analyzed on Dec. 17. Retired General Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army, and Frederick W. Kagan, former West Point professor, wrote (and briefed President Bush) that,

We must change our focus from training Iraqi soldiers to securing the Iraqi population and containing the rising violence. Securing the population has never been the primary mission of the U.S. military effort in Iraq, and now it must become the first priority.

“Securing the population” = “kill the insurgents.

That is what's going on now. The "insurgents," read that as Al Quaeda in Iraq, are being killed in large numbers. Snipers that can't be cleared from high rise buildings are being killed and the entire buildings taken out with them. Read Sensing's entire piece.

This IS a new strategy, and anyone but a "useful idiot" or a politician who loves political power more than he loves America, would encourage it, would revel in it, would pray for its success. Make your own choice.

THERE'S NO ALTERNATIVE TO VICTORY

But George Bush already said that....and everybody knows he's an idiot.

Several days ago I referred to our Senatorial trollops as cowards and liars. They speak as though they mean to solve our problems, but they lie, and they know it.
Today's Washington Post carries an article by Robert Kagan that explains why there is no substitute for victory.

"American soldiers are finally beginning the hard job of establishing a measure of peace, security and order in critical sections of Baghdad -- the essential prerequisite for the lasting political solution everyone claims to want. They've launched attacks on Sunni insurgent strongholds and begun reining in Moqtada al-Sadr's militia. And they've embarked on these operations with the expectation that reinforcements will soon be on the way: the more than 20,000 troops President Bush has ordered to Iraq and the new commander he has appointed to fight the insurgency as it has not been fought since the war began.

Back in Washington, however, Democratic and Republican members of Congress are looking for a different kind of political solution: the solution to their problems in presidential primaries and elections almost two years off.

...they refuse to answer the most obvious and necessary questions: What do they propose the United States do when, as a result of withdrawal, Iraq explodes and ethnic cleansing on a truly horrific scale begins? What do they propose our response should be when the entire region becomes a war zone, when al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations establish bases in Iraq from which to attack neighboring states as well as the United States? Even the Iraq Study Group acknowledged that these are likely consequences of precipitate withdrawal.

Those who call for an "end to the war" don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will not end but will only grow more dangerous. Do they recommend that we then do nothing, regardless of the consequences? Or are they willing to say publicly, right now, that they would favor sending U.S. troops back into Iraq to confront those new dangers? Answering those questions really would be honest and brave.

Of course, most of the discussion of Iraq isn't about Iraq at all. The war has become a political abstraction, a means of positioning oneself at home.

...To the extent that people think about Iraq, many seem to believe it is a problem that can be made to go away. Once American forces depart, Iraq will no longer be our problem. Joseph Biden, one of the smartest foreign policy hands in the Senate, recently accused President Bush of sending more troops so that he could pass the Iraq war on to his successor. Biden must assume that if the president took his advice and canceled the troop increase, then somehow Iraq would no longer be a serious crisis when President Biden entered the White House in 2009.

This is a delusion, but it is by no means only a Democratic delusion. Many conservatives and Republicans, including erstwhile supporters of the war, have thrown up their hands in anger at the Iraqi people or the Iraqi government. They, too, seem to believe that if American troops leave, because Iraqis don't "deserve" our help, then somehow the whole mess will solve itself or simply fade away. Talk about a fantasy. The fact is, the United States cannot escape the Iraq crisis, or the Middle East crisis of which it is a part, and will not be able to escape it for years. And if Iraq does collapse, it will not be the end of our problems but the beginning of a new and much bigger set of problems.

...Politicians in both parties should realize that success in this mission is in their interest, as well as the nation's. Here's a wild idea: Forget the political posturing, be responsible, and provide the moral and material support our forces need and expect. The next president will thank you."

I don't think WaPo and Kagan are considered idiots, but.."Well, nevermind."

NEWT WANTS PROACTIVE ROE.....

Newt Gingrich gave this speech a while back, and raised the usual suspects' bile and ire...but it's still true, and still circulating. I think it's right on the mark, and for anyone who wants to refer back to it, I've posted it. Just send the URL for this post to anyone you want to see this portion of his thoughts.

"The third thing I want to talk about very briefly is the genuine danger of terrorism, in particular terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and biological weapons. And I want to suggest to you that right now we should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of threat.
Let me give you two examples. When the British this summer arrested people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in order to hide the bomb as baby milk.

Now, if I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing to die as long as they get to kill you, Ive simply described the warrior culture which has been true historically for 6 or 7 thousand years.

But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery beyond anything we have tried to deal with.

And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they are arresting British citizens, born in Britain , speaking English, who went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.
This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear or biological weapons.

And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.

And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.

This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until actually we literary lose a city which could literally happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate. So...

(APPLAUSE) This is a very sober description of the Islamic terrorist threat we are faced with. We are NOW at war with a culture that wants, not to take over our land, but to KILL us."

FIRST, KILL ALL THE LAWYERS!

Shakespeare, as usual, said it all. I've given examples, and complained of rules of engagement for our armed forces that are dangerous, and even worse, are causing our soldiers to fight an inefficient war. Killing is normal in war. That's why it's called War, and not Policing. The enemy wants to kill us. That includes you, your wife, children, neighbors....anybody you love...they're us. The killers are them. There's a difference. Duh!

Defense officials tell us one of the rules of engagement for U.S. combat troops in Iraq is vague and written by lawyers with little or no battle experience. The result is that troops are at risk of getting killed in action because of military lawyers' penchant for ambiguity.
One troubling rule that is among several printed on the card given to troops going into combat is "use minimum force necessary to decisively eliminate the threat." It is viewed by many in the military as ambiguous and confusing.

"Does it mean you are obligated to wrestle with a threat rather than shoot him or her?" one defense official asked. "That is how a lot of police officers lose their lives each year, as the criminal gains control of the police officer's firearm. How about approaching and/or wrestling a threat who, it turns out, is a homicide bomber?"

Bottom line: There is no way in law to define "minimum deadly force," the official said.

It is not known whether the imprecise rules directly led to the deaths in action of U.S. troops in Iraq, but some say it is likely because the rules are overly cautious and vague, an apparent outgrowth of destructive political correctness applied to war.

"A major part of the problem is that military commanders have surrendered their responsibility for ROE [rules of engagement] preparation and approval to lawyers lacking the knowledge, training and experience to prepare ROE. Unsure of themselves, they err to caution and ambiguity," the official said.

The President has the power to change this...to order it changed. A lot of mistakes are made in War. It's unreasonable to expect otherwise, but fighting a minimalist war against a maximalist enemy is suicide. That's a nice word for criminally insane, when it results from worrying about what our "friends" in the U.N. and elsewhere will think. Those bastards won't credit us with goodness, ever. So fuckem. In the event they ever get to fight their own war, let them worry about being nice to their murderers.

COWARDS AND LIARS

The U.S. Senate today confirmed General Petraeus to be the Chief Warrior, Head Honcho, and the Biggest-Baddest American in Iraq. He's highly regarded by all parties, so far as is known, and apparently he is honorable, brave, and intelligent; all the stuff that we want in such a person. He has devised a plan, proposed by the President, to turn around the Iraq mess.

Several weeks ago, the same Senate almost instantaneously confirmed a new Secy. of Defense, Robert Gates, who has multiple positive attributes, but chief among them was that he isn't Donald Rumsfeld. As General Petraeus' immediate superior, he has also approved the plan, now known as the Bush Plan.

Having confirmed and lauded both these men, the same U.S. Senate is now devising a series of "non-binding resolutions" calling for the defeat of the plan devised by the selfsame people. The degree of defeat the honorables of the Senate are willing to accept varies with different resolutions, but it is clear that the supporters of these resolutions are willing to see the United States lose the war.

Mr. Gates puts it this way: "It's pretty clear that a resolution that in effect says that the general going out to take command of the arena shouldn't have the resources he thinks he needs to be successful certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries."

Just what else needs to be said than that?

Here's what. The Senators of the disloyal opposition, all the Democrats to put a fine point on it, and a few Republicans who lost their final vestige of courage after the recent election, are willing to see America lose, but they are unwilling to accept responsibility for creating that event.

There is universal understanding that the U.S. Army cannot be defeated on the ground, and that the battleground has shifted to the U.S. domestic political arena. This is precisely so because our enemies know where is located the seat of American cowardice. The Senate is about to confirm this.

IF there are brave opponents to the Petraeus/Gates/Bush plan, they should call for immediate withdrawal, defund the war now (which is their constitutional right to do), and vote to relieve Mr. Gates and General Petraeus of responsibility for carrying out the plan they have created. The "honorables" refuse to do what they claim is their "duty," knowing that the American people will not support them in this, and fearing for the consequences TO THEMSELVES.

By refusing accept this responsibility, these Knights of the Limp Wrists make manifest to anyone paying attention just what they are. They are cowards and liars; in the interest of their own political ambition they are selling out America.

Cowards and liars. That's what remains to be said. I just said it.

That's the bad news.

The good news is that after many months of knowing the Iranian contribution to killing our people, having caught several of them red handed last week, and having released them, the President has decided that it's now OK to capture and kill new ones. That's got to be good news. But more bad news is that we should have been doing this all along. And the same should be said for a lot of other malefactors that we'll now have to catch again before we can kill them....if Mr. Malaki will let us.

With Rules of Engagement like these that have constrained our soldiers, we're lucky we're not yet fighting them here. I suspect that The Bubbas, armed Americans, will refuse to honor those rules when that time comes. That's the good news.

THIS MUST CHANGE

The President has spoken...eloquently in my opinion...but words, words...more words won't cut it. He has the power to change this. If he doesn't we're fucked, and we might as well fold our tents. We sent warriors, so make war. Alternatively, bring them home and send social workers if you wish to appease our critics, and let history decide what we should have sent. I've already decided.

“We are fighting a Politically Correct war,"said Major Owen West. “Specifically, Abu Ghraib has taken exponential importance “ in how we approach fighting the insurgency, and has led to an excess in caution in dealing with arrest and detainee issues. The interrogation process has been neutered due to past errors. “PC has filled us with false fear,” said Major West. “We treat detainees better than I treated my college roommates.”

“We tiptoe around cultural issues so greatly that the Iraqi Army laughs at us,” said Major West. He explained the difficulties in arresting women involved with the insurgency. In one case, it was well known a woman that was sheltering and aiding foreign fighters, and the evidence of her guilt was solid. In order to arrest her, the MTT needed permission from a general's staff. The Iraqi troops stood in wonderment at this absurd decision making process.

Major West believes the U.S. is suffering from what he refers to as “COIN [counterinsurgency] false hope” in Anbar province, and this is impacting our effectiveness in fighting the insurgency. “In Anbar, the average male is our enemy, and you won't win his heart. But you can win his mind, and make him make rational decisions” to not attack US forces and Iraqi institutions and security forces. “We should detain large amounts of [military age] males, not re-releasing them.” The catch and release program, where known insurgents are released only to fight another day, only serves to encourage and reinforce insurgent activity.

Major West went on to explain how the Americans need to enforce strict punishment for small crimes, using the “broken windows” theory of law enforcement to deter insurgent activities. Laws must be put on the books to make activities such as running weapons, providing shelter for terrorists, and digging holes to plant bombs major crimes. “The way the Iraqis see it, Americans suffer from cognitive dissonance on the legal and detention issues.” They are aware that many of the suspects detained have an extremely high probability of guilt, yet release them based on a desire to implement a peacetime legal system during a brutal insurgency. This must change to achieve real success in Anbar province.

I don't know who originated this quote, but it works for me. "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

DEAD, AT AGE 23

This is reprinted in its entirety from Michelle Malkin's blog. I can add NOTHING to this. Speechless isn't sufficient. Second Lt. Mark Daily was killed at Mosul after writing this.

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Why I Joined:

This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.

Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.

Is this why I joined?

Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).

I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.

And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.

So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.

I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"

Mark Daily

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

There's movement around the edges of our problems. Perhaps our spineless political "experts" on warfighting are finding their mojo. Time will tell, but there are three items worth mentioning.

First, Krauthammer has signed on to The Plan. He's recommending we threaten to move to Kurdistan and leave Maliki to fend for himself and to eat his own dead, unless there's real progress from our "friends," the Iraqi Government. That's good. Patriot's Points brought it to you first.

Second, our Iraqi "friends" are moving against their last week's goodbuddies, Mookie and his Mahdis...an Iraqi rock group that specializes in sectarian murder... and the poor dears are feeling, well, "under siege." Now, they've arrested Mookie's director of media affairs. We'll know they're serious when they arrest Dan Rather.

Finally, Scrappleface reports that Bush is getting serious about Mad Mahmoud, the Iranian used carpet salesman, and Adolph wannabe.

President George Bush, under pressure from the Iraq Study Group to open negotiations with Iran, today named a lead negotiator whom he said is already on the way to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Jack Bauer, a freelance intelligence contractor and former agent with the Counter-Terrorism Unit (CTU), has been dispatched to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s office for a “diplomatic listening session” aimed at determining the best way to halt Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and shipment of arms to terrorists in Iraq.

“For some reason, people like to talk to Jack Bauer,” said Mr. Bush. “He’s a straight-shooter, good at establishing mutual understanding and I think he and President Ahmadinejad will come to a rapid agreement on terms favorable to global peace and security.”

Although Iranian government officials said no negotiations with the U.S. had been scheduled, Mr. Bush described the talks as a “unilateral diplomatic initiative that will be under way before they know it.”

That's the good news. The bad news is that Fox News reports that a third of Americans, and nearly half of Democrats either want America to fail in Iraq or can't decide if they wish us to be defeated. It's not clear that all these people are treasonous bastards. Perhaps just that portion of Dems, between 1/3 and 1/2, in other words "only" 17% of Dems are actually traitors, and the rest are just so fuckin' dumb that they should be declared citizens of France and deported to the home of the original "reign of terror."

Kurt Vonnegut, a certifiable schizophrenic novelist of my youth, was right. As his Billy Pilgrim said, "So it goes."

HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL

One can hope that Mr. Bush finally gets it. IF he does, then we've got a chance to pull this off. Here's the attitude we NEED.

Another random thought....from the outset, it's been clear that one major problem in the War on Terror is telling the Enemy from Then Innocent. This has been a problem before, and for others. Here's one solution. Hat tip: American Digest.

According to the Cistercian writer Caesar of Heisterbach, one of the leaders of the Crusader army, the Papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, was asked by a Crusader how they might distinguish the Cathars, their enemies, from other citizens. He answered: Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" -- "Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his."

This is no joke. Imagine what's going to happen after the next attack on US soil. There's a real chance that we'll volunteer to give up much of our civil liberties and America could become a country that we don't recognize. The "intellectuals" of the academy and the media...those who denigrate Mr. Bush for malapropism and inarticulateness...seem too dense to understand that we MUST win this war, in order to protect values they profess to support, and which they accuse us of ignoring. It's quite the opposite. Like it or not, Iraq is a part of this war, and we must win it. There is NO choice but victory. It is not impossible....if we develop the political will and just half a man's balls, we can still pull this off.

Just for clarification, in case someone thinks the Jihadisphere has a monopoly on the Crusades....the Albigensians were French.

THE NEW STRATEGY

We now know of President Bush's new strategy. I'm not going to critique it point by point....if you're reading this, you already know what he said. My view is that this is it...a last chance, last ditch opportunity to salvage the secondary goal of the Iraq War. Let me comment that I found him believable and consistent, and clear in presenting a plan that's coherent, and obviously well thought out. I like an executive who takes responsibility for errors or failures of any kind.

None of this means his plan will work.

The first goal of this war was "Regime Change," which, for a variety of reasons including Iraqi support for terrorism and the belief in Iraqi WMDs, had been US policy since Clinton's time. Bush actually did something about it, and the regime was changed.

The secondary goal was to move the entire Middle East toward a new and modern life by introducing a legitimate, freely elected, independent government which would settle internal differences in a civilized way. We were to create a nidus of civility, an example of the possibilities for all the people in the region to see as a better way for their future. The idea was that a decent future for them would defuse the attraction of radical Islam, and reduce and ultimately eliminate the terrorist threat to the West, particularly to America's interests at home and abroad.

This secondary goal has so far proved impossible. The depths of depravity, cruelty, hatred and barbarism as revealed to us by the action of Iraqi Arabs...not Kurds, by the way....Arabs, has shocked us, and defies defense by anybody. It's not an unpatriotic act to refuse to support people who
do not share our Moral Universe, and there are a lot of them in Iraq....that's not what the internal US fight is about.

It has been the policy of this government that long term, the secondary goal is sufficiently worthwhile to be "worth a shot," to use Lee Hamilton's phrase. After regime change, that's what we've been fighting for. The evidence that some millions of Iraqis want this future, and desire our help has been clear if not overwhelming....remember the 11,000,000 blue fingers, the cries of joy at the fall of Saddam Hussein, the digging up of hundreds of thousands of unnamed corpses, the detritus from his rule. It WAS worth a shot.

One question is, is it still? Or is it impossible to bring those barbarians into our Moral Universe? Who knows? Not me. Personally, I've NEVER met an Arab (as opposed to Persians and Kurds) that I thought was anything other than duplicitous and untrustworthy.

But there's so much at stake...so many lives in the balance, so much bloodshed to come if the Middle East continues in its cycle of hatred and murder and barbarism...that I support the President's attempt to "give it a shot." I also see this war as part of the greater war on Islamofascism. In a world where "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" it's clear that Saddam's Baathists were enablers and sources of support for those who'd kill us in a heartbeat if they could. We have to fight them somewhere. Better there than here.

It's clear that the time has come to play the hand out. The President's plan is clearly his last. The possibility of success, in my estimation, depends upon two things.

First, will the President release our forces to fight....will the new "surge" of troops be anything other than more targets? It's reasonable to wonder if more troops can do what the current troops, were they not constrained by rules of engagement written by Miss Manners, cannot do. Mr. Bush spoke of troops going door to door to demonstrate and reassure the Iraqis that we're there for them. Unless we kill the bad guys we find, next year's reassurance will be about as good as last year's. Will the addition of only 20K+ soldiers be such a great difference? Will they be social workers or will they be war fighters? Will they kill our enemies, take Baghdad, destroy the militia of Al Sadr, and him if necessary, and make it possible for civil life to be established in that Hell-Hole?

Second, given the corruption of Arab police and politics, will an incompetent Maliki government be able to hold the ground won for them? It's said that the Iraqis will be largely responsible for the new fighting force, but I doubt they have the balls to do it....especially if they doubt we'll be there to protect them in the future. Will Maliki inhibit our stopping his Shiite friends the Iranians, as he has done in the past? Will he insist on a free pass for Al Sadr, as he has in the past? Mr. Bush says no, he's agreed not to...but he's an Arab...I told you what I think of Arabs. Racial insensitivity? Maybe. True? Probably.

If the answer to either of the questions is "no," then the cause will be lost and we'll leave, with disastrous consequences.

I'm skeptical that this will work, largely because it will take a degree of political courage both here and in Iraq that we've not seen lately. Just think of the media hysterics when we start fighting with the brutality of our enemy. Think of the increase in our own casualties, and the media's caterwauling as the coffins come home. War IS hell; there will be more losses. Remember, cowardice is an infectious disease. Think of Republicans running for cover from a lame duck President.

I don't doubt the integrity, courage, intelligence of our new Commander, General Petraeus, but unless he's able to fight this war as brutally as our enemy will fight it, the second question is moot.

I'm sure the President will say yes to any request made in the field, and we're going to see a renewed vigor and level of fighting, and more casualties than we've seen for a while. It's already started. But we're fighting savages, and if we're not going to fight savagely, then what's the point? They disappear for a while, and re-emerge later to behead their neighbors. If we fight them, we have to kill them. Then, the neighbors can feel safe, and life may go on, even get better.

I'm particularly skeptical of Maliki and his government. I doubt they have the balls to fight to protect anything but their own asses. They know that someday we'll leave, and that they'll be left to live with the people we're telling them to fight. Yet, for once, their asses will be on the line, for real. If this strategy fails, the US will withdraw, and they're either dead men walking, or selling pizzas in Bulgaria. It's possible that such a choice will concentrate their minds, and upon this possibility rides the whole enterprise. Perhaps that's what's "new" in the equation. We'll see.

Finally, I'm skeptical about the role of Iran and Syria. Both are serious players in this melodrama, and unless we're going to do something about and to those bad-boys, the Baghdad Plan may not come to much. Pacify one area, while Iran and Syria undermine another, and what's the net gain? I found President Bush's recognition of their role to be thin gruel, unless he's just being cagey about a real plan....maybe he is. One hopes, still.

In any case, the question for us is whether to hold or fold. The consequences of failure are so great that I see no choice but to fight. I hope we fight hard, no holds barred, no enemy to be safe from our soldiers....no tolerance. Go back a few posts in this blog and read what Ralph Peters suggested. Then let's kick ass.

I'm reminded of the punchline of the joke about Freddie the Oral Sex Frog. "Dammit Freddie, I'm gonna show you just one last time."

Mad Mahmoud The Iranian is coming to visit Hugh the Chavez, over here on our side of the ocean. Just what do you think they'll talk about? What the girls wear under the burqua? Maybe killing infidel yanquis? Maybe porous Southern US borders?

We must prepare for that, and start now.

ADDENDUM: The Morning After.

My guru...Ralph Peters... has his morning's take on where we are now. Not surprising, it's basically the same as mine, above, but more informed and therefore better. Click here ...please read the whole thing. Here are some fragments

Will the plan work? Maybe. It's a last-hope effort based on steps that should've been taken in 2003...Given that we're now committed to a strategy of sending more troops, a larger increase of the sort proposed by Sen. John McCain would make more sense....the number feels like another compromise measure for an administration and country still unwilling to accept that we're really at war.

... should we support the president's plan? Yes. The stakes are too high to do otherwise - the president's right about that. Iraq deserves one last chance. And I say that as a former soldier well aware of the casualties ahead.

Ultimately, it's the Iraqis, not the additional American soldiers and Marines, who'll decide Iraq's future. And the acid test will be their government's handling of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

Paradoxically, a burst of fighting would be a positive sign, indicating that Maliki meant yesterday's disarmament ultimatum to Muqtada's militia. But if the Mahdi Army just goes to ground and the prime minister claims that - poof! - it's no longer a threat, it will mean that he cut another deal with Muqtada. ...If we and the Iraqis try to avoid Sadr City's challenges, you'll know the entire effort's a hollow sham.

There are no guarantees that this plan will work, but it deserves a chance. Surrender isn't a strategy, and cowardice won't save us from the deadly threats we face

.

IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, AGAIN

The Thing Speaks For Itself.

Our team is losing its verve and drive. The enemy puts up a strong defense, and we seem not to be able to put them away. They threaten with an occasional first down. The fans are restless. With widened eyes and loosened bowels, they cry "We're Lost...We're Lost...Omigod, I'll miss my ExtremeChocoDecafNofatLatte if I hear anymore of this, you know, bad shit...We're Lost."

The Coach sends in a new quarterback, and changes the playing strategy. We're now killing the bastards in Somalia, and Afghanistan, and in Iraq we're finally fighting back, hard... The Los Angeles Times reports:

In fierce, daylong fighting Tuesday, 1,000 American and Iraqi troops assisted by U.S. attack helicopters and warplanes battled gunmen in a Sunni Arab neighborhood of downtown Baghdad, killing at least 51 suspected militants, Iraqi officials said.

The offensive, which resulted in the heaviest fighting in the capital in months, came in response to a buildup of insurgents in the Haifa Street neighborhood next to the highly fortified Green Zone government complex. Sunni gunmen had erected fake checkpoints in recent days, residents said, in one case pulling passengers from a minibus, killing them and stringing their bodies from utility poles.

The Democrats scream "Quit. Quit. Quit." Opinion polls say more than half of all Americans agree.

How very sad for America.

The President talks to the Nation tonight. We're at a tipping point of history. Stay tuned, sports fans. But first, somebody, please...send out for panty-hose for the panty-waists our country.

THEIR SILENCE IS DEAFENING

Art Bolz sent this along....it says what most of us feel, and so clearly that it needs wiider distribution. Tomorrow, the President will try again to rally the country to prevail in the Iraq battlefield of WW4, and it's by no means clear that our people will support the concept of Victory abroad. In the meantime, this airline pilot addresses the concept of Victory at home. Sooner or later, there will be answers to his questions, which I hope won't come too late for America.

YOU WORRY ME!
By American Airlines Pilot - Captain John Maniscalco

"I've been trying to say this since 9-11 but you worry me. I wish you didn't. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But ...I notice you, and it worries me.

I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your homelands, professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully understand their grievances and hate but I know that nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks.

On September 11, nineteen ARAB-MUSLIMS hijacked four jetliners in my country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes and crashed them into buildings killing thousands of proud fathers, loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends, favorite coaches, fearless public servants, and children's mothers.

The Palestinians Celebrated, The Iraqis were overjoyed as was most of the Arab world. So I notice you now. I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same rage and hate and prejudice that has destroyed the soul of these terrorists. But I need your help. As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to tell the difference between you, and the Arab/Muslim terrorist.

How do I differentiate between the true Arab/Muslim-Americans and the Arab/Muslims in our communities ...under the protection of OUR constitution, while they plot the next attack that will slaughter these good neighbors and children? The events of September 11th changed the answer. It is not my responsibility to determine which of you embraces our great country, with ALL of its religions, with ALL of its different citizens, with all of its faults. It is time for every Arab/Muslim in this country to determine it for me.

I want to know, I demand to know, and I have a right to know whether or not you love America . Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you proudly display it in front of your house, or on your car? Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this nation, that He will protect and prosper it? Or do you pray that Allah with destroy it in one of your "Jihads"? Are you thankful for the freedom that only this nation affords? A freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots who gave their lives for this country? Are you willing to preserve this freedom by paying the ultimate sacrifice? Do you love America ? If this is your commitment, then I need YOU to start letting ME know about it.

Your Muslim leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at this time with hard facts on your faith, and what hard actions you are taking as a community and as a religion to protect the United States of America Please, no more benign overtures of regret for the death of the innocent because I worry about who you regard as innocent. No more benign overtures of condemnation for the unprovoked attacks because I worry about what is unprovoked to you. I am not interested in any more sympathy. I am only interested in action. What will you do for America - our great country -- at this time of crisis, at this time of war?

I want to see Arab-Muslims waving the AMERICAN flag in the streets. I want to hear you chanting "Allah Bless America " I want to see young Arab/Muslim men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment of money, time, and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to this nation as a whole. The FBI has a list of over 400 people they want to talk to regarding the WTC attack. Many of these people live and socialize in Muslim communities. You know them. You know where they are. Hand them over to us, now! But I have seen little even approaching this sort of action. Instead I have seen an already closed and secretive community close even tighter. You have disappeared from the streets.

...The very few Arab/Muslim representatives that HAVE appeared in the media were defensive and equivocating. They seemed more concerned with making sure that the United States proves who was responsible before taking action. They seemed more concerned with protecting their fellow Muslims from violence directed towards them in the United States and abroad than they did with supporting our country and denouncing "leaders" like Khadafi, Hussein, Farrakhan, and Arafat.

If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace and love for all people then I want chapter and verse from the Koran and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up. What good is it if the teachings in the Koran are good and pure and true when your "leaders" are teaching fanatical interpretations, terrorism, and intolerance?

It matters little how good Islam SHOULD BE if large numbers of the world's Muslims interpret the teachings of Mohammed incorrectly and adhere to a degenerative form of the religion. ... A form whose structure is built upon a foundation of violence, death, and suicide. A form whose members are recruited from the prisons around the world. A form whose members (some as young as five years old) are seen day after day....marching in the streets around the world, burning effigies of our presidents, burning the American flag, shooting weapons into the air. A form whose members convert from a peaceful religion, only to take up arms against the great United States of America, the country of their birth. A form whose rules are so twisted, that their traveling members refuse to show their faces at airport security checkpoints, in the name of Islam.

...And if you and your fellow Muslims hate us, then why in the world are you even here? Are you here to take our money? Are you here to undermine our peace and stability? Are you here to destroy us? If so, I want you to leave. I want you to go back to your desert sandpit where women are treated like rats and dogs. I want you to take your religion, your friends, and your family back to your Islamic extremists, and STAY THERE! We will NEVER give in to your influence, your retarded mentality, your twisted, violent, intolerant religion.

We will NEVER allow the attacks of September 11, or any others for that matter, to take away that which is so precious to us: Our rights under the greatest constitution in the world. I want to know where every Arab Muslim in this country stands and I think it is my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. ...I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here as my brother , my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American. But there can be no gray areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance and it is up to YOU, to show ME, where YOU stand." "Until then .. you worry me"

Anybody who doesn't understand my comment about WW4, or who misunderstands the nature of this conflict in historical terms needs to read this article (Click Here.). I'll not quote it in detail....it's very long, but very significant. Its significance is that it is contemporary, written in America by a "scholar" who holds the Ph.D "in science," and from Google, is widely published here...in YOUR country. I suspect he'd be considered a "good" Muslim by the multiculturalists and relativists among us. Just another Child of Abraham.

A single quote from the final paragraph will suffice:

"Striking at the heart of the infidels' great symbols of power, pride and piety has been a ceaseless legacy of Islam since its inception. The United States of America is not only a great infidel power, similar to the Persian and the Byzantine empires of the time of Prophet Muhammad, but also, in alliance with the vile Jews and Israel, constitutes the greatest enemy of Islam in today's world. The destruction of America's symbol of pride and power, the Word Trade Center, by Osama bin Laden falls perfectly into the iconoclastic scheme set forth by the Prophet of Islam in the early 7 th century. Hence, the falling WTC towers of New York is not at all alien to Islam but is a part and parcel of Islam's iconoclastic legacy. And definitely, this is not the last."

Read it and weep.

But lest we take this man at his word....it's Infidel America that Islam defies....consider this from CBC.

The Chinese government said Monday that it killed 18 people in a raid on a terrorist training camp in the Muslim northwest of the country.

Security forces said one police officer was also killed in a lengthy gun battle on Friday, and 17 people were captured. Several others escaped, state media reported.

Government forces raided the camp in southern Xinjiang, China's largest province. It borders Pakistan, and is home to an estimated 10 million Muslims.

The Chinese Security Department said the camp was run by a group called the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM). The group has been labelled a terrorist organization by both China and the United States.
Chinese officials said al-Qaeda has helped ETIM train at least 1,000 Chinese Muslims who want to use violence to destabilize the region and to create a separate country for China's Muslims

This war is NOT just about GWB and America; it's everywhere Islam abuts upon another culture. The "Bloody Borders of Islam" are part of the same ancient tradition that the "scholar" so calmly describes....There's not an American in sight in Xinjiang.

Nor will being a kiss-ass enabler and panderer protect you.

"ISLAMIST GROUP URGES ALGERIANS TO TARGET FRENCH"

It's WW4, and coming to a neighborhood near you and me, again. "And definitely, this is not the last."

HOTEL RWANDA

A bit of diversion from Iraq, or American policy. Those comments will come when the President makes up his mind and discusses it with the rest of us.

Today's rant is about Rwanda. And our friends, the French Government.

It seems that there's another major issue not discussed at all in the US "Press." Here's a link to the London Times articles on French involvement and culpability for the genocide in Rwanda, for which former President Clinton has already apologised as we did nothing about it. Read the whole thing, and follow the links on the right side of the page to see this as it developed, and was reported in Europe.

Well, it seems that over several months....silence from our opinion minders in the US media....trials have been going on in Rwanda which have revealed that the Mitterand government of France assisted in the genocide of Hutus against Tutsis; a horrible event in which an estimated million people were murdered over a couple of months....many hacked to death by machete wielding mobs of "soldiers."

In April 1994 the French Embassy became the setting for the formation of the extremist Hutu Government that was to organise and carry out the meticulously planned genocide of the Tutsis. Witnesses spoke of these ministers, many now facing life imprisonment for crimes against humanity, sitting in plush embassy chairs comparing notes on where the killing was going best. Their host, the French Ambassador, later helped to evacuate those extremists to Paris, away from the apocalypse they had created. The ambassador then made a bonfire of two rooms piled high with documents linking his Government with that of the Hutu dictatorship of Juvénal Habyarimana.

If you saw the movie, you saw the effect and the impotence of the U.N. "peacekeepers." What you didn't see is detailed in the Times Online article. What you haven't heard is that the current Rwandan government has expelled all French interests in the country and broken diplomatic relations with France over the clearly revealed French responsibility.

We'll see where this goes....perhaps it's all a hoax....perhaps there's no culpability...but I'd not put money on it. The French have acted brutally in Africa before, and sometimes have been caught doing it. I've previously sent out video of French troops killing unarmed civilians in their former colony Ivory Coast. We've seen this and know it is true....so I'm inclined to believe the Rwandans.

Remember this the next time you feel inclined to accept blame, for anything, assigned by France or the "United Nations"....those eminent humanitarians and good-fellow true believers.

For what it's worth, here's a comment from a British-Libertarian kind of blog that adds a twist to the story, which they also picked up.

I cannot escape the suspicion that if somehow, however tangentially, the USA was involved then articles about Rwanda would be a far more common thing in the media. That said, I have no doubt that someone, somewhere has concocted a conspiracy theory that it was the CIA, rather than France, who was backing the Bad Guys in 1994, supplying the Interahamwe with machetes from a secret Halliburton machete factory in somewhere in Texas.

That's cool. Irony Lives On. Somebody "gets it."

GO WIDE

Support for "The Plan" gets to the Mainstream.

I hear that "Real Clear Politics" is read by our overlords, and here's an idea for them to consider. " Go Wide." As in "The Plan."

"An internal Pentagon review of the war, requested by Bush as part of his attempt to sidestep the Iraq Study Group, has considered three options: "go big," "go long," or "go home." Going big means dramatically increasing the number of US combat troops in Iraq, giving us the ability to further subdue Sunni areas like the Anbar Province and enabling us to crack down on the Shiite militias who are stoking Iraq's sectarian conflict. Going long means committing more resources to the long-term process of training Iraqi forces and building the stability of the Iraqi government. Going home means withdrawing US troops.

We all know Bush isn't going to accept the third option. America is not going to go home. Going long might be a nice aspiration, but Bush has only two years left in office. He has no idea who his successor will be and what he (or she) will do. If he wants to succeed in Iraq, he has to do something now. So we can expect President Bush to go big, ordering a "surge" in US combat troops in Iraq.

But there is another, far more effective option: go wide.

Going wide means recognizing that Iraq is just one front in a regional war against an Islamist Axis centered in Iran--and we cannot win that war without confronting the enemy directly, outside of Iraq."
Going wide means recognizing that the conflict in Iraq is fueled and magnified by the intervention of Iran and Syria. One of the reasons the Iraq Study Group report flopped was that its key recommendation--its one unique idea--was for America to negotiate with Iran and Syria in order to convince these countries to aid in the "stabilization" of Iraq. This proposal wasn't so much argued to death as it was laughed to death, because it is clear that Iran and Syria have done everything they can to de-stabilize Iraq, supporting both sides of the sectarian conflict there.
...Going wide also means recognizing that more is at stake in this war than just the fate of Iraq. This is a war to determine who and what will dominate the Middle East. Will this vital region be dominated by a nuclear-armed Iran, working to spread Islamic fascism? Or will America be able to exert its military influence and political ideals in the region?

...The fact is that we are fighting the wrong war in the wrong place--though not in the way critics of that war complain. We are trying to fight a regional war by limiting ourselves to a local conflict--and we are fighting that war in Baghdad, when it has its source in Damascus and Tehran.

There is only one way to correct this massive strategic blunder--and that is to go wide."

Oh, and by the way, ABC reports that among the dead Somali Al Quaeda "fighters" killed by the Ethiopian troops, were several with American passports.
This is a worldwide war, for now being fought mostly in one region, but if our "good American Muslims" are fighting for Al Quaeda in Somalia, perhaps they're not really "good." Eh?

This war is already "wide." We're going to have to fight it that way.

VDH HITS THE LONG BALL

My superpatriotic, hyperjingoistic, warmongering website has plenty of my thoughts, and if you care, read the past dates' postings. (I've chosen Yellow...as in Yellow Journalism....to delineate my writing). But there's a discussion going on "out there" that you'll not hear in the so-called Press....and from time to time I quote some of it at length.

Here's a too-long-to-post piece from the military historian and classicist, Victor Davis Hansen, which ought to be read in its entirety....but he finishes this way. Read the whole thing.

"At some point it would be stunning for a US military official to step forward, and assure victory. No more acrimony over what should have, could have or might have been. No more retired generals talking to reporters at midnight “off the record”, or appearing as “unnamed senior military official” in the footnotes of the latest journalistic expose about Iraq. No more complaints about had Paul Bremmer not, had Donald Rumsfeld not, had Tommy Franks not, but rather something instead like: “Here is how we are going to defeat the jihadists”.

Most Americans do not want to hear any more suggestions from the Iraqi Study Group, anymore meae culpae from John Kerry or Hillary Clinton about how they were brainwashed by faulty intelligence, or any more assessments of the war from moralists and geniuses like Donald Trump and Bill Maher.

Instead, we need to hear from the very top echelon of the American military, that despite all the roadblocks put in their way, and the difficulty of the present task (it isn’t easy to secure a democracy in the heart of the ancient caliphate surrounded by Khomeinist Iran, Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, and Baathist Syria), that they will defeat these insurgents—and here’s how they plan to do it.

Somewhere in the US military right now is a Grant, Sherman, Patton, Ridgeway, or Abrams, who has been shouting and we haven’t been listening. Now is the time to let them come forward—as they have always arisen from obscurity in past American wars when their nation’s hour of need has come."

I nominate General Kickass'n Takenames, from the Ethiopian Army.

WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND

A month and a half ago I pointed out that the Dems would come apart over the conflict between governing responsibly and their fealty to their lunatic base. Now it's come true, again. What goes around comes around.

House Democrats tried to unveil their lobbying reform package today, but their press conference was drowned out by chants from anti-war activists who want Congress to stop funding the Iraq war before taking on other issues.

Led by Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a slain soldier, the protesters chanted "De-escalate, investigate, troops home now" as Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., began outlining the Democrats' plans to ban lobbyist-funded travel and institute other ethics reforms. The press conference was held in the Cannon House Office Building in an area open to the public.

Emanuel finally gave up trying to be heard over the chants, and retreated to a caucus room where Democrats were meeting.

Sheehan says she has nothing against lobbying reform, but she and her fellow anti-war activists want Democrats to know they will keep pressuring Congress to end the war in Iraq.

"We wanted the Democrats to know they're back in power because of the grass roots," Sheehan says.

The anti-war activists held their own Capitol Hill press conference earlier in the day before deciding to attend the lobbying reform press conference as well.

Before the chanting started, Sheehan got a hug from Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

This is a. Funny, b. Disgusting, c. Disastrous for the country, or d. All the above.

SPOILED BRATS

Just back from extended travels to our grandchildren, and I'm less inclined to blog than to revel in the good fortune that's become normal for me and my family.

But, friend Rob Rankin sent this along...it arrived with the normal blizzard of New Years and Christmas emails...and it makes a lot of sense. I don't know who wrote it. I even disagree, mildly, with some of it. But, as the New Year becomes the Now Year, it's worth remembering what we've got and reminding ourselves of what we're in danger, as a people, of becoming.

The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across
some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given
the source, right? The same magazine that employs Michael (Qurans in the toilets at Gitmo) Isikoff. Here I promised myself this week I would be nice and I start off in this way.

The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3 of the citizenry just ain’t happy and want a change.

So being the knuckle dragger I am, I starting thinking, “What we are so unhappy about?” Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter ? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state ? Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all involved. Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home , you may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of having a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes; an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don’t have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn’t have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a “general” discharge, an “other than honorable” discharge or, worst case scenario, a “dishonorable” discharge after a few days in the brig.

So why then the flat out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news . Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells. Just ask why they were going to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book and do a TV special about how he didn’t kill his wife but if he did, insane!

Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country . There is exponentially more good than bad.

I close with one of my favorite quotes from B.C. Forbes in 1953:

“What have Americans to be thankful for? More than any other people on the earth, we enjoy complete religious freedom, political freedom, social freedom. Our liberties are sacredly safeguarded by
the Constitution of the United States, the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man. Yes, we Americans of today have been bequeathed a noble heritage. Let us pray that we may hand it down unsullied to our children and theirs.”

I suggest we sit back and count our blessings for all we have. If we don’t, what we have will be taken away. Then we will have to explain to future generations why we squandered such blessing and abundance. If we are not careful this generation will be known as the “greediest and most ungrateful generation.’ A far cry from the proud Americans of the “greatest generation” who left us an untarnished legacy.

I'm not going to dissect all this critically, but it's quoted for the general common sense of it all.

Spoiled brats doesn't really cover it. Try, "crybaby pussies who've paid nothing for a world made for us by better men than we..."

Maybe we should start over: "No whining. No excuses. No prisoners."

Argue with me later, or make a comment.