Patriot's Points

TOO EARLY, FOR SURE, BUT MAYBE?

2007-02-17T17:59:00.000-05:00

The "surge" just started....and as the politicos, safe in D.C. soil their underwear in fear....here's a report from a blogger in Baghdad. Read it, since you'll not find this in your local newspaper.

Since the multiple bombings in Shroja market district on the 12th, Baghdad hasn’t seen any major attacks and there’s a tangible decrease in all kinds of attacks.

Not only official statements say so (Defense ministry officials said today that attacks are down by 80% in Baghdad). It’s a reality I live in nowadays, at least in my neighborhood and its surroundings. It is also what I hear from friends and relatives in other parts of the city. We are hearing fewer explosions and less gunfire now than two weeks ago and that, in Baghdad, qualifies as quiet.

I agree with what some experts say about this lull in violence being the result of militants keeping their heads down for a while. It is also possibly the result of the flight of the commanders of militant groups. Grunts left without planners, money or leaders wouldn’t want to do much on their own.

During my tour in Baghdad today I had to pull over to be searched at several checkpoints — something that has rarely happened to me before. When you are searched soldiers or policemen check the identity cards of passengers, and the registration papers of the vehicle along with a thorough physical search. Checkpoints deal even more strictly with large vans and cargo trucks.

The interesting thing about new checkpoints is the constant shifting of their location. One hour the checkpoint would be here and two hours later it would relocate to another position within the area. I think this helps security forces avoid becoming targets instead of hunters. In addition to soldiers and policemen, most checkpoints have one or more traffic policemen reportedly being equipped with laptops that enable them to flag suspected vehicles by offering instant access to vehicle-registration databases.

Side by side with new security efforts is a campaign to clean and redecorate many streets, circles and parks in Baghdad. New trees are planted and damaged street medians and sidewalks are being refurbished. This offers a small yet much needed breeze of hope and normalcy to the traumatized city.

The most significant and encouraging development is certainly this report from al-Sabah:
Brigadier Qasim Ata, an authorized Baghdad Operation spokesman, told al-Sabah that for the 3rd day in a row dozens of displaced families are returning to their homes. 35 families returned in Madain, 7 in hay al-I’ilam and small numbers of families in various districts of Baghdad.
Later reports in the local media indicate that the total number of families that returned home is as high as 130 families across the city, including several families in the, until recently, hopelessly violent district of Hay al-Adl.

The report adds that Maliki ordered that the Bab al-Muadam and al-Shuhada bridges on the Tigris be reopened to traffic next week. This decision came in response to the “notable increase in traffic activity which in turn is a result of the growing feeling of safety”.
Confirming what we said earlier about the recovery of civilian activity, the spokesman said “most stores in the Alawi al-Hilla districts have reopened after times when this area was a scene for repeated terrorist attacks”.

As the effort continues in Baghdad, four other provinces are launching simultaneous plans to support operation ‘Imposing the Law’. Officials in the provinces of Diwaniya, Salahaddin, Wasit and Babil announced that the security forces are implementing a security plan to support and empower the ongoing operation in Baghdad, and to deal with the threat of possible infiltration by terrorists coming from Baghdad.

The progress made so far invites hope and optimism, but it’s still too early to celebrate. Terrorists will keep trying to carry out attacks similar to those in Sadriya or Shorja. They want sow as much death and destruction as they can in order to shake the people’s confidence in the security plan. Such criminals attacks are still quite possible in Baghdad, but even if happen we must not let that stop us from pursuing the objectives of our efforts to stop the death and deterioration, to turn the tide and make progress.

If this holds, there's hope. There's no doubt...absolutely none...that the terrorists will try to counter this. But it sounds like there's a real strategy for helping those miserable people, and this man, at the least, has hope. Which is better than a pants load of one's own shit, Mr. Murtha.

TWO FACED

2007-02-17T10:17:00.001-05:00

One of the most literate and beautifully artistic blogs to be found on the Net is "All Things Beautiful." It deserves a daily read. Today she's nailed it down tight.

This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle.

...Only last week did the Senate unanimously confirm General Petraeus as the top U.S. commander in Iraq, full well knowing that his appointment "marks the real start of the new US strategy in Iraq, but is also seen as a last chance to turn things around".

And the new US strategy is what? Is it just more troops -- 21,500 extra U.S. troops, to be precise? Does it mean, that these extra "troops are now going to run out and look for gun battles with insurgents in back alleys", as critics immediately after the President's State of the Union address had us believe?

Of course not....When both Democratic and Republican Senators unanimously confirmed General Petraeus, they knew that "it will mark the start of an historic turn in military strategy in Iraq and perhaps in U.S. war-fighting doctrine".

What was done yesterday by the US Congress....nearly all the Dems and a handful of loose boweled Reps...was simply beyond forgiveness.

The abandonment of the Army in the field by repudiation of the Commander whom they just ordered to battle, with his newly approved plan, is not to be forgotten. These cowards will embolden our enemies, frighten those friends we have left, and make the world incomparably more dangerous.

Their strategy, a "slow bleed" of the Army's ability to fight....a tactic that will create another Somalia...is too bizarre to account for in a rational world. Either de-fund the war, and end it now, or support our men and women in the field.

Even today’s Washington Post gets it.

Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.

Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?

It would be nice to believe that Mr. Murtha does not represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party or the thinking of its leadership. Yet when asked about Mr. Murtha's remarks Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered her support. Does Ms. Pelosi really believe that the debate she orchestrated this week was not "the real vote"? If the answer is yes, she is maneuvering her party in a way that can only do it harm.

"Slow bleed" is what enemies would do to our country, but that is what the Dems have become.

It’s unfortunate that the Washington Post is more concerned for the harm to the Dems than the harm to America, but the infamous bastards will deserve what they get. Let's hope they get what they deserve.

There are still those who attribute all this to heartfelt differences of opinion and interpretations of patriotism. Today Senator Lieberman called for "reasoning together," and fears a constitutional crisis. Fat Chance, Joe.

Personally I cannot support a benign view any longer. These maneuvers look like cynical actions which provide aid and comfort to our enemies in time of war. It looks like treason.

There is another possibility. And I'm not intending to be facetious here....but it's possible that our Overlords, as a class, are simply unbelievably stupid. I've previously referred to the doltish comments of Boy-John Edwards. Could it be...could it be that MOST of them are just too dumb to do anything else?

UPDATE: Readers of this blog are familiar with Ralph Peters. I just came upon his opinion of all this.

February 17, 2007 -- PROVIDING aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It's not "just politics." It's
And signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win isn't "supporting our troops."
The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.
The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.
The message Congress just sent to them all was, "Hold on, we'll stop the surge, we're going to leave - and you can slaughter the innocent with our blessing."
We've reached a low point in the history of our government when a substantial number of legislators would welcome an American defeat in Iraq for domestic political advantage.
This troop surge might not work. We can't know yet. But we can be damned sure that the shameful action taken on the Hill while our troops are fighting isn't going to help.
And a word about those troops: It's going to come as a shock to the massive egos in Congress, but this resolution won't hurt morale - for the simple reason that our men and women in uniform have such low expectations of our politicians that they'll shrug this off as business as usual.
This resolution has teeth, though: It's going to bite our combat commanders. By undermining their credibility and shaking the trust of their Iraqi counterparts, it makes it far tougher to build the alliances that might give Iraq a chance.
If you were an Iraqi, would you be willing to trust Americans and risk your life after the United States Congress voted to abandon you?

We've come to the point where there's simply nothing more to be said. I'm beyond discussing this again.

METAPHORICAL GUN CONTROL

2007-02-16T10:09:00.000-05:00

Here’s a piece from the London Telegraph that’s extremely interesting, and revealing. "Gun laws that constrain the law-abiding"

The article itself is “ordinary” stuff….by now everyone has made this point before….but the comments are unusually revealing…and extremely extensive. Be sure to read them. They reveal a depth of anger, of racial animosity, of resentment and cynicism in England that we don’t know about, as a general rule. I heard a touch of this in our upper class hotel and conversations during our last trip to London, but even I, NRA Card Carryin’ GunTotin’ Master Cynic, am surprised at the depth, the texture, the complexity of this…..and most important, the sense for the English that this “gun issue” is part of a larger fabric of social disarray that’s out of control.

“We now live in a society of repression & fear that has come about. For example, privacy invasions in order to ensure you pay the maximum council tax, in the form of nosy snoopers having obligatory access to our homes. Don't speed or you will be punished, recycle or you will be punished, no smoking or you will be punished. I ask you, cigarette police!!! This oppressive new regime has slithered into our lives slowly enough to be barely acknowledged. All the while, the only section of society which has been left to thrive is the criminals. Would zero tolerance not be a logical step for this overbearing government?”

We have the same issues here, but in a less advanced state, so far. There’s a clear warning to us by several of the writers in this thread….but it may already be too late, as it seems it is too late for the Brits.

Imagine the convulsive social breakdown as these angry people find no legal way to “fight back” and then turn to the illegal ways. Consider large groups of alienated people in multiple camps….with no political will in Government nor consensus….followed by breakdown of police authority and capacity to deal with civil disobedience and unrest. How far away is that scenario from what’s felt in these comments?

Imagine a Western Civilization with a dysfunctional England AND America, and weep for that reality.

TOADY ALERT, UPDATED

2007-02-13T11:59:00.000-05:00

I've previously commented on Johnny Edwards Really Fine Blog Adventure. It's not very important, really, except that it revealed the nature of the man. That nature is, ugh! blech! stinks! and worse. He fired Amanda, then he didn't fire her, then she quit, and now she's gone. What's revealed is just how powerful the lunatics of the Dems are within that conglomeration, and how frightened of them Little Johnny must be. Here's what another blogger has to say.

As for Edwards, he looks irredeemably pathetic. There’s a simple reason for this - he is irredeemably pathetic. He hired someone who had no business being legitimated by a mainstream political campaign. He then bowed to pressure and fired her. He then bowed to pressure again and unfired her. And then he left the stage to let her resign. In the wake of all these stumbles and pratfalls, he looks like a careless fool. He also may have alienated the Fightin’ Nutroots to boot. Well played!

Imagine this pathetic wimp in control of The Nuclear Football.

MICHAEL YON REPORTS IN

2007-02-11T07:54:00.000-05:00

Michael Yon sent this email today.

I was present today in Baghdad for the Transfer of Authority. Godspeed to the Coalition and to the people of Iraq. General David Petraeus is now running the war in Iraq. Anyone who knows much about the General might agree that David Petraeus seems to have been born and raised to win this particular war.

Frankly, the odds seem nearly impossible. Iraq is broiling and it's getting worse. Yet, there are glimmers of hope, and I see those glimmers with my own eyes here in Iraq. But make no mistake: America has asked David Petraeus to walk into a burning barn and perform brain surgery on a dying patient. If it can be done, David Petraeus is our man.

A new dispatch, Roughnecks, is available now. It contains some combat video shot from above. The previous dispatch, Hands of God, has an audio clip that was heavily downloaded for many days, making it slow to access for some visitors. For those who haven't had the chance to listen to it yet, there is a link built into the dispatch name above.

No one can predict the outcome of events here, especially those who have never set foot on Iraqi soil. But, given how vital the outcome is to our national interest, it is imperative that someone be reporting from the ground.

Michael Yon is an interesting man. Raised in Central Florida, he joined the Army, then Special Forces, then after the Army, became one of the first long term imbedded observers with the Duece Four in Mosul the first time. His early dispatches will become "classics." He's not a "journalist" in that NOBODY pays him except us....me, a lot of other guys, and you, if you'll help. He went on his own nickel, and then asked for support. Read his website and his past dispatches to see what I mean...then send him a few bucks to keep him there. the guy deserves it. If you're interested, read his autobiography, Danger Close. If you have my copy, please return it.

In "Roughnecks" there's a paragraph describing his refusal to take a pistol for self protection from a soldier who offered his..."against the rules," he said. What isn't said is that Yon got in serious trouble the first time when he picked up a rifle and fought in a deadly firefight which resulted in several American casualties. Serious trouble....he's an observer, not a fighter...and that's why her refused it here. Long term readers will recognize that, but unless you follow him, you can't realize how serious his work is, and how much jeopardy he's in along with our soldiers, who can fight back.

This, alone, differentiates Michael Yon from the "journalists" of the Green Zone, who's greatest risk is getting into Baghdad on an airplane, and they're fewer and farther between than ever. This also gives the lie to the "work" of William Arkin who was quoted several posts ago in Patriots Points. Only a damn fool cannot recognize his lies through the reports of Michael Yon.

Follow it over time. (And pay for it; find the payment mechanism on his Home Page). It's the only way you'll really know what goes on; good, bad, tragic, comic, victorious or defeated. If you think you're getting "reporting" from the kind of media that consider Arkin a "military analyst," you're wasting your time at Patriot's Points...and AMF.

MEA CULPA

2007-02-07T10:55:00.000-05:00

I've said in the past that the US Muslim "community" response to America's need to win the War on Terror was characterized by a deafening silence. Fairness requires clarification, when someone speaks up.

Today's WSJ carries an article by an Arab-American (I'll feel a LOT better when we don't consider ourselves hyphenated-Americans) who speaks reasonably...about a subject lots of us consider really, really important...

GO, JACK BAUER...BAUER POWER...JACK IS BACK...BAUER FOR PRESIDENT!

I am an Arab-American as well as a fan of "24." The two things are not mutually exclusive, despite what the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other such groups have to say about this season's opening episodes possibly increasing anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice in American society.
Most of the terrorists represented in "24" through the years have been Arab Muslims. Why? Well, probably because most terrorists today are, in fact, Arab Muslims. As a descendant of Syrian Muslims, I am very well aware that the majority of Muslims world-wide are peaceful, hard working, and law abiding. That still does not change the fact that the greatest terrorist threat to the U.S. today comes not from the ETA, the IRA, etc., but from one group: Islamic terrorists.
...There is a dangerous trend in the U.S. today that involves skirting the truth at the risk of offending any individual or group. When Bill Cosby talks to African-Americans about self-respect and responsibility, and says publicly what many have been saying privately for years, he's branded a "reactionary," "misinformed," "judgmental," and so on. When "24" confronts America's worst fears about al Qaeda--whose goal remains to kill as many Americans as possible whenever possible--the show is said to be guilty of fueling anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice.
Well, here's the hard, cold truth: When Islamic terrorists stop being a threat to America's survival, viewers will lose interest in "24," because it will have lost its relevancy.

That said, I would certainly welcome more characters in movies, TV programs and novels who reflect the overall Arab-American experience. Truth is, most of us don't have bomb-making skills or a desire to become human missiles. And there are Muslim and Arab-American CTU heroes out there, as well as doctors, superdads, women scientists, etc.

...In the meantime, the next time a journalist decides to report on Arab-American concerns about shows like "24," maybe he could actually talk to someone other than CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and seek out Arab-Americans with a different point of view. We actually do exist.

And maybe that same reporter could take a closer look at CAIR. Ask CAIR about the Holy Land Foundation and its support of Hamas. Ask it about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the CAIR board member who was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in that case--yet still sits on CAIR's board. Look a little closer, and maybe you'll find that CAIR has good reason to get nervous about shows like "24."

Ahmeen, brother.

TOADIES AND FOOLS

2007-02-06T22:15:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I posted a piece on John Edwards that said he's dangerous, not because he's a Dem, but because he's a dolt.

But wait! There's more! Call now and I'll throw in the Big Enchilada.

It was Super Bowl Sunday and I wasn't paying attention, but I remember surfing past Tim Russert's program briefly and just before I got hold of the remote to stifle him, there for my wondering eyes to see was...yes, John Edwards. I couldn't believe what I thought I heard, and clicked it to blessed off. Today, there's time to check, and here's what I remember.

MR. RUSSERT: Why were you so wrong?

SEN. EDWARDS: For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know, we—the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment. ...

MR. RUSSERT: But it seems as if, as a member of the intelligence committee, you just got it dead wrong, and that you even ignored some caveats and ignored people who were urging caution.

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, I, I, I would—first of all, I don’t want to defend this. Let me be really clear about this. I think anybody who wants to be president of the United States has got to be honest and open, (No shit, Sherlock...he actually said that) and be willing to admit when they’ve done things wrong. One of the things, unfortunately, that’s happened in Iraq is we’ve had a president who was completely unmoving, wouldn’t change course, wouldn’t take any responsibility or admit that he’d made any mistakes. And I think America, in fact the world has paid a huge price for that. So I accept my responsibility. I’m not defending what I did. Because what happened was the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials...

It's fun watching a Trial Lawyer being cross examined...read the transcript...but what he said is that his "error" in voting for war in Iraq was because 1) he checked with former President Clinton's people and 2) he heard the testimony by the intelligence experts before the Intelligence Committee of the US Senate and found, 3) that they were essentially the same.

Anybody who's been awake for the past 8 years knows that it was believed by the Clintons that Iraq had WMD, and it was admitted that he had used them. It was the policy of the Clinton Administration to work for "regime change' as a consequence. "Regime change" was their terminology. Most of the famous UN resolutions and sanctions were applied as a result of Clinton's efforts. That they didn't work, and that the UN Oil for Thieves scam actually funded Saddam's machinations is what led directly to the next Administration carrying the policy to war, an event based on the same information as the Clintonistas had, including a clear statement from Clinton's holdover CIA Chief who characterized the data as "a slam dunk."

Despite this, for the past five years there's been a constant campaign of lies and deceptions...denials of the obvious and more lies that the Bush Administration mislead the country...they took us to war for Oil, for Halliburton, for revenge for the attempted assassination of Daddy Bush, and because The Shrub was too stupid to know what the literati knew all along....that there was never anything to worry about.

Talk of Impeachment. Movies and books talking of Assassination of G.W. Bush. Talk of elimination of the Electoral College...US Constitution be damned. Hysteria and a virtual abandonment of any sense of comity in the governance of our country...and virtual paralysis of the Congress...the War on Terror hamstrung, and for what? For nothing less than revenge and hatred over the loss of the 2000 election.

And now, in the heat of another election campaign, Mr. John Edwards, he of the two Americas...dissembler, liar and airhead to the stars... admits that everyone, including the Dems who so strongly supported the war, was wrong on Iraqi WMDs...based on the same bad information that long preceded George Bush, and which had misinformed two successive US administrations.

Mr. Edwards has made the case, not only that he dishonors America and is a craven toady and fool, but that he is joined by the now vast majority of his political party. Sad. Sad. Sad.

NOT SERIOUS

2007-02-06T05:58:00.000-05:00

CNN reports: Iraqi lawmaker is U.S. Embassy bomber

A man sentenced to death in Kuwait for the 1983 bombings of the U.S. and French embassies now sits in Iraq's parliament as a member of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ruling coalition, according to U.S. military intelligence.

Jamal Jafaar Mohammed's seat in parliament gives him immunity from prosecution. Washington says he supports Shiite insurgents and acts as an Iranian agent in Iraq.

U.S. military intelligence in Iraq has approached al-Maliki's government with the allegations against Jamal Jafaar Mohammed, whom it says assists Iranian special forces in Iraq as "a conduit for weapons and political influence."

Repeated efforts by CNN to reach Jamal Jafaar Mohammed for comment through the parliament, through the ruling Shiite Muslim coalition and the Badr Organization -- the Iranian-backed paramilitary organization he once led -- have been unsuccessful.

..."We don't want parliament to be a shelter for outlaws and wanted people," al-Maliki told CNN. "This is the government's view, but the parliament is responsible. I don't think parliament will accept having people like [him] or others currently in the parliament."

Top U.S. officials, including President Bush, have accused Iran of meddling in Iraq by fomenting sectarian violence and providing arms to illegal militias. Bush has authorized U.S. troops to use deadly force against Iranian agents in Iraq...

Mr. al-Maliki may not want to act. He may pretend that "the Parliament" is sovereign, but VICTORS don't have to accept either point of view, and we should not.

This foolishness has to stop. The R.O.E. have to be changed, for the military, for the diplomats, and for the Iraqi "government."

As long as situations like this are tolerated by America's Government, then no matter how many billions of dollars we spend, no matter how many of our soldiers are killed, no matter how many diplomatic meetings we have, we simply are NOT SERIOUS about the War on Terror.

If Mr. Bush expects the rest of us to be serious, and he has the right to do so, then he has to "get it" too.

Further evidence of lack of seriousness on our part is the constant, continuous reiteration to all who have senses that WE ARE OUTTA HERE, AL QUAEDA.

From the cowards and liars, the BushHaters, the AmericaHaters in the Press, in the Congress, in ourselves, there's simply no doubt that when we finish eating our own, when we've finished deciding the "when" and the conditions of our abandonment of the Iraq War, we're leaving. That's a done deal. ChimpyBushHitler can't last forever, and we're gone. Adios.

This isn't lost on our enemy...in Iraq or Iran.

Amid recurring reports that al-Sadr is telling his militia leaders to stash their arms and, in some cases, leave their neighborhoods during the American push, U.S. soldiers worry that the latest plan could end up handing over those areas to units that are close to al-Sadr's militant Shiite group.

"All the Shiites have to do is tell everyone to lay low, wait for the Americans to leave, then when they leave you have a target list and within a day they'll kill every Sunni leader in the country. It'll be called the `Day of Death' or something like that," said 1st Lt. Alain Etienne, 34, of Brooklyn, N.Y. "They say, `Wait, and we will be victorious.' That's what they preach. And it will be their victory."

"Honestly, within six months of us leaving, the way Iranian clerics run the country behind the scenes, it'll be the same way here with Sadr," said Quinn, 25, of Cleveland. "He already runs our side of the river."

And it isn't lost on the nuclear armed Israelis as they confront their own bleak future and see their abandonment.

If anybody has a thought of what General War in the Mideast, one that WE don't win, means for the rest of the world, or has considered how our reckless abandonment of the mission in Iraq will ensure that outcome, it's not evident in our Congress. The Congress talks and plots "non binding" resolutions of surrender. The President pretends that Maliki is running the show. NOT SERIOUS.

Here we are, with a divided government in which one part seeks to guarantee the failure of the other, all in the clutch of grasping for domestic political power. That is what this is about....the control of a country that spends 2.9 trillion dollars a year, and the capacity to determine where it goes.

For that plum, we are sacrificing our Grandchildren.

Lucky them!

Perfidious us!

ALMOST TOO FUNNY!

2007-02-05T16:00:00.000-05:00

There's really a lot of important stuff happening....and about to happen... but it's complicated and I'm not into thinking too much today....still, here's a subject that's too enticing not to pass on.

Our former Senator...a really prominent High MuckyMuck in the Dems...is running again, this time for President. Leaving aside the partisan politics...Dem vs. Rep stuff...my opinion of John Edwards is so low that it's cruel to discuss it. Hence, I've left it off this blog entirely....until today.

If you're gonna be a cool dude, you gotta have a blog. If you can't do it yourself, you hire yourself a blogger. They're out there for hire, and a lot of them are really smart, clever...worthy advocates and adversaries...as opposed to your standard mainstream "journalist" who graduated from a PC school in the lower third of his class. So, were you Mr. Edwards, you'd look for a really good person to be your official Voice on the Internet. Anybody would.

And how would you recognize such a person? You'd read the blogs and other writings, and it'd be clear to you. Anybody would.

Well, I hope that Edwards is only dumber than owl-shit, because if this is his idea of a Voice....well make up your own mind.

Meet Amanda Marcotte. This lady's Edwards' Blogmeister. His Voice. I guess she's writing in opposition to Conservatives hatred of women....worthy if it were true.

One thing I vow here and now–you motherfuckers who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will fuck without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous motherfuckers. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now.

Can it be that Mr.PrettyFace didn't even read this crap? Is the debate even about "birth control?" I thought the issue that's tearing us apart is abortion. Birth control? That was settled 50 years ago.

On another day she opined on Katrina's aftermath.

And as for the racist fucks behind this foot-dragging and lying and all those that support them, I hope that when you get to hell, after you’ve been greeted nicely by Satan and checked in by Ronald Reagan, your punishment is to be drowned over and over and over again until you fucking realize that suffering is suffering, no matter what race or class or ethnicity the people suffering are.

So did he not even read her potty-mouth stuff, or is the Real John Edwards standing up? No? He's that dumb? Yes...indeed I think he's really that dumb. He's a guy who made a fortune on other people's misfortunes by exploiting the fact that there are people dumber than him. He gives the term "lightweight" a bad name.

But he's clever...clever, and he's a serious threat...not because he's a Dem, but because he's a dolt.

EUREKA!

2007-02-03T08:56:00.001-05:00

Eureka! I found it! There is a way to get the Dems serious about the Islamist threats. Tie it to THEIR religious beliefs.

As one of those Islamic clerics put it as he took a stage on the campus of the University of California at Irvine just two days before 9/11, “If you don't give us justice, if you don't give us equality, if you don't give us our share of America,” he said. “We're gonna burn America down.”
--Fox News

But won't Burning America make Global Warming worse? All that heat? All that carbon dioxide? All those pollutants released into Gaia's respiratory system? Gadzooks! We can't have that. We'll have to fight those Children of Abraham, after all.

There it is, folks.....The Hook.

FINDING THE ALPHA DOG

2007-02-02T17:15:00.000-05:00

The Political Class are currently absorbed in Washington either running for President, running from their President, or just milling around, acting confused, sniffing each other's rear ends like dogs determining just who's Alpha and who's not. The country is at war, and one half the electorate's nominal representatives have nothing to offer.

Victor Davis Hansen says it this way:

It is fine for Democrats to talk of “redeployment” out of Iraq, “engagement” with Syria and Iran, more soft power, Europeans and the United Nations, organizing “regional interests,” etc. — until one realizes that we did mostly just that for most of the 1990s.

And? We got Syrian absorption of Lebanon, Afghanistan as an al Qaeda base, a Libyan WMD program, worldwide serial terrorist attacks, Oslo, a Pakistani bomb, a full-bore Iranian nuclear program, Oil-for-Food — and 9/11. If one doubts any of this, just reflect on why the Democrats have not offered any specific alternative plans. And when pressed, they usually talk only of “talking” and thereby bring embarrassment to even their liberal questioners.

THINK I'M FUNNIN' YOU?

2007-02-01T07:07:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post carries one William Arkin, an old time lefty activist posing as a journalist who also writes for the L.A. Times, has this to say. Read the whole thing.

Friday's NBC Nightly News ...relayed how "troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for."
These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.

Sure it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail, but even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We just don't see very man "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?
...But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

...I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.

See, it's just like John Kerry said...they're stupid and they ended up in Iraq. Nevermind that they're not cut off from society, but they're Reservists with "real " lives at home. They ARE society.

Please read the letter by Second Lt. Mark Daily which was posted earlier as "DEAD AT 23," and then tell me this demented Journalist is not Brain Dead Already. Disgusting. What has come over our country that we accept this as legitimate opinion?

The Blogosphere is alive with this one...start here.

Update: Some Senators get involved...read this.

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

2007-01-31T23:39:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-29T18:45:00.000-05:00

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"

2007-01-29T09:24:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-28T13:30:00.000-05:00

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.....

2007-01-28T10:29:00.000-05:00

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!

2007-01-28T00:08:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-26T15:25:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-24T21:51:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-22T17:39:00.001-05:00

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

2007-01-19T08:04:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-13T23:11:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-10T18:52:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-10T09:44:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-09T19:05:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-07T22:53:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-05T11:00:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-04T16:42:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-03T21:22:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-03T18:26:00.000-05:00

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.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

2006-12-27T07:48:00.001-05:00

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?

2006-12-23T10:29:00.000-05:00

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

2006-12-18T08:14:00.000-05:00

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

2006-12-18T00:33:00.001-05:00

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

2006-12-17T22:07:00.000-05:00

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

2006-12-13T09:50:00.000-05:00

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"

2006-12-12T07:46:00.000-05:00

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

2006-12-11T08:43:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-12-11T07:34:00.000-05:00

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

2006-12-10T12:40:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-12-09T20:56:00.000-05:00

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

2006-12-08T13:25:00.000-05:00

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

2006-12-08T12:20:00.000-05:00

"IT'S WORTH A SHOT"

2006-12-08T09:18:00.000-05:00

"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"

2006-12-08T07:53:00.000-05:00

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

2006-12-07T22:49:00.000-05:00

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.

MY LAST COMMENT ON THIS SUBJECT

2006-12-07T20:00:00.000-05:00

I'm really tired of this... There really nothing ta say that hasn't been said. Nobody who'se been alive to this issue hasn't already picked this lame carcass apart. This dreary report....these tired, self-absorbed, has been "diplomats" have made me worse than "mad"...they've bored me to tears. A final comment from Mark Steyn.

Isn’t the main problem with the Iraq Study Group that it’s just majorly lame? Almost anybody could crank out this kind of generalized boilerplate (“We were told by a general/a translator/my taxi driver/my Ukrainian hooker…”), and most of us could do it without a budget of gazillions of dollars and an Annie Leibovitz photo session.

Of course, Syria “should” do this and Iran “should” do that and, if they were Sandra Day O’Connor, I’m sure they would. But they’re not. And the only specific strategic proposal is a linkage between Iraq and a “renewed and sustained commitment” to a “comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace” – which concedes the same ludicrous rationale that the Saudi King Abdullah and all the rest of them make: that one tiny ten-mile sliver of Jews is the reason why millions of Muslims from the Straits of Gibraltar to the Emirates are mired in dictatorships, failed economies and jihadist fever. For the Baker group to endorse this clapped out pan-Arabism is disgusting. An “Arab-Israeli peace”? What does that mean? What exactly is Israel doing to Iraq, or Tunisia, or Qatar, or any other Arabs except those in the “Palestinian territories”? To frame it in those terms is to adopt the pathologies of the enemy. Shame on Baker, Hamilton and all the rest.

As for the insight on page 94 ... yes, it’s true that the DIA and other analytical agencies don’t have a lot of strength in depth. But why is that? It’s certainly not because the US taxpayer isn’t showering them with dollars. It’s to do with a bureaucratic torpor that has proved almost totally resistant to any attempts to reform it since 9/11. And, while we may well “engage” with Syria and Iran to no effect, and US troops may well put their left foot in and take their right foot out, the one thing you can guarantee won’t be shaken all about is the torpid bureaucracy – of which this stillborn report is yet one more example

Steyn is a Canadian journalist, living in New Hampshire, whose work is widely published in this country. I'd like to take this comment as a reason to pimp his new book America Alone, which is available from my bookshelf or wherever you find your books, and which I think is must reading, along with Oriana Fallaci's Force of Reason.

I'm signing off on this thread....but not to worry, there'll be something that pisses me off, tomorrow....it never ends.

WHICH WILL IT BE?

2006-12-07T15:25:00.000-05:00

I thought this was going to be difficult.

Last night, when everyone seemed so "taken" with the blissful stupidity of the ISG, I thought I was going to have to compose The Master Essay, dissecting this tripe, paragraph by paragraph, in order to make my points...it was to be a lonely task, it seemed.

But, Lo, the Blogosphere Awakens....there are dozens more skilled writers than I and all in high dudgeon...so all I have to do is to quote them.

Start here: "There's 79 recommendations in the Baker Report. It's like the Howard Johnsons' of Crap."

There's a Lot to Loathe in the Baker Report

But this conjoined pair of 'Recommendations' floats right to the top of the Surrender cesspool.

RECOMMENDATION 31: Amnesty. Amnesty proposals must be far-reaching. Any successful effort at national reconciliation must involve those in the government finding ways and means to reconcile with former bitter enemies.

RECOMMENDATION 37: Iraqi amnesty proposals must not be undercut in Washington by either the executive or the legislative branch.

It would seem that to the cardboard cut-outs that fashioned this chunk of crap that the criminals who have been building bombs and shooting our soldiers must, for "the sake of the children," "world peace," or the end of Israel, or some such, be let to just walk away. What's more, Baker expects everyone to agree to this going in. No override from the executive or the legislature.

Let's just suppose we, at some time in the far distant future, really do get out of Iraq. In the process, some group of criminals takes aim at a departing brigade and slaughters them by fair means or foul?

I guess that would be, from Baker's perspective, just dumb luck filed under "Shit happens."

That's the problem with all these pabulum reports and swatches of smarm oozing out of our "corridors of power" these days. There is simply no will to put some power in the proposals. Cardboard souls in empty skulls just wishing and hoping that somehow the party years will return and the American Happy World will roll along. As well it might.

For today. For, maybe, tomorrow.

But we all know, deep down, we're just waiting for the day of the bomb.

But Wait! Order now, and we'll send this for free:

The Baker Commission is uniquely a creature of our times. What other era could produce an endeavor whose sole purpose is to develop policy not with regard to how effective it will be but with the goal of uniting us behind it, be it wrong or right? What other era could be so capable of such an over-arching, supreme and self-destructive narcissism?

Now our nation must turn its lonely eyes to President Bush. He can embrace the Report and win plaudits from the New York Times editorial board. Who knows? Maybe his approval ratings can once again approach 50%. He can unite us. Of course, he’ll unite us behind a series of policy prescriptions that will lead to disaster. Hey - it worked for Clinton. Sort of.

Or the President can at last engage in a long overdue moment of honesty with his countrymen and then follow his rhetoric with appropriate action. He can say that Iran has been at war with us for 27 years, even though we’ve yet to deign to fight back. He can say that Iran’s proxies and clients like Hezbollah and Syria have no interest in peaceful co-existence with us or any other Western-style powers. He can cay that the only way through this is to defeat the enemy, not delude ourselves with a false sense of security while we celebrate fraudulent diplomatic triumphs.

He can tell us that there are hard days ahead, but not for any of the reasons that noted consensus-builder Lee Hamilton acknowledges. And he can use the last two years of his time in office getting the military and the country ready for the challenges that can’t be avoided.

Or he can sign on to the feel-good consensus that the Iraq Study Group prescribes. And we can join hands at last, wingnut and moonbat alike, as we stroll happily off into the sunset. And the abyss.

But, amazing as it sounds, there's more!

• Syria’s full adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of August 2006, which provides the framework for Lebanon to regain sovereign control over its territory.

• Syria’s full cooperation with all investigations into political assassinations in Lebanon, especially those of Rafik Hariri and Pierre Gemayel.

• A verifiable cessation of Syrian aid to Hezbollah and the use of Syrian territory for transshipment of Iranian weapons and aid to Hezbollah. (This step would do much to solve Israel’s problem with Hezbollah.)

• Syria’s use of its influence with Hamas and Hezbollah for the release of the captured Israeli Defense Force soldiers.

• A verifiable cessation of Syrian efforts to undermine the democratically elected government of Lebanon.

All conducted under the watchful eyes of Unicorns, of course. Imagine a government report on organized crime, demanding the following:

* The Mafia’s full adherance to the RICO and IRS statutes concerning independent contractors, including but not limited to Social Security contributions, FICA regulations, as well as compliance with state and federal laws concerning murder, extortion and kidnapping

* The Mafia’s full cooperation with all investigations into the deaths of Artie “Two Sheds” Palini, Ricky “The Squid” Piscatori, Jackie the Gaspipe, Tommy Shoes, and 16,302 others

* A verifiable cessation of Mafia contributions to local law enforcement officials

* The Mafia should use its influence with the Russian and Irish mobs to find out what the hell happened to that poor guy who wandered into the back room when they were all having a sit-down

* A verifiable cessation of Mafia efforts to undermine and circumvent the laws in the states of New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Chicago, as well as Nevada and portions of Kansas City which Johnny Mook swears he has no control over, but some of those hits just have his style written all over them

If those things are done, well, the price of garbage hauling in selected municipalities might decrease. But I wouldn’t count on them happening, and I certainly wouldn’t argue that we should give the Mafia Staten Island in the hopes some age-old territorial grievance will be settled for good.

Sweeeet! This blogging stuff is like fallin' of a log.

OK....START HERE

2006-12-07T06:34:00.000-05:00

Day number one, and it's clear that I'm not the only guy who's got the same criticism of the ISG Report. Cutting and pasting is a lot easier than composing...and it's useful to know that others share my views.

Start here: "The Iraq Study Group report delivered to President Bush yesterday contains 79 separate recommendations - but not one that explains how American forces can defeat the terrorist insurgents, only ways to bring the troops home."

Next Point:
When we invaded Afghanistan, we did it because it sheltered and promoted terrorism, specifically the terrorists that had killed almost 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Iran and Syria do the same; they shelter and promote the terrorists that have killed American troops in Iraq as well as our allies in Israel. Syria allows them to cross their border with Iraq at will to organize, train, and hide, and Iran provides them with weapons.

What the Baker/Hamilton group proposes is nothing less than an endorsement of their tactics. By going to Teheran and Damascus to ask for their assistance, we will have proven that their terrorism and interference pays dividends -- or did the ISG believe that they would stop their terrorism if we merely asked?

Oh, by the way for those with any sense of irony, today is Pearl Harbor Day. Does anybody remember that? Consider if we'd taken the Wise Eunuch's Way Out (WEWO...I love it) then. There'd have been no problem like the one we have now, that's for sure. And we'd all be speaking German, except those of us who'd been made into lampshades .

WISHFUL THINKING AS REALISM

2006-12-06T22:53:00.000-05:00

I've just read the Iraq Study Group's report....much anticipated and ballyhooed for the past several weeks. I'll add my thoughts over the next several days, as I gradually recover from puking my guts up.

There are some general statements I can make now. First, some of this, like the section describing the problem, is worthwhile, although already known to anyone who's been listening for the past year. However,the actual recommendations for action are pure fantasy...or worse.

I'll be prepared to discuss any of this, point by point ... but read it yourself...

First, I'm going to need several days to get over the shock of realization that a group of our "wise men"... our "realists"...have labored so long and produced such utterly impossible, impractical, unrealistic, idealistic, wishful- thinking drivel. A group of high school students working from Newsweek could have done this in two weeks.

That this is supposed to be a Way Out...and a contribution to the safety of America and of our future is beyond imagining.

I'm not afraid of the Iranians or the Syrians...or anybody really. They may attack us in ways too horrible to contemplate, kill thousands more, including me, but they cannot defeat a united America. Sorry, but the bastards just don't scare me. I'm ready to have our Armed Forces fight them over there, and/or to personally to fight them, and their local proxies, here.

But these Baker-Hamilton eunuchs scare me shitless.

REGIONAL WAR AND "REALISM"

2006-12-06T09:57:00.000-05:00

We'll soon have a new Secy. of Defense....after a lightning quick confirmation process, now that the Dems have been mollified by the President's selection of Mr.Gates. I confess to being ignorant of his background other than what's been stated on the evening news, but there's no reason to question his intent or qualifications for any public office.

However, his views lead me to question his understanding of our situation, regardless of either intent or qualification. In his confirmation hearing he stated that if we didn't manage the Iraq War correctly, in a few years we'd see a "regional war."

A few years? Whoops! We're engaged in a regional war RIGHT NOW! It extends from Gaza to Iran, and over to Afghanistan.

Isreal is engaged on two fronts at the South, as its enemy is funded and armed by Iran. Lebanon is on the verge of another Civil War as Syria has all but invaded....another Minister has been assassinated and street rioters and Hezbollah's demonstrators who formerly screamed of "Death to Israel" or "Death to America" now scream "Death to Siniora," Lebanon's Prime Minister who was (who knows now) supported by France and the U.N. in their fabulous "brokered peace," to which the U.S. Government signed on. Hezbollah claims to be fully rearmed by Iran and Syria, who are also actively supporting the murderous intra-tribal warfare in Iraq. Bin Laden's sons are given refuge in Iran. The Iranians are building atomic weapons, and missles capable of reaching London, and the whole world dithers and defines its terms.

The fighting, murder, destruction and mayhem are sponsored by Iran and Syria, carried out by their agents and proxies, and extend for thousands of miles across several international borders.

Mr. Gates....Mr. President...that looks to this Citizen of the Republic like "regional war" right now.

The issue isn't what it looks like....but what it is...and more important, what are we going to do next. That is a question for the Dems and Mr. Gates that Michael Moore won't like. Almost everyone but the lunatic left understands that we cannot leave on any timetable...guesses about a year or so from now are ridiculous, and too foolish to believe. Absent that, we have to fight.

Fight whom? Fight the perps. The Perps. The Enemy. The guy(s) who're funding the current killing, and training the killers.

"You're for us or agin' us" the President said, as he promised to pursue our enemies wherever they are. Sure he did.

Here's Andrew McCarthy's sense of it...(Read the whole thing)

But what is winning? What is the “victory” we are seeking?

On this, there is no consensus. That is why Americans have soured on Iraq. History proves that the American people have plenty of stomach for a hard fight, however long it takes, if they understand and believe in what we are fighting for. And this, consequently, is where history will condemn the Bush administration.

Leadership, too often, has been rudderless. After 9/11, the president deployed our armed forces but told the American people the best thing they could do was go on with their lives — go shopping, lest the terrorists win. There was no sense of shared sacrifice. No stressing that the nation as a whole had a vested interest in facing down not just a relative handful of terrorists but a fundamentalist ideology, shared by millions, calling remorselessly for our destruction.

Our military, alone, was left to bear the burdens. The 9/11 attacks were left to speak for themselves … and they faded from elite memory in about the time it took for habitués of the New York Times’ West 43rd Street offices to forget those two tall buildings they used to gaze on from their windows.

Perhaps worse, after rallying and winning reelection strictly because Americans trusted him more than Sen. Kerry to protect our security, the president went dark. From November 2004 until the middle of the following year, President Bush, leading a nation at war, was virtually mum on the subject. There were political reasons for this — there always are. We hadn’t found Saddam’s weapons; addressing the war risked reminding the public of intelligence failures and premature “mission accomplished” bravado; the administration wanted to use its pre-lame-duck months to focus on Social Security, immigration, and the rest of its legislative agenda; and so on.

On Iraq, the president decided his reelection meant he had already won the argument. But when you’re at war, and you’re the president, you’ve got to win the argument every day. If you’re not winning it, you’re losing it … and with it the public support essential to war-fighting.

So, facing down his critics, the president insists we will stay and “win.” The problem is: His vision of winning is a stable, democratic Iraq — something Americans would not have gone to war over in the first place. Sure, it is an outcome we should all devoutly wish to see some day. But it is not something we would have sent American troops to Iraq to die for, any more than we would send them, say, to Sudan — particularly when the case has never been made that either stability or democracy in the Middle East will make the United States safer.

...There is only one good reason for American troops to be in Iraq. It is the reason we sent them there in 2003: To fight and win the “war on terror” — i.e., the war against radical Islam — by deposing rogue regimes helping the terror network wage a long-term, existential jihad against the United States. You can argue that Iraq was the wrong rogue to start with; but destroying radical Islam’s will and its capacity to project power is what the war is about.

Iraq is but a single battlefield in that war. It is not “the war.” Stabilizing or even — mirabile dictu! — democratizing Iraq is not winning the war. It is the overseas equivalent of rebuilding the World Trade Center. The hard reality is that war exacts a terrible toll and its fallout must be addressed. This is why we hate war and resort to it only in the face of greater evils. But cleaning up war’s unavoidable messes is not the same as winning.

Winning the war means taking on the regimes and factions that are waging it. That is what the president promised to do after 9/11. “You’re with us or you’re with the terrorists.”

...“Death to America” is not just a slogan for our enemies. It’s a deeply held conviction, on which they are feverishly acting. Only when we are ready to take them seriously, when our leaders’ brave words are matched by determined deeds, can we win — in Iraq and, more importantly, in the greater war.

Fuck 'em. Let's Roll!

WE DO NOT INHABIT THE SAME MORAL UNIVERSE AS THESE PEOPLE...REDUX, AGAIN.

2006-12-04T14:47:00.000-05:00

Read the whole thing...

...The 46-year-old schoolteacher tried to reassure his family that he would return safely. But his life was over, he was part-disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes, the remains put on display as a warning to others against defying Taliban orders to stop educating girls.

Mr Halim was one of four teachers killed in rapid succession by the Islamists at Ghazni, a strategic point on the routes from Kabul to the south and east which has become the scene of fierce clashes between the Taliban and US and Afghan forces.

LIGHTEN UP, Y'ALL.

2006-12-04T11:05:00.000-05:00

Just when you think that all's lost, Chuck Cooley sends this along. Turn your sound up, and revel in it. It's US folks. We're still here.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1wgu_rcharles-jllewis-fdomino

HERE'S WHAT'S WRONG WITH MY PLAN

2006-12-04T10:11:00.000-05:00

There's no chance that my plan or anything like it will be implemented, if for no other reason, because as a people we're too divided to generate The Will to save ourselves. Others explain it better than I.

From Captain's Quarters Blog:

...The key will be the dedication to the mission by the United States. As General Jack Keane, a retired commander, tells the Wall Street Journal, the American military can certainly secure Baghdad if it chooses to do so. So far, however, we have not seen that level of commitment. We would have to build an overwhelming force and impose our will on Baghdad in a manner we have not yet appeared willing to contemplate. The US would also have to find the wherewithal to attack Moqtada al-Sadr aggressively, even if it defies the wishes of Nouri al-Maliki.

Can we find that will to win? If the recent reports are accurate, it looks like the White House may be willing to try. They will have their work cut out for them, especially with the new Democratic majorities in Congress. They will have to acquire materiel and reposition troops, all expensive propositions that will have to find funding in the budget process. They will also have to extend some deployments, which does not require Congressional cooperation but which can get very complicated without it. Democrats will press hard to stop it, mindful of the impression they gave the American voters that they would stop the Iraq war once elected to majorities.

From World Defense Review:

In one of the most startling incidents in our history, America's sworn enemy used the term 'brotherly' when referring to one of our major political parties. The remarkable pronouncement came amidst the celebrations that erupted in the terrorist ranks after the democratic victory in the latest elections.

Given all that the democrats have done, the affection in which they are held by our foes is neither unjustified nor surprising. They have more than earned it by systematically subverting this country's war effort while simultaneously proffering assistance to those who have pledged to destroy us.

Democrats' devious deeds are too numerous to be fully recounted, but here at least are some of the highlights:

They have tried to prevent us from listening on terrorists' phone calls
They have sought to stop us from properly interrogating captured terrorists
They have tried to stop us from monitoring terrorists' financial transactions
They have revealed the existence of secret national security programs
They have opposed vital components of the Patriot Act
They have sought to confer unmerited legal rights on terrorists
They have opposed profiling to identify the terrorists in our midst
They have impugned and demeaned our military
They have insinuated that the president is a war criminal
They have forced the resignation of a committed defense secretary
They have repeatedly tried to de-legitimize our war effort
They want to quit the battlefield in the midst of war.

To see just how bad things really are, ponder this question: If the terrorists were represented by a party in our political system, how would their foreign policy program substantially differ from that of the present-day democrats?

The only hope is that the Dems will self-immolate on their cut and run, bait and switch sales job as their lunatics (yes, there are some who are not lunatics) make clear who runs/does not run the Democrat Party. Michael Moore has thrown the guantlet already. Let's see if anyone picks it up.

"The responsibility to end this war now falls upon the Democrats. Congress controls the purse strings and the Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi now hold the power to put an end to this madness. Failure to do so will bring the wrath of the voters. We aren't kidding around, Democrats, and if you don't believe us, just go ahead and continue this war another month. We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans."

You can add to the list above today's loss of John Bolton from service as Ambassador to the "United Nations." As anyone who's followed his service there realizes, he was a solid defender of America and a force for reform of that organization, so in need of reform. The President today said this: "I am deeply disappointed that a handful of United States Senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate. They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time. This stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their Nation."

Just how much of this politicized Government do YOU think America can withstand?

EVERYONE ELSE HAS A PLAN. HERE'S MINE.

2006-12-03T22:46:00.000-05:00

The Iraq War is but a battle in WW4…and it must be understood as that….by everyone, including the President of the U.S.

My reading of history shows that any society or group that has both the will and the means to destroy its neighbors will do so. We have the means, but not the will. The Islamists who’re winning now have the will, but not YET the means. When they acquire the means, the world as we know it is done for.

To understand that we do not inhabit the same moral universe as does our enemy, just look at this selection from MEMRI. Follow the link and click on "View Clip" When these people gain the means to destroy us, coexistence will be impossible. We've not seen this kind of adversary in American history, ever.

That’s why we fight in Iraq….to prevent them from acquiring the means….and that needs to be made clear to everyone in this country. There is no time to waste. In a mere twelve years from Hitler’s rise to power in Germany to the end of WW2, 40-50 million people were killed, and much of Europe was destroyed. Our people need to understand that this can happen in a few years to anyone….including us….and that given an intractable and unreasoning enemy, precluding such a fate means we must fight for ourselves and for our civilization. This war is not about “oil” or “democracy” or religion…it’s about survival and human nature.

We cannot accept being defeated in Iraq; not now; not later. We must prevail, and the extension of Bush Doctrine must succeed. Today's reality is the result of decades of other realities. History does not run backward. We cannot reverse the unfortunate policies of the past. Yesterday's status quo, and the “reality” of the past forty years yielded the continued Islamization of Europe, and much of Asia, and if unopposed in the future will result in the gradual destruction of the U.S. as a locus of resistance, 9/11 will be seen as only a detail in that eventuality. That’s what Bin Laden knows, and that’s his contribution to History.

As for the way out, there are three possibilities….#1, a new order in the Middle East will gradually reform that area and defuse the results of the past mistakes, …OR,#2, the past will continue into the future as described above, and in Mark Steyn’s writings…this is the “We are doomed option”…OR, #3, we will fight and destroy our enemies in a conflagration that will mean bloodshed beyond anything we’ve we've previously accepted within the Civilized World. So far as I can see, there are variations of these scenarios, but the themes are only those three.

The Bush attempt at #1 is in jeopardy and “stay the course” isn’t working, and won’t, if it means keep the same heading. Maintaining the course may require changing the heading, but of the three options, it’s clearly the best. If we reject this option, only #3 remains, as option #2 is suicide. I’m not there yet. Let’s try to rescue The Bush Doctrine, and resurrect #1.

A plan:

Announce to the world that there’s no way we’re leaving this fight. We'll fight alone if necessary, but we’re fighting. If we lose, you, the “world,” will go with us, for you have neither will nor means. If we win alone, you, “world,” will suck the hind teat for the rest of history, because if we’re on our own, you’re on your own. Make a clear and present demonstration of this by bringing troops home from Germany and Korea, tomorrow.

Announce to the Iraqis that we have given you a chance at a new life for yourselves and your country. If you don’t take it, we’re not your daddy, and you can go to Hell any way you want. A quadrillion suicide bombings is as good a way as any other. Those of you who want us, and who will control your own destiny in ways that we can support will continue to get that support.

Start with moving our forces into Kurdish Northern Iraq, telling the Turks that the price they've paid for their non support is that we’re going to help those Kurds who want us, and who’ve already built a place within Iraq that looks a lot like normal life in most parts of the world. Energized and protected, the Kurds will also be a serious problem for the Iranians, who have their own Kurdish problem, and that will have both short and long term benefits to us.

Announce to the “world,” to the Iraqis, the Iranians and to the Syrians that we’re there to protect our own interests, and we don’t actually care whether or not they have “democracy” or even if they remain alive at all. Make that clear by surrounding "Mookie and the Mahdis", where ever they are found, and destroying them utterly, as we should have already done….without mercy, and without consideration of collateral damage. We’ve tried that consideration as military doctrine, and it’s been found useless. Those Iraqis who assume and earn mercy from us need to get on our boat, which is leaving the dock right now. As for the others, war is Hell. It’s about time we sent THEM to it. Demonstration of both our will and our capacity may make the next stages easier, but both need to be made clear to everyone.

After a brief time for reconstitution of our forces….R & R, resupply…and after adding MORE troops and materials...we start moving ‘em out….take on Syria first, from Iraqi bases and by Naval forces in the Mediterranean. This decompresses Lebanon, and gives the Lebanese a chance to take back their own country, prevents resupply of Hezbollah, and gives the Israelis a chance to make peace in the North. An enclave on the Syrian coast gives us a base on the Mediterranean from which to re-supply and fight the Iranians.

They’re saved for last, for by then, it may be clear to the Iranian people that the Mullahs will go down in a sea of blood, and that the best thing for Iran is to revolt against them….saving lives and even precluding the final stage of this battle in what is clearly WW4, whether or not we’re fighting it. We don't need to stay forever, just long enough to cripple our enemies, and then retire to defensible bases from which to keep a boot on their necks for the intermediate term. Long term, the indigenous people will have to take care of themselves, but by then, perhaps they'll be able to do so.

The outcome, if it works, will be salutary, and the rest of the world can get on fighting their local Islamists themselves. If it doesn’t work, the result will be the same as #2, above, or #3, Either way life won’t be worth living till another Renaissance follows the New Dark Ages.

To some, this may seem like kicking into a bag of shit. Perhaps, but this bag has been filling for decades while we were being attacked all over the world, and not fighting back. It was filled by the "realists" and our "friends the Saudis" and our enemies, but it was kicked over on 9/11. We're slogging in it already.

So, let’s fight. Mobilize our people by telling the truth, and fight. Now is as good a time as ever. Our enemy gets stronger and more numerous with time, and the Fifth Column here at home weakens us further. Time is not on our side, so fight now. Fight hard. Fight to win. At stake is everything in our world.

UNRELIEVEDLY TERRIBLE

2006-11-30T17:22:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

I fear we'll need it again.

A VDH SLAM DUNK

2006-11-20T13:43:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

A PRIMER OF FOOT SHOOTING...

2006-11-19T18:22:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If they survive, of course.

If they don’t, society wins anyway.

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

WHO'LL BLINK FIRST?

2006-11-19T17:38:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEFINE THE LUNATIC LEFT

2006-11-16T08:18:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

BEFORE YOU GO!

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

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

A PIG IN A POKE

2006-11-16T06:46:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

This is the Post’s account of her answer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"OUR NAIVE VERSION OF WARTIME MORALITY"

2006-11-15T23:31:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ours.

ABSENT A CHURCHILL, TRY THIS

2006-11-12T06:10:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative strategy for war in Iraq

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO HOBGOBLINS AT THE N.Y. TIMES

2006-10-12T07:05:00.000-05:00

The N.Y. Times and Secy. General of the U.N. attempt to prove themselves neither small minded, nor devine...since "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines," according to American essayist, Ralph Waldo Emerson.

"It Shines For All" quotes the New York Times:

"There is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to empowering rogue states. The Chinese have been shielding Sudan and North Korea. The Russians have been shielding Iran. Were it not for Iraq and Mr. Bush's other troubles, there would be ways to shame or bypass those roadblocks. When the Russians blocked U.N. action in Kosovo, President Clinton got NATO to stop the killing," the New York Times editorializes.

Curious how the Times somehow believes that if we weren't fighting terrorists in Iraq U.N. members would somehow change their stripes. Only China had been blocking action on North Korea long before Saddam was deposed. Both Russia and China had been firm supporters of Tehran long before Saddam was deposed.

So the Times recommends that Mr. Bush "bypass those roadblocks." Amazing. Suddenly the U.N.'s greatest supporters are admitting its uselessness. First Kofi Annan yesterday tells Mr. Bush to ditch the U.N. and act alone. And now the New York Times.

As the Times notes, whenever action is taken to stop killings (Kosovo) it isn't through the U.N. We'll second the Times and Mr. Annan and urge Mr. Bush to ditch the U.N. and deal with Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and other rogue regimes with a coalition of the willing.

Funny that that's what the president did to remove one evil dictator -- Saddam.

DUMBF**KS

2006-10-11T17:16:00.000-05:00

I've not posted for a while....been away on Jewel and visiting precious grandchilren. See these pictures and the Family Blog for details. We're leaving again tomorrow, but I just can't let this one go.

To Hell with Masturgate or the irony of Dems complaining about "eavesdropping" on terrorists while they shop to their media surrogates the private emails of a perverted gay Congressman. Nobody but the terminally stupid will not see this for what it is.

But NorKoNukes are another matter.

Today’s Democrat politicos, particularly the odious Jimma Caatah, are saying that the NorkoNukes are GWB’s fault…he hurt their feelings by calling them “evil.” Leaving aside the “Sticks and stones….but names can never harm me” point as made by a gajillion grandmothers in the real world, here’s the counter argument.

“Human Rights Watch, a group that is far from pro-American, describes the Pyongyang regime as follows in its annual "Human Rights Overview":

The regime of leader Kim Jong Il, the subject of an intense personality cult, is among the world's most repressive. . . . The country's dismal human rights conditions, including arbitrary arrests, pervasive use of torture, and lack of due process and fair trials, remain of grave concern. There is no organized political opposition, labor activism, or independent civil society. There is no freedom of information or freedom of religion. Basic services, such as access to health care and education, are provided according to a classification scheme based on the government's assessment of an individual's and his/her family's political loyalty.

Would an America that refused to call this "evil" have any integrity as a nation?”

I just can't stand depriving you of this: Ann Coulter's column....eat your heart out Jimmah...swallow your cigar, Bill.

"Bill Clinton's New Glow Job

With the Democrats' full-throated moralizing of late...demonstrates that the Democrats would prefer to talk about anything other than national security. Unfortunately for them, the psychotic Kim Jong Il seems to be setting off nukes, raising the embarrassing issue of the Clinton administration's 1994 "peace" deal with North Korea.

...Current New Mexico governor and former Clinton administration official Bill Richardson has been on tour, bragging about the groundbreaking Clinton administration negotiations with North Korea -- keeping his fingers crossed that no one has access to news from 1994.

...Under the terms of the "agreed framework," we gave North Korea all sorts of bribes -- more than $5 billion worth of oil, two nuclear reactors and lots of high technology. In return, they took the bribes and kept building nukes. This wasn't difficult, inasmuch as the 1994 deal permitted the North Koreans to evade weapons inspectors for the next five years.

Yes, you read that right: North Korea promised not to develop nukes, and we showed how much we trusted them by agreeing to no weapons inspections for five years.

The famed "allies," whom liberals claim they are so interested in pleasing, went ballistic at this cave-in to North Korea. Japan and South Korea -- actual allies, unlike France and Germany -- were furious. Even Hans Blix thought we were being patsies.

If you need any more evidence that it was a rotten deal, The New York Times hailed it as "a resounding triumph."

...And then on Oct. 17, 2002 -- under a new administration, you'll note -- The New York Times reported on the front page, so you couldn't have missed it: "Confronted by new American intelligence, North Korea has admitted that it has been conducting a major clandestine nuclear weapons development program for the past several years."

So when it comes to North Korea, I believe the Democrats might want to maintain a discreet silence, lest anyone ask, "Hey, did you guys do anything with North Korea?"

But by Richardson's lights, the only reason Kim Jong Il is testing nukes is because Bush called him evil. He said, "When you call him axis of evil or a tyrant, you know, he just goes crazy." ...

...Richardson also blames the war in Iraq, bleating that the poor North Koreans feel "that there's too much attention on the Middle East, on Iraq. So it's a cry for attention." If Kim just wanted our attention, he could have started dating Lindsay Lohan. But Richardson says Kim "psychologically feels he's been dissed, that he's not treated with respect."

Damn that Bush! If only he had ignored the crazy Muslims and dedicated himself into sending flowers (and more nuclear reactors!) to North Korea, we could be actively helping Kim develop his nukes like the Clinton administration did.

As Richardson said, Kim "wants us to negotiate with him directly, as we did in the Clinton administration."

To go on TV and propose negotiating with North Korea like Clinton did without ever mentioning that North Korea cheated on that agreement before the ink was dry would be like denouncing American aggression against Japan in 1942 and neglecting to mention Pearl Harbor. Anyone who is either that stupid or that disingenuous should not be allowed on TV.

When pressed by CNN's Anderson Cooper about the failed deal, Richardson lied, claiming the 1994 deal prevented the North Koreans from building nukes "for eight years" -- i.e., right up until the day The New York Times reported the North Koreans had been developing nukes "for the past several years."

Kim is crazier than any leader even South America has been able to produce. In fact, he's so crazy, we might be able to get the Democrats to take action. Someone tell Nancy Pelosi that the "Dear Leader" is an actual pederast. Then we'll at least be able to read his instant messages.

Go for it, Annie. You go, girl!

WITHOUT COMMENT

2006-09-10T10:12:00.000-05:00

RES IPSA LOQUITUR

2006-09-09T08:46:00.000-05:00

CAN WE DEFEAT THE ISLAMISTS?

2006-09-09T06:53:00.000-05:00

A very interesting article in the London Times says NO. It's an interesting set of explanations of our weakness in the fight for Civilization. Some of it's "built in" to our world, but some could be changed if we choose to do so. The gist of the article is very pessamistic, particularly as there seems to be little hope that the necessary changes will be forthcoming, any time soon.

1) The first is the extent of political division in the non-Muslim world about what is afoot. Some reject outright that there is a war at all;

2) The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated is that the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood.

3) Indeed, the third reason why Islam will not be defeated, as things stand, is the low level of Western leadership, in particular in the United States.

4) Next is the contribution to the disarray of Western policy-making being made by the egotistical competitiveness, and in some cases hysterics, of “experts” and commentators on Islam.

5) The fifth disablement is to be found in the confusion of “progressives” about the Islamic advance. With their political and moral bearings lost since the defeat of the “socialist project”, many on the Left have only the fag-end of anti-colonial positions on which to take their stand.

6) The sixth reason for Islam’s growing strength is the vicarious satisfaction felt by many non-Muslims at America’s reverses.

7) The seventh reason lies in the moral poverty of the West’s, and especially America’s, own value system. Doctrines of market freedom, free choice and competition — or “freedom ’n’ liberty” — are no match for the ethics of Islam and Sharia, like them or not.

8) The next indication that Islam’s advance will continue lies in the skilful use being made of the media and of the world wide web in the service both of the “electronic jihad” and the bamboozling of Western opinion by Muslim spokesmen.

9) The ninth factor guaranteeing Islam’s onward march is the West’s dependency on the material resources of Arab and Muslim countries.

10) Finally, the West is convinced that its notions of technology-driven modernity and market-driven prog- ress are innately superior to the ideals of “backward” Islam. This is an old delusion.

The author expands on these points, and apparently has written a book that might be worth reading. Surely, those who reflexly believe that Democracy is by itself an anodyne for Islamic fundamentalism ought to read the whole thing. Principal among those needing to think this through is our President.

No doubt Democracy would help millions of these wretched people, but it's not a guarantee to help us defend ourselves from them...and that's the whole point, isn't it?

Personally, while I'd like them to be happy, I really don't care if they are, so long as they stop trying to kill us. If they don't stop, I really don't care what we do to prevent them from doing so....at least till we're out of bullets, when I'd be more willing to negotiate this point.

AN INTERESTING PROPOSAL

2006-09-09T06:33:00.000-05:00

An interesting and very well thought out suggestion for a telecommuting Congress....It's worth reading the whole thing

I suggest the House and Senate be urged to adopt new rules and encourage, or even require, members to use modern communications technology to conduct more of their work from their home districts and less of it from Washington, DC. My theory is that if members spent more time with the voters back home than they spent among the political game players back in Washington DC, Congress will eventually both look and act quite different.

Such technology is already widespread in the private sector. The technology was good enough some twelve years ago that a client of mine who owned a European based securities trading company with several employees was able to run it from Colorado, visiting his office in person maybe once every month to six weeks.

...My personal suspicion is that a number of very bad things have happened because the personal relationships that develop over our long Congressional sessions are currently far too strong. In the very worst cases, getting along with other members of Congress seems to have taken a higher priority than representing the folks back home.

...The all-too-human need to get along with those one sees regularly helps feed the spending beast, too.

...Over time it would begin to work changes on the very culture of Congress by altering both who is attracted to run for office and how they conduct themselves afterwards.

THE CONQUEST OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

2006-09-08T20:41:00.000-05:00

Want to know how it happened? Here's part of the answer.

An important piece on Vanderluen's blog ought to be read in its entirety, as he writes from a perspective of an apostate lefty that most of us can't share. Here's the gist of it. Read it all.

WHEN I WAS VERY YOUNG, majoring in marijuana at the university, hanging out with the Progressive Labor Party, and skipping through the clouds of tear gas on Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley, I was convinced that any war that would send my long-haired, sensitive, poetic and acid-tripping self off to wade through rice paddies in Vietnam just had to be wrong, wrong, wrong . ...

Time and chance also makes the list of those Americans still dedicated to becoming life-long friends of countries and movements dedicated to the destruction of AmeriKKKa shorter every year. Yet most still live and thrive in the place they hate the most. They have made prosperous lives for themselves in local, state and national governments and politics, as well as in academia, the entertainment world, and the media. Greying now they still continue in their quest for an enemy of their enemy to make their friend. They are the American Left and, risen from their impoverished conditions in 1968, they have now tenure, high position, or acolytes from which they draw comfortable stipends. Of late, they've taken more and more to coffee klatches with Islamic fundamentalists who, if they don't have the armies to bring about the destruction of the United States, have at least shown they've got enough hate to kill Americans here and abroad retail and wholesale. Besides, they're out shopping for a nuclear weapon and some smallpox, so what's not to like about these guys from an American Leftist's point of view?

...If it were only the denizens of these fringe groups that supplied the ideological cannon fodder of the American Left, it would be a small matter to marginalize them since their very mindsets marginalize them from the square numbered "1." Indeed, just a few years ago, they could only exist within the rarified environment of on-campus humanities and ethnic-studies departments. Once removed from these hyperbaric chambers, their failure to thrive in the world outside -- absent a position in various media companies and Washington Wonk Tanks -- was assured. They were, if not really useful idiots, harmless idiots.

Sadly that is no longer the case. Recently a very large and significant American institution has stripped down to the buff and made itself freely available to the tender mercies and tough love of the American Left. Indeed, the capture of this group is the single significant achievement of the American Left in decades. With the elevation of Howard Dean, the canonization of Hillary Clinton, the deification of Ted Kennedy, the renovation of Nancy Peloisi, and the self-defenestration of Barbara Boxer, it is clear that the political base of the American Left has now migrated from the fringes of our political arena to the dead center of the Democratic Party. And it is there to stay.

The American Left now controls the political party that calls upon the allegiance of nearly half of the country. It is the political party that is the Plantation Party of African-Americans. It is a party that holds its members now not with the plans of what it will do for them in the future, but with the fading memories of what it did for them in the past when it was a great and honorable party. The American Left will remain in control of this Party's shell since it has brought with it not only its failed ideology and all the rag-tag constituents of the Stupid Undergrounds of America, but the very fuel source of these groups itself -- Bush Hate. And on the Left today, Bush-Hate, more than money, is the new mother's milk of our darkening politics. With Bush-Hate money can always be had. Throw that out of the Democratic Party and what money there is currently coming into the party will surely flow away.

...The conquest of the Democratic Party by the American Left which has now been consummated and will shortly be consolidated is, of course, bad news for the Democrats and for the country as a whole. A vital two or even three party system is essential to the long term balance of the Republic.

But this doesn't bother the Leftists of the Democratic Party at all. They are too busy counting the loot. And there is loot to be had.

The American Left receives many things from their conquest, not the least of which is the damage it does, axiomatically, to the United States. They also receive money, lots of it; especially when you think of the low funding levels the American Left has had for most of its existence. Their plunder also includes Organizations, many, as well as access to local, state, and national unions in the public and private realms. Add in mailing lists tens of millions of names long as well as websites and online acolytes by the thousands. And, most important of all, they now have open access and control over sitting Democrats in Washington and the state legislatures. With money and organizations to win elections, the American Left now has the power over elected Democrats to instruct them to support and advance some decidedly non-centrist, non-liberal, but classic Leftist agendas. In a very real sense, the conquest of the Democratic Party gives the American Left a base that it could never hope to win, and will now probably never win, at the ballot box.

Even though this regrettable transformation of the Democratic Party leaves it much smaller than it would otherwise be, it makes the American Left much bigger than it ever thought it could be. Those who have lingered all these years in the thick bong smoke of the 60s now have their fantasy within their grasp. They have made the enemies of George Bush and the New America at home and abroad into their friends and it is, at last, "Springtime for Lefties!"

Of course, it is a crowning irony to note that the proverb, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." was originally an Arab proverb, as were, indeed, the fuming chillums of 1968's Not-So-Great-Generation.

But hey, as me and my hardcore leftist friends said way back then, "Smoke 'em if you got 'em."

THE ENTIRE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN IN A NUTSHELL.

2006-09-05T19:00:00.000-05:00

The Democrats have proposed a four point strategy for Iraq. So far as I know, this is the first time they've done so. The President's Chief of Staff has responded. Point by point
.
Dear Senator Reid:

Thank you for your September 4 letter to the President. I am responding on his behalf.

A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires an accurate and fair-minded description of our current policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself. In order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along three main tracks -- political, economic, and security. Along each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both successes and setbacks along the way, which is the story of every war that has been waged and won.

Your letter recites four elements of a proposed “new direction” in Iraq. Three of those elements reflect well-established Administration policy; the fourth is dangerously misguided.

First, you propose "transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection." That is what we are now doing, and have been doing for several years. Our efforts to train the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have evolved and accelerated over the past three years. Our military has had substantial success in building the Iraqi Army -- and increasingly we have seen the Iraqi Army take the lead in fighting the enemies of a free Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces still must rely on U.S. support, both in direct combat and especially in key combat support functions. But any fair-minded reading of the current situation must recognize that the ISF are unquestionably more capable and shouldering a greater portion of the burden than a year ago -- and because of the extraordinary efforts of the United States military, we expect they will become increasingly capable with each passing month. Your recommendation that we focus on counter-terrorism training and operations -- which is the most demanding task facing our troops -- tracks not only with our policy but also our understanding, as well as the understanding of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, that Iraq is a central front in the war against terror.

Second, your letter proposes "working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources." You are once again urging that the Bush Administration adopt an approach that has not only been embraced, but is now being executed. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is pursuing a national reconciliation project. It is an undertaking that (a) was devised by the Iraqis; (b) has the support of the United States, our coalition partners and the United Nations; and (c) is now being implemented. Further, in Iraq's political evolution, the Sunnis, who boycotted the first Iraq election, are now much more involved in the political process. Prime Minister Maliki is head of a free government that represents all communities in Iraq for the first time in that nation's history. It is in the context of this broad-based, unity government, and the lasting national compact that government is pursuing, that the Iraqis will consider what amendments might be required to the constitution that the Iraqi people adopted last year. On the matter of disarming militias: that is precisely what Prime Minister al-Maliki is working to do. Indeed, Coalition leaders are working with him and his ministers to devise and implement a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate members of militias and other illegal armed groups.

Third, your letter calls for "convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort." The International Compact for Iraq, launched recently by the sovereign Iraqi government and the United Nations, is the best way to work with regional and international partners to make substantial economic progress in Iraq, help revitalize the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of that nation, and support a fair and just political settlement in Iraq -- all while preserving Iraqi sovereignty. This effort is well under way, it has momentum, and I urge you to support it.

Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region.

On the fourth element of your proposed “new direction,” however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the “phased redeployment” you propose. (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a “quick reaction force” to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad).

Regardless of the specifics you envision by “phased redeployment,” any premature withdrawal of U.S forces would have disastrous consequences for America’s security. Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain. This “new direction” would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to victory -- and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and recommendations of our military commanders in the region.

Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. We strongly disagree.

Secretary Rumsfeld is an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership, the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million people. Al Qaeda has suffered tremendous blows. Secretary Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously the President’s vision for a transformed U.S. military. And he has played a lead role in forging and implementing many of the policies you now recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full confidence of the President.

We appreciate your stated interest in working with the Administration on policies that honor the sacrifice of our troops and promote our national security, which we believe can be accomplished only through victory in this central front in the War on Terror.

Sincerely,

Joshua B. Bolten
Chief of Staff

There's nothing left to say. Let's go down and dirty....vote right now. Saves a jillion dollars and let's us "move on." We'll live or die on this issue. Sacrifice our country or save it. Money where your mouth is. Your life and your children's lives, in the balance.

Decide.

For me, I've decided. I'm locked and loaded, and I'll fight the bastards here, when they come.

REFORMATION COMING?

2006-09-04T00:27:00.000-05:00

Despite the many problems of Europe, most of which follow from their acceptance of the Welfare State as a model for the future, there are hints of a New Reformation. Here's a piece from a French website, The Toqueville Connection.

French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy appeared almost certain to lead the right into next year's presidential election, after a triumphant party congress which concluded Sunday in Marseille with a blistering attack on the "generation of May 1968".
Speaking before 7,000 young members of the ruling Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), Sarkozy, 51, said modern France had been betrayed by the left-wing ideals that took root after the 1968 student uprising, and called for a society built around "a reassertion of the value of work".
"(The generation of 1968) inculcated everywhere -- in politics, in education, in society -- an inversion of values and a political correctness of which today's young people are the principal victims," Sarkozy said to applause.
"The truth is that the students of May '68 were the spoiled children of 30 years of prosperity. You are the children of crisis. They lived a life without constraints. Today you are picking up the bill," he said....
...Sarkozy drew the strongest applause Sunday when he attacked the "dependency and welfare" culture epitomised by the Socialists' 35-hour week, and promised to bring unemployment down to five percent in five years by "giving work back its true value, because it is work that creates work".
"I propose reducing taxes on labour, so that employment plays a greater part in economic growth. I propose that people should earn more if they work more ... I propose replacing the language of redistribution with the language of growth," he said.

It remains to be seen if the Welfarized French will save themselves. It doesn't look good from the perspective of the recent student riots in support of maintaining the status quo, but there's a general election coming.

We'll see.

JEEEZZZUUSS, MR. PRESIDENT

2006-09-03T23:43:00.000-05:00

More than half the people of the United States don't understand that we're at war and fighting for the survival of our civilization.

The reason for this is that our President does not behave as though he means it. He talks the talk, and walks the walk in his policies, but as a leader, his behavior lacks the seriousness of a warfighter.

After years of unremitting attacks from liars like Joe Wilson and the New York Times, he still cannot fight back. He answers are coherent, and his words are genuine, but a fighter fights back.

Here's Mr. Bush making nice with one of the nastiest public figures in Washington....the Michael Moore of the White House press corps, Helen Thomas. Jeezzzus Mr. President....she needs to be shunned, not kissyfaced.

As a consequence of squishy-nice tolerance of his tormentors, the President may have lost the moment in terms of continuing our long term defence.

Mark Steyn writes

If you go back to September 2001, it's amazing how much the administration made happen in just a short space of time: For example, within days it had secured agreement with the Russians on using military bases in former Soviet Central Asia for intervention in Afghanistan. That, too, must have been quite a phone call. Moscow surely knew that any successful Afghan expedition would only cast their own failures there in an even worse light -- especially if the Americans did it out of the Russians' old bases. And yet it happened.

Five years on, the United States seems to be back in the quagmire of perpetual interminable U.N.-brokered EU-led multilateral dithering, on Iran and much else. The administration that turned Musharraf in nothing flat now offers carrots to Ahmadinejad. After the Taliban fell, the region's autocrats and dictators wondered: Who's next? Now they figure it's a pretty safe bet that nobody is.

What's the difference between September 2001 and now? It's not that anyone "liked" America or that, as the Democrats like to suggest, the country had the world's "sympathy.'' Pakistani generals and the Kremlin don't cave to your demands because they "sympathize.'' They go along because you've succeeded in impressing upon them that they've no choice. Musharraf and Co. weren't scared by America's power but by the fact that America, in the rubble of 9/11, had belatedly found the will to use that power. It is notionally at least as powerful today, but in terms of will we're back to Sept. 10: Nobody thinks America is prepared to use its power. And so Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad and wannabe "strong horses" like Baby Assad cock their snooks with impunity.

...Nitwit Democrats think anything that can be passed off as a failure in Iraq will somehow diminish only Bush and the neocons. In reality -- a concept with which Democrats seem only dimly acquainted -- it would diminish the nation, and all but certainly end the American moment. In late September 2001 the administration succeeded in teaching a critical lesson to tough hombres like Musharraf and Putin: In a scary world, America can be scarier. But it's all a long time ago now.

There may be a way to recover, but it'll take an agressive and combative attitude at home and abroad. The U.N. needs to be ignored....as do the French...and our "friends" the Chinese and Russians need to be made to understand that unless they work with us, we're going to mess up their sandbox, too.

War is hardball. But hardball across the board doesn't seem to be Mr. Bush's forte.

And we'll be the losers for it.

IT'S NOT JUST POLITICS

2006-09-03T23:38:00.000-05:00

It's simple for people who live and breathe politics to think that this war and the questions surrounding it...tactics, costs, the definition of America and what it is to be an American...is an abstract issue, all cocktail party banter, quips by clever guests, another pinot grigiot? But it's not an abstract at all. In Europe, where the "rubber hits the road" it's a blood sport.

The murder of a young Pakistani woman by her Muslim father has sparked a fierce debate in Italy about how to deal with the "clash of civilisations".

Hina Saleem, 21, was reported missing last Saturday by her boyfriend...She told the manager of the pizzeriawhere she worked as a waitress that she had been summoned home to meet a cousin who was passing through. Then her mobile phone went dead.

When the Carabinieri broke into the house in the region of Brescia in northern Italy, they found Hina's bedroom spattered with blood. In the garden, buried under a metre of soil and with her jeans and blouse soaked in blood, was the body of the missing girl. Her throat had been slit.

These are real matters. Hina was a real girl. Anybody need an illustration of what these people do to homosexuals? Think about what's at stake here, folks.

It's not just politics.