Suicide Bomber Hamas?

National Review's Jed Babbin reports, based on a confidential source, that he believes the suicide bomber who attacked the 3rd Infantry Division checkpoint was Hamas. The bomber had earlier been claimed as an Iraqi army officer. Mr. Babbin is greatly worried about the possibility. He cites the British and Israeli examples of failing to uproot these terrorists as reason to believe we are entering an ugly, and possibly permanent, state of affairs.

Even if the report is true, we'll have to see. Iraq isn't like Israel or Ireland. Both Ireland and Israel have large communities of people with what amount to pre-national, ethnic claims to unity with the terrorists. Hamas is not Iraqi. If they can find support among the Shiites of Basra, they may be able to carry on the kind of campaign the PIRA or PLO have: but they will need that support, at the street level, to gain a foothold and keep it. The British report that the citizens of Basra are currently informing on Baath party members. If we deal well and honorably with them, once they are free of the tyranny of the state, it seems unlikely to me that they would quickly seek and support new tyrants.

A response from the DPRK:

North Korea has a statement to offer on its nuclear program. Chinese diplomacy notwithstanding, they're feeling quite defiant.

It [the gov't newspaper] said no one should expect North Korea to make the "slightest concession or compromise." Instead, it said, Pyongyang will increase its self-defensive capabilities.



Pyongyang's latest comments came hours after South Korean Foreign Minister Yoon Young-Kwan met U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington to discuss the nuclear standoff. Mr. Yoon later told journalists that Washington has reaffirmed its policy of finding a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

Bravado, in the face of oil-pipe cutoffs? Another attempt at blackmail? Or just the truth?

From MSNBC:

Marines have apparently found the uniforms of captured female US soldiers.

SANDERS WAS shown where the uniforms were found � inside the bathroom of a larger room that had been padlocked. It was the same room where 3,000 nuclear, biological and chemical suits were found when the Marines moved in.

The uniforms, which had had their American flag patches and names ripped off, were found inside a bag.
In another room, Marines found a large battery next to a bed � leading them to suspect it was used as a torture device, Sanders reported.

Just so you know.

On the House of Lords:

This touches on the new election system for the higher, and least important, of the houses of the British Parliment. It may be necessary to register to read this article, which is from the Daily Telegraph, but registration is free.

From the London Spectator:

A piece that neatly explains why I am not a conservative, but rather a classical liberal. The author is right: war, except purely defensive war, is not conservative. Remaking the world according to a vision of human liberty is something else again. It is the vision that inspired James Jackson, George Washington, and the others of our American forefathers. That's not a Tory proposition. It never was.

From the NY Times:

A rare piece worth reading.

Chomsky:

One of you asked me about Noam Chomsky recently. I have never devoted much time or energy to him, though my readings of him indicate that he is a brilliant scientist, and a complete idiot on matters of politics. Still, since you asked, let's look at his column running today in the Sydney Morning Herald:

It will be some time before even preliminary assessments of the consequences can be made. Every effort must be dedicated to minimising the harm, and to providing the Iraqi people with the huge resources required for them to rebuild their society, post-Saddam - in their own way - not as dictated by foreign rulers.

Well, here's a preliminary assessment that can be made: The coalition -is- making every effort to minimize harm, at the risk of US military lives. The rules of engagement being used here, as well as the extrodinary expense invested in precision weapons, instead of simply carpet bombing, both indicate total American commitment to that ideal. Our rules of engagement don't permit returning fire against buildings that might be inhabited, for example. We are taking special pains to accept surrenders that might turn into ambushes--even though we have lost lives to such ambushes. Chomsky is not preaching to the choir, he's preaching against the choir.

There is no reason to doubt the near-universal judgement the war in Iraq will only increase the threat of terrorism and the development and use of weapons of mass destruction, for revenge or deterrence.

No reason at all? I've got a few reasons. Here's one: the threat of terrorism may just be reduced by the destruction of the Iraqi intelligence service, which--it is now a matter of record, since one of their officers was killed in the bunker strike that seems to have hit Hussein's family and ruling generals as well--coordinates with Palestinian terrorists. The threat of weapons of mass destruction being developed and used may be lessened by the end of a government that has developed and used them as a matter of policy. More to the point, though, the war isn't about preventing weapons of mass destruction from being developed and used--we develop them ourselves, though we don't use them, at least not yet. The point was to prevent them being -developed- by people likely to pass them to terrorists, who were the ones we wanted to keep from -using- them.

It is also absolutely foolish to elide, the way Chomsky does, use "whether for revenge or deterrence." Using a weapon for "revenge" means you set off a WMD in a way designed to cause terrible harm. Using a weapon for "deterrence" means you do NOT use it. You own it, yes; you keep it handy, yes; but if you use the thing, it's no longer a deterrence. It's a war, which is what a deterrence is meant to prevent. Chomsky shows his cards here by making the ownership of a weapon morally equivalent to the use of that weapon for revenge. It's like equating owning a shotgun for home defense with shooting your boss.

It is true that North Korea may now feel the need for nukes to keep GIs off the streets of Pyongyang. That's a real problem--one that my mind often turns to. It is not at all clear, though, that the DPRK didn't feel that need already: their every action on the subject for twelve years seems to have been directed at it. If they are to be restrained, it will need better thinking and stronger wills than Chomsky's. Wishful thinking won't do it.

In Iraq, the Bush Administration is pursuing an "imperial ambition" that is, rightly, frightening the world and turning the United States into an international pariah.

Well, now. An international pariah. I'm accustomed to seeing our policy described as "unilateral," in spite of a coalition of about fifty nations providing support of one kind or another. That was, I thought, enough of a stretch. Now we're a pariah! No one will trust us again--except:

Afghanistan

Albania

Angola

Australia

Azerbaijan

Bulgaria

Colombia

Costa Rica

Czech Republic

Denmark

Dominican Republic

El Salvador

Eritrea

Estonia

Ethiopia

Georgia

Honduras

Hungary

Iceland

Italy

Japan

Kuwait

Latvia

Lithuania

Macedonia

Marshall Islands

Micronesia

Mongolia

Netherlands

Nicaragua

Palau

Panama

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Rwanda

Singapore

Slovakia

Solomon Islands

South Korea

Spain

Turkey

Uganda

Ukraine

United Kingdom

Uzbekistan

As per the White House, the coalition represents a population of about 1.23 billion people. Now, about .25 billion of that is our own people here in the USA--I'm guessing the White House is including San Francisco--but that still leaves about a billion people in states that are in fact allied to us here. Chomsky is living in a fantasy world, one in which despair is eternal.

The avowed intent of current US policy is to assert a military power that is supreme in the world and beyond challenge. US preventative wars may be fought at will; preventative, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might sometimes be, they do not hold for the very different category of preventative war; the use of force to eliminate a contrived threat.

Yes to everything except that last line. A preventative war is not the use of force to eliminate a "contrived" threat, but a developing threat. Pre-emptive war tends to assume that you're about to be hit, so you hit first. Preventative war takes note of a developing threat, and gets it while it can be gotten with minimal loss of life. Pre-emptive war means waiting until a dictator has nuclear weapons and you get word that he's about to launch them against, say, Israel. Preventative war means taking out his reactor before he develops the weapons. Which is better? M. Chomsky?

That policy opens the way to protracted struggle between the United States and its enemies, some of them created by violence and aggression and not just in the Middle East. In that regard, the US attack on Iraq is an answer to Osama bin Laden's prayers.

Yes, we've all noted his celebratory messages. Wait, we haven't? Oh, that's because he's either dead or hiding in the mountains of the Afghan/Pak border, with the 82nd Airborne breathing down his neck, his chief lieutenant being interrogated by the CIA, his network disrupted, his training camps destroyed, and a huge bounty on his head. Protracted struggle with the United States will tend to do that to you. The enemies of the United States, insofar as they are real enemies and not just involved in diplomatic disagreements with us, are tyrants, dictators, and murderers. Bring them on: we'll clear the world of them.

For the world the stakes of the war and its aftermath almost couldn't be higher. To select just one of many possibilities, destabilisation in Pakistan could lead to a turnover of "loose nukes" to the global network of terrorist groups, which may well be invigorated by the invasion and military occupation of Iraq. Other possibilities, no less grim, are easy to conjure up.

They sure are. We have bunches of guys who spend their entire careers doing just that. They work for West Point, Annapolis, the CIA, the DIA, various think-tanks, the US Military, and others. If Pakistan falls, you can bet we have a plan for dealing with it--one that likely involves Navy SEALs. In fact, we probably have ten plans, and the resources to carry them out. The president--whoever he might be on the occasion--need only choose among them if the time comes.

But don't let's write off Gen. Mushareef yet. He's wilier than many seem to credit him. No need to borrow trouble, or spend our days dreaming of grim possibilities. Courage, sir. All is not lost--indeed, things are better than they've been in quite a while.

Yet the outlook for more benign outcomes isn't hopeless, starting with the world's support for the victims of war and murderous sanctions in Iraq.

What's this? A sign of hope? In Chomsky?

A promising sign is that opposition to the invasion has been entirely without precedent.

Of course. It's great that people are against fighting dictators, and are willing to take Saddam's word over that of the US government. That's just what I'd call a promising sign too.

By now, the only way for the United States to attack a much weaker enemy is to construct a huge propaganda offensive depicting it as the ultimate evil, or even as a threat to our very survival. That was Washington's scenario for Iraq.

So, depicting Iraq's government as evil was just a propaganda tool? What about the rape rooms, sir? It's impossible to even begin a list of Iraqi atrocities and crimes against humanity, for lack of knowing where to start and what to include.

There's more, if you want it. I personally feel that enough has been said to make the half of my point I was concerned about, which is that Chomsky is a political fool: quod erat demonstrandum. The other half of the point, that he is a brilliant scientist, I will leave to the man himself.

Good news from China?

The Baltimore Sun is reporting that last week's shutdown of the oil pipeline between the People's Republic of China and North Korea, ascribed to "technical difficulties," has been followed by a diplomatic message demanding that the DPRK cut out the nuclear blackmail. If true, it's a highly encouraging story.

Is it true? The sources quoted are anonymous, and the "unusually blunt" diplomatic message is not actually quoted, but summarized. The only people quoted by name are South Koreans. On the one hand, the shutting down of the pipeline is a matter of record, as is the official explanation of technical difficulties. On the other hand, this analysis conflicts directly with several others cited on this page recently. Let's hope the "veteran sources" know what they are talking about here. We could use some good news from the PRC/DPRK front.

City-fighting:

Here's a story from the Washington Post that speaks to some rumors I've been hearing and reading for a while now. It demonstrates that special operations teams have, as I asserted a week ago, the run of Baghdad, which bodes very well for the battle for that city. There is also what I consider to be good news on the subject of assassination tactics:

The covert teams, from the CIA's paramilitary division and the military's special operations group, include snipers and demolition experts schooled in setting house and car bombs. They have reportedly killed more than a handful of individuals, according to one knowledgeable source. They have been in operation for at least one week.

The previously undisclosed operation suggests U.S. efforts to destroy the Iraqi government's leadership are far more extensive than previously known, and have continued since the March 20 airstrike on a residential compound in the suburbs of Baghdad. That attack was launched after CIA Director George J. Tenet presented President Bush with fresh intelligence that Hussein and his two sons, Qusay and Uday, were sleeping in the complex.

Car bombs, house bombs, snipers--assassins. Say what you will about them, they are the best way I know of to kill the enemy without endangering the innocent. It eliminates the enemy's most valuable assets, the ones with the best knowledge of offense, defense, and capabilities. Even the ones not eliminated are inhibited, afraid to move about even in Baghdad.

Finally, these tactics being put to use in Baghdad are likely to be of special use against terrorist organizations. It is always best to capture terrorists alive, of course, so that they can be interrogated. There are places where live capture isn't an option, though. Second best is taking them out, cleanly and on the instant.

More on the Al Jazeera tape:

From NRO's warblog by Jed Babbin:

I have confirmed that the Al-Jazeera tape, all twelve minutes of it, is merely an excerpt of the hour-long version being shown regularly in Egypt and elsewhere. The short version shows the interrogation of some U.S. soldiers and the defamed dead bodies of others. The longer version includes all that, plus the murders and later abuse and mutilation of the bodies. Apparently, the whole thing is out there on the internet. I don't want to watch it tonight. Maybe tomorrow morning, when the mind is fresher, more able to withstand it.

I'm on the lookout for this, though downloading an hour-long video on my 28k modem would be the work of quite a while. This is exactly the sort of thing that -should- be available to US citizens, but isn't because the media is afraid of what we'd do if we saw it. The TV news program, even the internet "new media," which started out to tell people the truth in order to right wrongs, now believes it is their duty to hide the truth from the citizenry. We are not to be trusted: why not isn't really clear. What might we do? Support the war? Moreso? Support for the war is already broad and deep.

Serbia:

You will recall that the Serbian Prime Minister was recently assassinated. He was most famous for turning his predecessor, Slobodan Milosevic, over to the International Criminal Court for prosecution on war crimes. One of Slobodan's special friends was the "Unit for Special Operations," which was a part of the police force numbering some 300 men, led by Slobodan's chief bodyguard. Well, today 15 members of that force--which was disbanded some time ago--were arrested for complicity in the murder of the Prime Minister.

But wait! Other members of the police force have jumped into high gear, rounding up some three thousand suspects. Two of these, who these police claim were the actual killers, were shot and killed. Sadly, interrogation of these criminal suspects is now impossible.

Hmm. Major Strausser has been shot. Round up the usual suspects. As for these two, we're not quite sure if they committed suicide, or died trying to escape.

Korea Today:

Korea Today reports that there are some meetings set between the South Korean Foreign Minister and US officials. It's being billed as important for the nuke showdown with the North, though, which may mean that some backdoor diplomacy is going on.

InstaPundit linked last night to this piece in the London Times. It presents an analysis of who won and lost through the Iraq diplomacy, suggesting that North Korea was a winner and Russia a loser. The reasons are that the war in Iraq may exhaust the United States, militarily and politically, thus protecting North Korea. As for Russia:

The cold warriors in Russia�s foreign ministry may be congratulating themselves about undermining Nato by tempting France and Germany into a new triple alliance, but this strategy will backfire in the long run, as America tightens its military links with Poland, Hungary and the Baltic States, all countries inherently hostile to Russia. Even worse, the shift of American allegiances from Western Europe to the Middle East and Asia could revive the ultimate Russian nightmare � a further strengthening of the US-Chinese relationship, already the world�s most important economic partnership.

This analysis is, in my opinion, completely mistaken. Russia, like several of the powers, is engaged in a gamble for a place in the order that will result from this war on terrorism. Their hand is much stronger than the Times realizes, and they are therefore not in any danger. Whatever the United States might wish to take from them to punish their acts vis. Iraq, they can easily win back by demanding concessions on the Chechen semistate, nuclear disarmament, the security of Soviet-era nuclear materials, and, especially, partnership in a containment of the DPRK. Russia will do all right, because we need them so much.

Whether or not we'll have the military and political will to go after the DPRK also depends more on the DPRK than on us. If they carry on nuclear blackmail, I suspect the administration may feel they have no choice but to strike while the iron is hot--too hot already, in fact, but not yet so hot that it will explode when it is struck, or ignite by spontaneous combustion the building containing it.

As for the strengthening of the Chinese "partnership," that is a most dubious proposition. The Economist, a far better source of news analysis than the London Times in my book, has been warning us for more than a year that the Fourth Generation, as the new Chinese leadership is called, is notably more hostile to the West than its predecessors. CNN reports that the People's Liberation Army, which has a strong voice in the new arrangement, is urging a much more hostile policy toward the United States, and considers that China can't afford to "lose" North Korea as a buffer state. Honestly, having a nuclear-armed blackmail artist as my buffer state would hardly seem preferable to--well, most anything. However, the PLA is right about one thing: as long as the DPRK exists, the United States is contained in the region from acting directly against Chinese interests. The need for the PRC to help us contain DPRK nuclear material from reaching terrorists means we can't act against China in any matter on which they are prepared to play hardball.

Thus, the DPRK ties US foreign policy into knots, even if it is contained, and allows two relatively brutal powers to have their way unchallenged with the lives of millions. Some of those millions, it ought be noted, are the Chechens and the East Turkmen--two Muslim minorities who might have seen the United States as natural allies in their struggle for liberty, if we weren't in a position of being bound to their oppressors by the need to control North Korea. Therefore does al Qaeda tell them, honestly enough, that the United States is no friend to them: thus do we end up the supporters of tyrants over free men of good heart.

The DPRK must go. Not only for the sake of the freedom of the North Koreans, who do not deserve such tyranny, but to unbind our hands that we may protect the free and raise up the oppressed. If we are to guard Taiwan, we must not be bound to China. If we are to aid the East Turkmen, even covertly, we must not be tied to the PLA. If we are to uphold the interests of the Chechens, as we ought, Russia cannot have a veto over our conduct. All of these things tie back to the DPRK, and its nuclear blackmail. It must be ended, one way or another, as soon as we can manage it.

Terror tactics:

Two reports on this today. The first is that Iran seems to have stopped a suicide attack on Navy vessels. This article from the Sydney Morning Herald provides the details, as well as some interesting notes on how the Royal Navy deals with the defense of its ships.

NBC has a report of an Arabic message from al Qaeda to Iraqi irregulars, offering tips on fighting Americans. It was apparently posted to one of the Qaeda-linked websites. NBC is calling it a "military playbook" on irregular tactics against Americans, based upon their experiences in Afghanistan. If any of you find a translated version of this "message," I'd like you to email me about it.

POWs and War Crimes:

Albawaba, a middle-eastern news source, has this article on what they are terming American abuses of the Geneva Conventions. Predictably, they charge the United States with violating exactly the provisions of the Geneva Convention that the administration cited in their concerns over the Al Jazeera interviews with captured American POWs. With that as a foundation, they move on to complain about similar violations with our detainees at GitMo. Because their first complaint is undeniable, one tends not to notice that their second complaint improperly elides actual Iraqi Army POWs with illegal combatants--nonuniformed Talibs and al Qaeda. The Geneva Conventions quite specifically exempt illegal combatants from their rules, but it doesn't matter. We've given them a stick to beat us with by raising this foolish complaint.

It is the more foolish given that we suspect American POWs were executed. This article, which is based on an interview with a Marine General, is worth reading in full. It cites numerous actual war crimes, as well as the summary execution by hanging of an Iraqi woman who waved to coalition forces.

Finally, on this topic, there were some interviews with Afghani men released from GitMo. These interviews were conducted back in Afghanistan, and ought to provide a certain contrast with that last article. Two of the detainees have some unpleasant things to say about their time in custody; the others, surprisingly flattering things given that they were imprisoned. Even if you accept the worst and take the best with a grain of salt, the American system compares favorably with that of our foes.

A mistake?

I'm seeing a couple of reports coming in from Central Command, describing the report about a "1,000 vehicle armored convoy of Republican Guards" as a mistake. A mistake? A thousand-vehicle convoy? Moving, according to reports all day, in a very specific direction, and now it's just a mistake? Fog of war is one thing, lads, but it sounds like something is up here.

Storied Units:

Did I mention storied units? It isn't just the Marine Expeditionary Force and the "Rock of the Marne." I knew that the British had sent Royal Marine Commandos, but I didn't realize that The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards and The Black Watch were present outside Basra. Thanks to Sgt. Stryker for the link.

An oddity:

This article from National Review Online is rather unusual. It treats the problem of administering the post-war Iraqi oil fields. What is unusual about it is that, in what is very much a free-market publication, Hutchinson, the author, ends up advocating a "Singapore style" collective, government-administered fund to provide for what amount to social security benefits. I suppose it's largely in line with the idea to privatize American social security, but it seems an oddity to find National Review advocating the creation of a government bureaucracy to oversee social welfare.

City-fighting:

If you are curious to see some of the training materials used by the USMC in preparing for urban warfare, you can read one of the briefings here. This is the manual for non-commissioned officers, which is short enough for the general-interest reader to plow through if you are really worried about those street battles.

Wonderful news from Iraq:

Sky news is reporting on the two columns of suspected Republican Guard, one of which has come under fire from the Royal Air Force and the U.S. Navy. The other, 1,000 vehicles and up to 5,000 men strong, is headed to certain destruction:

A second group of around 1,000 Republican Guard vehicles containing up to 5,000 troops are heading south from Baghdad towards US Marines, American media reported.



US military intelligence claims their route avoids advancing US Army forces and leads them directly toward the Marines, who have been worn down from intense fighting around Nasiriya.

The Washington Post reported on the condition of the Marines on the 23rd:

As the Marines prepare to sprint toward Baghdad, the biggest speedbump along the way could be their own ability to keep their men fed, their ammunition stocked, and their vehicles full of fuel.



Marine commanders knew that the ambitious plan for a rapid-fire ground invasion of Iraq would require them to move men and machines an unprecedented distance overland, testing their logistical capabilities as never before. Now, with the Army's 3rd infantry division more than halfway to the Iraqi capital, the Marines are hustling to make up ground as quickly as possible.



"The operations guys would go the Baghdad today if we could," said Capt. John Wiener, 35, of Cherry Hill, N.J., the logistics officer for the 1st battalion, 7th Marine regiment. "Tactically, it makes sense for us to be up by where the Army is. Right now, our limiting factor isn't enemy forces, it's fuel."

So, the Republican Guard is solving the fuel problem for the Marines. We have heard a lot about the Iraqi Republican Guards, and their elite status in the Iraqi military. Well, the I Marine Expeditionary Force is composed of some storied units. The First Marine Divison is there, who fought at the Chosin Reservoir, where that division of Marines smashed seven Chinese divisions. The Seventh Marine Regiment has had more Medal of Honor winners than any other regiment of Marines. If Iraq has decided to send their best, they'll have a chance to see what ours looks like.

Overnight developments with the DPRK:

Yesterday North Korea cut its last regular ties to the United States and United Nations, which existed in the form of the United Nations Command, a meeting of liason officers from various national military services.. Explaining their decision, the DPRK accused the United States of planning an attack on them.

Are we planning an attack? Well, yes. The United States regularly plans military scenarios for potential situations, on the theory that they might come in handy just in case. Yet Senate souces say that the administration has accepted the idea of a nuclear DPRK. The theory on which this is being done is dubious: that, once North Korea goes nuclear, if it tries to sell fissile materials or nuclear technology, its neighbors will -then- become nervous and try to apply pressure. Once the DPRK is fully nuclear, though, what pressure is left to apply? The economic sanctions that are being discussed as an option might, indeed, threaten the regime with collapse--if it weren't in a position to blackmail payments out of the neighboring countries. Even without a proven capacity to use such weapons, the DPRK is attempting to force Japan to abandon its satellite program. Does anyone believe such threats will stop once the DPRK is actually strong enough to carry them out? Are we really going to wait until they are nuclear to call their bluff? What if they don't fold?

Millions die, that's what. Japan's population, within easy reach of their current missile technology, is about 125 million, concentrated in urban areas. North Korea's population is just over 22 million according to the CIA. If we don't address these matters before Korea goes nuclear, all of those people are at risk of nuclear fire if the DPRK chose to let fly rather than suffer internal collapse.