Poker and War:
Why I have always loved poker.
Can this be true?
From the New York Times:
From the New York Times:
The Army's Third Infantry Division has a team of lawyers along to advise on whether targets are legitimate under international conventions � and a vast database of some 10,000 targets to be avoided, such as hospitals, mosques and cultural or archaeological treasures.Words fail me. Ten thousand targets to be avoided? Chivalry.
On Beowulf:
That is, on the poem, not the boy. From the Heroic Age, this article treats how heroic poetry was of old used to educate young men. It's a little dry, but since this is a theme of the blog just lately, I thought I'd include it.
That is, on the poem, not the boy. From the Heroic Age, this article treats how heroic poetry was of old used to educate young men. It's a little dry, but since this is a theme of the blog just lately, I thought I'd include it.
How little changes, II:
5,000 year old swords found in Turkey. Wonderful story--silver inlaid, finely made weapons. Here is the United States Marine Corps Officer's Sword.
5,000 year old swords found in Turkey. Wonderful story--silver inlaid, finely made weapons. Here is the United States Marine Corps Officer's Sword.
War with DPRK soon?
The BBC is reporting that Kim Jong Il, leader of North Korea, has not been seen in public in over forty days. He apparently even skipped the annual parlimentary meeting. Also not visible: his top military staff. Jo Myong-chol, a high-level defector, says the North has gone on a war footing.
The BBC is reporting that Kim Jong Il, leader of North Korea, has not been seen in public in over forty days. He apparently even skipped the annual parlimentary meeting. Also not visible: his top military staff. Jo Myong-chol, a high-level defector, says the North has gone on a war footing.
How little has changed:
From the Washington Post:
From the Washington Post:
In a model of how the Marines say they hope their relationship with the Iraqi people can evolve, the two sides struck a deal: the Marines agreed to escort some villagers to a nearby well to get clean water and help repair damage caused by the fleeing Iraqi army. The village leaders agreed to go house to house, rounding up rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons that could be used against U.S. forces.From the Beowulf:
The bargain was sealed with a feast cooked up by the townspeople, featuring rice, bread and goat cooked over an open fire.
Gathered together, the Geatish menIs this the modern world, where warriors from far off bring promises to guard their hosts with valor, and are feasted as heroes? It is our world, today. The journals of psychology and sociology are worthless as guides to it. But there are ready sources that speak to it, tell us how to live in it, master it, and stride across it. They are the old songs, the epic poems, the sagas and the tales. A man might read a thousand page book by this or that famous journalist on the subject of Iraq, and still be at a loss when he tried to pass among the tribes. The same man, if he hears the Iliad, knows just what must be done.
in the banquet-hall on bench assigned,
sturdy-spirited, sat them down,
hardy-hearted. A henchman attended,
carried the carven cup in hand...
Then let him make thee a rich feast ofWise words from Odysseus, master mariner and soldier.
reconcilement in his hut, that thou have nothing lacking of thy right.
And thou, son of Atreus, toward others also shalt be more righteous
herafter; for no shame it is that a man that is a king should make
amends if he have been the first to deal violently.
Iraq War:
Today's Washington Post lead story contains these remarkable lines:
That is what they did, trapping them against the Euprhates and smashing them, then rolling on. They have moved faster and with less care for their supply lines than I would have imagined they ever would dare--but neither, it seems, did the Iraqis imagine it. Now they have invested Basra, trapping most of the remaining regular forces in the south, and have taken up siege positions of Baghdad in the south. The northern forces will be moving south as they build up sufficient strength, both to complete the investment of Baghdad and to see if they can flush the dug-in Republican Guard positions--if the RG feels it needs to shuffle forces to defend Baghdad, they will have to move tanks and troops in a way that will make them vunerable to airstrikes.
It makes perfect sense at this time to pause, use air power to smite the RG lines, concentrate on cleaning up some of the irregular forces operating in the backfield, and secure supply lines. It is standard military policy--which may mean that it's not at all what we're going to do, as Rumsfeld is an original thinker. If it is what we do, though, it's hardly a bad thing, or a sign that the war is faltering.
The fact that we are able to do this at leisure demonstrates the complete command our forces have of the battlfield. There is simply no coherent Iraqi defense. One may develop around Baghdad, but unless they can manage a counteroffensive, it is simply a matter of time and leverage until they are destroyed.
Today's Washington Post lead story contains these remarkable lines:
Top Army officers in Iraq say they now believe that they effectively need to restart the war. Before launching a major ground attack on Iraq's Republican Guard, they want to secure their supply lines and build up their own combat power. Some timelines for the likely duration of the war now extend well into the summer, they say.What these reporters are describing is standard military policy, not an 'effective restart' of the war. During the first days of the war, the 3rd Infantry Division was described as having been 'driven' off by Iraqi resistance. Not so, I said: they are simply investing their foes, to trap them that they might take them down at leisure and with airpower.
This revised view of the war plan, a major departure from the blitzkrieg approach developed over the past year, threatens to undercut early Bush administration hopes for a quick triumph over the government of President Saddam Hussein.
That is what they did, trapping them against the Euprhates and smashing them, then rolling on. They have moved faster and with less care for their supply lines than I would have imagined they ever would dare--but neither, it seems, did the Iraqis imagine it. Now they have invested Basra, trapping most of the remaining regular forces in the south, and have taken up siege positions of Baghdad in the south. The northern forces will be moving south as they build up sufficient strength, both to complete the investment of Baghdad and to see if they can flush the dug-in Republican Guard positions--if the RG feels it needs to shuffle forces to defend Baghdad, they will have to move tanks and troops in a way that will make them vunerable to airstrikes.
It makes perfect sense at this time to pause, use air power to smite the RG lines, concentrate on cleaning up some of the irregular forces operating in the backfield, and secure supply lines. It is standard military policy--which may mean that it's not at all what we're going to do, as Rumsfeld is an original thinker. If it is what we do, though, it's hardly a bad thing, or a sign that the war is faltering.
The fact that we are able to do this at leisure demonstrates the complete command our forces have of the battlfield. There is simply no coherent Iraqi defense. One may develop around Baghdad, but unless they can manage a counteroffensive, it is simply a matter of time and leverage until they are destroyed.
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.
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.
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.Bravado, in the face of oil-pipe cutoffs? Another attempt at blackmail? Or just the truth?
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.
From MSNBC:
Marines have apparently found the uniforms of captured female US soldiers.
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.Just so you know.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
The Washington Post reported on the condition of the Marines on the 23rd:
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.
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.
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.
The Hero's Life
or, A sketched response to Sayyid Qutb.
The New York Times Magazine ran a piece by Paul Berman entitled "The Philosopher of Islamic Terror." Mr. Berman's study of the writings of Sayyid Qutb, one of the founders of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, presents the reader with a needed understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of al Qaeda and other Islamist groups. It also produces for us a challenge: who in the West can respond to the deep questions raised by Qutb? "The terrorists speak insanely of deep things," Berman writes. "The antiterrorists had better speak sanely of equally deep things. . . . Armies are in motion, but are the philosophers and religious leaders, the liberal thinkers, likewise in motion?"
A full response to Qutb's writings is the work of years, and beyond the scope of this piece. What is attempted here is a sketch of what such a response should look like. In effect it proposes a synthesis of Qutb with Western philosophy, recognizing that large parts of his argument are echoed in the Western, and particularly the Anglo-American, tradition. With only a few changes, the Islamist can slide seamlessly into our own tradition, reinforcing and strengthening the healthiest and--per Mr. Berman--sanest parts of our philosophy. The Islamist willing to accommodate us becomes one of us, an ally, even a brother in arms.
Can they be convinced to make accommodations? With the right philosophy to guide us, I think they might be convinced.
I. Socrates & Qutb
Qutb's central complaint with the United States was its doctrine of the separation of church and state. Secularization led to a supreme discontent, a sense that human nature was betrayed. Science and God were not meant to be enemies, but rather science was meant to be a means of looking for the truth of God. The mistake, Qutb felt, had come in the days of the early Christian church. Outraged by the persecution of the Jews, Christians had turned away from the old Jewish Law and allowed Greek philosophy to replace it; overwhelmed by the prolificacy of the Romans, the early Christians retreated into a private realm of spirituality, and let the state go its own way. The modern separation of church and state was, he felt, an extension of this earlier theological mistake.
There are two things to be said about this. The less important is that this analysis is wrong on a number of historic points. A fuller argument would enumerate these, but here we are not interested in rejecting Qutb's argument. We are interested in sketching ways to reply to it that will allow us to absorb it into our own tradition of philosophy.
To do that we need to deal with this question of the Islamist disdain for Greek philosophy. Curiously, there are strong parallels between Qutb's life and that of Socrates, and between Islamist and Platonic ideas about the life well lived. One line of attack, then, should be to attempt to draw the Islamist into that Greek tradition.
The first way to do this is to demonstrate that, for Plato, philosophy was a continuation of the heroic tradition, a battle every bit as worthy as those found in Homer. In this way, it was a struggle exactly parallel to that of the jihad: a war fought through words, but a struggle that was just as heroic and compelling as any other. Plato himself is our strongest and most seductive advocate. Eric Voeglin showed how heroic language was often used in the Platonic dialogues. In my Master's thesis, I looked at how Socrates was often portrayed as Odysseus specifically, and how Plato used the formal language of battles and duels to exalt the business of philosophy. This is just the language we will need to move the hearts of jihadi.
For someone who believes in a philosophical duty of jihad, entering into such a struggle can hardly be resisted. Furthermore, Plato and Aristotle spoke to precisely the concerns that we see cited again and again: courage, honor, virtue, and living the good life in the face of danger. Socrates, like Qutb, was sentenced to death primarily for his particular philosophy, and like Qutb refused a chance to escape, going willingly to his death for a point of philosophy. If philosophers educated in the Greek tradition are willing to undertake a study of Islam, that they may be able to speak to the concerns and issues that Islamists will raise in reply, it ought to be possible to draw Islamists into such a debate. We have a large store of them in Cuba, in fact, who have nothing else to do just now. Taliban in particular were students before they became fighting men. Educated about the majesty of the Greek tradition, when they are finally released they should provide an organic means of spreading the story of Socrates among Islamists, and carry on the work of engaging them in a jihad of words and ideas instead of guns and bombs.
II. Ingeld & Christ
If we succeed in engaging them in a Western style philosophy, what will we say to them? How do you argue with the claim of divine revelation? It is not unlikely that fanatics will, at some point, simply fall back upon assertion in the place of argument. How to break that cycle?
The answer lies in the Anglo-American tradition--indeed, its roots are in the Anglo-Saxon tradition. In 797, Alcuin, a famous early leader of the Anglo-Saxon church, wrote to remonstrate the monks of Lindisfarne for their indulgence in heroic literature. "What has Ingeld to do with Christ?" he demanded, Ingeld being a Germanic king of heroic cycles now largely lost. Alcuin was ignored, however, and the story of Ingeld remained so well known that the Beowulf poet did not feel any need to tell it at length, but only made sidelong citations to it.
Alcuin was serious, and in him we see the kind of early Christian that Qutb despised. Yet Alcuin's voice carries to us so strongly across the centuries only by accident of fate. His writings survived. What did not survive was this, apparently very strong, poetic tradition of Ingeld and other Germanic hero-kings. If we look past Alcuin, we see that very many monks and priests were not separating sacred from secular: they were singing songs of hero-kings in the very monastery.
The answer to Alcuin's rhetorical question is this: Ingeld and Christ are to us as father and mother. Honoring one and despising the other is unhealthy. Qutb understood this: but so did we. The radical divide between church and state does not date to Alcuin's times, except insofar as it was being advocated by certain hard-headed priests. The general run of the populace seems to have understood the relationship between Ingeld and Christ.
This traditional understanding of the relationship between sacred and secular was long preserved. After the Norman conquest, a monk named Geoffery of Monmouth wrote another piece that carries down to us today. It was "The History of the Kings of Britain," a long tale of hero-kings, including Arthur himself. The Canterbury Tales demonstrate a smooth blending of the sacred and the secular, and indeed the Christian and the pagan, as in the "Knight's Tale." Shakespeare drew gladly from all such sources. Sir Walter Scott, in _Ivanhoe_, shows the principle appreciated in all its full-throated glory in the meeting between Richard and the Holy Clerk of Copmanhurst. Nor can anyone read G. K. Chesterton's magnificent _Orthodoxy_ , first published in 1908, and fail to see that there remained fully sacred men. You do not need to be a Christian to think so.
In fact, Chesterton's _Orthodoxy_ is similar to Qutb's writings in that it is a firm rejection of Modernism, except that Chesterton was around when Modernism was being born. If Qutb writes hysterically about how Modernism was affecting the Middle East of his day, Chesterton writes with foresight about how the movement would affect the world for a century to come. Reading the early chapters, one sees that Chesterton not only accurately predicted the problems that would arise with Modernism, but accurately predicted the development of Post-modernism as well.
Nor was Chesterton the last of his tradition. J. R. R. Tolkien invoked the tradition with as great power as anyone, using his deep learning to evoke meaning from the words of dead languages--especially Old English, Old Norse, and the other Scandinavian tongues in which the tales of Ingeld had been written.
This is the tradition that answers Qutb. In the Norse sagas, in the Beowulf and other Old English poems, in Sir Thomas Malory and Scott and Chesterton, and in Tolkien's Aragorn, there is a common reply to boasting: 'We shall put it to the test.'
III. Putting it to the test
This a formula, as Tom Shippey points out in _J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century_, central to the old heroic ideal. It is Beowulf's response to Unferth's challenge. It occurs endless times in the Norse sagas of gods and heroes. Odin wagers his head with giants over the answers to riddles, or the speed of horses. The champions of king Hrolf Kraki swear to flee neither fire nor iron--nor do they, when put to the test by Odin. In the epic "Battle of Maldon," men fight and die beside their fallen chief rather than flee and betray the oaths they have given. Arthur is praised for placing his body "in adventure, as other poor knights do." Chesterton, in his introduction to _Orthodoxy_, says "Even a bad shot is dignified when he accepts a duel." Aragorn replies to Boromir's demand to know if he has the arm of Isildur as well as his sword, "We shall put it to the test one day."
This is the reply to assertions of certain knowledge. It is a hero's answer, and it is Socrates' answer. It was, in its way, Qutb's. Students of Qutb will know how much he made of the Arabic discovery of the scientific method--which is only another way of putting belief to the test.
This is ground on which many Islamist principles can be combated. It has already been noted in several places that Islam imposes stringent laws on warfare, which condemn many of al Qaeda's tactics, especially toward noncombatants. Any movement which claims to serve moral principles, but ends up planning to capture and murder kindergartners, is a movement vulnerable to the challenge of being put to the test. This is the truer in the Islamist case given that Islam itself condemns their methods.
Islam is a faith that calls for its followers to be heroes in the service of Allah. This heroic challenge, this challenge to enter into philosophical jihad, ought to prove irresistible--it certainly has with the Muslims I have known. That we can entice them to battle is certain. That we will be victorious is not. There are two things that philosophers must be prepared to do in order to make this work.
The first is that we must study and become steeped in their lore as well as our own. It is necessary to be able to recognize when they have entered into a defense that can be challenged on Islamic grounds. This is certainly not the only way to combat ideas--logic will do as well, and history. But, in this case, it has a special power because of the authority which they ascribe to the Islamic tradition.
The second is that we must ourselves adopt this heroic tradition, first to last. It will not do for philosophers to carry on arguing Realism v. Post-Modernism. You must be ready to be put to the test. In order to enter into the lists, one has to be willing to abide the result. Whether or not words and concepts can actually describe The Truth is a debate which has now been had, and must be set aside. Here is realism enough: the Islamists currently believe that it is necessary to kill us, our families, and our children. If they are to be beaten in the realm of ideas, you must believe in the ideas you bring forth. They are your weapons. They are your only weapons. They are as real as a sword.
IV. Common Complaints
The Islamist believes that the West wishes to eradicate Islam as a real faith, forcing secularization upon them. It is necessary to convince them that this is not true. In point of fact, it is not true. There has never been a society as eager to hear and consider new views as the West. Muslims can, and do, find that they are perfectly welcome and can become full participants in Western society. They are not asked to abandon their faith, but only to personalize it: to apply its principles to themselves, but not enforce them on their neighbor.
The most devastating philosophical differences between Islamists and the West at first appears to be a question of liberty. What we perceive as women's liberty, the Islamist sees as a moral horror. There are many such complaints: the so-called "bin Laden's letter to America" cites homosexuality, fornication, gambling, and the drinking of intoxicants, among other flaws it finds in the Western way of life. Qutb in his day cited racism and the Indian wars as proof of America's moral failings.
Ultimately, however, all of these complaints have an answer in one voice or another within America itself. No Islamist need feel alone in voicing condemnation of gambling, which is illegal in many states. Fornication is a specific offense against state law in Georgia. Southern Baptists are so utterly opposed to drinking that many deny that Jesus drank wine. Condemnation of the Indian wars is now part of the standard text of American history. Racism is widely denounced. Even on the question of woman's liberty, there are voices to be found who will support positions even more extreme than those of the Islamist.
Berman notes that, for Qutb, the central problem with America was its separation between church and state. There are many Americans who agree fervently. Qutb wrote that "a final offensive [is] actually taking place now. . . to exterminate this religion as even a basic creed and to replace it with secular conceptions[.]" That point of view, different only in which religion "this" one might be, is echoed regularly in articles from the National Review, to the neopagan WitchVox.com, to the Jewish World Review.
The Americans who hold these views are not enemies of the state. In many cases they are among the greatest patriots the state knows. Neither the readership of National Review, nor the congregation at a Southern Baptist church, is likely to be the source of anti-American sentiment. They, like Qutb, feel that the division between the secular and the sacred is a powerful source of disharmony in modern life. Yet, their response is opposite: to love America regardless and try to change her from within, rather than to hate America and seek her destruction. Another of the old heroic concepts explains this oddity.
V. Frith
"Frith" is an Old English word, of the same root as "friend." It refers to the driving ethical concept in the old heroic saga, a kind of communal bond between a man and his family, his friends, his gods (or, if he were a Christian, his God), his neighbors. As every man and every woman had each a network of these frith-bonds, so then every family was bound by each and all of them together. In this way, neighbors and communities, families and friends would defend and uphold each other.
Much has been written about the failure to assimilate Muslim populations, particularly in Europe. This highlights a particular mode of thinking that needs to be addressed, multiculturalism. Multiculturalism can mean two things, one of them healthy, the other destructive. Multiculturalism of the first sort needs to be encouraged, as it opens spaces for those who--like the Islamist--feel ill at ease with Modern life. Multiculturalism of the second sort needs to be assaulted and eradicated.
The first sort of Multiculturalism is that practiced by the Anglo-Saxon monks. It is Ingeld and Christ, existing in happy cohesion. The Muslim in the West ought to feel pride in his Islamic heritage, but as a member of the West he ought also to love the West. It is not necessary to be uncritical to love a thing, nor is it necessary to be blind to its faults. It is only necessary to -love it-. As an American of Korean and Irish heritage ought to love both his Korean father and his Irish mother, and Korean and Irish culture, so he ought also to love America.
The second sort of Multiculturalism is the business of choosing sides. Like a child of divorce picking one parent to love and the other to hate, this is destructive to the bonds of community. It is destructive even if one of the parents is a right bastard. These bonds are what allow us to rest comfortably in common defense. They must be preserved at all costs. Multicultural exercises designed to demonize the West, Western heritage, Christianity, or America, ought to be no more acceptable than exercises in demonizing Koreans, Jews, or Africa. Those who love America will want to change her, whether they be Muslims or Southern Baptists. This is to the good. But those who hate America must be sought out by philosophers, challenged, and put to the test. There is evidence enough to defeat them.
The building and maintenance of frith bonds is a central duty of heroes. The story of the death of King Arthur as it has come down to us is the story of the end of such bonds; so too are the Icelandic sagas. These are tales of warning, traditional tales rooted in oral poetry that stretches back beyond our ability to conceive. They are the wisdom of the ancestors of the West, and ought be heeded.
VI. Conclusion
What will the jihadi make of all this? It is an alien tradition, one that raises claims to authority outside of the Koran. That is a thing against which Qutb warned, a thing he saw as a kind of paganism. But we in the West have done well with paganism. Multiculturalism isn't really new to us, as Alcuin demonstrates. The old heathen ways never went away. Ingeld and Christ remain as parents to us in the West. There are those who have been fully secular, and those fully sacred, but those who have held the floor with the sanest and healthiest vision are those--Chesterton, Tolkien, Shakespeare, Scott--who have been both. All these men loved elves, but none gave us reason to think he despised simple farmers.
The Islamist who finds himself a guest of the United States, in college or in GitMo, is likely to have plenty of opportunity to be drawn in. They need to go away with some answers from us. First, they need to be shown that our tradition of philosophy is one that resonates with their own. Second, they ought to be shown that tolerance isn't only for 'gamblers, drinkers of intoxicants, fornicators and homosexuals,' but also for Baptists, Republicans, and Muslims. They need to be made aware that their longing for a sacred community is echoed in many Western minds, and that they will find natural allies in unexpected places--as long, that is, as they fight in the hazel-fenced field of ideas. If they do, they will become brothers in arms, bringing us new perspectives and ideas. They should also know that if they do not, we have a living heroic tradition as old as their own, and will fight and die rather than surrender.
Finally, they need to be shown how vigorous and warlike the Western philosophical tradition is. Jihadi ought to love it. Once they see that at least some of us can be swayed by a good argument, they might never leave it again. Thrasymachus of Plato's Republic is a perfect example of the high joy that comes from the combateers of ideas, who fell upon Socrates and companions 'like a wild beast,' and swore they were not of the force to defeat him. Well, he and his boast were put to the test.
Living the hero's life is an exercise in joy. Putting yourself to the test is the finest way to live. Courage will be needed. It has been found before: indeed, if we look, it never went away.
or, A sketched response to Sayyid Qutb.
The New York Times Magazine ran a piece by Paul Berman entitled "The Philosopher of Islamic Terror." Mr. Berman's study of the writings of Sayyid Qutb, one of the founders of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, presents the reader with a needed understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of al Qaeda and other Islamist groups. It also produces for us a challenge: who in the West can respond to the deep questions raised by Qutb? "The terrorists speak insanely of deep things," Berman writes. "The antiterrorists had better speak sanely of equally deep things. . . . Armies are in motion, but are the philosophers and religious leaders, the liberal thinkers, likewise in motion?"
A full response to Qutb's writings is the work of years, and beyond the scope of this piece. What is attempted here is a sketch of what such a response should look like. In effect it proposes a synthesis of Qutb with Western philosophy, recognizing that large parts of his argument are echoed in the Western, and particularly the Anglo-American, tradition. With only a few changes, the Islamist can slide seamlessly into our own tradition, reinforcing and strengthening the healthiest and--per Mr. Berman--sanest parts of our philosophy. The Islamist willing to accommodate us becomes one of us, an ally, even a brother in arms.
Can they be convinced to make accommodations? With the right philosophy to guide us, I think they might be convinced.
I. Socrates & Qutb
Qutb's central complaint with the United States was its doctrine of the separation of church and state. Secularization led to a supreme discontent, a sense that human nature was betrayed. Science and God were not meant to be enemies, but rather science was meant to be a means of looking for the truth of God. The mistake, Qutb felt, had come in the days of the early Christian church. Outraged by the persecution of the Jews, Christians had turned away from the old Jewish Law and allowed Greek philosophy to replace it; overwhelmed by the prolificacy of the Romans, the early Christians retreated into a private realm of spirituality, and let the state go its own way. The modern separation of church and state was, he felt, an extension of this earlier theological mistake.
There are two things to be said about this. The less important is that this analysis is wrong on a number of historic points. A fuller argument would enumerate these, but here we are not interested in rejecting Qutb's argument. We are interested in sketching ways to reply to it that will allow us to absorb it into our own tradition of philosophy.
To do that we need to deal with this question of the Islamist disdain for Greek philosophy. Curiously, there are strong parallels between Qutb's life and that of Socrates, and between Islamist and Platonic ideas about the life well lived. One line of attack, then, should be to attempt to draw the Islamist into that Greek tradition.
The first way to do this is to demonstrate that, for Plato, philosophy was a continuation of the heroic tradition, a battle every bit as worthy as those found in Homer. In this way, it was a struggle exactly parallel to that of the jihad: a war fought through words, but a struggle that was just as heroic and compelling as any other. Plato himself is our strongest and most seductive advocate. Eric Voeglin showed how heroic language was often used in the Platonic dialogues. In my Master's thesis, I looked at how Socrates was often portrayed as Odysseus specifically, and how Plato used the formal language of battles and duels to exalt the business of philosophy. This is just the language we will need to move the hearts of jihadi.
For someone who believes in a philosophical duty of jihad, entering into such a struggle can hardly be resisted. Furthermore, Plato and Aristotle spoke to precisely the concerns that we see cited again and again: courage, honor, virtue, and living the good life in the face of danger. Socrates, like Qutb, was sentenced to death primarily for his particular philosophy, and like Qutb refused a chance to escape, going willingly to his death for a point of philosophy. If philosophers educated in the Greek tradition are willing to undertake a study of Islam, that they may be able to speak to the concerns and issues that Islamists will raise in reply, it ought to be possible to draw Islamists into such a debate. We have a large store of them in Cuba, in fact, who have nothing else to do just now. Taliban in particular were students before they became fighting men. Educated about the majesty of the Greek tradition, when they are finally released they should provide an organic means of spreading the story of Socrates among Islamists, and carry on the work of engaging them in a jihad of words and ideas instead of guns and bombs.
II. Ingeld & Christ
If we succeed in engaging them in a Western style philosophy, what will we say to them? How do you argue with the claim of divine revelation? It is not unlikely that fanatics will, at some point, simply fall back upon assertion in the place of argument. How to break that cycle?
The answer lies in the Anglo-American tradition--indeed, its roots are in the Anglo-Saxon tradition. In 797, Alcuin, a famous early leader of the Anglo-Saxon church, wrote to remonstrate the monks of Lindisfarne for their indulgence in heroic literature. "What has Ingeld to do with Christ?" he demanded, Ingeld being a Germanic king of heroic cycles now largely lost. Alcuin was ignored, however, and the story of Ingeld remained so well known that the Beowulf poet did not feel any need to tell it at length, but only made sidelong citations to it.
Alcuin was serious, and in him we see the kind of early Christian that Qutb despised. Yet Alcuin's voice carries to us so strongly across the centuries only by accident of fate. His writings survived. What did not survive was this, apparently very strong, poetic tradition of Ingeld and other Germanic hero-kings. If we look past Alcuin, we see that very many monks and priests were not separating sacred from secular: they were singing songs of hero-kings in the very monastery.
The answer to Alcuin's rhetorical question is this: Ingeld and Christ are to us as father and mother. Honoring one and despising the other is unhealthy. Qutb understood this: but so did we. The radical divide between church and state does not date to Alcuin's times, except insofar as it was being advocated by certain hard-headed priests. The general run of the populace seems to have understood the relationship between Ingeld and Christ.
This traditional understanding of the relationship between sacred and secular was long preserved. After the Norman conquest, a monk named Geoffery of Monmouth wrote another piece that carries down to us today. It was "The History of the Kings of Britain," a long tale of hero-kings, including Arthur himself. The Canterbury Tales demonstrate a smooth blending of the sacred and the secular, and indeed the Christian and the pagan, as in the "Knight's Tale." Shakespeare drew gladly from all such sources. Sir Walter Scott, in _Ivanhoe_, shows the principle appreciated in all its full-throated glory in the meeting between Richard and the Holy Clerk of Copmanhurst. Nor can anyone read G. K. Chesterton's magnificent _Orthodoxy_ , first published in 1908, and fail to see that there remained fully sacred men. You do not need to be a Christian to think so.
In fact, Chesterton's _Orthodoxy_ is similar to Qutb's writings in that it is a firm rejection of Modernism, except that Chesterton was around when Modernism was being born. If Qutb writes hysterically about how Modernism was affecting the Middle East of his day, Chesterton writes with foresight about how the movement would affect the world for a century to come. Reading the early chapters, one sees that Chesterton not only accurately predicted the problems that would arise with Modernism, but accurately predicted the development of Post-modernism as well.
Nor was Chesterton the last of his tradition. J. R. R. Tolkien invoked the tradition with as great power as anyone, using his deep learning to evoke meaning from the words of dead languages--especially Old English, Old Norse, and the other Scandinavian tongues in which the tales of Ingeld had been written.
This is the tradition that answers Qutb. In the Norse sagas, in the Beowulf and other Old English poems, in Sir Thomas Malory and Scott and Chesterton, and in Tolkien's Aragorn, there is a common reply to boasting: 'We shall put it to the test.'
III. Putting it to the test
This a formula, as Tom Shippey points out in _J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century_, central to the old heroic ideal. It is Beowulf's response to Unferth's challenge. It occurs endless times in the Norse sagas of gods and heroes. Odin wagers his head with giants over the answers to riddles, or the speed of horses. The champions of king Hrolf Kraki swear to flee neither fire nor iron--nor do they, when put to the test by Odin. In the epic "Battle of Maldon," men fight and die beside their fallen chief rather than flee and betray the oaths they have given. Arthur is praised for placing his body "in adventure, as other poor knights do." Chesterton, in his introduction to _Orthodoxy_, says "Even a bad shot is dignified when he accepts a duel." Aragorn replies to Boromir's demand to know if he has the arm of Isildur as well as his sword, "We shall put it to the test one day."
This is the reply to assertions of certain knowledge. It is a hero's answer, and it is Socrates' answer. It was, in its way, Qutb's. Students of Qutb will know how much he made of the Arabic discovery of the scientific method--which is only another way of putting belief to the test.
This is ground on which many Islamist principles can be combated. It has already been noted in several places that Islam imposes stringent laws on warfare, which condemn many of al Qaeda's tactics, especially toward noncombatants. Any movement which claims to serve moral principles, but ends up planning to capture and murder kindergartners, is a movement vulnerable to the challenge of being put to the test. This is the truer in the Islamist case given that Islam itself condemns their methods.
Islam is a faith that calls for its followers to be heroes in the service of Allah. This heroic challenge, this challenge to enter into philosophical jihad, ought to prove irresistible--it certainly has with the Muslims I have known. That we can entice them to battle is certain. That we will be victorious is not. There are two things that philosophers must be prepared to do in order to make this work.
The first is that we must study and become steeped in their lore as well as our own. It is necessary to be able to recognize when they have entered into a defense that can be challenged on Islamic grounds. This is certainly not the only way to combat ideas--logic will do as well, and history. But, in this case, it has a special power because of the authority which they ascribe to the Islamic tradition.
The second is that we must ourselves adopt this heroic tradition, first to last. It will not do for philosophers to carry on arguing Realism v. Post-Modernism. You must be ready to be put to the test. In order to enter into the lists, one has to be willing to abide the result. Whether or not words and concepts can actually describe The Truth is a debate which has now been had, and must be set aside. Here is realism enough: the Islamists currently believe that it is necessary to kill us, our families, and our children. If they are to be beaten in the realm of ideas, you must believe in the ideas you bring forth. They are your weapons. They are your only weapons. They are as real as a sword.
IV. Common Complaints
The Islamist believes that the West wishes to eradicate Islam as a real faith, forcing secularization upon them. It is necessary to convince them that this is not true. In point of fact, it is not true. There has never been a society as eager to hear and consider new views as the West. Muslims can, and do, find that they are perfectly welcome and can become full participants in Western society. They are not asked to abandon their faith, but only to personalize it: to apply its principles to themselves, but not enforce them on their neighbor.
The most devastating philosophical differences between Islamists and the West at first appears to be a question of liberty. What we perceive as women's liberty, the Islamist sees as a moral horror. There are many such complaints: the so-called "bin Laden's letter to America" cites homosexuality, fornication, gambling, and the drinking of intoxicants, among other flaws it finds in the Western way of life. Qutb in his day cited racism and the Indian wars as proof of America's moral failings.
Ultimately, however, all of these complaints have an answer in one voice or another within America itself. No Islamist need feel alone in voicing condemnation of gambling, which is illegal in many states. Fornication is a specific offense against state law in Georgia. Southern Baptists are so utterly opposed to drinking that many deny that Jesus drank wine. Condemnation of the Indian wars is now part of the standard text of American history. Racism is widely denounced. Even on the question of woman's liberty, there are voices to be found who will support positions even more extreme than those of the Islamist.
Berman notes that, for Qutb, the central problem with America was its separation between church and state. There are many Americans who agree fervently. Qutb wrote that "a final offensive [is] actually taking place now. . . to exterminate this religion as even a basic creed and to replace it with secular conceptions[.]" That point of view, different only in which religion "this" one might be, is echoed regularly in articles from the National Review, to the neopagan WitchVox.com, to the Jewish World Review.
The Americans who hold these views are not enemies of the state. In many cases they are among the greatest patriots the state knows. Neither the readership of National Review, nor the congregation at a Southern Baptist church, is likely to be the source of anti-American sentiment. They, like Qutb, feel that the division between the secular and the sacred is a powerful source of disharmony in modern life. Yet, their response is opposite: to love America regardless and try to change her from within, rather than to hate America and seek her destruction. Another of the old heroic concepts explains this oddity.
V. Frith
"Frith" is an Old English word, of the same root as "friend." It refers to the driving ethical concept in the old heroic saga, a kind of communal bond between a man and his family, his friends, his gods (or, if he were a Christian, his God), his neighbors. As every man and every woman had each a network of these frith-bonds, so then every family was bound by each and all of them together. In this way, neighbors and communities, families and friends would defend and uphold each other.
Much has been written about the failure to assimilate Muslim populations, particularly in Europe. This highlights a particular mode of thinking that needs to be addressed, multiculturalism. Multiculturalism can mean two things, one of them healthy, the other destructive. Multiculturalism of the first sort needs to be encouraged, as it opens spaces for those who--like the Islamist--feel ill at ease with Modern life. Multiculturalism of the second sort needs to be assaulted and eradicated.
The first sort of Multiculturalism is that practiced by the Anglo-Saxon monks. It is Ingeld and Christ, existing in happy cohesion. The Muslim in the West ought to feel pride in his Islamic heritage, but as a member of the West he ought also to love the West. It is not necessary to be uncritical to love a thing, nor is it necessary to be blind to its faults. It is only necessary to -love it-. As an American of Korean and Irish heritage ought to love both his Korean father and his Irish mother, and Korean and Irish culture, so he ought also to love America.
The second sort of Multiculturalism is the business of choosing sides. Like a child of divorce picking one parent to love and the other to hate, this is destructive to the bonds of community. It is destructive even if one of the parents is a right bastard. These bonds are what allow us to rest comfortably in common defense. They must be preserved at all costs. Multicultural exercises designed to demonize the West, Western heritage, Christianity, or America, ought to be no more acceptable than exercises in demonizing Koreans, Jews, or Africa. Those who love America will want to change her, whether they be Muslims or Southern Baptists. This is to the good. But those who hate America must be sought out by philosophers, challenged, and put to the test. There is evidence enough to defeat them.
The building and maintenance of frith bonds is a central duty of heroes. The story of the death of King Arthur as it has come down to us is the story of the end of such bonds; so too are the Icelandic sagas. These are tales of warning, traditional tales rooted in oral poetry that stretches back beyond our ability to conceive. They are the wisdom of the ancestors of the West, and ought be heeded.
VI. Conclusion
What will the jihadi make of all this? It is an alien tradition, one that raises claims to authority outside of the Koran. That is a thing against which Qutb warned, a thing he saw as a kind of paganism. But we in the West have done well with paganism. Multiculturalism isn't really new to us, as Alcuin demonstrates. The old heathen ways never went away. Ingeld and Christ remain as parents to us in the West. There are those who have been fully secular, and those fully sacred, but those who have held the floor with the sanest and healthiest vision are those--Chesterton, Tolkien, Shakespeare, Scott--who have been both. All these men loved elves, but none gave us reason to think he despised simple farmers.
The Islamist who finds himself a guest of the United States, in college or in GitMo, is likely to have plenty of opportunity to be drawn in. They need to go away with some answers from us. First, they need to be shown that our tradition of philosophy is one that resonates with their own. Second, they ought to be shown that tolerance isn't only for 'gamblers, drinkers of intoxicants, fornicators and homosexuals,' but also for Baptists, Republicans, and Muslims. They need to be made aware that their longing for a sacred community is echoed in many Western minds, and that they will find natural allies in unexpected places--as long, that is, as they fight in the hazel-fenced field of ideas. If they do, they will become brothers in arms, bringing us new perspectives and ideas. They should also know that if they do not, we have a living heroic tradition as old as their own, and will fight and die rather than surrender.
Finally, they need to be shown how vigorous and warlike the Western philosophical tradition is. Jihadi ought to love it. Once they see that at least some of us can be swayed by a good argument, they might never leave it again. Thrasymachus of Plato's Republic is a perfect example of the high joy that comes from the combateers of ideas, who fell upon Socrates and companions 'like a wild beast,' and swore they were not of the force to defeat him. Well, he and his boast were put to the test.
Living the hero's life is an exercise in joy. Putting yourself to the test is the finest way to live. Courage will be needed. It has been found before: indeed, if we look, it never went away.
Today's updates:
I won't be posting many updates today, as I am working on a long piece that treats a subject in greater detail than is usual for a blog. It will deal with an article from the New York Times Magazine on the philosophy behind al Qaeda and other Islamist groups. The author suggested that no one in the West had offered a reply to their claims, and that may be true. I will sketch the outlines of such a reply today. Look for that this evening. If you want to get ahead and read the New York Times piece, you can find it here. If you're not registered, the NY Times does make you go through a short, but free, registration process.
Be sure to read ParaPundit today, too, for a piece on the Iraqi intelligence archives.
I won't be posting many updates today, as I am working on a long piece that treats a subject in greater detail than is usual for a blog. It will deal with an article from the New York Times Magazine on the philosophy behind al Qaeda and other Islamist groups. The author suggested that no one in the West had offered a reply to their claims, and that may be true. I will sketch the outlines of such a reply today. Look for that this evening. If you want to get ahead and read the New York Times piece, you can find it here. If you're not registered, the NY Times does make you go through a short, but free, registration process.
Be sure to read ParaPundit today, too, for a piece on the Iraqi intelligence archives.
Chechens in the Economist:
This is a story on the attempt at a political solution to the ongoing war between the Chechens and the Russian state. Anyone who's been reading or writing bios on al Qaeda terrorists knows that Chechnya has been the lead recruiting cause for AQ for a decade or so, as well as the place where many of AQ's worst have cut their teeth. A political solution that works in Chechnya would be wonderful news for all of us. This is all the truer because of the genuine horror of the Chechen plight. The brutality of the Russians is astonishing. Al Qaeda has put us in the position of having to court the Russians, and turn a blind eye to the Chechens, in order to carry out a successful war on terror. Damn them for it. By rights, we'd have been backing the Chechens all along.
This is a story on the attempt at a political solution to the ongoing war between the Chechens and the Russian state. Anyone who's been reading or writing bios on al Qaeda terrorists knows that Chechnya has been the lead recruiting cause for AQ for a decade or so, as well as the place where many of AQ's worst have cut their teeth. A political solution that works in Chechnya would be wonderful news for all of us. This is all the truer because of the genuine horror of the Chechen plight. The brutality of the Russians is astonishing. Al Qaeda has put us in the position of having to court the Russians, and turn a blind eye to the Chechens, in order to carry out a successful war on terror. Damn them for it. By rights, we'd have been backing the Chechens all along.
Oddly, Slate magazine and I are in agreement on something. Ever since I first heard the administration complaint to the effect that 'showing these videos of American POWs on Iraqi state TV is a war crime,' I have been irritated by it. I've seen hundreds of pictures of Iraqi POWs in the last week. In a war in which we have such a powerful moral advantage over our enemy, what the hell is the administration thinking in raising this particular complaint? This is the one area in which Iraq can claim a moral equality.
DPRK reactor:
The Washington Post reports a bit of good news, bad news. The bad news: the DPRK is feverishly working, with around the clock teams, to restart its Yongbyon reactor. The good news: the thing is so old that they haven't been able to get it cranked up. Article here.
Unfortunately, that's not the end of it. We know their uranium enrichment program works, so even if Yongbyon proves totally decrepit, they are still building up their nuclear arsenal.
Still, there's a second bit of good news hidden in the text. If the article is accurate, the DPRK's ability to produce new weapons may be less than previous estimates have stated. If they need a year to produce six new nukes instead of a couple of months, that buys time for thought, for negotiation--for action, if need be.
The Washington Post reports a bit of good news, bad news. The bad news: the DPRK is feverishly working, with around the clock teams, to restart its Yongbyon reactor. The good news: the thing is so old that they haven't been able to get it cranked up. Article here.
Unfortunately, that's not the end of it. We know their uranium enrichment program works, so even if Yongbyon proves totally decrepit, they are still building up their nuclear arsenal.
Still, there's a second bit of good news hidden in the text. If the article is accurate, the DPRK's ability to produce new weapons may be less than previous estimates have stated. If they need a year to produce six new nukes instead of a couple of months, that buys time for thought, for negotiation--for action, if need be.
The Afghan Front:
Reports are still coming in that elements of the ISI, Pakistan's secret service, are aiding former Taliban leaders and al Qaeda. A couple of weeks ago, The Frontier Post, a Pakistani newspaper out of Peshawar, carried an article accusing the newly formed Afghan Intelligence service of staging events to manipulate the US government. Today the conspiracy theories out of Pakistan include this:
North Korea may become a "regime change" state in the near future, but I doubt any of the others are. For one thing, the DPRK is increasingly demanding all the attention we can spare. The administration has said that it hopes a free Iraq and Afghanistan would provide a strong example of democracy, reforming the Middle East by their simple act of being. Iran, bordering both, has seen increasingly strong demonstrations against both the secular government, and the mullahs who are the real power in Iran. If regime change comes to Iran, it will likely be from internal revolt, though I wouldn't be surprised to see the administration act against their nuclear reactors.
Reports are still coming in that elements of the ISI, Pakistan's secret service, are aiding former Taliban leaders and al Qaeda. A couple of weeks ago, The Frontier Post, a Pakistani newspaper out of Peshawar, carried an article accusing the newly formed Afghan Intelligence service of staging events to manipulate the US government. Today the conspiracy theories out of Pakistan include this:
LAHORE (Online): The next target of US after capturing Iraq will be replacement of religious government in Iran with a secular government as the US forces in Afghanistan have already started implementation on action plan in this regard. According to reliable sources, US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had submitted a detailed 300 pages long report to President George Bush in which it was pointed out that during possible US attack on Iran religiously motivated Jehadi (holy warrior) organizations would support Iran from the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Following this report US intelligence agencies have started actions to check any possibility of provision of support to Iran from border areas of the two neighbouring countries by organizations like Tehreek Nifaz Shariat Mohammadi and tribal leaders in Pakistan and Hizb-e-Islami of Eng. Gulbadeen Hikmatyar along with supporters of former Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Sources further revealed that operation being conducted by U.S. forces in Afghanistan on March 20 was not against Al-Qaeda rather it was against Hizb-e-Islami and possible supporters of Iran. US intelligence agencies have also informed the US State Department about the names of organizations in Pakistan and Afghanistan which could support Iran during any possible US attack and this list include names of about six organizations. Sources also revealed that list of countries where replacement of government has been declared essential included Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Cuba and North Korea and from this list Taliban regime has been replaced in Afghanistan while war against Iraq is going on. Moreover, those 22 countries which are being declared threat to U.S. security could face similar US action like in Iraq if they failed to ensure disarming of their armed organizations and finishing their nuclear arsenal.How much of this is true? Like all good conspiracy theories, probably at least some of it. It's highly likely that there are plans among US intelligence agencies to encourage dissenters in Iran, and it's also not unlikely that they would act against Islamist militants regardless of affiliation, if those militants happened to be operating out of the areas the 82nd Airborne is hitting. As for the list of governments we're certain to replace, that's dubious. I've heard of it from several sources now, but all of them have been Muslim newspapers, and it feels more like a conspiracy theory that is making the rounds. One good reason to believe this is that the list of countries seems to differ from one source to another. Many of the Arab newspapers seem to feel Syria is next, rather than Iran. NPR last night reported a common thread in the Arab press that "the road to Damascus leads through Baghdad."
North Korea may become a "regime change" state in the near future, but I doubt any of the others are. For one thing, the DPRK is increasingly demanding all the attention we can spare. The administration has said that it hopes a free Iraq and Afghanistan would provide a strong example of democracy, reforming the Middle East by their simple act of being. Iran, bordering both, has seen increasingly strong demonstrations against both the secular government, and the mullahs who are the real power in Iran. If regime change comes to Iran, it will likely be from internal revolt, though I wouldn't be surprised to see the administration act against their nuclear reactors.
On Iraq:
Yesterdays heavy casualties seem to have come from two ambushes and a blunder. The blunder was made by the supply-oriented soldiers who wandered into an unsecured area and were captured. That kind of thing, sadly, can happen in war--indeed, it could happen in the rougher parts of Los Angeles.
Ambushes also happen in war. There are two things to remember about this pair of ambushes. First, they both were possible only because of the tight rules of engagement that American soldiers and Marines are using to prevent noncombatant casulaties. Second, after the initial surprise, we won both engagements. That speaks well for the chances of the campaign--an army that can't even win its ambushes is not going to win the victory. Honor yesterday's dead, who fell protecting the people of Iraq from their own, as well as the enemy's, guns. Chivalry indeed.
Yesterdays heavy casualties seem to have come from two ambushes and a blunder. The blunder was made by the supply-oriented soldiers who wandered into an unsecured area and were captured. That kind of thing, sadly, can happen in war--indeed, it could happen in the rougher parts of Los Angeles.
Ambushes also happen in war. There are two things to remember about this pair of ambushes. First, they both were possible only because of the tight rules of engagement that American soldiers and Marines are using to prevent noncombatant casulaties. Second, after the initial surprise, we won both engagements. That speaks well for the chances of the campaign--an army that can't even win its ambushes is not going to win the victory. Honor yesterday's dead, who fell protecting the people of Iraq from their own, as well as the enemy's, guns. Chivalry indeed.
More on North Korea:
Wargames between the South Korean and US forces have been going on not far from the DMZ.
The bright lines of logic aren't always right, though they have a better track record than most. This looks like a sea of fire, or perhaps several such: The DPRK has lately threatened to turn Seoul into a 'sea of fire', Tokyo into a 'sea of fire', American cities into a 'sea of fire', and American officials feel as though they are walking above a sea of fire.
Swear to fearlessness for the days ahead.
"Courage is better than the power of a sword
For I've seen men fighting bravely victorious with blunt weapons;
Cheerfulness is better than snivelling,
Whatever may be at hand."
Sigurd Dragonslayer, "Lay of Fafnir," from _The Elder Edda_
Wargames between the South Korean and US forces have been going on not far from the DMZ.
It takes place this year just as the world is watching North Korea warily. The communist government has issued shrill warnings saying it believes the Bush administration's doctrine of preemptive attack will be applied to North Korea quickly after Iraq. Pyongyang has threatened not to wait.The bright lines of logic are all drawing to an intersection. The DPRK says these wargames have brought the penninsula "to the brink of nuclear war." It isn't just these games that have done it, but I agree with the assessment otherwise. They are calling down the thunder. George Tenet recently said that the "declassified answer" as to whether or not the DPRK could hit the United States west coast with nuclear missles was "yes." That missile test mentioned in the block quote is the Taepodong 2, which can hit the entire United States.
The North has taken steps that could lead to production of nuclear weapons fuel, thrown out U.N. nuclear inspectors and declared past agreements to limit its nuclear ambitions void. It has fired off small rockets, and appeared to prepare for a test of a ballistic missile. Its MiG fighters have zoomed close to a U.S. reconnaissance plane the Pentagon says was in international airspace. . . .
The Pentagon has long claimed the United States could wage two wars at once. But some analysts believe North Korea has concluded the American military is strained by the Iraqi attack, and Pyongyang would seize this moment to create a military crisis.
Those analysts say Washington underestimates Pyongyang's paranoia, and its belief that the military exercises are a pretext for attack preparations. Returning from a visit to North Korea on Saturday, U.N.envoy Maurice Strong said in Beijing that North Korea was preparing for possible war with Washington.
The bright lines of logic aren't always right, though they have a better track record than most. This looks like a sea of fire, or perhaps several such: The DPRK has lately threatened to turn Seoul into a 'sea of fire', Tokyo into a 'sea of fire', American cities into a 'sea of fire', and American officials feel as though they are walking above a sea of fire.
Swear to fearlessness for the days ahead.
"Courage is better than the power of a sword
For I've seen men fighting bravely victorious with blunt weapons;
Cheerfulness is better than snivelling,
Whatever may be at hand."
Sigurd Dragonslayer, "Lay of Fafnir," from _The Elder Edda_
City-fighting:
As coalition forces have begun to invest Iraqi cities, we've been drawn into several streetfights. We're starting to see casualties now. The Iraqi forces have apparently abandoned the Geneva conventions that require soldiers to wear uniforms; of course, Iraq makes use of irregular, even sometimes tribal forces, to whom uniforms would be unknown.
We will see in the next few days, both in these cities and in Baghdad, whether our powerful sense of chivalry toward noncombatants can hold. In past confrontations, national armies have become increasingly brutal at just such moments. World War II saw even American GIs shelling villages if, when offered a chance to surrender, village occupants fired on them. Putting American fighting men at risk to protect noncombatants is going to prove increasingly unpopular as casualties mount.
It is, nevertheless, the right thing to do. The alternatives are indiscriminate destruction to pacify the city, or siege-style starvation of the inhabitants. It is a soldier's duty to peril his own life to protect the weak and the innocent. That is the core of Just War theory, of which we've heard so much just lately. To make that work we will need great courage and fortitude.
We will also need to enforce the laws of war on their violators. Courts martial must have the courage to administer to capital crimes capital punishment. Kindness to the cruel is cruelty to the kind. Applying a stern standard to violators, both coalition and Iraqi, is in the long run a kindness to noncombatants. It reinforces the laws of war among our own, but also among the vicious who respect no law but fear our power. Just as acts that weaken respect for these protocols are acts of cruelty to the weak, so acts that strengthen respect for the protocols are acts of support and protection.
As coalition forces have begun to invest Iraqi cities, we've been drawn into several streetfights. We're starting to see casualties now. The Iraqi forces have apparently abandoned the Geneva conventions that require soldiers to wear uniforms; of course, Iraq makes use of irregular, even sometimes tribal forces, to whom uniforms would be unknown.
We will see in the next few days, both in these cities and in Baghdad, whether our powerful sense of chivalry toward noncombatants can hold. In past confrontations, national armies have become increasingly brutal at just such moments. World War II saw even American GIs shelling villages if, when offered a chance to surrender, village occupants fired on them. Putting American fighting men at risk to protect noncombatants is going to prove increasingly unpopular as casualties mount.
It is, nevertheless, the right thing to do. The alternatives are indiscriminate destruction to pacify the city, or siege-style starvation of the inhabitants. It is a soldier's duty to peril his own life to protect the weak and the innocent. That is the core of Just War theory, of which we've heard so much just lately. To make that work we will need great courage and fortitude.
We will also need to enforce the laws of war on their violators. Courts martial must have the courage to administer to capital crimes capital punishment. Kindness to the cruel is cruelty to the kind. Applying a stern standard to violators, both coalition and Iraqi, is in the long run a kindness to noncombatants. It reinforces the laws of war among our own, but also among the vicious who respect no law but fear our power. Just as acts that weaken respect for these protocols are acts of cruelty to the weak, so acts that strengthen respect for the protocols are acts of support and protection.
The genius of the Scott:
An excavation of a Viking-age estate is ongoing in the Shetlands. The article is enjoyable on its own, but begins with a particularly memorable couple of paragraphs:
This is doubly amazing when it is taken with a second set of facts: in Sir Walter Scott's _Ivanhoe_, he placed King Richard the Lionheart at a siege of a castle held by partisans of the usurper Prince John. Scott's Richard was fighting incognito. Decades after _Ivanhoe_ was published, new sources came to light that proved that in fact, though no one had suspected it, Richard had fought incognito at a siege of a partisan castle in England after his return. Here is another occasion in which that great author, Sir Walter Scott, got there ahead of us by force of true imagination.
An excavation of a Viking-age estate is ongoing in the Shetlands. The article is enjoyable on its own, but begins with a particularly memorable couple of paragraphs:
Jarlshof, Britain's best-known Viking farmstead, owes its romantic name to Sir Walter Scott, who visited the Sumburgh promontory on Shetland in 1814 and later set there the opening scene of his novel, The Pirate.
All that was visible then were the ruins of the 17th century laird's house, and it was this that Sir Walter named Jarlshof, or 'Earl's Mansion', suggesting that 'an ancient Earl of the Orkneys had selected this neck of land for establishing a mansion house'. He would have been gratified to know that excavations more than a century later proved that there had indeed been Viking Age settlement here, long before the laird's house was built.
This is doubly amazing when it is taken with a second set of facts: in Sir Walter Scott's _Ivanhoe_, he placed King Richard the Lionheart at a siege of a castle held by partisans of the usurper Prince John. Scott's Richard was fighting incognito. Decades after _Ivanhoe_ was published, new sources came to light that proved that in fact, though no one had suspected it, Richard had fought incognito at a siege of a partisan castle in England after his return. Here is another occasion in which that great author, Sir Walter Scott, got there ahead of us by force of true imagination.
Undermining that hope is this story about Russian arms dealers selling weapons to Iraq, even this very week. The Russian government seems to be giving them a pass in spite of official protests from the US government. A coalition solution to North Korea implies a lot of faith in that coalition to be vigilant about the sales and transfer of nuclear materials from the DPRK to others--rogue states, terror groups, and so forth. Yet Russia's government is only somewhat kindly disposed to us, and compromised at all levels by organized crime; the People's Republic of China is a competitor for influence in the region, and indeed would very much like to see the United States driven out of east Asia so we would not interfere with their expansion to Taiwan and the sea islands. That leaves two potentially giant holes in the vigil. Given that we are talking about material that could cause us to lose a city, that is a concern that can't be left out of any negotiations.
This story is the most hopeful I've heard out of Northeast Asia in a while. I'd say this is the case for optimism: that US power in the region is collapsing, but that security vis. the DPRK might be maintained by an evolving coalition of regional powers. From the standpoint of nuclear terrorism, this is still insufficient--but it's hopeful, at least. No other scenario has been that.
From The Agonist:
"2:25 CST A report from a journalist embedded within the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division indicates that the division has pinned down Iraqi troops against the Euphrates River and is pummeling them with heavy artillery and air strikes. The unidentified Iraqi forces are most likely elements of the 11th Iraqi Division. CENTCOM reported earlier March 22 that the 3rd Infantry had captured An Nasiriyah and a bridge across the Euphrates to the west. It is unclear which side of the river the battle is taking place. It also was unclear what time the journalist filed the report.via Stratfor."
You heard it here yesterday.
"2:25 CST A report from a journalist embedded within the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division indicates that the division has pinned down Iraqi troops against the Euphrates River and is pummeling them with heavy artillery and air strikes. The unidentified Iraqi forces are most likely elements of the 11th Iraqi Division. CENTCOM reported earlier March 22 that the 3rd Infantry had captured An Nasiriyah and a bridge across the Euphrates to the west. It is unclear which side of the river the battle is taking place. It also was unclear what time the journalist filed the report.via Stratfor."
You heard it here yesterday.
Vandenberg Air Force Base:
For a while now we've been hearing about anti-war protestors who want to infiltrate the Vandenburg Air Force base near Santa Cruz. Vandenberg is apparently a major staging area for targeting and communications operations for the US military as a whole. Infiltrators hope to engage in sabotage operations, which they can do even if they are caught: military "force protection" protocols may require a lockdown of some secure areas if infiltrators are discovered. The idea is to disrupt military communications and operations at a time when troops are in the field.
A lot can be said about that. Perhaps the first thing that comes to mind is this: It is precisely the advanced communications that have allowed this war to limit noncombatant casualties as much as it has. The "decapitation" strike we saw in the early minutes of the war show that plainly. Because of our communications capabilities, there is more of that kind of intelligence that is "actionable"--that is, intelligence that you can actually use for military targeting. Thus, a carefully aimed stroke against the murderous leaders of Iraq was possible. Without such communications, we're back to carpet-bombing in the hope of getting our boy.
Protestor Maia Ramnath completely fails to understand this. She says, "If our actions at Vandenberg succeed in delaying or disrupting the use of the world�s most formidable arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, in the conduct of a blatantly imperialist war, then we will have acted in good faith, in the interests of the human race." Leaving aside the questions of weapons of mass destruction and imperialism, the fact is that she's acting directly against the interests of the human race, and most especially of the noncombatant citizens of Iraq. By raising the intelligence bar for the US military, she not only endangers the lives of her bravest countrymen, but also the people she thinks she's protecting. Her actions do nothing to protect Iraqi citizens, but rather endanger them: those actions do, though, protect the generals and leaders of the Iraqi regime.
I have a different beef with Elden Boothe, but it is a smaller one. He, protesting the Vandenberg AF Base's policy that infiltrators may be subject to shoot-to-kill orders by base security. "The only time a law-enforcement official should shoot is when his life is in danger," Boothe said. "We are in the peace movement. We are not going to endanger anyone. . . . I suppose they could shoot you, but they would be doing it illegally."
Wrong on all points, sir. First, law enforcement officials--and, in most states, private citizens--are empowered to shoot to kill to protect any life that is in immediate danger, not only their own. The state of Georgia's title 16 describes this as "both [a] right and [a] duty." As mentioned, infiltrators are putting the lives of US military men and Iraqi citizens at immediate peril. Second, base security are not just "law enforcement" officers. Primarily, they are soldiers, and we are at war. Acts of sabotage against military installations have always merited "shoot-to-kill" status under these circumstances.
I still say the best policy would be to turn loose some Marine Corps Scout Snipers on the grounds of the base, with wax bullets and .50 caliber rifles. It would be good training for the Snipers (and good fun for them, too), and a good lesson for the protestors. No need to shoot to kill--a good beating with .50 caliber rounds will change hearts and minds pretty quickly too.
For a while now we've been hearing about anti-war protestors who want to infiltrate the Vandenburg Air Force base near Santa Cruz. Vandenberg is apparently a major staging area for targeting and communications operations for the US military as a whole. Infiltrators hope to engage in sabotage operations, which they can do even if they are caught: military "force protection" protocols may require a lockdown of some secure areas if infiltrators are discovered. The idea is to disrupt military communications and operations at a time when troops are in the field.
A lot can be said about that. Perhaps the first thing that comes to mind is this: It is precisely the advanced communications that have allowed this war to limit noncombatant casualties as much as it has. The "decapitation" strike we saw in the early minutes of the war show that plainly. Because of our communications capabilities, there is more of that kind of intelligence that is "actionable"--that is, intelligence that you can actually use for military targeting. Thus, a carefully aimed stroke against the murderous leaders of Iraq was possible. Without such communications, we're back to carpet-bombing in the hope of getting our boy.
Protestor Maia Ramnath completely fails to understand this. She says, "If our actions at Vandenberg succeed in delaying or disrupting the use of the world�s most formidable arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, in the conduct of a blatantly imperialist war, then we will have acted in good faith, in the interests of the human race." Leaving aside the questions of weapons of mass destruction and imperialism, the fact is that she's acting directly against the interests of the human race, and most especially of the noncombatant citizens of Iraq. By raising the intelligence bar for the US military, she not only endangers the lives of her bravest countrymen, but also the people she thinks she's protecting. Her actions do nothing to protect Iraqi citizens, but rather endanger them: those actions do, though, protect the generals and leaders of the Iraqi regime.
I have a different beef with Elden Boothe, but it is a smaller one. He, protesting the Vandenberg AF Base's policy that infiltrators may be subject to shoot-to-kill orders by base security. "The only time a law-enforcement official should shoot is when his life is in danger," Boothe said. "We are in the peace movement. We are not going to endanger anyone. . . . I suppose they could shoot you, but they would be doing it illegally."
Wrong on all points, sir. First, law enforcement officials--and, in most states, private citizens--are empowered to shoot to kill to protect any life that is in immediate danger, not only their own. The state of Georgia's title 16 describes this as "both [a] right and [a] duty." As mentioned, infiltrators are putting the lives of US military men and Iraqi citizens at immediate peril. Second, base security are not just "law enforcement" officers. Primarily, they are soldiers, and we are at war. Acts of sabotage against military installations have always merited "shoot-to-kill" status under these circumstances.
I still say the best policy would be to turn loose some Marine Corps Scout Snipers on the grounds of the base, with wax bullets and .50 caliber rifles. It would be good training for the Snipers (and good fun for them, too), and a good lesson for the protestors. No need to shoot to kill--a good beating with .50 caliber rounds will change hearts and minds pretty quickly too.
On France & French:
Le Figaro discusses the recent find of Ricin poison in the Paris subway system. The amounts were not sufficient, authorities helpfully tell us, to kill hundreds. Wonderful news.
My favorite line from this story: "[D]ocuments estampill�s al-Qaida et permettant de confectionner le poison mortel." French is an astonishing language to me, sometimes remarkably direct, sometimes equally dense. Probably the best part of it is the cognates with English, though, which produce an effect in the reader like no other language. Until today, I would never have put "confection" and "mortal poison" together; but now that they have, I am reminded of that scene in V. C. Andrew's _Flowers in the Attic_, which was required reading in a high school that would have done better to require Chaucer, wherein the children are poisoned by cookies topped with cyanide. Such are the benefits of language studies, I suppose: new ideas rise from the semantics alone. Usually the ideas are kinder.
Le Figaro discusses the recent find of Ricin poison in the Paris subway system. The amounts were not sufficient, authorities helpfully tell us, to kill hundreds. Wonderful news.
My favorite line from this story: "[D]ocuments estampill�s al-Qaida et permettant de confectionner le poison mortel." French is an astonishing language to me, sometimes remarkably direct, sometimes equally dense. Probably the best part of it is the cognates with English, though, which produce an effect in the reader like no other language. Until today, I would never have put "confection" and "mortal poison" together; but now that they have, I am reminded of that scene in V. C. Andrew's _Flowers in the Attic_, which was required reading in a high school that would have done better to require Chaucer, wherein the children are poisoned by cookies topped with cyanide. Such are the benefits of language studies, I suppose: new ideas rise from the semantics alone. Usually the ideas are kinder.
On North Korea:
Today's news is that the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea--usually, "North Korea") has postponed talks with South Korea, blaming them for allegedly raising their military alert status. North Korea seems to see this as a prelude to war.
Earlier this month, an unofficial spokesman for the DPRK promised nuclear strikes against the United States in the event of any such invasion. The article wildly claims that there are a hundred 'suspected' nuclear weapons in the DPRK, numbers I've not seen elsewhere. If memory serves, the CIA thinks the actual numbers are two to six. However, the statements the man makes about the DPRK's ability to produce nuclear weapons look accurate to me--six new warheads by April is not impossible, given their hidden nuclear processing plants (see yesterday's links) and the possibilty of underground testing (cf. the gentleman's comments on becoming an "official nuclear power" as one way of neutralizing American influence on the penninsula).
I am still thinking about options for dealing with the DPRK. Ideas welcome.
Today's news is that the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea--usually, "North Korea") has postponed talks with South Korea, blaming them for allegedly raising their military alert status. North Korea seems to see this as a prelude to war.
Earlier this month, an unofficial spokesman for the DPRK promised nuclear strikes against the United States in the event of any such invasion. The article wildly claims that there are a hundred 'suspected' nuclear weapons in the DPRK, numbers I've not seen elsewhere. If memory serves, the CIA thinks the actual numbers are two to six. However, the statements the man makes about the DPRK's ability to produce nuclear weapons look accurate to me--six new warheads by April is not impossible, given their hidden nuclear processing plants (see yesterday's links) and the possibilty of underground testing (cf. the gentleman's comments on becoming an "official nuclear power" as one way of neutralizing American influence on the penninsula).
I am still thinking about options for dealing with the DPRK. Ideas welcome.
Pope: War "threatens fate of Humanity."
And to think I'd always thought the Catholic Church had a pretty fixed idea about the "fate of humanity."
And to think I'd always thought the Catholic Church had a pretty fixed idea about the "fate of humanity."
Stanley Kurtz on North Korea in National Review Online. Kurtz is being sloppy, with a large number of qualifiers and a number of bald assertions (e.g., "Even if Yongbyon stays quiet, the North Koreans will shortly be selling nuclear fuel manufactured in their clandestine plant(s) to al Qaeda." Well--maybe. It's wise to act as though that were going to be the case, because the consequences of it happening are so severe. Still, here's a place where one of those qualifiers would have been useful). Even so he's got some things worth reading. The first is the existence of clandestine uranium processing plants, whose activities/existence can't be examined. Earlier this week I was discussing with a close friend a theory I had that they might test a weapon underground, thereby creating more fissible material on the instant as well as announcing that they were a nuclear state. She didn't think they would, not wishing to create quite -that- big a stir. Here's a reminder that they don't have to do so in order to keep producing uranium, though not as speedily as with undergound tests.
The Agonist is reporting "unconfirmed" Israeli reports that the 3rd Infantry is bypassing the sites of resistance. The 3rd Infantry, Mechanized, is out of Fort Stewart, Georgia, not far from Savannah. They are called "the Rock of the Marne" due to their performance in a battle not well remembered by the president of France, who seems to think that military control of an area comes from bureaucrats rather than forces on the ground.
Unconfirmed reports are just that, but it sounds plausible to me. There is no possibility that the 3rd would leave an active enemy at its back, however, with access to its supply lines. What this likely means is that an envelopment of the resisting forces is in progress. There are two ways to go about this, and I don't know what the current plan calls for. The usual fashion is to invest on three sides, leaving open a way for an enemy to retreat. This isn't an act of kindness. The notion is to hit them until they are forced to abandon their defensive positions, withdrawing in the only way that is left available. Since you know which way they are going, you can set ambushes (or, in this case, use air power) to rout and slaughter them along the way. Recall here the "highway of death" from Gulf War I.
It is also possible to perform a complete encirclement. Usually this is not done, unless your forces are so superior that you do not fear having to defend all points against a breakout attempt. The three-sided investment allows for greater predictability of enemy actions. However, in this case, it is entirely possible the 3rd might attempt this, completely investing the resisting forces and destroying them with airstrikes, mopping up later.
Although most of the reported airstrikes are in cities just now--as that is where the reporters are--it appears that this tactic is in fact what is being used in the Western campaign.
Unconfirmed reports are just that, but it sounds plausible to me. There is no possibility that the 3rd would leave an active enemy at its back, however, with access to its supply lines. What this likely means is that an envelopment of the resisting forces is in progress. There are two ways to go about this, and I don't know what the current plan calls for. The usual fashion is to invest on three sides, leaving open a way for an enemy to retreat. This isn't an act of kindness. The notion is to hit them until they are forced to abandon their defensive positions, withdrawing in the only way that is left available. Since you know which way they are going, you can set ambushes (or, in this case, use air power) to rout and slaughter them along the way. Recall here the "highway of death" from Gulf War I.
It is also possible to perform a complete encirclement. Usually this is not done, unless your forces are so superior that you do not fear having to defend all points against a breakout attempt. The three-sided investment allows for greater predictability of enemy actions. However, in this case, it is entirely possible the 3rd might attempt this, completely investing the resisting forces and destroying them with airstrikes, mopping up later.
Although most of the reported airstrikes are in cities just now--as that is where the reporters are--it appears that this tactic is in fact what is being used in the Western campaign.
On the War:
The best site I've found for following war developments, with the understanding that he's printing rumors as well as confirmed reports, is The Agonist. There are a number of good warblogs for seeing unfolding events, but most of them claim to be mystified by the strategy the coalition is using. This seems to be resulting in some worries among observers that things may yet turn bleak.
Well, there are two big dangers left: the Special Republican Guard, and the taking of Bagdad. However, I think I can give a picture of the emergent strategy that ought to calm fears.
1) The coalition has moved quickly to seize entry points (airfields, the seaport), communication points (esp. bridges) and oil fields. Ground troops have been used rather than air power because these needed to be taken whole. In spite of "surprisingly stiff resistance," pace the W. Post, there is only one confirmed fatality from combat. I suspect there have been quite a few more among special operations troops, but we may never know exactly what their toll is.
2) Special operations forces seem to have the run of Bagdad, judging from the various reports coming out about the decapitation strike, as well as intelligence gathering. This bodes well for the coming campaign, and suggests we have a significant number of defectors/traitors assisting our intelligence forces.
3) The bulk of the coalition military is advancing only until it meets resistance. This is not true in the sensitive areas mentioned in point 1; those had to be taken, so resistance was broken. Yet it appears to be otherwise true. The US Army seems to be advancing cautiously in order to separate Iraqi military units into those which will surrender, and those which will fight. The ones that fight back are being pinned down, but not broken. This gives the illusion that they are holding their own against our forces. In fact, it is probably a strategic decision to pin them down for later air strikes. Once they are enveloped, they will be broken by the application of air power, with ground forces merely mopping up survivors.
Looks like a well planned operation. No surprise there: the joint US/British forces offers the two best collective minds in the military world.
The best site I've found for following war developments, with the understanding that he's printing rumors as well as confirmed reports, is The Agonist. There are a number of good warblogs for seeing unfolding events, but most of them claim to be mystified by the strategy the coalition is using. This seems to be resulting in some worries among observers that things may yet turn bleak.
Well, there are two big dangers left: the Special Republican Guard, and the taking of Bagdad. However, I think I can give a picture of the emergent strategy that ought to calm fears.
1) The coalition has moved quickly to seize entry points (airfields, the seaport), communication points (esp. bridges) and oil fields. Ground troops have been used rather than air power because these needed to be taken whole. In spite of "surprisingly stiff resistance," pace the W. Post, there is only one confirmed fatality from combat. I suspect there have been quite a few more among special operations troops, but we may never know exactly what their toll is.
2) Special operations forces seem to have the run of Bagdad, judging from the various reports coming out about the decapitation strike, as well as intelligence gathering. This bodes well for the coming campaign, and suggests we have a significant number of defectors/traitors assisting our intelligence forces.
3) The bulk of the coalition military is advancing only until it meets resistance. This is not true in the sensitive areas mentioned in point 1; those had to be taken, so resistance was broken. Yet it appears to be otherwise true. The US Army seems to be advancing cautiously in order to separate Iraqi military units into those which will surrender, and those which will fight. The ones that fight back are being pinned down, but not broken. This gives the illusion that they are holding their own against our forces. In fact, it is probably a strategic decision to pin them down for later air strikes. Once they are enveloped, they will be broken by the application of air power, with ground forces merely mopping up survivors.
Looks like a well planned operation. No surprise there: the joint US/British forces offers the two best collective minds in the military world.
War clarifies:
Many wished to believe that there was no evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorist networks. Hours into war, a connection now emerges: a top officer of the Palestine Liberation Front, Ahmed al-Baz, was killed in that bombing attack on the Baghdad bunker. What, one wonders, was a high level officer of a terrorist group doing at a meeting of Hussein's top generals? Feels like a connection between the Iraqi government and a terrorist group--a pretty tight connection.
Many wished to believe that there was no evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorist networks. Hours into war, a connection now emerges: a top officer of the Palestine Liberation Front, Ahmed al-Baz, was killed in that bombing attack on the Baghdad bunker. What, one wonders, was a high level officer of a terrorist group doing at a meeting of Hussein's top generals? Feels like a connection between the Iraqi government and a terrorist group--a pretty tight connection.
More on idealism:
"Some readers will say that this is a mere fantasy. I answer that it is the actual history of mankind. This, as a fact, is how cities did grow great. Go back to the darkest roots of civilization and you will find then knotted round some sacred stone or encircling some sacred well. . . .
The eighteenth-century theories of the social contract have been exposed to much clumsy criticism in our time; in so far as they meant that there is at the back of all historic government an idea of content and co-operation, they were demonstrably right. But they really were wrong, in so far as they suggested that men had ever aimed at order or ethics directly by a conscious exchange of interests. Morality did not begin by one man saying to another, 'I will not hit you if you do not hit me'; there is no trace of such a transaction. There is a trace of both men having said, 'We must not hit each other in the holy place.' They gained their morality by guarding their religion. They did not cultivate courage. They fought for the shrine, and found they had become courageous. They did not cultivate cleanliness. They purified themselves for the altar, and found that they were clean."
G. K. Chesterton, "The Flag of the World," Orthodoxy
There is much here that is right, even for those who, like myself, are not at all Catholics. The classical liberal tradition has its roots in Socrates, who did cultivate courage--see the "Laches." Yet Socrates has his roots in Homer, and Homer in the lost tales of old. At base, that classical liberal tradition to which I subscribe is a well drawing on an underground sea. The well is a rational, thoughtful way of obtaining the water in an orderly and predictable fashion. The water, though, is a wild thing, whose power and energy is prior to and greater than our own.
"Some readers will say that this is a mere fantasy. I answer that it is the actual history of mankind. This, as a fact, is how cities did grow great. Go back to the darkest roots of civilization and you will find then knotted round some sacred stone or encircling some sacred well. . . .
The eighteenth-century theories of the social contract have been exposed to much clumsy criticism in our time; in so far as they meant that there is at the back of all historic government an idea of content and co-operation, they were demonstrably right. But they really were wrong, in so far as they suggested that men had ever aimed at order or ethics directly by a conscious exchange of interests. Morality did not begin by one man saying to another, 'I will not hit you if you do not hit me'; there is no trace of such a transaction. There is a trace of both men having said, 'We must not hit each other in the holy place.' They gained their morality by guarding their religion. They did not cultivate courage. They fought for the shrine, and found they had become courageous. They did not cultivate cleanliness. They purified themselves for the altar, and found that they were clean."
G. K. Chesterton, "The Flag of the World," Orthodoxy
There is much here that is right, even for those who, like myself, are not at all Catholics. The classical liberal tradition has its roots in Socrates, who did cultivate courage--see the "Laches." Yet Socrates has his roots in Homer, and Homer in the lost tales of old. At base, that classical liberal tradition to which I subscribe is a well drawing on an underground sea. The well is a rational, thoughtful way of obtaining the water in an orderly and predictable fashion. The water, though, is a wild thing, whose power and energy is prior to and greater than our own.
More on chivalry:
This is an article from the Chronicle Review on teaching the ethic of honor at the Naval Academy. The most relevant point for those who have argued that chivalry is antiquated romanticism:
"When warriors fight murderers, they may be tempted to become like the evil they hope to destroy. Their only protection is their code of honor. The professional military ethics that restrain warriors -- that keep them from targeting those who cannot fight back, from taking pleasure in killing, from striking harder than is necessary, and that encourage them to offer mercy to their defeated enemies and even to help rebuild their countries and communities -- are also their own protection against becoming what they abhor."
Also, the NY Times has this anitwar article comparing the curent conflict to the Trojan war. This is exactly the kind of argument that fascinates me: an attempt to work out right ethics in the context of the Western tradition. There can be no better guide. My opinion is that the proper model from the Iliad is Odyessus. As the article points out, he took some pains to avoid war (although even Odysseus didn't hold out for twelve years of diplomacy). Once the war was joined, however, he bent himself to the business of victory. No fighter was more cunning or inventive. Master soldier and mariner, Homer called him: perhaps an early Marine.
Still, the real point at which the Trojan War comes into our world is this: we are on the cusp of a r eturn to an age in which war means the total destruction of cities. In the ancient world, a taken city was laid waste utterly, men and boys killed, women enslaved, the buildings razed, the crops burned, and sometimes--as at Carthage--the earth sowed with salt. Even the mechanized warfare of WWII was not so thorough. Dresden, firebombed, still was healthier than Troy when the Greeks finished with her.
The United States government, through its military and intelligence services, is the force in the world most devoted to and capable of preventing the return of such horrors. This is the real threat of nuclear terrorism: We are the Trojans, this time, with a hungry horde of black ships by the sea. It is we who must watch for the Trojan horse. We must be emphatic. Wait and watch, suggests the author of the Times piece: perhaps the enemy will starve. Perhaps they'll just slip out of the horse and plan a new attack. Let's burn the horse instead.
This is an article from the Chronicle Review on teaching the ethic of honor at the Naval Academy. The most relevant point for those who have argued that chivalry is antiquated romanticism:
"When warriors fight murderers, they may be tempted to become like the evil they hope to destroy. Their only protection is their code of honor. The professional military ethics that restrain warriors -- that keep them from targeting those who cannot fight back, from taking pleasure in killing, from striking harder than is necessary, and that encourage them to offer mercy to their defeated enemies and even to help rebuild their countries and communities -- are also their own protection against becoming what they abhor."
Also, the NY Times has this anitwar article comparing the curent conflict to the Trojan war. This is exactly the kind of argument that fascinates me: an attempt to work out right ethics in the context of the Western tradition. There can be no better guide. My opinion is that the proper model from the Iliad is Odyessus. As the article points out, he took some pains to avoid war (although even Odysseus didn't hold out for twelve years of diplomacy). Once the war was joined, however, he bent himself to the business of victory. No fighter was more cunning or inventive. Master soldier and mariner, Homer called him: perhaps an early Marine.
Still, the real point at which the Trojan War comes into our world is this: we are on the cusp of a r eturn to an age in which war means the total destruction of cities. In the ancient world, a taken city was laid waste utterly, men and boys killed, women enslaved, the buildings razed, the crops burned, and sometimes--as at Carthage--the earth sowed with salt. Even the mechanized warfare of WWII was not so thorough. Dresden, firebombed, still was healthier than Troy when the Greeks finished with her.
The United States government, through its military and intelligence services, is the force in the world most devoted to and capable of preventing the return of such horrors. This is the real threat of nuclear terrorism: We are the Trojans, this time, with a hungry horde of black ships by the sea. It is we who must watch for the Trojan horse. We must be emphatic. Wait and watch, suggests the author of the Times piece: perhaps the enemy will starve. Perhaps they'll just slip out of the horse and plan a new attack. Let's burn the horse instead.
Why I love the United States Marine Corps:
"When I give you the word, together we will cross the Line of Departure, close with those forces that choose to fight, and destroy them. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, nor is it with members of the Iraqi army who choose to surrender. While we will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression. . . ..
"You are part of the world's most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon. Share your courage with each other as we enter the uncertain terrain north of the Line of Departure. Keep faith in your comrades on your left and right and Marine Air overhead. Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit."
Maj. Gen. J. Mattis, commander, 1 Marine
There is probably no other institution on earth that honestly and completely accepts chivalry as an operating principle. The USMC still believes in it, though, with a whole heart. Believing, they bring it back into the world, and make it real again. Today I toast them: it's all I can do. Another day, if Fate smiles, I may do more.
"When I give you the word, together we will cross the Line of Departure, close with those forces that choose to fight, and destroy them. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, nor is it with members of the Iraqi army who choose to surrender. While we will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression. . . ..
"You are part of the world's most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon. Share your courage with each other as we enter the uncertain terrain north of the Line of Departure. Keep faith in your comrades on your left and right and Marine Air overhead. Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit."
Maj. Gen. J. Mattis, commander, 1 Marine
There is probably no other institution on earth that honestly and completely accepts chivalry as an operating principle. The USMC still believes in it, though, with a whole heart. Believing, they bring it back into the world, and make it real again. Today I toast them: it's all I can do. Another day, if Fate smiles, I may do more.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003213
This is an interesting bit of speculation from the Wall St. Journal that touches on a question I've been interested in for a while. KSM is said to be a Baluch from Kuwait, which is a fascinating notion to me. The folks I've met who have Baluchistan ties have been princes of fellows. The so-called "Lions of Pakistan," they are a tribal people whose independence is carefully, and vigorously, guarded. How Baluchi ended up as leaders in al Qaeda will prove to be a fascinating story, whether or not Iraqi intelligence was involved as the article suggests.
This is an interesting bit of speculation from the Wall St. Journal that touches on a question I've been interested in for a while. KSM is said to be a Baluch from Kuwait, which is a fascinating notion to me. The folks I've met who have Baluchistan ties have been princes of fellows. The so-called "Lions of Pakistan," they are a tribal people whose independence is carefully, and vigorously, guarded. How Baluchi ended up as leaders in al Qaeda will prove to be a fascinating story, whether or not Iraqi intelligence was involved as the article suggests.
Let's start with an article from the London Spectator.
This is on the subject of one of the more famous jihadis, Abu Hamza. Hamza, through his firey anti-West speeches in London, attracted the attention of a fair number of men who would later have famous names: Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid are two such.
The article finally comes down against deporting Hamza. I'm thinking the author is in the right here, conditionally. My reasons are as follows:
In the American South, we have had a long tradition of dealing with a group similar to Al Qaeda in most respects: the Ku Klux Klan. Anyone who has had occasion to listen to an old Klansman talk recognizes Hamza's attitude at once. There are "good" jews/blacks, but a lot of "bad" ones too, who need to be controlled or destroyed. The righteous, who understand the conflict at hand, are few and always at such an extremity of need that violence is justified as a method of controlling the evil, unfit men (if "men" is the right word, they will often add).
In my great-great grandfather's day, our family hunted and killed these folks in the mountains of Tennessee. The various White-terror groups, who later banded together into the KKK (even as various Islamist groups seem to be banding together now) used their power largely against the unarmed and frightened, through lynchings, whippings, and burnings. We did then what the Green Berets are doing now in the mountains of Afghanistan: it was a part of the history of freedom that is largely omitted from the history books, that guerrilla campaign that began with the end of the Civil War, and lasted through Reconstruction.
Now, though, the KKK has grown old and feeble. The response of most listeners is just as the response to Hamza mentioned in the article: after a few minutes' hearing, you recognize the madness. Men like Hamza serve to discredit their movements more than anything else that can be done. Let him stay, and talk.
But let us also do what we do with the KKK: infiltrate his group with informants. The aged Hamza, the old KKK man, they aren't dangerous, but they attract young men who are. Thus they are doubly useful: first in discrediting their movements to the reasoned majority, and second in drawing the dangerous young into our circle of vigilance, if only we trouble to maintain it.
This is on the subject of one of the more famous jihadis, Abu Hamza. Hamza, through his firey anti-West speeches in London, attracted the attention of a fair number of men who would later have famous names: Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid are two such.
The article finally comes down against deporting Hamza. I'm thinking the author is in the right here, conditionally. My reasons are as follows:
In the American South, we have had a long tradition of dealing with a group similar to Al Qaeda in most respects: the Ku Klux Klan. Anyone who has had occasion to listen to an old Klansman talk recognizes Hamza's attitude at once. There are "good" jews/blacks, but a lot of "bad" ones too, who need to be controlled or destroyed. The righteous, who understand the conflict at hand, are few and always at such an extremity of need that violence is justified as a method of controlling the evil, unfit men (if "men" is the right word, they will often add).
In my great-great grandfather's day, our family hunted and killed these folks in the mountains of Tennessee. The various White-terror groups, who later banded together into the KKK (even as various Islamist groups seem to be banding together now) used their power largely against the unarmed and frightened, through lynchings, whippings, and burnings. We did then what the Green Berets are doing now in the mountains of Afghanistan: it was a part of the history of freedom that is largely omitted from the history books, that guerrilla campaign that began with the end of the Civil War, and lasted through Reconstruction.
Now, though, the KKK has grown old and feeble. The response of most listeners is just as the response to Hamza mentioned in the article: after a few minutes' hearing, you recognize the madness. Men like Hamza serve to discredit their movements more than anything else that can be done. Let him stay, and talk.
But let us also do what we do with the KKK: infiltrate his group with informants. The aged Hamza, the old KKK man, they aren't dangerous, but they attract young men who are. Thus they are doubly useful: first in discrediting their movements to the reasoned majority, and second in drawing the dangerous young into our circle of vigilance, if only we trouble to maintain it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)