A British Funeral in the Republic:
Rest in peace, Lance Corporal Malone. Interested readers will find my poem for this fallen Irishman in the archives.
Wild Life:
I'm thrilled to see that Aidan Hartley, correspondant to the London Spectator from Kenya, has a piece in the magazine this week after a long absence. I've missed his column, which used to run weekly. After the tragic murder of a close friend, he dropped out for quite a while. I hope he's making a return to regular correspondance.
I'm thrilled to see that Aidan Hartley, correspondant to the London Spectator from Kenya, has a piece in the magazine this week after a long absence. I've missed his column, which used to run weekly. After the tragic murder of a close friend, he dropped out for quite a while. I hope he's making a return to regular correspondance.
Close, but not quite:
This letter to the editor in the NY Times today is on IRA disarmament:
The IRA should disband, but their guns should be divided among the Catholic population. The people of Ireland, and Northern Ireland, ought to enjoy a free man's right to self defense and the bearing of arms. It isn't through threats of future IRA reprisals that the power of terror can be broken. It's by the certainty of law-abiding self defense. Denying that right to the peoples of Ireland, Protestant and Catholic, prolongs the conflict and keeps the illegal armies ensconced in the shadows of power.
This letter to the editor in the NY Times today is on IRA disarmament:
Sir John Stevens's report that the British Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary colluded with Protestant paramilitaries to kill Catholics in Northern Ireland in the late 1980's confirms what many observers have suspected for some time.The IRA keeping its guns until the Protestants give up theirs is not the answer; and it certainly isn't the answer for the IRA to hang onto an arsenal until the British military withdraws. What do cached guns do for Catholics--even IRA members--that the Ulster paramilitary men want to kill, with or without British help?
Can there be any wonder that the Irish Republican Army is reluctant to give up all its arms?
The I.R.A. has sustained its cease-fire since 1996, but clearly, it feels that it and the Catholic community would be vulnerable to more attacks if the I.R.A. disarmed unilaterally.
The Good Friday Agreement calls for the general demilitarization of Northern Ireland, so the onus of disarmament should not fall on the I.R.A. alone.
All paramilitary groups in the province should disarm simultaneously, the British Army should withdraw, and the Northern Ireland police must be reformed so that the Catholic minority can trust them.
T. W. HEYCK
The IRA should disband, but their guns should be divided among the Catholic population. The people of Ireland, and Northern Ireland, ought to enjoy a free man's right to self defense and the bearing of arms. It isn't through threats of future IRA reprisals that the power of terror can be broken. It's by the certainty of law-abiding self defense. Denying that right to the peoples of Ireland, Protestant and Catholic, prolongs the conflict and keeps the illegal armies ensconced in the shadows of power.
DPRK to test bomb?
This blog, 21st March: "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."
Today's Economist: "A further worry is North Korea�s threat at the talks, according to the Americans, that it might test one of its weapons, which would greatly escalate the crisis on the Korean peninsula"
This blog, 21st March: "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."
Today's Economist: "A further worry is North Korea�s threat at the talks, according to the Americans, that it might test one of its weapons, which would greatly escalate the crisis on the Korean peninsula"
We have no money going down the mountain:
The new "Parents: the Anti-Drug" page has this to say about marijuana use:
The new "Parents: the Anti-Drug" page has this to say about marijuana use:
According to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University, teens who use drugs are five times more likely to have sex than are those teens who do not use drugs. . . . Kids need to hear how risky marijuana use can be.Oh, yeah. Just what I'll tell my teenage son. "It makes it five times as likely that you'll have sex!" Good God.
I may win my Tikrit bet yet:
From Babbin's Warblog today:
From Babbin's Warblog today:
In the flood of small news yesterday, one report caught my attention. A Fox reporter searching the offices of Mohamed al-Sahhaf, aka Baghdad Bob the Saddamite propaganda minister, said his crew had found a handwritten note to Bob from Saddam dated 30 March. If the note is genuine, it would show that Saddam survived the first "decapitation strike" and was still in command ten days before Baghdad fell. British Defence Minister Geoff Hoon said the other day that Saddam is alive, and probably still in Iraq. If he is, the hunch is that he's in the area near Tikrit, his home town. Oliver North is also there, with the Fourth I.D. If Saddam is found, I know one old Marine who will move heaven and earth to be there when the Ace of Spades in the Doomsday Deck is taken down.
Two from the British Papers:
Mark Steyn's piece on the UN in the London Spectator; Theodore Dalrymple on the question of SARS in Britian in the Daily Telegraph. The Telegraph may require free registration.
Mark Steyn's piece on the UN in the London Spectator; Theodore Dalrymple on the question of SARS in Britian in the Daily Telegraph. The Telegraph may require free registration.
Special Operations:
Special Operations forces are not created equal. In fact, "special operations" is too loose a category to be meaningful. Spend time with military men, and you will invariably hear some bootless debate about whether the Navy's SEALs or the Army's Special Forces are better: in fact, there can be no comparison, as they serve different functions, and are therefore trained differently. Here's a quick guide to the special operations forces in the news just now, what they are for, and what they're not.
"Airborne": In the US Army, the "Airborne" designation originated in WWII, when it referred to paratroopers. These days, the 101st Airborne and 82nd Airborne are not really that--although we did see the first major deployment of paratroopers since WWII when the 173rd Airborne took an airfield in northern Iraq. Airborne units are now "air assault" units, generally capable of paratrooper operations, but more likely to be air-mobile infantry backed with attack helicopters like the Apache. In theory, this makes them fast-moving ground forces. In practice, the sandstorms in Iraq grounded the 101st for several days, while the traditional mechanized infantry units advanced at pace. Nevertheless, Airborne units tend to have had advanced training beyond the standard infantry school, to include paratrooper training in many cases. In the US Army, they are allowed to wear maroon berets.
Army Special Forces: The famous "green berets," these men are primarily trained for insurgency/counterinsurgency operations. They are generally proficient linguists, selected in part because they have an ability to pick up new languages quickly. They are meant to train guerrilla forces for proxy wars, or train armies in the methods of hunting and eliminating guerrilla forces, though they can of course function as guerrilla/antiguerrilla forces themselves. This made them the natural choice for the Afghan campaign, where their language skills let them pick up local Pashtun dialects to coordinate with Northern Alliance forces. This allowed the American air assets to function smoothly with an alien army. The Special Forces' small, capable teams are also good at commando attacks.
Army Rangers: The Army Rangers used to be designated by a black beret, but these days wear a khaki one becaue the black beret is now standard-issue for all GIs. Rangers are highly trained light infantry. They practice mostly the standard infantry skills, but to a greater degree of proficiency; in addition, they are trained in unusual methods of insertion and movement--for example, being flown in while dangling from a helicopter by a rope (SPI roping), or rappelling. They aren't really meant to function independently of the main Army forces, unlike the Green Berets, but to act as supplementary forces for particularly dangerous operations or difficult terrain. They are also used for reconnaisance missions, though the Army maintains scout units as well.
Delta Force: The Delta Force does not exist. It doesn't do anything, because it does not exist. One hears rumors from time to time--for example, that the Delta Force was hanging around Baghdad, keeping eyes on Baathist leaders--but these must be lies, since we are assured that it does not exist. If it did exist, though, it would be drawn from the best commando units the US military has to offer, and would be intended to be deployed for such commando raids as were most perilous and least likely to be survived. It was, rumor says, originally intended to combat terrorist groups.
Marine Corps Recon / Force Recon: Marine Recon normally is just that: a unit trained in reconnaissance and forward observation. They are remarkably stealthy, and meant to operate behind enemy lines, getting a picture of what the enemy is about. "Force" Recon units are more heavily armed, and intended to operate deep behind enemy lines, as well as to take on commando-style attacks. Force Recon is occasionally rumored to be involved with black operations--assassinations, for example--but there is no evidence to support these assertions. Whether this is because the assertions are untrue, or because Force Recon are utter professionals, is left to the reader to judge.
Marine Corps Scout Snipers: Their name explains what they do. They operate in pairs--a sniper, and a spotter. They can be sent forward to scout, as they are masters of concealment and camoflauge; or, they can operate with larger units to provide them with the very finest in sniping capabilities. In Vietnam, they frequently operated on hunter/killer missions behind enemy lines, at which they were so successful that the North Vientamese instituted a heavy bounty on the heads of any Sniper killed.
Marine Corps MEU (SOC): MEU stands for "Marine Expeditionary Unit," and (SOC) stands for "Special Operations Capable." The MEU is one of several MAGTFs (Marine Corps Air/Ground Task Forces). A MAGTF is a grouping of no set size, consisting of a group of Marine Corps infantry, possibly with attached armor or other mechanized assets, linked to a group of Marine Corps Air. The largest of these MAGTFs is the Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF), which is at least a reinforced division of Marines coupled with a full wing of Marine Air. The MEU is smaller than the MEF. SOC means that the entire MEU, every last member down to the cooks and postal workers, are trained in special operations procedures, and tested according to standards even more rigorous than USMC standard--which is, it ought to be remarked, a standard already far higher than the Army's. An MEU (SOC) is really an army that can be deployed anywhere, at any time, instantly: and, having arrived wherever it wants to be, is possessed of sufficient firepower to hold off whatever forces may be directed against it until such time as it can be relieved. They aren't commandos, and they aren't intended for sabotage missions. They are, themselves, a second front, to be opened anywhere the President wants them.
Navy SEALs: The SEALs, it is well known, got their start as underwater demolition teams (UDTs) in WWII, destroying mines to clear harbors. They have since evolved into a commando unit, probably the most technology-oriented of US commandos. They are especially skilled at insertion/extraction, which means that they can come and go without anyone knowing they were there. The SEALs, particularly the notorious SEAL Team Six, are used in much the same way that the Delta Force would be used if it existed. They are sent to rescue hostages, bring people out of hostile countries, or destroy facilities behind enemy lines. Their training in technology gives them remarkable flexibility--I've never met a SEAL who wasn't capable of flying a plane or jumping out of one, operating a remarkable range of underwater gear, and of course expert in firearms and small unit tactics. The SEALs aren't, however, selected for linguistic/training abilities, like the Green Berets: they are pure commandos, intended to operate either independently or as a wing of a larger campaign, but not intended to raise and train guerrilla forces or stay around long enough to learn the local tongue.
British Special Operations: The British have deployed three sets of special operations forces in Iraq: the Royal Marine Commandos, the Special Air Service, and the Special Boat Squad. It's useful to think of the RMCs as being similar to Marine Force Recon, and the SBS as very much like the Navy SEALs; but the SAS is quite its own thing. It is probably the finest commando force in the world, but it also selects for linguistics and other skills that one expects to see in the Green Berets. There are persistent rumors that the SAS has spent much of the last thirty years cutting its teeth on murder raids in the Republic of Ireland against IRA targets. We know it was employed in Afghanistan during the Tora Bora battle. However, most of the SAS's activities are still hidden in secrecy. Even its dead, posthumously awarded Britian's highest medals, are not named.
Special Operations forces are not created equal. In fact, "special operations" is too loose a category to be meaningful. Spend time with military men, and you will invariably hear some bootless debate about whether the Navy's SEALs or the Army's Special Forces are better: in fact, there can be no comparison, as they serve different functions, and are therefore trained differently. Here's a quick guide to the special operations forces in the news just now, what they are for, and what they're not.
"Airborne": In the US Army, the "Airborne" designation originated in WWII, when it referred to paratroopers. These days, the 101st Airborne and 82nd Airborne are not really that--although we did see the first major deployment of paratroopers since WWII when the 173rd Airborne took an airfield in northern Iraq. Airborne units are now "air assault" units, generally capable of paratrooper operations, but more likely to be air-mobile infantry backed with attack helicopters like the Apache. In theory, this makes them fast-moving ground forces. In practice, the sandstorms in Iraq grounded the 101st for several days, while the traditional mechanized infantry units advanced at pace. Nevertheless, Airborne units tend to have had advanced training beyond the standard infantry school, to include paratrooper training in many cases. In the US Army, they are allowed to wear maroon berets.
Army Special Forces: The famous "green berets," these men are primarily trained for insurgency/counterinsurgency operations. They are generally proficient linguists, selected in part because they have an ability to pick up new languages quickly. They are meant to train guerrilla forces for proxy wars, or train armies in the methods of hunting and eliminating guerrilla forces, though they can of course function as guerrilla/antiguerrilla forces themselves. This made them the natural choice for the Afghan campaign, where their language skills let them pick up local Pashtun dialects to coordinate with Northern Alliance forces. This allowed the American air assets to function smoothly with an alien army. The Special Forces' small, capable teams are also good at commando attacks.
Army Rangers: The Army Rangers used to be designated by a black beret, but these days wear a khaki one becaue the black beret is now standard-issue for all GIs. Rangers are highly trained light infantry. They practice mostly the standard infantry skills, but to a greater degree of proficiency; in addition, they are trained in unusual methods of insertion and movement--for example, being flown in while dangling from a helicopter by a rope (SPI roping), or rappelling. They aren't really meant to function independently of the main Army forces, unlike the Green Berets, but to act as supplementary forces for particularly dangerous operations or difficult terrain. They are also used for reconnaisance missions, though the Army maintains scout units as well.
Delta Force: The Delta Force does not exist. It doesn't do anything, because it does not exist. One hears rumors from time to time--for example, that the Delta Force was hanging around Baghdad, keeping eyes on Baathist leaders--but these must be lies, since we are assured that it does not exist. If it did exist, though, it would be drawn from the best commando units the US military has to offer, and would be intended to be deployed for such commando raids as were most perilous and least likely to be survived. It was, rumor says, originally intended to combat terrorist groups.
Marine Corps Recon / Force Recon: Marine Recon normally is just that: a unit trained in reconnaissance and forward observation. They are remarkably stealthy, and meant to operate behind enemy lines, getting a picture of what the enemy is about. "Force" Recon units are more heavily armed, and intended to operate deep behind enemy lines, as well as to take on commando-style attacks. Force Recon is occasionally rumored to be involved with black operations--assassinations, for example--but there is no evidence to support these assertions. Whether this is because the assertions are untrue, or because Force Recon are utter professionals, is left to the reader to judge.
Marine Corps Scout Snipers: Their name explains what they do. They operate in pairs--a sniper, and a spotter. They can be sent forward to scout, as they are masters of concealment and camoflauge; or, they can operate with larger units to provide them with the very finest in sniping capabilities. In Vietnam, they frequently operated on hunter/killer missions behind enemy lines, at which they were so successful that the North Vientamese instituted a heavy bounty on the heads of any Sniper killed.
Marine Corps MEU (SOC): MEU stands for "Marine Expeditionary Unit," and (SOC) stands for "Special Operations Capable." The MEU is one of several MAGTFs (Marine Corps Air/Ground Task Forces). A MAGTF is a grouping of no set size, consisting of a group of Marine Corps infantry, possibly with attached armor or other mechanized assets, linked to a group of Marine Corps Air. The largest of these MAGTFs is the Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF), which is at least a reinforced division of Marines coupled with a full wing of Marine Air. The MEU is smaller than the MEF. SOC means that the entire MEU, every last member down to the cooks and postal workers, are trained in special operations procedures, and tested according to standards even more rigorous than USMC standard--which is, it ought to be remarked, a standard already far higher than the Army's. An MEU (SOC) is really an army that can be deployed anywhere, at any time, instantly: and, having arrived wherever it wants to be, is possessed of sufficient firepower to hold off whatever forces may be directed against it until such time as it can be relieved. They aren't commandos, and they aren't intended for sabotage missions. They are, themselves, a second front, to be opened anywhere the President wants them.
Navy SEALs: The SEALs, it is well known, got their start as underwater demolition teams (UDTs) in WWII, destroying mines to clear harbors. They have since evolved into a commando unit, probably the most technology-oriented of US commandos. They are especially skilled at insertion/extraction, which means that they can come and go without anyone knowing they were there. The SEALs, particularly the notorious SEAL Team Six, are used in much the same way that the Delta Force would be used if it existed. They are sent to rescue hostages, bring people out of hostile countries, or destroy facilities behind enemy lines. Their training in technology gives them remarkable flexibility--I've never met a SEAL who wasn't capable of flying a plane or jumping out of one, operating a remarkable range of underwater gear, and of course expert in firearms and small unit tactics. The SEALs aren't, however, selected for linguistic/training abilities, like the Green Berets: they are pure commandos, intended to operate either independently or as a wing of a larger campaign, but not intended to raise and train guerrilla forces or stay around long enough to learn the local tongue.
British Special Operations: The British have deployed three sets of special operations forces in Iraq: the Royal Marine Commandos, the Special Air Service, and the Special Boat Squad. It's useful to think of the RMCs as being similar to Marine Force Recon, and the SBS as very much like the Navy SEALs; but the SAS is quite its own thing. It is probably the finest commando force in the world, but it also selects for linguistics and other skills that one expects to see in the Green Berets. There are persistent rumors that the SAS has spent much of the last thirty years cutting its teeth on murder raids in the Republic of Ireland against IRA targets. We know it was employed in Afghanistan during the Tora Bora battle. However, most of the SAS's activities are still hidden in secrecy. Even its dead, posthumously awarded Britian's highest medals, are not named.
Kurtz:
In The Corner today, Stanley Kurtz speaks at some length (and with additional links to previous articles) to the Santorum debate.
In The Corner today, Stanley Kurtz speaks at some length (and with additional links to previous articles) to the Santorum debate.
Mark Steyn on Bush:
I'm getting around to Mark Steyn rather late this time around--some ten days late, in fact. His profile of Bush is worth reading, though, if (like me) you missed it the first time out. The most interesting part of the piece to me is this:
I'm getting around to Mark Steyn rather late this time around--some ten days late, in fact. His profile of Bush is worth reading, though, if (like me) you missed it the first time out. The most interesting part of the piece to me is this:
Bush doesn't see why children in Mosul are so different from those in Crawford: why shouldn't they have the same freedoms? You can mock this if you wish. It seems very odd that the Left, which routinely bemoans the injustice of Barbara Bush's son having greater opportunities than the son of a crack whore in the inner city merely because of an accident of birth, then turns around and tells 20 million Iraqis that they have to accept their lot and live in a prison state forever. Julian Barnes, Iowa's Democratic Senator Tom Harkin and a zillion others continue to feel this way - even after Saddam's fall.Progressive--I like that. Let's progress right on past the wasteland of modernism, exactly by returning to the old values of classical liberalism. It was, after all, the classical liberal who first propounded the idea that all men were created equal, and that some rights were endowed inalienably.
Whether or not Mr Bush can succeed in his most ambitious objective - to democratise the Middle East - it is surely hard to deny that, next to the shriveled condescension of Barnes and co, his is the progressive position - adopted in the teeth of cynical opposition, not least from his own State Department.
The Founding:
When I suggest that a federal system in Iraq which permits Sharia law would be "like what America looked like at the founding," I mean that more or less literally. It's often forgotten that, in spite of the 1st Amendment, religious liberty at the founding was a patchwork of tolerance and intolerance. Some states were quite liberal about what they would accept, and some quite illiberal. Georgia, for example, at its founding pointedly refused to accept Catholics (as well as lawyers and slaves), but went to some trouble to settle Jacobite Presbyterians (and probably a quiet Catholic or two), German Lutherans, and Jews. In fact, George Washington addressed the Jews of Savannah during his visit to the city. The debates between Bostonians and the denizens of "Rogue's Island," more commonly known as Rhode Island, provide a similar play. States founded by Puritans tended to support religious liberty for Puritans, but no one else; Rhode Island tended toward a radical form of Calvanist determinism which argued that, since we were all predestined anyway, we might as well enjoy ourselves.
The 1st Amendment's declaration of religious liberty, then, really touched on only the Federal government. As the Supreme Court Historical Society notes,
When I suggest that a federal system in Iraq which permits Sharia law would be "like what America looked like at the founding," I mean that more or less literally. It's often forgotten that, in spite of the 1st Amendment, religious liberty at the founding was a patchwork of tolerance and intolerance. Some states were quite liberal about what they would accept, and some quite illiberal. Georgia, for example, at its founding pointedly refused to accept Catholics (as well as lawyers and slaves), but went to some trouble to settle Jacobite Presbyterians (and probably a quiet Catholic or two), German Lutherans, and Jews. In fact, George Washington addressed the Jews of Savannah during his visit to the city. The debates between Bostonians and the denizens of "Rogue's Island," more commonly known as Rhode Island, provide a similar play. States founded by Puritans tended to support religious liberty for Puritans, but no one else; Rhode Island tended toward a radical form of Calvanist determinism which argued that, since we were all predestined anyway, we might as well enjoy ourselves.
The 1st Amendment's declaration of religious liberty, then, really touched on only the Federal government. As the Supreme Court Historical Society notes,
Madison would have accomplished at the Founding, at least in part, what the Supreme Court was destined to hold 160 years later. Madison crafted his second proposal very simply: "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience." The proposal, I hasten to add, went on to protect the freedom of the press and the right to trial by jury in criminal cases; it was not devoted 'exclusively to religious freedom.It took the Civil War, and the 14th Amendment, to change the nature of the Bill of Rights from restrictions on the Federal government alone to restrictions on state governments as well. But this is just what I am after. The Civil War is the story of wealth and power collecting in the liberalized areas of the nation, and then turning to bring the countryside to heel. Following the Civil War, during the long period after Reconstruction, we see a second collection of power and wealth in the cities of the South, whose relative liberality allowed them to for the basis for (admittedly segregated) prosperous black communities, out of which in turn grew the Civil Rights movement. The key is to let liberalization happen organically. We need to focus on keeping the framework for such liberalization stable, while keeping friendly ties to the Islamic leaders so that they will side with us instead of terror groups. That means giving the conservative elements a stake in Iraq's government, perhaps even a controlling stake at the level of local provinces.
Nor should it go unnoticed from these two measures that Madison entertained a bifurcated notion as to governmental power to establish religion: under his two proposals Congress clearly could not establish a national religion, but the States, in contrast, could establish their own state religions, at least if they did not infringe upon "the equal rights of conscience."
This too, upon reflection, is unexceptional. For at that time 5 of the 13 States maintained establishments of religion, the last of which, Massachusetts, was not dissolved until 1833.
Making Peace:
The NY Times today confirms Amir Taheri, arguing that the Iranian government is trying to destabilize the creation of a secular state in Iraq. Apparently Iranian agents are there, working to stir up the Shia Muslims in favor of an Islamist state. Michael Ledeen offers his advice on dealing with the Shia Muslims here.
I will reiterate my thoughts, which are that a stable state will require giving these clerics a stake in the power. It is necessary that we establish a free, and classically liberal, state in Iraq. It won't look like America, though, if it's going to be a stable state. It will look more like what America looked like at the founding: a constitutional federation of smaller states, each with local autonomy over certain questions. We may have to accept Sharia law in some of these local states in order to have a fully stable Iraq with a secular Baghdad.
This is ok, because power and wealth will accumulate in the liberal areas. In time, they will wield that power to liberalize the backcountry on their own. For the United States, there are just two concerns in Iraq: 1) to provide a stable framework for the gradual transformation and liberalization. This requires giving everyone a stake, provided only that they will forswear terrorism as a method of getting their way. 2) Ending the support of terror groups from within Iraq. This requires keeping friendly ties open with the Islamic leaders, rather than driving a wedge between ourselves and them. Give them local-states of their own, and they will become involved with the running of those states. Appoint ambassadors with knowledge of Islamic culture to those states, and keep a friendly dialogue open with regular gifts--provided that they, in return, help us ferret out al Qaeda and other terrorist infiltrators. Such groups are making it easy for us by targeting Shia holy sites and clerics for destruction. The cooperation of the 82nd Airborne in preventing that most recent attack is worth a division of State Department ambassadors.
It's a long haul, but I think it can be done, and done well. Of course, there are still those who would prefer letting the French take charge, as they are doing in the Ivory Coast. The French-backed "reconciliation government" in la Cote d'Ivorie reports great success in ending the troubles there, excepting those three hundred killed in yesterday's fighting.
The NY Times today confirms Amir Taheri, arguing that the Iranian government is trying to destabilize the creation of a secular state in Iraq. Apparently Iranian agents are there, working to stir up the Shia Muslims in favor of an Islamist state. Michael Ledeen offers his advice on dealing with the Shia Muslims here.
I will reiterate my thoughts, which are that a stable state will require giving these clerics a stake in the power. It is necessary that we establish a free, and classically liberal, state in Iraq. It won't look like America, though, if it's going to be a stable state. It will look more like what America looked like at the founding: a constitutional federation of smaller states, each with local autonomy over certain questions. We may have to accept Sharia law in some of these local states in order to have a fully stable Iraq with a secular Baghdad.
This is ok, because power and wealth will accumulate in the liberal areas. In time, they will wield that power to liberalize the backcountry on their own. For the United States, there are just two concerns in Iraq: 1) to provide a stable framework for the gradual transformation and liberalization. This requires giving everyone a stake, provided only that they will forswear terrorism as a method of getting their way. 2) Ending the support of terror groups from within Iraq. This requires keeping friendly ties open with the Islamic leaders, rather than driving a wedge between ourselves and them. Give them local-states of their own, and they will become involved with the running of those states. Appoint ambassadors with knowledge of Islamic culture to those states, and keep a friendly dialogue open with regular gifts--provided that they, in return, help us ferret out al Qaeda and other terrorist infiltrators. Such groups are making it easy for us by targeting Shia holy sites and clerics for destruction. The cooperation of the 82nd Airborne in preventing that most recent attack is worth a division of State Department ambassadors.
It's a long haul, but I think it can be done, and done well. Of course, there are still those who would prefer letting the French take charge, as they are doing in the Ivory Coast. The French-backed "reconciliation government" in la Cote d'Ivorie reports great success in ending the troubles there, excepting those three hundred killed in yesterday's fighting.
Gays and the Presbyterian Church:
Gays don't get a lot of play on my blog, because of my disinterest in (and, let's be honest, distaste for) gay issues and culture. However, today we'll have two items on them, this one via Wren's Nest. It treats a Presbyterian minister who is marrying gays, which is against church law and, I suspect, state law. The fellow's church is apparently given to appointing actively homosexual decons in violation of church rules, which require chastity among unmarried lay leaders. In spite of these violations, the church has limited its punishment to a gentle chiding.
It reminds me of the old joke we used to tell:
Q: How can you tell a Baptist from a Methodist?
A: The Methodist will share his beer with you.
Q: How can you tell a Presbyterian, then?
A: The Presbyterian will run the church bus by the liquor store.
The minister in question plans to appeal even the gentle chiding on the grounds that he thinks the rules against gay marriage go against Scripture. This is a new one on me--I've heard of Scriptural interpretations that suggested that the crime of Sodom wasn't homosexuality but a failing of hospitality, but I have never heard of any Scriptural argument in favor of homosexual marriage. As I am interested in comparative religion, though, I'll be glad to hear the argument if any of my readers know what it is. Let me know, if you hear anything about it.
Gays don't get a lot of play on my blog, because of my disinterest in (and, let's be honest, distaste for) gay issues and culture. However, today we'll have two items on them, this one via Wren's Nest. It treats a Presbyterian minister who is marrying gays, which is against church law and, I suspect, state law. The fellow's church is apparently given to appointing actively homosexual decons in violation of church rules, which require chastity among unmarried lay leaders. In spite of these violations, the church has limited its punishment to a gentle chiding.
It reminds me of the old joke we used to tell:
Q: How can you tell a Baptist from a Methodist?
A: The Methodist will share his beer with you.
Q: How can you tell a Presbyterian, then?
A: The Presbyterian will run the church bus by the liquor store.
The minister in question plans to appeal even the gentle chiding on the grounds that he thinks the rules against gay marriage go against Scripture. This is a new one on me--I've heard of Scriptural interpretations that suggested that the crime of Sodom wasn't homosexuality but a failing of hospitality, but I have never heard of any Scriptural argument in favor of homosexual marriage. As I am interested in comparative religion, though, I'll be glad to hear the argument if any of my readers know what it is. Let me know, if you hear anything about it.
Gays & Polygamy:
Another Republican Senator is in trouble for his mouth. You'd think Republicans would just stop speaking in public. This time it's the Honorable Rick Santorum, who said this:
Second, Santorum here seems to be echoing Stanley Kurtz of the National Review, who has made this argument at great length. See his pieces "The Coming Battle," "The Real Issue" and "Gay Marriage Endgame". He's written more about it, most of which can be found by following the links contained in his articles. Stanley Kurtz and Andrew Sullivan have maintained a running fight about this for months. The Senator is just abbreviating Kurtz's points, with which he apparently agrees. It's unfair to call for his removal for participating in political discourse--that's what we expect of Senators, after all, it's what they are for.
Last, I find the Kurtz/Santorum argument astonishing. It takes this form: "Gay marriage should not be allowed because it would necessarily allow polygamy, and polygamy would mark the real destruction of marriage as an institution." But polygamy has been the main way in which marriage has been practiced for all of human history. It is specifically permitted in the Torah, which gives rules in Exodus for taking a second wife; when Jesus speaks to adultery in the New Testament, he clearly leaves open the traditional polygamist way of Jewish marriage; Mormonism obviously permits it in their scripture; and as for non-Judeo-Christian marriage, there isn't a religion among them that forbids polygamy. All of them have traditions of polygamist behavior historically, and many--Islam for example--have scripture to support the taking of extra wives.
No culture, however, has ever allowed gay marriage. The Kurtz/Santorum argument is perhaps the most extrodinary case of cart-before-horseism I've seen in my life. Polygamy, though problematic, would represent a return to roots, and indeed there are strong arguments in its favor in an era in which traditional families are crumbling and divorce rates are skyrocketing. Gay marriage is a complete departure from everything marriage has ever represented.
Another Republican Senator is in trouble for his mouth. You'd think Republicans would just stop speaking in public. This time it's the Honorable Rick Santorum, who said this:
If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.There are three things to be said about this. First, bigamy is perhaps the most improperly used word in American jurisprudence. It comes from the Greek, and does indeed mean "two-wifed." However, bigamy was the practice of having a second wife after the death of the first one, not the practice of having two wives at once, which was (and is) polygamy. American legislatures have always gotten the semantics wrong, which is irritating to those of us who like having words for each concept instead of confusing the concepts.
Second, Santorum here seems to be echoing Stanley Kurtz of the National Review, who has made this argument at great length. See his pieces "The Coming Battle," "The Real Issue" and "Gay Marriage Endgame". He's written more about it, most of which can be found by following the links contained in his articles. Stanley Kurtz and Andrew Sullivan have maintained a running fight about this for months. The Senator is just abbreviating Kurtz's points, with which he apparently agrees. It's unfair to call for his removal for participating in political discourse--that's what we expect of Senators, after all, it's what they are for.
Last, I find the Kurtz/Santorum argument astonishing. It takes this form: "Gay marriage should not be allowed because it would necessarily allow polygamy, and polygamy would mark the real destruction of marriage as an institution." But polygamy has been the main way in which marriage has been practiced for all of human history. It is specifically permitted in the Torah, which gives rules in Exodus for taking a second wife; when Jesus speaks to adultery in the New Testament, he clearly leaves open the traditional polygamist way of Jewish marriage; Mormonism obviously permits it in their scripture; and as for non-Judeo-Christian marriage, there isn't a religion among them that forbids polygamy. All of them have traditions of polygamist behavior historically, and many--Islam for example--have scripture to support the taking of extra wives.
No culture, however, has ever allowed gay marriage. The Kurtz/Santorum argument is perhaps the most extrodinary case of cart-before-horseism I've seen in my life. Polygamy, though problematic, would represent a return to roots, and indeed there are strong arguments in its favor in an era in which traditional families are crumbling and divorce rates are skyrocketing. Gay marriage is a complete departure from everything marriage has ever represented.
Guns & Free Men:
The Washington Post today prints this letter explaining why no one stopped a man from being beaten to death in Maryland. The short answer is this:
But Georgia is a backwards Southern state, right? Well--it's a Southern state, but it looks to be ahead of the trend. All but 18 states now offer "shall issue" permits, with crime rates dropping in all such states after the change in the law, and by a more or less uniform percentage. Guns in law abiding hands seem to limit crimes, for just the reasons cited in the letter above.
Of course, if Maryland is bad, the situation in D.C. is far worse. However, that may be about to change.
(Full disclosure: I'm no utilitarian--I believe in the right of free men to keep and bear arms as a point of honor and tradition. I would back it even if it increased crime rates, simply because the right to bear arms is indivisible from the actual fact of being free. A man who is forbidden arms is not free, not only because he is prohibited from exercising a traditional liberty, but also because he must thereafter be at the mercy of the strong, or the many.)
The Washington Post today prints this letter explaining why no one stopped a man from being beaten to death in Maryland. The short answer is this:
But I also understand the reluctance of unarmed bystanders to confront a large man in a homicidal rage. This is called "disparity of force," and it provides legal justification for the use of deadly weapons in self-defense.Maryland's gun control laws--I've had occasion to look into them lately--are far more stringent than the norm for the United States. There is no "shall issue" permit for carrying a firearm, but rather permits are issued only if the state police agree with your reasons for going armed (apparently, "because people are getting beaten to death" isn't a good enough reason). Even if permits are issued, the fees are shockingly high--some seventy dollars even to consider the permit, which is good then only for two years, and must be renewed at fifty dollars a year thenceforth. In Georgia, the fee is three dollars a year, just to cover the administrative costs of the background check. Further, the permit is "shall issue," which means that the state is obligated to give you the permit unless they can prove you are disqualified under the law. They can't turn it down just because they want to.
Unfortunately, because of Maryland's strict gun control laws, no bystander was likely to be armed.
Police officers cannot be present at all violent crimes, but victims, by definition, always are. Without weapons, the weak will always be at the mercy of the strong.
But Georgia is a backwards Southern state, right? Well--it's a Southern state, but it looks to be ahead of the trend. All but 18 states now offer "shall issue" permits, with crime rates dropping in all such states after the change in the law, and by a more or less uniform percentage. Guns in law abiding hands seem to limit crimes, for just the reasons cited in the letter above.
Of course, if Maryland is bad, the situation in D.C. is far worse. However, that may be about to change.
(Full disclosure: I'm no utilitarian--I believe in the right of free men to keep and bear arms as a point of honor and tradition. I would back it even if it increased crime rates, simply because the right to bear arms is indivisible from the actual fact of being free. A man who is forbidden arms is not free, not only because he is prohibited from exercising a traditional liberty, but also because he must thereafter be at the mercy of the strong, or the many.)
Aussies Consider the DPRK:
The Aussie press seems to have decided that the US is going to take out North Korea. The Sydney Morning Herald ran this article titled Secret U.S. File: Oust Regime in Pyongyang. Meanwhile, the Advertiser has a piece called US Blueprint to Bomb North Korea. It suggests that we have a plan to strike the Yongbyon reactor and the DPRK's artillery positions on the DMZ line in the event of active reprocessing at Yongbyon.
Of course, these Canberra sources seem to be drawing on Pentagon and DoD sources. The State Department may have other ideas.
The Aussie press seems to have decided that the US is going to take out North Korea. The Sydney Morning Herald ran this article titled Secret U.S. File: Oust Regime in Pyongyang. Meanwhile, the Advertiser has a piece called US Blueprint to Bomb North Korea. It suggests that we have a plan to strike the Yongbyon reactor and the DPRK's artillery positions on the DMZ line in the event of active reprocessing at Yongbyon.
The Pentagon hawks believe the precision strikes envisaged in the plan would not lead to North Korea's initiating a general war it would be certain to lose. The US would inform the North Koreans it was not aiming to destroy the regime of Kim Jong-il, but merely to destroy its nuclear weapons capacity.No word on what kind of weapons would be used in the "precision" strikes on DPRK arty, but the positions they are talking about are extensive and fortified. The US military's precision strike weapons are impressive--this Iraq business has made that clear--but my own impression is echoed by John Derbyshire's article Night Thoughts:
The logic all points one way: to nuclear weapons. The only way to put North Korea out of business without South Korea�s co-operation is by attacking their emplacements along the DMZ with neutron bombs (�enhanced radiation weapons�). Nothing else does the job without precipitating an invasion of South Korea.I have to agree. I don't think we have any other option that allows us to neutralize the artillery positions quickly enough to prevent them turning lose devastation on Seoul. The use of nukes will not pass as "precision strikes" in anyone's book, and I don't think there is any friendly message that Bush can send to talk Kim out of a reply. Once we go to guns on the DPRK, we're committed to a real war. There should be no joking around about this. It may be the right thing to do--I'm increasingly convinced that it is, though I am willing to see how the China talks develop. It should be understood, though, that we are not talking about precision strikes this time, nor a cost-free bombing run to solve all our problems.
Of course, these Canberra sources seem to be drawing on Pentagon and DoD sources. The State Department may have other ideas.
My Favorite American Beer:
Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer is apparently enjoying a renaissance among the young and hip. It was my grandfather's beer, and the one I took up when living in Hangzhou, China, on those occasions when I wanted beer not cut with rice wine. It's actually very good--leaving aside the microbreweries and specialists, probably still the best American beer. Glad to see it making a comeback. (Story via InstaPundit).
Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer is apparently enjoying a renaissance among the young and hip. It was my grandfather's beer, and the one I took up when living in Hangzhou, China, on those occasions when I wanted beer not cut with rice wine. It's actually very good--leaving aside the microbreweries and specialists, probably still the best American beer. Glad to see it making a comeback. (Story via InstaPundit).
Guns in Iraq:
The Corner at NRO today has this post from Dave Kopel:
The Corner at NRO today has this post from Dave Kopel:
Although British troops in Basra have been urging residents to voluntarily turn in their guns, American forces in the middle-class Baghdad suburb of Hay al-Qudhat are doing no such thing. Instead, they are simply ordering people not to carry guns in public. Neighborhood residents have been defending their homes from looters. Said one resident, "We all have guns, but we don't want them. We just want peace and stability." The neighborhood is home to many doctors, lawyers, and other professionals.Right. A free man has the right to bear arms. As this page has advocated before, arming and empowering the liberal elements in Iraqi society is the surest first step to creating a liberal, but free, Iraq.
On Wagner:
Via the indispensible Arts & Letters Daily, we have this article from the Guardian on Wagner. I think it neatly captures why I find the culture's constant attempts at satire grating:
Via the indispensible Arts & Letters Daily, we have this article from the Guardian on Wagner. I think it neatly captures why I find the culture's constant attempts at satire grating:
Since then, Wagner's enterprise has acquired its own tragic pathos, as modern producers, embarrassed by dramas that make a mockery of their way of life, in turn make a mockery of the symbolism. Sarcasm and satire run riot, as in Richard Jones's 1994-96 Covent Garden production of The Ring, because nobility has become intolerable.I hope that we may start to see a reversal here. We will have to earn it, but we have an opportunity. Our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and elsewhere, have a chance to build an awareness of what real nobility looks like. Our best ambassadors on that project are already at work--which is to say, not ambassadors at all, but those men who go in uniform. Their sacrifices inform us as Wagner's characters meant to:
For Wagner, as for the Greeks, a myth was not a decorative fairy tale, but the elaboration of a secret, a way of both hiding and revealing mysteries that can be understood only in religious terms, through the ideas of sanctity, holiness and redemption....
The gods come about because we idealise our passions, and we do this not by sentimentalising them but by sacrificing ourselves to the vision on which they depend. It is by accepting the need for sacrifice that we begin to live under divine jurisdiction, surrounded by sacred things, and finding meaning through love. Seeing things that way, we recognise that we are not condemned to mortality but consecrated to it.
Bad Translation?
Via the Corner at NRO, there is this story that North Korea may not be reprocessing its fuel rods yet. It is, they say, a mistranslation--they meant, they were ready to do so.
Via the Corner at NRO, there is this story that North Korea may not be reprocessing its fuel rods yet. It is, they say, a mistranslation--they meant, they were ready to do so.
Birth of a Nation:
Iraqi muslims are demonstrating "by the tens of thousands" for an Islamic state in Iraq, and an end to the occupation of Iraq by the United States. Well, we haven't even finished occupying the place yet. Meanwhile, an Iraqi religious leader in Iran is calling for an assembly in Karbala to protest the US efforts to set up an interim government.
This is going to be a lasting problem, and a problem for the long term. There is a model for this from history which ought to be kept in mind: the reconstruction of Confederate states by the Union after the Civil War. Initial efforts at self-government were met with the former Confederate states re-electing Confederate leaders to serve in the government--Alexander Stepehens, vice president of the Confederacy, was sent to the US Senate by Georgia. Unwilling to allow former Confederates such authority, the US government expelled them from their offices and imposed a military government, and required the states to rewrite their constitutions and elect governments approved by the military regime, as well as ratify certain Federal Constitutional amendments (Amendments 13, 14, and 15).
This heavy handed approach resulted in Reconstruction states that were liberal on the surface, but deeply unpopular. As soon as the government retracted its close watch, the populace re-elected Confederate members again--Joe Brown, for example, governor of the state of Georgia before the Civil War, during the Civil War, and then after the Civil War.
Much more importantly, though, was that the countryside fell under the control of terror groups, who grew together to form the Ku Klux Klan. Liberal elements were subject to night-rides, lynchings, beatings, and worse. By the late 1870s, liberal elements were expunged from the government, the state constitutions were rewritten to effectively strip blacks of voting rights, and segregation was in place.
If that is not to happen in Iraq, we will have to be careful in our handling of the place. First, we have to avoid the temptation to shut down these Islamic protests. We have to find a way to bring them into the fold and give them a stake in making the government work. Otherwise, we may find that whatever state system we impose will collapse because of their deep and devoted antipathy.
Another thing we need to do is to fortify liberal elements. There are quite a few of these in Baghdad particularly, especially among those engaged in commerce. The government must also be a thing they have a stake in, and they ought to be encouraged to take small civic leadership roles--the more of them who take such roles, the better. A wise policy would be dividing the cities into many small wards, getting these relatively liberal, commercially minded men into place as mayors, and letting them hire private police forces. Some of the money from the oil wells should be set aside to fund such forces which, being private and each operating according to its owner's personal interest, will not be so likely to fall under the sway of the central government should it turn toward radical Islam. Thus, liberal elements in Iraq would have many strong pockets that would make it harder for terror groups to torment the populace into compliance.
Last, these terror groups need to be eradicated. Special operations teams should begin to be tasked with the regular capture or, if capture is not possible, assassination of terrorist leadership members. It is helpful to remember that they are, in effect, the KKK, and like the KKK they have a core of educated and intelligent men who are leading a mass of uneducated but passionate men. Without the leadership elements, the terror groups can not organize or operate except on a local level. It is when they grow together, as the KKK grew out of many small groups, that they become dangerous to the liberalization of Iraq.
Iraqi muslims are demonstrating "by the tens of thousands" for an Islamic state in Iraq, and an end to the occupation of Iraq by the United States. Well, we haven't even finished occupying the place yet. Meanwhile, an Iraqi religious leader in Iran is calling for an assembly in Karbala to protest the US efforts to set up an interim government.
This is going to be a lasting problem, and a problem for the long term. There is a model for this from history which ought to be kept in mind: the reconstruction of Confederate states by the Union after the Civil War. Initial efforts at self-government were met with the former Confederate states re-electing Confederate leaders to serve in the government--Alexander Stepehens, vice president of the Confederacy, was sent to the US Senate by Georgia. Unwilling to allow former Confederates such authority, the US government expelled them from their offices and imposed a military government, and required the states to rewrite their constitutions and elect governments approved by the military regime, as well as ratify certain Federal Constitutional amendments (Amendments 13, 14, and 15).
This heavy handed approach resulted in Reconstruction states that were liberal on the surface, but deeply unpopular. As soon as the government retracted its close watch, the populace re-elected Confederate members again--Joe Brown, for example, governor of the state of Georgia before the Civil War, during the Civil War, and then after the Civil War.
Much more importantly, though, was that the countryside fell under the control of terror groups, who grew together to form the Ku Klux Klan. Liberal elements were subject to night-rides, lynchings, beatings, and worse. By the late 1870s, liberal elements were expunged from the government, the state constitutions were rewritten to effectively strip blacks of voting rights, and segregation was in place.
If that is not to happen in Iraq, we will have to be careful in our handling of the place. First, we have to avoid the temptation to shut down these Islamic protests. We have to find a way to bring them into the fold and give them a stake in making the government work. Otherwise, we may find that whatever state system we impose will collapse because of their deep and devoted antipathy.
Another thing we need to do is to fortify liberal elements. There are quite a few of these in Baghdad particularly, especially among those engaged in commerce. The government must also be a thing they have a stake in, and they ought to be encouraged to take small civic leadership roles--the more of them who take such roles, the better. A wise policy would be dividing the cities into many small wards, getting these relatively liberal, commercially minded men into place as mayors, and letting them hire private police forces. Some of the money from the oil wells should be set aside to fund such forces which, being private and each operating according to its owner's personal interest, will not be so likely to fall under the sway of the central government should it turn toward radical Islam. Thus, liberal elements in Iraq would have many strong pockets that would make it harder for terror groups to torment the populace into compliance.
Last, these terror groups need to be eradicated. Special operations teams should begin to be tasked with the regular capture or, if capture is not possible, assassination of terrorist leadership members. It is helpful to remember that they are, in effect, the KKK, and like the KKK they have a core of educated and intelligent men who are leading a mass of uneducated but passionate men. Without the leadership elements, the terror groups can not organize or operate except on a local level. It is when they grow together, as the KKK grew out of many small groups, that they become dangerous to the liberalization of Iraq.
Worse news from Pyongyang:
So North Korea is now reprocessing its fuel rods. These talks we're going to have with them in China will be very interested. Sure, if you're Kim Jong Il, you'd want to be negotiating from behind a growing stockpile of nukes, too. That's the strongest possible position for North Korea.
However, these talks have been "brokered," to use the Washington Post's word, by the People's Republic of China. This bad-faith move by the DPRK is a cause of considerable embarrassment to the PRC. There is nothing the Chinese hate more than being humiliated in public. In the long run, therefore, this could be a good sign--China may now feel it has to take a hard line with the DPRK to save face.
So North Korea is now reprocessing its fuel rods. These talks we're going to have with them in China will be very interested. Sure, if you're Kim Jong Il, you'd want to be negotiating from behind a growing stockpile of nukes, too. That's the strongest possible position for North Korea.
However, these talks have been "brokered," to use the Washington Post's word, by the People's Republic of China. This bad-faith move by the DPRK is a cause of considerable embarrassment to the PRC. There is nothing the Chinese hate more than being humiliated in public. In the long run, therefore, this could be a good sign--China may now feel it has to take a hard line with the DPRK to save face.
Bad News from Ulster:
This is the biggest story out of Northern Ireland in several years. Scotland Yard has disclosed that British security forces aided Protestant hit squads in Northern Ireland. The Washington Post has the story as well.
The credible suspicion of this sort of thing fueled a lot of US donations to the IRA during the pre-9/11 days. I was myself pro-IRA in my misspent youth, just exactly because I believed--truthfully, as it turns out--that the British government was involved with murder raids on Northern Ireland Catholics. It's really only been 9/11 that brought many of us Americans to take a second look at the IRA, and realize what a band of thugs it is. But if part of it was that we didn't understand what terrorism really was, there was also the fact that the British were behaving brutally.
It's important to realize that MI5 isn't the whole of the British government, though. In the days after 9/11 we often read in the UK newspapers that we Americans needed a domestic security service like MI5. No, we don't, thank you kindly. This is the kind of thing such groups do.
This is the biggest story out of Northern Ireland in several years. Scotland Yard has disclosed that British security forces aided Protestant hit squads in Northern Ireland. The Washington Post has the story as well.
The credible suspicion of this sort of thing fueled a lot of US donations to the IRA during the pre-9/11 days. I was myself pro-IRA in my misspent youth, just exactly because I believed--truthfully, as it turns out--that the British government was involved with murder raids on Northern Ireland Catholics. It's really only been 9/11 that brought many of us Americans to take a second look at the IRA, and realize what a band of thugs it is. But if part of it was that we didn't understand what terrorism really was, there was also the fact that the British were behaving brutally.
It's important to realize that MI5 isn't the whole of the British government, though. In the days after 9/11 we often read in the UK newspapers that we Americans needed a domestic security service like MI5. No, we don't, thank you kindly. This is the kind of thing such groups do.
In Texas? Say it ain't so:
Drudge has this story today, which says that the commanding general at Fort Sam Houston has recommended military men not wear uniforms in public to avoid harassment and possible violence. There have been two incidents, one involving an assault on the car of a drill sergeant and his wife, the other involving two sailors who were accosted by "several men."
The sailors were in luck:
Drudge has this story today, which says that the commanding general at Fort Sam Houston has recommended military men not wear uniforms in public to avoid harassment and possible violence. There have been two incidents, one involving an assault on the car of a drill sergeant and his wife, the other involving two sailors who were accosted by "several men."
The sailors were in luck:
Some Marines who were nearby saw what was happening and went to the sailors' aid. The matter was then taken care of by combined military action.Semper Fi.
Victory against the Nazis:
Simon Wiesenthal is declaring victory, and ending his hunt for the remaining Nazis. Mr. Wiesenthal, 94, says that any who remain are too old to stand trial. I will trust his judgement on the point. It is good to remember that, for sixty years, people like Mr. Wiesenthal have been making sure that evil does not go unpunished. It is also good to remember that all that evil would have gone unpunished, would in fact have ruled in Europe, if it had not been for the same Anglo-American military alliance that is hunting evil now. Pass the Deck of Death.
Simon Wiesenthal is declaring victory, and ending his hunt for the remaining Nazis. Mr. Wiesenthal, 94, says that any who remain are too old to stand trial. I will trust his judgement on the point. It is good to remember that, for sixty years, people like Mr. Wiesenthal have been making sure that evil does not go unpunished. It is also good to remember that all that evil would have gone unpunished, would in fact have ruled in Europe, if it had not been for the same Anglo-American military alliance that is hunting evil now. Pass the Deck of Death.
Infiltration:
Guerrillas in Pakistan continue to raid India and the Kashmir vale. The US State Department expresses frustration with Pakistan, but how much success have we had controlling the Mexican border? Funny you should ask, says the Washington Times--an occasionally dubious source, mind you. Jay Leno explains:
Guerrillas in Pakistan continue to raid India and the Kashmir vale. The US State Department expresses frustration with Pakistan, but how much success have we had controlling the Mexican border? Funny you should ask, says the Washington Times--an occasionally dubious source, mind you. Jay Leno explains:
A dozen Al Qaeda members now hiding in Mexico, trying to figure out how to get across the US border to do us harm. Let me tell you something, if these people are not smart enough how to figure to get across the US-Mexican border, I don't think we have anything to worry about.
The UN, cont.
The UN has become little more than a venue for delaying tactics by dictatorial states, I said. What else is it? A venue for tactics by socialist bureaucrats to hamper US efforts. Taheri may be right or wrong about Damascus and Teheran seeking to hinder the US reconstruction of Iraq, but it is plain that Paris wants to do so.
The UN has become little more than a venue for delaying tactics by dictatorial states, I said. What else is it? A venue for tactics by socialist bureaucrats to hamper US efforts. Taheri may be right or wrong about Damascus and Teheran seeking to hinder the US reconstruction of Iraq, but it is plain that Paris wants to do so.
On Syria (and Iran):
Amy Taheri has an article in the National Review today which suggests that Iran and Syria are collaborating on ways to make the reconstruction of Iraq difficult for us. The notion she puts forth is that, by making Iraq hard, these two states hope to distract us from dealing with either (or both) of them. Taheri lists several factors that could be brought into play.
On another front, Syria has pledged to rid the Middle East of Weapons of Mass Destruction and has submitted a plan to that effect to the United Nations. The UN has become little more than the venue for delaying tactics by dictatorial states, as this plan demonstrates:
Amy Taheri has an article in the National Review today which suggests that Iran and Syria are collaborating on ways to make the reconstruction of Iraq difficult for us. The notion she puts forth is that, by making Iraq hard, these two states hope to distract us from dealing with either (or both) of them. Taheri lists several factors that could be brought into play.
On another front, Syria has pledged to rid the Middle East of Weapons of Mass Destruction and has submitted a plan to that effect to the United Nations. The UN has become little more than the venue for delaying tactics by dictatorial states, as this plan demonstrates:
On Wednesday, Damascus asked the U.N. Security Council to help transform the region into a zone free of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.So, in short, Syria seeks a nice-sounding resolution behind which to hide, but has no intention of allowing any positive steps to demonstrate compliance. Meanwhile, speculation is rampant that many of Iraq's WMDs passed into Syrian control before the invasion.
Speaking to reporters in Cairo today, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq Charaa said: "After this initiative, this Syrian proposal . . . Syria won't allow any inspection. It will only participate with its [Arab] brothers and all of the states of the world in turning the Middle East into an area free of weapons of mass destruction."
It was not clear if his remarks were a departure from Syria's previously stated position that it would only allow weapons inspections if they applied to all regional states, including Israel, which is widely believed to have nuclear arms.
...and keep your spear to hand:
Here is an article on what Norse Mythology has to say about gun control.
Here is an article on what Norse Mythology has to say about gun control.
More on the Jihadi:
This time via InstaPundit, Sage of Knoxville, a solution for dealing with the jihadi:
This time via InstaPundit, Sage of Knoxville, a solution for dealing with the jihadi:
In the densely populated northeastern slum area of Saddam City, U.S. Marines pulled back to allow local people to hunt "mujahideen" volunteer fighters holed up in the area.Now this is the way it ought to be. Iraqis are taking command of their destiny, and by force of arms erecting a society free of terror men. It's damned inspiring, and just right. Many have asked if you can impose freedom with an army. Here is the answer: Perhaps not, but you can tip the scales to allow brave men to claim it.
"The locals said they wanted to take charge of Saddam City and we said: 'Roger that'," Lieutenant-Colonel Lew Craparotta, commander of a Marine unit that moved back from the fringes of the suburb, told Reuters.
Local leaders told U.S. officers that non-Iraqi Arab fighters were still a threat in the mainly Shi'ite district.
"It's much easier for them to identify the enemy than for us. We really can't tell who is who," Craparotta said.
The U.S. withdrawal will allow local men to carry weapons openly, set up checkpoints and cordon off areas where they suspect the Arab volunteer fighters are hiding....
Local militia and the "mujahideen" fought fiercely through Friday night until after dawn, with the sound of sustained small arms and heavy machinegun fire suggesting substantial clashes between the two groups. U.S. forces were not involved.
On Saturday, sporadic small arms fire erupted in the poor district, indicating the "flushing out" operation was ongoing.
Baghdad is saturated with weapons, so both the militia and the Arab volunteer fighters have easy access to large arms and ammunition caches.
Al Qaeda in Basra?
Via ParaPundit, a report from the London Times:
Via ParaPundit, a report from the London Times:
PRESIDENT Saddam Hussein imported hundreds of well-trained Islamic guerrillas before the war to spearhead his fight against American and British forces, The Times has learnt....Tellingly, many of these jihadi arrived on student visas, claiming to be enrolled in the school for Koranic studies. "Talib," from whence "Taliban," translates as "student" with the understanding that it is the Koran being studied. Student visas seem to be a method of choice for AQ agents travelling in the West, though why they would bother with the pretense in Iraq is not clear. Of course, some just listed their reason for coming to Iraq as "jihadi."
The foreign fighters provide a �direct tie between Saddam Hussein and terrorist organisations�, a Pentagon spokeswoman said last night.
British investigators are more cautious, but one officer involved in questioning the survivors told The Times: �These are not just zealots who grabbed a gun and went to the front line. They know how to employ guerrilla tactics so someone had to have trained them. They are certainly organised, and if it�s not bin Laden�s people, its al-Qaeda by another name. But they certainly came here to fight the West.�
When Ladies Wrote Poems of Knights:
The Knight Errant
by Louise Guiney
The Knight Errant
by Louise Guiney
SPIRITS of old that bore me,
And set me, meek of mind,
Between great dreams before me,
And deeds as great behind,
Knowing humanity my star
As first abroad I ride,
Shall help me wear, with every scar,
Honor at eventide.
Let claws of lightning clutch me
From summer's groaning cloud,
Or ever malice touch me,
And glory make me proud.
O give my youth, my faith, my sword,
Choice of the heart's desire:
A short life in the saddle, Lord!
Not long life by the fire.
Forethought and recollection
Rivet mine armor gay!
The passion for perfection
Redeem my failing way!
The arrows of the tragic time
From sudden ambush cast,
With calm angelic touches ope
My Paradise at last!
I fear no breathing bowman,
But only, east and west,
The awful other foeman
Impowered in my breast.
The outer fray in the sun shall be,
The inner beneath the moon;
And may Our Lady lend to me
Sight of the Dragon soon!
Speak Softly & Carry a Big Stick:
In spite of a half dozen repetitions by administration officials last week that we have no intention of invading, North Korea seems to be making the first placatory noises in quite a while. The Financial Times reports today on what is, on its face, not a big concession--but it is a concession, which is a start.
The Iraq war does seem to have impressed Pyongyang, however, and more importantly, it has impressed China:
In spite of a half dozen repetitions by administration officials last week that we have no intention of invading, North Korea seems to be making the first placatory noises in quite a while. The Financial Times reports today on what is, on its face, not a big concession--but it is a concession, which is a start.
In a statement issued by the Foreign Ministry, North Korea said: "If the US is ready to make a bold switch-over in its Korea policy for a settlement of the nuclear issue, [North Korea] will not stick to any particular dialogue format."I personally have had no feeling that the Iraq war would inspire good behavior from the DPRK, as I expect it will from Iran and Syria, and others in the Middle East. The DPRK, being probably possessed of nuclear arms, and certainly possessed of ballistic missiles, would stand of US pressure at sword's point. Certainly the DPRK has been working feverishly to bring its reactor online, though technical problems have prevented it in spite of round-the-clock efforts.
Pyongyang had previously insisted the crisis could be resolved only through bilateral dialogue with the US but Washington feared such talks would reward North Korea's nuclear "blackmail". Instead, the US has proposed multilateral talks, involving other interested countries, such as South Korea, Japan and China.
The Iraq war does seem to have impressed Pyongyang, however, and more importantly, it has impressed China:
North Korea has come under heavy diplomatic pressure from its neighbours to accept the US offer of multilateral talks. In particular, diplomats said China, North Korea's closest ally, had become much more active in persuading Pyongyang to back down.It's too early to do more than hope--there are serious concerns that make a negotiated settlement highly unlikely to prove successful in derailing the DPRK's nuclear project. Still, Washington's soft-spoken approach hasn't been spineless: there is a big stick held in plain sight. That report is from Japan, and highlights not only the US but also the Japanese stick; this report, from Reuters, spells out Pyongyang's peril in bold letters.
Washington and Pyongyang have no formal diplomatic relations but the pair have been communicating in recent weeks through the UN in New York. China is also thought to have passed messages between the two sides.
Tikrit:
The Marines have landed, and the situation is well in hand. The Economist also reports. Resistance is reportedly very light, unlike in Baghdad where stiff firefights still crop up from time to time. This probably means I won't be winning my bet on Tikrit as Saddam's Last Stand. Of course, U.S. forces think he's probably dead, so it may not matter.
The Marines have landed, and the situation is well in hand. The Economist also reports. Resistance is reportedly very light, unlike in Baghdad where stiff firefights still crop up from time to time. This probably means I won't be winning my bet on Tikrit as Saddam's Last Stand. Of course, U.S. forces think he's probably dead, so it may not matter.
More Songs from Ireland:
Here is a piece of an old Orangeman song that speaks properly of certain fighters in Iraq:
"Croppies Lie Down" is thus not a song I've often sung, but I can't help reflect on how appropriate it is to the current moment. Why, there's even this line:
Here is a piece of an old Orangeman song that speaks properly of certain fighters in Iraq:
United in blood to the country�s disgrace,The song is called "Croppies Lie Down," where a "croppie" is one of the United Irishmen of 1798, who wore their hair short, rather than long in the manner of the old aristocracy. This page is a friend to the United Irishmen, who advocated and upheld the principles of classical liberalism. Most of the founders were educated in Scotland, where David Hume and others had created the philosophical movement that gave us our American constitution. Rather than being a sectarian group, the United Irishmen were a group of Protestants from Ulster who united--thus the name--with Catholic Irishmen who also believed in the classical liberal principles of the Scottish Enlightenment.
They secretly shoot those they dare not to face;
But whenever we catch the sly rogues in the field,
A handful of soldiers makes hundreds to yield;
The cowards collect but to raise our renown,
For as soon as we fire the croppies lie down.
"Croppies Lie Down" is thus not a song I've often sung, but I can't help reflect on how appropriate it is to the current moment. Why, there's even this line:
Should France e�er attempt, by fraud or by guile...
Democracy and Tolerance, II:
The London Spectator has an excellent article by Roger Scruton this week on different views of the function of law. He discusses the degradation of tolerance in Britian, one of the two healthiest democracies:
The London Spectator has an excellent article by Roger Scruton this week on different views of the function of law. He discusses the degradation of tolerance in Britian, one of the two healthiest democracies:
Law, in a liberal democracy, is concerned not to impose moral conformity but to maintain peace, order and goodwill between people, all of whom are free to pursue their own conception of the good life, to the extent that they can do so without harming others. The main contours of this view � tellingly argued by Mill in On Liberty � were until recently accepted among educated people, most of whom would concur in the judgment that it is both reasonable to regard adultery as immoral, and oppressive to make it a crime. . . .
The reason why the case of hunting is important, even for those who disapprove of hunting and would like to see it banned, is that it is the cornerstone of an indigenous way of life. To ban hunting is to criminalise a large and generally law-abiding minority. To justify a ban therefore requires some other argument besides the mere fact of moral disapproval: we need a clear conception of the benefits not only to animals but also to people. But the parliamentary opponents of hunting have refused to enter the argument about these complex matters, having seen that it is an argument that they might lose. Morality seems to them like a better resource, since of its very nature it is absolute and irrebuttable. Invoking morality is a way of saying, with Luther, �Here I stand; I can do no other� � in other words, a way of refusing to engage with your opponent.
City-fighting:
Christopher Lowe, who is a staff writer for Army Times Publishing, has a piece in the Daily Standard. It's a bit late and says nothing substantive that hasn't been said on, or linked-to from, this page before. He does, though, give some specifics on equipment used, particularly UAVs, that hasn't appeared here before, as well as some military jargon that is in current use.
Christopher Lowe, who is a staff writer for Army Times Publishing, has a piece in the Daily Standard. It's a bit late and says nothing substantive that hasn't been said on, or linked-to from, this page before. He does, though, give some specifics on equipment used, particularly UAVs, that hasn't appeared here before, as well as some military jargon that is in current use.
Democracy and Tolerance:
The Foreign Policy journal which suggests that Muslim attitudes towards women and homosexuality may make them unsuitable as potential democrac polities. Citing large-scale intolerance of homosexuality, as well as what is commonly known as "women's liberation," the piece concludes:
Indeed, the FP piece includes this paragraph:
The Foreign Policy journal which suggests that Muslim attitudes towards women and homosexuality may make them unsuitable as potential democrac polities. Citing large-scale intolerance of homosexuality, as well as what is commonly known as "women's liberation," the piece concludes:
The United States cannot expect to foster democracy in the Muslim world simply by getting countries to adopt the trappings of democratic governance, such as holding elections and having a parliament. Nor is it realistic to expect that nascent democracies in the Middle East will inspire a wave of reforms reminiscent of the velvet revolutions that swept Eastern Europe in the final days of the Cold War. A real commitment to democratic reform will be measured by the willingness to commit the resources necessary to foster human development in the Muslim world. Culture has a lasting impact on how societies evolve. But culture does not have to be destiny.Well, what about the Republic of Ireland, in which divorce and abortion were both quite illegal until recently? Democracy came first, though it was largely at first the "trappings" of democarcy--the Fianna Fail, for example, could not take their elected seats in the Dail for years because they refused to take a loyalty oath. It took some time before democracy's trappings became democracy, which in turn did eventually yield to the social reforms that the Foreign Policy piece seems to want in place before democracy.
Indeed, the FP piece includes this paragraph:
But economic development generates changed attitudes in virtually any society. In particular, modernization compels systematic, predictable changes in gender roles: Industrialization brings women into the paid work force and dramatically reduces fertility rates. Women become literate and begin to participate in representative government but still have far less power than men. Then, the postindustrial phase brings a shift toward greater gender equality as women move into higher-status economic roles in management and gain political influence within elected and appointed bodies. Thus, relatively industrialized Muslim societies such as Turkey share the same views on gender equality and sexual liberalization as other new democracies.Well, then, it sounds like democracy is JUST the way to liberalize the Middle East, doesn't it? Turkey has long been a "democracy" in name only, with the army in real power. Only lately has "democracy" been giving way to real democracy. But already the social reforms the author desires are beginning. There is more:
In every stable democracy, a majority of the public disagrees with the statement that �men make better political leaders than women.� None of the societies in which less than 30 percent of the public rejects this statement (such as Jordan, Nigeria, and Belarus) is a true democracy. In China, one of the world�s least democratic countries, a majority of the public agrees that men make better political leaders than women, despite a party line that has long emphasized gender equality (Mao Zedong once declared, �women hold up half the sky�).So why the conclusion? All the evidence they cite points the other way. Even partial democracy--early Irish Republic, or Turkey--seems to start the "modernizing" transformation that is linked to sexual liberation. Lacking partial democracy, even strenuous attempts by the government to enforce ideas of gender equality fail.
But on the Same Page:
Mr. Marshall says this about the Marine who wrapped the 9/11 flag over the statue of Hussein:
Mr. Marshall says this about the Marine who wrapped the 9/11 flag over the statue of Hussein:
It's also one of those gives-you-faith-in-America moments to find out that the Marine who hoisted the flag -- Cpl. Edward Chin -- is apparently Chinese-American.What? How could it be reprehensible to suggest that blacks are presumptive drug users, but perfectly fine to imply that finding a patriotic Chinese-American is cause for celebration? This is racism too, but the sort that is apparently acceptable to reform liberals of Mr. Marshall's stripe. Neither view is welcome on this page, which asserts--as the Marine Corps does itself--that there are no black Marines, and no white Marines (nor Chinese-American Marines either): there are only Marines. The same is true of Americans generally. Semper Fi.
Marshall and I Agree On Something:
From Talking Points Memo:
From Talking Points Memo:
"My sons are 25 and 30," Representative Barbara Cubin (R-Wyoming) said on the House floor a few days ago. "They are blond-haired and blue-eyed. One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean if you go into a black community, you cannot sell a gun to any black person, or does that mean because my ... "Where's the Outrage, John Marshall asks. Here, sir. But, it's good to see Southern Democrats on the right side of the race question these days.
At this point, Representative Mel Watt (D-North Carolina) cut Cubin off and demanded her remarks be stricken from the record for implying that blacks are presumptive drug addicts.
Tautology watch:
This story, from allAfrica.com, is titled Fighting in East Hinders Disarmament. That is something like saying "Continued War Hinders Peace," isn't it?
Actually, it neatly captures my reasons for thinking peacekeepers would be wasted in Afghanistan. Advocates of "peackeeping" don't always seem to recognize that you have to have a peace first. If you don't want to see headlines like "Continued War Hinders Peackeeping," you need to accept that soldiers must first make a peace before peacekeepers can keep it. That can be done through a negotiated settlement, certainly, rather than conquest--but it has to be DONE, if peacekeeping is to work.
This story, from allAfrica.com, is titled Fighting in East Hinders Disarmament. That is something like saying "Continued War Hinders Peace," isn't it?
Actually, it neatly captures my reasons for thinking peacekeepers would be wasted in Afghanistan. Advocates of "peackeeping" don't always seem to recognize that you have to have a peace first. If you don't want to see headlines like "Continued War Hinders Peackeeping," you need to accept that soldiers must first make a peace before peacekeepers can keep it. That can be done through a negotiated settlement, certainly, rather than conquest--but it has to be DONE, if peacekeeping is to work.
Nuclear Baghdad:
Mansoor Ijaz, from today's "Corner" at National Review Online:
Mansoor Ijaz, from today's "Corner" at National Review Online:
Whatever the Marines found there, and none of us know for sure until CentCom confirms what it was, it was dangerous beyond the limits Iraq was compelled to remain within by the United Nations and the IAEA. Saddam's last acts have always been formulated by the "if I can't have it, you can't have it either..." thesis. Let us hope he didn't break the seals at Tuwaitha, and in a last ditch act of terror, decide to take enough uranium to make multiple dirty bombs, deploy them in Iraqi cities for later detonation once civilian life returns to normal.
Lance Corporal Ian Malone:
Toward the end of the article, John Derbyshire cites a remarkable young man: Lance Corporal Ian Malone, KIA in Basra. I've sat through some several renditions of "Kevin Barry," whose young innocent life was ended by British tyrants merely because he shot a policeman in the back. Here's a martyr worth the poetry, if poets live who will stand to the tale. I am myself a poor poet, and will try:
Sandstorms settled in the south
of that sour place,
and terror-men opened wide a mouth
etched in a hate-filled face.
The rifle-spit struck down Malone
and he in a moment gave
a life well-lived, alone,
to set men free of the grave.
In later days men drew down
statues from on high;
they struck Iraqi ground
so dust and cheer could fly.
What, one Irish fighting man
to free millions from cold chains?
Not noble words, not gracious plan
could make real such gains.
Or--Is our time so coy,
so wild and free a thing?
Not Harvey nor Kelly, boy
of Killarn, not the Brian King
Freedom bought at such a cost,
where glory's priced so steep:
Where the name of each good man lost
Can memory's Herald keep.
Toward the end of the article, John Derbyshire cites a remarkable young man: Lance Corporal Ian Malone, KIA in Basra. I've sat through some several renditions of "Kevin Barry," whose young innocent life was ended by British tyrants merely because he shot a policeman in the back. Here's a martyr worth the poetry, if poets live who will stand to the tale. I am myself a poor poet, and will try:
Sandstorms settled in the south
of that sour place,
and terror-men opened wide a mouth
etched in a hate-filled face.
The rifle-spit struck down Malone
and he in a moment gave
a life well-lived, alone,
to set men free of the grave.
In later days men drew down
statues from on high;
they struck Iraqi ground
so dust and cheer could fly.
What, one Irish fighting man
to free millions from cold chains?
Not noble words, not gracious plan
could make real such gains.
Or--Is our time so coy,
so wild and free a thing?
Not Harvey nor Kelly, boy
of Killarn, not the Brian King
Freedom bought at such a cost,
where glory's priced so steep:
Where the name of each good man lost
Can memory's Herald keep.
But They've Always Said They Had No Control...
Sinn Fein's control over the Provisional IRA is brought into question by current events. Sinn Fein has always denied that they were, as they are always said to be, the "political wing of the IRA." Just patriots, so they'll tell you. Pass the half-and-half (we won't call them Black and Tans here), and that little coin-box with the white cap.
Sinn Fein's control over the Provisional IRA is brought into question by current events. Sinn Fein has always denied that they were, as they are always said to be, the "political wing of the IRA." Just patriots, so they'll tell you. Pass the half-and-half (we won't call them Black and Tans here), and that little coin-box with the white cap.
I'll Take a Hit:
This deck of cards is the best idea I've seen out of the war, and it's been a war of good ideas. Now my only question is--where can I get one?
This deck of cards is the best idea I've seen out of the war, and it's been a war of good ideas. Now my only question is--where can I get one?
Syria:
The Voice of America reports that Syria is closing its Iraqi border to all but humanitarian traffic. Meanwhile, on that border, US airstrikes and Special forces troops are engaged in continuing operations against fleeing members of the former Iraqi government and anyone trying to slip in to help them:
The Voice of America reports that Syria is closing its Iraqi border to all but humanitarian traffic. Meanwhile, on that border, US airstrikes and Special forces troops are engaged in continuing operations against fleeing members of the former Iraqi government and anyone trying to slip in to help them:
Syrian fighters have turned up on the Iraqi battlefield--one was found hiding in a Baghdad refrigerator on Wednesday--and other Arab fighters have crossed into Iraq via Syria to attack the U.S.-led coalition.Meanwhile, the good people in San Francisco are convinced that Damascus is next.
On Thursday, after Saddam's regime collapsed in Baghdad and the northern city of Kirkuk, it appeared some were returning the way they came: A correspondent for Al-Jazeera at the Syria-Iraq border said he had met Palestinian and Syrian volunteer fighters at the border who had abandoned their positions in Mosul and were returning home.
Nuclear Baghdad:
More on the nuclear complex the Marines have located. The IAEA has apparently inspected the above-ground site numerous times, and had done some examination of some undergound facilities; but an underground complex is something they had never discovered, "despite persistent rumors." Interesting read.
Meanwhile, the Scotsman is reporting that we may have found plutonium. PittsburghLIVE has a more up to date and complete version of the story.
More on the nuclear complex the Marines have located. The IAEA has apparently inspected the above-ground site numerous times, and had done some examination of some undergound facilities; but an underground complex is something they had never discovered, "despite persistent rumors." Interesting read.
Meanwhile, the Scotsman is reporting that we may have found plutonium. PittsburghLIVE has a more up to date and complete version of the story.
"The Onion a trouv� la solution"
Le Figaro discovers America's Finest News Source. At least the French knew it was satire.
Le Figaro discovers America's Finest News Source. At least the French knew it was satire.
So what are we doing with Syria?
I'm still unsure myself. We're obviously not worried about provoking them, having cut their oil, taken a town right on their border, had Rumsfeld warn them twice on military cooperation with the former government of Iraq, and even hinted that Syria might be next if they didn't behave according to our wishes. That last article mentions an unnamed military source who claims that we are drawing up plans to invade Syria--indeed, we almost certainly are, if we haven't already. As I said recently about Pakistan:
Actually, I suspect we are going to invade Syria, though only informally. Jed Babbin suggested it today in his warblog on National Review Online, with regard to assassinating/capturing leaders of the former Iraqi government. I think we'll see a cross-border situation like we have with Afghanistan and Pakistan right now: militants, terrorists, and other groups are likely to try to hide on the other side of the Syrian border. We will hunt and kill them, and we will officially deny doing so "except in hot pursuit." In fact, though, we'll do it gladly. But will there be a formal war with Syria?
I honestly don't know. Watch Rumsfeld, though, for the answer--if he actually says so, rather than merely hinting at it, then we're going.
I'm still unsure myself. We're obviously not worried about provoking them, having cut their oil, taken a town right on their border, had Rumsfeld warn them twice on military cooperation with the former government of Iraq, and even hinted that Syria might be next if they didn't behave according to our wishes. That last article mentions an unnamed military source who claims that we are drawing up plans to invade Syria--indeed, we almost certainly are, if we haven't already. As I said recently about Pakistan:
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.We have lots of people who make their careers on drawing up contingency plans; it doesn't mean we're going to do anything about them. I wouldn't be surprised to find that we had drawn up plans to invade parts of Europe under certain circumstances. Sure reads nastily in the press, though.
Actually, I suspect we are going to invade Syria, though only informally. Jed Babbin suggested it today in his warblog on National Review Online, with regard to assassinating/capturing leaders of the former Iraqi government. I think we'll see a cross-border situation like we have with Afghanistan and Pakistan right now: militants, terrorists, and other groups are likely to try to hide on the other side of the Syrian border. We will hunt and kill them, and we will officially deny doing so "except in hot pursuit." In fact, though, we'll do it gladly. But will there be a formal war with Syria?
I honestly don't know. Watch Rumsfeld, though, for the answer--if he actually says so, rather than merely hinting at it, then we're going.
Al Jazeera:
"Objective and balanced global news coverage," indeed. Today's headlines include a story about Rumsfeld and Syria, whose subhead is: "Emboldened by US military action in Iraq, hawks have turned their sights on Iran and Syria." Which hawks? Well, if you go and read the story, you find out that it's really just one guy: Michael Ledeen. But Ledeen, though a member of the American Enterprise institute, is mostly a journalist who writes for the Jewish World Review. He's not a member of the administration. All the quotes from actual government officials explicitly deny military action against Syria or Iran. The only counterexample al Jazeera could find was this:
"Objective and balanced global news coverage," indeed. Today's headlines include a story about Rumsfeld and Syria, whose subhead is: "Emboldened by US military action in Iraq, hawks have turned their sights on Iran and Syria." Which hawks? Well, if you go and read the story, you find out that it's really just one guy: Michael Ledeen. But Ledeen, though a member of the American Enterprise institute, is mostly a journalist who writes for the Jewish World Review. He's not a member of the administration. All the quotes from actual government officials explicitly deny military action against Syria or Iran. The only counterexample al Jazeera could find was this:
It was widely believed that Vice President Dick Cheney was referring to Syria and Iran when he said in a speech that Washington would �do whatever it takes� to defeat terrorism and must confront nations that sponsor it.
More on the Syrian oil pipeline:
Syrian oil exports are dropping by half following the US destruction of the Iraq-Syria oil pipeline. It's only a coincidence, say the Syrians, who deny that they were ever illegally importing oil from Iraq. (NB: That is, "illegally" according only to several UN resolutions. Since the UN has demonstrated disinterest in enforcing its mandates, as far as I can tell, it's not really illegal at all.)
Syrian oil exports are dropping by half following the US destruction of the Iraq-Syria oil pipeline. It's only a coincidence, say the Syrians, who deny that they were ever illegally importing oil from Iraq. (NB: That is, "illegally" according only to several UN resolutions. Since the UN has demonstrated disinterest in enforcing its mandates, as far as I can tell, it's not really illegal at all.)
War Has Gamblers Folding:
So says ABC News in this report. Well, not me. Those of you who have lost bets can post your forfeits to my PO box; email if you need it. I wrote to the one of you who may have won one earlier, and as discussed, we'll wait for better evidence before deciding.
New war bets welcome. I'll consider anything, but you may have to take odds if you want to lay really strange bets.
So says ABC News in this report. Well, not me. Those of you who have lost bets can post your forfeits to my PO box; email if you need it. I wrote to the one of you who may have won one earlier, and as discussed, we'll wait for better evidence before deciding.
New war bets welcome. I'll consider anything, but you may have to take odds if you want to lay really strange bets.
Nuclear Baghdad?
The wife's nightmare scenario is not something I am particularly concerned about, given the apparent collapse of what little command and control remained with enemy forces. The collapse of the former government of Iraq today should preclude the use of weapons of mass destruction, including nukes if they existed. Someone's got to carry out the orders, after all.
Still, this report that the 1st Marine Division has captured an undeclared nuclear site in Iraq is interesting.
The wife's nightmare scenario is not something I am particularly concerned about, given the apparent collapse of what little command and control remained with enemy forces. The collapse of the former government of Iraq today should preclude the use of weapons of mass destruction, including nukes if they existed. Someone's got to carry out the orders, after all.
Still, this report that the 1st Marine Division has captured an undeclared nuclear site in Iraq is interesting.
Afghan situation:
The Post also has its lead editorial on the Afghan situation.
Disarming the Afghans isn't the solution either. For one thing, it will create a tremendous amount of hostility. All of the various cultures in Afghanistan have strong traditions that bearing arms is part of manhood. There can be no faster way to turn the country against us than to try to enforce the Washington Post's ideals of gun control. Those ideas don't even fly in the American South, whose citizens get a vote in any such laws. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a Southerner say he'd take up arms against the government rather than let them seize his guns, I'd be a rich man. Such ideas are definitely not going to fly in Afghanistan, where they would be imposed by an outside force, on a culture with at least as strong a tradition of arms-bearing.
In the short term, we can carry on fighting opposition forces with the 82nd Airborne and Special Forces. In the long term, though, we need to found an organization like the Texas Rangers. That link is to a site on the history of the Rangers, who began in conditions not unlike those of modern Afghanistan. The Rangers began as a military force, and have evolved over 180 years to become a police force. We are, hopefully, looking at a shorter span of evolution for the Afghan situation, but the Texas Rangers are the best model. Small companies of rangers, with what amounts to martial-law authority but with backing from the central government, can act as a military force in the early days, to secure the borders and destroy the bands of warlords hostile to the government. They need to be skilled, trained in mountain warfare, and capable of moving quickly and acting on independent authority.
In time, as the Texas Rangers, they can evolve into a police force, once the situation on the ground changes. To start with, a mixed American-Afghan company would be ideal, trained by the US Army's 75th Rangers (who are closer in form and function to the early Texas Rangers than the modern Texas Rangers). As the methods and the ideals of the Rangers become ingrained, we can move to an all-Afghan regiment. Such a force, highly mobile and well trained, loyal to the government and able to enforce its will, would be just what is needed for a wild and difficult frontier.
The Post also has its lead editorial on the Afghan situation.
Seen from a complacent Washington, Afghanistan still may look better than it did before the U.S. intervention. But experts following the country say they worry about a steady unraveling, much like that which preceded the Taliban's seizure of power in the mid-1990s. The symptoms are similar: Outside the capital, warlords and bandits rule the country, sometimes battling each other and regularly robbing their fellow citizens at highway checkpoints. At the borders, aid shipments and "customs collections" on imported goods are diverted to the warlords, depriving the central government of resources and revenue. The opium trade is booming. In some places, the Taliban's extreme practices, including the persecution of women, have been reimposed.We need Afghanistan as a floursing, stable state. We aren't going to get there with peacekeepers, though--as demonstrated in the Bosnian conflict, peacekeepers' rules of engagement quickly turn them into "armed hostages," as my professor Tom Pearce used to say. Securing the borders in a rugged country, and pacifying rival clans at war, that isn't the work of peacekeepers. Let's be of a serious mind about this. Peacekeepers have their place, but this isn't it.
All of these phenomena have flourished in a vacuum knowingly created by the Bush administration, which refused to support the deployment of peacekeeping forces outside Kabul. Rather than disarm and disable the warlords, U.S. commanders continue to depend on them and even to finance some of them.
Disarming the Afghans isn't the solution either. For one thing, it will create a tremendous amount of hostility. All of the various cultures in Afghanistan have strong traditions that bearing arms is part of manhood. There can be no faster way to turn the country against us than to try to enforce the Washington Post's ideals of gun control. Those ideas don't even fly in the American South, whose citizens get a vote in any such laws. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a Southerner say he'd take up arms against the government rather than let them seize his guns, I'd be a rich man. Such ideas are definitely not going to fly in Afghanistan, where they would be imposed by an outside force, on a culture with at least as strong a tradition of arms-bearing.
In the short term, we can carry on fighting opposition forces with the 82nd Airborne and Special Forces. In the long term, though, we need to found an organization like the Texas Rangers. That link is to a site on the history of the Rangers, who began in conditions not unlike those of modern Afghanistan. The Rangers began as a military force, and have evolved over 180 years to become a police force. We are, hopefully, looking at a shorter span of evolution for the Afghan situation, but the Texas Rangers are the best model. Small companies of rangers, with what amounts to martial-law authority but with backing from the central government, can act as a military force in the early days, to secure the borders and destroy the bands of warlords hostile to the government. They need to be skilled, trained in mountain warfare, and capable of moving quickly and acting on independent authority.
In time, as the Texas Rangers, they can evolve into a police force, once the situation on the ground changes. To start with, a mixed American-Afghan company would be ideal, trained by the US Army's 75th Rangers (who are closer in form and function to the early Texas Rangers than the modern Texas Rangers). As the methods and the ideals of the Rangers become ingrained, we can move to an all-Afghan regiment. Such a force, highly mobile and well trained, loyal to the government and able to enforce its will, would be just what is needed for a wild and difficult frontier.
The Metro:
The Washington Post reports this morning on a possible al Qaeda threat to the Washington, D.C. Metro. It sounds dubious to me, but mass panic in tightly constrained areas gets ugly, quickly.
The Washington Post reports this morning on a possible al Qaeda threat to the Washington, D.C. Metro. It sounds dubious to me, but mass panic in tightly constrained areas gets ugly, quickly.
I would be remiss...
... as a proud citizen of the Great State of Georgia, which gave the world Sir James Edward Oglethorpe, Lachlan McIntosh, (especially) James Jackson, and Doc Holliday; and as a brother to a UGA alumnus; if I did not include a link to this picture of a UGA flag flying over a Saddamite palace in Baghdad.
Go, Mighty Dawgs.
... as a proud citizen of the Great State of Georgia, which gave the world Sir James Edward Oglethorpe, Lachlan McIntosh, (especially) James Jackson, and Doc Holliday; and as a brother to a UGA alumnus; if I did not include a link to this picture of a UGA flag flying over a Saddamite palace in Baghdad.
Go, Mighty Dawgs.
Alas, John, that I can't agree:
John Derbyshire is my second favorite conservative columnist, after Mark Steyn. John, whose occasional correspondance I consider an honor, has this to say about Iraq:
It strikes me as highly unlikely. Still--it is not impossible.
John Derbyshire is my second favorite conservative columnist, after Mark Steyn. John, whose occasional correspondance I consider an honor, has this to say about Iraq:
"This may, of course, be premature. I am writing this on Monday afternoon. It is well-nigh certain that brave young troopers from the Coalition forces - aye, and brave young Iraqis, and poor helpless noncombatants too - will be maimed and killed before the business is wrapped up and done. It is possible something large and ghastly will happen. I hope you will forgive me for setting these things aside and saying: Even so, we have won. There is nothing so large and ghastly it could change that."I wish I could agree. One possibility remains, the one that has been bothering my wife all along. The Iraqi information minister said today that our soldiers must surrender or be "burned in their tanks." His statements have been delusional all along, and there is no special reason to think this is more than bravado. Yet... there is a chance that there are atomic "doomsday devices" in Baghdad. That the Iraqi government might have these is possible, and indeed, such weapons do not need to be tested. Detonation of such weapons could take out a division or more of forces inside Baghdad, which would be a loss of such magnitude as to raise the cost of victory beyond what we would readily pay again. Hopefully, though, if such weapons exist at all they are known to our intelligence people, and have been priorities of all those Special Operations gentlemen in country.
It strikes me as highly unlikely. Still--it is not impossible.
Massacre in the Congo:
The Daily Telegraph has the story. I just heard an NPR interview with an official from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (rule of thumb: any state whose name includes the word "Democratic" is a brutal hellhole) which seemed to suggest that this might be a tribal thing, as women and children were doing some of the killing.
This follows an incident earlier this year involving cannibalism, as well as the more usual killing and raping.
The Daily Telegraph has the story. I just heard an NPR interview with an official from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (rule of thumb: any state whose name includes the word "Democratic" is a brutal hellhole) which seemed to suggest that this might be a tribal thing, as women and children were doing some of the killing.
This follows an incident earlier this year involving cannibalism, as well as the more usual killing and raping.
So why am I confident of victory?
Well, also from the MOUT manual:
No, the danger is in the long term, when we find our occupation forces under occasional assault by terrorist groups. However, we've shown a great deal of success at fighting such forces (see yesterday's entries), and our techniques have only improved of late. Special Operations forces are ideal for antiterrorist operations of this type. Furthermore, if the postwar period is handled carefully, it should be easy to deny the terrorists the allegiance of the population of Iraq. Without that, they can't operate with long term success.
If we operate with decency and fairness--as we ought to do anyway--and if our troops behave in the long term with a devotion to chivalry and honor, as they doubtlessly will, victory is certain.
The cost is not. Raise a glass to the honor of the soldiers and Marines who will pay it. If the human destiny is according to a vision of liberty, rather than tyranny, it is their blood that will buy it.
Well, also from the MOUT manual:
The attacker won all urban battles where the defender was totally isolated. Even the partial isolation of the defenders resulted in attackers enjoying a success rate of 80 percent. Conversely, attackers won only 50 percent of the battles in which defenders were not significantly isolated, and those victories came at great cost.It's hard to get much more isolated than the Iraqi government is just now. There is no government in the world that will openly ally with them in the war. The roads in and out of the city of Baghdad are controlled by the United States. Soon the surface streets will be owned by us as well, and they'll be fighting out of buildings and tunnels. We'll control the buildings soon enough, though the tunnels will be a sticking point. There is nowhere they can go, and no help is coming except in the form of terrorists, who can't offer a standup fight to professional soldiers and Marines.
No, the danger is in the long term, when we find our occupation forces under occasional assault by terrorist groups. However, we've shown a great deal of success at fighting such forces (see yesterday's entries), and our techniques have only improved of late. Special Operations forces are ideal for antiterrorist operations of this type. Furthermore, if the postwar period is handled carefully, it should be easy to deny the terrorists the allegiance of the population of Iraq. Without that, they can't operate with long term success.
If we operate with decency and fairness--as we ought to do anyway--and if our troops behave in the long term with a devotion to chivalry and honor, as they doubtlessly will, victory is certain.
The cost is not. Raise a glass to the honor of the soldiers and Marines who will pay it. If the human destiny is according to a vision of liberty, rather than tyranny, it is their blood that will buy it.
How much longer will the war last?
Well, that really depends on what you are ready to consider "the war." If you include terrorist actions and fights against terrorist groups--probably a long time yet, likely years. I won't be surprised if we end up moving a large number of our troops who have been garrisoning Germany to garrison Iraq in the postwar period--really, it would be wise to do so, to provide stability to the new government during the first years.
But, if you mean the war against Hussein's government... well, that won't be as long. Still, there are several reasons to think that it will be a while yet before Baghdad is secure, and Tikrit is still to come. Rumsfeld thinks the war isn't yet at the 'tipping point,' which is a pretty good indication that we may see some serious fighting yet. Furthermore, there are those underground fortresses, which may require weeks or months to clear. And, last, there is this admonition from the MOUT manual cited below:
Well, that really depends on what you are ready to consider "the war." If you include terrorist actions and fights against terrorist groups--probably a long time yet, likely years. I won't be surprised if we end up moving a large number of our troops who have been garrisoning Germany to garrison Iraq in the postwar period--really, it would be wise to do so, to provide stability to the new government during the first years.
But, if you mean the war against Hussein's government... well, that won't be as long. Still, there are several reasons to think that it will be a while yet before Baghdad is secure, and Tikrit is still to come. Rumsfeld thinks the war isn't yet at the 'tipping point,' which is a pretty good indication that we may see some serious fighting yet. Furthermore, there are those underground fortresses, which may require weeks or months to clear. And, last, there is this admonition from the MOUT manual cited below:
In most cases, successful conclusion of an urban battle took two to three times longer than the initial estimates. This often had adverse affects on the overall campaign. Well-planned urban defense, even if the defender is isolated or lacking in aviation, armor, or artillery weapons, can be time consuming to the attacker. Time can allow the defender to reorganize, re-deploy, or marshal resources in other areas.
Ah, Reuters:
One wonders why they even asked:
One wonders why they even asked:
A travel ban imposed on Baghdad by Iraqi authorities would have no impact on the activities of U.S.-led military forces attacking the city, a Pentagon spokesman said on Sunday.
"We will go wherever and whenever we want," the spokesman told Reuters.
City-Fighting:
InstaPundit, sage of the University of Tennessee, links today to an good article on city fighting. It's interesting to compare to the USMC MOUT manual for NCOs.
InstaPundit, sage of the University of Tennessee, links today to an good article on city fighting. It's interesting to compare to the USMC MOUT manual for NCOs.
Mujahedeen:
The National Review on the Arab warriors coming to fight the Jihad against Americans in Iraq. Outraged by our destruction of an Arab state, these men are swarming by the hundreds to join the war against America.
This was the anti-war argument fielded by the most intelligent doves. It was unfairly scorned by some hawks, who scoffed that doves were simultaneously arguing that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorists, but also that we daren't fight him because it would inflame terrorists. But the hawks who stopped with such scoffing were not playing fair, as they were themselves arguing that Saddam -was- in league with terrorists, but dismissing the danger of enhanced terrorist recruitment for war in Iraq.
The proper hawkish response was, and is, this: The time has come for fighting terrorists. We need to break these terror groups now, before weapons of mass destruction--particularly radiological/nuclear weapons--become more commonly available. It is therefore a benefit of the Iraq war that it will bring those who are ideologically disposed to terrorism into the fight now, while they are fighting at a disadvantage, so that they will be dead later, when weapons of mass destruction might be ready to hand. This is the proper time for the conflict. If we are to remake the Middle East, eliminating the subset of the population that is willing to commit terrorist acts is necessary.
Yes, it greatly increases the danger of the struggle to our soldiers in the field. They understand about danger. It is time for this fight. We cannot go on like we have, treating terrorists as criminals, and limiting our responses to law enforcement. By all means, let's call up the enemy to his fullest, and fight him down. We have thousands of special-operations qualified troops in the region. Breaking these terrorists is part of making America safe--the most important part, in fact. Anyone who wants to fight, let's fight now.
The National Review on the Arab warriors coming to fight the Jihad against Americans in Iraq. Outraged by our destruction of an Arab state, these men are swarming by the hundreds to join the war against America.
This was the anti-war argument fielded by the most intelligent doves. It was unfairly scorned by some hawks, who scoffed that doves were simultaneously arguing that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorists, but also that we daren't fight him because it would inflame terrorists. But the hawks who stopped with such scoffing were not playing fair, as they were themselves arguing that Saddam -was- in league with terrorists, but dismissing the danger of enhanced terrorist recruitment for war in Iraq.
The proper hawkish response was, and is, this: The time has come for fighting terrorists. We need to break these terror groups now, before weapons of mass destruction--particularly radiological/nuclear weapons--become more commonly available. It is therefore a benefit of the Iraq war that it will bring those who are ideologically disposed to terrorism into the fight now, while they are fighting at a disadvantage, so that they will be dead later, when weapons of mass destruction might be ready to hand. This is the proper time for the conflict. If we are to remake the Middle East, eliminating the subset of the population that is willing to commit terrorist acts is necessary.
Yes, it greatly increases the danger of the struggle to our soldiers in the field. They understand about danger. It is time for this fight. We cannot go on like we have, treating terrorists as criminals, and limiting our responses to law enforcement. By all means, let's call up the enemy to his fullest, and fight him down. We have thousands of special-operations qualified troops in the region. Breaking these terrorists is part of making America safe--the most important part, in fact. Anyone who wants to fight, let's fight now.
Rejoice:
The Daily Telegraph on the fall of Basra. Registration may be required, but it's free. The Telegraph reminds us of one way in which the offensive is very different from Medieval battles:
The Daily Telegraph on the fall of Basra. Registration may be required, but it's free. The Telegraph reminds us of one way in which the offensive is very different from Medieval battles:
In medieval and early modern times, cities that resisted siege could expect havoc and slaughter when they fell.
Even today, armies are sometimes prepared to raze urban areas rather than risk house-to-house combat, Grozny being the most recent example. Yet British troops managed to fight their way to the centre of Basra with miraculously few casualties, either to themselves or to the civilian population.
From William Raspberry:
William Raspberry is my favorite liberal columnist. (My favorite conservative columnist, if you are curious, is Mark Steyn). Raspberry's piece today is on affirmative action. He and I do not agree, but his take is, as always, thoughtful.
William Raspberry is my favorite liberal columnist. (My favorite conservative columnist, if you are curious, is Mark Steyn). Raspberry's piece today is on affirmative action. He and I do not agree, but his take is, as always, thoughtful.
Maybe if you ask them nicely:
Some additional business for the war summit in Northern Ireland. Since he's going to be there anyway, the BBC asks, couldn't Bush devote a little energy to getting the IRA under control?
Some additional business for the war summit in Northern Ireland. Since he's going to be there anyway, the BBC asks, couldn't Bush devote a little energy to getting the IRA under control?
North Korea:
The DPRK has tested an antiship missile this week, the third such test of the KN-01 system. Meanwhile, the BBC is having some fun with Bush administration officials, who can't seem to decide whether the DPRK or Iraq has the worse human rights record. The DPRK has suggested that, actually, it's the US who is the worst. But certainly one can't fault the US for being insufficiently interested in human rights... almost over-interested, really...
The DPRK has tested an antiship missile this week, the third such test of the KN-01 system. Meanwhile, the BBC is having some fun with Bush administration officials, who can't seem to decide whether the DPRK or Iraq has the worse human rights record. The DPRK has suggested that, actually, it's the US who is the worst. But certainly one can't fault the US for being insufficiently interested in human rights... almost over-interested, really...
Elements of the State Department report have been viewed with some derision by commentators - in particular its 16-page exposition of human rights in largely trouble-free Canada, and its noting that the Palestinian Authority has failed to install ramps at public building entrances to allow disability access.
War's Finest Weapon:
The Black Watch took Basra today, devoting their Challenger tanks. Those tanks are rated by some experts as the best in the world, better even than our M1A1 Abrams, though personally I suspect the Abrams is more likely to survive a battle. Air support was provided by US Marine Air, using Super Cobra attack helicopters that, excepting updated munitions and avionics, date to Vietnam. It's hard to imagine a more irresistable force than the Scots and the Marines fighting together. The Scotsman provides here a very thorough account of the battle.
This battle also saw, for the first time in the war, the British army using its most feared and awesome weapon.
The Black Watch took Basra today, devoting their Challenger tanks. Those tanks are rated by some experts as the best in the world, better even than our M1A1 Abrams, though personally I suspect the Abrams is more likely to survive a battle. Air support was provided by US Marine Air, using Super Cobra attack helicopters that, excepting updated munitions and avionics, date to Vietnam. It's hard to imagine a more irresistable force than the Scots and the Marines fighting together. The Scotsman provides here a very thorough account of the battle.
This battle also saw, for the first time in the war, the British army using its most feared and awesome weapon.
As he began to play, the sound of Scotland the Brave drifted across the bridge towards the city, competing with the clatter of rotor blades as four Cobra helicopters raced in to join the attack.The Highland pipes were declared weapons of war after 1746, when Bonnie Prince Charlie's last Jacobite uprising was defeated by an army of Lowland Scots and a few British gentlemen. The prohibition didn't take: soon the Highlander regiments carried those pipes around the world in service to the Crown. These regiments included the Black Watch, also known as the "Gallant Forty-Twa," or 42nd Regiment--they had been the 43rd, but one of the older regiments was "reduced." The Highlanders made the sound of the pipes feared by Britian's foes, from Napoleon's Eurpoe to India and China. They'd had the same effect upon the English in their day:
"There are those who when the woollen bagpipe sings i'th nose/ cannot contain their urine."
William Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice"
Vive les chevauchees!
More "war rides" along the perimeter, provoking enthusiastic but uncoordinated resistance. Via the W. Post. If you don't know what a chevauchee is, page down to yesterday's entries.
More "war rides" along the perimeter, provoking enthusiastic but uncoordinated resistance. Via the W. Post. If you don't know what a chevauchee is, page down to yesterday's entries.
Two from the Post:
Today's Washington Post has two good articles on the use of American power in the war: one on ground forces, and one on the use of air assets.
Today's Washington Post has two good articles on the use of American power in the war: one on ground forces, and one on the use of air assets.
DPRK News:
From the Washington Post. The DPRK says it plans to rely upon a "tremendous military deterrent force," and will regard any sanctions as an act of war. I wonder if that applies to a PRC oil embargo? The Chinese Army on one side, and the US Military on the other--that's not a vice I'd want to put myself in.
Still, the language today is worrisome. It's not really new--the DPRK has been saying for a while that preconditions for negotiations with the US would be that we (a) sign a nonagression pact, and (b) accept them becoming a nuclear power. Today's language says the same thing, but in uglier terms:
From the Washington Post. The DPRK says it plans to rely upon a "tremendous military deterrent force," and will regard any sanctions as an act of war. I wonder if that applies to a PRC oil embargo? The Chinese Army on one side, and the US Military on the other--that's not a vice I'd want to put myself in.
Still, the language today is worrisome. It's not really new--the DPRK has been saying for a while that preconditions for negotiations with the US would be that we (a) sign a nonagression pact, and (b) accept them becoming a nuclear power. Today's language says the same thing, but in uglier terms:
"Even the signing of a non-aggression treaty with the United States would not help avert a war," said the statement, distributed by the official Korean Central News Agency."Experts" seem to be divided on whether or not the DPRK is "pushing to become a recognized nuclear power[.]" Well, you've read their statement: what do -you- think?
"Only the physical deterrent force, tremendous military deterrent force powerful enough to decisively beat back an attack supported by any ultra-modern weapons, can avert a war and protect the security of the country and the nation," the statement said.
Wrong Again, General:
From Al Jazeera:
From Al Jazeera:
"The occupation of the airport is not of major military value. The advancing forces cannot use this airport, which is 15-20 kilometres off Baghdad unless they occupy the capital. The victory is more a political or media success than a military one," said General Mohammed Bilal, commander of Egyptian forces during the 1991 Gulf War.From CNN:
The first U.S. military planes landed at Baghdad's international airport Sunday night as U.S. forces tightened their control over the Iraqi capital, U.S. military officials said.
Army officials told CNN's Walter Rodgers that two C-130s and a C-117 cargo planes were flying into the city under the cover of darkness, two days after U.S. troops captured the facility.
Political Correctness:
That USMC manual I cited in the last post has an amusing bit of PC garbage toward the end.
That USMC manual I cited in the last post has an amusing bit of PC garbage toward the end.
(3) Wetting Down. After a promotion, it is customary toOne suspects a civilian editor.
celebrate by spending your first pay raise on your fellow Marines
at your favorite tavern. Tradition has it that the new grade
insignia was placed in the bottom of a glass of spirits, and the
Marine drank the glass dry. Remember... alcoholic beverages must
be consumed with moderation.
Not All Outlaws Are Merry Men:
InstaPundit today links to an article from the Jerusalem Post on U.S. successes against guerrillas. Not convinced? Did you know that the United States Marines fought guerrillas every year from 1898 to 1934, excepting only 1905? Well, there's a reason it's not commonly taught in schools--it wasn't, really, a big deal. The Marines even had forces to spare for the First World War, when they earned their epiteth "Devil Dogs".
InstaPundit today links to an article from the Jerusalem Post on U.S. successes against guerrillas. Not convinced? Did you know that the United States Marines fought guerrillas every year from 1898 to 1934, excepting only 1905? Well, there's a reason it's not commonly taught in schools--it wasn't, really, a big deal. The Marines even had forces to spare for the First World War, when they earned their epiteth "Devil Dogs".
To Dwell in the Greenwood with a Butt of March Beer:
The Daily Telegraph reports on the balmy weather of the Early and High Middle Ages. For the Telegraph, it's about global warming:
The Daily Telegraph reports on the balmy weather of the Early and High Middle Ages. For the Telegraph, it's about global warming:
According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."Well, of course. This makes sense of something I have wondered about since my boyhood. How could Robin Hood and his Merry Men live such fine lives with no better shelter than the Greenwood and a skin of March beer?
So Little John gave Arthur the money, and the others stepped to the thicket, there to await the return of the Tanner.Now I know.
After a time he came back, bearing with him a great brown loaf of bread, and a fair, round cheese, and a goatskin full of stout March beer, slung over his shoulders. Then Will Scarlet took his sword and divided the loaf and the cheese into four fair portions, and each man helped himself. Then Robin Hood took a deep pull at the beer. "Aha!" said he, drawing in his breath, "never have I tasted sweeter drink than this."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)