A Second Raid:

Just hours after the raid mentioned in the last item, a second attack involving hundreds of Taliban hit another police station in Afghanistan. The raiders took hostages before withdrawing in apparently good order.

Unlike the guerrillas in Iraq, the Afghan fighters have all the cards that have historically made guerrilla fighting successful. They waited to start their resistance until the US was distracted elsewhere, and most US forces withdrawn. Whereas we have nearly a hundred seventy thousand fighting men in Iraq, in Afghanistan the number is closer to ten thousand. The Afghan fighters can withdraw into secure areas--the lawless tribal areas of north and south Waziristan, Kurram, Kyber, Mohmand, and Bajaur, which serve as buffer states with Pakistan. We can send people after them, but there they have a secure base with devout popular support. And, if the frequent rumors of ISI support are true, they even have the backing of a regional power--or at least some rogue elements in it.

Iraq will sort itself out--we've got the men and the commitment to make it work. Afghanistan is in danger of being lost. We need to get serious about counterinsurgency, and fast. My plan is below: who has another?

Today in Afghanistan:

The Guardian has an AP report on a major attack in Afghanistan:

Insurgents attacked a police headquarters in southeastern Afghanistan, sparking a battle Sunday that killed at least 15 fighters and seven Afghan police, a police chief said. It was part of a disturbing new surge of violence in the country.

The siege began shortly before midnight Saturday when about 400 guerrillas attacked the police headquarters in the town of Barmal in Paktika province, about 125 miles southeast of Kabul, said provincial governor Mohammed Ali Jalali.

The fighters, firing rockets, grenades and heavy machine guns, took over the office and held it until 5 a.m. Sunday before destroying the building and retreating amid a gunbattle with police, said police chief Daulat Khan.

This is large-scale guerrilla action. It argues for a new counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan, at the same time that we're fighting one in Iraq. This is one reason I argue for a Texas Rangers model--see below--in which mixed companies of US Army Rangers and Afghan soldiers are given martial-law authority and tasked to patrol the countryside.

Recruiting for the army is expanding in Afghanistan, though, even in the troubled areas:

One of the keys to Afghanistan restoring stability is believed to be the strengthening of its national army, which now numbers just 5,000 soldiers. The government wants it to have 70,000 troops over the next several years.

U.N. spokesman David Singh said Sunday that the army opened its first recruiting center in the east of the country. Other recruiting centers are due to open in at least five other regions, Singh said.

It's not just numbers, it's training. Those 70,000 men need to be trained in mountain-fighting and counterinsurgency, in how to stage an organized ambush and how to fight out of one. They also need to be trained as lawmen, and given the authority to execute the law on a moment's notice, as they will be the only arm of Kabul likely to reach the border areas for many years to come. That is to say, they need to be Rangers, not soldiers.

New Governor in Southern Afghanistan:

'Kandahar Shuffle' sounds like a particularly exotic dance. In what must be the best news from Afghanistan this month, the new governor for Kandahar, Yusuf Pashtun, took power from the former governor in a simple ceremony. It's not stability--but it's a bloodless and orderly transfer of power between men who would recently have been called warlords. That looks to me like a major step forward.

The Heroic Life:

Two articles today on masculinity and the heroic life. This is of course one of the prime reasons for the existence of this blog, so I'll link to both of them. The first one is from National Review, and the other, via ParaPundit, is from FrontPage Magazine. I'll have more on these later this weekend.

Ahem:

Remember that post about military pay?

Mr. Bush spoke yesterday at Miramar Marine Corps Base to thank the troops just back from Iraq. You might consider thanking them by paying them, or rather their replacements. I'm sure it would mean more.

But where would we ever get the money for such a thing? Oddly, the same article mentions this:

The president raised more than $1 million for that campaign last night at the San Diego Convention Center, telling supporters, "You're laying the groundwork for what will be a great victory in 2004."

A million bucks, eh? Taranto estimates that the cost of the continued pay bonuses will be rather more than that--$423 million. Still, if money is that tight, doesn't it seem that the President ought to be out there raising money for the troops instead of himself?

Napping:

A lot of readers may not know that I am married, but I have a beautiful wife and a fine, strong son who is now a bit more than a year old. For your reading pleasure, a scene of domestic tranquility:

I decided to take a nap...
�

*BOOM* *BOOM* *BOOM*
�

"Baby boy, quit beating on the bedroom door.� I think your father is trying to take a nap.� We don't want to disturb him."
�

[five minutes pass]
�

"OK, I need to go talk to your father for a moment--if he's still awake."
�

[door opens]
�

"Dear, are you still awake?"
�

[SCREEEEEEEECH! of JOY from Baby Boy at seeing his father.]
�

"Ah, good.� I was hoping you would be.� I need to talk to you about this grocery list.� We're just heading out the door, and I need to know if you want anything."
�

[five minutes later]

"OK, good, I'll get that stuff.� Now, bye.� Oh, wait.� I haven't had a shower or changed clothes or anything!� Watch the baby for me, will you?"
�

[twenty minutes pass]
�

"OK, now we're really ready to go!� Come on, baby boy!� Daddy will finally get some peace and quiet!"
�

[sound of family trundling down stairs]
�

"But you'll need a binky, won't you?� Well, I'll find one.� Don't follow me upstairs!"
�

[ten seconds pass]
�

"What did I just say?"
�

[more sounds of wrestling with baby]
�

"Now we're really going!� Daddy can get his nap!� GOODBYE DADDY!"
�

[sound of door slamming shut]
�

[ten seconds pass]
�

[DOORBELL!� DOORBELL!]
�

"Um, hi dear!� I don't know where I put my keys.� Could you find them and bring them down?"
��

*growl*
*snarl*

Grrr...

The Corner has this story on how the cuts in military pay, for our soldiers on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan, are coupled with increases in social spending. It's hard to say anything about this except, if only this were an election year. Well--don't forget.

Update on Afghan Warlord:

The Voice of America has a longer story, with pics.

Counterinsurgency:

Here's a good article from the archives at Winds of Change, which I missed the first time around. It's a program for counterinsurgency written by one John Boyd. The best bit comes right at the end: several very good ideas about reducing corruption and making sure the government you were backing was serving the people had asterisks by them. When you get to the bottom of the document, you see this:

*If you cannot realize such a political program, you might consider changing sides.

Well said.

Diamonds, Made to Order:

Blog Junky has a link to an interesting story out of Wired, which argues that we will soon be able to mass-produce gem quality diamonds.

"This is very rare stone," he says, almost to himself, in thickly accented English. "Yellow diamonds of this color are very hard to find. It is probably worth 10, maybe 15 thousand dollars."

"I have two more exactly like it in my pocket," I tell him.

He puts the diamond down and looks at me seriously for the first time. I place the other two stones on the table. They are all the same color and size. To find three nearly identical yellow diamonds is like flipping a coin 10,000 times and never seeing tails.

"These are cubic zirconium?" Weingarten says without much hope.

"No, they're real," I tell him. "But they were made by a machine in Florida for less than a hundred dollars."

Weingarten shifts uncomfortably in his chair and stares at the glittering gems on his dining room table. "Unless they can be detected," he says, "these stones will bankrupt the industry."

Outstanding. Fashion predition for 2019: Women will be wearing long skirts, long because they will be sewn entirely with glittery diamonds. Since diamonds have always been about showing your wealth, our celebrities will wear longer and less revealing garments until "showing ankle" is just as scandalous as it was in the 19th century.

A Classical Education:

I have been reminded that I argued during the war in favor of classical education as the best way of preparing for the clashes of the modern war. The diaya link to wergeld, which students of Beowulf and the Norse Sagas understand entirely, is one such example. It happens that Arts & Letters Daily recently linked to a piece on a similar subject, on literature.

New "Saddam" Tape:

Al Jazeera seems to have the run on Saddam tapes, doesn't it? Here's today's, in which "Saddam" calls for a Shi'ite jihad against the Coalition forces.

Fat chance, "Saddam." A Shi'ite jihad is certainly possible in the long run, if the Coalition doesn't handle Iraq with cultural respect. However, the evidence is that we're doing so: consider our adoption of the Iraqi wergeld custom (subscription required: the Financial Times charmingly refers to it as "blood money," rather missing the point of the wergeld, which is called diaya in Arabic), or the rough and ready use of "Cajun Arabic" by the US Marine provincial governor of Wasit province, Lt. Col. David Couvillon. We've got serious trouble in the Sunni areas which were loyal to Saddam: but in the Shi'ite areas, all will be quiet at least until they are sure Saddam is dead and can never return.

After that, who knows? The figure to watch as the anti-Coalition, anti-Governing Council Shi'ite leader is al-Sadr. Yet he seems not to be looking for more trouble than he can handle: calling for a grand army of Shi'ites, for example, but then asserting that it will be an army without arms.

Saddam, if he were the one behind these messages, would of course know that. What to make of this show of support for a Shi'ite leader, then? One possible thought: it's an attempt to discredit that fellow, perhaps by Saddam, but equally possibly by anyone else with an interest and a line to al Jazeera.

Afghan Militia attacks Pak Army with Rockets in Zabul:

I don't know what to do with this yet. Let's call it developing. The story is here.

Karzai:

I don't have a link for this yet, but AFP is reporting that Karzai has stripped a warlord of his post:

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has
stripped powerful warlord Ismail Khan of his post as military commander
of western Afghanistan in a major reshuffle of provincial governors and
officials, the official Bakhtar news agency said on Wednesday.
The National Security Council decided Khan could not retain
his post as military commander while governor of Herat province it
said, citing a decree by Karzai who said earlier this year that
officials could not hold both military and civil posts.
A new Herat military commander would be named shortly, it
said.

Score one for the rule of law in Afghanistan. It's a small point, but it's a start.

UPDATE: Still no link to the AFP story, but here is the AP version.

And Speaking of That...

It's time for another Boneheaded Congress update.

As a Classical Liberal, I believe that the legislature, being most immediately responsible to the public, is meant to be the most important branch. That position is harder to maintain when the Congress carries on behaving, during wartime, as if national defense was of no importance.

Today's example: Congress has decided to restrict the use of Special Operations. Henceforth, in order to deploy commandos, the President will have to write and sign a finding, and send it to Congress. The increase in turnaround time between recognizing a threat and acting on it is immense: now no one in the Pentagon or SOCOM will have authority to send commandos to address a threat. It has to go to the President himself.

This is exactly the opposite direction that Congress should be going. Congressional oversight is important and proper. It shouldn't be constructed in a way that detracts from our ability to respond to threats. Let's say we find a Qaeda camp in Pakistan and, thanks to a UAV, determine that bin Laden or some other ranking figure is there. Can we send the Delta Force, or the SEALS, or the new Marine Commandos? Yes, once the military has contacted the President, the President has written a finding, the finding has been sent to Capitol Hill... and then, once that's been done, we can tell the commandos to start on their way.

As this comes right after the DARPA business, where Congress shut down a great program they didn't understand without even attempting to understand it or have it explained, I am reconsidering the Congress. I frankly think that the problem is gerrymandering.

Congress was meant to be responsive to the people, especially the House. Because of gerrymandering, however, the number of Representatives who have competitive districts is incredibly small. As a result, Congress is free to engage in this kind of foolishness even during wartime without fear of voter reprisals.

The solution: legislation requiring that districting be done by nonpartisan contractors, who will be forbidden by law from considering party affiliations of members when they do it. I favor a system wherein districts are drawn by figuring lines drawn outward from a central point in the state, so that the only consideration is making sure each "slice" has the right number of people in it. In that way, districts become competitive, Congress is brought back to the heel of the public, and--coincidentally--problems like the one in Texas are avoided.

Bloody Afghanistan:

Sixty-one dead overnight in Afghanistan. Hear about it on the news today?

The news is not all bad. Some of the violence is provincial feuding among the Afghan warlords, which is background noise that can be ignored. The bus bombing is bad news, but--as we have seen in Saudi Arabia and Morocco--terror bombings on the old home ground are of negative utility for the force using them. It'd be like the USAF bombing a mosque in St. Louis: no one would see it as a great victory or a show of strength.

Two pieces of news are good from a warfighting standpoint. The first is that two students were killed while making bombs in their dormitory. It's always sad when young people die... well, no, not always.

The second piece of good news comes from this account of an ambush near Shinki. The American-trained Afghan army responded valiantly in a firefight that spanned several hours, and in spite of being ambushed, managed to kill eight of their attackers and captured two foreign jihadi:

The violence began late Tuesday when a group of suspected Taliban fighters attacked government soldiers in Shinki, a small village in Paktia province about six kilometres from the Pakistani frontier, said Khial Baz, an Afghan commander in Khost.

After several hours of fighting, about 50 Afghan troops forced the attackers to retreat. They later found eight bodies.

Baz said troops also captured one Pakistani and one Arab, though his nationality was not known.

Troops also seized a cache of Kalashnikov assault rifles, a telephone, radios and ammunition used by the attackers, Baz said.

Afghan officials have repeatedly said Taliban rebels are using bases inside Pakistan to launch cross-border attacks.

We've discussed before on this page the relative successes of the US military in dealing with guerrilla warfare. One of the best things we have going for us is the counterinsurgency training that the US Special Forces provides, which includes things like dealing with ambushes. I think it's worth saying that SOCOM is doing great things in Afghanistan, especially the Green Berets. De Oppresso Liber!

Rumsfeld's Top Ten:

The lads over at Winds of Change have obtained what they say is a copy of Donald Rumsfeld's top ten priorities. Do take a look, as it makes for interesting reading. My own thoughts are that WoC is right on when it comes to USMC helicopters v. Ospreys. I never liked the Osprey. The Marines have a long history of relying on proven technology, and making it work better than the newer stuff the USAR gets. There's something to be said for knowing your kit really works before you haul it into battle.

Afghanistan Update:

The Taliban have been killing pro-government Muslim clerics. Why would a group that is devoted to the glory of Allah slay Allah's devoted servants? In order to avoid pro-government fatwa being issued by the clerics. Unlike in the Catholic or Anglican churches, but much like a Baptist church, any Muslim can issue a fatwa if they dare. These fatwa, which is often mistranslated as "religious ruling" or "command," is really meant to be an educated opinion. This is why there are often multiple fatwa on any given question, sometimes in direct opposition to each other. Muslims must decide for themselves which ones represent Allah's true will, which they do in part by considering the age, wisdom, and reputation of the issuing cleric.

A group that claims the exclusive mantle of God must suppress any suggestion that God himself thinks otherwise. By eliminating the most respected clerics in the opposition, the Taliban not only silences opponents. It also changes the fatwa balance, if you like, so that the eldest and most respected surviving clerics are all pro-Taliban. Younger clerics may rise to replace their fallen elders, but they will have neither the age nor the reputation of the dead.

The only major-media news in Afghanistan is the NATO takeover of ISAF. This prompted MSNBC to print a list of major attacks in Afghanistan that have happened since 2002. The list is not impressive, certainly not impressive enough to explain the loss of a strategic province given the strength we have in the area. Read into that what you will.

Afghan Exploitation:

Via the Sage of Knoxville, a report that NGOs and UN workers are exploiting the natural resources of Afghanistan for private profit. The fur trade is mentioned here.

Progress in Iraq:

Fallujah is a little town in the "Sunni triangle" of Iraq. In the days after the fall of Baghdad, Fallujah was the site of several firefights between US forces and locals (e.g.), as well as a highly dubious story about US shooting sprees and ramming ambulances with tanks. It was a frontier town in the sense that the new world of post-Saddam Iraq and the old world of tribal politics and rumor mongering were running head to head. It was often wild and bloody as a result.

You'd have expected it to stay that way, but progress is being made:

After months of bitterness, the heads of the seven major tribes of Fallujah have met for the first time with the Iraqi town's mayor and its American forces commander.

Clan leaders and their hangers-on packed the mayor's office at the morning meeting, described by Lt-Col Chris Hickey, US army Fallujah commander, as "an extremely important day".

They came from the Albuaisa tribe, from the al-Jumela and from the al-Halabsa. They greeted the sheikhs of the al-Mahamuda tribe, the Albu al-Wan, the al-Zuba'a and Albuaisa-Qais.

At a rowdy session, they agreed to work with American troops to stamp out the looting as well as the rocket and grenade attacks, that have made Fallujah a byword for instability and danger.

Good work, lads. Good work. (Hat tip: Taranto.)

"The Situation is Well In Hand":

From the AP, via the Austin American Statesman, this news:

MONROVIA, Liberia (AP) Three U.S. warships appeared off the
Liberian coast on Monday, visible for the first time after the country's
embattled leader Charles Taylor surrendered power to his vice president.
Residents poured onto city beaches, pointing at the ships
they said were a sign that nearly 14 years of bloodshed were coming to
an end in the country founded by freed American slaves more than 150
years ago.
``This is really peace,'' said a delighted Trokoh Zeon, 20,
as he turned and hugged a friend. ``I know the Marines coming is
peace.''

Rangers:

The subject of Rangers has arisen again. In a post entitled "European lack of sophistication," the Crusader War College writes:

It is with annoyance that the Dean of Students notes a comment from Sweden's Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, where she criticized President Bush for acting like the lone ranger in Iraq. . . .

Displays of ignorance of this sort were common long before the Iraqi conflict, but Ms. Lindh has distinguished herself by plunging to new depths thereof. In the Pantheon of Cowboys, the Lone Ranger (note the caps, Reuthers) stands among the Major Gods, right up there with Will Rogers, Gene Autry, The Cisco Kid, and John Wayne. There are good reasons why the Texas state police are called the Texas Rangers (an organization that pre-dated that state's admission to the Union). The deeds of the Army Rangers are even more glorious.

It happens that back in April this page advocated forming a new Texas Rangers for Afghanistan. Given the situation we're seeing in Zabul and the rest of the south, that suggestion looks better today than it did four months ago. I stand by it.

UPDATE: So you want to be a cowboy too, eh? Well, get started with "Ringo," and if you like that, try some Gunfighter ballads ("Big Iron" is about an Arizona Ranger. They aren't as famous as the Texas Rangers, but deserve their spot in the sun too. Nor is that all: The Georgia Rangers were founded by James Edward Oglethorpe himself, not one but two units: the Coastal Rangers and the Highland Mountain Rangers. They still exist as a unit of the US Army, who trains her own Rangers in Georgia. I've had the pleasure of training in rappelling and other rope work at Camp Frank D. Merrill, as an invited civilian guest).

Not enough? Try the bravest of the modern-day cowboys, the Bullriders. Or strap on a rig and learn to throw lead from your own big iron. If you think clothes make the man, drop a line to JaSpurs Western Wear. I get my Ariats from there. If you aren't lucky enough to have inherited one from your grandfather like I did, you can get a line on Stetson Western hats, whose site says, "What man hasn't dreamed of being a cowboy?" Why, the French foreign minister, of course.

Just don't buy any Levi's jeans, if you would be so kind. Levi's, based out of San Francisco, contributes heavily to gun control organizations. You can get "Cowboy Cut" jeans from Wrangler, and others, if you're of a mind to.

Afghanistan Update:

Deepikaglobal.com has this report, which appears to draw on StratFor's premium services:

Taliban's control of Zabul, stalemate for US-led forces: Stratfor

Washington, Aug 11 (UNI) The Taliban has wrested control of most of Zabul province in southeastern Afghanistan-- for the first time recapturing a province since being ousted from power by the US military in November 2001-- geopolitical analytical firm Stratfor reported.

The small size and disproportionate distribution of US-led coalition forces also has been a factor in the Taliban advances, it said. US-led forces number a meager 11,500, while the Afghan national army has only about 4,000 troops. Areas left thinly guarded were targeted by the Taliban, which has been able to set up checkpoints in Kandahar to eliminate key political and religious figures there and in other southern provinces.

Authorities in Zabul also have complained to the media about shortage of military funding from Kabul.

UN Special Envoy to Afghanistan Lakhdar Brahimi had warned in early May that "forces believed to be associated with the Taliban, al Qaeda and [war lord] Hekmatyar have been stepping up operations in the south, southeast and east of the country," Stratfor pointed out.

Stratfor said the Taliban had began its campaign to retake Zabul about five months ago. Prompted by the May 27 killing of Taliban resistance leader Mullah Ghausuddin in Zabul during a battle with government troops, Taliban Supreme Leader Mullah Mohammed Omar reorganized his forces in the south.

Pamphlets were distributed in Zabul, urging Afghan soldiers and police to join the struggle against the Karzai regime and its US supporters.

When key Taliban guerrilla commander Mullah Abdur Rahim was wounded earlier this year, the Omar appointed a top intelligence officer from his former regime, Mullah Abdus Samad, to help him carry out operations, the report said.

The new round of attacks on US and Afghan government forces in Zabul and the neighboring provinces began after a three-day meeting in July of senior Taliban leaders and tribal elders, who appointed Mullah Jabbar as a rival governor in Zabul, it added.

Zabul's provincial deputy governor, Mullah Mohammed Omar (not to be confused with the Taliban supreme leader), was quoted as saying that the government's failure to pay troops' salaries was causing the army to lose strength, it said.

Before Zabul fell, the provincial military had warned of an imminent defeat if the central government did not send reinforcements and air support from the United States, the report said quoting press reports. It appears that the provincial forces retreated, paving the way for a takeover by the Taliban.


Stratfor said its sources have confirmed reports first published on a Web site maintained by Muslim jihadists, jihadunspun.com, that Taliban fighters, in concert with al Qaeda forces, have have retaken Zabul.

The advance also underscores the stalemate between the United States and its Afghan allies against the Taliban. It indicates that the alliance formed in early 2002 between the Taliban, al Qaeda and Hizb-i-Islami -- the party led by Afghan war lord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar -- is paying off for the militants, Stratfor said in a report.

It said Zabul is of strategic and military importance for a number of reasons. Taking Zabul cuts off US troops stationed to the south in Kandahar from the bulk of US troops located to the north toward Kabul, it said, and given that Helmand and Oruzgan provinces to the north of Zabul already are Taliban strongholds, the group can better try to isolate US and local provincial troops in Kandahar and eventually attempt to retake Kandahar as well.

Also, controlling Zabul gives the Taliban a way to cut lines of logistics, troop supply and communication between US and coalition troops in Kandahar and in Paktika and Paktia provinces to the east and along the border with Pakistan.

The Taliban's ability to retake virtually all of a province of such strategic importance is partly explained by the fact that the south has been the Taliban's traditional stronghold, Stratfor said.

Beginning in late March and early April -- expecting the United States would be preoccupied with the war in Iraq -- the Taliban perceived an opportunity to begin regrouping, particularly in Zabul, Oruzgan, Kandahar, Helmand, Nimruz and Farah.

Playing a key role in the Taliban's success has been disaffection among southern Afghans helping the ousted group to recruit fighters and to garner support from the local population. This disaffection stems partly from a sense that development promised by the central government and the United States is proceeding at a snail's pace.

Taliban attacks have halted virtually all work by international aid agencies, the report said. Also, many Pushtuns reportedly feel they are underrepresented at the national level, even though President Hamid Karzai is an ethnic Pushtun.
The takeover of Zabul also fuels accusations by the Afghan government that Pakistan is supporting the Taliban. Stratfor quoted its sources in Pakistan as saying that a significant portion of the Pakistani intelligence service and military, particularly junior officers, have not abandoned the Taliban. Though there might be truth to the government's accusations, it also is possible the Karzai government -- which has been criticized for being unable to extend its reach beyond Kabul -- is trying to defend itself by pointing fingers at Islamabad, Stratfor said.

Since the United States likely will launch a massive counteroffensive, Zabul might not remain in Taliban hands for long, Stratfor analysts predicted.

However, they said, the fact that Taliban apparently could regain control of a province, even temporarily, underscores the vulnerability of the Karzai regime and the military stalemate between the Afghan government and Taliban fighters.

Stratfor said its sources in Afghanistan say it is possible the Taliban could seize more provinces neighboring Zabul because of what it describes as the structural and functional inabilities of the Karzai government.

Meanwhile the US appears to be focused on Iraq and lacks a clear strategy for neutralizing the threat from the alliance between the Taliban, al Qaeda and Hizb-i-Islami as well as from other Afghan forces that don't necessarily share their Islamist ideology but oppose the US presence in Afghanistan, Stratfor said.

The larger question now is: What will happen in the long term, should the US military pull out of Afghanistan or should Afghanistan no longer enjoy its high-priority status on the list of US foreign policy initiatives?

Meanwhile, this Voice of America piece confirms that the UN will not be operating in Zabul, among other areas. I dispute that the US is entirely focused on Iraq, as we are increasing aid to Afghanistan by a factor of three. Still, it is hard to dispute that we've lost control of most of Zabul, and other areas near the Pakistan border. I continue to hold out hope that this is Op. Anaconda writ large. As my correspondant Mr. Ware noted before, we have multibattalion strength special operations forces in Afghanistan. There is no telling what blow they may be preparing.

Still and all, it looks grim--no pun intended. Fortunately the US and major international media remains blind to the business.

Afghanistan: UN Suspends Missions in the South:

This is not exclusive to Zabul province, but includes neighboring provinces. Citing increased Taliban activity, the UN ceased activities in the southern parts of Afghanistan.

[UN Spokesman David Singh] said all U.N. missions to the border districts of Helmand and Kandahar provinces had been suspended and there were currently none to to Uruzgan, Zabul or most of northern Helmand.

Southern Afghanistan has seen stepped up activity in recent months by a resurgent Taliban guerrilla movement who Afghan officials say operate from border regions of Pakistan.

This is the third day that this space has been watching the fall of parts of Zabul province to Taliban forces. Readers who are new to this thread should start here, and then find more here.

How to Kill a Burglar:

"Do it in Kenya," writes Aidian Hartley in the London Spectator. The solution works equally well in the great state of Georgia, USA. In fact, under certain circumstances, you can even open fire on the police. Last spring deputy sheriffs in Forsyth County burst into the home of a sextagenarian air-conditioner repairman, serving an arrest warrant. It turned out that they had the address wrong--the fellow they wanted lived next door. The old fellow who did live there picked up his rifle--which he kept by his bed--and drove the police out with a hail of gunfire. The deputies returned fire to no effect, and finally managed to convince the gentleman that they were with the proper authorities. (I am given to understand that he drank a bit of a nightcap before bed, which compounded the difficulty, along with the ringing in his ears from the gunfire.)

The deputies took him in for the night to question him, but let him go Scot free the next morning. Meanwhile, the fellow they actually wanted, having heard the fierce gunbattle of the previous evening, turned himself in directly upon rising that bright Saturday.

More on Afghanistan:

I found another report that the Taliban have appointed a rival governor of Zabul province, and a report that the famed Mullah Omar has appointed a new military head to some Taliban forces. Both of these stories are from the end of July, one in Reuters and the other from al Jazeera. Keeping in mind al Jazeera's, ahem, sterling reputation for accuracy, consider this:

A senior official in southern Afghanistan�s volatile Zabul province yesterday urged US forces to step up operations against the Taleban there after the guerrillas named a rival provincial governor. The deputy governor of Zabul told Reuters Taleban officials, meeting in the Pakistani city of Quetta, had named Mulla Abdul Jabar as the rival governor and that hundreds of Taleban roamed freely in several districts of the province.

The deputy governor, Mulla Mohammed Omar, a namesake of the elusive Mulla Omar, said many Taleban were living in the Deh Chopan, Shamol Zai, Ata Ghar and Now Bahar districts. �There are about 500 Taleban in Deh Chopan district,� he said. �The district is under our control, but they are walking freely in the bazaar.�

Meanwhile, the Christian Science Monitor, which really does have a sterling reputation, has this:

Some villagers in Zabul - a hardscrabble and deeply conservative corner of Afghanistan - now offer shelter and assistance to Taliban insurgents. As the militants exploit both the mountainous geography and the political grievances of the Pashtuns here, the province is increasingly becoming a no-go area for foreign aid workers and a permanent irritant for US-led coalition forces.

If you'd like to read the whole story, you can find it here. Meanwhile, JUS has apparently recognized that they've got a real story for a change, and has started running updates. You saw that update yesterday (the Afghan TV link below), which puts you ahead of the Mujahedeen by about twenty-four hours. Ooh-rah for American ingenuity, eh?

Zabul falls to the Taliban:

It appears that coalition forces in Afghanistan have allowed Zabul province to be recaptured by the Taliban. Jihad Unspun, a pro-Islamist site in Vancouver, had the story first:

The Taliban claim they have successfully captured the Sfghan province of Zabul, with the white flag of Taliban flying on government buildings and the local people happy to have the Taliban back in power.

The Afghan army retreated and left behind huge caches of arms and ammunitions. Fighting in the surroundings districts continues and has claimed the lives of 11 Afghan soldiers at the time of this filing.

The governor of the province under the Karzai regime, Hameed ullah Tokhi claims that main government buildings are still flying the flag of the Kabul government and that the governor of Kandahar has refused to help the Afghan forces in Zabul. Daily Islam has reported that the Taliban have captured all but one district of the province, with many offices bearing white flags and that Mullah Abdul Jabbar has been named the Taliban governor of the province.

I normally consider the presence of a claim on JUS to be evidence against the claim's truth. However, today StratFor picked up the story. StratFor is respectable, if far from the best at predictive analysis, so I decided to look into it.

Last week, the governor of Zabul province urged US forces to attack Talibani positions in his province. But this week, after the JUS story, the governor denies that there are any Talibani in Zabul province. Meanwhile, a report from Afghan TV says the Taliban have set up a base northeast of Khandahar in Zabul province.

Lending support to all this is an article published this week based on investigations in Afghanistan says that, in Zabul province, gunmen have seized educational materials meant for women and are keeping them under lock and key.

That's a suprising amount of support for the story. It may very well be true that the Taliban are back in control of parts of Zabul province. JUS claims that they have the backing of Pakistan's ISI, the intelligence service that erected the Taliban as a power in the first place. There is good reason to believe that is true, as reports of at least rogue elements in the ISI supporting the Taliban and al Qaeda have been constant.

What does this mean for the coalition? One thing it could mean is that we are seeing a large-scale trap on the lines of Operation Anaconda. In Anaconda, an area in Taliban control was left safe while guerrillas gathered, then surrounded and brutally wiped out. Allowing them a province as a rallying point could cause a draining away of pro-Taliban forces elsewhere. The appearance of success could also cause the supporting ISI members to overplay their hands, making them easier to identify.

But there is a problem with this analysis: NATO is taking over command in Afghanistan, and it is not evident that the rifts in NATO caused by the diplomacy preceeding the Iraq war have healed. Open rifts make leaks more likely, and make it hard to coordinate a plan on the scale I postulate in the last paragraph. That argues against this being intentional.

For now, the press is still blind to this. When they recognize it, look for a firestorm.

Update: Reader Michael Ware notes:

NATO is not "taking over command in Afghanistan" exactly. A NATO command is assuming control over ISAF, relieving a joint Dutch-German command. ISAF is a stabilization force largely confined to Kabul. (See SHAPE press release). ISAF is separate from the coalition's combat command.

The war-fighters are in CENTCOM's Combined Joint Task Force 180. (GlobalSecurity.com has a useful though far from perfect precis on Combined JTF-180.)

The centerpieces have been (a) special operations forces from all U.S. services in total in multi-battalion strenghth and (b) a reinforced brigade of light infantry rotating from the 10th Mountain, 82d Airborne and 101st Airborne (Air Assault) Divisions. There have been Australians there from the begining. On a rotating basis for the last 18 months, there have been fairly substantial coalition contributions (over and above ISAF) to the combat effort. Italian mountain troops have fought this summer. (I have heard that their American commanders were psyched with the brutal effectiveness of the Alpini, though I don't have a link.) Norway has had soldiers fighting on the ground and planes fighting from the air (see here, reporting combat operations earlier this year of Norwegian, Danish and Dutch aircraft). At least a dozen other countries have contributed to Combined JTF-180 and its predecessors over and above whatever contributions those countries may have made to ISAF.

All this fighting stuff is controled by CENTCOM is separate from ISAF.

Duly noted, and thanks for the clarification.

Bush Administration Lies:

No, this isn't about WMD. I think the president is telling the truth about them, and if you're interested in my reasoning, go here. This is about the Iraq war, though, and a lie the administration has apparently decided it needs to tell.

Yesterday the German press ran this story on napalm which I have here in an English translation:

The Marines said that in March, U.S. warplanes dropped dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River in central Iraq to clear the way for troops headed to Baghdad.

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Col. James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11, told the San Diego Union-Tribune. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the [cockpit] video.

"They were Iraqi soldiers there. It's no great way to die," Alles added.

He could not provide estimates of Iraqi casualties.

"The generals love napalm," said Alles. "It has a big psychological effect."

The firebombs were used again in April against Iraqis near a key Tigris River bridge, north of Numaniyah, the Marines said. There were reports of another attack on the first day of the war.

During the war, Pentagon spokesmen denied that napalm was being used, saying the Pentagon's stockpile had been destroyed two years ago. Napalm, a thick, burning combination of olystyrene, gasoline and benzene, was used against people and villages in Vietnam. Its use drew widespread criticism.

The newspaper said the spokesmen were apparently drawing a distinction between the terms firebomb and napalm.

The Marines dropped "Mark 77 firebombs," which use kerosene-based jet fuel and a smaller concentration of benzene. Marine spokesman Col. Michael Daily acknowledged the incendiary devices were "remarkably similar" to napalm weapons, but said they had less of an impact on the environment.

Emphasis added. Now... you've got a thing that is "remarkably similar" to napalm, but slightly different in composition--it uses kerosene instead of gasoline to burn people alive. It is so very similar, in fact, that the Marines just carry on calling it napalm, because to them it's the same stuff. These are the same people who call the M4 Carbine a "lightweight, gas operated, air cooled, magazine fed, selective rate, shoulder fired weapon with a collapsible stock." If the Marines see no reason to distinguish between the MK-77 and napalm, there is no reason to distinguish between them.

Mind you, even this "lie" is technically the truth, since there is apparently some difference between the two chemical compounds. Still, is the Pentagon thinking it's going to get credit from the enviornmentalist lobby? Nice thought, but the people who are going to be mad about napalm aren't going to care what you're burning--except the people underneath it. If you're going to defend the MK-77, you've got to make the case that burning those people is the right thing to do: either for reasons of force-protection, or because victory requires it. Trying to weasel out of that difficult but necessary argument is dishonest.

Teutonic Surnames:

In The Corner, a discussion of the difficulties of Teutonic surnames:

[Nick Schulz] once heard Arnold Schwarzenegger say that his name means �Black Hammer Thrower� or �Black Plow Man� which always sounds really funny when he says that (or when just about anyone says it in an �Ah-nuld� voice). Since those would be easier to spell, you could always substitute one of them when writing about him.

Well, this presents a real difficulty for your correspondant. My last name also has a disputed origin: it comes from the Danelaw in England, and means either "the Bald" in Anglo-Saxon, or "the Stout," meaning short but thick, in Old Scandinavian.

Of course there has already been a Grim the Bald (father of Egil Skallagrimsson, that is, "the son of Grim the Bald"). And at any rate, your correspondant is not yet bald, though it is fully possible someday I will be. Grim the Stout is fairer: at five foot six and a half inches (according to the USMC), I stand only half an inch taller than the average height for a human male, and a bit shorter than the average height for a man of European descent. On this point I blame what have otherwise been excellent genetics, since my father's side apparently may have been known as "the Stout," and my mother's draws its descent from Donnachaidh Remhair, that is, "Duncan the Stout," founder of the Clan Donnachaidh in Scotland. It's an odd confluence of stoutness, drawing on both the Germanic and the Celtic. The results readers can judge for themselves: that's me when my son Beowulf was a month old, the bearded fellow with the boy on his lap and The Ballad of the White Horse at his foot.

Ahem.

Eurobashing at its finest. It reminds me of a story my father used to tell about a US propaganda coup during the Cold War, in which a huge number of these products, or some rather similar, were sent to Russia marked "Medium." This link is not for my lady readers, thanks aye.

The Post Gets States' Rights Wrong:

It is not surprising that the official newspaper of the Federal capital would be opposed to any doctrine that tended to balance power away from the Federal government and toward the states. The Washington Post's constant disdain for the doctrine of States' Rights is only natural. It would be nice, however, if they would take the time to understand the doctrine before heaping it with scorn.

Today's lead editorial on the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment demonstrates their difficulty. The FMA is meant to prevent gay marriage by forbidding any state to allow it. Those who believe it necessary do so on the grounds that the current law--the Defense of Marriage Act--would be vunerable on multiple grounds to Supreme Court rulings, so that any state's legalization of gay marriage would quickly require all states to allow it. (Those interested in this argument are hereby referred to National Review Online and Andrew Sullivan, who have conducted a lively debate on the subject--check their respective archives, as both are on vacation just now.)

The Post contends that good conservatives should be against this, since:

there's another issue too, which has to do with federalism and the respect for states' rights, which in other spheres many conservatives tend to enshrine. A constitutional amendment defining marriage would federalize what has been among the most unquestioned of state responsibilities since the dawn of the American republic. The amendment specifies that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," and it would preclude state or federal law from being "construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." Certainly many Americans agree with Mr. Bush on his definition of marriage. But why should states with majorities that feel differently be barred from acting through their democratic processes?

The doctrine of State's Rights is not, and has never been, that -all- rights are State's Rights. It has also not been, as the Post suggests, that states are naturally better at democracy than the Federal government. The point is that the Founders' design was one in which the states had some rights, the federal government others, and some rights neither had nor were entitled to have (e.g., the right to require citizens to subscribe to a particular religion). This design produces a balance of power between opposed governments, which opposition between powers creates a space for liberty.

The determination of which rights pertain to which group (state, federal, or personal authority, that is) is codified in the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the several states, which represent the lasting will of the people. Constitutional Amendments, which specifically require ratification by state legislatures as well as the Congress, are not violations of States' Rights, but a natural outgrowth of this principle of Classical Liberal Federalism.

The proper way of thinking about this from Classical Liberal thinking is that ONLY a constitutional amendment can address the question of gay marriage. The reason is this: while the people have traditionally delegated to the state the authority to ajudicate certain questions about whether a given man may marry a given woman, they have never delegated to the state or the Federal government the authority to define marriage as something other than a union of man and woman. That understanding of marriage preceeded the formation of the American republic. It is not subject to the authority of the American republic, but remains a right reserved. If any state wants to legalize gay marriage, ONLY a constitutional amendment can do it. It means a concession of new, and great, authority from the people to the state. No judge, no judiciary has the rightful power to usurp that authority.

However, the judiciary has been in the business of arrogating new powers to itself for quite a little while now. It has reached the point that, practically, a Constitutional amendment is necessary if the judiciary is not to "discover" the authority to remake the social contract to fit its views, whatever they are. Such an amendment is not a violation of the republican ideals of the Founding, but a restatement of them; and neither does it violate States' Rights, as neither the states nor the Federal government have any authority here. Whatever solution is reached can only be reached legitimately by the amendment process, which consults both Congress and the legislatures of the several states for new authority.

Hang this man:

As someone who joined the United States Marine Corps right out of high school, and who has over the years become a true believer in its precepts and traditions, I take especial exception to this plea bargain. There are three things that should be mandatory capital offenses in military law: engaging in forcible rape, treason, and betraying your brother Marines. Judges are not bound by plea bargain agreements. The sentence should be death, preferably by hanging with a parachute cord.

Still More Advice to the Democrats:

This one is called Mogadishu Democrats and includes what is a fine assessment of the war's progress in Iraq:

As for "bring it on...", one wonders if DfNS are aware that U.S. troops used exactly this tactic during the war, via loudspeakers on Humvees, to great effect? That's why we heard about pickup trucks attacking M1A1 tanks - the fedayeen just couldn't stand to have ther manhood challenged in stereo. I believe one U.S. soldier's quote was "we shoot them down like the morons they are." One expects an organization called "Democrats for National Security" to know this, and perhaps to apply it.

In a guerilla war, you WANT people to come after your soldiers. That's the ideal tactical scenario, and with the shallowness of the Ba'ath infrastructure and limited recruiting capability they cannot sustain an attrition-based campaign for long. That might change if they adopted a longer-term strategy, and Bush has now challenged them not to. Smart move - the fedayeen loudspeaker tactic writ large. The faster and harder al-Awda attack, the sooner they're taken out, the faster the reconstruction is done, and the more U.S. troops come home.

Yeah, that's true, although there may be wider recruitment than just what's in Iraq. That too is a benefit, as we've heard from the Flypaper theorists. Either way, though, we need a gunfighting corps of soldiers out there challenging the guerrillas to come and get it. The US has an excellent record with guerrilla warfare, excepting Vietnam--which is to be excepted, since this time there are no secure bases for the enemy, nothing off limits, and no superpowers backing them.

Leaving all that aside, the advice to the party is right on: we need a candidate, and a platform, that is built around warfighting. We are at war, after all.

DPRK Watch:

If we go to war with the DPRK, it will probably not be over their development of nuclear weapons. The administration seems resigned to accepting that--which is a terrible mistake, for reasons outlined on ParaPundit's blog. No, what will require war will be if the DPRK can't be persuaded or required not to export its nuclear technology. Of course, the DPRK is doing just that.

NORTH Korea and Iran were in talks over a plan to export Pyongyang's Taepodong-2 long-range ballistic missiles to Tehran and to jointly develop nuclear warheads, a Japanese daily said today.
The two countries have been negotiating the deal for about a year and were likely to reach an agreement in mid-October, the conservative Sankei newspaper said, quoting defence sources familiar with North Korean affairs.

I've said I expect war with the DPRK before next summer ends. It may be sooner.

Books in the Corner:

I am amused by this post in the Corner:

MY BOOK IS VIRTUAL [Susan Konig]
I want to thank all the Corner readers who consistently query me about my book, Why Animals Sleep So Close to the Road (and other lies I tell my children). I'm flattered and didn't mean to plug it at the end of each column as if it were already published. I was sort of advertising the fact that it was indeed written and ready for the bidding wars to begin!

I didn't mean to plug it at the end of each column? Well, ok: I have a book called The Ship Knife which is ready for the bidding wars, too. It's about the expedition to Sicily led by King Harald Hardrada, Viking warlord, at the head of the Byzantine fleet. Bidders welcome.

'A Ticket to Nowhere':

Joe Lieberman's advice to the Democratic Party made quite a stir today. Turns out he's a boxing fan, too. Boxers make great politicians, if they are good enough to keep from getting their brains rattled. Lieberman sounds like he mostly watched boxing, but maybe he learned some of the right lessons:

[A] lot is at stake:� nothing less than the heart and soul of the Democratic party, and the security and prosperity of the United States of America. . . .

Some Democrats still prefer old, big government solutions to our problems.� But with record deficits, a stalled economy and Social Security in danger, we can't afford that.� It won't work.� That old way is wrong for America, and wrong for the Democratic Party.

Some Democrats respond to the health insurance crisis with a break-the-bank $2 trillion program -- leaving no money to create new jobs, invest in our schools, support our firefighters and cops, or shore up Social Security. That would be wrong for America, and wrong for the Democratic Party.

Some would raise the walls of protectionism again.� But we've got a record trade deficit and our manufacturers are hemorrhaging jobs. We need more markets, not fewer.� Bridges, not barriers.� That is right for America, and right for the Democratic Party.

Some have said no to any tax cuts, and would even raise taxes on the middle class.� But middle-class families have borne the brunt of George Bush's failed economic leadership, so we must help them, not burden them even more.� That's right for America, and right for the Democratic Party. . . .

Some are silent about the marketing of violent or sexual entertainment to our children.� But we should be allies with parents in the struggle to protect their kids.��

Some said "no" to eliminating Saddam Hussein, or were ambivalent about it, before and after the war.� But we must not shrink from the use of force when our security and our values are at stake.� That is right for America, and right for the Democratic Party.

Doing what's right for America and for our party are truly one and the same.

There's a lot of good stuff here, Joe. I understand you're still in the market for a VP--you might see my advice to our party from earlier in the week if you want a suggestion on one that will win it with you. Get Sen. Miller on your ticket, and I'll vote for you.

Damn that Instapundit!

Doesn't the Sage of Knoxville have anything better to do? Talk Like A Pirate Day indeed. It even has one of those damnable personality tests.

You are The Cap'n!

Some men are born great, some achieve greatness and some slit the throats of any man that stands between them and the mantle of power. You never met a man you couldn't eviscerate. Not that mindless violence is the only avenue open to you - but why take an avenue when you have complete freeway access? You are the definitive Man of Action. You are James Bond in a blousy shirt and drawstring-fly pants. Your swash was buckled long ago and you have never been so sure of anything in your life as in your ability to bend everyone to your will. You will call anyone out and cut off their head if they show any sign of taking you on or backing down. You cannot be saddled with tedious underlings, but if one of your lieutenants shows an overly developed sense of ambition he may find more suitable accommodations in Davy Jones' locker. That is, of course, IF you notice him. You tend to be self absorbed - a weakness that may keep you from seeing enemies where they are and imagining them where they are not.

Eerily accurate, these things. I took a D&D one once only to be told that I was a Chaotic Human Barbarian. Everyone I mentioned it to nodded knowingly. Where's that broadsword?

Good news from the Middle East:

Honestly. This report looks at Bahrain, whose king has appointed a bicameral legislature and given full rights to women. Nor does the king, whose reign so far enjoys prosperity on the order of six-percent annual growth, harbor feelings of anti-Americanism:

�Time seems to be very slow in Iraq. But it is only three months since Britain and America went in. And three months is not enough time in a big country like Iraq with so many different groups and beliefs: but the dramatic change is for the good of Iraq and for the people of Iraq.�
But what about the evidence that the Alliance�s leaders were less than honest about their reasons for going to war? �Nothing is 100 per cent, nothing is perfect. But we think they�ve been honest enough to be followed by the entire world. And whether they�ve missed one or two things, well, things happen in wars. But in general everybody is with America and with Britain in what they have done so far. We just have to wait a little longer, and we will see the good things that are happening in Iraq. But often, you know, no news is good news.�

Now why can't certain candidates for the Democratic nomination to the presidency speak as boldly in favor of their country and its work?

Theology in the Asia Times:

Out of Hong Kong, a fascinating series by Spengler on the clash between the West and Radical Islam, one that posits that Islam will win. The critique of Western culture has the mark of scholarly theology, and is plainly a long time coming.

Socrates (like Strauss) was wrong. It is not the unexamined life that is not worth living, but the life defined by mere animal existence. Unlike lower species, humans require a sense of the eternal. The brute instinct for self-preservation is a myth.

Because radical Islam provides this, and most Western faiths no longer do, Spengler judges that Islam has the weight advantage in a punching match.

In the second part of the series, he answers the hope many people expressed in reply that Islam may soon undergo a reformation. Spengler asserts that there are good reasons to suspect that they will not:

What precisely goes into making a Reformation? In the case of Christianity, textual criticism became the starting point. What was the original Revelation, and how could Christians return to it? . . . .

Hebrew and Christian scripture claim to be the report of human encounters with God. After the Torah is read each Saturday in synagogues, the congregation intones that the text stems from "the mouth of God by the hand of Moses", a leader whose flaws kept him from entering the Promised Land. The Jewish rabbis, moreover, postulated the existence of an unwritten Revelation whose interpretation permits considerable flexibility with the text. Christianity's Gospels, by the same token, are the reports of human evangelists.

The Archangel Gabriel, by contrast, dictated the Koran to Mohammed, according to Islamic doctrine. That sets a dauntingly high threshold for textual critics.

Spengler feels that the West's hope is that Protestant missionaries--the true believing Christian Right--will interact with Muslims, who may absorb the Protestant methodology of examining the texts as a path to God. There may be something to this analysis. Certainly Protestant Fundamentalists have more in common with Muslim radicals than others in the West. Osama bin Laden's letter to America contains a number of objections to American culture echoed perfectly in Christian Right publications, especially as concerns the prevelance of sexual images and outright pornography.

Still, to me it sounds like adding a second tiger to a hill. It may be the organic solution, but a great deal of blood and time would be necessary to bring about sustained interaction between them. I suspect a second probability, which is this: the clash with Islam will embolden the West, and renew its faith. A second 9/11, particularly if it happened in Europe, would do more to fill men's hearts with divine fire than anything else. Nothing makes people suspect the truth of an ultimate Good than to witness ultimate Evil. It is comfort, not despair, that has brought the West away from faith as a mode of life.

Radical Islam should beware. Refilling the hearts of Western men would remove the only advantage the Islamists have. Because the West is tolerant of all faiths, Muslims who wished to live moderate lives would find a home among invigorated Westerners before they could among the Talibani. The punching weight of true belief evened, humane tolerance and high technology would be the deciding factors--both Western strengths.

For my Father:

I think they mean you, Dad. No better man could lead them.

More On the National Parties:

Caerdroia's Jeff Medcalf explains his own thoughts on equal protection, which is never equally protected by either party. Then there is this blog, Shining Full Plate and a Good Broadsword, which explains its author's thoughts on the proper position for either Republican or Democrat, though it sounds more Democratic to me:

Let me be clear: I'm for gay marriage, welfare, national health care, and protecting endangered species.

And I am proud when we pump bullets in another terrorist on a daily basis.

In fact, I am so proud that I would readily join a secret force to ritualistically kill terrorists on a daily and nightly basis for the sheer enjoyment of it.

Liberia:

Today's Washington Post has the first potentially convincing argument I've heard for US intervention in Liberia:

washingtonpost.com: Douglas, thank you for joining us this morning. Can you talk a bit about the circumstances under which you left Africa?

Douglas Farah: I left after writing the original story about Taylor's ties to al Qaeda. Both U.S. and European intel picked up Taylor directly threatening to kill me. The Post ordered me and my family to leave as soon as possible. We got out by having U.S. Embassy security escort us through the airport, onto the flight, to make sure nothing went amiss.

Mr. Farah is writing on terrorist ties in West Africa. Bringing freedom and democracy to troubled areas is part of the solution to terrorism, and if it can in fact be demonstrated that al Qaeda is running free in Liberia, there may be a real reason to send in the Marines.

More Proof of Communist Trechery:

Having just last night enjoyed AMC's showing of "The Quiet Man," imagine my particular horror to encounter this story from the Guardian today.

Can We End the DNC?

Long term readers know that I am, by political affiliation, a Southern Democrat. This is one of the least comfortable positions in modern American politics, as you really do not have a home in either major party. There are tremendous difficulties in cooperating with either the national Democratic party or the Republican party, both of which stand firmly for things to which we are firmly opposed.

Nevertheless, hope springs eternal. I carry on believing that sooner or later the DNC's total lack of substance on foreign policy, combined with its latent anti-Americanism, will cause it to implode and be relegated to the fringes. The Southern Democrats are the only Democrats who can actually hope to defeat President Bush in 2004, both because we are the only Democrats who are stronger on foreign policy than he is, and because stripping Southern states away from Republican support is the surest strategy to Democratic victory. Without the support of the "solid South," Bush can't win.

That won't happen, though, as long as the national Democratic party continues to view 2004 as a revel deserving nothing but frivolity. Consider, for example, the DNC Party Platform, entitled "Prosperity, Progress, and Peace":

Today, America finds itself in the midst of prosperity, progress, and peace. We have arrived at this moment because of the hard work of the American people. This election will be about the big choices we have to make to secure prosperity that is broadly shared and progress that reaches all families in this new American century. In the year 2000, the Democratic Party stands ready to meet that challenge and to build on our achievements.

When Thomas Jefferson was elected as our Party's first president in 1800, America was a young country trying to find its place in the world. Two hundred years later, Democrats gather at a moment of vast possibility to nominate Al Gore as America's next president. A new economy founded on the force of new technologies and traditional values of work is giving rise to new industries and transforming old ones. Biological breakthroughs give us the chance to unlock the mysteries of humanity's deadliest plagues. While the globe is still beset with tragedies and difficulties, more people live under governments of freedom, liberty, and democracy than ever before in history. America enjoys unparalleled affluence at home and influence abroad.

Now I realize that this is the 2000 platform. I also realize that a new platform isn't traditionally due until the next Presidential election year. May I humbly suggest, however, that is a major reason for the debacle in the last elections?

An emergency session of the DNC should have been called sometime between 2001 and now to assemble a platform of suggested action in response to the end of prosperity, the threat to progress, and the destruction of peace. In 2002, the lack of such a platform meant that the party had nothing to offer in a time of war but, "We think Bush is rushing to war. Although we're still going to vote for his Iraq War Resolution. But he's wrong. Except we know war is popular, so he's not wrong. Maybe a little wrong. Vote Democrat!" Horseshit.

This year we still have no platform. The nine presidential candidates--none of whom is presidential--are each fumbling around trying to figure out what they want to say. So far they seem to be finding unity around a message of: "Bush is a liar. Taxes aren't high enough. Iraq is a mess, though we don't have any actual solutions, just complaints. Maybe we should apologize to the French."

That is a disaster waiting to happen in 2004. The solid South will vote for no candidate whose campaign is established around those principles. The wild-eyed radical base may be fired up, but they can't win the election by themselves--and, furthermore, they are a bunch of nutcases with whom we should be ashamed to be making common cause. (It is the role of the Southern Democrat to point that out now and again, and be ignored.) Mainstream Democrats will not be energized to vote for a candidate on those grounds, and swing voters--of whom there are more in this election than ever in recent politics--will trend to Bush. This is true even if Iraq is still a mess in a year, which is frankly not all that likely: our successes there have been underreported, and there is no reason to believe that a year from now we won't see a relatively stable Iraq, a dead Saddam, firm documentary evidence of WMD programs that will quell all but the aforementioned wild-eyed radicals, an Iraqi government enjoying wide legitimacy, and oil revenues already beginning to obviate the need for foreign investment. Meanwhile, the US government has decided to triple aid to Afghanistan, making progress there likely as well.

The Democratic Party should be happy about that! By Thunder, if the national party organizes itself so that any of the above is bad news for it, it deserves to be razed by the electorate and scattered by the wind. The Democratic Party should be the party of the people, and the people love America and take pride and pleasure in her success. Well they should! She is the hope of the world.

An emergency session to plan a 2004 platform should be called immediately. The platform, if victory in 2004 is to be achieved, needs to include these items:

1) A strong statement on Democratic goals for the present war. This needs to include not the usual diplomatic vaugery, but specific statements on how to deal with each of: Eradicating Terrorist Networks, Hunting and Killing existing Terrorists, Preventing Terrorism In the United States and Europe, the Problem of North Korea, Preventing or Restraining Nuclear Proliferation, Destroying (through War or Other Means) State Sponsors of Terrorism, and Establishing Flourshing Democracy in Troubled Parts of the World.
2) One of the most important issues for the forseeable future is the overstretched US military. The strains felt by them have brought a number of military voters--conservative by nature, but dissatisfied by the current administration--into the swing voter camp. They need to know that the Democratic Party will defend their interests, which are: Expanding the Military, Constricting Deployments to areas where there is a Clear National Interest, Increasing Pay Rates, Ensuring Continued Technological Superiority, and Bettering Intelligence Sharing between the CIA and the Military.
3) The wild-eyed base needs to be quelled. The Democratic Party, if it is to be taken seriously as a national party, needs to make certain it is not associated with anti-Americanism in any form. Victory requires that we lose every Communist, Anarchist, Socialist, and any voter who would self-identify their political leanings with the preface of "radical." They are welcome to vote for us or against us, but our party platform should contain nothing for them. The Party of the American People ought to love America with all depth and purity of emotion--the American People do.

A continued failure to address these issues is running the DNC onto the rocks in 2004. If the DNC decides to stop running against Bush, and to start running on their actual merits, the Southern Democrats include several persons who could be of service in drafting a platform that could carry the party to victory. It wouldn't hurt, for the serious candidate, to try to draft Zell Miller as your Vice President.

Arts & Letters Daily:

Arts & Letters Daily has linked to Mr. Robinson's piece in the Spectator. They have also today a very interesting piece on the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Scooping InstaPundit:

It's not often that one beats InstaPundit, Sage of Knoxville, to the punch. I thought based on yesterday's firestorm against the DARPA idea that I was out on a limb alone in supporting them, but this morning that turns out not to be true. Good to know that those who understand the business feel as I do. I thought I'd been a little rash, letting my temper get the better of me, when I called certain Senators "bloviating idiots," but I see that at least the "idiots" part has some support as well.

Alas for DARPA:

It appears that DARPA's plan to create a futures market for speculation on terrorism has died an undeserved death. This is due to a total lack of comprehension on the part of the US Senate, which simply isn't smart enough to understand why this was a remarkable and brilliant idea.

The business of predicting terror attacks is very much like the futures business, as it is like the actuarial business (the people who determine the rates for insurance companies are called Actuaries). A question the government has been considering for some time is this: given that the US has the finest actuaries and futures speculators in the world, how can we tap that knowledge for use in the terror war? The central problem is that the knowledge is out there, but that the government can't really compete with the market for the services of the very best of these guys. The top speculators make millions a year.

DARPA thought of a way to tap them: make a new market, one that rewards them in much the same way as the existing market. The potential value to the terror war was immeasurable. For example, when a terror threat comes in that is against NYC, the country really has no mechanism except to raise the terror alert for the entire country. That means that Cumming, Georgia goes on High (Orange) alert just like Los Angeles and NYC. The US government's resources are likewise spread across many threat-areas. Top actuaries would be able to predict much more accurately what areas are really threatened, allowing a better distribution of resources and a more accurate prediction of terror acts. Futures speculators would likewise bring a new perspective to predictive analysis, and would be better than military men at seeing nontraditional targets that terrorists could hit.

All that for a projected cost to DARPA of five million dollars. For five million bucks, you couldn't hire a handful of the top actuaries and speculators, but DARPA would have tapped potentially all of them. Gentlemen, I salute you--just because the Senate is full of bloviating idiots does not mean that your work is totally unappreciated. Better luck next time.

Wisdom from an old CIA hand:

James Woolsey writes:

I would add that, just as we eventually won the Cold War - and when I say 'we' here, I always mean Britain, the United States, the democracies, our allies - it was in no small measure because, while containing the Soviet Union and its allies militarily and with nuclear deterrence, we undermined their ideology.

We undermined it over a long period by convincing the Lech Walesas, the Vaclav Havels, the Andrei Sakharovs, the Solidarities, that this was not a clash of civilisations, not even a clash of countries, but a war of freedom against tyranny, and that we were on their side.

To exactly the same degree, we will surely be successful in this long war if we convince the hundreds of millions of reasonable and decent Muslims around the world who do not want to be terrorists, who do not want to live in dictatorships, that we are on their side and they on ours.

The surest way to demonstrate this is the unmaking of tyranny. Rhetoric, psyops, public relations--these are only good as long as they are tools to the actual, the physical destruction of tyrants. Freeing men is our business, and the only right purpose of our war. So it says in the Battle Hymn of the Republic, which was written in the days when Christian symbolism did not excite dissenters:

As He died to make men holy,
Let us die to make them free.

Arts & Sciences: Outrages

Jonah Goldberg takes on a survey from the "science" of psychology that purports to demonstrate that conservatism is a kind of mental deformity. The continued acceptance of psychology as a science is one of the worst problems with American society, and one to which people are almost entirely blind. Given that, I will test my readers' patience by reprinting below my full remarks on the subject:

Arts & Sciences:

From the beginning of a piece on failed civilizations:

In particular many of the so-called hard scientists such as physicists or biologists, don't consider history to be a science. The situation is even more extreme because, he points out, even historians themselves don't consider history to be a science. Historians don't get training in the scientific methods; they don't get training in statistics; they don't get training in the experimental method or problems of doing experiments on historical subjects; and they'll often say that history is not a science, history is closer to an art.

Historians often say that history is not a science because history is not a science. One of the central problems with modern society is its increasing inability to tell the difference between what is a science, and what isn't. This is directly related to the prestige that has come to be associated with the label of "science" during the 20th century.

In part because of the tremendous material advances brought us by science, the concept of science enjoys considerable standing. The best way to make sure that your ideas are put into practice is to convince others that they are scientific: to say that something is scientific is commonly thought to be the same as saying that it is true beyond the possibility of counterargument. Psychology (from the Greek, psyche-, or "spirit/soul," and -ology, or "study of"), which claims to be the science of the mind, has so convinced the majority of Westerners that it is scientific that a psychologist's testimony alone can strip a man of his freedom, serve as reason not to hire him, or to fire him from a job he already has. A man can be subjected to forced injections of drugs and imprisonment based on nothing more than a psychologist's assessment.

This all rests upon a misunderstanding of just what science is. Science is one kind of inquiry, a particular kind that rests upon two general principles: the method of making no assertions that cannot be tested and falsified; and the complete transparency and open debate of all assertions being made, none of which are ever to be taken as invunerable. Science is indeed a great thing; it is indeed powerful.

It isn't -everything-, though, and it isn't all powerful. There are some endeavors that are not, and can not be, science. History is one of them. So, as it happens, is "psychology," which would be more honestly called philopsyche, after the fashion of philosophy. Anything which involves the working of the human mind isn't and cannot be a science. This is simply because the human mind isn't observable, and therefore, it is not testable. Regardless of how cautiously you design your tests, the fact is that you are simply guessing about the why of a given decision. You can't really observe the process of decision making.

Stripping these so-called "social sciences" of the notion that they are sciences is one of the greatest services we could do for our culture. There is nothing more noble than art, exactly because there is nothing more human than art. We ought to be proud to be performing the arts, practicing the arts. There are too many, though, who are unwilling to compete in a fair and open atmosphere. They wish to hide behind the authority of science, even if they must do so illegitimately.

And they must: science was never about stifiling debate, but always about enforcing it systematically. Psychology, sociology, and the rest do not--as history does--recognize honestly the fact that their methods simply cannot be scientifically tested, cannot be falsified, cannot be proven nor disproven. As such, all of their assertions deserve a healthy scepticism. That scepticism should be the healthier for the fact that these so-called disciplines will not admit the truth about their methods. They are a blight upon our way of thinking, and of conceiving the world.

Arts & Sciences:

In response to my contention that psychology is not a science (see Monday's log), I've been asked to read Our Inner Conflicts by Karen Horney, M.D. Dr. Horney was one of the founders of psychoanalysis, both a friend and competitor to Freud, and compiled the basis of psychology's theories of neuroses. One of psychology's defenders asked me to consider her work at length before I made up my mind that psychology was not a science. I have now completed my study of the work, and am ready to report.
Dr. Horney's work has several things to be said in its favor. In particular the vision of sanity she presents is appealing, and in fact almost perfectly echoes G. K. Chesterton's vision of sanity from Orthodoxy. Chesterton, of course, was not a psychologist, but a Catholic: his thoughts on why men departed from sanity did not hinge upon theories of psychological conflict, but sin. Yet the two visions of sanity are almost perfect copies: each is a vision of wholeheartedness, coupled with responsibility and an ability to respond to things genuinely and without pretense. Both visions are powerful, appealing, and deeply human. Either, or indeed both, could be correct.

Both are empirical. Neither is scientific. Understanding why psychology is not science requires a short examination of what science is. The religious view is not in any danger of being taken for science, as it has no pretenses in that direction. The religious view takes its authority from faith, which is ultimately not testable beyond the confines of one man's heart. But psychology partakes of studies, not prayer; it holds conferences, publishes journals, engages in peer review and debate: how can I hold that it is a thing more like religion than like physics?

Science requires that all principles be not only testable, but falsifiable. Newtonian physics felt, at the turn of the 20th century, that it had basically solved all but a few straggling problems, and was remarkably close to a complete explanation of how the universe worked. It still viewed atoms as unsplittable, and had no knowledge of quarks or quantums. When the "new physics" came along, it undermined the entirety of the discipline as it existed. Everything had to be cast out or reexamined: a resolution is still out of reach.

Psychology's bedrock claims are not similarly falsifiable. Behavioral psychology claims that the mind is an illusion of the brain: its evidence is that it can explain behavior by reference only to chemical properties of the brain, and therefore a mind is unnecessary. That kind of argument is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam, that is, the argument from ignorance. The fact is that behavioral psychology cannot show that there is no mind, any more than it can show that there is. At the last, it is engaged in an act of faith, upon which principle no scientific inquiry is possible.

Behavioral psychology is not alone: all psychology ultimately is based upon unscientific principles which must be accepted, or not, on faith. Freud's Oedipal complex, for example, was meant to exist in all men; if analysis showed something consistent with it, the psychologist said, "Aha! The Oedipal complex at work!" If analysis failed to show anything consistent with it, the psychologist replied, "Aha! You are repressing your Oedipal complex." The fact that the complex might not exist was not possible, therefore it could not be the case. Jungian psychology similarly posits a "collective unconscious," and it is ultimately your acceptance of the existence of that collective unconscious which qualifies you to practice Jungian analysis. You can't be a Jungian and not accept the collective unconscious. Cognitive dissonance theory posits that the human mind (or brain) can't accept two mutually exclusive propositions without feeling agitation to resolve them. I have occasionally debated this point with cognitive therapists, and found that evidence against this central proposition is finally dismissed. It has to be, as the central principle can't be proven, nor can it be disproven: it must be accepted on faith.

Yet psychology retains the respect due only to real sciences, and with it the force to legally deprive a man of his freedom, his job, or certain rights which are available only to those held to be "mentally competent" to exercise them. Psychology's ability to maintain this illusion is due to its empiricism--that is, to the fact that it bases its conclusions on real-world examples, which gives it the flavor of science. Empiricism, practiced by Aristotle, was indeed the precursor of science. I said that Dr. Horney was empirical, and she is. She really has done a lot of research, and a lot of analysis, and a lot of thinking about the examples she has met. Empiricism is not science, however. That is another way of addressing the line of questions which takes the form, "But if (e.g.) behaviorists can in fact explain all human behavior without reference to a mind--if they can really do it--does that not show that they are right?" The answer lies with the Greeks.

Ancient Greek navigators developed a complex mechanical device for navigation, called the Antikythera mechanism. It aided navigation by predicting where certain stars should be in the sky at given times of the night, at given points of the year. The Greeks thought that the earth was the center of the universe, however, which should pose a problem for correct prediction of astral movements. When they encountered those problems, though, they just thought around them:

The Greeks believed in an earth-centric universe and accounted for celestial bodies' motions using elaborate models based on epicycles, in which each body describes a circle (the epicycle) around a point that itself moves in a circle around the earth. Mr Wright found evidence that the Antikythera mechanism would have been able to reproduce the motions of the sun and moon accurately, using an epicyclic model devised by Hipparchus, and of the planets Mercury and Venus, using an epicyclic model derived by Apollonius of Perga. (These models, which predate the mechanism, were subsequently incorporated into the work of Claudius Ptolemy in the second century AD.)

Epicycles were able to correctly account for the movement of astral bodies without discarding the core--and inaccurate--principle of the earth's centrality. The development of epicycles is an astonishing, indeed a magnificient, human accomplishment. It is a beautiful piece of human artifice. Its only flaw is that it fails to be correct.

Psychology is in just this position. Insofar as it simply wishes to guide a given ship to a given port (say, an unhappy person to that vision of sanity) it may serve as a perfectly useful model. So long as it is applied to that, and only that, it may be functional. The problem arises when you start making wider judgements based upon its core principles--for example, what sort of people ought to enjoy freedoms, or ought to hold jobs. If the core principle is wrong, you could end up making very bad, hurtful judgements.

Ultimately epicycles were set aside because they partook of the realm of physics, and better methods of observation allowed us to see plainly that the earth was not the center of the universe. Psychology is a different animal because its core principles are finally untestable, unfalsifiable, and unscientific. There is no evidence that can be brought to bear, either today or conceptually in the future, that could really put an end to the question of whether or not we have minds separate from our brains; or whether "inner conflicts" yield "disorders" from some kind of normality, rather than simply informing the development of a unique person who wasn't meant to be anything other than what they are. These things at last can't be tested.

I have nothing against people making decisions in their personal life on the basis of psychology, if they feel inclined. I don't mind them choosing this thing over that thing on the basis of Tarot card readings, for that matter. I have said that arts are the noblest of human endeavors precisely because they are the most human. Psychology is an art. It should be proud of it. It must also, however, discard the false authority that it has laid claim to under the guise of being a science. People can--should!--choose to build their lives around the mastery of some art that is particularly appealing to them. No government or corporate entity, though, should make decisions involving fundamental liberties on the basis of signs and portents, the readings of seers, or the analysis of a psychologist.

Horn'd helmets all around:

Hagar the Horrible, the Movie. More likely: Hagar, the Horrible Movie.

Bless Harold Bloom:

The Atlantic Unbound has an interview with Harold Bloom. It is worth reading in full, but of course I won't quote it at that kind of length. I will only include a couple of the most excellent parts:

There's a line in the first chapter of your book Hamlet: Poem Unlimited that seems to encapsulate your approach toward literature: "I think it wise to confront both the play and the prince with awe and wonder, because they know more than we do." As a literary critic, how are you able to analyze a text with this kind of humility instead of assuming a dry, superior tone as some other critics do?

Harold Bloom:

Superior? To William Shakespeare?

...

This attitude of reverence is what sets you apart from many of your colleagues. You don't seem to belong to any particular school of literary criticism.

Harold Bloom:

Well, it's such a complex thing. I left the English department twenty-six years ago. I just divorced them and became, as I like to put it, Professor of Absolutely Nothing. To a rather considerable extent, literary studies have been replaced by that incredible absurdity called cultural studies which, as far as I can tell, are neither cultural nor are they studies. But there has always been an arrogance, I think, of the semi-learned.
You know, the term "philology" originally meant indeed a love of learning�a love of the word, a love of literature. I think the more profoundly people love and understand literature, the less likely they are to be supercilious, to feel that somehow they know more than the poems, stories, novels, and epics actually know.
And, of course, we have this nonsense called Theory with a capital T, mostly imported from the French and now having evilly taken root in the English-speaking world. And that, I suppose, also has encouraged absurd attitudes toward what we used to call imaginative literature.

My Jewish readers (as well as the several of you who express an interest in comparative religion) will want to continue on through the interview to the parts on Kabbalah.