Froggy, posting at BlackFive, has a series of posts on the new NSA leaks (here, especially here, and also here). Froggy wasn't just a SEAL (to paraphrase one of Subsunk's recent post titles), but also a Special Agent for Customs working against international drug rings. He's therefore seen the classified side of this process from both the military and the law-enforcement perspective. His understanding is therefore enlightening.
Andi's group "Sew Much Comfort," operating at Walter Reed, got a visitor of some note.
The Belmont Club points out one of the most deadly naval battles in years has taken place, between suicide attackers from LTTE and the Sri Lankan navy. The LTTE (or "Tamil Tigers") are, as I recall, the only non-Islamist group to field suicide bombers. Here they managed fifteen boats to attack a naval detachment, sinking a warship and damaging a transport ship.
In addition to the problems this demonstrates for navy operations, Wretchard points out that the troop carrier seems to have been the primary target. It was carrying a truce monitor. Wretchard explains how this fits in with a general collapse of protection of diplomats from terrorists.
The COUNTERCOLUMN borrows a photo and caption from the New York Times. It asks the Times, "When are you going to get some veterans in the newsroom so you don't embarrass yourselves like this?"
See if you can spot the error. If not, well, I'll be surprised if any of you can't spot it. That kind of incompetence takes a professional journalist.
Links
Uncle Jimbo's latest web-TV appearance conveys the story of... er... well... it conveys a story of young Afghan lads and, ah, older Afghan fighters.
Jimbo cites an Afghan proverb in the piece. I remember a similar sentiment from my studies of ancient Greece -- you can read in Edith Hamilton on the subject of how Greeks of high education passed their evenings before great battles. Perhaps there's something to The Man Who Would Be King, after all? Sure looks that way.
Guns Test II
Doc has a good post up on the problems with studies of this type. He explains some of the problems with the "scientific method" as it's being practiced in medicine today, and some bigger problems -- namely, what would it mean if the conclusion was actually true?
This pseudoscience-with-a-press-release is becoming a real problem. I remember the Geek with a .45 had a top-notch post on the subject back in February. If you missed it, it's worth looking over. It shows some of the warning signs that you ought to look for, before you say, "Hey! We should change the laws to suit this new study!"
Cassidy has two strong posts today, remembering the fallen and scorning those who dishonor them. Russ Vaughn mails a link to his latest work, which by chance is on the same topic.
As she promised in the comments here, Cassidy wrote in part on the subject of our friend from Boston, who feels the POW flag is really about how "we ourselves have become the prisoners of war; it is our own government that has taken us captive." On which topic, you might enjoy (h/t Sage) reading a little of this entry from Egyptian blogger Alaa. It begins:
Today it hit me, I am really in prison.An object lesson on just how extraordinarily stupid so much of this political discourse from the Left has become.
UPDATE: I talked to Sovay on the phone this evening (Saturday, 13 May), and she asserts she hasn't heard of the Globe piece on the POW flag. Hopefully this and certain other recent signs I've seen (particularly a certain bumpersticker) are just 'the work of isolated extremists,' rather than signs of a growing anti-military movement on the Left.
SA
Patti at SA sends.
You are receiving this email, because I have heard from many deployed troops this week,As the MilBlog Emma Peel notes, May means poor -- for a number of reasons. Still, at $2.50 apiece, I'd like to think we here at Grim's Hall could support a couple of squads. I don't want to put anyone on the spot, so don't declare your donations or anything -- but if you'd like to help, the donation button is at the top left of the Soldiers' Angels page.
everyone has the same thing to say,
IT IS HOT!! It is hard to think...
I would like to get cool scarf to every hero on our list, THE TEMPERATURES IN IRAQ ARE WELL OVER 100 DEGREES, and will stay that way till September.
The cooling scarf is a great way to beat the heat. These cooling scarves comes from hundreds of tiny hidden non-toxic polymer crystals that hold many times their weight in water. By soaking your cooling scarf in cool water for 15 minutes, these crystals become "energized" and become a comfortable, portable evaporative cooler that can lower body temperature by several degrees! So, not only will you FEEL cooler, you will actually BE cooler!
The Cooling scarf is great for any activity that raises body temperature to an uncomfortable level. Golf, Tennis, Hiking, Biking...anything! Stay cool and comfortable during these activities. The cooling scarf will contiue to keep you cool for up to 15 hours.
We have over 12,000 heroes on this fourth deployment.
The scarves cost 1.20 and the shipping is 1.12, about 2.50 ea.
So in order to do this we need 25,000 dollars, not a small feat but these scarves help to keep their brains cool and offers comfort to our heroes.
Please help me to help them,
Love
Patti
Guns & Testosterone
Via FbL at the Castle, a New York Times story on evidence that handling guns raises testosterone levels in men. FbL points to certain less-than-manly types who regard this as reason to restrict gun ownership.
Sorry, but that's a rank misreading. As Daniel points out it's not a bug, it's a feature. We need more testosterone in the American man. Seriously -- the odd shift in hormone balance is something scientists have been tracking for nearly fifteen years, and seems to be having a real effect on the population in the US and Europe.
Guns: there's no social problem they can't help solve!
HuT
Not every statement hits the high notes. Unlike the Iranians, Hizb-ut Tahrir didn't manage quite the right tone in their communication to the West. In this interview with the Christian Science Monitor, they try to explain how innocent their approach is:
"[President] Bush says that we want to enslave people and oppress their freedom of speech," says Abu Abdullah, a senior member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Party of Liberation. "But we want to free all people from being slaves of men and make them slaves of Allah."Oh, well, that's all right then. Wait, though -- who decides what Allah wants from his slaves, on a day to day basis? Men, right?
Square one.
I hope that HuT didn't describe their plan for re-creating the Caliphate in quite these terms, either:
But unlike Al Qaeda, Hizb ut-Tahrir believes it can recreate the Caliphate peacefully. Its activists aim to pursuade Muslim political and military leaders that reestablishing the Caliphate is their Islamic duty. Once these leaders invite Hizb ut-Tahrir to take power - effectively staging a military coup - the party would then repeat the process in other countries before linking them up to form a revived Caliphate.So, it's a nonviolent military coup they're planning? One in which the military then "invites" them to take power?
I think I see a possible snag in the plan.
One more quote:
"Islam obliges Muslims to possess power so that they can intimidate - I would not say terrorize - the enemies of Islam," says Abu Mohammed, a Hizb ut-Tahrir activist.So, to sum up: men should be slaves of Allah, not slaves of men (but men will interpret for Allah); Hizb-ut Tahrir will come to power without using violence (because the soldiers who do use the violence will then kindly invite them in); and the power they envision Muslims wielding will only be for "intimidation," not "terrorism."
I'm glad we got all that cleared up.
UPDATE: Ok, just one more.
"In the beginning, the Caliphate would strengthen itself internally and it wouldn't initiate jihad."Now I really feel beter about their intentions.
"But after that we would carry Islam as an intellectual call to all the world," says Abu Mohammed, a pseudonym. "And we will make people bordering the Caliphate believe in Islam. Or if they refuse then we'll ask them to be ruled by Islam."
And after that? Abu Mohammed pauses and fiddles with his Pepsi before replying.
"And if after all discussions and negotiations they still refuse, then the last resort will be a jihad to spread the spirit of Islam and the rule of Islam," he says, smiling. "This is done in the interests of all people to get them out of darkness and into light."
The Letter
The English translation of Iran's letter to the United States proves to be an astonishing and remarkable document. It is astonishing because it is nothing like it was described to be. "Some American officials have said the letter appeared to be aimed at disrupting talks on Iran this week among top envoys of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China," the New York Times tells us, and that's correct: we were told this was intended as a ploy, a bit of gamesmanship by the Iranians. Since the possibility of direct negotiations was open, the Russians and the Chinese could plausibly claim that UN Security Council action was not needed.
If that was indeed the reading of the professional diplomats, we are poorly served by their insights. The letter is not a negotiating ploy. If our best thinkers can misread this so badly, they need to be replaced root and branch.
The letter has two clear antecedents in world politics: the American Declaration of Independence, and the Communist Manifesto. This is a document of that type, and if we are not careful, it will be remembered for as long.
Like the Declaration and the Manifesto, the letter spends much of its time with a list of grievances. These grievances serve the same purpose in all three documents: they purport to demonstrate that the existing system is a moral failure, and that it has create affronts which can only be addressed by its overthrow. The American Declaration limited itself to the removal of the King's government from the colonies; it was only later, in Woodrow Wilson's time, that we began to think of American democracy as a universal human value. The Manifesto assumed a worldwide revolution from the start. In its summation, following sixteen pages of grievances, the Iranian letter proposes the same:
Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democraticAnd there we have it. Liberalism and Western style democracy have led to war and invasion; international institutions that do not protect the people; many various abuses of human rights which are detailed; and a departure of mankind from the revealed design of God, as shown to us primarily through Koran, but also reflected in the other Abrahamic religions.
systems.
We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point – that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to join them?”
Mr President,
Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.
We are invited to join this progress to a world in which the will of God prevails over all things. That is the beginning and the end of the outreach: we may submit. Won't you, Mr. President, accept this invitation?
In addition to being a declaration of open defiance, the letter is a cunning first strike. We have heard much discussion of funding or reaching out to the Iranian opposition groups, in an attempt to exploit cracks in Iranian society that might lead to internal discord and disruption. Much discussion, but we have done nothing.
The Iranians have not only spoken, but acted. This letter could not be clearer in its attempts to exploit the cracks in Western society: between Europe and America, between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, pro-Israeli and anti-Israeli; it calls libertarian and human rights advocates, Christians and even Jews, to join Iran in defiance of the Western failures to perfect the human condition. It references every claim made by any dissident organization against America's policies in the world. It works them together, and almost makes it sound rational to believe that the Iranian way -- and the Taliban's way! -- could point to a better world, with fewer evils, than this nasty abusive democracy.
This is a call to arms not just for those who might think Allah the enemy of America, but for those within the West who think America is the enemy of Europe, of their social program, of their politicis -- even to those, within America, who would oppose Bush. It is a call for an end to Western style democracy and liberalism, and the transition of the world to the service of God. It is at once a declaration and a manifesto, an attack and a defense, a statement of principles for Islamists and a stroke designed to shatter the West along our fault lines.
My respects to a master of the art. We shall see if we have any who are wise enough to reply. Or even, to understand.
POW-MIA
Greyhawk points to an article from the Boston Globe against the POW-MIA flag. Hawk notes that the article attempts to paint the flag as being a kind of mechanism to demonize the left so the right can win elections.
The article ends on a note of conspiracy:
No wonder the grief-struck flag refuses to go away. When we Americans behold that silhouetted bowed figure -- the prison tower, the barbed wire -- we may feel the pointed shame anew, but now we recognize the unknown image. We ourselves have become the prisoners of war; it is our own government that has taken us captive. The black flag at last belongs to all of us.I suppose the author doesn't know anyone who actually flies one of these flags, or he wouldn't dare say such a thing. I know a few men who do: some Vietnam veterans, some bikers, and families of those who did not come home. I don't think they'd much like him saying that the figure on the flag represents "all of us," we poor suffering Americans imprisoned by our evil government.
I think they only wish that their missing loved ones, or friends, were here to suffer with us.
This kind of rhetoric is exhausting. I'm tired of hearing Hollywood stars gripe about how dissent is stifled, as they give another anti-war, anti-administration speech and then go to cash their next million-dollar paycheck. I'm tired of hearing professors gripe about the crushing of their freedom to criticize the government, which criticisms still end up crossing my desk every single day, while their authors are punished with tenure and gold-plated benefits plans. I'm tired of hearing US Senators, who are paid fortunes out of the public dole to do nothing but talk, complaining about how hard it is to express opinions that draw criticism from the public. And I'm tired of journalists like this guy whining about how he 'understands' what it's like to be a POW, because he has to live in Bush's America.
Dissent can be -- not necessarily is, but can be -- patriotic. Whining is neither patriotic nor acceptable. Good gracious, people. Grow some perspective.
CENTCOM Sends
Sgt. Gehlen has another message he'd like to bring to your attention. CENTCOM has released new translations from captured insurgent documents on its "What Extremists Are Saying" website. You can read them here.
Cooking Out
The last few days I've been eating elk steaks. No, sadly, I didn't find time to go hunting out West. I got a whole bunch of elk from a friend. It's good stuff.
I never stopped cooking over an open fire all winter, but with the Spring here I'm back to doing it almost daily. By summer, I prefer to cook outdoors as a way of keeping the heat out of the house. In the spring, though, it's just for the sheer pleasure of being outside under the blue sky.
Edward Abbey wrote, "It's true: Every time you kill an elk, you're saving some cow's life." It is true. Elk can be used almost exactly like beef, but (like bison) is much leaner. Game meats (like skirt or flank steak) do reward extra preparation, however. If you're not used to cooking with them, here's some advice:
Take some time to score both sides of the meat in a cross-hatch fashion, so that both cuts go against the grain of the muscle. That is, find the grain of the muscle, turn your knife 45 degrees, and cut that way. Then, cut at right angles to your first cuts. With game, you want deep scoring and lots of it.
You'll want to marinate the meat in something that will break down the fibers further, so it will be tender and delicious rather than tough. Lemon or lime juice works well; garlic isn't bad. Any marinade you use on fajitas will work well; so will most barbecue marinades. Here are a couple that I like:
Marinade #1: Make a paste of minced garlic and black pepper, cut with lime juice to keep it just a little fluid. Once you've scored the meat, work the paste into the scoring. Marinate 2-4 hours or overnight as you prefer.
Marinade #2: 1/4 cup lemon juice, 1 cup of your favorite barbecue sauce, extra garlic to taste. Pour over steak, then turn the steaks over and brush the extra into the scoring on the top side. Marinate 4-5 hours or overnight.
Either or do, or many others. The key is to get some sort of acid in there, to break down the muscle fiber.
I grilled elk steaks two days ago, using something like Marinade #2. The leftover steaks got cut up into fajitas, which I've almost finished off now. Elk goes well with pale ale, or most any kind of richly flavored beer. You'll have to ask someone else for a wine selection.
CA Done
If any of you were interested, Kim du Toit has posted the results for his Crossing America II game. Here are the results for knives, handguns, and long guns.
Doc and I both wanted a levergun and single-action revolver in .45 Long Colt, and differed on the knives. It appears that the "standard" choice was a Marlin levergun in .44 Magnum, with a matching S&W or Ruger revolver (double-action by preference, but with the Ruger Blackhawk coming in stronger than my own Vaquero/New Vaquero choice). Kim himself went with a levergun/revolver combo, in .357 Magnum.
My final thoughts on the subject:
.44 Magnum is a fine choice, at least as good as my own choice of .45 LC. The .44 Magnum is one of the most versatile rounds available: you can get it in super-stiff, big-game hunting cartridges, or in stepped-down versions (like Winchester Silvertips) that are suitable for human foes. With a wise selection of ammunition, you could address anything from grizzly bear and buffalo to white-tailed deer or violent enemies.
.45 Long Colt is almost as versatile, and in fact isn't that different from .44 Magnum in most respects. (Here's a discussion from the Firing Line on the subject of just how similar the two are.) Either is a good choice for an all-around firearm. If you're planning on following the thought experiment out to the point of "picking the only two guns you'll ever need," .44 Magnum may be a better choice because it's easier to find commercial loads to suit you; but on the other hand, it's harder to carry a S&W M29 concealed than a Ruger New Vaquero. I'll stick with .45 Colt.
Finally, Kim's choice of the Uberti replica Winchester '73 decided something for me. I didn't pick an Uberti because I've never fired one, but according to Kim's description it's just what I'd want in a rifle. The next time I can afford a long gun, I will be buying a '73 in .45 Colt. It sounds precisely right.
Hope you had fun.
12:10
A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.To me, the best meaning of that has always been that "You can best know a man by meeting his dog." Or by watching a dog meet him.
Yet, tonight, I remember the other meaning. See comment four.
Life & Death
I returned to Shenandoah National Park today. Bruce Dearborn Walker wanted to know if last week's missing hiker was found. He was: they located him shortly after I broke contact with Search & Rescue, but it took four more hours to get him out of the forest and to a hospital. The rangers tell me he's recovering.
While in the park, I took the Limberlost trail. "The Limberlost" is the name that was given to a stand of giant hemlocks that were saved from loggers when the park was created in the 1920s and 1930s. These giant hemlocks, some three hundred years old, are mentioned in the signs that describe the trail to prospective hikers. Three hundred years! And we are a nation of but two hundred and thirty.
So said the signs. The website is more up to date:
The trail passes through forest and a stand of mountain laurel - stunningly beautiful when it blooms in June. The forest is ever-changing! Once tall hemlocks and oaks shaded this trail, but most have been killed by insect invaders: the wooly adelgid and the gypsy moth. Recent storms have felled many of the dead trees. Today, notice what lives, including birches, maples, white pines.Whistling past the graveyard, that business: "The forest is ever-changing! Notice what lives!"
The most prominent feature of the trail is still the hemlocks. They have not left. There lays a massacre, corpses sawn apart and heaped together to clear a trail. Living trees cling to the distant edges of the mounds, a shocked and silent crowd. Green things grow among the fallen giants, but only children: weeds, shoots, and little more.
Other things shelter in the fallen trees, insects and hungry birds. I watched a dark-winged one rustling among the dead branches, having worked his way to earth to feed, and now battering his way through the dried and brittle bars that kept him from the wide sky. He was hungry, and did not mind how he found his dinner.
The hemlocks were a treasure of the park, and of the nation. We saved them because we loved them. We defended them with the might of our laws, and the wealth of our treasury. Nothing that the United States of America could do for them was ever left undone.
In the end, all we could do was saw up their fallen trunks, push them aside, and hope for their children. The forest reclaims its own, and we know it grows anew. We shall have another such grove: in three hundred years.
This morning, this item on the BBC caught my eye:
Builders who drank a barrel of rum at a house in southern Hungary had a nasty surprise when they got to the bottom and found a pickled corpse.
--Uh, guys, this is an old urban legend, variations on which, you can see here at Snopes.com.
I remember reading about this one in college in Jan Brunvand's book, "The Baby Train and Other Lusty Urban Legends."
My in-laws send me stories like this all the time. Cheap enough entertainment, I suppose.
Amnesty
Amnesty International is one of those organizations I really want to like, but find I can't take seriously. I want to, because I think they are trying to point to serious issues that we need to address more effectively than we have done. Their recent report claiming widespread US torture is an excellent example of the problems that afflict them.
I'm not an advocate of torture, or inhumane treatment. Far from it: I think the perpetrators of the Abu Ghraib crimes should have been executed by firing squad, a position I've held since the story broke. The Geneva Conventions, I believe, are a shield that protects us as much as our enemies -- they shield our souls.
They also permit the summary execution of several classes of persons, including unlawful fighters such as terrorists. They are entitled to have their status lawfully determined first, but after that, they may be shot. So may spies (i.e., fighters who abandon uniforms or other heraldry, to hide themselves among the population they wish to harm -- men like, say, Moussaoui).
Amnesty isn't interested in applying the Conventions as they stand, but in pursuing an agenda that I would describe as, "Opposition to all forms of cruelty at all." That's really sweet and noble, honestly, and I find it a genuinely touching idea. It is not, however, an ideal that can be achieved or that should be pursued in the practical reality in which we live.
It's not just that they can only find 34 suspected cases of criminal deaths, out of tens of thousands of people America has had to detain in the process of fighting two insurgencies on two continents over nearly five years. Amnesty begins its report, "Evidence continues to emerge of widespread torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees held in US custody in Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Iraq and other locations." Right off the bat, we're in trouble: "Torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" means that what is widespread isn't "torture," but "torture, or several other things we're going to conflate with torture even though they really aren't torture at all." Things like isolation of prisoners.
Power & Wishful Thinking
By all means, let's have a debate about whether or not we want the US government to engage in waterboarding, or sleep deprivation, or psychological operations against prisoners. Let's have an honest debate about it: Do we want our government doing these things? Of course not. I don't think anyone reading this actually desires to fund a government that practices such techniques.
Do we want to leave our soldiers vulnerable to plots these people may know about, however, simply because we'd rather not have the government deprive them of sleep, or use dogs to frighten (but not hurt) them? Do we want to leave our families vulnerable? Do we want to be able to crack militant rings that could, left intact, lead to the destabilization of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the waste of our dead soldiers' sacrifice, a return to tyranny over the lives of the innocent in those regions? Well, no, we very much don't want that either.
That debate is still very much worth having, and I think we should pursue it in a fuller way than we have managed so far. Unfortunately, we've ended up with the debate disengaging just as it was begun, and most participants retreating into one of three Wishful Thinking camps:
Wishful Thinking Camp #1: I choose to believe that the United States only approves techniques that are morally appropriate to be used whenever they are used.
Wishful Thinking Camp #2: I choose to believe that these various techniques aren't effective or reliable, and so that we suffer no penalty for outright forbidding their use.
Wishful Thinking Camp #3: I choose to believe that our moral purity, should we set aside these distasteful practices, would be persuasive to enough to non-Americans that we would win the GWOT by default.
None of these are useful.
Camp #1: We ought to be genuinely bothered by creating and paying for a government that uses even psychological force to break the will of men. America is about freedom of conscience if it's about anything. You ought to be free to be whom you want: "Drunk or sober, just as he has a mind," as John Wayne put it in The Alamo. It's one thing to kill a man who has elected to be your enemy: you're letting him live out his life just the way he chose.
It's another thing to break his will. If you're not bothered by the idea of masked US government operatives breaking a man's spirit to compel his cooperation, you should be. We may have to do it sometimes, but we ought to be thoughtful and careful about when and how.
Camp #2: The actual evidence runs strongly against the idea that torture is not effective. Froggy described an actual waterboarding operation at his blog; separately, he asserts that it is 100% effective as an interrogation technique. Soldiers of the French government won in Algeirs through a policy described by a French military officer as "systematic torture."
It would be easier if the truth was that torture didn't work. Sadly, it does.
Camp #3: There is no evidence that our enemy can be persuaded by our moral purity, because it does not have the same standards for judging ethics. Aristotle pointed to the problem of comparitive ethics when he spoke of the absolute necessity of a proper upbringing to even understand the terms of the debate. Put more broadly, if you were raised in a distinctly different culture, you won't see the same things as moral or immoral that we do. When I was in China, I was outraged to see how women -- especially pregnant women -- were shoved out of the way by thoughtless, swaggering men. The men were deeply insulted when I would insist on my way of doing things -- they felt it was an insult to all Chinese manhood that I would give my seat on a crowded bus to a pregnant lady, when there were men who could sit down.
By the same token, what some of us interpret as high-mindedness will be interpreted as weakness by our enemies. It will be interpreted as weakness and damnable weakness by those we should care about trying to persuade: the populations being terrorized by the Taliban and al Qaeda in Iraq. They will not be pleased to know that we have been letting terrorists go, the day after another VBIED goes off in a street filled with their children. They will want to know why we didn't torture and kill, if that was what was necessary to protect their families.
On Solutions
In order to flesh out its report, which would be rather short if it stuck to the military cases, Amnesty moves to America's civil prison system. Doubtless this is a genuine problem afflicting America; I have been bothered by it for years. I was a little shocked, however, to see the following item listed as 'practices amounting to torture':
10. Long term isolation in super-maximum security confinement.We are thinking right now about the Moussaoui case. Amnesty, naturally, is opposed to the death penalty. It turns out they are just as opposed to supermax prisons. What shall we do with people like Moussaoui? We are told that we cannot morally kill them, and we cannot morally isolate them.
Thousands of prisoners, many of them mentally ill, continue to be held in long-term isolation in "super-maximum security" facilities, sometimes referred to as Security Housing Units (SHU Units) or Extended Control Units (ECU).(121) At least 30 states and the federal government operate more than 50 such facilities which include entire prisons or units within prisons.
What, then? Peggy Noonan's fears were right:
I hope he doesn't get to use his hour a day in general population getting buff and converting prisoners to jihad. I hope he isn't allowed visitors with whom he can do impolite things like plot against our country. I hope he isn't allowed anniversary interviews. I hope his jolly colleagues don't take captives whom they threaten to kill unless Moussaoui is released.I'm sympathetic to a lot of the problems Amnesty identifies -- the shackling of pregnant women, the moral issues of isolation. What is needed, though, is not an identification of ethically troubling issues. It is some solutions to those issues.
If we cannot kill these men, they will continue to work against us in large ways and in small. If we cannot isolate them, the ways open to them will be larger. If it is immoral to do either, what must we do? Set them free? That creates even larger opportunities for them to harm us, our families, and our nation; and the families and nations we are trying to help stabilize, so that they will not become breeding grounds for future terrorists.
It is enough to say that a man should do nothing wrong, and that he should seek atonement when (because of human nature) he does anyway. It is not enough to say that a nation should do nothing wrong. In national matters we must seek the greatest good among many unavoidable evils, and particularly in war -- a war we did not choose, but which has been prosecuted against us for a generation by Islamist fighters from Iran to Beruit to 9/11, to future battlefields not yet named.
No, I don't like torture either. Nor waterboarding, nor isolation of prisoners, nor the existence of prisons. I'm opposed to all those things, also.
But we do not get to choose whether or not there will be evil in the world. The world hates us; evil is native to it, and to that part of us that belongs to it. All we get to decide is how to try to minimize the evil afflicting us.
You can engage that discussion, or waste your breath.
Juan Cole
I'm sure most of you have been following the Hitchens / Cole fight. An interesting question arising from it is this: Juan Cole presents himself as a "real expert" on Farsi. Is he one?
Winds of Change has a lengthy comment from an Iranian blogger questioning Cole's competence.
Another interesting question: Cole speaks for himself and his friends when he says that, "We are not going to let you have a war against Iran." How, precisely, does he mean to stop one? It won't be with an argument like the one he posts at his site -- one that combines accusations that America is murderous and violent with photographs selected to portray American soldiers as torturers or victims of bombs. Take that argument before the American electorate, and you'll be lucky if you're not tarred and feathered. You certainly won't be capturing Congress with it.
His advice to his opponents is, "Sit down and shut up." That would be a little on the arrogant side even for a professor addressing a problem student from the lectern. This while supposed excellence in the professorship, we must remember, is Cole's claim as to why his arguments should be weighted as more important than others'.
If such an argument would barely do in a classroom, it certainly won't do in a democracy. "My opponents should shut up" isn't very persuasive, even when it's true. Combined with "America is a weak and evil country and we should be ashamed of her," I expect that Cole-as-spokesman would be a disaster for the anti-war movement.
So -- how exactly is he going to stop anything?
Froggy @ B5
Good news -- BlackFive's place has been improved by the addition of a new co-blogger. Matthew Heidt has come aboard. Mr. Heidt is a former Navy SEAL and better known as Froggy of Froggy Ruminations. FR, long a favorite blog of mine, has been inactive for some time. It's good to see the Frog back up and running.
MilBlogger Cancer
The Mudville Gazette asks for prayers for a fellow MilBlogger, Greg of Greg Note's. The guy has just returned from duty in Iraq, only to discover that he's come down with a form of cancer. Details are available through the first link.
CNN stinks
There is a scene, early in the classic Disney movie Lady and the Tramp, in which Lady brings back the newspaper with the front page torn up. "Have you noticed, Darling," her master says to his wife, "that ever since we have Lady we see less and less of those disturbing headlines?"
Since I've abandoned cable TV -- any TV, actually -- these last two years, I find my sense of anger about things has greatly subsided. I was reminded of why tonight, while dining out at a place showing CNN.
When I arrived, there was a piece on the Moussaoui verdict. Several experts were discussing the verdict, and explaining that the jury had decided against the death penalty because nine of them believed he had been abused as a child.
It's a little more complicated than that, but no time for such things! We have to move on to the next story:
War on the Middle Class!
What? Oh, well, it turns out to be a story about high gasoline prices. Which aren't an economic story because economics is, like, really boring and stuff. So it needs to be a war story. That's a good angle. OK, no more time, quick, on to the next story...
Broken Borders!
What's this story about? I quote the tagline from memory: 'States are being forced to fight the immigration battle alone.'
It's a war! On immigration! No, wait, immigration IS the war! On us! Or, wait, no, because we need to work in a sympathetic portrait of a migrant, so that symbol won't work, but maybe...
No time! We have to move on to the next story! On government corruption!
Good Lord. No wonder people are totally upset with the country.
So, let me see here: the gas price story is not an economic story but the story of a war against the middle class (being waged by whom, exactly?); the illegal immigration story is not a law enforcement story, but the story of a war being fought by the states (and who is the enemy?); but the story of Zacarais Moussaoui, who entered the country as part of a terrorist organization and plotted to kill thousands of innocent people, that's not a war story, no...
...it's just a law story. One that shows the kind heart of the American people, standing up for a poor abused boy from France, and righteously rejecting the cruel and unusual "death penalty."
I will never watch TV News again.
CENTCOM & Bloggers
John Donovan has this post in which he proposes to test CENTCOM's PAO/blogger system. He'd like you to read up and submit questions, which I encourage you to do.
2 from Mudville
Thanks to the always-excellent Dawn Patrol, two links with comments.
First, former Marine officer Chester agrees on hiring Blackwater to deal with Darfur. He has some interesting options on how to pay for it, including what he calls "the PayPal option."
I have to say that I like the idea. "Click here to stop genocide," the button would say -- and it would actually mean it. Not rhetoric, action, pushed down to the level where the individual can kick in ten or a hundred bucks and still make a difference.
Second, Bolton smacks Sy Hersh. And Kucinich:
BOLTON: I said I had not heard of the report and I didn’t intend to read the article in “The New Yorker.”Bolton is being himself, but I wonder if he knows he is echoing the Pentagon?
KUCINICH: If I gave you this article right now, walked it over, would you look at it?
BOLTON: I don’t think so, honestly, Congressman, because I don’t have time to read much fiction.
Economic Illiteracy
Tim Russert asks the hard questions:
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Secretary, if, if demand is up but supply is down, why are the profits so high?Supply and demand graphing must not have been on the curriculum at journalism school. Or, er, high school macroeconomics.
MR. BODMAN: For that reason.
(H/t: The Commissar.)
Chaplains
I read this story in the Washington Post, entitled "In the Hands of God." It's a good piece, in every sense of the word.
Well done. More like this, please.
Down Mexico Way
MilBlogger poet laureate Russ Vaughn sends one of his older, but still quite appropriate, works.
Down Mexico WayI have to say I think this is one of Russ' best efforts.
Try crossing our southern border; try going the other way,
To enter Mexico illegally for an extended, unlawful stay.
Ignore immigration quotas, all their visas and their fees,
And quietly slip their border, anytime you damn well please.
Just sneak in past the policÃa, ignoring Mexican laws;
You’ve a desperate need to improve your lot; you have a righteous cause.
With Evil Bush in power now, destroying your liberal order,
You’ve a right to seek asylum, to trespass their northern border.
Once there, speak English only and demand it in their schools;
Forget assimilation; make Mexicanos change their rules.
What right do these Latinos have to make you learn their lingo?
Tell those churlish campesinos¹ you’ve the right to remain a gringo.
Move right on in, live your own way, ignore their cultural norms,
And demand the use of English on all their official forms.
Free healthcare is, of course, your right; let poor peones² pay,
For bilingual health providers throughout your border-bending stay.
Be sure to have a baby just as quickly as you can;
A citizen in the family helps legitimize your clan.
Then have another three or four, or maybe six or eight;
Don’t worry how you’ll feed them, just demand help from the state.
Paisanos³ paying taxes may resent your reckless breeding,
And protest loudly to their states about your gringo kids they’re feeding;
“But it’s just our way,” is your excuse, “Brought from our Yanquà land.”
How dare they question gringo ways they’ll never understand?
So defend your Anglo ethos; yield not your Yanquà essence;
And demand a driver’s license to legitimize your presence.
Just so you know what you’ve done wrong in case of policÃa stops,
Insist the Federales must teach English to all cops.
Make Mexicans accept your ways, make them your pliant fools;
Demand a Yanquà culture course be taught in all their schools.
So what you paid no taxes; when you’re an old gringo who will care?
File for your Seguridad Social, after all, you’re due your share.
If all this sounds preposterous, an irrational expectation,
Dems are demanding it for Illegals now in our multicultural nation.
Russ Vaughn
¹Rube, hick, unsophisticated person
²Laborer, worker
³Citizen
Quagmire
There's an article in today's Washington Post that shows us the way to the First Great Chinese Quagmire.
Militants in Nigeria's volatile oil-producing region detonated a car bomb late Saturday and issued a warning that investors and officials from China would be "treated as thieves" and targeted in future attacks.A few weeks ago, Kim du Toit had a post about China and Africa. He wrote:
The threat came as Chinese President Hu Jintao returned home from a week-long tour of Africa in which he reached a series of deals securing access to oil and other resources to meet the needs of China's booming economy.... A spokesman for the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta said in an e-mail sent to news organizations that the car-bomb attack was "the final warning" before the militants turned their attention to oil workers, storage facilities, bridges, offices and other "soft oil industry targets."
Looks as though the Chinese are getting into Africa—several reports show them in Sudan, for instance—and now we’re getting noises that they’re going into Zimbabwe to “help out”, which triggered an article saying that the Zims should learn Chinese.He's right on both points: China, which is still dependent on foreign investment for it's own economics, doesn't have a lot of money to sink in any foreign investments of its own. It needs to get a substantial return, on average, for its investments to be worthwhile. (Their investment in American ports, for example, is probably wise.)
Some people may be alarmed by this trend. Not me.
What the Chinese are going to learn—and they don’t have a lot of money to throw at this—is the meaning of the phrase “Africa Wins Again”.
Further, much of Africa is mired in a culture that is the exact negative of what you need for successful investments. Kim offers an example of the pernicious effect of the African environment on business in the form of an expensive, Chinese-built hospital -- useless, because no one will come to it. Reason magazine had a lengthy but excellent article on the same topic. It pointed out that much of Africa is built around the idea that success comes from putting up roadblocks, so you can extort a toll on anyone trying to accomplish something:
The rot starts with government, but it afflicts the entire society. There’s no point investing in a business because the government will not protect you against thieves. (So you might as well become a thief yourself.) There’s no point in paying your phone bill because no court can make you pay. (So there’s no point being a phone company.) There’s no point setting up an import business because the customs officers will be the ones to benefit. (So the customs office is underfunded and looks even harder for bribes.) There’s no point getting an education because jobs are not handed out on merit. (And in any case, you can’t borrow money for school fees because the bank can’t collect on the loan.)The so-called "Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta" aren't any more concerned about liberation than Mugabe was when he used the same terms. It's about piracy: they see some money and -- rather than getting a stake in the prosperity by helping out -- they take up arms and build bombs to try and extort some of the wealth. In return, the government will demand more Chinese money to protect Chinese workers. The money will never quite be enough, however, because the government in Africa benefits from the low-level violence too: the existence of the MEND means China has to help pay for the expanded local military.
It is not news that corruption and perverse incentives matter. But perhaps it is news that the problem of twisted rules and institutions explains not just a little bit of the gap between Cameroon and rich countries but almost all of the gap. Countries like Cameroon fall far below their potential even considering their poor infrastructure, low investment, and minimal education. Worse, the web of corruption foils every effort to improve the infrastructure, attract investment, and raise educational standards.
"Africa wins again."
May Day
May Day used to be a day for celebrating the fullness of spring; the entrance into "the Cathedral of May," which in England in much of the Middle Ages was the most beautiful month of the year.
At some point it became a holiday for malcontents and Communists. Today we're apparently expecting some sort of pro-illegal immigrant protests in America, but that's not what I want to write about. I'd like to point to a more traditional form of May Day protests -- the labor protests in Indonesia.
Workers across Asia rallied Monday to press for better factory conditions and higher wages, often encountering a heavy police presence and, in some places, outright resistance.Measure of Effectiveness time: how does this compare with the latest anti-American protests? The anti-American movement in Indonesia had the advantage of a big-time vistor to rally their numbers: the US Secretary of State, Dr. Rice. She was there in person, one of the architects of US policy on Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the chief warmongers. How was she greeted?
Demonstrations were planned in major cities across Indonesia, with up to 50,000 people expected in the capital alone to protest government plans to revise a labor law. The new law would cut severance packages and introduce more flexible contracts that would chip away at worker security.
"Don't change the law," thousands of laborers chanted at Jakarta's main downtown roundabout, as others arrived in buses and trucks, waving green, yellow and red flags and banners expressing their demands.
Fearing violence, about 13,000 police were deployed on the streets, some carrying riot shields and manning water cannons, said police chief Maj. Gen. Firman Ganisaid.
On March 14, 2006 approximately 200 people staged a demonstration in front of U.S. Embassy Jakarta in protest of the visit of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The demonstration, organized by two hard-line Muslim organizations, Hizbut Tahrir (HTI) and Pembela Islam (FPI), featured a procession of speakers who denounced the United States and Secretary Rice as "anti-Muslim" and "terrorists."The protest lasted three hours, and ended without violence.
Shirley Temple
TC Override and FbL have posted the "Shirley Temple" photo featuring Uncle Jimbo. Jimbo's a good sport.
Coal. for Darfur
Stephen "Feddie" Dillard, founder of Southern Appeal, has a coalition blog with liberal blogger Eugene Oregon that is organized around trying to track the massacres in Darfur. The Coalition for Darfur is thus a doubly noble effort, both in that it is directed at the relief of human misery, and that it is one of the last remaining efforts in which liberal and conservative Americans are still working together towards a common good.
Feddie would like you to be aware of it, in case you are looking for news from there.
Don't Tease Rangers
I went hiking today in the Shenandoah National Park. I took the wife and little boy, and we went out from Elkwallow down the Jeremy's Run trail, out towards Neighbor mountain. We did a small part of the Appalachian trail as well.
We'd originally planned a hike farther south, but when we got to the park, they'd posted signs noting that a hiker had gone missing. We redirected our hike in part to aid the search and rescue operation underway. The fellow was an older gentleman with Alzheimer's disease, who had (sensibly enough under the circumstances, I thought) gone off into the deep wilderness by himself for a while. "LOST" is an honorable way to go; a straw death at the hospital, unable to recognize or speak to your family? No, a wilderness hike seems just the thing.
In any event, we went about four miles, and didn't find any sign of the fellow. We did find fully six Search and Rescue Teams (SRTs) climbing around the mountains. The thing about SRTs is that they are pulled in from all over the area when there is a lost hiker. As a result, none of them had been on these trails before. Every single team but one stopped us to ask for directions.
I dutifully directed them to where they needed to be to link up with the rest of their operation, but I have to admit that I started to find it funny. These guys in emergency gear and impressive badges, several of them with search dogs, would stop and pull out maps, and beg for some idea where they might be.
The sixth team I directed, we were already most of the way back up to Elkwallow and they were just starting down. I gave them the directions faithfully, but I couldn't resist adding this: "And if you get lost, don't worry. There's a whole bunch of search and rescue teams down there."
The guy looked totally offended. "We don't -get- lost," he huffed, and he and his team pushed down the mountain.
It's unkind to laugh at people out doing good work. I tried not to, without much success.
Cowboy Obits
The life of the American cowboy is alive and well -- as proven, in abundant irony, by a pair of this week's obituaries. We lost a couple of men this week, both of whom had chosen the Western way as their life.
The first one was only a youth, killed while practicing for a rodeo. Stuart Mazanec took his mortal wound when a bronco rolled on him, bruising his heart. He was seventeen -- a young man who loved coyote hunting and riding. Tex Ritter wrote his eulogy long before he was born, poor fellow, in Blood on the Saddle. Sudden death has always been a part of the life, a life which therefore only honors the young men brave enough to choose it.
The other was Joe Beeler, the last of the founders of the Cowboy Artists of America. His creation lives on, and is doing quite well for itself. Mister Beeler died at the age of seventy-four, and he died well: suddenly, in the saddle, while helping a neighbor at branding time.
As always at such times, with such men, we mourn and celebrate at once.
Post Coverage
I see from this morning's Washington Post a piece of very good news in Iraq: the killing of al Qaeda's emir in Samarra.
U.S. troops tracked Hamadi al-Takhi al-Nissani, al-Qaeda's "emir" in Samarra, to a safe house north of the city Friday morning, the U.S. military said in a statement. As the soldiers approached the house, Nissani fled and was killed. Two other armed insurgents in the house were also killed, according to the statement.Either way is fine, really.
Police in Samarra who spoke on condition of anonymity gave a slightly different account, saying that the house was east of the city and that the three men were running to a getaway car when fire from an American helicopter killed them.
On Thursday night, U.S. troops also arrested Abdul Qadir Makhool, another al-Qaeda leader in Samarra, and released a police officer who had been kidnapped by the group, Maj. Jamal Samarraie, an officer at the provincial Joint Command Center, said in an interview.Good job, Post. Now, here's the bad news:
The U.S. military referred to capturing an armed insurgent in a statement on Friday but did not give the man's name or say precisely when he had been captured.
A) This article comes from page A10. On page A1? A story about difficulties training the Iraqi army.
B) Also on A1, there's this article on State Department statistics showing a spike in terrorist attacks in 2005. The spin on this is that it is bad news, and that Iraq represents about a third of all worldwide attacks.
Yes, it would be better if there were fewer terrorist attacks, because everyone simply put down their weapons and stopped fighting us. On the other hand, a rise in terrorist attacks -- if coupled with a sharp drop in other kinds of attacks -- can signal that the enemy has lost the strength to fight in any other way.
In 2003, we saw combat in Iraq featuring armies; in 2004, uprisings in cities and regions across the country, including both a Shi'ite insurgency led by Sadr and an al-Qaeda led insurgency in the west. Neither survived the US military, and in 2005 we saw mostly terrorist attacks and snipers.
That's the missing context. That is why a "spike" in terrorist attacks is not a sign of an insurgency waxing in its strength. It is the sign of an insurgency that is losing strength.
This is a major complaint with war reporting. We get the numbers -- the number of dead troops, the number of attacks, etc -- but no context for understanding the numbers.
COUNTERCOLUMN has yet more context for the situation.
Fran's
I haven't said much about the Fran O'Brien's story, because quite a few of the major MilBloggers seem to know a lot more about it than I do. I would like to point out, however, that this is the day on which a resolution is to be expected one way or the other.
Our friend FbL has done a lot of work on the issue, and I expect that Mr. and Mrs. Greyhawk will be tracking developments with their usual devotion. (Andi, who certainly deserves some credit here, says she's traveling today.)
Keep an eye on those sites, and if there's anything we can do to help at the last minute, I expect it'll be posted there.
Bill Roggio & Afghanistan
One of the bloggers I finally got to meet at I MBC was Bill Roggio. I've dealt with Bill enough online to consider him a friend, so it was good to have the chance to shake his hand.
I think we've all been impressed with the quality of his writing, and his embed in Iraq was of great use in getting a better picture of how things are going there. Now, Bill's wanting to go off to Afghanistan, either with the Marines or the Canadians.
One of the things about not being a "journalist" is that you don't get paid. You want to go off for a few months to do this kind of embedded blogging, you pony up the cash. For the trip, and for your family while you're away (and for the life insurance policy you'll want, just in case).
We've been talking about ways to improve our communications efforts. Bill is one of those ways. If you'd like to help him get to Afghanistan, and back to Iraq again later this year, he wouldn't mind your help.
Crossing America
Also at Kim's place, an interesting thought experiment. It's a repeat of an old game he played, which was popular. The rules are as follows:
You have the opportunity to go back in time, arriving on the east coast of North America circa 1650, and your goal is to cross the North American continent alone, taking as much time as you need. When/if you reach the opposite coastline, you’ll be transported back to the present day.Now, it's always dangerous for a married man to put down on paper answers to questions that could be translated, "What two guns and two knives do I think are all a man might need?" If that were all you needed for such an undertaking, you might find yourself invited to dispossess yourself of the rest of your collection -- in some moment of financial strain, perhaps.
Your equipment for this journey will be as follows (taken back in the time capsule with you):
-- enough gold to buy provisions for the first five days’ travel;
-- a small backpack containing some clothing and toiletries;
-- a winter coat, raincoat and two pairs of boots;
-- waterproof sleeping bag;
-- an axe;
-- a box of 1,000 “strike anywhere” waterproof matches;
-- a topological map, binoculars and a compass;
-- a very small toolbox, including a firearm cleaning kit and a few spares for your firearms;
-- and a U.S. Army First Aid kit.
Weapons:
-- ONE long gun (and 800 rounds, but no scope)
-- ONE handgun (and 1,000 rounds)
-- TWO knives
plus of course holsters/scabbards for them all.
Once you arrive at the starting-point, which can be on either coast, you’ll be given a horse, a mule and a dog—and apart from that, you’re on your own. Remember: you’ll be traveling through deep woods, open prairie, desert and mountains. You may encounter hostile Indian tribes and dangerous animals en route, which should be considered when you answer the following questions (and only these):
1. What long gun would you take back in time with you?
2. What handgun?
3. Which knives?
There are only a couple of rules.
1. Multi-caliber long guns are okay (drillings, combos, etc), but you’ll still only be allowed 800 rounds in total for that firearm. The mix is up to you.
2. Email your response to kim -at- kimdutoit dot com; subject: Crossing America II.
3. Try to keep your responses short.
I wasn't going to play, therefore, but Doc wanted my opinion on one of the knives, and so I found myself thinking it through. For what it's worth, I think Doc's almost exactly right on the firearms -- I would prefer a Ruger Vaquero or New Vaquero to a Single Action Army, because with the transfer bar safety system you can carry it with six rounds instead of five (in the old style Colt, you need to leave an empty chamber under the cylinder to avoid accidental discharges). The Rugers have an excellent reputation for durability, as well -- they are apparently indestructible.
I told Doc what I thought about the knives over at his site. I won't repeat the comments here, in part because you should go read his answers too.
Now, here are three additional questions, which I'm going to tack on because they're at least as interesting to me as the weapon considerations:
1) What kind of horse would you pick for the journey?
2) What kind of dog?
3) What kind of mule?
The answers to these questions will be as revealing as any gun-related ones (which you should email to Kim instead of me, anyway).
The guys over at OPFOR noticed this bit of news the other day: President Robert Mugabe is inviting those white farmers he ran off to ummm....come and farm the land they were run of of.
I'll bet that works out.
They also note that Algeria is buying billions of dollars worth of combat aircraft from Russia and wonders why.
I'll take a stab at an answer: Russia. Needs. Cash.
And while we're on the subject of supplying arms;
Trudy Rubin, a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, has written a column about the ongoing mess in the Darfur.
She asks: "Can an individual do anything to stop a genocide?"
I think so.
1. Get a gun.
2. Go to the Darfur.
3. Shoot janjaweed militiamen dead when they show up to rape, pillage and burn.
Three simple steps.
but nooo....Trudy says: "What's needed now is grassroots pressure on the White House. One million postcards, and one million people in the capitol April 30 might motivate the Bush team to lean harder on the AU, Sudan, China and Russia to approve a U.N. force."
Right. A UN force. Given the recent UN shenanigans in the Congo, I'm thinking that a UN force is going to be less than effective.
I say send them guns. Help them to help themselves.
Sexy Poll
We don't do sex on Grim's Hall much, but since I made an exception for the last item, I suppose we might as well get it out of our systems today. Cassidy links to this poll at the New York Post on the topic.
Some points:
"Only thirty percent of men prefer makeup on their mates; 50 percent would rather they ditch the lipstick and go unadorned."
Grim's comment: And rightly so.
"What is sexier on a woman.. great looks or a great personality?"
The results: "67 percent of men who own a gun place a premium on personality, compared to 61 percent of gun-free men."
Grim's comment: With a possible exception for certain foreign countries, there is no such thing as a gun-free man. Reference the question comparing lumberjacks to "metrosexuals" for a restatement of this concept.
Gotta Be Kidding
Kim du Toit wanted us to all link to this guy's webpage, as part of a bet the fellow is running with his girlfriend. I won't get into it; if you want to know, go see for yourself.
What's sad is that Grim's Hall has had only like 140,000 hits ever, all put together, in more than three years. This guy's got almost seven hundred thousand already. Obviously, it isn't philosophy, history, and warfighting theory that gets people to link to you. :)
I hope his girlfriend was serious about that contract, because I'm guessing she's going to have to pay up.
CENTCOM Sends
Sgt. Gehlen from CENTCOM PA would like you to take a moment to view this transcript of Zarqawi's latest statement. It's part of a CENTCOM effort to simply help the terrorists get their message out.
Well might we want to do so. I believe it is written that "you shall know a tree by its fruit." Zarqawi asks, "Where are the lions of al-Anbar?" But he should know: many of them followed him to Fallujah, where they boasted they would be the end of the United States Marine Corps. Zarqawi decided not to stay with them when the Marines came, but left them alone to fight America's best. There they are still, and will remain, until the world is made new.
Southern Man
Today's Day By Day cartoon made me suddenly remember why the name "Neil Young" means something to me. Neil Young, in his heyday, represented everything that was wrong with music -- men shouldn't sing in high-pitched, whiny voices, for example; songs should have a melody that is pleasant to hear.
I've always detested most of the songs to come out of the protest movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Partly it's that there was so little good music, and yet all my life I've been listening to greying protesters talk about these musicians like they were some sort of living gods. Well, here's the truth as I see it: during the same time, Johnny Cash was producing music that was not only good, it was insightful. Most of these "legends" couldn't produce music that was either.
The musical duel between Young and Lynnard Skynnard is one of the few enlightening things to come out of the 1960s/1970s protest songs. Not only is the contrast instructive as to the difference in cultures between the whiny protester and the man who loves his home, but one of the two songs is actually pleasant to hear. Pity more of these "legendary" rock musicians couldn't manage that!
Semper Fi!
In recognition of heroism... he was awarded a Mamluk sword, which our officers, such as Joel, carry today. Us enlisted grunts had to make due with a pretty fine Cavalry sword... the oldest weapon in the US military today (though I stood in front of a merit board and argued, successfully, that the Marine was the oldest weapon in the Marine Corps inventory).
Semper Fidelis Marines.
At the Range
I went out to the gun range the other day, with a full selection of firearms: rifle, shotgun, and revolver. It's a small but nice range, and when I got there I saw that the shotgun section was occupied by a group of young men with military haircuts. They turned out to be Army Reservists.
I went to the rifle range and zeroed my rifle, and then went over to the pistol range. By this time, the young soldiers had finished their shotgunning, and were also at the pistol range. They were shooting a stainless 1911 variant, and the youngest (and tallest) of the three was missing everything. At fifteen feet. From a rest.
"Dude, stop hitting the wood," one laughed, meaning the planks between which the targets were stapled. "No, really, stop it."
The young soldier with the .45 finally set it down, and told one of his companions to finish up the magazine. He was rattled.
I popped off a few rounds from my Ruger Single Six, which is a .22 revolver while the other soldier finished the last two rounds that were left. Then, as they were reloading, I called the young soldier over.
"Try mine," I said. "Sometimes the .45 can be a handful if you're starting out. A .22 barely has any recoil, and so it lets you get your skills down. Once they're polished, you can easily swap up to the .45 pistol."
He looked a little unsure, just as I remember being unsure when I was given similar advice at about the same age. I wanted to be able to handle the hottest rounds out of the heaviest calibers, like I'd been born to it! It seemed like an insult to start off on a .22, which was like a toy gun next to a combat pistol.
Still, here I was shooting it, and he could see from my target that I knew something about shooting. Must not be anything to be ashamed of, then. You could see it all play out on his face.
He loaded the revolver and went through a cylinder. It wasn't a good group, but they were all in the eight ring or better. He was obviously impressed with how well he'd done, once the recoil wasn't a factor.
"See?" I said. "You're shooting pretty well, now. Just practice with a .22 until you get your skills down, and then you'll have no trouble with the .45."
He looked at me and said, "Thank you, sir." That's all he said, but you could see the new confidence in his eyes. He'd put down that .45 feeling like a failure, but he put down the revolver feeling like a man.
I can't express how proud I was to help him, even in that small a way.
Now how do we do this?
Well, perhaps programs like this could be expanded, because they do stuff like this.
(How the hell do you get picked for this? I wanna go to Florida and get briefed by the deputy commander of CENTCOM.)
Or, I suppose, you could go here. And just follow the links.
Or, like I do, go here, and sign up for all the emails available.
My favorite? DOD Contracts. Check this out.
Synchronous Serial Personal Computer Memory Card. What. Is. That? And why does Special Operations Command want it?
And what is hairy buffalo?
Google it and find out.
What gets me about this is that its all out there already. Paid for. Like, if you're a US citizen, you paid for that website and the General's salary and all that. I want to know what I'm paying for, if nothing else.
And and look at this. Oh wow. What the fresh hell is that? The Colonel going back to the Kentucky state bar to figure out what the hell to do next? What are they doing down there? And this is all available. So much for secret trials. You can read the charges here. (its a pdf, be warned.) After reading that, I say shoot him.
Shoot. Him. Now.
Not that I expect to be consulted, but hey, I'll bet I know more about this case than Katie Couric does right now.
So back to the original point. Part of being an informed citizen is that you want to be informed in the first place.
New Links
I've put in a new section of links for people who attended the I MBC (First MilBlog Conference), and who weren't already on my link list. One of the great things about the I MBC was learning how many outstanding blogs exist, many of which I'd never encountered. A lot of people have commented about "putting faces to names," but for me a lot of the good was in learning that there were names I didn't know, or had only barely encountered before.
If you were there, and you want on the list, let me know.
Meanwhile, I notice that Jimbo and Andi are calling for II MBC. I'll certainly come if I can, but I have to laugh a bit at Jimbo's desire to hold it in Madison, WI:
State St. in the Mad City is world famous and Kev might as well be Mayor of it.I'm sure the second part of the line is true. Kev and I had some Guinness at Biddy's after lunch, and I can see how he'd be a fixture. He's a good guy, nihilist though he may be.
On the other hand -- "State St. is world famous"? This reminds me of when I lived in China, and all the little students who wanted to practice their English would come up to me. "Welcome to HangZhou," they would say, "a beautiful city that is famous in the world."
Yeah, sure it is, kid. Here's five mao, go away.
On the other hand, I can't think of anywhere better to hold it than Madison -- I hate cities one and all, and I don't suppose ya'll will want to hold II MBC at Yellowstone or Grandfather Mountain. Pity, but there we are.
The PAO
Over at Mudville, I mentioned in the comments a sidebar conversation several of us had with the CENTCOM PAO who showed up to talk with us. For ease of reference, here's most of what I said:
Really two things: the degree to which MilBlogs should be embraced by the military leadership and ways in which they can be; and also some friendly advice on how PA and IO can and must be improved.C4 asked me to expand on this, but I don't have much more to say about the particulars of what we discussed. I would like to reiterate that the PAO was a good guy, and although he came with talking points, he came to work with us. He seemed genuinely surprised by how much we'd thought about how the relationship should work, and I think both sides learned a lot from each other.
He came to talk to the first point, and got a bit blindsided by the degree to which we wanted to talk about the second. However, he was a good guy, and once he got out of his PAO "I need to turn this conversation back around to my talking points" mode and started to listen, which didn't take very long, he started climbing the learning curve fast.
My sense from several previous conversations is that we've got the guys in the field understanding what needs doing and how -- some of them are on the leading edge of developing these solutions. We've got the top level leadership, mostly, coming around -- Abizaid, Cartwright, Rumsfeld, and according to the PAO, Bush. We still have to move the hardest bunch, though, which is the middle level officers who are just removed enough from the war to be attached to regulations instead of effect, and just powerful enough to throw up bureaucratic walls that can stop things from happening even when the combatant commander wants it (e.g., "well, sir, the lawyers say..."). Once you can get that middle on board, you'll see things start moving fast in the right directions.
Our PAO also said the funding was finally coming on line, which I can believe. That will improve his capabilities -- so, if he also knows what to do with his newly funded capabilities, we can make things happen. One of the complaints I heard voiced was the degree to which MilBloggers have been "carrying the weight" of responding to charges, and it's true. If we can work together with PA, and especially if we can use their language resources to get these counterarguments pushed into the media space in the Muslim world (e.g., Malaysia, Indonesia, the Arabic world), we'll really be doing something to change the dynamic of the war.
What I would like to do, though, is describe the issues at work here and throw the floor open for comments. It's an area in which a wider degree of comment and involvement would be welcome -- not just by me, but according to the PAO, by Abizaid, Rumsfeld and Bush. They want to engage the MilBlogs, though they're still thinking about how to do it the right way. There are some legal and some ethical issues to work through, and a few practical ones also.
One issue at work is that there is a division in the military between two fields that overlap. There is a field called Public Affairs, and a field called Information Operations. These two fields are, as anyone who's dealt with bureaucracies will immediately understand, mutually hostile. This is precisely because their missions overlap at key points, and they are therefore constantly having to engage in turf battles for control over certain aspects of the operations, and the associated budgets.
Public Affairs has the mission of communicating with the public -- especially the American people. Their job is to explain the military's mission and perspective honestly and accurately, and objectively. They do this mainly by talking to the press, and therefore that's where their head is -- they spend their time thinking about how to remain credible with the press, how to build and maintain relationships with the press, and how to structure those relationships with the press (e.g., how to construct the embedding process).
Information Operations handles a wide variety of tasks some of which, like Public Affairs, deal with communicating messages from the military to a public audience. These missions are (in theory) distinct because they are designed not simply to explain what is going on, but to achieve some larger goal: PSYOPs are IOs, as is the tracking of mis- and disinformation. ("Misinformation," in military terms, is accidentally wrong information; "disinfo" is intentionally wrong information, that is being put out by hostile forces).
Whereas PA is "designed" only to convey accurate information, IO is "designed" to achieve some particular purpose. There are laws and rules governing military IO -- messages must be truthful, for example, and IO may not target Americans. As a result, there is a legal separation of IO and PA, as any messages that are meant to be communicated to the American public has to go through the PA stream. This often means messages that aren't designed for the American people, but which are likely to enter the global media stream and get back to Americans.
In a war against an enemy ideology, especially one that puts out anti-American propaganda, IO is cricital. It is also, increasingly, problematic.
Problem #1: All media is now global. An example: the IO whereby the Lincoln Group placed favorable (and true!) stories in the Iraqi press. Some of the stories got back to America, as did the larger story that they were doing it.
As a consequence, the sphere in which these kinds of IO can operate is increasingly small.
Problem #2: The interdepartmental infighting previously mentioned.
PA, for legal reasons, has to handle the coverage of messages that occur in the American media space. IO tracks mis/disinformation. A major thing that PA needs to be responding to is exactly that mis/disinfo: an example we talked about at the conference was the Willie Pete story. MilBlogs did a great job of responding to that in the English language media sphere. We can't do much in the wider European/Arabic/Southeast Asian sphere. Since so much of this deals with arguments that overlap into the American space, PA has to handle the response, either by pushing our messages out, or by pushing their own.
They need language experts for that, and they are competing for those language experts both with IO and with Military Intelligence.
Additionally, these responses need to understand the process of creating/pushing disinfo, as a lot of these messages are intentionally hostile. Responding to them, and predicting the next enemy message/counterpropaganda, is IO work. That's where the experts are in this field.
So, PA and IO really need to work in integrated closeness. Because they are legally required to be separate, however, the bureaucratic infighting destroys that cooperation and trust. This is a disaster.
Problem #3: Just as there is internal military competition, there are other agencies in the government that have similar missions. So, at the macro level, there's even more bureaucratic infighting. The CIA, State, and the NSC all have fingers in this pie. There is some overlap even though the missions are somewhat different (e.g., like military IO, the CIA can't target Americans; unlike either military IO or PA, the CIA can lie). The NSC is supposed to be coordinating between them, but... well, let's say there's room for improvement.
Problem #4: Because these kinds of IO are designed to manipulate the viewer -- although, again, only through honest messages -- they are instantly distrusted when they are revealed as such. PA wants the wall to remain up, not just because the law currently requires it, but because they think it adds to the credibility of messages coming from military PA.
Those are the problems, more or less.
Here are some thoughts of my own. I invite, and encourage, you to share your own in the comments.
A) The separation between PA and IO is counterproductive. Every PAO I've ever talked to has mentioned the benefit of having the wall; and yet every one has also allowed that all their messages are still taken as simple propaganda by the media, and to some degree by the public at large.
If that's true, there is no advantage to the military of having a split between the operations. There are serious disadvantages, but no advantages. If everything you write is assumed to be propaganda anyway, you may as well take advantage of having the propaganda / misinfo / PSYOP people on board to help you.
In addition, to a large degree the "wall" is an illusion. All group messages are designed to manipulate the receiver -- otherwise, there is no reason for an organization to convey a message. A man might tell a stranger something kind for no particular reason. A corporation will not. If a corporation says anything, there's a reason for it: to sell products, to improve public opinion of the company, to recruit talent, to lobby for desired changes of one kind or another. The military is in the same boat.
There is a strong public benefit -- as opposed to a military benefit -- from having strict rules about the type of manipulation that is acceptable. For example, we could say that we would approve honest messages from the military to manipulate American public opinion for the following reasons only:
1) To recruit or retain soldiers,
2) To defend the military in cases when there is mis/disinformation that would tend to slander it;
3) To defend the military's or the nation's honor (this differs from the above in that it isn't a question of the information being right or wrong; it might be a case where the military is countering an opinion from an antiwar or Communist organ. Such opinions may not be "wrong," but might still be unfair and in need of answer).;
4) To suppress enemy recruitment;
5) To explain a military operation, either in progress, completed, or about to get underway.
All such messages would have to be honest and truthful, but that is already the case. We might also wish to stipluate that the precise acceptable purpose be spelled out at the top of the press release/article (e.g., "The purpose of this article is to spur recruitment.") That would tend to increase credibility: instead of people suspecting that you were trying to manipulate them, they would know you were, and furthermore what you wanted. Understanding that up front, they could greet the message as an honest communication, rather than a suspect one.
There are other difficulties that would have to be overcome, but I don't see that the separation is helpful to our war efforts.
B) PA should be able to engage the blogosphere. Currently they are structured around the media, as mentioned -- it's what they have mostly done for decades, so that's where their heads are. Ask Bill Roggio what that means for a blogger who wants to embed, say, without being a credentialed "journalist."
By the same token, PA should be able to pass useful messages from the blogosphere (esp. MilBlogs) through to other populations. They would need to figure out whether to rewrite but attribute (e.g., issue a press release saying, "We are here responding to the following wrongful claim of war crimes. Much of the investigation was produced by the Mudville Gazette"), or to simply start translating and publishing a "best of the MilBlogs" paper (as many Muslim countries are not as wired as ours) in local languages. I like the second idea much better.
C) One suggestion I made to the PAO was that its press releases need to be longer. MilBlogs will carry them, even though the MSM mostly excerpts (and misunderstands, so badly excerpts) their contents.
A good press release meant to communicate with Americans needs to remember that the average American has no military background. The message should therefore explain the meanings of all military terms, and give a basic tactical/strategic context and explanation of the subject of the release. In that way, we can begin to educate Americans about the business of the military, as well as conduct some very necessary public education in military science and history.
An example is Operation Swarmer. The press release referred to 'the largest Air Assault since...' etc. Neither the media nor most Americans knew what an air assault was; and more to the point, they didn't know what it signified. They interpreted it as a sign of major hostilities, when in fact it was nothing of the sort.
We've got to educate Americans about basic strategy and tactics, and remember to explain the context of any current conflict. This is not only important for mantaining public morale. It's important because in a 4th Generation conflict such as this one, the odds are that the enemy will bring the war home to us from time to time. We don't just need to start developing a citizenry that is engaged in the war. We need to start developing a citizenry that knows how to think about war.
Comments are encouraged.
2006 MilBlogs
I'll post a fuller review of the First MilBlogs Conference later, but I will say a few things right up front:
Matty O'Blackfive is a prince of a fellow, and if you haven't heard his story about the wedding, you should make him tell you.
Uncle Jimbo is a really great guy.
Bill Roggio is heading back to Afghanistan (and Iraq, I gather), as you may know. It was good to meet up with Bill, as I've written at his site from time to time.
TC Override has excellent taste in music. He got to the jukebox at Finn Mac Cool's, which is right across from Eighth and Eye, and impressed the whole place.
I met Holly Aho, who is indeed a wonderful person just as you'd imagine; and also the Red Headed Infidel, whose paratrooper stories were almost as good as Matt's. By the way, Doc, I referred her to you for a second third opinion on a Kimber; she's apparently in your neighborhood.
Finally, the officers at Op-For asked me about our own Eric Blair. "Don't you have a guy called Eric Blair writing over there?"
"Yes I do," I said.
"Is he here?" they wanted to know.
As far as I know, he wasn't, so they asked me to pass on this message:
"He comes over and argues with us all the time, and @#$@#, he always knows better than we do. Ask him to say, just once, 'Good post, guys.' Please!"
Consider it done.
Political Economy and Justice
In recent news, an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency has been fired for leaking classified information to the press. (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin.)
Before I learned anything about the material leaked (or the identity of the leaker), I remembered that I'd seen commentary about leaked information--both here at the Hall and elsewhere.
The complaint has always been that any low-level person who releases classified data to anyone faces stiff fines, imprisonment, and loss of security clearance. However, people who are politically well-connected are shielded from such problems when they leak.
In this particular case, a politically-connected leaker appears to have been brought down. (If we can trust the leak that told the NBC about this...)
This is indeed a sign of hope that sanity might return to the treatment of classified information.
Opposition to this possible return to sanity could be manifold, though. From my long-distance observation of life inside of the Capitol, an illicit economy exists with information playing the role of currency.
The commodity traded for is influence and prestige in the social structures of the Capitol. Thus, a high-level staffer (defined as someone who handles and sorts information that must be passed to the decision-makers in the department) has a lot of valuable currency on hand. Purchases of influence can be made by giving some of this currency--inside information--to a few other people who might have need of it. Reporters, Congressional staffers, and friends of friends of Cabinet members all fit the description of people who might need inside information. In return for valuable information, they become noticed as good sources. The other party to the transaction is encouraged to reckon it as debt, to be repaid with favors--information, budget decisions, influece on policy changes, and the like. This will keep the information flowing in the proper direction.
Reporters play a role in this economy--but they tender payment in terms of positive and negative spin, focus in a news story on events relating to the department/agency, and a tendency to ask for the "unofficially official position" on stories that relate to the leaker's department or agency.
Prosecution of leakers who deal in classified information is a good way to clamp down on these illicit transactions. Especially where the transaction produces costly repurcussions on the international stage.
Will this illicit economy ever be truly eliminated? That is something I won't hazard a guess about at the moment.
God Save the Queen
Mark Steyn celebrates Queen Elizabeth II's 80th birthday. Allow me to extend my respects to the lady. Some may object that an American owes no deference to the Queen of England, and that is true; and I expect Joel may wish to remind me, again, of the affection of my family for the Jacobite cause. True, all true.
Yet I will never forget that this queen had the Coldstream Guards play "The Star Spangled Banner" at Buckingham Palace after 9/11; or that she sang it, herself and from memory, at a religious ceremony not long after. So long as she is the Queen, may God defend her; and so shall I, according to my own poor power.