3 Good Pieces

Three Good Pieces, Part One:

Two via Arts & Letters Daily, and one via our friend Noel of Sharp Knife and Cold Fury. I'll post each of them separately.

The first is another piece by Mr. Luttwak. It is an argument for ignoring the Middle East. I post it for three reasons: because it strikes me as something that may somewhat redeem Mr. Luttwak's standing in the eyes of our Eric Blair; because it is well reasoned and contains interesting information; and because I almost agree with it.

Luttwak argues, correctly, that there are four basic mistakes intelligence and security analysts make with the Middle East. First, they assume that it has some actual power because its nations maintain large conscription armies; but in fact, all of these armies are effectively worthless.

[T]he [overestimation] mistake keeps being made by the fraternity of middle east experts. They persistently attribute real military strength to backward societies whose populations can sustain excellent insurgencies but not modern military forces....

[When calling Iran dangerous a]ll the symptoms [of that mistake] are present, including tabulated lists of Iran's warships, despite the fact that most are over 30 years old; of combat aircraft, many of which (F-4s, Mirages, F-5s, F-14s) have not flown in years for lack of spare parts; and of divisions and brigades that are so only in name. There are awed descriptions of the Pasdaran revolutionary guards, inevitably described as "elite," who do indeed strut around as if they have won many a war, but who have actually fought only one—against Iraq, which they lost. As for Iran's claim to have defeated Israel by Hizbullah proxy in last year's affray, the publicity was excellent but the substance went the other way, with roughly 25 per cent of the best-trained men dead, which explains the tomb-like silence and immobility of the once rumbustious Hizbullah ever since the ceasefire.

I dissent with Luttwak on one point: the modern insurgent fights what is principally an information war. If "the publicity is excellent" to the degree that his aims are achieved in the political realm, the insurgent has won regardless of the facts on the battlefield.

Similarly, the American forces have won every single engagement at the platoon level or larger since 2003; yet there are many idiot politicians and unthinking citizens who have let the insurgent propaganda war convince them that we are losing. If that conviction continues to the point that those politicians and citizens move to withdraw our forces, we will in fact have lost the war -- by choosing to surrender to a foe who never won a single engagement.

The second mistake Luttwak speaks of is the mistake of assuming it is easy to change these societies. This speaks both to those who thought that force would do it, and those who think that diplomacy and concessions will do it. "Backwards societies must be left alone," Luttwak states.

Which is almost right. In 2003, I wrote a piece called The Black Mail, which argued that change can come only slowly, and because these societies choose it for themselves. What is necessary, however, is to create conditions whereby the tribal/older societies engage with the modern world -- so that the natural tendencies of capitalism and liberty will destabilize and force changes over time.

That leads us to a middle position between Luttwak's "leave them alone" and the fierce and continual engagement and meddling advocated by both the hawkiest hawks and the doviest doves. Neither invading nor negotiating with Syria is necessary, for example; what is necessary is to win in Iraq, since we are there, and let them rub against it.

This was an argument made in the runup to the Iraq war, and one on which the principled could fall on either side. The pro-invasion argument was that, if we could begin to see democratic changes in Iraq, the consequences of seeing it and having contact with a democratic Arab state would spread through the whole region. That would reduce the likelihood of further wars in the future, and bring the whole region (slowly) into alignment with the wider world.

The other argument would be that, if this principle can work, invasion should not be necessary at all -- only further, deeper economic engagement. Though slower, there would be no need to fight a war at all. Thus, this principle would not justify an invasion.

I believe Luttwak would make that point, which is quite right. Insofar as the process may be speeded by war, yet that can only be a side benefit for war, not a justification for war. If a war is justified, it must be on other grounds.

Meanwhile, concessions and negotiations with a given autocratic regime can be justified only if they permit the increased economic/social engagement. If the concessions are only being used to prop up an existing regime's credibility or stability, they are not justified. For example, no concessions to North Korea are justified. The regime should be isolated and allowed to collapse, because it cannot be meaningfully engaged. The government refuses to allow it.

In the Middle East, that is not the case. Even in Saudi Arabia, there is some economic/social interaction, and Muslims (particularly Muslim women) are drawing from the ideas they find in those interactions. The society is changing in positive ways, if slowly.

The last mistake Luttwak discusses -- I am combining his "first" and "fourth" into an overarching "third" -- is the mistake of assuming that what happens in the Middle East is important. By this, he explictly means "including the Israel/Palestine conflict." I've always agreed with this posture: the idea that this conflict is overriding in its implications for the world is simply wrong. That it is widely believed does not change the fact that it is wrong, as Luttwak demonstrates.

The late King Hussein of Jordan was the undisputed master of this genre. Wearing his gravest aspect, he would warn us that with patience finally exhausted the Arab-Israeli conflict was about to explode, that all past conflicts would be dwarfed by what was about to happen unless, unless… And then came the remedy—usually something rather tame when compared with the immense catastrophe predicted, such as resuming this or that stalled negotiation, or getting an American envoy to the scene to make the usual promises to the Palestinians and apply the usual pressures on Israel. We read versions of the standard King Hussein speech in countless newspaper columns, hear identical invocations in the grindingly repetitive radio and television appearances of the usual middle east experts, and are now faced with Hussein's son Abdullah periodically repeating his father's speech almost verbatim.

What actually happens at each of these "moments of truth"—and we may be approaching another one—is nothing much; only the same old cyclical conflict which always restarts when peace is about to break out, and always dampens down when the violence becomes intense enough. The ease of filming and reporting out of safe and comfortable Israeli hotels inflates the media coverage of every minor affray. But humanitarians should note that the dead from Jewish-Palestinian fighting since 1921 amount to fewer than 100,000—about as many as are killed in a season of conflict in Darfur.

Strategically, the Arab-Israeli conflict has been almost irrelevant since the end of the cold war. And as for the impact of the conflict on oil prices, it was powerful in 1973 when the Saudis declared embargoes and cut production, but that was the first and last time that the "oil weapon" was wielded. For decades now, the largest Arab oil producers have publicly foresworn any linkage between politics and pricing, and an embargo would be a disaster for their oil-revenue dependent economies. In any case, the relationship between turmoil in the middle east and oil prices is far from straightforward. As Philip Auerswald recently noted in the American Interest, between 1981 and 1999—a period when a fundamentalist regime consolidated power in Iran, Iran and Iraq fought an eight-year war within view of oil and gas installations, the Gulf war came and went and the first Palestinian intifada raged—oil prices, adjusted for inflation, actually fell. And global dependence on middle eastern oil is declining: today the region produces under 30 per cent of the world's crude oil, compared to almost 40 per cent in 1974-75. In 2005 17 per cent of American oil imports came from the Gulf, compared to 28 per cent in 1975, and President Bush used his 2006 state of the union address to announce his intention of cutting US oil imports from the middle east by three quarters by 2025.

Yes, it would be nice if Israelis and Palestinians could settle their differences, but it would do little or nothing to calm the other conflicts in the middle east from Algeria to Iraq, or to stop Muslim-Hindu violence in Kashmir, Muslim-Christian violence in Indonesia and the Philippines, Muslim-Buddhist violence in Thailand, Muslim-animist violence in Sudan, Muslim-Igbo violence in Nigeria, Muslim-Muscovite violence in Chechnya, or the different varieties of inter-Muslim violence between traditionalists and Islamists, and between Sunnis and Shia, nor would it assuage the perfectly understandable hostility of convinced Islamists towards the transgressive west that relentlessly invades their minds, and sometimes their countries.

Quite right on every point. What does it all mean?

We devote far too much attention to the middle east, a mostly stagnant region where almost nothing is created in science or the arts—excluding Israel, per capita patent production of countries in the middle east is one fifth that of sub-Saharan Africa. The people of the middle east (only about five per cent of the world's population) are remarkably unproductive, with a high proportion not in the labour force at all.

Emphasis added. This has been the central problem with the model I advocate, that of change-through-economic involvement, particularly in Saudi Arabia. Many have no need to work because of oil revenue, and the government's use of that revenue to prop up the institutions of the existing tribal society. That has not prevented change, but it has slowed it to a remarkable degree.

I still endorse it, however, as slow change is better than no change at all; and better than fighting a region-wide war. We have committed to Iraq, for reasons beyond the reason of changing their society; and we must continue it for as long as necessary to win, because there is no set of options in defeat that is as good as the worst option that comes from success. America, having begun a war, must win it.

Luttwak here is on far more stable ground than in his last piece. His policy prescriptions are close to what I would advocate, even if I think he is drawn into error on a few points. I await your thoughts with interest.

Of course they're terrorists

Of Course They're Terrorists:

I steadfastly oppose using laws passed to address terrorism to prosecute crimes of other sorts. Terrorism really isn't a law-enforcement matter anyway -- they should be treated as members of groups of brigands or pirate companies, which is to say, as outside the protections of society and subject to the rules of customary international law, which allow the officers of any nation to execute them on capture.

So, what about ELF?

Prosecutors want Judge Ann Aiken to declare the group terrorists — something defense attorneys argue has never happened in 1,200 arsons nationwide claimed by Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front.

The defense argues that branding their clients terrorists is more about politics than sentencing.

"The Government has Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' political agenda to advance with this case, and nothing else to lose if the Court declines to impose the enhancement," wrote attorney Terri Wood, who represents Stanislas G. Meyerhoff.

Are ELF/ALF terrorists? What is a terrorist?

A) A group that is organized for the purposes of using violence to effect social or political change, and

B) Directs that violence primarily against noncombatants or economic infrastructure necessary to the normal operation of civilian economies, and,

C) Wears false or no uniforms, and obeys none of the customary laws of war, and,

D) Is not part of the authorized military forces of any nation.

Groups that meet A-C but not D are spies, but not terrorists; not that it matters, since the laws of war permit you to shoot spies summarily as well. Groups that meet A and C but not B and D are guerrillas, whose status is usually better under the laws of war. Groups that meet A, C, and D but not B are unlawful combatants, but not terrorists. Groups that meet all four tests are terrorists.

So, does ALF/ELF meet all these tests?

The fires targeted forest ranger stations, meat packing plants, wild horse corrals, lumber mill offices, research facilities, an SUV dealer and, in 1998, Vail Ski Resort. No one was injured, the defense notes in legal motions.

The case, known as Operation Backfire, is the biggest prosecution ever of environmental extremists, and has turned on its head the prevailing idea that arsonists have generally acted alone, said Brent Smith, director of the Terrorism Research Center at the University of Arkansas.

"We thought these people operated for the last 15 years under this kind of uncoordinated violence approach, just like the extreme right was doing — leaderless resistance," Smith said. "That's why this case is so very different."

Prosecution filings argue that though the defendants were never convicted of terrorism, they qualify for the label because at least one of the fires each of them set was intended to change or retaliate against government policy.

ELF and ALF are organized to set these sorts of fires (ELF alone claims 1,200 arsons), as a means of forcing social or political change. They are, then, devoted to the purpose of using violence and destruction for those purposes. That's test A.

They direct the fires not against soldiers or police, but primarily against civilian economic structures. The ranger stations are the sole exception, possibly, depending on whether the rangers are peace officers or fire watch officers -- both types of officers sometimes use the title "ranger." That's test B.

They wear no uniform. That's test C.

They are part of no military force. That's test D.

So, yes, they're clearly terrorists. They should be subject to the laws of war. The government has (unwisely) chosen to subject them to civilian law, as if they were part of rather than enemies of the society from which those laws and protections arise. That is a needless generosity on the part of the Federal government. That said, they are certainly entitled, if they are going to insist on treating this as a criminal matter, to prosecute it using laws against terrorism.

Hitchens/Sharpton

Hitchens/Sharpton:

Ouch. Hitchens seriously outclassed Sharpton. I think the fault is Sharpton's for not being up to his standard. It's a shame that G. K. Chesterton wasn't there to take the field against him instead.

The Media Are Fools

The Media Are Fools:

A great truth -- the global media has simply refused to stop and consider the question of whether they are being used by terrorists as weapons. Today's example: this story from the AP, entitled, "Extremist taunts his victims from prison."

The article explains that Eric Robert Rudolph, against whom I have a particular grudge because I lost a bet about him, has been writing pointless screeds and mailing them to a friend. The friend has a website, run in the name of the so-called "Army of God" group Rudolph claimed to represent; and the existence of that website has been tormenting the victims of Rudolph's bombings.

Here's the problem:

Nobody remembered that the so-called "Army of God" existed. Nobody was looking for the website. Nobody would have read the articles.

Thanks to the AP's story, many people will see these rants who would otherwise have been totally ignorant of their existence. The AP story says that one of the victims "is worried that Rudolph's messages could incite someone to violence against abortion providers."

Well, the odds of that just increased from "nearly zero" to "quite possibly." Those perhaps-inspiring-to-a-lunatic rants have just been drawn to the attention of millions.

Terrorist groups cannot survive, and certainly cannot win any of their goals, without the media oxygen on which they depend. The media, if they are a responsible group of people with any love for civilization, need to learn this lesson.

They need to stop being the real weapon of terrorists. They're free -- the 1st Amendment protects them. They've got to choose to stop. I don't know how to say it any plainer.

Getting Older

Getting Older:

Today I settled down to clean out my safe, the bottom shelf of which had become clogged with loose ammunition. After returning from the gun range, I sometimes just dump the unused ammo into the safe (to keep it secure) without taking the time to sort it by caliber and return it to the proper boxes. Quite a bit of it had accumulated over the years, so I finally got around to putting it all back where it belonged.

While doing so, I came across something interesting: a Viking dragon belt buckle, made by an old friend of ours at the Crafty Celts. I had no memory of buying it, or even thinking about buying it. It's just the sort of thing I'd like, though.

So I went to my wife, and asked if she'd bought it. She said she had no idea at all. The matter was a little puzzle for a while, until we checked the receipt and discovered that she had bought it back in October. Apparently, it was intended as a birthday present for me, or possibly a Christmas present.

So I got in May. Well, it's still nice. I can't say a thing about her forgetting my (birthday? Christmas?) present, though -- it's already the case that it seems wholly explicable to me. I'm not even all that old. But I'm old enough to understand.

Deepthought South Hate Crime 2

The South & Hate Crimes, Updated & Revised:

Deep Thought has updated his famous piece on the South and hate crimes, in the wake of last week's uproar involving Fort Pillow. He's a little angry about the rhetoric that was reflexively directed at Southerners just because some Congressman decided to quote a Civil War general, on the subject of military tactics.

I think the people who reacted so badly about the reference to Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest probably only know two things about him: that he was commanding at Ft. Pillow, and that he founded the KKK. They probably don't know that there are conflicting historical claims about what happened at Ft. Pillow, and they certainly don't know that Forrest ordered the KKK to disband when it stopped being about resisting Northern domination, and became about punishing blacks. He also was the first white man to address the Pole Bearers association, an early civil rights group, during which address he made a point of endorsing black civil rights, including voting rights.

In any event, he was a natural cavalryman -- and it's hard not to have some respect for a man who had more than thirty horses shot out from under him and kept riding into battle all the same. If you are talking about warfighting, as the Congressman was on this occasion, it's proper to cite him. The man knew something about it.

On Kung Fu

On Kung Fu:

I once had a professor, back in my days as a philosophy student, who asked me how anyone could claim both to be a Buddhist, and also a fighting man. As I recall my answer, it was something like: a Buddhist who is a fighting man makes no secret about it, and seeks no direct conflict. It's thus not his fault if someone else attacks him and gets hurt, in the same way that it's not a sword's fault if a fool should throw himself upon it.

That long-past discussion was brought to mind by this article on kung fu and its place in the Chan tradition. Chan Buddhism, which is the Chinese ancestor of Zen Buddhism, is also the progenitor of the kung fu systems of martial arts. Now, in San Francisco, we have an earnest American Buddhist trying to bring the Chan tradition here -- but the Chinese disciple he was sent by the main temple is more of a fighter than a priest.

D'Artagnan

Racehorse:

We haven't had any horse stories here in a while. We got a new horse in yesterday, a beautiful fleabitten grey Thoroughbred named D'Artagnan. I haven't gotten any photos of him yet, but will.

We had several people out at the farm wanting a trail ride this morning, so the farm's owner asked me to lead them out. "You can try D'artagnan!" she said brightly.

"What can you tell me about him?" I asked.

"Well, he sometimes bucks if you try to turn right," she replied.

"We may need to turn right on the trail," I mentioned.

She shrugged. "Racehorses are like that," she said. "They spend their whole lives turning left."

"Racehorse," I said without enthusiasm.

"Ex-racehorse," she answered. "I'll lunge him for you."

So I'm watching the horse being lunged while I get my kit together, and he's bucking and kicking up a storm. "Seems like an energetic fellow," I said.

"He won't buck under saddle," she promised.

"He's wearing a saddle right now," I pointed out.

She coughed. "I mean, once you're in the saddle."

So, off we went. He was a great horse. He didn't like to go right, as she noted, but the only reason I know was that he had a much harder mouth on the right. He may be an "ex-racehorse," but he's got lots of spirit and wants to go. I was leading a party of fairly green riders, so we were just taking a relaxing walk, but I could feel that he wanted to push out. The woman riding behind me was on a horse named Bella, who is also hot to trot.

Then, coming up a hill, D'Artagnan walked under a dead branch that stretched across the trail. I guess he didn't see it, but it was low enough I couldn't duck it. It broke against my body, thick enough that it made a huge CRACK!

Guess it sounded like a starting gun.

That horse took off from a start to a dead run, just like a racehorse should. Bella came right on behind him.

I grabbed the reigns and pulled back and in hard, with a sharp "Ho!" I didn't expect it to matter at all, though, with Bella running right behind him, close enough that he could feel her breath on his hip. Horses are herd animals, after all, and when they get going together they feed off each other. I figured it'd be a ride before I'd be able to get him under control.

He dropped out of the run and back to a walk without the slightest complaint. Horse didn't run three steps. He did just what he was supposed to do.

Later, back at the barn, and was telling the owner about him. The limb had been the only problem, I said, but I was impressed with how responsive he was with another horse right there, pushing hard.

She smiled. "There are some things," she said, "that racehorses are used to."

Donkey Pic

Keep His Head Up, Son:

I guess the Palestinians have a lot of troubles. I can't do anything about those Israelis, but the donkey problem can be solved.

A Palestinian boy tries to control his donkey in the village of Jabel Mukaber in east Jerusalem, Wednesday, May 9, 2007. The Palestinian economy can't recover unless Israel dismantles a network of obstacles that has carved up the West Bank into a dozen enclaves and restricted Palestinian access to more than half the territory, the World Bank said in an exceptionally harsh report Wednesday. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti)

Not exactly sure how those troubles are related, though.

WTF?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot:

I know the Washington Times isn't always fair, but... surely this is a joke? "Dems: Use intelligence funds to study [global] warming."

A) Does anyone think that there is a scarcity of funds to study global warming? In academic circles, including "global warming" or "carbon" in your proposal is the best way to ensure you get the grant you wanted.

B) Does anyone think our intelligence systems are in such good shape that we can afford distractions?

I mean, if Congress really wants to devote funds to studying the issue, that's fine. But surely the intelligence budget isn't the place to go for the funds; and surely the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has more pressing oversight duties.

H/t: Cassidy.

A Crime Prevented

A Crime that Tried to Happen:

Blogger Machine Dreamer, a disabled gentleman, had a home invasion. The robber came knowing he was visibly home, came with a truck to take away all of his things, and came right through the door in spite of the dog barking loudly on the other side.

Anyone relying on a dog to protect them, take note.

I noticed a Budget rental truck, a 16 footer cube-van coming down the road towards my cul de sac. It seemed to be looking for an address but it stopped at my drive and began nosing in.

It now had my complete attention.

It began to climb my drive and I was alarmed to note the lack of license plates or unit number markings. I also noted that it was driven by a black fellow in his twenties with dark glasses whom I had not previously made the aquaintence of....

My main floor is sort of "U" shaped and I was on one end looking out my window when the dog began earning her keep at the other end where the door to the garage is located.

Then there was a knock on that door. It was in my mind that there was still a small chance this was not a home invasion.

Wrong!

I heard to doorknob turn, I heard the door scrape across the carpet and the dog's barking take on a hysterical note.

What bothers him most about the episode was that someone must have tipped this guy off. Someone he knows -- a pizza deliveryman, perhaps -- found a criminal and told him that this guy, disabled, lived alone in a house that had some expensive electronics.

The story has a happy ending, though. Among his several valuable possessions, he had one priceless tool at hand.

H/t: Kim.

Dix Plot

The Dix Plot:

I have to admit that, this time, Wonkette hits the tone just right:

Ok. So, the plot was: six dudes from New Jersey buy some guns and storm Fort Dix. The Fort Dix that is full of lots and lots of Army reservists with way, way more guns. And, like, extensive military training and s***. Yes, thank god these terrorists have been caught and locked up before they could be killed within minutes of deciding to carry out the dumbest ****ing terrorist plot we’ve ever heard of.

Yeah, that would have worked out great. But, now they can live at taxpayer expense for the rest of their lives. Maybe that's the real plan: "If enough of us get caught, we'll bankrupt the Great Satan."

VE DAY

VE Day:

Bthun sends a newsreel from 62 years ago. The reel of the British forces linking up with the Russians is classic:

Russian Soldier, shaking British soldier's hand: (*Unintelligible Speech*)

First British Soldier to Russian Soldier: "Ah!"

Second British Soldier to First British Soldier: "What does that mean?"

First British Soldier to Second British Soldier: "How do I know?"

Third British Soldier to Russian Soldier: "Well, all of the best old man!"

These newsreels were straight-out pro-government propaganda, telling the populace of the glories of the state. To what degree did these images enslave the British mind to the government?

That is easily answered. Within two months, victorious war leader Winston Churchill was voted out of office by the British electorate.

My Rifle

"My Rifle"

This is my rifle, the man says, and then he tells you why. Kim du Toit noticed, and added:

Change a few of the words, and the man could be talking about a car, or a machine tool.... Real Men know all too well what the Wrangler is talking about.

That's true: the simple joy of working with a machine, making it function, having it do just what you want -- that is obvious in the man's words.

There is more than that, though. Like all the best technology, this machine is for something. If you love a tractor, it's because it helps you feed your family, to clear and maintain and master the land. The rifle, too, has a job. Here's how the gentleman describes that job:

This is the rifle I'll grab if I ever have need of a longarm in a place other than a rifle range. This is the rifle that stands by to defend me and mine if necessary. This is the rifle that marks my personal line in the sand, the line that none who come looking for trouble shall pass with impunity.

That assertion is at the core of heroic philosophy, whether that expressed by Greeks or Norsemen or those Pakistani tribemen we were talking about a few weeks ago. "This land is mine, these people are mine, I shall keep them safe, none shall harm them while I live."

There are well-educated men who say that this is madness:

Some years ago, the distinguished historian Richard Hofstadter told me that, after a lifetime of studying American culture, what he found most deeply troubling was our country's inability to come to terms with the gun — which in turn strongly affected our domestic and international attitudes. Emotions of extreme attachment to and even sacralization of the gun pervade American society.... Much has been said, with considerable truth, about the role of the frontier in bringing about this psychological condition. I would go further and suggest that American society, in the absence of an encompassing and stable traditional culture, has embraced the gun as a substitute for that absence, and created a vast cultural ideology we can call "gunism." Paradoxically, this highly destabilizing object became viewed as a baseline and an icon that could somehow sustain us in a new form of nontraditional society. That new society was to be democratic and egalitarian, so that the gun could be both an "equalizer," as it is sometimes known, and also a solution to various social problems.

That is to misread the nature of the thing entirely. The importance of the rifle here isn't about "the absence of an encompassing and stable traditional culture," but the mark of one. A culture that lacks this value will not survive. Violence does not exist on the frontier alone, but pervades the world. If peace and civilization are to exist, men must defend them. A culture that has survived understands it entirely.

You cannot name the culture that has not sacralized its weapons -- that has not decorated them, or named them, or built rituals around them. Traditional American society is the same as any other traditional society. Those who view this as strange are the ones who are cut off from their roots. They are the ones who have chosen to walk away from what their grandfathers believed.

America has come "to terms" with the gun, long ago. Our gentleman from Tennessee knows everything about his rifle -- both how it works, and what it is for, and what it is not. His words have echoes in the heroic poetry of every nation.

It is others who do not understand: he understands perfectly.

French Vote

French Vote, Sarkozy Wins!

Well, actually the voting is far from over. That's just how I'd gamble if I were inclined to gamble on things. I don't have much to go on, except this BBC article. They interviewed voters at one precinct and labeled the story "French voters bucking trends," so I figure I'm also justified in drawing conclusions about the whole race based on the same single data set.

Only three pro-Sarkozy voters were encountered by the BBC, two women pensioners and a young professional, who were used to explain that "the centre-right candidate [Sarkozy] does have his supporters... both among older residents and the young professionals[.]" The two pro-Sarkozy speakers said he "does not change his opinion all the time" and has a program that is "coherent" and "properly costed."

The other voter said that Sarkozy "stands for reform" and "will take on public sector workers" whose unions have prevented that reform.

All the rest of the speakers are voting for his opponent, Ms. Royal. Their reasons for preferring her policies?

A) "I don't want Sarkozy, his social ideal is America.... France is not a violent society like the US."

B) "Sarkozy speaks well -- but his unspoken message is frightening. His ideas are racist."

C) "Segolene [Royal]'s policies are much more tolerant and humane than Sarkozy's."

D) Sarkozy is "brutal."

E) Sarkozy is "a sleek version" of Jean-Marie Le Pen (who leads France's largest far-right party, Le Front National).

F) "Sarkozy is too radical."

G) "Sarkozy is too close to big money, and it's about time we had a woman president."

That last statement is the only positive reason articulated for voting for Ms. Royal. Everyone else only cites reasons for voting against Sarkozy -- his racism, his radicalism, his unspoken violence, his connections to big money, that he likes America.

If we were to draw trends from this one data set (like the BBC), we'd say: the election is all about Sarkozy. His supporters are voting for him; his opponents are voting against him. Royal's policies and thoughts just don't seem to make an appearance, even among her strongest supporters.

Actually, of course, I've been following the election more broadly; but the overall trends do seem to be the same. Royal's last rallying message to her supporters was that a Sarkozy win would be dangerous and "could trigger violence and brutality across the country." Even for her, at the last, the election was all about him.

Good Reading

Some Excellent Finds:

XKCD produces a map of the internet, graphed according to a particularly insightful compass rose.

I'm a little late in getting around to reading "Why We Fight Over Foreign Policy" from the Hoover Review, but it's a good piece. It explains, in a fair-minded way, the three main streams of thought in American foreign policy debates, and why an honorable person can hold any of them as predominant.

As the piece notes, there are bad actors in all schools: pure politicans of no principles who assert whatever happens to be of party or personal benefit. This is not that useful in understanding those scoundrels -- rather, it is a chart to understanding the good-hearted people who are suckered into voting for them.

That's highly useful in itself. One thing America needs is more of a sense that most of us are decent, for whom the Federal Government is at best a parasite, and at worst a common foe. The politicians are the problem. Those other Americans who seem so alienated are still trying to do something right, according to their own understanding.

The end of milblogging

The End of MilBlogging:

At least for the Army -- BlackFive reports.

New Poem

New Poem:

Russ Vaughn has turned his imagination to the current impasse over military funding. Russ isn't trying to be nice, so if you're easily offended by slaps at the Democratic leadership, you probably won't enjoy his poem.

On the other hand, if you're easily offended by the Democratic leadership, you'll probably enjoy it a lot.

Can't sleep?

Apparently their Patrons were Having Trouble Sleeping:

Or so I'd guess:

Visitors to the Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa won't find the Gideon Bible in the nightstand drawer. Instead, on the bureau will be a copy of ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' former Vice President Al Gore's book about global warming.

They'll also find the Gaia equipped with waterless urinals...

Isn't the correct way to say that, "They'll also find that the Gaia isn't equipped with working urinals"? Having stayed in a place like that in China, let me assure you, the environment does not benefit.

Tragedy

Tragedy:

Over at Arts and Letters Daily a note has been posted about a new book from the Tolkien estate.

Ostensibly, the tale of the Children of Hurin was written by J.R.R. Tolkien during his lifetime. Like many of the stories hinted at in the text of the Lord of the Rings, the tale of Hurin and his children was set in Middle Earth. Tolkien penned many versions, revisions, and emendations of these tales as he worked on his mythology.

After the death of J.R.R. Tolkien, his son Christopher took up the task of gathering and publishing what he could of these writings. Some tales were published in the collection titled The Silmarillion. Other tales (and fragments, and original versions, and emendations) were published in a multi-volume History of Middle Earth series. This series read more like a scholarly study of Tolkien's work than a novel.

Now one of the major elements of Tolkien's mythology has been published as a complete book. It is the tale of The Children of Hurin.

The tale does promise much of what we saw in the Lord of the Rings: a focus on a few individuals caught in the middle of a titanic struggle between good and evil. Like in the epic war against Sauron, the evil side has the stronger army. However, in this story (set in what would be ancient history to the hobbits who saw the War of the Ring), the hope of victory is scant.

The tale that unfolds around the family of Hurin is a tale of curses, fate, courageous resistance against evil, murders, attempts to hide from fate, and the evil will of the Dark Lord--primarily manifested through one of his servants, a malicious dragon.

Other tragedies can be found in the vast mythological world that Tolkien created. However, this tragedy was the one that Tolkien poured most of his thought and energy into. The story that resulted contains many elements which can be found in other tragedies--especially the Norse stories which Tolkien loved. But The Children of Hurin also contains many elements which are the result of long thought about the nature of evil, the virtuous response to evil, and the multifarious ways in which evil presents itself in the world.

Like Tolkien's other writings, this book is one that is worth reading, and reading again.

Washington, Jefferson, Today:

Thanks to bthun, who wrote to point out that on this date in 1789, Washington delivered his first inaugural address. The page links to numerous other pages, including the online libraries for the papers of Madison and Jefferson. You can search their documents for anything that interests you -- including each others' names, should you like to read their correspondence.

Also at the Jefferson site are several historical articles. I thought the one called "American Sphinx" was, in spite of being a few years old, remarkably telling. It begins with a Jefferson reenactment, which drew four hundred people in small-town New England. It ends with an Iranian dissident:

At the end of August, The Washington Post published a long story on a wealthy Iranian named Bahman Batmanghelidj. His picture looked familiar, and then I recognized him as the philanthropist I met in Worcester. It turned out that Batmanghelidj was rallying opposition to the Merchant and Ivory film on Jefferson, which supposedly sanctions the story of Jefferson's liaison with Sally Hemings.

"Americans don't realize," Batmanghelidj warned, "how profoundly Jefferson and his ideas live on in the hopes and dreams of people in other countries. This movie will undercut all that. People around the world will view it as the defining truth about Jefferson. And of course it is a lie."

Well, yes, it almost certainly is. But then so is a hefty portion of the more attractive sources of Jefferson's image. Batmanghelidj's crusade was just the latest skirmish in the escalating struggle over Jefferson's legacy. The stakes are high, as can be seen in the stark formulation of James Parton, one of Jefferson's earliest biographers: "If Jefferson is wrong, America is wrong. If America is right, Jefferson was right."

It's remarkable the power these great men still hold, two hundred years on.

Influence

It's Nice to be an Influence:

Although sometimes I feel bad when my passing comments inspire prolonged reflection, I do find it gratifying when a mathematician agrees with me:

I am hesitant to apply the label witch-doctor to doctors who study and attempt to heal minds, but the label may be valid. First, a quick case-study.

If a person comes before a mental health examination for anti-social tendencies (with or without any noted predilection towards weapons ownership), the possibilities are:

(1A) The person is a danger to himself and others, and the examiner decides that he must be locked up.
(1B) The person is a danger to himself and others, but the examiner decides that he should not be locked up. (This could happen through several modes. Two possibilities are that the examiner misjudges the level of danger, or the examiner misjudges the examinee as not being dangerous.)
(2A) The person is not a danger to himself and others, but the examiner decides that he must be locked up . (Here the examiner erroneously diagnoses a non-dangerous person as dangerous.)
(2B) The person is not a danger to himself and others, and the examiner decides that he should not be locked up.

Given that this is a prediction of future actions based on present observations, and that the future actions cannot be compared to a control-case in a lab, I can agree that such determination is much closer to the activities of a witch-doctor than the activities of a scientist.

A determination that a person is likely to be a danger to himself and others requires a lower level of proof than the determination that he certainly will be a danger to himself and others in the future. A prediction that a person certainly will engage in pychopathic murder is a prediction that requires omniscient foreknowledge. Absent such certainty, it is very hard to distinguish between cases (1A) and (2A) given above--or between cases (1B) and (2B).

Yeah, it is. But you mean before the fact. The case is even worse than that: it's impossible to distinguish between them even after the fact, except in one case: the rare case where a 1B engages in murder or suicide. A 2A can't prove he is not a 1A; and a 1B who doesn't end up hurting anyone looks just like a 2B.

Which means what? It means that if you weight the system to 'prevent another Virginia Tech,' it will learn to treat all cases from a pro-lockup perspective. You can't really prove the guy was wrong to lock you up, so he has nothing to lose; but if he didn't lock you up and you happened to go on and do something bad, he's liable at least for criticism, and possibly for legal difficulties.

Thus, there's a strong economic incentive for a psychologist to strip liberties on any occasion they're asked to do so; and no economic disincentive, given that there is no standard of proof that can "prove" sanity or stability. There may be a moral or ethical disincentive; and then again, there may not be.

Inalienable rights aren't, sadly, in a practical sense -- our government has busied itself finding ways to alienate them almost from the moment it proclaimed them. Putting the power to alienate a man from his rights in the hands of people who have no reason to do anything else, and no final, scientific and falsifiable standards against which their decisions can be challenged, is no way for a liberty-loving people to act.

Corb Lund

"So, What's it like out there in the Country?"

Kind of like this.

Also like this.

AFJ

From Armed Forces' Journal:

This appears to be Yingling's full article that the Post was summarizing. He's earned his opinion, as noted below; but I wonder about his idea that involving Congress in the general officer selection process is likely to overcome the problems of politics. If anything, it seems likely to worsen them in key ways. For example:

To reward moral courage in our general officers, Congress must ask hard questions about the means and ways for war as part of its oversight responsibility. Some of the answers will be shocking, which is perhaps why Congress has not asked and the generals have not told. Congress must ask for a candid assessment of the money and manpower required over the next generation to prevail in the Long War. The money required to prevail may place fiscal constraints on popular domestic priorities. The quantity and quality of manpower required may call into question the viability of the all-volunteer military. Congress must re-examine the allocation of existing resources, and demand that procurement priorities reflect the most likely threats we will face. Congress must be equally rigorous in ensuring that the ways of war contribute to conflict termination consistent with the aims of national policy. If our operations produce more enemies than they defeat, no amount of force is sufficient to prevail. Current oversight efforts have proved inadequate, allowing the executive branch, the services and lobbyists to present information that is sometimes incomplete, inaccurate or self-serving. Exercising adequate oversight will require members of Congress to develop the expertise necessary to ask the right questions and display the courage to follow the truth wherever it leads them.

Congressional confirmation procedures are something we've seen a lot of over the last several years. Does anyone really believe that these procedures ever, ever, ever even once, "reward moral courage"?

Let's say you want to be on the Supreme Court. Or an ambassador. Whatever. Does it help or hurt your chances if you've ever expressed strong opinions about any controversial topic?

Reward moral courage? That's the best way I can think of to make sure that no one of moral courge is ever considered for the post.

I like the idea to make review of the intellectual products of officers a part of their selection process. As long as it's done by other officers, that is -- the review has to be for quality, not merely quantity or popularity, which means that someone who actually understands the military science and history behind the writings does the review. Besides, to all evidence most Congressmen can't think their way out of a wet paper bag, and that's before they get into committees.

That review can only be a substitute for actual combat experience, in any event. We do have long periods of peace from time to time, and we do have generals who are from non-combat branches. For combat officers, the only thing that counts is success on the battlefield.

Yingling is right to say that some of the answers to 'what it will take' are shocking; but not merely the answers about price and manpower. It's hard to imagine any Congress having the stones to approve a general who says "It's fun to kill the enemy"; but General Mattis, who did say that, has been one of the most successful generals of this war.

Getting Paid in China

I promised Bthun I would relate this story, which I'm surprised to discover I haven't posted before. It relates to my time as a professor of public speaking and English, at a college in Zhejiang province, China. This was several years ago, now.

I had gone to China with my wife, who was invited to take a resident-artist position with the China Academy of Art. It was a cultural exchange program; the first year she was to study speaking and writing Mandarin, and the second year she was to be an artist. In fact, we had to leave before the first year was out, due to the collapse of her health and the terrible quality of Chinese medicine. (Although, it turned out I was the one who had contracted tuberculosis -- and then killed it myself, before we got home, with no better medicine than unfiltered Chinese beer.)

In any event, shortly after we arrived I was contacted by the vice president of a local college, who had a job offer for me. I was not there on a working visa, and it would be illegal for me to take any such job -- but the man who had arranged the job was also the official in charge of approving my visa, so I didn't worry about it too much. We had a brief negotiation on rates of pay, and then I went to work.

About a month into the job, I still had not been paid. I asked my fellow professors (all Chinese nationals, except one lady from New Zealand) if this was usual. They assured me it was: this college, which was one of China's first private colleges, took tuition in at intervals. The college had to cover its capital expenses first, and so there was a period of time during which no one got paid. All back pay would be forthcoming, I was assured.

Two months in, still no pay. I asked around again, and began to hear that in fact, some of them had been paid. All of them, really.

So I went to the lady in charge of payment, and asked when I would be paid. "Maybe today!" she said cheerfully. Thus reassured, I went on about my business.

Well, it wasn't "today," nor the next week, and the week after that I went back and asked again. "There has been some trouble," she said, "but we are sure to pay you any day now."

Hm. By this point it was getting cold, and I had only summer clothes... and the building we lived in would not be heated during the winter, we were told, as the government had decided not to spend the money on heating it this year. Communism is wonderful.

So I went to the vice president and asked him about my money. I informed him that I'd been promised by the lady who paid people that I might be paid any day now, for several weeks, yet no money had appeared.

This, it turns out, was a major violation of Chinese etiquette on my part. I embarrassed her terribly by going to her superior with a complaint. The poor woman hated me forever after that. She was doing, she felt, nothing wrong. In China, it is considered polite and proper to lie, if the lie will make people feel more comfortable and happier. She was doing what she had been raised to believe was proper: helping me not worry about my pay, by assuring me it could come at any time. And I had repaid her kindness by humiliating her in front of her boss.

All that said, her lie wasn't exactly of the "white" variety. In fact, the truth was that there was no possibility it could have been "today," as the college had come to the realization that it couldn't legally pay me at all. The visa issue meant that, should they transfer funds to my accounts, they would be in trouble with the government.

The college did intend to pay me, my friend the vice president assured me, but it was having to launder the money out of petty cash transactions, and it might be some time until they had enough such laundered cash to pay me three months' backpay. Still, he would make certain that it was done.

Shortly thereafter, I was given a big fat envelope full of 100 yuan notes, complete with portraits of Chairman Mao. I was never happier to see the man. After that, the college paid me faithfully, always in cash, always discreetly.

I told you all that to tell you this story:

After we decided to go back to America to get treatment for my poor, increasingly sick wife, I contacted the college to let them know I was going to be leaving. I apologized for cutting out on them before the end of the year, and explained about my wife's illness and need to get her home.

The vice president said he understood, and wanted to meet me to give me the last of my pay. I said that would be fine, as I wished to make a donation to the school. I had accumulated a lot of English-language books from the big foreign-language bookstore in HangZhou, and didn't want to try to ship them home. I thought the college's library could use them, as I had examined it and their collection of English-language literature was very small.

So, I packed the books into a suitcase, and took them down to meet the vice president. He'd chosen to meet me at the front gate of the university where my wife was studying Mandarin. I walked down there one morning just at dawn, and waited for him to show up.

Chinese universities are a major point of cultural pride for the country, so they are given all the incidents of state power and authority. This includes a formal guard: Chinese Armed Police stand watch at the gates. I was standing there, under the eyes of about four of these gentlemen, who must have found me a fascinating sight: a big Western man, with a long forked beard (I hadn't shaved the entire time we were in China), and a giant cowboy hat. Also, a suitcase.

About this time, a black car pulls up and the vice president gets out. He starts speaking to me in English, which he can do quite fluently, having lived in America for several years. Our friends the Chinese armed police, however, don't speak it.

After a short chat in English, he reaches into his pocket and pulls out a very fat envelope for me. I take it and thank him, and then pass over the suitcase.

It was about this time I suddenly realized what this must look like to the cops. I started making my apologies and goodbyes, so I could get out of there.

"No, no!" my friend replied. "You must count the money, to be sure it's all there. I want you to tell all your friends at home that you were paid faithfully, so they might come work for us!"

Well, what could I do?

I opened the envelope and counted through a fat stack of 100 yuan notes. It was probably two months pay for me, at the rate a Western professor can command; so it was doubtless a year's income for any of those cops. And I counted it out right in front of them.

Then I put it back in the envelope, shook his hand, and left. He picked up the suitcase, put it in the car, and drove away. I was just sure that, any second, I'd be grabbed up and hauled off -- but nobody tried.

That night I related the story to my best friend in China, an Australian gentleman from Freemantle. His face was so red with laughter by the end of it, I thought he might keel over dead on the spot.

Well, the police didn't hold me up, and a few days later we had a mighty spree in Shanghai. I didn't figure the yuan would be worth much outside of China, so we spent almost every scrap of it in the one night we were there before we flew out of PuDong.

One of the happiest moments of my life was feeling the wheels of that 747 break free of Chinese soil. It was a grand adventure, but Communism is not for me.

Katrina

Bush Administration to provide housing assistance until March 2009.

Can we say RINO? Talk about getting pissed off.

When hurricane Rita nailed Beaumont, Texas... my kinfolk drove to home depot and began purchasing supplies to get things done: cleared land, re-built where needed, re-roofed, etc. A few of the local university professors (friends of the family) were aghast when they saw the new construction, "how did you get FEMA to re-build so quickly?" Look, FEMA didn't build the homes or purchase the land... that's the homeowners job. It's also your job to get off your ass and find work and re-build your life. Living off the tit is not a good life strategy.

I do not understand the entitlement mentality.

Hawk Pet

General Petraeus' Comments:

Greyhawk has posted key excerpts of General Petraeus' talk on Iraq, with a link to the full transcript.

[S]o what I asked was, "Hey, come on, it's about dusk, let's go -- we'll fly around the city a little bit." And we flew around. And so -- I mean, it was unbelievable.

This is a day in which I think there was a car bomb in Iraq, some of Iraq’s seven million citizens were affected by that, but you could not have told that from what we saw over the city. There were three big amusement parks operational. I'm talking about, you know, roller coaster kinds of -- these are not just a couple little merry-go-rounds in small neighborhood parks. Restaurants in some parts of the city were booming. Lots of markets were open. The people were on the street. There were -- there had to be a thousand soccer games ongoing. They're watering the grass in various professional soccer fields -- the soccer leagues.

You know, all of this is actually so foreign, I think, in the mind of most people who see the news and of course do see that day's explosion or something like that. And actually there is a city of seven million in which life goes on, and again, citizens are determined to carry on with their life.

These are the people Reid, Pelosi, Obama and the rest want to abandon.

Less Polite

A Less Polite Rebuttal:

Joe was saying the other day how much he admired David Kilcullen's kind yet thorough rebuttal of Luttwak's writings on COIN theory. If you'd like to see the less-polite version of that, here it is.

I’d like to follow up Dave Kilcullen’s commentary about Dr. Luttwak’s specious article. Dr. Kilcullen is too much of a gentleman to suggest that someone has not taken their medication...

I thought Kilcullen did a good job, myself.

Wicca Thing

Wiccans win Memorial Case:

I see that the long-running case involving the use of pentacles as gravemarkers in military cemetaries has concluded, with the Wiccans winning a concession from the Bush Administration. This is good news from my perspective: anyone who fought and died for America ought to be shown the utmost respect, to include allowing him to be buried under the symbol of his choice.

Over at Winds of Change, Australian blogger David Blue takes Bush to task over the long delay in resolving this, and for other reasons. I think Mr. Blue is perfectly correct in his general stance. We've discussed pagan religious rights here at various times since 2003. Here are a few of the highlights:

A series of posts on the founding traditions of the country --

Thomas Jefferson against the idea that America was founded on Christian principles (and he would know);

John Derbyshire and Roy Moore on the same question;

Paganism in schools and public places, and the Viking heritage in American legal traditions.

A post on Pagan charities that help the poor.

A post on Yuletide feasting that celebrates the old heathen heritage (right next to a message about the Pope's midnight Mass -- the juxtaposition seems natural to me, since the West is itself a juxtaposition of Christian and pagan traditions).

A post from 2005 taking "the Raving Atheist" to task for attacks on Forn Sidr, celebrating it somewhat, and holding forth against Atheism.

A post from 2005 on prayers at public meetings.

There's more if you want to prowl through the archives. I realize that Wicca is a little, er, whimsical in some of its historical claims. That said, there are serious issues at the back of all this, issues of freedom and tradition and one binding point of honor: the respect due to our war dead.

Congratulations to the victors, then.

Democrats debate

Democratic Debate Tonight:

The AP notifies us that we can watch/read about the debate tonight between eight Democratic Party hopefuls. The article says:

For their first debate, the White House hopefuls are trying to dampen expectations for themselves so that any bright moments will seem like home runs.

With the exception of Mr. Richardson, I'd have to say they've succeeded admirably. He needs to work harder -- I'm convinced he could be a real contender and a good President, which is apparently the opposite of what I'm meant to think.

Now, John Edwards and Barack Obama -- there are some guys who know how to lower your expectations!

Your tax dollars at work:

What is Applied Research Laboratories doing, and why do they need $928 million dollars to do it with?

I'm just curious. Very curious.

When I get round to it, I'm going to put together a database of all these contracts, and what companies and where they are, and what congressional district they're in, and what contributions are being given by who to whom.

I want to see who is connected to who. I'm just curious, that's all.

More on Iraqi Police training:

Mike Totten and Patrick Lasswell have been driving all over Norther Iraq (otherwise known as Kurdistan) and file these two reports of the same incident with video from Kirkuk (which isn't really Kurdistan but probably will be someday):

Mike Totten
Patrick Lasswell

I sometimes wish cops could do this and not get fired for it in the US.

Sometimes a fool needs to be smacked upside the head.

Sometimes.

Totten and Lasswell are consistently posting interesting reports. They bear watching.

(hat tip to Instapundit)

The Winner

The Winner:

Some wise words from old Country music singer Bobby Bare:

The hulk of a man with a beer in his hand he looked like a drunk old fool
And I knew if I hit him right why I could knock him off of that stool
But everybody they said watch out hey that's the Tiger Man McCool
He's had the whole lotta fights and he's always come out winner
-- yeah he's a winner --

But I had myself about five too many and I walked up tall and proud
I faced his back and I faced the fact that he had never stooped or bowed
I said Tiger Man you're a pussycat and a hush fell on the crowd
I said let's you and me go outside and see who's the winner
Well he gripped the bar with one big hairy hand then he braced against the wall


He slowly looked up from his beer my God that man was tall
He said boy I see you're a scrapper so just before you fall
I'm gonna tell you just a little bout what it means to be a winner
He said now you see these bright white smilin' teeth you know they ain't my own


Mine rolled away like Chicklets down the street in San Antone
But I left that person cursin' nursin' seven broken bones
And he only broke ah three of mine that makes me the winner
He said now behind this grin I got a steel pin that holds my jaw in place
A trophy of my most successful motorcycle race


And each morning when I wake and touch this scar across my face
It reminds me of all I got by bein' a winner
Now this broken back was the dyin' act of a handsome Harry Clay
That sticky Cincinnati night I stole his wife away
But that woman she gets uglier and she gets meaner every day
But I got her boy that's what makes me a winner


He said you gotta speak loud when you challenge me son cause it's hard for me to hear
With this twisted neck and these migraine pains and this big ole cauliflower ear
And if it wadn't for this glass eye of mine why I'd shed a happy tear
To think of all that you gonna get by bein' a winner
I got arthritic elbows boy I got dislocated knees
From pickin' fights with thunderstorms and chargin' into trees
And my nose been broke so often I might lose if I sneeze


And son you say you still wanna be a winner
Now you remind me a lotta my younger days with your knuckles a clenchin' white
But boy I'm gonna sit right here and sip this beer all night
And if there's somethin' that you gotta gain to prove by winnin' some silly fight
Well okay I quit I lose you're the winner


So I stumbled from that barroom not so tall and not so proud
And behind me I still hear the hoots of laughter of the crowd
But my eyes still see and my nose still works and my teeth're still in my mouth
And you know I guess that makes me the winner

That's advice for me and you, JarHeadDad. And maybe one or two others around here, although I suspect most of you are smarter than me. :)

ANZAC Scot

In Honor of ANZAC Day:

A hero and a Scot. Hat tip to bthun, who was kind enough to send the article.

Riding Instructor

The Riding "Instructor":

Since Eric liked the dancing horse so much, I thought you folks might like to see the coolest horse in the world. There's a reason the spotlight stays on the horse when the guy walks away.

ISF training

Iraq Security Forces Training:

Has the military changed priority away from training the ISF, as reported? No, says Bill Roggio. The military hasn't changed its priorities.

The decrease in the training of the Iraqi Security Forces Youssef is detecting is the first effect of delaying the FY07 supplemental budget. The money to train the Iraqi units has dried up.

The military's leadership has mentioned this fact to Congress four times now, according to Bill's report -- a highly unusual move, given that the military rarely involves itself in matters that are in dispute between the legislative and executive branches.

The military's priorities are what they were. What are the politicians' priorities?

Baby Shower

A Baby Shower:

Many of you will have heard the story of Marine Corporal DJ Emery.

Perhaps, to me, the most encouraging thing this week, and keep in mind that DJ probably doesn't know how bad his situation is (I doubt that he knows his legs have been amputated)...DJ was able to write one sentence...to tell his wife that he loved her. Through the drugs, the pain, the horror of what he's been through, deep inside, in his core...Semper Fidelis.

Another thing he may not know is that he is now a father. Carlee Emery was born earlier this week. Joy cometh in the morning, Cassandra said.

All this you probably know. What you may not know is that there's a baby shower. FbL has the details, and suggestions should you wish to participate.

The Marines have stood by their injured comerade and his family in the best traditions of the service. If you'd like to be part of that, here's the link again.

Frustrated Young Men

Frustrated Young Men:

Today, National Review linked to this article by Ed Hussain, a British Muslim ex-Islamist and his experiences in Saudi Arabia. What struck me about it was his account of frustration, especially sexual frustration, in the Kingdom (it matched the view I read in Carmen bin Ladin's Inside the Kingdom, which gives a complementary view of great frustration among the young women). (One of the frustrations of reading about dictatorships with no free press, and so no reliable statistics, is in wondering how typical all the anecdotes are - am I getting a picture of a country or of one or two social circles?)

My mind turned somewhat to war, and the role frustration plays in inspiring young men to it. One of the classics I love to return to is Harry Holbert Turney-High's Primitive War, a very wide-ranging survey by a very interesting character (an anthropologist - his fieldwork was among American Indians, including the Flathead - who was also one of our last horse cavalry officers). In his chapter on "Socio-Psychological Motives" for war, he devotes five pages to the role of war in frustration and tension - in particular, grief, frustration, being jilted or cuckolded, were good recruiters for the Plains Indian no-retreat societies (among the Crow, there was no "society," but a frustrated young man might simply "vow his body to the enemy" and do his darnedest to get killed in a heroic way in the next fight). Interestingly (and with a forthright judgmentalism you don't find much these days) he billed the Plains tribes as poor Soldiers and likely to flee from anything except certain victory or certain death, but gave credit to these no-retreat warriors for being otherwise. I'd have to spend time with the primary sources to tell you whether there's much record of how often social and sexual frustration led young men into these groups (some would stake their clothes to the ground to make sure they couldn't leave) - but it was certainly a part. We know how Shaka Zulu used the same force. This also fits with what I remember of late childhood and early adulthood -- fantasies of being killed, preferably after performing some dreadfully violent exploit (in a good cause, of course), were quite an effective release for the endless frustrations that can come with that time, or so I found them.

I can't demonstrate that this frustration is connected with any particular events in recent history (I haven't even read McDermott's Perfect Soldiers and don't know the life histories of the 9/11 hijackers, or what role personal frustrations played in their decisions to sign up for what they did. Maybe someone who does know will have something to say in comments). It's still awful to contemplate.

The elephant in the room:

General Pace: You are being too diplomatic in this case.

“(We) don’t know how they got here. (We) don’t know if the Iranian government knows they are here. We just know that weapons made in Iran are here.”

After watching the video Grim pointed out here, I think I know how the weapons got there.

Its kind of annoying, watching dissembling like this.

Don't you think the Soviets were saying something similar when the stinger missles started showing up in Afghanistan in the 1980's?

My Hero - Again!

The Rescue!

Greetings from me, Grim's wife. My nickname is Hyn, and you are all most welcome to refer to me so. I have not posted here before, and I shall not often do so, but please allow me a moment of your time to tell you of a small but momentous event in our house today.

I am an equine artist by profession. I have been working all week very late hours to finish up a major piece in time to ship it out today for a show this next weekend. So I have been pretty tired and worried about making the deadline. As a reward for my efforts, Grim (who is a very good cook) decided to make me fresh maple whole wheat bread, baked from scratch. The scent of this wonderful, huge loaf of fresh bread filled our log cabin with lusious aroma! Once cooled, I went into the great room, and to the kitchen attached within it, to finally help myself to this delightful treat while it was still warm enough to melt butter. That's when I heard a scrabbly, tapping noise combined with a thrum - above my head!

We like to leave our front and back doors open if the weather is especially nice. Unfortunately, we don't yet have screened doors to keep out the bugs. Now and then these really large, fat, long hornet looking things, about 2 inches long or more (!!!) fly in and get trapped up at the large bay windows high up above the main room and kitchen. These hum about and tap the glass incessantly until they either find the doors leading back out, or they die. Sometimes sparrows fly in and we have to shoo them out, and other times these cute little reddish wrens hop in and inspect the windowsills for spiders and flies and eat them, then fly out without the least bit of alarm when you walk up. Wrens are very smart about enclosed spaces, so they never get trapped in our cabin. Today, it was none of those more usual things.

Above my head was a most forlorn hummingbird, snared in a thick cobweb on the window sill. All I could see was it's wee little tail! I ran back out of the room and called for Grim - "There's a humming bird trapped in the house! Please help me get it out!" So he came to help and I dashed off to my art studio to try and find something to help me think of how to do it. When I came back a moment later, Grim was standing on top of the refrigerator and BLASTING the poor little hummingbird with a Super Soaker water cannon!!! To put it mildly, I freaked!

I got Grim to stop soaking the poor little, very, very paniced hummingbird. I asked him if he was out of his mind and he said that he wanted to wet it down enough so that it couldn't fly and would come down. (!!!) I tried to calm myself enough to think and explain why I thought that was a bad idea, hummingbirds being so sensitive and easy to panic to death! They have a very high metabolism and can burn themselves up past recovery. Not to mention that a soaking wet hummingbird can still fly just fine so I didn't think it would work. [As I attempted to point out at the time, what I was really trying to do was disturb it so it would abandon its fatal perch and try to find a different route. Not that it worked, although I remain convinced that if I'd just kept blasting it... -Grim]

I asked him to let it rest and leave it alone for a moment while we think of alternative methods. Something like a butterfly net taped to a long pole!

So I ran to find one of our young son's bug nets but found it to be awfully small. Then I remembered that when I was a reptile specialist we caught snakes and lizards that got loose and put them into pillowcases. I went and got a wire hanger from the closet and quickly stitched a pillowcase to the loop, then taped it to the longest pole we could find about the house - a heavy walking stick. If Grim stood on top of a chair, that was placed on top of the refrigerator, he could almost reach the ceiling - it's a very high peaked ceiling. The hummingbird was attracted to the light of the bay window so thankfully it was staying right over the refrigerator and very reluctant to venture away from that position. Grim tried to get the pillowcase over the wee tiny bird but it got pinned and shrieked the most unnerving screams pitifully! I yelled, "Don't smoosh it!" and Grim let it go. He tried again but the little bird kept in a panic.

The hummingbird would land, briefly exhausted, to cling on the side of the big beam that runs the length of the ceiling. Finally it landed against the pillowcase and prefered that easier perch to hang onto. Grim quickly lowered the make-shift catcher down to me and I flipped the hanging pillowcase over the frightened bird, then took the pole from Grim. I dashed out the back door and opened up the pillowcase then... poof! The hummingbird flitted off with a piping. Thankfully it wasn't so distressed that it didn't reccognize an escape when it saw one.

I was too concerned about getting the frightened bird loose that I forgot to even look at it. Alas, I don't know if it was a male or female, but we have many ruby throated hummers, and also black chinned hummingbirds here. They are difficult for me to tell apart anyway. I love to sit or lay down in my garden and read, or watch the hummingbirds. They feed at my flowers and the necter feeder, litterally inches from my face and oblivious to me if I don't move. So I was extremely happy and relieved when Grim, my Hero again today, recued that poor little bird!

To top things off, tonight we heard a noise outside. I opened the door and heard the quite unmistakable sound of a horse kicking or pawing metal, such as a water trough. It was very loud and coming from our neighbor's place across the street. Grim outfitted himself with a flashlight and a rope and went over to investigate. [This is the filly I call "Sneak," because she's always slipping up behind you on the hill to run down behind you and try to spook your horse. Turns out her real name is "Dixie." -Grim]

Luckily, nothing was wrong. The owners had just returned from a trail ride and the impatient filly was objecting to not having been unloaded yet. If she had been down and trapped, I have no doubt that Grim would have done his best to free her as well! That's the kind of day we have around here and I just wanted to share.

Thank you for saving my hummingbird, Grim. And the bread's good too! :}

~Hyn

Ever seen a horse dance?

No? Neither have I. But I have now, as I came across this video here today.

I think the horse is having a grand time.

COIN Gravity

COIN: The Gravity Well

Because of some large images, and the size of the post, I put up my COIN post at BlackFive. We can discuss it here as well, if you wish.

Bullfighting

Bullfighting:

We talked recently about some animal fighting sports, from the perspective of what their reduction in popularity might mean (an overall decline in human cruelty, or just the power of the current American culture to exert itself worldwide?). One of the ones you hear about most often in examples is bullfighting, which Americans often find mystifying. How could anyone want to watch the ritual torture of a bull?

My wife showed me this video this morning, which is enlightening on the point. It begins slowly, but the reason suddenly becomes obvious when first you see the bull, and realize that it means to kill the man and his mount.

The reason is cultural: specifically, it is the culture that arose from Medieval Spanish fighting traditions. It descends from the knighthood and other fighting men who arose in a world of violence and tamed it by force of arms. The bull is symbolic of the chaos and fury that the world often brings against us; and the men tame it, and feast on it, through the risk of their lives and the excellence of their skill.

That, and one thing more: the friendship of their horses. Watch the Lusitano steeds in that video, and you will appreciate the glory of Portugal's lost knighthood. Skill, prowess, fearlessness, and a willingness to engage the dangers of the world, all are on display in man and horse alike.

That is why bullfighting is popular in Spain and Portugal, and elsewhere. It is because, in spite of its cruelties, it hold up something fine that cannot be seen by any other light. The cultures that stage bullfights are celebrating their ancestry and the glory of their people. Seeing this, it is hard to say anything but: And well they ought.

St. George's Day

St. George's Day:

In keeping with the custom of the Hall, a few words of honor are in order about St. George, whom legends tell of as a dragon-slayer.

St. George is remembered as patron saint of both England and of the noble Order of the Garter. He is also remembered as patron of many other localities and professions.

Guns in Pakistan

Making Guns in Pakistan:

You should really watch this video, of what is described as "the largest illegal arms market in the world." It's in the area under the control of the Afreedis in Pakistan -- I say "in Pakistan," although government control over the area is notional at best. I don't find the video alarming, as others seem to; I think you should watch it because it's a picture of the tribal society in the part of Pakistan that is sheltering the Taliban.

A friend of mine has spent a lot of time in Pakistan, and he told me years ago about this town. (I spoke to him again last week, and by coincidence this place came up in an unrelated conversation -- he thinks this is where Bin Laden probably is, given the power and strength of the Afreedis to protect him.) My friend was, as the filmaker is, totally impressed that these tribal villagers turn out military-grade firearms with nothing more than hand tools.

Well, it is impressive, as a show of skill. But it hasn't been that long ago that all firearms were made with hand tools -- and the technology really hasn't changed very much in many years. Any firearms made of metal and wood can be made by hand perfectly well.

It doesn't matter if you can make firearms out of scrap metal and wood; so can we, if we want to (and better ones, through the miracle of computer aided design). That's nothing to be alarmed about.

What is important, though, is to understand how to engage people like this. They're basically decent: "Lots of sons and lots of guns" is a fine motto for a man's life. The tribal clashes and gangs are a problem for them: visiting this town requires taking some armed friends along for mutual protection. Yet it hasn't been that long ago that much of Europe was the same way; the introduction to Dicken's "Tale of Two Cities" reminds us of that.

In England, there was scarcely an amount of order and protection to justify much national boasting. Daring burglaries by armed men, and highway robberies, took place in the capital itself every night; families were publicly cautioned not to go out of town without removing their furniture to upholsterers' warehouses for security; the highwayman in the dark was a City tradesman in the light, and, being recognised and challenged by his fellow-tradesman whom he stopped in his character of "the Captain," gallantly shot him through the head and rode away; the mail was waylaid by seven robbers, and the guard shot three dead, and then got shot dead himself by the other four, "in consequence of the failure of his ammunition:" after which the mail was robbed in peace; that magnificent potentate, the Lord Mayor of London, was made to stand and deliver on Turnham Green, by one highwayman, who despoiled the illustrious creature in sight of all his retinue; prisoners in London gaols fought battles with their turkeys, and the majesty of the law fired blunderbusses in among them, loaded with rounds of shot and ball; thieves snipped off diamond crosses from the necks of noble lords at Court drawing-rooms; musketeers went into St. Giles's, to search for contraband goods, and the mob fired on the musketeers, and the musketeers fir on the mob, and nobody thought any of these occurrences much out of the common way. In the midst of them, the hangman, ever busy and ever worse than useless, was in constant requisition; now, stringing up long rows of miscellaneous criminals; now, hanging a housebreaker on Saturday who had been taken on Tuesday; now, burning people in the hand at Newgate by the dozen, and now burning pamphlets at the door of Westminster Hall; to-day, taking the life of an atrocious murderer, and to-morrow of a wretched pilferer who had robbed a farmer's boy of sixpence.

All these things, and a thousand like them, came to pass in and close upon the dear old year one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five.

Allowing for dramatic license, that picture is not wholly inaccurate.

The town shows the third-world combination of technology and poverty. Live animals roam the streets, destined to be dinner. Sanitation is not extant. But there are sparkly stickers to decorate vehicles, shiny toys, and the latest weapons they know how to manufacture with the most primitive tools. They are not haters of the world of the West, then: what they can get of it, they proudly display everywhere they can.

There is ignorance: a people who has learned to make these guns has not learned to understand them. They must know how the firearms operate since they know how to build them, but they seem not to have given any thought to the ramifications of that knowledge. The photo team finds bullets on the ground where they are walking, shattered from having been shot in the air and then falling to earth. The "place for shooting" is right over a busy street, firing without any thought for a backstop or other basic safety mechanism.

It should not be necessary to fight most of these people, even though they give shelter (for now) to people who have declared themselves our enemies. It should be possible to befriend them.

They are decent, and they want technology and its pleasures and comforts. They lack understanding we can bring them, which could improve their lives. We can see in the pictures that they also lack much of modern sanitation and health, which we can also provide.

What we need is a tribal-style client relationship with some of these tribes. We have plenty with which to purchase it; there is a great deal that we have to offer. They are plainly not religious zealots who hate all technology, however they may have been portrayed by those who haven't been out to see for themselves.

This is a place where our enemies have made a home for themselves, because it is disconnected from us and our laws and treaties. That need not be the case forever. Some of these enemies, sheltering there, have seduced their young men into the idea of fighting us as a path to glory. Most of them, though, remain there, making guns because guns are what they know how to make, and because there is a demand.

"How can you beat these people?" asks the narrarator. I have a different question: Why should you wish to?

We'll talk more about disaggregation in coming days; those promised COIN posts. This is a good place to start thinking about it, though. These seem like good folk; I like sons and guns myself. How to draw them away from those who are the enemies of the West, and create the client relationship that will let them receive America as an ally and friend?

Obit Warning

A Warning:

It's been about a year ago that I wrote a post called "Cowboy Obituaries." It celebrated the lives of two gentlemen who had died that week: the last founder of the Cowboy Artists of America, who had died in his saddle at 74, and Stuart Mazanec, who had done the same at seventeen.

I've written a lot at this point, about a lot of different topics. Once in a while, when you do that, you get email from people who are interested in what you write. Sometimes, it's someone important, whom you are always surprised to find interested in your own poor thoughts and words.

Tonight, I received an email from Stuart's mother.

We had a short conversation recently about the importance of kindness and civility. Let me add this to the weight of what we have already said. No one more important has ever written me. I never thought to write to tell her that I had said something about her son; I wouldn't have thought of intruding on her grief. I only wanted to celebrate a life well lived, though it ended at a tragic age.

I am glad that my words were a comfort to her, on the difficult first anniversary without her son. This is what I want say to you tonight, as a warning. These things you say here may have effects you don't anticipate or even imagine. Do right with your words, as you would with your actions. You may be surprised, as sometimes I have been, by the good that kind words can do.

DK on Malpractice

COIN as Malpractice: David Kilcullen

Joe pointed out in the comments to a post below this review by David Killcullen of a piece by Edward Luttwak. It is a good read.

I will have some more posts on COIN in the near future.

AL Wargame

Wargaming: Armed Liberal

Armed Liberal of Winds of Change submitted the following guest post to Grim's Hall.

Grim posts two scenarios:

1) I'm sitting in class, armed, and I hear shots and screams from the
corridor outside.

2) I'm sitting in class and a shooter walks in the door and starts
firing.

On scenario 2) I'd create a 2a) and 2b); In 2a), I'm armed with a
firearm, in 2b) I'm not.

Background: I'm a trained tactical shooter, and have participated in
shooting sports for twenty-some years. I've been trained at Gunsite
(multiple times), Thunder Ranch (multiple times), Insights (once) and had random classes from and competed with many of the loveable and wacky folks in the tactical shooting world. I'd estimate my proficiency as high-average for a law-enforcement officer (on good days, I can shoot with the SWAT guys).

I've actually run some of these scenarios in training, including force-on force, as well as in competitions, so I'm kind of cheating here.

So let me talk about 2b) first, which is the one that has the most connection to reality.

If I'm in a room and someone starts shooting, my response will depend on two things - where am I relative to the door and to the shooter, and whether I took my hero pills that day.

First, I'm going to do something - I've been in enough situations to know that I'll react. The base reaction ought to be to get out of the door, leaving the shooter in the room. I have an ambush position on him when he comes out, and since I always have a pocketknife or even a rollerball pen, at that range (ambushing him as he walks out a door), it's going to be advantage me.

If I can't do that - if I'm too far from the door, or he's between me and the door, I'm going to start throwing things. My laptop is perfect, books, pens, my cell phone, anything I can chuck at him while running toward him and yelling to encourage others to do the same thing. Part of what I want to do is change the group dynamics, and tip the 'flight, freeze, or fight' into 'fight'. Plus it takes time for him to break his pattern of action, and if I can get to him while he's busy aiming and shooting at someone else, the odds are he won't have time to refocus on me.

I want to close with him because if I can get within three or four feet of him, he'll have a hard time shooting me (again, I'm cheating - enough martial arts experience to know that I can knock most people down and have a pretty good shot at disarming them) plus if I can get him off his feet, I'm hoping others will come help sit on him.

Most people who get shot once by handguns don't die - unless the shooter has the luxury of enough time to deliver a coup de grace to the head. That's a small comfort, but a comfort nonetheless.

So we move to 2a), where he walks in but I'm armed. I draw my Glock 27, get out of the chair and kneel (if I'm shooting upward I worry less about hitting the people in back of him) and shoot him in the head. I've done pretty consistently this off a buzzer in about 2.5 - 3 seconds, so figure it's take me another three or five seconds to realize what's going on and react. So eight seconds after he walks in the door, he's dead. Assume I miss the first shot, and the second is .8 seconds behind it. Nine seconds for two shots. That's the best plausible case - probably a factor of two or more better than reality would be (ducking to get an angle for a shot, etc.). But note that he took ninety seconds or more in each classroom, so that's a relatively short time for him to be active.

How do I know I could do this? Let me take a moment and talk about fighting like you train.

The closest I ever came to being shot involved an unfortunate incident in which I arrived to my office at 3am in response to an alarm company call, walked into the courtyard, and saw two shadowy figures, one with a gun, on my office stairs. I was too far into the courtyard to retreat, so I drew my gun and yelled "Freeze! Police!" (I was, of course calling for the police, not representing myself as a police officer) and the figure with the gun turned toward me. I started the 'shoot' cycle, and as I focused on his chest, stil remember seeing the glint of a badge and releasing the trigger. We had a brief John Woo moment, and I did what I'd trained to do a million times. I holstered my gun, slowly raised my hands and said "I'm a good guy."

You'll note the colossally stupid thing I did - I reholstered my gun while looking down the barrel of the officer's gun. I did that because that's what I'd always done in class and in training when we did 'blue-on-blue' exercises. I was completely frightened - I recall being sure I was going to get shot and thinking "They aren't even going to get in trouble for this..." but still followed the pattern I'd built to the letter.

It (obviously) ended well, and I felt better when they explained that they'd been on foot which explained why I didn't see a patrol car when I drove up (I'd looked for either a police car or an obvious perp car, and would have driven away and called the police in either case).

So I'm pretty confident that I'm going to do whatever it is that I'm trained to do when the lights go up. And that anyone else would be likely to do so as well.

In Scenario 1, the first response is to close the door and move to a position where I can cover the door opening and shoot him as he walks in. I'll take a position along the wall to the side of the door that opens (the doorknob side) and get everyone to move into the far corner on the same side of the door as me. We're pretty solidly defensible at that point.

In another sidenote, while at Thunder Ranch we did an exercise in which five of us 'hunted' five others (no guns) within one of the training structures. It was pretty chilling to note that those who stayed in place and ambushed won 5:1 over those who moved and searched. So solo building clearing isn't high on my list of things to do in reality, unless there's a compelling reason. Staying put and setting ambushes is much more effective if what you want to do is kill the bad guy and survive yourself.

But - for the right reasons, like if my kid was in my house - I'd probably be willing to overlook those odds and gamble in part on the fact that I'm more motivated and better trained than whoever I'm hunting.

The interesting question - and one I genuinely couldn't answer - is whether I'd be willing to walk out of the room and go hunt the shooter. That's one of those random synapse click things, I imagine. So I can't really say whether I think I'd risk it all to be a hero. I might. I tend to wade into things before I think about them much. And then I might not, remembering the lesson I learned at Thunder Ranch.

I'd certainly defend myself and those immediately around me (can't defend me without defending them). I might go after him and try and defend more people - but I really can't say for certain. I wish I could. But I also know for certain that I'd be doing everything in my power not to be a victim.

The Funeral of a Hero

A Hero's Funeral:

I know little about Jewish funeral traditions and rites, so I'm not certain precisely what the right thing to say is. Let me just say, then, that Liviu Librescu was a fine man, and one America did right to welcome. He repaid that welcome with service, laying down his life to save our young men and women. Let us repay his service with honor and friendship, and remember.

Last Call Wargame

Last Call on VA Tech Wargame:

If anyone wishes to add or extend comments on anything relating to the wargame exercise, I will be closing the thing at the end of today and writing up the findings.

Special Forces blogger Francis Marion posted his thoughts here, if you haven't seen them.

Lighter Wargaming

A Lighter Wargaming Post:

This video highlights one of the dangers of dynamic entry by State Police. Er, to the police.

H/t: The Castle.

Reid's Declaration of Defeat

Reid's Declaration of Defeat:

By now, everyone knows that Harry Reid declared today that the Iraq war "is lost." The Surge, he says, is not working, as evidenced by the massive car bombings of this week.

Tigerhawk asks what possible purpose is served by such a statement. I will answer that Reid probably believes it to be true, and that speaking the truth is a good in and of itself. It happens that he is wrong, but I don't doubt that he believes he is doing something good.

The Surge is actually not yet in place -- only sixty percent of its forces are deployed -- and generals have warned that car bombings will be the last thing they can address, due to the location of car bomb factories in the suburbs outside Baghdad. The battle for these Baghdad belts is the last part of the Surge plan.

It is fair, then, to say that Harry Reid is premature in declaring the Surge a failure based on this evidence. (To say nothing of the war as a whole -- particularly in Anbar province, there has been marked progress in bringing once-hostile tribes alongside of Coalition forces.) It is also clear that the US military has made every effort to ensure that Congress understands this plan, and would have reached out to Reid's office had he contacted them to ask for comment before declaring their efforts a failure.

Why Reid has not understood the plan is not clear. Almost any speculation on the question leads you to say something ungenerous about the Senate Majority Leader, so let's not engage in speculation. It's not my point here to bait other Americans into a fight, but rather to sort out what the correct view of the situation is.

Still, it is fair to say that -- by citing the evidence he chose at this point in the plan's execution -- he has demonstrated that he doesn't understand what the military is trying to accomplish.

I hope someone will gently point that out to him, in terms he can take to heart. It ought to be alarming to him. Hopefully, he will have the grace to apologize for this comment, and work more closely with the military in understanding the American mission in Iraq.

Another thing that ought to be alarming is realizing that he has not only failed to understand what our military is attempting, he has also not paused to wonder what the enemy hopes to accomplish.

Some might claim the March 24 attacks were timed so the news would coincide with that of the House vote on the Iraq Withdrawal Bill. Some might notice that this week's attacks coincide with the return of congress from Spring Break, with the Iraq Bill once again foremost on the agenda.

The attacks are clearly timed to affect the US political landscape. The US military has made clear that car bombs will continue to be a factor until the Baghdad belts can be addressed, which will only be the case later during the Surge.

A clear-eyed political view would recognize those facts, and comment accordingly. One should consider the messages the enemy is trying to make you believe -- and also the messages you may be sending back.

UPDATE: By the way, does anyone know what argument Reid was trying to forward here?

I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically.

Those remarks followed the "war is lost" bit, and confuse the message terribly. Is Reid attempting to suggest that the war can be won "diplomatically, politically and economically" without a military/security component? If he is, he ought to make clear why he believes that is the case.

If he is merely arguing that those elements will be the decisive ones in bringing about a stable Iraq, he is in simple agreement with the various generals running the war. Given that he is arguing for troop withdrawals against the Surge, however, he appears not to be making that argument.

Would Reid please be clear exactly what he is trying to say? Is the war lost, or can it still be won? Are the troops counterproductive? If the war can be won, but only if we first withdraw our troops, what exactly is his diplomatic/political/economic plan for establishing security in the face of terrorists without Coalition security forces?

If he has such an argument to make, it would be well to make it now, so that we can consider it before Congress votes on funding the troops or not. I'd like to hear his thoughts laid out plainly and clearly.