Calling Down the Thunder:

Marines have entered an Iraqi town in order to recover the body of one of their fellows, rumored to have been hanged in the town square. The government also revealed today that a rescue operation for the 507th Maintenance soldiers went badly, with 9 Marines killed and eight missing in the aftermath. Four bodies have been recovered from shallow graves, and each of these bodies is thought to be an American.

Better to have tried and failed, than not to have tried to rescue our soldiers. Yet the price is not forgotten. I have said we walk in the morning of the world, and in the tales of old often dead men speak, give advice. Here are some who speak to us now.

Alas:

Tragedy at a US checkpoint. Alas for the 3rd Infantry, who did all they could, under circumstances heightened by the suicide bombing on the weekend. Alas for the family lost.

Can this be true?, II:

Kim Jong Il has been throwing all triplets born in Korea into state-run orphanages, apparently based on a superstition that a triplet might one day overthrow him. Again we are living in the realm of legend and myth:

Exodus 1.15-16: And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:

And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

Or, if you like:

THEN King Arthur let send for all the children born on May-day,
begotten of lords and born of ladies; for Merlin told King Arthur
that he that should destroy him should be born on May-day,
wherefore he sent for them all, upon pain of death; and so there
were found many lords' sons, and all were sent unto the king, and
so was Mordred sent by King Lot's wife, and all were put in a
ship to the sea, and some were four weeks old, and some less.
And so by fortune the ship drave unto a castle, and was all to-
riven, and destroyed the most part, save that Mordred was cast
up, and a good man found him, and nourished him till he was
fourteen year old, and then he brought him to the court, as it
rehearseth afterward, toward the end of the Death of Arthur.

We walk still in the morning of the world.

Poker and War:

Why I have always loved poker.

Can this be true?

From the New York Times:

The Army's Third Infantry Division has a team of lawyers along to advise on whether targets are legitimate under international conventions � and a vast database of some 10,000 targets to be avoided, such as hospitals, mosques and cultural or archaeological treasures.

Words fail me. Ten thousand targets to be avoided? Chivalry.

On Beowulf:

That is, on the poem, not the boy. From the Heroic Age, this article treats how heroic poetry was of old used to educate young men. It's a little dry, but since this is a theme of the blog just lately, I thought I'd include it.

How little changes, II:

5,000 year old swords found in Turkey. Wonderful story--silver inlaid, finely made weapons. Here is the United States Marine Corps Officer's Sword.

War with DPRK soon?

The BBC is reporting that Kim Jong Il, leader of North Korea, has not been seen in public in over forty days. He apparently even skipped the annual parlimentary meeting. Also not visible: his top military staff. Jo Myong-chol, a high-level defector, says the North has gone on a war footing.

How little has changed:

From the Washington Post:

In a model of how the Marines say they hope their relationship with the Iraqi people can evolve, the two sides struck a deal: the Marines agreed to escort some villagers to a nearby well to get clean water and help repair damage caused by the fleeing Iraqi army. The village leaders agreed to go house to house, rounding up rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons that could be used against U.S. forces.

The bargain was sealed with a feast cooked up by the townspeople, featuring rice, bread and goat cooked over an open fire.

From the Beowulf:

Gathered together, the Geatish men

in the banquet-hall on bench assigned,

sturdy-spirited, sat them down,

hardy-hearted. A henchman attended,

carried the carven cup in hand...

Is this the modern world, where warriors from far off bring promises to guard their hosts with valor, and are feasted as heroes? It is our world, today. The journals of psychology and sociology are worthless as guides to it. But there are ready sources that speak to it, tell us how to live in it, master it, and stride across it. They are the old songs, the epic poems, the sagas and the tales. A man might read a thousand page book by this or that famous journalist on the subject of Iraq, and still be at a loss when he tried to pass among the tribes. The same man, if he hears the Iliad, knows just what must be done.

Then let him make thee a rich feast of
reconcilement in his hut, that thou have nothing lacking of thy right.
And thou, son of Atreus, toward others also shalt be more righteous
herafter; for no shame it is that a man that is a king should make
amends if he have been the first to deal violently.

Wise words from Odysseus, master mariner and soldier.

Iraq War:

Today's Washington Post lead story contains these remarkable lines:

Top Army officers in Iraq say they now believe that they effectively need to restart the war. Before launching a major ground attack on Iraq's Republican Guard, they want to secure their supply lines and build up their own combat power. Some timelines for the likely duration of the war now extend well into the summer, they say.



This revised view of the war plan, a major departure from the blitzkrieg approach developed over the past year, threatens to undercut early Bush administration hopes for a quick triumph over the government of President Saddam Hussein.

What these reporters are describing is standard military policy, not an 'effective restart' of the war. During the first days of the war, the 3rd Infantry Division was described as having been 'driven' off by Iraqi resistance. Not so, I said: they are simply investing their foes, to trap them that they might take them down at leisure and with airpower.

That is what they did, trapping them against the Euprhates and smashing them, then rolling on. They have moved faster and with less care for their supply lines than I would have imagined they ever would dare--but neither, it seems, did the Iraqis imagine it. Now they have invested Basra, trapping most of the remaining regular forces in the south, and have taken up siege positions of Baghdad in the south. The northern forces will be moving south as they build up sufficient strength, both to complete the investment of Baghdad and to see if they can flush the dug-in Republican Guard positions--if the RG feels it needs to shuffle forces to defend Baghdad, they will have to move tanks and troops in a way that will make them vunerable to airstrikes.

It makes perfect sense at this time to pause, use air power to smite the RG lines, concentrate on cleaning up some of the irregular forces operating in the backfield, and secure supply lines. It is standard military policy--which may mean that it's not at all what we're going to do, as Rumsfeld is an original thinker. If it is what we do, though, it's hardly a bad thing, or a sign that the war is faltering.

The fact that we are able to do this at leisure demonstrates the complete command our forces have of the battlfield. There is simply no coherent Iraqi defense. One may develop around Baghdad, but unless they can manage a counteroffensive, it is simply a matter of time and leverage until they are destroyed.

Suicide Bomber Hamas?

National Review's Jed Babbin reports, based on a confidential source, that he believes the suicide bomber who attacked the 3rd Infantry Division checkpoint was Hamas. The bomber had earlier been claimed as an Iraqi army officer. Mr. Babbin is greatly worried about the possibility. He cites the British and Israeli examples of failing to uproot these terrorists as reason to believe we are entering an ugly, and possibly permanent, state of affairs.

Even if the report is true, we'll have to see. Iraq isn't like Israel or Ireland. Both Ireland and Israel have large communities of people with what amount to pre-national, ethnic claims to unity with the terrorists. Hamas is not Iraqi. If they can find support among the Shiites of Basra, they may be able to carry on the kind of campaign the PIRA or PLO have: but they will need that support, at the street level, to gain a foothold and keep it. The British report that the citizens of Basra are currently informing on Baath party members. If we deal well and honorably with them, once they are free of the tyranny of the state, it seems unlikely to me that they would quickly seek and support new tyrants.

A response from the DPRK:

North Korea has a statement to offer on its nuclear program. Chinese diplomacy notwithstanding, they're feeling quite defiant.

It [the gov't newspaper] said no one should expect North Korea to make the "slightest concession or compromise." Instead, it said, Pyongyang will increase its self-defensive capabilities.



Pyongyang's latest comments came hours after South Korean Foreign Minister Yoon Young-Kwan met U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington to discuss the nuclear standoff. Mr. Yoon later told journalists that Washington has reaffirmed its policy of finding a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

Bravado, in the face of oil-pipe cutoffs? Another attempt at blackmail? Or just the truth?

From MSNBC:

Marines have apparently found the uniforms of captured female US soldiers.

SANDERS WAS shown where the uniforms were found � inside the bathroom of a larger room that had been padlocked. It was the same room where 3,000 nuclear, biological and chemical suits were found when the Marines moved in.

The uniforms, which had had their American flag patches and names ripped off, were found inside a bag.
In another room, Marines found a large battery next to a bed � leading them to suspect it was used as a torture device, Sanders reported.

Just so you know.

On the House of Lords:

This touches on the new election system for the higher, and least important, of the houses of the British Parliment. It may be necessary to register to read this article, which is from the Daily Telegraph, but registration is free.

From the London Spectator:

A piece that neatly explains why I am not a conservative, but rather a classical liberal. The author is right: war, except purely defensive war, is not conservative. Remaking the world according to a vision of human liberty is something else again. It is the vision that inspired James Jackson, George Washington, and the others of our American forefathers. That's not a Tory proposition. It never was.

From the NY Times:

A rare piece worth reading.

Chomsky:

One of you asked me about Noam Chomsky recently. I have never devoted much time or energy to him, though my readings of him indicate that he is a brilliant scientist, and a complete idiot on matters of politics. Still, since you asked, let's look at his column running today in the Sydney Morning Herald:

It will be some time before even preliminary assessments of the consequences can be made. Every effort must be dedicated to minimising the harm, and to providing the Iraqi people with the huge resources required for them to rebuild their society, post-Saddam - in their own way - not as dictated by foreign rulers.

Well, here's a preliminary assessment that can be made: The coalition -is- making every effort to minimize harm, at the risk of US military lives. The rules of engagement being used here, as well as the extrodinary expense invested in precision weapons, instead of simply carpet bombing, both indicate total American commitment to that ideal. Our rules of engagement don't permit returning fire against buildings that might be inhabited, for example. We are taking special pains to accept surrenders that might turn into ambushes--even though we have lost lives to such ambushes. Chomsky is not preaching to the choir, he's preaching against the choir.

There is no reason to doubt the near-universal judgement the war in Iraq will only increase the threat of terrorism and the development and use of weapons of mass destruction, for revenge or deterrence.

No reason at all? I've got a few reasons. Here's one: the threat of terrorism may just be reduced by the destruction of the Iraqi intelligence service, which--it is now a matter of record, since one of their officers was killed in the bunker strike that seems to have hit Hussein's family and ruling generals as well--coordinates with Palestinian terrorists. The threat of weapons of mass destruction being developed and used may be lessened by the end of a government that has developed and used them as a matter of policy. More to the point, though, the war isn't about preventing weapons of mass destruction from being developed and used--we develop them ourselves, though we don't use them, at least not yet. The point was to prevent them being -developed- by people likely to pass them to terrorists, who were the ones we wanted to keep from -using- them.

It is also absolutely foolish to elide, the way Chomsky does, use "whether for revenge or deterrence." Using a weapon for "revenge" means you set off a WMD in a way designed to cause terrible harm. Using a weapon for "deterrence" means you do NOT use it. You own it, yes; you keep it handy, yes; but if you use the thing, it's no longer a deterrence. It's a war, which is what a deterrence is meant to prevent. Chomsky shows his cards here by making the ownership of a weapon morally equivalent to the use of that weapon for revenge. It's like equating owning a shotgun for home defense with shooting your boss.

It is true that North Korea may now feel the need for nukes to keep GIs off the streets of Pyongyang. That's a real problem--one that my mind often turns to. It is not at all clear, though, that the DPRK didn't feel that need already: their every action on the subject for twelve years seems to have been directed at it. If they are to be restrained, it will need better thinking and stronger wills than Chomsky's. Wishful thinking won't do it.

In Iraq, the Bush Administration is pursuing an "imperial ambition" that is, rightly, frightening the world and turning the United States into an international pariah.

Well, now. An international pariah. I'm accustomed to seeing our policy described as "unilateral," in spite of a coalition of about fifty nations providing support of one kind or another. That was, I thought, enough of a stretch. Now we're a pariah! No one will trust us again--except:

Afghanistan

Albania

Angola

Australia

Azerbaijan

Bulgaria

Colombia

Costa Rica

Czech Republic

Denmark

Dominican Republic

El Salvador

Eritrea

Estonia

Ethiopia

Georgia

Honduras

Hungary

Iceland

Italy

Japan

Kuwait

Latvia

Lithuania

Macedonia

Marshall Islands

Micronesia

Mongolia

Netherlands

Nicaragua

Palau

Panama

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Rwanda

Singapore

Slovakia

Solomon Islands

South Korea

Spain

Turkey

Uganda

Ukraine

United Kingdom

Uzbekistan

As per the White House, the coalition represents a population of about 1.23 billion people. Now, about .25 billion of that is our own people here in the USA--I'm guessing the White House is including San Francisco--but that still leaves about a billion people in states that are in fact allied to us here. Chomsky is living in a fantasy world, one in which despair is eternal.

The avowed intent of current US policy is to assert a military power that is supreme in the world and beyond challenge. US preventative wars may be fought at will; preventative, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might sometimes be, they do not hold for the very different category of preventative war; the use of force to eliminate a contrived threat.

Yes to everything except that last line. A preventative war is not the use of force to eliminate a "contrived" threat, but a developing threat. Pre-emptive war tends to assume that you're about to be hit, so you hit first. Preventative war takes note of a developing threat, and gets it while it can be gotten with minimal loss of life. Pre-emptive war means waiting until a dictator has nuclear weapons and you get word that he's about to launch them against, say, Israel. Preventative war means taking out his reactor before he develops the weapons. Which is better? M. Chomsky?

That policy opens the way to protracted struggle between the United States and its enemies, some of them created by violence and aggression and not just in the Middle East. In that regard, the US attack on Iraq is an answer to Osama bin Laden's prayers.

Yes, we've all noted his celebratory messages. Wait, we haven't? Oh, that's because he's either dead or hiding in the mountains of the Afghan/Pak border, with the 82nd Airborne breathing down his neck, his chief lieutenant being interrogated by the CIA, his network disrupted, his training camps destroyed, and a huge bounty on his head. Protracted struggle with the United States will tend to do that to you. The enemies of the United States, insofar as they are real enemies and not just involved in diplomatic disagreements with us, are tyrants, dictators, and murderers. Bring them on: we'll clear the world of them.

For the world the stakes of the war and its aftermath almost couldn't be higher. To select just one of many possibilities, destabilisation in Pakistan could lead to a turnover of "loose nukes" to the global network of terrorist groups, which may well be invigorated by the invasion and military occupation of Iraq. Other possibilities, no less grim, are easy to conjure up.

They sure are. We have bunches of guys who spend their entire careers doing just that. They work for West Point, Annapolis, the CIA, the DIA, various think-tanks, the US Military, and others. If Pakistan falls, you can bet we have a plan for dealing with it--one that likely involves Navy SEALs. In fact, we probably have ten plans, and the resources to carry them out. The president--whoever he might be on the occasion--need only choose among them if the time comes.

But don't let's write off Gen. Mushareef yet. He's wilier than many seem to credit him. No need to borrow trouble, or spend our days dreaming of grim possibilities. Courage, sir. All is not lost--indeed, things are better than they've been in quite a while.

Yet the outlook for more benign outcomes isn't hopeless, starting with the world's support for the victims of war and murderous sanctions in Iraq.

What's this? A sign of hope? In Chomsky?

A promising sign is that opposition to the invasion has been entirely without precedent.

Of course. It's great that people are against fighting dictators, and are willing to take Saddam's word over that of the US government. That's just what I'd call a promising sign too.

By now, the only way for the United States to attack a much weaker enemy is to construct a huge propaganda offensive depicting it as the ultimate evil, or even as a threat to our very survival. That was Washington's scenario for Iraq.

So, depicting Iraq's government as evil was just a propaganda tool? What about the rape rooms, sir? It's impossible to even begin a list of Iraqi atrocities and crimes against humanity, for lack of knowing where to start and what to include.

There's more, if you want it. I personally feel that enough has been said to make the half of my point I was concerned about, which is that Chomsky is a political fool: quod erat demonstrandum. The other half of the point, that he is a brilliant scientist, I will leave to the man himself.

Good news from China?

The Baltimore Sun is reporting that last week's shutdown of the oil pipeline between the People's Republic of China and North Korea, ascribed to "technical difficulties," has been followed by a diplomatic message demanding that the DPRK cut out the nuclear blackmail. If true, it's a highly encouraging story.

Is it true? The sources quoted are anonymous, and the "unusually blunt" diplomatic message is not actually quoted, but summarized. The only people quoted by name are South Koreans. On the one hand, the shutting down of the pipeline is a matter of record, as is the official explanation of technical difficulties. On the other hand, this analysis conflicts directly with several others cited on this page recently. Let's hope the "veteran sources" know what they are talking about here. We could use some good news from the PRC/DPRK front.

City-fighting:

Here's a story from the Washington Post that speaks to some rumors I've been hearing and reading for a while now. It demonstrates that special operations teams have, as I asserted a week ago, the run of Baghdad, which bodes very well for the battle for that city. There is also what I consider to be good news on the subject of assassination tactics:

The covert teams, from the CIA's paramilitary division and the military's special operations group, include snipers and demolition experts schooled in setting house and car bombs. They have reportedly killed more than a handful of individuals, according to one knowledgeable source. They have been in operation for at least one week.

The previously undisclosed operation suggests U.S. efforts to destroy the Iraqi government's leadership are far more extensive than previously known, and have continued since the March 20 airstrike on a residential compound in the suburbs of Baghdad. That attack was launched after CIA Director George J. Tenet presented President Bush with fresh intelligence that Hussein and his two sons, Qusay and Uday, were sleeping in the complex.

Car bombs, house bombs, snipers--assassins. Say what you will about them, they are the best way I know of to kill the enemy without endangering the innocent. It eliminates the enemy's most valuable assets, the ones with the best knowledge of offense, defense, and capabilities. Even the ones not eliminated are inhibited, afraid to move about even in Baghdad.

Finally, these tactics being put to use in Baghdad are likely to be of special use against terrorist organizations. It is always best to capture terrorists alive, of course, so that they can be interrogated. There are places where live capture isn't an option, though. Second best is taking them out, cleanly and on the instant.

More on the Al Jazeera tape:

From NRO's warblog by Jed Babbin:

I have confirmed that the Al-Jazeera tape, all twelve minutes of it, is merely an excerpt of the hour-long version being shown regularly in Egypt and elsewhere. The short version shows the interrogation of some U.S. soldiers and the defamed dead bodies of others. The longer version includes all that, plus the murders and later abuse and mutilation of the bodies. Apparently, the whole thing is out there on the internet. I don't want to watch it tonight. Maybe tomorrow morning, when the mind is fresher, more able to withstand it.

I'm on the lookout for this, though downloading an hour-long video on my 28k modem would be the work of quite a while. This is exactly the sort of thing that -should- be available to US citizens, but isn't because the media is afraid of what we'd do if we saw it. The TV news program, even the internet "new media," which started out to tell people the truth in order to right wrongs, now believes it is their duty to hide the truth from the citizenry. We are not to be trusted: why not isn't really clear. What might we do? Support the war? Moreso? Support for the war is already broad and deep.