Nuclear Baghdad?
The wife's nightmare scenario is not something I am particularly concerned about, given the apparent collapse of what little command and control remained with enemy forces. The collapse of the former government of Iraq today should preclude the use of weapons of mass destruction, including nukes if they existed. Someone's got to carry out the orders, after all.
Still, this report that the 1st Marine Division has captured an undeclared nuclear site in Iraq is interesting.
Afghan situation:
The Post also has its lead editorial on the Afghan situation.
Disarming the Afghans isn't the solution either. For one thing, it will create a tremendous amount of hostility. All of the various cultures in Afghanistan have strong traditions that bearing arms is part of manhood. There can be no faster way to turn the country against us than to try to enforce the Washington Post's ideals of gun control. Those ideas don't even fly in the American South, whose citizens get a vote in any such laws. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a Southerner say he'd take up arms against the government rather than let them seize his guns, I'd be a rich man. Such ideas are definitely not going to fly in Afghanistan, where they would be imposed by an outside force, on a culture with at least as strong a tradition of arms-bearing.
In the short term, we can carry on fighting opposition forces with the 82nd Airborne and Special Forces. In the long term, though, we need to found an organization like the Texas Rangers. That link is to a site on the history of the Rangers, who began in conditions not unlike those of modern Afghanistan. The Rangers began as a military force, and have evolved over 180 years to become a police force. We are, hopefully, looking at a shorter span of evolution for the Afghan situation, but the Texas Rangers are the best model. Small companies of rangers, with what amounts to martial-law authority but with backing from the central government, can act as a military force in the early days, to secure the borders and destroy the bands of warlords hostile to the government. They need to be skilled, trained in mountain warfare, and capable of moving quickly and acting on independent authority.
In time, as the Texas Rangers, they can evolve into a police force, once the situation on the ground changes. To start with, a mixed American-Afghan company would be ideal, trained by the US Army's 75th Rangers (who are closer in form and function to the early Texas Rangers than the modern Texas Rangers). As the methods and the ideals of the Rangers become ingrained, we can move to an all-Afghan regiment. Such a force, highly mobile and well trained, loyal to the government and able to enforce its will, would be just what is needed for a wild and difficult frontier.
The Post also has its lead editorial on the Afghan situation.
Seen from a complacent Washington, Afghanistan still may look better than it did before the U.S. intervention. But experts following the country say they worry about a steady unraveling, much like that which preceded the Taliban's seizure of power in the mid-1990s. The symptoms are similar: Outside the capital, warlords and bandits rule the country, sometimes battling each other and regularly robbing their fellow citizens at highway checkpoints. At the borders, aid shipments and "customs collections" on imported goods are diverted to the warlords, depriving the central government of resources and revenue. The opium trade is booming. In some places, the Taliban's extreme practices, including the persecution of women, have been reimposed.We need Afghanistan as a floursing, stable state. We aren't going to get there with peacekeepers, though--as demonstrated in the Bosnian conflict, peacekeepers' rules of engagement quickly turn them into "armed hostages," as my professor Tom Pearce used to say. Securing the borders in a rugged country, and pacifying rival clans at war, that isn't the work of peacekeepers. Let's be of a serious mind about this. Peacekeepers have their place, but this isn't it.
All of these phenomena have flourished in a vacuum knowingly created by the Bush administration, which refused to support the deployment of peacekeeping forces outside Kabul. Rather than disarm and disable the warlords, U.S. commanders continue to depend on them and even to finance some of them.
Disarming the Afghans isn't the solution either. For one thing, it will create a tremendous amount of hostility. All of the various cultures in Afghanistan have strong traditions that bearing arms is part of manhood. There can be no faster way to turn the country against us than to try to enforce the Washington Post's ideals of gun control. Those ideas don't even fly in the American South, whose citizens get a vote in any such laws. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a Southerner say he'd take up arms against the government rather than let them seize his guns, I'd be a rich man. Such ideas are definitely not going to fly in Afghanistan, where they would be imposed by an outside force, on a culture with at least as strong a tradition of arms-bearing.
In the short term, we can carry on fighting opposition forces with the 82nd Airborne and Special Forces. In the long term, though, we need to found an organization like the Texas Rangers. That link is to a site on the history of the Rangers, who began in conditions not unlike those of modern Afghanistan. The Rangers began as a military force, and have evolved over 180 years to become a police force. We are, hopefully, looking at a shorter span of evolution for the Afghan situation, but the Texas Rangers are the best model. Small companies of rangers, with what amounts to martial-law authority but with backing from the central government, can act as a military force in the early days, to secure the borders and destroy the bands of warlords hostile to the government. They need to be skilled, trained in mountain warfare, and capable of moving quickly and acting on independent authority.
In time, as the Texas Rangers, they can evolve into a police force, once the situation on the ground changes. To start with, a mixed American-Afghan company would be ideal, trained by the US Army's 75th Rangers (who are closer in form and function to the early Texas Rangers than the modern Texas Rangers). As the methods and the ideals of the Rangers become ingrained, we can move to an all-Afghan regiment. Such a force, highly mobile and well trained, loyal to the government and able to enforce its will, would be just what is needed for a wild and difficult frontier.
The Metro:
The Washington Post reports this morning on a possible al Qaeda threat to the Washington, D.C. Metro. It sounds dubious to me, but mass panic in tightly constrained areas gets ugly, quickly.
The Washington Post reports this morning on a possible al Qaeda threat to the Washington, D.C. Metro. It sounds dubious to me, but mass panic in tightly constrained areas gets ugly, quickly.
I would be remiss...
... as a proud citizen of the Great State of Georgia, which gave the world Sir James Edward Oglethorpe, Lachlan McIntosh, (especially) James Jackson, and Doc Holliday; and as a brother to a UGA alumnus; if I did not include a link to this picture of a UGA flag flying over a Saddamite palace in Baghdad.
Go, Mighty Dawgs.
... as a proud citizen of the Great State of Georgia, which gave the world Sir James Edward Oglethorpe, Lachlan McIntosh, (especially) James Jackson, and Doc Holliday; and as a brother to a UGA alumnus; if I did not include a link to this picture of a UGA flag flying over a Saddamite palace in Baghdad.
Go, Mighty Dawgs.
Alas, John, that I can't agree:
John Derbyshire is my second favorite conservative columnist, after Mark Steyn. John, whose occasional correspondance I consider an honor, has this to say about Iraq:
It strikes me as highly unlikely. Still--it is not impossible.
John Derbyshire is my second favorite conservative columnist, after Mark Steyn. John, whose occasional correspondance I consider an honor, has this to say about Iraq:
"This may, of course, be premature. I am writing this on Monday afternoon. It is well-nigh certain that brave young troopers from the Coalition forces - aye, and brave young Iraqis, and poor helpless noncombatants too - will be maimed and killed before the business is wrapped up and done. It is possible something large and ghastly will happen. I hope you will forgive me for setting these things aside and saying: Even so, we have won. There is nothing so large and ghastly it could change that."I wish I could agree. One possibility remains, the one that has been bothering my wife all along. The Iraqi information minister said today that our soldiers must surrender or be "burned in their tanks." His statements have been delusional all along, and there is no special reason to think this is more than bravado. Yet... there is a chance that there are atomic "doomsday devices" in Baghdad. That the Iraqi government might have these is possible, and indeed, such weapons do not need to be tested. Detonation of such weapons could take out a division or more of forces inside Baghdad, which would be a loss of such magnitude as to raise the cost of victory beyond what we would readily pay again. Hopefully, though, if such weapons exist at all they are known to our intelligence people, and have been priorities of all those Special Operations gentlemen in country.
It strikes me as highly unlikely. Still--it is not impossible.
Massacre in the Congo:
The Daily Telegraph has the story. I just heard an NPR interview with an official from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (rule of thumb: any state whose name includes the word "Democratic" is a brutal hellhole) which seemed to suggest that this might be a tribal thing, as women and children were doing some of the killing.
This follows an incident earlier this year involving cannibalism, as well as the more usual killing and raping.
The Daily Telegraph has the story. I just heard an NPR interview with an official from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (rule of thumb: any state whose name includes the word "Democratic" is a brutal hellhole) which seemed to suggest that this might be a tribal thing, as women and children were doing some of the killing.
This follows an incident earlier this year involving cannibalism, as well as the more usual killing and raping.
So why am I confident of victory?
Well, also from the MOUT manual:
No, the danger is in the long term, when we find our occupation forces under occasional assault by terrorist groups. However, we've shown a great deal of success at fighting such forces (see yesterday's entries), and our techniques have only improved of late. Special Operations forces are ideal for antiterrorist operations of this type. Furthermore, if the postwar period is handled carefully, it should be easy to deny the terrorists the allegiance of the population of Iraq. Without that, they can't operate with long term success.
If we operate with decency and fairness--as we ought to do anyway--and if our troops behave in the long term with a devotion to chivalry and honor, as they doubtlessly will, victory is certain.
The cost is not. Raise a glass to the honor of the soldiers and Marines who will pay it. If the human destiny is according to a vision of liberty, rather than tyranny, it is their blood that will buy it.
Well, also from the MOUT manual:
The attacker won all urban battles where the defender was totally isolated. Even the partial isolation of the defenders resulted in attackers enjoying a success rate of 80 percent. Conversely, attackers won only 50 percent of the battles in which defenders were not significantly isolated, and those victories came at great cost.It's hard to get much more isolated than the Iraqi government is just now. There is no government in the world that will openly ally with them in the war. The roads in and out of the city of Baghdad are controlled by the United States. Soon the surface streets will be owned by us as well, and they'll be fighting out of buildings and tunnels. We'll control the buildings soon enough, though the tunnels will be a sticking point. There is nowhere they can go, and no help is coming except in the form of terrorists, who can't offer a standup fight to professional soldiers and Marines.
No, the danger is in the long term, when we find our occupation forces under occasional assault by terrorist groups. However, we've shown a great deal of success at fighting such forces (see yesterday's entries), and our techniques have only improved of late. Special Operations forces are ideal for antiterrorist operations of this type. Furthermore, if the postwar period is handled carefully, it should be easy to deny the terrorists the allegiance of the population of Iraq. Without that, they can't operate with long term success.
If we operate with decency and fairness--as we ought to do anyway--and if our troops behave in the long term with a devotion to chivalry and honor, as they doubtlessly will, victory is certain.
The cost is not. Raise a glass to the honor of the soldiers and Marines who will pay it. If the human destiny is according to a vision of liberty, rather than tyranny, it is their blood that will buy it.
How much longer will the war last?
Well, that really depends on what you are ready to consider "the war." If you include terrorist actions and fights against terrorist groups--probably a long time yet, likely years. I won't be surprised if we end up moving a large number of our troops who have been garrisoning Germany to garrison Iraq in the postwar period--really, it would be wise to do so, to provide stability to the new government during the first years.
But, if you mean the war against Hussein's government... well, that won't be as long. Still, there are several reasons to think that it will be a while yet before Baghdad is secure, and Tikrit is still to come. Rumsfeld thinks the war isn't yet at the 'tipping point,' which is a pretty good indication that we may see some serious fighting yet. Furthermore, there are those underground fortresses, which may require weeks or months to clear. And, last, there is this admonition from the MOUT manual cited below:
Well, that really depends on what you are ready to consider "the war." If you include terrorist actions and fights against terrorist groups--probably a long time yet, likely years. I won't be surprised if we end up moving a large number of our troops who have been garrisoning Germany to garrison Iraq in the postwar period--really, it would be wise to do so, to provide stability to the new government during the first years.
But, if you mean the war against Hussein's government... well, that won't be as long. Still, there are several reasons to think that it will be a while yet before Baghdad is secure, and Tikrit is still to come. Rumsfeld thinks the war isn't yet at the 'tipping point,' which is a pretty good indication that we may see some serious fighting yet. Furthermore, there are those underground fortresses, which may require weeks or months to clear. And, last, there is this admonition from the MOUT manual cited below:
In most cases, successful conclusion of an urban battle took two to three times longer than the initial estimates. This often had adverse affects on the overall campaign. Well-planned urban defense, even if the defender is isolated or lacking in aviation, armor, or artillery weapons, can be time consuming to the attacker. Time can allow the defender to reorganize, re-deploy, or marshal resources in other areas.
Ah, Reuters:
One wonders why they even asked:
One wonders why they even asked:
A travel ban imposed on Baghdad by Iraqi authorities would have no impact on the activities of U.S.-led military forces attacking the city, a Pentagon spokesman said on Sunday.
"We will go wherever and whenever we want," the spokesman told Reuters.
City-Fighting:
InstaPundit, sage of the University of Tennessee, links today to an good article on city fighting. It's interesting to compare to the USMC MOUT manual for NCOs.
InstaPundit, sage of the University of Tennessee, links today to an good article on city fighting. It's interesting to compare to the USMC MOUT manual for NCOs.
Mujahedeen:
The National Review on the Arab warriors coming to fight the Jihad against Americans in Iraq. Outraged by our destruction of an Arab state, these men are swarming by the hundreds to join the war against America.
This was the anti-war argument fielded by the most intelligent doves. It was unfairly scorned by some hawks, who scoffed that doves were simultaneously arguing that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorists, but also that we daren't fight him because it would inflame terrorists. But the hawks who stopped with such scoffing were not playing fair, as they were themselves arguing that Saddam -was- in league with terrorists, but dismissing the danger of enhanced terrorist recruitment for war in Iraq.
The proper hawkish response was, and is, this: The time has come for fighting terrorists. We need to break these terror groups now, before weapons of mass destruction--particularly radiological/nuclear weapons--become more commonly available. It is therefore a benefit of the Iraq war that it will bring those who are ideologically disposed to terrorism into the fight now, while they are fighting at a disadvantage, so that they will be dead later, when weapons of mass destruction might be ready to hand. This is the proper time for the conflict. If we are to remake the Middle East, eliminating the subset of the population that is willing to commit terrorist acts is necessary.
Yes, it greatly increases the danger of the struggle to our soldiers in the field. They understand about danger. It is time for this fight. We cannot go on like we have, treating terrorists as criminals, and limiting our responses to law enforcement. By all means, let's call up the enemy to his fullest, and fight him down. We have thousands of special-operations qualified troops in the region. Breaking these terrorists is part of making America safe--the most important part, in fact. Anyone who wants to fight, let's fight now.
The National Review on the Arab warriors coming to fight the Jihad against Americans in Iraq. Outraged by our destruction of an Arab state, these men are swarming by the hundreds to join the war against America.
This was the anti-war argument fielded by the most intelligent doves. It was unfairly scorned by some hawks, who scoffed that doves were simultaneously arguing that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorists, but also that we daren't fight him because it would inflame terrorists. But the hawks who stopped with such scoffing were not playing fair, as they were themselves arguing that Saddam -was- in league with terrorists, but dismissing the danger of enhanced terrorist recruitment for war in Iraq.
The proper hawkish response was, and is, this: The time has come for fighting terrorists. We need to break these terror groups now, before weapons of mass destruction--particularly radiological/nuclear weapons--become more commonly available. It is therefore a benefit of the Iraq war that it will bring those who are ideologically disposed to terrorism into the fight now, while they are fighting at a disadvantage, so that they will be dead later, when weapons of mass destruction might be ready to hand. This is the proper time for the conflict. If we are to remake the Middle East, eliminating the subset of the population that is willing to commit terrorist acts is necessary.
Yes, it greatly increases the danger of the struggle to our soldiers in the field. They understand about danger. It is time for this fight. We cannot go on like we have, treating terrorists as criminals, and limiting our responses to law enforcement. By all means, let's call up the enemy to his fullest, and fight him down. We have thousands of special-operations qualified troops in the region. Breaking these terrorists is part of making America safe--the most important part, in fact. Anyone who wants to fight, let's fight now.
Rejoice:
The Daily Telegraph on the fall of Basra. Registration may be required, but it's free. The Telegraph reminds us of one way in which the offensive is very different from Medieval battles:
The Daily Telegraph on the fall of Basra. Registration may be required, but it's free. The Telegraph reminds us of one way in which the offensive is very different from Medieval battles:
In medieval and early modern times, cities that resisted siege could expect havoc and slaughter when they fell.
Even today, armies are sometimes prepared to raze urban areas rather than risk house-to-house combat, Grozny being the most recent example. Yet British troops managed to fight their way to the centre of Basra with miraculously few casualties, either to themselves or to the civilian population.
From William Raspberry:
William Raspberry is my favorite liberal columnist. (My favorite conservative columnist, if you are curious, is Mark Steyn). Raspberry's piece today is on affirmative action. He and I do not agree, but his take is, as always, thoughtful.
William Raspberry is my favorite liberal columnist. (My favorite conservative columnist, if you are curious, is Mark Steyn). Raspberry's piece today is on affirmative action. He and I do not agree, but his take is, as always, thoughtful.
Maybe if you ask them nicely:
Some additional business for the war summit in Northern Ireland. Since he's going to be there anyway, the BBC asks, couldn't Bush devote a little energy to getting the IRA under control?
Some additional business for the war summit in Northern Ireland. Since he's going to be there anyway, the BBC asks, couldn't Bush devote a little energy to getting the IRA under control?
North Korea:
The DPRK has tested an antiship missile this week, the third such test of the KN-01 system. Meanwhile, the BBC is having some fun with Bush administration officials, who can't seem to decide whether the DPRK or Iraq has the worse human rights record. The DPRK has suggested that, actually, it's the US who is the worst. But certainly one can't fault the US for being insufficiently interested in human rights... almost over-interested, really...
The DPRK has tested an antiship missile this week, the third such test of the KN-01 system. Meanwhile, the BBC is having some fun with Bush administration officials, who can't seem to decide whether the DPRK or Iraq has the worse human rights record. The DPRK has suggested that, actually, it's the US who is the worst. But certainly one can't fault the US for being insufficiently interested in human rights... almost over-interested, really...
Elements of the State Department report have been viewed with some derision by commentators - in particular its 16-page exposition of human rights in largely trouble-free Canada, and its noting that the Palestinian Authority has failed to install ramps at public building entrances to allow disability access.
War's Finest Weapon:
The Black Watch took Basra today, devoting their Challenger tanks. Those tanks are rated by some experts as the best in the world, better even than our M1A1 Abrams, though personally I suspect the Abrams is more likely to survive a battle. Air support was provided by US Marine Air, using Super Cobra attack helicopters that, excepting updated munitions and avionics, date to Vietnam. It's hard to imagine a more irresistable force than the Scots and the Marines fighting together. The Scotsman provides here a very thorough account of the battle.
This battle also saw, for the first time in the war, the British army using its most feared and awesome weapon.
The Black Watch took Basra today, devoting their Challenger tanks. Those tanks are rated by some experts as the best in the world, better even than our M1A1 Abrams, though personally I suspect the Abrams is more likely to survive a battle. Air support was provided by US Marine Air, using Super Cobra attack helicopters that, excepting updated munitions and avionics, date to Vietnam. It's hard to imagine a more irresistable force than the Scots and the Marines fighting together. The Scotsman provides here a very thorough account of the battle.
This battle also saw, for the first time in the war, the British army using its most feared and awesome weapon.
As he began to play, the sound of Scotland the Brave drifted across the bridge towards the city, competing with the clatter of rotor blades as four Cobra helicopters raced in to join the attack.The Highland pipes were declared weapons of war after 1746, when Bonnie Prince Charlie's last Jacobite uprising was defeated by an army of Lowland Scots and a few British gentlemen. The prohibition didn't take: soon the Highlander regiments carried those pipes around the world in service to the Crown. These regiments included the Black Watch, also known as the "Gallant Forty-Twa," or 42nd Regiment--they had been the 43rd, but one of the older regiments was "reduced." The Highlanders made the sound of the pipes feared by Britian's foes, from Napoleon's Eurpoe to India and China. They'd had the same effect upon the English in their day:
"There are those who when the woollen bagpipe sings i'th nose/ cannot contain their urine."
William Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice"
Vive les chevauchees!
More "war rides" along the perimeter, provoking enthusiastic but uncoordinated resistance. Via the W. Post. If you don't know what a chevauchee is, page down to yesterday's entries.
More "war rides" along the perimeter, provoking enthusiastic but uncoordinated resistance. Via the W. Post. If you don't know what a chevauchee is, page down to yesterday's entries.
Two from the Post:
Today's Washington Post has two good articles on the use of American power in the war: one on ground forces, and one on the use of air assets.
Today's Washington Post has two good articles on the use of American power in the war: one on ground forces, and one on the use of air assets.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)