But They've Always Said They Had No Control...
Sinn Fein's control over the Provisional IRA is brought into question by current events. Sinn Fein has always denied that they were, as they are always said to be, the "political wing of the IRA." Just patriots, so they'll tell you. Pass the half-and-half (we won't call them Black and Tans here), and that little coin-box with the white cap.
I'll Take a Hit:
This deck of cards is the best idea I've seen out of the war, and it's been a war of good ideas. Now my only question is--where can I get one?
This deck of cards is the best idea I've seen out of the war, and it's been a war of good ideas. Now my only question is--where can I get one?
Syria:
The Voice of America reports that Syria is closing its Iraqi border to all but humanitarian traffic. Meanwhile, on that border, US airstrikes and Special forces troops are engaged in continuing operations against fleeing members of the former Iraqi government and anyone trying to slip in to help them:
The Voice of America reports that Syria is closing its Iraqi border to all but humanitarian traffic. Meanwhile, on that border, US airstrikes and Special forces troops are engaged in continuing operations against fleeing members of the former Iraqi government and anyone trying to slip in to help them:
Syrian fighters have turned up on the Iraqi battlefield--one was found hiding in a Baghdad refrigerator on Wednesday--and other Arab fighters have crossed into Iraq via Syria to attack the U.S.-led coalition.Meanwhile, the good people in San Francisco are convinced that Damascus is next.
On Thursday, after Saddam's regime collapsed in Baghdad and the northern city of Kirkuk, it appeared some were returning the way they came: A correspondent for Al-Jazeera at the Syria-Iraq border said he had met Palestinian and Syrian volunteer fighters at the border who had abandoned their positions in Mosul and were returning home.
Nuclear Baghdad:
More on the nuclear complex the Marines have located. The IAEA has apparently inspected the above-ground site numerous times, and had done some examination of some undergound facilities; but an underground complex is something they had never discovered, "despite persistent rumors." Interesting read.
Meanwhile, the Scotsman is reporting that we may have found plutonium. PittsburghLIVE has a more up to date and complete version of the story.
More on the nuclear complex the Marines have located. The IAEA has apparently inspected the above-ground site numerous times, and had done some examination of some undergound facilities; but an underground complex is something they had never discovered, "despite persistent rumors." Interesting read.
Meanwhile, the Scotsman is reporting that we may have found plutonium. PittsburghLIVE has a more up to date and complete version of the story.
"The Onion a trouv� la solution"
Le Figaro discovers America's Finest News Source. At least the French knew it was satire.
Le Figaro discovers America's Finest News Source. At least the French knew it was satire.
So what are we doing with Syria?
I'm still unsure myself. We're obviously not worried about provoking them, having cut their oil, taken a town right on their border, had Rumsfeld warn them twice on military cooperation with the former government of Iraq, and even hinted that Syria might be next if they didn't behave according to our wishes. That last article mentions an unnamed military source who claims that we are drawing up plans to invade Syria--indeed, we almost certainly are, if we haven't already. As I said recently about Pakistan:
Actually, I suspect we are going to invade Syria, though only informally. Jed Babbin suggested it today in his warblog on National Review Online, with regard to assassinating/capturing leaders of the former Iraqi government. I think we'll see a cross-border situation like we have with Afghanistan and Pakistan right now: militants, terrorists, and other groups are likely to try to hide on the other side of the Syrian border. We will hunt and kill them, and we will officially deny doing so "except in hot pursuit." In fact, though, we'll do it gladly. But will there be a formal war with Syria?
I honestly don't know. Watch Rumsfeld, though, for the answer--if he actually says so, rather than merely hinting at it, then we're going.
I'm still unsure myself. We're obviously not worried about provoking them, having cut their oil, taken a town right on their border, had Rumsfeld warn them twice on military cooperation with the former government of Iraq, and even hinted that Syria might be next if they didn't behave according to our wishes. That last article mentions an unnamed military source who claims that we are drawing up plans to invade Syria--indeed, we almost certainly are, if we haven't already. As I said recently about Pakistan:
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.We have lots of people who make their careers on drawing up contingency plans; it doesn't mean we're going to do anything about them. I wouldn't be surprised to find that we had drawn up plans to invade parts of Europe under certain circumstances. Sure reads nastily in the press, though.
Actually, I suspect we are going to invade Syria, though only informally. Jed Babbin suggested it today in his warblog on National Review Online, with regard to assassinating/capturing leaders of the former Iraqi government. I think we'll see a cross-border situation like we have with Afghanistan and Pakistan right now: militants, terrorists, and other groups are likely to try to hide on the other side of the Syrian border. We will hunt and kill them, and we will officially deny doing so "except in hot pursuit." In fact, though, we'll do it gladly. But will there be a formal war with Syria?
I honestly don't know. Watch Rumsfeld, though, for the answer--if he actually says so, rather than merely hinting at it, then we're going.
Al Jazeera:
"Objective and balanced global news coverage," indeed. Today's headlines include a story about Rumsfeld and Syria, whose subhead is: "Emboldened by US military action in Iraq, hawks have turned their sights on Iran and Syria." Which hawks? Well, if you go and read the story, you find out that it's really just one guy: Michael Ledeen. But Ledeen, though a member of the American Enterprise institute, is mostly a journalist who writes for the Jewish World Review. He's not a member of the administration. All the quotes from actual government officials explicitly deny military action against Syria or Iran. The only counterexample al Jazeera could find was this:
"Objective and balanced global news coverage," indeed. Today's headlines include a story about Rumsfeld and Syria, whose subhead is: "Emboldened by US military action in Iraq, hawks have turned their sights on Iran and Syria." Which hawks? Well, if you go and read the story, you find out that it's really just one guy: Michael Ledeen. But Ledeen, though a member of the American Enterprise institute, is mostly a journalist who writes for the Jewish World Review. He's not a member of the administration. All the quotes from actual government officials explicitly deny military action against Syria or Iran. The only counterexample al Jazeera could find was this:
It was widely believed that Vice President Dick Cheney was referring to Syria and Iran when he said in a speech that Washington would �do whatever it takes� to defeat terrorism and must confront nations that sponsor it.
More on the Syrian oil pipeline:
Syrian oil exports are dropping by half following the US destruction of the Iraq-Syria oil pipeline. It's only a coincidence, say the Syrians, who deny that they were ever illegally importing oil from Iraq. (NB: That is, "illegally" according only to several UN resolutions. Since the UN has demonstrated disinterest in enforcing its mandates, as far as I can tell, it's not really illegal at all.)
Syrian oil exports are dropping by half following the US destruction of the Iraq-Syria oil pipeline. It's only a coincidence, say the Syrians, who deny that they were ever illegally importing oil from Iraq. (NB: That is, "illegally" according only to several UN resolutions. Since the UN has demonstrated disinterest in enforcing its mandates, as far as I can tell, it's not really illegal at all.)
War Has Gamblers Folding:
So says ABC News in this report. Well, not me. Those of you who have lost bets can post your forfeits to my PO box; email if you need it. I wrote to the one of you who may have won one earlier, and as discussed, we'll wait for better evidence before deciding.
New war bets welcome. I'll consider anything, but you may have to take odds if you want to lay really strange bets.
So says ABC News in this report. Well, not me. Those of you who have lost bets can post your forfeits to my PO box; email if you need it. I wrote to the one of you who may have won one earlier, and as discussed, we'll wait for better evidence before deciding.
New war bets welcome. I'll consider anything, but you may have to take odds if you want to lay really strange bets.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)