Things to remember:

When reading news stories from certain foreign countries that purport to tell you how "the man in the street" feels, keep in mind this enlightening news story from the Pakistan Observer:

A staggering majority of the Americans want US President George W Bush be impeached for launching Iraq war on false pretexts and flimsy grounds. �Official Poll� reported on June 11 that more than 94.7 per cent of the US citizens were in favour of Bush�s impeachment, the report claimed.

It published its poll with the question: �Should George W Bush be impeached?� A staggering number 94.7 per cent of those polled said: �Yes, the President of the United States of America should be impeached for what appear to be untrue statements to the US Congress and the American people.�

Under US law, lying about the reason for a war is an impeachable offence.

We probably remember from 1998 that US law doesn't really go into any detail about what is or isn't impeachable. But really--94.7%? Why didn't they just report that we HAD impeached him? I mean, if you're going to just make stuff up, why not go hog wild? (Oops--accidental cultural insensitivity there. Sorry, Muslim readers.)

Update to Special Operations piece:

Strategypage is reporting that there will soon be a new commando unit in the US Military, drawn exclusively from the United States Marine Corps. It's certainly right and proper that this should be the case. The Marines, whatever else you may wish to say about them (e.g., that they're obviously superior to the Army in every way, and better looking as well), have a signal advantage over the other services: they are paid out of the President's funds rather than Congress'. The Corps is the President's to use as he sees fit, regardless of what jackass was currently on the Senate floor filibustering against the rescinding of aloe vera subsidies.

Not that I'm opposed to legislative oversight. I think the Congress ought to be the leading branch of the government. It's just that, first, we'll have to elect some leaders to it.

Mercenaries for Peace:

This is an excellent idea. Mercenary peacekeepers: I like it.

Pay in Iraq:

Students of history will recall that one of the early troubles for the American republic was occasioned by the nonpayment of veterans' pensions. George Washington almost failed to put an end to the mutiny, as the veterans were rightly outraged at the government's failure to provide promised funds that were necessary, in many cases, to care for their families. Washington's speech failed, but his vision carried the day: that is, his literal vision. He had to produce eyeglasses to read the notes he had from the government, which surprised many of the soldiers who had served with him. His remark, which I quote from memory, was to ask them to excuse him, "for I have grown grey in the service, and now grow blind." The veterans, remembering common struggles and sacrifices, chose then to heed him.

There is no George Washington in Iraq. Therefore, it is wise of the American government to put the payment of Iraqis in the hands of his heirs, who are very capable men: I MEF.

Mark Steyn:

"Damn, Mark," I keep saying as I read his stuff. If there is a more insightful man than Mark Steyn writing today, I haven't run across him. Cross-cultures are no problem for him: he gets it.

Sartorially, Jordanian politics seems to be the opposite of American: in the New Hampshire primary, smooth, bespoke, Beltway types who�ve been wearing suits and wingtips since they were in second grade suddenly clamber into the old plaid and blue jeans and work boots, and start passing themselves off as stump-toothed inbred mountain men who like nothing better than a jigger of moonshine and a bunk-up with their sister. Evidently, in rural Jordan the voters are savvy enough not to fall for such pathetically obvious pandering.

Or so I thought. But when the campaign aides pressed an 8x10 glossy of their man on me and I asked them where he stood on the issues, they hadn�t a clue. In rural Jordan, a candidate runs on his Rolodex. He�s the guy with high-level contacts in Amman who can use �em to bring home the bacon, or the pork, or whatever the Muslim equivalent is. That�s the message of the suit. If the plaid in a New Hampshire primary is supposed to signal that the guy�s one of us, the Savile Row get-up in Azraq is supposed to send the opposite message: this guy�s one of them � in a suit like that, there�s no reason why you couldn�t find him sitting across the banqueting table from Queen Rania. That�s the man your tribe or village needs in Amman.

Straight talk on WMD and Iraq:

Here it is, courtesy of the good lads at the Star Tribune:

Does the failure to find WMD mean we were handed a sack of lies?

Nope. The administration was clear from the get-go: Iraq was part of the Axis, and the Axis had to go down. Each part would be sundered as circumstances permitted. The destruction of the fascist regime in Baghdad would be the object lesson for the region, the proof that America had a new mission: Extirpating the flaming nutballs and the societies that nurture them.

Of course, that was not how the war was sold. Because the administration sought U.N. approval, the issue became enforcement of U.N. resolutions -- and those had to do with disarmament. Because the Bush team sought a greater moral legitimacy, it also phrased the war in terms of liberation, and removing a government with ties to terrorism. . . .

In the long run, it's not what we don't find in Iraq. It's what doesn't happen.

No more mass executions. No new prisons for children. No bonus checks for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. No Terrorism 101 classes at Salman Pak. No electrodes applied to the daughter of a man who talked to CNN. No daily potshots at allied aircraft. No sudden sluice of fear in the hearts of the Kurds when the government trucks appear on the horizon. No miserable thuggish satrapy in the middle of the Middle East, thumbing its nose at the United Nations and the United States.

Come election time 2004, the Iraqi oil proceeds will not be going to secret Swiss accounts named Chick Daney and Ronald Dumsfeld. They'll be going to the people of Iraq. We won't be arguing about losing the peace in Iraq.

We'll be arguing about losing the peace in Iran. But that's another story. For another presidential term.

Revolutionary Ideal:

Democracy according to the classical liberal tradition is the last true revolutionary ideology in the world. It is also the only one that has worked: predating and surviving Marxism, Fascism, and managing to erect free societies while the ideologies of unfreedom drew darkness over their lands.

PBR Watch:

My grandfather's beer, at $4 a bottle.

Grim Loses A Bet:

Eric Robert Rudolph, neither dead nor in Boliva. Win some, lose some.

The Corner:

Wow--Rich Lowry over at National Review Online published an email from me in The Corner. He'd asked for letters about the soon-to-expire Assault Weapons Ban, and I wrote this:

RE: ASSAULT-WEAPONS BAN [Rich Lowry]
E-mail:
"Dear Sir:

I'll leave aside the usual (and truthful) complaints about the AWB, as you'll get them from others. I want to address instead a current argument in favor of extending the ban. The Violence Policy center has put out a press release on the AWB that states that 41 of the 211 police officers slain between 1998 and 2001 were killed by assault weapons.

The argument is that these weapons therefore present a clear danger, and need tighter rather than looser regulation. There are several things to be said about this. I'll say three of them:

1) The VPC's definition of an assault weapon seems to be any semiautomatic longarm. This is actually a more coherent definition than the AWB uses, as it seems to look at cosmetics instead of function. As you will hear at length from others, there are many functionally identical weapons for sale on the market that, because of a plastic stock instead of a wood one, are banned by the AWB. The VPC is at least consistent in wanting to ban all weapons capable of similar function. The VPC report should be read, "41 of 211 dead policemen were killed by semiautomatic longarms."

2) But isn't that astonishing, given that longarms are used in such a tiny percentage of crimes? Well, not really. It's true that longarms are uncommonly used in criminal activity--I seem to recall it is something like two percent of gun crimes that involve longarms, but you'll want to check that number.

However, the statistic here is cops killed, not cops wounded or shot at. Longarms are (a) more accurate than sidearms, and (b) generally capable of defeating body armor. If the statistics were compiled in such a way as to show all occasions in which policemen were shot at, the percentages would be much smaller.

3) But so what? We're obviously ceeding the point that longarms are much more dangerous than handguns to serving police officers, right? Well, yes, obviously they are. They aren't particularly useful for crime, however, because they can't be easily concealed or carried (thus the tiny percentage of crimes which involve them). They certainly are a danger, but so are baseball bats. You don't ban everything that's dangerous.
Longarms are the weapons most useful for hunting, for home defense, and for militia service if--as it is no longer impossible to contemplate--a terrorist organization manages to create an emergency on a scale such that the militia would need to be raised. They are not useful for crime as a rule, though when they are used for crime their deadly nature does take a toll on serving policemen. As a rational matter, though, the VPC's position desires the banning or tight regulation of the least criminally-useful class of firearm: that is to say, it is a very far reaching proposal indeed."

"Task Force Viking":

Apparently led by US Special Forces, Task Force Viking uncovered that mobile bio-lab in Iraq. More to the point, though, they were the first forces on the ground in the north. A story about them, and the search for WMD, in the London Spectator.

Chechnya:

Some thoughts and rumors about the recent bombings, from the Moscow Times.

Cool if True File:

An alleged plot between the United States and Iran to limit Hezbollah terrorism.

Looting and Violence in Iraq:

Shoot to kill looters? That was last Wednesday's story, one which sadly proved not to be true. It is necessary to get a handle on the chaos in Baghdad if anything positive is to come out of the business. However, there is no clear evidence that the US Army forces are going to take the steps necessary to command the city. Time is running out, as forces from Afghani mujahedeen to Iranian militants are occupying the city. The New Republic reports that Hezbollah has entered the city as well. The Army seems remarkably calm about all this. An official speaking anonymously said "`We have about a month to get that under control; after that, it will be too late.''
But a month seems to me a remarkable estimate.

It need not be this way: the emerging recovery of Mosul demonstrates that the looting can be stopped, although admittedly Mosul's commander had the advantage of using Force Recon Marines backed by a MEU (SOC). (An aside--you'll recall that a MEU (SOC) is a Marine Expeditionary Unit, Special Operations Capable. See the archives of this blog if the concept isn't familiar to you: I did a piece on special operations forces on 24 April. MEU (SOC) is pronounced "Meew-sock," as if it were a cat toy instead of a horde of deadly warriors.) Something on that order needs to be dispatched to Baghdad, the rules of engagement need to be changed to permit the use of emphatic force, and it would be a good idea to see that Bremer has the authority he needs to command the military forces as well as the diplomatic efforts.

Recent Bombings:

The bombings in Saudi Arabia demonstrate the degree of freedom of movement al Qaeda enjoys in that, their home, country. After a firefight on 6 May, and a week-long manhunt for nineteen specific fugitives by Saudi authorities, al Qaeda seems to have employed that same cell to carry out these suicide attacks. The Saudi government reports, through the AP, that at least some of the nineteen men they have been seeking were involved, and may have been killed, in the attacks.

The Saudi soldiers who fought off the suicide bombers at length deserve praise: the short firefight seems to have been the reason for the low death toll, as it alerted sleeping families to the danger and allowed them time to fly. The intelligence and investigative wings of the Saudi government, though, are largely nonfunctional.

Far more important in the war on al Qaeda are the two recent bombings in Chechnya. The first bombing in particular was a crippling strike to Russian efforts in the region. Directed against the intelligence service tasked with leading the war against terrorists in the region, the strike destroyed their headquarters and killed at least fifty-nine people. A similar attack in Lebanon in the 1980s killed only a handful of CIA officers, but because they were the men with decades of experience in the region, the men who knew everyone and everything, operations never recovered from the loss. We don't know who was killed in this strike, as to whether they were the top men or not. At the least, massive amounts of documentation, computers and files have been lost. If they got some of the leading officers as well, it may ruin the Russian offensive.

The Russian government has linked that bombing to the one in Arabia, without direct evidence but for good cause. They were not perfectly coordinated, but al Qaeda's ability to coordinate internationally appears to be degraded. Meanwhile, we know that al Qaeda is heavily involved in the Chechen cause, which has for many years been both a recruiting tool and a training ground for them. With the destruction of Afghanistan, it is reported that Qaeda camps have been erected in Chechnya. The Center for Defense Information puts the number of terrorists trained there at about 350.

The Chechens are more likely than al Qaeda to use woman mujahedeen, as in this morning's attack. You will remember that the Russian theater seized by Chechens saw the use of women militants as well: in fact, it was originally reported to be a team solely composed of suicidal women guerrillas, come to die to avenge their fallen husbands. The fight in Chechnya has been especially ugly, and has generated large numbers of women (and men) who have suffered rape and other forms of "shaming" at the hands of Russian soldiers. Dying in battle cleans such shame as nothing else: as Alexandre Dumas wrote in The Count of Monte Cristo, "Blood washes away dishonor."

The opportunity for the United States is to offer help to the Russian government, conditionally. With their intelligence capacity blunted, and the situation destabilizing, they may be willing to accept. In return for a strong policy against rapes and other shaming attacks, and a commitment to a form of Chechen autonomy and the protection of their rights, we could offer to share intelligence resources and even commit special operations troops operating from Afghanistan to the elimination of al Qaeda and other militant camps in Chechnya. Right now al Qaeda has a free hand in the area, which is protected by its ownership by a weak former superpower: strong enough that we can't invade without permission, but too weak to deal with the threat alone. In return for seeing the Chechens treated decently, we ought to help the Russians eliminate our common foes.

A shocking admission:

From the C.I.A.'s Center for Intelligence Studies. This comes as part of a long article called "The Intelligence Community: 2001-2015."

Now we are facing the same reality that confronted the Soviets: technology is, and has always been, ideologically neutral. It benefits anyone with access and means. This simple fact now represents an enormous challenge to US intelligence.

The technology used by the Intelligence Community has become antiquated. New solutions remain undiscovered and new funding will take time to have an effect. This is a strange and unprecedented condition for the United States, long accustomed to having technology as an ally.

How has it happened that the CIA has lost its technological edge? Since so much of the intelligence budget is hidden, we can't really know if it is underfunding.

It is likely, though, that the real problem has been bureaucratic overload. Intelligence is best run on a venture-capital model, which rewards risk and encourages innovation at all costs. The CIA's culture was originally heaviliy influenced by its founder, "Wild Bill" Donovan. But Wild Bill is long gone, and the American intelligence community is now flush with bureaucrats who have never been field operatives (cf. See No Evil by R. Baer). Bureaucracies make change difficult and ponderous. That's fine if you're trying to work a field that benefits from a reliable approach. Intelligence, though, demands high risk in order to reap its rewards, and there is nothing more risk-averse than a bureaucracy.

Therefore your end is on you, is on you and your kings:

Ere the sad gods that made your gods
Saw their sad sunrise pass,
The White Horse of the White Horse Vale,
That you have left to darken and fail,
Was cut out of the grass.

-G. K. Chesterton, "The Ballad of the White Horse"

Denuclearization on the Subcontinent:

This is an astonishing story. Pakistan has offered to surrender its nuclear arms if India will do the same. In fact this makes perfect sense: if you and your neighbor each had a gun pressed to the other's head, you'd be only too happy for someone you felt you could trust to come along and take away both guns. This is especially true if you know yourself to be quick-tempered, and you know your neighbor is, too.

The Bush doctrine is probably inspiring as well. Pakistan is a key ally in the terror war, yes. On the other hand, it is an open secret that elements of their intelligence service, the ISI, have ties to al Qaeda and other Islamist groups. In addition to which, there are wide swaths of the populace that are uneducated except by the Islamist scholars funded by Saudi Arabia. Their world view is deeply anti-American as a result. For President Musharraf, the future has to look rather uncertain. Even if he can maintain control, an American invasion remains possible if he can't reign in terror-supporting elements in his own government. If he can't, an American invasion--at least to seize the nuclear materials--is nearly certain. Removing the nukes would lower the temperature in Pakistan and offer a buffer against American intervention.

Still, it's amazing given that Pakistan has put such national pride in its nuclear program:

In each of the major cities of Pakistan, you can find a strange monument depicting a saw-toothed mountain and a poised missile.

The mountain is a peak in the Chagai Hills, in whose granite depths Pakistan conducted its first nuclear tests five years ago. In the Islamabad version of this tableau, which sits on a traffic island amid a congestion of garishly ornamented trucks, three-wheeled taxis and donkey carts, the mountain is bathed at night in a creepy orange light, as if radioactive. The camouflage-dappled missile is called the Ghauri, and it has a range of about 900 miles. If the chronic tensions along the border between Pakistan and India should ever escalate to a nuclear war, the Ghauri would try to deliver at least one of Pakistan's warheads onto New Delhi. Lest anyone miss the point, the missile was named for a 12th-century Afghan warrior whose most memorable accomplishment was conquering part of India.

Mugabe watch:

Meeting with opposition leaders scheduled in Zimbabwe, apparently to work out plans for the power transfer.

Mugabe to step down?

An expanded investigation into the rumors, from the Economist.