Bloody Afghanistan:

Sixty-one dead overnight in Afghanistan. Hear about it on the news today?

The news is not all bad. Some of the violence is provincial feuding among the Afghan warlords, which is background noise that can be ignored. The bus bombing is bad news, but--as we have seen in Saudi Arabia and Morocco--terror bombings on the old home ground are of negative utility for the force using them. It'd be like the USAF bombing a mosque in St. Louis: no one would see it as a great victory or a show of strength.

Two pieces of news are good from a warfighting standpoint. The first is that two students were killed while making bombs in their dormitory. It's always sad when young people die... well, no, not always.

The second piece of good news comes from this account of an ambush near Shinki. The American-trained Afghan army responded valiantly in a firefight that spanned several hours, and in spite of being ambushed, managed to kill eight of their attackers and captured two foreign jihadi:

The violence began late Tuesday when a group of suspected Taliban fighters attacked government soldiers in Shinki, a small village in Paktia province about six kilometres from the Pakistani frontier, said Khial Baz, an Afghan commander in Khost.

After several hours of fighting, about 50 Afghan troops forced the attackers to retreat. They later found eight bodies.

Baz said troops also captured one Pakistani and one Arab, though his nationality was not known.

Troops also seized a cache of Kalashnikov assault rifles, a telephone, radios and ammunition used by the attackers, Baz said.

Afghan officials have repeatedly said Taliban rebels are using bases inside Pakistan to launch cross-border attacks.

We've discussed before on this page the relative successes of the US military in dealing with guerrilla warfare. One of the best things we have going for us is the counterinsurgency training that the US Special Forces provides, which includes things like dealing with ambushes. I think it's worth saying that SOCOM is doing great things in Afghanistan, especially the Green Berets. De Oppresso Liber!

Rumsfeld's Top Ten:

The lads over at Winds of Change have obtained what they say is a copy of Donald Rumsfeld's top ten priorities. Do take a look, as it makes for interesting reading. My own thoughts are that WoC is right on when it comes to USMC helicopters v. Ospreys. I never liked the Osprey. The Marines have a long history of relying on proven technology, and making it work better than the newer stuff the USAR gets. There's something to be said for knowing your kit really works before you haul it into battle.

Afghanistan Update:

The Taliban have been killing pro-government Muslim clerics. Why would a group that is devoted to the glory of Allah slay Allah's devoted servants? In order to avoid pro-government fatwa being issued by the clerics. Unlike in the Catholic or Anglican churches, but much like a Baptist church, any Muslim can issue a fatwa if they dare. These fatwa, which is often mistranslated as "religious ruling" or "command," is really meant to be an educated opinion. This is why there are often multiple fatwa on any given question, sometimes in direct opposition to each other. Muslims must decide for themselves which ones represent Allah's true will, which they do in part by considering the age, wisdom, and reputation of the issuing cleric.

A group that claims the exclusive mantle of God must suppress any suggestion that God himself thinks otherwise. By eliminating the most respected clerics in the opposition, the Taliban not only silences opponents. It also changes the fatwa balance, if you like, so that the eldest and most respected surviving clerics are all pro-Taliban. Younger clerics may rise to replace their fallen elders, but they will have neither the age nor the reputation of the dead.

The only major-media news in Afghanistan is the NATO takeover of ISAF. This prompted MSNBC to print a list of major attacks in Afghanistan that have happened since 2002. The list is not impressive, certainly not impressive enough to explain the loss of a strategic province given the strength we have in the area. Read into that what you will.

Afghan Exploitation:

Via the Sage of Knoxville, a report that NGOs and UN workers are exploiting the natural resources of Afghanistan for private profit. The fur trade is mentioned here.

Progress in Iraq:

Fallujah is a little town in the "Sunni triangle" of Iraq. In the days after the fall of Baghdad, Fallujah was the site of several firefights between US forces and locals (e.g.), as well as a highly dubious story about US shooting sprees and ramming ambulances with tanks. It was a frontier town in the sense that the new world of post-Saddam Iraq and the old world of tribal politics and rumor mongering were running head to head. It was often wild and bloody as a result.

You'd have expected it to stay that way, but progress is being made:

After months of bitterness, the heads of the seven major tribes of Fallujah have met for the first time with the Iraqi town's mayor and its American forces commander.

Clan leaders and their hangers-on packed the mayor's office at the morning meeting, described by Lt-Col Chris Hickey, US army Fallujah commander, as "an extremely important day".

They came from the Albuaisa tribe, from the al-Jumela and from the al-Halabsa. They greeted the sheikhs of the al-Mahamuda tribe, the Albu al-Wan, the al-Zuba'a and Albuaisa-Qais.

At a rowdy session, they agreed to work with American troops to stamp out the looting as well as the rocket and grenade attacks, that have made Fallujah a byword for instability and danger.

Good work, lads. Good work. (Hat tip: Taranto.)

"The Situation is Well In Hand":

From the AP, via the Austin American Statesman, this news:

MONROVIA, Liberia (AP) Three U.S. warships appeared off the
Liberian coast on Monday, visible for the first time after the country's
embattled leader Charles Taylor surrendered power to his vice president.
Residents poured onto city beaches, pointing at the ships
they said were a sign that nearly 14 years of bloodshed were coming to
an end in the country founded by freed American slaves more than 150
years ago.
``This is really peace,'' said a delighted Trokoh Zeon, 20,
as he turned and hugged a friend. ``I know the Marines coming is
peace.''

Rangers:

The subject of Rangers has arisen again. In a post entitled "European lack of sophistication," the Crusader War College writes:

It is with annoyance that the Dean of Students notes a comment from Sweden's Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, where she criticized President Bush for acting like the lone ranger in Iraq. . . .

Displays of ignorance of this sort were common long before the Iraqi conflict, but Ms. Lindh has distinguished herself by plunging to new depths thereof. In the Pantheon of Cowboys, the Lone Ranger (note the caps, Reuthers) stands among the Major Gods, right up there with Will Rogers, Gene Autry, The Cisco Kid, and John Wayne. There are good reasons why the Texas state police are called the Texas Rangers (an organization that pre-dated that state's admission to the Union). The deeds of the Army Rangers are even more glorious.

It happens that back in April this page advocated forming a new Texas Rangers for Afghanistan. Given the situation we're seeing in Zabul and the rest of the south, that suggestion looks better today than it did four months ago. I stand by it.

UPDATE: So you want to be a cowboy too, eh? Well, get started with "Ringo," and if you like that, try some Gunfighter ballads ("Big Iron" is about an Arizona Ranger. They aren't as famous as the Texas Rangers, but deserve their spot in the sun too. Nor is that all: The Georgia Rangers were founded by James Edward Oglethorpe himself, not one but two units: the Coastal Rangers and the Highland Mountain Rangers. They still exist as a unit of the US Army, who trains her own Rangers in Georgia. I've had the pleasure of training in rappelling and other rope work at Camp Frank D. Merrill, as an invited civilian guest).

Not enough? Try the bravest of the modern-day cowboys, the Bullriders. Or strap on a rig and learn to throw lead from your own big iron. If you think clothes make the man, drop a line to JaSpurs Western Wear. I get my Ariats from there. If you aren't lucky enough to have inherited one from your grandfather like I did, you can get a line on Stetson Western hats, whose site says, "What man hasn't dreamed of being a cowboy?" Why, the French foreign minister, of course.

Just don't buy any Levi's jeans, if you would be so kind. Levi's, based out of San Francisco, contributes heavily to gun control organizations. You can get "Cowboy Cut" jeans from Wrangler, and others, if you're of a mind to.

Afghanistan Update:

Deepikaglobal.com has this report, which appears to draw on StratFor's premium services:

Taliban's control of Zabul, stalemate for US-led forces: Stratfor

Washington, Aug 11 (UNI) The Taliban has wrested control of most of Zabul province in southeastern Afghanistan-- for the first time recapturing a province since being ousted from power by the US military in November 2001-- geopolitical analytical firm Stratfor reported.

The small size and disproportionate distribution of US-led coalition forces also has been a factor in the Taliban advances, it said. US-led forces number a meager 11,500, while the Afghan national army has only about 4,000 troops. Areas left thinly guarded were targeted by the Taliban, which has been able to set up checkpoints in Kandahar to eliminate key political and religious figures there and in other southern provinces.

Authorities in Zabul also have complained to the media about shortage of military funding from Kabul.

UN Special Envoy to Afghanistan Lakhdar Brahimi had warned in early May that "forces believed to be associated with the Taliban, al Qaeda and [war lord] Hekmatyar have been stepping up operations in the south, southeast and east of the country," Stratfor pointed out.

Stratfor said the Taliban had began its campaign to retake Zabul about five months ago. Prompted by the May 27 killing of Taliban resistance leader Mullah Ghausuddin in Zabul during a battle with government troops, Taliban Supreme Leader Mullah Mohammed Omar reorganized his forces in the south.

Pamphlets were distributed in Zabul, urging Afghan soldiers and police to join the struggle against the Karzai regime and its US supporters.

When key Taliban guerrilla commander Mullah Abdur Rahim was wounded earlier this year, the Omar appointed a top intelligence officer from his former regime, Mullah Abdus Samad, to help him carry out operations, the report said.

The new round of attacks on US and Afghan government forces in Zabul and the neighboring provinces began after a three-day meeting in July of senior Taliban leaders and tribal elders, who appointed Mullah Jabbar as a rival governor in Zabul, it added.

Zabul's provincial deputy governor, Mullah Mohammed Omar (not to be confused with the Taliban supreme leader), was quoted as saying that the government's failure to pay troops' salaries was causing the army to lose strength, it said.

Before Zabul fell, the provincial military had warned of an imminent defeat if the central government did not send reinforcements and air support from the United States, the report said quoting press reports. It appears that the provincial forces retreated, paving the way for a takeover by the Taliban.


Stratfor said its sources have confirmed reports first published on a Web site maintained by Muslim jihadists, jihadunspun.com, that Taliban fighters, in concert with al Qaeda forces, have have retaken Zabul.

The advance also underscores the stalemate between the United States and its Afghan allies against the Taliban. It indicates that the alliance formed in early 2002 between the Taliban, al Qaeda and Hizb-i-Islami -- the party led by Afghan war lord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar -- is paying off for the militants, Stratfor said in a report.

It said Zabul is of strategic and military importance for a number of reasons. Taking Zabul cuts off US troops stationed to the south in Kandahar from the bulk of US troops located to the north toward Kabul, it said, and given that Helmand and Oruzgan provinces to the north of Zabul already are Taliban strongholds, the group can better try to isolate US and local provincial troops in Kandahar and eventually attempt to retake Kandahar as well.

Also, controlling Zabul gives the Taliban a way to cut lines of logistics, troop supply and communication between US and coalition troops in Kandahar and in Paktika and Paktia provinces to the east and along the border with Pakistan.

The Taliban's ability to retake virtually all of a province of such strategic importance is partly explained by the fact that the south has been the Taliban's traditional stronghold, Stratfor said.

Beginning in late March and early April -- expecting the United States would be preoccupied with the war in Iraq -- the Taliban perceived an opportunity to begin regrouping, particularly in Zabul, Oruzgan, Kandahar, Helmand, Nimruz and Farah.

Playing a key role in the Taliban's success has been disaffection among southern Afghans helping the ousted group to recruit fighters and to garner support from the local population. This disaffection stems partly from a sense that development promised by the central government and the United States is proceeding at a snail's pace.

Taliban attacks have halted virtually all work by international aid agencies, the report said. Also, many Pushtuns reportedly feel they are underrepresented at the national level, even though President Hamid Karzai is an ethnic Pushtun.
The takeover of Zabul also fuels accusations by the Afghan government that Pakistan is supporting the Taliban. Stratfor quoted its sources in Pakistan as saying that a significant portion of the Pakistani intelligence service and military, particularly junior officers, have not abandoned the Taliban. Though there might be truth to the government's accusations, it also is possible the Karzai government -- which has been criticized for being unable to extend its reach beyond Kabul -- is trying to defend itself by pointing fingers at Islamabad, Stratfor said.

Since the United States likely will launch a massive counteroffensive, Zabul might not remain in Taliban hands for long, Stratfor analysts predicted.

However, they said, the fact that Taliban apparently could regain control of a province, even temporarily, underscores the vulnerability of the Karzai regime and the military stalemate between the Afghan government and Taliban fighters.

Stratfor said its sources in Afghanistan say it is possible the Taliban could seize more provinces neighboring Zabul because of what it describes as the structural and functional inabilities of the Karzai government.

Meanwhile the US appears to be focused on Iraq and lacks a clear strategy for neutralizing the threat from the alliance between the Taliban, al Qaeda and Hizb-i-Islami as well as from other Afghan forces that don't necessarily share their Islamist ideology but oppose the US presence in Afghanistan, Stratfor said.

The larger question now is: What will happen in the long term, should the US military pull out of Afghanistan or should Afghanistan no longer enjoy its high-priority status on the list of US foreign policy initiatives?

Meanwhile, this Voice of America piece confirms that the UN will not be operating in Zabul, among other areas. I dispute that the US is entirely focused on Iraq, as we are increasing aid to Afghanistan by a factor of three. Still, it is hard to dispute that we've lost control of most of Zabul, and other areas near the Pakistan border. I continue to hold out hope that this is Op. Anaconda writ large. As my correspondant Mr. Ware noted before, we have multibattalion strength special operations forces in Afghanistan. There is no telling what blow they may be preparing.

Still and all, it looks grim--no pun intended. Fortunately the US and major international media remains blind to the business.

Afghanistan: UN Suspends Missions in the South:

This is not exclusive to Zabul province, but includes neighboring provinces. Citing increased Taliban activity, the UN ceased activities in the southern parts of Afghanistan.

[UN Spokesman David Singh] said all U.N. missions to the border districts of Helmand and Kandahar provinces had been suspended and there were currently none to to Uruzgan, Zabul or most of northern Helmand.

Southern Afghanistan has seen stepped up activity in recent months by a resurgent Taliban guerrilla movement who Afghan officials say operate from border regions of Pakistan.

This is the third day that this space has been watching the fall of parts of Zabul province to Taliban forces. Readers who are new to this thread should start here, and then find more here.

How to Kill a Burglar:

"Do it in Kenya," writes Aidian Hartley in the London Spectator. The solution works equally well in the great state of Georgia, USA. In fact, under certain circumstances, you can even open fire on the police. Last spring deputy sheriffs in Forsyth County burst into the home of a sextagenarian air-conditioner repairman, serving an arrest warrant. It turned out that they had the address wrong--the fellow they wanted lived next door. The old fellow who did live there picked up his rifle--which he kept by his bed--and drove the police out with a hail of gunfire. The deputies returned fire to no effect, and finally managed to convince the gentleman that they were with the proper authorities. (I am given to understand that he drank a bit of a nightcap before bed, which compounded the difficulty, along with the ringing in his ears from the gunfire.)

The deputies took him in for the night to question him, but let him go Scot free the next morning. Meanwhile, the fellow they actually wanted, having heard the fierce gunbattle of the previous evening, turned himself in directly upon rising that bright Saturday.

More on Afghanistan:

I found another report that the Taliban have appointed a rival governor of Zabul province, and a report that the famed Mullah Omar has appointed a new military head to some Taliban forces. Both of these stories are from the end of July, one in Reuters and the other from al Jazeera. Keeping in mind al Jazeera's, ahem, sterling reputation for accuracy, consider this:

A senior official in southern Afghanistan�s volatile Zabul province yesterday urged US forces to step up operations against the Taleban there after the guerrillas named a rival provincial governor. The deputy governor of Zabul told Reuters Taleban officials, meeting in the Pakistani city of Quetta, had named Mulla Abdul Jabar as the rival governor and that hundreds of Taleban roamed freely in several districts of the province.

The deputy governor, Mulla Mohammed Omar, a namesake of the elusive Mulla Omar, said many Taleban were living in the Deh Chopan, Shamol Zai, Ata Ghar and Now Bahar districts. �There are about 500 Taleban in Deh Chopan district,� he said. �The district is under our control, but they are walking freely in the bazaar.�

Meanwhile, the Christian Science Monitor, which really does have a sterling reputation, has this:

Some villagers in Zabul - a hardscrabble and deeply conservative corner of Afghanistan - now offer shelter and assistance to Taliban insurgents. As the militants exploit both the mountainous geography and the political grievances of the Pashtuns here, the province is increasingly becoming a no-go area for foreign aid workers and a permanent irritant for US-led coalition forces.

If you'd like to read the whole story, you can find it here. Meanwhile, JUS has apparently recognized that they've got a real story for a change, and has started running updates. You saw that update yesterday (the Afghan TV link below), which puts you ahead of the Mujahedeen by about twenty-four hours. Ooh-rah for American ingenuity, eh?

Zabul falls to the Taliban:

It appears that coalition forces in Afghanistan have allowed Zabul province to be recaptured by the Taliban. Jihad Unspun, a pro-Islamist site in Vancouver, had the story first:

The Taliban claim they have successfully captured the Sfghan province of Zabul, with the white flag of Taliban flying on government buildings and the local people happy to have the Taliban back in power.

The Afghan army retreated and left behind huge caches of arms and ammunitions. Fighting in the surroundings districts continues and has claimed the lives of 11 Afghan soldiers at the time of this filing.

The governor of the province under the Karzai regime, Hameed ullah Tokhi claims that main government buildings are still flying the flag of the Kabul government and that the governor of Kandahar has refused to help the Afghan forces in Zabul. Daily Islam has reported that the Taliban have captured all but one district of the province, with many offices bearing white flags and that Mullah Abdul Jabbar has been named the Taliban governor of the province.

I normally consider the presence of a claim on JUS to be evidence against the claim's truth. However, today StratFor picked up the story. StratFor is respectable, if far from the best at predictive analysis, so I decided to look into it.

Last week, the governor of Zabul province urged US forces to attack Talibani positions in his province. But this week, after the JUS story, the governor denies that there are any Talibani in Zabul province. Meanwhile, a report from Afghan TV says the Taliban have set up a base northeast of Khandahar in Zabul province.

Lending support to all this is an article published this week based on investigations in Afghanistan says that, in Zabul province, gunmen have seized educational materials meant for women and are keeping them under lock and key.

That's a suprising amount of support for the story. It may very well be true that the Taliban are back in control of parts of Zabul province. JUS claims that they have the backing of Pakistan's ISI, the intelligence service that erected the Taliban as a power in the first place. There is good reason to believe that is true, as reports of at least rogue elements in the ISI supporting the Taliban and al Qaeda have been constant.

What does this mean for the coalition? One thing it could mean is that we are seeing a large-scale trap on the lines of Operation Anaconda. In Anaconda, an area in Taliban control was left safe while guerrillas gathered, then surrounded and brutally wiped out. Allowing them a province as a rallying point could cause a draining away of pro-Taliban forces elsewhere. The appearance of success could also cause the supporting ISI members to overplay their hands, making them easier to identify.

But there is a problem with this analysis: NATO is taking over command in Afghanistan, and it is not evident that the rifts in NATO caused by the diplomacy preceeding the Iraq war have healed. Open rifts make leaks more likely, and make it hard to coordinate a plan on the scale I postulate in the last paragraph. That argues against this being intentional.

For now, the press is still blind to this. When they recognize it, look for a firestorm.

Update: Reader Michael Ware notes:

NATO is not "taking over command in Afghanistan" exactly. A NATO command is assuming control over ISAF, relieving a joint Dutch-German command. ISAF is a stabilization force largely confined to Kabul. (See SHAPE press release). ISAF is separate from the coalition's combat command.

The war-fighters are in CENTCOM's Combined Joint Task Force 180. (GlobalSecurity.com has a useful though far from perfect precis on Combined JTF-180.)

The centerpieces have been (a) special operations forces from all U.S. services in total in multi-battalion strenghth and (b) a reinforced brigade of light infantry rotating from the 10th Mountain, 82d Airborne and 101st Airborne (Air Assault) Divisions. There have been Australians there from the begining. On a rotating basis for the last 18 months, there have been fairly substantial coalition contributions (over and above ISAF) to the combat effort. Italian mountain troops have fought this summer. (I have heard that their American commanders were psyched with the brutal effectiveness of the Alpini, though I don't have a link.) Norway has had soldiers fighting on the ground and planes fighting from the air (see here, reporting combat operations earlier this year of Norwegian, Danish and Dutch aircraft). At least a dozen other countries have contributed to Combined JTF-180 and its predecessors over and above whatever contributions those countries may have made to ISAF.

All this fighting stuff is controled by CENTCOM is separate from ISAF.

Duly noted, and thanks for the clarification.

Bush Administration Lies:

No, this isn't about WMD. I think the president is telling the truth about them, and if you're interested in my reasoning, go here. This is about the Iraq war, though, and a lie the administration has apparently decided it needs to tell.

Yesterday the German press ran this story on napalm which I have here in an English translation:

The Marines said that in March, U.S. warplanes dropped dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River in central Iraq to clear the way for troops headed to Baghdad.

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Col. James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11, told the San Diego Union-Tribune. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the [cockpit] video.

"They were Iraqi soldiers there. It's no great way to die," Alles added.

He could not provide estimates of Iraqi casualties.

"The generals love napalm," said Alles. "It has a big psychological effect."

The firebombs were used again in April against Iraqis near a key Tigris River bridge, north of Numaniyah, the Marines said. There were reports of another attack on the first day of the war.

During the war, Pentagon spokesmen denied that napalm was being used, saying the Pentagon's stockpile had been destroyed two years ago. Napalm, a thick, burning combination of olystyrene, gasoline and benzene, was used against people and villages in Vietnam. Its use drew widespread criticism.

The newspaper said the spokesmen were apparently drawing a distinction between the terms firebomb and napalm.

The Marines dropped "Mark 77 firebombs," which use kerosene-based jet fuel and a smaller concentration of benzene. Marine spokesman Col. Michael Daily acknowledged the incendiary devices were "remarkably similar" to napalm weapons, but said they had less of an impact on the environment.

Emphasis added. Now... you've got a thing that is "remarkably similar" to napalm, but slightly different in composition--it uses kerosene instead of gasoline to burn people alive. It is so very similar, in fact, that the Marines just carry on calling it napalm, because to them it's the same stuff. These are the same people who call the M4 Carbine a "lightweight, gas operated, air cooled, magazine fed, selective rate, shoulder fired weapon with a collapsible stock." If the Marines see no reason to distinguish between the MK-77 and napalm, there is no reason to distinguish between them.

Mind you, even this "lie" is technically the truth, since there is apparently some difference between the two chemical compounds. Still, is the Pentagon thinking it's going to get credit from the enviornmentalist lobby? Nice thought, but the people who are going to be mad about napalm aren't going to care what you're burning--except the people underneath it. If you're going to defend the MK-77, you've got to make the case that burning those people is the right thing to do: either for reasons of force-protection, or because victory requires it. Trying to weasel out of that difficult but necessary argument is dishonest.

Teutonic Surnames:

In The Corner, a discussion of the difficulties of Teutonic surnames:

[Nick Schulz] once heard Arnold Schwarzenegger say that his name means �Black Hammer Thrower� or �Black Plow Man� which always sounds really funny when he says that (or when just about anyone says it in an �Ah-nuld� voice). Since those would be easier to spell, you could always substitute one of them when writing about him.

Well, this presents a real difficulty for your correspondant. My last name also has a disputed origin: it comes from the Danelaw in England, and means either "the Bald" in Anglo-Saxon, or "the Stout," meaning short but thick, in Old Scandinavian.

Of course there has already been a Grim the Bald (father of Egil Skallagrimsson, that is, "the son of Grim the Bald"). And at any rate, your correspondant is not yet bald, though it is fully possible someday I will be. Grim the Stout is fairer: at five foot six and a half inches (according to the USMC), I stand only half an inch taller than the average height for a human male, and a bit shorter than the average height for a man of European descent. On this point I blame what have otherwise been excellent genetics, since my father's side apparently may have been known as "the Stout," and my mother's draws its descent from Donnachaidh Remhair, that is, "Duncan the Stout," founder of the Clan Donnachaidh in Scotland. It's an odd confluence of stoutness, drawing on both the Germanic and the Celtic. The results readers can judge for themselves: that's me when my son Beowulf was a month old, the bearded fellow with the boy on his lap and The Ballad of the White Horse at his foot.

Ahem.

Eurobashing at its finest. It reminds me of a story my father used to tell about a US propaganda coup during the Cold War, in which a huge number of these products, or some rather similar, were sent to Russia marked "Medium." This link is not for my lady readers, thanks aye.

The Post Gets States' Rights Wrong:

It is not surprising that the official newspaper of the Federal capital would be opposed to any doctrine that tended to balance power away from the Federal government and toward the states. The Washington Post's constant disdain for the doctrine of States' Rights is only natural. It would be nice, however, if they would take the time to understand the doctrine before heaping it with scorn.

Today's lead editorial on the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment demonstrates their difficulty. The FMA is meant to prevent gay marriage by forbidding any state to allow it. Those who believe it necessary do so on the grounds that the current law--the Defense of Marriage Act--would be vunerable on multiple grounds to Supreme Court rulings, so that any state's legalization of gay marriage would quickly require all states to allow it. (Those interested in this argument are hereby referred to National Review Online and Andrew Sullivan, who have conducted a lively debate on the subject--check their respective archives, as both are on vacation just now.)

The Post contends that good conservatives should be against this, since:

there's another issue too, which has to do with federalism and the respect for states' rights, which in other spheres many conservatives tend to enshrine. A constitutional amendment defining marriage would federalize what has been among the most unquestioned of state responsibilities since the dawn of the American republic. The amendment specifies that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," and it would preclude state or federal law from being "construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." Certainly many Americans agree with Mr. Bush on his definition of marriage. But why should states with majorities that feel differently be barred from acting through their democratic processes?

The doctrine of State's Rights is not, and has never been, that -all- rights are State's Rights. It has also not been, as the Post suggests, that states are naturally better at democracy than the Federal government. The point is that the Founders' design was one in which the states had some rights, the federal government others, and some rights neither had nor were entitled to have (e.g., the right to require citizens to subscribe to a particular religion). This design produces a balance of power between opposed governments, which opposition between powers creates a space for liberty.

The determination of which rights pertain to which group (state, federal, or personal authority, that is) is codified in the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the several states, which represent the lasting will of the people. Constitutional Amendments, which specifically require ratification by state legislatures as well as the Congress, are not violations of States' Rights, but a natural outgrowth of this principle of Classical Liberal Federalism.

The proper way of thinking about this from Classical Liberal thinking is that ONLY a constitutional amendment can address the question of gay marriage. The reason is this: while the people have traditionally delegated to the state the authority to ajudicate certain questions about whether a given man may marry a given woman, they have never delegated to the state or the Federal government the authority to define marriage as something other than a union of man and woman. That understanding of marriage preceeded the formation of the American republic. It is not subject to the authority of the American republic, but remains a right reserved. If any state wants to legalize gay marriage, ONLY a constitutional amendment can do it. It means a concession of new, and great, authority from the people to the state. No judge, no judiciary has the rightful power to usurp that authority.

However, the judiciary has been in the business of arrogating new powers to itself for quite a little while now. It has reached the point that, practically, a Constitutional amendment is necessary if the judiciary is not to "discover" the authority to remake the social contract to fit its views, whatever they are. Such an amendment is not a violation of the republican ideals of the Founding, but a restatement of them; and neither does it violate States' Rights, as neither the states nor the Federal government have any authority here. Whatever solution is reached can only be reached legitimately by the amendment process, which consults both Congress and the legislatures of the several states for new authority.

Hang this man:

As someone who joined the United States Marine Corps right out of high school, and who has over the years become a true believer in its precepts and traditions, I take especial exception to this plea bargain. There are three things that should be mandatory capital offenses in military law: engaging in forcible rape, treason, and betraying your brother Marines. Judges are not bound by plea bargain agreements. The sentence should be death, preferably by hanging with a parachute cord.

Still More Advice to the Democrats:

This one is called Mogadishu Democrats and includes what is a fine assessment of the war's progress in Iraq:

As for "bring it on...", one wonders if DfNS are aware that U.S. troops used exactly this tactic during the war, via loudspeakers on Humvees, to great effect? That's why we heard about pickup trucks attacking M1A1 tanks - the fedayeen just couldn't stand to have ther manhood challenged in stereo. I believe one U.S. soldier's quote was "we shoot them down like the morons they are." One expects an organization called "Democrats for National Security" to know this, and perhaps to apply it.

In a guerilla war, you WANT people to come after your soldiers. That's the ideal tactical scenario, and with the shallowness of the Ba'ath infrastructure and limited recruiting capability they cannot sustain an attrition-based campaign for long. That might change if they adopted a longer-term strategy, and Bush has now challenged them not to. Smart move - the fedayeen loudspeaker tactic writ large. The faster and harder al-Awda attack, the sooner they're taken out, the faster the reconstruction is done, and the more U.S. troops come home.

Yeah, that's true, although there may be wider recruitment than just what's in Iraq. That too is a benefit, as we've heard from the Flypaper theorists. Either way, though, we need a gunfighting corps of soldiers out there challenging the guerrillas to come and get it. The US has an excellent record with guerrilla warfare, excepting Vietnam--which is to be excepted, since this time there are no secure bases for the enemy, nothing off limits, and no superpowers backing them.

Leaving all that aside, the advice to the party is right on: we need a candidate, and a platform, that is built around warfighting. We are at war, after all.

DPRK Watch:

If we go to war with the DPRK, it will probably not be over their development of nuclear weapons. The administration seems resigned to accepting that--which is a terrible mistake, for reasons outlined on ParaPundit's blog. No, what will require war will be if the DPRK can't be persuaded or required not to export its nuclear technology. Of course, the DPRK is doing just that.

NORTH Korea and Iran were in talks over a plan to export Pyongyang's Taepodong-2 long-range ballistic missiles to Tehran and to jointly develop nuclear warheads, a Japanese daily said today.
The two countries have been negotiating the deal for about a year and were likely to reach an agreement in mid-October, the conservative Sankei newspaper said, quoting defence sources familiar with North Korean affairs.

I've said I expect war with the DPRK before next summer ends. It may be sooner.

Books in the Corner:

I am amused by this post in the Corner:

MY BOOK IS VIRTUAL [Susan Konig]
I want to thank all the Corner readers who consistently query me about my book, Why Animals Sleep So Close to the Road (and other lies I tell my children). I'm flattered and didn't mean to plug it at the end of each column as if it were already published. I was sort of advertising the fact that it was indeed written and ready for the bidding wars to begin!

I didn't mean to plug it at the end of each column? Well, ok: I have a book called The Ship Knife which is ready for the bidding wars, too. It's about the expedition to Sicily led by King Harald Hardrada, Viking warlord, at the head of the Byzantine fleet. Bidders welcome.