If you would like to send us your constructive criticism, encouragement or thoughtful suggestion, please pick the ministry that you feel would best profit from your words.
If you have a threatening message or wish to express hatred and hostility, please look inside your own heart and count to 100 before writing. No one needs more negativity in their life.
Throughout Iraq, as the nation cracks through the totalitarian shell Saddam Hussein spent decades building, a reliable, trustworthy system of law and order is essentially being built from scratch.Now that's what it's all about.
It's closer to frontier justice than it is to the legal training. [US Marine Capt. Sean] Dunn, 35, received at Louisiana State University or the kind he practices as an associate at Duncan & Courington in New Orleans. Indeed, he's known around Al Kut as simply "The Judge," albeit one who wields a pump-action shotgun rather than a gavel.
At times, the weaponry comes in handy. One of the problems coalition forces confront in Iraq is the mobility of evil: A bad guy exposed in one area sometimes melts away only to crop up in power somewhere else. That happened in Al Kut with Mayeed Sahleh, a judge so profoundly corrupt that even Saddam once fired him. After being chased out of Najaf, he drifted to Al Kut, where he landed a post as a magistrate judge.
Locals who wanted to hang Sahleh from the nearest date palm told Dunn almost immediately about the newcomer's dark past, but Dunn told them he couldn't act without hard evidence of corruption. Eventually, Sahleh made a mistake -- showing up at the police station one night to spring a handful of Islamic fundamentalists on a signature bond -- and Dunn told Mahood to fire him. Two days later, however, Dunn spotted Sahleh operating out of a new office tucked under a courthouse stairway.
"The guy tried to say he had a few things to take care of, and I said the only thing he had to take care of was getting out of the building immediately. 'You're fired,' I said. 'Get out of here now,' " Dunn recalled, shaking his head at the man's brazenness.
At that point, the deposed judge took his hands off the desk and pushed back.
"He's got a gun!" one of the Marines on Dunn's detail cried, rushing forward with his M-16 leveled at the judge's chest. Dunn, shotgun ready, sprang behind the desk and relieved the judge of a handgun he was reaching for, concealed in a shoulder holster.
So on one night last week, violence struck with a vengeance: Five women and three men were shot outside a Northeast Washington nightclub, two women were shot on Oates Street NE, a man was shot on Atlantic Street SE, two men were shot on Kenilworth Avenue NE, and a man was found shot to death on 13th Street NE. In all, the five unrelated shootings in three hours produced 13 injuries and one death.Now, maybe I'm reading something into this, but it sounds like all these people were shot in the streets, not in their homes. Five unrelated shootings--there must have been a lot of lead flying around the nightclub to drop eight people (mostly women!).
Those statistics demonstrate the absurdity of Utah Republican Sen. Orrin G. Hatch's proposal to legalize gun possession in the District of Columbia. The city needs fewer, not more, lethal weapons in homes and on its streets. It could, however, use more officers, especially tactical and undercover officers working crime-ridden neighborhoods, as well as a uniformed presence in targeted communities to work with public-spirited citizens. Most of all, nothing short of the apprehension, prosecution and conviction of violent offenders will bring District residents the sense of security and safety that they deserve.
What this means is that the D.C. police have lost control of the streets--a fact I find easy to believe, as I almost never see a police officer in D.C. except when they are escorting some dignitary somewhere, or if I go to the Mall. The Post's answer is more cops and tight gun control, in the town with already the strictest anti-gun legislation in the country. Well, let's analyze that.
The cost of hiring lots of new police is very high: officers must be found, trained extensively, supplied with lots of expensive equipment, monitored by a bureaucracy, and provided with a pension and health benefits in addition to, of course, salary. The cost of reducing gun control is very low: an officer to run background checks, another to handle the applications. And what do you get for your money?
With the police officers, you get a few extra police on the streets, whose presence may delay crimes for a few minutes until the police pass on. With liberalized gun policies, you get thousands of armed citizens everywhere in the district, inclined to obey the law and unwilling to endure barbarity. Which gets results, to say nothing of results per dollar? You bet.
Besides, what is this nonsense about nothing making us feel safer except more prosecutions and arrests? Reading about people being arrested for murder does nothing to make me feel safe--it makes me remember that I live in a violent city. What makes me feel safe is a loaded .44 Remington Magnum revolver, and a wife watching my back with her 10mm Automatic. Jeffersonian Democracy at work--let the brutal beware.
Let them beware of us, citizens.
THE Federal Government is under pressure to deploy United States Marines to the troubled Niger Delta region to protect American oil companies' installations. Gov. Diepreye Alamieyesegha of Bayelsa State, who dropped the hint in Yenagoa at a meeting with stakeholders on sea piracy and oil pipeline vandalisation, said the Federal Government had lost patience with the spate of crises in the region and was getting frustrated with measures introduced to curtail the scourge.The Marines were founded in part to battle pirates on the high seas, of course. And there is some good news: at least these aren't Space Pirates:
[Gov. James Ibori] "The perpetrators of these heinous crimes against the society are not people from outer space."That's good to know.
Unlike the guerrillas in Iraq, the Afghan fighters have all the cards that have historically made guerrilla fighting successful. They waited to start their resistance until the US was distracted elsewhere, and most US forces withdrawn. Whereas we have nearly a hundred seventy thousand fighting men in Iraq, in Afghanistan the number is closer to ten thousand. The Afghan fighters can withdraw into secure areas--the lawless tribal areas of north and south Waziristan, Kurram, Kyber, Mohmand, and Bajaur, which serve as buffer states with Pakistan. We can send people after them, but there they have a secure base with devout popular support. And, if the frequent rumors of ISI support are true, they even have the backing of a regional power--or at least some rogue elements in it.
Iraq will sort itself out--we've got the men and the commitment to make it work. Afghanistan is in danger of being lost. We need to get serious about counterinsurgency, and fast. My plan is below: who has another?
Insurgents attacked a police headquarters in southeastern Afghanistan, sparking a battle Sunday that killed at least 15 fighters and seven Afghan police, a police chief said. It was part of a disturbing new surge of violence in the country.This is large-scale guerrilla action. It argues for a new counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan, at the same time that we're fighting one in Iraq. This is one reason I argue for a Texas Rangers model--see below--in which mixed companies of US Army Rangers and Afghan soldiers are given martial-law authority and tasked to patrol the countryside.
The siege began shortly before midnight Saturday when about 400 guerrillas attacked the police headquarters in the town of Barmal in Paktika province, about 125 miles southeast of Kabul, said provincial governor Mohammed Ali Jalali.
The fighters, firing rockets, grenades and heavy machine guns, took over the office and held it until 5 a.m. Sunday before destroying the building and retreating amid a gunbattle with police, said police chief Daulat Khan.
Recruiting for the army is expanding in Afghanistan, though, even in the troubled areas:
One of the keys to Afghanistan restoring stability is believed to be the strengthening of its national army, which now numbers just 5,000 soldiers. The government wants it to have 70,000 troops over the next several years.It's not just numbers, it's training. Those 70,000 men need to be trained in mountain-fighting and counterinsurgency, in how to stage an organized ambush and how to fight out of one. They also need to be trained as lawmen, and given the authority to execute the law on a moment's notice, as they will be the only arm of Kabul likely to reach the border areas for many years to come. That is to say, they need to be Rangers, not soldiers.
U.N. spokesman David Singh said Sunday that the army opened its first recruiting center in the east of the country. Other recruiting centers are due to open in at least five other regions, Singh said.
Mr. Bush spoke yesterday at Miramar Marine Corps Base to thank the troops just back from Iraq. You might consider thanking them by paying them, or rather their replacements. I'm sure it would mean more.
But where would we ever get the money for such a thing? Oddly, the same article mentions this:
The president raised more than $1 million for that campaign last night at the San Diego Convention Center, telling supporters, "You're laying the groundwork for what will be a great victory in 2004."A million bucks, eh? Taranto estimates that the cost of the continued pay bonuses will be rather more than that--$423 million. Still, if money is that tight, doesn't it seem that the President ought to be out there raising money for the troops instead of himself?
I decided to take a nap...
�
*BOOM* *BOOM* *BOOM*
�
"Baby boy, quit beating on the bedroom door.� I think your father is trying to take a nap.� We don't want to disturb him."
�
[five minutes pass]
�
"OK, I need to go talk to your father for a moment--if he's still awake."
�
[door opens]
�
"Dear, are you still awake?"
�
[SCREEEEEEEECH! of JOY from Baby Boy at seeing his father.]
�
"Ah, good.� I was hoping you would be.� I need to talk to you about this grocery list.� We're just heading out the door, and I need to know if you want anything."
�
[five minutes later]
"OK, good, I'll get that stuff.� Now, bye.� Oh, wait.� I haven't had a shower or changed clothes or anything!� Watch the baby for me, will you?"
�
[twenty minutes pass]
�
"OK, now we're really ready to go!� Come on, baby boy!� Daddy will finally get some peace and quiet!"
�
[sound of family trundling down stairs]
�
"But you'll need a binky, won't you?� Well, I'll find one.� Don't follow me upstairs!"
�
[ten seconds pass]
�
"What did I just say?"
�
[more sounds of wrestling with baby]
�
"Now we're really going!� Daddy can get his nap!� GOODBYE DADDY!"
�
[sound of door slamming shut]
�
[ten seconds pass]
�
[DOORBELL!� DOORBELL!]
�
"Um, hi dear!� I don't know where I put my keys.� Could you find them and bring them down?"
��
*growl*
*snarl*
*If you cannot realize such a political program, you might consider changing sides.Well said.
"This is very rare stone," he says, almost to himself, in thickly accented English. "Yellow diamonds of this color are very hard to find. It is probably worth 10, maybe 15 thousand dollars."Outstanding. Fashion predition for 2019: Women will be wearing long skirts, long because they will be sewn entirely with glittery diamonds. Since diamonds have always been about showing your wealth, our celebrities will wear longer and less revealing garments until "showing ankle" is just as scandalous as it was in the 19th century.
"I have two more exactly like it in my pocket," I tell him.
He puts the diamond down and looks at me seriously for the first time. I place the other two stones on the table. They are all the same color and size. To find three nearly identical yellow diamonds is like flipping a coin 10,000 times and never seeing tails.
"These are cubic zirconium?" Weingarten says without much hope.
"No, they're real," I tell him. "But they were made by a machine in Florida for less than a hundred dollars."
Weingarten shifts uncomfortably in his chair and stares at the glittering gems on his dining room table. "Unless they can be detected," he says, "these stones will bankrupt the industry."
Fat chance, "Saddam." A Shi'ite jihad is certainly possible in the long run, if the Coalition doesn't handle Iraq with cultural respect. However, the evidence is that we're doing so: consider our adoption of the Iraqi wergeld custom (subscription required: the Financial Times charmingly refers to it as "blood money," rather missing the point of the wergeld, which is called diaya in Arabic), or the rough and ready use of "Cajun Arabic" by the US Marine provincial governor of Wasit province, Lt. Col. David Couvillon. We've got serious trouble in the Sunni areas which were loyal to Saddam: but in the Shi'ite areas, all will be quiet at least until they are sure Saddam is dead and can never return.
After that, who knows? The figure to watch as the anti-Coalition, anti-Governing Council Shi'ite leader is al-Sadr. Yet he seems not to be looking for more trouble than he can handle: calling for a grand army of Shi'ites, for example, but then asserting that it will be an army without arms.
Saddam, if he were the one behind these messages, would of course know that. What to make of this show of support for a Shi'ite leader, then? One possible thought: it's an attempt to discredit that fellow, perhaps by Saddam, but equally possibly by anyone else with an interest and a line to al Jazeera.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai hasScore one for the rule of law in Afghanistan. It's a small point, but it's a start.
stripped powerful warlord Ismail Khan of his post as military commander
of western Afghanistan in a major reshuffle of provincial governors and
officials, the official Bakhtar news agency said on Wednesday.
The National Security Council decided Khan could not retain
his post as military commander while governor of Herat province it
said, citing a decree by Karzai who said earlier this year that
officials could not hold both military and civil posts.
A new Herat military commander would be named shortly, it
said.
UPDATE: Still no link to the AFP story, but here is the AP version.
As a Classical Liberal, I believe that the legislature, being most immediately responsible to the public, is meant to be the most important branch. That position is harder to maintain when the Congress carries on behaving, during wartime, as if national defense was of no importance.
Today's example: Congress has decided to restrict the use of Special Operations. Henceforth, in order to deploy commandos, the President will have to write and sign a finding, and send it to Congress. The increase in turnaround time between recognizing a threat and acting on it is immense: now no one in the Pentagon or SOCOM will have authority to send commandos to address a threat. It has to go to the President himself.
This is exactly the opposite direction that Congress should be going. Congressional oversight is important and proper. It shouldn't be constructed in a way that detracts from our ability to respond to threats. Let's say we find a Qaeda camp in Pakistan and, thanks to a UAV, determine that bin Laden or some other ranking figure is there. Can we send the Delta Force, or the SEALS, or the new Marine Commandos? Yes, once the military has contacted the President, the President has written a finding, the finding has been sent to Capitol Hill... and then, once that's been done, we can tell the commandos to start on their way.
As this comes right after the DARPA business, where Congress shut down a great program they didn't understand without even attempting to understand it or have it explained, I am reconsidering the Congress. I frankly think that the problem is gerrymandering.
Congress was meant to be responsive to the people, especially the House. Because of gerrymandering, however, the number of Representatives who have competitive districts is incredibly small. As a result, Congress is free to engage in this kind of foolishness even during wartime without fear of voter reprisals.
The solution: legislation requiring that districting be done by nonpartisan contractors, who will be forbidden by law from considering party affiliations of members when they do it. I favor a system wherein districts are drawn by figuring lines drawn outward from a central point in the state, so that the only consideration is making sure each "slice" has the right number of people in it. In that way, districts become competitive, Congress is brought back to the heel of the public, and--coincidentally--problems like the one in Texas are avoided.
