Iraq - Victory and Time

Iraq – Victory and Time

The writers at Victory Caucus have been discussing the question of “What is Victory?” and good on ‘em, but there’s another question I haven’t seen discussed much, namely, “When is victory?” Some commentators write as if the fight against jihadist terrorism in Iraq is lost already, or the current effort is the eleventh-hour-last-chance shot at winning it. The underlying thought seems to go like this: If there is still considerable terrorist activity going on after X years have passed, then the war is lost. X, however, is often set at “however much time has passed right now” or else “very soon,” and the basis for doing this isn’t stated. Often it seems to be nothing stronger than that the commentator, himself, has grown tired of the war.

General Casey has stated that the average lifespan for an insurgency in the 20th century was nine years, and General Myers, three to nine. I don’t know where the figures are from (perhaps someone can tell me?). I don’t know, for example, if they're counting Tito's partisans from WWII (insurgent victory brought about by foreign military defeat; not useful for the problem under discussion)– but even if they’re not, because it’s an average, I’m inclined to treat it as low (every bell curve has a right half, too). The “Malayan Emergency” lasted twelve years and the Red Brigades were active for eighteen (though the really horrible part of their career was a little shorter than that). In addition, judging by jidhadist propaganda, one of the enemy’s biggest morale boosters is Vietnam – which they cite as proof that our will to fight is weak, and we will crack if they hang on long enough. Our involvement in Vietnam lasted about ten years, and that suggests we’ll need a few years more than that to defeat this “glass-jaw” myth. These factors lead me to think that 15-20 years is a realistic figure for X.

(That kind of timeframe also gives the Iraqi Army time to develop a new generation of senior leaders -- officer and especially NCO -- to enable them to act independently.)

I’m not distinguishing between different groups here, because I’m interested in the question of how long a die-hard Iraqi jihadi group might realistically be expected to keep fighting, assuming that the IA and the Coalition keep fighting back and don't give up. Also because this is a first approximation for me.

Thoughts?

To Destroy History

To Destroy History:

The Belmont Club has a video of the smashing of tombstones by Azerbaijani attempting to erase the history of Christian Armenians in what is now their territory.

Asked about it, the government declared that it was impossible they could have destroyed the cemetery, as there were never any Armenians there at all.

There is a certain evil to that, which rises above the normal evils of the world. It surpasses even the evil by which a people is pushed out of a land, which has been the story of all human history, even in the island nations: the earliest histories of Ireland are recorded in The Book of Invasions. Yet that book points to the honest way, the way that honors and remembers the men who came before you. It is one thing to say, as Chingachgook did in the movie version of Cooper's The Last of the Mohicans, that:

The frontier moves with the sun and pushes the Red Man of these wilderness forests in front of it until one day there will be nowhere left. Then our race will be no more, or be not us.... And one day there will be no more frontier. And men like you will go too, like the Mohicans.

And new people will come, work, struggle. Some will make their life. But once, we were here.

It is another thing to say, "There were never any Mohicans." "There were never Armenians here."

The truth, of course, is that there are still Mohicans, and the Armenian graves did truly rest in those hills. And neither are the last of we frontiersman gone, even if the frontier is harder to define today.

A curse on those men who seek to destroy the past, in the hope that no one will then be able to dream an alternative to them. May they fare better than the ones they have taken as enemies, but only this much better: may we always remember them, and spit.

Jim Marshall

In Praise of Jim Marshall:

Here's to one of the last of the Jacksonian Democrats, fellow Georgian Jim Marshall, of Georgia's 8th District. He was one of only two Democrats to vote against this nonbinding resolution.

Good for you, Jim. I'm glad there are still a few of us left.

Thai-Malay Summit

Thailand-Malaysia Summit:

The prime minister of Malaysia, his coup-appointed counterpart from Thailand, met to talk about the Islamic insurgency on their shared border. China's Xinhua news service has a brief account, while Germany's DPA has a better one.

Malaysia and China both belong to the "high government" school -- I borrow the metaphor from Christian denominations, which tend to be either "high church" or "low church." Both of these nations try to play up the glory and majesty of government in general and the ruling party in particular, resolving sticky disputes behind closed doors. In the open, their discussions and press portray the government as a worthy vessel for popular confidence, boldly attacking and solving the problems of the day. It is normally necessary to resort to open censorship to maintain even the illusion that this is true.

"Low government" nations, like Thailand or our own, are structured so that a lot of the petty infighting and political ugliness is out in the open. As a result, the public tends to despise politicians, and that large part of the citizenry that is willing to be led like sheep. Such nations normally enjoy some measure of freedom of the press.

In any event, it is always interesting to watch a HG and LG nation interact. Thailand's deposed Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, used to get into open brawls with the Malaysian government by telling the press that he knew there were insurgent camps on the Malay side of the border. This was embarrassing for Malaysia, who wanted any such information to be conveyed privately rather than through the press where everyone could see it. (It was also embarrassing for Thaksin, when he proved on at least two occasions to be flat wrong... but hey, intelligence is a gamble).

The coup government in Thailand seems to be playing by Malaysia's rules, as the news articles about their meeting are very structured and depend on official sources. But the German article shows that they made one momentous decision:

Badawi added that his government would cooperate with Thailand in ending dual citizenship among the Thais living in the kingdom's three southernmost provinces of Narathiwat, Pattani and Yala along the border with Malaysia.

"They must choose," Badawi told a press conference. Widespread dual citizenship in the border area has allowed many militants wanted by Thai authorities for terror or criminal acts to flee to Malaysia.

The execution will be at least as important as the decision, but this points to an interest between the governments to start controlling that border. It also suggests that they are likely to adopt some method of verifying your choice -- once you've chosen, you are apt to be issued papers and expected to carry them.

I find that an interesting turn of events. Apparently the new Thai government is moving slowly but purposefully on the insurgency, and they've managed to get an assist out of Malaysia.

Victory Caucus

The Victory Caucus:

The new website-based organization called the Victory Caucus has pulled down some big names, including BlackFive and Jed Babbin. Have a look at them.

Zion Consp.

Zionist Conspiracy Theories #4,342,671-2:

Kim du Toit points to another major media outlet falling to the Joos.

Meanwhile, a confession is made.

Happy Valentines

Happy Valentines Day:

JarHeadDad suggests the following touching card for those of you still looking for a date tonight:



Those of you who are married will, of course, already have your cards picked out, ready for a quick exchange before a romantic evening of doing the dishes and folding laundry. What a wonderful holiday, with something for everyone. :)

UPDATE: Another option for married men: your wife calls to thank you for the kind gift she picked out for her. Poor Doc.

Valentine's Day

So far, the day has been good. I was given the obligatory Reese's peanut butter heart as well as an unexpected surprise, a new hat.

I'm not, ordinarily, a hat wearer. Yes, I wore cowboy hats as a young boy, and as a young man I had a nice felt Stetson that I would occasionally wear... but as a man my hat wearing has predominantly been limited to military service.

Now I own a very nice fedora in the "Indiana Jones" style (and my wife was dead-on with my hat size!).

Thanks to Grim, and reader comments, I know much more about the care and choosing of a good hat. I'm also becoming convinced that the daily wearing of a hat style, beyond baseball cap, is not a goofy thing. So, can anyone offer up some good etiquette tips?

Thanks.

Singing

Some Songs, Boys:

JHD apparently went to the trouble of watching the Grammies last night, which shows more dedication than I have. He sent this link to the best performance of the night, a very good rendition of "San Antonio Rose" including the original fiddler.

Good stuff. I'm glad to see the old Western Swing getting a respectful hearing. Nothing like a fiddle and a steel guitar.

I'm also going to recommend The Pine Box Boys to those of you around here with hand-to-hand/CQB training. They're not for everyone, but if you're a rockabilly/bluegrass fellow who would enjoy "the sound of a loud, angry acoustic band bent on killing," this may be for you. Click on the "Play All Songs" link, and sit through a couple of them.

DPRK Deal

DPRK Nuclear Deal: Good, Bad, or Ugly?

We notice today that the six-party talks, ongoing lo these several years, have produced a deal with North Korea to stand down somewhat from its nuclear ambitions. I'd like to examine the deal, look at where it is deficient, how it contrasts with the Clinton-era deal.

First, the details. I've highlighted the parts I think are important:

U.S. officials on Tuesday defended the Bush administration's policy shift on North Korea, which coincided with an agreement by Pyongyang to begin to close down its nuclear program.

North Korea now has 60 days to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear complex and readmit nuclear inspectors. In return, it will get 50,000 tons of fuel oil or financial aid of an equal amount.

Once Pyongyang takes additional steps to disable its nuclear program, including taking inventory of its plutonium stockpile, it will qualify for another 950,000 tons of fuel oil or equivalent aid, according to the terms of the deal. The aid package is worth $300 million.

North Korean state media reported that the agreement called only for a "temporary suspension" of Pyongyang's nuclear program, according to wire reports.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice drew a distinction between the first 60-day period, when she said nuclear activities will be suspended, and the later "disablement phase."

"The disabling of these facilities is a sign that the North Koreans may, in fact, be ready to make a strategic choice," she said at a briefing in Washington. "I will not take it as a complete sign until we've seen that disablement, but obviously disablement is an important step forward."

OK, let's dispense with the easiest of these first: North Korean state media's analysis is of no interest at all. Insofar as they differ from everyone else, it's just because they're lying to their own people. That's the usual system for the DPRK, so it's no surprise; it has no relevance to the actual deal.

Now, a more important matter: plutonium. As China E-Lobby points out, we've seen no public mention of the highly enriched uranium project -- the one that the DPRK hid from Clinton-administration officials. Insofar as this was the form of cheating they used before, it's odd that it's not prominently addressed. One might almost think that we were intentionally leaving them a loophole.

That's the main thing to watch going forward. These "nuclear inspectors" -- are they going to have access to the HEU sites, or just Yongbyon? That site depends on unenriched uranium, which can be reprocessed into plutonium. But the HEU can be used for nukes too.

If we don't see an answer to that question in the press ASAP, we'll want to start pressing our representatives to get an answer.

I'll take a moment to address John Bolton's objection.

"It sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around the world: If you hold out long enough and wear down the State Department negotiators, eventually you get rewarded," said Bolton, who was also involved with North Korea earlier as the State Department's undersecretary for arms control.

"It makes the [Bush] administration look very weak at a time in Iraq and dealing with Iran it needs to look strong," he said.

I see his point, which isn't without merit. On the other hand, it also sends a signal to Iran that we're not going to have our attention divided. The DPRK matter will be set aside for the moment: that means we are free to focus our attention on Iraq and Iran. That ought to be somewhat intimidating.

Next: how does this compare with the Clinton-era deal? The answer is that it compares favorably, for one reason. Unlike the Clinton-era deal, this one is brokered by China. You are not required to believe in Chinese good-faith to see the value in this. The Chinese want to be taken seriously as a world power. They have considerable "face" invested in this deal. For the DPRK, cheating against the US is one thing, a thing that in fact has no real downside. Cheating against the US and China both is another.

That is not to say they won't do it. The DPRK is right up against the wall, and desperate people do desperate things. What I am saying is, when they break faith with the deal, we will be in a position to manage their downfall more effectively. Because China will be embarrassed by their bad faith, they will offer less support to the regime when the time for confrontation arises.

Where does all this leave us? The DPRK is off the "Axis of Evil" list for a few years. They will be salvaged from the collapse they so richly deserve; in return, we don't have to devote resources to managing that collapse until we've had time to deal with Iraq and Iran, and China will be forced into a more supportive position when the time comes that we do have to manage the collapse. Iran has to deal with our undivided attention for the next period.

I'd call it a deal that borders on good and ugly, if the HEU issue is considered in a form not yet in the press. If that issue is not considered, it's just ugly -- although there are a few good points to be had from it, it's mostly about pushing the problems down the road to let us deal with other problems now.

Spitting

More Spitting on Soldiers:

With an arrest, this time. This case will be one to watch.

Kids OK

The Kids are All Right:

Fuzzybear Lioness has a story from a waiting room filled with military children.

Four 5-and-6-year-old boys were playing with the giant, interlocking plastic tiles. They had created very-impressive plane-like structures, which some boys were obviously riding. Others were carefully placing large numbers of dinosaur figures into enclosed portions of the structures. I asked what they were doing, and received the following community reply as several boys pitched in to flesh out the story for me...

Those kids are going to turn out all right.

Video Blogging:

The rich media tools are not something I'll claim to understand. But all the same, here are two links you won't want to miss.

I'm still not going to vote for him, but this is the funniest thing I've seen in ages.

And this is the best thing to come from France since... Napoleon? Depends on your point of view, I guess. Dumas? Well, it's cool. Roman style, eh? Try it with six.

Horsemen!

The French Bluff:

Ahem. An article on a new French bestseller:

A distinguished French literary professor has become a surprise bestselling author by writing a book explaining how to wax intellectual about tomes that you have never actually read.

Pierre Baynard, 52, specialises in the link between literature and psychoanalysis, and says it is perfectly possible to bluff your way through a book that you have never read — especially if that conversation happens to be taking place with someone else who also hasn’t read it. All of which just goes to confirm what I’ve always thought about French academics, which is that mostly they are oversubsidised frauds.

Obviously I haven’t read Mr Baynard’s book; but it is in the spirit of his oeuvre that I shall proceed to write about it anyway.

And write he does, very well. I love the comment on Ulysses.

Open Letter Ladybug

An Open Letter on Border Security:

A Texas border schoolteacher who blogs under the name "Miss Ladybug" has composed an open letter to George Bush. She is alarmed by the lack of effort to secure the border, and mystified as well. You may wish to read her thoughts.

Bam!

Roughnecks v. Terrorists:

Michael Yon's piece on the Roughnecks is too good to summarize. But it's also too good to resist summarizing. 2-7 Cav payback for five soldiers killed in a Hummer earlier this week; night gunfighting; Kiowas and .50 cals. It's the kind of reporting that made him famous.

Interrogator's Nightmare

"An Iraq Interrogator's Nightmare"

This is an important piece to read. I'm not sure what to say about it yet, however; except one thing. This line, above all of it, strikes me:

I failed to disobey a meritless order, I failed to protect a prisoner in my custody, and I failed to uphold the standards of human decency.

It is not the first or the last part that concern me. A soldier has no right to consider whether an order is "meritless," but only whether it is illegal. However, this man was -- his biography says -- a contractor, who can of course refuse an order. He is free to go.

But this part of the line is important:

I failed to protect a prisoner in my custody.

That is a formulation that uses the language of honor. A failure of honor is serious.

The other two parts of the statement are statements of guilty feeling, without any formal standing in the law or in the military's code of honor. A contractor is not the one who is asked to decide whether or not an order is meritless, except for himself, with the remedy of leaving. Nor is he the one who decides whether or not the policy upholds the standards of human decency. That is done by the military, with the oversight of Congress to ensure that the People's common interests are upheld.

The man is saying he personally feels guilty about what he did. I am sorry that he is tormented. I have a genuine sympathy for any man who suffers as he says he does. But it is not at all unusual to find that you feel guilty about what you did in the war, any war; nor is it a reliable sign that anything is wrong. Sadly, it is entirely to be expected. He is far from the only man to suffer nightmares.

The middle part of his confession, though, is formally correct. It is therefore serious. A man who has custody of a prisoner does have a duty to protect him. If he fails in that duty, an answer must be given.

The 82nd will have to show that the conduct he claims he was ordered to perform either did not occur; or that it was not inconsistent with his duty to protect his prisoner. That is a point of honor, and the military cannot neglect those. I will await their word on the subject with interest.

Galt on Marcotte

Galt on Marcotte:

Jane Galt worries that the furor over the recent Marcotte business indicates an attempt to shut down religious criticism. She indicates that this isn't really a shifting of the national dialogue, but perhaps just an assertion of new power by the backcountry:

What the right is doing here is attempting to shift the Overton Window of Political Possibilities. The “window” is the space of acceptable ideas for political discourse. So, for instance, right now being either pro-choice or pro-life falls inside the window; it is mainstream and acceptable to hold either view. But being (say) pro-Nazi falls outside that window; being pro-Nazi means that you’ll get fired from political campaigns, because your views are that far outside of the window of accepted political views.

Should criticizing (and even making fun of) the political positions of the Catholic church, the Pope, and the conservative Christian movement be “within the window” of acceptable views? Or should criticizing the Pope — even on perfectly true grounds, such as pointing out that he supports pro-life and anti-gay policies — be outside the window of what it’s politically acceptable to say and to criticize?

I think this captures the essence of the argument, although I'm not sure that Amp is right about this being an attempt to shift it; my admittedly limited knowlege of Non-Coastal-Elite-America indicates that in most of the country, slagging off the Pope, or indeed making fun of religion qua religion, is mostly verboten.

Speaking as a proud member of the non-coastal non-elite, a backcountry North Georgia wearer of Stetson hats, I'd like to answer Ms. Galt's charge. Let's hear a few good religion jokes.

Q: How can you tell a Baptist from a Methodist?
A: A Methodist will share his beer with you.

Q: How can you tell a Presbyterian from either?
A: The Presbyterian will stop the church bus off at the liquor store if you ask him.

(That last one is really true, at least sometimes -- my father's church softball team would do so.)

Here's an audio recording from the Late Great Lewis Grizzard: Mama Wanted Me to Be A Preacher. You can enjoy not just the preacher jokes, but the pure Southern accent.

My favorite preacher joke:

One day a preacher was walking to church, when a local family passed him in their wagon. "Howdy, preacher!" the father called. "Want a ride?"

The preacher did, so they took him on in. The father asked, "What's the sermon going to be about today?"

"Fire and brimstone," the preacher answered. "I'm going to read 'em the Ten Commandments, first to last. I'm all fired up -- why, for the very reason you saw me walking today. Do you know that, in this very community, somebody stole my bicycle?"

"You don't say!" the father replied, and on in they went.

Sure enough, the preacher got up and started on his sermon. Suddenly in the middle of the Ten Commandments, though, he stopped right there, thanked everyone for coming, and sent them on home to dinner.

The farmer saw the preacher again later in the week, and he went over to ask him about it. "I thought you were going to do the fire and brimstone, all the way through?" he asked.

"Well, I was," the preacher said. "But then I got as far as 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,' and durn if I didn't I remember where my bicycle was."

That may have been a Grizzard joke too -- or one of my father's. :)

Joatmoaf had a good one the other day, about a preacher and a cowboy:

A Baptist Preacher was seated next to a cowboy on a flight to Texas.

After the plane took off, the cowboy asked for a whiskey and soda, which was brought and placed before him. The flight attendant then asked the preacher if he would like a drink.

Appalled, the preacher replied, "I'd rather be tied up and taken advantage of by women of ill-repute, than let liquor touch my lips."

The cowboy then handed his drink back to the attendant and said, "Me too. I didn't know we had a choice."

Then there was Jerry Clower's famous story (which I quote from memory):

Local Baptist boy married a Methodist girl. His daddy insisted she be baptized properly, not just sprinkled on top of the head like the Methodists do.

His son tried to convince the girl, but it was no good. So he came back to his daddy with a compromise. "What if she walked out into the water up to her knees?" he asked.

"That won't do, boy."

"And what if she went out with the preacher up to her neck, would that be good enough?"

"I won't stand for it," his father said. "It's got to be a real baptism if she's gonna marry into my house."

"Well," the boy said, "What if they went out in the water until just the top of her head stuck out?"

"No sir," his father replied.

The young man shook his head. "See, I knowed all the time it was just that spot on top of the head that counted."

And then there's the old folk song, "The Preacher and the Bear," my favorite version of which was done by Jerry Reed. The lyrics speak to a preacher's dilemma when faced with a grizzly bear who has also been given certain gifts. Atop the branches of a tree, the preacher shouts:

Hey Lord you delivered Daniel
from the bottom of the lion's den;
You delivered Jonah
from the belly of the whale and then
The Hebrew children from the fiery furnace,
so the good books do declare:

Hey Lord if you can't help me,
For goodness sake don't help that bear!

The point here is Chesterton's point about the pessimist. Marcotte doesn't get into trouble for criticizing religion; she gets in trouble because she doesn't love the thing she criticizes.

She's not required to, of course, but that's where her trouble arises. It's not the humor. It's the hatred.

Good Reads

Good Reading Today:

Bill Roggio has had two excellent and informative pieces this week: On "the snake eater," an intelligence system that BlackFive refers to as "like S.C.M.O.D.S." Bill was one of the people who got it off the ground -- a clear example of a citizen making something happen, along with our old friends at Spirit of America and others. The Belmont Club has further thoughts.

Bill's second good piece is on Al Qaeda's anti-air teams, who have managed to take down several US and Blackwater choppers.

Kim du Toit penned a good piece on the importance of fighting your own battles. The idea that the police are the ones charged with protecting you and enforcing the law is poison to the individual and to society at large. Those are common duties of all citizens, for which we should be prepared.

Finally, Claudia Rosett has a piece on how the Voice of America speaks for Iran. Apparently we've had this trouble with some of our other propaganda efforts, too.

Middle Ground

Middle Ground on the Fetus/Child Question:

Today's story out of Texas strikes me as one of those things that is so sensible that it's shocking to see the government have anything to do with it. Surely it's the influence of the jury, plus the fact that we're talking about Texas.

A former youth pastor was sentenced to death Wednesday for killing a teenager and her fetus in what is believed to be the first such order in Texas, the nation's busiest death penalty state.

Adrian Estrada, 23, was convicted Friday of one count of capital murder for the death of Stephanie Sanchez and the fetus, of which he was the father.

The Texas law in question may be objectionable to many -- whether a fetus is a person is a metaphysical position, and therefore subjective, as Joseph and I have been discussing. Regardless of which, it allows them to address this particular crime:

Sanchez, 17, was three months pregnant Dec. 12, 2005, when her body was found in her family's home. She had been choked and stabbed 13 times. During the trial, DNA evidence was presented to show Estrada was the father.

Estrada, a former youth pastor for a church, admitted to the stabbing the day after the killings. Prosecutors also said he worked out at a gym and went shopping after the crime. He showed no emotion when his punishment was read.

It's hard to argue against the idea that a man who tries to get out of fatherhood by murdering his pregnant girlfriend ought to hang. Unless you're opposed to the death penalty itself -- personally, I think we ought to use it much more widely than we do -- this surely is a matter in which the penalty ought to apply.

I gather that the man here has been convicted of a single count of capital murder. As I understand it, capital murder requires that you commit murder while also committing a separate felony -- shooting a guy while robbing his store, for example. (This understanding arise from Georgia law, however; Texas readers, shout out of I've misread the situation re: Texas law.)

Thus, the reason the death penalty can apply here is because there are two separate crimes: killing the mother, and killing the child. That's one count of murder, and another, separate count of murder comitted while in the process of committing the first murder. That allows you to go to the death penalty, which is what is deserved.

Surely, whether you agree that a fetus is a child or not, we can all agree that this is the right result -- Quakers and other anti-death penalty theorists aside.

Of course, his defense attorney has a right to be heard too:

Estrada's attorney, Suzanne Kramer, had argued that her client made bad decisions.

"It that enough to execute him? Is that enough to kill him?" she asked the jury.

Yes, it is. Next case.

UPDATE: In the comments, Joe points out that I have confused "capital murder" with "felony murder." I regret the error, which I shall blame on insufficient coffee at the time of writing. :)