"Understanding Current Operations in Iraq"

Colonel David Kilcullen PhD is the Senior Counterinsurgency Adviser MNF-Iraq; he's also among the foremost thinkers of modern counterinsurgency doctrine. This is his latest. Read it all.

I’ve spent much of the last six weeks out on the ground, working with Iraqi and U.S. combat units, civilian reconstruction teams, Iraqi administrators and tribal and community leaders. I’ve been away from e-mail a lot, so unable to post here at SWJ: but I’d like to make up for that now by providing colleagues with a basic understanding of what’s happening, right now, in Iraq.

This post is not about whether current ops are “working” — for us, here on the ground, time will tell, though some observers elsewhere seem to have already made up their minds (on the basis of what evidence, I’m not really sure). But for professional counterinsurgency operators such as our SWJ community, the thing to understand at this point is the intention and concept behind current ops in Iraq: if you grasp this, you can tell for yourself how the operations are going, without relying on armchair pundits. So in the interests of self-education (and cutting out the commentariat middlemen—sorry, guys) here is a field perspective on current operations.

Ten days ago, speaking with Austin Bay, I made the following comment:

“I know some people in the media are already starting to sort of write off the “surge” and say ‘Hey, hang on: we’ve been going since January, we haven’t seen a massive turnaround; it mustn’t be working’. What we’ve been doing to date is putting forces into position. We haven’t actually started what I would call the “surge” yet. All we’ve been doing is building up forces and trying to secure the population. And what I would say to people who say that it’s already failed is “watch this space”. Because you’re going to see, in fairly short order, some changes in the way we’re operating that will make what’s been happening over the past few months look like what it is—just a preliminary build up.”

The meaning of that comment should be clear by now to anyone tracking what is happening in Iraq. On June 15th we kicked off a major series of division-sized operations in Baghdad and the surrounding provinces. As General Odierno said, we have finished the build-up phase and are now beginning the actual “surge of operations”. I have often said that we need to give this time. That is still true. But this is the end of the beginning: we are now starting to put things onto a viable long-term footing.

These operations are qualitatively different from what we have done before. Our concept is to knock over several insurgent safe havens simultaneously, in order to prevent terrorists relocating their infrastructure from one to another, and to create an operational synergy between what we're doing in Baghdad and what's happening outside. Unlike on previous occasions, we don't plan to leave these areas once they’re secured. These ops will run over months, and the key activity is to stand up viable local security forces in partnership with Iraqi Army and Police, as well as political and economic programs, to permanently secure them. The really decisive activity will be police work, registration of the population and counterintelligence in these areas, to comb out the insurgent sleeper cells and political cells that have "gone quiet" as we moved in, but which will try to survive through the op and emerge later. This will take operational patience, and it will be intelligence-led, and Iraqi government-led. It will probably not make the news (the really important stuff rarely does) but it will be the truly decisive action.

When we speak of "clearing" an enemy safe haven, we are not talking about destroying the enemy in it; we are talking about rescuing the population in it from enemy intimidation. If we don't get every enemy cell in the initial operation, that's OK. The point of the operations is to lift the pall of fear from population groups that have been intimidated and exploited by terrorists to date, then win them over and work with them in partnership to clean out the cells that remain – as has happened in Al Anbar Province and can happen elsewhere in Iraq as well.

The "terrain" we are clearing is human terrain, not physical terrain. It is about marginalizing al Qa’ida, Shi’a extremist militias, and the other terrorist groups from the population they prey on. This is why claims that “80% of AQ leadership have fled” don’t overly disturb us: the aim is not to kill every last AQ leader, but rather to drive them off the population and keep them off, so that we can work with the community to prevent their return.

This is not some sort of kind-hearted, soft approach, as some fire-breathing polemicists have claimed (funnily enough, those who urge us to “just kill more bad guys” usually do so from a safe distance). It is not about being “nice” to the population and hoping they will somehow see us as the “good guys” and stop supporting insurgents. On the contrary, it is based on a hard-headed recognition of certain basic facts, to wit:

(a.) The enemy needs the people to act in certain ways (sympathy, acquiescence, silence, reaction to provocation) in order to survive and further his strategy. Unless the population acts in these ways, both insurgents and terrorists will wither, and the cycle of provocation and backlash that drives the sectarian conflict in Iraq will fail.

(b.) The enemy is fluid, but the population is fixed. (The enemy is fluid because he has no permanent installations he needs to defend, and can always run away to fight another day. But the population is fixed, because people are tied to their homes, businesses, farms, tribal areas, relatives etc). Therefore—and this is the major change in our strategy this year—protecting and controlling the population is do-able, but destroying the enemy is not. We can drive him off from the population, then introduce local security forces, population control, and economic and political development, and thereby "hard-wire" the enemy out of the environment, preventing his return. But chasing enemy cells around the countryside is not only a waste of time, it is precisely the sort of action he wants to provoke us into. That’s why AQ cells leaving an area are not the main game—they are a distraction. We played the enemy’s game for too long: not any more. Now it is time for him to play our game.

(c.) Being fluid, the enemy can control his loss rate and therefore can never be eradicated by purely enemy-centric means: he can just go to ground if the pressure becomes too much. BUT, because he needs the population to act in certain ways in order to survive, we can asphyxiate him by cutting him off from the people. And he can't just "go quiet" to avoid that threat. He has either to come out of the woodwork, fight us and be destroyed, or stay quiet and accept permanent marginalization from his former population base. That puts him on the horns of a lethal dilemma (which warms my heart, quite frankly, after the cynical obscenities these irhabi gang members have inflicted on the innocent Iraqi non-combatant population). That's the intent here.

(d.) The enemy may not be identifiable, but the population is. In any given area in Iraq, there are multiple threat groups but only one, or sometimes two main local population groups. We could do (and have done, in the past) enormous damage to potential supporters, "destroying the haystack to find the needle", but we don't need to: we know who the population is that we need to protect, we know where they live, and we can protect them without unbearable disruption to their lives. And more to the point, we can help them protect themselves, with our forces and ISF in overwatch.

Of course, we still go after all the terrorist and extremist leaders we can target and find, and life has become increasingly “nasty, brutish, and short” for this crowd. But we realize that this is just a shaping activity in support of the main effort, which is securing the Iraqi people from the terrorists, extremist militias, and insurgents who need them to survive.

Is there a strategic risk involved in this series of operations? Absolutely. Nothing in war is risk-free. We have chosen to accept and manage this risk, primarily because a low-risk option simply will not get us the operational effects that the strategic situation demands. We have to play the hand we have been dealt as intelligently as possible, so we're doing what has to be done. It still might not work, but "it is what it is" at this point.

So much for theory. The practice, as always, has been mixed. Personally, I think we are doing reasonably well and casualties have been lower so far than I feared. Every single loss is a tragedy. But so far, thank God, the loss rate has not been too terrible: casualties are up in absolute terms, but down as a proportion of troops deployed (in the fourth quarter of 2006 we had about 100,000 troops in country and casualties averaged 90 deaths a month; now we have almost 160,000 troops in country but deaths are under 120 per month, much less than a proportionate increase, which would have been around 150 a month). And last year we patrolled rarely, mainly in vehicles, and got hit almost every time we went out. Now we patrol all the time, on foot, by day and night with Iraqi units normally present as partners, and the chances of getting hit are much lower on each patrol. We are finally coming out of the "defensive crouch" with which we used to approach the environment, and it is starting to pay off.

It will be a long, hard summer, with much pain and loss to come, and things could still go either way. But the population-centric approach is the beginning of a process that aims to put the overall campaign onto a sustainable long-term footing. The politics of the matter then can be decisive, provided the Iraqis use the time we have bought for them to reach the essential accommodation. The Embassy and MNF-I continue to work on these issues at the highest levels but fundamentally, this is something that only Iraqis can resolve: our role is to provide an environment in which it becomes possible.

All this may change. These are long-term operations: the enemy will adapt and we'll have to adjust what we're doing over time. Baq’ubah, Arab Jabour and the western operations are progressing well, and additional security measures in place in Baghdad have successfully tamped down some of the spill-over of violence from other places. The relatively muted response (so far) to the second Samarra bombing is evidence of this. Time will tell, though....

Once again, none of this is intended to tell you “what to think” or “whether it’s working”. We’re all professional adults, and you can work that out for yourself. But this does, I hope, explain some of the thinking behind what we are doing, and it may therefore make it easier for people to come to their own judgment.

Another Republican President?

Much to the discomfort of liberals everywhere, WaPo's Richard Cohen suggests a historical argument for a Republican victory in 2008.

Social networking divide: Facebook is for preps, MySpace for the fringe

The title says it all; read it here. Note the author, a Berkeley sociology student, doesn't care to capitalize her name and engages in some pretty Lefty forms of intellectual discourse.

Politics and Strange Bedfellows

An anti-Wahhabist Shi'ite cleric is killed in Iran; the Iranian government condemns his murder. On matters of principle, I hate agreeing with Iran. But outspoken Muslim opponents of Wahhabism are simply too few. On the other hand, such statements coming from a Shi'ite might actually be counterproductive - it is Sunnis who need to stand up against perversions of their faith.

Barone Dissects the Polls

Michael Barone takes a look at months of polls; worth a read. I think we're already seeing Giuliani peaking. Romney of course is on the air in Iowa and New Hampshire, with resultant leads there. I'm just hoping Fred can overtake him in one or both states - a Romney nomination would effectively hand the election to whichever Democrat is nominated.

But he also raises the question about whether Giuliani and/or McCain will bypass the Iowa caucuses all together; if either were to do so, Romney's apparent victory there might become meaningless.

Reexamining FDR

Amity Shlaes shatters historical consensus on the New Deal.

Remember: she just published a book on this topic!

Campaign News

Fred's apparently getting serious, as the staff decisions show. Ambinder rounds up all of today's 2008 presidential news.

The more I see of and ponder a Fred Thompson candidacy, the more I'm pleasantly surprised. Given that he's still coy, Rudy's still my boy, but it's unclear how much longer that will remain the case. (It may be a big tip-off if I create a separate Fred tag)

101 Sports Experiences

ESPN's Caple runs down the "101 Things All Sports Fans Must Experience Before They Die." Sitting at #19? Duke-UNC, though he doesn't differentiate between contests held in the Dean Dome and Cameron. One's a huge stadium filled with morons in baby blue. The other one is an intimate experience with the fans in your face. Which is the real experience?

There are plenty of things I want to see - Chelsea-Arsenal (though the latter side without Henry is a different beast), Celtic-Ranger, the Masters, All-Blacks; and some I don't - the Women's College World Series, the Show-Me State Games. Anyways, worthy of an amused read.

WaPo, NYT Legally Complicit in Terrorism?

I've thought so for a long time; now a lawyer is saying the same thing: "The NY Times and Washington Post are every bit the supporters of the terrorist organizations that Tehran and Damascus are when they facilitate the publication of Hamas' messages."

Two French Evenments Of Note

I'll start with the more straightforward, satisfying one: former president Jacques Chirac will be investigated over allegations of corruption during his time as mayor of Paris (same period: Saddam Hussein's ami). Corruption (as well as latent antisemitism and/or pro-Arab sentiments) were among the primary reasons the French so opposed our invasion of Iraq.

In other news, France has thrown up additional obstacles to Turkey's quest to join the European Union. Sarkozy has been unflinchingly and unapologetically opposed to Turkish entry. I'm torn on this issue; I've debated it ad nauseum with a Turkish friend of mine who is fervently nationalist and staunchly secular, as well as pro-EU. On the one hand, I understand why Turkey so desperately wants to join the club - partially for its perceived economic benefits (especially the open markets) and partially as a fulfillment of its European-looking Kemalist legacy. I also feel that as Turkey's stability is repeatedly questioned (has been the case for decades, just today it's Islamism and not the secular military), tying it closer to Europe could be beneficial. But there are also pressing questions. On the one hand, is Turkey really eligible to join the EU? There are of course questions of culture and religion (which, given demographic trends in Europe, are becoming increasingly superfluous) but also questions about whether Turkey can actually make the prerequisite reforms. There is also an argument to be made that Turkey shouldn't bother joining the EU, that the union's hyper-regulatory nature is antithetical to Turkey's interests.

But let's be honest: if worst-case scenarios for both Europe and Turkey are accurate - that is to say that if Europe is fated to become Islamic and Turkey's secularism is doomed, then isn't Turkey's formal entry to the EU sort of a moot point? They'll all be in the ummah together.

Heh

Apropos to something I noted the other day:


(h/t: Powerline)

Lugar and Iraq

Dick Lugar, (R-IN), former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, came out today and said that we need to undergo some serious self-examination in Iraq. The media has basically spun it as Lugar throwing up his hands - they'd love that - but I think the reality is more nuanced, as his remarks reveal. This isn't to say he's proclaiming that we stay the course, but neither is he demanding we leave tomorrow.

He also, I think, does a fair job of slapping Democrats for their politicizing of the conflict:

The prospects that the current "surge" strategy will succeed in the way originally envisioned by the President are very limited within the short period framed by our own domestic political debate. And the strident, polarized nature of that debate increases the risk that our involvement in Iraq will end in a poorly planned withdrawal that undercuts our vital interests in the Middle East. Unless we recalibrate our strategy in Iraq to fit our domestic political conditions and the broader needs of U.S. national security, we risk foreign policy failures that could greatly diminish our influence in the region and the world.

The current debate on Iraq in Washington has not been conducive to a thoughtful revision of our Iraq policy. Our debate is being driven by partisan political calculations and understandable fatigue with bad news -- including deaths and injuries to Americans.

What he misses is that in saying all of this, he's part of the problem. We don't need 535 commanding generals - we need to essentially shut up and let the war be run by the generals (who have the training) and the executive branch (who don't have the training but do have the prerogative of running foreign policy). Imagine if after the losses at Normandy and the bloody struggle in the Norman bocage, Congress had voted to cut funds for our boys over there! But I do agree almost entirely with this statement:

The task of securing U.S. interests in the Middle East will be extremely difficult if Iraq policy is formulated on a partisan basis, with the protagonists on both sides ignoring the complexities at the core of our situation.

He's right in saying that - it's mostly the Democrats he's aiming at (after all, no one on the left side of the aisle has ever said what Iraq will look like if we precipitously withdraw).

He then more or less jumps ship but also hedges his bets:

In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved. Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.

I do not come to this conclusion lightly, particularly given that General Petraeus will deliver a formal report in September on his efforts to improve security. The interim information we have received from General Petraeus and other officials has been helpful and appreciated. I do not doubt the assessments of military commanders that there has been some progress in security. More security improvements in the coming months may be achieved.

So the surge isn't working...but it may yet work but anyways, let's look for an easier course of action (this coming from a guy who was reelected last year with 87% of the vote!). He also kindly identifies three factors that he views as the root of the problem: "the political fragmentation in Iraq, the growing stress on our military, and the constraints of our own domestic political process." Who to blame? British, Democrats, Democrats. His arguments about the first of these are troubling:

I see no convincing evidence that Iraqis will make the compromises necessary to solidify a functioning government and society, even if we reduce violence to a point that allows for some political and economic normalcy.

In recent months, we have seen votes in the Iraqi parliament calling for a withdrawal of American forces and condemning security walls in Baghdad that were a reasonable response to neighborhood violence. The Iraqi parliament struggles even to achieve a quorum, because many prominent leaders decline to attend. We have seen overt feuds between members of the Iraqi government, including Prime Minister Maliki and Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, who did not speak to each other for the entire month of April. The Shia-led government is going out of its way to bottle up money budgeted for Sunni provinces. Without strident intervention by our embassy, food rations are not being delivered to Sunni towns. Iraqi leaders have resisted de-Baathification reform, the conclusion of an oil law, and effective measures to prevent oil smuggling and other corrupt practices.

His omission of sectarian labels here obfuscates issues: the Shia (especially more radical elements, those allied with Moqtada al-Sadr) would love a free hand to deal with their Sunni co-religionists and pay them back for the years of mistreatment under the Hussein regime; of course they're calling for our withdrawal - that would give them the freedom of action they covet! But if we can reconstitute our spine and show some commitment to building a better Iraq, many of them will fall into line for lack of a better option. He continues with this line of argument:

[Foreign Minister Zebari] believes other policy advancements will take considerable time, but that consensus is the safest and most appropriate approach in a fledgling democracy.

This may be true, but Americans want results in months. Meanwhile, various Iraqi factions are willing to wait years to achieve vital objectives. Even if the results of military operations improve in the coming months, there is little reason to assume that this will diminish Sunni ambitions to reclaim political preeminence or Shia plans to dominate Iraq after decades of Saddam's harsh rule. Few Iraqi leaders are willing to make sacrifices or expose themselves to risks on behalf of the type of unified Iraq that the Bush Administration had envisioned. In contrast, there are many Iraqi leaders who are deeply invested in a sectarian or tribal agenda. More often than not, these agendas involve not just the protection of fellow Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, but the expansion of territorial dominance and economic privileges.

Even if U.S. negotiators found a way to forge a political settlement among selected representatives of the major sectarian factions, these leaders have not shown the ability to control their members at the local level. After an intense year-and-a-half of bloodletting, many sub-factions are thoroughly invested in the violence. We have the worst of both worlds in Iraq - factional leaders who don't believe in our pluralist vision for their country and smaller sub-factions who are pursuing violence on their own regardless of any accommodations by more moderate fellow sectarians.

In effect, we're a nation with the attention-span of a toddler and we're stamping our foot and demanding something new now that we've grown tired of the struggle in Iraq; and whose blood will be shed for our childishness? Iraqis' of course. As I stated earlier, I disagree with his belief that even a change in the military balance won't affect the calculus of the leaders - they'll adjust to fit the new playing field.

There's much more that I don't have the time or interest to quibble with; feel free to do so yourself!

Mr. Swann of Pennsylvania?

Let's be honest: Pennsylvania last year was a bloodbath for the Republican Party: incumbent Senator Rick Santorum was crushed by Bob Casey 59-41, four sitting Representatives were defeated (one was in the awkward position of admitting yes he had had an affair but no he had not strangled his mistress), and former Pittsburgh Steeler-turned-gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann was defeated 60-40.

But something funny happened in the Pennsylvania 4th, out near Pittsburgh: while incumbent Republican Melissa Hart lost to Democrat Jason Altmire 52-48 and Santorum - himself a Pittsburgher - also lost the district, Lynn Swann ran well there. So well, in fact, that he may run there next fall.

As the article notes, it'll be a fight: the DCCC has put itself squarely behind Altmire, who has done himself a favor of keeping to the right of his party. But Swann's star-power in a district that Bush carried 54-45 and one presumes is rabidly pro-Steelers could prove to be the key. Either way it goes, this will be a fun one to watch.

A Brilliant Article and a Bold Act

Over at Slate (which I admit to reading only rarely anymore), the inestimable Christopher Hitchens destroys Muslim Rage Boy:

But how are we to know what will incite such rage? A caricature published in Copenhagen appears to do it. A crass remark from Josef Ratzinger (leader of an anti-war church) seems to have the same effect. A rumor from Guantanamo will convulse Peshawar, the Muslim press preaches that the Jews brought down the Twin Towers, and a single citation in a British honors list will cause the Iranian state-run press to repeat its claim that the British government—along with the Israelis, of course—paid Salman Rushdie to write The Satanic Verses to begin with. Exactly how is such a mentality to be placated?

We may have to put up with the Rage Boys of the world, but we ought not to do their work for them, and we must not cry before we have been hurt. In front of me is a copy of this week's Economist, which states that Rushdie's 1989 death warrant was "punishment for the book's unflattering depiction of the Prophet Muhammad." There is no direct depiction of the prophet in this work of fiction, and the reverie about his many wives occurs in the dream of a madman. Nobody in Ayatollah Khomeini's circle could possibly have read the book for him before he issued a fatwah, which made it dangerous to possess. Yet on that occasion, the bookstore chains of America pulled The Satanic Verses from their shelves, just as Borders shamefully pulled Free Inquiry (a magazine for which I write) after it reproduced the Danish cartoons. Rage Boy keenly looks forward to anger, while we worriedly anticipate trouble, and fret about etiquette, and prepare the next retreat. If taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean living at the pleasure of Rage Boy, and that I am not prepared to do.

Meanwhile, in Denmark, home of those hateful, racist, bigoted cartoonists (known elsewhere as people exercising their right to free speech), a group celebrating traditional midsummer festivities have burned Mohammed rather than the usual witch in effigy. All I can say is bravo! (I also hope that this is the beginning of a spinal-rehabilitation in Europe)

Three Democrats Tied in Iowa

A new Mason-Dixon poll shows Edwards, Obama, and HRC effectively in a dead heat in Iowa. Though the nation's first contest is rapidly losing significance, I still believe that a loss for Edwards here will kill his campaign. Obama's got the star power and the $$ to keep fighting if he takes second; should HRC run second, she too can bounce back. But any amount of analysis right now is basically worthless; with seven months till caucus day, a lot will change.

CAIR Breaking the Law Again?

Apparently CAIR's New York chapter is getting pretty close to violating constraints on its lobbying ability as a 501c3 organization. The matter at hand? Trying to make Muslim holidays publicly applicable!

I certainly hope that whoever has oversight goes after these clowns; coming on top of the national organization's new-found status as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a terrorist fundraising scheme, it would further damage the organization's credibility to shill for Hamas.

(h/t PJM)

I Thought Democrats Didn't Do Preemptive War?

(At least not when it comes to overthrowing genocidal maniacs with a desire to obtain WMD.) But when it comes to former Senators from Tennessee? Preemptive attacks all around!

When the DNC is going after a candidate before he's officially in the race, I think that means Democrats are nervous. In related news, I heard on Fox this afternoon that Thompson could have $10 million on hand at the end of the quarter, more than the declared John McCain.

Court Roundup

It's been an interesting day in the legal world, both at the nation's highest court and at lower levels.

Washington DC's "$67 Million Pants" lawsuit ended with victory for the accused owners of the dry cleaners. That these immigrants didn't get abused by our judicial system is heartening; what's still depressing is that though the judge forced the plaintiff (himself a judge) to reimburse the defendents' court fees, it's not clear yet whether they'll recover their tens of thousands of legal fees. This perfectly illustrates the kind of common sense reform the American legal system desperately needs.

The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Alaska's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" (aka Morse v. Frederick) case, finding for the high school principle and limiting students' free speech. That said, the Court's decision (found here) restricts this limitation to the case at hand because of the illegal substances angle. The case produced some interesting bedfellows as the ACLU and religious freedom groups lined up behind the accused student, the former for obvious reasons, the latter fearing an infringement of students' expression of religion on campus.

The case that generated the most buzz, both in the blogosphere and the media at large, relates to the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA aka McCain-Feingold), specifically the law's provision banning issue ads in the last 60 days before an election. Speaking personally, this is one issue where I've moved right over the last few years; BCRA was an assault on free speech and as such I'm glad to see the Court rolling it back. Check out the chatter at Captain's Quarters,
Powerline, and several interesting pieces from SCOTUSblog here, here, and (oh well there was another but the link's being goofy). Whether BCRA can sustain another attack like this remains to be seen; I hope the answer is no.

Most of the chatterati still await the Court's decisions on a trio of school desegregation cases; nothing yet. For today, I think these cases are the big three (the first of course being from the realm of the absurd).

Book Review: Crashing the Gate

And now for something completely different! Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics is the product of a civil union between two of the Left's leading bloggers, Jerome Armstrong (of myDD.com) and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (of DailyKos). It's also rather unlike anything I've read recently. [I have to point out that I read this for purposes of research not out of any ideological attraction.]

The two bloggers-turned-authors are actually ideally situated to write about the emergence of a new progressive movement; perhaps because of that they discard entirely any semblance of objectivity. Because they are still to some degree outside of the party hierarchy (even if Harry Reid et al now kowtow to them), the book is a rant against the Democratic Establishment as much as it is an anti-Republican screed. In that spirit, they start by examining the GOP, slandering at will while grudgingly respecting the electoral juggernaut that's been built over the last few decades before turning on their own.

But within Democratic ranks, they lambaste both the establishment, which they accuse of being nothing more than "Republican-lite" (thus the nutroots' derision for the Democratic Leadership Council and Clintonian Democracy) as well as incompetent (an honest indictment), as well as the progressives which they view as self-centered and narrow-minded. This, then, is one of the central points of their arguments: if Democrats are going to reassert themselves, they're going to have to overthrow the calcified hierarchy and weld "progressive" organizations (abortionists, labor, environmentalists, to name the big three) into a cohesive coalition focused on victory.

Not that history gives them much reason for optimism. As they relate, a conference putting progressive leaders into a room together had much in common with a kindergarten, where everyone was a cry baby if "their issue" wasn't put front and center. But they also cite some successful case studies: the Montana Miracle of 2004 (where despite Bush's overwhelming victory in the state, Democrats succeeded in seizing the state government) and Colorado in the same year. The two were different: Colorado brought the progressive organizations together (allowing them to support only those candidates who didn't offend their delicate sensibilities) while in Montana, Governor Brian Schweitzer basically discarded the interest groups, understanding them to be far outside of the Montana mainstream.

Though I won't delve into it too deeply, they also have an interesting discussion of the technological revolution in politics, in terms of voter-targeting, utilizing the Internet, and new ad strategies. Again, they grudgingly admit a Republican superiority. Of course much to their chagrin, the Democratic establishment has ignored many of these developments; it's also for this reason that they clamor for the establishment's overthrow.

Armstrong and Zuniga also jealously analyze the VRWC ("Vast Right Wing Conspiracy") - the think tanks, foundations, development organizations, and publications that nurture the Republican farm team, produce innovative policies (all of which they dismiss as ineffective in reality), and generally have destroyed Democratic candidates over the last thirteen years. Of course, their description of this nefarious infrastructure is necessarily hyperbolic and self-deceptive (as well as revealing about their worldview) when they say things like "There's no doubt, as our personal experience demonstrated vividly, that the Right dominates the media." Excuse me? What planet are you two clowns on? (I often feel this empty Leftist critique really means "dammit, Katie Couric never calls for state ownership of the means of production!").

They close with some tactical notes: the importance of a viable ground game, both on the part of the candidates and a grassroots outreach effort, as well as "challenge every Republican." This last part, I think, is one of the more unorthodox and dangerous parts of their plan. Challenging every Republican ties down incumbents and often forces cash to be spent as an insurance policy in safe districts. The GOP should do the same as much as possible; sure even a libertarian in San Francisco wouldn't have a shot of unseating Nancy Pelosi, but if it forced her to stay home, that'd be a victory in itself (I think the fact that Democrats can find so many willing sacrificial lambs is telling).

I've got issues with this book on so many levels. I have to acknowledge that it's not intended as a dispassionate look at the rise of a new political movement (that's what my thesis will be for!); instead it's a manual for their followers and should be treated as such. Its BS factor is sky-high, but there are some valuable insights within.

But my biggest complaint is with the mob-rule direct-democracy movement it embodies; this country's republican foundations have long since been dismantled, and we're worse for it.

I'm not going to tell you to go read this, I'm going to say that if you believe Sun Tzu and wish to know your enemy (and have a strong stomach for BS and distortions), feel free.

Book Review: Dreadnought

With Dreadnought Britain, Germany and the Coming of the Great War, Robert K. Massie succeeds where few authors could. He has written an insightful and engaging volume that captures the personalities of all of the key players while fitting them exactly into the bigger picture. Indeed, Massie's character sketches are in many ways the highlight and the key to this book and to understanding Europe's tragic path to war.

It should go without saying that this was not my first exposure to the causes of the Great War; in fact a class I took a few years ago devoted several lectures to the conflict's origins as an example of why rigid alliance structures and arms races are inherently dangerous. But where such theoretical explanations fail (and this is my primary criticism of political science as a discipline) is that they fundamentally underestimate the human element. Essentially, Massie suggests that without Kaiser Wilhelm II (or at least with a Kaiser that was more like his liberal-minded parents and less like his authoritarian Iron Chancellor) there would be no war. Too often, it was the insecure, egotistical, meddling, short-sighted Kaiser - motivated in part by a sense of German inferiority and jealousy of Great Britain - that pushed Europe to the brink. Whether it was his pursuit of a great navy, an expensive diversion for a nation whose power had always been land-based, or colonies as an object of national pride and a justification for that navy, Wilhelm was badly misguided.

Exacerbating the Kaiser's personality were many other members of his government who were equally motivated. To some degree one might include Bismarck in this category, though there remains a critical caveat: Bismarck had a grand vision and an understanding of other nations' capacity for bullying, humiliation, etc. that allowed him to remain fully in control of the situation so long as he remained in power and the ruling Hohenzollern did not meddle. Indeed in some way, Bismarck comes across as a tragic figure who should not be seen as the origin of the Great War (though too often fingers are pointed at him).

Massie also does an admirable job of illustrating various attempts to defuse tensions (the Haldane Mission and the Naval Holiday being two pertinent examples), too often derailed by Germany for one reason or another.

Finally he also paints a picture of a bygone era. A British society still ruled by the landed gentry whose ministers socialized at country house parties every weekend and who often came to office more out of duty than ambition while social change produced a powerful middle class, represented in the halls of power by men like Joe Chamberlain. A Europe where all of the rulers were related - Wilhelm II was the grandson of Britain's Queen Victoria, and nephew of Edward VII.

Dreadnought is by no means a brief read, but is insightful and rewarding. If you've got a week ( or two or three) free, it's well worth your time.

[No I haven't read this 900+ page tome in its entirety since I posted a review of Freakonomics a few days ago]

Liberal Loons Pt. 2

Apparently Cameron Diaz has angered Peruvians with a Mao handbag; Peruvians were rightly upset given their brutal experience with the Maoist Shining Path guerrillas. While the article lays out why the locals are upset, it fails to ask one crucial question. Why is Cameron Diaz using such a bag in the first place? Does she think that Mao wasn't that bad of a guy? Someone should ask!

This is much the same phenomenon as the cult of Che-adoration that has arisen on the Left, with the same willful ignorance of the man's blood-soaked history.

Liberal Loons Pt. 1

I recently worked on an independent study on prophetic religion and progressive politics in US history; my advisor was among other things, a history professor and an ordained Presbyterian minister. He asked me my faith background, and when I responded UCC he was understandably confused. The United Church of Christ (Obama's a member) is sort of the Democratic Party in ecclesiastical form. And former Reagan Political Director Jeffrey Lord gives the church a piece of his mind. The church has at various times in recent years stood for divestment from Israel, support for gay marriage and an end to the war in Iraq. Even better, Lord points out that conservatives are persona non grata with the church; the leadership has described conservative dissenters as "serpents in our midst." Leftists everywhere hate dissent.

As Lord points out, the saving grace of the church is its emphasis on local decision making, keeping the propaganda out. But he also rightly points out that as the UCC has drifted from the mainstream of American belief, it has hemorrhaged members and congregations (though this is a shift seen across America as the conservative-minded denominations and independent churches have seen enormous growth in membership).

But what I find depressing about all of this is the overt politicization of churches in America. We should be able to come together, regardless of politics, over our faith. Whether that will ever be possible in the future is at best unclear.

Fred Thompson's Legions of Women

Think Hillary's got a lock on the estrogen vote? Think again, according to today's (London) Times. While all of the focus has been on Rudy's marital issues, the fact that Fred Thompson is himself divorced and married to a woman twenty four years his junior has gone largely unremarked. But apparently he was also among Washington's most eligible bachelor during his time in the Senate, and these women are lining up behind him in his bid for the nomination.


Biggest problem I see with these legions of adoring ladies? They and Hillary-supporting women don't see eye-to-eye. Just to cite one of his exes:

“Fred is a perfect example of chivalry. He’s the kind of man little girls dream about marrying, who opens doors for you, lights your cigarettes, helps you on with your coat, buys wonderful gifts. It’s every woman’s fantasy.”

Feministas everywhere just lost their lattes and organic omelettes. Still, it does mean that in stark contrast to Giuliani, he can talk about his romantic past without too much evasion. Rudy's past is messy, Fred's is straight-forward. Though the current wife may raise some eyebrows (and help with the men's vote?).














[For the record, the fact that her name is Jeri does sort of scare me. Jack "I like to have sex in clubs with my wife" Ryan was also married to a Jeri. Please no deja vu!]

A Brazilian Weapon in the War on Terror?

From the Weekly Standard: USAF looking at Brazilian-made counter-insurgency aircraft? Embraer's Super Tucano bridges a gap between our jets and helicopters, in the mold of the AC130. I'll be interested to hear what the military has to say about them.

Global Warming Caused Darfur Genocide

Or so claims the UN. I'm not surprised to hear arguments about the existence of an environmental component to the troubles in the Horn of Africa, but acknowledging this won't end the suffering of people there any time soon. And going back to a previous post about the evils of oil, one of the reasons the UN is reduced to decrying climate change as a root of genocide is oil. The Chinese have cozied up to Khartoum and in exchange for their oil resources, have watched Sudan's back at Turtle Bay.

Paris Hilton, Arrowhead Ripper, Barry Bonds

Which of these things is not like the other? IBD slams the media for its paltry (and often distorted) coverage of Arrowhead Ripper, and suggests that it's got the potential to really change the dynamic. Just as important, it praises Michael Yon. Read up.

Fred and CAIR

It's times like this that I find myself liking Fred Thompson a lot. He's saying the right things on the big issues, but I'm still not certain if there's any substance behind all of this buzz.

CAFE Standards, Gas Taxes, and Winning the War on Terror

One of the rare times when I agree with Democrats (and in fact most of the political spectrum is united in this) is when they call for ending our dependence on foreign oil. Obviously the greatest flaw in our "war on terror" (a misnomer in my view: war on Islamo-fascism is better and too rarely used) is the fact that every time we go to the pump we fund our enemies. It is after all Saudi petrodollars that are flowing into the coffers of jihadist groups worldwide, where they are then spent to further their struggle against the US and the West. But the $64,000 question has always been what do we do about this?

Democrats have a rather wrong-headed approach to reducing our dependence on imported oil (remember, if it's not coming from the Middle East, it's likely coming from Venezuela, another unfriendly regime). The central plank of their new energy policy, passed 65-27 in the Senate this week, are increasing CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards and boosting ethanol production. as well as mandating that consumers be offered alternative-fuel cars. I have two big problems with this package and a host of smaller ones.

Obviously, I feel like this is too much government regulation of the auto industry - consumers demanding more fuel-efficient cars will deliver them too. I also feel that they're working towards the right thing (energy independence) for the wrong reasons (environmentalism) and through the wrong means (big government).

I also feel that their insistence on increasing ethanol production (sevenfold in the next fifteen or so years) is wrong-headed because it's done with an eye towards domestic lobbies, particularly in the Midwest. Yes, we have lots of corn. And yes, corn can be distilled into ethanol. But corn isn't the most efficient source of ethanol - however sugar is. So while it would make sense to produce sugar-based ethanol, that requires far more sugar than the domestic sugar industry could provide and would thus necessitate importing raw cane; it goes without saying that the domestic sugar lobby will not allow that (I hate agricultural special interests). In effect, everyone's embrace of corn-based ethanol is misguided and largely symbolic (it's a nasty side-effect of the Iowa caucuses being so prominent); some studies also suggest that producing ethanol from corn (because it's so inefficient) actually releases more greenhouse gases than are saved with the alternative fuel - which if you're wrapping yourself in the mantle of environmentalism when you call for these measures is rather self-defeating!

CAFE standards are also ineffective and misguided, as was pointed out in Opinion Journal last month. More efficient cars may actually cause consumers to drive more, thus negating much of the intended savings of both imported gasoline and exhaust emissions. It's also suggested that the smaller cars that CAFE produces are less safe and result in at least 3,200 more deaths a year. And increased CAFE standards won't save Detroit: just making them competitive with Asian imports in terms of economy don't solve the long-term issue of healthcare and pension costs, the real killers of the Big 3.

All of this isn't to say that there are no solutions: there are, but they require political courage and entail something more than symbolic efforts and slaps at the auto industry. I am of course talking about a gas tax. Mort Kondracke had a great piece in yesterday's Roll Call, laying out all of the benefits while acknowledging the unlikelihood of any politician having the gumption to call for such a tax. We pay nothing for our gas compared to the rest of the world, and its low cost is one of the reasons we're such a vast consumer. But putting those very consumers on the hot seat would instantly produce the kind of pressure on the automakers that Washington's looking for. Currently, the US average for gas taxes (state and federal) is $.42 a gallon. Aka nothing. In 2003, the country used some 360 million gallons of gas; even a dollar per gallon tax would be a significant source of revenue, despite the necessary rebates to low-income drivers and likely the trucking industry (who would otherwise just pass the costs on to consumers). This revenue could be used for research as Kondracke suggests, though I'm fundamentally opposed to the idea of government doing so because it'll be inefficient or paying down the deficit or any number of other useful things. Perhaps we could recognize that we need to stop buying foreign oil because those who sell it want us dead and instead funnel the revenues to the military, paying for better benefits for veterans or the like. Long-term, it will bring down our consumption of gasoline and the market will generate a demand for cheaper fuel sources and more efficient cars. All that's needed is some spine in Washington.

UPDATE: Check out Glenn Reynolds' take on the issue.

Book Review: Freakonomics

I'll admit that Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner's Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything came out more than two years ago and despite its being widely well-received, I only now got around to reading it. Sorry.

That being said, I found it much as promised: lacking a unifying theme, almost delightfully random, and really insightful. Levitt's work has clearly moved economics past its burdensome title of the "dismal science" into a more accessible and enlightening realm. I also found it noteworthy to show what economists can do given the right data. Anyways, a brief, shallow two cents.


Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

Michael Yon on Arrowhead Ripper

Read it and pass it on. This guy's doing great work that the much of the rest of the media refuses to do.

You Just Can't Please Some Guys

From PJM:

Six long-held captives at Guantánamo were sent home, two to Tunisia and four to Yemen, the Pentagon said Tuesday, swiftly drawing denunciations from human rights groups.

The Center for Constitutional Rights in New York identified one of the Tunisians as detainee Abdullah bin Omar, 51, and said his return “put him at grave risk for torture and abuse.” (Miami Herald)

Democrats and the Media

Some Democrats have gotten it into their head that the media is biased. Against them. Yes to the first, an emphatic no to the second. Certainly conservative voices are the majority on talk radio, and yes Fox is a pretty successful cable news channel, but liberals still maintain their stranglehold on ABC/NBC/CBS, NPR (with our tax dollars, mind you), as well as the major print organs (mind you, the influence of all of these is waning, as Brian Anderson points out in South Park Conservatives, reviewed here).

But even these, some on the left (especially the far left) feel are anti-Democrat, Bush-hugging mouthpieces for those crazy Republicans to spread their gospel. Beyond reminding them to take their pills, here are some fun facts.

According to MSNBC, media figures favor Democrats with their political donations something like 9-1. If that's not a blatant sign of favoritism, I don't know what is. And the money is merely the most visible evidence. While not all reporters are as biased as say, Dan Rather, we're all human and thus largely unable to keep our prejudices from affecting the way we do our jobs (There's some discussion of this, especially how unconscious discrimination can be) in Freakonomics).

Returning to talk radio, Think Progress (a.k.a American Socialists) have released a report on the reasons for conservative bias on that medium and how to counter it. Their recommendations are almost laughable: increase diversity of ownership. Of course this will be the government's job in their eyes...But what I'm curious about is how they define "progressive" radio? Should we simply pipe in the news from Venezuela and Cuba? Or do we need to dig up Stalin's speeches and rebroadcast them? But what we have to remember in the first place is the reason that conservatives dominate talk radio is because the AM airwaves were empty and because conservatives couldn't get a say in the Old Media outlets. In essence, they circumvented the MSM and thus gained the wrath of the Left by not only spreading their message but doing so effectively.

Oh and MSNBC also released a list of all donating journalists (I don't know if they covered everyone): check to see if your favorite is on here.

Bush > Congress

At least so far as Gallup is concerned, that is. Their latest shows Congress's approval rating at a dismal 14%, the institution's lowest since Gallup began polling in 1973. The other period when its ratings were so dismal was in the years preceding the Republican Revolution; why is it Democrats seem unable to run Congress effectively? Someone recently proclaimed this a lame-duck Congress and I'm beginning to agree with them.

In other news, the RCP average has Bush at 31.3%

More Ron Paul

Of everyone running or possibly running for president, I've had the dubious honor to meet only two: Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel. I've met Paul twice, once when he spoke to a group I was with and once when I (quite literally) wandered into his office. Though I disagree with him on a wide array of things, I do think he's that rarest of things, an honest pol. Therefore I'll link to this American Conservative article about him.

Democrats and Choice

I've come to realize that when Democrats talk about "choice," you usually have to get suspicious. Like the "Employee Free Choice Act," involving unionization procedures. For decades now, the standard has been secret balloting by employees as they decide whether or not to unionize. But Democrats, in what they illogically describe as choice, want it to be conducted by the so-called "card-check" method which is less secret and thus more open to intimidation. I'd suggest you call your Senators - this little bit of ugly is up for a vote this week.

John Fund had a great piece in yesterday's OpJo here.
Senator McConnell has an op-ed on it here.

More Russian Shenanigans

So I noted last week that Vladi Putin's Russia is selling diesel submarines to Venezuela. Now it comes out that they're also selling advanced warplanes to Syria. As the Economist has ably noted for months now, Russia has been throwing its economic weight around in Europe through manipulation of its natural gas exports. What's also emerging is a pattern of their trying to influence world affairs without using their military, which is hardly able to do so anymore. I'll have enormous respect for any presidential candidate that find the cajones to publicly denounce Putin and his meddling.

Obama's Dirty Laundry

From CQ: Apparently Obama's ties to indicted Chicago fundraiser Tony Rezko are deeper than the junior Senator from Illinois previously admitted.


Hillary should do her competitor a minor favor and tell him to do a better job of hiding his dirty laundry.

Let's see if this thing's got legs.

An Unseen Timewarp?

I often feel like between the West and much of the Muslim world, there is an unseen timewarp that one passes through. Certainly, we could dismiss misogyny (including limits on their freedom and genital mutilation) as traditional or embrace it thanks to multiculturalism, to name one example. But I think a prerequisite for modernity is freedom of expression and religion. Just to cite another example, see the brouhaha over Queen Elizabeth's knighting of Salman Rushdie. He's an important author, therefore he deserves to be knighted. But because he also dissed Islam (pretty easy to do, I've probably already done so), the Muslim world is screaming bloody murder. There's the obligatory flag and effigy burning (Queen and Rushdie) in Pakistan, where the religious minister also said the act justified suicide bombing. The Iranian government has claimed it's a sign of institutional Islamophobia in the West - which goes to show how delusional these folks are.

This hasn't gotten too much traction in the MSM, no doubt because it disturbs their vision of Islam as a "religion of peace." But imagine their outrage if homophobic groups had loudly protested the Queen's knighting of Sir Elton. A bright spot (so far) is that in contrast to the Danish cartoons fracas, European Muslims haven't gotten in on the act yet.

I think I miss the days when burning the Queen in effigy would result in the Royal Navy putting aboard a landing party to chastise the cheeky natives. The world may not have been kind back then (it never has been) but at least it was somewhat predictable and controllable.

Nifon Disbarred

After resigning Friday, Durham County DA Mike Nifong was disbarred yesterday. While on some level he is an utterly pitiable sight - unemployed, unable to work in his field now, etc. - but in my eyes he deserves it. He set out to wreck the lives of three entirely innocent Duke students, for nothing more than pure political gain. He deserves every bit of this, including the public shame.

Karma

Looters raid Arafat's home, steal his Nobel Peace Prize.

h/t Instanpundit

Nifong Resigns

The odious bastard (ahem - prosecutor) at the center of the Duke Lacrosse case "tearfully resigned" from the stand today, claiming he wasn't a liar. Right and pigs fly Mr. Nifong. Just so glad to have this over with - now can we begin firing the Group of 88? Or at least putting them on trial for slander?

News & Observer

Chavez Pushing the Envelope

Apparently Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, in addition to previous arms buys, is attempting to procure nine submarines from Russia. That would make the socialist regime in Caracas one of only three nations in the Caribbean basin with such ships, with the US clearly having predominance. It's also typical caudillo/socialist nonsense: no conventional weapon employed by the Venezuelans is a serious threat to US forces (tends to happen when ideological purity is the foremost criterion for advancement) but just possessing them makes them more macho.

I wonder if in retrospect Bush will be chastised for failing to put a stop to the reinfection of South America with socialism. Democracy has a less than sterling success record in the region, making me wonder if the old policies (he may be an SOB but at least he's our SOB) still aren't better suited. It also defies reason why we're not making a bigger scene over the stream of arms from Russia and China to Venezuela (somehow I think Monroe must be spinning in his grave for this violation of his doctrine).

Another Spurs Championship A Foregone Conclusion?

So I think San Antonio's 75-72 defeat on the Cavaliers pretty much seals the series; no team's ever come back from a 3-0 Finals deficit and given the way the Spurs are playing, the Cavaliers seem unlikely candidates to make history. Given that, I don't think it's premature to write a postmortem.

First off, the Cavaliers are only as good as the King. And LeBron can be damn good. His performance in game 5 of the Eastern Conference Finals - the last 25 points for the Cavs, all 18 in overtime, 48 on the night - was nothing short of spectacular. The Pistons couldn't seem to stop him and when they finally got around to it in game 6, Booby Gibson burned them from outside the arc. But when LeBron doesn't deliver - see basically all three games to date in the Finals and credit the Spurs' Bruce Bowen for that - the Cavs are pretty mediocre.

The Spurs are good. Period. Feel free to hate Tony Parker with a passion, not only because he's marrying Eva Longoria (green-eyed monster + hatred) but because at what? 6 feet? he's ridiculous. Oh and because he's French.

The Bulls showed their stuff in that four-game sweep of the Heat. Add an inside scorer (Joakim Noah was working out for the team last week) and suddenly I think they're top 4 in the conference with Cleveland, Detroit and Miami (not in that order). It's also been suggested that Ben Gordon's a goner in the off-season - fine by me. Sure he delivered once or twice in the post-season and was pretty good in the regular season, but there seems to be few good arguments for keeping him. Luol Deng, by the way, is a baller (if you've never seen his single-handed demolition of UNC from one of the2003 Duke-UNC games, it's worth digging up and watching).

Obviously the most surprising storyline was the Warriors' defeat of the top-seeded Mavericks. However the greatest missed opportunity was a Warriors-Suns series, or as a friend characterized it "First to 200 points wins."

Game 4 is tomorrow night.

Go to Hell Carolina Go to Hell!

It's not basketball that's got me saying that right now, instead it's politics: former Carolina basketball coach Dean Smith endorsed Johnny-boy Edwards over the weekend. I think Dean's always been something of a liberal - he was something of a leader in the desegregation of NCAA D1 basketball - but this is just galling.



(Okay so it's not Duke-UNC but it's still the Crazies in fine form

The Map

Everyone's been posting it; despite that I thought it was worth putting up myself. Each state's individual GDP is compared to a country of roughly the same GDP. So Illinois's GDP is much the same as Mexico's. Alaska as Belarus? I don't know which side of that surprises me more - the oil-rich empty vastness or the authoritarian Baltic state.



















(Credit to Pajamas Media)

Fred and Rudy

In what's got to be the most over-reported news of the day, not-yet-declared candidate Fred Thompson is quickly catching up with (or even surpassing) Rudy Giuliani in some recent polls. It's not entirely surprising that the Fred Express is doing so well: he's well-liked by members of the conservative establishment (Mary Cheney, famously the target of John Edwards' assualt during the 2004 VP debate, just signed on to his campaign) and following their cues, the masses seem to have taken to him as well.

On to the news: a new LA Times/Bloomberg poll has Giuliani leading Fred 27%-21% (and Giuliani beating HRC by 10%). The poll doesn't test any Democrats against Fred, however, thus failing to illuminate the crucial "electability" dynamic.

However, a new Rasmussen poll found the two tied at 24% apiece, whereas Rudy was leading 23%-17% just a week ago. I don't think Rudy's peaked too soon, I just think the electorate (especially the conservatives who as of yet have not found anyone sufficiently conservative for their tastes yet electable) is excited by the buzz and his potential. Whether or not he can live up to the hype in a major way remains to be seen. He's got the star power - and although it's just Law & Order, at least it's not Bedtime for Bonzo! - and he's been making the right noises on the issues, but I'm still skeptical if this is any more than a temporary phenomenon.

The other thing that the Times/Bloomberg poll mentions is that Romney, who has been doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire (though they don't cite their own numbers to that extent) gets decimated by Clinton or Obama in the general. I have to believe it's his Mormonism: to "mainstream" Christians, it's a little too cultish and to secularists (to whom all of Christianity is just a little cultish), it's just down right freaky.

Anyone else notice the "values" buzz lately? I've been collecting some articles on it and pondering - maybe something tomorrow?

More Michael Yon From Iraq

Michael Yon, itinerant independent journalist and blogger, has given the world another unbiased look at things in Iraq; this is the sort of stuff that never makes it in the media. Yon's currently with the Queen's Royal Lancers in southern Iraq, where our allies are watching the border. Both pictures and coverage are great, be sure to spend some time reading it (as well as looking at some of his old pieces). I won't deign to comment extensively on it, because Blackfive has done it well.

On Top Of My Reading List

Coming out tomorrow: Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10. From Amazon:

On a clear night in late June 2005, four U.S. Navy SEALs left their base in northern Afghanistan for the mountainous Pakistani border. Their mission was to capture or kill a notorious al Qaeda leader known to be ensconced in a Taliban stronghold surrounded by a small but heavily armed force. Less then twenty-four hours later, only one of those Navy SEALs remained alive.

This is a story that I think barely made it into the media but finally it's being told. Powerline has a link to the first chapter online somewhere. Far more is available from the fine fellows over at Blackfive; especially noteworthy are two entries whose links I'll put directly here. Both are from Froggy Ruminations, home of two SEALS-turned-bloggers. One is one of their thoughts on the funeral of those that died that day, the other is their account of things as heard through the SEAL grapevine.


From what I can tell, this SEAL's story is truly incredible; I believe he's now back at it in Iraq. I don't know where we get these guys but the entire country owes them a debt of gratitude we cannot hope to repay.

The Forgotten Man

Some might remember Amity Shlaes; she used to write a column for the Financial Times. Now she's the author of the just-released The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. Conservative economic historians don't often write histories of the era (or write much history in general), and if the book is anything like Shlaes' eminently readable columns, it'll be a treat. Check out reviews from Powerline and Opinion Journal if you're curious.

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall

20 years ago today...

CAIR Membership Takes a Nosedive Pt. 2

The full Washington Times article on CAIR's declining membership is here; last night was obviously on a preview. Enjoy!

SecDef Levin?

It's something of a nightmare. Today's Opinion Journal spoofs the current state of affairs on the Hill with its 535 wannabe generals as well as Gates' refusal to go to bat for outgoing JCS Chair Peter Pace (though the White House inexplicably continues to support Gonzales!). They rightly question whether Gates is trying to be the "anti-Rumsfeld by appeasing the likes of Mr. Levin, but his kowtow only makes Mr. Bush look weaker as a Commander in Chief who can't even select his own war generals. Mr. Levin was quick to brag about his latest conquest, confirming for reporters that he had told Mr. Gates that General Pace's nomination would have resulted in a fight."

A fight? I'm not sure if Gates is keeping count but I say bring it on! Democrats would have to be sure to have all of their ducks in a row on this one (meaning ensuring Biden, Dodd, Clinton, and Obama are present); delay would leave them option to charges of hamstringing the war effort. Of course with us at 48 (49 as soon as Thomas [RIP] has a successor appointed) and likely Lieberman; though Johnson's healthy again (glad to hear it), he's not likely to return immediately. Thus that makes at worst (assuming McCain deigns to show up) a 50-49 Democratic victory along party lines (with Lieberman voting right) and likely a victory with several swings from the Dems (or the absence of any presidential nominee).

Obviously Gates' real desire was to avoid the inevitable accompanying hearings but this White House (and apparently this SecDef as well) remain terrified of going on the offense. Pace is a veteran of Hue; nothing Levin or the rest of the defeatists/revisionists on Armed Services could throw at him would rattle him. Though obviously he could never convince those close-minded hacks that this war is not only winnable but just. I say go for it - at the very least showing some spine will remind the Democrats there still is an executive branch and they don't have all the say on the war (though even if they did the media would still call this "Bush's war").

Several years ago in Washington I had the honor of meeting then-Vice-Chair Pace; he was an impressive man and an impressive speaker. He served his country courageously and well, putting his life on the line, for decades only to be discarded by an administration too craven to defend him as he defended his country. I'm honestly ashamed of my president and party. And it goes without saying that I'm disgusted with Levin and the rest of his party's grandstanding, abusing the freedom that so many brave soldiers, sailors and airmen (as well as Marines) have died to preserve over the centuries.

"Hate Crimes" Meets Theater of the Absurd

Though I don't think I've blogged on it, I consider the concept of "hate crimes" odious and almost Orwellian, punishing as it does not so much the action but the thought underlying it (this article from yesterday's ChiTrib also highlights the difficulties in charging blacks with hate crimes against whites - perhaps because there is no white Al Sharpton?)

Now it's once again gone from odious to absurd: a suit on appeal (unsurprisingly, from the crazy 9th Circuit) to the Supreme Court holds that "the words 'natural family,' 'marriage' and 'union of a man and a woman' can be punished as 'hate speech' in government workplaces."

Apparently this whole mess began when a gay/lesbian group of city employees in Oakland sent out an invitation to participate in "National Coming-Out Day;" when asked whether distributing such tripe was legitimate, the city manager responded (in his best ultra-PCese) that "'celebration of the gay/lesbian culture and movement' was part of the city's role to 'celebrate diversity.'" Since when do cities have to celebrate diversity?

A group of traditionally-valued employees which had formed in response and reached out via posted fliers to "people of faith" who opposed attempts to redefine marriage was then accused by a lesbian employee of making her feel "targeted" and "excluded." At this point, the courts issued a "ruling said the words 'natural family' and 'marriage' had 'anti-homosexual import.'" The two women accused of "targeting" and "excluding" this dyke (pardon - is that not PC?) complained that their first amendment rights were being compromised. Which is technically true, unless you may in any unintentional or imagined way insult minorities, gays, or women (white men, Southerners, and military personnel not included).

It's now up to the Supreme Court to decided whether - as the 9th Circuit ruled - an employer's administrative interests (in this case diversity) trumps the employees' free speech. I certainly don't consider that a compelling government interest (which must be shown to limit speech), and I doubt Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito will either. The Court already found "hate speech" constitutional in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) and though I'm not sure that's really the issue under consideration here, I hope that the Court takes this opportunity to overrule that precedent as well as throw out this latest bit of 9th Circuit BS. On the flip side of the "diversity" coin, I believe they previously found diversity to be a compelling interest in one of the affirmative action cases (Bakkae?) and thus have a certain degree of precedent (one that Ginsberg will no doubt cite in her dissent).

PC nonsense combined with judicial absurdity, topped with an infringement of our free speech: the Left finds a new way to repel me every day.

One final depressing side note: the then-city manager is now the DC School Board president, no doubt injecting such garbage into the District's curriculum, rather than working on things like, say, fixing the broken schools.

More Anxiety in Eastern Europe

Yesterday I discussed Bush's ecstatic reception in Albania as well as the historical circumstances partially underlying it. Now we're seeing more rumblings from the Balkans.

On the one hand, Bulgaria has asked to be covered by the proposed US missile shield. As a Soviet satellite, the government in Sofia is all too familiar with the Kremlin meddling in their neighborhood. Ironically, Bulgaria was created from Russian spoils of war in 1877 when Tsarist armies attempted to dismember the feeble Ottoman Empire. The Russians then came close to entering Constantinople itself, which would have produced a war with Austria and Britain as well; the former because it considered the Balkans its backyard, the latter because they feared Russian control of the Dardanelles and a warm-water port would threaten their lifeline to India via Suez (for much the same reason, Russia and Britain played the "Great Game" in Afghanistan).

Speaking of artificial state constructs (which Afghanistan most certainly is), Serbia reacted indignantly to Bush's support for an independent Kosovo; this is the same response that the international community has heard from Putin. The present warmth between the two states (at a time when few can tolerate Putin) is an extension of a rather long-standing friendship. Prior to the overthrow of the tsars, Russian often pursued a pan-Slavic policy, attempting to bring all Slavic peoples (including Serbs) under the double-headed Romanov eagle. Although that ethnic motive partially disappeared with the rise of the USSR (which thought far more globally than merely the Balkans), a large swath of the region - formerly under Austro-Hungarian rule - was reconstituted into Yugoslavia ("The Land of the South Slavs"). See where this is all going? The two feel a certain kinship. In contrast, Kosovo, which the Serbs claim as their own, is populated primarily by ethnic Albanians, thought to be descended from ancient Illyrians (which also contributes to Bush's reception).

What's unfortunate about all of this is that the Balkan Peninsula is a region the rest of the world ignores at their own risk, so often has it been a flashpoint for international events. But it's rarely on the media's radar screen, and only is at present because of the President's visit (the additional fact that some states, such as Bulgaria, are enthusiastic allies makes covering them especially unappealing to the MSM). Despite this, developments there are worthy of study: the region seems to finally be moving past its bitter sectarianism but simultaneously it remains ripe for Putin's meddling, especially if it is ignored by Western public opinion.

More Thoughts on France

A few pieces came to my attention today that I thought were worth highlighting in the wake of yesterday's French elections and the challenges that Sarkozy's government will face in coming months. First off, Socialist Segolene Royal, maneuvering to avoid total disaster at the polls, has proposed an alliance with Francois Bayrou's centrist Democratic Movement (MoDem). Many seem doubtful whether such a move will stave off electoral catastrophe or merely stanch the bleeding.

Despite Royal's outreach, I think that we may be seeing the death throes of France's Socialist Party (PS). While the Left in other European countries has moved away from pure socialism towards social democracy, the PS has remained firmly wedded to full-fledged socialism. Bayrou's relatively centrist MoDem was partially offering an alternative to the old left/right divide but he failed to make it into the second round. Should the PS suffer a crushing blow in the upcoming election, and should Sarkozy succeed in implementing his reforms, the party may be too devastated to offer any serious opposition, ceding its role as a major party to MoDem or another. This isn't to say it would disappear altogether but rather be reduced to the ranks of the minor parties of the left, which includes not only your garden-variety communists and greens but also parties devoted to "workers' struggle" party and at least one Trotskyist party (not kidding).

The second item of note was that French Sikhs have gone to the European Court of Human Rights, seeking permission to wear their turbans in school as well as in official identification photos. As to the former complaint this is a consequence (unintended or not) of the controversial law passed a few years ago banning students from wearing overt religious identifiers (aimed primarily at Muslim girls' headscarves) in schools. The law is rooted primarily in the traditional French zealousness for a certain national unity without regard for race or religious creed, a notion which has been severely abused in recent years.

The law came under fire from multiple directions when it was passed. Some accused it of being an assault on Islam (apparently Europe too has its grievance theater types). One of the more interesting criticism I remember at the time was the Economist's libertarian reaction. Of course young Muslim girls donning the head scarf may not actually be their choice?

CAIR Membership Takes a Nosedive

According to the Washington Times, CAIR - the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization which claims to speak for all of America's Muslims while actively peddling grievance theater designed to show everything (including reports of suspicious activity) as bigoted anti-Muslim behavior - has seen a 90% drop in its membership over the last six years. As the author rightly pointed out, the organization's recent appearance in the news as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a terror case likely won't bring the masses back. What I most found intriguing (and I hope the Times will more fully flesh this out tomorrow) are the individual donors who have been providing most of the organization's budget; more to the point, how many of them are members of the Saudi royal family?

Journalism AC (After-Couric)

Apparently Fox - whose news is sufficiently sensationalized (has Greta van Susteren ever discussed anything but Paris Hilton or murdered/missing white girls?) and whose reality TV shows are even worse - has come up with a harebrained new concept: letting a model do the news. The show, called Anchorwoman (no doubt an homage to Will Ferrell's misogynistic Anchorman), will feature a swimsuit model/WWE actress with no prior journalistic experience doing the local news in Tyler, Texas. Obviously the locals aren't happy. But if Katie Couric, who has experience but no gravitas, can do CBS Evening News whats to keep a bimbo with no experience and no gravitas from doing the local news?

What's priceless is journalists getting steamed over this apparently devaluing their profession. Please. Two words (one?): Rather-gate. Another two (definitely two this time): Paris Hilton. If we're going to make up news or cover bimbos all day long, a reality TV show with a bimbo doing the news isn't anything new. So long as she can read off a teleprompter she's fine.

Ron Paul the Money Man?

Ron Paul, the crazy Texan who entered politics because Nixon took us off the gold standard, is making waves with rumors that his campaign may have raised some $5 million. That would put him where McCain was last quarter and at about half of Giuliani and Romney's then totals. Now my question is who in God's name is crazy enough to donate to this guy? Obviously the same loons who overran LGF's post-debate polls but it doesn't explain who they are! Coming on top of Rasmussen's poll a few weeks ago which showed 35% of Democrats (and 22% of Americans overall) believe Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand, I'm starting to doubt our national sanity.

Though I have nightmares about the infinitesimal chance that Paul becomes the nominee, I think a more like and realistic scenario is that he'll be rejected by the mainstream of the GOP; I have to believe that most of his supporters are cross-over independents and/or moonbat Democrats who can't vote in most GOP primaries, making his defeat more likely. However he'll refuse to accept defeat and pull a Lieberman, running independently and on a platform that would make Ross "Giant Suckin' Sound" Perot sound positively sane. What the hell is wrong with this world?

I'm Not Dead Yet!

Despite everyone's fervent wishes to the contrary (except perhaps for the President and Senator Kennedy), it would appear that the immigration monster is still stirring. Kaus (h/t Instapundit) outlines W's strategy to resuscitate his monster; AFP has Bush saying he'll take a more hands-on/personal role in working with the Senate to pass it. Let me get this straight: a President with a job-approval rating in the low 30s goes to the Hill to harangue a Congress with a job-approval rating equally as low or lower - and we expect this to work? I just wish Congress would do everyone a favor, declare this dead and move quickly to pass a toothy border security bill. With that done, Republicans might be more willing to talk, though I still think there are too many in both parties who are at least somewhat opposed to any guest worker program (i.e. most of those who voted for Dorgan's amendment last week).

And now for something completely different...

Death Penalty Deters?

Recent studies suggest just that! Obviously its opponents disagree, attacking the studies as "flimsy" and published in "second-tier journals" (perhaps top-tier journals wouldn't publish them because they violate liberal orthodoxy?). Still, the findings suggest each execution saves between three and fifteen lives. Read it all.

H-Bomb = Homo Bomb?

Apparently the Pentagon considered developing a "gay bomb," aimed at turning affected individuals gay. Some gay activists latched on and made a hullaballoo, and Jules Crittenden has some fun, analyzing the weapon using "the most progressive, libertarian, gender-orientation accepting, peace-loving standards possible." One offended liberal blamed the Bush administration for the weapon, developed, by the way, in 1994 what's next? Blaming W for don't ask don't tell? The stupidity of such individuals would almost be cute if they couldn't vote...as always, I find WSC's greatest argument against democracy ("a five minute conversation with the average voter") validated.

France Truly Ready for Reform?

Sure they elected conservative, reform-minded, America-loving, tough-on-crime Nicolas Sarkozy president, but it was unclear how serious the French commitment to change was. That commitment was made apparent today with the nation's parliamentary elections. According to the AP, Sarko's UMP (originally, "(Union pour la majorité présidentielle" now "Union pour un Mouvement Populaire") took 46% of the vote; in contrast the Socialists, party of presidential runner-up Segolene Royal, took roughly 36%. Of course, given the absurd complexities of the French electoral system, this is only the first round of parliamentary balloting. But it bodes well for the composition of the new Assemblée nationale, potentially with the UMP having an absolute majority. Obviously that'll help Sarko's reform program.

Some right-minded analysis is especially interesting (I plead ignorance: I was unaware that Pajamas Media had a correspondent in France); particularly that the "depressed" (61%!) turnout may signal bitter Socialists stayed home.

So what's Sarko going to do with this majority? Ideally, he'll implement major economic reforms - throw out the infamous 35-hour work-week, the generous welfare benefits, the difficulties in terminating employees - and address the violence in the banlieus, perpetrated primarily by disaffected Muslim youth (the surge of car-burnings that breached the US media's veil of silence was hardly exceptional). Whether or not he'll succeed remains to be seen, but this is definitely a move in the right direction.

NYT Newsflash!

There's a war on! Tigerhawk dissects a bit from the Times (all the news that fits) in which they seem to have stumbled over jihadi ideology - someone let their blinders slip - but desperately try and play dumb, digging up some ivory tower-dwelling navel gazing type to liken jihad-related deaths and civilian deaths in Iraq. Or something. His style's far better than mine. Read away. The original Times piece, discussing (I kid you not) "jihadi etiquette" can be found here - it might as well be from the Onion.

(h/t: LGF - here's to hoping they're back up soon)

George Will Abuses Democrats

Today's WaPo has George Will viciously abusing Democrats on their collective economic policy (bad pun); Democratic candidates are rehashing the same old tripe they've been bemoaning for decades, hoping Americans are sufficiently fed up with the GOP to allow them to raise taxes. In addition to abusing their policy notions and setting the record straight on the economic health of the current administration (you wouldn't know the economy's been healthy and growing if you only listened to Democrats and the media), he rightly questions the underlying philosophy (all too infrequently critiqued):

When in the long human story have economic burdens and benefits been "spread evenly"? Does Obama think they should be, even though talents never are? What relationship of "fairness" does he envision between the value received by individuals and the value added by them?

Ouch. Fairness, when defined by the modern left is nefarious as well as a governmental concern. As the Gipper said, "the nine scariest words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help!'"

It's ironic: at a time when parts of the Continent may finally be moving away from their long-cherished and viciously destructive tax-strangled welfare states, Democrats want to implement exactly the sorts of policies that have rendered Old Europe's economies so sclerotic. Hillary as the anti-Thatcher?

I Love The New Criterion

Just throwing that out there. This particular outburst of emotion/warm fuzzies is in response to Roger Kimball's demolition of a new and allegedly "edgy" art exhibit at Bard College, an exhibit, as Kimball so wonderfully puts it, comprised of

"huge images of body parts—yes, those body parts—floating on the walls of a darkened room, minatory videos of men doing things—yes, those things—to each other, or to themselves, all of it presented in the most pretentious fashion possible.

Duke's gorgeous new Nasher Museum hosted a mind-numbingly awful exhibit that might have been called "Tree Hugger's Delight" - but it couldn't hold a candle to this rubbish. Art? Excuse me? But as bad as it is, Kimball borders on the dismissive - the critically dismissive:

the thing to appreciate about “Wrestle,” about the Hessel Museum and the collection of Marieluise Hessel, and about the visual arts at Bard generally is not how innovative, challenging, or unusual they are, but how pedestrian and, sad to say, conventional they are. True, there is a lot of ickiness on view at the Hessel Museum. But it is entirely predictable ickiness. It’s outrage by-the-yard, avant-garde in bulk, smugness for the masses. And this brings me to what I believe is the real significance of institutions like the art museum at Bard, the Hessel collection that fills it, and the surrounding atmosphere of pseudo-avant-garde self-satisfaction. The “arts” at Bard are notable not because they are unusual but because they are so grindingly ordinary...Far from “challenging” or “subverting” the status quo, the 1,700 objects she [Hessel] has accumulated are the status quo. And far from “struggling” with questions about gender or feminism or anything else, she has simply issued a rubber stamp endorsing the dominant clichés of today’s academic art world. “Academic,” in fact, is the mot juste: not in the sense of “scholarly,” but rather in the sense that we speak of “academic art,” stale, conventional, aesthetically nugatory. A wall full of photographs of two girls does nothing to “interrogate” (a favorite term of art- and lit-crit-speak) identity any more than a mutilated doll forces us to reconsider our usual notions of whatever-it-is those odious objects are supposed to make us reconsider. Really, the only thing exhibitions like “Wrestle,” or institutions like the Hessel Museum, challenge is the viewer’s patience.

Ouch. Just to reiterate: I love TNC.

PS - read the whole article and savor his historical perspective as he destroys modern art.