EU Rendition Report

More screeching with no evidence. Anti-Americanism, you bet.

STRASBOURG, France: A yearlong European parliamentary investigation into CIA flights transporting terror suspects to secret prisons has yielded a report singling out Britain, Germany and other European heavyweights as colluding with the U.S. secret detention program in an apparent breach of human rights standards.

Now the European Parliament faces a much tougher task — forcing the governments to respond to the report, which human rights activists said may have exposed just the tip of the iceberg.

The 76-page report approved Wednesday put the spotlight on the liberties some EU nations have taken in helping the U.S. war on terror, but also exposed the limits of the EU legislature, which has no legal powers over the issue and few means to enforce change in the member states' attitude towards the CIA program.

Best of all:

In all, the parliamentarians dealt with 19 kidnappings of terror suspects either from European soil or with participation of an EU government. They heard dozens of hours of testimony from the victims of extraordinary renditions, their lawyers or representatives, got testimony from senior EU officials and flight data from the EU air traffic agency. The report offers circumstantial evidence indicating terror suspects were on some of the secret CIA flights.

Yep, nothing solid, just circumstantial evidence. Nice politics. Looks like politicians are the same irrespective of their lineage. I love that they can't enforce any of the resolutions. The EU parliament is kind of like a localized UN. And it looks like they have the benefit of gridlock themselves.

A threat of sanctions against EU nations found to have violated civil liberties by housing a secret jail or helping to secretly transfer terror suspects to countries where they could face torture was dropped in the final version of the report, after it was found impossible to push through. But the legislators demanded proper inquiries in the 14 EU countries implicated in the report. Some of the nations have launched or completed investigations into CIA activities.

No EU governments have admitted that the alleged anti-terror operations were carried out on their soil. Human Rights Watch identified Poland and Romania as possible locations of secret prisons on European territory, but both countries denied involvement.

Human Rights Watch shooting from the hip. Wonder where they get their circumstantial evidence.

Obama's Issues

Ben Shapiro posts this article at townhall.com. He pretty succinctly states part of the reasoning why I would never vote for Obama.

The political embodiment of that post-modernism -- that nihilistic resignation -- is the modern Democratic Party. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democrats' bright new star, is no more capable of global leadership than Jacques Chirac. Obama's politics of "understanding" dictates that evil cannot be fought -- it must be placated with psychobabble.

In his new forward to "Dreams From My Father," Obama writes, "I know, I have seen, the desperation and disorder of the powerless: how it twists the lives of children on the streets of Jakarta or Nairobi how easily they slip into violence and despair. I know that the response of the powerful to this disorder -- alternating as it does between a dull complacency and, when the disorder spills out of its proscribed confines, a stead unthinking application of force, of more sophisticated military hardware -- is inadequate to the task." This sounds like boilerplate rhetoric. It is not. It is the theory of appeasement, stated clearly and succinctly.

Obama's adolescent insistence that everything can be talked out is matched in its idiocy only by his adolescent scorn for military sacrifice in general. In a speech in Iowa on February 11, Obama stated, "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged -- and to which we have now spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." Wasted. This is the language of MoveOn.org, the language of Democratic Underground, the language of the 1960s radicals Obama claims to deplore.

This was no isolated incident. It reflects what Obama believes. After Obama sponsored legislation mandating a full troop withdrawal from Iraq by March 2008, Australian Prime Minister John Howard lashed out. Al Qaeda, Howard said, would be "praying as many times as possible" for Obama's election in 2008. Obama's response was breathtakingly ignorant and immature: If Howard is "ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq," spat Obama, "I would suggest that he call up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

The Howard argument is also humorous. Wretchard did a little number crunching and decided the Obama really needs a clue.

First the facts. In 2006, the population of Australia was estimated to be about 20.26 million people, according to the CIA factbook; the population of the US was calculated at 298.44 million. There are therefore approximately 298.44/20.26=14.77 more Americans than there are Australians. On a per capita basis, Australia has the equivalent of 1,400x14.77=20,670 troops currently in Iraq -- not inconsiderable, but fewer than America on a that basis. But Mr. Obama's request to send another 20,000 Australian troops would be run the calculation the other way -- the equivalent of asking John Howard to send 295,400 in per capita terms. The correct matching per capita contribution would be about another 1,400 for Australia to send "another 20,000 Australians".

Obama is still to ephemeral a character for me, and unfortunately, I think he's more sound than substance. But, as JFK proved, the US public likes a good looking President more than they like one with ability.

Dems Worried Over Crazy George Taking Us to War with Iran

Politics is always fascinating in how one side always will put their failings on the table as proof that their opponent failed. This is an indirect point with regards to the intelligence on the WMD in Iraq and the arms being seen in Iraq that are most obviously coming out of Iran by some means.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., a 2008 presidential candidate, said the administration could be laying the groundwork for an attack on Iran and that "I'm worried about that. That's how we got into the mess in Iraq," by relying on what Dodd called "doctored information."

Interesting. You would think that Dodd would be more cautious with that type of line on "doctored information." He and his political allies had access, directly or indirectly through the oversight committees to the same information that the Bush administration had. If they had actually done their due diligence and examined the data, they would have had grounds to stand against Iraq in the first place. But since they couldn't be bothered, now they complain that they were lied to. Sorry, just doesn't follow.

With the case of Iran, the arms being provided don't neccessarily indicate a direct link to the top policy makers of Iran, but they do indicate that Iran is involved.

According to U.S. military officials, a significant increase in a number of explosively formed projectiles, or EFPs, found in Iraq have tracked back to Iran. EFPs, which can penetrate heavy armor used in tanks, have killed 170 American troops since 2004.

According to the officials in Baghdad, they recently confiscated a number of EFPS that were found before exploding. The C-4 explosive in them has been chemically traced to Iran, the "machining process" required to make the projectile is not available in Iraq and the triggering devices are also traceable to Iran, they said.

That is also true of a significant number of mortar rounds as well as rocket-propelled grenades, which can be identified by the markings and designs on the tailfin of the mortars, the officials said. The date on most of the ammunition is 2006, which means it was manufactured in 2006 and is not material left over from the era of Saddam Hussein. The officials said the Iranian supplies are mostly going to surrogates here, primarily Mahdi Army militia members.

And there is this report that I found linked at QandO that shows that military arms have been appearing in Iraq that are known to have been purchased by Iran.

Austrian sniper rifles that were exported to Iran have been discovered in the hands of Iraqi terrorists, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

More than 100 of the.50 calibre weapons, capable of penetrating body armour, have been discovered by American troops during raids.

A Steyr HS50 rifle, Austrian supplied rifles, arms trade, Iran equipping Iraq insurgents
The Steyr HS50 is a long range, high precision rifle

The guns were part of a shipment of 800 rifles that the Austrian company, Steyr-Mannlicher, exported legally to Iran last year.

The sale was condemned in Washington and London because officials were worried that the weapons would be used by insurgents against British and American troops.

Within 45 days of the first HS50 Steyr Mannlicher rifles arriving in Iran, an American officer in an armoured vehicle was shot dead by an Iraqi insurgent using the weapon.

Nope, nothing to that "doctored information." No doubt there should be concern that the full government of Iran is or isn't participating, which is how the military is handling it with quotations from Pace:

The Bush administration struggled Tuesday to explain what it knows about alleged Iranian interference in Iraq after the Pentagon's top general appeared to contradict a recently released military dossier on the subject.

At issue was a weekend briefing in Baghdad at which three senior U.S. military officials said that the "highest levels" of the Iranian government had ordered the smuggling into Iraq of high-tech roadside bombs that have been killing American soldiers.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, that U.S. forces have arrested Iranians in Iraq and some of the materials used in roadside bombs had been made in Iran.

"That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this," Pace said.

The assertion of Tehran's involvement, made by U.S. officers who spoke on condition of anonymity Sunday in Baghdad, had already drawn skeptical responses from some lawmakers and other critics still wary of an administration that based the invasion of Iraq on faulty intelligence.

Those doubts increased Tuesday after Pace said the link between the bomb materials and the government had not been definitively proven.

His caution is noteworthy. And appears to have been completely ignored by those railing against their fears that Bush will flip out and rush into a war with Iran. Hopefully, previous problems with intelligence won't lead to complete failure to act due to certain politicians being incapable of actually reviewing the data.

Back to the original article. They quote John Kerry wanting to give the Iranians big hugs and lollipops:

Kerry, the 2004 presidential candidate, said despite the evidence, the United States must try to engage Iran diplomatically.

"Ultimately, they want an Iraq that is stable. They want influence. They want to be players in the region. And we need to recognize that and engage in a kind of diplomacy that the Iraq Study Group recommended," Kerry told ABC's "This Week."

"They want to be players" is interesting in that he missed a little word. Try this: "They want to be THE players." Iran only wants Iraq to be stable enough for them to gain hegemony and for the US to be viewed widely as a complete failure. That is quite clear if you actually listen to what the Iranians say.

"Now the United States administration is — unfortunately — reaping the expected bitter fruits of its ill-conceived adventurism, taking the region and the world with it to the brink of further hostility. But rather than face these unpleasant facts, the United States administration is trying to sell an escalated version of the same failed policy. It does this by trying to make Iran its scapegoat and fabricating evidence of Iranian activities in Iraq," wrote Amb. Javad Zarif.

Note that the evidence doesn't warrant investigation or inquiry, which is pretty much where it would have lead to in Europe or the US. It's just that Bush is trying to cover up his failure.

Diplomacy will only work with parties that have goals similar to your own. If they are completely different goals, then the need for coercion is present. The changes in the North Korean Nuclear saga is a perfect example. You can't honestly tell me that North Korea has reached this level in negotiations without having their arm twisted by China.

George Bush is the Silver Surfer

I'm as shocked as anyone to discover this, but it must be true. Follow along with me:

1. Global Warming is caused by Solar Radiation
2. George Bush causes Global Warming
3. The Silver Surfer wields THE POWER COSMIC

Therefore we get George Bush causing Global Warming by manipulating the Solar Radiation because he wields the Power Cosmic 'cause he's the bloody Silver Surfer.

Right? Right? Damned Chimpy McBushitler Norin Radd and his stinking Cosmic Power sticking it to the people.

Hey, cut me some slack. This makes as much sense as Halliburton being the Cosmic Center of All Evil.

EcoTerrorists Playing Pirate

This article gives a perfect example of someone who is fully convinced that they and their cause is above the law. Again, it's anti-whaling groups who are going off the deep end. Apparently they miss the point that having a sympathetic international following is more likely to help you than attacking whalers.

The controversial founder of the anti-whaling Sea Shepherd Society has begun defiantly flying its version of the skull and crossbones from the bows of his ships as they skirmish with Japanese whaling vessels across the ice choked waters of the Antarctic Ocean.

"We're like the Flying Dutchmen," Captain Paul Watson said in a satellite telephone interview yesterday from the bridge of the Farley Mowat, one of two of his anti-whaling ships that recently had their flags of registration revoked by Canada and two other countries. "We've got nowhere to go: No port will take us in ... basically we're pirate ships."

The Japanese whalers obviously have political clout. From the article it definitely sounds that they were the driving force with getting Watson's flags revoked.

The already tense situation in the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary escalated yesterday when the Farley Mowat's sister ship, the Robert Hunter, was involved in a collision with a Japanese whaling ship

The Kaiko Maru issued a distress call after the collision, claiming it had been rammed by the Robert Hunter, prompting the Japanese, who are hunting an estimated 1,000 whales in the sanctuary this year, to condemn Mr. Watson and his crews as "terrorists."

Hideki Moronuki, head of the Japanese Fisheries Agency's whaling division, said the anti-whaling activists struck the Kaiko Maru at both ends. "They threw flares and knotted ropes at our ship in a bid to damage the propeller, at which they succeeded," Mr. Moronuki told Agence France-Presse. "It is not a conservation group. It is a terrorist group."

Capt. Watson scoffed at the Japanese claims and said the whaling ship backed into the Robert Hunter while trying to elude another protest vessel that was attempting to interfere with its pursuit of a pod of whales. "I've rammed whaling ships before and I don't deny it when I do it," he said. "We didn't ram this ship ... They were not in distress. They were trying to look like the victims when they were clearly the aggressors."

Right, Watson freely admits he's rammed whalers before, but not this time. And he should be believed why? Frankly, his open admission strikes me as enough of a reason to pull his license and have him arrested. Hopefully, that will happen when he returns to his home country.

And just to ensure that the public doesn't believe that Watson is a terrorist, the journalist postures the Japanese actions as a combatant:

In the past four weeks that the two Sea Shepherd ships have been stalking the six Japanese whaling vessels in the Antarctic, they have used powerful nail guns to fasten steel plates over outlets on one whaler, dragged ropes to foul other whaling ships' propellers and have hurled flares, smoke bombs and butyric acid, an acrid smelling chemical, on to their decks.

The Japanese retaliated by training powerful water cannons on the anti-whaling campaigners.

Interesting choice of words. When a person defends themselves from attack, are they retaliating?

Last week, two activists threw acid on a ship and then were lost in a fog bank for more than seven hours before being located in a search assisted by the whalers. After being rescued by their foes, the pair resumed attacking the Japanese ships.

That's just insane. Personally, I would have left them lost in the fog. It certainly takes large cahones to be rescued by those you're attacking and then go back to attacking them.

Back to Watson:

Kirsten Goodnough, a spokeswoman for Transport Canada, said the Farley Mowat gave up its Canadian registration voluntarily after the government suspended it for violations of maritime regulations. She said that if the ship sails into a Canadian port again, it might not be allowed to leave.

"It would be subject to the appropriate sanctions, including arresting the ship," she said.

Capt. Watson blamed his vessels' registration difficulties on Japanese influence and said he would rather ram the Farley Mowat into the largest whaling ship than lose the ship.

"The obvious way to obstruct things is to put a ship right in their rear end and get stuck," he said. "If we are going to lose the ship, we might as well lose it in a constructive manner."

There's a reasonable man. I wonder if he'll expect the Japanese to save his ass when his ship sinks? I'd sure be sympathetic with some nut case ramming his ship into mine in Antarctic waters. Not that having your life threatened should be a decision maker in a dangerous situation.

The article goes on with Watson whining about Greenpeace. This whole topic is simple. You don't like whaling, that fine, get it stopped through legal means. As soon as you go beyond the norms of international law, you've become a criminal yourself. And when you threaten others lives, you've lost the sympathy for your cause with those that can aid you the most.

Mumbles and the Deval Looking to Give a Second Chance

The geeQWyphe sent this one along. Rather entertaining bit of worry with regards to Comrades Menino and Patrick.

Governor Deval Patrick, returning to one of the more contentious issues of his campaign, has begun quietly putting together a plan to limit employers' access to the criminal records of potential employees.

Aides have been meeting with lawmakers and advocates working to limit the scope of the Criminal Offender Record Information law, which gives many employers broad access to criminal records. Activists argue that many applicants are rejected for jobs based on minor criminal convictions, crimes unrelated to the post, or records that contain errors.

No doubt there should be some reforms, since at present errors aren't addressed and the information isn't limited to just convictions. If they haven't been convicted, then the record should be off limits to the public. I don't agree with relevance to the job though. That comes down to an opinion, and with the Massachusetts record, I would say that they shouldn't be given that out.

I like this:

Patrick's support of CORI changes became a heated issue in the gubernatorial campaign, seized on by Democratic rival Thomas F. Reilly and Republican Kerry Healey to paint him as soft on crime.

During a televised debate, Reilly accused Patrick of backing a sweeping CORI bill that would have made it easier for offenders to have their records sealed and allowed drug dealers to cut time off their sentences.

For five months, Patrick was listed as a supporter of that bill on the website of one of the groups pushing the legislation, the Massachusetts Alliance to Reform CORI. After Reilly's comments, a leader of the group removed Patrick's name, saying it was a mistake.

Patrick said at the time that he did not support that legislation, but he never specified what changes he would embrace. He said only that he wants to revise the law so that people with records can make a fresh start and "CORI doesn't defeat their every second chance."

How convenient. Can't wait to see where he takes this now that political results are now off the table.

Then there's ole mumbles:

"The governor is trying to get a policy in place so that CORI is not a life sentence," said Menino, who has implemented a "second chance" policy that dispenses with criminal background checks for many city job applicants. "We need someone at the helm who is supportive. I believe we will make headway this legislative session."

Nice. Just what you'd expect. Can't have anyone defending themselves in Boston or anywhere else with a gun, but can't let anyone know of a criminal's history either. I'm surprised that they don't eliminate the sex-offender lists based on this level of sympathy.

Nice to note that the BoGlobe at least puts Mumbles' position in perspective.

In Boston last week, the Globe reported that a public works employee who was suspended after allegedly running down a 64-year-old woman with a city snowplow had a long history of drug violations and driving infractions when the city hired him.

The city did not check the record of the worker, Joseph M. MacDonald, because of Menino's new employment policy.

Asked whether he was rethinking the policy in light of the revelations, Menino said: "It hasn't changed my mind."

Hasn't changed his mind? What a bloody idiot. Wouldn't it be a sign of diligence to ensure that the person driving very large vehicles in bad conditions in densely populated areas had a decent driving record and no history of drug abuse? I wonder if a history of DUI gets you a position driving trucks for the city of Boston. Of course, he's just thinking about the criminals, while ignoring the citizen's safety.

Wonder what's next.

Intelligence and Politics

So the MSM is playing this DoD intelligence report as shrilly as their "non-partisan" world view will allow. It is interesting that I find little in the press, other than Feith's interview on Fox that discusses particulars like the original report was alternative analysis in criticism of how the CIA had made its own report. Though the criticism of the CIA was considered a good thing after the start of the Iraq war, it's quite humorous to see that it is now being viewed as inappropriate when it was done before.

WALLACE: The Pentagon inspector general issued a report Friday that was highly critical of your actions back in 2002. It says your office disseminated what it called, quote, "alternative intelligence assessments about links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida that made the case for going to war."

Let's take a look if we can, here. While such actions -- this is from the inspector general's report. "While such actions were not illegal or unauthorized, the actions were, in our opinion, inappropriate given that the products did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the intelligence community and were, in some cases, shown as intelligence products."

Mr. Feith, were you giving the president, the vice president and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld the ammunition they wanted to go to war?

FEITH: What the people in the Pentagon were doing who were criticized by the inspector general was providing a critical look at the CIA's work on the Iraq-Al Qaida connection.

And there was a sense on their part that the CIA was filtering its own intelligence to suit its own theory that the Baathists would not cooperate because they were secularists with the religious extremists of Al Qaida, that they were not doing proper intelligence work, and our people were criticizing them, not putting forward an alternative intelligence analysis.

WALLACE: Now, who asked you to do that, and what were your marching orders?

FEITH: Well, as it turns out, there were actually several people who independently started working at lower levels of the government. One of them was an assistant to Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. Two of them worked in my office.

I'm still wondering why this "alternative" analysis is being viewed as being bad. It should be an indicator of some issues with the CIA making poor analysis in the beginning, though I would say taking the alternative analysis on it's own would be equally irresponsible.

WALLACE: Okay. Let's talk about it, because the briefing was titled "Iraq and Al Qaida Making the Case", and here are some of the highlights from your PowerPoint presentation. "Intelligence indicates cooperation in all categories, mature symbiotic relationship." "Some indications of possible Iraq coordination with Al Qaida specifically related to 9/11."

And you said an alleged meeting between 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001 was a known contact.

Mr. Feith, all of that -- all of that was wrong, wasn't it?

FEITH: No, not at all. There was substantial intelligence. I mean, evidence is a legal term not really appropriate here. There was a lot of information out there. Intelligence is very sketchy, and it's always open to interpretation.

On this issue, there were people who disagreed about the intelligence and the people in the Pentagon were giving a critical review. They were not presenting alternative conclusions. They were presenting a challenge to the way the CIA was looking at things and filtering its own information.

WALLACE: I have to tell you, I mean, when I -- I mean, I read these as "mature symbiotic relationship", "known contact" -- that sure sounds like conclusions.

FEITH: You're plucking language out of a briefing, the thrust of which was why is the CIA not accounting for information that it had that suggested an Iraq-Al Qaida relationship when the CIA was excluding that information from its own finished intelligence at the time.

It was a criticism. It's healthy to criticize the CIA's intelligence. What the people in the Pentagon were doing was right. It was good government.

In fact, as the Silverman-Robb Commission has said, and as the Senate Intelligence Committee has said, we need more, not less critical reading of intelligence by policy people.

That is interesting, but if it was just criticism, why did it end up being used as a briefing rather than as a stimulus for forcing the CIA to reassess its stand on the Al-Qaeda/Saddam link. No doubt that politics stepped in here. Which makes things even more confusing for the person trying to figure out what the truth is. Not that many are trying.

WALLACE: You say this wasn't wrong. Respectfully, sir, the Pentagon inspector general says parts of your analysis were not supported by available -- let me finish -- by available intelligence, and let me continue.

Take a look at this if you will. The 9/11 Commission said, "We have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts between Iraq and Al Qaida ever developed into a collaborative, operational relationship."

The 9/11 Commission also concluded, "The available evidence does not support the original Czech. report of an Atta-Ani meeting."

Mr. Feith, the Pentagon inspector general says some of your intelligence was not supported by the evidence that came from the intelligence community. The 9/11 Commission said a number of your conclusions were wrong. And the Senate Intelligence Committee also said it was wrong.

FEITH: Nobody ever claimed that what the 9/11 Commission said was -- the case was wrong. In other words, we didn't dispute the -- the 9/11 Commission report said there was no...

WALLACE: But they disputed you, sir.

FEITH: No, they didn't. Nobody in my office ever said there was an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida. It's just not correct. I mean, words matter. And people are throwing around loose allegations, vague allegations, based on not reading the words carefully.

WALLACE: Mr. Feith, I'm just taking comments from your PowerPoint. You said some indications of possible Iraqi coordination with Al Qaida specifically related to 9/11. You said that the Atta- Ani meeting in Prague in 2001 was a known contact.

FEITH: The people who did that briefing were taking the position that the intelligence community took originally. The CIA later changed its views on that meeting after the time relevant here.

There's an enormous amount of misinformation about this subject. Your quote from the 9/11 Commission report is significant. That did not contradict my office. Nobody in my office ever claimed there was an operational relationship.

There was a relationship. That relationship was summarized on October 7th, 2002, by George Tenet in a letter that he sent, unclassified, to the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, and it basically brought together what the CIA had been saying, what my people had been criticizing, and it summarized the Iraq-Al Qaida relationship.

And we stood on that, and I think that that was the best information that the government had.

Hmm. I want to give him some benefit of the doubt, but I'm not completely convinced. "Operational Relationship" is quite specific. From what Feith has stated, I think he has a point. Unfortunately, without everything laid out at the basic level, I don't see how you can get to the point of parsing what is correct. He does appear to make the point though that "operational relationship" is far more specific than anyone in his brief ever claimed. That could easily have been an error with the 9/11 commission's decision on how to posture the intelligence. Unfortunately, the further you get from the original briefing, the farther you are likely to be getting from what was actually stated.

You can read a brief of the DoD-IG report here. Personally, it appears to me that much of what is flashing through the news is bent in its context. How bent it the original information got in the political games after it's release is difficult to say, though it does appear that very little of the relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda was ever used by the administration, irrespective of how the MSM and the politicians have tried to recreate history.

Max Boot on Strategy in an Insurgency

A decent article relating the historical military thought on insurgency.

While politicians debate whether more U.S. troops should be sent to Iraq, just as important is how those troops will be utilized. In the Boer War, a “surge” of soldiers helped. In the Vietnam War, it didn’t. The difference is that the British had a sounder strategy.

In formulating the right strategy, there is no better guide than a slim 1964 volume, “Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice.” Its author was a French officer named David Galula, who saw service not only in World War II but in postwar China, Greece, Hong Kong and Algeria. If there is a Clausewitz of counterinsurgency, Galula is it.

Although much has changed in recent decades, most of his admonitions still apply, which is why so many are echoed in the new Army-Marine counterinsurgency field manual. U.S. forces have gotten better at this demanding type of warfare in Iraq, but even now they’re still falling short, often through no fault of their own, in carrying out many of Galula’s key precepts:

I've read the book, and it is interesting, but not completely without faults related to changes in how war is fought. I'll give an example below where I disagree with one of his key precepts. First though here are a couple that Boot discusses:

“Which side gives the best protection, which one threatens the most, which one is most likely to win, these are the criteria governing the population’s stand…. Political, social, economic and other reforms, however much they ought to be wanted and popular, are inoperative when offered while the insurgent still controls the population.”

Too often the U.S. has gotten it backward, building infrastructure, holding elections and carrying out other civil reforms in an insecure environment. Expensive projects, such as electrical and water treatment plants, have been sabotaged. Any goodwill won has been ephemeral.

Our top priority must be to establish a modicum of security. Only then can reconstruction go forward.

This is one that I've been complaining about for a while. This is especially true with regards to the use of militias. You can provide the people with security or you can help them provide their own. Unfortunately, the US has spent too much time trying to get the Iraqi military to stand up and provide security, when in fact there are many cases where they are the imported threat.

“Clearly, more than any other kind of warfare, counterinsurgency must respect the principle of a single direction. A single boss must direct the operations from beginning until the end.”

There has never been a single boss in Iraq. On the American side, responsibility has been split between the Defense and State departments, which have not always worked harmoniously together. On the Iraqi side, the split is between the Interior and Defense ministries, between the police and army. The situation is especially muddled in Baghdad because President Bush has promised that Iraqis will “lead” operations there. That makes Gen. David H. Petraeus’ job much harder. One of his first tasks as the top U.S. general in Iraq will simply be figuring out command relationships.

No doubt a single leader is preferred, and hasn't been the case. I view a lot of the issues as being the fault of arguments over whose responsibility it was to win the peace. The military came in and got rid of Saddam, but they were not prepared in any manner to take over civilian reconstruction. The DoD and DoS then waltzed around trying to see who would get stuck with the project. I'm thinking that most of this is due to the government not having any plans on how these things should be done, and that leads to the muddling around every time a war occurs. You'd think that someone would have learned that the players need clear designations of what they are supposed to do and plans on how to perform.

Here's one that I don't agree with:

“Expensive constructions for housing the troops should be prohibited…. If no construction other than what is strictly necessary is allowed, the counterinsurgent forces will be forced to live with the population, in shacks if necessary, and this will help to create common bonds.”

The U.S. has spent countless billions of dollars to build an elaborate network of forward operating bases in Iraq where troops are totally isolated from the population. A key part of the Baghdad security plan must be to get forces into smaller outposts where they can interact with locals, gather intelligence and provide security. This may increase casualties in the short term, but it will save American and Iraqi lives in the long run.

The problem with Galula and Boot's contention is that you are expecting a military force to survive in a large country in an era of highly mobile and effective small artillery. Mortars and rockets are common place in Iraq and they are large enough that they can cause severe damage. Especially when facing an insurgency that can hit and run with such weapons on a regular basis. Most of the advanced fire bases require some amount of hardening just to protect the weapons that the soldiers must use. Recall a recent mortar attack that set fire to an ammo dump in a forward base that essentially destroyed the base. The idea is not to ensure that the military personnel aren't safe, but that they are out among the people. Condemning creation of a safe base is ludicrous in the present environment. The casualties from attacks would be substantially higher and would decrease the troops efficiency to the point where they would be useless.

I don't agree with this one much either, mainly due to the poor understanding demonstrated on the technology.

“Control of the population begins obviously with a thorough census. Every inhabitant must be registered and given a foolproof identity card.”

Amazingly enough, the Iraqi and American governments have not issued biometric ID cards—something like our driver’s licenses, with a fingerprint included—to the populace and have not equipped security forces with portable computer terminals linked to a central database.

The lack of such a setup—employed by pretty much every U.S. police department—makes it difficult to tell whether someone stopped at a checkpoint is a wanted terrorist.

First, a "foolproof identity card" doesn't exist. Never has and never will. Mainly due to the fact that it depends on the fool looking at it to ensure that it is accurate. The contention that every US police department has such a system is astounding. No such system exists. There is a centralized finger print repository maintained by the FBI, but that doesn't mean it is complete by any means, nor is it any part of the ID that most US citizens carry. It also makes an assumption that the insurgency isn't capable of using tactics to know where checkpoints exist and to avoid them. The cell phone is very common in Iraq now, and as has been seen in the US, a little planning would allow the insurgents to use the citizens as their watch, just as drug dealers have organized such things in this country. That is an interesting tactic, but one that is easily avoided by fairly minor precautions.

Interesting thoughts none the less. Hopefully the military is moving to provide more effective security in this next surge.

Pre-War Intelligence Report - Political Spin

I started reading one report from Foxnews and the quotes they give from Levin make this report sound like a complete condemnation of the pre-war intelligence done by and for the military.

A "very damning" report by the Defense Department's inspector general depicts a Pentagon that purposely manipulated intelligence in an effort to link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, says the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"That was the argument that was used to make the sale to the American people about the need to go to war," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. He said the Pentagon's work, "which was wrong, which was distorted, which was inappropriate ... is something which is highly disturbing."

The investigation by acting inspector general Thomas F. Gimble found that prewar intelligence work at the Pentagon, including a contention that the CIA had underplayed the likelihood of an Al Qaeda connection, was inappropriate but not illegal. The report was to be presented to Levin's panel at a hearing Friday.

The report found that former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had not engaged in illegal activities through the creation of special offices to review intelligence. Some Democrats also have contended that Feith misled Congress about the basis of the administration's assertions on the threat posed by Iraq, but the Pentagon investigation did not support that. Two people familiar with the findings discussed the main points and some details Thursday on condition they not be identified.

Funny, if it was so damning why does it find that the activities were not illegal. In fact, this report from the GuardianUK sounds as if the report is nearly a complete vindication of the activities.

Some of the Pentagon's prewar intelligence work, including a contention that the CIA underplayed the likelihood of al-Qaida connections to Saddam Hussein, was inappropriate but not illegal, a Defense Department investigation has concluded.

In a report to be presented to Congress on Friday, the department's inspector general said former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had not engaged in illegal activities through the creation of special offices to review intelligence. Some Democrats also have contended that Feith misled Congress about the basis of the administration's assertions on the threat posed by Iraq, but the Pentagon investigation did not support that.

Two people familiar with the findings discussed the main points and some details Thursday on condition they not be identified.

The also quote from interviews with Feith:

Asked to comment on the IG's findings, Feith said in a telephone interview that he had not seen the report but was pleased to hear that it concluded his office's activities were neither illegal nor unauthorized. He took strong issue, however, with the IG's finding that some activities had been ``inappropriate.''

``The policy office has been smeared for years by allegations that its pre-Iraq-war work was somehow `unlawful' or `unauthorized' and that some information it gave to congressional committees was deceptive or misleading,'' Feith said.

Feith called ``bizarre'' the inspector general's conclusion that some intelligence activities by the Office of Special Plans, which was created while Feith served as the undersecretary of defense for policy - the top policy position under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld - were inappropriate but not unauthorized.

``Clearly, the inspector general's office was willing to challenge the policy office and even stretch some points to be able to criticize it,'' Feith said, adding that he felt this amounted to subjective ``quibbling'' by the IG.

Makes you wonder where the truth lies. I'm certain Feith will defend his activities strongly, as I am certain Levin will distort the findings to his political agenda. This can be clearly seen from this bit.

The controversy has simmered for several years. The Senate Intelligence Committee included the Office of Special Plans in its investigation into the prewar intelligence on Iraq, but the committee did not finish that portion of its work when it released the first part of its findings in July 2004.

In a dissenting view attached to the committee's report, three Democratic senators, including Levin, said that Pentagon policymakers sought to undermine the analysis of the intelligence community by circumventing the CIA and briefing their own views directly to the White House. This was a particular problem when the spy agencies' judgments did not conform to the administration's dire views on Iraqi links to al-Qaida, the senators said.

Levin has been grinding the ax for some time. Now that he's in charge you can expect this to be distorted into his belief system rather than that of the Repubs who were in control before. No doubt, the truth will continue to be carefully hidden. And the MSM will continue to distort facts by quoting the politicians and not the reports. No doubt the "Bush lied" meme will carry on even if the report doesn't support that view.

Which unfortunately leaves us hoping to be able to see the report.

Bloomberg Investigation: Slowly Moving Ahead

David Hardy at Of Arms and the Law linked this article on the investigation.

The federal government confirms it is investigating New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's sting operation against gun dealers in five states.

Five months ago, The Second Amendment Foundation called on U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to investigate Bloomberg for obstruction of justice relating to Bloomberg's "rogue" operation.

SAF founder Alan Gottlieb said he has just received a letter from W. Larry Ford of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, confirming that the agency "is investigating the matter in order to determine if violations of federal firearms laws occurred."

Ford, the director of ATF's public and governmental affairs, did not offer details on what he called "an open investigation."

"We're delighted that ATF is taking this matter seriously," Gottlieb said.

Well, at least there is an indication that the ATF is looking at this, though that doesn't mean that anything will be done. I'm betting on nothing being done.

"In the end, we understand that a final decision whether to prosecute Bloomberg and others involved in last year's illicit sting is up to the Justice Department," Gottlieb added.

"But right now, it appears that ATF is doing its job in a slow, deliberate and painstaking manner."

Slow? SLOW!?! Glacial. Tectonic shifts happen at faster rates.

SayUncle also had a link to this.

The federal government will not file criminal charges against any of the 15 out-of-state gun dealers accused by Mayor Bloomberg in a federal lawsuit of selling guns illegally, the Daily News has learned.

In a stern rebuke to the city's high-profile crusade against illegal guns, the feds warned the Bloomberg administration that it could face "potential legal liabilities" if it continues to conduct sting operations that fall within the jurisdiction of federal agents.

Bloomberg announced the filing of a federal lawsuit last May against 15 gun dealers, who he lambasted as the "worst of the worst." The city later filed a similar lawsuit against another 12 dealers.

In both cases, the city sent private investigators to gun dealers and secretly videotaped them making what Bloomberg called illegal "straw purchases."

Scathing words and why would he care? Wonder where the line is drawn that indicates when a politician is allowed to break the law with impunity when the rest of us would be in jail.

Asked if the Bloomberg administration plans to stop conducting the sting operations, Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler said, "Not necessarily."

Surprised? Nope. I'm expecting that he'll be continuing his illegal actions unless the ATF charges him. And I expect to see pigs flying at the same time.

Name That Communist

Who said this?

“The oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them in an alternative energy fund.”

Take? This is about US Oil companies. Not Hugo Chavez. So who?

Hillary.

Slip of the tongue? Taken out of context?

I don't think so.

Democrat's Hearing in Support of Democrat Law Firm

See any of the footage of this "hearing?" This is pathetic. This article cuts to the chase with quoting the letter sent by a "Democratic" law firm calling for a hearing of a "Republican" company. If this isn't ethically challenged, I don't know any other way to describe it.

Mr. Waxman said he agreed that it would be inappropriate for his committee to aid a private lawsuit, but said accusations that Blackwater underequipped workers and possibly overcharged the U.S. government warranted congressional inquiry.

"We need to ask questions even if a lawsuit is pending," he said. "I've been working on this issue for years, and it is time we get some answers."

Daniel J. Callahan, a California lawyer representing the families, sent a Dec. 13 letter to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, who subsequently became House speaker, requesting a hearing on Blackwater, which the letter described as an "extremely Republican" company.

"We look forward to the New Direction of America, and to your dedication to putting an end to the fleecing of the American Taxpayers and death to its citizens in the name of war profiteers such as Blackwater," Mr. Callahan said in the letter.

Mr. Issa produced a copy of the letter at the hearing and entered it into the record. He also noted that the North Carolina lawyer in the case is David Kirby, former law partner of Democratic presidential candidate and former senator John Edwards.

Assertions that political connections spurred the hearing are "absolutely absurd," said Marc P. Miles, a lawyer with Mr. Callahan's firm.

"The hearings are not driven by the lawsuit, but instead by the desire of the families to find the truth," he said.

There may truly be a need for an investigation, but what was going on in this committee had nothing to do with misappropriations of funds or any process that this committee has oversight of. But, of course, Waxman stabs to the emotional basis of his lack of logic.

Mr. Waxman, California Democrat and chairman of the committee, said the grieving family members showed that "the impacts of contracting waste go beyond just dollars and cents."

With all the emotional, and completely irrelevant, testimony by the women who are suing Blackwater, you'd think that more would be holding their nose at this activity. Another perfect example of the politicians bringing political pressure on a subject that should be decided in the courts.

Iran's Propaganda Wing: LATimes

Read the article. Analyze the posture that the writer leaves the reader with regards to the US military, the US government and Iran.

Start here:

Iran accused the United States on Tuesday of being behind the abduction of an Iranian diplomat in Baghdad, but U.S. officials refused to confirm that a kidnapping had taken place as the two countries' campaign of finger-pointing was brought up another notch.

Iranian officials said Jalal Sharafi, their embassy's second secretary, had not been seen since gunmen in Iraqi military uniforms intercepted his car Sunday as he left a branch of a state-owned Iranian bank.

"They acted under U.S. supervision," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini said in a statement released in Tehran. He described the incident as a "terrorist attack."

US Supervision? I wonder how that worked? Was there a US representative guarding and guiding the Iranian diplomat? Or was he wandering around a WAR-ZONE during an especially nasty INSURGENCY that dislikes Iranian aid to one of their opponents?

The Bush administration has accused Iran of fueling the sectarian warfare in Iraq by providing Shiite Muslim extremists with weapons and explosives being used against U.S. troops and Sunni Arab targets. U.S. officials have been holding five Iranians seized last month in a raid in the northern city of Irbil. The Iranian officials are accused of planning attacks on Americans.

The seizure Sunday was another example of U.S. heavy-handedness, an official at the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad said. "They should release our colleague as soon as possible," he said angrily.

Right. Note that they fail to indicate that there is evidence of Iran's interference especially related to the recent attempt to kidnap five US soldiers that ended in their deaths. No evidence of Iran providing IED supplies or training to the Shia militias. Nice balance of truth here.

Neither U.S. government nor military officials in Baghdad would confirm such an incident, much less the allegation that it had been orchestrated by American forces.

"We have no record of any event that looks remotely like the described abduction," said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a U.S. military spokesman. The U.S. Embassy said it was "aware of the reports" and was looking into them.

Yep, they don't know anything, but the writer doesn't caveat it like she does other parts of information in the article.

Kidnappings are common in Baghdad, where high-ranking officials and ordinary merchants alike may fall prey to gangs looking to get rich by ransoming hostages. Iranian officials, however, refused to consider that Sharafi's alleged abduction was anything but another attempt by Washington to put the squeeze on Tehran. They cited the detention of the Iranians in Irbil as evidence.

"This is not the first time such a thing has happened," the Iranian Embassy official said of Sharafi's alleged abduction. "Normally, the United States is responsible."

There you go. Again giving the Iranian embassy a voice with no opposing statement from the US.

Now they move on to the proof that the US is evil. Remember this is to ensure the truth comes out.

As Iraq's violence has escalated, so too has the tension between the United States and Iran, whose leaders deny bolstering Shiite militias at work in Iraq. The diplomatic snarling has put Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki in an awkward position as he tries to cultivate close relations with Iran while trying to convince American officials that he is serious about quelling violence.

A joint U.S.-Iraqi security plan announced last month has yet to produce tangible results, at least in the view of Iraqis living under constant threat of car bombs, mortar attacks, stray gunfire and street crime.

The bodies of at least 19 men, all shot to death and most showing signs of torture, were found in Baghdad on Tuesday, police and morgue officials said. In addition, at least five people died when a car bomb exploded in the east Baghdad neighborhood of Mashtal.

In the city of Kut, about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, a roadside bomb targeting a passing U.S. military convoy instead blew up under a civilian minivan, killing a woman.

The U.S. military announced the death of a Marine in Al Anbar province, west of Baghdad, bringing the number of American troops killed since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion to at least 3,103, according to the website icasualties.org, which tracks casualty figures in the war.

Note the trifecta of information. US military death, civilian deaths, and the security plan that hasn't produced results. That last is funny considering that the increase of troops is still starting and hasn't even peaked. But it's a failure. Remember that. If peace doesn't immediately descend when a plan is announced, it's a failure. God knows you can't actually get the troops in and start securing the region before results are analyzed. But, that type of analysis is what we have come to expect from the MSM as of late.

In the Shiite neighborhoods of Ur and Shaab, in northern Baghdad, residents said U.S. and Iraqi forces set up checkpoints Tuesday morning, snarling traffic for hours but doing little to reassure people of the new security plan's effectiveness.

Majid Abdullah, 42, who owns an auto parts shop in Shaab, said that most checkpoints had been dismantled by afternoon and that those remaining were manned by Iraqis, with U.S. troops only passing by occasionally.

"Frankly speaking, there doesn't seem to be anything different in their activities compared to any other days," he said. "In fact, they don't seem that enthusiastic and rarely ever search vehicles and passersby."

Abdullah complained that he had gone through the checkpoint several times in his car and had yet to be searched. "I want to be searched. We want them to be more diligent."

A resident of Ur said about 10 Strykers, hulking U.S. armored vehicles, had made their way through her neighborhood but become stuck on a narrow street. Unable to turn around, she said, the first Stryker rammed down the walls of a school and drove through it, followed by the rest of the convoy.

Another interesting way to put forward the activity. The Iraqi's are doing the checkpoints, which is part of their taking control and providing the security, but since the US isn't there it's a failure. Obviously it's the US troops faults that the Iraqi's aren't as diligent as some mechanic thinks they should be.

And you have to love the last unnamed source. I'm sure that bit of story telling was vetted as well as the MSM usually does their fact checking. It could have happened, but I doubt it. Wonder what insurgents group the "resident" belonged too?

Abdullah, however, made clear he was not optimistic.

"It's a new security plan every day, and there is all this hype about it when in fact it is not different and therefore will not make any difference," he said. "It's another disappointment."

"Every day" there's a new plan? What do you know? I could have sworn there is only the one reported a month ago. But they change every day. Can't possibly make a difference because someone without a clue thinks it doesn't matter.

No doubt this is seen as distinct proof of the new plans failure, since no doubt, the LATimes couldn't be telling a half truth or complete lie. I'm sure their readership is pleased with the results. Again, the evil empire of America has screwed it up and the unnamed sources with their clueless opinions are all that matters when reporting the truth.

War Budget Waste

It's one thing to increase the size of the military, and another to buy a bunch of junk that doesn't meet any of the needs for upgrading the military to the 21st century.

President Bush's defense budget for 2008 includes money to begin construction of the Gerald Ford aircraft carrier in Newport News and funds another Virginia-class submarine.

The war-time spending plan also enlarges the size of a stretched Army and Marine Corps facing repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, while giving troops an average pay increase of 3 percent.

The Air Force would get another 20 F-22A Raptors, the new stealth fighter jet that is flown at Langley Air Force Base. And the Pentagon would buy 12 Joint Strike Fighters - the supersonic, radar-evading, multimission fighter jet that has become the world's costliest warplane program.

Does the Navy really need another fast attack submarine or another aircraft carrier? As for the F-22A, wouldn't the Air Force be better served by holding off and getting more of the next generation aircraft since the F-22A is a stop-gap between the present aircraft and the F-35?

Iranian Difficulties in Iraq

Seems the Iranians aren't being very careful.

BAGHDAD, Tuesday, Feb. 6 — An Iranian diplomat was abducted Sunday evening when his convoy was stopped by men with official Defense Ministry identification in the Karrada neighborhood here, senior Iraqi and American officials said Monday.

Iraqi security forces captured several suspects after pursuing their vehicles through the streets of Baghdad, two of the Iraqi officials said.

The vehicle with the diplomat was not caught, though.

And

The abduction of the Iranian took place in a largely Shiite section of the city not far from where a truck bomb killed at least 135 people on Saturday and where residents have complained that the slow pace of the increase in American troops has left them open to attacks.

The men captured in the chase by Iraqi forces on Sunday were Iraqis with Defense Ministry identification, Iraqi and American officials said, raising serious questions about whether government forces themselves were involved in the abduction.

A senior Iraqi official said that the credentials initially appeared to be genuine but that investigators later received conflicting information about whether the men had been dismissed from the ministry but somehow kept their identification.

Looks like the Sunni's may be increasing their sophistication on taking on the Iranian influences. If the dismissed ministry personnel were allowed to keep their IDs, it makes you wonder what other sloppiness the Iraqi government has allowed.

Also makes you wonder how US troops treat Iraqi forces that come up to them. Especially after the attempted kidnapping and murder of US troops recently by forces that are thought to have been related to Iranian activities.

The Iraq Debate: Politics as Usual

Funny how the Dems in the Senate are now bellowing obstructionism after spending many of the past few years justifying their obstructionism. And the Repubs obstructing when the complained so loudly about obstructions to the debates previously.

New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg yesterday jumped into a Senate fray over non-binding resolutions on the U.S. involvement in the Iraq war.

As senators struggled yesterday to agree on whether to have floor votes on several Iraq-related measures, Gregg unveiled a new resolution neither supporting nor opposing the Bush administration's "surge" in combat troops, but putting the Senate on record opposing any cut in funds that support the troops.

Republican Gregg said yesterday he has "deep reservations" about the Bush troop surge, but does not support cutting funding.

His resolution states that Congress should give U.S. troops "all the support they need in order to maintain their safety and accomplish their assigned missions."

It says, "It is the sense of Congress that Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursing their assigned missions."

In a statement, Gregg said, "As someone who is frustrated with the mistakes that have been made in the war effort and who has deep reservations about the President's plan for changing course in Iraq, I understand the need to have this debate.

"However," Gregg said, "we must also take stock of our responsibilities in the war effort and give the public and the troops that are fighting for us a clear indication of how we will wield the one power that we incontrovertibly have: the power of the purse."

Gregg said his resolution "is very straightforward, focusing solely on supporting the troops and not cutting off funding for soldiers in the field, now or in the future. It is imperative that we send a message to the troops fighting for us that we are also fighting for them and supporting them in their efforts to protect us and our country."

Gregg said that Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has often called for open debate, "and I hope he takes his own counsel and allows this resolution to be considered and voted on this week."

Gregg opposes a resolution written by Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia, but backed by Democrats, that opposes the troop surge.

Personally I love Gregg's move. It completely throws a wrench into the works by ensuring that if they decide to push this foolish non-binding resolution forward they will have to vote on one that clearly states that no support for the troops can be withdrawn. I have no doubts that the Dems are going to see how they can torpedo this one, but I'm really hoping for diligence on the part of the Repubs.

Seems that both of the NH Senators are playing it right.

The Senate voted last night on a motion to invoke cloture - or end debate - on a non-binding bill introduced by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., that aims to express the sense of Congress on Iraq.

Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., said a vote to end debate would have prevented the Senate from fully considering the bill, ending the opportunity for debate on a number of resolutions, including Gregg's.

Sununu said to ensure a full debate, he voted "no" on the motion to proceed.

"I voted no on today's motion because the Democratic leadership is refusing to allow an open debate that considers a range of proposals and amendments," Sununu said in a written statement last night. "Unfortunately, that only makes this process even more partisan and divisive.

Of course, the net outcome is no motion at all.

Slate has an interesting opinion on this mess.

Almost all the papers lead with Republican senators voting to block debate on the nonbinding resolution opposing President Bush's plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq. "Both parties immediately moved to gain political advantage from the impasse," notes USA Today. Democrats accused Republicans of wanting to avoid discussing the war, while GOP senators insisted they are willing to debate the war but do not want to be treated unfairly. The vote was largely along party lines with just two Republicans, who happen to be facing reelection in 2008, siding with the democrats.

And

But what actually caused the impasse? The Washington Post does the best job of explaining the intricacies of the debate. Here's the gist: there are four resolutions and the issue turns around which ones to allow for a vote and how many votes will be needed to approve each one. Republicans want all four resolutions to require 60 votes. Why? Mainly because of a resolution introduced by Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire that is supportive of Bush and says Congress shouldn't cut funding for troops in the field. They all know it'd be difficult for many Democrats to vote against the measure and so it would likely be the only one that would get 60 votes. Democrats say if all four resolutions come up, they should require a majority vote.

Majority Leader Harry Reid promised to bring up Iraq again and again until Republicans allow the vote to take place. The NYT quotes Republican Sen. John Sununu saying he recognized that the public would likely be unhappy by all this infighting. "It may come as a surprise to my colleagues, but most voting members of the American public think that the Senate spends all too much time talking and not enough time casting votes," Sununu said. Wonder where they get that idea?

The problem really comes down to that the Dems are refusing to allow any debate on any amendments. Why should the Repubs let them have a free walk on this "debate" since it is clearly not a debate at all but the Dems trying to force, repeatedly, a resolution with their words alone and on their terms alone. If Reid really wanted a debate, then he'd have no issue with debating all of the resolutions. No doubt, he is in no way going to allow such a debate to occur on the floor. I don't agree with Sununu on the vote vs talk thing. If the Dems allowed a vote on all the resolutions, then there would be something to that argument, but since Reid will only allow debate on the anti-surge resolution, and will repress all others, it clearly isn't a debate.

Well, at least they're consistent.

War on Terror: Knowing the Enemy

This was linked at Schneier.

Interesting points about the GWOT and the relations of that war with the media.

“I saw extremely similar behavior and extremely similar problems in an Islamic insurgency in West Java and a Christian-separatist insurgency in East Timor,” he said. “After 9/11, when a lot of people were saying, ‘The problem is Islam,’ I was thinking, It’s something deeper than that. It’s about human social networks and the way that they operate.” In West Java, elements of the failed Darul Islam insurgency—a local separatist movement with mystical leanings—had resumed fighting as Jemaah Islamiya, whose outlook was Salafist and global. Kilcullen said, “What that told me about Jemaah Islamiya is that it’s not about theology.” He went on, “There are elements in human psychological and social makeup that drive what’s happening. The Islamic bit is secondary. This is human behavior in an Islamic setting. This is not ‘Islamic behavior.’ ” Paraphrasing the American political scientist Roger D. Petersen, he said, “People don’t get pushed into rebellion by their ideology. They get pulled in by their social networks.” He noted that all fifteen Saudi hijackers in the September 11th plot had trouble with their fathers. Although radical ideas prepare the way for disaffected young men to become violent jihadists, the reasons they convert, Kilcullen said, are more mundane and familiar: family, friends, associates.

Indonesia’s failure to replicate in East Timor its victory in West Java later influenced Kilcullen’s views about what the Bush Administration calls the “global war on terror.” In both instances, the Indonesian military used the same harsh techniques, including forced population movements, coercion of locals into security forces, stringent curfews, and even lethal pressure on civilians to take the government side. The reason that the effort in East Timor failed, Kilcullen concluded, was globalization. In the late nineties, a Timorese international propaganda campaign and ubiquitous media coverage prompted international intervention, thus ending the use of tactics that, in the obscure jungles of West Java in the fifties, outsiders had known nothing about. “The globalized information environment makes counterinsurgency even more difficult now,” Kilcullen said.

Just before the 2004 American elections, Kilcullen was doing intelligence work for the Australian government, sifting through Osama bin Laden’s public statements, including transcripts of a video that offered a list of grievances against America: Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, global warming. The last item brought Kilcullen up short. “I thought, Hang on! What kind of jihadist are you?” he recalled. The odd inclusion of environmentalist rhetoric, he said, made clear that “this wasn’t a list of genuine grievances. This was an Al Qaeda information strategy.” Ron Suskind, in his book “The One Percent Doctrine,” claims that analysts at the C.I.A. watched a similar video, released in 2004, and concluded that “bin Laden’s message was clearly designed to assist the President’s reëlection.” Bin Laden shrewdly created an implicit association between Al Qaeda and the Democratic Party, for he had come to feel that Bush’s strategy in the war on terror was sustaining his own global importance. Indeed, in the years after September 11th Al Qaeda’s core leadership had become a propaganda hub. “If bin Laden didn’t have access to global media, satellite communications, and the Internet, he’d just be a cranky guy in a cave,” Kilcullen said.

I enjoy the mention of the Suskind book. The contention that Bin Laden aided the President by associating with the Democratic party is quite humorous. That thought is limited by the fact that Bin Laden's goal isn't international fame or "global importance" but the removal of the western presence from Islamic countries. His networks have been taking a far greater hit due to the present US anti-terrorism policy than they would if John Kerry had made it to office. The global media is a tool in his effort, but not the only one. Does he honestly think that Bin Laden wouldn't have refocused his ire to another politician if Bush had lost? The dislike of the US is fairly uniform in the world and Bush happens to be a convenient punching bag that would and will be easily replace by another politician.

Michael Yon Describes Tactics

Great article on what the troops are doing. Details that the MSM generally just ignore. There is a description of capturing a IED trigger man and the dangers the EOD guys have to put up with.

I like this bit.

The Yarmuk traffic circle is fantastically dangerous. On the first mission I ran in Mosul, we lost two soldiers and an interpreter, all killed by a car bomb. Others were horribly burned, scarred for life. Many of our wounded and killed soldiers got it right here, or in the immediate vicinity. The ISF takes serious losses in this part of town. But it’s not entirely one-sided–the Deuce Four has killed well over 150 terrorists in this neighborhood in the past 10 months. But almost none of those made the news, and those that did had a few key details missing.

Like the time when some ISF were driving and got blasted by an IED, causing numerous casualties and preventing them from recovering the vehicle. The terrorists came out and did their rifle-pumping-in-the-air thing, shooting AKs, dancing around like monkeys. Videos went ’round the world, making it appear the terrorists were running Mosul, which was pretty much what was being reported at the time.

But that wasn’t the whole story. In the Yarmuk neighborhood, only terrorists openly carry AK-47s. The lawyers call this Hostile Intent. The soldiers call this Dead Man Walking.

Deuce Four is an overwhelmingly aggressive and effective unit, and they believe the best defense is a dead enemy. They are constantly thinking up innovative, unique, and effective ways to kill or capture the enemy; proactive not reactive. They planned an operation with snipers, making it appear that an ISF vehicle had been attacked, complete with explosives and flash-bang grenades to simulate the IED. The simulated casualty evacuation of sand dummies completed the ruse.

The Deuce Four soldiers left quickly with the “casualties,” “abandoning” the burning truck in the traffic circle. The enemy took the bait. Terrorists came out and started with the AK-rifle-monkey-pump, shooting into the truck, their own video crews capturing the moment of glory. That’s when the American snipers opened fire and killed everybody with a weapon. Until now, only insiders knew about the AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down.

Why don't we ever see those videos?

What do we see reported? The Al-Qaeda video of a downing of a US helicopter. Only 544 hits related to that.

But who's counting.

Imbolc, Lughnasadh or just plain ole Ground Hog Day

Wish it were as simple as just sacrifice to a ground hog.

Those that "musn't be named" are a bit more demanding.

And what's with the Imbolc vs. Lughnasadh depending on the hemisphere?

While in the Northern Hemisphere Imbolc is conventionally celebrated on 1 February, in the Southern hemisphere it is sometimes celebrated on the calendar date, but those who see it primarily as a celebration of spring may move it to 1 August.

Now I'm all confused.

And for those less pagan, there is St. Brigid's day. Though I think that was actually yesterday.

Whatever. Can't have too many virgin sacrifices.

NRA Election Influence

David Koppel posted the link to this study (by Christopher B. Kenny, Michael McBurnett & David J. Bordua) on the Volokh Conspiracy. It's relatively short, so you should read it for yourself.

The Conclusion:

So, does the NRA have any political impact? The answer is yes. This interest group gathers information on gun control and other issues important to the members, disseminates the information to the membership, represents its members to elected officials, reports to the membership the behaviors of elected officials, and helps shape public opinion on some issues. Put another way, the NRA is like a political party, but one that cuts across the current two-party alignment.

They have a bunch of numbers and analysis that is informative.

It would have been interesting to seen a comparison with other lobbying groups. Though it would be unlikely that they would have been given the access to the data that the NRA revealed. The comparison would have to be to a tightly focused message like gun control. The AARP has a powerful lobbying arm, but they are more general in their topical focus. The Brady bunch probably wouldn't play, though it would have been an interesting comparison of effectiveness.

Personally it raises more questions as to whether it's the money or the grass-roots support that makes the NRA effective.

One important note, that will surely be ignored by the gun grabbers:

As is commonly the case when truly systematic analysis is done, these results are complex and not all readily understood. Does the NRA activity affect election results? Yes, but not always to the same extent and not for all candidates. Challengers, Republicans, and 1994 stand out as showing greater effects. We all know there are issue differences in our elected officials: Southern Democrats are often different from the Massachusetts Democrats on many issues, including taxation and gun control. Northeastern Republicans do not necessarily resemble their Midwestern party brethren on these issues either. The strength of our analysis is in accounting for the variation within and across the parties in whether NRA endorsements were made, and also accounting for the local strength of NRA membership to influence elections.

I'm thinking that the NRA advantage is likely more ephemeral than this report would suggest. I would wager that in the last election their influence was substantially down. No doubt, other topics of concern can easily shift the influence indicated. Another reason why larger studies would be more informative in the long run.

Chirac Bumbling

Looks like the French are making a strong move to be considered even more out of touch with reality.

Jacques Chirac yesterday sparked a diplomatic controversy after saying that a nuclear-armed Iran would not be "very dangerous" and Tehran would be "razed" if it launched a nuclear strike on Israel. He later issued a humiliating retraction.

The French president's comments to journalists prompted speculation as to whether, aged 74 and in the waning months of his second - and probably his last term - he was losing his political touch or even his mental vigour. Some also questioned whether Mr Chirac had simply voiced a fear that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a foregone conclusion.

and

Paris has steadfastly opposed any attempt by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, with Mr Chirac recently accusing Tehran of "feeding the world's apprehension" with its atomic programme.

But the president told the three reporters: "I would say that what is dangerous about this situation is not the fact of having a nuclear bomb. Having one or perhaps a second bomb a little later, well, that's not very dangerous."

He said the danger lies in the chances of proliferation or an arms race in the Middle East should Iran build a nuclear bomb. The weapon would be useless for Iran because using it would mean an instant counterattack, he said. "Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 metres into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed."

How clever. I was more worried about the Iranians using terrorists as delivery mechanisms rather than missiles. And why assume that Israel is their first target? That makes assumptions that must be qualified.

Maybe Jac had too many glasses during lunch.

William Arkin: Jackass

Caught this yesterday at Powerline. This guy is a true jackass.

I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States.

I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.

I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.

Nothing like starting off with a conspiracy theory when you are writing an article about the troops.

These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.

Sure it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail, but even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We just don't see very man "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

Grateful? Why, because the public gives lip service to supporting the troops? Then their representatives continually undercut their actions because those representatives haven't the resolve to finish the job. You'd think the citizenry were the ones under fire. And why should they be grateful for the "good pay" etc. that isn't good at all?

As for deferring to the Generals letting them fight the war, that's their profession moron. The civilian control of the military decides where and why the military fights and the generals decide on how. If Arkin isn't intelligent enough to realize that, maybe he should crawl back under that rock he came from. Idiot.

But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

What a surprise. Wasn't expecting that bit of sophistry to rear its ugly head. He must be right though, he's a columnist. He has much more understanding of reality than we could. The troops must be mercenaries, because they are only there for the pay and no other reason. Did I mention how good the pay is? JACKASS!

I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.

Right. Young and Naive, meaning stupid in the best John Kerry manner. Not that Arkin isn't naive in his expectations for the effects that will be seen if we fail in Iraq. I'm sure his confidence in the terrorists leaving us in peace is tops.

This jerk has earned the Jackass of the week award.

Another South American Dictator in the Making

Chavez really must be living the dream of all South American boys, growing up to be a dictator. Well, that's likely overstated, but that is definitely where he appears to be going.

President Hugo Chavez was granted sweeping powers Wednesday to rule by decree for 18 months to accelerate his push toward socialism, a move that critics said propelled Venezuela toward dictatorship.

Convening in a downtown plaza for a session that resembled a political rally, the National Assembly unanimously gave Chavez control in 11 key areas, including the economy, the oil industry, defense and the structure of the state.

"Long live the sovereign people! Long live President Hugo Chavez! Long live socialism!" said National Assembly President Cilia Flores as she proclaimed the "enabling law" approved by a show of hands.

Makes you wonder what benefits the people of his country are seeing that would justify this. It regularly appears that he spends more money outside the country than in. The vote for his ability to rule by decree was unanimous, which I always find fascinating. How is it that a person representing the people would be willing to throw away his or her responsibilities in this way? But, they can still make laws you say? True, up until Hugo decrees that they can't.

This article has some great quotes:

"Long live the sovereign people! Long live President Hugo Chavez! Long live socialism!" said National Assembly President Cilia Flores as she proclaimed the "enabling law" approved by a show of hands. "Fatherland, socialism or death! We will prevail!"

Seig Heil! Seig Heil! Seig Heil!

"The people of Venezuela, not just the National Assembly, are giving this enabling power to the president of the republic," congresswoman Iris Varela told the crowd.

Just remember that when he starts getting weird. Weirder.

"What kind of a dictatorship is this?" Rodriguez asked the crowd, saying the law "only serves to sow democracy and peace."

"Dictatorship is what there used to be," Rodriguez said. "We want to impose the dictatorship of a true democracy."

Uh, what? I suppose the service to peace will be well served by their increased military spending and that million man army Chavez is proposing.

I'm sure all the foreign investment will just start pouring in as well. Or out depending on your point of view.

Chavez has said companies upgrading heavy oil in the Orinoco River basin British Petroleum PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Total SA and Statoil ASA must submit to state-controlled joint ventures. The new law enables Chavez to unilaterally "regulate" this transition if companies don't agree to the new framework within an unspecified "peremptory period."

Regulate? Is that the new word for seizure?

Sadly, the US is one of the few countries with the refineries that can handle the especially poor quality crude oil that comes out of Venezuela. It's a shame that we couldn't just stop buying from them and thus eliminate our participation in their "democracy."