THE DIGNIFIED RANT

FOREIGN AFFAIRS JANUARY 2003 ARCHIVES

Return to The Dignified Rant

Return to National Security Affairs

Return to National Security Affairs Archives

"Ivory Coast" (Posted January 31, 2003)

It would be easy to rag on the French again, but I wish them luck in protecting their nationals from any harm in Ivory Coast. I am impressed with the professionalism of troops who are fighting to preserve a surrender deal brokered by Paris. The soldiers have my sympathy and admiration. I would welcome their help in the Gulf. This emphasizes again that when I rag on "France" it is not really all the French that I complain about, but is merely shorthand for the Euro-Parisian SOBs who only have to know what America's position is on any given subject to decide their own-the opposite.

"Iraq" (Posted January 31, 2003)

Turkey getting ready to host U.S. troops and is moving its own troops to the border. Jordan says they will host U.S. troops and Patriot batteries are posted near Aqaba and the Saudi border (to protect routes for U.S. troops into the Jordan front?) and near Syria. Arab papers are accusing Saddam of failing to go into exile to spare the region from war and are blaming the coming war on Saddam. A Saudi paper even laid out Saddam's human rights violations. Following on the heels of the European letter in support of us, the lie that we would be "unilateral" in confronting Saddam becomes obvious. Of course, I've noticed that "unilateral" has been defined to mean "without UN sanction" no matter how many allies back us.

No more than a couple weeks I should think. And about damn time.

Bravo to the Italian defense minister for saying we are justified in attacking Iraq and a big hoot (with all due respect) to the Vatican for implying that he did not have the wisdom to make such a decision. The Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, when the Pope asserts an infallible position. The Pope has done this twice (I think) and in both it was a case of faith. If the Pope wants to claim that no war is an infallible matter of faith or morals, he is welcome to assert it. Otherwise, the wisdom is all with the Italian defense minister.

Oh yeah, I read that the strike that went awry (from GPS jammers?) was in February 2001.

"North Korea" (Posted January 31, 2003)

According to this story, North Korea may be moving spent nuclear rods and the American commander for our Pacific forces has asked for several thousand ground troops(presumably the third brigade of 2nd infantry Division), bombers, and a carrier to deter North Korean attacks while we go after Baghdad.. Prudent requests, no doubt.

On the radio on the way home from work, I heard a story that the outgoing South Korean president actually paid Kim Jong Il an obscene amount of money to meet with him to start his "Sunshine policy" of seeking peaceful relations with the North. Yet it was all a farce. Pyongyang did it for the money (as they agreed to pretend to halt nuclear programs for cash) and the South Korean leader won a Nobel Peace Prize for the big lie. Figures. Say the right words and the Nobel committee will kiss your butt. Honest to God, the U.S. Army has done more to advance world peace than any of the yahoos who get that prize.

I hope this revelation ends the absolutely ridiculous accusation that the President 'provoked' North Korea to break the 1994 agreement by his Axis of Evil speech.

Oh, and just a note to anybody who wonders why we want UN talks and not direct talks with the North as Kim Jong Il demands-North Korea always wants talks with America alone because they do not recognize the South as legitimate. It bolsters the North's claim that we are the problem. If we agree to direct talks alone, the North wins a point in its ridiculous quest to conquer the South.

"Heads They Win, Tails They Win" (Posted January 30, 2003)

What am I to make of this:

"Even if it goes well – short, quick, with Iraqis dancing in the street – it will nevertheless be known as a U.S. war against a Muslim country," said Judith Kipper, a specialist in Middle East politics for the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"Best-case or worst-case, any war is going to be a rationale for thousands of new soldiers for al-Qaida."

First of all, if Moslems will really despise us for freeing Moslems from tyranny and torture, we might as well just get the clash of civilizations going now.

But I think Kipper is quite wrong. How is it that fighting back can only make things worse? And if we really whomp Iraq, the enemy will not get even a teensy bit discouraged? So, they hate us now already, yet they will attack us more if we show our strength by defeating Iraq. How is this possible? Shouldn't our first defeat of Iraq have enflamed them for the next century? Conversely, they blame us for the Crusades and we did not exist then. What are we to make of that? Indeed, the French (then known as the Franks) were the more successful of the Crusaders. And France butchered Algerians, fought Libya, and invaded Egypt yet this does not earn France eternal hatred? The Serbs slaughtered Moslems in Yugoslavia yet Moslems aren't declaring jihad on Serbs. Indeed, Iraqis tried to help the Serbs survive our 1999 air offensive. And should not the Indians be faced with unrelenting hostility and suicide attacks for their multiple wars against Moslem Pakistan? And why are we number one on the target list of Islamofascists when the Russians could give seminars on slaughtering Moslems?

Honest to goodness, some people think that it is the height of sophisticated analysis to discuss the finer shades of a vast array of surrender options from which we can choose. They are so accustomed to losing that they cannot conceive victory. I am reminded of General Grant's frustration with his generals when he took command of the Army of the Potomac. His generals raised objections to every course of action, arguing that Lee would counter it. Finally, Grant would hear no more: "Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to think what are we going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do."

I am heartily sick of it, too. Saddam and the Islamists are going to be very busy worrying about what we are going to do to them. And we can turn a double somersault and turn up anywhere on the globe to kill them.

On to Baghdad.

"Averting War?" (Posted January 30, 2003)

The question of what it would take to avert war yet still constitute a victory is in the air. I'm not talking about what those who think we are a greater evil than Saddam would think is winning. These ANSWER types think Saddam's regime should be preserved intact, and of course would lift the current sanctions, containment and inspections. Victory would consist of imposing those things on America.

I am talking about those who think Saddam's regime is evil, but … cannot imagine actually doing something more strenuous than wishing. Of course, many of those who support various alternatives to American soldiers hoisting our flag over the Ministry of Pain in downtown Baghdad have relaxed opinions of what constitute 'victory.' Mostly they seem to think the mere avoidance of war is good no matter what is needed to achieve that end.

Take for example, the exile option. What if Saddam and his chosen family members (those he hasn't shot already) go into exile? Do we really trust whoever emerges and proclaims they will really disarm? And what does this say to other would-be-nuclear aspirants/nutcase dictators? It tells them that you can pursue nukes in secret, sign contracts with the French, and then if you get caught, call your French attorneys to bail you out. If the U.S. still persists in massing the force necessary to nail you, call "uncle" and take your stashed looted billions and go into cushy exile. Who knows, you or your son might return when the attention drifts. That isn't deterrence, that's an invitation to proliferation!

Or there is the single bullet option. What if a general whacks Saddam? Other than the satisfaction of knowing Saddam is swimming with the fishies, what do we get? This is not personal as some anti-war types froth. This is about our security. If any of Saddam's buddies take over, we have the same problem we have now, but with a lesser known whackjob. Would we start the whole process of inspections over again with the new dictator and give that guy a chance to prove himself over twelve years?

Or there is the full cooperation option. What if Saddam caves and says, you are right, we have everything you say we have—here it is, come and destroy it. Even if he destroys it all, what if he has more than we think? And what happens after he is certified weapons--free and we go home? With his wealth, scientists, and technical expertise, he begins again. And not from scratch since the knowledge is the key ingredient. All else can be purchased with his wealth and hidden even better, with the knowledge of what we can do. And who in Iraq will dare tell us anything knowing we let the thug escape—yet again.

There is also the partial cooperation option. This is a disturbing option too. It assumes that Saddam gives up just enough to get the anti-war types to claim success for inspections. Saddam gets to keep some of his assets unlike the full cooperation mode; yet must suffer through inspections for years. But he knows how to win that game. In a few years, he will neuter the already weak inspections and finally get them out completely.

There is also the old standby of continued containment and inspections until the cows come home. I won't go into why this won't work yet again. Search the archives if you are that interested. Suffice it to say that I have not changed my mind.

No, the only option is complete American and allied occupation of Iraq whether we must fight our way to Baghdad or just march in as in Kosovo. Even in the event that Saddam leaves the scene, we would need to occupy the country. My hope is that by granting Saddam one more chance—really, this time for sure, we are not kidding here, that Saddam will conclude that (yawn) he's been there and done that. He will give nothing and think he will win again.

Not this time. We intend to go to Baghdad. We've tempted fate long enough by delaying. Six months ago, attacking us at home might have been a dream of his. Now it might be a reality. If it isn't an option of his, yet more delay might grant him that time. Let's go, already.

Permalink to this post: http://www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRFAJAN2004ARCHIVES.html#TDRNSA30JAN03A

"Europe" (Posted January 29, 2003)

I have frequently complained about 'Europe' for their refusal to stand with us-or to apparently stand for anything. Even as I complain I know it is unfair. Europe is not a monolith and even the states whose leaders rail against us have many people who side with us. If you press me and I am in a charitable mood, I'll even concede that this applies to France. We do have a common heritage of freedom though I fear Europe's is far less deeply embedded than our own. I do worry that an EU bureaucratic dictatorship really could evolve this century.

I am heartened by this report:

EIGHT European leaders today call on the Continent to stand united with America in the battle to disarm Iraq, while warning the UN that its credibility is on the line. In a calculated rebuff to France and Germany -- denounced by America last week as "old Europe" -- the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic have combined to make an unprecedented plea in The Times for unity and cohesion. They say the transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of President Saddam Hussein's threats to world security.

As much as I am frustrated with the vocal European opinion leaders in much of Europe, I would not walk away from Europe in frustration. We can support our friends there. And for God's sake, we should stop supporting European integration. Our friends will be smothered in a Brussels regime that the French and Germans will dominate. We must give them an option that will let them avoid the smothering embrace of the EU that will kill freedom. We have sent our soldiers to save Europe twice in the 20th century (three if you count the Cold War-and I do). We can send our ideals of freedom and our resolve to defend our way of life to save them again from the strange nihilistic impulse to surrender to beasts with the will to kill.

Remember, we intervened in two world wars and defended Europe in a Cold War because we knew that our freedom and prosperity are at risk if Europe is held by an enemy. That still holds true and we should fight to preserve the continent as our friend.

And thank you to our friends who signed this letter. It renews my faith that we are allies.

"Why We Must Kill Them" (Posted January 29, 2003)

Oh no, it is simplistic to think that Iraq and Islamist thugs are linked. Yet they have already vowed fealty to Saddam and the Europeans worry that Islamists will strike with poisons throughout Europe when we invade Iraq. Funny, I thought siding with Iraq was supposed to immunize the Europeans from their fury. Do these Europeans not see that they are a target always? Do the Europeans think the ability to attack them with chemical weapons will go unused even if they manage to derail our invasion? Do they not see that their coddling and appeasement brought these cells into their countries in the first place? Will they not finally fight back against our common enemy?

It will not be our fault if terrorists strike Europeans after we invade Iraq. Europe brought this upon themselves and they should be grateful that we will pave the way for them to clean up the terrorists who live among them and feed off their welfare systems. It is not anti-immigrant or racist to rip out the thugs from the mostly peaceful immigrants who live in Europe. Indeed, it will benefit the larger population by getting rid of the terrorists who prey on the immigrant communities and give them all a bad reputation.

The President laid out—again—the case for war against Iraq. And Powell will go to the UN next week where he will speak slowly and with small words so that even sophisticated Europeans and Hollywood actors will understand the beastly regime we will destroy by capturing Baghdad. The President's speech to Congress will follow soon after, and then very quickly we will get the speech from the White House that war has begun. I'm without a clue as to when it starts, but a couple weeks seems pretty likely.

And in the meantime, the war against al Qaeda will continue and cleaning up Iraq will start—politically and in regard to weapons of mass destruction. And Iran and North Korea remain to be dealt with. And so much more. Yet we will do it because at the end of the day, our security rests with our ability to shape the world and fight the threats to our very lives.

On to Baghdad.

"SOTU" (Posted January 28, 2003)

Well, it doesn't look like we will go on the 31st. We will go, there is no doubt, but Powell will go to the UN next week first. And the President will then speak to Congress. I'd say this could be disinformation but I really don't think so. We should go earlier than the press reports, but once again my invasion date will pass with no invasion.

Perhaps Powell will provide the gotcha moment at the UN. Lord knows I think the case has been made, but for those who avert their eyes from the bloody obvious, maybe these skeptics will finally see.

Yet these delays give our enemies time to prepare. That we intend to invade Iraq I have no doubt. We will not be thwarted by our so-called friends. But will we? Will events intervene to thwart us? Time is so precious yet we just dole it out to the Iraqis like we are unstoppable. I pray they are unable to use this time.

"North Korean Threat" (Posted January 28, 2003)

Whoa, I'd actually worry about this. North Koreans claim our State Department is finalizing plans to attack the North at a moment's notice. Aside from the sheer absurdity of claiming State is doing that, I'd be real nervous that Pyongyang is laying the basis for their own attack. They are the ones poised to attack at a moment's notice after all, not us. And with our troops about to invade Iraq, North Korea may see their opportunity.

Yes, I know they frequently threaten us, but the times are dangerous.

"Ivory Coast" (Posted January 28, 2003)

It is sad that people in Ivory Coast look to us to save them from French surrender terms yet we back the slow surrender brokered by the French. Why say anything? Let the French handle this in their own wise ways, derived from their centuries of experience.

"War?" (Posted January 28, 2003)

Countdown to Invasion: 3 Days?

Why would we even try to convince people who believe we are a greater threat to world peace that we are right to end the threat Iraq poses to our security? Why would we delay and risk the lives of our troops to lower the percentage to 80% from 84% who distrust us more than Iraq or anybody else? Such people cannot be convinced. The Carnegie Endowment people who oppose war cannot be convinced. Jessica Matthews' essay shows she will never believe war is justified. After twelve years, she thinks we don't know if inspections work or not. She thinks war is unnecessary. Every new resolution obliterates the history of Iraqi lies prior to the UN vote and so requires a new beginning to judge Iraq. Yet somehow she thinks that we could "overwhelm" Iraq (say it to yourself, Jessica, you just called for destroying Iraq) should they use any WMD against us. She obviously does not think that, and why she would say that in an effort to avoid a quite necessary war is for her conscience to debate, I suppose. Any evidence produced by us will either be considered insufficient or forged. Or, egads, "old." Yet in her essay she fears that the Iraq that she says has been contained from developing WMD, in fact has sufficient WMD to use against us even at home should we invade. That's quite a record of containment for a regime that agreed to get rid of all of WMD.

Remember, 1441 was supposed to be their last chance to come clean and get rid of their WMD.

Far from rushing to war, we have displayed remarkable patience, giving Iraq all the time in the world to disarm and cooperate, giving Congress time to debate and authorize war, giving the UN time to give Iraq yet another chance (and now some would like to give them another "final" chance), and giving anti-war people plenty of time to make their case. Heck, Sean Penn had tome to go to Baghdad and Sheryl Crow had time to stitch a t-shirt with an anti-war message. The president should make his case tonight, give the UN Security Council a couple days to act on the Blix report's verification that Saddam is in material breach of 1441, and then provide the gotcha evidence Thursday night. He can make the case that our allies know this information yet they will not back us. Then, on Friday, when Blair is here, announce that we and our allies consider Saddam Hussein in material breach of 1441 and reserve the right to take action. We should attack that evening (EST).

Some say we will have weeks of bombing first, but I doubt it. I've guessed from a week or so before the heavy armor goes in to even a little after the ground invasion starts. I still tend to prefer the shorter time, but if we go soon, it may be because we do intend to bomb for a bit while we converge the pieces of our invasion force into Iraq. Still, with all the talk that this is a regime take down akin to Panama rather than a battle like Desert Storm, I'd bet on a near-simultaneous ground and air strike for maximum shock rather than maximum attrition. Besides, our munitions are so smart now, that we could probably do a fair amount of attrition during the time it takes to roll up to the gates of Baghdad.

And it should be soon. We are not waiting for all the divisions alerted to make it to the Gulf. Look at what divisions have been alerted according to public announcements and press stories: 3rd Infantry, 101st Airborne, 10th Mountain, 4th Infantry, 1st Cavalry, 1st Armored, 1st Infantry. Plus elements of two of our Marine divisions. So we are to believe that seven of our ten active Army divisions are going to fight Iraq? With 82nd Airborne fighting in Afghanistan (and involved in a fairly large battle right now, apparently) and 2nd Infantry guarding Seoul, that leaves only 25th Infantry (I think, 25th) and a Marine division in Okinawa in reserve? Light infantry outfits and the 25th is, I believe, involved in the Stryker brigade creation? We really have time to mobilize the Guard in a crisis should something else come up? And 1st Infantry can't go because of its ongoing commitment to Kosovo, anyway. Maybe 4th Infantry and 1st Armored are designated occupation troops when the invasion force rotates out after defeating Saddam's legions. Or maybe we just want 4th ID's equipment sailing in the Indian Ocean relatively close to South Korea just in case. All I am confident of for sure is that we aren't waiting for all those alerted units to get to the Gulf before we invade.

And the British amphibious group is off of Cyprus, apparently. There is no reason it must join our Marines in the Gulf. It could stage through Jordan from the Mediterranean and strike out of Jordan with our forces. If I am not mistaken, we have Army and Marine equipment stored there. Could these all provide the core of a division-sized element that invades western Iraq, linking up with airlifted light forces that go directly into captured Iraqi airbases and with armor advancing out of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait? There are American and allied pieces all around the periphery, and they could go anywhere.

On to Baghdad.

"GPS Problems?" (Posted January 28, 2003)

On the GPS issue, I earlier speculated that GPS problems were not going to be a critical problem since GPS bombs are useful only for striking fixed targets. Strategypage.com reminded me that the special forces on the ground in Afghanistan used GPS/laser range finder combo to strike mobile targets with GPS. Whether that means we can strike moving targets that way, I don't know. The site also reminded me of a GPS strike early last year that went awry. I'd forgotten about that. Were the Iraqis testing their jammers? Reading on, the site says in December we were testing ways to strike moving targets. I guess it is possible, but we probably aren't there yet for anything more than test strikes in an Iraq War. GPS jammers in Iraqi hands are worrisome but not critical. And we may have counter-measures, anyway.

"Blix Krieg" (Posted January 27, 2003)

Boy, I hope I'm the first with that headline.

Blix exceeded my expectations in his report. Yes, he wants more time and has a ridiculous faith that inspections can work, but he did document the fact that Iraq has not cooperated. That conclusion added on to the non-disclosure adds up to 'material breach.' Just tell me that we won't wait three more weeks trying to get our allies on board. If we really do need three more weeks to get our troops in place, fine (but let me rip on whoever decided not to be ready now), but we delay too much for little gain. And freeze out anybody on post-war contracts unless they pour troops into Iraq for occupation duty. Squeeze those SOBs who failed to stand with us when we needed them and only jump on board for the end of the trip.

"But the Next Day After That?" (Posted January 27, 2003)

I have never been suspicious of Secretary Powell. In the world of international relations, State is the good cop. I never believed Powell was doing more than carrying out his duty to give the president his advice. The UN detour was a policy that I did not oppose as long as it did not delay the invasion. What's the harm in getting UN approval if we can? Yet at the end of the day, Powell executes American foreign policy, however, and he is showing it now. (It certainly helps that the French just screwed him over royally) I do hope that Secretary Powell was being very literal when he said, on Sunday at the Davos forum, "To those who say, why not give the inspection process more time, I ask, how much more time does Iraq need to answer these questions?" Mr. Powell said. "We're in no great rush to judgment tomorrow or the day after, but clearly time is running out," he said. "We will not shrink from war if that is the only way to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction." Yes, and hope that he means we could decide to go on Wednesday or Thursday, or on Friday when Blair is in town to meet with the President.

Other gems of Powell include, "I don't think I have anything to be ashamed of, or apologize for, with respect to what America has done for the world," [Powell] said in response to a question asking why the United States always falls back on the use of "hard power" instead of the "soft power" of diplomacy. "We've put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives," he said, his voice growing hoarse. "We've asked for nothing but enough land to bury them in." Take that you bunch of Euro-appeasers. You give us two world wars last century and you want to complain about what we have done? And the last part was a particularly good shot at the French. Just how many French soldiers are buried here, after dying to defend America? I'll let you count before I continue—no need to take off your socks to tally the number, either.

Powell, responded nicely, too, when the British head of Amnesty International, Irene Khan, was applauded when she questioned whether the Iraq threat "risks provoking a massive humanitarian and human rights catastrophe." In reply, Powell said the United States was "sensitive to the plight of the Iraqi people, not only in case of conflict but also right now." I do wish he had jumped on her for saying we will "provoke" the catastrophes. Doesn't she read her own material? Good for Powell for jamming it right back at her, although far too politely as far as I'm concerned. Yet, diplomacy is his game. For blunt, we've got Rumsfeld

The article goes on to note that Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, said that if Hans Blix, the head of the chemical and biological weapons inspection team, asked the Security Council for more time when he submitted his report on Monday, he should get it. "I don't think that we are talking about an infinite amount of time," Mr. Solana said. "Time has been given to Saddam Hussein before. So we are talking about a question of weeks, perhaps months." Obviously, infinity is not on the table. Our sun will go supernova in a finite amount of time. But why weeks or months more? As he notes, he has had time—years. Delay only increases our casualties should we need to fight in the heat of summer. The day we let some EU proto-dictatorship tell us how to protect ourselves is, well, never mind. It ain't happening in this administration I dare say.

And then, our friends the French. Speaking on French television, the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, called for an extension of the inspections for "several weeks, or for a few months." This time he said it without his Solana hand puppet, but at least we see the origins of the vast French-wing conspiracy where talking points are drafted in Paris and passed out to the good little soldiers in the EU to repeat to the world. More to the point, after nearly twelve years, why would a few more weeks or months matter in the face of Saddam's absolute refusal to disarm as the Persian Gulf War ceasefire terms require? Again, all it does is at best is increase our casualties and at worse, give time to opponents of war to derail the invasion completely. And do not doubt that they seek delay only until the can achieve a halt. The French have already said that "nothing" could justify war so what charade do they play claiming we should delay for even longer? And why should we believe anything they say?

Finally, the article notes that Mr. Powell's speech did little to change the view of the Democratic leadership in Congress that Mr. Bush is acting in "a very precipitous way," as Senator Tom Daschle, the minority leader, put it. Big sigh. We've eased into this fight, if we ever get to it, with the care and delicacy of a senior citizen coaxing a squirrel a little closer to the park bench to take a cracker. Precipitous, indeed. I don't think that word means what the good senator thinks it means.

On to Baghdad. In four days, please. I want to believe that we have what we need to start the war already in place.

"That'll Teach Them" (Posted January 26, 2003)

So, the results of French intervention in Ivory Coast (contrary to the lofty French position that war is never the answer to any problem) is that Paris asked their soldiers to give their lives in order to broker a slow surrender of the government to the rebels. Wow, the French sure are wise in the ways of the world! The rebels apparently get the Defense and Interior ministries (in Ivory Coast, as in most countries, Interior is a security position, not a national parks post). While not an immediate defeat for the government, it will only be time before the rebels use their new positions to take over completely.

I am disappointed that our government has endorsed this deal. Why would be back the French anyway and why would we support intervention in order to enable surrender? Sure, the French hope to get both sides a little grateful so they come out on top no matter the result, but that is no reason we should go along. We should stay silent and let them screw it up on their own. Let the world know what French friendship gets you. That will teach them to ask for French help.

The January 31 invasion is looking dicey since I have seen no indication of a big airlift of troops. Of course, one way to get around this failure to deploy troops is to assume that I am wrong about the ground and air assaults beginning at roughly the same time. If the air offensive lasts a week before the ground troops go in, you could begin the airlift shortly before the air attacks begin. We'll see. I have less confidence that January 31 is D-Day, but it still could be. It all depends on what the Pentagon plans to start with. And I still think we have more heavy equipment out there than is realized. Reports in the news dating back months indicated heavy equipment was being sent to the area and then nothing more has been heard of it. It didn't just disappear and I don't think the military has been wasting its time for the last year. But then, I may not be in an armchair but I am just guessing here.

Countdown to Invasion: 5 Days?

"D-Day?" (Posted January 25, 2003)

Countdown to War: 6 Days

This article has some persuasive indicators that invasion will not be for at least another month. One, it says that the computer simulation in Germany won't take place until later this month. Earlier, reports said it would be done mid-month. 1st Armored, 1st Cavalry, 3rd Infantry, 4th Infantry, and 101st Airborne are supposed to be part of it. First Infantry is not part of it. As I noted, this division is occupied with Kosovo duties. Second, the article says it would take a month to move the equipment of 101st Airborne to the Gulf. That was something I really had no clue on. Then some in-theater training is desirable. The possible need for more carriers is not persuasive. We don't need six. Six would be nice but with Air Force units nearby and precision weapons, four are probably fine.

And the report that we will let the inspections go on longer to gain allied support is really disturbing. The French and Germans claim there is nothing that could convince them that war is necessary. The Chinese prefer to have us tied up in a military confrontation. The Russians combine the French desire for Iraqi money and the old Soviet habits of opposing us (wait, that is a French habit too) and wanting us militarily occupied. Are we doing this for Blair, then? But why will delay help? As time passes, people get even more used to the idea of inspections. And although this author thinks war is coming in February or March, it is not much of a comfort to me. For those who wonder whether Iraq's strategy of delay will drain our spirit and get us to give up, the prospect of invasion even as late as March probably is reassuring. I worry about delay and I think our failure to deploy the necessary forces is purely diplomatic and has been for some time. Even without the preparations of the last decade, in 1990 and 1991, we deployed a much larger force in a little over 6 months. We've had a year now and only 3rd Infantry is mostly in theater. There is not a purely logistical reason for delay.

This information runs into the wall of my firm conviction that we must go sooner than later. We need surprise, delay gives Saddam time to come up with something to thwart us and for other enemies to take advantage of our pending war, we don't need all the forces that are supposedly heading to the Gulf (and if we send them all, we would risk defeat in a second war should it be thrust upon us), and delay will not build public support. Laying out the evidence will help our public support but I imagine nothing short of a crater where the Eiffel Tower stands now will convince many of our allies that there is a threat. Yet it is dangerous to say what we know except when we are about to bomb them, lest the Iraqis move them or use them once they realize we know there their chemicals, bugs, and nuke projects are located. Or, they might figure out how we knew something and compromise one of our sources.

The signs point to later. I do assume 101st Airborne is needed. But what if we did manage to ship in equipment for the division already? What if we don't need the division in the early phase? I sure hope that all this talk is part of our disinformation campaign to gain surprise, so I hold to January 31 as the invasion date. But the lack of a visible airlift in the next day will likely make this date another wrong guess on my part. I will be sadly disappointed if we have telegraphed our actual invasion timetable so obviously.

Basically, there is dissonance between what I think we should do, what it appears we are going to do-which contradicts what I think we should do, and the unknown of how much of what can be seen is disinformation-which may negate some of the contradictions that I can see.

On to Baghdad. I fear delay more than the Iraqis.

"No Exile" (Posted January 24, 2003)

Mark Steyn had a great column on the protesters, but I think he missed something thinking that Rumsfeld went wobbly when he said America would think it fine if Saddam went into exile. I imagine that statement was more to provide substance to the meeting the Turks are hosting with several Arab states to convince Saddam to leave to prevent war. If we dismissed the possibility, the states that want some cover to help us would lose their excuse. They will now say, "Hey street, we tried to get Saddam to leave. Even Rumsfeld said it would be fine—and you know how bloodthirsty he is. Yet Saddam refused our plea to think of the region's welfare and leave to avoid war. We regrettably conclude that we must support war for the good of peace in our region."

Don't worry. Rumsfeld has not gone wobbly. He merely had a role to play, I dare say. As Steyn finally concludes, war really could be any day now. The 31st would be good. Even weeks away as this article says is probably too long—when near, appear far.

It will be interesting to see how France, the Confederation of the Rhine, Russia, and China react when it becomes clear that we will move without waiting for UNSC approval. Life without the UN where they can pretend to have equal power will seem pretty awful to them. I bet they rush to vote and put the still-wet authorization on a Concorde to deliver it to General Franks in Qatar.

"My Arms Are Tired" (Posted January 24, 2003)

Countdown to War: 7 Days.

Honest to God, I am actually tired of pounding on "peace" protesters and the "French" for their vexing behavior and statements.

Perhaps it is because the war seems imminent. Troops are moving (I still don't know if we will have enough in one week to start, but we've got so much stuff moving and alerted that we may). Statements out of Washington indicate uniform resolve. The Iraqis continue to trust the French and Germans will post bail (note the Iraqi government complaint that they've really tried to get their scientists to talk to the UN alone but they just refuse. Please, if Saddam told them to drop their pants and sit on a block of ice, they'd do it--fast). The human shields will get to Iraq in time to witness the fireworks. And the Japanese told their people to get out of Iraq--by Wednesday would be nice.

Yep, all the whining by the "peace" activists and "French" are about to be made irrelevant. Our year-long "rush to war," after our 11-year "stroll to surrender" will culminate in war to overthrow that lunatic Saddam.

Am I happy about this? No. It saddens me that our military will suffer and die, in unknown numbers but probably not much more than 1991. They will pay the price to end this threat and cast down yet another champion of the Islamofascists who would kill us as we sleep if they could. Yet we cannot shirk this duty and pretend that inspections will make us safe.

Yes, the job to make us safe just begins when the Tikriti mafia in Baghdad is overthrown, but that is true for all wars. The stakes are too high to walk away as we did in 1991. This time it's for keeps. A nuclear 9-11 cannot be allowed to happen. Sadly, we have much to do before we can stand down.

On to Baghdad. Soon.

"Rush to War?" (Posted January 23, 2003)

What is with the latest talking point that we are in a "rush to war?" This is the most telegraphed war in history, I should think. And the idea that members of Congress are saying it when they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to debate and vote is amazing. If they voted for war lightly, perhaps they should resign. Rush, indeed. I'll be happy enough if it isn't too late.

"Pieces" (Posted January 23, 2003)

UPI says that 101st Airborne and 1st Cavalry divisions are about to be deployed to the Gulf. Those are the last two major ground pieces that need to be moved (with Marines and 3rd Infantry soon to be in place) to start the invasion with a hammer blow. Tenth Mountain could be airlifted in much faster. We shall see when these two divisions and a brigade of Marines are airlifted into the Gulf region. We have had a year to prepare for a surge of airlift.

"Northern Front" (Posted January 23, 2003)

Countdown to Invasion: 8 Days.

So this article talks about the Turkish front with a heavy division from Europe (but 1st Infantry is occupied with Kosovo duties) and elements of 101st Airborne. Military analysts say so. And with all the divisions alerted for war, it appears we have enough for multi-division assaults from everywhere. As long as the North Koreans are quiet. Oops. Ok, as long as we can ship in that much. Well, it might be July before we get all the alerted units to the Gulf region. And then there's that 15,000 cap. Three brigades would reach that level and who provides logistics? What about special forces? What about 10th Mountain? Does it go directly into Kurdish areas from New York? And I know we are good, but are we really going to stick three brigades up against all the Iraqis up there?

In the face of the military analysts who say a major thrust comes out of Turkey, I say it is all a feint to freeze the Iraqis up there until we attack. Since this deception falters once major troop elements are in place in the south and west and noticed, we'd have to go very fast after deploying.

I've gone over all the reasons for a major attack from Jordan in order to strike Baghdad from the west, with supporting attacks out of Turkey and Kuwait, so I won't repeat myself. I just don't think we are going in big from Turkey to grab the oil wells up there. Hopefully the Turks will, but not us.

Of course, there has still been no surge of airlifts, so once again maybe my guess of January 31 as the invasion date is wrong. Still, the Pentagon seems to think a rolling invasion will work. And given Iraqi deployment, the south and west are undefended. As long as the follow-on forces aren't delayed, it would work. With 3rd Infantry in place, a Marine brigade airlifted in to the equipment unloading in Kuwait from the Mediterranean prepositioned squadron joining Marines from the east and west coasts sailing in, we'd have two divisions ready. Plus the Royal Marines could be there. Could the airlift start the morning of the 27th, with the State of the Union address highlighting the failure of Iraq to comply with 1441 and announcing that the Security Council had until Friday to vote?

Ok, I wrote "Remember, if you won't part with ANSWER, you're part of the problem." in an earlier post. I must have been sleepy or something. I think I was trying to make a play on "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Not even close to being clever. Sorry 'bout that, chief.

"Inconvenient" (Posted January 23, 2003)

I suppose it must be inconvenient for the fans of even more months or years of inspections to hear the Iraqis moan about the inspections. Notwithstanding their full acceptance and promise of more cooperation made recently (but how can they improve on full cooperation already granted you may ask) the Iraqis raise objections. They say we harass farmers and violate mosques. They even bemoan that the Iraqi scientists refuse to talk to UN inspectors despite the Iraqi government's encouragement to do so. To believe that lie is to be French, I suppose. But when a nation's government such as France accepts eleven years of inspections that have failed to find anything significant except when defectors filled them in, new failures and Iraqi hindrance are really minor matters.

Yet even as the French and Germans in particular ignore whatever Iraq says or does, they get positively outraged over Rumsfeld's dismissal of their opposition to war, who said they represent "old Europe." The article quoted him, "You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't," he said. "I think that's old Europe. If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is shifting to the east and there are a lot of new members." So what exactly did he say wrong? He noted quite properly that Europe does not revolve around Paris and its satellite Berlin. The French and Germans may be annoyed that Rumsfeld said that, but was it arrogance? Jeez, French and German outrage represents the arrogance here. They think they alone can guide Europe's foreign policy. It may be inconvenient for them to be reminded of this but it is no less true. Yes, the French are upset, but what is one to make of this:

And in his anger over our Defense Secretary's remark, Finance Minister Francis Mer said he was "profoundly vexed" by the remarks. "I wanted to remind everyone that this 'old Europe' has resilience, and is capable of bouncing back," Mer told LCI television. "And it will show it, in time."

So I guess, despite his advanced state of vexocity, Mer must think old Europe has problems since he thinks Europe has the capability of bouncing back. One does not "bounce back" from being a dynamic major power that matters in the world. His comment seems more insulting by far than Rumsfeld's. Yikes, remind somebody who doesn't matter that they do not matter and they get all hissy or something. Oh, they get vexed.

"Not as Reassuring as They Might Think" (Posted January 22, 2003)

Countdown to Invasion: 9 Days.

So the two European states that attempted to conquer Europe three times between them in the last 200 years have teamed up. They celebrate forty years of their treaty of friendship this year. Oh, this is good for peace. Of course, since the Germans are taking their instructions from the French, we are all safe from actual defeat, if not from war. Lord, now the Germans get squeamish about invading another country. Under our tutelage, in a generation the Iraqis will recoil at the mere thought of fighting anybody. And the French preen about their wisdom for dealing with the Arab world after a history of actually being Crusaders, being the imperial masters of Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria (where they seriously colonized the country with settlers), fought a brutal war against Algerians seeking independence, invaded Egypt, fought the Libyans over Chad, and even sent their special forces to assault the Grand Mosque when fanatics occupied it! Let's not even go into how the French helped Israel get nuclear weapons and armed them with conventional weapons when nobody else would. Yet they fear that if we invade that whack job Saddam, the Arab world will rise up against us? Excuse me if I file their wisdom and advice on our current crisis in an appropriate bin. If the Arab world can forgive the French for their history, on top of just being French, I think our place in the Arab world is secure. After all, bin Laden said people like backing the strong horse, not the dead one and certainly not the really annoying one.

"Why They Hate Us" (Posted January 22, 2003)

The collective wisdom of the anti-war folks and their actor allies is that America has earned the terrorist attacks by our actions. Oh, they often (but not always) say that nothing justifies terrorist attacks such as 9-11, but, they add, our policies contributed to the anger. Our policies must change, they say.

Wait for it!

Oh, this is good. While Hollywood preaches about how we must reform our foreign policy so that we don't get what we deserve, this study (in "The Next Generation's Image of Americans," Boston University communication professors Melvin and Margaret DeFleur) says that Hollywood has caused our poor image, with negative attitudes corresponding to how much of Hollywood's products they see. The irony is superb. The stars hate what they have created. All our aid and assistance to Moslems around the world have been swamped by the image of America produced by Hollywood and sold abroad.

Maybe 100 State Department officials will pen a letter urging no more car chases and one night stand scenes in our name. Perhaps human shields will stake out the next Baldwin film. Maybe Powell will visit Sean Penn's home and see for himself what is going on.

If Hollywood is a "root cause" what should we do about it? What would the stars say about this?

"Well This Would Explain a Lot" (Posted January 22, 2003)

Could Scott Ritter have been turned by Iraqi intelligence? This article notes the purported run-in by Ritter with the police in an online sting over his chat with a supposed 14-yero-old girl. Seems he tried to meet "her." On August 17, 2001, I wrote in Foreign Affairs: "I can only conclude that Iraqi intelligence caught him [Ritter] involved in something and is blackmailing him. The alternative is to consider treason." Unless Ritter just began his fetish for children in 2001 (if the report is true), then perhaps Ritter believed he could get away with some of that behavior in an impoverished Iraq where he may have thought American dollars could buy him anything.

Ritter and the French both may fear what will come to light after the fall of Saddam's regime.

"Debate Closed" (Posted January 22, 2003)

A nice story about the anti-war movement's organizers. For all that those opposed to war with Iraq claim we have not had a debate on war, this article highlights why joining International ANSWER's call to march won't lead to debate. The Stalinist organizers have long made up their mind to any question possible and the answer is always that America is evil and they should be the vanguard of a revolution to topple our system. Another good report to round out the freakfest over the weekend.

Why the anti-war side isn't bothered by following the script set by the murderous thugs of ANSWER is beyond me. But in the name of "debate" they go.

Sadly, Michael Kelly notes that the debate is over and the anti-war side has effectively decided that America can never be right. And so the opposite side, whether Taliban or Saddam or whoever, by definition must be right:

The debate is over. The left has hardened itself around the core value of a furious, permanent, reactionary opposition to the devil-state America, which stands as the paramount evil of the world and the paramount threat to the world, and whose aims must be thwarted even at the cost of supporting fascists and tyrants. Those who could not stomach this have left the left -- a few publicly, as did Hitchens and Rosenbaum, and many more, I am sure, in the privacy of their consciences.

It is sad that so many have chosen sides this way. Please don't object that people have a right to protest in this country against government policies. Quite obviously, people do, even to the extent of marching shoulder to shoulder with Stalinists without fear of retribution. Yet must opposition include marching with these killers? Would they march with Nazis? Would a Klan rally that opposes sacrificing nice young Aryan boys so that Semitic Iraqis can breathe freely attract Jesse Jackson simply because they are "anti-war?" Would the press mention this little fact?

The anti-war people are free to associate with communists. Yet why pretend that the moving force behind the protests is mainstream? Why deny their pedigree?

More basically, why descend to this level of protest when we are free to dissent as Americans? For International ANSWER, the anti-war protests are a means to achieve their objective of bringing down our government. Yes, their objective is out of the reach of such a bunch of ghoulish clowns. But protesters shouldn't jump on the bandwagon just because they don't believe it will ever reach the Stalinist gulag station that ANSWER seeks. Remember, if you won't part with ANSWER, you're part of the problem.

"Task Force Ironhorse" (Posted January 21, 2003)

This article says 4th Infantry Division is heading to the Gulf. This is our newest, digitized division, with heavy armor networked into a force that should be able to react and act with speed previously unseen in armored warfare. It is a risk and a chance to test the new division. If the heavy forces of this division can't work in a networked environment, how will the next generation of light future combat systems? It might even be able to work with a task force of one of our new Stryker Brigades if that project has been accelerated enough.

Yet will we really send yet another heavy division to the Gulf? My main guess is that this is a red herring designed to be the benchmark for determining when we can go to war. If everyone waits for this premiere division to reach the Gulf, we could get tactical surprise attacking early.

Yet the division would be useful for any of our main tasks in the Gulf, from attacking out of Kuwait in a feint yet capable of transitioning to a secondary thrust north to Baghdad up the valley between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers; to spearheading the main effort to hit Baghdad from the west; to advancing out of Turkey to spearhead a Turkish advance to seize the oil fields in the north before Saddam can torch them.

Yet as useful as these tasks are, we could probably accomplish all the missions without 4th ID's unique capabilities.

Certainly an interesting development and one of many that seem to indicate a later invasion. I just don't believe them.

On to Baghdad.

"Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys" (Posted January 21, 2003)

Countdown to Invasion: 10 Days.

These are sad days indeed when the Germans take their marching orders from the French. I am sad for the Germans but have hope that they can reclaim their sense of duty. The French are hopeless. The French attitude is, but of course, annoying and hypocritical:

De Villepin, in a lengthy and at times theatrical news conference, was asked whether France would use its veto power to thwart Washington's campaign for quick action. He said France "will shoulder its responsibilities, faithful to the principles it has."

France would never "associate ourselves with military intervention that is not supported by the international community," de Villepin added. "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution."

France, as chair of the Security Council this month, had organized today's meeting on terrorism in part to draw attention to its contention that the Iraq situation has detracted from the more pressing need to confront international terrorism.

It's bad enough that these Vichy Swine did the Nazi's dirty work after losing in 1940, but now we have the sight of the French surrendering to a dictator even before the mere formality of defeat in order to carry out Saddam's wishes.

Yet I have hope. De Villepin said the French will be faithful to the principles it has. Given their Ivory Coast adventure, intervention only under the approving gaze of the UN clearly isn't one of them. Of the few principles that I can identify, sucking up to the winner will outweigh the other major principle of opposing the United States. They'll come on board when they see we are going.

And if not? Well, those Parisian idiots who hosted the Ayatollah Khomeini through many years of exile prior to bringing thugreocracy and the American hostage crisis to Iran twenty-five years ago can just host a bunch of Iraqi Baathist thugs too. They'll be right at home.

On to Baghdad.

"Carter in Venezuela" (Posted January 20, 2003)

Carter is now in Venezuela to bring his skills to this problem. I assume this means that Chavez will, in eight years, still be in power and will have one or two nuclear weapons.

"Bizarro United Nations" (Posted January 20, 2003)

Wow. In the alternate universe of the United Nations, Blix and ElBaradei succeeded in getting Iraq to agree to stop interfering in specific matters-if one believes Iraq. The Iraqis say they too will search for weapons of mass destruction that they have "forgotten" in their country-uh huh (just how many do they have that they can overlook some?). In addition, they will add more documents to their "complete" declaration, add scientist to their "full " list, encourage their scientists to talk to the UN in private, and they will pass a law banning production of weapons of mass destruction. All these are amazingly seen as "encouraging." Wow. France declares that American action against Iraq is illegal unless all the 'i's are dotted and all the 't's are crossed-yet accepts any Iraqi obstruction as somehow in the spirit of international law. And Libya gets to chair the Human Rights Commission of the UN-rigghhttt. "The Libyan candidate, diplomat and former journalist Mrs. Najat al-Hajjaji, won 33 votes in a secret ballot of the 53-country Commission, with 17 states abstaining and three voting no -- apparently including the United States." A South African envoy was dismayed that we had broken established practice and hoped that this would be the last time that we would sacrifice substance for the procedural fetishism that animates the modern United Nations.

And so how is this body not a farce?

Apparently, in Bizarro UN, all this advances international peace and human rights. Up is down. France has influence. And America is the real threat.

Screw 'em. By UN logic, we bought them dinner.

Countdown to Invasion: 11 Days.

"Heavy Armor" (Posted January 19, 2003)

Well, it looks like the other two brigades of Third Infantry Division are falling in on pre-positioned equipment. So there is enough for one more division with three brigades. Any more heavy armor must be shipped in (if it already hasn't been lifted in). Some five ships with heavy equipment just passed through Suez so it is close. And isn't some in Jordan? Also, Second Marine Brigade has a tank battalion as part of it.

"Body Count" (Posted January 19, 2003)

The issue of how many people showed up at the anti-war rally in DC shows an amazing range. From a low of 30,000 at one end of a police estimate to half a million if you buy the estimate of the Stalinists of International ANSWER who organized the rally.

Much like the estimates of civilian casualties caused inadvertently by the US in Iraq or in Afghanistan, I'm sure the 500,000 estimate is way too high. Not that even this high number outweighs the support nationwide for invasion as shown in polls and Congress and the November elections.

More to the point, who cares? A lot of people who ranged from patriotic but anti-war to anti-Bush to anti-American marched about. They feel grand. Saddam said it showed international support for defending his regime. And they have exactly zero impact on our decisions. This is not a country based on rule of mob after all. The protesters, in their inflated sense of self importance, have an annoying habit of asserting that failure to heed their silly slogans shouted with earnest voices to the beat of bongos is proof we are not a democracy. Shouting the loudest may get you on the news but it won't get the shouters anywhere this time.

Nor does the body count in the UN Security Council matter. It is unfortunate that right now, we'd have trouble getting a vote even if we want one. One reason I wanted action by the end of last year was to preserve the 15-0 vote we got on 1441. Now we are in the position of lobbying new members on the council. Of course, we haven't begun leaning on anybody. Nor do I think we will even need a vote after we present our case. Make it known privately that if we go alone with our allies, only those that fought with us will get a chance at oil contracts and arms contracts and all the civilian infrastructure contracts that will follow the war.

And we must go soon. Yes, I know, we could fight in the heat of summer if we had to but we would suffer far more casualties doing so. I've marched in those suits in the heat of a drought June in Missouri. And only for an hour or so. Just that made me sweat so much and I wasn't carrying the load our soldiers would have to carry. Nor was I even paying attention to my surroundings. I just plodded ahead in misery. I could have marched into a POW cage and never noticed it. Even if I was alert, it is difficult to see and hear in that junk. We need to go before the weather gets too hot. If we wait, we'll lose many to heat stroke and many to mines and the enemy because our troops won't be aware enough to avoid simple mistakes. We will also lose more because the pace of the attack will slow dramatically, providing the Iraqis with more time to cope. All that even if few die from actual gas. What is theoretically possible and what is wise are two different things. And given the erosion that has taken place in international support, will it get better? No. We can't buy the line that inspectors are supposed to find what the Iraqis will not disclose. We've lost that game for 12 years now and won't get any better. And if you think people won't then claim that war is best left until after the '04 elections you weren't paying attention in '02. I reluctantly supported going the UN route. Powell never worried me the way he has worried so many pro-war writers. Note that Powell has been the one saying Iraq is in material breach. He needs to deliver international support now. Having strongly argued for the UN road, he needs to carry out his end of the bargain.

The bottom line is that it would be an outrage to stand down now. On to Baghdad and soon. The Euro-weenies won't get a backbone anytime soon. And the Stalinists who organize protests over here will never be convinced that war is right-or even that America isn't the guilty party.

Go! Go! Go!

"Bianca Jagger" (Posted January 18, 2003)

Bill Schneider on CNN tonight said that Bianca was careful to note that she disapproved of Saddam's human rights record. He said this approvingly as he noted how important it is for anti-war protesters to avoid seeming like they side with the enemy. Yet Schneider ignores Bianca's immediate additional comment that she also disapproves of Presdient Bush's human rights record! When someone can look at those two leaders and judge each lacking is amazing. And Schneider's comment that conservatives opposed the Kosovo War and now the left opposes this war, so it is all the same, ignores that in 1999 nobody on the right was out their marching and trying to protect Milosovic. Nobody was claiming that our President was virtually declaring martial law to rule the world. Kosovo opposition argued against the policy, it did not demonize America or our motives. Nor did the right flock to protests organized by Nazis. That is a big difference.

Apparently, the smart money is on late February or early March as the invasion date. Sure, equipment is still flowing to the area then, but I'd load up extra equipment to make the Iraqis think we are coming later. And although it is tough to argue against that information, I keep coming back to the idea that the only way we can gain surprise when we attack is by going earlier than expected. We can't hide we are coming so we can only spoof that we are going much later than we really are. I could be wrong, but why wouldn't we seek surprise? It is such a basic planning goal that I would be astounded if we decide we are so superior that surprise is a luxury and an edge we won't deign to seek.

If we aren't going soon, we should be.

"Protests" (Posted January 18, 2003)

The protesters are out. They've brought drums. Why, I have no idea. Is it their constitutional right to protest? Of course. The very protests highlight their lie that the anti-war voice is silenced by the government. Their belief that America is the greater threat is so ridiculous that it is difficult to even take them seriously. I had meant to write something about them but it is too tiring.

I remember the protests in 1990. I was in the Army Guard and worked on campus at the University of Michigan. It was not military friendly. I was once even called a fascist when I was in uniform on campus once. Yet that side is "open minded." Anyway, one big protest was heading downtown when I was walking around so I headed into my office to call the armory and warn them. I had no idea where the protesters were going but I knew only a couple of my friends would have been there. So I told them they should lock the doors. A student who worked in the office was actually all mad that I had called! What on earth did she think they were going to do with my warning? Lock and load? The idea that I should have done nothing was ridiculous. The attitude just annoyed me. I was trying to make sure no incident took place. She thought I should have ignored my duties as a soldier.

I guess the main difference between myself and the protesters is that they believe that if only I "educated" myself, I'd see things their way. I, by contrast, think their side is incapable of learning. Even when the invasion is over and the torture chambers and weapons of mass destruction are laid bare, they will never think they were in error.

"Protests" (Posted January 17, 2003)

I do look forward to seeing the news of the protests being held tomorrow. My only real gripe is that they claim that their protests are the only way to ensure that democracy holds in America. They somehow think that if the government decides not to invade despite hearing the stale chants of Stalinist-organized mobs, then "democracy" does not exist. They are wrong. Our elected representatives in Congress and our President have decided on war. That is democracy. Sadly, they are so taken with their own self-proclaimed "superior" morality that they equate their opinion with democracy.

I hope it is cold and I hope it rains. They are free to protest. I am free to ignore their idiocy. I am free to think them idiots and thoroughly wrong.

"The Afghanistan Option" (Posted January 17, 2003)

Hmm. The past debate that went on between advocates of the "Afghanistan option'" in Iraq of relying on special forces backed by air power to stiffen local forces and advocates of heavy armor in a conventional invasion has long been over. We will go in heavy. This is good, but given that the large bureaucracy that is the Pentagon is in charge (and I say this not as an insult but as a fact of life), I think we will see the Afghanistan option in Iraq even as we drive on Baghdad with an overwhelming American conventional force.

But the Afghanistan option will be not against Saddam's regime. It will be directed against the al Qaeda-related thugs holed up in northern Iraq. The Kurds will provide the local infantry for the quantity and American and allied special forces will provide the Kurds with an air force. Tenth Mountain and probably British 16th Air Mobile Brigade will provide the backbone of high quality and highly mobile infantry to go after the bastards. The Kurds will be retaking their land and won't have to go up against heavy armor and artillery so their full cooperation is likely. Yet, retaking their land is their objective. Killing the Islamists once they break will be up to the American and allied special forces and leg infantry. That too is a lesson of the Afghanistan option.

And talk about linking Iraq and 9-11. Who will be able to complain about our invasion 'distracting' us from finishing off al Qaeda when we will be going after these thugs in a major way? Indeed, without a major invasion to take down the Saddam regime, sending in anybody after the Islamists would be too risky. Were I Saddam, I'd (in addition to shaving the cheesy mustache) risk a whole corps of Republican Guards and even more regulars to launch a thrust into Kurdish areas to hit American light infantry. We'd need heavy air power to hold them off and would suffer heavy casualties even in a successful defense. We might have to pull them out giving Saddam's regime a crucial victory over us.

No, such an effort against terrorism requires an invasion too. The main effort goes into western Iraq in order to drive on Baghdad from the west with XVIII Airborne Corps (2 heavy divisions with 6 brigades plus 101st Airborne and perhaps a Marine brigade). A feint to draw Iraq's attention by simulating the main effort with a fake V Corps will advance north out of Kuwait (1 heavy division with 2 brigades as the core plus attack helicopter units). And to round out the invasion, there will be a British/Marine Corps drive into the Basra region (and then north to Baghdad with the rump V Corps to support the main effort to reach Baghdad and take down Saddam's regime). The Northern Front will be separate from the southern and western thrusts with a different objective: al Qaeda-related terrorists.

The conventional generals and the snake eaters each get to do what they do best in ways that both support American interests.

"A Churchill He Is Not" (Posted January 17, 2003)

When Churchill faced Nazi invasion, he rallied his people with a stirring cry that the British "shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender…" Contrast that with this: "Baghdad, its people and leadership, is determined to force the Mongols of our age to commit suicide at its gates." Saddam said, referring to the Mongol armies who sacked Baghdad in 1258.

Churchill vowed to fight the Germans at every turn, even after they have lost their cities, to try to stop the Germans. Saddam promises that they don't stand a chance of even delaying us until we get to the "walls" of Baghdad. That will fire up the troops, eh?

I wonder if even the Special Republican Guard will hold up. They are often called the most elite but they are really the most loyal with the best uniforms. That is not the same as elite. As the regime body guard, the trait prized most is loyalty not combat effectiveness. I suspect that large groups of them will be surrendering to French camera crews. Sure its fun shooting and torturing civilians, but you just try slapping electrodes onto an Abrams. They'll get a DU round for their troubles and no apologies for it.

On to Baghdad.

"Turkish Front" (Posted January 17, 2003)

Turkey will let us send 15,000 ground troops to southeastern Turkey for the northern front. This should be enough for the 2-brigade 10th Mountain Division plus special forces and logistics troops that I figured would constitute our force up there. Since such a force is too small and light to march down the highway toward Tikrit, I expect it will go after the al Qaeda remnants that have carved out a pocket of territory in Kurdish lands near Iran.

Of course, if we actually send heavy forces to Turkey by rail, I guess that changes this analysis. And if we really are going after the northern oil fields to keep the Iraqis from torching them, maybe we do need to drive on Mosul. I'd rather have the Turks do it though. They do have incentive to keep those oil fields working so that they can earn revenue from the pipeline that goes through their country.

But how much of their oil export capacity do we really need to secure and put on line in the first couple years? We will secure the southern fields and we can hardly just start pumping out everything like crazy even if we secured all of the fields. So I just don't know whether the concerns for the northern fields are just a feint. After all, one small and light division is hardly an invasion force even with control of the air.

"Will the UN Approve Our Invasion?" (Posted January 17, 2003)

This article doubts they will. The better question is whether we want them to. It may be better for us to go without UN approval after having gone the extra mile to get the UN Security Council's stamp of approval. Showing up the UN as a useless dictator protection racket that will not be allowed to stand in our way when we decide we must deal with a growing and gathering danger to our security might be the exact thing we need.

After the Blix report on the 27th, President Bush should lay out our case—again—for war with Iraq. This would be a good time to reveal our smoking gun. He should tell the inspectors that we can no longer guarantee their safety and tell them they have 48 hours to leave Iraq. We should introduce a resolution stating that Iraq is in violation of UNSCR 1441 the next day and tell the UNSC that they have until Thursday to vote on it—one way or the other. But let them know that we will invade regardless. Their "approval" is a courtesy that we will grant the Security Council if it wants to preserve the fiction that the body can rein us in when we must defend ourselves. If they will not face the threat of the likes of Saddam, they are useless to world peace and are an actual hindrance to that lofty goal. Then, after consulting with Blair on the 31st and signing off on the last details, we invade the evening (our time) on January 31.

We will get rid of a threat, a tyrant, a rallying point for Islamofascists, and the last credibility of the UN that seeks to tie us up in procedural knots.

I'm not sure which would give me more satisfaction. But as they say, business before pleasure, so let's focus on Saddam for now. An irrelevant UN can wait.

And we should remember those who stood with us and those who walked away in our hour of need. The tears that so many shed for our loss after 9-11 have long dried and have been replaced by shrill insults. I had no use for their tears then, and will shed no tears for them when they find out they will pay a price for their actions.

"North Korea Surrender?" (Posted January 17, 2003)

Countdown to Invasion (of Iraq): 14 Days.

Ok, Krauthammer has a point that our retreat on dealing with North Korea's threats is disturbing; but I won't get upset until after Iraq is firmly occupied. I would not want to try a muscular response to North Korea's provocations if my only real military option was to nuke North Korea. I will wait to judge and hope that the current soft words are a delaying action until the Iraq War is over. This should be comforting actually, since it means we will deal with Iraq soon. You can't stall forever and I do think we are stalling on North Korea.

I can hardly wait for the human shields to head to Pyongyang.

"Developments" (Posted January 16, 2003)

First, a quick correction. The Daisy ad suggests nuclear war should Pakistan's nuclear arsenal fall to Islamists outraged at our liberation of Iraq. (they don't say Pakistan but I assume they aren't talking about France) Not to worry, we'll tear apart Saddam so fast that the Islamists won't have a chance to even pull out their Burt and Osama posters.

Well, some 122mm rocket empty rocket warheads were found in Iraq. They are not supposed to have any of these chemical weapon delivery systems. What a completely unexpected bonus from the inspectors.

On this, I could kick myself for not having drawn the correct conclusion from Sheryl Crow's foreign affairs expertise. At first I thought she was a typical star providing a predictable opinion. But get this from James Taranto:

Reuters reports that songstress Sheryl Crow donned a T-shirt saying "War is not the answer" at last night's American Music Awards. "I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow," Sheryl crowed. "I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies."

OK, that "karmic retribution" stuff is pretty daffy, and war often is the answer (much of Europe may be run by weenies, but that sure beats Nazis). Still, Crow has a point about the desirability of not having enemies. So let's kill them,

Sheryl, if it makes you happy, we'll kill them all just as soon as we can.

Oh, and one more on containing North Korea. Remember that unlike the Cold War when we had to deal with communists and their sympathizers in allied governments, in labor unions, and on campuses who supported the Soviets or were amenable to their propaganda, we will not have to face that against North Korea. There are no 'Kimunists' in significant numbers outside of San Fransisco. We will have a very narrow front on which to fight.

Also, on the television news tonight, it was reported that the Saudis are trying to convince Iraqi generals to rise up against Saddam in a coup. While that outcome seems rather unlikely, I'd say the Saudis just threw in their lot with us. Sure, they are trying to undermine us by derailing the invasion, but if we turned around and went home do the Saudis think that Saddam would forget their offer? No, in effect, the Saudis really need us to knock Saddam off. If not, Saddam would exact his revenge on the Saudis. Bravo to whoever in the State Department or CIA who prodded the Saudis into this scheme.

"Encouraging, Really" (Posted January 16, 2003)

It is encouraging really that the crowd that opposes war against Saddam's machinery of death believes it could lead to nuclear war. MoveOn.org, which apparently began as an organization to lobby against the impeachment of President Clinton, has moved on to another job that requires one to hold one's nose and suppress the gag reflex: they are standing with Saddam Hussein. They are reviving the old "Daisy" ad to make their point. I guess they think Saddam currently has nuclear weapons, which is actually more than the pro-war crowd thinks. But fear not, my trembling darlings, the President shall ignore your worries and nail the bastard before he gets the bomb.

"Speed Bumps" (Posted January 16, 2003)

Countdown to Invasion: 15 Days.

Lest anyone think we aren't serious about invading Iraq soon, check out the statements by Rumsfeld and Myers at this press conference. Note that we will not let a dying UN stop us; note the refusal to play by Saddam's rules (and France's and Sheryl Crow's rules that say we must find what he has hidden); note that acceptance that the anti-war crowd cannot be convinced that war is just and necessary; note the quoting of the President that we will not be stalled; note that he says the choice for war has essentially been made by Saddam; note the dismissal of any bluffing; and note the proper placing of blame for harm to any of the so-called 'human shields' lies with the Iraqis, showing that they are no shields at all. But read for yourself:

Rumsfeld: Good afternoon. After United Nations (U.N.) inspectors briefed the Security Council last week, a number of the observers seemed to seize on the inspectors' statement that they found "no smoking gun" as yet. Conversely, if the inspectors had found new evidence, the argument might then have been that inspections were in fact working and, therefore, they should be given more time to work. I guess for any who are unalterably opposed to military action, no matter what Iraq may do, there will be some sort of an argument.

Another way to look at it is this; that the fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of Iraq's WMD program could be evidence in and of itself of Iraq's non-cooperation. We do know that Iraq has designed its programs in a way that they can proceed in an environment of inspections, and that they are skilled at denial and deception.

The president has repeatedly made clear -- and it bears repeating -- that the burden of proof is not on the United States, it's not on the United Nations or the international community to prove that Iraq has these weapons. The burden of proof is on the Iraqi regime to prove that it is disarming, and to show the inspectors where the weapons are.

As the president said, "The inspectors do not have the duty or the ability to uncover weapons hidden in a vast country. The responsibility of inspectors can only be to confirm the evidence of voluntary and total disarmament by a cooperative country. It is Saddam Hussein who has the responsibility to provide that evidence, as directed and in full." Unquote.

Thus far, he has been unwilling to do so. We continue to hope that the regime will change course and that Iraq will disarm peacefully and voluntarily. No one wants war. The choice between war and peace will not be made in Washington or, indeed, in New York; it will be made in Baghdad. And the decision is facing the Iraqi regime.

This is a test for them, to be sure, but it is also a test for the U.N.. The credibility of that institution is important. Iraq has defied some 16 U.N. resolutions without cost or consequence. The Security Council unanimously approved a new resolution, which required that Iraq, quote, "provide a currently accurate, full and complete declaration," unquote, of its WMD programs, which asserted that any false statement or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and which declared that this was Iraq's final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations, unquote. That is what the resolution said.

When the U.N, makes a statement like that, it puts its credibility on the line. To understand what's at stake, it's worth recalling the history of the U.N.'s predecessor, the League of Nations. The league collapsed because member states were not willing to back up their declarations with consequences. When the league failed to act after the invasion of Abyssinia, it was discredited. And the lesson of that experience was summed up by Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King, who declared at that time, quote: "Collective bluffing cannot bring about collective security," unquote. The lesson is as true today as it was at the start -- as it was back in the 20th century. The question is the -- whether or not the world has learned that lesson.

General Myers?

Myers: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And good afternoon.

I'd like to begin by speaking briefly of Iraq's recruitment of human shields and the International Law of Armed Conflict.

As many of you know from news reports in Reuters and AFP, the London Observer, and in many other newspapers around the world, Iraq announced in late December that it will recruit and receive volunteers from Arab and Western countries to serve as human shields who would be deployed to protect sensitive sites. This is a deliberate recruitment of innocent civilians for the purpose of putting them in harm's way should a conflict occur. The last time Iraq used people as human shields was in December of 1998, when Iraq failed to comply with U.N. arms experts and coalition forces began Operation Desert Fox. A year earlier, the Iraqi encouraged hundreds of Iraqi families to put themselves at risk as voluntary human shields at palaces and strategic facilities in Iraq when Iraq refused to allow U.N. inspectors access to government sites.

I'd like to note that it is illegal under the international law of armed conflict to use non-combatants as a means of shielding potential targets. And Iraq action to do so would not only violate this law, but also be considered a war crime in any conflict. Therefore, if death or serious injury to a non-combatant resulted from these efforts, the individuals responsible for deploying any innocent civilians as human shields would be guilty of grave breaches of the Geneva Convention.

We are going to invade, let there be no doubt.

On to Baghdad.

“Let Them Rant” (Posted January 16, 2003)

First of all, let me say that it is dismaying to hear some say that the Axis of Evil speech provoked North Korea to go nuclear yet so many say that North Korea’s repeated threats to start World War III or turn Seoul into a sea of fire are just their quirky way of saying “let’s talk.”

There, I feel better.

So what if Pyongyang threatens us? What are they going to do, nuke us?

I really think we can contain them and squeeze them until they collapse. Look at the collection of states of NATO that we had to herd during the Cold War. There combined military might was never enough to halt a conventional invasion by the Soviets. Even with our aid, only during the 1980s did our conventional capabilities provide the edge to probably defeat them. And the Soviets had industrial capacity and thousands of nuclear weapons to back their threats. What do we face on the Korean peninsula? A broken state whose military has one shot at attacking a far stronger South Korea. We must work with one state that matters to organize the defense of the south—South Korea itself. And our threat may gain a handful of missiles with nukes. Plus we will have effective missile defenses in time. There are also powerful states in the region with every reason to oppose North Korean nukes regardless of what they think of us. As an added bonus, we don't even need to keep our troops as hostages to our intervention by keeping them on the front line facing the North Koreans since South Korea can hold the line. Will North Korea really launch a war to protest our sanctions?

We’ve faced worse threats. Are we not the nation that went “toe to toe with the Russkies” (with thanks to Slim Pickens) and broke them? We easily forget those days but North Korea really is a blast from the past, its Stalinist rhetoric unchanged from the days when they learned at the feet of Stalin himself. We can do it again against this pipsqueak tyrant.

Contain him. Squeeze him. And make sure he knows we will obliterate every damn bunker he has so that he knows he cannot burrow deep enough to escape nuclear retribution.

His thug Regime will collapse if we push it.

“What If Saddam Does Flee?” (Posted January 16, 2003)

So what if Saddam does go into exile as this article says? Do we pack up our troops, declare victory, and go home?

Of course not. We’d still need to occupy the country. Our troops would need to go in in force just as if we were invading, with combat aircraft ranging across the country in a show of power prior to settling in for a good round of trials and purges and ripping out the roots of Saddam’s WMD programs.

And if he goes, we should still kill him or try him. Should we really be in the business of protecting war criminals? What kind of message does this send to future dictators who would kill their people, invade their neighbors, plot to assassinate our past president, incite terror, plot terror, and pursue nuclear and biological weapons to protect his horrible regime? It tells them, you can do all this and if America decides it has had enough, you call “time” and head for easy retirement with the loot of your reign of terror.

That is not exactly the kind of message I want to send. Send the message that if you do these things, you will die in prison or be executed.

“Timing” (Posted January 15, 2003)

Well now, the Blix report on the 27th, State of the Union on the 28th, and a Bush-Blair meeting at Camp David on the 31st. Could the attack be that night? It has seemed to make sense to me that the attack begin Friday evening after office buildings are emptied at the end of the work week and children are home away from vulnerable schools should wackos decide in the heat of the moment (and before the devastating effectiveness of our war machine is evident) to strike a blow for Saddam by hitting civilians here. And you know, February 1 is a new moon. We own the night. I’ve been hesitant to pick a date for war since my botched December 27 prediction, but what the heck,it’s been a couple weeks since I admitted failure—January 31 or February 1 at the latest, we invade. Finally.

Oh, and globalsecurity.org says a brigade of 82nd Airborne received orders to head out that way. Iraq or relieve units in Afghanistan?

“North Korean Diplomacy (Posted January 15, 2003)

Orson Scott Card (Ender’s Game fame and other good stuff) has a nice piece on North Korea. Andrewsullivan.com highlighted it.

“Ah, That’s Why” (Posted January 15, 2003)

The reason it is unlikely that 1st Infantry will deploy despite reports that it will go to war is that it is otherwise occupied in Kosovo. In addition to the fact that I think we will have plenty of armor to smash any Iraqi attempt to stop us in the open, it makes sense to keep 1st Infantry unengaged so the balance of the division in Europe may act as a relief force for the Balkans. Plus, with one brigade’s units just having left duty there and one just arriving, the unit is way too peacekeeping oriented to fight a war. Peacekeeping is akin to police work and unlike combat where you toss a grenade into a room before entering just in case, police knock on the door so you can put your robe on first. Big difference. It will take a while for the exiting unit to become a fully capable combat unit again. It makes sense that 1st Infantry’s role in this month’s command post exercise with 1st Armored, 1st Cavalry, and 101st Airborne, is meant to simulate 3rd Infantry which is deploying to Kuwait. Of course, since the division was reportedly alerted, component units of the division not needed for peacekeeping such as artillery, or air defense, or signal, or other support units could be sent to bolster other divisions.

"War Imminent" (Posted January 14, 2003)

I know my credibility is poor since I thought the war would have started by the end of last year, but I think war is waiting only for the troops and once they are ready, we will go. I know that lots of pundits worry that the President is losing his nerve or that the UN or our allies are successfully derailing us, but I don't think so. Oh, sure, their hand wringing gets me to worry a bit, but I believe we will invade. No question. Troops are seriously moving and I don't think we would be deploying troops if we were not ready to invade. It is too tough to ramp up the readiness for war like this only to back down or go into a holding pattern and wait. Nor do I think the president would dangle troops out as VX bait sitting in desert kabals tempting the Iraqis to launch a chemical first strike to disrupt our plans.

The real clincher is what President Bush said today, "I'm sick and tired of games and deception. I haven't seen any evidence that he has disarmed. Time is running out on Saddam Hussein. He must disarm." I don't think he said that lightly. I think war is coming far sooner than March. And talk of the fall is just crazy. We may go this month or very early in February, but it will be far earlier than the press is reporting. But that is fine, I'd rather we gain tactical surprise by fooling the Iraqis than have explicit reassurances that we will invade.

On to Baghdad.

“Hogwash” (Posted January 14, 2003)

Carpenter’s piece is more of the ‘America caused the problem’ hogwash that seems to crop up whenever we face a foreign problem. He says our military record since the end of the Cold War caused the proliferation that we now desperately seek to curtail. He lists American attacks as if they were bolts from the blue, with no justification at all. He acts like this is even new behavior in the real world. Is the fact that a great power will wage war in its interests new? In a sense it is, we have mostly attacked for reasons pure and not for empire. Sure, taking down Noriega and ejecting Saddam from Kuwait were done purely in the interests of national security, but we did at least fight despicable creatures. His naming of “invading and occupying Afghanistan” in his list of invasions that ‘caused’ proliferation is particularly absurd given the 3,000 dead we suffered on September 11. Would bin Laden and his Taliban hosts really have retained nukes for deterrence if they had gotten them? Really now.

It is all such nonsense. As if states that are now on the verge of gaining, or have acquired, nuclear weapons, began to do so since the fall of the Berlin Wall. States that consider us the enemy have long tried to obtain sufficient military power to deter us. Witness Iran’s purchase of Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missiles in the 1980s to deter us from sending our Navy into the Gulf. Witness the pursuit of chemical weapons that many countries now have. Indeed, nuclear proliferation has long been a concern of ours. What has changed is that nuclear weapons are now old technology and hence are within reach of even the poorest country. Thug regimes want insurance that they can continue their thuggery without interference from the only country that can stop them.. Nuclear arms are merely the latest means and are not the result of our post-Cold War policies.

And what about the track record of states that have not gone nuclear: namely Japan and Germany? Or the states that have abandoned nuclear programs such as Brazil and Argentina? Or the states that have abandoned nuclear weapons such as South Africa (which developed them in secrecy), Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Byelorussia (which inherited them from the Soviet Union)? Are these states more at risk from America now that they have no nukes?

Indeed, if the track record of the Soviet Union collapsing trying to maintain military might superior to America’s hasn’t convinced poverty-stricken states that nukes are the road to economic and moral collapse, I doubt our wars against threats and sickos are particularly significant in prompting a decision to go nuclear. Unless Carpenter thinks we should launch a preventative nuclear strike on North Korea and Iran as a lesson to nuclear aspirants that the nuclear road will result in their destruction rather than our deterrence.

We are so big, that even a foreign policy on the level of Iceland would cause thug regimes to worry about our capabilities. We are too big to ignore regardless of what we do. If Islamist hostility in the face of our repeated efforts to protect and aid Moslems can gain traction in the world, what on earth could we do to lessen the fears of thug regimes that their days are numbered? The key to regime survival is not being a bloodthirsty dictatorship. You’d think that would be the lesson.

Carpenter may not want America to do anything militarily more strenuous than patrol the Mexican and Canadian borders, but he shouldn’t blame us for what states would do anyway in pursuit of his isolationist policy.

“Carter” (Posted January 14, 2003)

Carter speaks. I shudder. Pyongyang gains hope.

Why the architect of the sham ’94 agreement thinks he has anything useful to offer is beyond me. Listen to his description of North Korea:

As now, the isolated and economically troubled nation was focused on resolving basic differences with the United States. Deeply suspicious and perhaps paranoid, the North Koreans were demanding assurances against a nuclear attack and opportunities for normal bilateral relations.

You’d think he was talking about a troubled youth who keeps getting in trouble with the local sheriff. He seems to feel sorry for the most brutal and bankrupt regime on earth (sorry Saddam, you try, but oil revenue at least keeps your people from starving despite your claims; and your minority Sunnis have not crushed all spirit of resistance as effectively as the pudgy freak from Pyongyang—and how does he gain weight in that starving land?) and thinks we need to give reassurances to them!! How can we have normal relations with such an awful regime?

Tyrants have no better friend in the West than former President Carter. And that’s saying a lot. Lordy, Lord, won’t he go to Baghdad as a human shield or something? Shoot, the Iraqis tried to kill the senior President Bush; instead of killing an American president, maybe they’ll really appreciate having one of their own to dress up and haul around to chat with activists and Hollywood types. Heck, Carter won’t even know he left home.

“Not Shields After All” (Posted January 14, 2003)

I guess those brave souls who claim they will be human shields won’t be shielding anything after all. According to the article, “Although most said they plan to leave by this weekend, others claiming to represent several hundred protesters from Europe, the United States and neighboring Arab nations said they intend to arrive later in the month to engage in a far riskier form of activism: They plan to act as human shields, hunkering down in hospitals, water-treatment plants and other civilian installations to dissuade U.S. commanders from targeting those facilities.”

How risky is it to hunker down in a hospital? Against American forces which, almost uniquely in the world, are both capable of and eager to avoid striking civilian targets? Park their sorry butts on the roof of an Iraqi intelligence post or something and then I’ll be impressed. With their stupidity but impressed nonetheless.

We’ll see how eager they are to camp out by a mosque when an Iraqi air defense unit snuggles up close to the civilian target.

And again, I am amazed that these people would choose Saddam Hussein’s bankrupt regime as uniquely suited to pledging their lives to defend. Are there no more worthy governments or people in the world? Apparently not, according to one: ‘"Not in Hanoi or Panama or Baghdad last time, or anywhere else for that matter, has there been this many people coming to a city that probably will be bombed to bits saying, 'Don't do it. It doesn't make sense. There are other ways to resolve this disagreement,' " said James Jennings, the president of Conscience International, an anti-war group based in Atlanta.’

The Iraqi Baathistss are delighted, of course. And behind closed doors, I’m sure they are amazed at the idiots who would do their dirty work.

Some of the activists are at least honest when they avoid that whole ‘we hate Saddam too, but…’ routine when they proudly proclaim their intention to hinder the American-led war: “Several activists said that even if they fail to sway the White House, they hope their efforts will complicate the Pentagon's war plans and lead European nations to sit out the action, spoiling the Bush administration's hope for an international coalition against Hussein.

“Peace” activists, indeed. What can I say about the foreigners there? They aren’t Americans. But my fellow citizens? They disgust me. They would hinder our war, knowing that they could cause additional American soldiers to die. And for what? Saddam’s brutal regime. That is what inspires their ‘activism.’

On to Baghdad.

“Protesters” (Posted January 13, 2003)

Our domestic Stalinists of ANSWER are revving up another weekend of protests. Many will answer the call, including one quoted Texas attorney. So the attorney doesn’t care who organizes the rally? Nazis, or League of Women Voters, or the American Legion, it just doesn’t matter to him. He values the Stalinist ANSWER’s ability to organize. Well, that’s what Stalinist do, being the vanguard of the proletariat and all. They organize the useful dunderheads and lead them to storm the parliament. While the communists of ANSWER will never shoot their way to power—I don’t mean to imply that—that is their goal, albeit a hopelessly unrealistic one. But that ability to hope against reality is consistent with their economic, political, and social ideas.

This ability to ignore who you side with is consistent with that mentality that leads to human shields in the service of Saddam Hussein. I don’t care how much I disapproved of the actions of our government on a particular subject, I could not march, and chant, and hoist a sign condemning our government in the service of some organization that advocates the violent overthrow of our democratic government.

And it is funny, too. These protesters demonize our government yet freely speak to reporters and mass in our capital, unafraid of being whisked away, tortured for the names of their friends, and executed in the public square as a warning to others. American bombers will not wreak vengeance on their home towns as pay back. They will not lose their jobs as the government seeks to silence them. They live in a free country where they can vent their anger even on the eve of war without fear of reprisal.

How they fail to see how this reality of tolerance and freedom contradicts their fevered image of an American dictatorship is beyond me.

On to Baghdad. The protesters have my scorn and disgust for their display of Saddam solidarity.

“Not Shields” (Posted January 13, 2003)

So American and other westerners will stand as human shields to ward off our invasion? When we send off our best young men and women to risk their lives defending us by bringing down that tyrant Saddam, how could anybody even pause when pulling the trigger to save one of them? I say, use the presence of human shields as the prime indicator that something that Saddam wants to preserve is right there. This might be the low tech alternative to GPS-guided bombs if Saddam’s minions have acquired effective jammers. (Hey, ‘Gullible Peace Shield’ works just fine)

This is war, not theater; and we are going to fight this war even if a bunch of stagnant corners of the gene pool decide to cause our bombs to detonate a nano-second earlier than they would otherwise. Saddam must marvel that such idiots are available to him. The funny thing is, even if we did go out of our way to avoid killing these people, Saddam will probably blow some up just so Tariq Aziz can get all weepy on CNN during a eulogy to these ‘martyrs.’

But really, what an opportunity. Ours is a free country so we must tolerate them when they spout off from our campuses; but once they travel to the enemy country and side with the enemy, they are fair game. I mean, I certainly wouldn’t deliberately target them if it would interfere with the mission, but I hope nobody loses any sleep at night worrying that any of them might die.

Mission for Tenth Mountain” (Posted January 13, 2003)

I dare say we have a real mission for the 10th Mountain Division and the British Air Assault Brigade in northern Iraq. With a very strong assist from special forces who will be embedded within Kurdish units, of course. Not just a protective force for the Kurds or a political blanket to smother Kurdish independence as the price for Turkish assistance, the force has a real role and real point of leverage for gaining the cooperation of the Kurds—destroying Ansar al Islam, the 600+ Islamists who have set up their own little corner of Taliban heaven on earth near the Iranian border inside Kurdish Iraq. I’ve heard some say we should bomb them even now, but that makes little sense. We can’t destroy them from the air, and if we disperse them now by trying, they can adapt and still harm us when we invade. If they stay happy, contented, and concentrated until we invade Iraq, we can kill and disrupt them to provide maximum effect just when we need the Islamists suppressed and on the run the most.

They are most certainly a target in the war on terror and a potential terror threat to our invasion force in the Iraq campaign and occupation. I am confident they have a big target on their base.

“Truman” (Posted January 13, 2003)

Sounds like the Mediterranean front is going to center around Truman. This carrier is digitized and will be great for going after elusive targets trying to lob chemicals from western Iraq. The carrier can receive digital images from recon aircraft and not rely on the Fotomat film delivery method. With overflight rights across Israel and Jordan, this will work just fine. And with Army and Marine equipment already stored in Jordan, the carrier probably won’t need to carry out this role for very long. I expect at least a couple brigades to roll out of Jordan to provide some heavier ground forces that link up with airborne and airmobile forces that seize airfields in western Iraq.

On to Baghdad.

"Ground Forces-Again" (Posted January 12, 2003)

Interestingly enough, this report says that ships carrying heavy armor have not yet started sailing to the Gulf. I could have sworn ships had started rolling already but I guess not (I think I should look back at my archives). It looks like non-brigade equipment will sail from Texas for 1st Cavalry Division.

Anyway, this article says that possibly only part of 1st Infantry will go to war. With only two brigades in Germany (like 1st Armored) does this mean only a brigade of the division will go or perhaps only certain combat support elements? 1st Armored, 1st Infantry, and 1st Cavalry will be in a computer exercise ("Victory Scrimmage") with 101st Airborne. Perhaps 1st Infantry is representing 3rd Infantry Division in the exercise, leaving the divisional flag in Germany? (Where it could command a rescue force into the Balkans if necessary to guard against some unpleasant event there directed against our troops) This is clearly the main effort. 10th Mountain and the Marines and British aren't part of the exercise because they probably have separate mission: our mountain division in the north with a brigade of British in support; and the bulk of the Marines and remainder of British in the south. Maybe one Marine brigade-the Atlantic one sailing-will be attached to 1st Armored to give it three maneuver brigades.

This actually fits in well with the heavy armor stockpiled out there. We have five brigades worth of heavy armor out there plus a brigade of 3rd Infantry. Add the rest of 3rd Infantry's equipment going by sea and you can fly in the personnel of 1st Cavalry (3 brigades) and 1st Armored (2 brigades in Germany) relatively easily. We will ship in the divisional equipment for 1st Cav and I believe we have a division base in the Gulf already that could be used for 1st Armored. The article says we will have enough to invade by late January to mid February. Will we really leave our stuff out there for weeks tempting Saddam to strike first with chemicals? Our allies may balk (or pretend to) but we are going to war soon. Talk of second thoughts is ridiculous. We've pulled the trigger and the round is heading down range. Even if Saddam slipped in the bathtub in the next three weeks, we'd go in. There is no way we cannot occupy Iraq to insure we rip out the WMD infrastructure and the Baathist thug regime.

Also note that the article says that the invasion will start with only 500 aircraft. The quantum leap in our capabilities over 1991 is tremendous. Now, for example, the Navy can take a really significant role because now they have precision abilities. We and our allies had nearly 2,000 combat aircraft committed to Desert Storm. With a bigger theater and more ambitious objectives (but with a weaker opponent), we will nonetheless have superior capability in 2003. Fairly amazing, actually.

Let's move.

"What?!" (Posted January 11, 2003)

Please tell me that this is all to throw the Iraqis off. Our allies are asking us to put off the war a little longer because they think that eleven years of inconclusive inspections have not given them enough time to figure out if they work? When the only time inspectors found something was just before they were about to certify Iraq as WMD-free and a defector said, hey, look in the basement at this chicken farm? Given the track record of our allies, they will always think the inspectors will need more time.

Oh, they have the nerve. Our troops will die if the Iraqis get more time to prepare but what do they care? If our government actually listens to these pleas, for shame on the administration. I never thought we needed UN approval to gain allied help, but I did not oppose going the UN route as long as it did not delay our invasion. I'm starting to worry this is happening. Mostly, I think we are letting these possibilities float around to hide the fact that we have decided on war and already have a D-Day set (although what that is I don't know-hopefully this month), it is possible that the reports are accurate. I sure hope the Europeans are simply pretending to be 'very European' to help us deceive the Iraqis.

Also, it is inconceivable to me that we do not have our war plans set. Hogwash. We've had well over a year to plan this and troops are on the move.

"Interesting" (Posted January 11, 2003)

One thing I've kind of vaguely noticed on Globalsecurity.org is that it lists no separate Army artillery brigades as either in the Gulf or alerted to go. It lists separate air defense, military police, and other brigades and smaller units, but no artillery.

Given the refusal to commit artillery to the Taliban campaign (I think there is one battery in the whole country now in support of our troops) and the cancellation of Crusader, I wonder if this is a deliberate decision to rely on air power and just use the organic divisional artillery. In Desert Storm, we had lots of separate artillery brigades to support the offensive. This might be part of the trade offs we are making to get a force to the theater fast. But artillery is accurate, capable of firing in all weather, and it sure isn't going to suffer from GPS jamming (if the Iraqis can do that, of course). I understand and accept that we need lighter artillery, but we still need it.

"Ground Force Summary" (Posted January 10, 2003)

Let's see, so far, the following major ground units have been mentioned as earmarked for war against Iraq:

That's a total of 23 brigades or nearly eight divisions. U.S. Rangers and special forces from our allies to aid our special forces will go in too. Separate Marine Expeditionary Units (battalions) have been mentioned too although I do not know if they are separate from the division and brigade mentioned.

To me, this is overkill. I'm all in favor of smashing our enemy, but we can do so with less than this level of force. Especially when we have to look over our shoulder at North Korea I believe this list is designed to allow us to go in earlier than observers think. We will have enough long before all these units can be deployed and so will gain tactical surprise.

This also doesn't mention Air Force or Navy units. I don't focus on them not because I don't think that they are important but because they will be supreme at sea and in the air. They will be in the theater in sufficient numbers to crush opposition and support the war without any trouble.

My evolving scenario, based on what I have read about deployments and what I would do, would essentially have the air and ground offensive start simultaneously. Conventional ground units might even precede the air offensive to get a jump on the offensive:

Now the only question is how fast we can airlift what we need into the theater or adjoining areas. I really hope we are going before the Blix report is made. What more do we reasonably need to do to satisfy our so-called allies? I say we've done enough and it is about time to take care of business.

On to Baghdad.

“The Supremacy of Hope Over Experience” (Posted January 10, 2003)

I suppose it says a lot about us that we and others are shocked that North Korea has announced that it is withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Said the article:

In a statement released by North Korea's official news agency this afternoon, the insular communist country claimed "freedom from the binding force of the safeguards accord with the International Atomic Energy Agency," the U.N. watchdog that monitors the 1970 treaty, which has more than 180 countries as signatories.

Well, duh.

What was the first clue that North Korea was out of the NPT? Their one or two nukes that they already have? Or was it the clear pursuit of nuclear material that even the North Korean apologists can’t ignore? (though they can blame it on the United States, saying we ‘provoked’ them into going nuclear) What exactly was “binding” about their paper adherence to the NPT?

Honestly, only the most densely hopeful could be actually shocked at this announcement. What has changed by this development? Both before and after, the North Koreans have made it clear that they want nukes. For those who cover their eyes with treaties, soothed by the words and able to ignore the actions of North Korea, this statement is shocking. But that says more about them than the North Koreans. The shocked westerners (and I include the South Koreans and Japanese here—they are part of the West) want to be fooled. Life is easier then. Then they can hurl insults at America, blaming us for disturbing their afternoon tea.

Clear the decks. Let’s take down Saddam already. Before more international surprises distract us or derail us from driving a stake through the heart of that madman.

“Price of Delay” (Posted January 10, 2003)

Is this a price we will pay for delaying war? Does Iraq have jammers that the Russians sold them that will throw off our GPS-guided bombs (JDAMs)? This is an example of the reason I have harped on going sooner rather than later. We did need some time to prepare but every day past mid-December has been a gift to the Iraqis. Giving your enemy time to prepare just means that they will prepare a surprise for us. Even if we do something to counter the Iraqi jammers, the Iraqis may come up with something else.

Obviously, we can defeat Iraq without JDAMs. We did it in 1991, after all. And JDAMs are not suited to mobile battles anyway against moving targets—the enemy probably won’t cooperate by keeping their armor stationary long enough to input a grid coordinate. Still, for fixed targets we will have problems if those jammers exist and work. Maybe we are lucky and some Russians scammed the Iraqis with Vietnamese FM radios labeled “GPS Jammer-O-Matic.”

Seriously, if we delay and invade and our enemy failed to come up with anything to thwart us, my worries will have been for nothing. But we aren’t there yet. And until we are, I will worry every day that the Iraqis are using this time to their advantage—and our disadvantage.

On to Baghdad already.

“The Greatest Danger” (Posted January 9, 2003)

The repeated question, ‘Is Iraq or North Korea the greater danger?’ is misleading. The clear implication of those who ask the question is that if North Korea represents a greater threat to America right now, we should drop everything and take care of the North Korea problem. Oddly enough, these people were quick to cry out that we should not deal with Iraq before we mopped up Afghanistan. Since they now say, after the fact of course, that Afghanistan was a cakewalk and no real military challenge, they must have thought Iraq a stronger threat. Yet they did not advocate Baghdad First. Was it a mistake to take on the Taliban first? Was it an error to commit forces to the Philippines where they helped rip up some minor Taliban wannabees?

Anyway, what of the argument? First of all, this assumes we can take care of the greater problem. And since many who sing this tune oppose war with Iraq, will they really support a far more difficult, bloody, and dangerous war simply because North Korea has nukes now? Good Lord, the number of North and South Korean civilians who would die in a North Korea First strategy would dwarf the deaths of innocents in the Gulf! And if they don’t support war after North Korea says, no thank you, we’ll just keep our nukes, will they then say ‘Ok, we looked at it and it is too tough, we can go back to dealing with Iraq?’ (And hope Saddam didn’t use the months or years it takes the NK Firsters to recant in order to develop lots of nasty weapons to lob at us?)

And if we turn our attention to North Korea, what happens if the Chinese decide to lob some missiles at Taiwan and take a crack at invasion or, oh say, ram one of our unarmed reconnaissance planes over international waters? Do we then drop North Korea and turn to face the greater threat?

Or maybe we should be focused on making sure Pakistan is a nice stable, suburban democracy lest Islamists fling some A-bombs at us or their Indian neighbors? Or, what if Saddam explodes a nuclear device in his western desert while we focus on North Korea? Do we then get to consider Saddam the greater threat? Do we count the nukes and daily switch around who is number one and who is two?

Clearly—or at least it should be clear—we cannot scamper about the planet reacting to every threat, dropping a lesser one to focus on the new greater threat. Greater danger is not static or easily compartmentalized. Will the threat as a whole be diminished or increased by dealing with Iraq, Iran, or North Korea first? Clearly, if we take down one nuclear state while letting another go nuclear in that time frame, it is inferior to taking out the nuclear aspirant first and then turning to the existing nuclear state. We go from dealing with two nuclear-armed thugs to ‘only’ one. Indeed, if we are lucky, taking down nuclear aspirant Iraq will inspire a revolution in Iran, thus taking out another nuclear aspirant. Facing the last—nuclear-armed—member of the Axis of Evil will be far easier then. By whittling down the number of threats by taking out the relatively easiest first, we reduce the chance that we will be distracted or stymied in dealing with the next threat. Fewer psychos around with or without nukes is better.

Indeed, if we discovered that Bahrain had a nuke and Shia fanatics take over, it might be wise to drop Rangers and the Marines on that island ASAP, delaying a strike on Iraq for a couple weeks, in order to quickly reduce the population of mad mullahs with nukes.

Another problem with going after the strongest threat of the moment is that the price we pay to defeat that threat could exhaust us and prevent us from taking on other threats. If we invade North Korea, assuming we overcome all the obstacles to actually carrying one out, will we contemplate our 10,000 dead and say, ‘Ok boys, on to Iraq now! I’m just getting my second wind!’ Heck no, we’ll be grateful to have won at all and will lick our wounds and ponder how we got into that mess. I guarantee the NK Firsters won’t proclaim the wisdom of their strategy and demand action on the second-tier threat immediately—even if Iraq doesn’t get nukes in the meantime. It is a very real possibility that lesser threats will grow too strong while we go after the strongest.

No, the greatest threat is failing to take out who we can when the price is cheapest. Time is not on our side, and if we delay too much, we will simply have the choice of which nuclear armed despot we wish to confront first. Or we’ll learn to live in a hideous world where a nuclear-armed thug can do what he wishes short of nuking an American city, knowing that we are helpless to stop him at a price we are willing to pay.

On to Baghdad.

“Further Material Breach” (Posted January 9, 2003)

Come on, work it baby. Blix won’t say the Iraqis are in material breach but he has been forced to describe the less than cooperative posture of the Iraqis. With Blix providing that information, we are free to draw our own conclusions about Iraqi compliance with UNSCR 1441. "Anything less is not cooperation and will constitute further material breach," [U.S. Ambassador John ] Negroponte said, using diplomatic language that could pave the way for war.

Pave. Pave. Pave. And quickly now, on to Baghdad.

“No Smoking Gun” (Posted January 9, 2003)

Blix says he found nothing. Big surprise, there. But please boys and girls in the government, bring down the hammer. Haul out the evidence that shows what a farce UN inspections are, and that invasion is the only answer to Iraq’s odious regime.

I’ve been confident that we are pressing toward war and that we will not be turned back. But the delays give me cause to have a kernel of worry grow that we might be winging it.

Say it ain’t so.

“Turkish Front?” (Posted January 9, 2003)

We are asking Turkey to base 80,000 troops in Turkey? When the Turkish public opposes strongly letting us use their country as a launching pad? When most of the conscript regular Iraqi army is up there? When all of our heavy armor is stockpiled south of Iraq?

If we invade from Turkey, we will need to destroy many Iraqi regular divisions on the way to Baghdad. We will need to ship armor to Turkey. We will need a logistics system to rival what we are building in the south. We will have to deploy significant forces in Kuwait anyway to keep Saddam from lunging south in a desperation move to grab something of value—or at least destroy it.

We only need to invade northern Iraq with 10th Mountain and maybe the British air mobile brigade that is going to be sent to the war. That plus Turkish troops to occupy northern Iraq and keep the regular Iraqi army busy. Hey, maybe 10th Mountain (and special forces, of course) will be used against the al Qaeda remnants regrouping with Iranian help in Kurdish areas.

Our main effort will come from an arc ranging from Jordan in the west to Kuwait in the east, with the mission of bypassing the regular Iraqi army and hitting Baghdad from the west. It all depends on our diplomacy for where the bulk of the heavy armor will strike from: mostly Jordan or mostly Kuwait, with some from Saudi Arabia perhaps. We can avoid the Iraqi army so that we can risk accepting their defection and also avoid the burden of taking them prisoner in the advance on Baghdad. Otherwise we’d have to waste time and resources and lives destroying them just in case.

Plus, after turning down the American request for hosting 80,000 troops, the Turkish government will look good for paring it down to a single truncated division with a British addition and a relatively small amount of air power above what we already deploy there.

Finally, the ‘dispute’ keeps the Iraqis focused on the north and helps to freeze their troops in place.

On to Baghdad. Soon please. I start to worry about events and outside influences that could derail the invasion.

“The Second Material Breach” (Posted January 8, 2003)

The Europeans have claimed that they needed to see the Iraqis fail to cooperate with the UN inspectors before they would consider Iraq in material breach of the UN Security Council’s will and therefore justify a war. It look like Blix will be able to report that on Thursday. Gaps in the Iraqi December declaration have not been closed despite UN requests for clarifying information. Iraq has not provided it. I imagine that is why even the French have warned their troops to prepare for war (and I’m not talking about bleaching and ironing their hankies, here).

A declaration of material breach that even the French and Russians will accept is near.

On to Baghdad.

“Rolling Over” (Posted January 8, 2003)

Senator Lieberman thinks the Bush administration is making the North Korean standoff worse because of its harsh actions:

Right now North Korea is rapidly accelerating its production of plutonium to fuel nuclear weapons, creating a direct threat to our nearly 40,000 troops there as well as destabilizing the entire Pacific Rim. In short, the Bush administration has bullied its way to the opposite result from what it presumably wanted -- a non-nuclear North Korea.

Indeed, one of our most vital security interests is to keep North Korea from developing into a nuclear power. This was the impetus behind the Agreed Framework, negotiated in 1994 by the Clinton administration in close partnership with our Asian allies, which closed off the most likely and dangerous road to a nuclear North Korea: the development of weapons-grade plutonium. And in fact, the North Koreans kept that central part of the 1994 agreement. The framework, in turn, opened the doors to improved relations between the Koreas and even between the North and the United States.

He asks, “Did anyone in the administration really believe that Kim's reaction to that act [withholding oil shipments in retaliation for North Korea’s violation of past agreements] would be to roll over?”

Apparently, the senator believes we should roll over at the first threat from the deranged Pillsbury Dough Boy. And why shouldn’t Senator Lieberman think that? Or North Korea for that matter? Every time the North has rattled nuclear or chemical sabers, the United States has handed out the goodies. And the senator should keep in mind that North Korea actually does have nuclear weapons now (or maybe just one nuclear weapon). That, and the ability to surge produce weapons once he gets the raw materials. Such is the glorious result of our past wiser policy of negotiating and giving.

Do we have a tougher option? Don’t know. We certainly don’t have a military option that avoids the likelihood of tremendous civilian casualties and the loss of many American soldiers. But then, we didn’t even before Pyongyang got nukes.

But certainly, it is foolish to blame the current standoff on the current administration. Many presidents and Congresses from both parties have let us get to this point. We may disagree on tactics, but let’s really absorb Lieberman’s caveat that the crisis is North Korea’s fault instead of reciting it rote prior to moving on and blaming the current administration for refusing to look away from what has been going on for decades.

Oh, and a cheap shot here—isn’t the good senator “inconsistent” for supporting harsh action against Iraq but not North Korea? I believe that is the standard charge from the anti-Iraq war side when noting we do not threaten to invade North Korea [No, he is not being inconsistent, for those who have not read this all along. I consider that charge to be ridiculous]

"Clarification" (Posted January 7, 2003)

Ok, part of the administration strategy is to seek UN sanctions on North Korea. I had a moment of forgetfulness there. Personally, I wouldn't go that route. Keep it quiet and avoid rubbing North Korea's face in official sanctions. We can do the same thing quietly with our own diplomacy. Shoot, how valuable are UN sanctions anyway?

North Korea Threatens War” (Posted January 7, 2003)

So North Korea says sanctions means war? Hmm, and I thought they only wanted nukes to deter us from attacking? But if they attack now, they have maybe one or two nukes. Would they use them? One on South Korea and one on Japan for spite? And then we would have all the excuse we need to flatten the north’s military and nuclear infrastructure with nuclear retaliation?

Sounds to me like they are bluffing. And if not, better they should attack prematurely than when they have a lot more nukes.

And it does amaze me that they think have a right to have us give them stuff. And then do what they wanted to anyway. But I wasn’t aware that we were going to blockade them. I thought we were just going to stop helping them and pressure others to stop helping them. That’s a tad different from an act of war. Let them buy all the food and oil they want. We just shouldn’t be giving it away. Maybe that will cut into their military readiness.

Former Defense Secretary Cohen says correctly that this is a crisis regardless of what the administration says. He also believes that since war is not wise and withdrawal is not wise (I concur in both judgments), at some point concessions will be necessary. It depends on what he means by concessions. If he means pay the blackmail—heck no. If he means that we should be able to give something in return for something substantial and of higher value to us, then sure. But let’s remember who we are dealing with here. North Korea’s track record is awful.

Yet David Ignatius says that the president made a mistake calling North Korea evil because we cannot possibly negotiate with evil. He says, “It's time to choose. On Korea, Bush can't be a moralist and a pragmatist at the same time.”

As I like to say when I read something like this, huh?

North Korea is evil. From nukes, to hacking our unarmed soldiers to death with axes in the DMZ, to blowing up South Korean government officials, to kidnapping civilians, to digging tunnels under the DMZ, to wearing 1950s era bad guy uniforms, these thugs qualify as evil. Yet some would have us maintain some false sort of consistency and argue we cannot deem them evil while negotiating?

Ignatius says, “Bush may still talk about North Korean leader Kim Jong Il as someone he "loathes," who "starves his people." But meanwhile, Powell continues to insist that "nobody's going to attack North Korea" and that a diplomatic solution will be found. No wonder people are confused.”

Again, huh? Who is confused? This is nonsense. Why on earth is having the moral clarity to know that a country’s rulers are evil preclude one from negotiating? Why is it considered an impossibility to refrain from invading someone because we loathe their regime? It is a false choice that we must declare them evil and destroy them or accept them as a normal country and negotiate. Did not President Reagan famously call the Soviet Union an “evil empire?” (For which he was mercilessly attacked at the time) And did not that same president negotiate with that evil state’s rulers? And did we not in the end win? I’d rather talk to the North Koreans than unleash a nuclear war. Even one in which we don’t get hit. But there is a long way to go before talking becomes paying blackmail. I think we are better armed to avoid that slippery slope if we have no delusions about who we are dealing with—one hopes that Powell will never be seen dancing with those dictators as Albright did. Drag out the talks, make the squeezing so gradual that at no point will any incremental increase seem like a reason to Pyongyang for war. (I’ve read that if you put a frog in water and raise the temperature fast, it will jump out; but if you do it slowly, it will boil to death, unaware of the peril.)

Kristoff complains that the administration is making the situation worse. He may have a point (although part of making it worse is dragging out our invasion of Iraq, a point that Kristoff would surely disagree), but our harsher talk and refusal to pay while they play did not start this crisis of North Korean noncompliance. They have been at it for years—we just called them on it last year. But remember who we will talk to and what they are. Kristoff provides one chilling fact that just reeks of “1984” when he relates:

While in North Korea years ago, I barged into as many private homes as possible, and every single one had The Speaker.

The Speaker is like a radio, but permanently on and without a choice of stations. It's the electronic umbilical cord from the Great Leader, waking citizens up each morning and putting them to bed each evening with a mix of heroic songs, denunciations of "the American war-maniacs" and tributes to Kim Jong Il, "the greatest of great men produced by heaven."

(Oops. Now North Koreans are going to wake up to hear The Speaker declare that even the imperialist reactionary New York Times has hailed the Great Leader as, quote, the greatest of great men, unquote.)

The Speaker is a reminder that North Korea is like no other country in the world today. It was eerie to interview groups of North Koreans and then hear them praise Kim Jong Il in unison, like synchronized robots[.]

Oh, and one more painful description of that gulag with a UN seat.

And by all means, finish off Iraq already. We really need to clear the decks to deal with North Korea. It is a crisis.

“Invasion and Victory” (Posted January 6, 2003)

“The U.S. military is assembling a ground force for a possible invasion of Iraq that could exceed 100,000 troops and include three to four heavy Army divisions, an airborne division, a Marine division and an assortment of Special Operations forces, according to defense officials and analysts.” The Army has plans for a heavy invasion force, apparently (which is a relief). Toss in a British armored division and we have more than enough firepower to crush conventional Iraqi opposition in the open; and possibly fight off an Iranian intervention.

My relief that no “light” options are still on the table is balanced by the time it will take to get this force to the Gulf in order to invade. This size of a force seems to point to an invasion date well into February if not later. If Iraq is the only target, two heavy divisions are enough to destroy the Iraqi armor that might resist us and drive to Baghdad. If we are waiting for five American and British heavy divisions, we are either being overly cautious regarding Iraq or fearful of Iranian intervention.

Or, we are seeking tactical surprise by lining up a huge invasion force in a pipeline all the way back to Germany and then America, so that everybody will be waiting for the last troops shipping from America to arrive.

We could gain tactical surprise by attacking with what is at the front of the pipeline. What is at the back would be ready to roll either to the Gulf in case the war widens; or to South Korea much faster than we could otherwise accomplish if they sat in their bases.

North Korea is already trying to exploit our war with Iraq and it is possible that Iran will see a lesson in that and figure they can smother domestic unrest with a stab at the “Great Satan.”

It seems to me that we need more infantry rather than more armor if we are to fight our way into Baghdad. Maybe one or two of the heavy divisions cited will never go; but infantry units that nobody is mentioning will be airlifted in instead. Shoot, maybe everything is as the papers are reporting. Stranger things have happened, I suppose.

Iraq’s main hope is to prevent our war machine from rolling over them. Once we start, we won’t stop until we take Baghdad. We give our enemies too much time. Time to increase our casualties and time to distract us.

Assuming victory, it is good that we plan for an occupation of Iraq to purge it of Saddam’s thugs, uproot the WMD programs, and get the country on its feet. I don’t see what choice we have. Hopefully, we can draw down to minimal conventional forces in a relatively brief period of time.

One thought on invasion: Could reports of increased Saudi cooperation mean our heavy armor will make the main effort out of northern Saudi Arabia? A couple roads heading north out of Saudi Arabia toward Baghdad could be used for two heavy divisions. Equipment in Kuwait could be moved fairly quickly to jump off points there. A minor thrust out of Jordan could be all that is needed from that direction to open up that road as a supply line. The 101st might airlift from Germany right into captured airfields in the west seized either by the ground invasion, paratroopers, or the lead brigade of the 101st if it can make a long helicopter assault into western Iraq from Kuwait. The northern thrust with the Turks and 10th Mountain would not need to change, nor would the feint by a phantom V Corps out of Kuwait heading north via Nasiriyah or the Marine/British capture of Basra. I’m just speculating, but months ago some unnamed military official said our invasion plan was imaginative; and everything public seems to point to a relatively plain sledgehammer launched from Kuwait. That just can’t be right. We used a left hook to go around the Iraqis in 1991 to go right for the Republican Guards that were the Iraqi center of gravity. Now it makes more sense for an even wider left hook to bypass the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers valley to strike directly at Baghdad out of the west.

On to Baghdad, hopefully before the Blix report.

"Japan Nukes" (Posted January 5, 2003)

Just one thing to say to those who think we should encourage Japan to get nukes to counter North Korea, and apparently to teach the Chinese a lesson for not restraining Pyongyang: are you nuts? If the Japanese start deploying nukes, the Chinese will end their restrained attitude toward nukes. They so far have appeared to follow a minimum deterrence posture and have not tried to mimic the Soviet attitude of more is always better. If the Japanese get nukes, the Chinese will start building them, and if they go to overtime on deploying these, I wouldn't count on the Chinese building only short-range nukes capable of reaching Japan. A Japanese-Chinese arms race would endanger us. If the North Koreans get nukes, we will need robust anti-missiles big time to keep the Japanese from arming and to keep a chain reaction from starting. If the Japanese ever think that they can't shoot down a North Korean nuclear strike, they will worry whether we can reliably defend them. If the North Koreans get nukes that can reach us and overwhelm our defenses, Japan will question our commitment to lose Seattle and San Fransisco for them. Indeed, with such a possibility facing us, it might be necessary to consider pre-emptive strikes using our nukes to disarm North Korea and destroy their armed forces. We'd be sacrificing Seoul but letting this spiral into an arms race in Asia will not be in our interest.

Wily North Koreans, indeed. They may yet spark a war with their paranoid view of the world. We've been happy enough to let them starve in their Stalinist hell hole for fifty years without destroying them yet they think they are always outwitting us and stopping our imminent invasion. Nukes will finally stop us for good they think.

Nuclear-armed dumbasses who can't feed their people. Wonderful. Squeezing the North to try to force their collapse before they can build dozens of nuclear missiles may be risky, but it may be the least risky choice we have.

"Inspections" (Posted January 5, 2003)

On CNN tonight, people talking about Iraq seem to think the inspections will be going on for a while since we will not have anything conclusive from the January 27 Blix report.

How is this possible? The remainder of 3rd Infantry Division is deploying to the Gulf and will we really park troops in the desert for a significant period daring Iraq to unleash chemicals in a pre-emptive strike? And what would the inspectors possibly find in the weeks or months to follow? We simply cannot wait for the inspectors to find something--something that those opposed to invasion will argue is only a 'technical' violation and not worth war. Perhaps the fact that we are not sharing intelligence with the inspectors indicates we have what we want as far as evidence goes. If we do, letting the vaunted inspectors, upon whom anti-war types have invested so much, report nothing right before we haul out the damning evidence, will be all we need. Under these circumstances, waiting for the Blix report makes sense.

The alternative is that we are just going to wait until the inpsectors find something. That is unacceptable and an invitation to inaction and failure. The bin Laden wannabees will be jubilant and we will have thrown away the gains we made in Afghanistan.

I cannot believe that we will wait, yet it seemed unlikely to me that we would have waited until 2003. Even now, I don't know why we wait for the Blix report. If we are waiting for it, it better be a set up and trigger for war. I am not so much worried about the course of the war as I am concerned that outside events could intervene and make it dangerous to commit five of our thirteen active divisions (Army and Marines) to the Gulf with supporting air and naval power.

On to Baghdad. Time is not on our side.

"Invasion When?" (Posted January 3, 2002)

So now the news on MSNBC says we have 65,000 troops in the Gulf. That number has gone up dramatically even though all the deployment announcements seem to be for units yet to go.

Could the February invasion date be right?

Globalsecurity.org says 1st Cavalry (a heavy division) and 101st Airborne (Airmobile) will join 1st Armored Division and 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized) in Germany for maneuvers in mid-January. If they do exercise they would need some time to recover and be deployed to the Gulf. This makes it seem like a February date is more likely. Yet maybe it will only be a command post exercise that keeps the troops ready to roll. After all, I think it has been a long time since we've been able to do large scale exercises in Germany. I doubt four divisions will be tearing up the German countryside. The airlift would 'only' have to lift the equipment of the 101st since the heavy armor is either in the Gulf or on ships on the way.

Could we really be counting on a clean Blix report on January 27? I heard one report at the end of December that the "real" inspections going on in Iraq are being done by Special Forces personnel. Could we be waiting to contrast the UN report with what we find? As much as I hate delaying the invasion, such a move would jam the protests of the UN-fetishists back down their throats.

Mostly I have questions now with no real answers to reply to what the news stories imply and say-invasion in February.

But I still don't believe it. I'd still go sooner even though my guess on December 27 was wrong.

Getting the troops of four divisions (some ten brigades) gathered in Germany, where the Germans have already agreed that we can use our bases there, places them in quick shuttle range of the Gulf. They could go to Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, depending on where the equipment is. It's supposed to be in Kuwait for the most part or on the way, so Turkey seems out except for the 101st. McCaffrey (who commanded 24th Infantry (now 3rd Infantry) in 1991) thinks the 101st will go to Turkey in order to protect the Kurds; but it makes no sense to me to task one of our most mobile divisions (and one very useful for river crossings) for an essentially defensive task. It must be in the main effort.

It just worries me that we are waiting. Stop giving our enemies time to counter our invasion.

Let's get on to Baghdad already!

“The Street” (Posted January 3, 2003)

According to this article, Pakistanis are outraged we will invade Iraq: “In the largest rallies, around 2,000 people gathered in the central city of Multan and in Quetta, close to the Afghan border, where opposition to U.S. action in Afghanistan is strongest.”

That is rage? My word, our local Stalinists can turn out a bigger crowd. San Francisco would be embarrassed by a turnout that low.

Yeah, I remember they were pretty outraged a year ago about Afghanistan. That Burt (of Burt and Ernie fame) image overlooking bin Laden in their posters made the protesters look foolish. Now they just look sad.

And of course, our enemies make our life easier: “Hafiz Saeed, leader of the outlawed Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group, earlier told worshippers attending Friday prayers in Multan that Muslims were being victimised. "Muslims if you do not open your eyes now, you will be overwhelmed by Jews, Christians and Indians," Saeed, freed from house arrest late last year, said.”

Yep, the Islamist fanatics are so pure that Jews, Christians, and Indians are enemies. And by implication, those Moslems who do not agree could fit in the enemy category too. So how did Buddhists get a pass?

“Japanese Nukes” (Posted January 3, 2003)

A nice article summarizing why China really should help us prevent North Korea from getting nukes. And as I earlier noted, the funny thing is, North Korea has a conventional deterrence against us. The idea of nuclear deterrence is that you can inflict unacceptable damage against your foe to stop them from attacking. Shoot, in Somalia, 18 dead was enough for the American government. The point is the damage, not the means of death. North Korea can already turn Seoul into a ‘sea of fire,’ as they so quaintly and often put it, with conventional artillery. They could withhold their chemical weapons for a really special occasion. North Korea is pushing us for a capability that does not enhance their security. This failure to appreciate reality is what makes dealing with them so dangerous. Lord knows what they will interpret as a threat that requires them to attack first.

Let’s finish off Iraq, already.

Afghanistan” (Posted January 3, 2003)

You know, I count it a success simply to have Taliban-ruled Afghanistan out of the terrorism business and the parasitic al Qaeda severely hurt, knocked off balance, and denied a secure home to plot against us. This article argues that we really have accomplished much, though it warns we must stick to it. It is a good counter to those still claiming that Afghanistan is a disaster and that only massively expanding the UN troop presence in the countryside can save the country. I never was convinced of that since it would be putting sheep up against wolves. Had it come to a fight, the UN troops would have lost to the warlords.

We won a great victory just overthrowing the Taliban and al Qaeda regime—one that many said was impossible. I grant we haven’t created a new Switzerland, but we’ve done a whole lot more since we routed the Taliban and bin Laden’s thugs.

There is certainly no cause for hand wringing at this point.

"First Sergeant" (Posted January 2, 2003)

Not long after the learned doctor of religion with a minor in sucking up to dictators spoke on MSNBC, the show went to a First Sergeant with 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) which is about to deploy to the Gulf. He stood with his wife of thirteen years. They have a six-year old and 3-year old twins. When the reporter asked him how he felt about going to the Gulf, he replied his troops were ready and well trained. No, the reporter asked, how do you feel personally, are you concerned about leaving your family. He replied that he had a 'little' concern about that.

A little.

Soldier that he is, he is setting an example for his troops. The mission comes first and though leaving his family to go fight Iraq-for the second time-was undoubtedly difficult, he stated publicly that it was only a little bit of a concern for him. He didn't get all weepy and give his younger troops the excuse to do likewise. He won't let them cry for their little ones at home while forgetting to identify and track the Iraqi T-72 in a swirling night fight that means he and his fellow tankers or the Iraqi crew dies.

He is a soldier. And his job is to keep his troops focused on fighting and winning, and living and getting home. Soldiers 100% on their jobs will fight and live. Some in our Oprah-fied, lip-biting culture will say he is cold.

Bullshit. The first sergeant's focus on the mission is true compassion because it represents concern for his soldiers and not a false warm and fuzzy that puts the attention on his own emotions. He is not, in short, being selfish. He was being a leader.

Way to go, Top. Rip their hearts out and come home safely. And kudos to his wife who put on a happy, confident face and did her job too.

And thank you. Both of you.

"Idiots" (Posted January 2, 2003)

On MSNBC, some learned idiot from the Council of Churches or some such organization, a Dr. Bob Edgars, is in Iraq urging 'peace.' Amazingly enough, he didn't speak to anybody who didn't want his wife and children to be disemboweled--I mean, who didn't want America to stand down. Yes, yes, Saddam is bad he said, but Heavens, we certainly shouldn't do anything about it.

How anybody could take moral or religious teachings from such a dense man of the cloth is beyond me.

In thinking about the coming war, I think my Red Team analysis of what Iraq would try to do still holds. I think basing the main effort out of Jordan will thwart Iraq's chemical weapons plans nicely.

“Korea/Iraq” (Posted January 2, 2003)

Safire has a good column regarding the faux concern for dealing with North Korea first. He also points out the interests of South Korea, China, and Russia in preventing North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. The Chinese, especially, should be the most concerned since they already have nuclear-armed India, Russia, and America as potential foes. Do they want to add Japan to that list? Or South Korea? (and what about Pakistan? Though China counts Islamabad as an ally, could Islamists there gain sudden concern for their repressed brethren in western China?) America is in the best position to ride out a nuclear build-up in Northeast Asia so nobody should be pinning sole responsibility for resolving this crisis on America.

I disagree that pulling our troops out completely would be a good idea. But when things die down sufficiently, we should pull 2nd Infantry Division south of Seoul. It makes no sense to have the best division on the peninsula exposed to the initial North Korean assault where it must basically hold and die to prevent Seoul from falling. Let the South Koreans bear that sacrifice and let our division play a mobile reserve role where our technology and mobility will be maximized.

The way critics of war on Iraq have seized on North Korea and its purported “gains” in the last few weeks astounds me. What has North Korea gained? They’ve spouted off without being nuked. This will be a long game unless the shrill North Korea-firsters succeed in calling our strategy a failure already and get their way on new and improved negotiations with the same old liars. Given the balance of power out there, even with no Iraq war pending, we’d be hard pressed to press home a military solution at an acceptable cost. But once Iraq is occupied, we will have more freedom of action and certainly more ability to back our diplomacy versus North Korea.

And by all means, let’s stop dawdling on Iraq. Even Tariq Aziz, displaying his stunning grasp of world affairs that makes him so valuable to Saddam, predicted America will invade. I am stopping my countdown to invasion post since it is abundantly clear that a period of obvious troop movement must precede an invasion. I had originally believed that but when my deadline approached, I speculated that maybe we had enough there to start the war just as the airlift started. I doubt we will need to reach the 250,000 number mentioned as necessary, but it shouldn’t take too long to airlift in the rest of the five-plus Army and Marine divisions and supporting arms and move in the Air Force and Navy assets needed to invade. Yet with Blix ready to go to Baghdad in mid-January, I am distressed to think we will actually wait for that January 27 Blix report that everyone says will be the trigger for war. That report will most likely say that Iraq is cooperating and that the inspections should continue—until Saddam kicks them out after weaponizing a WMD sufficiently scary to deter an American invasion. Annan has, after all, said that Iraq is cooperating so there is no reason for war prior to the Blix report. How likely is Annan to read that report and cry out, “No more! I will suffer the lies no longer!” I’m hoping that the Blix deadline is a ruse and that we will hit Iraq before then to at least try to get tactical surprise.

On to Baghdad. Squeeze Pyongyang. Disembowel Michael Bolton. (Hey, as long as I’m wishing…)

"Second War" (Posted January 1, 2003)

Countdown to Invasion: 5 days late.

For most of the 1990s and until 9/11, critics of the US military condemned our force structure as too large for the post-Cold War world. They thought it silly that anybody could possibly worry about the unlikely chance that we would face war with Iraq and North Korea simultaneously.

Indeed.

As we forcefully prepare to end the threat of Iraq's Saddam Hussein and free the Iraqi people, we must adopt a "European" management strategy for North Korea's latest threats. While this article notes that Rumsfeld says we could fight two wars, Cordesman says we would have problems. Which is true? The article misleads. Neither said anything contradictory. They merely emphasized two points of what is obviously true: fighting more than one major theater war (essentially a Desert Storm equivalent conflict) would entail risks because we do not have enough of our critical "low density" assets needed to maximize American technological prowess. That is why our "two-war" strategy is not a two-war strategy. To be fair, the military never claimed it had that capability-reporting on it has, however, called it a two war strategy. The military has always said it has the capability of fighting two wars "nearly simultaneously." The last QDR restated the capability as having the ability to decisively win in one war (marching on the enemy capital and imposing victory) while holding the enemy short of their objectives in the second war. Winning the second war must wait for the assets from the first war critical to victory to be moved to the second war.

But critics who decry our acquiescence to North Korea's nukes mistake a short term accommodation with our ultimate objective. I dare say that North Korea's short term "gains" in openly defying America will backfire. (And I'm not even clear how they have gained as some claim) Once our military is freed of the Iraq scenario, our tough diplomacy will have more force behind it. Our temporary "European" phase will end. I'm amazed critics are willing to call this tougher policy a failure after the several months since we called Pyongyang on their violations of the 1994 Agreed Framework, yet are all too happy to keep talking with North Korea despite the long history of failure on this track. Go figure.

We must destroy the Iraqi regime in January 2003 and clear the decks for addressing our other problems-including North Korea.

In the long run, we must expand our military. Our active/reserve structure is still based on the notion that there is a strong distinction between an extensive peace and short periods of war requiring large but infrequent mobilization. If we are to be engaged in a long-term low level war with occasional major theater wars, we must have more of our war assets in the active component.

Now that will be an interesting debate.

We have many problems. But for now, on to Baghdad.

Oh, and happy new year!

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1