THE DIGNIFIED RANT
FOREIGN AFFAIRS JANUARY 2003 ARCHIVES
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
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
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
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
"Averting War?"
(Posted
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
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
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
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
Not this time. We intend to
go to
"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
Oh no, it is simplistic to
think that
It will not be our fault if
terrorists strike Europeans after we invade
The President laid out—again—the
case for war against
And in the meantime, the war
against al Qaeda will continue and cleaning up
On to
"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
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
Yes, I know they frequently threaten
us, but the times are dangerous.
"
It is sad that people in
"War?" (Posted
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
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
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
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
And the British amphibious
group is off of
On to
"GPS
Problems?" (Posted
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
"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
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
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
Powell,
responded nicely, too, when the British head of Amnesty International, Irene
Khan, was applauded when she questioned whether the
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
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
"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
Mark Steyn
had a
great column on the protesters, but I think he missed something thinking
that Rumsfeld went wobbly when he said
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
"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
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.
"Northern Front"
(Posted
Countdown to Invasion: 8
Days.
So this article
talks about the Turkish front with a heavy division from
In the face of the military
analysts who say a major thrust comes out of
I've gone over all the
reasons for a major attack from
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
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
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
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
So I guess, despite his
advanced state of vexocity, Mer
must think old
"Not as Reassuring as
They Might Think" (Posted
Countdown to Invasion: 9
Days.
So the two European states
that attempted to conquer
"Why They Hate Us"
(Posted
The collective wisdom of the
anti-war folks and their actor allies is that
Wait for it!
Oh, this
is good. While
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
If
"Well This Would Explain
a
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
Ritter and the
French both may fear what will come to light after the fall of Saddam's regime.
"Debate Closed"
(Posted
A nice
story about the anti-war movement's
organizers. For all that those
opposed to war with
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
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"
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
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,
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
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
On to
"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
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
And talk about linking
No, such an effort against
terrorism requires an invasion too. The main effort goes into western
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
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
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
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
"Turkish Front"
(Posted
Of course, if we actually
send heavy forces to
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
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
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.
"
Countdown to Invasion (of
Ok, Krauthammer has a
point that our retreat on dealing with
I can hardly wait for the
human shields to head to
"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
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
Countdown to Invasion: 15
Days.
Lest anyone think we aren't
serious about invading
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
Another
way to look at it is this; that the fact that the inspectors have not yet come
up with new evidence of
The
president has repeatedly made clear -- and it bears repeating -- that the
burden of proof is not on the
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
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.
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
General
Myers?
Myers:
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And good afternoon.
I'd
like to begin by speaking briefly of
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
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
We are going to invade, let
there be no doubt.
On to
“Let Them Rant” (Posted
First of all, let me say that
it is dismaying to hear some say that the Axis of Evil speech provoked
There, I feel better.
So what if
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
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
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
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
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
Well
now, the Blix report on the 27th,
State of the
Oh, and globalsecurity.org
says a brigade of 82nd Airborne received orders to head out that
way.
“North Korean Diplomacy
(Posted
Orson Scott Card (Ender’s
Game fame and other good stuff) has a nice piece on
“Ah, That’s
Why” (Posted
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
"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
Carpenter’s piece
is more of the ‘
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
And what about the track
record of states that have not gone nuclear: namely
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
We are so big, that even a
foreign policy on the level of
Carpenter may not want
“Carter” (Posted
Carter speaks.
I shudder.
Why the architect of the sham
’94 agreement thinks he has anything useful to offer is beyond me. Listen to
his description of
As
now, the isolated and economically troubled nation was focused on resolving
basic differences with the
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
“Not Shields After All”
(Posted
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
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
“Protesters” (Posted
Our domestic Stalinists of
ANSWER are revving up another weekend
of protests. Many will answer the call, including one quoted
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
“Not Shields” (Posted
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.
“
I dare say we have a real
mission for the 10th Mountain Division and the British Air Assault
Brigade in northern
They are most certainly a
target in the war on terror and a potential terror threat to our invasion force
in the
“Truman” (Posted
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
On to
"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
I suppose it says a lot about
us that we and others are shocked that
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
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
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
Is this a price we will pay
for delaying war? Does
Obviously, we can defeat
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
“The Greatest Danger” (Posted
The repeated question, ‘Is
Iraq or
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
And if we turn our attention
to
Or maybe we should be focused
on making sure
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
Indeed, if we discovered that
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
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
“Further Material Breach”
(Posted
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
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
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
We are asking
Turkey to base 80,000 troops in
If we invade from
We only need to invade
northern
Our main effort will come
from an arc ranging from
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
“The Second Material Breach”
(Posted
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.
A declaration of material breach that even the French and Russians will
accept is near.
On to
“Rolling Over” (Posted
Senator Lieberman thinks the
Bush administration is making the North Korean standoff worse because of its
harsh actions:
Right
now
Indeed,
one of our most vital security interests is to keep
He asks, “Did anyone in the
administration really believe that Kim's reaction to that act [withholding oil
shipments in retaliation for
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
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
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
Oh, and a cheap shot here—isn’t
the good senator “inconsistent” for supporting harsh action against
"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?
“
So
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.
Yet David Ignatius
says that the president made a mistake calling
As I like to say when I read something like this, huh?
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
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
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
While
in
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
Oh, and one more painful description of that gulag with a UN seat.
And by all means, finish off
“Invasion and Victory”
(Posted
“The
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
Or, we are seeking tactical
surprise by lining up a huge invasion force in a pipeline all the way back to
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
It seems to me that we need more
infantry rather than more armor if we are to fight our way into
Assuming victory, it is good
that we plan for an occupation
of
One thought on invasion: Could
reports of increased Saudi cooperation mean our heavy armor will make the main
effort out of northern
On to
"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
According to this
article, Pakistanis are outraged we will invade
That is rage? My word, our
local Stalinists can turn out a bigger crowd.
Yeah, I remember they were
pretty outraged a year ago about
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
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
A nice
article summarizing
why
Let’s finish off Iraq,
already.
“
You know, I count it a
success simply to have Taliban-ruled
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
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
Safire has a good column
regarding the faux concern for dealing with
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
The way critics of war on
And by all means, let’s stop
dawdling on
On to
"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!