http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/29/do2901.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_29082007
So what are we going to do about it?
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Pure gold reporting on Iraq
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/08/anatomy-of-a-tribal-revolt/
This is the single best piece I've ever read on Iraq. If you didn't know a damn thing about the Iraq situation, and just read this, you'd still know more than a lot of newspaper editors and TV news reporters. I presume that the author is a US spy/intelligence officer. Its very clear, very well reported, and full of new information. I am particularly proud that although 'The implications of the tribal revolt have been somewhat overlooked by the news media and in the public debate in Coalition capitals' they have not been overlooked by this blog. His point that 'the strongest positive implications are the possibility that the revolt might help create a self-sustaining local security architecture' is crucial. In a not-particularly-centralised future Iraq, local security guaruntees will be pivotal. If all parts of the population can live peaceably, many of the other problems that will have to be thrashed out between the tribes, religious constituencies and races become negotiable and soluble.
I predicted some weeks back that the 'insurgency' could well be over in three to six months. That is on course right now. That is not to say that all operations will cease- Iran will no doubt try to find willing Shia patsies to fight for them in Shia communities up and down Iraq, but the overall situation in Iraq will be completely transformed. Once the Sunni/AQiI are neutralised, all other combat becomes manageable and relatively easy. The signs appear to be that the Shia population are becoming disenchanted with armed militias, as the Sunni have been for probably at least a year now. Once the militias become more trouble than they are worth to the populace they are extremely vulnerable, and can be picked off at leisure by special forces task groups.
All in all, the positive signs are getting harder and harder to ignore, and large parts of the 'we've lost, lets just admit it and come home' chorus have fallen silent.
This is the single best piece I've ever read on Iraq. If you didn't know a damn thing about the Iraq situation, and just read this, you'd still know more than a lot of newspaper editors and TV news reporters. I presume that the author is a US spy/intelligence officer. Its very clear, very well reported, and full of new information. I am particularly proud that although 'The implications of the tribal revolt have been somewhat overlooked by the news media and in the public debate in Coalition capitals' they have not been overlooked by this blog. His point that 'the strongest positive implications are the possibility that the revolt might help create a self-sustaining local security architecture' is crucial. In a not-particularly-centralised future Iraq, local security guaruntees will be pivotal. If all parts of the population can live peaceably, many of the other problems that will have to be thrashed out between the tribes, religious constituencies and races become negotiable and soluble.
I predicted some weeks back that the 'insurgency' could well be over in three to six months. That is on course right now. That is not to say that all operations will cease- Iran will no doubt try to find willing Shia patsies to fight for them in Shia communities up and down Iraq, but the overall situation in Iraq will be completely transformed. Once the Sunni/AQiI are neutralised, all other combat becomes manageable and relatively easy. The signs appear to be that the Shia population are becoming disenchanted with armed militias, as the Sunni have been for probably at least a year now. Once the militias become more trouble than they are worth to the populace they are extremely vulnerable, and can be picked off at leisure by special forces task groups.
All in all, the positive signs are getting harder and harder to ignore, and large parts of the 'we've lost, lets just admit it and come home' chorus have fallen silent.
Mahdi army details
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/08/sadr_calls_for_mahdi.php
This piece on The Fourth Rail provides a breakdown of the Mahdi army factions, for those of you who haven't been keeping up. Dealing with an 'organisation' as diverse as the Mahdi army has been and will be enormously difficult for the US and the Iraqi govmt. But now that the threat from the Sunni Baathists/nationalists has receded, the last three major threats to a decent life for Iraqi's are Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Mahdi army and the Badr Brigades. All of them will have to be neutralised as military organisations before the real task of creating civic institutions and a genuine economy can gather momentum. Sadr must be aware that the most dangerous thing to do with a private army is use it- hence his 'freezing' of operations for six months. Whether that will remove the sword of Damocles from the Mahdi army is a different question. For the US, there can be no deviation from the task at hand- and that is the demilitarisation of Iraqi society.
This piece on The Fourth Rail provides a breakdown of the Mahdi army factions, for those of you who haven't been keeping up. Dealing with an 'organisation' as diverse as the Mahdi army has been and will be enormously difficult for the US and the Iraqi govmt. But now that the threat from the Sunni Baathists/nationalists has receded, the last three major threats to a decent life for Iraqi's are Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Mahdi army and the Badr Brigades. All of them will have to be neutralised as military organisations before the real task of creating civic institutions and a genuine economy can gather momentum. Sadr must be aware that the most dangerous thing to do with a private army is use it- hence his 'freezing' of operations for six months. Whether that will remove the sword of Damocles from the Mahdi army is a different question. For the US, there can be no deviation from the task at hand- and that is the demilitarisation of Iraqi society.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Really not funny
The mainstream press is just now noticing that while the American surge is having manifold effects and a serious impact on the various baddies in central Iraq, the British anti-surge is losing the Shia south. In todays Financial Times, Stephen Fidler and Alex Barker lay out the case against the British government and the British army (Run out of Town: How the British Army lost Basra). The overall impact of the article is that the British government never really bought into the Iraq invasion, never solidly took on its responsibilities, didn't spend any money on reconstruction, and never devised any decent strategy for running its areas. It also castigates the British army for being blase about the Shia militias. The British army actually allied itself with various of the latter occasionally, scotching any possibility of being seen by the Shia public as honest brokers. It also used 'lessons' from Ireland which were completely inapplicable in the Iraqi situation. As the authors point out, there were never more than a few hundred active IRA gunmen and bombers at any one time, whereas all three of the Shia militias in Basra field thousands of gunmen each. Not only that, civil society in Northern Ireland, while battered and abused, had not been completely corrupted and perverted by 27 years of Ba'ath party tyranny.
For the British occupation to succeed, millions of pounds was needed to rebuild infrastructure, the militias should have been destroyed by force, and a troop level of around 30,000 maintained so that the militias could not regroup. Britain would have needed to draw up a comprehensive plan to rebuild Shia society in the south free of the various afflictions which now beset it: gangsterism, fanatical religious mafias, venal public officials and policemen who cannot be trusted. Sadly, the Labour party was almost completely uninterested in the tasks at hand. The groups which were set up by the UK government to control British policy in southern Iraq were soon sidelined by US policy-setting groups and the Pentagon. British troop strength in Iraq is now 5,000. As the article points out, that's just about enough troops for the British to defend their two bases.
The geopolitical situation in Iraq is such that if the Shia south is made available for Iran and the shia militias, there is no hope of peace in the centre. The British government now have a painful choice- bring down Iraq because of their parsimony and pandering to stupid lefty parochialists, or beef up the contingent in Iraq again and have a surge of their own. The US effort shows what boots on the ground does- it suffocates and strangles the insurgency which lives and breathes on room to maneuver. Will the British government suck it up, find the will and complete the task it took on, or like the English football team tonight, show up for half an hour and then wander off pathetically?
For the British occupation to succeed, millions of pounds was needed to rebuild infrastructure, the militias should have been destroyed by force, and a troop level of around 30,000 maintained so that the militias could not regroup. Britain would have needed to draw up a comprehensive plan to rebuild Shia society in the south free of the various afflictions which now beset it: gangsterism, fanatical religious mafias, venal public officials and policemen who cannot be trusted. Sadly, the Labour party was almost completely uninterested in the tasks at hand. The groups which were set up by the UK government to control British policy in southern Iraq were soon sidelined by US policy-setting groups and the Pentagon. British troop strength in Iraq is now 5,000. As the article points out, that's just about enough troops for the British to defend their two bases.
The geopolitical situation in Iraq is such that if the Shia south is made available for Iran and the shia militias, there is no hope of peace in the centre. The British government now have a painful choice- bring down Iraq because of their parsimony and pandering to stupid lefty parochialists, or beef up the contingent in Iraq again and have a surge of their own. The US effort shows what boots on the ground does- it suffocates and strangles the insurgency which lives and breathes on room to maneuver. Will the British government suck it up, find the will and complete the task it took on, or like the English football team tonight, show up for half an hour and then wander off pathetically?
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Does it matter?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5335740.stm
'More than half of people in the UK think the "war on terror" is being lost, a survey for the BBC suggests.
It found 53% believed the UK government was losing the "war on terror" and 56% thought it was being lost by other western governments.
Four out of 10 people questioned said they felt less safe now than when the so-called war on terror began after the 9/11 attacks, while 11% felt safer.'
Do I believe we are winning? Does it matter if more than half the population (of this sample group) think we're losing? Will this perception matter in the final analysis? In the clear sense that the government departments, the British Security Service, the British Army and the Police will fight the fight against global terrorism no matter what any particular poll says, it doesn't matter. That is not to say this poll means nothing- the Spanish voted out the Conservatives immediately after the Madrid bombs and have been heartily dhimmified ever since. It matters quite a lot in a representative democracy how the electorate perceive the big issues like the fight against Wahhabism.
What heartens me is the process currently going on in America. The US population are gradually realising that the surge is having concrete, discernible, genuine effects- and hope is returning. The deep dismay of the US population was always disproportionate to the situation in Iraq; there was never a time when the US wasn't in overall control. But now that serious headway is visible, people who long ago gave up on Iraq are gradually coming back to a position more aligned with the facts. The same can happen here in Britain regarding the war on Wahhabism.
For that to happen, though, a number of things must change. The BBC, which is only interested in the Iraq situation desultorily, reports only large explosions and casualty statistics. Everything else just doesn't pique their curiosity. Most mainstream media outlets have been reporting the Iraq situation as a lost war for so long, they seem unable to take any other position. ITV news in particular has to the best of my knowledge never reported any good news from Iraq. The mainstream media are happy to leave the Iraq situation blurred, suffused with myth, and never challenge any of the prevailing misconceptions people have. Its true that Iraq is a complex, many-sided fight, but its not beyond the wit of the average man to comprehend. By now, most people have heard of Sunni and Shia, but thats probably it in terms of detail. How many people in Britain know that there are two bitter rivals for Shia loyalties, currently fighting it out in Basra? And that attacks on British troops are a way for these two groups to gain credibility and support with locals? And that neither group is a genuine proxy of Iran (yet)?
The politicians of Britain can't seem to be bothered to really get to grips with Iraqi politics either, and certainly don't pass any knowledge they may have on to their electors. So its up to us bloggers to get the knowledge out and keep telling people the devil thats in the details.
'More than half of people in the UK think the "war on terror" is being lost, a survey for the BBC suggests.
It found 53% believed the UK government was losing the "war on terror" and 56% thought it was being lost by other western governments.
Four out of 10 people questioned said they felt less safe now than when the so-called war on terror began after the 9/11 attacks, while 11% felt safer.'
Do I believe we are winning? Does it matter if more than half the population (of this sample group) think we're losing? Will this perception matter in the final analysis? In the clear sense that the government departments, the British Security Service, the British Army and the Police will fight the fight against global terrorism no matter what any particular poll says, it doesn't matter. That is not to say this poll means nothing- the Spanish voted out the Conservatives immediately after the Madrid bombs and have been heartily dhimmified ever since. It matters quite a lot in a representative democracy how the electorate perceive the big issues like the fight against Wahhabism.
What heartens me is the process currently going on in America. The US population are gradually realising that the surge is having concrete, discernible, genuine effects- and hope is returning. The deep dismay of the US population was always disproportionate to the situation in Iraq; there was never a time when the US wasn't in overall control. But now that serious headway is visible, people who long ago gave up on Iraq are gradually coming back to a position more aligned with the facts. The same can happen here in Britain regarding the war on Wahhabism.
For that to happen, though, a number of things must change. The BBC, which is only interested in the Iraq situation desultorily, reports only large explosions and casualty statistics. Everything else just doesn't pique their curiosity. Most mainstream media outlets have been reporting the Iraq situation as a lost war for so long, they seem unable to take any other position. ITV news in particular has to the best of my knowledge never reported any good news from Iraq. The mainstream media are happy to leave the Iraq situation blurred, suffused with myth, and never challenge any of the prevailing misconceptions people have. Its true that Iraq is a complex, many-sided fight, but its not beyond the wit of the average man to comprehend. By now, most people have heard of Sunni and Shia, but thats probably it in terms of detail. How many people in Britain know that there are two bitter rivals for Shia loyalties, currently fighting it out in Basra? And that attacks on British troops are a way for these two groups to gain credibility and support with locals? And that neither group is a genuine proxy of Iran (yet)?
The politicians of Britain can't seem to be bothered to really get to grips with Iraqi politics either, and certainly don't pass any knowledge they may have on to their electors. So its up to us bloggers to get the knowledge out and keep telling people the devil thats in the details.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
How to write about the Surge
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200708/POL20070809c.html
We have been accused of being whingers- a terrible slur against all us dedicated writers at 'The House of War'. If you want to hear whingeing, read this article.
Whinge 1:
'Lt. Col. Gian Gentile, with the U.S. Military Academy, noted that his parameters for measuring success in Iraq last year were flawed, in retrospect. He looked at (1) enemy kills; (2) protecting his troops; and (3) minimizing the number of Iraqi civilians killed by enemy forces. Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy pursues those goals in opposite order, Gentile said.'
Whinge 2:
Ivan Eland, a senior fellow with the libertarian Independent Institute, told Cybercast News Service that insurgencies defy efforts to measure success.
Whinge 3:
"The enemies only have to wait for the powerful democracy to become war-weary and go home," Eland said.
Whinge 4:
Frederick Kagan, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, is regarded as one of the architects of the administration's new strategy. He claims that other measurements of success Iraq - the political "benchmarks" set by Congress in the Defense supplemental appropriations bill passed this spring - were ineffective.
Whinge 5:
"And so the question is, at the same time as you have people demanding that we change our military strategy from month to month, they're insisting that we continue to pursue the same political strategy all through without any changes and any accounting for variations in the situation in Iraq. It doesn't make sense."
Whinge 6:
But Ivan Eland told Cybercast News Service that even if all of the political benchmarks mandated by Congress are met, "they are still on paper." The fractured Iraqi society will prevent them from ever being implemented, he said."If the administration is smart, they would say that the Iraqis didn't meet them...and use it as an excuse to withdraw."
Whinge 7:
The troop surge -- introducing another 20,000-30,000 troops -- "doesn't even begin to close the gap [in what is needed]," said Preble. "By concentrating forces in one key city, this gives an opportunity for insurgents to move their operations elsewhere, as we are seeing in Basra, for example. In short, I fear that this is a case of too little, too late. But the same can be said of Bush administration policy since the very beginning."
Conclusion:
Next month, Gen. David Petraeus, the top general in Iraq, will report to Congress on the U.S. military progress in Iraq. Even before he presents his conclusions, many Democrats are demanding a troop withdrawal.
This is how modern journalism works: First of all, write your conclusion, based on your absolute belief in your own opinions. Second, cadge all the quotes you can from friends or enemies to support your conclusion. Third, write a headline that makes people think you actually put genuine thought and effort into your piece. Voila! You and your Democrap editor can put your feet up and wait for WASP America to die in the bubbling cauldron of its own contradictions. Hurrah!
By the way, a brief perusal of the military and counter-terrorism websites reveals the unfortunate fact that the surge is, in fact, working. Never mind, Evan, better luck next war.
We have been accused of being whingers- a terrible slur against all us dedicated writers at 'The House of War'. If you want to hear whingeing, read this article.
Whinge 1:
'Lt. Col. Gian Gentile, with the U.S. Military Academy, noted that his parameters for measuring success in Iraq last year were flawed, in retrospect. He looked at (1) enemy kills; (2) protecting his troops; and (3) minimizing the number of Iraqi civilians killed by enemy forces. Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy pursues those goals in opposite order, Gentile said.'
Whinge 2:
Ivan Eland, a senior fellow with the libertarian Independent Institute, told Cybercast News Service that insurgencies defy efforts to measure success.
Whinge 3:
"The enemies only have to wait for the powerful democracy to become war-weary and go home," Eland said.
Whinge 4:
Frederick Kagan, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, is regarded as one of the architects of the administration's new strategy. He claims that other measurements of success Iraq - the political "benchmarks" set by Congress in the Defense supplemental appropriations bill passed this spring - were ineffective.
Whinge 5:
"And so the question is, at the same time as you have people demanding that we change our military strategy from month to month, they're insisting that we continue to pursue the same political strategy all through without any changes and any accounting for variations in the situation in Iraq. It doesn't make sense."
Whinge 6:
But Ivan Eland told Cybercast News Service that even if all of the political benchmarks mandated by Congress are met, "they are still on paper." The fractured Iraqi society will prevent them from ever being implemented, he said."If the administration is smart, they would say that the Iraqis didn't meet them...and use it as an excuse to withdraw."
Whinge 7:
The troop surge -- introducing another 20,000-30,000 troops -- "doesn't even begin to close the gap [in what is needed]," said Preble. "By concentrating forces in one key city, this gives an opportunity for insurgents to move their operations elsewhere, as we are seeing in Basra, for example. In short, I fear that this is a case of too little, too late. But the same can be said of Bush administration policy since the very beginning."
Conclusion:
Next month, Gen. David Petraeus, the top general in Iraq, will report to Congress on the U.S. military progress in Iraq. Even before he presents his conclusions, many Democrats are demanding a troop withdrawal.
This is how modern journalism works: First of all, write your conclusion, based on your absolute belief in your own opinions. Second, cadge all the quotes you can from friends or enemies to support your conclusion. Third, write a headline that makes people think you actually put genuine thought and effort into your piece. Voila! You and your Democrap editor can put your feet up and wait for WASP America to die in the bubbling cauldron of its own contradictions. Hurrah!
By the way, a brief perusal of the military and counter-terrorism websites reveals the unfortunate fact that the surge is, in fact, working. Never mind, Evan, better luck next war.
The SADC are not the cavalry
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6948813.stm
'A senior Zambian official said Sadc had grown tired of the deepening political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe but he did not have a resolution, saying Mr Mbeki's progress report would determine a course of action...
Observers say there is a new mood of realism developing in the region, with Zimbabwe now seen as more than just a domestic problem.'
Its only taken seven years, millions of wasted lives, and the transformation of a pretty decent little country into one of the worlds worst basketcases for the intellectual giants of the SADC and the other utterly fraudulent trans-African bodies to wake up to Zimbabwe's tragedy. Still, they can't leave behind all the tired tropes about neo-colonialism and a plot by Britain and America to destroy Zimbabwe. These are so far past their sell-by that its surprising the media bothers to report them.
The unnamed senior Zambian official rightly points out that 'they did not have a resolution'. A resolution to Zimbabwe's problem, which is Robert Mugabe and the kleptocrats of ZANU PF, would implicate all the other Robert Mugabe's of southern Africa, and their equally kleptocratic cronies. The last thing a resident of a den of theives will do is bring the house crashing down on all their heads. The abysmal cynicism of these people is enough to make you gag- 'Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa has called on the people of Zimbabwe to maintain peace at all costs.' Effectively, he is telling them to shut up, stay quiet and die without bothering the people in the air-conditioned Mercs and BMW's. So far, he has had his wish. For how much longer?
'A senior Zambian official said Sadc had grown tired of the deepening political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe but he did not have a resolution, saying Mr Mbeki's progress report would determine a course of action...
Observers say there is a new mood of realism developing in the region, with Zimbabwe now seen as more than just a domestic problem.'
Its only taken seven years, millions of wasted lives, and the transformation of a pretty decent little country into one of the worlds worst basketcases for the intellectual giants of the SADC and the other utterly fraudulent trans-African bodies to wake up to Zimbabwe's tragedy. Still, they can't leave behind all the tired tropes about neo-colonialism and a plot by Britain and America to destroy Zimbabwe. These are so far past their sell-by that its surprising the media bothers to report them.
The unnamed senior Zambian official rightly points out that 'they did not have a resolution'. A resolution to Zimbabwe's problem, which is Robert Mugabe and the kleptocrats of ZANU PF, would implicate all the other Robert Mugabe's of southern Africa, and their equally kleptocratic cronies. The last thing a resident of a den of theives will do is bring the house crashing down on all their heads. The abysmal cynicism of these people is enough to make you gag- 'Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa has called on the people of Zimbabwe to maintain peace at all costs.' Effectively, he is telling them to shut up, stay quiet and die without bothering the people in the air-conditioned Mercs and BMW's. So far, he has had his wish. For how much longer?
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Matt Damon pontificates
Matt Damons Moonbat rant in full:
'The actor, who appears in the Bourne thrillers, said: "The Bond character will always be anchored in the 1960s and in the values of the 1960s."
The suave spy was "so anachronistic when you put it in the world we live in today", he said, but added that Bourne was no better or worse than Bond.
Damon was speaking in London, where The Bourne Ultimatum, the third film in the franchise, is having its UK premiere.
"Bond is an imperialist and a misogynist who kills people and laughs about it, and drinks Martinis and cracks jokes," he told reporters.
"Bourne is a serial monogamist whose girlfriend is dead and he does nothing but think about her."
He added that Bourne "doesn't have the support of gadgets, and he feels guilty for what he's done". [I thought you said Bourne was 'no better and no worse than Bond'?]
The first two Bourne outings - The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy - made more than $500 (£250m) at the worldwide box office.
The latest instalment went straight to the top of the North American box office chart.
Damon said he had not ruled out returning for a fourth film - provided that the British director Paul Greengrass also returned to the project.
Greengrass said: "The Bourne franchise is not about wearing Prada suits and looking at women coming out of the sea with bikinis on. It's about essence and truth, not frippery and surface."
It used to be enough to make movies about cool killers and the women who wanted to shag them, but now each movie is also a platform for the stars own personal sociology-cum-film criticism lecture. Actually, if Damon was a little more forthcoming, he'd admit that the whole Bourne series is a moonbat fantasy about crazed spymasters kidnapping and drugging up beautiful young Americans and turning them into robot killers for the fascist American state. And then Frankensteins monster turns on the spymasters and all the moonbats get to cheer him on as Bourne murders them all in beautiful technicolour. See, as long as you murder the right folks, murderin' is fine!
'The actor, who appears in the Bourne thrillers, said: "The Bond character will always be anchored in the 1960s and in the values of the 1960s."
The suave spy was "so anachronistic when you put it in the world we live in today", he said, but added that Bourne was no better or worse than Bond.
Damon was speaking in London, where The Bourne Ultimatum, the third film in the franchise, is having its UK premiere.
"Bond is an imperialist and a misogynist who kills people and laughs about it, and drinks Martinis and cracks jokes," he told reporters.
"Bourne is a serial monogamist whose girlfriend is dead and he does nothing but think about her."
He added that Bourne "doesn't have the support of gadgets, and he feels guilty for what he's done". [I thought you said Bourne was 'no better and no worse than Bond'?]
The first two Bourne outings - The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy - made more than $500 (£250m) at the worldwide box office.
The latest instalment went straight to the top of the North American box office chart.
Damon said he had not ruled out returning for a fourth film - provided that the British director Paul Greengrass also returned to the project.
Greengrass said: "The Bourne franchise is not about wearing Prada suits and looking at women coming out of the sea with bikinis on. It's about essence and truth, not frippery and surface."
It used to be enough to make movies about cool killers and the women who wanted to shag them, but now each movie is also a platform for the stars own personal sociology-cum-film criticism lecture. Actually, if Damon was a little more forthcoming, he'd admit that the whole Bourne series is a moonbat fantasy about crazed spymasters kidnapping and drugging up beautiful young Americans and turning them into robot killers for the fascist American state. And then Frankensteins monster turns on the spymasters and all the moonbats get to cheer him on as Bourne murders them all in beautiful technicolour. See, as long as you murder the right folks, murderin' is fine!
Not another Hezbollah
'“Is there anything you can do to protect yourself?” I asked the young Iraqi.
“What can I do?” he said. “No one can stop Jaysh al Mahdi. They live in the 16th Century. Everyone I know in Sadr City hates Moqtada al Sadr, but they can do nothing. Many people want the Americans to invade.”'
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001504.html
If you get right up to the Iraq situation, and look it squarely in the eye, you can see the big things that the US has not done. In any situation both diplomatic or military, you have to work out who you are going to be able to do business with and who not. The Jaysh Al Mahdi or Mahdi Army were never going to be an effective or trustworthy partner in governance. As this article points out, the proxy model Iran established when it created Hezbollah is very effective. The Jaysh al Mahdi now runs along the same lines that Hezbollah, Hamas and a shadowy nascent group in Syria do.
Are we already too late? All the signs are that if you don't destroy these organisations utterly, they quickly reconstitute. Hezbollah has been pummelled a few times but it is currently flourishing. It is now far more lethal and dangerous than at any time in its existence, and Israel will need to work a lot harder next time to break its back. The Clinton doctrine (put off until tomorrow what you can't be bothered to think about today) is very dangerous with Hezbollah-like organisations. The JAM (Jaysh al Mahdi) are already well along the route to being a state within a state. Before the US leaves Iraq, there will have to be a showdown with it, or risk the recreation of the disaster that is Hezbollah, where the tail wags the Lebanese dog. Iraqis, including the majority of Shia, understand this basic fact. Unless JAM is destroyed, it will destroy the Iraqi state like an enormous cancer.
Why the US is toying about with it, I can't imagine. Grasping the nettle doesn't seem to be a US trait any more. Sadly, the longer they wait, the more young Americans and young Iraqi's will die when the balloon goes up. Perhaps the idea is to pick off one 'problem group' in Iraq at a time. Sometimes, though, you don't have the luxury to work on such a leisurely schedule. Israels generals could give them a pretty vivid rundown of why not.
“What can I do?” he said. “No one can stop Jaysh al Mahdi. They live in the 16th Century. Everyone I know in Sadr City hates Moqtada al Sadr, but they can do nothing. Many people want the Americans to invade.”'
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001504.html
If you get right up to the Iraq situation, and look it squarely in the eye, you can see the big things that the US has not done. In any situation both diplomatic or military, you have to work out who you are going to be able to do business with and who not. The Jaysh Al Mahdi or Mahdi Army were never going to be an effective or trustworthy partner in governance. As this article points out, the proxy model Iran established when it created Hezbollah is very effective. The Jaysh al Mahdi now runs along the same lines that Hezbollah, Hamas and a shadowy nascent group in Syria do.
Are we already too late? All the signs are that if you don't destroy these organisations utterly, they quickly reconstitute. Hezbollah has been pummelled a few times but it is currently flourishing. It is now far more lethal and dangerous than at any time in its existence, and Israel will need to work a lot harder next time to break its back. The Clinton doctrine (put off until tomorrow what you can't be bothered to think about today) is very dangerous with Hezbollah-like organisations. The JAM (Jaysh al Mahdi) are already well along the route to being a state within a state. Before the US leaves Iraq, there will have to be a showdown with it, or risk the recreation of the disaster that is Hezbollah, where the tail wags the Lebanese dog. Iraqis, including the majority of Shia, understand this basic fact. Unless JAM is destroyed, it will destroy the Iraqi state like an enormous cancer.
Why the US is toying about with it, I can't imagine. Grasping the nettle doesn't seem to be a US trait any more. Sadly, the longer they wait, the more young Americans and young Iraqi's will die when the balloon goes up. Perhaps the idea is to pick off one 'problem group' in Iraq at a time. Sometimes, though, you don't have the luxury to work on such a leisurely schedule. Israels generals could give them a pretty vivid rundown of why not.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
The end is almost certainly nigh
'Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380_pf.html
You might want to run that through your mind a little, perhaps toy a smidge with logic. The Clyburn mentioned is US House Majority Whip James Clyburn. He is not wrong by the way. I predicted some months back, in fact maybe even years, that if the US defeated Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the Mehdi army and the remaining Sunni 'nationalists', the world would look very different. Its most stark change would be US electorates perception of the posturing, cowardice and unseriousness of the US democrats, especially the ones at the top. I have a feeling that Gen Petraeus's arrival, plan and decent execution of plans has put paid to the Dems winning the Presidency in 2008. Its not a dead cert, and there's a lot more that could happen, especially if the Republicans can't find a decent candidate who appeals to the base, but I'd say the bookies would see them as firm faves at this time. Hillary Clinton has been very wise in keeping well away from the 'Lets Lose This One' side of the Dem party, so it should not be nearly as much of a problem for her as the other contenders, but I believe the whole Democrat party will be seen as having lined up with America's critics, detractors and even enemies. For many people the name on the ballot will not be as important as the party symbol.
Its all their own fault. Because of the Bill Clintons trouser problems, and what many Dems perceived as the completely demented attacks on him, the last seven years have only been about paybacks. The big picture go hang- they wanted to destroy and humiliate President Bush as a matter of desperate urgency. No matter what he did or didn't do, they wanted an impeachment so Bill's.... improprieties would pale into insignificance in comparison. You can't escape these petty emotions in politics, any more than you can in day to day life. But you hope that when genuinely grand-scale issues come to hand, teeth will be gritted and the petty emotions put aside and business transacted. The Democrats have spectacularly failed to do this, have failed on vast numbers of occasions to rise above the trivia and do the serious work of governing. Some, like Nancy Pelosi, have even tried to usurp the Presidents prerogatives even BEFORE he is impeached.
And there's nothing like being right. If they had been right all along, and Iraq was another Vietnam, and the US was really losing, and the people fighting the coalition were principled patriots like the US revolutionaries, and Iran and Syria were sweet and kind neighbors who just want to be friends if we'd just stop being so nasty to them- the American people would quickly have aligned themselves with the Dems after the inevitable pullout from Iraq. When the country loses people want to associate themselves with the party who said 'We're gonna lose!' just to prove they personally aren't an idiot. But they weren't right. Most Americans didn't know enough about what was going on so far away to make a judgement- mainly because the big press orgs wouldn't tell them. So they kept their powder dry.
But soon the great pressure pad which is the surge will force the bad guys into the open, and then they will be mincemeat. All the good ideas Gen Petraeus brought with him, some novel and many learned from successful counter-insurgencies elsewhere, have actually been put into action. The soldiers are much perkier these days- read Michael Totten and other imbeds if you doubt my word. That often happens when the grunts feel that someone up there actually understands the real dynamics of the situation and puts in place tactics that are appropriate and effective. When will the 'war' as it is innacurately called end? Who knows? How safe does safe have to be before you can say there's no more insurgency? The Kurdish areas have been mostly safe except for the odd Al-Qaeda spectacular for years. The south is largely peaceful (although disarming both the Mehdi army and the Sadr brigades is still largely un-accomplished). Much of Baghdad is now patrolled on foot by US soldiers- unthinkable six months ago when careening through in an up-armored hummer was considered brave. I think a time-scale of three to six months will see an end to everything except a few lucky Al-Qaeda who have kept off the radar my some miracle. Most will have been scooped up as locals discover what a bunch of pitiless screwballs they are and turn them in, as is currently happening at an ever-increasing rate.
I am not being triumphalist- this has been no triumph. It has been an ugly, inept, jarring and in human terms extremely tragic episode in Iraqs history. No-one except perhaps the British Army come out of it with reputation intact or even enhanced. They profferd the 'Petraeus solution' five minutes after the insurgency started. The US chiefs of staff paid no attention whatsoever. As soon as the insurgency started, the rebuilding efforts should have been shelved until order was restored- quickly and brutally. Counter-insurgency is not 'nice' war. It is often more bitter than 'real' war. So it should be completed as soon as is humanly possible. This insurgency was allowed to fester away for four whole years and cost perhaps 150,000 lives. I do hope the US will not allow the skills learned over those four years to wither and disappear- they need to be institutionalised and built into the fabric of the US military from the ground up.
In todays world, the likelihood is that most encounters the US military will have will be more like Iraq and less like Korea or World War II. Obviously then, having the requisite skills, and the right kind of personnel, is essential. Sending the 3rd Infantry division into Baghdad was probably one of the stupidest things done by the US military during the whole Iraq intervention- it turned most of the populace against the US, even people who had formerly been positive or neutral. Making sure you have units capable in every way of taking on a hidden, urban enemy is essential in 2007.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380_pf.html
You might want to run that through your mind a little, perhaps toy a smidge with logic. The Clyburn mentioned is US House Majority Whip James Clyburn. He is not wrong by the way. I predicted some months back, in fact maybe even years, that if the US defeated Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the Mehdi army and the remaining Sunni 'nationalists', the world would look very different. Its most stark change would be US electorates perception of the posturing, cowardice and unseriousness of the US democrats, especially the ones at the top. I have a feeling that Gen Petraeus's arrival, plan and decent execution of plans has put paid to the Dems winning the Presidency in 2008. Its not a dead cert, and there's a lot more that could happen, especially if the Republicans can't find a decent candidate who appeals to the base, but I'd say the bookies would see them as firm faves at this time. Hillary Clinton has been very wise in keeping well away from the 'Lets Lose This One' side of the Dem party, so it should not be nearly as much of a problem for her as the other contenders, but I believe the whole Democrat party will be seen as having lined up with America's critics, detractors and even enemies. For many people the name on the ballot will not be as important as the party symbol.
Its all their own fault. Because of the Bill Clintons trouser problems, and what many Dems perceived as the completely demented attacks on him, the last seven years have only been about paybacks. The big picture go hang- they wanted to destroy and humiliate President Bush as a matter of desperate urgency. No matter what he did or didn't do, they wanted an impeachment so Bill's.... improprieties would pale into insignificance in comparison. You can't escape these petty emotions in politics, any more than you can in day to day life. But you hope that when genuinely grand-scale issues come to hand, teeth will be gritted and the petty emotions put aside and business transacted. The Democrats have spectacularly failed to do this, have failed on vast numbers of occasions to rise above the trivia and do the serious work of governing. Some, like Nancy Pelosi, have even tried to usurp the Presidents prerogatives even BEFORE he is impeached.
And there's nothing like being right. If they had been right all along, and Iraq was another Vietnam, and the US was really losing, and the people fighting the coalition were principled patriots like the US revolutionaries, and Iran and Syria were sweet and kind neighbors who just want to be friends if we'd just stop being so nasty to them- the American people would quickly have aligned themselves with the Dems after the inevitable pullout from Iraq. When the country loses people want to associate themselves with the party who said 'We're gonna lose!' just to prove they personally aren't an idiot. But they weren't right. Most Americans didn't know enough about what was going on so far away to make a judgement- mainly because the big press orgs wouldn't tell them. So they kept their powder dry.
But soon the great pressure pad which is the surge will force the bad guys into the open, and then they will be mincemeat. All the good ideas Gen Petraeus brought with him, some novel and many learned from successful counter-insurgencies elsewhere, have actually been put into action. The soldiers are much perkier these days- read Michael Totten and other imbeds if you doubt my word. That often happens when the grunts feel that someone up there actually understands the real dynamics of the situation and puts in place tactics that are appropriate and effective. When will the 'war' as it is innacurately called end? Who knows? How safe does safe have to be before you can say there's no more insurgency? The Kurdish areas have been mostly safe except for the odd Al-Qaeda spectacular for years. The south is largely peaceful (although disarming both the Mehdi army and the Sadr brigades is still largely un-accomplished). Much of Baghdad is now patrolled on foot by US soldiers- unthinkable six months ago when careening through in an up-armored hummer was considered brave. I think a time-scale of three to six months will see an end to everything except a few lucky Al-Qaeda who have kept off the radar my some miracle. Most will have been scooped up as locals discover what a bunch of pitiless screwballs they are and turn them in, as is currently happening at an ever-increasing rate.
I am not being triumphalist- this has been no triumph. It has been an ugly, inept, jarring and in human terms extremely tragic episode in Iraqs history. No-one except perhaps the British Army come out of it with reputation intact or even enhanced. They profferd the 'Petraeus solution' five minutes after the insurgency started. The US chiefs of staff paid no attention whatsoever. As soon as the insurgency started, the rebuilding efforts should have been shelved until order was restored- quickly and brutally. Counter-insurgency is not 'nice' war. It is often more bitter than 'real' war. So it should be completed as soon as is humanly possible. This insurgency was allowed to fester away for four whole years and cost perhaps 150,000 lives. I do hope the US will not allow the skills learned over those four years to wither and disappear- they need to be institutionalised and built into the fabric of the US military from the ground up.
In todays world, the likelihood is that most encounters the US military will have will be more like Iraq and less like Korea or World War II. Obviously then, having the requisite skills, and the right kind of personnel, is essential. Sending the 3rd Infantry division into Baghdad was probably one of the stupidest things done by the US military during the whole Iraq intervention- it turned most of the populace against the US, even people who had formerly been positive or neutral. Making sure you have units capable in every way of taking on a hidden, urban enemy is essential in 2007.
Monday, July 30, 2007
A nation at war with itself
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/07/018077.php
'B]y a two-to-one margin Americans say their children will be worse off than we are...
It's partly a partisan response: Almost all Democrats are negative about the nation's future.
I think that many Americans are attuned to the idea of using the opportunity presented by a phone call from a pollster to make a political point. I seriously doubt that nearly all Democrats really believe the nation is more or less doomed to decline; if a Democratic President is elected next November, the country's prospects will brighten considerably in their eyes.'
Linked to this off Instapundit. It tweaked a curious thought in my mind: when did political parties become emotional cheerleading squads in a bizarre drama, and stop being the vehicle for the (mostly) rational collective interests of some of the populace?
I cannot recall a time when a political party anywhere in the world did what the Democrats in the United States have done: talked themselves into such a demonic and hyper-tense fury over the pretty much mundane transaction of United States business at home and around the world. The war in Iraq mundane? I hear you ask. Name a decade in the 20th century without an American war and/or military intervention somewhere on the globe? Thought so.
Spanish American war, Honduras, Phillipines, Barbary states, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, France and on and on. Big country, business and diplomatic interests all over the world. Its what happens. But the Democrats rhetoric has reached heights of shrillness and bombast never previously broached. They now openly discuss killing the President, entertain theories about their own government organising the high profile mass murder of 3000 US citizens, accuse US soldiers of every kind of brutality and sadism, describe a US internment camp as a torture facility and would like to see dedicated murderers in Iraq win and the US lose.
They not only subscribe to the above, they also see the Republicans not as their political adversaries, to be bested if possible in the political arena so that their interests may be advanced ahead of their competitors- no. They see the Republicans as evil, as representing a kind of cancer of the nation, which must be systematically destroyed if possible, starting at the head, the President.
For those of us on the outside looking in, this presents a terrible impression of a nation at war with itself, whose psychology has become dangerously unstable, and whose common sense has become deranged. Can we send assistance? Is there anything to be done?
'B]y a two-to-one margin Americans say their children will be worse off than we are...
It's partly a partisan response: Almost all Democrats are negative about the nation's future.
I think that many Americans are attuned to the idea of using the opportunity presented by a phone call from a pollster to make a political point. I seriously doubt that nearly all Democrats really believe the nation is more or less doomed to decline; if a Democratic President is elected next November, the country's prospects will brighten considerably in their eyes.'
Linked to this off Instapundit. It tweaked a curious thought in my mind: when did political parties become emotional cheerleading squads in a bizarre drama, and stop being the vehicle for the (mostly) rational collective interests of some of the populace?
I cannot recall a time when a political party anywhere in the world did what the Democrats in the United States have done: talked themselves into such a demonic and hyper-tense fury over the pretty much mundane transaction of United States business at home and around the world. The war in Iraq mundane? I hear you ask. Name a decade in the 20th century without an American war and/or military intervention somewhere on the globe? Thought so.
Spanish American war, Honduras, Phillipines, Barbary states, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, France and on and on. Big country, business and diplomatic interests all over the world. Its what happens. But the Democrats rhetoric has reached heights of shrillness and bombast never previously broached. They now openly discuss killing the President, entertain theories about their own government organising the high profile mass murder of 3000 US citizens, accuse US soldiers of every kind of brutality and sadism, describe a US internment camp as a torture facility and would like to see dedicated murderers in Iraq win and the US lose.
They not only subscribe to the above, they also see the Republicans not as their political adversaries, to be bested if possible in the political arena so that their interests may be advanced ahead of their competitors- no. They see the Republicans as evil, as representing a kind of cancer of the nation, which must be systematically destroyed if possible, starting at the head, the President.
For those of us on the outside looking in, this presents a terrible impression of a nation at war with itself, whose psychology has become dangerously unstable, and whose common sense has become deranged. Can we send assistance? Is there anything to be done?
Friday, July 27, 2007
Yeah, well, y'know
I am in Pakistan, and the heat and the Delhi belly really cut into the desire to write blog posts. There's a lot of good stuff to say about my trip but it will have to wait until I'm home. Do not despair trusty reader- normal service will soon be resumed.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The Palestinians and the Democrats
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/israel/articles/20070715.aspx
'The Arab Reform Movement is pretty blunt about blaming Arabs for the lack of good government, or economic and scientific progress in the region. Many Arabs note that over half of Israel's population is "Arab" (either Israeli Arab or Israelis of Middle Eastern origin), and that has not prevented Israel from building a working democracy and thriving economy. An increasing number of Arabs ask, "why not us?" The Palestinians are increasingly seen as a bunch of self-destructive screw-ups who can't do anything right. Arab support for Palestinians is increasingly just for show, and the show is coming to an end.'
Perhaps the show is coming to an end in the middle east, and amongst those with first-hand knowledge, but the mushy left in America is just gearing up to support them. The burgeoning support for the Palestinian 'cause' among American college students, their professors, journalists and editors in the mainstream press and so-called liberal politicians bodes ill for any solutions in the middle east based on reality. It has been noted that sales of the Yasser Arafat hanky thing have gone completely crazy, and the number of 'activists' prepared to do all kinds of nutty things on behalf of the Poor Ickle Palestinians has shot through the roof. As with the situation in Iraq, where millions and millions of Iraqi's want the Americans to stay, and millions and millions of lefty morons want America to leave, mass politics has a its own dynamics; and these dynamics are very loosely connected to the actual world.
For many middle eastern governments the current big issues are the presence of 155,000 US soldiers in Iraq, the desperate attempts of Iran to get nuclear weapons to shore up their claim to be a 'regional power', the growing attempts by Wahhabist extremists to undermine all the secular institutions of power in their countries, and how to deal with Israel in its new concialatory, constructive mood. The very old songs played by the Palestinian cheerleader squads in the various capitals of the Arab world sound like music from an age past, dead and gone. These facts are of no import to the American and British left. They live in an insulated world which needs no further input from the outside. They are utterly confident that the truths of 1980 are the truths of 2007. Like all true believers, the world cannot change for them. Which is annoying for the rest of us, and sometimes quite important.
If 'progressive liberal' politicians succeed in altering the course of the Iraqi situation by playing about with the funding of US forces, both American politics and Iraqi daily life could suffer severe downsides. The suspicion of Republicans that large segments of the Democrat party have turned decisively away from the interests of the United States, and swung behind those of its sworn enemies could harden into a real conflict. This bizarre turn of events, where party affiliation suddenly becomes the fault line for patriotic affiliation has never happened in the US before. No major US political party has ever accepted pretty much wholesale the arguments of its enemies and detractors, and made them its program for 'government'. I foresee the complete disintegration of the Democrat party, where the half of it which is still patriotic to the US leaves to find a new political home and the rump Democrat party, full of haters and malcontents becomes a sort of militant rabble, a bit like the militia movements in the '80s and '90s. The militia movements fueled themselves on hatred of the Federal government, conspiracy theories about every kind of government skulduggery, and ignorant theories about how the world works. That is very close to the positions of the crazed half of the Democrat party.
Sadly, the Republican party is in great disarray too, and is not in any position to take advantage of the disintegrating Democrats. It has different problems, at the heart of which I believe is a complete breakdown of what Republicans commonly believe to be the core principles of conservatism. President Bush is not nearly conservative enough for many Republicans, who hanker after the days of Ronald Reagan. There is a very large faction of centrist Republicans though, for whom large government contracts, big government solutions to most problems, and a corporatist view of American life have replaced completely the frontier values of working class America. How the Republican party can take all its disparate elements and combine them effectively in actual goverment is almost as serious a problem as the one confronting the Democrats. Saying that, a Republican failure to govern would not be as bad for the United States as a Democrat success in getting elected in its current state.
'The Arab Reform Movement is pretty blunt about blaming Arabs for the lack of good government, or economic and scientific progress in the region. Many Arabs note that over half of Israel's population is "Arab" (either Israeli Arab or Israelis of Middle Eastern origin), and that has not prevented Israel from building a working democracy and thriving economy. An increasing number of Arabs ask, "why not us?" The Palestinians are increasingly seen as a bunch of self-destructive screw-ups who can't do anything right. Arab support for Palestinians is increasingly just for show, and the show is coming to an end.'
Perhaps the show is coming to an end in the middle east, and amongst those with first-hand knowledge, but the mushy left in America is just gearing up to support them. The burgeoning support for the Palestinian 'cause' among American college students, their professors, journalists and editors in the mainstream press and so-called liberal politicians bodes ill for any solutions in the middle east based on reality. It has been noted that sales of the Yasser Arafat hanky thing have gone completely crazy, and the number of 'activists' prepared to do all kinds of nutty things on behalf of the Poor Ickle Palestinians has shot through the roof. As with the situation in Iraq, where millions and millions of Iraqi's want the Americans to stay, and millions and millions of lefty morons want America to leave, mass politics has a its own dynamics; and these dynamics are very loosely connected to the actual world.
For many middle eastern governments the current big issues are the presence of 155,000 US soldiers in Iraq, the desperate attempts of Iran to get nuclear weapons to shore up their claim to be a 'regional power', the growing attempts by Wahhabist extremists to undermine all the secular institutions of power in their countries, and how to deal with Israel in its new concialatory, constructive mood. The very old songs played by the Palestinian cheerleader squads in the various capitals of the Arab world sound like music from an age past, dead and gone. These facts are of no import to the American and British left. They live in an insulated world which needs no further input from the outside. They are utterly confident that the truths of 1980 are the truths of 2007. Like all true believers, the world cannot change for them. Which is annoying for the rest of us, and sometimes quite important.
If 'progressive liberal' politicians succeed in altering the course of the Iraqi situation by playing about with the funding of US forces, both American politics and Iraqi daily life could suffer severe downsides. The suspicion of Republicans that large segments of the Democrat party have turned decisively away from the interests of the United States, and swung behind those of its sworn enemies could harden into a real conflict. This bizarre turn of events, where party affiliation suddenly becomes the fault line for patriotic affiliation has never happened in the US before. No major US political party has ever accepted pretty much wholesale the arguments of its enemies and detractors, and made them its program for 'government'. I foresee the complete disintegration of the Democrat party, where the half of it which is still patriotic to the US leaves to find a new political home and the rump Democrat party, full of haters and malcontents becomes a sort of militant rabble, a bit like the militia movements in the '80s and '90s. The militia movements fueled themselves on hatred of the Federal government, conspiracy theories about every kind of government skulduggery, and ignorant theories about how the world works. That is very close to the positions of the crazed half of the Democrat party.
Sadly, the Republican party is in great disarray too, and is not in any position to take advantage of the disintegrating Democrats. It has different problems, at the heart of which I believe is a complete breakdown of what Republicans commonly believe to be the core principles of conservatism. President Bush is not nearly conservative enough for many Republicans, who hanker after the days of Ronald Reagan. There is a very large faction of centrist Republicans though, for whom large government contracts, big government solutions to most problems, and a corporatist view of American life have replaced completely the frontier values of working class America. How the Republican party can take all its disparate elements and combine them effectively in actual goverment is almost as serious a problem as the one confronting the Democrats. Saying that, a Republican failure to govern would not be as bad for the United States as a Democrat success in getting elected in its current state.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Alienation is the new black
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6901147.stm
Today we were told that the huge disparity between the richest and poorest causes alienation. Recently, we were told that our carbon footprints are so huge they cause alienation between ourselves and those from poor countries. We are constantly told that the Foreign policy of the British government alienates mainstream Moslems and makes young Moslems want to blow themselves and us up.
Alienation is hyper-trendy. Everybody in the world is alienated except perhaps me and you, and I'm not sure about you. I reckon the only solution is to murder all the hyper-rich people, take their money and distribute it to the people of Chad and Burkina Faso. Oh, and then murder all the pretty well-off people and give their money to the people of Belgium. Ok, I may not have thought this through very well...
Today we were told that the huge disparity between the richest and poorest causes alienation. Recently, we were told that our carbon footprints are so huge they cause alienation between ourselves and those from poor countries. We are constantly told that the Foreign policy of the British government alienates mainstream Moslems and makes young Moslems want to blow themselves and us up.
Alienation is hyper-trendy. Everybody in the world is alienated except perhaps me and you, and I'm not sure about you. I reckon the only solution is to murder all the hyper-rich people, take their money and distribute it to the people of Chad and Burkina Faso. Oh, and then murder all the pretty well-off people and give their money to the people of Belgium. Ok, I may not have thought this through very well...
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Why news is news
'Israeli troops on Thursday reportedly have penetrated three kilometers into Lebanese territories, taking up positions in the mountains near Yanta in east Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.
The daily Al Mustaqbal, citing sources who confirmed the cross-border penetration, did not say when the procedure in the Fahs Hill overlooking Deir al-Ashaer in the Rashaya province took place. The sources said Israeli troops, backed by bulldozers, were fortifying positions "in more than one area" along the Lebanese border, erecting earth mounds and digging "hundreds" of trenches and individual bunkers.'
Lebanese daily newspaper Al Mustaqbal
Ok, ok, I'm lying. Its not Israel doing these things, its Syria. If I was right, and it was Israel, it would have been the lead story on every news bulletin from Kinshasa to Kathmandu. But its not. So it wasn't. Dull old Syria just can't grab those column inches like the tiny Satan. I would never have known about this were it not for Michael Totten and his superb blog. He didn't believe the story was true at first because no other, I repeat no other, news organisation other than this one Lebanese paper carried the story. Remember: this is the invasion of a sovereign country (just like say Belgium) by its neighbor, a neighbor which has a very bad reputation for doing exactly that. And nobody cares! The tumbleweed is drifting by, the crickets chirp, and the massed legions of AP, AFP, PA, Reuters and the big American networks carry on with their ritualised stories about evil Israeli settlers and the casualty count in Iraq.
Do you get the impression that the mainstream press agencies and big networks are a bit like the Roman Catholic church on the eve of the Reformation? Fat, bloated, corrupt, content to do the same 'ol same 'ol without passion or conviction? A corporate island in a lake of its own self-approval? Of prime importance is whether those who are the consumers of news are going to continue to buy from old media this highly processed pap, free of genuine content and largely about one political conception of the world, or whether they are going to leave and seek the goods from other sources. I don't see that happening yet, but there is a smell of revolution in the air. Perhaps in the not-too-distant future...
The daily Al Mustaqbal, citing sources who confirmed the cross-border penetration, did not say when the procedure in the Fahs Hill overlooking Deir al-Ashaer in the Rashaya province took place. The sources said Israeli troops, backed by bulldozers, were fortifying positions "in more than one area" along the Lebanese border, erecting earth mounds and digging "hundreds" of trenches and individual bunkers.'
Lebanese daily newspaper Al Mustaqbal
Ok, ok, I'm lying. Its not Israel doing these things, its Syria. If I was right, and it was Israel, it would have been the lead story on every news bulletin from Kinshasa to Kathmandu. But its not. So it wasn't. Dull old Syria just can't grab those column inches like the tiny Satan. I would never have known about this were it not for Michael Totten and his superb blog. He didn't believe the story was true at first because no other, I repeat no other, news organisation other than this one Lebanese paper carried the story. Remember: this is the invasion of a sovereign country (just like say Belgium) by its neighbor, a neighbor which has a very bad reputation for doing exactly that. And nobody cares! The tumbleweed is drifting by, the crickets chirp, and the massed legions of AP, AFP, PA, Reuters and the big American networks carry on with their ritualised stories about evil Israeli settlers and the casualty count in Iraq.
Do you get the impression that the mainstream press agencies and big networks are a bit like the Roman Catholic church on the eve of the Reformation? Fat, bloated, corrupt, content to do the same 'ol same 'ol without passion or conviction? A corporate island in a lake of its own self-approval? Of prime importance is whether those who are the consumers of news are going to continue to buy from old media this highly processed pap, free of genuine content and largely about one political conception of the world, or whether they are going to leave and seek the goods from other sources. I don't see that happening yet, but there is a smell of revolution in the air. Perhaps in the not-too-distant future...
Disasters, Tragedies and Acts of War
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6294198.stm
'Firefighters who lost colleagues in the 9/11 attacks in New York have issued a video strongly criticising Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani.... The video - which also offers testimony from other firefighters and their relatives - says Mr Giuliani is exploiting the disaster as a theme for his presidential candidacy.'
I am not by any stretch the first person to notice this, but it still rankles. When the BBC call 9/11 a disaster, they are actually changing the category in which that event sits. Disasters are volcanoes exploding, tsunamis rolling in, cyclones devastating coastlines and meteors blasting holes in the ground. Disasters are sometimes tragedies, in which an element of human weakness or cowardice plays a role in the deaths of people. 9/11 was not a disaster. 9/11 was an act of war, one in a long line, committed by men who saw themselves as stormtroopers of Islam. 19 highly committed men plotted to take over airliners and crash them into buildings. To call those actions a disaster is to abuse the truth.
The BBC has a whole suite of editorial tools for minimizing the actions of Wahhabis, of making them 'disappear', and attempting to remove them from the ledger that inevitably many people mentally keep. Naming things and categorising them is very important. Without accurate naming and categorisation, we don't really have a clear picture of what is happening. Even now, in July 2007, the British government and millions of Britons have virtually no idea of the shape and nature of our Wahhabist enemy. The BBC, because it is confident that it has the correct view of the world, is willing to distort and manipulate its reporting of events so they fit the lefty/PC world view. This deprives the people of Britain and many other countries the chance of putting the pieces together and working out who and what are driving events.
Over a long period of time, this can really deprive a nation of its bearings. I hold the BBC board of governers and its pitiful editorial management responsible for much of the current misunderstanding and misapprehension in the general population.
'Firefighters who lost colleagues in the 9/11 attacks in New York have issued a video strongly criticising Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani.... The video - which also offers testimony from other firefighters and their relatives - says Mr Giuliani is exploiting the disaster as a theme for his presidential candidacy.'
I am not by any stretch the first person to notice this, but it still rankles. When the BBC call 9/11 a disaster, they are actually changing the category in which that event sits. Disasters are volcanoes exploding, tsunamis rolling in, cyclones devastating coastlines and meteors blasting holes in the ground. Disasters are sometimes tragedies, in which an element of human weakness or cowardice plays a role in the deaths of people. 9/11 was not a disaster. 9/11 was an act of war, one in a long line, committed by men who saw themselves as stormtroopers of Islam. 19 highly committed men plotted to take over airliners and crash them into buildings. To call those actions a disaster is to abuse the truth.
The BBC has a whole suite of editorial tools for minimizing the actions of Wahhabis, of making them 'disappear', and attempting to remove them from the ledger that inevitably many people mentally keep. Naming things and categorising them is very important. Without accurate naming and categorisation, we don't really have a clear picture of what is happening. Even now, in July 2007, the British government and millions of Britons have virtually no idea of the shape and nature of our Wahhabist enemy. The BBC, because it is confident that it has the correct view of the world, is willing to distort and manipulate its reporting of events so they fit the lefty/PC world view. This deprives the people of Britain and many other countries the chance of putting the pieces together and working out who and what are driving events.
Over a long period of time, this can really deprive a nation of its bearings. I hold the BBC board of governers and its pitiful editorial management responsible for much of the current misunderstanding and misapprehension in the general population.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
More thoughts about Anthropogenic Global Warming
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm
'A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change...Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis. '
Sounds good- at last a genuine attempt to have a debate about the evidence or lack thereof for anthropogenic global warming. On the face of it, its not a very impressive argument, but at least they're giving it a go:
'The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple; to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.'
Ok, I admit I flunked statistics, but even I know that 30-40 years is a sample size of almost comical teensiness. One of the points of agreement of all climatoligists is the influence of long term effects feeding into ephemeral and short term effects. Who knows whether increased solar activity 100 years ago isn't still having an effect?
'"This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.' Dr Forster sounds very definite- in a way that scientists in my experience steer clear of when our understanding of the complexities of something like weather or fluid dynamics is so weak. Climate has so many feedback inputs, so many inter-relations and so many variables that a definitive statement like that sounds like propaganda. Dr Forster might be right, but I don't think he is justified.
Enough of the micro-arguments. I think that people are beginning to realise that of all the problems facing the world, climate change is one of the least important, and that for human societies issues like good governance, pollution, over-population, absolute poverty and the growth of global pathologies like Wahhabism are far more pressing. As one African critic of the recent Live Earth jamborees pointed out, mooted deaths from global warning are 1 million by 2050, whereas more than 4 million die per year from preventable diseases in Africa alone. Anthropogenic global warming may be the hottest issue for fat blowhards like Al Gore, but for the teeming masses of Africa, South America and Asia, its a remote and entirely theoretical problem.
We may see a sea-change in global attitudes to the issue for one standout reason: the United States is no longer the worlds largest contributor of CO2, and therefore a lot of the fun has gone out of bleating on about it for the hordes of Great Satan bashers.
'A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change...Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis. '
Sounds good- at last a genuine attempt to have a debate about the evidence or lack thereof for anthropogenic global warming. On the face of it, its not a very impressive argument, but at least they're giving it a go:
'The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple; to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.'
Ok, I admit I flunked statistics, but even I know that 30-40 years is a sample size of almost comical teensiness. One of the points of agreement of all climatoligists is the influence of long term effects feeding into ephemeral and short term effects. Who knows whether increased solar activity 100 years ago isn't still having an effect?
'"This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.' Dr Forster sounds very definite- in a way that scientists in my experience steer clear of when our understanding of the complexities of something like weather or fluid dynamics is so weak. Climate has so many feedback inputs, so many inter-relations and so many variables that a definitive statement like that sounds like propaganda. Dr Forster might be right, but I don't think he is justified.
Enough of the micro-arguments. I think that people are beginning to realise that of all the problems facing the world, climate change is one of the least important, and that for human societies issues like good governance, pollution, over-population, absolute poverty and the growth of global pathologies like Wahhabism are far more pressing. As one African critic of the recent Live Earth jamborees pointed out, mooted deaths from global warning are 1 million by 2050, whereas more than 4 million die per year from preventable diseases in Africa alone. Anthropogenic global warming may be the hottest issue for fat blowhards like Al Gore, but for the teeming masses of Africa, South America and Asia, its a remote and entirely theoretical problem.
We may see a sea-change in global attitudes to the issue for one standout reason: the United States is no longer the worlds largest contributor of CO2, and therefore a lot of the fun has gone out of bleating on about it for the hordes of Great Satan bashers.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
This is the British opposition?
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ian_williams/2007/07/george_iii_or_george_w.html
'The purpose of politics at that time [the 18th Century] was to seize control of a government's treasury and use it to distribute cash and jobs to the victor's friends. Think Halliburton and those hosts of Bob Jones University graduates swarming through the White House and the Iraq occupation administration. Think of the atavistic attachment to the death penalty, undiminished since the time of Tyburn Hill.
Even as the Founding Fathers complained about the overbearing demeanour of King George, they enshrined in the constitution a presidency with all, and perhaps even more, of the powers and perks of an 18th century British monarchy. George W has abused his own power and his own subjects far more consistently and effectively than Farmer George III ever did.'
If you read right through this piece, you brain will eventually fizzle, a little smoke will come out your ears and you'll die. This is caused by the presence of ignorance of such concentration that it might even burn a hole through the laptop screen and scorch the desk. I warn you.
'The purpose of politics at that time [the 18th Century] was to seize control of a government's treasury and use it to distribute cash and jobs to the victor's friends. Think Halliburton and those hosts of Bob Jones University graduates swarming through the White House and the Iraq occupation administration. Think of the atavistic attachment to the death penalty, undiminished since the time of Tyburn Hill.
Even as the Founding Fathers complained about the overbearing demeanour of King George, they enshrined in the constitution a presidency with all, and perhaps even more, of the powers and perks of an 18th century British monarchy. George W has abused his own power and his own subjects far more consistently and effectively than Farmer George III ever did.'
If you read right through this piece, you brain will eventually fizzle, a little smoke will come out your ears and you'll die. This is caused by the presence of ignorance of such concentration that it might even burn a hole through the laptop screen and scorch the desk. I warn you.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Know thy Enemy
What do Wahhabists believe? The following is taken from "Gods Terrorists" by Charles Allen.
1. Belief in one man's reading of the Quran and the Hadith, and a determination to bring about a theocracy based exclusively on those beliefs accompanied by a rejection of all other interpretations.
2. Absolute devotion, formalised by the swearing of an oath, to a single authority figure who is both religious leader and military commander, Imam and Amir, often accompanied by the belief that this leader has quasi-divine abilities.
3. A perception of that figure as the natural heir to the caliphs of early Islam, if not an Imam-Mahdi figure heralding the final great battle against Islam's enemies.
4. A belief in Millenarianism - the notion that the end of the world is fast approaching, and with it the triumph of Islam.
5. An us-and-them mentality, whereby all who hold other religious views are seen as heretics and thus fair game for violent suppression.
6. A recognition of jihad as one's prime duty, but ignoring jihad akbar (the Great Jihad) in favour of jihad kabeer (the Lesser Jihad), interpreted as nothing less than holy war.
7. The making of a symbolic retreat before beginning the jihad, so replicating the Prophet's hijra from Mecca to Medina.
8. The wish to return to a past golden age of Islam, together with a rejection of modern learning and technology (except where this can be used to further jihad).
9. The recruiting of young male followers from among the poor and ignorant (preferably prepubescent orphans), subjecting them to long periods of intensive and exclusive religious indoctrination while keeping them isolated from other sources of ideas.
10. The promotion of the death-wish mentality in which the status of Shahid (martyr) is exalted as the ultimate goal of every jihadi.
Mr. Allen is actually discussing Indian Wahhabism in the 1820's, but anyone who has been paying attention over the last six years will know that what we face all over the globe is exactly this. Its a shame the common terminology has become imprecise; the press variously use Islamists, Islamofascists, Muslim Extemists, Muslim Fundamentalists, Wadudists and any number of other terms. But Wahhabism has been around for 600 years, and that ten point list has not varied a jot since it was first devised. In this new war we find ourselves in, a war with a million fronts and none; it is of prime importance to know our enemy as clearly as possible. Our enemy is Wahhabism, and its twin founts are the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. History shows us that both of those places have long associations with Wahhabism, and are still the spiritual home of the cult.
Prosyletisers have gone forth from those places all over the world infecting mainstream Islam with the Wahhabist cult teachings. If we don't stop them, if mainstream Islam doesn't stop them, the whole world WILL be at war with Islam. Except it won't really be Islam at all- it will be the sour, bitter hateful fruit of Ibn Taymiyya and his suicide cult.
1. Belief in one man's reading of the Quran and the Hadith, and a determination to bring about a theocracy based exclusively on those beliefs accompanied by a rejection of all other interpretations.
2. Absolute devotion, formalised by the swearing of an oath, to a single authority figure who is both religious leader and military commander, Imam and Amir, often accompanied by the belief that this leader has quasi-divine abilities.
3. A perception of that figure as the natural heir to the caliphs of early Islam, if not an Imam-Mahdi figure heralding the final great battle against Islam's enemies.
4. A belief in Millenarianism - the notion that the end of the world is fast approaching, and with it the triumph of Islam.
5. An us-and-them mentality, whereby all who hold other religious views are seen as heretics and thus fair game for violent suppression.
6. A recognition of jihad as one's prime duty, but ignoring jihad akbar (the Great Jihad) in favour of jihad kabeer (the Lesser Jihad), interpreted as nothing less than holy war.
7. The making of a symbolic retreat before beginning the jihad, so replicating the Prophet's hijra from Mecca to Medina.
8. The wish to return to a past golden age of Islam, together with a rejection of modern learning and technology (except where this can be used to further jihad).
9. The recruiting of young male followers from among the poor and ignorant (preferably prepubescent orphans), subjecting them to long periods of intensive and exclusive religious indoctrination while keeping them isolated from other sources of ideas.
10. The promotion of the death-wish mentality in which the status of Shahid (martyr) is exalted as the ultimate goal of every jihadi.
Mr. Allen is actually discussing Indian Wahhabism in the 1820's, but anyone who has been paying attention over the last six years will know that what we face all over the globe is exactly this. Its a shame the common terminology has become imprecise; the press variously use Islamists, Islamofascists, Muslim Extemists, Muslim Fundamentalists, Wadudists and any number of other terms. But Wahhabism has been around for 600 years, and that ten point list has not varied a jot since it was first devised. In this new war we find ourselves in, a war with a million fronts and none; it is of prime importance to know our enemy as clearly as possible. Our enemy is Wahhabism, and its twin founts are the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. History shows us that both of those places have long associations with Wahhabism, and are still the spiritual home of the cult.
Prosyletisers have gone forth from those places all over the world infecting mainstream Islam with the Wahhabist cult teachings. If we don't stop them, if mainstream Islam doesn't stop them, the whole world WILL be at war with Islam. Except it won't really be Islam at all- it will be the sour, bitter hateful fruit of Ibn Taymiyya and his suicide cult.
Don't worry, he's only got a little gun
'No Islamist armies are about to march into Europe - indeed, most victims of Revolutionary Islamism live in the Middle East, not in Europe - and Ahmadinejad, his nasty rhetoric notwithstanding, does not have a fraction of Hitler's power.' Ian Buruma, quoted at http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001481.html
The ramshackle armoury of arguments made by lefties about the Wahhabist attempts to take over the world are weirdly disparate. One I often here is that they just don't have the weapons which would necessitate us taking them seriously. The 19 hijackers on 9/11 had a few boxcutters and a plan. Their weapon was our airplane. The day before yesterday, the bomb was some gas canisters and cans of petrol as the detonator. As arguments go, the one which says:
Yes they are fanatics full of murderous intent and psychopathic hatred of things they don't understand, but don't worry! They're only armed with knives and such. It always was a stupid argument, but this weeks events have surely lain it in its grave.
The ramshackle armoury of arguments made by lefties about the Wahhabist attempts to take over the world are weirdly disparate. One I often here is that they just don't have the weapons which would necessitate us taking them seriously. The 19 hijackers on 9/11 had a few boxcutters and a plan. Their weapon was our airplane. The day before yesterday, the bomb was some gas canisters and cans of petrol as the detonator. As arguments go, the one which says:
Yes they are fanatics full of murderous intent and psychopathic hatred of things they don't understand, but don't worry! They're only armed with knives and such. It always was a stupid argument, but this weeks events have surely lain it in its grave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)