Wilsonizer

I've Moved!

2009-03-08T08:37:00.001-05:00

Hey, I don't Blog here anymore; you can find me at my all new Blog, Acre of Independence!

Home Sweet Home!

2007-07-30T15:49:00.000-05:00

For those of you still out there in the audience, at long last I am back home! The Wilsonizer is officially off of hiatus and fully active once more. Thanks for staying dedicated to this site, and if you happen to land here when you clicked on the "next blog " option, stick around, plenty o' good stuff to follow!

Still Bloggin'

2007-07-09T11:45:00.000-05:00

My new post is standing tall here at the Elephant Bar. Enjoy!

A Visit to the Grindhouse

2007-04-19T07:07:00.000-05:00

I took the opportunity to watch Grindhouse the other day; I absolutely loved it, but I am not surprised at all that it flopped hard in America.

Grindhouse is a veritable concept movie, an homage to a style of film making and viewing experience of the so called grindhouses of inner city 1970s fame. Two movies in one, they are unified by faux trailers (prevues) for similar movies (my favorite was Eli Roth's Thanksgiving horror movie), as well as a few ancillary characters who appear in both films.

Why did it bomb? Many reasons have been cited, including the film's length, its somewhat lurid subject material, as well as the arguably sub-par plotlines and over-the-top violence of both films.

I think the film bombed because it was too smart for its own good.

Most people under the age of 45 neither remember nor appreciate the raunch cinema of the '70s, and some of the window dressing elements of this film (ie the missing reels, the trailers, the grainy film appearance, et al) went unnoticed, unappreciated, or actually distracted too much from the viewing experience.

The movie bombed hard when it opened, and plummeted out of the top ten like no one's business. There are probably some unhappy campers in the Weinstein camp, and no doubt people will think about producing another Shrek chapter or Pirate sequel before they experiment (and invest) in something like this again.

But my guess is this movie will sell well as a DVD. There are undoubtably many additional scenes (like the reels missing from the actual films!), and addtional features that will make this movie a must add to any collection.

The first feature, Planet Terror, is a standard zombie plague flick. The effects and action are cartoonish and excessive, but true to form, this movie replicates the myriad of terrible horror movies that dominated the 70s and early 80s (c.f. My Bloody Valentine, Happy Birthday to you, Basket Case, Evil Dead, et al, if you can even find any of them on DVD), and does so with a wink at the audience. Terror's biggest weakness is that the Zombie genre was, er, resurrected a few years back with films like 28 Days Later, Dawn of the Dead, and the like. So Grindhouse opened up with a comical shockfest that most filmgoing audiences had already been exposed to.

I still liked it, and hopefully an entrepeneur will open a Bone Shack franchise in my neck of the woods some day soon.

The second movie-within-a-movie, Death Proof, is on far more solid ground as a unique, stand alone film. A revival of the muscle car genre of the 1970s, this thriller is Quentin Tarantino's contribution to Grindhouse. Death Proof is replete with all the trademark Tarantino banter and pop culture references, and bad-ass MOPAR V8's wreaking havoc on winding roads.

Quentin Tarantino paces the film spectacularly, introducing viewers to a quartet of fun-loving Austin women who happen upon Stuntman Mike (played by the phenomenal Kurt Russell) in a bar. The first act frames the calm, twisted Stuntman character, who drives a "Death Proof" (for the driver anyway) Chevy Nova SS. Mike charms the ladies at first but seals their fate on the dark open road. . .

The film then flashes forward to a new quartet of lovely women, hollywood types this time who are in Tennessee to film a low budget film. Two of these are stuntwomen, and are steeped in the lore of classic seventies films. They talk about iconic yet obscure films from the 1970's like Dirty Mary and Crazy Larry and Vanishing Point, and establish the fact that they are a tough, devil-may-care crew. On a whim they decide to test drive a 1970 Dodge Challenger (a dead ringer for the Vanishing Point car) on Tennessee back roads. And once again Stuntman Mike comes into the picture, driving a black 69 Charger R/T; this time, however, he gets a little more than he bargained for. . .

If Tarantino films were books, they would be appreciated as much for their footnote references to nearly lost pop culture treasures as for the content themselves. Have you seen Vanishing Point lately? Not many people have. At one point in the film Stuntman Mike laments the advent of CGI, and appears nostalgic for the time when, if a filmaker wanted a car to crash, he had to put a stuntman in it. There is little doubt that Tarantino's stuntmen earned their pay with the last reel of this film.

It would not be surprising to see this movie elevated to cult classic status after a little while, either. Grindhouse took a chance and tried to create an artistic experience from schlock material. The movie failed to make coin, but the spectacle is worth watching.

Post Script. I ordered Vanishing Point and Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry (the Turbocharger edition) on Amazon the other day, so the Grind house is alive and well in Afghanistan!

Daily Kos Strays Off Message (Again!)

2007-04-17T05:50:00.000-05:00

Markos, what's up?

Yet another Daily Kos diarist strays into anti-semitic territory with a post critical of the Israel lobby in the United States entitled Portrait of a Great Taboo: The Power of the Israel Lobby in the United States ; the diarist links to video posted on the Vanguard News Network, a neo-nazi white supremacist site, whose motto is purported to be "No Jews. Just Right".

Let's see how long this tripe stays posted.

Interestingly enough, a previous post by this Kos diarist, Sabbah, included an illustration by Carlos Latuff, an artist whose work was featured in and earned a second place finish (and $4000.00) in Iran's holocast denial cartoon contest.

Such are the perils of providing so much access to such a broad array of diarists on a given blog site; once you post something and it is out there, you can never, ever reel it back in.

Is Kos erecting a tent so big that Alex Linder can now find shelter within it? I don't think that was his intent when he launched DK back in the day.

Getting past the post's echo chamber commentary, which veers into anti-semitism at times (or as defenders at all costs of left leaning sites say, "harmless satire"), someone rebuked this seemingly anti-progressive train of thought far more effectively than I could:

American Jewish citizens have a right to express
their views without being charged with placing the interests of Israel ahead
of those of the United States. . .It is high time that the suggestion that
somehow Jews are especially disqualified from having a voice in the affairs of
whatever nation they belong to (lest they come to be a sinister cabal) was
banished from acceptable political discourse. By that I don't mean it
should become a criminal offence; I mean merely that it should be regarded and
roundly condemned by everyone of progressive democratic outlook for what it
is: at best, a disgraceful exercise in the operation of double standards; at
worst, anti-Semitism.

Well said. Now, let us see if any diarists come out on this site with a viewpoint that counters the illustrious Sabbah's, or at least arguesthat lying in bed with neo-nazis, fascists, white supremacists, and the Iranian Mullahs is a terrible vantage point from which to advance one's supposedly progressive views.

And the real acid test for Kos' influence in the coming election cycles will be whether progressive candidates believe that posting diaries on the site ties them to the anti - semitic crew that is beginning to post with greater regularity and enthusiasm there.

Vamos a ver.

UPDATE: The diarist changed his link to the recommended documentary; now his readers are no longer required to view a video posted by neo-nazis; they can view the exact same video (touted by neo-nazis as being aligned with their perverse viewpoint), posted by someone else. Great.

Straying Off Message

2007-04-10T05:10:00.000-05:00

Blogs, political campaigns, and social movements often rest upon foundations of a unifying mindset, viewpoint, or message. It is the message that draws people to support whatever it is one purports to be, say, or do. So it is often times interesting, comical or even a bit disturbing to see any high profile individual or group veer off message, and away from the familiar territory they normally stake off.

Elizabeth Edwards ventured far afield recently when she publicly criticized a less financially endowed neighbor who is having problems adjusting to the 28,000 square foot Castillo de Edwards looming over his modest property:

Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, particularly recalls the time neighbor Monty Johnson brought out a gun while chasing workers investigating a right of way near his property. The Edwards family has yet to meet Johnson in person. Edwards views Johnson as a "rabid, rabid Republican" who refuses to clean up his "slummy" property just to spite her
family, whose lavish 28,000-square-foot estate is nearby on 102 wooded
acres.

Johnson, 55, acknowledges his Republican roots. But he takes offense to the suggestion he has purposefully left his property, including an old garage he leases for use as a car shop, in dilapidated
condition. Johnson said he has lived his entire life on the property, which he said his family purchased before the Great Depression. He said he's spent a lot of money to try and fix up the 42-acre tract. "I have to budget. I have to live within my means," Johnson said. "I don't have millions of dollars to fix the place."

"I thought he [Senator Edwards] was supposed to be for the poor people," Johnson said. "But does he ever socialize with any poor people? He doesn't speak to me."

Indeed, the Edwards campaign literature states they want to create opportunities in rural America. But those who live within driving distance to Research Triangle Park in metropolitan Raleigh can watch the erstwhile transformation of rural America right before your eyes, populism be damned. The Rhode Island - sized Edwards Estate is symptomatic of the change taking place in this part of the country, and many others as well. The once modest homes and wooded fields of sleepy rural communities are being replaced by subdivisions of $300,000.00 homes, stacked on top of one another; Targets and Super-Walmarts are overtaking the little country stores, and where once there were familes who lived on the same properties for generations there are now educated, monied intellectuals scorning the original inhabitants for their unenlightened demeanor and simple ways. Once the property taxes rise, families sell their valuable land to developers, and the problems of "slummy" rural America (the second of the Two Americas, actually) just go elsewhere.

The Progressive blog Daily Kos went egregiously off message a few days ago when one of its diarists posted an antisemitic screed illustrated by an obscene photo that juxtaposed the visage of Hitler upon that of a man of Jewish persuasion [the text and illustration were subsequently removed, and many people in the comments section laughably suggested a conservative plot to discredit the site). Anti-Semitism in any form, on a supposedly progressive web site? Kos did not bathe itself in glory with this posting, and overall it is is probably a strategically poor idea to alienate an influential segment of the American population, especially when you plan on transforming American society and Crashing the Gate, I would think.

Finally, Illinois Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama, whose campaign proposes to rid Washington of its culture of corruption, was recently photographed meeting in his (federal) office with key campaign advisors, a major faux pax that is not only representative of that which the freshman senator purports to be trying to change, but is technically illegal to boot. The meeting may have been innocuous, but the perception that endures is the Obama campaign is just more business as usual politics, and this is far from the squeaky clean image this candidate is marketing.

So, for your reading pleasure, a few interesting anecdotes of politicians, bloggers, and straphangers off message. The aforementioned examples are more than just idle coffee talk, though. These journeys away from the steady path of The Message make you wonder if the aberrant remark, posting or action is just a stray blip on the radar, or if the the message itself is truly genune at all.

Hope, Rather than Despair

2007-04-09T06:01:00.000-05:00

In an Easter litany of the world's suffering,
Pope Benedict XVI lamented that "nothing
positive" is happening in Iraq and decried the unrest in Afghanistan and
bloodshed in Africa and Asia. . .

"Afghanistan is marked by growing unrest and
instability," Benedict said. "In the Middle East, besides some signs of hope in the dialogue between Israel
and the Palestinian Authority, nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by
continual slaughter as the civil population flees."

The Pope's message was a somber one. And it is easy to be overwhelmed with despair when one ponders the burden of suffering, poverty, and hardship borne by so many people around the world today.

It takes work, courage perhaps, to see the world as it truly is and to still be filled with hope.

I spent this Easter far from home, away from my wife and children. I attended Easter Mass in a tent with a bunch of mostly strangers, all of whom were equally far from home this holiday season. I missed my family, the comforts of my house, and the bounty of my dinner table, which I have no doubt would have been a festive mess of colored easter eggs, spilled dye, candy, frosting and the like.

But away from home or not, I do not despair this Easter season.

It is easy to look at the many actions taken in the years since September 11 and count up the missteps and wrong turns. But we are where we are at this moment in time, one day after Easter Sunday, and there is no going back.

And where there is suffering, death, and yes, despair in Iraq and Afghanistan today, there is hope as well.

For every story emerging from these places detailing the reality of corruption, death, and failure, there are reasons to believe that all is not lost, and that the world is more than a Clean, Well Lighted Place.

There are people working in Iraq and Afghanistan to provide security, create jobs, enhance governance, open schools, and, in short, drive despair away.

Will any of this work? Who can really say?

But when I ponder the meaning of Easter, of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, I can look beyond the darkness and despair that fills the headlines of the world, and still be hopeful. And I believe that those refuse to give in to the nothingness and meaninglessness of despair, who would put a spade to the earth, turn the soil, and plant a forest one tree at a time, or take a hammer to wood and put a roof over a school in some part of the world that most people cannot even find on the map, are truly in tune with the spirit of the holiday we celebrated yesterday.

So a happy belated Easter, dear readers, from one who still looks for and hopes for the best in this world of ours.

GWOT and Newspeak over at the EB

2007-04-04T14:21:00.000-05:00

I am still alive, albeit cooling my heels far, far away from my comfortable study these days.

My new post is up over at the Elephant Bar, and in it I discuss the end of the Global War on Terror. Check it out, while you still remember what the GWOT is!

Military Medicine Morass

2007-03-03T15:18:00.000-05:00

You medical people will have more lives to answer for in the other world than even we generals.

-Napoléon

The Walter Reed story continues to play out across the media, and the ramifications expanded over the last 48 hours. For those out of the loop, an explosive Washington post exposé revealed squalid conditions and a morass of bureaucratic problems at the Walter Reed Medical Center on February 18th.

The General in Charge of Walter Reed was relieved, and then the Secretary of the Army was fired, largely because of his tepid response to fixing the problems at the Hospital (ie don't put the general who just left six months ago in charge of the hospital, he's probably part of the problem!).

The President himself addressed the issue, and plans to start a bipartisan investigation to "investigate how this situation was allowed to happen, how it can be fixed, and how we can prevent it from happening again".

It is shameful that wounded American Soldiers were housed in such atrocious conditions, and that after five years of war that procedures could not have been streamlined to free at least one group of people, the wounded, from the life-sucking procedural bureacracy that comprises the military's inner workings.

There are some silver clouds here though, meager though they may be. First of all, the military healthcare system is going to come under intense scrutiny, especially as it applies to the care of wounded Soldiers. The nerve-wracking process that casualties must go through to receive disability will likely be a casualty itself of this scandal as well; perhaps actuaries will play a lesser role in the process of determining disability payments, and future wounded Soldiers will move more quickly to their medical boards as well.

Secretary Gates set a good, stern example for his enormous defense bureaucracy, too. The SecDef held senior leaders accountable, and you can bet that his cannon shot into the chests of the former Army Secretary and hospital commander will be heard loud and clear across the ranks; no doubt there are closets being cleaned as these words go to print.

The War and the Media: Yet Another Look!

2007-03-03T14:47:00.000-05:00

My new post is up over at the Elephant Bar. I talked a little about the new media and its effectivess in conveying information about what is going on in Iraq:

If one really wants to have an idea of what's going on in the war, scanning through some of the many excellent bloggers and regional media accounts is now the most effective way to get information (short of donning a uniform and going there yourself, of course!).

My guess is that the example of the old vs new media war coverage is intersubjective, too; that is, potential readers with interests other things, such as business, technology, and the like are probably relying more and more on new media outlets to gather and share information on their favorite topics.

Check out the whole thing here!

Confronting Fascism, Then and Now

2007-02-25T08:26:00.000-05:00

Harrison over at Possum Bistro has an excellent post about the West's ability (or lack thereof) to confront Islamic extremism, comparing our fight today to Europe's fight against the rise of the Third Reich following World War I:

In 1939, Allied propaganda sought to demonise the
Germans as savage brutes obsessed with the spoils of reckless military
adventurism - a dominant theme that stuck with Prussia in its wars with
Austria-Hungary and France, and post-Bismarck Germany in 1914 - who threatened
to impose an anti-Semitic, xenophobic, anti-democratic, totalitarian,
militaristic and intolerant kultur on all of Europe - and possibly the world:
the Hitlerian signature seared into the consciousness of all peoples, the Third
Reich's imprint on civilisation.

Our oldest enemies have been resurrected, and
like Hitler, they have thrown down the gauntlet - a blatant challenge to our
culture and existence that we ignore at our peril. Until we are willing to state
what our principles are, and stick to them, we will always be one step behind our
adversaries.

Read the whole thing.

I also suggest reading Terror and Liberalism, which ties into the themes of this post very well.

Effectiveness of Provincial Reconstruction Teams

2007-02-24T18:34:00.000-05:00

Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) were established early on in Afghanistan, as well as Iraq. The purpose of these PRTs is to:

Provide both improved security and to facilitate reconstruction and economic development throughout the country. The United States and the international community envision the PRTs as transitional structures[;] they are established to support the elected [host nation] government.

In Iraq, the new strategy, beyond increasing troops, entails transforming the structure of the PRT to a State Department - led, civil/military endeavor:

The most important difference between the original PRT model and the Embedded PRTs is that instead of it being lead and comprised of primarily military personnel, the team leader will be a State Department official and the deputy team leader will be a senior military commander. Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) will work alongside PRTs providing "security, life support and operations." In a soon to be published USIP report, the operational concept, command and control, and funding for Embedded PRTs is clearly outlined.

It would be interesting to see what the actual PRT metrics are for both IRAQ and Afghanistan; that is, what is the causal link between the PRTs and economic growth, stability, etc.

It would seem that if a PRT (or anything for that matter) drastically increases the economic activity in a certain area, that the people, having discretionary income and stability, would refrain from and resist violence/extremism.

Anyone who can find official documents referencing the effects of the PRTs, please link them in the comments section of this post.

Convergence of Government Effort

2007-02-24T17:50:00.000-05:00

From my Post over at the Elephant Bar:

American foreign policy challenges in the coming decades are more often than not going to require action in complex situations. The United States will continue to find itself involved in developing countries, where requirements of advancing regional cooperation, economic development, and deterring or neutralizing threats intersect, and thus require a multifaceted response; there will be more Djibouti deployments than DESERT STORMS in the coming years. Governmental agencies will be required to work side by side in organizations comprised of various law and humanitarian bureaus, and perhaps controlled by uniformed military personnel. On the ground, infantry company commanders will find themselves working together with FBI and USAID personnel more often than with direct support artillery batteries.

Read the whole thing here!

Attention! New Post is up!

2007-02-20T23:11:00.000-05:00

My new post is up at the Elephant Bar.

Interesting Developments in Anbar

2007-02-19T20:49:00.000-05:00

Wretchard over at the Belmont Club has a terrific post on new developments over in Iraq, potential emerging capabilities in the war, and the American political system's inability to keep pace with a dynamic environment. A sample:

[A]pparently the Anbar tribes have quit "playing both sides" and come down on the side of the US. What does that suggest about who tribes think is going to win? And why do they think that? Another commenter at Small Wars Council shrewdly understands, from the apparent progress in Anbar, that the correct interpretation of "changing the rules of engagement" doesn't mean "taking the gloves off" but increasing the degrees of freedom that the commanders in the field are allowed to exercise. . .

[R]eturning to the subject of "degrees of freedom" and walnut-sized brain responses, one wonders at how useful it is to keep seeing the world through the prism of the Vietnam War. Clearly for many of the Democrats in Congress who have just supported a nonbinding resolution aimed at "bringing the boys home", 2007 is 1967. One wonders whether for certain people every year will be always be 1967. However that may be, as much time has elapsed from 1967 till today as between the time Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album was released and the end of the Silent Movie era.

A great post that raises many questions. Check it out!

Congress, Then and Now

2007-02-19T13:52:00.000-05:00

From today's Novak column:

[Congressman Jack Murtha] could not keep quiet the secret Democratic strategy that he had forged for the promised "second step" against President Bush's Iraq policy (after the "first step" of a nonbinding resolution of disapproval). In an interview last Thursday with the antiwar Web site MoveCongress.org, he revealed plans to put conditions on funding of U.S. troops. His message: I am running this show.

Murtha has shaped party policy that would cripple Bush's Iraq troop surge by placing conditions on funding. That represents the most daring congressional attempt to micromanage ongoing armed hostilities since the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War challenged President Abraham Lincoln.

The Joint Committee on Conduct of the War was established in 1861, and operated through 1865. Interestingly enough, the stated purpose of the committee during that time was

a way for the legislative branch to check and monitor executive direction of the war. There were a number of different ways in which the committee tried to control President Lincolns (sic) direction of military affairs. In some cases, the committee supplied popular daily newspapers with secret testimony to sway public opinion in its direction. Individual committee members often made speeches before the House or Senate to advance the committees (sic) point of view. Finally, through the release of its official reports, the committee hoped to sway public opinion in favor of the Republican war program. In this latter regard, the committees (sic) most notable successes were in the area of war-time propaganda, particularly with the publication of its reports on the treatment of Union prisoners of war and the Fort Pillow massacre. Intended to portray the Southern as backward and benighted, these reports were important morale building tools.

Overall, when gauging the effectiveness of the committee during the Civil War, historian Bruce Tap wrote

"[B]ecause of its collective ignorance of military science and preference for the heroic saber charge, "the committee tended to reinforce the unrealistic and simplistic notions of warfare that prevailed in the popular mind."

President Harry Truman ran a committee similar in purpose during the Second World War when he served in Congress; rather than question tactics or commanders in the field, the Truman Committee, as it came to be called, identified ways to make the management of war materiel and resources more effective, effectively transition industry onto a war footing, and eliminate government fraud, waste and abuse. The Truman Committee is credited with saving billions of dollars, and many believe it set the foundation for the United States to triumph during the war.

When people look at the actions taken in Congress today, it is easy to begin wondering where this legislative body will ultimately reside in the annals of American history. Will the long debate on nonbinding resolutions, improbable tactical solutions, and plans to end a conflict not through debate, but by clamping the purse strings on planned troop deployments, find itself referenced in the same paragraphs of the Truman Committee? Or will the actions heretofore taken consign this Congress to be referred to along with their well meaning, inept, obstructionist counterparts during the American Civil War?

Time will tell.

Wilsonizer Saddles Up to the Elephant Bar

2007-02-18T14:22:00.000-05:00

I am an occasional poster over at the Elephant Bar blog; here is my first, and hopefully not last, post at that distinguished establishment. Enjoy!

Sequels: The Revenge!

2007-02-18T12:37:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: I am not done cleaning out my closet; here is some more junk, updated and highlighted in red!

There have been many loose ends over the past few months; news that was commented upon, stories that were told, and observations that made that, once brought up, were put aside due to the exigencies of the moment. In the interest of closure, here are some updates:

1. Getting Smart on Alternative Energy: I posted on this topic last year, and time has not made this issue any less relevant. A friend introduced me to Zap Cars, which are compact, completely electric automobiles. A typical Zap car costs about 10K, pretty cheap! They have a short range and top speeds of about 40 MPH, so long trips are out of the picture. But for those with short commutes to work, what better way to stick it to Chavez and his ilk than to jet back and forth in an electric car? Maybe next summer I will buy a Xebra Pickup, and park the Jeep! Update: reader Taryn commented: If you're interested in a Zap electric Sedan or Pk- come take a test drive! I am in Glendale California at EnVironmental Motors. Check it out: EnVironmentalMotors.com

2. John Edwards' Two Americas: There were two America's for John Edwards this winter: The one he lived in, and the one he blogged in. Senator Edwards ended up receiving receiving flak for both of them. The Edwards Campaign hired two liberal bloggers for its online site, but failed to at a minimum Google either of them to check out past materials, which were expletive ridden and insulting to Catholics (or as some defenders claimed, "witty satire"). After some handwringing, Edwards opted to keep both bloggers on the staff, but they subsequently resigned days later The Edwards campaign drives on however, in all its poor-subject verb-agreement glory (it should read "Billions Have Been Squandered, no??). Meanwhile, the Senator's new 28,000 square foot home, a veritable Biltmore East, is nearing completion. The Senator took some good natured HEAT rounds for running a populist campaign on the one hand, and building a guilded age, Rhode Island-sized estate on the other. Such is life. Even if Senator Edwards fails to win the Presidency, at least all will find solace in the fact that he and his family will suffer little in the aftermath.

3. Britney Spears/Anna Nicole/Astro-Chick: Not too much new on either of these three critical fronts; Dear readers be assured, if news emerges on these stories, you will find riveting analysis right here! All in all, ought-seven is turning into a bizarre year for celebrities. Update: Lisa Nowak, the (allegedly) psychotic diaper wearing scorned astro-woman, has been released from jail, fitted with a small tracking device. Hopefully she is medicated enough to resist the urge to become the Spirit of Vengeance once again, riding like hell across America. . . which brings me to more surprising celebrity news: the Ghost Rider had a good opening weekend. What a surprise, I would have bet on that movie tanking. . . and according to a non-linked story on Drudge, "Britney Spears made a late-night dash to hospital after cutting off all her hair, a newspaper claims on Monday, and she begged medical staff: 'Help me'". . . And the body of the late Anna Nicle Smith is ready for viewing. . . And there is more evidence that Britney is not well . . .

Enough Wilsonizer Celebrity news, until the spring thaw, one would hope. . .

4. Nonbinding Morass: I quasi-liveblogged the Congressional nonbinding resolution on Iraq (in that I wrote the post and updates to it throughout the day), yet slept through the follow on failure of a similar motion in the Senate. Now that the resolution has passed/failed:

a. David Broder predicts a backlash against the harshest war critics, and a resurgence of President Bush?!

b. The Victory Caucus continues to gain momentum.

c. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says "A vote on Iraq will come"; Senator Hillary Clinton has now stated that troops should start within 90 days, and is introducing legislation to do as much; she further promised to end the war when she becomes president, if Bush fails to do so. Great.

d. Meanwhile despite the posturing, punditry and debate, life in Iraq, and the war, continue. And continue some more. . .

Hope you enjoyed the sequels.

And to finish this thread, the latest bigfoot sighting here.

Britney Spears: Ranger Candidate? ? ?

2007-02-17T08:09:00.000-05:00

Why in the world did she do this???

Perhaps she is unhinged; divorce can be stressful, I've been told.

Perhaps there is another reason for the change in Ms. Spears' sudden, drastic change in appearance. Let us advance a theory here.

Maybe she is heading here, a place they say is "not for the weak or fainthearted". Pop princess or not, Britney is fairly tough and may have what it takes; after all, she did kiss Madonna once.

If that's the case, then all I have to say is "Good haircut, Ranger!"

Lieberman, Nonbinding

2007-02-16T22:07:00.000-05:00

Sen Lieberman on the floor FEB 5:

Cynics may say this kind of thing happens all of the time in Congress. In this case, however, they are wrong. If [the nonbinding resolution opposing the troop surge] passed, this resolution would be unique in American legislative history. I contacted the Library of Congress on this question last week and was told that, never before, when American soldiers have been in harm’s way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy.

War and Military Readiness

2007-02-16T18:12:00.000-05:00

Westhawk posted about an article today in which Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace spoke about military readiness. In the article, Gen. Pace told the Senate Armed Services Committee that

risks have increased because U.S. forces are not training for the full range of operations that may confront them. Pace said the U.S. military needs to be ready to counter a conventional enemy in a conventional war, such as could break out on the Korean Peninsula, Pace said. “We did not expect in 2001 to have to conduct conventional operations in Afghanistan, but we did,” he said. “There are other countries out there that are gaining (military) capacity.”

American forces have such a short turnaround time before heading back to places like Iraq and Afghanistan that some aspects of their training for these higher ends of war are being shorted, Pace said. For example, combined arms training is being purposely shorted to concentrate on aspects of war that soldiers will need in Iraq, he said.

This testimony is interesting, although most of General Pace's points can be countered rather effectively. Here are some salient counterpoints:

U.S. forces are not training for the full range of operations . . . but United States forces are conducting a broad range of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. In Afghanistan and Iraq, military units have conducted several conventional operations at the task force level, often employing joint assets and working combined, with allied or partner nation forces. American forces are also involved in humanitarian operations in both theaters as well. The Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq and Afghanistan are key non-kinetic enablers on the battlefield. And Special Operations Forces are honed in the full range of their missions more than any other time in their history.

While units may not be rotating to train at the national readiness centers in Fort Irwin, Fort Polk, and the like with the frequency they did prior to 9/11, the experience that Soldiers and Units have gained on the battlefield is immeasurably more valuable than ten days in either of these places.

What conventional military could America face in the coming days that is more seasoned than the United States' forces are at this moment? The senior commanders in the Army and Marines planned and executed a conventional invasion in Iraq, and have deployed to combat numerous times in both Iraq and Afghanistan; most junior officers, NCOs, and Soldiers have done the same.

the U.S. military needs to be ready to counter a conventional enemy in a conventional war. . . General Pace has a point when he says that American ground forces are stretched thin due to requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan; however, there is excess, untapped capacity in the Navy and the Air Force, which play only an ancillary role in both theaters of combat; the capabilities of these two services are a credible deterrent to conventional threats, and provide a potent capability to engage belligerent nation states militarily should the need arise. Also, at any given time, there are Army and Marine Ground units in the United States that could react in short order to an emerging threat. These units may have just completed a combat tour in either theater, but there is a reason soldiers take oaths when they enlist.

inability to conduct peacekeeping operations is impeding foreign policy objectives. . . The United States military continues to conduct humanitarian activities around the world, and remains engaged in all theaters. American Special Forces soldiers and Marines conduct foreign internal defense operations in Colombia, which aid the Colombian government's ability to combat the FARC narcoterrorists who have wreaked havoc in the countryside for over three decades. American Soldiers continue to deploy and conduct humanitarian and stability operations in the Phillippines. There is also a robust military presence in the Horn of Africa as well. Recently, the United States Navy projected power into the Persian Gulf with a Carrier Group in light of the continuing standoff with Iran. The arsenal is far from emptied due to Iraq and Afghanistan.

As the senior uniformed service member, the Chairman must provide sound military guidance to the President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense. While General Pace may see shortfalls in operational capability, the military would be better served if the Chairman bolstered the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan with his testimony, rather than fret about low probability hypotheticals.

The schwerpunkt of military operations is in these two theaters; failure in either one endangers longstanding alliances, and global stability itself. THAT is what the uniformed and civilian members of our government should be focused upon at this very moment.

The Iraq War - in Congress, in the Streets, and Elsewhere

2007-02-16T14:43:00.000-05:00

From the AP:

WASHINGTON - Democrats pushed a measure critical of President Bush's Iraq policy to the brink of House passage on Friday, the culmination of an extraordinary four-day debate over a war that has killed more than 3,100 U.S. troops. There was no doubt about the outcome of the vote, with nearly all Democrats in favor and as many as two dozen or so Republicans expected to break ranks. Passage would set the stage for a test vote Saturday in the Senate, where Republicans have said they intend to block consideration of the measure unless Democrats grant equal treatment to an alternative measure that opposes cutting funds for the troops."I will do everything in my power to ensure the House resolution dies an inglorious death in the Senate," said Sen. Lindsey Graham), R-S.C.The House measure disapproves of Bush's decision to increase troop strength, and commits Congress to "support and protect" the troops.

On top of that, movecongress.org recently wrote that Congressman Murtha

will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president’s foreign and national security policy [emph added]. (Note, this precise wording was subsequently removed from the site, wisely, but a bit too slowly!)

Meanwhile in Iraq, The Multinational Force Headquarters released this report of recent actions:

Militarily, the first additional Iraqi forces and the first of five additional U.S. brigades have arrived in Baghdad and are conducting operations. General Petraeus is adamant that to win this conflict we have to protect the population. Consequently, Iraqi army, Iraqi police, and coalition forces will actually live together in joint security stations throughout Baghdad in order to be closer to the Iraqi people that they are protecting. The additional forces will also enable us to create more transition teams to assist, teach, mentor and coach the Iraqi security forces. There will be both an increase in the number and size of the teams, and they will reach down to the lower-level units within the Iraqi army and police units.

The non-military aspects of the plan have been strengthened as well. On February 8th, the Council

of Representatives approved a new Iraqi budget that includes $10 billion for economic development programs such as refurbishing state-owned enterprises and assisting small businesses through microfinancing. This week the first state- owned enterprise won a competitive U.S. government procurement bid for $44 million to provide the new Iraqi army uniforms.

While there is cause for optimism, there are several reasons why -- need to be patient with this new strategy [Emph added]..

In and around Baghdad, Iraq the Model reports:

On the streets, checkpoints and roadblocks are becoming increasingly serious and strict in doing their job; soldiers and policemen are sparing no vehicles or convoys from searching and I personally saw a case yesterday where an ambulance driver tried to rush his vehicle through a checkpoint but the soldiers ordered him to stop and let him pass only after they checked the inside of the vehicle finding only a civilian medical emergency.
Strict checkpoints always mean slow traffic and inconvenient delays for Baghdadis but this downside is welcome when these security measures make the streets safer.

Despite the traffic jams and though this is the largest deployment for troops in the capital, daily life and civilian activity-contrary to what was expected-still continues at a rather normal level, unlike previous crackdowns where life came to near paralysis.

America’s military and political efforts in Iraq have clearly shifted since the beginning of the year, and although the increase in troops on the ground are a key component of the way this war is being waged, they are by no means the sole change that has occurred in the campaign.

It is regrettable that while many Americans find themselves at “the operator level” in a political war and executing a strategy that intends to bring the war to a positive outcome, the U.S. Congress is taking actions that, no matter what the outcome, will have no positive effect on the troops in the field, or make their job any easier.

In fact, one can expect additional legislation to be proposed after this resolution that further limits the flexibility and the capacity of the Commanders and Soldiers fighting in Iraq. So, while

Sunni insurgents and other groups wage the “war of a thousand cuts” in the streets of Iraq, certain members of Congress continue fighting their own war of attrition in the Capitol.

UPDATE: It passed, 246-182. You can check how your Representative voted here.

UPDATE 2: COPPERHEADS!

The Democrats' next move will to be to craft legislation that blocks funding, or places so many restrictions on Soldiers deploying to Combat that the DOD will be unable to field units:

Rep. Jack Murtha, one of the most vocal congressional opponents of the war in Iraq, is vowing to block President Bush’s plan to send

another 21,500 U.S. combat troops to Iraq in the upcoming debate over defense spending. “We’re gonna stop this surge,” the Pennsylvania Democrat declared in an interview posted on the Web site MoveCongress.org.

On Thursday, Pelosi pulled together a small group of reporters from the nation's biggest newspapers to essentially endorse the Murtha strategy.

Stepping up his campaign against the White House, Murtha, chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, told Tom Andrews, a former congressman-turned-activist, in the online interview that he would attach so many conditions to an upcoming spending bill for Iraq that the Pentagon would not be able to find enough troops to carry out the president’s “surge” plan.

Again, commanders in the field are ALREADY EXECUTING a strategy based on the employment of additional forces, many of whom are already in place. It is doubtful that the framers of the Constitution believed the separation of powers would ever be used to undermine Commanders and Soldiers in the midst of a war.

It is critical for the administration to ensure that Legislation is not passed making it impossible to prosecute the war (i.e. the Murtha plan); such legislation would be reprehensible, and today's Democrats would grow ever more similar to the so called Copperhead Democrats of the Civil War:

They called themselves Peace Democrats; their opponents called them Copperheads because some wore copper pennies as identifying badges. As was true of the Democratic party as a whole, the influence of Peace Democrats varied with the fortunes of war. When things were going badly for the Union on the battlefield, larger numbers of people were willing to entertain the notion of making peace with the Confederacy. When things were going well, Peace Democrats could more easily be dismissed as defeatists. But no matter how the[American Civil War] progressed, Peace Democrats constantly had to defend themselves against charges of disloyalty. Revelations that a few had ties with secret organizations such as the Knights of the Golden Circle helped smear the rest.
The most prominent Copperhead leader was Clement L. Valladigham of Ohio, who headed the secret antiwar organization known as the Sons of Liberty. At the Democratic convention of 1864, where the influence of Peace Democrats reached its high point, Vallandigham persuaded the party to adopt a platform branding the war a failure, and some extreme Copperheads plotted armed uprisings. . .
With the conclusion of the war in 1865 the Peace Democrats were thoroughly discredited. Most Northerners believed, not without reason, that Peace Democrats had prolonged war by encouraging the South to continue fighting in the hope that the North would abandon the struggle.

While the war has gone far from well, drafting legislation that makes failure inevitable, yet does not end the war outright, and immediately remove Soldiers from harm's way, is reprehensible. Such actions are based on passion and partisanship. America is a democracy, not an angry mob.

The Copperheads, in their time, seemed aligned with the will of the people; had their vision of the future prevailed, America's fate over the last two centuries would have been drastically different. Hopefully, those in government, the media, and in conversation around the country who possess "the long view" will prevail in the coming debates over the war, and ensure that America is not consigned to short sighted and destructive isolationism.

Obama Down Under

2007-02-11T19:30:00.000-05:00

I wrote about Senator Barack H. Obama's announcement of a Presidential run yesterday.
This morning it seems that his campaign ran afoul of Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who says that Obama's proposals for withdrawing from Iraq will destabilize the region:

I think that [Obama's announcement of a deadline for removing all troops from Iraq] will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory," Howard said on Nine Network television."If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."

Senator Obama's campaign staffers were quick to fire back at Howard in surprisingly harsh terms:

[Obama Spokesman] Gibbs went on to say that Howard was not in a position to be overly critical." If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," he said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."

Let us see how long before someone from the Obama campaign speaks out to "qualify" those remarks. The United States is fortunate to have any allied support in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, and none of the allied forces, let alone Australia, should be disparaged for the sake of domestic American politics. Australia has been a stalwart ally for decades, and the nation also continues to provide combat forces in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM as well. The Obama campaign should have sidestepped Howard's criticism, instead of questioning the level of sacrifice of the Australian military and her people.

In most military operations America finds itself involved in, our military inevitably provides a lion's share of the forces; (SEE: Haiti, JUST CAUSE, DESERT STORM, WWII, KOREA, VIETNAM, OEF/OIF, et al); criiticicizing an ally's contribution to war when a politician insults your worldview reflects ia certain ignorance of how things work outside of Chicago.

Obama's insult was a misstep, the likes of which can sink a campaign quick in primary season, when people start paying attention to everything said.

UPDATE: Belmont Club has a great analysis of the Obama/Howard Row, a large part of which covers the troops per capita angle, which I had not given much thought about. Wretchard's conclusions:

I think this dust-up has the potential to play in very unpredictable ways. First, many Americans will resent commentary by any foreign leader on a US Presidential campaign. Captain Ed is already of that view and in fairness, he would probably feel the same way if the commentator were Jacques Chirac or Osama Bin Laden. On the other hand, many Australians, including people who might be John Howard's domestic political opponents, will probably say "who the hell does Barack Hussein Obama think he is?" Many Australians are acutely aware of the commitments by this small nation, in population terms, not only in Afghanistan, but in Fiji, East Timor, Afghanistan, Indonesia and the Philippines. If there is one country in the world Barack Obama ought not to have twitted about not pulling its own weight, it would be Australia.

How things go from here depend to some extent, on how well Howard and Obama handle the follow-up events.

Also, some commentary from further left on the political spectrum concerning this subject:

I'm sure the right wingers will have their panties in a bunch tomorrow about "insulting a valued ally." We'll probably have a few days of "is Obama bigoted against Australians".

To the right wing noise machine, no sin is as great as fighting back against a slur. If they don't punish that, then OMFG, everyone will do it.

But hopefully people will take note. Talk smack against Barack, he'll talk it right back.

Hey, that's pretty good. Somebody give me a beat!

WAPO Answers for Arkin

2007-02-11T15:56:00.000-05:00

Deborah Howell, the Washington Post's ombudsman, had these words to say concerning William Arkin's inflammatory online column on American Soldiers a few weeks back:

Arkin's column did not meet Post standards, but then, newspaper editing isn't perfect, either. But "mercenary" [the term Arkin used as he referred to the all volunteer American military] surely is live ammo; such an incendiary word should have popped out in flames to Post editors. And it is good editing that should prevail when a report carries The Post's banner.

In Arkins' most recent post, on February 6th, the Post's blogger indicated that he may take a short hiatus after all the controversy his blog posting caused:

I'm a bit surprised that many of the critics, even the O'Reilly's of the world, think that I AM the Washington Post, that is, that the journalism in the Post is inseparable from the opinion. Maybe these critics are just posturing to attack the newspaper; maybe they truly don't get it; maybe they really wish for or foresee the demise of the mainstream news media. The Post, on the other hand, has made a major commitment to adjust itself to this new, cacophonous, very imperfect new medium, demonstrating that it is not going to die a carbon death while the digital era advances. Because it is the Washington Post, I know that my words carry more weight, and that gives me an added responsibility: I not only have to be true to myself and what I believe and adhere to the facts, but I also have to be mindful of the power of the pen. In that spirit, I'll give myself and my readers a break.

Read the whole ombudsman article, it is worthwhile, as the folks at Powerline stated, for it shows the different editorial processes found at the online and "paper" versions of the Post; my guess is the uproar over William Arkin publishing a column that "satirically" denigrates the United States Military is going to generate some more checks and balances on the Post's digital undertakings.

It is interesting to note that in the last week there have been two minor flaps involving bloggers: Arkin, of course, and then the two bloggers who signed on as hired guns in the Edwards campaign. In both cases, the controversy derived from the use of perjorative language, which in both cases once again was dismissed as satire that the unenlightened readers took literally, in their ignorance.

Satire is a useful literary device, but it makes a poor excuse for vulgar language , and a thin, ratty veil for hate speech. It is tiresome to see satire constantly invoked when defending mediocre writers.

Obama and Lincoln

2007-02-10T19:30:00.000-05:00

From the AP:

Barack Obama announced his bid for president Saturday, a black man evoking Abraham Lincoln's ability to unite a nation and a Democrat portraying himself as a fresh face capable of leading a new generation.

I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change," Obama said to some of the loudest applause of his 20-minute speech.

He tied his announcement to the legacy of Lincoln, announcing from the building where the future 16th president served in the state Legislature.
"We can build a more hopeful America. And that is why, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln once called on a house divided to stand together, where common hopes and common dreams still live, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States of America," Obama said.

Curiously, at the height of the Civil War, President Lincoln's situation is more similar to the current beleaguered Commander in Chief than the upstart Freshman Senator from Illinois. Here is a speech President Lincoln gave to an Ohio Regiment returning from the battlefield in 1864:

I suppose you are going home to see your families and friends. For the service you have done in this great struggle in which we are engaged I present you sincere thanks for myself and the country. I almost always feel inclined, when I happen to say anything to soldiers, to impress upon them in a few brief remarks the importance of success in this contest. It is not merely for to-day, but for all time to come that we should perpetuate for our children's children this great and free government, which we have enjoyed all our lives. I beg you to remember this, not merely for my sake, but for yours. I happen temporarily to occupy this big White House. I am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father's child has. It is in order that each of you may have through this free government which we have enjoyed, an open field and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise and intelligence; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of life, with all its desirable human aspirations. It is for this the struggle should be maintained, that we may not lose our birthright--not only for one, but for two or three years. The nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel.

This tone, one could argue, is more reminiscent of speeches President Bush has given over the past several years, since the United States commenced OEF/OIF.
Interestingly enough, The language the Democratic Presidential candidates now use as they announce the start of their campaigns is actually more in line with their party in 1864 than that of Lincoln. In fact, the 1864 Democratic Presidential Platform was largely based on citing the Civil War a failure and ceasing hostilities (although George McClellan, the Democratic Presidential candidate, disagreed with this portion of the platform.) Clement Vallandingham, who was offered as McClellan's Secretary of War in the '64 election, was a member of the Copperhead faction of the Democratic Party, who" nominally favored the Union but strongly opposed the war, for which they blamed abolitionists, and they demanded immediate peace and resisted the draft laws. They wanted Lincoln and the Republicans ousted from power, seeing the president as a tyrant who was destroying American republican values with his despotic and arbitrary actions. Some Copperheads tried to persuade Union soldiers to desert. They talked of helping Confederate prisoners of war seize their camps and escape. They sometimes met with Confederate agents and took their money. The Confederacy encouraged their activities whenever possible. "

Senator Obama will no doubt be an interesting candidate; the media certainly loves his biography, and he exudes rock star charisma. And the War on Iraq is not the American Civil War, either.

But it takes more than residence and political office in the fine state of Illinois to travel in the footsteps of Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln, as a wartime commander in chief, maintained a vision of final victory in the War between the States, and did not waiver from his ultimate goal of securing victory, although he radically adjusted his policies (and his generals) as the war raged. There was little talk of defeat or failure in Lincoln's orations, only the necessity for victory, and afterwards, healing.

And Lincoln was a Republican, in any case.

UPDATE: This post was inspired by none other than the great Gateway Pundit, who commented on Sen Obama''s announcement HERE.

The Message on the War

2007-02-10T16:20:00.000-05:00

From the AP:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Gen. David Petraeus took charge of U.S. forces in Iraq on Saturday, becoming the third commander in the war and declaring the American task now was to help Iraqis "gain the time they need to save their country."

Petraeus, who was only confirmed by the Senate on Jan. 26, assumed four-star general status in conjunction with taking over command. "The stakes are very high. The way ahead will be hard, and there undoubtedly will be many tough days. But as I recently told members of the U.S. Senate, hard is not hopeless," said Petraeus, as he took command from 58-year-old Gen. George Casey.

He has his work cut out for him, both in "the field" as well as in the infosphere, where he has to contend not only with the enemy, but with a cacophony of voices and messages that do little to enhance his success, or make the tasks he faces any less difficult.

Senator Kerry made strong statements this weekend criticizing the increase in troops in Iraq:

"Another 21,000 troops sent into Iraq, with no visible end or strategy, ignores the best advice from our own generals and isn't the best way to keep faith with the courage and commitment of our soldiers," the Massachusetts Democrat said in his party's weekly radio address. . . The Congress should tell President Bush to end this open-ended commitment of American troops," Kerry said. "The United States must get tough with Iraqi politicians — pressure them to meet tough benchmarks. ... Congress must push this administration to find not just a new way forward in Iraq, but the right way forward."

Besides providing vision for Soldiers on the battlefield, General Petraeus (as well as CENTCOM) must get the narrative on Iraq beyond the latest car bomb, past the latest casualty statistic. There are bloggers providing some excellent information on current operations in OIF, and the two commands would be wise to pattern their efforts to "get the message out" along their lines.

Bill Roggio has been providing excellent operational reports on OIF for some time now. His Baghdad Order of Battle post over at Fourth Rail is the kind of information that CENTCOM should be driving into the media.

Strategy Page provides an interesting report on the disruption of Sunni Insurgents west of Baghdad.

Omar at Iraq the Model describes what it is like to live in Baghdad during the heightened security crackdown in this post. Additionally I found a link at ITM to this post here, too, which I thought was worth reading for anyone who would look upon the state of the world and believe there is no such thing as hope.

And here is a "user level" blog entry of a Soldier conducting operations in Baghdad.

I live in a military town, most of my neighbors are deployed to the CENTCOM AOR, and I never read anything in my paper like the aforementioned links. I hope, along with everything else that General Petraeus must do, he finds time to establish a ubiquitous presence in the infosphere.

Iran in Iraq, and Back to Anna: Upping the Ante in Complexity

2007-02-10T08:54:00.000-05:00

Anna Nicole Smith's death is big news.Why is that, you may ask? We'll get to that. But let us focus elsewhere for a few moments first.

From this morning's New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran.

The assertion of an Iranian role in supplying the device to Shiite militias reflects broad agreement among American intelligence agencies, although officials acknowledge that the picture is not entirely complete.

In interviews, civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies provided specific details to support what until now has been a more generally worded claim, in a new National Intelligence Estimate, that Iran is providing “lethal support” to Shiite militants in Iraq.

The focus of American concern is known as an “explosively formed penetrator,” a particularly deadly type of roadside bomb being used by Shiite groups in attacks on American troops in Iraq. Attacks using the device have doubled in the past year, and have prompted increasing concern among military officers. In the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total, military officials say.

ABC News reported on the sophistication and Iranian origins of these devices in 2005 in this report here.

MSNBC featured a report on EFP's lethality late last year, which can be found here.

EFPs are basically shape charges, which channel the power of an IED explosive into a narrow cone of energy to punch through armored vehicles and wreak havok inside. Most of the intelligence reports cited in the news stories relate that the components are too sophisticated to be fabricated within Iraq, and instead come from Iranian machine shops and factories.

Additionally, the Washington Post had a story today detailing Iran's efforts seize Al Qawda terrorists travelling through Iran en route to Iraq:

Last week, the CIA sent an urgent report to President Bush's National Security Council: Iranian authorities had arrested two al-Qaeda operatives traveling through Iran on their way from Pakistan to Iraq. The suspects were caught along a well-worn, if little-noticed, route for militants determined to fight U.S. troops on Iraqi soil, according to a senior intelligence official.
The arrests were presented to Bush's senior policy advisers as evidence that Iran appears committed to stopping al-Qaeda foot traffic across its borders, the intelligence official said. That assessment comes at a time when the Bush administration, in an effort to push for further U.N. sanctions on the Islamic republic, is preparing to publicly accuse Tehran of cooperating with and harboring al-Qaeda suspects.

Meamwhile, skepticism about Iranian involvement in Iraq resonates in the West, especially on the Left:

Pilger suggests another motivating factor for Bush’s new possible war: “As the American disaster in Iraq deepens and domestic and foreign opposition grows, Neocon fanatics such as Vice-President Cheney believe their opportunity to control Iran's oil will pass unless they act no later than the spring.”

While the Senate Armed Services Committee debates the faulty intelligence the Bush administration’s used to take us to war against Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is continuing to cite iffy intelligence about Iran and its involvment in Iraq. . . Note that Gates is not talking about Iran's efforts to acquire nukes and he is not talking about the threat Iran poses to Israel. The context of attacking Iran is and will continue to be because of its activities in Iraq. Following up on posts here and here, I again posit that this is because the administration would aim to justify any attack on Iran through the Iraq AUMF. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Joe Biden, just to name a few Democratic leaders, have all vowed their refusal to grant the Bush administration authority to attack Iran.
These declarations are reassuring, but Congress needs to do more. The Democratic leadership needs not to focus on the administration attempting to get separate authority to attack Iran, but to investigate the administration's current efforts to bolster their claims about Iran's involvement in Iraq.

The intersection of foreign policy, military strategy, domestic politics, Sunni/Shia rivalry, and international terroris makes for a complicated weave, does it not? It is no wonder that the government finds itself in a conundrum as it determines its next moves in Iran and Iraq.

And it makes sense that most Americans would choose to ponder the death of Anna Nicole Smith, rather than the unravel the complexity of America's role in the Middle East. It is easy enough to ruminate on the tragic end of a beautiful but troubled woman for everyone involved, whether one is a citizen, a reporter, editor, or the like; most would rather talk about the senselessness of Ms. Smith's passing, and leave the problems we face in the world to someone else.

UPDATES:

The Guardian advances a story that the U.S. will soon be prepared to launch strikes against Iran:

US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.
The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.

Meanwhile, identifying the father of the late Anna Nicole Smith's infant and heir grows more complex, keeping pace with the Iran/Iraq storyline:

Anna Nicole Smith's death became even more bizarre than her life yesterday as a series of bombshell revelations uncovered an ever-growing web of sexual intrigue - including the startling claim that her late billionaire husband may be the father of her infant daughter.
The stunning disclosure comes in a no-holds-barred manuscript written by her half-sister Donna Hogan obtained exclusively by the Daily News.
Hogan alleges that her sister froze the sperm of 90-year-old J. Howard Marshall years ago, and believes she may have used it to become pregnant.

Stay alert, stay alive, readers!

Little Victories in Iraq

2007-02-09T22:12:00.000-05:00

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a terrific article about military officers bypassing cumbersome peacetime bureaucracies to obtain critical gear for Soldiers in combat:

This is a story of can-do in a no-can-do world, a story of how a Marine officer in Iraq, a small network-design company in California, a nonprofit troop-support group, a blogger and other undeterrable folk designed a handheld insurgent-identification device, built it, shipped it and deployed it in Anbar province. They did this in 30 days, from Dec. 15 to Jan. 15. Compared to standard operating procedure for Iraq, this is a nanosecond.

Since arriving in Iraq last year, Maj. West had worked with Spirit of America (SoA), the civilian troop-support group founded by Jim Hake. In early December, SoA's project director, Michele Redmond, asked Maj. West if there was any out-of-the-ordinary project they could help him with. And Maj. West said, Why yes, there is. He described to them the basic concept for a mobile, handheld fingerprinting device which Iraqi soldiers would use to assemble an insurgent database. Mr. Hake said his organization would contribute $30,000 to build a prototype and get it to Khalidiya. In New York, Goldman Sachs contributed $14,000 to the project.

On the night of Jan. 20, Maj. West, his Marine squad and the "jundi" (Iraq army soldiers) took the [newly acquired device] and laptop on patrol. Their term of endearment for the insurgents is "snakes." So of course the [device] became the Snake Eater. The next day Maj. West emailed the U.S. team digital photos of Iraqi soldiers fingerprinting suspects with the Snake Eater. "It's one night old and the town is abuzz," he said. "I think we have a chance to tip this city over now." A rumor quickly spread that the Iraqi army was implanting GPS chips in insurgents' thumbs.

It's a great article, read the whole thing. Major West's hard work and dedication to mission accomplishment should be an inspiration for anyone in the military fighting an antiquated procurement system, trying to get Soldiers kit they need to fight an adaptive enemy.

Interesting to note, blogger Bill Roggio played a role in getting this device from the States over to the troops; he commented about the effects this new piece of gear is having recently on his blog:

I would like to add that not only will this device have a real impact on data gathering and storage, and creating a networked picture of the insurgency, there is also a real psychological effect of this tool on the populace. Several of the young men who were stopped and had their data gathered were clearly nervous about the device. They knew their fingerprint and picture were being taken and stored. Despite Anbar being the backwaters of Iraq, the people still understand technology and modern policing (I've seen CSI on TVs in homes during raids, for instance.). Major West informed me that immediately after the night patrol, "there was a buzz throughout the town" about the device. The Snake Eater may very well serve to deter those less committed to the jihad cause; the part time rent-an-insurgent might view the risk to great.

Note: The above picture is from The Fourth Rail.

John Edwards, Fair Shakes, and Blogging News

2007-02-09T15:21:00.000-05:00

The Edwards campaign has decided to keep two bloggers on the payroll despite some uproar over past comments they posted on their respective personal blogs:

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

It must have been a tough call for the Edwards people trying figure out the next step in this resonating non-story. Do we fire these two women and risk alienating the "passionate" people out there in the blogosphere (for whom we inexpertly hired these two ladies in the first place)? Or do we keep them in place and hedge our bets that the story fades fast and we keep the internet constituency appeased?

Edwards chose the latter course of action, albeit with a day or two of intense handwringing, no doubt. Time will tell whether this was a shrewd move; news releases from some religious organizations indicate this non-story might have a little gas left, though.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse offers similar sentiments on her blog:

I'm glad, for the sake of blogging, that Edwards made this decision. I truly worried -- I'm still worried -- about how this incident would -- will -- affect the employability of bloggers and motivate them to censor themselves. (I say "them," not "us," because I'm beyond the point in my career where such things affect me.) Edwards faced serious damage whichever decision he made, so it remains to be seen how reluctant candidates will be to hire bloggers. As one commenter pointed out on yesterday's post about the Edwards bloggers, there's no really good reason why a candidate needs to hire a blogger to deal with the bloggers. Anyone thinking of hiring a blogger as a liaison to bloggers will now check much more carefully, and there will be some worrisome things on everyone's blog. On the up side, this incident shows how much harm bloggers can do, so the candidates are on notice that they need to hire blogger wranglers.

UPDATE II: A decent wrap up from ABCNEWS.COM:

The controversy, including Edwards' decision not to fire the bloggers, provides great insight into his campaign. The decision shows just how far he will go to court the far-left activists in the party. So far, in fact, that he has just, in effect, gone on record saying he believes Marcotte's comments on the Immaculate Conception could possibly be construed as something other than denigrating someone's religion, which begs the question, just exactly what kind of statement does Edwards think it would take to denigrate a religion?

It also reveals a lot about Edwards' judgment in general. Bryan Preston wrote, "if they truly never meant to malign anyone's faith, as Edwards says, Marcotte and McEwan are two of the most incompetent writers on the planet. Or they lied to him and he bought it whole."
In my opinion, Edwards failed this first big test of the campaign, from the failure to vet the bloggers to the strained statement he released defending his decision to keep them on the payroll.

1LT Watada and Military Discipline

2007-02-07T22:05:00.000-05:00

1LT Ehren Watada's court martial ended in a mistrial today:

A judge declared a mistrial Wednesday in the court-martial of an Army lieutenant who refused to deploy to Iraq, saying the soldier did not fully understand a document he signed in which he admitted to elements of the charges.

Military judge Lt. Col. John Head set a March 19 date for a new trial and dismissed the jurors.

Much has been written in recent days about the state of the military, and, coupled with the state of affairs in Iraq, these writings could likely lead to some dubious presumptions. 1LT Watada's travails occured within a week of an article highly critical of the military establishment itself by Washington Post bloggerWilliam Arkin. Arkin wrote:

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order. . .We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.

While this article elicited an uproar on the internet, it was not exactly virgin territory. In a similar vein, last year L.A. Times columnist Joel Stein opined:

The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. . .I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea.

All of this may cause one to question the overall morale and level of discipline of the military, which is operating at a tempo far greater than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Indeed, a commenter on one blog suggested, when referring to the aforementioned mistrial of 1LT Watada:

this will be a test case to see how "lost" our military (establishment) has become.

So just how "lost" is the United States military at this point? The answer to that question, in this blogger's opinion, is "not at all, thank you very much." In fact, the military is arguably more "on azimuth" than at any point in the last 15 years.

It is stretched thin, certainly. Its units and equipment have suffered the stress of multiple deployments, of course. And there is fatigue in the ranks due to the rigors of combat and unceasing, back to back tours, arguably.

But ask one question: How many Watadas are there in a force that has been rotating in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan for over five years now? Not very many. And what about the rampant drug, suicide, and crime problems suffered at numerous posts due to the stress of so many deployments? Well, that is not really much of a problem, either.

Most importantly, to see for oneself whether the military has truly "lost its way", show up around the unit area of a brigade combat team or special forces battalion a few weeks prior to a deployment and see how many people are walking around with their heads down, or looking like a sorry bunch of criminals. There will be a plethora of activity, and folks moving to and fro, and with a purpose, but you'll be hard pressed to find weakness, malaise, or indiscipline.

The Army and Marines are arguably better equipped and trained at this point to deal with geopolitical problems the U.S. will likely face in the next quarter century than they ever were prior to 9/11. Army and Marine officers and NCOs possess more cumulative combat experience than at any time since the Vietnam War. The young lieutenants and captains who will plan the campaigns of the future will do so with the benefit of years of seasoning on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whether the military is currently effective in Iraq at the operational and strategic levels of war is something worthy of debate. But for those who fret that the military has lost its soul and become hollowed out due to high operational tempo and the war in Iraq, well, I suggest your fears are not grounded in anything of substance.

Because We're All Talking About It!

2007-02-06T21:26:00.000-05:00

I have made it a point throughout my life to never date astronauts.

Over the years, some acquaintances were quick to deride my orthodox, astronaut-avoiding dating habits (Everybody dates women who work at Parisian's, or BAMM, Wilsonizer; why don't you do something wild and, say, ask an astronaut out?"); others thought my exclusion of astronauts from the black book another manifestation of ingrained New England snobbery. But regardless of what people thought or said, I stayed the hell away from that astronaut stuff, and I've never looked back. Until today, that is.

Hopefully the readers of this blog, who respect the approach taken when discussing issues of foreign policy and military affairs, will heed this prescriptive advice: don't mess around with astronauts, especially the chicks! They take it all seriously, and they play for keeps.

There's my advice to you, beloved readers, and I hope you stay on the righteous path like the Wilsonizer, lest some diaper wearing, field grade, middle-aged, Nasa-certified, space trucking female decides you've wronged her, and that no matter what the odds she is going to make you pay.

UPDATE: Wonkette has more, and apologies to my readers if I just can't find any seriousness in this topic; psycho astronaut stories on every cable news channel all day long are like bigfoot sightings; you've got to make the most of them while they last, and rejoice when they're not proven to be a hoax!

UPDATE 2: Questions of the story's staying power over at Freakonomics.

Giving Ground in a COIN Fight

2007-02-03T08:44:00.000-05:00

From The Telegraph:

A Taliban force thought to be around 100-strong attacked the district centre of Musa Qala at 4am this morning, overcoming a locally raised force of auxiliary police loyal to the Afghan government by 11am.

A local member of the Afghan parliament, Haji Mir Wali, told The Daily Telegraph: "The Taliban have destroyed the walls of the district centre. They have put the tribal elders who supported the agreement with the government in jail."

British troops withdrew from their forward operating base at Musa Qala late last year under the terms of the truce [with the residents of Musa Qala].

So much for this truce, or any agreement ceding ground to insurgents during a COIN fight. The British, in agreeing not to operate in and around Musa Qala, handed the Taliban and other militants a veritable logistics hub, one where they could no doubt garner much needed supplies, get their equipment repaired, communicate to others in their organization, and the like.

More importantly, the truce no doubt resonated within the infosphere. In Musa Qala you have armed coalition forces effectively retreating from hotly contested territory; obviously the Taliban are still quite a force to be reckoned with, an observer might think. Other towns within the district, under pressure to submit to the Taliban, will likely think twice before they refuse them based on the debacle at Musa Qala. Better to acquiesce, quietly support the extremists and look the other way, lest a 100 militants shatter the peace and run rampant through your streets.

The Colombian experiences with this sort of thing played out in much the same way. During the 1990's the Colombian government withdrew all forces out of five southern municipalities, effectively handing over a Switzerland-sized piece of territory (the zona de despeje) and 120,000 people to the FARC insurgency Group. This gesture, intended to jump start peace and reconciliation talks, instead handed the FARC a safe haven and area to stage out of and retreat into; instead of luring FARC leaders to the peace talks, the despeje strengthened the operational capabilities of the much-maligned narco-insurgency. Deemed a failure, the despeje was eventually abolished. The people within the zone, where FARC became the law of the land for some time, are the ones who ultimately paid the price for their government's ill-advised land-for-peace gambit with an insurgency that cares for little more than maintaining the status quo.

Residents of Colombia's former despeje would no doubt sympathize with the plight of Musa Qala's citizens, who this morning find themselves pinned under the heels of militants who care little if nothing for them. Had some Colombianos been present at the Shura where the British agreed to cease operations in and around the hamlet, no doubt many of them would have warned "mal idea".

UPDATE: Bill Roggio posts more about the ill-fated accord over at the Fourth Rail:

As long at the Taliban and al-Qaeda maintain the sanctuaries in Quetta and the Northwest Frontier Province, the Afghan government and NATO forces will remain fighting a holding action. All of the offensive actions inside Afghanistan cannot destroy the massive Taliban infrastructure that has been built up over the past several years during the Pakistani government's neglect of this serious problem.

Missteps in the War of a Thousand Cuts

2007-02-02T19:26:00.000-05:00

Possum Bistro took a close look at the Thomas Ricks Book Fiasco in its latest post. He summarizes the more salient of Ricks' points, concluding, among other things that:

[There was a] rift between strategy and tactics: winning the battle but losing the war; fighting the insurgency, not the insurgents; the people are the prize, not the enemy - a classic counterinsurgency point.

[U.S. Leaders mistook] the American public as the center of gravity, thereby painting a rosy picture of the declining predicament - when the real focus should have been the Iraqis, to win their 'hearts and minds'.

The inevitable and necessary rotation of troops that would expose newcomer troops to the steady cacophony of gunfire and explosions, while negating all the hard work in establishing rapport and personal connections that the previous troops on the ground had already accomplished. New negotiating partners, coupled with the hostile environment and paranoia as to whom one could trust, would lead to frequent misunderstandings and miscommunication.

These are only a few of the excellent points brought up in the post, so go ahead and read the whole thing. I am adding Fiasco to my reading list, although admittedly I have fallen behind on professional reading in recent days.

America's Soldiery, Neither Mercenaries Nor Whores

2007-02-01T18:37:00.000-05:00

Washington Post blogger William Arkin recently offered some opinions on American soldiery in his blog, Early Warning. Mr. Arkin was taken aback after viewing a news report detailing soldiers' frustration on the lack of public support for the war. Apparently, American soldiers are not paying close enough attention to the various news reports, editorials, and punditry on the dire situation in Iraq, Arkin must believe, so he takes them to task.

In one post he asks readers the question:

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

Later in the same post he argues that the aforementioned news report displayed something insidious:

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

Arkin's central point seems to be that the opinions of soldiers on the validity of a war they are fighting in should be held in no higher esteem then any other American. Rather than build his case logically, the Post's blogger descends into an ad hominem diatribe denigrating the character and motivations of American soldiers, and questioning the American military institution itself. In one paragraph he insinuates that the abuses of Abu Ghraib are the norm, not the exception of military conduct; later, he boldly refers to the American military as mercenaries, a word that connotes faithlessness and avarice, as does whore.

In a later post, Arkin apologizes for the mercenary jibe; nonetheless he goes on to state that

Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

I have met many people in the military over the years. Some were liberal, some were conservative; many more were altogether apolitical. Some complain about the press from time to time, but most of those read their local paper each day (or check the early bird before tearing into the first few emails in the morning). My neighborhood right now is a mix of military, civilians, and military retirees here in eastern North Carolina, and you would be hard pressed to tell who is who on a saturday afternoon if you were driving through.

That's because the military today is truly a reflection of American society as a whole, with all its beauty, and many of its hangups as well.

And as to Arkins' accusation of soldiers hiding behind the Constitution, I beg to differ.

Every soldier, protestor, mediocre blogger, and the like takes solace from the rights and protections afforded us in the Constitution. Certainly, Mr Arkins should be grateful his screed is offered such protections (he should probably thank the stars as well that he found steady work at the Post, and that his blog does not have a "next" button at the top, like mine does). But every service member, upon enlistment, additionally swears an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies. Soldiers do this every time they reenlist as well. Thus, far from hiding from anything, those in the Armed forces are sworn to protect that which defines America itself.

WIlliam Arkin certainly should be aware of all this; after all, he served in the Army from 1974 to 1978. So why author a hit piece like this, an attack not based in sound arguments or strong but palatable political bias, but instead proceeding on an almost visceral level?

One can only wonder.

Perhaps there is an an inner demon that Arkin lashes out at as he angily dismisses the service of those in a war he utterly disagrees with. Maybe his time in uniform revealed some personal flaw that he has never come to terms with, and the ubiquitous presence of the military on cable news outlets, above the fold on every newspaper, and in each conversation held in the Post blogger's break room has opened an old wound, and rubbed it raw. These are just blind guesses of an overactive imagination, fueled by one too many sugar free Red Bulls at this point. In all actuality we may never know the real reasons why Mr. Arkin wrote these abysmal posts.

But if I am correct in my suppositions, let us hope that Arkin has exorcised his demons at this point, and is now ready to proffer logical arguments that are less steeped in apparent self loathing.

Update: Ace of Spades does a background check on Mr. Arkin. Nice guy . . .

Lost Book

2007-01-21T01:23:00.000-05:00

Unfortunately, I left my new book in a tent somewhere, and survived numerous delays and long flights reading hand-me-down novels, courtesy of the USO.

I will go out and buy another copy tomorrow, and write about it later.

Note: Ambien has still not kicked in!!!

Wilsonizer: Jetlagged, But Back in Business!

2007-01-21T01:02:00.000-05:00

Wilsonizer is safe and sound at home, after a short trip half-way across the world and ever slowly back again.

I spent many a night in overstuffed billets, warm transient tents, and the ubiquitous C Hut, and kept my sanity largely due to this amazing device (thanks for all the iTunes gift cards by the way, mom).

I had spotty access to news and internet over the past few weeks. However, critical events nonetheless proceeded at a lighning pace in my absence, as is to be expected. Give me a day or two to catch up to what has transpired in my absence, and the site will be up to snuff just as quick.

Hopefully the Ambien kicks in soon, and I can get some sleep tonight. . .

Stuck in Turkey

2007-01-11T11:23:00.000-05:00

Well, I remain in a near-news blackout, stuck in Turkey awaiting flights that are in perpetual delay. It seems like the President's speech was received to extremely mixed reviews, and that the plan he proposed is watered down from the Choosing Victory AEI plan. Again, I have little access or time to check the news and to post responses to it.

Check out some of the links on my blogroll to stay in the loop, and hopefully I will have more time to blog intelligently later. Elephant Bar has some great commentary already posted, by the way.

Sporadic Blogging Expected

2007-01-07T22:48:00.000-05:00

I will be "away from the desk" for the next week or so, and may not have either the access or the time to monitor and post here at the Wilsonizer. Stay tuned, however; if I can post something relevant, I will, and worst case scenarios have me back on the blog in ten days or less.

See you on the high ground.

General Thoughts and Musings.

2007-01-07T21:59:00.000-05:00

Stars have fallen on the blogosphere today; there are several posts concerning General Officers, past and present. Hugh Hewitt provides some in-depth analysis on the personal history, drive, and character of Lieutenant General David Petraeus, who is slated to be promoted to General Officer (4 Stars) and assume command of forces in Iraq. The starting point for Hugh's thoughts is a decent article in today's Washington Post. The Post covers highlights of Petraeus' military career, his capabilities, and when detailing the steps he will take as he assumes new duties, states:

Upon Senate confirmation and the receipt of his fourth star, making him a full general, [Petraeus] is expected to spend some weeks assessing conditions in Iraq and drafting a strategic plan that goes beyond the current debate over whether to increase U.S. troop levels by up to five brigades, roughly 20,000 troops. That "surge" is consistent with the military's new counterinsurgency manual, much of which Petraeus wrote, which stresses protecting the indigenous population and imposing security as a condition for stability.

Hugh Hewitt examines the article's key points, and provides an insightful conclusion in his post on this monumental changing of the guard in Iraq:

I hope General Petraeus also embraces the idea that part of his theater is the American media's reporting on it, and that he takes the time on an almost daily basis to communicate with the American public about the stakes and the situation in Iraq.

Meanwhile, a post at the Elephant Bar matches an article where General Wesley Clark (USA, Ret) expresses opposition to the tentative plan to surge forces in Iraq against an earlier article that questions his judgement during the Kosovo war, and lets readers jump into the fray. The juxtaposition of the two articles definitely provokes some thoughtful comments. One of them writes in response to the negative portrayal of Clark in the second article:

"The vast majority of us who actually served as part of the Bosnia/Kosovo team know that General Clark was an outstanding commander, both militarily and in his ability to maintain NATO's political support thru the conclusion of the war. That's why so many of us supported Wes Clark for president in '04, and who will be there for him next time should he decide to run."

And another commenter responds:

Gen. Hugh Shelton was asked if he would support retired Gen. Wesley Clark for president, Shelton, said. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf when asked what he thought of Clark. "I think the greatest condemnation against him . . . came from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he was a NATO commander. I mean, he was fired as a NATO commander," Schwarzkopf replied, "and when Hugh Shelton said he was fired because of matters of character and integrity, that is a very, very damning statement, which says, `If that's the case, he's not the right man for president,' as far as I'm concerned. . . I would very much appreciate what your personal take on Clark is. What do you see in the man that others have not?"

Meanwhile, Victor David Hanson ponders the skillful (and not so skillful) employment of reinforcements throughout history. He concludes that while additional troops may have enabled tactical success, it was more than sheer numbers in many cases that actually led to victory in war:

In the first dark months of the Korean War, Gen. MacArthur increased U.S. troop strength for the September 1950 Inchon assault. But that dramatic breakthrough and recapture of Seoul came as a result of risky amphibious operations — not just more boots on the ground.

William Tecumseh Sherman’s Army of the West finally reached a level of nearly 100,000 troops in late summer 1864. Yet its success was predicated not on increased numbers per se, but rather on a radical shift in tactics, abandoning reliance on rail support and living off the land. When Sherman left on his March to the Sea, he actually pruned his forces. A good argument could be made that Lee finally cracked, not because Grant’s surges smashed his lines, but due to southern desertion and loss of morale, once it was known that a huge and unpredictable Union army under the unconventional Sherman was approaching the Confederate rear through the Carolinas.

All of these posts are well written and thoughtful, and help frame the problem facing the United States as it awaits word of what comes next in Iraq.

Making the Army Better, and Insulating Against Drafts

2007-01-06T22:02:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: I made some minor changes to this post, which was published late last night. I made some spelling/syntax corrections, and added links to reinforce points made.

Recently, A fellow national security blogger wrote the following in response to a post arguing against the notion that the United States Army is a broken organization:

The best way to prevent a broken army is to accept that we will be engaged in long dirty wars and restore the draft.

So back to the question at hand; to draft or not to draft?

I would choose the latter, hands down. The all-volunteer military performs superbly, and has proven to be a resilient force in the two theaters of operation where the U.S currently is engaged in combat.

As an active officer with sixteen years of experience, I would much prefer to command or support a force of volunteers, who serve of their own free will and volition; I do not wish to have the burden of administering standards upon troops of malcontents who stand on the line only because they have been ordered to do so*.

The blogger who suggested the draft argued for it on the basis of the open-ended struggle in Iraq; I would argue that Iraq and Afghanistan, if strategy is linked to resources and actors, can be reduced to what is commonly referred to as stability operations, or Foreign Internal Defense activities, in 2-3 years ; why sacrifice the character and culture of a well trained Army if objectives can be achieved without conscription?

If, through a surge and or political and economic activity, the violence in Iraq can be reduced considerably over an intermediate time horizon, then there is absolutely no resason whatsoever to consider a draft. As forces required to maintain order in Iraq decrease, the duration of time between conventional force rotations into theater increases.

A diminished level of societal violence would reduce the need for conventional forces enabling Special operations forces (SOF) to take the lead in military activities in theater. And then the US is one step closer to achieving its long term objectives.

SOF, especially Army Special Forces, are accustomed to long deployments outside the Unted States that lack fanfare or glory; if the level of violence can be reduced to the point where Special Forces deploy and work with Iraqi security forces steady state in an austere environment, then the US will be close to achieving many of its objectives in Iraq.

Let us conclude the post with a few more questions. Must the nation endure an unpopular draft to have an effective military apparatus that enables it to achieve major national security objectives? I think not.

If major tumultuous change is in order for any governmental organization or apparatus, then reform the State Department so it is more effective in engaging the problems of the 21st century post-Soviet world. State should be as engaged in Mesopotamia as any organization of the United States Military at this point; however, the Department's foreign service officer corps lacks the depth and expertise to be major players in this endeavor.

For shame.

Post Script Update: The support of the arguments proffered here bordered on the anecdotal, and was slightly tainted by opinion not effectively substantiated; the blogger known as 2164 (the Deuce) offered a defense of his views favoring the draft that was much more substantial than the defense of the volunteer force. Kudos to the points made for initiating a draft in the comments section. I am still vehemently opposed to it however, and plan to do more analysis before I comment on the subject here again. A spirited argument for what the 21st century military should be is coming, however!

* While not wishing to denigrate the service of those who were drafted over the years, here is an interesting anecdote, where economist Milton Friedman argued against the draft with none other than General William Westmoreland:

Milton Friedman was very persuasive. One of [an associate of Friedman's] favorite stories, which his widow, recalled in a recent interview, was of an exchange between Mr. Friedman and General William Westmoreland, then commander of all U.S. troops in Vietnam. In his testimony before the [Draft] commission, Mr. Westmoreland said he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. Mr. Friedman interrupted, "General, would you rather command an army of slaves?" Mr. Westmoreland replied, "I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves." Mr. Friedman then retorted, "I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries. If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher."

An interesting characterization, to say the least.

The State of the Army

2007-01-05T22:41:00.000-05:00

I have written several posts about the power of narrative in the infosphere.
One particular narrative I see driven hard through most news reports, op-eds and editorials is that the military is being beaten down in Iraq:

"Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain", which is excerpted from a letter from House Democrats to President Bush.

"It's clear that the surge option will break the Army and Marine Corps, already stretched so thin that they're barely able to meet the current requirements for maintaining a force of 140,000 troops in Iraq and 20,000 in Afghanistan, leaving few if any in reserve for emergencies elsewhere", from Joe Galloway's column.

Is the Army Broken? Yeah, I think so. We're on the brink. We are in a situation where we are grossly overdeployed, and it is unlike any other period in the 229-year history of the Army. We have never conducted a sustained combat operation with a volunteer force, with a force that we have to compete in the job market to hire every year. Every other force that we've ever done this with, going back to the Vietnam period to something comparable, has been a draftee conscript force. So what we are all worried about is that the manpower situation will come unglued. ... from Thomas White, Former Secretary of the Army in a PBS interview.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said the U.S. Army is ``about broken'' from the Iraq conflict and cast doubt on whether the military could or should boost the number of troops in the country.

Victor Davis Hanson, on the other hand, wrote a strong counter to the broken Army mantra, dispensing it as a myth:

There is often voiced pessimism about our current military, to such a degree that it is termed broken or exhausted. But how true is that? The traveler to Iraq is struck not by dearth, but opulence—everything imaginable from new SUVs to Eskimo Pies. Internet Service there was far faster than from my home in rural Fresno County. So far recruitment levels are being met. No one in the military has warned that it is a bad idea to create more brigades of ground troops. Such a caveat about the current proposed expansion we would expect if we could not even meet our present manpower targets. . .There might be thousands of trashed humvees and worn out Bradleys, but not frigates, F-16s, or carriers. This is not 1943 when the US military was fighting in Sicily, as B-17s fell from the sky, as our merchant marine was under U-boat attack.

Hanson goes on to write about the problems this military is having achieving objectives in Iraq, compares these problems to past military campaigns, and proposes a way ahead to succeed in Iraq. All interesting of course, and worthy of debate. But let us focus on the state of the military, the subject of this post.

Is the Army any less lethal, competent, seasoned, disciplined, equipped, or spirited than it was on September 10th, 2001? The answer to that question is a resounding NO on all counts!

The Army deployed in theater is arguably the best equipped and best trained force ever fielded by this nation. The Soldiers who comprise its ranks continue to reenlist, and there has been no critical shortage of recruits throughout the past four years, despite the unpopularity of the war here at home.

Assertions that this Army is a broken one are based upon the belief that rotations into and out of theater are wearing Soldiers and equipment out and cannot be sustained, and that conducting counterinsurgency degrades the ability of combat arms units to conduct major combat operations. These assumptions are not entirely valid, however.

Currently, most conventional Army forces rotate into theater for a year, redeploy to the States for 12-24 months, then rotate back to one of the theaters, and not necessarily in the same area where they previously operated.

Nowhere, however, is it written in stone that units will disentegrate if deployed more than 365 days into theater. Leadership in the DOD decided upon the year rotation policy at some point, and now this nation is fighting the long war, one combat tour after the other. When a unit is relieved in place by another, nearly all of the experience, contacts, and cultural orientation dissipate as the old unit departs, replaced by the new personnel and commanders. It takes the incoming unit weeks, if not months, to build rapport, get a feel for its area, and reach a high level of operational competence in its assigned AO; months later, a new, green Army unit arrives to take its place, and the cycle starts over again. Not for the insurgents, the militias, the criminals, or the Iraqi civilians, however; they remain in place, and watch as the gringos come and go.

While longer tours drastically increase the hardship and level of sacrifice demanded of Soldiers, the benefits of seasoned units operationally attuned to the nuances of their areas of responsibility outweigh the costs. Would T.E. Lawrence have been effective, had he knowingly been on a one year tour in the desert? I think not.

Longer tours in theater mean extended periods at home base to rest soldiers and refit equipment, too.

And what of the notion that military units deployed in counterinsurgency operations are less prepared for major combat operations, a la Desert Storm? While some units (ie Armor and mechanized forces) may not be exercising all of their required skill sets, most of their officers and Soldiers are conducting combat operations in theater. The men of these units are acquiring the judgement and seasoning of combat veterans, which will no doubt serve them well in whatever type of operations they conduct in the future. While some of their combat skills may atrophy temporarily, they are easily regained via a combat training center rotation, and more than offset by the skills and experience gained via actual combat in Iraq.

Other units, like light infantry and special operations forces, are able to exercise all of their organic capabilities in this sort of environment; the experience in Iraq more than prepares them for any future combat operation.

The Army is thus far from exhaustion, collapse, or the veritable breaking point. It is a seasoned, disciplined, spirited, lethal force, and is well equipped for the rigors it faces. Unfounded, panic-laden discussions of "the broken Army" are easily debunked, and serve little purpose other than to obfuscate the problems we face as a nation in Iraq.

Changes on the Ground in Iraq

2007-01-04T22:08:00.000-05:00

From the BBC:

Adm William Fallon will replace Gen John Abizaid as head of US Central Command and there will be a new ground commander in Iraq, ABC News reported. . . . ABC said Lt Gen David Petraeus was expected to replace Gen George Casey as the leading ground commander in Iraq

Admiral Fallon is currently the Commanding General of United States Pacific Command. Here is a bio.

LTG Petraeus currently commands the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He was a driving force behind the new Counterinsurgency manual, and his efforts at changing the mindset of the military in COIN is detailed in this post at the Elephant Bar. Here is a decent bio, too.

I am unfamiliar with Admiral Fallon, but I cannot think of a better officer to command U.S. forces in Iraq than LTG Petraeus; I have no doubt that he will provide guidance to the leaders and policymakers inUnited States government as they craft strategy for Iraq, and he will masterfully execute plans and policy on the ground.

The New Yorker on COIN

2007-01-03T22:08:00.000-05:00

I came across this New Yorker article by George Packer a few days ago. It is interesting, to say the least, and it touches on some of the salient points that have been presented both here as well as on other national security discussion blogs, like The Elephant Bar and Belmont Club.

The chief subject of the article, one David Kilcullen, has developed an interesting understanding of what the U.S. largely refers to now as the Long War:

Last year, in an influential article in the Journal of Strategic Studies, Kilcullen redefined the war on terror as a “global counterinsurgency.” The change in terminology has large implications. A terrorist is “a kook in a room,” Kilcullen told me, and beyond persuasion; an insurgent has a mass base whose support can be won or lost through politics. The notion of a “war on terror” has led the U.S. government to focus overwhelmingly on military responses. In a counterinsurgency, according to the classical doctrine, which was first laid out by the British general Sir Gerald Templar during the Malayan Emergency, armed force is only a quarter of the effort; political, economic, and informational operations are also required. A war on terror suggests an undifferentiated enemy. Kilcullen speaks of the need to “disaggregate” insurgencies: finding ways to address local grievances in Pakistan’s tribal areas or along the Thai-Malay border so that they aren’t mapped onto the ambitions of the global jihad. Kilcullen writes, “Just as the Containment strategy was central to the Cold War, likewise a Disaggregation strategy would provide a unifying strategic conception for the war—something that has been lacking to date.”

Kilcullen has an insightful take on U.S. COIN operations in Afghanistan, too:

Many American units [in Afghanistan], he said, are executing the new [Counterinsurgency] field manual’s tactics brilliantly. For example, before conducting operations in a given area, soldiers sit down over bread and tea with tribal leaders and find out what they need—Korans, cold-weather gear, a hydroelectric dynamo. In exchange for promises of local support, the Americans gather the supplies and then, within hours of the end of fighting, produce them, to show what can be gained from coöperating. But the Taliban seem to be waging a different war, driven entirely by information operations. “They’re essentially armed propaganda organizations,” Kilcullen said. “They switch between guerrilla activity and terrorist activity as they need to, in order to maintain the political momentum, and it’s all about an information operation that generates the perception of an unstoppable, growing insurgency.”

Read the whole article; it provides a great perspective on counterinsurgency, especially the non-kinetic aspects.

Post Script: I am also reading another counterinsurgency book, Modern Warfare, by Frenchman Roger Trinquier. It is an interesting and useful look at COIN operations, to say the least. Expect a post on it soon.

For those interested, here is a link to the complete Trinquier book online.

Somalia and Iraq

2007-01-02T22:31:00.000-05:00

The fighters of the Islamic Courts Union have fled over the border to Kenya, or dissolved into the Somali populace, in a significant defeat for Islamists in the tactical and informational realms.

One train of thought I respectfully disagree with is the Ethiopians in Somalia/US in Iraq comparison, though. There has been a tendency by some esteemed writers in the blogosphere to comment that the all business "hard hand of war" tact of the Ethiopian government is the critical element that the U.S. is lacking in the Long War. A recent post at Captain's Quarters captures this sentiment perfectly:

Once again, this [overwhelming victory in Somalia] shows the West how to properly square off against Islamist forces. Only by conducting a true war with massive, overwhelming force will these terrorists be destroyed.

While the Islamic Court Union's rout is a significant occurrence, discussion of Ethoipian versus American tactics against the Islamists is largely irrelevant, and provides marginal use as the nation decides what is next in Iraq (or Afghanistan).

First of all, the Islamic Courts Union fighters had fairly coalesced into a "regular military force" (regulars is used VERY loosely, of course), and were the de facto open law in Mogadishu and much of Somalia.

That force has apparently dissolved into the populace now, or retreated into Kenya.

And then there is the United States military involved in Iraq. Apple, meet orange.

The United States combats loose knot bands of insurgents and armed militias that are hostile to the government on a regular basis in Iraq, and likewise in Afghanistan. Are U.S. forces currently having a severe problem during combat engagements in either theater? Not really. And if insurgents massed into a battalion or regimental-sized force to conduct a sustained operation, would there be serious issues in either theater? A resounding NO there as well.

In fact, one could surmise that the average, run of the mill Brigade Commnader fervently hopes something like the latter scenario would happen on his watch there.

How well or poorly the United States performs in conventional combat operations (ie conducting operations like raids, movements to contact, and the like) at the Battalion level and below are largely irrelevant to achieving strategic objectives in either theater at this point.

Unlike what the Ethiopians faced, American forces in Iraq are dealing with an insurgency, whose forces aren't the law of the land, and who only coalesce to fight when it suits them. They are dealing with lawlessness, and with sectarian strife in a country where decades of near-totalitarian rule kept a lid on the pot.

And neither theater is running out of insurgents, militias, or criminals by the way, despite the fact that U.S. and their military counterparts in either nation units are readily killing them.

In Iraq, a valid argument can be made that Rules of Engagement (ROE) somewhat limit the US' ability to deal with militias that are becoming THE threat to stability there. Less so in Afghanistan. Any shift in Iraq strategy MUST address dealing with the militias.

The violence must be dealt with, along with the insurgents that cause it. But the U.S. needs to focus beyond purely kinetic operations and simultaneously address the tangible, root causes of the insurgency and lawlessness. In fact this is where most of our efforts must be focused.

Yes, we must fight and kill/capture insurgents as part of this war. But victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is going to flow purely out of the barrel of a gun*; no one should discount the effects improving infrastructure would have in either theater, or scoff at the belief that economic improvements would sharply reduce localized violence.

Look at the mass of humanity coexisting peacably in New York City for example; how safe would you feel taking the subway at night there after three years of unemployment hovering over 40%, with rolling blackouts, a garbage strike, corrupt cops, et al? Most people would take to shopping online to avoid their fellow New Yorkers, I would wager!

Improving the environment people live, work, and play in would make many people opt out of crime, insurgencies and militias for the honest life.

There are people who will never disarm at any cost (the military refers to them as "total spoilers" in its Stability Operations Joint Operating Concept), and they will have to be dealt with harshly; many people will opt not to stick their necks out if there are better opportunities, though.

The second issue with the Somalia/Iraq comparison is the early call in thise sort of thing; it would be prudent to wait awhile before calling Ethiopia's military victories THE decisive defeat of Islamists in Somalia. While these are heady days for the transitional government, they must now administer the failed city-state of Mogadishu; those Islamists who slipped into Kenya or simply blended into the populace can and most likely will continue to make mischief, especially if they have some external backing. Already there are fears of an Islamic insurgency. It is unlikely that Ethiopia wants to spend years and limited resources fighting an insurgency in its neighbor's slums, either.

Thus, while radical Islamists suffered a strategic loss in Africa, there are few tactical lessons to be learned and in turn applied in Iraq or Afghanistan. And like the past few years have taught us, the victors' euphoria may prove to be achingly short lived.

* Mao is credited with saying "Power flows from the barrel of a gun".

UPDATE: Ralph Peters lays out an argument that sharply contrasts mine in this article.

Rumors of a Surge

2007-01-02T07:02:00.000-05:00

According to this article in the BBC, President Bush plans to increase the number of troops in Iraq:

[President Bush's upcoming] speech will reveal a plan to send more US troops to Iraq to focus on ways of bringing greater security, rather than training Iraqi forces. . .
The BBC was told by a senior administration source that the speech setting out changes in Mr Bush's Iraq policy is likely to come in the middle of next week.
Its central theme will be sacrifice.

An energized re-crafting of this Nation's Iraq policy probably couldn't come at a better time.

The U.S. Military and the Blogosphere, Part II

2007-01-01T20:25:00.000-05:00

Several days ago, I wrote about the United States military and the blogosphere; in the time since that post I have come across several controversial yet seemingly unrelated media reports bolstering my view that the military needs to dramatically increase its presence in the infosphere:

The public editor (ombudsman) of the New York Times identifies serious factual errors in a cover story, and the editors take no action in terms of a note, retraction, or update to address reader's concerns (Read here, here or here for some excellent commentary on this story in the blogosphere, by the way).
Meanwhile, in Iraq, what the military described as a firefight with insurgents is also regarded as an airstrike that killed civilians in a Reuters report.
And of course, once again in Iraq, there is the Associated Press story of Sunnis being burned alive, based on an eyewitness account of one Jamil Hussein who, despite fervent assurances from the AP, has yet to be found.

The insurgency in Iraq is being fought in many disparate places. Infantrymen conducting raids on suspected insurgent safehouses certainly have a clear perspective on what the war is about. But the effects of that raid resonate far beyond the geographical confines of the ground where it transpired.

The reports of the raid in the media span across the globe, and shape the narrative of how the war is being fought, and who is winning. The aforementioned raid, whether it was successful or not, is now in the minds of many mired in uncertainty, because the media reports that civilians were killed as a result of US actions.

Right now, the military has marginal presence in the infosphere; Commanders issue a press release, and then rely upon the media to receive the release and disseminate it widely, and rely largely on the media to interpret the facts, resolve any amiguities, and to assign relevance to the press release.

The military is thus waging a proxy war in the infosphere, relying on the conventional media outlets to drive their narrative, despite the fact that these same entities have in recent times been proven to play loose with the facts, often to the detriment of the military's efforts.

If we are to be successful in "The Long War" it is past time for the military to establish a robust presence in the informational realm, and quit relying on fickle media proxies to drive the war's narrative.

AND so I ask once again, where are CENTCOM's Blogs?

Different Takes on the Surge.

2007-01-01T18:11:00.000-05:00

Michael Barone eloquently reviews the debate over increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, and the different schools of thought emerging within the corridors of Washington. He contrasts the sharply differing views of Senators Lieberman and Obama when it comes to the next steps America should take. In doing so, Barone ponders the essence of America's character during during times of conflict:

I think [Senator Lieberman's] approach is more in line with the American character. There are writers in Europe who argue that the threat of terrorism is just a nuisance. Sure, you get a 9/11 or a London 7/7 attack every so often and a bunch of people die; but your civilization goes on, and the Islamofascists aren't really going to take it over. We put up with a lot of deaths in traffic accidents and we can put up with a lot of deaths in terrorist attacks. So the argument goes. I think what it misses is that the terrorists may be able to get their hands on weapons that could inflict vastly more destruction than we saw on 9/11 or 7/7. And that any attempts at appeasing them–like the multicultural policies Britain and some European countries have been following–tend to take away our freedoms. Figuring out how to fight back and prevail is not easy and there will be errors along the way (as there have been in all our wars, and in great abundance). But it's better than sitting back and seeing what is the worst they can do to you.

Meanwhile, Bob Novak surmises that a surge will be unpalatable to most in the Senate. His article links to an op-ed by retired General Jack Keane that reiterates a short term surge will accomplish absolutely nothing, and ultimately lead to failure.

General Keane was a key contributor to the American Enterprise Institute's report Choosing Victory, a Plan for Success in Iraq. I commented on that report here. Obviously, General Keane supports deploying additional troops in Iraq; his piece simply states that a three to six month surge of forces is too short to actually accomplish any objectives there.

Meanwhile, Wretchard at the exceptionally astute Belmont Club speculates that the administration is strongly considering adopting the AEI plan. A great comment snipped from Belmont's post:

I feel the plan is not detailed enough when destructing (sic?) reconstruction: the "build" part of "clear, hold, and build." There needs to be a dramatic decentralization of funding, a renewed commitment to the CERP program; full staffing of provincial reconstruction teams; and the USAID and State Dept need to become expeditionary and fully staffed virtually overnight -- there's no reason why USAID personnel shouldn't be asked to work at the company level. My thoughts here are not enough. I'm not a reconstruction expert. But several Marine officer friends have noted this problem. Robert Kaplan did so as well in an Atlantic piece not long ago. Basically, the rest of the elements of national power are not present on the battlefield in the ways that they should be [emph added].

These comments echo many I have made repeatedly in pasts posts on this blog, and they formed a central recommendation in my Master's monograph a few years back. A Goldwater-Nichols type restructuring is definitely required over at the State Department if they are going to be effective in dealing with the emerging foreign policy challenges the United States must tackle in the 21st century. And certainly, the rest of the agencies and elements of the United States government need to ante up resources and efforts if the US is going to accomplish its stated objectives in Iraq.

These are just a few of the many diverse ruminations over the surge, but they are definitely worth your time. If anyone comments or links to this post, how about including other schools of thought for the next step for this country's Iraq policy? Look for stuff that sharply contrasts the AEI report, but is still far from being an "Australian Peel" conducted at the strategic level.

The Last Post of the Year.

2006-12-31T19:36:00.000-05:00

I wish every day of every year could be spent like today; short of taking a cast or two in a stream teeming with native brook trout, the last day of 2006 was perfect.

My children woke me up at 7:30 a.m., and I promptly sent the boys out the front door to get the Sunday paper; my wife brought me a cup of coffee while I read the front sections of the Observer; afterward I ate breakfast with my family, goofed around a bit on the internet, and then accompanied everyone outside to rake pine needles and play.

My wife is much better (more diligent, in any case) at raking than I am, so my four year old son, Mitchie, and I went down to the stream in our back yard to look for crayfish. We saw a small green anole lizard, racoon tracks, and a wild cat, but alas no aquatic life.

We came back inside, and while my daughter napped and my wife shopped I left some comments on other people's blogs, and wrote a post of my own here. Thanks to the power of the wireless network, I was able to do all of this in front of the television with my sons, watching Return of the Jedi for the 100th time.

Now the children are in bed (though not asleep, for I can hear the boys' chatter slowly raising up to a dull roar), and I am enjoying a cup of mint tea, made from leaves off a mint plant on my back porch that has thus far survived the light frosts we've had this winter.

The day is ending well, and hopefully it bodes well for tomorrow, a new day, and a new year.

It marks the milestone for Wilsonizer, too; one year ago this afternoon I began this little blog, with just a bit of motivation and a spare electron or two to get it started. I tapered off posting a bit when my work duties became busier, but I nonetheless kept this place open. For those of you who visit from time to time, please keep doing so, and I promise to keep trying to have relevant interesting and even occasionally funny things to say on this little blog.

Happy New Year everyone, and good night.

Unwarranted Pessimism at The American Conservative

2006-12-31T14:18:00.000-05:00

William S. Lind unleashed a pessimistic assessment and "worst case" scenario in his recent article in the American Conservative, entitled "How to Lose and Army":

What does the Democrats’ victory mean for the war in Iraq? Regrettably, not what it should, namely an immediate American withdrawal from a hopelessly lost enterprise [emph added].

Lind goes on to ponder how an escalation in the standoff between Iran and the West could lead to the utter destruction of the American Army:

The U.S. Armed Forces are technically well-trained, lavishly resourced Second-Generation militaries. They are today being fought and beaten by Fourth-Generation opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan. They can also be defeated by Third-Generation opponents who can react faster than America’s process-ridden, PowerPoint-enslaved military headquarters. They can be defeated by superior strategy, by trick, by surprise, and by preemption. Unbeatable militaries are like unsinkable ships: they are unsinkable until something sinks them.
If the U.S. were to lose the army it has in Iraq to Iraqi militias, Iranian regular forces, or a combination of both, cutting our one line of supply and then encircling us, the world would change. It would be our Adrianople, our Rocroi, our Stalingrad. American power and prestige would never recover.

I take exception to many of Lind's points, especially his harsh judgment of Iraq being "a hopelessly lost enterprise".

The greatest danger to American military capability is not the physical destruction of its Army in the streets, alleys, and deserts of Iraq, but instead a total loss of collective national will here at home, to the point where the United States will not authorize or even consider the use of the military element of national power, even when its necessity is all but total certitude.

Remember, if you will, that even two decades after the Vietnam war, the Congressional resolution authorizing use of force to expel Iraq from Kuwait was a close, along party line vote. This at a time when an important regional ally had been attacked, and major reserves of oil were at stake. The world is too dangerous to return to the times where America is unwilling to act when its interests are at stake.

While an attack from Iran is certainly a threat to be reckoned with, there is little doubt that the military and various agencies are collectively monitoring Iran at this point. There are already critical links between the Iranians and various Shiite militias running amok in Iraq. So it is unlikely that a surprise attack on par with the Egyptians crossing the Suez in 1973 would happen in Iraq. Especially the complexities involved in a combined attack of Shiite militias and Iranian general purpose forces.

While Iran is certainly capable of a conventional offensive causing hundreds of casualties, it would not be able to sustain this attack over an extended period of time before its own lines of communications were severed, it was politically isolated, and before the other regional players (Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, et al) complicated things further by intervention in one manner or another. It is doubtful that Iran could alert and mobilize its forces, sever the American lines of communication, and reach all march objectives before reaching a culminating point, and despair.

Hypothesizing on the operational destruction of our forces deployed in the Middle East is little more than an ill-conceived thought experiment; placing operational arrogance and confidence aside (and keeping any military enthusiast from smirking at the thought of the Iranians launching a major offensive and seeing their theocracy crumble in the wake of the operational destruction of THEIR military), our forces are dispersed across thousands of miles, oceans, and countries in the region; while Lind identifies this as a weakness in terms of the US Army's ability to mass, it is also an advantage. There is no single base or formation that can be targeted with a conventional attack to decisively cripple American power in the region.

Lind's assessment of the US military is ill-informed and inaccurate as well. The Army units deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan are the best trained, best equipped, most combat-seasoned forces this country has seen in decades. They are not "losing" on the battlefields of the two theaters; tactically, the hostile forces in both of those countries, whether insurgents, militias, terrorists, or criminals, are not a match for this military; it is rather in the realm of the political, the cultural, and in the information sphere that we are in peril of being vanquished.

And Mr. Lind is truly reaching for the low hanging fruit to characterize the military as a conservative, uber-hierarchical organization, beholden to the decisions emanating from oversized staffs serving aloof generals ( ". . . defeated by Third-Generation opponents who can react faster than America’s process-ridden, PowerPoint-enslaved military headquarters"). Lind himself paradoxically admits that the forces deployed in theater are operating in a dispersed manner, which requires exceptional leadership, initiative, and capabilities at the company, battalion, and brigade level; the officer who can throw a Powerpoint presentation together in no time is likely to be able to fire numerous weapons systems, call for close air support, treat a casualty, or shape decisions made while attending a shura, and all to good effect.

Lind's assessment of the Army's strategic vulnerability to a conventional Iranian attack is thus overly pessimistic, bordering on the sensational. Other than a Tet-like event, which would have effects in the political and informational spheres, no Middle Eastern country is capable of an attack of this magnitude, much less living to tell the tale.

Also, Lind's description of the United States' relationship with Israel (She Who Must Be Obeyed) is the contemptible tripe that one expects from a CAIR spokesperson, or from an illogical university radical perhaps, but NOT from a supposed conservative thinker. It is not worthy of further comment.

There is room for constructive, informed debate on what the next steps for the U.S. should be in the Middle East, but Mr. Lind's pessimistic diatribe provides marginal utility to those who must decide what comes next, and is a disservice to those who will be in the field, executing whatever policy is decided upon.

Post Script. I came across Lind's article from a post over at The Elephant Bar; this post actually evolved from my response to a post over there.

The U.S. Military and the Blogosphere

2006-12-29T19:16:00.000-05:00

Another title for this post could be “Where are CENTCOM’s Blogs?”

Many in the armed services have firmly esconced themselves in the blogosphere, as evidenced by the numerous military blogs one can find in a Google search. Yet the military establishment overall remains largely aloof to the relevance of blogs as a critical component of the infosphere. Thus far, there are relatively few articles in professional military journals on the blogosphere and the military’s role in this new, emerging environment. The majority of published work generally deals with matters relating to blogs’ impact on operational security matters.

An exception to this is a monograph published in 2006 by James Kinniburgh and Dorothy Denning entitled “Blogs and Military Information Strategy”. The authors recognize and document the role of blogs in information operations through examples in Iraq and the War on Terror. The paper also discusses metrics to measure the effectiveness of blogs as a communications/information medium.

“Blogs and Military Information Strategy” is noncommittal towards the overall utility of blogs, however. The paper discusses at length the sifting through “threat blogs” to gain intelligence on an adversary, and spends less than a page examining the implications of blogging as an activity in its own right.

Like the Kinniburgh/Denning paper, the weakness of most military analyses of the blogosphere is the traditional view of information as a commodity to be protected, and a view of blogs as unguarded or unauthorized gates into one’s camp; those in uniform fail to see blogs, bloggers, the readership, and all of the linkages therein as an entirely new complex, adaptive system. As such, military organizations have a negligible presence in the blogosphere, and are at a disadvantage when compared to some sophisticated adversaries.

More importantly, without blogs, the military can only interact, inform, and shape understanding of their operations in a limited manner, through traditional media and press releases. The military has no control over the traditional media either, and thus must rely the various entities comprising it to synthesize and transmit their message; they therefore have no direct way to shape the transmitted message of what their forces are seeing, observing or achieving. The lack of a presence in the blogosphere therefore is a self-imposed limit on the military’s ability to impact the collective narrative that shapes the public’s, our allies, and adversaries’ perceptions. As time goes on, and the number of blogs and people relying on them for information and communicate grow geometrically, the United States military is at an ever-increasing disadvantage.

While blogs realistically are not the key to overall victory or defeat in war, the military’s aloofness and nonexistent presence in the blogosphere certainly does not bode well for achieving its objectives in current and future operations. Likewise, commanders lacking familiarity or access to this medium have no way to counter the information and narratives being shaped by adversaries.

What should the military do, then? Many things, actually. All of the actions should start now, and be executed over a short term and intermediate term horizon.

In the near term, the military needs to expedite its understanding of blogs and blogging. The public affairs sections of commands down to the Brigade combat team level should be required to assist their commanders at maintaining a presence in this medium (ie a blog!), and use it to shape perceptions and understanding of their operations, the environment they are working in, and the Service members themselves. The Combatant Commands (ie USCENTCOM) should have a well-developed information operations strategy which includes how to establish, employ, and synchronize blogs in a given theater of operations.

More needs to be done over time, however, to ensure that the military's personnel better understand the new medium and are more capable of having an effect within it. At intermediate and senior level service schools (ie the Command and General staff Colleges, War Colleges, et al) officers should receive robust instruction on information operations that includes the blogosphere and blogging. Specialty schools like the Advanced Military Studies Programs (SAMS), Naval Post-Graduate School, and the Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict (SOLIC) program should be directed to produce monographs and theses on the subject as well. Between the graduate level research and actual experiences in the field, the military can then develop standing doctrine for operations within the blogosphere.

Hopefully these actions are set in motion sooner than later. The American military possesses the human and material capital to develop and maintain a serious capability in the blogosphere, impacting the understanding of the American public, the nation’s adversaries, and literally everyone in between. And yet, while the nation can project the lethality of an airborne brigade combat team anywhere in the world within eighteen hours, it has yet to deploy a single Soldier into the blogosphere.

Finders, Thinkers, and Linkers

2006-12-28T19:14:00.000-05:00

The Belmont club has a terrific post examining the importance of the new communications frontiers entitled "The Blogosphere at War". It is one of the more insightful posts on the relevance and meaning of what we have come to call the blogosphere. In his analysis, blogger Wretchard categorically organizes bloggers into groups of "Finders, Linkers, and Thinkers", and discusses some of the apparent laws of this new communications medium:

The blogosphere will turn its energies with equal ferocity to every side. Populated as it is by people from all walks of the ideological spectrum, the blogosphere itself has no inherent political bias. Bloggers with Left wing, Right Wing, Arab, Israeli, European and American, religious and atheistic viewpoints will be simultaneously scrutinizing every scrap of information that raises its head above the Event Horizon. The blogosphere is no one's friend. But it will be unkindest to the side which relies the most on cant and propaganda to spread its message. . . The political side which tells the most lies and falsehoods is likely to suffer more at its hands than one which hews more closely to the observable truth.

I would reinforce Belmont's post by suggesting the blogosphere has many of the characteristics of a complex adaptive system, in that the finders, thinkers, linkers, and readers collectively exhibit "complex behaviors that emerge as a result of often nonlinear spatio-temporal interactions among a large number of component systems at different levels of organization". As such, we can expect the system's behaviors to continue evolving, affecting the way we understand and impact the world around us.

Weighing in on Ethiopia/Somalia

2006-12-27T18:35:00.000-05:00

Update 2: Somali Troops and their Ethiopian Allies have retaken the capital:

Triumphant Somali government forces and their Ethiopian allies marched into Mogadishu on Thursday after Islamist rivals abandoned the war-scarred city they held for six months. . ."We have been defeated. I have removed my uniform. Most of my comrades have also changed into civilian clothes," one former SICC fighter told Reuters. "Most of our leaders have fled."

Update: There is talk of taking Mogadishu without a fight.

Dramatic events unfolding in the current Ethiopia/Islamic Courts Union conflict.

Hugh Hewitt has a great post with links and analysis here.

The Afghanistan Study Group?

2006-12-27T12:18:00.000-05:00

When will the time come to reassess the strategy in Afghanistan a la the (much maligned) ISG report? Hopefully sooner than later.

The level of violence has surged in recent times, and despite all our efforts, Afghanistan's ability to viably administer its territory has scarcely changed since its democratically-elected government was formed.

Other than its robust poppy crops, Afghanistan's economic development has also been dismal. No corporations planning to build massive factories to employ tens of thousands of Afghanis are on the horizon, either.

Meanwhile, Pakistan has effectively ceded control of its border region to the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists. These insidious groups now have an effective safe haven in which to train, recruit and recover from successful operations across the border (and maybe across the globe).

Why wait until poll numbers are in the toilet for Operation Enduring Freedom to assess where we are in terms of our efforts, and the best way forward to achieve our goals?

Hopefully, organizations and institutions are doing it right now, quietly, lest James Baker and Lee Hamilton get shoved down their throats.

Just a thought.

The Soldiers who "Get It" in Iraq

2006-12-27T11:31:00.000-05:00

I came across this PDF file last week when I wrote my entry about the Army's new counterinsurgency manual. A young Army Captain, Travis Patriquin, came to understand the nature of the insurgency he was fighting in Anbar province. To get there, he had to understand not only the insurgents, but the people, the culture, and Iraqi society as well.

As simplistic as the stick figures look, CPT Patriquin did an amazing job of simplifying and incredibly complex problem. While operating at the tactical level, the young officer was able to shed light on where the strategies employed in Iraq may have gotten off track; he further offers a winning way forward for everyone involved (except the terrorists, but that's all right according toCapt Patriquin, "because Terrorists suck").

This young Army officer, executing American policy on the front line, illuminates what success can look like in Iraq. Hopefully, the Generals and senior State Department officials are doing more of the same kind of thinking.

POST SCRIPT: Sadly, CPT Patriquin was killed in Iraq this month; hopefully his insightful presentation inspires many who follow after him to achieve success in this endeavor.

Choosing Victory = A Good Start

2006-12-27T08:44:00.000-05:00

I read through the American Enterprise Institute's take on achieving the United States' (and most of the Iraqi population's) goals in Iraq. It's entitled Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq: Phase I Report (get it here).

The report I saw was a pdf'd PowerPoint presentation, about 56 slides in all. Choosing Victory addresses resolving problems currently besetting the US-led coalition and the Iraqi population in two phases. During Phase I (the focus of this report), it proposes to increase the number of Brigade Combat Teams (the lowest common denominator when it comes to boots on the ground) from 15 to 24, which includes an increase of up to 7 additional brigades in Baghdad. The buildup would be accomplished by extending the current and future tours in Iraq from 12 to 15 months, and accelerating the planned deployments of Brigade Combat Teams into theater.

These additional units would be used to clear terrain of insurgents, and then maintain security after the area is cleared with partnered Iraqi security force units. The report differentiates this course of action from previous operations by doubling the number of U.S. forces in Baghdad, along with maintaining a presence even after areas are secure (surged U.S. forces left shortly after completing operations in past efforts).

Choosing Victory ties critical infrastructure repair (sewer water, electricity, and trash removal services) to military operations as a critical part of the plan. "Every clearing operation should be accompanied by a set, fully funded reconstruction package"; additional Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP) funds will be allocated to unit commanders to use at their discretion as well. The report goes on to say that additional reconstruction efforts would be allocated towards "significant improvement of the quality of life" of areas that are cooperative towards the Coalition and against insurgents/militias.

According to the report, Phase II of the AEI's plan will be released at some point in January 2007; it will propose efforts to enhance the training of security forces, expand the rule of law, and a way ahead for the development of permanent, viable government institutions.

Choosing Victory effectively argues the case for accepting nothing less than success in Iraq. It also thoroughly discounts many of the recommendations found in the Baker Hamilton report as well. There are several areas where the report is lacking, though, and these shortcomings illuminate several of the weaknesses in the effectiveness of our own government institutions and departments as we deal with a post Cold War security environment.

The AEI's report is fairly thorough in dealing with the deployment of military units and the effects of phasing those deployments over time to increase the buildup of power; however, Choosing Victory failed to address an increase in any Special Operations Forces (SOF) in its operational plan. SOF would play a critical part in enhancing the success of any templated surge of forces. On the combat side, the intelligence collecting and populace and ability to identify conduct rapid operations against critical enemy command and control nodes and enablers would play a key role in rapidly degrading the scale and scope of the insurgency. SOF's inherent ability to interface with the populace and indigenous units will also be a key enabler for success as well.

Any templated surge of conventional forces should end with an increase of Special Operations Forces (specifically Army Special Forces) to reinforce the success achieved by conventional units. Special Forces units can continue to enhance the capability and build the professionalism of Iraqi security forces units, and possess robust combat capabilities themselves.

Finally, a surge tied to reconstruction efforts will require a robust Civil Affairs force to ensure projects are carried out in the right places at the right time. Any report dealing with an increased military presence in Iraq must address a requisite increase in SOF for both during and after the surge. Special Operations Forces are a strategic asset and limited in numbers, and the fact that Choosing Victory did not address their allocation and use in its military-centric plan is a serious flaw.

The military-centric theme of this Choosing Victory is itself the report's critical shortcoming. Any serious policy change or strategy shift must be accompanied by a nested, synchronized effort by the various agencies and departments of the United States government. The State Department needs to have a detailed, executable plan thoroughly tied in with the military deployment, so that combat operations, reconstruction efforts, and work toward creating Iraqi institutions is not a haphazard affair but instead actually moves efforts in Iraq closer to a successful end.

AEI purports to deal with these things in the upcoming Phase II report, but in all actuality there is no true phase I or II; while the report rightly cites re-establishing security as critical, the building of national Iraqi institutions, repair of infrastructure, economic development, and training of Iraqi security forces are endeavors that will be ongoing before, during and after security operations. Failing to detail them up front is a major shortcoming.

Finally, the report does not truly address the importance of strategic themes and messages that will be a key part of any surge of our forces and efforts in Iraq. There are many audiences out there that the United States must speak to, loud and clear. The government must be prepared to address the Iraqi population as additional forces surge into Iraq, as well as Iraqi government and leadership. There must be a concerted effort in the Muslim world and the international stage to increase the world's support for Iraq in its fight for stability. The U.S. has to counter the highly effective messages from Al Qaeda and the various insurgent groups within Iraq as well. Finally, it is imperative that the U.S. government addresses any renewed efforts directly with the American people. A change of this magnitude carries a significant cost. More boots on the ground will almost cetainly lead to a surge in casualties in the short term. It will place increased hardships on deployed Soldiers, and will likely increase the short term operating costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The government must convince the American people that this is a fight that is neccessary to their long term security, that the new plan is viable and well thought out, and that it is worthy of the efforts and sacrifice of our military.

Despite the above criticisms, this report is by far more detailed and starkly different alternative to the now much-maligned Baker Hamilton report. Along with the forthcoming Phase II report, Choosing Victory provides food for thought for the President, the military and the rest of us, as everyone contemplates what to do next in Iraq.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

2006-12-24T19:12:00.000-05:00

No More blogging for Wilsonizer this fine Christmas Eve! The children are tucked, and some last minute wrapping is in order before the morning comes. The Sangria pitcher is freshly charged as well!

Merry Christmas to you, dear readers, and good tidings to all.

Bob W.

The Wilsonizer

Iraq Strategies, Part III

2006-12-23T21:31:00.000-05:00

This article states that the Administration is considering massive economic and infrastructure repair efforts synched with the proposed troop surge in Iraq:

At the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are insisting on reconstruction funds as part of a package of political and economic measures to accompany the armed forces. They fear the extra troops will be wasted and more lives lost if Bush relies purely on the military to pacify Iraq, according to sources close to General Peter Schoomaker, the Army Chief of Staff.

The article goes on to state that the focus beyond purely military efforts is based on a report from the American Enterprise Institute entitled Choosing Victory: the Path for Success in Iraq. The PDF is here.

I confess that I haven't read the report yet (I found out about it mere moments ago), but I will, and then I will post something on it tomorrow.

This is the type of intellectual effort required to give policymakers options beyond the meek, lowest common denominator realpolitik of the Baker Hamilton Report.

More to follow, I'm sure. Read it before I do if you are staying up late tonight (or are sitting in another time zone, where bed time is hours away!) and beat me to the punch!!

The Sandy Berger File

2006-12-23T16:55:00.000-05:00

Check out Pajamas Media for the latest implication of the Sandy Berger Report.

Roger L. Simon blogs about why it caused him a sleepless night.

Doug Ross conducts a thought experiment where it is Condi who hid the files, and guesstimates the media's rabid response. Interesting, to say the least.

Zooming in on ISG recommendation # 44

2006-12-23T14:41:00.000-05:00

While the Iraq Study Group Report has largely been dismissed out of hand by all comers, there are a few gems in it, if one digs deep enough.

Something interesting and illuminating to the public at large is recommendation #44:

The most highly qualified U.S. officers and military personnel should be assigned to the imbedded teams [ of units working closely with and advising/training Iraqi military units] and American Teams should be present with Iraqi units down to the company level. The U.S. military should establish suitable career-enhancing incentives for these officers and personnel (emph. added).

This recommendation exposes a fact those outside of the blue/green machines may find surprising. While military service outwardly seems like an egalitarian venture, inside there are some much more equal than others; for officers specifically, there are those who are on “the fast track” meaning they are competitive for command and promotion to increasingly higher rank, and there are those who are not. In the Army, the former comprises less than 20% of the force, a select few, indeed.

I confess that, having not served in Iraq, I am ignorant of the quality and hard work of the current embedded tactical trainers and advisors. But I believe it is highly unlikely that those deemed to be on the fast track (ie ladies and gents competitive for battalion and brigade commands) comprise the majority of leadership of these teams. Instead, I would posit that many are reservists, individual augmentees, and the like. This is an assumption on my part, but I bet I am right on the money.

This begs the question “Why are the people who are pegged to be the future leaders of the Army not deeply involved in what is no less than the schwerpunkt of our efforts in Iraq?” For the Army’s part, the service has a hard template for what an officer does on a successful career track, and it takes nothing short of an act of congress to change it. It actually took the Goldwater-Nichols act in the late 1980s to change the Army’s mindset on serving in joint (multi-service) billets as something beneficial to career progression.

Serving as an advisor, whether during wartime or not, is not yet something deemed as career-enhancing in the United States Army. Thus, there is no great stampede of the ambitious, hungry set rushing for assignments as embedded tactical trainers. Military culture is conservative, dug in deep, and changing it is always an uphill, controversial endeavor (remember the brouhaha when General Shinseki mandated the Black Beret?)

Andrew Krepinevich, in The Army and Vietnam, did a statistical analysis of the relationship between career progression and advisory duty; he found that as the war progressed, it was much more beneficial for officers to serve in conventional billets than to serve in the graveyard of advisory duties. Hopefully, it is not too late to ensure we are putting our best foot forward in Iraq when it comes to building that fragile state’s security apparatus.

Post Script: By no means am I denigrating the selfless service of those currently risking their skins on the line in Iraq (or Afghanistan, for that matter); rather, I want to detemine two things: Are the future leaders of the Army and other services involved in the endeavors most critical to our success in Iraq, and if not, why?

Diverse Takes on the Al Qaeda/Dem Message

2006-12-23T09:50:00.000-05:00

HERE are some alternate takes on the Al Qaeda message to the Democrats from across the Web:

Ace of Spades predicts the MSM will bury this story. deep.
It is noted here at USAToday.com, though.
Wizbang chimes in that other factors cost Republicans the 2006 Mid Terms.
Jihadi Du Jour compares Zawahri to Ms. Hilton (?!?!?)
Dail Kos's commentary on this story has disappeared.
Pirate's cove, like many others on the right, say "told ya so" (more or less).
Nothing on Zawahri's message to Dems at Britney Spears' site, surprisingly. The whole no panties debacle apparently has thrown her of her game!!!

Giant Squid on the Loose!

2006-12-22T18:33:00.000-05:00

A group of very happy researchers caught one, and have some first ever live video of a kraken in action. Check it out!

Case Collapse: Nifong's Office Drops the Rape Charge

2006-12-22T18:13:00.000-05:00

DA Mike Nifong in Durham dropped the rape charges against the three Duke Lacrosse team members.

Other charges remain however (for now).
The President of Duke University is urging Nifong to excuse himself from the case.

And who wants to bet THIS website won't be around much longer?

Al Qaeda and the Democrats

2006-12-22T16:45:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: Link to the ABC News story was added to original post!

ABCNEWS.Com is reporting Al Qaeda is telling the American Democratic Party that "credit for the defeat of congressional Republicans belongs to the terrorists":

you [Democrats} aren't the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen -- the Muslim Ummah's vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq -- are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost," Zawahri said, according to a full transcript obtained by ABC News. . . if you don't refrain from the foolish American policy of backing Israel, occupying the lands of Islam and stealing the treasures of the Muslims, then await the same fate," [Zawahiri] said.

Much will be made of this by the press, pundits, bloggers, and the Republicans, no doubt. On the surface, one could argue that Zawahiri is playing into Republican talking points of the Democrats being weak on Terror, and winning the mid term elections specifically because of said weakness.

However, this message actually shows a lack of sophistication on the part of Zawahiri and his ilk when it comes to communicating with the West, especially America. While boasting of manipulating an American election through force and fear may play well on the Arab Street, it will make it more difficult for any politician (especially a Democrat) to stake a position that has the faintest conciliatory scent upon it when it comes to tactics in the War on Terror.

Statements like this latest Al Qaeda message compel the parties to seek common ground against a bold, palpably evil enemy, something I would guess Al Qaeda would rather forgo. Some readers will find something more insidious in Zawahiri's message, a plan within a plan within a plan perhaps, but the world (and Al Qaeda) is not that complex. Zawahiri may understand what makes people tick and know how to scare them, but he does not yet understand American society and our culture.

Hopefully, the good Doctor and his closest friends will be cold and in the earth before they learn to transmit anything more than fear at America and the West.

U.K. Bracing for Terror Attack???

2006-12-21T14:44:00.000-05:00

According to this article, Britain is on high alert this holiday season:

It will be a miracle if there isn't a terror attack over the holidays in London," a senior American law enforcement official tells ABCNews.com. British police have been quietly carrying out a series of key arrests as they continue to track at least six active "plots" tied to what they call "al Qaeda of England. . . officials say the plots are all connected and track back to al Qaeda commanders in Pakistan who have been recruiting and training British citizens of Pakistan descent.

Scary stuff for British police and intelligence services to be worrying about over the Christmas weekend. Good Hunting, mates.

Post Script. Does this mean that British Government will cease and desist calling off the War on Terror??

There are Jobs that Americans Just Won't Do

2006-12-20T21:30:00.000-05:00

But it looks like working in a meat packing plant isn't one of them.

CPT Jamil Hussein, the Iraqi Tom Joad?

2006-12-20T21:03:00.000-05:00

I can’t find my old copy of Grapes of Wrath, but I recall Tom Joad’s climactic monologue as he left his family in the wake of a killing. When he farewells his mother, perhaps for the last time, Tom Joad symbolizes a persevering American spirit in times of great hardship. He is Everyman.

Is the mysterious “Captain Jamil Hussein” a man much in the same vein as Joad? If so, perhaps Jamil delivered a monologue to his beloved AP counterparts, as he departed to witness more dramatic events to corroborate the tone and content of their stories (and subsequently vanished), that went something like this:

'I'll be everywhere - wherever you look. 'Wherever there's a saddening turn of events worthy of reporting above the fold, I will be there to provide a quote. Whenever there’s a rumor of Sunnis being lit aflame by Shiite death squads, I’ll be there to corroborate it. If I can think of something disheartening that will cause your readers to lose spirit, I will tell you. If you need someone to embellish, I will be there. Especially on a slow news day. You don’t even have to leave the Green Zone, or your office in New York for that matter, because I will be there to check the facts for you. I’ll be there, see?

So yes, perhaps Joad and Jamil are two peas in a pod. Ultimately, it may be proven that both served the same purpose: to advance rich, elegantly crafted fiction.

My apologies to the late, great John Steinbeck, and Henry Fonda as well.

Post Script: Maybe Jamil Hussein is more like Greg Packer than Tom Joad???

Changes in Command

2006-12-20T18:15:00.000-05:00

Looks like some major shifts in General Officers coming. Serendipitous timing it would seem, as there is great clamor for a course correction, and new blood inevitably helps with that.

By the way, my money's on this guy taking over in either Iraq or USCENTCOM.

News for the Season's Silly Tidings

2006-12-20T14:39:00.000-05:00

Interesting, strange, outrageous, and perfect "news" for this time of year:

A Virgin Birth in Chester, England.

Rights for sentient machines are discussed seriously (and no one who appears to have memorized the script to all Star Trek Episodes is present!)

Yet another report of rival monk factions battling it out!

A Sasquatch is spotted only 5 days ago in Saskatchewan.

Sadly, Marshal and Kim have called it quits (once again)

And of course, Burmese Pythons menace the Everglades!

Who says we live in a boring world???

Hot Off the Presses: The Reed-Levin Amendment

2006-12-19T21:34:00.000-05:00

The Democrats introduced an Amendment in Congress today entailing how to deal with Iraq; again not a truly rigorous analysis of what needs to be done on the ground or or how to do it.

Luckily, Senator Harry Reid expanded on his party's position today at Huffington Post to clarify what the amendment's all about, and to assure the American people that their Government is unified during a time of War, when boots are on the ground and much is at stake!

The Study Group Report, and A Follow Up Report

2006-12-19T21:20:00.000-05:00

I finished the Iraq Study Group Report last night, and read a follow up to it prepared by the International Crisis Group titled After Baker Hamilton: What to Do Next in Iraq, which was released today. Both reports urge the creation of an “International Support Group” to work out a consensual solution to the myriad of problems facing Iraq and the region; both reports also stress the inclusion of Iran and Syria as key to the success of international efforts to achieve stability. The Crisis Group’s report goes even further than Baker – Hamilton by urging the inclusion of all home-grown Iraqi insurgent Groups, and the de facto marginalization of the current elected Iraqi government in the negotiations.

The inclusion of Iran and Syria in overt negotiations over the region’s fate is likely untenable to the current administration, and for many good reasons. However, both reports, while stressing the long term benefits to these regimes of a stable Iraq, nonetheless point out that it is unlikely that either will act in a manner that is even marginally perceived to be in the West’s interest. The U.S. is strategically fixed in Iraq for the time being, with little to no leverage to employ against Damascus or Tehran. All the better for these capitals; Iran and Syria can bide their time, let America’s national will atrophy, and then act from a position of strength when it suits them. Good luck in getting either country to send diplomats to a conference on Iraq chaired or even attended by the U.S.

Neither report provides recommendations for actions that could enable the U.S. to achieve its initial stated goal of a pluralistic democratic Iraq, so hopefully the Pentagon’s analysis will provide an alternative viewpoint that stimulates debate among key policymakers and the public in general.

Read both reports, so you stay “in the know”. And here’s to hoping that the Pentagon or some other think tank provides intellectually rigorous analysis that offers a path to achieving long term objectives in the region.

2006-12-17T21:05:00.000-05:00

The Iraq Study Group Report has been on the streets for several days, and the hype has died down considerably. Meanwhile, another document has just been released from the government printing office, though to considerably less fanfare.

Army Field Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency, was released on December 15th, 2006.

This is not an updated version of an old manual, but instead a new manual altogether. Prior to its release as a doctrinal product of both the Army and Marine Corps two days ago, counterinsurgency was little more than an afterthought in a manual called Stability Operations. In Stability, counterinsurgency shared the same or less space with subjects like disaster response and humanitarian assistance. Counterinsurgency doctrine withered on the vine after the American experience in Vietnam.

Why so long with no doctrine on this important military task, one might ask (especially when, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the developing world seemed to shatter into hundreds of little seething armed camps)? A light-hearted answer, that might not be too far from the mark, is that the generals may have thought if they did not prepare (ie train, equip and educate) their forces for a counterinsurgency, perhaps they would never have to fight one. I jest of course, but sometimes I wonder. . .

In any case, the manual is out. No doubt it is full of lessons from the fertile fields of Iraq and Afghanistan. I plan to print and read it over the next several days (although, admittedly, I am behind a bit in my professional reading; the Iraq Study Group Report is collecting dust on my night stand). Interesting to note is the intellectual tone of the manual’s introduction:

The military forces that successfully defeat insurgencies are usually those able to overcome their institutional inclination to wage conventional war against insurgents. They learn how to practice COIN [counterinsurgency] and apply that knowledge. . . in COIN, the side that learns faster and adapts more rapidly—the better learning organization—usually wins. Counterinsurgencies have been called learning competitions. Thus, this publication identifies “Learn and Adapt” as a modern COIN imperative for U.S. forces.

Well said, if not too timely.

No doubt the excellent book by Professor John Nagl, Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife influenced this manual. Soup is a great book, and it aptly discusses the problems first-rate militaries have waging war against insurgents.

Further reading for those interested in counterinsurgency should definitely include Counterinsurgency: Theory and Practice, a classic work on the subject by David Galula.

Post Script. Counterterrorism Blog gives a bit more background on the manual (including links to the pdf) here.

. . . . in the Saddle Again!

2006-12-07T21:49:00.000-05:00

Yes, I am back! Actually, I never left, I just lost interest in blogging for a bit, but alas, the Wilsonizer is rising to the occasion during a time of great tumult. Much has changed since the sunny days of May, when last I blogged on these august pages. The Iraqi Study Group Report is out there. I am going to download, bind and read it tomorrow, and start commenting soon afterward. Most of the blogosphere is summarily underwhelmed with its contents thus far, though (even the folks over at kos).

Back in May the makeup of congress was substantially different than it will be next month as well. At least voters in my old home state sent this guy the right message!

So yes, things have changed. Some things have stayed the same, however.

And the Wilsonizer is getting back up to speed to turn this into a first rate blog once again.

Keep reading!

The Perils of Blogging

2006-05-17T20:17:00.000-05:00

Hello everyone.

Yes, the Wilsonizer still lives. I have been remiss in the blogging department of late, and for those faithful to this little blog I apologize, and ask for your patience. The truth is that my load at work increased significantly in the last few weeks, and I have been getting home late. I have had less time to read what's going on and then post intelligent commentary.

AM I quitting, you may ask? The answer is a resounding "No!!!"

But I am not going to feel guilty if this blog is not as prolific as, say, the Gateway Pundit. In the past I have imposed deadlines upon myself to post, post, post, as if I were dependent on the massive amounts of ad revenue that this blog generates via new-post-derived-traffic (Note: there are no ads on this blog so far, it is a labor of LOVE!).

I will post as much as I can, and continue to make sure my commentary is relevant and meaningful. If I don't generate an average of 1000 words per hour, well, so be it. . .

Get Smart on Alternative Fuels!

2006-05-02T21:28:00.000-05:00

It is difficult to go through a day without talking about the price of gas (since nearly everyone I work with drives a giant V-10 sized truck, these discussions are often emotional and animated!). Popular mechanics has a great article describing the most popular types of alternative fuels, and dishes out the advantages and drawbacks of each one. Read the whole thing, and you will be the smart one at the water cooler tomorrow.

Even more importantly, as global demand for petroleum increases, finding altrernative means to meet our energy demands will become increasingly important. Reading and learning about current alternatives is an incremental step toward a solution. So read on, and start solving the world's energy problems!

Post Script: I found this Popular Mechanics article over at instapundit, who has more alternative fuel reference materials available on his blog.

On May Day

2006-05-02T20:52:00.000-05:00

If Lou Dobbs sees it, no doubt the rest of middle America will see it too. Yesterday, Dobbs wrote a column decrying radical groups' seizure of the immigrant rights movement. In it, Dobbs wrote:

[I]llegal aliens and their supporters' boycott of the national economy on the First of May is clear evidence that radical elements have seized control of the movement. The Washington Post, alone among national papers, reported that ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) has become an active promoter of the national boycott.

ANSWER, of course, was founded as a front group of the World Workers Party, a communist outfit that has gone on the record supporting the late Slobodan Milosevich and regimes in garden spots like North Korea. Thus, just like during recent war protests of late, there were many red Che Guavara flags interspersed in the May Day immigrant rallies as well.

Those who are fighting for citizenship or broader rights in American society should think twice before hitching their wagons to radical marxist organizations. Elections are decided by the overwhelming majority of Americans who sit out demonstrations like yesterday's May Day spectacle, and Americans on the left, center and right are traditionally hostile towards communists.

Sickblogging No More!

2006-05-02T20:41:00.000-05:00

Hello Wilsonizer readers, and my apologies for the long absence. The entire family has been down for the count with a stomach virus, including Wilsonizer actual. I was too sick to do much of anything (except download and watch Battlestar Galactica episodes from iTunes!).

I am back in good form once again, so expect some good content to be landding on this site shortly!

Sickblogging, Yet Again.

2006-04-26T20:40:00.000-05:00

All three kids are down with a stomach virus, which is why I haven't been too prolific on either of my blogs lately, folks. Rest assured I am not "slacking off" and will be back at it full throttle as soon as the familia has recovered.

In the mean time, here are a few items to chew on:

1. A brothel in Germany is shaken down because its advertisements featured scantily clad women and the Saudi Arabian Flag, Spiegle reports. Tigerhawk has more.

2. The Magoo Politic, a liberal blog whose author proclaims that she is "addicted to Randi Rhodes, has been on hiatus for exactly one month. Her last post (where she attempted to defend Helen Thomas without introducing any form of logical effort whatsoever) was 26 March. Every time I check to see if TMP has been updated, it makes me feel guilty that I have not posted anything recently on my own blog. And if you don't post, you're not relevant. So get cracking Magoo!

3. Kos throws out a dizzying array of numbers to put a positive spin on Crashing the Gate's lackluster sales (as reported by Drudge).

4. I probably won't go see this Vampire Musical (?!) the next time I visit NYC. Sorry, Elton.

5. A Harvard Sophomore, flush with cash from a six figure book deal, nonetheless failed to read chapter 8 of Turabian (dealing with footnotes), and yet another plagiarism scandal is born.

6. Dan Rather may start blogging; just what Wilsonizer needs: more cutthroat competition. I'll never be able to retire and live off adsense revenue now!

7. And a Grease Fire wreaks havoc through middle America, according to the folks over at the Onion.

Keep faith in Wilsonizer, dear readers; I will be back in good form in no time!

New York Times and the Rumsfeld Debate

2006-04-22T19:29:00.000-05:00

In today's New York Times, Thom Schanker and Eric Schmitt wrote a rather pedestrian article on junior officer opinions concerning Secretary Rumsfeld. The article begins:

The revolt by retired generals who publicly criticized Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has opened an extraordinary debate among younger officers, in military academies, in the armed services' staff colleges and even in command posts and mess halls in Iraq.

Junior and midlevel officers are discussing whether the war plans for Iraq reflected unvarnished military advice, whether the retired generals should have spoken out, whether active-duty generals will feel free to state their views in private sessions with the civilian leaders and, most divisive of all, whether Mr. Rumsfeld should resign [Emph added].

The article goes on to detail that (surprise) officers hold a plethora of wide-ranging views about things like the Iraq War, SECDEF, and politics in general. This should hardly come as a surprise to anyone who is familiar with the military, especially the Army. The fact that Schanker and Schmitt believe this to be unprecedented betrays a lack of familiarity of military culture on the authors' part.

Dissent is hardly stifled in the military. Read any military professional journal and you are likely to find critical analysis of what the Army is doing (or not doing). Also, those pursuing Master's degrees on the Army's dime are paid to research and publish theses that are often at odds with current Army or DOD policy. An Army Colonel, Douglas Macregor, wrote a revolutionary book a few years back that basically argued the Army's entire organization for combat was obsolete. He survived, and many of his ideas have actually been implemented in the Army's transformation under Secretary Rumsfeld.

Yes, the Army's officers, while executing their duties, take time to think about what they are doing, and at times are critical of politics, operations, and policy. That is just business as usual in the green machine. Any major, or seemingly minor policy change or event inspires thousands of internal debates. When General Shinseki decided to change the Army's headgear in 2000, it seemed to many that the earth had stopped turning in all of the tumult!

Like any dynamic organization, there is always a large supply of healthy debate and critical analysis occuring within the services; the day that it stops would be the time to publish an article like this above the fold, and to be alarmed.

Light Blogging Ahead

2006-04-17T20:24:00.000-05:00

Once again, I will be on the road thru saturday; expect light blogging, unless I find a wifi spot where I can use my Ipaq!

Wretchard's Easter Post

2006-04-16T21:28:00.000-05:00

Wretchard over at the Belmont Club has a terrific, funny post about the day in the life of a disgruntled liberal blogger here. He includes a picture of his blog work station, which I was about to do as well, but my wife would kill me if I didn't clean the place up a bit first (bills, Diet Coke cans, software boxes, and an old Milton Friedman book clutter the top of my desk right now).

Wretchard's post reminded me of one other personal shortcoming as well: I forgot to extend a holiday greeting to all of you, who take the time to visit, read my blog, and post terrific comments.

Happy Easter everyone.

VDH on Rumsfeld and the Generals' Dissent

2006-04-16T21:14:00.000-05:00

Criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld continues to be big news, despite the President's strong endorsement yesterday.

Victor David Hanson has a terrific post today on the subject, entitled "The Jackal and the General", where he argues convincingly that these Generals would have better served their country by pursuing their concerns privately:

If these generals are sincerely concerned for the troops they once led, if they believe that both they and the nation will best be served by doing something different from what’s being done, then they should privately give that advice to their Congressional representatives. At this point, to publicly second-guess the management of the war by scapegoating the Rumsfeld–– as though there were some obvious, easy way to fight the war that the Secretary of Defense arrogantly ignored — only serves partisan politics and encourages our enemies.

This is an excellent post. Read the whole thing.

Armchair Generals and the Old School

2006-04-14T12:51:00.000-05:00

Big Lizards has a great post on the subject of recently retired, newly critical generals.

One of the key points made in the post is that many of the officers' critiques reflect a mindset not in accordance with the 21st century battlefield. BL argues that some of the Generals' references to concepts like "Powell Doctrine" and Unity of Command are less applicable to the assymetrical fights that the military is dealing with in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those wedded so faithfully to the concepts that guided the armed forces through the waning years of the cold war are referred to in Big Lizard's post as "Old School".

"Old School" is a great, descriptive term that in my opinion accurately conveys the mindset of most of the Army's senior leadership at the onset of 9/11. It can be argued that many of the generals at the time were driven out of their comfort zones by both the Global War on Terror and by an aggressive SECDEF determined to tranform DOD, who turned many of the generals' sacred cows into so much shoe leather.

Where is the proof? I have written other posts on the subject of the military's readiness for the exigencies of the post 9/11 world; here are a few examples, new and old, supporting the argument that much of the pre 9/11 military leadership (many of whom are throwing darts at Rumsfeld from the safety of retirement) lacked the mindset for the reality the military now faces:

General Eric Shinseki, canonized by many for the dressing down he took after disagreeing with the SECDEFs Iraq troop assessment, fought tooth and nail to save the Army's Comanche helicopter and Crusader self propelled artillery piece. Both of these weapons systems were relics that were designed during and for the cold war, and their functions had largely been replicated by other weapon systems already available. Meanwhile the production and supply of body armor, something recognized during the 1990s by many unit commanders as necessary for the type of fights the Army was expected to be in for the foreseeable future, would have taken literally DECADES to field in the amounts needed based on the Army's plan at the time. The two outmoded weapons systems were finally cancelled, although not before the taxpayers paid tens of billions of dollars for development and testing. The fielding of body armor has come a long way since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, no thanks to the decisions made by the Army's senior leadership prior to 9/11.

The Army is involved in two major counterinsurgency fights in Iraq and Afghanistan; however, the Army had no counterinsurgency doctrine until 2004, when it released a draft counterinsurgency field manual. As a student in the command and general staff college at that time (where mid grade officers go prior to being assigned as operations officers and planners throughout the Army), counterinsurgency was not part of the 10 month core curriculum. We spent hours studying the peacetime transformation of the Army between the world wars, but alas, no counterinsurgency. Did the Army's senior leadership prior to 9/11 not envision a scenario where U.S. forces would be involved in a hot fight against insurgents somewhere in the world? Possibly (which is bad enough in itself), but there may be another reason why the Army's doctrine and education system was not adequately preparing the force for the roles that it would by necessity find itself in at the dawn of the 21st century: the Army's senior leadership wanted no part of counterinsurgency. At all. COIN is a messy, long term, close-in fight, a mission where many of the technological advantages the U.S. enjoys are neutralized by terrain and by the nature of the operations themselves. The Army wanted to fight in a situation that met the criteria of the "Powell Doctrine", a conventional mid-intensity fight of short duration, where there was no question of goals or moral clarity (for an example, see DESERT STORM). Under this supposition, the Army's leadership did not educate and train the force on Counterinsurgency because it did not WANT to be employed in a counterinsurgency. Old School, indeed.

Major General (retired) Swannack today, in his attack on Secretary Rumsfeld, criticized the way Generals are being promoted in the Army:

“If you understand what Secretary Rumsfeld has done in his time in the Pentagon, he personally is the one who selects the three-star generals to go forward to the president for the Senate to confirm,” Swannack told CNN.

Assuming there is more of a point to this comment than merely sour grapes, Swannack is no doubt referring to the unorthodox manner in which the Secretary of Defense has approached general officer appointments. The current Chief of Staff of the Army is a perfect example. General Peter Schoomaker had actually been retired for several years, after having helmed the United States Special Operations Command until 2000 (note: check lexis nexis, anyone who subscribes, and see how many bitter, critical OP Eds Schoomaker wrote during his brief foray into retirement!). Secretary Rumsfeld and the Pentagon's civilian leadership astutely recognized the nature of the fight the U.S. is involved in, and threw out the General Officer appointment playbook when they chose General Schoomaker as Chief of Staff. This is a decision that no doubt rankled feathers at the highest echelons of the service, but one that the Pentagon's civilian leadership determined was essential for an Army in a new kind of war. While the "Old School" may have wished to maintain the efficient status quo in appointments based in previous assignments and time of service, the Pentagon instead focused on effectiveness.

While it is unusual for so many flag officers to be openly critical of the military's civilian leadership (albeit from the comfort and safety of retirement), it is not unprecedented in American history for military leadership to be unprepared for rapid shifts in the nature of warfare. General George McClellan, despite being immensely effective at organizing the Union Army in the early days of the civil war, was nonetheless relieved by President Lincoln when he failed to close with and destroy the confederate army. Interesting to note in this case is that like many of the current crop of retired generals, McClellan was also critical after the fact of Lincoln's prosecution of the Civil War. George McClellan actually ran against Lincoln unsuccessfully on the Democratic ticket in 1864 (the Democrats campaigned on an anti-war platform, surprisingly enough). In another case, American military journals were publishing articles in the 1930s touting the superiority of horse cavalry over motorized units (ie the armored forces that revolutionized modern warfare a few later during World War II). In a final example, General George C. Marshall relieved and replaced several flag officers at the onset of World War II, believing they were unsuitable for the fight ahead of the nation.

As I reported earlier, the media enjoys the saga of retired generals rebelling against the military's civilian leadership because it is titillating, and the story practically writes itself. But the criticism of these retirees is only part of a larger picture. One also needs to look at what the Army was doing prior to the September 11 atttacks, and decide whether or not the Rumsfeld shake up that has put so many general officers outside of their comfort zone was not absolutely necessary for the type of fights the Army must be prepared for in the future. Then, and only then, will you be prepared to decide whether the old school or the new school is best.

Wilsonizer Engineering, Inc!

2006-04-14T09:05:00.000-05:00

Welcome, new readers to Wilsonizer. I appreciate all the commentary, positive and critical, that you provide to this blog. It's all about you, after all!

Today, blogging and searching for news via the internet will be lighter than usual; Wilsonizer and his father are assembling a wooden swingset in the back yard. A working space shuttle kit would probably be less complicated than this miracle of modern engineering!

Stay tuned, and late this afternoon I will post some more content.

Now, back to the construction project. . .

Armchair Generals, Sour Grapes

2006-04-13T20:33:00.000-05:00

Each day this week, it seems like a recently retired General has taken the time out of a busy post military career schedule to get interviewed or write to a newspaper and call for Secretary Rumsfeld's head. Today, former 82nd Airborne Division Commander Chuck Swannack became the fifth flag officer to condemn the SECDEF in print:

"We need to continue to fight the global war on terror and keep it off our shores," General Swannack said in an interview. "But I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq."

Let's save the analysis of the military's role in a liberal society for a later discussion (but check out this post here for yesterday's analysis), and let Wilsonizer veer close to ad hominem territory for a moment:

At least one of these critical retirees (all of whom are now comfortably drawing a 75% base pay pension on a lofty salary, by the way) was responsible for U.S. military operations and policy in the middle east from 1996-2000; while he is universally lauded for his tenure and plain-spoken demeanor, this General presided over a command that failed to take decisive action against Al Qaeda (remember the pathetic missile attacks on bin laden's camp?) during a time when the terrorist organization was, by its own statements and actions, at war with the United States. While an immense amount of "engagement" and "bridgebuilding" in the middle east occured during his command, a relentless enemy was nonethless able to plan, resource, and execute deadly terrorist attacks with impunity throughout the region. And these attacks foreshadowed the spectacular terrorist attacks that came later, emanating from the an area of the world that this general had been responsible for. . .

At least one of these critical Generals was assigned the critical task of overseeing the training and employment of Iraqi security forces, and during his tenure saw the Iraqis that he was responsible for virtually dissolve overnight. Nary a complaint was heard from him during the execution of his duties; only later, when the man retires after overseeing a catastrophic failure and only in retirement (a retirement that is no doubt earlier than he would have liked), does he raise his voice to be heard.

At least two of these Generals retired early after not being recommended by the civilian leadership of the military to receive another star (promotion).

Wilsonizer provides these "factlings" not to muddy the waters in this debate; rather the intent is to demonstrate that some of the men now calling for the SECDEFs head (again, I might add, from the luxurious safety of a VERY comfortable retirement) have demonstrated the same inability to accomplish their mission when they were the top man in their respective organizations. These little stubborn facts also identify the possibility that bitterness at leaving one's lifelong calling before accomplishing all goals, and under a slight cloud, could leave nearly anyone feeling the urge to fire off a nasty op-ed to the local paper.

Chew on this for awhile dear readers. No doubt tomorrow and Easter sunday will bring more disgruntled retired generals off of the country clubs and onto the editorial pages, seeking nothing more than to speak "truth to power". This story has legs, and virtually writes itself, after all.

In the next post on this topic, Wilsonizer will explain where he thinks these retired General Officers, if they truly desired to follow the spirit of their oath of commissioning, could better serve American interests.

Prince Harry Joins the Ranks

2006-04-12T13:34:00.000-05:00

From The Daily Mail:

Prince Harry marched in front of the Queen today at his passing out ceremony at Sandhurst. As he commissioned as an officer in the Army, the 21-year-old third in line to throne took part in the military college's historic Sovereign's Parade.

He is joining the Household Cavalry's Blues and Royals where his rank is referred to as a Cornet. He will serve in an armoured reconnaissance unit and train to become a troop commander, in charge of 11 men and four light tanks.

The Prince could be sent to serve on the front line in Iraq or Afghanistan, with one senior Army figure saying today it was "eminently possible" he could be in a danger zone within 12 months.

Public figures are often maligned in the West for a lack of civic spirit or willingness to sacrifice; Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 911 had a scene where the director ambushed numerous congressmen walking about the capitol in an attempt to get their children to "enlist for Iraq". Moore attempted to demonstrate that the power elite in Washington, who are more than willing to send soldiers to war, are considerably more guarded about their own children. Moore's argument is that the children of privilige end up say, playing lacrosse at Duke, while the great unwashed end up on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever.

Prince Harry's service as an officer in a combat arms oufit once again shatters the annoying myth that military service is for those who have nowhere else to go. The Prince's decision to serve his country in uniform sets a terrific example for his peers in England, and is a bright spot for a royal family whose travails are more often detailed on the gossip page instead of the front page.

Congratulations on your commission, Prince Harry, and best of luck to you in reconnaissance. Scouts Out!

The Armchair Generals

2006-04-11T20:28:00.000-05:00

Within the past few weeks, several retired generals have spoken out against Secretary Rumsfeld and the conduct of Operation Iraqi Freedom. General Anthony Zinni, the former commander of U.S Central Command, accused the Bush Administration of "true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, [and] at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption." Retired Marine Lieutenant General Newbold, who was the director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until 2002, said that the Iraq war was executed "with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions — or bury the results." And of course, as I observed in a previous post, Major General Paul Eaton maligned Secretary Rumsfeld and most of the senior uniformed military leadership in a recent op-ed screed.

Everyone in this great, free country of ours is entitled to their own opinion, and the aforementioned generals have a worldview as senior officers that is of no doubt interesting to the public at large. Wilsonizer certainly pays attention when a flag officer takes time to write a piece for the Times.

But deep in the bottom of the cold Army heart of mine that pumps the green Army blood throughout my body, I cannot help but wonder if there is a ring of hell reserved for comfortably retired generals, who utter opinions maligning the efforts of soldiers and commanders in the midst of carrying out wartime missions.

Free speech is a great thing, but in the case of these retired generals, what does it truly achieve? Their words do not hasten the outcome of the war in any way, do nothing to dissuade our enemies or bolster the morale of the U.S. soldiers in combat, and certainly will not strengthen American resolve or even clarify the stakes involved in the war. While each of the generals, in "saying what must be said", apparently quieted the nagging voice of a disturbed conscience, they accomplished little else .

Each of these men was gifted enough to beat the odds and rise to the highest levels of military leadership; together, they served their country in uniform for a combined total of a century. Yet in retirement, when their country (which they all swore an oath to protect, by the way, an oath that in my opinion does not expire until you stop drawing breath) is involved in the most difficult, high stakes war in a generation, what services do these august men offer their country? A few vicious, bitter paragraphs on the editorial pages, and nothing else.

These Generals, all of whom are in the prime of life, might take a lesson from General of the Army George Catlett Marshall.

Hours after retiring from forty years of military service, Marshall, at the request of President Truman, immediately returned to government service as a U.S. representative to China. Marshall later served as an exemplary Secretary of State, and was the architect of the plan to rebuild Europe from the ashes of World War II. Marshall continued serving his country well into his seventies.

General of the Army Marshall served his country without reservation until he was a tired old man; he accomplished a great deal for America and its allies, in war as well as peace. Rather than dither about and diminish himself in op-ed columns, he rolled up his sleeves and continued serving his country, until he had nothing more to give.

I have no doubt that in the coming weeks there will be more General Zinnis, Newbolds, and Eatons, bored and bitter in their retirements,taking time to criticize the Bush administration's handling of the war. There are plenty of these men to go around. If only we had a few more Marshalls. . .

Real Security (Except at the Border!)

2006-04-10T20:55:00.000-05:00

In the Dem's now hard-to-find "Real Security" plan, the Democrats are proposing to:

Immediately implement the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission including securing national borders, ports, airports and mass transit systems [Emph Added].

Sounds pretty good, right? Well, look at how Democratic activists promoted their muscular national security stance at a Dallas immmigration protest yesterday (Courtesy of Michelle Malkin):

To the casual observer, the political party party brandishing this placard would not seem too concerned with securing the southern U.S. border. It is surprising that the Texas/Mexico border even appears on this sign at all, actually.

Perhaps this shameless pandering to latino voters is a shrewd move for the democrats; the political calculus, no doubt, is to make major in-roads in the latino voting bloc in the next two elections. However, for those discerning voters who care about things like national security, this placard illustrates why the democrats conistently trail behind republicans when it comes to defense issues.

OLD Media - Creating, Not Reporting, the News

2006-04-08T21:38:00.000-05:00

In the course of a week, two phenomenal stories showcased a major problem with reporting in America: the tendency of news outlets to manufacture the news, rather than merely report it.

First of all, there was NBC's NASCAR sting as reported by Michelle Malkin. NBC planned to send several muslim-looking men to a NASCAR Race in an attempt to generate hostile reactions from the race fans, and catch all the fun on camera. Sports Illustrated online summarized the whole scheme:

NASCAR said NBC confirmed it was sending Muslim-looking men to a race, along with a camera crew to film fans' reactions. The NBC crew was "apparently on site in Martinsville, Va., walked around and no one bothered them," NASCAR spokesman Ramsey Poston said Wednesday. "It is outrageous that a news organization of NBC's stature would stoop to the level of going out to create news instead of reporting news," Poston said.

While that story was intriguing enough, the New York Post's gossip columnist, Jared Paul Stern, is the subject of a federal investigation for extorting money, as the New York Times reports:

The New York Post is cooperating with a federal investigation into whether a longtime contributor for the Page Six gossip column — the avidly read daily log of wrongdoing, double-dealing and sexual indiscretions by celebrities both minor and major — tried to extort money from a California billionaire, according to a spokesman for the newspaper.

Several people involved in the investigation said the reporter, Jared Paul Stern, had been captured on a video recording demanding a $100,000 payment and a monthly stipend of $10,000 from Ronald W. Burkle in return for keeping negative information about him out of the paper. . .But while the accusations against Mr. Stern are serious, it is the specter — raised by at least three people who say they know what is on the tapes — that Mr. Stern implicated several celebrities and New York power figures in an undisclosed, symbiotic relationship with Page Six that prompted an extraordinary day of full-throated and at times gleeful gossip among those who love, hate and avidly read the column.

Stern allegedly received solicited and received payments from A-list celebrities and socialites to control the tone of coverage on Page 6; those who paid him allegedly received favorable coverage in the widely read gossip column.

These anecdotes, extreme as they may be, illustrate an alarming trend of the media to become the news, rather than report it. THese are not the only examples, though. In 2004, an embedded reporter fed some harsh questions to soldiers during Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's visit to the Middle East; and of course, the inane behavior of Helen Thomas makes her the archetype for journalists becoming the event, rather than reporting on the event.

Two trends should give news editors/managers pause before they send their minions out to generate, rather than report the news: trust of journalists is at an all time low; and judging by the reduced circulation of many top newspapers and media outlets in recent years, demand for this contrived tripe is not increasing anyone's bottom line.

No wonder so many people are reading blogs these days.

Friday Night Hors D'oeuvres

2006-04-07T20:33:00.000-05:00

Wilsonizer had a busy work week, and the blog admittedly paid a price in output. Here are some good, light appetizers to sift through as you settle down for what is hopefully a relaxing weekend:

A Colossal rabbit runs amok in northern England.

Leif Garret is off the wagon, apparently.

Kevin Federline is, well heck, he is still in the news, and there is something to be said for that.

In many news photos, Rep. Cynthia McKinney has what could be described as "crazy eyes".

Marshall and Kim just can't work it out.

Joe Wilson (NOT affiliated with Wilsonizer!!!) opens his mouth, and leads us to believe Valerie got him the Niger gig because she needed a little "breathing room".

The democrat's "Real Security" plan is apparently in an undisclosed location being read by VP Cheney or something (I say this because after a bold announcement last week, this proposal has all but disappeared into thin air; it is no longer directly linked to the democrats home page).

Handel's Messiah premiered this day in Dublin in 1741.

There were no Bigfoot sightings in the month of March, which is a leading indicator of summer drought (not really, I made up the drought part!).

And from the Onion, Critics blast bush for not praying hard enough.

Enjoy the weekend everyone, and Wilsonizer will post quality content all weekend long!

Real Security, Buried Deep!

2006-04-05T21:29:00.000-05:00

Wilsonizer is spoiling for a fight! I was really hoping to see the Democrats craft a strong position on national security, latching on to more fleshed-out positions by PhD's from, say, the Brookings Institute. Momentum would build, PhD's would sign on to write even more monographs to support the Dem positions, and at last there would be a true clash of ideas between the parties when it comes to subjects like national defense and homeland security.

However, within hours of unveiling their five page "Real Security" PDF document (ten pages if you count the Spanish translation), Cynthia McKinney walked around a metal detector and landed above the fold of newspapers around the world.

And in the days that followed, there has been scarcely a whimper about the objectives listed in "Real Security" . Do the democrats even know about their new national security plan?

And now, "Real Security" has fallen off the top of Democrats.org. Is this a case of negationism? No, not at all, the plan is still there on the site. But it is hard to find, and you have to do some serious scrolling to dig it out ( A few items down from "Dean on Bush's Crumbling Credibility"). And if you weren't looking for the dem's security plan, you surely would not come upon it by accident on democrats.org.

If the democrats continue to approach "Real Security" with no enthusiasm whatsoever, one can expect the rest of the voting public to do the same as well.

McKinney's Follies Illustrate Dem Security Dilemma

2006-04-05T20:49:00.000-05:00

The Dem's Real Security plan, in addressing homeland security, states that the party's goal is to

Provide firefighters, emergency medical workers, police officers, and other workers on the front lines with the training, staffing, equipment, and cutting edge technology they need[emph added].

It is difficult to stay on message, however, when a congresswoman from your own party has a grand jury investigation against her for allegedly assaulting the police who are there for her own protection.

Even worse, the Dem's security message is further dampened by said congresswoman's insistence that the scrape with a police officer occurred because of racism and racial profiling:

Something that perhaps the average American just doesn't understand is that there is a heightened sense of a lack of appropriateness being there for members who are elected who happen to be of color," McKinney said, "and until this issue is addressed by the American public in a very substantive way, it won't be the last time."

The Democratic leaders (and the rest of the Democrats in Washington) are wisely leaving McKinney to twist in the wind; however the lack of a statement of condemnation for her absurd behavior, in an incident involving a police force that exist to protect Congress itself, makes any Democratic claim of "Real Security" ring hollow.

The Dem's National Security Plan Dissected, Pt II

2006-04-05T05:10:00.000-05:00

One week after the highly touted release of the dem's "Real Security" plan, and you'd be hard pressed to see anything in print about it. No democrats are touring or giving speeches about national security, and about how the democratic plan for securing America's interests is superior to what is being done now.

And why is that?

One can only hazard a guess, of course. My own guess is that most of the current democratic leadership (Pelosi, Reid, Dean) do not feel comfortable talking about national security. I don't expect to hear the Democrats offering much more than a pointed critique of the Bush administration's efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in securing the homeland; this is apparently easier than going to democrats.org and memorizing talking points from their own national security plan.

This is truly disappointing, actually. Elections should be all about choice; once again, the Democrats appear to be distancing themselves from the national security arena, leaving the voters with the decision to either support Republican efforts in this arena, or to "roll the dice" and choose the democrat's haphazard approach to securing our nation's interests.

Sen. McCain and the Jobs Americans Don't Want

2006-04-04T17:40:00.000-05:00

Senator John McCain gave a speech this afternoon to union leaders in Washington DC, and was asked some pointed questions about his stance on illegal immigration:

McCain [when asked why he supports allowing illegal immigrants to stay in this country] responded by saying immigrants were taking jobs nobody else wanted. He offered anybody in the crowd $50 an hour [note, this seems like a misprint; my guess is McCain said $5.00 an hour] to pick lettuce in Arizona. Shouts of protest rose from the crowd, with some accepting McCain's job offer. "I'll take it!" one man shouted. McCain insisted none of them would do such menial labor for a complete season. "You can't do it, my friends."

Some in the crowd said they didn't appreciate McCain questioning their work ethic.

Indeed!

Senator McCain has bought into the myth that immigrants do work that would otherwise go undone in America. In actuality, the presence of a large, unaccounted for work force drives the price of labor down, so that American workers are unable to make a living in the U.S. economy as unskilled laborers.

It is pleasant to see organized labor taking Senator McCain to task for this illogical stance. Americans are more than willing to do any job that pays a living wage, and do it well; McCain's legislation, however, will deny many Americans the opportunity to work at all.

Rest in Peace, Sergeant First Class Robinson

2006-04-02T16:27:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I was honored to attend the funeral and grave side services of Sergeant First Class Christopher Lee Robinson in Madison, Mississippi.

SFC Robinson was a Special Forces soldier killed by anti-coalition insurgents in Afghanistan last month.

There was a wall of green in the church and at the cemetery where SFC Robinson was laid to rest, as soldiers and veterans came from near and far to pay their last respects to this fallen warrior.

The freedom riders lined the streets of Madison with Harley Davidson motorcycles, and each rider stood proudly with an American flag as mourners entered the stately church. Later, the riders mounted their Harleys and proudly joined the funeral procession to the cemetery, instilling a loud, almost martial spirit to the solemn occasion. No one who passed by that funeral procession had to doubt that a warrior was being laid to rest.

At the cemetery, as family laid roses upon SFC Robinson's casket, one could feel their heartbreaking grief as each one said their final goodbyes. Christopher Lee Robinson was many things: a beloved father, husband, and son, a friend to many, an eagle scout who wanted nothing more than to serve his country, and in the end, a professional soldier who gave America everything he had.

I was honored to be there, and I hope that the example that this man set inspires others to believe in and fight for the values that make this such a wonderful country.

Light Blogging This Weekend

2006-03-31T11:34:00.000-05:00

Duty Calls, so I most likely will be out of the net for the next two days, unless I can access blogger in a wifi spot with my IPAQ.

I will post something worthwhile on Sunday, I promise!

The Democratic National Security Plan Dissected, Part One

2006-03-30T21:26:00.000-05:00

The Democrats unveiled their proposal for national security plan today. The plan, entitled Real Security: The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World.

It has taken the Democrats over four years to articulate a national security platform, which says a great deal about the inability of the party to reach a consensus on this issue.

The document is not truly a plan per se, but rather a series of goals that, taken together (the democrats believe), will increase the security of the United States of America. There are ends discussed throughout, but no discussions of the ways and means to achieve them.

Still, this is a political party's initial baseline document, so it is a start.

Wilsonizer will read through this document, and in the next week provide a critique of its major points.

Today I will start with one of the goals addressed in the military section, pertaining to Army Special Forces, which are the U.S. units that have played a large role in the war on terror and in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Democrat's plan proposes to:

Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure [Emph Added].

This goal, as stated in the Democrat's plan, cannot be achieved at this time.

Special Forces have proven to be a highly effective, versatile tool in the Global War on Terror; however, it takes a tremendous amount of resources just to keep the current personnel force structure in place to man the five active duty Special Forces Groups (A group is the equivalent of an army regiment). There are not enough volunteers for Special Forces Duty to double the number of Special Forces units, and the Army does not have the facilities to train the number of personnel it would take to keep ten active duty Special Forces Group fully manned.

Any growth in the size of Army Special Forces units would have to be implemented slowly, and over a long period of time. And true growth in the number of active duty Special Forces units would be modest at best. Doubling the size of Army Special Forces is a bridge too far.

Any sudden, rapid growth of Special Forces units would have to come at the cost of quality and operational capability. This would violate one of the four Special Operations Truths:

Competent Special Operations Forces cannot be created after emergencies occur.

While the idea of rapidly expanding Army Special Forces units sounds like a new and innovative idea, it is not a truly feasible one.

Post Script: A better idea for the Democrats to embrace might be to use Special Forces more effectively in the War on Terror; Sean Naylor's article "More Than Just Door Kickers" talks about an internal debate on how Special Forces are being employed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The "Jobs Americans Won't Do" Myth

2006-03-28T21:13:00.000-05:00

President Bush, in his weekly radio address, was addressing the problem of illegal immigration when he said that among other things, new immigration legislation would require

a temporary worker program that will relieve pressure on our borders. This program would create a legal way to match willing foreign workers with willing American employers to fill jobs that Americans will not do.

Other bloggers have already pointed out the fallacy of this viewpoint, but since it is the opinion of the President of the United States that there are certain jobs American workers won't do, let us present a few more facts to strengthen the argument against President Bush's illegal immigration stance.

The industries where a disproportionate number of illegal immigrants work (farm labor and hospitality, for example) probably are jobs that many Americans would not be willing to do right now, and why is that? Because the supply of cheap, illegal labor is such that business owners in many of these industries do not have to pay a decent living wage (by American living standards), or offer costly benefits.

This system, while it may keep prices on consumer goods and services lower, deprives under-educated, lower income Americans of many opportunities. If the supply of cheap (illegal) labor was drastically curtailed, employers would be forced to raise the wages paid and increase benefits in order to attract and maintain their work force. This would benefit the poorest in American society more than any other class.

Some Americans likely have to work at two jobs, due to the glut of illegal immigrants driving down the price of labor in many industries. Consumers and employers may benefit from this system, but the nation's poor are paying the price, and will continue to do so if watered down, meaningless legislation gets passed by Congress and signed into law.

If there are jobs that Americans will not do, it is because the inability to control illegal immigration into the United States is cheating many Americans out of the ability to find employment and earn a decent living wage.

Wilsonizer

I've Moved!

Home Sweet Home!

Still Bloggin'

A Visit to the Grindhouse

Daily Kos Strays Off Message (Again!)

Straying Off Message

Hope, Rather than Despair

GWOT and Newspeak over at the EB

Military Medicine Morass

The War and the Media: Yet Another Look!

Confronting Fascism, Then and Now

Effectiveness of Provincial Reconstruction Teams

Convergence of Government Effort

Attention! New Post is up!

Interesting Developments in Anbar

Congress, Then and Now

Wilsonizer Saddles Up to the Elephant Bar

Sequels: The Revenge!

Britney Spears: Ranger Candidate? ? ?

Lieberman, Nonbinding

War and Military Readiness

The Iraq War - in Congress, in the Streets, and Elsewhere

Obama Down Under

WAPO Answers for Arkin

Obama and Lincoln

The Message on the War

Iran in Iraq, and Back to Anna: Upping the Ante in Complexity

Little Victories in Iraq

John Edwards, Fair Shakes, and Blogging News

1LT Watada and Military Discipline

Because We're All Talking About It!

Giving Ground in a COIN Fight

Missteps in the War of a Thousand Cuts

America's Soldiery, Neither Mercenaries Nor Whores

Lost Book

Wilsonizer: Jetlagged, But Back in Business!

Stuck in Turkey

Sporadic Blogging Expected

General Thoughts and Musings.

Recommended Reading

Making the Army Better, and Insulating Against Drafts

The State of the Army

Changes on the Ground in Iraq

The New Yorker on COIN

Somalia and Iraq

Rumors of a Surge

The U.S. Military and the Blogosphere, Part II

Different Takes on the Surge.

The Last Post of the Year.

Unwarranted Pessimism at The American Conservative

The U.S. Military and the Blogosphere

Finders, Thinkers, and Linkers

Weighing in on Ethiopia/Somalia

The Afghanistan Study Group?

The Soldiers who "Get It" in Iraq

Choosing Victory = A Good Start

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Iraq Strategies, Part III

The Sandy Berger File

Zooming in on ISG recommendation # 44

Diverse Takes on the Al Qaeda/Dem Message

Giant Squid on the Loose!

Case Collapse: Nifong's Office Drops the Rape Charge

Al Qaeda and the Democrats

U.K. Bracing for Terror Attack???

There are Jobs that Americans Just Won't Do

CPT Jamil Hussein, the Iraqi Tom Joad?

Changes in Command

News for the Season's Silly Tidings

Hot Off the Presses: The Reed-Levin Amendment

The Study Group Report, and A Follow Up Report

. . . . in the Saddle Again!

The Perils of Blogging

Get Smart on Alternative Fuels!

On May Day

Sickblogging No More!

Sickblogging, Yet Again.

New York Times and the Rumsfeld Debate

Light Blogging Ahead