4 Mile Creek

One Down, 41 to Go

If we are to make any headway at all in the GWOT, we really need to get muslim women to blow themselves up prior to creating 41 more potential suicide bombers, not after.

The mother of nine and grandmother of 41 became the oldest Palestinian suicide bomber at the age of 57, selecting as her target troops operating near her northern Gaza home in Jabaliya...

"We are really happy. It's a big operation. She told us last night that she would do a suicide operation... We are proud," said Zuheir, Najar's 20-year-old son."

So Zuheir, you gonna let your mom show you up? 

We'll See

20 months ago, I stated that:

The timetable for a strike may not depend upon when Iran may become nuclear capable.  Instead, a strike may end up being based on when Iran is able to protect their nuclear facilities.  Currently, Iranian Air Defenses are not capable of defending against a well-trained air force.  But the Iranians are importing new air defense weapons, and have been in talks for years with the Russians in an effort to build a new command-and-control system for their air defense forces.

Last week in InterFax the Russians were quoted as being ready to carry out their contract to deliver the new TOR-M1 missile to Iran, and today in the Jerusalem Post, I see that the Russians have started those deliveries.  While the TOR-M1 is hardly the most advanced air defense missile system, its a good enough system.  Its limited range means it is useless as an area defense system (defending cities) but effective as a point defense system (defending military sites).  It will make any attack on a site such as a nuclear processing plant costly to the attacker. That is, if the attacker waits for the installation and training on the weapon system to be completed.  Based on all the trouble Iran is causing them in Lebanon, and how little the western world is willing to help them there, I'd say the Israelis may not be willing to wait much longer for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. 
I'd keep an eye on this place,
Then standby.

Um...You Were

Jane Hamsher, the uber-Lefty of Firedoglake, whose political ineptitude (along with Kos') helped tank the candidacy of one Ned Lamont in ultra-blue Connecticut, has this to say about the Centrists so neccesary to the political future of the Democratic Party:

Those "centrists," the people who can be convinced to swing Democratic in one election and Republican in the next, who don't make up their minds until the night before an election or just run in the voting booth and pull all the top levers are probably not engaged in the political dialog to the point that they will want to "interact" with those who bring them their news.  They might be stupid, apathetic or working three McJobs just to make ends meet but they're probably not going want to spend their leisure time shootin' the shit  with VandeHei. People who are engaged political junkies tend to have strong opinions and they want to interact online with others who are like minded.  If there were a great gaping demand for a moderate site, Joe Gandelman  would be a rich man.

To people like Hamsher, you Centrists are the new blacks.  As long as you stay on the Democratic Party plantation, they'll let you keep your shack.  Go looking for freedom, and they'll loose the dogs.

(ht to The Moderate Voice)

If You Dare

Try to deconflict the ridiculous claims made by the NYT editorial staff in A Parting Shot From George Allen with this map.

 

Now What?

I started the several week-long process of getting out of the Army.  Everyone is helpful, but I keep getting asked what it is that I intend to do for work when I retire.  They need to know that in order to help. 
Unfortunately I have no idea of what I will do for work.  The Army teaches a lot of good skills (I have had enlisted specialists [E4s] from my units go out to the civilian market at $70k+) but unfortunately I didn't learn any of them.
I knew I'd have to grow up eventually, I just figured that I could get it done in 22 years.  I guess I was wrong.

Riddle Me This

Why is it that the people who demand the US implement the most immediate and radical solutions to global warming are the same people who demand the US take a cautious (if any at all) solution to islamic fascism?

Who's the Teacher?

The folks who set up this scene are from the Montana Grizzly Encounter.  Their site states that they hope your visit will leave you with a better understanding of grizzlies. 
Yeah, sure.  I guess one of the things you are supposed to understand is that it's okay to have a grizzly bear at your Thanksgiving table.  The bear looks kinda photoshopped into the picture, but I really can't tell for sure.  It's not very realistic to say that you are teaching people about bears when you send out photos like this. 
Stunts like this remind me of that idiot Treadwell that used to go up to Kodiak island to pet brown bears up there, until they had their own thanksgiving feast on him and his girlfriend.   He said he wanted to teach the world about bears because of some drug overdose he once had.  All he taught the world about bears was that if they aren't hungry, they don't consider you food, but if they are, they do, and no amount of experience with bears will enable you to tell how hungry they are until it's too late. 

It has taken many generations of bears and people in the Yellowstone to get over the idea that bears are there for people's entertainment.   It's not a learning experience for people or bears to set up something like this shot, and get it sent around the world. 

Just Another Headline

Has there been a recent headline that has the word "muslim" in it that doesn't also have the word "outraged" in it?
I can't remember one.  Perpetual outrage.  That is islam in a nutshell.

(update-now, via Power Line, comes the imam's call to boycott US Airways.  Personally, I would love to have a list of airlines that muslims are boycotting, as those would be the airlines I would look to when I or anyone in my family needed to fly.  And if I ever need a cab, I'll make sure the driver knows I have liquor and pork in my luggage so I can avoid those cabbies who want to mix their religion with my commerce.)

Here's How To Do It

Charlie Rangel is an idiot, I don't think anyone is denying that.  He's a race-baiting idiot as well, accusing the Army of being a modern-day plantation, where poor blacks are nothing more than slaves of a different name. 
If he really thinks that the way to stop wars is to have the children of Congressmen in the military, then make that the law, not a mandatory draft that will costs upwards of a trillion dollars.  Here's the wording: "Upon election to either of the Houses of Congress, all children of the elected members between the age of 18 years and 45 years, shall serve at least two years mandatory service in one branch of the US military, except those already exempt under section 505 of title 10, United States Code.  Said children will be entered into the services upon the first day of the month following the electee's entrance into Congress.  Deferments of up to one year may be made to accomodate hardship."
Let's see how far that one gets in Congress. 

The Old Fart is Correct

Henry Kissinger, the puffed-up blowhard whose framework of "peace with honor" left the US with no honor, and the Vietnamese people with no peace, has come out of the woodwork to claim that there is no military victory possible in Iraq. 

"If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi Government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible,"

And on this subject, he is 100% correct, blowhard or not.
The military cannot, and should not, be responsible for establishing an Iraqi Government, period.  The military victory that was possible in Iraq has already happened.  The Democrats, as a general rule knowing nothing whatsoever about the military and it's correct uses, successfully embarrassed the Bush administration after the whole "mission accomplished" scenario on the aircraft carrier Lincoln back in May of 2003.  The truth of the matter is that the Lincoln and her crew had accomplished their mission.  The Lincoln and her crew had helped defeat Saddam Hussein's Baathist forces.  That is exactly what a military force can do.  What the Lincoln and her crew could never do is exactly what the Dems think they should have done.  That is, establish a stable government in Iraq.
And why not?  Why can't we do exactly that which we did in Germany after WWII?  We defeated the Germans militarily, then we administered the government for a few years, and helped the German people, at least those in the western part of Germany, to establish a republic.  Though it took almost four years to do so, and another six years after that before the German republic was declared fully sovereign (May 5, 1955), the US Army had, in fact, helped establish a stable government in Germany.
Leaving out the obvious differences between Germans and Iraqis, what is most likely the reason for military success in Germany, with military failure (to establish a legitimate stable government) in Iraq?
There are three factors that are at work here that will preclude a military victory in Iraq like what we had in Germany.  These three factors, if ignored, will continue to haunt all military victories by the US in the foreseeable future.
Unconditional Surrender - There is no substitute for unconditional surrender.  And there is no better term.  Germany was forced to surrender unconditionally.  Iraq should have been forced to do the same.  In the Directive to Commander-in-Chief of United States Forces of Occupation Regarding the Military Government of Germany the very first statement on the legitimacy of the military effort to establish a stable government in Germany is crystal clear; unconditional surrender.  It states right up front that "The rights, power and status of the military government in Germany are based upon the unconditional surrender or total defeat of Germany."  For whatever political reason, our government decided that a total surrender of Iraq was not necessary.  I would have to say developments since that time have proven that to be a very bad decision.  When we go to war as we did in Iraq, it should be for the military goal of total defeat and unconditional surrender.  Period.  Many more people may die initially because of that goal, but I believe a good case can be made that in the end, lives will be saved.  This is further emphasized in the statement that "Germany will not be occupied for the purpose of liberation but as a defeated enemy nation. Your aim is not oppression but to occupy Germany for the purpose of realizing certain important Allied objectives.  In the conduct of your occupation and administration you should be just but firm and aloof. You will strongly discourage fraternization with the German officials and population."  We tried to separate the defeated Baathist regime from the Iraqi people, believing that because they suffered under Saddam, they would be better treated as a liberated nation, rather than a defeated nation.  Again I would say that as a life-saving measure, we would have been better off starting out with the idea that we were occupying Iraq as a defeated nation, and that the Iraqi people were our enemies.  It is likely that more realistic tactics, techniques, and procedures would have resulted from such a viewpoint.  Politically, I can't imagine what the ramifications of that would have been back in the US, and quite frankly, I don't care.  The political ramifications of floundering about with a half-assed policy of political correctness married to military doctrine should be self-evident.   
Reduction of War-Making Capability - Paragraph 7 of the directive to General Eisenhower is very clear on the subject of reducing the Germans capability to carry on a war, and should have been reinstituted word-for-word in a directive to CFLCC in Iraq.  "In your zone you will assure that all units of the German armed forces, including pare-military organizations, are dissolved as such, and that their personnel are promptly disarmed and controlled.  Prior to their final disposition, you will arrest and hold all military personnel who are included under the provisions of paragraph 8. The Control Council should proclaim, and in your zone you will effectuate, the total dissolution of all military and pare-military organizations, including the General Staff, the German Officers Corps, the Reserve Corps and military academies, together with all associations which might serve to keep alive the military tradition in Germany. You will seize or destroy all arms, ammunition and implements of war and stop the production thereof. You will take proper steps to destroy the German war potential, as set forth elsewhere in this directive."  Because we did not view the Iraqi people as a defeated nation, we were unable to issue such a directive.  Iraqi males were allowed to keep one AK-47 for personal use.  Such "personal use" turns out to be not such a good idea for the coalition.  The need to have issued such a proclamation is again self-evident, but is predicated on the first factor of unconditional surrender and total defeat.  Without the first, you can't have the second.
Security Arrests - Again, the directive to General Eisenhower should have been used as a template for any directive to CFLCC.  "You will search out, arrest, and hold, pending receipt by you of further instructions as to their disposition, Adolf Hitler, his chief Nazi associates, other war criminals and all persons who have participated in planning or carrying out Nazi enterprises involving or resulting in atrocities or war crimes. All persons who, if permitted to remain at large would endanger the accomplishment of your objectives will also be arrested and held in custody until trial by an appropriate semi-judicial body to be established by you.... In no event shall any differentiation be made between or special consideration be accorded to persons arrested, either as to manner of arrest or conditions of detention, upon the basis of wealth or political, industrial, or other rank or position."
The need to seek out, then arrest or kill, ex-Baathists was clear, and the military has done a superb job of it.   What was not so evident, unless one were to, say, go back and read how it was done successfully in the past, was the need to also arrest and detain all other persons who would endanger the accomplishment of military objectives.  In Iraq, that would include Muqtada Al Sadr and hundreds of other Shia and Sunni imams who daily preach hatred towards other muslims, America, the Coalition, infidels, whatever.  In the military, we have a term called "center of gravity" which loosely means that object from which the enemy derives its strength.  In the case of Iraq, the center of gravity is the imams who preach hatred.  They are allowed to do it daily, with extra emphasis on Friday.  It is clear that Marshall understood this when he issued this directive to Eisenhower because the directive does not stop at getting rid of the Nazis, it specifically goes on to authorize him to arrest and detain all those who would jeopardize his military mission.   The same directive, issued to CFLCC in Iraq, was needed.  It just wasn't possible without first declaring Iraq to be a defeated nation, rather than a liberated nation.  We didn't  worry too much about saving "German culture" back then, and we shouldn't be so quick to try to save islamic fascist culture now, either. 
These are not new ideas, obviously.  But they have been forgotten over time.  If the Democratic-controlled Congress plans on establishing a new direction for our effort in Iraq, they could at least make an attempt to look at those efforts that have succeeded in the past.  Instead, they tend to focus on Viet Nam, which is a shame, since it has so little to show the civilian leadership on how to focus efforts for a successful post-hostilities engagement of the military.   It may in fact be Viet Nam all over again if the Democrats have their way.  But it doesn't have to be that way, and we have reason to believe that the Coalition can successfully establish a stable republic given the proper guidance from those civilians in charge because we have done it before.
If the Dems want this to be another Viet Nam, they can easily make it a self-fulfilling prophecy by playing the part the Dems played in  1975.  However, the Dems can make this another Germany by playing the part the Dems played in 1945.  It's their choice now, as Kissinger has made clear.  It's not a military option to stay and produce a stable Iraqi government through more troops, or more bombs, or even more money.  What is needed now is the political backbone to establish the necessary conditions for a political victory in Iraq.  A social victory in Iraq.   An economic victory in Iraq.  The military is still needed in Iraq, but they have done all they can do towards establishing a stable republic.  The civilians need to take charge now and issue clear concise directives like they used to. 

The Dems begged to be given the chance; let's see if they want the US and Iraqi people to be victorious a la 1945, or defeated, a la 1975.