Time for a reminder. This just happens to be the first link I came across, but there are plenty.

From NPR, dated March 6:

If conflict does come, Clinton said, he thinks a war could be "over in a week" because of what he sees as the overwhelming capability of U.S. forces and the depletion of Iraq's military strength.

"I think it's important to disarm this man, I think he's a bad fella, but our military superiority is so great -- it's far greater than it was in the Gulf War, and the Gulf War was over in 100 hours after we bombed for 43 days," Clinton said. "And so now they can bomb for a couple of days and then just roll into Baghdad."

Every now and again I hear some speculation as to why Saddam hasn't tried to fly a single plane yet. The usual answer given is that any plane that goes into the air would be shot down right away, so he's holding them in reserve.

Perhaps that's true, but if he doesn't use his planes, he'll soon lose the opportunity to use them at all. And his tanks aren't that useful, but he sends his ground troops out to get themselves killed day in and day out.

I wonder if it might be something else. If you were in Baghdad and you were given the kys to a supersonic plane, wouldn't you just try to fly the hell out of there? I suppose that Saddam could do the same "torture the family" trick on the pilots that he uses on his other hapless troops, but I wonder...

Amongst all the tooth gnashing about Peter Arnett's horrible suck-up to the Iraqi powers-that-be comes the more treasonous tactics of Fox News' Geraldo Rivera. Apparently unbowed by Geraldo's playing fast and loose with the facts during the Afghan conflict, the Fair and Balanced news network sent the mustachioed one once again into the breach - only to have him endanger American soldiers for the chance to make a few headlines.

Rivera, traveling with the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq, revealed tactical information and at one point told about an attack two hours before it took place, according to sources at the U.S. Central Command who asked not to be identified.

Hey, Geraldo, the mustache should have been the clue - but we never really thought you were working with Saddam!

The Gannett News Article U.S. losing battle worldwide on public relations front states the obvious when it says the coalition - specifically, the U.S. - is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the middle east.

That's not surprising. We never had the hearts and minds of the middle east. The best hope for turning that tide of public opinion may be the simplest: keeping our word.

About U.S. efforts at propaganda, Khaled Al-Maeena, editor in chief of Arab News, had this to say:

"It has fallen on deaf ears, I have been crisscrossing the country for the past week: the eastern region, the western, talking to liberals, conservatives, socialists, agnostics and very secular people, too. All of the people have come to the conclusion that America speaks with a forked tongue, as Chief Sitting Bull would say,'' he said. "People simply do not believe Mr. Bush.''

Truthfully, the U.S. hasn't been in the role of "oppressed people" in over 200 years. So it's no wonder that we don't understand the hatred that's emerged in the "Arab Street." (Geez, I hate that phrase)

But the one thing that becomes crystal clear when listening to the semi-rational Arab reasons against the war is this: lack of trust. Nobody trusts the U.S.

And this is not just a Bush thing. This lack of trust is linked to the Palestinian Issue, it's linked to the support of oil-rich patriarchies in OPEC. It's linked to colonialism. It's a given.

But it's a mistake to think that such mistrust will go away if we throw more money at it. Such is the solution proposed by the likes of Richard Lugar, R-Ind.

"There's no way the U.S. can sell this war to anyone,'' she said. "It's not a matter of packaging. It's not a matter of public diplomacy. ...America's imperialism is clear and blatant. This is the only solution they have: bombing, bombing, bombing. This is why they're losing in the Arab world.''

So how do we combat such views? We don't. But we don't ignore them either. The coalition has been doing a pretty good job of this in some ways early in the war - avoiding civilian casualties as much as possible, bringing in humanitarian aid as swiftly as possible, reinstating the oil for food program.

But the real test will come soon, after the fall of Baghdad. The U.S. can only "win the peace" by being transparent in establishing democracy. We have to install an iraqi government as soon as possible. We have to ensure that Iraqi oil remains in Iraqi hands. And, most importantly, we need to leave as soon as it is diplomatically possible.

The solution is not "selling" the war to the Arab world. It's keeping our word. Doing what we said we'd do for the reasons we said we were doing it, and leaving Iraq in the hands of the Iraqis.

Only then will the public relations tide really begin to change.

When our American actions fit our American ideals and American words, then we will see the "Arab street" change their minds about our motives.

File this under valor. From the Guardian.

``We've got to get her off that bridge,'' he said.

Capt. Chris Carter winced at the risks his men would have to take. Engaged in a lightning-fast raid for this Euphrates River town, they were battling for a bridge when - through the smoke - they saw the elderly woman. She had tried to race across the bridge when the Americans arrived, but was caught in the crossfire.

At first, peering through their rifle scopes, they thought she was dead, like the man sprawled in the dust nearby. But then, during breaks in the gunfire that whizzed over her head, she sat up and waved for help.

Carter, a 32-year-old Army Ranger, ordered his Bradley armored vehicle to pull forward while he and two men ran behind it. They took cover behind the bridge's iron beams ...

When antiwar demonstrators gathered outside the Fox News building in Manhattan, the network's outdoor news zipper replaced its headlines with taunts:

"War protester auditions here today. . . . Thanks for coming!" And: "How do you keep a war protester in suspense? Ignore them." And: "Attention protesters: The Michael Moore Fan Club meets Thursday at a phone booth at Sixth Avenue and 50th Street."

Unfair and unbalanced? "I thought I'd have some fun with it," says Fox zipper-writer Marvin Himelfarb, a former Hollywood screenwriter. "I couldn't resist."

You just have to love George Bush's sense of gratitude and loyalty. We have a "coalition" fighting a war in Iraq, but when it comes to bidding on post-war reconstruction contracts that coalition suddenly shrinks to....the United States of America:

"In my organization of 350 U.K. major consultancies and construction firms, 84 have expressed a wish to go work in Iraq -- and 50 have been there before," said Colin Adams, chief executive of the British Consultants and Construction Bureau. Given Britain's support for the war, he said, his members felt they should at least be considered for subcontractor work.

"There's a feeling that not only is there some moral justice that we ought to be able to bid, but also common sense," Adams said.

And why aren't British firms allowed to compete? It gets even worse:

USAID administrator Andrew S. Natsios testified before Congress last week that secrecy was necessary because bidders had to look at "top secret" documents.

So the bottom line is that it's OK for British soldiers to die on the battlefield along with ours, but their firms can't be allowed to see top secret documents that we trust American firms to look at. Sheesh.

I wonder how long before Tony Blair's patience finally evaporates and he suddenly starts ranting gibberish on one of his his transatlantic chats with his friend W? It's bound to happen sooner or later.

This war really is beginning to resemble World War II with Iraq gladly playing the role of NAZI Germany as opposed to Vietnam. Torture/Death rooms discovered, The Fayhadeen playing the part of the Werewolves (Germans who were in disguise trying to sabotage the Allies military movement are notable. But the biggest is the use of Fear and threats to keep the normal military fighting. In WWI, The Germans executed 48 of their own soldiers. In WWII, it was between 13 and 15 thousand soldiers executed.

Anyone want to place bets that if Saddam is still alive right now, at the very end of the war he'll go out by committing suicide and having his minions destroy his corpse?

Re: Animal abuse
Date: 31 March 2003

Sir -The use of dolphins and sea lions by the American military in the war with Iraq must be unreservedly condemned. Dolphins are highly intelligent and sensitive animals. Using them in a war zone is deplorable.

When the United States used dolphins in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war, it was reported that Iranian patrol boats would machine gun any dolphin they saw, fearing it might be laying mines.

Former trainers have alleged that dolphins are trained by withholding food (a common training method for captive dolphins) and physical beatings, and that electrodes are implanted to enable the military control room to stimulate the dolphins to attack.

There have even been claims, following the beaching of 22 dolphins in France five years ago with holes in their necks, that military-trained dolphins were fitted with a small explosive charge which was set off by radio-control if they "deserted".

Animals have been used as combatants and weapons for centuries. Footage of remote-controlled equipment that searches for mines in the oceans has been shown during television coverage of the war against Iraq. Why does the military feel the need to use a living creature, when they have another option that does the same job, without endangering either human or dolphin welfare?

From:
Craig Redmond, Captive Animals' Protection Society, Liz Sandeman, The Marine Connection, and Alan Cooper, Cetacea Defence

MORE

Re: Lessons from the Boer War
Date: 31 March 2003

Sir - As someone who has written a book on the Boer army and is researching British intelligence in the Boer War, I have noticed similarities between the Boer tactics and developing Iraqi tactics. These include guerrilla raids on supply lines, approaching allied troops under a white flag, the wearing of civilian clothing and blending in with the civilian population.

Other similarities include widespread sympathy in other countries for the Iraqi cause, coupled with an inability to actively intervene - in 1899, Britain was diplomatically isolated, but her military power made her unassailable - as well as a politically motivated peace movement in Britain.

We have not yet seen, as occurred in South Africa, thousands of foreign volunteers pouring into Iraq. Nor have we seen Iraqis formerly opposed to Saddam Hussein fighting against teh coalition forces, because their loyalty to their homeland is greater than their dislike of Saddam.

Such was the case with many Boer leaders, such as Gen Jacobus Hercules De La Rey, who initially opposed both the war and President Paul Kruger, but who fought skilfully against the British even after Kruger went into exile.

One wonders how the coalition would handle such a nightmare scenario, with Saddam killed in a cruise missile attack but resistance continuing under a charismatic younger general.

If the parallels noted above continue, how could the war develop? Iraqi bitterenders will continue the struggle, even after the fall of Baghdad. Operating from bases deep in the deserts, and almost certainly from across international boundaries, they could launch sudden attacks on coalition garrisons and supply lines.

These men could encourage or inspire former Iraqi soldiers who had given up the fight to rejoin the struggle. Therefore, as unpopular as it may seem, no prisoners of war should be prematurely released.

How could these groups be overcome? By mobile columns of special forces hunting out known guerrilla leaders and their men, and then calling in superior firepower to eliminate them. It will be an intelligence-led small unit campaign. Just like the tail-end of the Boer War.

From:
Anthony David Jones, Ashton under Lyne, Lancs

Geert Groot Koerkamp from Radio Netherlands reports from Russia: "The popular protests against the war in Russia cannot be compared to those in many western countries. Russian critics of the war have hardly ventured out into the streets to show their dissent. And in the Russian media, the war in Iraq gets a relatively low-key coverage when compared to the attention it receives in the rest of the world.

What then about Russia's economic interests in Iraq? Much has been said about the importance of Russian oil contracts with the regime of Saddam Hussein, worth billions of dollars. Certainly, there are short-term losses, for Russia was Iraq's main trading partner under the UN's oil-for-food programme.

But many observers here agree that most of the lucrative oil contracts mainly existed on paper, since under the sanctions regime of the United Nations, they could not be implemented. Therefore, say people (...), Russia's best bet would be now to focus on the post-war period in Iraq, and try to play its role in rebuilding the country."

Ingo Mannteufel of Deutsche Welle writes Russia might even have an interest : "The war in Iraq has threatened not only the Persian Gulf region, but also the stability of the international oil and gas supply. One of the consequences could be that interest in important Russian energy reserves rises."

Struck me while watching retired Col John Warden go over current activities in front of a large map of Iraq just how much he looked like a local TV weather-type guy talking...

Gesturing, sweeping, pop up graphics. Kind of dissapointed he didn't give temperatures and precip forecast.

PLEASE COME OUT FOR THE RALLY TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. SATURDAY, APRIL 12, 2003, FROM 12:00 NOON TO 3:00 PM AT THE ELLIPSE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE BELOW AND AT THE CITIZENS UNITED WEBSITE.

JUST ANNOUNCED:

CITIZENS UNITED FOUNDATION AND YOUNG AMERICA'S FOUNDATION TO SPONSOR:

"RALLY FOR THE TROOPS, RALLY FOR AMERICA"

G. GORDON LIDDY, ANN COULTER, LAURA INGRAHAM AND OTHERS TO HOST RALLY ON THE MALL FOR THE TROOPS.

SATURDAY, APRIL 12TH, 2003 AT THE ELLIPSE (located on Constitution Avenue, across from White House)

NOON-3PM

BRING YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS. RAISE YOUR FLAGS AND SHOW YOUR PRIDE.

CHECK THE CITIZENS UNITED WEBSITE FOR UPDATED INFORMATION AND NEWLY ANNOUNCED SPEAKERS. TO BECOME A CO-SPONSOR AT THE RALLY PLEASE CALL 703-464-8572.

Regular visitors to this site know that I don't often post on the Op/Ed page ... a choice that reflects my focus on working with Michele to run the overall site and my desire to stick to the news end of things.

That said, I wanted to post a link that a reader had forwarded to this flash presentation titled "Why The War Is Wrong." NOTE: This presentation DOES NOT reflect my view on the war. I have nothing to do with the presentation, or the site on which it resides ... we simply have a dearth of opinion on this page from those against the war, and I thought this link would provide fodder for all.

Enjoy, and I look forward to reading the comments.

Bęte noire and all around superhawk Richard Perle has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining why he resigned from the advisory Defense Policy Board:

Last week I resigned my position as chairman of the advisory Defense Policy Board after news stories, rich in innuendo, suggested that I had acted improperly in advising Global Crossing (the New York Times) and, in a separate matter, in meeting over lunch with two Saudi businessmen (The New Yorker). They provoked an avalanche of stories, mostly repeating points in those first two, with each iteration making more extreme allegations than the last. There was no way I could quickly quell the press criticism of me, even though it was based on factual errors and tendentious reporting. So I wrote to Donald Rumsfeld, "I have seen controversies like this before and I know that this one will inevitably distract from the urgent challenge in which you are now engaged. I would not wish to cause even a moment's distraction from that challenge."

Do read it all since there's plenty of red meat for sharks all along the political spectrum.

PALM BEACH -- As many as 150 guests stormed out of a posh charity fund-raiser at the Four Seasons Saturday after a Nobel Peace Prize winner harshly criticized the war with Iraq.

After guests had been served chocolate mousse and berries, former Costa Rican President Oscar Arias took the mike and spent about 15 minutes lambasting the United States -- telling some 225 guests that hopes of peace had been dashed by President Bush, said Rex Ford, a Miami federal immigration judge who was in attendance.

First a trickle, then a stream of about 150 guests left the room as Arias spoke, Ford said. Arias' remarks then triggered an impromptu protest outside the banquet hall.

"People assembled outside and sang God Bless America," Ford said.

A perfect example of the difference between the right to say anything one would like, and the right to be listened to. Someday they'll figure out that the latter does not exist.

Virginia Postrel wonders: "Is War a Generator of Expenses or an Economic Stimulus?" A generation ago, conventional wisdom held that an occasional war was good for the economy, but these days economists see war as an expense, although the Iraq war is a much smaller percentage of the GNP than previous wars. Postrel also mentions a U Chicago business school comparison of the projected cost of war vs. the cost of containment, using the containment of North Korea as a guideline. (You can download the PDF of that report here.)

Some interesting numbers from the latest Gallup poll show support for the war at 70% and the President's approval rating at 71%. More people support the President than support the war? Judging by the coverage most places, I would have assumed the opposite. We keep hearing that people think the war was mistake on Bush's part, but they, of course, support the troops.

The Findlaw site has a page of links to op-eds about the war from a legal perspective. Very interesting takes on issues such as the right to self-defense, POWs and journalists, state and local government resolutions on the war, congressional approval for war, and much more.

Here is a six and a half minute interview with Peter Arnett on The Today Show.

Perhaps he can hook a gig with Al Jazeera now.

"Any satisfaction in that? Ha, ha, ha, ha."

Retired US Army Major and Methodist minister Donald Sensing compares the suicide attacks of the Japanese kamikazi in WWII and those of Islamists of various stripes.

Baghdad Pete Soon to be Embedded at Unemployment Office

Cross-post: Little Tiny Lies.

NBC has canned treacherous, self-promoting windbag Peter Arnett, who endangered the lives of coalition soldiers and Iraqis by stating on Iraqi TV that our first war plan was a failure. What a glorious piece of news to wake up to. Arnett, an American citizen, now says he's sorry. We're sorry, too, Petie. Sorry NBC had the poor judgment to hire you in the first place.

First of all, let's address the content of Arnett's idiotic claim. The war was about ten days old when Arnett announced that our plan had failed. As an analyst on Fox pointed out last night, in Afghanistan, it took us around forty days to get where we currently are in Iraq. Funny how forty days make a whirlwind campaign and nine days make a quagmire. As the analyst noted, GRENADA took longer than this. Grenada, the North Vietnam of the Caribbean.

Saddam Hussein is probably dead and almost certainly wounded, and he has been since the day the war started. Imagine if our first attack in Afghanistan had put bin Laden out of commission. Imagine if we had nailed Hitler in 1941.

Fighting a war is not like baking a cake. It takes time, especially when you take the kind of unprecedented pains we are taking to avoid harming civilians. Every war can't be an MTV war, a video game that conveniently ends in time for the weekend.

So, Arnett's remarks were unbelievably stupid and indisputably wrong.

Now, let's talk about the traitorous nature of Petie's disgusting pronouncements.

There is an important word we all need to keep in mind. That word is "morale." More than food, more than bullets, more than diesel, this is the fuel that drives the enemy. We can slaughter them like sheep, but if their morale remains high, they will continue fighting even if they have to use sharpened spoons.

Peter Arnett's deliberate lie fed our enemy's morale. We have total dominance of the air, we control a huge percentage of the country, we have probably killed Hussein and at least one of his sons, we own the country's borders and its only port, but partly because of the treachery of Peter Arnett, there are still Iraqis who think they can win. That means they will continue to fight, and that means Arnett's remarks will probably cause some coalition soldiers to die.

Arnett can always find another job--we'll always need strip-club barkers and people to test new drugs on--but the soldiers who die because of his unthinking blather can't be brought back to life. And let's not even think about the ones who will be shipped home to rot in VA hospitals. I don't know why the government doesn't require us all to visit VA hospitals for three hours a week. I don't know why we don't do it without being told.

Our own soldiers will only compose a small fraction of Arnett's victims. The ratio of Iraqi to coalition casualties is very high; as much as we suffer to hear about coalition soldiers being hurt, we need to remember that Iraqis are being killed and wounded by the hundreds, and not all of them support Hussein.

We know who Arnett harmed. Who did he help? There are two classes of people who could have benefitted from what Arnett said. The first class is made up of members of the brutal, oppressive, parasitic regime that has the Iraqi people under its heel. The second class is made up of Peter Arnett.

Obviously, Saddam's underlings benefit. Arnett's propaganda makes Iraqis fear that Saddam and his people will still be in charge after the war. Still capable of inflicting reprisals on those who opposed them or simply didn't help. More rape, more beatings, more mutilation, more torture of children in front of their horrified parents. So Arnett has made ordinary Iraqis more likely to cooperate with Saddam's regime, not out of loyalty, but out of the usual motive: terror.

Arnett was supposed to benefit as well. He has two Pulitzers that I know of. He was angling for another. He wanted to show off his Iraqi connections and punish CNN for letting him get away; his snotty remarks regarding CNN's expulsion from Baghdad prove it (wonder if Arnett had anything to do with that). And he surely wanted to secure himself a pedestal from which to receive worship from his liberal peers, who would donate vital organs for the opportunity to humiliate George Bush.

Petie wanted to be the King of Baghdad. CNN was gone, he had his Gulf War connections, established during a previous round of boot-licking, and he was going to be the dean of the Baghdad press corps. Sorry, Petie. Not going to happen. Better buy some batteries for your remote, because if you want to get war news from now on, you're going to need it.

It's wonderful to live in a time when unprincipled liberal journalists are occasionally held accountable. No one minded when Don Hewitt admitted he dedicated an episode of 60 Minutes to saving Clinton's first campaign. No one fired Dan Rather when he lost his composure and tore his panties at Bush I in prime time, causing Walter Cronkite to say he should have been fired. Connie Chung still had a job the day after she lied to an elderly woman to get her to drop a verbal bomb on her own son, the Speaker of the House. But Baghdad Pete is packing his bags, because the seasons have finally changed.

Now, if we can just do something about Robert Fisk.

Impressed with how effective the US military was in the first hours in the campaign to liberate Iraq, many journalists have started second-guessing the military now that the war is into its second week.  Its second week!  And the coalition already has established air superiority, taken control of all Iraqi ports, and controls the majority of the country.  In addition, the coalition has managed to protect most of the country's resources for its people, including dams, bridges, and oil fields.  The coalition has managed to do this while (to date) suffering a remarkably low number of casualties.  In addition, the coalition has done all of this while taking extreme care to minimize the number of civilian casualties and offering Iraqi soldiers many, many opportunities to surrender.

Instead of downbeat reports about 'unexpected' resistance, the media should be discussing the amazing military prowess of the coalition.  The only thing unexpected about the war so far has been its rapid progress.  Every casualty is regrettable, but only a fool would expect a war with no casualties.  More people died from lightening strikes in the US last year than have been killed fighting Saddam's troops.  I predict far more people will die from fatal car accidents in Los Angeles County alone in 2003 than all coalitions losses from the entire war.

Let's also look at a reasonable timeframe.  The Taliban, a government with only a small fraction of the military resources of Saddam Hussein, lasted 14 weeks against the US government.  As Jonathan Last pointed out, even the French - hardly the epitome of military competence - lasted 7 weeks against the Germans.  Surely, one would expect the Iraqi regime to fight harder than the French.  After all, the thugs that support Saddam Hussein expect death by the hands of their fellow Iraqis for their past atrocities should they ever lose their grip on power.  Unless they see an opportunity to survive the peace, they will fight to the last man.

I would be surprised if this war was over in less than 7 weeks.  I would not be surprised if it took 14 weeks.  Some statistics are available to help you keep the war in context.  Next time someone bemoans our "slow" pace, rattle off a few of them as a reality check.  You'll be glad you did.

Much has been made about the flag-waving pro-war stance of Fox News. Although they call themselves "Fair and Balanced," most people think they are anything but.

In fact, Oliver Willis recently compared Fox to al Jazeera, while Laurence Simon pointed out the blatant jigoism of Fox.

The fact is, you will not be able to find a fair and balanced television news channel anywhere in the world during wartime.

I watch Fox News because I find it has the most interesting reports, the best view of Iraq and the most straight-forward war reporting. That is not to say it is even handed all the time. The cheerleading and pro-war ruminations exist often on Fox. One only has to listen to Sean Hannity or Neil Cavuto to see that.

There's not a lot of choice out there, despite the fact that there are a zillion news channels between cable tv and live streaming news on the internet. You're either going to get feel-good, rally around the U.S.A. and tie a yellow ribbon reporting, or you are going to get look at the carnage the U.S. and coalition forces are producing reporting.

Each view of the war exploits different things. al Jazeera exploits American casualties and death in general. Fox exploits the same thing, but in a different way. They want to tug at your red, white and blue heartstrings so you start seeing things through the same colored glasses as they do.

The war is everywhere. If you turn on your tv or radio or boot up your computer it is staring you in the face, be it with bombs or bodies or flags. The media is changing to fit itself into the war niche. Radio stations are either banning war related songs or urging listeners to go to pro-war rallies. Every local news station has already done a story on how the war is effecting children.

It's really not up to the media to decide what we see or how we perceive their views. It's up to us to make our own choices and to disseminate the information as best we can. Even if you watch a channel that seems to trasmit with a closed mind, it's up to us to watch with an open mind.

Yes, there is liberal media bias. And there is conservative media bias. And in this age of readily available information from all over the world, there is bias news to be found everywhere. Pro-Palestine and anti-Israel, pro-Iraq and anti-America, whatever bias you are looking for, it's out there.

If al Jazeera is not your cup of tea - and I imagine that most of us look at in order to fuel our outrage - then make the choice to not watch it. If Fox News is too jingoistic for you, try CNN. If you are sick of the war at all, turn on your local news station where they are probably right now debating the merits of fertilizer. And you just know that someone is going to write into the station accusing them of being biased against the fertilizer industry.

The "coalition of the willing" has taken unprecedented steps to minimize the number of civilian and even enemy casualties in this war. While Saddam's henchmen hide behind women and children coalition forces have been especially careful to avoid firing at their enemy with innocents in the way. Coalition forces have even taken into account the locations of some important archeological sites to avoid destroying them in bombing attacks. All this is well known here in the United States.

None of this makes any impression on the Arab media. Al Jazeera and other Arab news outlet are playing whatever messages the Saddam Hussein regime decides to put out and broadcast it across the Middle East. If Saddam's propaganda machine decides to put out the story that the U.S. has bombed an Iraqi market, the Arab channels disseminate it uncritically. Someone watching Arab TV is not watching the same war that their counterpart who is watching the war unfold on CNN.

If CNN strives to live up to their motto as "the World's News leader," and Fox News tries to live up to its pledge to give you the news, "Fair and Balanced," sometimes it seems like the motto of the Arab media is essentially, "the facts, while interesting, are irrelevant." For them, press releases from Saddam are more credible than George W. Bush's press conferences are. There is a message that those broadcasters want to disseminate, and that is what they will broadcast.

At this point, the PR that the coalition is getting wouldn't be any worse if they actually stopped worrying about collateral damage. Of course, I don't think that they should do that. My point is that they shouldn't worry about collateral damage in order to win the PR war. They should do it because it is the right thing to do. But trying to win over the Al Jezeera's of the world just isn't going to happen, and if the coalition started to pound Iraq without any regard to the damage caused to civilians, it wouldn't change the reporting on Al Jezeera. After all, they are already saying that the coalition is targeting civilians. What would they say if the coalition actually did target civilians? "I know we told you that the coalition is targeting civilians, but now they're really doing it? "

Many so-called Middle East experts, especially those in Britain, will tell you that until the U.S. addresses the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it won't be taken seriously by the Arab world. You have many old hands like James Baker, Colin Powell, and Jack Straw who say that solving this intractable problem is the key to the improvement in relations with the Arab world. Once this issue is addressed the U.S. will become more credible to the Arab world. This is clearly nonsense.

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is worth resolving for its own sake. If there is a possibility for a true and lasting peace between them then the coalition partners should make every effort to make that possibility into a reality. But if Al Jazeera alternatively ignores and glorifies the atrocities of Saddam Hussein, but instead runs images of Iraqi civilians allegedly hurt by the coalition, what makes anyone think that they'll report any peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in a balanced way?

If George Bush and Tony Blair manage to perform a miracle and broker an agreement between Ariel Sharon and Abu Mazen that leads to a two state solution how would it be seen in the Arab world? I imagine that it would not be painted in a positive light by Arab countries and their media outlets. Judging by the current coverage of the war, I would expect the Arab media to dwell on any concessions that the Palestinians make and emphasize whatever Israel would gain.

The truth is that the Palestinian issue is just a convenient lightening rod to release some steam for the oppressed Arab citizens. If you look at the coverage say in and day out you are hard pressed to find any coverage at all that is mildly sympathetic to the needs of the Israelis. They see only one side to this conflict, and they usually condone terrorism against Israel.

Even the supposedly enlightened country of Kuwait is deeply antipathetic to Israel and to Jews. You only have to look at the difficulties that Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post had in getting accredited to report from Kuwait to see this. In that respect they are no different from Tariq Aziz, who also has no interest in answering questions by Israeli reporters.

The truth is that from the perspective of the "Arab street" the solution to the Palestinian problem is the dismantling of the Israeli state its replacement by a Palestinian one. Sad to say it, but if this was accompanied by the killing of Jews this would be welcomed as well. It doesn't take too much effort to unearth articles all over the Arab press to confirm this. Thus, appeasing the "Arab street" is futile. Even if the U.S. and the U.K. were willing to accommodate them (which they aren't), appeasement won't work in the long term. As long as the Arab press and the "Arab street" willfully ignore the facts there is nothing to stop them from "raising the bar" every time the coalition does something good. If they don't appreciate the heroic effort that the coalition soldiers are making to avoid hurting civilians what will they be satisfied with?

L T Smash has been going through his inbox and quotes a letter whose "writer is not too far away, as the crow flies - but lives in a very different world".

I am an Iranian citizen watching the current events with attention. I'd like to send you the sympathy and blessing of many Iranian citizens who believe that the intervention in Iraq was necessary and just. We hope that this intervention will help us to pressure our evil government and help us in our stuggle for democracy.

Indeed our government is frightened. Saddam is our common enemy and many Iranian soldiers died during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's. However, the Iranian regime is showing signs of sympathy toward the Iraqi governement and its army. They have no shame. Many of our fellow citizens were killed by Saddam's WMD. Hence, they support him indirectly in their speeches and infamous television programs. But the overwhelming majority of Iranians won't forget Saddam's crimes and support you and your troops in your combat for his removal from power.

May God bless you all. May God bless a free Iran and may God bless America.

Tareq Aziz must be getting his war reports from Reuters:

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz said in an interview on Sunday that the war against U.S. and British invasion forces was going well, and he described Iraq's decision to use suicide bombings as heroic."When you fight an invader by whatever means available to you, you are not a terrorist; you are a hero," he told the ABC television network a day after an Iraqi officer killed four U.S. soldiers in a suicide bombing at a checkpoint near Najaf.

Aziz said Iraq has been bringing in would-be suicide bombers from other parts of the Muslim world for further attacks on the U.S.-led invasion force.

"From outside or from inside (Iraq), these people are heroes. They are freedom fighters against invaders, against colonialists, against imperialists," he said.

A while back I saw a report from a journalist with a Marine unit. This journalist asked a Marine if he understood his mission. The Marine replied, "yes sir, our mission is to beat the Army to Baghdad." I'm sure that when Aziz meets the Marines (or the Army) they will have a nice chat about how well the war is going.

I wanted to post quickly on a new book by Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson, USAF (retired). He was the carrier of the "nuclear football" (the luggage that contains the nation's nuclear launch codes) when Bill Clinton was President. Some of you probably have heard of this book, others who haven't, should.

The book is called: Dereliction of Duty, The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security

I heard Lt. "Buzz" Patterson speaking about his book this afternoon on 770 WABC radio, he mentioned how President Clinton once lost the nuclear launch codes (and never found them), I went out and bought the book this afternoon. It should be a great read for anyone who wants to learn more about how President Clinton compromised our nation's military and national security.

A first hand account from a man who served by Clinton's side during his Presidency.

A major in the Marines has a few things to say about his service, the progress of the war, and the spirit of the troops in this letter posted on NRO's The Corner. A fine read.

Patrick Tyler, in this NYT article (registration required) leads off with the news of the 3d ID beginning probing attacks against RG positions of the outer Baghdad defensive ring. He quotes a field unit spokesman saying they are 'maintaining the initiative'. He includes words from Gen. Franks, contradicting yet again the concept of a 'pause' in operations. But then....

...he jumps right into proclaiming that momentum has stalled due to 'fierce attacks' on supply lines, and obliquely references the beltway sniping at the SecDef in recent days. Both activities are superfluous to what's actually happening at the front. The beans and bullets are getting through, and all the sore-toed sour grapes being tossed at Rumsfeld are having the same effect that Feydayeen with AK-47's are having against Bradleys and Abrams tanks.

Taylor can't let it go, flatly stating that the regime hasn't crumbled as quickly as imagined, despite a growing number of reports of individual Iraqis beginning to point out the Ba'athists for the benefit of Allied targeting. Citing the 'seasoning' that the 3d ID has received through fire and sandstorm, he mentions that they've been 'mired' for a whole week surrounding Najaf.

This article is a clear example of the syndrome Steven Den Beste describes in this opinion piece at USS Clueless. Basically, Steven points out that no matter how efficiently or quickly this is rolled up, that because US troops don't live up to pre-war expectations of the 15 minute news cycle, they won't have 'beat the spread' and thus, its somehow a failure, or not quite good enough.

Well folks, this thing is barely a week and a half old, and we're basically dusting ourselves off getting ready to ring the front doorbell of Baghdad. We've virtually decapitated the leadership from the field, if not actually. We've opened and are sustaining operations on three fronts - from the southeast, the north, and from the west. Still qualifies as 'Hyper War' in my book.

The debate over troop strength in Iraq has shown us the media at its most myopic. Before the war, there was some back-and-forth in the Pentagon over the force strength needed to get this done. It was reported upon extensively. Rumsfeld wanted a smaller strike force centered around the Special Forces, or "the Afghanistan model." (Remember "inside out?") The generals wanted 250,000 troops. The generals won. Rumsfeld lost. The war plan now being criticized by certain unnamed military officers is very much that of the generals. For goodness sake, even Powell vetted this.

Meanwhile, the elements of the Afghanistan model now at work in Iraq seem to have gone off without a hitch. The special forces who captured H2 and H3, and who for all intents and purposes now own Western Iraq, haven't faced any of the "intense resistance" we see the South. Now, adding more troops into the theater may be a very good thing in and of itself. But what it won't do is solve the media problem where everytime we're shot at, it's a victory for the Iraqis. A heavier force spread out in more places will make our troops more, not less, of a target for the feyadeen. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. It gives us more of an opportunity to smoke out and eliminate these Uday-contolled killers, who may well include Al Qaeda operatives. A leaner force, dependent on Special Forces, wouldn't face the "resistance" that supposedly invalidates the war plan because they're less of a stationary target.

So the media've got it backwards. It's not the skimpiness of our force that's invited these tactical countermaneuvers, but the fact that, at the behest of the generals, we've erred on the side of a traditional, massed invasion. And ultimately, an advantage of doing it the traditional way is that we get to actually fight the meaningful battles that will loosen Ba'athist political control over Iraq, not avoid them.

Fox News just interviewed Liz Trotta, a veteran journalist now working for the Washington Times who, like Arnett, was a war correspondent in Vietnam. She is not amused...

Trotta:

Peter is a very charming, lovely guy...I don't know what he's doing on Iraq TV...
I must say more in sorrow, his track record is a long one and he is always on everyone's other side... He narrated a story that we [the U.S.] used poison gas on our own soldiers in Laos. it ruined his career at CNN...maybe would have ruined it forever if he wasn't a man...He is out there again doing his CNN number.

Peter likes to be an outrider. Nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, he rides with the wrong people. He's a tool of the propagandists....

I hope he doesn't bump into those special forces troopers who remember what he did to them with the sarin gas story in Laos.

Robert Fisk might as well come out and say he's rooting for the Iraqis. He hasn't missed an opportunity to criticize the allied forces even when the evidence isn't in: the bombing in the market the other day is but one example.

His predictions of catastrophe aren't supported by the facts. He's making a rather heroic assumption: that we will tolerate suicide bombers in the way we have hypocritically forced Israel to do. My prediction is this: if Hamas or Islamic Jihad, or any other terrorist group, is tied to suicide bombings that kill Americans they'll go on the list with al Qaeda and we will seek to destroy them by whatever means is at our disposal.

Remember Mr. Fisk, the United States doesn't tolerate threats, we remove them.

Suicide Bomber ‘Opens Door to Jihad’:

Sergeant Ali Jaffar Moussa Hamadi Al-Nomani was the first Iraqi combatant ever known to stage a suicide attack. Not even during the uprising against British rule did an Iraqi kill himself in order to destroy his enemies. Al-Nomani was also a Shiite Muslim — a member of the very group whom the Americans faithfully believed to be their secret ally in their invasion of Iraq.

The details of the 50-year-old army sergeant’s life are few but nonetheless intriguing. He was a soldier in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and volunteered to fight in the 1991 Gulf War, dubbed the “Mother of All Battles” by the Iraqi leader who believes he was the victor.

Then, overage though he was willing to partake in further fighting, Al-Nomani volunteered yet again to defend his country from the Anglo-American invasion. And so it was, without telling his commanding officer and in his own car, he drove into the US Marine checkpoint just outside Najaf.

Imagine the Left's reaction if we denied access to Iraqi POWs. It would be outrage and talk of war crimes. It's early yet, but I fully expect to hear outrage on the part of the Left on this issue. Not.

U.S.: Iraq not letting Red Cross visit POWs:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraq still has not let the International Committee of the Red Cross visit U.S. prisoners of war, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday.

"We would hope that the Iraqi regime would do the honorable and the right thing and allow the International Committee of the Red Cross in to visit these prisoners of war," Myers said on CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer."

"That's their obligation. They said they were going to do it, and we just hope they follow through."

The United States has agreed to let the Red Cross visit more than 4,000 Iraqi POWs, Myers said. He said the Red Cross wanted to wait until conditions are more secure. He said he did not know whether the visits had taken place yet.

"I think they have probably been inside," he said.

Myers said it is unclear how many Americans are POWs in Iraq. At least five soldiers were captured after an ambush near Nasiriya. More troops are reported as missing in action, he said.

Now is the time to mend fences — with our historic allies, the Western democracies, and with the U.N. We can win the war without them, but we cannot win the peace. [FORWARD]

I'm not sure whether to think this is pathetic or an improvement for the Chinese people. On the one hand they got to protest. On the other hand it was state sanctioned. To make matters worse they are not well informed because they see only what the government wants them to see. That's what makes it pathetic: they're protesting a war they know nothing about and has nothing to do with them.

Students hold first anti-war protest in China:

Chinese students staged a rare state-sanctioned demonstration as part of worldwide protests against the war in Iraq.

Students at the elite Peking University took part in a quiet anti-war demonstration, in an unusual case of campus political activism permitted by Chinese authorities.

About two dozen students set up signboards displaying photographs of wounded Iraqi civilians and passed out leaflets criticising the war. A box was set out for donations to help Iraqi refugees, and five students briefly held up letters spelling "No War" in English.

However, police dispersed anti-war protesters who sought to gather in other parts of Beijing, continuing the practice of forbidding most public demonstrations.

Everybody's been saying for a couple of days that the worst is still in front of us. Well, this is probably part of it. Our Marines and Airborne are making a strong northward push and in some cases going door-to-door to find the enemy. They're hiding among civilians and our boys sometimes don't actually know who the enemy is until they're being shot at. That's bravery and worthy of our admiration, praise and prayer.

Marines Press 'Seek and Destroy' Missions:

SOUTH-CENTRAL IRAQ - Thousands of U.S. Marines pushed north toward Baghdad in "seek and destroy" missions Sunday, trying to open the route to the Iraqi capital and stop days of attacks along a stretch that has become known as "Ambush Alley."

Charging into previously unsecured areas, the Marines tried to provoke attacks in order to find Iraqi fighters and defeat them. A chaplain traveling with them handed out humanitarian packages to distrustful Iraqi civilians encountered along the way.

In Najaf, 100 miles south of Baghdad, the 101st Airborne division encircled the city Sunday, severing inroads and preparing to go door to door to root out paramilitary supporters who have waged stiff resistance for days.

"This is our type of fight," said Command Sgt. Maj. Marvin Hill. "This is probably the most dangerous part of combat, and that's urban. Sometimes you don't find out who the enemy is until they're shooting at you."

Ten days onto the offensive, it is clear that the Wehrmacht is exactly where the French want them, as evidenced by their pause to refuel their tanks and rearm with more ammunition.

Continue reading 'The era of compressed expectation'...

"A quick war no longer appears to be likely. Indeed, the Administration has now shifted its tone, warning that the conflict could stretch on for some time. This raises a key question: why did the coalition warplan fail to produce a quick victory? If the coalition is to repair its warplan and ultimately prevail, then how one answers this question is crucial. Understanding the problems in the warplan as it has been developed so far would lead to ways to improve it." - read the sharp analysis of Paul MacDonald in Casus Belli.

While watching Fox News, I saw a soldier in the field, in front of a helicopter. He was holding up a mini-clipboard with a picture of his daughter. In addition to giving the prerequisite "Hi Mom, Hi Wife, Hi Daughter!" he said he loves Fox News.

Is it right for soldiers to give promos for the news networks? Is Al-Jazeerah showing bumpers, teases, and promos using the Feyadeen tossing V-signs at the cameraman, dedicating the next executed soldier back to their favorite news network Al-Jazeerah?

And who will get a job with them first... Phil Donahue or Connie Chung?

I hate to admit it, but Oliver Fisk Willis might be right here, folks...

Tim Blair has a post discussing the missile. Apparently Robert Fisk was given a piece of metal with serial numbers on it, and those seem to indicate that the missile was American. Fisk says "The piece of metal bearing the codings was retrieved only minutes after the missile exploded on Friday evening, by an old man whose home is only 100 yards from the 6ft crater. Even the Iraqi authorities do not know that it exists." The possibility exists however that the missile fragment was planted in some way.

You can't help but notice it... the anchor back in Washington says something, they toss to the correspondent on the other side of the Earth, and you get a few seconds of silence as they just stand there waiting for their cue to rain down from the sky in bursts of ones and zeroes.

I'm not sure how long this has been going on, but I just noticed on FOX News that when Tony Snow tossed to the correspondent in Jordan, FOX put a full-screen transition animation with sound effect/music to cover a large portion of the satellite, relays, and A-to-D router delay. I can't remember if it had a fly-in map or not.

Very clever magician's trick to wiggle the fingers on the left hand while the right hand is reaching for the stowed-away rabbit.

Also, a lot of videophone reports are being framed with the correspondent's location, which unit they're embedded with, a bug or two, and the ever-present ticker. The impact of the reduced resolution and pixelation of the phones is reduced considerably, and it doesn't depend on some wired-up producer in some glass booth in Atlanta or New York to scream a cue over a flaky IFB connection when their news system can't compensate for delays, let alone can the producers backtime manually in their head anymore.

Just as the military is refining and testing procedures to run their operations more smoothly, so is the media.

One final note... just as pilots train on flight simulators, it wouldn't be a bad thing for J-schools and major networks to consider running Satellite-Delay Simulators for producers, correspondents, and up-and-coming anchors.

Of course, with a glut in the talent market, who needs to waste money on training when you have a whole crop of disposables to pick and choose from, especially when those you train only end up getting picked off by the competition.

Ground Intel Sources Record Conversation

Corpsman: BRING OUT YOUR DEAD! BRING OUT YOUR DEAD!

Qusay Hussein: Here's one.

Corpsman: Nine dinars.

Saddam: I'm not dead!

Corpsman: What?

Qusay Hussein: Nothing. Here's your nine dinars.

Corpsman: Here! He says he's not dead.

Qusay: Yes he is.

Saddam: No I'm not.

Corpsman: He isn't!

Qusay: Well, he will be soon. He took a cruise missile right in the shorts.

Saddam: I'm getting better!

Qusay: No, you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment.

Corpsman: I can't take him like that! It's against Sharia!

Saddam: I don't want to go on the cart!

Qusay: Oh, don't be such a baby!

Corpsman: I can't take him.

Saddam: I feel fine!

Qusay: Well, do us a favor.

Corpsman: I can't.

Qusay: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long.

Corpsman: No, I've got to go to the Aziz's. They've lost nine today.

Qusay: Well, when's your next round?

Corpsman: Thursday.

Saddam: I think I'll go for a walk.

Qusay: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Look. Isn't there something you can do?

Saddam: [singing] I feel happy. I feel happy. [Qusay looks around; Corpsman unholsters CZ75. TAP TAP.]

Saddam:

Qusay: Allah be praised. Thanks very much.

Corpsman: Not at all. See you on Thursday.

Qusay: Right. All right. [Humvee rolls by with disguised George Bush at wheel] Who's that, then?

Corpsman: I dunno. Must be a President.

Qusay: Why?

Corpsman: He hasn't got s___ all over him.

Cross-posted: Little Tiny Lies.

A British man living in France has changed his name from 'Bush' to 'Buisson', claiming that Pres. Bush is "outside the law", operating without UN sanction.

There go the extended-family reunion invitations to the ranch.

Forgive the bizzare layout changes whilst we work with our template ...

The PNAC ( Project for the New American Century ) has some influence on the National Security Strategy of the Bush administration. That why it is interesting to read their recent statements on post-war Iraq: Statement of March 28 and Statement of March 19.

The invasion on Afghanistan was supposed to be the first test of how the American military would respond to terrrorism, but the existence of the Taliban and the willing guns of the Northern Alliance transformed the conflict into standard issue combat of one army versus another. Eliminating the Taliban equaled success in the minds of many, as the fate of Bin Laden remained murky and Al Qaeda cell members escaped to Pakistan, allgedly our ally in the region. Still, one could safely point to Afghanistan as a decisive military victory - mostly through the employ of special forces and not through more traditional armor.

But in Iraq, our strategy to date seems to have been set up to fight what was once a traditional military we annihilated in the Gulf War, but has morphed into a loose confederation of terrorists. In effect, the Iraqi Army has appropriated the tactics of Al Qaeda. Miltary commanders like Donald Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks express shock and outrage at Iraq's terror methods, but I would have to say that their reactions are either phony or naive.

Our global enemies undoubtedly saw that the worst attack on America was not accomplished by traditional military means, but instead through terrorist methods. All indicators are that this is how wars will be fought from now on, not on the battlefield where one group of soldiers takes out an enemy group but instead where autonomous bands of terrorists strikes at opportunistic targets. The problem one encounters is that when a soldier removes his uniform and acts like a civilian, he muddies the waters considerably.

Tools of war have evolved to an almost ridiculously precise place in history, but all the surgical strikes in the world are for naught when your opponent uses the most mundane weapons (a car bomb, dynamite wrapped around his body) for maximum effect. There were hints to us in Mogadishu, and now Iraq is displaying the new form of warfare on a larger scale. It would be prudent for us to resist the charms of bigger and badder weapons contractors (who have the ears of both parties), and use special forces as a model for all of our military. For their sakes and ours.

Paul McDonald examens (in his Casus Belli weblog) the position of Syria and ( powerful ) Iran, Iraq neigboring countries, who don't have a record of supporting the USA policies in the Middle East.

A fantastic opinion piece by Mark Steyn who sums up the 'quagmire' media got themselves into...

Former three-star Marine Corps General Bernard Trainor says that the shock and awe "air campaign has failed failed and an anticipated uprising of Shiias has not occurred, thereby prolonging the Iraq war; in his words 'taking the bloom off the rose.' Trainor, who has criticized the level of U.S. forces in Iraq, warns that Iraqis are likely to set up a 'spider web' defense around Baghdad to ensnare coalition troops": an interview on the site of the Council on Foreign Relations.

GlobalSecurity offers a collection of graphics related to the Iraq war. The leaflets that are now dropped above Iraqi military, the posters in use by Anti War groups and some popular art that even makes you smile.

Josh Marshall has several good posts up right now:

• A preview of a Sy Hersh article about how badly Donald Rumsfeld miscalculated the war.

• More articles about how badly Donald Rumsfeld miscalculated the war. (Do you detect a trend here?)

• Yet more about how Donald Rumsfeld miscalculated the war. This one is a long memo from a former ambassador to a Muslim country suggesting that we can't bomb Baghdad into submission and we can't win in urban fighting, so the end result is going to be a long siege. "Somebody will have to blink."
  

I'm still agnostic on this. Sometimes military leaders really are too conservative and civilian leaders are the ones with the right idea (think Lincoln in the Civil War). Then again, sometimes the military experts are right. We'll see.

Tevye listens to some friends who are debating whether a given business transaction concerned a horse or a mule. One of them turned to Tevye to support his side and Tevye replies, "you're right!" The guy on the other side of the argument indignantly pressed his case. Upon reflection Tevye relented and replied, "you're right!" Another friend heard that and said, "Tevye, they can't both be right!" Tevye chewed on that for a moment and exclaimed, "you 're also right!"

Donald Rumsfeld has embarked on a bold transformation of the military to respond to the challenges of the 21st century. He has pushed the Pentagon brass to dump expensive new weapons systems whose mission is (arguably) no longer relevant, and skip a generation in technology wherever possible. By all accounts he's been keen to get more for the taxpayers money. He has also been a big proponent of using Special Forces to tip the balance in military conflict. The soundness of this transformation in general, and Rumsfeld's plans in particular are being tested right now in Iraq.

Rumsfeld does have his critics. Respected military minds from Ralph Peters to Barry McCaffrey have taken exception to the number of troops that Rumsfeld put at Tommy Franks disposal. They are concerned that there aren't enough boots on the ground to assure the U.S. of a decisive advantage. Some naysayers like Joshua Marshall are saying that Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz just guessed right on Afghanistan, and have been emboldened to press their advantage in this conflict. This time, they say, Rumsfeld is wrong.

In the upcoming New Yorker frequent Bush administration critic Seymour Hersh pours fuel on the fire, quoting a disgruntled unidentified senior Pentagon planner as saying, "This is the mess Rummy put himself in because he didn't want a heavy footprint on the ground." Watching all this unfold makes me feel like Tevya. I listen to Rumsfeld and think, "he's right." I read Ralph Peters and think, "he's right." But how can they both be right?

I don't have any military experience, but I have spent many years working in large organization that were in the middle of sweeping changes, so I perhaps I do have some insight to what may be happening here. It comes down to the requirements of different roles, and how much information is available to a person in each role.

I remember when I first became a Vice President in for a Fortune 1000 corporation. I had to tell a manager in my employ that he had to make an impossible deadline. He gave me all sorts of lip. He pulled out all sorts of emails and quoted back many things that I had said in the past that contradicted everything I was asking him to do. From his perspective he was right. Given what he knew, I was full of it. And maybe I was. But I knew that in two weeks we were about to get involved in a huge merger, and if my subordinate didn't finish his project he would be ineligible to come with me to a new plum assignment. Sometimes your boss knows things that you don't or have to weight considerations that you don't.

I must admit that I am puzzled by the actions of the anonymous gloomy general that leaked to Hersh. You have to wonder what might motivate a general in the chain of command to characterize the situation on the ground as a mess. His statement is indefensible, especially if he is right. We are in the middle of a shooting war after all. Once the war is over there will be plenty of time to analyze what went wrong and to hold the civilian authorities accountable. But there is nothing we can do right now. Rumsfeld is the guy in charge, and we pay him to make the kinds of decisions that he is now making.

All things being equal, you would want as many boots on the ground as you can get. All things being equal, you would want a long air campaign before starting a ground campaign. All things being equal you want a division coming from the north put of Turkey. All things being equal you want enough troops to keep in the Pacific. But all things are not equal. You have to make choices.

Tommy Franks has to make sure he has enough people and supplies top do the job. Rumsfeld (and George Bush) have other competing interests. I'm just guessing, but I'll bet that one of the biggest concerns that Bush and Rumsfeld had was that Saddam was going to torch the oil wells, mine the ports and destroy other key assets. Faced with the choice of pulling the trigger before they had enough troops to finish the job, or to wait and give Saddam the chance to execute the scorched earth policy, they opted to go with a rolling start.

When this is all over there will be a review of our strategy in this war. As it happens, there is an election coming up in 2004. There will be plenty of time for recriminations if Rumsfeld's (and Franks') plan turns out to have been ill conceived. The 2004 presidential campaign will provide an excellent opportunity for Democratic presidential hopefuls to weigh in on what they would do differently. In 2004 the American public will be anxious to see what alternatives the Democrats have to offer. Certainly possible candidates like Gary Hart and Wesley Clark know enough to make a cogent critique. I'm certain that both of those gentlemen would be happy to listen to what the dissenters have to say. We may even find out that they were right. Until then I sure wish that the Monday morning quarterbacks, especially within the chain of command, would keep their powder dry.

____________________________

ą And each loud "cheep" and "sqwawk" and "honk" and "quack"
Would land like a trumpet on the ear,
As if to say "Here lives a wealthy man."

The references to SecDef Rumsfeld 'ignoring Pentagon advice' that more forces would be needed than were allocated are, on the face of it, troubling. Reading a bit further into the article summary, however, the tone of the source of the allegations sounds more like a disgruntled partisan in the ongoing internecine infighting that occurs within the five sided wind tunnel. And a pretty immature one at that. It is one thing to advocate a certain position during the decision making process, to make your case, and seek your contribution's incorporation, sometimes vehemently - that's what those folks get paid the big extra staff bucks to do. It is quite another to continue the knife fight into the public realm when your pet approach is dismissed or rejected. That's just plain petty, vindictive, and cowardly.

::Crossblogged at Silent Running::

So, Mr. 'unidentified senior Pentagon planner' got the satisfaction of dumping his load of sour grapes. Bully for him. Maybe he was just shooting his mouth off. That's ok, right?

Sure, until you take that and combine it with 'an unnamed former high-level intelligence official' (translation - out of the loop, uninvolved with current planning or situation, but happy to pontificate to his bud Mr. Hersch about crap he really doesn't have the facts on) saying 'the war was now a stalemate' and..guess what, spin city time.

So what have we got? The formula reads out as: disgruntled whiner + clueless loudmouth windbag + journo itching to dish dirt and sell copy.

Final product? The steaming POS article going out under the New Yorker banner in its 7 April edition.

A reader forwarded a link to this Babbin piece in NRO, which I think is good Op/Ed fodder. A snippet:

There is more, much more, than is being reported about the suicide bombing that killed four Americans earlier today. And from a very credible source, I have heard enough to convince me I had to correct something I wrote this morning. This suicide attack does represent an evolution of this war to something far uglier than we may be prepared to deal with. The suicider was not, as the Iraqi vice president announced, an Iraqi army officer. He was a member of Hamas--or possibly a Saudi--and one of many terrorists that are embedded throughout Iraq. This is no longer a war to remove the threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and liberate Iraq. Yes, those still are part of our objectives. But it is--much more--a war between our conventional forces and most of the terrorist world.

The battle of Basra appears to be following a script worked out long before the war began. It certainly will be the pattern for dealing with Iraqi cities in future, though there are bound to be variations for local conditions.

The basic problem: How do you neutralise a hard-core resistance that is (quite sensibly ) taking advantage of the Coalition's unwillingness to cause civilian casualties. Remember, defeating Ba'athist armed forces is not enough to win: we must also spare those of the great majority, the terrorised not the terrorists.

We must win the Peace as well as win the War. Not merely that, but the majority of the population of the US, UK and Australia would not countenance any un-neccessary civilian casualties caused by the Coalition. It may be argued that going in sooner would result in fewer civilian deaths, but I'll take it as read that this isn't acceptable.

It's a knotty problem, and the Ba'athists obviously thought it would tie us up in those knots. If we go in guns blazing, mob-handed, they thought there'd be a Stalingrad - or rather, the same situation that was found in Bremen, Germany, in late 1945, where a few fanatic Nazis and SS held up the Allied advance for a week. They caused the destruction of the city and death of both many Allied soldiers and even more German civilians.

Should we halt at the edges, then guerilla activity and lightning raids, sometimes by suicide bombers whose families were hostage to the Ba'athists, would wear us down, in a "Death of a Thousand Cuts". Or maybe some chemical strikes via mines and booby-traps (which haven't eventuated - yet). We'd be stopped at the gates, unable to go back or go forward. Pre-war, I certainly wasn't sure of what they'd got in store for us, but I was sure they'd have something. That was the Cunning Plan, and a rather good one in my opinion.

But it hasn't quite turned out that way.

The counter is obvious: do some long-distance patrolling, guerilla activity and lightning raids of our own. Raise an (almost) impregnable shield around the city, and send in task forces to kill or capture the hard-core that resistance relies upon. The Rapier, or rather, the Scalpel not the Bludgeon. Key-hole surgery at that. For we could absolutely guarantee the support of the populace, who'd let us know where the Ba'athists were. That, plus non-Humint (phone intercepts, recon via unmanned drones etc) and we'd slowly but inexorably chip away at the Ba'athist cadre.

A tank raid here (I wasn't expecting this degree of boldness though), an assassination there, and if a lot of them gathered together to co-ordinate, a few well-aimed laser-guided bombs. The removal of Saddam's visage to show that he was no Count Dracula to return from the grave. The Death of a Thousand Cuts alright. Once the cadre had been reduced so much they couldn't keep the local pouplace from lynching them, then and only then would we go in. There is no good defence against this - obvious measure to ameliorate the situation, such as holding Ba'athist party meetings in Pre-schools just avoid one attack method (laser guided bombs in this case), they don't stop the others.

There's a few more tricks I've thought of, but I'm sure the Brits, Aussies and Yanks are keeping those in reserve as a nice surprise, so I won't spoil it for them. In all probability, there'll be Ba'athist strategems I haven't thought of, and Coalition counters to them. That's what professional military people do, I'm just an armchair General, not a real one.

The only danger: that the Iraqi Werewolves would be able to cause so many Coalition casualties that we'd bleed to death ourselves. 100 a day, and we'd have real problems. After 10 days, Coalition deaths due to enemy action have been what, 30? Less than Gulf War 1 anyway. A situation that neither I nor (most likely) the Ba'athists find anything other than astounding. Worse than their worst nightmare, better than my wildest dreams.

See this Op Ed piece, since quoted by Instapundit, and dated March 24. I'm sure there'll be surprises in future, I'd hoped (though not expected - maybe 20% chance) that a decapitation would lead to immediate collapse, but to me it's still a replay of Germany in April 1945. Complete with a Chamber of Horrors we have yet to fully comprehend, retail not wholesale this time.

From this:

EVEN with coalition forces engaged in Iraq, the State Department, the CIA and other key agencies remain hostile to the Iraqi National Congress - demonstrably the most effective, most representative and most democratic anti-Saddam Iraqi organization.
It would seem elementary common sense to work with the INC: It can speak to the Iraqi people as one Iraqi to another, give them guidance that is untarnished by the accents of Americans who have betrayed the Iraqis in the past and credibly explain the democratic goals of the coalition forces...

There's more on the INC at this page, and this post mentioned a suggestion from the Iraqi-American Council that they be allowed to present their/America's case to the Iraqis.

This is a 'backstage' account of the life of Royal Marines 42 Commando in Iraq. The article describes images of men rejoicing in small comforts such as sleeping on a concrete floor, cooked meal, hot drink and wash. They had to do without even such small things the whole time we were watching them fight on the screens in the comfort of our homes. And I am sure they will do again. I know that's what they are trained to do, but still...

They seem to be pretty happy with what they managed to conjure up in Umm Quasr. What they really miss is some cold beer.

Much tooth-gnashing as of late in the usual quarters about the biased perspective offered by Al-Jazeera. To anyone but the most addled loon, Al Jazeera's biases in favor of the Middle Eastern status quo is quite evident. As far as Al Jazeera is concerned, America is the Great Satan and can do no right.

How is this any different from the Fox News Channel?

Fox has carved out a very profitable niche for themselves as the right-wing news channel of record, and even though it gets the teeth of liberals gnashing from coast to coast - they do what they do well. What Fox News doesn't do well is report news objectively. In the Fox News world view, President Bush can do no wrong. American military exercises are always justified, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either a stupid anti-American (or even worse, French).

Fox News basically serves the same function in the United States that Al Jazeera does - whipping up a receptive audience into a frenzy without presenting a full slate of facts for each side of an argument.

Saddam No Longer Silly Walk Power

Tonight the Pentagon confirmed that coalition bombers have succeeded in leveling Iraq's Ministry of Silly Walks.

"It's a major coup," said Secretary of Defensiveness Donald Rumsfeld. "The Iraqis have had limited success with their Vespa tanks and diesel-powered jump jets, but as anyone who has seen the fedayeen marching can tell you, their silly walk technology is second to none."

Asked what the U.S. was doing to close the silly walk gap, Rumsfeld said, "We've drafted special operatives from the entertainment community. Had we been forced to go toe-to-toe with the fedayeen goose-step, we were quite prepared to unleash eighties breakdancers Shabadoo and Michael 'Boogaloo Shrimp' Chambers, not to mention Michael Jackson and the fat guy who played 'Rerun.'"

Bone-Chilling Look at America's Silly Walk Arsenal

Of Jackson, who wears a prosthetic nose, Rumsfeld said, "He said he wanted to do it 'for the boys.' Whatever, Mr. Potato Head. We just wanted you to get out there and spasm with the rest of the freaks."

Added Rumsfeld, "Of course, once they served their purpose, we fully intended to kill them."

Little Boy and Fat Man: Jackson Gears Up For War With Depleted Uranium Codpiece

Cross-post: Little Tiny Lies.

Yesterday I posted a the story about 2 Israeli journalists detained by U.S. troops in Iraq. They came in to Iraq individually, not with the US army, and now say they were caught by US soldiers who imprisoned them for 2 days and even beat them up.

When I posted the link, the story was already all over the Israeli media. I turned to Ha’aretz English edition to find the story in English and so I did. I was amazed by the idiotic comments people left regarding this post:

Chris Lawrence: “Haaretz ought to be ashamed of running a piece with serious allegations like that without even the ass-covering of stating that "Centcom officials declined comment."

R. McLeod: “Consider the source...”

Vince: “Ha’aretz is known to be leftist. It's about as balanced as Reuters.”

aelfheld: “Pardon me, Israeli journalists in Iraq? Exactly how stupid do the people at Ha'aretz think we are?”

I simply couldn’t believe it. Those people “trashed” the story because it didn’t support the official US army line. Some commentators had legitimate questions but they didn’t dismissed the story as a total lie (As for the references to Ha’aretz, I intend to write about in a different post soon in my blog).

At least I’m not the only one left amazed: Ribbity Frog writes: “ What is interesting is that when this report was posted on the war-blog site The Command Post, by Israeli blogger Gil Shterzer, it was treated with nothing short of derision by the war-supporters, who automatically assumed that any critique of the US forces was enemy propaganda, and must be false. Shterzer has rightly defended the integrity of both Scemama and the news services carrying the story.” Continue reading his post, (archives don’t work, title is: TOP STORY IN ISRAEL).

The bottom line here is: don’t immediately “trash” things simply because you don’t want to believe they are true. Question things but don’t rebut it just because you didn’t like the report.

This piece is cross-posted on My blog, Israeli guy.

That's just about all an Israeli can say about the suicide car bombing in Iraq today that killed four U.S. soldiers. And if you think that it's tough just visiting this neighborhood, try living in it. Instapundit pulled this paragraph out of a recent Mark Steyn column:

In so far as the enemy has a strategy, it’s to use their own people as hostages. The ‘pockets of resistance’ in the southern towns have been able to make mischief because they blend in with the local populations. They know that Washington and its allies are concerned above all to avoid casualties among Iraqi civilians and, indeed, among your typical Iraqi conscripts. In other words, everything the Baath regime does is predicated on the moral superiority of their foe. If things were the other way round, if Iraq invaded Vermont and some diehard Yankees holed up on the outskirts of White River Junction and started firing on Saddam’s forces as they attempted to advance up the valley, the Republican Guard would think nothing of levelling the entire downtown area and everyone in it. Who’s going to complain? There’s no Baghdad ‘Not In Our Name’ movement.

This is all so incredibly familiar to Israelis. Try as they might to root out terrorism without hurting civilians or provoking an international outcry, they can't. If they try to pinpoint the terrorist leaders with assassinations, it's illegal. If they bomb their headquarters from the air, random civilians die. If they go in house to house, risking their own soldiers' lives it's a "massacre" as happened in Jenin. If they severely limit movement to try to stop the terrorists' ability to get into Israel, they are making the lives of Palestinians miserable and hellish.

It seems that nothing short of throwing up their hands and letting the terrorists in to do their job will satisfy their critics.

(And don't tell me that handing back the West Bank and Gaza will solve the problem. Trust me, if someone handed offered the Israeli people a signed guarantee that giving back the territories would result in an end to all suicide bombings and other terror and peace, love and harmony, with the Arab world, trust me, they'd jump on it. Poll after poll bears this out. But no one's handing out that guarantee, or even a credible ceasefire offer for that matter. If they were, the Israeli left would not be so emasculated at the moment.)

So here's an Israeli memo to the coalition forces heading into populated areas in Iraq: you've got a frustrating, stressful, dangerous and pretty damn thankless job ahead.

And coming back to the Mark Steyn Vermont metaphor, it's darn hard for the IDF to hold every Palestinian life sacred when they know that many of them would blast Tel Aviv to kingdom come if they got half a chance, and it's going to be hard for the forces in Iraq as well. The miracle is that, like the coalition forces, the military leadership and the vast majority of IDF soldiers still try. I know that many people reading this won't buy into it, that they will point to the hundreds of Palestinian civilians killed in the intifada and tell me that I'm full of you-know-what. But just as Baghdad and Basra would be paved over already if that's what the United States really wanted to do, if the Israeli army didn't show incredible restraint, with mercifully few exceptions, we would be talking about hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians.

I would close with the point that the U.S. and other coalition partners can feel lucky that they at least have the option of packing up and going home Vietnam-style if it gets to be too much, and that Israel doesn't have that luxury. But is that really true in a post September 11 world? I suppose that this pivotal question: whether trying to stop the halt threats overseas before they add up to death and destruction at home is viable and legitimate, is what the entire war debate is all about.

-- Cross-posted on my blog, An Unsealed Room

OK, I posted this on my blog, but I'm posting it here because it just angered me immensely:

The New York Post reported an article that just made me almost vomit up my lunch. It was by Clemente Lisi, regarding a Columbia University professor named Nicholas De Genova and his anti-American remarks at an anti-war "teach-in" sponsored by Columbia U.

First, read the NY Post article HERE.

I'm going to quote Professor Nicholas De Genova, so you can read his disgusting, sickening, disheartening comments about America and our troops, then I'll post a link from Columbia University where you can search for him and send him an email telling him what you think of this remarks:

Words of Professor Nicholas De Genova:
"If we really [believe] that this war is criminal . . . then we have to believe in the victory of the Iraqi people and the defeat of the U.S. war machine."
"The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military"

This sick man also said that Americans who call themselves "patriots" are white supremacists and that American soldiers should suffer "a million Mogadishus" in Iraq.

Do you want to send this man an email?

Here is the link for Columbia University's Search Page, just look up his name and you can email him from there: Columbia University Search. Please voice your opinion to this sick excuse for a college professor.

This is what I emailed Prof. De Genova:

Mr. Genova,

I read with disgust your comments at the Columbia University "anti-war teach-in" that was reported in the NY POST.

I hope other proud Americans have the common sense that I have to voice their disagreement with your remarks.

I'm an Asian American and a patriot who is proud of our nation. Does this make me a white supremacist?

I hope your inbox is flooded with like-minded opposition to your sick idea that America should be defeated and that "the only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military".

You have every right to leave this great nation where you are making your living if you hate it so much. You are a sick minded person.

You are an example of higher education? What a joke. You are an embarassment to Columbia University.

-Gregory Soon
http://www.fightingnation.com/

I'm new to the Command Post, so as my first entry I thought I'd post something that I wrote at my own site a couple of days ago: my war predictions. Here they are:

• How long will the war last? Answer: 6 weeks.
  

• How many American deaths will there be? Answer: 700.
  

• How big will the occupation force be by the end of the year? Answer: 80,000 troops.
  

• How long will the military occupation last: Answer: 3 years.
  

• How much will the war cost this year? Answer: $110 billion.
  

• How much will it cost next year? Answer: $25 billion.
  

• How much actual democracy will we bring to Iraq? Answer: 4%.
  

All answers are plus or minus a factor of two. Anybody else feel like sticking their neck out and taking a crack at this?

UPDATE: Commenters want to know, "what is 4% democracy?" Beats me, but for a seat-of-the-pants idea take a look at the World Audit site for worldwide rankings from Finland at the top to Iraq at the bottom (I don't think Afghanistan counts anymore).

They do it backward and go from 1 to 145, so we have to do some arithmetic to figure a percentage. If 145 is 0%, then I guess 4% would be about 139, the score they give to the Congo, and the range would be 142 to 133, or Libya to Vietnam.

So there you have it: postwar Iraq will end up somewhere between Libya and Vietnam on the democracy scale.

Coalition Leaders Targeted With "Mighty Feces"

Early today, coalition cruise missiles slammed into Baghdad’s Ministry of Information. Coalition sources claim the building sustained tremendous damage. However, Iraqi Minister of Information Saeed al-Sahaf, pictured below, denies the claim and asserts that Iraqi engineers diverted the missiles to Washington, where they leveled the White House, two reform synagogues, and a store selling Honey-Baked Ham.

Al-Sahaf: "Invasion? What invasion?"

"Verily," said al-Sahaf, "Allah has smitten the head of the great serpent, and bloody great boils shall arise on its hindparts. The infidels shall taste the dung of misbegotten goats, and their leaders shall wallow face-down in our mighty feces. They laugh with the tongues of hyenas, but soon the venom of scorpions shall swell their miserable bollocks."

Asked to clarify his remarks for the rubes, al-Sahaf stated that there were no American troops on Iraqi soil, but that he had crossed into Kuwait on a magic carpet and personally killed two thousand Marines with a Swiss Army knife.

When pressed for details, al-Sahaf stormed away from the podium and threatened to melt the assembled press with his heat vision.

Cross posted: Little Tiny Lies.

The Arabic-language news station Al Jazerra has been under a great deal of criticism this past week for its use of images deemed crude or heartless in the West. They claim to be independent and unbiased, yet there are continuous accusations that the station is being used as a conduit for Islamic terrorist organisations. I will for the moment leave that accusation aside. I am more concerned with criticisms if the pictures being show by the network in broadcast and online.

In a press conference this week, a British office visibly had to restrain himself from violence when encountering an Al Jazeera reporter who rose to deliver a statement in defence of his station. So enraged were some on the internet that they hacked Al Jazeera's English language site.

Are we in the West upset because they show dead people or just when they are showing OUR dead people? In a world where Western audiences can see all manner of death on their TV and movie screen why are we so upset about video of an actual execution? Are we the hypocrites or is Al Jazeera just uncivilised?

I think that the West's shocked reaction to the content on Al Jazeera demonstrates an ignornance of attitudes toward death and the showing of death in the third world. TV screens in Latin America routinely show corpses and the human debris resulting from natural disasters and human atrocities. Whereas in the US or the UK we would see covered or bagged bodies, in other parts of the world you would see the body uncovered and uncensored. Why is this?

It is possible that in other parts of the world they are so used to mass death that they have a different reaction to it. When one sees death and destruction on the streets in your country and on your TV, you become less aware of it. Public executions occur in the Middle East frequently and are shown on the TV. Why would it be more offensive to see Americans die than say so-called Palestinian "collaborators"? In this Islamic world, nations under sharia routinely cut of hands, fingers, ears and other body parts for criminal activity, in many cases publically. It is possible that Islamic world does not understand why the Allies are so upset about the broadcast of the images of the POWs and Daniel Pearl.

Another point that could be made is that Western networks routinely show dead people from other parts of the world, especially those in the third world. Have we not seen bodies from Latin America, Africa and Chechyna on our screens? Why is it ok to see dead Chechen fighters or Russian conscripts but not Americans?

We in the West have a different view of the dignity of real death than does the rest of the world. Al Jazeera merely reflects the values of its viewers, as do our networks. Is it fair to fault them for doing what to them seems normal and natural, even if we would find it reprehensible and repulsive?

I spotted this over on NRO, by way of Rush Limbaugh's site:

History or Hysteria?: Our vulture pundits regurgitate rumor and buzz

It is a scathing critique of the left's wartime reporting and punditry by Victor Davis Hanson. Must Read.

Update:

I just had to add this one excerpt. It really puts the entire present Iraq campaign in perspective:

We should recall that in the first Gulf War we bombed for over 44 days. Critics in 1991 by day 10 were complaining because after the first few nights’ pyrotechnics, Saddam’s army had not crumbled. In turn, earlier swaggering air-advocates had promised victory in three weeks — only to be unjustly slandered that they had failed to end the war in six. Gulf War I is considered a great victory; it required 48 days of air and ground attacks by an enormous coalition to expel the Iraqi army from Kuwait. Our present attempt, with half the force, seeks to end Saddam Hussein altogether — and on day 7 already had him cut off, trapped, and besieged.

I thought France was our friend again:

Greece endorses the idea of a European Union summit on defense but said that any move toward closer cooperation among the 15 union members must involve dialogue with the United States, the government spokesman said yesterday.

Asked about the move by Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg demanding closer integration of defense policies with the ultimate goal of forging a European defense policy distinctive from that of the United States, Press Minister Christos Protopappas called the proposal «strategically correct» but repeated the point raised by Prime Minister Costas Simitis at a parliamentary debate on Thursday that the four cannot create a «hard core» of countries cooperating more closely on defense and that a common defense policy must involve every EU member.

"Hard core" of defense? With what? Are these countries with struggling economies and pacifist stances going to suddenly start pouring billions into militaries? It seems unlikely. And what is a "European defense policy distinctive" from what the United States has? This is a clear effort to continue consolidation of the EU into a France-and-Germany-led world power to stand in opposition to the United States, an effort of some years duration but revealed more clearly during the debate over the war in Iraq. For this to continue to heat up while the war in Iraq is ongoing is a clear sign of opportunism on the part of France et al, and further evidence that, notwithstanding the public protestations of de Villepin, France is determined to regain its "rightful" place as a world power even if it has to effectively colonize all of Europe to do so.

The NY Times has an in-depth article today looking at the mechanations of the anti-war groups, and the internal tensions between the radicals and the more mainstream ones:

At least for now, the more mainstream groups have gained the upper hand. They have sought to cast their movement as the loyal opposition, embracing the troops but condemning the war. Within the movement, which includes everything from small groups in small towns to a large alliance of more than 200 organizations, radical elements still exist. But the larger and more influential groups have sought over time to sideline them, deliberately excluding certain speakers, dismissing certain tactics, marginalizing certain protests, in a determined effort to avoid being dismissed as career malcontents.

Sorry, it's too late - they're already dismissed. As for the "career" part, that's already determined too:

"If we're going to be a force that needs to be listened to by our elected officials, by the media, by power, our movement needs to reflect the population," said Leslie Cagan, co-chairwoman of United for Peace and Justice, and a career political organizer...

Even the more mainstream groups are full of people who have spent large stretches of their lives on the front lines of protest movements, from the civil rights struggles to antiglobalization campaigns...

That's one thing I haven't seen covered very much in coverage of the anti-war protesters - a lot of them are professionals who spend all their time protesting this or that. Even the ones who aren't full-time are often at least as committed as your average military reservist. This is not a spontaneous outpouring of distress over this war; it's the latest in a series of causes for these people. What we need the journalists to do is an investigative piece on the history of these "peace" organizations, exposing their track records of protest. The story is not what they're protesting now, but what common threads are present in the whole spectrum of causes they espouse. I think you'll find the central theme is anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism and anti-establishment - although I do think some (not all) of the church-associated groups do have a somewhat more altruistic and peace-based attitude (although they're still wrong).

To be sure, activism in the face of conditions or policies we dislike is a hallmark of our country, and a freedom our soldiers have died to preserve. But this type of virulent activism is increasingly disruptive and damaging to our country. We need to educate ourselves about it and act accordingly - not just prosecute the illegal behaviors, but expose their hypocrisies and hidden agendas.

Last paragraph modified for clarity of message - slc

UK's The Guardian has a rundown of over-reported stories that - according to them - required backtracking when details became more clear. I don't agree with all they say, but it's a good look at the complexities of reporting the war.

"Paris and Baghdad have maintained a close partnership for decades. In 2001, France exported goods worth €660 million to Iraq." - there is a thin line between politics and economics. The Deutsche Welle has an editorial on the the issue European Companies Fear They'll Be Left Out in Post-war Iraq.

There are a few possible explanations for the lack of refugees, many of them positive. The Iraqi people may actually not fear us and believe we will get rid of Hussein this time. They would be right to think this, of course. We didn't mobilize 250,000 troops, with another 100,000 to come to not finish the job this time. We aren't limited by any UN mandate and the President has broad discretion to see that we win.

Refugees Fail to Flood Syria-Iraq Border:

A refugee camp this side of the Iraqi border is empty. Bored customs officials have little to do but walk around the outpost's concrete buildings and smoke cigarettes.

So far, the anticipated flood of refugees from Iraq has failed to materialize. In fact, Syrians officials said, most of the traffic has been in the opposite direction.

"Most of the travelers passing through are Iraqis returning to their country," said Sami Ibrahim, head of the customs office at the Tanef border crossing, about 187 miles northeast of Damascus.

Only 10 to 30 vehicles have crossed the border both ways in the past few days, compared to the hundreds that went through every day before the war.

The Syrian government arranged Friday for reporters to visit Tanef and the nearby refugee camp set up in cooperation with the United Nations.

Work was ongoing at the camp of 100 tents, although no refugees had come.

We can expect more of this. Frankly I'm surprised we haven't been seeing suicide bombings in the United States, and we may yet. It is nice to see that our intelligence agencies seem to be on the ball both overseas and at home. Even though we may gripe about them, for every attack that does occur many others are stopped. We just never hear about them.

U.S. Says It Has Stopped a Plot to Attack Americans in Mideast:

The United States has broken up suspected plots by Iraqi intelligence agents to attack American targets in two countries in the Middle East, American officials said today. It was the first publicly disclosed effort by the United States to block Iraq from using terrorism attacks to respond to the American-led invasion.

The American officials said the Iraqi operatives had been arrested before they could carry out their attacks, which were to be conducted with conventional weapons, rather than chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.

"In both cases, operatives were arrested and terrorist material confiscated," said the State Department spokesman, Richard A. Boucher. "The planned attacks were not successful."

I'm watching Fox embed Rick Leventhal reporting from Iraq. Earlier I watched Chip Reed's recap of a memorial service for fallen marines. The reports are getting better and better. From what I can tell, there hasn't been any information released that is dangerous to the troops. But there has been some stories that are embarrassing to Central Command.

While CentComm won't confirm the operational pause, they are denying supply problems. Meanwhile the embeds report that the units that they with are short on supplies. Whoops. So much for REMF spin control. but hey, that's what freedom of the press is all about.

The most fascinating thing to watch is the growth of the embeds. They seem to be learning what the soldiers are doing. Their later reports are so much richer, and their responses to the questions from their anchors are so much better. The embeds are becoming better reporters. And the experience they get now will serve them well for the rest of their careers. Could this be a turning point in the relationship between the media and the military? Probably not, but who knows?

Kerry Sanders had a report on NBC (video - click on Kerry Sanders in Nasiriyah) about combination hospital/torture dungeon in Nasiriyah that the marines took over. The report documented the shop of horrors in a more credible way than any report from Donald Rumsfeld possibly could have.

As the fight moves on to Baghdad the embeds will be that much more critical. The Arab world may never believe that this war was just, but the rest of the world could be swayed by press accounts of this sort. The Pentagon took some risks by giving so much access to the press. It seems like the gamble is paying off.

The use of death to motivate troops is nothing new -- it was used by both the Nazis and Soviets in WW2. It seems particularly cruel this time because it isn't just a matter of getting fearful troops to do things they otherwise wouldn't. It's a matter of forcing troops to defend a dictator when many would rather not.

Is there anything we can do about it? No, other than win.

Hussein's Enforcers At Work:

Gruesome details are emerging from Western intelligence sources regarding the tactics that Saddam Hussein's regime is using to maintain its control of southern Iraq. The stories suggest that while Hussein's forces are fighting more fiercely than expected, they are often doing so with a gun pointed at their head.

"Terror is playing a huge part" in how the war has evolved, according to one intelligence officer familiar with details of reports coming from Iraq.

The most striking example is the assassination Tuesday morning of the head of a major Shiite tribe in Basra, as part of the regime's efforts to stiffen resistance in that city to the advance of U.S. and British troops.

Hani Shukrallah writes in Egyptian English language weekly Al-Ahrahm that after a week it is the Pentagon planners who are in shock and awe:

The US/British invasion of Iraq, now in its seventh day, has proved, if anything, even more "unpredictable" than American military officials promised it would be, and this in ways they could not have imagined a week ago. The invasion was to be conducted with "breathtaking" speed. The world was to be given a demonstration of new smart weapons, so precise they would flush the Iraqi leadership out of its deepest bunkers. Shi'ites in the south would rise up in rebellion, welcoming their liberators on the streets of Basra, in scenes reminiscent of the "liberation" of Kabul. Saddam Hussein's regime would crumble. Iraqi military commanders, with whom "coalition" military chiefs hinted they were in secret communication, would disband their forces and disappear quietly rather than face trial as war criminals -- as US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seemed to threaten in the early hours of the invasion, when he warned all those who fought beside Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that they would face the same fate as Iraq's president if they fought back. The duration of the war would be counted in hours rather than days.

It did not quite work out that way. By day seven the only urban centre the coalition forces can claim to have seized is the tiny port of Umm Al-Qasr, straddling the Iraq-Kuwait border. This, after six days of fierce fighting.

[...]

Things had been going wrong even before the coalition forces missed their window of opportunity -- apparently by a long shot -- and were unable to kill Saddam on the first day of the war. The US and Britain, despite fierce efforts and intense pressure, failed to win a majority of nine at the Security Council sanctioning a military attack on Iraq. In terms of international law this renders the invasion a violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter, i.e. the very same transgression committed by Saddam in his invasion of Kuwait in 1991. A majority of the world's states have declared their opposition to the war and, on 15 February, the anti-war movement was able to mobilise more than 30 million people in anti-war demonstrations across the globe. This may well have stayed the hands of the US military from unleashing the full force of its "Shock and Awe" strategy, in order to avoid the massive civilian casualties such a course would have resulted in.

While American and British officials have dismissed the loss of a northern front due to opposition in the Turkish parliament as unimportant to the conduct of the invasion there are military analysts who disagree. Speaking to CNN on Tuesday night retired US Army General Wesley Clark, a CNN analyst and former NATO supreme allied commander, asserted that Turkey's "failure to permit the 4th Infantry Division to go through was a significant problem, not an insignificant problem." Neither could the coalition count on its erstwhile Kurdish allies who, increasingly more worried about Turkey than Baghdad, decided to stay out of the fight.

Clark also asserted that the scenario of a quick coalition victory in Iraq is "not going to happen". The simple fact, he pointed out, "is that the liberation didn't quite occur. They didn't uprise."

I guess from Egypt it looks like Saddam is winning. I wonder what she'll be saying a month from now.

A long time ago, Britain and France were at war. During one battle,
The French captured an English major. Taking the major to their
headquarters, the French general began to question him. The French
general asked, "Why do you English officers all wear red coats? Don't
you know the red material makes you easier targets for us to shoot at?"
In his bland English way, the major informed the general that the reason
English officers wear red coats is so that if they are shot, the blood
won't show and the men they are leading won't panic. And that is why
from that day to now all French Army officers wear brown pants.

Iraqi paramiltary feces fired machine guns at fleeing civilians in Basra as America waited for demonstrators to flood the streets in protest of the atrocities.

And waited.

Despite their legendary, even mythical concern for Iraqi children, ANSWER, CAIR, NION and the rest remained silent. For once.

However, other groups of dedicated young activists vowed to show their concern by holding violent counter-demonstrations. These violent, shadowy groups go by various names, including the "British 7th Armored Brigade" and the "335th Expeditionary Fighter Squad".

Basra City-councilman Bob Muhammed said "I may not agree with these protestors' point-of-view, but I'll defend their right to say it." He was immediately taken outside and shot.

How did the embeds come to be? Fox News' Washington Bureau Chief Kim Hume tells the tale in the Weekly Standard:

"Mr. Secretary, you talked about the desirability of having journalists embedded should there be any action in Iraq . . . Is that a core principle for you?" asked one of the chiefs. Rumsfeld replied, "Is it a core principle? Sure. It is something more than that. It's also self-serving." In Afghanistan, he said, the Taliban and al Qaeda showed great skill in news management. The best way to combat that was to have accurate, professional journalists on the ground to see the truth of what was going on. He said he already had intelligence from Iraq that they were arranging things to mislead the press. "Having people who are honest and professional see these things and be aware of that is useful. So I consider it not just the right thing to do but also a helpful thing."

Thus began the stunning cooperation between the military and the media that led to this war being fought live on the television sets of America.

Fascinating.

Heather MacDonald of The City Journal thinks all protesters - anti- and pro-war both - should just stay home:

Anti-war and pro-war demonstrators need to suck in their egos and face an unflattering truth: the nation has something more important to attend to right now than the regulation and policing of street protests, however fervently held the protesters’ beliefs. Preventing another terror attack is the highest imperative of the country’s police forces; street demonstrations divert police resources from that mission. Cash-strapped police departments are already stretched to the breaking point by their new anti-terror obligations. Every officer taken off his beat to prevent street violence or arrest civil disobedients is one less set of eyes to notice a cell member surveilling a power plant or leaving a bomb in a train station.

She has a good point, and one I agree with mostly. But her only reasoning for the antis to stay home - reason, that is, that would carry any weight with them - is that more terrorist attacks could result in increased racial and ethnic tensions, possibly even hate crimes. I don't think that carries any weight with the antis. The ones organizing the protests are hardened anarchists whose primary goal is regime change in the United States, preferably to a socialist or communist state. The crowds that flow in their wake are squishy feel-good useless idiots who don't see the bigger picture. It is their moment to shine, their moment to either relive or experience for themselves the gloriously rebellious 1960s.

They either wouldn't care if terrorists attacked again, or would refuse responsibility.

The anarchists, I am convinced, would welcome another attack because of the disruption in the economy and governance of the country that could (and to some degree would) result. They're from the same garden of idiots that produces eco-terrorists, and for all their haranguing about people dying in a "war for peace", they'd have little concern for people dying in a "war against capitalism". The useful idiots following them are not that cavalier, I think, but if an attack came they would not believe a cessation of their public protests would have made a difference. They will say, the attack is because of the US's evil ways, and if anything our protests showed those who hate the US that not all of us are craven. We've likely prevented more attacks with our protests than the police could have anyway! They are blind to reality, and have no respect for the police.

So I think Heather MacDonald's idea is sound, but I don't think the antis will be convinced. If they cared about public order and the lives of their countrymen, they wouldn't be protesting in that way in the first place.

Is there any pundit smarter than Gregg Easterbrook? Here is what he thinks most of the coverage has missed so far:

News organizations are obsessively gushing over the details of U.S. war equipment--cutaway engineering drawings of Apache helicopters, graphics showing how to grip an assault rifle during street fighting--yet everyone's missing what appears to Best Laid Plans to be a significant military technology story: Two U.S. Abrams M1 tanks have been knocked out by Iraqi forces, the first Abrams ever lost in combat.

The Abrams was invincible during the 1991 Gulf war--destroying hundreds of Iraqi tanks, including the modern, expensive Russian-built T72, without a single loss on our side. In other deployments as well, the Abrams has performed as though surrounded by a Star Trek energy shield. Bullets, artillery, and anti-tank rockets have bounced off its 70-ton shell, especially the highly sophisticated glacis plate at the front of the tank. The Abrams glacis plate includes, among other materials, "depleted uranium," a non-radioactive form of the metal that numbers among the densest known substances.

Now two Abrams tanks have been knocked out near An Najaf by the AT14 "Kornet," a new Russian-built, soldier-carried anti-tank rocket somewhat similar to the new U.S. "Javelin" weapon. Kornets are laser-guided for accuracy and employ an advanced kinetic penetrator (extreme speed, not explosive power, is the key feature) to break through the layered, "composite" armor used by the Abrams and other advanced tanks.

Easterbrook speculates that Iraq got this Russian rocket from Syria. I wonder who else will be buying it now.

Update: The sometimes reliable Debka has an item on this topic.

exclusive photos from the Rumsfeld press conference this afternoon show a very "upset" sec'y of defense.

What, you need commentary with this too?

Quick Humor Break--
FoxNews crawl just reported AP: COALITION FORCES CONTROL MORE THAN A THIRD OF IRAQS TERRITORY AND 95% OF ITS SKIS

Spelling IS important.

A brief round-up of the Blogwolf coverage of today's Rumsfield briefing is Here.

I listen to KPRC 950AM radio here in Houston, TX. On Fridays, Chris Baker and the studio crew run a goofy gamed called "Reverse Trivia." People call in with questions, the twisted crew (including the award-winning programming manager) try to guess the answer, and if they're wrong then the caller wins prizes. They try not to take the game too seriously, and a fun time is had by all.

Today's show was held at Minutemaid Park (formerly Enron Field). As 6:00 and the deadline for the end of the show approached, a caller asked a trivia question and...

No response. The questioned trailed off. Instead, the national anthem played.

You see, the exhibition game was just about to start, and it was time for the national anthem. The crew fell silent during the national anthem. You can't see it over the radio, but I'm sure Chris Baker even doffed his cowboy hat from his large bald head.

After listening to some of the shamefully loaded questions in the White House and Pentagon briefings and press conferences today, one of which accused the Pentagon of lying about casualty figures solely based on the ratio of wounded to killed, would those members of the press, faced with such a situation, stop playing "Armchair General" and have the respect and decency to do the same?

Dear Charles Rangel,

Tonight, you will not see video of dead women and children strewn around a shopping market, torn apart by a missile fired by callous aggressors bent on conquering Arabic land for oil and then tearing apart those Arabs in torture and rape-gangs. You will not see the ambulances and screaming family members demanding revenge and the deaths of their enemies.

Um... what? Wasn't there a missile strike in Baghdad that killed upwards of 50 people?

I'm not talking about Baghdad, where either a missile was knocked off course by anti-aircraft fire or a deliberate explosion was set for the media to show the world in a deliberate attempt to whip up anti-American sentiments already running high.

I'm talking about Kuwait City. Fired upon by the Iraqis. The same Iraqis that conquered Kuwait in 1990 for oil, a land owned by Arabs, whom they tortured and slaughtered with glee.

But why no scenes of carnage and death? You see, the Iraqis missed. There were no massive innocent civilian casualties. The missile they fired at Kuwait City landed in the water in front of the shopping mall they indiscriminately attacked, not the shopping mall itself.

Ponder that when you scream baby-killer, Representative Charles Rangel. Who's trying to kill babies and who's trying to end the rule of those that want to kill babies?

Even though the ballot-box empowers me as a citizen, I am powerless to remove you from a position of power. On paper, you represent a district in New York. I am not in New York. I can only do my part to send someone to represent me, my values, my neighbors, and my country.

From your comments in recent days and what you've said at various anti-war rallies, I shudder to think of what you truly represent in this country.

Neil Cavuto defends his "American First, Journalist Second" style of reporting on FOX News in a hurricane of invective hot enough to wither the ivy on the wall of every Ivy League school lecture hall.

ISIA --Iraqi Self Inflicted Attack

Iraq used the ISIA technique again today in a market, in an attmept to paint the US/Brits as killers of non-combatants.

In the story Al-Jazeera — a Threat to Western Media, Faisal Bodi, a senior editor for the web site for Al-Jazeerah, one of the most popular and trusted news networks of the Arab World, states the following:

As I write, the Al-Jazeera website has been down for three days and few here doubt that the provenance of the attack is the Pentagon. Meanwhile, our hosting company, the US-based DataPipe, has terminated our contract after lobbying by other clients whose websites have been brought down by the hacking.

For those of you without a dictionary handy, provenance means source or origin.

That's right. Faisal Bodi, a senior editor for the web site for Al-Jazeerah, is claiming in the Guardian (syndicated in the Arab News and elsewhere), that the Pentagon is the source/origin of the crash of Al-Jazeerah's web site.

Not a massive amount of traffic generated by worldwide publicity.
Not independent hackers working on their own despite warnings by the Pentagon not to.
Not incompetent web managers failing to budget and implement the necessary server space, bandwidth, or security measures.
Not this latest Microsoft server security hole. (Are they running on Windows servers?)

That's right. It had to have been The Pentagon.

I, for one, am stunned at this claim. Shocked. Gobsmacked. Beside myself and kicking myself silly, even. For once, an individual speaking on behalf of the Arabic press has failed to blame the Jews for something.

Maybe peace isn't so far off after all?

I think the hijacking of the Turkish plane warrants very close attention. I am no conspiracy theorist, but the timing is extremely suspect, and the target extremely curious. Who would hijack a Turkish plane?

Al Qaeda? Well, Turkey is a relatively moderate Turkish state, and that doesn't sit will with Wahabi ideology. But this wouldn't seem to be the right time for that, not when an "infidel" army is at the gates of Baghdad.

Iraq, perhaps? That would be absurd; Ankara has stayed on the sidelines, preventing even the passage of U.S. troops through its territory, so Baghdad would be suicidal to provoke the wrath of thousands of fierce Turkish warriors.

Well, that leaves the Kurds, right? There is no love lost among Turks and Kurds, of course, and Kurdish terrorism in Turkey in recent years is well-documented. But why now? Why engage in a distraction from the most significant development in recent Kurdish history, the imminent destruction of the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein, a regime that has persecuted and slaughtered Kurds since its rise to power? No, this doesn't sound right.

Then what?

How about Turkey? Only Ankara stands to gain here, as it would provide the Turkish government with an incredibly convenient pretext for the invasion of northern Iraq, ostensibly in the name of the war on terror. And how could the U.S. or Europe argue with that? After all, it is our war on terror that has brought us to Iraq.

This is, of course, rank speculation, but the possibilities are extremely unsettling.

(Via Little Green Footballs)

If it weren't bad enough for the French, multiple-conqueror of France Lance Armstrong supports the troops and the President:

In my opinion it's not really the place of an athlete to take a position here. And I do think there should be a strong deliniation from sports, war, diplomacy, and politics. I am getting asked this question repeatedly over here because a) I'm an American like the President, b) I'm a Texan like the President, and c) I am a friend of the President's. The war seems to be very unpopular here (lots and lots of protests) and it's normal that the press tries to get a quote regarding this.

What I will say, and have said many times, is that NOBODY wants a war. Not me. Not President Bush. Not Tony Blair. No one... but sometimes it may be unavoidable. I absolutely support the President and absolutely support our troops. Enough on this...

In the land of the testicle-less, the one-testicled man will be king.

You can download 'Bomb The World' at Stay Human. Writing on the site he says "all bombing is terrorism, no matter who is doing it", adding that he regards the bombing of Baghdad as an equally offensive attack to those of September 11.

Spearhead's Michael Franti: "I remember the pain in the hearts of us all following the attacks on September 11th, and cannot imagine the pain in the hearts of those in Baghdad who, in the name of oil, have been ravaged by violence thousands of times greater than that which occurred in New York, Pennsylvania, and in Washington DC. I grieve with all who have endured loss".

First of all, who the hell is this moron? Nice to see moral relativity coming out of musicians. Notice no mention at all of all of Saddam's victims over the years. As per normal, with this type, he offers no solutions on how to avoid war. He repeats the "war is bad" mantra, as if anyone involved in this war is actually "pro-war". Considering the rush and publicity to be one of the musicians to release anti-war tracks, it is starting to smack of publicity and career desperation.

Musicians whose careers tanked years ago are getting press by aligning themselves to the anti-war movement. Rosanne Cash has equated the row over Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks and her anti-war comments to censorship. Rosanne, a woman who obviously closely studied American political history, seems to believe the fan revolt against the DCs to be government led or inspired. She fails to realise that the revulsion to Ms Maines comments stem from the fact she was abroad when she made them and that her "public" is one of the most patriotic of music fans. At least one soldier in the gulf has sent an "open" letter to Ms Maines regarding her statements. As you would expect they read: "I will fight and die for you to have the right to speak your mind."

Supporters of Maines and the ilk are saying that those of us crititicising them are somehow limiting these artists right to free speech. What they are actually saying is that artists should be allowed to speak their mind with no backlash. One could argue that if these people act like politicians then they should be under the same scrutiny as politicians. One also wonders if they would be worrying about the free speech rights of someone like Ted Nugent who routinely is harangued and censored for his views. Or how about all those who aren't on message in Hollywood or the music business whose careers have suffered?

One good thing about the war and the anti-war protests. The public will now be able to better judge who or what they are spending their money on when they got to a movie or buy a CD or DVD.

Yes, Rosanne, Ms Maines has a right to free speech, but we have a right to disagree with her and act accordingly.

Apparently Tom Friedman refered to the Jewish mystical concept "tikkun olam" in one of his op-eds recently, in reference to the way the war is being conducted, so you may be interested in its meaning and history.

I'm a victim of the civilian version of Gulf War I syndrome: becoming a news junkie. I remember the brilliant broadcasting on the part of CNN during that conflict and it shaped my initial and some of my lasting impressions of journalism, American military might, and collective security. I developed a sort of fascination with this thing they call WAR CORRESPONDENT. Here was a romantic figure to latch onto amongst the horrors of war. It is because of this experience during the Gulf War that I primarily rely on CNN now for Gulf War II news. At my place of employment we have jury rigged a computer to play streaming video of CNN full screen and have bought our own speakers to hear news from the front -- such is our love for news.

I have heard the complaints about CNN's Walter Rodgers being proclaimed as brilliant for providing images of flat sand in every direction and often very bouncy images at that. I've heard that Ernie Pyle was an embedded journalist long before the term was dreamt up. I know too he gave up his life for that pursuit, struck down by a sniper's bullet. And yet despite my awareness of all these shortcomings I can't help but be struck with a continued fascination for war correspondents. It's partly my nostalgia for those voice only broadcasts with a superimposed photo of the reporter and a map of Iraq. There was a personal connection there -- something with the feel of "never been done before." Now weblogs seem positioned to fill that niche.

CNN recently had an aside where they addressed the issue of statistics regarding recent war coverage. Most Americans are pleased with how the media is covering the war, but were less impressed when things started to go badly later on. The conclusion of the pundits was that Americans like the media less when they report bad news. My theory gives a little more credit to the American public. Americans were no doubt slightly incredulous after days of so-called experts predicting a cakewalk to suddenly hear talk of quagmire and Vietnam. They did not blame the president for not preparing them enough as I heard members of the press drill Ari Fleischer on this past week, they blamed the press for its usual fickleness. After CNN finished this aside where they discussed that with news streaming in so fast from the front from embedded reporters and other sources that it was possible to have one's perspective skewed, CNN then commenced to interview Vietnam vets to get an idea of what our service members must be experiencing now on the ground in Iraq. The implicit suggestion was that the experience of Vietnam must be very much like that in Iraq. The interlude of sitting back and taking things with a grain of salt was broken by the far more profitable practice of sensationalism. Even now if a Marine takes a walk out to the latrine and doesn't take a leak the press reports that he failed to achieve his objectives. The virtue of the weblog is that the writer whose perception may be skewed can get his opinion excerpted, applauded and attacked and can see and respond to criticism and praise of his view.

I'm sure other news organizations are guilty of the practice. When you're in the 24 hour news business it seems you must provide news whether there is news to report or not. This is no doubt the reason why I was hearing speculation that while US soldiers were likely to pass out candy to young Iraqi children, they were not likely to part with the precious M&Ms that come in their MREs. I'm not sure that this information was integral to reporting on the war, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. No doubt it is a symptom of a world with weblogs that detail the tiniest facts about the lives of people in every profession, and a TV landscape pimping "reality" to its viewers as the next big thing. Incidentally, I saw broadcasts on TV and stories in the newspaper with images of Marines handing out their precious M&Ms and this last Wednesday the Arizona Republic featured a half page picture of soldiers in a sandstorm, with the one in the middle holding a bright red pack of skittles.

This website itself has grown faster probably than any other weblog. In its brief existence it has gone from a few thousand visitors a day up to having days with 100,000 visits and has on at least two days surpassed Glenn Reynolds' daily readership. In the circles where this stuff matters an eyebrow or two is raised. The strength of the weblog is supposed to be in the personal perspective of the writer of the weblog, with the most mundane posts often being the most important. But what has made this site unique is not personal perspective, or freely admitting and celebrating its biases. No this site is here to post about news, faster and with less opinion than any other site on the net. And the news filtered and posted here is not from one source or a limited pool of sources but from every source imaginable. Broadcasts from television and radio, websites, local newspapers, even reports on the spot in Baghdad are all included here daily. While Nic Robertson cools his heels away from the action, the blogoshpere still has a man on the spot reporting in Baghdad.

The point is not to praise this site or myself as a participant of it but rather to draw attention to the fact that a site has gained popularity by breaking away from accepted notions of what makes weblogs tick. The strength of weblogs in the future will come from how many people can do it and how quickly and from so many places. While a large media operation like CNN has to pay its godlike war correspondents equally divine sums for providing pixilated images of Iraq and for risking their lives, a weblog owner may broadcast similarly grainy images from their webcam with commentary and links to satellite imagery far cheaper and faster, and from anywhere in the world. And what little costs there are, like internet access, are costs that would have been incurred despite the weblog. Since you report from wherever you are you if that place just happens to be a war zone you haven't risked any additional danger to post to your weblog.

This phenomenon is not likely to be limited just to war coverage. Other promising sites stand poised to lead the charge in other facets of reporting. Political State Report, for instance, a weblog maintained by 90 writers in all 50 US states covers local political news and how local politics is affecting national political events. Already plans are in the works for the site to dominate election coverage in 2004 with the possibility of PSR contributors writing from the conventions and recording information on candidate visits to their state. I joined Political State Report because of the unique prospect it offered of a weblog independent of big media for reporting news. Nowhere however has the potential of a weblog been more obvious however than during war coverage.

We used to have a logo on our sidepanel that said The Command Post made CNN look like the school paper. I think more accurately sites like this make big media look like the school paper. A school paper is the perfect microcosm for what large media organizations do. My school paper published once a month or once every other month, was slow, reflected a myriad of behind the scenes power struggles including the ability of the school administrators to censor articles. Little journalist students trotted off after the principal with annoying and often purposely offensive questions and rarely was a balanced picture painted. Most media institutions like the newspaper or the evening news might as well be published every other month compared to the speed, accuracy, and variety of topics covered in the span of an hour on sites like these. And while the ticker on 24 hour cable news broadcasts repeats endlessly information from 6 hours ago, weblogs the world over are posting and commenting on only the freshest information. Weblogs may not replace big media but they seem set to outpace them. And although no writer may remain free of all their biases an unpaid volunteer is free of the biggest bias in the news business -- writing what sells.

Author Joseph Braude has just written a book "filled with all the wild possibilities of what a society as rich and diverse as Iraq could become after the war." Although he speaks Persian, Hebrew, and Arabic, and has lived in Cairo, Amman, Riyadh, and Tehran, and his family is from Baghdad and his great-great grandfather was the chief rabbi of Baghdad, the 28 year old American hasn't yet been to Iraq himself (a risky endeavor for an American Jew). He hopes to go soon after the war ends.

Some snapshots of rabbis and ministers and priests using their pulpits to speak in favor of and against the war. Clergy bloggers also weigh in.

PS Related: a historian of philosophy wonders"How, when and why did philosophy turn its focus from the probing of ethics to what seems today a cold measuring of utility?" and concludes: ""Between the adult who knows she won't find reason in the world, and the child who refuses to stop seeking it, lies the difference between resignation and humility."

Re: The Beeb should back our boys
Date: 28 March 2003

Sir - I agree with Barbara Amiel (Comment, Mar. 26). It is very depressing watching the BBC TV coverage of this war. At times, one could almost be forgiven for thinking that the coalition forces were losing, so biased is the presentation.

This is the time when everyone in this country should be both supporting our courageous Servicemen and women fighting in Iraq and helping to raise the morale of their families left behind. The BBC prides itself on being fair and accurate, but for us to have to sit through endless Iraqi television footage, which shows suffering mothers and babies in hospital, goes beyond the limit of fair broadcasting.

Our joint air forces are bending over backwards to avoid killing and maiming civilians, which in itself is putting them under increased strain and duress; it is also probably prolonging the war. It saps the morale of members of our Armed Forces, of their loved ones and, indeed, of the rest of us in this country.

One is left wondering what the BBC is trying to do. Is it on the side of our wholly non-political Armed Forces, who are fighting so hard, or, by creating "entertainment viewing" - which war is certainly not - is it trying to support the propaganda of Saddam Hussein?

From:
Brigadier Johnny Rickett, Union Jack Club, London SE1

___________________

The man is right, of course. BBC coverage is slightly less than actively hostile to the Allies and their efforts. I have witnessed at least three occasions where the host attempted to lead a guest into comdemning Allied actions whether it be on the war in general or on treatment of refugees.

A brief commentary on France's taste in terror alert colors

On the eve of this conflict, I expressed my thoughts and feelings:

...pity for the soldiers who must fight us, scorn for the now-defunct United Nations whose failure contributes to this, and prayers for a swift and total victory once we do begin.

Pity for our enemy. In comments and emails received in response to that statement, I discovered that many readers joined me in scorn for the international "community" and in prayers for a swift and peaceful end, but pity for the enemy was mostly lacking.

When I said I felt pity for the soldiers we were about to fight, I was not trying to be magnanimous, open-minded or even-handed. I saw then—and see now—that the lethality of the United States military machine is beyond the ken of most people on Earth, and is especially incomprehensible to those living in countries in which all they learn of America is a state-sanctioned lie.

Statements coming out of the Iraqi government ridiculously talk of "shooting down hundreds" of our cruise missiles, of inflicting "great casualties" on Coalition forces, of Baghdad becoming a "bloody grave" for the Anglo-American armies.

The press lately has agonized over how attacks by Iraqi "irregulars" are "bogging down" our plans and "jeopardizing" our supply lines. Pundits and statesmen alike second-guess the wisdom of our approach and the potential length of the conflict. A few in the west get so far up into the stupidsphere as to announce the impending "defeat" of America in this fight.

The reality, though, is that Iraqis are being herded from behind at gunpoint into the oncoming withering firepower of American Army and Marine forces by Baathist thugs who threaten to torture or kill their wives and children otherwise.

The reality is that the suicidal waves of poorly armed and evilly coerced civilians that break against our armored death machines are mowed down with no real effect on the overall progress of our war. Coalition forces refer to "irritants" and "target practice". There has been no single meaningful delay of any supply delivery anywhere on the battlefield so far, and no reason to think that there ever will be.

The reality is that the Coalition has suffered under 50 casualties (half due to accidents), between 100 and 500 Iraqi civilians have been incidentally killed by Coalition weapons, and thousands of Iraqi combatants have been mowed down, blown up or incinerated so far, with many more to come.

The reality is that these poor wretches sneak up on our camps at night, often unaware that every American soldier can see them as if it were broad daylight. They try to take advantage of sandstorms to reposition themselves, unaware that JDAMs don't care about visibility.

President Bush has repeatedly said that the outcome of this conflict is certain, and most people—at least in the West—realize that. We have repeatedly urged the Iraqi people to not fight on behalf of their doomed tyrant, not merely as an attempt to save American lives, but also out of recognition that every Iraqi who does take up arms will die pointlessly.

Yet some do take up arms. Some, as mentioned, are blackmailed and threatened, much as the "brave" Soviet soldiers in Stalingrad were. (Upwards of 19,000 Russians were killed during the battle, not by Nazis, but by their own officers). Many thousands of others have made a career for themselves these past few decades as the brutalizers, enforcers, torturers and rapists Saddam's state-run terror machine has needed to stay in control of its people. The former fight out of fear for their loved ones, the latter out of fear of reprisals from their own people; both die, often barely comprehending the utter uselessness of their actions in the face of a military power never before seen on Earth.

Nobody wants to talk about the Iraqi military casualties. For the Iraqi government (and for those opposed to America who would like to see us get a black eye ala Somalia or even Vietnam), the completely one-sided slaughter of Iraqi combatants is depressing and embarrassing.

For those who love America, the sheer power and lethality of our armed forces is so out of synch with the well-loved myths of "the struggling underdog" and of the "fairness of democracy" that such power becomes incomprehensible. There is too a contradictory tendency toward humility among many Americans: "We're number one!" and "We're no different than anyone else," are opinions frequently held simultaneously, whether "we" means New Yorkers, Northeasterners, Americans in general, or any other self-identifying American group. The reality of the difference between the American military machine and the forces of the rest of the world defies credibility.

By the way, it is entirely understandable, from the French point of view, to seek a way to chain or somehow counterbalance America's might. At the same time, I am an American and I know Americans: we are as utterly sincere in not wanting empire as we are vehement in insisting on swift and total victory against anyone who nevertheless insists on being our enemy. The only real damage we will ever do to France will be either accidental or in response to their hostility.

So Iraq is 100% certain to have a new government quite soon. The Iraqi soldier who, for whatever reason, takes up arms against the Coalition is about 90% likely to get shot or blown up while being about 0% likely to change the outcome of the conflict.

Don't get me wrong. This war is, as I see it, entirely in line with moral and civil law, as well as in our national interest. Further, given the choice, I would spare the life of an American soldier at the price of the life of an Iraqi soldier without a moment's consideration. Still, though, I have plenty of room in my heart for deep pity for those we must kill—both the coerced and the vile—who know not what they face.

[This originally appeared here.]

ONE STEP TREE & LAWN CARE SUPPORTS MILITARY FAMILIES WITH FREE LAWN CARE SERVICE

One Step owner Bob Ottley wanted to find a way to relieve military families from the extra burdens facing them while a loved one is on active duty.

"Providing free lawn care service is a small way we can help the families of our fighting men and women," explained Ottley. "Many of the families whose primary providers are on active duty sacrifice personally and financially. Maybe this will help take one chore off their shoulders."

To apply for the free lawn care service, call One Step at (585) 594-1095. Families must live within One Step's current service area, which includes all of Monroe and Genesee Counties and northern Livingston County.

I blogged about this earlier in the week. If you'd like to express your appreciation for this thoughtful gesture, their e-mail is info@onesteptreeandlawn.com.

Chuck Simmins

Protest for Peace, or Else!
(Thanks to Michele for the photo).

Over at Samizdata.net Perry de Havilland looks at Iraq's future and argues that no accommodation is either possible nor desirable with Ba'athist Socialism. He points out the differences in impact on society between external overthrow of totalitarian regimes such as Germany, Italy and Japan and gradual dissipation of communist totalitarianism in Russia, Eastern Europe caused by decaying security apparatus and invitable decline of marxist economies.

A 'De-Ba'athification' process is what must follow the destruction of Saddam Hussain's state. Mere membership of the Ba'athist Party must be taken as prima facie evidence that the person is unfit for any political role whatsoever and membership in the Fedayeen Saddam must carry with it a presumption of guilt for crimes. When an anti-Ba'athist Iraqi regime is in place, they must not only not be restrained from conducting their own systematic purging of Iraqi society, but must be required to do so.

There are, indeed, some important lessons to be learnt from both denazification of Germany and from developments in post-communist societies in Eastern Europe. Full article here.

I have a couple of entries on my site that are really too long for this site, I think, regarding Kofi Annan's recent remarks about the deaths in the market in Iraq and the idea of approaching the UN again. Saddam's barbarism is addressed as well as the UN's inexplicable lack of anger over it.

The Reader's Digest version is we should stay as far away from the UN as possible. It's an amoral organization and deserves no part in the reconstruction or administration of Iraq when the war is over. If you're interested, the posts are here and here.

Protesters in New York Stage 'Die-Ins' (washingtonpost.com)
Note how none of the protesters pretended that Saddam Hussein had just run them through a plastic shredder or cut their tongues out. Of course, impersonating ground beef isn't easy.

I've said it a million times: just because there weren't American forces attacking doesn't mean the Iraqi people were living in peace. Only the most obtuse would consider living under Saddam Hussein to be peace.

Sister Claire O'Mara, an 81-year-old Ursuline nun, stooped down onto the sidewalk in front of Tiffany's today, squeezed her eyes shut and assumed the death posture of an Iraqi victim killed in a bombing attack by U.S. forces.

"I just keep sending positive energies to Saddam Hussein and his people and to George Bush," she said as she meditated on the sidewalk to the chants "mothers mourn on both sides." Members of the women's peace movement Code Pink arced around her until police asked O'Mara to stand up or face arrest.

"I do not believe that war is the solution for any problem worldwide," she said.

While thousands of New Yorkers spent the past few months marching and chanting their opposition to the war in Iraq -- including at a rally Saturday that drew nearly 200,000 demonstrators -- protesting took a new turn today. New York police officers spent much of their day untangling traffic jams created by protesters who walked out, "died in" and chanted. By late today, police had arrested 215 protesters.

"This was the first large civil disobedience in New York since the war started," said Bill Dobbs, a spokesman for United for Peace and Justice, organizer of last weekend's protest. "That reflects a serious act when people literally put their bodies on the line for an issue."

Led by a group called the M27 Coalition, about 400 activists marched and "died in" on Fifth Avenue near Rockefeller Center during the morning rush hour, snarling traffic for two hours. Later this morning, a dozen Code Pink activists staged "die-ins" in front of Tiffany's and the Plaza Hotel.

It takes a lot to cause me to lose my equanimity. The atrocities by the fedayeen etc I can handle, having been inured to them over the years. But right now I'm feeling very emotional about one issue.

The BBC World Service has just signed Salam Pax's death warrant, live, on air, with a worldwide audience of millions.

Various bits of information about him have been on the web at various times in various places. So much that those of us that care about him were getting increasingly worried. But nobody had built up quite such a comprehensive dossier before, with all the pieces in one place. The BBC World Service then aired it, with the rather snide comment that he hadn't posted recently, and maybe the US Air Force had got him.

No mention of his less-than-complimentary remarks about Saddam, Uday etc and that he might just be in a hell of a lot of danger from some Ba'athist fanatics right now.

Should it be found out after this that Salam Pax had been liquidated as the result of this program, then I would be Upset with the people concerned. Miffed even. I think publicising the names and addresses of the people who deliberately did this would be in order. The same thing that's done for sex offenders. Or a charge of culpable homicide.


For once a rant I don't feel better about after making. And I truly, truly hope that on this one I'm 180 degrees wrong and end up looking like a complete idiot.

UN: Stay out of Iraq!

In tomorrow's Times of London British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon argues that the press acoounts of the war thus far don't show the big picture:

It may not be the journalist's fault: it is a reporter's job simply to report what he or she finds. But without being framed in a broader understanding of strategy, instant pictures can mislead. So while viewers may be "seeing" more than ever before, they may actually be "learning" less, albeit in a more spectacular way.

Those who saw the hectic pictures of a night-time infantry assault on an Iraqi-held position during the battle for Umm Qasr a few nights ago, for instance, will not easily forget them. What they may not have understood, however, is that the picture hid a more complex story. With our air superiority, we could have blown that building and other targets to pieces, but that would have run counter to our strategy of leaving the infrastructure intact for the Iraqi people, with whom we have no argument, to use after the regime falls.

i remember when American students backpacking abroad in the late 60s were advised to pretend to be Canadians. They were supposed to sew a little Canadian flag on their backpack.

It's all about flexibility and contingencies.

Imagine you had to get to a meeting by a certain time, and your transport was a clunky old car. To be prudent, you check the spare tyre, make sure the jack's in good condition, maybe some spare oil and water for the radiator, and carry a cell phone to get you out of bother. You also leave a good hour early, as there are reports of road closures in the area, though the weather forecasters say there's a possibility of a tailwind.

Imagine also that you're carrying a live-action reporter.

At first, things go way ahead of schedule, the forecasters were right - there's a tailwind, and you manage 55mph instead of your estimated 40, though 50 was what you were hoping for based on the forecast.

"Looks like this trip is going to be a cakewalk, eh General?"

"We'll see."

In fact, it's going better than you expected, but the tailwind (which you weren't counting on) drops, and you slow down to 45.

We'll never make it! This trip's gonna be a disaster!

"It's all going according to plan. A bit better, in fact."

You come to Turkey Road - which turns out to be under repair, as you'd thought it might be. No worries, you have a detour planned, though it will cost an extra 10 minutes. Quite a significant delay, but that's why you'd allowed an extra hour, for this and other contingencies.

Um... weren't we supposed to turn right there?

"Don't worry, it's all according to plan."

The Reporter shrugs and assumes that the matter was trivial, when it was actually quite a big issue compared with the rest.

Still to come: The planned stop at a Gas station - which we've already factored in to our estimated travel time. Will we get a flat tyre and lose 20 minutes? Maybe the radiator will need a top-up, and we'll have to stop for 5 minutes. Or the tailwinds will pick up again. The point is, Our main worry at this point is how to kill time in the estimated 55 minutes (the tailwind really helped) we have when we get to our destination. But that's OK, we've brought a book.

Ok, that analogy's strained about as much as it will take. But the next time someone in uniform says "It's all going according to plan.", you'll know what they mean.

In Philadelphia, antiwar activists are feeling a bit discouraged. I'm surprised at the reaction they've gotten; when I lived there, between the Quakers and the labor organizers and the anarchists squatting in abandoned West Philly Victorian houses, Philadelphia was a mecca for leftist activists of all stripes.

(Reuters)

That's my conviction, and I'm stickin' to it.

Successor Will Have to Fill Very Small Shoes

Newsmax says Hans Blix announced his retirement today. After July 1, he will neither be locating nor documenting Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

What a change.

Cross-posted: Little Tiny Lies.

An item from News Corp about the recent anti-war protests in Australia - some selections :

WITH bottles and knives in their hands and hate in their hearts, a mob of violent troublemakers yesterday ambushed a student anti-war rally to lead a vicious rampage through Sydney streets.

A group of young men, described by police as "Middle Eastern males", created havoc by throwing chairs, rocks, bottles, eggs and golf balls at police and media during several hours of chaos in the CBD.

Police also seized two knives from protesters, one of which fell on to the ground in the midst of a scuffle.
..

Australian Arabic community leaders condemned the violent clashes but rejected police claims the perpetrators were Middle Eastern men.

However, police countered that television footage clearly showed the majority of those arrested appeared to be of the same ethnic background.

I'd say that those Australian Arabic community leaders had better start waking up to themselves, or non-Muslims will start tarring them all with the same brush.

"Don't you understand this is a peace rally?" one girl screamed as sections of the crowd began to riot.
..

Samantha Ciano, 16, from Bass High was furious with the violence.

"They're making us look immature . . . they're making us look like stupid, immature people," she said.(Now that you mention it, Samantha... though people like yourself are an obvious exception. Even though only 16, you're neither - AEB)

"Some people think it's a joke but we want to get our point across and we can't do that by saying 'Howard is a wanker'." (NSS - AEB)
..
An organiser of yesterday's protest, university student Kieran Latty, 22, said he was pleased with the turn-out and believed the violence was "insignificant" (Today's Quick Quiz: Spot the Professional Agitator - AEB)

"In terms of the violence that broke out, it's completely insignificant to the violence Bush and Howard are inflicting on Iraq," he said.

He believed protesters were simply venting their anger by hurling glass bottles at police. (Mere high spirits. Right. Earth to Kieran : Society tends to vent its anger at those who wield knives and broken bottles by locking said people up for a long, long time. It's just our funny little way of expressing ourselves - AEB)
..
Then more anger, another flag burned. The culprit didn't know why he burned it and laughed it off with his friends.(Which says it all, really -AEB)

1. The ethical anti-war protestor, some stupid, some ignorant, but often just those with a different take on things than I have.


2. The professional stirrer, out to see the Blood of the Pigs spilt, while keeping their hands clean,


3. Islamofascist Wannabes (the ones with the knives),


4. And the Young Friveledged.

My posts will be dwindling through the evening and grinding to a halt. I'll be on the road for about 36 hours beginning sometime in the very early morning, and I wont be able to post. (I wouldn't even try this without broadband access, and I don't know what facilities I'll be able to hit.) I expect to be back in action sometime Saturday evening.

Beyond that, I'll just say that this is a remarkable experience, and that you have fully validated Michele & Alan's hailing of "the best damn bloggers in the world". It's been just slammin'.

Y'all hang tough, and I'll see ya.

France and Germany are beginning to ask themselves: After distancing itself from U.S. policy, what does Europe do now? Now the fingerpointing begins.

These last months, the government here was urgently in need of France to emancipate itself from the Americans without becoming isolated. Now, in the face of the great opportunities and enormous risks that will be presented in the Middle East after the war, it will be the right time for Germany to emancipate itself from France, which is bent on further obstructing the Americans."

. . . "We've taken the responsibility of breaking allied unity and relying on allies who don't share our values much. We've chosen, and deliberately, to divide our camp and to align ourselves with nations who don't belong to it" - a reference to France's axis with Russia and China.

From a comment on a thread in LGF:

America was in WW II when I was 14 -18 years old and I followed that war very closely. There was a pattern then and it seems to be evident now in the Iraq war. In WW II the same pattern prevailed in the Pacific and in No. Africa and Europe. There will be heavy fighting for a while during which the media say things are difficult and we may not prevail and then there will be a break through and the Allies would sweep ahead and the media would say the enemy seems defeated and then the advance would stop and the media would say that the Allies have been unable to overcome the enemy and the situation is serious.

This was repeated over and over and over and yet the media never got it right. If I could figure it out why couldn't they? I think the reason is that the media isn't interested in accuracy but only in sensationalism. During the Battle of the Bulge the media made it sound like the Germans were going to cut off large parts of the American army and cause a large defeat for us. The truth was the outnumbered Americans in that sector of the front were fighting like hell and were inflicting heavy losses on the Germans and soon brought the German advance to a stand still. Unfortunately, you can't get the truth until later.

It seems to me the war is going normally when you have an enemy that is willing to fight.

Slate today quotes Burkina Faso's L'Observateur's regurgitation of a common argument claiming to debunk American claims of liberating Iraq:

"Isn't this the same America that supported or even created dictators—indeed, including Saddam Hussein—that today touts itself as being able to bring liberty and democracy to the Iraqi people?"

First off, no, it's not the same America that supported anti-Soviet dictatorships throughout the Cold War. A key fact the anti-war movement either ignores or forgets is that Bush's America's global outlook changed dramatically after 9/11.

But more significantly, what's the argument behind this supposed hypocrisy in American foreign policy? The only logical extension to this position is that America, due to past decisions that may have been anti-democratic, should never support democratic movements in the future. Do we really want to seriously consider this proposition?

You try to be nice. You try to steer clear of French-bashing and you try to refrain from employing too many Nazi references in your writing. You remember all the great Frenchmen and Germans of history: Luther, Calvin, Bach, Dürer, Richelieu, Debussy, Wagner, Delacroix, etc.

You've been meaning to get to a collection of writings on the Dreyfus Affair by Emile Zola, the world's first anti-idiotarian and author of the single greatest letter to the editor ever written, J'Accuse. You try desperately hard to keep in the forefront of your mind the greatness of France and Germany. Then you run across this New York Sun article by Michael Ledeen:

Everybody knows that Turkey did not permit America to stage operations from Turkish bases, but hardly anybody realizes that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, the vote was not an Islamic protest against the American-led coalition,but an act of anti-American intimidation by France and Germany.

To take such action, Mr. Chirac must have conceived of a French future not only independent of the United States, but in open opposition to us.

In other words, vote the way we tell you to or forget about ever joining Europe. And they call us bullies.

I don't think the French and the Germans realize what they have unleashed in this country. There have been jokes here before but I have never seen the hostility toward Paris and Berlin that I have seen lately. Thusfar, American reaction has been relatively limited. But when the full extent of French and German cooperation with Saddam Hussein becomes known(particularly when we find Al-Qaeda links to Iraq) and when we realize how many American lives were lost because of that cooperation, American hostility will quickly become American venom.

We won't go to war with them, of course. That would be too easy. We will, I think, move German military bases east and shut both France and Germany out of Iraq. This will probably mean the end of NATO and the establishment of some sort of security alliance with eastern Europe.

France and Germany may think this will blow over shortly and that everything will go back to normal. But they may soon wake up in a world where the opinions of Warsaw, Sofia and Bucharest are far more important to the United States than the opinions of Paris and Berlin. It may be a generation or longer before the French and the Germans get back in America's good graces.

Cross-post: Midwest Conservative Journal

There has been much discussion on Blogwolves about why the Allies are avoiding the city of Tikrid. There are few obvious points. One is that it is the home city and stronghold of Saddam. It contains his tribe, Islamic sect and party colleagues, and thus has much to lose if he is overthrown. The town is probably heavily fortified to protect its inhabitants both from the allied military might and possible revenge from other tribes in post-war Iraq. There is no doubt a strong "irregular" contingent there that are fiercely loyal to Saddam.

All these factors lead me to the following conclusions. The allies will wait until after the defeat of Baghdad to try to take the town. More importantly the allies are leaving it as an "example" city. If Saddam or his people used WMDs on the allied troops or non-loyal Iraqi citizens the US will use a nuclear weapon on the city. Much as the allies used a nuclear weapon at the end of WWII, this will be a strong message to the remaining junta members that we are not afraid to pull out our big guns. This sort of "ultimate" shock and awe will convince the remaining fighters that is not worth continuing. It will also educate other rogue states that there is nothing in our arsenal that beyond use. If we have weapons, we must be willing to use them, otherwise what is the point?

More

AP: "Death to Israel" chanted across Mideast anti-war protests

A model of a US missile carried by the children read, "Bush's gift to Iraqi children."

"Today's march is a show of support from Lebanon's children to children in Iraq and Palestine against American terrorism," Hezbollah media chief Sheik Hassan Ezzedine told The Associated Press.

EXCLUSIVE COMMAND POST LATE-BREAKING NEWS UPDATE:
Israel is still alive.

Stop the presses! Arab News calls their story on the Bush-Blair conference an exclusive! Oooooooh.

I wonder how they managed to embed a journalist at Camp David. Anybody check the credentials of the caterers?

Furthermore, way down there at the bottom...

— With input from Agencies

Yes, it's an exclusive... with input from Agencies!

Today is the one-year anniversary of the suicide bombing in Netanya, Israel which killed and injured over 150 people.

Perhaps someone could explain to me why the Iraqi army is referred to as "resistance"? A Google News search for the term "Iraqi Resistance" returns 9,940 stories, mostly with scare headlines like:

Wounded US Soldiers Shocked at Iraqi Resistance

and

Sandstorm and Iraqi Resistance Make Push To Baghdad Tough

I may be paranoid, but it seems as though the media is trying to romanticize the Iraqi army with mental images of glorious WWII resistance groups. They are an army, not a resistance, and they are certainly in no way romantic. Using civilians as bullet catchers and executing unarmed POW's is barbaric, not the stuff of heroes defending their homeland. If the first casualty of war is the truth, then the media is complicit in it's death. Language and meaning are far too important for this kind of dishonesty.

Cross-post: Overtaken by Events

From IMRA, an example of the Red Cross forgetting portions of its charter with regards to its neutrality:

Israel Radio Territories Correspondent Avi Yissakharov reported this afternoon that senior Islamic Jihad terrorist Shadi Shuqiya was captured hiding in the offices of the Red Cross in Jenin last night by soldiers from the elite Egoz unit. Shiqiya was armed with a pistol at the time of his capture.

Two female Red Cross volunteers from American and Britain tried to prevent the soldiers from searching the facility, insisting that no one was there, but the soldiers stood their ground and captured Shuqiya along with his assistant.

When humanitarian aid begins to flow in through more and more NGO's and agencies, will the same disregard for neutrality be afforded to terrorist elements of Saddam's soon-to-be-former regime?

With combatants willing to dress in the uniform of the enemy or not at all, the danger of allowing undisciplined or callous neutrals may be too much to bear. When one is a neutral, one must be willing to protect that neutrality against those who would abuse it, or that neutrality is meaningless.

This is the Guy We Put in Charge of the World's Safety

Witness the genius of Hans Blix, regarding the speed with which coalition forces have turned up evidence of chemical weapons. He says Iraqis are more likely to cooperate with soldiers than UN inspectors.

Blix at work. Image credit: Arguing With Signposts.

Excuse me, Captain Obvious, but did it take seven days of bloodshed for you to figure that out? Do you think, in retrospect, that if you had any brains you might have propped your fat ass up in front of a microphone a month ago and said, "You know, we need to unite and go in there, because the Iraqis aren't going to talk while Hussein is in charge"?

Someone remind me why we haven't bulldozed the UN and built a nice park. Look at what our UN-subsidizing tax dollars have bought us. A chief weapons inspector so stupid he defends his organization by pointing out the very reason why it didn't work.

If this three-dimensional Dilbert character had made this fatal admission in time for the UN to do something about it, we might have been able to threaten Hussein with a much bigger coalition, and who knows whether the war would have been necessary at all?

Of course, that presumes that France and Germany and Russia would have demonstrated a little integrity and risked losing the multibillion-dollar business they do with Hussein's savages. That's about as likely as Helen Thomas offering Ari Fleischer a lap dance.

We were right, we were right, we were right. And we just can't say it enough.

Cross-post: Little Tiny Lies.

Mexico's UN ambassador sees the current mess as an opportunity for Mexico - which takes over as head of the UN security council next week.

He has also been making startlingly ambitious comments about the future of the UN, in a breach with Mexico's tradition of non-involvement in global affairs. "Mexico thinks it is necessary to revise and limit the power of veto," he said this week, adding that this would have to be in the context of a profound re-ordering of how the UN worked.

This was part of a longer post I did on the Future of the UN

Mike has written a great "open letter" to the anti-war types. It is well worth a read.

The Telegraph leader today tells it like it is; in their own blunt style.

The opening line says it all:

Who normally reconstructs a country after a war? The victors. Why, then, is it being suggested that the United Nations play a key role in the reconstruction of Iraq?

Indeed we owe nothing to UN, and they should not benefit from the reconstruction. They have, time after time, obstructed the allies from their given task and proved themselves incompetent and naive. The UN has bowed out, as its own choice, so it should not try to butt after it is over.

Such common sense from Rumsfeld will drive anti-war people nuts. When asked about a cease-fire, he said,

At some point the war will end. And it will end at that point where that regime does not exist. At that point there will be something of a cease-fire.

"Rumsfeld Rejects Any Cease-Fire in Iraq"

"The United Way says her anti-war views made her speaking engagement ''divisive'' and brought complaints."

Rush Limbaugh raised an interesting point on his show today. He was discussing the CENTCOM brief this morning, and specifically the question asked by the New Yorker's Michael Wolfe regarding whether or not General Franks will be giving more of the daily briefs, and whether or not it was even worthwhile for reporters to be there. Brig. Gen. Vince Brooks answered the question politely but firmly, saying "it's your choice."

Limbaugh's tongue-in-cheek logical take is something like this:

• General Brooks is Black;
• The question indicated that the reporters didn't want to hear him, but Franks instead;
• If a conservative reporter (say, from the Washington Times) asked the same question, the first thing the rest of the press would have pointed out was Brooks' race, alluding that the question had racist overtones, which means conservatives are really racist;
• Therefore, since Wolfe is from The New Yorker, a decidedly liberal publication, and other reporters actually applauded his question, they all must not want Brooks to brief them;
• Since Brooks is Black;
• Therefore, all those reporters are racist, and since most of them are probably liberals;
• Therefore, liberals are really the racists.

Makes as much sense as typical liberal logic.

I ran across this op-ed in, of all places, the Moscow Times. It deals with the Russian denials that they have supplied Iraq with weapons in contravention of U.N. sanctions. I honestly had to keep checking the URL to make sure I was in the right place:

Sanctions Busting Skeletons

I think we in the warblogging, pro-US sphere may be getting to some of the anti-war types. Either that, or they're stupider then I imagined.

Last week, after reading the news about the "Pukers for Peace" that hurled in San Francisco last week, I had a brainstorm, so I wrote and posted this. I will assume that those of you who read it will get the joke.

A few days later, I noticed in my referrer log that I had been linked from IndyMedia's San Francisco site and couldn't imagine why. I hit the link and discovered that someone named JohnnySporto had copied my post there, and added this comment as a preface:

I found this article from a link through the Command Post blog. From Attaboy, warning protesters of anti-protester backlash from war supporters.

That's why I added the comment under my original post on my site. Are these people really that dumb? Nevertheless, it's pretty funny to think that one of their troops thinks he's about to be pissed upon.

(Via the Associated Press)

After being booted from the floor of the NYSE, Al-Jazeera continues to defend its editorial stance to air footage of dead Coalition soldiers.

Responding to criticism for airing footage of dead U.S. and British soldiers, the Arab satellite television channel Al-Jazeera channel said Thursday it had a duty to show the world casualties on all sides in the Iraq war.

"War has victims from both sides," said Al-Jazeera's editor in chief, Ibrahim Hilal. "If you don't show both sides, you are not covering" the war.

On Wednesday, the popular Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera showed footage from southern Iraq of the bloodied bodies of two men in uniform identified as British soldiers.

"Having heard representatives of al Jazeera describe its supposed journalistic decisions and having seen many examples of what it offers, it is ever clearer that al Jazeera is, at its core, not a television news outlet but a propaganda tool, an entity that holds itself out as engaging in journalism but which fails virtually every journalistic test except pleasing some of its viewers by playing to their prejudices."

It may be a Potter Stewart-esque "I know it when I see it" claim to dismiss Al-Jazeerah in such a manner, over toast and orange juice, but after the war is complete the coverage of the war by said organizations will be examined carefully. I am confident that many arms of the Islamic Press will be taken to task for seeking shelter under the American First Amendment protections of a free press when many are without the necessary editorial claims to independence and journalistic principles, let alone following the standards of international law.

I post this in Op/Ed because it's unconfirmed.
A Ben Shapiro column on TownHall.com relays a report from a USAF officer in Saudi Arabia:

"He wrote that coalition commanders expelled French soldiers from his base late last week. The French had apparently been caught hacking into the U.S. secret computer system. Their rooms had been evacuated, and British and American troops were allowed to move their own belongings into the plush surroundings the French had previously enjoyed. The officer reported that the information was 60-70 percent reliable, as a couple of semi-reliable sources had corroborated the story."

Turns out Al Jezeera just can't catch a break this week. ISH, a german news site, is illegally broadcasting the feed over the internet and charging for it.

This was emailed to me by my sister in California, I felt it was worth putting up here:

Who's Smarter?

The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like "stupid" , "morons", and "idiots". Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American.

So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country? Let's look at the biographies of these "stupid", "ignorant" , "moronic" leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them:

President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic re-election victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998 winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern Republican other than Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. (Someone began circulating a false story about his I.Q. being lower than any other President. If you believed it, you might want to go to URBANLEGENDS.COM and see the truth.)

Vice President Dick Cheney: Earned a B.A. in 1965 and a M.A. in 1966, both in political science. Two years later, he won an American Political Science Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice President Cheney's primary duties is to share with individuals, members of Congress and foreign leaders, President Bush's vision to strengthen our economy, secure our homeland and win the War on Terrorism. In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice President Cheney regularly goes to Capital Hill to meet with Senators and members of the House of Representatives to work on the Administration's legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he has seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on the men and women of our military, and he is proud of the tremendous job they are doing for the United States of America.

Secretary of State Colin Powell: Educated in the New York City public schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he earned a Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY and received a commission as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further academic achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of numerous U.S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary degrees from universities and colleges across the country. (Note: He retired as Four Star General in the United States Army)

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: Attended Princeton University on Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval aviator; Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin (R-MI), 1957-59; U.S. Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to the President, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74; U.S. Ambassador to NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974; Assistant to the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White House Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77.

Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge: Raised in a working class family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to Harvard, graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year at The Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the U.S. Army, where he served as an infantry staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star for Valor. After returning to Pennsylvania, he earned his Law Degree and was in private practice before becoming Assistant District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress in 1982. He was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the U.S. House, and was overwhelmingly re-elected six times.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice: Earned her Bachelor's Degree in Political Science, Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. (Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science (Cum Laude). She earned a Master's Degree at the University of Notre Dame and a Doctorate from the University of Denver's Graduate School of International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are also in Political Science.) She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military. She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she resides in Washington, D.C.

So who are these celebrities? What is their education? What is their experience in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will defend to the death their right to express their opinions, I think that if they are going to call into question the intelligence of our leaders, we should also have all the facts on their educations and background:

Barbra Streisand : Completed high school Career: Singing and acting

Cher: Dropped out of school in 9th grade. Career: Singing and actingMartin Sheen: Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton. Career: Acting

Jessica Lange: Dropped out college mid-freshman year. Career: Acting

Alec Baldwin: Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal. Career: Acting

Julia Roberts: Completed high school. Career: Acting

Sean Penn: Completed High school. Career: Acting

Susan Sarandon: Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. Career: Acting

Ed Asner; Completed High school. Career: Acting

George Clooney: Dropped out of University of Kentucky. Career: Acting

Michael Moore: Dropped out first year University of Michigan. Career: Movie Director

Sarah Jessica Parker: Completed High School. Career: Acting

Jennifer Anniston: Completed High School. Career: Acting

Mike Farrell: Completed High school. Career: Acting

Janeane Garofelo: Dropped out of College. Career: Stand up comedienne

Larry Hagman: Attended Bard College for one year. Career: Acting

While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations, our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way as informed as our leaders.

These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our country. They only have a deep seated hatred for all things Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood elitists detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts the United States of America. The silence was deafening from the Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost, not a peep was heard from Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed, by freedom-hating terrorists, while going about their routine lives, they want to hold rallies against the war. Why the change? Because an honest, God-fearing Republican sits in the White House.

Another irony is that in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was in office, the Hollywood group aligned themselves with disarmament groups like SANE, FREEZE and PEACE ACTION, urging our own government to disarm and freeze the manufacturing of any further nuclear weapons, in order to promote world peace. It is curious that now, even after we have heard all the evidence that Saddam Hussein has chemical, biological and is very close to obtaining nuclear weapons, their is no cry from this group for HIM to disarm. They believe we should leave him alone in his quest for these weapons of mass destruction, even though it is certain that these deadly weapons will eventually be used against us in our own cities.

So why the hype out of Hollywood? Could these celebrities believe that since they draw such astronomical salaries, they are entitled to also determine the course of our Nation? That they can make viable decisions concerning war and peace? Did Michael Moore have the backing of the Nation when he recently thanked France, on our behalf, for being a "good enough friend to tell us we were wrong"? I know for certain he was not speaking for me. Does Sean Penn fancy himself a Diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks away from war? Does he believe that his High School Diploma gives him the knowledge (and the right) to go to a country that is controlled by a maniacal dictator, and speak on behalf of the American people? Or is it the fact that he pulls in more money per year than the average American worker will see in a lifetime? Does his bank account give him clout?

The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend to know what is best for an entire nation! What is even more bizarre is how many people in this country will listen and accept their views, simply because they liked them in a certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom!

It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate ourselves about the world around us. If future generations are going to enjoy the freedoms that our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever to know peace in their own country and their world, to live without fear of terrorism striking in their own cities, we must assure that this nation remains strong. We must make certain that those who would destroy us are made aware of the severe consequences that will befall them.

Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists and join hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is not real. We did not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire continent of Europe by simply talking to him. We sent our best and brightest, with the strength and determination that this Country is known for, and defeated the Nazi regime. President John F. Kennedy did not stop the Soviet ships from unloading their nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962 with mere words. He stopped them with action, and threat of immediate war if the ships did not turn around. We did not end the Cold War with conferences. It ended with the strong belief of President Ronald Reagan... PEACE through STRENGTH.

ArabNews: Civilians Slaughtered
This column is an outrage, an obscenity. The tortured logic of an amoral man, a cesspool of consequences without context, a dilution of the gene pool that Darwin somehow missed, the smoldering, reed-thin arguments of a writer still outraged. This missive from a single British journalist defies all logic -- more than 22 million Iraqi civilians could be sent to Courts of the Revolution for summary execution or run through industrial plastic shredders because the journalist who cares so deeply for them won't countenance the accidental deaths of civilians.

Robert Fisk is an embarrassment to the human race. Rational thought escapes him. He ignores the brutality of Saddam Hussein and the tyranny the Iraqi people live under. He instead focuses on accidents that cost civilian lives in the process of liberating a country from a tyrant.

How people like this can live with themselves is beyond me.

It was an outrage, an obscenity. The severed hand on the metal door, the swamp of blood and mud across the road, the human brains inside a garage, the incinerated, skeletal remains of an Iraqi mother and her three small children in their still smoldering car. Two missiles from a single American jet killed them all — more than 20 Iraqi civilians, torn to pieces before they could be ‘liberated’ by the nation which destroyed their lives.

Who dares, I ask myself, to call this ‘collateral damage’? Abu Taleb Street was packed with pedestrians and motorists when the American pilot approached through the dense sandstorm that covered northern Baghdad in a cloak of red and yellow dust and rain yesterday morning. It’s a dirt poor neighborhood — of mostly Shiite Muslims, the same people whom Messers Bush and Blair still fondly hope will rise up against Saddam — a place of oil-sodden car repair shops, overcrowded apartments and cheap cafes.

Everyone I spoke to heard the plane. One man, so shocked by the headless corpses he had just seen, could only say two words. “Roar, flash,’’ he kept saying and then closed his eyes so tight that the muscles rippled between them.

How should one record so terrible an event? Perhaps a medical report would be more appropriate. But the final death toll is expected to be near to 30 and Iraqis are now witnessing these awful things each day; so there is no reason why the truth — all the truth — of what they see should not be told.

Cross-posted on The Mind Of Man

WSJ.com - 'Universal' Insanity
Belgium's claim that it has universal jurisdiction and can prosecute "crimes against humanity" is ludicrous. If they ever try to go after Bush 41, Secretary Powell, Vice-President Cheney or Norman Schwartzkopf, they'll find themselves on the receiving end of a bombing campaign. We'll keep bombing until they recognize their jurisdiction is limited to their physical borders.

Belgium is a country full of surprises. These days it seems that, just when you think its stature on the world stage has reached a nadir, someone here will do something to drive the home of Tintin even lower in the league tables.

The latest stunt came last week with the filing of an accusation in a Belgian court that the civilian and military leaders of the U.S. at the time of the first Gulf War were "war criminals." Colin Powell, the first President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf are all among those named in the complaint.

Technically, the suit is being brought by seven Iraqi families, said to be relatives of victims of a terrible mishap on the nights of Feb. 12 and 13, 1991, when allied planes mistakenly bombed a civilian refuge, killing some 400. But in all but name, the suit is the brainchild of Patrick Moriau, a Socialist member of the Belgian Parliament and staunch opponent of the current war.

Apparently unsatisfied by the damage done to Belgium's relations with the U.S. by the country's recent shenanigans at NATO, Mr. Moriau decided to respond to the start of the allied campaign last Wednesday by orchestrating the filing of the Iraqis' suit the following day. Nor was he shy about the political motives behind the suit, telling the French press that the complaint was being filed now to send a message that any "war crimes" in the current campaign would be met with further legal action in Belgium.

So, what it is that empowers Belgium to try American leaders in a Brussels court for alleged crimes committed in Iraq? It goes back to a 1993 law by which Belgium arrogated to itself the supposed right of "universal jurisdiction" in the case of certain crimes against humanity. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon also faces trial -- after he leaves office -- under the same law. His crime was that Lebanese Christians went on a rampage against Lebanese Muslims in Lebanon while he was defense minister of Israel 20 years ago.

The thinking, if you can call it that, was that the oppressed people of the world would be offered a tribune in Belgium. Since the victims of crimes against humanity could not rely on their own courts to bring their oppressors or killers to justice, Belgium would fill the gap. That's the same Belgium, mind you, where Marc Dutroux, perhaps the world's most infamous accused pedophile-murderer, sits in jail untried seven years after his belated arrest. But never mind.

By the logic of universal jurisdiction, the downtrodden would be given their day in court, be allowed to stand up and face their oppressors and see them brought to justice.

In practice, of course, it's never worked that way. And never will. Belgium is a small country, and unless you happen to be invading France from Germany, it's easily circumvented. So the accused, unless they're unlucky enough to be passing through looking for chocolate when the charges are sprung and the police descend, are unlikely ever to see the inside of a Belgian jail cell.

I've managed to traslate some of the common termonoloy we've been hearing in the media, in order to assist with everyone's understanding of what's really happening. I've added a post on my site to explain it all. I also invite additions to the list and we'll update the glossary accordingly.

This month's The Atlantic magazine has an interview with Stephen Schwartz, author of The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror. Schwartz himself admits in the interview that he is a leftist, and some aspects of his responses to questions (especially the discussion of "big oil") reflect that. But it is overall a good discussion of how the potential for democracy in the Middle East is strangled by Wahhabism, and that Islam is not, on its face, anti-democratic.

I also found fascinating his insistence that the road to democracy in the Middle East must go through Saudi Arabia, including forcing the Saudis to come clean completely about the role of the country and its citizens - by name - in the 9/11 attack. And while I have come to almost reflexively bristle at the "it's about oil!" meme, I think we have to consider that some business relationships are going to be disrupted as a part of the need to clean out the rottenness of Wahhabism from the power structures in the Middle East. That's one of the costs of protecting this country, and I do think that some businesses would be willing to let the country ride the edge of risk for the benefit of continued business success.

I don't think driving an SUV contributes to terrorism. But I do think our ties with Saudi Arabia are too tight, and we have to be willing to make whatever sacrifices we need to on the home front to insure that our military doesn't have to go into another country in the Middle East. I want them home, and I want terrorism to stop. And the road goes through Saudi Arabia.

Matt Labash of The Weekly Standard has an excellent article about an interview with the Public Affairs Officer (PAO) of CENTCOM, . I was going to excerpt it and comment, but CPO Sparkey got to it first.

One issue that stood out to me was the dangerousness of reporters roving the battlefield areas all hot to cover the action, yet doing so without the Allied forces having any way of knowing whether or not this particular jeep or truck or camouflaged person is friend or foe. We are dealing with an enemy that may even be dressing in US uniforms and killing Iraqi civilians to make it seem the US is doing so. We're dealing with an enemy that dresses in civilian clothes, pretends to surrender and then ambushes our soldiers. These journalists have to accept the risks if they choose to enter a battlefield.

And Sparkey's point is my point: You run around a battlefield, you could get killed. This is not a movie set! You can't yell, "CUT!" when the action gets too ferocious or threatens provocative non-combatants. I'm very sorry for the journalists who get killed, but folks, they aren't heroes, they're foolish. Being a journalist does not give you a Protective Shield. And risking the safety of our soldiers to ensure the safety of some hot-for-the-action, I-don't-have-to-follow-rules journalist is not something I'm willing to encourage.

[Cross posted on cut on the bias]

I had been wondering this myself. Photodude has the evidence:
Using civilians (especially women and children) as shields - check.
Arming children and encouraging them to fight - check.
Trying to force the enemy to bomb heavily-populated urban areas and then painting the enemy as brutal - check.
Dressing soldiers as civilians - check.
Relying on the enemy's adherence to humanitarian codes to gradually wear them down - check.

An interesting article by John Keegan on civilian casualties.

(via Samizdata.net)

Lt. Smash is the pseudonym and weblog of a US soldier serving in the Gulf. Yesterday some folks hacked the comment section of a post which was an obituary to a fellow soldier who was killed early Sunday morning when two helicopters collided.

First, trolls started to swarm on the site leaving taunting and mostly illiterate messages, such as:

Lt, orders are not discussed, but have you ever thought whaddahell did daddy Bush and uncle Blair forget in Iraq? They want more oil, and descendants of past Presidents are to pay with their blood for their narrowmindness. Is it justice supreme? Have you found anything but a suspected chemical plant?

The saddest thing is that he sits in clean (?) White House having all he wants, while his 'onward-christian-soldiers' dig the sand searching for the pieces of late friends killed by Soviet twenty-years-ago-made missiles...

Then a troll set up a javascript which created popups whenever anyone opened the comments window, with messages such as STOP THE WAR and
YOU ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!

Finally someone figured out how to fix the problem and the site is okay now.

Great way to make friends and influence people.

If the United States ever threatens to bomb North Korea's nuclear facilities, one South Korean activist says he would try to send so-called "human shields" of civilians to protect the site from attack.

It's a whimsical idea: getting permission to enter North Korea is tough, even for its few sympathizers, and the Yongbyon nuclear complex is one of the most restricted military areas in a nation where travel is circumscribed.

(ABC News)

Another link from InstaPundit (they are all so good today): Satirical wire reports. Some headlines:

U.S. SUCCEEDS IN TOPPLING CONNIE CHUNG
Regime Change At CNN ‘On Track,’ Rumsfeld Says

IRAQ BROADCASTS HALF-EATEN SANDWICH TO PROVE SADDAM IS STILL ALIVE
But Former Mistress Doubts It Is Saddam’s Lunch

ARMY UNIT UN-IMBEDS GERALDO
Franks: Army ‘On Track’ to Remove Annoying Correspondent

FRANCE VETOES CHEMICAL WEAPONS FIND
Chirac Vows to Say No to Everything, Forever

From (whoda thunk it?) the Shanghai Star

If, on the contrary, following in the wake of Nazism and Soviet Communism, Islamism (the totalitarian perversion of Islam) is a coherent planetary threat to secular liberal civilization, this time crossing Nazi-style suicidal fanaticism with Soviet-style megadeath weaponry, then those substantially obstructing the US in this struggle are indeed "with the terrorists". Few seriously doubt that Iraq is a determined enemy of the US and a deceitful terrorist state, one manifestly obsessed with procuring weapons of mass destruction. Its alignment in the already ongoing world conflict is therefore beyond serious dispute.

The solution, for most of the world, is to shelter behind the illusion that the world is still at peace. This, even while the flames of Islamist terror - characterized above all by the indiscriminate murder of civilians - spread across the planet, fanned by international cowardice, irresolution and even complicity. After a decade of Clintonian appeasement, culminating in the Manhattan atrocity, the US has had enough of this.

Someone in the US actually understands Australia's position in all this. His name is Jacob T. Levy

(via the esteemed if sometimes OTT Tim Blair)

You know, with everything going as it is right now, I think I would have waited about six months or so before I said this.

(Guardian)

What a coincidence! Stefan Sharkansky of the excellent Sharkblog, who frequently links to and translates German media, has some comments on the Der Spiegel interview with Joschka Fischer.

German foreign minister Joschka Fischer gave an interview to newsmagazine "der Spiegel" that's worth a read. Fischer pays lip service to the "paramount importance of the transatlantic relationship" but spends most of the interview writing its obituary. He doesn't really cover any new ground but the fact that it's coming from Fischer, the only member of the Schröder government to place peacemaker, is significant. As someone with deep ties to both countries, this makes me very sad.

War is never a good thing because it causes extreme privation and damages material and spiritual civilization. Yet there are times when war is unavoidable. The Iraq problem didn't develop overnight but has dragged on since 1991 because Iraq has frequently violated UN resolutions and has secretly developed weapons of mass destruction.

Every time a problem arises, the UN depends on the US to act as a "global policeman" before Iraq will begin to toe the line. But Iraq always reverts to its former behavior. This time they were cooperating with UN weapons inspectors only because they had been squeezed like a tube of toothpaste by intense US military pressure.

(Taipei Times)

NPR's Melissa Block did a story today on college attitudes to the war at Georgetown (I'll leave aside for the moment the fact that Georgetown is hardly a "typical" American college). One student made a telling statement about BBC coverage. on All Things Considered. It's a radio segment, about the first 30 seconds or so into the segment.

This is a radio segment, so you have to listen. But there were students in a class who were participating in a war simulation via computer with some other students from a foreign country. One girl was supposed to be "saddam hussein." She mentioned during her remarks that she had trouble combatting the negative press, although the arab media was with her, and "The BBC coverage was helpful!" There was slight laughter in the background.

I am starting to get fed up. Fed up with the pessimism, the negativity and what seems to me a sub-conscious desire on the part of some people for this war to go badly.

Bill O'Reilly made some salient points in the beginning of his show last night. He said the NY Times was slanting the coverage of the war to fit with the view of its' editorial page. Here are the headlines that appeared on the same day on the front page of the Times:

"Iraqis Repel Copters; One Goes Down."

"GIs Regroup After Setback --Two Prisoners on Iraqi TV."

"Hussein Rallies Iraqi Defenders."

"The Goal Is Baghdad, but at What Cost?"

He contrasted that with the headlines from the Boston Globe:

"Coalition nearing Baghdad."

"War plan on course."

"Hunt for banned weapons."

"Strategy aims at heart of Hussein's rule."

Think about it. If reading the NY Times that day was the first time somebody read any coverage on this war, they would be led to believe that things were not going well, and it's absurd.

Coalition forces have suffered minimal casualties. There have been 20 or so killed in combat roles. I don't mean to casually dismiss the loss of these soldiers. There is no doubt that they have friends and family who love them and they will not be coming home alive, and that is a tragedy. But it does not mean we are suffering 'setbacks' or getting into a 'qaugmire.'

On the other side of that coin, coalition forces have killed over 1,000 Iraqi soldiers, and they have taken over 4,000 POW's. In less than one week, we are knocking on the door of Baghdad, have disrupted the Iraqi leadership and have taken over close to 75% of the country. The Iraqi military is so disorganized that they attempted to leave Bazra en masse during the daylight hours. One coalition officer described it as a "suicide mission." The Iraqi soldiers did not surrender, so they were attacked.

Part of the problem is the media immediately accepting anything a military 'analyst' has to say simply because the person used to be in the military. You know what? Contrary to popular opinion, soldiers can be biased like anybody else and it isn't out of the realm of possibility for them to allow that bias to get in the way of their analysis. Wesley Clarke has been making more media appearances these days as he tests the waters for a possible presidential run in 2004. He was critical of the administration. That traitor Scott Ritter, a former Marine has said the United States is going to lose this war. Granted, he is a more extreme example, but you can see what I am getting at.

We've been at this war for a week, and thus far, we have done everything we have set out to do. I think it is an insult to the men and women who are serving our country in Iraq to make it appear as though they are in trouble in this conflict.

Here's a preview and pre-analysis of the coming battle between the Third Infantry Division and Saddam's Republican Guard.

THE BBC'S OWN DEFENSE CORRESPONDENT: Assails the anti-war spin of the Beeb's own coverage. In a leaked memo, Paul Adams blasts his own editors. This story is from The Sun:

On Monday, [Adams] wrote from US Central Command in Qatar:

"I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering significant casualties. This is simply NOT TRUE. Nor is it true to say, as the same intro stated, that coalition forces are fighting guerrillas. It may be guerrilla warfare, but they are not guerrillas."

Adams memo was fired off to TV news head Roger Mosey, Radio news boss Stephen Mitchell and other Beeb chiefs. It adds stunning weight to allegations that BBC coverage on all its networks is biased against the war.

In one blast, he storms:
"Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving small victories at a very high price? The truth is exactly the opposite. The gains are huge and the costs still relatively low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected."

The BBC has come under attack for describing the loss of two soldiers as "the worst possible news" for the armed forces. "

It makes Katie Couric look benign. Of course, some of this is due to the hyped expectations for the war which the administration didn't do enough in advance to quell. But that doesn't explain all of it.
- 2:23:10 PM

Am I now compelled to pass judgment on the progress of the war? Take it in weight and measure, and decide whether it is progressing ahead, on, or behind schedule? Shall I take “quagmire” in one hand, and “cakewalk” in the other? Is this really what we’re doing now?

All I know about this 7-day old war is that we’ve has 25 American casualties and 20 British. Civilian casualties are lower than any war in modern history. We control the only port in the country. We control the sky. Our amour columns are idling 50 miles outside the enemy capital with their engines running and their guns loaded. So how well is the war going? Well, compared to what? It’s hard to find a quantifiable measurement by which the war is going anything but swimmingly. But than again, quantifying the success of a war that’s only a week old is a tall order. Especially since, as any embedded reporter traveling with the US military will tell you, specific tactical details are to be avoided.

Left with no actual facts to report, and 24 hours a day to fill, the media had to start looking for alternative angles early on. In true journalistic fashion, that angle of course took the contrarian position – that we were all wrong in thinking the war would be easy. That we’ve had our “worst day so far” in the battle, (compared to the two days before it). That Bush has ‘warned’ American’s the war may take longer than expected.

Dead Americans. POWs. Revised estimates. Changes in the plan. My god… it’s all falling apart.

They then let these doom and gloom predictions hang in the news cycle for a day, followed promptly by an opinion poll which predicts, shockingly, that people’s opinion about the course of the war has become less optimistic. I wonder what accounts for that?

Just now, I actually heard CNN anchor #1 ask CNN anchor #2 whether it was possible that media coverage may have affected people’s outlook on the war. She said it straight-faced, as if there was actually another explanation. Like there was a single solitary source of people’s outlook on the war besides the media. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t get hourly Pentagon briefings. The media is the only game in town to get a sense of our progress. Why bother to poll people on questions when you alone are providing them with the answers beforehand?

I remember hearing that during the campaign, George W. Bush commented that people thought he was so poorly spoken, all he had to do to impress them was show up somewhere and say “Hi, I’m George Bush”.

Bush won, and continues to win, the expectations battle for his presidency. All he’s has to do to maintain approval is best people’s rather low expectations of his abilities. It is the manipulation of these low expectations that have carried Bush thus far. He doesn’t have to be exceptionally smart; he just has to be smarter that his enemies think he is.

The problem with this war, if indeed there is one, it is that the expectations battle was lost as soon as it started. Since the implicit assumption in any media report is that the US military will overwhelm Iraq, there was no point in speculating about such matters. Instead, the public has had 14 months of pre-war debate during which that clearly correct assumption has grown and evolved into the belief that the military would simply march into Baghdad unchallenged, that they would cast aside the enemy like so many gad-flies. The public has been prepped by the media to hold an impossibly high expectation of the war. So much so, that any casualties whatsoever are tantamount to failure. That the Iraqis actually shoot back is shocking, and makes us doubt every assumption we held about our military superiority.

The new standby phrase on CNN is “surprising level of Iraqi resistance”. The Pentagon isn’t surprised. I’m not surprised. I don’t know who is surprised, but they refuse to give up the idea that any resistance at all is surprising. The latest story is that Bush has cut a phrase out of one of his speeches, in which he praised the war as proceeding “ahead of schedule”. Just being on schedule, instead of ahead of it, is a cause for concern in the media. Just as President Bush needs only to string a sentence together to appear intelligent, the war needs only to be going exactly according to plan to be in danger. We are expecting the exceptional, and troubled when we only get the expected.

This sort of mindset is not just stupid, it is dangerous. The only thing that can make this war more difficult now is the perception that it is becoming another Vietnam. Having the bottom fall out of public support for continued combat is the Administrations worst nightmare. But this is not Vietnam. Vietnam took a decade and 58,000 dead Americans before it ran out of steam. That’s a far cry from 25 US casualties over 7 days. When the president says we must be prepared for a longer war, he’s talking about weeks, not months. (Where have I heard that phrase before?)

They say this is a TV war, being fought live on screen. But as is always the case, there are really two wars being fought – the one we see, and the one we do not. The only difference this time around is that people think the war they see is the real deal, and that it’s currently rife with failures, mistakes, and ‘surprising Iraqi resistance’. This is indeed the first war ever fought on live on TV, but it may also become the first war won on the battlefield and lost on television.

Re: Inglorious war
Date: 26 March 2003

Sir - I am presently held on remand for taking action to attempt to disarm a B52 bomber at RAF Fairford last week. I am concerned at the victorious tone adopted in many of your articles and indeed in most reporting of the tragedy in Iraq. Such celebrations of military might conjure romantic scenes of Second World War heroics but serve only to deepen acceptance of military, rather than diplomatic, solutions. War is horrific, and should be reported as such.

From:
Philip Pritchard, HMP Gloucester

______________
Come on guys? Are there any guards on our B52s? Well at least the guy is in prison. Let's hope he doesn't get out for a very long time.

"War is horrific", wow this guy is a freaking genius. Of course, war is horrid that is why it's last resort you fool.

I think the future of democracy in Iraq may well be the Iraqi immigrants now living in Western democracies. I have quite a bit to say about that on my site; it's a bit long, I think, to post here.

Re: Anti-war protests led by Communist
Date: 26 March 2003

Sir - Having raised the curious case of Andrew Murray, "chair" of the Stop the War Coalition, in the Commons last week, may I add to the excellent report (report, Mar 22) by Philip Johnston on the role of communists at the head of this anti-war organisation?

The idea that huge numbers of sincere protesters are allowing themselves to be led by a supporter of a nuclear-armed North Korea beggars belief - but that is what is happening.

More

Not sure if this is appropriate for this forum, but I just heard of a fantastic way to support the troops. A local (NW Arkansas) video rental chain, Take Two, is running radio ads that say they will forgive all late charges, no matter how much, for a $10 donation. The money will then be given to charities that help the families of servicemen. So much for the "heartless businessman".

Southern Iraq :: Clive Myrie :: 1923GMT
A number of vehicles in this Iraqi column of armour have been hit by Coalition jets. The attacks from the air and ground have been going on now for over two hours.
This was after a huge column was seen to be leaving the south-eastern approach roads of Basra heading towards our position down on the Al-Faw peninsula.
Coalition planes are using thermal imaging and night vision so they have an advantage over the Iraqis.
At the moment it would seem the Iraqis are sitting ducks.

In view of Scott Ritter's moronic pronouncements of late, made in a desperate effort to artificially extend his expired fifteen minutes of fame, I am posting an anti-Ritter piece I wrote in January. It appeared on my blog, Little Tiny Lies.

The Head is Severed but the Snake Still Thinks It's Alive

Former celebrity/future mall security guard Scott Ritter, having learned nothing from the prolonged death throes of Trent Lott, is now trying to B.S. his way out of the scandal that, by next week, will have permanently ended his shameless tap-dance in the American consciousness. Just found out from the Cracker Barrel Philosopher, proprietor of countrystore.blogspot.com, who has a lovely Photoshop on the subject.

I chose my words carefully before when discussing Ritter, not wanting to draw any more conclusions than the known facts warranted, but now it's time to take the gloves off. Like a fish flopping its last against the uncaring sides of a cooler, Ritter is doing his best to escape the cold hand of impending oblivion. Every creature does what its basic nature directs. Boated fish swish their tails. Ritter lies.

And before I go on, remember. The truth is the only product Ritter has to offer. That's the whole justification for his fifteen minutes of fame: Scott Ritter claimed he was telling the truth and George Bush was lying to us. The second his credibility is tarnished, he becomes as worthless as Bill Clinton's wedding band, and there is no longer any reason for anyone to focus a video camera on him or give him access to a microphone. Think about that as you read this.

In the story linked by Country Store, MSNBC's John Allen (who?) adopts Ritter's lie as his own, possibly in an effort to hose some of the dried DNA off of Ritter's soiled reputation. Wonder who Allen voted for in 2000.

Says Ritter, deceitfully, "The case was dismissed. Therefore it never happened. I stood in a court of law, before a judge and an assistant district attorney, and they dismissed it."

Says Allen, prefacing the above remarks, "The case went to court where it was later dismissed and sealed -- meaning in the eyes of the court it never happened."

Okay, first let's congratulate John Allen for being the hard-hitting journalist that he is. Not every reporter would be bold enough to take an interviewee's defensive words at face value and then PARROT them almost verbatim. Kudos, John, you're a class act. You're not a brainless communications major who shouldn't be allowed to edit the weekly newsletter for the local garden club, or anything like that.

Now let's pretend Allen made that deceptive comment because he's an ignorant layman. Let a lawyer tell you what he didn't say but should have.

Another story, from the God-blessed Washington Times, adds a few details Allen either didn't know or didn't think we needed to know:

"Ritter was arrested for attempted child endangerment, a class B misdemeanor, but Ritter's attorney and a Colonie Court judge agreed "to adjourn the matter in contemplation of a dismissal," according to the Schenectady Gazette.

Generally, if there are no more allegations against the defendant for the next 6 months, the case is dismissed and the record sealed. According to WTEN-TV, Ritter underwent court-ordered sex offender counseling from an Albany psychologist."

Allen's characterization is misleading for two obvious reasons.

1. If the court felt that Ritter's alleged crime "never happened," it would deliver a final judgment releasing Ritter from jeopardy. The judge and prosecutor might even apologize. It would not "adjourn" the matter and put Ritter on a form of probation for 6 months. It would not force him to attend counseling sessions for dangerous perverts, which is what this court did.

2. Ritter calls what happened to him in the courtroom a dismissal. Simply put, that's a damn lie. A lie of omission. It was eventually dismissed, but the first time around, the court thought the case was strong enough to justify leaving it open for six months. A dismissal is permanent. And dismissal does not mean you're innocent. It just means the court or the prosecutor thought the case shouldn't go forward. Maybe a witness chickened out. Maybe the prosecutor thought you had learned your lesson (Scott). There are many reasons why a court might dismiss a case against a guilty defendant.

Ritter is right if he means he can sign a job application that says he has never been convicted of a sex crime. But Ritter could never legally swear he was innocent, which is essentially what he's telling us.

I'll tell you what appears to have happened. Scott Ritter tried to get an underage girl to masturbate for him. He was so clearly guilty, because of the recorded computer evidence, that he was afraid to go to trial. So he made a deal with the court. "I'll go for pervert counseling, I'll be a good boy from now on, and you withhold adjudication." And the court said, "Fine, Scott, we don't want a misdemeanor to ruin the life of a man with a family to support, but if we catch you chasing jailbait again within 6 months, this case comes back to life, and we put your ass in jail."

What's the alternative explanation? Scott Ritter did nothing wrong. He never tried to get a detective posing as a girl to meet him and masturbate for him. But for some reason, the police went to Burger King one day and waited around to arrest him, and for some other inexplicable reason, Scott drove up on that very day and went inside. Small world. When he appeared before the judge, the judge and the prosecutor said, "Scott, you've done nothing wrong. But just to be a pain in the ass, we're going to force you to undergo pervert counseling and we're going to hold this case open for 6 months so we can prosecute you later if you try to have sex with any more little girls. Even though you haven't done that yet." And Scott's lawyer stood there like a potted plant, and instead of threatening to report the prosecutor to the Bar and the judge to a judicial conduct board and the cops to whoever regulates cops in New York, he said, "Gee, Scott, that sounds like a great deal for a guy who is completely innocent. I think you should take it."

Is Scott Ritter lying about Iraq? I don't know. He's definitely lying about his criminal case, unless he's so stupid he completely misunderstands what happened to him in court.

In a court of law, the state has the burden of proving a man's guilt. But Ritter is no longer in a court of law. He's in the court of public opinion, and the press has made a powerful prima facie case against him, and the burden is on Ritter to refute it. If he wants his fame and potential wealth back, he'd better come up with some evidence. The prosecutor should still have a file; Ritter's attorney should have received the same evidence during discovery. Let Ritter publish it so we can decide for ourselves. Or maybe we should send inspectors into his house to search his hard drive. Of course, they'd have to be better inspectors than Ritter, who knows Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction, five years after he quit looking, because the Iraqis have honest faces.

You know what Gomer Pyle said. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Never mind the George Bush version. If we can't trust Ritter about his arrest, should we listen to him when he talks about Iraq? Especially when he's getting rich for doing just that, largely on the dime of an Iraqi businessman?

I don't know about you, but I'm a lot smarter than Gomer Pyle.

I'm almost sure of it.

How does the antiwar crowd respond to Iraq's public executions and mistreatment of captured U.S. POWs?

By calling for the "killing" of the Geneva Conventions. Says "Daily KOS": "it's time to acknowledge that neither side gives them much heed. The latest US violation is the bombing of Iraqi television in an attempt to stiffle [sic] Saddam's propaganda efforts."

So not only does Saddam deserve freedom of the press, we should provide his x-rated content.

In a feeble attempt to acknowledge concerns about torture of POWs if we indeed dumped Geneva, KOS claims POWs would still be protected by the UN Convention Against Torture. "Violating these rules are Crimes Against Humanity, and can be fully enforced post-conflict."

Uh-oh #1: KOS didn't notice that Iraq has never signed said UN Convention (the US has, although Congress hasn't ratified it--which is understandable, considering our justifiable suspicion of UN effectiveness and governance. Iraq would probably chair the committee.)

Uh-oh #2: Enforcement by the UN?

Uh-oh #3: Reliance on post-conflict enforcement presumes the violator will still exist.

Headlines are written with the strictest economy placed on the words used. In the Ha'aretz piece 14 civilians killed in Baghdad; humanitarian aid arrives, I think there is a word missing from that headline: Just.

As in: Just 14 civilians killed in Baghdad.

The world press continues to miss the painstaking effort that the Pentagon has taken to target only military targets and that Saddam Hussein has purposely placed military targets among civilians or covered them with human shields.

Not that you could tell in any of the stories in the media, of course. Where Reuters always lists a scoreboard of the dead Palestinians and Israelis since whatever label they've slapped on September 2000 (uprising for nationhood, riots after Sharon's visit to the temple mount, Los Angeles Lakers victory celebrations), then the major news agencies could come up with a similar disclaimer or mitigator to follow all stories of civilian casualties among the Iraqis.

Another important thing to remember: not all Iraqi "civilians" are civilians. Some of them are armed loyalists trolling for Coalition soldiers to kidnap, others are dressed in civvies during deployment to the fronts, and so on. The lack of a uniform does not necessarily mean that an Iraqi is not a combatant, as several journalists have discovered... right before they were shot.

If this truly were an indiscriminate firebombing of the city to obliterate its military threat without any compassion for the civilians, that number could be used to describe the number of survivors. We have the means. We have the technology. We can unbuild it.

But we aren't. We're expressing more of a compassion for the Iraqis than they do for themselves.

With our luck, one of those survivors would be Robert Fisk. Just as Kurt Vonnegut crawled from the ashes of Dresden, we'd see Fisk crawling out of the twisted glowing wreckage of Baghdad, tossing back two aspirin and filing the mother of all survivor's guilt stories.

Yes, it's a sad thing that 14 civilians have died. But as morbid as it seems, we need to see the positive in the effort that was taken to prevent even those 14 deaths.

Dissident Frogman magnificently fisks outpourings of several 'human shields' about their belated emotional blossoming...

A longish posting but well worth the read, it reminds me of why I support the US and the UK in taking on Saddam and makes the suffering and deaths of American and British soldiers more meaningful, if not less painful.

And what really upsets me is that, consequently and as always, it's the silent, the weak, the downtrodden, those who stand next to the common graves, waiting for the bullet, those who die slowly, feet first in plastic shredders, screaming in inconceivable pain, those who are forced to watch their wives raped or their children tortured, or those who are "just" condemned to a life in misery and deprivation of their most basic rights who are sacrificed while the anti-war movement is dancing to Samba music in the streets, enjoying a grand day out with elaborated costumes and signs in the comfort of a democratic state that guarantees their right to criticize it without reserve.

Unfortunately, I also have to agree with Dissident Frogman in his last bitter paragprah as there is indeed an unlimited supply of simpletons for many more rounds in Iraq and elsewhere:

The freedom of the Iraqis is closing now, despite the "anti-war" efforts, and Daniel's emotional blossoming won't change a thing.

I'm way more concerned with the fact that when this is over and when the coalition of the willing starts to deal with other declared threats, using force or not, I'm pretty sure there will be an Iranian student or a North Korean citizen with nothing but grass to feed on, that will end up hearing "Bush bad, war bad" with an expression of incredulity, just before the "I'm not with the CIA - I just can't help you" tagline comes out.

And that really upsets me.

(cross posted on OverSpill)

Al-Jazeera got "the boot" by NYSE recently. According to the "party line" of the exchange officials "Al-Jazeera's credentials had been revoked as part of a reorganization of media positions". Nevertheless, it seemed to be the only network who fell to "cutback" cited by NYSE management. As the timing of this coincided with the network's contraversial broadcast of American POWs this weekend, most of the traders on the floor were confident that was the catalyst for the network's expulsion. However, when they found out the "official" story, it was just shrugged off as a non-event anyway. According to "The Sun" (print version), one of the traders was quoted as saying:

"While I believe in the importance of the freedom of speech, I just think that freedom shouldn't be necessarily practiced on the exchange floor".

Update: Network's problems continue.

BBC reports:

In the American view, the United Nations, whose reputation is not exactly high in Washington, should play an essentially humanitarian role. Britain would prefer the whole reconstruction effort to be given legal authority under a new Security Council resolution.

However the British hope for a UN umbrella has already run into opposition from the French, Russians and Germans who have no intention of legalising a position they regard as illegal.

I am getting increasingly annoyed with Blair's persistent dragging in the UN as if it had not demonstrated, many times, its irrelevance and realpolitik nature. I can only 'rely' on the obstreperous French, Russian and German to make it impossible for Blair to achieve that. For some reason he feels that only an internationally accepted plan to rebuild Iraq will allow him to claim that it was a war of liberation not occupation.

I have no idea how a bunch of hypocritical, amoral and shamelessly self-obsessed politicians could bestow any moral or other justification on the US and the UK and their taking on the responsibility to remove Saddam's regime. These are the peple who say that "since the legal government of Iraq is still in existence, nothing should be done to undermine it!"

Ralph Peters (Washington Post, via Sydney Morning Herald) argues that against monsters who know they're going to be lynched by an enraged populace, trying to get them to surrender is futile.

The best way to shock and awe an enemy is still to kill him.

An interesting analysis of several issues that have been puzzling many 'armchairs generals', including retired warriors, who have been calling military reporters to express their concerns there is only one heavy division committed to the battle; concerned only 250,000 personnel are undertaking the war when more than 500,000 were required to expel Iraq from tiny Kuwait in 1991; concerned there is not enough artillery; and concerned there is not yet a northern front to attack the Republican Guard divisions north of Baghdad.

It is a puzzling strategy to former generals and to an increasingly military savvy public reared on traditional land warfare, where a line on the ground (referred to in the Pentagon as FLOT, or forward line own troops) is moved forward as the territory behind it is occupied and held.

The changes from previous military strategy include accepting more tactical risk to reduce long-term strategic risk; using air dominance to make the battlefield three dimensional; and selecting the least number of critical targets to get the maximum impact on the enemy's will to fight.

The tactical risk is that which troops accept on the battlefield. Certainly they would be safer with more heavy divisions than less, with more artillery than less, with more soldiers than less. More important to Pentagon and Central Command planners is reducing the strategic risk. They do not want to win the war just to lose the peace afterward.

Rumsfeld is aware of the criticism leveled at him but he is unmoved by it.

"I can't manage what people - civilians or retired military - want to say. And if they go on and say it enough, people will begin to believe it. It may not be true, and it may reflect more of a misunderstanding of the situation than an analysis or an assessment of it, but there's no way anyone can affect what people say. We have a free country. In Iraq, they can affect what people say because you get shot if you say something they don't like. We don't do that."

Miranda Devine in the Sydney Morning Herald sums it up:

The philosophy of moral relativism, or situational ethics, which has infected the universities, media and institutions of the so-called intellectual classes, is now in danger of crippling the ability of Australians to make the choice between right and wrong in the most important conflict most of us have faced. Nowhere this week has this choice been more starkly highlighted than in the story of the US soldiers killed and taken prisoner by Iraqis near the southern city of Nasiriyah.
...

If they really want to help the people of Iraq, protesters should keep their powder dry until after the war is won, and then make sure the coalition of the willing spends the time and money to rebuild Iraq for the benefit of Iraqis. That would indeed be the triumph of good over evil.

Russia has reasons for its behavior at the UN and in Iraq.

The Moscow elite feels that Washington is using the Iraq situation to forcibly jam Russia into its geopolitical and economic plans, something that has been going on for the past year.  It is said in Moscow, at times sincerely, and at times cynically, that the degree of Russian support for America's overall strategy and indeed, the durability of the Russian-American partnership directly depends on the number and size of the "treats" that should be provided from overseas.

> Thomas Friedman argues there are six measures of success for this war. I agree with all of them but #4, and have a slight quibble with #2.

I am not opposed to an independent Kurdistan emerging from this war. The Kurds are in no real way "Iraqi" and they have a right to national self-determination.

I agree that the war will not be successful without the removal of Saddam from power. It does not, however, follow that this is therefore "a war against one man." If Saddam were removed but one of his sons or cronies emerged as the leader of a Saddam-like regime, this war would still be a failure. The war is about regime change first and disarmament second--the opposite of the way it has been portrayed.

With those exceptions noted, I believe we will indeed achieve each of Friedman's goals. Military victory is a given, only the cost in blood and treasure is uncertain. And Friedman's scorecard seems to be one that the Coalition is using as well.

Poor Anne Garrels. She's in Baghdad and just reported to Bob Edwards that she has lights and running water. However, she doesn't have a shower, just a tub, and while the water is hot, it seems to be an unpleasant color. Oh, the humanity! When I think of the sacrifices these intrepid reporters make to bring us their completely objective opinions, it brings me near tears. I hereby announce my new, one man crusade: Evian for Anne!

A retired U.S. Army colonel with years of experience observing and advising Arab military forces explains. He cautions that it is all too easy to attach intellectually lazy stereotypes to other societies, but argues that culture must be understood to explain how different armies fight.

John Keegan, the eminent historian of warfare, argues that culture is a prime determinant of the nature of warfare. In contrast to the usual manner of European warfare, which he terms “face to face,” Keegan depicts the early Arab armies in the Islamic era as masters of evasion, delay, and indirection. Examining Arab warfare in this century leads to the conclusion that the Arabs remain more successful in insurgent, or political, warfare — what T. E. Lawrence termed “winning wars without battles.” Even the much-lauded Egyptian crossing of the Suez in 1973 at its core entailed a masterful deception plan. It may well be that these seemingly permanent attributes result from a culture that engenders subtlety, indirection, and dissimulation in personal relationships.

Along these lines, Kenneth Pollock concludes his exhaustive study of Arab military effectiveness by noting that “certain patterns of behavior fostered by the dominant Arab culture were the most important factors contributing to the limited military effectiveness of Arab armies and air forces from 1945 to 1991.” These attributes included over-centralization, discouraging initiative, lack of flexibility, manipulation of information, and the discouragement of leadership at the junior officer level.

I found this link on One Hand Clapping, where someone added a comment explaining the success of the Israeli army against numerically superior Arab forces. (Scroll to the last comment.)

It will probably come as a surprise to most readers, but the support for the war in Iraq is decidedly lukewarm here in Australia.

In the US, 70% of the Congress supported Bush once war had been declared.

In the UK, Blair managed to get a 3:2 vote in favour before war was declared.

In Australia... John Howard managed to get a motion in favour of the war passed in the lower house. A vote strictly along party lines, carried by a mere handful of votes. In the upper house, the same motion was lost, again on party lines, again by a handful of votes.

Before war was declared, over 50% of the populace were against the war, since it had no unequivocal UN backing. Even now, support for the war would be less than 60%, probably more like 55%. Though the pictures of POWs executed by the Iraqis might just have boosted these figures significantly. Had the UN Security Council done its job and affirmed its determination to mean what it said, support was 70%, which is where I think it will end up eventually. But it didn't, and that has led to much soul-searching here.

What I'm saying is that, although everyone has commented on Blair's courage and leadership, it's John Howard who's really required a lot of political courage in this situation.

As for the Opposition... Simon Crean, in a major blunder, refused to affirm that he wanted the Coalition to win when asked directly, literally seconds after the news came in of the first shots being fired. The next day he back-flipped and started mouthing plattitudes about supporting our troops, yada yada. This went down like the proverbial Lead Balloon, the backflip with the Loony Left, the original with everyone else.

It's only the fact that the Opposition is in such disarray that Howard has gotten away with doing the right thing, rather than the popular thing. Simon Crean replaced Kim Beazley as leader of the ALP (Australian Labour Party) after the last drubbing they got at the polls. Now Kim Beazley is just possibly the best Defence Minister this country has ever had. But he was out of his depth as Le