Iraq won. America won. The human race won.

Immediately after polls closed, the New York Times grudgingly released their big story: “Amid Attacks, A Party Atmosphere on Baghdad’s Closed Streets.” You almost had to admire the Times’ pluck: they so wanted tragedy, but they were grudgingly admitting the truth.

But then, barely four hours after polls closed, they changed the headline on the exact same story to this: Insurgent Attacks in Baghdad and Elsewhere Kill at Least 24

You have to laugh, don’t you?

Millions upon millions voted despite being told that they and their families would be murdered—then walked the streets proudly waving their inked fingers, undeniable proof of their exercise of the franchise, showing anyone who wanted to see what they’d just done for themselves, their families, and their country.

Thousands of polling places were open and, despite our worst fears, only a handful saw any violence at all. At the few places that did see violence, people still showed up in droves to vote anyway.

Terrorists—and please, can we now dispense with the Orwellian term “insurgent?”—were openly defied and in some cases beaten senseless by enraged voters armed with nothing but their shoes.

Countless millions walked miles to vote. In one case, a polling place had to be opened over 10 miles away from its original location at the last moment—and people by the thousands streamed on foot, some of them on crutches, just to get there.

There’s an old joke about walking a mile to smoke a camel. Well, these people walked ten miles on crutches just to smoke a terrorist.

How can your heart not burst with admiration?

Millions upon millions—including women and members of every minority group—voted for the first time in their lives. Even in neighboring Iran and Syria, expatriate Iraqis were able to vote while native Iranians and Syrians, still denied the right to vote in their own nations, looked on in wonder as freedom was exercised by their Iraqi friends.

And this is what the New York Times thought the most important, take-home message was: “Insurgent Attacks in Baghdad and Elsewhere Kill at Least 24.”

They couldn’t even call them terrorists.

I’m sure it’ll get worse in the coming days. After all, these are the people who for two years now have consistently painted the greatest American military success story since 1945, and the lowest casualty rate in world history, as a “quagmire” that’s “spinning out of control.” These are the people who’ve given free voice to the modern reactionaries who speak of “imperialism” and “hubris,” who demand that our poltical leaders admit failure, and compare terrorists who bomb hospitals and cut civilians’ heads off to America’s minutemen.

For two years, despite all of this anti-American propagandizing from our own press corps, our brave men and women in the armed forces have been protecting human rights, opening schools and hospitals and power plants and water and sewage treatment centers, stringing telephone and internet wires and helping to open free radio and television stations and newspapers. All while the naysayers just sneered. Then the naysayers and the petty, carping critics could do nothing but bite at GI Joe’s ankles while he was setting up safety zones so that the Iraqis could hold free elections.

Then, while native Iraqi police and army did most of the security work, millions upon millions defied the terrorist threats and voted—while GI Joe stood quietly aside, blocks away from the polling stations and careful to stay out of the way. Our boys and girls were there, ready to help but only if called upon by the Iraqis themselves. And for the most part, they weren’t needed. So they stayed out of sight all over the country, while the Iraqis had their much-deserved day of freedom without our intrusion.

Yes yes. “Insurgents In Baghdad And Elsewhere Kill 24.” That’s the take-home message. You have to laugh, don’t you?

Well, soon it’ll be back to talk of our imperialism and our hubris and our inability to “admit failure.” We’ll see prominent interviews with sullen Iraqis who didn’t vote, or who complain that things still aren’t perfect. Rarely will anyone note the irony that the freedom to complain is something these people never used to have, and that the freedom to vote includes the freedom not to vote if you don’t want to.

Almost two years ago, on February 15, 2003, long before our military action to liberate Iraq from fascist tyrannty began, I started the following internet button campaign:

I remember the names I got called for that. The sneers at my character and at anyone who would display such a button. I remember being called an imperialist, a “Bush apologist,” a right-wing propagandist, a liar, and worse by the kind of people who read things like Daily Kos and Metafilter and Democratic Underground and Truthout and Indymedia and The Nation. By the kind of people who make excuses for lying hate-propagandists like Michael Moore. But those voices, they just get smaller, and tinier, and funnier, and sadder, all the time.

Today, with the exception of the days my sons were born, I have never felt prouder. All of us bloggers who supported Iraq’s liberation from fascism, all of us who worked against the relentlessly defeatist American press corps, have something to be proud of. We were nowhere near as important as those who served in the military, nowhere near as important as the countless Iraqis who took control of their own fate despite the those who said the Iraqis “didn’t want” or were “incapable of” democracy. Our role was small.

But we mattered. We let people know that most of the press wasn’t telling the full story. We let people know that the press wanted us to fail, wanted us to lose. We let people know there was reason for hope and optimism. We let people know this was a fight worth fighting, a cause worthy of American blood and treasure.

By the way, remember this?

I never forgot.

We were right.

(This item originally appeared here.)

On the day before millions of Iraqis defied snipers, bombs, and mortars to vote for their new government, Senator Edward Kennedy tossed an anchor into the brackish bay and dragged out the lifeless, waterlogged analogy of Viet Nam. How disappointed Senator Kennedy must be that Iraqis showed up to vote in higher numbers than his Boston electrical workers. How it must pain him that millions of these new voters defied death, while so many of his own voters would not defy snow. For our Massachusetts senators, every war will always be Viet Nam, and personal dishonor will always be projected onto us all.

There is, of course, a deep well of political funding in making one’s self a national figure with a national consistuency, in this case, by appealing to a tiny, monied, self-loathing minority that is forever embittered by its oppressive ease and uselessness. A small percentage of a great nation’s population can write enough checks to keep a political dowager on his throne long after his age has passed.

Even as Iraqis wondered (and still do) whether our nation has the spine to back up its declared commitments to their victory over fascism, even as our soldiers fight in deadly combat against a group that calls itself “Al-Qaeda in Iraq,” one United States senator did his utmost to submerge them—and us—in his own defeatism. Thus, for the sake of the survival of peace and freedom in our world, I appeal to the voters of Massachusetts:

Forty years ago, the Kennedy family ruled us from your distant land. We thought in those early days that they sought victory for our nation’s cause. We thought their skill, courage, looks, and impeccable taste were enough. We thought that their election would bring a new day of equality and prosperity. They lost their national purpose in Vietnam. They abandoned the truth in the deep, muddy quagmire of the coastal tidewaters near Martha’s Vineyard. They failed their ideals and sought comfort in strong drink, gluttony, and indiscriminate wenching. Their words could no longer be trusted. In the name of a misguided belief in a world where tyranny could be pacified and paid to desist—however briefly—from murder, we continued their tenure of office too long. We failed to comprehend the events around us. We did not understand that their very presence was defeating the very goals we set out to achieve. We cannot allow that history to repeat itself in Iraq. We must learn from our mistakes. We must recognize what a large and growing number of Americans now believe. Ted Kennedy’s cause has become a war against the survival of our nation, a campaign to release the bonds around the wrists of those who would murder our children in their beds and make bus bombings and pandemics at shopping malls a daily feature of our lives. We have reached the point that Senator Kennedy’s prolonged political inheritance is no longer productive for either Iraq or the United States. Senator Kennedy’s tenure has become part of the problem, not part of the solution, and we must seek a way to withdraw that tenure with all possible dispatch. It is time for Senator Kennedy to come home.

(NOTE: This was also published on Joe Gandelman’s blog The Moderate Voice)

It’s a cliche now to say "we will never see his kind come our way again," but it’s clearly true about Johnny Carson, who died recently at the age of 79.

He had become an icon reflecting his generation in an era when broadcasting was at its height; his comedic style was shaped by radio and early television  — in contrast to today’s late night hosts who grew up watching television and are imprinted by years doing comedy clubs as they struggle to build audiences in an era of narrowcasting.

Carson was a powerhouse: if CBS’s stonefaced Ed Sullivan made or broke careers with who he had on his Sunday night variety show and whether he rebooked them, an appearance on Carson’s show could jumpstart a career — and an on-air invitation after a "set" on his show to sit on Johnny’s couch to chat could make a career zoom into the stratosphere.

In marking Carson’s death, the lives, careers and influence of the other two key people who helped develop the Tonight Show shouldn’t be forgotten.

Steve Allen was a radio comedian with comedy strongly rooted in vaudeville-style schtick. He hosted the show from 1953-1957. Allen was a beloved figure among comedians for his talents, ad lib ability, encouragement of young comedians…and for being the beloved Steve Allen.

My personal Steve Allen story: Some years ago I got one of Allen’s books on comedy but couldn’t find the others that were out of print. I wrote to him telling him how much I loved his books and analysis…and within three days a UPS truck drove up delivering me a free batch of autographed books by Allen on show biz and speaking. He died in 2000.

Jack Paar replaced the zany Allen on the Tonight Show. The unpredictable, often emotional Paar veered the show away from mostly vaudeville style comedy, improv and show biz talk of Allen into a newer area: politics and popular culture. It became known for launching several "celebrities" who were seemingly celebrated for simply being celebrated. Paar was a fine comedian but his shows contained the seed of some of the modern daytime celebrity talk shows. He died in 2004.

Of the three, Carson, in the end, proved to be the one who transcended being a host to being A Mega Star.

His show got whopping ratings. It made careers. It decimated any competition the hapless CBS and ABC threw at him over the years (including an attempted comeback by Paar).

Carson also took on a new role: as the NEW Bob Hope. Early in his career Hope latched onto using topical jokes. Carson took the use of the opening monologue with quickly-perishable and risky topical jokes to new heights. These jokes were so risky that Carson always had some "save" lines ready in case a joke bomb. And because he often skewered politicos (unlike the gentler Hope) his late night wisecracks became an indicator of the conventional wisdom about key political figures and issues.

Ironically, the critics were lukewarm to Carson when he took over.

I remember well how, in 1962, some critics panned Carson. He was, after all, such a sharp departure from the emotional Jack Parr. But Carson quickly triumphed — in a matter of style AND substance:

It turned out that Johnny Carson had the best comic timing in the business with the exception of someone who he had clearly studied: Jack Benny. Like Benny, Carson would "pan" the audience after a joke, to extend the laugh. Like Benny, he wasn’t afraid to wait for a laugh or to slowly deliver a joke. (As an entertainer I studied Jackie Gleason for years and am now studying Jack Benny’s TV and radio performances and Benny’s timing…cloned by Carson…is truly an art).

Indeed, Carson would later in his career be criticized by some for having borrowed parts of some mannerisms or bits from Jackie Gleason, Jonathan Winters, and Steve Allen (who took him to task for it).

But in the end, virtually everyone loved Johnny.

Why?

Was it his timing, his solidly-written jokes and shows, his willingness (like the great Jack Benny) to let performers around him get all of the big laughs while he assumed the role of one of the best straight men (when he wanted to be) of his generation?

No, not entirely: it was because Carson had class.

A likability. An assurance.

And in the end, he maintained his classy attitude even when NBC passed over the person he reportedly wanted to replace him (David Letterman: some reports now say Carson helped Letterman with jokes in his final months).

Entertainers are shaped by what they watch and the context of the era of show business in which they performed. Carson’s was the era of Benny, Hope, Lucille Ball and others.

It’s an era that’s largely gone, displaced by ironic humor and comedians that surfaced by going through the comedy club farm system.

Jay’s or David’s couch is nice…but it’s not Johnny’s couch.

And since Carson left, it has been evident that an important piece of furniture — and a beloved fixture — have been missing from the room.

(Note: This is also posted on Joe Gandelman’s blog The Moderate Voice)

The gray haired man looked a bit like how actor actor Spencer Tracy looked in Tracy’s final years. He had been sitting at a dining room table in New Haven, Connecticut when he called his over his teenage grandson.

"This was my family," he said, slowly opening the photo album. Then he started pointing to a host of aging photos showing large, smiling groups of people of all ages.

"He’s dead — killed by the Nazis. She’s dead — killed by the Nazis. This little boy? Hitler killed him, too.And this little girl." And so it went, as he showed his grandson the photos of family members who had been murdered by the Nazi regime in concentration camps. Some had simply disappeared.

He was a vigorous Jewish senior who even in his 80s wanted to get up on a ladder to cultivate apple trees. And although he pointed to these yellowing photos with a minimum of high-drama — he talked in soft-matter of fact voice — he would look at his grandson as he pointed to each photo. You could tell he wanted his grandson to take it all in…so that he’d never  forget.

I haven’t.

Over the years I heard and read about the other unspeakable horrors of the Nazi regimes successful effort to dehumanize a group of humans. Of lampshades made out of human skin. Guards knocking out corpses teeth to melt down precious metals. Of the unspeakable and sadistic experiments.

I’d still have this thirst to find out more — until I read The Book. I forget the title, but I found it in the San Diego library. It was a detailed report on first hand reports of genocide.

One section detailed how Nazi soldiers bayoneted babies.

Another how children (infants, toddlers, elementary school age and teens) were shoved screaming off a cliff into a hole that was quickly covered with dirt, and many of the survivors died screaming and crying as they suffocated to death, with  young guards laughing as the muffled screams of terror and slow smothering tapered off.

Another detailed how two  little kids were carefully lined up to sit one in front of each other, then killed with a single shot, as a kind of human video game.

How could it happen? How could it happen to ANY group? How could this kind of barbarity — which really goes beyond the phrase "war crimes" — EVER happen? How could a regime or whole people lose take of their senses? And wasn’t it nice that this was eradicated with the death of Adolph Hitler and the dismantling of the Nazi regime?

Except that it wasn’t.

On September 11 Americans got a taste of the same mentality, as stewardesses throats were cut to attract and kill male airplane pilots, as planes with innocent men, women and children were flown suicidally into buildings — to kill more men, women and children whose crime was this: they were Americans and did not believe as the Muslim extremist terrorists did. The terrorsts needed a high body count.

I will never forget visiting Connecticut shortly after and seeing my father Richard Gandelman as he sat his wife, two of his grown kids and his grandkids in a restaurant that had been reeling from the loss of business due to 911 fears. My father, a proud World War II veteran, thought this kind of thing had been eradicated by the War…but we had gotten an inkling that it wasn’t dead after all. He knew what this meant; he had lived through it before and thought the world was safer now due to his and his generation’s  enormous sacrificies.

A hasty judgment? Not at all.

Anyone who watched any of the glorified snuff videos of hostages being jumped from behind and screaming as their heads got cut  off had to conclude: "They’re back."

For "they" are the people who dehumanize — and have no compunction about wiping out people due to their political beliefs, ethnicity, nationality.

We’re not talking about causalities of war, of carelessness, or even of acts that fall under "war crimes" — but the cold-blooded murder of people based on ideology or religion. The murder of people because of WHO THEY ARE.

For Auschwitz and what happened there was not only about religion. Indeed, increasingly, info has come out that the Nazi regime’s ultimate goal was to turn Nazi ism into a reglion in itself.

The fact that a death factory could efficiently and brutally wipe out so many people reflected the success of mental reconditioning that allowed the Nazi regime to have so many agree to quietly go for the ride.

It wasn’t just fear; it was spreading a perspective and values. Some supported it; some stayed silent because they didn’t like the Jews anyway and it wasn’t their problem.

Today, that attitude has a new incarnation: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The Muslim world faces a choice today with this new incarnation of Nazism that — given a chance and a weapon falling into their hands — would not hesitate to use a nuclear weapon to get a nice, big body count in the U.S. or (many fear)intentionally  unleash a horrible disease upon its foes’ shores.

The goal of creating a 1,000 year Reich no matter who had to be rubbed out has now been replaced by the desire to create a pan-Islamic Caliphate.

How do people and countries resist? By NEVER going quietly. By taking military action, if warrented. But above all by RESISTING  terrorist threats  —  as more than 70 percent of the Iraqis did today, as they bravely headed to the ballot boxes fully knowing that their lives may be on the line. (More than 72 percent of the Iraqis — better turnout than in U.S. elections— headed to the polls.)  By realizing we all have our individual and collective Moments of Truth — when a choice may make or break us physically and spiritually.

But when I hear Auschwitz, I still think back to my grandfather, showing me the pictures. I think back and grieve for all of those men, women and children who had such a horrific, fear-filled, beyond nightmarish end. And if I pause and think, I start to literally shed tears for those poor kids who never had a chance to live — who were mercilessly gassed, bayoneted, lined up and shot, buried alive….  all because they came from a group that had been  dehumanized so successfully that many who could have spoken out or acted did nothing. And, in doing nothing, those that didn’t act or looked the other way became moral accessories to the acts.

OTHER VOICES:
—IsraPundit as this story about a Holocaust denier.
—IsraPundit also coordinated a MUST READ blogburst commemorating the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by allies. Click here to find a long list list of participating site, and you can visit them.
—Remembering Auschwitz, editorials by Trinidad News and  St. Paul Pioneer Press give a flavor of some of the mainstream press coverage.

—A survivor remembers.
—German papers are reportedly divided on how to handle it. Spiegel Online reports:

With all the press coverage this week surrounding Thursday’s 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, German papers on Thursday are divided as to how much more attention the event really needs. A number of papers completely avoid the topic on their front pages, preferring instead to lead with the imminent introduction of university tuition in the country. Most, however, devote a number of pages to articles, opinion and photos from the Third Reich’s most infamous concentration and death camp. And, as this is likely one of the last chances to carry first-hand accounts of survivors, many publications choose to tell very private stories of horror and suffering.

Check the link for specifics on what German publications wrote.
—Muslim Wake Up stresses that what happened at Auschwitz can’t be accurately compared to Palestinian complaints, but does restate the general  Palestinian case. Key quote on Auschwitz:

The mass killing of millions of people from the very old to newborns with industrial efficiency for the sole purpose of exterminating a whole race is beyond words in its cruelty, criminality, abhorrence and indeed in its uniqueness. The road towards peace and reconciliation does not go through denial of the suffering of Jews; understanding the narratives of the "other" is a prerequisite for any real reconciliation. Those Muslims and other supporters of the Palestinians who deny or minimize the Holocaust do major disservice to the Palestinian cause and cause more Jews and Israelis to turn a blind eye to the suffering of the Palestinians.

—The Mississippi Press:

The lesson of history, as German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder pointed out, is that the evil of the Nazis "did not come from nowhere. The brutalization of thought and the loss of moral inhibitions had a history; above all, Nazi ideology was desired by the people and man-made."

Today in France, anti-semitism is on the rise. White supremacists and neo-Nazi groups are well-known by authorities in Europe and North America.

That is reason enough to care about the soldier and the death camp and the 1.5 million people who were slain.

A generation of Europeans — perhaps some Americans too — are growing up in disbelief that such inhumanity to man could take place in a civilized society.

More recent examples: Rwanda, Cambodia, the Sudan, tell us it indeed can.

We must commit our hearts and minds and souls to a simple, but powerful phrase:

Never again.

—This article on Bosnia’s war horrors involving a prision guard who is interviewed reminds us that it can happen anywhere.

I put forward an idea about two years ago at the Halbakery (unfortunately lost in a disk crash last October) that the Hands of Victory, a monument erected in Baghdad to celebrate Iraq’s victory over Iran, should be replaced by the Hands of Democracy, a monument forged using the ashes from the voting slips of the first elections. The idea was uniformly denounced as naive and wishful thinking - denounced to such an extent that I eventually withdrew it.

This past Friday I visited a small warehouse in Ashton, a town a few miles from my home. As I approached the door a neighbour called to me to say that the warehose was closed for the day, as the manager had gone to Collyhurst to cast his vote. I posted a card to let him know I’d visited, and saw a notice posted in his door - it read Gone Votin’. Open Monday.

He fled his country in fear. He set up home in the UK and built a business. He took to his adopted country to the point at which he could humurously modify an English expression. Now, years later, he locks his doors and drives to the polling station to mark his thumb with indelible ink. Nobody thought it was possible - including me.

Today, as we hear that over 70% of his countrymen joined him at the polls, I’m happy to say I was wrong.

Cross-posted at Iraq Election Diatribes and Sortapundit.

These are the Iraqi Minutemen. The volunteers for the ING Commandos who are putting their lives on the line against the Foreign and aptly-named “Anti-Iraqi Forces”. The ones who are fighting with bullets, and now with ballots.

But you were half-right. The real Iraqi Minutemen will win - despite your best efforts.

You call yourself a Democrat? Have a look at a real one.

Then say ‘Hello’ to the Dustbin of History.

Photo from Getty Images via the BBC

Via Submarine Brotherhood :

From: “Kevin & Avril Mooney”

Subject: Something you can do to help

Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:21:17 +1000

Dear family and friends,

Let me express my deep appreciation for the outpouring of support from you following the tragic grounding of USS SAN FRANCISCO. I cannot yet recount the details or explain my involvement because the investigation remains in progress. The news stories and recently released photos of the boat indrydock provide a basic description of what happened.

The saddest part of this event was the loss of my shipmate, MM2 Joseph Ashley. This week, I had the pleasure of meeting his parents, who traveled to Guam courtesy of the Navy to meet his shipmates & friends. The Ashley’s are wonderful people and their visit was memorable for all of us.

Many of you have offered me help in dealing with this crisis, and I am most appreciative. In addition to your continued prayers, I do have a special request for some help from all of you:

(1) please go to the attached website and send a note of condolence to MM2 Ashley’s family

(Click here for Guestbook Website)

(2) please send the attached link to other people, especially submariners, and ask them to do the same

The Ashley family frequently checks this website, and they read and cherish every word. They are honored that it currently stands at 33 pages. After all of you leave messages and continue this string of support, I dare not guess how long it will be. Thank you in advance for your support.

Sincerely,
CDR Kevin Mooney

See Global Recon page for the epic story of the San Francisco’s ordeal. (More details and personal accounts over at AEBrain).

Any Bubbleheads of whatever nation reading this, you know what to do. Any US citizens who haven’t had the honour of serving in the USN’s “Silent Service”, may I suggest that you let the family know just how much their tragic loss means to you.

The program of unmanned drones that patrol the Arizona-Mexico has been suspended by the federal government so they can "evaluate its effectiveness". Since their deployment last summer the Hermes class ummanned drones have apprehended 965 illegal aliens and confiscated 843 pounds of marijuana. The Hunter class drones have apprehended 287 illegal aliens and seized over 1,900 pounds of marijuana.

I hope they are simply evaluating which version to expand and use more widely, but according to some quotes in the article below it sounds like there's even the potential for the program to be scrapped.

San Diego Union-Tribune (via Lonewacko)

Aerial drones patrolling the Arizona-Mexico border will be grounded after the current contract expires next Sunday so the federal government can evaluate the program's effectiveness, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection says.

Immigration authorities have been testing unmanned drones on the border for months, using them to help agents spot illegal immigrants and smugglers.

"It's undetermined when the program will start back up," said Mario Villarreal, spokesman for agency. "I would say sometime this year."

Tucson Citizen

A "refined requirement" for using the military aircraft as border enforcers will then be developed, and the government will put out a request to the private sector to provide a new unmanned vehicle program, [Villarreal] said.

He said Congress appropriated $10 million for the program for its fiscal 2005 budget year, which began Oct. 1. "There is money left over for continued use," Villarreal said.

Other than the apprehensions and drug confiscations I mentioned above, exactly how successful were these unmanned drones? Did they underperform?

Aviation Today (via The Tarpit)

Paul Olski, director of aviation joint planning and development in the Department of Homeland Security, said that the three Hermes 450 UAVs patrolling the Arizona-Mexico border were so successful that the agency plans to purchase "a number of Hunter UAVs." During a three-month test period, the Hermes, flying at about 15,000 feet at around 90 knots, spotted some 853,000 people crossing the border, according to Olski.

How can you ground such a successful program? This is ridiculous. The real problem is that with 853,000 people illegally crossing the border during a 3 month test period there's not enough agents to apprehend them all.

Originally posted at Diggers Realm

This Sunday, Iraqi citizens at home and abroad will attempt to elect the first representative government in their nation’s history. With the security situation as perilous as it is right now, particularly in Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle area, it is unclear how many Iraqis will be willing to risk life and limb in this first and uncertain attempt at free elections. Voter turnout on Jan. 30th will prove absolutely vital in determining how representative, and in turn how legitimate, the new government will be.

What is clear, however, is that those who oppose any form of representative government in Iraq have been doing everything in their power to see that fair elections cannot take place, with an unyielding campaign of roadside bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and other forms of terrorism. They have intimidated their opponents to the point where many political parties are unwilling to release the names of their candidates, lest they become the targets of extremists. Chief among these elements is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist mastermind who is considered by many the most prominent contender to supplant Osama Bin Laden as the figurehead of global jihadism.

Zarqawi has been in Iraq since at least the end of the Saddam Hussein regime, working towards the stated goal of inciting countrywide sectarian war and preventing at all costs the existence of representative government. Zarqawi has gone so far as to declare all Iraqis, and indeed all Muslims who support democracy to be infidels who deserve death. This is worth bearing in mind whenever one hears that Islamic fundamentalism is a response to American imperialism in the Middle East. It is the jihadists who harbor the true imperialist ambitions for Iraq, and they have no compunction about killing Muslims and non-Muslims alike to achieve that goal.

Such enemies of democracy, who are euphemistically and uncritically called “insurgents” by so many in the western media, are without a doubt the greatest threat to the existence of peaceful, civil society in Iraq. The greatest weapon against them, however, is not the might of the American military, or even the Iraqi security forces they have trained, but rather the process of elections themselves. To quote a recent editorial by Brett H. McGurk, a legal advisor to the (former) Coalition Provisional Authority, “As Afghanistan demonstrates, credible elections – elections that are perceived as free and fair – can sap the influence of violent extremists whose only claim to power is force and intimidation.” (Washington Post, January 18)

The case of Afghanistan is obviously different from that of Iraq, where majority-minority ethnic divisions run so close to the surface of political life, and the day-to-day security situation is conspicuously worse in the lead-up to elections, but it remains true that legitimate elections can do more to stem radicalism then force of arms alone. Why else would terrorist thugs like Zarqawi be so hell-bent on preventing them? Not only do they have the most to gain by driving Iraqi society into sectarian violence, they also have the most to lose should the democratic experiment succeed.

Average Iraqis will have a greater stake in defending the government they created in the face of extraordinary personal risk than one imposed on them by the American occupation. If the Bush administration does the intelligent thing and makes the exit of occupying forces conditional upon a popular referendum, then the goal of ending the occupation may be tied to the cultivation of participatory government, and the terrorists will have lost one of the few rallying points from which they draw support. (For more on virtues of this approach, I would direct readers to a column in the January 19th New York Times by several researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.)

Will successful elections mean an immediate end to terrorism and violence in Iraq? Certainly not, but it will mean the beginning of the end for Islamist terrorists like Zarqawi who have tried to use the pretext of fighting the American occupation to institute Taliban style theocracy in Iraq. Sunday’s election may prove be one of the most pivotal battles yet in the global war on against the ideology of Islamic fascism.

From the World Tribune :

All right, I’ve had enough. I am tired of reading distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the “failures” in the war in Iraq. “The most trusted name in news” and a long list of others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative.

The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States’ efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents’ resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

Read the whole thing.

Originally posted at Confessions of a Pilgrim

I just finished reading through several of the speeches of Sir Winston Churchill. I was struck by the similiarity in sentiment of Churchill and our President George Bush as it relates to Bush’s Inaugural Address. Both men understood well the struggle they found themselves in and held firmly to the hand of an Almighty God to guide them.

Like many others, I have to wonder what the response would be of Bush’s detractors to Churchill’s words of the late 1930’s and 1940’s. I’ve read through the rhetorical blog-skirmish between Smash and Chris Alemany and can’t help but think Chris would have loved Neville Chamberlain’s response to Hitler’s first land grab. For the life of me I can’t understand how people think that Peace can be simply the absence of conflict. If we just empty our guns and dismantle our military the world will be safe from War. If we just hold hands and “talk” we can all come to a common understanding.

What started the skirmish was a comment left to Smash’s post about a protest around the San Diego area where Chris said:

“Freedom is a Human Right”

That’s exactly right… but no Human being should be subjected to all out war by foreign country in order to gain that right.

Some Americans need to learn that the United States is not and need not be the “Superman” of the world.

What Chris doesn’t understand is that these people already HAVE that RIGHT...their oppressors will not allow them to exercise that right. This right was given to ALL people by a Gracious God and no one can revoke it. Voltaire said, “Man is free at the moment he wishes to be”…even this French “free thinker” knew that the right to Freedom is an inherent right of being HUMAN and said human need only recognize it. What I don’t understand about Chris’ perspective is that following this logic America, England, and CANADA should have never stormed the beaches at Normandy if “no Human being should be subjected to all out war by foreign country in order to gain that right”. I don’t understand Chris’ perspective at all. President Lincoln should have never resupplied Fort Sumter, triggering the American Civil War if “no Human being should be subjected to all out war by foreign country in order to gain that right”…tipping the hat to Jefferson Davis’ position that the CSA was a soveriegn country(I disagree with said position).

Freedom is. Period. When a people are denied the free exercise of this right by a select few there is tyranny and it simply cannot stand. Eventually there will be revolt and a blood letting….followed by another revolt and blood letting…followed by another revolt…etc…until the Final Revolt where Freedom prevails. In the interim there will be periods of no conflict…is that Peace? Is Peace the absence of armed struggle? John Fitzgerald Kennedy didn’t think so and neither do I.

Those of the loyal(?) opposition would have us believe that we were at Peace with Iraq before March of 2003. Does the fact that the military conflicts never made the papers that happened on a daily basis during the years between the cessation of hostilities following the liberation of Kuwait and the invasion in 2003 mean that a condition of PEACE existed between Hussein and America? What about the thousands being tortured, raped, and butchered by Hussein and his minoin, does the fact that those atrocities were not daily headlines at the NY Times mean a condition of PEACE existed? What about the hundreds of thousands of dollars from Iraqi coffers paid to barbarians for killing the children of Israel…does the fact that this arrangement was not widely known mean Hussein was at PEACE with Israel? No.

So, do we split hairs? Do we set a limit of atrocity, of LIMITED Freedom, before we declare that Peace doesn’t exist? Are we prepared to say, “Well…only 10,000 girls were raped by Hussein’s regime…that’s okay.”? Are we prepared to say, “Hey, it’s only $25,000 per bomb laden barbarian! We can deal with that.”? Would we be prepared to tell King George, “Look, we just want our tea for FREE...you can continue to force your troops into our homes…”? Would we be willing to allow a few House Slaves per household? I wouldn’t.

There comes a time when enough is enough and sometimes ONE TIME is enough. The world is not full of love and light. Humans are by nature WICKED and prone to acts of evil beyond our comprehension. We are restrained ONLY by our love of Freedom…and by extension God. This is the true reality and no one “likes” it but we all must deal with it.

While the loyal(?) opposition rants and raves about how Hussein was “in a box” and the more strident of them spewing forth the most hateful and scandalous articles, pictorials, and comments about individuals in the Administration, 150,000 of our friends, brothers, sisters, and parents are fighting to preserve their Freedom. As Churchill said in the summer of 1940, “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”

It is a joyous day indeed! Break out the party hats and cake! Recently we have seen Gary DeFilippo the DMV Commissioner for Connecticut resign, Tom Ridge, DHS Secretary resign and now we have the ridiculous Asa Hutchinson who was supposedly in charge of our borders anounce his resignation. It will take effect March 1, 2005 and it couldn't be soon enough.

Asa Hutchinson called for the halt of interior enforcement of illegal immigration. Here's a snippet from a post on Diggers Realm on September 13, 2004

The nation's border czar yesterday said it is "not realistic" to think that law-enforcement authorities can arrest or deport the millions of illegal aliens now in the United States and does not think the American public has the "will ... to uproot" those aliens.

Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson also said taxpayers "might be afraid" to learn how much it would take in manpower and resources to control the nation's borders and described as "probably accurate" a statement that no law-enforcement officials are looking for the vast majority of the 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens thought to be in the country.

... But Mr. Hutchinson, a former Republican congressman from Arkansas, said although there is "strong support" nationwide for the enforcement of immigration laws and the public expects it to be accomplished, "they expect us to do it in a way consistent with our values."

This guy was a major Asshat and a detriment to our country. Allowing a bunch of people that willingly break our laws into our country and then telling your law enforcement officials not to apprehend them because you may hurt their feelings is asinine!

It is well known that the majority of Americans want illegal aliens out and our borders secured, yet Mr. Hutchinson thinks we'd have a problem if he told us the cost, manpower and time it would take to accomplish that goal. Can you get any more incompetent than that? His job was to secure our borders and control immigration of those people and substances we have not legally let in and he's saying it's too hard, will take too long and cost too much and therefore won't do anything about it.

With Ridge out of the picture and Hutchinson resigning we can only hope that the Presidents amnesty program doesn't make it through Congress and instead a real immigration reform is put in place. A reform that would protect our borders, make coming to America something worth doing legally and not cheapening our system by letting criminals and thugs regularly come through our border, break our laws and with no intentions of fitting in.

Fox News

Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson (search), in charge of border and transportation security issues, submitted his letter of resignation to the White House early Monday morning, said a DHS official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the resignation had not yet been announced.

Hutchinson is a former Arkansas congressman and former federal drug czar who is believed to be considering a run for Arkansas governor next year. His resignation is expected to be effective March 1.

...

"It was just a good time to change for me personally and for the department," Hutchinson told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, which first reported his plans.

Yes, a good time indeed! Maybe they've figured out the charlatan you truly are. Border Czar? How about Border doorstop.

Originally posted at Diggers Realm

After reading co-blogger Daniel’s post over at Iraq Election Diatribes regarding the shortfall in expatriate voter registration, I’d like to make a few comments.

I agree that there are many reasons why 1 in 10 of those eligible to vote have actually registered, not least of which is the fact that there are only 74 registration and voting centres in the 14 countries taking part.

Consider the fact that Democratic voter turnout in the US is typically lower when the weather is bad than when the sun shines. The purported reason for this is that many people who intend to vote blue can’t afford their own transport, and have to walk to their polling place.

Now, imagine expatriate Iraqis as a form of “Super-Democrat” voter, an impoverished demographic driven from their homes with little more than their lives. While it would be unfair and unwise to assume that every expatriate Iraqi lives below the poverty line, I think it would be fair to assume that many do. Disagree if you wish, but I think it’s a fair statement.

Now, while bad weather can keep a potential US voter from walking to his/her polling place, imagine what that voter would do if he/she had to take a train to their nearest registration center 100 miles away in the capital city of their adopted nation to register, and then repeat the journey the following week in order to vote. I know what I’d do, and 9 out of 10 expatriate Iraqis agree with me.

But that’s not what I wanted to say. What I want to say is that I disagree that the number of those to have registered is necessarily low. Consider this:

It is estimated that about 30 percent of U.S. citizens overseas vote. Overall turnout in the 2000 presidential election was more than 50 percent. According to estimates provided by the Foreign Voter Assistance Program, run by the Department of Defense to facilitate overseas voting, turnout among non-government American civilians abroad in the past four presidential elections has fluctuated between 31 percent and 38 percent of eligible voters. (LA Times)

and

Some experts estimate the percentage of eligible U.S. expatriates who voted in the 2000 presidential election was as low as 30%, far less than the overall 51.3% turnout among eligible voters overall.(Fairvote.org)

So, as few as 3 in 10 eligible voters hailing from the seat of democracy bothered to register in 2000, an election that was so hotly contested it invalidated the claim that ‘my vote won’t count’. What’s more, US expatriates are, in the main, affluent and mobile. The majority of civilian expatriates living abroad are either students wealthy enough to pay extortionate foreign citizen tuition fees, or people working abroad in connection with business - meaning that they have good jobs that pay good salaries. Again, I’m basing that on only my own assumptions/prejudices, so feel free to disagree with my logic.

The simple fact is that it isn’t easy to register, and it isn’t easy to vote. There aren’t polling places at every high school. It isn’t possible to post in your vote. You have to work, really work, to get your voice heard as an expatriate Iraqi, and the fact that 93,000 of them have made that effort speaks out to me that the spirit of democracy is alive and well in the hearts of those who are about to get their first taste of self-determination. I can only hope that the Iraqi population shows as much resolve come election day.

Cross-posted at Sortapundit and Iraq Election Diatribes.

We’ve been linking to the work of Tom Barnett for some time, including his two Esquire articles, The Pentagon’s New Map and Mr. President, Here’s How To Make Sense Of Our Iraq Strategy, and just yesterday, the CSPAN stream of his famous Defense Dept. brief on a grand military strategy for the United States.

He’s a heavy hitter: From 1998 through 2004, Tom was a Senior Strategic Researcher and Professor in the Warfare Analysis & Research Department at the Naval War College. He’s also served as an advisor to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, Central Command, Special Operations Command, and Joint Forces Command. From November 2001 to June of 2003, he was on temporary assignment as the Assistant for Strategic Futures, Office of Force Transformation (OFT), where he worked on concepts linking change in the international security environment to the imperative of transforming U.S. military.

And here’s the really great part: Tom has agreed to author an exclusive perspective piece for the Command Post’s Op/Ed page, which you may find below. We’re thrilled to have his contribution, and we hope you find the content enjoyable and provacative.

And Tom: Thank you.

~ Alan & Michele

*********

The Pentagon’s Debate Over What Iraq Means

By Thomas P.M. Barnett

The Pentagon is primarily in the business of preparing for war, not waging it. War is waged by commanders in the field. What the Pentagon does is think long and hard about what the future of war should be like. It then directs vast R&D and acquisition programs to generate a force capable of waging war successfully in that domain. Its demands for intelligence tend to be future-oriented.

Right now, there is a debate raging within the Pentagon and the military as a whole about what the war in Iraq and the subsequent (and ongoing) occupation tell us about the future of war. This debate pits two fundamental, dominant visions of future war against one another. I consider this juxtaposition to be a false dichotomy, meaning a choice that does not need to be made and, frankly, should not be made.

The two sides in this debate are functionally derived: the “air community” versus the “ground community.” The air community tends to be known as the Network-Centric Operations (NCO) crowd, whereas the ground-pounders fall under the rubric of Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW).

Net-centric operations are a long-term effort by the military to understand how the rise of the information age alters the fundamental nature of war. In the vernacular of NCO advocates, the past force was platform-centric, meaning we organized ourselves around the major "platforms", the machines we created to wage war (aircraft, ships, tanks, etc.). The future, by contrast, is network - centric: platforms are nothing more than nodes in a larger network whose main power isn’t its massed fire, but its ability to wield that force with pinpoint accuracy.

NCO defines the 20th Century’s long march toward "winning from above," the notion that you can effectively bomb your way to victory. Going into Iraq, it seemed as though NCO was not only the dominant mode of future-war thinking, it had reached such an apogee that serious thought was given to radically slimming down the ground forces into a future, "transformed" force.

The trajectory of combat across the 1990s hadn’t served the Army and Marines well in Pentagon debates. While the Air Force was winning wars "all by itself" in Iraq, the Balkans, and later-Afghanistan, the Army and Marines were left holding the bag in such crappy situations as Somalia and Haiti. Within the Pentagon, Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW) was strongly perceived—and is still perceived in many quarters today—as a form of war that the American public can’t stomach in terms of losses incurred (“body-bag syndrome”), longevity (America’s SADD: strategic attention deficit disorder), immoral acts (e.g., atrocities like Abu Ghraib and beheadings of hostages), and demand for resources (Senator So-and-So: "We spend more money in Iraq by breakfast than we’ve spent all year on [name his or her favorite cause]").

Right through "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq (May 2003), the NCO crowd seemed ascendant. Rumsfeld was right in both Afghanistan and Iraq: the small "footprint" force, armed with high-technology, could network its way to relatively bloodless (for our side) victories. In only a few weeks of major combat operations, neither war cost the U.S. more than 200 dead. That isn’t just impressive, that’s absolutely amazing.

But in that hubris lie the seeds of NCO’s current problems, plus a growing backlash among the Fourth Generation Warfare crowd. The extremely spotty planning by the Pentagon for the occupation and postwar stabilization of Iraq enabled the rise of the disastrously efficient insurgency we face today. Arrogance about what could be achieved by NCO contributed to that bad planning, but frankly, far more of it was a result of the Pentagon’s defensive response to the Army’s charges that Secretary Rumsfeld and his lieutenants were willfully disregarding its warnings about necessary troops levels on the ground.

You remember the debate: Rumsfeld versus then-Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki. Rummy said we could "win the war" with a small, highly transformed force, whereas Shinseki argued for massive ground forces (roughly 200,000). In the press and in our own wording of this debate, the argument became known as, "How many troops are required to win the war?" Later accusations revolved around whether or not "Rumsfeld sought to fight this war with too few troops!"

My problem with this description, as I’ve noted many times in my blog, is that it conflates two concepts: regime takedown and the post-conflict stabilization / nation-building effort. I call the former, the "war," and the latter, the "peace." So, in my more careful lexicon, I say that Rumsfeld was arguing—and arguing correctly—about how to "win the war," while Shinseki was arguing—and arguing correctly—about how to "win the peace."

The current fight between NCO and 4GW, over who "lost" the war in Iraq, is basically a repeat of the Rumsfeld-Shinseki argument. The 4GWers accuse NCOers of blindly stumbling from a 3GW victory over Saddam into a 4GW stalemate with the insurgency. But again, this accusation tends to conflate two very different situations: one the war, the other the subsequently botched peace. But the 4GW crowd’s answer can’t be simply, "Let’s get ready for counter-insurgencies because NCO is powerless to deal with them."

4GW is essentially guerrilla war that seeks to defeat an enemy not militarily, but politically, and not on any one battlefield, but over years and even decades of low-intensity conflict. Mao is considered the father of modern 4GW, though it’s obviously been around as long as weak forces have met far superior forces. In his recent book, The Sling and the Stone, Thomas Hammes runs through the history of this modern variant of guerrilla war, from Mao to the Viet Cong to the Sandinistas of Nicaragua to the Intifadas of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Naturally, al Qaeda is considered very 4GW, coming as it did out of the great victory that was the Islamic insurgency’s defeat of the superpower Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

The answer on Iraq (and future situations) needs to be: "Let’s get so good at the follow-on System Administration model that when our NCO force defeats a regime, we effectively shut down the possibility of 4GW by flooding the country with peace-maker troops capable of 4GW combat, staffed up big time with support personnel, lots of foreign coalition forces, and plenty of civilians experts all brought together in a larger force that’s optimized for stabilization and reconstruction efforts." In other words, the best 4GW strategy is to prevent insurgencies before they start.

In short, our choice isn’t between Network-Centric Operations or Fourth Generation Warfare, it’s how we focus each effectively on the logically-defined tasks of effective regime change, a list that covers both war and peace. A Pentagon debate that pits these two visions of war against one another is self-defeating and a waste of time. We must take advantage of the force-structure savings allowed by NCO (e.g., the smaller footprint) to build up our 4GW capabilities and marry those with the larger force requirements entailed in successful SysAdmin work.

In Asia today, there is a huge ongoing battle for "hearts and minds" that has nothing to do with a 4GW enemy. Yet, if this battle is waged well, it will do much to prevent such an enemy’s rise in the future and diminish the appeal of enemies who already exist within the region. It is the battle to deal with the aftermath of the earthquake-driven tsunamis, the largest humanitarian assistance / disaster relief operation the world has ever seen. A truly transformed U.S. military, one that covers both the Leviathan and System Administrator functions effectively, will be a military that not only efficiently processes a politically-bankrupt regime like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. It will also be a force ready to deal with once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to preemptively secure "peace victories," in situations like the one we face today in southern and southeast Asia.

For me, that is the force worth building for the future worth creating.

Copyright The New Rule Sets Project, LLC.

Printed with permission

~ ~ ~

Thomas P.M.Barnett, author of The Pentagon’s New Map, is launching the Rule-Set Reset strategic journal as an e-journal that is distributable by email or download, available to subscribers only. The inaugural edition is free and includes the "The Pentagon’s Internal War Over What Iraq Means," an expanded version of "The Pentagon’s Debate Over What Iraq Means," published by permission at The Command Post. You can email Tom at tom@thomaspmbarnett.com.

This from reader GG:

Why isn’t there an active conversation about Hersh leaking the actions of our troops? We had months of outrage over Novak “leaking” the identity of Plame, an agent working in Washington, D.C. Hersh has supposedly just blown the cover on a covert operation taking place in Iran, and I haven’t heard anyone on television or in print complain about the consequences to our soldiers! It seems to me that special forces on a covert mission inside Iran are at a much higher risk than a CIA agent in Washington. Am I missing something here?

Well, is he?

He means Seymour Hersh, whose work has been cited on these pages several times (including here regarding the Office of Special Plans and here regarding Abu Ghraib). The story in question is this one (VOA), in which “controversial Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Seymour Hersh says the United States intends to make Iran the next battlefront in the war on terrorism, and has already sent military teams into the country to search for nuclear sites that could be targeted by American bombers.”

See the original New Yorker article here.

President Bush has announced three Arizona lawmakers to come up with details for the immigration reform plan he wants to put before Congress. The three, Republican Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain and Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe, were selected to put together the legislation for the Presidents proposal.

So, who are these three men and what are their stances on immigration? To find out I went to Congress Grades and looked up the three.

First, we have Senator Jon Kyl. Jon Kyl in the past has actually scored decent on his card with a B on immigration. However, his recent actions have taken a serious downturn on immigration enforcement, particularly in regards to amnesty programs where he scores an F-, resulting in his current card holding an overall D.

Second, we have Senator John McCain. I like John McCain, he's a good guy who sticks to his beliefs. Unfortunately for us, on the immigration issue, his beliefs are abhorrent. With a lifetime career average of D+ he has nothing to be proud of on his enforcement of immigration law. He was against the recent Proposition 200 which passed in Arizona this election cycle that required voters to prove citizenship with ID and requiring immigration status being declared in order to receive government services. He sided with big business, radical open border supporters and illegal alien friendly groups against the Proposition. He has a consistent F- for his career in illegal alien amnesty, the visa lottery, chain migration and reducing unnecessary foreign worker visa's. The only place McCain shines is in border enforcement. His Current Grade is a telling F

The third tapped is Congressman Jim Kolbe. His record is abysmal in amnesty, interior enforcement and reducing unnecessary foreign worker visa's. Also recently he has continued his downward slide by scoring a D in rewarding illegal aliens and D+ border controls. His current grade sits at a lowly F

Bush has clearly tapped the bottom of the barrel with his choice of people to spearhead his immigration reform legislation. He may say he's not for an amnesty, but the individuals he has chosen to associate himself with regarding immigration all score a resounding F- in their actions towards amnesty for illegal aliens. Actions speak louder than words, as they say.

Arizona Republic

"We haven't come up with the actual tactic," Bush acknowledged when asked to provide new details of what he would want in such a guest-worker bill beyond the broad principles he has floated for about a year.

However, Bush was emphatic that he is not talking about amnesty or automatic citizenship for the estimated 8 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants working in this country.

"On the citizenship issue, people can get in line just like everybody else does," Bush said. "I think it would be a mistake to make this an amnesty program. So my proposal will not be an amnesty program."

It's an amnesty in everything but name no matter what he says.

Originally posted at Diggers Realm

The Mexican government recently distributed a comic book presenting safety tips for those illegally crossing the border into the U.S. Some have called it a how-to guide for illegal immigration.

You can see the comic book starting here (Spanish only), and it's available here together with a translation and an NYT article on the comic book.

In reverse chronological order, here are list of the posts at my site about the guide:

"Mexico publishes guide to assist border crossers": The Drudge-linked AZ Republic article that started it all; post includes quote from earlier article about consul general visiting a day laborer center. (source articles here and here)

"[WH] Spokesman to 'look into' illegal-alien guide": Scott McClellan weaves and bobs compassionately.

"Mexico's Border-Crossing Tips Anger Some in U.S.": The LAT weighs in, getting a B- for their coverage. (source article)

"Mexico and its illegals": a WashTimes editorial. (source article)

"A big cuchi-cuchi! from our "friends" to the south": I provide my own limited "translation."

"Mexico Defends Comic Book for Illegal Immigrants" (source article)

Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) on "Illegal Immigration and Remittances For Dummies": "[it's a] flagrant example of the Mexican government's lack of respect for U.S. laws." (source article)

"Illustrating folly": The AZ Republic seems mostly angered by Mexico's tactical blunder in this editorial. (source article)

"No Humor in Comic: Advice on breaking U.S. law is ill-advised": a similar editorial from the Dallas Morning News. (source article)

"Education and immigration": another similar editorial from the the Long Beach Press-Telegram. (source article)

"A Mexican Manual for Illegal Migrants Upsets Some in U.S.": the NYT weighs in. (source article)

"Migration pamphlet draws fire in U.S." the Houston Chronicle report includes this priceless quote from a Mexican official: "The Mexican government in no way encourages emigration." (source article)

"Illegal Immigration and Remittances For Dummies" to be distributed in the U.S.? that's what one Mexican newspaper says. (source article)

Translations of the "Guide for the Mexican Migrant": includes two "translations" and one translation.

Apologists for the "Guide for the Mexican Migrant": it'd look something like this AZ Daily Star column. (source article)

"The Mexican-American War, Round 2": from Don Feder (source article)

"[AZ Gov. Janet Napolitano] critical of Mexican manual" (source article)

"Illegals and the State Department": The WashTimes tries and fails to get the State Dep't to do something about the comic. (source article)

"Dumb Like a Fox": we should follow the money. (source article)

Now that's an apologist!: A very minor scholar wants us to see things from the Mexican perspective.

Links to source articles might expire. Some of my posts above include background information or links to other articles.

UPDATE:

"Immigrants Hail Mexico’s Migrant Guide": 9 out of 10 illegal aliens praise the guide. Also confirms that consulates are distributing the comic in the U.S. (source article)

A rally held in Redondo Beach at the Civic Center on Saturday, Jan. 15, 2005 was a success and it's organizers, SaveOurState.org, reported a large increase in supporter turnout.

The protest and rally started at 8AM in a popular illegal alien day laborer pickup spot in Redondo Beach. Numerous attempts were made by employers to pick up the illegal day laborers, but they quickly left upon spotting the cameras and rally supporters. From there the rally moved on to the starting location at the Civic Center. Positive responses from those in the community far outweighed the negative and some joined the rally.

The protest was peaceful and there were no reports of violence or any problems throughout the day. Nearly 100 people showed up for the rally with more than 50 individuals showing their support on the corner at the apex of the rally. A small contingent of open border supporters -- consisting of four individuals -- showed up later in the day for a counter protest, but there were no reported clashes between the two groups.

Several notable people showed up to the rally including the Chairman of Save Our License, Mike Spence, Western Field Director for Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Rick Oltman, talk show host, Terry Anderson, Los Angeles Mayoral Candidate, Walter Moore and State Assembly Candidate, Michael A. Jackson.

Illegal Day Laborers in Redondo Beach

"We are all just average folks who are tired of watching our communities turn into third world slums." said the head of SaveOurState.org on the website "Until more of us get off our butts and in the streets, we will continue to get what we have been getting, political whores who refuse to represent the will of the American people."

MadameButterfly, a user at the website, added "Today, you all showed the city of Redondo Beach, the beach community, and every person that is going to read about the rally in the paper that citizens, average people like us are seriously committed to ending illegal immigration. They're even willing to give up the better part of a Southern Californian Saturday to do it."

In addition to the successful rally, many signatures were gathered for a ballot measure that is being put forth to deny illegal aliens drivers licenses and government services. The measure is being put forth by California Republican Assembly and is being backed by Congressman Darrell Issa, who is well known for his backing of the successful signature drive for the recall of Governor Gray Davis. The measure requires nearly 600,000 signatures by February 21, 2005 to be put on the ballot.

Further Information

Summary post of the Redondo Beach Rally at SaveOurState.org

More pictures from the Redondo Beach Rally at SaveOurState.org

Pictures are from member SecondSon2nd1 at SaveOurState.org

Related Entries on Diggers Realm

Jan. 15, 2005
Redondo Beach Immigration Reform Rally And Ballot Measure Drive Reminder

Jan. 11, 2005
Immigration Reform Rally In Redondo Beach January 15th

Dec. 20, 2004
Darrell Issa May Fund California Bill To Deny Benefits To Illegal Aliens

Dec. 8, 2004
Redondo Beach Blocked From Arresting Day Laborers

Nov. 19, 2004
California Looking At It's Own Proposition Restricting Illegal Aliens From Services

Originally posted at Diggers Realm

So this fellow Michael Chertoff has been selected as the new Director of Homeland Security.

Lee from Right Thinking From The Left Coast asks "who?"

I thought the same thing. To fill us in on who this fellow is, we go around the web. These are only excerpts, you should really go read the whole entry.

Outside The Beltway

I don't know enough about Chertoff's history to know how solid a choice he is. His résumé is fairly impressive--a Harvard Law grad and former clerk for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan. The latter is interesting, as Brennan was perhaps the most liberal justice on the court during the 1970s and 1980s.

PoliBlog

Apparently, however, part of the new job description includes a bald pate and facial hair.

Maybe the President meant to pick this guy all along and told Card to "pick the bald guy with the mustache" and he accidentally got Kerik.

Michelle Malkin

Judge Michael Chertoff for DHS chief? It's good news. Yes, it is annoying to hear President Bush emphasize that Chertoff is "against racial profiling." But a look at Chertoff's strong, aggressive record and statements on homeland security shows that Chertoff supports exactly the kind of hard-headed, threat profiling measures and immigration enforcement opposed by the anti-profiling zealots.

Ramblings'Journal

Judge Michael Chertoff, the man who headed the Senate's Whitewater investigation has been tapped to head up the Department of Homeland Security.

Chertoff will replace the original choice of the White House, Bernard Kerik, who withdrew his name last month amid the emergence of his having employed an illegal alien as a nanny.

Rooftop Report

The five second version of the upcoming debate:

Right: He is great. The best person ever. He will own the position like nobody else could. If it wasn't this, we would elect him President.

Left: Leader of Homeland Security? Please, this guy can barely walk straight. He may or may not advocate torture, killing of puppies, and bombing of retirement homes.

SlantPoint

Who is Michael Chertoff? Former chief of the DOJ's Criminal Division, and most recently a judge (that skated through the Senate process 88-1) for the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. A living Law and Order guy I guess you could say.

So what have we learned by going around the web to find out who this guy is?

1) Lee at Right Thinking From The Left Coast doesn't know who he is.

2) He was a liberal justice in the 70's and 80's.

3) He is bald with facial hair.

4) Michelle Malkin thinks he's cute and approves of him.

5) Chertoff doesn't hire illegal aliens to be his nanny.

6) He can barely walk straight, likes to torture and kill puppies and on his off time bombs retirement homes, but he'd make a good president.

7) Unlike his former co-star on Law and Order, Chertoff is alive.

Originally posted at Diggers Realm

Cross-posted (with some of the more pungent opinion removed) from AEBrain, the Blog.

This post is a bit technical, I’m afraid. Hopefully not too much. I’m attempting to explain the kinds of difficulty faced by relief efforts in Indonesia, and without using too many technical terms.

First, here’s the situation.

From The Australian :

While Australian army helicopters are delivering food and clothing to refugees in Aceh province, problems on the ground have been delaying aircraft carrying aid into the ruined provincial capital Banda Aceh.

There are reports that the city’s airport is barely coping with more than 150 aircraft movements a day.

A Defence Force spokesman said Australian personnel were helping set up an air traffic control centre at the airport in an effort to reduce flight delays in the giant aid operation.

“Four ADF personnel are working with the United States, Singapore and the Indonesian military on that,” the spokesman said.

The bottleneck at the city’s airport forced Defence Minister Robert Hill to cancel his trip to Banda Aceh.

Senator Hill flew to Sumatra yesterday to visit the 500 Australian defence personnel based in Medan and Banda Aceh who are involved in the relief effort, but called off his visit to Aceh.

“The minister will not be travelling to Banda Aceh because of difficulties on the ground relating to logjams with the relief effort in Banda Aceh,” a spokesman for Senator Hill said.

150 movements a day, that means one take-off or landing every 10 minutes, 24/7, all day, every day. Probably more like 1 every 6 minutes in daylight hours, one every 15 minutes at night.

From the SULTAN ISKANDARMUDA Aerodrome Data, there are 2 parallel runways, each about 2500 metres or 8200 ft long. PCN (the pressure the runway can take) is 63. (FCXT is explained here - it means Flexible, Low Subgrade, to 217psi or 1.5 MPa, measured by analysis not experiment).

Anyway…

A Boeing 737 has an ACN - which corresponds to the runway’s PCN - of anywhere between 18 and 55, depending on whether it’s empty or loaded, and the exact model of 737. For an FCXT surface, a 737-700 has an ACN of 19 empty and 42 loaded, while the larger 737-900 has an ACN of 23 empty and 50 loaded.

The important thing is that whether the ACN is 19, 42, 23 or 50, they’re all under the runway’s PCN of 63.

A quick look at the 737’s takeoff distance shows that while a 737-400 only just fits, all other models have plenty of runway.

That means you can operate any model of 737 whatsoever on that runway till the cows come home (or are struck by the undercarriage).

A 737 freighter can carry about 16 tonnes, and has about 120 cubic metres of volume. Note that a normal passenger 737 can carry between 2.25 and 3.6 tonnes, depending on the model, so if you’re taking in people, you won’t get much freight in.

If you’re bring in water - where 1 cu metre weighs a tonne - then the 737 can bring in perhaps 14,000 litres, after packaging and palletising. Food weighs a lot less, you may be limited by volume rather than weight (consider how large a Cornflakes packet is compared to a soft drink can that weighs the same).

Well, if a 737 is good, what about a 747-400 freighter? That can carry a whopping 115 tonnes. That can land in 2500m, just. Except that its takeoff distance even when empty is probably over 3000m. And its ACN is 22 when empty, but 80 when loaded.

It’s just possible that a very lightly loaded 747-400 could use the airfield, assuming there’s a strong enough headwind. But 115 tonnes of freight would probably bust the runway on landing, and on takeoff, the 747 might not have enough distance.

Now a C-130 Hercules transport, as used by the USAF and RAAF, has an ACN of no more than 40, even when loaded to maximum takeoff weight, including 25.5 tonnes of cargo. Moreover, it can carry at least 5 (more in some models) military-standard pallettes (for ease of cargo handling), and has a drop-down rear door (no need for special elevator vehicles) , so can be unloaded extra fast with minimal infrastructure.

That’s why the 15 USAF, 7 RAAF and 1 RNZAF C-130’s in Indonesia are operating as hard as they can. Each one is worth maybe 3 737’s in practice.

OK, that’s good for seeing how much stuff can get in. What about stuff getting out? If we assume each aircraft coming in carries about 16 tonnes of goods, and that half of that can be distributed by trucks to the local area, that means that each flight in will need 8 tonnes of goods going out. As each helicopter can carry on the order of a tonne, that means there’s 8 outgoing helo flights per aircraft coming in.

The “150 air