Grim's Hall

Tuesday, April 29, 2003

posted by Grim 19:28

Al Qaeda in Iraq:

A terrorist is captured in western Iraq. Administration officials quickly point out that they don't know if he had any connection to the Iraqi government. I'm always amazed by how cautious the Bush administration is with its pronouncements, in view of their public image as outrageous cowboys.

posted by Grim 19:26

A Mythic Day:

...in the Corner. Thanks to them for these links, one to a magnificient archaeological find that may be the tomb of Gilgamesh. Also, there is a link to this article on dragons.

posted by Grim 12:58

Caves in Afghanistan:

U.S. Special Forces find 80 metric tons of high explosives and 124 metric tons of small arms ammunition hidden in Afghan caves. But that's not all:

Earlier this month, Romanian soldiers discovered thousands of rockets and more than 1 million rounds of ammunition in what the US military then described as the largest weapons cache discovered by US-led forces in Afghanistan.

The find near Qalat, capital of southern Zabul province, included 3,000 107mm rockets, 250,000 rounds of 12.7mm machinegun ammunition, about 1 million rounds of small arms ammunition and other ammunition and mines.

Afghan forces earlier this month also discovered about 18 caves full of ammunition and weapons near Maimana.

Each cave was 15 metres by five metres by four metres high, Interior Minister Ali Ahmad Jalali said when he announced the finds.

Those weapons appeared to have been stockpiled during Afghanistan's 1992-1996 civil war, however, not a Taliban or Al Qaeda arsenal.

US special forces also uncovered six smaller caches of weapons including 400 107mm rockets and machineguns in the Madr valley north-east of Bamiyan in central Afghanistan.

Link via the Agonist.

posted by Grim 10:59

Now I know what to get as a wedding gift:

Minnesota passes a "shall-issue" law on concealed firearms. Maybe I'll spring for a pistol for Kevin, my sister's suitor.

Monday, April 28, 2003

posted by Grim 23:55

The "Ban that Polarized a Nation":

Foxhunting in Scotland. Really, though, outright banning of traditional liberties should always polarize a nation--preferably into the camp in favor of voting out the scoundrels who did it, and camp composed of only the scoundrels themselves.

posted by Grim 23:46

Great, if true:

Mugabe to step down?

posted by Grim 19:16

Progressing right back...

Earlier this week, I said:

Progressive--I like that. Let's progress right on past the wasteland of modernism, exactly by returning to the old values of classical liberalism. It was, after all, the classical liberal who first propounded the idea that all men were created equal, and that some rights were endowed inalienably.

From The Nation, an article by William Grider:

ROLLING BACK THE 20th CENTURY

...The movement's grand ambition--one can no longer say grandiose--is to roll back the twentieth century, quite literally. That is, defenestrate the federal government and reduce its scale and powers to a level well below what it was before the New Deal's centralization. With that accomplished, movement conservatives envision a restored society in which the prevailing values and power relationships resemble the America that existed around 1900, when William McKinley was President.

I'm not aware of being part of any movement, but it sounds like I may have some allies out there. If they want to stop at 1900, though, they're pulling up short. I say we keep right on rolling to, say, 1787. If we get to pick our period of values and power relationships, I'll take the Washington administration.

posted by Grim 18:32

PBR Watch:

My grandfather's beer, and my favorite American beer, has apparently reached the apex of coolness. Jonah Goldberg of NRO mentions it today, and even links to the PBR Homepage. Always did like the stuff--good to see it getting its due.

posted by Grim 17:31

Mr. Powell blows smoke:

Today's NY Times article on the DPRK negotiations includes this gem from Colin Powell:

Mr. Powell said the North Koreans had not threatened during the talks to begin testing nuclear weapons. They never "used the word test," he said.

Did they use the word "is"? Or was it just that we can say they didn't use the word "test," as the statements were written in Korean?

The DPRK has, in the past, signed specific treaties and then broken them immediately. The State Department is now trying to read things into their choice of words in nonbinding negotiations? This is akin to a judge deciding to let a career criminal go unpunished, not because he promised not to rob any more banks, but because, describing his plans to visit the bank next week, he didn't use the word "rob."

posted by Grim 15:42

Antagonistic?

An offer from the DPRK hinges upon our abandoning our antagonistic policy toward them. What policy would that be? Forswearing war at every opportunity?

posted by Grim 15:08

Arts & Sciences:

From the beginning of a piece on failed civilizations:

In particular many of the so-called hard scientists such as physicists or biologists, don't consider history to be a science. The situation is even more extreme because, he points out, even historians themselves don't consider history to be a science. Historians don't get training in the scientific methods; they don't get training in statistics; they don't get training in the experimental method or problems of doing experiments on historical subjects; and they'll often say that history is not a science, history is closer to an art.

Historians often say that history is not a science because history is not a science. One of the central problems with modern society is its increasing inability to tell the difference between what is a science, and what isn't. This is directly related to the prestige that has come to be associated with the label of "science" during the 20th century.

In part because of the tremendous material advances brought us by science, the concept of science enjoys considerable standing. The best way to make sure that your ideas are put into practice is to convince others that they are scientific: to say that something is scientific is commonly thought to be the same as saying that it is true beyond the possibility of counterargument. Psychology (from the Greek, psyche-, or "spirit/soul," and -ology, or "study of"), which claims to be the science of the mind, has so convinced the majority of Westerners that it is scientific that a psychologist's testimony alone can strip a man of his freedom, serve as reason not to hire him, or to fire him from a job he already has. A man can be subjected to forced injections of drugs and imprisonment based on nothing more than a psychologist's assessment.

This all rests upon a misunderstanding of just what science is. Science is one kind of inquiry, a particular kind that rests upon two general principles: the method of making no assertions that cannot be tested and falsified; and the complete transparency and open debate of all assertions being made, none of which are ever to be taken as invunerable. Science is indeed a great thing; it is indeed powerful.

It isn't -everything-, though, and it isn't all powerful. There are some endeavors that are not, and can not be, science. History is one of them. So, as it happens, is "psychology," which would be more honestly called philopsyche, after the fashion of philosophy. Anything which involves the working of the human mind isn't and cannot be a science. This is simply because the human mind isn't observable, and therefore, it is not testable. Regardless of how cautiously you design your tests, the fact is that you are simply guessing about the why of a given decision. You can't really observe the process of decision making.

Stripping these so-called "social sciences" of the notion that they are sciences is one of the greatest services we could do for our culture. There is nothing more noble than art, exactly because there is nothing more human than art. We ought to be proud to be performing the arts, practicing the arts. There are too many, though, who are unwilling to compete in a fair and open atmosphere. They wish to hide behind the authority of science, even if they must do so illegitimately.

And they must: science was never about stifiling debate, but always about enforcing it systematically. Psychology, sociology, and the rest do not--as history does--recognize honestly the fact that their methods simply cannot be scientifically tested, cannot be falsified, cannot be proven nor disproven. As such, all of their assertions deserve a healthy scepticism. That scepticism should be the healthier for the fact that these so-called disciplines will not admit the truth about their methods. They are a blight upon our way of thinking, and of conceiving the world.

posted by Grim 13:14

Still--

This article from the Policy Review deserves special mention.

posted by Grim 12:57

Arts & Letters Daily:

My favorite of all similar sites, Arts & Letters Daily is one I rarely link to because I'd feel the need to speak to almost every piece. If you don't make a habit of reading it, you might wish to reconsider.

posted by Grim 12:49

On which topic:

Babbin today:

There were several night missions aimed at capturing Saddam last week. The Marines and spec ops guys searched several caves and tunnels near Tikrit. Some had been recently occupied, but neither Saddam nor his sons were found.

posted by Grim 00:08

A Very Merry Un-Birthday:

To Saddam, who is surely dead--or soon to be. One almost hopes he is alive, just so he can enjoy a birthday celebration in constant expectation of the arrival of Marine Force Recon.

Sunday, April 27, 2003

posted by Grim 17:03

Libya's chairmanship of the UN Human Rights Commission:

Even Le Monde can't let it go any longer.

Les choses avaient mal commenc�, cette ann�e, avec l'aide regrettable de la France, par l'�lection malencontreuse � la pr�sidence de la repr�sentante de la Libye, et elles se sont mal poursuivies. . . .
Cette commission est devenue une parodie d'elle-m�me et la majorit� des 53 Etats membres se satisfont de cette situation.

My French is what it is, but that's roughly, "Things began badly, this year, with the regrettable aid of France, with the election to the presidency of Libya's representative, and they have continued badly. . . . This commission has become a parody of herself, and the majority of the 53 member-states are satisfied with this situation."

posted by Grim 16:39

Arab Conspiracy Theories:

From Albawaba.com.

Saturday, April 26, 2003

posted by Grim 14:37

A Compromise?

The White House is said to be backing a bill making it a crime to harm a fetus while assaulting his mother. The NOW has made noises of opposition to the concept, on the grounds that they fear giving legitimacy to the notion that a fetus is a person deserving of legal protections.

Well, we've had this discussion, and it's going nowhere. How about a compromise? Can we just modify the law to double the range of all penalties for violent crimes against pregnant women? If it works well, we can include children under twelve and the elderly in this blanket protection.

posted by Grim 12:38

Chechnya:

This article from the Washington Post treats the establishment of an armed, Islamist camp in Chechnya. The article is skewed by its timeframe, however. It focuses on the development of the Chechen rebellion since 1999, but pays insufficient attention to the period just before and after the fall of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet period was not uniformly brutal, but rather especially brutal in the areas occupied by unfavored minorities (as indeed, the Chinese state is today with its Muslims in East Turkestan, which the PRC calls Xinjiang, "New frontier"). There has been constant fighting since the collapse of the Soviet union. The Russian army found a number of the cities of Chechnya held against them. When they finally broke the last, it was by advancing street by street with infantry and armor, and blasting any buildings held by foes with rocket propelled grenades.

The Russian reconquest has been extrodinarily brutal as well. The rape of both Muslim women and Muslim men by Russian soldiers has been part of the official policy for breaking resistance. It is no wonder that the mid-late 1990s saw the incursion of al Qaeda into Chechnya, which turned into both a rallying cause and training center for the Islamists. Our Mr. Moussaoui ('the 20th hijacker") spent time fighting and training in Chechnya about 1996. When he was arrested in the United States, it was in company with a young American Muslim who claimed Moussaoui recruited him to fight in Chechnya.

Friday, April 25, 2003

posted by Grim 22:39

A British Funeral in the Republic:

Rest in peace, Lance Corporal Malone. Interested readers will find my poem for this fallen Irishman in the archives.

posted by Grim 13:57

Wild Life:

I'm thrilled to see that Aidan Hartley, correspondant to the London Spectator from Kenya, has a piece in the magazine this week after a long absence. I've missed his column, which used to run weekly. After the tragic murder of a close friend, he dropped out for quite a while. I hope he's making a return to regular correspondance.

posted by Grim 13:45

Close, but not quite:

This letter to the editor in the NY Times today is on IRA disarmament:

Sir John Stevens's report that the British Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary colluded with Protestant paramilitaries to kill Catholics in Northern Ireland in the late 1980's confirms what many observers have suspected for some time.

Can there be any wonder that the Irish Republican Army is reluctant to give up all its arms?

The I.R.A. has sustained its cease-fire since 1996, but clearly, it feels that it and the Catholic community would be vulnerable to more attacks if the I.R.A. disarmed unilaterally.

The Good Friday Agreement calls for the general demilitarization of Northern Ireland, so the onus of disarmament should not fall on the I.R.A. alone.

All paramilitary groups in the province should disarm simultaneously, the British Army should withdraw, and the Northern Ireland police must be reformed so that the Catholic minority can trust them.
T. W. HEYCK

The IRA keeping its guns until the Protestants give up theirs is not the answer; and it certainly isn't the answer for the IRA to hang onto an arsenal until the British military withdraws. What do cached guns do for Catholics--even IRA members--that the Ulster paramilitary men want to kill, with or without British help?

The IRA should disband, but their guns should be divided among the Catholic population. The people of Ireland, and Northern Ireland, ought to enjoy a free man's right to self defense and the bearing of arms. It isn't through threats of future IRA reprisals that the power of terror can be broken. It's by the certainty of law-abiding self defense. Denying that right to the peoples of Ireland, Protestant and Catholic, prolongs the conflict and keeps the illegal armies ensconced in the shadows of power.

posted by Grim 13:33

DPRK to test bomb?

This blog, 21st March: "Earlier this week I was discussing with a close friend a theory I had that they might test a weapon underground, thereby creating more fissible material on the instant as well as announcing that they were a nuclear state."

Today's Economist: "A further worry is North Korea�s threat at the talks, according to the Americans, that it might test one of its weapons, which would greatly escalate the crisis on the Korean peninsula"

posted by Grim 13:11

We have no money going down the mountain:

The new "Parents: the Anti-Drug" page has this to say about marijuana use:

According to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University, teens who use drugs are five times more likely to have sex than are those teens who do not use drugs. . . . Kids need to hear how risky marijuana use can be.

Oh, yeah. Just what I'll tell my teenage son. "It makes it five times as likely that you'll have sex!" Good God.

posted by Grim 12:46

I may win my Tikrit bet yet:

From Babbin's Warblog today:

In the flood of small news yesterday, one report caught my attention. A Fox reporter searching the offices of Mohamed al-Sahhaf, aka Baghdad Bob the Saddamite propaganda minister, said his crew had found a handwritten note to Bob from Saddam dated 30 March. If the note is genuine, it would show that Saddam survived the first "decapitation strike" and was still in command ten days before Baghdad fell. British Defence Minister Geoff Hoon said the other day that Saddam is alive, and probably still in Iraq. If he is, the hunch is that he's in the area near Tikrit, his home town. Oliver North is also there, with the Fourth I.D. If Saddam is found, I know one old Marine who will move heaven and earth to be there when the Ace of Spades in the Doomsday Deck is taken down.

posted by Grim 12:00

Two from the British Papers:

Mark Steyn's piece on the UN in the London Spectator; Theodore Dalrymple on the question of SARS in Britian in the Daily Telegraph. The Telegraph may require free registration.

Thursday, April 24, 2003

posted by Grim 11:28

Special Operations:

Special Operations forces are not created equal. In fact, "special operations" is too loose a category to be meaningful. Spend time with military men, and you will invariably hear some bootless debate about whether the Navy's SEALs or the Army's Special Forces are better: in fact, there can be no comparison, as they serve different functions, and are therefore trained differently. Here's a quick guide to the special operations forces in the news just now, what they are for, and what they're not.

"Airborne": In the US Army, the "Airborne" designation originated in WWII, when it referred to paratroopers. These days, the 101st Airborne and 82nd Airborne are not really that--although we did see the first major deployment of paratroopers since WWII when the 173rd Airborne took an airfield in northern Iraq. Airborne units are now "air assault" units, generally capable of paratrooper operations, but more likely to be air-mobile infantry backed with attack helicopters like the Apache. In theory, this makes them fast-moving ground forces. In practice, the sandstorms in Iraq grounded the 101st for several days, while the traditional mechanized infantry units advanced at pace. Nevertheless, Airborne units tend to have had advanced training beyond the standard infantry school, to include paratrooper training in many cases. In the US Army, they are allowed to wear maroon berets.

Army Special Forces: The famous "green berets," these men are primarily trained for insurgency/counterinsurgency operations. They are generally proficient linguists, selected in part because they have an ability to pick up new languages quickly. They are meant to train guerrilla forces for proxy wars, or train armies in the methods of hunting and eliminating guerrilla forces, though they can of course function as guerrilla/antiguerrilla forces themselves. This made them the natural choice for the Afghan campaign, where their language skills let them pick up local Pashtun dialects to coordinate with Northern Alliance forces. This allowed the American air assets to function smoothly with an alien army. The Special Forces' small, capable teams are also good at commando attacks.

Army Rangers: The Army Rangers used to be designated by a black beret, but these days wear a khaki one becaue the black beret is now standard-issue for all GIs. Rangers are highly trained light infantry. They practice mostly the standard infantry skills, but to a greater degree of proficiency; in addition, they are trained in unusual methods of insertion and movement--for example, being flown in while dangling from a helicopter by a rope (SPI roping), or rappelling. They aren't really meant to function independently of the main Army forces, unlike the Green Berets, but to act as supplementary forces for particularly dangerous operations or difficult terrain. They are also used for reconnaisance missions, though the Army maintains scout units as well.

Delta Force: The Delta Force does not exist. It doesn't do anything, because it does not exist. One hears rumors from time to time--for example, that the Delta Force was hanging around Baghdad, keeping eyes on Baathist leaders--but these must be lies, since we are assured that it does not exist. If it did exist, though, it would be drawn from the best commando units the US military has to offer, and would be intended to be deployed for such commando raids as were most perilous and least likely to be survived. It was, rumor says, originally intended to combat terrorist groups.

Marine Corps Recon / Force Recon: Marine Recon normally is just that: a unit trained in reconnaissance and forward observation. They are remarkably stealthy, and meant to operate behind enemy lines, getting a picture of what the enemy is about. "Force" Recon units are more heavily armed, and intended to operate deep behind enemy lines, as well as to take on commando-style attacks. Force Recon is occasionally rumored to be involved with black operations--assassinations, for example--but there is no evidence to support these assertions. Whether this is because the assertions are untrue, or because Force Recon are utter professionals, is left to the reader to judge.

Marine Corps Scout Snipers: Their name explains what they do. They operate in pairs--a sniper, and a spotter. They can be sent forward to scout, as they are masters of concealment and camoflauge; or, they can operate with larger units to provide them with the very finest in sniping capabilities. In Vietnam, they frequently operated on hunter/killer missions behind enemy lines, at which they were so successful that the North Vientamese instituted a heavy bounty on the heads of any Sniper killed.

Marine Corps MEU (SOC): MEU stands for "Marine Expeditionary Unit," and (SOC) stands for "Special Operations Capable." The MEU is one of several MAGTFs (Marine Corps Air/Ground Task Forces). A MAGTF is a grouping of no set size, consisting of a group of Marine Corps infantry, possibly with attached armor or other mechanized assets, linked to a group of Marine Corps Air. The largest of these MAGTFs is the Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF), which is at least a reinforced division of Marines coupled with a full wing of Marine Air. The MEU is smaller than the MEF. SOC means that the entire MEU, every last member down to the cooks and postal workers, are trained in special operations procedures, and tested according to standards even more rigorous than USMC standard--which is, it ought to be remarked, a standard already far higher than the Army's. An MEU (SOC) is really an army that can be deployed anywhere, at any time, instantly: and, having arrived wherever it wants to be, is possessed of sufficient firepower to hold off whatever forces may be directed against it until such time as it can be relieved. They aren't commandos, and they aren't intended for sabotage missions. They are, themselves, a second front, to be opened anywhere the President wants them.

Navy SEALs: The SEALs, it is well known, got their start as underwater demolition teams (UDTs) in WWII, destroying mines to clear harbors. They have since evolved into a commando unit, probably the most technology-oriented of US commandos. They are especially skilled at insertion/extraction, which means that they can come and go without anyone knowing they were there. The SEALs, particularly the notorious SEAL Team Six, are used in much the same way that the Delta Force would be used if it existed. They are sent to rescue hostages, bring people out of hostile countries, or destroy facilities behind enemy lines. Their training in technology gives them remarkable flexibility--I've never met a SEAL who wasn't capable of flying a plane or jumping out of one, operating a remarkable range of underwater gear, and of course expert in firearms and small unit tactics. The SEALs aren't, however, selected for linguistic/training abilities, like the Green Berets: they are pure commandos, intended to operate either independently or as a wing of a larger campaign, but not intended to raise and train guerrilla forces or stay around long enough to learn the local tongue.

British Special Operations: The British have deployed three sets of special operations forces in Iraq: the Royal Marine Commandos, the Special Air Service, and the Special Boat Squad. It's useful to think of the RMCs as being similar to Marine Force Recon, and the SBS as very much like the Navy SEALs; but the SAS is quite its own thing. It is probably the finest commando force in the world, but it also selects for linguistics and other skills that one expects to see in the Green Berets. There are persistent rumors that the SAS has spent much of the last thirty years cutting its teeth on murder raids in the Republic of Ireland against IRA targets. We know it was employed in Afghanistan during the Tora Bora battle. However, most of the SAS's activities are still hidden in secrecy. Even its dead, posthumously awarded Britian's highest medals, are not named.

posted by Grim 09:58

Kurtz:

In The Corner today, Stanley Kurtz speaks at some length (and with additional links to previous articles) to the Santorum debate.

Wednesday, April 23, 2003

posted by Grim 23:34

Mark Steyn on Bush:

I'm getting around to Mark Steyn rather late this time around--some ten days late, in fact. His profile of Bush is worth reading, though, if (like me) you missed it the first time out. The most interesting part of the piece to me is this:

Bush doesn't see why children in Mosul are so different from those in Crawford: why shouldn't they have the same freedoms? You can mock this if you wish. It seems very odd that the Left, which routinely bemoans the injustice of Barbara Bush's son having greater opportunities than the son of a crack whore in the inner city merely because of an accident of birth, then turns around and tells 20 million Iraqis that they have to accept their lot and live in a prison state forever. Julian Barnes, Iowa's Democratic Senator Tom Harkin and a zillion others continue to feel this way - even after Saddam's fall.

Whether or not Mr Bush can succeed in his most ambitious objective - to democratise the Middle East - it is surely hard to deny that, next to the shriveled condescension of Barnes and co, his is the progressive position - adopted in the teeth of cynical opposition, not least from his own State Department.

Progressive--I like that. Let's progress right on past the wasteland of modernism, exactly by returning to the old values of classical liberalism. It was, after all, the classical liberal who first propounded the idea that all men were created equal, and that some rights were endowed inalienably.

posted by Grim 11:35

The Founding:

When I suggest that a federal system in Iraq which permits Sharia law would be "like what America looked like at the founding," I mean that more or less literally. It's often forgotten that, in spite of the 1st Amendment, religious liberty at the founding was a patchwork of tolerance and intolerance. Some states were quite liberal about what they would accept, and some quite illiberal. Georgia, for example, at its founding pointedly refused to accept Catholics (as well as lawyers and slaves), but went to some trouble to settle Jacobite Presbyterians (and probably a quiet Catholic or two), German Lutherans, and Jews. In fact, George Washington addressed the Jews of Savannah during his visit to the city. The debates between Bostonians and the denizens of "Rogue's Island," more commonly known as Rhode Island, provide a similar play. States founded by Puritans tended to support religious liberty for Puritans, but no one else; Rhode Island tended toward a radical form of Calvanist determinism which argued that, since we were all predestined anyway, we might as well enjoy ourselves.

The 1st Amendment's declaration of religious liberty, then, really touched on only the Federal government. As the Supreme Court Historical Society notes,

Madison would have accomplished at the Founding, at least in part, what the Supreme Court was destined to hold 160 years later. Madison crafted his second proposal very simply: "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience." The proposal, I hasten to add, went on to protect the freedom of the press and the right to trial by jury in criminal cases; it was not devoted 'exclusively to religious freedom.

Nor should it go unnoticed from these two measures that Madison entertained a bifurcated notion as to governmental power to establish religion: under his two proposals Congress clearly could not establish a national religion, but the States, in contrast, could establish their own state religions, at least if they did not infringe upon "the equal rights of conscience."

This too, upon reflection, is unexceptional. For at that time 5 of the 13 States maintained establishments of religion, the last of which, Massachusetts, was not dissolved until 1833.

It took the Civil War, and the 14th Amendment, to change the nature of the Bill of Rights from restrictions on the Federal government alone to restrictions on state governments as well. But this is just what I am after. The Civil War is the story of wealth and power collecting in the liberalized areas of the nation, and then turning to bring the countryside to heel. Following the Civil War, during the long period after Reconstruction, we see a second collection of power and wealth in the cities of the South, whose relative liberality allowed them to for the basis for (admittedly segregated) prosperous black communities, out of which in turn grew the Civil Rights movement. The key is to let liberalization happen organically. We need to focus on keeping the framework for such liberalization stable, while keeping friendly ties to the Islamic leaders so that they will side with us instead of terror groups. That means giving the conservative elements a stake in Iraq's government, perhaps even a controlling stake at the level of local provinces.

posted by Grim 10:09

Making Peace:

The NY Times today confirms Amir Taheri, arguing that the Iranian government is trying to destabilize the creation of a secular state in Iraq. Apparently Iranian agents are there, working to stir up the Shia Muslims in favor of an Islamist state. Michael Ledeen offers his advice on dealing with the Shia Muslims here.

I will reiterate my thoughts, which are that a stable state will require giving these clerics a stake in the power. It is necessary that we establish a free, and classically liberal, state in Iraq. It won't look like America, though, if it's going to be a stable state. It will look more like what America looked like at the founding: a constitutional federation of smaller states, each with local autonomy over certain questions. We may have to accept Sharia law in some of these local states in order to have a fully stable Iraq with a secular Baghdad.

This is ok, because power and wealth will accumulate in the liberal areas. In time, they will wield that power to liberalize the backcountry on their own. For the United States, there are just two concerns in Iraq: 1) to provide a stable framework for the gradual transformation and liberalization. This requires giving everyone a stake, provided only that they will forswear terrorism as a method of getting their way. 2) Ending the support of terror groups from within Iraq. This requires keeping friendly ties open with the Islamic leaders, rather than driving a wedge between ourselves and them. Give them local-states of their own, and they will become involved with the running of those states. Appoint ambassadors with knowledge of Islamic culture to those states, and keep a friendly dialogue open with regular gifts--provided that they, in return, help us ferret out al Qaeda and other terrorist infiltrators. Such groups are making it easy for us by targeting Shia holy sites and clerics for destruction. The cooperation of the 82nd Airborne in preventing that most recent attack is worth a division of State Department ambassadors.

It's a long haul, but I think it can be done, and done well. Of course, there are still those who would prefer letting the French take charge, as they are doing in the Ivory Coast. The French-backed "reconciliation government" in la Cote d'Ivorie reports great success in ending the troubles there, excepting those three hundred killed in yesterday's fighting.

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

posted by Grim 20:22

Gays and the Presbyterian Church:

Gays don't get a lot of play on my blog, because of my disinterest in (and, let's be honest, distaste for) gay issues and culture. However, today we'll have two items on them, this one via Wren's Nest. It treats a Presbyterian minister who is marrying gays, which is against church law and, I suspect, state law. The fellow's church is apparently given to appointing actively homosexual decons in violation of church rules, which require chastity among unmarried lay leaders. In spite of these violations, the church has limited its punishment to a gentle chiding.

It reminds me of the old joke we used to tell:

Q: How can you tell a Baptist from a Methodist?
A: The Methodist will share his beer with you.
Q: How can you tell a Presbyterian, then?
A: The Presbyterian will run the church bus by the liquor store.

The minister in question plans to appeal even the gentle chiding on the grounds that he thinks the rules against gay marriage go against Scripture. This is a new one on me--I've heard of Scriptural interpretations that suggested that the crime of Sodom wasn't homosexuality but a failing of hospitality, but I have never heard of any Scriptural argument in favor of homosexual marriage. As I am interested in comparative religion, though, I'll be glad to hear the argument if any of my readers know what it is. Let me know, if you hear anything about it.

posted by Grim 19:30

Gays & Polygamy:

Another Republican Senator is in trouble for his mouth. You'd think Republicans would just stop speaking in public. This time it's the Honorable Rick Santorum, who said this:

If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.

There are three things to be said about this. First, bigamy is perhaps the most improperly used word in American jurisprudence. It comes from the Greek, and does indeed mean "two-wifed." However, bigamy was the practice of having a second wife after the death of the first one, not the practice of having two wives at once, which was (and is) polygamy. American legislatures have always gotten the semantics wrong, which is irritating to those of us who like having words for each concept instead of confusing the concepts.

Second, Santorum here seems to be echoing Stanley Kurtz of the National Review, who has made this argument at great length. See his pieces "The Coming Battle," "The Real Issue" and "Gay Marriage Endgame". He's written more about it, most of which can be found by following the links contained in his articles. Stanley Kurtz and Andrew Sullivan have maintained a running fight about this for months. The Senator is just abbreviating Kurtz's points, with which he apparently agrees. It's unfair to call for his removal for participating in political discourse--that's what we expect of Senators, after all, it's what they are for.

Last, I find the Kurtz/Santorum argument astonishing. It takes this form: "Gay marriage should not be allowed because it would necessarily allow polygamy, and polygamy would mark the real destruction of marriage as an institution." But polygamy has been the main way in which marriage has been practiced for all of human history. It is specifically permitted in the Torah, which gives rules in Exodus for taking a second wife; when Jesus speaks to adultery in the New Testament, he clearly leaves open the traditional polygamist way of Jewish marriage; Mormonism obviously permits it in their scripture; and as for non-Judeo-Christian marriage, there isn't a religion among them that forbids polygamy. All of them have traditions of polygamist behavior historically, and many--Islam for example--have scripture to support the taking of extra wives.

No culture, however, has ever allowed gay marriage. The Kurtz/Santorum argument is perhaps the most extrodinary case of cart-before-horseism I've seen in my life. Polygamy, though problematic, would represent a return to roots, and indeed there are strong arguments in its favor in an era in which traditional families are crumbling and divorce rates are skyrocketing. Gay marriage is a complete departure from everything marriage has ever represented.

posted by Grim 18:28

Guns & Free Men:

The Washington Post today prints this letter explaining why no one stopped a man from being beaten to death in Maryland. The short answer is this:

But I also understand the reluctance of unarmed bystanders to confront a large man in a homicidal rage. This is called "disparity of force," and it provides legal justification for the use of deadly weapons in self-defense.

Unfortunately, because of Maryland's strict gun control laws, no bystander was likely to be armed.

Police officers cannot be present at all violent crimes, but victims, by definition, always are. Without weapons, the weak will always be at the mercy of the strong.

Maryland's gun control laws--I've had occasion to look into them lately--are far more stringent than the norm for the United States. There is no "shall issue" permit for carrying a firearm, but rather permits are issued only if the state police agree with your reasons for going armed (apparently, "because people are getting beaten to death" isn't a good enough reason). Even if permits are issued, the fees are shockingly high--some seventy dollars even to consider the permit, which is good then only for two years, and must be renewed at fifty dollars a year thenceforth. In Georgia, the fee is three dollars a year, just to cover the administrative costs of the background check. Further, the permit is "shall issue," which means that the state is obligated to give you the permit unless they can prove you are disqualified under the law. They can't turn it down just because they want to.

But Georgia is a backwards Southern state, right? Well--it's a Southern state, but it looks to be ahead of the trend. All but 18 states now offer "shall issue" permits, with crime rates dropping in all such states after the change in the law, and by a more or less uniform percentage. Guns in law abiding hands seem to limit crimes, for just the reasons cited in the letter above.

Of course, if Maryland is bad, the situation in D.C. is far worse. However, that may be about to change.

(Full disclosure: I'm no utilitarian--I believe in the right of free men to keep and bear arms as a point of honor and tradition. I would back it even if it increased crime rates, simply because the right to bear arms is indivisible from the actual fact of being free. A man who is forbidden arms is not free, not only because he is prohibited from exercising a traditional liberty, but also because he must thereafter be at the mercy of the strong, or the many.)

posted by Grim 16:40

Aussies Consider the DPRK:

The Aussie press seems to have decided that the US is going to take out North Korea. The Sydney Morning Herald ran this article titled Secret U.S. File: Oust Regime in Pyongyang. Meanwhile, the Advertiser has a piece called US Blueprint to Bomb North Korea. It suggests that we have a plan to strike the Yongbyon reactor and the DPRK's artillery positions on the DMZ line in the event of active reprocessing at Yongbyon.

The Pentagon hawks believe the precision strikes envisaged in the plan would not lead to North Korea's initiating a general war it would be certain to lose. The US would inform the North Koreans it was not aiming to destroy the regime of Kim Jong-il, but merely to destroy its nuclear weapons capacity.

No word on what kind of weapons would be used in the "precision" strikes on DPRK arty, but the positions they are talking about are extensive and fortified. The US military's precision strike weapons are impressive--this Iraq business has made that clear--but my own impression is echoed by John Derbyshire's article Night Thoughts:

The logic all points one way: to nuclear weapons. The only way to put North Korea out of business without South Korea�s co-operation is by attacking their emplacements along the DMZ with neutron bombs (�enhanced radiation weapons�). Nothing else does the job without precipitating an invasion of South Korea.

I have to agree. I don't think we have any other option that allows us to neutralize the artillery positions quickly enough to prevent them turning lose devastation on Seoul. The use of nukes will not pass as "precision strikes" in anyone's book, and I don't think there is any friendly message that Bush can send to talk Kim out of a reply. Once we go to guns on the DPRK, we're committed to a real war. There should be no joking around about this. It may be the right thing to do--I'm increasingly convinced that it is, though I am willing to see how the China talks develop. It should be understood, though, that we are not talking about precision strikes this time, nor a cost-free bombing run to solve all our problems.

Of course, these Canberra sources seem to be drawing on Pentagon and DoD sources. The State Department may have other ideas.

posted by Grim 16:12

My Favorite American Beer:

Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer is apparently enjoying a renaissance among the young and hip. It was my grandfather's beer, and the one I took up when living in Hangzhou, China, on those occasions when I wanted beer not cut with rice wine. It's actually very good--leaving aside the microbreweries and specialists, probably still the best American beer. Glad to see it making a comeback. (Story via InstaPundit).

posted by Grim 09:39

Guns in Iraq:

The Corner at NRO today has this post from Dave Kopel:

Although British troops in Basra have been urging residents to voluntarily turn in their guns, American forces in the middle-class Baghdad suburb of Hay al-Qudhat are doing no such thing. Instead, they are simply ordering people not to carry guns in public. Neighborhood residents have been defending their homes from looters. Said one resident, "We all have guns, but we don't want them. We just want peace and stability." The neighborhood is home to many doctors, lawyers, and other professionals.

Right. A free man has the right to bear arms. As this page has advocated before, arming and empowering the liberal elements in Iraqi society is the surest first step to creating a liberal, but free, Iraq.

Monday, April 21, 2003

posted by Grim 17:57

Pax vobiscum:

A funeral for one of our own. Semper Fidelis.

Saturday, April 19, 2003

posted by Grim 15:04

From the Economist:

An article on the development of international relations.

posted by Grim 12:26

Iraqi Shias:

Analysis via Orders of Battle.

posted by Grim 11:56

On Wagner:

Via the indispensible Arts & Letters Daily, we have this article from the Guardian on Wagner. I think it neatly captures why I find the culture's constant attempts at satire grating:

Since then, Wagner's enterprise has acquired its own tragic pathos, as modern producers, embarrassed by dramas that make a mockery of their way of life, in turn make a mockery of the symbolism. Sarcasm and satire run riot, as in Richard Jones's 1994-96 Covent Garden production of The Ring, because nobility has become intolerable.

I hope that we may start to see a reversal here. We will have to earn it, but we have an opportunity. Our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and elsewhere, have a chance to build an awareness of what real nobility looks like. Our best ambassadors on that project are already at work--which is to say, not ambassadors at all, but those men who go in uniform. Their sacrifices inform us as Wagner's characters meant to:

For Wagner, as for the Greeks, a myth was not a decorative fairy tale, but the elaboration of a secret, a way of both hiding and revealing mysteries that can be understood only in religious terms, through the ideas of sanctity, holiness and redemption....

The gods come about because we idealise our passions, and we do this not by sentimentalising them but by sacrificing ourselves to the vision on which they depend. It is by accepting the need for sacrifice that we begin to live under divine jurisdiction, surrounded by sacred things, and finding meaning through love. Seeing things that way, we recognise that we are not condemned to mortality but consecrated to it.

posted by Grim 11:17

Bad Translation?

Via the Corner at NRO, there is this story that North Korea may not be reprocessing its fuel rods yet. It is, they say, a mistranslation--they meant, they were ready to do so.

Friday, April 18, 2003

posted by Grim 13:42

Birth of a Nation:

Iraqi muslims are demonstrating "by the tens of thousands" for an Islamic state in Iraq, and an end to the occupation of Iraq by the United States. Well, we haven't even finished occupying the place yet. Meanwhile, an Iraqi religious leader in Iran is calling for an assembly in Karbala to protest the US efforts to set up an interim government.

This is going to be a lasting problem, and a problem for the long term. There is a model for this from history which ought to be kept in mind: the reconstruction of Confederate states by the Union after the Civil War. Initial efforts at self-government were met with the former Confederate states re-electing Confederate leaders to serve in the government--Alexander Stepehens, vice president of the Confederacy, was sent to the US Senate by Georgia. Unwilling to allow former Confederates such authority, the US government expelled them from their offices and imposed a military government, and required the states to rewrite their constitutions and elect governments approved by the military regime, as well as ratify certain Federal Constitutional amendments (Amendments 13, 14, and 15).

This heavy handed approach resulted in Reconstruction states that were liberal on the surface, but deeply unpopular. As soon as the government retracted its close watch, the populace re-elected Confederate members again--Joe Brown, for example, governor of the state of Georgia before the Civil War, during the Civil War, and then after the Civil War.

Much more importantly, though, was that the countryside fell under the control of terror groups, who grew together to form the Ku Klux Klan. Liberal elements were subject to night-rides, lynchings, beatings, and worse. By the late 1870s, liberal elements were expunged from the government, the state constitutions were rewritten to effectively strip blacks of voting rights, and segregation was in place.

If that is not to happen in Iraq, we will have to be careful in our handling of the place. First, we have to avoid the temptation to shut down these Islamic protests. We have to find a way to bring them into the fold and give them a stake in making the government work. Otherwise, we may find that whatever state system we impose will collapse because of their deep and devoted antipathy.

Another thing we need to do is to fortify liberal elements. There are quite a few of these in Baghdad particularly, especially among those engaged in commerce. The government must also be a thing they have a stake in, and they ought to be encouraged to take small civic leadership roles--the more of them who take such roles, the better. A wise policy would be dividing the cities into many small wards, getting these relatively liberal, commercially minded men into place as mayors, and letting them hire private police forces. Some of the money from the oil wells should be set aside to fund such forces which, being private and each operating according to its owner's personal interest, will not be so likely to fall under the sway of the central government should it turn toward radical Islam. Thus, liberal elements in Iraq would have many strong pockets that would make it harder for terror groups to torment the populace into compliance.

Last, these terror groups need to be eradicated. Special operations teams should begin to be tasked with the regular capture or, if capture is not possible, assassination of terrorist leadership members. It is helpful to remember that they are, in effect, the KKK, and like the KKK they have a core of educated and intelligent men who are leading a mass of uneducated but passionate men. Without the leadership elements, the terror groups can not organize or operate except on a local level. It is when they grow together, as the KKK grew out of many small groups, that they become dangerous to the liberalization of Iraq.

posted by Grim 13:11

Worse news from Pyongyang:

So North Korea is now reprocessing its fuel rods. These talks we're going to have with them in China will be very interested. Sure, if you're Kim Jong Il, you'd want to be negotiating from behind a growing stockpile of nukes, too. That's the strongest possible position for North Korea.

However, these talks have been "brokered," to use the Washington Post's word, by the People's Republic of China. This bad-faith move by the DPRK is a cause of considerable embarrassment to the PRC. There is nothing the Chinese hate more than being humiliated in public. In the long run, therefore, this could be a good sign--China may now feel it has to take a hard line with the DPRK to save face.

posted by Grim 08:19

Bad News from Ulster:

This is the biggest story out of Northern Ireland in several years. Scotland Yard has disclosed that British security forces aided Protestant hit squads in Northern Ireland. The Washington Post has the story as well.

The credible suspicion of this sort of thing fueled a lot of US donations to the IRA during the pre-9/11 days. I was myself pro-IRA in my misspent youth, just exactly because I believed--truthfully, as it turns out--that the British government was involved with murder raids on Northern Ireland Catholics. It's really only been 9/11 that brought many of us Americans to take a second look at the IRA, and realize what a band of thugs it is. But if part of it was that we didn't understand what terrorism really was, there was also the fact that the British were behaving brutally.

It's important to realize that MI5 isn't the whole of the British government, though. In the days after 9/11 we often read in the UK newspapers that we Americans needed a domestic security service like MI5. No, we don't, thank you kindly. This is the kind of thing such groups do.

posted by Grim 08:05

In Texas? Say it ain't so:

Drudge has this story today, which says that the commanding general at Fort Sam Houston has recommended military men not wear uniforms in public to avoid harassment and possible violence. There have been two incidents, one involving an assault on the car of a drill sergeant and his wife, the other involving two sailors who were accosted by "several men."

The sailors were in luck:

Some Marines who were nearby saw what was happening and went to the sailors' aid. The matter was then taken care of by combined military action.

Semper Fi.

posted by Grim 07:59

Victory against the Nazis:

Simon Wiesenthal is declaring victory, and ending his hunt for the remaining Nazis. Mr. Wiesenthal, 94, says that any who remain are too old to stand trial. I will trust his judgement on the point. It is good to remember that, for sixty years, people like Mr. Wiesenthal have been making sure that evil does not go unpunished. It is also good to remember that all that evil would have gone unpunished, would in fact have ruled in Europe, if it had not been for the same Anglo-American military alliance that is hunting evil now. Pass the Deck of Death.

posted by Grim 07:50

Infiltration:

Guerrillas in Pakistan continue to raid India and the Kashmir vale. The US State Department expresses frustration with Pakistan, but how much success have we had controlling the Mexican border? Funny you should ask, says the Washington Times--an occasionally dubious source, mind you. Jay Leno explains:

A dozen Al Qaeda members now hiding in Mexico, trying to figure out how to get across the US border to do us harm. Let me tell you something, if these people are not smart enough how to figure to get across the US-Mexican border, I don't think we have anything to worry about.

posted by Grim 07:43

The UN, cont.

The UN has become little more than a venue for delaying tactics by dictatorial states, I said. What else is it? A venue for tactics by socialist bureaucrats to hamper US efforts. Taheri may be right or wrong about Damascus and Teheran seeking to hinder the US reconstruction of Iraq, but it is plain that Paris wants to do so.

posted by Grim 07:40

On Syria (and Iran):

Amy Taheri has an article in the National Review today which suggests that Iran and Syria are collaborating on ways to make the reconstruction of Iraq difficult for us. The notion she puts forth is that, by making Iraq hard, these two states hope to distract us from dealing with either (or both) of them. Taheri lists several factors that could be brought into play.

On another front, Syria has pledged to rid the Middle East of Weapons of Mass Destruction and has submitted a plan to that effect to the United Nations. The UN has become little more than the venue for delaying tactics by dictatorial states, as this plan demonstrates:

On Wednesday, Damascus asked the U.N. Security Council to help transform the region into a zone free of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Speaking to reporters in Cairo today, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq Charaa said: "After this initiative, this Syrian proposal . . . Syria won't allow any inspection. It will only participate with its [Arab] brothers and all of the states of the world in turning the Middle East into an area free of weapons of mass destruction."

It was not clear if his remarks were a departure from Syria's previously stated position that it would only allow weapons inspections if they applied to all regional states, including Israel, which is widely believed to have nuclear arms.

So, in short, Syria seeks a nice-sounding resolution behind which to hide, but has no intention of allowing any positive steps to demonstrate compliance. Meanwhile, speculation is rampant that many of Iraq's WMDs passed into Syrian control before the invasion.

Thursday, April 17, 2003

posted by Grim 20:18

Easter at Grim's House:

What sort of Easter Basket will my son Beowulf be getting?

Tuesday, April 15, 2003

posted by Grim 18:42

...and keep your spear to hand:

Here is an article on what Norse Mythology has to say about gun control.

Sunday, April 13, 2003

posted by Grim 17:19

More on the Jihadi:

This time via InstaPundit, Sage of Knoxville, a solution for dealing with the jihadi:

In the densely populated northeastern slum area of Saddam City, U.S. Marines pulled back to allow local people to hunt "mujahideen" volunteer fighters holed up in the area.

"The locals said they wanted to take charge of Saddam City and we said: 'Roger that'," Lieutenant-Colonel Lew Craparotta, commander of a Marine unit that moved back from the fringes of the suburb, told Reuters.

Local leaders told U.S. officers that non-Iraqi Arab fighters were still a threat in the mainly Shi'ite district.

"It's much easier for them to identify the enemy than for us. We really can't tell who is who," Craparotta said.

The U.S. withdrawal will allow local men to carry weapons openly, set up checkpoints and cordon off areas where they suspect the Arab volunteer fighters are hiding....

Local militia and the "mujahideen" fought fiercely through Friday night until after dawn, with the sound of sustained small arms and heavy machinegun fire suggesting substantial clashes between the two groups. U.S. forces were not involved.

On Saturday, sporadic small arms fire erupted in the poor district, indicating the "flushing out" operation was ongoing.

Baghdad is saturated with weapons, so both the militia and the Arab volunteer fighters have easy access to large arms and ammunition caches.

Now this is the way it ought to be. Iraqis are taking command of their destiny, and by force of arms erecting a society free of terror men. It's damned inspiring, and just right. Many have asked if you can impose freedom with an army. Here is the answer: Perhaps not, but you can tip the scales to allow brave men to claim it.

posted by Grim 16:55

Al Qaeda in Basra?

Via ParaPundit, a report from the London Times:

PRESIDENT Saddam Hussein imported hundreds of well-trained Islamic guerrillas before the war to spearhead his fight against American and British forces, The Times has learnt....

The foreign fighters provide a �direct tie between Saddam Hussein and terrorist organisations�, a Pentagon spokeswoman said last night.

British investigators are more cautious, but one officer involved in questioning the survivors told The Times: �These are not just zealots who grabbed a gun and went to the front line. They know how to employ guerrilla tactics so someone had to have trained them. They are certainly organised, and if it�s not bin Laden�s people, its al-Qaeda by another name. But they certainly came here to fight the West.�

Tellingly, many of these jihadi arrived on student visas, claiming to be enrolled in the school for Koranic studies. "Talib," from whence "Taliban," translates as "student" with the understanding that it is the Koran being studied. Student visas seem to be a method of choice for AQ agents travelling in the West, though why they would bother with the pretense in Iraq is not clear. Of course, some just listed their reason for coming to Iraq as "jihadi."

posted by Grim 16:10

When Ladies Wrote Poems of Knights:

The Knight Errant
by Louise Guiney

SPIRITS of old that bore me,
And set me, meek of mind,
Between great dreams before me,
And deeds as great behind,
Knowing humanity my star
As first abroad I ride,
Shall help me wear, with every scar,
Honor at eventide.

Let claws of lightning clutch me
From summer's groaning cloud,
Or ever malice touch me,
And glory make me proud.
O give my youth, my faith, my sword,
Choice of the heart's desire:
A short life in the saddle, Lord!
Not long life by the fire.

Forethought and recollection
Rivet mine armor gay!
The passion for perfection
Redeem my failing way!
The arrows of the tragic time
From sudden ambush cast,
With calm angelic touches ope
My Paradise at last!

I fear no breathing bowman,
But only, east and west,
The awful other foeman
Impowered in my breast.
The outer fray in the sun shall be,
The inner beneath the moon;
And may Our Lady lend to me
Sight of the Dragon soon!

posted by Grim 15:39

Speak Softly & Carry a Big Stick:

In spite of a half dozen repetitions by administration officials last week that we have no intention of invading, North Korea seems to be making the first placatory noises in quite a while. The Financial Times reports today on what is, on its face, not a big concession--but it is a concession, which is a start.

In a statement issued by the Foreign Ministry, North Korea said: "If the US is ready to make a bold switch-over in its Korea policy for a settlement of the nuclear issue, [North Korea] will not stick to any particular dialogue format."

Pyongyang had previously insisted the crisis could be resolved only through bilateral dialogue with the US but Washington feared such talks would reward North Korea's nuclear "blackmail". Instead, the US has proposed multilateral talks, involving other interested countries, such as South Korea, Japan and China.

I personally have had no feeling that the Iraq war would inspire good behavior from the DPRK, as I expect it will from Iran and Syria, and others in the Middle East. The DPRK, being probably possessed of nuclear arms, and certainly possessed of ballistic missiles, would stand of US pressure at sword's point. Certainly the DPRK has been working feverishly to bring its reactor online, though technical problems have prevented it in spite of round-the-clock efforts.

The Iraq war does seem to have impressed Pyongyang, however, and more importantly, it has impressed China:

North Korea has come under heavy diplomatic pressure from its neighbours to accept the US offer of multilateral talks. In particular, diplomats said China, North Korea's closest ally, had become much more active in persuading Pyongyang to back down.

Washington and Pyongyang have no formal diplomatic relations but the pair have been communicating in recent weeks through the UN in New York. China is also thought to have passed messages between the two sides.

It's too early to do more than hope--there are serious concerns that make a negotiated settlement highly unlikely to prove successful in derailing the DPRK's nuclear project. Still, Washington's soft-spoken approach hasn't been spineless: there is a big stick held in plain sight. That report is from Japan, and highlights not only the US but also the Japanese stick; this report, from Reuters, spells out Pyongyang's peril in bold letters.

posted by Grim 14:39

Also from the Economist:

The French do something right.

posted by Grim 14:37

Tikrit:

The Marines have landed, and the situation is well in hand. The Economist also reports. Resistance is reportedly very light, unlike in Baghdad where stiff firefights still crop up from time to time. This probably means I won't be winning my bet on Tikrit as Saddam's Last Stand. Of course, U.S. forces think he's probably dead, so it may not matter.

Saturday, April 12, 2003

posted by Grim 21:53

Love Thy Enemy:

Truly practiced at welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com. Link via OxBlog.

posted by Grim 17:11

So Mao Had the Giant Bed...

And Saddam had mirrored walls and shag carpet.

posted by Grim 16:27

More Songs from Ireland:

Here is a piece of an old Orangeman song that speaks properly of certain fighters in Iraq:

United in blood to the country�s disgrace,
They secretly shoot those they dare not to face;
But whenever we catch the sly rogues in the field,
A handful of soldiers makes hundreds to yield;
The cowards collect but to raise our renown,
For as soon as we fire the croppies lie down.

The song is called "Croppies Lie Down," where a "croppie" is one of the United Irishmen of 1798, who wore their hair short, rather than long in the manner of the old aristocracy. This page is a friend to the United Irishmen, who advocated and upheld the principles of classical liberalism. Most of the founders were educated in Scotland, where David Hume and others had created the philosophical movement that gave us our American constitution. Rather than being a sectarian group, the United Irishmen were a group of Protestants from Ulster who united--thus the name--with Catholic Irishmen who also believed in the classical liberal principles of the Scottish Enlightenment.

"Croppies Lie Down" is thus not a song I've often sung, but I can't help reflect on how appropriate it is to the current moment. Why, there's even this line:

Should France e�er attempt, by fraud or by guile...

posted by Grim 15:58

Democracy and Tolerance, II:

The London Spectator has an excellent article by Roger Scruton this week on different views of the function of law. He discusses the degradation of tolerance in Britian, one of the two healthiest democracies:

Law, in a liberal democracy, is concerned not to impose moral conformity but to maintain peace, order and goodwill between people, all of whom are free to pursue their own conception of the good life, to the extent that they can do so without harming others. The main contours of this view � tellingly argued by Mill in On Liberty � were until recently accepted among educated people, most of whom would concur in the judgment that it is both reasonable to regard adultery as immoral, and oppressive to make it a crime. . . .

The reason why the case of hunting is important, even for those who disapprove of hunting and would like to see it banned, is that it is the cornerstone of an indigenous way of life. To ban hunting is to criminalise a large and generally law-abiding minority. To justify a ban therefore requires some other argument besides the mere fact of moral disapproval: we need a clear conception of the benefits not only to animals but also to people. But the parliamentary opponents of hunting have refused to enter the argument about these complex matters, having seen that it is an argument that they might lose. Morality seems to them like a better resource, since of its very nature it is absolute and irrebuttable. Invoking morality is a way of saying, with Luther, �Here I stand; I can do no other� � in other words, a way of refusing to engage with your opponent.

posted by Grim 15:49

The DPRK:

ParaPundit has a strong article on North Korea today.

posted by Grim 15:10

City-fighting:

Christopher Lowe, who is a staff writer for Army Times Publishing, has a piece in the Daily Standard. It's a bit late and says nothing substantive that hasn't been said on, or linked-to from, this page before. He does, though, give some specifics on equipment used, particularly UAVs, that hasn't appeared here before, as well as some military jargon that is in current use.

posted by Grim 13:33

Democracy and Tolerance:

The Foreign Policy journal which suggests that Muslim attitudes towards women and homosexuality may make them unsuitable as potential democrac polities. Citing large-scale intolerance of homosexuality, as well as what is commonly known as "women's liberation," the piece concludes:

The United States cannot expect to foster democracy in the Muslim world simply by getting countries to adopt the trappings of democratic governance, such as holding elections and having a parliament. Nor is it realistic to expect that nascent democracies in the Middle East will inspire a wave of reforms reminiscent of the velvet revolutions that swept Eastern Europe in the final days of the Cold War. A real commitment to democratic reform will be measured by the willingness to commit the resources necessary to foster human development in the Muslim world. Culture has a lasting impact on how societies evolve. But culture does not have to be destiny.

Well, what about the Republic of Ireland, in which divorce and abortion were both quite illegal until recently? Democracy came first, though it was largely at first the "trappings" of democarcy--the Fianna Fail, for example, could not take their elected seats in the Dail for years because they refused to take a loyalty oath. It took some time before democracy's trappings became democracy, which in turn did eventually yield to the social reforms that the Foreign Policy piece seems to want in place before democracy.

Indeed, the FP piece includes this paragraph:

But economic development generates changed attitudes in virtually any society. In particular, modernization compels systematic, predictable changes in gender roles: Industrialization brings women into the paid work force and dramatically reduces fertility rates. Women become literate and begin to participate in representative government but still have far less power than men. Then, the postindustrial phase brings a shift toward greater gender equality as women move into higher-status economic roles in management and gain political influence within elected and appointed bodies. Thus, relatively industrialized Muslim societies such as Turkey share the same views on gender equality and sexual liberalization as other new democracies.

Well, then, it sounds like democracy is JUST the way to liberalize the Middle East, doesn't it? Turkey has long been a "democracy" in name only, with the army in real power. Only lately has "democracy" been giving way to real democracy. But already the social reforms the author desires are beginning. There is more:

In every stable democracy, a majority of the public disagrees with the statement that �men make better political leaders than women.� None of the societies in which less than 30 percent of the public rejects this statement (such as Jordan, Nigeria, and Belarus) is a true democracy. In China, one of the world�s least democratic countries, a majority of the public agrees that men make better political leaders than women, despite a party line that has long emphasized gender equality (Mao Zedong once declared, �women hold up half the sky�).

So why the conclusion? All the evidence they cite points the other way. Even partial democracy--early Irish Republic, or Turkey--seems to start the "modernizing" transformation that is linked to sexual liberation. Lacking partial democracy, even strenuous attempts by the government to enforce ideas of gender equality fail.

posted by Grim 12:18

But on the Same Page:

Mr. Marshall says this about the Marine who wrapped the 9/11 flag over the statue of Hussein:

It's also one of those gives-you-faith-in-America moments to find out that the Marine who hoisted the flag -- Cpl. Edward Chin -- is apparently Chinese-American.

What? How could it be reprehensible to suggest that blacks are presumptive drug users, but perfectly fine to imply that finding a patriotic Chinese-American is cause for celebration? This is racism too, but the sort that is apparently acceptable to reform liberals of Mr. Marshall's stripe. Neither view is welcome on this page, which asserts--as the Marine Corps does itself--that there are no black Marines, and no white Marines (nor Chinese-American Marines either): there are only Marines. The same is true of Americans generally. Semper Fi.

posted by Grim 12:07

Marshall and I Agree On Something:

From Talking Points Memo:

"My sons are 25 and 30," Representative Barbara Cubin (R-Wyoming) said on the House floor a few days ago. "They are blond-haired and blue-eyed. One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean if you go into a black community, you cannot sell a gun to any black person, or does that mean because my ... "

At this point, Representative Mel Watt (D-North Carolina) cut Cubin off and demanded her remarks be stricken from the record for implying that blacks are presumptive drug addicts.

Where's the Outrage, John Marshall asks. Here, sir. But, it's good to see Southern Democrats on the right side of the race question these days.

posted by Grim 11:04

Tautology watch:

This story, from allAfrica.com, is titled Fighting in East Hinders Disarmament. That is something like saying "Continued War Hinders Peace," isn't it?

Actually, it neatly captures my reasons for thinking peacekeepers would be wasted in Afghanistan. Advocates of "peackeeping" don't always seem to recognize that you have to have a peace first. If you don't want to see headlines like "Continued War Hinders Peackeeping," you need to accept that soldiers must first make a peace before peacekeepers can keep it. That can be done through a negotiated settlement, certainly, rather than conquest--but it has to be DONE, if peacekeeping is to work.

posted by Grim 10:59

But they said the border was closed!

Or perhaps these are humanitarian assassins coming from Syria.

posted by Grim 10:56

Nuclear Baghdad:

Mansoor Ijaz, from today's "Corner" at National Review Online:

Whatever the Marines found there, and none of us know for sure until CentCom confirms what it was, it was dangerous beyond the limits Iraq was compelled to remain within by the United Nations and the IAEA. Saddam's last acts have always been formulated by the "if I can't have it, you can't have it either..." thesis. Let us hope he didn't break the seals at Tuwaitha, and in a last ditch act of terror, decide to take enough uranium to make multiple dirty bombs, deploy them in Iraqi cities for later detonation once civilian life returns to normal.

Friday, April 11, 2003

posted by Grim 23:07

Lance Corporal Ian Malone:

Toward the end of the article, John Derbyshire cites a remarkable young man: Lance Corporal Ian Malone, KIA in Basra. I've sat through some several renditions of "Kevin Barry," whose young innocent life was ended by British tyrants merely because he shot a policeman in the back. Here's a martyr worth the poetry, if poets live who will stand to the tale. I am myself a poor poet, and will try:

Sandstorms settled in the south
of that sour place,
and terror-men opened wide a mouth
etched in a hate-filled face.

The rifle-spit struck down Malone
and he in a moment gave
a life well-lived, alone,
to set men free of the grave.

In later days men drew down
statues from on high;
they struck Iraqi ground
so dust and cheer could fly.

What, one Irish fighting man
to free millions from cold chains?
Not noble words, not gracious plan
could make real such gains.

Or--Is our time so coy,
so wild and free a thing?
Not Harvey nor Kelly, boy
of Killarn, not the Brian King

Freedom bought at such a cost,
where glory's priced so steep:
Where the name of each good man lost
Can memory's Herald keep.

posted by Grim 22:49

But They've Always Said They Had No Control...

Sinn Fein's control over the Provisional IRA is brought into question by current events. Sinn Fein has always denied that they were, as they are always said to be, the "political wing of the IRA." Just patriots, so they'll tell you. Pass the half-and-half (we won't call them Black and Tans here), and that little coin-box with the white cap.

posted by Grim 22:46

I'll Take a Hit:

This deck of cards is the best idea I've seen out of the war, and it's been a war of good ideas. Now my only question is--where can I get one?

posted by Grim 09:15

Syria:

The Voice of America reports that Syria is closing its Iraqi border to all but humanitarian traffic. Meanwhile, on that border, US airstrikes and Special forces troops are engaged in continuing operations against fleeing members of the former Iraqi government and anyone trying to slip in to help them:

Syrian fighters have turned up on the Iraqi battlefield--one was found hiding in a Baghdad refrigerator on Wednesday--and other Arab fighters have crossed into Iraq via Syria to attack the U.S.-led coalition.

On Thursday, after Saddam's regime collapsed in Baghdad and the northern city of Kirkuk, it appeared some were returning the way they came: A correspondent for Al-Jazeera at the Syria-Iraq border said he had met Palestinian and Syrian volunteer fighters at the border who had abandoned their positions in Mosul and were returning home.

Meanwhile, the good people in San Francisco are convinced that Damascus is next.

posted by Grim 09:05

Nuclear Baghdad:

Jed Babbin doubts it, at least not at this location.

Thursday, April 10, 2003

posted by Grim 22:47

Nuclear Baghdad:

More on the nuclear complex the Marines have located. The IAEA has apparently inspected the above-ground site numerous times, and had done some examination of some undergound facilities; but an underground complex is something they had never discovered, "despite persistent rumors." Interesting read.

Meanwhile, the Scotsman is reporting that we may have found plutonium. PittsburghLIVE has a more up to date and complete version of the story.

posted by Grim 13:29

"The Onion a trouv� la solution"

Le Figaro discovers America's Finest News Source. At least the French knew it was satire.

posted by Grim 13:17

So what are we doing with Syria?

I'm still unsure myself. We're obviously not worried about provoking them, having cut their oil, taken a town right on their border, had Rumsfeld warn them twice on military cooperation with the former government of Iraq, and even hinted that Syria might be next if they didn't behave according to our wishes. That last article mentions an unnamed military source who claims that we are drawing up plans to invade Syria--indeed, we almost certainly are, if we haven't already. As I said recently about Pakistan:

If Pakistan falls, you can bet we have a plan for dealing with it--one that likely involves Navy SEALs. In fact, we probably have ten plans, and the resources to carry them out. The president--whoever he might be on the occasion--need only choose among them if the time comes.

We have lots of people who make their careers on drawing up contingency plans; it doesn't mean we're going to do anything about them. I wouldn't be surprised to find that we had drawn up plans to invade parts of Europe under certain circumstances. Sure reads nastily in the press, though.

Actually, I suspect we are going to invade Syria, though only informally. Jed Babbin suggested it today in his warblog on National Review Online, with regard to assassinating/capturing leaders of the former Iraqi government. I think we'll see a cross-border situation like we have with Afghanistan and Pakistan right now: militants, terrorists, and other groups are likely to try to hide on the other side of the Syrian border. We will hunt and kill them, and we will officially deny doing so "except in hot pursuit." In fact, though, we'll do it gladly. But will there be a formal war with Syria?

I honestly don't know. Watch Rumsfeld, though, for the answer--if he actually says so, rather than merely hinting at it, then we're going.

posted by Grim 13:02

Al Jazeera:

"Objective and balanced global news coverage," indeed. Today's headlines include a story about Rumsfeld and Syria, whose subhead is: "Emboldened by US military action in Iraq, hawks have turned their sights on Iran and Syria." Which hawks? Well, if you go and read the story, you find out that it's really just one guy: Michael Ledeen. But Ledeen, though a member of the American Enterprise institute, is mostly a journalist who writes for the Jewish World Review. He's not a member of the administration. All the quotes from actual government officials explicitly deny military action against Syria or Iran. The only counterexample al Jazeera could find was this:

It was widely believed that Vice President Dick Cheney was referring to Syria and Iran when he said in a speech that Washington would �do whatever it takes� to defeat terrorism and must confront nations that sponsor it.

posted by Grim 12:50

More on the Syrian oil pipeline:

Syrian oil exports are dropping by half following the US destruction of the Iraq-Syria oil pipeline. It's only a coincidence, say the Syrians, who deny that they were ever illegally importing oil from Iraq. (NB: That is, "illegally" according only to several UN resolutions. Since the UN has demonstrated disinterest in enforcing its mandates, as far as I can tell, it's not really illegal at all.)

Wednesday, April 09, 2003

posted by Grim 21:13

War Has Gamblers Folding:

So says ABC News in this report. Well, not me. Those of you who have lost bets can post your forfeits to my PO box; email if you need it. I wrote to the one of you who may have won one earlier, and as discussed, we'll wait for better evidence before deciding.

New war bets welcome. I'll consider anything, but you may have to take odds if you want to lay really strange bets.

posted by Grim 17:53

Nuclear Baghdad?

The wife's nightmare scenario is not something I am particularly concerned about, given the apparent collapse of what little command and control remained with enemy forces. The collapse of the former government of Iraq today should preclude the use of weapons of mass destruction, including nukes if they existed. Someone's got to carry out the orders, after all.

Still, this report that the 1st Marine Division has captured an undeclared nuclear site in Iraq is interesting.

posted by Grim 11:32

Afghan situation:

The Post also has its lead editorial on the Afghan situation.

Seen from a complacent Washington, Afghanistan still may look better than it did before the U.S. intervention. But experts following the country say they worry about a steady unraveling, much like that which preceded the Taliban's seizure of power in the mid-1990s. The symptoms are similar: Outside the capital, warlords and bandits rule the country, sometimes battling each other and regularly robbing their fellow citizens at highway checkpoints. At the borders, aid shipments and "customs collections" on imported goods are diverted to the warlords, depriving the central government of resources and revenue. The opium trade is booming. In some places, the Taliban's extreme practices, including the persecution of women, have been reimposed.

All of these phenomena have flourished in a vacuum knowingly created by the Bush administration, which refused to support the deployment of peacekeeping forces outside Kabul. Rather than disarm and disable the warlords, U.S. commanders continue to depend on them and even to finance some of them.

We need Afghanistan as a floursing, stable state. We aren't going to get there with peacekeepers, though--as demonstrated in the Bosnian conflict, peacekeepers' rules of engagement quickly turn them into "armed hostages," as my professor Tom Pearce used to say. Securing the borders in a rugged country, and pacifying rival clans at war, that isn't the work of peacekeepers. Let's be of a serious mind about this. Peacekeepers have their place, but this isn't it.

Disarming the Afghans isn't the solution either. For one thing, it will create a tremendous amount of hostility. All of the various cultures in Afghanistan have strong traditions that bearing arms is part of manhood. There can be no faster way to turn the country against us than to try to enforce the Washington Post's ideals of gun control. Those ideas don't even fly in the American South, whose citizens get a vote in any such laws. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a Southerner say he'd take up arms against the government rather than let them seize his guns, I'd be a rich man. Such ideas are definitely not going to fly in Afghanistan, where they would be imposed by an outside force, on a culture with at least as strong a tradition of arms-bearing.

In the short term, we can carry on fighting opposition forces with the 82nd Airborne and Special Forces. In the long term, though, we need to found an organization like the Texas Rangers. That link is to a site on the history of the Rangers, who began in conditions not unlike those of modern Afghanistan. The Rangers began as a military force, and have evolved over 180 years to become a police force. We are, hopefully, looking at a shorter span of evolution for the Afghan situation, but the Texas Rangers are the best model. Small companies of rangers, with what amounts to martial-law authority but with backing from the central government, can act as a military force in the early days, to secure the borders and destroy the bands of warlords hostile to the government. They need to be skilled, trained in mountain warfare, and capable of moving quickly and acting on independent authority.

In time, as the Texas Rangers, they can evolve into a police force, once the situation on the ground changes. To start with, a mixed American-Afghan company would be ideal, trained by the US Army's 75th Rangers (who are closer in form and function to the early Texas Rangers than the modern Texas Rangers). As the methods and the ideals of the Rangers become ingrained, we can move to an all-Afghan regiment. Such a force, highly mobile and well trained, loyal to the government and able to enforce its will, would be just what is needed for a wild and difficult frontier.

posted by Grim 11:23

The Metro:

The Washington Post reports this morning on a possible al Qaeda threat to the Washington, D.C. Metro. It sounds dubious to me, but mass panic in tightly constrained areas gets ugly, quickly.

Tuesday, April 08, 2003

posted by Grim 23:47

I would be remiss...

... as a proud citizen of the Great State of Georgia, which gave the world Sir James Edward Oglethorpe, Lachlan McIntosh, (especially) James Jackson, and Doc Holliday; and as a brother to a UGA alumnus; if I did not include a link to this picture of a UGA flag flying over a Saddamite palace in Baghdad.

Go, Mighty Dawgs.

posted by Grim 11:22

Alas, John, that I can't agree:

John Derbyshire is my second favorite conservative columnist, after Mark Steyn. John, whose occasional correspondance I consider an honor, has this to say about Iraq:

"This may, of course, be premature. I am writing this on Monday afternoon. It is well-nigh certain that brave young troopers from the Coalition forces - aye, and brave young Iraqis, and poor helpless noncombatants too - will be maimed and killed before the business is wrapped up and done. It is possible something large and ghastly will happen. I hope you will forgive me for setting these things aside and saying: Even so, we have won. There is nothing so large and ghastly it could change that."

I wish I could agree. One possibility remains, the one that has been bothering my wife all along. The Iraqi information minister said today that our soldiers must surrender or be "burned in their tanks." His statements have been delusional all along, and there is no special reason to think this is more than bravado. Yet... there is a chance that there are atomic "doomsday devices" in Baghdad. That the Iraqi government might have these is possible, and indeed, such weapons do not need to be tested. Detonation of such weapons could take out a division or more of forces inside Baghdad, which would be a loss of such magnitude as to raise the cost of victory beyond what we would readily pay again. Hopefully, though, if such weapons exist at all they are known to our intelligence people, and have been priorities of all those Special Operations gentlemen in country.

It strikes me as highly unlikely. Still--it is not impossible.

Monday, April 07, 2003

posted by Grim 18:47

Massacre in the Congo:

The Daily Telegraph has the story. I just heard an NPR interview with an official from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (rule of thumb: any state whose name includes the word "Democratic" is a brutal hellhole) which seemed to suggest that this might be a tribal thing, as women and children were doing some of the killing.

This follows an incident earlier this year involving cannibalism, as well as the more usual killing and raping.

posted by Grim 18:32

So why am I confident of victory?

Well, also from the MOUT manual:

The attacker won all urban battles where the defender was totally isolated. Even the partial isolation of the defenders resulted in attackers enjoying a success rate of 80 percent. Conversely, attackers won only 50 percent of the battles in which defenders were not significantly isolated, and those victories came at great cost.

It's hard to get much more isolated than the Iraqi government is just now. There is no government in the world that will openly ally with them in the war. The roads in and out of the city of Baghdad are controlled by the United States. Soon the surface streets will be owned by us as well, and they'll be fighting out of buildings and tunnels. We'll control the buildings soon enough, though the tunnels will be a sticking point. There is nowhere they can go, and no help is coming except in the form of terrorists, who can't offer a standup fight to professional soldiers and Marines.

No, the danger is in the long term, when we find our occupation forces under occasional assault by terrorist groups. However, we've shown a great deal of success at fighting such forces (see yesterday's entries), and our techniques have only improved of late. Special Operations forces are ideal for antiterrorist operations of this type. Furthermore, if the postwar period is handled carefully, it should be easy to deny the terrorists the allegiance of the population of Iraq. Without that, they can't operate with long term success.

If we operate with decency and fairness--as we ought to do anyway--and if our troops behave in the long term with a devotion to chivalry and honor, as they doubtlessly will, victory is certain.

The cost is not. Raise a glass to the honor of the soldiers and Marines who will pay it. If the human destiny is according to a vision of liberty, rather than tyranny, it is their blood that will buy it.

posted by Grim 18:19

How much longer will the war last?

Well, that really depends on what you are ready to consider "the war." If you include terrorist actions and fights against terrorist groups--probably a long time yet, likely years. I won't be surprised if we end up moving a large number of our troops who have been garrisoning Germany to garrison Iraq in the postwar period--really, it would be wise to do so, to provide stability to the new government during the first years.

But, if you mean the war against Hussein's government... well, that won't be as long. Still, there are several reasons to think that it will be a while yet before Baghdad is secure, and Tikrit is still to come. Rumsfeld thinks the war isn't yet at the 'tipping point,' which is a pretty good indication that we may see some serious fighting yet. Furthermore, there are those underground fortresses, which may require weeks or months to clear. And, last, there is this admonition from the MOUT manual cited below:

In most cases, successful conclusion of an urban battle took two to three times longer than the initial estimates. This often had adverse affects on the overall campaign. Well-planned urban defense, even if the defender is isolated or lacking in aviation, armor, or artillery weapons, can be time consuming to the attacker. Time can allow the defender to reorganize, re-deploy, or marshal resources in other areas.

posted by Grim 17:08

Ah, Reuters:

One wonders why they even asked:

A travel ban imposed on Baghdad by Iraqi authorities would have no impact on the activities of U.S.-led military forces attacking the city, a Pentagon spokesman said on Sunday.
"We will go wherever and whenever we want," the spokesman told Reuters.

posted by Grim 16:35

City-Fighting:

InstaPundit, sage of the University of Tennessee, links today to an good article on city fighting. It's interesting to compare to the USMC MOUT manual for NCOs.

posted by Grim 15:26

Mujahedeen:

The National Review on the Arab warriors coming to fight the Jihad against Americans in Iraq. Outraged by our destruction of an Arab state, these men are swarming by the hundreds to join the war against America.

This was the anti-war argument fielded by the most intelligent doves. It was unfairly scorned by some hawks, who scoffed that doves were simultaneously arguing that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorists, but also that we daren't fight him because it would inflame terrorists. But the hawks who stopped with such scoffing were not playing fair, as they were themselves arguing that Saddam -was- in league with terrorists, but dismissing the danger of enhanced terrorist recruitment for war in Iraq.

The proper hawkish response was, and is, this: The time has come for fighting terrorists. We need to break these terror groups now, before weapons of mass destruction--particularly radiological/nuclear weapons--become more commonly available. It is therefore a benefit of the Iraq war that it will bring those who are ideologically disposed to terrorism into the fight now, while they are fighting at a disadvantage, so that they will be dead later, when weapons of mass destruction might be ready to hand. This is the proper time for the conflict. If we are to remake the Middle East, eliminating the subset of the population that is willing to commit terrorist acts is necessary.

Yes, it greatly increases the danger of the struggle to our soldiers in the field. They understand about danger. It is time for this fight. We cannot go on like we have, treating terrorists as criminals, and limiting our responses to law enforcement. By all means, let's call up the enemy to his fullest, and fight him down. We have thousands of special-operations qualified troops in the region. Breaking these terrorists is part of making America safe--the most important part, in fact. Anyone who wants to fight, let's fight now.

posted by Grim 14:56

Rejoice:

The Daily Telegraph on the fall of Basra. Registration may be required, but it's free. The Telegraph reminds us of one way in which the offensive is very different from Medieval battles:

In medieval and early modern times, cities that resisted siege could expect havoc and slaughter when they fell.

Even today, armies are sometimes prepared to raze urban areas rather than risk house-to-house combat, Grozny being the most recent example. Yet British troops managed to fight their way to the centre of Basra with miraculously few casualties, either to themselves or to the civilian population.

posted by Grim 14:13

The Economist on DPRK:

The Economist's latest take on the situation with North Korea.

posted by Grim 14:05

From William Raspberry:

William Raspberry is my favorite liberal columnist. (My favorite conservative columnist, if you are curious, is Mark Steyn). Raspberry's piece today is on affirmative action. He and I do not agree, but his take is, as always, thoughtful.

posted by Grim 13:49

Interservice humor:

Q: How do you know when a soldier is about to say something brilliant?
A: He starts by saying, "A Marine once told me..."

posted by Grim 13:42

Maybe if you ask them nicely:

Some additional business for the war summit in Northern Ireland. Since he's going to be there anyway, the BBC asks, couldn't Bush devote a little energy to getting the IRA under control?

posted by Grim 13:28

North Korea:

The DPRK has tested an antiship missile this week, the third such test of the KN-01 system. Meanwhile, the BBC is having some fun with Bush administration officials, who can't seem to decide whether the DPRK or Iraq has the worse human rights record. The DPRK has suggested that, actually, it's the US who is the worst. But certainly one can't fault the US for being insufficiently interested in human rights... almost over-interested, really...

Elements of the State Department report have been viewed with some derision by commentators - in particular its 16-page exposition of human rights in largely trouble-free Canada, and its noting that the Palestinian Authority has failed to install ramps at public building entrances to allow disability access.

posted by Grim 10:34

War's Finest Weapon:

The Black Watch took Basra today, devoting their Challenger tanks. Those tanks are rated by some experts as the best in the world, better even than our M1A1 Abrams, though personally I suspect the Abrams is more likely to survive a battle. Air support was provided by US Marine Air, using Super Cobra attack helicopters that, excepting updated munitions and avionics, date to Vietnam. It's hard to imagine a more irresistable force than the Scots and the Marines fighting together. The Scotsman provides here a very thorough account of the battle.

This battle also saw, for the first time in the war, the British army using its most feared and awesome weapon.

As he began to play, the sound of Scotland the Brave drifted across the bridge towards the city, competing with the clatter of rotor blades as four Cobra helicopters raced in to join the attack.

The Highland pipes were declared weapons of war after 1746, when Bonnie Prince Charlie's last Jacobite uprising was defeated by an army of Lowland Scots and a few British gentlemen. The prohibition didn't take: soon the Highlander regiments carried those pipes around the world in service to the Crown. These regiments included the Black Watch, also known as the "Gallant Forty-Twa," or 42nd Regiment--they had been the 43rd, but one of the older regiments was "reduced." The Highlanders made the sound of the pipes feared by Britian's foes, from Napoleon's Eurpoe to India and China. They'd had the same effect upon the English in their day:

"There are those who when the woollen bagpipe sings i'th nose/ cannot contain their urine."
William Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice"

Sunday, April 06, 2003

posted by Grim 23:43

Vive les chevauchees!

More "war rides" along the perimeter, provoking enthusiastic but uncoordinated resistance. Via the W. Post. If you don't know what a chevauchee is, page down to yesterday's entries.

posted by Grim 16:50

Two from the Post:

Today's Washington Post has two good articles on the use of American power in the war: one on ground forces, and one on the use of air assets.

posted by Grim 15:16

DPRK News:

From the Washington Post. The DPRK says it plans to rely upon a "tremendous military deterrent force," and will regard any sanctions as an act of war. I wonder if that applies to a PRC oil embargo? The Chinese Army on one side, and the US Military on the other--that's not a vice I'd want to put myself in.

Still, the language today is worrisome. It's not really new--the DPRK has been saying for a while that preconditions for negotiations with the US would be that we (a) sign a nonagression pact, and (b) accept them becoming a nuclear power. Today's language says the same thing, but in uglier terms:

"Even the signing of a non-aggression treaty with the United States would not help avert a war," said the statement, distributed by the official Korean Central News Agency.

"Only the physical deterrent force, tremendous military deterrent force powerful enough to decisively beat back an attack supported by any ultra-modern weapons, can avert a war and protect the security of the country and the nation," the statement said.

"Experts" seem to be divided on whether or not the DPRK is "pushing to become a recognized nuclear power[.]" Well, you've read their statement: what do -you- think?

posted by Grim 15:04

Wrong Again, General:

From Al Jazeera:

"The occupation of the airport is not of major military value. The advancing forces cannot use this airport, which is 15-20 kilometres off Baghdad unless they occupy the capital. The victory is more a political or media success than a military one," said General Mohammed Bilal, commander of Egyptian forces during the 1991 Gulf War.

From CNN:

The first U.S. military planes landed at Baghdad's international airport Sunday night as U.S. forces tightened their control over the Iraqi capital, U.S. military officials said.

Army officials told CNN's Walter Rodgers that two C-130s and a C-117 cargo planes were flying into the city under the cover of darkness, two days after U.S. troops captured the facility.

posted by Grim 14:34

Political Correctness:

That USMC manual I cited in the last post has an amusing bit of PC garbage toward the end.

(3) Wetting Down. After a promotion, it is customary to
celebrate by spending your first pay raise on your fellow Marines
at your favorite tavern. Tradition has it that the new grade
insignia was placed in the bottom of a glass of spirits, and the
Marine drank the glass dry. Remember... alcoholic beverages must
be consumed with moderation.

One suspects a civilian editor.

posted by Grim 14:31

Not All Outlaws Are Merry Men:

InstaPundit today links to an article from the Jerusalem Post on U.S. successes against guerrillas. Not convinced? Did you know that the United States Marines fought guerrillas every year from 1898 to 1934, excepting only 1905? Well, there's a reason it's not commonly taught in schools--it wasn't, really, a big deal. The Marines even had forces to spare for the First World War, when they earned their epiteth "Devil Dogs".

posted by Grim 14:01

To Dwell in the Greenwood with a Butt of March Beer:

The Daily Telegraph reports on the balmy weather of the Early and High Middle Ages. For the Telegraph, it's about global warming:

According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."

Well, of course. This makes sense of something I have wondered about since my boyhood. How could Robin Hood and his Merry Men live such fine lives with no better shelter than the Greenwood and a skin of March beer?

So Little John gave Arthur the money, and the others stepped to the thicket, there to await the return of the Tanner.
After a time he came back, bearing with him a great brown loaf of bread, and a fair, round cheese, and a goatskin full of stout March beer, slung over his shoulders. Then Will Scarlet took his sword and divided the loaf and the cheese into four fair portions, and each man helped himself. Then Robin Hood took a deep pull at the beer. "Aha!" said he, drawing in his breath, "never have I tasted sweeter drink than this."

Now I know.

Saturday, April 05, 2003

posted by Grim 23:05

Congratulations:

It will not be thought unfit, I think, to celebrate even as we mourn: that is the lot of men in times of war. Congratulations to the Agonist and his lovely bride, with thanks for their many sacrifices and much hard work during these days of fighting.

posted by Grim 23:01

Hail the Heroes:

What Richard Blaine said cynically, I say with conviction: Today they are the honored dead.

posted by Grim 16:01

From the NY Post:

A critique of Donald Rumsfeld. The complaint seems to focus on two central points, which are supported by evidence. His two main complaints are:

1) The Secretary of Defense, and others at CENTCOM, have made implausible statements about the war going "according to plan."
2) The Secretary of Defense, and his civilian advisors, did not allocate sufficient troops for the war.

A short response, then we'll do point by point:

1) One does not hold a press conference during a war and say, "Our plan has failed, and we're improvising," even if it has and you are. We know that the Pentagon had a number of options on the table; and, further, that wars don't run according to plan. "The plan" in war is always a construct of contingencies--it's a chain of "if they do this, we'll do that, unless they do this, in which case we'll do the other, unless..." To hold any war plan to a standard of "it can't be said to be a success if you changed it" means no war plan has ever succeeded.
2) Horseshit.

Now to the man's own words:

As far as events proceeding according to plan, well, if your plan is vague enough, with a sufficient number of "branches and sequels," as the military puts it, even defeat might be presented as having been anticipated.

War plans are vague, involving branches and sequels. Journalists who don't like that ought to write about something other than war.

The much-heralded initial airstrikes failed and are now conveniently forgotten. The ground campaign assumed the lead from the first days of the war - which definitely was not according to the plan. And the number of ground forces permitted to the theater commander was inadequate by any honest measure.

The intial airstrikes did what now? The first occasion when a coordinated military response hit our troops was when we got to Baghdad. Iraqi command and control is so degraded that we haven't seen any kind of coordination farther from the Baghdad Bunker than you can drive a pickup without being shot at by Apaches. The Republican Guard units ringing Baghdad were reduced, officially, to 50% strength, 65% strength, but in fact were reduced almost to no strength--both the 3rd and the 1st Marine plowed through what was left.

As for the ground troops taking the lead, several strategems positing that were available in the public eye by early March. Look here particularly at the "Fast Roll," and see if it doesn't sound similar to what we've seen. The Pentagon probably had ten potential versions rather than a handful, all of which understood that adjustments would be made according to what cards the enemy played.

And as for this statement--"the number of ground forces permitted to the theater commander was inadequate by any honest measure"--how's this for an honest measure: Baghdad in 17 days with fewer than a hundred US fatalities? Sure, things could have been worse. War is fluid. But honestly: the troops committed have shattered the opposition with astonishingly few losses. That's a fair measure that the troops committed were sufficient to the task.

If you aren't convinced, try this thought experiment: first, think of what would have been different if the Guard had been twice as tough as they were. Answer: we would still have won, though we would have taken either longer to do it, or suffered more casualties, depending on whether we chose to invest them and take them with airstrikes, or fight through them. Now, consider what we might have done to make things easier. What would an extra division have really meant to our frontline forces? If we'd moved a bit more slowly, we might have protected our supply lines from guerrilla raids, which could have saved a few American lives--but not very many, because we haven't lost very many to start with. War is dangerous, but it doesn't get much safer than this. Baghdad may yet prove bloody, but as for facing the Iraqi army--we had more than adequate forces even for a tougher foe than we faced.

Fortunately, the 4th Infantry Division, denied access through Turkey, unexpectedly became available to rush to southern Iraq, where it has been much-needed. Secretary Rumsfeld may lack humility, but he does have good luck.


Still, Secretary Rumsfeld cannot have it both ways. Either he expected a short war, in which case he did not intend to deploy those heavy divisions from the States, or he expected a long war all along.

At this writing, the 4th Infantry is "weeks away from joining the fight in Iraq." Their equipment is in Kuwait, but the soldiers aren't yet, excepting a few lead elements. This assertion that the 4th's arrival was sorely needed is twice false: first, they haven't arrived; and second, no serious disruption of Coalition operations is resulting. The 4th may be used in the battle for Baghdad and Tikrit, which is what they were going to be used for had they been deployed from Turkey. That is to say, on this point the plan has changed only insofar as they are approaching from the south, not the north.

At one point in the long planning process, Secretary Rumsfeld's civilian advisers - not one of whom had served in the military - insisted the ground campaign would require less than 10,000 combat troops, who would take a Sunday drive to Baghdad after the regime had been toppled by technology. The generals had to fight bitterly to overcome such madcap notions.

Maybe, but what they got was a force of 250,000. The Marines alone number more than double the figure cited here. Obviously Rumsfeld listened to the generals--he just didn't give them everything they asked for. Between the stunning success he's enjoyed and the fact that it's really difficult to imagine a set of circumstances in which this force could have been bested by the Iraqi army, I'd have to say Rummy did all right.

Dangers remain before us, let's not kid ourselves. The ones in Iraq don't have to do with force levels, though, they have to do with counterinsurgency. The fall of Baghdad and Tikrit will mark the end of the war, and the start of the occupation. We've got a surplus of troops for the war, and more arriving for the occupation. The situation is well in hand (and remember how that statement traditionally begins?). If you want something to worry about, turn your thoughts to North Korea. That way lies peril.

posted by Grim 15:14

Keeping Syria Out:

We've had statements from Colin Powell, Tony Blair, and many others denying that we are planning invasions of Syria or Iran. I believe them. I still wonder what's going on with the Syrian oil pipeline, though. The Gulf Daily News, citing unnamed "analysts" and "economists," says that Syria can absorb the loss of contraband Iraqi oil--thought to have been supplied to the tune of 200,000 barrels a day!--if and only if it engages in market reforms and exploratory drilling:

Syria may miss the extra cash from Iraq, but some economists say it has enough foreign exchange to cushion the fall for now, and its own oil production of about 500,000 bpd can meet immediate domestic needs. "Iraqi oil was a boost for Syria's economy, but is not essential," said Syrian economist Nabil Sukkar.


"Syria has been alright as far as foreign exchange is concerned since it discovered and started extracting its own oil."


But Syria's oil reserves are dwindling and economists and diplomats say it must find new oil or develop its gas sector fast if it is to continue seeing revenue from energy exports.

So, my guess at this stage: the administration is after free market reforms in Syria, combined with a drop in revenue available to the government for the purposes of sponsoring terrorism. Since we will soon be in charge of the Iraqi oil fields, at least for a while, access to them on generous terms would be a nice carrot to go with the "or else" stick represented by the I MEF, 3rd and 4th Infantry, 7th Cavalry, and 101st Airborne.

posted by Grim 14:49

The War-Ride:

I wrote on the medieval quality of this modern war, with its apparent notions of chivalry and the sanctuary of holy places. Today's heavy cavalry raid has interesting historic resonances. The Iraqi command apparently plans to retreat into underground fortresses designed to be virtually impregnable, while conducting its fights in a house to house fashion to reduce the effectiveness of American technology. One response to this resort-to-fortification in the Hundred-year's war was the development of the chevauchee, a heavy cavalry raid designed to smash the enemy before he could withdraw into the fastness:

The English contract armies of the fourteenth century, at their best composed of mounted retinues of men-at-arms and archers, fast-moving and tactically proficient if brought to battle, were wholly appropriate to a war strategy based upon the chevauchee. They were, however, less well suited to strategic commitments requiring long-term occupation.

The American chevauchee--or "war ride," if you would prefer a non-French name under the circumstances--does not target civilians, as the Norman system often did, but irregular combatants. Rather than fight them house to house for control of the city, a quick raid draws out relatively undisciplined forces who can be slaughtered on the hoof.

Eventually--and probably fairly quickly--Baghdad will have to be brought under formal, full control. As a short term strategem for breaking the large numbers of irregular forces in the Baghdad urban enviornment, however, the chevauchee isn't bad. It keeps us on terms in which American military hardware can be brought to bear, rather than the infantry-to-infantry fighting required of house to house. Once the numbers of these folks have been reduced a bit, the house to house combat will go more easily.

The elite American forces are similar to the English army in one other way: they are second to none on the battlefield, but not well suited to peacekeeping and occupation. Look to see the Marines and 101st Airborne heading to new ground (like, perhaps, East Asia) as soon as the occupation becomes stable. The 3rd and 4th Infantry may remain behind, and we will likely see some of the units in Germany rotated into Iraq as well, perhaps reserve units. Coalition of the willing members who want to supply forces for peacekeeping will probably also make an appearance.

Friday, April 04, 2003

posted by Grim 22:26

CIA Agents Dead:

This report is from UPI. It says that three CIA assets--that is, a foreign national recruited to provide intelligence--who were Iraqi nationals were the source for the decapitation strike. They are now dead, according to the report, executed by Iraqi counterintelligence. This report offers a remarkable amount of detail on the operation--enough, in fact, to make me doubt its authenticity. It's almost enough to go into the "Can this be true?" category: particularly the notion that there were/are three hundred Green Berets in Baghdad, linking up with Delta Forces and CIA paramilitaries (this will be the Special Operations Group) already in place.

posted by Grim 22:20

Col. North:

Jed Babbin at NRO carries a report from embedded journalist, Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North (Ret.). It looks like the Marines are getting the fight they've been wanting. I raise a glass to them, and wish them the best.

posted by Grim 15:51

DPRK:

The DPRK says that making missiles is their fundamental right.

posted by Grim 15:09

Military maxim:

Here is a story on the nuclear-proof bunker Hussein had constructed in Baghdad. It reminds me of one of several maxims I was taught while studying urban warfare: "If they can't get in--you can't get out."

posted by Grim 10:07

Mourning on the Front Lines:

There has been a great deal of mourning from the media, but one rarely hears our soldiers say anything sad. I found a few sad sentiments, though, running at the bottom of articles from the embeds. Here is a compilation of our fighting men's sadness:

"I'm getting pissed off about it, really," said one British Fusilier, a
member of the famed "Desert Rats." He said, "This is getting to be
peacekeeping duty, like in Bosnia and Kosovo. I came here to fight a war."

Some young Marines who had anticipated a major battle appeared disappointed. "I was told that if I would ever get to shoot my rifle at someone, today would be the day," Lance Cpl. Douglas Sanders said.

"He really doesn't have an army anymore," Capt. Ronny Johnson, a company commander in the 3rd Battalion, said of President Saddam Hussein.

Johnson said he had mixed feelings about the disintegration of the Republican Guard targets. He said he was disappointed because "when you plan and rehearse for something" for so long, you want to carry it out.

Air Force jets, Army AH-64 Apache helicopters and multiple-rocket launchers "destroyed our objective," said Lt. Bevan Stansbury, executive officer of Bravo Company in the 2nd Brigade's 3rd Battalion, 15th Regiment. "So we have no fight right now."

"They pretty much destroyed every vehicle in the brigade," Stansbury said. With a trace of disgust, he added, "Now we're just rolling in and will probably be an occupation force."

Live to fight, love to fight.

posted by Grim 09:45

Not a Conspiracy Theory:

About those Russian military advisors to Iraq: I have a question. Since 9/11, we've seen an increasing amount of cooperation between the CIA and the Russian intelligence service, which has been dealing with al Qaeda because of the Chechen situation. Does it not strike you as odd that there are high-level Russian advisors operating with Iraqi forces from just before the start of this war? I'm just asking: doesn't it seem possible that they are there because we want them there? A general officer functioning as a military advisor would have a lot of access to information that could be passed right on to Russian intel--and from there, to the CIA.

This is not a conspiracy theory. I'm not asserting this is what is going on. I'm just asking if it doesn't seem plausible. We've been getting some good intel, including the location of the meeting we disrupted with the decapitation strike. It most probably is a turned Iraqi general, but Saddam is known for keeping his generals on a very short leash, as he considered them the largest threat to his survival. Here's an alternate source. Putin is a former KGB man, after all; and as for our president, his father was once the head of the CIA.

Wednesday, April 02, 2003

posted by Grim 21:10

Keeping Syria out of it:

Special Forces have destroyed a major oil pipeline between Iraq and Syria. They also cut the railroad line. That last makes sense, as it raises the difficulty of moving troops if Syria decided to join the war. Cutting their oil supply, however, is pretty aggressive. We went to some trouble to do this--it wasn't just a Tomahawk missile, but a spec-ops team risking their lives to make sure it was done right. I don't know if this is a carrot-and-stick approach to Syria (what, then, would the carrot be? Offers to subsidize their oil needs in the meanwhile?), or if the administration is trying to bait them into war.

posted by Grim 12:12

Basra:

The British have invested Basra "on three sides" according to news reports. Against the complaints that such an almost-siege demonstrates that we didn't have enough troops present, I'll repost something I said at the start of the campaign, when the 3rd Infantry performed the first investment of the war:

The usual fashion is to invest on three sides, leaving open a way for an enemy to retreat. This isn't an act of kindness. The notion is to hit them until they are forced to abandon their defensive positions, withdrawing in the only way that is left available. Since you know which way they are going, you can set ambushes (or, in this case, use air power) to rout and slaughter them along the way. Recall here the "highway of death" from Gulf War I.



It is also possible to perform a complete encirclement. Usually this is not done, unless your forces are so superior that you do not fear having to defend all points against a breakout attempt. The three-sided investment allows for greater predictability of enemy actions.

posted by Grim 12:09

Medieval Warfare & Iraq:

US forces fighting outside the gold-domed Shrine of Ali have not responded to attacks from within the shrine, rather than damage the holy building. I have been reflecting on this over breakfast. There is only one precedent in the history of mankind of which I am aware for this. That is, of course, the Medieval tradition of sanctuary, which puts holy places beyond the reach of war and even justice. I suspect that eventually we'll have to flush these snipers out, but it may be using tear gas and police tactics, rather than the military approach.

This story, taken in context of the war as we've seen it develop, speaks to the new "way of war" being developed by Rumsfeld and others. It looks remarkably like the early Medieval way of war. Professional armies, schooled in a theory of Just War (in fact, the same theory, which has its origins in the Catholic monasteries of the Middle Ages), are clearing border realms of bandit kings. They do so in a way designed to protect the holy places, and in doing so they uplift the folk of the land who had been living under the tyranny of those powers. If there is a living tradition of chivalry in the world, these men are the ones who bear it. I cite again the opening message to the Marines:

"When I give you the word, together we will cross the Line of Departure, close with those forces that choose to fight, and destroy them. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, nor is it with members of the Iraqi army who choose to surrender. While we will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression.

The great question for this emergent way of war is weapons of mass destruction. They are still out there, and have not yet been used. This action in Iraq, and the resolution of the increasingly dire situation with the DPRK, will determine whether or not this generation lives under the shadow of such weapons, or if we master them. These two scenarios are possible: a return to the conditions of the Cold War, when the destruction of our cities was a daily fact of life; or, a world in which these weapons are controlled by only a few, stable states, and programs to develop them elsewhere are eradicated before these weapons can fall into terrorist or rogue-state hands. If the latter is to be the case, it will be the military forces of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia that bring it about.

This is, really, the choice on offer. Policies which allow rogue states breathing room to develop weapons of mass destruction encourage the development of the deadly future. The only policy that avoids that future is one predicated on the chivalry and sacrifice of our fighting men.

posted by Grim 00:06

On J. M. Marshall:

Twice now in recent days I've had J. M. Marshall called to my attention. His latest piece in the Financial Times takes Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to task for what Mr. Marshall considers an inadequate force deployed in Iraq. Mr. Marshall has a number of friends in the defense establishment, who share his opinion that the deployed force was simply not of the overwhelming force that conventional military doctrine calls for. Mr. Marshall:

Mr Rumsfeld and his associates did not need much convincing that they knew modern warfare as well, or better, than anyone. But success in Afghanistan buoyed them considerably. When they began planning to invade Iraq, the success in Afghanistan played a key role in their thinking. Indeed, Mr Rumsfeld and his deputies first pushed for a war plan that had considerably fewer troops than are stationed in Iraq and Kuwait even now.



Beyond their theories of modern warfare, they brought two priorities to the current war plan. First, they are committed to a vision of military world dominance that requires the US to be able to mount a number of rapid moves against hostile, rogue states around the globe. As a result, they wanted to take down Saddam Hussein in a manner than made clear that the US could act rapidly against others. Attacking Iraq without mobilising America's entire arsenal was an important part of making that that threat credible. Second, they embraced an interpretation of the politics of the Arab world that made it seem extremely likely that US and UK troops would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq rather than invaders. They discounted the likelihood of the guerrilla warfare we are witnessing now.



Still, some are wondering today why Mr Rumsfeld, an American patriot who has dedicated much of his life to public service, would take such a chance with the war in Iraq. The answer is simple: hubris. He and his deputies did not regard it as a risk. They were sure that they were right.

I have two things to say about this. The first is: they -are- right. The force deployed is more than adequate to destroying the Iraqi regime, quickly and efficiently. That will become clear in the next few days. The war is now thirteen days (!) old. Paris fell to the Nazi army in forty-four days. The 1st Marine Divison is now driving on Baghdad, and the 3rd Infantry had a big fight with the Republican Guard today. Things are going to happen quickly now. With a substantial number of special operations forces already contesting the streets of Baghdad, the destruction of the ring-defenses is all that remains to the liberation of the city. There is no safe haven for the Republican Guard; there is no resupply for them. There will be no reinforcements--there is nowhere from whence they might come. The 1st Marine alone is larger in size than the remaining Republican Guards, has better equipment, better training, better intelligence, and air support. Anyone trying to fall back on the city will be exposed first to air strikes, and then to hammer-and-anvil tactics between spec ops units in Baghdad, and Marine units closing on the rear.

The second thing to say is that Rumsfeld's strategem has demonstrated a capacity to take down regimes quickly. The decapitation strike at the start of the war seems to have shattered the Iraqi command structure. It is increasingly unlikely that Saddam is alive. His statement today--the most important statement a leader can make to his army, bolstering them in the face of certain defeat by a foreign army--was delievered by his information minister. It wasn't even a recording of him giving it. If the Rumsfeld strategy can kill the enemy leaders within half an hour of the start of the war, it's no strategy to lightly malign. Hubris? It's a level of competence the Greeks would have called isotheos. Indeed, they used that word--"equal to the gods," it means--on men who achieved far less.

Some difficulties remain. Syria must be kept out of the war, and also Israel--Syria could plunge the region into chaos by attacking both US and Israeli lines, forcing a reply from both of us that would look united to the Arab world. There will be some cleanup work on these irregular forces that are harrassing supply lines. The war is nearing its close, though. Twenty thousand Marines are a force not easily resisted.

Tuesday, April 01, 2003

posted by Grim 15:53

Calling Down the Thunder:

Marines have entered an Iraqi town in order to recover the body of one of their fellows, rumored to have been hanged in the town square. The government also revealed today that a rescue operation for the 507th Maintenance soldiers went badly, with 9 Marines killed and eight missing in the aftermath. Four bodies have been recovered from shallow graves, and each of these bodies is thought to be an American.

Better to have tried and failed, than not to have tried to rescue our soldiers. Yet the price is not forgotten. I have said we walk in the morning of the world, and in the tales of old often dead men speak, give advice. Here are some who speak to us now.

Monday, March 31, 2003

posted by Grim 18:19

Alas:

Tragedy at a US checkpoint. Alas for the 3rd Infantry, who did all they could, under circumstances heightened by the suicide bombing on the weekend. Alas for the family lost.

posted by Grim 17:54

Can this be true?, II:

Kim Jong Il has been throwing all triplets born in Korea into state-run orphanages, apparently based on a superstition that a triplet might one day overthrow him. Again we are living in the realm of legend and myth:

Exodus 1.15-16: And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:

And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

Or, if you like:

THEN King Arthur let send for all the children born on May-day,
begotten of lords and born of ladies; for Merlin told King Arthur
that he that should destroy him should be born on May-day,
wherefore he sent for them all, upon pain of death; and so there
were found many lords' sons, and all were sent unto the king, and
so was Mordred sent by King Lot's wife, and all were put in a
ship to the sea, and some were four weeks old, and some less.
And so by fortune the ship drave unto a castle, and was all to-
riven, and destroyed the most part, save that Mordred was cast
up, and a good man found him, and nourished him till he was
fourteen year old, and then he brought him to the court, as it
rehearseth afterward, toward the end of the Death of Arthur.

We walk still in the morning of the world.

posted by Grim 16:20

Poker and War:

Why I have always loved poker.

posted by Grim 15:52

Can this be true?

From the New York Times:

The Army's Third Infantry Division has a team of lawyers along to advise on whether targets are legitimate under international conventions � and a vast database of some 10,000 targets to be avoided, such as hospitals, mosques and cultural or archaeological treasures.

Words fail me. Ten thousand targets to be avoided? Chivalry.

posted by Grim 14:24

On Beowulf:

That is, on the poem, not the boy. From the Heroic Age, this article treats how heroic poetry was of old used to educate young men. It's a little dry, but since this is a theme of the blog just lately, I thought I'd include it.

posted by Grim 13:36

How little changes, II:

5,000 year old swords found in Turkey. Wonderful story--silver inlaid, finely made weapons. Here is the United States Marine Corps Officer's Sword.

posted by Grim 13:20

War with DPRK soon?

The BBC is reporting that Kim Jong Il, leader of North Korea, has not been seen in public in over forty days. He apparently even skipped the annual parlimentary meeting. Also not visible: his top military staff. Jo Myong-chol, a high-level defector, says the North has gone on a war footing.

Sunday, March 30, 2003

posted by Grim 16:37

How little has changed:

From the Washington Post:

In a model of how the Marines say they hope their relationship with the Iraqi people can evolve, the two sides struck a deal: the Marines agreed to escort some villagers to a nearby well to get clean water and help repair damage caused by the fleeing Iraqi army. The village leaders agreed to go house to house, rounding up rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons that could be used against U.S. forces.

The bargain was sealed with a feast cooked up by the townspeople, featuring rice, bread and goat cooked over an open fire.

From the Beowulf:

Gathered together, the Geatish men

in the banquet-hall on bench assigned,

sturdy-spirited, sat them down,

hardy-hearted. A henchman attended,

carried the carven cup in hand...

Is this the modern world, where warriors from far off bring promises to guard their hosts with valor, and are feasted as heroes? It is our world, today. The journals of psychology and sociology are worthless as guides to it. But there are ready sources that speak to it, tell us how to live in it, master it, and stride across it. They are the old songs, the epic poems, the sagas and the tales. A man might read a thousand page book by this or that famous journalist on the subject of Iraq, and still be at a loss when he tried to pass among the tribes. The same man, if he hears the Iliad, knows just what must be done.

Then let him make thee a rich feast of
reconcilement in his hut, that thou have nothing lacking of thy right.
And thou, son of Atreus, toward others also shalt be more righteous
herafter; for no shame it is that a man that is a king should make
amends if he have been the first to deal violently.

Wise words from Odysseus, master mariner and soldier.

posted by Grim 09:29

Iraq War:

Today's Washington Post lead story contains these remarkable lines:

Top Army officers in Iraq say they now believe that they effectively need to restart the war. Before launching a major ground attack on Iraq's Republican Guard, they want to secure their supply lines and build up their own combat power. Some timelines for the likely duration of the war now extend well into the summer, they say.



This revised view of the war plan, a major departure from the blitzkrieg approach developed over the past year, threatens to undercut early Bush administration hopes for a quick triumph over the government of President Saddam Hussein.

What these reporters are describing is standard military policy, not an 'effective restart' of the war. During the first days of the war, the 3rd Infantry Division was described as having been 'driven' off by Iraqi resistance. Not so, I said: they are simply investing their foes, to trap them that they might take them down at leisure and with airpower.

That is what they did, trapping them against the Euprhates and smashing them, then rolling on. They have moved faster and with less care for their supply lines than I would have imagined they ever would dare--but neither, it seems, did the Iraqis imagine it. Now they have invested Basra, trapping most of the remaining regular forces in the south, and have taken up siege positions of Baghdad in the south. The northern forces will be moving south as they build up sufficient strength, both to complete the investment of Baghdad and to see if they can flush the dug-in Republican Guard positions--if the RG feels it needs to shuffle forces to defend Baghdad, they will have to move tanks and troops in a way that will make them vunerable to airstrikes.

It makes perfect sense at this time to pause, use air power to smite the RG lines, concentrate on cleaning up some of the irregular forces operating in the backfield, and secure supply lines. It is standard military policy--which may mean that it's not at all what we're going to do, as Rumsfeld is an original thinker. If it is what we do, though, it's hardly a bad thing, or a sign that the war is faltering.

The fact that we are able to do this at leisure demonstrates the complete command our forces have of the battlfield. There is simply no coherent Iraqi defense. One may develop around Baghdad, but unless they can manage a counteroffensive, it is simply a matter of time and leverage until they are destroyed.