November 29, 2006
McCarthy has a must read article at NRO. Here’s a taste:
In Iraq, we’ve tried to fight the most civilized “light footprint” war of all time.
In the wake of 9/11, the American people did not care about democratizing the Muslim world. Or, for that matter, about the Muslim world in general. They still don’t. They want Islamic terrorists and their state sponsors crushed. As for the aftermath, they want something stable that no longer threatens our interests; they care not a wit whether Baghdad’s new government looks like Teaneck’s.
Read the whole piece.
I had similar thoughts in this post, as did Neptunus Lex who wrote:
The definition of a state is ownership of the levers of organized violence. As an organized force, the Mahdi Army represents the same challenge to Iraqi statehood that Hezbollah does in Lebanon, a state within a state and worse: A inner state with a jealous eye upon the larger crown. They must be destroyed, no matter how much al Maliki might squeal.
We have come too far, spent too much in blood and treasure to allow the political calculations of a man whose governmental writ still does not extend throughout the capital city to prevent us from doing what we must.
Go Big, Go Long, Go Home – to these three options I add a fourth: Go Hard.
It is probably wishful thinking to hope that this is the message that Bush will deliver to al Maliki at their postponed meeting.
November 27, 2006
Via Stop the ACLU and AP: the Supreme Court has refused to stop the DOJ from reviewing the phone records of former NYT reporter Judith Miller and current NYT reporter Philip Shenon to find out who revealed:
the government’s plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.
Shenon and Miller called the two organizations for comment after being told by confidential sources of the government’s plans.
The Justice Department says the move tipped off the charities of planned government raids. The federal judge who ruled in the Times’ favor said there is no evidence in the case even suggesting that the reporters tipped off the charities about the raids or that the reporters even knew of the government’s plans to raid either charity.
This is the tip of the iceberg for the NYT and the WPO. Since 9/11, these two papers have spent acres of front page real estate revealing national security secrets leaked by traitors in the CIA, DOD and FBI. Most of the remaining metropolitan papers in the US have reprinted these stories without question. Now, the sources for all these stories can be tracked down and prosecuted.
The other story that strikes a massive blow on MSM cedibility has been picked up by the blogosphere. We denizens in the blogosphere have long known that MSM reporters in Iraq, with some notable exceptions, bed down in a green zone hotel and use Iraqi stringers to do their reporting. The reporters’ suspicion of the military means that they rarely cross-check their stringer’s stories. So, it is no surprise to learn that the bogus reports of six Sunni men being burned alive come to us via such a stringer, one Qais al-Bashir. Flopping Aces owns this story, with great support from Junkyard Blog.
It will take time, but people will begin to see that the MSM coverage from Iraq has been provided by enemy agents and given the stamp of credibility by the MSM.
I’m fairly certain that the Time magazine reports of a massacre sat Haditha will turn out to be yet another enemy propaganda ploy spread by our MSM and believed by Rep. Murtha.
The next two years are going to be very interesting and our friends in the MSM may well wish they had not rooted so strongly for the enemy and the Democrats, but I repeat myself.
November 26, 2006
Jim Miller asks the obvious:
Did the person who ordered this assassination think that the polonium would not be detected? As anyone can figure out, if it were detected, almost everyone would conclude that the Russians had poisoned Litvinenko. Perhaps the mastermind hoped for a terror effect on other opponents of the Putin regime.
While one may think the Russian tactics heavy-handed, one sometimes wishes our spy agencies could deal with our leakers and traitors as effectively. Unfortunately, it seems they are synonymous.
Let’s get back to whether or not the target deserved his fate. The Strata-Sphere has some real interesting posts on the subject. Chechen and nukes is not a good combination, and it seems the victim was a Muslim convert:
Ekho, a prominent liberal broadcaster funded by state-owned gas monopoly Gazprom, said Litvinenko would be buried in a Muslim cemetery in London. The station cited Chechenpress, the official news agency of the wartorn republic’s insurgency.
November 24, 2006
Had thanksgiving with some relatives and my dear wife got into politics with a BDS infected in-law. Turns out that Bush’s biggest fault is that he went into Iraq without an exit strategy. What does that mean? Let’s turn to history for a few clues.
Did Roosevelt have an exit strategy from WW2 after the Japs bombed Pear Harbor? Yes. He called it unconditional surrender. There were likely points in the war where the allies could have negotiated with the enemy, called a halt to hostilities, and saved a lot of lives. But no, the stubborn S.O.B., and his successor, carried the war to the enemy until it surrendered unconditionally. It’s a pity Bush 41 did not adopt the same approach with our old friend Saddam. It would have saved a lot of heartache and hundreds of thousands of lives if he had taken Baghdad when the chance was there.
Did Nixon have an exit strategy from Vietnam? Sort of. Maybe it was called “peace with honor” or some such mealy-mouthed nonsense. Whatever. Hundreds of thousands of people fled Vietnam when the undefeated North Vietnamese army marched into Saigon. Millions more perished in Cambodia because the world knew America was out of the defeating communism business.
The only exit strategy that works is Victory. Any other version is code for retreat, surrender and our ultimate defeat by the enemy.
If “exit strategy” is bad, “proportionate response” is worse. It’s code for “tit for tat” What was the proportionate response to the attack on Pear’ Harbor? Arresting Admiral Yamamoto on vandalism charges? Bombing Japan now and then? A League of Nations resolution condemning the attack? Sinking an equal tonnage of Japanese warships to that lost at Pearl Harbor and calling it a day? Pretty obviously, “proportionate response” is pretty stupid when the enemy wants to conquer you. Yet that is what is urged on Israel. That is what is urged on US forces in Iraq when they are attacked. “Tit for tat” doesn’t work when the enemy can deliver as many “tits” as it wants, whenever it wants. The only “tat” worth considering is one that removes the enemy’s ability to deliver any “tits”.
So, when someone asks about an “exit strategy”, the simplest and correct response is “victory”. And, when someone says we should use a “proportionate response” to an attack, one should reply that the only “proportionate response” is eliminating the enemy’s ability to attack for now and forever.
Let’s go back to a WW2 hypothetical for a moment. On the eve of Normandy, Roosevelt tells Ike that he has a secret weapon that can wipe Berlin off the face of the Earth and bring the war to a rapid close. Roosevelt adds that the Nazis are close to building the same weapon. What’s Ike to do? Pretty much what was done to Japan a few months later. It turns out that Japan had an advanced nuclear weapons program and were working with the Nazis to advance it further.
Now, do we have any sense of déjà vu here?
We have been attacked by Radical Islam as viciously as the Jap attack on Pearl Harbor. One branch, call them the Nazi or Sunni wing, has been taking a bit of a beating. The other branch, call them the Jap or Shi’ite wing has been sitting on the sidelines. Neither wing likes the other much but they sure hate us. Our latter day Japs are on the verge of nukes. What to do? We could try “exit strategy” and leave the world’s oil resources to their mercy. We could try “proportionate response”, but how do you hit a shadowy enemy working through proxies? Or we could look at WW2 and use all our military resources to destroy the enemy. Roosevelt would be attacking Iran today. Truman would, too. Has Bush got what it takes? Doubtful, unless a few Democrats start remembering that they owe their party’s existence to the likes of Roosevelt and Truman.
November 22, 2006
According to a report on LGF:
French soldiers in Lebanon who feel threatened by aggressive Israeli overflights are permitted to shoot at IAF fighter jets, a high-ranking French military officer told The Jerusalem Post Wednesday, several days after meeting with an IDF general in Paris to discuss what he said was a “blatant violation of the cease-fire.”
Perhaps Tel Aviv should advise France that, if that is their attitude, then, in the unlikely event that Israel actually acquires nuclear weapons, and that one of France’s Mid-East allies actually tries to attack Israel with WMD, then, golly josh, Israel might just remember how many French Jews were shipped to Nazi concentration camps, and maybe, might exact a little pay-back. If Tel Aviv is hit, so goes Paris. Sounds like a deal to me. All on the QT, of course.
November 22, 2006
Via Instapundit we find this charming item at the Corner by Andy McCarthy:
At his sentencing proceeding, al-Turki declined to apologize because, he said, he was engaged in “traditional Muslim behaviors” and thus did not commit any crimes. The judge, engaging in traditional American judicial behaviors, aptly slammed him with a sentence of 27 years to life in jail.
The prosecutor got a trip to Saudi Arabia to explain why al Turki fared poorly in a proper court.
Meanwhile, let’s see what happens back in al-Turki’s home territory. Sweetness and Light quotes an AP report on what can can happen to female rape victims:
That night, she said, she had left home to retrieve her picture from a male high school student she used to know. She had just been married – but had not moved in with her husband – and did not want her picture to remain with the student.
While the woman was in the car with the student, she said, two men intercepted them, got into the vehicle and drove the couple to a secluded area where the two were separated. She said she was raped by seven men, three of whom also allegedly raped her friend.
In a trial that ended in November – in which the prosecutor asked for the death penalty for the seven men – four of the men received between one and five years in prison plus 80 to 1,000 lashes, said the woman. Three others are awaiting sentencing. Neither the defendants nor the plaintiffs retained lawyers, as is common here.
“The big shock came when the judge sentenced me and the man to 90 lashes each,” said the woman. The sentence was handed down as part of the rape trial. Lashes are usually spread over several days, dealt around 50 at a time.
The sentences have yet to be carried out, but the punishments ordered have caused an uproar.
“Because I could make no sense (of the sentence) and became in dire need of patience, I muttered after I read the verdict against the Girl of Qatif: ‘My heart is with you,’” wrote Fatima al-Faqeeh in a column in Al-Watan newspaper.
Justice in Saudi Arabia is administered by a system of religious courts according to the kingdom’s strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia law. Judges – appointed by the king on the recommendation of the Supreme Judicial Council – have complete discretion to set sentences, except in cases where Sharia outlines a punishment, such as capital crimes.
That means no two judges would likely hand down the same verdict for similar crimes. A rapist, for instance, could receive anywhere from a light or no sentence to death, depending on the judge.
Interesting how the two cases collide. In America, a man raping an unpaid slave gets his just deserts. In the country that gave birth to Islam, the victim can fare as badly as the rapist(s). Of course, the ACLU and the feminist lobby have no interest in either case. Figures.
November 21, 2006
Take it or leave it, Wikipedia provides a comprehensive overview. Some key points stand out. The war lasted from 1980 until 1988 and cost 1,000,000 casualties. Compare that to the casualties in the current Iraq war. There is no comparison unless one is stupid enough to believe the once respected Lancet.
Iranian victims of Iraqi chemical weapons were massive, according to the Wikipedia citation:
“Nerve gas agents killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediately, according to official reports. Of the 90,000 survivors, some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions. Many others were hit by mustard gas.
I’m not going to attempt to analyse how the Iran-Iraq war is affecting the current conflict except to say that Iran would want to ensure that Iraq is ruled by friendly forces; i.e. Shi’ites. The US has done them that favor, probably unwittingly.
For our part, we should regard the Iran-Iraq war in the same way as we regarded the WW2 conflict between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany: may the side we back win, but only just. For us, Iraq is the defeated Nazi regime and Iran is the new Evil Empire.
Next Page »