The Anti-Sine[?] Man

Interesting Statistics

2007-02-25T16:45:00.000-05:00

US losses in Iraq and Afghanistan today (3525) are approaching the half way mark (3750) of the military losses during the Clinton years.

It's quite an expansive post with sources and history. Very worthwhile.

What? No Outrage from the Editors?

2007-02-06T21:56:00.000-05:00

John Burns, foreign correpondent for the NYT, offers his opinion on Iraq.

And my guess is that history will say that the forces that we liberated by invading Iraq were so powerful and so uncontrollable that virtually nothing the United States might have done, except to impose its own repressive state with half a million troops, which might have had to last ten years or more, nothing we could have done would have effectively prevented this disintegration that is now occurring.

No outrage from the editors at the NYT??? I mean, sure, he didn't say the US could win but, he didn't Blame Bush.

Previously: Post-Pretense

NY Post: A Ban on 'Victory'

2007-02-05T23:15:00.000-05:00

What timing: NY Post - A Ban on 'Victory'

Consider correspondent Chris Hedges' infamous 2003 commencement address at Rockford College, where he charged that Americans were becoming "tyrants to others weaker than ourselves," and linked Bush to Vladimir Putin and Ariel Sharon - whom he said were "carrying out acts of gratuitous and senseless violence."

Nor, as the Web site Timeswatch.org points out, was there any reprimand of correspondent Neil McFarquhar, who last summer also appeared on Charlie Rose's show and at tacked the Bush administration for "rush ing bombs to this part of the world."

"It just erodes and erodes and erodes America's reputation," said McFarquhar - who, unlike Gordon, did not even offer the disclaimer that his was "a purely personal view."

From the Times, silence.

Sigh

Post-Pretense

2007-02-04T21:30:00.000-05:00

Some of us have, apparently, moved beyond the pretense of supporting the troops but not the mission.

William Arkin (via his WaPo blog):
The Troops Also Need to Support the American People
The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out
A Note to My Readers on Supporting the Troops

Arkin, the Greenpeace activist turned Military affairs correspondent claims, among many other things, troops receive "obscene amenities", are mercenaries, and owe us. Anybody who disagrees with him is apparently arrogant and intolerant. And now, in his last post, he didn't really mean it we're to believe.

But others, like Kos, buy it "lock, stock, and barrel" so-to-speak.
Arkin Was Right - We Do Have a Mercenary Army and They Do Owe Us!

Interestingly, with Arkin expressing what is clearly a personal view...one has to wonder what the folks at WaPo think about all this. Especially in light of recent events over at the NYT regarding Michael Gordon. What that about? Michael Gordon was asked for his opinion. Unlike William Arkin.

Drawing a Line

Times editors have carefully made clear their disapproval of the expression of a personal opinion about Iraq on national television by the paper’s chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon.

The rumored military buildup in Iraq was a hot topic on the Jan. 8 “Charlie Rose” show, and the host asked Mr. Gordon if he believed “victory is within our grasp.” The transcript of Mr. Gordon’s response, which he stressed was “purely personal,” includes these comments:

“So I think, you know, as a purely personal view, I think it’s worth it [sic] one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we’ve never really tried to win. We’ve simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it’s done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something.”

I raised reader concerns about Mr. Gordon’s voicing of personal opinions with top editors, and received a response from Philip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief. After noting that Mr. Gordon has “long been mindful and respectful of the line between analysis and opinion in his television appearances,” Mr. Taubman went on to draw the line in this case.

“I would agree with you that he stepped over the line on the ‘Charlie Rose’ show. I have discussed the appearances with Michael and I am satisfied that the comments on the Rose show were an aberration. They were a poorly worded shorthand for some analytical points about the military and political situation in Baghdad that Michael has made in the newspaper in a more nuanced and unopinionated way. He agrees his comments on the show went too far.”

It’s a line drawn correctly by Mr. Taubman — and accepted honorably by Mr. Gordon

I haven't seen anything in the NYT from Gordon since this. Disturbing to say the least.

random death?

2007-01-31T20:09:00.000-05:00

Bin Laden's brother-in-law was killed the other day in a supposed robbery/murder. Uh huh.

Bill Roggio has some detailed information on the man's background. Describing him as 'bin Landen's brother-in-law' is entirely innaccurate. More like 'ranking financial and operational Al Qaeda member'.

Along with all the detailed information Mr. Roggio drops a name, Task Force 145. He also highlights the fact that all of Mr. Khalifa's belongings, including his laptop, were taken.

And after detailing the failed attempts to imprison Mr. Khalifa in 3 countries, Bill R. concludes by stating, simply, "Khalifa cannot escape the grave."

A random death?

Basic Truths

2007-01-29T18:24:00.000-05:00

With President Bush announcing 21,500 additional troops being sent to Iraq in a bid to quell violence in Baghdad emotions on both sides of the argument as to whether or not this is a good idea have run high.

In a piece in the Washington Post today Stephen Hadley speaks a basic truth:

The Baker-Hamilton report explained that failure in Iraq could have severe consequences for our national interests in a critical region and for our national security here at home.

For example, for the Arab Mujahideen, led by Bin Laden, who fought the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, their victory was of monumental importance in terms of legitimacy, recruiting, obtaining funding and, other forms of immaterial support. Further, when the USSR began its collaps about a year later, it lent further support to the Arab Mujahideen narrative. Not only did they, with Allah's help, repel the infidel invader, this led, directly, to the collapse of the atheist communist state.

This narrative drives much of Al Qaeda's ideology today.

Additionally, Mr. Hadley states another basic truth:

It [the ISG] said: "We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad . . . if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective." Our military commanders, and the president, have determined just that.

The President's new strategy is in accordance with views espoused by the much touted ISG.

Nevertheless, The US Senate, following the lead of some of majority members, has been harranging about a non-binding resolution opposing the strategy. A strategy which, according to the author of the Army/Marine counter-insrugency manual, contributor to the ISG report, and new commander of MNF-Iraq, requires the additional troops to succeed and is undermined by the resolution which would, in Gen. Petraeus' words, "give the enemy some comfort". Gen. Petraeus, was also unanimously confirmed by the same Senate.

Go Figure.

From under a rock

2007-01-14T17:25:00.000-05:00

It's not all that often that Dick Cheney comes out and speaks about something. So, when he does, the subject is likely important and, what he says is probably worth listening to. The question is, is he right?

Cheney says critics of new US Iraq plan play into hands of Bin Laden (AFP - 14/01/2007)

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Vice-President Dick Cheney accused critics of the administration's new strategy in Iraq of playing into the hands of Osama bin Laden and global terrorism.

Oh my, this is going to be a fun article.

Cheney said withdrawing forces from Iraq rather than the troop "surge" announced this week by President George W. Bush would be "the most dangerous blunder" possible.

Hmm. Well, that doesn't seem to be something one could agree with on face value. But, that's just his assertion, he still needs to back it up. And he better.

"They are convinced that the current debate in the Congress, that the election campaign last fall, all of that is evidence that they're right when they say the United States doesn't have the stomach for the fight in this war against terror," he said.

"Bin Laden doesn't think he can beat us. He believes he can force us to quit," Cheney said, citing US military setbacks in Lebanon and Somalia that led to US withdrawals from those countries.

"He believes after Lebanon and Somalia, the United States doesn't have the stomach for a long war and Iraq is the current central battlefield in that war, and it's essential we win there and we will win there," he said.

"They're convinced that the United States will, in fact, pack it in and go home if they just kill enough of us," he said.

In this point, according to many analysts and authors Cheney is 100% correct. For example, Michael Scheuer (wikipedia). In his works, Scheuer documents, using Bin Laden's own words, how he sees the U.S. as a paper tiger or, a weak horse. Scheuer also shows how Bin Laden is attempting to portray himself as the strong horse to attract supporters.

So, by looking at the issue of how the conflict in Iraq is resolved from the perspective of the Al Qaeda narrative, Dick Cheney would appear to be spot on.

James Woolsey for...

2007-01-13T16:24:00.000-05:00

President! Or, Secretary of State! Or, Director of National Intelligence or, something useful! I've read some of James Woolsey's public writing (on the state of the world, and on oil) and that prompted me to watch meeting of the House Committee for Foreign Affairs (January 11, 2007, Next Steps in the Iran Crisis) on C-SPAN yesterday during which he testified.

In his prepared statement he provides the committee members with the type of analysis that our brilliant media could never bring itself to do:

The regime’s threats to destroy Israel and, on a longer time-scale, the United States are part and parcel of its essence. Recent official statements to this effect represent not a shift in policy – Iran’s regime has defined itself by its fundamental hostility to the West, and especially Israel and the US, for nearly three decades (“Great Satan” etc.) – but rather a greater degree of public and explicit candor.

This fundamental hostility is now seasoned by a more pointed expression of the views of the circle of fanatic believers around Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi in Qum, including Ahmadinejad himself. This group expressly promotes the idea that large-scale killing should be welcomed because it will summon the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, which in turn will lead to the end of the world. Recently the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting web site has begun to assert that the world is in its “last days” and that, as the world ends, Jesus will appear with the Mahdi, as a Shi’ite and as his lieutenant. This rhetoric is not limited to a small circle. Rafsanjani, e.g., has utilized it as well. To us, of course, it sounds bizarre – but we ignore such ideology at our peril. As Enders Wimbush points out in the current Weekly Standard “Iran’s leadership has spoken of its willingness – in their words – to “martyr” the entire Iranian nation, and it has even expressed he desirability of doing so as a way to accelerate an inevitable, apocalyptic collision between Islam and the West . . . .” Those in decision-making roles in the Iranian regime who believe such things are certainly not going to be very inclined to negotiate in good faith with us about Iraq, their nuclear program, or indeed anything at all. Even deterrence is questionable, much less arms control agreements.

I can't find a record of the question and answer that followed just yet. One member rattled off a litany of grievances worthy of Michael Moore against American policy toward Iran and wondered, "why shouldn't they distrust us? hate us?"

Mr. Woolsey replied that the Iranian leadership does not want to destroy us because of what we've done wrong but, because of what we've done right. He attributes this insight to a conversation with a DC cab driver just after 9/11. In otherwords, our affront to their ideology. It wouldn't matter what we'd done in the past, the end result would not differ. Thanks a bunch Jimmy!

In general, he advocates a policy of non-violent regime change modeled on Cold War efforts in Eastern Europe. This seems like they type of policy everyone could get behind.

Later, he addressed the role of oil in international [in]security (an issue he speaks to at length in the article I link to above).

And finally, by moving toward technology that can reduce substantially the role of oil in our own economy and that of the world’s other oil-importing states, we can help deprive oil exporters – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, and others – of much of their leverage in international affairs. As Tom Friedman of the NY Times puts it, the price of oil and the path of freedom run in opposite directions. The attached op-ed piece of mine, published in the Wall Street Journal December 30, notes the possibility of plug-in hybrid vehicles soon making it possible for consumers to get around 500 miles per gallon of gasoline (since almost all propulsion would come from much less expensive electricity and renewable fuels, the latter mixed with only 15 per cent gasoline). This may seem an extraordinary number. But when General Motors last Sunday joined Toyota in the plug-in hybrid race to market and unveiled its new Chevrolet Volt, one of its executives used a figure of 525 miles per (gasoline) gallon. Five hundred and twenty-five miles per (gasoline) gallon should give Minister Nejad-Hosseinian and his colleagues a bracing degree of concern.

Surely everyone can get behind this type of policy as well.

James Woolsey for President! Or, Secretary of State! Or, Director of National Intelligence or, something useful!

Terribly Misguided

2007-01-12T17:27:00.000-05:00

More crazy protesters courtesy of zombietime. This time via Little Green Footballs: Anti-War Antisemitic Moonbats Take to the Streets

On the face of it, this poster seems represent a legitimate criticism of President Bush sitting in the Oval Office ordering American troops into Baghdad to fight insurgents and terrorists. If he's so eager to defeat them, let him do some of the fighting.

However, if you think about it...

The sign seems to blur the line between a civilian leader and a member of the military. Civilian control of the military is a critical component of any liberal democracy (which includes our form of government):

A state's effective monopoly of force is an issue of great concern for all national leaders, who must rely on the military to supply this aspect of their authority. The danger of granting military leaders full autonomy or sovereignty is that they may ignore or supplant the democratic decision-making process, and use physical force, or the threat of physical force, to achieve their preferred outcomes; in the worse cases, this may lead to a coup or military dictatorship. A related danger is the use of the military to crush domestic political opposition through intimidation or sheer physical force, interfering with the ability to have free and fair elections, a key part of the democratic process.

Even beyond the high-minded doctrinal discussion, there's a much more practical one that speaks to the issue of moral equivalence and legitimacy. I don't want to get too far into that because it's a tad off topic but, when's the last time you saw the US Military conducting a parade carrying a poster of Bush? Or, any current or former president, civilian leader, or general? Now, for example, how about the Iranian military? Or, Hezbollah?

This is not an insignificant point.

Another possibility is that the protester is merely so opposed to the policy that he wants to force President Bush to personally implement it in place of others. Afterall, we know that at least some, particularly Democrats, favor a draft. Forcing political ~~prisoners~~ opponents to engage in warfare on behalf of the state is not new. Especially on the left. You should read up on the history of penal military units that drew many of their ranks from the pool of gulag inmates. You should note, in particular:

While these camps housed criminals of all types, the Gulag system has become primarily known as a place for political prisoners and as a mechanism for repressing political opposition to the Soviet state.

So, to me, that sign and the sentiment behind it, represents something to be actively resisted. It is far from democratic in thinking. Especially so when compared to today's civilian led all-volunteer force.

Beach Impeach

2007-01-11T20:21:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of the indomitable Zombietime (http://www.zombietime.com), a recap, of sorts, of a protest, of sorts, in San Francisco recently.

Note: All images are courtesy of http://www.zombietime.com and have been reproduced here for bandwidth purposes only (so as not to hijack zombietime's bandwidth)

Some very interesting people were in attendance sporting some very uh, special hats.

From Wikipedia, on the subject of tin-foil hats:

Such hats are very uncommon in mainstream society, as the injuries they might guard against are highly speculative, and their effectiveness in preventing such harm would be dubious even if the danger were plausible. Instead, the concept has become a popular stereotype and term of derision; the phrase serves as a byword for paranoia and is associated with conspiracy theorists

For a more in-depth analysis of tin-foil hats refer to http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ under the subject of the Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie.

International Perspective

2007-01-11T17:07:00.000-05:00

A view from the UK on President Bush's plan for Iraq and 'the media' response.

Whatever else you might say about Bush, there can be absolutely no doubt that he - and the bulk of the American people - are genuine in their desire to see democracy functioning in Iraq – and the rest of the Middle East, for that matter.

You really do have to wonder why it is, therefore, that such a noble objective should have the left-wing media – typified by our own Guardian - spitting with rage at the prospect the United States taking what might be decisive action against the terrorists who would see anarchy, misery and death.

You can read the whole thing here. The author continues on to tell us:

The proximate reason for the newspaper's ire, of course, is that - in opting for a troop surge - Bush has "ignored the message of the mid-term elections" and the Guardian's Democrat (i.e., left-wing) chums. Bush, it screeches, "has also ignored the Iraq Study Group, Congress, his own top generals" and, horror of horrors, "most world opinion".

There you have it people. A US president, leader of the most prosperous and dynamic country in the world, a country which has achieved its status by driving its own agenda - is not listening to the opinion of the people who neither elected him nor pay US taxes. Now isn't that a bummer!

Now, between you and me, a lot of people "over here", that is, the 10 sq miles surrounded by reality that is Ithaca, NY would say, that's right, we didn't elect him. Remember those bumper stickers? "Don't elect him in 2004 either!"? Drivel.

But those folks aren't objective enough to see his point. I hope some of you reading here are and will read the rest of it here: EU Referendum - Both can't be wrong.

No Sineman, Ithaca Journal

2007-01-07T17:59:00.000-05:00

Sineman is still on hiatus and my attention has been drawn to a recent opinion letter in the Ithaca Journal. I think reproducing it here falls under Fair Use.

My purpose is criticism and comment. This blog is non-commercial. I will reproduce the letter in its entirety (sans the author's identity) but, it was published in the weekend edition and it's currently 6:43 PM on Sunday. My reproducing the letter at this date and time will not affect sales of the Ithaca Journal. As to the internet aspect of the letter, I certainly won't reduce traffic to the Journal website. If anything, and if I actually had readers, I would increase traffic to the site thereby increasing revenue for the Journal.

I think I'm safe from any legal action under copyright law.

The letter is titled "Bush's 'holy' laurels" (bold is my emphasis)

A caller to C-SPAN wondered why we don't use overwhelming force in Iraq as Japan and Germany were submissive to our will after Hiroshima and Dresden.

Talk about comparing apples and oranges! Japan and Germany attacked others. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 yet has lost three quarter of a million of its citizens to post-invasion violence while another two million have given up homes and careers to seek safety in other countries.

When asked how he felt after the election Bush said he felt like Noah in the flood. Noah! The rescuer of life on earth! Bush indeed feels he is the apple of God's eye and it is his business to bring about the End Times, so a profane thing like an election is unlikely to sway him. He says he is listening to critics, but their words follow a direct path into his ears and then out. Why ponder, debate and analyze our dilemma when you can rest on your holy laurels?

The next two years will be a true test of the separation of power and the will of the people as Bush digs in his heels and the Democrats and the voters who gave them their slim majority endeavor to confront his unchanged course hiding behind changed rhetoric.

Ok. It is true that Japan and Germany attacked others. The insinuation is apparently that Iraq, under Saddam, did not. Remember now, Iraq, under Saddam, invaded Iran. Invaded Kuwait. Gassed Kurds. And slaughtered Shiites.

Given the US history of intervention around the world, each of those four instances is justification enough. Taken together?

750,000 dead. 655,000 dead according to the study published in the Lancet in 2006 right? It was 100,000 by the same researchers in 2004. In 2004, according to the United Nations, it was 18,187-29,299 (page 54 of the Analytical Report).

In the 2006 Johns Hopkins study 1,800 households were studied. In the UN report, 21,000+ were studied. A bit of a difference eh?

Also, from the UN report:

The question asked in ILCS was formulated and posed
in a relatively standard way typical to large surveys
and censuses (UN 1983). The question underestimates
deaths, because households in which all members
were lost are omitted. It is therefore common within
demographic studies to use a correction for this,
based on a number of assumptions derived from
stable population theory (UN 1983). This has not been
attempted here, as it is unlikely that the assumptions
are satisfied. It is not common to make this correction
in epidemiologically oriented studies, and this was
not done in the Roberts et al. study.

In other words, Roberts et al. made assumptions that the UN thought unwise and made "corrections" that the UN didn't. To be fair, this was in 2004. I'm sure things were different in 2006 (rolleyes).

The remainder of the letter mocks President Bush's faith. Have fun with that. Don't try it in say...Iraq.

Reading: An Essential Skill

2007-01-03T21:34:00.000-05:00

I recently read: Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror

A fascinating book dealing with "myths" which include, for example, The world is a more dangerous place after 9/11. And, Halliburton made a ton of money in Iraq.

Also, regarding a book I read a while ago (America Alone by Mark Steyn), Europe's End: Not with Bang but a Whimper (via American Thinker).

Mark Steyn's recent best seller, America Alone is a gloomy book on Europe's future. By Europe, Mr. Steyn means primarily what Donald Rumsfeld once referred to contemptuously as "Old Europe." In a variation of the prime cliché of the 1992 Clinton campaign, Mr. Steyn's chief premise is that "It's the demographics, stupid." He cites in great and grave detail the comparison of the plummeting European birth rate and the prodigious birth rate of Muslims who now live in Europe. In some parts of Europe "Mohammad" is among the most popular names for newborns...

As Robert Kagan pointed out in his 2002 Policy Review article "Policy and Weakness," Europeans have convinced themselves that they live in an ideal Kantian world. This is a fantasy where all contentious issues in the world are resolved as if at a New England town meeting where citizens decide the location of the bike path...

You Be The Judge

2006-12-22T20:00:00.000-05:00

Still following the evolution of the Iraqi governing coalition. Today, I read a handful of reports, all published within an hour, from three different sources, with very different characteristics.

First the NYT reports:
Iraqi Factions Try to Undercut a Plan to Isolate Extremists 10:15 AM

The NYT tells us that:

Several Iraqi political groups on Thursday maneuvered to undercut an American-backed initiative that would create a multisectarian bloc intended to isolate extremists like the Shiite cleric and militia leader Moktada al-Sadr.

But, then they go on to tell us there's one group and how the rest of parliment will never be able to meet their new demands (not bothering to mention them). Oh, and the negotiations have stopped.

The report then goes on to tell us:

SecDef Gates visited Iraq to discuss sending more troops.

38 bodies were found.

Three bombs were set off.

Saddam's trial was adjourned until Jan. 8.

Sadr's maneuvering, has some control over Maliki, has paralyzed the gov't, and might rejoin the talks.

Then back to Gates.

Then back to more troops.

Then a dig at the incompetent Iraqi troops.

Wow. That was a, confusing, mouthful. So, the point is, the NYT asserted that Iraqi Groups were undermining the talks and then didn't back it up. There's one group according to their own report.

And all of this is followed up with gloom and doom, talk of more US Troops, and incompetent Iraqi support.

Second, the BBC:
Iraq Shia press for Sadr return 10:12 AM

This reports describes attempts to convince Sadr to re-enter the political process during ongoing talks in Najaf with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most prominent Shia cleric in Iraq.

No mention of ongoing talks by the NYT eh?

Iraq tribes 'taking on al-Qaeda' 10:18 AM

The tribal chiefs in the Iraqi province of Anbar joined forces in September in an attempt to defeat al-Qaeda...

"We are fighting the terrorists because they have caused the violent chaos in the country, the instability. They are killing innocent Iraqis and killing anyone who wants freedom and peace in Iraq," he explained...

The sheikh said some of the al-Qaeda fighters and weapons came from neighbouring Arab countries, Syria and Saudi Arabia mainly, but some were from more distant Arab countries and from Afghanistan.

No mention of anything like this in that expansive NYT piece eh?

Third, and finally, the TimesOnline:
Shia leadership agrees deal over sectarian killers 11:12 AM

Two of the senior Shia political leaders in Iraq agreed in principle to crack down on death squads within their own ranks yesterday. The rival Shia factions struck the deal in an attempt to salvage the country from collapse, said Haidar al-Abadi, a Shia MP in the Dawa party, who is close to Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister...

Last night a delegation was on its way to the shrine city of Najaf intent on convincing the anti-Western cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia is blamed for much of the widespread killing of Sunnis, to join the crackdown. Officials close to Hojatoleslam al-Sadr said he had agreed to rejoin the Iraqi Government.

Although the two parties are agreed on the need for a crackdown, the accord could easily fall apart if Hojatoleslam al-Sadr cannot be persuaded to back it and if Sunni parties fail to take similar steps.

According to the TimesOnline, major Shia parties agree (sans al-Sadr), who agrees but will probably only play if the Sunnis do. No droning on about dooma and gloom. No hints at more troops, no digs at the poor, incapable Iraqi troops. The Times sticks to the story at hand.

Conclusion (or, Questions):
1) What's the political landscape in Iraq relative to the governing coalition?

While it's not crystal-clear, it seems fairly promising. Sure there's some posturing. The fundamental questions is, what will Sadr do?

2) Why the dramatic difference in reporting?

...

Related:
Groundwork
What Next?

Groundwork

2006-12-20T20:07:00.000-05:00

Following up on What Next with regard to the groundwork being laid for the deployment of additional troops to Iraq: Has everyone (Iraqi politicians) signed onto "Bush's" plan for isolating extreme elements of the society?

Two articles today provide some insight:
New US defense chief weighs reinforcements on Iraq visit (AFP)
Top Shiite Cleric Is Said to Favor a Coalition for Iraq (NYT)

From AFP:

Hadi al-Ameri of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), described this idea as "madness".

"Any attempt to exclude Sadr's movement would be a strategic error," he warned. "How could you exclude the Sadr movement when the prime minister is working for national reconciliation?"

Instead, Shiite officials from the coalition parties said a delegation would meet Sadr and urge him to restate his support for the political process.

al-Sadr has paralyzed the government since Bush's meeting with al-Maliki in Jordan. Why would he rejoin the government now?

Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq sounds distinctly Iranian to me...which is a bit worrisome.

From NYT:

BAGHDAD, Dec. 19 —Iraq’s most venerated Shiite cleric has tentatively approved an American-backed coalition of Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish parties that aims to isolate extremists, particularly the powerful Shiite militia leader Moktada al-Sadr, Iraqi and Western officials say...

Mr. Maliki has expressed strong interest in the coalition but wants initially to welcome all political parties into its fold rather than to limit membership, Iraqi and Western officials say. That would provide additional political cover for any break with Mr. Sadr.

The prime minister’s [al-Maliki] proposal, Mr. Hamoudi said, "is to start with a very wide door and gradually close it."

So, while different groups publicly express strong support and some reservation for the coalition I see a lot of agreement here on specifics. Including, critically, the approach to dealing with al-Sadr. Invite him in, give him a chance...when he rejects it, which I assume he will (why shouldn't I?), the beefed up American force can finally confront his militia head on.

Is that what our troops are going to do?? If not, they shouldn't go.

Lost in Translation

2006-12-20T15:08:00.000-05:00

hattip scrappleface

I'm not a religous person. Which is why I've had to read more than a handful of books to understand the motives of radical islamist terrorists. It's that partial understanding that makes this video so amusing.

Gateway Pundit is taking bets on which Democrats will be the first to agree with Zawahiri about the need for us to negotiate with his gang.

That's fairly incendiary. In defense, the jab is being made within the context of the ISG recommending that we negotiate with Iran and Syria (known to sponsor terrorists) and visits to Syria by legislators of a certain political party. The catch phrase being, "all through the Cold War we held talks with the Soviet Union". Well, to that I say, we all know, this isn't our daddy's Cold War. A message that seems to be increasingly lost in translation.

Nature

2006-12-18T21:39:00.000-05:00

Some may wonder, why debate all the Shiite this and Sunni that? Why are we even there at this point? Why don't we just leave? There are many reasons, Maj. Ben Connable illustrates some of them for us in his NYT piece.

A War That Abhors a Vacuum

THE niceties are up for debate: phased or partial withdrawal from Iraq would entail pulling troops back to their bases across the country, or leapfrogging backward to the nearest international border, or redeploying to bases in nearby countries.

But whatever the final prescription, the debate must include a sober look at the street-level impact of withdrawal. What will become of Iraqi villages, towns and cities as we pull out? Although past is not necessarily prologue, recent experience in Anbar Province may be instructive...

Read the rest

What Next?

2006-12-18T17:32:00.000-05:00

Well, the sineman would seem to be on vacation. He's placed a white board on his fence with some markers. Passers-by have written various foolish things on it. None of which are worthy of comment. And he hasn't posted on his blog in quite a while.

So, what next? Well, President Bush is talking of sending more troops to Iraq. The NYT tells us about it. Quotes some Generals advising caution and then describes the latest attack in Baghdad. I have to say, they do a rather poor job of framing the issue...

It's understood that the Iraqi capital is the focal point of the insurgency in Iraq. At this stage the Shiite militias have the Sunnis backed into a corner, and are holding the government hostage. That is, the al-Maliki government needs al-Sadr's votes to remain in power as Prime Minister and therefore, cannot act against him. Additionally, there's Al Qaeda. Some Sunni groups have thrown in with Al Qaeda as a means of survival, others for theological or political reasons. They're a minority, 25 of 31 Sunni tribes in Anbar province have signed a pact against Al Qaeda.

Still framing here...Bush isn't just "throwing" troops into this. He recently met with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, an Iraqi Shiite leader, and Tariq al-Hashemi, the Sunni vice president of Iraq. Now we're done framing.

Is President Bush building support for al-Maliki? Or, building support for his replacement? To coincide with the infusion of additional troops. Is it wise to stick with al-Maliki (as it seems to me that we will)? Why? Why not?

Of course, there's no word on what was actually discussed during the talks. Did both parties "sign on" to "the plan"? If we're talking of sending more troops one would have to think so.

With al-Sadr isolated, how will he react? Will he back down and opt for national reconciliation? Or, all out civil war? Is that why we're sending more troops? Are we assuming he'll opt for war?

If anybody would like to offer some ideas, feel free. Someone recently commented that I'm "opinionated". Well, ok, maybe. But I am respectful and do listen and believe it or not, I do consider other points of view. Sineman can vouch for me ;)

Sanity

2006-12-14T23:56:00.000-05:00

Wow. Who knew International Law could actually be enforced?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16209844/

NEW YORK - Outgoing U.S. U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and former diplomats from Israel and Canada called on the United Nations on Thursday to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with inciting genocide.

Flying Pig Watch

2006-12-13T21:50:00.000-05:00

Every once in a while something is written which is so contrary, profound, and truthful that, well, "bring out the pig!".

Astonishingly, it's from TIME. Lisa Beyer has confronted one of the major premises of the Iraq Study Group. It's one that I have a lot of trouble with as well. I understand the issue being addressed upsets people, and creates tension in the region but, in this case, I think it's being used as a carrot. Although, to quote Mark Steyn, I think it's being used in a rather vulgar way, to "f--k the Jews".

No sensible person is against peacemaking in the Holy Land. Applause and hopefulness would seem the reasonable reaction to the Iraq Study Group's recommendation that the Bush Administration "act boldly" and "as soon as possible" to resolve the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. But as a front-row observer of similar efforts over the past 15 years, I could muster neither response. In lumping the Iraq mess in with the Palestinian problem--and suggesting the first could not be fixed unless the second was too--the Baker-Hamilton commission lent credibility to a corrosive myth: that the fundamental problem in the Arab world is the plight of the Palestinians.

Read it all.

Spinning Polls

2006-12-12T21:15:00.000-05:00

Public optimism fades in Afghanistan

The poll was conducted by ABC and the BBC, and then "reported" by AP. I say "reported" because I don't believe the headline and subsequent "analysis" represents the situation comprehensively.

The number of people who think the country is on the right track has dropped 22 points — to 55 percent — in the last year...

OK, "on the right track" to what? What percentage of respondents were optimistic with regard to the question of getting on the right track?

Optimism had declined on a variety of fronts compared with a year earlier: a 17-point drop in the belief that security has improved since the Taliban was in charge of the country to 58 percent; a 13-point drop in the belief that life in Afghanistan will get better in the next year, to 54 percent; and a 15-point drop in the job approval rating of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, to 68 percent.

That approval level would be welcomed by most politicians in the United States.

There are four elements in the two paragraphs cited above. First, a drop in the belief that security has improved. Fair enough, we're all aware of the increase in violence there. Were respondents confident in the government's and NATO's ability to clamp down on it? There's no information presented about population's prediction with regard to future events, only on past events and the present situation.

Second, a drop in the belief that life in Afghanistan will get better in a year. "Life"? For everyone? For the respondents family? For the respondent? Economic life? Social life? Quality of life? What factors are most important? But, at least this question deals with the future.

Third, the job approval of Hamid Karzai. Well, quite a number of factors affect that number as well all know.

Fourth, and finally, the gratuitous dig at western leaders by the anonymous authors.

Then we get to the zinger:

Most in Afghanistan still think the U.S.-led invasion five years ago had positive effects on their country. Almost nine in 10 call the invasion a good thing for their country. Three-fourths have a favorable opinion of the United States and almost nine in 10 prefer the current government to the Taliban.

Most in Afghanistan? Why don't they quantify that more precisely as they did with the previous questions? Because it doesn't fit with the headline??

With the rest though, they completely miss the larger point. For example, Three-fourths [are willing to admit to a stranger that they] have a favorable opinion of the United States and almost nine in 10 prefer the current government to the Taliban [without fear of reprisal].

No reason for optimism there.

EDIT: 12/19/2006 Gateway Pundit is writing about a newer poll in Afghanistan.

Isolating al-Sadr

2006-12-11T20:49:00.000-05:00

Last night my wife and I were talking about Iraq and why al-Sadr was such an important person. His armed force aside, he's in control of 30 seats in parliment. The Prime Minister (to date) has relied on his support to stay in power and keep the government together.

So, I suggested that, given the ISG's dismissal of partitioning Iraq, perhaps the purpose of president Bush's meetings with Shia and Sunni leaders from Iraq was to build support for Maliki to a point at which he would no longer have a need for al-Sadr's votes. Originally I thought maybe they would be discussing partition or a conference as I describe here.

The NYT is reporting that the talks with Bush were part of an effort intended to build a coalition to isolate al-Sadr.

Assuming the effort meets with success. Once al-Sadr is politically isolated one would presume that he would "sue for terms" by joining the reconciliation effort and play to the part or, lash out.

With our planning to send more troops to Baghdad...what do you think commanders on the ground anticipate?

Reuters is on the ball

2006-12-11T19:30:00.000-05:00

You know how important it is to frame people in the proper perspective right?

Insurgent vs. Terrorist?
Academic vs. Racist?

Iran opens conference questioning the Holocaust

Among the participants was U.S. academic David Duke, a former Louisiana Republican Representative. He praised Iran for hosting the event.

Four hours later, the same "reporter" "published" an updated "article", with a new title, Iran meeting questions Holocaust and gas chambers. The paragraph I cite above is, strangely, missing.

Ya'think there might be some shortcomings in the "process" over there at Reuters?

Apparently, there's also something behind the charaterization of the Jewish Rabbis in attendance. Although I admit to having no first-hand knowledge on the subject. Reuters: David Duke a "US Academic" (LGF)

These so-called "Jewish rabbis" that Reuters casually drops into the article are in actuality members of Neturei Karta—an insane sect with a tiny membership that makes a practice of supporting evil around the world. Sort of the Jewish equivalent of Fred Phelps and his sick bunch. But to Reuters they’re just like any other "Jewish rabbis."

Interestingly, this paragraph is also missing from the second "article" "authored" by the esteemed "journalist".

Resisting Israeli Occupation?

2006-12-11T17:14:00.000-05:00

This is what you get when you legitimize armed religous zealots with moral equivelance and pandering.

Children of Islamic Hamas opponent killed (TimesOnline)

But the Times puts a funny slant on it.

In a disturbing sign of wider regional tensions leaking into the Palestinian arena Fatah sought to portray the Iranian-funded Hamas as stooges of Shia Tehran, killing their fellow Sunni Palestinians.

They ignore the 1400 year old divide within Islam. Dismiss the possibility that Iran uses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as political cover for a policy seeking hegemony over the greater Middle East. Instead adopt the recently-made-trendy stance of attributing the violence, in part, to Iraq.

Wait, I thought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the cause of all violence in the Middle East...now it's the other way around?? (hat tip: ISG) hmm...

Turns out, the BBC may have more of the real story.

Mr Balousheh [the children's father] is considered a leading enemy of Hamas. He was the main interrogator of Hamas members during the 1990s crackdown on the Islamist movement.

And there's the ongoing evolution of "democracy":

Mr Abbas has been considering a request by his allies to hold early elections to resolve an impasse in efforts to form a unity government.
Hamas denounced the proposal to hold another election as a "coup against democracy".

In any event, I doubt this was a botched assassination attempt. More likely, revenge.

Now, how has the international community reacted? The UN? Kofi Annan? Well, he was busy (Annan chides U.S. in farewell speech).

EDIT: Gates of Vienna has a similar view:

The initial news reports claimed that Mr. Balousheh was the supposed target of the killing. However, Carl in Jerusalem puts it in even starker terms: “I believe that they were trying to get the kids as a warning to the father and to other Fatah members.”

In other words, they knew the father wasn’t in the car; instead, the targeting of the children was a message to him. And the fact that the message was delivered in a font called Overkill, in a street full of other children, didn’t matter at all. What was important was to deliver the message.

In addition to that, a tidbit, if you could call it that, on politicians from a certain party meeting with HAMAS members. sigh.

Cartoons and Conferences

2006-12-10T22:06:00.000-05:00

In a partial response to the Danish Muhammad cartoons Iran hosted a gallery of cartoons from around the world back in August. (BBC)

Organiser Masoud Shojai said: "You see they allow the Prophet to be insulted. But when we talk about the Holocaust, they consider it so holy that they punish people for questioning it."

No mention of the lack of violent protests and out-right murder in response to the anti-semitic cartoons.

So, that wasn't good enough. Didn't provoke enough of a reaction among the infidels. Thus, Iran is hosting a two-day conference which is likely to question whether the Holocaust actually happened. (BBC)

"The first question to be posed is: did the Holocaust actually happen or not? And the second one is: if it did happen, what was the scale of it?"

"The allegation that six million Jews were killed or burnt in this event, is it true or not?"

You know, so what if it didn't. How does that affect anything? Oh, nevermind, I get it, "6 million of you didn't die 60 years ago so, we're going to kill 7 million of you now."

Here's to negotiating with genocidal maniacs.

Mark Steyn on the ISG

2006-12-10T16:49:00.000-05:00

The Iraq Study Group report has certainly caused a lot of controversy of late. I actually think it's a faily decent way of airing policy debate in public. Sadly, it's by so shamelessly over-hyped by the media and mischaracterized that it's essentially a wash.

You've heard the press say it's a damning critique of the president's policy. But, have you heard this?

We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq, as stated by the
President: an Iraq that can "govern itself, sustain itself, and defend
itself."

ISG, Pg 40

I'm a fan of Mark Steyn's writing. I recently read this latest book America Alone. I don't always agree with everything he says. But often I find something that seems a bit too far out there...something that seems like pure hyperbole...only to find out later that he was, in fact, using someone elses words or, entirely correct or, indeed sometimes, wrong.

Nevertheless, you have to admire his writing:

Well, it seems Iraq is to come under something called the "Iraq International Support Group." If only Neville Chamberlain had thought to propose a "support group" for Czechoslovakia, he might still be in office. Or guest-hosting for Oprah.

Read it all.

more dead horses

2006-12-07T23:09:00.000-05:00

I lied earlier, I really do love beating dead horses, muwahaha...

Cherry-Picking Campaign Promises (NYT)

...Democrats eagerly made a campaign vow to promptly enact all of the [9/11] panel’s recommendations...Now that they can taste power again, however, the victors seem to be having second thoughts...Surely, the leaders of the new Congress know they will be risking the nation’s security, far more than their credibility, if they retreat from the vow to do a stronger job of oversight.

Emphasis Mine. And rightly so.

Buried in the Rubble

2006-12-05T17:28:00.000-05:00

During the summer (of 2006) we all witnessed the conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah. There were many aspects of events which were covered by news media and, among the most prominent was the plight of Lebanese civilians. Qana being the epitome.

In my opinion, one side of the argument sought to appeal to emotion. Citing pictures of dead children as proof of Israeli imcompetence or even malice. Indeed the pictures represented tragic events.

Months later, after extensive research, we can see, clearly, the acts which resulted in Qana and countless other tragic events.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html

I stand by my position on this. All conflict is to be avoided. All conflict is terrible. Nevertheless, there is a meaningful difference between people who, during conflict, act to prevent and minimize civilian casualties, and those who intentionally expose civilians to harm. Even the authors of the Geneva Conventions recognized this...in spirit and letter.

Of course, there are other opinions. Those who adhere to that opinion often cite Qana as a specific case of a systemic failure of that logic. To them, I say, there is an alter-narrative which you should consider: The Corruption of the Media

How Little We All Know Cont'd

2006-12-03T14:49:00.000-05:00

Given that it's Sunday, the day of seemingly endless talking heads and expert analysis in all forms of media...and in keeping with the theme of a few previous posts:

Say no to AP’s shoddy work

Curt at Floppingaces, www.floppingaces2.blogspot.com, led the charge. He thought there was something strange about an AP report, and took a second look at it, then a third look. He and others blew the lid off it. The AP is making up war crimes.

And further still:

The AP has another Iraqi stringer problem. Photographer Bilal Hussein is in U.S. custody, and the AP has been clamoring indignantly for his release. AP reports have buried the U.S. explanation that Hussein is being held without charge because - quite aside from producing photos that showed him to be overly intimate with terrorists in Fallujah - he was in an al-Qaeda bomb factory, with an al-Qaeda bombmaker, with traces of explosives on his person when he was arrested.

Stunningly, some in academia are alerted to certain trends as well. Communication professor examines media bias in president's speeches:

Convincingly and without resorting to partisan politics, Kuypers strongly illustrates in eight chapters "how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror."

...

Kuypers, of Christiansburg, Va., received his Ph.D from Louisiana State University and both his bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from Florida State. He joined Virginia Tech's Department of Communication last year after having taught political communication for tens years at Dartmouth College.

How can the population understand the tactics, strategy, and even the existance of an ideological opponent in this environment?

Previous Posts:
More Evidence of how Little We All Know
Do any of us really know the truth (Pt II)?
Do any of us really know the truth?

Rebirth: A Constructive Idea

2006-12-02T20:32:00.000-05:00

On August 15, 2006 in a post titled A Constructive Idea I cited the Dayton Accords as an example of ethnic conflict, resulting from the downfall of a dictatorial regime, being solved with reasonable success.

Today, the NYT released a memo from Donald Rumsfeld, dated November 6, 2006, outlining potential changes to current policy in Iraq. (article, text of memo)

The memo contains a number of options which, under any circumstances, we must adopt. For example,

Retain high-end SOF capability and necessary support structure to target Al Qaeda, death squads, and Iranians in Iraq...

Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government.

Last, and considered 'below the line' or, less attractive, he says "Try a Dayton-like process".

I would note that President Bush met with the Iraqi Prime Minister and Jordanian King this week. Next week, Pres. Bush is meeting with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a Shiite leader. In that piece, it's reported that:

Next month, President Bush is scheduled to meet with Tariq al-Hashemi, the Sunni Arab vice president and leader of the most powerful Sunni Arab party, a senior administration official said.

The last piece, the Kurds, are not directly involved in the sectarian violence in Iraq. Their part of the country has been and continues to be relatively peaceful. One would presume they would attend any conference with a simple request. However, we should not presume. We should treat them as an equal party in any talks.

Are we building up to a conference of Iraqi leaders? Dayton like? Or, is the President trying to do it 'on the fly'...shuttling messages back and forth between parties? Time will tell. Surely it would be a good step to get Sunni and Shiite leaders in the same room. With a common goal.

Irony of Tolerance

2006-12-02T12:26:00.000-05:00

Isn't it ironic that after hundreds of years of struggling against various forms of prejudice under the banners of human rights, civil rights, tolerance, desegregation, women's suffrage, etc, etc multi-culturalism brings us full circle: The end of one law for all? (BBC)

Of course, in new age speak it's called, legal pluralism, not segregation. And true, it has differences. It's not a case of a group of people having "box" drawn around them by others based on the color of their skin. It's a case of a group of people drawing a box around everyone else due to their lack of proper religious values.

Supporters of the extra-judicial systems insist their courts will not delve into criminal mattes. But, precedent is clear. Islam and Sharia must govern all forms of life: domestic, financial, commercial, international, criminal, etc...to comprimise would be to stray from the path. Apostate.

What will be the effect on a society that allows multiple judicial systems to "coexsist"?

Moderate Majority

2006-12-01T17:25:00.000-05:00

The Moderate Majority, silenced by the radical minority.

In late October Jamal Miftah wrote:

Because of lack of knowledge of Islam, Muslim youth are misguided into believing by the so-called champions of the cause of Islam that the current spate of killings and barbarism, which has no equal in the recent civilized history, is jihad in the name of Islam. They are incited, in the name of Islam, to commit heinous crimes not pardonable by any religion and strictly forbidden in Islam....
Even mosques and Islamic institutions in the U.S. and around the world have become tools in [Al-Qaeda's] hands and are used for collecting funds for their criminal acts. Half of the funds collected go into the pockets of their local agents and the rest are sent to these thugs.

They are the reason for branding the peaceful religion of Islam as terrorism. The result, therefore, is in the form of Danish cartoons and remarks/reference by the Pope.

I appeal to the Muslim youth in particular and Muslims of the world in general to rise up and start jihad against the killers of humanity and help the civilized world to bring these culprits to justice and prove that Islam is not a religion of hatred and aggression.

I appeal to the Muslim clerics around the world that, rather than issuing empty fatwas condemning suicide bombing, they should issue a fatwa for the death of such scoundrels and barbarians who have taken more than 4,267 lives of innocent people in the name of Islam and have carried out more than 24 terrorist attacks on civilian installations throughout the world. This does not include the chilling number of deaths because of such activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is well over 250,000.

I appeal to al-Zawahri and his band of thugs to hand themselves over to justice and stop spreading evil and killing innocent humans around the world in the name of Islam. Their time is limited and Muslims of the world will soon rise against them to apprehend them and bring them to justice

He was then banned from his mosque.

Some 80% of mosques in the US are Wahhabi. http://www.pbs.org...wahhabism.html

A strict, conservative form of Islam that came to power in Saudi Arabia after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (The Caliphate) at the end of WWI. It has grown in influence since then through the use of petro-dollars to fund schools and mosques around the world. It traces its origins to the times of the crusades...a theological rationalization for the military defeats suffered at the hands of the infidel crusaders the wahhabis reasoned that they weren't good enough Muslims...that's why Allah had denied them victory over the invading infidels.

As of today, he has been allowed to return to the mosque. If I were him, I'm not sure I'd go.

dead horses

2006-11-30T17:24:00.000-05:00

As much as I despise the beating of dead horses, I'm about to engage it a bit of it.

Democrats Reject Key 9/11 Panel Suggestion

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies.

As I recall, Nancy Pelosi beat the drum about the 9/11 Commission repeatedly. Oh look, Sister Toldjah has, in fact, documented this: Promises made, promises broken

Not to mention the corruption issue and the complete lack of understand of Iraq and terrorism which I hint at in my previous post: for all his faults

I saw the implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations as a real positive of the Democrat take-over of Congress. Now, I'm having a hard time finding any positives.

for all his faults

2006-11-29T20:21:00.000-05:00

For all President Bush's faults, at least he knows who the bad guys are.

House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters on Wednesday that she feels it is "sad" that President Bush continues to blame Iraqi insurgent violence on al Qaeda.

"My thoughts on the president's representations are well-known," Pelosi said. "The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the president is resorting to it again."

Somebody please tell me where the 9/11 Commission discussed the issue of Al Qaeda inciting sectarian violence in post-war Iraq. Thought so. Tell me again why this lady should influence the national dialogue? agenda?

Oh, and to address the substance of Pelosi's assertion: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L29434212.htm

DUBAI, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Iraq's al Qaeda wing on Wednesday condemned Pope Benedict's visit to Turkey as part of a crusade against Islam...

Make a sentence with these words: Denial, River, Egypt.

So, take this, add it to my previos post, the Murtha fiasco, the Hastings debacle...and you know why I find it so hard to vote for most democrats.

Friends, Not

2006-11-28T06:49:00.000-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/world/middleeast/28diplo.html

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 — As President Bush and his top diplomats try to halt the downward spiral in Iraq and Lebanon, they seem intent on their strategy of talking only to Arab friends, despite increasing calls inside and outside the administration for them to reach out to Iran and Syria as well.

And with good reason.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/world/middleeast/28military.html

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 — A senior American intelligence official said Monday that the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr.

The official said that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

People need to understand that Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, are not "our friends". The countries do not work with us to achieve mutual interests. They work against us to achieve their own interests. What are our interests? Peace, stability, generally representative goverments, each of these has an economic strain as well. What are Iranian interests? Nuclear Weapons, eliminating the Zionist Entity, regional hegemony, theocracy.

Treachery at the NYT

2006-11-25T19:57:00.000-05:00

A little background: German American Bund

Wow. Would Americans have stood for this in 1939:

Times reporters tip off Bund

Two NYT reporters alerted members of the German-American Bund to an imminent FBI raid placing officers at risk and marginalizing the effect of the raid from the perspective of law enforcement. Additionally, the NYT is refusing to release records of communication between its reporters and Bund members and taking its case to the Supreme Court.

No? Then why do we put up with it now?
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006425.htm
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/047951.php
http://wizbangblog.com...new-york-times.php

Timing is everything. This happened Dec. 14 2001. Just 3 months after 9/11.

French Hypocrisy

2006-11-24T19:47:00.000-05:00

French troops in Lebanon authorized to engage Israeli flyovers (but not to stop arms shipments to Hezbollah).

In other news, anti-semitic race riot after a soccer match in France leaves one dead and one seriously wounded.

What else can I say?

Syrian Influence

2006-11-21T17:48:00.000-05:00

Is this what Syrian contributions to Iraqi peace and democracy will look like?

Lebanese Minister for Industry Assassinated

And here's a bonus lesson in media literacy folks: Compare my title (Lebanese Minister for Industry Assassinated) to the BBC's (Lebanese Christian leader killed).

In the larger picture, I wonder if today's killing is related to this?
Hezbollah urges mass protests in Lebanon Here are some highlight from the piece:

Hezbollah's leader urged his followers to prepare for mass demonstrations to topple the government...We do not want riots...Shortly after Nasrallah's speech was broadcast, the sounds of gunfire and fireworks reverberated across Beirut's predominantly Shiite southern suburbs...

"Fireworks" eh? Sort of like, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...one man's RPG is another man's firecracker?

Terror Plot Foiled

2006-11-20T17:46:00.000-05:00

Apparently, a terrorist plot involving an El Al flight out of Germany was foiled recently. In the ultra-short BBC report on this there's no mention of who might have been involved.

Come to find out, they were Jordanians, from "Palestine", and from other Arab states.

Why would they choose to act in Germany? Is there any history there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre

How about:

offering "unlimited sums of money to release the hostages"

failed rescue attempts

releasing captured perpetrators as a direct result of subsequent terrorist activity

Reason enough?

Reading: An Essential Skill

2006-11-20T17:28:00.000-05:00

On a recent business trip I was able to do some reading.

America's Secret War by George Friedman, the CEO of StratFor is an interesting read. The book presents a big picture view of the war on terror (yes, which includes Iraq) and the interplay between the US, its allies, and 'others'.

America Alone by Mark Steyn is not for the weak-minded. One would hope his predictions will not come to pass but, the constant barrage of news from around the world is not encouraging.

And I've nearly finished State of Denial by Bob Woodward. I haven't really come to many conclusions about what's presented in this book yet. It's necessarily a bit dry but, worth reading.

Digging for a Plan

2006-11-09T17:02:00.000-05:00

I went digging around for specifics on 'a plan' for dealing with Iraq from a leading Democrat other than stay the course or cut-and-run. I found one in a transcript from NewsHour:

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the president said today also he wanted to work in a bipartisan way on Iraq. But then he repeatedly defined the goal as "victory." And he said at one point, you know, speaking of the troops, "I want them home, too, but I want them home in victory, not leaving behind an Iraq that's a safe haven for al-Qaida." And he said repeatedly that victory was leaving an Iraq that was self-sustaining and could defend itself.

Now, can Democrats work with him and embrace that as the goal?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I mean, the point is, is that our presence in Iraq, as viewed by the Iraqis and by others in the region, as an occupation is not making America safer. We are not even honoring our commitment to our troops who are there, and we are not bringing stability to the region.

So what is being accomplished by our being there? A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down.

The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?

Sigh. So, apparently, according to Iraqis and others in the region, our being in Iraq is not making America safer. Is that credible?

We are not bringing stability to the region. If preventing a democratically elected government from falling prey to Al-Qaeda and Iranian backed militias isn't in the aid of stability I don't know what is.

She wants us to redeploy outside of Iraq. I'm sorry but, that's newspeak for withdraw.

Redeploy outside of Iraq. At the same time disarm the militias. Boys and girls, we're leaving now, as we do, would you please pass your guns and IEDs to the left and front of the class? Thank you kids, yes, that's very good...Good luck with that.

And this part: The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?

What does he mean? He's said it repeatedly and it was given to you as background as part of this question. And by the way, victory is *not* subjective. Last time I checked, Madame Pelosi is an elected representative in the US House of Representatives. She took an Oath of Office. Perhaps she needs a refresher?

Setting the Stage

2006-11-08T17:48:00.000-05:00

We've cleaned House (so to speak). Now, let's set the stage:

There have been no domestic terrorist attacks since 9/11.

Unemployment is currently 4.4% including gains of 92,000 jobs in October, 148,000 jobs in September, and 230,000 jobs in August. (source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Dow Jones: 12,176.54 (+19.77), NASDAQ 2,384.94 (+9.06), S&P 500 1,385.72 (+2.88)
A barrel of oil: $59.83 (+0.90)
A gallon of gas in the USA: $2.21
A gallon of gas in NY State: $2.37

Iraq is a mess. Al Qaeda is in Iraq, attempting to de-stabilize the government. Saddam has been convicted of crimes against humanity and Iran is acting through Shite militias to de-stabilize the government.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is offering to hold talks with Taliban leaders. And members of the same Taliban/Al-Qaeda alliance are threatening the Pakistani government on a nearly daily basis and on some days, killing dozens.

Al Qaeda activity in both of these regions is in following with their agenda of overthrowing non-Islamic Regimes in Muslim majority nations as part of an effort to bring about the formation of 'The Caliphate'. A state ruled by Sharia Law. (CS Monitor, Daniel Pipes)

EDIT: Forgot one thing: From AP via Yahoo, Hamas is now calling on Muslims to attack Americans.

What will a post a year from now look like?

More Fantastic Insight

2006-11-05T10:58:00.000-05:00

More fantastic insight into the situation in Iraq that you won't see on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, or the sineman. http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/11/inside_iraq.php

Certainly Iraq is at a critical juncture in its development as a new and independent state. Sunni insurgents are unwilling to consider reconciliation as long as it appears Sadr's death squads will not be addressed by the central government. Maliki is hedging his bets as long as it appear the U.S. may withdraw forces. The much anticipated Baker report on the recommendations for the course on Iraq will be released in the near future. The impression of the report is the U.S. will leave the country to the predations of al-Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads. Iran and Sadr will push the limits as long as the U.S. appears weak and at the mercy of a fickle electorate. Al-Qaeda and Sadr watch the polls and read the Western media, and ratchet up the violence as election season nears. We have captured al-Qaeda documents that prove this.

Everyone should read it all.

Gates of Vienna: The True Believers

2006-11-02T22:39:00.000-05:00

I will freely admit to falling into the category of conservative atheist as stated in this piece...which I found to be a great read not only because of how much of it rang true to me but, because of how much I had to research before I could truely appreciate it.

Gates of Vienna: The True Believers

Blame Misses the Mark

2006-10-30T21:16:00.000-05:00

The Sineman's latest sign:

The Sineman's latest post: http://sineman.blogspot.com/2006/10/blaming-iraqis.html

It is not wrong to ask Iraqi security forces to establish and maintain law and order in their country. Admitting shortcomings in that effort is not blaming them, it's...admitting shortcomings.

The fact of the matter is that the conflict in Iraq is the central front in two, yes two, struggles at the moment. The sineman hints at this but doesn't elaborate:

...should we simply leave, there will likely be a power struggle that will likely not be smooth. As a starter, the United States should flatly and unequivocally state that we will not maintain a physical presence in Iraq or in the Middle East for that matter. We are the cause celebre. We create the purpose for the terrorism there. Why can’t we absorb that reality? We need a strategy that draws upon the neighboring states and international bodies that will have respect there.

First, Iraqi and US forces are confronting violence perpetrated largely by Sadr's Mahdi Army. Sadr is a puppet of Iran. He uses his militia to incite sectarian violence to further Iran's agenda of destabilizing Iraq. Iran does not want a stable, democratic Iraq, friendly to the West, on its border.

A complicating factor is that Sadr is a major player in the Iraqi government. He claims that the groups causing the violence in Iraq are "rogue elements" but, he doesn't disavow them, he doesn't reign them in, he doesn't identify them. US forces cannot be seen "going after" him in an aggressive way as it would appear too heavy-handed and Imperialistic on our part. Instead, we are tying to use some finesse to, at a minumum, create the perception that Iraqis are taking control of the country and we are merely supporting them.

We seem to be doing this with some success in Pakistan lately:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/south_asia/6097636.stm

While the Pakistanis are taking credit for this strike, the question arises as to whether this may have been conducted by Task Force 145, the U.S. special operations terrorist hunter-killer teams. Task Force 145 was responsible for the April raid in Danda Saidgai on the al-Qaeda's training camp for Osama bin Laden's Black Guard, his elite praetorian guard. Pakistan initially took credit for the Danda Saidgai strikes, but the Washington Post later revealed this was indeed a U.S. mission. Dawn notes the raid occurred “at around 5:00 am,” which means it was conducted in the dark. Pakistani helicopter pilots would need night training in flight and targeting.

http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/10/airstrikes_in_bajaur.php

Despite earlier reports that the missiles had been launched by Pakistani military helicopters, Pakistani intelligence sources now tell ABC News that the missiles were fired from a U.S. Predator drone plane.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/zawahiri_was_ta.html

So you see, in spite of the publicly declared Pakistani position that US forces will not operate inside Pakistan...they seem to be doing just that in such a way as not to get too much of a rise out of the Pakistani population.

Second, it's plain that Al Qaeda has as a major goal, the use of a lawless state in the middle east as a base of operations and a training ground and lauching pad for future attacks. They are pursuing this in Iraq. If US forces "withdraw" from Iraq or the entire middle east (gasp)...exactly how would we prevent this?

We cannot rely on other nations or inept International Organizations to provide our nation's defence.

Lancet Revisited

2006-10-29T20:51:00.000-05:00

The sineman had a sign up regarding the Lancet study on Iraqi deaths a couple of weeks ago. Today he posted it online.

While it's true that President Bush disputed the study's findings, he was not the only person to do so. After the study was released I expected the sineman to write about this and so I "presponded" after doing a tad of research.

Since that time, further discussion has taken place and other people and insitutions have weighed in. BBC, Huge gaps between Iraq death estimates. BBC, Lancet Iraq survey methodology under fire. Iraq Body Count, Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates.

I'm sure the sineman was, perhaps until now, a fan of the IBC group. Their analysis is perhaps the most interesting:

If they were true, they would need to be the result of a combination of the following factors:

incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began;

bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;

the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;

an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.

Followed by this sober paragraph:

We would hope that, before accepting such extreme notions, serious consideration is given to the possibility that the population estimates derived from the Lancet study are flawed. The most likely source of such a flaw is some bias in the sampling methodology such that violent deaths were vastly over-represented in the sample. The precise potential nature of such bias is not clear at this point (it could, for example, involve problems in the application of a statistical method originally designed for studying the spread of disease in a population to direct and ongoing violence-related phenomena). But to dismiss the possibility of such bias out of hand is surely both irresponsible and unwise.

A question sineman's readers should be asking themselves at this point is: Why doesn't he present any of this information?

Gateway Pundit: Time Traveling With Today's Democratic Party

2006-10-26T19:50:00.000-05:00

I like this guy's style: Gateway Pundit: Time Traveling With Today's Democratic Party

Related posts:
Were They Safe Then

3 Pronged Attack

2006-10-26T19:49:00.000-05:00

Today I read three very interesting opinion pieces in three different newspapers. The subject of each piece was the upcoming mid-term election.

First, the Ithaca Journal:

Here is something to think about and give some serious thought! If the terrorists were allowed to vote in the U.S.A, who do you think they would vote for, Republicans or Democrats?

Robert H. Gessner
Trumansburg

Second, the New York Times:

A total withdrawal from Iraq would play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists. As Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, made clear shortly after 9/11 in his book "Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner," Al Qaeda's most important short-term strategic goal is to seize control of a state, or part of a state, somewhere in the Muslim world. "Confronting the enemies of Islam and launching jihad against them require a Muslim authority, established on a Muslim land," he wrote. "Without achieving this goal our actions will mean nothing." Such a jihadist state would be the ideal launching pad for future attacks on the West...

...Another problem with a total American withdrawal is that it would fit all too neatly into Osama bin Laden's master narrative about American foreign policy. His theme is that America is a paper tiger that cannot tolerate body bags coming home; to back it up, he cites President Ronald Reagan's 1984 withdrawal of United States troops from Lebanon and President Bill Clinton’s decision nearly a decade later to pull troops from Somalia. A unilateral pullout from Iraq would only confirm this analysis of American weakness among his jihadist allies.

Third, The Washington Times:

If Americans vote for what sounds like sweet reason from the Democrats, bin Laden and company will rejoice. What they will hear is the death knell for any prospect of effective U.S. military resistance to militant Islam. With the Republicans out, the Islamists will be confident that Democrats will deliver the best of both worlds: less emphasis on military force and a rigid maintenance of U.S. foreign policies that are hated with passion and near-unanimity by 1.3 billion Muslims. If Osama approved of music, he would be whistling "Happy Days Are Here Again!"

The first piece is remarkable for the fact that it was published at all in my opinion. I'm stunned that the journal put it in their paper. Or, maybe impressed is a better word? Either way, kudos to Robert!

The second two pieces are remarkable, in my opinion, because of who wrote them. Peter Bergen is CNN's Terrorism Correspondent. I believe he actually interviewed Bin Laden...anyway, I wonder how his career at CNN is going nowadays? I actually haven't seen him on air in a while. Michael Scheuer is a former CIA official. He actually created the Bin Laden unit. He is no fan of Republican or Bush administration strategies or tactics. He wrote a rather controversial book, Imperial Hubris, which is critical of both on several key issues.

The underlying theme in each of these letters, I believe, is that when we confront Radical Islam on the battlefield, we cannot yield.

Developments in Europe

2006-10-25T19:48:00.000-05:00

Continuing my theme from a couple of posts ago (More Like France), a couple of new and interesting pieces have come out of European press recently. Neither of these items have received substantial coverage in American media.

First, courtesy LGF, French "Youth": Elect Sarkozy and People Will Die

"Sarko is the provocative element," said Kiko. "And if he is elected next year I warn you: people will be killed."

Nicolas Sarkozy (Sarko), a minister in the current goverment, is planning on running for President. The major issue in his campaign is law and order.

Second, via BBC, France in Rawanda Genocide Probe. To be clear, France is not investigating the genocide in Rawanda. France is being investigated for the role its troops may have played in the genocide.

EU Referendum has some fascinating commentary and a very interesting picture.

Given that the continuous and expanding threads of evidence point to France as a country that has, from Vietnam through Algeria and a succession of African colonies up to and including the Ivory Coast, exercised a wholly malign influence, we really do have to ask ourselves whether this is a country with which we can afford to be associated.

For so long we have heard all manner of jibes and accusations against the United States but, if we are to choose between allies, the murderous history of the French would seem to make them a very poor second-best.

Sadr driving violence in Iraq

2006-10-24T19:47:00.000-05:00

Very intelligent, non-political, coverage of Iraq (and other global hot spots) can be found here: The Fourth Rail. His latest post is about Sadr and his latest activity...

Sadr continues to maintain he is against the sectarian violence, and the media has been complicit in providing him cover by claiming the violence conducted by the Mahdi Army is due to rogue elements outside his control...

His followers are complicit in numerous incidents of sectarian murders,and yet Sadr has yet to denounce a single incident. As we noted on October 20th, "He has not identified these out of control militias, closed offices or denounced them specifically. Sadr is playing a double game of maintaining his militia against the law while pretending to be a responsible member of government."

When reading this article and considering events you should keep in mind that Sadr is at least supported by Iran. It would be guesswork on my part to discuss the degree to which he was directly controlled from Iran but, recall the Cox and Forkum cartoon on the subject...

More Like France

2006-10-22T19:46:00.000-05:00

We should be more like the Europeans I hear people say frequently. France is often cited as an example of a progressive nation, with reasonable policies, well respected, blah blah blah.

Interesting to compare casualty figures from Iraq vs. those of the French Police:

3,000 police officers wounded (so far). Apparently an average of 112 cars burned per day. Quite a set of policies they have at work 'over there'.

http://news.yahoo...france_suburban_violence_4

EPINAY-SUR-SEINE, France - On a routine call, three unwitting police officers fell into a trap. A car darted out to block their path, and dozens of hooded youths surged out of the darkness to attack them with stones, bats and tear gas before fleeing. One officer was hospitalized.

The recent ambush was emblematic of what some officers say has become a near-perpetual and increasingly violent conflict between police and gangs in tough, largely immigrant French neighborhoods that were the scene of a three-week paroxysm of rioting last year.

One small police union claims officers are facing a "permanent intifada." Police injuries have risen in the year since the wave of violence.

National police reported 2,458 cases of violence against officers in the first six months of the year, on pace to top the 4,246 cases recorded for all of 2005 and the 3,842 in 2004. Firefighters and rescue workers have also been targeted — and some now receive police escorts in such areas.

On Sunday, a band of about 30 youths, some wearing masks, forced passengers out of a bus in a southern Paris suburb in broad daylight Sunday, set it on fire, then stoned firefighters who came to the rescue, police said. No one was injured. Two people were arrested, one of them a 13-year-old, according to LCI television.

More broadly, worsening violence in France testifies to Europe's growing struggle to integrate its ethnic minorities. Some mainstream European politicians - adopting positions previously confined largely to far-right fringes - are suggesting that the minorities themselves are not doing enough to adapt to European mores.

Bill Clinton on "Torture"

2006-10-18T19:45:00.000-05:00

This is very interesting for a couple of reasons. Most of all, for how little attention the comments received.

From a NY Sun article by Alan Dershowitz titled "Clinton and I":

Mr. Clinton was asked, as someone "who's been there," whether the president needs "the option of authorizing torture in an extreme case."

Look, if the president needed an option, there's all sorts of things they can do.Let's take the best case, OK.You picked up someone you know is the No. 2 aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know they have an operation planned for the United States or some European capital in the next three days. And you know this guy knows it. Right, that's the clearest example. And you think you can only get it out of this guy by shooting him full of some drugs or water-boarding him or otherwise working him over. If they really believed that that scenario is likely to occur, let them come forward with an alternate proposal.

We have a system of laws here where nobody should be above the law, and you don't need blanket advance approval for blanket torture.They can draw a statute much more narrowly, which would permit the president to make a finding in a case like I just outlined, and then that finding could be submitted even if after the fact to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

This is basically what I wrote here on Sept 17th. In just about every respect.

I'm not trying to toot my horn. I'm trying to highlight two things: 1) the validity of my idea 2) the potential for agreement between two people of different political underpinings on important issues.

Three Videos

2006-10-18T19:43:00.000-05:00

This is really a bit twisted (hat tip: The Coalition of the Swilling)

First, from the BBC, an interview with a teaching assistant who was placed on leave for refusing to remove her veil at school. Watch the entire interview, you'll see that she's really nothing but a trouble-maker.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...asx (Windows Media)

Terrorism has no religion

This group has apparently managed to get these ads on air in the middle east. It's unclear who's behind them. Hopefully, our government is and it's only the beginning. (hat tip: LFG)

Suicidal Terror: http://www.noterror.info/STL-High.wmv (11+ MB, Windows Media)

Routine: http://www.noterror.info/Routine-45sec-High.wmv (8+ MB, Windows Media)

Check out the entire website here: http://www.noterror.info

Newsweek Hatchet-job

2006-10-16T19:42:00.000-05:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15239205/site/newsweek

In this Newsweek article by Lisa Miller And Matthew Philips the issue of a new, greater Caliphate, or Islamic State, gets a perfect whitewash and Pres. Bush gets a dose of moral equivalency via OBL.

Is there any bias in the article? Well, try the first sentence:

When President George W. Bush starts using fifty-cent words in press conferences, one has to wonder why, and on Wednesday, during his Rose Garden appearance, he used the word "caliphate" four times.

A fifty cent word? Four times? Something is definitely afoot. In the same opening paragraph, we get the whitewash:

Caliphate? Really? Many people live long, fruitful lives without once using the word caliphate. Almost no one, with the exception of our president and some of his advisers, uses it as a pejorative.

Pejorative? Wow. A seventy five cent word? But, only used once...

The article continues on and the authors explain how nobody knows what a caliphate is. So, they look up "caliph" not "caliphate" in an online dictionary..."blah blah blah" and proceed to equate Pres. Bush with OBL:

Bush isn't the first person in recent history to appropriate the word caliphate and use it as a weapon. Osama bin Laden did it himself, most notably three years ago...

The esteemed authors never bother to say exactly what the caliphate is. Some [high school level] research on Wikipedia yields the following:

Caliphate:
"[T]he caliphate means to cause the masses to act as required by religious insight into their interests in the other world as well as in this world. (The worldly interests) have bearing upon (the interests in the other world), since according to the Lawgiver (Muhammad), all worldly conditions are to be considered in their relation to their value for the other world. Thus, (the caliphate) in reality substitutes for the Lawgiver (Muhammad), in as much as it serves, like him, to protect the religion and to exercise (political) leadership of the world."

Islamic State:
An Islamic State is referred to a state which is governed by the Sharia. That is, all the laws are developed using Quran, Hadith and Sunnah. Such a state is governed by a Caliph and is for whole Muslim Ummah (instead for a specific group).

Sharia Law? Leadership of the world? Sound pleasant to you?

Having omitted this bit the authors couldn't possibly mention that it would extend from North Africa through the Middle East to South East Asia and require the overthrow of moderate goverments like those of Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey. Nor could they possibly be bothered to mention the potential impact of this on world events.

Perhaps worst of all, the authors never consider just who is actually seeking to establish this new and greater caliphate. Afterall, it's just in "Bush's" imagination right? Well, no, not exactly (Muslim Brotherhood via wikipedia). And of course, nobody really dangerous belongs or has ever belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood (BBC).

So, rather than tackle an important issue with even a sophomoric degree of journalism, Newsweek has opted to take the opporunity to slam Pres. Bush during an election year. Journalism?

Outrage of the Year

2006-10-11T19:40:00.000-05:00

Regarding the recently release study indicating that 600,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S led invasion...I'm going to call this the Outrage of the Year.

I'll begin on a personal note: I work 5 days a week with scientists in multiple fields; Material science, biodiversity, finance and economics, bioinformatics, astronomy, and various social sciences. I am not a scientist but, I am familiar with many of the basic principles of science and its methods. This study is not science. It's trash. But don't take my word alone, here's some of the methods used:

For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The estimate deals with deaths up to July.

1,850 households with 12,800 residents. No information on the demographics of the residents (for example, were 18% adults who considered themselves "head of household"?). How many were over 18 yrs of age? under? HOW MANY WERE INTERVIEWED? DOESN'T SAY!!!

Even the NYT interviews Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy who says:

the number of deaths in the families interviewed — 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion — was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country

And later,

Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had "a tone of accuracy that is just inappropriate."

Another interesting point which isn't intended to minimize the importance of a single death but, merely marginalize the value of this study (courtesy Gateway Pundit):

The AP reported that 2,660 people were killed this month in Iraq

But, according to this study, you'd expect 22,800

Finally, you shouldn't discount the fact that the same group released a similar study just before the 2004 elections in which it claimed 100,000 Iraqi deaths. It was roundly criticized (even by Slate!). Now, is it any surprise they release a study just before the 2006 elections!?

Indictment of Gadahn

2006-10-11T19:39:00.000-05:00

On Saturday Sept, 2 2006 in a post titled Al-Qaeda and 1984, in reference a recently release video featuring Adam Gadahn, I wrote:

if ever there was evidence that laws against sedition and treason should be enforced, for the benefit of all, this joker's video is it.

Today it was announced: US Files First Treason Charges in 50 Years Against Accused al-Qaida Member

Here's a copy of the indictment: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/adam_indictment.pdf

The goal should be to put him on trial, for all to see, to show-case his twisted worldview and disconnected logic. To allow everyone to see the world as he would have it.

Let's Read the Law

2006-10-05T19:32:00.000-05:00

The sineman has written extensively on the subject of detainees, their rights, and prosecution in a post titled Constitution Bushwhacked.

He writes that the legislation (as he understands it) does the following:

It establishes military commissions to try the so-called “enemy combatants,” based on evidence that can be obtained without search warrants and that does not have to be revealed to the person charged in order to be rebutted.

And:

It eliminates the right of habeus corpus so people can be imprisoned indefinitely without charge with no recourse to any court and not knowing, even, the reason that they are being held.

First of all, you may want to read the legislation for yourself. The sineman neglects to point out that the legislation explicitly applies to what it defines as unlawful combatants only. That definition is in 100% compliance with International Law.

I wrote about this extensively a couple of weeks ago. Let me be clear, I do not want to "torture" people. My writing is an exercise in research and critical thinking that seeks to facilitate decision making with respect to the issue as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction. In one of my very first posts, I advocated public trials for terrorist detainess.

First, in The Spirit and The Letter, I write about the specifics of the Geneva Convention as I see them. It is my opinion that some (many? most? all?) of the people we're discussing are not protected by the conventions (as POWs or otherwise), in part, due to their failure to properly distinguish themselves from civilians and, are indeed guilty of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and should be tried on those as well.

In the same piece, I recognize that many people will not accept a legal "loophole" as some will call it as justification for harsh interrogation. With that in mind, I briefly examine the origins of the Geneva Conventions and address the issue of The Spirit of the Law (as the title suggests).

In another writing, I discuss the very real possibility that other very unpopular programs may very well preclude the need for harsh interrogation.

The sineman also writes:

It was made retroactive to a convenient time to avoid complication with the scandals of our earlier treatment of detainees

Why is the legislation made retroactive? To avoid scandal or so that it will apply to detainees currently in custody? If it wasn't made retroactive....it would only apply to detainess captured after the bill was passed.

There are other critical sections of the law that are omitted. For example:

§ 948s. Service of charges
The trial counsel assigned to a case before a military commission
under this chapter shall cause to be served upon the accused
and military defense counsel a copy of the charges upon which
trial is to be had. Such charges shall be served in English and,
if appropriate, in another language that the accused understands.
Such service shall be made sufficiently in advance of trial to prepare
a defense.

If I list them all, nobody will read this. You need to read the document for yourself.

I guess I could sum my thinking up like this: In previous conflicts our predecessors sacrificed in significant ways to achieve victory. I see that in this case, we have a choice, we can sacrifice some of our rights, or some of our sense of holding the moral high ground. In reality, I don't think it's that bad. I think we need to hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Keep in mind the nature of sacrifices others have made throughout history...Which would you choose?

Additional Perspective

2006-09-25T19:30:00.000-05:00

In the spirit of my previous post, some additional historical perspective applied to the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate.

by Tim Reagan
Scientific Christian Monitor
January 18, 1944

A classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) contends that the war in Japan has increased Shinto radicalism, and has made the kamikaze threat around the world worse. Based on information from US government officials who had seen the document and spoke on condition of anyonymity...

read it all here.

Were They Safer Then

2006-09-24T19:27:00.000-05:00

The Sineman asks, "3 1/2 years later, are we safer now"?

We're 5 years into Bush's War on Terror as some like to call it. Others call it the struggle against radical Islam. Call it what you may, it's going to last a while longer. Some say 20 years. Some say 50 (BBC).

So, go ahead and answer Sineman's question to yourself, honestly, using whatever logic you choose. I'll not debate your reasoning or your answer. What I would like to do is, by way of example, help put your answer in perspective. Let's pretend the War on Terror will last 20 years. That means we're 1/4 of the way through.

How would Londoners have answered the question "are we safer today?" 1/4 of the way through WWII? In say, Fall/Early-Winter of 1940? Not sure? Read up on The Blitz. Oh, and Italy invaded British controlled Egypt in September 1940 also. Not exactly glorious days.

Further back, the American Civil War, how was that going about 1/4 of the way through? Did you ever wonder why the Confederates had Lee in command and the Union had McClellan then Burnside then Hooker and then Meade? Well, lets just say things weren't going so well for the Union. About a year after the start of the war, the Battle of Shiloh was fought. Casualties, 23,741 (13,047 USA, 10,694 CSA). Numbers like that redefine the word safe as we use it in modern times.

On a larger scale, imagining the struggle against radical Islam runs on for 50 years...that means we're 1/10th of the way through. Ugh. How would people in North America or Western Europe have answered Sineman's question in the 1955-1965 timeframe? They might have mentioned things like the Warsaw Pact, Mutually Assured Destruction, The Bay of Pigs Invasion, and The Cuban Missile Crisis. Or even The Bomber Gap, The Missile Gap, or Duck and Cover (Google Video).

The whole point is, take sineman's question seriously. Answer it honestly. Then, put your answer in perspective.

Conceptual Error

2006-09-22T19:43:00.000-05:00

If you can't figure out what's wrong with this headline...then pack it in now.

Palestinian supporters from Hamas burn an Israeli flag during a demonstration against Pope Benedict's remarks in the West Bank city of Ramallah September 22, 2006. REUTERS/Loay Abu Haykel

Can "torture" be avoided?

2006-09-18T22:33:00.000-05:00

Perhaps the most difficult 'response' to articulate regarding my previous post about questioning detainees could be, how can we make sure that we are never in a position to consider unconventional interrogation techniques?

It's easy to say, "no torture". But when you frame the question against an imminent attack threatening people's lives, it becomes a bit harder to say "no". We'd be smart if we devoted our energy and attention to making sure we never find ourselves in that position.

So, how do we prevent a situation when "torture" seems to be a realistic option? Programs like the NSA surveillance program could help. Allowing us to detect and disrupt plots before the develop into a real threat.

Now, I can hear you saying already, we're giving up our libery to be safe. We shouldn't have to do that! What good is a country like that?

In this case, we'd be balancing our rights with the rights of others. Our right to a private phone call with a suspected terrorist overseas, balanced with our neighbors right to life, balanced with an Al-Qaeda fighters right not to be interrogated harshly.

Or, we can refrain from harsh interrogation. Refuse to monitor communication of those who would attack us. Thereby refusing to protect ourselves and our neighbors.

What good is our country then?

I say, let's hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Monitor the communications of suspected terrorists regardless of the geographic location of the participants. Sure, get some legal oversight but, don't let it slow things down to a point where the program is ineffective.

Make provisions for dealing with the Hollywood scenario. An imminent attack threatening lives, and a knowledgable detainee who's unwilling to share information. Demand full accountability afterwards to prevent abuse of the provision.

The Spirit and The Letter

2006-09-17T11:40:00.000-05:00

The issue of the status and treatment of detainess has become heated. My opinion on this subject can not be charaterized as 'black and white'. If you're not going to read the whole thing, don't read it at all.

I do not advocate cruel treatment or torture as a general policy regarding detainess.

I do advocate public trials for detainees when appropriate.

The section of the Geneva Conventions most often cited with respect to this issue is Convention III, Part I, Articles 3 and 4. These were authored and agreed upon after WWII to improve and guarantee the treatment of members of the Armed Services of a nation, militia, volunteer corps, and civilans, in non-occupied territory, who spontaneously take up arms to resist and invader:

"without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

History had shown the need to protect these categories of people from reprisals and cruel treatment in efforts to gain intelligence about military operations.

Using cruel treatment and torture to gather information (morality aside) is unwarranted as every person on the battlefield is aware of the risk they are exposed to. Every person on the battlefield has the ability to defend himself, to call on the support of his countrymen and allies, and can rest assured that, at his time of surrender, he will be treated humanely.

Other sections of the Geneva Conventions, which are less often cited include:

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

Civilians are not to be subject to attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present.

Civilians must not be used as hostages.

Civilians must not be subject to outrages upon personal dignity.

Civilians must not be subject to collective punishment and reprisals.

Civilians must not receive differential treatment based on race, religion, nationality, or political allegiance.

And finally:

Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured.

So, we learn several things from these citations. First, if you violate the laws, you do not forfeit your right to be protected by them. Second, intentional attacks on unarmed civilians in occupied or non-occupied territory is forbidden. Third, if a combatant attempts to hide among civilians he looses his protection under the conventions.

How does this apply to the current situation?

The argument that our actions will influence the treatment of US soldiers or civilian captives/hostages has no legal basis. Is it based on reality? How have captured US Soldiers and civilians been treated since 2001?

Some Taliban fighters and certainly all terrorists gave up their protections under the Geneva Conventions long ago when they adopted the strategy of hiding among civilian populations.

Some Taliban may be, and certainly all terrorists are guilty of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and should be tried. Grave breaches include:

Any unlawful act which causes death or seriously endangers the health of a prisoner of war. (Convention III, Art. 13)

Unlawful transfer, deportation or confinement of civilians, willful killing, hostage taking and torture . (Protocol IV, Art. 147)

Attacking cultural objects when they’re not located near a military target or used for the war effort. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4D)

Depriving civilians who are under the control of an enemy power of the right to a fair trial (Convention IV, Art. 147)

Depriving combatants, prisoners of war, refugees, or medical or religious personnel of a fair trial. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4e)

Most importantly, the authors of the Geneva Conventions did not contemplate protecting non-uniformed combatants who attack or seek to attack civilains in occupied territory. The spirit of these laws was to protect civilians from war, and lawful combatants, capture in non-occupited territory, from abuse. I believe the current situation calls for a reinterpretation of various articles opposed to following them to the letter. Specifically, when the detainees are part of conspiracy or plot which poses direct and imminent threat to civilians.

As distasteful as it feels, we should all put our right to live above the rights [arguably] afforded to the attackers under the Geneva Conventions.

Civilians are not alert to the risks posed by terrorists (they don't carry arms openly). Civilians can not defend themselves. We can not shoot back. We don't wear helmets, body armor, camoflage. We don't drive APCs to work. We've seen numerous videos of terrorists cutting the heads off journalists and other civilians. We have no guarantee of proper, humane treatment by our would-be captors.

In the unlikely, Hollyood-like case when unconventional interrogation techniques would be necessary (a near last-minute effort to prevent an attack) the government should be required to provide a full accounting of its evidence and its actions in a public court after the fact. If the case can't be made, officials at the highest levels should be tried.

Great Minds

2006-09-13T21:36:00.000-05:00

How does the saying go? Great minds think alike?

Terror Cells Tracked in Palestinian Territories

One interesting point here is that you've got the Israelis, Palestinians, and Jordanians all agreeing on something.

Both the Palestianian and Israeli intelligence services report that terrorist cells with connections to al-Qaida have been established.

and later:

Jordan's King Abdullah II, whose secret service has solid West Bank intelligence, has also confirmed activity within the terror cells.

Palestinians are sent off to "religious schools" where they are recruited into the terror network. Then they are sent home to "spread the good word". Additionally, agents of Al-Qaida are infiltrating the area.

Another interesting point:

European Union border patrols are also stationed at Rafah, but they only have observer status and can do little to stop the problem.

sigh

International Insight

2006-09-13T16:33:00.000-05:00

John Birmingham is an Australian author. I've read a few of his books. Most recently, Weapons of Choice and Designated Targets. I'm anxiously awaiting Final Impact.

To vastly summarize, he's written a trilogy about a UN Naval Task Force, spearheaded by the U.S.S Hillary Clinton, named for the late president (Ironically, she was assassinated by extremists because of he ultra-tough policy on terrorism.) which is sucked back in time to WWII while en route to fight terrorists in Indonesia in 2020. His books really focus on the resulting cultural clash and the alternate history that results. Including changes to military, political, cultural, civil rights, etc history. Decent stuff if you're into it.

Anyway, he also writes for newspapers and writes a blog. Lately, he's been writing some things which I find myself intrigued by. In Conflict and Metaphor he writes about the misguided comparison between the War on Terror and WWII.

Thinking on this today[Sept 11], I came to the conclusion that 1942, the darkest hour for the free world, is not an appropriate analogy for the present day. But perhaps 1932 is. At that point, Hilter did not control the German state and significant elements within German society – soon to be exterminated – were opposed to his nutty and murderous world view. In power realist terms he was less of a threat than the diffuse networks of modern islamo-fascism.

But within ten years, because nobody had the will to oppose him, he came very close to enslaving the world.

I find this to be a sound argument for the use of the word appeasement. Not for political gain but, because of the potential consequences of the policy.

The next day, in a post titled Creative and destructive energies he writes:

I suspect one of the things that makes it difficult to conceive of fascist islam as an existential threat is that they do not formally control a state and have not yet begun the recogniseable creation of one. Such an entity did exist in Afghanistan under the Talibs. And parts of the mid east are controlled for all intents and purposes by the enemy, which directs some it's energies in those areas to the very basic trench work of building their version of civilization...

Mostly we know them for their destrucitve energies. Suicide bombers detonating themselves inside bars and buses. Mass murderers flying jets into buildings. Psychopaths sawing the heads off trussed up victims on the internet. None of it creating anything material.

Don't know quite where I'm going with these thoughts. But I'm going somewhere.

Let me draw the connection. What if, in 10 years, or 6, or 4, these folks do devote more of their energy to "constructive" tasks? Such as building states? armies? navies? nuclear arsenals? "schools"? and "universities"?

What will these folks do with those armies? and navies? and nuclear weapons? What will they teach in their ~~madrasses~~ schools? and ~~terror camps~~ universities?
Will it be too late for you? for me? for all of us?

Appreciation

2006-09-11T19:27:00.000-05:00

On Sept 11, 2006 the sineman posted:

Read his entire post here please.

I have three things to say about this post. In no particular order.

First, were the demonstrations that took place in Iraq in support of Hezbollah part of a grass-roots effort to show support? I suspect not. Why you ask? Well, according to the Washington Post

Thousands of Shiite Muslims marched though the Iraqi capital on Friday in support of Hezbollah guerrillas battling Israeli forces in Lebanon, answering a call by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to rally to the cause of their fellow Shiites.

So. Big deal. al-Sadr organized a protest. What's the problem? Well, al-Sadr is the leader of the Madhi Army. The Madhi (Wikipedia), a.k.a. The Twelfth Imam, is focus of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's faith. The idea is that the Madhi:

...is the prophesied redeemer of Islam, who will change the world into a perfect Islamic society...

This cartoon by Cox & Forkum (from 2004!!), and the accompanying text, sums up my point. Iran was responsible for the protests (and a BIG chunk of the violence in Iraq). Oh, and Iran happens to be Hezbollah's ~~biggest supporter~~ master.

Second, I actually think this latest post by Sineman is pretty good. His sign does not contain incendiary language. His post is not supremely political, claiming that republicans are fools and democrats will straighten everything out just as soon as they're elected. He framed his point against the anniversary of Sept. 11 and everyone's fear of another attack in a tactful and tasteful way. He could have very, very easily done otherwise. And, with respect to the larger point made by his post, I think, he's simply pointing out the need for flexibility in policy and problem solving.

In all, I actually like the post given the date on which it was made and the tone and content of it. In my humble opinion, the best one since I've been "responding".

Third, and finally, I'm glad he's found the time to post about his signs online again.

Al-Qaeda and 1984

2006-09-02T22:47:00.000-05:00

Was reading a transcript of the recently released video featuring the American spokesman for Al Qaeda. I was struck by the repeated use of the words unbeliever and unbelief.

The words strike me as very Orwellian. (see: Newspeak Dictionary)

In case you don't know, the idea behind Newspeak is to control language in such a way as to limit a person's ability to verbalize independent thought. Thereby, limiting independent thought.

By limiting vocabulary, you limit choice. By limiting choice, thought becomes trivialized and will conform to the desired path. If you are not a believer, you MUST be an unbeliever. If you do not believe, my MUST unbelieve.

Is that the language of a tolerant ideology?

Our constitution grants the right of freedom of speech. Our government protects it. We surrender it willingly under certain circumstances, it is restricted by law under others. These people, these Islamic Fascists, would take it away. Along with every other right we hold dear.

Flawed our policies may be. Open to debate they should be. However, failure to achieve the goals our policies seek is unacceptable.

Finally, if ever there was evidence that laws against sedition and treason should be enforced, for the benefit of all, this joker's video is it.

Meaningless without Context

2006-08-26T17:28:00.000-05:00

The sineman's latest sign (which he has not posted about) says something to the effect:

"the deaths were not seen as unusual", Marine Commanding Officer, Haditha
Fox News

This "quote" as presented is fairly meaningless. Each reader will take from it what he or she chooses based on his or her preconceptions about the situation in Iraq or the Sineman. Furthering useless divisions in society, precluding productive dialogue, etc, etc. I don't think that's what the Sineman intends.

I understand there are physical limitations on what can be presented in a certain amount of space. This is evident by the size of the letters used to make the sign. He had to squeeze this onto the sign. Thing is, he (the sineman) knows this too. I think he could have come up with a better message than this.

In any event, let's consider the sign. What does it mean? Well, what question promtpted that answer? Do you see how the lack of context leaves us uncertain as the answer's true meaning??

Suppose to question was, "How did you react when the first reports of the killings were received?"

And the answer was, "Well, we've had cases of sectarian violence resulting in civilian casualties and even a few instances of out-right executions of entire families so, the deaths were not seen as unusual".

That certainly alters the true meaning of the quote doesn't it?

Now, I think I know something about the sineman and I think I know (from his previous writings) what he's thinking. I think he's asserting that, in fact, the events at Haditha were not unusual because they were part of policy or the result of a direct order. A policy or order for which he holds President Bush and his administration responsible.

My response to that is simple. Where is the documentary evidence for that? Where are the orders? Where is the policy document? Why has nobody come forward in opposition to this? Could this order or policy be kept secret? Do you really believe that?

This reminds me of the WMD issue. Bush lied we cry with regards to WMD. In spite of overwhelming evidence that Iraq did posses WMD and had not followed through with it's obligations under international law to disarm. The UK, France, Italy, Germany, nearly ever intelligence service, even Bill Clinton thought Iraq had WMD.

And yet, we ignore that. Bush knew they didn't have any. He just lied. uh huh...

And now, with regard to Haditha. There is no evidence what so ever of unlawful orders being issued to any members of the US Armed Forces. In fact, there is evidence of the exact opposite. A group of soldiers acting outside the bounds of their orders. And yet, some of us blindly assert our leaders have committed a criminal act in this case.

Why?

I also find it curious that Sineman chooses to cite Fox News. Does he watch Fox News? Or, by associating them with this quote does he mean to impune them somehow? Or, implicate them somehow? If he doesn't watch Fox News, where did he really get the quote from??

Put your cards on the table

2006-08-21T20:19:00.000-05:00

Originally posted here: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22209

An interview with Abu Bakr Bashir with Al Jazeera, recently released from prison.

The only model to follow is pure Islam. Because Islam in its original form was tough and hard, not weak and pliable. Islam is fixed, stable, ordered and disciplined, and so are Muslims.

If we return to the real practice of true Islam we would be much stronger and that is when the kafirs will fear us. That is why we need to uphold the Shariah and return to real Islam. But the West is trying to weaken Islam from outside and inside. They attack our people and invade our countries from outside, and they weaken us from within with ideas like secularism, liberalism and democracy. This is all designed to contaminate our pure Islam.

Let me highlight a section of this for you.

...they weaken us from within with ideas like secularism, liberalism and democracy. This is all designed to contaminate our pure Islam.

So, to all those people who can't wait to vote the Republicans out of office and kick Bush to the curb...please enlighten me, how does that solve this sort of problem?

The fact is, it doesn't. The fact is, it doesn't matter who is in office, who controls congress, or which party they're from. What matters is, people like Abu Bakr Bashir, who are one of many, simply want to dominate your life.

WAKE UP PEOPLE.

When will we remember that we need to put politics aside and cooperate with eachother to guarantee our way of life? When will our leaders decide that National Security is more important than the next approval poll?

These theocrats have put their cards on the table...when will we??

Insight into Global News Coverage

2006-08-17T20:18:00.000-05:00

With my admittedly uneducated musings about solving the problem of sectarian violence in Iraq derailed by the realization that Iran is influencing events there on a far greater scale than I though:

Weapons from Iran discovered in Iraq's port city

In the weapons cache were hundreds of Katyusha rockets and mortar shells as well as several thousand light arms, the report said, adding that the weapons had all been manufactured in neighbouring Iran.

I've decided to turn my attention to slightly lower hanging fruit. News media :) I found this article particularly interesting: LGF Exclusive: How Much Does It Cost to Buy Global TV News?

This article details the single source from which major news outlets (CNN, FOX, BBC, Sky, etc) glean their news. Interestingly, the entity, a for profit spin-off of the AP has an entire arm (equal in staffing the remainder of the organization) dedicated to the production of news coverage for the Arab world.

The questions that follow are, perhaps, obvious:

Why does the Arab world need different news coverage from the rest of the world?

How do the narratives within these two streams of coverage differ?

Is it any wonder there is such a gap between our cultures??

Obstacles to another Dayton Accord

2006-08-16T22:32:00.000-05:00

One of my ideas for helping to deal with the sectarian violence in Iraq was to implement something like the Dayton Accords. They were reasonably successful in the Balkans.

The situation in Iraq is more complex.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2173&Itemid=30

Al-Qaida in Iraq, through the media and other grassroots propaganda, will promote a theme that portrays the Sunnis as under attack by coalition forces, and the government of Iraq as being corrupt. They aim to rally Sunni support by conveying al-Qaeda in Iraq as a Sunni protectorate. They then attempt to promote themselves as the defender of the oppressed instead of a terrorist organization.

Al-Qaida in Iraq is making a concerted effort to gain legitimacy by marketing itself to the Iraqi people as a credible, helpful organization that appeals to Iraqis in desperate social and economicsituations while projecting a civic-minded image. They have produced propaganda that blames coalition forces and the Iraqi government for problems such as unemployment, security, government corruption, gas prices and the lack of power, in hopes that this will empower them to take on the role as their protectorate.

Al-Qaida in Iraq wants to present itself as a legitimate organization. They're striving to increase its operational power by building a political base with a military wing, not unlike that of other extremist organizations that have turned to politics in order to grow roots.

Al-Qaida in Iraq realizes killing of innocent Iraqi civilians has damaged their public support and is working to reverse that perception. By no means does it mean they intend to stop creating sectarian violence, but rather change the perception.

So, the people of Iraq may be perfectly capable of living together afterall. The problem is (according to this briefing) outside influence. Additionally, and more troubling, these folks seem to have learned something from Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Isn't curious that Hezbollah and Al-Qaida aren't exactly buddy-buddy and yet, they seem to be employing similar tactics in terms of winning over a portion of the local population to affect their own political aims. I wonder if there's something more to this? Some shared leadership? Coordination?

Where would that come from? Iran? Maybe?

A Constructive Idea

2006-08-15T16:21:00.000-05:00

A Novelty? No, an idea, supported by a bit of history, with an eye toward a more peaceful future.

Ever hear of Tito? Yugoslavia? A land of differing people, held together for decades by fear. Fear of its ~~liberator~~ dictator, Tito, backed by Moscow. Eventually, Tito died, and eventually, Yugoslavia fell apart. What followed was war, destruction, and a new term, Ethnic Cleansing. It didn't end until the West (liberal democracies) intervened and brought the parties together to sign the Dayton Accords. Perhaps preventing the death of tens of thousands of Muslims.

Years later, peace, thriving democracy, and life for all parties.

Iraq was carved from the deceased Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI and given to the British by the League of Nations. It was granted indepenence briefly before the British seized it again in 1941 fearing loosing it's supply of oil at a critical time (WWII). After the British released it, a series of coups followed which led it into the hands of the Ba'ath party. Iraq's Tito, backed by a crazy combination of the US and Moscow. Now that the Ba'ath party is gone, the differing people of Iraq are unable to live with eachother. We're led to believe that sectarian violence (violence between different sects of a religion) is occuring daily in various cities.

If this is the case, perhaps another version of the Dayton Accords can be implemented to secure a peaceful co-existence. Divide the factions. Let them establish goverments, limited police forces, economies, guarantee human rights, free commerce, etc. Divide the nation's wealth among the factions. FORCE cooperation between the factions at the highest levels. In time, a decade?, perhaps, these factions will choose to unite again as a peaceful community. But at least, give them to the tools to live, to ability to choose, the chance to succeed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/.../diplomatic/main1071933.shtml

One key point:

It’s hard to imagine a scenario where significant numbers of U.S. troops will be in Iraq a decade from now, given the political pressure to withdraw them. But clearly there will have to be the same kind of patience and commitment shown by the international community in rebuilding Iraq for many years if the reconstruction effort is to be as successful there as it has been in the Balkans.

"...given the political pressure..." perhaps the political pressure would shift under a more concrete plan.

How to Ignore the Obvious

2006-08-14T11:54:00.000-05:00

Recently I've been thinking about a portion of Winston Churchill's account of his time as PM of Great Britian during WWII. Specifically, the section titled The Gathering Storm. In it, among many other things, he details how he constantly warned of German efforts to re-arm in direct opposition to international law and treaty. He shows how, in spite of having the facts at hand, politicians took action based on willful ignorance. Choosing to negotiate and barter...based on a policy now known as appeasement.

The reason I've been thinking of this lately is I feel that we (the liberal democracies of the "west") are falling into the same trap with respect to Iran and its influence on events around the world. And also a slightly smaller degree, radical islam.

Iran seeks nuclear weapons in spite of signing an international agreement to the contrary.

Iran supplies and incites terrorist groups to illegal acts (Hezbollah crossing a international border to kill and kidnap).

Iran brutally and relentlessly opresses civil opposition within its own borders.

Iran certainly harbors Al Queda

Iran incites unrest and violence in Iraq

Iran's clandestine involvement in Iraq certainly has complicated our work there. To what degree we'll never be sure. Did we anticipate this? Probably not. We certainly should have.

Iran does all this with No consequences what-so-ever. It's met with negotiation and...impotence. What is our govermnet doing to prevent Iranian interference in Iran? Lebanon? Elsewhere? The current situation shares many similarities with that of pre-war Nazi Germany. Not the least of which is the goal of the radical islamists. Hence the term islamic fascists.

Will the west wake up in time? Have we learned anything from the past? In an age of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, how many will have to die before we do?

In a comment to sinemans' post: http://sineman.blogspot.com/2006/08/bush-opposes-nation-building.html, shawnm stated,

August 11th...the sign has been removed...has someone become afraid again and stolen it?

We should all be afraid. Although, I suggest, not of the sineman or his signs.

umm...say that again?

2006-08-04T12:06:00.000-05:00

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel, state-media reported.

In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders in Malaysia, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate cease-fire to end the fighting between Israel and the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah.

How can a reasonable mind reconcile those two statements?

See the original post here: http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000902.html

Perspective Alternative

2006-08-01T22:33:00.000-05:00

In response to : http://sineman.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-much-more-barbaric-can-peace.html

The main reason (not one of reasons, not "the ostensible reason") for invading Iraq was to topple a dictator, plant the seeds of a democratic government, and thereby remove a military thread to the region and the world. This threat was evidenced by the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the decade of Iraq's refusal to comply with U.N. resolutions. These are by way of example not limitation.

Has this threat been removed? Let's answer this by looking at a neighbor of Iraq that, over the same span of time, has been bartered with, pandered to, negotiated with, and "dialogued" with. Iran. Iran is building nuclear weapons by all accounts. Iranian agents observe North Korean missile tests. Iran funds, trains, and insights international terrorists by all accounts, including the current crisis between Hezbollah and Israel. Iran refuses to comply with U.N. resolutions and is nearly completely isolated from the international community. Iran is an immense regional and potentially world-wide threat.

Iraq does not fund, train, or insight terrorists. Iraq is not developing *any* weapons nevermind nuclear weapons. True, Iraq is a struggling country facing many, many problems but, it does not threaten is neighbors with destruction.

When a gunman enters a Jewish Community Center in Seattle and shoots six people because they are jewish that's a hate crime.

When Hezbollah fighters launch unguided rockets filled with ball bearings into Israeli towns as part of a two decade old effort to wipe Israel off the map (because they're jewish)...it's part of the resistance?

No, it's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Everyone MUST remember that Hezbollah's goal is the destruction of Israel. And it's not because of some dispute over land. That's a mere pretext. It's because of deep anti-semitism.

Matthias Kuntzel (a German politcal scientist) studied and explains how the Nazis steadily grew a loose relationship with dissatisfied Arabs, particularly in Palestine, until they actually began broadcasting Arab-language propoganda in 1939. Now, you tell me, what sort of messages do you suppose the Nazis sent them???

You can probably figure it out for yourself but, I'll give you a hint: Anti-semitism wasn't big in the middle east until around this time...

More Evidence of how Little We All Know

2006-07-31T16:28:00.000-05:00

Here are a few more (selected) items that may help show how little the media in the U.S. really covers.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists...(and_haditha)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744426.html

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,19955774-5007220,00.html

http://newsbusters.org/node/6668

Across the board, without exception, there has been no discussion of these in Main Stream Media. Don't you wonder why?

Well, for one, they make complex situations out of what people would like to be simple ones. People would like to be able to point and say "you are bad" or "you are wrong". In some cases that's possible. However, in most cases it's not.

Additionally, the media loves headlines! Soundbites! And 10 second video clips. If you have to read a paragraph or two to "get it", it's no good. Too long. I heard the term drive-by media the other day...I like it. Mainstream media pulls up to your house, pops off a couple of headlines or soundbites and never looks back. They're off to the next breaking story. Never taking the time to give you proper background, context, or even the full story.

OK, so, let's just accept that this is true just for a second. You should still be wondering...what's the point? What do they stand to gain from doing this? Sure some people have personal agendas but, it really goes beyond that.

The line between news and entertainment is virtually gone. With multiple 24 news channels and a consolidating print industry (newspapers), capturing audience is do or die. So just remember, the goal of big media is NOT to inform you. It's to keep you watching/reading. The simplest way to do that is to play off your emotion not your intellect.

It's your job to dig up something that resembles the truth. You'll probably never find it but, at least you can be better informed. Sometimes you'll find things you don't like. Things that are contrary to your opinion or intuition. That's the point. Read it! You may learn something.

Do any of us really know the truth (Pt II)?

2006-07-28T10:07:00.000-05:00

There's this issue of being careful about what you read, what you watch...taking into account who you're hearing it from, etc, etc. In general, media literacy.

That's only part of the problem. There's another part. You have to be smart enough to look for information you may not be seeing or hearing or reading. For example, an article quoting a certain retired Major General Lewis Mackenzie saying,

"What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it."

Gen. Mackenzie was describing the contents of an email he received from one of the now deceased UN observers in Lebanon. At first I was very skeptical about this story (found here: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21786_Canadian_General-_UN_Observer_Post_Used_By_Hizballah&only) but, then I dug, just a little, and found some more:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004343191

http://newsbusters.org/node/6597

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=23de301b-7949-48db-a1b1-9fa1256db49f&k=29432

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/8958.htm

One question is, who is this Lewis Mackenzie fellow? Why should he get these emails? And why should he be believable? The usual Wikipedia ref is here. He's a retired Canadian Army General who served on the staff of the UN force in Bosnia.

My point is, have you read anything about this in the Ithaca Journal? NYT?? Seen anything about this on CNN? MSNBC? CBS???

....No
....Why?

Do any of us really know the truth?

2006-07-25T20:43:00.000-05:00

Each of us, every single one, gets his or her information from some form of mass media. Here's an intersting piece on a report aired over several days on CNN: http://newsbusters.org/node/6552. Apparently Hezbollah had such firm control over journalists in the area at the time it was only later than the journalist (CNN's Nick Robertson) could "come clean".

Challenged by Reliable Sources host (and Washington Post media writer) Howard Kurtz on Sunday, Robertson suggested Hezbollah has “very, very sophisticated and slick media operations,” that the terrorist group “had control of the situation. They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn't have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath,” and he even contradicted Hezbollah’s self-serving spin: “There's no doubt that the [Israeli] bombs there are hitting Hezbollah facilities.”

On Monday, July 24th Nick Robertson delivered another piece on Hezbollah activities. This time, he didn't report what they wanted him to. Instead, he reported on their efforts to manipulate the media. Apparently, Hezbollah had lined up several (a dozen or so) ambulances in front of a hospital and called the news media. One by one the ambulance drivers were instructed to turn on their sirens and drive around the block while the media filmed them "rushing off to save the wounded". Hooray for Hezbollah.

Manipulating the media for domestic consumption is nothing new. Hitler did it with great success (afterall, his party did control the media). The Communist Party in the former Soviet Union did it nearly as well for far longer. Milosevic did it in Yugoslavia to gain control of the country in a reasonably infamous incident. He staged an attack on Serbs at a polling place by Albanians of all people (in reality his own party cronies) and rallied his supporters to fend them off declaring, "nobody should even try to beat you". You can read a bit about it here: http://www.famainternational.com/mirror/smcontent.htm.

It is now known that nothing was either accidental or spontaneous about his visit to Kosovo Polje, the BBC reporters who made the series about the collapse of Yugoslavia had also noticed it. Everything was arranged, staged and orchestrated there: the behavior of the Serbs, the incidents with the Albanians...

There's a difference between spin and the out and out staging of events which would not have otherwise occurred.

Each of us needs to be responsible in our consumption of mass media. We need to be media literate. We need to understand that certain outlets have an interest in telling us one story over another. We need to take in information from a diverse set of sources and question everything we take in.

We also need to understand, none of us will ever know the whole truth about anything. FAR too may people in this world are CONVINCED they are right and everyone else is stupid.

Unconditional Failure

2006-07-24T20:03:00.000-05:00

In reference to this post: http://sineman.blogspot.com/2006/07/can-us-conceivably-oppose-ceasefire.html

Why would any nation involved in a conflict decline a ceasefire? At a basic, emotional level this would seem to be a legitimate question. However, if you take a look back into history, think about present day facts, and consider possible alternative histories, you may come to realize that there are scenarios in which accepting the first ceasefire which presents itself would be a poor choice.

Many may be familiar with the phrase unconditional surrender. Made most famous by none other than Franklin D. Roosevelt (D). If you're not familiar with it, better study up. In the meantime, the Wikipedia reference (of moderate value) is available. Two things mentioned are salient here:

Announcing that only unconditional surrender is acceptable puts psychological pressure on a weaker adversary.

It has also been criticized for forcing an opponent into a position where he has nothing to gain by negotiation or diplomacy, and might as well fight to the bitter end

Placing psychological pressure on one's opponent has obvious advantages. In WWII I believe the policy also served a very important political purpose in that it helped solidify a difficult alliance which was crucial to victory.

The criticism of the policy is valid. To address it, we must examine the present day situation. We must consider, what would happen if Hezbollah declared a unilateral ceasefire and disarmed? Simple, the fighting would stop. Now, what would happen if Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire? What would happen if Israel disarmed? Would Hezbollah stop shooting? Disarm? Live on in peace? Or, would Hezbollah carry out its stated objective and annihilate the state of Israel? I think we all know the answer to that.

Imagine a combination of December 1944, CNN, and the Battle of the Bulge. Americans warm and cozy in their homes, celebrating the holidays when CNN bursts into their living rooms with breaking news of heavy fighting in Belgium. Reports of American soldiers cut off, with no blankets, no coats, some without boots (they didn't have body armor in 1944), low on ammunition, no air cover, and a rejuvinated Wermacht pounding them mercilessly. In the course of a couple of days, thousands are dead, thousands are missing (and feared dead), and thousands more are grievously wounded. Would you want our government to agree to a ceasefire? What if we did? How would the world be different today? How many more would have died if this had happened?

Now, I'm not suggesting that an Israeli policy of unconditional surrender is appropriate here. However, simply bombing for a while, blowing up some stuff, killing some bad guys (kicking the hornets nest as it were) will not do anyone any good. To do so would constitute an unconditional failure.

Israel lauched a military operation (with military objectives) to protect its population from attacks (kidnappings, then rockets) from an unlawful, irregular force on its border. It has every right to see the current operation through to completion. Once that operation is complete, Israel also has some obligations.

U.S. & Israeli Terrorists? No.

2006-07-23T11:55:00.000-05:00

In the original post: http://sineman.blogspot.com/2006/07/dont-us-israeli-military-actions.html

The Sine Man asks:

In a word, no. International Law is very clear on how to identify a lawful combatant and an unlawful combatant:

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates

that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance

that of carrying arms openly

that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

If two reasonable people were to debate, point-by-point, on a legal basis, the status, under International Law, of a U.S or Israeli Soldier as compared to a car bomber in Iraq or a Hezbollah fighter in Lebanon I feel there is little doubt as to the outcome. And don't give me the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter" slogan. It's just that, a slogan. For example, American Revolutionary War soldiers generally met every single one of the criteria above (perhaps with the exception of the distinctive sign requirement)...and that was well before these criteria existed.

Isn't it interesting how some of us invoke internation law when we're upset about invading Iraq but, choose to ignore it when we ask the question "Are U.S. & Israli soldiers terrorists?"?

A more important point though, is that of "What are the lasting impressions of 10-year-olds and 12-year-olds in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon that are being built right now?". Propoganda will not work. Paid news media will not work. I'm stunned that people thought to be smarter than most think it will.

This is a very complex matter and one of decades of academic and media study. Marcel Ophuls documents, in a movie titled The Sorrow and The Pity, how three different people can have three very different memories about the same events in history (A German occupied town in France '41-'45). The question is, how can this be overcome? And how can an entire nation (or culture) come to share the same memories of certain events?

One approach, used with some success after WWII in Europe, less success in Japan (for specific reasons), and even South America at various points, is to use the law. Mark Osiel (Mass Atrocity, Collective Memory, and The Law) outlines this process at length. It is a difficult read (as is any book about the law) and it's subject is equally difficult (the extermination of millions). To vastly summarize his book:

"...such trials, when effective as public spectacle, stimulate public discussion in ways that foster the liberal values of toleration, moderation, and civil respect".

Furthermore,

"...such proceedings indelibly influence collective memory of the events they judge".

If the international community could bring terrorist leaders to justice in International courts instead of killing them it could be the beginning of the type of process Osiel describes.

Of course, much of this pre-supposes a military victory. The U.S. has that in Iraq to a sufficient degree. Israel is in the process of that vs. Hezbollah. I hope somebody in Israel has read Osiel's book.

Genesis

2006-07-21T09:01:00.000-05:00

This is about one thing. Have you ever heard the saying 'two brains are better than one'? or, heard someone ask for help, 'I could sure use a second pair of eyes...'? That's what this is about. I've seen the Sineman's signs for a long time now. He's lucky to have access to such a good location. He can inject his thoughts into unsuspecting motorists minds 7-days a week. The trouble is, I think some of those thoughts are down right wrong. Full of false accusations, exaggerations, and misrepresentations.

I intend to add that second brain. I don't expect everyone to like what I say or agree with it. I would like it if everyone who went to Sineman's site and read or commented came here and read or commented. I think, in the long run, the more information we all take in, the more points of view we all consider, the better off we'll be.

This is the sign that got me thinking of finding a forum to voice my opinion re:Sineman's messages.

The original post is here.

At face value, I get this sign. He doesn't like innocent people being intentionally killed. Neither do I. In fact, I don't like innocent people being accidentally killed. Come to think it, I'd prefer nobody got killed.

"So now, at least, we have a concrete case to consider where troops on the ground appear to have created the Iraqi equivalent of a Mai Lai massacre."

There are two problems:

Haditha was no Mai Lai.

The implied meaning is fundamentally wrong.

Let's start with the mistake of comparing Haditha to Mai Lai.
Wikipedia reference on Haditha

Wikipedia reference on Mai Lai

I don't want you to think Wikipedia is the be all and end all of facts but, lets get some basic ones out in the open and go from there. Wikipedia is convenient for doing that ok?

Read these two articles and note the total lack of similarity. 24 people killed in Haditha, 500+ people likely killed in Mai Lai...nobody really knows for sure because of the vast cover up. There was no cover up in Haditha. The Sineman sees deferral and cover-up in the case of Haditha. I see the slow moving behemoth that the US Military is. Everything takes time. Far longer than anyone wants. It's just the way it is. With Mai Lai, one man served 3 years house arrest. I have a funny feeling that several people will spend many years in prison over Haditha (and rightfully so!). There's not much more to say about this. Read the articles, the scope and scale of the killings and subsequent actions are vastly different. The involvement of the US Government at the highest levels just isn't there re:Haditha whereas in the Mai Lai case, clearly the Government failed miserably and at nearly all levels.

Now, regarding the implied meaning of the sign. As a former member of the US Armed Forces this really irritates me. "How may other Hadithas have there been?" = "How many other murderers are there in the US Military?".

I'm sorry to say that this is simply not based in reality. There are millions of people who have served in the US military over the years and never fired a shot (outside of boot camp). Even more have never fired a shot in anger. Of the few who have been involved in armed conflict the vast majority have acted in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The internationally recognized LAW by which our armed forces willingly choose conduct themselves when engaged in conflict. Compare the discipline and behavior of today's modern, all-volunteer force to armed forces of the past or modern militant/terrorist groups. You simply can't. I wonder if Hezbollah has a UCMJ?

When you compare Haditha to dropping 500lb bombs on militant strongholds (suggesting there's no difference) you must recognize that one tactic used by these fighters is to place equipment and people of military or political value on top of or near civilians to attempt to deter western militaries from attacking. It's simple. The militants are betting that the political cost of killing the civilians is higher than the military or political gain of destroying the equipment or killing the fighters. Where is the morality in that? What part of the Geneva Convention does that follow? I'd say that it's a qualitative difference that we need to do a better job communicating to ourselves and the muslim world.

When does it become beneficial to attack? When can the innocent casualties be tolerated? When militants kidnap Israeli soldiers (inside their own border) they build support for action against them regardless of collateral damage. When tyrannical governments fail to live up to international agreements of which they are a part of, they build support for action against them regarless of the cost. When militants explode car bomb after car bomb they build support for action against them nevermind the consequences. Suddenly, the cost of attempting to destroy would be attackers is lower. There is little or no domestic price to be paid for innocent deaths overseas. This is terrible. This is the result of terrorism.

This another way of thinking about things.

Having said this, please remember, I'd prefer nobody get killed. I'd prefer nobody felt the need to terrorize another.