Yesterday's suicide campaigns in Baghdad and Khalis led to the most deadly day since the beginning of the Baghdad Security operation. The Baghdad attack, where two suicide bombers detonated their vests in a largely Shia market, has resulted in 83 murdered, with another 138 wounded. The Khalis attacks led to another 70 killed, and scores more wounded.

Combined with Wednesday's suicide bombings in Tal Afar, which provoked off duty police and militia to conduct reprisal attacks against Sunnis, al Qaeda has been very successful in stoking sectarian fires with mass casualty suicide strikes. Stopping these attacks will be the Coalition's greatest challenge over the next several months.

“Al-Qaeda in Iraq elements once again displayed their total disregard for human life, carrying out barbaric actions against innocent Iraqi citizens in an effort to reignite sectarian violence and to undermine recent Iraqi and Coalition successes in improving security in Baghdad," General David Petraeus said today in a statement on the recent bombings.
“These horrific attacks demonstrated al Qaeda’s complete rejection of respect for life itself and the Coalition joins Iraqi leaders in condemning these latest acts of cold-blooded murder.”

A major success that has helped to keep sectarian tensions at bay (deaths in Baghdad are at the lowest rate since March of 2005) has been the sidelining of Muqtada al Sadr and the fracturing of his Mahdi Army. We've noted this process has been ongoing for almost a year, and the Sadr's flight to Iran has destroyed his command and control over the militia. "Sadr has had trouble both leading and controlling his movement from afar, [Pentagon Officials] said, as his absence has encouraged subordinates and earlier rivals to move in on his turf," the Washington Post notes today. "It's clear that he does not control all the organization. There are splinter groups that don't answer and won't answer to him, particularly since he is in Tehran now," a senior Pentagon official told the Post.

Stars & Stripes reports that elements of the Mahdi Army are filtering back into Sadr City in Baghdad, though the Mahdi Army fighters have not openly confronted U.S. forces inside Sadr's stronghold. While EFP [Explosively Formed Projectiles] attacks are increasing in some neighborhoods, overall the number of EFP attacks are down. U.S. forces just captured another member of an EFP cell in Sadr City.

While many view the splintering of the Mahdi Army as a negative, the fact is that the most extreme elements were never going to accept a political solution, as they answer to their Iranian masters. The more moderate elements are now free from Sadr and Iran's influence. The Mahdi split has weakened Sadr politically and has exposed his operation as an Iranian foil. Sadr has portrayed himself as an Iraqi patriot, but the longer he stays in Iran while the Iranian Qods Force cannibalizes his militia, the more his influence in Iraq will wane.

Sadr, for his part, has issued a statement through his representative in Najaf calling for Iraqis to protest on April 9, the date of their liberation from Saddam's rule. "I call on everyone to demonstrate on April 9 in Najaf on the anniversary of the US occupation," said Sheikh Abdul Hadi al-Muhamadawi during Friday prayers in Kufa. Sadr has put himself in the position of essentially defending Saddam Hussein.

Sadr continues to claim he is in Iraq, although he has not been spotted in the country since his flight to Iran on February 14, the day the official announcement of the Baghdad Security Operation was made. Another Sadr aide claimed Sadr was targeted for assassination in Kufa by U.S. and Iraqi forces. There is no evidence of this, and the U.S. maintains Sadr is still in Iran.

Much like the split in the Mahdi Army, the fault lines within the Sunni insurgency are now becoming apparent. The 1920s Revolution Brigades, which is one of the four most influential Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq, has now split into two factions: al-Jihad al-Islami (Islamic Jihad) Corps and the al-Fatih al-Islami (Islamic Conquest or Hamas). The Hamas branch has sided with al Qaeda in Iraq, while the Islamic Jihad faction opposes joining al Qaeda. Large elements of the 1920s Revolution Brigades in Anbar province have already thrown in their lot with the Anbar Salvation Council, which is actively hunting al Qaeda.

The splitting of the Sunni insurgency and the advancement of the reconciliation process is key to isolating al Qaeda and providing intelligence on the network. Coalition forces detained 11 al Qaeda suspects, including six near the Syrian border and five in Karma. Karma has been a hotbed of al Qaeda activity of late.

Flight magazine reports on the Joint Strike Fighter's "first manoeuvring flight tests, complete with full-stick rolls." The test went off without a hitch: "It worked exceedingly well," said F-35 chief test pilot Jon Beesley.

Below is the video, also posted at flightglobal. (FYI, the video may not work on browsers other than Internet Explorer--in fact, it may not work on Explorer either.) It looks like things are going well with JSF, but according to The DEW Line "the US military may not be able to enter full-rate production for JSF until two or three years after 2012, unless the program decides to lower the threshold for what the term 'full rate production' means." So looks may be deceiving.

President Putin speaks often with his American counterpart, and the Kremlin's press service reports that the two leaders conducted yet another round of discussions yesterday regarding "cooperation…on current international issues.” Those issues included last week's U.N. Security Council resolution on Iran, the status of Kosovo, and American plans to deploy a missile defense system in Central Europe. As pointed out by the Kremlin, "the conversation took place at the initiative of the United States.”

The Russian media has largely interpreted President Bush's "initiative" as an act of gratitude after the United States was able to shore up Russian support for Resolution 1747, which stipulated "the international community's profound concerns over Iran's nuclear program.” But some Russian journalists seem to see an upside in a confrontation between the United States and Iran. Prominent journalist Mikhail Leontiev (who has been described as "the most unabashed champion of the Kremlin") asserts that "in principle, [Russia] is interested in drawing the Americans into the Iranian adventure. If the [U.S.] has gone mad, let them be punished." And today's Nezavisimaya Gazeta offers a more calculating analysis, pointing out that U.S. military action would disrupt Iranian oil deliveries through the Straits of Hormuz--the resulting rise in oil prices will "bring Russia tens of billions” the paper said.

The Putin-Bush "telephone diplomacy,” however, failed to resolve other outstanding disagreements. During yesterday's conversation, the Russian leader held his ground on Kosovo, noting that "Russia reaffirm[s] its position of principle that nothing should be imposed on either side." In an interview today with Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov echoed the president's sentiment, describing the Ahtisaari report, which was presented to the U.N. on Monday and recommended independence for Kosovo, as a "discussion process deliberately led to a dead end." Titov added: "Separatism, rewarded in Kosovo, will receive a strong impulse in other parts of the world.” In an interview yesterday with Rosbalt, Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica agreed: "Kosovo cannot be independent--and if someone tries to take it away from us by violating international law, Serbia will never consent to this."

From Time: In 2008 It's Ronald Reagan vs. Bobby Kennedy, by William Kristol.

From Der Spiegel: Evil Americans, Poor Mullahs, by Claus Christian Malzahn.

From USA Today: Setting a deadline for withdrawal would guarantee defeat in Iraq, by Joe Lieberman.

From the Examiner: Gates’ maturity welcome in D.C., by Jay Ambrose.

From RealClearPolitics: Britain is Taking Right Approach with Iran, by Gerard Baker.

The fog around the Tal Afar reprisal killings has cleared some since the Associated Press intimated the Tal Afar police force went on an organized rampage throughout the city following a devastating suicide attack that killed 83 and wounded another 104 civilians. In a conference call with Rear Admiral Mark Fox, the Multinational Forces Iraq Chief of Communication Division, he noted that 14 off duty police were among 18 arrested, and the police were local to the region. This was an action by rogue elements of the local police force, and not an event coordinated by the police command.

Rear Admiral Fox also noted the Iraqi Army responded quickly to stop the violence, and senior officials from the Iraqi government are en route to deal with the situation. RAdm Fox also noted the Iraqi Army prevented another large suicide truck bomber from striking in Tal Afar.

The Associated Press is now reporting that both Shia militiamen and off duty police were responsible for the murders, which have killed upwards of 70 Sunni, possibly women and children. The police were detained but later released, according to the governor of Nineveh province. The incident in Tal Afar highlights how al Qaeda's suicide bombings, particularly large truck bombs (this one contained over 7,000 pounds of explosives) can quickly ignite sectarian violence in the most seemingly calm cities. The situation in Tal Afar bears close watching.

Al Qaeda has conducted a major suicide attack at a Baghdad market, the first in about a week. Over sixty were killed in the dual suicide bombing at an outdoor market in a Shia area. Otherwise, attacks inside Baghdad continue to be low level roadside bombs or car bombs. Two police were killed in a roadside bomb attack, and another two were killed in a drive by shooting.

The majority of the large scale attacks are occurring in the provinces. The suicide bombings in Tal Afar was one such example. Diyala remains a hot spot. Al Qaeda conducted a series of bombings in the city of Khalis which killed over 40 and wounded 80. The targets included "a bank, a mosque, at a checkpoint and near a court."

Thousands of Al Qaeda fighters are said to have fled Baghdad for Diyala, and the Islamic State of Iraq has made Baquba its capital. Al Qaeda has been conducting a terror campaign to cow the local population and keep the tribes from supporting the government.

U.S. and Iraqi forces have been conducting a major clearing operation in Diyala against al Qaeda in Iraq and its Islamic State of Iraq political front. On March 28, 25 al Qaeda were killed and 15 captured during raids in the Diyala River Valley. Eight weapons caches have been discovered and destroyed.

Iraqi and Coalition forces have been busy over the past 48 hours interdicting insurgent and al Qaeda activites nation wide. Operations in Babil province, which is south of Baghdad, netted 38 suspected insurgents, five weapons caches and an IED.

During nationwide operations against al Qaeda's network, Coalition Forces (or Task Force 145 - the hunter-killer teams assigned to disrupting al Qaeda networks) captured 19 suspects during raids in Karma, Haditha, Baghdad and Fallujah on March 28. Another 4 were killed and 15 captured during raids in Mosul, Baghdad, Fallujah and Haditha on March 29.

Retired General Barry McCaffrey visited Iraq earlier this month to meet with senior commanders and to get a better sense of the situation on the ground. McCaffrey was hardly a proponent of the president's new strategy, and in January went so far as to call the surge a "fool's errand" in testimony to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, but McCaffrey's after action report explicitly endorses that strategy.

McCaffrey says of the current situation that "since the arrival of General David Petraeus in command of Multi-National Force Iraq--the situation on the ground has clearly and measurably improved." Further, he says "we can still achieve our objective of: a stable Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, not producing weapons of mass destruction, and fully committed to a law-based government."

And in closing, he denounces any effort to undermine the surge or political support for it: "We now need a last powerful effort to provide to US leaders on the ground--the political support, economic reconstruction resources, and military strength it requires to succeed."

Of course, McCaffrey's report also detailed some of the serious challenges facing Coalition forces in Iraq, and Thomas Ricks, the Washington Post reporter who authored the best-selling book Fiasco, focused largely on those in his story today. Under the headline "McCaffrey Paints Gloomy Picture of Iraq," Ricks painted his own gloomy picture:

"The population is in despair," retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey wrote in an eight-page document compiled in his capacity as a professor at West Point. "Life in many of the urban areas is now desperate." . . .

His report also lists several reasons for some new optimism, noting that since the arrival of Petraeus last month, "the situation on the ground has clearly and measurably improved."

Nevertheless, his bottom line is that the U.S. military is in "strategic peril"--a sharp contrast to his previous views. In 2005, he concluded in a similar report that "momentum is now clearly with the Iraqi government and coalition security forces." In a 2006 assessment, he wrote: "It was very encouraging for me to see the progress achieved in the past year."

There's something in McCaffrey's report for everybody, but one would have to be profoundly pessimistic--inclined to view the whole Iraq project as an unsalvageable "fiasco"--to report that the bottom line of this story is that the U.S. military is in "strategic peril." The bottom line is that progress is being made, our objectives are attainable, and we face serious challenges in the months and years ahead.

The French presidential elections, already taking place against the backdrop of last year's rioting in the suburbs of Paris, now have a further drama at their heart: the pitched battle yesterday at the Gare du Nord--a combined railway station and subway station in the heart of Paris. It all started with a routine ticket check of a 32-year-old illegal immigrant from the Congo. According to the interior ministry, the man has had "22 previous encounters with the police, many of them violent." He apparently reacted violently upon being asked to show his ticket and was being taken to a holding room within the station when almost 200 "youths" arrived to fight with the police. The station, an easy trip by metro from the suburbs where the rioting began 18 months ago, became a battlefield from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m.

All the candidates have now weighed in on yesterday's events. The Socialists of course used the occasion to denounce conservative candidate Nicolas Sarkozy’s record as Minister of the Interior--France's top law enforcement position--these last five years. Julien Dray, a spokesman for Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal, said the riots "illustrate the climate of tension, the violence, the gulf that now exists between the police and the population."

Sarkozy reiterated his well known, no-nonsense approach towards delinquency, declaring: "To arrest someone because he is not paying [his subway fare]--for years, no one cared about this, but it is the job of [the police] to do this." He jabbed back at the Socialists: "If Ségolène Royal and the left want to side with people who don't pay for their train ticket, that's their choice."

At best half-hearted supporters of the police, the Socialists now run the risk of being mistrusted by their voters, as in 2002, when Lionel Jospin got eliminated in the first round of the presidential election by ultra-right law-and-order candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen.

A man tries to break a shop window during riots at Paris' Gare du Nord station on 27 March.
(AFP/Jacques Demarthon)

Three major events occurred inside Iraq over the past 24 hours that merit particular attention. First, in the Shia dominated city of Tal Afar, al Qaeda conducted a double suicide attack. Subsequently, off-duty Shia police are said to have rampaged through the city, conducting reprisal attacks, although the details on this report are still sketchy. Second, Harith al-Dhari, a leader in the 1920s Revolution Brigade, was murdered, highlighting the internal civil war in the Sunni community, and the battle against al Qaeda. And third, in Fallujah, al Qaeda conducted yet another chlorine gas suicide attack.

Yesterday's dual suicide strikes in Shia markets in Tal Afar appears to have been a major success for al Qaeda. The largely Shia city, which has been a model of governance and security in Iraq, had at least 63 of its citizens murdered. Al Qaeda, which has claimed responsibility for the attack, has struck at Shia civilians in the past in order to stir up sectarian violence. Yesterday's attack may have worked. While the news reports on this incident are still being sorted out, the initial reports indicated off-duty Shia policemen went on a killing spree in Sunni neighborhoods. Upwards of 60 Sunnis are said to have been murdered.

Again, this has yet to be confirmed. The Associated Press changed the initial headline on their report from "Enraged Policemen Go on Revenge Killing Spree in Northern Iraqi Town" to the more careful headline of "Shiite cops reportedly rampage vs. Sunnis" [emphasis mine]. During today's press briefing with Rear Admiral Fox, the press did not follow up his denouncement of the bombings or the reported incident, which is interesting. Later reporting indicates a militia may have carried out the murders. The Reuters headline is "Gunmen kill 50 in Iraqi town" and states a militia conducted the attack, though that militia may include members from the police force.

The Tal Afar police have been confined to their stations, and the Iraqi Army and Mosul police are said to be heading to Tal Afar to provide security. The Maliki government is investigating the incident.

The event in Tal Afar is a very serious issue that will reverberate throughout the Sunni community, particularly at a time when the government is seeking to reconcile with Sunni insurgent groups. Obviously, if the allegations as initially reported are true, al Qaeda was very successful in causing a backlash by the security forces. If the report is inaccurate--if this was a small element of the police, or perhaps police assigned from outside Tal Afar, or the actions of a local militia--al Qaeda still won an incredible propaganda victory.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has stepped up its campaign of terror and intimidation against the Sunni tribes in Anbar and beyond. Yesterday, al Qaeda murdered Harith al-Dhari, the sun of Sheikh Thahir al-Dhari, the leader of the al-Zuba'a tribe. Thahir's home was hit with a suicide bomb. Salam al-Zubaie, one of two deputy prime ministers and a member of the Zuba'a tribe, was wounded just days earlier when a suicide bomb was detonated in the courtyard of the mosque he was attending.

A ridiculous story from Roll Calll. Apparently the Dems are only setting a timetable for withdrawal as a favor to Bush--to give him leverage in dealing with Iraqi leaders. From the Roll Call:

But Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said that for all the president’s objections to setting a timetable for withdrawal, Bush actually has told him personally that it is “useful” for the Iraqis to hear that support in the U.S. is waning for a continuing troop presence in Iraq.

“What we’re doing here is giving [the White House] leverage with the Iraqi leaders,” Levin said, indicating that the president is using the Democratic “bad cops” position to pressure Iraqis to improve training and readiness of their own troops and security personnel.

Levin said that, despite the president’s private acknowledgments that the Democrats’ Iraq language is serving a constructive purpose, “he’ll veto it, because he wants to be the good cop.”

(HT Influence Peddler)

From USA Today: In Iraq vote, Congress is casting aside the Constitution, by David B. Rivkin Jr. & Lee A. Casey.

From the New York Post: Hostage Sailors--Britain's Impotence, by Arthur Herman.

From RIA Novosti: Putin's seven years in power, by Andrei Vavra.

From the Sydney Morning Herald: 'Guilty' puts end to the Hicks myth, by Miranda Devine.

From the Hill: Playing chicken on war funding, by John Fortier.

Update: Over at The Danger Room, Sharon Weinberger links to an English-language copy of the original report. And John at Op-For makes this excellent point: "I've always chuckled at references to China's "asymmetrical" military doctrine. We're the boys with the force-multiplying toys, and China's the one with the big honking Army. Aren't we the asymmetrical ones?"

I've been skeptical of reports that China is planning to deploy an aircraft carrier in the near future, perhaps as soon as 2010. But the rumor is persistent, and the Heritage Foundation's Peter Brookes recently wrote a compelling essay on why the rumors might be true. Said Brookes,

The existence of a Chinese “flattop” program has long been rumored. Sure, some experts scoff at the idea, pointing out that carriers don’t fit with China’s military doctrine of “asymmetry.” . . .

(Critics will point out that carriers have significant vulnerabilities. Jaunty submariners brag those 100,000-ton “bird farms” are nuthin’ but big, fat gray targets.)

So, if the experts are right, and China is pursuing a “David and Goliath” strategy against U.S. military might in the Pacific, why would Beijing build carriers?

First, it’s always possible the recent news is wrong--just another badly sourced rumor coming out of Hong Kong regarding Chinese military developments.

Second, Beijing could be changing its strategy. It might be looking toward a more balanced naval force that includes aircraft carriers to project power deep into the Pacific. (With its broad expanses of open ocean, there aren't many other ways to operate in the Pacific theater.)

A third option: China may want to “show the flag.”

China is, without question, a rising power--world’s largest population, No. 2 energy consumer, No. 3 defense budget, No. 4 economy. And so on. It’s an up-and-comer. Beijing may well think the time is ripe to proclaim to the world: We’re not just a regional power anymore.

I find this third reason particularly persuasive. The Chinese ASAT test earlier this year confirmed Beijing's asymmetric strategy, but it also signaled to the world that China was capable of waging war in space--that it was a military power on par with the Soviet Union and the United States.

An even greater indication of the Chinese desire to "show the flag" is that country's manned space program, which, like this country's manned space program, serves no other purpose than to demonstrate technological superiority and foster national pride. As the party organ People's Daily put it in February of this year under the headline "Why Does China Want to Probe the Moon?", "Sooner or later, China's gorgeous five-star red flag will tower on the moon, and days are not distant for the dream of the Chinese people to come true." Clearly, showing the flag is of some importance to the Chinese.

Now The Marmot's Hole links to this story from the very credible, if reliably left wing, Korean newspaper Hankyoreh Shinmun. According to the report, "China is secretly pushing the construction of a nuclear-powered 'supercarrier' of 93,000 tons." My Korean is a bit rusty, but The Marmot's Hole gives this synopsis:

Citing a source familiar with Chinese military issues, the Hankyoreh Shinmun is reporting that China is secretly pushing the construction of a nuclear-powered "supercarrier" of 93,000 tons.

The source, presenting internal Chinese Communist Party documents, said China plans to build a 48,000-ton conventional-powered aircraft carrier (so-called “Project 085″) and a 93,000-ton monster carrier (”Project 089″). The materials presented said China’s Central Military Commission had recently approved both projects and spelled out both vessels’ displacement.

I'd still contend that, as Brookes put it, Chinese carriers would be "nuthin’ but big, fat gray targets," but that doesn't change the fact that an aircraft carrier would boost Beijing's ability to project "soft power." And deploying a Nimitz-sized nuclear carrier would, like the ASAT test, show that China is to be considered a military superpower.

Again, Brookes:

As opposed to provocative exercises of "hard power" (such as China's January test of a satellite-killer), a friendly ship visit, while still displaying strength, does so in a "soft power" way (think: velvet glove around the iron fist).

The Russian carrier Varyag, which is being refitted in the port of Dalian by the Chinese.
When the Chinese bought the ship from the Ukraine, they claimed it would be used in Macau as a floating casino.

Bayrou Surges

A recent IFOP survey shows that 61 percent of French voters trust neither the left nor the right. This generalized mistrust surely benefits the centrist presidential candidate François Bayrou, the so-called "new man in the middle," but it would be a mistake to explain it as a rebuke of the traditional political parties. Rather, support for Bayrou can best be understood as evidence of the French fascination with the revolutionary left. In fact, Bayrou calls his movement "revolutionary centrism” and chose orange as the color of his campaign, a clear reference to Ukraine's Orange Revolution. His official website is www.revolutionorange.org.

Further evidence of this fascination with the ultra-left: three of the sixteen candidates who have qualified to run for president are Trotskyites. Those candidates include José Bové, an anti-globalization sheep farmer, Olivier Besancenot, a 32-year-old Parisian mailman, and Arlette Laguiller of the Workers' Struggle party, who regularly denounces "capitalist exploitation" and the "decadence" of French society.

Sarkozy's Frankenstein

Just one month ago, as a coup de théatre, Sarkozy wrote a letter to the satirical weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo offering his support for the publication, which was on trial for inciting Muslim hatred by reprinting the famous Danish cartoons. The only problem: Sarkozy founded the aggrieved party that brought the lawsuit, the French Council of Muslim Cult, a CAIR-like association. With that organization, he created a powerful platform for extremism in an attempt to bolster his support among Muslims. Fortunately for France, the constitutional principle of freedom of speech was upheld when, last week, Charlie Hebdo was acquitted of all charges. Still, Sarkozy has been weakened by the whole affair.

Senator John McCain posed this question on the floor of the Senate today:

To those who believe that the best course is to withdraw, I ask: Can you explain to the American people precisely what you believe to be the consequences of this action? If we follow the timetable included in this bil--to withdraw troops whether or not we are succeeding or failing; regardless of whether the country is secured; irrespective of whether the Iraqis can manage their own affairs alone, or whether the forces of terror and chaos will triumph--if we follow this timetable we risk a catastrophe for American national security interests.

You can read the speech in its entirety here.

Iraqi and Coalition forces have been pressing hard to dismantle al Qaeda's suicide and car bomb infrastructure in and around Baghdad. Over the past week, some success has been made in attacking the leadership of these networks. Three senior commanders of al Qaeda bomb-making cells have been captured. Since Saturday, there have been no major bombings inside Baghdad.

On March 21, U.S. troops from the 82nd Airborne Division captured the leader and the second in command of the deadly Adhamiyah cell, which is believed to be responsible for the murder of 900 Iraqis and the wounding of another 1,950. The cell is believed to be responsible for the majority of the major suicide and truck bombs inside Sadr City. Haytham Kazim Abdallah Al-Shimari, the 'emir' or leader of the cell, was captured with his driver after attempting to avoid a U.S. patrol. Haydar Rashid Nasir Al-Shammari Al-Jafar, Haytham's deputy, and two aides, were captured in a separate incident, also while traveling in Baghdad.

On March 20, the Iraqi security forces announced the capture of Ahmad Farhan, an emir of al Qaeda in Iraq. Farhan and two aides were captured in Abu Ghraib, which is on the outskirts of western Baghdad. Abu Ghraib is the gateway to Anbar province.

Brigadier General Qassem Atta, an Iraqi Army spokesman, "played a videotape showing Farhan confessing to his ties with a wanted man called Abu Omar al-Baghdadi." Abu Omar al-Baghdadi is the leader of al Qaeda's political front, the Islamic State in Iraq. "I receive support from Syria and Jordan and have got four groups with an emir and 25 members for each," said Farhan. He is believed have murdered over 300 Iraqis and kidnapped another 200. These leaders will be interrogated in an effort to dismantle their terror cells and gain knowledge of al Qaeda's organization.

Meanwhile, Iraqi and Coalition forces press the hunt for al Qaeda in Iraq. On March 23, a joint U.S. and Iraqi operation south of Baghdad led to the capture of 31 insurgents and the discovery of a large weapons cache. On March 24, Iraqi National Police found over 470 anti-tank mines in Sadr City after receiving a tip from a resident. U.S. forces killed five al Qaeda and captured another 22 during raids in Taji and Karma over the past four days. In Karma five DShK anti-aircraft heavy machine guns were found. Karma was the scene of the downing of Marine CH-46 helicopter by al Qaeda in February. Coalition forces captured another four al Qaeda in raids in Mosul, Tarmiyah and Fallujah.

From the New York Post: Hostage Gambit, by Amir Taheri.

From Reason: Blue Light Special, by Katherine Mangu-Ward.

From Fox News: Major Mistakes in New York Times Story About Rape in Military, by Rick Leventhal.

From the Danger Room: Rain KO'd Interceptors During Korea Missile Tests, by Noah Shachtman.

From Townhall: An American War? by Dean Barnett.

From ScrappleFace: Iran Blinks Under 'Cordial Pressure' from Tony Blair, by Scott Ott.

Pakistan has officially signed the 'Bajaur Accord' with Taliban operating in the northwestern Tribal agency. The Taliban promised to prevent 'foreign fighters' from settling and stop cross border attacks into Afghanistan in exchange for freedom from attack and arrest by the Pakistani security forces. This is the third official peace agreement Pakistan has signed with the Taliban since 2005. And like the last two, the al Qaeda affiliated Taliban in Bajaur will not honor their agreement. Bajaur serves as an al Qaeda command and control center and borders Kunar province, the most violent in Afghanistan. The Taliban and al Qaeda have staged attacks into Kunar, Nangahar, and even suicide strikes into Kabul from this agency.

On the same day the agreement was signed, the local chapter of the Bajaur Taliban, known as the Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (the TNSM, or Movement for the Implementation of Mohammad's Sharia Law), threatened to conduct a suicide campaign against the Pakistani government if the group's leader, Sufi Mohammed, was not released from custody. The TNSM is one of the most violent and extreme Islamist groups in all of Pakistan.

For an overview of the deteriorating situation in Bajaur and the greater Northwest Frontier Province, check out my article in this week's issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

I can't believe I'm still shocked by this kind of thing, but here it is. We have two stories on the farewell press conference of Zalmay Khalilzad, but one is not like the other. The first, from New York Times reporter Alissa J. Rubin, bears the sobering headline "Departing Envoy to Iraq Says Time Is Running Out."

Says Rubin,

Although his comments were dressed in the carefully muted language of diplomacy, Mr. Khalilzad’s overall message was that Iraq faced profound troubles and that American patience for helping Iraq deal with those problems was dwindling.

In his opening statement, his most optimistic evaluation was only a little hopeful. “Success,” he said, is “still possible.”

But, he added, “to sustain U.S. support, things have to move at a certain pace.” And, he said, time is running out.

Then there's the AP story, on the same press conference, by Kim Gamel:

The departing U.S. ambassador said Monday that talks with insurgent representatives are focusing on persuading them to join forces against al-Qaida, hoping to take advantage of anger over attacks increasingly targeting Sunnis as well as Shiites.

In a farewell news conference, Zalmay Khalilzad said he was cautiously optimistic about efforts to bring stability to Iraq.

"In my view, though difficult challenges lie ahead and there is a long way to go, Iraq is fundamentally headed in the right direction and success is possible," he said, pointing to a nearly 25 percent reduction in violence during a six-week-old security crackdown in Baghdad as well as economic progress.

Read both stories and compare--the defeatism of the Times is every bit as disturbing as it is predictable. It's such an important story--slow but steady success in peeling off insurgent groups and turning them against al Qaeda--but the Times barely mentions it between editorializing on the ambassador's tone and listing the day's insurgent attacks.

On April 14, 2004, in Karabilah, Iraq, Cpl. Jason Dunham threw himself on a grenade to save the lives of his fellow Marines. For that, Dunham was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor--one of only two U.S. servicemen to receive the award since the Iraq war started in March 2003.

According to the citation:

Corporal Dunham led his Combined Anti-Armor Team towards the engagement to provide fire support to their Battalion Commander's convoy, which had been ambushed as it was traveling to Camp Husaybah. As Corporal Dunham and his Marines advanced, they quickly began to receive enemy fire. Corporal Dunham ordered his squad to dismount their vehicles and led one of his fire teams on foot several blocks south of the ambushed convoy. Discovering seven Iraqi vehicles in a column attempting to depart, Corporal Dunham and his team stopped the vehicles to search them for weapons. As they approached the vehicles, an insurgent leaped out and attacked Corporal Dunham. Corporal Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground and in the ensuing struggle saw the insurgent release a grenade. Corporal Dunham immediately alerted his fellow Marines to the threat. Aware of the imminent danger and without hesitation, Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast.

On March 23, the U.S. Navy announced that it would further honor Dunham by naming the Navy's newest Arleigh Burke class destroyer after the fallen Marine. Here's the official story from the Navy.

(HT Op-For)

From the Wall Street Journal: Iran's act of war against our British allies, by the editors.

From the San Diego Union Tribune: Engineer said to take U.S. military secrets, by Matt Krasnowski.

From the Danger Room: Brutal Chinese Weapon, Tailor-Made for Insurgents, by David Hambling.

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution: Army general upbeat on Iraq, by Moni Basu.

From the New York Post: The Next Threats, by Peter Brookes.

From the Times: Russia is Europe's natural ally, by Vladimir Putin.

With the passing of the four year anniversary of the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iraqi and Coalition security forces continue to press with reestablishing security inside the capital and the outer Baghdad belts. The Baghdad Security plan continues to show signs of progress. Sectarian murders have been dramatically reduced inside Baghdad, as have the mass casualty suicide attacks which once plagued the city on a regular basis. Al Qaeda is still able to conduct suicide and car bomb attacks inside the city, but the effects of these attacks have been dramatically reduced.

In the past, the most devastating bombs were placed on large trucks, dump trucks, fuel tankers, and other large vehicles, and driven into open markets to kill as many Shia as possible. Mohammad Fadhil, an Iraqi blogger who lives in Baghdad, notes that the number of checkpoints in the city are increasing rapidly and are having an effect in reducing major attacks. "With the constant force buildup many streets now host multiple checkpoints, both fixed and mobile," says Fadhil. "All are positioned in a manner that allows soldiers in one to have visual contact with those in the next one. From my personal experience I can tell that the men staffing the checkpoints do not take their job lightly."

There have been no major changes to the disposition of U.S. or Iraq forces inside Baghdad. The U.S. still has three of the five combat brigades and an aviation combat brigade to deploy in support of the security operation. The U.S. 3rd Brigade Combat Team from the 3rd Infantry Division has been reported as being in Iraq, however there is no information on the location of this brigade. It remains unclear whether the brigade will be moved into Baghdad or deploy into the provinces--perhaps Diyala--to pursue al Qaeda.

Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has wrapped up a four-day visit to China that included jaunts to the Nanjing Military Region and the Shenyang Military Region, where he examined an Su-27 fighter bomber and observed Chinese land-combat exercises.

During a press conference at the American Embassy in Beijing on Friday, Pace said that he had held “good, open, candid and calm” talks with his Chinese counterpart, General Liang Guanglie, Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan, and General Guo Boxiong, vice chairman of the Central Military Commission. Pace suggested that a hot line between the two militaries could be helpful, and said he had agreed to study a Chinese proposal to send cadets to West Point and to conduct joint humanitarian and rescue-at-sea exercises.

Pace said he had urged his Chinese counterparts to be more transparent about the country’s military intentions:

I used the example of the anti-satellite test as how sometimes the international community can be confused, because it was a surprise, and it wasn’t clear what their intent was. And when things are not clear, and there are surprises, then it tends to confuse people and raise suspicions.

Pace noted further that his host had given him no details on the test, nor did they explain to him their intentions in conducting it.

On China’s declared military budget, which will increase by 17.8 percent to almost $45 billion this year, Pace had this to say:

It is important to know not only how much of a nation’s resources are being put into the budget, but what is that money buying, what is the intent of that buying.

This portion of Pace’s message seems to have been lost in translation by the Chinese media, which failed to include the above-quoted remarks in their coverage of the press conference.

Senator McCain called into Bill Bennett’s “Morning In America,” today. Said McCain, “Given the situation that is going to be on the floor of the Senate, I am going to head back first thing tomorrow morning, and try and beat back this new recipe for defeat that the Democrats are trying to hoist off on the American people.”

And here's the rest of the interview:

Stuart Bowen Jr, the special inspector general for Iraq Reconstruction, testified on Capitol Hill on Thursday. Bowen has been a harsh critic of the incompetence, disorganization, and waste that has characterized U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq, which he has documented in a series of scathing reports since his appointment twenty months ago.

Nonetheless, after having returned from his latest trip to Iraq last week, he now feels “cautious optimism . . . something that I had not returned from Iraq with . . . over the last twenty months.”

As he put it: “It’s been about twenty months since I have returned from Iraq with a sense of cautious optimism. I have that now.”

Below are some highlights from the hearing.

MR. BOWEN: Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lieberman, ranking member Collins, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to address you today on the important issues raised by our Latest Lessons Learned report which contains an extensive review of program and project management in Iraq reconstruction.

But before I begin, let me briefly summarize what I learned in my last trip to Iraq. I returned last week, my fifteenth since I was appointed three years ago, and I returned with a sense of cautious optimism about the progress in the Baghdad security plan. I met with the senior leadership, across-the-board military, and in the embassy -- and, in particular, had very good visits with General Petraeus. And what I learned across-the-board is that the preliminary results of this latest initiative in the Baghdad security plan have been positive.

And so I wanted to begin my discussion by saying that -- that cautious optimism is a good sign, and something that I had not returned from Iraq with, I guess over the last 20 months.

Drudge links to this story from the San Francisco Chronicle about a town hall meeting in Oakland, California, where Sean Penn and Rep. Barbara Lee gathered with "hundreds of people . . . to denounce the war in Iraq and call for an immediate withdrawal of American troops." Staff writers Carolyn Jones and Cecilia M. Vega set the scene in the second paragraph:

The enthusiastic and occasionally boisterous crowd of 800 or so crammed into the Grand Lake Theatre wildly cheered as Penn excoriated President Bush.

Then, toward the bottom of the piece:

Rodney Brown, a 30-year-old Oakland substitute teacher, said he would have liked to see more people attend the protest. While organizers said between 500 and 700 attended the rally, many remarked that the crowd seemed significantly smaller. Police declined to provide a crowd count.

How the heck do they get 800 and then, three hundred words later, report that even the organizers wouldn't claim such a turnout? Maybe the Chronicle just has a soft spot for one of their own. After all, the paper credentialed Penn and sent him to Iraq in 2003. The writing was terrible--"The fatigue of the trip hits me in the back of the head like a rocket-propelled grenade"--but the paper sent him to Iran to cover the election there two years later. And now the paper not only inflates the crowd numbers, but does him the favor of ignoring what he actually said:

My 15-year-old daughter was working on a comparative essay this week (you can ask Condi what a comparative essay is, as academic exercises fit the limits of her political expertise.) My daughter's essay, which understood substance over theory, discusses the strengths of the Nuremberg trial justice beside the alternate strategy of truth and reconciliation in South Africa, and I quote: "When we observe distinctions between one power and another, one justice and another, we consider the divide between retribution and reconciliation, of closure and disclosure." I can't do her essay justice in this forum, but at its core, it asks how, when, and why we compromise toward peace, punish for war, or balance both for something more.

If that doesn't make a crowd of any size "enthusiastic and occasionally boisterous," I don't know what would.

Face the Nation had the best show of the weekend, managing to squeeze into one tight half hour interviews with one of the fired assistant United States attorneys, two of the senators leading the investigation into the Justice Department, the New York Times’s best columnist, and the head of the insurgent Capitol Hill publication the Politico.

First up was the fired attorney, Bud Cummins, who reinforced the idea that this is not a case of broken laws but of bruised egos:

Well, what they did is they tried to tell the Senate, when the Senate asked them . . . why did you make these unprecedented decisions regarding the United States attorneys, and they have told the United States Senate that they were trying to improve management in the districts and that there were performance issues. And all of us knew that that wasn't true, and--and all the evidence since has shown that the--whatever went on behind the scenes to arrive at these eight decisions was probably petty, maybe personal, and probably had some politics involved in it. But performance wasn't on the table in a respectable way, in the process, when it occurred.

Senator Patrick Leahy followed Cummins, telling Bob Schieffer “You know, this is--our founders devised this system of checks and balances. This administration has been used to going unchecked. The balances kicked in last November, and they're going to have to deal with that reality.” Lindsey Graham was up next, discussing his uncertainty about the constitutionality of forcing the president’s inner circle to testify:

According to a report in U.S. News, last September Iraninan soldiers crossed the border into Iraq and attacked a force of Iraqi soldiers and the American troops advising them. U.S. News points to this document, provided by the 101st Airborne Division:

5-73 Cav was conducting a joint border patrol of the Iraq/Iran border with soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 5th Iraqi Army Division east of Balad Ruz. During the conduct of the patrol, the patrol observed two Iranian soldiers run from Iraq back across the Iranian border as they approached. Later, the patrol came upon a single Iranian soldier on the Iraqi side of the border who did not flee.

As the patrol was speaking to the Iranian soldier, they were approached by a platoon-size element of Iranian soldiers. An Iranian border captain informed the joint Iraqi and Coalition force patrol that if they tried to leave their location the Iranians would fire upon them.

While talking to the Iranian border captain, the patrol was engaged by Iranian forces with smallarms and RPG fire. The CF Soldiers returned fire to break contact and left the area to report the incident. The Iranian forces continued to fire indirect fire well into Iraq as CF Soldiers withdrew; for reasons unknown at this time, the Iraqi Army forces remained behind.

Additional Coalition and Iraqi forces moved into the area to search for the Iraqis, but have been unable to locate them.

Coalition forces continue to show impressive restraint in the face of Iranian provocations like the capture today of 15 British Marines by Iran's Revolutionary Guards. But would a hostage situation involving American soldiers evolve differently? Probably. I can imagine this magazine's editorial, and the title does not read "Summon the Iranian Ambassador".

The popular Russian weekly Vlast has published a lengthy account of how President Putin spent his time over the last year. It seems Putin has been burning up the Kremlin's anytime minutes chatting with President Bush. Putin spoke with Bush eight times over the last year, more often than he spoke with any other head of state. However, the surname most frequently repeated by Putin in public was not Bush, but Merkel. Other than Russia, Germany was also the country most frequently mentioned by the Russian president.

More worrisome is the frequency with which Putin speaks to, visits, and hosts the world's despots. There were only three countries that Putin visited more than once: Belarus, China, and Finland. And the foreigner he met most often with over the past year was Belorussian strong man Alexander Lukashenko. While the rest of Europe has been working to isolate the continent's "last dictator," Putin has been a stalwart supporter, receiving Lukashenko at the Kremlin on three occasions, for a total of five meetings between the two in the last year.

Vlast also dissects public opinion of the Russian president, showing 59 percent of Russians support a third term, even though Putin is currently barred from seeking one by the Russian constitution. The president's current approval rating stands at a whopping 81 percent, up six points from the same time last year. Beneath that impressive number though, there does seem to be some Putin-fatigue.

Although he managed to keep his popularity fairly steady and even saw it grow slightly in 2005-2006, the same respondents who said that they approved of him personally reported being disillusioned with the results of his activities in office and said that they have few hopes for improvement in the future.

Usually, when leaders encounter such depressing statistics, they either try to play for a few points by tinkering with social programs and perks or they try to pep things up by declaring a campaign against some real or perceived common enemy. The Russian authorities, who had already launched a series of projects to support ordinary citizens and to chase out unwanted immigrants, turned out to be both luckier and shrewder than others in their predicament. According to data from the Levada Center, the president's popularity rating rose over the last year from 75% to 81%, but even that was nothing compared to the findings by the social research center VTsIOM, which show that Russians have discovered changes for the better in almost all areas of their lives. It is impossible not to lay a large part of the responsibility for this amazing turnaround at the feet of Mr. Putin: in particular, the perception among ordinary Russians of Russia's position on the world stage has improved not only thanks to high gas and oil prices but also as a result of the Russian leadership's harsh rhetoric and a series of trading spats with Russia's neighbors. In addition, the country's calm outlook on the situation in Chechnya is due not only the death last summer of the Chechen rebel warlord Shamil Basayev but also to the Kremlin's engineering of a peaceful transfer of power from Alu Alkhanov to Ramzan Kadyrov. Under these circumstances, not even a spate of high-profile murders has been able to dampen the optimistic outlook of most Russians, who are now feeling safe and relatively free of pessimism for the first time in a long while.

Asked for a one word description of their attitude to Putin, only one percent of Russians answered "hostile," another one percent answered "skeptical," and 39 percent answered "respectful." Nine percent said they were "disillusioned."

Putin receives Belorussian President Alexander Lukashenko at the Kremlin in December 2006.
Photo: Dmitry Azarov

Friday was another relatively quiet day in Iraq. The only major attack in Baghdad was serious, however. Not because of the size of the attack, but the target.

Salam al-Zubaie, one of two deputy prime ministers, was wounded after a suicide bomb was detonated in the courtyard of the mosque he was attending. Eight Iraqis have been reported killed including five of his bodyguards and a senior adviser. Zubaie is a Sunni politician. The bombing occurred "after a statement purportedly by al Qaida in Iraq singled out the Sunni deputy prime minister as a stooge 'to the crusader occupiers,'" notes the Associated Press. Another car bomb was detonated in a Sadr City used car lot, killing five and wounding 20.

On the political front, the reconciliation process is being pushed hard by the Iraqi government. Ahmed Shibani, the former Sadr aide released from U.S. custody, met with Prime Minister Maliki just hours after his release. It is believed he can play a vital role in cleaving off a large section of the Mahdi Army and bring them into the political process. The Maliki government is also pushing forward with negotiations with Sunni insurgent groups. The government is in talks with six Sunni insurgent groups, but refuses to negotiate with al Qaeda in Iraq. The talks are stalled over a time line for U.S. withdrawal. Negotiations with Sunni insurgent groups collapsed last year after the destruction of the Al Askaria mosque in Samarra and the subsequent explosion of sectarian violence.

Iraqi and Coalition forces continue to hunt al Qaeda and work to disrupt the network of car bomb factories and weapons caches in and around Baghdad. Seven al Qaeda operatives were arrested in raids in Taji, Baghdad, and Mosul, including one with "alleged ties to a vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices cell." Iraqi National Police raided a mosque in the Rashid neighborhood in southern Baghdad and found a weapons cache, while another raid uncovered a cache in Zubaida.

The news from Diyala has essentially dried up. Omar Fahdila, an Iraqi who blogs at Iraq the Model, says al Qaeda has worn out its welcome in Anbar and Diyala is the next province in al Qaeda's crosshairs. "[Al Qaeda'] primary alternative is Diyala where demographics are already not as favorable for al-Qaeda as Anbar was," notes Omar. "There are signs that the tribes in Diyala too are changing their attitude and there are signs that they are slowly following the steps of their peers in Anbar." Multinational Forces Iraq has posted a video of March 14th fighting in Baquba, the provincial capital of Diyala.

Iran has risked provoking a major confrontation with the Coalition by capturing 15 British sailors from the HMS Cornwall, a frigate which is patrolling the Shatt Al Arab waterway in southern Iraq. "The specific coordinates of the incident are in dispute, as the Royal Navy says the Cornwall was inspecting an Iranian merchant ship in Iraqi territorial waters," notes IraqSlogger. Iran kidnapped British sailors patrolling the Shatt Al Arab waterway in June of 2004 and paraded the sailors on television before releasing them.

The latest incident highlights the heightened tensions between Iran and the West as the U.N. Security Council debates sanctions over Iran's nuclear program. The French recently deployed the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Persian Gulf, which is operating in conjunction with the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier.

From today's Washington Post, Retreat and Butter:

As it is, House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates. It would heap money on unneedy dairy farmers while provoking a constitutional fight with the White House that could block the funding to equip troops in the field. Democrats who want to force a withdrawal should vote against war appropriations. They should not seek to use pork to buy a majority for an unconditional retreat that the majority does not support.

It's not all carrots and pork though. According to the Hill, Nancy is using the stick too:

Democratic aides have speculated that Pelosi might penalize wayward lawmakers by yanking them off of committees. She apparently did not invite Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who voted against the bill in the Appropriations Committee, to return last weekend to California with her.

(HT Influence Peddler)

Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was greeted with full military honors in Beijing yesterday where he met with his counterpart, PLA General Liang Guanglie.

The American Forces Press Service reports that the Chinese brought up the "situation" between Taiwan and China and that Pace assured them that American policy is guided by the "'One China Policy,' the ‘Three Communiques’ (between the United States and China), the Taiwan Relations Act and a sincere desire to see reunification done in a peaceful manner."

An American officer of this rank didn't visit the Soviet Union until June of 1989, when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral William Crowe Jr. arrived in Moscow to sign the Agreement on Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities--the aim of which was to reduce the risk of a confrontation between the two superpowers. Among the articles of that agreement were pledges to avoid:

Using a laser in such a manner that its radiation could cause harm to personnel or damage to equipment of the armed forces of the other Party;

Interfering with command and control networks in a manner which could cause harm to personnel or damage to equipment of the armed forces of the other Party.

It would have been nice if Pace could have walked away from his meetings in Beijing with just such an agreement in hand. Larry Wortzel, chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, spoke at the National Press Club late last year about the urgent need for U.S. military leaders to engage in "serious defense talks with the senior PLA leaders on what the red lines are in warfare." Wortzel was talking specifically about the surfacing of a Chinese sub so close to an American carrier, but he added that "the Chinese need to understand that we are very sensitive about interference with our strategic warning and about the ability of the United States to gather indications of hostility"--i.e. blinding our satellites with lasers and generally "interfering with command and control networks in a manner which could cause harm to personnel."

And it is absolutely crucial that the American military come to some sort of understanding with their Chinese counterparts on these issues. Any interference in command and control networks could force the United States into a disproportionate response simply because that interference will blind American commanders to the severity of the attack. So it's a bit disappointing that the precedent of Crowe's visit to the Soviet Union was not seized on to push for a similar deal with the Chinese.

The pictures from the visit are striking though. You can see more here.

Marine General Peter Pace and PLA General Liang Guanglie.
DoD photo by Staff Sgt. D. Myles Cullen, U.S. Air Force

The violence in Baghdad remains low as further evidence emerges that Sadr's Mahdi Army is breaking apart. The most high profile incident in Baghdad occurred after a Katyusha rocket slammed into a building next to the one where U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was speaking. There were no casualties.

The unstated U.S. strategy to isolate Sadr and divide his Mahdi Army is moving forward. Sadr's militia is "breaking into splinter groups," the Associated Press reports. About 3,000 Mahdi fighters are said to be "financed directly by Iran and no longer loyal" to Sadr. The splinter Mahdi forces have "crossed into Iran for training by the elite Quds force." Qais al-Khazaal, a former aide of Sadr, is said to be leading the faction.

Sadr's power is derived from his control of the militia, combined with the political power he wields in the parliament. With Sadr in Iran, the Mahdi Army split, and some elements negotiating with the government, Sadr has becomes less of a threat to the government. The extremist factions that spin off are a threat, but these are elements that were never going to join the political process. Like al Qaeda, there are elements of the Mahdi Army that will fight until the bitter end.

In an effort to continue the break in Sadr's political block, the U.S. released Sheik Ahmed Abady al Shaibani, a prominent figure in Sadr's Mahdi Army who has been in detention for over two years. Shaibani was released "into the custody of the [Iraqi] Prime Minster" and "could play a potentially important role in helping to moderate extremism and foster reconciliation in Iraq."

In Basra, members of the Shia Fadhila Party and the Mahdi Army clashed after Mahdi fighters surrounded and attacked the Fadhila Party headquarters. Basra was handed over by the British just two days ago.

Also in Basra and Hillah, Coalition forces "captured Qais Khazali, his brother Laith Khazali, and several other members of the Khazali network, an organization directly connected to the kidnapping and murder in January of five American soldiers in Karbala," according to Multinational Forces Iraq. Khazali “has been a spokesperson for Muqtada al Sadr, and is commonly referred to as his senior aide,” notes IraqSlogger.

The largest al Qaeda attack occurred inside Mosul, there were no major attacks in Baghdad today. About 1,600 U.S. and Iraqi forces conducted a major clearing operation in Mansour in western Baghdad and uncovered "containers of nitric acid and chlorine." Thirty-one suspected insurgents were detained in the sweep. Al Qaeda has conducted a chlorine bomb campaign in Iraq over the past two months with a focus on Anbar province.

Coalition forces continue to work to dismantle al Qaeda's car bomb network inside Baghdad. The chief of al Qaeda's Rusafa car bomb network was captured yesterday, and three other key members of the network were captured during operations over the past 24 hours.

In Mosul, Coalition forces captured a "former Saddam Fedayeen leader involved in setting up training camps in Syria for Iraqi and foreign fighters." The foreign fighters would be al Qaeda, and Syria has hosted training camps for al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda struck back and bombed the headquarters of Masoud Barazani, the influential leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK).

Amy Butler has a fantastic post up over at Ares on the competition for the Air Force's next tanker. The competition pits the all-American Boeing against rival Northrop Grumman, which has teamed with EADS North America to propose a design based on the Airbus A330.

The Air Force's urgent need for a new fleet of tankers has been causing embarrassment in all quarters since 2001, when Senator McCain first complained that a quietly arranged deal to lease 100 aircraft from Boeing--rather than go through the messy oversight process of a purchase--didn't pass "the sniff test." McCain's one man crusade against the deal finally forced the Air Force to scuttle it, and led to the resignation of Boeing CEO Phil Condit in 2003 and sent the company's CFO to jail.

The whole thing stunk, but six years later, Boeing remains the odds-on favorite to win the contract, which may end up totaling $100 billion. Why? The A330 would carry more fuel, more passengers, and more cargo than the Boeing KC-767. But the Lexington Institute's Loren Thompson still expects "Boeing to win the competition" because their plane is "a better match for the mission the way the Air Force describes it." Said Thompson, the Air Force is "primarily looking at refueling," which "tends to undercut" the bid by Airbus.

Thompson says "the Air Force separates [the refueling mission] fairly severly from the cargo mission . . . so they don't trip over each other in wartime."

But Northrop's A330 is also much more expensive--each modified A330 would cost roughly $160 million, as opposed to the $120 million price tag on the KC-767. Of course, Northrop might be willing to negotiate on the price. It's partner, EADS, can always fall back on massive subsidies from European governments. Thompson says that, at the end of the day, he "suspect[s] they will underbid" Boeing because they "don't operate under the same business practices." Meaning they don't have to worry so much about turning a profit--Airbus "almost always underbids Boeing in commercial competition."

But the reason Boeing is likely to win the contract has more to do with politics than anything else. Airbus is a European company, and worse, it's closely connected to the French government. Would the Air Force be flying French planes if Northrop wins the contract? Well, not really. They'll actually be built in Alabama, but just because your Toyota was made in the States doesn't mean you're driving an American car.

Which brings us back to Ms. Butler's terrific post. It seems that the folks from Northrop have been sending out promotional items to hype their bid. Writes Butler,

If Northrop and EADS win the tanker, clearly the eleventh-hour decision [to bid on the contract] was worth it. If only it were the same for their swag.

It is, after all, a frog.

Yes...a small, plush, green, T-shirt-wearing amphibian--the very same creature as the cultural insult hurled at Frenchmen for decades (and allegedly based on the story of French eating frog legs in the field during World War II, though it later morphed into a spiteful slur). . . .

But wait, there's more. The Northrop-EADS team denies it is a frog. That just wouldn't be collegial to their teammates! Instead, Northrop Grumman officials say, it's a "tanker toad"--as in the warty sort, not to be confused with their smooth-skinned cousins.

Perhaps Northrop has a slightly better aircraft, and perhaps the higher cost can be negotiated down a bit, and perhaps Boeing ought to be penalized for prior unethical conduct that was only exposed by the persistence of Senator McCain--but can the Pentagon really hand one of the largest contracts in history to EADS? To the French? Thompson says that the "French connection . . . won't have much bearing on the Air Force's decision." But on Capitol Hill, that's a different story. Thompson says that on the Hill, the French connection is likely to be a big problem.

Despite all Boeing's prior bad acts, the company has been, according to one Senate aide, "cleaner than Jesus" in this latest competition. Which means the folks in Congress can find a way to award the contract to Boeing without the appearance of any impropriety. But how could they explain sending our tax dollars to France?

Northrop's "tanker toad" and Boeing's "tanker tiger," courtesy of Amy Butler.

The New York Times is in trouble with the Russian authorities. On Tuesday, the newspaper reported the encouraging news that “Russia has informed Iran that it will withhold nuclear fuel . . . unless Iran suspends its uranium enrichment." Yesterday’s editorial further asserted that “The [Bush] administration needs all the friends it can get, and this is another case where quiet persuasion can go a lot further than bludgeoning." However, it now seems that “quiet persuasion” has failed to convince the Russians of much of anything.

As reported by most major Russian news networks yesterday, the Russian authorities are furious with Times’s reporting. The spokesman for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mikhail Kamynin, has vehemently denied that any such ultimatum was issued to Iran. Said Kamynin: “As a whole, this article and the 'leaks' on which it is based do not reflect well on a newspaper that claims to be authoritative," adding that the information provided by the Times is, in fact, “blatant disinformation." The press service of the Russian National Security Council released a similar statement noting that “the claims [by the Times] that any ultimatums were issued during the March 12 bilateral consultations with Iran, do not correspond to reality. The resolution of Iran’s nuclear problem and the completion of the Bushehr facility by Russia are not interrelated.”

Moreover, claims by Western media that Russian specialists have begun leaving Iran are also said to be part of this “disinformation campaign." Today, officials from Atomstroiexport--the Russian company charged with construction of the plant at Bushehr--likewise issued a denial, stating that any such insinuation is “groundless” and that the departures can be explained as the “rotation of specialists… which is part of a normal working process."

The editors at the Times thought Moscow could be helped "to see where its larger interests lie," but Rosbalt offers another explanation--"that the Americans, unaware of the peculiarities of Russian national business matters, simply cannot believe that the disruption in payments is the reality . . . and are searching for reasons that are easier for them to comprehend." Yesterday's editorial in RIA Novosti likewise counsels that “the heart of the conflict is financial disagreements between contractor and client. . . . Nuclear fuel is not pistachios or almonds, and the cash-and-carry logic of the Oriental bazaar does not fit in here.”

From THE DAILY STANDARD: Fred Thompson: A Presidential Primer, by Victorino Matus.

From the Washington Post: Musharraf at the Exit, by Ahmed Rashid.

From CBS News: Use Of Deadly Roadside Bomb Plunges, by Cami McCormick.

From the Examiner: Democrats’ Iraq plan is irresponsible, by Rep. John Boehner.

From Defense Tech: Air Force Budget Challenge.

Francois Bayrou, who is polling third in the French presidential election, called for a French boycott of the Beijing Olympics if the Chinese fail to rein in the killing by their Sudanese allies in Darfur. China accounts for the bulk of foreign investment in Sudan and supplies the regime with military hardware, all to ensure Chinese access to Sudan's significant oil reserves. The AP reports that Bayrou made the call at "a pro-Darfur rally" (who isn't pro-Darfur?) late Tuesday:

"If this drama does not stop, France would do itself credit by not coming to the Olympic Games," Bayrou told the rally, his office said Wednesday.

"There is nothing easier than stopping this tragedy, this genocide," said Bayrou, who visited Darfur on a private trip in 2005. "This is a political issue because China decided to bring its protection to the Khartoum regime."

I applaud Bayrou for taking such a bold stand--there's a million reasons to boycott the Beijing games, and Darfur is as good as any of them. But it's hard to take this stuff seriously coming from the French, who have been working for years to lift the post-Tiananmen, E.U.-wide arms embargo on China. In fact, the French defense minister was in Beijing this week calling for an end to the embargo, "The ban is nothing but a political and psychological thing," she said. See, it's not that the French actually want to sell weapons to the Chinese--they object to the ban on principle.

Would a Bayrou or Sarkozy administration be any different? We can hope.

This interview with General Petraeus in yesterday's New York Post hasn't gotten as much attention as it ought. Here's the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq articulating the early success of the president's new strategy, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised, but the general is clearly optimistic.

Speaking on the new strategy of establishing Joint Security Stations in Iraqi neighborhoods, Petraeus says that "After our guys are in the neighborhood for four or five days, the people realize they're not going to just leave them like we did in the past. Then they begin to come in with so much information on the enemy that we can't process it fast enough."

On the Anbar Salvation Council:

"All of the sheiks up there are businessmen . . . they are entrepreneurial and involved in scores of different businesses. The presence of the foreign fighters is hitting them hard in the pocketbook and they are tired of it."

On Sadr City:

"We're clearing it neighborhood by neighborhood." Troops move in - mainly U.S. soldiers and Marines supported by Iraqi forces, although that ratio is reversed in some areas - and stay. They are not transiting back to large, remote bases but are now living with the people they have come to protect. The results, Petraeus says, have been "dramatic."

"We're using 'soft knock' clearing procedures and bringing the locals in on our side," he notes. By being in the neighborhoods, getting to know the people and winning their trust, the soldiers have allowed the people to turn against the al Qaeda terrorists, whom they fear and loathe. Petraeus says his goal is to pull al Qaeda out "by its roots, wherever it tries to take hold."

On the rules of engagement (ROE):

"I've made two things clear," Petraeus emphasized: "My ROE may not be modified with supplemental guidance lower down. And I've written a letter to all Coalition forces saying 'your chain-of-command will stay with you.' I think that solved the issue."

Finally, on the surge's effect in Baghdad:

"Less than half the al Qaeda leaders who were in Baghdad when this [surge] campaign began are still in the city," he said. "They have fled or are being killed or captured. We are attriting them at a fearsome rate."

As Bill Roggio has noted here before, the success in Baghdad has forced al Qaeda to fight a "commuter insurgency" from the provinces surrounding the city. But without first pacifying Baghdad, little else can be achieved. So, while Petraeus warns that we will only "be able to evaluate the situation for sure by late summer," for the first time in a long time, victory seems possible.

Significant operations occurred in the cities of Anbar province and Diyala while Baghdad remians relatively quiet. Only one significant suicide attack occurred in the city over the past 24 hours, while Iraqi and U.S. security forces found a fuel tanker filled with explosives and destroyed it. Meanwhile, the news that al Qaeda is using children in suicide attacks is nothing new.

In the town of Amiriya, tribal fighters of the Anbar Salvation Council, backed by Iraqi police, Army and U.S. air support, repelled a concerted attack by al Qaeda fighters. 39 al Qaeda were killed and seven captured after a large formation of over 100 al Qaeda fighters operating under the banner of the Islamic State in Iraq attacked the town, which is south of the city of Fallujah in Anbar province.

This is the second major ground assault by al Qaeda in Amiriya in the last 3 weeks, and the third attack overall. Last weekend, Amiriya was one of three targets of al Qaeda's chlorine gas suicide attack. Al Qaeda is clearly targeting a senior leader of the Anbar Salvation Council in the town.

Also in Anbar province, the Anbar Salvation Council conducted a large scale clearing operation in the restive city of Ramadi. "Coordinating between several stations within his district, Brig. Gen. Khalil Ibrahim Hamadi, chief of the Ramadi District Police, personally led more than 500 policemen as they conducted house-to-house searches in the capital city of Al Anbar Province," according to the Public Affairs Office in Ramadi. 45 suspected insurgents were detained during the operation, while one civilian was killed during an IED attack. Police "confiscated propaganda material and discovered several caches containing assault rifles, machine guns, and mortar and artillery shells used to produce improvised explosive devices."

In Fallujah, al Qaeda's Islamic State in Iraq claimed credit for destroying an Iraqi military outpost. Casualty reports are conflicting, with anywhere from two to 20 killed during the attack. The Anbar Salvation Council has expanded its reach into Fallujah, and al Qaeda is pressing back. Both Fallujah and Ramadi were also targets of last weekend's chlorine gas attack.

In Diyala province, where al Qaeda has regrouped after fleeing Baghdad, American forces are reported to have freed over 200 hostages in Muqdadiya, according to the Iraqi Buratha News Agency. Many of those freed were Iraqi police. Al Qaeda has been working to dismantle the police in Diyala province, and has had success in neighboring Duluiyah, where five of eight police stations were destroyed and the police either co-opted into the terrorist group or disbanded.

Nationwide, U.S. forces captured 23 militants "during raids targeting foreign fighter facilitator and al Qaeda in Iraq networks" in the cities of Balad, Taji, Abu Ghraib, and Mosul. Al Qaeda and insurgent bomb factories remain a high priority, as the car bombs are one of their greatest weapons. "Coalition Forces killed five terrorists, destroyed a bomb-making factory and detained three suspected terrorists during an operation Wednesday near Taji," notes a Multinational Forces Iraq press release. " Inside the building, Coalition Forces found large caliber ammunition and explosive manufacturing materials including numerous 50-gallon barrels of explosive material."

Inside Baghdad, Al Qaeda pulled off a successful suicide car bomb attack. "At least four Iraqis were killed and 14 wounded when a suicide bomber detonated a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device March 20 in an eastern segment of the Iraqi capital," reports Multinational Forces Iraq. "The attack occurred around 11:20 a.m. when a taxi packed with mortar rounds plowed into a crowd in the al-Sheik Omar area."

This attack comes as news that al Qaeda is using children as props in their suicide operations. During a suicide attack Sunday, a car with two adults and two children made it through a checkpoint and was subsequently blown up near a market in Adamiya. "Children in the back seat, lower suspicion, we let it move through," said Major General Michael Barbero during a press briefing yesterday. "They park the vehicle, the adults run out and detonate it with the children in the back ... the brutality and ruthless nature of this enemy hasn't changed."

Sadly, this is not a new tactic. Al Qaeda has used children in suicide strikes in the past. In perhaps one of the most egregious exploitation of children, al Qaeda turned a child with Downs Syndrome into a suicide bomber during the January 2005 election.

If you didn't catch John Bolton's performance on the Daily Show last night, it's worth watching.

Stewart likes to have it both ways--he's a comedian, but you're also supposed to take him seriously when he squares off against the political and intellectual giants of our time. The only problem is: Stewart is a comedian with a limited grasp of "democratic theory," as Bolton pointed out time and again.

When Stewart asks Bolton why Bush would appoint to the United Nations an ambassador that "wasn't a huge fan of the United Nations," Bolton responds, "I think that's exactly wrong, and I think that's part of what's wrong with Washington. It is not the case that the government should be staffed by people who like the bureaucracies they're serving in. I also served as undersecretary for arms control and I was very skeptical of arms control. The point is, the president ought to have people philosophically attuned to his way of thinking. And if you've got a problem with that, I'd suggest you've got a problem with democratic theory."

Then Stewart claims that Lincoln brought people into his cabinet that disagreed with him. Bolton: "You're historically wrong on Lincoln." Oh gee, you think the United States ambassador to the United Nations might know a bit more about American history than the host of Comedy Central's Daily Show.

By the end of this, Stewart's defense of bureaucracy becomes completely absurd, and anti-democratic, at which point even Stewart concedes, "you may be right."

It's worth watching the whole thing. Bolton is dominating.

From RIA Novosti: Russia To Put Missile Defense Elements In Embassies.

From Defense News: Officials: Congress Faces Temptation of Missile Cuts To Pay Mounting Bills, by John T. Bennett.

From the New York Review of Books: On Israel, America and AIPAC, by George Soros.

From the New York Sun: Obama Rebuffs Soros, by Eli Lake.

From the Fourth Rail: Red-on-Red in Waziristan, by Bill Roggio.

Bonus Audio File: Stephen Trimble says the DOD will become oil-free within this century.

Over at The Danger Room, Noah Shachtman asks how on earth Americans might describe the war in Iraq as "going well," as 30 percent of Americans did last month in response to a survey by the Pew Research Center. No one can speak for those folks, and short of a follow-on survey by Pew, we just won't know what they were thinking. But I'll take the bait.

The first explanation is the easiest, and it fits best with our timeline: there is likely a substantial portion of the American public that understand Iraq to be the central front in the war on terror. Within that context, the sacrifice of so many men and so much materiel is not viewed as disproportionate to the threat we face from the likes of al Qaeda and its affiliates in Iraq. To these folks, and count me among them, "going well" means it's well enough that the United States military is there killing and capturing bad guys day in and day out, and "not going well" would mean the humiliation of a Congressionally mandated defeat and retreat and a correspondingly emboldened al Qaeda. Dean Barnett captured this sentiment writing today on the four year anniversary of the war.

Is the fight hard? Of course. But lamenting its difficulty makes about as much sense as ruing the challenge of invading Normandy. The war against Radical Islam is one of necessity, not one of choice. It’s been going on since 1979, and we got a taste of what a defensive posture will bring us on 9/11. Just a taste.

Because this survey was done in the second week of February--the Baghdad Security Operation was only announced at the end of that week on February 14--the 30 percent cannot be explained by the recent progress in Iraq. In light of that progress, and the installation of a new commander in Iraq, I imagine that the 30 percent figure would see a significant bump if the same sample was polled again this week. The president's new strategy, and the early signs of progress, have surely earned the war in Iraq increased support among the public. Still, prior to the surge, most of my colleagues would have been hard-pressed to describe the war as going well, but I think a cautious optimism has taken hold.

There are also those outside of this country that also might say the war has gone well, namely the 49 percent of Iraqis who prefer "life under the current political system" versus the 26 percent that "preferred life under the previous regime of Saddam Hussein."

But they weren't asked "do you think the war is going well," rather something like "do you think the war is going well compared to the alternatives?" And it is. We have not tucked tail as we did in Lebanon or Somalia. We have not left our allies at the mercy of our enemies, as we did after the first Gulf War and in Vietnam. And though some Americans have paid dearly in this war, defeat would surely come with a higher price. Do 30 percent of Americans understand that the greatest danger this country faces will come from the precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces? That's one explanation, at least.

Or maybe they just think the war is going better than the media would have us believe. Perhaps they know someone who has served in Iraq, perhaps that individual has told them that things aren't as bad as we are hearing over here.

But all this is pure speculation, so I called the Pew Research Center and asked: how do these people--the 30 percent--explain their response? I was told that partisanship is the most likely explanation, i.e. that there is sure to be a strong correlation between this 30 percent and the people that support the war. But they don't really know either. They haven't asked respondents why they think the war is going well. Intrigued by Shachtman's question, they said they might be able to provide more information later in the week. Stay tuned.

From the MEMRI Blog:

Ibrahim Karagul, a columnist with strong anti-U.S. views who writes for the Islamic Turkish daily Yeni Safak, which is the unofficial mouthpiece of Turkey's AKP government, has stated that since the disappearance of former Iranian deputy defense minister Ali Reza Asghari, two more Iranian commanders have been "kidnapped." He added that the espionage games being played by the U.S. and Israel, with Istanbul as their playground, are making Turkey look suspicious.

In his column, Karagul wrote that while the mystery of Asghari's disappearance is still unsolved, Iranian Col. Amir Muhammad Shirazi and Gen. Muhammad Sultani are missing.

He added that fingers in Iran are pointing at U.S. and Israeli intelligence services, and wrote, "It is said that five Iranians left Iran on Friday, March 16, and entered Turkey at midnight on March 17, and that they were handed over to CIA and Mossad agents on March 18. Whether Col. Shirazi and Gen. Sultani were among these five is not clear."

He warned, "If the U.S. keeps kidnapping Iranian officials, a big storm will erupt, because Iranian circles are warning that they have the capability and manpower to kidnap or strike at any U.S. or Israeli target, any time and anywhere in the world."

Yesterday was the four year anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and, predictably, al Qaeda conducted a concerted attack to mark the event. Al Qaeda, however, had to settle for Kirkuk, not Baghdad, for its show of force. As we noted yesterday, the Kirkuk attack was a coordinated car bomb and roadside bomb attack that cause massed casualties in the flash point city where Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmen are positioning for control over the city. Al Qaeda also struck at a Shia mosque in Baghdad. The two attacks generated the desired propaganda for al Qaeda and also served to stoke tensions between Iraq's ethnic groups. Al Qaeda still seeks to reignite the Sunni – Shia sectarian war.

The car bomb still remains the most powerful weapon in al Qaeda's arsenal. Al Qaeda and insurgents conducted a series of bombings in Baghdad today: a car bomb at a police station (5 killed, 17 wounded); a car bomb at a bridge in Karrada (3 killed, 7 wounded); and a bus bombing in Baghdad (3 wounded).

But the lower numbers of casualties in the attacks may be attributed to the increased security in the city. In the past, the most devastating bombs were placed on large trucks--dump trucks, fuel tankers, and other large vehicles. Mohammad Fadhil, an Iraqi blogger who lives in Baghdad, notes the number of checkpoints in the city are increasing rapidly. "With the constant force buildup many streets now host multiple checkpoints, both fixed and mobile," notes Mr. Fadhil. "All are positioned in a manner that allows soldiers in one to have visual contact with those in the next one. From my personal experience I can tell that the men staffing the checkpoints do not take their job lightly."

On the political front, the Iraqi government executed Taha Yassin Ramadan, Saddam Hussein's vice-president. Ramadan was executed "for his role in the killing of 148 Shia Iraqis in Dujail." While there was much talk of increased violence in Iraq due to Saddam's execution last December, there was no appreciable increase in violence that could be tracked back to his execution, despite the circus that ensued during the process.

Coalition forces continue the hunt for al Qaeda in Iraq operatives. Raids in Abu Ghraib and Mosul netted 9 suspects on March 20, including an operative that "reportedly procures chemicals for the production of improvised explosive devices" in Mosul.

On the new Multinational Forces Iraq YouTube Channel, MNF-I published a video of U.S. forces tracking and destroying an insurgent mortar team of seven men. U.S. air assets track the insurgent mortar team as they fire, break down the mortar, get into the car and travel back to their base of operations, where the vehicle is destroyed and the entire team is killed. The U.S. has a clear advantage in the air, which explains why al Qaeda in Iraq has been working to bring anti aircraft weapons to the field.

The Islamic State in Iraq, al Qaeda's political front, is conducting its own propaganda campaign on the Internet. Al Qaeda release a video purporting to show a terrorist walking up to a Bradly Infantry Fighting Vehicle with a bomb, crawling under it and planting and subsequently detonating the bomb.

Richard Hernandez disputes the authenticity of the video, and provides a snap analysis of the tape. IraqSlogger said contacts in Multinational Forces Iraq "examined the video closely but say they have no record of such an attack on a Bradley in Iraq."

Le Pen is back!

Jean-Marie Le Pen, France's ultra-right perennial presidential candidate, managed to obtain the required 500 signatures from local elected officials before March 14, the deadline for presidential hopefuls. He shocked everyone last time around, coming in second on April 21, 2002, sidelining socialist Lionel Jospin, and guaranteeing a massive victory for Jacques Chirac in the second round. This unhappy (for the socialists) memory explains his difficulty in qualifying for the ballot this year. The names of local officials signing candidates' petitions are now public, and neither Socialist nor UMP officials were eager to give him their blessing.

On March 8, with Le Pen still 67 signatures short, Nicolas Sarkozy declared on the public television channel France 3 that he would “fight to allow Le Pen and Besancenot [a Communist leader] to defend their opinions” by running for president. This magnanimous call was approved by 72 percent of the French public. Nevertheless, Sarkozy was the target of a subtle critique from Chirac in his farewell speech on Sunday March 11: "Never compromise with extremism," he urged the French people. On March 13, Le Monde charged that Sarkozy supports Le Pen’s participation in the election because he has his sights set on Le Pen’s votes in the second round.

Gay marriage definitely banned in France

In another defeat for the French left, on Tuesday, France’s highest court annulled the union of two men. The marriage was consecrated on June 5, 2004, in Bègles, Gironde, by Mayor Noël Mamère. The mustachioed politician from the French Green party declared he was not surprised at all by the judges’ decision but regretted that “the high court had missed an occasion to make law fit society.” The newlyweds and their attorney, Caroline Mécari, are going to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights. But, as the high court said: "Under French law, marriage is a union between a man and a woman,” so it is unlikely Stephane Charpin and Bertrand Charpentier will be allowed to remarry.

The disappointed couple

A Ministry of Immigration and National Identity?

On Thursday March 8, Nicolas Sarkozy proposed the creation of a Ministry of Immigration and National Identity during an appearance on the public television channel France 2. The idea produced a huge wave of protest from the French intelligentsia. The leading left-wing daily in France, Libération, compared this to the Vichy regime’s anti-Jewish laws during World War II, in an article entitled “a Ministry of the Race?”

Among politicians, reactions were prompt and unanimously sharp: François Bayrou, the UDF presidential hopeful, said that “a boundary had been crossed,” Socialist presidential candidate Ségolène Royal called the proposal “rather ignoble” and François Hollande, her husband and chairman of the French Socialist party, added that it was “an outright flirtation with National Front doctrine.” Arnaud Montebourg, the Socialist party spokesman accused Sarkozy of "malice" in "creating a confusion between French identity and immigration.”

The MRAP, an anti-racist association, estimated that such a Ministry would “threaten national cohesion.” According to MRAP spokesman Mouloud Anouit, it constitutes a “real provocation" and sends a "xenophobic" signal. But isn’t French national cohesion more threatened when traditional political parties are out of touch with voters on matters of widespread social concern?

Indeed, in this very case, 55 percent of French people support Sarkozy’s idea for the creation of a Ministry of Immigration and National Identity, with higher ratings among the lower socioeconomic classes. Montebourg, the Socialist spokesman, prefers to imagine that the workers, 56 percent of whom favor Sarkozy’s proposal, are suffering from false consciousness and are “unfortunately not able to understand the essence of this project.” This contempt towards the workers’ opinions may be the reason for the deep unpopularity of the Socialist party among its traditional constituents.

On Sunday, the AP ran a story on this video, which was "posted on an Islamic Web site that frequently airs insurgent messages." The video carries the stamp of the Islamic State of Iraq and purports to show an al Qaeda terrorist planting an explosive under a Bradley armored vehicle in broad daylight.

IraqSlogger and The Belmont Club are both raising questions about the authenticity of this video. A friend of THE WORLDWIDE STANDARD tells us he is almost certain the video is a fraud, but without a frame by frame analysis, it will be tough to know for sure. If any of our readers can shed some light on this, drop us a line and we will post comments below.

Our friend Stuart Koehl writes in with his analysis:

The first thing I note is the Bradley in question is sitting in the middle of a large puddle at the end of a cul-de-sac--not your usual parking place. It seems to be abandoned. The second thing I notice is one of the towing cables is attached to the front hitch ring. leading back from the right front of the vehicle to somewhere off to the left rear. The figure moving around under the vehicle is thereafter obscured, so we can't really tell what he is doing; early on, it seems he's carrying a tarp or something under the vehicle. The canister the man is carrying later looks a lot like a 10 gallon plastic fuel can. I don't speak Arabic, so I can't tell you what was being circled in red off to the right side of the vehicle; it looks like U.S. troops watching the guy under the Bradley.

The subsequent explosion, however, is definitely fake. You can see how it was superimposed over the image of the Bradley, which, given the magnitude of the explosion, somehow never moves. You'd think if a large explosion ocurred under the vehicle, it would at least bounce a little. There are also no secondary explosions, no fires, no thick black smoke that is the hallmark of an armored vehicle "brewing up". Notice that you can't actually see the Bradley after the explosion, and that the smoke and flames are obviously "looped". Note also the tail of the dog sticking up from behind the traffic barrier in the lower left of the frame. There's just been a huge explosion, and the dog is not cowering or running, but trotting along happily with its tail up in the air.

The machine gun fire after the explosion is also dubbed in. Note that the splashes in the puddle are also obviously photoshopped. Finally, note that the fire at the very end appears significantly smaller than the Bradley it is supposed to be obscuring. It looks to me for all the world that, after the Bradley moved on, they spread oil and gasoline on the surface of the puddle and lit it off--creating a rolling, smokey fire that is supposed to be caused by the cooking Bradley, but which for some reason, isn't where the Bradley is supposed to be.

The Bradley, by the way, appears to be an A3 version with explosive reactive tiles on the side skirts and around the turret--not the sort of thing you leave unguarded, contrary to all doctrine and SOP.

From Pajamas Media: Fred Thompson on "300".

From the Boston Globe: The US needs to stay in Iraq, by Erik Swabb.

From the New York Post: The Iraq Surge: Why It's Working, by Gordon Cucullu.

From the Philadelphia Inquirer: McCain, why now? He fits the times, by Tom Ridge.

From the Wall Street Journal: Who Needs Nukes, by Bret Stephens.

From the Toronto Star, via Lucianne, we get a story about the paucity of firepower among the Coalition's Afghan allies. "One of Afghanistan's top field commanders wants Canada to provide his troops with better weapons to fight the Taliban," the Star reports. The paper quotes Lt.-Col. Shereen Shah Kohbandi complaining that Afghan soldiers "have nothing. We have no strong weapons."

There's not much new information in the article, but THE WORLDWIDE STANDARD cannot pass up an opportunity to rib our Canadian allies. Here's a video that was posted over at Defense Tech yesterday showing "the French Canadian Army at their lethal best."

Defense News carries an interesting piece today on the rise of China and its implications for American allies in the Pacific. Reporting from Taipei, Wendell Minnick spoke with two friends of THE WORLDWIDE STANDARD to better understand the impact of China's swelling defense budget. Reuben Johnson, THE WEEKLY STANDARD's aviation and defense correspondent, had this to say:

There is almost no intelligent analysis or thinking in Washington about what China will be like--what the nature of the state and its policies will be--when Beijing is a true superpower.

What disturbs China’s neighbors is that there is little--if any--sort of strategic vision emanating from D.C. on this subject. In the absence of anything other than the usual polemics, they will seek to go their own way in developing a response to the implications of China.

And speaking to the "real fears in the region that China might procure the Tu-22 Backfire bomber and the thrust-vectoring Su-35 fighter," John Tkacik said that,

Japan certainly needs a fifth-generation fighter, given the tremendous expansion in China’s fourth-generation fighter fleet. The F-22 is a proven killer to anything China can put in the skies. It would make budget sense for Japan to have a fighter that can kill 50 Chinese Su-27s without suffering a loss, as opposed to the F-15, which is merely an even match for the Su-27. The unfortunate thing, however, is that the State Department seems to be hesitating on the approval for the F-22 sale to Japan.

I spoke with the Lexington Institute's Loren Thompson a couple of weeks ago about the prospects for a sale of F-22s to Japan. He said that it would cost the Chinese approximately $300 billion to build an air defense network capable of thwarting the stealthy, supersonic fighter, though talk of any sale remained "pure speculation." But the Pentagon's dithering on the matter perfectly illustrates Johnson's point--the United States has no coherent policy for balancing against China's rise.

Stephen Kotkin is the director of the program in Russian and Eurasian studies at Princeton University, and while I was in attendance there, I was lucky enough to have Kotkin both as a professor and a thesis adviser. You won't find a smarter guy at Princeton, and you're not likely to find anywhere an expert who knows more about post-Soviet Russia. Kotkin is a frequent contributor to the New Republic, and, of the articles he has published there, one stands out in particular (sub.) for its deep insight into the nature of post-Soviet Russia and the ring of independent states that had emerged around it. Wrote Kotkin,

When the Soviet Union was dissolved, it was replaced by ... the Soviet Union, only with more border guards, more customs posts, more "tax" collectors, more state "inspectors"--in short, more greasy palms outstretched. Estonia stands out as the great bright spot (approaching the level of Slovenia, the star in East-Central Europe). But elsewhere around the former Soviet Union, we see a dreadful checkerboard of parasitic states and statelets, government-led extortion rackets and gangs in power, mass refugee camps, and shadow economies. Welcome to Trashcanistan.

In any case, to say I was in awe of Kotkin as a student would be an understatement, so when Kotkin talks, I listen. A friend just forwarded me this link to a speech he gave last month in Philadelphia. Here are some excerpts:

Kotkin on Russian politics:

The answer to the question of today’s talk, “Russia: toward democracy or dictatorship?” is “neither.” Russia is not a democracy, and it is not a dictatorship. Russia, like most countries of the world, has a ramshackle authoritarian system with some democratic trappings (some of which are meaningful). Russia is not in transition to or from anything. Russia is what it is. . . .

Yesterday Powerline linked to this op-ed by Sergeant David Thul in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Thul, now serving in Iraq as a member of the Minnesota National Guard, argues "that a majority of U.S. troops want to stay in Iraq and finish the mission." How does he know that? "Two ways," he says.

The first is anecdotally, from the men and women I work with and talk to every day. I have yet to meet someone who thinks the long-term good of the United States and the Middle East would be served by an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Many of us are tired and frustrated and miss our families and just want to go home. But we want to go home after transferring our area of responsibility to another unit, whether it is U.S. or Iraqi. We don't want to abandon our posts.

The second way I know that my fellow soldiers want to stay is that they have been saying so in a petition to Congress. At the AppealForCourage.org website, more than 1,500 service members in less than a month have signed an appeal for redress, the officially authorized method for the military to ask Congress to right a wrong, asking Congress to stop calling for retreat and to support our mission.

Day after day we see and hear our elected leaders in Washington telling us that the war is already lost or that it is not winnable. Nothing could be further from the truth. The essence of the military mission here is really quite simple. Train the Iraqi army and police to do the job that we are currently doing, give them the reins, and then take our leave. It is a slow job, but steady progress is being made. Already entire provinces of Iraq are under Iraqi military control. In more than 70 percent of the country, the Iraqi army and police are in the lead.

The petition can be found here, and here is the wording:

As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home. The War in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attack.

This past Friday, on the last day of the annual convocation of the National People’s Congress, Premier Wen Jiabao fielded questions from Chinese and foreign journalists in a press conference at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Broadcast live on state television, Wen’s meeting with the 1,200 journalists lasted nearly two hours. The questioners included representatives of AP, the Wall Street Journal, People’s Daily, NHK, China Central Television, and Financial Times.

The carefully choreographed event was moving along nicely until the reporter from Le Monde asked the premier about democracy in China. The English edition of Xinhua, which carries only a thumbnail sketch of the event and does not specify either the identities of the questioners or even the questions themselves, quotes the premier's response: “The essence of China’s socialist democracy is to let the people be masters of the country and enable them to oversee and criticize the government. . . China will take into account of [sic] its own conditions and build a democracy in its own way.”

The Chinese edition of Xinhua, which carries a "full transcript" of Wen’s press conference, gives a more detailed account of both the questions and answers. According to the Chinese transcript, the Le Monde reporter asked,

“Recently you published an article in People’s Daily. In it you stated that the socialist system and socialist democracy are not mutually exclusive. You also stated that the initial stage of socialism was to last another hundred years. Does that mean that China does not need democracy in the next one hundred years?"

Xinhua’s Chinese transcript records a lengthier, albeit still incomplete, reply from the premier. Neither reproduces the second part of the journalist’s question, nor Wen’s reply to it. The French reporter asked if Wen had read a book recently published in Hong Kong in which the deceased former premier and party chief Zhao Ziyang is quoted as calling for political reforms. To this question, which was translated into Chinese during the live television broadcast of the news conference, Wen gave a terse response: “As for the book you mentioned, I don’t think there is any connection between that and what I have talked about because I have not read it.”

While in office, Zhao Ziyang had pressed for economic reforms. During the 1989 Tiananmen democracy movement, he was sympathetic toward the demonstrators and was opposed to using force against them. After the military crackdown, Zhao was removed from office and placed under house arrest until his death in January 2005.

At the height of the 1989 protest, Wen Jiabao was Zhao’s chief of staff and accompanied his boss during a visit with protesting students at Tiananmen Square. Wen is believed to have secured his political ascension only by subsequently distancing himself from Zhao.

Taking a cue from Xinhua, other websites, including the hugely popular Web portal sina.com, deleted all references to Zhao in their reports on Wen’s press conference.

From the Washington Times: Chinese military superpower? by John J. Tkacik Jr.

From the New York Times: A One-Man Civil War, by Matthew Continetti.

From Foreign Affairs: Japan Is Back, by Michael Green.

From the Philadelphia Inquirer: Taking closer look at Al Gore's truth, by Jonathan Last.

From National Review: An American dream, &c., by Jay Nordlinger.

More than a month has now passed since the official announcement of the Baghdad Security Plan on February 14. While it is impossible to judge progress over the course of one month in such a complex battlespace as Baghdad, the initial signs are encouraging.

Sectarian murders, the fuel for the potential Sunni-Shia civil war, have been dramatically reduced. Before the operation began, scores of bodies were found daily on the streets of Baghdad, now the number is in the single digits. Massive car bomb attacks, which in the past have killed dozens and wounded hundreds, have been reduced. While the number of car bombings has increased, their effectiveness has decreased. Over the past week only one significant suicide car bomb attack occurred inside Baghdad--a failed assassination attempt on the head of the Baghdad city council. Eight were killed in the explosion. The other attacks have been aimed at security forces and checkpoints, such at the roadside bombing that killed four U.S. troops patrolling eastern Baghdad.

There have been few changes to the disposition of forces inside Baghdad over the past week. The 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division completed its deployment to Baghdad, and spread its four battalions into the Bayaa, Mansour, and Doura districts. General David Petraeus announced an additional Combat Aviation Brigade will deploy to support operations. The deployment of the aviation brigade is being sped up by two months. Again, the U.S. Army still has an additional three combat brigades preparing to move into Iraq, and the deployment of the last brigade will not be complete until June.

One or more of these brigades may be deployed in the 'outer belts' of Baghdad--the surrounding regions where al Qaeda in Iraq is staging attacks into the capital. “Although the focus, the priority, clearly is Baghdad, anyone who knows about securing Baghdad knows that you must also secure the Baghdad belts, in other words, the areas that surround Baghdad,” General Petreaus said last week.

The Iraqi government and Coalition forces have stepped up the fight against al Qaeda in the restive province of Diyala. After the Baghdad Security Plan was announced, al Qaeda foot soldiers and commanders are believed to have fled Baghdad for Diyala. Up to 2,000 al Qaeda are believed to be operating from the region, and they are conducting a commuter insurgency by surging car bombs into the capital. Al Qaeda has responded with its own campaign of intimidation and terror against the mixed Sunni and Shia tribes of Diyala.

The firing of several United States Attorneys was the big story of the week. Meet the Press featured an interview with Sen. Chuck Schumer, who laid out the Democrats’ case, and took a guess on Alberto Gonzales's prospects. “I think it's highly unlikely he survives,” Schumer said, adding “I wouldn't be surprised if, a week from now, he's no longer attorney general. He has just miscast his role, misperceived his role. Instead of just being the president's lawyer who rubber stamps everything the White House wants, he has a role as attorney general as the chief law enforcement officer for the land without fear or favor.”

When asked if he believed that the U.S. attorneys serve at the will of the president, Schumer replied,

“of course, every president has the right to hire and fire U.S. attorneys at will. Every president, when they come in in a new term, like President Clinton did, basically cleans house and puts in new U.S. attorneys. Ronald Reagan did within his first year, George Bush, the first, did within his first year, and this president, Karl Rove's employer, George Bush, our present President George Bush did it. All the U.S. attorneys were replaced. What's different here is not simply that the president wanting this choice, not that choice, but, in these instances, the evidence is becoming more and more overwhelming that certain U.S. attorneys, and only certain ones, not all of them, but certain U.S. attorneys were fired because either they wouldn't prosecute a case that was politically advantageous to the White House or they were prosecuting a case that was disadvantageous to the White House.”

Republicans are trying to turn the issue back on Schumer, who, in addition to serving on the judiciary committee also acts as the head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. On Fox News Sunday, Sen. Arlen Specter pointed out the apparent conflict of interest:

“Let’s look at what the facts are: Senator Schumer is leading the inquiry. And the day after we had the testimony about Senator Domenici, he puts his name up on the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, criticizing, or making the argument, that he ought not to be reelected. I think that the inquiry by the Judiciary Committee ought to have a modicum of objectivity.”

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession seems to have prompted more head-scratching than soul-searching. Fair enough for everyone to wonder whether KSM really did commit all these crimes, but as Dean Barnett points out, "regardless of the rough proportions between truth and b.s. in his comments, one thing shines through – this is a profoundly evil man."

Barnett is most troubled by the pride with which KSM declares his guilt in the murder of Daniel Pearl: "I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl.”

Says Barnett,

His posturing as a freedom fighter and his other by-now-tired rationalizations of mass murder fall into one category. Perhaps the moral relativists out there, the ones who responded to 9/11 by jerking their knees and begging, “Why do they hate us?”, could find some sympathy for such a wretched creature if his crimes were "limited" to putative acts of war.

But his gloating over Daniel Pearl’s murder is another thing. Pearl’s murder wasn’t a military operation, even as defined by Mohammed and his noxious ilk. It was just murder. And Khalid Seikh Mohammed carried it our personally, and now considers the hand that performed the savagery to be blessed.

Despite being confronted by such obvious evil, Barnett says Americans and their institutions, with the exception of the military, remain largely insulated from the war on terror and indifferent to the threat we face from the "potentially tens of millions more just like him out there." Barnett's analysis is right on the money, as usual.

General Petraeus has written an open letter to the members of Multinational Forces Iraq, the full text of which can be read here.

The environment in Iraq is the most challenging that I have seen in over 32 years of service. Indeed, few soldiers have ever had to contend with the reality of an enemy willing to blow himself up for his twisted cause. In view of that, as you conduct your daily operations, remember that you have every right to protect yourself, even as you attempt to prevent situations from escalating without good reason.

I also want you to be aware of my recognition that our focus on securing the population means that many of you will live in the neighborhoods you're securing. That is, in fact, the right way to secure the population--and it means that you will, in some cases, operate in more austere conditions than you did before we adjusted our mission and focus. . . . This approach is necessary, because we can't commute to the fight in counterinsurgency operations; rather, we have to live with the population we are securing. As you carry out the new approach, I also count on each of you to embrace the warrior-builder-diplomat spirit as we grapple with the demands that securing the population and helping it rebuild will require.

There's a lot to like in this letter--liberal rules of engagement, a more aggressive strategy both for fighting insurgents and helping civilians rebuild. And the idea that the troops "can't commute to the fight in counterinsurgency operations" strikes me as a rebuke to the Democrats' call for "strategic redeployment." If one can't commute to fight insurgents, neither can one commute to fight terrorists. At least in the Sunni heartland, insurgents and terrorists are indistinguishable.

On Wednesday we discussed this story from the Boston Globe on concerns about the quality of the officers being promoted by the Army. Frederick Kagan told us that the attrition of the Army's officer corps is "unquestionably bad," but not everyone thought so.

Michael Tanji, a frequent contributor to THE DAILY STANDARD and a former senior intelligence officer, wrote in with this comment:

Far be it from me to argue military issues with a Kagan, but I don't see the high volume of resignations as a major problem.

First of all, the selection process for field-grade officers is dicey at best. I've seen a lot of highly qualified Captains get passed over and forced out while functional retards (and that's not hyperbole) got the call. The practical difference between someone at the top of the selection pyramid and someone who under normal circumstances wouldn't make the cut can be very nominal indeed. People who manage to punch all their tickets more rapidly than others are not necessarily better officers.

Second, "up and out" has long been noted as a flawed system. If someone is a good Captain or Major, why force the Peter Principle upon them? Some people don't aspire to command a brigade and some couldn't do it no matter how much training and time you gave them. In an Army where small-unit-tactics are becoming ascendant, "Best g-d company commander in the army" is a title a lot of guys who cherish more than "Colonel."

Third, I'd like to see a more in-depth analysis of this data. How do we know the best of the best are the ones getting out? That large portions of a year-group in a given battalion are leaving means little beyond the size of the gap. Most of a given year-group wouldn't make it to the top even under the best circumstances.

Here's Frederick Kagan's response:

From UPI:

The U.S. Army is going to need to be even larger than the service is now planning, the Army's top officer told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomacher [sic] said Thursday the planned enlargement of the Army to 547,000 troops over the next five years is unlikely to be enough to face future crises.

"I think the future is going to justify an even larger Army than what we are building," he said. "We have people in the department still talking about there is going to be a day when we don't need boots on the ground and I think that's ludicrous."

Schoomacher [sic] also said he thinks the proportion of active duty to reserve forces is out of whack. There are currently 55 percent reserves and 45 percent active.

"I would be much more comfortable with 60 percent active and 40 percent Guard and Reserve," he said.

The past 24 hours has seen some interesting developments in Iraq. Diyala has flared up as U.S. troops deployed to the region. Additional U.S. forces will be requested to support operations. Further, al Qaeda conducted some successful operations inside Baghdad, the Iraqi general leading the Baghdad operation was relieved of command and the U.S. is negotiating to dismantle elements of Sadr's Mahdi Army.

As we noted in February, Diyala has become a focal point of combat operations as the Baghdad Security Plan is implemented. The U.S. Strykers from the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment--about 700 soldiers and 100 of their Stryker combat vehicles--were shifted from Baghdad earlier this week to restore order to the province and hunt the estimated 2,000 al Qaeda fighters believed to be using Diyala as a base. The 5-20 Strykers moved into Baquba, the provincial capital, and engaged in intense urban combat on its first day of operations. Dozens of al Qaeda were reported killed, while the Strykers lost one soldiers in combat, and 11 others were wounded (six subsequently returned to their units). Two Stryker vehicles were lost, including one in a sophisticated IED attack and follow up ambush.

The Multinational Forces Iraq command is asking for more troops to support the Iraq security operation, the Boston Globe reports. General David Petraeus, the MNF-I commanding general, will request the deployment of an additional combat aviation brigade--about 2,500 to 3,000 troops. The number of troops requested isn't what is important, but the composition of the unit is. A combat aviation brigade consists of attack and transport helicopters, and gives the Coalition and Iraqi troops additional air mobile capabilities. These aviation assets will be used to conduct combat operation in Baghdad's 'outer belts'--the regions directly outside the city limits. This will give Coalition forces more flexibility to maneuver troops in the Diyala region.

Inside Baghdad, al Qaeda carried out a series of suicide car bomb and IED attacks against political targets and U.S. forces. A suicide car bomber killed 8 people in an attempt to assassinate Sabir al Issawi, the head of the Baghdad city council. 'Gunmen' ambushed the convoy of Rakim al Darraji, the mayor of Sadr City. Darraji, who has assisted with the U.S. and government deployment into Muqtada al Sadr's bastion, was wounded and a policeman traveling with him was killed. Four U.S. soldiers were killed and two wounded after a pair of IEDs hit their patrol. The U.S. military found a explosively formed penetrator (EFP) near the site. Iran has been arming Shia militias and the insurgency with the deadly EFPs.

The Iraqi government is pushing a group of army officers to the sidelines. "The Iraqi general who commanded the joint U.S.-Iraqi military operation to subdue Baghdad has been fired," reports Azzam. "Lt. General Abdoud Qanbar Hashem was forced to retire at a lower rank. His name was included in a list of 1,189 former army officers who were put on pension." The U.S. opposed Qanbar's appointment as the commanding general of the Baghdad security operation.

Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to undermine Muqtada al Sadr's power base, the Mahdi Army. Since Sadr and his lieutenants fled to Iran last month, his grip on the Mahdi Army has waned as his command and control of his militia deteriorated. "The U.S. is in serious discussions with commanders of the Mahdi Army to lay down their arms," reports Richard Miniter.

As we have noted in the past, the United States has refrained from labeling the whole of Sadr's Mahdi Army as an enemy in order to provide an out for elements that wished to defect. U.S. forces targeted Sadr's lieutenants in raids, as well as what it referred to as 'rogue elements' and 'criminal gangs,' while holding out the prospect for reconciliation with elements of the Mahdi Army that chose to lay down their arms.

The negotiations are the culmination of the yearlong strategy to dismantle Sadr's militia, but the results are by no means assured. The reactivation of the Mahdi Army in Baghdad would cause serious problems for both the Iraqi government and its American ally. The key is to keep Sadr out of Iraq.

From Time: Newt's Disappointing Admission, by William Kristol.

From the Washington Post: Diagnosis: Cheney, by Charles Krauthammer.

From the Houston Chronicle: NASA: China could be the next to moon, by Mark Carreau.

From the Honolulu Advertiser: Gifted generals can change dynamics of war, by Victor Davis Hanson.

From the Washington Post: Abizaid's Long View, by David Ignatius.

The University of Leeds has canceled a lecture by Matthias Küntzel entitled “Hitler’s Legacy: Islamic anti-Semitism in the Middle East.” The title had caused some controversy amongst Muslim students, leading administrators to rename the lecture “The Nazi Legacy: the export of anti-Semitism to the Middle East." The renaming seemed to have sufficiently cooled the tempers, but the event was canceled anyway, on "security grounds," after a number of complaints were made by email--though it's not clear that any of those emails contained explicit threats against Küntzel. (Küntzel recently published a piece in THE WEEKLY STANDARD under the title Iran's Obsession with the Jews.)

According to the Times:

The university authorities contacted the German department on Tuesday and asked for a change in the title. The department agreed to relabel the talk as “The Nazi Legacy: the export of antiSemitism to the Middle East”.

Yesterday morning, the head of the German department, Professor Stuart Taberner, was called to a meeting with the Vice-Chancellor’s staff and the head of security. After the meeting, Dr Köntzel’s lecture and workshops were cancelled.

Annette Seidel Arpaci, an academic in the German department, said: “This is an academic talk by a scholar, it is not a political rally. The sudden cancellation is a sell-out of academic freedom, especially freedom of speech, at the University of Leeds.” A spokes-woman for the university said that it valued freedom of speech and added that the cancellation of the meeting had been a bureaucratic issue.

Over at the Commentary blog Contentions, Daniel Johnson writes that

The Küntzel case shows that Muslims do not even need to resort to the threat of violence in order to close down academic debate on subjects they dislike. Anthony Glees of Brunel University has been warning for years of the danger posed by Islamists on campus—a danger to which university authorities are notoriously weak in responding. Before his death last year, I spoke to Zaki Badawi, the leading Muslim opponent of Islamism in Britain, about this problem, which he saw as one of appeasement. This case, however, goes beyond appeasement. Leeds has set a new precedent: the pre-emptive cringe. Islamists everywhere will take heart from the spectacle of a reputable university setting a lower value on academic freedom than on the possibility that Muslim students might take offense.

Kimberly Kagan's latest report on the situation in Iraq is now posted on THE DAILY STANDARD. You can click here to download the pdf.

This report, the second in a series, describes the purpose, course, and results of Coalition operations in Baghdad during the first three weeks of Operation Enforcing the Law (also known as the Baghdad Security Plan), from General Petraeus' assumption of command on February 10, 2007, through March 5. It describes the flow of American and Iraqi forces into Baghdad; American and Iraqi command relationships; the efforts of those forces to prepare positions and develop intelligence in critical neighborhoods; the limited clearing operations that the forces already in Baghdad have conducted; and operations against the so-called Mahdi army, or Jaysh al Mahdi, in Baghdad. It describes and evaluates the apparent responses of the Jaysh al Mahdi and al Qaeda to these preparations and early operations, and highlights some of the differences between this operation and last year's offensives in Baghdad, Operations Together Forward I and II.

Previous Iraq Reports:

Iraq Report I: From "New Way Forward" to New Commander, March 1, 2007

Writing in the English-language China Daily, Xu Guangyu, a council member of the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, offers his "point of view in the hope of clearing away misunderstanding" about the massive spike in China's declared defense budget.

Says Xu,

The growth is primarily caused by the sharp increase in the wages, living expenses and pensions of 2.3 million People's Liberation Army officers, civilian personnel, soldiers and army retirees. The pay rise came in the latter half of 2006.

Large numbers of officers from battalion level down and non-commissioned officers received the sharpest pay rise 100 percent. . . .

The pay of the officers from the regimental level up, civilian personnel and army retirees has also been increased by 80 percent.

At the same time, all rank-and-file soldiers' living allowances and board expenses have also been increased. . . .

The US military's per capita budget in 2007, for instance, is $383,000, the highest in the world. Next comes Britain ($324,000), followed by Japan ($175,000), Germany ($148,000) and France ($146,000).

In contrast, China's per capita spending on its soldiers is only US$19,540.

I spoke with John Tkacik of the Heritage Foundation to get a better sense of this issue, and Tkacik says he has "no doubt" about the veracity of Xu's claim that this latest budget has seen pay raises ranging from 80 to 100 percent for officers and NCOs. He says "there's no question they are trying their best to keep personnel" from leaving the army to seek higher paying jobs in the booming private sector. Still, Tkacik says that "virtually the only things in the public budget are related to personnel and pay." Further, the "increases in the public defense budget are pretty much mirrored in overall defense spending." Meaning that weapons procurement likely benefited from a similar jump in spending.

All of this obscures the fact that a dollar goes a lot further in China than it does in the United States. A significant portion of the $383,000 that the United States spends per soldier goes to things like health care, which is vastly more expensive in this country, but also of a vastly superior quality. If one assumes that the Chinese "black budget" is similar in size to the published budget--which is a big assumption, it may be much larger--one still needs to take into account purchasing power parity, which Tkacik says is likely on the order of 4 to 1. That is, for every $4 the United States spends on defense, the Chinese need spend only $1 to get the same return on personnel or equipment.

So when you double the $19,540 the Chinese are spending to account for the unpublished "black budget" and multiply by four to account for purchasing power parity, you get a number closer to $156,000, putting China very near Japan in terms of per capita spending. Tkacik says the best guess from the CIA is that the Chinese are spending close to 4.5 percent of GDP on defense spending. China's GDP in 2006 was estimated at $2.5 trillion, which is really more like $10 trillion when one accounts for purchasing power. Do the math, and you get a number that is much closer to the U.S. defense budget, approximately $450 billion compared to the Pentagon's FY 2008 budget of $647 billion. Considering China's force levels are easily twice those of this country, $156,000 looks like a pretty solid guess on per capita defense spending--nearly half what the U.S. spends for each active duty soldier, sailor, Marine, and airmen.

The Chinese are catching up.

Noah Shachtman wonders whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession isn't a bit overdone. Like Wee-Bey, who confesses to nearly every murder in Baltimore at the end of the first season of The Wire, Shachtman suspects that KSM may be trying to take one for the team:

was he personally responsible for everything from "attempting to destroy an American oil company in Sumatra owned by...Henry Kissinger" to to "launching a Russian surface-to-air missile at an El Al airliner leaving Mombasa" to masterminding "an assassination attempt on President Clinton in the Philippines in 1994 or 1995?" And he personally beheaded Daniel Pearl, too?

Sorry, that feels just a little too pat, a little too tidy.

But our own Bill Roggio responds:

Bill Roggio isn't buying the Wee-Bey theory. "KSM was implicated in the Bojinka Philippines plot – as well as the Clinton and Pope assassination attempts in the 90's -- long before he was captured. KSM was Al-Qaeda's operational commander, when the organization was far more centralized prior to 9-11. In other words, KSM wasn't a one-trick 9-11 pony," Roggio tells the DANGER ROOM.

"That's like saying General McCrystal, the SOCOM [U.S. Special Operations Command] leader who runs [the Al-Qaeda hunting] Task Force 145, doesn't have operational knowledge of the TF-145's operations -- including in the deaths of Zarqawi, Khalifa, etc., the attacks on al-Qaeda camps in Pakistan (Chingai, Danda Saidgai, Damadola, Zamazola, etc.), and the hunts for Islamic Courts fighters in Somalia.

With the approaching vote at the U.N. Security Council on a set of new sanctions against Iran, Russia seems to be finally relenting in its unilateral support of Tehran’ nuclear ambitions. According to Tuesday’s announcement by the chief of the Russian Federal Atomic Agency (RosAtom) Sergei Kiriyenko, Russia is temporarily suspending the construction of the Bushehr nuclear reactor, while the timeline for completing the facility (originally planned by September 2007) is being pushed back by two months. He added, however, that “the Russian side has not changed its obligations in regard to deliveries of nuclear fuel, which will still be supplied six months prior to the launch of the [nuclear power] station."

Moscow’s warning appears concrete: Regions.ru has reported that Russian specialists have begun leaving Iran. But the essence of the disagreement between the sides seems to hinge on financial--rather than political--incentives. Last December, Kiriyenko negotiated a deal in Tehran whereby Iran would pre-pay $25 million a month for the construction effort, while Russia guaranteed delivery of 70 tons of nuclear fuel by this March. But Moscow claims that Tehran reneged on the deal only a month later. As noted by Rosbalt, on March 11, a Russian delegation from “Atomstroiexport”--the company charged with the construction of the Bushehr facility--headed to Iran to “conduct talks due to suspension of payments." Izvestiya also points out that Moscow holds all of the cards in the negotiations--since Russia took over the project in 1995, 90 percent of the equipment for the power station is Russian-made.

While Iranian officials have vehemently denied responsibility, Russian policymakers are keen to take this opportunity to make a statement to the West. Currently on a visit in Moscow, U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell has already praised Russia’s actions as “consistent with our common interests and common concerns." In an interview with Vesti, Mikhail Margelov, the head of the foreign policy committee of the Federation Council (Russia’s upper house), likewise reiterated that “Russia plays only by the accepted rules of the game in the nuclear sphere--the rules set by IAEA and the U.N. Security Council. No other rules, no double standards, can exist for Russia in this sphere.” Margelov went even further in an interview with Strana.ru, “Iran’s leaders…treat any negotiations on nuclear issues as a matter of national prestige--a concept they often fail to comprehend adequately."

David Brooks in today's New York Times($):

The Democratic leaders don't want to be for immediate withdrawal because it might alienate the centrists, and they don't want to see out the surge because that would alienate the base. What they want to do is be against Bush without accepting responsibility for any real policy, so they have concocted a vaporous policy of distant withdrawal that is divorced from realities on the ground.

Say what you will about President Bush, when he thinks a policy is right, like the surge, he supports it, even if it's going to be unpopular. The Democratic leaders, accustomed to the irresponsibility of opposition, show no such guts.

As a result, nobody loves them. Liberals recognize the cynicism of it all. Republicans know the difference between principled opposition and unprincipled posturing. Independents see just another group of politicians behaving like politicians.

What we get is foreign policy narcissism. The Democrats call it an Iraq policy, but it's really all about us.

Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, was in Ukraine this week trying to soften resistance there to the deployment of an American missile defense system. Obering tried to convince his hosts that the interceptor system threatened neither Russia nor the Ukraine.

"We are talking about no more than 10 interceptors," Obering told journalists. "They would have no effect against hundreds of missiles and thousands of warheads that the Russians have. ... They are not even in a proper position if we were concerned about Russian missiles." . . .

Obering said the interception process releases a "tremendous amount of energy ... destroying almost the entire warhead and interceptor. That is why we want to use this 'hit-to-kill' technology."

He said that an Iranian missile could fly over Ukrainian or Russian territory, but that debris from a destroyed missile "will not fall on Ukraine or Russian territory."

General Obering also invited the Russians to inspect any potential missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he does not trust U.S. claims that the missile defense sites in Europe were targeted at a potential Iranian missile threat and has warned that Moscow could be forced to take countermeasures. Obering said that Russia has been invited to visit interceptor sites in the United States, and if the host European countries agreed, "we would extend that invitation to those sites in Europe."

"I hope that our ongoing engagement with the Russians will hopefully mitigate some of their concerns," he said. "They will be understanding that these sites in no way represent a threat to them."

Yesterday marked the first full month since the official commencement of the Baghdad Security Plan. During joint press conference with Major General William Caldwell Brigadier General Qassim Atta Al Mussawi, the Iraqi Army spokesman for the Baghdad security operation, noted the dramatic reduction in violence over the past month. According to Mussawi, over the past month, deaths are down by about 75 percent, terrorists killed up by over 80 percent and detentions of suspects up by 1000 percent:

"A total of 265 civilians and 57 military men, including nine officers, have been killed since the plan kicked off February 14," Mussawi said. This compared with the preceding month when 1,440 people were killed. He also said that 94 "terrorists" were killed by Iraqi and US forces since the launch of the plan, compared to 19 in the preceding month. Security forces had arrested "713 terrorists and 1,052 terrorist suspects compared to 169 terrorists before the plan was put into action," Mussawi said.

Maj. Gen. Caldwell was cautious about the indicator, he warned the operation is still in the initial stages and said no long term conclusions can be drawn from the past month's results. He also noted that car bomb incidents last February were at an all time high, and are the greatest weapon of the al Qaeda led Sunni insurgency. Today, al Qaeda triggered only its second major car bomb attack since last Saturday. An attack on a bus carrying government workers in Iskandariya killed six and wounded 23.

Yesterday's visit to Ramadi by General David Petraeus and Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki signals a sea change in the Iraqi government's views on the Sunnis in Anbar province. The high level visit demonstrates a level of confidence in the security situation in Ramadi. General Petraeus and Prime Minister Maliki are prime targets for assassination by al Qaeda. The meeting cements the yearlong effort to get the Sunni tribes in Anbar to back the government and fight al Qaeda in the province. Shiekh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the leader of the of the Anbar Salvation Council, has been forming battalions of tribal fighters called Emergency Response Units, and has begun to secure regions in Ramadi.

"[Sattar's] been given guns and money by the Americans to set up auxiliary police units to fight al Qaeda ... and even become a star of an anti-insurgent TV commercial," noted CBS News. An American military intelligence official informs us Sattar has been named chief of counterterrorism for Anbar province. The Anbar Salvation Council now appears to be spreading into Fallujah, where al Qaeda has conducted a campaign to collapse the local police and Iraqi Army since U.S. forces withdrew from the city late last year.

From the Toronto Star: Russia playing dangerous game over Kosovo, by Richard Holbrooke.

From the New York Times: Clinton Sees Some Troops Staying in Iraq if She Is Elected, by Michael R. Gordon & Patrick Healy.

From the San Francisco Chronicle: Don't ask, don't tell--for the devout, by Debra J. Saunders.

From RealClearPolitics: McCain is in Trouble, but It's Still Early, by Gerard Baker.

From Ares: Sinking the Royal Navy, by David Axe.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter performed it's first afterburner takeoff yesterday at a Lockheed Martin facility in Fort Worth, Texas. I'm not sure how newsworthy that is, but it gives me the opportunity to post this picture. According to the report from Flight International,

Over its first seven flights, each lasting around an hour, the F-35 reached Mach 0.8, 23,000ft and 16º angle-of-attack. The aircraft is scheduled to fly twice a week to continue expanding the flight envelope as Lockheed assembles the second JSF – the first short take-off and vertical landing F-35B – which is expected to fly in May-June next year.

Crowley says AA-1 behaved impeccably over its first series of flights. “Every time, it returned Code 1, ready to fly again. That is unheard of for a flight-test article,” he says. Test pilot Beesley has said the aircraft has “remarkable flying qualities”.

Unfortunately, those remarkable qualities will not include VIFF'ing.

The F-35's "Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan capable of producing
more than 40,000lb of thrust with full reheat."

From the AP:

BAGHDAD - Bomb deaths have gone down 30 percent in Baghdad since the U.S.-led security crackdown began a month ago. Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half. The once frequent sound of weapons has been reduced to episodic, and downtown shoppers have returned to outdoor markets — favored targets of car bombers.

There are signs of progress in the campaign to restore order in Iraq, starting with its capital city.

But while many Iraqis are encouraged, they remain skeptical how long the relative calm will last. Each bombing renews fears that the horror is returning. Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents are still around, perhaps just laying low or hiding outside the city until the operation is over.

U.S. military officials, burned before by overly optimistic forecasts, have been cautious about declaring the operation a success. Another reason it seems premature: only two of the five U.S. brigades earmarked for the mission are in the streets, and the full compliment of American reinforcements is not due until late May.

The AP is right to caution against reading too much into these early successes (as our own Bill Roggio frequently notes, the surge is still in its infancy), but one wonders if the Democrats are not just a little bit nervous about trying to undermine the president's new strategy just as things are starting to look up.

The Boston Globe ran a story yesterday on the Army's rush "to fill a growing number of vacancies in the officer corps," which has forced the Army to promote "captains, majors, and lieutenant colonels more quickly and at a higher percentage than before the Iraq war, a trend that some military specialists worry is lowering the overall quality of the officer corps."

It all sounds very damning, but my initial reaction to the story was that four years into the Iraq war, the Army's officer corps was likely to be filled with battle-hardened veterans who would make far better military leaders than their counterparts from the 1990's, when the Army could afford to be much more selective. But that may not be the case. According to Frederick Kagan, a frequent contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD and an authority on such matters, the attrition of the Army's officer corps is "unquestionably bad."

Kagan said that the military would certainly pay a price for "not being able to select for quality," but he did concede that their were a number of mitigating factors, first among them the combat experience that will inform the leadership of those officers that remain. And Kagan added that "it's not as though selection in the '90s was a perfect process." Still, he was dubious that combat experience could "offset the fact that you're not cherry-picking" the best and the brightest, but rather promoting whoever is left standing.

With officers facing more frequent overseas deployments due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kagan says that many just feel as though they've "made enough sacrifices." Kagan also speculated that the apparent lack of progress in Iraq over the last few years has led many to officers to resign rather than continue serving in what looked to be a losing effort.

As far as measures the military, or the Bush administration, might take in order to improve retention rates--there's no substitute for victory. Kagan said that while retreating from Iraq would eliminate the need for frequent overseas deployments, it would also make every officer "part of a defeated Army," which, as the post-Vietnam "hollow Army" demonstrated, is perhaps the greatest challenge to retaining bright and capable officers. Short of a quick victory in Iraq, Kagan says that the Army needs to "expand as much as possible and as rapidly as possible," which will allow for less frequent deployments.

Of course, as Kagan noted, having a bunch of "mediocre lieutenant colonels" was hardly unprecedented, and might not represent "a big problem." But neither should the problem be taken lightly. Short of increasing the overall size of the force, and achieving victory, there are few options for meeting this challenge. What we do know is that a defeat in Iraq would almost certainly accelerate the process--losing teams have a lot of trouble keeping their best players in the off-season.

The U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Intelligence has posted a 144-page handbook on the history, structure, and doctrines of the Chinese Navy. Defense News reporter Christopher P. Cavas writes that the handbook is "intended to 'foster a better understanding' of the PLAN, according to William Tarry, director of the Naval Analysis Directorate. In the handbook’s preface, Terry says that the handbook is not an analysis of trends or intent, but is meant to educate and inform readers 'during this time of greater contact' between the U.S. Navy and the PLAN."

I flipped through the handbook and the only thing that really helped me to "foster a better understanding" was the oath all Chinese soldiers and sailors must make before entering the service, which is included in the handbook's text.

I am a member of the People’s Liberation Army. I promise that I will follow the leadership of the Communist Party of China, serve the people wholeheartedly, obey orders, strictly observe discipline, fight heroically, fear no sacrifice, loyally discharge my duties, work hard, practice hard to master combat skills, and resolutely fulfill my missions. Under no circumstances will I betray the motherland or desert the army.

Compared that with the oath an American servicemen must make:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Americans swear to a higher power that they will support and defend the Constitution--the symbol of democracy and the rule of law. Chinese promise fealty to the leadership of the Communist Party. The difference between the two, if I can draw on the pop culture debate of the moment, is not unlike that between the Spartans and Persians in Zack Snyder's 300. Victor Davis Hanson wrote of the movie that

The Spartans, quoting lines known from Herodotus and themes from the lyric poets, profess unswerving loyalty to a free Greece. They will never kow-tow to the Persians, preferring to die on their feet than live on their knees.

If critics think that 300 reduces and simplifies the meaning of Thermopylae into freedom versus tyranny, they should reread carefully ancient accounts and then blame Herodotus, Plutarch, and Diodorus--who long ago boasted that Greek freedom was on trial against Persian autocracy, free men in superior fashion dying for their liberty, their enslaved enemies being whipped to enslave others.

Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the IAEA, just emerged from North Korea with this to say:

"The DPRK [North Korea] said they were committed to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula," . . .

"It is in the interests of North Korea to normalise relations with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]," . . . "We cleared the air. We opened the door for a normal relationship."

El Baradei was the winner of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize for "efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way," despite the fact that his tenure has seen Pakistan and North Korea both go nuclear, with Iran soon to follow. Still the Peace Prize winner is now ready to "open the door for a normal relationship" with the world's most heinous regime. Further, he seems intent on doing the North Koreans dirty work for them, telling reporters that “The DPRK says their cooperation, accepting inspectors, will come after the lifting of the sanctions.”

Claudia Rosett, writing at her blog The Rosett Report, says

That’s an interesting formulation, which basically puts the burden on the sanctioners, not on North Korea’s totalitarian government--which has turned nuclear extortion into one of its main industries, and has already lied and cheated on previous nuclear freeze deals. We can expect that kind of statement from officials working for Kim Jong Il’s regime, but why should the IAEA be a purveyor of Pyongyang’s duplicities?

Your world government at work.

Yet another 24 hours have past and there have been no reports of major mass casualty suicide or car bomb attacks in Baghdad or the provinces. The closest incident was a suicide attack which occurred in Tuz Khormato, a town about 130 miles north of Baghdad. Eight were killed and 25 wounded after a suicide attack in a crowded market. The last major attack occurred on Saturday. While the security operation is still in its infancy, and there is much work to be done, the short term signs are encouraging. One item to note: the four year anniversary of the U.S. invasion is coming up next week, and it may be possible al Qaeda in Iraq is conserving its forces for a show of force and the resulting media attention.

On the security front, 44 "terrorists" were killed and 126 captured, according to As Sabah. Two of the terrorists were described as "leaders of Qaeda organization in Anbar," and were reported to have been killed by "citizens from Anbar." These citizens would be the Anbar Salvation Council, and its militia, the Thuwra al-Anbar, which is a grouping of tribes and former insurgents who have banded together to hunt al Qaeda.

Yesterday, Iraqi police arrested Ahmed Faraj and Ali Jassim, "leaders in the [1920s Revolution Brigade]," in Abu Ghraib. Insurgent groups such as the 1920s Revolution Brigade and the Islamic Army in Iraq have split as al Qaeda in Iraq and its political front the Islamic State of Iraq have attempted to forcefully incorporate the Sunni insurgent groups.

Abu Omar al Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, issued a tape yesterday. The incorporation of the Sunni insurgent groups into the Islamic State of Iraq was a major concern for Baghdadi. He discusses the "media attack against the new Islamic State," and says one of the reasons for the attack is to "to attempt to strike against the Islamic State of Iraq using other jihad groups." Baghdadi is referring to insurgent groups that are now working with the Anbar Salvation Council and the soon to be created anti al Qaeda organization in Diyala. Baghdadi also claims the Islamic State in Iraq is the only legitimate political and military organization in Iraq. As Nibras Kazimi noted yesterday, the appointment of al-Baghdadi as the Caliph, along with the strict demands for insurgent groups to submit to the Islamic State, has made Baghdadi and al Qaeda some real enemies within the Sunni community.

On the Iranian front, yet another Qods Force general has gone missing in Iraq. "Mohammed Muhsayin Shiradi, from a unit in the Jerusalem Brigade, has not been in touch with his commanders for three weeks," Alsharq Alawsat has reported. It is believed he is in U.S. custody. The Jerusalem Brigade, aka Qods Force, is Iran's version of U.S. Special Forces. Shiradi's disappearance follows that of that of Ali Reza Asgari, a former commander of Qods Force, the "father of Hezbollah" and deputy defense minister. He disappeared in Turkey and is believed to have defected to the West.

The U.S. and Iran have been fighting a shadow war in Iraq. Since December, the U.S. raided two so-called Iranian diplomatic missions in Irbil and Baghdad, and have 5 Qods Force operatives in custody. Iran fired back by attacking a provincial center in Karbala, kidnapping an subsequently killing five U.S. soldiers. The U.S. has outlined Iran's involvement in supplying weapons and expertise to the insurgency. Intelligence sources claim Iran is supplying Shia militias and al Qaeda with sophisticated sniper rifles and anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down U.S. helicopters.

From Haaretz:

The London-based Arabic language newspaper A-Sharq al-Awsat reported Wednesday that the Iranian army has lost contact with one of its high-ranking officers based in Iraq.

The report states that the officer, Mohammed Muhsayin Shiradi, from a unit in the Jerusalem Brigade, has not been in touch with his commanders for three weeks.

A senior source in the Iranian military told the newspaper that it is possible that Shiradi has been arrested by American forces.

From the New York Sun:Democrats Retreat on War Funds, by Eli Lake.

From FCW.com:Army tries to sell Land Warrior overseas, by Josh Rogin.

From the Washington Times: Throwing the fight in Iraq, by Roy Blunt.

From the Politico: 'Axis' Nations Find Access to Representation, by Aoife McCarthy.

From USA Today: Keep the ban in place, by Duncan Hunter.

This clip is a bit long, but very powerful, and it may offer the most persuasive, liberal argument for keeping American troops in Iraq--"this isn't about national security, this is about saving humans." Really excellent stuff, at least watch the second half if you're pressed for time.

Non to citizen journalism
France may make citizen journalism on the Internet a risky business, punishing the filming and broadcast of images of violence except by professional journalists. Pending legislation provides for up to five years of prison and a 75,000 Euro fine for someone who, for example, films rioters on his cell phone and uploads the footage to YouTube. The rationale for the law, according to Interior Minister (and conservative presidential candidate) Nicolas Sarkozy, is to crack down on so-called “happy slapping”. But the law would also cover images of violence “committed by an agent of the state in the exercise of his duties”--in other words, videotapes like the famous beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police. Cynics point out that the legislation would allow Sarkozy to pursue his goal of cleaning up the “banlieues,” as he promised his constituents he would, while diminishing the circulation of shocking images of confrontations between rioters and police.

Triangulation French-style

While Nicolas Sarkozy may be the most pro-American candidate for the French presidency in some time, last week he tacked back towards the Chirac side of his party. While presenting his Foreign Policy program in a “grand hotel parisien,” the UMP’s candidate said: “I approve the policies undertaken over the past twelve years by Jacques Chirac.” He singled out for approval Chirac’s decision to keep France out of the Iraq war, "which was a historical mistake” (the war, that is, not Chirac's decision). And he added that friendship with the United States "is not submission."

The Third Man
France now has a John Anderson in its presidential race. François Bayrou, a dull centrist attempting to split the difference between socialist Ségolene Royal and Sarkozy, has climbed to 19 percent in some surveys. Given that he has no charisma and the institutional reform he proposes would combine the worst aspects of the Fourth and Fifth Republics (reinforcement of the president’s power, leading to a de facto disappearance of the prime minister and proportional representation in the parliament), his main asset is his image as a man from the terroir--a traditional, refined country gentleman who enjoys the finer aspects of a bygone France. Tired of Ségolène’s spouting off uncontrollably and her flirting with the French left's radical chic idolization of juvenile delinquents especially her saying she shared the views of the rapper Diam's, some leftist voters may be having buyer's remorse and considering Bayrou.

Meanwhile, in a vain attempt to enter the glamorous world of Ségo and Sarko, Bayrou’s young supporters have put together a cheesecake calendar.

The Baghdad Security Plan continues to show some encouraging signs of progress in reducing the levels of violence in the capital and in the provinces. The sectarian attacks have been reduced significantly. There have been no major suicide or carbomb attacks in Baghdad or the provinces over the past 48 hours. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been able to pull off five mass casualty attacks over the past nine days. Two were directed at security checkpoints inside Baghdad, two at pilgrims traveling to Karbala, and the last a bombing in a cafe in Balad Ruiz.

During a nine day operation inside Baghdad, Iraqi and U.S. forces targeted IED networks inside the city. The operation, dubbed Arrowhead Strike 8, ended on Sunday and resulted in “24 terrorists... killed; four wounded and 90 suspected terrorists... detained. Several of those detained were members of Al Qaeda.” Several large weapons caches were also uncovered.

As we've noted in the past, the province of Diyala is becoming a major focus of operations. In an interview with ABC News, General David Petraeus noted that, “There are worrying trends in the Diyala province that will force US forces to pay closer attention to that area,” as paraphrased by as IraqSlogger. Multinational Forces Iraq has just deployed an additional battalion of 700 U.S. Army troops from the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division to the city of Baquba, the provincial capital of Diyala. The 5/20 Infantry is a Stryker Battalion. The Iraqi government has indicated it plans to move troops to Diyala as well. From March 8 through March 11, Iraqi Army and U.S. soldiers killed 16 insurgents and captured 11 during operations in As Sadiyah in Diyala province.

Last weekend, the Islamic State of Iraq, al Qaeda's political front, torched the homes of Sunni and Shia tribesmen in Muqdadiya who oppose al Qaeda. Tribal leaders in Diyala are beginning to organize along the lines of the Anbar Salvation Council in Anbar province, and will increasingly become the target of an intimidation and terror campaign by al Qaeda.

Inside Baghdad, the U.S. and Iraqi security forces have met very little resistance in securing Sadr City. “The peaceful move of US forces into the Mahdi Army stronghold of Sadr City has been a 'pleasant surprise,'” IraqSlogger notes, based on the ABC News interview with General Petraeus. IraqSlogger also reports isolated cases of Mahdi Army activity, however, the incidences of attacks are very low.

Iraqi and Coalition forces remain on the offense against al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents, and the Mahdi Army. Over the past several days, there have been multiple raids inside Baghdad and across the county. 15 al Qaeda operatives and foreign facilitators were captured Sunday during raids in Taji, Abu Ghraib, Karma, and near Al Asad. Another seven were detained in Saqlawiyah. Six insurgents were captured in Balad on Saturday, and another 4 members of the Mahdi Army were detained on Sunday.

Also on Sunday, Iraqi Army Special Forces captured nine members of an insurgent network in Abaychi in Salahadin province. The network “reportedly trains insurgents and terrorists from Ansar al Sunna, Al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent groups participating in sectarian attacks against Iraqi civilians or attacks against Iraqi Security Forces and Coalition force members,” according to a Multinational Forces Iraq press release. This network trains insurgents “in emplacing improvised explosive devices, direct attacks and kidnapping and murder actions,” and “provides training on using and employing the SA-7 antiaircraft missile.” Al Qaeda in Iraq has been training and employing anti aircraft teams in an attempt to disrupt U.S. air dominance over Iraq.

I knew it couldn't be true. The Corner's John Podhoretz links to this story from the Sunday Times absolving the great man of any connection to an anti-Semitic article released last week by Cambridge University.

Sir Martin Gilbert, Churchill’s official biographer, said this weekend that the article, which was never published, had been ghost-written by a member of Oswald Mosley’s fascist party. He added that Churchill had refused to have it published because it was not his work and did not reflect his views.

Gilbert said Richard Toye, the lecturer who “found” the article and includes it in a new book, Lloyd George and Churchill, must have failed to consult Gilbert’s compilation of Churchill’s writings published in the 1980s, which describes it. “I’m amazed. My book would have been on the shelf in the same library. I immediately recognised the name of the article,” said Gilbert, whose own new book, Churchill and the Jews, will be published this summer.

Tim Johnson, the China correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers, posted this picture yesterday on his blog China Rises. Johnson says,

the photo was taken here in Beijing last week at the National People’s Congress. And it didn’t get published much for obvious reasons. . . . My office assistant found three postings on websites making reference to “sleepy legislators” and censors had blocked all of them. When she used special software to get through the Great Firewall, this is what one internet user had posted: “Why did they fall asleep? Because people on stage just talk and talk empty stuff. . . . The delegates are only there to praise and praise what the speakers say.”

According to Xinhua, delegates no longer "praise and praise" what the speakers say, rather "In recent years, however, changes have taken place . . . Praises are now coupled with suggestions and criticisms." I'm sure as soon as the delegates woke up they suggested rubber-stamping the legislation before them and criticizing the United States.

From the Washington Post: The Pelosi Plan for Iraq, by the editors.

From USA Today: General: Al-Sadr's fighters feel heat, by Jim Michaels.

From the Examiner: Rocket ushers new era for combat tactics, by Rowan Scarborough.

From the New York Post: '08: FUN WITH FRED, by John Podhoretz.

From the Wall Street Journal: Captain America, RIP, by Jonathan V. Last.

I couldn't help but notice that conservative blogs have suddenly embraced country singer Chely Wright and her patriotic ditty "Bumper of My SUV."

Today Michelle Malkin is giving Wright "kudos" for heading to Iraq to entertain the troops. And last week, Blackfive praised Wright for "singing her heart out for our troops."

The song's been out for a while, and I interviewed Wright a few years ago in relation to a mini-scandal that developed when the Tennessean accused Wright of mounting a "campaign of deception" to push the song up the charts. According to the newspaper,

Seventeen members of a handpicked team of fans contacted radio stations around the country asking for more airplay for Wright's pro-military ballad, The Bumper of My SUV. It was all part of an organized campaign by leaders of the fan club who encouraged the team to do such things as ''tell 'em your husband is a marine--whatever it takes.''

Here are some quotes from my interview with Chely:

On where she gets her news: "I get my news from BBC, MSNBC, CNN, FOX News, NPR, I don't, uh, certainly Fox is slanted right. I'm not a Republican. CNN is slanted a bit left, although not far left, NPR is slanted way left. I get all the information that I can from every source that I can . . . so no, I'm not a big fan of Fox News. I'm not opposed to it. I think it's information, it's an opinion."

When I pushed her on who she'd be supporting in the 2004 presidential election, she accused the president of "a hate crime" for pushing a constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage:

Um, you know what, I suggest to anyone who is still undecided, which by the way, honestly, swear to God, I'm still undecided. I have a big problem with the president's desire to amend the constitution, as far as the marriage between a man and a woman. As far as I'm concerned that's a hate crime.

And finally, on the Dixie Chicks:

I sent Natalie Maines a registered letter in support of her freedom to speak her mind. You can go back to a video that was shot on Toby Keith's record that was so big, the Angry American, the song that they were fighting about, that Natalie and Toby were fighting about. You can go back to that video and if you were to go to the CMA [Country Music Awards] footage where he performed and the entire crowd was given a flag, all of us on the floor were given flags to wave during his performance because we were told it was to be shot and they were going to use it for a clip for his video. You can go back and you can slo-mo it, and you can freeze-frame it and super-zoom in to the third row, I was the only person on the floor level, out of all the artists and people in our industry, that would not wave her flag.

Not that being a liberal prevents her from supporting the troops, and not that performing for the troops isn't noble regardless of her political beliefs, but I would recommend that our friends in the blogosphere be a little wary of Ms. Wright. The report from the Tennessean suggests Wright is quite capable of manipulating patriotism in a craven effort to boost record sales. And while she denied any connection to that creepy PR campaign when I spoke with her, I did not get the sense that this was a person who supported the mission, even if she does support the troops.

Where do the Democrats stand on Iraq? They've only had 17 different plans, literally, since they took back Congress. But if you really want to know, don't bother asking General Pelosi, it seems not even she can keep it all straight.

From the AP:

A few dozen peace activists marched across the Golden Gate Bridge and gathered outside the San Francisco home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday, demanding that Congress stop funding the war in Iraq.

"San Francisco has been against this war from the very beginning," said Toby Blome, a physical therapist who organized the event. "This is our fifth year of the war, and Nancy needs to wake up and represent San Franciscans."

Blome, holding a plate of cheese and bread and a glass of wine, was stopped on her way to Pelosi's front door and told the speaker would not see them. Blom and about 10 other activists said they plan to camp outside the residence overnight.

Many of you will be familiar with the work of Christian Lowe, who has worked at Army Times and more recently the Politico and has been a frequent contributor to both THE WEEKLY STANDARD and THE DAILY STANDARD (his wife is also a colleague of ours). Christian has now taken a new job as the managing editor of Military.com, and he will also be editing the blog Defense Tech.

Christian is an excellent reporter, perhaps most famous for an investigation exposing the procurement of thousands of substandard body-armor vests by the Marine Corps that were subsequently deployed to Iraq. In any case, Christian's leadership guarantees that Defense Tech will remain one of the best sources on the web for reporting on new military technologies. So if you're not already a regular reader, you should be.

Tough guy Christian Lowe reporting from the streets of Iraq.

The vice president spoke at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's 2007 Policy Conference this morning. Here are some notable excerpts from Cheney's speech. You can read the full text here (pdf).

On Iraq:

The most common myth is that Iraq has nothing to do with the global war on terror. Opponents of our military action there have called Iraq a diversion from the real conflict, a distraction from the business of fighting and defeating bin Laden and the al Qaeda network. We hear this over and over again, not as an argument but as an assertion meant to close off argument.

Yet the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself. The most serious issue today for the whole world, he has said, is this third world war that is raging in Iraq. He calls it a destiny between infidelity and Islam. He said the whole world is watching this war and that it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation. And in words directed at the American people, bin Laden declares, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."

This leader of al Qaeda has referred to Baghdad as the capital of the Caliphate. He has also said, and I quote, "Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars."

Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the struggle in Iraq. They have not called it a distraction or a diversion from their war against the United States. They know it is a central front in that war and it's where they've chosen to make a stand. Our Marines are fighting al Qaeda terrorists today in Anbar province. U.S. and Iraqi forces recently killed al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad who were responsible for numerous car bomb attacks. Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain.

Scott Canon has an excellent piece in the Kansas City Star today on the "massive ordinance penetrator"--the Big BLU--a 30,000 pound bomb the Air Force is building to reach hardened, underground facilities of the kind used by North Korea and Iran to shield their nuclear weapons programs.

According to Canon, the Air Force will detonate one of these monsters underground at the White Sands Missile Range sometime this week in an effort to better understand the effects of such a massive blast. Canon spoke to my favorite weapons expert, John Pike of globalsecurity.org:

The physics of bunker cracking is tough. Tests with a smaller bunker buster found that even when dropped from 40,000 feet, it penetrated just 20 feet into the soil.

Iran’s facility at Natanz, about 200 miles south of Tehran, may be buried as deep as 100 feet.

The Air Force, citing security reasons, only will say it expects the bunker buster to go deeper than existing bombs. John Pike, the chief defense analyst at GlobalSecurity.org., says it will go through about 200 feet of reinforced concrete. Some see that as unrealistic.

Indeed, Stephen Trimble, the America's Bureau Chief for Jane's Defense, fixated on this quote from Canon's piece at his always interesting blog The DEW Line.

“If we can’t attack a target using 5,000-pound bombs, it’s probably nature’s way of telling us it’s pointless,” said Owen Cote, the associate director of security studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

I've spoken to Pike before about the effectiveness of bunker-busting bombs versus advanced concepts like hyperkinetic weapons and low-yield nuclear penetrators. According to Pike, even a 5,000 pound bunker-buster would likely cut through Iran's underground facilities "like a hot-knife through butter." Pike speculated that the development of these larger weapons might be, at least partly, a ruse by the U.S. military to convince the Iranians that their facilities are safe from American attack. If that's true, Cannon also notes the limitations of deploying the massive ordinance penetrator rather than conventional 5,000 pound bunker-busters.

The Baghdad Security Plan and the greater Iraq security operation is now over four weeks into its execution. Over the past month, Baghdad has seen sectarian murders decrease significantly. Al Qaeda in Iraq, however, is attempting to destabilize the government and force an early U.S. withdrawal. Al Qaeda in Iraq has stepped up its suicide and car bomb attacks against government targets and the Shia population in an effort to reignite the sectarian violence, which has drawn Iraq to the precipice of civil war during the past year.

The Shia pilgrimage to Karbala has been a major target for al Qaeda this past week. Over 2.5 million pilgrims traveled to Karbala to mark the end of the Shia holy month (some estimates put the number as high as 9 million). Al Qaeda conducted several suicide attacks against the Shia, resulting in the deaths of over 150 pilgrims. The Iraqi government responded by increasing security along the routes, deploying elements of 1st Iraqi National Police Mechanized Brigade and the 9th Mechanized Army Division. U.S. units also were called in to provide security south of Baghdad.

Inside Baghdad, Iraqi and Coalition forces continue to expand their presence in the neighborhoods. There are now 23 Joint Security Stations (JSS) established throughout the city. The JSS are the patrol bases where U.S. soldiers, Iraqi police, and Iraqi army units operate from within the neighborhoods in Baghdad. While about 35 to 40 JSS were planned for Baghdad initially, the concept has yielded positive results and more stations will be opened. The Iraqi government and the Coalition are now planning on opening over 70 Joint Security Stations throughout Baghdad. The Sadr City JSS will be operational shortly. A joint American and Iraqi force of 1,150 soldiers and police established 23 checkpoints in Sadr City last week and conducted clearing operations inside Muqtada al Sadr's stronghold.

Currently two of the five U.S. brigades and seven of the nine Iraqi army battalions scheduled for deployment are now in Baghdad. There may be three additional Iraqi battalions in Baghdad due to the rotation of forces (the Iraqis rotate battalions every 90 days). The final two Iraqi battalions are at the Besmaya training center south of Baghdad. The Iraqi Army is training 7,500 new soldiers a month and is filling out the undermanned Iraqi battalions inside Baghdad. The Rashid district in southwest Baghdad has been split into two sectors, with Bayaa to the west and Doura to the east. The 4th Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division (U.S.) has begun to move into this region of Baghdad.

Later this week, China's legislature, the National People’s Congress (NPC), is expected to pass a law concerning property rights. It will mark the first time in the history of the People’s Republic that legal protection will formally be provided for private property. The bill, initial drafts of which were written in 1993, is currently going through its eighth reading.

Supporters of the legislation consider it long overdue, as China’s thriving private sector now accounts for some two-thirds of GDP. In a March 8th article, Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing newspaper Wen Wei Po cited Chinese sources as saying that the lack of legal protection for private property had resulted in capital flight worth tens of billions of dollars.

Opponents of the bill, led by Gong Xiantian, professor of Marxist legal theory at National Beijing University, succeeded in derailing it at last year’s NPC session with an open letter that criticized the proposed legislation as unconstitutional and betraying the fundamental principles of socialism.

The government seems determined to prevent debate from jeopardizing the bill’s safe passage this year. On March 8th, Hong Kong’s Ming Pao newspaper reported that publication of the March 5th issue of Caijing, China’s leading economic journal, was delayed due to pressure from higher-ups to pull its cover story, an examination of the property law debate. Eventually published on March 9th, the edition carried on its cover a story about the recent turbulence in the stock market.

But this is, after al, the age of the Internet. On the evening of March 4th, just hours before the hard copy of the original March 5th issue was to be released, a condensed version of the original cover story was published in the magazine’s online edition and picked up by a number of business websites. As of last Friday, all traces of this story had been erased. Those searching for it are met with messages such as “The information you requested does not exist; please try again" or "Erroneous information: the article you requested does not exist, or has been deleted by the web master.” Needless to say, the item is long gone from Caijing magazine’s official website.

According to a Chinese journalist who subscribes to Caijing and who read a condensed version of the originally planned cover story, the article featured interviews with two legal experts and an economics professor. It detailed the history of the much-debated and frequently revised bill, characterizing the controversy surrounding the proposed legislation as a tug of war between different power groups.

Meanwhile, Gong Xiantian, the professor of Marxist legal theory whose open letter criticizing the bill has been co-signed by more than 700 scholars and government officials, is griping about government censorship. According to a March 9th report in the Hong Kong tabloid Oriental Daily, the party committee of Gong’s employer, National Beijing University, has repeatedly asked him to stop soliciting signatures. The same article cites Gong as saying that domestic media in China are prohibited from reporting opposing views: “And they say this is a socialist democracy? It’s even worse than a capitalist democracy.”

From the Washington Times: Budgetary games on Iraq..., by the editors.

From the Los Angeles Times: Do we really need a Gen. Pelosi? by the editors.

From NRO: The SOB Factor, by John Derbyshire.

From the New York Daily News: Dems' deadline will surely damn the U.S., by Michael Goodwin.

From Defense News: Cold War Weapons, Arriving Now, by Pierre Tran.

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace got the week started by interviewing former Tennessee senator, and current film and television actor, Fred Thompson about his intentions with regard to the 2008 presidential race. He came off as a true conservative, positioning himself against gay marriage, strongly against gun control, for the overturn of Roe v. Wade, and for allowing individual states to decide the issue of civil unions for gay couples. He told Wallace “We ought to give great leeway to the states and not have federal government and not have the Supreme Court of the United States making social policy that’s contrary to the traditions of this country.” While some GOP primary voters may not be thrilled with his support of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, he made a strong case in positioning himself as a true conservative.

Maxine Waters, one of the chairs of the Out of Iraq Caucus in the House of Representatives, was also a featured guest. She told Wallace that “The Sunnis and Shiites were getting along before the occupation.” Really? Maybe Waters needs a refresher on the war crimes of Saddam Hussein. She should pay special attention to in the annihilation of the marsh Arabs, a Shiite sect that Hussein reduced from 250,000 to approximately 30,000 people during his brutal reign.

In the roundtable, Juan Williams went after the liberal blogosphere and their decision to attack Democrats for attending a debate hosted by Fox News and the Nevada Democratic party, a move that will earn the NPR correspondent no love from Markos Moulitsas and his acolytes. Said Williams,

You don’t like the kind of broadcasting that FOX does, although it’s quite successful and has a legitimate audience, people are listening and being informed on the basis of Fox journalism, and then you say ‘we’re not going to play ball with them.’ To my mind, that is contrary to the principles that should be advocated by anyone who is liberal or progressive, or whatever kind of language they want. You want open and full fledged, full throated debate, that’s what you want. And nobody has said that this wasn’t going to be a legitimate debate with real questions that would put candidates in position to offer real answers.

On Face the Nation, Senators Chuck Schumer and Arlen Specter chatted with Bob Schieffer about the war in Iraq and the attorney general, Alberto Gonzalez. When asked if he would support more troops being sent to the Middle East, Schumer replied,

John J. Tkacik, Jr. has posted a must-read on China's military buildup at the Heritage Foundation website. Beijing announced last week that military spending would rise more than 17 percent in 2007 to a total of $45 billion, but Tkacik says the actual figure may be ten-times as much.

A closer look at China's military spending raises profound questions about China's geopolitical direction. In terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), China's effective military spending is far greater than $45 billion, or even the U.S. Department of Defense's $105 billion estimate. In fact, it is in the $450 billion range, putting it in the same league as the United States and far ahead of any other country, including Russia. This figure reflects the reality that a billion dollars can buy a lot more "bang" in China than in the United States.

How much "bang" you ask? Reuters reported yesterday that the Chinese may try and deploy their first aircraft carrier as soon as 2010. But over at Ares, the official blog of Aviation Week, Catherine Hockmuth casts some doubt on the claim, saying that such plans face at least one major obstacle: "the enormous cost of developing and operating a carrier fleet, which includes warships, supply ships and submarines to protect the carrier."

While the massive increases in China's defense budget in the last few years should be considered a major threat to the balance of power in the Pacific, the claim reported by Reuters is highly dubious. In the event of a conflict between the United States and China, a Chinese carrier would likely be the Pentagon's number one target--and an easy one at that. If the U.S. military can see it, they can destroy it, and there's no hiding an aircraft carrier. For this reason the Chinese are likely to focus their naval budget on building submarines--which are difficult to track and thus present a far greater challenge for the U.S. Navy--with advanced missile and ASAT systems. This line of thinking is put forward by a professor of China's Dalian Naval Academy, Liu Huanyu, whose work was translated by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in their assessment of China's ASAT and space warfare program, policies, and doctrines. Liu writes,

China is in urgent need of new effective defense forces. Constrained by its national resources, the broad goals of economic development, and the international environment in the area, it is impossible and unnecessary for China to develop large scale aircraft carriers…..What China needs now is an effective capability to intervene on the ocean, which means a new sea power. The sea-based anti-satellite platform is a major component of the new sea power and must be given a high priority. If this new avenue is explored as soon as possible, China can hopefully improve its sea power dramatically within 10 years.

The assessment, which relied on open-source articles from Chinese military journals, provides an excellent glimpse at the current thinking of Chinese military strategists. And while the Chinese are clearly working toward developing some very threating asymmetric capabilities with all that defense spending, there's very little evidence of a serious effort to build and deploy an aircraft carrier.

Baghdad and the provinces have been quiet for the past 24 hours, after a string of deadly suicide and car bomb attacks on Shia pilgrims on Wednesday. Of the estimated 2.5 million Shia pilgrims who traveled to Karbala, about 150 were killed during the attacks.

Today, Iraqi and Coalition forces were on the offensive. The most significant operation occurred at Zaidon near the Baghdad International Airport Complex. An Apache helicopter, backed by ground forces, destroyed "a platoon-sized element of enemy fighters." A platoon consists of about 30 to 40 fighters. the insurgents prepared an ambush, and had a truck with "anti-aircraft heavy machine gun mounted in the bed." Twelve were confirmed killed, and the truck was destroyed.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has formed anti aircraft cells in an attempt to negate America's air superiority. Up to six Coalition helicopters have been downed by al Qaeda ground fire. Recently the Coalition captured members of an anti aircraft cell. This has likely led to intelligence on the makeup and operating habits of other cells.

In a sign of Iraq's developing military capabilities, Iraqi soldiers conducted 2 separate air assaults in Bayji and Tikrit, capturing 32 insurgents. The U.S. has been developing the Iraqi Army's air assault capabilities for years.

Coalition forces killed one al-Qaeda and captured 16 in other targeted operations in Mosul, Fallujah and Karma. The captured include "an alleged al-Qaeda media emir," "an al-Qaeda related suspect known as 'The Butcher' who is allegedly responsible for numerous kidnappings, beheadings, and suicide operations" and "two suspected terrorists with alleged ties to foreign fighter facilitation."

On the Muqtada al-Sadr front, the rumors from Karbala are that Sadr has returned from Iran. He claims he never left. IraqSlogger reports that Nahrain Net, Sadr's media mouthpiece, claimed Sadr addressed several hundred followers in Karbala after weeks of hiding. This has not been confirmed by outside media sources, and Sadr may still well be in Iran. Sadr also released a statement renouncing violence and secularism, and called for the withdrawal of the "occupiers." Sadr is now conducting an information after weeks of being sidelined.

The U.S. has indicated it will "confront Syria and Iran directly at a regional meeting on Iraq this weekend with charges they are actively fomenting the violence tearing their neighbor apart."

David Satterfield, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's top adviser on Iraq, said the US delegation would press Damascus and Tehran to respond publicly to the accusations at the conference grouping Iraq, its neighbors and the main United Nations powers.

"The vast majority of all of the bombings taking place, the things that you see every day on television, are the responsibility of foreigners -- the vast majority of those foreigners continue to come across the Syrian border," he said. "Action needs to be taken."

He accused Damascus of also turning a blind eye to the activities of former associates of the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein who "play a significant role in the financing and direction of the insurgency" from exile in Syria.

With the recent defection of Ali Reza Asgari, a former general of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps' Qods Force, deputy defense minister and the "father of Hezbollah," the United States has some extra ammunition to use against Syria and Iran. Asgari is said to have intimate knowledge of Iran's nuclear program and arming of Iraqi insurgents and militias.

Secretary of the Army Francis J. Harvey, who submitted his resignation on March 2 after the Washington Post reported on the poor conditions and long delays wounded soldiers were facing at Walter Reed, spoke in Ft. Lauderdale this afternoon on day two of the AUSA Winter Symposium. Upon being introduced as secretary of the Army, Harvey let out a self-deprecating "not for long." The audience gave the outgoing secretary a warm reception, but Harvey looked like a broken man. He spoke for 20 minutes about the challenges the Army faces, and its successes, though his comments were largely confined to a verbatim reading of his powerpoint slides. Harvey made no mention of Walter Reed, but he did declare that "the Army must remain the preeminent land power on earth because we are the preeminent land power on earth"--whatever that means. The secretary also emphasized the need to continue investment in the Army's Future Combat System (FCS).

FCS is the centerpiece of the Army's technology transformation, and Claude Bolton, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisitions, logistics, and technology, made news when he announced today at the Symposium that the system's network would be deployed by 2012, two years ahead of schedule.

One of the day's most anticipated speeches was delivered this morning by TRADOC (Training and Doctrine Command) commanding officer General William S. Wallace. Wallace is a straight-shooter, and right off the bat he used blunt language to describe the IT revolution's affect on the warfighter. Soliders "have access to a lot of data," Wallace said, and they "also have a lot of crap . . . it's hard to get through all that crap."

Wallace described America's enemies as having a "better information operations capability" than the United States. Further, Wallace said terrorists benefit from the "sanctuary of cyberspace" where they can share tactics, techniques, and procedures without interference from law enforcement or the military.

On the subject of force levels, Wallace said that for too long the Army had "traded technology for force structure," but that the trend was finally "starting to reverse" itself. The Army, he said, had met its recruitment goals for 19 consecutive months and is currently running about 2,000 men ahead for the year. Total enlistment would certainly exceed 80,000 for the year, and may well reach 84,000. Despite that success, Wallace said that 73 percent of American kids are either "morally, physically, or intellectually not eligible for service." Wallace also admitted that the Army has an image problem, with kids identifying the service as "ordinary" in comparison to the "elite and dangerous" Marine Corps or the "elite and safe" Navy. In order to remedy that, Wallace suggested that the Army's advertising will increasingly move online. He said the Army's goal was to convince American kids that "being in the Army is like getting a PhD in strength."

As far as combat readiness, Wallace said that the Army had increased 10-fold the amount of ammunition fired by soldiers in basic training and was placing greater emphasis on hand-to-hand combat since most enlistees "have never been in a fist-fight" before. Said Wallace, "They love it." The Army is also making sure that every soldier is given the opportunity to practice live-fire urban operations and convoy protection before heading to Iraq.

Wallace also said that he believes junior officers serving in Iraq "have embraced COIN doctrine" and understand that "it's all about security." In two to three months, Wallace expects the Army to publish another new field manual, this one on full spectrum information operations.

Wallace also announced that the Army's Land Warrior system will be deployed to Iraq this summer with a brigade of Strykers, despite the fact that the Army apparently killed the program last month. I've heard some speculation that the deployment may be a way of battle-testing the system for possible export, even if the U.S. Army never sees any return on their half-billion dollar investment in Land Warrior. Wallace gave a press conference this afternoon where he insisted that, at the very least, the deployment of one battalion of Strykers with the Land Warrior system would help the Army determine "what works and what doesn't."

Finally, Wallace had one more idea he wanted to label as "crap"--that their should be two armies, "one focused on stability" operations and the other "focused on combat."

On the technology front, not a whole lot more to report, but here are those pictures of the Lockheed Martin JLTV--which are exclusive to THE WORLDWIDE STANDARD.

The vehicle was unveiled with some fanfare today, but I was disappointed to learn that what looks like steel armor is, in fact, what one engineer called "mixed-media," aka plastic. Also, there is no engine or drive train, so as good as the vehicle looks, it remains little more than a military concept car. Still, I was told that the vehicle's appearance would change little by the time Lockheed delivers a working model for testing in September. One modification that would be made, as per the request of Iraq veterans, is the addition of operable windows in the rear that would allow soldiers to fire from inside the cab should the vehicle turn over from an IED blast, rendering the turret inoperable.

Lockheed also unveiled the K-MAX Manned-Unmanned Multi-Mission Helicopter. Like the name says, the chopper can fly with a pilot or without--the only UAV with such a capability. In addition, K-MAX bosts a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds at sea level and 5,000 pounds at 9,500 feet--far beyond the capabilities of any UAV I'm aware of. What does that mean? The K-MAX team said they'd demonstrated the chopper's ability to transport prisoners over dangerous terrain--in a cage hanging 100 feet below the airframe. They didn't talk much about the offensive potential of a high-altitude UAV with so much payload capacity, but I couldn't shake the thought of 100 of these things flying into Iran at 10,000 feet with bunker-busters strapped on them--that's the pitch I would have made anyway. Not to say that the idea of caging a few terrorists and dangling them 1,500 feet over Ramadi isn't appealing.

General Bryan D. Brown, commander of special operations command, will be speaking tonight. I hope to have more on that later.

Last week, the restive Russian republic of Chechnya got a new president, Ramzan Kadyrov. The appointment, however, did not come as a surprise: Kadyrov has been the de-facto president since the assassination of his father, former Chechen president Akhmat Kadyrov, in May 2004. And contrary to Moscow’s assertions, Alu Alkhahov’s presidential appointment in 2004 was no more than a temporary measure--the Kremlin was waiting until Kadyrov Jr. turned 30, as required by Chechen law. This February, Alkhanov moved to Moscow to serve as the deputy minister of Justice, while Kadyrov assumed the role of “acting president” of the republic. Then last week President Putin summoned Kadyrov to the Kremlin and resolved the “power vacuum” in the republic.

As reported by Izvestiya, Putin notified Kadyrov that he had “come to this decision stemming from the fact that you have done a great deal in recent years to restore Chechnya.” Kadyrov’s candidacy was nearly unanimously approved, with only one vote against, at an “emergency session” of the Chechen parliament the next day. Nezavisimaya Gazeta points out that Kadyrov’s appointment marks the first “hereditary” transfer of power in Putin’s Russia.

Russian analysts are generally united in agreement that the situation in Chechnya has “stabilized” under Kadyrov--but there remains a great deal of disagreement about the methods used and their implications for the long-term. Prominent Russian journalist Mikhail Leontiev argues that under Kadyrov’s rule, “Chechnya, notwithstanding occasional terrorist activities, [was] the most stable and manageable region in the North Caucasus.” Moskovskiy Komsomolets puts forth a stronger argument, noting that “[Without Kadyrov], there will be no order in Chechnya. Instead, we’ll have heck-knows-what: freedom--and, pardon, democracy. But here, we think that the Chechens will be better off without all of that.”

Other analysts and, particularly, human rights activists have expressed concern about Kadyrov’s former ties to the rebels (whom the current Chechen president joined at the age of 17 and drafted en masse into his own paramilitary formations and Chechen police units) as well as his strong-arm methods of imposing “stability.” The “Echo of Moscow” radio station reported on March 4, that one of the first acts of the Kadyrov presidency was to ask Moscow for another amnesty of former insurgents. Kadyrov's loyalties were perhaps best described best described by Lenta.ru: “Putin in his heart--and a Koran in his hands.”

Above, a young Kadyrov with Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev (mastermind of the Moscow theatre siege in 2002 and the Beslan massacre in 2004). Below, Putin and Kadyrov at a meeting in the Kremlin in 2004.

Army General David Petraeus, the commander of Multinational Forces Iraq, gave his first briefing from the theater early this morning. The surge in American forces to Iraq will now include an additional 4,600 troops. About 2,200 Military Police (MPs) will be deployed, along with 2,400 support troops. "The MPs will arrive in Iraq over the next few months and will be assigned to duties at detention centers, to provide route security for convoys and to mentor Iraqi police," notes American Forces Press Service. "Additionally, the Republic of Georgia has volunteered to send an additional combat brigade... and Australia will contribute 70 seasoned military trainers." The full compliment of of U.S. forces will not be in Iraq until early June, General Petraeus said today.

One region in Iraq that must be dealt with is Diyala, a mixed Sunni-Shia province where al Qaeda has massed since the announcement and implementation of the Baghdad Security Plan. Al Qaeda in Iraq is using Diyala to train, arm and sortie suicide and car bombers into Baghdad and the surrounding areas. One American military intelligence officer described this to me as "launching human artillery" from the province. Several thousand al Qaeda in Iraq fighters may be operating from Diyala.

General Petraeus said Diyala will be a focus of the troop buildup. As we noted in the past, only 2 of the 5 U.S. combat brigades are currently in country, and the remaining three may be moved to the provinces depending on the security situation in Baghdad.

Al Qaeda's activities in Diyala may be stirring up local resistance to the terror group. Al Sabaah reports local sheikhs in Diyala may be organizing against al-Qaeda and its Islamic State in Iraq, " which [is] spreading corruption in the province districts." The Iraqi government is considering military action in Diyala as well. But, as General Petraeus noted today, a political solution is also needed.

A similar disgust for al-Qaeda has occurred in Anbar province, where the local tribes and elements of the nationalist Sunni insurgency have banded together to form the Anbar Salvation Council, and are now actively working with U.S. and Iraqi forces to provide security and hunt al Qaeda in Iraq. The Anbar Salvation Council is also providing the political support needed to restore order in Anbar. The Diyala sheikhs who stand up to al Qaeda and its Islamic State in Iraq will be targeted by al Qaeda, as they have been in Anbar and elsewhere.

Al Qaeda in Iraq continues to step up its bombing campaign in and around Baghdad in an effort to reignite the Sunni-Shia sectarian killings. There were two additional suicide attacks on Wednesday: a car bombing at a check point in southern Baghdad, which killed 12 Iraqi National Police and 10 civilians, and a suicide strike at a café in Bald Ruz, about 235 miles north of Baghdad, which killed 30 civilians and wounded 25.

Iraqi and Coalition forces continue operations against al Qaeda and insurgent cells throughout Iraq. Coalition operations in Mosul, Al Qaim and Karma resulted in 7 al Qaeda in Iraq killed and 6 wounded. Iraqi Security Forces killed a wanted IED cell leader and captured 4 insurgents in the the Latifiyah area, where terrorists are planting bombs to kill pilgrims on the road to Karbala. Iraqi security forces killed 10 insurgents and captured another 36 in operations nationwide.

Today was day one of the AUSA Winter Symposium in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The convention is a technology enthusiast's dream, featuring exhibits from nearly every major defense company as well as speeches from the top brass and other Pentagon officials. There is a whole lot going on here that I hope to cover over the next couple days, but I'll start off with some thoughts on what is clearly the top concern of everyone attending this conference: defeating the IED.

The first thing that strikes me from the technology on display here is that the Humvee is pretty much a disaster. The primary weakness of the Humvee is its lack of armor. The only viable solution to that problem was to add armor, in the form of up-armor kits, to nearly every Humvee operating in Iraq. But that solution had a major downside--the vehicle's weight limit is pretty much maxed out once the up-armor kit is added.

Weight isn't the only constraint on the Humvee. Technologies that aim to counter the IED are extremely power-hungry--from jammers to communications to surveillance, all demand a great deal of electricity. But the Humvee has barely enough power to run the systems that were on board when it was first deployed. Combine the lack of electricity with the excess weight, and you have a vehicle with almost no capacity to adapt to the modern battlefield. (As an aside, I was surprised to learn that upgrades to the Stryker, the Army's premier tactical wheeled vehicle, have also been constrained by a shortage of electrical power.)

So nearly every major company here is trying to hawk some kind of technology either to improve the Humvee's survivability or to replace it outright, but the emphasis is clearly on replacing it. There are mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles on display, and "technology demonstrators" for the next generation Humvee, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV).

But let's start with MRAP. BAE had two trucks on display, one in a 4X4 configuration and the other in a 6X6. The Pentagon recently (in the last month) ordered 90 MRAPs from BAE for the Marine Corps which will be deployed to Iraq shortly--75 of the 6X6 variant and the other 15 in the 4X4. Both are impressive and appear highly survivable, but they are simply enormous--check out this pic of the 4X4.

The 6X6 is, of course, larger. But even the 4X4 weighs in at more than 35,000 pounds (compare that to an up-armored Humvee which weighs roughly 13,000 pounds). The vehicles were both designed last year with input from BAE's South African unit, which has been making MRAP vehicles longer than anybody else in the industry (the reason for that is an interesting story by itself), and they might be the most survivable of the models now being considered by the military--but I don't believe either would serve as an effective replacement for the Humvee. They're just too big.

More promising as a Humvee replacement (not service-wide but in theater) is Force Protection's Cheetah. The Cheetah is the smallest of a family of MRAP vehicles that we've covered here before. The Cougar and Buffalo, Force Protection's larger MRAPs, have already seen extensive service in Iraq, but the Cheetah is new. Light, fast, and well armored, the Cheetah really could replace the Humvee throughout Iraq. I think its main advantage is that it's not so intimidating as some of the other models on display. That is, its presence on Iraqi roads might not scare the heck out of the average, friendly Iraqi civilian. And at roughly 12,000 pounds, it's in the same weight class as the Humvee.

The military hasn't yet ordered the Cheetah, but it's only a matter of time. And Force Protection is turning out Cougars and Buffalos as fast as they can to meet existing contracts.

Rafael, an Israeli firm, also had an MRAP on display--the Golan. The Marine Corps ordered 60 of these vehicles at the end of February, and will likely order more in the months ahead as the Marine Corps struggles to deploy more than 4,100 MRAPs to Iraq by the end of the year. Essentially, no one firm can meet the demands of the Marine Corps and the Army, which means multiple suppliers will be needed to fill the order. That ought to be a nightmare for the guys doing logistics, let alone the mechanics. But these vehicles will save a lot of American lives as they are put into service.

What is really needed, however, is a replacement for the Humvee. The magnitude of that contract was evident inside, and outside, the convention hall. General Dynamics Land Systems had their technology demonstrator on display, a sleek looking vehicle that resembled an armored dune buggy. The fact sheet has the vehicle's top speed at 70 mph with a weight somewhere between 14,000 - 16,000 pounds. It's a neat looking vehicle, but I got the sense from the GDLS folks that the vehicle they would ultimately submit for testing would bear little resemblance to the one on display. Still, the vehicle features a hybrid diesel-electric engine, which will provide a substantial increase in the amount of electricity available for on board systems.

Oshkosh had even less to show--no technology demonstrator, no plywood mock-up, just a one page brochure with a picture of a mudflap. Oshkosh is an industry leader in this field, but they appear to be a bit behind the curve. And everybody seems to be a bit behind Lockheed Martin. I spoke with Lockheed's JLTV program manager a couple of weeks ago, and when I posted on the program they wouldn't give me so much as an artist's rendering of the vehicle--the competition to win this contract is intense. But Lockheed has a prototype at the convention, hidden in a tent about 200 meters from the main exhibit. The vehicle will be unveiled tomorrow morning and I hope to get pictures of it up as soon as possible. Right now, my sense is that Lockheed is in a pretty commanding position relative to the competition.

There was a lot of interesting technology on display besides armored vehicles, but even the other gadgets were mostly geared toward the IED defeat mission. One technology generating tremendous buzz was Rafael's Trophy Active Protection System. I can't tell you that much about it, but the video of the system in action is impressive. The system targets incoming RPGs and fires some kind of munition to tear the thing apart before it can reach the vehicle. The munition itself is classified, but highly effective by all accounts. Still, there is a concern that an active defense system will put friendlies at risk--any soldier walking alongside an armored vehicle protected by Trophy will be in danger of getting hit if an RPG is fired, either by the RPG or Trophy. Rafael claims a one percent risk of a friendly fire incident, but that is hardly insignificant. Also, there's the cost, which wasn't disclosed, but surely exceeds the cost of a Humvee.

What may have been the most elegant piece of technology on display today is also geared toward defeating the RPG, and it stands in stark contrast to the hi-tech and hi-cost Trophy system. It is the L-Rod RPG Defense Kit from BAE. The L-Rod is little more than an aviation-grade, aluminum cage that can be mounted onto an armored vehicle. RPGs rely on a shaped charge to magnify the effect of what is, in fact, a relatively small amount of high-explosives. The L-Rod does not protect a vehicle from that small warhead, but by shredding the RPG before it can strike the vehicle, it effectively destroys the shape of the warhead. The result: any lightly armored vehicle can survive a direct hit from what would otherwise be a highly lethal munition. Here's a picture of the L-Rod.

The L-Rod is already in use on a number of MRAP vehicles in Iraq, including Force Protection's Buffalo. What makes L-Rod so impressive though, is that it is a $100 solution to a $100 problem. Still, this simple defensive measure weighs too much to be extensively deployed on up-armored Humvees. While some Humvees do use the L-Rod to protect windows and side-doors, the vehicle cannot sustain the extra weight of wrap-around L-Rod protection, leaving much of the vehicle vulnerable to the RPG's shaped charge.

One last thing I should mention is Boeing's UAV helicopter, the A160 Hummingbird. The Hummingbird has a payload of 1,500 pounds, which far exceeds that of the Predator, and it can also hover--which no fixed wing UAV can claim. All of which is irrelevant in making the Hummingbird the hands-down coolest looking weapons platform on display at the AUSA convention. Still, Special Operations Command was likely less impressed by the look of the thing than its capabilities when they ordered 10 copies to be delivered this spring.

More to come tomorrow.

Ryan Sager has launched a new website for the New York Sun with a focus on the 2008 presidential election. The site will pull relevant material from the newspaper, but it will have a good deal of original content as well.

Here are some links from NYSunPolitics.com you might find interesting:

Why Democrats should give more consideration to Bill Richardson.

On the center of the Democratic Party shifting Left.

On McCain dealing with the legacy of campaign-finance reform.

As we have noted several times in the past, as the Baghdad Security Plan begins to show progress inside the city, the likelihood is the attacks in the provinces will increase. Over the past 24 hours, two major attacks occurred in Hillah (Babil province) and Mosul (Niwena province).

In Hillah, two suicide bombers attacks pilgrims flocking to Karbala to mark the end of a religious period.Over 115 were killed and 200 wounded. Today, another 5 Shia pilgrims were killed and 14 wounded just south of Baghdad.

This morning, I attended a press conference with Major General Bill Caldwell, the spokesman for Multinational Forces Iraq. He noted that we can "expect increase SVBIED and SIED attacks as security operations progress." Al Qaeda "will do everything they can to instigate and serve as a catalyst" for further violence between Shia and Sunnis. "Al Qaeda is trying to restart the cycle of violence." Major General Caldwell also noted the Iraqi security forces had requested to maintain security for the pilgrimage.

In Mosul, al Qaeda massed over 300 troops and staged a daring prison break at dusk. The Kurdish guards were overwhelmed, and called U.S. forces in Mosul for support. The prison housed several hundred high value targets, and al Qaeda was able to free 140 of them. The attack was said to have been led by Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of political front the Islamic State in Iraq. All but 47 of the prisoners have been recaptured, according to Iraqi police.

The Mosul attack particularly highlights the downside to pouring troops into Baghdad from the provinces. Iraqi Army and U.S. forces have been stripped from the city, and currently about one U.S. battalion remains inside Iraq's third largest city.

Major General Caldwell noted that Multinational Force Iraq is "seeing the same trends as previous Baghdad security plans," with violence migrating out to the provinces as Baghdad becomes more secure. But the operational commanders have built in flexibility into the planning, and , as we noted last week, the additional U.S. combat brigades may in fact be deployed to the provinces. "There are two complete U.S. combat brigades in Baghdad, while the lead elements of the 3rd brigade is in Kuwait," said Major General Caldwell. "We are situation dependent on where the 3rd, 4th and 5th brigades will go."

On the Baghdad front, there are now 23 Joint Security Stations (JSS) open in Baghdad, Major General Caldwell noted this morning. The Sadr City JSS should be fully operational in several days. While about 35 to 40 JSS were planned initially, the concept has yielded positive results. The Iraqi government and Coalition are now planning on opening over 70 Joint Security Stations inside Baghdad.

Currently 7 of the 9 Iraqi Army battalions are now deployed in Baghdad, and the final two are at the Besmaya training center south of Baghdad. The two battalions are currently manned at 75% and 103% strength. The Iraqis are training 7,500 new soldiers a month and are filling out the Iraqi battalions inside Baghdad.

Coalition and Iraqi forces continue to press the attack on al Qaeda country wide. Over the past 24 hours, 24 al Qaeda operatives were detained during operations in Baghdad, Rutbah and Karma. Inside Baghdad,Iraqi soldiers stopped an al Qaeda suicide car bomber before he could hit a police checkpoint. The suicide bomber was killed, while two soldiers and one policeman were injured in the explosion.

The Iraqi government is also pushing reconciliation. "Az-Zaman reported that the Iraqi Vice-President, Tariq al-Hashimi, currently on a visit to Damascus, will be discussing with his Syrian hosts the possible return of several hundred Iraqi Army officers who have fled to Syria after the war and remained there," notes IraqSlogger. The Iraqi government is also attempting to influence the Syrian government to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq by dangling the prospect of reopening the Iraq-Syria oil pipeline. “It is important for the Syrian side to prevent the infiltration of saboteurs from its territories who target Iraqis and Iraq’s vital installations namely pipelines and oil projects,” Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahrastani said.

Military.com reports that Congress has taken up a request to approve $2.4 billion in funding for the Pentagon's Joint IED Defeat Organization. That will be in addition to $2 billion that has already been approved.

Of course, funding was never a problem in dealing with the IED threat--the Republican Congress threw as much money at the problem as they possibly could. Most of that money went to elaborate technologies that promised to deliver a "silver bullet" solution to neutralize the threat, but the toll from IEDs held steady. And the influx of Iranian-made explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) has made the military's task considerably more difficult. Military experts have been emphasizing the need for a tactical, rather than a technological, solution, but the military continues to push for more armor and more jammers to solve the problem.

Still, General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, acknowledged in the hearings yesterday that there was much more to defeating IEDs than new technologies.

Pace said the effort against IEDs is more than simply looking for a technological answer. Experts in Iraq learn from every device that explodes, then they take the information and share it widely “so the troops training right now to go over overseas in the future have the information from the most recent tactics, techniques and procedures of the enemy,” Pace said.

Pace said the coalition and Iraqi forces look at the entire IED process, adding that coalition forces have secured 435,000 tons of ammunition from more than 15,000 locations in Iraq. “Just getting at the source of the explosives is part of the problem,” he said, “then the factories where they're built, and the individuals who build them, and then the individuals who deliver them, and then the individuals who put them in place. So we go after the entire chain of events.”

If Pace's comments represent a coordinated effort by the Pentagon to find a tactical, offensive solution to the IED problem--mainly going out and killing the guys building and deploying the devices--than we may begin to see a substantial decline in the number of American fatalities in Iraq, of which a disproportionate share result from roadside bombs. Still, even if the military is talking about tactical solutions, Congress is likely to continue emphasizing new defensive technologies. After all, a Congressmen wants to be able to show his constituents that he voted for more armor, more jammers, more UAVs, but he gets no credit back home for pushing the Pentagon to be more aggressive in going after the bad guys. This is likely to remain a major institutional challenge in the effort to defeat the IED.

Uncle Jimbo, who blogs at Blackfive, the ne plus ultra of milblogs (excepting Bill Roggio's Fourth Rail, of course), has contributed an excellent piece to the Politico's user-generated editorial page. I gather that readers are encouraged to vote for their favorite article, which will subsequently appear in the newspaper's print edition. Uncle Jimbo proposes implementing the Sy Hersh fantasy of aggressive cross-border raids into Iran in order to counter Iranian meddling in Iraq. Still, Uncle Jimbo does not entirely discount the important role diplomacy can play in confronting Iran:

Now understand that I'm not a sudden convert to the value of tea-sipping and petit-four nibbling, but let's check the box and say OK we talked to them and they said they still need the nukes, Israel doesn't have to go immediately but eventually, and they will cut the number of IEDs they are shipping to Iraq by one fourth. How do you like them apples? They won't agree to any deal worth making so let's show the world exactly that. Oh and did I mention that my Special Envoy selection would be none other than the Walrus himself, John Bolton. I would almost pay money to sit at that table, not almost, would.

Go vote for Uncle Jimbo (the fourth article down).

As the Baghdad security operation takes shape, much of the violence continues to occur in the provinces outside the capital. The provinces of Diyala, Anbar, Babil, and portions of Salahadin are where many of the major attacks against Iraq and U.S. security forces, as well as Iraqi citizens, are occurring. Yesterday's bombing in Baghdad's book market was only the third major attack in the past nine days.

Terrorists are attacking Shia pilgrims traveling to Karbala. A series of suicide bombings have killed at least 93 and wounded more than 140 in Hillah in Bail province, just south of Baghdad. This is an attempt to reignite the sectarian violence and unleash the Shia death squads. Al Qaeda depends on such sectarian violence to destabilize the government and precipitate a U.S. withdrawal.

The U.S. military suffered the loss of 9 soldiers today. Six were killed in a roadside bombing during an operation in Salahadin province, and another three were killed in the violent Diyala province.

The Iraqi led Baghdad Operational Command reported that security operations in the capital resulted in the death of six insurgents and the capture of 55, "including 5 of Arabic nationalities." Questions remain about the status of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the leader the Islamic State in Iraq, al Qaeda's political front. Some reports indicate he was arrested in the Doura district in Baghdad. Others reports claim his two brothers were arrested, or that the person detained in Duluiya in Salahadin province, Abdullah Latif al-Jaburi, is in fact al-Baghdadi. Until the U.S. military confirms a capture, these reports should be treated with a high degree of skepticism.

Yesterday, U.S. and Iraqi forces conducted pinpoint strikes against Improvised Explosive Device cells (IEDs or roadside bombs). Four terrorists were killed in Sadr al-Yusufiyah while planting an IED. Two more insurgents were killed in Mosul and their bomb factory destroyed. One insurgent was killed and two wounded while they attempted to access their weapons cache in Tikrit.

U.S and Iraqi forces are on their third day of clearing operations in Sadr City. Dubbed Operation Tomahawk Strike, the joint force of 1,150 soldiers and police established 23 checkpoints in Sadr City while clearing the Jameela sector of the neighborhood. Brig. Gen. John Campbell, Multi-National Division - Baghdad deputy commanding general for maneuver, and Brig. Gen. Ali, commander, 8th Brigade, 2nd Iraqi National Police Division visited Sadr City as the operation was in progress.

Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army has decided not to engage government and U.S. forces at this time. Instead, Sadr's spokesmen are in the process of conducting an information campaign against the U.S. forces. Nahrain Net, the mouthpiece of Sadr's movement, claimed "that U.S. troops plan to increase their presence in Sadr City in order to strike the Sadrist Movement and the Mahdi Army in one of their main strongholds in the country," and that U.S. soldiers are harassing and assaulting Shia pilgrims heading to Karbala.

Shaykh Hasan al-Zarqani, the "official in charge of foreign relations in the Al-Sadr Movement in Iraq," attacked the British over the raid on an intelligence headquarters in Basra and lamented the U.S. push into Sadr City. Zarqani repeated the conspiratorial claim that the United States plans on stealing Iraq's oil. "The United States wants to implement a grand plan to control the sources of Iraqi oil and oil companies by enacting a law that allows the US oil-producing companies to take 70 per cent," said Zarqani.

The Huffington Post has closed down the comments section on an AP story about the blood clot in Cheney's leg.

Little Green Footballs: "Looks like the Huffington Post is going to have block comments on all posts about Dick Cheney from now on, so that the 'minuscule portion' of Arianna’s readers who exult at the idea of Cheney’s death don’t embarrass her again."

Meanwhile, one of Arianna's celebrity bloggers, HBO's Bill Maher, has come out against Arianna's attack on free speech, and walks right up to the line of endorsing an assassination on the VP. Said Maher, "I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact."

Eli Lake has an excellent piece in the New York Sun today on "What Gore Doesn't Say" when asked about the Iraq war--mainly that U.S. forces should retreat and redeploy. According to Lake, the Oscar winning, celebrity politician "is a tag 'em and bag 'em tough guy, a former vice president who endorsed the rendition of terrorists for interrogation, not to mention the bombing of Serbia and Iraq."

Lake says, "one of the reasons he opposed the [Iraq war], was because he did not trust President Bush to stay in Iraq once the Baathist state was dismantled." He quotes the former VP's September 23, 2002, address to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco:

"If we go in there and dismantle them [the Baathists]--and they deserve to be dismantled--but then we wash our hands of it and walk away and leave it in a situation of chaos, and say, ‘That's for y'all to decide how to put things back together now,' that hurts us."

Lake's conclusion:

Mr. Gore's record in public life aside, he is also a far shrewder politician than many are willing to admit. This Nobel Peace Prize nominee and Oscar winner must know that Americans--when faced in a presidential election with a choice between a dove and a hawk--have chosen the hawk every time since Johnson beat Goldwater. . . . And at the end of the day, this may be the most inconvenient truth of all for those frantically trying to draft Mr. Gore to run for the White House.

Yesterday, while the Senate worked toward finalizing an important bill "implementing unfinished recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to fight the war on terror more effectively, to improve homeland security, and for other purposes," Senator Maria Cantwell saw an opportunity to offer an amendment of her own. The purpose of that amendment:

To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of vastly reducing global poverty and eliminating extreme global poverty, and to require periodic reports on the progress toward implementation of the strategy.

Eliminating global poverty is surely an admirable goal . . . but how exactly is the president supposed to achieve the elimination of global poverty? Well, that's all left rather vague--the important thing in Senator Cantwell’s proposal, it seems, is that we’ll have a big plan to figure all this out.

Alas, the long, sad history of foreign aid is littered with well-meaning calls for precisely this kind of top-down, centralized plan to end poverty--despite their recurring failure to actually work. Writing in the Washington Post a while back, the distinguished economist William Easterly of New York University explained why. Reviewing a book by Jeffrey Sachs, the leading acolyte of the “big plan,” Easterly wrote:

The broader development successes of recent decades, most of them in Asia, happened without the Big Plan--and without significant foreign aid as a proportion of the recipient country's income. Gradual free market reforms in China and India in the 1980s and '90s (which Sachs implausibly argues were shock therapy in disguise) have brought rapid growth. Moreover, the West itself achieved gradual success through piecemeal democratic and market reforms over many centuries, not through top-down Big Plans offered by outsiders. . . .

"Success in ending the poverty trap," Sachs writes, "will be much easier than it appears." Really? If it's so easy, why haven't five decades of effort gotten the job done? Sachs should redirect some of his outrage at the question of why the previous $2.3 trillion didn't reach the poor so that the next $2.3 trillion does. In fact, ending poverty is not easy at all. In those five decades, poverty researchers have learned a great deal about the complexity of toxic politics, bad history (including exploitative or inept colonialism), ethnic and regional conflicts, elites' manipulation of politics and institutions, official corruption, dysfunctional public services, malevolent police forces and armies, the difficulty of honoring contracts and property rights, unaccountable and excessively bureaucratic donors and many other issues. Sachs, however, sees these factors as relatively unimportant. Indeed, he seems deaf to the babble and bungling of the U.N. agencies he calls upon to run the Big Plan, not to mention other unaccountable and ineffectual aid agencies.

Babble and bungling? Unaccountable and ineffectual? Let’s hope that someone in the Senate squashes this crummy idea.

From Politico: Liberal Democrats Revolt on Iraq Spending Bill, by John Bresnahan.

From Time: Is China's Military a Threat? by Bill Powell.

From Defense News: Eyes on Iran, by William H. McMichael.

From Slate: She's No Fundamentalist, by Christopher Hitchens.

From the Washington Times: Webb bill limits Iran fight, by Christina Bellantoni.

Here's an interesting story from today's Telegraph:

The disappearance of a former Iranian spy chief has raised speculation he has been kidnapped by Mossad or the CIA.

Ali Reza Azkari, 63, who headed Iran’s intelligence operation in Lebanon in the 1990s liaising with the local Shia militia, Hizbollah, went missing last month during a routine visit to Istanbul.

One report said after leaving Teheran he never made it to the Istanbul hotel where a room had been reserved in his name. Another account said he arrived in Istanbul but then disappeared, leaving luggage still in his hotel room.

You can read the rest here.

The new Democratic Congress seems to have fallen in love with the nonbinding resolution. First it was the resolution condemning the president's new Iraq strategy, which, as a nonbinding resolution, had no effect but to convey to the troops in Iraq and our allies abroad the defeatist sentiments of the new Democratic Congress.

Then there was the nonbinding resolution demanding that Japan apologize for the use of foreign women as sex slaves during the Second World War. Never mind that Japan has already apologized for the abuse, that Japan is this country's closest ally in the region, and that there is little to be gained from such a resolution--ask the man on the street if he worries about North Korea's nuclear program or Japanese human rights abuses during the war years. But this is still a powerful issue in China and Korea.

Now the newest nonbinding resolution that Congress has taken up concerns the genocide of Armenians by Turkey during the First World War. It too threatens to upset relations with a key American ally. And like the others, it will have no effect but to satisfy the demands of an interest group, in this case Armenians who are well represented among Nancy Pelosi's constituents.

It takes little effort for Congress to pass such resolutions, and it does much for their standing with interest groups, antiwar, ethnic, or othewise, but it is the administration that has to deal with the consequences. And it is the American public that will pay the price for the irresponsible actions of elected officials who remain largely unaccountable for the mess they will make of this country's foreign policy.

Over at the Corner, Mark Steyn has a great post on the boondoggle that is the Airbus A380. The hook is this headline from Pakistan's Daily Times: "PIA To Buy Airbuses To Appease EU, UK"

Says Steyn,

So it’s grand news for Euro-investors that at least Pakistan’s national carrier has been successfully strongarmed into buying the White Euro-elephant of the skies, after pressure to deny landing rights to the existing PIA fleet on "safety grounds". Now twice as many jihadists will be able to fly from Waziristan to Heathrow in one go! (The Airbus can carry 800 passengers, or a thousand if your child bride goes in the hold.)

The A380 is indeed a poignant symbol of the European Union: far too big and never actually taking flight. However, it may well prove useful for large-scale population evacuations circa 2015.

On March 2nd, it was reported by both People’s Daily and the semi-official Hong Kong China News Agency (HKCNA) that the J-10 jet fighter is to be showcased in the “Peace Mission 2007” joint military exercises between China and Russia. The weeklong drill, scheduled to begin on July 18th in the Chelyabinsk Oblast, east of the Ural Mountains, is to be attended by presidents Putin and Hu Jintao. It will mark the J-10’s maiden appearance on foreign soil. This announcement comes less than two weeks after the first overseas deployment of the American F-22, to Kadena Air Base in Japan.

The HKCNA report cites analysts as saying that with a changing global security environment, joint military drills such as these can help promote understanding among the armed forces of different nations. The report acknowledges that the last joint exercise between the "two former socialist states"--Peace Mission 2005--had led to concern that the exercise was targeted at the United States and Japan.

A February 12th posting on the Xinhua website cites Russian sources as saying that Moscow was not receptive to the Chinese proposal of dispatching 2,000 troops to “Peace Mission 2007,” as only 450--500 Russian military personnel were expected to participate. The posting went on to say that details were to be hammered out in March.

The J-10 project received on February 27th the prestigious 2006 Special State Scientific and Technological Progress Award at an elaborate ceremony in Beijing.

One day before the award ceremony, the cutting edge Southern Metropolis Daily, best known for its investigative reporting, carried a commentary titled “The J-10 Fighter Plane and Diplomatic Clout.” The author, Ni Lexiong, professor of political science at the Shanghai Institute of Political Science and Law, suggested that advances in defense technology should enable China to adopt a more assertive diplomatic posture.

Quoting the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Zi, who said that “one should not reveal one’s sharpest weapon to the world; what one shows the world should not be one’s sharpest weapon,” Ni suggested that the high-profile unveiling of the J-10 should be regarded as a sign that there are more deadly weapons in the pipeline. He speculated that it may be as few as five years before the sophistication of Chinese jet fighters is on a par with that of the most advanced world powers. Ni went on to say that “land domination and maritime domination both rely on air domination. Developing at an accelerated pace advanced jet fighters and other aeronautical weaponry is an intelligent defense strategy.”

The J-10

I received the following note in response to a post here last Friday on the limited role of airpower in COIN operations. The author wishes to remain anonymous, but he is an expert in the field.

While it may be the stuff of heresy around these parts, I agree with the majority of your post. Airpower is a vital U.S. asset in any situation, in peace or war. The USAF needs to focus on providing precise fires, tactical lift, strategic sustainment and battlespace awareness in COIN while also providing strategic deterrence (through the threat of direct attack, rapid strat airlift, etc) for America's global interests. Moreover, most airmen would agree that we must avoid indiscriminate or inappropriate use of firepower in COIN. Note the relatively "clean" air campaigns we waged over the Balkans in 1995 (Deliberate Force) and 1999 (Allied Force) as well as the relative lack of serious collateral damage in either Iraq (1991/2003) and Afghanistan. Indeed, we put our pilots at great risk, in many situations, simply to minimize collateral damage.

The fight in Iraq and even Afghanistan, however, does not represent the spectrum of threats this country faces--and will continue to face--from the likes of Iran or even China. Thus, force development for all the services must take place in a balanced fashion. A DoD that becomes too COIN-oriented, for lack of a better phrase, opens vulnerabilities for other bad guys to exploit that might not otherwise exist if we appropriately shape our forces relative to our global interests.

More specifically, however, I think you might want to cut the old BUFF--the B-52--some slack. It's not hard at all to see B-52s providing fire support in urban ops. These long range heavy bombers can now employ very precise JDAMs and lots of them. As we move toward acquiring more small diameter bombs for the inventory as well, a B-52 orbiting overhead can deliver PRECISE firepower, in large or small quantities, in support of forces in contact on the ground. The have tremendous reach, long loiter times, and pack a hell of a punch in any situation, COIN or conventional. Having said that, even if we can hit a specific room of a specific building from either ground or air platforms, we still run the risk that the bad guys aren't the only ones in that room or that CNN won't run footage the ENEMY claims is a strike on a mosque or day care center. No matter how precise the weapon, the other side, with an assist from some dimwit in a newsroom, can always cry "foul."

THE BAGHDAD SECURITY Plan is now well into its third week of operations since the official announcement on February 14. Over the course of the last week, Baghdad has seen a significant reduction in violence. Deaths from sectarian fighting have dropped dramatically since December. "The number of bodies found this month in Baghdad--most shot and showing signs of torture--has dropped by nearly 50 percent to 494 as of Monday [February 27], compared with 954 in January," reports the Associated Press. "The figure stood at 1,222 in December, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press."

Over the past week, there have been two mass-casualty car bomb attacks in Baghdad and no major suicide attacks. A car bomb was detonated in a New Baghdad market (10 killed, 21 wounded). Another was detonated at a Sadr City used-car lot (10 killed, 17 wounded). Also, there was an assassination attempt on Adel Abdul Mahdi, one of Iraq's two vice presidents. A bombing at the Ministry of Public Works killed 12 and wounded 42. Mahdi was lightly wounded. Overall, the last week has shown a significant reduction in violence relative to the flurry of suicide and car bombings that claimed hundreds at the beginning of the security operation.

Read the rest of Roggio's weekly wrap-up at THE DAILY STANDARD.

From the Wall Street Journal: The North Korea Climbdown, by John R. Bolton.

From the Boston Globe: On war costs, Bush is master of disguise, by Neil Abercrombie.

From the Washington Post: Don't Send a Lion to Catch a Mouse, by Shankar Vedantam.

From the Washington Post: Going Down With the Ships, by Craig Hooper.

From the Washington Times: China boosts defense fund as talks end, by Ed Lanfranco.

U.S. officials continue to push for greater transparency from Beijing in matters of defense spending, with Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte echoing calls made last week by the vice president. The response from the Communist regime: Beijing announced defense spending would grow by 17.8 percent in FY 2007. Cheney's comments last week, saying that such increases were "not consistent with China's goal of a peaceful rise," were answered by foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang:

"If you had a neighbor always standing at your doorstep, peering into your household and constantly shouting at you, 'Why don't you open your door and let me see what's in your house, what's in your family,' how would you feel about that?"

Mr. Qin continued: "You wear your clothes, you wear your underwear, and when there are people shouting at you, 'Please take off all your clothes and let me see what's inside,' how would you respond? I think you will cry for police help.

"I hope such a comparison will help you better understand our position," Mr. Qin said.

The "peeping tom comparison" is only slightly more diplomatic than the last outburst by a Chinese official on this matter, which came from Sha Zukang, who last August said Washington should just "shut up and keep quiet" on the subject. For delivering that message, Sha got a promotion. No wonder then that Chinese officials are lining up to tell the Bush administration what they think of its concerns.

Now China "demands" that the president stops the sale of weapons to Taiwan. The BBC quotes the same Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, Qin Gang, on the Defense Department's proposal to sell $421 million worth of Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air missiles (AMRAM) and Maverick missiles to Taiwan.

We solemnly demand the leader of the United States... immediately cancel this weapons sale (and) avoid harming the peace and stability of the Taiwan Straits and Sino-US relations," ministry spokesman Qin Gang said.

If there is any danger to the stability of the Taiwan straits, it comes from China's massive defense buildup, which the Washington Times reported just this week "includes five new strategic nuclear-missile boats and several advanced nuclear-powered attack submarines."

Damien Cave reports in today's New York Times:

And in a sign of what officials have described as an increased use of offensive air power in Iraq, a second airstrike destroyed a car bomb factory on Saturday in southern Baghdad, the United States military said. Two precision-guided bombs destroyed a building and killed at least seven people suspected of being insurgents who had been firing at American troops in the area, a military statement said.

Colonel Garver said that the announcement of two airstrikes on the same day did not necessarily mean that more bombs were being dropped, but that it did reflect a broadened presence of American air power over Iraq, with more jets in the air flying closer to American troops on the ground.

“The role has expanded to include other missions that we maybe have not used it for in the past such as a show of force,” he said.

This is an interesting characterization in light of a post here yesterday discussing the reduced role of offensive airpower in counterinsurgency (COIN) as envisioned by the Petraeus Doctrine. In the COIN manual Petraeus authored with Marine Corps Lt. Gen. James F. Amos, the authors stated that offensive airpower should only be used when “timely, accurate intelligence, precisely delivered weapons with a demonstrated low failure rate, appropriate yield, and proper fuse” can be combined to maximize effect and minimize collateral damage.

The two attacks Cave reports would seem to fit well with such a strategy, with airpower used against an al Qaeda antiaircraft cell and a bomb-making factory. There are no reports of civilian casualties in association with those strikes.

And while Cave says that officials describe these two attacks as "a sign of increased use of offensive airpower in Iraq," Colonel Garver's more precise explanation fits better with my understanding of the Petraeus Doctrine--fewer bombs dropped, limited use of precision strikes, and a greater emphasis on "surveillance, and reconnaissance missions."

Baghdad has been relatively quiet over the past few days, with only one major suicide bombing, yesterday's attack in Sadr City. Much of the Iraqi and Coalition operations and insurgent attacks have occurred in the provinces. The Pentagon said upwards of 7,000 additional logistics troops would be needed to support the 21,500 soldiers and marines being sent in the 'surge.'

In Baghdad, Sheikh Rahim al-Daraji, the mayor of Sadr City, which is the stronghold of radical Iranian backed Shia cleric Muqtada al Sadr, has welcomed U.S. forces into the neighborhood, but is unhappy with the deployment of the 1st Iraqi Special Operations Forces. “We want you here sooner, rather than later,” Al Daraji said.

Meanwhile, U.S. and Iraqi forces are maintaining the pressure on Sadr's Mahdi Army. The Hillah SWAT team captured "the suspected leader of a rogue Jaysh Al-Mahdi militia cell" who "allegedly controls an improvised explosive device cell responsible for attacks against Iraqi civilians and Coalition Forces."

There are indications that a major operation may be underway in Ramadi, however we have been unable to confirm this with Multinational Forces-West. IraqSlogger reports "the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division (1-3ID)is currently engaged in street to street fighting in central Ramadi," and the goal is to build a Combat Outpost in the Mulaab district. Furthermore, "The Americans have blocked all Internet access in Ramadi, and that land and cellular telephone links to the outside world are dead," while residents of Fallujah are protesting against al Qaeda. Al Qaeda hit back with two suicide car bomb attacks in Ramadi and Fallujah, killing 12 and wounding over 20.

The New York Times profiles Sheikh Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, the powerful tribal leader of the Risha tribe in Ramadi and leader of the Anbar Salvation Council, the grouping of 26 of Anbar's 31 tribes that are cooperating with the Iraqi government and U.S. military to fight al Qaeda in Iraq. Azzam looks at how Mahmoud al-Fahdawi, the leader the of the Dulaimis in Tarmiya, Dhaloiya, Balad, and Taji, has turned against al-Qaeda. The Dulami tribe is one of the largest in Iraq. What the articles miss is that the Anbar Salvation Council also includes former insurgent groups that have decided to fight al Qaeda. The battle in Amariya is but one example of this.

Sheikh Sattar is forming 8 battalions of tribal militias which are called Emergency Response Units, which will eventually become a provincial police force. Stars and Stripes looks at the successes of the 1st ERU, which is patrolling in the Jazeera region north of Ramadi. Three battalions are currently deployed, and Sheikh Sattar wants the ERUs to secure Ramadi.

U.S. forces have been active in the Taji region in central Iraq. A Coalition air strike is believed to have killed several members of an al Qaeda anti-aircraft cell. "Several members of the cell, as well as vehicles with anti-aircraft artillery weapons and rounds, were gathered at an area known for terrorist activities," notes a Multinational Forces Iraq press release. "The coordinated air strike at the targeted location resulted in the destruction of the vehicles as well as the anti-aircraft artillery." Coalition forces also captured 9 al Qaeda, "two of whom are believed to be foreign fighter facilitators . . . linked to the movement of foreign fighters into Baghdad." The suspects are also believed to have sheltered senior al Qaeda leaders.

In Diyala, where al Qaeda has centered its operations, the bodies of 14 of the Iraqi soldiers kidnapped by al Qaeda in Iraq have been found. Al Qaeda murdered the men. "They were found in the streets of Baquba," said the mayor of Khalis. "Their throats had been cut and their hands were bound." Iraqi Security Forces are searching for the killers. In what is sure to be another al Qaeda attack, six Sunnis were murdered south of Baghdad in Yusufiyah “after participating in a reconciliation conference with Shiite tribes in Mahmoudiya last month.”

The Washington Post reports today on the hiring of Eliot A. Cohen, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, to fill the position left vacant by Philip D. Zelikow's departure from the State Department earlier this year. Cohen has been a harsh critic of the administration's handling of post-war Iraq, but his hiring is likely to cause little joy among those advocating a diplomatic solution to the war in Iraq. In December, Cohen authored a scathing piece on the Iraq Study Group for The Wall Street Journal. Said Cohen,

What we need in Iraq is not a New Diplomatic Offensive (capitals in the original) so much as energy and competence in fighting the fight. From the outset of the Iraq war much of our difficulty has stemmed not so much from failures to find the right strategy, as from an astounding and depressing inability to implement the strategic and operational choices we have nominally made.

Commentary, to which Cohen has been a frequent contributor, has reposted a number of Cohen's articles on their website.

Just when you thought the "Zionist entity" couldn't stoop any lower, we now have word of a new conspiracy . . . to desecrate synagogues. According to Abu Abir, a spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza included plans to leave two large synagogues intact "so the world would see the Palestinians destroying them." Here's the quote from the New York Sun:

"We are proud to turn these lands, especially these parts that were for long time the symbol of occupation and injustice, like the synagogue, into a military base and source of fire against the Zionists and the Zionist entity," Mr. Abir said.

Mr. Abir blamed the Jewish state for the desecration of the Gaza synagogues by Palestinian Arabs, claiming the decision to leave the structures intact was part of an Israeli conspiracy.

Israel "left the synagogues behind so the world would see the Palestinians destroying them," Mr. Abir said.

(HT KMW)

The Petraeus Doctrine for fighting counterinsurgency (COIN) operations may be the best chance of success for U.S. forces in Iraq, but not everyone is thrilled with the COIN manual Petraeus recently coauthored with Marine Corps Lt. Gen. James F. Amos. John A. Tirpak, executive editor of Air Force magazine, writes that "Petraeus and Amos damn airpower with the faintest of faint praise." The Air Force, Tirpak says, "wasn’t thrilled about the Army-Marine Corps counterinsurgency document, which the service said gave short shrift to airpower’s capabilities." Tirpak sums up what Petraeus and Amos wrote:

In a counterinsurgency, airpower is mostly useful as a means of hauling around ground forces while keeping an eye on the bad guys. Air strikes are probably too blunt an instrument to be of much value, and ground commanders should think twice before asking for them. If air strikes are used, though, a ground forces commander definitely should control them.

Petraeus and Amos warned that "commanders [should] exercise exceptional care when using airpower in the strike role,” because even when those strikes are justified it still “works to the insurgents’ benefit.”

Said one Air Force general, if airmen had written it, it would be "different."

The idea that the Air Force would prefer a different counterinsurgency strategy than the one set forth by the Army and Marines, aka the guys who actually do the fighting, is pretty absurd. Of course the Air Force would prefer a more prominent role in Iraq, and the increased funding that would accompany it, but it's hard to argue with Petraeus's logic: “Inappropriate or indiscriminate use of air strikes can erode popular support and fuel insurgent propaganda. For these reasons, commanders should consider the use of air strikes carefully during COIN operations.”

And Petraeus does concede that “avoiding all risk may embolden insurgents while providing them sanctuary.” So it's not as though the Air Force is entirely left out of this new strategy. But, support for the Petraeus Doctrine, and its emphasis on limited air strikes, is likely to undermine funding support for blunt, Cold War-era Air Force weapons systems like the B-52 bomber. Earlier this week, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England made the case for reducing by 20 the Air Force's fleet of B-52 bombers from the currently mandated 76.

The most outspoken critic of such a reduction is Senator Byron Dorgan, who says “Our B-52s are the lowest-cost bombers to operate and have decades of life left . . . Maintaining them is the best use of taxpayer dollars. It makes no sense to try to save money by cutting the most cost-efficient tool in our long-range arsenal.”

And Dorgan is right that the B-52 is a remarkable efficiency in the Air Force budget, capable of delivering tremendous firepower anywhere in the world at a mere fraction of the cost of delivering a similar payload by F-16s or F-22s. Still, it's hard to imagine what kind of role the B-52 might play in COIN operations. The military is looking to field ever smaller munitions, and the B-52, capable of delivering 50,000 pounds worth of bombs on target, doesn't really fit that mission. Of course, missions change.

Yesterday, Iraqi security forces, backed by the tribes of the Anbar Salvation Council, fended off a major al Qaeda attack in the village of Amiriya, which is just south of Fallujah. Al Qaeda was gunning for a senior member of the Anbar Salvation Front, who was attending the funeral of one of those killed in last week's suicide bombing in Habbaniyah. Several hundred al Qaeda fighters, "including "foreign Arabs and Afghans, attacked and at least 80 were killed and 50 captured. The Amiriya police held of the initial attack, radioed for Iraq Army backup, and also received U.S. close air support.

In other Coalition and Iraq security forces operations, Coalition forces killed 8 al Qaeda during raids and skirmishes in Salman Pak. Two insurgents were captured when attempting to plant a roadside bomb on a highway near Camp Stryker in Baghdad, while another two were killed while planting a bomb near Hawija.

U.S. and Iraqi forces will establish a Joint Security Station inside Sadr City, the stronghold of Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical, Iranian-backed Shia cleric who commands the Mahdi Army. The station will open over the next few days, and will be manned by U.S. soldiers, Iraqi police, and the Iraqi Army. This will mark the first time U.S. forces have established a permanent presence in Sadr City.

A car bomb was detonated today at a market inside Sadr City. Ten were killed and 17 wounded in the attack. Al Qaeda's Islamic State in Iraq captured 18 'government' workers, including what appears to be 14 Iraqi Army soldiers going on leave from Diyala. Al Qaeda claims these men are being held in revenge for the alleged rape of a woman by Iraqi soldiers. Two U.S. soldiers and an interpreter were killed in a roadside bomb attack while conducting a route clearance mission south of Baghdad.

Yesterday, a convoy that was transporting Jalal Eddin al-Sagheer, a prominent Shia cleric and member of parliament, was hit with a roadside bomb attack. Three of his bodyguards were wounded. In Mosul, the head of the "citizenship directorate" was murdered. He was responsible for travel documents, and "rejected pressure to issue false identifications and passports."

While much of coverage on the upcoming regional summit in Iraq has focused on the rare convergence of U.S., Iranian, and Syria diplomats, the Iraqis are showing they plan on using the conference to pressure Syria. Hamid Al Bayati, Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations has said Syria's failure to prevent al Qaeda and Islamist terrorists from crossing the border will be on the agenda. "Most of the terrorists, especially suicide bombers" pass through the Syrian border, said Al Bayati, during a conference at New York University.

More encouraging news from a former U.S. enemy. For many years now political reform has lagged woefully behind Vietnam’s vaunted “doi moi” agenda of economic liberalization. But in late January, the Vietnamese prime minister met with Pope Benedict, which the Vatican called an “important step towards the normalization of bilateral relations.” Apparently a Vatican delegation is heading to Hanoi next week.

Of course, Vietnam remains a one-party state, but these are all positive signs that the government is ever so gradually loosening its grip over basic civil and religious liberties. Hopefully the loosening will not be ephemeral.

Meanwhile, Vietnam’s economy is red hot. In 2005 it grew faster than every other Asian economy save China’s. The surge of foreign investment is especially striking; ditto the high-tech sector. As former U.S. ambassador Raymond Burghardt has written, “Young Vietnamese idolize Bill Gates and aspire to study at our universities.” Indeed, the Microsoft founder got quite a welcome during his visit to Hanoi last April. Earlier this year, Vietnam officially joined the World Trade Organization.

We often hear about a “global tide” of anti-Americanism. Well, Vietnam is one country that has resisted this tide. Small wonder that the updated version of the Armitage-Nye Report, which focuses on the U.S.-Japan alliance, argues that Vietnam represents “perhaps the greatest opportunity over the next 15 years” for American and Japanese diplomacy in Southeast Asia.

From Vice President Cheney at CPAC:

In these circumstances it's worth reminding ourselves that, like it or not, the enemy we face in the war on terror has made Iraq the primary front in that war. To use a popular phrase, this is an inconvenient truth. (Laughter and applause.) In bin Laden's words, and I quote, "Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars." End quote. That makes one thing, above all, very clear: If you support the war on terror, then it only makes sense to support it where the terrorists are fighting us.

Jay Lefkowitz, appointed by Congress in 2005 as special envoy for human rights in North Korea, testified yesterday before the House Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment. There was nothing diplomatic about what Lefkowitz had to say:

Many of the human rights abuses in North Korea are all too familiar to members of this Committee, but certain points bear repeating. There are an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 North Koreans in a vast network of political concentration camps. The rights of free speech, worship, assembly, press, fair trial and emigration are ignored. The regime conducts mandatory political indoctrination, attempts to control all information, and supports a cult of personality around Kim Jong Il that is reminiscent of the worst dictators of the 20th century. . . .

The North Korean government also has grossly negligent policies that exact a shocking humanitarian toll and put its population at risk of mass starvation. The state's highly centralized economy fails each year to produce even enough food for the country to subsist. Nonetheless, we believe the regime could feed its population if it wanted, but instead squanders revenue and foreign assistance on a massive military, weapons development and a small but pampered elite.

Lefkowitz goes on to say that although the Six Party Talks have set forth a working group for normalizing relations between North Korea and the United States, "We believe a discussion on human rights should take place prior to a full normalization of relations." Lefkowitz also warned of "indications that the food shortage this spring in North Korea could be more acute than it has been since the famine years of the 1990s."

Senator McCain addressed "Pyongyang's appalling human rights record" yesterday as well. McCain sent a letter to Secretary Rice calling attention to the trafficking of North Korean women who are "sold" as brides to Chinese men. McCain urged Rice "to ensure that trafficking of North Korean women is a key element of any discussion with Chinese officials that bears on these issues." McCain was more forceful on the subject of North Korea though, demanding that the North's human rights record "must be on the table in talks conducted pursuant to the new agreement with North Korea." You can read McCain's letter here.

Richard Holbrooke, former assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration and a left-wing favorite for secretary of state in a hypothetical Kerry administration, was put in the hot seat yesterday by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN). Pence asked Holbrooke "'Do you oppose efforts to eliminate or reduce funding to our troops on the ground in Iraq?" Here's Holbrooke:

I do. I oppose it. . . . I think that if the commander-in-chief has deployed the troops, the ultimate weapon of denying them the resources to carry out there mission only puts them in harm's way, greater harm's way. I would remind you that we cannot cut the troop funding.

From the Washington Post: Iraqi Troops, Tribesmen Kill 50 Suspected Insurgents, by Joshua Partlow.

From the Los Angeles Times: U.S. to develop new hydrogen bomb, by Ralph Vartabedian.

From the Washington Times: China expands sub fleet, by Bill Gertz.

From the Wall Street Journal: Uranium Do-Over.

From the Times: Oh George, what will we do when you’re gone? by Gerard Baker.

Time just posted the latest from WEEKLY STANDARD editor, and now bona fide blogger, William Kristol. He points to five reasons why Republicans are suddenly bullish about the party's prospects.

I have lots of conservative friends and often speak to Republican-leaning groups. I have something surprising to report: they're pretty cheerful. They're well aware that President Bush's numbers are terrible--and that Al Gore got an Academy Award. Yet my fellow conservatives and Republicans are pretty upbeat. After a rough 2006, conservative magazines are seeing an uptick in subscription renewals, right-wing websites are getting more hits, and Republican and conservative groups here at Harvard (yes, Harvard!) seem invigorated. What's going on? Here are five reasons conservatives and Republicans might have some cause for their cheer.

Read the whole thing here.

A new laser-guided bomb from Northrop Grumman--the Viper Strike--was successfully tested against moving and stationary targets at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico last month according to Defense Update. The rather small munition, weighing in at only 44 lbs, is designed for use in urban combat, where it's precision strike capability, combined with its small size and flexible angle of attack, will allow the military to further reduce collateral damage from aerial strikes.

The bomb is also specifically made for use in conjunction with the military's rapidly growing fleet of UAVs. This looks to be an ideal weapon for targeting terrorists in places like North Waziristan, where U.S. forces and jets are prohibited from engaging targets. Still, with a smaller warhead than the Hellfire missile, this represents a significant effort on the part of the Pentagon to reduce civilian casualties. Pretty exciting stuff. Here are the pictures:

Kimberly Kagan has posted an excellent analysis of the security situation in Iraq on today's DAILY STANDARD. You can click on the image to download the pdf. Kimberly Kagan is a military historian who has taught at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Yale University, Georgetown University, and American University. She is a Senior Fellow and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University, where she teaches the History of Military Operations;an affiliate of the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University; and a visiting fellow at Yale International Security Studies. Bottom line: Kagan knows her stuff, and the report provides the kind of analysis that is so desperately lacking in the mainstream media's "bomb-a-day" coverage. You can look for updates from Kagan at THE DAILY STANDARD every other week, and of course we will link to it here as well.

Noah Shachtman's new Wired blog, The Danger Room, is holding a competition to expose the web's worst defense-related government websites. Shachtman explains:

The federal government started building websites for its various agencies back in the mid-90s. The idea was to better inform the public -- and to share information across bureaucratic silos. Even back before most folks had 'net access, these websites seemed like the best way for letting the public know what they were getting for their tax dollars, and for helping the government run a little more efficiently.

At least, that was the theory.

And the first nomination goes to,

an absolute stinker, from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics). The website for the Systems and Mission Integration Directorate--responsible for "overseeing systems integration effects in support of combat capabilities across all joint warfighting mission areas"--hasn't been updated since 2005. Its "news" page: "Under Construction." Its "education & training" page: "Under Construction." And its "related information" page? You guessed it. "Under Construction."

Your tax dollars hard at work. I imagine our readers would have quite a few websites to nominate for this competition.

Baghdad has been relatively quiet over the past 24 hours, and no major mass casualty suicide attacks or car bomb atacks have been reported. It is far too soon to translate this into long term success, however, as al Qaeda has shown the capacity to 'surge' mass casualty attacks in the city after periods of calm. As we noted earlier in the week, the United States still has four combat brigades to deploy, and the Iraqis still have four combat battalions to move into Baghdad. The U.S. soldiers of the 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division have just arrived in Baghdad.

To keep the violence down, Iraqi and U.S. forces will need to maintain the checkpoints and searches in Baghdad, and continue or initiate offensive actions against insurgent strongholds in Diyala, Anbar, and south of the city. There is evidence offensive operations outside of the capital are taking place. Eight were killed and 11 wounded in clashes between Iraqi police and insurgents in Iskandariya. An unconfirmed report by the Interior Ministry indicates 80 insurgents were killed and 50 captured during clashes between Iraqi security forces and insurgents in a town outside Fallujah. U.S. and Iraqi forces killed 10 insurgents and captured 5 in Muqdadiya. In Mosul, a curfew was imposed so U.S. and Iraqi security forces could conduct a cordon and search operation. Coalition forces (the hunter-killer teams of Task Force 145) maintain the hunt for al Qaeda operatives, killing 3 and capturing 16 in operations in Baghdad, Ramadi, and Bayji.

In Northern Iraq, a U.S. Army helicopter was forced to make a hard landing after the OH-58 Kiowa scout experienced a mechanical failure. This is the ninth helicopter downed either by mechanical problems or enemy fire. Al Qaeda in Iraq has established anti-aircraft squads to down American helos, and military and intelligence sources tell us al Qaeda is armed with Strela anti-aircraft missiles provided by Iran.

The U.S. will join the regional conference hosted by the Iraqi government, which will also be attended by Iran, Syria, "all Iraq's neighbors as well as Egypt, the five permanent members of the Security Council, the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference," reports the Financial Times. But direct talks with Iran and Syria have been ruled out by the Bush administration.

"There will not be bilateral talks between the United States and Iran or the United States and Syria, within the context of these meetings," said Tony Snow, the White House spokesman. The US precondition remained unchanged, he said, that Iran first suspend its uranium enrichment programme as called for by the United Nations Security Council. "We want to make sure those waters don't get muddied," he said.

Arianna disapproves of those of us who called attention to the comments posted on her site Tuesday morning lamenting the failure of a suicide bombing in Afghanistan Tuesday to kill Vice President Cheney. These commenters "make up a very, very small unrepresentative portion of our readers," she now assures us.

How does she know? If the HuffPost commenters are unrepresentative of HuffPost readers, how does she divine the views of her readers?

Enlighten us, Arianna. Poll your readers. Ask them: Are they pleased that the attempt against Vice President Cheney failed? Are they grateful that he is alive and well? Do you hope the U.S. prevails in Afghanistan? In Iraq?

And if the poll turns out the way you hope, perhaps you should arrange to moderate the commenters so they don't convey the impression that your readers are--as you put it--"unhinged" and "fringe."

Roughly a year after their first visit, Hamas is back in Moscow. According to Nezavisimaya Gazeta, whereas the March 2006 invitation was extended by President Putin, this time, Hamas leaders (Khalid Mishal and Musa Abu Marzook) have themselves asked to come to Moscow for “consultations”. As last time, President Putin has preferred not to meet with the group’s representatives, leaving the discussions to Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his deputy, Aleksandr Saltanov. Russia is still the only member of the Middle East Quartet that recognizes Hamas as a legitimate party and is thus willing to entertain talks with the group.

The purpose, however, is less clear--from both sides. As reported by Vesti, Hamas still adheres to its hard-line approach, while Mishal noted in Moscow that it is “Israel who is occupying Palestinian lands…The Quartet should talk to them, not us." Gazeta notes that there has been no progress on convincing Hamas to free the kidnapped Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit, with Mishal continuing to insist on reciprocation from Israel in “releasing a certain number of Palestinian prisoners." In an interview with Vremya Novostei, Mishal admitted that Shalit was alive and “treated well," but firmly stated that “our positions cannot be bought."

Moscow’s position may be less principled than that of Hamas. After the Quarter meeting in Berlin last week, according to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Lavrov rejected the assertion that the Quarter is conducting “the politics of boycott." Yet this week in Moscow, according to Izvestiya, Lavrov praised the February 8 Mecca Accords between Hamas and Fatah--which still refrained from recognizing Israel--and noted that “[Russia] strives for the international community to support this process… including efforts to help lift the blockade.” Today’s edition of the liberal Kommersant has a different take on the situation: “In sum, Russia ha