The city of Baghdad continues to see a drop in sectarian violence, while suicide car bombings remain al Qaeda's most deadly tool. After the car bomb offensive by al Qaeda two weeks ago, which included 11 major suicide attacks over just five days, the past week inside the city has been relatively free of major attacks. Although roadside bombs, mortar attacks, and small arms fire remain a regular occurrence inside Baghdad, al Qaeda was unable to pull off any further large scale attacks--which threaten to reignite the sectarian bloodshed.

While it is difficult to assess al Qaeda's capabilities in sustaining suicide attacks inside Baghdad proper, it seems the terror group possesses enough resources to conduct several high profile attacks at a time. Coalition and Iraqi operations are putting a dent in al Qaeda's capacity nationwide; however, al Qaeda is still able to assemble enough car bombs to carry out the attacks, which are designed to split the Sunni and Shia communities and create a media frenzy.

Part of the Coalition strategy to cut down on the deadly car bomb attacks and reduce the sectarian violence is to segment the city with physical barriers. These barriers stem the flow of traffic through checkpoints and prevent the infiltration of death squads through back alleys and side streets. The news of the creation of the "Adhamiya Wall" sparked protests and the temporary halting of the barrier's construction. Opportunists likened the barrier to the fence separating Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank.

But, as Omar Fadhil noted early last week, "Work to construct similar walls started weeks ago in the Amiriya and Ghazaliyah districts. The 'news' went utterly unnoticed then." Mr. Fadhil noted the barrier has had some effect in Amiriya and Ghazaliyah, and speculated that insurgents might have stirred up the local protests in an attempt to halt the building of the wall.

Dave Kilcullen, the Senior Counter-Insurgency Advisor for Multi-National Force Iraq, explained that Prime Minister Maliki restarted the project after he was briefed on the need for the barrier and how the protests had come about. "As I understand it, once the reasons for the project and the likely benefits in terms of lives saved were explained to the PM, he was happy for it to continue. I understand that the evidence of extremist manipulation was also a factor." Kilcullen likened the barrier to an "urban tourniquet," and explained that the propaganda campaign to disrupt its construction came from none other than al Qaeda in Iraq.

While Baghdad remains the focus of attention, some real gains have been made in Anbar, once the most violent province in Iraq. The progress in subduing the insurgency in Anbar province has finally reached the front pages of the New York Times and other outlets. The process in standing up the Anbar Salvation Council, a group of local tribes and former insurgents opposed to al Qaeda's harsh brand of Taliban-like sharia law, has been ongoing since the summer of 2006. The Anbar Salvation Council has had such success in Ramadi, which was once the most dangerous city in Iraq, that attacks have dropped to as few as two per day after spiking to as many as 50 a day last summer. Markets are reopening, children are returning to school and Iraqi and American security forces are conducting patrols throughout the most dangerous neighborhoods in the city.

The White House is waiting for the Iraq supplemental that the president has promised to veto. It was cleared for the White House four days ago. As CQ notes, Congressional leaders never intended to send it before tomorrow--although it's unclear why.

Rest assured though, Congressional leaders are committed to making sure that the troops have the funding when they need it, without suffering any complications in combat operations. The April 15 deadline that the President identified? Not a real deadline. The May 1 deadline that Robert Byrd's staff identified? Apparently also not a real deadline. The reports (here, here, and here, for example) that the missed deadline has adversely impacted combat operations? Not to be believed.

Rest assured, contrary to all outside indications, the Democrats are committed to supporting our troops--just not right now.

From National Review: Tenet Strikes Out, by Michael Ledeen.

From the New York Post: Congress & Iraq: Declaring Defeat, by Peter Brookes.

From RealClearPolitics: China's Submarines, by Richard Halloran.

From Congressional Quarterly: McCain Probes Air Force CSAR Contract With Boeing, by Josh Rogin.

From the Danger Room: F-22 Not For Sale, Says Export Chief, by Sharon Weinberger.

Bonus: The North Korean Air Force by Google Earth

The new E-2D Advanced Hawkeye by Northrop Grumman, unveiled on April 30.
It will make its first flight this summer. Read more about the plane's price tag at The DEW Line.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently got into trouble for saying aloud what many in his party undoubtedly believe--that Iraq is "lost."

This weekend brought fresh and powerful evidence of why he is wrong.

The story begins last fall when, according to a front page article in the Washington Post by Fiasco author Thomas Ricks, the chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq wrote a report concluding that Anbar province--long the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency--was "lost."

As the Post reported then, "there are no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force... Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair."

Flash ahead to yesterday's New York Times, which carried a cover story on the situation in Anbar. The paper says Anbar province is now "undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat."

Last summer, the American military recorded as many as 25 violent acts a day in the Ramadi region, ranging from shootings and kidnappings to roadside bombs and suicide attacks. In the past several weeks, the average has dropped to four acts of violence a day, American military officials said.

"'There are some people who would say we've won the war out here," said Col. John. A. Koenig, a planning officer for the Marines who oversees governing and economic development issues in Anbar. "I'm cautiously optimistic as we're going forward.'"

Will the Democrats hail this dramatic turnaround in Anbar--or even acknowledge it? Or will they keep on arguing the same premature defeatism that would have had us abandon Anbar to Al Qaeda?

This goes back a little ways.

You may recall that after the Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives last fall, there was discussion over who would become chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Representative Jane Harman was in line for it, but she had quarreled with Speaker Pelosi and so was denied the position. By multiple reports, Speaker Pelosi was prepared to name Alcee Hastings as the new chair--even though he had been impeached and removed as a federal judge. Eventually--it was reported--she relented.

Now Congressman Hastings has done an interview with Congressional Quarterly in which he says that no, Speaker Pelosi was not going to deny him the chairmanship; he withdrew his own name. What led him to do such a thing? A chat with Bill Clinton:

By virtue of seniority, with Harman cast aside, Hastings was in line to take over the Intelligence panel.

It's entirely possible that Mr. Hastings' story is nothing more than sour grapes. Having been denied the chairmanship, he might have decided to make it look as if it was his choice. But then why invent the intercession of Bill Clinton?

If Hastings' tale is true, then we cannot credit Nancy Pelosi with having recognized that a Hastings chairmanship would have been at odds with the Democrats' ethics promises. Rather, it would mean that she just got lucky.

Think Progress has posted the video of Tom Brokaw's interview with George Tenet this morning. Brokaw pressed Tenet on the details of a conversation he claims to have had with Richard Perle on September 12, 2001, and which Perle denies ever took place--owing to the fact that he was not in the country on September 12, but in France.

Here's the original quote from Tenet's book:

On the day after 9/11, he [Tenet] adds, he ran into Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative and the head of the Defense Policy Board, coming out of the White House. He says Mr. Perle turned to him and said: "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday. They bear responsibility."

And here's Tenet's response this morning:

“I may have been off by a couple of days. The encounter occurred. The conversation occurred. … So I may have gotten the days wrong, but I know I got the substance of that conversation correct.”

Think Progress conveniently reproduces the quote from last night's 60 Minutes--rather than the quote from the book--which makes it seem as though the date of the conversation might be wrong, but the "substance" might still be right. However, the original quote from the book makes clear that the "substance" of the conversation must be wrong if the date is wrong as well: Tenet quotes Perle as saying "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday."

This quote is a centerpiece of Tenet's charge that there was some kind of conspiracy in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks to pin the blame on Saddam. But the conversation didn't take place when he said it did, and so the substance of the conversation can't possibly be what he said it was. Tenet's explanation is no explanation at all.

An April 24th piece in the PLA Daily cautioning against the “corrosive effect” of foreign culture has been republished by several Chinese-language newspapers and websites, including People’s Daily, the immensely popular infotainment website sina.com, and china.com.cn, which operates under the jurisdiction of the press office of the State Council--China’s Cabinet.

The piece features interviews by PLA Daily reporter Zhang Xinyang with Xue Xiang of the department of strategy at the Chinese Academy of Military Science and Wang Ding, director of the political department at the Tianjin General Detachment of the People’s Armed Police.

It begins with a statement by Zhang that “like political, economic and military security, cultural security is an integral part of a country’s national security system.”

Wang Ding warns:

Using a variety of tactics, hostile Western forces are engaging in unbridled propaganda to promote the Western, capitalist world view, outlook on life and value system… Taking advantage of relevant agreements of the World Trade Organization, they export vast quantities of movies, television programs, books, and other cultural products. As they reap enormous economic profits, they also export their cultural values and generate an unmistakably negative impact on our social and cultural life…

This thinly veiled attack on the United States follows closely Washington’s decision earlier this month to file formal complaints against China with the WTO over alleged IPR violations and restrictions on market access for U.S. movies, DVDs, books, and music. China has vowed to “fight until the end” against these American complaints.

Xue Xiang of the Chinese Academy of Military Science cautions in the interview that globalization has made it “singularly difficult to defend against the corrosive and destructive effect of foreign culture,” and that “satellites, radio and television broadcasts, and the Internet…have created a series of problems for national cultural security; for example, the Internet has provided a platform for advanced countries to export culture to developing countries…thereby magnifying the negative impact of Western values… We must build a line of defense against foreign cultural corrosion.”

The expression “foreign cultural corrosion” heavily populated Chinese cyberspace this past January, when China Central Television’s English news anchor, Rui Chenggang, led an online campaign to have a Starbucks outlet removed from the Forbidden City because it constituted an “affront to Chinese culture.” A fluent English speaker, Rui Chenggang spent the 2005-2006 school year as a visiting fellow at Yale. His exposure to Western culture appears not to have had an especially “corrosive” effect on him--or perhaps such activism is precisely what the regime most fears.

The boss just posted an interesting piece on THE DAILY STANDARD about George Tenet's soon-to-be-released At the Center of the Storm. It seems that Tenet has included some misleading statements in the book, as well at least one rather serious factual error. According to Kristol's reporting:

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has now learned of a . . . stunning error in Tenet's book (which is due to appear in bookstores tomorrow). According to Michiko Kakutani's review in Saturday's Times,

On the day after 9/11, he [Tenet] adds, he ran into Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative and the head of the Defense Policy Board, coming out of the White House. He says Mr. Perle turned to him and said: "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday. They bear responsibility."

Here's the problem: Richard Perle was in France on that day, unable to fly back after September 11. In fact Perle did not return to the United State until September 15. Did Tenet perhaps merely get the date of this encounter wrong? Well, the quote Tenet ascribes to Perle hinges on the encounter taking place September 12: "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday." And Perle in any case categorically denies to THE WEEKLY STANDARD ever having said any such thing to Tenet, while coming out of the White House or anywhere else.

Also, Kristol points to this questionable account Tenet gives of a 2002 meeting with Douglas Feith and his staff:

Scott Shane reported in Saturday's New York Times that former CIA chief George Tenet's dramatic description in his book, At the Center of the Storm, of an August 2002 presentation at the CIA by defense undersecretary Douglas Feith and his staff, is at the very least misleading. In order to suggest that Feith's staff was utterly out of its depth, Tenet characterized the main briefer, Tina Shelton, as a "naval reservist." In fact, she had been a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst for almost two decades. Tenet also claimed that Shelton said in her presentation of Iraq-al Qaeda contacts, "It is an open-and-shut case." Shelton and Feith both deny she said that. One person who served in government with Shelton told THE WEEKLY STANDARD today he finds it "inconceivable" that Shelton, an experienced analyst, would have made such an unequivocal assertion.

The bottom line: Kristol wonders "How many other facts has George Tenet invented?"

Update: In his interview with 60 Minutes tonight, Tenet repeated the story about running into Perle at the White House. Here's the transcript:

The truth of Iraq begins, according to Tenet, the day after the attack of Sept. 11, when he ran into Pentagon advisor Richard Perle at the White House.

"He said to me, 'Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday, they bear responsibility.' It’s September the 12th. I’ve got the manifest with me that tell me al Qaeda did this. Nothing in my head that says there is any Iraqi involvement in this in any way shape or form and I remember thinking to myself, as I'm about to go brief the president, 'What the hell is he talking about?'" Tenet remembers.

If the truth of Iraq according to George Tenet begins with a fictional conversation...maybe Tenet's truth isn't so reliable.

Fox News Sunday:
John McCain was the featured guest on Fox News Sunday, and the Arizona senator laid out his vision for a McCain presidency in one quick sentence: “Reform government, fight this Islamic extremist element that challenges the world, and restore integrity to government.” While the Reaganite sound bites may have allayed the fears of some rank and file conservatives, they were probably not quite as happy when he said, “I would probably announce the closing of Guantanamo Bay, I would move those detainees to Fort Leavenworth, I would announce we will not torture anyone, I would announce that climate change is a big issue, because we’ve got some image problems in the world.”

On the roundtable, Bill Kristol mocked George Tenet for his self-serving 60 Minutes interview. “It turns out that George Tenet, in addition to being a mediocre CIA director, is a cry baby. Can you believe that clip on 60 Minutes you showed? Oh, it’s so disgusting that people are criticizing him, it’s hurting his reputation. Give me a break!” Mara Liasson felt that the Democratic debate served little to no purpose, noting “I don’t think the dynamic of this race was changed one iota. … Obama didn’t hurt himself, Hillary came off just fine.”

Meet the Press:
On Meet the Press, Joe Biden was given a chance to show off his famed loquaciousness after being on his best behavior for the Democratic debate. Nothing particularly interesting was said, but if your Sunday feels incomplete without a (60 minute) cup of Joe, click here to check out the full show.

This Week:
Condoleezza Rice was the featured guest on This Week, taking on George Tenet and refusing to rule out a conflict with Iran. Russ Feingold and Sam Brownback also appeared. Feingold took the president to task for daring to disagree with the Democratic Congressional majority. “The American people want us to provide the funds that the president has asked for,” Feingold said, “but they want us to end this war, and the only way to do that is to have some sort of approach, like the timeline in this bill.” Brownback took issue with his colleague’s plan, noting “This is assured defeat. Defeat will happen in America, not Iraq. That’s not what the American people want.”

ABC’s roundtable was just as dismissive of the Democratic debate as Fox's Mara Liasson. George Will remarked “These are not debates; they are parallel press conferences--and not even particularly good press conferences,” while Fareed Zakaria felt “the whole spectacle was somewhat depressing for all of us as voters. The whole thing was so rehearsed, so planned, they say nothing of any interest, they don’t take any risks.”

Face the Nation:
Condi also showed up at Face the Nation, as did Democratic congressman John Murtha, who spoke of impeachment as "a way to influence a president." The Politico's Roger Simon spoke to the wisdom of proceding with an effort to impeach the president:

I don’t think the Democrats want this on the table. For one thing, do they really want Vice President Cheney to become President Cheney? I mean, is that their goal? Secondly, I think they want to fight an election campaign next year. I don't think they want to fight to impeach a president, to prove that he's actually committed high crimes and misdemeanors, to go through a trial in the Senate. I think they just want to win at the ballot box next November.

Senator McCain had a conference call with a number of bloggers this afternoon, and McCain certainly made some interesting points.

In response to comments yesterday by Mitt Romney that we shouldn't "move heaven and earth" or "spend billions" trying to capture Osama bin Laden, which we commented on earlier today here, McCain said that he disagreed: "We'll devote every effort this country can make to get him," the Senator said.

On the supplemental, McCain said that he understood "the absolute drop dead date" to be sometime in early June, but he also said it was important that the president veto the current bill if for no other reason that the $20 billion in pork that Democrats have stuffed into it. He said the pork was being "used as a vehicle to buy votes," and that it was "obscene and corrupting." He also said that it would be a mistake to wait until that "drop dead date" before passing a clean supplemental.

On the issue of same sex marriage, the senator said he was personally opposed to the legislation just passed in New Hampshire that would legalize civil unions for gay couples, but that he did believe that this was a matter best left to the states--that he was a "strong federalist."

On the media coverage of the Iraq war, McCain said that "suicide bombers continue to be the focus of [press] efforts, but there is progress being made." He went on to say that "the thing that concerns me as much as anything is the Maliki government," pointing to its decision to take a two month recess this summer as particularly worrying. He also said there had been "dramatic improvement in Anbar," but that General Petraeus continued to be concerned about the suicide bombers and equipment coming into Iraq from Iran and Syria. Overall, he said that there was "measured but slow progress" taking place in Iraq.

On energy, McCain spoke of the "huge national security component to the need for energy independence," and then treated us to the only blatant pander of the afternoon by pointing to the importance of "corn oil" in Iowa as an alternative source of energy. More important, he emphasized the need for nuclear power: "We need [more] nuclear power badly."

When asked about what kind of justices he might appoint to the Supreme Court, McCain said that he would not impose a litmus test, but he did say he thought a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution was critical, and that he would look for someone with "life experience" rather than just focusing on judicial experience. Specifically, he said that he would want someone who had military or business experience, "real world experience" he said.

When asked whether he would be able to peel off any of the states that voted for Kerry in 2004, McCain said that "if you look what happened in Ohio and other midwest states [in 2004] it's not good," but that he would look to put California in play in 2008 to offset those negative trends: "I'm going to compete in California," he said, adding that Republicans can no longer afford to write off the biggest state in the Union.

And on defense spending, McCain was asked whether he was in line with Romney, who recently endorsed the Heritage Foundation proposal for spending a minimum of four percent of GDP on national defense. McCain said that he would see to it that defense spending continues to rise, but that "what we do is more important than how much money we spend," emphasizing the need for serious reform in the acquisition process. Specifically, he said that the cost overruns on the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) were "disgraceful," that "missile defense has to be fully funded," that "the greatest challenge is to get costs under control," and that the "heads of services have to be more involved in the acquisition process."

He speculated on whether what money we are spending is being spent in the right areas, asking "are we spending enough on intelligence" and "do we need a half-billion dollar aircraft?" Presumably that is a reference to the F-22, and on that he answered his own question saying that "I think we happen to need these," but his point was clear: reforming the acquisition process will be a central theme of his defense policy. To that end, he said he would "get the smartest guys in America" into the Pentagon to get a handle on how the military deals with the defense industry.

I asked McCain about CSAR-X, as issue which was likely of no interest to anybody else on the call, and he responded that he had been traveling the past week and didn't know if the Air Force had met his deadline for delivering all the relevant paperwork. When I interviewed folks for that story, some were concerned that the rigors of the presidential campaign would prevent McCain from delving too deeply into this issue, as he had done in relation to the 2001 scandal over the Air Force's deal with Boeing for refueling tankers. McCain said he'd pass along an update as soon as possible, but it seems that the senator's hectic schedule does call into question his ability to keep the focus on oversight--which, in all fairness, is not the biggest issue he faces right now.

For more coverage of the call, I'm sure John Hideraker will have something up at Powerline shortly, as will the Bluey Blog.

Update: Eyeon08 has posted, so has Hit and Run, and Little Miss Atilla, who has a way better caricature than I do.

Update 2: And Dean Barnett wasn't invited. What does Nelson say?

Baghdad and greater Iraq has seen yet another relatively quiet day. A major car bombing in Tal Afar was reported by an unidentified police officer, however Iraqi officials and the city's mayor later denied the report. The two major stories from Iraq are the capture of Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, a senior al Qaeda operative and lieutenant of Osama bin Laden, and General Petraeus's disclosure of Iranian involvement in the January attack in Karbala during yesterday's press briefing.

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi was captured sometime in late 2006, and was transferred to Guantanamo Bay this week. Abd al-Hadi was a former major in Saddam Hussein's Army, sat on al Qaeda's military and leadership shuras (or councils), ran al Qaeda training camps, conducted attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and served as the facilitator between al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda's senior command in Pakistan, and the Taliban. He was captured while attempting to enter Iraq, and is purported to have been assigned to take over operational control of al Qaeda forces in the region.

Abd al-Hadi is also said to have worked with Saif al Adel, al Qaeda's operational planner who is currently in Iran. The two are said to have planted the seeds for al Qaeda's involvement in Iraq's insurgency.

Abd al-Hadi's capture comes as General Petraeus outlined Iranian Qods Force's involvement with the February 20 attack on the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, which led to the aborted kidnapping and subsequent murder of five U.S. soldiers. Qods Force armed, trained, and advised the Qazili network, which carried out the attack.

U.S. forces detained several senior leaders of the Qazili network, and captured a "22-page memorandum on a computer that detailed the planning, preparation, approval process and conduct of the operation that resulted in five of our soldiers being killed in Karbala," said Gen. Petraeus.

Gen. Petraeus also discussed the Sheibani network, "which brings explosively formed projectiles into Iraq from Iran," as well as other deadly weapons from Iran. An American military intelligence official informs us that the Sheibani network is one of Qods Force's foreign networks in Iraq, just as Hezbollah is an Iranian arm in Lebanon.

In operations across Iraq, Coalition forces captured nine members of al Qaeda's network in Salman Pak, Mosul, Baghdad, and Ramadi. On April 21, a series of joint Iraqi and U.S. operations netted over 50 insurgents in the Shubayshen region just south of Baghdad. Several weapons caches, bomb factories and IEDs were discovered, as well as al Qaeda propaganda.

Hugo Chavez is an outsized personality with a bit of Don King about him. His foolish policies, anti-Americanism and devotion to a walking cadaver earn him a tremendous amount of attention in the United States. Less noticed, however, is that his attempt to remake Latin America after his own image has led to opposition from the region's largest player: Lula Inacio DaSilva. The Los Angeles Times reports that Lula is traveling around South America seeking to promote Brazil's role as leader of the region. He is at pains to make clear that this is not aimed at Chavez:

Though Lula has denied any effort to undermine Chavez's petro-diplomacy, South American analysts see the Brazilian president responding to his Venezuelan counterpart's oil-funded strategy to become a regional power broker — a role Lula believes should rightly be his because his nation is Latin America's largest and most populous.

Away from the attention of the U.S. media, Chavez and Lula have been clashing over energy for a while--at least since Brazil's Petrobras lost much of its investment in Bolivia when Evo Morales followed Chavez's advice and lead by nationalizing the country's gas sector. Since then, a rivalry between the two over hydrocarbons and ethanol has taken shape. After a regional energy summit last week, it looks like Lula won hands down. Brazil blocked Chavez's effort to create an 'OPEC' for South America's natural gas exporters (Argentina, Venezuela and Bolivia), and forced Chavez to back down on his opposition to Brazil's ethanol partnership with the United States:

Ethanol, it seems, is main ingredient for a new geopolitical relationship that has arguably increased US influence in South America while presenting real possibilities of a global presence for Brazil.

This argument, however, was absent from the regional energy conference held on 16 April in Venezuela, just two weeks after Lula visited Bush at Camp David. Rather than use the forum where 12 South American heads of state were present to attack Lula, Chavez offered his support for ethanol as a regional energy effort.

And in the middle of this back-and-forth between Brazil and Venezuela, Lula found time to host Bush and to travel to Camp David--in a matter of just a few weeks. What do you suppose motivated the White House to spend such time on Lula, and to put such priority on an ethanol deal with Brazil?

When it comes to ties to the United States and the Bush White House, Lula's Brazil will never be Tony Blair's Britain. But the U.S. has developed a good working relationship with Brazil. At its core lies a significant common interest: the desire to reduce Hugo Chavez's influence in Latin America. And common interests are often the foundation of very productive relationships.

From RedState: Dispatches from Iraq, by Jeff Emanuel.

From USA Today: Progress is Being Made, by Jerry Lewis.

From Townhall: 9/11 On Stilts and Obama's "Potentially" Muscular Reaction, by Dean Barnett.

From National Review: What, Us Weak on Defense? by Byron York.

From Captain's Quarters: The Goalpost-Shifting Of The Democrats, by Captain Ed.

Bonus: Quake brings WWII PT boat up from ocean floor.

Posted by Michael Goldfarb at 01:43 PM
Required Reading | E-mail the author | E-mail article

For the most part, yes. Dean Barnett points to this quote from a speech the former governor gave earlier in the week at Yeshiva University as evidence:

"What Jimmy Carter fails to understand is what so many fail to understand: Whether it is Hamas or Hezbollah or al Qaeda, there is an overarching goal among the violent jihadists that transcends borders and boundaries. That goal is to replace all modern Islamic states with a caliphate, to destroy Israel, to cause the collapse of the West and the United States, and to conquer the world."

But then there's this quote, from a brief interview he gave to AP reporter Liz Sodoti yesterday:

[Romney] Said the country would be safer by only "a small percentage" and would see "a very insignificant increase in safety" if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person," Romney said. Instead, he said he supports a broader strategy to defeat the Islamic jihad movement.

Of course, Romney is absolutely right--capturing bin Laden won't significantly reduce the threat we face from radical Islam. The president himself has repeatedly made the same point. But is it worth "moving heaven and earth" and "spending billions of dollars"...well, yes. Capturing bin Laden would be priceless. In a world of finite resources, and in which manpower is the scarcest resource of all, it would be foolish to take men and materiel out of the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq, a far more potent enemy, just to pursue a single man. But if it were merely a matter of cost, is there anybody in this country who would object to spending an extra $10 billion to catch bin Laden? There may be a price at which it just doesn't make sense, but I'd be hard pressed to determine what that price is. And whatever it costs, I'd pay double to catch him alive.

The United States has scored a major victory against al Qaeda's global network. Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, one of Osama bin Laden's senior deputies who was "personally chosen by bin Laden to monitor al Qaeda operations in Iraq," has been captured and transfered to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. government put a $1 million bounty out for Al-Hadi's capture.

It is unknown who captured al-Hadi, or where or when he was captured. "'Abd al-Hadi was trying to return to his native country, Iraq, to manage al Qaeda's affairs and possibly focus on operations outside Iraq against Western targets," according to the Department of Defense. "'Abd al-Hadi also met with al Qaeda members in Iran and believed that they should be doing more with the fight, including supporting efforts in Iraq and causing problems within Iran." Last year, Coalition forces captured senior al Qaeda operative Omar Farouq in Basra after he left Afghanistan to plan operations inside Iraq.

Al-Hadi was al Qaeda's Internal Operations Chief and served as an instructor as well as the commander of several al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. He was a major in Saddam Hussein's Army prior to going to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Al-Hadi also served on al Qaeda's "ruling Shura Council — a now-defunct 10-person advisory body to Osama Bin Ladin — as well as the group's Military Committee, which oversaw terrorist and guerrilla operations and paramilitary training."

While in Pakistan, al-Hadi directed cross-border military operations against U.S. and Afghan forces in Afghanistan. Al-Hadi also served as a conduit between al Qaeda in Iraq, the Taliban and al Qaeda senior command operating inside Pakistan. He was behind the assassination attempts against Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

"'Abd al-Hadi was known and trusted by Bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri," notes the Department of Defense. He was "in direct communication with both leaders and, at one point, was Zawahiri's caretaker. 'Abd al-Hadi also interacted with other senior al Qaeda planners and decision makers, such as Khalid Shaykh Muhammad and Abu Faraj al-Libi, and deceased al Qaeda members Hamza Rabi'a and 'Abd al-Rahman al-Muhajir."

Al-Hadi's capture and subsequent interrogation will likely yield significant intelligence on al Qaeda's global operations, and specifically operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. Al-Hadi was a vital link in al Qaeda's global network, who possesses knowledge on al Qaeda's training, communications, personal ties and operations in the critical theaters of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Al-Hadi's knowledge of al Qaeda's command structure inside Pakistan will be of particular interest, as the U.S. believes Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri and other al Qaeda senior leaders are operating from command centers in Waziristan and Bajaur.

Cross-posted at The Fourth Rail.

Update: Our friend Thomas Joscelyn has posted some interesting questions he'd like to see the intelligence community put to recently captured al Qaeda bigwig Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi. Check it out here.

The president headed to Camp David today with Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe. Following an "intimate" dinner last night at the White House, where the two leaders were joined by their wives, their respective ambassadors, and golfer Ben Crenshaw, they will spend today discussing a range of issues at the presidential retreat--balancing against China and managing a nuclear North Korea are likely at the top of that list.

As Duncan Currie wrote in this week's issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, "the [U.S.-Japan] alliance remains structurally robust." But there is at least one rather simple way that the president might strengthen that alliance and go a long way toward balancing against China and North Korea: provide the Japanese with access to the F-22 Raptor--the world's most advanced air superiority fighter.

As things stand now, sale of the F-22 to foreign governments requires Congressional oversight and approval, but an agreement between the two leaders would likely assure Congressional support for such an arrangement.

According to Aviation Week, acquiring the F-22 has become "a point of pride with the Japanese" military, but one industry source quoted by the magazine says that Japanese politicians have yet to "realize that it's a matter of national survival, not just national pride."

We've written here before on the impact such a sale might have on the balance of power in the Pacific--in short, there's little or no downside, other than rankling the Chinese. And the aircraft would be a significant boost to Japan's ability to deter aggression--or project power in the event that deterrence fails. But there's a huge upside for the American military as well.

The F-22 is not only the world's most advanced fighter, it's also the most expensive. So expensive that the Pentagon has cut its initial order of 750 aircraft down to a paltry 183. As the Pentagon cut numbers, the unit cost of the aircraft rose, forcing the Pentagon to make further cuts, and so on, in a vicious cycle referred to as "the death spiral."

Of course, much of the cost comes from research and development--meaning that billions are spent before the first plane is even built. Now that full-scale production is under way, the marginal cost of building additional copies is significantly less that the average cost of each aircraft. So while the government may end up paying as much as $312 million, on average, for each F-22 in the inventory, the marginal cost of producing one more F-22 might be as little as $132 million.

An article by SSgt C. Todd Lopez that appeared in the Air Force Print News this week gives what may be the best account I've read on the cost breakdown of the F-22.

One roadblock to more Raptors is the aircraft's high cost. Estimates for the fighter jet range from as little as $132 million to as much as $312 million. So far, the Air Force has invested as much as $28 billion in the Raptor's research, development and testing. That money, referred to as a "sunk cost," is already spent and is separate from money used for future decision-making, including procuring a copy of the jet.

General Lewis also says that 183 F-22s just isn't enough:

The Air Force now has funding for up to 183 F-22 aircraft, which will be distributed among seven squadrons. But General Lewis makes no secret of the fact the Air Force would like to see even more Raptors.

If the Air Force wants 381 F-22s, getting the Japanese in on the program would be a big help in bringing costs down. It's a win-win situation. As impressive as the F-22 is, scoring a whopping 144-0 kill ratio in exercises late last year, it would be foolish to replace 800 air superiority aircraft with just 183 F-22s. But 381 F-22s, in addition to several Japanese squadrons, would force the Chinese to think long and hard about taking any aggressive action in the Pacific. The president would do well to bring the subject up at Camp David today.

We may have figured out why the Democratic policy on Iraq is so incoherent. At least some Democrats seem to think that Iraq, Haiti, and Somalia are all the same.

The linked page includes video of Senator McCain advocating the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia in 1993 and from Haiti in 1994. He explains in each case why he favors the recall of American forces. With regard to Somalia, he states:

the mission which the American people supported and this Congress supported, in an overwhelming resolution, has been accomplished

And Haiti:

The Haitians were to police themselves but the cooperation that was to prevent mission creep has not materialized and U.S. troops have assumed a greater and greater responsibility for policing Haiti. We all see on CNN what they are doing. Day by day their mission expands.

Do the Democrats believe that our foreign policy should be viewed today the same way it was prior to 9/11? Do they believe the mission in Somalia, Haiti, and Iraq is and was the same? Do they believe that a failed state in Iraq is no more of a threat to Americans then Somalia and Haiti were, after U.S. forces departed?

That explains a lot.

Rest assured, when the war in Iraq is no longer the most important issue facing the Republic, the Weekly Standard will return to American Idol updates.

That said, since Democrats insist on repeatedly quoting General Petraeus to justify their effort to pull the rug out from under the war effort, we thought it worthwhile to provide context for the quote that they are repeating ad nauseam:

The Quote You Hear:

"There is no military solution" [in Iraq]

Actual Statement by General Petraeus:

"As our military effort surges in the greater Baghdad area and in Al Anbar province, a complementary effort will be carried out on the civilian side in the form of a joint Department of State/Department of Defense initiative to double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq from 10 to 20.

As with the military effort, the focus will be on Baghdad and Al Anbar Province. These PRTs will draw on civilian and military expertise to help the Iraqis build capacity in the provinces and support local initiatives...

We and our Iraqi partners recognize that improving security for the Iraqi people is the first step in rekindling hope. The upward spiral we all want begins with Iraqi and coalition forces working together and locating in the neighborhoods those forces must secure. This concept features Iraqi and coalition soldiers partnering with local police to establish joint security stations...

With respect, again, to the -- you know, the idea of the reconcilables and the irreconcilables, this is something in which the Iraqi government obviously has the lead. It is something that they have sought to -- in some cases, to reach out. And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security, for all the reasons that I stated in my remarks, but it is not sufficient."

War opponents are engaging in Orwellian tactics in suggesting that Petraeus supports a withdrawal when he suggests that military action is necessary, but not sufficient.

Similarly, a statement by Secretary Gates is being selectively quoted:

The Quote You Hear:

"The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetables probably has had a positive impact..."

Actual Statement by Secretary Gates:

"I think that what I have said is that the debate in Congress, I think, has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited. As General Petraeus has said, there's the Baghdad clock and there's the Washington clock.

That said, I've been pretty clear that I think the enactment of specific deadlines would be a bad mistake. But I think the debate itself and I think that the strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact -- at least I hope it has -- in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment."

Sometimes it's useful to read the full text, rather than a parsed fragment. Those who use these quotes in support of the ongoing effort to end the Iraq mission are grossly misrepresenting Petraeus and Gates.

General David Petraeus, the commander of Multinational Force Iraq, completed his closed-door Congressional testimony yesterday, and has since conducted a quick press briefing and a Pentagon briefing. In this morning's Pentagon briefing, Gen. Petraeus highlighted Iran's involvement in Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq's dominance of the Sunni insurgency, and the importance of disrupting the Shia militias. He also stressed that the Baghdad Security plan is still in its early stages, and a full evaluation of the operation cannot be made until September at its earliest. He noted that sectarian violence has decrease by about two-thirds since the inception of the Baghdad Security Plan, and ongoing operations against al Qaeda cells are yielding good intelligence on al Qaeda's network.

After yesterday's testimony to Congress, Gen. Petraeus highlighted the very real progress in Anbar, which used to lead all Iraqi provinces in attacks per capita. An American intelligence official informs us that attacks in Ramadi, which used to be the most violence city in Iraq, have dropped from a peak of 50 a day last September to 2 - 4 a day currently. Here is what Gen. Petraeus had to say about Anbar province:

I also pointed out the progress in Anbar Province, which has been very substantial, as you know. Literally over the last two months, Anbar has gone -- or certainly over the last six months -- from being assessed as being lost, to a situation that now is quite heartening because of the decision by a number of Sunni Arab tribes to join the fight against al Qaeda, saying no more -- they've had it -- and linking arms with the coalition to take on al Qaeda and one city after another really cleaning them out all the way down the Euphrates River Valley from al Qaim and Husaybah through Haditha, Hit, Ramadi and so forth, although as I pointed out to each of the respective bodies -- the House and the Senate -- there still is considerable work to be done in Anbar Province although all the trends are in the right direction. And in fact the two additional Marine battalions that are part of the surge are now operating just for the first couple of weeks in Anbar Province, and they'll be joined by some additional forces later on as with the two additional Army brigades as they move in to their respective areas in and around Baghdad.

The Anbar Salvation Council, which is led by Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi, has been waging a war against al Qaeda in Iraq for almost a year, and are now showing real progress against the terror group. The Anbar Salvation Council has requested permission from the government to chase al Qaeda across provincial boundaries into Karbala, Baghdad and Babil, as well as Coalition air power to back them up. In past engagements in Amiriya, Coalition air support has backed the Council.

Coalition forces continue the hunt for al Qaeda facilitators and operatives. Raids in Eastern Anbar province, Fallujah, Baghdad and Taji led to four terrorists killed, two wounded and nine captured today. Also, four more al Qaeda members of a car bomb cell were killed in a Coalition airstrike on their hideout west of Taji. Two women and two children were also killed in the air strike. Iraqi security forces stated it captured 217 suspected insurgents and killed one terrorist during operations inside Baghdad and Mahmadiyah.

Operations against Muqtada al Sadr's fractured Mahdi Army are continuing inside the Sadr City district of Baghdad. Coalition forces killed three Mahdi militiamen during a running gun battle inside Sadr City. The operation targeted "a network that trains terrorists for operations in Iraq."

Al Qaeda in Iraq is continuing its offensive in Diyala province, where it has consolidated its power since U.S. forces drew down in the region last fall and al Qaeda fighters fled to the province at the inception of the Baghdad Security Plan. Al Qaeda has conducted its third major attack in four days on a security outpost. Today's attack targeted an Iraqi Army checkpoint. A suicide bomber killed 10 Iraqi soldiers and wounded another 15 in Balad Ruz. Al Qaeda in Iraq is attempting to destroy the will of the Iraqi security forces in Diyala while simultaneously conducting its propaganda campaign to destroy the will of the American public.

Senator Lieberman delivered a speech on the floor of the Senate today that probably won't get as much attention as it deserves, but it is a deep and comprehensive critique of the Democratic leadership's Iraq policy.

We've posted the speech in its entirety at THE DAILY STANDARD. Click here to read.

From the AP:

The Air Force’s top general expressed frustration on Tuesday with the reassignment of troops under his command to ground jobs for which they were not trained, ranging from guarding prisoners to driving trucks and typing.

Earlier this week, our own Bill Roggio reported that the training and equipping of new Iraqi units had come to a halt because of a lack of funding. Now we hear that airmen are being used to guard prisoners. Some Democrats seem to lack a sense of urgency about passing the supplemental--Rep. Rahm Emanuel said the military would be fine until June--but the lack of funding is already having an effect. If nothing else, you'd think Democrats would be worried about the prospect of untrained personnel guarding Iraqi prisoners.

Right now the entire focus of public debate on Iraq seems to be on when the troops should leave. The Bush administration argues for troops to remain until the job is done, while Democrats want troops to withdraw anywhere between today and next summer.

But before pulling out of Iraq, we ought to have a good understanding of what happens if we leave. Peter Neumann--the director of the Centre for Defence Studies at King’s College London--addresses the question here:

First, no matter what happens inside Iraq, any U.S. decision to withdraw will be celebrated as a victory by al Qaeda. Whatever way the spin doctors in Washington dress it up, bin Laden is certain to portray the pullout as another example of what he once described as the “low spiritual morale of the American fighters.” Al Qaeda, in other words, will be emboldened—even if it fails to set up a permanent safe haven or establish an Islamic theocracy. Most worryingly, the foreign fighters—now experienced and battle-hardened veterans of the “global jihad”—will soon turn up and cause trouble in other places, such as Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan.

Even more questionable than hoping that al Qaeda’s victory can be spun away is the idea that the Sunnis can be pushed to the negotiation table. This may have worked in 2003 and 2004. But in the current situation, Sunnis can no longer be assumed to have any faith in a government which a majority of them regard as openly sectarian. With many members of the Iraqi cabinet thought to be linked to the Shiite militias or Tehran, the Sunnis have concluded that the government has little interest in national reconciliation. Rather, they suspect that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his colleagues are bent on cementing Shiite hegemony and making the Sunnis pay for their privileged position under Saddam Hussein.

Hence, a withdrawal announcement is much more likely to drive more Sunnis into the arms of the insurgency than it is to compel the insurgents to the negotiating table. As in many other ethnic conflicts, security and survival will increasingly come to be seen as one and the same thing, with the insurgents the only ones who can be relied on to deliver both. If anything, being seen by their community as the “last line of defense” against Shiite atrocities will make it easier for the insurgents to overcome their internal divisions...

In their quest to win the policy argument, those who favor heading for the exits in Iraq shouldn’t dismiss as mere political rhetoric the idea that a sectarian blood bath—not reconciliation—is the most likely outcome. Most importantly, though, U.S. political leaders should understand that the game is not over once a withdrawal date is set. On the contrary, getting out of Iraq without unleashing a civil war is likely to be as delicate an operation as getting into the country was in the first place. Let us hope that if the United States does leave, the planning is better this time around.

When the decision to leave Iraq is presented as one without any costs--'leave now and Americans stop dying'--it sounds great. But the real world ramifications are far deeper. If advocates of an easy, pain-free withdrawal get their way, they may be shocked when they encounter the buyer's remorse that follows.

The violence inside Baghdad was unusually low today, with no major attacks inside the city. The pressing issue inside Baghdad continues to be the building of Adhamiya security barrier, and the upcoming modifications. The largest suicide attack occurred in Diyala province outside a police station, while Coalition forces have confirmed killing a senior al Qaeda military commander for Anbar province.

The politically sensitive issue of the Adhamiya security barrier, which includes 15 foot high concrete barriers (also know as Texas barriers), appears to be working towards a resolution. As we noted yesterday, the construction of the barrier was very likely to continue. "Iraq has modified a U.S. military plan to enclose a Sunni enclave in Baghdad with high concrete walls, and is using barbed wire and smaller cement barriers instead," Reuters noted. "We have sought other substitutes such as barbed wire, sand walls and small concrete barriers," said Brigadier Qassim Moussawi, the spokesman for the Baghdad Security Plan.

Muqtada al Sadr, the leader of the Sadrist political block as well as the Mahdi Army, has called for a protest against the Adhamiya barrier. Sadr, whose Mahdi Army has behind much of the Shia death squad activities over the past year, ironically called referred to the barrier as "the sectarian, racist and unjust wall that seeks to divide" Sunnis and Shiites.

Sadr's political block withdrew from the government last week, surrendering its 6 ministries and 30 seats in the United Iraqi Alliance. Both Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and the U.S. welcomed Sadr's withdrawal. Sadr's calls for protests against the U.S. occupation on Iraq's liberation day on April 9th drew far fewer protesters than expected - no more than ten thousand. In the past, Sadr inspired protests could draw hundreds of thousands of protesters.

The raids against al Qaeda senior operatives continue on a daily basis. Coalition forces killed a senior al Qaeda leader during a raid northwest of Baghdad on April 20th. Abu Abd al-Satter is described as "a known al-Qaeda terrorist leader known to operate in Karmah and Ameriyah areas and was the al-Qaeda in Iraq Security Emir of the eastern Anbar Province." Satter's car bomb cell "used 12- to 13-year-old children as VBIED drivers" to conduct its attacks. One of Satter's associates was killed and another captured during the raid. Today, Coalition forces captured six al Qaeda operatives during raids in Salman Pak and Karma.

Al Qaeda is continuing its suicide campaign in Diyala province. Today, a suicide bomber murdered six police and wounded 16 after he detonated his bomb at a police station in Balad Ruz. This follows yesterday's multiple suicide car bomb attack on a combat outpost in Baqubah, which killed 9 U.S. soldiers. The Baqubah attack was in the mold of prior multiple car bomb attacks, followed by a ground assault, which have occurred over the past several years against outposts in Tarmyia, Husaybah, Abu Ghraib and the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. The fighting in Diyala will only intensify as the U.S. and Iraqi forces build up the capacity to conduct the Diyala Campaign later this spring.

With the news that Nancy Pelosi can't find time to listen to the Petraeus briefing on Iraq, you can see why Congressional Democrats might worry about the political instincts of their leadership:

As the House and Senate prepare to vote this week on the final conference report on the $124 billion troop funding bill — which would also mandate that U.S. combat troops begin withdrawing from Iraq on Oct. 1 at the latest — Gen. David Petraeus is scheduled to come to the Hill tomorrow to brief lawmakers on the progress of the recent troop escalation.

Paired with Harry Reid's embarrassing performance yesterday, it's clear that neither one really understands what the Democrats' posture toward Petraeus should be.

Here's one possible approach:

The Speaker (Majority Leader) recognizes that there's no more important issue right now than Iraq, and our irresponsible policies there. She (he) is eager to hear from our nation's commander on the ground, and will meet with General Petraeus to express gratitude for both his service, and that of our brave men and women in the field. At the same time, the General is sure to to face tough questions about the lack of progress in Iraq.

Is that so hard? You can still say afterward that you've heard nothing that changed your mind.

If Pelosi and Reid are as committed as they seem to be to undercutting the war effort and tying the president's hands, they should at least pretend to be open-minded when they do so. To admit that their minds are closed to any new evidence of progress--as Reid has done--only gives war advocates more ammunition to use against them.

The Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki has ordered a halt to the building of a security barrier around the Baghdad neighborhood of Adhamiya. There are obvious political implications to building such a barrier in the Arab world. “I’ve ordered it to stop and to find other means of protection for the neighborhoods,” al-Maliki said, after stating the barrier served to remind the Iraqi people of “other walls that we reject,” a direct reference to the Israeli fence separating it from Gaza and the West Bank.

But, as Omar Fadhil notes, "Work to construct similar walls started weeks ago in the Amiriya and Ghazaliyah districts. The 'news' went utterly unnoticed then." Mr. Fadhil notes the barrier has had some effect in Amiriya and Ghazaliyah, and postulates insurgents stirred up the local protests to halt the building of the wall.

The barrier is designed to limit the flow of traffic into and outside the city. The U.S. and Iraqi military wants to monitor the movement of insurgents from the neighborhood while restricting the movement of death squads into the neighborhood. There are some questions as to whether construction will actually stop. An Iraqi military spokesman said construction will continue, while U.S. spokesmen said the "gated communities" plan is now under review.

The security barrier is a crucial component of the Baghdad security plan, and its elimination would create difficult political and security problems for General David Petraeus and Multinational Forces Iraq. The elimination of the wall would force additional troops to provide for security, and troops are at a premium. And the change serves as a direct political threat to General Petraeus' authority to ensure the Baghdad Security Plan is properly executed.

In Iraq's Anbar province, the Anbar Salvation Council continues to gain steam in its fight against al Qaeda. Seven new tribes have just joined the Anbar Salvation Council's political movement, the Anbar Awakening. Last week, the Anbar Salvation Council announced it was forming the Iraq Awakening, a national political party which would "oppose insurgents such as Al Qaeda in Iraq and reengage with Iraq's political process." The Iraq Awakening is scheduled to meet in May, and will be the first Sunni political party to openly oppose al Qaeda in Iraq.

Iraqi and Coalition forces continue to maintain pressure on al Qaeda's network nationwide. Yesterday, Coalition forces netted 19 al Qaeda facilitators and foot soldiers during raids in Karma, Taji and Anbar. Today, 10 al Qaeda were captured in raids in Fallujah and Baghdad.

Inside Baghdad, the Iranian embassy was attacked for the second day in a row. Yesterday, Ansar Al Sunnah, an Islamist terrorist group allied with al Qaeda, claimed credit for a bombing near the embassy, which killed one and wounded six. Today, four Iraqis were wounded when two bombs were detonated in a parking lot outside the embassy.

Al Qaeda in Iraq conducted two successful major operations in the city of Baqubah in the restive province of Diyala. Nine U.S. soldiers were killed and 20 wounded (15 later returned to duty) after a suicide bomber struck a forward operating base in the city. As this occurred, insurgents, disguised as Iraqi Policemen, attacked a group of civilians in Baqubah. Eight were killed and 20 wounded in the attack. Al Qaeda is working to destroy local support for the police and military forces while directly striking U.S. forces in order to destroy political support here in the United States.

Diyala continues to be a focus of al Qaeda operations. Tribal leaders and residents of Diyala are beginning to work with Iraqi and Coalition forces operating in the region. Yesterday, a suicide attack on Diyala's provincial council headquarters killed six police and wounded 13. An American military intelligence official informs us al Qaeda in Iraq has initiated a terror campaign against civilians and tribal leaders that equals the scale of the atrocities committed by Zarqawi in Fallujah.

The Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon has an excellent piece in the Washington Times today. You can read it in its entirety here, but it is worth excerpting at length.

O'Hanlon compares the terrorists and Saddam loyalists we are now fighting in Iraq to the enemies this country has faced throughout its history:

Against this historical backdrop, two facts stand out about our collection of enemies in Iraq, with a particular focus on the ex-Ba'athists and the terrorists who produced the bulk of the violence over the conflict's first three years. First, they are a small group relative to the population within which they are found. And second, even by the standards of our nation's past enemies, they are a despicable lot. . . .

Certainly the British were not systematic human-rights abusers or mass murderers, even if they taxed without representation two centuries ago. Many of our enemies of the 19th century were groups or countries we fought to gain land and resources, not to combat a bankrupt or threatening ideology. Without wanting to push the point too far, while many of our 20th century foes were indeed horrendous, some like the Viet Cong at least claimed to offer a vision of a better society, or had legitimate anticolonial origins, or otherwise possessed at least some redeeming attributes.

Not so al Qaeda and former Ba'athist extremists in Iraq. Their only purpose in violence has been to tear down, not to build up an alternative vision they genuinely support. They are ruthless killers who often seem to kill just for the pleasure of it. To put it somewhat more precisely, ex-Saddamists want to restore a Sunni autocracy, and al Qaeda wants to return the region to the seventh century and is willing to kill anybody along the way to do so. There is no merit in either vision according to any serious cultural or moral code in the world today.

O'Hanlon also conveys the importance of obtaining victory in Iraq, and conversely, the dangers of defeat:

But for those who would give up on this war, it is important to bear in mind what that would mean -- and who would be prevailing if we indeed conceded the fight. In this regard, I disagree with the characterization of the war reportedly offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in his recent meeting with President Bush. Understandably fed up with the violence in Iraq, and understandably critical of the many mistakes made by this administration over the years in prosecuting the war, Mr. Reid nonetheless went too far. He told Mr. Bush that the president's concern over his legacy should not lead him to keep the nation engaged in a losing war. . . .

However, even if Mr. Bush began this war, America as a nation is now fighting it. And Americans, along with our allies and with the overwhelming majority of Iraqis who want a peaceful life, will be the ones to lose it to a collection of thugs and ruthless killers if we withdraw. National pride should not of course keep us in a war we have indeed lost. But we should give the surge a chance, and consider a number of "Plan Bs" if it fails, before giving up this important fight to this heinous foe in this crucial part of the world.

Go read the whole thing. O'Hanlon makes clear that he is not enamored of the surge, and he is no fan of the administration, but he appears to be one of the few liberals who understands just how devastating a Congressionally mandated retreat would be for the interests of this country--and for the 99.9 percent of Iraqis who aren't al Qaeda.

Since the midterm elections, Republicans have embraced the role of the loyal opposition in Congress -- doing their best to shift the debate in the House and Senate more to the center. On the war on terror, federal spending and congressional reform, there have been important victories.

But at the same time, they're working to elect Republican majorities in 2008. And one important goal is to emulate a major liberal success: web presence and organization. There's no question that one important reason for Democratic success in 2006 was the issue focus, fundraising, and organization of the left. While there are many bright folks working at a number of sites to use the web to generate votes for conservatives and Republicans, one startup worth looking at is the Majority Accountability Project. It looks like a site worth bookmarking.

If you head over there today, you'll note one story for example, that calls into question the ethics and reform credentials of the new House majority:

On January 23, 2007, Roll Call’s Josh Kurtz reported “the 41 (sic) freshman Democrats in the House have formed a new political action committee,” the Democratic Freshmen PAC. But according to Federal Elections Commission (FEC) records, the PAC was actually formed on November 29, 2006, three weeks and one day after the Democrats’ respective elections.

Following the public criticism, Senators Harry Reid, Byron Dorgan and Edward Kennedy all dumped Oldaker, who had been heading their respective leadership PACs. Shortly after their announcement, Sen. Blanche Lincoln followed suit, removing Oldaker as her PACs treasurer.

It's just one more item to file away in the 'meet the new boss' category -- and one that (as far as I know) has not been touched by any major news outlets.

I suspect that Majority AP will play a significant role in holding the feet of the new leadership to the fire.

From the Los Angeles Times: An Iraq success story, by Max Boot.

From the Chicago Sun-Times: Talking of defeat is no way to win in Iraq, by John O'Sullivan.

From War is Boring: Rescue Chopper Paper Trail, by David Axe.

From Military.com: Hundreds of Taliban Forces Surrounded.

From the Washington Times: Inhofe dares Hollywood to take warming pledge, by Eric Pfeiffer.

Here's the video, and it's a disgrace. First Reid makes the claim that saying "the war is lost," is equivalent to the statement by General Petraeus that "the war can't be won militarily." Obviously the war must be fought on several fronts, with military force, diplomatic pressure, economic aid, etc. Military force alone is not enough, but it must be an essential component of any strategy that aims for victory. It's just dishonest that Reid would compare such a factual statement with his own personal opinion, apparently shared by the rest of the Democratic leadership, that the war is lost.

But what really offends is Reid saying "I don't believe him," when asked if he will take Petraeus's word for it that progress is being made in Iraq. So not only does Reid believe the war is lost, and that Petraeus agrees with him, but Reid also does not believe that progress is being made--regardless of what the commander on the ground tells him.

It attracted little attention the other day when Harry Reid said:

like it or not, George W. Bush is still the commander in chief — and this is his war.

In 1994, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey infamously stated on the House floor 'your president is just not that important for us.' Liberals were outraged, and Armey was (rightly) criticized widely in the media. Michael Barone recalls the incident in this piece, and Paul Begala talked about it in this PBS Interview:

Dick Armey was the Republican leader in the Congress, and he stood on the House floor in the first year of Clinton's term and said, "He's not our president." He pointed to the Democrats, and he said, "He's your president." ... That was a level of contempt for democracy that I found startling.

If disowning the president demonstrates contempt for democracy, is it less of an offense to disown the ongoing war in which our nation is engaged?

Harry Reid may not like it, but this nation and our troops are in a war. He might think it's lost already, or he might think we can win it by surrendering--it's not really all that clear. But it is the nation's war. And until it ends he--in his roles both as Senate Majority Leader and as the senior Democrat in national leadership--has a responsibility to try to ensure that we win it.

Like it or not, this is Harry Reid's war, too. It became his when he voted to authorize it, and he renewed his responsibility each time he voted to fund it, or to confirm its leaders, and when he took his oath of office. If he doesn't accept his responsibility, he ought to step aside.

In the conventional template of reporting on Iraq, glossy, controversial headlines often fail to reflect the reality of the situation on the ground. Take the latest reporting by McClatchy Newspapers' Nancy A. Youssef concerning the purported shift of U.S. military power away from training Iraqi Security Forces and back toward stability operations. The Detroit Free Press titles the article "U.S. plan backs off training of Iraqis," with a subtitle of "Policy shift entrusts security to American troop buildup." The Kansas City Star leads with "In a reversal, U.S. reliance on Iraqi army is fading," and subtitles with "Training troops is no longer a priority, changing the role of American forces." Forget the fact that Youssef provides no evidence within the article to back up such bold assertions. She relies on vague or nonexistent quotes from unnamed Pentagon and Washington officials, as well as Defense Secretary Robert Gates' failure to mention training last Thursday, to support her unfounded claim. In fact, many of the named officials in her article refute her assertion.

The fact is that the U.S. and Iraqi government continue to push the training of additional Iraqi combat and support troops, and are funding a dramatic growth in the capabilities in the Iraqi Security Forces. The Congress' failure to pass the Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07) Supplemental Budget is the only thing holding up the growth and training of the Iraqi military. In the FY07 budget, Congress has inserted the demand for a date for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, a demand which has prompted President Bush to insist he will veto the legislation.

The decrease in the training of the Iraqi Security Forces that Youssef is detecting is the first effect of delaying the FY07 supplemental budget. The money to train the Iraqi units has dried up. While about 75 percent of the expansion of the Iraqi Security Forces is funded by the Iraqi government, this money is focused on equipping and training new combat units, including upgrading units to armored and mechanized divisions. The funds to train and equip over 33,000 Iraqi Army logistics, sustainment, maintenance, and support personnel comes from the U.S. FY07 supplemental budget.

Currently, the Iraqi Army has about 13,000 support personnel to sustain a 138,000 man force. The expansion of support personnel by 33,000 troops by the end of 2007 would provide the bare minimum support necessary for independent operations. The money to train the support units cannot be legally reappropriated from U.S. budgets to fund a foreign military equipment/training program, so the programs has stopped. This weakness in current Iraqi Security Forces structure is the focus of U.S. training in the "Year of Logistics."

It is highly unusual for U.S. generals to weigh in on disputes between the executive and legislative branches. The cut in funding for the training programming has caused U.S. generals to mention the situation no less than four times since the delay in the FY07 Supplemental Budget became a critical issue. "At the current moment, because of this lack of funding, MNSTC-I is unable to continue at the pace they were in the developmental process of the Iraqi security forces," Major General William Caldwell said in a recent press briefing. "It is starting to have some impact today, and will only have more of an impact over time."

For some months, Democrats have been trying to force an end to the war in Iraq without being blamed by the public for cutting off funds for the troops. Given the resolve of President Bush to continue the mission however, it's clear that eventually the Democrats will have to choose. They must either force an end to the Iraq mission by not funding it, or admit to their base that they are unwilling to take that political risk. The suggestion from some House Democrats that they plan a short-term funding measure is clearly a step toward cutting off funds. Some may argue that this is a bridge to full funding, but this isn't the pattern that Congress uses in such cases.

If the Congressional leadership intends to fully fund... something, and face a deadline to do so, the bridge funding--typically a continuing resolution--is introduced late in the process, shortly before the deadline. This keeps the pressure on for quick action on the regular appropriations bill. Further, the CR is short term, to ensure that the pressure remains on to the greatest extent possible.

Thus, if House leaders intended to give the troops the support they need, there would be no talk (yet) of a short-term measure. Rather, House leaders would say that right after the first supplemental is vetoed, they will turn to work on a new version. They would not yet discuss the CR. Thus the very mention of a short-term measure confirms what ought to be obvious: House leaders are now considering cutting off funds.

But while the House may want to go this route, the president and the Senate are clearly not thrilled with it. From Roll Call ($):

The Bush administration is warning Democrats not to pass a short-term war spending bill following an expected veto of a long-term war supplemental later this week, arguing that doing so would wreak havoc with the military’s ability to plan and prosecute the war.

Emanuel will have to come up with a better defense of the House's actions. He seems to think that because he disagrees about the deadline for funding the troops, there is no deadline. He ought to be aware that Senate Democrats identified May 1 as the date by which the money is needed to avoid impacting Pentagon operations. So if Emanuel has a problem with Portman's credibility, he might want to correct Senator Byrd as well.

And while the loyal opposition's leaders on the Hill consider strategy, what is their base asking them to do? According to one liberal bellwether, Bush is treating U.S. troops as hostages, and Democrats must refuse to yield even an inch. Others are arguing that Reid and Pelosi simply need to make clear that after a given date, there will be no additional funding.

I suspect that House Democrats will be unable to win on their effort to kick the can down the road by offering a short-term funding measure. They'll then have to decide whom they will disappoint--their base, or moderate voters.

The New York Times has a piece today that outright blames the Bush administration for failing to prevent China's ASAT test in January of this year. The authors, Michael Gordon and David Cloud, write that the administration knew of the coming test and did nothing to prevent it:

But some experts outside government say that American officials might have been able to discourage the Chinese from launching the missile, had the officials been willing to enter into a broader discussion of ways to regulate the military competition in space. China had long advocated an agreement to ban weapons in space, an approach the Bush administration has rejected in order to maintain maximum flexibility for developing antimissile defenses.

Who are those experts? First, Joseph Cirincione of the Center for American Progress--an organization the authors describe as "a research group." The Center for American Progress is run by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta--and it is not "a research group." It is plainly a partisan outfit. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2008, I expect this "research group" might shut-down as its entire staff returns to government.

The other expert the Times quotes is Jeffrey Lewis--The ArmsControlWonk. Lewis is a lefty, though, in fairness, he is not a Democratic operative as Cirincione is. Lewis tells the Times:

“The Bush administration watched them conduct two earlier tests and did not say a word,” he said. “Then they issued a National Space Policy that talked about freedom of action and denying adversaries access to space. The Chinese probably concluded that we were in no position to complain about their test.”

Lewis was all over this story before just about anybody else, and it is his area of expertise, so perhaps it is instructive to see what he wrote on his blog when reports of the test first surfaced:

If China has conducted an ASAT test, this is extremely bad. I had been hoping that the Bush Administration would push for a ban on anti-satellite testing, either in the form of a code of conduct or some rules of road. The Bush folks, however, have been fond of saying that wasn’t necessary, because “there is no arms race in space.”

Well, we have one now, instigated by an incredibly short-sighted Chinese government. (I suspect this test will have also created a massive debris problem).

The United States and other space-faring states should demarche the Chinese government for what is a stupid, clumsy and short-sighted decision.

Although this idiotic move by the Chinese government will demonstrate why we don’t want hit-to-kill ASAT testing in orbit—that will be a long-term recognition. In the short-term, the Chinese will simply not be credible partners in efforts to keep space peaceful.

So at the time, Lewis concluded that the Chinese were not "credible partners," but now he says that if only we'd negotiated some kind of treaty--then all this might have been averted.

Everyone else that is quoted in the article takes the exact opposite view on all this of course, including John Pike:

John E. Pike, the director of Global Security.org, a military information Web site, has a less charitable view of the Chinese motivations. “It makes a mockery of China’s space weapons diplomacy,” he said. “Their proposals were always aimed at American space-based systems and always excluded a ground-based, pop-up antisatellite weapon such as theirs. I don’t think we could have talked them out of testing against a target.”

The Times is trying desperately to blame the Bush administration for failing to negotiate an unenforceable prohibition on ASAT weapons, with a country that has no interest in doing so, and which, according to their own expert, simply isn't a credible partner for negotiations. But we still have the Center for American Progress saying this is Bush's fault...so it must be true.

From THE WEEKLY STANDARD:

Can Petraeus Pull it Off? by Max Boot.

Friends, Enemies and Spoilers, by Frederick W. Kagan.

On Democracy and Iraq, by Reuel Marc Gerecht.

From the Washington Post: Make No Mistake: This Is War, by Michael Chertoff.

From U.S. News: The CIA's Double Standard, by David E. Kaplan.

From The Danger Room: Rescue Chopper Rumble, by David Axe.

The Blue Angels fly the missing man formation.
Read more about LCDR Kevin Davis here.

This past Friday, the Chinese-language website eastday.com, operating under the direct supervision of the propaganda department of the Chinese Communist party’s Shanghai branch, carried a commentary titled “An Absurd Logic: the Beijing Olympics and Darfur.” The author, Wang Weinan, is a researcher at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. He writes:

Recently, in the Western world, a man and a woman inexplicably linked the 2008 Beijing Olympics to Sudan’s Darfur issue. First there was the March 21st statement by Bayrou, chairman and presidential candidate of the Union for French Democracy, who had been trailing consistently in third place in the polls. Out of the blue, he said at a rally:

“The Chinese government has been giving unprincipled protection to the Sudanese government... France should not participate in the (Beijing) Olympics.”

A week later…perhaps inspired by Bayrou – but then, it could have been an“original idea” she herself came up with – former actress and good-will ambassador for the United Nations Children’s Fund Ms. Mia Farrow published an article in the Wall Street Journal in which she blamed the Darfur problem on China and called for a boycott of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Wang goes on to declare that these “hideous” attempts to “vilify China” and “politicize the Games” have “hurt the feelings of the Chinese people.” And he ends the piece with this:

The “appeals” by Mr. Bayrou and Ms. Farrow did not exactly get much applause. On the contrary, no sooner had Bayrou finished yelling “boycott the Beijing Olympics” than the French public began taunting and jeering him…As for Ms. Farrow of the United States, let’s not forget that she was once an actress in Hollywood. Let’s treat her remarks as if she were trying to return to her prior profession (chongcao jiuye) by putting on a show.

The Chinese idiom, “chongcao jiuye,” used to describe Farrow’s actions refers to someone who, out of desperation, returns to a prior, often morally dubious, vocation. One of its earliest usages was in connection with the famous prostitute Sai Jinhua, who “returned to her prior profession” upon the death of her first husband.

It is hard to imagine that the author of the commentary, a researcher at the venerable Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, would be unaware of the genesis of the expression and the meaning it connotes.

What did Mia Farrow do to deserve such hostility?

Farrow’s op-ed piece, titled “The Genocide Olympics,” was co-written with her son Ronan Farrow, a law student at Yale. In it, they urged corporate sponsors of the Beijing Games to recognize that “one thing that China may hold more dear than their unfettered access to Sudanese oil is their successful staging of the 2008 Summer Olympics.”

They also cautioned Steven Spielberg, an artistic director for the opening ceremony of the 2008 Games, against helping to “sanitize Beijing’s image,” warning that he could “go down in history as the Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing Games.”

Four days after the Journal piece was published, Spielberg sent a letter to President Hu Jintao asking the Chinese government to use its influence on Khartoum. Soon thereafter, on April 6th, assistant foreign minister Zhai Jun traveled to Sudan, visited three refugee camps, and urged the regime to show flexibility and accept UN peacekeepers.

On April 16th, Sudan agreed to the deployment of UN helicopter gunships and 3,000 peacekeepers in Darfur.

During his visit to Sudan in February, President Hu Jintao reportedly urged al-Bashir to consider allowing the deployment of significant UN forces. However, it seems even more likely that by striking where Beijing is currently most vulnerable, Mia Farrow can claim credit for this latest breakthrough.

Mia Farrow in Darfur. Courtesy of Nasser Nasser / AP

Wow. This is a stunner. After months of trying to micro-manage the war in Iraq, Democrats are trying to 'micro-fund' it:

A two-month spending bill to cover the costs of the Iraq war is “very likely” after President Bush vetoes the current Iraq spending bill, House Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) said Friday...

“In two months it might be really clear how bad it is,” Woolsey said.

I've spoken before (eg, here and here) about the temptation for Congressional Democrats to completely abandon efforts to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan missions for the rest of the year. War opponents argued that if they could not completely cut off funds, they should at most pay for the war in installments, enabling them to continue browbeating the president for an early withdrawal. The micro-funding strategy also creates multiple opportunities to cut off funds for the troops--as the Out of Iraq caucus apparently intends.

Of course, it significantly complicates the management of defense operations and the war, but that doesn't appear to be a primary concern. In fact, it's probably a side-benefit. It also sends the signal to the insurgency in Iraq that Congress is loathe to give our troops in Iraq the funds they need--even when there's tremendous political pressure on them.

This can't be considered anything less than a slap in the face of our troops, and a clear signal to the insurgency in Iraq that Congress is just about ready to throw in the towel. Combined with Senator Reid's statement yesterday, our enemies in the war on terror ought to have a great weekend.

From Time: McCain v. Reid, by William Kristol.

From the Washington Post: A Moment of Silence, by Charles Krauthammer.

From Defense Tech: The Poobahs Speak, by Christian Lowe.

From the Jerusalem Post: Fighting the next war, by Caroline Glick.

From the Washington Times: An ABM for Europe? by Austin Bay.

"The Adventures of Doggy Creek," Photo by Air Force Staff Sgt. Stacy L. Pearsall.

The New York Times reports that there's a lot more talk about democracy in China nowadays:

Communist Party journals and the state-run news media have published a stream of commentaries by retired officials and academics on “political system reform” and the need for “socialist democracy,” including a bold-sounding call for China to mimic Switzerland’s worker-friendly democratic governing style.

Read the whole piece. Left unmentioned is the fact that the upcoming Olympic games in Beijing are leading to all sorts of cosmetic changes. You have to wonder whether substantive reform is likely to benefit or suffer, as China seeks to polish its image in anticipation of the world spotlight. (After all, in at least one case, a nervous regime killed dozens of protesters rather than be 'embarrassed 'on the olympic stage).

Of course, Henry Rowen of the Hoover Institution says that China isn't due to be 'partly free' until 2015, so I guess we ought not get our hopes up.

I posted an article at THE DAILY STANDARD yesterday on the CSAR-X competition, and I think it's worth doing a little follow-up here.

First off, Aviation Week has posted a video on the competition that goes a long way towards explaining why the Chinook was selected, but they don't make any excuses for the bungled competition: "the U.S. Air Force is searching for an answer to its search and rescue embarrassment." At the Aviation Week blog Ares, Bill Sweetman weighs in, saying he was among those who expected a win for Lockheed's US101, adding that the Chinook has some real limitations as a CSAR platform.

He also notes that despite the name--US101--the Lockheed chopper is mainly a product of Italian/British firm AugustaWestland. That the aircraft had already been selected as the next presidential helicopter, says Sweetman, meant "it would have been gutsy to choose the AgustaWestland design yet again over domestic designs."

True enough, and we're on record here in favor of Boeing's entry in the tanker deal if for no other reason than the French connection to rival Northrop Grumman's bid (see When Frogs Fly). But still, buying Italian hardware would seem a far less risky proposition than buying from the French--a big no-no for the Republicans who were still eating freedom fries in the House cafeteria not too long ago.

Blackfive posted a link to the story, and a few of his commenters, who are quite knowledgeable on such issues, also saw the Chinook as a logical, low-risk choice--it is already in service, the Air Force needs this contract fulfilled sooner rather than later, it's a reliable aircraft, etc. All true. There is a case to be made for the Chinook. Stephen Trimble, who edits The DEW Line, told me he supports the decision:

The HH-47 is only the most expensive solution on paper. Both the US101 and H-92 would require a new engine to meet the air force's requirements. That engine is still in development. Integrating a new engine into a helicopter is highly risky. I think the air force was looking for a low-risk solution. And I think the CH-47 is the least risky of the three.

And John at Op-For points to this article from Flight International, which also explains the Chinook as the low-risk choice. But John's still somewhat skeptical of the decision--in his own colorful words: "Yeah, and why on earth would we want a fat-assed bird like the Chinook for a light, fast, and stealthy tactical mission like see-sar? Are they planning on bringing back the downed aircraft too?"

I think the important thing to remember here is that while the Chinook might be an acceptable CSAR platform, the Air Force's RFP should have made its selection a major long-shot, if not an impossibility. And that's the problem: the game appears to have been rigged, at the last minute, in favor of the Boeing proposal. Was that because, at the last minute, some folks at the Air Force got nervous about timelines and risk and thought the Chinook was really the best choice, regardless of the selection criteria in the RFP? I think that is entirely possible. But the only way to keep things honest is to have a modicum of transparency. When a major contract is up for bid, everyone needs to know the rules of the game, and the Air Force ought to abide by those rules. If the Air Force decides to change the rules half-way through the game, that's fine too, as long as the change is done in a transparent manner. But whatever happened here was not transparent.

Update: A friend of THE WORLDWIDE STANDARD, who asks that his name be withheld for obvious reasons, writes in with an interesting take on the controversy, and which conforms well with what I've heard from other sources. I find this explanation to be highly credible.

I conducted some of the trade studies for CSAR-X, and my analysis showed it coming in a poor third behind the Sikorsky S-92 and the EH-101. The only thing it had going for it was range and payload, both of which were excessive for the mission. From a survivability perspective, it is not a good choice, being large, slow and unmaneuverable. Its landing footprint is so large that many extraction points available to the other two candidates would be foreclosed to the Chinook, meaning that aircrew would have to be extracted by cable hoist--a slower and more dangerous proposition, since while the aircrew are being winched up, the helo must hover for an extended time.

Boeing kept its costs down by using remanufactured CH-47D airframes (as if the Army has enough!) to MH-47F standards, which would include a new glass cockpit, new digital engine controls, enlarged sponsons with increased fuel capacity, uprated transmissions, a new mission avionics suite (common to all three candidates, so the cost there was a wash), and additional armor around the crew stations and flight control system.

How it won, I don't know. My suspicion is two factors were at work. First, the Air Force wanted to ensure that this was an "interim" solution that would not, in the long term, endanger procurement of the MH-22 Osprey as the "objective" system--though it is not clear to me that the Osprey is really ideal for CSAR except from the perspective of speed and transit time. Second, the MH-47F would add a significant special operations capability to the USAF inventory, which would make it more of a player in the SOCOM community, and pose a challenge to the Night Stalkers of the 160th SOAR. After all, the 160th has only a small number of MH -47Es, so the addition of sixty or so birds with equivalent or superior night flying capabilities, each with the capacity to carry 40+ fully equipped troops or a light vehicle, would give the Air Force a lot of credibility.

The Vermont State Senate today voted to recommend the commencement of impeachment proceedings against the president and vice president...yes, both of them:

Vermont senators voted Friday to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, saying their actions in Iraq and the U.S. "raise serious questions of constitutionally."

The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate - all six Republicans in the chamber at the time and three Democrats voted against it.

The text of the impeachment resolution is here:

Whereas, President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney have exercised the duties of their respective offices with respect to both domestic and foreign affairs in ways that raise serious questions of constitutionality, statutory legality, and abuse of the public trust, and

Whereas, the President’s and the Vice President’s domestic leadership on issues relating to individual privacy and personal liberty under law has raised constitutional issues of the greatest concern to the nation’s citizenry,

Perhaps there's some misconception owing to the fact that none of the framers of the U.S. Constitution hailed from the Green Mountain State, but you need to identify a 'high crime or misdemeanor' to impeach the president or vice president--or both in this case. "We don't like them,' doesn't really cut it. Similarly, one cannot offer a list of complaints and suggest--as the Vermont Senate seems to have done--there must be something impeachable in there!

It's curious that on both Iraq and the 'question' of impeachment, Republicans are now in the position of almost daring Congressional Democrats to do what their base is asking of them: to defund the war, or to impeach the president.

Update: Looks like the Vermont Senate is just trying to catch the wave.

Time just posted the latest from WEEKLY STANDARD editor Bill Kristol, available here. It leads with these two quotes:

"We, who are willing to support this new strategy, and give General Petraeus the time and support he needs, have chosen a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Democrats, who deny our soldiers the means to prevent an American defeat, have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election. This is an historic choice, with ramifications for Americans not even born yet. Let's put aside for a moment the small politics of the day. The judgment of history should be the approval we seek, not the temporary favor of the latest public opinion poll."

Sen. John McCain (R-Az.), speaking at the Virginia Military Institute, April 11, 2007

"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), speaking to reporters, April 12, 2007

And the final graph:

Now we are at a moment of truth. There is McCain's way, a way of difficulty and honor. There is Reid's way, a way of political expediency and dishonor. McCain may lose the political battle at home, and the U.S. may ultimately lose in Iraq. But some of us will always be proud, at this moment of choice, to have stood with McCain, and our soldiers, and our country.

Go read the whole thing.

Here's the video from MoveOn.org--according to the press release, the anti-war group will air the ad in "early primary states"--which this year could mean just about any state in the country.

As the Hotline points out, "The more liberals bash McCain, the more comfortable conservatives tend to get." Truer words were never written. The idea that this ad could do any damage to McCain in a primary is absurd. Republicans don't take their cues from the defeatist advertising of MoveOn.org--images of burning American tanks? Do they seriously think that will help them get their message across in Red America?

64 percent of Republicans approve of the president's handling of the war in Iraq. How does tying McCain to Iraq hurt him in the primary? If MoveOn.org really wants to go after McCain, they should endorse him as the Republican most likely to take action on global warming. But this...this is a gift. I'm feeling more comfortable about a McCain presidency already.

Senator Joe Lieberman delivered the keynote speech yesterday for the National Commemoration of the Days of Remembrance. Here's an excerpt:

Of course all of us would like to live in a peaceful world, a world of justice… But there are forces that constantly seek to cut through the marble of our moral universe. There are hatreds and pathologies so strong that they cannot be negotiated, or reasoned, or loved away. They must be fought and stopped. . . .

Thirteen years ago this month, we turned our backs on a genocide in Rwanda, in which 800,000 people were killed. Rather than hearing and reacting to the screams of innocent men, women, and children—singled out and murdered for no reason other than their ethnicity—we said their deaths were caused by a civil war fueled by ancient hatreds, and thus convinced ourselves either that it was not our place to save them or that it was not even possible to save them.

Today, again, we see people around the world being singled out and murdered on the basis of their religious, sectarian, or ethnic identity, in places as diverse as Darfur and Iraq. In Iran we hear a president—an Islamist extremist—denying that the Nazi Holocaust happened, and then threatening the annihilation of Israel and death to America.

And what is our response?

Well, we know what Harry Reid's response is:

Update: Lieberman put out the following statement earlier today in response to Reid's comments:

This week witnessed horrific terrorist attacks by Islamist extremists in Iraq, killing hundreds of innocent civilians and leading Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to declare that the war is ‘lost.’

With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Senator Reid's statement is not based on military facts on the ground in Iraq and does not advance our cause there.

Al Qaeda’s strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. They are trying to murder as many innocent civilians as possible in an effort to reignite sectarian fighting and drive us to retreat from Iraq.

The question now before us is whether we respond to these terrorist attacks by running away as Al Qaeda hopes – abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East, and ultimately our own security to the very same people responsible for this week’s atrocities – or whether we stand united to fight them.

This is exactly the wrong time to conclude that we have lost the war in Iraq, or that our new strategy has failed. Instead, we should provide General Petraeus and his troops with the time and the resources to succeed. We should not surrender in the face of barbarism.

I know he meant well, but Al Gore might be making global warming worse:

Dr Bala and his colleagues took such effects into account using a computer model called the Integrated Climate and Carbon Model. Unlike most climate-change models, which calculate how the Earth should absorb and radiate heat in response to a list of greenhouse-gas concentrations, this one has many subsections that represent how the carbon cycle (photosynthesis and its consequences) works, and how it influences the climate. Thus, Dr Bala's model can be told to replace all the world's forests with shrubby grasslands, and left alone to work out how such a change would alter greenhouse-gas concentrations and how that, in turn, would influence the temperature in different places.

When Dr Bala ordered global clearcutting, the model calculated that the atmosphere's carbon-dioxide levels would roughly double by 2100. This is a much greater increase than happens in a business-as-usual simulation, but it would, paradoxically, make for a colder planet. That is because brighter high latitudes would reflect more sunlight in winter, cooling the local environment by as much as 6°C. The tropics would warm up, since they would be less cloudy, but not by enough to produce a net global heat gain. Overall, Dr Bala's model suggests that complete deforestation would cause an additional 1.3°C temperature rise compared with business as usual, because of the higher carbon-dioxide levels that would result. However, the additional reflectivity of the planet would cause 1.6°C of cooling. A treeless world would thus, as he reports in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, be 0.3°C cooler than otherwise.

I know that the argument is 'settled' because we have a 'consensus' and all, so it's surprising that counter-intuitive findings like this one pop up. (Or this one, which almost shrilly advocates pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.) I thought scientists had already chased down all these minor effects (like solar cycles) that could be affecting our understanding of global climate change.

And before you say 'you're being silly; we can't cut down all the world's forests,' the study does say that carbon offsets might be making the problem worse:

...Carbon-offset outfits should take note of Dr Bala's paper. Planting trees in convenient places such as Europe and North America may actually be counterproductive. Instead, in an environmental two-for-one, it is the rainforests that need bolstering.

I wonder if--just maybe--we don't really understand climate change well enough to warrant radically changing our lifestyles.

Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas declared last Tuesday that the West Bank city of Ramallah would soon rename one of its biggest thoroughfares after Jacques Chirac, the incumbent French President. Mahmoud Abbas called his French counterpart a “grand homme” on this solemn occasion of their farewell meeting, and Chirac replied by reiterating his support for restarting the flow of European aid to the Palestinian Authority.

Ramallah’s inhabitants should be pleased by their street's new name, given the cheerful way they welcomed Jacques Chirac in 1996, when the French president snapped at Israeli security personnel, famously threatening that he was “going back to his plane.” Watch the video here.

The Huffington Post has published another "blog post" from Rep. John Murtha, indicating (again) his support for re-instating the draft:

Our military has done a tremendous job with what has been asked of them. They have juggled and balanced with what they have, but what they have is not enough. The president asks the impossible and the burden continues to fall on the very few. The pressure must be taken off the current force and their families who have already sacrificed so much. If the president insists on continuing the current operational tempo and policy, then he should call for a military draft. That is the responsible thing to do.

The political ends of Congressional Democrats are best served by creating the impression that the U.S. military is at the breaking point. It weakens support for the Iraq effort and for deployment of the military generally. As to whether it's true, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Richard Myers stated in a conference call yesterday that while there are "dangers," and that expanded funding is needed, much alarmist rhetoric constitutes "hyperbole." He said that while we must be careful, the United States has a "better force" than it did on September 11.

If Murtha really believes that we need a larger military--which we do--what's the appropriate policy response? Well, today's all-volunteer force is dramatically smaller than it has been in the past, and the military has been successful in meeting recruitment targets--so it should be possible to significantly expand manpower without actually resorting to a draft. Plus, the last time the House voted on it--less than three years ago--the draft was defeated handily. A true advocate of a larger military would probably find it more effective to push for expanded funding for recruitment and salaries--and everything else that supports a larger force--as this magazine has repeatedly done.

What's the first step? Well, Murtha could quickly take measures to increase the size of the force, if only he could get the support of the Democratic leader who oversees military spending.

(Note: If you're interested, I've written before on the Democratic drumbeat to bring back the draft).

From National Review: A Culture of Passivity, by Mark Steyn.

From the Australian: Australians are all conservatives now, by Scott Prasser.

From the Chicago Sun-Times: An Arms Race America Must Win, by Ed Feulner.

From Defense Update: Hezbollah is Rearming for another round with Israel, by Colonel David Eshel.

From Self-Promotion: CSAR-X: Nobody's First Choice, by Michael Goldfarb.

Aircraft assigned to Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 5 perform a formation flight in front of Mount Fuji.
U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Jarod Hodge.

MRAP vehicles--mine resistant ambush protected--are all the rage, and for good reason. The Pentagon plans to purchase as many as 8,000 of the vehicles, from as many as nine different suppliers, for operations in Iraq. I've covered MRAP here in the past on numerous occasions, and over the past few months, as Congress has gotten more involved, MRAP has gone mainstream. It may not be a household term yet, but the program's profile has been raised considerably.

Which is why I think it might be time to take a step back and sound a word of caution. The Danger Room links to this story in USA Today claiming that not a single Marine has been injured in an IED attack while riding in an MRAP vehicle. That may be true, but it is misleading. American soldiers have died in IED attacks on MRAP vehicles, at least three were killed last fall while riding in a Force Protection vehicle according to the company's vice president, Mike Aldrich, who I spoke with a few moths ago. The details of that attack remain classified, but we should not foster the illusion that MRAP is a silver-bullet solution to the IED problem.

IED attacks are the greatest threat to American troops in Iraq, and the disaster that is the Humvee has left those troops acutely exposed to attack from the devices, most of which are crudely fashioned. But even MRAP, with its additional armor and v-shaped hull, will do little to protect American troops from the deadly explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) that are making their way into the country from Iran. Those devices are capable of penetrating the armor on a tank, let alone an MRAP. And while the v-shape hull is an improvement, a large mine is capable of flipping even a tank over onto its turret--MRAP won't fare any better.

So while I'm as big a supporter of MRAP as anyone, even though the program will cost a fortune and, with nine different suppliers, is likely to be a logistical nightmare, I worry that what is clearly a defensive technology will distract from what ought to be the primary response to the IED problem: going out and killing bad guys. The only way to neutralize the threat is to go after the networks that are bringing these weapons to bear, building them, planting them, and detonating them. MRAP can save countless lives and should be pursued regardless of price, but these vehicles won't kill the bad guys. Americans will happily pay for a technology that saves lives, but if Congress wants to work toward a lasting IED solution, they'd be better off spending their time finding ways to support General Petraeus' as he seeks to implement an effective COIN strategy. It's easy for Congressmen to make a show of supporting the troops by devoting themselves to getting those troops defensive technologies--more body armor, more armor for their Humvees, MRAP vehicles--but winning the war will require an equal measure of support for offensive operations. That's a tougher sell to constituents for some Congressmen, but that's leadership.

An MRAP vehicle on the left, Humvee on the right.

So the saga that is the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental continues today, with word that Congressional Democrats--having decided the big issues--are ready to begin a conference on the legislation.

Roll Call ($) reports that Democratic leaders are breaking the bad news to House liberals--the conference report won't force a surrender in Iraq on a date certain:

Pelosi met with members of the Out of Iraq Caucus on the issue Tuesday, and she said Wednesday that she is confident that they will have the votes to pass the supplemental next week...

Obey then gestured to the Republican side of the House and said he wants to put them on the spot to vote “again and again and again until they say, ‘I’m sorry, Mr. President, our tongues are hanging and we’re not going to do it any more...’”

Meanwhile, House Republicans will try return the favor, by getting Democrats on record on the 'forced surrender' provision. This won't be a tough vote for many Democrats, who'll be eager to cast a vote that pleases their base. But the GOP gains politically either way. If Democrats vote to keep the House's strict language, Republicans can fairly say that the Dems support withdrawal regardless of the conditions on the ground. If they vote against it, Republicans can point out that their own position can't be all that unreasonable, if some Democrats are voting for it as well.

The Roll Call piece goes on to look at some of the House liberals who are unhappy at the decision to ditch the more extreme position:

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), one of many freshman Democrats elected on a platform of ending the war, said that he was uncomfortable voting for a weaker bill.

I don't expect that the conference report will encounter too much difficulty passing the House. Yes, some liberals will defect, and their votes will have to be made up from among the Blue Dogs. However, everyone knows that this vote is play acting; it's about nothing more than political pressure on the president. Further, it will be followed by a vote on another version of the supplemental that is likely to eliminate the provisions on withdrawal dates, and instead simply tie political and economic assistance to Iraq achieving political goals. That will be the real test. Liberals won't even be able to pretend that the measure forces the U.S. to get out of Iraq, and they'll have a real hard time voting for it.

Unwilling to craft a 'clean' supplemental, Democratic leaders won't get many Republican votes, so their job is about to get much harder. While few want to see this drag out for months, they might even look to some version of the 'micro-funding' strategy, which Congressman Allen Boyd spoke of favorably in Congressional Quarterly:

After the expected veto, Democrats could pursue several options. One would be to approve short installments of war funding.

Boyd said he would support such a move. If the president vetoes the conference report, “We ought to give him a clean bill that’s 60 days,” he said. “It continues the debate on the policy.”

This can't be a particularly attractive option for Democrats. The Pentagon will argue that piece-meal funding complicates operations, training, acquisitions and other expenditures. The White House will complain about Congress' failure to simply pass a bill. It also will extend the pressure from interest groups on Congressional Democrats to decide on the next step in undercutting the war effort.

So if you think managing the Congress has been difficult for Pelosi and Reid so far, it is about to get much more worse for the Democrat duo.

There were a few weeks there where I was getting worried about McCain, but he's back.

This first video is a preview of McCain's campaign for president, which will officially kick off on April 25. The second, which is prominently featured on today's Drudge Report...well, it puts a smile on our faces.

NPR aired an interview this morning with Doug Feith, which includes an interview with one of his students at Georgetown University and clips from the ever-reliable news source the Colbert Show.

You can hear the interview here.

The clip from the Colbert Show has the host quoting from an article in the Washington Post accusing Feith of "manipulating" intelligence based on the conclusions of a report by the Pentagon's inspector general. Of course, the report said nothing of the kind, and the Post later published an explanation/correction by the paper's ombudsman under the title "How a Page 1 Mistake Was Made." One would think that the authors of an article alleging the manipulation of intelligence would take care to avoid any such manipulations in their own work, and that NPR wouldn't rely on the Colbert Report for much of anything, but, of course, one would be wrong.

We've been making a few changes here at THE WORLDWIDE STANDARD, bringing in new contributors and generally expanding our coverage. Over the past few weeks, you may have noticed the postings of the Influence Peddler, aka Brian Faughnan.

Brian worked for 10 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, spent several years working abroad as a consultant in Mexico City, and, until recently, was a lobbyist representing tech companies. Brian has maintained his own blog at the Influence Peddler, where he and two associates comment on politics, policy, religion, pop culture, and whatever else interests them.

Brian will be posting here a couple of times a day with an eye toward Congress. We are very happy to have him on board, and we're confident we've picked up one of the blogosphere's more astute observers of inside the beltway politics. So keep an eye out for his stuff, and keep an eye on his blog as well, The Influence Peddler.

More Housekeeping: Bill Roggio will resume posting his daily updates on Iraq next week. Bill is currently receiving a crash course in Zionism while touring the Holy Land on an AIPAC-sponsored junket--tough job.

With the first round of the French presidential voting coming up this weekend, Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal keeps dropping in the polls and leftist nerves are fraying. Royal's husband François Hollande, the leader of the Socialist party, has declared in a radio interview with Europe 1 that he's not sure she'll make it to the second round of voting on May 6 (only the top two contenders advance). Hollande says there's “a risk of another April 21st on this April 22--referring to the shock of April 21, 2002, when far right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen outpolled Socialist candidate Lionel Jospin in the first round of the presidential voting, paving the way for Jacques Chirac's overwhelming landslide victory in round two. The specter of Jospin’s debacle has haunted the French left ever since.

Adding to the sense of impending doom: the French weekly Le Nouvel Observateur and The Financial Times have both reported the rumor of a secret survey conducted by France's domestic intelligence agency, the RG (or Renseignements généraux), predicting that conservative candidate Nicolas Sarkozy would confront Jean-Marie Le Pen in the run-off vote, in a replay of the 2002 voting. This rumor was promptly denied by the RG, which is not supposed to meddle in elections. Suspicious minds note that the RG is part of the Interior Ministry, which until two weeks ago was run by Sarkozy himself.

According to an official CSA poll, 42 percent of French voters are still undecided--a figure not exactly comforting to the left, since it may represent an unwillingness to tell survey takers of one's intention to vote for Sarkozy or, worse, Le Pen.

Ségolène Royal. Photograph: Martin Bernetti/AFP

As predicted here yesterday, Congressional Democrats have given up on proposed language that would have required all troops to withdraw from Iraq by September 2008. Instead, they hope to send to the president a funding bill that 'suggests' that all troops be withdrawn by March 31 of next year:

House Democratic leaders are preparing their rank and file for the likelihood that a final supplemental spending measure will contain the nonbinding Iraq withdrawal language favored by the Senate.

So now Congressional Democrats have given up on 'forced surrender' in favor of 'suggested surrender.' Note once again the reversal on a campaign promise. Democrats complained bitterly that they were excluded from key conference meetings in the Republican Congress. Now the most important question in this conference has been settled with no Republican input.

This move will ease Senate passage of the conference report, but it will mean more heavy lifting for House Democratic leaders. They will still receive almost no Republican votes and they will surely lose the votes of some progressives. Pelosi and Hoyer will need to win over some 'Blue Dogs' who voted against the original House bill--and there are only 6 or 8 of those.

And all that heavy lifting will produce a bill that will surely be vetoed--after which those same leaders must sell their conference on a new version that they will find even more distasteful.

As things stand now, it's entirely unclear whether the North Koreans will meet their first obligation set forth under the February 13 agreement--the shutdown of the country's main nuclear reactor at Yongbyon.

After nearly four years of Six Party Talks with the North Koreans, the reclusive regime seems interested only in stalling for more time and extorting aid from the West in the form of fuel oil and food.

But what if the West, instead of trying to disarm the rogue regime, merely sought to do business there. The story of the Baltika Beer Company might be instructive. The Russian brewery shipped 72,000 bottles of Baltika No. 5 Gold to Korea last week, the first delivery of its kind. How long did it take for Baltika to tap the North Korean market? Longer than it took the Bush administration to bribe the North Koreans into another nuke deal.

Negotiations began in 2001, when Kim Johg-Il himself visited the brewery while in St. Petersburg. The next year he sent engineers back to St. Petersburg "to study brewing methods." According to officials at Baltika, reaching an accord took a further three years. That only takes us up to 2005--and there's no explanation for what held up the first shipment for another two and a half years.

Dmitry Kistev, head of Baltika's export sales, explained the company's strategy: "The foam drink brewed in the city that's the cradle of socialist revolution -- and that's how Baltika will be positioned in North Korea -- will be available for foreign tourists as well."

At 80 cents a bottle, it's doubtful that Baltika will reach a wide swath of the North Korean "market." And, given that it takes Kim six years to order a beer, one has good reason to be skeptical that the regime will dismantle its nuclear program after just four years of giving us the run around.

Roll Call reports ($) this morning that General David Petraeus will return from Iraq next week to Washington to meet with members of Congress and discuss the state of affairs in Iraq. The visit coincides with Congressional consideration of the Iraq/Afghanistan funding bill. That bill will be in a conference committee as soon as the House gets around to naming conferees, which hasn't happened yet (although it may by the time you read this):

The top military commander in Iraq will make a rare visit to Capitol Hill next week but House Democratic leaders - unlike their Senate counterparts - initially declined the Defense Department's offer of a Members-only closed-door briefing with Army Gen. David Petraeus, according to Congressional and administration sources.

"This demonstrates a willful refusal to obtain the facts, understand the consequences of withdrawal, or accept the possibility that the new plan for victory just may be showing signs of forward progress," Boehner said in a statement to Roll Call. "Preventing Gen. Petraeus from briefing Members while delaying funds for the troops and advancing a bill that undermines their mission is downright irresponsible. If I were delaying funding for his soldiers, I wouldn't want to look the General in the eyes either, but this is a dereliction of duty..."

House Democrats say that the meeting request was initially rejected because it violated standard protocols, noting that briefings 'are conducted on a regular basis by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State.' Yet it's surprising that the Senate wasn't bothered by the violation of protocol. Further, this seems to be the only area where the House Democrats are satisfied with a 'regular briefing' from the Secretary. If they thought they could embarrass Petraeus, you can bet he'd be subpoenaed.

Rather, Democrats seem to regard Petraeus' move as some 'political stunt' intended to embarrass them. It shows how committed they are to steaming ahead regardless of the facts, and they just don't want to risk hearing from the expert in charge of the war effort--he's liable to disagree.

Several news outlets report on the House-Senate conference which must resolve differences between their respective Iraq/Afghanistan supplementals. The primary question is whether the conference report will use the Senate language, which calls for a suggested timetable for withdrawal, or the House bill's date certain. The Washington Post suggests that the Democrats have the upper hand in their battle with the president. Roll Call ($) says that Ben Nelson (D-NE) may hold the key to deciding whether the House or Senate language is retained:

Congressional experts have pondered for weeks how Pelosi will get her already unhappy liberals to vote for the Senate’s language, which unlike the House does not include a compulsory date certain for withdrawal. Others have wondered whether Reid will be able to give any ground in conference given the narrow 51-vote margin of victory in the Senate.

If Senator Nelson stands his ground, it makes it likely that the date certain will be dropped. His position might well determine those of several other Senators--including his home-state colleague Chuck Hagel, who will want to avoid standing to the left of Nelson.

If the president has been clear about anything, it's that the next step will be a veto--expected to come sometime next week. After that, Senator Levin says the Senate will look to a new version of the Iraq supplemental which ties U.S. support to political benchmarks. Such a measure will prove challenging to pass, since it will get relatively few Republican votes, and House liberals feel they have already made a big sacrifice to give up on an immediate withdrawal. Depending on how it's drafted, the White House may make the case for a veto of that bill, as well.

Keep in mind that the administration's April 15 deadline has already passed, and they are making the case that combat operations have already begun to suffer because of Congress' failure to act in a timely fashion. Further, while the Democrats previously said that the 'real deadline' was May 1, they will have a hard time meeting even that.

Reid and Pelosi will face a strong challenge to their leadership skills.

From Slate: Sliming Wolfowitz, by Christopher Hitchens.

From the New York Sun: Bolstering Moderate Muslims, by Daniel Pipes.

From the Washington Times: Finding the moderates, by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross.

From Spiegel: Official Recognition of Islam in Germany? by the editors.

From the Los Angeles Times: A U.S.-Italy dispute behind murder trial, by Tracy Wilkinson.

Bonus Awesome Video: Flight Plans, by Aaron Koblin.

With tax day here, you'll be glad to know that Congress is changing the way it approaches important tax questions. If you're a lobbyist, you no longer have to buy tickets to two separate fundraisers if you want to support Ways and Means Chairman Rangel and Finance Chairman Baucus. Now you can buy one ticket to support the Baucus-Rangel Leadership Fund:

Whether the business community will buy Rangel’s vision for a better America remains to be seen, but its representatives certainly are spending money to spend time with him. Rangel’s fundraising has soared since he became chairman of Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over tax, healthcare and trade policy, at the beginning of the year. Rangel raised $761,000, according to a new report he filed with the FEC, by far the most the 76-year-old chairman has ever raised in a three-month period.

Baucus has raised $1 million during the first quarter of 2007, a figure in line with quarterly totals he raised in past election cycles. He has $2.9 million in cash on hand, a Montana record. But Baucus long has been known as a friend to the business community. While some businessmen seem less sure of Rangel, they appear eager to become fast friends with the New Yorker.

One possible reason that Rangel's donations are skyrocketing while Baucus' are holding relatively steady is that as a moderate, Baucus long enjoyed support in the business community. Rangel by contrast, is probably finding many new supporters now that he chairs a committee critical to their interests.

Baucus' Chief of Staff states that the fund is for the re-election of the two officials, but that's certainly not true of Rangel, who won 96 percent of the vote in 2006, and does not face serious re-election challenges. The money raised by Rangel will be used primarily to support other Democratic candidates.

The Democrats ran last year on a promise to change Washington. In this case anyway, it seems that meant a more convenient way to buy face time with two of the most powerful chairmen in Congress.

Yesterday, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement strongly condemning an article in Foreign Affairs magazine by former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko. The statement called the article an “anti-Russian manifesto” and “an attempt to once again draw dividing lines in Europe." The ministry spokesman noted that “usually, we do not comment on articles in the foreign media” (except, of course, for the New York Times last month), but firmly asserted that this “cowardly” and “written-to-order” piece--purportedly titled “Containing Russia”--only “reinforces President Putin’s call for an open and honest dialogue [made during] his Munich speech."

In light of the current constitutional crisis in Ukraine, it's not surprising that an openly anti-Putin Tymoshenko would prompt such a response. Yet, a reader who might question the Kremlin’s judgment is faced with a much more mundane concern: where can one read this modern-day Fulton address in its entirety? The new issue of Foreign Affairs is not due for at least another week; for now, the Russian media has the only “scoop." Yesterday’s RIA Novosti reports:

in her article, Tymoshenko, a strong opponent of the alleged new Russian expansionism, outlines a fresh concept of containing Russia on the world arena, drawing obvious parallels with the 1940s doctrine developed by U.S. diplomat George Kennan, reputedly the chief ideologist of the Cold War.

Curious, I contacted Foreign Affairs, and was told that “unfortunately, a news organization got a hold of the article in advance of publication and referenced it despite a strict embargo. The article is, however, being released to the press tomorrow.”

While I am still waiting for my copy of Tymoshenko’s Cold War manifesto to arrive in the mail, I cannot help but wonder whether entry into the World Trade Organization is appropriate for Russia at this time. According to the Coalition of Intellectual Property Rights (CIRP),

Despite positive developments by Russia to bring its IP legislation on copyrights, trademarks and patents into compliance with WTO and Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) requirements, there are still significant legislative deficiencies and insufficient enforcement practices.

Regardless of political views, shouldn’t “enforcement practices” begin with the Kremlin, the citadel of Russian democracy and the rule of law?

Update: Foreign Affairs has now posted the article in question, which can be viewed here.

Harry Reid may have been reacting to Cheney's declaration of victory in the battle over supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, when he stated today that the president will not get a clean funding bill for Iraq:

President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid head to a Wednesday meeting at the White House with uncompromising stances on a war spending measure that includes Iraq withdrawal language.

Congressional Democrats have already shown they're willing to micro-manage the war. The next question is whether they will be satisfied with the inclusion of benchmarks in the bill, or whether they will insist on 'micro-funding' the war as well. That's the best description I can think of for the proposal that they fund the war in installments, ensuring that the Pentagon never has more than a few months of funding left.

In either case, the Democrats look set to pursue a politically risky strategy: sending the president a bill he has promised to veto, and threatening to follow it with another version that the president might also veto.

Note: The Say Anything Blog offers an excerpt from Harry Reid's press conference today, at which he made plain just how committed the Democrats are to working with the President. The highlight:

Reporter: ‘So are you going to go to the White House with some kind of proposal for the President, some kind of offer?’

Reid: ‘The offer is that the President sign our bill’

Remember that Reid and the Democrats have complained about the president's refusal to compromise.

From the Washington Post: Will Iraq Be the Next Rwanda? by Stuart Gottlieb.

From the Boston Globe: War strategy critic to review IED office, by Bryan Bender.

From the Los Angeles Times: Global leaders need to rule the seas, by Niall Ferguson.

From the Australian: The UN Human Rights Crowd Drops Its Moral Guard Again, by Alan Gold.

From the New York Post: Nouri Nixing Tehran's Tyrants, by Amir Taheri.

HICKAM AIR FORCE BASE, Hawaii -- A ceremony to honor the remains
believed to be those of six U.S. service members lost during the Korean War marks
their return to American soil at Hangar 35 on Hickam Air Force Base.
(Air Force photo by Angela Elbern)

Russia is a strange place. On Saturday, a vocal Russian opposition held a rally in Moscow led by Gary Kasparov, who became the youngest every world champion chess player in 1985 but retired from the game in 2005 to devote himself to political activism. Kasparov was arrested as soon as he arrived, but according to the Guardian the 2,000 strong demonstration was without precedented in the seven years since Putin came to power. Here's how the paper described the scene:

Ranged against them were 9,000 riot police wielding truncheons and the might of the Russian state. And yet for one moment yesterday the demonstrators got the better of their opponents. After surging down the Boulevard Ring, the protesters began a defiant chant: 'Russia without Putin: Russia without Putin.' The sun burst on to a freezing Moscow morning. There was, it seemed, a whiff of revolution in the air.

'We don't agree, we don't agree,' the protesters chanted, waving flags and blocking the boulevard. 'This is our city', 'Revolution', 'Down with KGB informers'. A man held up a placard: 'I don't believe in Putin.' Others called for Russia's President to resign and go skiing.

The response from Putin? On Sunday, "Russian President Vladimir Putin rolled out the red carpet for Belgian actor Jean-Claude Van Damme and a score of grizzled martial arts fighters in Saint Petersburg, state-run television reported."

Putin treated the fighters to tea and cakes at the chandelier-lined hall of the Konstantinovsky palace following a mixed martial arts contest.

Dubbed "Russia versus America", Saturday's contest was won by Russian champion Fedor Yemelyanenko who defeated US rival Matt "The Law" Lindland.

Television footage showed judo enthusiast Putin, dressed entirely in black and with no tie, greeting martial arts films veteran Van Damme in the sports hall.

Update: For those unfamiliar with Garry Kasparov’s writing, here is an outstanding article he co-authored five years ago on how the Soviet legacy continues to haunt Putin’s Russia.

And here is an interview he gave to the Wall Street Journal this past January.
(HT DC)

Vladimir Putin and Jean-Claude Van Damme.
AFP Vladimir Rodionov

From AFP:

“Based on the international laws, embassies cannot be sold or confiscated,” Reza Jafari, deputy Teheran prosecutor, was quoted as saying in the centrist Kargozaran newspaper.

“The court can only confiscate property such as cars, bank accounts, buildings and firms, and cannot pass a verdict on confiscating embassies as this is contrary to international law,” he said.

This was in response to a claim by an Iranian citizen, widely reported in the Iranian press, "that the US embassy in Teheran will be sold to pay for damages awarded [as compensation for] his capture 15 years ago by US agents..."

Apparently, the legal definition of "confiscate" does not include seizing the U.S. embassy and turning it into an anti-American museum operated by the Revolutionary Guards. Jafari didn't speak to the legality of holding 52 diplomats hostage for 444 days.

If you haven't been reading Ares, go check it out. It was a good blog to begin with, but since the arrival of Bill Sweetman, it has gotten even better. And today, Sweetman puts the smackdown on the New York Times:

Sunday's New York Times runs a long feature on General Atomics – Aeronautical Systems Inc (GA-ASI) and the Predator unmanned air vehicle. If you are invited to visit GA-ASI, the NYT suggests "take a bit of advice: accept a ride on the corporate jet. The plane isn't fancy. The cabin is cramped and the seats a little threadbare."

The NYT may also have found the ride a bit rough. There's this vibration, you see, caused by the big spinning three-blade thingies on the front of the engines of GA-ASI's King Air. Memo to NYT. If you really want to get your credibility above the Jayson Blair level, maybe you should assign aerospace stories to someone who knows the difference between a propeller and a jet.

Further down, the NYT traces the UAV concept back to the 1930s and "a group of angry German commanders plotting revenge". From this description, which makes Guderian and Rommel sound like high-schoolers miffed at being grounded on homecoming night, we get into the obligatory sports metaphors: "a strategy that allowed them to end-run their enemies' trenches by using panzerdivizions"

By using WHAT? The NYT has made up this word and it has stormed past their renowned editors and fact-checkers like – well, a Panzer-Division. This is not war-geek nitpicking: the NYT would never, ever make such errors concerning something that they gave a rodent's rear end about, like the latest Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit, or allegations of unspecified wrongdoing by the third cousin three times removed of a former deputy assistant White House aide.

Fantastic...go read the whole thing.

The Corner's Andy McCarthy has double posted in response to Thomas Joscelyn's article in yesterday's DAILY STANDARD. Joscelyn does an excellent job of debunking the consensus view on connections between prewar Iraq and al Qaeda--a view rehashed in the Washington Post last week under the title "Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted."

And McCarthy just piles on:

Forgetting all of these circumstances, among others, Tom also recalls, as Steve Hayes, myself, and others have for some time, that in 1998, "Ayman al-Zawahiri was in Baghdad ... and collected a check for $300,000 from the Iraqi regime." I would add, for context, that this was in the same time frame as bin Laden and Zawahiri's infamous fatwa calling for the murder of Americans — which, if you read it, argues that American actions against Iraq are a big part of the justification. It also came just a few months before al Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in east Africa, the Clinton administration bombed a Sudanese phramaceutical factory because intel indicated it was a joint Iraqi/Qaeda chemical weapons venture, and Clinton counter-terror honcho Richard Clarke fretted that "wily old Osama would boogie to Baghdad" — of all places — if the U.S. made things too hot for Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Sure, maybe all this is just a big coincidence. But, given that al Qaeda is a 24/7 terror operation whose main target is the U.S., I've always wondered for what earthly purpose Senator Levin and other connection naysayers figure Saddam Hussein gave Ayman Zawahiri 300K?

From the Washington Post: The Surge: First Fruits, by Charles Krauthammer.

From THE DAILY STANDARD: Who's Spinning Intel? by Thomas Joscelyn.

From National Review: Paying Nuclear Tribute to North Korea, by Claudia Rosett.

From USA Today: 'We have reduced stress', by Thomas F. Hall.

From the International Herald Tribune: Turkey ready to enter northern Iraq, by Sabrina Tavernise.

The House Republicans have released a report on the First 100 Days of the Democratic Congress, concluding that Democrats have accomplished little legislatively. Partisan Democrats will argue that this is not a surprise, given that they have narrow majorities and a president in opposition. They'll argue that it's unfair to expect much in such circumstances.

But one might still expect them to vote on bills and send a few to the president, right? Well, not even that is happening.

Look at the list of priorities--the 'Six for 06' that the Democrats campaigned on. They promised to implement all recommendations of the 9/11 commission. Leaving aside that they dropped completely the Congressional reform component, the measure still has not been sent to the president. Do they regard it as a priority or not?

Raising the minimum wage has majority support in both the House and Senate--yet it still has not been sent to the president. The same is true of stem cell research. Legislation to change the interest rate on student loans, change the Medicare prescription-drug plan, and implement 'a comprehensive energy policy' have not even been voted on in the Senate.

Further, though it was not included in the 'Six for 06,' Congressional Democrats spoke constantly about the need to clean up Washington. But while the House and Senate have both passed ethics reform bills, there's no sign that there will ever be a conference report to send to the president. Meanwhile, both House and Senate are disregarding provisions of the bills they have passed.

Despite having accomplished very little, Democrats have been willing to stifle debate, change the rules, and generally go back on campaign promises. It's night and day from the first 100 days of the Republican Congress in 1995 (which also faced a narrow majority and an opposition President).

Note that I have not touched upon the substance of the bills the Democrats are pushing. There's plenty of room for criticism on the merits of their legislation. I'd encourage you to read the report prepared by the House Republicans, which looks in detail at the substance of the agenda.

To see for yourself the 17 bills that have been signed into law this year, click here. Nine of the seventeen are bills to rename post offices and courthouses, which appears to be a bipartisan process--one of them is the 'Rush Hudson Limbaugh Courthouse.'

We should give some credit to Captain Ed, who presaged this report the other day.

Speaker Pelosi's first day. She promised "the toughest ethics reform in history."

Al Qaeda in Iraq conducted two successful high profile suicide bombings in the heart of Baghdad yesterday. The first attack occurred in a cafe at the Iraqi Parliament. The second occurred on the Jisr al-Hadeed bridge, which crosses the Tigris river. This attack destroyed the bridge and killed over 25 people. Al Qaeda in Iraq claimed credit for the Parliament attack on the website of its proxy political front, the Islamic State of Iraq. This news comes as cracks are emerging between al Qaeda and the Islamic Army of Iraq.

Yesterday's attacks in Baghdad were the first major suicide attacks in the capital since a market was hit on March 29. The Parliament attack was by far the most visible and symbolic attack. One member of Parliament, Sunni politician Mohammed Awadh, was killed, and seven MPs were among the 22 wounded after a suicide bomber detonated his vest in the center of a cafe adjacent to the Parliament.

The bodyguard of an undisclosed parliamentarian was likely responsible for the parliament attack. The breach of security is a cause for major concern, as this is not the first time weapons have made it past the security cordon. "Two suicide vests were discovered inside the Green Zone on April 1, setting off a massive search for additional bombs," Richard Miniter reported from Baghdad.

The bodyguards of Sunni politicians have been implicated in working with the insurgency and al Qaeda in the past. Iraqi and Coalition forces have conducted two high profile raids on the compounds of Sunni parliamentarians this year alone. In both instances, illegal weapons and explosives were found. A raid on Dhafer al Ani's compound on March 8 netted weapons, including a sniper rifle "inscribed with a verse from the Koran. . .a slogan popular with insurgents." Traces of explosives were also found in the vehicles of his bodyguards. Seven of Ani's bodyguards were detained, though all but one were subsequently released. On January 1, the office of Salih al Mutlaq, the chairman of the Iraqi National Dialogue Council, was raided by Coalition forces. Six of Mutlaq's bodyguard were killed during the raid on what the Coalition described as a "terrorist safe house."

Al Qaeda in Iraq has been attempting to conduct a 'mini-Tet' offensive in Baghdad for well over a year. The terror group believes a high profile assault on the Green Zone will destroy any remaining U.S. support for the war in Iraq. Several plots to attack the Green Zone have been uncovered over the past year. In November of 2006, a bomb placed under a vehicle of Mahmoud al- Mashhadani, the speaker of Parliament, exploded inside the Green Zone.

As al Qaeda in Iraq struck at Sunni politicians in Baghdad, the Islamic Army in Iraq, the largest Sunni insurgent group, which has previously operated closely with al Qaeda, severed ties with the terror group after several months of infighting. Al Jazeera reported that Ibrahim al-Shammari, an Islamic Army in Iraq spokesman, "told Al Jazeera on Thursday that the Islamic Army in Iraq had decided to disunite from al-Qaeda in Iraq after its members were threatened."

The infighting between al Qaeda and the Islamic Army has been ongoing for several months. Al Qaeda has been targeting senior leaders of the Islamic Army and has killed over 30 of them. The Islamic Army in Iraq accuses al Qaeda of indiscriminately murdering Iraqis, including members of the security forces, and pressuring the Sunni insurgent group to swear allegiance to al Qaeda's Islamic State of Iraq. This news comes as a grouping of the most prominent Sunni clerics in Iraq have organized to opposed al Qaeda's religious edicts calling for the murder of Iraqis.

As the divisions between the Sunni community and al Qaeda grow, Coalition and Iraqi security forces continue to target al Qaeda's leadership, networks, and safe havens. A joint Coalition and Iraqi security forces operation is underway in Buhriz, a suburb of Baqubah in the violent province of Diyala. Five insurgents have been captured and several weapons caches have been destroyed. Coalition raids on al Qaeda in Iraq in Haditha, Karma, and Baghdad on March 12 resulted in two terrorists killed and 17 captured. Today's raids led to 14 al Qaeda captured in Karma, Amiriya, and Baghdad.

This week's editorial from the Nation is a real doozy. Here's how it starts:

Once upon a time, Republicans believed in diplomacy. They spoke with enemies. Recall Richard Nixon: As President, he negotiated with the Soviets, the Chinese and the North Vietnamese, who were shooting at US troops at the time. Nowadays, the Bush Administration too often dismisses diplomacy and, when it does, is cheered on by neoconservatives and conservatives who misguidedly equate communication with weakness.

Ah, yes...why can't Republicans today be more like Nixon? Well, conservatives at the time were none too thrilled about Nixon's trip to China. Barry Goldwater famously quipped ''Well, if Nixon likes China so much, let him stay there.'' And, of course, Goldwater also called Nixon "the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life." So forgive today's conservatives if they don't look to the Nixon presidency for guidance on this particular question.

The editorial goes on to say that "Pelosi, who affirmed US policy toward Syria in her conversation with Assad, was merely following the advice of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group..." The Iraq Study Group did recommend engagement with Syria and Iraq, but not by Congress. And the ISG also recommended a surge of U.S. forces into Iraq if ground commanders deemed it necessary--they have, though the editors at the Nation are unlikely to support that recommendation.

They go on:

And for the moment--much to the consternation of conservatives--it is giving diplomacy a chance on North Korea. But when it comes to the big picture, the Administration still prefers bullying and threats of military action to the hard work of talking and negotiating. Iran's defiant announcement that it has begun enriching uranium on an industrial scale shows that this approach hasn't paid off.

Conservative consternation seems entirely appropriate given that the February 13 agreement with the DPRK already appears to be falling apart--the North Koreans appear unlikely even to meet the first deadline for shutting down their main nuclear reactor. And no one on the right thinks that mere bullying and threats will prevent the Iranians from moving forward with their nuclear program, and no one on the left can seriously think that direct diplomacy with Iran will either. The Iranians are determined to build a bomb. International sanctions might offer a third way, but not without Russian and Chinese support--an unlikely development, especially if the United States pursues a policy of engagement rather than isolation.

The editors further look to the behavior of the British government in the recent hostage crisis as an example for Bush and his "cowboy allies":

In the British-Iranian face-off, Prime Minister Tony Blair achieved the release of the British hostages without resorting to threats or force. Yet the big-stick crowd in Washington derided Blair.

The British brought their soldiers home, but only after Blair issued a vague threat about a 48 hour deadline. To assume that a credible threat of the use of force didn't play a significant part in their release is naive. And yes, conservatives did a little deriding--Americans have been around that block before. There would have been no humble attempts at diplomacy if "Iranian military vessels surrounded an American ship instead of a British one"--one Carter administration was enough for us cowboys.

And finally:

Bush does not believe in the power of negotiation and compromise--as evidenced even by his dealings with Congressional Democrats.

Which Congressional Democrats are looking to compromise? Certainly not the leadership, who have passed around a memo saying that the party "must not yeid" to the White House.

So the guys at the Nation wish Bush would negotiate more? Not enough that we negotiated with Saddam for years while he flouted UN resolutions? That we negotiated with our Security Council partners to build support for action against Iraq--and that we assembled a coalition of the willing to support such action? Not enough that the Bush administration created the Proliferation Security Initiative, with dozens of partners? Not sufficient that we negotiated with European and Middle Eastern partners to imprison and try terrorist nationals? And to monitor terrorist financing? Not sufficient that we negotiated with Saddam through back channels in the days and hours leading up to the war? Not enough that the United States held together a coalition to address North Korea's nuclear program? Not sufficient that we negotiated with Libya to abandon its WMD program (under British auspices, I believe).

As for Congress, Bush negotiated with them on the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, extension of Trade Promotion Authority... just to name a few.

The problem is that the folks at the Nation don't believe that there's ever a reason to stop negotiating. They believe in the old adage, 'speak softly and carry a fluffy pillow,' unless you're dealing with George Bush. Their problem is that they don't really like the things that Bush is negotiating on; they oppose them. So they cast about wildly, looking for some Republican they can throw up as a straw man. You can tell how desperate they are that the best they could come up with was Nixon.

Boris Berezovsky says he's planning the overthrow of Vladimir Putin:

"We need to use force to change this regime," Berezovsky, who has received asylum in Britain, told the Guardian newspaper.

"It isn't possible to change this regime through democratic means. There can be no change without force, pressure."

Asked if he was fomenting a revolution, he said: "You are absolutely correct."

Berezovsky, a vocal critic of Putin, said he was in contact with members of Russia's political elite.

He said these people -- who he did not name because, he said, that would endanger their lives -- shared his opinion that Putin was eroding democratic reforms, centralizing power and infringing Russia's constitution, according to the Guardian.

"There is no chance of regime change through democratic elections," Berezovsky said.

"If one part of the political elite disagrees with another part of the political elite -- that is the only way in Russia to change the regime. I try to move that."

It's worth remembering that before he became a target of persecution by the Putin regime, Berezovsky was a well-connected thug with an alleged history of violence and assassination. He has political connections, influence, and a whole lot of money. At the same time, Wikipedia claims this isn't the first time he has promised an overthrow of Putin. It brings to mind the old maxim about the dog that barks.

As I've noted before, the base of the Democratic party is pushing its leaders further and further left on Iraq. In the weeks after the midterm election, it was clear that Democrats wanted to avoid the political damage associated with taking part-'ownership' of Iraq. As long as they gave the president a 'blank check,' he would be blamed (or credited) with everything that happened there.

Since the election, however, Democratic leaders have been constantly pressured to move more aggressively to get U.S. forces out of Iraq. They've moved from a non-binding resolution of disapproval to a date-certain for withdrawal. And now there is speculation that rather than fund the conflict for the remainder of the year, Congressional Democrats will dole funding out to the Pentagon in several installments. The theory is that as long as the Bush administration has funding for 'the next few months,' Democrats can continue to push the White House to agree to a timetable for withdrawal.

Meanwhile, Democratic activists continue to press presidential candidates to commit to removing basically all U.S. troops from Iraq. It seems accepted that some Marines should stay to protect the embassy, but candidates will have to prove the need for any more. It's feared that temporary installations for fighting al Qaeda might become permanent. Chris Dodd is garnering endorsements by calling on the other candidates to support a cutoff of all funding on March 31, 2008. Bill Richardson is earning plaudits for a clear message of 'no trainers, no permanent bases, nada.'

My question is, where does this leave the Democrats in a few months?

If they pursue their piecemeal funding strategy, there will be pressure to remain consistent with the Feingold bill, which Dodd has already endorsed. Will they use an appropriations bill to try to force a drawdown around September--as the Feingold bill suggests? And how will the other presidential candidates/senators react? Will Biden, Obama, and Clinton support such a move? I doubt that the Democrats will benefit politically from spending the next half-year nickel-and-diming the military in an attempt to tie down the president.

And what if they eventually force a withdrawal of U.S. troops from combat? Can Iraq remain stable? If it does not, the argument will begin over whether the president was to blame for starting the war, or the Democrats for pulling out. Mickey Kaus recently made the point that if this debate even takes place, it means that the Democrats have shifted from sound political ground to "iffy territory."

And for the near future at least, doesn't this take off the table the option of sending ground troops just about anywhere in the world for anything more than a surgical strike? If a potential mission might last more than a few months, might involve casualties in the tens or hundreds, might force a long-term presence to keep the peace, and/or involves potential threats rather than proximate ones, the precedent has been established to keep U.S. forces out. The Democratic presidential candidate may be left with a military doctrine that de facto consists of surgical strikes and cruise missiles--a return to the Clinton way of war in a post-9/11 world.

But that problem might be moot if Democrats are seen as having forced the president to remove U.S. troops and that leads to a real civil war in Iraq. Things can always get worse, and a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces might make the 'bomb-a-day' stories coming out of Iraq seem like a happy memory.

Perhaps none of this will happen. But if Democrats in Washington continue to ratchet up the pressure to bring U.S. troops home, they better have a pretty good handle on what is to follow.

Update: I note that Jim Geraghty touches on some similar points.

Frederick W. Kagan has just posted a response to Joe Biden's op-ed in today's Washington Post.

Here's a sample:

We are not simply "squeezing the water balloon." Violence is up in the Baghdad belts because U.S. and Iraqi forces have been aggressively attacking al Qaeda bases in those areas that have been funneling weapons and fighters into Baghdad. Naturally when we attack his critical bases and lines of communication, the enemy fights back. The U.S. command has responded by sending more force into this area to exploit initial successes, which have played a role in keeping the AQI (al Qaeda in Iraq) violence in Baghdad under control. Biden would do well to follow events more closely, and then he would see the interconnection between the Baghdad belts and the effort to secure Baghdad. He did not note, but might have, that violence has also increased in Diyala province as AQI fighters driven out of Baghdad and Anbar are seeking new bases.

Go read the whole thing...

From the Boston Globe: A silent springtime for Hitler? by Alex Beam.

From the Australian: We cannot desert either battlefield, by Michael Costello.

From Azure: Hope over Hate: A Lebanon Diary, by Noah Pollak.

From the New York Sun: Bush's Ratings, by the editors.

From the Wall Street Journal(Sub. Required): Show Our Troops the Money, by Gary Kurpius and Paul Morin.

"Pigs on Parade" via John at Op-For.

If you use YouTube, be sure to bookmark the MNF Iraq Channel.

Today, al Qaeda's regional affiliate, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, conducted a dual bombing in Algiers, the capital of Algeria. One of the two targets was the office of Algeria's Prime Minister. Over 30 were killed and scores more wounded in the two bombings, which are believed to be suicide attacks. Bill Roggio discusses the consolidation of the Salafist terrorist groups in North Africa and the subsequent formation of al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb, their recent attacks, and Algeria's counterterrorism operations at The Fourth Rail.

Olivier Guitta has also been covering developments in the Maghreb, you can read posts from him at THE DAILY STANDARD here and here.

The old adage warns that if you like sausage, you better not watch it made. The good news is that no one likes the Iraq supplemental that Congressional Democrats are working on. The House and Senate have to reconcile their bills--particularly on the question of whether the president will veto a bill with a mandated withdrawal date, or a suggested one. The conference can't officially begin until next week, when the House returns from recess and names its conferees.

That hasn't stopped the president from inviting Congressional leaders to the White House to talk about "a clean bill: a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal, and without handcuffing our generals on the ground." The Democrats see themselves as far more reasonable; they refuse to talk to the president because he won't consider a timetable for withdrawal--and discussing that option is a must-have for them, or no negotiations are possible. (I nominate this move for most transparent political stance ever. Perhaps the President should tell them he's changed his mind--that he'll talk about a timetable--and then when they arrive at the White House yell, 'psyche!')

Assuming a veto, Congressional Democrats aren't clear on what the next step will be, exactly. Some--like Senators Levin and Obama--say that they will send the President a 'clean bill,' but most are itching for a fight. Democratic presidential hopefuls continue to push ever leftward on Iraq, while contributors at Huffington Post, DailyKos, and MyDD are arguing for Democrats not to give in--likely increasing the chances that the next supplemental will not be a clean one and that this fight is going to get ugly indeed. Meanwhile, commentators opine on whether the Democrats made a strategic error in picking this fight. (Who do I think will 'win?' I'll stick with my early prediction).

But while leaders send mixed signals about what comes next, there's one group that remains highly predictable: lobbyists. Congressional Quarterly reports that they're praying that once the president vetoes the Iraq funding bill, their favored line-items are not cut from the next version. Since spending in the Iraq supplemental isn't subject to budget caps, this is a golden opportunity to get funding without needing to find an offsetting cut elsewhere:

If money is cut from the supplemental after an expected veto, the intended recipients might need divine intervention to get it back. Because the “emergency” accounts are not subject to discretionary spending caps, the supplemental may be the best chance for lawmakers to fund pressing domestic priorities without blowing a hole in the budget or slashing other programs...

The House’s $74 million line item for peanut storage has been a frequent target of criticism by the White House and others.

Robert L. Redding Jr., a lobbyist for the Georgia Peanut Commission, said he has spent a lot of time talking to members and staff about the program, which pays for peanut storage under a federal marketing assistance loan program. Redding would not say whether publicity has made the program vulnerable to being struck if appropriators are forced to pare domestic spending after a veto.

“We just hope we can keep it,” he said.

Nice to know that there are some things we can still count on...

Just got off a a conference call with Senator George Mitchell hosted by the "progressive" National Security Network.

Mitchell, a critic of the war in Iraq, said that while "the president's policy is essentially 'stay the course' without the slogan," the Democratic proposal "is similar to that of the Iraq Study Group." Of course, the Iraq Study Group, and James Baker, explicitly support the 'surge' and oppose the implementation of timetables for withdrawal. Details, details...

Mitchell also said that he hopes that the two sides will be able to "sit down and work out their differences." One reporter on the call asked in which areas the senator though compromise might be possible. His answer: on dates for withdrawal there's "plenty of room for working it out." Is that really the Democrats' idea of compromise?

Pam Hess, the UPI reporter who gave us this extremely moving and persuasive glimpse of the liberal case for the war in Iraq, asked if timetables for withdrawal "somehow infringe on the president's powers as commander in chief?" Mitchell's less than persuasive answer: "Congress is a coequal branch of government...the framers did not want to have one branch in charge of the government." True enough, but they sought an energetic executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war. So no, the Constitution does not put Congress on an equal footing with the executive in matters of national security.

Mitchell also said that there was no dissonance between the Democratic support for installing Petraeus and their lack of support for his counterinsurgency strategy: "the civilian leadership makes the decisions" and "when commanders don't agree with [the president], they're replaced by someone who does." I could accept that if Democrats routinely allowed the president to appoint his own guys--but they don't. They routinely oppose his nominations, and frustrate his attempts to appoint men who share his views. So it does seem a bit...dishonest?

And finally, on Pelosi's trip to Syria: "much ado about nothing," in the opinion of Senator Mitchell. "Congrssional delegations have gone around the world for as long as I can remember," he said. I wonder what the framers would have thought about that--if they'd wanted Congressmen to have an equal footing in matters of foreign policy, why not just give Congress its own diplomatic corps?

The United States is maintaining the pressure on Iran for its support of both Shia militias and Sunni insurgents. Yet again, Multinational Forces Iraq has detailed the Iranian involvement in supplying weapons and support for the Shia militias. In today's press brief, Major General William Caldwell also stated some aid from Iranian intelligence services was being given to Sunni insurgents. The United States has also rejected the Iranian demand that five Iranian Qods Force officers captured in Irbil last January be released. Iran has been pressing for their release, particularly since the release last week of 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran in the Persian Gulf.

Meanwhile, the political block run by Iranian proxy Muqtada al Sadr has threatened to withdraw from the Iraqi government:

The statement from the Sadrists accused [Prime Minister] Maliki of "ignoring the will of the people," and said, “We reject these statements which coincide with the failure of security performance through not implementing the security plan in all parts of Baghdad...We discussed withdrawing from the Iraqi government, which will not be able to fulfill citizens’ demands in the security and services fields,” adding that they are "serious" in their consideration of withdrawing support.

This comes as U.S. and Iraqi security forces are conducting a campaign to dismantle Sadr's Mahdi Army in Diwaniyah. Sadr's political block has threatened to withdraw from the government in the past, only to back down from its threat.

Yesterday's clash in the central Baghdad neighborhoods of Fadhil and Sheik Omar in the Rusafa district resulted in 20 insurgents killed and another 30 wounded, according to a U.S. military spokesman. Four Iraqi soldiers were killed and 15 U.S. troops were wounded during the intense battle that raged throughout the day and involved Apache gunships, F-16s, and F-18s called in for close air support. Twelve of the U.S. soldiers wounded during the action returned to duty.

U.S. and Iraqi forces completed a five day operation in the town of Arab Jabour. The operation resulted in one terrorist killed and another 13 captured, along with the discovery of multiple weapons caches. "Included in the weapons caches found, Coalition Forces discovered numerous rocket-propelled grenades and launchers, several improvised explosive devices, thousands of anti-aircraft ammunition rounds and three buildings containing large amounts of IED-making materials," notes the Multinational Forces Iraq press release. On Wednesday morning, a follow-on raid netted "the suspected al-Qaeda in Iraq security emir of Arab Jabour" along with four of his associates.

In Anbar province, some signs of success can be seen in the cities that served as insurgent havens in the past. Al Jazeera reports the city of Hit (or Hiyt) has seen a marked decrease in violence ver the past month. "The guns in the city... have finally fallen silent, thanks to the efforts of local administrators and security forces." The turn around in Hit is credited to the return of the Iraqi police in mid March, and the efforts of Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the leader of the Anbar Salvation Council. Security has been tightened in the city and local elections were held on April 4.

Hit is now forming its own Emergency Response Unit (ERU), a tribal levy that will ultimately be integrated into an Anbar provincial police/counterterrorism force. The local tribal leaders have recruited 500 volunteers. Eight ERUs are being formed in Anbar province. Three are currently active in Ramadi, where violence has been cut in half over the past month.

The city of Khalidiya in the Habbaniyah region of Anbar province has also seen a turnaround. Captain Eric Coulson, a company commander of an Army engineer unit that provides route clearance in the Fallujah-Ramadi corridor, reports on the presence of the Anbar Salvation Council fighters in the city.

The Marines have this place locked down tighter than a drum. To do that they have engaged the local militia. The Sheik's men have turned out in droves. Ah - the challenge of counterinsurgency. Some of these men look none-too friendly, others give us an easy wave; they are not in uniform and they all carry AK-47s or the machine gun variant there of. They have set up road blocks, in modern military parlance, TCPs, traffic control points, and they are supposed to be on our side.

This is counterinsurgency today and this is a group that we must deal with if we want to move forward; not just Team Badger, but the Coalition. The hope is that first the militia will work with the Iraqi Security Forces, then some will join, the regular paycheck helps with that and I have been told by at least semi-knowledgeable sources those paychecks have been coming for the last six months or so, and then maybe there will be some realigning of loyalties and priorities.

I embedded with Major Owen West's Military Transition Team in Khalidiya for a week last January. During one operation, the tribal militias supported an Iraqi Army led operation to detain insurgents in the neighboring town of Sadiqiya. The Iraqi Army cordoned off an al Qaeda friendly mosque while the tribal fighters identified 25 members of the local insurgency. Three senior leaders were detained in the raid. Major West was upbeat about the prospects of securing the Khalidiya region, as the Iraqi Army, working with the local police and the Anbar Salvation Council, were working together to dismantle the insurgency.

From the Washington Times: U.S. military buildup urged to counter China, by Bill Gertz.

From Navy Times: War of words heats up over ‘GWOT’, by Rick Maze.

From the Wall Street Journal: In Washington, panic. In Baghdad, cautious optimism. By Fouad Ajami.

From the New York Sun: France's New Surrender, by Anthony Grant.

From Contentions: A Tale of Two (Iraqi) Cities, by Max Boot.

A clay model of Petty Officer Danny Dietz of Littleton, Colorado.
Read William Kristol's take on the controversy surrounding the statue here.

According to VOA:

The U.S. military has presented evidence that it says shows Iranian intelligence agents are providing weapons and training to both Sunni and Shi'ite insurgents in Iraq.

But I thought Sunni and Shia couldn't possibly conspire to kill Americans due to "irreconcilable theological differences?" Steve Shippert deconstructs that argument here, and points to this letter from al Qaeda #2 Ayman al Zawhiri's to the late Abu Musab al Zarqawi:

And do the brothers forget that we have more than one hundred prisoners—many of whom are from the leadership who are wanted in their countries—in the custody of the Iranians? And even if we attack the Shia out of necessity, then why do you announce this matter and make it public, which compels the Iranians to take counter measures? And do the brothers forget that both we and the Iranians need to refrain from harming each other at this time in which the Americans are targeting us?

The Iranians and their Hezbollah proxies may one day go to war with al Qaeda over theological differences, but for now, they seem quite capable of putting those differences aside in favor of killing Americans in Iraq.

John McCain spoke at VMI this morning. The full text of his speech is available here.

It's pretty good stuff...like the editors at the Wall Street Journal wrote today, "On Iraq, It's McCain's Finest Hour." He hits the Democrats hard: "In Washington, where political calculation seems to trump all other considerations, Democrats in Congress and their leading candidates for President, heedless of the terrible consequences of our failure, unanimously confirmed our new commander, and then insisted he be prevented from taking the action he believes necessary to safeguard our country’s interests." But, the most moving bit of the speech is surely it's conclusion:

In closing, I’d like to bring to your attention the gallantry and patriotism of one American who served with distinction in Iraq, a Navy SEAL, who refuses to quit his mission and let the country he loves so well suffer the terrible harm our defeat would entail. A few days ago, Petty Officer First Class Mark Robbins’ unit was ambushed outside Baghdad. During the ensuing firefight, he spotted an insurgent with an RPG, and immediately stepped out from cover and exposed himself to enemy fire to take out the terrorist before he could fire. He saved the lives of his comrades, but was gravely wounded as he did so. He was shot in the eye by another insurgent with an AK-47. The bullet exited the back of his head about three inches behind his ear. He was initially knocked unconscious but came to, continued to fight and then, despite the severity of his wound, walked to the evacuation helicopter. He was eventually taken to Landstuhl military hospital in Germany. As is the custom of Navy SEALs, he was accompanied by one of his comrades, Petty Officer Second class McLean Swink.

On our way home from Iraq, our delegation stopped in Germany for refueling and crew rest, and I had the privilege of visiting some of our wounded at Landstuhl. I briefly stopped in Mark Robbins’ room, but he was sedated and unable then to communicate. I spent a few moments there, and talked to his buddy, before I went to visit other wounded soldiers. Not too long after I had left Mark’s room, Petty Officer Swink found me and told me Mark was awake and had asked to see me. So I returned. When I entered his room and approached his bedside, he struggled with great difficulty to sit up, stiffened his body as if he were trying to stand at attention, grasped my hand tightly and wouldn’t let go. And then he whispered to me not to worry, “We can win this fight. We can win this fight.” Mark, as another person observed, looks like the “toughest kid on the high school football team.” He is tough, and brave, and very young. But more than that, he’s an inspiration to those who are only called upon to subordinate a temporary political advantage to the security of our good and great nation. Petty Officer Mark Robbins, an American hero, believes we can still win this fight. I’ll take his word for it, and accept my responsibility to help the cause he sacrificed so much to defend. Thank you.”

Royal Dutch Shell is patenting a technique to convert shale to petroleum at a cost of only about $30/barrel. If it works, the world's single largest source of oil would be... the United States:

Over the past few years, more and more apocalyptic stories have been popping up about a supposed phenomenon known as "peak oil." The theory is that we're running out of oil, the big powers are keeping it quiet, and as supplies dwindle, world-wide economic chaos will ensue.

This is hardly a new theory. According to the Chicken Littles of the world, we've been "about to run out of oil" for over thirty years. Obviously it hasn't happened yet. With the recent upswing in strife in the Middle East, however, the notion has gained in popularity.

The thing is, this theory is utterly false, and can be laid to rest with a single well-established fact: there is more oil in the Colorado shale fields than the entire Middle East had at its peak. The only reason we're still importing oil is that, at present, it is cheaper to do so than to extract it from shale. Until recently, getting oil out of shale has been a nasty and expensive business.

That's about to change, though, as engineers at Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A) have applied for a patent on a new method of extracting shale oil cheaply and cleanly. (As an interesting side note, it is the largest patent application in U.S. history.)

Amazingly, this method:

• Is cleaner than conventional drilling
• Generates the highest grade of light-sweet crude oil, which burns cleaner than other varieties
• Becomes profitable with oil just north of $30 a barrel (which we've already blown past)

I had the opportunity this afternoon to sit in on a session at the Heritage Foundation with Dr. Ali Aldabbagh, the spokesman for the Iraqi government. Dr. Ali is in the United States to address both institutions and government officials. His message is that Iraq is making progress on reducing violence and building institutions, and that the premature withdrawal of U.S. forces would help no one but the terrorists.

Dr. Ali began by talking about the success so far of the Baghdad Security Plan. He cited a significant drop in both the number of assassinations and suicide bombings, and he put forth as further evidence of progress the dramatic increase in the number of 'tips' to police about insurgent activity, and the fact that many checkpoints within the city have been dismantled to facilitate commerce. He also said that the lack of trust in law enforcement had been a big reason that some Iraqis were formerly willing to live with militias. While that has changed, Dr. Ali said it will take continued economic progress and international coordination against terrorism to ensure a further decline in violence. He also said that electricity is now available in Baghdad more hours each day than under Saddam; that people have air conditioners where they did not before; that food rations are better than under Saddam, and that the government budget is higher than ever before. Why don't people know the good news? Because the 'voice of a bomb' is louder.

For those who favor the withdrawal of U.S. troops, Dr. Ali had a simple message: it can only make things worse--in Iraq and in the region. It will play into the hands of terrorists, he said, and destabilize the region. Terrorists would fill the power vacuum, to the detriment of the United States, its allies, and its interests.

Dr. Ali also tried to communicate the extraordinary nature of the change that has come to Iraq in the last few years. He said that Iraq had been ruled by dictators for 1,400 years, and now, for the first time, was selecting its own leaders. He said that while there's room to criticize the Iraqi government for early missteps, the people of Iraq don't want to go back to a dictatorship--which is the alternative offered by insurgents.

From Kommersant: Moscow in Nuclear Hot Water, by Sergei Strokan, Vladimir Solovyov, & Dmitry Sidorov.

From the Australian: Stay the course in Afghanistan, by Paul Kelly.

From the American Thinker: America's Broken-Down Media, by Ray Robison.

From RealClearPolitics: Getting Past Me, Myself and I, by Jack Kelly.

From the Washington Times: Speaking of Foreign Affairs, by Tod Lindberg.

From the Chicago Sun-Times: Roller-coaster developments leave the British feeling low, by John O'Sullivan.

U.S. and Indian Navy ships conduct a formation yesterday during Exercise Malabar 07-01.
U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class John L. Beeman.

The former governor and presidential hopeful is set to deliver his first major address on national security issues tonight at the George Bush Presidential Library Center in College Station, Texas.

Here is a link to some of the excerpts, all of which look to be red meat for conservatives frustrated by the current administration's failure to better articulate the rationale behind its policies.

Tough on Pelosi:

"And then the Speaker of the House helped dignify a state sponsor of terror. At this time of war, her action stands as one of the most partisan, divisive, and ill-considered of any national leader in this decade."

Strong on Iraq:

"Unity also means supporting our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The challenges there are immense. But President Bush and General Petraeus are implementing a new strategy for Iraq – and it deserves a chance to succeed. Running away from Iraq now would embolden our enemies, giving them the sanctuary they need to plan more devastating attacks against our country. In this difficult time, some in Congress are trying to deny our troops the resources they need. This is a grave error. We need to rally behind the effort, and support our men and women in uniform in this time of war."

Committed to the Long War:

"I think many of us still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam, by Jihad. Understandably, we focus on Afghanistan and Iraq. Our men and women are dying there. We think in terms of countries, because we faced countries in last century's conflicts. But the Jihad is much broader than any one nation or nations. For radical Islam, there is one conflict and one goal – replacing all modern Islamic states with a caliphate, destroying America, and conquering the world."

What really catches my eye though is Romney's commitment to spending "at least four percent of our gross domestic product" on defense. Romney also says "we must increase the size of our military by 100,000 troops." It is unclear whether Romney is including supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in that four percent figure, but if he is it's going to be very difficult to sustain the buildup of forces, the reset of equipment damaged in Iraq, and the Pentagon's big-ticket procurement programs, all on 4 percent of GDP.

Right now defense spending, including supplementals, for FY 2007 amounts to 4.4 percent of GDP, or $647 billion (that number likely does not include whatever pork Pelosi & Co. add to the supplemental). Unfortunately, while that number will rise gradually over the next two years, it is set to fall rather dramatically in the 2010 to 2013 time period. Which is why the Heritage Foundation is running a campaign called Four Percent For Freedom--the aim of which is to prevent defense spending from bottoming out at 3.2 percent of GDP in 2012.

It seems reasonable to conclude that Mitt Romney has just officially joined the Heritage Foundation's campaign. But is 4 percent really enough to provide the strong national defense posture that Romney is promising? During the Gulf War, defense spending stood at 4.6 percent of GDP, during the Reagan buildup, the figure was 6 percent, and at the height of the Vietnam War, the number stood at 9.8 percent. All those figures pail in comparison to the 35 percent of GDP that the United States was spending on defense at the end of the Second World War.

Of course, we are talking about smaller slices of a much bigger pie now. So while percentages have dropped, spending in dollar terms has remained far more steady. But isn't that all the more reason to take a bold stand and push for a figure closer to 5 percent--with that kind of money, concerns about readiness and manpower could be addressed in concert with an aggressive procurement schedule. Otherwise, even with 4 percent, the Pentagon may have to choose between more weapons and more warfighters. We need both.

Update: Romney press secretary Kevin Madden just emailed to say that the 4 percent figure would not include supplemental spending. He also points to this speech Romney delivered in Herzliya, Israel in January as the governor's first major speech on national security--I'm not sure it counts if it's given outside the United States though.

Iraqi security forces and U.S. troops battled insurgents in what is described as the largest fight inside the capital since the start of the Baghdad Security Plan. Omar, an Iraqi blogger in Baghdad who writes at Iraq the Model, stated the fighting began in the central districts of al-Fadh [of Fadhil] and Sheik Omar, and later spread to Bab al-Mua'dam and al-Kasra. Omar describes the fighting as heavy, and U.S. Apache attack helicopters, and F-18 and F-16 fighters were called in to provide close air support. "During the morning more US and Iraqi forces rushed into the scene and cordoned the area while two f-18 fighter jets and some Apache gunships patrolled above. The fighter jets withdrew after a while," notes Omar, but "the fighting became more intense and at around 11 am several explosions were heard in the area but the cause remained unknown." The skirmishes occurred throughout the day, and appear to have ended around 5pm local time.

"Police said a total of 10 people had been killed and 13 wounded in the fighting," Reuters reported. "Gunmen hit two helicopters with ground fire but both returned to base, the U.S. military said." Multinational Forces Iraq stated the battle began after Iraqi Army and Coalition forces were conducting "a routine cordon and search operation in Rusafa," where they came under fire. Three insurgents were killed in the fighting, along with four Iraqi soldiers.

Far south of Baghdad, a controversy rages over the size and import of yesterday's protests in Najaf by the followers of Muqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army. The media counts for the number of protesters range from tens of thousands all the way up to 600,000. As we noted in yesterday's report on the fighting in Diwaniyah, the U.S. military has estimated the numbers at between five and seven thousand, based on aerial photographs. Multinational Forces Iraq is sticking to these numbers.

Multinational Forces Iraq has a vested interest in monitoring the size of protests such as this. The Coalition and Iraqi government are not only concerned about following the activities of the Sadr's Mahdi Army, particularly in the strategic city of Najaf and while a major operation is underway in Diwaniyah, but they must also provide security for an event such as this. By closely monitoring the size of the crowds, the Iraqi and U.S. military can adjust the security posture.

But Sadr achieved the desired political effect, regardless of the size of the protest. The media accounts have characterized the protest as a successful showing of Sadr's power, despite the small showing by Sadr supporters, or his failure to appear in public. Sadr has maintained the myth that he is currently in Iraq, however he fled to Iran on or before February 15, when the Baghdad Security Plan was announced. Sadr has not been seen in public in Iraq since then.

Meanwhile, the Coalition and Iraqi security forces are pressing operations nationwide. A two week operation in two villages near Tikrit netted over 150 insurgent suspects, along with several weapons caches. The Iraqi police have hit the streets in Diwaniyah as Iraqi Army and Coalition forces wind down operations in the city. The Army and police have refused Sadr's calls to break with the Coalition. On April 10, Coalition forces killed one al Qaeda and captured another 12 during operations in Haditha and Baghdad. On April 9, Coalition forces captured 14 al Qaeda during raids in Bayji, Tarmiyah ,and Karma. A combined U.S. and Iraqi Army operation netted 12 suspects near near Muqdadiyah.

In Anbar province, the Iraqi government and Multinational Forces Iraq are looking to exploit the recent success of the Anbar Salvation Council, and the visit to Ramadi by Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and General David Petreaus. Yesterday, Iraq's minister of defense, minister of interior, and national security advisor conducted a security conference with the commanders of the 2nd Brigade of the Division of Border Enforcement, the 1st and 7th Iraqi Army Divisions, and the provincial director of police met in Ramadi to discuss the security posture in the region.

IraqSlogger has republished an unconfirmed report from Al Jazeera which claimed "an agreement was reached on the formation of an Iraqi Army brigade made up of 4,000 soldiers recruited from Anbar, who will provide security in the province." If the report is accurate, it is unclear if this will be an actual army brigade, or if this is a formal consolidation of the eight battalions of the Emergency Response Units (ERUs), the tribal fighters raised by the Anbar Salvation Council. The ERUs are said to be the nucleus of the Anbar provincial police force.

The recent spate of chlorine attacks by al Qaeda in Iraq, eight of which have struck in Anbar province, have led the U.S. and Iraqi government to clamp down on supplies of the chemicals. “Customs authorities at Tribil crossing-point have held for several days 12 25-ton trucks laden with chlorine imported from Jordan to be used for water purification projects in Baghdad and other provinces," according to an unconfirmed report by Voices of Iraq. In Baghdad, commanders are closely monitoring and inspecting businesses that use chlorine to ensure that stocks are not stolen by al Qaeda for use in chemical attacks.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has conducted a successful suicide attack in the city of Muqdadiyah. A female suicide bomber hid a vest under her black abaya and waded into a crowd of over 200 police recruits. Sixteen have been reported killed and another 33 wounded. A car bomb also detonated near Baghdad University, which killed three and wounded ten.

Tim Johnson, the China correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers, also runs his own blog, China Rises, which is a must-read for those following events in the world's most populous country. Yesterday Johnson linked to a story titled "Have All China Scholars Been Bought?" from the Far Eastern Economic Review. The author, Carson A. Holz, writes:

Academics who study China, which includes the author, habitually please the Chinese Communist Party, sometimes consciously, and often unconsciously. Our incentives are to conform, and we do so in numerous ways: through the research questions we ask or don’t ask, through the facts we report or ignore, through our use of language, and through what and how we teach.

Foreign academics must cooperate with academics in China to collect data and co-author research. Surveys are conducted in a manner that is acceptable to the Party, and their content is limited to politically acceptable questions. For academics in China, such choices come naturally. The Western side plays along.

China researchers are equally constrained in their solo research. Some Western China scholars have relatives in China. Others own apartments there. Those China scholars whose mother tongue is not Chinese have studied the language for years and have built their careers on this large and nontransferable investment. We benefit from our connections in China to obtain information and insights, and we protect these connections. Everybody is happy, Western readers for the up-to-date view from academia, we ourselves for prospering in our jobs, and the Party for getting us to do its advertising. China is fairly unique in that the incentives for academics all go one way: One does not upset the Party.

You get the gist--if one wants to study China, he had better not get on the wrong side of the Communist party. If he does, he runs the risk of losing his access, and his job.

For his part, Johnson locks onto this particularly disturbing paragraph from the story:

We ignore the fact that of the 3,220 Chinese citizens with a personal wealth of 100 million yuan ($13 million) or more, 2,932 are children of high-level cadres. Of the key positions in the five industrial sectors -­ finance, foreign trade, land development, large-scale engineering and securities -- 85% to 90% are held by children of high-level cadres.

Johnson is suspicious--"It’s a pretty extraordinary statistic. But is it true? I have my serious doubts." Jennifer Chou posted here yesterday on two "children of high-level cadres," one of whom is the vice minister of the State Environmental Protection Administration and the other the head of Huaneng Power International, China's largest power producer. THE WORLDWIDE STANDARD thus makes its contribution of anecdotal evidence to support Holz's claim.

But Johnson does not really challenge the thrust of Holz's argument, that Western scholars have, out of self-interest, largely conformed to the wishes of the Communist party on issues large and small.

Current New Mexico governor and Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson is making the rounds in North Korea this week with the blessing of President Bush. Richardson hopes to collect the remains of U.S. soldiers killed during the Korean War, but his hosts are making the most of the visit's propaganda value, taking the governor, and a group of reporters, to the USS Pueblo, which was captured in 1968 along with 82 of her crew. The crew was released 11 months later, but the Pueblo remains in North Korea, for the purpose of "anti-American education" in the words of a Nork colonel accompanying Richardson's delegation. The Pueblo is the only active duty warship held by a foreign government, and was the first U.S. warship to be captured since 1807.

As embarrassing as the ship's capture was at the time, Allahpundit rightly points out the performance of that crew relative to the 15 British sailors and marines released by Iran's Revolutionary Guards just last week. I'm hesitant to accuse the British troops of cowardice, though I pretty much agree with those that have, but in comparison to the Americans who served on the Pueblo, they fail to measure up. The crew of the Pueblo may not have fought to the last man, but neither were they a "contrite and cooperative lot."

Notice the hand signals these sailors from the Pueblo display
in this propaganda photo taken by the North Koreans.

From the Washington Post: The War You're Not Reading About, by John McCain.

From the Brisbane Times: To get the edge in air combat, look for the gorilla, by Brian Graf.

From the Washington Times: Army equipment disaster, by Robert H. Scales.

From the International Herald Tribune: A military hot line would mean little, by Richard Weitz.

From the Moscow Times: Counting the Dead a Dicey Job, by Nabi Abdullaev.

From the Arab News: Left No Longer Anti-US, by Amir Taheri.

A French air force Mirage 2000 jet kicks on its afterburner as it flies towards
the Pacific Alaskan Range Complex during a Red Flag-Alaska 07-1 orientation flight April 6.
Read more here.

It's now been nearly eight weeks since the Baghdad Security Operation was first announced, and Baghdad is now relatively calm compared to the security situation just last year. There have been no major mass casualty attacks inside Baghdad since the suicide bombing in the Shia market on March 29. The deaths in Baghdad over the past week have been attributed to low level attacks such as roadside bombs, mortar attacks, and street fighting. Casualties from sectarian violence have remained much below the levels reported prior to the inception of the security plan.

The mass casualty suicide attacks, which have incited the Shia population to support sectarian violence in the past, have been absent from Baghdad since an attack at a Shia market on March 29th. Al Qaeda has conducted several attacks in the provinces, most notably a chlorine gas suicide strike in Ramadi and conventional suicide bombings in Kirkuk and Khalis. The Ramadi attack, the eighth chlorine attack in Anbar province, was another attempt to break the Anbar Salvation Council, a grouping of Sunni tribes and former insurgent groups opposed to al Qaeda's Islamic State of Iraq. The Khalis strike was intended to stir up sectarian violence in the mixed Sunni-Shia province of Diyala, while the Kirkuk strike was an effort to pit Kurds against Arabs in the contested and oil rich northern city.

In Baghdad, the establishment of neighborhood security stations and troop deployments in support of the Baghdad Security Plan continues. The Joint Security Station (JSS) concept, which puts Iraqi Army, police, and U.S. troops directly inside the neighborhoods, has proven so successful that the number of stations has expanded. There are currently 54 JSS and small Combat Outposts (COP) inside Baghdad. Major General William Caldwell stated that 76 JSSs and COPs will ultimately be built and that the Baghdad Commander, General Aboud, has considered raising that number to 104 stations.

While the Senate returns from its Easter recess this week, members of the House won't be back until next Monday or Tuesday (unless this leads to a surprise). In the past, I've noted that because of the narrow Democratic majority, some freshman Democrats are being forced to take 'tough votes.' This recess provides the first real opportunity for members of the 110th Congress to meet with constituents, so I thought I'd see if any are facing heat over their early votes.

Most notable is Paul Hodes of New Hampshire, who met with a group of Gold Star mothers--yielding the following video. It's great. I think the highlight is the following quote: "Congress should be putting pressure on our enemies." Watch the whole thing:

I believe this is the same meeting referenced in the article over here. This disappoints me, because if captured on tape, then the quote of the week would have been: "Have the Nads to End it Now!"

While Hodes was at least bold enough to meet with constituents who disagreed on Iraq, it's reported that the other new Democratic Representatives from New Hampshire--Carol Shea Porter--has tried to stifle those who disagree with her.

Another Democrat who has already attracted an unhealthy amount of controversy in the early going is Joe Sestak. He recently garnered lots of attention for addressing the Philadelphia chapter of CAIR. There's also an odd dimension to the story. Sestak says that speaking to the group was the right thing to do, but half apologizes for the fact that a former CAIR staffer who now works for him accepted the invitation without consulting him first. This strikes me as an area where I'd want to speak clearly on whether the address was the right thing to do, or a mistake. Sestak's home-state colleague Jason Altmire, doesn't appear to have addressed any CAIR conventions, but he's caught at least a little criticism for his vote on a date certain for withdrawal.

Tim Walz, a freshman Democrat from Minnesota already has several declared opponents, and John Hall of New York has at least one as well.

Nancy Pelosi's chances of being the Speaker again in 2009 are directly related to the re-election rate of the freshman Democrats who delivered her a majority. A number of those who represent swing districts have already given their GOP opponents some ammunition for 2008. And there are lots of difficult votes yet to be cast: tax increases, immigration amnesties, sops to labor, and others. Heck, if some of the less politically shrewd House Democrats get their way, there's still a military draft and an impeachment to vote on. If Ms. Pelosi doesn't manage to protect some of these marginal members from unpopular votes, they won't be around for the start of the next Congress.

You have to love reading the New York Times for novel coverage of the war in Iraq. In this case, the piece by the ever downbeat Alissa J. Rubin notes that there are signs the surge is working:

Nearly two months into the new security push in Baghdad, there has been some success in reducing the number of death squad victims found crumpled in the streets each day.

And while the overall death rates for all of Iraq have not dropped significantly, largely because of devastating suicide bombings, a few parts of the capital have become calmer as some death squads have decided to lie low.

That's the end of the good news however, because even after seven weeks of success, there's still no political solution:

But there is little sign that the Baghdad push is accomplishing its main purpose: to create an island of stability in which Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs and Kurds can try to figure out how to run the country together. There has been no visible move toward compromise on the main dividing issues, like regional autonomy and more power sharing between Shiites and Sunnis.

Rome was not built in a day, and even the U.S. Articles of Confederation lingered for 12 years before they were corrected. But what's the timetable for solving Iraq? Seven weeks, apparently.

I really like this part:

American commanders say it will be months before they can draw conclusions about the campaign to secure Baghdad, and just more than half of the so-called surge of nearly 30,000 additional troops into the country have arrived. But at the same time, political pressure in the United States for quick results and a firm troop pullout date has become more intense than ever.

Of course, one of the things intensifying the pressure for quick results is articles that ask breathlessly why there has not yet been a political solution.

Nevertheless, here is the piece de resistance:

Even as officials have sought to dampen the insurgency by trying to deal with Sunni Arab factions, those groups have become increasingly fractured. There are now at least a dozen major Sunni insurgent groups — many fighting other Sunnis as well as the Americans and the Shiite-led government. A deal made with any one or two would be unlikely to be acceptable to the others.

I realize that it's nice to be able to negotiate a settlement. But seriously, if our enemies balkanize and start fighting among themselves, I thought that was actually a good thing. Clearly my lack of experience on the battlefield leaves me with a poor understanding of how wars are fought!

Following this to its logical conclusion, we may have to prepare for a worst-case scenario: what if all of our enemies kill each other? Then all hope will be lost--since there'll be no one with whom we can sign a negotiated settlement!

P.P.S.: We see Mickey Kaus is poking holes in this story as well.

Splashed across the cover of the April 6th edition of the Chinese-language weekly Yazhou Zhoukan (published in Hong Kong under the auspices of the Ming Pao Group) is the provocative caption “Another Kind of Color Revolution.” The reference is not to a political movement along the lines of Rose Revolution or Orange Revolution, but to a grassroots campaign on a larger scale and of perhaps even greater significance: China’s Green Revolution.

The issue’s feature article, titled “Environmental Crises Have Given Birth to a New Democratic Movement in China,” details the concerted effort by the general public, NGO volunteers, lawyers, journalists, and a few “enlightened” government officials to bring about democratic initiatives through the cultivation of environmental consciousness.

Pan Yue, vice minister of the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA), is one of those "enlightened" officials. It was under Pan’s stewardship that SEPA launched three “environmental protection storms” in an effort to curb rampant pollution. The most recent, initiated in January, saw SEPA hit four cities with “regional permit restrictions” and threaten to close scores of power plants--some operated by the country’s four major power companies--unless they complied with pollution guidelines.

Yue, 47, is the son of a military engineer, and his ex-wife is the daughter of Liu Huaqing, a veteran of both the Long March and the Korean War and the former vice chairman of the Central Military Commission. Pan’s maverick flair is often attributed to this “princeling” background.

In an interview with Der Spiegel in 2005, the year SEPA launched its first “environmental protection storm,” Pan declared that “the faster the economy grows, the more quickly we will run the risk of a political crisis if the political reforms cannot keep pace.” In the same interview, Pan bemoaned the fact that “five of the ten most polluted cities in the world are in China.”

A long time proponent of environmental activism, since 2004 Pan has also been a vocal supporter of the concept of a Green GDP, a measure which deducts the cost of resource depletion and other environmental damage from China’s current GDP. In September 2006, China issued its first Green GDP. But last month the country’s National Statistics Bureau postponed plans to publicize a second Green GDP report because, it said, the method that had been used was both “theoretically and methodologically immature.”

This is not the first, and probably won’t be the last, setback for “Hurricane Pan.” In a January 15th interview with the Economic Observer, republished on the website of People’s Daily, Pan railed against what he called a “protectionist regional mentality” and conceded that each subsequent “environmental protection storm” would require ever more strenuous effort.

With his various initiatives, Pan Yue is said to have ruffled the feathers of many, including those of former premier Li Peng, whose son, fellow "princeling" Li Xiaopeng, heads Huaneng Power International, China’s largest power producer and one of the targets of Pan Yue’s “storms.” For the past 13 years, Pan Yue has been unable to rise above the vice-ministerial level. Given the powerful enemies he's making as vice minister of SEPA, some observers view his prospects for further advancement as slim.

The following is an open letter from General David Petraeus to the Iraqi people that was published in the Arab media last week ahead of the fourth anniversary of the liberation of Iraq.

To the Iraqi People:

Monday, April 9, 2007 will mark the 4th anniversary of the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein's regime. For many in Iraq and around the world, it will be a time for reflection on the early days after liberation in 2003 and on what has transpired since then.

As one of those who was part of the "fight to Baghdad,” I remember well the hopes and dreams of the Iraqi people when coalition soldiers pulled down Saddam’s statue in Firdos Square in April 2003. Looking back, I recall a sense of enormous promise -- promise that, in many respects and for a variety of reasons, has yet to be fully realized. If we are honest with each other, in fact, we will acknowledge that while there have been substantial accomplishments in Iraq since 2003, the past four years have also been disappointing, frustrating, and increasingly dangerous in many parts of Iraq for those who have been involved in helping to build a new state in this ancient land.

On this April 9th, some Iraqis reportedly may demonstrate against the coalition force presence in Iraq. That is their right in the new Iraq. It would only be fair, however, to note that they will be able to exercise that right because coalition forces liberated them from a tyrannical, barbaric regime that never would have permitted such freedom of expression.

From the Washington Post: Britain's Humiliation--and Europe's, by Charles Krauthammer.

From THE WEEKLY STANDARD: Pelosi Abroad, by Fred Barnes.

From the Daily Star: When a dilettante takes on Hizbullah, by Michael Young.

From the Wall Street Journal: Democrats at War, by the editors.

From the AP: Last WWI Navy Vet Dies.

From DougFeith.com:

SMITH’S MYTH
The thrust of this article by Jeffrey Smith is that the Pentagon and the Vice President argued that there was substantial cooperation between Iraq and al Qaida while the CIA said there was not. That is a myth.

See Myth #1 in Media Myths vs. Facts.

The myth is contradicted by the October 7, 2002 letter that CIA Director George Tenet sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

All the top administration officials relied on this important, unclassified letter. In the letter, Tenet stated:

"We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade."

"Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression."

"Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad."

"We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."

Smith's article fails even to mention the Tenet letter. It bears repeating: The Tenet letter obliterates the main point of Smith’s article.

Read the rest of Feith's response here.

Baghdad has been relatively quiet. A suicide attack on a Joint Security Station in Sadr City was foiled, and another just south of the city was also prevented. Al Qaeda employed yet another chlorine bomb in Ramadi and major operations are ongoing in the provinces.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has conducted yet another chlorine suicide bomb attack in Anbar province. Today's attack occurred on the outskirts of Ramadi. The suicide bomber was targeting a police station, but detonated outside of a residential area. “The truck contained many tonnes of chlorine and TNT which were covered by sacks full of fertilisers,” an Iraqi policeman told AFP. Twenty-seven were killed and 30 wounded. This is the ninth attempted chlorine attack in Anbar province, seven of which were successfully detonated. Al Qaeda in Iraq is working to break the military, destroy the Anbar Salvation Council, and terrorize the local population.

The U.S. and Iraqi security forces have been conducting four major operations outside of Baghdad, in the Mosul region, Anbar province, Diwaniyah, and Diyala.

In Mosul, over 179 insurgents were captured and eight killed during operations over the past week. Violence in Niwena province has increased since U.S. and Iraqi forces have shifted towards Baghdad.

Iraqi and Coalition launched an operation today in Diwaniyah in the south, and captured 27 "insurgent suspects." Three insurgents were killed and 6 wounded. While not mentioned in the press release, the target is the Mahdi Army. The discovery of explosively formed projectiles are the signature of the Iranian backed militia. "A facility was found where several explosively formed projectiles were in several stages of production. Four EFPs were assembled in the facility and secured. EFP-making materials were also found and secured. Two other locations were found containing homemade explosives." Yesterday, four British soldiers were killed in an EFP attack in Basra.

Coalition forces also kicked off an operation in Anabr province. The purpose is to expand into the series of small farming villages outside of Anbar's larger cities and towns. “In western Al Anbar, the fight has traditionally centered on its urban centers,” said Col. Stacy Clardy, commanding officer for RCT-2. “Now we’re going after the enemy in those remote areas of the province where they may hide or use to move around us, leaking into the interior of the country. We plan to shake things up.”

In Diyala, U.S. and Iraqi forces have been conducting a series of targeted raids, clearing operations, search and destroy missions and some permanent presence missions in the Diyala River Valley in and around Baqubah. Al Qaeda is at its strongest in Diyala, and the Coalition is prepping the battlefield for the expected big push into the province as the troops for the Baghdad Security Plan arrive in theater.

The New York Times runs this story on Dutch counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan. The key quote comes from an Afghan translator working with the Dutch troops:

“The Dutch, if the fight starts, they run inside their vehicles every time,” said the interpreter, who asked that his name be withheld because he risked losing his job. “They say, ‘We came for peace, not to fight.’ And I say, ‘If you don’t fight, you cannot have peace in Afghanistan.’ ”

In January of last year, Vance Serchuk predicted just this problem in an article for THE WEEKLY STANDARD titled Dutch Retreat. The question Serckuk posed: “Will NATO forces continue to press as aggressively [as American forces], even if it means that they will lose more men?” I guess we now know the answer…

Dutch counterinsurgency operations. Courtesy of Tyler Hicks/The New York Times.

The Associated Press reports that Dick Cheney is misleading the American people regarding the existence of al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the war:

Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."

The article helpfully links to today's Washington Post story on the DoD report. What does the Post say?

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February. . . .

But the contrary conclusions reached by Feith's office--and leaked to the conservative WEEKLY STANDARD magazine before the war--were publicly praised by Cheney as the best source of information on the topic, a circumstance the Pentagon report cites in documenting the impact of what it described as "inappropriate" work.

Cheney's assertion that al Qaeda existed in Iraq before the war is not contradicted by the Pentagon's report; it is supported by the report. This will be news, of course, to readers of the Washington Post, since the Post seems to be unable to tell its readers that al Qaeda operated in Iraq prior to the war--or to get much of anything right about this story for that matter: the conclusions reached by Feith's office and published by THE WEEKLY STANDARD were dated October 27, 2003 and appeared in the November 24, 2003 issue of the magazine, more than six months after the war. This an extremely bad job of fact-checking that a simple Google search could have easily solved. It also tells you just how eager some people at the Post are to push on this particular issue.

But since the arrival of the Bush administration, the Post has never been interested in investigating the possibility of collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda. This is a sampling of some of the headlines the Post printed from 2004-2006:

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (June, 2004)
9/11 Credibility Gap; Hussein's Ties to the Attacks? Show Us the Proof. (June, 2004)
As Rationales for War Erode, Issue of Blame Looms Large (July, 2004)
Newly Released Data Undercut Prewar Claims (November, 2005)
Bush Hails Al Qaeda Arrest in Iraq; President Defends US Intelligence (January, 2004)
War's Rationales Are Undermined One More Time (October, 2004)
Al Qaeda Link To Iraq May Be Confusion Over Names (June, 2004)

During the Clinton administration, it was a different story: then the Post did report on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The paper ran this line--without qualification--in an article published February 14, 1999: "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers." The Post also ran numerous stories about Iraqi support for al Qaeda linked chemical weapons facilities in Sudan. Did Dick Cheney and Doug Feith get to them back in the 1990s?

Cheney is accurate in saying that al Qaeda and Zarqawi operated in Iraq prior to the war. Doug Feith and the Department of Defense reportedly perceived a relationship between AQ and the Iraqi government, which they characterized as 'mature' and 'symbiotic.' The CIA--whose prewar intel seems to be regarded as thoroughly discredited in all other areas of debate--said that 'reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations.' The Defense Intelligence Agency said that "available reporting is not firm enough to demonstrate an ongoing relationship" between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. These are rather particular and narrow assessments; they leave plenty of room for acknowledgment of the fact that al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the war--even if that fact is inconvenient for some.

I'll be watching the debate between Newt Gingrich and John Kerry over global climate change. But I have to wonder, why didn't Al Gore take this one? I mean, Lurch is exciting and stimulating, but once Al Gore cleaned the floor with Gingrich--explained the 'consensus' and all--any 'debate would be over, right? So why are they sending the JV?

Former House Speaker and possible presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and 2004 Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) are set to square off on climate change next week, their staffs announced Thursday.

The debate, hosted by New York University's John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress, will take place next Tuesday, April 10, at 10 a.m. in the Russell Senate Office Building.

Kerry, who bowed out of the 2008 presidential race earlier this year, has been dubbed an "environmental champion" by the non-partisan League of Conservation Voters. His website touts a long record of fighting for the environment. He and his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry also recently wrote This Moment on Earth, which addresses climate change and preserving the environment.

"Newt's a guy who has spent a lot of time wrestling with climate change and the environment. He reads about it, he teaches about it, he writes about it," Kerry said Thursday. "We don't see eye to eye about everything, obviously, but that's what makes for a good debate."

When the Democratic leadership of the House Armed Services Committee circulated a memo on March 27 banishing the phrases "Global War on Terror" and "Long War" from all documents relating to the 2008 budget, they were only responding to the left's widespread hatred of what they saw as Bush administration "catch phrases."

But there is a major difference between the two. While "Global War on Terror" is a completely accurate description of the struggle we now find ourselves in, the phrase had political roots. Johnson declared a "War on Poverty," Nixon declared a "War on Drugs," and now the Bush administration declared a "Global War on Terror." And by defining the fight against terror as such, the administration was able to effectively communicate its preference (and I would say the preference of most Americans as well) for a military--rather than law enforcement--response.

But the "Long War" was never a Bush administration "catch phrase." Rather, it's a term that came from military commanders and filtered down to the military community at large. Republicans may have picked up on it, and right wingers routinely use it, but this coinage has its roots in the American military, not the Republican party.

So it's interesting to see that the Joint Chiefs, in this letter to Senator Mitch McConnell, dated April 2, seem to go out of their way to thank the senator "for continuing to provide the necessary resources and legislation to fight the Long War."

The Joint Chiefs go on to say that "Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, the Armed Services will be forced to take increasingly disruptive measures in order to sustain combat operations," and further that "the impacts on readiness and quality of life could be profound." Meanwhile the House has another week of vacation coming while Speaker Pelosi is off gallivanting across the Middle East. The most optimistic time lines have Congress picking up the supplemental again on Monday the 16th and getting it to the president, for a certain veto, by Friday the 20th. That leaves just one week for the Democratic Congress to pass a "clean" supplemental before the military is forced to take "disruptive measures." Given how difficult it was for Pelosi to corral the votes for a pork laden supplemental with timetables for withdrawal, a clean supplemental is likely to be an even bigger challenge.

So the military tells Congress they need the money, and the response of the Democratic leadership: 'we don't believe you.' It seems the Joint Chiefs aren't amused--they're still fighting the "Long War," even if the Democrats aren't.

I've flogged the Democrats quite a bit for suggesting that they will ultimately pay a price at the polls for their extreme opposition to the continued use of force in Iraq. Their willingness to escalate that opposition, despite mounting evidence that the surge is yielding results, is likely to seriously undercut their credibility on defense and national security issues for some time. Daniel Henninger notes today that if the surge succeeds, the Democrats may wish they had been more temperate:

Carried aloft on the gassy fumes of politics, the congressional Democrats may be overshooting on Iraq. Six months from now, they may wish they had been more temperate. Helped finally by the right U.S. military strategy, the Iraq nightmare might be ebbing. Then what?

No such thought intrudes today on Democratic politics. Buoyed by President Bush's 30-something approval and with disaffection over the war at 60%, Senate Majority Leader Reid can promise to sign on to Russ Feingold's pull-the-plug bill; and House Speaker Pelosi, as if making foie gras, can cram an Iraq-withdrawal bill down the gullets of her chamber's membership. The polls are with Harry and Nancy. What can go wrong?

What could go wrong is that the U.S. military's "surge" could go right. The surge, led by Gen. David Petraeus and formally known as the Baghdad Security Plan, is a real strategy being executed by real people on the ground in Iraq. For the past several months, since President Bush announced the plan, the Democratic leadership has acted as if this effort were so irrelevant as to not exist. Why bother? The House leadership has its own "surge" up and running in Washington against the enemy in the White House.

We're pleased to note Mr. Henninger's recommendation of the THE WEEKLY STANDARD's biweekly Iraq report. We think it's excellent work, and recommend it to all interested in the Iraq effort.

But while Mr. Henninger predicts trouble for Democrats if the surge 'works,' other well-known commentators see trouble for Democrats regardless of the outcome. Lawrence Haas for example, is a former communications director for Vice President Al Gore. In a recent piece that did not attract the attention it merited, he noted:

The parallels are striking. In 1975, a Democratic Congress cut off funds for the U.S. effort in Vietnam. The public, disillusioned over Vietnam and Watergate, elected Jimmy Carter, who promised honesty and applauded the end of “our irrational fear of Communism.”

As America turned inward in the late 1970s, enemies sensed our vulnerability and dangers mounted. The fear of communism was not so irrational after all. In Ethiopia, Angola, Rhodesia and elsewhere, the Soviet Union or Cuba worked to stoke Third World revolution. The Soviets more openly laid bare their expansionist agenda in late 1979 by invading Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the Islamic Revolution in Iran of 1979 toppled a staunch U.S. ally. The student seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, leading to a 444-day hostage crisis, painted a picture of American impotence.

But, as the decade came to a close, Americans had had enough of defeat and humiliation. Just five years after Americans had bid goodbye to Vietnam and turned inward, they elected Ronald Reagan, who promised to rebuild the nation’s defenses and stop the drift of U.S. foreign policy. Indeed, in that campaign season, Reagan called Vietnam a “noble cause.”

You should read the whole thing. Charles Krauthammer also captured similar sentiments last year.

The traditional Republican edge on national security and terror issues has been significantly weakened during the Iraq war. But the great likelihood is that it will improve. Either the Iraq surge will work, or Democrats will force an end to the Iraq mission, or President Bush will be supplanted by the 2008 GOP nominee as the face of the party on national security. Each of these will (or would) help restore the GOP edge on national security. And given the insistence of Democrats on addressing terror with a mixture of defeatism, multilateralism, and blame-America-firstism--there's no reason to think that their presidential nominee will be able to re-establish the party's credibility in fighting the global war on terror. Heck, we learned yesterday that they can't even admit such a war exists.

By continuing to put their current political interests ahead of the national interest, Democrats are undermining their future prospects--perhaps for years to come.

Today at the American Enterprise Institute, John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control before his stint as ambassador to the United Nations, slammed the February 13 agreement between the United States and North Korea. Here's the report from U.S. News:

"I think this deal will inevitably fail," Bolton said. "That day cannot come too soon in my view."

Asked by U.S. News why the administration had changed course in February and accepted that North Korea would receive some benefits before it had verifiably disarmed, Bolton said it was because of "the persistence of the State Department bureaucracy ... they've finally succeeded." Bolton added that he was particularly surprised that President Bush, with well-known views about human-rights violations in North Korea and terrorism, would agree to begin a process of removing North Korea from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. He cited North Korea's abduction of perhaps 15 Japanese citizens in the 1970s and '80s as a matter that must be resolved before North Korea could shed its terrorism-sponsor status.

"The February 13 agreement let North Korea out of the corner it had put itself in," Bolton said. "Time works in North Korea's favor and against our interest."

Bolton argued that North Korea will not surrender its nuclear weapons and programs until there is regime change, saying that a real denuclearization agreement would constitute a "suicide pact" for the regime of Kim Jong Il.

Bolton argued that North Korea will not surrender its nuclear weapons and programs until there is regime change, saying that a real denuclearization agreement would constitute a "suicide pact" for the regime of Kim Jong Il.

Whatever opinion one has of Bolton, it's hard to argue against his interpretation of events. And it would be surprising if the left, as much as they love to hate Bolton, didn't support this interpretation--if only to deny the Bush administration credit for what is, in fact, a pathetically Clintonian deal. In other news "Pyongyang is likely to miss an agreed deadline for initial steps towards dismantling its nuclear programme" according to Wu Dawei, China's chief negotiator on North Korea.

From the Wall Street Journal: The Democrats' Surge, by Daniel Henninger.

From the Independent: Putin's 'successor' picks fight with Estonia, by Andrew Osborn.

From the Washington Post: Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy, by the editors.

From the Philadelphia Inquirer: Pelosi was nuts to visit with Assad, by Claudia Rosett.

From the G2 Bulletin: China’s new force projection threat, by F. Michael Maloof.

The F-22 goes transonic via The Danger Room. (Richard Vogel, AP/Yahoo News)

The AP reports:

The original letter in which Theodore Roosevelt first used the phrase "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is up for sale from the Raab Collection in Philadelphia, with an asking price of $200,000.

The two-page typed letter was written by Roosevelt on Jan. 26, 1900, and mailed to Henry L. Sprague, a member of the Union League Club in New York.

In the letter, Roosevelt, then governor of New York, expresses his pleasure in convincing the state's Republican leaders to reject the reappointment of Louis F. Payn as insurance commissioner.

"I have always been fond of the West African proverb: 'Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.' If I had not carried the big stick . . . I would not have had ten votes. But I was entirely good humored, kept perfectly cool and steadfastly refused to listen to anything save that Payn had to go, and that I would take none but a thoroughly upright and capable man in his place."

As Congressional Democrats continue their trek from wanting no responsibility for anything that happens in Iraq to insisting that US troops depart today, it's useful to recall that the Iraq Study Group whose recommendations they so often cite rejected such an idea. And that reminder is delivered today by former ISG co-chair James Baker:

The report does not set timetables or deadlines for the removal of troops, as contemplated by the supplemental spending bills the House and Senate passed. In fact, the report specifically opposes that approach. As many military and political leaders told us, an arbitrary deadline would allow the enemy to wait us out and would strengthen the positions of extremists over moderates. A premature American departure from Iraq, we unanimously concluded, would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions in Iraq and possibly other countries.

The goal of the United States should be to help Iraqis achieve national political reconciliation and greater effectiveness of their security forces, the report said, so that Iraqis can assume more of the security mission. This in turn could allow for an orderly departure of U.S. troops. An important way to encourage Iraqis to work together is to hold them to the type of benchmarks that Congress, President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have all considered. If the Iraqi government does not meet those benchmarks, the United States "should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government," the report said. But we did not suggest that this be codified into legislation. The report doesn't recommend a firm deadline for troop removal unless America's military leadership believes that the situation warrants it.

Nothing has happened since the report was released that would justify changing that view. Setting a deadline for withdrawal regardless of conditions in Iraq makes even less sense today because there is evidence that the temporary surge is reducing the level of violence in Baghdad. As Baghdad goes, so goes Iraq. The Iraq Study Group said it could support a short-term surge to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up training and equipping of Iraqi soldiers if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines such steps would be effective. Gen. David Petraeus has so determined.

The president announced a "new way forward" on Jan. 10 that supports much of the approach called for by the Iraq Study Group. He has since said that he is moving to embrace our recommendations. The president's plan increases the number of American advisers embedded in Iraqi army units, with the goal that the Iraqi government will assume control of security in all provinces by November. It outlines benchmarks and indicates that the Iraqi government must act to attain them. He has approved ministerial-level meetings of all of Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran; the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council; and other countries.

In its first test, the surge is clearly working. That is, where troops are surging, violence is falling and life seems to be returning to normal. The $64,000 question--the one that Democrats don't want us to see answered--is whether that improvement in security can be sustained. If it can be--first by a combination of U.S. and Iraqi troops, then solely by Iraqis--then the surge will have worked.

The security situation remains relatively stable inside Baghdad for yet another day, while most of the major activity is occurring in the provinces. A U.S. helicopter was downed south of Baghdad--possibly by al Qaeda anti-aircraft fire--as Coalition and Iraqi forces continue to pursue al Qaeda in Iraq. The Anbar Salvation Council will meet with Sunni tribes in Baghdad. Twenty-two Shia shepherds were kidnapped in the desert of Karbala and taken into Anbar. The southern province of Maysan has been turned over to the Iraqi security forces.

Al Qaeda in Iraq continues to target U.S. helicopters in an attempt to disrupt U.S. air operations. A U.S. Blackhawk helicopter was reportedly shot down by al Qaeda gunfire in Latifiyah south of Baghdad, according to an anonymous Iraqi official. Al Qaeda "apparently were using anti-aircraft heavy machine gun," according to the same Iraqi official. Multinational Forces Iraq has not confirmed the helo was shot down, but did report a helo was downed and four of the nine personnel on board were injured.

Al Qaeda has set up anti-aircraft teams in the belts around Baghdad, and have successfully shot down at least five U.S. helicopters. The U.S. has aggressively targeted al Qaeda's aircraft teams, which are using Strela missiles and DShK anti-aircraft heavy machine guns. A recent raid in Arab Jabour south of Baghdad netted six DShKs, and another five were found in a raid in Karma.

Iraqi and Coalition forces captured 29 al Qaeda and Sunni insurgents over the past 24 hours. The Iraqi Army captured 10 suspected insurgents, including a cell commander, believed to be behind an IED cell in the Adhamiyah neighborhood of Baghdad. Iraqi police in Tal Afar captured two suspected insurgents thought to be behind attacks in Tal Afar. U.S. forces captured 17 al Qaeda nationwide, four in Baghdad and 13 in Karma, which remains a hotbed of insurgent activity.

From Armed Forces Journal: Iran emboldened, by Peter Brookes.

From Investor's Business Daily: With J-10, China Finally On Course In Military Export Field, by Doug Tsurouka.

From the Wall Street Journal: 'The War That Must Not Be Named', by James Taranto.

From People's Daily: Outer space not let to overcast with "war clouds", by Wang Baofu.

From Scripps News: Opting for failure? by Clifford D. May.

The Stiletto via the U.S. News Bad Guys blog.

Max Boot, who is currently in Iraq, has a post up at Contentions about the furor over the McCain visit.

“Hah!,” the news corps screamed. Reporters wrote that McCain was able to visit the market only because of “heavy” extra protection and that merchants there complained that overall security conditions weren’t great. All of this true, but taken in isolation it provides a very distorted impression.

Here’s the perspective the press isn’t providing: We are in the middle of a tough, bloody war in Iraq. Throughout 2006, the war was going very badly, especially in Baghdad. Large chunks of the city were subject to a bloody campaign of ethnic cleansing, murder, and terrorism. Sunni families fled. Markets closed. Normal life ground to a halt. Those perilous trends have been stopped in the past few months and are beginning to be reversed. This is due to an increased deployment of Iraqi and American troops, and especially to the fact that Americans are no longer staying on their giant forward operating bases. They are patrollng more intensively from joint security stations and small combat outposts located in the middle of the city.

Though only three of the five extra brigades scheduled to be deployed have yet arrived in Baghdad, the offensive has already paid big dividends. A semblance of normality is returning in some neighborhoods, markets are reopening, sectarian murders and ethnic cleansings have been dramatically reduced. The situation still isn’t great, but at least the downward trend has been stopped. There have been a few big suicide bombings lately that obscure this improvement, but most of these have been outside Baghdad, where the current security operation is focused. Needless to say, coalition forces can’t magically pacify the entire country overnight—and that can’t be the measure of success or failure.

The fact that McCain was able and willing to walk around the Shorja market indicates that things are getting better, even if Iraq remains a war zone. Of course McCain had heavy security; he’s an especially attractive target for insurgents. But the market was functioning normally while he was there, and he wasn’t surrounded by bodyguards. He walked around freely without a helmet (though he was wearing body armor), and mingled with Iraqis. So did the other members of his delegation, as well as General David Petraeus, the senior U.S. commander in Iraq.

This report from Lebanon's Daily Star:

"The road to solving Lebanon's problems passes through Damascus," Pelosi told reporters after meeting with Lebanese parliamentary leader Saad Hariri at Qoreitem.

Steve Schippert writes at ThreatsWatch.org:

That she believes “the road to solving Lebanon’s problems” passes anywhere near Damascus is troubling enough, as ‘solving’ has nothing to do with it.

But that a major US political figure uttered such after speaking with the son of a man assassinated at the command of Bashar Assad - who happens to live in Damascus, coincidentally - is simply stunning.

Schippert's right...pretty galling that Pelosi would say such a thing after speaking with Hariri. But Pelosi's statement is not false. Syria will need to play a constructive role in Lebanon for any progress to be made there, but Pelosi can't seriously believe that the Assad regime will ever answer that call.

The professional left has made a cottage industry lately of defending Michael Ware against charges that he heckled John McCain. I did not comment on the story, and am glad I refrained--since it appears that the story was essentially false.

But Rob at Say Anything has picked up on an interview Michael Ware did recently, which is less likely to be heralded by the left:

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, what I can tell you from the outset, Suzanne, is that, say, for example, by some bizarre political miracle, Congress was able to impose a real time line, a real deadline on the U.S. presence here or on the funding for the war here. Now that absolutely would play completely into the hands of America’s identified enemies, al Qaeda in Iran. That would be handing the entire advantage to them. That’s why that can never really happen.

But in terms of the broader debate, in terms of, you know, taking the temperature of the American mood, of the American public, adhering to what’s going on in Congress, looking at the Congressional elections, absolutely do the insurgents, do al Qaeda and does Iran and its proxy organizations in Iraq pay attention?

Yes, for sure. I mean they know that the most certain way to strike at their enemy is to strike at his support back home. And, indeed, they monitor these things. They know that, you know, what’s happening in D.C. doesn’t really relate to the ground. This is just political artifice.

Nonetheless, it does tell them about the pressure points to apply. And we saw from 2003 the Baathist insurgents saying from the beginning this war will not be won on the battlefield, it will be won on that—pointing to a TV screen.

That’s where this war will be won--Suzanne.

As Rob notes, Ware is essentially saying that the Democrats' agenda of setting a date for withdrawal plays into the hands of our enemies. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but it sure does have to make you think.

Cross-posted at the Influence Peddler.

There have been no major attacks inside Baghdad since the suicide bombing in the Shia market on March 29. The Iraqi government has eased the curfew in the capital as security is seen to have improved since the commencement of the Baghdad Security Plan in mid February. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been striking at the seams as U.S. and Iraqi forces move forces from the provinces to secure Baghdad. The attacks in Khalis, Tal Afar and Kirkuk are directed at gaps in security, and are designed to stir up ethnic tensions. In a press briefing this morning, a spokesman from the Iraqi government announced that operations modeled after the Baghdad Security Plan will occur in both Mosul and Diyala.

Kirkuk has been a target for al Qaeda over the past week. Since the announcement to "relocate and compensate thousands of Arabs who moved to Kirkuk as part of Saddam Hussein's campaign to push out the Kurds" by the Iraqi government on March 31, al Qaeda is working to ignite the violence in the city. On April 2. A suicide truck bomb killed 12 and wounded over 150 civilians. On April 3, another suicide truck bomber struck a police station and killed 13, including 10 civilians, 2 Iraqi police and a U.S. soldier, and wounded 180 civilians, 17 Iraqi police and 2 U.S. soldiers. Today, 9 civilians were wounded after 3 roadside bombs were detonated in Kurdish neighborhoods of Kirkuk.

The Iraqi government has committed to pressing forward with the reconciliation process, which is vital to cleave the moderate elements of the insurgency from al Qaeda in Iraq. The reconciliation process requires economic incentives, the reformation of the legislative system and a change in the controversial "De-Baathification laws" which excluded anyone that was a member of the Baath party from working with the government. It was reported earlier this week that Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, the senior most Shia cleric in Iraq, opposed the de-Baathification reforms, however his office issued a statement denying this. Sistani's spokesman "stressed that his office had warned before of relying on statements linked to His Eminence Mr. Sistani without being documented and sealed by the office." On the economic front the Iraqi government has allotted $92 million to development projects and emergency aid to the northern province of Niwena. A similar aid package was granted to Anbar province after Prime Minister Maliki and General Petreaus visited Ramadi.

Iraqi and Coalition forces continue to conduct operations against al Qaeda and insurgent groups. Today, Coalition captured 9 al Qaeda during raids in Mosul, Habbaniyah and Karma. On April 3, 6 al Qaeda were killed and 13 captured during operations in Fallujah and Al Qaim, near the Syrian border. On April 2, 6 more terrorists were killed and 10 captured in raids in Mosul, Baghdad and Karma. U.S. and Iraqi forces also discovered a terrorist training facility and large weapons cache in the Diyala River Valley. On April 1, Iraqi police captured 9 insurgents in Lutifiyah, while Coalition forces captured 4 al Qaeda and killed 1 terrorist "while conducting an operation near the Syrian border." A four day operation in Arab Jabour has resulted in 8 insurgents killed and 13 captured, and the discovery of multiple weapons caches, which included 6 DShK anti-aircraft heavy machineguns.

Operations against the Mahdi Army continue as well. On March 31, Iraqi Special Forces captured two members of the Mahdi Army in Sadr City. On April 1, Iraqi police arrested a suspect "alleged to be responsible for weapon smuggling and improvised explosive devices activities" in Kut in the South. The U.S. is shying away from labeling them as Mahdi Army fighters, however, as it is taking advantage of the split between Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army to peal away significant elements of his support base. The signs of the cracks in Sadr's organization continue to appear. Sadr has dismissed two politicians "for meeting the occupiers."

Al Qaeda continues its own brutal campaign. On April 2, Iraqi police in Sab Al Bor found the body of an 11 year old boy. The child's throat was slit. "A police report of the incident indicated that a local Al Qaeda cell is suspected in the murder which was "perpetrated to instill fear in the villagers of Sab Al Bor," notes Multinational Forces Iraq. Al Qaeda has used children in the past to conduct suicide attacks, even mentally disabled children, or serve as decoys in these attacks. Al Qaeda suicide bombs routinely murder children, and the recent spate of chlorine attacks have poisoned scored of children who, along with seniors, are most susceptible to the gas.

When John McCain said that "There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today," CNN's Michael Ware responded "I don't know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad."

Then McCain went to Iraq and walked through those neighborhoods. He told reporters

"After landing at the airport we drove from the airport into various parts of the city. We stopped at Bab Sharqi market where we spent well over an hour shopping and talking with the local people," said McCain.

"Things are better and there are encouraging signs. I have been here many times over the years. Never have I been able to drive from the airport. Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today," he boasted.

But McCain didn't stroll the streets of Baghdad by himself. Here's how the New York Times reported it:

In sometimes testy comments to reporters in the heavily fortified Green Zone, Mr. McCain said the American public was not receiving “the full picture about what’s happening,” and he described the delegation’s visit to a downtown market where scores of people have died this year in multiple car bombings and other attacks. There, the members of Congress said, they strolled around, haggled with merchants and drank tea.

But the outing was far from carefree. The delegation traveled in a convoy of armored military vehicles and was accompanied by a large contingent of heavily armed soldiers. The politicians wore body armor while they shopped.

“We had protection today,” Mr. McCain acknowledged when pressed by reporters.

They wore body armor! They went out with "heavily armed soldiers!" They had protection! Iraq must be a disaster. Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum had this to say:

Note to conservatives: if you decide to just ignore John McCain's laughable trip to Baghdad, I understand. There's really not much you can do except hope for a new presidential scandal to take it mercifully off the front page.

But if you do decide to post about it, do you really think you can get away with pretending that the whole trip went smoothly and the press is merely being unfair in its reporting? And if you do think that, what does it say about your opinion of your readership?

Drum's snide tone is fairly representative of the left's reaction to McCain's trip. But really, how was McCain supposed to go out in Baghdad. Isn't the press being a bit unfair when it "presses" McCain on the subject of personal security? The man may well be the Republican nominee for the presidency. Any high-ranking official that goes out in Baghdad would have similar protection. When President Bush makes public appearances in this country--say to throw out the first pitch at a ball game--he, too, wears body armor. When President Clinton came to speak at Princeton while I was a student there, there were sharpshooters on the roof of my dorm. There were dozens of security personnel--for an event at Princeton.

Of course, there are places that don't require so much security. Nancy Pelosi received a "warm welcome" in Syria. And if McCain were so inclined, he could probably travel to Iran or North Korea with limited security as well. The streets in those countries are safe--that's how police states work.

Many on the left were calling McCain's wearing a bullet-proof vest a Dukakis-in-a-tank moment. How absurd. Nancy Pelosi gets a free pass for wearing a burka*, but John McCain is supposed to go out on the streets of Baghdad without a vest? I have a very high opinion of our readership, and I can say with no hesitation that the press is being profoundly unfair in its reporting of McCain's trip.

* Readers point out that the Speaker was in fact wearing a hijab.

Military Times reports that the House Armed Services Committee has banned the phrases "global war on terror" and "the long war" from all official budget documents.

This isn't the first effort to rebrand the war on terror. The August 8, 2005 issue of The Scrapbook detailed an earlier attempt by elements within the Bush administration to use the term "global struggle against violent extremism":

Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because . . . if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." The solution, he said, will be "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military"--i.e., not part of my job description.

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was similarly "on message": "It is more than just a military war on terror," he said. "It's broader than that. It's a global struggle against extremism. We need to dispute both the gloomy vision and offer a positive alternative." (Since when is winning a war a gloomy vision?) . . .

Indeed the disturbing thing about this fascination with rebranding the war on terror is that it, if we may say, came at a time when a resurgent Taliban is stepping up its activities in Afghanistan, al Qaeda bombers are running amok in London, and tourist hotels are being blown up in Egypt. This is self-evidently not a great time to shift from a "Global War on Terror" to a "Long Struggle to Portray Americans as Good People Who Don't Hate Muslims and Respect Religions All Over the World Even as We Try to Dismantle the Networks of Ideological Extremists Who at the Very Least Disagree With Us and May Want to Do Us Harm." Or whatever.

It's hard to catch a Democrat who will actually explain the party's vision for Iraq after they complete the troop pullout they advocate. Joe Biden is universally regarded as one of the party's brighter and more sober minds, as well as an important leader on foreign policy. His comments on Countdown are illuminating.

I don't have an official transcript; this is my own rendition. Biden first discusses the period right after the liberation of Baghdad, and says that at that time, a 'surge' was the right policy:

...We did not do what we were supposed to do then - what many of us urged, which was to immediately get paramilitary police in there - to increase the number of troops we had to stabilize the country to begin to pass on responsibility to the Iraqis quickly.

What did we do? We had too few troops. We didn't do any of what I suggested and Civil War broke out.

He then explains indirectly, that a surge will not work today. He says that our experience now shows that violence in Iraq is like a water balloon--you bring order to one neighborhood and violence pops up in another. He cites Tal Afar as an example of a place where a 'surge' was tried--where we joined Iraqi forces in putting down the insurgency, only to see it return after we departed. He says that in the current surge we may bring order to a neighborhood, but we do not have enough troops to bring order to the whole country. And even if we did, the senator says, that does not create a 'political solution.' He says that a political solution requires that the parties be separated, that they have local control with a limited central government.

Biden then seems to say that he thinks the President will sign the Iraq supplemental, because of the change in mission it calls for:

It says something else, Keith. It changes the mission. It says Mr. President, here's what you do: you cannot thrust these troops in the middle of a civil war. You can use them to train Iraqis, keep al Qaeda from occupying large swaths of open territory, and protect our troops. If you do that Mr. President, you need a lot fewer troops, you can start to bring our troops home, and you can then move to a political solution of local control.

Biden is saying that Iraq is currently experiencing a civil war and that our troops should have no part in it. We should train Iraqi troops--presumably those of the Maliki government. However, Iraq needs a system of local control with a weak central government. So since we cannot militarily step in and help set up such a system, we should... what? Encourage civil war, as long as it's leading to the system that Biden says Iraq needs? That's Biden's 'political solution?'

What if our troops become targets in the Iraqi civil war? What if--sitting at their bases and training troops--insurgents attack them? Are we allowed to move among the general Iraqi population to weed out the insurgents? Because that sounds rather like what we're doing now. Or should U.S. troops simply stay on base and accept the 'slow bleed' as part and parcel of being in Iraq?

And what if we determine that al Qaeda is closely aligned with one of the parties to the civil war? Can we effectively take sides to keep terrorists from seizing large swaths of Iraqi territory?

Does anyone think that the Democratic 'plan'--insofar as it does not involve retreat--can actually work?

Reason blogger Katherine Mangu-Ward links to this story from RIA Novosti about a recently approved tax in Wallonia, a French-speaking region of Belgium. According to the report, the local government there, which represents some four million Belgian citizens, will now require all Wallonians to pay a 20 euro tax for the privilege of barbecuing. A barbecue releases some 50 to 100 grams of CO2 into the atmosphere, so the Wallonia government will discourage this eco-outrage with a tax, and will monitor compliance..."from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills."

It's hard to imagine that barbecuing could produce more CO2 than an enforcement regime that relies on helicopters--but the fact is, Europeans don't barbecue. They grill. Here in America, a real barbecue might put 100-times as much CO2 into the atmosphere over the course of a 12 hour session--perhaps making enforcement from above practical, though still completely ridiculous. Take The BBQ Guy, for example. He described his Fourth of July barbecue thusly:

I put 2 pork butts and three racks of ribs on the smoker at 8:15 p.m. The ribs finished up at 12:30 a.m. and the pork butts were taken off the smoker at 2:30 a.m. before I headed to bed.

Now that's a lot of CO2.

A real American barbecue. Courtesy of The BBQ Guy.

Total WonKerr Paul Kerr continues to support the government's bizarre position that an absence of evidence that the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs are collaborating is, in fact, evidence of absence. Kerr points to this Feb. 27 exchange before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

SEN. COLLINS: Do you have evidence that North Korea is assisting Iran in developing its nuclear capabilities?

ADM. MCCONNELL: No, ma’am, I’m not aware of anything. Let me turn to my colleagues, if they are. I don’t know of anything — any connection between the two.

SEN. COLLINS: General?

GEN. MAPLES: No, ma’am.

SEN. COLLINS: The reason I ask is there was a CRS report that was issued back in October of last year that says the evidence suggests that North Korea has had extensive dealings with Iran on missiles and other weapons. But General?

GEN. MAPLES: That’s correct, they have had extensive interaction on the development of missile systems. And Iran, in fact, has purchased missiles from North Korea.

SEN. COLLINS: But there’s no concern that North Korea may be helping Iran develop nuclear capabilities?

GEN. MAPLES: There is a concern, but we haven’t seen —

SEN. COLLINS: But no evidence to support it?

ADM. MCCONNELL: No evidence, that’s correct, Senator.

Well, case closed, right? I mean, we haven't actually seen Kim Jong-Il handing plutonium to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, so I'm sure they've confined their collaboration to the development of missile systems.

Fortunately, not everyone is lining up to give these rogue regimes the benefit of the doubt. Spiegel reports:

The fate of 12 German giant rabbits delivered to North Korea is in doubt. The breeder who sent them suspects they have been eaten by top officials rather than used to set up a bunny farm. Berlin's North Korean embassy denies the allegation.

From the Los Angeles Times: No choice: Stay the course in Iraq, by Gen. Barry McCaffrey (Ret.).

From the New York Post: WHERE'S WINSTON? by Ralph Peters.

From Investor's Business Daily: One Sorry Apology, by the editors.

From Military.com: Plans for an Underwater Express, by Norman Polmar.

From Defense News: Is New U.S. Destroyer Unstable? by Christopher P. Cavas.

Bonus Must See Website: Gibbs Military Amphibians, HT: Ares

Sikorsky S-92 helicopter proves capability to deploy missile defense measure on March 2, at China Lake.
The S-92 will fulfill several missions, including Head of State transport. Click here for hi-res.

The writers at the Washington Note lean decidedly Democratic. Today, Scott Paul of Citizens for Global Solutions warns that maybe--just maybe--in their zeal to bug out of Iraq ASAP, the Democrats are coming off as isolationist and patronizing:

My hope over these past few years has been that Democrats and eventually Republicans would embrace a more enlightened view: that people in the Middle East do want freedom - and economic opportunity, and peace, and rights, and dignity - and the United States should work with them as a partner to help them achieve these goals.

This rationale, in my view, is the right justification for redeploying troops from Iraq. Such a step, coupled with international partnerships and continued nonmilitary assistance, can help bring about a political solution in Iraq, as well as progress for Iraq's neighbors.

But I'm not entirely convinced that this is the prevailing attitude in the Democratic Party. I'm worried some Democrats, frustrated with the Iraqis and sensing their constituents' impatience, are simply ready to say, "not my problem anymore" and take up the isolationist cause.

Mr. Paul is far kinder than I would be. I have argued (over here), that in turning the Iraq conflict into a replay of Vietnam, Democrats are setting themselves up for post-Vietnam syndrome. After Vietnam, the voters were unwilling to trust Democrats on national security until the end of the Cold War. The only time they won the White House in that era was a quickly-corrected fluke.

In 2008, the Democratic nominee for president will find that voters do not trust him (or her) on national security issues. If that seems overly broad, consider any likely match-up of presidential contenders. What are the chances that any one of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards will be perceived as more credible on national security than Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, or Fred Thompson?

In their race to end the war and further discredit a president who will never again run for office, Democrats are damaging their own future electoral prospects.

Our friend Noah Shachtman has a post up at The Danger Room about the cat fight raging between the Army and the Air Force over which branch ought to oversee the military's ever growing fleet of UAVs (I highly recommend clicking through--really helpful illustrations).

The Air Force tried, a few years back, to assume the mantle, only to get slapped down. So now the flyboys have come back with a more modest proposal: Give us control of all the drones that fly higher than 3,500.

No dice, Brig. Gen. Stephen Mundt, director of army aviation, told Reuters on the 23rd. "Don't get into the tactical (ground) commander's fight... Don't get into the way we do business."

Then the Air Force counterattack:

William Ackerman, an Air Force spokesman, called Gen. Mundt's comments as "a bit perplexing." But that was just the start of the service's counter-strike.

By last Thursday, Air Combat Command chief Gen. Ronald Keys was warning "that unless one service — his — is in charge of orchestrating UAVs, midair collisions with manned aircraft and 'frequency fratricide' of jamming each other’s communications [would be] inevitable," according to Air Force magazine.

All very interesting, but I would say that this particular turf war is small potatoes compared to the one brewing over who will command the military's future cyberwarriors. Air Force magazine has published a fascinating article on war in the third domain--cyberspace. Hampton Stephens writes that,

The Air Force’s goal is plain: to be able to operate in and, if necessary, dominate this nebulous, artificial “place” in which humans interact over networks without regard to physical geography. It is USAF’s third domain of combat.

[Secretary of the Air Force] Wynne and [Air Force chief of staff] Moseley on Dec. 7, 2005 published a new mission statement for the service. In it, cyberspace joined “air” and “space” in the catalog of Air Force domains. They said that the Air Force, from now on, would “fly and fight in air, space, and cyberspace.”

But the other services are clearly dubious of the Air Force's claim to cyberspace:

Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, head of US Strategic Command and thus the nation’s top cyber warfighter, sees dangers in spreading such expertise.

“When you train a person to be good in this environment it’s not unlike the Manhattan Project,” said Cartwright. “You’ve given them the keys to the kingdom.”

If the Air Force and Army are, a hundred years later, still arguing over which should have control over what aircraft, how long will it take to resolve which branch of the military ought to control a domain as "nebulous" as cyberspace.

Majority Leader Harry Reid signs on to Russ Feingold's bill to cut off all funds for US troops in Iraq as of March 31, 2008. Presidential Candidate Barack Obama promises that once President Bush vetoes the Iraq supplemental, Congress will pass a 'clean' funding bill. The professional left is angry and frustrated that all the leading Democratic Presidential contenders (but notably Hillary Clinton) want to keep thousands of troops in Iraq--even as they promise to withdraw troops.

What to make of it all?

In the first case, Harry Reid is simply throwing a bone to the left because he knows that his Senate will soon pass a funding bill that the President will sign. He's decided that if he's going to back down, he might as well do it while talking tough.

In the second, Senator Obama is merely repeating what Speaker Pelosi has promised (or threatened). Don't kid yourself though. The next bill will not be 'clean.' It will certainly have pork, and it is very likely to have hoops that the President must jump through in order to continue the Iraq mission. (Democratic leaders can count on plenty of help in determining what hoops to keep).

In the third instance, Democrats have simply not resolved how they view Iraq, and what is the most expedient thing to do, politically. They're heavily invested in defeat, but it's hard to figure out just how to balance surrender with preventing civil war, protecting Israel, pleasing the left, protecting U.S. national interests and...oh yeah--supporting the troops. Because that's obviously the first goal here.

Oh what a tangled web we weave...