May 19, 2008 • Vol. 13, No. 34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« October 2007 |
Main
| December 2007 »
The Corner posts the transcript from today's press briefing:
Q Why should we depend on him?
MS. PERINO: Because he is the commander on the ground, Helen. He's the one who is making sure that the situation is moving --
Q You mean how many more people we kill?
MS. PERINO: Helen, I find it really unfortunate that you use your front row position, bestowed upon you by your colleagues, to make such statements. This is a -- it is an honor and a privilege to be in the briefing room, and to suggest that we, at the United States, are killing innocent people is just absurd and very offensive.
Perino's good, and certainly better looking than Tony Snow, but here's a classic response from the Snow archive that I like even better. July 18, 2006, one week into the month-long fight between Israel and Hezbollah:
Q The United States is not that helpless. It could have stopped the bombardment of Lebanon. We have that much control with the Israelis.
MR. SNOW: I don't think so, Helen.
Q We have gone for collective punishment against all of Lebanon and Palestine.
MR. SNOW: What's interesting, Helen --
Q And this is what's happening, and that's the perception of the United States.
MR. SNOW: Well, thank you for the Hezbollah view,...
 Reports of the demise of the Kawwaz family were premature. The Western media was abuzz over the past few days over an Iraqi journalist’s accusations that his extended family of in Baghdad was executed by a death squad. “Dia al-Kawwaz, editor of Internet website Shabeqat Akhbar al-Iraq (Network of Iraqi News), said militiamen sprayed his relatives with bullets after storming into his house on Sunday,” AFP reported earlier this week. Various international human rights and journalist organizations jumped to Kawwaz’s defense. But the Iraqi government denied the claims, and stated it has spoken to members of the local police and even the family, all eleven of whom denied the accusations.
Today, Gateway Pundit provided visual evidence that the family was indeed alive. Kawwaz’s family appeared on Iraqi television, smiling and waving.
The international media is quick to jump at claims such as this, without providing a critical eye on the sources. The media should have looked at who was behind this. AFP has it right in their report:
Several Iraqi officials, including Sunni MPs Saleh al-Mutlaq and Hussein al-Falluji, attended the service along with hardline cleric Hareth al-Dari, the head of Iraq's Sunni Muslim Scholars Association who lives in Amman.
Hareth al-Dari and the Association of Muslim Scholars openly support the insurgency and covertly support al Qaeda. Saleh al-Mutlaq is notorious for his support of the insurgency, and U.S. forces have raided his offices in the past. Mutlaq purportedly approached the CIA to mount a coup against the Iraqi government earlier this year.
In my first hand experience, the media is far to willing to print stories based on bad sources. When I was embedded with the Canadian Army in Kandahar in June of 2006, a Taliban stringer fed a wire service the false news that two Canadian soldiers had been kidnapped. The Canadian reporters, with the exception of two, were all too eager to go to press. The leak was timed to hit Canada just in time for the evening news.
Two other reporters and I attempted to dissuade the reporters from going to press, stating that this was highly likely a Taliban information operation, and the army would do a head count and know in an hour or two. The reporters printed due to pressure form their editors, and hours later the story was confirmed as false.
Update: Dia al-Kawwaz recants. Blames it all on the Maliki government.
There are certain numbers that for a Boston sports fan have a talismanic quality. 16 – The number of Celtics championship banners hanging from Boston Garden. 4 – The number that Bobby Orr wore. 58 – Grady Little's IQ. Among such figures is 86 – The number of years Boston fans had to wait for their Red Sox to win a championship between 1918 and 2004.
Thus, it came as something of a shock to hear Mitt Romney say during Wednesday's YouTube imbecile parade that Red Sox fans had waited 87 years for the championship drought to end. Some excitable bloggers, aware of my passion for the Red Sox, suggested that I would formally endorse Fred Thompson because of this faux pas.
Of course, I'm not going to formally endorse Thompson, but I will try to explain Romney’s seemingly inexplicable blunder. The Romney family is not a collection of casual sports fans. They're serious fans. They have a few third base box seat season tickets to the Sox; over the last few years, Sox fans grew used to seeing Mitt's head over a right handed batter's shoulder about thirty times a telecast.
Now, Romney may not be a Sox fan who lives and dies with the team. He certainly wasn't born a Sox fan, and you can't be a full member of Red Sox Nation unless you’re born into it. But he was a fixture around here in 2004. If memory serves, he was governor of Massachusetts at the time. And during the 2004 season and post-season, the media pounded the “86 years” theme into our collective skull without mercy. The only Bay State resident who didn't become irrevocably familiar with this figure is the guy who lives down my street who boasts about not owning a TV and vaguely smells of mothballs.
So why did Romney say “87 years” at the debate? He misspoke. He does that sometimes, especially when he's dealing with a topic that he wasn't expecting. Will Red Sox fans forgive him? We are nothing if not a forgiving lot. Multiple world championships tend to mellow a fan base.
The raids on the home and offices of Adnan al Dulaimi, leader of the Accordance Front, the largest Sunni bloc in parliament, highlight the real need to hold elections in Iraq. After discovering weapons and a car bomb near Dulaimi's offices on Thursday, U.S. and Iraqi troops conducted a follow-on raid at his home on Friday turned up another car bomb. Dulaimi’s son was arrested along with 29 others. One of Dulaimi’s bodyguards held the keys to the car. Reuters has the details:
Seven people were arrested on Thursday at Dulaimi's office and 29, including Dulaimi's son Mekki, were seized in a raid early on Friday at Dulaimi's house, said Brigadier General Qassim Moussawi, security spokesman for Baghdad.
"We have also found quantities of weapons and uniforms of the army and police at the home of Dr. al-Dulaimi," he told Reuters. "Dulaimi's bodyguards are suspected of having links to car bombs and killings. There are confessions against them."…
Moussawi said the car bomb was found when security forces chased a suspected fugitive involved in a shooting into Dulaimi's compound.
The U.S. military said one of Dulaimi's guards had a key to the car that was rigged as a bomb. Two bystanders were hurt when one of the guards escaped, and five American soldiers and one bystander were hurt in the controlled blast when the car was destroyed, the U.S. military said in a statement.
Dulaimi, who is immune from prosecution due to his status as a member of parliament, may have his immunity lifted if he is found to be directly linked to the car bomb, weapons, and uniforms. "No one is above the law. Dr Adnan al-Dulaimi has immunity, but this does not exempt him from questioning and accountability," government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said according to Reuters.
This isn’t the first time Sunni members of parliament have been implicated in working with the insurgency and al Qaeda. Accordance Front member Naif Mohammed Jasim was arrested on October 4 for sitting in on a meeting with leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq. Mishan al Jabouri, a former member of the Iraqi parliament and leader of the Sunni Arab Front for Reconciliation and Liberation, left the country in 2006 after being charged with corruption for embezzling government funds and supporting al Qaeda. Jabouri formed al Zawraa TV, a propaganda arm of the Islamic Army of Iraq.
Sunni parliamentarians and their bodyguards have been implicated in smuggling weapons into the Green Zone. A car bomb targeted Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, then the parliament’s speaker, in October 2006. Muhammad Awad, a Sunni member of parliament, was killed in an al Qaeda bombing in April of 2007. In March of 2006, al Qaeda nearly pulled off a mini-Tet offensive by infiltrating the Green Zone and getting bombs into the secured areas. Sunni parliamentarians and their bodyguards have been accused of being behind these plots.
Sunni groups such as the Association of Muslim Scholars, which has provided support for al Qaeda, advocated a Sunni people boycott of the 2005 elections, and then put up their own candidates for office. The current crop of Sunni politicians by and large do not represent the Sunni people. In Anbar province, the Awakening movement is believed to a serious challenger to the Sunni Accordance Front. New elections may clean out the current crop of corrupt, criminal, and in some cases, terrorist supporting Sunni politicians.
On 2 November 2007, an F-15C Eagle air superiority fighter of the Missouri Air National Guard disintegrated in mid-air, the pilot managing to eject safely from the stricken aircraft. As recounted here on 6 November, the cause of the accident was not immediately apparent, and the entire fleet of F-15s was grounded for precautionary inspections, pending completion of the accident investigation. An astute reader with hands-on experience believed that de-bonding honeycomb structures on the tail and ailerons could be at fault, with potentially grave implications for the airworthiness of the entire F-15 fleet. As it turned out, there were systemic problems, but from an entirely different cause.
The precautionary inspections having failed to reveal any systemic faults in the aircraft, on 21 November the F-15s were cleared to fly once again. According to a message sent by General John D.W. Corley, Commander, Air Combat Command (ACC) to all F-15 pilots and their families:
We evaluated the grounded fleet. First, we focused on the F-15Es. They are the newest F-15s and have been exposed to less stress. They are structurally different than the A-D models. Problems identified during years of A-D model usage were designed "out" of the E-model. Given these differences, and after consultation with Warner Robins ALC and the AIB, we returned the F-15E fleet to flying status following successful inspections.
Next, we concentrated on the remainder of the grounded fleet. The AIB is now focused on the area just aft of the cockpit and slightly forward of the inlets. Warner Robins ALC mandated a thorough inspection and repair of all structural components in this area. I have directed each F-15 aircraft be inspected and cleared before returning to operational status. Today, ACC issued an FCIF and Warner Robins ALC issued an Operational Supplemental Tech Order to further direct and guide your pre-flight and post-flight actions.
However, on 27 November, analysis of the accident investigation revealed what USAF Air Combat Command called "possible fleet-wide airworthiness problems." As detailed in an official ACC press release,
The new findings from the Accident Investigation Board indicate possible fleet-wide airworthiness problems with F-15A/B/C and D aircraft. These findings, based on a metallurgical analysis of the mishap aircraft, have drawn attention to the F-15's upper longerons near the canopy of the aircraft that appear to have cracked and failed. The longerons are major structural components that run along the length and side of the aircraft.
Although the longeron area was covered in general by previous inspections as a result of the Nov. 2 mishap, technical experts with the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center in Georgia, are recommending a specific inspection technique for the suspect area based on the yesterday's findings.
Manufacturer simulations have indicated a catastrophic failure could result in this particular area. In addition, cracks were discovered along the same longeron area during two recent inspections of F-15C aircraft. These aircraft were immediately grounded based upon the inspection findings and are awaiting further engineering instructions.
To understand the seriousness of this finding, one must understand something of how the F-15 was designed. For ease of manufacturing and maintenance, the aircraft is constructed in seven major subassemblies: the cockpit and forward fuselage; the fuselage center section; the engine compartment and aft fuselage; the wings; and the tail assembly. These are held together with a series of high-strength titanium bolts. This method of construction allows for the rapid maintenance and repair of the aircraft (e.g., a damaged wing can be unbolted and replaced with the wing of another plane), as well as allowing for distributed manufacturing of the subassemblies.
The longerons in question are a series of aluminum alloy beams running fore-and-aft down the length of the aircraft, and include the attachment points that connect the cockpit and forward fuselage to the fuselage midsection. If the longerons crack from metal fatigue or corrosion, then the cockpit could separate from the rear of the aircraft. On most aircraft, that particular area is not subject to severe stresses, but in the highly maneuverable F-15, which routinely pulls 5-6g turns (and is capable of 9g turns), the forward longerons are subjected to repeated stretching and bending forces, which over time can cause fatigue cracks. The accident investigation suspects that the F-15C which broke up over Missouri suffered precisely that kind of failure--and as an additional precautionary measure, all F-15A, B, C and D models have been grounded pending a more detailed inspection (probably including radiographic imaging of the longerons and bolts) of the critical area.
If a widespread problem is detected, the affected models could be grounded for a long time, putting a major dent in USAF operational capabilities, particularly for air superiority and air defense operations. During the first grounding, NORAD had to rely less capable aircraft such as the F-16 Fighting Falcon and Canadian Forces CF-18 Hornets to fly air patrols and interceptions of suspicious aircraft. While capable fighters in their own right, they lack the F-15’s range, powerful radar and large air-to-air missile payload.
The situation could be worse. The A-D models of the F-15 are optimized air superiority fighters, with little or no ground attack capability. Therefore, there is relatively little demand for their services at present, and, as during the first grounding incident, they can be supplemented by other aircraft such as the F-16A Air Defense Fighters assigned to the Air National Guard (as well as by allied aircraft). If the inspections reveal a significant number of F-15s in need of major repairs, pulling these aircraft off line will not create the same crisis as would have occurred had the F-15E Strike Eagle also been grounded.
A "dual-role" fighter, the Strike Eagle retains the original Eagle’s superb dogfighting and beyond-visual-range (BVR) air combat capability, but is normally employed as a long-range strike-interdiction aircraft, capable of penetrating deep into enemy territory at treetop level in all weather and delivering a wide range of ordnance with great precision. Since the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have been used extensively as high-altitude precision guided munitions platforms, and are greatly valued because of their long range and endurance, as well as their awesome payload. Without the F-15E, the USAF would be severely handicapped in its offensive air missions.
However, as noted in the ACC press release above, the F-15E is not affected by the current grounding, because its airframe was extensively reinforced to accommodate the very heavy weapons loads at which it operates (its maximum takeoff weight is a staggering 81,000 pounds).
Repairing the F-15A-D models could prove expensive and time consuming. The fixes include everything from attaching "stiffening plates" to the longerons, to replacing the structural members entirely. The latter may prove prohibitively expensive for some of the older airframes, and the Air Force may choose instead to reduce the size of the fleet rather than pour scarce O&M dollars into a solution that may have only limited viability. Above all, the Air Force does not want to do anything that would threaten procurement of the new F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter.
The problems of the F-15 are symptomatic of a recurrent problem in U.S. defense procurement known as "block obsolescense". Because of the military buildup in World War II and the beginning of the Cold War, the U.S. acquired a large number of aircraft, ships, tanks and other major equipment in a short period of time. After building up, it was difficult to get Congress to procure adequate numbers of replacement items, particularly at times when external threats appeared to be receding. The Vietnam war represented a major time-out in U.S. defense procurement, as war funding ate into procurement dollars, while the wartime tempo of operations ate into the service life of a rapidly aging force (a similar phenomenon may be occurring today because of Iraq and Afghanistan).
By the late 1970s, an entire generation of U.S. weapons systems not only became technically outdated, but had reached the end of their material lives. All of them had to be replaced, albeit in smaller numbers, during the late 1970s and early 1980s--the years of the Reagan Buildup. But that was almost thirty years ago, and the systems we bought during that period are now reaching the end of their lives all at once, and will need to be replaced. But the cost of replacement weapons has risen exponentially in the interim, so that 1-for-1 replacement is simply unaffordable. Moreover, the nature the threats faced by the U.S., and the types of war we are likely to fight, are evolving very rapidly, making correct procurement decisions very difficult. Getting the right answer, and then funding and implementing it, will determine the effectiveness of all U.S. military services in the next generation.
Noah Shachtman has some good follow-up at the Danger Room to his latest piece on Iraq for Wired. I noted the piece earlier this week, particularly the efforts of one Sergeant Joe Colabuno and his psy-ops campaign in Fallujah. Here's some of what Shachtman writes today, picking up on a problem he first noted when he got back from Iraq--or at least what he believes is a problem:
"For 7 or 8 months," Colabuno tells me, "all we hear about is 'Iran is doing all [of the attacks], Iran is behind everything.' There was frustration from them [Fallujah's locals] because we wouldn't 'admit it.' Like maybe the U.S. was conspiring with Iran."
"We'd stress in our SITREPS [situation reports] that in order to get these people on our side, we've got to play into their fears abut Iran," he adds.
Then, in January, "the White House suddenly got involved," talking tough about how Tehran was stoking instability in Iraq. "That overnight changed the attitudes of the people towards us. They took it as almost an apology," he adds.
In local newspaper articles, in radio and loudspeaker broadcasts -- and in talks on the street -- Colabuno started playing up "operations against Shi'a militia." He played up how the U.S. troop "surge" was silencing Shi'a leader Moktada "al-Sadr's yipping and yapping."
Shachtman worries, "How can the U.S. encourage country-wide reconciliation -- while riding a wave of sectarian hate?" Fair enough, but as I noted the first time Shachtman brought this up, in the words of Billy Joel, 'we didn't start the fire.' "Sectarian hate" predated the American invasion of Iraq, and we'd be foolish not to exploit it, when possible, to further our own ends. This is how empires effectively managed unruly provinces for centuries. Noah's not all wrong, it's certainly a dangerous game. But it seems that the strategy, for now, is showing obvious signs of success. Down the road it may cause problems, but back in January, everyone expected down the road to be all out civil war--so this seems like a good problem to have.
From THE DAILY STANDARD: Cameron's Conservatives, by Tim Montgomerie.
From the New York Post: Winning Baghdad, by Ralph Peters.
From the Washington Post: CNN Admits Holes in Screening of Questioners, by Howard Kurtz.
From the Telegraph: Interview with John Bolton, by Con Coughlin.
From Shanghai Daily: What? No Mistresses? by Wang Yong.
From the US Drought Monitor. When you can walk from one end of the country to the other
and never tread outside a drought-stricken area, shouldn't we maybe redefine what a drought is?
There's an interesting story in today's New York Times regarding Rudy Giuliani's highly creative relationship with the blizzard of impressive statistics he often cites about himself as mayor of New York City. It is not uncommon for pols to maintain a extensive mental library of triumphant statistical achievements that are at a minimum exaggerated, but Rudy seems to have taken this history-inventing to a whole new level.
When he originally entered the race, conventional wisdom was that Rudy's liberal social policy positions would turn out to be his great Achilles heel in the Republican primaries. Now, with the Bernie Kerik scandals, the "who pays the bodyguards while Rudy goes a' courtin'" kerfuffle, and this apparent weakness for making up impressive statistics about himself, it would seem that character, not ideology, is becoming Rudy's big vulnerability in these critical final days. I wonder if his rivals will overtly move their criticism in that direction. I'd guess the first hint will be when you start hearing the code word "cronyism" from his rivals. That'll mean the shivs are out.
Former HuffPo contributor Barry Sanders is at it again. Last month Sanders wrote a horribly misinformed article for the Huffington Post on "the military's addiction to oil." The piece was riddled with factual errors, and when the WWS and others pointed a few out, Arianna threw the guy under the bus with an editor's note canceling the series and saying of Sanders's defense, "it confuses as much as it clarifies."
At the time Sanders apologized for his failure "to reach an absolutely authoritative [read factually accurate] version of this essay" by explaining that he was "not a mathematician, not a military person, not a trained climatologist." Yet despite that epiphany, he's still at it, peddling bogus statistics about the fuel consumption of the U.S. military. But this time it's worse. Now he's feeding the same bad numbers that got him dumped from HuffPo to journalism students. Mollie McWilliams, a staff writer for the Golden Gate [X] Press, a publication run by the San Francisco State University Journalism Department, has interviewed Sanders for a piece called "Pollution and war meet in the Green Zone." She writes:
The idea for the essay came on a lark, Sanders said, who thought to himself one morning, the use of war vehicles, bombs and ammunition in guns must leave behind erasable traces of radioactive material on the ground and release chemicals into the air. Afterwards, he decided that war, as polluter, needed to be researched and presented to the public.
“I want there to be clamp put on America’s greatest polluter—the American military,” Sanders said.
What he found was the U.S. military used 40 million gallons of oil in the first three weeks of combat, more than what the Allied Forces used during all four years of WWI and about 80 times the amount spilled in the San Francisco Bay. Sanders said he also discovered that bombs, like the 15,000-pound “Daisy Cutter,” contain high amounts of uranium.
I don't know how Ms. McWilliams, after noting concerns about "some number inconsistencies" in his work for HuffPo, failed to check this one. In 2004, the U.S. military consumed 144 million barrels of oil. And in 2005 the military did use about 1.7 million gallons of fuel a day in Iraq--so maybe Sanders isn't too far off the mark for the first three weeks of the invasion in 2003. But he's way off on the recent spill in San Francisco Bay--it was not 500,000 gallons of oil, it was 58,000 gallons--so he's off by just a factor of ten. The ship in question, the Cosco Busan, could hold 1 million gallons of oil, but to put that in perspective, the Exxon Valdez spilled roughly 11 million gallons of fuel into Prince William Sound. The Valdez was carrying 53 million gallons of oil when it hit the reef. So Sanders seems to be saying that in the First World War--a war in which the allies "floated to victory on a wave of oil" as Lord Curzon famously remarked--the entire alliance consumed significantly less oil than we now transport in a single supertanker.
As to the Daisy Cutter and other "bombs" containing high amounts of uranium, it's absurd, but I'm not surprised a student at SFSU would believe the U.S government was lacing American munitions with "erasable" radioactive material. Still, if the San Francisco State University Journalism Department knows how to print a correction, this feels like a teachable moment.
Congressman Norm Dicks traveled with Representative John Murtha on his recent trip to Iraq. Upon his return, he adopted the same line that many Democrats are using nowadays:
"There is a sense of normalcy you didn't see before. In that sense, the surge is being successful," Dicks, D-Bremerton, said. "But there is no success on political reconciliation. From that standpoint, it's not working."
But Dicks's comments were tempered with a dose of realism when it comes to assessing the Iraqi government--and the U.S. Congress:
He reminded Maliki and his ministers that they need to pass legislation on sharing oil revenues and power among Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis.
"But I felt kinda embarrassed telling the Iraqis they had to get their act together and pass legislation when we can't do it back here," he said.
Dicks also had nice things to say about one of the Republican contenders for president:
While in Iraq, Dicks and the other Democrats bumped into a group of pro-war Republicans led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who is running for president.
McCain had argued for a much bigger troop presence from the start. Now, Dicks said, the escalation's impact on insurgent attacks shows that the Pentagon's initial failure to use overwhelming force "was a deadly mistake that they and the president compounded."
"You have to give McCain credit," Dicks said, adding with a laugh, "I hate to do that."
Is that an endorsement?
I can't say this is a surprise:
Congressional Democrats are reporting a striking change in districts across the country: Voters are shifting their attention away from the Iraq war...
First-term Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.) – echoing a view shared by many of her colleagues – said illegal immigration and economic unease have trumped the Iraq war as the top-ranking concerns of her constituents.
Here's the key quote -- which tells you how far off the deep end Democrats have gone on Iraq:
Cooper, who represents a moderate Nashville-area district, said Democrats should "we shouldn't be against good news" [sic] in Iraq.
Cooper is one of the saner of the House Democrats. His comment calls to mind Congressman Jim Clyburn's acknowledgment earlier that good news in Iraq is bad news for Democrats.
The huge fall in Iraq as a priority for voters was made clear in the Pew poll released earlier this week. Simply put, as the news from Iraq gets better, voters are turning to more pressing issues. Given that the voters seem largely satisfied with the Iraq drawdown plan proposed by the Pentagon, it's unlikely that Iraq will be a cutting issue for Democrats in the 2008 election -- unless things there turn markedly worse.
This is why it's almost certain that Democrats will cave on the current Iraq funding fight. While they bravely claim they won't provide any more money before Christmas, Democratic leaders are signaling compromise. Even John Murtha is eating crow and outlining a possible deal:
Democratic Representative John Murtha said he is "optimistic'' that House Democrats and President George W. Bush can agree on Iraq war funding after an earlier $50 billion proposal linked to troop withdrawals was blocked in the Senate.
"Congress wants to come up with an agreement,'' Murtha, chairman of a House subcommittee on military spending, told reporters in a video conference from his office in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. "Leadership may be willing to compromise'' on the time line for withdrawing troops from Iraq, he said...
Murtha said that because of the number of troops in Iraq and the amount of support equipment in the country, a full withdrawal could take as long as two years. Still, Congress should press for troop withdrawal dates to put pressure on the Iraqi government and limit the American commitment, he said.
Murtha is hoping that the White House will bite: Iraq funding with a two-year goal for troop withdrawal. He recognizes that Democrats risk a huge black eye if the Pentagon begins furloughing civilians, or if American troops suffer, because of the disagreement between Congress and the White House over funding for the war on terror. Will the public get angry when furlough notices are sent out, or will they be patient until the furloughs actually begin? Whom will they blame?
And more importantly for Congressional Democrats, why take the risk? They contend that they've made it possible for DoD to jump through hoops to fund the war through February, at least. They say that Secretary Gates and the Pentagon are being disingenuous when they claim they're being forced to lay off civilians. But if their goal was to fund the war, why not actually fund it?
If the current situation in Iraq holds or improves, the Iraq war may come to resemble the Gulf War--an issue that seemed all-encompassing in the year before the presidential election, only to disappear during the campaign. George H. W. Bush was unprepared for the dramatic shift in terrain, and suffered politically. Will Congressional Democrats make the same mistake in 2008?
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s recent meeting with the Dalai Lama at her official residence in Berlin has caused a strong political backlash, not only from Beijing but also, more surprisingly, from Merkel’s left-wing SPD coalition partner as well as Germany’s business community. The Chinese, for their part, reacted immediately by canceling a bilateral human rights conference and calling off a number of senior political bilateral meetings, including one between German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi at the UN General Assembly in New York. After the diplomatic fall-out with Beijing it was Steinmeier--a deputy SPD party chairman who was also made vice chancellor two weeks ago--who attacked Merkel in rather harsh terms, accusing her of pursuing short-sighted "display-window policies" vis-à-vis China that, in essence, harmed Germany’s long-term strategic and economic engagement with Asia’s key power. Finally, Germany’s leading business federation, BDI, called for "a return to constructive dialogue" after "the irritations of recent weeks" between Berlin and Beijing. Several German top CEOs had expressed concern that the Dalai Lama visit would negatively affect their business with China.
Foreign minister Steinmeier also recently criticized Merkel’s Russia policy, arguing that the Chancellor was always "looking fearfully at how newspaper headlines back home" would view her relationship with President Putin, whom she has criticized repeatedly for the increasing violations of human rights and press freedom in Russia. To top it off, former SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder made a very controversial statement in which he indirectly attributed Merkel’s "emotional," human rights-based foreign policy to her upbringing in former Communist East Germany. The rather hard-nosed "realpolitik" approach proposed by Messrs. Steinmeier and Schroeder was backed up this week by veteran left-wing SPD politician Erhard Eppler, who published an op-ed titled "Europe can’t afford to antagonize Russia and China" in Munich’s influential daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung. In essence, 80-year old Eppler, who served as German Development Minister from 1968-1974 and has long retired from elected office, argues that Europe and Germany must prepare for the advent of a multi-polar world in which countries such as Russia and China are on the rise while America is in decline.
No one knows what will happen to the United States, to their economy, to the US dollar, to their foreign policy. The only certain thing is that they are no longer a moral world power. It is also certain that the rest of the world will not put up with what the neocons consider a "Pax Americana". The Americans will not rule the world. The globe will have several poles. One of them will be China, the other one Russia. Both will have that role regardless of whether they conform to our ideas of democracy or not. Unfortunately, one does not yet know for sure whether Europe will be a pole. If the Europeans manage to become on of the poles they will need to develop a thriving relationship with Russia and China. If the Europeans can’t get their act together, it will be even more important for the Germans to have close relations with these two countries.
The good news for Merkel so far is that, in general, more than 70 percent of the German population approve of her values-based foreign policy, which also puts a premium on environmental issues such as fighting global climate change. It remains to be seen whether the SPD party and Foreign Minister Steinmeier, a potential challenger to Merkel in the next federal elections to be held by the fall of 2009, can effectively attack the Chancellor’s foreign policy record, which until recently appeared to be unassailable and arguably her biggest trump card. However, it is certainly interesting to note that new opinion polls indicate Steinmeier’s political fortunes are on the rise. Since last week, for the first time ever, he’s now viewed as Germany’s "most important" politician; a position he wrestled from his boss Chancellor Merkel who dropped sharply in the ratings. Upcoming regional elections in several German state next spring and fall will provide a good indication of the relative strength of the conservative CDU/CSU parties and their current left-wing SPD "grand coalition" partner. In the meantime, Chancellor Merkel has vowed to hold true to her principled, value-based foreign policy. In a speech to the Bundestag on Wednesday she made her intentions very clear: "I will continue to chose the guests I meet and the places I visit based on what I see as being correctly in Germany’s interests."
The QOTD(SF!) comes from today's David Brooks column, in which the intrepid columnist visits China:
Tired of the bureaucracy, [Chinese businessman Edward] Tian resigned from Netcom and has founded China Broadband Capital. It funds firms that are using cellphones as the next information technology platform, and it owns part of MySpace China. He sits alone in a beautiful office in the middle of the park where the Qing Dynasty emperors came to worship the sun. His office was the emperor's dressing room.
With his lingering insecurity, with his fierce determination to prove and reprove himself, he is in some ways typical of the Cultural Revolution generation elite. But he is also a cultured man, and in that he is atypical. The Cultural Revolution swept away much of the old Chinese culture. It was followed by the wave of commercialism and materialism. Dignity is now defined by money and French and Italian luxury goods.
The spiritual vacuum left by the Cultural Revolution has yet to be filled. Some set of values - good or bad - will eventually fill it, and at that point, the final aftershock of the hell will be finally felt.
Brooks never mentions nationalism as a set of values that could fill the "spiritual vacuum left by the Cultural Revolution." Another set would be what you might call "regionalism" - the ongoing effort by provincial authorities and ethnicities to assert their autonomy from Beijing. Neither set probably would be conducive to Chinese stablity.
A parody video from the mad geniuses at The Onion:
Having outlined a possible winning scenario for Mike Huckabee, let's look at a big problem potentially standing in his way.
While the national parties don't exactly have Star Chambers complete with powerful insiders wearing monk's hoods and pulling party strings from a candlelit secret chamber under either the AFL-CIO or Halliburton (depending on the side in question), there is a leadership elite within each party. It is mostly felt on the finance side with big fundraisers and bundling lobbyists buzzing among themselves. These people are mostly pragmatists and many are in DC's professional influence business.
The talk now will be about Huckabee and it won't be good. Most Republican mega-donors don't like Christian candidates. Such candidates have a bad tendency when nominated to bring both general election wipe-outs and problems with big donors' wives, who tend to be pro-choice and socially closer to the local country club than the neighborhood fundamentalist church. Huckabee, with his purist's stand on social issues and a half-baked tax plan with little appeal outside GOP primaries, doesn't look like a winner in a general election, especially at a time when the Republican party is beset with terrific image problems. This is a tough-minded crowd that would rather shoot a slow horse than ride one out of the convention.
While these forces cannot for certain stop Huckabee if he is able to catch fire beyond Iowa, they can make his task much harder. They can fund brutal waves of independent 527 TV ads, for example. The Wall Street-centric Club for Growth has diddled around with this tactic against Huckabee in the past, but their effort was puny and under-funded. If the complete Star Chamber decides to seriously mobilize against him now, Mike Huckabee will find that surging to real victory is far harder than it looks.
The Obama-Bloomberg breakfast this morning raises the obvious thought: isn't Obama-Bloomberg a logical 2008 Democratic ticket? Bloomberg brings executive experience, maturity, resources, and some bipartisanship (he is a nominal Republican) to an Obama candidacy, while being acceptable on fundamental issues to the Democratic base. It would be an interesting campaign, in accord with our interesting times, to have both parties running "national unity" tickets - Obama-Bloomberg vs., say, Thompson-Lieberman.
 Taliban in Swat celebrate in the streets.
Click to here to view more images from the BBC. More than a month after the Taliban took over the settled district of Swat, once the most visited tourist spot in Pakistan, the Pakistani Army has yet to dislodge the Taliban from the scenic valley. The Pakistani military, beset by problems with poor morale and a poor counterinsurgency strategy, have made few gains since launching their ground offensive after weeks of bombarding civilian centers.
Asia Times's Syed Saleem Shahzad, who closely follows the Taliban movement in Pakistan and Afghanistan, states the vaunted Pakistani Army is no closer to defeating the Taliban than when it started offensive operations.
Intensified military operations over the past 10 days in the Swat Valley have not yielded any significant results. The army did succeed in recapturing a few districts but was in no position to force the militants' surrender. This means the army will not be able to consolidate its gains for any prolonged period in the valley - the militants will be back.
Shahzad also claims the Taliban seek to keep the Pakistani military from conducting operation along the tribal regions on the border, where al Qaeda and the Taliban have established training camps throughout the region and openly rule the tribal agencies.
The aim of the militants to date has been to engage the Pakistani security forces in the Swat Valley, forcing them to reduce their presence on the border. This in turn has allowed militants to cross freely into and out of Afghanistan in support of the Taliban's insurgency there.
The Pakistani military is losing an insurgency in the Northwest Frontier Province and the tribal regions (see "The Fall of Northwestern Pakistan" at The Long War Journal and "Is the NWFP Slipping out of Pakistan’s Control?" at The Jamestown Foundation for more details.)
Shahzad states the appointment of General Kiyani, Musharraf's successor as chief of staff of the Pakistani army, has increased the likelihood the Pakistani military will cut a deal with the Taliban in the long run. While Kiyani is not viewed as sympathetic to the Islamists, he will be under great pressure from the Pakistani military to halt the fighting. This will only embolden the Taliban and create a buffer for al Qaeda to continue cranking out terrorists to fight in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Iraq and throughout the Middle East.
| | Map of Salahadin province and the Za'ab Triangle region. Click map to view. |
As al Qaeda in Iraq attempts to reestablish its networks in the Northern provinces, the Iraqi military and Multinational Forces Iraq have been shaping the battlefield in the north for a showdown with the terror group. Iraqi and U.S. forces received a big boost the past week when a significant number of Iraqis formed a Concerned Local Citizens group in the region. Meanwhile, the Islamic Army of Iraq in Mosul has vowed to dig in and fight the Coalition.
Iraqi and U.S. forces have been focusing on the northern region--delineated by the provinces of Ninewa, Tamin, Salahadin, and Diyala--since major counterinsurgency operations began this summer. Operation Lightning Hammer II was launched Mosul, Tal Afar, and in the Za'ab Triangle region in September. This was a corps-sized operation, with over 26,000 troops committed to the fight. The Za'ab region, roughly outlined by the intersections of northern Salahadin, southwestern Tamin, and southeastern Ninewa, contains some of the toughest cities in Iraq, including Baiji and Hawija.
On November 5, U.S. and Iraqi forces launched Operation Iron Hammer, a division-sized operation, in the city and regions surrounding Kirkuk. Kirkuk sits just northeast of the Za'ab Triangle region. Iron Hammer consisted of elements from four Iraqi Army divisions and three U.S. brigades. Over 200 insurgent suspects were captured, including three high-value al Qaeda leaders. A large amount of explosives and numerous weapons caches were also found.
Iron Hammer was followed by Operation Raging Eagle, another division-sized operation that also focused on Kirkuk and the surrounding regions. Over 50 al Qaeda operatives were captured during the operation.
In the north, U.S. and Iraqi forces will look to push the battle away from the major cities of Mosul and Kirkuk, and Kirkuk's vital oilfields. "They want to go north into Kirkuk and wreak havoc there, and that's exactly what we're trying to avoid," said Army Major General Mark Hertling, the top U.S. commander in northern Iraq, in an interview with the Associated Press. Over 200 al Qaeda in Iraq fighters are believed to have taken shelter in the towns and villages in the Hawija region.
As the fight shapes up in the Za'ab Triangle region, Iraqi and U.S. forces caught a major break by receiving reinforcements from Iraqis in the region. On November 28, the Associated Press reported over 6,000 Iraqis joined the Concerned Local Citizens movement in the Hawija region. The Concerned Local Citizens are typically tribal groups and former insurgents who form local auxiliary police units to fight al Qaeda in Iraq and protect their local communities.
The number of 6,000 Concerned Local Citizens in Hawija may be inaccurate, however. In response to an inquiry from the The Long War Journal to Multinational Forces Iraq, Colonel Don Bacon stated that the actual number in the Hawija region is 2,500, with the possibility that 6,000 was the number of recruits pledged by tribal leaders.
The provinces of Ninewa, Tamin, Salahadin, and Diyala have seen a spike in participation in the Concerned Local Citizens movement. Tamin now has over 8,000 Concerned Local Citizen; Salahadin 4,000; and Diyala 10,000, according to data obtained by The Long War Journal. Ninewa has only 1,500 participants, but "there is a large Iraqi Army and Police presence which may mitigate against a large CLC [Concerned Local Citizens] program in this province," according to a source in Multinational Forces Iraq who wishes to remain anonymous.
Iraqi and Coalition efforts to move the fighting from the major cities may be difficult to achieve, however. The Islamic Army in Iraq in Mosul has vowed to continue the fight in the northern city. Upset that some of its groups have broken with the insurgency and are supporting the government in Concerned Local Citizens movements, the Mosul branch has formed Al Fatih Al Mubeen. Elements of the Islamic Army in Iraq have sided with al Qaeda and joined its Islamic State of Iraq.
Yesterday it looked like the Chinese explanation for changing their minds about the Kitty Hawk's port call to Hong Kong was going to be nothing more than that it was a "misunderstanding."
Now, via Murdoc, they appear to be singing a different tune:
China hinted Thursday that Congress' honoring of the Dalai Lama and U.S. arms sales to Taiwan led it to cancel a U.S. Navy visit to Hong Kong, an incident that could open a new rift in military relations that had warmed in recent years.
That's pretty much what Tim Johnson had speculated, but I'm surprised the Chinese would be so straightforward about the whole thing. Of course, they aren't being straightforward at all. The Chinese now deny not only that the decision was the result of a misunderstanding, but that it was their decision at all:
"Reports that Foreign Minister Yang said in the United States that it was a misunderstanding do not accord with the facts," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told a news conference.
"China approved the visit of the Kitty Hawk group to Hong Kong based on humanitarian reasons. The decision made by the U.S. later was up to them." He did not elaborate.
Rep. Randy Forbes put out a statement this morning in response to all these conflicting reports, and I think he pretty much nails it:
The duplicitous statements coming out of Beijing are emblematic of the way the Chinese conduct their brand of diplomacy and should serve as a cautionary statement to policymakers when dealing with Chinese leaders.
In other news from Red China:
Thousands of military academy students in central China’s Anhui province are rioting after news spread that the government wouldn’t recognize diplomas awarded to the fee-paying students, Radio Free Asia (RFA) reports....
A teacher at the academy, surnamed Ren, denied that rioting had occurred but added, “It could happen to any school. There are always some students who do not want to study. Right?”
“The majority of the students are good students. Those [who do not like to study] will be severely dealt with. What do the students know? Including the seniors. They have not even gotten their diplomas yet.”
“Only a small number of students with their own agenda were fanning the fire. I have told you too much already. If you are a reporter, I advise you not to touch things related to a military academy,” Ren said.
Can't wait for those Olympics...
Another day, another poll showing Americans are changing their views on the war in Iraq:
The latest Rasmussen Reports tracking poll finds that 47% of Americans now say the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror (see crosstabs). That’s up from 43% a month ago and reflects is the highest level of confidence measured since December 2005...
The 47% who believe the U.S. and its allies are winning is up significantly from earlier in the year. During the first nine months of 2007, the number believing that the U.S. fell as low as 33% and reached the 40% level just once...
In what may be just as significant a finding, only 24% of voters now believe the terrorists are winning. That’s down from 30% a month ago and represents the lowest level of pessimism recorded since 2004.
The Rasmussen Reports telephone survey also found that 35% of all American voters expect things to get better in Iraq over the next six months while 32% expect the situation to get worse. That’s the first time in years that a plurality has given a positive assessment on the situation in Iraq. The recent increase in optimism is substantial. Just four months ago, in July, 49% of American voters offered a pessimistic assessment of the situation in Iraq and only 23% expected things to get better...
Overall, 36% now believe the American mission in Iraq will ultimately be judged a success while 44% say the history books will judge the long engagement a failure. In July, the view was decidedly more pessimistic. At that time, just 27% thought history would consider the mission a success while 56% took the opposite view.
It seems intuitive that views of the war in Iraq should greatly affect the overall rating for President Bush, and for the Republican party. So far however, the president and the GOP are seeing marginal improvements, at best. It may be that those ratings are 'lagging' indicators, or it could be that voters are dissatisfied on other fronts. Or it could be that the public has simply decided that regardless of how well or how poorly the war may be going, they're ready for it to be over.
If that last one is the reason, Republicans shouldn't expect 'credit' for Iraq, regardless of how the war may go between now and the presidential election. It may be that the best they can hope for is for the public to continue to look to downgrade the importance of Iraq as the drawdown of troops continues.
As predicted, the latest purported bin Laden tape blames American foreign policy (that is, his conspiratorial notion of America’s foreign policy) for al Qaeda’s terror. The Associated Press has reported translations of excerpts of the tape, which were broadcast on Al-Jazeera. Bin Laden says he was the "only one responsible" for the 9/11 attacks. Moreover:
The events of Manhattan were retaliation against the American-Israeli alliance's aggression against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, and I am the only one responsible for it. The Afghan people and government knew nothing about it. America knows that.
Bin Laden wants free reign inside Afghanistan again, so he calls upon European nations to abandon the U.S.-led effort there:
Europe went along with it (the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan) because they had no other alternative, only to be a follower.
It is better for you [European citizens] to stand against your leaders who are dropping in on the White House, and to work seriously to lift the injustice against the believers.
Of course, this is fairly typical of al Qaeda’s propaganda. In the group’s messages to the West, they claim that their terror is merely a "Defensive Jihad," waged as retribution against the West for its alleged conspiratorial assault on Muslims. In its messages to fellow Muslims and in laying out the Islamic justifications for their attacks, however, al Qaeda argues strenuously for an "Offensive Jihad" waged against the West because we are infidels who refuse to follow their strict sharia laws and offend Allah’s supposed will.
More later when a full transcript of the tape becomes available.
When the Army-Navy game goes down on Saturday, Navy is a two touchdown favorite to win its sixth straight Commander in Chief Trophy. But according to this college football blog, Army has already pulled off a win of its own--kidnapping Navy's goats. A 'cadet-team-sized element' reportedly infiltrated Horizon Organic Farm in Gambrills, Maryland, at 0200 hours on November 18.
In fact, Army even made a YouTube video to document their brazen raid:
While there's no shame in getting your goats stolen, it does raise questions about security procedures. Shouldn't the Naval Academy be protecting not only the goats, but even the location of the facility where they're kept?
Worse still is the Navy response:
It's a good thing the Middies are (reasonably) good at football; their trash talking leaves much to be desired.
From the BBC:
The Iranian government has announced a campaign against rap music which it considers obscene. The Ministry for Culture and Islamic Guidance said illegal studios would be closed and rap singers "confronted".
An official condemned rappers for using very vulgar words, but it was not clear if the whole genre was being banned.
Is there such a thing as Hip-Hop solidarity? Maybe the Factor can have Cam'ron back on to discuss the crackdown now that the elusive rapper has resurfaced.
Via Instapundit, Bob Krum remarks on CNN's failure to vet the questioners at last night's debate--at least three of whom turned out to be declared supporters of Democratic candidates or outright plants from Democratic campaigns:
I'm not the biggest media bias basher out there by any stretch, but this is crystal clear evidence that CNN has hired the New Republic to do its fact checking. Do check out the link to see just how many of the questions were obvious and easily discovered plants.
At least CNN cut out Kerr's question in the replay last night, and Cooper apologized, if half-heartedly. TNR still hasn't taken a definitive position on Beauchamp after more than five months--their "investigation" continues.
According to the Associated Press, when John Edwards started a poverty think tank at the University of North Carolina in 2005, he gave the university a 'ticket wish list.' One would presume that Edwards can afford to buy his own tickets, but then again, you'd think he could afford his own haircuts.
The point seems moot in any case, since (according to the University) Edwards did not receive any tickets, nor any 'promise of tickets' in connection with his university employment.
But if there's nothing to this, then why is Edwards refusing to release the details of his request?
"While e-mails concerning pre-employment contract negotiations will not be released, the outcome of these discussions is and has been public and can be found in Senator Edwards' employment agreement with the university,'' said Edwards spokeswoman Colleen Murray, who said the former North Carolina senator ''inquired about the possibility of continuing to purchase, in the future, season tickets as he has for many years.''
The university and the Edwards campaign also declined to release an attachment to a January 2005 e-mail from Lackey that appears to detail his compensation request.
It's hard to conceive of anything nefarious here; it's just basketball tickets, right? (Perhaps even tickets devalued by the Tarheels' embarrassing NCAA Tournament loss to my alma mater in a memorable game last March.) But if it is so innocent, why hide it? It's sure to get every conspiracy theorist and blogger searching for the next embarrassing Silky anecdote.
So if you have any guesses as to what's so embarrassing about a simple ticket request, send it in.
Mark Steyn captures the feelings of many current and former Fred Thompson enthusiasts in this post over at The Corner:
I wrote about the Republican and Democrat presidential candidates last weekend, and got a lot of mail from Fredheads and others demanding to know why I hadn't mentioned Senator Thompson. The reason is I've no handle on what it is he thinks he's doing. Every time I see a Fred policy plan, he seems to have by far the best ideas, and the necessary zeal for reform, on taxes, Social Security and much else. But every time you see him in these TV debates he has the listless air of a bored grandparent at a dreary school play.
And seeing him live in person isn't that easy to do. I get campaign e-mails about New Hampshire appearances by John McCain and Mrs Clinton and lots of others. Mitt's guys clogged up my in-box with so many urgent releases in the hours after last night's debate that it's seriously impacting my ability to order generic Viagra and e-mail my bank details to Nigerian dictators' wives. But nary a word from Fred.
What's the strategy here? Why does he have great ideas but no campaign?
I thought Thompson was better last night than he has been. His critiques were sharp, but thoughtful. His detailed answer on gun control, after Rudy Giuliani made a reference to "the Parker decision" without seeming to know what it involved, was excellent.
But Steyn is right that Thompson's campaign is, um, lacking. Each morning I have delivered to my inbox "First Read", an excellent collection of news and nuggets about the 2008 election compiled by NBC political director Chuck Todd. Among many other features, First Read includes a candidate-by-candidate preview of the day's campaign events. As often as not, there is no mention of Fred Thompson. On some of these days, he is off doing private fundraisers. But there is little question that Thompson does far fewer public events than any of the other serious presidential candidates. Which is odd.
When I first spoke to Thompson advisers last spring, I asked about his reputation for being "lazy." They explained that such charges were unfair and likely the result of Thompson's laid-back demeanor. Fair enough. In any case, they continued, such a reputation would be easy to overcome. "All he has to do is campaign hard," said one Thompson adviser. Hmm ...
The Army's strategic vision for their own UAV force has been more or less in motion for the past few years. First they wanted four classes of unmanned vehicles, each tasked with supporting a unique level of command (platoon, company, battalion, brigade). Smelling redundancy, Army leadership burned two of the classes late last year. Now the Army's grand UAV strategy is sublime in its simplicity: buy a big, stinkin' mess of 'em. Aviation Week reports:
About the only speaker at a London conference on unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) this week who was in favour of the US Army's plans to operate a massive fleet of armed Sky Warriors was General Atomics-ASI's Steve May. And so he should be: "The Army is now as large a customer for us as the Air Force," May said.
According to May, the Army is looking at acquiring as many as 45 complete Sky Warrior systems once full-rate production starts in 2011 - each with 12 air vehicles, 540 UAVs in all. The Sky Warrior resembles the USAF MQ-1L Predator but is heavier and more powerful, routinely carrying eight Hellfire missiles.
The Air Force is absolutely besides itself, of course. Not only is the Army moving in on fiercely guarded turf, they're sacrificing a few of the Air Force's most sacred cows in the process.
Aircrew training is proving a major challenge for the Air Force as it expands its own Predator fleet. Sustaining one Predator orbit takes four aircraft and 80 people, 50 of them deployed forward, s | | | |
