Semi-Random Ramblings

2006-01-13T10:33:00.000-08:00

Pip fetches my morning paper while Smokey supervises.

Brothers make good pillows.

Moved to Dean's World

2005-11-21T10:37:00.000-08:00

Well, I don't post enough for one blog, let alone two (as I've said, I'm more of a commenter). So I'll be semi-retiring this blog, at least for now. You can see my posts on a semi-daily basis over at Dean's World.

2005-11-10T18:06:00.000-08:00

OTOH, a couple of the Props came pretty close to passing, and a LOT of money was spent to defeat them, enough that it reportedly put some groups in serious debt. I think Arnie's going to try for a sequel, knowing they rarely gross as much as the original.

Or he might uncase that gigantic Conan sword and just start hacking away at his political opponents. That would liven things up, but does it poll well?

2005-11-09T10:05:00.000-08:00

Let me take a moment here to snicker at California. They just voted down all 8 referenda, and give every indication they're going to elect another lefty as governor in a couple years. Maybe even Warren Beatty!

If you think they have fiscal problems now...

Should be amusing, watching safely from here in the heartland.

2005-11-02T16:50:00.000-08:00

Just imagine any newspaper printing the following as news:

The surprise maneuver, exploiting last week's indictment of Bill Clinton for perjury, caught Democrats flatfooted and shifted attention back to the increasingly unpopular Kosovo war and away from President Clinton's affair with a 21-year-old intern.

Unimaginable. Impossible.

In fact, I'd be amazed if any MSM reference to Democrats being "caught flat-footed" in the past 20 years even exists.

2005-10-31T19:17:00.000-08:00

Shaving your legs: on the inside.

2005-10-28T11:43:00.000-07:00

Authorities in NY on the lookout for a giant pancake, possibly terrorism-related. Threat level is at Maple, but could be raised to Log Cabin at any moment.

Hmmmm. This on the same day Karl Rove escapes indictment and Bush picks a new SCOTUS nominee. Coincidence? I think not.

I question the timing. And the lack of bacon.

2005-10-28T07:39:00.000-07:00

Memo to self: Don't commit suicide around Halloween. I'd rather not have my discarded mortal coil being pelted with eggs and toilet paper.

Revenge is sweet(scroll halfway down). So very, very sweet (may take a couple tries to load). Also, a bit salty and fishy-tasting.

Cheese and milk and fish for Spam? Fair trade, I think.

2005-10-20T06:53:00.000-07:00

After reading this infuriatingly inaccurate column by Simon Jenkins, I felt compelled to write him an email:

"Of 113 paid-up battalions, the Americans regard just one as reliable in a firefight,"

I don't know if you're being deliberately mendacious or are merely ignorant of the truth, but either way this is an unconscionable misstatement of fact and I will be demanding your paper issue a retraction and correction.

The number of battalions regarded as "reliable in a firefight" numbers 117, perhaps 80,000 troops, and 37 are operating independently or taking the lead in operations every day. The number you refer to is the number capable of operations totally independent of coalition forces, with no logistical or combat support (such as air support) whatsoever, not the number "reliable in a firefight."

In the hope you are merely ignorant, allow me to educate you with work from a real journalist:

http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/10/training_the_ir_1.php

Level Number of Battalions at Level Definition of Level
1 1 Units are completely independent; Units do not require air, armor, artillery, logistical support (supplies).
2 36 (estimate) Units are capable of independent operations, requires some level of logistical or heavy weapons support.
3 about 80 (estimate) Units are capable conducting combat operations alongside Coalition forces.
4 Undefined Units currently in training, not in combat

Kindly be more careful in the future, and avoid libelling our troops' efforts in training Iraqis to defend their democracy.

Regards,
--Dave

Not that I think it will help or anything...

2005-10-15T12:26:00.000-07:00

DailyKos' predictable sentiments on the referendum:

Yes the Constitution will win the vote. And then what? Will our troops come home now? Will the Iraqi government be able to govern? What is different now than yesterday?

That's right, the "progressive" position is that voting is irrelevant. Democracy: great for me, but not so much for thee.

Sad.

2005-10-13T15:26:00.000-07:00

I'm encouraged by the fact pundits are already downplaying the positive effect of a successful referndum.

Brookings Institution analyst Michael O'Hanlon warned not to put too much emphasis on the referendum. "...So we really have to think more strategically and not indulge in the luxury of letting ourselves think one good day equals real progress," O'Hanlon said.

I still think the Dec 15 elections are much more important, as is the military progress between now and then.

2005-10-12T11:17:00.000-07:00

I have the honor and pleasure of announcing I'm joining Dean's World as a regular contributor, mostly on Iraq-related issues. My first post is here.

I've enjoyed Dean's blog since I first found it via Instapundit. While I'm a little intimidated by the fact tens of thousands will now read what I write every day, I'm honored to join the fine group of people who post there regularly.

I'll try to keep this blog up as well, but we'll see how busy and how lazy I am.

2005-10-11T15:17:00.000-07:00

Via a fellow Chicagoan on Bill Roggio's must-read-every-day site, great news from Iraq:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi leaders reached a breakthrough deal on last minute changes in the constitution Tuesday, and at least one Sunni Arab party said it would reverse its rejection of the document and urge its supporters to approve it in next weekend's referendum.

With support of a couple Sunni parties, the constitution could get over 50% support in every province. That would really be something to celebrate (though of course it doesn’t need that to pass).

2005-10-11T11:14:00.000-07:00

Another motherlode of irony discovered, possibly enough to fuel mankind's needs for the next 200 years, courtesy this ultrapartisan and tendentious piece by Al Gore.

This was the point made by Jon Stewart, the brilliant host of "The Daily Show," when he visited CNN's "Crossfire": there should be a distinction between news and entertainment.

Yes, because by hosting a show whose whole premise is presenting news as entertainment, Jon Stewart is doing so much to preserve that distinction.

What is it that Daily Show promotors like to brag? 20% or so of young people report the Daily Show is their primary source of news? Does Jon see that as a problem?

Maybe he was joking.

2005-10-10T11:26:00.000-07:00

The world's supply of irony seems to be in no danger of running low:

Iraq detainees to get vote -- including Saddam

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Thousands of detainees in Iraqi jails should be able to vote in the constitutional referendum this week -- including former president Saddam Hussein, the country's Electoral Commission said.

Though details on Monday were scant, it raised the unlikely prospect of Saddam and his aides marking "Yes" or "No" to a constitution that specifically bans the "Saddamist Baath party."

I wonder if he'll write in a vote for himself in December?

2005-10-09T09:15:00.000-07:00

Possibly Jeff's best political post to date.

Rox Populi wants to know what would it take for the Dems to get your vote in ‘06 and ‘08? My answer, which I left in the comments at RP:

In 2000 I didn’t care who won, though I disliked Gore, who seemed impossibly artificial.

But now, after 5 years of listening to Dems, there is absolutely nothing they can do to win me back short of purging their entire leadership and nuking their base from orbit.

It’s the only way to be sure....

And if I’m going to try to influence one of the two political bases, I’m more interested in moving the bluenose social cons toward the center than I am in trying to force the vehemently anti-progressive “progressive” socialists and totalitarians to ease back on speech restrictions, identity politics appeals, and the desire for a huge, centralized nanny welfare state controlled by bureaucratic elites schooled in anti-capitalist political principles.

This really articulates for me, better than I could, how I’ve felt seeing Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, MoveOn, and Daily Kos take over the Dem Party.

It’s like what I would feel if the GOP made Pat Buchanan their national chair, Ann Coulter a Senator, and AynRand.com was suddenly not only taken seriously but holding regular meetings with Republican leadership.

I’m not sure nukes are enough.

2005-10-07T11:52:00.000-07:00

Stop the presses: the UN did something useful! And in Iraq no less.

More of this please, and less trying to take over the Internet.

2005-10-07T11:46:00.000-07:00

This is encouraging.

The words and drawings had a wonderful positive effect on the morale of our soldiers and policemen who received them with overwhelming happiness and tears of joy “we’re not going to let them down and these paintings will take their place on the walls in our base” these were the words of one grateful soldier to whom we handed some paintings while his unit was patrolling the streets of Baghdad, the next day we received a call from the officer in command asking for more of these paintings which he described as “a proof on national unity in this confrontation with the powers of evil”.

2005-10-07T10:31:00.000-07:00

As I've said before, the "this insurgency sucks, let's try democracy" Sunnis are starting to raise their voices.

Iraq Sunni leader urges Ramadan ceasefire, US talks

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A prominent leader from Iraq's Sunni Arab minority called on Friday for the United States and Iraqi insurgents to cease fire in the holy month of Ramadan as a prelude to direct talks between Americans and the guerrillas.

Saleh al-Mutlak, a secular nationalist who was involved in negotiating a draft constitution, said a coalition of Sunni political groups close to insurgents was ready to promote such a dialogue to end the bloodshed that has ravaged Iraq since 2003.

"The fighting should stop," Mutlak, who represents the National Dialogue movement, told Reuters. "We have fought for two-and-a-half years and the problem is it doesn't work."
...
"We must find a political solution," he said. A ceasefire during Ramadan, which began this week, "should be a start for direct negotiations between the two sides."

"Everybody is getting tired in Iraq," Mutlak said.

UPDATE: Thanks for the hat tip Jeff!

2005-10-06T15:34:00.000-07:00

Memo to the UN: You can have our root servers when you pry them from our cold, dead hands.

2005-10-06T06:47:00.000-07:00

Lt. Gen. David Petraeus says Iraqis are taking back their country, and offers some specifics on how "levels of readiness" are assigned, what they really mean, and how many battalions are in each level. A must-read if you want to really understand the progress in this regard.

More than 115 Iraqi police and army combat battalions are in the counterinsurgency fight, he said. About 80 of the battalions are fighting alongside U.S. forces, which the general said equates to Level 3 readiness in the four-tier readiness rating system. "Over 36 (battalions) are assessed as being 'in the lead,'" he said. In the lead is the term associated with Level 2 readiness, and means the troops are capable of leading joint patrols, as opposed to merely participating. Level 1 units are labeled as being "fully independent." There is one battalion in this category, Petraeus said.

The general said it is a mistake to fixate on the Level 1 unit. He said Americans should to expand their understanding of the readiness levels and what each unit brings to the fight.

Level 3 units fight alongside coalition forces. These units contribute personnel, language capabilities, maintain guard posts and set up traffic checkpoints even as they learn from their coalition counterparts. A Level 3 battalion works with a U.S. unit in guarding Airport Road in Baghdad, he said.

Of the more than 36 units at Level 2, most have their own areas of operation. Seven Iraqi battalions in Baghdad alone have their own areas of responsibility, the general said, and more than 10 Iraqi battalions operated in and around Tal Afar during the fighting there.
Sixteen Iraqi battalions are operating in eastern Anbar province - a mixture of Level 2 and Level 3 units.

"Three Iraqi battalions - all Level 2 -- ... secure Haifa Street (in Baghdad), that was known as 'Purple Heart Boulevard,'" the general said.

Iraqi security force numbers and readiness have been moving steadily upward over the course of the last 15 months, Petraeus said. "The Iraqis are in this fight," he said. "They are fighting and dying for their country. And they are fighting increasingly well."

God bless these martyrs for freedom.

UPDATE: Lets's see 36 battalions, conservatively that should be 36 x 500 = 18,000 Iraqis "taking the lead." 80 battalions x 500 = 40,000 Iraqis "in the fight." Given that these numbers were close to zero a year ago, it's a good bet they will double or more in the next year, meaning a lot of U.S. troops will probably be heading home. I'm guessing U.S. force levels will be somewhere between 25,000 and 75,000 in Oct 2006, depending on how the insurgency and political process go.

UPDATE II: Some excellent coverage of this subject by Murdoc.

2005-10-05T20:35:00.000-07:00

Malaise: now more than ever.

2005-10-04T17:54:00.000-07:00

It doesn't look like Jaafari and his party will be in power after the December elections; his rule has not been particularly popular and his coalition is splitting. Remember, Iraq really is a democracy now, with real elections, raucous dissent, and a thriving free press. Bloggers and newspapers are reporting many Iraqis are very unhappy with the sectarianism of the current parties and secularists are expected to make big gains -- including a big chunk of Sunnis who didn't vote last time.

The current gov't just isn't very representative of what Iraqis want. They were elected because they were all Iraq had to offer last year. This year, there will be real campaigns, real debates, and real choices about the future of Iraq.

UPDATE: It occurs to me the upcoming Iraqi election is arguably more important than the last. The sad history of nascent democracies has too often gone the road marked "one man, one vote, one time." An orderly, peaceful, democratic transfer of power, something we very much take for granted in the West, is quite a novelty for an Arab country. Also, unlike the last election this one shows every sign of being much more than a vote by ethnicity or region; the real divide is shaping up as secularism vs. sectarianism.

For the first time, the will of the people matters.

2005-10-03T12:05:00.000-07:00

Marine Col. Jeff Vold:

Vold adds that antiwar rhetoric sometimes implicitly portrays soldiers as dupes on a fool's errand. "We volunteered to go to Iraq. The guys over there, who know the situation best, are re-enlisting in great numbers. Most of the guys I served with think this is the best thing America has done in our careers."

2005-10-03T11:54:00.000-07:00

I know some people will disagree, but this echoes a lot of what I've been saying on the subject of prisoner abuse:

In short, all the evidence suggests a low rate of detainee mistreatment, one that compares favorably with U.S. civilian prisons, never mind that of other and earlier militaries. "The behavior of our troops is so much better than it was in World War II," Mr. Schlesinger told me last year. I called him this week to ask what we've learned since. "That the press exaggerated," he replied. The suggestion that Mr. Schlesinger and countless others--from decorated officers to military juries--have lent their good names to some kind of whitewash only reveals the remaining accusers for the crackpots they are.

2005-10-02T08:24:00.000-07:00

Remember the Baghdad Airport highway, "the most dangerous road in the world?" Notice that we haven't heard that moniker in a while? According to TigerHawk, General Petraeus says there's a reason:

Iraqi tanks have been organized into an armored brigade which is responsible for securing the airport road ("Route Irish has been free of violence since the Iraqi armored brigade took it over").

2005-10-01T19:12:00.000-07:00

If you get a chance, try to catch Fox News' one-hour "The Trial of Saddam Hussein" special. Seeing the man and his crimes is compelling, but really it's worth seeing it just for this one exchange between the interviewer and Saddam's defense lawyer:

Interviewer: "So you're comparing Saddam Hussein to Nelson Mandela?"

Saddam's lawyer: "Yes, why wouldn't I?"

You couldn't script television this crazy. It wouldn't be believable.

2005-09-30T20:02:00.000-07:00

There's been a lot of press about the three "battalions capable of independent action" becoming only one, and of course that begs the question: are the Iraqi forces getting better or worse? The answer seems to be: on the whole, they're getting much better and more numerous, but require supervision.

My understanding is there are 10 U.S. advisers in every battalion. This is how you build an army; you don’t just give them guns and say “Have at it boys!” If you want to call it hand-holding as some are, fine. But they are out there fighting, and they took the lead in Tal Afar.

They are probably going to need those advisers for the next 2-5 years or so. Frankly, I’m surprised we have even one Iraq battalion running around by itself.

The reason is the same reason that the old Iraqi “Army” self-disbanded at the time of the invasion: as in most Mideast armies, there was no NCO corps. NCOs are the glue that hold together an army, and it takes a long time to develop such a corps.

(In lieu of NCOs, like most Arab countries the Iraqi “Army” (if you can call it that) apparently had platoon-level IIS agents holding guns to conscripts’ heads. Why do the Arab armies have this in common? Think about the mechanics of dictatorship for a minute, and it’s obvious: loyalty to the current head of state must be strictly enforced among the military if the dictator wants to stay in power. If a general knows his troops are loyal to him, he could be dictator himself pretty fast.)

Interesting report from Gen. Casey today:

“On the military side, coalition forces and Iraqi security forces continue to pressure terrorists and insurgents across Iraq. And Iraqi security forces are progressing and continuing to take a more prominent role in defending their country. Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about. In May, Iraqi security forces conducted about 160 combined or independent operations at the company level and above, so about 100 people as company level, and about 160 operations. In September, that was over 1,300, and then our transition teams that we have put with the Iraqi security forces have greatly enhanced their development and their ability to operate with us. We are at the point now where 80 percent of all of the company- level and higher operations that are done are combined operations with the Iraqi or Iraqi independent operations—big step forward.

“Additionally, we expect to have 60[000] to 70,000 more Iraqi security forces available for referendum security than we had in January, and by the time of the elections, we expect to have about 100,000 more Iraqi security forces available to protect those elections than we had in January. So as a result, for example, I only had to ask for an additional 2,000 coalition troops to protect the referendum and election process this year vice 12,000 in January”

(h/t Mixed Humor, John Cole)

2005-09-29T05:23:00.000-07:00

This is the best news out of Iraq imaginable:

The largest Sunni political group, the Iraqi Islamic Party, said... its efforts are focused on the December election for a new National Assembly.

..."We are focusing more on ensuring the Sunnis participate in the next election."

It's finally, really happening. The moderate Sunnis are committed joining the democratic political process. That is the best, most realistic hope for ending the insurgency and setting Iraq on a path to greater prosperity and freedom.

The December elections should create some separation between the "fight democracy to the death" Sunnnis and the "this insurgency sucks, let's give consensual gov't a try" Sunnis.

2005-09-28T19:13:00.000-07:00

Aha!

The AP agrees with my (and others') assessment of their war coverage:

Daily reports of U.S. troops deaths — approaching 2,000 — have helped drive down public support in the U.S. for the war.

Exactly. They even manage to squeeze in another mention of casualties in the very sentence in which they note the daily reports of casualties are discouraging the war effort.

While I’m sure they didn’t quite mean it that way, they also clearly can’t claim to not understand the practical effect of how they’re reporting the war. Does anyone really think the press wants us to win?

2005-09-28T17:22:00.000-07:00

Well, the results of my cynical little experiment in representative gov't are in. I have to give Obama's office some kudos for this. They not only recognized I had sent them two emails, one about pork and one about pets, and answered them both in one reply, they even managed to put together an impressively coherent, detailed, and cogent response that I would have no way of knowing was composed from form letters unless I had seen those letters before. They even express some concern about "pork" (although more specific cuts would have shown a bit more sincerity). It almost gives me faith in gov't again.

Here's the letter:

Dear Dave:

Thank you for your two emails regarding responsible spending for Hurricane Katrina relief and your concerns about pet rescue operations in the Gulf Coast. I appreciate hearing from you on both of these issues, and I will address both of these issues in this reply.

I share your commitment to ensuring that this massive undertaking will be executed responsibly. As you know, Congress has already responded to the crisis in the Gulf region by passing the two largest disaster relief bills in American history, and more assistance will be needed. Additional legislation is currently developing. The costs of Katrina now total $62 billion and are expected to increase dramatically. I share your belief that these measures should be passed without "pork" attached for pet projects or other unnecessary expenditures. I also agree that Congress should search for methods of paying for relief and rebuilding projects that do not jeopardize other priorities such as health care and education. And ideas similar to yours should be on the table for consideration. This effort will undoubtedly compel us to review our spending habits and the budgetary decisions we have already made.

Because I know many Americans share my skepticism about FEMA’s ability to manage such an enormous effort, I have joined with my colleague, Senator Tom Coburn (R.,OK), in introducing legislation (S. 1700) that would establish a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to oversee Katrina reconstruction expenditures. Under my bill the CFO must be confirmed by the Senate, and will report expenditures monthly. Those reports will then be reviewed by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) and made publicly available. This legislation has passed the Senate Committee on Homeland Security unanimously and will be sent to the Senate floor for debate and a vote on final passage.

I know this tragedy has weighed heavily on the hearts of all Americans. And while we face one of the greatest reconstruction challenges in American history, the compassion I have seen flow to the Gulf Coast from all over the nation gives me confidence that we will pass this great test and help rebuild the lives of those who have lost so much. I hope that members of both chambers of Congress, as they have thus far, would see the importance of passing these relief bills without hampering them with unnecessary projects.

I also received your email about missing pets in the Gulf Coast. Among the many difficult and heartwrenching aspects of this tragedy has been the lack of resources to rescue and care for those animals left behind by evacuees who were unable to take them on evacuation transports. Fortunately, as news spread about the plight of these animals, several groups volunteered to travel into that dangerous environment to help rescue them.

As soon as the resources were available, the United States Navy and National Guard began searching for and rescuing these pets in New Orleans and elsewhere in the Gulf Coast. The U.S.S. Tortuga moored near New Orleans, and the Tortuga's repair division began a search and rescue mission for abandoned pets. The crew members set up "Camp Milo and Otis," a makeshift kennel where medical care and shelter was provided for dogs, cats and other displaced animals from the city. The Department of Homeland Security also assisted by deploying Veterinary Medical Assistance Teams to provide medical care to pets and livestock, as well as provide any needed veterinary medical care for dogs involved in the rescue effort. And only days after the storm, SPCAs, Humane Societies and other pet welfare organizations from across the country joined the United States Navy and National Guard in attempting to rescue stray animals. Several thousand pets were rescued and sheltered around the state by late last week.

Individual citizens have helped with this effort as well. I was particularly heartened by stories like one in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where an anonymous donor helped relocate 175 displaced dogs and cats. While it is tragic that so many pets remain left behind, that is yet another example of how humanity can shine through any disaster.

Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

Now, the above borrows entire paragraphs from the other form letter. But, otoh, that's an efficient use of valuable prose-writing time and they took the time to plausibly fake writing a real letter. That's better than I expected.

I haven't received a reply from my Rep yet, but that's because I mis-typed the email address by accident, and I haven't gotten around to re-sending it yet, which I think probably tends to prove Dogbert's assertion that ignorance is the most powerful force in the world, followed by apathy.

2005-09-26T17:21:00.000-07:00

Glenn's mail offers Instapundit readers a revealing look inside our supposedly representative gov't:

They can't seem to understand why I'm bothering them or why I expect more of a response than a form letter assuring me that they share my concerns about the budget.

Ugh, that's not pretty. I guess if you're not a special interest group, you're just an annoyance. Trite but apt sausage analogies immediately spring to mind.

But this piqued my interest, and also my sense of scientific inquiry:

Reader Mary Wlodarski sends a response she got: "I have been a regular reader of your blog for years and really love it! I sent both my senators, Durbin and Obama a letter asking them to review the budget in light of the need of our southern states, foregoing our projects to help out the gulf states. I only got response from Obama. He must have thought I was concerned about the pets in the budget, not the pork!"

What followed appeared to be a form letter for pets lost in Hurrcane Katrina. As a fellow denizen of the People's Republic of Illinois, like Mary I too am blessed with Mr. Obama as my Senator (to be fair, Obama seems like a pretty decent guy, one of the few center-left people out there; to give you some idea of how bad statewide politics is, our other choice was Alan Keyes, who kicked off his campaign in glorious fashion, scant months before the election, by 1) moving to Illinois and 2) insisting that it was "inconceivable" our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ would have voted for his opponent).

Anyway, I thought it was odd there could be a form letter for missing Katrina pets. So, in the spirit of empiricism, I propose two tests for the hypotheses that Obama's office has a form letter for missing Katrina pets, and that his office cannot tell the difference between a budget initiative and a pet issue: I'll send a short email expressing my deep concern for missing cats (as someone hopelessly devoted to his own cats, I feel sincere in this, even though I'm obviously having a little fun with the idea), and see if I get the exact same letter as Mary. I'll also send one regarding the porcine portions of the proposed budget, and see if, like Mary, I receive the same form letter as for the forsaken feline familiars.

Here are the two emails:

I am deeply concerned with the "pigs at the trough" attitude of politicians toward our budget. In the wake of Katrina, we need to ensure that our spending priorities are in the proper order and that our government acts in a responsible, caring manner. This issue is very important to many people and should not be taken lightly.

I am deeply concerned with the issue of missing cats. In the wake of Katrina, we need to ensure that our rescue priorities are in the proper order and that our government acts in a responsible, caring manner. This issue is very important to many people and should not be taken lightly.

I know, the two letters are very similar. What can I say, you have to fight fire with fire, people.

2005-09-26T09:15:00.000-07:00

"So Long, And Thanks For All The Toxic Darts"

2005-09-24T23:10:00.000-07:00

In response to John Cole's post, I'd like to present... kitty porn!

With hot tongue action!

2005-09-21T11:29:00.000-07:00

Jalal Talabani, Iraq's first elected President, writes in the WSJ today:

If we keep progressing at the present rate, Iraqis may be able to take over many
security functions from foreign forces by the end of 2006. That is not a
deadline, but it is reasonable aspiration.

Interesting. We'll see, I guess.

2005-09-21T07:57:00.000-07:00

Fiscal conservatism lives!

I'll be writing my own Congressman Mark Kirk today, who, according to his website is

a member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee

Sounds like just the guy for this kind of thing.

2005-09-21T06:00:00.000-07:00

Thank you, Glenn, for pointing out the blindingly obvious to people who really ought to know better.

$100 billion just to go back to the Moon? For what? Is there suddenly a critical shortage of moon rocks that threatens to wreck the economy? No, wait -- I know! We've just discovered there's trillions in oil on the moon! And no environmentalists or medieval regimes! A huge cache of diamonds, perhaps? The secret to a grand unification theory of relativity and quantum mechanics?

No, sadly, there is no reason to go back to the Moon, except that it's there. There is, however, a reason we never went back: it's a big, airless, resourceless, useless hunk of rock that costs $100 billion to get to. We have rocks here on Earth. They cost a lot less than $100 billion to get to.

A space elevator, otoh, not only serves a useful function (imagine that, a space program whose primary objective is something that's actually useful), but would be an epochal achievement like the Moon landing of our parents' generation and the Panama Canal of our grandparents' rolled into one. Not only would it be a tremendous achievement in and of itself, it could serve to usher in a new era of low cost orbital transport. Just imagine how the world will change if satellites can be put into orbit more reliably than today for a tenth to a hundredth of the current cost.

Now, I understand why NASA has not yet fully embraced the space elevator concept, though they are looking at it, including sponsoring a competition for the "climber" portion of the elevator. When I introduce the concept to engineers for the first time, they give me a look like I've just claimed Elvis has been living in my basement all this time -- till they see the white papers. Then they scratch their heads and say "Wow, that might actually be do-able." In the end, it still may prove not to be feasible (though that looks less likely every year) but at the very least NASA owes the idea a few billion in development money. It's a lot better than wasting $100 billion on a been-there, done-that boondoggle.

Best case: sometime in the next couple years, NASA says the space elevator looks promising enough that they cancel the whole "Operation Do What We Already Did 50 Years Ago" and divert that entire budget into building a half-dozen to a dozen space elevators.

UPDATE: It occurs to me now that if the space elevator comes in anywhere near its projected budget, the cost of going to the Moon would probably actually be less if we diverted part of its budget to making a space elevator to help us get to the Moon. As Glenn points out, most of the energy cost is getting into orbit.

2005-09-19T16:34:00.000-07:00

Yellow journalism: alive and well in 2005.

That "10,000 dead" has been revised down to "less than 1,000."

For reference, that compares to 35,000 dead in Europe from... a heat wave. That's right, a natural "catastrophe" that can be handled with air conditioning killed more than 35 times as many people among our oh-so-enlightened socialist transatlantic neighbors as a Category 5 storm here in the US did in a deathtrap city built below sea level, even with an incompetent disaster response.

Let's see, 35,000 people times $179 each for their own, personal 8,000 BTU air conditioner gives me... $5.5 million. That's what it would have cost to save every single person who died from excess heat. And that assumes no one was willing to share.

And people think America has problems.

2005-09-18T19:30:00.000-07:00

Bill Clinton broke with past presidential precedent today, and attacked George W Bush over the Iraq war and Katrina. This is shameful behavior, and I've lost some respect for the man, who I thought to this point had conducted his post-Presidency with a lot of class. This is especially disappointing with his wife set to appear on the '08 ballot.

Sigh. The "attack-dog" mentality continues to infect more and more of the left. They've even convinced themselves the problem is they're not attacking enough. Sad.

Note to Kos & Atrios & the attack Dems: When are you people going to give the Democratic Party back to the rest of America? Remember us, the sane people in the middle that decide elections? Sheesh. It's like they not only don't want my vote, they're actually spitting on it in disgust. "Bah! We don't need you filthy stinking moderates! We've got Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore and a hatred for conservatives that burns hotter than the sun!"

(h/t Powerline)

2005-09-17T20:06:00.000-07:00

If this Iraqi is any indication, the insurgents are not winning a lot of hearts and minds (harsh language advisory):

Al-Zarbawi days are counted and when he fall in the hands of the Iraqis so soon we will make him to suck his shit and will show him how to talk by using his mouth rather than his filthy excessively fucked anus.

UPDATE: Somehow, when this guy swears it seems more real than when these guys do it. I don't know, just seems like he feels it more.

2005-09-16T06:04:00.000-07:00

Grinding out a free and democratic society: StrategyPage details the progress of one of the greatest social engineering projects ever attempted by Man.

Meanwhile, in Tal Afar, the government is using a similar tactic that is weakening the terrorist organizations. Thousands of local civilians are being hired for reconstruction jobs. American civil affairs units have been most aggressive with this tactic, developed and honed over the last two years. Even while the fighting is going on, civil affairs teams are noting what infrastructure is in need of rebuilding, or is getting damaged. As soon as Iraqi police declare a neighborhood pacified, hiring begins to help unload and distribute relief supplies, rebuild roads and electrical systems, and do any other jobs that need being done. Workers are paid daily, and given one more reason to stay away from the terrorist organizations. Not that a lot of unemployed Sunni Arabs need much encouragement there. By now, it’s almost impossible to get volunteers to attack the Americans, and prices to hire people for that work keep going up. Shooting at Americans is seen as suicide, because not only do the Americans promptly shoot back very accurately, but they then come after you. The Americans have those damn little planes in the sky, the ones with cameras, making it difficult for attackers to hide or get away. It’s much easier to attack Iraqi police or soldiers. But these guys are now wearing body armor, and will counter-attack as well. Worse, the Iraqi police will start questioning people in the area, put up roadblocks, and hunt you down. It’s getting so hard to be a bad guy in Iraq.

2005-09-15T16:52:00.000-07:00

Major General Rick Lynch gave a briefing today. Some highlights:

- Mosul: 1,000 killed or detained
- Zarqawi having "no effect" on Coalition or Iraqi forces (later re-emphasized "zero effect"), forced to attack innocent civilians as we saw today and yesterday; 14 car bombs (7 suicide); attacked "first responders" (medics, firefighters) as well. (Bastards. If that doesn’t make them “terrorists” the word has no appropriate use.)
- counter-insurgencies "historically, last 10 years"; this one will be won by Iraqis people, gov't and security forces
- insurgency has not been able to establish safe haven, not been able to stop recruiting, > 190,000 trained & equipped Iraqi forces, not been able to derail democratic process

Tal Afar operations:

- Operations ongoing
- Iraqi forces outnumber Coalition forces
- Since 26th of August: 500 terrorists killed or captured, 24 caches of ammunition seized
- People of Tal Afar asked for help
- Reconstruction beginning: U.S. spending $3 million, $50 million from Iraqi gov't
- Limited structural damage

Lynch Q&A notes:

Reporter notes reports of airstrikes, asks whether this means operations alluded to by the Iraqi Defense Minister against terrorists in four other cities have begun. Lynch doesn’t answer directly, says they will not allow a safe haven for terrorists anywhere in Iraq.

Lynch says a poll found 75% of Iraqis said they will turn in terrorists (I note the Iraq Index shows the number of phones has risen immensely, from 833,000 prewar to 4.5 million in August 2005, and this post from an Iraq newspaper mentions several terrorist tiplines, Technology is more our ally than the terrorists’.). Lynch remarks that the tip lines are getting better results all the time.

In response to a question about claims by Juan Cole and others that the U.S. is engaging in “sectarian cleansing” in Tal Afar, Lynch says “that is absolutely absurd.” He sounds disgusted when he says it, and notes both Shiite and Sunni leadership asked for help in Tal Afar. (Maybe we should invite Mr. Cole to bring his allegedly Informed Comments to the next briefing.) Lynch says any sectarian violence would be investigated not encouraged.

Lynch says of reports insurgents escaped Tal Afar “if some got away, it wasn’t many.”

“Democracy is failure for the insurgents.” (This is very true, and it makes me wonder why that is never stated as such in the press, e.g. articles beginning “In another failure for the insurgency…” or “In another blow to insurgent hopes…” every time democracy moves forward. In fact, almost nothing is ever characterized as a defeat for insurgents; sometimes it seems they can do no wrong in the eyes of the media (I suspect this is how a war becomes defined as “unwinnable”). No wonder most Americans don’t think we’re doing very well.)

2005-09-14T10:42:00.000-07:00

"Dude, I'm tired, I'm hungry, I'm dirty: this road trip sucks. Let's swim home already. I miss people. Especially people with fish. Mmmmmmmmmmm, fish..."

2005-09-13T07:52:00.000-07:00

Consider the following two statements, regarding elected Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's statement that, in his opinion, the U.S. will be able to withdraw 50,000 troops from Iraq this year:

But Talabani had earlier told CNN in Washington: "It's our duty to sacrifice for our people and for our country," in words that may ease pressure on President George W. Bush, who faces increasing calls to withdraw U.S. troops.

vs.

But Talabani had earlier told CNN in Washington: "It's our duty to sacrifice for our people and for our country," in words designed to ease pressure on President George W. Bush, who faces increasing calls to withdraw U.S. troops.

OK, now of the two, which one states a fact, and which attempts to read Talabani's mind and attribute intention to him? Which is accurate reporting, and which is editorializing? And which paints a less flattering picture of what's happening?

Now, guess which one actually appeared in a Reuters piece.

2005-09-12T09:42:00.000-07:00

They're mopping up in Tal Afar today, and getting ready to push on to Ramadi, Qaim, etc. This push by the Iraqis may have major consequences for the insurgents' ability to operate, because the Iraqis now have the numbers and local expertise to hold these areas.

The indispensable GatewayPundit has this little tidbit from Iraqi TV that you can bet you won't see in the Western media:

The station showed a demonstration of about 150 people of Tal Afar holding banners declaring: "We call on the government to kick out terrorists from Tal Afar." One young man told a television interviewer, "What we want from the Iraqi government is to kill those terrorists."

Things are changing.

2005-09-11T20:29:00.000-07:00

GaijinBiker at RidingSun asks why we haven't been attacked since 9/11. Some commenters suggest Al Qaeda is deliberately aying off, and wants us in Iraq.

Osama may indeed want us in Iraq. He wanted us in Afghanistan, too. Remember the "graveyard of superpowers?" They've blown some people up in both places, but have been totally unable to stop the progress of consensual gov't in either country. Osama is not a strategic genius by a long shot. He's just a religious wacko, Jim Jones with exploding Kool-Aid drinkers.

That said, there is probably some truth to the idea they are deliberately not targeting America. We've taught them attacking America has very bad consequences; 9/11 had exactly the opposite effect on American policy of what they intended. They know more attacks will only further inflame American support for war -- at least, as long as there's a Republican president. Attacking Europe, on the other hand, has worked out better for them.

2005-09-11T15:08:00.000-07:00

I haven't blogged much on Katrina, because I've always viewed natural disasters, however tragic, as something to be stoically endured and and cleaned up after (maybe it's my Scottish heritage). But the press coverage has been, frankly, so unreal that it's more interesting than the hurricane itself. Given the coverage thus far, it's hard to escape the conclusion that the press is rabidly obsessed with pinning the blame on Bush.

Here's an article that is virtually fact-free and totally unbalanced. From Reuters' Kieran Murray, we have a statement strongly implying Bush is to blame for a "bumbling" response, then comments from three Democrats on how Bush is "badly informed," the admin is using "spin" and Bush lacks "empathy." Count of relevant facts or opinions from Republicans: zero.

Here's some pertinent information that somehow escaped Murray's journalistic prowess:

Bush offered federal help, including troops and a federal takeover of the recovery effort, on the FRIDAY BEFORE the hurricane.

Blanco didn't accept that help until the WEDNESDAY AFTER, and even then refused to allow the feds to take over.

Meanwhile, the Ray Nagin Memorial Motor Pool sat idly by on Sat and Sun instead of being used to evacuate, as the emergency plan specifies. By Mon, they were flooded and 100,000 people were stranded.

Louisiana state officials (who report to Blanco) refused to allow the Red Cross and Salvation Army to bring supplies to thousands of people stranded in the Superdome, on the grounds allowing them in would encourage people to stay. (I suppose their logic went something like "Well, after the first few die of thirst or starvation, the rest will leave.")

These are major, major screwups that cost lives. The worst mistakes I've been able to assign to FEMA was that Brown padded his resume and failed to watch TV during the disaster, some FEMA officials didn't have disaster experience, someone got Charleston WV confused with Charleston NC, and at one point a phone wasn't working. None of these issues had any material impact. In fact, I can't find a single thing anyone at FEMA actually did wrong that contributed to the problems.

So where are all the journos asking why Blanco didn't "care" enough to feed refugees, or how Nagin could be so "bumbling" as to ignore his evacuation plan?

The silence is deafening.

(much more exhaustive coverage by Jeff at protein wisdom)

2005-09-09T14:20:00.000-07:00

Deja vu all over again:

In Talafar, air strikes were reportedly launched on a neighbourhood the Americans suspected of being under the control of insurgents. ... The US military drove the insurgents out of Talafar a year ago, only for them to return once the troops had withdrawn.

Maybe the problem is just that no one can figure out how the town's name is spelled. "Sir, we've routed the insurgents in Tall Afar, but some have escaped and regrouped in Talafar." "No problen, we'll cut them off at Tal Afar, before the second 'l'." Anyway, today we have 182,900 trained an equipped Iraqi soldiers, so we can do things like this:

The spokesman for the American forces in Iraq, Major General Rick Lynch, has pledged that this time a sufficient military presence will remain to prevent the same thing happening again.

Having an elected gov't can frame the issue differently, too:

"Iraqi security and coalition forces continue to eliminate terrorists and foreign fighters in Talafar and they will continue to pursue this endeavour to the end," Mr Jaafari said. "We are taking additional measures to ensure security and stability in Talafar and to restore its people's rights."

In case anyone's forgotten, there is a referendum on the constitution October 15th, and then parliamentary elections in December no matter which way the referendum goes. So: more Iraqi democracy, more Iraqi troops. Eventually, those trends will culminate in this:

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said Friday he believes that within two years, there'll be no further need for U.S. forces there.

Meanwhile, progressives spent the last year shrieking themselves hoarse that the imposition of sharia law in Iraq meant Iraq was a theocracy, but sharia has quietly been recommended for implementation in... Canada.

No, seriously.

So, tortoise-like, Canada sneaks in while no one was looking and wins the race to bcome a "failed theocratic state." I hear separatist tensions are simmering in Quebec, so who knows, maybe they'll have a civil war first too.

2005-09-06T11:14:00.000-07:00

The inimitable Lileks on how to bring gas prices down:

* Confiscate the Iraqi oilfields. As long as we’re going to be accused of
fighting a war for oil, might as well get some gas out of it. The Iraqi
government is subsidizing gas for its own people; odd how we don’t get the same
benefit. It’s almost as if we think forging a constitution and birthing a civil
society is more important than diverting Iraqi crude to American cars. As the
Simpsons’ Comic Book Guy would say: Worst. Imperialists. Ever.

2005-09-04T10:27:00.000-07:00

This is unbelieveable.

What the hell were they thinking??? Those buses could have saved hundreds, if not thousands of lives.

When this is all over, an investigation needs to be done, and whoever was responsible (Republican or Democrat, I don’t care) should be charged with criminal negligence. People died because of this incompetence.

2005-09-01T11:49:00.000-07:00

I've been chuckling a lot over the "Iraqi theocracy" meme lately. It occurs to me today that Reverend Al Sharpton and Reverend Jesse Jackson are more theocrats than Al-Sistani, the top cleric in Iraq. Those two both ran for the highest office in the land; Al-Sistani has not only eschewed politics, he's even demanded no political party campaign using his name.

Britain, meanwhile, continues to be ruled by unelected clerics in the House of Lords (I expect them to forge a close alliance with Iran any day now). Not only that, they still haven't even agreed on a constitution!

It is one of the few countries (and the most significant) that does not have a codified constitution.

Where is the outrage over this failed theocratic state? Is this what 500,000 of our troops died to defend in WW II?

2005-09-01T10:10:00.000-07:00

I haven't said much about Katrina or posted charities and the like, mostly because others have done such a great job with that. I've said some prayers and quietly donated, like most people are doing.

My only observation to add is that despite all the reports of poor planning and looting, I think America has done fairly well with this. In most countries, there would be massively greater problems of logistics just in terms of getting people enough food and water to keep them alive, and a lot more opportunistic crime.

The next few days, I think, will prove this out.

2005-08-31T11:11:00.000-07:00

Here's an excellent point from a WSJ editorial:

For all of Iraq's security problems, the present moment is one of remarkable promise. A constitution, written in a spirit of compromise rare in the Middle East, has now been adopted by a freely elected, multiethnic, multidenominational Muslim government. This government now intends to put the constitution to a vote and--what's more amazing--abide by the result.
Four years ago, such a scenario for Iraq would have seemed improbable, to say the least. That it should now be denounced as inadequate is perhaps the best measure of how much progress a free Iraq has made.

You have to balance complaints against the things people aren't complaining about to get the big picture.

2005-08-31T10:43:00.000-07:00

Is anyone surprised to learn Helen Thomas is a cut'n'run moonbat?

The funniest line in a hilariously counterfactual column:

Whether viewed as a "mistake" or a "noble cause," the fact is that Vietnam survived and thrived after we departed.

Yeah, except for y'know, the millions who didn't survive the aftermath of our cowardly abandonment of an ally. Also, her definition of "thrive" apparently extends to living in the impoverished totalitarian hell of a Communist dictatorship. I'll have to notify Webster's to update their next edition of the dictionary.

I always thought the debacle in Vietnam and its aftermath had taught us a lesson. But apparently not.

Yes, Helen there is a lesson to learn from Vietnam. The lesson is: the moonbats in our media often want America to lose wars, they will generally do everything in their power to make that happen, and occasionally they will succeed with terrible consequences for all involved.

2005-08-31T06:19:00.000-07:00

In responses to Dean Esmay's post mentioning my rehash of Fareed Zakaria's observations on GDP per capita and democracy as they relate to our efforts to democratize Iraq, Professor Emeritus of Political Science and 1996 Nobel Peace Prize finalist R.J. Rummel has posted a more thorough examination of the subject, with citations from the original study. Nice to hear from an authority on such matters (as opposed to my own semi-informed ramblings) .

Definitely worth reading. He also makes the interesting point that the historical data indicates economic growth in China, while liberalizing their economic situtation, is also likely to cement the dictatorship rather than lead to democracy. I found that surprising.

2005-08-30T17:28:00.000-07:00

Another Iraqi Army unit steps up.

MUQDADIYAH, IRAQ – In the fertile "bread basket" of central Iraq's Diyala valley, roadside-bomb attacks have nearly stopped.
This ethnically complex patchwork of towns, villages, fields, and orchards, which US commanders call a "little Iraq," has seen its share of insurgent activity since 2003. But nowadays, the local Sunni Arabs appear inclined to climb aboard the US-backed political process, rather than trying to derail it through violence.
The relative peace in the breadbasket is the result of a carefully managed transition from US to Iraqi security responsibility, US and Iraqi commanders say.
While roadside-bomb attacks in July were down more than 30 percent compared to the same month last year, the drop has been especially drastic in August. The local Iraqi Army unit, the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Brigade, officially took the lead in a roughly 1,158 square-mile battle space, containing nearly 300,000 residents, on July 31.
"We're responsible for actual security, and it is going well," says the unit's commander, Col. Theya Ismail al-Tamimi, a former intelligence officer under Saddam Hussein who has gained the Americans' respect by keeping constant pressure on the insurgents. "Attacks are a fraction of what they were," says Colonel Theya, as he is known to both his own troops and the Americans.
US troops recently closed down one of their forward operating bases near here, "since the area was so calm," Lt. Col. Roger Cloutier, a US battalion commander, says.
...
While the 2/2 evolved out of one of Iraq's earliest postinvasion army formations, its success can be replicated everywhere with time, the US commander says. "I can't speak outside my sandbox. But to different degrees, you have the same things happening all over Iraq."

2005-08-30T14:43:00.000-07:00

This is certainly interesting:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Heavy fighting broke out in western Iraq between pro and anti-government tribes Tuesday
...
The clashes between the pro-government Bumahl tribe and the pro-insurgent Karabila tribe began after 2 a.m. in the western city of Qaim near the Syrian border, said the officials

Sounds like some of the Sunnis are signing up with the U.S. Judging from the names, I have a feeling this has a lot to do with the other headlines we've been seeing:

U.S. warplanes launched strikes in western Iraq on Tuesday which the U.S. military said killed an al Qaeda militant named Abu Islam among other fighters, and which a hospital source said killed at least 47 people.
...
A U.S. spokeswoman said some of Abu Islam's associates then drove around six km (four miles) to a house in Karabila.

"Around 8:30 a.m., a strike was conducted on the house in Karabila using two precision-guided bombs. Several terrorists were killed in the strike but exact numbers are not known," the statement said.

This could mark a sea change in the Sunni insurgency, if more tribes follow the Bumahl lead.

2005-08-30T07:26:00.000-07:00

McQ at QandO notes some deficiencies in the Iraq coverage, but I think he's being far too kind to the media.

There is tons of good news about what we're accomplishing in Iraq; you can find it here and here and here and here -- but almost never here. It's not like the media are prevented from accessing any of those sources. I think it's self-evident the media is deliberately accentuating the negative in Iraq, just as deliberately as they misreported the Tet offensive. Why? Because, deep down, though they'd never admit it, most in the media would prefer that we lose.

Now, I’m not saying the media hates America or supports the terrorists or anything silly like that. Far from it. As in Vietnam, the press’ treachery is quite noble and well-intentioned. Most of them believe that losing in Iraq will teach America a lesson it badly needs to learn for its own good. From their perspective, Iraq (like Vietnam) was always an unjustified, "unwinnable" lost cause, so by helping us to admit defeat sooner they’re actually saving lives -- and besides, nothing short of a humiliating withdrawal will provide the necessary impetus to fix the horrible militaristic flaws they perceive in our foreign policy.

That's why you see the American casualty count being focused on to an extent that is almost comical. As far as the media is concerned, casualties are the news and any progress is a meaningless non-event since we're inevitably going to lose anyway; the only question from their perspective is how many lives will be wasted. Most wire stories on Iraq are written about American casualties, and all of these pointedly mention the number of American casualties to date. Economic progress and infrastructure improvement goes almost completely unreported. A tiny anti-war protest in Crawford draws an incredibly disproportionate media frenzy. It's all part of the pre-written narrative of defeat.

Fortunately, the liberal media monopoly on news has been broken, or we'd be in much more serious trouble. The MSM can still set the tone, but can't completely control the coverage anymore. Between news/opinion/analysis-aggregation bloggers like Drudge and Instapundit, military sites, milbloggers, independents like Michael Yon, and Fox News, news consumers have far more choices than they did in the 1970s. Which is a very good thing. Because as General Giap already understood and America learned, journalists don't just write the first draft of history: sometimes they make it, too.

UPDATE: Think I'm exaggerating? Think again:

Someday, as a fragmented Iraq spirals further into religious madness, terrorism and civil war, there will be a bipartisan inquiry into this blundering intrusion into another people's history.

UPDATE 2: I swear, I did not read this New Yorker piece until after I wrote the above. But the match... perfect! It's so uncanny it's almost scary.

Thirty-odd years ago, it didn’t require all that much perspicacity to see that the Vietnam War could not be won

2005-08-28T17:22:00.000-07:00

A question I hear a lot of people ask is "Can we really bring democracy to Iraq? What are the chances democracy can take root in an area and culture that has had so little experience with it?" How about some historical perspective on democratization, as it pertains to our goal of bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq?

Surprisingly, from that viewpoint, in the end almost everything we see happening— the violence, the constitution, the debate over sharia—is probably a sideshow. Based on history, there is one variable, lurking well behind the headlines, that is likely to matter the most in the question of whether Iraq ultimately becomes a free and democratic nation: GDP per capita growth.

Two political scientists, Adam Preworski and Fernando Limongi, looked at statistics for every country in the world for the last 60 years. In virtually every country in which democratization has succeeded — and we’re talking about countries like Spain, Greece, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Japan, S Korea, Taiwan — it has happened during a period where GDP per capita was between about $1,500 and $6,000. Those under $1,500 have lasted less than 8 years on average. In between $1,500 and $3,000, democracies last an average of 18 years. If their economies grow to $6,000 per capita GDP, they usually join the ranks of rich, free, democratic nations: historically, the chances of such a democracy failing is only 1 in 500. No free democracy has ever failed to stay free and democratic once it reached $9,000 GDP per capita; thirty-two democratic regimes have lasted around 800 combined years above that level. These numbers cut across many cultures and nations, and apply regardless of previous democratic experience.

GDP per capita in Iraq was $2,100 in 2004. This year, it may break $3,000 as economic growth was 50% in 2004 and may be close to that in 2005. A lot has been quietly done behind the scenes to help that growth continue, such as the creation of an independent central bank, tax cuts, lifting of restrictive tariffs, a relatively stable currency, setting up systems to protect property rights, etc. History suggests these will ultimately be decisive in the question of whether Iraqi democracy succeeds.

That’s not to say the democratic processes currently underway are meaningless or unimportant; far from it, as they’re laying the foundation for democracy in Iraq. This just suggests that the ultimate success or failure of that Iraqi democracy doesn’t rest on any constitutional phraseology, religious/secular divisions, or technicalities of gov’t structure, but rather on Iraq’s economic future.

(historical figures from the study; you can find them in The Future of Freedom by Fareed Zakaria, who also writes for Newsweek)

2005-08-26T18:02:00.000-07:00

Jeff notes a post from Lump on a Blog which makes a lot of good points regarding war coverage, which Jeff echoes in his own post.

I agree with Lumpy, but the chances of Iraq looking even remotely like a theocracy are practically zero. It's amazing to me that anyone takes it seriously. Even the Shia clerics don't want a theocracy. In fact, as far I can tell, no one in Iraq is even seriously suggesting rule by clerics.

The “Iraqi theocracy” meme seems to be the 2005 edition of the 2004 “elections will never happen” meme advanced by Chomsky and others.

I think I already know what the 2006 memes are going to be: “The troops will never come home” followed closely by “We’re cutting and running” when the troops do come home.

Then for the next 5 years the press will breathlessly report every little snag as evidence the whole mission was a failure, ignoring the free press and democracy and prosperity until suddenly we wake up one day and Iraq has become W Germany.

Hey, it wouldn’t be the first time.

“The troops returning home are worried. ‘We’ve lost the peace,’ men tell you. ‘We can’t make it stick.’ ... Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. ... Never has American prestige in Europe been lower.... Instead of coming in with a bold plan of relief and reconstruction we came in full of evasions and apologies.... A great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease. The taste of victory had gone sour in the mouth of every thoughtful American I met.”
-- Life Magazine, January 7, 1946

2005-08-26T09:29:00.000-07:00

While oil may be a bit scarce of late, the world's supply of irony appears to be in no danger of running low.

Let's take a moment and remember how Saddam treated protesters.

2005-08-25T15:46:00.000-07:00

Here's an incredible piece of reporting. Yon probably could use an editor, but it still makes all the MSM reporting look like a pile of puke.

The thing that really made me angry was the "catch-and-release" policy. Dammit, how are the warfighters supposed to prevail when the lawyers are sending the bad guys right back out there?? Gah!!

This is one more reason why it's so important the Iraqis get up to speed. They're not nearly so perfectionistic about due process. Not that due process is a bad thing, far from it, but come on already. We can't put known terrorists back on the streets of Mosul to kill our soldiers.

Some more good news on that front btw:

US general sees significant withdrawal in Iraq

The US is expected to pull significant numbers of troops out of Iraq in the next 12 months in spite of the continuing violence, according to the general responsible for near-term planning in the country.

Maj Gen Douglas Lute, director of operations at US Central Command, yesterday said the reductions were part of a push by Gen John Abizaid, commander of all US troops in the region, to put the burden of defending Iraq on Iraqi forces.

Note that our wonderful press immediately tries to cast it as a retreat driven by political pressure. Sigh.

2005-08-25T07:25:00.000-07:00

John Hinderaker's essay on casualties is simply astounding, especially this piece of badly-needed perspective:

...between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.

Twice as high as high as in Iraq. Now, I'm a news junkie, and I was amazed to hear that. I would wager not 1 in 100 people know that fact.

2005-08-24T19:32:00.000-07:00

Too funny not to link: Another classic from IowaHawk. (h/t Insty)

2005-08-24T18:46:00.000-07:00

Saw a report on the news today that Alhurra, the U.S.-sponsored Arabic news channel, is gaining significant audience share and rating higher in credibility. The story also noted Radio Sawa, a sister venture, is gaining popularity as well. This appears to be the source of the news story:

Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa are now reaching a total unduplicated audience of 35 million adults (15 and over) per week according to the latest ACNielsen survey released today. This represents the fourth consecutive audience increase since the inception of the ACNielsen surveys of the stations. The latest survey also shows that in spite of high levels of anti-American sentiment throughout the region, both Alhurra and Radio Sawa are regarded as credible sources of news and information by their audiences.
According to ACNielsen, Alhurra the satellite television station reaching 22 countries in the Middle East has an adult audience of 21.3 million each week in just the nine countries surveyed. ACNielsen also reported that Radio Sawa, the Arabic-language radio network broadcasting music and news, has a weekly audience of 20.8 million adults.
The survey reported that news on Alhurra and Radio Sawa was a powerful programming factor for their audiences. Seventy-seven percent of the Alhurra audience said they were interested in watching Alhurra for the news. Radio Sawa listeners in the broadcaster's key markets ranked the station as one of their top two choices for radio news and information.
Alhurra and Radio Sawa also scored well in news reliability. The ACNielsen survey reported that 77 percent of Alhurra's viewers and 73 percent of Radio Sawa's listeners consider the news reliable. Compared to the ACNielsen surveys a year ago, news credibility for Alhurra took major jumps in three key markets: in Egypt 70 percent to 92 percent, in Jordan from 46 percent to 68 percent, and in Lebanon from 53 percent to 79 percent.

Al Franken, eat your heart out.

The fact Arabs are finding the network more and more credible after a lot of initial skepticism suggests Alhurra is living up to their vow to be truthful and objective. That must be quite a novelty in that corner of the world.

This, too, seems to suggest the trend has been going on for a while now.

Like Voice of America, these are the little things that win Cold Wars. And make no mistake, we're in another Cold War now, with Iran and Syria and even nominal allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Jordan. It's the same old quiet struggle of liberty vs. tyranny against a backdrop of occasional outright war.

Every human being has a fundamental right to freedom and democracy. And, hopefully, the truth shall set them free.

2005-08-24T07:00:00.000-07:00

Here are some constitutional thoughts that you might find interesting:

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats.

Whence these apropos observations? Ben Franklin, regarding our own Constitution. (h/t Instapundit)

2005-08-23T15:35:00.000-07:00

Breaking news from the world of science: although we're not entirely certain, pregnancy is apparently caused by movies, TV, videogames, lazy parents and lax discipline.

School officials are not sure what has caused so many pregnancies...The article reported that some would say that movies, TV, videogames, lazy parents and lax discipline may all be to blame.

And all this time I thought it was well-established that pregnancy is caused by sex. Boy, my high school health teacher has a lot to answer for, misleading us like that.

And I'm keeping my girlfriend away from the TV.

2005-08-23T10:38:00.000-07:00

There's been a lot of caterwauling this week about Islam being "~~the~~ a source of law" in Iraq's constitution, generally done alongside the claim Iraq could become another Iran, but I think way too much is being made of this issue.

The problem with Iran is not sharia. The problem is that Iran does not respect the democratic process. The sharia laws as practiced in Iran are extremely unpopular with Iranians, but since the clerics can veto not only the legislature but even who is allowed to run for office, the will of the people is ignored. That cannot happen under Iraq's constitution. As long as the democratic process is respected, Iraq should be OK. Any laws that are too restrictive will be voted out. That's the fundamental reason democracy works.

We already know that the vast majority of Iraqis want democracy, want a unified Iraq, and want secularism mixed with traditional Islamic values. There have been numerous polls to that effect. The Iraqis can see how theocracy has failed as clearly as we can, indeed more so living right next door to it as they do. The Iraqi religious leadership itself says clerics should not run the gov't.

As for the constitution itself, I’ve thought for a while now the best outcome would be the dissolution of the parliament and new elections. This would have several benefits including increased Sunni participation, greater legitimacy and reduced pressure for Islamic law.

Unfortunately, it’s always been the least likely outcome. Politicians never want to give up power.

Of course, if they really wanted to compromise, they could just leave the contentious issues out of the constitution and kick them down the road to the next elected legislature. They don’t want to do that precisely because the people presently in power realize their influence will wane after the next elections.

I wouldn’t particularly mind seeing the the new constitution defeated in the referendum either. It’s a low standard, though. To be defeated, 2/3 of the people in 3 provinces must vote against it, and that's how many provinces the Sunnis control. It doesn’t take much to get 34% of people in one out of three provinces to vote for something.

I think it will probably pass, and that while some Sunnis won't like it in the end that won't matter much as long they get representation in the following elections. People tend to forget we rammed a Constitution right down the Japanese’s throats, literally at the barrel of a gun. At least Iraqis have some input into theirs. And there are amendment periods specified for a couple years from now.

If the referendum is in fact defeated, I’m sure we’ll hear lots of hysterical rhetoric about how democracy in Iraq has failed, but of the course the reality will be that the democratic process has succeeded in doing what it was supposed to: reflecting the will of the people and requiring compromises. And then there will be new elections, with the aforementioned attendant benefits. As long as participation in that process continues, democracy is succeeding. When the major parties start using guns and bombs instead of ballots and words, that’s when democracy has failed.

UPDATE: Bill Roggio has similar thoughts, notes that apparently Islam will only be "a" source of law. Pejman Yousefzadeh also notes this change, and makes the point that supplemental legislation will be important. (h/t Instapundit) Jeff Goldstein has some interesting analysis as well.

UPDATE 2: Norm Geras has analysis from Brendan O'Leary. The level of detail is impressive.

2005-08-23T07:50:00.000-07:00

Here's a great blog by a moderate Saudi Muslim living in Britain:

Welcome to Sunny Saudi Arabia
Our Government suddenly seems to have taken fright that the oil may soon run out, and have seized upon foreign tourism as a source of revenue.

RP: And what about couples who aren't married, or gay couples?

M: Well as you know, we behead homosexuals, and stone adulterous or loose women to death, so it's probably best if we don't let them in in the first place, otherwise there'll be no end of paperwork.

Great stuff.

2005-08-22T11:40:00.000-07:00

You swollen-headed warmonger, your ridiculous clamour for "human rights" is nothing but a shrill cry!

2005-08-21T20:13:00.000-07:00

Freedom and transparency versus terror and crime.

All the pieces are in place for Iraq to continue to improve at the phenomenal rate it does now.

Think of last year. Remember the siege of Fallujah? The police stations overrun in Mosul? Nothing remotely like that has happened this year. This year was elections and political wrangling and constitution writing and (later) more elections.

2005-08-21T16:18:00.000-07:00

Omar at ITM notes a bit of a change from a year ago:

From Al-Sabah:

The residents of Fallujah are asking the authorities to increase the number of voters' registration offices in the city as the existing ones are not enough to finish the registration process of all eligible voters before the day of the referendum planned for October 15….

Well, the way things change in Iraq can be really surprising sometimes; just try to compare between Fallujah 12 months ago and today's Fallujah!

Things really are getting better.

2005-08-21T12:45:00.000-07:00

This kind of rhetoric is both untrue and unhelpful, no matter which side of the aisle it comes from.

Meanwhile, it looks increasingly like the Constitution may not be agreed upon by Monday, which will probably result in another deadline extension but could mean dissolution of the gov't and new elections. As others have pointed out, this might be a good thing. It looks like this time there would be full Sunni participation, which would give the next legislature (and the resultant next constitution) more legitimacy. There's also the fact secular Iraqis don't like what they're hearing from SCIRI, and may gravitate toward Allawi. Interestingly, Al-Sistani, whom we haven't heard much from lately, has quietly continued pushing against the idea of theocracy.

Above all, we should be happy that fractious democratic politics, not civil war, is what seems to be breaking out in Iraq.

2005-08-20T10:35:00.000-07:00

More good news from Iraq. Here's an interesting LAT story that highlights one reason why democracy works so well: it tends to encourage participation.

Next Time, Sunnis Intend to Be Heard
Many regret boycotting the parliamentary election in Iraq. They say they won't repeat the mistake when it comes to a new constitution.
BAGHDAD — Suhail Najim spent Iraq's last election day holed up at home, watching television and joining other Sunni Arabs who boycotted the polls to protest the presence of U.S. troops in his country.
Today the former tourism official is so eager to vote that he has visited three registration sites to ensure that his name is on the rolls for the planned October referendum on a new constitution.
The January boycott, now widely viewed as a political blunder, left Sunnis underrepresented in the National Assembly and with a limited role on the committee charged with crafting a new constitution. Instead, both bodies have been dominated by Shiites and Kurds.
Determined to regain some of their clout, leading Sunni clerics who once called elections under occupation a farce and condemned voting as an act against Islam, are using the same mosque pulpits to urge followers to register.

The media focus on all the scrapping over the Constitution tends to obscure the rather amazing fact that they're talking about a Constitution. That alone is a huge departure from the "whoever has the most guns rules" politics of the last three decades.

Even if they fail to produce a Constitution by Monday, it's far from the end of the world or the failure of the democratic process. It just means new elections, and a new chance to reach consensus. As long as the debate is happening with words rather than guns, the cause of freedom and democracy is advanced. As Thomas Jefferson noted during our own decade-long attempt to create a Constitution: "An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry."

2005-08-20T10:18:00.000-07:00

Read an interesting Glenn Reynolds column today regarding efforts to "re-wild" the environment:

But then "fluffy bunny" syndrome extended itself to become "fluffy mountain lion syndrome." ...In the end, of course, people started to be eaten... This is, as Baron notes, something of a parable -- and not merely a parable of man and "nature." One need only look at the treatment of such other topics as crime, terrorism, and warfare to see examples of the same sort of misplaced sentimentality and willful ignorance. Tolerance of criminality leads to more crime; tolerance of terrorism leads to more terrorism; efforts to appear defenseless lead to war.

I think Glenn hits on the fundamental philosophical debate at the heart of the right-left dichotomy in world politics today. The Left tends to think we can create a predator-less world through social engineering and negotiation, via the government. The Right tends to believe the world cannot be changed, that there will always be predators, and that they must be dealt with, either directly or by being strong enough to deter them.

As is often the case, the truth probably falls somewhere in between.

The Cold War is an interesting example. The Left was too predisposed to treat the Soviet Union as a non-predator, and to believe unilateral disarmament would coax them toward peace; the Right correctly discerned this not to be the case, but underestimated the possibility of change, and were very surrised when the Soviet Union collapsed, reformed, and became the relatively democratic and benign entity it is today. If you'd told a 1980s Cold Warrior the world would look the way it does today, he'd probably laugh at you in disbelief.

2005-08-18T21:49:00.000-07:00

It has begun.

The potential here to transform our lives is gigantic. The amount of information encoded in three-dimensional protein folding is truly enormous (several distributed computer projects have been built to deal with this problem), meaning the possiblilities for biological innovation are equally enormous.

Evolution is billions of blind drunks stumbling around a room full of power tools for billions of years, almost always bumping into sharp, deadly things and killing themselves but occasionally finding something useful. Now Mankind has entered the room and begin setting up lights and labelling the tools.

I’m really looking forward to the day when they can grow and implant “accessory organs.” You know, something to keep me thin and healthy and attractive no matter how much I eat or how little I exercise, a backup for my heart, lungs, liver, etc., an organic Weblink so I can access Instapundit and Wikipedia directly from my brain (the combination of the two is often useful) without all this tedious typing and clicking, maybe some antioxidant organelles to prolong my life a few decades…

And the best part is, the coolest stuff probably hasn’t even been thought of yet.

UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers! Thanks for stopping by.

The thing I've always found attractive about bioengineering versus other transformative technologies like nanotech is that much of the work is already done for us; understanding how to bioengineer things we want is mostly a data processing/modelling problem, and the growth of those capabilities has been governed by Moore's law. While nanotech still has immense materials science and engineering problems to overcome, the evolution of life on Earth has provided billions of examples of tiny biological factories that (obviously) already work in real life. Once we can model protein folding, it could be possible to design an entire organism virtually, then code the instructions into a single cell which would build itself into what you wanted, exactly like what happens with a fertilized human egg. No exotic materials required, just the same stuff we're made of.

2005-08-18T18:56:00.000-07:00

John Cole notes another conviction of an abusive soldier.

John thinks this has to be indicative of something sinister at higher levels, perhaps even as high as the civilians in the Bush admin. I can understand his suspicion, but I tend to disagree on the grounds this kind of thing has been proven to be human nature.

The experiment very quickly got out of hand. Prisoners suffered — and accepted — sadistic and humiliating treatment at the hands of the guards, and by the end many showed severe emotional disturbance.
...
Prisoner “counts”, which had initially been devised to help prisoners get acquainted with their identity numbers, devolved into hours-long ordeals, in which guards tormented the prisoners and imposed physical punishments including long bouts of forced exercise.

And that wasn’t even a real prison.

Of course, the perpetrators need to be punished, and if anyone can provide a scrap of evidence that this was ordered or condoned by anyone higher-up, those people should be punished too.

One of the great ironies of the whole Gitmo debate: even as we’re accused of violating people’s rights, we are releasing terrorists, some of whom have been killed or captured fighting us again in Afghanistan.

We can’t lock people up just because we think they’re terrorists—nor should we. If they take a vow to not fight us again, some are being released.

It’s not a perfect system. It’s not a perfect world, either. We’re doing the best we can.

Transparency and accountability. That’s all we can ask.

2005-08-17T17:26:00.000-07:00

Well, I can't blame these people for wanting to escape their mismanaged economic hell, but still: Good Lord.

2005-08-17T14:47:00.000-07:00

Why, why, why are leftists so determined to ensure I never vote for another Democrat?

Lileks:

The hard left in America needs to realize a bald, cruel fact: Anyone who sees no
moral distinction between Israel and the mullahs of Iran, or sees the U.S.
attempt to set up a constitutional republic in Iraq as equivalent to the Syrian
occupation of Lebanon, suffers from incurable moral cretinism. The more the
fervent anti-war base embraces these ideas, the more they ensure that no one
will trust the left with national security. Ever.

When the left embraces people like Cindy Sheehan, it makes it very hard to be a centrist.

(h/t Glenn)

2005-08-16T13:46:00.000-07:00

There goes Zarqawi, winning hearts and minds again.

Earlier I noted the absence of pro-American propaganda. With enemies this crazy, maybe we don't need any.

2005-08-16T11:09:00.000-07:00

Jeff notes Sin City is out today. This is one of the few DVD releases in the recent past that I've actually been anticipating with some interest.

I found the movie terribly disturbing, vivdly entertaining, and immensely appealing in the theater, as well as being very interesting just for what it is. This is another example of the kind of incredible movies Hollywood can produce these days, thanks to huge budgets, innovative technologies, and societal liberties: all the things that make America the greatest country in the world.

Of course, I'm a sucker for entertainment built around comic books or comic-like plots, with powerful, engaging villains and anti-hero heroes. That's probably why I'm such a big fan of Glen Cook novels.

2005-08-15T20:19:00.000-07:00

There’s a lot of carping that the admin is now lowering expectations, but I think it's really the expectations of critics that have been raised. Imagine if you had told someone in Jan 2003 the following:

"By August 2005, not only will the regime have been removed from power and its leaders be on trial, but Iraq will have held successful elections and be on the verge of approving a new constitution. Fewer than 2,000 American soldiers will have been killed by hostile fire, and resistance will be light, scattered and very unpopular among Iraqis."

You'd have been called delusionally optimistic. Now that situation is cause for despair. Of course, it doesn’t help we have certain Americans producing the same kind of anti-American propaganda the Tojo regime and the Nazis used to produce to demoralize Americans. And of course the institutions that produced the pro-American World War II propaganda (you know, the cute patriotic little toons of Mickey Mouse beating up Hitler, etc) were a terrible danger to our freedom (those warmongering fascist bastard cartoonists) and are now very defunct, because we’re much too enlightened for that kind of jingoism these days.

The good news for Iraqis is that Bush will be in office for 3 more years, and he’s not going to give an inch even if his approval rating drops to single digits. By then the Iraqis should have the situation pretty well under control, or at least as under control as it’s ever going to get.

The Iraqis have some strategic advantages we don’t, beyond rapport with the locals and speaking the language, such as the fact they’re not nearly as squeamish about dealing with insurgents as we are. For instance, our guys have to charge or release people within 3 days. The Iraqis are under no such obligation – and the insurgents know it, as they’re reportedly begging to be taken by American forces when they have the choice between us and Iraqis (I guess they haven’t heard Ted Kennedy’s speech about Saddam’s torture chambers re-opening under U.S. management). And with so many Iraqis being killed by insurgents, it’s hard to fault them for being less than completely gentle captors to their tormentors; this is one situation where the perfect is the enemy of the good. (Anyone here watch NYPD Blue? Sipowitz would know what I mean).

At this point, it’s unlikely we can “lose” in the sense of the elected gov’t being overthrown by Baathists or Zarqawi’s loons. People forget the insurgency, while extremely vicious and quite capable of grabbing headlines, is actually very weak militarily. They aren't remotely a match heads-up even for the 170,000 half-assed troops now being fielded by the democratic Iraqi gov’t. Setting off roadside bombs and running away from every fight is not exactly a show of strength in the contest over who rules Iraq. The insurgents can't take or hold an inch of ground; Fallujah was the last place they even tried. And the democratic gov’t gets stronger every day. In two years, the Iraqi troops will number 250,000+ and be much better trained and equipped. The gov't also has $2.5 billion a month in oil income on its side. The insurgency has only what the Baathists have stashed and Al Qaeda can raise, and munitions in Iraq are getting more expensive, as are the not-very-committed mercenary thugs that carry out most of the attacks.

The problem is not that administration goals are being downgraded, it’s that people outside the administration are now setting a totally unrealistic goal of a violence-free Iraq as a condition for declaring victory. Ain't gonna happen, at least not anytime soon. Free and democratic, yes, maybe; as peaceful as Vermont, no. The essential condition of victory, control of the country, was mostly achieved in the first three weeks of the war, finalized after Fallujah, and cemented firmly into place by the standing up of the Iraqi forces, who are now good enough to stand their ground: they have not lost a single police station or checkpoint to insurgents ~~in over a year~~ this year. The promised democracy is well underway. So what are we missing that our troops need to be there? Not a lot but training, an implied threat of overwhelming force against anyone in the military ambitious enough to mount a coup, the building of democratic institutions to make that last part unnecessary, and the time needed to do all those things. And those are generational commitments.

Looking back at our successful transitions of fascist states to free democracies, it’s easy to spot a trend regarding troop deployments. So, when are our troops coming home from those 60-year German and Japanese quagmires, anyway? How about that 50-year Korean quagmire?

2005-08-14T20:22:00.000-07:00

I think Cindy Sheehan presents a real problem for the Democratic Party. Sheehan is a sympathetic figure, but she’s also a bit too far outside the mainstream to garner wide support. Sheehan’s position is: We invaded Iraqi for oil, we should throw Iraqi democracy to the wolves and bring the troops home now, screw Israel, and oh, btw, she’s not paying her 2004 taxes. Are these position Democrats agree with?

What should have been an embarassment for Republicans has instead become a lefty freak show. Atrios and Daily Kos and the whole lefty ‘sphere are dragging their party into the ground by exposing how nutty their base really is, and the media is proudly displaying them in all their glory, most left-wing enough themselves to be oblivious to the irony.

What does Joe Lieberman think when Cindy says “My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel?” What do Jewish voters think?

Is Cindy Sheehan the new voice of the Democratic Party? They’d better hope not.

2005-08-14T07:50:00.000-07:00

This sort of puts Abu Ghraib into perspective:

Judge: Frat Could Face Torture Charges

"U.S. soldiers were charged with torturing Iraqi prisoners for doing far less than what happened in that basement," Glusman said.

Remember, pledges volunteered for this kind of treatment.

To be clear, I'm not arguing the abuses at Abu Ghraib should not be punished. They should be. But they were nothing like this.

The fact that the "torture" at Abu Ghraib doesn't even rise to the level of fraternity initiation hazing should give pause those hysterically claiming Saddam's torture chambers were merely re-opened under U.S. management. And that's besides the fact torture was official and encouraged under Saddam, while the U.S. abuses were carried by a few rogue elements who were punished.

2005-08-11T18:30:00.000-07:00

More gratuitous kitten pics. Brothers are apparently either very dirty or delicious, or both, as they spend at least half an hour every day cleaning each other. They also spend about the same amount of time fighting. Go figure.

And here's another somewhat rare feline trait: fetching. Smokey loves chasing these little mice so much, he'll run downstairs and carry them back to you to throw again. Pip will do the same with little sticks or twist ties. Of course, being cats and not dogs, if you ignore either of them when they want to fetch they'll attack your feet rather than waiting with patient adoration. You gotta respect that.

2005-08-11T16:17:00.000-07:00

James Wolcott penned (keyboarded?) a very insightful column the other day. So insightful, in fact, that I took the liberty of applying his arguments to his own stance on the war in Iraq. The results, surprisingly, were sentiments that made much more sense and were far less hyperbolic than his own.

The fact is that by subscribing to Bush's War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq with every corpuscle of your tired body you've made common cause with Republican conservatives, neoconservatives, and Christian fundamentalists who are dedicated to destroying those parcels of liberalism on which you stake your tiny claims of pride. When you align yourself with the likes of Hugh Hewitt, author of that polemical gem of understatement If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It, or Michael Ledeen, you've allied yourselves to political gangsters dedicated to waging permanent war abroad and cultural war here.

The fact is that by opposing Bush's War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq with every corpuscle of your tired body you have made common cause with Ba'athists, bin Laden, Zarqawi, and Taliban fundamentalists who are truly dedicated to destroying those parcels of liberalism on which you stake your tiny claims of pride. When you align yourself with the likes of Saddam Hussein, author of perhaps 2 million murders, or Mullah Omar, you’ve allied yourself to real political gangsters dedicated to waging permanent war abroad and terrorist war here.

2005-08-10T10:22:00.000-07:00

The plain fact is that the mainstream media have been too busy depicting our troops as victims to have much time left to tell about the heroic things they have done, the far greater casualties which they have inflicted on their enemies, or their attempts to restore some basic services and basic decencies to this country that has been torn apart for years by internal and external wars -- even before the first American troops arrived on the scene.

You don't say. But this is the part that really makes me angry:

That fact has now been belatedly recognized in a New York Times opinion piece, but with a strange twist.
After briefly mentioning a few acts of bravery in Iraq -- including a Marine who smothered an enemy grenade with his own body, saving the lives of his fellow Marines at the cost of his own -- the Times' writer said, "the military, the White House and the culture at large have not publicized their actions with the zeal that was lavished on the heroes of World War I and World War II."
Think about that spin: The reason we don't hear about such things is because of the Pentagon, Bush and "the culture at large."

Gah!!

2005-08-09T18:15:00.000-07:00

We the good ones must have our say soon.

And indeed they must.

2005-08-09T18:01:00.000-07:00

In related news, the Nuremberg verdicts were overturned due to "too much anti-Hitler and anti-Nazi bias."

UPDATE: Negative portrayals of Hitler in media draw criticism, are removed.

2005-08-09T17:46:00.000-07:00

Just when it was looking like I was dead wrong.... I get proven right. And then some.

CNN has reviewed and agreed to run a controversial ad produced by a pro-abortion group’s that falsely accuses Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers supporting a convicted abortion clinic bomber, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The news network has agreed to a $125,000 ad buy from NARAL for a commercial which depicts a bombed out 1998 Birmingham, AL abortion clinic. The Birmingham clinic was bombed seven years after Roberts signed the legal briefing the ad question!
However, the non-partisan University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Factcheck.org reviewed the NARAL ad and found it to be “false.” Factcheck.org found "in words and images, the ad conveys the idea that Roberts took a legal position excusing bombing of abortion clinics, which is false."

Boo-yah! Score one for disgusting hyperpartisan smear campaigns! In your face, decency and honest debate of the issues!

The ancient Roman gladiators' arena's got nuthin' on the brutality of our Senate confirmation process.

Sigh. I was really hoping I was wrong.

2005-08-08T17:37:00.000-07:00

I've been a big fan of Scrappleface since I first ran across it in my first foray into the 'sphere during Rathergate (prior to that, I'd heard of but never read a "weblog"). Posts like this are why.

The great thing about Scott Ott and other brilliant conservative satirists like David Burge of IowaHawk is their ability to totally reframe an issue by juxtaposing unlike arguments in a way that's quite surprising, yet oddly appropriate.

2005-08-08T17:26:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure this really advances the debate.

2005-08-08T16:55:00.000-07:00

A brief note to Cindy Sheehan:

Please remember, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi mothers are still pulling their children out of mass graves because of Saddam Hussein. And these people have (or in some cases, had) mothers too.

Your son died in a noble cause. We honor his sacrifice best by fulfilling his mission and ensuring he did not die in vain.

2005-08-07T14:53:00.000-07:00

What's this?

The media is reporting good news from Iraq? Isn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse?

Be afraid, people. Be very afraid.

2005-08-06T15:55:00.000-07:00

Scott Kirwin over at Dean’s world decries outsourcing, and I am forced to (mostly) disagree.

I think the world needs free trade agreements, which includes free labor markets. It’s the only way poor countries will ever grow their economies. One of the ironies of the globalization debate is that a lot of the same people who oppose outsourcing are the very ones who think we should give more global aid. In other words, we'll give you enough of our money that you don't starve, but keep your grimy Third World hands off the jobs that might provide sustainable economic development and free you from dependence on aid.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is the victim of unfair trade practices in virtually every trade relationship we have. We carry a lot of the trade "free riders" in Japan, Europe, and China that continue to restrict the ability of their consumers to import goods through currency devaluation and barriers to entry. On the other hand, our consumers benefit handsomely from the arrangement: not only is inflation practically nonexistent, you can now buy a pretty decent new car for around $7,000 - $10,000, which wasn’t possible a couple decades ago. Europeans and others like to decry the crass "consumer culture" of the United States, but the fact is that other developed countries in general simply cannot afford to live the way we do -- and a big part of the reason is their trade practices. Plus, the influx of imports makes our businesses the most competitive in the world.

Some economists argue the resulting trade deficits have a negative impact, but we haven't seen much evidence of that, at least not yet. Interest rates remain near historic lows, and GDP growth is one of the strongest of the developed countries.

Something else that often gets overlooked is that a large part of our prosperity can be traced back to the interstate commerce clause. We live in the largest real free trade zone in the world – the United States of America.

2005-08-04T19:53:00.000-07:00

While most of the recent headlines understandably dwell on the violence in Iraq that has tragically claimed the lives of so many Marines the past few days, progress is still ongoing. The liberal Brookings Institute’s Iraq Index reports that electricity production (rated as Iraqis’ highest concern, higher even than security) is now significantly higher than prewar and close to the all-time postwar high reached last August, another 4,000 Iraqis have joined the real freedom fighters in Iraq to defend their nascent democracy, and some interesting details are leaking out now about the structure of the new democratic Iraqi government.

The committee has also settled on a government with three branches: legislative, judicial and executive.

Sounds familiar. I know I’ve heard that before somewhere…

The legislature, according to the three delegates, will be parliamentary and will consist of two chambers, a National Assembly and a Council of Provinces and Regions, both of which will be directly elected. Thamir al-Ghadban, a former oil minister and a committee member, said that the National Assembly would probably be elected in a regional system of balloting rather than a nationwide vote, and that the membership of the Council of Provinces and Regions would be proportional to the provincial populations.

I know a lot of people thought Iraq would be better off under party-slate elections, which I believe is what Germany has, and that’s how the current Iraqi legislature was elected under the interim constitution. Under that system, voting for the legislative bodies is done nationally and seats are allocated by percentage of votes received. The advantage is that voting, at least in theory, then becomes more about ideas than geography and ethnicity. On the other hand, direct election makes the people feel like they have “their representative” and tends to help rein in corruption through local accountability, which tends to be more demanding than intraparty accountability because you vote for the person not the party. In modern America we’re fortunate enough to have evolved a system that gives us the best of both worlds: we have what sometimes nearly amounts to national party-slate elections, because there are only two parties with real power, they have general intraparty agreement on how they lean on the major issues, and for the most part they aren’t region-based, but we also have direct elections and the accountability that goes with them. This wasn't always so, of course; in the old days politics was much more geographic, and winning the Presidency meant fashioning inter-regional alliances.

Which brings me to the executive branch:

The presidency will be essentially ceremonial, Mr. Ghadban said.

Obviously Iraq has had some issues with a heavy-handed executive branch, to put it mildly. But as they say, you need to fight the next battle, not the one before. A Presidency with at least some authority might have helped form inter-regional policy alliances, much the way we see Senators Kerry and Clinton "moving toward the center" in our own elections. The worry is that the directly elected legislature will become a breeding ground for regional/ethnic factionalism, with no real check from the executive branch. But I expect Iraq will muddle through as long as those in power remain committed to the democratic process.

Some other details:

Under the current draft, there will be a "higher council of the judiciary," with the duty to select judges, and a national court to resolve disputes between the central government and regional authorities.

This is interesting. Look for this to become a political hot potato over the next several years. In America’s earlier years, the judiciary, fearful of civil war, often bent over backwards to compromise between regional factions, leading to things like the Dred Scott decision and the Missouri Compromise. One wonders how the Kurds, with their militias, will react to being overruled. On the other hand, I don’t think anyone really wants civil war, so I think it’s likely it won’t ever come to use of force.

In addition, the constitutional committee has agreed to create several independent governmental institutions, including a central bank and religious endowments authorized to maintain the country's religious centers.

Central bank: good; central funding of religious centers: maybe not so good. But as long they aren’t creating an maintaining an official state religious institution (with all the nightmare possibilities that evokes), it’s probably not that big a deal for Iraq in the long run.

But what I think is maybe the most important thing is something not mentioned in the article: there are constitutionally provided “amendment periods,” I believe at two and four years. As Glenn points out often, democracy is a process, not an event. Iraqis may elect some, shall we say, regrettable officeholders their first few times at bat (expect a lot of negative Western media coverage from the likes of the NYT if/when it happens, which is probably a good thing in many ways). But the great saving grace of democracy is that it’s an iterative process: every election is a chance to refine the ideals of the nation. It took America 100 years and a Civil War to free blacks, and longer to give women the vote and treat minorities as equals. But we got it right in the end – and so will the Iraqis.

UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers! Thanks for stopping by.

2005-08-04T06:19:00.000-07:00

Jeff takes on a public service role in warning us about Michelle Malkin's new book: Exposing Liberals. He makes a good point; how much liberal do we really want to see exposed, anyway?

Can the “Liberals Gone Wild!” video be far behind?

These liberally soused girls know how to have fun! Get ready* for Madeline "All-Night" Albright and Hillary "Let me HillaryCare for you, baby" Clinton flashing the goodies, undulating in some “progressive movements,” and engaging in a little “Democratic caucus” of their own!

*By which I mean have your retinas surgically removed.

2005-08-04T05:54:00.000-07:00

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - More than two years of war, occupation and insurgency have
turned Iraq into possibly the most psychologically damaged nation in the world, one of the country's top psychiatrists said on Thursday

Gah.

Yeah, those 30 years under Saddam, with the 1.1 million killed in the Iraq-Iran war, the invasion of Kuwait and subsequent Gulf War, the hundreds of thousands stuffed into mass graves in the Shia uprising, the gassing of Halabja, the secret police who maimed and killed anyone who criticized Saddam's rule, the rape rooms, the suppression of all independent newsmedia... all that was paradise. It had no psychological effect and isn't even worth mentioning in the article.

Let's take a closer look at the good doctor:

Dr Harith Hassan, the former head of Baghdad's Psychological Research Center

Anyone want to give odds as to whether Saddam's totalitarian thugs had a hand in selecting the head of that center?

"Iraq is one of the most stressed, oppressed countries in the world -- you can see the suffering every day, every hour, even every minute," Hassan told Reuters in an interview

Not was oppressed under Saddam (you know, back when there were zero free newspapers, zero free radio stations, zero free TV stations, zero free speech rights, zero access to cell phones, and owning a satellite dish or an Internet connection was a crime punishable by death), but is oppressed, under the elected government and the interim constitution that guarantees the rights of Iraqis and has led to all kinds of new freedoms.

2005-08-02T11:31:00.000-07:00

Just tuned into AA; sounds like they're finally discussing the big scandal:

Franken: "This Gloria Wise business has Karl Rove written all over it. Those lying liars are doing that thing where they lie again. When will they stop telling these lies? [unintelligible]Randi, what do you think?"

Rhodes: "I don't know, but just wait till those poor kids hear what Bush has done to them! BANG!!"

2005-08-01T20:35:00.000-07:00

Too cool not to link: Glenn has SpaceShipOne pics!

Turns out it has a final flight tomorrow morning, before retiring to the Smithsonian.

Sweeeeeet.

The lack of media coverage is odd, though.