Friday Linkzookery – 29 Sep 2006

Israel Navy eyeing new US warship
The Israeli navy is considering some Littoral Combat Ships for its fleet.

Israeli Speed Boats
Meanwhile, they’re also getting more Super Dvora Mk III patrol boats. I wonder if these babies might not have a place in the US Navy, as well.

Dragon Skin: Proven Tough?
The Dragon Skin opera continues.

AFA to reopen south gate to public for first time since 9/11
I didn’t realize that the gate was closed to visitors. I used to drive to work (Civil Service) through that gate every day.

Few embeds in Iraq not all media’s fault
Donald Sensing notes that the fact that only 9 reporters are embedded with Coalition forces in Iraq isn’t only the fault of the media. Just mostly.

Taliban Office in North Waziristan Open for Business
Doesn’t that just make you feel all warm and cozy inside?

Carnival of Homeschooling: Autumn Edition
This week at Palm Tree Pundit. Lots of links.

Anbar Tribes vs. al-Qaeda
The agreement with 25 major tribes in western Iraq seems to be off to a decent start.

Dean Esmay rejects Michelle Malkin’s dismissal of Islam
So does Frank Warner. (For the record once again, I don’t know that Malkin is really saying what some say she’s saying. I’m just saying.)

Mel Gibson criticizes Iraq war at film fest
“What’s human sacrifice if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?” he asks, comparing the US to the collapsed Mayan civilization. Let’s hope he was drunk again.

Harry Potter and the Wavering Costar
Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) is apparently not sure she’ll act in films 6 and 7.

Milestones leading to new life for an old lady
C-5 aircraft tests to help determine whether fleet upgrade is feasible, money well-spent. Great article.

Destruction of Firefly planes angers some
Two weeks ago, Linkzookery noted that the T-3A Firefly trainer fleet was scheduled for destruction. It’s all over but the shoutin’.

Scientists unveil high-definition images of huge airship sunk in 1935

Boeing 747 Large Cargo Freighter Arrives in Seattle
What a monster. These planes will be used to ferry 787 wings and composite sections between manufacturing locations.

“Plug-and-Play” Ship Hits the Water
Murdoc really likes the Littoral Combat Ship.

Somalia’s Foreign Fighters
It’s gonna be real popular when we have to go back into Somalia in force.

Never underestimate the .22
ACE reminds us that the cute little plinker can still be deadly.

Iran Declares Security Council Ineffective
The headline made me think we’d found some common ground with those lunatics. Alas, it’s not the case. And the clock is running. Maybe it’s time for a little two-minute offense. How about the old Statue of Liberty? We just need to watch out for the FumbleRooskie…

The Kryptonese Alphabet
Just because.

Is that picture keeping your money safer?
Red Tape Chronicles on Bank of America’s SiteKey anti-phishing system.

Green Flag resumes; will focus on close air support
The intense Close Air Support training exercises formerly known as Air Warrior are going to be called Green Flag from now on. The old Green Flag, electronic warfare training, was merged into Red Flag and other standard training six years ago.

Comments

  1. I certainly think the US can afford to spend more money building up the armed forces. Military spending as a percentage of GDP is not at a historically high point. I don’t think rationing makes any sense, but the Army, and to a small extent the Navy, should probably be upgrading weapona and vehicles, and improving training, pay and recruiting right now.

  2. I’m not sure who is to blame, but we certainly aren’t getting it done. Hell, we fought among ourselves harder than we’re giving it to Iraq. The Union army left nothing but destruction in their wake. WW2 was the last war we even tried to win. We fight like fairies today. Oh, don’t hurt that mosque. We don’t want to offend anyone. Oh, don’t kill those Taliban terrorist butchers while they are in a grave yard. We don’t want to offend anyone. Oh, don’t shoot that bastard laying on the ground pretending to be dead. We don’t want to offend anyone. No one ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by killing for your country. We are happy to let our boys die, because we sure as hell won’t let them kill.

  3. No one ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by killing for your country. We are happy to let our boys die, because we sure as hell won’t let them kill.’ One does not win wars by killing, though that is a big part early on. One wins by securing and building a permanent peace. Endless cycle of pointless battles and killings is not winning anything but the misery of an Orwellian Forever War. Avoiding the provocation of passions usually helps to secure and build the peace. It’s not the only thing and is not universally true.

  4. You’ve out done yourself on stupidity this time, Sam. Name me one war that did not involve killing. Duh. If we’re not going to kill anyone, then we should not be in a war. The only people we seem to be willing to let die are our own sons.

  5. Name me one war that did not involve killing.’ Reading comprehension is a useful skill. Let’s try again. I wrote: ‘One does not win wars by killing, though that is a big part early on.’ While that statement should be sufficiently clear to an astute reader, perhaps it would have been more so had I added, ‘Battles are won through effectively stopping the enemy, which mostly involves killing the enemy; and Battles aren’t the same as Wars.’ Please, think about what others actually write before responding.

  6. Please guys, play nice. It’s obvious to any student of history (and we all should be) that political restraints on competent militaries are what lose wars. Look at what happened in Vietnam. The politicians tied both hands behind the Generals’ backs. Despite that, they did pretty well, but it was far from decisive and cost a lot more lives than it should have. Politicians should use the light touch when it comes to letting the military prosecute a war. Once the war is declared, the military must use all possible means to win. That doens’t mean killing everybody and leaving scorched earth. But it does mean avoiding artificially restricting ROE and strategy for political considerations. In short I think you’re both right to some extent. Maybe Dfens can try to be a bit more polite about disagreeing with Sam.

  7. DFens wrote: ‘It’s official. You’re an idiot.’ Winning a war is an Endgame process. Often a lot of killing is a part of the total process, this I do not deny. The winning of a war, it’s endgame, is how one ensures peace; this is often diplomatic in nature, and not inherently violent. WWII ended with some important signatures and a few photos; the war could have gone on killing endlessly if they really wanted to. NIcholas wrote: ‘Once the war is declared’ How do we define ‘war’? Is a ‘War on Poverty.’ the same as ‘The War on [insert]ism.’? Might the ‘War on Drugs’ be better parsed as a Police Action? Nope not ‘sexy’ enough for politicians; who thrive on popular confflict as it keeps them in office. The same goes for certain types of enemies, such as otherwise podunk terrorists, whose grand ideological struggles and clashes of civilizations are validated by the worlds greatest superpower whenever that superpower makes such characterization. That such charcterizations are likely true doesn’t mean it is a good strategy to promote such labels….except for the politicians.

  8. I believe an Authorization for the Use Force (or however it’s termed) is equivalent ot a Declaration of War. Although, I don’t understand why they don’t simply call it a Declaration of War. But really my point is that if you decide to do something, you’d better decide to do it properly.

  9. If they are the same, someone had better let John Kerry and the host of Democrats in on it, because that fact was obviously overlooked by them in the last election. Let’s take a look at what the US Constitution actually says regarding Congress: Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

  10. That’s under US law. I’m talking about international relations. A Declaration of War is the announcement of the intent to make war with a party. Clearly the Authorisation for the Use of Military Force against a country is, in the diplomatic sense, starting a war with a country. I don’t see how it could be otherwise. So while it may not be CALLED a declaration of war, is it in fact one. Iraq and Afghanistan are both wars, and they were both declared in advance. I don’t really see the point of mincing words beyond that.

  11. James already gave you an excellent response. Beyond that I can say there is a fundamental difference in the perception of having made a formal declaration of war and an authorization to commit forces. A declaration of war carries much more weight with the average US citizen and always has. The paper James cites is quite good, you should read it when you get a chance.