Archive for February, 2005
Normblog notes an interview with Robin Cook:
Cook returns to the matter of WMD, and disarming Iraq, and whether Iraq was a threat, and is then asked by the interviewer, ‘Would Saddam still be there?’ Here is the money passage, Cook’s reply to that question:Umm… Well, that of course… the longer the period that passes… it is now some two years since the invasion… the longer, that becomes a speculative question. Anybody who has seen Saddam Hussein emerge from his hole and has seen the disordered, deranged mind that he now has, is bound to ask whether those that were actually saying at the time of the invasion that Saddam would fall in his time, would probably have been right by now.
Better read it again. (You’re right – there’s no reference to the Hussein boys, Uday and Qusay.) I referred in my previous post to the ‘self-comforting ways’ in which some people manage to evade the fact that but for George Bush and Tony Blair Saddam Hussein’s regime would still be extant.
This is, as A.E. Brain so succinctly puts it, Stark Idiocy. I think I’ve mentioned before the conversation I had with an opponent of the invasion of Iraq in June or July of 2003(!). I was told that “things were changing” and that we didn’t even know if Saddam would still be in power if we hadn’t invaded.
This is like the “Reagan didn’t win the Cold War because the Soviet Union was doomed to fail anyway” theory on steroids.
Sure, Saddam would eventually be out of power. Probably when he died of natural causes. And then one of his sons or hand-picked successors would have stepped in. Just like the Soviet Union would eventually have collapsed. Probably decades or centuries later than it did, as all nations will eventually succumb to the forces of time.
Should we have been willing to wait? In either case? I think not.
When Cook mentions the ragged-looking Saddam, he seems to be conveniently ignoring the factors that got him into that spider hole. Most of them wear reversed US flags on their right shoulders.
(Click for better look)
Via Argghhh!
I mean, I guess it’s not impossible that it’s a coincidence, but still…
Iran: Blast came during dam job
Well, somebody’s gotta do it…
Apparently the Zionist-led American imperialists didn’t attack Iran’s nuclear facilities…yet. They’re probably just waiting for more oil to form in the area.
Here’s the report:
An explosion in south Iran, initially reported as caused by a missile, was blasting work during the construction of a dam, a senior military officer confirmed to state television on Wednesday.“What happened was only a natural part of building work. These were heavy blasts carried out for the construction of the dam,” said Ali Reza Afshar, deputy to the chief of staff of the armed forces.
At some point in the near future (like, say, Friday) this will be part of a major conspiracy theory.
Anyway, Iran has been making waves lately. Yesterday they claimed that the US was making spy flights into their air space and that they’d shoot them down:
“U.S. spying activities over Iranian airspace have been going since a long time ago,” Yunesi told reporters.“Most of the shining objects that our people see in Iran’s airspace are American spying equipment used to spy on Iran’s nuclear and military facilities,” the [Intelligence] minister told reporters.
Well, everyone knows we’re spying on Iran’s nuclear program, among other things. We’d better be. We should have been doing a bit more spying in North Korea, while we were at it. (Has anyone even mentioned Clinton’s 1990s deal with DPRK lately, by the way?)
As for shooting them down, I guess they’ll have to do what they feel is necessary. They just need to realize that we’ll have to do likewise.
Also, Wizbang notes that Syria and Iran Say Will Build ‘Common Front’:
Iran and Syria, both locked in rows with the United States, said on Wednesday they would form a common front to face challenges and threats.“We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats,” Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref said in Tehran after meeting Syrian Prime Minister Naji al-Otari.
Otari told reporters: “This meeting, which takes place at this sensitive time, is important, especially because Syria and Iran face several challenges and it is necessary to build a common front.”
Syria’s ambassador to the United States, asked by CNN what the common front with Iran entailed, stressed that it was not an anti-American alliance and said Syria was trying to improve its relations with Washington.
“Today we do not want to form a front against anybody, particularly not against the United States,” Imad Moustapha said.
Sounds like Syria doesn’t want to fill Iraq’s empty shoes in the ‘Axis of Evil’. Iran, a charter member of the AoE, apparently doesn’t have anything to lose. If only we had a base in the Middle East within striking range of either Syria or Iran. Or, best-case-dream scenario, if we had a base that could reach them BOTH…
Also, Wizbang also points out IRAN, SYRIA MISSILES CAN TARGET U.S. INTERESTS:
Iran and Syria have acquired the missile capability to target U.S. interests in the Middle East.A senior U.S. official said Iran and Syria have developed ballistic missiles that can destroy U.S. targets in Iraq as well as in nations aligned with Washington. The official said both countries have received significant assistance from North Korea, which has sought to sell complete missile systems to the Middle East.
“Iran and Syria can currently reach the territory of U.S. friends and allies with their ballistic missiles,” Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control Stephen Rademaker said.
This is, of course, troubling. But I fail to get all worked up about it. This missile capability has existed, or was thought to exist, for some time. At least to some extent. The major threat right now from Iran and Syria is that of militants crossing into Iraq. Syria has already managed to blow up US interests with suicide bombers and IEDs. They’re not going to take an “official” shot at our military when the unofficial route is working for them.
(Please note that I’m not dismissing the threat. It’s something that we need to take into account. I just don’t see that this “revelation” really changes anything.)
Plus, on the Iran front, a reader sends me: Iranian cleric blogs for free expression. At one time I had a great deal of optimism that real change could be made in Iran without widespread violence of one sort or another. In the past year and half, however, much of that optimism has faded. I haven’t given up hope, though.
If bloggers can humble CBS News, maybe they can score a few points against the status quo in Iran.
Schumpeterian reform for the U.S. Army
We know all about the Army’s transformation into a force designed to fight tomorrow’s wars. Generally speaking, “transformation” usually means something along the lines of “faster and lighter…with digital computers”.
Some new programs, like the Stryker light armored vehicle, pinpoint on-call air support, the XM8 assault rifle, improved body armor, and the Future Combat Systems plan, effect the transformation by their implementation. Others, like the Crusader mobile artillery and the Comanche helicopter, effect the transformation by their cancellation.
Today’s war is different than the wars we planned to fight yesterday.
In addition to new gadgets and better weaponry (all of which is vital), “transformation” can take on a more mundane form. Giving the soldiers a new vehicle or a new rifle may allow them to do things in way that’s different than the previous ways of doing that thing, but it’s still basically the same thing that they’re doing. It’s good that we transform in this way, of course, but there is another form of transformation that we must not ignore.
That is the transformation of the Army into a force that does new things. Or at least old things on a new scale not previously seen or needed.
Intel Dump points out an article on army.mil that begins:
More than 100,000 Soldiers will move from “Cold War” jobs to positions such as military police and civil affairs as part of Army Transformation, Sgt. Maj. of the Army Kenneth Preston said.
This is a crucial step in the right direction. The Army’s primary job, of course, is to kill people and destroy things. But as we’re seeing in Iraq, there is more to it than that.
Between this shift to far more civil affairs and military police units and the training of non-front line soldiers in combat, this sort of transformation will make our Army not only more efficient at what they’ve always done but make it more capable to win today’s war.
One thing about transformation, though, is that change for the sake of change isn’t good. And just like today’s war is not like yesterday’s wars, tomorrow’s wars will not be like today’s war. So while I commend the Army on what it’s done so far and what it plans to do in the future, they had better be careful to not over-correct.
Never mind that tanks and heavy artillery often are handy to have while waging 4th-generation asymmetrical warfare. Sometimes you need them to fight an enemy who uses tanks and artillery instead of hand-me-down assault rifles and roadside bombs.
Another day in Mosul.
I’m hoping to get to the Chicago Auto Show to check out the Stryker on display there, but I’m not sure if it’s going to work out. If I can there will be an MO special on what they’ve got. If I can’t, there won’t.
Pic from Monday’s Frontline Photos.
On In The Red Zone:
This was a wake-up call for the Sunnis that boycotting the political process is not the interests of anyone.– Hashem Hassani, former spokesman of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni slate that refused to take part in the elections
I’m holding out hope that a lot of Sunnis realize that they missed the first boat, but that they get another chance when the first elections of the permanent government occur.
The Iraqi Election Results Map
Patrick Ruffini:
Going province by province, 70%+ majorities for the Shia coalition were the norm throughout the South, but if you buy the notion that this group is particularly pro-Iran, you’d expect it to do even better in the provinces bordering Iran (similar to the effect seen in Ukraine, where the provinces bordering Russia were the most anti-Yushchenko). In fact, the map shows the United Iraqi Alliance doing worse and the Allawi bloc doing better in the Misan and Basra provinces bordering the Islamic Republic.Belying the image of a restive population electing anti-American leaders, the Allawi bloc actually did best in the regions where the insurgency ran strongest, picking up nearly 25% in Baghdad, 21% in Karbala, and an outright win with 38% among the brave few who turned out in Anbar province. In rural precincts where the U.S. presence was more distant, the Shia felt more free to vote their religion.
The regional results also show hopeful signs that the Sunni boycott was not as complete as previously thought; Al-Yawer’s The Iraqis received a strong 28% showing in Ninewa, home to Mosul, another insurgent hotbed. The Sunni list did well in Salahuddin with 12% of the vote, and received over 25,000 votes in Baghdad.
My local newspaper (remember those?) noted that “Iran-backed” parties did very well in Iraq. I wondered about the accuracy of that statement at the time, and I wonder even more after looking at this.
Go look for yourself. (via Instapundit)
It’s no great secret that I fully support our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that military operations in additional places will be required, and I will almost certainly fully support them if/when they come to pass.
I also fully support lavishly spending on our military by the federal government. Not waste, mind you. But if we’re going to order our military to do things, we had better be prepared to pay for in cash what we’re asking them to pay for in effort and blood.
I don’t care that $82 billion is being asked for. I wouldn’t care if it was $182 billion.
What I don’t like is the supplemental way of doing it. Put it in the budget. For what it’s worth, I think that despite the overall increase in spending due to the additional military funds required, it would probably be an easier sell to trim back non-defense spending if the true size of the budget was up front and center.
That’s my two cents. I’d pay six cents if it would help us win faster and better. But don’t tell me you only need two cents, then ask me for four more next week.
Robotic Bombers Flying Off Carriers
StrategyPage has a great series up on the X-45C and X-47B unmanned arial vehicles:
The U.S. Navy has invested over a billion dollars, so far, in developing combat UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) that can operate from aircraft carriers, and replace some of the manned aircraft on carriers. Final design and construction of the full size X45C combat UAV has begun, and these will make their first flights in 2007, or earlier. The smaller X45A has now spent two years doing flight tests and serving as a test bed for the flight control software. The X45A is intended just for development. The navy is sharing, with the air force, the development effort for flight control software development, and other new technology. However, the navy is developing carrier landing software alone. This will be one of the most technically difficult aspects of the project.
The X-47 is plan ‘B’ in case the X-45 doesn’t work out.
The Navy and Air Force are supposed to work out a compromise solution and settle on one design. Dont be surprised if they don’t and both the X-45 and the X-47 (or even another design) goes into production.
See the Strategy Page post for more info and bigger (and more) pics. (BTW: The pic in this post of an X-47 UAV landing on a carrier is an “artists concept”, not an actual photo.)
