Archive for November, 2005
Iraq Endgame- Let’s win the narrative
Uncle Jimbo on Blackfive:
We have entered the end game in Iraq and now the most important battle is no longer whether democracy and freedom prevail there, but how will we and the world view this conflict, and more importantly US power overall.The opposition and their media have made no bones that they consider it a stinging defeat in a conflict predicated on lies, and that all the casualties were in vain. Aside from it’s outrageous detachment from reality, it is a narrative we cannot allow to stand.
There is a scene in Heartbreak Ridge, where the moron officer tells Gunny Highway and Chewy that their generation of Marines is 0-1-1, with a tie in Korea and a loss in Vietnam. Given the opportunity, the left/media would love to hang a loss or a tie on W and the whole idea of US military power. If they can create a loss in popular opinion they gain all of the casualties as martyrs to their belief that the employment of US power is fundamentally wrong.
Many critics of Bush and the invasion of Iraq will vehemently deny that they are trying to do any such thing. Some of them might even be telling the truth. A few of them, anyway.
To those who don’t believe that anyone would try to spin a victory into a defeat with deeper political and social meaning, Murdoc submits Exhibit ‘A’:
Most people simply accept as fact that this image represents America’s lies and mismanagement. I’ve had many debates about it in the comments sections on this site.
When US troops begin coming home, when we stand down as the Iraqis stand up, many will pretend that either A) we’re just getting out and declaring victory or B) it wasn’t worth it. Rep. Murtha’s call for a “redeployment” states very clearly that US forces are not accomplishing anything in Iraq so we should get out (option ‘A’). Those that maintain our losses or expenditures have been in vain (option ‘B’), of course, are legion.
We will spend the rest of our lives hearing people tell us how we lost in Iraq. It’s pathetic.
Expat Yank has a great post up which points out a curious comment in a review of the documentary Nightmare in Jamestown in Slate:
Descriptions of the guerrilla-style Native American warfare that blindsided the Jamestown settlers can’t help but evoke parallels with our modern-day colonial venture in Iraq. The settlers “had complete faith in the superiority of their technology and their culture,” the narrator intones, all but chuckling grimly as he goes on to describe how inadequate the settlers’ armor was against Indian arrowheads, or how an Algonquin warrior could fire up to 10 arrows in the 30 seconds required to reload a matchlock musket.
This sentiment seems to be based upon:
A) The United States is running a colonization program in Iraq
B) The natives in Colonial America won
This isn’t a post to argue the rights and wrongs of the colonization of North America. This isn’t a post to argue the rights and wrongs of US expansion in the 1800s. This isn’t a post to argue the rights and wrongs of America’s treatment of the Native American Indians.
This is a post which points out very misinformed commentary on American policy during a time of war. Go read Expat Yank for more.
Border Security an Issue for GOP
President Bush is apparently going to announce a new anti-illegal immigration policy this week. Some fear (or hope) that a crackdown might split the Republican party. I hope it doesn’t, but I dont think party unity is an acceptable justification to continue our near-negligence along the Mexican border.
I think a sensible immigration policy could really strengthen the GOP. And I would support increased limits on the numbers of legal immigrants. Significant increases, even. And I only ask two things for this: adherence to current laws regarding illegal immigrants already in the US and stepped-up security to prevent more from arriving. As I’ve said previously, I envision stepped-up security to involve military forces in some capacity, though this isn’t necessarily required.
If the GOP doesn’t get serious about illegal immigration, they risk losing my vote. And if they lose my vote on this issue, I will do my best to convince others to agree with me.
I fully support our military action in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other corners of the globe. I truly believe that direct attacks on terrorists and destruction of those that support them or facilitate their activity is an important part of a winning strategy in this war.
But the border must be secure. Ours is not. Who cares if we kill more of Zarqawi’s top lieutenants in Iraq if some fanatic can walk into our cities untouched and unseen? (via RightNation)
Forgot to mention this: Gov. Admits Baseball Tale Untrue
In an announcement that comes as a surprise to no one, Bill Richardson wasn’t drafted by a Major League baseball team 40 years ago. I’ve always found this claim, which was never substantiated by anyone when challenged, to be rather dumb. But even dumber is Richardson’s “admission” after the Albuquerque Journal investigated and ran a story with the results:
“After being notified of the situation (by Journal reporter Toby Smith) and after researching the matter … I came to the conclusion that I was not drafted by the A’s,” Richardson said.
I wish someone would investigate Murdoc’s past so I could conclude whether I had ever been drafted to play Major League baseball.
And get this:
In his statement to the Journal, Richardson claimed that “as a high school player, and later after playing in the prestigious (amateur) Cape Cod League, and during my time at Tufts, I was approached by scouts who offered to draft me, under the condition that I agree ahead of time to sign a contract, if drafted. I could not agree to sign a contract, and therefore was not drafted by any of those interested teams.”
This makes it sound like he knew that he needed to sign a contract to be drafted and that he knew he didn’t sign a contract. I don’t understand how he could possibly have been mistaken all this time. It’s almost like he was lying.
But:
“In my mind, that meant I had been drafted,” Richardson said.
Sorry. That’s stupid.
UPDATE: Far be it from Murdoc to wonder aloud whether any news organization in the past four decades questioned the claim. It’s not like any media outlets would show any interest in politicians and their relationship to being drafted or anything.
Noticed this in a Strategy Page post about the new Iraqi 9th Mechanized Division:
There’s plenty of surplus Russian armor in Eastern Europe, which the current owners are planning on selling or scrapping. Since there are few customers for this obsolete equipment, you can earn a few brownie points with the U.S. by donating it to Iraq. The United States has been pushing this approach, even offering to pay the transport costs in some cases. The Iraqis, however, already have their eye on the future, and want more modern equipment. The United States has already said that it would leave a lot of military equipment behind when American units are withdrawn permanently, and the Iraqis are hoping some of this gear will include used M-1 tanks and M-2 infantry vehicles. Failing that, Russia is ready to sell Iraqi its new T-90 tanks. Just like the old days. [emphasis mine]
I haven’t heard that we’d said we’d be leaving “a lot of military equipment behind”, though I don’t doubt it at all. However, I guess I’d be surprised to see M-1s and M-2s made part of the package. There’s just too many potential negatives. Far better to let others score points with us by donating surplus equipment or score contracts by selling Russian-made (like Poland, who has sold the Iraqis many of the AK-47s used to arm the military and police forces). Iraq doesn’t need top-notch armor to fight insurgents and deter potential invaders in the first place, and the fact that much of the Iraqi army is already running Russian equipment and that what experience Iraqi soldiers have is with Russian equipment says “let them use Russian equipment”.
While hitting Technorati this morning, I happened to spot “Prussian Blue” (noted on MO a while back) on the ‘Top Searches This Hour’ list. Morbid curiosity got me looking, but there doesn’t seem to really be any big news.
Here are a few interesting tidbits I came across, though.
Pajamas Media, um, OSM, oh wait…Pajamas Media writes
According to Media Orchard, a public relations blog, “Teen People came close to publishing a story on the white-supremacist singing duo Prussian Blue that did not mention the words ‘hate,’ ‘supremacist’ or ‘Nazi.’ The writer had agreed with the teen duo’s mother not to use these terms, but instead the more palatable “white pride.”
The story has since been pulled.
Ed Driscoll notes:
It’s Anthony Burgess’ world, we just live in it, when the left can compare an American president to Hitler seemingly daily, but a liberal magazine can’t be bothered to call an actual pro-Hitler singing duo Nazis.
Nexus counters with
Actually, if you listen to their songs intently and watch their antics right down to their Hitler smiley face T-Shirts, you will find that the whole thing is actually a parody of Nazis and Nazism.That’s why this trollish article is so hard to comprehend. One would think that a would be big media player such as “Pajamas Media” would get it, but apparently going around stirring up controversy just for the sake of it is too ingrained in the would be Dan Rathers of the world.
“Duck Soup” and “Springtime for Hitler” were parodies of Nazis and Nazism. Is that what Prussian Blue is all about?
I find myself strangely unable to get excited about it. Not because I have anything nice to say about Nazism, but because I’ve been watching the entertainment industry speak endearingly of vile totalitarian ideologies for most of my life.This is the same entertainment industry that lionizes Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. The same industry that made heroes out of the mass-murdering Sandinistas. That to this day pretends that the McCarthy era in America was nothing but one long paranoid nightmare wherein nobody, not even people like Alger Hiss, Julius Rosenberg, or Harry Dexter White, was guilty of anything but being a bit too liberal.
Some of these people still can’t admit that Pete Seeger, Paul Robeson, and Mary Travers were communists for God’s sake.
Easter Lemming Liberal News (if that is the real name of that site) with the post title of the day: Mamas don’t let your girls grow up to be Nazis
The freckled twins from Bakersfield, Calif., call nonwhites “muds” and play a video game called “Ethnic Cleansing.”
Yep. Just parody. It might be all an act, of course, though if interviews with the mother and the story on the group are accurate, it doesn’t seem terribly likely. And are they ripping off Harry Potter by calling non-whites “muds”? Isn’t that just a parody of “mugbloods”?
Although Time inc. claims their reason for scrapping the Teen People interview with the Nazi Brats in their feature on hate had nothing to due with the backlash and protest against it, I suspect that it did. I cautioned that perhaps this type of protest before the fact can result in extra otherwise unecessary publicity, as we learned with Mel Gibson and the Passion.
Mainstream opposition to Nazi glorification and mainstream opposition to a Bible-based telling of the hours leading up to the Crucifixion of Christ. If you look very, very closely, you might be able to spot some differences between the two cases.
Finally, I especially appreciate the way that nearly every Legacy Media article on them notes that they’re homeschooled. I understand that homeschooling is a bit unusual and therefore merits special mention at times, but I guess I’d like to see “liquor store held up by area teen, who is public schooled” or “three Wal-Mart shoplifters sent to public school since early childhood by their parents” once in a while.
One last note: Please refrain from comments about how you ‘hope these girls meet a grisly and painful death’ or how they should ‘try out the concentration camps and gas chambers themselves’ or what you would do if you ‘met them in a dark alley somewhere’. The last time I wrote about them the comments area collected quite a bit of feedback to that effect. It’s pointless and actually makes them look like the victim in many cases. We understand that they’re very confused. We understand that what they say and do infuriates many people for many valid reason. WE GET IT.
Soldier died when driver swerved to avoid car
A Canadian soldier with the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment was killed and four others injured when their light armored vehicle, very similar in many respects to the US Army’s Stryker, rolled over after swerving to avoid a local car that was driving without headlights on the highway between Kabul and Kandahar.
After the light armoured vehicle swerved, the driver lost control of the vehicle which went off the highway and rolled over.“It was purely and simply an accident to avoid a head-on collision,” Craig Oliver, CTV’s Chief Political Correspondent, reported.
Pte. Braun Scott Woodfield, 24, died in the accident.
Predictably, the article contains this:
Earlier, the safety of the military vehicle, known as a LAV-III, was called into question after a media report claimed the army had been warned that “speed and driver inexperience” were frequent causes of rollovers.There have been 10 rollover accidents in the six years the vehicle had been in use.
A 24-year-old Quebec soldier, Pte. Patrick Dessureault, died earlier this year when a LAV-III rolled over into a river during a training exercise in Alberta.
And last year, two Canadians were injured when their LAV rolled into a ravine in Bosnia.
In fact, Google News calls the article “Vehicle safety questioned after soldier’s death”. Once again we hear of the 8-wheeled LAV’s problem with roll-overs. I noted similar coverage of the Stryker very recently. While there’s little doubt that an LAV has a higher center of gravity than, say, a tank, and is much more likely to roll over than, say, a tank, I’m a bit skeptical about that wild-eyed claims that so many seem to have made over the past few years. And I’m not quite so quick to just accept the higher probability of rolling in a Stryker or LAV based on incidents like when two Strykers rolled into a canal in Iraq off of a collapsing roadway or rolling into a ravine in Bosnia.
A Marine tank flipped over while falling into the Euphrates during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003. I don’t ever see that listed when discussing the probability of M1 tanks to roll over. But we all know that M1′s are nearly impossible to flip, don’t we? And we all know that LAV/Strykers are very prone to flipping, don’t we?
If we do, it might be because so many people act like it’s a self-evident truth. Take, for instance, this in another story:
Military sources said the LAV-3 – its inherent tippiness exaggerated by armour plates added recently to protect soldiers from explosions – rolled over after a civilian car with no headlights suddenly appeared out of the dark.
“Inherent tippiness” according to “military sources”. That, um, leaves a lot of wiggle room, I think. Also, don’t miss the fact that that paragraph is a ‘twofer’. You noticed how add-on armor was implicated in the event as well, didn’t you? And then there’s this in an article entitled Military vehicle in fatal accident has history of rollovers:
Documents obtained through Access to Information laws show the army was warned in May 2004 that “speed and driver inexperience” were frequent causes of rollovers involving the LAV III.A two-page briefing memo prepared for military leaders said the armoured vehicle is limited in the type of terrain it can handle.
I find this a bit interesting because the article seems to use the report as a cornerstone to build its anti-LAV angle from. Except that both factors are not problems with the vehicle itself, but problems with the drivers or the way it’s used. Despite a slightly bizarre claim by POGO that training was a “band-aid” solution to Stryker driver inexperience with add-on slat armor, it’s obvious that training is how you overcome inexperience. I’m reminded that the first Stryker brigade shredded a ton of tires when they first acquired their vehicles, but as driver experience and training increased, lost tires decreased dramatically. Training and re-training is where it’s at in the military. In this particular case, the driver had four years of experience behind the wheel of an LAV, so I doubt that driver inexperience is at fault this time. And if speed was a factor, or maybe the use of the vehicle in terrain that it can’t handle, that again comes down to factors unrelated directly to the vehicle.
If you read the report note (1 page .pdf) that the story refers to, you’ll see exactly that training seems to have overcome the driver inexperience problems and that steep embankments or collapsing terrain were responsible for the rest. I’m not exactly sure where “speed” comes into it, though.
And how about this:
Like many armoured vehicles and SUVs, the LAV-3s can roll over under certain conditions.
Wow. Comparing LAVs to the big bad SUVs. Though, to their credit, they go on to note that “several defence sources” claim that vehicle structural issues haven’t been a factor in any of the Lav roll-overs and that “accidents still happen”.
I know it sounds like I’m getting all up in arms about this, here. As a bit of a Stryker fan, I guess I’m tired of seeing the same old “anti wheels” claims peddled about as gospel. Yes, the Stryker/LAV is probably a lot more prone to rolling than a tank. But, then, so is everything else. It’s this last point that usually is ignored or goes unmentioned. I don’t claim to know if Strykers/LAVs roll more often than most other vehicles or not. But let’s look at some numbers and compare.
Oh. The Canadian military has. And it says that they’re actually less-likely, statistically, to roll than other troop carriers. And later they also point out that they are also less-likely to roll than a sport utility vehicle. They give no numbers, though.
If you click the pic near the top of this story, you can access a video of a Canadian LAV firing its gun. The fact that standard Canadian LAVs are armed with stabilized turrets sporting the reliable M242 Bushmaster 25mm chain gun probably, if anything, gives them an even slightly higher center of gravity than US Strykers. And, most definitely, significantly greater firepower. Another pic of a Canadian LAV-III with full load-out, crew, and dismounts, can be seen here. For what it’s worth, I still believe that a 25mm-armed Stryker would come in handy.
There’s no doubt that the Strykers and LAVs have their downsides, but both the US and Canadian armies seem to be taking lessons learned and working hard to apply them to the real world. And there’s also no doubt that, in some cases, tracked vehicles (such as the upgraded M113s that so many anti-Stryker folks seem to advocate) would be a better choice. But nothing is a one-size-fits-all solution, and the Strykers have performed quite well overall since first arriving in Iraq at the end of 2003. By all means, let’s discuss their pros and cons. Let’s just do so fairly and honestly.
Meanwhile, let’s not forget that though the US and Canada have had some differences of opinion on a lot of things lately, the Canadians have been in Afghanistan all along and are continuing to do a great job. Sometimes at great sacrifice.
Cross-posted to Defense Tech
From the department of mistaken headlines:
Man arrested for stealing car, alluding police
MSFT Study Group: Where techies with no time come to learn…
If you’re looking for the answers to questions like “Can’t clients on other internal subnets use secureNAT as long as their subnet is in the ISA LAT table or does SBS restrict this?“, this is the place for you. Believe it or not, Buckethead knows this guy. (I happen to believe it. In fact, I’m not even surprised that Buckethead knows people that know the answers to questions like these. Come to think of it, I wouldn’t be surprsed if Buckethead knew the answers to questions like these.) For the record, the answer is available here. Not only do I not understand the answer, I don’t even understand the question. Next!
The Blockbuster OSM Deal: What You Need to Know
I applied for and was granted membership in Pajamas Media’s very early days. Not being exactly sure what the Hades it was really all about even after reviewing the contract, I balked. Later, they purged a lot of blogs. Then they changed their name to Open Source Media, which was a good move except for the lawsuits. Now they’ve launched and I still don’t get it. Maybe I’m a moron and will regret not joining up. I don’t think so. This Iowahawk post tries to summarize the OSM business model. I’d think it was typical Iowahawk parody and satire, except that it makes a lot more sense than anything I’ve seen put out by OSM.
DEPP: ‘I CAN’T STAY IN RIOT-RAVAGED FRANCE’
If he moves to Michigan, I’m oranizing some riots…
Battalion Scout Helicopter
Off the shelf light light light helicopter. Off the wall but not outlandish.
Ban Sports Competition Between the Service Academies
From the same site as the link above. This one is just off the wall.
Uzbekistan withdrawal complete
Al Jazeera plans to go international in 2006
Can Al Jazeera find a home on U.S. cable networks? It’s going to try next spring.
I’ll get some more up shortly
F-22 Stealth Ability Revealed by USAF
Strategy Page on the F/A-22 Raptor:
It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117.
This info was made public in order to drum up interest in cutting F-35 production in favor of more F-22s. I’ve been accused of being anti-Raptor in the past, but while skeptical that the need for 5th Generation fighters is all that great right now, I recognize that not only will it be nice to have some on hand if they’re needed but that by producing them now we retain the capability to build more if the need arises.
However, I’m skeptical of any plan to cut F-35s in order to get more F-22s. I fully realize that F-22s will have a major role to play in any war against a modern military, but F-35s will have many more opportunities to contribute against a much-wider spectrum of foes. When you toss in the fact that the F-35 is not only an inter-service project but an international one, I think it become clear that major cuts in the F-35 don’t make a lot of sense. Besides, cutting Air Force F-35s (the cheapest variants) won’t save nearly as much as cutting the more expensive versions, yet cutting those more-expensive versions won’t work as the Navy and Marines are counting on them for the future.
Even F-35s with golf ball-sized radar cross-sections are overkill for nearly all of our likely foes. While there’s no doubt that having some F-22s available will be crucial, chopping two F-35s for each additional F-22 just doesn’t seem to make sense to ol’ Murdoc.
Is it just me, or has the white phosphorus story really gone into “Twilight Zone” mode?
I just happened to notice this on the WaPo while looking into things for my previous post: When Is a ‘Chemical’ Weapon Not a Chemical Weapon?.
The apparent answer, according to Jefferson Morely, is that it depends on who’s using it. He notes a April 1991 cable regarding Iraq’s crackdown on Kurdish rebels and writes
The DIA repeatedly describes white phosphorous as a chemical weapon. The report refers to "possible employment of phosphorous chemical weapons." It says the "WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds" and it says word of "possible WP chemical weapons attacks" prompted hundreds of thousands of Kurds to flee the area."In Saddam Hussein’s hands, at least, WP munitions were regarded as chemical weapons.
Let’s ignore for the time being the “well, if that’s the case then Iraqi DID have weapons of mass destruction counter-argument. While I don’t think this point is groundless, at least as far as disproving the logic used by the ‘WP is WMD’ crowd, let’s leave the twisted logic to the moonbats, shall we?
As far as I can tell from reading the actual cable in question, it appears that it’s based on a phone conversation between either two Kurdish rebels or a Kurdish rebel and a DIA operative. First, note this near the beginning:
WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE.
So I guess this doesn’t really represent a official DIA policy, as the WaPo seems to be saying it does. Later:
APPARENTLY, THIS TIME IRAQ DID NOT USE NERVE GAS AS THEY DID IN 1988, IN HALABJA (GEOCOORD:3511N/04559E), IRAQ, BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF POSSIBLE RETALIATION FROM THE UNITED STATES (U.S.) LED COALITION.
Maybe I’m being dense, but the fact that Iraq apparently made this decision for this reason means that not only did Iraq think WP was not a chemical weapon, but that Iraq thought the Coalition thought that WP was not a chemical weapon. And, since I imagine someone read this report, we apparently didn’t think that, because we would have done something about it, or at least reported it, if our position in 1991 had been that WP was a chemical weapon.
Think about it. In all the examples we were given by the President, by the Pentagon, and by the media over the years of Iraqi use of chemical weapons, why didn’t we ever hear about this? If anyone anywhere really believed that WP was a chemical weapon we would have heard all about it. From Bill Clinton when ramping up for Desert Fox. From the UN during inspections as they uncovered hidden stores of WP artillery rounds. From George Bush before the 2003 invasion.
Or maybe, even in 1991, everyone, even the Defense Intelligence Agency, knew that WP wasn’t a chemical weapon. And trying to pretend otherwise in 2005 is really pretty lame.
UPDATE: Wait a minute. The Morely page seems to be some blog-like entry on the WaPo. It’s a Typepad page of sorts. It even has a trackback URL and comments. I don’t quite know what it is. Still, I stand by my points. And I applaud any effort by Legacy Media to join the 21st century, if that’s what they’re doing, even if I happen to disagree with this particular post. END UPDATE
Incidentally, I’d like to point out two other paragraphs of this document, which, while unrelated to the WP story, bear keeping in mind:
C. KURDISH REBELS ARE LOSING IN THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN’S FORCES — KURDISH REBELS WHO WERE FIGHTING IN NORTHERN IRAQ WERE FORCED TO WITHDRAW INTO TURKEY BY TROOPS LOYAL TO SADDAM HUSSEIN. POOR ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND LACK OF HEAVY WEAPONS, AMMUNITION, AND SUPPLIES ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSES OF KURDISH LATEST DOWNFALL. THE ONLY GROUP CURRENTLY FIGHTING SADDAM HUSSEIN’S FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ IS THE “PESHMERGEH” (FRONT WARRIORS). HOWEVER, THIS GROUP IS ARMED ONLY WITH SMALL ARMS SUCH AS M-60 MACHINE-GUNS, AK-47 RIFLES AND UNKNOWN TYPES OF PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS.D. KURDISH REBELS’ EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING HELP FROM U.S. LED COALITION FORCE — THE KURDISH RESISTANCE’S DECISION TO RISE UP AND FIGHT HUSSEIN’S FORCES WAS TRIGGERED BY THE OVERWHELMING MILITARY POWER DISPLAYED BY THE COALITION DURING “DESERT STORM” AND THE PROPAGANDA BROADCASTS OF VOICE OF AMERICA. KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES REALLY BELIEVED THAT EVENTUALLY THE COALITION FORCE WOULD COME TO HELP THEM IN THEIR FIGHTING AGAINST IRAQI FORCES. AFTER LEARNING OF U.S. PRESIDENT BUSH’S “STAY OUT OF IRAQ INTERNAL AFFAIRS” POLICY, KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES FELT AS THEY WERE SET UP AND LET DOWN BY THE COALITION FORCE (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).
If we were going to end offensive operations after 100 hours in 1991, we should have supported those that we hoped would do the dirty work. We didn’t, and a decade and a half of death, destruction, despair, and distrust followed.
Oh. And another war.
