 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saturday, February 8, 2003
OUTRAGE, Part 3
 I just completed a rather exhausting exercise. I scrolled through every one of Instapundit's links. There are 239 of them (give or take 2 or 3) and most, but not all, are Conservative blogs. The reason I did this is I wanted to survey West Blogistan's reaction to Patriot Act II. So, how many bloggers that are linked by Instapundit are talking about it? Jane Galt is kind of talking about it. Awful Good is talking about it and not happy. The Hoosier Review is talking about it, briefly. Powerline likes it. Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy thinks it's "reasonable." Jim Henley comments on it. And I have already mentioned Tacitus. So, there you have it. Of all of Dr. Reynolds' links 7 bloggers mention it. 7? You say? Maybe one or two more, I could have missed a few but this is as of 7:29 Central Time. And of the seven most mention it favorably, or non-chalantly. That's pathetic. UPDATE: I'm sorry, I forgot Oliver Willis. He's scared. And rightfully so. But you get the idea, no one on the Right has said anything about this. The Empty Bottle, a new member of the Axis Of Evil and not on Dr. Reynolds' list, as far as I can tell, is very grumpy! UPDATE 2: The Talking Dog gets the idea. It's about a little different subject but the idea is the same. UPDATE 3: No, I didn't link to Talk Left for this post (I did it in an earlier post). Perhaps I should have but does that really change a thing? Not really. UPDATE 4: Before you holler and yell at me for missing something, see the first two posts in the series, here and here. UPDATE 5: Jim Henley not only comments but he DOES NOT LIKE IT! I goofed. But hey, after scrolling through 239 Reynolds links I was weary folks, I tell you, weary. Sean-Paul @ 08:28 PM | TrackBack (0)
OUTRAGE PART 2
George Paine of War Blogging has an excellent updated post on Patriot Act 2 that everyone should read. If you are not a regular reader of his site you should be. Go there now! UPDATE: The Agora sees a conspiracy. The Storm has a nice visual. Cobb doesn't like it either. But the Right? Well, they are silent. Figures. UPDATE 2: The Liberty Dogs don't like it and promise a post soon. Oliver Willis says "some on the Right hate the Constitution." He's correct. Why do they? Sean-Paul @ 12:24 PM | TrackBack (0)
Do You Support Independent Journalism?
If you are a supporter of independent journalism and are concerned that once the bombs start dropping in Iraq the information will dry up then go see Christopher Allbritton at Back To Iraq 2.0 and donate. It is a very worthy cause. Sean-Paul @ 12:06 PM | TrackBack (0)
OUTRAGE!
This is outrageous. All of it. As if the original Patriot Act wasn't bad enough. They want more. Is the Right going to stand up and be counted on this one or are they going to continue to shill for the President and his Administration? Anyone want some highlights? "It would give the government the power to keep certain arrests secret until an indictment is found. Never in our history have we permitted secret arrests. It would give the government power to bypass courts and grand juries in order to conduct surveillance without a judge's permission. I mean these do really further upend the balance between liberty on the one hand and security on the other." --Moyers on TV tonight. You have got to be kidding me. This should make every single American's blood boil. And I mean boil! Secret arrests? But no, there's more. The legislation would "seek to take American citizenship away from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups. Today it's Muslims. Tomorrow it's lawful immigrants, next week it's anyone who is against the President. And the Justice Department says no one in the Whitehouse recieved this draft. But wait, someone in the Whitehouse got it. What? You don't believe me here is the list of people who recieved the "draft" legislation. Why only these two? Again, will the Right condemn this? via Atrios, Talk Left here and here, Balkanization and The Storm. Plus from PBS, here and the text of the legislation is here. Folks, this is for the whole load of Watermelons. Do something. UPDATE: Tacitus agrees. The General Secretary of Blogistan agrees also. Hesiod says silence is a "golden shower." Atrios has the creeps. But all Scrappleface can do is laugh. Sean-Paul @ 01:48 AM | TrackBack (0) Friday, February 7, 2003
A New Map
Since the last map was useful to a lot of people, here is a new one. It is a map of the world, showing who supports and who doesn't. Sean-Paul @ 12:22 PM | TrackBack (0)
Why The Silence?
Conservatives have been very quiet about Bush's blowout budget and $300 billion plus defict. Why is that? Didn't Mr. Bush say, "We will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, other presidents, other generations," during his State of the Union Address? Why are y'all so quiet? What about fiscal responsibility? Well, anyways, Paul Krugman has some interesting observations today. Go read. Really. Sean-Paul @ 10:30 AM | TrackBack (0) Thursday, February 6, 2003
Deployment Update
This is a very long post that comes, again, from Stratfor. See below for details. U.S. Order of Battle for War on Iraq
On Jan. 10, 2003, 7,000 Marines from Camp Lejeune were ordered to deploy to the Persian Gulf. The Marines will be part of a Carolina Marine Air-Ground Task Force that will include infantry, tanks, amphibious vehicles, supply specialists and aircraft. Two Virginia-based ships capable of carrying more than 2,600 Marines also received deployment orders Jan. 10. The amphibious dock ship USS Ponce and the amphibious assault ship USS Saipan embarked from Northfolk Naval base for the Gulf.
The 3rd Army HQ moved to Kuwait beginning in December. Six hundred planners from Central Command (CENTCOM) HQ in Tampa, Fla., were sent to Qatar to evaluate the possibility of establishing a headquarters there in a crisis -- possibly the first stages of a relocation of CENTCOM HQ to al Udeid air base in Qatar. The United States began moving communications and computer equipment from Saudi Arabia's Prince Sultan Air Base to Qatar in March 2002. In August, the Pentagon floated the idea of giving Special Operations Command (SOCOM) more autonomy from regional commanders. Some SOCOM units reportedly were seconded to the CIA for operations in western Iraq. Regional U.S. commanders met in Kuwait Sept. 19-20. The maritime administration reportedly is checking the readiness of transport fleet. The U.S. military has reserved 20 air corridors over the Azores islands in the Atlantic Ocean. Quartering troops reportedly are among those currently in Kuwait, laying the groundwork for additional deployments. Reports say U.S. engineers are inspecting and possibly upgrading air bases in Iraqi Kurdistan. Several shiploads of equipment have been sent to the region over the past few months, with more chartered for departure at the end of September. Reports have emerged that equipment for one or two brigades is en route. Qatar residents report a sudden increase in U.S. transport flights into al Udeid and huge food purchases by the U.S. military. U.S. troops continue to occupy air bases in Romania (including Constanta) and Bulgaria (including near Burgas) that were used as logistics centers for the war on Afghanistan, and they will be available for a war on Iraq. British forces have commenced Operation Log Viper, a test of logistical movement involving 6,000 troops who will use 1,000 vehicles to move thousands of tons of supplies over the next month to Suffolk Royal Air Force base and Marchwood military port. The air war in essence has begun already, following a shift in targeting doctrine for aircraft in no-fly zones. Now hardened air-defense command centers can be targeted. This marks the first phase in the campaign to suppress enemy air defenses. The Air Force reportedly is bolstering the number of aircraft in the region. No firm numbers are available. Special Operations troops have denied reports they are operating in western and northern Iraq, scouting SCUD sites and preparing the opposition for war. U.S. military commanders claim that there are no military forces currently operating in southern or western Iraq, but they have not commented on alleged CIA operations there. They admit to contacts between U.S. representatives and Kurds in northern Iraq. Deployment of Patriot missile batteries to Turkey and Qatar is reportedly under consideration. Training and Readiness
More than 2,000 soldiers from the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) are being sent to Kuwait for a month-long amphibious exercise called Eager Mace '02. The U.S. military has resumed inoculating some troops for anthrax. The Pentagon has asked the United Kingdom for permission to base B-2 bombers at the naval base in Diego Garcia, though it will take time to construct the necessary specially equipped, climate-controlled hangars. Units of the 101st Airborne Division reportedly are being withdrawn from Afghanistan, rendering them available for an Iraq conflict. One thousand British troops were scheduled to conduct joint exercise Black Horse in the Mojave Desert with U.S. Marines British paratroopers reportedly have completed training in full chemical gear. As of the end of May, the 22nd MEU had completed the 10-day exercise Infinite Anvil in Jordan. The exercise included the movement of an AV-8B Harrier detachment and the MEU's aviation element from the USS Wasp to King Faisal Royal Jordanian Air Force Base. Since 1991, about 20,000 troops, equipment for four armored brigades and Patriot missile batteries have been deployed in the region. Turkey Approximately 1,700 troops, mostly Air Force. There are reported plans to deploy Patriot missiles there. U.S. and U.K. Special Operations forces reportedly are operating from a base near Incirlik, mounting incursions into northern Iraq. About 60 aircraft currently are tasked with patrolling the northern no-fly zone, including: Six F-15Cs Six F-15Es 18 F-16Cs Six Jaguars (U.K. RAF) Three MC-130s 12 KC-135s Three HH-60Gs Three UH-60s Three E-3As Two EA-6Bs The U.S. military staged a series of exercises in Jordan, including practices on deploying aircraft and troops, from late August to early September 2002. Four thousand troops took part. 9,000 troops, mostly Army and Air Force. Approximately 80 aircraft, currently tasked with patrolling the southern no-fly zone, including: 18 F-15Cs 10 F-15Es Eight F-16Cs 12 F/A-18s 12 A-10s Six Tornado GR4s (U.K. RAF) Two HC-130Ps Eight C-130s Two HH-60Gs Seven E-3 AWACS Pre-positioned equipment for a heavy armored brigade. The 3rd Army HQ. The Army Forces Central Command-Kuwait (ARCENT-Kuwait) HQ Army quartering units reportedly are among those currently deployed to Kuwait -- their mission is to prepare for further deployments Two Patriot missile batteries. A 4,000-soldier brigade from Ft. Stewart, Ga., was deployed to Kuwait in autumn 2002 with M-1A1s and Bradley AFVs. It was scheduled to replace a brigade from Ft. Benning, Ga., by December. Two brigades reportedly are training near the Iraqi border. More than 2,000 Marines of the 11th MEU launched the month-long amphibious exercise Eager Mace '02 in late September. The Marines reportedly deployed a 35-man Chemical and Biological Incident Response Force to Kuwait in September. Officials planning for a U.K. deployment to Kuwait have proposed two armored divisions and one infantry division. U.K. 4th and 7th armored brigades reportedly are on unofficial alert for deployment. German and Czech chemical units are in Kuwait, but Germany has declared it will withdraw its troops in the event of an attack on Iraq.
Two Patriot missile batteries. An air operations center at Prince Sultan Approximately 72 aircraft, including: 18 F-15s 18 F-16s Six E-3 AWACs Two E-8 JSTARS Four RC-135s 12 KC-135s Two U-2s Six UH-60s (MEDEVAC) Four Tornado F3s (U.K. RAF)
Location of the U.S. 5th Fleet HQ. Site of an Air Force Pre-positioned War Reserve Materiel depot. Four special hangars were completed in late 2002 to house two B-2 bombers each. B-2s have been transported to the island, though the total number of bombers present is unknown. Qatar Approximately 3,300 troops, mostly Army. 12 aircraft, including: Four KC-10s Six KC-135s Two E-8 JSTARS It has the longest runway in the Middle East, with new, low-observable hangars. A new air operations center at al Udeid was constructed to serve as an alternative to the command center at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. Pre-positioned equipment for a division base and an armored brigade. Camp As Sayliyah is the Army's newest pre-positioning facility, and the largest single pre-positioning site for the Army in the world. Site of an Air Force Pre-positioned War Reserve Materiel depot. A 750,000-barrel petroleum storage facility is scheduled to be in place at Umm Sa'id, with 650,000 barrels of JP-8 storage and 100,000 barrels of JP-5 storage. Headquarters of the Army Forces Central Command-Qatar (ARCENT-Qatar) Six hundred planners from CENTCOM are en route to evaluate whether a crisis command center can be established. Reported plans to deploy Patriot missiles. Approximately 600 troops, mostly Air Force. Seven aircraft, including: Two U-2s One RQ-4 Four KC-10s 2,400 troops, mostly Air Force. About 24 aircraft, including: Tankers, AWACs and bombers which were relocated from Diego Garcia to bases in Oman in mid-January, in order to be closer to the theater of operations. Hosts regular P-3 operations. Three Air Force Pre-positioned War Reserve Materiel sites at Masirah, Seeb and Thumrait, with support equipment for 26,000 personnel as well as equipment and fuel to maintain three air bases.
Task Force 150: 12 European warships and 1,200 German naval personnel have engaged in anti-terrorism patrols, hunting al Qaeda members fleeing to the region from Afghanistan.
Approximately 1,900 troops, mostly Air Force. About eight B-52 bombers. The country also hosts Navy P-3 operations. The Pentagon has asked Britain for permission to deploy six B-2s to the island. Location of the Maritime Pre-positioning Ship Squadron Two (MPSRON Two): six ships loaded with enough equipment and supplies to sustain 17,000 Marine Corps Air Ground Task Force personnel for up to 30 days. MPSRON Two is also in charge of nine ships on temporary assignment. These include four Combat Pre-positioning Force ships carrying equipment and supplies for the Army. Two of those contain equipment for the Army's Port Opening Package, and two carry sustainment cargo. The remaining five vessels are Logistics Pre-positioning Ships. Two of these are Air Force munitions carriers, one carries naval ordnance and two are tankers. Location of the Combat Pre-positioning Force, also known as Army Pre-positioned Stocks-3 (APS-3): In addition to four vessels on temporary assignment at Diego Garcia, there are eight APS-3 large, medium-speed, roll on/roll off (LMSR) ships in the Persian Gulf. Four of those contain combat equipment, and four contain cargo and vehicles for support and sustainment. The United States reportedly is investigating the potential for use of ports and airstrips.
The U.S. military used air bases in Bulgaria for logistics in support of the war on Afghanistan, flying about six refueling missions per day. About 200 U.S. troops reportedly remain at an air base near Burgas, which theoretically could be used in support of the war on Iraq.
Persian Gulf USS Constellation Carrier Battle Group USS Constellation (CV 64): Departed San Diego on Nov. 2, 2002 USS Valley Forge (CG 50): Departed San Diego on Nov. 2, 2002 USS Bunker Hill (CG 52): Departed San Diego on Nov. 2, 2002 USS Higgins (DDG 76): Departed San Diego on Nov. 2, 2002 USS Thach (FFG 43): Departed San Diego on Nov. 2, 2002 USS Ranier (AOE 7): Departed Bremerton, Wash. USS Columbia (SSN 771): Departed Pearl Harbor also reported in Diego Garcia.
Armilla Patrol HMS Cardiff (D 108): 253 crew, took over from HMS Argyll on Nov. 1, 2002. Between now and January she carries out MIOPS and has visits to Dubai and Kuwait.
USS Dextrous (MCM 13) Based in Bahrain, 85 crew USS Cardinal (MHC 60) Based in Bahrain, 50 crew USS Raven (MHC 61) Based in Bahrain, 50 crew
HMS Brocklesby (M 33) HMS Sandown (M 101) HMS Bangor (M 109) HMS Blythe (M 111) RFA Sir Bedivere (L 3004)
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75): 3,400 crew, Capt. Michael Groothousen, departed Norfolk on Dec. 5, 2002. Carrier Air Wing 3: 2,000 personnel, departed Norfolk on Dec. 5, 2002. USS San Jacinto (CG 56): 387 crew, departed Norfolk on Dec. 5, 2002. USS Oscar Austin (DDG 79): 359 crew, departed Norfolk on Dec. 5,2002. USS Mitscher (DDG 57): 316 crew, departed Norfolk on Dec. 5, 2002. USS Donald Cook (DDG 75): 316 crew, departed Norfolk on Dec. 5, 2002. USS Briscoe (DD 977): 325 crew, departed Norfolk on Dec. 5, 2002. USS Deyo (DD 989): 325 crew, departed Norfolk on Dec. 5, 2002. USS Hawes (FFG 53): 201 crew, departed Norfolk on Dec. 5, 2002. USNS Kanawha (T-AO 196): 104 crew, departed Norfolk on Dec. 5, 2002. USNS Mount Baker (T-AE 34): 148 crew, departed Earle Naval Weapons Station on Dec. 5, 2002. USS Pittsburgh (SSN 720): 130 crew, departed Norfolk on Dec. 5, 2002. Amphibious Task Force East 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade:7,000 Marines from Camp Lejeune, under the command of Brig. Gen. Richard F. Natonski Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 269 Marine Aircraft Group 29
USS Gunston Hall (LSD 44) USS Ponce (LPD 15) USS Bataan (LHD 5) USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) USS Ashland (LSD 48) USS Portland (LSD 37) Naval Task Group 03 (United Kingdom) · HMS Chatham (F 87): Departed Devonport, England, on Jan. 13, 2003, to relieve HMS Cumberland (F 85), which has been operating in the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea since June.
USS Nassau Amphibious Ready Group
USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Battle Group
USS Tarawa Amphibious Ready Group
Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Battle Group · USNS Seay (T-AKR 302): 30 crew, due in Beaumont, Texas, around Jan. 18, to be loaded with Army equipment. Currently bound for Southwest Asia. · USS Sentry (MCM 3) Based Naval Station Ingleside, ordered to head for the Middle East on Jan. 24 directly from maneuvers in the Gulf of Mexico, the trip should take two to three weeks. · Cape Race (T-AKR 9960) based Portsmouth, Va., activated Jan. 17, ordered to be operational no later than Jan. 22, and loaded and underway no later than Jan. 28. Transit time of 18-21 days would put it in Kuwait approximately Feb. 18. On Standby (Carriers) USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) - Departed Yokosuka Naval Base, Japan, on Jan .20, 2003, for exercises off Iwo Jima. Subsequently ordered to the Sea of Japan as a contingency for rising tensions with North Korea. On orders to be prepared to deploy within 96 hours of notification. USS George Washington (CVN 73) - Norfolk, Va. - Returned to port on Dec. 20, 2002. On orders to be prepared to deploy within 96 hours of notification. Three ships from the GW battle group remained deployed in mid-January, scheduled to return by the end of the month: the USS Kauffman, USS Barry and USS Arthur W. Radford. USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) - Departed from Bremerton, Wash. on Jan. 13, 2003, for a training exercise in the Pacific. Reported off Kaui on Jan. 27, bound for the Western Pacific. The Carl Vinson may relieve the Kitty Hawk, allowing the Kitty Hawk to deploy to the Persian Gulf Region. USS Nimitz (CVN 68) Returned to San Diego from Joint Task Force exercise off southern California (Jan. 10-29), Declared ready for Western Pacific/Gulf deployment. The Pearl Harbor-based guided missile cruiser Chosin and attack submarine Pasadena are part of the battle group. Unavailable (Carriers) USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - Returned to San Diego after deployment in the Western Pacific/Gulf area.
· USCGC Aquidneck (WPB 1309) Will deploy to Gulf region by sealift. Date of deployment not announced. Active Military Sealift Between Oct. 1 and Dec. 20, 2002, 23 U.S. Navy and chartered civilian cargo ships, including two Saudi-owned vessels, moved almost 1.6 million square feet of materiel from the United States, Europe, Asia and Diego Garcia to the Persian Gulf -- including 1,290 20-foot containers loaded with ammunition, 18,130 tons of ammunition not in containers, tanker tucks, helicopters, bridge sections and Army landing craft. · USNS Algol (T-AKR 287) Loaded equipment from the U.S. Army's 94th Battalion, in Antwerp on Jan. 13-14. Departed Jan. 15. Transited the Suez Canal on Jan. 23, bound for Kuwait. Sean-Paul @ 01:42 PM | TrackBack (0)
Iraq Update
Today's War Diary from Stratfor. War Diary: Thursday, Feb. 6, 2003 Events played out as expected in New York on Wednesday, Feb. 5. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell made his presentation to the United Nations Security Council. He gave the UNSC a peek at U.S. intelligence capabilities -- providing tapes of conversations, satellite imagery and analysis about Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda. Basically, the material taken by itself is unconvincing; any or all of it could have been fabricated. The power of the presentation is that the major players at the Security Council, particularly France and Russia, all have been given prior access to U.S. intelligence at a much deeper level and all have their own intelligence capabilities. In other words, the presentation was for the public. The other major powers are already fully aware of the facts. The basic reactions were predictable. The French, Russians, Chinese and Germans all said more time was needed to produce direct proof; in other words, they did not believe Powell's claims outright. There is a limit to lengths these powers will be willing to go in making this argument. The United States has now asserted that it has direct proof of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. An outright rejection of the claim would mean that they believed the United States to be issuing false claims. That is not a comfortable position to take, particularly if the United States knows that the other countries have their own direct intelligence on the matter. Therefore, the initial position will tend to shift in the coming days. France, one of the two major centers of gravity of the opposition, began to tilt its position a bit today. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told the Security Council that there should be more aggressive inspections. He also said, "If this path fails and leads us into an impasse, we rule out no option, including, as a last resort, the use of force, as we have said all along." The French have said it all along, but not nearly as frequently as they are saying it now. The former head of the French military, Adm. Jacques Lanxade, said in an interview in Le Pariesien that France could provide 12,000 troops to an Iraq war. He suggested that, since war was inevitable, one of France's missions might be to "secure the oil fields." There is flexibility in the French position. As the European saliency declines, focus is shifting in the Middle East and particularly in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said that there must be a final round of diplomacy led by Arab countries before another war: "Even if the U.N. Security Council adopts a resolution to mandate a war, God forbid, Arab countries must be granted a last chance and a time extension to undertake mediation and intervene. The Security Council is not an authority charged with granting permits to go to war, but rather a body called upon to seek peaceful solutions to safeguard security, peace and stability in the world. World peace and security will not be able to be guaranteed without safeguarding the territorial stability and integrity of all countries, including Iraq." The Saudis are afraid of two outcomes. The first is the uncontrolled disintegration of Iraq. If that were to happen, the balance of power between Iraq and Iran, which is one of the pillars of Saudi national security, would be destroyed and Iran would become the predominant power in the Persian Gulf -- dominating or even absorbing the southern Shiite region and reaching the Saudi border. The second unacceptable outcome would be a united Iraq occupied by the United States. If that were to happen, the United States would not only dominate the region, but might destabilize Saudi Arabia by forcing Riyadh to take steps against radicals in the kingdom. The United States might be prepared to force the Saudis to take chances they would rather not take. The ideal solution, from the Saudi standpoint, would be the removal or resignation of Saddam Hussein and his immediate collaborators -- and his surrender of all weapons of mass destruction -- but the preservation of the Iraqi regime and armed forces in complete control of a unified Iraq. What the Saudis want is a final chance to broker such a deal. It is a long shot at best, and there are many hurdles, including the fact that the United States wants a direct presence in Iraq and that Hussein is neither interested in leaving nor easily overthrown. At the same time, the United States would have difficulty invading after a convincing coup, while Hussein might well be moved if he perceives that he has lost any possibility of preventing a war. As international support for the U.S. position grows, in the Saudi thinking, then with some time and a great deal of money, something might be arranged in Baghdad. If nothing else is achieved, by making the apparently reasonable request for time for a last round of diplomacy, the Saudis possibly could box the United States into putting off the war until it is too late to launch it with the certainty that it would end before the onset of summer, forcing a difficult postponement upon Washington. Since the United States has no intention of postponing the war, that means that the Saudis -- who must be given their chance -- will have two or three weeks to work a miracle. And that will be our focus in the immediate future. Sean-Paul @ 01:38 PM | TrackBack (0)
For Public Consumption Only
If you are ardently pro-war then what Powell said yesterday reinfoirced your previous assertions. If you are not then what he said didn't sway you at all. As Stratfor says today: "Events played out as expected in New York, on Wednesday, Feb. 5. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell made his presentation to the United Nations Security Council. He gave the UNSC a peek at U.S. intelligence capabilities, providing tapes of conversations, satellite imagery and analysis about Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda. Basically, the material taken by itself is unconvincing. Any or all of it could have been fabricated . . . . In other words, the presentation was for the public." Just something to chew on this morning. Sean-Paul @ 09:17 AM | TrackBack (0) Wednesday, February 5, 2003
The Officer And I, Final Thoughts
It was certainly one of the most interesting conversations I have ever had. It was clear during our conversation that the general felt most strongly about the situation in Korea. His concerns were echoed earlier today by TPM. The general kept going back to the fact that we were doing nothing there. He reiterated, twice, that from what he could tell, "the administration doesn't have a policy [there]." To me, aside from enjoying the conversation and getting some good inside stuff, this was rather jarring. His solution to the problem was two-fold. He prefaced his remarks by saying "this is what should've been done," and then rattled off a list of things we should have done after Afghanistan. The first part was not to get so wrapped up in Iraq. He said our obsession with Iraq has created a situation where so much of our credibility is on the line that we MUST follow through. He said Iraq could wait, should wait, but has to be done at some point. I agreed. "Had we not obsessed, we might now have a free hand to deal with the North Koreans," he told me, shaking his head. "But now we can't do anything except negotiate or strike. Those aren't real good options." He then went on to elaborate on the second part, that we should've "quarantined Korea" just like we did Cuba, and interdict their shipping, unless they adhered to their agreements. He also said that Clinton's policy was bad, although it was the least worst option available at the time. He also said Carter's interference, although it defused the situation, "probably did more long-term damage than not." "We should have gone after Korea first. But now we can't. We just have to wait and see. But Korea is much more important that Iraq in the war on terror. Iraq doesn't sell its weapons like Korea does. It has oil to fund its society, North Korea has mountains. Where do you think Iraq got its SCUDs? Besides, had we gone after Korea, Muslims might accept that this wasn't a war on Islam. This was our strategic blunder." He was very hawkish, make no mistake, in regards to Korea. I'm not keen on the idea of quarantining Korea but would be happy to defer to his judgement. He didn't have any comments on the North Korean-Pakistani link, saying, "that's not my area." But I think he was dodging the question. Can't expect him to tell me everything now, can I? He also said that we might well find ourselves fighting two regional wars, at the same time, very soon. "It would be a tragedy, but better now than later." That is all I've got now. I'd love to call him and follow up in the near future but I doubt that will be possible. He was in town for a wedding. He's been invited to mine. I hope he's there. If he's not, the global picture might be really different. Sean-Paul @ 05:24 PM | TrackBack (0)
Prediction
German Chancellor Schroeder will resign very soon, probably in the next two weeks, certainly before we go to war with Iraq. You heard it here first. Sean-Paul @ 04:16 PM | TrackBack (0)
The Powell Moment
I've been poring through many of the news reports of Powell's address to the U.N. over the last hour or so. (I wasn't able to watch it live.) For the most part there weren't any surprises, except for this little nugget: "Zarqawi has been linked to October's assassination of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in Jordan and the alleged ricin plot that was broken up in London last month." This is important. UPDATE: I think I spoke to soon! A kind reader pointed out (in the comments section) this interesting article that I am now reading. And Casus Belli has these two good posts, here and here, on the subject as well. That is the danger of blogging. You can't read everything. And you often shoot your mouth off before you do. Sean-Paul @ 02:08 PM | TrackBack (0)
Hesiod Says It Right
Hesiod has a great post here. I can't believe I missed it. Funny thing is, I said the same things a while back. This is what I said: There is, however, a disturbing intellectual inconsistency with the Oxbloggers. They advocate, as do I, the use of the American government and the tools at its disposal to make the world a better place, to cure it of its more glaring ills. This is an essentially liberal, activist, project. Their corresponding lack of the same agenda at home is bothersome. How can a government be used to cure social ills by promoting democracy abroad yet not be called upon to do the same thing at home? Great minds think alike. Sean-Paul @ 10:13 AM | TrackBack (0) Tuesday, February 4, 2003
Perle Shoots His Mouth Off Again
He's at it again. This time France is his main target. Do these guys just want to piss everyone off? Especially when France might be moving in our direction on Iraq? Sean-Paul @ 06:45 PM | TrackBack (0)
Schroeder's In Trouble
"Deutsche Presse-Agentur on Feb. 4 quoted a top official of the ruling Social Democratic Party who suggested that German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder might consider resigning if France abandons Germany and votes in favor of a U.N. resolution to authorize a war in Iraq." This is getting ugly. I'm sure Richard Perle is pleased. UPDATE: Yglesias has a different but related take on Schroeder, here. Sean-Paul @ 01:18 PM | TrackBack (0)
The Officer and I, Part II
Continuing my Sunday conversation we turned to Iraq, the brass at the Pentagon and Rumsfeld. We also talked about family but I know you're not interested in that. SPK: "Will this be Desert Storm Two? Will it be as easy as it was last time." GO: "I certainly hope so. But we are not planning on that. If we thought it was going to be that easy we'd be going in with far fewer troops. Of course the Air Force part of the war will be pretty straightforward. Unless we have to fight block to block in any of the major cities. It will get nasty if that's the case." SPK: "How nasty?" GO: "Anytime a military has to fight in an urban setting we loose a few key advantages, maneuver and precision for us, to be exact." SPK: "That doesn't sound promising." GO: "I don't think it will come to that, however. I'm anticipating 'political developments' to help us out in that area. But it all depends on how we are received by the Iraqis. That's a big wildcard I'm not willing to bet the ranch on." SPK: "There are a lot of rumors floating around in the press that the military brass, like yourself, sees Korea as the most imminent threat and that you disagree with and are reluctant to go into Iraq first. Is there any truth to that." GO: "I'd rather not say." SPK: "Ok, let me try that again. Which is more imminent?" GO: "Korea. Much more important than Iraq. Containment is working. The problem with containment is that it is becoming increasingly unworkable. Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, not to mention Turkey are all flouting the sanctions regime. It is only a matter of time until Hussein is successful. But I think that is three to five years out. So does our best intelligence." SPK: "That is what Kenneth Pollack is saying as well, I mean, about containment being unworkable in the long run." GO: "Yeah, Ken is a smart cookie. He's one of a very select few that was able to point out that Sadaam was going to invade Kuwait. He was right. He's right again. But I think if you listen to him carefully, he's for this, but not in the way we are doing it now." SPK: "Excuse me? You're saying he thinks we should delay this a bit?" GO: "That's what I think. He hasn't said it, but it is a subtle undercurrent in the things he says." SPK: "I guess I'm going to have to read his book again." GO: (Laughing) "That's not necessary." SPK: "You mentioned our best intelligence as saying one thing but from what I read, Bush is saying something altogether different. Is this administration secretive?" GO: "That's a silly question." SPK: "That's not an answer." GO: "Some things I just can't talk about it. But some of it disturbs even me. And I think being secretive is a necessary evil at times." SPK: "Care to comment on Rumsfeld?" GO: "I'll pass." SPK: "Oh, come on. Who will know you said it?" GO: "Well, ok. He's a brilliant, obsessive workaholic. He's doing some good things for the services. But he's wrong on this one. I can't believe he's bought Cheney's argument. He's insensitive to the brass and pushes them around to much. I don't care for him. Do you recall what Kissinger said about him?" SPK: "Yeah, the most ruthless man he'd ever met." GO: "Pretty good. Kissinger is right." SPK: "What is the Pentagon like now with Rumsfeld as Secretary?" GO: "If you are in is inner circle it's great. If not its like artillery raining down on you in the form of nasty memos every day." SPK: "Ever been on the receiving end?" GO: "I'd rather not." SPK: "Come on?" GO: "Sorry." SPK: "Ok, so in summary what you are telling me is that the brass doesn't like Rumsfeld and the idea behind Iraq, that you guys feel Korea is much more urgent from a proliferation standpoint and that life in the Pentagon isn't real rosy under an Administration that was supposed to be 'military' friendly? Does that sum it up about right?" GO: "Sure does. Military friendly? That's a joke. Look at how they are treating our veterans. This makes me sick. It's galling. It's unconscionable. But the grunts think these guys are the greatest. The politicians see us as a means to an end. Of course, that is their prerogative. We ARE a means to an end, in a certain twisted sense. That's the role I've chosen for my life. I just think this 'end' isn't so important when there is another huge problem out there. We should be much more concerned about Asia. Much. They are proliferating. They are doing all those things we say we fear Hussein is doing. And we still have time to rememdy the situation in Asia." SPK: "Wow. You sound angry." GO: "I am angry. The whole veterans thing is a slap in the face to us. And frankly I can't understand why they weren't called to account for it. I won't tell you what I think of their foreign policy. But you can imagine for yourself." SPK: "Yeah, I'm angry about it too. But you know I am a liberal." GO: "Yeah, you and your father both. But there is still hope for you." SPK: "Will Powell have a 'smoking gun'." GO: "It might not be smoking but there will be a gun." The things that were said in this conversation weren't things that I wasn't already aware of through press reports. What I found shocking was here sat a very important officer in our nation's military establishment telling me these things outright. I'll be posting some more on this tomorrow. It will be kind of an analysis of what we talked about because I am still not sure what to make of what I heard. It was the things left unsaid, the body language and the knowing smiles of this dear friend that gave me the most concern. I'll be writing about that in my wrap-up analysis. Sean-Paul @ 09:22 AM | TrackBack (0) Monday, February 3, 2003
Open Thread
Talk about whatever you want. And you know who you are! Sean-Paul @ 10:56 PM | TrackBack (0)
The Officer And I
Well, it was an interesting conversation. That much is certain. It certainly shattered a great deal of my preconceptions. The vast majority of the conversation was about Iraq and North Korea, as you can imagine. Here are the highlights of our discussion on Korea: SPK: "Which country is more of an imminent threat, North Korea or Iraq?" GO: "Korea, to be sure. It's not only that Korea present such a threat, lurking on the DMZ as it does, with several hundred thousand troops ready to lunge across, plus the artillery barrage that will probably rain down on Seoul. Korea is much more of a weapons proliferator than Iraq could ever be. We are preparing for the worst. You'll probably start hearing about it in the media more, soon." SPK: "Do you want to elaborate on that?" "No." SPK: "Ok, What kind of options do we have?" GO: "A 'surgical strike' to take out the reactor at Yongbyon is one, pretty much the only one we have. But remember that any strike is a casus belli to the Koreans. It would quickly become a full scale war." SPK: "It's that bad?" GO: "Yes. It's worse. There is a very real possibility that they have a few operational nukes although our intelligence about their delivery methods is sketchy. For the past several years most people have been working under the assumption that they only have between 2-4 nukes, it is probably closer to 5-7." SPK: "Really? But the press says . . . " GO: "If you look around closely enough you'll see what I am talking about." SPK: "Ok, what are the implications for the region?" GO: "Well, we talked about this earlier. Obviously, I mean, the South will suffer enormously--Seoul will probably be 85-90% rubble when it is all over. The North will collapse. Most people say China is worried about a refugee crisis. But they are more concerned about the regime collapsing in the aftermath and protecting their interests. The Japanese are 'very' concerned. The Russians aren't really a factor. At least not yet." SPK: "Are you saying it has the potential to spark an incident between us and the Chinese?" GO: "Possible. If we play our cards wrong it could get really ugly. I do not think it will come to that, however. The Chinese would demand a multinational peacekeeping force for the North that did not include any America troops. Their is some talk of a kind of all-Asian contingent to keep us and the Chinese from going at each other, being inserted when the shooting is over. But I am not sure how practicable that is. The farther north American troops go the more nervous the Chinese will get." SPK: "That's complicated." GO: "Yup. It is. The whole thing is a mess." SPK: "Let's turn to Iraq. Ok?" GO: "Sure." More tomorrow. Note: Slightly edited. Sean-Paul @ 07:34 PM | TrackBack (0) Sunday, February 2, 2003
A Teaser
I had an interesting discussion today with a general officer in the Air Force about Iraq today. I'll post the highlights tomorrow. Note: Slightly edited. Sean-Paul @ 11:00 PM | TrackBack (0)
Rant Man Is Back
He's back. And he doesn't like SUVs. via The Storm. Sean-Paul @ 10:36 PM | TrackBack (0)
Aren't We The Generous One
This is political grandstanding, pure and simple. A $ 470 million increase? I mean, really? We get a whole 3% increase in our budget? Gee, thanks a lot. Sean-Paul @ 10:24 PM | TrackBack (0)
Terrorism, Israel and the Settlements
In one of the strangest political revolutions I have ever witnessed the Right has become the sole champion of Israel in American politics and it seems the Left has lost the Jewish vote. (And quite possibly might be finding an anti-Semitic voice.) How in the world did this happen? There are two reasons for this: the strong support the Right receives from the Christian Fundamentalists in America and September 11. Will the entente between the Christian Fundamentalists and pro-Israeli Jews last? I don't know. But politics certainly makes strange bedfellows. The Christian Right supports Israel for its own millenarian, apocalyptic reasons. They believe Armageddon will start in the Middle East. Jesus will return and convert all the Jews. Those deemed good enough will be saved and the rest of us will fight the last war with the Dark Prince. Or something like that. With this being the rationale behind the Christian Fundamentalist's agenda you'd think Jewish voters in this country might be a bit uncomfortable with some of that rhetoric. Or maybe they just ignore it in the hopes of short-term political gain vis-a-vis Israel. I have no idea. But their alliance exists. And Bush is one of its champions, even before September 11. After the horrors of September 11 Americans' tolerance for political violence of any sort disappeared. All terrorists, especially those of Muslim and Arab descent were seen (rather justifiably) as linked to al Qaeda in particular and radical Islam in general. Hamas certainly falls into the first category although the various splinters of Palestinian disaffection (al Aqsa, PFLP etc . . .) do not. In the present climate this kind of distinction is drowned out by hyper-emotive and hysterical reasoning. However, the reality is that terrorism is "war on the cheap." What is war? I could use Clausewitz's definition but that would probably get me into all kinds of trouble. The fact remains that terrorism is political violence. It finds its sustenance in the disaffected. And the terrorists use violence towards enacting a political solution to assuage the disaffected. To my mind it is horribly immoral to purposefully kill innocents in the hopes of achieving a political goal. We have a long tradition in the West that goes back to the Romans about the rules of war. Augustine added to them, so did Aquinas and so did Grotius. They are an important source of morality in the Western tradition. The Muslims have their own rules of war, too. Let me categorically state that their rules of war (see Benjamin and Simon for more on this) are immoral by Western standards and should be immoral by any human standard. The purposeful taking of innocent, non-combatant life is wrong. The terrorists must be made to see this. And they must be smashed into submission before there can be any discussion of a political solution. All of that being said, the horrible actions of the terrorists should not preclude us from observing, understanding and ameliorating the underlying sources of rage in the terrorist's conduct. If we cannot address some of the legitimate political grievances (after the war) then logic dictates that the war will not end until every last Muslim on the planet is dead. Israel is our ally. They are an important ally. There are historical, cultural and political reasons why they should remain such. There are also important moral reasons why they should remain an ally. They are, after all, a democracy. The ONLY democracy in the Middle East. For that reason alone it is in our long-term national interests to support Israel. There are more reasons than just democracy involved here. They are engaged in a cycle of violence with the Palestinians over the future of the land they share. The peaceful resolution to this struggle is also something we must support. But there are serious problems with our current policy regarding Israel, as there were with Clinton's. As Clinton veered to far towards "peace at all costs--who cares about Palestinian violence" Bush has veered the same distance in the opposite direction of "no peace--legitimate Palestinian grievances be damned." In May of last year Tony Judt wrote an excellent essay in the New York Review of Books on the topic of the Occupied Territories and the Israeli settlements there. He prefaced the essay with this brief discussion about France and Algeria: "In 1958, at the height of the Algerian crisis, with Arabs bombing French cafιs in Algiers, Paris tacitly condoning the use of torture by the occupying French army, and paratroop colonels demanding a free hand to end terror, the French philosopher Raymond Aron published a small book, L'Algιrie et la Rιpublique. Cutting through the emotive and historical claims of both sides, Aron explained in his characteristically cool prose why the French had to quit Algeria. France lacked both the will and the means either to impose French rule on the Arabs or to give Arabs an equal place in France. If the French stayed the situation would only deteriorate and they would inevitably leave at some later datebut under worse conditions and with a more embittered legacy. The damage that France was doing to Algerians was surpassed by the harm the Republic was bringing upon itself. However impossible the choice appeared, it was nonetheless very simple: France must go. "Many years later Aron was asked why he never engaged the heated questions of the time: torture, terrorism, the French policy of state-sponsored political assassination, Arab national claims, and the colonial heritage of the French. Everyone, he replied, was talking about these things; why add my voice? The point was no longer to analyze the origins of the tragedy, nor assign blame for it. The point was to do what had to be done." And that is what must be done now. Israel, for its own long-term good, must quit the Occupied Territories. As I wrote here, a few weeks ago: "Build a fence. Build a wall. Dig a moat. I dont care but get out of the settlements for your own sake." Israels deed of ownership to the Holy Land is its valid historical claim. But the Arabs have a deed of ownership that is equally valid: their existence, for centuries, on the same land. There will be no lasting peace in the Holy Land until Israel gets out of the settlements. One thing that the Bush administration is right about is the road to peace in the Middle East surely runs through Baghdad. Just like after the First Gulf War when Bush 4 forced the Likudnik's hands on settlements Bush should do the same with Israel. If not, our victory over Iraq will be a phantom. I'm willing to be patient until after our invasion of Iraq is over to see Bush do this. But if the Israelis are not called out of the Settlements there will be no peace in the Middle East worth speaking of. Sean-Paul @ 11:16 AM | TrackBack (0) |