Perfunction has the story with awesome video of the successful, yet "unproven" missile defense test.
Which inspired me to make this video:
I can imagine how this might relieve you, given that you live so close to Pearl, and all - and considering that you live on a piece of real estate that's within range of a North Korean missile.
Moe Lane
PS: What was the other thing? Oh, right...
For a good example of "progressives" rationalizing and defending Neville Chamberlain's and Germany's behavior just prior to WWII:
So, the great appeaser actually turns out to be a sly master of realpolitick.
| 1 comments
|
blogging,
germany,
leftists,
war
Please go here, register and behold what Austin Bay has managed to do with the internet.
It's a must-need refresher for those still trying to keep up with things in Iraq, and priceless for those who are just beginning to pay attention. The whole first segment is just over 20 minutes, and it's anything but boring. I had to watch the first part twice because I was still in awe over the fact that I was watching more than a video, clicking on all the links and browsing through chapters.
At least watch the guest segment: the video is informative and thought-provoking, and the whole application includes accompanying slides including links to sources, complete with a poll, a notepad, and feedback options.
Did I say it was free? It is. Surprisingly it has no ads given the quality. Truly an impressive public service.
This is great work, do check it out.
| 0
comments
|
blogging,
iraq,
video,
war
The good news about this: reduced threat of nuclear ICBMs from rogue states. Ironically, the bad news: traditional warfare now officially obsolete.
| 0
comments
|
military,
other,
war
Depends on how you look at it. Victory, retreat, or whatever you want to call it, the Brits are leaving Iraq. I pray it proves to be victory.
| 0
comments
|
britain,
iraq,
military,
war
Fewer attacks and fewer deaths is a trend we've all heard about in Iraq, it was just the political process that needed to trend in a better direction. Well, and in all seriousness, I think this is merely Iraq showing the signs of growing pains:
Corruption and theft are not new to Iraq, and government officials have promised to address the problem. But as Iraqis and American officials assess the effects of this year’s American troop increase, there is a growing sense that, even as security has improved, Iraq has slipped to new depths of lawlessness.I mean, it's not like New Orleans is much better, and what did we expect from a newborn, war-torn country with sectarian pressures? This New York Times article shows corruption on a large scale with obvious warnings of how it's bad for democracy. That's fine, but I think it's a tad disingenuous.
One recent independent analysis ranked Iraq the third most corrupt country in the world. Of 180 countries surveyed, only Somalia and Myanmar were worse, according to Transparency International, a Berlin-based group that publishes the index annually.
| 1 comments
|
democracy,
iraq,
war
Via Instapundit, a report comparing number of deaths during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to a time of relative peace:
The Congressional Research Service, which compiled war casualty statistics from the Revolutionary War to present day conflicts, reported that 4,699 members of the U.S. military died in 1981 and '82 — a period when the U.S. had only limited troop deployments to conflicts in the Mideast. That number of deaths is nearly 900 more than the 3,800 deaths during 2005 and '06, when the U.S. was fully committed to large-scale military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The CRS, which is the public policy research arm of Congress, issued its findings in the June report "American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics."
FOXNews.com, in re-examining the findings, found that — surprising as it may be — there were more active duty deaths in some years of peacetime than there were in some years of wartime.
| 0
comments
|
military,
war
An informed populace:
"When the macro news is bad, they focus on the macro. When the macro news is good, they focus on the worst micro news at hand. Sense a pattern?"
| 0
comments
|
iraq,
MSM,
war
David Codrea, penned a post on why us staunch Second Amendment defenders are doing a great disservice by supporting other presidential candidates, especially out of the fear that Ron Paul is not a viable candidate. I then commented that I would not support him because of his foreign policy ideas, and Mr. Codrea was kind enough to respond at length.
Let me start by saying I agree with Ron Paul on virtually all of his platforms, domestically. But when it comes to Paul's ideas of foreign policy, a policy of non-intervention, a policy of letting the chips fall where they may, is an even greater blunder than invading Iraq with no clear post-war plan with too few troops.
But there are some things in Paul's hopeful foreign policy that I admire, such as withdrawing aid to countries hostile or unfriendly to us and withdrawing aid to the corrupt and woefully inept United Nations. So, one might say, I agree on more of what Paul advocates than most other candidates, and I'll admit that at least I am sure of where Paul stands as he is remarkably upfront and honest, something I cannot say about the other candidates.
With that said, the few things that I disagree with are substantial. For example, Paul advocates immediate withdrawal from Iraq, would sit and watch Iran acquire nuclear weapons and continue to aid extremists. For those reasons, and for Paul's general idea of bringing troops, equipment, and security investments home as to avoid "entangling alliances," I cannot in good conscience support or vote for Ron Paul. I would rather vote for Hillary Clinton. Thankfully, I don't have to.
Here's the meat of David's response in the blockquotes, separated by my rebuttals:
The current approach has been such a great success in the Middle East--we see how well bellicose threats have worked to discourage the hardliners--right down to their helping devalue the dollar with the willing complicity of nations WE underwrite with trade and subsidize security for. And they sure have been discouraged from ongoing enrichment projects by all our saber rattling.He's absolutely correct on this, and if I hadn't of included it here, I would've felt disingenuous. We actually subsidize most of the world's security, and often provide trade cheaper than they provide it to us. Who else is fighting terrorism at levels compared to the United States? Nobody. China, Russia, Europe, Australia, almost every developed and wealthy nation is threatened by Islamic terrorism, and we pay most of that bill. Unfortunately, we cannot see how our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq has impacted the strength of terrorist groups compared to their strength had we not taken military action and/or stepped up the rhetoric. But we do know the American people wouldn't sit idly by as Al Qaeda went unpunished, and we do know that Saddam Hussein, not only was a genocidal dictator, but one of those same thugs who would do anything with his and possibly Kuwait's oil to hurt the American economy.
So what are you suggesting--we preemptively nuke Iran? Do we do the same nationbuilding there, too? Any idea where we get the troops from?No. At least not unless we have to, because you said it yourself:
Look, Iran has a population that has many who are pro-Western, sick of the theocracy and looking for ways to make reforms. If we attack them, they automatically go to the enemy camp. IF they achieve nukes and become a threat, their target will be Israel--do you doubt the Israelis will take out a threat before it can be actualized?Israel will act, if WE DON'T. I do know that if we don't and Israel does, you can count on a hot World War III. Saddam was brutal but he did have a brain. In the Gulf War you may recall Israel being hit by some of Saddam's SCUDs. It took some serious negotiation, but the coalition convinced Israel to stay out of it. Had they gotten in, all our Arabic speaking allies would've gotten out, and every young unemployed Muslim male that could get to Iraq, would've gotten there to fight with Saddam or would've died trying. We will likely act before Israel would act, that is of course, if Israel COULD still act.
And what are we prepared to do when Putin decides he's tired of us ringing him in with former satellites in NATO, and this is the last straw, so it's Gog and Magog time? And if we do go in, will it just be to take out facilities, or will we go after the regime, because if we don't, they'll be bent on opening up the gates of hell in this country with unstoppable low-level acts of terror throughout the land. Besides which, Pakistan already has nukes and is imploding as we speak. Will we take them out, too, and drag China into the mix?This is one big reason why I can't support Ron Paul. Putin is weak right now, but he's a bully, that much is clear. Avoiding bullies doesn't make them go away. What is Putin prepared to do? The last straw? We may not have much force in terms of ground troops, but we don't need ground troops, nor have we used ground troops as sticks in World Politics. We still are number one by far in Air and Naval power and capability. I don't see the logic in removing what we have in NATO and missile defense around Europe, just because Putin doesn't like it. If I recall correctly, we put them there precisely because of communists much like Putin.
Do you really think it's more likely that instead, Iran will first-strike us, and do you think the probability of that overshadows the very real tyranny we will develop if we continue down this course demanded by the "war on terror"?...I think the probability of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is very real and their funding, training, and general support for terrorism against American and Israeli citizens far outweighs the threat of tyranny in America, in my lifetime. Especially when I can support both liberty and fighting terror, the two aren't mutually exclusive. We didn't really lose too many liberties during the Cold War, did we? And I think it's a lot more acceptable to openly be a commie now than it was in the past. I'd say that's an increase in freedom.
And here's my take on Iraq: my litmus test is would I pick up a rifle and fight for it, and the answer is "No." That there would be genocide if we leave speaks more of the imprudence of removing the stabilizing factor of evil monster Saddam and thinking it would all be garlands for our troops and Kumbayah democracy--but I agree it would happen and "we," as in the people who put us there, would be to blame. So here's what we should do to get out and do what we can to minimize a bloodbath:As much an individualist I am, I don't think we should bail out on our collective responsibility. We bailed on the Kurds just after asking them to rebel against Saddam, and if you remember, they were brutally gassed. I will not apologize for having some sense of social justice. I will not support bailing on the people, millions of men, women, and children, we jeopardized. I don't know what kind of moral compartmentalization that would consist of and frankly, don't want to know.
First, admit reality. Kumbayah democracy is not possible with a 13th century religious blood feud. So I would offer one month of safe passage for Kurds to get up to Kurdistan, Shiites to occupy their predominant territory and Sunnis to do likewise. I wouldn't draw firm borders, because that's just asking for trouble, but just let them know to get to their appropriate bases and we would provide what safe passage we can to at least avoid out and out genocide, but they only have a limited time to hightail it to their respective homelands before they're at risk of being trapped behind enemy lines. Then it would be up to them to manage their respective territories and behave themselves, so if the Kurds don't want the Turks to blow them to hell, stop doing cross-border incursions. Maybe promise everybody if they play ball, the nice blue-helmeted Belgian rapists from the UN will adminster their oil fields for them to make sure everybody gets their fair share for infrastructure developement--or not--the important thing is, we will have gotten out and the squabbling parties will be entrenched in their own territories to make the likelihood of outright genocide less likely--and the probability of border wars up to how strong a front they present and how well they conduct themselves--kind'a like real life. Not a perfect solution by a long shot, but I didn't create this mess, and don't see any body else's plans panning out--and those people get paid for it.
Paul wants to strengthen us domestically--and I saw your website where you say "Foreign policy is the single most important factor that determines this country's safety." I disagree with that, and agree with the Founders, who not only admonished us to "beware foreign entanglements," but also let us know that "a well regulated militia [is] necessary for the security of a free state." You call your site "Free Constitution"--I trust those aren't just words?Right now, foreign policy is unquestionably the single most important factor, in my opinion at least, based on constant and looming threats, such as Islamic radicals with the combination of a porous border, and the nuclearization of these extremists evident in Iran, and potentially Pakistan. There is nothing in the Constitution about foreign entanglements, rather, that ratified treaties are on par with the Constitution. Clearly entanglements can be cumbersome, especially for a newborn, virtually defenseless nation. I'd think it'd please the founders to know that they've created the strongest, greatest, and freest nation on the earth. Ironically, it came in large part from very close foreign relations in wars the founders sought to avoid.
With our military here to help secure our borders, the likelihood of [more] bad stuff and bad people getting through will be minimized. A culture of freedom is what builds strength and security, not one of repression. And as for foreign relations, I like his approach--quite a bit, actually: "Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."I agree with you that we should have a culture of freedom, a strong liberal policy on trade and diplomacy, something most other Republicans favor. Concerning war, I know you are aware that both Congress and the President constitutionally share these powers. Congress has the power to declare and fund wars. The president commands them. It is the directly elected congress that has increasingly delegated war powers, and consequently political risk, to the president. As far as the Constitution is concerned, this war is legal -as Congress authorized the use of force, continues to fund it, and has formally recognized the President's war making ability with various war powers acts. Nevertheless, I agree with you that all large-scale wars should be declared, but Congress wont take that risk, so war-making will indefinitely remain the power of the president. Paul's objection to this type of war making is for me only a moral issue, as Congress should have the stones to wage it, or not wage it. But Paul's insistence that this war is unconstitutional is ridiculous. If that were the case, the war in Afghanistan would be unconstitutional as well, a war Paul voted for.
And if a nation wants to push us into war, something I would be for because I would be willing to pick up a rifle, and risk or lose my life for, we would still have the "Free Constitution" way of doing things: declare it.
But we really need to make sure we have the belly for it. We won WWII because we had the stones to do horrible things to Dresden and Hiroshima. That's what war is. It's hell. This limited rules of engagement/undeclared police action crap where you can't cross into Laos or pee in the Yalu does not work and has never worked, as evidenced by the last time we actually outright won something, and how many disastrous adventures in killing off the flower of our manhood we've put ourselves through since then.I thought most rational Americans realized war is hell, and most of us supported the war. I agree that the ROE have been unnecessarily constraining on our effectiveness in conducting this war, as in other wars. We screwed up, but who doesn't in war? We're making progress now, the ROE have been revised, but we still are fighting the information war, where brutally effective tactics in this information age can do a great disservice to the war effort.
In order to win, you need the support of the people. That is a truism, and anyone arguing otherwise has not been paying attention to history. Show me where Paul has mis-gauged this in his calculations.Show me the poll saying most Americans want to bail out now. Take a poll asking Americans if they want to win. There you will find the answer. Better yet, take our democratic republic, a system of representative government responsive to and on some levels a reflection of the people. We are still at war. Last I checked, Americans can stomach a real war. We can't stomach being the bad guys. Paul, as with many leftists and anti war journalists, paint us as the bad guys. Those receptive to the bad guy message make up a significant constituency. Paul wasn't the first to find it, but he was the first non-promise-breaking-Democrat to take advantage of it. Naturally, he is the redeemer.
| 15
comments
|
constitution,
elections,
freedom,
iran,
iraq,
republicans,
war
I agree with the bill and think it's a step forward for American foreign policy in general. I think Turkey is wrong for whining about it and more wrong for not owning up for it's role in Armenian genocide. But I do question the timing, and underlying motivation:
The resolution has strained U.S. relations with Turkey and drawn criticism from the Bush administration.I don't know what could be more damning of a politician's patriotism, to alienate key allies, seriously risk the lives and goal of our troops, our interests abroad, and national security for political reasons. I just have trouble believing Nancy Pelosi, and a number of Democrats and Republicans are guilty of such treason.
"This resolution is one that is consistent with what our government has always said about ... what happened at that time," Pelosi said on ABC's "This Week."
When asked about criticism that it could harm relations with Turkey -- a key ally in the war in Iraq and a fellow member of NATO -- Pelosi said, "There's never been a good time," adding that it is important to pass the resolution now "because many of the survivors are very old."
Counting the low numbers of deaths in Iraq, coupled with this report, I think we may be seeing a light at the end of the tunnel, that is of course if Turkey plays nice:
There is widespread agreement that AQI has suffered major blows over the past three months. Among the indicators cited is a sharp drop in suicide bombings, the group's signature attack, from more than 60 in January to around 30 a month since July. Captures and interrogations of AQI leaders over the summer had what a senior military intelligence official called a "cascade effect," leading to other killings and captures.Nevertheless, we should pull out now. You know, because it was an unjust war, because the Iraqis can adapt and take better care of the situation the moment we leave, because Iraq has nothing to do with our security, let alone our allies', and because we owe them nothing.
| 0
comments
|
iraq,
military,
terrorism,
war
Yes, they're our important ally with a strategic location in the fight against terror and in stabilizing Iraq, but quite frankly, we've been burned too many times by ignoring the obvious shortcomings in our allies. That's partly why this bill is a step forward for American foreign policy.
Turkey's head of state protested a U.S. congressional panel decision to approve a bill calling the World War I-era killings of Armenians a genocide, saying the decision came as a result of "petty domestic politics."Bush is right, insofar that it will hurt relations, which is just too bad. How very un-neoconish of him.
Despite earlier protests Wednesday in Turkey and opposition by U.S. President George W. Bush, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the bill by a 27-21 vote — a move likely to be considered an insult by most Turks.
Bush had warned that the bill could harm U.S.-Turkish relations.
| 0
comments
|
congress,
iraq,
turkey,
war
Here's the entire speech in three parts, courtesy of CSPANJunkie. Watch for "An enduring relationship... beyond my presidency..." in part 3. What did we expect him to say, it's time to throw Iraq to the wolves? There is no easy way out of this where we both win, and if we didn't invade then, it'd just be a matter of time, unless you believe the UN really scared Saddam.
Part 1:
Parts 2 & 3 below the fold...
Part 3:
[ "The surge will run its course. There are limits to what our military can provide, so, my recommendations have to be informed by — not driven by — but they have to be informed by the strain we have put on our military services," Gen. David Petraeus said in the interview at Camp Victory in Baghdad. "That has to be a key factor in what I will recommend." While he would not get specific about the recommendations that he gave to President Bush during a surprise visit to Iraq yesterday, when Raddatz asked if March would be the time for a drawdown to avoid further strain on the military and even longer deployments, he answered by saying, "Your calculations are about right." Live Video Feed Here] Hearing recessed until tomorrow. Video, transcript, charts and more below the fold.
Trends in violence:
Update: here's a better transcript of General Petraeus's report and a better view of the charts (pdf).
Update: Video Highlights of the hearing:
Troop drawdown:
Code Pink removed:
Decline in security "incidents" charts:
Democratic Rep. Tom Lantos wonders why not cut and run.
Update: There will be more of the hearing tomorrow, and so far, nothing really unexpected, even the disruptive Democrats' Code Pink minions. But I've got to go, for more coverage see Hot Air, NYT's the Lede, Outside the Beltway, the Tank, and more.
UPDATE 3:04 ET: HotAir also liveblogging, has the pdf's of the testimonies: Petraeus's report, Crocker's, and charts.
(Note: following quotes from hearing are paraphrased)
Petraeus says improved police forces as in Fallujah is allowing for better mobility of Iraqi Army.
"Syria has allowed foreign fighters to enter Iraq... many have become suicide bombers."
UPDATE 2:55 ET: Petraeus is asked if we should talk to Iran and Syria? Petraeus says "Iran showed no readiness to engage in serious issues... Iranians interested in only appearance of negotiating... As a first step Iranians must help improve security in Iraq, which they say is their own interest. Haven't seen any earnestness from Iran."
Talks about Iranian attacks in Iraq... More or less tells the distinguished gentlemen he's crazy for thinking we should or even could talk to the Iranians for a better Iraq.
UPDATE: Moonbats disrupt, show no respect, and have just been forcefully removed 2:00pm ET.
Ambassador Crocker: "Iraq is like America during civil rights movement..." "Is Iraq ready to prioritize the national interest over sectarian interests..." "The commitment of its leaders is encouraging..." "a continued need for multinational forces..."
He says there has been political improvement at the local level across the country.
UPDATE: From The Lede NYT blog:The general begins by saying that the following statement was his own, and had not been cleared by the White House. Some bullet points:
Update: Petraeus says troop levels can be cut next summer back to a level of 130,000. As we expected to hear, I hope he's sincere about that.***I'm a little surprised the report hasn't been leaked, which is typically a bad sign when an administration doesn't float leaks. But in this case I suspect there may be something surprising in General Petraeus's report.
Not quite a rule, but when bad news happens, it is usually kept under a tight seal until such news can be better spun or countered with good news. Which is why good news is leaked quickly. But in this case, I think the White House has good reason to keep leaks of the report from coming out. For one, it would keep the nay-saying Democrats flat-footed until the blow was delivered, which explains their preempted defense. How do you win an argument you haven't yet heard? Attack the source.
Secondly, it would give the White House complete control of that crucial first impression on the public.
Most importantly, and related to the first reason, is that any shift in public opinion toward favoring continuation of pursuing a victorious end to the war, backed up with facts from a popular general who was unanimously approved by the Senate, will put the anti-war politicians on the defensive. This would give the White House what is most likely its last chance to give the military the time and resources it needs to win, and if the administration is lucky, a chance to redeem themselves.
We've been hearing what may be in the report, but it's mostly opinion. Some more credible than others, much of it the same; take it as you will what the LA Times was told: Officials have said they expect Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to make three major points:
Here's what Gen. Petraeus told ABC News:
— The surge is beginning to succeed, but it is too soon to withdraw significant numbers of troops.
— The central government in Baghdad has failed to meet the administration's political goals, but there are signs of progress at the local level.
— The consequences of a too-hasty withdrawal would be catastrophic.
Those negative sources happen to be the NYT, the LAT, and the Government Accountability Office, not something one can shrug off.
Yet they don't see it as the boots on the ground. Bill Ardolino reporting from Iraq sees astounding improvements in Fallujah. A Milblogger currently employed says it's working in his slice of Baghdad. Even in Petraeus's letter to the troops, he says while some things hadn't turned out as expected, the situation has definitely changed for the better.
And the other night McCain assured us and Mitt Romney directly in the Republican debate that the surge IS working.
I guess my point is, is that the White House is going to use the report for all it's worth and more, and that there is reason to believe it has more good news than what we've been hearing. We'll see very soon.
| 0
comments
|
democrats,
iraq,
military,
war
Partly because the South Korean president is a dunce, and partly or probably, because his translator is also a dunce. And if that's not the case, feel very sorry for South Korea.
From the AP:
As Bush began to wind down his stay at the Asia-Pacific summit, Roh challenged him to make a declaration to end the Korean War. That conflict ended in a truce in 1953, not a peace treaty, so the two sides technically remain at war...The story goes on to say that NoKo is technically at war with the UN, and last I checked Bush hadn't yet declared himself fuhrer of the UN. Secondly, I see no possible hurry to end an ongoing technicality without NoKo's complete cooperation down to the last disassembled and permanently deactivated nuke plant. Sounds quite reasonable to me.
Bush said that during his talks with Roh, he reaffirmed the U.S. position that Washington will consider the war formally over only when North Korean leader Kim Jong Il actually dismantles his nuclear program.
Whatever Roh heard Bush say through his translator, it wasn't good enough.
"I think I did not hear President Bush mention the - a declaration to end the Korean War just now," Roh said as cameras clicked and television cameras rolled.
Bush said he thought he was being clear, but obliged Roh and restated the U.S. position.
That wasn't good enough either. "If you could be a little bit clearer in your message," Roh said.
Bush, now looking irritated, replied: "I can't make it any more clear, Mr. President. We look forward to the day when we can end the Korean War. That will end - will happen when Kim verifiably gets rid of his weapons programs and his weapons."
| 0
comments
|
north korea,
nukes,
UN,
war
