Friday, April 27, 2007

Good News in War on Terror

That is, if you are part of the 1/2 of the country that believes we are at war.

We disclosed today that we caught a senior Al Qaeda operative. This guy was apparently related to the leaked British intelligence report from last week that indicated Al Qaeda was planning a massive attack in England for this spring. Last Wednesday 6 suspected terrorists were arrested in London in what was supposed to be a secret operation. British police were apparently furious that the arrests were exposed, as the best time to catch more Al Qaeda is when their compatriots have been compromised but the news is not yet public.

Anyhow, I suspect we've had this senior Al Qaeda leader in our possession for a while, but we are disclosing it now b/c his cover has been blown and we're not getting any more value out of keeping the arrest secret. If we ever catch bin Laden, I wouldn't be surprised if we kept it secret for a while - although that has to be balanced with the fact that jihadi websites would probably publish the news anyway.

Anyhow, I hope this guy talks - he should know a lot. If not, we will probably be treating him according to these guidelines.

What if We Were Attacked, Mr. Obama?

Read Byron York's piece about the Democrats stumbling on national defense in their debate last night. There is a great chance that one of these clowns will end up being our next President, which kind of sucks away the humor value of it all.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

I just threw up in my mouth

According to the giddy Barack Obama, we are "one vote away from ending the war in Iraq".

Note the constant use of the phrase "ending the war", "withdrawing from Iraq", "pulling out of Iraq", etc... This is the sanitization of defeat. This is couching surrender and worldwide humiliation in more palatable terms. This is ignoring the plight of the Iraqis, who will be - unquestionably - dealing with ethnic cleansing on the Bosnia level when we leave. This is rendering the deaths of 3,300 U.S. servicemen meaningless. This is ignoring the victory we will have chosen to hand to Al Qaeda, and this is ignoring the strategic implications of their victory.

Think Mogadishu circa 1993 was humiliating? Wait until we pull out of Iraq, a war for which the leader of the free world put his presidency and his place in history on the line. Al Qaeda's victory in Somalia in the Clinton years spawned a decade of terrorism culminating in the 9/11 attacks. It showed weakness, and it led bin Laden to famously declare the U.S. a paper tiger. Weakness invites aggression. If we pull out of Iraq, what message will that send?

Anyhow, I'm sure bin Laden and company are enjoying a hearty laugh at our expense tonight, and Harry Reid is anxiously glancing at poll numbers and left-wing blogs to determine what foreign policy positions he will take tomorrow. Business as usual in a warped world

Breathtaking Hypocrisy

Read about the contrast between a scandal you've definitely heard of - Paul Wolfowitz apparently authorizing pay increases for this girlfriend at the World Bank - and one you definitely haven't heard of:

Imagine that a top civil servant at a major multinational institution arranges a job for a fortysomething female colleague that comes with a $45,000 raise and brings her yearly salary to about $190,000, tax free. Now imagine that the couple has been photographed at a nudist beach--him wearing nothing but a baseball cap.


The latest sordid twist in l'affaire Wolfowitz? Not at all. This is the story of Günter Verheugen, first vice president of the European Commission in Brussels. In its contrasts and similarities with the "scandal" now absorbing the World Bank and its president, it offers timely instruction on the nature and power of modern bureaucracies.



Background: Wolfowitz is a neoconservative and one of the architects of the Iraq War. He is hated by the left, and was chosen to head up the World Bank upon leaving the Pentagon (I believe? don't think he was at State...). He has been a political target ever since. As the story above highlights, the forces of inertia in this world remain strong.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

A Study in Contrasts

"We, who are willing to support this new strategy, and give General Petraeus the time and support he needs, have chosen a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Democrats, who deny our soldiers the means to prevent an American defeat, have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election. This is an historic choice, with ramifications for Americans not even born yet. Let's put aside for a moment the small politics of the day. The judgment of history should be the approval we seek, not the temporary favor of the latest public opinion poll."
Sen. John McCain (R-Az.), speaking at the Virginia Military Institute, April 11, 2007

"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), speaking to reporters, April 12, 2007

"This war is lost."
Reid, April 19, 2007
These are actual quotes. Read Bill Kristol's analysis of the contrast between Reid and McCain here.

Sunday, April 08, 2007

Quick Take on Iran Hostage Crisis

Iran attempted to take U.S. soldiers hostage last year, but our forces fought back and did not allow it. A similar attempt on the British recently was successful, resulting in the capture of 15 British sailors in international waters. They were stripped, bound, blindfolded, and made to believe that their execution was imminent. Under duress, they "confessed" to violating Iranian territorial waters even though they this was not in fact true. They were released last week after the release of a prominent Iranian held captive in Iraq - a supposed diplomat whose true purpose was aiding and abetting the Shia insurgency. There has been speculation that the British gave up more than that in order to get its sailors back - but if so it hasn't leaked out to th press yet.

I think it is more likely that Ahmadinejad sees the growing internal unrest in Iran and wanted to provoke the West into a confrontation in order to unite the Iranian people against an external threat. We did not comply by striking Iran militarily, so he played his hand as long as he could and then gave the hostages back, using the opportunity to show the Arab world that he, unlike the vicious neocons at Guantanomo Bay, treated prisoners of war humanely. He also probably wanted to emphasize that the "soft power" of the Europeans (i.e. negotiations not backed up with the credible threat of military force) could be successful, so as to lull the West into a false sense of security and to make the U.S. look like the warmongering nation. Great for propaganda purposes, especially with respect to the Al-Jazeera and John Murtha crowd.

It's important to note, too, that the Iranian government is very divided right now - there are many in it who do not agree with Ahmadinejad. They do not like the international isolation that his antics bring to Iran, and they may well have reined him in (i.e. forced him to give the hostages back). Anyhow, a very interesting episode. Maybe an indication that our recent change of tactics in Iraq vis a vis the Iranians is putting some pressure on them?

One Group That Doesn't Want Us to Leave Iraq

See Michael Totten's account of the Kurds in northern Iraq. Two points stood out to me:

1) they really really don't want us to leave
2) Kurdistan is effectively an autonomous country already (i.e. they are only nominally part of Iraq)

Friday, April 06, 2007

Did Pelosi commit a felony?


Pelosi's trip to Syria to conduct foreign policy might well have been illegal, according to the little-known Logan Act:
The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States."
At a minimum, her attempt to circumvent the authority of the executive branch was shameful. Hopefully the American people will begin to realize why you can't trust the Democrats on foreign policy.


Sunday, April 01, 2007

Confrontation

The United States and France (!) have assembled a rather large collection of naval power. Where is it located? Right outside of Iran.

The United States already has two aircraft carriers in the neighborhood — the USS Stennis and the USS Eisenhower — to which the French recently added one of their own. The USS Nimitz battle group sets sail for the Gulf from San Diego next week; and the USS Ronald Reagan is in the South China Sea and can be added to the strike force at a moment’s notice. The opening move of the endgame will be signaled when the Pentagon announces the forward deployment of about 20 strategic bombers — B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s — to Diego Garcia just a few hundred miles south of the Persian Gulf. My bet is that this will happen when Iran expels the IAEA inspectors. With four aircraft-carrier battle groups, several hundred carrier-based strike fighters, and 20 strategic bombers just minutes or hours from Iran, the United States will have assembled everything it needs to cripple the regime and wipe out the most important elements of its nuclear program.