Confederate Yankee

November 27, 2006

Is Patriotism Dead?

To listen to John Kerry or Charles Rangel, you would think so. These Democrat veterans—who speak for so many other Democrats, veteran and not—seem to think military service is something that an American citizen engages in only as a last resort measure. Kerry's infamous pre-election "stuck in Iraq" comment (for which he has un-apologized), along with Rangel's new pronouncement that people will only join the military if they don’t have "an option of having a decent career," reflect a liberal mindset that views voluntary military service as something only for those who are nearly destitute, and who have few other options.

It seems to them and many other liberals that joining the military is a last chance option that is a step or two above going homeless, and little more.

Of course, this flies in the face of the facts that those who join the military tend to be more suburban, educated and affluent than their contemporaries. But neither Charlie nor John nor the rest of their liberal "truther" movement are dissuaded by anything as inconsequential as facts.

Duty. Honor. Country.

Honor. Courage. Commitment.

Upon these and similar principles the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, NY and the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, MD were founded, as were their fellow service academies for the U.S. Air Force and Coast Guard. Men and women seeking to develop these character traits often seek to go to service academies or walk into military local recruiting offices.

Almost all (98%) voluntary enlistees are high school graduates. 92% of officers have bachelor's degrees, and many have advanced degrees. Do liberals honestly think these people joined the military because they didn’t have "an option of having a decent career" otherwise?

Joining the military because of a feeling of patriotism—a love of one’s country and willingness to sacrifice for it—seems to be an increasingly remote concept for those on the left. No, they’d rather do what they do best, and attempt to define those who would serve as another stupid, oppressed childish minority that need to be saved from themselves.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:11 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 24, 2006

Thanksgiving "Humor"

Allowing this bile to be published on her site tells me a bit about the character of Arianna Huffington.

To be fair, though, I'm fairly sure she'd allow the same comments to be uttered about Joe Lieberman.

That's bipartisanship.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:12 AM | Comments (82) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Russia Delivers U.S. Missile Targets To Iran

How thoughtful:


Russia has begun deliveries of the Tor-M1 air defence rocket system to Iran, Russian news agencies quoted military industry sources as saying, in the latest sign of a Russian-US rift over Iran.

"Deliveries of the Tor-M1 have begun. The first systems have already been delivered to Tehran," ITAR-TASS quoted an unnamed, high-ranking source as saying Friday.

The United States has pressed Russia to halt military sales to Iran, which Washington accuses of harbouring secret plans to build a nuclear weapon.

Moscow has consistently defended its weapons trade with Iran. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said the contract for 29 rocket systems, signed in December last year, was legitimate because the Tor-M1 has a purely defensive role.

ITAR-TASS reported that the rockets were to be deployed around Iran's nuclear sites, including the still incomplete, Russian-built atomic power station at Bushehr.

Isn't that nice of the Russians to deliver a short-range missile system designed to take on low to mid-level targets, knowing that we have long-range anti-radar missiles to counter them?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:01 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Gun Day, Bloody Gun Day

Black Friday... what a wonderful day to pull a nine-hour shift behind the gun counter at my local sporting goods store!

Just remember kids, I have the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason, so be nice. I will not sell any of my merchandise to anyone who appears they may be of a mindset to use to expedite their shopping elsewhere.

Form a line to the right, smile, and have a nice day.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:33 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 23, 2006

Happy Thanksgiving


Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever. Let the redeemed of the LORD say this—those he redeemed from the hand of the foe, those he gathered from the lands, from east and west, from north and south. Some wandered in desert wastelands, finding no way to a city where they could settle. They were hungry and thirsty, and their lives ebbed away. Then they cried out to the LORD in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress. He led them by a straight way to a city where they could settle. Let them give thanks to the LORD for his unfailing love and his wonderful deeds for men, for he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.


Psalm 107: 1-9


112306_iraq_troops

From me and mine, a Happy Thanksgiving to all, especially our servicemen and women overseas. You are in our prayers.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:41 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 22, 2006

Is the BBC Reporting the Right Press Releases?

The BCC published an article today on the Israeli use of cluster munitions during the recent war with Hezbollah in Lebanon:


The Israeli army is to investigate the way cluster bombs were used during the recent conflict with Hezbollah.
The chief of the defence staff has said he prohibited the wide use of the munitions during the conflict.

But human rights observers in southern Lebanon say up to a million "bomblets" were left in the country after the war.

No one will dispute that the aerial bombing conducted during Desert Storm was far more intense than the bombing raids conducted by Israel against Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, and in Desert Storm, the U.S. Air Force dropped 10,035 CBU-87 cluster bombs on military targets. The CBU-87 a 950-pound bomb has 202 submunitions. Doing a little quick math, and we can determine that 10,035 bombs times 202 submunitions per bomb means that a total of 2,027,070 submunitions were dropped during Desert Storm.

But these cluster munitions have a reported dud rate of up to 16%, meaning that in this much larger conflict, 324,332 submunitions would have failed to explode.

Much larger war, many fewer duds. Do you detect an odor yet? Read on.

In the recent war between Hezbollah and Israel, most of not all of the cluster munitions fired were delivered not by aircraft, but by artillery. Human Rights Watch notes that the Israelis used 155mm artillery to deliver DPICM projectiles. Each 155mm DPICM shell contains 88 submunitions.

To get to a figure of the million unexploded "bomblets" claimed by the BBC, Israel would have had to have fired 7,142,858 155mm DPICM shells submunitions (1,000,000 dud submunitions is 14% of 7,142,857.143, according to this handy little tool).

To say that Israel did not have the number of weapons, stockpiles of a minimum of 7,142,858 DPICM shells submunitions (7,142,858 submunitions is 81,169 shells), or time to deliver them in a conflict less than a month long, would be a gross understatement.

So where did the Beeb get it's figures? I have a suspicion:


MAG has sent a special team from Iraq into Lebanon to help get rid of the thousands of cluster bombs and other unexploded munitions from the villages and towns in the south of the country.

MAG's technical field manager, Salaam Mohammed Amin, leading the 19 highly-trained Iraqi-Kurd technicians, said: "Our staff cleared more than a million unexploded items in just one year in Iraq. It meant we helped reduce civilian victim rates after the conflict from a devastating high of around 500 per month to nearer three per month today - we hope to help the people of Lebanon in the same way."

It appears that the Beeb may have botched the Mine Advisory Group press release, somehow getting it into their heads that million of rounds of unexploded munitions in Iraq (munitions dispersed over decades of fighting) translated to a million submunitions in Lebanon.

Or at least that is what I hope happened, because if that isn't the case, that would suggest that the BBC published someone else's press release without checking the validity—or even the statistical possibility—of what they are reporting.

And the BBC wouldn't do that... would they?

Update:Via Matthew Sheffield - Heh.

Update: Updated a screw-up above. A million dud submunitions would be the result of more than 7,142,858 submunitions fired, not shells. 7,142,858 submunitions is (at 88 submunitions per shell) 81,168 DPICM shells, still averaging an extraordinary rate of fire of 2,459 DPICM shells per day (33 days between 12 July and 14 Sept) on top of the more conventional ordinance fired inside the narrow swath of Lebanon that Israeli M109 155 mm SP artillery fire can reach, which is just 14.6 miles.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:41 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Regarding the Harriet Miers of Defense...

Yet another well-stated reason that Robert Gates should not be Secretary of Defense, from Hugh Hewitt's interview with Victor David Hanson (my bold):


HH: ...Does the President have the ability to wage aggressive war with a pacifist Congress?

VDH: I think he does, but let's be candid, Hugh. The problem right now isn't...it may be the left wing Congress, but he's got another problem, and that is he's bringing in Robert Gates, and he's bringing in the Baker realism, and that doesn't have a good record. That's the people who said don't talk to Yeltsin. Let's stick with Gorbacev. Let's not go to Baghdad. Let the Shia and Kurds die. Let's arm the Islamisists to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and then leave. It's not a good record. It's short-term expediency at the expense of long-term morality. And it's not in the interest of the United States to do that, to cut a deal with these countries.

To put it bluntly, "realists" like Robert Gates and James Baker did much to create the situation in the Middle East with which we are now faced.

There is a place in the world for Robert Gates, and that place is, and should remain, Texas A&M.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:22 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Kneecapping Snakes

Jules Crittenden, Boston Herald city editor and columnist blogs this morning:


It will be interesting after the assassination of Pierre Gemayel in Lebanon ... not to mention last summer's hijacking of the nation by Hezbollah ... not to mention last year's assassination of Rafik Hariri ... not to mention the last 25 years of Syrian and Iranian interference in Lebanon and now in Iraq ... it will be interesting to see if anyone will still counsel talks with Syria and Iran under any terms that do not include a very real threat of force.

The assassination of Pierre Gemayel was the fifth assassination of an anti-Syrian politician in Lebanon, and was meant to be the sixth--Michel Pharaon, a Greek Catholic member of the ruling coalition and minister for parliamentary affairs--was meant to be the fifth, but the hit at his office in Lebanon just hours before the Gemayel assassination failed. The goal of targeting Gemayel and Pharon is clear. If both assassinations were successful, less than two-thirds of the 24-member Lebanese cabinet would remain following the now suspicious resignations of six pro-Syrian/pro-Iranian (five Shiite, 1 Christian) ministers last week.

The combination of the Gemayel assassination and the earlier resignations means that the government is effectively frozen, unable to enact any new legislation. If the attempted assassination of Pharaon had been successful, a future assassination attempt against any other minister is successful, or another minister resigns, Article 69 of the Lebanese constitution stipulates that the government is automatically resigned. It is likely a fair assumption that the assassination attempts on Gemayel (successful) and Pharaon (unsuccessful) were conducted with the express intent of toppling the pro-western Fuad Sinora government, which is then quite likely to be replaced by a pro-Syrian, Hezbollah-controlled regime. It is, as Michael Totten noted yesterday, nothing less than a coup d'etat in progress.

President Bush condemned the Gemayel murder as an act of terrorism and accused Syria and Iran of attempting to undermine Lebanon's government, but stopped short of accusing them of Gemayel's murder, presumably because of the current lack of evidence of direct Syrian and/or Iranian involvement.

But, considering the facts that we already know about Iranian and Syrian involvement in supporting terrorism in Lebanon, Iraq, and elsewhere, do we really need any more proof to justify taking action against both nations?

As I've been noting with increased sense of urgency over the past week or so, Syria and Iran must be made accountable in some way for their continued state sponsorship of terrorism. Currently, that support is most precipitous in Lebanon where they are supporting what appears to be a coup attempt, and with their support of terrorists operating directly against U.S. and Iraqi government forces inside Iraq.

Obviously, political pressure would be the preferred manner of dealing with both nations, but thus far, both nations have shown themselves to be adamantly unmoved by U.S. entreaties to stay out of affairs in Lebanon, and Iraq.

Syria and Iran were both warned weeks ago to avoid involving themselves in an attempt to topple the government in Lebanon; Gamayel's murder and the attempt on Pharaon's life were their answer.

Iran and Syria have played a direct role in supporting the terrorist group Hezbollah with $300 million in cash and their rearming, providing up to 30,000 rockets to levels even greater than Hezbollah had before the recent conflict they instigated against Israel by kidnapping Israeli soldiers.

In addition to attempting to topple the government of Lebanon, Iran and Syria have been behind efforts to cause instability in Iraq, permitting terrorists to use their borders to infiltrate in with pre-rigged IEDs that are used to target U.S. and British servicemen.

According to Bob Woodward's new book, State of Denial, Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was urging Hezbollah to train Iraqi insurgents on how to build and use shaped-charge IEDs to target American armored vehicles. Woodward states (via NRO):


Pages 414-415: "Some evidence indicated that the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah was training insurgents to build and use the shaped IED's, at the urging of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. That kind of action was arguably an act of war by Iran against the United States. If we start putting out everything we know about these things, Zelikow felt, the administration might well start a fire it couldn't put out..."

Page 449: "The components and the training for (the IEDs) had more and more clearly been traced to Iran, one of the most troubling turns in the war."

Page 474ß: "The radical Revolutionary Guards Corps had asked Hizbollah, the terrorist organization, to conduct some of the training of Iraqis to use the EFPs, according to U.S. Intelligence. If all this were put out publicly, it might start a fire that no one could put out...Second, if it were true, it meant that Iranians were killing American soldiers — an act of war..."

And from the same National Review column:


It's not the first time we have had information about Iran's murder of Americans. Louis Freeh tells us that the same thing happened following the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. On page 18 of Freeh's My FBI he reports that Saudi Ambassador Bandar told Freeh "we have the goods," pointing "ineluctably towad Iran." The culprits were the same as in Iraq: Hezbollah, under direction from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence. And then there was a confession from outgoing Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani to Crown Prince Abdullah (at the time, effectively the Saudi king): page 19: "the Khobar attack had been planned and carried out with the knowledge of the Iranian supreme ruler, Ayatollah Khamenei."

As Freeh puts it, "this had been an act of war against the United States of America."

Whether or not the President acknowledges it, a state of war exists between the United States and the governments of Iran and Syria. The question before us now is whether or not we chose to acknowledge this state of war that our adversaries have instigated, and if we will take the steps needed end this state of conflict with a minimal loss of life on all sides.

Any response we make—political, economic or military—may trigger a renewed rocket assault on Israel by Hezbollah, and a dramatic surge in violence against U.S. and Iraqi government forces in Iraq by Shia militias loyal to Iran. This is in addition to direct counterstrikes that the Syrian and Iranian military may have preplanned against U.S. forces and allied nations throughout the Middle East. Such actions would likely include Iranian attempts to target and destroy refineries, oil pumping stations, ports, and pipelines and oil rigs in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Persian Gulf Nations, in addition to an attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz to shipping, thereby paralyzing many of the world's economies dependent on the free flow of Persian Gulf oil.

Therefore, the best and only option available to the United States and allied nations threatened by Iran and Syria is an overwhelming series of air strikes that will cripple these ability of these two nations to project military power both directly and indirectly, along with the explicit message that further measures taken by Iran and Syria to effect changes through the use of terrorism or through conventional warfare will result in far more debilitating attacks that would wreck the economies of these nations and threaten the very existence of their regimes.

The "biggest sticks" in the Iranian arsenal are two-fold; their ability to influence terrorists in Iraq and in Lebanon, and their purported ability to close the Persian Gulf to shipping via military means. Syria has much more limited capabilities.

Very little can be done to directly stop Syrian and Iranian contributions to terrorism, but as Syria is something of a client state of Iran, our best opportunity may be to take on the "head of the snake;" where Iran leads, Syria will likely follow, and Iran is in a far more precipitous position than they would have us believe.

As Global Security notes, Iran's primary means of affecting Persian Gulf Shipping is their smallest and most obsolete branch of service, the Iranian Navy:


Iran's three destroyers are over 50 years old and are not operational. The readiness of the three 25-year-old frigates is almost non-existent, and the two 30-year-old corvettes do not have sophisticated weapons. Ten of 20 missile-equipped fast attack craft have limited operational readiness, and four of them are not seaworthy as of 2001. Only 10 Chinese-made Thodor-class craft are operationally reliable. The four 30-year-old minesweepers are obsolete, lack seaworthiness, and do not have a mine-sweeping capability. Iran has many amphibious and auxiliary ships, but these are superfluous to requirements and are used purely for training personnel. Iran's ten hovercraft are old and used sparingly.

Iran's greatest naval threats are Chinese-made high-speed C-14 and similar missile gunboats, three Russian-designed Kilo-class submarines, and island and platform-mounted anti-ship missile batteries.

It would take comparatively little effort or tactical risk for American Air Force and Naval aircraft to send the ships, small craft and submarines of the Iranian Navy to the bottom of the Persian Gulf, with Iranian forces on platforms and on small Iranian-controlled islands being slightly more difficult.

The destruction of Iran's nominal Persian Gulf fleet would be a crushing psychological blow to both Iran and Syria, and it would greatly reduce Iran's capability to threaten Persian Gulf shipping, a factor that to date has let Iran support terrorism as the rest of the world has turned a blind eye.

What would possibly keep Iran or their proxies from retaliating is a threat issued concurrent to U.S. air strikes on the Iranian navy:

You've seen what we have done to your navy. How long with your government last if we decide to target your refineries and blockade any ship attempting to deliver refined petroleum products to Iran? Stop supporting terrorism in Iraq and Lebanon, or these further steps will be taken.

One of Iran's dirty little secrets is this: for a nation rich in oil, they are very poor in their ability to convert this oil into usable fuel.

The threat issued would state that if Iran attempts to retaliate, either directly or indirectly to the reduction of their Navy, further air strikes could decimate their very limited refinery capability, while a blockade in the Gulf of Oman of Iran-bound tankers carrying refined fuels would cause Iran to "dry up" within weeks. Iran’s military and their economy would be crippled with comparatively little effort on the part of the United States Navy, which could enforce a blockade well outside the range of Iranian countermeasures.

Iran has already begun a war with the United States and seeks to wage it via proxies in Iraq and Lebanon. It is time that we reduce the threat of Hezbollah and Shiite militias to ourselves and our allies by cutting them off at the knees.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:10 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 21, 2006

What Do Muslims Have in Common With Democrats?

Even death does not stop people from converting:


Shahin of the Tucson Islamic Center said more than 1,200 Muslims died in the World Trade Center catastrophe, and no genuine member of Islam would do such a thing.

So, almost half of those killed in New York on 9/11 were Muslims? Neat trick, since Muslims are just 0.6% of the U.S. population.

Oh, and Omar Shahin, the idiot that uttered this? He was one of the six imams booted from a flight at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport last night.

Praise be to Allah.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:37 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Crude Messages

As you probably already know by now, the political story of the day is that another Lebanese politician has been assassinated.

Lebanon’s industry minister Pierre Gemayel was driving in Jdeideh when he was boxed in by two cars. the first slammed on its brakes causing Gemayel to crash into it, while the second car pinned Gemayla's vehicle from behind. Gunmen fired a minimum of 14 shots.

Like Rafik Hariri who was assassinated in a car bombing on February 14, 2005, Pierre Gemayel was anti-Syrian.

Reaction:


Wael Abu Faour, an anti-Syrian lawmaker, told Al-Jazeera, "We directly accuse the Syrian regime of assassinating Gemayel and hold (Syrian) President Bashar Assad responsible for this assassination ... aimed at sending Lebanon into a civil war."

In an interview with CNN, Saad Hariri, Rafik's son and leader of the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority, implicitly blamed Damascus, saying, "We believe the hand of Syria is all over the place." He said Gemayel was "a friend, a brother to all of us" and appeared to break down after saying: "we will bring justice to all those who killed him."

Gemayel's death came hours before a deadline for the U.N. Security Council to approve a letter endorsing an agreement with Lebanon to create a tribunal to prosecute Rafik Hariri's suspected killers.

It is suspected that top officials in the Syrian government, perhaps even Syrian dictator Bashar Assad himself, may be implicated in ordering Hariri's 2005 murder.

While any assassination of an anti-Syrian politician in Lebanon is suspicious, the timing of the Gemayel murder is incredibly explosive, and perhaps that was the intention.

In addition to the implicit warning the assassination sends to those who would endorse the U.N. tribunal, the murder comes just days before planned Hezbollah protests aimed at toppling the Lebanese government. The government could also be toppled with the death or resignation of one more minister of the Lebanese cabinet. As Michael Totten notes, "Looks like the coup d'etat is in progress." Indeed, an attempt was made on the life of Michel Pharaon, the minister of state from parliamentary affairs just hours before Gemayel's murder.

The U.S government had only recently accused Syria and Iran of plotting to overthrow the Lebanese government, and a U.S. State Department official, Nicholas Burns, stated, "We will give full support to the Saniora government in the days and weeks ahead."

This begs the question: what kind of support does the United States have to offer a Lebanese government on the brink of collapse?

Note: As always, Allahpundit provides the roundup.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:26 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Unseasonably Cruel

And thus is the human cost of hatred.


iraqi_boy

A joint U.S. Iraqi raid into the Sadr City slums of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army led to a firefight between coalition forces and Mahdi Army militiamen. The fighting was intense enough that an air strike was called in on a building from which the militiamen were firing, leading to the deaths of this boy's younger brother and two others, the wounding of 15, and the capture of 7 militiamen, one of which is believed to have taken part in the kidnapping of a still-missing American soldier.

The Mahdi Army is one of the most active factions in the on-going sectarian violence in Baghdad, responsible for the kidnapping, torture, and murder of hundreds (if not thousands) of Iraqi Sunnis. The militiamen--likely his own relatives considering the fact that Iraqis tend to live in family compounds--attempted to use his home as a bunker. Of course, that doesn't matter to this child. He only knows that his baby brother is dead.

It's easy to sling blame around.

He and the rest of his family will likely grow up hating the United States and the Iraqi government troops that participated in this raid. It is highly unlikely that they will acknowledge their own far greater culpability.

Their neighborhood was raided because coalition forces were acting on intelligence that kidnappers and murderous thugs lived there, and these same thugs--perhaps his own father, brothers, uncles, or cousins--likely kidnapped, tortured and murdered fellow Iraqis, and then were daft enough to try to fight coalition forces from a home with children inside. While U.S. air support pulled the trigger on the munitions that killed his brother, the militiamen in their midst, firing at U.S. and Iraqi forces, caused that trigger to be pulled. They can add their own young relative to their body count. They will not stop for a second to think about the fact that they have likely caused the same trauma in loss in Sunni families just blocks or miles away.

Compounding the loss and magnifying the lessons unlearned are fellow Shiites like legislator Saleh Al-Ukailli.


"I am suspending my membership in parliament since it remains silent about crimes such as this against the Iraqi people," legislator Saleh Al-Ukailli told reporters outside the Imam Ali Hospital. "I will not return to parliament until the occupation troops leave the country."

Al-Ukailli is one of 30 legislators in Iraq's 275-member parliament who follow Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric whose main offices are in Sadr City.

Al-Ukailli could care less about "crimes... against the Iraqi people."

Like far too many Sadr loyalists in the Iraqi government, he seems to harbor no concerns about the crimes his fellow Shia perpetrate, and only professes outrage once they are forced to account for their own depravity. Left to their own devices, such men would continue to turn a blind eye to the slaughter of Sunnis and Kurds, as long as it suits his purpose. I have little doubt that men such as Al-Ukailli turn a blind eye when Sunni children have their fathers and brothers slaughtered. They are democratically elected, but still do not understand democracy, nor freedom, nor compromise.

* * *

And so here in America, over broadband networks in climate-controlled comfort, in a far more stable environment, we still carp over why we went to war, and when we should leave, and whether or not the cost we are paying as a nation is too high. We see things all too often through our own warped prisms, playing politics as children die.

"We caused this! Out of Iraq NOW!"

This is the cry I hear from many, every day, from both the political left which feels we never should have been there, and from moderates and many of those on the right who now feel our continued presence is a mistake. Our costs--1.7 lives a day--are too much for our mercilessly civilized post-modern sensibilities.

And yet we know the ugly secret, don't we?

We know that for every tragic loss of an American soldier, sailor, airman or marine in Iraq, Iraqi soldiers, policemen, and civilians pay a far higher price. We know that comparatively, our costs are few.

In a nation under severe internal strife, brave men in Iraq still show up at recruiting stations to become policemen and soldiers. They have nowhere to return to, nowhere to run, and have a simple choice; become a victor, or become a victim. In Ramadi, the capital of the al-Anbar province and long a stronghold of Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda terrorists, the Sahawa, or the Awakening, has come. Sunni tribesmen formerly allied with the insurgency are swelling police ranks, capturing and killing foreign terrorists and native-born anti-Iraqi forces alike. In Ramadi, it appears the Iraqis have shed enough blood to appreciate and crave both stability and freedom. It is slow going, but progress is being made day by day.

Will we eventually see that same yearning for stability, freedom, and peace in a far more complex Baghdad? History tells us that all wars eventually end as a matter of will or a matter of eradication. One side must either be utterly destroyed, or its will to fight must be. This is equally true in both conventional and asymmetrical warfare, one of which the U.S. military has won convincingly in Iraq, and the other, which must eventually be won or lost by the Iraqi people themselves.

The purpose of U.S. forces in Iraq is not to conclusively defeat the various anti-Iraqi factions, but to provide training and material support to Iraqi government forces so that they can win the war. At the same time, we seek to destabilize anti-Iraqi forces and help to provide an environment where political and social change can take root, as we are now seeing in Ramadi and elsewhere.

Our military does not need to "go big" in Iraq, but it does need to "go long," one of the things the Bush Administration has called correctly. We do not need more troops, but we need to utilize the soldiers we do have to train Iraqi forces and provide support for them as necessary in "the long war" to stamp out the insurgency by breaking the enemy's will to fight over time.

Part of that support will be engaging in raids that will on occasion lead to civilian deaths, especially when these civilians harbor anti-Iraqi forces of various stripes. If we don't mature enough to accept the fact that some innocents die in war, then the abandonment policy favored by some will certainly lead to far more civilian deaths through a far more violent civil war and a potential genocide. You can pay a blood debt of comparatively few lives now by continuing the mission, or set the stage for an even bloodier Iraqi future by withdrawing.

This is a cold, hard fact that few on the left will address or even admit. War is cruel by nature, but to abandon an ally while the conflict rages would be the cruelest atrocity of all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:23 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Final Destination

Deja vu, all over again:


Six passengers were removed from a departing flight Monday at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and were taken for questioning by police, an airport spokesman said.

The passengers were boarding US Airways Flight 300, bound for Phoenix, around 6:30 p.m. when crew members "saw suspicious activity" by the men and called airport police, said the spokesman, Pat Hogan. Police escorted the men off the plane and took them to be questioned, he said.

A passenger initially raised concerns about the group through a note passed to a flight attendant, said Andrea Rader, a spokeswoman for US Airways. Police were called after the men refused requests by the captain and airport security workers to leave the plane.

The crew described the men as Middle Eastern in appearance, Hogan said, though he didn't immediately know where they were from.

This came just days after Sisayehiticha Dinssa was arrested at Detroit Metropolitan Airport with $79,000 in cash and a computer containing information about nuclear materials and cyanide. He was also traveling to Phoenix.

What might all these suspicious characters be headed for Phoenix?

Old habits die hard.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:13 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Leftist Nut Declares Himself President

Interestingly enough, unemployed Latin American studies professors are a big part of the leftist base in this country, as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:53 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 20, 2006

Charlie Rangel's Botched Joke

The furor and continued non-apology over John Kerry's "stuck in Iraq" comment have just subsided, and now New York Democrat Charles Rangel attempts to leverage an equally insulting draft recommendation in an attempt to raise an anti-war cry, using a call for compulsory service in the U.S. military as a wedge issue:


Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) has long advocated returning to the draft, but his efforts drew little attention during the 12 years that House Democrats were in the minority. Starting in January, however, he will chair the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Yesterday he said "you bet your life" he will renew his drive for a draft.

"I will be introducing that bill as soon as we start the new session," Rangel said on CBS's "Face the Nation." He portrayed the draft, suspended since 1973, as a means of spreading military obligations more equitably and prompting political leaders to think twice before starting wars.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," said Rangel, a Korean War veteran. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft."

Lets be very, very clear: Charles Rangel doesn't give a damn about the "equitably" of service in our nation's military, which to date, is over-represented by soldiers who are more rural, wealthy, and better educated than their peers. He instead clings to often disproven lies that the military is disproportionately made up of minorities and the poor.

Rangel willingly lies, but lies with a purpose.

What doubtlessly disappoints Mr. Rangel is that though Americans do not support the direction of the War in Iraq (as was evidenced in the recent election), they have refused to engage in the massive protests and demonstrations that were key to the anti-war campaign during the Vietnam era. Rangel's primary goal in his call to reinstate the draft is to gin up protests like those of 30 years ago.

Rangel's tactics are particularly loathsome in that he seeks to use our all-volunteer military as the whipping boy for his anti-war politics. He would attempt to pit draft-age Americans and their family members against those who honorably joined the military of their own volition.

I have nothing but contempt for Rangel's transparent demagoguery. He does not wish to strengthen America's proud all-volunteer military, but instead seeks to lessen its will, against its wishes, and against its needs.

Rangel's call to reinstate the draft is cynical, unwanted, and like Kerry's comments before, a back-handed slap at those who serve our nation of their own free will.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:25 PM | Comments (41) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Advocating Assured Destruction

It appears Jules Crittenden agrees with the general theory I wrote about Friday in Another Direction , where I advocated making Iran and Syria "feel the pain" for being active state sponsors of terrorism. Crittenden writes:


An erroneous assumption has been made by the Iranians and by many in the west that because our ground forces are hyper-extended in Iraq, and Iranian nuke facilities are buried deep, there is nothing the United States can do about an Iranian nuclear program. This is not true. There is no need to invade or occupy Iran. We do not want to do that. We would prefer to see the Iranian people's desire for free elections honored, but that doesn't appear likely any time soon.

What we have to do to influence Iran is explain that if Iran does not begin to cooperate with the international community, we will substantially isolate Iran and destroy its means of supporting terrorism and pursuing nuclear weapons. This can be done incrementally, to give the Iranians an opportunity to reconsider their policy. Our Navy, not hyper-extended in Iraq, can blockade their ports. Our Air Force, also not hyper-extended in Iraq, can begin reducing their terrorist-support infrastructure. Things like oil fields, refineries and roads leading toward Syria and suspected nuclear sites. This can continue ... pretty much as long as the Iranians want it too.

While I didn't specify it, it was primarily U.S. Air Force and Naval air power I had in mind when I advocated the reduction of Iran's naval and marine forces. Single strikes with precision munitions could destroy their few corvettes and frigates (their three destroyers are so useless they aren't worth wasting bombs on), and their remaining fleet, which is composed of patrol boats and number small craft, would be easily destroyed with cluster munitions. Only their small marine outposts near the Straits of Hormuz may require SpecOps insertions, and that is purely speculative. Air power alone may suffice.

The other targets, the oil fields, refineries, roads, and nuclear sites, are clearly air power targets that Iran is nearly defenseless against, even with the purchase of the low-to-medium altitude TOR-1 SAMs from Russia.

I've said it before and I will say it again and again because it bears repeating: terrorism will only be supported by states for as long as they see it as a cost-effective way to achieve their foreign policy goals. When the cost of supporting terrorism becomes too high, the state support of terrorism will cease or be greatly curtailed, making it far more difficult for terrorist groups in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza to survive.

Update: I missed this earlier, but even the L.A. Times is getting on the bomb Iran bandwagon:


If Tehran establishes dominance in the region, then the battlefield might move to Southeast Asia or Africa or even parts of Europe, as the mullahs would try to extend their sway over other Muslim peoples. In the end, we would no doubt win, but how long this contest might last and what toll it might take are anyone's guess.

The only way to forestall these frightening developments is by the use of force. Not by invading Iran as we did Iraq, but by an air campaign against Tehran's nuclear facilities. We have considerable information about these facilities; by some estimates they comprise about 1,500 targets. If we hit a large fraction of them in a bombing campaign that might last from a few days to a couple of weeks, we would inflict severe damage. This would not end Iran's weapons program, but it would certainly delay it.

What should be the timing of such an attack? If we did it next year, that would give time for U.N. diplomacy to further reveal its bankruptcy yet would come before Iran will have a bomb in hand (and also before our own presidential campaign). In time, if Tehran persisted, we might have to do it again.

Can President Bush take such action after being humiliated in the congressional elections and with the Iraq war having grown so unpopular? Bush has said that history's judgment on his conduct of the war against terror is more important than the polls. If Ahmadinejad gets his finger on a nuclear trigger, everything Bush has done will be rendered hollow. We will be a lot less safe than we were when Bush took office.

Finally, wouldn't such a U.S. air attack on Iran inflame global anti-Americanism? Wouldn't Iran retaliate in Iraq or by terrorism? Yes, probably. That is the price we would pay. But the alternative is worse.

After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917, a single member of Britain's Cabinet, Winston Churchill, appealed for robust military intervention to crush the new regime. His colleagues weighed the costs — the loss of soldiers, international derision, revenge by Lenin — and rejected the idea.

The costs were avoided, and instead the world was subjected to the greatest man-made calamities ever. Communism itself was to claim perhaps 100 million lives, and it also gave rise to fascism and Nazism, leading to World War II. Ahmadinejad wants to be the new Lenin. Force is the only thing that can stop him.

Are we beginning to detect a theme, folks? Iran will not comply with economic or political pressure, and so the remaining option is military in nature, and that military option is best expresses in an air power war again key Iranian targets.

One thing that these men are leaving out, however, is what may happen as a result of air strikes targeting Iran's nuclear facilities and other infrastructure sites.

Critics of such an attack would point out that as a result, Hezbollah and Hamas would like begin another intense rocket campaign on Israel.

I think this is entirely correct, and entirely beside the point.

Despite all the bluster over Hezbollah's last war with Israel earlier this year, Israel suffered very few casualties. I think the figure was just 157 deaths, most of them soldiers, in Lebanon. In opposition, Hezbollah lost as many as half of their armed fighters in southern Lebanon, and their infrastructure was wrecked. Hamas and Hezbollah can indeed launch attacks, but the retaliatory strikes from Israel will certainly cause more damage.

More troubling is the thought that an attack on Iran may trigger and Iranian ground invasion of Iraq. Iran has a military of more than 300,000, most of then conscripts, and they have long-range rockets that may cause significant Iraqi civilian casualties.

That said, any Iranian ground invasion of Iraq would be suicidal for the Iranian troops involved. They have no air cover to speak of, and the invasion would result in a larger scale repeat of 1991's Highway of Death as they are decimated by U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy bombers. Such a crushing loss could hurt the mullahcracy, and so even as fanatical as they are, they would most likely not go this route. Iran wages asymmetrical terrorist campaign precisely to avoid the crushing losses their over-hyped military would take on a modern battlefield.

It increasingly appears that our best option for lasting peace in Iraq and the wider Middle East is a conventional air campaign to reduce Iran's asymmetrical warfare capabilities.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:12 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 17, 2006

Another Direction

John Donovan at Argghhh! reposts an email from a Captain in Iraq that understands what it takes to win the war in Iraq (I highly suggest reading the post in its entirety):


Massive firepower brought down on any transgressor is the answer. Sometimes you need to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut if you want people to pay attention and learn the correct lessons in life. If an IED blows up outside someones house and the homeowners tell you that they don't know anything about, bulldoze the house and salt the ground. After you do that two or three times, Iraqis will shoot the terrorists themselves to protect their homes. I realize that this may not be totally in keeping with some people's concept of "the American way of war", but if we are in it to win it, we need to take all the steps required to totally destroy the terrorists ability to make war on us and turn the population against them. Right now, because of our kid glove approach, there is no threat to the average Iraqi that helps the terrorists or turns a blind eye. We have to make it painful to the point that the Iraqi people say, "These Americans are serious about winning and they won't stop until they have won."

This comment indirectly highlights a current failure of the Bush Administration that I've heard elsewhere; the President has been trying to win in Iraq without committing to really fighting a war.

Let our soldiers use their massive advantages in firepower, training, and communications to take the fight to the enemy. Quit trying to fight a "nice" war. Such weakness does not result in a victory; to win a war the other side must realize that they cannot hope to win. It should go without saying, but if the other side doesn't feel defeated, then it isn't be defeated. Enable our soldiers to rely on their training and instincts and remove the overly cumbersome rules of engagement that restrict our soldiers to the point they are fighting a defensive war.

Towards that same end, and picking up where I left off in the previous post, Syria and Iran need to be made to feel the pain for their continued state support of terrorism.

Countries like Iran and Syria support terrorism because the see it as a cost-effective way of projecting foreign policy. We have the capability—economic, political, and military—to make this support extremely counter-productive.

In Syria's case, Assad's regime is particularly vulnerable to economic and political, particularly is Iran is dealt with first.

Iran, with much more strategic importance and a larger and more modern military, is a tough nut to crack, but indeed, one that can be cracked. Orson Scott Card makes a good suggestion when he mentions taking our Iran's capability to threaten Persian Gulf shipping.

The five ships operating in Iran's Navy—two corvettes and three frigates—are obsolete and barely functional, and are almost only symbolic in value. The 69 patrol craft making up the rest of their fleet stationed at six naval bases are highly vulnerable to air attack. Considering that the Persian Gulf is extremely shallow (averaging a depth of just 50 meters), their few submarines, which only have mine-laying (no torpedo or cruise missile) capability are also little more than targets.

Other Iranian facilities, including naval and marine forces stations at small Iranian-held islands and abandoned oil platforms along international sea lanes, could also be quickly overwhelmed or destroyed.

Break Iran's ability to influence or control the flow of shipping in the Persian Gulf, and you've essentially removed Iran's greatest political bargaining chip outside of their fledgling nuclear program.

Declare to Iran and the world that the destruction of their ersatz fleet was consistent with Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and in direct response to Iran's supplying the Medhi Army with Iranian-made munitions used to attack U.S forces in Iraq.

Remind Iran that continued support of Shia insurgencies in Iraq would be grounds for further attacks on more vulnerable targets, including Iran's nuclear program.

Iran is far more vulnerable and fragile than it's blustery rhetoric supposes, and it seems time to remind them that the continued support of terrorism does not come without an intolerably high price, and one that we are willing to make them pay.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:36 PM | Comments (46) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

What a Strange Way to Wage a War

Josh Manchester of The Adventures of Chester has a warning posted at TCS Daily:


Iraq is dangerous. Progress is measured in weeks and inches, not minutes and miles. It is weakly governed when governed at all. But to leave too early will be to compound these seemingly intractable attributes with the most deadly of sins: a failure of willpower. The world will know that when Iraq becomes the next Taliban-like state, or the next Rwanda, that it was only because the United States, the most able, powerful, and wealthy nation in the history of the world, gave up. If that disturbs you, imagine how much it delights our adversaries.

One can only hope that the moderate Democrats that panned Nancy Pelosi's choice of John Murtha yesterday in favor of Steny Hoyer are listening.

The Pelosi/Rangel/Levin/Kucinich wing of the Democratic Party has proven to be incredibly short-sighted, still thinking of the Iraq War as a tool to bludgeon President Bush and the Republican Party. They patently ignore the expected increased civilian deaths and possible genocide their short-sighted policy of withdrawal promise for the near-term, and the political damage that a retreat from Iraq would cause to the United States for decades to come.

Quite frankly, I'd opine that they care more about beating Bush than what is best for this nation, or for Iraq.

I challenge liberals, in all good faith, to explain how a near-term withdrawal from Iraq before the nation is stabilized will accomplish:

  • Making Iraq safe for Iraqis;
  • Anything other than convincing Islamists that terrorism is the best way to effect their will;
  • Anything other than making all nations around the world consider the United States to be a fickle, unreliable ally

Please, step up and tell us how abandoning Iraq will be seen as anything other than "open season" to Sunni terrorist and insurgents, and Shiite militias and criminal gangs. Iraq is bad now, so what effect do you think that removing the 140,000 best trained and equipped soldiers in the country will have, other than an marked increase in chaos and bloodshed? For a liberal left that claims to care so much about the plight of people in third world regions, they seem all to willing to sell the Iraqi people down the river to genocide.

Please, tell us why the terrorists that overwhelming cheered for Democratic victories in the mid-terms should view a withdrawal from Iraq as anything other than a validation of their tactics and assumptions of how to best to conquer the world.

Iran is watching. Syria is watching. Hezbollah and Hamas are watching, as are dozens of other terrorists groups, as well as every nation in the world. What other message could they possibly receive from a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, other than that a fierce depravity is the best way to ensure they get what they desire?

No, now is not a time to withdraw. It is a time to explain the stakes of this war to the American people, and rededicate this nation to winning the War in Iraq as one part of the overall War on Terror.

There can be no lasting peace through withdrawal.

Update: Via Instapundit, Investor's Business Daily has similar thoughts.

Update: via Hot Air, Democrat Orson Scott Card lays it out on the line:


The only issue that matters is still the War on Terror. Everybody talks about changing direction in Iraq. I agree. But I doubt they mean the same thing I do.

The only ways to change direction in Iraq are to give up and go home – a militarily stupid and morally indefensible move – or to go to the source of the insurgents' supply and cut it off.

Throughout this election season I have been hoping that President Bush had a bold military move against Iran up his sleeve, and that the only reason he was holding off was that he didn't want it to be perceived as an attempt to influence the election – or because he feared it would influence the election negatively.

Well, the election is over. Will he take the necessary military action to wipe out Iran's capability to disrupt the flow of oil in the Gulf? This would remove any credible threat from Iran (for the moment, at least), making it clear to both Iran and Syria that the way is now open for the US to take whatever action is necessary to stop their support of both terrorism and the subset of terrorism called "the Iraq insurgency."

The way to save the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians in Iraq is to get regime change in Iran and Syria.

Let's hope his fellow Democrats follow his advice.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:00 AM | Comments (61) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Thank You Sir, May I Have Another?


outhouse

SS/DD.

So much for Darwin's "survivial of the fittest."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:40 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

November 16, 2006

Priceless

Despite my general dislike of CNN, I've got to hand it to them; they really got this perfect, both photo and headline.


unhappynancy

Nancy's steaming, Murtha's pouting, and Hoyer's preening. Oh what a fun Congress this promises to be.

I somehow doubt that any of us outside the Beltway fully understand what kind of damage Nancy Pelosi has done to her credibility within the Democrat ranks over the past few days. She may find a way to earn that trust back, but I suspect it won't come easy.

As others have noted (h/t Hot Air), Pelosi's lobbying for Murtha against Hoyer seemed from the outset to be a very petty and personal vendetta that might alienate many of the moderate Democrats that just won power two weeks ago.

With the final vote for Majority Leader coming out 149-86 in Hoyer's favor, we seem to be witnessing a potential fragmentation of the Democratic Party. The liberal leadership which now firmly holds the Speaker's post and seems primed to take over the majority of the key committee assignments is ideologically at odds with an incoming group of Congressional freshman that on average, are far more moderate in their views.

Update: Denial:


And don't shed any tears for Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi. Even though her guy lost, this was still a big win for her. A victory for taking a stand -- and for her leadership. Because that's what real leaders do, they take stands. They listen to their hearts and follow their gut. If you only jump into the fights you're sure you can win -- notches in the W column that will look good on your political resume -- you're a hack, not someone who can move the party and the country forward. It's not about trying to have a spotless record; it's about knowing which battles are worth fighting, whatever the outcome.

It bodes well for Pelosi that was willing to spend her political capital right off the bat -- especially on the issue that will define her time at the helm. Far too many modern politicians save their political capital until it's lost all its value.

Arianna? Pelosi's already running a deficit.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:44 PM | Comments (38) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Not by the Hair of His Chinny-Chin-Chin

Rumors have long swirled that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was involved the 444-day Iran hostage crisis, with no less than five hostages coming forward to accuse him publicly of being one of the ringleaders. Other former hostages have said they were uncertain if Ahmadinejad was involved, while others deny his presence.

From time to time the story reemerges with a new twist, and this time that twist was provided by Russian online daily Kommersant, which ran an English-language article with accompanying pictures that seem to show a young Ahmadinejad leaning against the wall of the American embassy in Tehran the day it was stormed.


Ahmadinejad1

Texas Rainmaker is convinced that the man in the photo is Ahmadinejad, while Daniel Pipes isn't sure, and Allah flatly says it isn't the Iranian president.

Who's right?

I decided to see if I could get a professional to weigh in on the controversy, and so I sent a short email to several forensic photographers and biometrics experts asking their opinions, based upon the version of side-by-side comparison photo provided at Hot Air.


1979_2006

Certified Forensic Photographer Alexander Jason responded. His verdict?


With the one 1979 photo alone for comparison, it is not possible to make a strong conclusion about that man being the same man in the later photo. However, based upon an analysis of the 1979 photo and other, recent photos of Ahmadinejad, it is my preliminary conclusion that these are NOT the same person.

Some time ago, I was asked by a governmental group to perform an analysis of similar old and new photos. I still had a collection of the recent photos and I used some of them for my analysis.

While there are substantial similarities in the faces and hairlines, it is possible to have such similarities among different people, particularly when they are from a relatively homogenous racial population. The only significant difference I could detect was in the beard grown pattern: Specifically in the area beneath the lower lip. In the older photo, the man appears to have a dense, full beard in that area. In more recent photos of Ahmadinejad, he appears to have relatively sparse beard growth in that area. For that reason, based on the one old photo when compared against more recent photos, it is my opinion that they are two different people.

See the attached image.


Ahmadinejad-comparison1

Mr. Jason's well-trained eye caught what most of us would have missed. The armed man leaning against the embassy wall in November of 1979 has much more facial hair in the chin area than does Ahmadinejad in the present day photograph. And just in case anyone wants to speculate that Ahmadinejad could have suffered from male pattern chin baldness over time, Mr. Jason has that covered as well.


Ahmadinejad-comparison2jpg

We may never know who the man with the battle rifle leaning against the U.S. embassy wall in 1979 was, but based upon the photo provided by Kommersant and Mr. Jason's analysis, that man is not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

* * *

On an unrelated note, Mr. Jason also has an interesting perspective on the JFK assassination.

Who says those working in forensics can't have a sense of humor?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

<< Page 177 >>

Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.9245 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.884 seconds, 333 records returned.
Page size 315 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.