The Noble Pundit

Syria Is Figuring It Out

These Syrians are good! They have started to catch on to what we are doing in Iraq. According to the BBC, Syria said our aim was

"to destroy Iraq's institutions, ministries and infrastructure that exist in all countries over the world and have nothing to do with the regime".

Let's see now. Iraq was a totalitarian dictatorship in which the party controlled everything. Schools, hospitals - every institution in the country was government related somehow. With most of the institutions we do have to destroy them, not physically, but intellectually, to establish new institutions built on ideals of freedom and fairness. The buildings and the people may be the same, but the foundations will be different.

As for the ministries, which would we want to keep? The Ministry of Disinformation? The Ministry of Non-Defense? Or perhaps the Ministry of Dictatorial Moustache Cutting (ever notice how every true dictator worth his salt has the same moustache?)? There is no reason for any existing ministry, in Iraq or abroad, to continue in its existing form.

And when it comes to infrastructure, we have gone out of our way to protect and save the existing Iraqi infrastructure. We didn't go blowing bridges, power plants, water plants, or any other infrastructure plants. We left them alone in a move very unusual in the history of war.

I really feel bad for the Syrian foreign minister. He has spent so much time with de Villepin that he doesn't realize that we have to change the institutions and ministries as part of the process of liberating the Iraqi people from the Ba'ath Party. Removing a cancer isn't real helpful if you don't get it all.

UN, Human Rights & Credibility

Yesterday I asked the question "What will Muammar do?" Today I have decided that I really don't care. I don't keep up with the details of the Human Rights Commission, but this article from Scotland on Sunday has just killed any hope of the UNHRC ever having credibility with me.

Since 1992 a resolution critical of Cuba’s record has been passed by the commission almost every year.

Got that? Almost every year. One of the worst Stalinist nations on earth and it's still not every year. How in the world did Castro manage not to violate human rights one year? Why don't they just accuse the US of being an imperialist, colonialist, war-mongering, oil-stealing empire of hatred? Oh, yeah. They do that in the Security Council. Must be the separation of powers concept at work.

I really hope that the next chair of the Human Rights Commission is Zimbabwe - the paragon of virtue ruled by a man who has threatened to become the "black Hitler." Maybe Edi Amin can take over for Kofi Annan at the end of his term.

Or even better yet, the UN should increase their credibility by making the Iraqi Minister of Disinformation the next Secretary-General. His ability to just blatantly ignore reality is a step forward for UN credibility. At least their anti-Americanism will be out in the open (plus it will make for some really great TV again).

Speedbird Grounded

If there was one airplane in aviation history that has been more emblematic of the possibilities of aviation and its downfalls, that plane would be the Concorde. It has been announced that by the time Christmas rolls around, the Concorde will no longer be flying - much to the joy of its detractors.

Concorde is a technological marvel, even today. Crossing the Atlantic at two times the speed of sound at 60,000 feet is simply incredible. The 747 is the next fastest airplane flying and it isn't even half as quick as Concorde.

But it was also a technological failure. At 100 seats it was just too small. No one knew how well the materials it was made of would hold up after 40 years of crossing the Atlantic. For years now they've been finding small fatigue cracks throughout the structure - some of which have reached a critical failure point. Concorde was an aircraft ahead of our technological knowledge of the time.

It's truly a shame that some people are trying to use Concorde as proof that the EU won't work. Was the Concorde program political? Absolutely- the airplane is the most visible sign of European pork barrel spending in history. Concorde and Airbus have both served to prove that the French are great at building airplanes that no one can afford (Airbus is competitive only because of French and German subsidies that artificially lower the cost of production way below it's true amount). But the French not being able to build an affordable airplane is not the same as the British joining the EU. The two issues are completely unrelated.

If you want Britain out of the EU, fine. I actually agree with the Brits staying independent of the Euroweenies. But do not try to use an unrelated project to prove your point. Concorde attempted to stretch the limits of technology; the EU only attempts to stretch the limits of common sense.

Our Favorite Disinformation Minister's New Job

Well, looks like our favorite Minister of Disinformation has found a new line of employment. The self-help book author gig seems to suit him pretty well. And if this doesn't work, the Democrats are still looking for a viable Presidential candidate.

It's pretty sad when he has better employability skills than me. I guess I need to start working on my resume a little more. I wonder if Arthur Anderson is still hiring?

Oh, Happy Day!

There are times in life when you find just that right thing to cheer up a dreary day. After my wonderful day of work today, I was needing a little cheering, but unfortunately my favorite Minister of Dis-Information is awaiting the establishment of the unemployment agency in Iraq.

But oh happy, joyous find! I have discovered a site, We Love the Iraqi Information Minister, where I can get my daily fix of comic war relief, no matter what his employment status might be.

I can go back to being happy once again. The truly amazing BS is once again flowing (if only in recycled form).

What Would Muammar Do?

Actually the question is "What Will Muammar Do?" For an organization - the UN - that is screaming for credibility, this is a wonderful opportunity for them to regain the high moral ground by opposing a blatant violation of human rights.

Libya is now the head of the UN Human Rights Commission. They have declared the US to be a violator because we allow executions - after due process. I doubt that we've executed anyone in less than one year from the date of sentencing. Cuba executed these three nine days after the crime. Trial, sentencing, appeals and execution in less than a fortnight.

Will this be acceptable to Muammar? Is nine days in a dictatorship better than nine years in a democracy? Inquiring minds want to know!

This is the perfect opportunity for the UN to start on the long road to rebuilding credibility. The UN is supposed to be impartial and dedicated the protection of human rights anywhere in the world. I'm waiting to hear a harsh and immediate condemnation of one dictator by another. It's time to decide. What will Muammar do?

They Will Give Us "The Scowl"

I love this stuff. The Bureauweenies of the EU just don't get it. And they manage to prove it unequivocally day after day after day. Today's episode of idiocy involves the EU deciding that it will examine all the contracts issued by the US for the rebuilding of Iraq. The EU wants to make sure that all of our contracts meet the requirements of the WTO to ensure that "contracts awarded by national governments or their agencies must be open to businesses from abroad."

However, a spokeswoman for Pascal Lamy, the EU trade commissioner, conceded that this rule did not apply to vast bulk of contracts signed by the US Agency for International Development, the State Department organisation that oversees US humanitarian aid projects, and which so far has been largely responsible for reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Contracts that touch upon issues related to "national security" or "national defence" are also not covered by the agreement.

...................
"We will be examining [the contracts] on a case-by-case basis. We have to examine whether each of them falls under the exceptions the WTO rules provide for," the spokeswoman said.

These guys are seriously bitter about the outcome of the war. They so badly want to portray us in a bad light that they are going to take the time to examine each and every contract to make sure that they didn't miss out on an opportunity to make a buck. All this and they're concerned about "a row at the WTO."

We need to pass a resolution in Congress requiring that the contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq be awarded to the companies that provide the best value for the money. That would effectively eliminate most every weasel-based company and we'd still have the cover needed if they take us to the WTO ("We let them bid, they just didn't provide the value for the American taxpayer dollar.").

Then, the worst that would be able to do to us is to mightily scowl at us the infamous and always dangerous "European Scowl of Great Disapproval." It would be difficult to survive such a scowl attack, but we shall persevere as the Americans always do.

Propaganda of the Elite Media

Enough talking about Germany for now. This article from The Newspaper Guild is a pure gem. Anything that presents Baghdad Bobby as an impartial source has got to have more than a few excursions from reality. And this one doesn't let us down.

But the part that just really irks me is in the very first paragraph:

It’s one thing for reporters to uncritically regurgitate Pentagon and administration lies for the mainstream press, but it’s another thing entirely to serve up the same propaganda in a publication that’s by and for media workers.

Are they talking about the same media that has been asking questions like "Is a tank the big box with the really big gun?" Is this same media that was screaming "quagmire" when we stopped for sleep? Are we talking about the same media that asks questions like "Where do you plan to attack tomorrow?" If you're going to claim elite status, at least ask halfway intelligent questions. Don't refer to me as being part of the unwashed masses when you can't figure out how to turn on the shower. And they wonder why the masses complain of the "elite media" as we turn to alternative sources of information.

Another gem:

According to Sydney H. Schanberg, one of the media’s leading authorities on hazardous duty, in Vietnam only one in a thousand reporters would ever knowingly jeopardize a military operation, and that remains true today. (See “Schanberg’s Take on the Pentagon’s Media Rules—Analyzing the Conditions for ‘Embedded’ Reporters,” by Greg Mitchell in the Feb. 24 issue of Editor and Publisher.)

No, what is of concern are the severe limits the Pentagon will put on coverage, as detailed in the above-cited article, including “vague language restrictions, and situations where copy can be held, if not sanitized.” Then there is the threat of being expelled from the Pentagon group if the news is not flattering to the U.S. military. Raise your hand, anybody who thinks that the Army will be conducting tours of the destruction in Baghdad caused by 800 cruise missiles.

So only 1 in 1000 will knowingly jeopardize a military operation? Thousands of our soldiers could die because of their reporting. To knowingly jeopardize a military operation has go to be treason. I'll agree that the military needs to be totally forthcoming about prior military operations, even if they were only a few hours ago, but until the operation is done - sanitize away. The job of the military is to prosecute a war, not to fill Freedom of Information requests.

And as for the damage caused by 800 cruise missiles? Well, the Iraqi Disinformation Ministry seemed to revel in taking reporters around to show the damage. I can only remember the IDM "exposing" maybe 5 instances of massive damage. I guess the other 790 or so cruise missiles must have missed their civilian target and inadvertently slammed into something of military importance, which would have caused the IDM to complain very vocally about the wanton damage caused by our weapons, without actually providing proof (they were still moving out the remains of the tanks, I guess).

But the last paragraph was just beautiful. The culmination of so much work and effort and quoting of Baghdad Bob closes with this:

More and more Americans are now looking to the British press for the real story about our empire’s actions abroad.

Just not to her favorite wanker, Bobby Fisk.

So What About The Germans?

Ryan Thompson of Young Conservatives has put forth an interesting argument that Germany has actually been supporting us all along and that we should cut them some slack and even view the current state of affairs as beneficial. He states several solid reasons for having this belief (military assistance, granting of passage and overflight rights, etc.). And while these are all good signs, we still need to pay attention to Mr. Schroeder's words and their effects.

Mr. Schroeder campaigned on an anti-American, anti-war platform. His rhetoric on the issue riled up his pacifist leaning population. The actions of Mr. Schroeder and the government may have belied a different stance than that which they spoke, but the German people bought into the rhetoric hook, line and sinker and have taken his words to heart. The actions of the German people indicate a growing gulf in understanding between America and Germany.

Is the gulf as wide as that between the Americans and the French? No. Not anywhere close. But is it there? Yes. And it is getting wider every day.

So how can we reverse the drifting apart of our two nations? The most important step that Schroeder could take would be to renounce the "alliance" with Paris and Moscow in the war against Iraq. Not to just edge away from it, but to come out and formally renounce it. And while renouncing the alliance, explain to the German pacifists why the United States is so important to their country and their freedoms. Explain the history and tell of the actions taken by the US GIs as compared to the Red Army. Talk about the Marshall plan and American forgiveness.

Schroeder needs to remind the Germans of the benevolence of the Americans. He needs to remind them that our ties go deeper than economics - they go to the most basic belief: freedom.

Schroeder needs to be pro-American if he wants to truly salvage the German-American relationship. He doesn't need to be our lackey, but he does need to be our friend.

This Weekend's Whine Fest

Even the Germans are now talking about a new "axis" between France, Germany and Russia. Anytime that words Germany and axis are used in the same sentence, it can't be a good thing.

This meeting of the Pro-Saddam axis this weekend is proof positive of their unwillingness to admit to reality. They plan to "discuss the role of the United Nations, the reconstruction of Iraq, and closer cooperation between the EU and Russia."

Unless this is going to be a molehill among the summits of history, they had better be planning on discussing the formation of the new Euro-Soviet Union - in all aspects and details. Even Kofi Annan has noticed that the coalition seems to be against giving the UN a role in rebuilding Iraq - he stayed home in New York. How much is there to discuss about the UN's role? Buy food; give it to hungry people in third world nations. There you go, we're done discussing the role of the UN.

It's a shame that the leaders of three formerly so great nations are now reduced to holding formal whine fests like this will be.

Of course it is nice to see the Germans offering to send the Wehrmacht Bundeswehr overseas as a "peacekeeping" force. Maybe that's part of the whole axis idea.........

Couldn't Pass Up Posting This

Since I had to miss blogging today's liberation:

It was a good day.

Found on Free Republic.com.

Boycotting the Weasels

There are quite a few people promoting the idea of us ignoring certain countries corporations during the rebuilding of Iraq. Specifically, there was a resolution introduced in Congress to prevent any contracts funded by US taxpayer dollars being awarded to companies based in France, Germany, Russia, or Syria. I don't think this is all that great an idea.

If a company based in one of these nations is the most capable and the most reasonably priced for a job, then they should get it. We're going to be pouring a fortune into the reconstruction of Iraq and as a taxpayer who doesn't really care for foreign aid all that much, I want my money to be spent as efficiently as possible.

Now this isn't to say that we shouldn't use our position to our benefit in a case where a coalition company and a weasel country are closely matched. But I really don't think that the weasels would get that many contracts anyway.

One of the great benefits that the coalition nations have going into the reconstruction bidding is that we are basically all built on capitalist economies. Our corporations have been honed on the stone of competition. They are prepared to provide an outstanding service at a reasonable and realistic price. Our socialist weaselist friends have been honed on the largesse of the 35-hour week work. Their only idea of competition is who gets the best parking place for getting out of work early.

Imagine the reaction of the weasels if we put into place a true capitalistic bidding system for the rebuilding of Iraq. They'd be screaming about the inherent unfairness because they don't know how to really compete head to head with coalition companies. Without a corrupt government to bribe, they have no hope of getting any contracts.

Getting a resolution passed requiring the interim government to award contracts based on a capitalistic bidding system in which both price and quality will play key roles will be much easier than a blanket condemnation. That essentially locks 95% of all the weasel nation's companies out of Iraq and the other 5% are companies whose talents we really do need. Congress can effect essentially the same resolution, worded differently, and still give us the political cover of having been kind to those who stood against us by allowing them to assist in the rebuilding. It's the best of both worlds.

EU Military Economics

Yesterday, I thought that Javier Solona hadn't a clue about the world, rhetorically asking if it was better to buy carriers or to support kleptocratic regimes. But today I find this article that makes Solona look like a hawk. It's like comparing Rummy to Jimmy Carter - with Solona being Rummy!

Among his whines is the fact that the US has been increasingly looking on the European defense contribution as inadequate. Which is true, Europe is still equipped to fight a war in 1985, not 2003. They haven't spent the necessary funds to keep up with the changes in technology that we've put in place over the last 20 years. Their contribution is inadequate, like the T-72 is inadequate against an Abrahms. We have technologically outclassed them so much as to make their contributions irrelevant.

But none of this is as scary as the total ignorance of reality that is displayed here.

Mistaken American military strategy notwithstanding, armoured divisions and wings of jet fighters are of little use against terrorists.

............

Ultimately, armed forces exist either to deter attack, or to be used in anger. Europe has nobody to deter, and no desire to aggress. In the absence of a serious will to use force, defence spending should be cut to the minimum required for the basic needs of security. If European states wish to enhance their power, they should look first of all at reforming their economic structures in order to enhance the root of all power – economic performance.

Perhaps he should talk to the Taliban or to Saddam of the "mistaken American strategy." Perhaps he needs a history lesson about having a strong military to fight off those who would deliver harm to his doorstep. Maybe someone should explain that a strong military is necessary to defend the very economic miracle he proposes putting in place.

Deterrence isn't about defending yourself from known enemies. With known enemies, you can plan and scheme based on intelligence and military strengths. Deterrence is to convince those unknown enemies that attacking you is not wise. Many enemies will only show their true colors when they think your guard is down. And most of the time, when they show themselves, it is already too late. You can no longer rearm in the short time before being totally overrun (Ask the French about the Germans after Munich. Even if they wanted to, the French couldn't have stopped the German advance - there was no time to build up a real army for the defense of the nation.).

The US economic miracle is made possible by the fact that we have a strong military. The economy hates uncertainty - that's one of the first rules you learn as a stockbroker. Our military ensures that we don't have to really worry about a war coming to our shores. During the post 9/11 period, when that looked possible, our economy tanked. The risk premium that was suddenly priced into the economy crippled it. A European military designed to provide "basic security" will price that same premium into everything in Europe. The sudden increase in real costs will destroy the European economy and put it into a depression that will last for years to come.

So just how valuable might Mr. Solona's carrier be? Probably more than the EU wants to admit.

Beating, Death and Self-Doubt

There are a few things that just make me sick as soon as I read them. This is one of those stories.

Beating someone to death is a terrible, terrible crime. But to do it to a retarded person, that takes it to a new level of heinousness.

I'll admit that most of the time, I don't really pay too much attention to retarded people. If I had seen Ricky outside playing Batman, I probably would have just kept going.

But there are times that we have to stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves. This was one of those times when someone needed to come to his aid. Yet all they did was dial 911. Sometimes 911 just isn't enough.

I feel terrible that something like this could have happened. I'm not so naive as to think that we can prevent discrimination and bullying against those less fortunate. But I feel ashamed that no one stood up to be counted when it really meant something. They all hid behind 911 and cell phones.

The worst part is that I'm pretty sure that I would intervene to protect someone like Ricky, but I sometimes wonder. But that little bit of self-doubt scares me. I truly hope I never have to find out if I've got what it takes.

Well, I'm Speechless

I feel like Dale Jarrett in the new UPS "We Want To Race The Truck" commericals, glassy-eyed and stunned. This just kind of leaves you in awe (If you can call it that). Just watch it and you'll understand (or not, who knows).

Hat Tip (I think): 3bruces

How Much Is An Aircraft Carrier Worth?

It looks like our friends over in Brussels still aren't catching on too well. Javier Solona has made a speech in which he warns against a return to "cave-man" politics on the part of the US. It would seem to me that when you're trying to curry favor with someone, you don't do it by referring to them that way.

Mr. Solona is most certainly trying to curry favor for the EU. He complains about "cherry-picking" of allies from within the EU. He apparently feels that "The EU has capacities that it individual members lack." Since the EU only seems to have the capacity to be bureaucratic and obstructionist, we probably don't want to seek their "capacities;" we want to get things done rather than debating them until all parties involved are dead.

But along with all the EU diplo-speak in the article was this nugget:

But he defended Europe's peacekeeping approach. "How much additional security does an aircraft carrier bring? Is it more or less than spending the equivalent amount of money on peacekeeping or reconstruction of failed states?"

Let's see. A Nimitz carrier runs somewhere around $6 billion - we'll call it $10 billion with the aircraft and other assorted support stuff. We offered Turkey several billion more than that and what security did that buy us? How many nations are better off because we threw $10 billion at a kleptocratic government? How much of the money given to the Palestinian Authority has actually been spent on bettering their people's lives and how much has been stolen, spent on weapons, or used to teach racial hatred? Is the world really better off having suicide bombers and a couple of generations of people who believe that Israel will eventually be thrown back into the Med?

And certainly his implicit implication that our carriers don't provide security is accurate. In a crisis, we never ask "where are the carriers?" We always lead off "with how much money do we need to sink into this bottomless pit of hatred and despair before the world will be a happy place again?"

The carriers are, to this point in history, the ultimate tool for projecting power around the world. Is it really surprising that the two leading participants in the Iraq conflict are the two that actually put carriers to sea? Someone recently said (I wish I could remember where I saw this) that being able to put 1000 airplanes per day over Iraq is worth at least another armored division. The carriers in place are major contributors to that capability. And with them we can put up the same capacity over virtually any point on the globe in a very short time (certainly much less than is needed to get an actual armored division to the area and ready to fight).

When it's been necessary we have sent the carriers to various hotspots around the world, almost always with the same results. When the carriers went through the Straights of Taiwan, the mainland Chinese complained and blustered, but got the message and started behaving again. When a carrier parked itself off the Korean coast, the N.K.s complained and blustered, but they got the message and ratcheted down the rhetoric somewhat (although it is still at dangerous levels). The most fearsome sight for our enemy, even more so than the 16-inch gunned Iowas, is a Nimitz battle group steaming over the horizon towards them.

So would I rather spend $10 billion on a carrier or $10 billion trying to save a failing nation? I don't really see where there is any question. How much additional security does an aircraft carrier bring? Quite a bit.

The New Manifest Destiny?

Had a long day, I'm tired and now I find stuff that I really want to discuss. Figures. Thom Hartmann has drawn some parallels between the Third Reich and the Bush Administration and comes to some conclusions that make me go "huh?"

Now I'm not surprised that someone would try to draw parallels between the Third Reich and Dubya. From my readings on Hitler's government, there are many similarities between the Nazis and the current US administration. But that holds true for the Nazis and any government, anywhere at any time. Every government has to achieve certain goals and the Nazis were no different.

But there are also differences of which we are all aware. The end of the essay is where Mr. Hartmann discusses the differences and comes up with what I find to be an odd conclusion.

Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.

I find it hard to believe that we won WWII because of higher taxes. I find it incredulous that we gained national strength though planting forests or Social Security. I also have trouble accepting that the Nazis lost WWII because of privatization. After all they were the National Socialist Party.

Mr. Hartmann believes that only a continued move towards socialization can save us. "To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours." He's right. We need to stick to the free market, small government principles of the Constitution. It's the best choice we can make.

Taking Things To Their Logical Extreme

Roger Fredinburg has written a commentary in which he basically complains about everything in the US except the military. He complains about the tax system, he whines about our legal system, and he expresses displeasure towards the environmentalists. My father and I often have discussions about how taking something to its logical extreme is in itself, illogical. I have stated before that I generally have libertarian tendencies - I want to live my life with minimal governmental interference. But Mr. Fredinburg has taken libertarianism to its logical extreme.

I don't want to overthrow the government, start a civil war, protest in the streets or terrorize my fellow Americans.

But essentially what he is proposing is anarchy backed by a strong military.

I would agree with the statement that the government has moved too much towards the authoritarian end of the spectrum. We do have many needless laws on the books. Motorcycle helmet laws, for one example, are really not needed.

The US Constitution enumerated certain powers for the government (roads, coinage, military, etc.) and then also left in a catchall - "for the common good." But what is the "common good?" Is protecting children part of the common good? I think so. Kids generally can't stand up for their own rights, so for the government to intervene to protect them (within reason - no witchhunts) is in the general interest of the nation. But is a motorcycle helmet law in the interest of the "common good?" No. The government should not be in the business of protecting you from your own stupidity. The government has no business attempting to regulate common sense.

Mr. Fredinburg makes a number of arguments that are all reasonable, but he proceeds to take them to their illogical extremes. At no point does he recognize the failing of pure libertarianism; at no point does he recognize that it is reasonable to give up some personal freedom for the common good. He doesn't admit to any use for government beyond the military.

There are many things that the government does that I don't like. I would like to see a different tax structure (that will be a discussion another day). I would like to see more personal freedom. And I would like to see the government do more to protect individual rights and less to protect us from ourselves (which almost always requires the taking away of personal rights). But the position taken by Mr. Fredinburg is too far out there. It is the illogical extreme of libertarianism.

Account of the British Entering Basra

The Scotsman has got some great articles today about the war. And this one about the British incursion into Basra, well let's just say that it is very good. It's not often that a news article keeps me wondering, "What's going to happen next?" But this one does.

We need more reporting like this and less of the NYT "quagmire." Factual, entertaining, interesting and educational, this is what journalism should be like. Is it a pro-British article? Yeah. But it's a British paper and, well, the Brits are doing pretty well over there right now. A positive article is not uncalled for. Actually, I believe it is more honest than the drivel you get from the "impartial" media.

A Change Of Heart

Here, in one article, is the story of the war in Iraq. It has the Fedayeen proving that they are thugs and not brave defenders of Iraq. It has an ordinary Iraqi being forced to decide between a dying regime and liberation. It has military forces having to make split second life and death decisions with no margin for error or someone will die unnecessarily. It is the Iraq war in short.

But it is also an indication of hope. The fact that the man risked his life to avoid dying is a sign that the regime is losing its control. It is a sign that the Iraqi people understand that we have no fight with them - only with the regime that would kill them for not being willing to blow themselves up for it. It is a sign that the people see us as liberators, not conquerors.

These are the kind of stories that I love to read. The civilian lives, the soldiers live and the evil Fedayeen are frustrated. It's the best of all worlds - and no one died. How can you script it any better?

The Baghdad Wall?

Interesting idea. The (More er Less) Honorable Billybob, cyberCongressman from Western Carolina is suggesting that we finish off the job in Iraq by essentially partitioning the city, letting Saddam control part of it, and wait for it to crumble like East Germany did. He asserts that doing so will save countless lives over the street-to-street fighting that we are all now bracing for.

Would it work? Almost certainly. But I'm afraid that it will take much, much too long to work. I believe that Saddam would let his part of the city starve rather than surrender. Saddam himself would have to starve to death before this would work - and that could take quite a while.

If 10,000 die during the complete forced removal of Saddam that will be less than if we try the Berlin approach. The street fighting will almost certainly be brutal, but it is the best of a bunch of not so great options.

I think that this theory will work on a regional scale though. A free and prosperous Iraq will eventually lead to the fall of the Iranian mullahocracy, the Syrian thugocracy and the Saudi monarchy. The beacon of hope represented by a new Iraq will have the same effect as West Germany did. The forces of progress and humanity will eventually spread from Iraq to the surrounding nations. The time for this to work will be, as it was in Europe, measured in decades.

Don't do it in Baghdad. We have spent too much time trying to protect civilians only to leave millions under the thumb of a murderous madman. At the city level, it would be a mistake. But by all means, let's help to build a prosperous and free Iraq that is a shining light in the dark Arab sea of despair.

Berlin is not the example to follow; West Germany is.

Terrorist Link Found?

So now CENTCOM is trying to convince us of a definitive link between Iraq and terrorists. Now I'll admit that I believe that we will eventually find an unambiguous link between Saddam and the various terrorist organizations of the region.

But to say that the fact that we have killed Sudanese and Egyptian fighters is not in and of itself proof of a link to terrorism. It does prove that there are other nutcases in the Arab world who think that fighting the US in a losing cause is the ticket to paradise. But it doesn't mean that Saddam and Osama are sharing a cave somewhere.

CENTCOM needs to be careful here. To maintain credibility they need to make sure that when they claim a link, they need to be able to clearly prove it. When they claim to find chemical weapons, they need to be able to clearly prove it. CENTCOM needs to remember that the world is scrutinizing us here. As the military battle draws to a close, the political battle will gain in importance and CENTCOM will be taking a leading role. In order to maintain our credibility, we need to make sure that we are only making completely defensible claims, not tenuous conjecture.

Bringing Building Supplies To Baghdad

The British have come up with a unique way of bringing concrete into the tight streets and alleys of Baghdad. Many of these areas are going to require rebuilding after the war since Saddam is parking tanks and other weapons there. So they Brits have figured out how to drop 1000 lb blocks of laser guided concrete right to where they will be most needed. As a side benefit they can use the tank to dissipate the energy of the block. Tank is destroyed, rebuilding supplies in place. A win - win!

Now if we can just get the Americans to drop in some stonecutters and artisans, we can start rebuilding the city in a great medieval style. Too bad large parts of the city will end up blue.........

(Hat Tip: Silent Running)