The Noble Pundit

"Americans Love A Winner....."

"Americans love a winner.........", four immortal words from the opening speech of Patton. I was reminded of them by an exchange in the comments of this post over a Winds of Change.NET.

The original post (very good, by the way, and worth the read) was a look at the ten plagues that had befallen the Iraqi people. One commenter, Bob, took exception to there only being 10 plagues. He proposed three more: the US invasion, ethnic cleansing, and the looting of history. Another commenter, Samuel Tai, took exception and wrote a point-by-point rebuttal of Bob's points.

But it was this comment that really got me thinking:

The US is not Washington. The US is not corporate America. The US is me, the individual citizen. I, and my fellow citizens, are the force behind Washington. We determine which corporations live or die in the marketplace. We are the ones who have chosen this course of action, because we will not cower in fear. We refuse to wait behind ramparts for the next blow to fall. The best defence is a good offence. If you believe the polls, 3 out of 4 US citizens agrees with this position.

"The best defense is a good offense." It is truly a maxim of American life. Most sports teams live by that motto. It is the basis for our national defense. It is the rule that most of use in some form to better our lives.

We are society that is based on the concept of success. That is what truly differentiates us from the rest of the world, which is primarily based on the idea of failure avoidance.

Success requires innovation and hard work. Our economy rewards innovative and efficient companies. Our society rewards and holds in esteem innovative and hard working people (think Thomas Edison, Bill Gates, Michael Dell and countless others). We relish success and are willing to forgive failure.

Other nations attempt to avoid failure. Companies that can't compete are provided subsidies. Individuals can't fail because they always have a societal safety net to catch them (the welfare state). Failure is the process by which we learn. Success is learning how not to fail.

As a result of the difference in policies, the US has begun to dominate the world stage. As we move forward, other nations stagnate.

We were willing to contemplate a regime change in Baghdad because we believed that we could be successful and that it would improve the lives of individual Iraqis. The vast majority of nations opposed us, not for principled reasons, but because they were afraid of what might happen should the regime change fail. Words like "quagmire" and "occupation" were used to express their fear of failure. For them, success was not an option. The status quo, no matter how detestable, was the preferred option because it avoided failure. Inspections were acceptable because their failure was twisted into a false success ("the weapons must be destroyed if we can't find them"). The very idea that we might be successful never occurred to them, it just couldn't happen.

I'm sure that Bob was meaning well, trying to point out some of the potential pitfalls before us with the munitions and the possibility of ethnic cleansing. They are both valid concerns, although maybe not as critical and wide reaching as he makes them out to be.

I will take separate issue with his last point though. For his thirteenth plague he states:

13)Loss of history. Thousands of years of historical and cultural artifacts and texts gone. Looted. Burned. Destroyed. A tragedy on the level of the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Imagine if the West Wall were destroyed.

The looting of the National Museum was a world-class tragedy, no doubt about it. I've seen the reports that many of the safes had been opened normally, not broken into. I've also seen reports that say that many of the artifacts on display were fakes (and not very good ones at that).

I still think that what happened at the National Museum and at the Library were both failures and that they both need to be investigated so that we can plan those kind of occurrences out of our next war plan. The reports coming out about the safes and the fakes certainly change the degree of the situation, but it doesn't change that something happened. Investigate and learn; turn the failure into a future success.

But while this is a world-class tragedy, it is not on the scale of the burning of the Library of Alexandria. In Alexandria, the history contained in those scrolls and parchments was truly lost - there were no copies or reproductions. The books in the Library were (or should have been) well studied and copied and reproduced. Is it unfortunate that the original was lost? Absolutely. But the contents were not. We lost the objects, but not the knowledge.

It is not the destruction of the Western Wall, either. We do know, however, what the tragedy of losing the Wall would be like - we have the historical record of what it was like when Titus leveled the Temple - leaving only the Western Wall. But even then, the true tragedy wasn't the loss and destruction of the Temple, it was the loss of life and knowledge that came with the destruction and the subsequent persecution of the Jews. To this day, we still don't know exactly what the Temple looked like or exactly how it sat on the Mount.

The loss of a book or building or an artifact is terrible and should be avoided when at all necessary. But the loss of the object itself is not the greater tragedy; the greater tragedy is the loss of knowledge.

The loss at the Museum was terrible because we lost the opportunity for non-politically motivated scholars to examine and learn from many of the artifacts for the first time. It is that loss of knowledge from the looting that makes it so tragic.

The events at the Museum and the Library were our two most significant failures during the war. But they are not the end of the world. We lost some knowledge in those events, but on the whole, we protected vast amounts of knowledge in the form of ordinary Iraqis who will now live because Saddam has been deposed. The trade off is more than fair.

We risked strategic and suffered tactical failure in Iraq. The ultimate question will be: Was the invasion and regime change a success or a failure? Anyway you look at it, it is a success. We effected our stated goal. We saved countless lives, at a minimal human cost. Even with the losses at the Museum and Library, we saved vast amounts of knowledge.

Many other nations in the world would have continued to accept Saddam, not because Saddam was kind or generous or anything of the sort, but because accepting him allowed them to avoid the failure of making the wrong choice. We chose to risk failure and have achieved spectacular success instead. We are, once again, winners.

And those who wanted to avoid failure, failed.

Should We Be Sorry?

There have been many complaints about the anti-war left not admitting that they were wrong in regards to the war in Iraq. I was going to comment on this article (link requires registration), but its content appears to have changed significantly since I first looked at it (several comments and paragraphs have dropped out making it very odd to read.)

I had to go looking elsewhere for what I saw as the most offensive comment in the article, but luckily the author of the comment, Michael D. Higgins, Labour Party of Ireland's Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs, has a site in which he memorialized this quaint little gem of a quote:

"While jubilant images of statues of Saddam Hussein being toppled dominate the media, there is less space given to those shocking pictures we have seen in recent days of innocent Iraqi children suffering the brutal effects of the bombing. We will learn what type of people we are in the West in coming weeks as civilians are left to die, ignored by Fox media and Sky who will by then be doing wall-to-wall interviews with US and British Generals."

So I guess I'm supposed to feel sorry for this child whose life is obviously worse off (note how we have left him to die with a bag of food and some water - pure unadulterated evil it is):

(Click the picture and scroll down for caption)

Or maybe for this child, who is obviously being oppressed by the evil imperialist coalition military forces (note the violent subjugation)

(Click picture and scroll down for caption)

There are many, many scenes like this being replayed daily around Iraq. I haven't read any credible reports of the coalition leaving people to die. I have seen reports of the military making extraordinary efforts to save not only civilians, but also to save members of the military. I haven't seen credible reports of mass starvation, disease, or large civilian death totals. I have seen hundreds of pictures like those above. If crying babies and looting (even of the National Museum) are the worst that is coming out of the freshly liberated Iraq, then we've done pretty well.

These are the faces of American Imperialism. It is a brutal, dehumanizing experience for our subjects isn't it?

Lebanon, Free and Independent

Lebanon is once again proving that its government isn't a puppet regime for Syria. This time their expressing their independent thought by establishing a cabinet devoid of Christians and pining for solidarity with their "Syrian brothers." Surely that proves that Syria isn't running the show in Beirut (just like the 40,000 Syrian troops don't prove anything either!).

This does nothing to further the cause of peace in the Middle East. It does, however, further the cause of the Middle East Disarmament Treaty as I discussed here.

The More Things Change.....

The more they stay the same. The UN is once again proving this. Color me surprised.

Cuba says it won't cooperate with UN on human rights. Now this isn't particularly surprising. Cuba has not exactly been a model of virtue in the human rights arena historically, so their unwillingness to cooperate isn't a great shock.

But what about the UN? You would think that an organization that needs to prove its relevance to its biggest financial backers would actually try to take some kind of real action to fulfill a key goal of the organization. So if Cuba is fighting to keep the UN out they must be taking some kind of real action, right? Maybe the UN was proposing immediate sanctions or was going to create a coalition of nations to blockade the island and to strangle the Castro regime. It has to be something major, right?

Wrong. The UN merely wants to send a French magistrate over to the island to report back on the state of human rights in Castro's Cuba.

Maybe they missed the articles about the 75 political prisoners jailed for terms of up to 28 years. Perhaps the overlooked the all-but-summary executions of three ferry hijackers (due process in 72 hours?) They must have overlooked the extreme poverty and suffering in the countryside as they sat on the beach in Havana.

Or maybe the UN Human Rights Commission saw a bearded anti-American thug in a military uniform. And in him, they saw themselves. To impose real sanctions on Cuba would require real sanctions on others, including nations like Libya, the head of the UNHRC.

The UN has, since the end of WWII, talked in terms of lofty goals while doing almost nothing. Here they talk of protecting human rights, while attempting to get a report on one of the worst violators in the world. Maybe they should try reading the newspaper. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Compassion, Persian Gulf Style

It looks like the US government, attempting to promote peace in the Middle East, is helping suspected terrorists to return home by providing them with free transportation from their place of internment. How many other nations would be able to do this?

Saudis For Regime Change in Riyadh?

I think that this editorial in the Arab News must have had a slight change in meaning during translation. It's that or the author is, in an offhand and indirect way, predicting the downfall of the House of Saud.

The subject matter, the winners and losers in the Iraqi conflict, is a benign enough subject you would think. I decided to read the editorial simply to see how the Arabs might be viewing the outcome of the war. I was rather shocked to come across this short paragraph:

Also among the losers are other dictators who now know that, with the Cold War ended, there is no Soviet Union to rush to save them at the last moment. A trend has started in Iraq that is certain to continue until all the remaining dictatorial regimes are thrown into the dustbin of history.

This brings up an interesting question. What is the real difference between a dictatorship and a monarchy? Not a monarchy like the British model (the Brits are parliamentary - the monarch is only a figurehead), but a real live true monarchy like in Saudi Arabia or Jordan. Outside of a somewhat definitive line of succession, there really is no difference between the dictatorship of Saddam and the monarchial rule of the clown Princes of Riyadh. Both ruling parties exercise(d) absolute dominion over their subjects. It's just that in one system the leader was called "President" and the parasites around him were the "Party." In the other system, they call the ruler "King" and his cronies in crime, "Princes." Call Uday and Quasy (I think those were their names, not that it matters) princes and you would have had an Iraqi monarchy along the same lines of the Saudi one.

If “all the remaining dictatorial regimes” are to fall, Riyadh will experience a regime change. And probably fairly soon.

It's kind of odd to see the propaganda mouthpiece of a nation inadvertently acting pleased about the overthrow of a government not much different than theirs. They speak of the fall of the Middle Eastern tyrannies as though their demise is a foregone conclusion. Somehow, I don't think that they thought the process of domino regime change all the way through.

Calling water fire doesn't change what it really is. The pleasant fiction of a "Saudi monarchy" won't save them in the end.

Oh, Those Tricky Syrians!

Looks like our friends in Syria have started looking for innovative ways to further their cause, while trying to make nice with President Bush. Buried deep in this article is a prime example of the Syrians trying to pull a fast one on Israel.

The Syrian Foreign Minister is proposing a treaty, that Syria would sponsor and sign, to make the Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. Liberal commentators, the news media, and most of the folks against a war in Syria have been latching on to this as proof of Baby Assad's "reasonableness" and his "willingness to negotiate for peace." Now I'm still not ready to support a side trip to Damascus for the Fourth Infantry Division, but this is not anything like what it is being described as.

There are really only three countries that would matter in this treaty plan: Syria, Lebanon, and Israel. Should the treaty be proposed, Syria will sign it and give up their WMD - publicly at least - just like they have stated. Lebanon, run by a Syrian puppet regime, will decline to sign the treaty. And Israel will end up screwed either way.

But why would Lebanon refuse to sign on to a treaty that would supposedly make their nation safer? Being between two WMD armed powers that really don't like each other isn't too good for the long-term health after all. Remember, Lebanon is a proxy for Syria. If the Lebanese don't sign the treaty, Syria wins on two levels. First they can trumpet the Lebanese decision as proof that Syria doesn't run Lebanon. After all, this is proof that the Lebanese government can make decision in opposition to that of Damascus and all will still be well. Secondly, Syria will make a big show of destroying a few obsolete WMD, mainly for the Western media, but where do you think the remaining, modernized stock will go? I'm guessing it would head into Lebanon, the non-signatory state.

All of which would leave Syria collecting massive liberal brownie points for voluntarily disarming and for proving once and for all that they don't rule Lebanon by fiat. So what are Israel's choices like?

If Israel chooses to sign on to the treaty, the Western media and Western governments will force them to comply with the treaty. Meaning Israel will have to voluntarily disarm. Now Israel being Israel, they will still have the Western elitists whining at them for not having unilaterally disarmed, without the need for a treaty or for Syria to disarm, and they will still have a non-conventional weapons threat right on their doorstep. So by signing the treaty, Israel would not gain anything, but would lose a strong deterrent against a WMD attack.

But Israel can't refuse to sign it either. The whining and gnashing of teeth will be bad enough if they do sign, if they don't sign the spin could make the Nazis look like they were running a peace rally. Israel would be raked over the coals and crucified in the court of world opinion. And all that would happen strategically is that Syria could then back out of the treaty with no loss of face.

This treaty is a really devious and well-designed attempt to subvert Israel's support in the world community. There is no way for Israel to benefit from this treaty - either by signing it or refusing to do so. Israel is in a lose-lose situation if this treaty really comes into play.

Syria on the other hand is in a win-win. They get to keep their WMD - most likely through a proxy government - and they get to watch their arch-nemesis suffer the wrath of unreasonable and uninformed public opinion. And they get to propagandize their support for "a peaceful settlement" to the problems of the Middle East -something the Western elite will eat up without ever questioning.

Israel can't win; Syria can't lose. Is it any wonder the Syrians came up with this brilliant plan?

What Have We Accomplished In Iraq?

So Saddam has fallen, literally and figuratively:

An Iraqi man throws stones at a statue of President Saddam Hussein as it falls in central Baghdad April 9, 2003. REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic/

So what have the results been like, are we successful or are we failing? We could ask these folks:

Residents walk with some of their belongings after passing a checkpoint on the bridge leading into Tikrit, Iraq Tuesday April 15, 2003. U.S. Marines started allowing residents to return to the city. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer)

Or maybe we could ask this woman:

An Iraqi woman carries some of her belongings after passing a checkpoint on a bridge leading into Tikrit, Iraq Tuesday, April 15, 2003. U.S. Marines started allowing residents to return to the city Tuesday, as the U.S. military set up cordons around Tikrit to prevent Saddam's senior leaders, and, in a long shot, perhaps even the dictator himself, from slipping away. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer, Pool)

Or this Shi’ite from the south part of Iraq:

Iraqi Shiite Shiekh Iyaad Jamal al-Deen from Nasiriyah, speaks at the opening of the U.S.-sponsored meeting on post-war Iraq Tuesday, April 15, 2003 at the Tallil Air Base, in southern Iraq. The United States convened a meeting of Iraqi opposition groups for the first time since Saddam Hussein's fall to spell out its vision of the initial steps for Iraq's future. (AP Photo, Leila Gorchev, Pool)

All three speak freely for the first time in 30 years. And some of their fellow citizens have begun to speak out against things they see wrong:

Iraqi men hold a banner as they pass U.S. Marines in Baghdad, Iraq, on Tuesday April 15, 2003. After the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime last week, looters stole and smashed priceless archeological treasures and burned Islamic Library which holds one of the oldest surviving copies of the Quran. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla

We have found a pretty definitive sign of Saddam coddling terrorists:

Leader of the Palestinian Liberation Front Abu Abbas. US central command has announced the arrest of the terrorist.(AFP/File/Joel Robine)

And we are still helping to improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis:

U.S. Marine Lcpl J.E. Sabalboro, 24, from Guam, left, holds a sign in Arabic reading: 'Free water', at a checkpoint, Wednesday April 16, 2003, as he distributes water to Iraqis returning after several days to their northern Iraqi hometown of Tikrit which they fled to escape fightings. The U.S. military set up cordons around President Saddam Hussein's hometown Tikrit to prevent regime leaders from escaping before they swept through Hussein's stronghold on Tuesday with less resistance than they expected although confronted by rage and insults. (AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis)

We are still winning the hearts of the people that count:

Sgt Willis William, of Flagstaff, AZ, with the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, shakes hands with an Iraqi boy during a patrol at a park in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah Tuesday, April 15, 2003. (AP Photo/Itsuo Inouye)

Much to the consternation, confusion and despair of those who don’t:

French President Jacques Chirac (L) speaks as Russian President Vladimir Putin (C) and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder listen during an international law conference in St. Petersburg, April 12, 2003. Even before the fighting stopped, the three European powers were moving to build bridges to the United States and ensure their companies a share in rebuilding the real bridges in Iraq -- along with roads, runways, oilfields and schools. Photo by Grigory Dukor/Reuters

Not too bad for a month’s hard work.

More On Taxes

One more posting on taxes.

While looking around for some of my research sites on my last post, I came across Neal Boortz’s daily notes, which he unfortunately doesn’t leave up for more than a day. So I’ve copied a few of the key points that I picked out.

This is the day when a simple question can lead to the discovery that most people have no idea how much income tax they pay, though this is becoming less and less true as we go along. There is one group that does know how much federal income tax they pay every year, and this group is growing ever larger. It's that segment of wage earners who pay nothing. So, we'll revise this statement to read: "Most people who actually do pay federal income taxes have no idea how much they pay." For proof, try this little test: Approach a friend or co-worker whom you actually suspect may pay federal income taxes and ask them what their tax tab was. You will get one of two responses. For the majority of taxpayers who actually get refunds, the response will be "I didn't have to pay anything! I'm getting some back!" Taxpayers who actually have to write a check on April 15 will quote the amount of that check as their tax bill. This is all by design. Politicians know that if those who pay federal income taxes knew what they were really paying there would be an instantaneous and ugly tax revolt. To hide the ugly truth, these politicians have kept alive our wonderful system of withholding. With the magic of withholding, the money is gone before the wage earner even gets the slightest whiff of it. It's almost as if it was never really there in the first place ... so, what's to miss? ……………………………………..

Withholding was sold to the American wage earner as a purely temporary measure to speed up cash flow to the government during World War II. As soon as the war was over, things were supposed to return to normal and the wage earners would get their entire checks, just as before the war.
In case you haven't checked, the war has been over for about 58 years or so, but withholding is still with us. It's still with us because the proliferation of the "I take home ..." workers and the "I didn't have to pay anything, I'm getting some back" taxpayers are such a boon to our politicians. As long as the majority remains ignorant of the extent to which their paychecks are plundered, politicians will be safe.
………………………………………………

The two major tax writing committees of congress are the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. Money Magazine reports that seven out of ten members of these committees cannot figure out their own taxes. They have to hire professionals.

………………………………………………

The solution is twofold.
First --- reform the tax system by getting rid of the income tax, repealing the income tax amendment and moving to a national retail sales tax. I've been promoting such a system for over 15 years. You can find out everything you want to know by studying the website for Americans for Fair Taxation at http://www.fairtax.org.
Second -- Government must be reduced to its constitutionally appropriate size.

I like listening to Neal Boortz in the mornings when I get a chance (which isn’t very often). He’s a little extreme and has a tendency towards being pretty abrasive, but he almost always seems to discuss something of interest. I just thought that these were some very good points and it wasn’t right to let them drop off the screen after April 15.

Taxes And Tax Plans

Today being April 15 – Tax Day- makes this a pretty good time to discuss my position on taxes, as promised.

The bottom line is that I don’t mind paying taxes and paying my fair share - for necessary expenditures. But the current tax regime is absolutely atrocious. I have helped to prepare, in some way, five different tax returns this year and I have detested the experience every single time.

Our current tax code is third-worldesque in its design. We can create a bomb that will blow up a particular toilet, but we can’t design a tax change without a loophole, a dodge, and a scam. We created the Saturn V rocket and the Space Shuttle, but our tax code is so complex it can’t be comprehended by any one person- not even a rocket scientist. And our enforcement of the code is arbitrary and inconsistent at best. Jesse Jackson and Rainbow/PUSH get away with incredible and public violations of the tax code – with no consequences. But normal, law-abiding people who make every effort to comply with the laws live in fear of an IRS audit. Why? Because the power of the auditor and collections agent is almost unchecked. If the auditor/collector chooses to be kind, it can be a reasonable experience; if they choose to take a hard-line stance there is no recourse against all but the most punitive decisions.

So what are the alternative choices? No tax really isn’t an option. The government still needs substantial amounts of money to provide basic services and functions. I’d really like to not have to pay taxes, but it’s just not realistic. The other two most popular options I see are the flat tax and a national sales tax.

The flat tax is the easier of the two to examine. In it’s basic form it proposes taking a flat amount - be it 10%, 15%, 20%, whatever the number – from everyone’s income. Essentially, we would fill out a postcard at the end of the year showing our income for the year and we would remit a check for the proper percentage. Sounds pretty simple and sweet, huh? Definitely much, much better than filling out the 1040 and paying payroll taxes and then still owing money when it’s all said and done.

But the flat tax falls flat in a couple of respects. First, the ultra-rich would be able to put a small portion of their investments in taxable income producing vehicles, while putting the rest in investments that grow without actually producing taxable income. So they would be able to avoid paying their fair share. The flat tax, being flat across the board, also has the effect of putting more pressure on the poor, who can’t really afford even $1000 in taxes, while relieving pressure on the middle and upper classes. In theory it plays into our desire for equality, but in practice it would really run counter to our national compassion and desire to help the less fortunate. And creating loopholes and deductions would defeat the basic premise of the flat tax. It’s a good idea on the surface, but I don’t think that it is really workable.

So that brings us to the idea of a national sales tax. I’ve done quite a bit a research and reading on the NST, the best site I’ve found for it is www.fairtax.org, and the idea seems to have some pretty good merit. First, being consumption based, it taxes most heavily those with the means to spend large amounts of money. Second, it becomes easy to establish a threshold amount of spending which will be tax free (through proposed rebates). Third, it allows for a smooth inflow of funds into the Treasury despite the elimination of withholding tax (something that the flat tax would fail at, barring a novel approach like making the tax day six months after your birthday or some weird idea like that).

So what’s the downside? As I see it, there are a few. First the 23% tax rate I’ve seen proposed some places is just way too high, in my opinion. Apparently the 23% rate is needed to make the proposal revenue neutral with the rebate checks that would be sent out every month; without the checks the tax rate would only need to be around 14% to be revenue neutral. Which brings me to the second problem, the rebate checks. I like getting a check from the government in the mail and getting one every month would be great, but I also have a work ethic and a desire to better my life. For those who are content with living on the dole, this is just additional income and a lifestyle enhancement for them. Sure, things will cost a bit more when they spend their money, but since they are living on government handouts for food and necessities anyways this would just give them another check to spend on luxury items (relatively speaking) instead of basic living expenses. The potential is there with the rebate checks to expand the willfully unemployed welfare class substantially, especially if the rebate check amount is directly tied to a person’s number of dependents – as has been proposed in a few cases.

So what’s the answer? I don’t know. I do know that the current tax non-system has got to be changed – from the ground up. We’re a first-world nation with a third-rate third-world tax system. There are millions and millions (if not billions) of dollars spent each year on tax avoidance (legal) and tax evasion (illegal). Any system that can reduce the incentive to manage or evade the taxman will be better than what we currently have.

The flat tax appeals in its simplicity. Unfortunately, I’ve never seen anything that addresses the practical problems of the plan – avoiding punitive taxation on the poor while avoiding the destruction of the basic premise of the flat tax- one rate for everyone. The flat tax plans needs to be fleshed out a bit more before I can support it.

The NST idea seems to have been better thought through, but still has some potential problem issues. The basic idea is sound, but how do you avoid creating loopholes (which again defeats the idea) or encouraging the growth of the welfare dependent underclass of America? I’m throwing my support tentatively behind the idea of the NST, but I think that it still has several questions that need to be answered.

All I know is that I don’t want to see another 1040 for a long, long time right now. I hate Tax Day.

Arab Change of Heart

OK, so it’s from Debka, not exactly a model of reliability, but it is still interesting nonetheless.

A. Documents coming to light in Baghdad directly incriminate Syria as a full partner in the financing, development and concealment of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. A source familiar with the new data reveals that Syria was not only a full partner but active in every stage of these programs to the point that they deserve to be called Iraqi-Syrian, not just Iraqi, undertakings. Well before the UN weapons inspectors came on the scene last year, the Syrian president Bashar Assad took it upon himself to conceal the banned weapons, one by one, as they came off the production line. Syria’s support for Iraq in the UN Security Council and the attacks leveled by foreign minister Farouk a-Sharah against Washington, for venturing to accuse Iraq of concealing weapons of mass destruction, were staged to misdirect attention from the biggest political, intelligence and military fraud perpetrated since the Cold War ended. Washington’s indignation over these discoveries has been manifested in a torrent of warnings to, and charges against Damascus in the last three days. Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld took the opportunity of the warm welcome he gave the visiting Kuwait ruler on Monday, April 14, to produce intelligence that Syria had conducted chemical weapons tests in the last year. He could have said more. According to DEBKAfile’s Washington sources, the defense secretary was also informed that in the same period Syria test-fired missiles fitted with chemical warheads from Aleppo in the north to Djebel Druze in the south near the Syrian-Iraqi-Jordan border junction. Damascus carried out the test on behalf of the Iraqi-Syrian partnership for developing unconventional weapons. B. The details of the comprehensive military collaboration treaty Assad secretly concluded with the now deposed Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein that were first exposed in DEBKAfile in September 2000 are only now emerging in full. Under its terms, Syria was bound to furnish an escape hatch for fleeing Iraqi military, political, scientific and intelligence top echelons working on the banned weapons programs, as well as providing concealed locations for production to continue. Damascus was therefore committed to taking over the shared WMD projects from the point they were interrupted by a war emergency in Baghdad. C. This discovery relates to the aid rendered Syria by France. DEBKAfile’s exclusive intelligence and military sources reveal that, from Monday night, April 14, groups of Iraqi military and scientific leaders have been transferred from Syria to France. This came about as a result of President Chirac consenting to help Assad live up to his commitments to Saddam Hussein and keep their forbidden weapons out of sight and their existence denied. These discoveries led the Bush administration to slap down before Damascus a three-part ultimatum: 1. First, in view of Syria’s long record as sponsor of terror, the Assad regime is required to dismantle at once the command centers of the Lebanese Hizballah and the Palestinian Jihad Islami and Hamas Damascus headquarters and turn their leaders over to the United States. A list of names is supplied. 2. To hand over without delay all the weapons of mass destruction on its territory, whether they are “Iraqi” or “Syrian”. 3. To surrender to the Americans at once every one of the hundreds of Iraqi regime members, including Saddam kinsmen, granted asylum in Syria. Assad’s failure to deliver would result in the United States acting to force his compliance.

All well and interesting, but given the source, still not a solid enough reason to send the military home via Damascus. If Colin Powell, say, were to present the same evidence, I might have to reconsider my stance on Syria. If true, points A & B are pretty damning of Syria and Baby Assad. Point C simply reinforces the fact that Jacques Chirac is first-rate jerk who is unrelenting in his efforts to destroy Western Civilization as we know it by the coddling of terrorists and two bit dictators.

Of course the reported Arab reaction to all this was pretty entertaining also:

Washington’s ultimatum evoked a frantic Arab reaction. Saudi foreign minister Saudi Al-Faisal went to Damascus to warn the Syrian ruler of grave consequences should he persist in defying the Americans. He advised him to call an urgent Arab foreign ministers meeting for Friday, April 18, and ask the Arab world to back him up in meeting Washington’s demands. The Syrian ruler has not yet informed the Saudi minister of his intentions.

Think about the significance of the change here. Six months ago the Saudi foreign minister would have running to Damascus to warn of the grave consequences of ignoring the Arab street. Six months ago, he would have been calling for an emergency meeting to back Damascus in defying Washington’s demands. Kind of amazing what a little reinforcement of our resolve can do.

It is sounding more and more like we’re training the crosshairs on Baby Assad and the tyrants of Syria. If we’re planning on heading into Damascus, the Administration needs to make a case. I think what is really happening is that Rumsfeld is talking while Powell negotiates. When Powell starts talking to us more than them and Rummy goes off into Cheney’s secret world that is when I think we are really going in. Hopefully, a little bluster after our show of resolve will be enough to get Syria to back off and to reform.

But I doubt it, which is why we need to start making a public case for going in.

Is Syria Next?

I keep hearing about how Syria should be the next target on our hit list. But I keep coming back to a discomfort with the idea of going to Damascus just yet. This op-ed from the Telegraph attempts to provide a rationale for going into Syria next (it's the best argument I've seen yet), but in my mind it reinforces that Damascus should not be first.

It is pointed out that Syria's closest ally is Iran. Looking at the situation from an uneducated civilian point of view, it would seem that we would want to go to Tehran before heading to Damascus. Why?

If we go into Syria first, we have to constantly watch our rear. Now I'm sure that the Army could hold off the Iranians in a defensive war while we take out Baby Assad. But the Iranians would be able to throw essentially their entire military might against our rear.

If we were to go to Tehran first, however, the Syrians would not be able to throw their entire military into the fight because they have to keep a close eye on Israel.

The geography of Iraq also plays into our going to Tehran first. The distance of Baghdad from the border could be a key consideration. The city is very close to the Iranian border, but there is a vast empty desert to the west- all the way to the Syrian border.

If we have to fight a defensive war where we give up land to buy time before turning on the aggressor, I would rather give up the desert instead of risking the city. Plus as the Syrians come across the open desert they would be playing into our strengths of a mobile, combined arms fight. Our technological advantage over the Syrians would be greatest in the open expanses of western Iraq. We can give up quite a bit of land in the west without endangering our position in Iraq. The same is not true for the east. A lucky breakthrough for the Iranians could get them into Baghdad very quickly. Plus we don't have as much room in which to exploit our technological advantage over the Iranian military.

I'm sure that the guys in the Pentagon have planned for either eventuality and that they will have an excellent plan like that we used in Iraq. The ideal event would be another revolution in Iran. But it any case, it seems to me that the easiest road to Damascus runs via Tehran.

More On The Looting Of Antiquities

In my last post I took exception with the military's handling of the National Museum looting. Now to go to the opposite end of the spectrum, after reading this piece in the Sunday Herald I feel it is necessary to defend the military and Administration against BS claims.

For as horrendous as the incident at the Museum was, we have actually done an excellent job throughout the nation of protecting priceless Iraqi treasures. To see an article that is accusing us of planning to loot is ludicrous.

The American Council for Cultural Policy does campaign for reducing the restrictions on the movement of antiquities worldwide. They are really the free marketeer extreme of the antiquities world. And to recognize them as such is fine.

But just because they happened to meet with the Administration and DoD officials does not mean that it is now official US policy to allow looting for the purpose of enriching the antiquities market. Their position notwithstanding, they may have been able to provide some invaluable insights and there is nothing wrong with listening to what they have to say - same as they needed to listen to the folks who want antiquities to only be seen inside museums. Listening to contrasting points of view is all part of the information gathering process.

The Administration has not gone and changed the laws of Iraq to facilitate the free movement of antiquities. The military isn't going and looting the cultural treasures of the nation. We aren't out taking priceless artifacts as the booty of war for some great triumphal procession. We haven't done anything to make the lives of antiquities smugglers any easier.

Is it right to call the looting of the National Museum deplorable and a historical tragedy? Absolutely. But is it right to accuse the Administration and military of planning to loot? Not at all. And the evidence on the ground doesn't bear out the accusation.

Calling to account for a tragedy is one thing, anti-American scare mongering is another.

An American Failure In Iraq

Throughout the battle in Iraq our troops have performed exquisitely. They have made every attempt to protect civilian lives, to preserve the nation's infrastructure, and to protect sites of important cultural heritage. But in Baghdad we have suffered a failure of catastrophic proportions. Of all the cultural and historic sites in Iraq, perhaps no singular building was as important as the National Museum of Iraq.

On my other website, I sell ancient coins and a few antiquities. The cultural and historic value of these items is unbelievable. The historical record that each item can contain makes their safekeeping all the more important. While even common antiquities can be archaeologically important, it is my belief that common items should be available to the general population.

The items contained in the National Museum of Iraq were not common items, however. Their cultural and historical significance was such that they needed to be protected - no matter what the cost. And for all his miserable failings, Saddam Hussein did protect these world treasures.

And we, the Americans, did not.

This is the equivalent of allowing the British Museum or the Louvre to be ransacked and their treasures carted off. An invaluable historic record has been lost and some of it surely destroyed. All because we didn't think we could spare one Abrahms and a Bradley with their attendant soldiers.

We have nothing to be ashamed of in the way we fought the war, but in our decision-making in the establishing the peace - this was a colossal failure.

I understand that the commander of the ground didn't feel as though he could spare such a contingent of soldiers to protect a museum. But his decision was flawed on two accounts:

1.) This wasn't just "a museum." If it had been the Museum of Saddam Hussein's childhood, I could have understood the decision. But this was one of the most significant museums in the world - in the top five of importance at the very least.

2.) We made a vow to protect sites of cultural and historical importance. Throughout the drive to Baghdad, we have done that. We have gone out of our way to protect mosques and regional museums. To have a breakdown at this point is inexcusable.

Whoever made the decision to not protect the Museum needs to be relieved of his command. His ability to understand extenuating circumstances and to make decisions in line with all our goals is obviously lacking. We have done so much right in Iraq, it is a shame that this had to happen. Of all the mistakes to make, this was not the one we needed to make. Fire the commander in charge in Baghdad - now. There is no acceptable excuse for this.

UPDATE:
It has been suggested that I was perhaps too quick to call for the dismissal of the General in question. I can accept that criticism, because as Donald Sensing points out correctly in the comments, this was a failing of the system, not particularly of one person. It is not fair to hold one person accountable for the failings of the system and I was wrong to do so. I still believe, however, that the looting of the Museum was one of the great preventable tragedies of the war (same goes for the looting of the hospitals). I believe that there needs to be a proper investigation when all is said and done. If there is a next time, I hope that our military will plan out this type of systemic failure and I will be more cautious about placing blame for these types of failure.

Land For Peace?

In Passover interview, Sharon accepts Israel’s “parting” from some historical Jewish locations on West Bank as “painful concessions” for peace

I'm not really sure what to make of this little one line comment from DEBKA. Assuming the comment is true, it can be viewed as either a breakthrough for the peace negotiations or as a breakdown of Israeli sensibilities.

The question of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank has been one of the most contentious sticking points in the peace process. The animosity felt by both sides ran so deep that the Israelis wouldn't trust the Palestinians to protect Jewish sites and the Palestinians didn't trust the Israelis to not use the settlements as staging bases for a future war. The mutual distrust became an insurmountable obstacle in the process.

The settlements became a mini-proxy for the peace process. The Israelis want to live there and the Palestinians want to remove them by any means necessary. Violence and negotiations have been alternately used to attempt to throw the settlers back into Israel, a miniature version of the Palestinian goal to throw the Israelis back into the sea.

It is for this reason that I wonder if there is a breakdown in Sharon's common sense. But why could this be a positive sign?

With the war in Iraq, tensions throughout the Middle East are obviously running fairly high. Israel has been increasing the pressure on the militant Palestinians for a couple of months now and they may be sensing that they're getting close to crossing the line that would throw the conflict into open warfare. That sort of escalation of the conflict would bring other nations, notably Syria into a wider conflict that Israel doesn't want to fight.

Sharon has recognized this. He also recognizes that most effective concessions he could make, with little strategic consequence to Israel, would be to give up the symbolically important settlements. He would be risking the destruction of some important Jewish heritage sites, but if he continues down the current path of escalating tensions he risks their destruction anyway plus the wider-scale disruptions brought by an out and out war.

I don't believe that "land for peace" will ultimately be the answer to the problems Israel. Each concession will only bring new demands, just as in the past. But this does have the potential to be a great symbolic gesture as well as a means of gaining political cover for the withdrawal from strategically indefensible positions. It will be interesting to see where this goes from here.