I dream of living in ... a World Without Dictators! I'm a Libertarian Paternalist in Slovakia - Freedom with Responsibility - 10% of income into your own Pension; Tax Loans for education, health, housing; now supporting Employment Maximizing Companies!

blog posts on immigration at The Truth Laid Bear

Go Native, then Long

Josh wrote up a great plan for Iraq -- Go Native.  It doesn't end the violence immediately, but looks more likely to establish justice than anything else.

I think I highlighted that Arabic need on your Chester blog a year ago. It's still a big, BIG problem -- with a relatively technical, under US control fix.

Perhaps you didn't have time for the Public Relations campaign, but it, too, is urgent: 'The Muslim anti-democracy forces are doing most of the murders, both the Sunni terrorists and the death squad Shia.'

Whenever Bush or any other US spokesperson is discussing deaths, it should be emphasized that it is Iraqi Arab Muslim terrorists who are doing the murders, and are responsible. The US wanted a liberation like Kurdish-Iraq. The Sunni supported anti-freedom murders, which were not solved as crimes but also not fought as battles, means that there is "too little justice" against Sunni murder. Most Shia think death squad justice is better than none. This plan, Go Native, is better than what I've read elsewhere.

Finally, you're missing what the Generals say. Not the US generals -- the Iraqi generals. No news media is covering them, but if the militias are to lose power, that power will flow to the Iraqi Generals. Who are they, what do they think?

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/28/06 23:53 | link | comments
iraq

Bond, a Secret Agent Man

Like most Baby Boomers, I loved Connery as Bond.  There's a new Bond, and lots are talking about him, including Scalzi who notes that Brosnan was quite good.

I also liked the TV serial Secret Agent, which was followed by the cult classic The Prisoner (where the secret agent man is kept alive but imprisoned on an island, with no name, just a #, 7.  Who is #1?)  The song, by Jonny Rivers, is fantastic.  My Limewire says Weird Al Yankovich did it for Austin Powers, but it's really Jonny Rivers that I downloaded both times.  Here are the lyrics -- maybe in a future Karaoke I'll sing them.

SECRET AGENT MAN
(P.F. Sloan / S. Barri)

There's a man who leads a life of danger
To everyone he meets he stays a stranger
With every move he makes another chance he takes
Odds are he won't live to see tomorrow

Secret agent man, secret agent man
They've given you a number and taken away your name

Beware of pretty faces that you find
A pretty face can hide an evil mind
Ah, be careful what you say
Or you'll give yourself away
Odds are you won't live to see tomorrow

Secret agent man, secret agent man
They've given you a number and taken away your name

------ lead guitar ------

Secret agent man, secret agent man
They've given you a number and taken away your name

Swingin' on the Riviera one day
And then layin' in the Bombay alley next day
Oh no, you let the wrong word slip
While kissing persuasive lips
The odds are you won't live to see tomorrow

Secret agent man, secret agent man
They've given you a number and taken away your name

Secret agent man

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/28/06 11:29 | link | comments (2)
music

Israel and Lebanon and what to do

Perhaps Israel should attack Syria?
Israel attacking Syria takes out an Iranian ally and the conduit from Iran to Hez.
If Iran gets a bomb, and then Hez gets one (from no way to prove where), Hez can more easily destroy Tel Aviv/ Haifa.
Could Israel retaliate?

But permanent occupation is a loser; some form of Free Speech / Free Religion, with local elections and local police control, needs to be part of any temporary occupation.


On the other hand, assassination seems to be in style, maybe Israel should start using it more, but more secretly? Not merely Israeli bombs, but Mossad-paid Palestinians/ Lebanese/ Syrians?

I'm not happy with this, but less happy with the non-responses leading to Iranian and then terrorist nukes.


I really don't understand/ know enough about Israel's wimpy occupation of the Palestinian West Bank. Who is in charge of prosecuting criminals who murder, for instance, press people trying to write real articles critical of the PLO?

It seems an excessively "light hand" by Israel means they get the blame for a lack of security, but have no power to punish the guilty criminal/ insurgents.


Yet another option -- big bombing, short, sharp occupation, then retreat. Like in S. Leb.
Maybe the anti-Hez folk will get tired of war and destruction. Perhaps if Israel wants to try this again, then should ship all the cars they can capture back to Israel, in partial compensation for Hez destruction.

Via Michael J Totten, where comments note that the control freaks won't win.
I'm not convinced that the control freaks won't win. I think the National communist-Socialists of China are providing a more attractive model for Putin than America with Dem Party opposition to Bush.

It's also not clear what course of action you're arguing for with "containment" -- since we're actively engaged in Iraq & Afghanistan; and the UN & Israel are active in Lebanon. Do you mean run away? (perhaps confusing them?) You don't say.

China and Russia are going to again be two non-democracies on the UN SC against pro-democracy action. The envy-filled Bush/America bashers of France & Britain will be happy to see America fail, even it takes Israel down, too (or first).

"We're not in a position to be moving towards more military action. You can't blame that on the Democrats,"

Actually, I think that being out of position was far more true with corrupt Reps in Congress and a stubborn but compromising Rep Bush in the WH -- almost-as-corrupt Dems "in control" might well push the US to take MORE action, in Darfur for instance. (Is this really only a dream? I see US supported Indian/ UN peacekeeping troops stopping genocide and ask, Why Not.)

The non-Hez Lebanese must be fully ready to fight the civil war against Hez -- in order to avoid the fight. If the non-Hez folk are too weak to fight, they'll be "forced" to surrender.

They don't have to "beat" Hez, just be willing to fight enough defense so that a fighting Hez cannot beat them.

Will Hez start up internal active hostilities? It's not clear

Perhaps "Peace thru strength", the old Reagan ideal, is what Lebanese pro-democrats need.

Alliances with pro-democrat and secular/ modern Shia in Lebanon would be good, too.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/26/06 14:47 | link | comments
democracy, israel palestine, iran

Another new media - NewAssignment.net

PressThink talks about NewAssignment.net, which looks really good, I meant to suggest you look at using a Wikki idea, WikkiNews -- but Citizen Joe editor Inga suggests that, as well as a neutral, objective only idea:
A typical CJ piece is so balanced, someone reading it wouldn’t know the political views of its writer; its “simply the facts ma’am reporting.”

Since you've been quoting Brad DeLong, I doubt that CJ will be showing how Bush's tax cuts have been so successful. Minimal unemployment, (slowly) decreasing deficit, higher growth, higher proportion of income taxes paid by top 20% of taxpayers, new Dow Jones record highs.

The problem will remain the facts are boring, without a story. The story, any and every story, will be biased. Most Bush-bashers aren't so interested in the story: tax-cuts result in more US growth than any other G-7 country over Bush's term.

I truly wish your experiment well, but am surprised you didn't mention Pajamas Media, and OhMy news, two groups who are already doing some of what you're planning to do.

In any case, advertising money will follow eyeballs. My guess is that as some way of successfully using the web gets leveraged into eyeballs & advertising revenue, the public corporations will hire managers who advocate more of that success, whatever it is.

If your investigative reporting produces good copy, which I hope it does, I'm pretty sure there will be a market for it. Since the public corp. folk worship the bottom line profits, and profits clearly follow eyeballs.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/26/06 14:42 | link | comments
blogs, media

Big review of Iraq mistakes

Mistakes of Bush, Bremer, Rumsfeld, Gardner (?), Rice weakness, as  a review of a book "summarizes".

Mark Danner, the War of the Imagination

It didn't seem to focus much on the missed opportunity for earlier local democracy, by having municipal elections for local leaders.  Nor did it mention the silly Proportional Representation system which is polarizing in multi-ethnic societies.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/26/06 14:39 | link | comments
iraq, politics, democracy

Stop Stupid Chickenhawk ad hominems

My silly anon half-troll continues to insult me, and insult all readers, with variations of the Chickenhawk insult, a juvenile ad hominem offense, not an argument.  If you can't make an argument about your side, or against my side, don't bother insulting others here.


Bill Whittle describes it, and may other Leftist silliness very well, Seeing the Unseen:

  CHICKENHAWKS

The Chickenhawk argument goes something like this: anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting. This particular piece of work is an anti-war crowd attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration. Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means “argument against the person”) it is an act of intellectual surrender. The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.

The messenger is not the message. That’s all you need to throw away the entire Chickenhawk response. But why stop there when this one is so much fun?

If you ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person’s own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself? Your opinion on a National Health Care System is negated out of hand since you are unwilling to get a medical degree and open a clinic. And as far as your opinions regarding the Democratic Underground or The Huffington Post are concerned, well, you can just keep them to yourself, mister, unless you can produce an advanced degree in Abnormal Psychology and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Using the internal reasoning behind the Chickenhawk argument means you cannot comment on, speak about or even hold an opinion on any subject that is not part of your paying day job. It is simple-minded and profoundly anti-democratic, which is why it so deeply appeals to those who sling it around the most.

But wait! There’s more!

If you accept the Chickenhawk argument – that only those actually willing to go and fight have a legitimate opinion on the subject of war – then that means that any decision to go to war must rest exclusively in the hands of the military. Is that what this person really wants? To abandon civilian control of the military? That’s the box they have trapped themselves in with this argument. Now to be perfectly honest, I think Robert Heinlein made a very compelling case for just this line of reasoning in Starship Troopers (the book, not the clueless projected travesty). Heinlein said that the only people who should be allowed to vote are those that have served in the military, since only they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the state. I don’t agree with that. I think civilian control of the military has been one of the pillars of our nation’s success, and it has withstood the test of both World Wars and Civil ones. But that is the world you are stuck in when you toss that little Chickenhawk grenade.

Finally, if the only legitimate opinion on Iraq, say, is that held by the troops themselves, then they are overwhelmingly in favor of being there and finishing what they started. I recently received an e-mail from an Army major who is heading back for his fourth tour. The Chickenhawk argument, coming from an anti-war commentator, legitimizes only those voices that overwhelmingly contradict the anti-war argument.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/24/06 18:05 | link | comments (1)
iraq, blogs, wot

Losing, winning; the right race

VDH talks about the lack of will, So Close, So Far:
For all the conundrum, the war against the jihadists is still going well. Iran and Syria are striking out because they feel surrounded—democratic Turkey on one side, Israel on the other, with nearby democracies struggling to become established in Kurdistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is being dismantled, and a Europe galvanizing against Islamic fascism. Even the impotent UN is beginning to stir against Iran and Syria. If we can stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq, we can bring enormous pressure on both these two rogue nations. So why give up now—which is what talking to these amoral governments constitutes, given our previous rhetoric and vow to quit the appeasement?

The race is between Iraq stabilizing as a democracy, and Iran getting a nuke (or so close to one that Israel must respond).

I suggest planning on "what to do now" assuming Iran has a nuke, followed by "now what do we do???" assuming Tel Aviv has been nuked.

Invade, occupy, and forcibly take the oil out of Iran and Saudi Arabia -- w/o allowing a free press in those countries to criticize the US/ "coalition" which does so, and charging $10 mil. in damages for every death.

Saudi Arabia should already be sued for the WTC, for their official support of the Wahhabist sect. Were they paying $10 mil/ * 3 000 = $30 bil, plus $7-14 bil in NYC repair damages -- they would be a lot less hesitant to support anti-Western religious fanatics.

No country without Free Religion and Free Speech deserves the national sovereignty protection of those who signed the UN Charter, and the UN Universal Human Rights.

The world needs a Human Rights enforcement group.

The world has only the USA, and lots of free riders.

I hope we awake to our responsibility BEFORE a nuke. But Peter Parker waited until after his uncle was killed; I fear we will wait until after Tel Aviv is a mushroom cloud.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/23/06 17:29 | link | comments
iraq, wot

Anti-War press leading to defeat

Austin Bay notes that we have a Publicity Issue with the News, with long excerpts from a City Journal James Q Wilson article (that I saw earlier?), an NBC news exec was asked
“whether the network should put on a news show indicating that American and South Vietnamese troops had won, he rejected the idea, because Tet was already “established in the public’s mind as a defeat, and therefore it was an American defeat.”


Scott S., has a great note in the comments, which I fully agree with:
I must add that the US gov't Generals under Johnson AND Nixon were, consistently, "lying" about what it would take to "win." We were fighting a Limited War, not a Total War.
Limited Wars are not ended by any decision of the winners, but by the losers deciding to stop fighting -- even though they could keep fighting.

The USA is too full of Control Freaks. If we can't control when we win, that means we can't win, so that means we shouldn't even fight.
In Vietnam, Nixon's silly Paris Peace Accords got the US to vacate, to run away. (Perhaps thinking he could confuse the commies if he ran away some more?)
There should have been some "tripwire" 20 000 or more US troops in the North, to leave only after the S & N agree on a peaceful future, or peaceful division.
The 1974 Dem Party landslide allowed the disgusting 1975 CUT IN FUNDING for our S. Viet allies, letting the murderous N. Viet commies know we wouldn't do squat if they totally violated the Paris Peace, so they did.

Yeah, our corrupt, incompetent, and cowardly S. Viet allies collapsed faster than 'we' thought possible. Corruption in young democracies (old ones too?) has NOT been adequately discussed and focused on. Corruption in Iraq is one of the reasons so few folk are willing to die for the current Iraqi gov't.

[The US should immediately implement full internet transparency for all economic reconstruction and gov't grants, and push the Iraqi gov't to do so, as well.]

The constant negative press needs to be addressed by Pres. Bush. I suggest he start making jokes about how they support the terrorists, that the NYT is an ally of those who murder American soldiers, and laugh at their self-censorship about covering their own bias.

I'd even like to see a soldiers widow's group sue the NYT and WaPo for illegally aiding the terrorists (in publishing the US secrets), for some $10 mil/ per US casualty in which "a preponderance of evidence" shows that the NYT was guilty of aiding them. Let a jury decide!

Scott, I'm angry too. Don't you want to start a group of folks who protest and boycott the companies that advertise in and support the NYT?

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/23/06 17:21 | link | comments (2)
iraq, vietnam

Win by being seen as a winner, with justice

Michael Ledeen notes how important the perception of winning is ... to winning: How to win the real war.
"failure of tactics leads straight to defeat, because at a certain point the war itself becomes the central issue. The population's attitude is dictated not by the intrinsic merits of the contending causes, but by their conviction about winners and losers. Whoever is judged the likely winner will gain popular support, and most likely win the war.

In other words, it's pure Vince Lombardi: winning is the only thing."

While this winning is important, justice and injustice seems also important.  The failure to punish the Sunni terrorists has been a huge failure.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/22/06 16:37 | link | comments
iraq, democracy

Better sex is possible

David Frum writes about how Republican sex is better, and Democrats have more money -- contrary to the stereotypes, Eva's got it wrong.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/22/06 16:36 | link | comments
hearts and minds

Go Long is the only way to win

This WaPo article does a good job at briefly leaking the three Iraq options, with fine little slogans even: Go Big, Go Long, or Go Home.
With the likely future to be a hybrid Go a Bit Bigger and then Go Long.

One of the biggest Rep mistakes has always been in wanting the USA to "win" -- when only Iraqis could win. So where are the Iraqi Generals and their view of these plans?

Go Long is what Nixon should have done in 1972 after the N. Viet failed Easter offensive -- with a 10-20 year commitment ... thru 1989 and the fall of the Wall.

Planning to Go Long now is what we should be doing, and should have always been doing.

Gregory D has previously argued for either Go Big or Go Home, strongly calling for Rummy to resign. His latest call is for "Final Push:" Go Big (and then Go Home, sort of regardless of results).

Go Long is the winning strategy. We stay until the Iraqi gov't gets respect, gets its act together, gets an Iraq Army that fights for Iraq, gets police in the cities that enforce the law = catch and punish lawbreakers and terrorists.

If Go Big, and then Go Home when Big isn't good enough -- then I'm against it. We are looking at a long war, a LONG WAR.

Talking to neighbors is possibly OK, but prolly worse than useless, see AEI:
"What have Damascus and Tehran lost by the turmoil in Iraq? If the violence in Iraq diminished, would they lose or gain?

For realists, the answers to all of these questions are not good. When you are weak--when you are seen to be weak and see yourself as weak--you do not have much to offer."

F. Kagan of AEI says we need more troops, contrary to Gen. Abizaid
 
He makes a good case, but doesn't convince me.

What would convince me?

Iraqi generals making the case that they could use US military support to pacify, secure, and hold Baghdad. I don't there are any who would say that right now, knowing they'd lose credibility in a year.
Niell, you've been doing a good job with these pro-defeat Bush-hating losers, who continue to fail discussing what a public defeat/ withdrawal means.

Yeah, it didn't mean squat to the anti-War folk when the N. Viet commies violated the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, and murdered or exiled how many Viet people? 600 000? a million?
And the Cambodian domino fell, with another 1.5 mill. murders by rampaging commies. Such folk seem to think that losing 18 more US volunteer military soldiers fighting for Irai freedom is worse than allowing a 2 mil. Iraqi bloodbath civil war (nobody knows how many).

But the real issue is Iran's bomb. Withdrawal now means accepting that Iran violates its NNPT signing and gets a bomb within 10 years (99%), and then Tel Aviv goes mushroom (30%, my guesstimates).

In answer to the 2 questions, where to get more troops and more money:
1) more troops -- from Korea, from Japan, from Germany, from higher wages and pay incentives and more civilians being hired for non-fighting posts.
2) cash -- first replace "aid" to sovereign Iraq with loans, especially municipal loans, especially to those areas w/o terrorist attacks. Second, cut pork. Third, increase gas taxes.

Only hypocritical Dems will be talking about "doing something" about global warming but fail to support higher gas taxes. Hypocritical politicians -- who want to get elected...

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/22/06 15:55 | link | comments
iraq, wot

Oil plus Islam is bigger problem

Ammar, on the blog new to me about Sryia Amarji - A Heretic's Blog
said this about neo-cons: " asked us for our advice then ignore it and proceeded to do what they were inspired to do,"

It would be really good to have a link to old posts/ essays/ books, on what your advice was.

Zenobia, in comments, makes demands for Unreal Perfection from the US that are almost comical -- it's like you think the USA is some all powerful God, such that anything and everything that happens is God's fault, er, America's fault. Silly (but perhaps inspiring more snark later).

America allied with Joe Stalin, the world's known worst mass murdering villian -- in order to help defeat a greater/ more threatening evil, Hitler. America is not interested in being imperial -- but we DO want respect for Universal Human Rights, especially Free Religion and Free Speech.


I am eager to hear about proposals for US and Israeli action that are most likely to lead to peace between Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Israel. I suspect that most proposals, were they to be followed, would fail because of a lack of appropriate response from the "bad guys".

Michael Totten links to Kiss Goodbye to a Liberal Middle East
Increasingly I'm reading that Arab Muslims believe (or BELIEVE) that:
Allah himself, his words clearly recorded by the Prophet, put the oil in the Mid East to signify that Arabs, and Islam, are to rule Britain.
That is why their culture is King.

(in answer to: But I didn't vote for them.
You don't vote for ruling King cultures.
Well, how did Arab Islam become the King culture?)


Both Germany and Japan had economic cultures of production that included hierarchical "big business" type corporations, and the ability to use economic cooperation for production. Even the USSR & East Europe had such productive organizations, and some reasonable respect for 'private' property -- with possession, e.g. of cars or houses, being a good legal surrogate for private ownership.

Democracy works much better in a culture oriented towards production.

The Arabs don't produce much, but because of their gov't oil wealth, which is also why the US is so involved, there is the illusion of a great, strong society/ culture.

The Arab cultures need to be more productivity oriented.

An Iraq Oil Trust, with monthly payments to all registered to vote and voting citizens, would have helped Iraq a lot -- and provided a good model of better division of the oil wealth.

Too much of the Iranian, and Saudi (especially?), oil money is going to support terrorism, and the export of anti-Western Islam. The anti-capitalists of the West are 'useful idiot' allies of this.

++The UN problem was in giving equal moral authority to non-democracies with democracies.

Done for the realpolitik reason of having peace between the USA and the USSR -- which essentially worked, despite the proxy wars, like Vietnam & Afghanistan, and many other de-colonization and commie aggression wars.

The World is not big enough for both 1) Free Religion and Free Speech (as in Human Rights), and
2) Gov't enforced Sharia suppression of Free Religion and Free Speech.

The cash from oil sales is going to fund the anti-freedom forces, who are willing to kill and die for the victory of their anti-freedom ideology.

The US needs to join with India, especially, and Australia, Japan, and maybe UK/ EU/ Nato countries in creating a  Human Rights Enforcement Group, composed of democracies only, with free speech and free religion.

This group needs to become an optional world "vigilante posse", to impose regime change on non-democratic gov'ts who violate their own people's rights.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/20/06 00:31 | link | comments
democracy, human rights, islamofascism

Killing is the fault of the killers

First, a fine but long note on the Iraq Civil War by Nir Rosen.  I don't think it's worth arguing about whether it's a civil war or what you want to call it.  The Long War works for me.  The President clearly said something about we only lose if we leave too early.

My very own half-troll makes comment which ends in delete-causing f* speech.
I don't accept this on my blog any more.

But much of the long comment is worth preserving.  I'll add my own comments [in brackets], where he's also quoting my prior post.

"The Kurds enjoying Kurdish Iraq show that it is NOT the US policy. It was never certain that Arab murderers would be allowed, by supportive non-murderers, to kill so much; but it's an Arab problem."

This demonstrates truly sweeping ignorance. We invade a country, topple its government, disband its army, sweep away its tax structure, eliminate any effective police force, strip trained civil servants from their posts, turn the entire country upside-down, and...and we're not responsible for what happens next? Tom, there's an empirical correlation between weak central authority and civil war. This has nothing to do with Arabs, or Sunnis, or Shi'a.
[The US policy was esentially the same for the Kurds as for the Arabs -- but the Sunni/ Baathist Arabs wanting killing more than the Kurds did.  The US liberation was avoiding too many false positives on justice, but therefore allowing guilty to go free -- false negatives.]
If the same thing happened to the US, then there'd be civil war in the US.
[False.  Even in Tombstone AZ, before it was a state, there was less terrorist killing.  Though drug gang warfare might increase.]
So long as there is no real central authority (check) and so long as there is some group that wants more power than it already has (triple check), then you're going to have fighting. Smart people tried to tell the Bush administration about this. Smart people were ignored. The Bush administration chose to listen not to facts, but rather to fantasy that they made up about candy and flowers. The Iraqis and the Americans are now paying the price.

[Cowardly/ lazy troll -- no links to Famous Dems saying how to do the liberation better in advance, except for Gen. Shinskei's 300 000 troops.  Yet it's an empirical fact that 500 000 was NOT enough in Vietnam.  Only true believers would think that some strategy which has already failed, when tried, would certainly work somewhere else.  I flatly don't.  
The Iraqi Arabs are dying because other Muslims are murdering them.]

"You're right that we didn't replace his boot on the neck with a US boot."

It's not about boots. You're the one who seems to think that the only viable options are "utter [x] chaos" or "Saddam-style dictatorship." All we needed were enough troops to police the streets - you don't need to shoot looters to stop looting, you just need to have someone there to deter looting in the first place.
[So you say.  I certainly wish the orders had been to fire warning shots to reduce looting, and have a better anti-looting plan.  But the looting soon ended and much was even returned.  The murders were later.]

In American, in Slovakia, police aren't busy shooting at would-be looters all day, are they? No? And they do this without boots on necks? You don't say! Everyone had their pet cause; Cheney wanted to topple Saddam and didn't care if we didn't have enough troops to do the job, Rumsfeld wanted to prove that you could bomb a country, remove its government, and go home while magical rainbows would blossom in the Iraqi desert. And so on. It doesn't matter why; they believed their own lies and their own fantasy, and the result is what we have now.

"The vast majority of Iraqis "want justice" -- but haven't wanted to risk themselves to achieve it. "

Um, Tom - every single Iraqi living in Iraq is "risking themselves" every day by simply living in their homes and going to work every day and sending their kids to school. Most civil wars don't require everyone to pick up a gun and fight everyone else; that's the myth of "ethnic" or "sectarian" war. There's no such thing. All of these wars require small numbers of armed people to threaten, bully, and murder their way to influence.

[expletives deleted] Iraqis want justice but are cowards for not doing anything to stop the violence? They're cowards because they don't charge the insurgents en masse to try to disarm them with their bare hands? Then what [x] are you, Tom who wants this and supports that and sits on your [x] ass with your family, safely tucked away in a safe, obscure European country? Who are you to judge? You want to insurgency to stop? What are you doing about it?

---above by my cowardly leetle anon half-troll, too afraid to write his name, to silly to offer a plan of his own  --

I have the courage to write, using my real name, mostly without insults.
I offer proposals for how to do things better.  I look for alternatives -- but the above troll doesn't state any.  Everybody can easily be against any problems of any strategy, any costs of any action.  It take courage to compare good and bad points of alternatives and choose to support one.

Everybody who can vote can have an opinion -- the opinions which note positive action plans deserve more respect than baby criticism.

Iraq is better than Darfur.  Kurdish Iraq proves that the US liberation was OK -- Arab Muslim murders of Iraqis show how tough the Long War is going to be.
But it's especially going to be long when the US blamed for murder in Iraq committed by Muslim enemies of freedom, enemies of America.

It seems the Iraqis put the body count now at 150 000, but can't find the link.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/20/06 00:22 | link | comments (3)
iraq, democracy

Bye Rummy, hello Gates -- same car

Captain Ed talking about Gates replacing Rummy:
“As far as military strategy goes, Gates will likely lean more heavily on ranking generals for strategy and tactics, something that Rumsfeld earned a reputation for avoiding, fair or not.”

It's not the US generals, on the ground NOR in the Pentagon, that need to be listened to.

It is the elected Iraqi gov't. Only THEY can win, not the USA. Wanting American victory, instead of local gov't victory, was the Vietnam mistake.

War winning was quick; building up a new Iraq nation is slow. Meaning at least 10 years. So we're only a third of the way.

The Left says Iraq is "unwinnable". They should be called liars. We win if we stay for as many years as we need to stay to win. Instead of 1973 peace & running, we needed 16 more years (to 1989) to win in Vietnam. 16 MORE years is not popular, but is different than hopeless, unwinnable.

Maybe we need 16 more years in Iraq.
Maybe we need as many years in Iraq as it takes the USA to go back to 1990 gas consumption.
We could lose in Vietnam w/o a big oil problem -- that's not an option in the MidEast.

The problem with "one last push" of more troops now, is that the new Iraq gov't is not yet ready to win.

What we need is a freeze on military advancement for all officers who have NOT been active trainers of Iraqis -- so that inside the military, training Iraqis becomes the big key to personal success.

More troops, from all over the world and from the Reserve, should be learning Arabic -- talented language learners should be eligible for bonuses and special promotions for becoming fluent. The military should lead in "language learning technology".

With Farsi as another language option.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/17/06 17:52 | link | comments
iraq, politics

Iraq, Iran, and a Dem Congress

Greg at Belgravia Dispatch gets my congratulations for his successful support for the Dems.
Whatever their plan is -- now they control the funding, now they are responsible for cutting and running if they cut funding.

More troops earlier would have meant more Iraqis killed by US forces earlier, and more US casualties -- and less Iraqi gov't development. And possibly a Kerry 2004 victory, though that's less clear.

The biggest military mistake since Bush 41 is the lack of Arabic language training for the Liberation/ Occupation troops.

If the goal was to keep Iraq unified there were two big mistakes:
1) using party lists instead of local geographic districts for representation; such lists support extremists and division (as in ex-Czechoslovakia & ex-Yugoslavia) instead of moderation
2) failure to impose a Oil Trust idea to return most oil money cash directly to the people, or at least the voters.


The media problem of the Reps is the desire to be the "winners". Only the Iraqis can win. We are supporting a nation building exercise, which is long. slow, and hard. But we, America & Coalition and the Iraqi gov't, are making good, steady progress. The problem is the comparison -- progress as compared to what?

As compared to Darfur? Congo? Zimbabwe? Lebanon? The Dems constant critique of Rumsfeld fails to note the standard of comparison.

The final problem is one of control. In a Limited War, the winners do NOT control the timing of the end. The losers, and only the loser, control the timing. When they decide they will stop, rather than continue. In Total War, like total barbaric insurgency suppression, the winners can use massive destruction to take away the ability to kill in resistance, and hence resistance. In Limited War, the resistance will always be able to kill.

Bush has also been foolish to accept that Iraqi Muslims killing Iraqis is his fault -- the PR campaign should have included a body count of: Iraqis mudered by Muslims, and the blame should be put on the Muslim murderers. Not counting Iraqi bodies was also a mistake.

It's up to Sunni non-terrorists to turn in the Sunni terrorists and stop the anti-Shia bombing. As long as this doesn't happen "enough", there will be Shia being murdered. And Shia forming death squads to murder Sunni in revenge, for a little bit of justice. If we leave too soon, the Iranian supported Shia death squads will take over and "end" the Sunni insurgency, possibly with massive ethnic cleansing as has already happened substantially in some small areas and villages.

Which would be terrible, but now I doubt the Dems will allow themselves to be blamed for this -- so will do "something" to change.

Same car, new driver. Troop levels won't be more than 10% different for the next 3 months, but there will likely be more training of Iraqis, less US patrols.


Finally, the real problem is American impatience. If the minimum time is 10 years, but with mistakes might be 12 or 20 years, it is not really clear that Rummy has made so many mistakes. No Dem has offered a time schedule of how long nation-building "should" take, in Iraq or any Arab country.

We would have won in Vietnam by waiting, staying, 16 more years after 1973, till 1989. We chose to leave, we chose to cut funding, we chose to lose. We Americans, especially the Dem Party (whom I voted for in 1976).

+++Analysis by Greg about putting in more troops before we declare a loss and run away.

While we "negotiate" with Iran, we won't be putting on sanctions for prior treaty violations with respect to nukes. Remember nukes & WMDs? Your strategy for Iraq almost guarantees that Iran gets nukes.

"One last chance" for Iraq. Why so? Why not "One last decade of continued support for the Iraqi gov't?"

Commit to maintaining up to 100 000 troops in Iraq, as requested by the Iraq gov't, for at least 10 years. This is plenty to win any battle, but obviously not enough to stop gang warfare.

The Iraqis have to stop the Muslim murders mostly on their own. In all cases, both Dems and Reps should be proclaiming that Muslims doing murder in Iraq is mostly an Iraqi and Islamic problem.

The desire to "do it right the first time", and be done with it, is the childish desire to do nation-building faster than is realistic. More troops, now, smacks of this one final try and then we leave, since if this isn't enough nothing is enough.

What IS enough is a LONG TERM commitment, longer than a Britney Spears marriage of convenience.

More troops now, for a limited time, will almost certainly fail to stop the murders, but will increase the blame against the US for "failure", and thus allow the US to leave. So that the Iraqi civil war goes into a higher gear.

The key is to correctly and honestly blame the current murders in Iraq on those in Iraq who do the murders, and those who know about these people but are silent.

But again, at least this is a highly positive statement of what should be done, far superior to many prior ones. (And again, I was wrong to be so pro-Rep -- I'm increasingly glad the Dems won Congress, so now it becomes the Dem war, too; and thus America's war.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/17/06 17:10 | link | comments
iraq, democracy

Peace, justice, honor

The Corner has an interesting article: FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW"
It discusses the need for rule of law.

There is an extremely articulate, Western trained Hezbollah person arguing about many such topics on my favorite blog: Michael J Totten's Mid East Journal,
with Al Ghaliboon. Hundreds of mostly interesting comments, many by this guy.  Earlier posts started the conversation.

What comes thru clearly is the idea of justice and honor. An unwillingness to accept "peace" or being a "slave" to Israel or the US, until after there has been justice/ restitution for the previous injustices.

My points:
1) Peace inevitably means accepting previous injustices, and accepting that there will NOT be justice/ restitution for the past.
2) Rule of law starts with on-the-ground enforcement. There can, de facto, be rule of law with only enforcers who also decide what the rules are, to whom they apply, and who gets how much punishment. There can NOT be rule of law w/o enforcement, no matter what any legislative or judicial bodies want. The Muslims willing to kill, on-the-ground, are the true enforcers. In Lebanon and Iraq.

The desire for justice is partly the desire to punish the unjust. It is not "rule of law" that people want, but justice. The failure of the Iraqi coalition forces to punish any terrorist bombers is leading to increasing support for Shia death squads, who DO punish the Sunnis.


The international order has it backwards. What is most needed is an international Human Rights enforcement group, to enforce free speech and free religion. Or accept that such ideas are NOT Universal Human Rights -- the current hypocrisy is terrible.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/17/06 16:39 | link | comments
democracy, peace, justice, islamofascism

Tossing bums, changing incentives

QandO notes something important after the election, when the Dems are already preparing to get their slices of corruption pie:
The value in tossing the bums lies in reminding them that they can be tossed. If you think that the "culture of corruption" will go away if only we'd elect the Right People, then you lost the plot long ago. they were never serious about getting rid of the corruption...they just wanted a piece of it. Until you change the underlying incentives, the story will stay the same.

If the Democrats move to limit their own power and to change the underlying incentives, they'll change the culture. If not, then they were never serious about getting rid of the corruption...they just wanted a piece of it.

I wish it were not so, but my money is on the latter.
The ultimate source of corruption in democracy is clear ... We The People -- who vote, consistently and often, to receive costly gov't benefits which we expect to be paid for with Other People's Money. As long as recipients of gov't cash can get "free money", there will be corruption problems over who decides who gets the free money.

In the computer age, we need a new social contract -- so that people "who need help" can still get it, from the gov't, but using their own money instead.

Tax Loans.

So that individuals who get gov't cash get a loan, with a promise to pay it back thru taxes and additional loan payments.

Full budget clarity in a gov't website with drill down Excel budgets available to see how it's spent (except for Defense?).

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/13/06 15:59 | link | comments (5)

Parents, Responsibility, and Iraq

More time at Marc Cooper’s site, who looks at mourning parents:
“They are parents, mostly my age or younger, of children roughly the same age as my own 22 year old. Some had already lost their child in George W. Bush's main mission. For them, every day is an eternity, trying to make any sense whatsoever of their loss. For other parents whose sons and daughters still serve, time is equally brutal. They told me of the hours spent everyday in front of the computer screen scanning for tidbits of news from Anbar, Baghdad or wherever they think their child is currently stationed. They spoke of their nightly fears, the apprehension felt when there's a knock on the door or the ring of a phone.
Their demand is a simple one. Bring the troops, bring their children, home now...”

Anti-war Lamont lost, pro-war Lieberman won.
Many of the generals who were against Rummy wanted … more troops.
Many still want … more troops. To win.

Every parent who loses a child has a right to mourn — but parents whose children are now adults, and quite likely disagree with the parents about the morality and usefulness of their own pro-war efforts, such parents are dishonoring these young adult choices when they say their children’s choice was wrong.
Parents don’t own their children — not for deciding about whether to be sexual promiscuous (Leftists are pro-choice!) nor about whether to be patriotic and pro-democracy.

Compare democracy progress in Iraq with Darfur, and most pro-democracy folk would say there’s more progress in Iraq.

The Baker report is prolly gonna say the US troops should stay, but do less patrolling and more training / embedding with Iraqi troops.

Anybody willing to have the US troops come home now, yet is criticizing the Shia death squads, is hypocritical. Many Shia are ready to rule the Sunni, and kill those disagree. As long as some Sunni keep supporting some terror bombings against Shia, without getting any punishment, many Shia will support the death squads.
Death squad justice is better than none.
The US troops need to stay to help the pro-democracy forces punish the terrorists enough so that not just most, but the overwhelming vast super-majority (over 95? over 98%?) prefer Iraqi gov’t justice to death squad justice.

But the US should send none but volunteers to do such training work.
Anit-war parents opposed to the pro-war choices of the children should get not much more respect than the anti-sex parents who reject their daughters having sex and getting abortions.
Marc, do you feel the same way about policemen getting killed in America fighting drug gangs? About 57 died from gunfire in 2004, perhaps 1500 or so in the last 30 years. (I think drugs should be legalized to stop the killings.)
Every year some 15 000 young people die in car crashes.

Later Marc answers a complaint on why he holds Dem responsible for the war deaths:
“In fact, sir, Democrats ARE responsible for the tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths. At least the 22 Democratic Senator and five dozen Democratic House members who handed Bush a blank check 4 yrs ago are.”

NO no no! It is the Muslim murderers, in both bomb squads and death squads, that are responsible for most of the thousands of Iraqi deaths.


It is the Leftists who want to make powerful but not all-powerful America the only responsible actor in the world who are confusing this issue.

Don't worry, "everybody's" gonna win soon: MORE troops into Baghdad (so the "more troops" folk win), plus more Iraqi troops + more training, plus in some 3 - 6 months of Baghdad violence suppression and a declaration of (enough) "victory" so the Iraqi gov't will invite us to reduce troop levels. And we start leaving then.


To keep claiming "nothing is gonna change" in 6 months is really juvenile. Training Iraqis takes time. It was terrible that a good training program was started so late (Rummy said it was illegal for the DoD to do so under prior budget rules, didn't you see that in his Kansas speech?). But it's been going, and will keep going.

Inside Iraq, the Iraqi politicians need to "win" -- and they will, thru more troops temporarily, and more Iraqi troops actively pacifying areas.

For the last two years, getting Iraqis trained couldn't happen much faster (Bush gets first year F on training; second and third year B.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/13/06 13:56 | link | comments (2)
iraq, democracy

More training for Iraqi Troops

SecDef Rumsfeld spoke in Kansas, admits a secret mistake, implies new direction

“In the past, U.S. efforts to train foreign security forces have been burdened by outdated regulations. In Afghanistan, for instance, building up the Afghan Army was unnecessarily and harmfully delayed because there was no such category in the U.S. federal budget at the time. The painful delays in training the Afghan and Iraqi police forces were a result of the fact that the Department of Defense was prohibited from doing the training.”

Why didn’t we know about this earlier? Yes, perhaps I missed it -- but more training of the locals was always important, and even a “big deal” with NATO, and whether they would train in country or not.

Dem Bush-hate noise drowned out reasonable constructive criticism on the DoD training plans for Iraqis.

Bill Roggio discusses the Future of the Iraq Strategy

One “new direction” in Iraq -- the US trains, the Iraqis fight (or flee). What should also happen: a freeze on military promotions for those officers who have NOT had training assignments.


In any case lots more training, less active fighting. Which I think is much better for lower US casualties, but worse for higher Iraqi deaths, than Batiste's more troops now.

It's too late for more troops.


A big PR problem is that we are fighting a Limited War (not WW II Total War). In a Limited War, the loser, and only the loser, has the power to decide when to stop fighting. Only the loser can make and keep a "timetable". The winners keep fighting until the losers decide to lose. In the US-USSR cold war; in Vietnam; in Somalia. It's also the Israeli-Palestinian problem. This asymetrical aspect of loser power is underdiscussed -- the Reps need to get Dems on board for winning, and ready to keep fighting until the loser anti-democracy forces decide to stop fighting.

I was for the Reps hanging on, but I already see a big silver lining in the Dems gaining power -- because they will be stuck with responsibility and accountability. Whatever happens now will be partly the Dem responsibility; Iraq has become Rep AND Dem America's war, not just a Rep war. And I even think it's great.

What the US military should be doing is not "nation building", but "national Iraqi Army building". So the locals can build their own nation, with local Army security.

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/10/06 18:05 | link | comments (2)
iraq, democracy, wot

Dems win, Rumsfeld's gone

What has Marc Cooper been smoking? "Americans have had it with this war and are now running way ahead of the political leadership of both parties. "

This statement is true, IF and ONLY IF, Lamont beats Lieberman in the general election.
Lamont and "anti-war" lost.

Wake up, Marc, Lefties, anti-war / pro-terrorist whiners. The Dems have no chance to win the WH in 2008 without looking like they are winning in Iraq.

High Rep turnout means Rove IS a ... good Rep operator. But an even higher media based Bush-hate / Rep-hate / Corruption-hate / big-Gov't hate coalition against Reps won for "changing course." Only Leftists were voting Dem to support losing in Iraq; most were voting to dump Reps for anybody else.

In other words, same car, same road, new driver, same direction.

We stand down as Iraqis stand up.

However, you are very right about one important aspect of this Limited War, like every Limited War, Bush:  "got us into a war ... which we cannot conclude."

In Limited War, the winners cannot control the ending. Only the losers can "conclude" the war, by ending their fighting and losing. This applies to France in Algeria, & Vietnam, the US in Vietnam, Israel and Palestine, and the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Are you also going to say we should leave Afghanistan? If not, how many Americans must die before you think we should?

Imagine a baseball game that only ends when one side gives up playing -- and then the other side wins automatically.  It doesn't matter if the score is 99 to 0, if that team stops playing, it loses.

The Dems in power has this huge silver lining for the Reps -- the war in Iraq will now become a Democrat Party war, too. After being depressed about the Dem victory for a week even before it happened, I'm already getting enthusiastic about the Dems in power.

Now, two years after Kerry first talked about his "plan" for Iraq, the voters might finally get some details about what the Dem plan is. And I look forward to anti-war Leftists going batsh*t ratsh*t crazy when it turns out to be ... stay the course, with different drivers (and different slogans!).

Thanks again for your truthfulness about how Dem "redeployment" is BS. I keep reading you because you're one of the few Bush-haters honest enough to say how naked the Dem emperors are.



Austin Bay on Rumsfeld’s Resignation:
"The big race in 2006 was Lamont versus Lieberman. Joe Lieberman won. Joe’s core issue: VIctory in the War on Terror, which means victory in Iraq. That’s a warning to Nancy Pelosi and Co. If they go “nutsroots-Lamont Left” they will squander their victory"

Pelosi is already talking about "working with the President" for a new direction.
Changing drivers, but staying on the same road, will probably count with the Dems as a 'new direction' -- it's time (past?) for Bush to say the American goal: Victory in Iraqi Nation Building. Creation of a democratic Iraq with an Iraqi Security force that is the sole legitimate users of deadly force -- helping pro-democracy forces win the civil war in Iraq.

Rumsfeld was fantastic for changing the military (against the will of many top generals), was fantastic in the military campaign. But no good military will be so good at nation building. It is up to the Iraqis. The Rumsfeld & Bush mistake is to claim that "America" can win. No no no. Only Iraqis can win. America can choose which Iraqis to support.

In non-Total War, like this limited war, the winners will only win on the timetable of the losers -- the losers decide WHEN they lose. When they stop fighting.
The losing USA decided, after the Dem party 1974 victory, to lose Vietnam in 1975.

I claim the US loss in Vietnam is the "root cause" of the anti-America Islamist fight now. They know it is possible to win EVEN with 2 million in casualties, and EVEN without ever winning a battle campaign. All they have to do is keep fighting longer than impatient Americans are willing to fight.

I'm pretty sure the Reps will be reminding folk about the Vietnam loss more, in asking the Dems how they plan to win. There might even be more media attention to what Iraqi leaders say.




Marc is earlier gloating nicely, Gone Like a Bad Case of Fleas, yet with a good general critique of the Dems; he’s especially happy that Jerry Brown becomes the key Dem in CA again.

It would be great if Jerry Brown (my aura smiles and never frowns) could focus on corruption in CA.

"the mood of the American electorate revealed on Tuesday is one of angry impatience, an intense distrust of the establishment, which just happened to be recently occupied by Republicans."

Such juvenile impatience with limited war is America's downfall; the distrust of the establishment is well deserved; the fact that recently it's Reps is nicely said, Marc.

If America isn't willing to nuke Tehran and Damascus, and it isn't and I'm against such action (at least until after Tel Aviv goes mushroom), then America has to learn how to fight a limited war.

Any limited, not total war, will only end when the LOSER chooses. The timetable of losing is up to the loser to decide -- because of the limits of limited war.

Every "timetable" for withdrawal is the impatient desire to control the process; but, once in a limited fight, your only decision choices are: (a) continue (until the other guy gives up),
or (b) lose. Perhaps lose on your schedule, in accordance with your desired plans -- but still lose.

Unliike S. Vietnam, however, I'm confident the majority Shia and their death squads are fully capable of oppressing, dominating, and possibly exterminating any and all Sunni resistance to Shia power, if the US follows Dem Murtha's advice to immediately withdraw.

I get the feeling that many Dems want such a swift Shia theocrat death squad victory, in order to blame Bush for such a huge mess.

Any more human rights oriented solutions will take a longer, and uncertain, time commitment from US troops, and more casualties.


Tom G Palmer is SOOO Pleased
“at this repudiation of the GOP’s policies of big-government conservatism, reckless foreign policy, and relentless intolerance and nanny-statism.”

I think the Reps, deservedly out of power, are much more likely to be against pork and against big gov't. Also, new blood is a huge plus -- too bad Reps didn't push Term Limits on Senators and Representatives, so that long-term incumbents would "lose" and be replaced, much more often, by elections without an incumbent.

I can even imagine Bush will be able to veto some excessive spending, if the Dems send it, which he (felt he) couldn't quite do when Reps send it.

On relentless intolerance, I think the Dems are more intolerant of tax-cuts than the Reps are of gays or pro-choice folk. Yet I've read that the Dem plan is to have a ton of Tax Credits nanny state programs -- credits are a huge improvement over gov't grant cash

This Post is late -- done a couple of days ago!

Posted by: TomGrey at 11/10/06 11:50 | link | comments (2)
iraq, politics, democracy