News Archive June 2004

1700 GMT June 30, 2004

[3rd Update]

SUMMER PULSE '04 Contributor Joseph Stefula forwards an article from the Singapore Straits Times. This newspaper is understandably savvy about naval movements. It says that Summer Pulse '04 is oriented toward warning China to forget about invading Taiwan.
The paper opines that the PRC will feel threatened and humiliated by the exercise. Sitting on the Chinese side, your editor can certainly see that viewpoint. Sitting elsewhere, it seems as if the modern American habit of blaming the victim has caught on half a world away: "Yes, judge, I did murder those five persons, but as a child I never got seconds for dessert, and the school Bully Girls called me 'Runt', and once they even stole my lollipop..."
The newspaper correctly says that the concentration of 7 fleet carriers in one theatre is a unique event, but then goes on to ruin one's good image of the paper by saying it is largest concentration in US naval history. Tsk, tsk. Why do journalists think there was no existence before they arrived in the world? Clearly the Straits Times forgets World War II in the Pacific. Of course, this is certainly the largest concentration in the last six decades.
IRAQ-IRAN BORDER Mr. Stefula also forwards an item from the Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily on the movement of Iranian forces to the Iraq border. Essentially the article says that [A] Iran has, or is sending, 20 divisions to the Iraq border, [B] a number of foreign militants including 300 Chechans have infiltrated into Iraq from Iran, and [C] Some of the weaponry hidden by the Iraqi Army before/during the March-April 2003 War is emerging.
Points to note. Iranian divisions, particularly Revolutionary Guard ones, tend to be the size of a large brigade. We believe the move is strictly defensive: by now just about every military knows what US firepower and technology can do to large military forces.
Reader TAC has sent us several emails warning us that something major is up in that part of the world. We agree, but at this point, in fairness, we have to say we don't know what or why.

1530 GMT June 30, 2004

[2nd Update]

SADDAM APPEARS BEFORE IRAQ TRIBUNAL AFP reports Saddam and 11 others were produced before the Iraqi war crimes tribunal. They will be formally charged tomorrow; their trials will take several months to begin. Saddam is expected to be charged with starting the 1980-88 War with Iran, invading Kuwait, and mass murder of the Kurds. CNN says it was told Saddam looked well and addressed the court politely; some of the other accused were angry; and one, the infamous "Chemical Ali" was shaking with fear.
Unless they enjoy following the legal game, we'd advise readers as they read news of Saddam's trial, they should assume all that stands between him and the hangman are some legal formalities. We'd ignore everything else as interesting information of no consequence. The only point that could be more than just a big yawn is how many of his henchmen go to the gallows with him. We say "henchmen" because in our opinion, it is unlikely the one woman under arrest, the head of the biological weapons program, will get the death penalty.
If you are interested in the legal game, here are some talking points.
[1] The presiding trial judge's identity will remain secret. Unless the Iraqis plan some strange arrangement where the judge is screened from the rest of the court and speaks through a voice distorter, we may assume that the press and general public will not be present. Ditto witnesses. Nothing sinister will be going on, judges, court officials, police, witnesses have excellent reason to fear being killed.
[2] The initial list of charges against Saddam will be just that. Many more charges will be added, including - we assume - the mass murder of Shias in the aftermath of Gulf I. It is also possible that several - if not hundreds - of charges of individual murders may be brought.
[3] No lawyers we, but we don't see how charges of invading Kuwait or starting a war with Iran can stand. Iraq had, and has, a legitimate claim to Kuwait. Similarly, there were legitimate territorial and strategic issues with Iran. And please not to forget: just about every Arab state with oil is guilty of aiding and abetting Saddam in his war against Iran. This includes the Kuwaitis, big time.
For those who may have forgotten, Gulf I began because when Iraq asked for forgiveness of its $40-billion Iran war debt, much of it Kuwait money, the Kuwaiti ambassador at the meeting flat refused, and spat on the Iraqi officials shoes. Iraq believed it had accumulated the debt in a fight against Iran that served the purposes of the other Arab states as much as Iraq's. In our opinion, Iraq had a perfect right to ask for debt forgiveness. And let's not revisit old stuff, such as Ms. April Glaspie's wink and nod when Iraq her what would be the US position if Iraq attacked Kuwait.
[4] We wonder: Why only 11 other accused? What is the situation vis-à-vis the other 35 odd Most Wanted? The explanation may be a combination of two circumstances: paperwork - others will be charged later - and state's evidence in return for reduced charges, sentences, etc.
[5] Personally we wonder what the former foreign minister Tariq Aziz is doing in the dock. Did he perhaps refuse to cooperate in speaking against Saddam? Here it's important to remember that Mr. Aziz is a Christian, not a Muslim, leave alone a Sunni. We don't recall the details of his career - readers are welcome to enlighten us - but we think he was never in Saddam's trusted inner circle. He was a mouthpiece, no more. So, two possibilities. Mr. Aziz is not cooperating, charging him is a way to persuade him to change his mind; or Mr. Aziz has cooperated only too well, but to protect him it is being made out he will be treated just like the others.
A last point. Saddam is said to be held at a US post at Baghdad International Air Port. If anyone is looking to spring him, we'd suggest they should try Baghdad IAP last.
ERRATA Contributor Tom Cooper, who has written/co-authored books on the region, points out that the numbering of the Gulf Wars is incorrect. Gulf II should correctly be termed Gulf III: the first Gulf war was not Desert Storm, but the extended war between Iraq-Iran. An excellent point. Nonetheless, past experience is not promising. You editor refers to the "Vietnam War" as Indochina II; that Americans go "Say what?" is understandable, but the only person he has ever met who did not go "Huh?" was a Chinese diplomat.
This gentleman once asked your editor what he thought about the upcoming state election in Haryana state, India. Haryana is sort of comparable to Maryland in size and proximity to the capital. Your editor is too wise a bird to fall into these traps. He said - truthfully - he had no clue. Whereupon the gentleman launched into an impromptu mini-lecture of 30 minutes that left your editor and others who joined in agape at its depth and its knowledge of local politics in a small Indian state. Later, one of the listeners, a journalist who also happened to cover Haryana state among other matters told your editor: "Do you realize that man must read six Haryana dailies -" he proceeded to name them. "They are published in the vernacular, not in English. Even I don't read more than three." True, your editor said, but you have many other things to cover. "True", replied the journo "but so does he." Its unknown and unsung people like this diplomat that do the real work in foreign policy.

0400 GMT June 30, 2004

US COAST GUARD TO BOARD EVERY SHIP CNN reports that as of Thursday, the US Coast Guard will board every vessel arriving at US ports to see if it is in compliance with security measures mandated in 2002. Thursday was the deadline for installation of equipment and putting in place procedures to ensure terrorists do not seize control of a ship and bring it into a US port. The US Coast Guard says it will be very strict, and expects many ships to be turned away for violations that cannot be fixed before the ship enters port.
We are sure the US has worked a defense against this scenario: terrorists register ships legitimately and comply with all required security measures. The Coast Guard clears the ship. It enters port and blows up the 10,000 tons of explosives it is carrying. Surely the Coast Guard will use neutron scanners or something similar to check if explosives are on board. We recall hearing more than 30 years ago that the US had devices to check if Soviet warships transiting the Dardanelles were carrying nuclear weapons. True Soviet weapons were notoriously leaky, if we may be permitted to use an imprecise term; conversely, however, detection technology has improved by at least an order of magnitude.
But what happens if the ship is an oil tanker? Might there not be ways to shield explosive charges inside the tanks and set them off by remote control? We don't expect the US Coast Guard to write and and tell us what their defense is. In the matter of anti-terrorist measures, we have no problem believing the government knows what it is doing. It is now 33 months on after 9/11, and not one single terrorist attack against US territory has occurred. It cannot be because terrorists are not trying.
US RECALLS IRR CNN reports the US is recalling approximately 5,600 Individual Ready Reservists to duty in addition to the 2,000 already back in service, mostly on a voluntary basis.
CNN should have stopped with just reporting the news. Instead, it launches into a hugely convoluted attempt to make a dramatic story out of this: "US Reaches Deep Into Reserves", that sort of thing. The US "rarely" mobilizes these reserves, says CNN. It has no problem shooting its own story down by noting that during the Persian Gulf War 1990, 20,000 IRR troops were recalled. So equally, the story could have read: "US Waits 15 Months Before Recalling IRR", or "As in every war, the US has recalled IRRs".
Individual Ready Reservists exist in every army. They are not organized in units, and receive no reservist training. They can either be plain fillers - say infantry that can be deployed with minimal training to replace casualties; or, as is applicable in this case, specialists like signals and engineer soldiers, who may be doing similar jobs in their civilian life. It is customary to recall IRRs when preparing for war, there is nothing dramatic about it in the least; and our only comment is that the US military must be pretty darn well organized if it needed to recall only 2,000 IRRs before this.
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH ON TORTURE We normally have as much use for human rights organizations as we would for an unwanted friend who insists on accompanying us on a hot date. [Actually not a good analogy, as at our age we get no dates, hot, cold, or just right. Aside from the grandfatherly age, there is the problem of our wife, who keeps not just one knife in her closet but three: a stiletto, a carving knife, and a gutting knife that would be just right for a large killer shark - while it was very much alive and well in the water. Nonetheless, we are sure the readers get our analogy]. Today's Washington Post, however carried a superb article by an intelligent human rights person - and there are some, we know from experience. This was an Op-Ed by an outsider, not a news story, so the Post can claim no reporting credit. Its low key argument was that once the US sanctioned harsh interrogation tactics, it was inevitable that real torture would occur. There was no point in carefully crafted instructions saying "You can go this far but no more", no point to having to stop before you really hurt the prisoner, because what is the point of the harsh tactics if they do not cause enough pain to produce the results that you want? We particularly liked the article not just because it was insightful, going right to the heart of the fallacy in US interrogation tactics, it avoided moralizing and shrillness.
By the way, your editor must confess that he absolutely does not understand all the statements he has been reading that "torture does not work". Really? Where do these people get their information from? Skillful torture works every single time. It will not work only if you kill the prisoner before getting the information - very stupid thing to do. The sole point of debate can be how long will the prisoner hold out.
But torture forces the prisoner to give you the story you want to hear and not the truth, say people who oppose it on so-called "practical grounds". Really? You mean to tell us skilled interrogators don't know that? We don't want to go into details of counter-tactics against such cases; right now we'd like to say: wouldn't it be nice if those who make these statements actually went and saw things in the field before coming up with nonsense?
In his younger days, your editor was lucky to work with a gentleman who was singularly realistic about the human condition. "No man can withstand determined torture," he used to say "There is no shame in giving them what they want because you'll end up giving them what they want. Tell them a plausible story to begin with. If they don't buy it and start getting rough, tell them the absolute truth." Your editor includes this anecdote as part of his duty to educate Young People.

0430 GMT June 29, 2004

US RESTORES LIBYA TIES The US has restored diplomatic ties with Libya after a 24 year break.
BREMER'S DECREES Reader Paul Danish has a different take on our comments on Mr. Bremer's final decrees. He raises the possibility these decrees might have been issued with the collaboration of the Iraqi government. Many are likely to be unpopular and the Iraqis may have wanted to have the benefit of the decrees without the negative fall-out should the government have declared them.
NO MARTIAL LAW YET We are mildly surprised the Iraqi government has not already issued martial law or state of emergency orders. It is now more than 24 hours since power was handed over.
IRAQ'S KURDS Haaretz of Israel quotes Kurd sources as saying that with the Iraqis back in power, three internal conflicts could erupt. The first would be Sunni-Shia violence, which Orbat.com believes has been underway for some weeks; the second would be the settling of scores by Grand Ayatollah Sistani against al-Sadr; the third would be Kurd violence against "Arab" - i.e., non-Kurd - settlers in Kirkuk. Saddam sent perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to live in Kirkuk and other Kurd places, giving them land and houses seized from the Kurds. We hate to use the word ethnic cleansing, because after all the Kurds are only reclaiming property taken from them in the last 3 decades; at the same time, however, most of the settlers have no place to go. Whatever one wants to call it, the process of displacing Iraqis and forcing them into refugee camps has been going on since April 2003. We assume the Kurd sources mean that now the Kurds will not feel restrained in doing what they have to do.
Contrary to our impression, Haartez says the Kurds are being allowed to keep their army, which Haartez estimates at 220,000. Perhaps something has changed in the last few days, but we thought the Kurds were very upset because the US was insisting they also disarm. Of course, given the closes ties between the Kurds and the US, it is possible the US insistence was only pro-forma to appease Baghdad.
Nonetheless, from Haartez and many other reports we see that the Kurds are feeling betrayed and do not trust the Shias anymore than they trust the Sunnis. It will take some fancy foot-work by Baghdad to win back Kurdish trust - this was given after the US invasion, but a series of disappointments have turned the Kurds against all non-Kurds. Chief among the disappointments was the refusal of the Shia clerics to accept an autonomous Kurdistan, which the Kurds believe is their right, and their minimum requirement for staying in a federated Iraq. The proposal the Kurds disarm is not going any where even if trust between Baghdad and the Kurds were restored today: twice bitten, for every shy.
We'd love to hear from readers on where the developments leave Turkey. Turkey has said time and again it will not accept an independent Kurdistan. While we understand Turkey's strategic imperatives, we feel there is no chance the Turks can do anything now. Invading Kurd territory now would arouse the world against Turkey. Much has changed since the Turks attacked at will their own Kurds who were using Iraqi Kurdistan as a base of operations. They could do that because they had Saddam's tacit approval. Could they get Baghdad's approval now? The problem is that Saddam's army occupied most of Kurd territory, so the Kurdish room for maneuver was very limited. Aside from a handful of Sunni/Shia troops in security units stationed in Kurd territory, there is no one and the Kurds are free to oppose any Turkish invasion for whatever purpose it is launched.

THE KURDS, THE PROBLEM OF THE 21st CENTURY, THE AMERICAN WORLD EMPIRE, AND THE END OF AMERICA

In microcosm, the Kurd issue symbolizes what is going to be the problem of our new century. For 45 years, national boundaries as laid down in 1945 were sacrosanct. The Indian establishment of an independent Bangladesh by force in 1971 was the only time a secession was accepted. The years 1945-1990 are filled with failed attempts at secession.
But then along came the Balkans, where the West encouraged the breakup of an international recognized state. It was a good way of weakening communism, but it opened up a Pandora's box. For years now the West has been forcing Kosovo to stay within Serbia, without explaining why this is right when the West brought about the creation of six new states, and fought Serbia to establish them.
Similarly, when the US invaded Iraq to give the Iraqis the right of self-determination, by what logic are the Kurds to be kept inside the federation by force? And by what logic is Turkey to be permitted to suppress its Kurds? So also with Baluchistan: the Baluch occupy territory in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran. So if Bosnia and Croatia and the rest can be free, why not Baluchistan? Move to the Northwest, and there is Kashmir. India opposes an independent Kashmir with good reason: if Kashmir can be independent, the stage is set for the disintegration of this vast land. The Pakistanis have gleefully supported the Kashmiri right to self-determination while denying it to the people of Hunza, Gilgit, and Skardu - not to speak of their own Kashmiris. The Pakistanis say they want an independent Kashmir because they assume they will control it. In fact, an independent Kashmir is the worst thing that could happen to Pakistan, because it will begin the disintegration of Pakistan. Which is why Kashmir is a matter of life and death for Pakistan and for India. And then we can consider Tibet...
For years the United States has watched smugly as other countries - the UK for example - have struggled with issues of integration versus independence. With the increasing Hispanicization of America, however, there are Hispanic Americans who dream of the three countries in North America becoming two: half of California, all of the Southwest, Texas and Florida joining [or rejoining, if you prefer] Mexico, and the rest of the United States uniting with Canada. [Actually, we overstate the case here: the Hispanics who think along these lines have no interest in what the rest of the US does. It is only when you ask them: what happens to the non-Hispanics in the states the Hispanics want, that they reply "Canada is part of your natural community, go there." Our American readers, please don't laugh: if Ukraine can legitimately become independent after 400 years, why cant the former Spanish American territories go back to Mexico: its only been 160 odd years they have been part of the United States!
Your editor foresees the New World Order in simple terms. We will have One World because of economic imperatives. Its true America has driven these imperatives, but it has succeeded only because it has the only economic system that makes sense. There will be a World Culture - there already is - and the culture will be American, albeit with local modifications in every nook and cranny. But politically, the world will consist of a thousand independent states. People had to form tribes, national groups, and international groups to survive in a violent, uncertain world. That need is becoming history, so people now have a choice to disaggregate. The political systems of the thousand world states will be - we hate to offend our non-American readers but it has to be said - well, American. This too because American democracy, with its balance of individuality and mutual cooperation is the only system that makes sense.
1776 will soon be seen as the year the New World Order began. Let us arbitrarily set a not too unrealistic date of 2076 when the NWO is fully achieved. Everything in between will be seen simply as futile resistance to the inexorable transition to the NWO.
America began its existence as the first of the modern world's revolutionary states. Americans were - and are - the true revolutionaries even if they themselves have sought to deny this by standing in the way of revolution worldwide.
America 1776 unleashed a chain of events that could be stalled, but never stopped. Had the men who met to write the US constitution had the same global perspective we enjoy thanks to technology, your editor for one does not doubt they would have written clearly into the constitution: it is not Americans alone that are entitled to these rights, but the whole world. And it is the duty of Americans to ensure every person on earth has the same rights.
The Founding Fathers may not have said it explicitly, but that is what America has in effect done over the past 225 years: striven to ensure the rights it has are accepted as the common entitlement of all people.
There will be a world American empire because it cannot be otherwise. Everyone has a right - given by God, if you will, or seized by men, Americans first, if you will - to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That does not mean that every facet of America will be replicated everywhere: people will take the best of America and meld it with what works for them. The mistakes in Iraq 2003-04 are a matter of detail when looked at in a global perspective over centuries. America will recover - as it recovered from Vietnam - and continue its inexorable march toward world empire.
And here is the odd thing: when the American Empire reaches its final form, it will vanish. When the whole world looks like America in its political, economic, and social systems [hopefully without the worst of these systems], then there will be no need for the United States of America. America's final success will mean the end of America.

1300 GMT June 28, 2004

[2nd Update]

IRAQ SOVEREIGN AGAIN Agencies report Iraq is sovereign again. Mr. Paul Bremer has left Iraq without ceremony. The Iraq government says it will announce new security measures within hours. President Bush has sent a letter request formal restoration of diplomatic ties.
We have done our share of Bremer bashing, but let us at once admit the manner of his exit from Baghdad is gentlemanly and honorable. Congratulations, sir, on Doing the Right Thing the Right Way, and the best of good fortune in your future career.
Congratulations also to the US Government. Pushing up the date of sovereignty neatly derives the terrorists of their big chance to make a splash. The US has been showing great flexibility since Al-Sadr's uprising and Fallujah. We have always said of the Americans: they learn quickly from their mistakes. We cite the Al-Sadr campaign, the rapid conversion of 24 National Guard artillery battalions to provisional infantry battalions, and now the handover at an unexpected time as major examples.
While they are figuring out there is no more occupation to protest, and that any attacks now are against their own country, new security measures will be announced before they can regroup. The terrorists can no long claim patriotism; they are, as of some hours ago, merely rather boring traitors.
Yesterday the Washington Post carried an article we simply could not be bothered with. It said that Mr. Bremer was restricting the Iraqi ability to do things the way they wanted by passing a raft of new rules before his departure. We stopped reading at that point and went straight to the Comics, because it should be obvious to anyone but the Post that once Iraq became sovereign, all of Mr. Bremer's decrees become null and void. [Lawyer talk sounds so much more impressive.] This was another non-story.
We reread the story today, and buried in the landslide of pointless words was a single line that acknowledged the rules would restrict the Iraqis IF they chose to keep them. Moreover, we do need to point out the headline and the way the story was presented was misleading. Mr. Bremer was trying to safeguard Iraq's nascent democracy and America's interests. Re. the democracy bit, Bremer was doing a Good Thing, even though it was clearly symbolic. Re. pushing American interests, isn't that a Good Thing, Washington Post? After all, you live well because YOU benefit from American institutions. Is it possible for you to concede that perhaps the Iraqis may also benefit from American-type institutions? Remember the American Constitution, that supremely pragmatic document? We haven't looked at it lately, but do recall from our 11th Grade history teacher that the document is premised on enlightened self-interest. That means it is based on the reality of human behavior. That the Americans went into Iraq for their own interests does not invalidate the truth they believe their way is better for the Muslim world than the mess the Muslim world has for governance. It would be better for America AND for the Muslim world, and for just about anyone on Earth.
By the way, our History teacher was also our English Literature/Language teacher. He would have killed us medium-dead for the word "premised". Of course, it hadn't been invented then. A new member of Orbat.com's big History team asked us if our use of the word "upgradation" in an email was correct. Probably not, responded your editor. But in America even words have the right to Be All They Can Be.

0330 GMT June 28, 2004

IRAQ HOSTAGES Agency reports say that terrorist groups claim they hold hostage the following: one US Marine, who is apparently an Arabic speaker; one Pakistani working for a subcontractor; and three Turks. In the case of the Marine and the Pakistani, the demands are that the US release all prisoners or the hostages will be killed. In the case of the Turks, the demand is that Turkey pull all its companies out of Iraq in 72 hours or the hostages will be killed.
In our opinion, the first thing the terror groups need to do is to get an education. Then they might learn that the fate of the Pakistani is of absolutely no interest to the US - and likely not to his government either. They might learn that the Pakistanis so vehemently oppose US intervention in Iraq that even President Musharraf as defacto dictator of Pakistan was unable to oblige the US and send troops to Iraq. They might also learn that the Pakistanis who come to work in Iraq, as elsewhere in the Gulf, are poor people without prospects in their own country. Orbat.com suggests the insurgents let this unfortunate man go, because there is no one to speak for him, and because killing him will serve no purpose whatsoever.
As for the Turks, if the terrorists were educated, they might realize that Turkey will never negotiate with the terrorists, and the Turkish Defense Minister has insultingly said that hostage takers make many demands, but the Turkish Government does not take them seriously. So all the terrorists are achieving is providing some grim humor to the Turkish government. Of course, with a bit of education, the terrorists may understand that Turkey not just opposed US intervention in Iraq, it actively sabotaged a key component of the US plan - and thus helped people like the terrorists. All this is not rocket science, people.
Then there is the Marine. Here our only comment is, let's wait and see.
40,000 DEMONSTRATORS GREET BUSH says CNN of Mr. Bush's arrival for the NATO summit. We cite this as an example of the media trying to generate a story when there is none. CNN tells us the US is wildly unpopular in Turkey at this time, and only 40,000 demonstrators turned up? Give us a break, CNN. If your reporters were educated, they'd understand that if at all the story merited reporting, it should be titled as "Bush Meets Only Mild Protest". Now, the terrorists above can at least offer excuses for why they are not educated. What is your excuse, CNN?
NATO IN IRAQ Orbat.com admits it is mildly surprised at the ease and the speed with which the US has obtained NATO's agreement to train Iraqi forces. Only the Germans are going wobbly, they insist they will do training only outside Iraq, a proposition apparently the US has accepted. We haven't quite understood Berlin's logic. Is Berlin training Afghan security forces outside of Afghanistan? Obviously not: the Germans are doing the training inside Afghanistan. Is Berlin afraid that putting its troops in Iraq will result in casualties and increase the risk if terror at home? We have news for you, Berlin: the fundamentalists are going to come after you even if you kiss the rear ends of all of them. You have done a right and noble thing in deploying to Afghanistan. Show some backbone, please, and send trainers to Iraq - with the protection they require. History will not change whether or not you go to Iraq. But sometimes one has to do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing, no?
NATO IN AFGHANISTAN Agencies say NATO is prepared to expand its force in Afghanistan. We are seriously under-whelmed. This talk has been going on for months now. We are of the opinion NATO should simply disband its constituent armed forces and pay protection money to Britain and the US, and use the balance to improve the lives of its people. Your armed forces are simply a waste of resources at this time.

0330 GMT June 27, 2004

EU/NATO AGREE ON IRAQ TRAINING In a major diplomatic victory the US has obtained EU/NATO agreement, including from France and Germany, to train Iraqi security forces. The US was unable, however, to get significant debt relief for Iraq.
Orbat.com feels the agreement is only in principle: EU/NATO did not want to appear churlish and unsupportive of the new Iraqi government. There is likely to be heated debate and many confrontations on specific issues of training and provision of security to UN/training missions.
PAKISTAN PM RESIGNS AFP reports that the Pakistan Prime Minister has resigned after 18-months of rule. The cause is believed to be his inability or unwillingness to get parliament to agree to extend the period that President Musharraf also holds the position of Army Chief.
Since the President's power rests on his military rank rather than the Presidential rank, it is understandable President Musharraf would look on his Prime Minister with disfavor. In our opinion, the resignation of the Prime Minister has no bearing on the War on Terror, as that is being handled by the Pakistan Army without reference to Parliament.
ISRAEL KILLS MILITANT LEADERS Haaretz of Israel says the Israeli Army killed the Nabulus leaders of Hamas, Fatah, and Islamic Jihad.
We hear that the repeated Israeli blows to the Palestine militant structure, infighting among the Palestinians, and the desperate economic situation have created a situation where Palestinians in growing numbers are providing precise information to the Israelis. The more Israel succeeds, the more Palestinians cross over, enabling more Israeli successes.
Palestinian militants vowed revenge. This time the revenge will be like an earthquake. While we have much sympathy for the people of Palestine, we have no time for the bombastic hot air spewed forth in great volume by the militants. Rivers of blood, the fires of annihilation, earthquakes - this is getting rather boring, not to speak of counterproductive, because it further caricaturizes the Arab peoples.
None of the three groups has served the people of Palestine. We want Hamas and Islamic Jihad to go home, wherever home is, and for Fatah to renounce violence. Let Fatah turn to non-violent protest to reach the only people that can help Palestine - the liberal and moderate Israelis who do not agree with their government's political policies, but have no choice except to support the government. After all, when the militants attack Israel, they kill with equal opportunity their enemies as well as those who feel for the Palestinian people. We have a suspicion that nothing makes a liberal into a hardliner faster than seeing her/his family blown to shreds.

UNASKED FOR ADVICE TO IRAQ MILITANTS

This is a personal comment by Ravi Rikhye and has nothing to do with Orbat.com's policies. Anyone has the right to email Orbat.com with her/his opinion, and except for letters containing foul language - which we delete without the least remorse - we publish all letters, unedited. Equally, I have as much right as anyone to express my opinion in Orbat.com. I'd like to offer some unasked for advice to the Iraqi militants who are busy decapitating kidnapped civilians.
I am unclear on what you hope to achieve by this tactic. I have already related the story of how, after you killed Nicholas Berg, an 8th Grade student of mine asked if the video did not want me to go out and kill Arabs - he certainly wanted to. To me, the scary thing was not that he said what he did, but that only one youngster stood up to him and said that killing is wrong in all circumstances. I doubt this means much to you, but if I could have just one of you spend just one day at my school, you will realize what I am saying: the kids at my school are staunch Catholics, they are taught every day that violence done to another human being is wrong, and that above all, God requires us to forgive those who harm us. They and their families - and the teachers - take their religion very, very seriously.
You have now killed two civilians, and while I have no scientific study to back me, I can assure you that just those two acts have generated tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Americans who would be quite happy for an opportunity to kill you and your people.
Americans may be increasingly divided on the Iraq intervention. But they are increasingly united on the need to fight terror - and that means killing you. Please understand: there was no sympathy for Saddam Hussein; the Americans are upset because they felt that their government lied to them for the reasons for war. If Mr. Bush had played his cards better, I for one have no doubt he could have built a global consensus that Saddam had to go, just as he has built a global consensus that terrorists have to be stopped at any cost.
It is absurd for you to think that by savagely murdering civilians, then gloating over it on TV, and then invoking God as the reason you killed, you are going to win anyone to your side.
To be fair, I have been a hardliner on the issue of Islamic terrorists since 1989, when it became all too clear what you people were doing in Kashmir. The locals at least tried to keep their fight against the Central Government clean in that they attacked security forces. Your arrival in Kashmir meant the slaughter of women, children, old men, civilians trying just to make a living.
After your patron destroyed the Trade Center towers in Manhattan, I argued to all my friends that only the complete extirpation of you and your sympathizers from the face of the earth would work. There can be no compromise with you, because not a single one of your objectives is legitimate. My friends would look at me in horror. It got to the point where we could not discuss the War on Terror any more because my friends thought I was a maniac. After you thoughtfully killed the two American civilians, I am, however, looking at a sea-change.
Not one person I know who opposed invading Iraq has changed their mind, and many who supported it, are now against the intervention. But you do see, don't you, that opposition to Iraq has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the way Americans looked at you before Iraq or after Iraq. Before you killed the two civilians, for most Americans this wasn't personal. Now it is becoming increasingly personal.
Here is your problem. Of all people on earth, Americans are the most messianic. In the last 30 years, Americans have become truly multicultural, and criticizing another's culture or religion or way of life is considered wrong. But thanks to you, with your constant and blasphemous invocation of God as the justification for your filthy, psychotic savagery, you are gradually arousing the messianic side of Americans.
And once Americans come to believe, as they will in 3, 5, or 10 years if you keep on butchering civilians, that their God requires them to kill you, then all the fires of hell you predict for the Americans will become your reality.
If you don't believe me, go talk to Al-Sadr. His men were far braver than you will ever be. But now 1500 or more of them are dead, killed by just 5,000 American troops - at a cost of 19 of their own. And at that the Americans were doing their best NOT to kill innocent people: the rules of engagement for what was a major campaign were the most restrictive the world has ever seen. If you read the newspaper accounts, you may be surprised by how dispassionately the Americans regarded Al-Sadr's militia. As far as US 1st Armored Division and 2nd ACR were concerned, they were doing their job, and the militia was doing its job - nothing personal.
Can you imagine what will happen when you succeed in making this hundred year war personal for the Americans, when they stop caring if inncent people get killed in their hunt for you?

0330 GMT June 26, 2004

FALLUJAH AFP reports US aircraft dropped 14 bombs on Baqubah and Fallujah. The Fallujah strike again targeted a safe house believed to shelter insurgents loyal to al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian who has claimed responsibility for many terror attacks, including the ones on Wednesday. CNN said that while reporters on the scene felt the house was empty, the US firmly insisted that this third strike in a week was effective, and that between 59 and 65 people have been killed.
Clearly the US has finally got good sources in Fallujah. We wish we knew what was going on, unfortunately nothing we read or hear sheds any light on why the US is repeatedly going after Fallujah.
AL SADR Al-Sadr militia says it is laying down its arms and will fight alongside the Iraqi government against insurgents. A spokesperson in Sadr City insisted the disarmament does not mean the militia has bowed to government authority in the City. He says the move is being conducted to prevent the US from accusing Al-Sadr of sabotaging peace.
Orbat.com is curious as to why of a sudden Al-Sadr is concerned with what the US thinks, and how his militia intends to fight alongside the Iraqi government after having given up its weapons.
1st ARMORED DIVISION Washington Times carries a report that may explain Al-Sadr's new sensitivity to US feelings. 1st Armored Division was turned around as it was preparing to board ship for Germany. It then worked its way against Al-Sadr from the outside in, starting with his isolated strongholds in Kut and Nasiriyah. Simultaneously, though this is not apparent from the Washington Times story, the British took care of the militia in Basra. The process of penning the militia inside Najaf and Karbala was the outside-in strategy: establish perimeters and start squeezing. The Division says it killed at least a thousand militia, and while the militia still has the capacity for inflicting damage on US forces, it is defeated and unable to organize a major offensive.
GRAND AYATOLLAH SISTANI Iraq's head cleric has given Bin Laden and his associates, including al-Zarqawi, a piece of his mind. "[They are] filthy infidels who nurture malignance against Imam Ali and his sons". Readers will not fail to note that as the handover date approaches, Iraqis who previously remained neutral or were attacking the US are now thinking of themselves as "Iraqis against the terrorists" instead of "Iraqis against the occupation".
Washington Post reports on a 1000 person survey conducted in Iraq for the Coalition, relying on face-to-face interviews, near 7 in 10 expressed optimism for the future of their country - this is surely another sign of changing attitudes as handover approaches.
IRAQ STATE OF EMERGENCY? The Iraqi Defense Minister says it may be necessary to impose a state of emergency in Baghdad and several provinces after the handover. This is the clearest indication of the crackdown anticipated after handover.
AN IRAQ ANECDOTE We received this by email:
I was in D.C. on the metro recently in Northern Virginia not far from the Pentagon. Behind me were sitting two men, both of whom looked military. While rude, I couldn't help listening to their conversation.
They were discussing a reporter who works for Atlantic Monthly.
Apparently he was in Iraq not long ago and his laptop died. Needing a
replacement immediately, the reporter went to a local store that sold
used computers, and purchased a laptop. Upon turning it on, he
realized that it's contents had not been properly wiped and asked his
accompanying translator to identify what he was reading.
According to the individuals conversing behind me, the laptop's
contents revealed that it was once the property of Abdul Aziz
al-Muqrin [the recently killed Al-Qaeda leader in Saudi Arabia] and that it still contained a wealth of intelligence.
So this information is clearly less then reliable, but I thought you might find it interesting.
YEMEN Jang of Pakistan reports that Yemen security forces have killed 46 followers of an anti-American cleric and captured about the same number. The fighting began when the police tried to arrest the cleric. A source close to the cleric says the casualty toll is actually double that officially given out. This story is a reminder that most of the War Against Terror rarely makes the news because we are so fixated on Iraq and to a lesser extent on Afghanistan.
SYRIA ARMY PURGE? Debka.com says the Syrian President has carried out a big purge of the army's senior leadership: 40% of General Staff officers and 50% of division commanders have been retired or reassigned to minor jobs. The purge took place on the advice of a now-retired security advisor to President Assad, and now to his son Bashar, and was intended to strengthen the grip of the minority sect that has ruled Syria for decades.

0330 GMT June 25, 2004

RUMSFELD SAFE Your editor awoke this morning, expecting to see the Washington Post licking its chops in anticipation of chowing down on Mr. Rumsfeld. There was the editorial we'd been told to expect, and yes, it carried details of the memos Mr. Rumsfeld signed, some of which he rescinded at later dates. We saw no condemnation of anyone. In fact, the Style section [which contains the vital comic pages] even carried the bit about the standing torture - but as a joke, because apparently Mr. Rumsfeld doesn't have a chair at his desk: he stands all day, 8-10 hours is normal for him. Every now and then he lunges for his weights and furiously pumps iron. The weights he uses would probably give a man 20 years his junior a hernia, but Mr. Rumsfeld expends so little energy that he does not even bothering taking off his tie and rolling up his sleeves. He's not going to sweat one drop, and he knows it. He is past 70, incidentally.
A bit confused, your editor did something rare: he 'phoned someone to ask what gave? The lead editorial in the Post is talking about the memos, but no one is saying a word against Mr. Rumsfeld or Mr. Bush or the Chairman Joint Chiefs etc. No condemnations, let alone rumblings about charging Mr. Rumsfeld etc under 18 US Code whatever paragraphs that outlaw torture under US laws.
Our source gave your editor a metaphorical reassuring pat to the effect of "there there - its going to be okay, don't get upset." He then proceeded to give your editor a short course in the realities of Washington, never directly criticizing you editor for yesterday's comments, but making quite clear he thought your editor was the most naive person in America since Forrest Gump came and went. The following is a summary.
1. Regardless of what people might assume, Mr. Rumsfeld can make a legal defense saying the government lawyers said his annotated orders were legal, and that the steps being discussed were not torture. When other lawyers disagreed strongly, Mr. Rumsfeld promptly cancelled the orders. It will be very, very hard to prove in a court of law that Mr. Rumsfeld was breaking the law of the land, and Mr. Rumsfeld's lawyers would argue that au contraire, Mr. Rumsfeld was very careful not to break the law. This is particularly so because the law says the intent to cause pain must be clear, and in the cases under discussion, defendants will argue the intent to cause pain was lacking, and interrogators have been strictly cautioned to stop if the prisoner is in genuine distress. If our readers are scratching their heads, be reassured: so is your editor. But apparently common sense does not apply to the law. What is common sense to you and me is irrelevant in a trial. [Your editor has been told this on numerous occassions.]
2. Mr. Rumsfeld, being the bureaucratic infighter without match, has gone up things in a way that if he is charged, a great many highest ranking officials, perhaps even the President and Vice-President, will also have to be charged.
3. The Washington Post, like any major US paper, is going to be amazingly careful before taking on Mr. Rumsfeld. People are scared of him. The Post has its own lawyers, and we can assume they are telling the Post's editors, "are you ready to litigate when Mr. Rumsfeld comes back, accusing you of slander? Are you sure you can convince the judge that shackling in stress positions is torture, especially when national security is involved?". The Post will decide to lay low until much more dramatic evidence against Mr. Rumsfeld and his pathetic set of advisors emerges. And, said our source, s/he is willing to bet there will be no other evidence emerging. The worst has happened.
Your editor sarcastically said "So, is Mr. Steve Coll, the Post's Managing Editor, afraid that Mr. Rumsfeld is going to lay him out with an uppercut to the jaw?" Our source, with utmost sobriety, said: "Mr. Rumsfeld does not have to hit anyone. He can get extremely intimidating when he is angry. I cannot say to what extent, if any, personal fear plays into an unwillingness to take on Mr. Rumsfeld. But I am convinced fear of his retaliation does make the press less brave than they otherwise might be."
Our source, being quite familiar with your editor's feelings about Steve Coll, who your editor feels ties with Pamela Constable for the least understanding of India exhibited by any correspondent in 150 years, added with a chuckle: "You would be very pleased if Rummy decked Steve Coll, so don't pretend you're impartial."
Our source is correct. Your editor is not impartial. He admires Mr. Rumsfeld too much on the one hand, and on the other hand his "little people" origins and upbringing are making him mad as heck that the little people are being blamed while the big people are getting away with murder.
Accordingly, your editor recuses himself from this story.
NATO TO TRAIN IRAQIS? AFP reports NATO's secretary general as saying that Iraq's request for help in training its security forces is a legitimate plea from a legitimate government, and that a UN security resolution exists. Germany has said it is willing to train, but not in Iraq. Other nations are considering the issue. AFP says France may want more discussion before arriving at a decision.
IRAQ FIGHTING AFP says the HueyCobra that made an emergency landing outside Fallujah had been shot down, but the pilots were rescued.
THERE YOU GO AGAIN CNN reports a US State Department official as saying Iran will resume uranium enrichment next week in defiance of the world and its treaty obligations. It may have already stockpiled chemical warfare agents and shells for delivering them.
Short Background The US was moving toward getting Iran declared out of compliance with IAEA regulations, a move that would trigger sanctions and widen US options against Iran. The Europeans - France, Germany, and the UK - rushed to Teheran to tell the Iranians: "If you want to save yourself from Mr. Bush, you must listen to us." Teheran said it would, and moved to expand IAEA access to its enrichment facilities. Then the IAEA caught Iran in a series of lies, Iran said it has no further obligations under international law on the issue because the world community has broken its word by accusing Iran.
The European initiative has collapsed, and the smugness manifested by them - "Let us show you, Washington, what the art of diplomacy is all about" - is replaced by equal smugness among Washington hawks: "So, Old Europe, what is it you wanted to show us? There is only one diplomacy going to work - the one that comes from the belly of a B-2". Europe is in a real fix here: it legitimately could cast serious doubt on the US case against Saddam and his WMDs. In Teheran's case, the evidence builds daily that they are building/accumulating WMDs and delivery systems. There is the question of what happens with Israel: Tel Aviv has made clear, not so subtly, that it is holding its hand while giving the UN, the Europeans and Americans a chance to sort things out. If they fail, Tel Aviv has made clear it will do the sorting out and international opinion be darned. There is also the unpleasant reality that the Iranian mullahs have more than the annihilation of Israel on their minds - and they have the missiles to reach all Europe.
Orbat.com comment Talk about irony. Anyone with the least knowledge of Iraq and WMDs knew Saddam was not a threat. Yet, as the second cruelest ruler in the world, he needed to be taken out. The US did that, in the process losing all credibility with the world, which is more focused on saying to Mr. Bush "Liar, liar, pants on fire" than coming straight out and saying: Saddam needed to go, we should have supported the US on that, instead of forcing the US into lying to justify invasion - an invasion from which the world has benefited. Iran, on the other hand, is not ruled by particularly cruel people. Yet it is on a path to WMDs/delivery systems, but the US is now constrained because of its lies over Saddam's WMDs. And let us not even start on the post-invasion mess...

1200 GMT June 24, 2004

[2nd update]

IRAQ FIGHTING Insurgents have begun their big push to prevent an orderly transfer of power on June 30. Aside from attacks on police stations in 4 cities, CNN says insurgents have taken over parts of Baqubah north of Baghdad, and have warned residents to stay inside or be killed. Fighting there has killed two US troops, and AFP quotes US officials as saying 4 500-lb bombs were used to destroy three houses where insurgents were hiding.
In Fallujah the inevitable denouement has taken place: fighting between the Marines and insurgents has erupted in the industrial area after a Marine patrol was prohibited from entering the city. Aircraft and attack helicopters have been in action; CNN says one HueyCobra was seen landing outside town, presumably it had been damaged by ground fire.

0400 GMT June 24, 2004

RUMSFELD FOR THE BIG JUMP? We are very sorry to have to report that one of our favorite people is in big, big, career ending trouble. Normally we'd be very hesitant to report such sensitive news, but considering we are the last in Washington to know anything, we are positive just about everyone except our local garbage collector knows.
Apparently, Mr. Rumsfeld was not just aware of the officially sanctioned policy permitting torture of suspects, the New York Times and Washington Post are in possession of copies of memos detailing interrogation options, with Mr. Rumsfeld's notations. In one, the memo discusses shackling prisoners in highly uncomfortable standing positions for 3-4 hours a day. Mr. Rumsfeld has, we hear, commented in writing to the effect of "why 3-4 hours? Why not 9-10 hours?"
If this is correct, before we go further, we really need to get a few things clear between ourselves and our readers.
First, we are great admirers of Mr. Rumsfeld and his war winning strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, he messed up the peace; since the peace is more important than the war, he has to go. Yet, we are distressed that he is in the trouble that he now faces.
This is because, second, wars are not won using the Marquis of Queensbury's rules. It has been said we all sleep safely in our beds each night because there are available hard men prepared to inflict violence to protect us. Democracy is not some abstract ideal that will live of its own: democracy needs protection too, and some times bad things have to be done. We all make ethical compromises big and small each day we are alive; Mr. Rumsfeld made these compromises not for his gain or his ego, but because he is fighting to protect his country.
Third, we would be upset if Mr. Rumsfeld had ordered violations of the Geneva Conventions. But he has done no such thing: Geneva does not apply to criminals or to people who admit to no rule of war.
This said, here is our problem - and Mr. Rumsfeld's problem. Whatever any one's interpretation of Geneva, the US has ratified conventions against torture, and these conventions are codified in the law of the land, 18 US Code some paragraph or the other - we are not lawyers, so we ask our readers to excuse us here. Under US law, the use of torture - and we presume the order or approval or turning of a blind eye to torture - is a felony. Apparently Mr. Rumsfeld has broken the law of his country, and that we cannot condone regardless of how justified we think he was.
Another thing we find upsetting is that the Defense Department's general consul is being blamed for sanctioning torture when in reality this department fought tooth and nail to say torture was NOT permissible under the law. Mr. Rumsfeld knows this, and we feel it is dishonorable of him to also seek to blame his subordinates. This is not the Mr. Rumsfeld we have known of for 25 years, a man of great intelligence, bureaucratic cunning, vision, and leadership, a man of great personal integrity and a complete dedication to serving his country. Whatever happens to him, we feel we have a right to ask him to acknowledge he was wrong in blaming subordinates for something he was very much involved in.
Last, and this to us appears sinister. The person who had Rumsfeld's ear in arguing torture is legal, is a woman whom no one seems to able to identify. Two points here. We are angry that yet another woman is involved in this sordid mess, and if readers want to call us sexist for demanding higher standards of women than we do of men, please be our guest. And we are disturbed that in a democracy there is a shadow person with such influence that only has she pushed for torture, she has managed to get the approval blamed on the very persons who most vehemently opposed the policy. Of course, our liberal readers who hate Mr. Bush will say this is all of a piece with the way the government has been run since Inauguration Day, 2001: deceptive layer on deceptive layer, so there is no trail of accountability or public knowledge of who said what.
In conclusion, in our opinion none of this is going to save the enlisted men and women standing trial, or the various lower level officers to the rank of one-star and two-star generals - if the inquiry brings them to justify. For them to say they were ordered means nothing. For soldiers, it is illegal to obey an illegal order. No ifs and buts, horses and nuts. For them to say they had inadequate training excuses them zero in the eyes of the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Moreover, who needs a law to understand what was being done was wrong? The troops and their officers are not ignorant peasants in a Middle Ages army, they are educated people who know what is right or wrong in their own country. If nothing else, the great majority of them are Christian, and the Bible very clearly says: treat others as you would have them treat you.
To our our mind, so far there are only three heroes. The NCO who, angry and disgusted at what he saw, anonymously passed information to the authorities. The authorities - generally lower ranking officers - who have relentlessly pursued this case. And the one soldier who accepted his guilt and took his punishment, even though the army was his life and he begged not to be discharged after serving his time.
The rest are cowards and dishonorable people, unworthy of the enormous privileges they are automatically given because they have the wonderful luck to live in America. There is still a chance for all of them to redeem themselves: accept responsibility, and take their punishment. That is the code of officers and gentlemen, and the code applies equally to those civilians who command soldiers. Any officer knows what a harsh code is laid on her or him. It is time for the civilians to stop playing games and understand what honor, loyalty, and courage mean. There lies redemption; else go hide from the world and live the rest of your lives in disgrace.

1315 GMT June 23, 2004

[2nd Update]

ROYAL NAVY AFP says Teheran will release the 8 Royal Navy personnel it is holding either today or tomorrow. Their public apology, made on Iran state TV, was directed to the Revolutionary Guards - readers please note. An a apology to Iran, okay. But an apology to the military service who arrested you?
CHECHNYA-INGUSHETIA Pravda reports that approximately 200 rebels believed to be from Chechnya and North Ossetia attacked Nazran, a town in Ingushetia on June 21st. It was a planned raid. Several thousand Russian troops have reinforced/are reinforcing the area.
Pravda also reports Russian scientists have discovered that increasing amounts of potassium in the environment is responsible for progressively shortening the life spans of humans from thousands of years to the current 70. Fried foods and stress are also mentioned.

0400 GMT June 23, 2004

FALLUJAH NBC says US has again attacked a terrorist safe house in Fallujah, the second strike in 3 days. A US spokesperson says the presence of terrorists was confirmed from multiple sources before the strike. Arab TV says 6 people were killed.
ROYAL NAVY CAPTIVES BBC reports that it appears the 8 sailors captured in the Shatt-el-Arab will be released if London apologizes. Our own feeling is that at any given time it is difficult to say who is in control in Iran. We cannot imagine the Revolutionary Guards, who arrested the men, would agree to a simple apology and handover. We'd be very interested to know if the Iranians can prove that they were not in Iraqi waters: we are told high winds in the Shatt frequently blow lighter vessels off course. Having two of the men say on Iran TV they entered Iran waters by mistake is no proof of anything; moreover, how did they know they were in Iran waters.
Advice to Royal Navy: we realize that we all now live in the world of anything goes, and so Iran can seize 8 of your sailors without retaliation. Nonetheless, may we suggest next time you arm your crews and instruct them if approached to shoot first and ask questions later? A few ATGMs should suffice to sink patrol boats. Then you can say you were attacked first in Iraqi waters and exercised your right to self-defense. Try and grab a couple of the Revolutionary Guard sailors out of the water, ship them back to London, and have them say on BBC they are sorry they began the attack. Sounds absurd? Perhaps. But do you have better ideas for dealing with the Guards? Readers, please note we are not speaking of the Iran Navy, but the Revolutionary Guards navy - a different kettle of fish.
USN CARRIER TOP SPEEDS David Newton writes to refer us to an analysis on www.warships1.com , which says USN carriers speeds have been declassified and generally 30-32 knots is a maximum speed. That's with six of the 8 boilers lit. The article makes perfect sense, and raises more questions than it answers. We forget what little we learned of naval engineering, but since the power required to propel a ship rises by 8 for every knot of extra speed [or is that the SSNs?], with all boilers lit, the speed would increase by a knot or two, quite insignificant. Since we are not in a position to prove that the big carriers may have more than 280,000 shp at their disposal, we have to accept the warships1.com article and accept the speeds given. That US Navy SSNs have a faster speed and deeper diving depth than publicly revealed is not something that generally is disputed.
BACK IN THE USA Some of our old-timers may remember Charlie Wilson, the former CIA operative who was found guilty of selling 20 tons of C-4 explosive to Libya, and who was jailed in 1982 with the key to his cell tossed in the garbage. Yesterday the Washington Post Style section had a lengthy article on him, and it was actually a rather good article. Well researched, non-partisan, and informative. He is to be released after a judge found the prosecution had deliberately withheld evidence that could have helped clear him of the charges. The Post makes clear what we vaguely remember hearing two, that while he was innocent of the Libya charge, he was quite guilty of a whole bunch of other things: after leaving the CIA he operated on the principle of "one deal for the CIA, and one deal for me, and if I get caught on my deal, I'll say I was working for the CIA.
Interesting as he is, our point in bringing him up is to mention one fact mentioned without comment in the Post article. Of his 22 years in jail, Mr. Wilson spent 10 in solitary confinement. He was let out for one hour a day - of course, that's the usual practice, but equally usual is not to let the prisoner out at all if he needs to be disciplined. The hour is spent in letting the prisoner walk up and down in a yard by himself, and then its back to the cell. We found very interesting the Post's matter-of-fact acceptance of this unsavory revelation, more so because Mr. Wilson was not accused of a violent crime. After all the "investigation" the Post has been doing in Abu Gharib, and all the hoo-ha raised by international rights groups, it would be nice if the Post had sought fit to question the practice. Of course, that's asking too much because it would not occur to the Post that what Mr. Wilson went through also qualifies as abuse. As for the international rights groups, lets not hold our breath. And if the US prison system can treat a highly educated, well-connected man who had a lawyer available through his imprisonment in this manner, we leave it to readers to imagine what happens to common criminals. Recently we read of a man sentenced to life without parole for murder: he deliberately killed another man in prison and begged to be executed because he couldn't take being locked up anymore. what fun.
LAFF A MINUTE This story really is pertinent to the War on Terror, so we have justification for repeating it here. Rolling Stone Magazine in its latest issue convened a group of generals, diplomats, and foreign policy specialists to hold a panel discussion on Iraq. Senator Joseph Biden, a panelist, recalled he was with Mr. Bush. Mr. Biden was completely frank in his opinion that Mr. Bush's advisers had completely mucked up the Iraq intervention. Mr. Bush said: "At least I am a strong leader." Mr. Biden responded: "Mr. President, leaders have followers. Look behind you: there is no one". [Words recalled from memory - your editor reads a bunch of stuff every day on the fly and does not take notes on material he does not know for a fact he is going to use.]

0400 GMT June 22, 2004

NEWS OF THE ABSURD AFP reports that Mr. Fidel Castro has warned the US not to invade Cuba.
May we at Orbat.com add to that warning? US Government, don't you dare invade Never-Never Land.
More seriously, Mr. Castro did make some good points during his speech. Cuba has universal health care, the US does not. This does not prove Mr. Castro's political system is superior to America's, but it would be nice if Mr. Bush would bother answering. Also, why is engagement with China good and with Cuba bad? Come on Washington, time to grow up, and for once stop acting petulant. You have failed for 44 years to get rid of Mr. Castro. He has survived nine US presidents if we include Mr. Eisenhower, and is likely to survive ten.
Might it be your approach is no good? Is sulkily waiting for a dictator to die what you call foreign policy? This is what we pay taxes for? Please! Oh dear: another slap to our own wrist. How could we forget those Cuban exiles in Florida and their votes? It's stupid of us to think: "what a minute, these people are Americans now. They should be thinking of what's best for America, not what's best for them." Of course that the staunchest opposition is among the white exiles, and it's the black Cubans are taking the brunt of the 44 year embargo is not something we should even mention.

UK-IRAN BBC reports that UK Government confirms 8 Royal Navy personnel in three boats training Iraqis in the Shatt el Arab have been seized by Iran. Teheran had announced the seizure earlier, saying the boats were in Iranian waters and investigations are underway to determine what they were doing there.
The Iranians say they found maps and weapons on board the boats. Orbat.com asks - And this proves what? Some sinister motive? Or are the Iranians suggesting that the RN men shouldn't have had maps and weapons in a war zone?

FALLUJAH STRIKE Needless to say, after the US hit a terrorist safe house in Fallujah, the locals swore up and down only civilians and women and children were in the house. The locals in this case included the senior most officers of the Fallujah Brigade. Needless to say, all were lying big time, also as usual. But we wouldn't have known it had the New York Times not decided to report an Iraqi official as saying, yes, there were 3 civilians killed, but the rest were terrorists/insurgents, and the US hit exactly the right house.
So much for Arab TV seeing a different reality. In the days your editor as a young man hung around the outer fringes of admirers of Dr. Timothy Leary and Mr. Alan Ginsburg, there were a lot of different realities floating by, usually chemically induced. He doesn't recall the American media giving these realities the same status as the more prosaic ones such as the sun rises in the east.
We'd have been happier if the Washington Post had also carried the story, even if the two papers are rivals. Your editor is quite fed-up of what in effect ends up as propaganda for the enemy - oh dear, we must give ourselves another slap on the wrist: we forgot - the Iraqi insurgents are not enemies. They have a point of view, and the American government has a point of view, and the American media is strictly neutral, even if we know the American government always lies. The problem is, if you spent two weeks mercilessly trying to parse every word the Americans utter and try and prove every word wrong, as against casually accepting the Iraqi side, you are not being neutral. You are being partisan.
By the way, we did not comment on the story some time back where the US said it had attacked insurgents in the desert and the Iraqis wept heartrending tears, saying it was only a wedding, and look, here are the dead women and children we are taking away for burial. To prove their point the Iraqis produced a videotape of a wedding which they said was taking place at the location attacked. Well, there was the obvious point that unless you are a camel one stretch of the desert looks like any other stretch of the desert. Also the obvious point that the only people who go miles off the beaten track from the nearest habitation to stage weddings are the self-same camels. The real point was the US conducted the strike at night, and the videotape was shot during the day. Now, how many people recall the US refutation getting anywhere near the square meterage of newspaper space the Iraqi story got? And terrorists dont have weddings in their families?
Reader Raj Kumar is doubtless wondering why your editor has it in for the Washington Post. Well, its the only paper he gets. If the Post were to offer him a decent job, one that required him merely to record statements of every stray Iraqi civilian relieving himself by the side of the road and call that investigative reporting, he will promise to behave. More seriously, Mr. Kumar has some excellent points about the US media - which he defends. Read his letter published today.

INDIA-US AIR EXERCISE

David Helmreich asks for comments on an article which we are told first appeared in a restricted circulation USAF publication, concerning the Indian Air Force - USAF air exercise held in India. The USAF says it was defeated 90% of the time and therefore it needs the F-22.
The best person to comment on this article, a person with very detailed knowledge of the IAF and excellent knowledge of NATO air forces has, unfortunately, not been contactable. Many of us old-timers still mentally live in the Old Days, when an "urgent" exchange was an air mail letter sent, the letter received and a reply sent, and the reply to the reply received - all in the space of 30 days. To us, military related letters, discussions, articles, were to be enjoyed over brandy and cigars at the end of the work day, and to give an opinion on a subject you were THE expert in less than an hour's worth of silent deep thought was considered crass, hasty, and - well, we hate to say it - so American. The expert here still doesn't use email, and never answers his telephone.
So please regard the following as only a partial attempt by someone sort-of-informed, but nothing more.
Two points about the IAF. This exercise was planned long in advance, and it is likely not just that the IAF pulled together its best pilots, but also put in a lot of extra practice. Otherwise, the statement in the article that IAF pilots fly more than USAF pilots is nothing more than an IAF attempt to stick it to their US counterparts. Next, IAF pilots fly with their hearts, not with their heads. For reasons not entirely clear to your editor, though he lived as an adult in India for 20 years, IAF fighter pilots simply do not seem to care if they live or die and are reckless to the point of insanity - in peacetime. In war, they exceed insanity.
Case in point: at an air power demonstration in the 1980s, a Mirage 2000 pilot was supposed to do a double loop [your editor is unsure if that is the correct term] in front of the grandstand. The grandstand was packed, if we recall right, with just about the entire IAF brass, to say nothing of the Prime Minister and President of India, various high-ranking ministers, families, and so on. The pilot rode his aircraft into the ground 200 meters from the grandstand, and was killed instantly. A very slight difference in his final trajectory and he would have taken out not just the senior IAF leadership, but also the political leadership. Was this officer a bad pilot? Not a bit: he was a very good pilot, which is why he was given the job. But at the very last minute, in a spontaneous gesture that cost him his life, he decided to add a third loop when the maneuver was choreographed for the pilot to pull out of the second loop spectacularly close to the ground. [Readers with better memories are welcome to write in.]
With that in mind, and keeping mind IAF pilots still specialize in that break-away-from-the-pack wild charge Indian warriors though the ages have been famous for, let's look at the USAF pilots.
Wild flying is going to lead to trouble for an American pilot, Tom Cruise in Top Gun notwithstanding. Team flying with discipline foremost is the training of American pilots, because they are told the way to win the war is not to die for their country, but to make the other man die for his. If you take professional American pilots on an exercise, determined to get back in one piece, against a bunch of IAF mavericks with a very big chip on their shoulder and a real bad attitude, yes, we agree the American pilots are going to be in trouble.
The exercise, of course, was not worth the paper it was written on. The USAF was flying one against three in all situations. This was a fantasy even in the days of the Cold War, today the USAF/USN/USMC - who operate as one organization over the battlefield - fly at least three against one because even the biggest other airforces will have trouble putting up 3-500 fighters against the US's 2000. Next, the real superiority of the US airforces lies not just in the aircraft, but in their systems, and not only were the Americans flying without their AWACS, they did not turn on any kind of system they did not know for a fact the IAF knew about. Yes, the IAF Su-30s were also not fully switched on, but there is not much in a Mig-21/27/29, and nothing in the Mirage 2000 is going to come as a surprise to the Americans. Last, the Americans do not see air war as a chivalrous contest in the sky between gentlemen. They fight very dirty. In a real war, before the fight starts, the US takes out radar, communications, SAMs, and airfields in its path, using long-range weapons.
It isn't out business if the USAF should or should not have the F-22. Our only editorial comment is: Uh, the USAF found out the MiG-21 is a very difficult opponent in a visual-range dogfight? Give these boys the Klasse Klowne award, a dunce cap and a seat in the corner. So, anyone in the 3rd TFW detachment sent to India remember a little scrap called the Vietnam War?

0500 GMT June 21, 2004

SAUDI TERRORISTS We are at last able to make some sense of the news about the Saudi terrorists killed and captured. After the kidnapping of an American contractor last week, 15,000 Saudi security forces began a house-to-house search. In the process, a car tried to run a road block, after the shooting ended and the 4 men killed were identified, it was learned that all 4 were on the Saudi most-wanted list, including the No. 1 and 2 Al-Qaeda leaders inside Saudi; 12 were captured - we do not know if any one of importance is in the 12.
AP reported on Sunday that security forces had surrounded a house and traded fire with persons inside, in the same neighborhood as the Al-Qaeda cell was destroyed.
Saudi officials are rightfully jubilant. The problem, as NBC says, is that this is the fourth time the Saudis have said they have destroyed the Al-Qaeda leadership in the kingdom or on the Arabian Peninsula.
Nonetheless, in our opinion this operations shows what the Saudis can do once they put their minds to the job. Al-Qaeda, in deciding it has too few enemies and that it must take on the Saudis, their former biggest supporters, has made yet another mistake colossal blunder. The Saudi ruling princes may not agree on most things, and certainly some have encouraged Al-Qaeda as long as the terror organization left Saudi alone. The princes, however, do agree on one thing: their position must be maintained. Just the size of the force committed to this one operation shows how seriously the Saudi government is taking the Al-Qaeda threat.
Your editor was wondering why the Washington Post has not carried its usual over-the-top reports about what the locals went through when 15,000 police and troops swarmed into the target areas, and the insensitivity and brutality of the Saudi forces. The situation could not have been a pretty one. What happened to the people's right to know? Or is the Post's abuse reserved solely for American troops because the Americans protect reporters if asked, and the Saudis would simply jail the Post's reporters had they presumed to report the news?
ALGERIA CNN reports Algerian forces have killed the leader of a 500-man terror group that broke away from the GIA and developed ties to Al-Qaeda. The Algerians are claiming the break-away group has been dealt a severe blow - other members of the leadership have also been killed, and this should open the way for a surrender. The insurgency in Algeria has taken 150,000 lives so far, though violence declined sharply after 1999, says CNN. The insurgency began in 1992 when the Army stepped in to prevent the Islamists from coming to power through a popular vote.

0300 GMT June 20, 2004

SAUDI MOST WANTED Media reports Saudi says Numbers 1 and 2 on its Most Wanted list were killed yesterday. Originally there was some confusion because a militant site claimed Number 1 was not dead, but now the matter is clear because other websites have promised to revenge the deaths.
FALLUJAH Residents say two US aircraft attacked a house with missiles; depending on the source, dead are said to be 16, 18, or 22. Locals say the toll was high because as people rushed to help evacuate people from the target, another missile was fired. US says only that it attacked a safe house used by Al-Qaeda's Number 1 man in Jordan /Iraq; it says he was likely not in the house, but believe several of his followers may have been killed. No further information has been released so far.
IRAN NUCLEAR AFP says Teheran has backed away from a threat to resume uranium enrichment after a 35-0 IAEA vote ruled Iran was still not cooperating with the agency.
SYRIA SANCTIONS US CNN reports that Syria has imposed sanctions on trade with the US in retaliation for sanctions. A Syrian official says his people are not ignorant enough to think the sanctions will make any difference to the US, but Syria must think of the dignity of its people. Orbat.com comment: we'd like to see regime change in Syria and have no sympathy for that country. Nonetheless, Syria has given a dignified response to US sanctions, and that is to be respected.
DEBKA ON IRAN Debka's 2130 GMT update yesterday makes no mention of its earlier scrolling headline report that Iran was massing troops on the Iraq border.
US RAIL GUN Military.com reports the US has a new rail gun under test. The principles behind these ElectroMagnetic projectile systems have been well known for five decades, but now an operational version is in the offing for the US Navy's new littoral warfare ships and for its new "destroyer" class under development. We are going Austin Powers here because these ships displace 14,000 tons each, which is close to the US Navy's World War II heavy cruisers. The important point here is that because EM gun system accelerate projectiles to very high speeds, enormous ranges are possible - 300-400 km is being mentioned, and the projectiles can be much smaller - 1/5th the weight of conventional shells is being mentioned. The new destroyers will have two 155mm calibre EM guns; instead of 1500 rounds per gun storage with conventional shells, 10,000 per gun will be carried.
The implications for the US style of expeditionary warfare are obvious. The littoral attack ships, for example, are designed to operate in shallow waters and use stealth plus another features to stay invisible. With such long ranges, these ships and the destroyers will lay devastating fire at what are now considered tactical fighter ranges. The guns fire at 6 rounds per minute, and we would assume because the projectile is accelerated by EM means and not exploding gas, the fire can be sustained for hours at a time.
We've said this before in different contexts, but the weapons technology gap between the US and the rest of the world is accelerating rather than narrowing, and this will be a major underpinning of America's quest for global supremacy - we use this term instead of superiority on purpose, because the US is no longer interested in superiority.
GULF OF TONKIN 1964 We are told increasing numbers of Americans seem to believe there was no Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 and that it was a manufactured incident intended to justify the opening of US airstrikes against North Vietnam. The origin and spread of myths has always fascinated your editor. In this particular case, the incident very much took place. The real question is that was the US Navy an innocent player in the incident, that was it simply minding its own business and was the victim of an unprovoked attack?
Now, 40 years have passed and your editor's memory grows a bit vague. He does remember writing yet another analysis which no one read that good grounds existed for believing the US provoked the attack. Other people have made that point, your editor's analysis was based solely on the "coincidence" of 5 attack carriers being present in the area against the three that were normally deployed at that time. In the early 1960s, the US Navy operated 15 carriers, and deployed 3 forward with the 7th Fleet and two forward with the 6th Fleet. Five carriers means the US was definitely spoiling for a fight.
A point of information. In those days, carriers operated in pairs when in danger zones. Two were needed because in the absence of shore-based air surveillance radars, force protection required 4 pairs of F-4 up at all times; and that meant a minimum of two. In 1971 your editor wrote yet another analysis for his government that was not read by anyone that a single carrier meant only a show of interest, two meant a defensive preparedness for action, three meant both an offensive and defensive preparedness for action, and 4+ meant offensive action was imminent. Thus, the 1971 arrival of the USS Enterprise in the Andaman Sea was not, as the Indian government thought and feared, a prelude to US intervention in the Bangladesh War, but simply routine protection for a task force preparing to evacuate Pakistani soldiers - if the Indians agreed. In the event, the Indians did not agree, and the Soviets, in a brilliant propaganda coup, convinced the gullible Indians that they had prevented the US from intervening by deploying a countervailing task force. That the Soviets carefully kept their task force 10 days sailing behind the US task force was, of course, never mentioned to the Indians. Had the US planned on intervening, a minimum of three carriers would have arrived in the Andaman Sea and perhaps two more would be keeping a close eye on Soviet movements.
Today things have changed. Two carriers can conduct offensive and defensive operations, and three suffice for serious offensive operations, though the Navy likes to have four on station to provide one extra in case of sustained operations or the non-availability of one of the three in the line.
Question: in yet another analysis that no one read, circa 1972, your editor argued that US Navy carriers from CVA 59 onward could carry many more aircraft than the official roster, and that it would be wise to assume an adversary would face larger carrier air groups than the open figures indicated. Can any knowledgeable person comment? And did anyone figure out the USS Enterprise's true top speed? Your editor assessed it at between 38 and 43 knots. But - he had to work only with open source material and without any help. Is the Enterprise's top speed still classified? Your editor's estimate for maximum quiet speed of the SSN 688 class: 23 knots. That was yet another analysis no one read. In fact, the first naval analysis of his anyone read was a 1976 study showing the US Navy was very much superior to the Soviet, and the naval gap did not exist except the other way around. This is before he knew the SSN-10 was an ASW missile, which meant the superiority was even more marked than he had assumed. Your editor got a nice letter from Jeffery Jukes, a British-Australian naval analyst, and a so-so hamburger lunch from the US Naval Attache in Delhi. Your editor learned that actually he too had not read the 130 page report, but was feeling kindly toward someone who was saying nice things about the US Navy.

Back to Main

1600 GMT June 19, 2004

[2nd Update]

GOODBYE SADDAM II David Newton informs us the reason for the occupational authority suspending the death penalty in Iraq is the the UK, as one of the occupying powers, has abolished capital punishment.

IRAQ-IRAN BORDER Russ Spencer draws our attention to Debka.com's scrolling headline news, which at this time says Iran is massing troops on the border with Iraq. We checked AFP, which is usually clued up on the region, and found nothing. If the report is true, any number of possibilities come into play. An obvious one is a routine exercise to test defenses against a possible US attack from Iraq. Another is a "don't even think about it" signal to the US. Readers are requested to let us know if they have seen anything pertinent to Debka's claim.
AL-SADR AFP reports that for a second time Al-Sadr supporters have halted Friday prayers in Najaf, this time saying that no cleric will be allowed to preach without permission from senior Shia clerics. Last week his followers stoned moderate clerics during prayers.
Free But Good Advice to Shia Clerics With respect, our impression is that Al-Sadr will not so easily be drawn into the mainstream of Iraqi politics, whatever you may wish. In the mainstream, he is an insignificant frog in a big pond. After his confrontations with the Americans, which - against our predictions - he has survived because the US has given up on the Iraq internal situation, he has become addicted to attention. Now he speaks in your name to give him legitimacy. If you are using him to suppress Shia opposition, please remember your double-dealing may well backfire, and then he'll be gunning for your job. He clearly isn't about to wait another 40 years before he becomes a senior cleric. Like young people worldwide, he wants it all - now. Doubtless by the time he is in mid-40s, he will mellow. But do you want to spend the next 10-15 years watching your back?
In our opinion, the reason the Arabs have not recovered any part of their past glory is their habit of compromising, compromising, compromising, with double-deal after double-deal. Arabs criticize the US's head-on bull approach. Sometimes the approach is wrong: the course of history would be different had the US come to terms with Ho Chi Minh, who after all was a great believer in American ideals and repeatedly asked the Americans to help him gain freedom from the French. But usually the blunt approach is best, particularly when dealing with young man who has clearly indicated he aims to become the sole Grand Ayatollah of Iraq. If the US had continued to compromise with Saddam, for example, you wouldn't be where you are today.
NATO FOR IRAQ AFP says the US/UK are preparing for a NATO force to provide protection for the UN in Iraq. To placate Germany and France, the force will be British led. It will be drawn from the Allied Rapid Reaction Force, and beefed up with an additional UK battlegroup. Total UK troops will number 3,000. Orbat.com suggests that at this time readers should not infer that the British troops will be additional to those already in Iraq.
IRAQ EMERGENCY? AFP says Iraq officials are indicating they may need to declare a state of emergency after June 30. We say about time! The notion of deposing Saddam at 1200 hours and declaring a democratic Iraq at 1201 hours was just another crackpot theory developed by delusional Americans in Washington. Possible new motto for the center of the Free World: "Washington: where we throw the baby out with the bathwater - every time". American signboard for Baghdad and other Iraq cities: "People of Iraq! MacDonald's has opened! You are now free!" followed by small print "Disclaimer: there is nothing in the slogan that implies that the USA is liable for your inability to reach the MacDonald's alive."

0400 GMT June 19, 2004

GOODBYE SADDAM II The Washington Times reports the chief of the Iraqi War Crimes Tribunal says he hopes to see Saddam soon face capital charges punishable by hanging. According to laws passed by the tribunal, Saddam is responsible for the illegal actions of any subordinate. Hanging is for civilians, according to the law, and shooting for soldiers, says the Iraqi official.
One has to admire the Iraqis. Saddam has not yet been charged - and as such is not entitled to counsel, says the Tribunal chief - but already the officials are discussing his executing. And stacking the deck against him in a way it is impossible for him to escape the noose. All the prosecutor has to do is to get one of the 40+ high-level prisoners to say he was carrying out Saddam's orders when he caused to be killed 10, 100, 1000, 10,000, 100,000 - fill in the blank yourself - people, and its Goodbye Saddam.
We find interesting the implicit decision that Saddam will be tried as a civilian. For a soldier dead by hanging is considered an ignominy, not least because while a firing squad finishes you off in a few seconds, the hangman, depending on how much mercy he decides to show you, can make your death either quick or excruciatingly slow. From the little we know, Saddam's victims were usually dressed in their shrouds, tied to poles, and shot, with an officer or official to shoot the victims in the head to make sure they were dead. A humane execution, as these things go, but then the executions were the last stage - victims were tortured for days, weeks, months before they were put out of their misery. We'd have thought as a military man Saddam would face the firing squadron. No such luck for him.
We found absolutely hilarious the suggestion in the Washington Times article that pressure from international aid donors may get in the way of Saddam's execution. The US suspended the death penalty in Iraq, and we are curious to know why, when it is very much used in the US itself. If international aid donors really believe the threat of withholding aid is going to persuade the Iraqi government to settle for life imprisonment, then they need to visit their mental hospitals for checkups. In case the aid donors haven't noticed: they are not offering aid because they want to help the Iraqis - they have shown for 35 years they could care less. The aid is a quid pro quo for access to Iraqi oil. Now children, says the teacher, please attend: do the Iraqis need aid more, or do the donors need access to oil more? Class dismissed.
We did not find hilarious blustering statements by Saddam's lawyer in Jordan [what happened to the French gentleman who was going to put the US on trial?]. We regard these statements with the same dispassionate interest we would watch a hooked fish thrash around before dying. Let us be absolutely fair: we would feel very bad for the fish, but not a whit of emotion for the lawyer. The best this gentleman can come with is to say that "I want permission to visit my client. If I don't get it, they [the Americans] must tell the people in the U.S.A. why. We are not in the jungle."
We have two questions of this lawyer. [1] Really? We are not in the jungle? Well yes, we are not. Which is why Saddam is alive and will be killed in reasonably kind fashion. Had the law of the jungle applied, the US would have taken Saddam to Najaf, Basara, or Kirkuk, and let his people welcome him. [2] Why? Why must the US government tell its citizens at home why this lawyer must be allowed to see his client? Since when does he get to dictate to the US Government, and since when does he think the people of the United States care about Saddam's legal rights? Take our advice, Mr. Lawyer. The New York Times and Washington Post do not represent American opinion. Period. In case you haven't caught on: the US says Saddam is a POW. He has not been charged, and will not be charged by the Americans. As a POW, he has the right to be visited by the Red Cross, and he has. When Iraq becomes sovereign in 11 days, the US rightly cannot hold him, and in a legal sense they will not. Stop wasting your time, Mr. Lawyer, and stop wasting Orbat.com's time by forcing us to refute your delusions.
WAZIRISTAN Before your editor makes any comments, he must make clear he admires the Pakistan military spokesperson. This man has an impossible job because his bosses are idiots, but loyally he simply bashes on, reading from his script, and if the script says the sun rose in the west, he will say so. But he will say so in articulate and dignified fashion, and rarely does he make mistakes.
Yesterday we said that Jang of Pakistan reported the Waziri tribal leader with an affinity for protecting Taliban, and who has held off the Pakistan Army for months, was killed. The Pakistan military spokesperson insisted the Pakistan Army was solely responsible: it has the weapons, the technology to do the deed, so why should Pakistan involve the Americans?
The problem here is those dumb, ignorant, uneducated tribespeople. They don't believe it for a minute, and our readers will see why. More details have emerged: the strike was conducted close to 2200 - in darkness; a single round was fired; eyewitnesses say the round came seemingly out of nowhere and hit the exact spot where the tribal leader was sitting with some of his followers. Yesterday's Jang report said the locals did not see or hear any aircraft. Today's report says, however, that a drone was heard. A government official who has refused to identify himself apparently saw the missile being fired, and said it hit within three seconds. The official says the missile was fired from the east, whereas the nearest Pakistan Army camp is to the west of the target. The tribal leader was badly injured on one side of his body, and was rushed to the hospital where he died.
Put this together, and we have to assume a UAV fired a Hellfire missile or equivalent. If this had been a guided bomb - 2000-pounders are usual in such cases, the leader's followers would have been scraping bits and pieces of him off the ground. The UAV/Hellfire does not require a ground person to lase the target. We think its reasonable to assume that if a ground person was close enough to lase, the US would probably could have snatched the leader, particularly as it was night.
INTIFADA OVER? An op-ed in the Washington Post makes a startling claim which, on reflection, we feel has merit. The Palestine Intifada is over. Arabs are still killing Israelis in suicide bombings, but the number of attacks has fallen off sharply. In sectors where the fence is complete, attacks have fallen off to almost nothing. The Hamas leadership is nowhere to be seen; presumably it is too busy trying to hide. The op-ed mentions one of the last terrorist leaders killed was apparently on a motorcycle. Either this gentleman simply wanted to feel the wind in his hair, or assumed that he would escape notice if he rode a two-wheeler. The ope-ed argues that Arafat has lost.
Our comment: when has he won? He has been losing for 35 years. Conversely, however, while even one of his many failures would have felled most leaders, like the Energizer Bunny, the man simply keeps going. Or - as a friend unkindly put it - he has more lives than Mario of Nintendo fame.
This is a rude thing to say, but: From the first day, now perhaps 40 years ago, that your editor saw a picture of Mr. Arafat, one thought came instantly into his mind and has stayed there: Weasel. [An acquaintance berated your editor for insulting weasels, of which he has two as pets.] What has continue to baffle your editor is that Sheikh Yassin, now dead leader of Hamas, had a clean, fine, noble, and spiritual look about him. But then, your editor supposes, if he stood on the other side of the fence, he would think that Sheikh Yassin not only looked like a saint, he was one. We doubt that anyone, no matter where they stand, gets any warm feelings when they see a photo of Mr. Arafat. If Hamas has betrayed the people it claims to fight for, Mr. Arafat has betrayed them a hundred times more. Hamas, at least, are outsiders. Mr. Arafat is of Palestine.

1730 GMT June 18, 2004

IRAQ: THE RIGHT STUFF Following a car bomb explosion at an Iraq Army recruiting center in Baghdad yesterday which left 35+ would-be volunteer Iraqis dead and 135+ wounded, CNN carries a brief report that should be required reading for every American. CNN quotes the Iraqi Defense Minister as saying of the terrorists that they will be hunted down in a house-to-search, and "We will cut off the hands of those people, we will slit their throats if it is necessary to do so..." He said if necessary, martial law will be imposed to fight terror.
In our opinion, had the occupation authority given the military full authority to deal with lawlessness and terrorism under wartime/break-down of civil order rules, the Iraqis would have continued to welcome US troops. If criminals and terrorists all over Iraq think they can get away with murder, they have reason to do so. If Al-Sadr could rise up against his government and the Americans and think he could get away with it, he had good cause. After showing Iraqis how soft they really are, Americans have to take responsibility for what has happened.
IRAQ OIL EXPORTS AFP reports Iraqi officials as saying oil exports through Basara will resume on Sunday, after sabotage shut down oil pipelines. What we did not quite get from reports is that two attacks were made, not just one, against a 48-inch line and against a 42-inch line. 90% of Iraq's revenues come from oil exports, so even a day's loss can be calamitous.
WAZIRI REBEL KILLED Jang of Pakistan reports that the renegade tribal leader Nek Mohammad, who has been fighting the Pakistan government as the latter seeks to expel foreign fighters and Taliban resident in Pakistan's North West Frontier Agency, was killed Thursday along with some of his followers. The Pakistan Army says it made a rocket attack on the house at which he was present. Locals say there was a whistling sound and just one explosion from a bomb or missile that struck the house, but there were no aircraft in the sky. If the locals are right, we obviously have to go with what the people are telling Jang, that they believe the house was hit by a satellite-guided bomb. Pakistan lacks the capability to fire a single rocket at a house many kilometers away and score a direct hit with that one shot.

0230 GMT June 17, 2004

SADDAM The Washington Post reports that the White House says it sees no reason why Saddam cannot be in the legal custody of the Iraqis simultaneous with being in the physical custody of the Americans.
We suppose we could do as some newsletters do and begin the above with a "As predicted by Orbat.com..." But we must restrain ourselves. The solution to the Saddam custody issue was so obvious any one could have seen it.
9/11 COMMISSION CNN reports that the bipartisan commission investigating events of 9/11 will in its report tomorrow include several finding. [1] The original plot required hijacking 10 airliners in the US and 12 in Southeast Asia; Bin Laden cancelled the SE Asia attacks because he felt the operation would be too complex for effective coordination; he then scaled back the plot to 4 airliners. [2] Though at some point Vice-President Cheney did give authorization to shoot down civilian aircraft is they threatened strategic targets, for reasons not yet given US interceptors were not ready to carry out the order. [3] NPR reports that while the commission determined Al Qaeda has close ties with Saddam, there is no evidence Saddam was involved. [4] Bin Laden did not inherit $300 million from his father. He was given a million dollars a year. He did not use his own money to finance Al Qaeda; the money came from Saudi fund-raisers. [5] 9/11 cost Al Qaeda less than $1 million; its annual expenditures were around $30 million, of which $10-20 million was paid to the Taliban.
IRAQ PIPELINE SABOTAGED CNN says oil exports from Iraq via Basra were shut down due to sabotage of a pipeline. The Iraq-Turkey route has been carrying very little crude because of continued attacks. Meanwhile, the cousin of one of the two major Kurd leaders, who was in charge of pipeline security in Kurdistan, was killed.
IRAN NUCLEAR AFP says Iran has issued a defiant statement, saying if the IAEA sanctions Iran for its nuclear programs, then any agreement between the two is void and Iran is free to go its own way.
Orbat.com finds this logic a bit convoluted. The IAEA may well be making inspection demands that are not specifically spelled out in the original agreements. Nonetheless, at the time of the agreements, there was no suspicion of Iranian wrong-doing. Now there is, and the IAEA has the legal right, on instructions from the Security Council, to demand more intrusive inspections. Iran can, of course, refuse. It will, however, then be in non-compliance and the UN can begin a series of actions against Iran that include blockade.
US NAVY CARRIER EXERCISE Reader John Cramer writes to tell us the US Navy's impending exercises are to be called Summer Pulse '04, and will end in August according to official sources.
A point of useful fact. US carrier groups can operate up to a year at sea is needed, though 4-6 months is a more usual deployment. We read a slightly different version of the exercises in some sources. So far the story has been the US will surge 7 carrier groups. The different version is it will surge 6, with 2 more available as rapid reinforcement.
If action against Iran is imminent - and we mean that is big if, to us a blockade would make more sense than some of the sea/land/air invasion stories floating around. We think these stories are disinformation to intimidate the Iranians and to increase the rifts between factions. We cannot believe, however, that this stage the US Army or Marine Corps can deploy for major offensive operations this year. Nor does it make sense to have American troops land in Iran, an action that may well have the opposite effect of unifying Iran against the US. What perhaps is more likely is that as in Afghanistan and Kurdistan, US Special Forces will assist local opposition militias - if these exist - and the militias will do the ground fighting with US air support.
Please note there are many, many unknowns and we may be completely off track, and that Summer Pulse is no more than coercive naval diplomacy.
ARAB TROOPS TO IRAQ? AFP reports that it has learned from an Arab minister that Tunisia and Morocco will offer troops for protection of UN personnel in Iraq, and that Pakistan may join. Iraq has said Arab troops from any state except neighbors are acceptable. It is being clearly said the Arab contingents will not be involved in Iraqi security, only in protecting UN personnel.

0315 GMT June 16, 2004

SADDAM The US opposition to an immediate Saddam handover was clarified today: US is concerned that he is given to the Iraqis only when the latter can assure he will be securely held. The Iraqi Prime Minister backtracked slightly, saying that discussions were still continuing and he had been told by unidentified US officials Saddam would be bound over.
The Iraqis are saying a number of other high-level detainees will also be put on trial. Some outsiders suggest that with Iraq in chaos the last thing anyone needs is a trial of Saddam and henchmen. Five senior judges have been killed, and these persons suggest that getting a judge to try Saddam is going to be difficult.
In our opinion this point of view is without merit. First, it assumes the sort of trial that the former dictator is ring-leading. Saddam and the henchmen will get a short trial. We've said this before: why does anyone think that the Iraqis care what the west thinks of the fairness of a Saddam trial? Second, who says he will be judged in a civilian court? He is a military officer, he was head of the armed forces, he failed in his duty to his country, officers have been shot for less than his failures. Last, why do senior judges have to try him? A judge higher only than the local magistrate can conduct a murder trial and pass sentence. Are we to believe in the whole of Iraq there is not one lower-level judge wanting to get his hands on Saddam? Very doubtful.
The ICRC weighs in with its advice: charge Saddam or let him go, under international law he has to be free when the occupation formally ends. Have the Iraqis accepted international law in relation to Saddam? We think not. This is a tribal society. What stops the US from moving him from one cell to another, saying he has been handed over, and that Iraq government has asked for assistance in securing him?
We are getting increasingly fed up with the manner in which all kinds of organizations are using Saddam to gain publicity. We cannot say if westerners will be impressed by the ICRC. We can say with certainty that just about no one else in the world will be impressed or the least bit concerned what the ICRC thinks.
800th MP BRIGADE AGAIN [Warning: if you have a life do not waste your time reading this.] US News and World Report says that the chief of staff for 800th MP Brigade, which was responsible for prisons in Iraq, including Abu Gharib, has sent a scathing 25-page memo to a Congressional committee looking into abuses. In this memo, the chief of staff, a Captain, and very interestingly also a woman, has refuted efforts to blame the Brigade. She brings up many points, such as inadequate strength, and inadequate training. USN&WR says she does not challenge the facts themselves.
We find all of this highly interesting. Of course, in real life a Captain does not so easily go challenging a major general [a two-star officer wrote the report on the abuse]. But because the matter is under investigation by Congress, under Congressional rules, she can contribute to its discussion without reference to the chain of command, and cannot be punished for it. If anyone outside of America thinks this is peculiar, we have to agree it is, but that's how American do things in such instances.
The real matter that grabs our attention is her defense: we did all the things we are accused of, but it wasn't our fault because we had inadequate training etc and were not prepared for our job. This is, of course, a classic defense in today's America: I knew smoking has given me cancer, but the tobacco companies are at fault for smart, sexy ads that forced me to smoke so I could be smart and sexy. Or: I know my son was underage and drunk when he died in the car accident, but the liquor companies are at fault because they didn't do enough to stop him from drinking. In other words, as Americans we have no personal responsibility for what we do, it's someone else's fault. For some reason our American friends have not heard the current elegant description of them: Cry Baby Nation.
Is this defense going to work? No. Why was the brigade, the only one trained to run prisons, not effectively trained? Maybe because the brigade commander and other officers were not doing their job? Oh, so sorry: the Army declared the brigade fit for deployment, and it is at fault for doing so because it should have known the brigade officers were derelict of their duty! Get a grip, somebody. And Captain, no doubt your former brigade commander is really thanking you right now: aside from sinking yourself, you've shot her out of the water.

POWER AND ALL THAT: WHY THE AMERICANS LOST IRAQ

The power in this case is real power - the kind that fuels engines which do work, electricity, to wit. We read that while power generation in post-liberated Iraq surpassed the pre-Gulf II peak, it has begun a long slide downhill as the already decaying power infrastructure continues its collapse. Other factors are at play. Saddam starved the country for power to ensure the lights stayed on in Baghdad. Iraqis are stealing power and attacking the infrastructure, in Saddam's day they would have executed on sight. And - this is intriguing - with increasing money in the hands of people and the old regime's choke-hold on imports gone, Iraqis have been importing appliances at such a rate that the demand has gone up by 30%.
Yes, yes, we know as well as anyone else that repairing damaged power infrastructure - especially with bad guys attacking it - takes time. We know that putting in new generation/transmission facilities takes three years on a crash basis. But where there is a will, there is a way.
The problem is there is no will. We can bet that after imported toilet paper the bureaucrats' first priority was generators. Fifteen months have gone by. There are very many solutions to resolve the problem by now. They all involve slashing red tape. Americans these days cannot slash any red tape: their society has become such that no one takes money decisions without a lawyer at hand.
Even then there are simple remedies. A top-quality Japanese portable 1.8 kilowatt generator costs $1500 retail. It suffices to keep a 'fridge and a couple of fans and lights going. [Remember it is not the constant load of the 'fridge that matters, it's the wattage needed to start the cooling cycle, and that's about 3-4 times what the 'fridge draws once started.] Families in Iraq are large, but lets put a figure of 10 per family and say there are 2.5 million families. For the world to produce 2.5 million portable generators within a year is not a big problem. Why didn't the US simply pass out generators for free? No need to give every family one; in any cases, apartments, hospitals, schools, shopping areas, offices will use the larger generators of - say 200KW and up - that are also available in plenty. Yes we know its not as simple as toddling up with a generator, you need control panels and other things to integrate the generator into the local grid. But these things can be done with reasonable speed if people are determined.
The Iraqis are not as stupid as the western media makes them out to be - while pretending to give their side of the story. They know the constraints. What is driving them mad is that no one in the occupation authority is showing the least concern for their power problem. Human beings will put up with inhuman conditions - think Stalingrad, think Berlin, think Tokyo, during World War II. But they have to see that sacrifice is being demanded of all, and the leaders have to at least pretend to be sharing the pain. The occupation authority is not only refusing to pretend they are sharing the pain, so are privileged Iraqis.
Picture this scene. Mr. Bremer arrives in Sadr City with two 10-ton trucks packed to capacity with portable generators. Mr. Bremer stands there in the heat and hands out 400 generators. What a photo-op!
Oh no, we cannot believe we said that! A smack on the hand for us, bad people that we are! How can we fail to understand Mr. Bremer has more important things to do? Worse, how can we forget why he cannot under any circumstances go to Sadr City! Why? Because the sewage spilling everywhere and the garbage is going to dirty his shoes! Mr. Bremer, Sir, we apologize for suggesting you visit Sadr City. Can you ever forgive us?
The odd thing is, had ordinary, decent Americans been in charge, they would have done everything possible to help - as the US Army and Marines are every day doing in small ways [individuals] and not so small ways [units]. The people running Iraq till June 30th have no sense of responsibility for their own disadvantaged people. How are they going to have empathy with a bunch of perpetual whiners, weepers, wailers, who pour abuse on the Americans even as they beg?
But please remember one thing. The Iraqis are behaving so badly because they are emotional people. Show them that you care for them, and all that emotion will be turned around to support you.
Too late, now. But Washington is learning, isn't it? It won't make the same mistake again, will it? Hmmm. We are afraid it will. More on this another day

0500 GMT June 15, 2004

GOODBYE, SADDAM HUSSEIN NPR reports that the US will hand over Saddam to Iraq in two weeks. CNN, however, quotes the Pentagon as saying it has no plans for a handover.
Well, if the Iraqis say they want Saddam, what is the Pentagon going to do about it except hand him over? We cannot imagine why the Pentagon is making silly statements. It may have many good reasons to keep Saddam; but it would have been best to keep quiet, because the Pentagon is not going to get its way any more than it has gotten its way on most everything in Iraq after the formal campaign ended.
The Iraqis have again said a swift trial is imminent - and why should we doubt them? The longer the man is alive, the longer he is allowed to speak, the more instability for Iraq. Orbat.com has been saying for some time there will be no US trial of Saddam. All the delicious speculations of Western civil liberties groups will come to naught. The French lawyer who says he will put America on trial in his defense of Saddam had best worry about his golf game as right now that seems more within his control. We think the confounding of self righteous Westerners is itself quite delicious. Please write all the letters you want to Baghdad insisting Saddam must have a fair trial by international judges - as if you have a right to tell the tormented people of Iraq what to do. By the time your letter gets to the new leaders of Iraq, your argument is likely to be moot.
Even more pleasant will be the confounding of the US media when the Iraqi government starts carting off people to Abu Gharib. Not to worry, Washington Post, New York Times etc: you can open a new crusade, one to see that American prisoners are accorded the same rights you demanded for Iraqis. Goodness - we can't believe we said that! Bashing the US Government on Abu Gharib has no consequences. We forget you will never stand up for American prisoners. Those men and women are the ones who inflicted crimes on you; as far as you are concerned, no punishment is too severe. The criminals in Tier 1 committed crimes against the Iraqis, so they must be treated well. Makes perfect sense - if one is mad to begin with.

PAKISTAN Jang of Pakistan reports the Pakistan government halted its five day offensive in the Wana area to resume negotiations. Government sources say 19 security forces personnel and 55 militants have been killed. The area remains under economic blockade.

Pakistan: An Editorial Comment

The Pakistan government gives 72 hours for Afghan refugee families settled for two decades in Pakistan, but with the militants and renegades it wants to talk after - we've lost count - 4? 5? rounds of talks have failed. The problem, as we see it, is that the Pakistan government has little legitimacy in the eyes of its people. So it keeps making compromises with groups that act tough, and squashes those who cannot defend themselves against the government. Every compromise reduces what remains of its legitimacy.
These days any time Pakistan is in trouble, some of our Indian friends are happy. Before making further comments, may your editor remind his readers that he is one of the few who maintain Partition was illegally imposed on India, and India is not bound to accept it any more than Ho Chi Minh accepted the division of Vietnam. He has consistently argued that for India's survival Pakistan must be brought back to the Indian Union, and that since Indian leaders are incapable of doing this by peaceful means, war is the only option. He has also repeatedly stated that Indian leaders are incapable also of waging war. That being the case, instead of the perennial sulk that passes for India's Pakistan policy, its better to help stabilize Pakistan. A Pakistan that disintegrates will only take Northwest India down with it. India will survive: it always has. But it will be a very different India from what we all hope for. The revolt in Bangladesh and the displacement of 4 million refugees into the Indian Northeast made the region so unstable that it has not recovered. If Pakistan now disintegrates, the lives of hundreds of millions of people will be thrown into violence, and chaos. The Balkans will seem to be a Sunday picnic in a Paris park.
The failure of the Pakistan government to sort out a few hundred fighters is much more serious than India seems to understand. It is no use, as one of more perceptive Indian readers has commented, to say the only solution for Pakistan is for the country to become genuinely democratic. But how? Your editor has found very few Indians understand Pakistan. They have no idea of the chokehold the elite has over ordinary people. Before the Islamists set themselves against the Pakistan state, the main quarrels in Pakistan have been between the elite itself. The 1971 disaster was one such quarrel, and the ordinary people paid the price.
Another grave danger is the United States. The US is absolutely determined to sort out Pakistan. It understands that the lack of true democracy is the root cause of Pakistan's instability. Because it has many other priorities, right now it has planted a heavy foot on Pakistan's neck while it goes about other business. But the cradle of Islamic terrorism is Pakistan more than Saudi, and the US is going to cauterize Pakistan. Normally we'd say that bringing democracy is a noble aim, we are all for it, and India should join the US to assist. The US messup in Iraq, however, should give pause to even the most ardent admirers of America. The US has already once destabilized Pakistan/Afghanistan with no more thought for the consequences than a child. We refer, of course, to the aftermath of the Afghan war against the Soviets. Pakistan is going to be 10 times as hard to sort out as Iraq - for one thing there are 130 million people. We have every right to be doubtful if the US can do the job. With its tendency to abandon the entire job if things go wrong - Vietnam and Haiti come to mind - the future does not look rosy even to your editor, who constitutionally is incapable of being pessimistic.

0330 GMT June 14, 2004

PAKISTAN Jang of Pakistan reports fighting and air strikes against renegade Waziri tribesmen and foreign militants continued for a third day as of Sunday. About 3000 soldiers appear to have the fighters surrounded; of course, the locals have many ways of evading security forces.
Meanwhile, Jang says thousands of Afghan refugees in the area of operations have been given 72 hours to return to Afghanistan. Many have lived in the area for 20-25 years. The repatriation of the Afghanis is important, because they are the sea in which foreign militant fish thrive. Nonetheless, it appears to us inhumane to suddenly uproot thousands of people at zero notice. Surely the Pakistan Government could have helped by giving money and providing transport to Afghanistan: some families are said to be frantic because there is no transport to be had for even 3 times the normal price.
Jang reports Pakistan Government says it has arrested several terrorists involved in the attack on GOC V Corps and other incidents. The arrested include a nephew of an Al Qaeda leader who was arrested in Karachi and turned over to the US. The nephew has a $1-million reward on his head.
MISSING INDIAN SPY Times of India says a senior Indian operative of the Research and Analysis Wing, who was desk officer for South East Asia and had conducted several clandestine missions, is missing. He was under constant surveillance because he had been caught taking documents and papers home. Both he and his wife have disappeared, and are believed to be in the US.
While some are talking of a "defection" to the US, Orbat.com would like to point out this is unlikely to be true. He has family in the US, so that would be a logical place for him to flee. Given the current close cooperation between India and the US, going to the US would be a bad move for the person: the US will track him down and hand him over. Only in one circumstance would this not be true: if he was working for the US and was on the verge of being uncovered, and was provided safe haven in the US. Even if that is the case, the affair is not a defection.

0400 GMT June 13, 2004

PAKISTAN FIGHTING Jang of Pakistan reports the Pakistan Army offensive against foreign militants is in its second day. we did not report this earlier because we were unsure how serious the Pakistan Government about the new offensive. No casualty estimates are being given out by the Government. Journalists are barred from the area. Local source say that 54 persons have been killed in the fighting around Wana and the Shakai Valley. Reports say a group of Pakistan commandos is trapped in the valley after being heli-lifted in; they have either been captured or killed. The offensive has not received much coverage because the Pakistan budget came out yesterday; understandably people are more focused on that.
IRAQ AFP reports a top Iraqi Foreign Ministry official and a Kurd cleric were assassinated ; the head of Iraq's border guard escapade an attempt on his life but members of his escort were killed. Al-Sadr has softened his tone, as judged by his Friday address.
We predict that in another 17 days, treatment of prisoners in Iraq will be a dead issue. The Iraqis will take over control, no journalists will be allowed anywhere near prisons, and the wholesale torture and execution of prisoners will resume. Of course, it cannot be on anything approaching the Saddam scale, nor will the crackdown be in the aid of keeping despots in power. Our sole point is that Iraq, at least in many cities, is in chaos. The internal roads are not safe, and local gangs are everywhere.
The Iraqis and the American media have had a lot of fun embarrassing the US government over mistreatment of prisoners, including exactly how many inches a dog was from the face of a prisoner, whether the dog was muzzled or not, whether the prisoner was naked or not, and other such news of earthshaking importance.
The Iraqis themselves say the only way to deal with Iraqis is harsh, swift, and certain punishment. The first demand of the people is security - right now their attitude is to heck with freedom, we're paying too high a price. Shoot on sight, every means necessary used to extract information, and rapid disposal of dead bodies is the standard routine every country uses to deal with chaos of the magnitude Iraq is experiencing. This is a wartime situation, it will be dealt as such. Naturally the American media will have no interest in what Iraqis are doing to each other. It is not difficult to predict that the prisoners of Abu Gharib are going to long for the days when they were forced to wear women's underwear.
In case we haven't mentioned this before: the Iraqis vetoed the US plan to raze Abu Gharib. Keeping it as a testimony to the horror of Saddam's days is not, we suspect, what the Iraqis have in mind for the prison.
IRAN NUCLEAR CNN reports Iran defiantly says it has cooperated enough with the IAEA, and demands recognition as an "atomic power".
What this means is Iran wants legitimization of its attempts for a complete nuclear fuel cycle. From there to weapons is scarcely as simply as "experts", usually with an axe to grind, claim. Nonetheless, achieving all important parts of the NFC is a big step toward weapons.
Our opinion: sorry, Teheran, the west is not going to accept your nuclear program unless it is brought under tight control of the IAEA, and even then a number of countries like the US, UK, and Israel will not accept it.
A number of our readers have alerted us to the possibility that Mr. Bush has mended fences with the Europeans because the US/Europe are going to join together against Iran. Saddam's WMD may have been a hoax played on him by his own scientists, but what's happening in Iran is quite unambiguous. Readers have also noted that shortly a rare event is to take place: the US Navy is going to simultaneously surge seven carrier battlegroups into the Atlantic, Pacific, Mediterranean, and the Indian Ocean.
The US Navy says this is training exercise, to test new concepts of deployment it has been planning for years. Fair enough. But with the USSR gone, Iraq left naked and toothless, North Korea forced to open up to the west, what sort of real world threat might seven carriers be training for? we hear rumors that the US is building the capability - if it has not already done so - to deploy 10 carrier battlegroups in dire emergency. Leaving aside carriers in long-term refit, that is every available fleet carrier. The last time the US Navy planned for such a contingency was for all-out war against the USSR. One of the scenarios was for six carrier battlegroups to attack the USSR's Northern Fleet - it's most powerful - in its home waters, while other battlegroups from the then 15 in service would help keep the Atlantic open for US reinforcements to Europe, attack the USSR's flank from the Mediterranean, and protect against any DPRK misadventure.
In other words, this was planning for a world war. Reader Paul Danish suggests something is afoot on Iran. Aside from the Iranian nuclear imbroglio, to keep Iraq stable the west is going to need a new government in Iran. Your editor has long been out of touch with US carrier movements - there is just so much we can do. He may be wrong, our readers may be wrong, but there is something in the wind.
AFGHANISTAN BBC reports US says that 2000 US Marines and air attacks have killed 80 militants in Daychopan province, a rebel stronghold. The offensive has been on for three weeks, and despite militant claims of heavy US casualties, the US says only a very few of its troops have been wounded. Daychopan province is adjacent to Zabul Province, which abuts the Pakistan border.
Orbat.com asks, with some tiredness, is this the Spring Offensive? Everyone was talking about a spring offensive in the late winter of 2003-04, but where is this offensive taking place or has it already taken place?

0430 GMT June 12, 2004

UK ELECTIONS Labor suffered a worse than expected defeat in local council elections. Mr. Blair acknowledged Iraq was the main cause, but said he was determined to stay the course. Other elections are underway, including one for the European Parliament. The results there will give further indications of the toll Iraq has taken on Mr. Blair's standing. CNN reports that Mr. Blair's main adversary for leadership of the Labor party has affirmed his solidarity with Mr. Blair.
From what little we know of the UK political situation, while a great many people are upset about the UK's support of the US intervention in Iraq, Mr. Blair is racking up considerable admiration from people who say that at least he honestly believes what he is doing is right, and feel his refusal to bow to political expediency is to be respected. How this translates into practical support for Labor in the next election is unclear to us. Do our informed readers have any thoughts?
NAJAF The US withdrawal from Najaf and handing over control to the Iraqi police has had an immediate, beneficial result. Since Al-Sadr is not honoring the agreement to withdraw from the shrines, tension between his militia and the Badr Brigades is rising. We had reported some time ago that the Badr Brigades were ready to fight Al-Sadr, but were being restrained by the top clerics who did not want a civil war. There were fist-fights between Badr Brigade men and Al-Sadr militia outside one of the main mosques, followed by a 30-minute gun battle in which several fighters on both sides were wounded; no deaths known.
In our opinion, the Badr Brigades have become confrontationist because Iraqis now see that come June 30, they are going to get to control their future. The Brigades support the agreement with the coalition. We suspect they do not want Al-Sadr to ruin matters for everyone by his continuing intransigence, which has everything to do with his personal power grab and nothing to do with Iraqis. The British were very skilled at setting people against each other. That is how they built an enormous empire at minimal cost to themselves in terms of soldiers and bureaucrats. US forces in Afghanistan have been using these tactics to some extent. When the US makes its next moves in the Mideast, we suggest they learn from the British, let the locals fight for them, and minimize their losses.
US IRAQ STRATEGY Washington Post says US forces in Iraq have changed their strategy from one of fighting insurgents everywhere to protecting the new government and building institutions. US commanders say they are ready to return to the combat mode if required.
In our opinion, this strategy should have been adopted many months ago. We are not saying it should have been done from the start; we accept the people giving orders were misinformed about how the Iraqis would take the US presence. It was clear as early as last September, however, that the strategy was not working. The problem as we see it, watching 45 years of American overseas interventions, is that the US military likes to fight. Fighting is its first choice - as it should be for conventional operations. But counter insurgency is a wholly different affair. There is ample evidence that the US has learned from the past. US tactics against insurgents have been superb in military terms. But no one has said that CI is a military affair first and last. The ability to utilize sudden and massive violence is a key to CI, but it has to be kept as a reserve option. We get tired of saying this: learn from the British. The British have not been running around looking for people to fight. The locals leave them alone, they leave the locals alone. They locals do not leave them alone, they kill the offending locals. Then they go back to peaceful coexistence.
We further believe that the US Army as currently structured is not capable of genuine CI. In Kurd territory, classic US Special Force tactics worked perfectly. There is ample evidence, however, that the main line army brass does not like the SF and their ways. The big battalions are very much required because the US is the global policeman, and large armies do have to be taken down - Syria, Iran. DPRK, for example. No one has a chance against the US in conventional operations: the US has proved this repeatedly since 1917. For CI the US needs different kinds of formations - like the SF - that are specifically raised, equipped, and trained for the job at hand.
WASHINGTON POST The Post today gives its readers startling information: "Not Everyone Swept Up In Regan Whirlwind: Work, Weather, and Indifference Keep Many Away" [Metro, page B1]. The first part of the article includes a photograph: "The so-and-so family of Ft. Wayne, Indiana, went to the International Spy Museum rather than the Rotunda". Now, the Washington Metro area has about 5 million residents, excluding visitors. That they all did not go to the Rotunda is a newspaper story? Particularly so when it's a family that has come to Washington as tourists from a long way?
Okay, Washington Post. Here are some stories you can carry. [1] Almost the entire US was not caught up in the Reagan Whirlwind. [2] Not Everyone in America took their car or used public transport to get to work today. [3] Not everyone in America went potty today. [4] Not everyone in America was happy today. [5] Not Everyone in America breathed all of the last 24 hours.
Love to see this Lead Story in WP: 99% of the world did not know the Washington Post existed! Worse, they did not know they did not know! And even more horrible: they got through the day just fine!
Informational Point: Right after your editor's then 12-year old said he'd put up an Orbat website as a gift to your editor, the editor had a brilliant idea: www.ohhowihatethewashingtonpost.com. Likely we'd have made so much money that we could have given readers a fantastic orbat site, all free. But - is it right to profit from making fun of the dumb animals in the zoo? Of course not. Orbat.com contributors and readers have some ethics, for goodness' sake!

0400 GMT June 11, 2004

AFGHANISTAN AFP reports that 11 Chinese workers, many just arrived, were gunned down while sleeping in Kunduz Province. Till this incident and the recent murder of 5 persons working for Doctors Without Borders, Kunduz had been peaceful. NATO has been warning of increased attacks during the period leading up to the elections, now postponed to September, but with the exception of a US Marine battalion group sent earlier in the spring to reinforce operations on the Pakistan-Afghan border, no new troops have been committed.
To many of us in the so-called Third World, the notion that the most powerful alliance ever assembled today cannot even field an extra 5-10,000 troops for so vital a cause may seem incredible. NATO has almost a million and a half troops in its standing armies. NATO comes up with all kinds of quite amazing excuses for why it has so few fighting men available; none stand even cursory scrutiny. NATO aside from the US/UK has no will, and that is all there is to it. This is one reason your editor was so distressed at the rapid demise of American unilateralism after 9/11. Even the US Government's will turns out to be quite limited. Its not as if the danger lies unrecognized. But by and large the west has decided to hide its head in the sand over the militant Islamic threat.
IRAQ Seeking to be conciliatory in the face of continued French truculence over a NATO military role in Iraq, Mr. Bush says he accepts that NATO cannot send more fighting forces to Iraq, but says NATO can play other important roles, such as training. CNN reports that Al-Sadr militia attacked and overran a Najaf police station near the shrines, after the police told the militia to leave the mosque area. The militia has withdrawn from everywhere else, why it is refusing to make this last move is unclear to us.
ACCOUNTABILITY In the ethical morass that is Iraq, a US Army major general has done something unique and heartening. The Washington Post reports that the general in charge of training Iraqi security forces has said without equivocation that the responsibility for Iraqi security forces failures, as in Baghdad, Fallujah, and Najaf, lay with him. Normally we'd say: "give this man a promotion and bring him back to the Pentagon". Instead, we say: "Sir, get out of the Army while you can. By taking responsibility, you have shamed many, many officers and bureaucrats senior to you. You are going to pay for your honesty and example if you don't cut and run now."
PAKISTAN ASSASSINATION BID In what may be an unprecedented incident, as far as we know, about 10 men attacked a convoy carrying GOC Pakistan V Corps in an upscale neighborhood of Karachi. Eleven persons were killed: seven army men, including the Lieutenant-General's driver; three policemen, and a sanitation worker going about his own business. The general was unhurt. We get no clear indication from Jang of Pakistan, which reports the incident, as to why such an attempt might have been made, but there seems to be an implication that the attempt is linked to the ongoing Wana crisis in the North West Frontier Province.
We do not count the assassination attempts against President General Musharraf, because he was attacked in his capacity as President of Pakistan, not as a general.
Many of our readers have alerted us to the extraordinarily bad situation that has developed in Karachi, Pakistan's most important city and major port. Ostensibly the situation is due to Shia-Sunni violence. In Pakistan the Sunnis are in the majority and the Shias usually the victims. In truth, organized criminality and many political factors are as much at play as the ethnic conflict. We want to tell our readers that we have not been ignoring the Karachi situation. Rather, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. Your editor's valorous days are gone now, thanks to age, and he is afraid he has to leave the matter at that.

0400 GMT June 10, 2004

FRANCE AGAIN One day after peace and love broke out at the G8 summit, France gleefully heaved a spanner in the works when it rejected Mr. Bush's call for NATO troops in Iraq.
We rarely see things the way Paris sees them, but in this case we have some sympathy for M. Chirac's position. He said [1] he does not see why sending troops to Iraq should be a job for NATO; [2] he was unsure if the move would be understood by the Iraqis and the Arab world; [3] it wasn't clear to him more troops were needed. He has every right to position 1; he is absolutely right on position 2; and he has a definite point on position 3. If the US starts taking a much lower profile in Iraq, and focuses on force protection as well as a standby force for the new government, then the 150,000 troops could easily be cut in half.
Now, we know the US is not stupid when it comes to France. We assume the US knew in advance of the French position. But Washington, too, has reasonable imperatives. [1] Mr. Bush's domestic critics who have been hammering at him for not involving the UN take a hit. "I followed your advice and look what happened," Mr. Bush will say. [2] Mr. Bush shows the world he is a determined multilateralist. [3] If some NATO country sends troops, all the better. [4] If NATO does not send troops - and France and Germany have already said they will not regardless of the situation - Mr. Bush wins because US command is not diluted.
Whether Mr. Bush and M. Chirac hatched up this plot together might be an interesting speculation - and we repeat, only speculation. Diplomatic interests can be made to coincide without anyone saying a word in advance. M. Chirac makes his point to his public. Mr. Bush makes his point to his public. So we are disinclined to be as pessimistic as the media: we see both sides congratulating themselves for having won.
Please note that if mid-October Mr. Bush says 75,000 troops are coming home - a real possibility if the US adopts the new tactics, his chances for reelection go up once again. [Please also read Shawn Dudley's letter today, it contains insights into the election situation.]
IRAQ CNN reports the following. [1] For the first time since it was formed, the Fallujah Brigade came under insurgent attack; nine Iraqi militia were wounded; [2] Six European soldiers died when insurgent mortar fire ignited an ammunition dump that had been established for a demining operation the soldiers were conducting; [3] The Kirkuk-Turkey pipeline was attacked and breached again. Orbat.com notes that for all the attacks, the Iraqis/US have managed to bring the pipelines rapidly into service.
IRAQ MONEY The Iraqis must be rejoicing: the US has conceded they should control their own oil revenues. Tip for our readers: buy Daimler Mercedes Benz stock.
WANA FIGHTING Tribal insurgents attacked Pakistan Army encampments and Frontier Corps positions in the Wana area of the North West Frontier Province. 17 Army and FC troops were killed; 8 insurgents also died. Eyewitnesses say at one point it seemed as if the insurgents were about to capture Army/FC positions; heavy reinforcements turned the tide and the insurgents broke off action. Locals say the insurgents have attacked as a preemptive move because the Pakistan Government has stopped the tribal authorities from continuing with their long drawn-out "negotiations" and "searches", a sign that the Pakistan security forces were about to open an offensive.

1215 GMT June 9, 2004

[2nd Update]

PRESIDENT CHAVEZ will have to face an August referendum for recall. The election authorities have ruled the minimum number of signatures for the referendum are on record. CNN reports that while his supporters say he is free to run again in the follow-up election in case he loses the referendum, opponents say the constitution speaks of a new president.

HOSTAGES We should have reported yesterday that US forces rescued 3 Italians and a Pole from Iraq nsurgent captivity; AFP says the Italians are on their way home. Meanwhile, a UK cleric negotiating for the release of hostages in Iraq says many may never be found as their captors have sold them off to other groups; in some cases the other groups have traded their acquisitions to yet other groups.

0300 GMT June 9, 2004

IRAQ MANDATE By making compromises to meet the objections of the 13 other members of the UN Security Council, the US and UK finally obtained a piece of paper which most people wanted them to have before US/UK invaded Iraq: there now exists a UN mandate for the US/UK presence in Iraq. The details are too many for us to briefly analyze; essentially, however, the US has a request from the new Iraqi government to keep its troops in Iraq after the June 30 handover; the Security Council has accepted the legitimacy of the post-June 30 Iraqi government; Russia-France-Germany-China appear to have accepted security arrangements in Iraq must be headed by the United States; and the United States has promised to consult with the Iraqi government before undertaking major operations. The way is now open for the Iraq mission to become a true coalition of the willing, and Mr. Bush has almost healed the dangerous breach between the US and "Old Europe" that opened up after the US/UK unilaterally invaded Iraq.
So with all this peace and love breaking out, where do we at Orbat.com stand. Your editor will have to let other Orbat.com editors and readers speak for themselves. Your editor speaks only for himself when he says he has been eating serious stomach acid reducing pills the whole day. He is most unhappy that the Age of US Unilateralism has lasted only a bit more than the proverbial year and a day. He is absolutely disgusted that the US government, particularly the so called "neocons" didn't have the courage to put their money where their mouth was. They have let American down, and insulted every American. The entire lot of clowns and poltroons needs to be fired and drafted to the trenches in Iraq.
That said, your editor recognizes that not many people will share his views. In fact, why be shy about facing the truth here: just about no one even in America will agree with him, leave alone in the rest of the world. He has to concede that from a "mature", "responsible", "educated" point of view, the UN Security Council agreement will bring enormous relief to Americans and the rest of the world - at least to the rest of the world that matters, i.e., the Europeans, to a lesser extent China, and yet lesser extent Japan. People must be mopping their brows with joy that the dogs of war have at least been leashed, possibly even muzzled. Mr. Bush has also undercut many of his Democratic critics, boosting his chances for reelection.
Speaking about trenches. Because the 60th anniversary of D-Day has just taken place, the American press has been full of admiring retrospectives for the Greatest Generation, especially for Churchill and Roosevelt. We'd like to remind our Washington friends that when Mr. Churchill resigned as First Sea Lord over the Dardanelles, he rejected several sinecures and asked to be appointed a brigade commander in France. When Lord Kitchener refused, as he did not want Churchill around, Mr. Churchill, at age 40 [which was not exactly young in those days] went as a major to the Grenadier Guards to relearn the soldier's trade. Here he did things like stand guard so the men could get extra sleep. Shortly thereafter he was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel and given command of the 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers. Please remember he had been a cavalryman in his army days, and that was a quite different environment from being an infantry officer in the trenches. He led his men bravely enough that Kitchener relented and offered him a brigade. Mr. Churchill decided to return to England to continue the political fight for what he believed was right. Though his service in France did not last even a year, that he went at all shows what a man he was.
In those days Americans had real men as leaders [we say this with no sexism in mind: India's own Mrs. Indira Gandhi was tougher than any man around her]. These days the most serious battle America's leaders fight is to make sure their hair looks good for their TV appearance, and to keep their Starbucks coffee from spilling over their office papers.
And, please pardon one more idiosyncrasy: the Americans of World War II were not America's greatest generation. They were great, no disagreement about that, but so were the men who went to Indochina to fight a doomed war. The Greatest Generation were the soldiers, Union and Confederate, who fought brother against brother, and forged in a crucible of fire and blood the great nation that America is today.
ABSURD PRESS Old joke about an Englishman who is speared by the natives and is in doubtful condition: his friend asks him "Does it hurt?"; the Englishman replies: "Only when I laugh". Such is your editor's attitude towards his native land's "leading" newspaper, the Times of India, when he sees the Top Headlines of today. Among the Top Headlines: "Hot books to sex up sales; Sikh banned from driving train in NY; Want a Divorce? Outsource; My girl friend is in love with my wife!" The next time your editor hears an Indian friend say "Americans are so shallow", please be warned he will give the offender the coveted Orbat.com Klowne of the Year Award. This consists of a pair of pink Dior chuddies, intended to be worn on the head. Fair is fair. By all means bash the Americans for being shallow, but first ask yourself, what if those headlines had appeared in the web edition of the New York Times? What would you think of Americans then?
ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS Haaretz of Israel says the US has told the Israeli government to stop making excuses and to start withdrawing from Gaza. Meanwhile, two members of Mr. Sharon's coalition have withdrawn their support in protest at Mr. Sharon's Gaza plans, so Mr. Sharon is down to 59 Members of Parliament in a house of 120.
HUSSEIN TRIAL Pravda says, quoting what appears to be the London Times, that the US lacks evidence and witnesses to make war crime charges against Saddam stick. The high ranking officials in US custody have refused to speak out against Saddam, possibly because of fear Saddam's supporters will take revenge on their families.
Question to Pravda: who says the US will try Saddam? Pravda itself mentions an Iraqi tribunal is to try him. Another question to Pravda: why do you assume the Iraqi tribunal will use US/UK rules of evidence? That the mode of trail is to be a tribunal, and that Saddam has not been allowed even once to meet with one of his 20 lawyers, should tip off the densest person that no one in the Iraqi government is likely to be concerned that the high-level detainees wont give evidence.
And can our friends at Pravda picture this: of the 40 odd people in custody, all are Saddam's close associates. There is a hangman waiting for each of them. That prospect might loosen anyone's tongue.
Not that we at Orbat.com doubt for a minute the tribunal will do what tribunals do: try Saddam in secret, condemn him in secret, deny him an appeal in secret. The only question of mild interest that Pravda should ponder is: will the Iraqis give Saddam an easy trip to buy his farm by cleanly shooting him, or will they hold the tribunal in Sadr City and give him over to the tender attentions of the two-million strong mob that will be waiting outside?

0330 GMT June 8, 2004

MEXICO DRUG CARTEL CNN reports that Mexican police have arrested two most wanted drug cartel leaders and essentially decapitated the Arellano Felix Organization, also called the AFO. Several other arrests of important figures in AFO have also taken place.
We do not follow the South/Central America drug scene because so far the Islamic terrorists have focused on exporting from Afghanistan via Pakistan's Makran coast.
This is only a guess on our part, but it may be just a matter of time before Al-Qaeda and other Islamic groups discover that buying from South/Central America is a lot easier, in part because the world's biggest market, the United States, is right next door and Hispanic gangs can deliver any tonnage in the United States. There are many obstacles to Islamic groups working in this part of the world; equally, however, the Islamic groups have many people that live in North America. And if the Islamic groups are inclined, they will rapidly learn the ropes.
The US Drug Enforcement Agency believes the destruction of the AFO will have a major impact on drug movements into the United States. we respectfully beg to differ. With the AFO gone, ompeting groups kept in check by the AFO's habit of killing anyone it had reason to even just suspect, will now blossom. Plus, the drug trade's organization is a lot like that of successful terror groups. A whole new lot of middle rankers in AFO will now rise to the top. There will be a dip in exports as people reorganize in Mexico; we think it may take at most 90 days for matters to return to "normal"

INSURGENT ATTACKS A regular reader asks for our sense of the situation in Iraq vis-a-vis insurgent attacks on US forces, particularly since the daily KIA rate seems to have come down dramatically. We can only repeat what we've heard said many times in Washington. The US reports attacks only if soldiers are killed, or if the attack takes place at a location well-covered by journalists. The actual number of attacks is supposed to be several times more, so we cannot say if the number of attacks per se is down. Also, the US does not officially report attacks on contractors. Seeing as contractors are doing much of the heavy hauling, there may be several serious attacks a day that we know nothing about.
That said, we'd like to bring up two points. First, the US adapts almost instantaneously to a new situation imposed by the insurgents. For example, earlier on many US patrols were getting hit by roadside bombs placed in roundabouts. The US took to stationing snipers on vantage points around troublesome roundabouts, and anyone stepping inside after dark was shot. The current epidemic of bombings is being dealt with - the attempts far outnumber the actual number of explosions wounding or killing US soldiers - but the main weapon is being deployed all too slowly. This is the armed reconnaissance drone, which will ceaselessly keep routes under surveillance, and also patrol ahead of convoys.
Second, in many areas the US is starting to follow the minimum presence mode used in Afghanistan. There NATO works on protecting objectives that are important for its functioning, and for the rest, people are left to themselves until an inkblot can get to them. The inkblot strategy dates from Vietnam, and it is a good one: in Afghanistan the US is putting small units, often no more than a squad [Indian section] in a village, to stay. The unit works with the locals and Afghan police/militia, and keeps visiting and revisiting nearby villages for information and to help out with civic action. Even in Afghanistan the inkblots are positioned in critical zones such as provincial centers and infiltration routes from Pakistan; there is no plan to hold the entire country in this manner. In Fallujah, for example, the US has basically stopped going in except at extreme need. The Fallujah Brigade has proved quite useless, the Iraqi police and militia units are too scared to fight the insurgents and extremists who have control over the town. But as long as the insurgents leave US force alone, US forces leave them alone.
Sometimes, as in Sadr City, the US decides to expand its area of influence and then you get fighting. But here too the US has learned quickly, in particular because so much attention has been paid in recent years to urban warfare. In Najaf-Kufa the exchange rate was horrendous for the insurgents: 30, 40, 50 and sometimes more for the loss of 1 US soldier. The British imposed the same exchange rate in the South, which is one reason the South became quiet again rather quickly.
The thing to keep in mind is we - and the media - know only a tiny fraction of what is happening in Iraq. US control of the media is superb, and the Iraqi propensity to kill/kidnap journalists is rapidly cooling the ardor of the bravest media persons - and here for once we sympathize with the media because fear of being hurt, killed, or kidnapped is something many of us are quite familiar with.
We know nothing of what's going on behind the scenes: for example, the US candidate for Prime Minister did not get chosen - but he did. The Iraqis shot down the man the US backed at the start, and there was a lot of satisfaction in some quarters that the mighty US was not having its way. Except it was: the man now in the position is well liked by the United States and officials are quite pleased. So was this planned from the start or just a turn of good luck? All we know - to quote Mr. Rumsfeld - is that we know we don't know.

THE FAT LADY We thank Mr. M.G.Brown for his explanation of the saying we used yesterday "It isn't over till the Fat Lady sings".
PRESIDENT REAGAN Your editor personally considers the late Mr. Reagan a great and humble man who changed the course of history. He has had a great admiration for Mr. Reagan since his California days.
We ask our American readers, however, to disregard the rot the US media is publishing about the world joining in tribute to Mr. Reagan etc. Yes, the heads of many governments are paying tribute, but this is because it is a good occasion to pretend they and their people are not anti-American. Mr. Reagan was, until the advent of Bush 43, the most hated American in the world as far as the public went. Their hate arose out of ignorance and fear, but it was deep, vast, and never-ending. We suspect one reason for the rush to pay tribute to Mr. Reagan is that with Bush 43 on the scene, a great many people have shifted their dislike for America and Americans to him. Mr. Reagan went off the public stage 16 years ago; in the interim people overseas forgot how much they hated him. Compared to the real life Bush 43, Mr. Reagan is coming across is a saint.

0300 GMT June 7, 2004

IRAQ's KURDS The Kurds have said they will not accept any reduction of their sovereignty after June 30th, and their rights as assured by the provisional constitution must stand. The Shia clerics, however, reject any special rights for the Kurds; in fact, the new government setup excludes the Kurds.
The potential for trouble is high; but best to remember that with the US's Iraq plan having disintegrated, the US may well see no point in a united Iraq. Moreover, the Sunnis were already perceived by Americans as the bad guys; thanks to Fallujah there is no sympathy for them in the US. The Shias have nicely messed up their relations with the United States. There are plenty of Shia clerics who will take every opportunity to slam the US, so that sore will be kept running. The Kurds, however, are seen as trustworthy friends of Americans. They fought alongside the Americans against Saddam, and rather cleverly have already said that should America not back their autonomy, they will harm no American even as they seek to defend themselves. Especially after the Americans abandoned the South Vietnamese people and the tribes that fought the communists for long years, and after the bloodbath Saddam unleashed when the Shias heeded American calls to topple Saddam in Gulf I, there will be a backlash in this country if the Iraq government moves against the Kurds and the US Government does nothing to protect the Kurds.
Our personal feeling The Americans have a saying: Its not over till the fat lady sings [your editor believes this has something to do with baseball, a game that is exceeded in inflicting utter boredom only by cricket]. We suggest to our anti-American friends - and right now we have very few friends that are not anti-American - that if they think the US, after spending $200-billion is simply going to abandon its plans for the Islamic world and leave Iraq with its tail between its legs when the Iraqis ask them to go, they are mistaken. Washington at long last has realized it has seriously erred in Iraq. Because Mr. Bush is facing a rapidly approaching election, and because much of America too is angry with him, it is only sensible for Mr. Bush to stage a tactical retreat. And did not the great Mao himself say that far from being inglorious, a retreat to save oneself was morally necessary? Neither have the core imperatives of American foreign policy - which runs in A straight line from the 1880s to the present - not changed, the Islamic fundamentalist threat has not changed.

SADDAM AFP reports that Iraq will restore the death penalty after hand over of power: it is presently suspended by order of the Coalition. The justice minister is quoted as saying that Saddam imposed the death penalty for 120 offenses; the new Iraqi laws will be more restrictive. The justice minister had a simple formulation for Saddam's future. Saddam was head of the armed forces, says the minister. Desertion was punished by firing squad. Since Saddam deserted, by his own laws he has to be executed.
We dislike venturing guesses on matters we know little about; yet it seems to us the justice minister's statements are more than just a straw in the wind. We cannot imagine Iraq will agree for a UN court to try Saddam, or that it will even agree to have foreign observers present. In their present mood, Iraqis are disinclined to accept any infringement of their sovereignty. we remain entirely unclear why the UN and Europeans are even calling for a "fair" and "open" trial, because really what happens to Saddam is none of their business.
The Iraqis are under no obligation to accept a foreign legal team as Saddam's defenders; we are prepared to bet that Iraqi law does not permit foreign lawyers to represent accused in Iraqi courts. Moreover, if Saddam is tried by court martial as opposed to a civil trial, there is no question of an open trial. And for any number of quite legitimate reasons, the Iraq Government can close even an open trial. We feel it is a bit unrealistic to expect that Saddam will enjoy the same kind of trial the former Serbian dictator is undergoing, for the simple reason that Saddam is in his own country and can be tried by his own people.
Given the Iraqi desert tribe mentality, and given that in general trials in Islamic nations are swift, we do not see any long drawn out trial. None of this will bother Saddam's French lawyer, we assume he has already made enough off Saddam's family to retire.
By the way, when the French lawyer was hired, Saddam's daughters said they would spare no expense in hiring the best legal representation for their father. Minor problem here. Saddam's daughters have never held jobs, and their father's official pay was a few thousand dollars a year. So where is the money to buy the best coming from? Obviously from money Saddam stole from his country. Are the Iraqis going to let Saddam defend himself with money he stole? Unlikely.

0200 GMT June 6, 2004

ISRAEL Reader Paul Danish corrects us and says Shas did not join the Sharon coalition; fired ministers are from the National Union, which "is far more absolutist on retaining in West Bank and Gaza than Likud. Lieberman (one of the sacked ministers) has even called for "transferring" the Palestinians to Jordan."
Frankly, we are unable to make sense of political situation right now and must wait for the Israeli cabinet meeting today. Some are saying this is the end of Sharon as the Likud is on the verge of a split. Others are saying a compromise can and will be reached, in part because the coalition does not want to risk another election.
AL-SADR CNN reports that Al-Sadr militia has withdrawn from Najaf and Kufa, and that normalcy has returned to southern Iraq. The militia has not given up in Sadr City.
It is difficult for us, for lack of information, to make a reasonable assessment of events. In military terms, the militia has taken a severe thrashing and probably understand that neither can it win against the US, nor will Iraqis give it support. The US is claiming victory; in that Al-Sadr has had to vacate Najaf and Kufa, the US is entitled to do so. Nonetheless, if we go back a bit, nothing seems to have changed. Al-Sadr's revolt came because the US moved to arrest him; he is still free. But for the US decision to finish him off before June 30, there he would not have revolted, so the defeat of his militia is not a net gain. Further, Al-Sadr was determined to play a power role after June 30; the US was determined he would not. As matters stand today, he has won from the Shia clergy and the interim government the right to participate in the post June 30 government, if only from the outside. This seems to mean, to us, a defeat for the US.
In Iraq, of course, few things are as they seem. It is possible the Shia clergy agreed to Al-Sadr's terms only to ensure he did not ruin June 30th and delay the transfer of power. The warrant against him could well be served later if the government and Shia clergy decide he has to go. That is if his opponents use finesse: the matter could as easily be decided by a hit squad.
SOUTH OSETIA Pravda reports that after reestablishing control over the breakaway region of Adhzaria, the Georgia government is moving against the breakaway region of South Osetia. As yet Georgia is simply flexing its muscles by militarily building up on the border while continuing dialog. Pravda says that because there is hardly any Georgian population in South Osetia, it will be difficult to engineer a loyalist revolt as was done in Adhzaria. Nonetheless, says Pravda, Russia's options are limited. [Russian policy is to ensure weak states on its periphery - Orbat.com] It needs to support anyone who weakens Georgia, and we assume more so now because Georgia has squarely aligned itself with the West. At the same time, if it openly supports separatists, it will be accused of a double-standard: it is fighting Chechnya on the principle of a unitary state. [Also, every Russian Republic has a number of sub-groups who were once independent and would not need major incitement to revert to their old ways.] Pravda says after South Osetia, Georgia will move against the third and last breakaway region, Abkhazia.

0330 GMT June 5, 2004

KOREA [updated 1400 GMT] Among the general doom and gloom over Iraq, good news from Korea. AFP reports that North and South are to reopen two roads and the rail lines running alongside, in the west and the the east. A military hotline is to be established to avoid incidents blowing up. The west route leads to the new free trade zone being established in the North, just across the DMZ. A Southern company is to lay power lines to the free trade zone. Fifteen companies have been cleared so far for investment.
The use of the term Korea instead of North and South is a conceit of ours. Its clear the country will be reunified, and on Seoul's terms. Communism has failed in the North. Pyongyang's intent clearly is to attempt the PRC model: maintain tough political control while letting a thousand economic flowers bloom. In our opinion, this is not going to work either in the PRC or in the DPRK.
The Chinese have been so beaten down over centuries that at present the bargain between the power structures and the people seems a fantastically good one to the people. Soon, however, a generation will rise that has known nothing but economic capitalism. To mangle Marx, since money is the basis of human existence, the right to control one's life where money is concerned will inevitably lead to an insistence by the people for the right to control their political life. The PRC's leaders are in la-la land when they assume the Chinese people are somehow different from others. The wish to be free is no longer predominant in western cultures. The creation of the United States of America has, over the centuries, caused this wish of a handful of white people to become a universal human right for all people of every color.
America was founded on the belief that the need for freedom is as essential as the need to breathe. The American Creed has rapidly spread worldwide - 23 decades is but a semicolon in the history of the human race. The Americanization of the world and the rise of America as a world empire is an accomplished reality. Most of the world has accepted this and is busy absorbing American virtues and - in countries like India - rapidly reformulating them to maintain the core while allowing for Indian characteristics. The PRC, DPRK, and Cuba are headed for history's dustbin, which is so large it never overflows. The Islamic political system is walking in lockstep with history's impending failures.
In our opinion, therefore, with America's global victory just one or two steps away, it is all the more important for Americans to avoid false cynicism. For all its faults, America has made the world a better place than it has ever been. Now is not the time to pessimistically and in a racially discriminatory manner assume that American virtues are unique, and that America has no right to export them, and little chance of success in any case. American virtues have become universal virtues. We do not know if America has the right to export its virtues, such as to the Islamic world. We do know America has the absolute duty to so do.
A friend reminded your editor that once, when we were young adults in the US and the civil rights movement was exploding amidst the deepening shadows of Indochina II, that your editor had said: "If America with its unlimited wealth, energy, creativity, and revolutionary zeal does not get it right, then there is no hope for the rest of the world." Your editor asks Americans to remember that they are the real revolutionaries. At this critical time, it is all the more important for Americans to suck it up and do their duty to the world. And to keep working to diminish their faults - "Rummy" and "Dubaya" please to especially note. You got wrong a lot of things in Iraq. Get it right next time - and it is your duty to ensure there is a next time and that America will try again.

AL-SADR If readers are disinclined to take this news item seriously, certainly we'd be the last to blame them. Al-Sadr militia is said to withdraw from Najaf and Kufa, replaced by Iraqi police; US troops withdraw to outside the two cities, but continue patrolling on the outskirts. While there is no doubt Al-Sadr militia has taken some body blows in recent weeks, we'd advise all to hold their applause. In the Mideast, an agreement is never an agreement: it's specific to the particular second it was made. Next second - well, that's another reality. As long as Al-Sadr is loose, trouble will follow. His followers have already said they do not recognize the interim government in Baghdad. It doesn't reflect the will of the Iraqi people, say Al-Sadr's supporters. And Al-Sadr does? His lot needs to give us a break.
ZARQAWI AIDE CNN and AFP report that a top lieutenant of Al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian Al-Qaeda wannabe, has been arrested by Iraqi police. Al-Zarqawi's idea of a successful day is counting how many civilians he has murdered: he is not a nice person. The Coalition cryptically says the lieutenant is "providing information".
We think that having learned from Abu Gharib, it's unlikely the US military is going to let slip any information on his interrogation - if the military and not the CIA has him to begin with. Either way, we are inclined to believe no one is reading him his rights and giving him a lawyer to present at his interrogations. We doubt he will ever stand trial, and we also doubt whoever has him is prepared to spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars a year to keep him imprisoned for life. Our best guess is that after he has been sucked dry, he will be quietly disposed of, or quietly returned to the Iraqis, which amounts to the same thing.
Incidentally, let's not forget Mr. Saddam Hussein. In 24 days an Iraqi government with real powers takes place. We do not, of course, have the least clue what happens then. We do confess, however, we like the scenario in which the US "repatriates" him to Iraqi custody. The minute he is repatriated, he is no longer a POW. He is just another ordinary citizen of Iraq. And in our opinion, the Iraqis do not particularly care if the world thinks they've given him a fair trial or not.
TEL AVIV POLITICAL CRISIS Haartez of Israel says President Sharon has sacked two extreme-right ministers in his cabinet. With the Shas religious hard-line ministers gone, Sharon should get an 11-10 victory when the Cabinet meets against Sunday to vote on Mr. Sharon's Gaza pullout plan.
Some commentators feel Mr. Sharon's victory will be pyrrhic because by withdrawing its support in Parliament Shas could pull down Mr. Sharon's government. Now, we are no experts on Israeli politics; but it seems to us that with an overwhelming majority of Israelis supporting withdrawal from the settlements, with the exit of the Shas Mr. Sharon should have little difficulty in picking up support from Members of Parliament outside his coalition. Also, while the settlers have promised an unholy mess if the Israeli government tries to force them out, it seems to us that Mr. Sharon could nonetheless get them out by withdrawing the Israeli Army from settlement protection. They are not going to be able to deal with Arab militants and terrorists on their own, at least not for long.
There is the school of thought that believes Mr. Sharon has no intention of any real withdrawal from occupied Palestine. This line of reasoning says he is simply playing a clever game to appease world opinion and retrench.

0330 GMT June 4, 2004

CHALABI The US has "leaked" reports that Chalabi, the now discredited Iraqi leader, had sent Iran the information that the US had broken Iranian diplomatic codes and was reading Teheran's mail. The leak is being held up as yet another example of how Chalabi's shifty, devious, untrustworthy character. Orbat.com has no trouble believing that this odious person is all those things and worse. Nonetheless, we'd suggest our readers take this "leak" with a huge grain of salt. This is exactly the kind of accusation no one can prove himself innocent of. We personally do not see what the big deal is: if the Iranians were working under the assumption their codes were secure, they are stupid, and we have no reason to believe this is true of them where their security is concerned.
IRAQ Fareed Zakaria writing in Newsweek says that US policy in Iraq is being gradually straightened out because Robert Blackwill, recently US Ambassador to India, has taken over the formulation of major policy issues. He has no axe to grind in the Mideast/Iraq regions, and so is being sensible. Zakaria says Blackwill is primarily forcing adoption of policies the US should have known from the start it had to adopt, such as transferring power quickly to the Iraqis, stationing more troops in Iraq, giving the UN a major role, not disbanding the Army and so on. Zakaria sees the US's correctional actions as a good thing. We have to admit his way of looking at the situation is a lot more helpful than ours, which focuses on the failures. In fairness to ourselves, we are not beating our chests about the failures as much as the failure to punish anyone of consequence. It is one thing to make an honest decision and have it turn out wrong. Increasingly, however, it seems that Mr. Bush's closest advisors were deliberately dishonest with him and the nation.
The Washington Post carries a hilarious cartoon by Toles. Chalabi is sitting with a generic Iranian mullah and speaking confidentially: "The United States would be easy to conquer and Iranians would be greeted as liberators." The mullah is thinking: "Odd, that's just what I wanted to hear." To those of our readers who wonder why your editor repeatedly blasts the Washington Post and then insists on reading it: the Post has the best comics section of any paper in the world. It carries two and a half pages of cartoons every day. As for what the Washingtonians do with the paper: in trash bins everywhere in the Metro area you will find the entire paper discarded except for the Jobs Wanted and Sports sections. At your editor's school, none of the 30 odd staff with the exception of your editor as much as glance at the first section, though all get the Post delivered to their homes. In Washington you either read the Post or you get the New York Times delivered - too expensive.
VENEZUELA CNN says Venezuela's election council is projecting the recall petition against President Chavez will succeed, after 40% of the ballots have been counted - we should say recounted after revalidation. The Carter Center has expressed concerns about the delay in finishing the count. CNN says that according to Venezuelan law, more people than the 3.76 million who voted for him in 2000 will have to vote against him. Meanwhile, from the little we hear about Venezuela, while it is true Mr. Chavez is neither an officer nor a gentleman, Venezuelan voters will have two equally unpleasant choices: the opposition is no model of virtue, either. Orbat.com has to admit that what seems so straightforward and clear-cut if one reads only the Western press, because much more complicated when one reads local newspapers or talks to local people.
US TROOP SHORTFALLS Reader Joseph Stefula writes to say the US is considering withdrawing the entire 2nd Infantry Division from Korea, much to the upset of the Korean government. He also tells us that the 10th Marine Regiment, an artillery unit, is forming an ad hoc infantry battalion from its battalions for an Iraq deployment. When the Indian Army was doing something similar for operations in Kashmir, we were critical of the proceedings. In this case, however, while we cannot bring ourselves to say this is a good idea, we cannot say it is a bad idea. All Marines are trained as infantry, and are expected to serve as infantry whenever required. Still, the job of gunners is a highly skilled one, and their operating skills deteriorate rapidly when they are separated from their guns.

1200 GMT June 3, 2004

OPEC has approved a production increase to 26 million barrels per day, reports AFP, in an effort to drive oil prices down to $30-32/bbl. The actual output is expected to be 1-1.5 million/bpd higher, as OPEC countries regularly "cheat" on output quotas and the cartel may already be at the increased quota level.
Meanwhile, we read that the US could free itself from Mideast oil if it added a $2/gallon gasoline tax in stages, bringing its prices more in line with European prices. The chances of this sensible measure being implemented is less likely than your editor winning the the next Miss World contest. The intense American belief in the right to own and carry firearms is well known; it is nothing compared to the belief enshrined in the US constitution that Americans have the right to own huge personal vehicles and to drive unlimited distances.
Your editor loves America, which is why he chooses to live there. This said, one of the quaintest of American beliefs is they pay the "huge" price of $2+/gallon for gasoline and that the country is almost in a state of emergency because oil prices have risen about 25% in the last year [please keep in mind when comparing with world prices that the American gallon is smaller than the Imperial gallon]. Twenty years ago your editor did a study on what the cost really was, adding in the military/foreign policy cost of assuring a stable oil supply. He forgets the figures, but it came to about double the official price.
IRAQ We are quite confused on the game being played out between the US/UK, the UN, and Iraq on the issue of Iraqi sovereignty; much of our confusion is because of our deliberate decision not to bother with useless facts. Nonetheless, it now appears the US/UK are willing to set a 2006 date for pullout of their troops, and are willing to concede many Iraqi demands such as early control of Iraqi security forces. This still does not satisfy France, Germany, China, and Russia. They are acting as if they want Mr. Bush to shuffle on his knees from Washington to Baghdad, flogging himself ceaselessly - and that would be their starting point for discussions. To us, the odd thing is that symbolically Mr. Bush may already be on his penitential journey because his advisors have so totally messed up US policy on Iraq that he essentially has no options.
KUFA CNN says that - what to us appears a tank company task force - entered Kufa earlier today searching for insurgent heavy mortar positions that have fired 50+ 120mm rounds at US positions on the Kufa-Najaf road. A raid yesterday for the same purpose killed 30 insurgents with no US deaths. A mortar is located inside a mosque compound and cannot be dealt with as yet. In our opinion, the Iraqis are further reducing their already non-existent credibility by criticizing US troops for attacking mosques and killing civilians. As far as we know, there has not been a single criticism by Iraqi clerics of insurgents that are brazenly using mosques as ammunition/arms dumps and fighting positions. We suppose what makes this acceptable is the Muslims' "duty" to kill foreign invaders. Well, the US Army has a duty to kill people trying to kill its soldiers, and Sorry About That.

0330 GMT June 2, 2004

ABU GHARIB The Washington Post calmly tells us in one sentence in another lengthy story on Abu Gharib that the US MPs accused of tying 3 naked Iraqis together did so after the prisoners raped an Iraqi boy. Its no sense us lambasting the Post for the disgraceful way it just drops the fact in: considering the trees the Post has killed to tell us how horrible US Military Police are, it seems reasonable to assume the Post would at least have made a proper story of this because it changes a great deal. The Post cannot do this, because structurally like so much of the US media today it is ill, and possibly to the point it cannot be held responsible for its actions. We are no point saying the MPs were justified: may be they were, may be they weren't. Had the Post given prominence to this one fact, however, its likely people around the world would be looking at what the MPs did in a different light.
Since the Post is not going to defend the MPs, we'll have to do it. First, it appears that whatever the provocation, they violated US Army rules, and we agree they have to be punished, if only because they disgraced America. Second, there is no criminal justice system worth the name in Iraq. What were the MPs supposed to do? Conduct an investigation under US civil rules along with the "You have the right to remain silent" bit, lawyers present, etc? Had this happened in the field, it is possible the 3 men would have been shot on the spot, depending on which army was in the field. At the minimum, we suspect, their punishment would have been a little bit more serious than humiliation. Third, in purely human terms we can at least understand why the MPs acted as they did. This incident had nothing to do with softening up for MI: apparently the men were common criminals.

INDO-US TALKS The ongoing Indo-US Policy Group security talks are underway in Delhi; it is the first meeting after the new government took power. The Indian foreign minister said India had its differences with the United States, but they would be dealt with through quiet diplomacy and not in public.
IRAQ GOVERNMENT A government has been formed in Baghdad, who heads it is of no discernable consequence. Possibly the US has no right to dictate who heads it; at the same time, please, let's not fall for this "will of the Iraqi people" garbage that the Iraqis keep trying to feed everyone. This group of people does not represent the will of the Iraqi people. Because of insecurity, and because elections take time to organize and conduct, the will of the Iraqi people is not known at this time. Even if it were known, to talk about it in mystical terms is foolish. It is possible to conceive of situations where the will of the people should not be permitted to rule: the Balkans provide many examples.
It is surely no coincidence that first Mr. Chalabi kept hammering away with his demand that Iraqi oil revenues must be under Iraqi control, and now others in the new government are taking up the refrain. So should the US defer to the "will" of the people, and prove it has "respect" for Iraqi sovereignty, by handing over the keys to the bank to the first bunch of people that asks for it? Are the European nations demanding the US accept the sovereignty of the Iraqi government prepared to indemnify the people of Iraq for the looting of oil revenues that will inevitably take place? Now, gentlemen, politics is politics, and you have every right to make the US squirm. But it is immoral to score points off the US at the cost of punishing the Iraqi people.

0330 GMT June 1, 2004

SAUDI HOSTAGE CRISIS This appears to be the time of year in which we are repeatedly proved wrong. We'd said there was no way other than surrender or death for the Saudi hostage takers. Wrong again. The Saudis say they let the 3 men go because they didn't want any more hostages getting killed. So the men got a car, Saudi security failed to follow it as it went this way and that, and soon the trail was lost.
We feel terribly foolish saying this, but let's run that story again. Four terrorists have taken over several residential buildings in Khobar, an oil export terminal. Just four men are rushing from building to building, many of them multi-storied, asking the residents if they were Muslims or not, then herding the non-Muslims together in one building. By the time the Saudis get their act together, 20+ hostages have been killed. A shoot out occurs between the men and the Saudis, the leader is wounded and captured. Presumably the entire area is sealed off, and presumably crack commandos evacuating some buildings and preparing an attack on the building where the terrorists and hostages are. Some number of security forces, not known to us, but presumably numbering near 100 or more, decide they cannot get the terrorists without a number more of the hostages being killed: the terrorists say they have explosive belts and will kill everyone. So they are let out and given, or steal, a car. The Saudis have helicopters, men everywhere, etc etc, and this car just calmly proceeds out into the desert or wherever, and its goodbye. Worry not, say the Saudis, we know what these men look like.
Well, frankly, we at Orbat.com are not worried. We have no intention of going anywhere near Saudi Arabia. Clearly a deal was cut, and the men were let go. So: who did the deal and why? Were there only 4 terrorists to attack several buildings? Are these buildings not protected by the usual security guards one sees everywhere in Saudi Arabia, particularly since an earlier attack had targeted foreign oil workers? Why did the Saudi security forces feel they couldn't storm the building occupied by 3 men? If they were insufficiently trained, why couldn't negotiations have been used to draw things out while trained men came from elsewhere, and then negotiations have been used to wear down the attackers?
Why go on - something is rotten in the Kingdom of the Sauds. To quote [for a change] General George Patton when General Eisenhower ordered him not to make a run for Berlin - which he would reached before the Russians, if only because the Germans knew the game was up and would have facilitated his advance rather than be captured by the Russians - he exclaimed: "Something stinks and it isn't the fish." Our sentiments exactly, re. Khobar Port.
After we wrote the above, we saw Debka's take. We have no clue if the politics in the report is true, but the report does bring up some of the points we asked, and provides one plausible explanation for what happened.
KUFA The US has agreed to a 48-hour ceasefire in Najaf and Kufa, after fresh fighting in Kufa resulted in the deaths of two Americans and 20 militia. The ceasefire was accepted under the initiative of the Iraq Ruling Conference.
NAJAF Another mystery resolved: what happened to the 100 Iraqi policemen who deserted Najaf when they were supposed to start providing security under the terms of the US - Al-Sadr agreement? CNN says when they arrived they found the US Army had provided not even a mattress, or any personal equipment, and the food available had pork [probably standard US rations]. So the delicate darlings deserted en masse and headed back to Baghdad. CNN and the US official briefing the agency are more concerned to blaming the US Army for "dropping the ball" than asking how come 100 police simply deserted? These are the people supposed to protect ordinary Iraqis?
Orbat.com is thinking of organizing a collection of teddy bears, pink blankies, and bunny slippers so that the next batch of Iraqi police assigned to Najaf - another group is expected - do not get into a sulk and desert. Oh yes, lets not forget soft toilet tissue. Readers know how bad the regulation army stuff is: only the best toilet paper for the Iraqi police, please: we don't want them to get REALLY mad.
INDIAN AIR FORCE RESCUE This story from the Times of India has nothing to do with the War on Terror, but it is a welcome example of what brave men can accomplish. Three climbers from an Indian military team were critically injured on the Kamet Glacier. An Indian Air Force Alouette 2 Lama not only landed on an unprepared deep snow slope on the Glacier at an altitude of 23,240 feet, it flew three sorties on successive days, lifting one climber at a time. The winds were 35-40 knots - we don't have the Lama specifications off hand but that is surely way above safe operation limits, leave alone at an altitude above the helicopter's absolute maximum, and leave alone taking a 70-kg load off a slope. The pilot, a wing commander allowed that the controls were "very sluggish" and the engine at "maximum power". No boasting or self-promotion, just happy to do our job, Sir.
IRAQI PRIME MINISTER As a measure to avoid filling our heads and our readers heads with absolutely useless information, we are not going to report on the Iraqi Prime Ministerial crisis except to say there is, as of early Tuesday morning, no agreement. We suggest readers not bother holding their breath: whoever does emerge from the struggle is going to get deposed or killed in short order. No sense in even learning names here.
ARISTIDE TO SOUTH AFRICA BBC says former President Aristide of Haiti has gone into exile in South Africa. That gets one block to Haiti's return to normalcy out of the way.