0230 GMT March 14, 2006

0230 GMT September 30, 2006

No news again today.

Western Officials Confirm Iran's U-Centrifuge Problems to Washington Post, indicating there is time to negotiate.
We don't want to rain on anyone's parade here, but Orbat.com has known for at least over a year the Iranian program wasn't working. We cannot be more specific because frankly, we are no longer in the business and your editor keeps no particular record in his head of when he learns something.
Proceeding on the reasonable assumption that if we know, the IAEA and CIA etc know, its quite clear that the earlier assertions Iran was about to develop an N-bomb were politically motivated to force a quick decision on a preemptive strike this fall. The new "revelations" are equally politically motivated: the US government knows it is no position to force a showdown with Iran, so negotiations have become the order of the day. So to protect itself against charges that it is now being lax, the administration arranges these leaks to say there is still time.
For anyone who cares to know: Iran's problems are much more serious than has been revealed to the Washington Post. How do we know? Well, frankly, in this city your editor gets no respect. He got tired of half-educated "experts" with "sources" sarcastically asking him all the time about this, that, and the other, "how would you know?" Your editor's position with the "experts" was seldom improved when the editor told the "experts" they were being used by government sources for cheap leaks. Cheap because the government didn't consider them important enough to even give them a real leak. The "experts" in Washington - who are no different from "experts" anywhere else think they have a monopoly on information because the CIA/DIA etc. know everything. First, US intel agencies tell them nothing that isn't motivated by a not-so-subtle political need.
Second, this may come as a huge shock to our local "experts", but there are other intel agencies in the world. Then, your editor has his own very low key agency which in terms of cost-effectiveness would beat any other agency. And how do the local "experts" know that your editor doesn't have better contacts with US intel agencies than they do, ha ha? After all, he learned the field part of the business from an Indian, but he learned the financial part of the business - which is as important - from a westerner.
Enough of these cheap shots at people we cannot name and who are so low on the intel totem pole that making fun of them is like making fun of a retarded child: its really not fair.
Just take our word for Iran, and take our word that it doesn't matter that much to Iran that its centrifuge program is not working. Our information on this is incomplete, mainly because your editor has to work to pay his bills and has no time to get serious about the intel biz, and not because he can't find out, but we believe Iran's first bomb will be a plutonium weapon. This enrichment business is half real but half is a decoy.
Which then forces us to say its not that the Iranians are decoying their enemies. Their enemies, aka the west, is decoying itself. If that sounds obscure, we're sorry. The day someone gives us a fat grant to "study" the Iranian N-program, we'll have time to discuss all this.
We really should stop, but your editor cannot resist a last shot. No intel professional takes your editor seriously, either. The reason is that he thinks the intel business is one of mirth and hilarity and hardly worth taking seriously. People in intel take themselves very seriously indeed, and if you fail to abide by the club rules, you are so out. For example, one rule is you are never, ever supposed to say you are a spy even if everyone knows you are one. The rules say you must look enigmatically cool when people accuse you of being one. Well no one told the editor that rule when he was young. So was quite happy - thrilled and delighted - to tell anyone who listen that's what he was. One rule in the business is not to tell even one unnecessary lie - and its obvious why you shouldn't. If your editor told you the harsh words he has to endure because he announced his profession to anyone, generally along the lines of "get away from us you freak wannabe who is inflating his own importance" our readers would burst into tears. It's not easy being a spy when everyone mocks you.
Reader Uncle Reako Writes I was troubled by your post today (09/29/2006) lamenting the lack of leadership by the USA fighting the WoT. As regards Pakistan and the escalating problems of Taliban's rise in the border areas of Afganistan, what could this nation have done differently to prevent this from happening?
NATO is not going to have the men or the fortitude to defeat the Taliban staging out of Pakistan without the Pakistans' help. I'm in agreement with you on that; I would like to hear your take on what steps our government should have or should be pursuing to make the situation better. I'm very interested to hear some strategy about this.
The Editor Replies We were wondering when someone called us out on this. after all, we pontificate endlessly on the US's mistakes in the War on Terror. What are the alternatives we propose?
The matter is not actually terribly complex. You either gear your strategy to your means, or you create the means needed to support your strategy. The US's real mistake is it has done neither and has - inevitably - ended up with the worst of all worlds.
To see how the first alternative works, consider how small nations with few means like Switzerland protect themselves. First, they adopt as low a profile as possible. Second, they maintain a very efficient domestic intelligence effort. Third, they build a series of alliances with stronger partners, and the alliances are so low key as to be almost covert. Fourth, they create a national consensus so that when threats emerge, everyone is pulling together to neutralize the threats in the shortest, quietest, and most efficient manner possible. Result: they achieve security.
To see how the second alternative works, hark back to the US strategy for World War II. The US decided it was going to impose unconditional surrender on its allies, no ifs or buts, no compromises. The Axis was going down regardless of what it took, and they were not even going to get to discuss the brand of toilet paper they would use after the war. That is what unconditional surrender meant.
The US then put 10% of its population and 40% of its GDP into winning. US strategy was very simple: you are going to pound you and pound you and pound you till you fail to get up after the count. And we really should not doubt that had the US needed to, it would have put 30% of its population in uniform and spent 80% of its GNP to achieve victory.
In the War on terror the US has embarked on the pound them into the ground approach but has chosen the softest alternatives. We aren't going to go into the whys, but we have done some small studies and concluded that to support its "we'll take them on anywhere in the world" GWOT strategy, the US needs 30 active duty divisions. During Vietnam it had 21, but to support the 10 in Indochina it basically gutted the land forces elsewhere. This is not an expedient that can be repeated: when we say , we mean 30 fighting divisions with 10 in combat, 10 in training, and 10 rotating. The troop level would probably have to be around 2.4 million level. The air and naval power components are probably adequate, though there are shortages in particular areas.
Well, the US has 13 active duty divisions. So we don't have to analyze any further.
It has a population of 300 million and a GNP of $12-billion. There is absolutely no reason it could not maintain 3+ million personnel and spend $700-800 billion without requiring any real sacrifice on the part of the people. But then we'd have to have a draft and the Army would have to accept draftees - and the Army would rather die than do that, for reasons that are quite incredibly stupid, and the administration would have to - gasp! - not cut taxes, and as anyone knows, better we all commit hara kiri than have no tax cuts.
But, by the way, even 30 divisions would not suffice if we were to use the same failed strategies in Iraq. Iraq needs 9-10 divisions just for itself if we follow the "I'm not with stupid, I am stupid" current strategy. That would leave nothing for Syria, Iran, Korea, Africa and so on.

0230 GMT September 29, 2006

No news again today.

US Official Says Attacks From Pakistan Border Triple since the Pakistan government signed an agreement with the North West Frontier Province's tribal areas. The agreement requires a withdrawal of Pakistan forces from the area in return for a promise by the locals not to let foreigners (i.e., terrorists) reside there and not to let their territory be used for attacks on Afghanistan.
It is no surprise to any anyone that the word of the tribals is worth less than a spoon of dirt.
To begin with the Pakistan Army was divided on asserting government control of the traditionally semi-autonomous tribal areas. It did not want to make war on its own people at America's behest - though Baluchistan is an exception we can discuss some other time. It was also divided about going in and killing the new Taliban, which like the old is created, trained, financed by Pakistani intelligence.
Further, the tribals outfought the Pakistan Army at every step and the Army did not see the point of suffering more casualties just to keep America happy.
We have noted many times that destroying the Taliban is not in Pakistan's national interest. In 2001, Pakistan was frightened enough of US threats that it cooperated, sort of, with the War on Terror. In 2006, the Pakistanis are no longer scared of the US - after Lebanon no one is. No one can blame the Pakistanis for telling the US to get off their back.
The consequences for the War on Terror, however, are disastrous. The new Taliban has a completely secure base from which to operate. NATO will have to double its Afghan contingent if it wants to stop infiltration at the border, and it will have to resort to continued and massive cross-border strikes including ground incursions.
If it fails to take hard action, Afghanistan is lost and we are back to square one, pre- 9/11.
Needless to say, Talibanization of Pakistan's NWFP is proceeding at frightening speed.
In sum, yet another heavy defeat for the US and the west in the War on Terror. The ineptitude of those who lead us in this war is unlimited, as is their capacity for self-delusion.
The above is NOT a gratuitous attack on the Administration and President Bush. Were the Democrats to take the government tomorrow, things would be no better and possibly get worse even faster.
The problem is the failure of American leadership and competence across the board. The manifestations are evident as much at home as abroad.
Consider, folks. In the nation's capital, the subway system cannot keep its escalators and elevators in good running order despite the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars a year and several years worth of effort. Why does anyone believe that repeatedly failing at this miserably simple task, Americans are going to succeed in reshaping the world?
The generations of Americans who built this country from nothing to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world have gone. We can only hope that the next generation - the one that follows that of the infamous Baby Boomers - has the needed leadership qualities. But that is only a hope. It is possible that the Baby Boomer generation has so poisoned America that no one can provide effective leadership for a long time to come.
Your editor will long have gone to his reserved place Downstairs and he will not witness the unthinkable debacles to come if things continue as they are. But he worries for his children - and for yours.

0230 GMT September 28, 2006

No news again today.

Another Good Reason To Leave Iraq A US State Department survey says 70% of Iraqis want the US to leave. When you consider 20% of Iraqis are Kurds, and the Kurds don't want the US to leave, it would appear almost all non-Kurd Iraqis want the US out.
US Officers Say Iraq Government Wont Crack Down On Shia Militias according to Times London.
Well, that is hardly news, but that US commanders are openly saying it is news. They are also saying that the Shia dominated government has corrupted all ministries. Nothing new there: this is the Mideast and what constitutes good governance is not the same as what the West finds acceptable.
US Leaving Iceland after 55 years. The US military no longer needs the base at Keflavik. In its heyday, Iceland was a critical outpost in the anti-submarine defense of the North Atlantic.
US says its commitment to defend Iceland as a NATO member remains. Presumably US will continue to send air detachments and ground troops on exercises.
Iceland has no military of its own.
So lets oblige them and let them sort out their own problems.

0230 GMT September 27, 2006

No news again today.

"Secret" Plan For Iran To Suspend Uranium Enrichment For 90-Days The plan is to be secret because Iran doesn't want to be appearing to compromise on its repeatedly stated position that it will not compromise on its N-program.
So naturally we get to read all about the secret plan in the Washington Times. At which point you have to wonder: is someone trying to kill the chances of any compromise by revealing the "secret", making Iran's position quite difficult?
If so, we congratulate whichever person/lobby has leaked the plan. It is a completely pointless plan for the following reasons:
Iran needs N-weapons to defend itself against the US and to achieve its stated goal of dominating the Mideast. So any suspension is of no use: Iran will get back to doing what it has to do.
There will be no credible verification of the suspension: Iran is not going to let IAEA or anyone else into its N-weapons facilities.
Iran's bomb will not be a uranium bomb anyway, so none of this matters in the least.
There is only one point that needs to be discussed - and not with Iran. Is the west willing to pay the price for taking out Iran's N-program or not? We think it needs to be taken out regardless of cost, and we feel the costs are vastly overstated.
We also understand the administration has zero credibility on any grand, risky venture, and indeed, with all the new revelations about Iraq the administration is going into minus credibility territory.
So what is needed strategically is not feasible politically.
Therefore lets forget the whole thing and allot another $100-billion for deployment of missile defenses. It has to be cheaper than going to war against Iran.
Saddam Ejected From Court 3rd Times In A Week by the new judge, for insisting on talking out of turn. For good measure his six co-defendants were also ejected after they began arguing with the judge.
UK Troops Return From 4-Day Afghan Mission - 48 Days Late Times London says the Parachute Regiment's Pathfinder Platoon went on a 4-day reconnaissance mission to Musa Qila in Helmand Province as a preliminary to the arrival of a parachute company.
They were continuously attacked by Taliban for 52 days and could not be evacuated. The para company had to be diverted elsewhere.
They made it back without a single man killed. The Times story does not make it clear how they were resupplied, but they did have air support from the same RAF that has been bitterly criticized by another Parachute Regiment officer.
Bit odd, the whole episode. You don't leave your men stuck in the middle of nowhere and in danger of being overrun for 48 days. There has to be more to the story.

0230 GMT September 26, 2006

No news again today.

Retired Military Officers Slam Rummy in testimony before Congress. About the mildest adjective we've seen is "incompetent".
Rummy had this coming to him, but frankly it gives us no pleasure to see him humiliated. It did not give us pleasure to see Robert McNamara humiliated a generation ago, either. We still respect both for their intellect.
Both men are extraordinarily bright, but being extra-smart doesn't make one good at anything except at being extra-smart. And being extra-smart does tend to make one arrogant. That was McNamara's downfall, and is Rummy's too.
Of course, Mr. George Bush, Rummy's boss, is known for his extraordinary loyalty to subordinates who are loyal to him. It does not matter one hoot to Mr. Bush that Rummy is under attack. He will continue to stand by him, regardless. Of course, Mr. Bush did ditch the head of FEMA after Hurricane Katrina. Our feeling is, however, that the Rummy/Mr. Bush equation is far more solid than Brownie/Mr. Bush. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" has passed into the collection of classic American jokes.
Meanwhile, White House Agrees Iraq Is Fuelling Jihadism This is a bit of a come down from earlier, quite belligerent statements after the National Intelligence Estimate was leaked. The presidential spokesperson says, however, that winning in Iraq will correspondingly discourage jihadism.
Assuming this is true - and there can be a lot of debate on the issue - it would have been nice if the spokesperson had said how victory in Iraq is to be won. we are all for victory in Iraq: the reason we changed our position on Iraq was solely because we are now convinced the administration has no clue at all on how to win and in fact is locked into a losing strategy.
Iraq Cost Now Up To $300-billion The old question again: That sum is nearly $15,000 per Iraqi man, woman, and child. Might it not have been cheaper to buy Iraq? There is no way the bill is going to come to less than $500-billion even if the US starts withdrawing now.
Reader Paul Danish demurs with our generalization that Americans feel happy or not depending on the price of gasoline. He personally feels gasoline prices are not an issue among people he knows, and wonders if the matter is important only to the media.
Truthfully, we also personally do not know people who voice more than passing concern about gasoline prices. So our information is indeed from the media. At the same time, the people we know tend to be 2-income families making in excess of $100,000/year. With a 20 mpg car and 12,000 miles a year, $3/gallon gas as opposed to $2/gallon gas means an extra $600/year and that is easily absorbed with a little adjustment of the family budget.
But the median US family income is about $50,000 and till recently Americans have driven miles as if they are free. A recent survey we saw in Business Week says that less than 1/5th of US auto miles are driven for work reasons: the rest is all church/volunteer/family related.
So whether the media is making up things, we can imagine that being forced to think about their driving because gas prices have gone up would make Americans unhappy. And of course, prices did not go up to $4/gallon as some were anticipating; nor did they stay at above $3 for long. In those cases unhappiness could have become pronounced.
Reuters says meteorologists are predicting a warmer than normal start to the US's winter season. Temperatures are now expected to fall below normal only in December. This will reduce demand for heating oil and further press down on oil prices.

0230 GMT September 25, 2006

No news again today.

Islamic Courts Take Kismayo Without A Shot The Somali militia has taken over the last port in Central/South Somalia not under its control. It says it has done so to prevent the proposed AU force from entering the country.
The BBC says the local militia withdrew without firing a shot.
US Intel Report Says Iraq Fuels Terror Readers will recall we'd made some fun of a bumper sticker seen by the editor which said: "We're creating terrorists faster than we're killing them." This was just another meaningless slogan but in this case, by coincidence, turns out it is right. The report says Iraq is attracting all sorts of actual and wannabe terrorists.
While US has had considerable success in dismantling Al Qaeda, many new independent groups have come up. They draw their inspirations and instructions from the estimated 5000 terrorist websites on the Internet.
Parenthetically, it may be asked why the US tolerates those sites: its not particularly difficult to force individual sites off the web. We haven't talked to any experts in the field, but the reasoning would be the sites provide the US with intelligence that offsets any benefit from taking them down.
The White House says the extracted conclusions - published by the New York Times - are not representative of the report and the hatred of the terrorists for freedom and democracy did not develop overnight.
The White House is right on the second point; since we have no access to the report we cannot comment on the truth of the first, but the habit every American institution has of spinning leaves one with no confidence in what the white House says.
Our point would be that if the invasion of Iraq fulfilled important objectives that offset the consequences, it should have gone forward. There are always costs and benefits associated with any course. After all, World War II led to the 40 year Cold War, but no one has argued it was better to leave Hitler and Japan in place as a bulwark against communism. The problem is that the way the Administration has gone about Iraq has created far more problems than solutions. To our mind, invading Iraq was the right thing to do; the way it has been done is a disaster.
Supporters of the Administration will, correctly we feel, ask why is this spate of intel leaks that makes the Administration look bad taking place just before the crucial November elections. We don't have to look far for a possible source. This is the intel community, which gave the Administration the correct picture on Iraq before and after the war, but which the administration has seen fit to blame for its mistakes. additionally, the community is incensed about the casual way the Administration first ordered and forced it to use extreme interrogation methods, then the way the administration blabs all to the world.
These reports may well be payback - which doesn't make them any less true.
Oil Likely To Fall Below $60/Bbl Mr. Bush's luck took a terrible fall these last six months with one mishap after another piling up. But his luck seems to have returned: oil prices look set to go south - well south - of $60/bbl. This and a series of other developments have pushed down gasoline retail prices: at the editor's local pump they are $2.38/gallon, down from a peak of $3.25/gallon.
And Americans are smiling - everyone seems to have forgotten that over a year ago prices were a full dollar/gallon lower.
Many is the time your editor has read in the press that such and such foreign government is at risk of falling because people are being forced to pay more for their bread, and wondered how people can be so silly to be motivated by just one cost factor among the dozens that govern their life. Now he has the example of America. Gasoline prices are almost a minor component of the typical American consumer's "basket" of prices. But Americans seem to judge their psychological well-being by gas prices.
Further From K.G. Widmerpool On RAF CAS In Afghanistan No doubt our enemies would be gratified to learn that in the wake of Major Loden's email: "Bitter recriminations broke out among British forces in Afghanistan last night as factions of the RAF and infantry rounded on each other amid continued combat in Helmand province..."
Sunday's "Observer" included some examples: In one angry email... a pilot operating in Sangin claimed that decisions taken by some senior infantry officers had put the lives of RAF crew at risk. He wrote: 'I take it was not this major's [Loden] troops I was picking up in Sangin whilst being RPGed? Should I call his troops utterly useless when they lit up a landing site with a strobe for the second time because they forgot to switch it off and risk the lives of four blokes and 25 million quid plus the life of other casualty we were trying to pick up?'
Members of the infantry responded in kind. One soldier admitted that he had become so frustrated with an RAF crew who had landed at the wrong airfield that he could have resorted to physical violence. 'If I could have gotten hold of the pilot I would have kicked seven bells of s--- out of him,' he said. Another claimed that the RAF in Afghanistan 'is ... poor at identifying targets and timid about engagements'. One even alleged that some airdrops actually ended up supplying Taliban forces.
The Sunday Times has managed to excerpt Major Loden's emails at greater length; their piece describes some very desperate fighting for the town of Sangin: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2372134,00.html It appears the Harrier pilot Loden criticized as unable to identify targets was a female RAF officer -- a fact the BBC left out, perhaps for the greater good of gender equality. The Army's Apache pilots were also blasted as 'egotistical', though they seem to have provided better support than the RAF.
The NY Times too have got hold of the email and quote Major Loden as observing, in comparison with RAF close air support, the USAF has been 'fantastic'.
Though I scarcely agree with the defeatist media that British 'morale [is] at risk of collapsing', I can believe that British forces, on the ground and in the air, are frustrated with inadequate support, both material and moral, from the UK. The government tries to play down the intensity of the ops, branding them peacekeeping and antinarcotics, not fullblown counterinsurgency. The Treasury (and Prime Minister in waiting Gordon Brown) keep a miserly grip on the defence budget. Worst of all, the rest of Nato aren't doing their part in dispatching troops for combat ops to fight alongside their Anglo-Saxon allies.
The British, the Yanks, and the Canadians (with a few European SOF) are doing all the real fighting. If only RAF and Army grumbling could be redirected somehow at Germany and the other Continental Europeans who have refused to join the fight. We should all pose this question to Europe: if Afghanistan, of all places, isn't worth killing and dying for, where exactly do they intend to defend Western civilization, at the Rhine perhaps?
Editor's Request To RAF/British Army Boys, boys, lets everyone ease up here. These arguments/recriminations are as old as warfare. We are reminded of the episode in the 1965 War when Pakistan Air Force F-86s downed 4 Indian Air Force fighters providing CAS to Indian 10th Division. There was prolonged and loud cheering - from the Indians. Turns out the IAF was knocking heck out of its own side and every attempt to get the IAF to stop was unsuccessful till the Pakistanis solved the problem.
To be fair, in return we have to relate this little story told us by a PAF fighter pilot. He and his commander were flying MiG-19s as a 2-aircraft element in the 1971 War when the commander went "Tally Ho" or something like that and excitedly ordered: "Indian tanks below, attack now!". Well, our source did not see any Indian tanks. He saw a couple of peasants with their buffalo-pulled carts. Moreover, the peasants were very much on the Pakistan side of the border. But he followed his commander in a strafing run and then the commander triumphantly declared: "I got me an Indian tank!" or something like that.
Our source says all he saw was a dead buffalo and felt terribly sorry for the poor peasant. He gently demurred as the element made its way back to base: "Excuse me, Sir, that was no tank but a buffalo."
"Rubbish!" said his commander "That was an Indian tank and you will jolly well say so when we get back!". So our source shrugged his shoulders and at debriefing dutifully seconded his boss's story. By which time, needless to say, the commander was claiming he had single-handedly stopped a deadly Indian armored thrust that would otherwise have broken the Pakistani defenses and cost Pakistan the war.
That's life. That's war. RAF and British Army: Just get over it, guys.

0230 GMT September 24, 2006

No news again today.

Japan Says No Evidence DPRK Is Preparing N-Test DPRK is being kept under close observation by Japanese reconsats and Tokyo says that though vertical shafts have been dug at a potential test site, there is no sign of equipment and other activity correlating with a N-test.
DPRK is planning to build a 200-MW reactor, presumably it will be a heavy-water type suitable to making weapons grade plutonium. If and when this project matures, it could provide the neccessary plutonium for N-weapons.
Our assessment is at this time DPRK has, at best, sufficient plutonium for one test but even this is a bit iffy.
Re. Stories Bin Laden Is Dead best we reproduce CNN's summary:
France's Chirac, U.S. intelligence downplay report that bin Laden is dead.
Report's source is leaked French defense ministry documents.
Saudi source tells CNN bin Laden is ill with a water-borne disease.
Bin Laden's brother-in-law says he has heard no report of al Qaeda leader's death.
Letter from K. Widmerpool A British officer -- outed by the BBC as James Loden of 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment -- has condemned his RAF counterparts as 'utterly, utterly useless' in the Close Air Support role. In an example, a Harrier pilot 'couldn't identify the target', fired two phosphorous rockets that just missed our own compound so that we thought they were incoming RPGs, and then strafed our perimeter, missing the enemy by 200 metres. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5371392.stm
A BBC defence correspondent says the remarks are in line with criticism voiced privately by other officers. Some told him 'they prefer to call in American A-10 Tankbusters for air support when under fire because of what they see as the RAF's ineffectiveness'.
The 3 Para officer's emails (supposedly somehow obtained by Sky News, according to -The Telegraph-) also repeat familiar criticisms of the UK effort in Afghanistan: not enough troops, not enough helicopters.
I think it's a little unfair to compare RAF Harriers to the US A-10: there isn't anything out there in anyone else's arsenal quite like the A-10 (well, at a higher notch there's the AC-130). No poor squaddie on the ground ever feels his country has enough planes like the A-10 (and even the USAF treats the Thunderbolts as ugly stepchildren). And clos air support can never be close enough for ground troops, until it's too close (qv Major Loden's incident, not to mention the friendly fire death earlier this month when A-10s accidentally strafed Canadian troops): it's an inherently crazy business. One would have to know about other incidents to have a better idea whether the RAF's CAS skills are somehow below par.
Now, do the Brits (and Nato) need more troops, more helicopters, and more air support in Afghanistan? Absolutely. But we all knew that already.
According to an earlier BBC piece, the MoD has generously agreed to dispatch -one- more RAF Harrier to Afghanistan, bringing the total to seven. And the Army's Chief of the General Staff has had to make public statements regretting the Para's remarks and praising the RAF.

0230 GMT September 23, 2006

No news again today.

Hezbollah's Chief Emerges At Rally Since the Israelis have promised to assassinate him, he has been avoiding public places. But presumably he reasoned that in targeting him at the Hezbollah rally in Beirut Israel would end up killing a large number of civilians - 500,000 were at the rally. That might not bother Israel given its understandable animus against the man, but any attempt would end the ceasefire and be a total political disaster if it failed.
Times London says Israeli drones circled the site of the rally on Thursday.
He said his group had 20,000 rockets and would never disarm unless all outstanding matters between Lebanon and Israel are settled. He indirectly threatened UNIFIL-2 by saying their job was to monitor the truce, not to disarm Hezb. Which is true enough.
BBC Says Israelis Training Kurds This is surely no secret, but is one of the few times a media source has come up with some proof. BBC says that the revelations will cause enormous problems for the US because Arabs everywhere believe Gulf II was an Israeli-US conspiracy - which it was if we want to be truthful. It will also cause problems with Iraq's Sunnis and Shias, many of whom are not entirely comfortable with Kurdish autonomy.
18,000 Troops On The Ground? So says BBC of US forces in Iraq, referring the number of fighting troops that are available from the total of 147,000. We are a bit confused as to how they got this figure. Our own back-of-the-envelope calculation is about twice that because in Iraq most of the artillery units routinely pull patrol duty, there are a large number of MPs, and even support units do their turn at patrols.
Nonetheless, lets not quibble. The BBC is making the point that the US has been beset by a shortage of troops from the start, and it is probably too late to do anything now even if more were now sent. We agree.

0230 GMT September 22, 2006

No news again today.

We Are Happy To Be Proved Wrong Of a sudden NATO has changed its mind and will find at least 2000 of the extra 2500 troops required urgently by field commanders. [Report in Washington Post.] So NATO is showing some spine after all.
Israel To Trade 1 Soldier For 500 Palestine Prisoners says Jerusalem Post. This is the soldier held by Palestine groups and has nothing to do with the 2 held by Hezobollah. Originally his captors wanted 1000 Palestinians released; Israel offered 400.
You might think that Israel is paying a very heavy price. Actually, not really. The Israelis will release 500, and then arrest the usual suspects and build back their stock of Palestinian prisoners which runs into the high thousands.
Pakistan President Disclosure Is No Disclosure The President of Pakistan says the US threatened to bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age if it did not cooperate on terror after 9/11. Well, this is no news to us. We mentioned this a long time ago.
What the Pakistan president is not saying is that the US was particularly provoked by Dr. AQ Khan's attempts to sell two of his non-existent N-bombs to Mr. Bin Laden. Dr. Khan was the head of the Pakistan N-program and would easily earns an award for the world's top proliferator except that everything he sold was a sham.
Right now Dr. Khan is in protective custody. When the irate Iranians turned in Dr. Khan for taking them for a ride on the sale of N-technology, Pakistan was forced to take action against him. He threatened to reveal all, which is that the senior Pakistan military establishment was his partner in the "clandestine" deals. So to protect the guilty, he is under tight house arrest.
Xinhua's Time Capsule Here it is September 22, and Xinhua.com has the same six major headlines it has had since 8th and 9th September.
If you want an example of a government-controlled website that is always current, sometimes to the hour, its Irtan's www.irna.com

0230 GMT September 21, 2006

Did General Abizaid Mean To Say US Is Losing Iraq War? Washington Post says that in response to a question if the US is winning the Iraq war, the top US Mideast commander, General John Abizaid, said: "Given unlimited time and unlimited support, we're winning".
Well, obviously this is not World War II, so there is no unlimited time or unlimited support. So is the general saying the US is losing?
Personally, we think he's right. But a possible explanation is that he did not mean to say what he did. We all make mistakes when speaking from other than a prepared script, and the general may have wanted to avoid a "no comment" or telling a lie. Nonetheless, quite a bizarre statement.
Elsewhere, however, he says having ample troops is not the same thing as having enough troops for all your missions. We went "uh oh, spin alert!" You either gear the mission to your capabilities, or you define a mission and commit the needed capabilities. Anything other than that means you do not have enough troops for your mission, and saying that while Rummy Rumster is alive and kicking is a one way path to handing in your resignation.
We object very strongly to the government putting its military officers in a position where they have to lie, spin, fudge facts. General Abizaid is not a political appointee of the administration, he should not be asked to give his opinion in public in the first place, leave alone being forced to support the administration.
Thai Coup Reasons Apparently the Prime Minister was trying to undercut the military's power. That doesn't make the coup legitimate, but explains it. Meanwhile, the military says it will turn over power to an appointed prime minister in two weeks. Presumably he will be more friendly toward the generals.
Letter From Brian Brown Allow me to offer a constructive criticism of one line in your recent update: "The Americans are the last westerners who will fight for the sake of fighting, whether the cause makes sense or not."
This makes it sound like Americans are warmongers who fight for totally illogical reasons.
May I respectfully suggest that a better (and more accurate) way to express your point would be that Americans are the last westerners who will fight for any cause except (a) self-defense or (b)other immediate and dire threats to the narrow self interest of the nation involved.
Both the Korean War and the Vietnam War can be analyzed in terms of a larger struggle against Soviet communism. The US fought these wars (with some limited suport from other western powers) due to a long-term strategic perception of the world situation.
U.S. involvement in Gulf War I (which involved participation by other Western nations, such as France) has been explained by anti-US pundits as a war for oil. If so, why did the US insist on embargoing Iraqi oil in the post-1991 era? The US spent large sums from 1991 until the beginning of Gulf War II to maintain and enforce the no-fly zones, plus spent substantial diplomatic efforts in attempts to maintain the embargoes. The US could have save lots of money, kept American pilots out of harm's way in the no-fly zones, and imported Iraqi oil by merely relenting on the embargo. The conclusion, I suggest, is that the US had long term strategic goals in mind, and was not merely focused on Iraqi oil.
France (by way of a contrasting example) was willing to participate in Gulf War I because of the real and immediate threat to the Middle Eastern oil supply which was posed by Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Post-war, however, France was back to business as usual with Saddam - the immediate threat had past and France had no larger strategic vision. The war for France was, to a much greater extent than for the US, about the oil.
Similarly, Gulf War II was a continuation of US efforts to stabilize and "keep the lid" on the Middle East, and was a part of a broader strategic picture in the war on terrorism (of which, I might point out, there is no question that Saddam was an enthusiastic supporter of various terrorist groups). France, and most other European countries, refused to participate because they saw no direct and immediate threat to themselves. They would, I submit, have been willing to assist had their been a threat to their oil supply. Instead, the Europeans (with a chorus of American liberals) started condemning the invasion as being "only about oil." If so, why not invade Saudi Arabia? They have more oil, it is more accessible, and it is much less defended. On the other hand, the US could have purchased every drop of Iraqi oil production for a fraction of the amount spent on the war by merely relaxing the embargoes and adopting a business as usual policy toward Saddam.
There is an old Russian saying that, roughly translated, is "If you look in the mirror, you only see yourself". If I speculate about sinister motivations that may underlie your outward actions, I reveal the sort of motivations that would cause me to act. Other western powers, in their criticism of U.S. policies and their assumptions about US motivations and goals, have revealed much about themselves, and have only highlighted the utter disconnect between American thinking and "enlightened" European thought.
Editor's Comment In Indian philosophy fighting because you are a warrior and fighting is the duty of the warrior is held to be an admirable virtue. It is not neccessary for the war to make sense to the warrior, nor is it neccessary for him to agree with its objectives. We meant our comment in that context.

0230 GMT September 20, 2006