0230 April 30, 2007

We missed yesterday's update. After a ghastly performance on the last math exam your editor needs for full teaching licensure, he had to go out of town. This was the the third attempt. There are engineers and computer people who change to teaching and who fail this exam several times - and if anyone knows math, it's them. The exam has no relevance to teaching or demonstrating mastery of the subject matter: it allegedly tests your "reasoning" ability. It's given by ETS, which rakes in money hand over fist because people end up taking its exams many times. And many times math teachers simply quit the field because its a frustrating exam: you are never told which questions you got wrong except in a general way such as you got 3 of 5 right in a particular category. So it's back to the drawing board, more studying, and consequently we will continue skimping on Orbat.com work.

• Army Chief Says Pace Of Buildup Unacceptable - Gasp! No Sir, we have one decisive Army chief. He has laid down the law. The buildup by 65,000 troops at a pace he finds completely unacceptable, Yes Sir. Absolutely he cannot accept 2012 as the target date. He insists, nay demands, nay orders that the target be moved forward. Until the target is met, he cannot promise that he won't have to extend tours even further.

• We were so moved by his decisiveness we wept. What a man! What a leader! What a clown! He notes by the way that 30,000 troops have already been added. So what this senior most commander is saying is he finds it unacceptable the Army will take five years to add 35,000 more.

• He may find it unacceptable, we find it criminal that the US is to take 6-7 years to add 65,000 troops. Has the US suddenly become Ruratania? This is the third most populous country in the world, with a GNP going on $14 trillion. Between 1940 and 1945 the US went from a few hundred thousand troops to 12 million, on a population base of 135-million. And now the best we can manage is 10,000 troops a year?

• We have said this again and again: this country is being run by a bunch of incompetents and fifth-raters. They are running what is the greatest country in the world into the ground. These same people run defense policy. If Americans do not rise up, and get rid of these people, and make those who make these absolutely gratuitous mistakes pay for their incompetence, then America is going to be set back between 20 and 50 years. These men claim to be patriots. In reality, they are inflicting a greater damage on America than America's enemies could ever dream of.

• This whole issue of adding more troops - 81,000 if you count the Marines - shows that America is not serious, in any fashion, about winning the global war on terror.

• Baghdad, Don't Weep For Yourself Iraqis have a common refrain: we have no water, no power, no jobs, no garbage collection and so on and so forth. The Americans can give us all this in a jiffy, they are not, so ipso facto upside down green and yellow they don't want to do this.

• Baghdad, don't weep for yourself. Because of a truck accident, a vital Oakland, California overpass collapsed. 280,000 commuters a day are going to have to detour, causing massive delays.

• Fair enough, an important overpass is an important overpass. There will be consequences. Everyone understand that.

• But get this, Baghdadis: CNN quotes officials as saying it will require several months for the overpass to be repaired.

• Now, people: if the Americans have reached the stage the cannot restore a vital overpass in their own country except in several months, why do you assume they can give you the essentials of life in the middle of a civil war/insurgency?

• [Memo to Baghdadis and to Iraqis: ever occur to you all it's your country, it's your people that are blowing everything up, maybe it's your responsibility to get back your own power and water and so on?]

• Mogadishu Fighting Ends The government says the rebels have been defeated; Reuters wonders if this is so or if the rebels have withdrawn to regroup. 1300 are estimated to have been killed.

• Either way, the government can resume asserting its authority. It has again called on militias to disarm; this is what triggered fighting in the first place, and we assume now the government is in a better position to obtain compliance.

• Tamil Tigers State 3rd Air Raid This time they targeted oil facilities and caused some minor damage. For a couple of photographs, visit http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6605025.stm

• Pakistan Interior Minister Target Of Suicide Bomber but survives with minor injuries while, according to Jang of Pakistan, between 32 and 35 people were killed and 52 wounded. The minister lost several members of his entourage. Quite bold of the terrorists, we have to admit.

• Prince Harry Writes His Will ahead of his deployment to Iraq, as required by the Army. The young prince, third in line to the British throne, is worth $26-million.

• Now here we have a situation in which this young man insisted on deploying with his regiment, threatening to resign his commission if he was denied. His elder brother, William, second in line after his father Prince Charles, has voluntarily joined the Army.

• We are delighted with all this, and we take note of the stampede of children of important Americans determined to fight for their country. Maybe some can tell us who these Americans are. Pat Tillman, a football star went to Afghanistan and died there; the junior senator from Virginia has a son in the service who has done two? tours - we are sure of one tour but think he has done more. Any others come to mind?

• Reader Eugene Ellis writes to say he no longer reads the blog because we've become part of the liberal Washington media lot. "Read it daily for years, even before you became editor, and quit a few months ago when I sensed that you jumped ship on patriotic America."

• We replied that we were about the last to jump ship, which shows how stupid we are, and that opposing a failed President's failed policy on Iraq does not constitute giving up on America and crossing to the Dark Side. But we don't think we have convinced reader Ellis. President Bush has been phenomenally successful in wrapping himself in the American flag and even with the big majority of Americans having no faith in his policy, most people are very reluctant to say simply "We need to get out".

• Americans are quite strange that way: they will abandon their jobs, marriages, children, way of living and so on if they feel it isn't working for them. But when it comes to war, they suddenly become hesitant to attack strategies and policies even if it is clear to everyone things are not working out - in this case because we have a bunch of incompetents at the helm.

0230 April 28, 2007

There is no news of significance. We instead comment on an important new article on the new failure of America's generals.

The Yingling Critique

• First, congratulations both to the US Army and to Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, a serving officer. To the Army for giving a serving officer to criticize the Army's generalship, and to the officer himself for writing an accurate and concise account of how America's generals have failed the military and the country in Iraq.

• The article appears in the Armed Forces Journal and we do need to warn readers not to expect anything sensational. The author is, after all, an active duty officer and he wants people to listen to him. So he avoids polemics and personalities.

• His thesis is that America's generals have twice failed the nation. After World War II it was obvious no one could face America in conventional warfare. This spawned insurgency as the preferred mode for anyone wanting to challenge America. But till the very last in Vietnam the Army refused to organize for CI. persisting in believing its conventional army could defeat any insurgency.

• Instead of learning from Vietnam, the Army decided it would never again participate in CI and that it would stick to conventional warfare. We disagree with then author slightly in that we believe this is fair enough. But then the army should have clearly told the civilians it could not, and would not, fight the follow-up war in Iraq. The one man who spoke the truth and said 380,000 troops would be required to secure Iraq, General Shienski, was ostracized. Actually estimates of required troop strength ran all the way to near 500,000, so he was being cautious. The other generals kept quiet. Then once the US got into the CI part of Iraq, the generals whitewashed the truth and persisted in a false optimism. 

• The author notes what some of our readers have said, that the American system of promotion to higher command is a failure. The country is not getting generals, it is getting bureaucrats who happen to wear uniforms. An original insight of the author's is that all of Mr. Donald Rumsfeld's Transformation concerned conventional warfare with nary a thought for the dominant form of global warfare, insurgency, to which is now added terror.

• Where we differ from the author is that we do not believe America can do counter-insurgency. We don't think anything can be changed. even if the Army miraculously became a crack CI force, the American people, who collectively suffer from the worst case of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in the history of humankind, would not have the patience for successful execution.

• America's army has emphasized conventional operations because that's the form of warfare Americans want. The generals did nothing that was not implicitly or explicitly mandated by the people. Mr. Rumsfeld, for example, owed nothing to the generals, and appeared to have nothing but contempt for them. Yet he also focused on conventional warfare, and a rather extreme version of it that appeals to all of America - very small ground forces backed by the most lethal firepower America can devise - and America is very good at weapons-making.

• To try and convert the Army into a CI force/mindset is, in our opinion, to try and create flying pigs. There may be some point to having flying pigs - reader Walter E Wallis once suggested they'd be the perfect attack weapons to take out Al Qaeda. You may even get your flying pigs. But ultimately pigs are pigs: they love to wallow and chow down. So why bother? We say let the Army alone. Expand it so that next time you have the half-a-million troops to ensure the next Iraq is won quickly and secured, denying CI a chance to set in.

• Are we advocating giving up on CI altogether? Not at all. We want a 20-year pause in which new weapons for CI warfare will be developed. That's what military transformation should be about, and that's where America's military genius should be focused.

• What do we mean by new weapons? Here's one: nano-dust keyed to a particular person's DNA. You dust a bunch of AQ couriers without letting them know they have been identified and coopted as weapons. The couriers meet their controllers and infect them too, but remain inert. When the controllers meet their boss, who has the target DNA, the nano-dust goes to work, and turns the boss's brain into jelly in - say - six months.

• Ha Ha, you will say. The editor has been reading too much sci-fi. Actually, the editor came up with this one himself for a college course, though like all ideas surely many others as well have thought it up.

• But sci-fi? Folks, look around at the weapons the military deploys. Take a relatively simple one like a stealth B-2 with 20 x 1000-lb satellite guided bombs. Two B-2s working together, in any weather, at any time of the day/night, in any part of the world, can take out 20 high value targets and be gone without detection. If you'd come up with that in 1940, you'd have been accused of reading too much sci-fi.

0230 April 27, 2007

There is no news of significance. We have instead an editorial.

• It's War The US Senate followed the House in voting to require the President to set deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq or face a cut-off of funds for the war.

• The President's office reaffirmed his expected veto and says the President is determined to win. Actually, the President is not determined to win. He is determined only to drag out the war long enough so that he can leave office without admitting defeat and leave the process of withdrawal to the next president.

• If Mr. Bush were really serious about winning, he long ago would have mobilized the entire US National Guard and sent its 8 divisions plus 15 independent brigade groups to Iraq, and activated replacement divisions in the US. He also would have told the American people the US would have to stay in Iraq 20-50 years. He would have raised taxes, reinstated the draft, and set an example for sacrifice.

• Instead Mr. Bush still insists on fighting the war with limited resources wholly inadequate to do the job. It isn't his critics who have set the US up for failure, it is him and him alone. He is the President. The unqualified victory of Gulf II belongs to him. The unqualified defeat of what followed also, equally, belongs to him.

• Like many Boomers, the President seems unable to take responsibility for his failures. It is not too late to start. A good place to start is to acknowledge in a democracy a war cannot be won without the support of the people, and that in a war, there has to be a match between means and objectives. The US people have repeatedly spoken: they do not support this president's handling of the war. And there is no match between what the US is willing to commit and what is needed for victory.

• As such, to continue this war is to play politics. Mr. Bush needs to admit his mistake, and withdraw. Let the Iraqis work out their own future and their own destiny. Every military commander says, repeatedly, that this war has to be won politically. There is absolutely no indication the Iraqis are prepared to make the compromises needed to keep their country together.

• Orbat.com, like its readers, gets fascinated by the minutia of military matters. we have a military mindset, which is to always look for the positive and to keep trying. It took us a very long time to understand that just as in Vietnam, the US is winning every engagement in Iraq but simultaneously losing the war.

• It is time for the US to face facts: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, the US is absolutely miserable at limited wars and especially wars that require political solutions. Korea at least was a partial success in that ROK has become a democracy and a trillion dollar economy. Vietnam was an unmitigated disaster. Iraq is becoming one.

• A sign of maturity is to do the things one is good at, and to leave things one is bad at alone. When it comes to your all-out, drag-down, fight to the finish, the US has no equal and is unlikely to have one through to the next century. Orbat.com firmly believes in the primacy of military power and the need to apply it unstintingly in support of national objectives. We are no pacifists. But facts are facts. On unlimited wars the US gets a 10 of 10. On limited wars, it gets a 3 of 10 - if one is in a generous mood.

• Its time to give up doing what we do badly, and stick to what we do well. What's happened is not the military's fault: the military has done an an amazing job within the limits imposed by Washington. The tactical success has been uniform and superb. The strategic direction stinks and is what has laid the groundwork for defeat.

• Pulling out is not enough. An independent commission of inquiry must be created to examine the role of every single key decision maker in creating this fiasco. Those found guilty must be made to pay: reprimanding them is insufficient. If I fail at my job, I affect only myself and my family. If I fail at the nation's job, I cause people to die in vain and the nation's treasure to be wasted. The penalties imposed on me for failing the nation have to be proportionate to the damage I have caused the country.

• No one must be immune from the process of fixing blame and punishment. Not even the President of the United States.

0230 April 26, 2007

There is no news of significance.

• Bush Presidency Dead In The Water? There is a growing sense in Washington that the President can no longer govern effectively. The three factors are: a continuing sense of massive incompetence at the executive level, all-out partisan warfare conducted by the Democrats who sense the President's weakness on every front and who are out for blood, and a total disgust for him and his vice president from his own party.

• The incompetence feeling comes first because of the US attorney general's pathetic performance in explaining to Congress his role in the firing of 8 of the 90-plus US attorneys in the country. We must be clear US attorneys serve at the President's pleasure, so firing them without reason is not illegal per se. The problem is that the 8 fired appear to have been let go because they would not take orders/hints from important Republican congress members and others with reference to specific cases, and this is illegal. While there is no smoking gun at this point, the spectacle of a key government official saying "I don't remember" 63 times in 5 hours of testimony is not edifying.

• The truth is that the attorney general had no clue as to what was going on in his office: a senior officer did the firings with minimal reference to Mr. Gonzales. That's where the incompetence part comes in, and people are all too ready to remember the performance of another presidential buddy during Katrina.

• Then there is the case of the missing emails - a few million. This concerns the President's closest advisor, Karl Rove. He had to resign because of the Plame case - more feelings of incompetence. The missing emails could become a criminal matter so serious as to destroy Mr. Bush's carefully cultivated image of incorruptibility.

•  The problem with the Republican party is well known. Mr. Bush effectively destroyed his own party by his incompetent handling of Iraq and his abandonment of all fiscal restraint. It was hoped that after the November 2006 results Mr. Bush would see sense, but he sails on serenely, supremely unconcerned for his party, which is now resigning itself to the loss of the White House in 2008.

• The Democrats are, of course, closing in - that's their job, we can't blame them. The Republicans would have done the same if the situations were reversed. The Democrats have made Iraq the cornerstone of their disagreement with the President. Mr. Bush has failed to intimidate the Democrats despite wrapping himself in the flag. The confrontation on Iraq war funds is coming any day. Mr. Bush will veto any bill attaching timetables for withdrawal, but that means money will not be allocated. Both sides have sworn not to blink.

• Meanwhile there's cheery Dick Cheney. His approval rating is 9%, and sinks further each time he opens his mouth. A bigger albatross around the President's neck does not exist, but Mr. Bush believes loyalty triumphs everything else, and Mr. Cheney is totally loyal.

• The problem, as people are starting to say, is that Mr. Bush's loyalty exists solely for those who support him personally. what used to be seen as a strength is now being seen as a vice.

• So What Does All This Mean? Not much, in our view. Mr. Bush is president till January 20, 2009, no one can force him out. The state of Vermont is moving to impeach him for lying about Iraq, but since just about everyone, Democrat or Republican, supported the rush to war, it's hard to see how impeachment can go anywhere - and proving Mr. Bush lied is not easy given that he can legitimately say he relied on his advisors, intelligence agencies etc.

• In the last phase of the Carter presidency we also had a situation where the president had no prestige and no one listened to him no matter what he had to say. But Mr. Carter served out his term, and so will Mr. Bush. A strength of the US system is that the chief executive is guaranteed a stable 4 years at a time regardless of how things go with partisan politics. The plus points of this system far outweigh the negatives.

• Besides which - let's be frank - while Mr. Bush has 100% messed up on the twin devils the US faces, the deficit and Iraq, no one has a better idea. The notion of pulling out of Iraq 100% is not taken as an option: even the opponents of the war are terrified about what an acknowledged defeat will do to the US position globally. As for the deficit, the Democrats can no more raise taxes and cut spending than the Republicans. Wanting to pay less to the government while making the government spend more is an American disease, not a Republican one.

• Does It Really Matter? We have to say none of this really matters.  We can get het up all we want about Iraq and deficits and so on, but most Americans obviously have narrower concerns. The pain of Iraq is confined to a tiny segment of the population which is making the sacrifices. The money to pay for Iraq has been borrowed from future generations. The federal deficit, the trade imbalance, the dollar-yuan exchange rate, the problem of illegal immigration are not problems people identify with in an immediate personal sense. Moreover, the feeling is that as individuals we cannot do anything these problems, they are too big.

• In the meanwhile, the thing is,  American governments at all levels are functioning quite well. The roads and bridges are maintained, the trash is picked up, the kids are getting an education, the police keep people reasonably safe, the ambulance comes promptly when you dial 911, and the vast majority of people pay their taxes and so on.

• Good, bad, or indifferent as the Bush Administration may be, America will survive.

0230 April 25, 2007

There is no news of significance.

• And The Mideast's Largest Army Is... Iraq. Perhaps not quite yet, but it is on its way. Bill Roggio reports from Iraq that the eleventh Iraq army division has been activated and the nucleus of the twelfth is in place. We'd mentioned some time ago that 3 divisions were to be added to Iraq's 10, as yet there is no sign of the thirteenth.

• More interesting, Mr. Roggio says of the 12 divisions, one will be armored and three mechanized. 800 ex-US M-60s are on their way plus 4000 armored personnel carriers of various types.

• This is a long way from the 3 division light infantry force the US envisaged for Iraq. Iraq really is a sovereign nation and there is a limit to the extent the US can dictate the size of the army. Iraq is paying for 75% of its arms purchases itself. We suppose the US figured if the Iraqis are going to expand regardless of what the US thinks, it might as well be the one to supply the equipment.

• First Earth-like Planet Discovered This news is really quite a bit more significant than stuff like Iraq. The discovery is, obviously, highly hedged because no one can, at this point, directly observe a planet around another star, though if current NASA telescope plans hold, this might be possible as early as 2020. Nonetheless, this is what astronomers believe on the evidence available:

• Gliese 581, a red dwarf about 20 light years away, has three planets. One is about 1.5 earth size, is likely rocky, and likely has a temperature range of 0-40C, permitting liquid water. The planet circles its star closely, but red dwarves are energy hoarders and so the planet could be suitable for life.

• Though the CNN article does not say so, here's a thought: red dwarves can be very old. They can live for a trillion years, unlike our own star, Sol, which has a pathetically short life of "only" 10-billion years. So if there is life out there, it could be on a red dwarf's planet.

• Now doesn't it give you a nice warm feeling to know that before our sun goes red giant, extinguishing all life on earth, we have somewhere to go for a new home? We needn't worry about other red dwarf planets being already occupied: one estimate says 60% of the stars in our galaxy may be red dwarves - that's 60-billion of them. Bound to be some that have "Vacancy" signs.

• Tamil Tiger 2nd Air Raid Confirmed by Sri Lanka military according to Reuters. The military says the raid, against the only Sri Lanka air strip in the Jaffna Peninsula,  was ineffective and did not result in casualties. Others says six soldiers were killed, but yet others say this was because of shelling.

• Meanwhile, Intelsat has shut down a transponder on a satellite that the Tamil Tigers, a designated terrorist group since 1997, have been illegally using since 2005 to broadcast programs to Europe and Asia.

• Ingenious chaps, the Tamil Tigers.

• Jessica Lynch Says She Was No Heroine We knew that, and we don't know what took her so long to say so definitively - she did mutter the pro forma "I am no heroine" business soon after she was recovered in Iraq. She was testifying before the US Congress. There is an inquiry into the circumstances by which the US Army turned her and another soldier, Pat Tillman, into heroes. Tillman left professional football to volunteer for the army after 9/11, and died in Afghanistan. The army first said he was leading a charge against insurgents. Later it admitted he was killed in a friendly fire incident.

• Ms. Lynch said that she was too badly injured when her small supply convoy got lost during the invasion of Iraq and was ambushed to go down with guns blazing - as the Army said. Moreover, she says she did not fire a shot - her gun jammed because of the sand.

• She further said that the Iraqis tried to turn her over to the Americans but couldn't find any way to do so. She did not heroically endure torture - the Iraqi Army left her at the hospital. There were no Iraqi military present when the rescue mission came.

• Now, all this has been known for a long time. The problem is that the original story about a blonde soldier who went down fighting came from intercepted radio transmissions. And there was a blonde soldier in the convoy who went down fighting, but he was a blond, not a blonde. This also was known shortly after Ms. Lynch was recovered. We have no comment about the Tillman case, but in Ms. Lynch's case it is likely there was no deliberate attempt by the Army to lie. The Army said what was commonly believed at the time. Perhaps the Army should have clarified matters when the truth became known. But by then the media circus was blasting away at 100,000 amps: Ms. Lynch was highly photogenic, petite, pretty, shyly decorous, engaged to her high school sweetheart, from the backwoods of America etc etc and she was, after her rescue, pretty much America's sweetheart.

• So it would have been a tough call for the Army. What we'd like to know is: did she take the money that was offered to tell her story? and if she did, did she return it? If not, well, sorry to say this about America's sweetheart, but she was equally complicit in the deception despite the pro-forma denials - after all, you seldom hear of a hero who says: "Yes, I was magnificent! I was so brave! I deserve every medal there is!".

• The only such frankly honest hero we know of is Achilles, and since that was 28 centuries ago, there's been a bit of water under the bridge over the River Styx.

• PS: We are only kidding: there is no bridge over the River Styx.

• PPS: please no one attack us for saying West Virginia is backwoods America. It's a beautiful state and if you want to know about traditional American values, that's where you should be. The people are patriotic, self-reliant, bear hardship stoically - and they see a lot of it as jobs are few - are not given to navel-gazing and whining about their feelings etc etc. It's a living piece of an America that has long since vanished into legend.

• But as far as a lot of America is concerned, WVa is the backwoods and certainly foreigners might be forgiven for thinking the same.

• Frankly, if WVa had jobs available, and your editor did not have his family in the Washington metro area, he'd much rather live in WVa. There is a problem however: the old America was primarily white America with specific virtues - and perhaps faults - that came from Anglo-Saxon culture. These days it's all the rage to dump on that America. Nonetheless, as your editor is not Anglo Saxon, were he to move to WVa, he'd be helping send one of the few remaining Old America places off into the sunset.

0230 April 24, 2007

There is no news of significance.

• Tamil Rebels Say They Bombed Sri Lanka Target with two light planes. Sri Lanka denies the claim. If it took place, this would be the second air attack by the Tamil Tigers. The first killed 3 airmen at an air force base.

• US Says Somali Islamic Militia Targeting Main Clan Fighting Government Most of the Mogadishu fighting has taken place between Ethiopian/Somalia government forces against the Hawiya clan which does not want to disarm. The government has been in lengthy negotiations even as the fighting continues. US says the Islamists are targeting Hawiya clan leaders who are inclined to reconcile with the government.

• Butanol Is Also A Green Fuel says Business Week. Several US plants are coming to obtain butanol from animal waste and fat, though the ethanol lobby seem to have a lock on subsidies, creating problems for would-be butanol producers.

• A nice synergy emerges, as Business Week notes: because ethanol is being turned into gasoline, corn prices are way up. This hurts chicken farmers. But now, since they can sell their animal wastes, they make back some of the money they are spending on paying for corn.

• EU Announces Additional Iran Sanctions mainly, it appears, by adding more names and bank accounts to the banned list. EU claims it's sanctions are now tougher than the UN's.

• Meanwhile, the Iranian Prime Minister calls for talks with the US president. Previously the Supreme Ayatollah had said Iran would not talk directly with the US so this may be a new development.

• We say "may" because the Iranians play all sorts of games and congratulate themselves on their highly skilled diplomacy. In reality they end up only confusing themselves.

• Indian Forex Reserves Hit $200-Billion That still leaves India in 6th place after PRC, Japan, Russia, Taiwan, and ROK, but it's a remarkable achievement nonetheless.

• Inflows of foreign money have tripled in the last 3 years to $16-billion, and it is hoped that $25-billion will come in Fiscal 2008. India's foreign inflows are usually compared unfavorably to PRC's. What people don't appreciate is that India has largely financed its economic expansion itself. Moreover, PRC's figures are in the first place highly suspect - as are all economic data from that country, and second a significant part of the inflow represents reinvestment of money sent out illegally, for example by the scions of the Communist Party.

• China has the advantage of investment from "overseas China", i.e., Hong Kong and Taiwan. At the same time, so much money is coming into China and there is so much unnecessary investment creating huge overcapacity that if the bubble should burst, PRC could be in big trouble.

0230 April 23, 2007

.

• Sarko, Sego Advance To French Presidential Runoff scheduled for May. The runoff is neccessary because neither candidate won an outright majority - two other candidates took almost 30% of the votes between them. Mr. Nicholas Sarkozy, the conservative candidate, is favored in the second round 54-46 over Ms. Segolene Royal, the socialist candidate. We have to warn readers that "conservative" in the French context is pretty far to the left in American terms.

• Readers will kindly note our use of the candidates media-given nicknames shows that we are definitely "in the know".

• US Again Asks India For Naval Berthing Facilities according to an article forwarded by reader Walter Wallis. US Navy warships nowadays regularly visit Indian ports, and the two countries have what amounts to a military mini-alliance.

• But India is still a very long way from the point it can seriously consider a permanent basing arrangement, something it has never conceded to any country since India became independent 60 years ago.

• Also, India suffers from a serious case of the shakes every time PRC comes up. India does not want to be seen as doing anything that might be construed as anti-PRC by Beijing. The Indians justify this policy as getting along with everyone, the truth is they are just plain frightened of China. It's nothing more complicated than that.

• For the record, we are absolutely opposed to the Indo-US alliance. We want India to be a powerful neutral while indeed getting along with everyone as far as this is in India's interests. There is going to be no getting along with PRC as the Chinese cannot accept being one among equals. They want to be Number One, which is their business, but India cannot live with anyone who wants to be Number One in the Asian continent. An alliance with the US to counter China is not the answer: building up India's own strength is what's required.

• Iraq Has 200+ Billion Barrels Oil Iraq's official reserves are in the vicinity of 110-billion barrels, which already makes it one of the top oil powers in the world. Nonetheless, as we've mentioned before, most of Iraq is unexplored, and it's possible the country has more oil than Saudi Arabia - assuming it can be got out of the ground, of course.

• The latest figures come from a private consulting firm (story Washington Times august 20, 2007). The US Geological Survey is said to be more pessimistic estimating "only" 45-billion barrels more. as no serious exploration has been done since the 110-billion barrel reserve figures were established, however, basically we are dealing with informed guesses.

• More On The Baghdad Wall There are days we get so fed up with not knowing what's going on in Iraq that we feel we should choose between two alternatives. One, stop writing about Iraq. Two, get over to Iraq and find out for oneself. The second course, even assuming someone would pay for us to go, runs into the problems of the editor's preferred lifestyle. He doesn't travel, and as mentioned in these columns, three squares, two baths a day with two changes of clothes, and a nice cozy bed for himself and his Teddy Bears are a minimum requirement.

• Today we are wroth because an article from Times London shows the  pathetic state of media reporting from Iraq. First, the article tells us the US is building not one, but 5 walls around Sunni communities in Baghdad. Second, the US has walled in Falluja, Hit, and Rutba, all Sunni towns. In Fallujah residents must submit to retinal scans aside from the standard stringent ID procedures.

• Our question is: why are we learning this critical information from a British newspaper? Why has this not been reported and discussed in the mainstream American press - these days one has to qualify the word press as any number of good blogs exist and someone may have already informed the world about the wall strategy.

• Now, it's obvious walls are a key development in US strategy. We have many a time wondered why Fallujah is relatively quiet when just about every other area of Iraq has had to be repeatedly pacified. Well, a tight wall and retinal scans would go a long way to explaining Fallujah, wouldn't they? But till the Times London article, we certainly had no clue. Oh sure, we knew there was a wall, but we thought that had all been done with when the civilians started to return in 2005.

• Back to Baghdad, we now can see why the Sunnis are getting so alarmed about the walls. If you're going to enclose 5 areas, you're basically segregating Sunnis from Shias. Now, that has to be done if violence is to be controlled. But doesn't anyone think it's odd the US on the one had is acknowledging the two groups need to be separated, and on the other hand, back in La La Land aka Washington, the Administration speaks of a united Iraq?

• The violence could be dramatically reduced if the US would expedite the ethnic partitioning  of Iraq. We've repeatedly said we don't understand US policy on this matter. The US actively pushed to partition Yugoslavia, even to the extent of arming/training Muslim armies all the better to defeat the Serbs. It makes no sense to hold US foreign policy hostage to what a bunch of thugs in Saudi Arabia or wherever want. If we are to be in Iraq, it should be for America, not for Saudi which is no friend of America's.

• As part of a partition plan the US would guarantee security and aid for the Sunni part. There are 5 million Sunnis; it's cheaper to give every man woman child an annual stipend of $2000 for 20 years or whatever it takes to build an economically viable Sunni state than to go on with this moronic war.

• At Any Rate, The Baghdad Wall Debate Is Irrelevant The Iraqi prime minister has ordered there will be no walls. The American military proposes, al-Maliki disposes. The military does not want to involve the Iraqi government in anything it can be excluded from because the government is sectarian, corrupt, and the worst sin of all, inefficient. It cannot take the simplest decisions. But by excluding the government - the military lamely says it got the permission of local councils but of course this a national matter, and one does not know which councils - the military is now in the humiliating position of having to reverse course.

• Long Life Iraq and the Glorious War.

0230 April 22, 2007

Scheduling conflicts caused us to miss the April 21 update. Apologies.

• Fighting Again In Mogadishu between government/Ethiopian forces and clan/Islamic fundamentalist militia. 400 persons are said to have died, we must caution readers these estimates are quite useless. Ethiopian troops have reinforced the capital.

• The Somali militias are going to learn that the Ethiopians are no pushovers. The latter are used to prolonged battles and huge casualties, whereas the militias cannot sustain battle for reasons of organization, training, and logistics. Nor are the Ethiopians going to react to losing one, two, three men every other day in incidents: it takes much more to demoralize them. We suspect the militias will give up first and will have to settle for small acts of terrorism as opposed to the open confrontation in which they are now engaged.

• US Wall Around A Sunni Enclave In Baghdad Opposed The US has begun building a wall around a Sunni enclave east of the Tigris, ostensibly to protect the Sunnis from attacks by Shias who now almost entirely surround them.

• Two problems arise. One, the locals say the US didn't get their input and they are worried that they are, in effect, being walled in.

• Two, though the American military generally avoids doublespeak, there is no doubt that modern Americans have raised it to a new art form of such heights that the old Soviets must be turning in their graves with envy. The evidence we see suggests that the US is indeed walling in the Sunnis, not to protect them, but to protect the Shias.

• First, as far as we know, the Shias have not been planting bombs in Sunni areas. The killings of Sunnis by Shias does not happen in Sunni areas, but in mixed areas - again, as far as we know, the Shias do not, and cannot, simply walk into a Sunni enclave and start abducting people. Open warfare is not the style of either side, and if Shias, mainly in the form of the police, some of the army, and the militias, were to invade an area, a big fight is what they'd get.

• Rather, it's the Sunnis who have been coming into Shia areas with bombs, and if that is to be stopped, you have to keep the Sunnis penned in their area.

• There is nothing particularly wrong with that. If the Sunnis keep planting bombs that kill Shias, at some point the latter are going to give up any restraint and go for a final solution. Of course, most everyone except the US administration knows that's going to happen regardless of what the US does, but lets say you are the US military and you've been ordered to cut down on the sources of violence, the wall makes perfect military sense.

• We leave it to readers to come to their own conclusions as to the philosophical implications of the wall.  Nonetheless, we'd suggest that its Washington that needs to get down to dispensing with its fantasies about peace and love breaking out in the next few months.

• The Real Reason Don Imus War Fired...You thought it's because he went one slur too far? Tut tut tut. Americans are so naive and trusting.

• Pravda has the REAL story at http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/13-04-2007/89728-Don_Imus-0 The cleverer among our readers are no doubt suspecting Mr. Imus was fired because of 9/11. Give yourselves a pat. As for those of our readers who did NOT figure out, give yourself 10 lashes with a limp noodle.

0230 April 20, 2007

Due to a multi-state service outage we got our internet back late and can do only a short update.

• 24 Taliban Killed In Afghanistan in several incidents, reports CNN. Earlier, it was reported that Afghan government forces had cleared the Taliban off the Kabul highway, 70 km away from the capital in Kapisa Province. In their closest attack to the capital, the Taliban temporarily seized control of the road.

• Here is a caption from CNN, showing 2 artillery guns or howitzers in action in Afghanistan: "Canadian artillerymen offer support to frontline troops in Helmand province on Wednesday." Someone needs to tell CNN that artillery does not "offer" support. It fires in support of. Further, if the Canadians follow British convention, it would be better to say "Canadian gunners fire in support of". If CNN is unsure of the convention, better to say "Canadian artillery fires in support of".

• Incidentally, reader Marcopetroni sends a news item saying that Canada is to acquire about 100 Leopard A6s for Afghan service. The earlier versions of the Leopard that equip a Canadian tank squadron seem to be about ready for the scrap heap, and Canada, at least, has found tanks very useful in Afghanistan. It's not clear from the article if more tanks are to be sent.

• Iraqi Government Squandering Opportunity Surge Has Bought Reuters has an analysis saying that the Al-Maliki government is failing to move toward political reconciliation with the Sunnis and the Baathists. The window that the surge has bought is not being utilized; consequently, while the surge may succeed militarily, the real war, which is political, is in danger of being lost. The article is at http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSYAT94008520070419

• What bothers us about such analyses is not the facts - there is no dispute there, or that the Al-Maliki government is being portrayed as incompetent - no dispute here either. What's bothering is why do rational, intelligent, experienced men and women in Washington assume that the Shias want reconciliation with the Sunnis and the Baathists? Reconciliation holds no advantages for the Shias. They want revenge; the more forgiving just want the Sunnis gone.

• It seems to us that Washington - shades of Second Indochina - imposed its fantasies on the Iraqis and told Al-Malaki "reconcile or off we go" without any consideration for the realities. Faced with US ultimatums, Al-Maliki will navigate as best as he can between the demands of his people and the demands of his American sponsors, without actually going against what his people want.

• He obviously needs the Americans and will be gone if they withdraw support of him. But for him to do what the Americans want means his people will throw him out, if they don't kill him. So he's gone anyway, but in the first instance it's as a patriot, in the second it's as a traitor.

• Which course does Washington think he will take?
   

0230 April 19, 2007

• Nearly 200 Killed In Baghdad Bombings all of which seem to target the Shias. Prime Minister al-Malaki responds by ordering arrest of the Iraqi commander of the district where the greatest casualties took place, over 120 dead in a single car bomb explosion, for failing to protect the area.

• Really bright move, Mr. al-Malaki. We'd love to know, is the commander Sunni or Shia? And if you go around arresting your own commanders, how long before they arrest you?

• The attacks come on the same day as Mr. al-Maliki boasts how Iraq will take control of all provinces by end-2007. We say let him have control, and let's get the heck out of this swamp.

• Meanwhile, US Defense Secretary is on some trip overseas, bleating nonsense about the need for reconciliation and the need for various factions to get together. Well, we all need to be young, rich, and beautiful, but since when do we get to be all that just because we have the need? Mr. Gates sounds like a spoilt American teenager who "needs" this and "needs" that. How does he propose to reconcile Iraq's warring factions? Bore them to death with a list of his needs?

• The Red Mosques Promise President Musharraf Safe Passage if he wants to come and discuss this radical Islamic group's demands. The group is operating right in Pakistan's capital, which hitherto has hardly been famous as a hangout for fundamentalists.

• So let's reverse this situation. A fundamentalist Christian group sets up HQ in Washington DC, in armed compounds. Police cannot enter. It starts enforcing its retrogressive "laws". Women must be fully covered in public. Music cannot be sold or performed. Barbers cannot clean-shave clients. Liquor cannot be sold. Movie theatres must shut down. Etc. For every incident that is reported, there are 10 that are not because people are too frightened to oppose the fundamentalists.

• Then this group tells President Bush it is willing to give him safe passage to come discuss their demands. If their demands are not met, they are willing to start suicide bombing.

• Now, folks, under those circumstance would you say the President of the US is in control of his capital? And if he cannot control his capital, would you believe him when he says he controls the US?

• We wouldn't.

• Sudan Disguises Its Aircraft In UN Colors to transport troops and ammunition to Darfur, and in one case, to bomb civilians. Three bomb attacks were conducted in January by two UN-color An-26s. Three Mi-8 helicopters were also found operating in UN colors, according to a UN report. Dafur is under an international arms ban.

• Meanwhile, President Bush has rejected Sudan's acceptance of a 3000 troop UN force, insisting the full force of 17-20,000 is needed. Mr. Bush says he will give UN diplomacy one more chance but if that fails he will impose sanctions on Sudan.

• We applaud the US president's straight talk. In truth, if Russia, China, and to a lesser extent a renegade South Africa had not blocked the US in multilateral forums, Washington was prepared to act a long time ago.

• That China and Russia should act as they have is inexcusable, but understandable. But for South Africa to talk about "the need for dialog" with every African tyrant is an abomination. South Africa's independence was accelerated by international sanctions on the white government. After coming to power, the current president, instead of continuing the great legacy of Mr. Nelson Mandela, has become an enabler of African tyrants. Shame on him for bringing such disgrace on his people.

• 40% Of UN Peacekeepers Come From South Asia says the BBC, and as far as we are concerned, that is the way it should be. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh each contribute about 10,000 troops to UN missions, with Nepal, a much smaller country than the other three, sending about 3,000. With the exception of the US, UK, Australia, sometimes Canada, and now surprisingly the Dutch, the west has grown effete. South Asians are used to hard conditions, are without exception long-service professionals, and arrive without the cultural arrogance and baggage that western troops cannot seem to ditch. Compared to western troops, they are under equipped. Conversely, you don't need to spend the huge amounts of money per western soldier to sustain them in the field.

• Incidentally, while Orbat.com often advocates more US troops for peacekeeping operations, readers should know that as far as the other nations are concerned - and this means other western nations too - the US is best confined to providing money and support. The logistical demands of US troops are enormous, nothing is ever good enough, and the Americans insist on controlling everything in sight.

• We understand these objections, but still feel the US should do more for peacekeeping.

• By the way, its no use for Washington to say: "but we're providing 90% of the effort in Iraq" because just about no one in the world agrees the US should be in Iraq in the first place.  In Afghanistan the US is really the backbone of the entire operation and we have consistently attacked NATO for not doing more to help the US.

0230 April 18, 2007

• Sudan Accepts Limited UN Force It has agreed to 3000 UN troops to provide logistical, communications, intelligence, and air support ti the seriously overstretched 7000 African Union contingent. It has also agreed to accept 6 UN gunships that will escort aid and troop convoys.

• We are delighted that international pressure is finally starting to work on Sudan. We still believe the west dallied too long and should even now be intervening more forcefully. Nonetheless, at least something is being done. And please note: Sudan has oil, but the US/west is intervening against Sudan's interests.

• Iraqi Casualties [From London Times April 15, 2007] In the two months before the surge, there were 2871 civilians killed in Baghdad, in the two months after the surge, its 1586. That's the good news.

• The bad news is that in the two month period,  after the start of the surge, civilian casualties outside Baghdad are up 50%, and US troop deaths in Baghdad are up 21%.

• That's the nature of the counter-insurgency game: win some, lose some. If the US had at least double the number of brigades available, say 40, so that it could simultaneously fight in Baghdad, outside Baghdad, Anbar, South Iraq, and spare troops for the north, and if it could stay for 10 years at that level, we'd see some positive results. So that would only be $200-billion a year instead of $100-billion, and double the losses.

• We leave it to readers to figure the odds that the resources needed will be committed. And we leave it to them to figure out if that would be the best use of US resources in what is, after all, a global war.

• Pakistan Says It Has Handed Over 2000 Militants it captured to foreign countries, and that it has captured 4000 militants in all. we learn this from Pakistan's newspaper the Daily Jung.

• The Pakistani official giving these figures was trying to make the point Pakistan is cooperating with the west in fighting terror. Now, we don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but the obvious question must be asked: if 4,000 militants have been captured, it may reasonably be assumed that at least that many are still running around, if not more, because the situation in Afghanistan has gotten worse, not better.

• So why has Pakistan let so many militants operate from its territory? And how many more militants - this is the preferred term in South Asia for insurgents - have been trained, equipped, and supported by the Pakistanis? After all, its nor reasonable to expect Pakistan to be training them on the one hand and giving them over to the west on the other. The 4000 captured is from the "unapproved, unauthorized" militant lot.

• We hasten to add, as usual, that it is Pakistan's right to follow its own foreign policy in its own interests, and supporting the Taliban is a key component of Pakistan security.

• Letter From Spence who signs off as "A Vietnam vet who was NOT a hero, even after serving 3 tours": Thank you for re-defining the word/term Hero. I was beginning wonder if we, as a nation, had forgotten what a true Hero was. Very refreshing.

• Letter From Walter E. Wallis who served as an infantryman with the 2nd Infantry Division in the Korean War: I concur. The only two hero medals in my commo platoon were a Silver Star for Captain Walker, who died in the crash of a recon plane, and Nedza, who walked the wires at night looking for breaks. Whenever he came to a splice, he hooked on and rang both ways with a field phone. Some of the dead they are recovering from the Norks might be those guys who, against orders, zipped their fart sacks up all the way and were thus killed hopping down a hill in an obscene parody of a sack race. I still can't watch a sack race today.  What a silly way to die. I did my duty, I need no higher accolade.

0230 April 17, 2007

• Candidate John Edwards Is Just Wrong The senator says that "The McCain Doctrine of escalation has failed, and the bombing of the Iraqi parliament within the green zone makes that all too clear. John McCain is just wrong; it is time for America to start leaving Iraq."

• We want to make clear to readers we are in no way judging presidential candidate John Edwards or defending candidate senator John McCain. We too want America to start leaving Iraq. But Mr. Edwards is plain wrong on his reasoning.

• First, the surge is not the "McCain Doctrine". Mr. McCain carries no weight in Administration policy making. The Administration does not even particularly like him. It's others came up with the surge theory.

• Second, the Iraqi parliament bombing proves nothing except (a) its very hard to stop a man from killing when he is willing to die, and (b) Iraqi security is not what it should be. The good senator would do well to dwell on security lapses at the US Capitol before declaring the surge has failed.

• Third, how can the surge fail when it is just getting underway? This is like saying after Kasserine Pass 1942 that America had lost the war.

• OK, so a presidential candidate needs to come up with a sound-bite; it's said of both Mr. Al Gore and Mr. John Kerry that they talked too much and too long. There are, however, plenty of sound-bite issues in Iraq that do show why the US cannot win in Iraq, and may be a good place to start is with the Iraqis themselves.

• President Bush Is Wrong when he says America's soldiers are caught up in a struggle in Washington. He is again wrong when he says we owe it to the troops and our veterans to sanction the needed funds. He is wrong once again when he says we should do what the troops want, which is to finish the job.

• First, if President Bush at any point had actually had an Iraq strategy and executed it with reasonable competence, there would be no struggle in Washington. Indeed, Congress has been absolutely supine and has till very recently completely abdicated its role by refusing to enter a struggle with the Administration. Even know the Congressional democrats who want out are falling over each other in their cowardice. We completely agree with Senator McCain when he says those who feel US policy in Iraq is wrong should vote for an unconditional cut off of funds - and do it now. It's been done before - think Second Indochina, 1975.

• Second, our troops and our veterans is in no way an excuse to continue a failed policy. The troops are simply a tool of state policy. we've said before: if President Bush keeps reopening this can of worms, he is simply undercutting himself because others will answer: "We DO support our troops. Bring them home, because this a war without focus, aims, strategy, purpose, or even sensible tactics. It is a war that America cannot win."

• Last, we honestly don't know who on the President's staff comes up with these mindless sayings, but we must do what the troops want is about the stupidest we've heard in a long time. This is not about what the troops want or don't want. This is about what's in America's interests. This is not a bunch of people who volunteered for Iraq and are causing no drain on the exchequer. This is America's army, sent where the President ordered it, into a war without purpose and at tremendous cost to the country. This army needs to be recalled home so that it can be rebuilt, and so that it can be redeployed on a sensible basis to clearly defined missions in the Global War On Terror.

• If the President doesn't believe us, let's suggest a simple test which can, at least,  resolve the matter of what the troops want. Let the President declare: "From today, Iraq duty will be only for those who want to serve in Iraq, and when those of you who do volunteer want to come home, we'll bring you home."

• Anyone want to bet how many troops will say they want to stay to finish the job? By the way, before he sent them to Iraq, did the President ask how many wanted to go? Since he ordered the troops there without consideration for their wants, he can just as well order them back without consideration for these hypothetical wants, which are Mr. Bush's own wants, not those of America's soldiers.

• Every Serviceperson Is NOT A Hero We were surprised to read, the other day, that the legal definition of genocide can be applied to the killing of just one person. To use genocide like this is to so completely devalue the term as to make it useless.

• So it is with the term "hero", which is much in vogue in America after 9/11. Our ire today is specifically triggered by a comment in some media source - we forget which - where the person writing in said that Texas Governor Bill Richardson had gone to DPRK to recover the bodies of America's heroes.

• If everyone who serves in the military becomes a hero simply by virtue of having served, why don't we give them a medal for heroism right when they enlist at the recruiting office?

• We have news for those who think every serviceperson is a hero: the vast, vast majority of servicepeople are simply doing their job. The word hero is reserved for those who perform some extraordinary act. A person who wins a Medal of Honor, for example, is honored because he has acted "above and beyond the call of duty".

• When you are a soldier, whether a draftee or a volunteer, it is your duty to fight. That doesn't make you a hero, it just means you're doing your job.

0230 April 16, 2007

• Usual Mayhem In Iraq Lots of suicide bombings including several in Baghdad. 30 bodies found from killings Saturday night. Quite serious is the Friday bombing in Karbala, 60 dead. The bombings seem to be targeting Shias.

• Meanwhile, Al-Sadr is miffed with his Prime Minister because the latter is refusing to let some of Al-Sadr's thugs go. Which is really to say the Americans won't let them go and aren't listening, in this case, to the Prime Minister. Left to himself he has no interest in arresting anyone belonging to Al-Sadr's Mahadi Army.

• To show his displeasure, Al-Sadr has ordered his party out of the coalition. He controls six ministries. Personally, we are not sure if he really means to quit. Our instincts say he is staging a drama, and will "allow" himself to be "persuaded" by the Prime Minister to return.

• The target of the drama will be the Prime Minister - it's a warning to him not to get too close to the Americans. It will also be directed at the Americans. Al-Malaki will now tell the Americans "how can I govern with a minority? In any case the man is more dangerous out of the government than in, where at least we can an eye on him. I have to ease up on him."

• Ah, the joys of Iraq and its politics.

• First 4th generation Russian SSBN Launched It is the first Russian strategic missile submarine launched in 17 years. The first of the new Borei class - two others are under construction - the boat should commission in 2008. It carries 12 SLBMs.

• ITAR-Tass says the cost of construction was 16 billion rubles, which is approximately $540-million. Additionally there will be the cost of the missiles, and the pro-rata shipyard costs. ITAR-Tass speaks of ~$950-million as sanctioned for the boat.

• This is a whacking great amount of money given that Russian wages are much less than the US's - also, of course, worker productivity is less. Nonetheless, the noteworthy aspect of the launch is that Russia now has the ability to spend serious money reequipping its armed forces. A lot of Russia's high rate of GNP growth has been fuelled by high oil prices, as Russia is a big hydrocarbon exporter. Those 12 missiles - and the 24 on the boats under construction, with more to come - will have the US as their primary target.

• Lets keep using more and more oil, folks, and drive prices ever higher. No need for energy independence. First America helped fund enemies like Iran. Then it was Venezuela. Now we are helping Russia. Keep up the good work, Washington.

• Why Americans May Not Be Reacting To High Gasoline Prices Stuck in traffic at the petrol pump the other day, waiting to fill up with near $3.00/gallon gasoline - $2.91 to be exact, in Silver Springs, Maryland, your editor did a few sums in his head which might explain why Americans are not freaking out at the now routine prospect of $3 gasoline.

• First, of course, the price is up because of the usual refinery problem, not because oil has gone up this year.

• Second, take a typical $30,000 car - not unreasonable if you count financing costs - that is good for 150,000 miles and for which you get - say $4000 - back when you sell it. Add $500/year for insurance, and assume $750/year for repairs after the warranty period, including body damage.

• You're look at - roughly - 30 cents a mile. At 20 mpg, $3 gasoline is only 15 cents a mile additional. At $2 gasoline you pay 40 cents a mile; at $3 you pay 45 cents a miles, at $4 gasoline you pay 50 cents a mile. So when you go from $2/gallon gasoline to $4/gallon, you are increasing your total driving cost only 25%.

• We suspect rather than buy smaller cars, Americans will merely drive a bit less. The non-essential mileage driven in the US is phenomenal.

• What about $5 gasoline? Okay, maybe people will eat out at McDonald's a couple of times less each month. Maybe they'll cut back on beer and smoke fewer cigarettes. Or buy a little bit less by way of clothes, which after housing, medical, transportation, and food is the biggest budget item for a typical American household.

• People will feel poorer, of course, and many will be seriously hurt. We've assumed 10-12,000 miles driven per vehicle per year. A lot of Americans will laugh at that as being ridiculously low. But overall, its hard to see how much $5 gasoline will persuade Americans to make major changes in their automobile use, particularly if the price keeps going up a few cents a a time.

• Now were it to go up suddenly to $5 a gallon, Americans would be ready to invade Saudi Arabia or Venezuela or whoever they feel is the villian.

0230 April 15, 2007

• This Is Iraq Washington Post does a feature article disguised as a news report on the falling out between Al-Qaeda and various Sunni groups in Anbar province. There's nothing in the feature, but it does rather nicely condense the main combatant groups in Iraq. So let's [lunge into things.

• In Anbar, Sunnis and AQ fight the Americans. The Sunnis and AQ fight each other. Sunni groups fight each other when turf is involved and AQ groups are known to have it out with each other periodically.

• In the south, Shia groups kill each other. They work together to kill Brits. aside from the two man groups, Mahadi Army and SICRI, who are at constant loggerheads, you have so many local groups who fight each other than short of spending a few weeks in the South, you aren't even going to get a good list and description of them. while there are criminal groups all over Iraq, they seem to be particularly active in the South, which because it was/is protected by a weak British contingent and assorted allies who are noteworthy only for the speed with which they seem to evacuate, has no law and no order.

• In Baghdad, as well as immediately south and north, Shias fight Sunnis and Americans, Sunnis fight Shias and Americans, and Americans fight Shias and Sunnis. In you are a Venn diagram sort of person, there is a nice symmetry to this.

• In Kurdistan, the Shias and Sunnis are at it, the Kurds are fighting the Turkamen, and Turkey is just itching to get openly involved. It is covertly involved because it is fighting Kurd rebels based in Iraq and is maneuvering against Kurds in general because it wants to protect its interests. The interesting thing about the north is that the Americans are minor players. There are few of them to begin with, and the Kurds want the Americans present. The Kurds are also working against the "Arabs" - read local Sunnis and Shias who are newcomers to the area. There is no wholesale slaughter because none is neccessary. A warning to leave town, the handover of bundles of cash to enable the newly dispossessed to start a fresh somewhere else, and the job is done.

• So then you have the Iranians, who are simultaneously: funding Sunni groups who kill Americans, the Mahadi Army which fights the Americans and SICRI - the Iranians accept that as collateral damage, they are SICRIs major backers. In the midst of this there are assorted folks from all over the world - Palestinians of all factions, Lebanese, and Muslims of every persuasion. You have the Syrians who are arming Sunnis.

• Now, within each group except possibly SICRI's Badr Brigades there are splinter groups who bash away at each other, and cooperate with each other. On top of that you have splinter groups from splinter groups.

• Let's not forget the Iraqi security forces. One day they are loyally fighting for Iraq, let's not be mean and bring up the unpleasant reality they seem to fight only when the Americans basically force them into a situation where they have to get off their fat behinds. They get half-way decent salaries and perks sitting in their barracks and police stations, who in their right mind is going to want to get out and get killed, and for what? The next day they are loyally killing Sunnis, who after all, just happen to also be Iraqis. Of note: the Iraqi security forces have no beef with the Kurds because the forces are predominantly Shia, and as far as the Shia is concerned, they prefer to leave everyone alone who will leave them alone. They are not leaving the Sunnis alone because the Sunnis wont simply pack up and go to their dominant provinces. With the Kurds, is all wuv and kissies.

• It's a very jolly scene. Basically you have to have no agenda other than wanting to kill someone else, the rationalizations of why X is fighting Y sound, to us at least, awfully forced.

• So Orbat.com's question is: do the Americans really think they can create a stable Iraq? and if they do, when are they sending Vice President Cheney to Iraq to start applying his formidable managerial skills to finding a solution?

• V-22 Osprey For Iraq Deployment with VMM-263 in the fall. The Osprey shows what's right and what's wrong with American weapons development.

• There can be no question but it's a marvelous aircraft: 24 troops or 5 tons cargo delivered at 220-knots over 250-miles. It flies like a helicopter when needed, and like a fixed wing aircraft when needed. Helicopters don't do well out of ground effect. Because they fly lower, and because the troop carriers in particular are slow, they are vulnerable in ways the Osprey is not. And we're told it's a pretty quiet aircraft - a good quality for everyday missions as much as for special operations.

• Conversely - time to give a big gulp - it costs $100-million per unit, and took 18 years/$20-billion to develop. That's even though the Bell XV-15 validated the basic technology - and that began development in 1971.

• Now, admittedly modern aircraft, even military ones, fly for very many more years than was the case a generation ago. They can be kept updated at a small fraction of the original cost (constant dollars). Nonetheless, $100-million a pop - without R and D costs - is serious bucks.

• The situation is worsened because each time program costs escalate, DOD cuts back on units to be procured, so the cost per unit shoots up even more. The reason the US could produce F-4s at a current year cost of $18-million was that aircraft in the 1960s were run off in the thousands of units - and the F-4, at $3-million a unit, was a huge advance over its predecessors, and the price was considered a huge price. Now-a-days people don't turn a hair at $400-million fighters - that's your F-22 Raptor including pro-rated R and D. Instead of the original planned 750, the US is buying 180.

• Okay, so we are familiar with the arguments: not even America's previous top-of-the-line fighter, the F-15, can fight the F-22, doesn't matter if you put 20 F-15s up against 4 F-22s, since the F-15 doesn't get to see the F-22 in the first place.

• But if we follow this logic, at what point do you stop? The B-2 costs $2-billion a unit, and yes, there is nothing in the world like a B-2. But there's only 16 of them in two squadrons. People can come up with all kinds of fancy graphs to show how 16 B-2s can do the job that 100 B-52s or whatever can do, but the point is, there are only sixteen of them. We don't know the mission rate, but its unlikely to be better than one sortie every 72 hours. For one thing the critters have to be kept in the US because the maintenance is so complicated. True, they have no problem flying half-way around the world and putting a 2000-lb bomb through the bathroom window of the dictator you want eliminated, but there are just a very few available at any time. And if you should lose a couple, it's going to be equivalent of losing a battleship 70 years ago in terms of your capability.

• CIA and Cuba: Letter From Dean Brunkhardt Part of the problem leading to an unclear picture may also be the damage from Ana Montes, a DIA employee, arrested in 2001 for being a Cuban spy.
  While over six years ago, any operations the US may have had to gain information would have been rolled up or exploited by the Cubans in their favor.

• Editor's note True. Of course, good intel networks are set up to take into account you are going to get busted. If you have limited personpower, and you are relying on high-tech, the damage caused by an Ana Montes can be very serious. In this case the problem, however, is not Ms. Montes.

• She was undoubtedly a valuable spy for Cuba, possibly the most important Cuba has had in the US. But while being senior as opposed to being junior does give you access to more information, even senior people are very restricted in what they know and what they can get to. This is a neccessary safeguard in the spy biz, but readers can immediately see the converse problems its creates. Ms. Montes would have had no access to the CIA network - we are dignifying what the CIA has on Cuba is a network, but it's sort of like Ms. Plame claiming she ran a network. Ms. Montes got only 25 years - and that's a fair indication of her importance.

• Aggravating the many problems the US has had with its Cuba intel - and we are not even going to mention the virulent, destructive cancer the exile community has proven to be in this area - is that just because the Cubans are 3rd worlders doesn't mean they are not very, very good at counter-espionage. The thing is that most Cubans really believe in their revolution, and people at the top or in important posts just cannot be seduced by the usual material and psychological blandishments offered to to spies.

• Cuba would not be an easy target even if the US had not run down its human intelligence assets. But the rundown just makes a bad situation worse. To crack Cuba you need innovative solutions. Orbat.com has them. But innovation and spying are not words you see in the same volume. There are reasons for this - we are not running down traditional spies. In the corporate world, if your business model is not working you either innovate or you go out of business. Intelligence organizations are funded by governments and are self-perpetuating bureaucracies. They neither innovate nor go out of business.

• [We don't mean to be cheeky in our claims: Orbat.com is very good at certain types of intelligence. There are many types of intelligence we simply could not obtain under any circumstances. For some stuff you need the CIA and DIA and NSA and so on. These organizations really do serve an important purpose. And readers can take your editor as being objective when he says that - he has no association with any such organization, never will, and gains nothing by flattering anyone who belongs to them.]

0230 April 14, 2007

• Iraq Parliament Bombing: Only 1 Dead The confusion arose because a number of people could not be accounted for after the explosion. Turns out they has simply run for safety or were treated for injuries.

• We again suggest readers not read anything into the fact of the bombing. These things happen. Of much greater significance, however, is the bombing of a bridge between Sunni and Shia areas of Baghdad. The bridge, from British times, was brought down by a truck-load of explosives. In a city split by a river, the loss of any major bridge is a serious matter, moreover, it's the ease with which it was brought down is grounds for concern. Again, however, let's not make too much of it at this stage: let's see if such attacks are repeated.

• Castro Said To Resume Informal Control Of Government according to media. The US had convinced itself he was as good as dead, and he clearly is still far from fully functional. This is again a case where we shall simply have to wait and see what happens.

• While the Cubans have done a superb job of hiding whatever is wrong with the old dictator, we are concerned that again the US is caught with such poor intelligence on a vital matter - and Cuba is a hop away from Florida, not halfway around the world. While clearly US human intelligence has rebounded from the nadir of the Clinton era - in 1993 the CIA hired - get this - just 7 new operatives for the Operations side - just as clearly the situation remains very bad.

• It is not as if the CIA doesn't get enough volunteers. We are told that it gets many times the number of applications it needs, and pretty much always did. The issues are three. One, who in his right mind wants to work for the CIA. Two, the middle level, the people with 15-25 years of solid working experience, are in very short supply for a number of reasons. Three, it takes years - and very steady middle level people - to produce capable agents.

• We have several times offered to help out the CIA by doing for it routine military intelligence gathering. That would free up many people for more vital jobs. We've pointed out what one case officer costing between $300-$500,000 annually to maintain in the field including overhead, can do, we can do for a tenth of the price, and do it better. But do you think anyone has even bothered to get back to us even once? Not a chance.

• For some reason people react very badly when you tell them: "Hey, we can do the spying for you." What is the big deal here? Spying is just a job like another job, whatever people in the business might want to believe. You either have an aptitude for it or you don't.

• Of course, if you're talking about the operations side, yes, that is a big deal. But we're not offering to help the CIA or anyone out with that, obviously. Some people may get off riding around in the middle of the desert on a camel with a bunch of locals who smell so bad that even the camel objects. Your editor does not get off on that. Three squares, two baths with change into clean clothes, and to end the day a nice cozy freshly made bed with clean linen, 5 soft pillows, a good book and his Teddy Bears - that is your editor's minimum requirement. If someone can guarantee that in the desert, well, your editor is willing to give operations a shot even though he's a senior citizen now.

• Japan Constitutional Amendment On Military Use Advances says BBC. The Diet's lower house has approved the amendment that will allow broader use of the military overseas, and it goes now to the upper house. After that, a referendum is needed.

• We are delighted to hear all this. Japan has gotten off from fulfilling its obligations for far too long - no military action please, we're Japanese. So now that the Japanese are willing to contemplate broader use of its military, there is just one small problem. What military? Where military? How military? If you want to call what essentially amounts to a dozen brigades and regiments - the Japanese call them "divisions" and "brigades" - an army, then Japan has an army. But that's really stretching the meaning of the word "army". Japan is a country of 130-million people and a $4-trillion GDP. Let's try and get a little serious here, folks.

• [OK, so we're quite aware Japan has a fairly respectable navy. But that's because the Royal and French Navies have been reduced to bathtub fleets, not because Japan has much of a navy, aside from its long range MR/ASW capability, which is the second largest in the world.]

0230 April 13, 2007

• Iran Government Seizes US Embassy In Teheran - no Americans are present as the two countries have no diplomatic relations. An Iranian businessman was awarded $550-million by an Iranian court in a judgment against the US government. The report is from Times London.

• He was abducted in the Bahamas in 1992 by US customs agents in a sting operation as he was trying to buy parts in Florida for the Libyan gas industry, which was under US embargo. He spent 105 days in a US jail. In his defense he argued - we would assume successfully - that the embargo did not apply to non-US citizens operating outside the US. Common sense would appear to support his defense.

• Ironically, says Times London, he is an advocate of improved US-Iran ties and runs a non-profit in Cyprus that organized a meeting between a former US embassy hostage and a former student who was one of the hostage takers. He argues that the seizure of the US Embassy - worth $200-million - should not complicate Iran-US relations because, after all, US courts have awarded damages to US citizens held hostage in Iran, and have frozen Iranian assets. He expects the property to be transferred to his name any day.

• We have a 3-fold reaction to this news. First is amusement that the US is getting a taste of its own tactics. The Iranian person brought and lost a case for damages in a Florida court; if his story as he tells it is true, then certainly there should have been consequences. You can't go around kidnapping foreigners outside the US because you have a funky interpretation of US laws.

• Second, however, we would be a lot more impressed if the Iranian government were in the habit of entertaining lawsuits brought against it for violations of Iranian laws and human rights. As far as we know, no Iranian or foreigner has won a judgment against the Iran government for abuse of power - we doubt any Iranian has even brought a case. After all, this is a government that locks you up for simply asking for your rights - as happened recently top several women.

• Third, we'll believe it when we see it: pardon us for being skeptical, but we just don't see the Iranian government allowing this man to sell the property on the market and retire on his investment income. We suspect this is a sham acted out for propaganda.

• So in the one-upmanship division, Iran scores. Knowing 3rd worlders as we do, we have no doubt Iran's actions are being wildly applauded all over the world, and that many are very pleased Uncle Sam is getting a taste of what he gives. Great, wonderful, and so on. But that doesn't change the reality that the Iranian government is a lawless one at home.

• As for what Iran does abroad, we will not criticize it. Countries do what they have to to protect their security interests. The US has since the end of the Second World War been second to none in violating the laws of other countries to protect/expand its military interests, and that's fine with us too.

• 8 Die In Baghdad Parliament Suicide Bombing Frankly, we are not inclined to make a big deal about this. The parliament is in the Green Zone, and security within is a joint Iraqi-US responsibility. The Iraqis are 3rd worlders: where you have Iraqi security, you are going to get serious breaches.

• Expanding The Army James Freemon sends a quote: "According to statistics compiled by West Point, of the 903 Army officers commissioned upon graduation in 2001, nearly 46 percent left the service last year -- 35 percent at the conclusion of their five years of required service, and another 11 percent over the next six months. And more than 54 percent of the 935 graduates in the class of 2000 had left active duty by this January, the statistics show.

• The figures mark the lowest retention rate of graduates after the completion of their mandatory duty since at least 1977, with the exception of members of three classes in the late 1980s who were encouraged to leave as the military downsized following the end of the Cold War."
• Mr. Freemon thinks an Army expansion without conscription is infeasible, and we agree. Given US societal conditions, a volunteer wartime army likely cannot be manned. Further, there is a philosophical objection to so doing. Why should the burden of defending the country fall solely to those who are patriotic or those who have few other options but to join the military?
• When the US population was 150 million, possibly 1,000,000 males came of military age each year - we leave the exact figures to demographers. The draft period was two years, and given that many males were unfit, and given the size of the armed forces, the draft was reasonable equitable.
• Today we would have to also draft women, and with a population of 300-million - the 3rd largest in the world - perhaps 4.5-million males/females would reach military age. Even with the enormous percentage of unfit youngsters we have today, there is no way in which - say arbitrarily - 1.5 million draftees a year are required.
• So we'd have to draft youngsters to perform national service, much of which would not be military.
• Anyhows, it is not Orbat.com's intent to get involved in a debate about how a draft would be conducted. Our point is simple. The US has 2 choices. (1) Draft so that the military has adequate manpower for the wars of the 21st Century. (2) Stay all-volunteer but then limit involvement in manpower-intensive wars to sustainable level, which likely equates to a 12-month tour every four years. This option means accepting Iraq has to be partitioned, and leaving only a small force to protect the Sunnis and the Kurds.
• Whichever way one looks at it, Mr. Rumsfeld's force transformation has proved a bust. To begin with it was based on an astounding misunderstanding of modern warfare. The notion that you can have small ground forces primarily picking out targets for air forces was deeply flawed. It has been said a nauseating number of times: air forces cannot occupy ground. Anyone who thinks wars can be won without occupying ground is dreaming. On top of that, Mr. Rumsfeld decided to get into a counter insurgency - which is very manpower intensive and which his transformed force could not possibly handle - without increasing manpower.
• The US cannot continue making bad choices and avoiding unpleasant realities if it wants to be the global hegemon. Either the US gives up its plan to be the world's sole superpower, or it makes the sacrifices needed to attain the goal.

• Don Imus Has Been Fired for making racially disparaging and misogynist comments about a college women's basketball team. Fair enough. Now can we also fire African-American leaders who make anti-Jewish comments, and anyone of any race who spews vicious anti-women garbage 24/7 on the public airwaves? Should we not also be demanding an advertiser boycott of any company that makes money on so-called rap music? Orbat.com is not holding its breath.

0230 April 12, 2007

• AQ Linked Group Claims Algiers Bombings that leave 30 dead. This is the same group that has been killing innocent people for years, but last year it decided to ally with Al Qaida and now calls itself "Al Qaida in the Mahgreb" or just AQIM. A rather grand title for a bunch of cowardly murderers, but that's AQ for you.

• US Army Extends Overseas Tours to 15-Months Against all sense, instead of expediting an expansion of the Army to get more combat brigades, the US Army has decided to add yet another burden to its already overburdened troops. They will now have the joy of having their tours extended by 90 days.

• The US SecDef gave the usual blather and idiot-speak when he justified this as being "fair" because right now some units get extended and some don't. It will give more stability to the soldiers' families says this man. The families are already under terrible strain, so we don't see how adding to the pressure is stabilizing anyone.

• In a sense it's no point our beating up Mr. Gates, who from everything we can see is a mildly intelligent and enormously decent man. If the generals would ask for a major expansion, they would get it. But the generals don't want an expansion because they fear additional troop costs will take away money from the stupendously expensive weapons programs they want.

• Now, we love stupendously expensive weapons as much as the next person. The problem is, the war the US Army is engaged in and is likely to stay engaged in for at least two generations does not require fancy weapons. It requires what the Brits call "the poor bloody infantry". The reason Iraq is lost is not because there was any shortage of weapons, advanced or otherwise. It was lost because there were not, are not, and will be not enough troops.

• Here They Go Again: US Wraps Up Another Battle Adjacent To Haifa Street Once more into the breach dear friends...We don't know which number battle this is for the Fahdil locality, just off Haifa street. The US provided the cordon, and the Iraqi Army went in to clear out the insurgents and did so, according to media reports. Peace reigns, we are told. Congratulations, another neighborhood secure.

• Well, far it be for us to attack someone else's fantasies, we have plenty of our own. The reality is that the insurgents are NOT cleared out. Even the US Army was unwilling to get into the localities and slug it out in an urban warfare environment where the enemy occupies every house and can booby-trap every door and fire hydrant and shop-front. All that has happened is the US now controls a few key road junctions and such. It looks great on a map. It means nothing in reality. The insurgents will continue to get resupplied and reinforced. All that has happened is they have paused to regroup and reassess - this is the Iraqi style, they do not fight prolonged actions. Falluja was different because the US boxed the insurgents inside Fallujah and plainly stated either they surrender or they will be killed. You cannot box anyone into any district of Baghdad with the measly force the US is deploying - counting the surge.

• As for handing off to the Iraqis: the area is Sunni majority, the Iraqi Army would just love to take charge. Then it can continue killing Sunnis.

• Incidentally, it appears this new operation was made possible because of the arrival of another batch of troops in Baghdad.

• Also incidentally, please note again the neighborhood is in Central Baghdad, just 3-4 miles from the Green Zone. Four years into the war we're still fighting in Central Baghdad. At least it wasn't Haifa Street which runs through the Green Zone. That appears to be "secure" after the fighting some weeks ago. Though we don't really know for sure.

India's Maoist Insurgents I

• Just a basic sketch today. There are large parts of rural India where caste-based feudalism is well and alive. The lower-castes and landless, empowered by systematic affirmative action by the federal government for close on six decades, long ago understood they have rights in free India. In many parts of India, the Northwest, for example, change has come more or less peacefully - we exclude the Punjab insurgency because otherwise things get too complicated to explain.

• In other parts of India, rural landlords and feudal interests have been fighting back by organizing private militias and doing what they need to keep the upstarts down.

• The Maoist insurgency is a counter-reaction to the feudalist counter-action. The Maoists are dedicated, well-organized, and most important, do not hesitate to use terror to persuade those who might otherwise want to be left alone to support them.

• Why Maoists? Well, this is a bit complicated. Suffice it to say the Indian Maoists, like the Nepal Maoists, seem not to have heard that Communism is dead. We'll have to leave this for another day.

• When the editor left India, 17 years ago, the Maoists were a definite problem. But now, the Maoist insurgency has spread to about a third of India's districts. [A district is the equivalent of a US county.] That makes it sound a lot worse than it is; nonetheless, the Indian Prime Minister has officially said the insurgency is the worst security threat India has faced in 60 years - which also makes it sound worse than it is but we'll have to leave that for another day.

• From the government's side, the difficulty is that India is a vastly underpoliced state. We need to be clear that's not the government saying that: the Indian government has few thoughts on any subject. That's your editor saying that, based on analyses he made years ago. For example, the total paramilitary force available for a country of 1.1-billion is 600,000 - and most of that is dedicated to border security, not to back up the local police forces. We don't know the latest Chinese figures for their PAP, but at one time the Chinese had 3-million paramilitary troops for backing up local police.

• Indian police forces are organized on a state basis. The numbers are inadequate to begin with, and training/equipment is always quite basic. The Maoist insurgency has been dealt with at a state level. There is no way state police forces can deal with any real insurgency. For that you need the military. Because the military constantly objects to this role, which it says is not its job, some years ago the Indian government raised a specialized CI force called the Rashtriya Rifles. In the event, the RR found itself deployed mainly in Jammu and Kashmir, and though now that insurgency is winding down, there are only 66 battalions. The RR, incidentally, is completely manned and officered by the Army - we aren't going to explain the paradox at this time.

• In the Northeast, India has from British days the Assam Rifles, officered by the Army but with the men recruited directly. This force does yeoman duty in the Northeast states, but - like all Indian paramilitary forces - despite expansion it still remains much too small for its mission. Neither the RR or the Assam Rifles is in any position to spare battalions for the Maoists.

• India will have to devise new structures and new tactics to defeat the Maoists. The government has a terrible habit of letting things slide till one day there is a real problem and then it does something about the problem. Your editor has a simple yardstick by which to judge the efficacy of Indian insurgent movements. Is the movement sufficiently dangerous that the government gets its act together and does something? In the case of the Maoists, the clear answer is no. Its a huge problem - like drugs are a huge problems for the US - but not enough of a problem that the government feels a drastic need to act decisively.

• A last thought for today. Why does India have so many domestic insurgencies? India is a very old civilization, but as a modern country it is only 60 years old. When the country became independent, 90% existed as India has always existed: within traditional structures of caste, which underpinned Indian feudalism. As with all feudal systems, there was relative peace because people "knew their place". But with modernization, globalization, mediaization, capitalism and so on no one keeps to their place. The mechanisms for peaceful adjustment to the modern world function most of the time. But they break down all too often, and then you get people who feel violence is the only recourse. Americans familiar with Mexico, which is undergoing the same process as India even though it has been independent for far longer, should be able to understand the reason for India's insurgencies. Ditto for much of Latin America - which has been independent for over 150 years, or almost 3 times longer than India.

• We realize true experts on India's insurgencies will be gnashing their teeth at our simplistic summary. But we have to start somewhere. The real experts could help by enlightening us.

0230 April 11, 2007

• So The Turks Are Very Angry when a Kurd leader said that if Turkey intervenes against Iraqi Kurds the Kurds can retaliate throughout Turkish cities. So what gives the Turks the right to threaten Iraqi Kurds with invasion should the latter decide to become independent?

• Australia To Send More Troops To Afghanistan Its 300-man SF force sent earlier then pulled back for rest and training is to return, and more support troops/Air Force personnel are to be added. The deployment will go up from about 550 to just short of 1000.

• Pakistan Sectarian Fighting between Sunnis and Shias in an area of the North West Frontier Province continues for the 5th day. This is separate from the heavy clashes between South Waziristan tribals and foreign Taliban fighters. Times London has a good summary background of that confrontation http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1637170.ece

• Not that anyone is interested, but for years your editor has been trying to warn the Indians about the rising tide of fundamentalism in Pakistan. He has been repeatedly told that he is mistaken and that fundamentalism is a problem only in some areas and cannot be a threat to Pakistan or to India. We wonder how the Indians will explain the rise of the Lal Masjid - literally Red Mosque - a fundamentalist group that is forcing people even in Islamabad, the nation's modern capital, to adhere to its fundamentalist rules.

• India's Maoist Insurgents We haven't forgotten our promise to start covering this topic. We'd been trying to educate ourselves and also Dr. Aminesh Roul, an expert on Indian terror, is writing a piece for us. He has provided links to background articles which we will put up shortly.

We Don't Know Don Imus, Nor Do We Care. But...

• Sometimes we're forced to remember that the threat to America comes not just from Osama and Islamic fanatics, but also from Americans themselves.

• Take the case of  radio talk host Don Imus. Your editor has never heard this gentleman and nor does he want to. Your editor listens to 3 radio stations: 2 classical and 1 Christian evangelist, and Mr. Imus is not part of his universe.

• So why are we about to defend this man? Best to read on.

• Mr. Imus referred on radio to a players on US college women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos". "Nappy" is how some Americans refer to African-American hair, and "ho" comes from whore.

• Your editor lived and or worked in a predominantly African-American Washington environment for ten years in the 1990s, and is back in it, in a school that is 70% African-American, 30% Hispanic, and the handful of whites there are a rounding error. He has never heard an African-American refer to "Nappy" hair. As for the word "ho", he hears the word about 100 times a day - used by his African-American students aged 14-16 for African-American girls and women.

• Now, your editor has honorary Niggership status awarded by his students. Some call him "Mr. Nigger, Sir" - your editor insists on the "Mister" and "Sir" as students must be polite to their teacher. Your editor does not mind being called Mr. Nigger. He is also called "Mr. Dog, Sir" - politeness always. He does not mind. But not in a million years would your editor refer to any of students, however affectionately, as "Nigger" or "Dog", because he is not black.

• Perhaps it escaped Mr. Imus's attention that by accepted American convention any ethnic group can slur itself, but however common the slur, another ethnic group cannot use the slur. It may not be logical, but its kind of a basic rule of politeness.

• We completely, totally, 300% understand why many African-Americans are incensed a white person would refer to a predominantly African-American women's sports team as "Nappy-headed hos".

• It does not, however, follow that Mr. Imus should be fired from his job for his racist and misogynist comments. In case those who want him fired haven't read the US Constitution, there is nothing in that august document that confers a right not to be offended.

• Now, we don't want to go overboard here. We do not think the people wanting Mr. Imus fired are as dangerous to American freedom as Osama and gang. Neither do we think there is an absolute right of free speech.

• But if we are going to punish people just for speech, then we'd like those demanding Mr. Imus's head explain one thing to us. By what moral standard can Americans then turn around and criticize Muslim countries for censoring speech? After all, isn't a parody of the Prophet just as hurtful, if not more, to Muslims as Mr. Imus's comments were to African American women? Particularly as there is absolutely no evidence that Mr. Imus is a racist?

• If words alone make one racist and misogynist, what will African-Americans wanting Mr. Imus thrown out make of the editor's 70 odd 9th Graders, African-American and Hispanic? They constantly, casually, make racist remarks about whites.  The level of abuse his male students direct at the girls is staggering in its intensity

• Please don't say "But Mr. Imus spoke on the public airwaves." Your editor teaches in a public school. By law all of us - students and teachers alike - cannot make racist or gender-oriented comments. We can't talk about God, either.  Olease don't say "But your students are kids". Even if you say they are kids, there is a case to be made that it's far worse if kids express racism and misogyny constantly. Further, the kids are only echoing their parents.

• Two weeks ago three of your editor's Hispanic students were writing: "Down with gringos". Your editor had to point out that among the shadings to the word gringo is the connotation of northerner, north of the Rio Grande, American, Yankee etc. He reminded the three they were all born in the United States. Their cousins south of the Colorado could accurately call them gringos. Oh, and were the editor's students referring to American whites as "gringos"? No-no-no-no they were not. They have no hassles with whites - for that matter few interactions with whites. They were referring to their African-American classmates.

0230 April 10, 2007

• Consider The Irony II So Iraq's leading terrorist, Al-Sadr, has his followers stage a protest in Najaf against the US "occupation". So had there not been a US "occupation", Saddam would still have ruled. So likely the first time this gutter rat raised his head to peek outside his sewer, Saddam would have had him killed because Saddam did not tolerate opposition.
• Consider the Irony Part II The US has for some time labeled Al-Sadr the most dangerous man in Iraq. We labeled him that well before the US military. While he's out there being dangerous, 30+ members of his political party are part of the Iraqi government. The Iraqi PM doesn't consider Al-Sadr dangerous but rather a loyal and key partner. So while this murderer is out killing Iraqis and Americans alike, your tax dollars and your family members, dear reader, are out there helping him do that. Apparently this irony escapes those in the US administration who want to continue the war.
• Consider the Irony Part III Many - if not most - Americans who opposed/oppose the war believe Mr. Bush attacked Iraq because he represents oil interests. Well, Reuters reports the first oil exploration contracts have been given, and nary an American company to be seen. Further, the Iraqi government says it wants American countries involved in the oil industry.
• Now, we don't know if expected personal profit from Iraqi oil concessions drove US decision makers. It seems to us the real profit is being made by the contractor firms. Something approaching $200-billion will have gone to them by 2009, 5 years into the war. We have no hard figures, we're guesstimating, but consider there are probably as many contractors in the theatre as US troops, and by end of Fiscal 2009 the US will have spent $600-billion for Iraq - that's outside the regular military budget. So our figure would appear reasonable.
• Anyways, here's one reason American firms have not seriously bid for oil exploration rights: there is no security in any part of Iraq. The people who have won the bids are from China, Vietnam, India. These are poor countries, and security or not, their companies will have no shortage of engineers and workers willing to work in Iraq.
• Consider the Irony Part IV  Among the iconic photographs from the heady days of Gulf II is one of a heavily muscled man swinging a sledgehammer at Saddam's statue in Firdaus Square. This the same statue that a US tank helped pull down - and if we recall right, the young US soldier who was featured all over the world in photographs was later killed on another tour. But that isn't the irony.
• The Washington Post has an article about the Iraqi man. He runs, as he did before the war, a motorcycle shop where he serviced and traded Harleys. He says: "We got rid of a tyrant and tyranny. But we were surprised that after one thief had left, another 40 replaced him." He now wishes for a return to the Saddam era. Here's a hint why:
• He's seen 4 governments in 4 years. He gets power 4 hours a day - in the middle of Baghdad. He makes a quarter what he made before because there are no more customers. Seven relatives and friends have been killed, kidnapped, or ethnically cleansed. Truthfully, we're surprised its only that many. He can't get parts to repair his stable of classic motorcycles - factories are shut down and in any case without power nothing functions in the modern world.
• So here we are folks: 4 years after the war began, the US still cannot get the power running in Baghdad.
• Possible Irony Part V Six Canadians died the other in Afghanistan, in a bomb blast. That brings the total to 51 since their country entered the war. Every death makes Canadians reevaluate their country's commitment, usually - we are sorry to say - negatively.
• Yes, to the Canadians the life of every one of their military sons and daughters is important. But consider the irony. 80 years ago, on Easter Monday 35,000 Canadians stormed Vimy Ridge in France. 3500 died. That was just one attack of a war that lasted for 4 years. Canada's population was 8 million, about a quarter what it is today. In today's terms, the Canadians would have lost 14,000 dead.
• The 1914-1918 War was one fought between European brothers. Canada was part of the British Empire, but the war was in no way Canada's war. Civilization was not threatened by World War I had the Germans won. The success or failure of the Afghanistan war does have civilizational dimensions. It is a micro war as these things go, but it is the most important war of the first decade of the 21st Century - yes, we are quite aware people consider Iraq oh, about a 100 times more important but they are wrong, because Iraq is not a civilizational war, merely a sectarian one that affects the Mideast.
• But a large part of the Canadian population has no heart for the war though it affects them not at all.
• Now, did the mothers, fathers, wives, sisters, brothers who lost their men and boys at Vimy Ridge somehow care less for their dead? Did they love their children and relatives less deeply than Canadians today? Were those dead less precious than the ones who have died in Afghanistan? We don't think so.
• It's often said that families have fewer children today and so we feel the loss of each child more keenly than we did in the past. Intuitively it would seem to be true. But whenever your editor ponders the matter, he is reminded of a story he read, years ago, about confirmation that had finally come concerning a US reconnaissance flight shot down by the USSR. The story told of a father who lost one son on that flight. He had many children - the editor doesn't remember exactly, but it seemed to be half-a-dozen. This father was so stricken when he was told his son was presumed lost that he sat on his front doorstep for several days and cried so much he soaked towels through, according to the recollection of his adult child who was quoted in the story. It seems to us that whether you have one child or many, the loss of any is something you never recover from.
• So one can conclude, as many Canadians do, that the loss of even one soldier in Afghanistan is too much. One can also conclude that the Canadians, like almost all the West, have lost the will to fight even for their survival. Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts believe it is so.
• In the meantime, whatever you may say about the Americans, however much you may criticize them, we say to our European and Canadian friends: the Americans are still willing to fight. We may believe the Iraq war is the wrong war. But for all of America's flaws, it may yet be the country that saves the West.

0230 April 9, 2007

• Diwaniya, Iraq The US-Iraq operation to take the town back from Al-Sadr's militia is proceeding well in its third day. We'd be a lot more enthusiastic about the success if this weren't the third time around the US is cleaning out the place.
• But let's go through the theory anyway, pretending as if the operation really matters and that some good will come of it, as opposed to the reality which is the minute the US takes its troops to the next trouble spot, the town will revert to its bad old ways.
• First, the operation is important because the town is the first target outside of Baghdad as part of the new offensive consequent on the surge. Anbar, of course, has been reinforced with two battalions, but the US has lost so much ground in Anbar since 2004 and 2005 that in good conscience we cannot suggest any progress is being made. All that will happen is that maybe Ramadi will be cleared - though even this is doubtful because it has never been cleared, not even when the US had two divisions in Anbar.
• We are a bit surprised that the US has jumped into an extension of the Baghdad operation when that has barely gotten underway. The US, of course, fights very aggressively so we shouldn't be surprised that it is already expanding operations even though the new troops are still arriving. On the plus side, this destabilizes Al-Sadr - we are sure he also was not expecting an offensive here. On the negative side, given that troops are really, really short, perhaps the US should not be overextending itself. Diwaniya is important because its just outside Baghdad, but every battalion sent other than to Baghdad or Anbar will be missed.
• Second, this is the first time we see a US policy of shoot to kill on sight. The local police are really just part of Al-Sadr militia, and the US ordered them to stay off the streets, saying any armed person would be shot on sight. Now, this is a standard counter-insurgency policy if you hope to win wars. But for the US - as far as we know - this represents a massive policy change.
• The US has so far been pussy-footing around all over Iraq. In fact, its so bad that the US cannot even kill known insurgents it is looking for on sight unless there is special permission. You have to capture the man, and if you cannot, you have to let him run free so he can kill more Americans and then you hope you catch him actually planting a bomb or sniping at you so you can put him down for good.
• Whenever we look at US CI policy in Iraq, our first reaction is to raise our hands to the heavens and cry "Lord, take me now!" because the whole US political-military policy is so deeply flawed its unbearable even to talk about it. So we won't.
• In this connection, we suggest you read Feisal Khan's article in Analysis magazine. He says - and we agree with him - that there's just two ways to win CI wars. The first is the "Kill them all and let God sort them out" approach followed by Pakistan in East Pakistan in 1971 and the Russians through all their CI wars. The second is to flood the place with a huge number of soldiers, which enables you to keep the civilian-to-insurgent kill ratio down to 2-to-1 or so. This is India's approach in its CI wars.
• Mr. Khan correctly says the second approach can require two generations: India's Northeast insurgencies began in 1960 - and they continue to this day. Kashmir took the Indians 20 years to bring under control, and they had to deploy somewhere around 250,000+ troops against 5000 insurgents (constantly replenished from Pakistan, to be sure), and even that sufficed only to keep the toll of civilians down to perhaps 2-1. More civilians have been killed, of course, but we are talking about the ones killed by the government forces.
• Mr. Khan's key point is that the US does not have the moral courage needed to win counterinsurgencies, and we agree. And yet, oddly enough, there is no country that is as ruthless as America when it comes to conventional war. Gulf I is only the latest example. The US refused to take a body count in Gulf I because it wanted to get away from the notorious body-count syndrome of Vietnam. So no one really knows how many Iraqi soldiers died in  Gulf I. Estimates, however, range upto 100,000. Many died in the weeks-long air interdiction campaign. But the bulk were killed in just 100 hours. Then general Colin Powell stopped the slaughter both for reasons of state and for compassion. But there is no doubt that even though they had decided not to cross the Euphrates, the Americans would not otherwise have stopped their air offensive until they had blown up the last Iraqi truck and the last tank - see Gulf II. If we recall right, Iraq had something like 17 tanks left when the ceasefire was called.
• America was terribly compassionate after the Gulf II ceasefire was called. It should have followed the policy of "we see you with a weapon, you die", no questions no appeals. Sound horrible, doesn't it? But does anyone want to bet that the results of the compassion have been far, far worse with many more people dying and no end in sight? That's why Americans don't futz around in their conventional wars. The time they did, in Vietnam, we all know what happened - and Gulf I was designed with that experience in mind.
• If in 1965 itself the US had unleashed the B-52s over the north, mined every port, blown the Red River dykes, and turned a 50-km deep zone with PRC into a wasteland where nothing could live, it would have been horrible, yes. But please note that just  a few weeks of B-52 against just Hanoi and Haiphong, combined with mining the main ports, brought the North Vietnam to Paris whereas all the damage in the 7 years previous, carefully calibrated to avoid civilian casualties and to fit in with the concept of limited war failed to impress them.
• Being horrible saves lives in the long run - study Chengis Khan. If you're not prepared to do what it takes then, like Mr. Khan suggests in his article, stay home and forget about ruling the world. Roll out the beer keg, lower your butt gently into the couch, and turn on the cable.

0230 April 8, 2007

• UK Gulf Rules of Engagement Still Unclear This point continues to be overlooked in the reporting about the 15 Royal Navy sailors/marines. So far it appears the decision not to resist was made by the team leader. Blogs appear to be evenly divided on the no-resist decision was right. People are saying not to resist was disgraceful. Others are saying it's easy to talk when you're not looking down the barrels of heavy machineguns at close quarters. Regardless, British procedures for their Gulf maritime interdiction patrols were clearly faulty in the extreme, particularly as British personnel have been seized once before by the Iranians.
• Apparently A Deal Was Made Contrary to what we had earlier said, it appears the release of the Iranian second secretary in Baghdad was part of a deal to get back the British hostages. He was in US custody, and says he was incessantly tortured and interrogated by CIA personnel speaking English and Arabic. We have no reason to doubt him: clearly he was involved in Iran's bloody and nefarious business in Iraq, and the CIA is not bound by any interrogation rules short of "don't kill the prisoner". We are not devastated with sorrow at his story: he is the employee of a government that is killing Americans. We are sorry only he was let go. Still, he'd been in US hands for two months and probably had nothing more to tell. And a lousy intelligence officer in exchange for 15 British hostages seems liker a good deal for the Allies.
• By the way, the Iraqis are trying to get the US to release the 5 Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Now, these gentlemen were very much involved in helping kill Iraqis as much as Americans. So why do the Iraqis want them released? Because, you see, they were killing Iraqis the Iraqi government wants killed. So they aren't enemies of Iraq, they're allies. That they also helped kill Americans is of no importance to the Government of Iraq.
• Aren't the Iraqis just charming? Why are we spending only $100-billion and 4000 American casualties a year defending them? It should be at least double that amount. Make that triple - but wait - why stop at triple...
• Royal Marine Commandos, US 82nd Airborne Score Major Afghan Success 42 Commando and a battalion of the US 82nd Division are claiming a major Afghan success. The British-led operation swooped down on a town along the road to the big dam in Helmand province to rout out an estimated 350 Taliban who were turning the town into a fortified zone. The road needs to be cleared because a turbine for the dam, which is crucial to the economy of Helmand, has to be brought by truck.
• We are delighted at the success. Once again we are constrained to note how differently the Afghan war could be going if even just 3 extra brigades were available. With an impotent NATO on one side, and an overcommitted US bogged down in Iraq on the other, that appears impossible.

0230 April 7, 2007

• CIA, Defense Department Said No Saddam-Al Qaeda Link according to the Washington Post. We knew that, but in all the excitement leading up to Gulf II, we paid The Administration's claims no heed. After all, governments do propagandize to get their citizens fired up for war. So we were puzzled when the notorious ex-Pentagon official, Douglas Feith, recently vigorously defended his assessment that Saddam and AQ were indeed linked. The CIA's analysis, he claimed, was only a point of view. At the time we thought maybe he relied on mistaken DOD analyses. Moreover, he was clearly just a stooge in the buildup to war and only one member of the cabal that wanted Saddam done in to remove Israel's last remaining enemy. It's hard to take people like Mr. Feith seriously. Now we learn DOD was not the basis of his "information".
• So when we learned today that Vice President Cheney is still going around talking of the Saddam-AQ link, we were surprised. Okay, so Mr. Cheney has his quirks, but no one has questioned his intelligence. But his repeated assertions of "facts" that were never facts even before the war, and have been shown to be fictions after, must raise questions about his integrity. Whatever the US decides about its course in Iraq, the nation needs to pull together and arrive at a consensus. When a top official continues with lies that may have been neccessary for a larger purpose to justify a war gone very, very wrong, he erodes consensus. Mr. Cheney needs to stop his nonsense.
• OK, So What Was The Larger Purpose? Readers have a right to ask that, because we have been staunch supporters of the President and the war. Because we tend to look at the military situation to the almost total exclusion of the political, it was not till a few months ago that we even realized the US was losing the war in Iraq. So we have repeatedly called for a new strategy - our prescription being that since the situation cannot be retrieved within the cost America is prepared to pay, America should get out.
• But what we were thinking before our conversion on the road to Baghdad? Why did we support the war?
• First, our inclination by temperament is to favor military solutions. If undertaken with courage, determination, and good execution, they often work better than political ones.
• Second, we tend to be hyper-patriotic and this is particularly true of your editor, who spent half a lifetime ideologically defending America against the pseudo-intellectuals of the 3rd World. Old habits die hard: even now, your editor's reflex reaction if America is criticized by a non-American is to hit back. And given the sordid record of the American mainstream media in attacking the American military, readers can take it as given that if the media is being negative on any military venture, the editor is going to support it. On Iraq the media never came up with any rationale or logical reason for its constant snarkiness. It never presented any facts that might lead even a hyper-patriot to say "Hmmm, they have a point there." The opposed for the sake of opposing, like bad-tempered kindergartners.
• So when you spend your time whipping the media with limp noodles, which we did from 2003 to mid 2006, you can be a bit slow to see what's really going on.
• It's not a coincidence that our eyes were opened after the media stopped its mindless attacks on the American military and in fact began writing well-balanced, sympathetic articles. Since we no longer had a dog in the fight, it was possible to be more objective.
• That is the background to how we witched from fervent supporters of the war to opposing the war. And we do need to repeat: we oppose the war not because we oppose the GWOT, but because we believe the Iraq war is crippling the US ability to fight the GWOT. We have always supported the US's drive to become the global hegemon and we continue to do so. Its just that we feel Iraq is wrecking the drive to become the global hegemon.
• That's Sweet, But Why Are You Evading The Question? our readers can ask. They can say, "what was the larger purpose you saw in Gulf II that allowed you to ignore the official reasons as neccessary propaganda?"
• Well, we've given our reasons before, and we have to admit we feel increasingly stupid. We believed the US wanted to attack, at its roots, Islamic fundamentalism, and extend its global dominion to the Arab world. The second process began after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, incidentally - its nothing new.
• So, the US went into Afghanistan to knock down one anchor of Islamic fundamentalism, and it went into Iraq to knock down the other.
• Wait A Minute, You Just Attacked Mr. Cheney For Saying That's Why The US Went Into Iraq, Now You're Defending Him? Actually no, we aren't defending him. Having some familiarity with Iraq, we knew what anyone should know: Saddam was secular, and the Iraqi elite was secular. We thought the US was going into Iraq to take control of Iraqi oil, get production up to 6+ million barrels a day, and then take down the other anchor of Islamic fundamentalism, Saudi Arabia.
• To knock out Saudi you need both a military base and an assured oil supply. The first is obvious, the second perhaps less so. The Saudis have long ago arranged to destroy their oil facilities should the US attempt to capture them. Clearly they would not succeed in destroying everything, but in a worst case its quite possible they could whack 3-6 million barrels a day. Iraq would have to fill the gap.
• At This Point You Start Wonder What Controlled Substances The Editor Was Ingesting Truly, beyond one Diet Pepsi a day, your editor does not smoke or drink, not even tea or coffee. We honestly believed the above, and to save others embarrassment, we are not going to say how we came to believe that.
• You see, if that wasn't the objective of invading Iraq, then invading Iraq was pointless. Saddam was the Mideast's main bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism and against Iran - any school kid knew that.
• We thought the US would use Iraq as the base for Step 2: knock out Iran and Syria, and if Saudi hadn't by then gotten the hint, proceed to Step 3, whack the Saudi Wahibis and return them back to the desert that they came from, and good riddance.
• In retrospect, our error lay in believing the US Administration was run by intelligent people.
• Okay, so readers are now free to laugh as long and as hard as they want. We deserve the ridicule. Your editor has made some mistakes in his 40+ years of analysis, but all the rest put together do not begin to approach the magnitude of this one.

0230 April 6, 2007

• Zimbabwe A media cameraman linked to the opposition turns up murdered, with the body showing signs of severe beating. The government asks business establishments that closed on Tuesday and Wednesday during the general strike, to explain why.
• Pakistan Tribal Fighting At last an intelligent and detailed analysis of the who-what-where-when concerning the fighting between foreigners and Pakistan tribals in the North West Frontier Province. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6529147.stm Aside from throwing their weight around, it seems the Uzbeks became hired guns for local tribals factions settling scores with each other, and this is one reason they are being hunted and killed.
• Bhutto Corruption Charges Dropped apparently under orders from President Musharraf himself. Mrs. Bhutto is a former Prime Minister of Pakistan. She went into exile after corruption proceedings were begun against her in 1999, the same year General Musharraf staged a coup and assumed power in his country.
• The thinking is that she can now return and stand for Parliament, after which her party will support President Musharraf and provide him a greater veneer of legitimacy.
• We honestly do not want to involve ourselves in Pakistan's internal affairs. At the same time, we warn the west that the combination of Mrs. Bhutto and President Musharraf will do nothing for democracy in Pakistan.
• No Sign Of Operation Bite Readers will recall our story from Debka that Iran would be attacked at 0400 April 6th and that the operation was called Bite. Nothing has happened so far.
• A Kuwaiti newspaper has the next attack date: end April, it says, quoting anonymous sources in Washington. The speech for the President  where he will justify the attack is already being written, says the Kuwait paper.
• We personally see no harm in these stories: keeps the already paranoid Iranians on edge. Parenthetically, to the best of our knowledge neither the Debka story nor the one from Kuwait are American plants. Debka, of course, credited Russian sources. Both stories are likely to be the result of fevered journalist imaginations. Could they be Israeli plants? Doubtful. The Israelis prefer to plant stories in the European press.
• Russians Say Iran Has "Strong Potential" To Repel US Air Strikes according to a story in Xinhua of China. The claimant is the Russian commander of special forces. He says we should not forget that the Iranians have been trained by the Russians.
• Well, okay, so we won't forget, and we won't forget the Russians have a sardonic sense of humor. In turn we want the Russian general not to forget Orbat.com's editor has "strong potential" to win the next Miss Universe title. There is the minor problem that he is not female, and is short, fat, bald, well above 60-years of age, and blind as a bat - let's not forget being half-deaf and the stutter. But there's always hope, isn't there?
• But just as people who have seen your editor in person would caution the Russian general not to bet more than a quarter Czarist kopeck on the editor winning Miss Universe, we advise the Iranians not to bet more than a counterfeit rial from the Shah's time on their air defenses. Counting on their air defenses is not a strategy, it's a hope on par with the editor's fantasies.
• Sorry, we didn't mean top insult the editor: Iranian chances on stopping a US air offensive are way, way, way less than the editor's chances in winning Miss Universe, Miss America, and Miss India in the same year.

0230 April 5, 2007

• The Sound and the Fury, Signifying Nothing Part II March, in like a lion out like a lamb etc etc - we could go on with the literary platitudes, but we'd like to ask the Iranian president one question. If you were so tamely going to let the 15 Brits go, what was the point of capturing them in the first place?
• Britain admitted to no wrong. It gave an assurance it would not violate Iranian territorial waters again. Since it didn't violate them in the first place, by some forms of logic the promise is meaningless.
• Iran gained nothing. The access promised Iran to the 5 Revolutionary Guard people in US custody is meaningless and we just cannot see it is connected to the crisis with the UK Iran just recently asked for the access, and the US pretty much had to say "Okey dokey" because obviously if the reverse had happened US would want access to its personnel. And in any case you have to let the Red Cross have access, at least. So one kidnapped Iranian diplomat was released. But who was he kidnapped by? And suppose it was for ransom - the usual reason people are kidnapped in Iran, and further suppose ransom was paid, then there would be absolutely no connection with the recent affair. And in any case, do you let 15 hostages go in exchange for one diplomat? Seems a bad bargain to us.
• Is Iran hoping UK will now feel grateful and the two are going to become bum chums? It's not hard to predict that British attitudes toward Iran will be harder than before, not softer.
• Seems to us Iran realized it'd made a mistake, and without anything in return, released the hostages, congratulating itself on its magnanimity.
• Cool It, Fidel We are great admirers of President Castro of Cuba. But we want him to cool it with his attack on the US plan for biofuels. Mr. Castro says this will raise food prices for poor countries - he is saying nothing here that a whole slew of other people are saying. But then he goes on to say the US move will internationalize genocide.
• Point the first: the US has no obligation to degrade its own security to keep food prices cheap so that poor countries can be fed. Most poor countries in a food crisis are there because of their own mismanagement.
• Point the second: would President Castro care to quantify how much the poor nations lose because of the oil cartel? Has he attacked the oil cartel lately? We don't think so.
• Point the third: why must US farmers be the losers because of their phenomenal productivity? Relative to income, US food prices are the lowest in the world. One percent of the US population feeds the other 99%, also about the lowest percentage in the world. If you know anything about US agriculture, for Joe Farmer it is a risky, thankless, and financially backbreaking business. If corn prices go up, small and medium farmers have a better chance to survive. Why begrudge them this. Oil has near tripled in price in the last few years and that's okay with President Castro. No words about genocide there, though energy is the basic input for humankind's existence. We say let corn prices double. Even if 30 years down the line corn ethanol saves the US only 10% of its oil use, that's that much less money going overseas, and that much less need the US has for interfering all over the world.
• South Waziristan Fighting Continues says Jang of Pakistan, with 44 foreigners and 7 tribals killed Wednesday. The story is at http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=6926 We cannot explain why this conflict continues. We thought that once the locals put their foot down against the foreigners - called Uzbeks, though we suspect many are not from Uzbekistan - the "guests" would repent their ways and things would return to normal. This has not happened.
• We can speculate only that the Uzbeks are trying to seize territory in South Waziristan to declare their own tribal area. We admit we have no factual basis for the speculation, but anything else would make no sense in explaining the foreigners' refusal to come to terms with the locals.
• Meanwhile, Pakistan's Frontier Post says Iran sealed its border with Pakistan after the killing of several Revolutionary Guards (by Pakistan-based militants) and this has caused a big jump in food prices in western Baluchistan. The Frontier Post implies Iran is building a wall along the border. Oddly, the Frontier Post does not seem to have any news in its April 5th edition about the South Waziristan fighting. The paper covers news in the NWFP and Baluchistan.

0230 April 4, 2007

• Zimbabwe Army Out During General Strike An unusual strike, because it features no demonstrations for fear of giving President Mugabe an excuse to attack the opposition. Factories and business establishments were among those closed, though Zimbabwe's state can be gauged from the refusal of one factory to shut down. Its reason: the lunch served workers is the only meal they get each day.
• Meanwhile Nr. Mugabe has not helped his case by allowing an article published in a state-owned newspaper to threaten the British High Commission's 2nd Secretary. The article said it would be a pity if she went home in a bodybag. She is accused of being a spy and a link to the opposition.
• Someone in Zimbabwe needs to grow up. The job of a diplomat is to send home information on the host country. That includes keeping in touch with the opposition as well as with the government. This is not spying, but perfectly normal diplomatic behavior.
• ABC News Notices Anti-Iran Baluchi Group From time to time we have mentioned Pakistan Baluchi groups that are conducting attacks on Iran. As far as we know there are two, but the one that ABC has noticed is called Jundallah.
• CIA denies funding Jundallah, saying only that it maintains contacts with the group, the strength of which ABC gives as "several hundred".
• The strength is correct, the CIA's denial is not. We are not particularly interested in the route the money may be taking, but we doubt it is particularly circuitous because Jundallah receives money, weapons, training from the US in the fight against Al Qaeda. So who is to say that - for example - a $50,000 payment to the group is for Al Qaeda or for Iran operations? (Wink wink touch nose with forefinger and belch thrice - latest CIA code for "this payment is for Iran.")
• Of greater interest to us is what might be the CIA involvement with the Baluch nationalist groups primarily funded by India. No one seems inclined to oblige us with details.
• Meanwhile, Orbat.com completely condemns that part of Jundallah's activities that lead to direct civilian casualties, as opposed to those caused as collateral damage in a strike against military targets. We also condemn Jundallah's policy of executing Iranian military and paramilitary captives, often on video. Jundallah's cross-border operations are justified as part of the war for an independent Baluchistan, but its captives are uniformed armed forces members of an internationally-recognized country. Iran is America's enemy and is helping kill American soldiers in Iraq. That does not mean we should condone mistreatment or killing of Iranian prisoners. CIA needs to make quite clear to Jundallah this is not acceptable, and not waste its time pretending it has no connection with the group.
• Iran Diplomat Freed This Iran embassy officer disappeared about two months ago. He has been released.
• Its not clear to us who kidnapped him and why. There is no reason at this stage to believe his release is in any way connected to the 15 British military hostages held by Iran. The Iraqis have said they hope the release will bear favorably on the matter, but since the Iraqis have never claimed they kidnapped the diplomat, it's hard to see why the release would imply that it should bear favorably.
• Iran accused an Iraqi Army unit that works with the Americans of kidnapping the diplomat.

   

  0230 April 3, 2007

   

• Zimbabwe London Times says the opposition leader is in South Africa for a medical checkup and has spoken in non-confrontational terms about the need for a dialog with President Mugabe. According to London Times, Mr. Mugabe was read the riot act when SADC held its emergency meeting and South Africa has undertaken to ensure the next election is fair. The ostensible backing of Mr. Mugabe, it is said, was simply to save the "old man's face".
• It's hard to know what to make of all this. Why was it neccessary to save the Old Man's face? How does South Africa propose to ensure next year's elections are fair given that President Mugabe controls what happens in Zimbabwe? He wants to extend his term and wants even to determine his successor before he dies. Why should he worry himself about some tut-tutting from South Africa after he fixes the next election as he has fixed many others to keep himself in power? If SADC really found the situation unacceptable, it should have suggested that Mr. Mugabe go gracefully into exile, see an interim government was appointed, and proceed en masse to make sure next year's elections were fair. Not just the occasional observer, but a strong military/police force to prevent intimidation and violence.
• Senator McCain's Baghdad Visit We were laughing when we learned yesterday from Washington Post how Senator McCain's visit to a Baghdad market was conducted. He had said he saw signs of progress in Baghdad and the press was not reporting the good news.
• Turns out he said things had improved because this was the first time he'd been able to drive from the airport to the Green Zone, and the first time he'd been able to leave the zone.
• Well, we suppose that's progress, but the war really is in its 5th year, and if that's all the progress the good Senator sees, surely he was being mordant. He is too intelligent to be otherwise.
• As for his visit, the US military would not allow newspersons to even identify the market to which he went - not just before his visit, as would be reasonable, but after. The US feared retaliation, was the reason given for the secrecy. Locals told WashPo the senator visited one of the safest neighborhoods outside the Green Zone, he was accompanied by "dozens" of US soldiers, no locals were allowed to be on the side of the road he was, and - of course - the entire area is barricaded.
• Things have improved in Baghdad? What a great sense of humor the man has!
• That said, by one measure they have improved: the previous toll of 50 bodies a day has come down drastically to 10 or less. But by another, they have worsened: vehicle-bomb attacks are up 25% and the Green Zone itself has seen an increase in attacks, though damage is negligible. Still, US personnel must wear armor and helmets even if they are in the Embassy grounds and outside. This was not the case previously.
• But again, as we've said many times, it's early days. We really do not doubt that Baghdad will be secured. The rest of the country is going to heck in the worst way, but Baghdad will be rendered safe.
• Orbat.com Bright Idea: redefine Iraq to exclude everything except the capital city. Declare victory. Come home.
• Mogadishu Violence has diminished. Some are saying that declaring the clan opposing the fighting is doing so because the President is from another clan and they feel shut out is misleading because this particular clan has strong representation in the cabinet.

0230 April 2, 2007

• British "Anger" Becoming Increasingly Irritating Each day we read about some other stupid Iranian act with regarded to the British captives. What is it Iran hopes to achieves with a daily litany of "confessions"? Yesterday it put two more captives on display "admitting" they had trespassed. The more the Iranians try and make their case in this illegal manner, the weaker they show themselves to be.
• The Iranians are the Iranians, and nothing can be expected of them. What is starting to get extremely annoying, however, is that each day after the latest Iranian drama, we read that the British have reacted with anger and fury.
• Hello, Britain. By giving vent to anger and fury you are making yourself look pathetic and weak. We all know your options are severely limited - you don't have the power to swat a fly because you've let your defense go to pieces, not because you can't afford a proper military. You are sounding increasingly petulant, and its becoming harder every day to take you seriously.
• Kindly stop this business of anger. Do something, or grin and bear it.
• As For The Germans It is being said that real economic sanctions against Iran as a way of upping the pressure are infeasible because the Germans won't agree. They are doing too much business, it is being said. If this is true, the Germans need to be reminded they are part of an alliance called NATO and they need to do their part to stand by the Brits. If they cannot, they need to leave NATO or to be kicked out - we have little doubt at least half of Germany will rejoice either way, such is the sorry state of Europe in the 21st Century.
• US Soldiers Clashed With Iranian Troops says Time Magazine. While Iran is brazenly accusing the British of violating its waters, on September 7, 2006 an Iranian platoon well inside the Iraq side of the border clashed with a joint Iraq-US patrol after it surrounded the Iraqis/Americans and told they would be attacked if they tried to leave. Shooting began, the Americans withdrew, killing at least one Iranian, and the Iranians made off with 6 Iraqis.
• What's surprising to us is that Time has finally figured out incidents with the Iranians have been taking place at least for several months now. For the story, which doesn't say all that much, read http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1605487,00.html
• On its site, Time asks "Is a US-Iran War Inevitable?". Well, no. What is inevitable is that a big American media organization would try and up its profits by stupid scare tactics and headlines in a style more suited to the celebrity press than to responsible journalism.
• Mogadishu Fighting Continues yesterday though reports say the main anti-government clan is hopeful negotiations will begin this week.
• Mugabe Continues "Bashing" His Opponents Nine arrested opposition activists who were to have been produced in court Saturday were instead sent for medical treatment after one collapsed in court. BBC says doctors who examined the men say they appear to have been beaten in custody.
• Long live President Mugabe. Long live Africa.
• US Says Baghdad Violence Down By 25% but sources say violence has increased in other parts of the country. BBC says the increase is 13%.
• Meanwhile, Senator John McCain is in Baghdad. He complains the media is not telling the story of the positive developments in Baghdad. We wonder if he noticed the very tight security he needed while he visited a couple of spots?
• We are quite ready to blame the media for anything, but Senator McCain is completely off-base on this one. The media has been relentless in telling us how security in Baghdad has increased.
• Anyway, why get ourselves upset about Senator McCain? He's a politician, after all, and it's rarely a politician can miss a chance to make a political statement.

0230 April 1, 2007

• Arab Peace Plan: What Are We Missing? Perhaps we are confused or misinformed, but we don't see why everyone is getting so excited about the 22-Arab-nation plan for a permanent peace with Israel. In the Never will Happen department we have two observations.
• First, the Arab plan calls for Israel to withdraw to its 1967 borders. Does anyone seriously believe Israel will give up the West Bank? Second, the plan calls for the right of return for those Arabs who fled their homes in the 1947-48 through 1967. Israel is not going to accept any right of return; indeed, our reading is if there was a humane way of relocating Arabs in Israel, even Arab-Israelis, the country would adopt it in a trice.
• But...if fantasizing keeps people happy, who are we to object. Fantasize on, folks.
• Debka Says Iran Will Be Attacked April 6 Debka quotes Russian sources and even gives an operation name and time: Operation Bite, 0400.
• In 5 days we'll know if Debka is right. Meanwhile, as far as we know US always gives its operations two-word names, and the names are getting progressively more pompous - Infinite Justice, Enduring Freedom - give us a break, please. If you're interested in the subject of US code names, read Andreas Parsch's page.
• Tall Afar Bomb Killed 152 This is the final count but please keep in mind in Iraq there is nothing final with statistics. Anyway, 152 makes a record for the worst vehicle bombing in Iraq.
• In case you feel like getting depressed about Iraq, a clever map by BBC shows Baghdad by ethnic area pre-2006 and currently. Please note how pre-2006 most of Baghdad was ethnically mixed Shia-Sunni, and notice how small the dominant Shia or Sunni areas were. Currently you will note a huge shrinkage of mixed areas. The Shias now control east of the river, and are spreading their ethnic cleansing to west of the river.
• It's rare for us to agree with anything al-Sadr says, but this one's too obvious to dispute: al-Sadr says that vehicle bombings of Shia areas have increased because his Mahadi militia has had to adopt a lower profile in the face of the US Baghdad offensive. Law of Unforeseen Consequences at work again.
• Ethiopians Claim 200 Insurgents Dead as the third day of Mogadishu fighting closes. We are not quite sure how media/aid agencies arrive at conclusions about civilian casualties because the insurgents are not uniformed and it's possible neither are many Somali government soldiers. Unless a casualty brings his weapon with him to the hospital, how is anyone to tell if he is civilian or insurgent?
• Zimbabwe: President Mugabe Fears the Mujurus The wife is a prominent member of Mr. Mugabe's party but is now opposed to him. The husband is the former army commander. Both are working for the post-Mugabe era. Their ally is a former head of the secret police. The President is reacting by squeezing their financial assets and investments. Read London Times for details. Readers know we are not shy in giving our own composite reports, but the Times report really does say it better than we can.
• Also in the article: the police are getting worried about getting caught on the wrong side if Mugabe is overthrown. And police families themselves have become victims of the "extremely loyal" - and vicious - Police Support Unit.
• Meanwhile, the economic situation continues to worsen and is expected to cause the ultimate blow-up. Case in point: typical wage: Z$200,000, about USD 22. Carton of milk: Z$48,000, or just under USD$5.50.
• Truthfully, we don't understand why the people haven't revolted already.