0230 GMT February 28, 2007

• Mr. Cheney's Visit To Pakistan A reader asks us why we haven't mentioned the "new US get-tough with Pakistan policy". Here's our 3 words on the policy: "It's meaningless." It's not worth wasting any time on analyzing it.
• There is nothing President Musharraf can do about the growing Taliban threat because - can we get this through the fat heads of US policy makers? - (a) The Taliban are 100% backed by Pakistan for Pakistan's foreign policy objectives; (b) A western-oriented  Afghanistan is inimical to Pakistan's strategic interests; and (c) even if President Musharraf wanted to do something about the Taliban, he would be overthrown by his own military. And frankly, he should be overthrown by his own military because he would be harming his country's interests to satisfy American interests.
• Incidentally, is it naiveté or stupidity that leads Americans to think that a couple of billion in aid and weapons will sway the Pakistani leadership to abandon its national interests and support American interests? Why don't Americans give the Pakistani generals this much credit and accept that they too are patriotic to their country, every bit as much as Americans are patriotic to theirs?
• In 2001 Pakistan allied with the US out of fear of American punishment, not because Pakistan loves America. After the Lebanon 2006 debacle, no one is afraid of America.
• And if the Americans don't mind, may we give them a little piece of advice? Don't replace Musharraf with one of your so-called pro-American generals. There are NO pro-American generals in Pakistan. Like people anywhere, there are generals who will say anything you want to hear to get your support so they can be president. Once there, they will jettison you like the proverbial hot spud.
• Pakistan is going fundamentalist, its army, which used to be pro-western and secular is going fundamentalist, and there is zip, nada, nothing the US can do about it. You think you have problems in Iraq? You ain't seen nothing yet, babe. There are 160 million Pakistanis and growing at 3% a year. Pakistan is the most anti-American nation in the whole world. All the modernization, industrialization, democracy stuff has failed the vast majority of Pakistanis. They've waited 60 years for things to get better, and things haven't gotten better. What you're seeing in the North West Frontier tribal zones is only the start. You so have no clue what's going to hit you.
• We've just given the Americans free advice, stuff it would cost them millions of dollars to learn for themselves. We know there are some CIA, State, military personnel and scholars telling their government the same thing. We see no sign the government is listening - because as with everything these past 4 years, all it thinks of is Iraq.
• Second of 5 Reinforcement Brigades Arriving In Iraq and the third is preparing to leave. The last brigade will arrive by May.
• We repeat for the Nth time: the surge is succeeding. Sectarian killings are dramatically down in Baghdad. Despite this, the US will lose in Iraq. Insurgents have taken a lower profile to see for themselves what the implications of the surge are. Since everyone knows it is a short-term affair, it simply makes no sense for insurgents to confront the US directly.
• Not only can the US not sustain a long-term surge, but when the insurgents saw the US was settling in for the long run, they would adopt new tactics, start killing more Americans, and spread the civil war even wider, outside Baghdad.
• As for the theory that the surge buys the Iraqi forces time to take charge, lets face some reality here: the Iraqi forces are calmly letting Americans do their fighting for them, as has been the case from the start with the honorable exception of some Iraqi units. When the US stands down, the Iraqis will take charge: they'll use the money, weapons, and training the US has given them to better kill their enemies.

0230 GMT February 27, 2007

• 5 Senior US Commanders Said Will Resign If Iran Attack Ordered We score again, because we'd said months ago that there was complete opposition to any plan to attack Iran and that generals would resign if ordered to attack. We rarely get original information about Washington happenings as your editor gets out not at all. But in this case we were told very clearly by a source we trust that the military was  dead set against an Iran adventure.
• This particular report comes from London Times and is sourced to unidentified UK intelligence sources. Media also says that the new SecDefense is also completely opposed to any attack.
• London Times notes that the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff has played down the Iran-helping-Iraq-insurgents angle, directly contradicting the administration. We did notice this at the time, but we put it down to the "bad cop, good cop" routine. The Chairman JCS happens to be a Marine, and the opposition to an Iran attack is principally from ground commanders.
• Unsurprisingly, the  US Air Force is okay with the idea. It is almost unheard of for airmen to say force won't work. There is something about raining death from the skies that never fails to impress airmen, whatever it may be doing to the enemy's thinking.
• Now, here Orbat.com gets caught in an odd place. We are unequivocally certain an attack will destroy Iran's N-program. In this, we differ from many, many military people and experts who doubt the US can do even that. In part the disagreement arises because we believe we have a more realistic definition of success than those who want every last facility with any tangential connection to Iran's N-program wiped out.
• Certainly the facilities will be rebuilt in time. In which case you simply destroy them again, this time with even newer weapons that are currently on the drawing board. There is no way Iran can proceed with an N-program if the US is determined to stop it.
• Unlike the ground commanders, we don't worry about Iranian retaliation against US troops in Iraq. First, we remain confident that US forces can look after themselves. Second, should Iran counter-escalate, the US has the option of wiping out Iran as modern state. Third, we think the US should get out of Iraq right now. So as far as we are concerned, the US can withdraw before attacking Iran.
• Incidentally, we don't worry about the oil factor. We'd said before the western world has built up stocks against a prolonged closure of Hormuz, the closure - if it happens - will last weeks, not months, and oil trading can be shut down with the start of the attack so speculators don't drive up the price more than justified. And anyway, as far as we are concerned, the sooner oil goes to $100, the better, because that may be the only way to wean America off its foreign oil addiction. This we consider the most dangerous national security threat faced by the US
• The weakness in our position lies elsewhere The problem is that the political/diplomatic consequences of a US attack on Iran are near impossible to accurately foresee. Maybe the US can get away with it. But equally, maybe what happens is far worse than a N-armed Iran.
• Its fine to talk of blowing up things, but war has to be conducted in support of political objectives, it cannot be and end in itself. War cannot be the first, second, third, or even tenth option. It has to be used only when there is no option left. In the case of Iran, we haven't even seriously begun exploring other options. We don't like the Iranians, so we're looking for any excuse to hammer them. Even if America were not bogged down in Iraq, beating up people because you don't like them is not sound policy.
• Personally, your editor is of the "beat them" school, especially with regard to the Iranian leadership. But you editor can afford to have these feelings because he is not in charge of anything. In real life, it is much easier to change our attitudes and change the paradigm of our relationship with Iran, and make peace with it rather than war.
• When you have a 12/7 or a 9/11, you have to fight because you're attacked. Otherwise the old hippie slogan "Make Love Not War" is politically the soundest strategy.

0230 GMT February 26, 2007

• Hezbollah Rearming North Of The Litani River says Times London. The Druze leader Walid Jumblatt alleges Hezbollah plans an independent state in South Lebanon. This plan has been known for some time and Jumblatt is only the latest to draw attention to the matter.
• A businessman has been buying up Christian and Druze land for cash north of the river. So far he is known to have paid for 400 acres. The area is predominantly Shia as far as we know, so presumably the businessman is getting non-Shias out of the way.
• The UN zone runs south of the Litani. It has 12,000 UN troops and 20,000 Lebanese Army troops acting as a buffer between Israel and Hezbollah. The latter is avoiding direct confrontation with the UN/Lebanese Army and while it is rebuilding some of its positions south of the Litani, its focus seems to be on creating a safe haven north of the river.
• In the event the US moves against Iran, Teheran intends to activate Hezbollah to create a new front against Israel.
• Al-Sadr withdraws Support For Baghdad Crackdown Which is a surprise to us because we didn't know he supported the crackdown to begin with, considering he is the primary American target.
• We don't need foreign occupiers to solve Iraq's problems, he says. Unlike the US administration, Al-Sadr has a clearly defined Iraq strategy with a clearly defined endgame, and he has the means to successfully implement his strategy: exterminate the Sunnis and end sectarian strife, making for a stable Iraq.
• So 5-million Sunnis would have to die or be expelled into a vast Sunni ghetto. We wager Al-Sadr is not losing any sleep over this. The Sunnis under Saddam brutally repressed the Shias, and before Saddam it was the Ottoman Empire and its successors. Al-Sadr wants revenge. We predict regardless of what the US does, he and his ilk will get their way.
• Al-Sadr wants to make himself the first leader of Iraq to combine the theological and temporal functions. After that, who knows? Head of all Shias, including those in Iran, maybe?
• Kind of reminds us of another fanatic, Adolf Hitler.
• US Warship Heading Toward Hijacked Somali-aid Cargo Ship The ship was hijacked by pirates off Somalia after unloading aid cargo at two Somali ports. The chartering company saw 3 of its ships hijacked last year.
• The ship is anchored off Puntland, Somalia's autonomous central region. No details on which US Navy ship is on its way.
• Diverging From Humans 4-Million Years Ago, Chimps Save Selves Latest research says chimps diverged from humans only 4-million years ago, not the 5-7 million years previously believed.
• Sensible fellows. By diverging, the chimps saved themselves from Anna Nicole and Brittany mania.

0230 GMT February 25, 2007

• Iraq PM Says 800+ Insurgents Captured/Killed in the security crackdown, insurgent killings are down, and hundreds of Iraqi families have returned to their homes.
• It's always best to be a bit skeptical about captured/killed figures because often the toll includes real civilians - as opposed to people who say they are civilians or who are claimed by survivors to have been civilians - and it is very common for people who have no or only a marginal connection to insurgents to be rolled up in sweeps.
• The PM is correct when he says insurgent killings are down.
• As for the hundreds of families who have returned, let's not hold our breath. Somewhere up to 2 million Iraqis have fled the country or are internally displaced, and according to international refugee agency figures, 50,000 leave their homes every month. If you've been run out of your home by one side or the other, you'd be plain crazy to come back.
• New Yorker Says US Planning Iran Attack Yes folks, Seymour Hersh is back with the usual suspects, and we need to put all this in a bit of perspective.
• First, the US maintains contingency plans for just about every part of the world and every conceivable emergency. For the US not to be planning an attack on Iran's N-infrastructure would be nothing short of criminal. If you belong to the planning branch, it's your job to make plans. The US is making plans. Big deal, whoop-de-do, is this supposed to be news?
• Second, Mr. Hersh says US operatives have pursued Iranian agents operating against Iraq inside Iran. To be fair to Mr. Hersh, he was one of the first to publicly say US was operating inside Iran. But this was no great secret, and as far as we are concerned, this is not new news.
• Third, lets reverse the mirror image. Can anyone say for certain when Iran has not been interfering in Iraq and to a lesser extent, vice versa? As far as we know, Iranian agents on one level or another have been inside Iraq at least since 1940. They have been pouring into the country since April 2003, and this too is no secret. For Iran to interfere in Iraq is natural.
• Mr. Hersh Is A Well-Used US Disinformation Channel It is customary for US disinformation to use the press, and in "leaking" stories to Mr. Hersh, the US is only going back to someone who has repeatedly shown himself willing to be used in exchange for "breaking" what he thinks are "exclusive" stories. From the US's viewpoint, Mr. Hersh can be relied on each and every time a story has to be spread.
• We make no moral judgment here. One reason your editor was able to remain fiercely independent during his 20 years in India was that no one thought he was worth bribing, either with money or with "exclusives". We all have to pay our bills. If the US Government, or the Government of Terebithia, or the Government of Pluto was willing to pay your editor, or to give him "leaks" that he could turn into money, he would be right out there with Mr. Hersh and the rest of them, "revealing" vital information gained from his "sources".
• Meanwhile, Just To Keep Up The Pressure once again we are getting "leaks" from Israel suggesting that the Israelis are preparing to bomb Iran's N-facilities if the US wont do the job. This time the "leak" is a doozy: Reuters says the story is that Israel is working out safe passage across Iraq with the US, to avoid the possibility that US and Israeli planes will shoot each other.
• We know the Bush administration has done some terribly stupid things in the Mideast of late. We know that the stupidity level is so high that rational people cannot explain, in the slightest satisfactory way, what the administration was/is thinking or why it was/is thinking that way. We agree the Bush administration is reckless and there is no depth of lunacy it will not stoop to - except for this one level of lunacy, which is to give safe passage across Iraq to the Israeli Air Force. Not even the Bush administration is that stupid.
• Of course, having acted in totally irrational ways for several years now, the Bush administration has the upper hand in the pyschwar against Iran. Having convinced everyone he is a crazed cowboy, Mr. Bush is likely scaring the pants off the Iranians right now. A lot of their talk is bravado. They don't want their industrial infrastructure destroyed, they don't want to be blockaded, they don't want their military wiped out. The Iranians have acted with complete rationality in their handling of the N-crisis. And rationally they have to believe they are dealing with an irrational adversary.
• No sir, we definitely would not want to be Iranian decision makers at this precise moment.

0230 GMT February 24, 2007

• US To Cede Command Of ROK Forces In 2012 In an arrangement that began during the Korean War, ROK forces have been subordinate to US command. That arrangement will end in five years and ROK will assume sovereign command over its forces, with the US providing training and support.
• The US wanted to make the change in 2009, but the South Koreans said they weren't ready till 2012.
• UK In Talks With US For ABM Interceptors Following agreement by the Poles and Czechs to host 10 ABM interceptor silos and a missile defense radar on their territory, UK has begun talks with the US says Times London.
• UK is concerned about Iran's nuclear and missile program. A big UK radar that formerly was oriented towards warning of a Soviet missile attack is already part of the US ABM early warning system, and ABM interceptors would provide a logical next step.
• Uganda Troops Due In Mogadishu in two weeks. The 1500 troops will replace Ethiopian forces. Only 4000 troops have been pledged for an African Union force for Somalia against the 8000 required.
• Meanwhile, Somalia rebels continue stirring up minor incidents. 4 people died Friday in skirmishes in Mogadishu.

0230 GMT February 23, 2007

• More On Fall Of Prodi Government We need to stop writing up the news in a great hurry, but what to do, the bill collector waits for no man and his least favorite excuse is "I don't have money to pay my bill because I was properly writing up the news for Orbat.com.
• There is much more to the story about the fall of the Prodi government.  We'd mentioned Afghanistan, but reader Marcopetroni reminds us that a bigger issue was the expansion of the 173rd Airborne Brigade's base at Vincenza. Apparently the brigade is to be expanded with battalions added; we hope this means that it gets a third maneuver battalion at least.
• Times London, however, reports a different angle on the vote. It says rumors abound that Senor G. Andreotti, seven times Prime Minister and now a senator closely aligned with the Vatican, pulled down the government. Why? Because the Vatican opposes the left's liberal social agenda such as legalizing homosexual unions.
• How did Senior Andreotti do the deed? Well, Mr. Prodi's center-left party has a reasonable majority in the house, but only a 1-vote margin in the Senate. To offset the possible defection of extreme left Senators - two did defect - Mr. Prodi needed the votes of conservative senators like Senor Andreotti. The good senator promised to vote with the government, when the time came he abstained and there went the government.
• We so totally love this story, true or not. Italian parliamentary politics are so much more exciting than America's.
• As If There Is Already Not Enough Trouble In Iraq a Sunni woman alleged in the media she had been raped by Shia soldiers. Her stunning allegation - we do not use the word as lightly as the Americans love to do - has been followed by another Sunni making making the same allegation in another incident. The government has already dismissed as fabricated the first allegation.
• Okay, why stunning? Because - you may have noticed by now - in the Mideast rape is considered a heinous offence, much worse than murder, and a woman publicly saying she was assaulted is very, very rare. Readers will have seen that among all the horrible things Iraqis have been doing to each other, this is the first time a rape allegation has hit the media.
• Please notice: we said in the Mideast, not in Islam. In South Asia, for example, Muslims are as likely as any one else to engage in this crime.
• The allegations are going to inflame an already incendiary situation, true or not.
• Wait a minute: are we saying the women may have made it up? Well, consider that even in America, say 150 years ago, if a respectable woman alleged rape it was near automatic to assume it had happened. Just as in the Mideast, given the terrible stigma attached to the crime, both for the perpetrator and the victim, the sensible assumption was no respectable woman would make up such a thing.
• But: this is the year 2007. We know Al-Qaeda's playbook carefully explains all the allegations a prisoner must make, true or not, of his treatment at the hands of his captors. Is it inconceivable that a woman can be as devout a follower of AQ or an insurgent group as a man, and make false allegations to generate rage toward the Shias?
• True or not, it doesn't matter. This is not an allegation that has been made in near 4 years of Sunni-Shia violence. It has been made now.
• Incidentally, we realize some reader is going to say: "Here you're talking about rape as the worst crime in Mideast society, and yet one of Saddam's sons was accused of regularly raping women, including those picked up by his cruising goons and delivered to him." Well, what can we say. The crimes of Saddam and his sons are well known, they have their just desserts, and we can reasonably assume they rot in the nether regions.
• Baghdad Crackdown Working even though only one reinforcement brigade is on the ground - a second is arriving. US forces have changed tactics even though reinforcements are still coming in, and the results are clear: the number of bodies found each day has gone down dramatically.
• Meanwhile, Prince Harry Heads For Iraq as a reconnaissance platoon commander - troop in British parlance. In US terminology a cavalry troop is equal to a British squadron, and a US cavalry squadron is equivalent to a a British regiment.
• Prince Harry is 3rd in line to the throne after Dad Charles and Big Brother Wills. Big Brother is not considered expendable, but Harry is, particularly since he made it clear he was either going to be allowed to go or he would resign his commission.
• You hafta give it to the Brits. Which scion of America's leading families is volunteering - nay, insisting - on duty in a combat zone? Senator John McCain's son is going as a Marine. Newly elected Senator James Webb, himself a former Marine and winner of the Navy Cross, an award some maintain is harder to get than the Medal of Honor, has a son in the Corps who has seen Iraq duty. But folks, children of senators don't fall into the same category as would a child of Mr. Bush. Mr. Cheney, or Mr. Rumsfeld.
• Mr. Rumsfeld, to be fair, served as a naval aviator after graduating from Princeton on a ROTC scholarship. In those days before Vietnam, however, the US had a draft and military service was expected of anyone qualified.
• It is the editor's firm belief that because his generation of the ruling class  exempted itself from Vietnam, and yet insisted on its privilege to lead America, it forfeited the moral authority to lead. A leader who in his heart knows he is a coward and duty averse will bear a lifetime sense of illegitimacy which will cripple his ability as a leader. We saw that so clearly with Bill Clinton, and we see it with President Bush and Mr. Cheney.
• Fair disclosure: the editor also avoided duty in Vietnam. But he was not obligated to serve because he was not a citizen or green card holder. As recounted earlier, he made one attempt to enlist at age 19, and was refused because he had no birth certificate. By age 21 he was confused as to which ruling class he belonged, the Indian or the American. By age 22 he was back in India and that was that.

0230 GMT February 22, 2007

• For A Detailed View On British "Progress" In South Iraq read Times London http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1421387.ece
• The British lost their war and have begun the move to leave gracefully. The US has lost its war, but wants to lose even worse, and is building up.
• Meanwhile Vice-President Cheney says the US wants to leave Iraq with "honor". Good think we are not as smart as the Veep, because that is about as stupid a statement as can be made.
• We seem to have heard this sentiment expressed before. Let's see, maybe about 36-37 years ago? And the final US withdrawal from Indochina was carried out with great honor, wasn't it? We're sure the Veep's heart swells with pride at the photos of US helicopters lifting off from the embassy amid a sea of South Vietnamese desperately trying to get out. Why, a more moving, honorable sight than that of the NVA marching into Saigon cannot be found. Read the reminisces of an NPR reporter who was among the last Americans to leave at   http://216.35.221.77/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4624718 to properly appreciate the honor with which America left Vietnam.

• On Mr. Tony Snow Of course, with Presidential spokesperson Tony Snow to spin the news, when America finally sees the futility of its Iraq venture, he'll make it look like the greatest American victory since the birth of the Republic.

• For example, Mr. Snow has been telling us that the British withdrawal shows the progress toward stability that South Iraq has made. What this man needs is a course in logic. He also needs to get his facts right. The Times defense editor says that the British pullout is coming at a time when security in Basra is at its worst in 3 years. Read http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1418903.ece

• Prodi Government Falls Because Of Its Pro-US Stance We can understand that the vast majority of Italians did not want to be in Iraq.  But the Prodi government has fallen because some leftists withdrew their support for the Italian mission in Afghanistan, which the former Prime Minister backed fully. Shame on Italian leftists that they would rather see a return to Taliban rule than to help Afghanistan become a peaceful, democratic country, and shame on them for letting their virulent anti-Americanism get in the way of doing what's right - which is staying in Afghanistan/

0230 GMT February 21, 2007

The Editor passed one of his last two remaining exams for teaching licensing but failed one by 0.5%. It's not uncommon to take these exams multiple-times.  Those fresh from college seem to do best; the ancient birds who are have changed careers after retiring fare worst. Guess in which category the editor belongs. A large but unknown number of otherwise perfectly competent math teachers drop out each year for failing one or both of those exams because one has to pass them in 2 years. So its back to the books, with the result the news updates will have to be shorter for a while. We can hear the collective sigh of relief emanating from our readers.

• Afghan Army Needs Decade More to defend Afghanistan on its own, says the media. That will make it near 15 years since the US began rebuilding the Afghan Army.
• Fair enough. But please note that the Afghan forces are thought to be considerably better than the Iraqis. That helps put in perspective the absurd politically-motivated notion that Iraq will somehow be able to cope with the insurgents in the next 18 months, thus permitting success for the Americans.
• UK Expected To Announce Iraq Pull-Out While different sources give different figures, it appears about 2500-3000 troops are to be withdrawn by year's end in two batches. The first batch is expected to start leaving within weeks. All of the UK's 7000 troops will be gone by end 2008. The mission has been accomplished, the British say, and the Iraqis will take over.
• We congratulate the British on their strategy of declaring victory and going home. There is no mention in any of the official statements/comments of the complete British defeat in southern Iraq, which is without law or order. Warring factions compete for power, gangs rule, and the government's forces are ineffective. We don't hear much about south Iraq because there is little of the horrific sectarian warfare so common in Baghdad, Anbar, and spreading to other provinces north of the capital. Rather, the south is about groups of Shias competing for supremacy
• Wait a minute, you will say. Isn't just about any place in Iraq in the same condition? Why criticize the British?
• We are not criticizing the British: we are praising them. They arrived cocky as all heck, thinking their famed - and in our opinion heavily overblown - counterinsurgency experience would help teach those boastful Americans a thing or two about low-intensity warfare. When, however, the British failed miserably, they faced up to realities and decided to pack it in.
• To that extent, the paucity of resources available to Britain as a country worked in its favor. There was no question of sending - say - 4 or 6 brigades to the south. That initially would have had a big impact, but the resistance would have made the south a focus just as it has made the center a focus, and things would have fallen apart in the same way as they have fallen apart for the Americans all over Iraq.
• When the British went to the Iraq casino, they had less to gamble with. So they have been the quicker to appreciate Iraq is a losing game, and the quicker to go home.
• More On Attack Against US Post The attack on US forces north of Baghdad killed 3 Americans and wounded 17, not 2 and 19 as we had said earlier. Also, the police station that was attacked was not being used jointly by the US and Iraqi police. The Iraqis had abandoned it a while ago under pressure from insurgents. The US is reoccupying the post as part of its new strategy of clear and hold, if Iraqi police were at the post, it was under protection of US forces.
• So far the US has operated from big bases that are in effect almost invulnerable to attack. The new strategy forces dispersion of US forces in smaller facilities, which are inherently more vulnerable.
• And also, the area had been cleared of insurgents at least once before, then handed over to the Iraqis, who then fled. Sound familiar?
• Letter from James Freemon writes in response to our story about the US Army medic who, when ordered to Iraq said he was a conscientious objector, and had joined the Army to get a college education, not to fight. Instead of his impending court martial he asked for an honorable discharge. Mr. Freemon says:

• He doesn't have to fight. Medics are not supposed to fight or carry weapons. They are protected persons under the Geneva Conventions. It is a traditional and honorable way for a conscientious objector to serve his country. For a volunteer, enlisted, US Army non-combatant medic to refuse deploy to a combat zone is not refusing to fight, it is cowardice. His lawyer had better come up with a better defense.

   

   

0230 GMT February 20, 2007

• Iran Probing Iraqi Gulf Defenses says CNN, and observing US Navy operational patterns.
• Okay, but why is this a big deal? The Iraqis have taken over responsibility for protecting offshore oil installations; surely the Iranians would want to learn the Iraqi SOP. As for observing the US Navy, since the US has been closely observing Iran by land, sea, air, and space for the past 4 years, the Iranians would be negligent if they did not watch what/how the US Navy is up to.
• More to the point, Iran has underway a second big exercise this year: the Revolutionary Guard is exercising in 16 provinces, including the by now obligatory SSM firings.
• The Iranians cannot seriously doubt they will be wiped out if the US attacks, by US airpower alone. War, however, is not an objective unto itself. It is politics by violent means. And no one has figured out what happens after the attack, should it come.
• The Enemy Is Adapting Insurgents made a coordinated attack on an Iraqi police station north of Baghdad just as a US patrol was either entering or exiting the station. It is used regularly by US troops.
• First the insurgents blew up a tanker truck - suicide bomber - then killed 2 US troops and wounded 19 others as the Americans reacted.
• Obviously a well-planned and well-executed attack.
• Meanwhile, more bombs and killings in Baghdad, for a death toll of 40 on Monday.
• Russia's GNP Now $1-Trillion [Follow-up] Russia is to reequip 40 tank, 97 infantry, and 50 paratroop battalions by 2015.
• Indian Rail: An Explanation Petrol bombs planted on an Indian Rail train carrying 610 passengers to Pakistan were planted in two bogies. At the time the bombs went off, most passengers were asleep. When they tried to escape they found their way barred because the windows were barred, doors might have been locked, and one door, at least, fused under the heat. So 60+ passengers, mostly Pakistanis returning home from visiting their Indian relatives but including several Indian security officials, were burned to death. No way of violent death is good, but burning to death in a petrol fire is about the worst barring burning to death in an oil fire. Fortunately, if we can use that word, many victims apparently succumbed to smoke first.
• We need to explain why the bogie windows were barred and doors locked. Unlike trains in developed countries, most Indian passenger bogies are not air conditioned, so you have to have windows that can open and shut. Windows are barred for the protection of travelers, and doors are locked at night for the same reason. Since most people were sleeping, we can safely assume they were caught by surprise and were unable to make it to the doors in time. Similarly, its likely security personnel were able to open the doors in time. The panic was so great no one got a chance to pull the emergency stop chain - a stationmaster who saw what was happening as the train went through his station managed to get the train to stop - at least five minutes after the explosions. So one can imagine the confusion, and that probably added to the casualties, particularly women and children.
• Letter From Brian Cloughley I was astonished to read in Orbat.com that: "But ridiculous as the Reuters news item [on Beckham] is, it is more relevant to the existence of the human race than the news from Iraq, the Mideast, Pakistan and so on. Which is just a polite way of saying there is no news worth anything at this time. " I have to disagree:  the really important news of the moment isn't the train bomb in India, or the disaster in Iraq, or even the chaos in Afghanistan, Darfur, Zimbabwe or Nigeria.  It is, of course, the astonishing and world-shattering news that Britney Spears has shaved her head.  Pray sort out your priorities and Get Real . .
• Editor's Reply This is why it's a good thing old people die. Your editor is bored as heck with the news. He lacks the fire and energy that Mr. Cloughley has greatly in evidence. He is 100% right in his criticism. There is only one solution: readers must get together to finance a young female acolyte to work with the editor and restore his enthusiasm. [Hint: given the editor's vast age, anyone younger than 65 will suit.]

0230 GMT February 19, 2007

• Mexico Expands Anti-Drug War to two more states, committing another 2000 troops and police to a fight that has now encompassed several states.
• The two states border Texas. In one state, last year a war between a cartel and another in another state resulted in 2000 dead. These figures show how much the situation deteriorated under the previous regime. We have not kept track of deployments, but our impression is that over 7000 police and troops have been sent to at least five states.
• Russia's GNP Now $1-Trillion [AP is the source.] This gives a per capita of about $6000, so Russia is poor no more.
• The defense budget has grown from $8 billion in 2001 to $31-billion. The military has 1.15 million personnel and will downsize further, to 1-million.
• $190 billion is to be spent on equipment by 2015, replacing 45% of the current weapons inventory, much of which is obsolete.
• This year 17 Topol-M ICBMs are to be inducted versus an average of 4 annually for the last several years, and of the 31 new warships planned by 2015, 8 will be SLBM boats. So Russia is committed to rebuilding its nuclear forces.
• Naval and army readiness is claimed to be the highest since the breakup of the Soviet Union. We don't know what is in the budget for AFVs and fighter aircraft - here again Russian capability has declined precipitously.
• The runup in oil prices and the increasing Russian production of hydrocarbons is the cause of this reversal of fortune. Russia now has $300 billion in foreign exchange reserves - we seem to recall it was almost bankrupt at the close of the 1990s.
• Defense spending is around 3.2% of the GNP. We've never been able to figure out what the real expenditure was during the Soviet era, because a command economy sets prices by fiat. But it probably was of the order of 20-30% of GNP.
• Oh, The Poor Little Things British soccer star David Beckham and his wife have failed to find a suitable property in Los Angeles after viewing 20 homes in the $18-$30 million dollar range. Mr. Beckham is to play for a Los Angeles team under a $250-million contract. The couple had to return to Europe because Mr. Beckham had a match. They will come back to LA to resume their search.
• We weep for the poor little things. After going through a box of Kleenex the solution occurred to us. Mr. Beckham needs a swift, accurate kick to his rear. Since Mrs. Beckham is a lady we refrain from prescribing any remedies. Clearly, however, both need to get a life.
• But ridiculous as the Reuters news item is, it is more relevant to the existence of the human race than the news from Iraq, the Mideast, Pakistan and so on. Which is just a polite way of saying there is no news worth anything at this time.
• Warning: Two Kleenex Box Story A US Army medic enlisted in 2002, as the US built up in Afghanistan and prepared to invade Iraq. When his unit was detailed to Iraq, he refused to deploy. He joined the army to earn money for college, he said, and he never thought he would have to fight. He is against fighting, he said, because he is a conscientious objector.
• His trial is about to begin. A US appeals court has refused to overturn his detention. His lawyer says that "It breaks my heart because I think he's sincere."
• We weep for this "soldier" who discovered he was a CO after ordered to deploy. We weep again for his sensitive lawyer.
• After we ran out of Kleenex, a possible solution appeared. The lawyer should volunteer for Iraq in place of his client, and his client should be dishonorably discharged and sentenced to two years latrine duty in Iraq. And everyone will live happily every after.

0230 GMT February 18, 2007

• US Recruits Deploying To Iraq in 90 Days?
That's what an article about two youngsters deployed with the 1st Cavalry Division implies.
• If this is correct, the Army is in serious trouble. 90 days training is fine for the cannon fodder mass armies the US deployed in the 20th Century, it is a huge mistake for the highly technical and casualty-averse 21st Century.
• Indeed, the 90 days training was a mistake even in the 20th Century. No one will know how many young men died in Vietnam because they lacked the training needed to survive in combat, ditto Korea and the two World Wars.
• The Indian Army takes two years to turn out a rifleman. Okay, some of that is because the recruit standard of education remains low. American riflemen typically have 12 years of school, the Indian rifleman, last we checked, typically has 2+ years less.  Conversely, however, the Indian Army uses much simpler equipment and much, much simpler tactical methods than the US Army.
• In the Indian Army, it usually takes 10 years to become a company commander, and 20 or more to become a battalion commander. Platoons are led not by baby-fuzz lieutenants, but by hardened senior "Junior Commissioned Officers" who rise from the ranks and have 15-20 years of service.
• Ninety days training to deployment implies desperation on the US Army's part.
• US Army Deployment Factoids Baghdad is to have 10 brigades in two divisions.
• The entire army not deployed overseas is not combat ready.
• Don't Read Too Much Either Way Into Baghdad Civilian Casualties It's early days, so don't conclude the security breakdown isn't working just because we have 55 killed in car bombings Sunday in Baghdad. Conversely don't conclude things have gotten better because only 5 bodies were found Sunday in Baghdad.
• The insurgents of all kinds have pulled back to reassess their tactics and to watch what the US forces are doing.
• They will counter-attack, causing possibly horrific US casualties, and US senior military officials are preparing the public for that. The US will then counter-counter attack, US casualties will go down.
• Then the US will move on, the insurgents will return.
• Insurgencies are won by the side willing to take the greatest amount of pain for the longest time. That is why the Indian Army, which has the greatest amount of CI experience of any army in the world by any measure, invariably wins its counter-insurgencies. But: it took 40 years to win in Nagaland, 30 in Mizoram, and 20 in Kashmir.
• The Indian Army did not win in Sri Lanka for several reasons that may be relevant to the US Army. First, no one had the least clue what the strategy was - hint: the Government of India had no strategy. Second, the Indians were fighting the LTTE, which they themselves had trained very well over several years. Third, they were in a foreign country even if it was a neighboring one - think US doing CI in Mexico. Fourth, they underestimated the capabilities of the LTTE. Fifth, they arrived without any preparation and remained that way. Sixth, the Indian Army was fighting two enemies: the LTTE, and rouge components of India's intelligence, MOD, and civil leadership who wanted the LTTE to be brought back under Indian control and not destroyed.
• Last - and this is our point, the Indians quickly decided this wasn't their war and went home within two years. So they never got the chance to learn how to win this one.
• In sum, the LTTE inflicted greater pain on the Indians than the Indians could politically accept, so the Indians quit.
• Now class. Let's consider Iraq. You have the bad guys, who are the insurgents of all stripes. You have the good guys, the Americans. Who is going to quit first, the insurgents or the Americans?
• End of lesson.

0230 GMT February 17, 2007

• Blast at Iranian Girls School Iran says a blast occurred at a girls school in Zahedan, the eastern city which is close to the Pakistan border. No one was hurt. The militants ran from the scene and are holed up in a house which is surrounded by Iran police trying to get the men to surrender.

• Jundallah, the same group that claimed responsibility for killing 11 Iranian soldiers and wounding 30 on a bus in the Zahedan area on Wednesday, also claimed responsibility for this attack.

• As far as we are concerned, the best thing for the world would be if the current Iranian fascist theocracy is overthrown. But that does not what Jundallah did right. Attacking soldiers is legitimate. Planting bombs at a girls school is not, even if the bomb was one designed to make noise rather than to cause casualties. And what is Jundallah's point in choosing a girls school?

• The US should make clear to all militant groups it supports or whose objective's align with US objectives that attacks against civilian targets are not acceptable. That is called terror, and in case anyone forgets, the US is committed to fight terror globally.

• Most Incredibly Stupid Comment We've Seen In A While From the CNN report on the bombing: Iranian officials said the explosives used in that attack were manufactured in the United States. CNN could not verify those claims.

• Fooled you: bet you thought the incredibly stupid comment concerned what the Iranians said. That is stupid: the US does not use American manufactured explosives to support foreign insurgent covert operations. The world is awash in high quality explosives and US can buy what it needs, where ever and when ever it needs.

• The stupid comment is CNN's. How exactly would CNN verify those claims? Are CNN experts in origin of explosives? Why is CNN sticking itself in the middle? Is it some kind of world acknowledged authority on every aspect of reporting so that we would expect it to verify the matter? In which case saying that they couldn't verify would make sense. But no one thinks CNN is any authority on anything. It's supposed to report the news and that's all. The statement is just a stupid effort to make itself look more important. Wouldn't it be less bombastic to simply say: "Iranian authorities presented no evidence that the explosives were of US origin"?

• Most Incredibly Stupid Congressional Vote We've Seen In A While House votes 246-182 to support troops in Iraq but to repudiate President Bush's strategy.

• OK, our position on the Bush strategy is well known: a losing strategy for big time losers. That said, what is the point of the House vote? It means zero. It's a cute but failed attempt to have things both ways: demonstrate patriotism by supporting the troops and demonstrate dissent by attacking the President. But since Congress doesn't intend to take any responsibility for getting the troops out or for coming up with a new strategy, this is just posturing.

• Further, we must attack, in the strongest possible terms, this business of "we support our troops". It is truly appalling for the President to frame his Iraq policy in terms of supporting the troops: sending them on a mission impossible that is replete with blunders from beginning to end is not supporting them. The President is Commander-in-Chief, as he never tires of reminding us when asserting his prerogatives. Considering how badly he's failed, its time for him to resign as C-in-C. Chances of this happening? Zero.

• Still, everyone at least knows the President is playing politics when he talks about the opposition undermining the troops. We expect no better from him when all he has done for six years is play politics.

• What is absolutely unacceptable is the opposition now saying it supports the troops, because it too is playing politics. If the opposition is to prove itself morally no better than the President, then we at Orbat.com would rather stick with the President, thank you very much.

• Last, supporting the troops is neither a strategy nor a national imperative to be achieved at any cost. The troops are not independent actors. They are a tool of state policy. Any decision made or justified on the basis of "supporting the troops" is false logic.

• To continue a lost war because "we must honor the sacrifices of our troops" is not just moronic beyond belief, we have yet to hear anyone explain how committing more troops so that we can have a bigger failure is honoring them.

• Equally, however, to say we oppose the President but support the troops is pathetic low-level drool from the mouths of sub-zero IQ fools and knaves. We repeat: The troops have nothing at all to do with this. The correctness or the wrongness of the President's Iraq policy has to be considered on its own merits, not on the issue of supporting the troops. When anyone talks like that, they leave themselves wide open to the counterargument made on automobile stickers we see all over Takoma Park, Maryland: "Support the troops: bring them home."

• By the way, another dangerous aspect of saying "support the troops" and "honor the memory" is that it opens up the question of why then do we refuse to honor the memory of the Confederate troops who died in the Civil War equally with the memory of the Union troops. Weren't the Confederates also Americans? The Confederate States of America seceded from the Union, they did not secede from America.

• Also, we suspect some in the opposition were among those refusing to support the troops in Vietnam. So why have they not apologized for that?

• On A Lighter Note Cartoonist Jones appearing in the Free Lance-Star has two Democrats saying: "It's our responsibility to get tough with the President..." The next panel shows President Bush opening a Valentine that goes: "Roses are red, Violets are blue, Your plan for Iraq, Is nothing but poo." Just about sums up the mighty resolution Congress just passed.

• Baghdad Security Crackdown Working We never doubted it would. Our concern is that once US troops leave for Anbar province, things will be back to normal because Iraqis don't want to build a country together, they want to kill each other. Simplistic, but true.

• Violence is definitely down. But - and it's very smart of the US Army to publicly acknowledge this - it's likely insurgents of all stripes are simply laying low while they assess the new situation. They will adapt, as they always have, and then counterattack. US casualties will rise.

0230 GMT February 16, 2007

• CNN Reports Iraqi Police Wound AQ Leader And Kill His Top Aide The information comes from the Iraqi Interior Ministry. The skirmish occurred while the AQ leader in Iraq was trying to enter the town of Balad, north of Baghdad.

• Times London Says US Wont Allow Spain Access To Top Terror Leader He is the alleged mastermind behind the Madrid bombings, and is being held in a CIA prison after he was captured in Pakistan in October 2005. He had married a Spanish woman and had settled in Madrid.

• Times London says US denied access to the gentleman because Spain had pulled out its troops from Iraq. This has emerged on the first day of the trial of the Madrid bombing suspects. Spain is reportedly angry that their Number 1 Most Wanted cannot be questioned by them.

• Please Explain Why Britons Use Most Toilet Paper in Europe asks reader Walter E. Wallis while sending us this from the European Tissue Symposium:  "According to tissue industry figures, every Briton flushes about 39 lbs. of toilet paper down the lavatory every year, almost two and half times the European average. British toilet paper consumption of 110 rolls per capita is 25 times that of Ukraine's, Europe's lowest. Americans use about 34-1/2 pounds, well ahead of Western Europe's average flush of 27-1/4 pounds. Out of the EU states, new Europe's Baltic countries trail with 8-1/2 pounds annual consumption, three times less than the Germans. New research published by the European Tissue Symposium sees Europe's toilet paper consumption soaring by 40% percent over the next decade."

• Frankly, as far as we are concerned, this is the major news of the day. Being a strategic analyst is not easy. We are given many difficult jobs, and reader Wallis has presented us a particularly difficult one. But at Orbat.com we do not shrink from the toughest challenges and we will research the matter. Stay tuned folks. In the meanwhile, reader insights are welcome.

0230 GMT February 15, 2007

• Iran Rebel Group Kills 11 Elite Iran Troops Reader K. Sanders alerted us to this incident before it hit the mainstream media. A bomb planted by the Iran Baluch rebel group Jundallah (also spelled Jondallah) killed the troops in Eastern Iran.

• To summarize for our readers: the Iranian Baluch have, for decades, wanted an independent Baluch nation together with their Pakistani Baluch and Afghani Baluch brothers. The Pakistanis have repeatedly put down their Baluch, who have been the most nationalistic of the 3 groups, and appear to have succeeded in their latest effort.

• The Indians are covertly supporting 2 Pakistani Baluch groups. The US is supporting several Iranian Baluch groups, though let's not get excited here, folks. Support for a group can be as little as $100,000 in funds and basic equipment like radios. This is not like the support the US gave the Latin American contras of many nations, for example.

• The US effort in Pakistan Baluchistan has been both low key and cautious because one US faction does not want to destabilize Pakistan, and if you help the Baluch of any national origin, you are fanning the flames among the Baluch of the other groups. The other US faction just wants Pakistan to go to heck, and if it means Pakistan is to be split up into several countries, that's fine. This faction is not controlling US policy on the Baluch.

• The US effort is a bit like the one directed at the Kurds. The US wants to hurt Iran, but it doesn't want the logical consequences of hurting Iran, which would be an independent Baluch state carved out of Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan and which would quite definitely destabilize not just Pakistan, but also Afghanistan.

• Complicating matters, you have the arrival of the Chinese in Pakistan Baluchistan. More on that another time.

• Al-Sadr In Iran - But He Has Not Fled For all those who think US propaganda is always a big failure: the US pyschwar effort against al-Sadr has worked big time. After days of denials by all sorts of Iraqis that al-Sadr is in Iran, it turns out the US allegation that he was in Iran is true.

• Truth in Iraq is an elastic commodity, so all the people saying al-Sadr was in Iraq will not be feeling stupid.

• But those who say that he has fled are not quite right. For one thing, al-Sadr, like any good guerilla, knows when to retreat. He has "fled" to Iran on at least 2 earlier occasions, when the US was after his sorry and expanding behind in 2004. The US has, however, never been able to get directly at him, and we believe those who say he has fled to save himself from the crackdown are exaggerating the personal danger he faces. Of course, the US purpose is to run him down, so it's not particularly important what the semantics are here.

• For another, al-Sadr travels regularly to Iran. He needs to go for consultations, and that he is in Iran is not necessarily a sign of weakness or of opportunity for the US. It may simply portend more trouble for the Americans.

• Nonetheless, regardless of what the truth is, the US allegations will have their effect, however fleeting. There are people anti him in his own movement, and this absence could help them sow discord and doubt amongst his supporters.

• 173rd Airborne Brigade Diverted To Afghanistan Finally a deployment we can agree with. The brigade was training to deploy to Iraq from its base in Italy but will now go to Afghanistan. It will replace the brigade of 10th Mountain Division that has been extended by 120 days in anticipation of the coming NATO spring offensive against the Taliban.

• To avoid telegraphing its plans, NATO has not said anything about its offensive, preferring instead to speak of the need to counter the expected Taliban spring offensive. Our information is, however, that preparation for a NATO offensive is well underway and NATO plans to hit the Taliban first.

• All well and good, but we really do need to focus on some of the fundamental issues here.

• An additional brigade is better than nothing, but it is still a pathetic band-aid compared to the need - and compared to the importance of winning in Afghanistan. None of this changes the reality that the US will remain seriously undermanned in Afghanistan.

• It also does not change the reality that for Counter Insurgency you need infantry and lots of it. All the razzle dazzle of the 173rd capabilities in networking, firepower, reconnaissance etc etc count for little when the need is for ground pounders. The US Army needs a third battalion of 4 combat companies for each of its Iraq/Afghanistan brigades, and even that is an absolute minimum. For the job, particularly for Afghanistan, you needs brigades of 4 and 5 battalions.

• The Army will find another brigade for Iraq to replace the 173rd. Which doesn't change the reality the US Army is running on fumes as far as availability of brigades is concerned. The Army keeps saying it will manage and that the force is not breaking. Pardon moi, but the force IS broken. It is being kept going by stop-loss orders, and by recalling Guard brigades for duty that were already under severe personnel pressure.

• We find it most peculiar that half a generation ago, in 1991, when the US population was about 50 million people less, the Army could maintain an all-volunteer level of about 900,000 but now feels it really cannot afford more than the approximately 550,000 it has now. Its hardly a secret that the generals are seeking to protect their equipment budgets and at the expense of manpower. The nature of American wars has changed, however, and manpower is needed more than the ultra-sophisticated toys the generals want.

• And judging by what's happening, the generals and their corporate friends are not doing so well with the toys either: cases in point are the Supreme Fiasco of the Coast Guard's cutter program, and the Ultra Supreme Fiasco of the Marines' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, which has stormed the beaches on the way to the junkyard.

• Obsolete Metaphor Alert Used to be said American weapons were gold-plated. Nowdays they seem to be made of gold. That's progress for you.

0230 GMT February 14, 2007

• US Accepts Humiliating Defeat At DPRK Hands Rhetoric? Unfortunately not. After insisting that no direct negotiations with DPRK over its N-program would take place, and insisting there was nothing to discuss except DPRK's N-disarmament, after which the US would think of doing something in return, and after boasting that this administration was going to be tough on DPRK, not wimpy like the Clinton administration, the US has folded its cards and handed its chips over to DPRK. It has gone back on its entire 6-year position.

• And what does it have in return? An agreement as worthless as the one the reviled Clinton administration signed with DPRK. In case anyone has forgotten, that agreement called for western money to build two safeguarded light-water reactors to provide DPRK with safe N-energy, in return for which DPRK was supposed to terminate its weapons program.

• DPRK did terminate the weapons program last year. First it broke all its agreements, then it staged what it said was an N-test, and threatened to stage another. Now that's termination for you. For the sorry record of the first agreement, see http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/agreedframework.asp  In the meanwhile, DPRK has continued to supply the rouge N-states Pakistan and Iran with missiles and missile technology.

• This time around there is no mention of civilian N-technology, but  $300-million of heavy fuel oil is to be provided. More important, the US agreed to resolve bilateral issues with DPRK. Hint: bilateral means the administration will sit down directly with DPRK. If this isn't bad enough, the US has agreed to normalize relations with DPRK. Read http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/february/80479.htm

• Note on the fuel oil: up to 1-million tons is to be provided. New York spot price is approximately $250/ton; presumably the $300/ton includes shipping and other unspecified charges.

• Please get this, folks. DPRK is a designated member of the Axis of Evil. And the US has agreed to normalize relations?

• And what is the assurance DPRK will keep its word THIS time? None.

• US Has Destroyed Its Position Vis-a-Vis Iran and Syria Now, folks. If US can peacefully negotiate with one of the Three Stooges, on what basis is it going to keep refusing to talk to Syria and Iran?

• This whole thing makes us gag.

• The Iraq War Is Directly Responsible For The Weak US Position Globally we have repeatedly said the US has to get out of Iraq because its commitment is undercutting the GWOT. Right here you have proof of that proposition. The US has NO cards left to play against anyone, so it has capitulated on DPRK. This is going to embolden Syria/Iran to insist the US talk, and this is going to embolden EU and the rest of the world to insist the US talk. We don't even want to think about the mess that is coming.

• Much Weeping & Wailing As British React To UNICEF Report placing UK last among 21 industrial nations in looking after its children.

• Unusually for Brits who like most everyone in the world are inveterate Yank bashers, the BBC makes no mention of who occupies the Number 20 spot. No guesses needed.

• Mr. Bush Is Taking The Congressional Debate On Iraq Very Seriously So seriously that he allowed as he wasn't quite sure about the debate details, but he was so busy with work he really couldn't be bothered.

• Now, readers know we have done our share of Mr. Bush bashing after the surge was announced. We absolutely do not agree with his Iraq policy. At the same time, we completely agree with the contempt Mr. Bush is showing Congress, which is busy proving itself as the biggest Wussie Club this side of the Andromeda Galaxy.

• Give 'em heck, Chief. They deserve it.

• For One Of The Best Accounts From The Field In Afghanistan read the London Time's story of a Royal Marine operation in the Helmand Province dam area. This is the same dam that the Taliban from Pakistan are organizing to attack. We're glad to know the Brits are starting their offensive before the Taliban start theirs. We are also very pleased there is no Softly, softly here - of course, most of the civilians have fled so the Brits may feel they have a wider latitude. The Royal Marine attitude of "kill them all" is in perfect synchronization with that of their American counterparts and is to be heartily applauded.

• But this is no John Wayne report from the field: the report makes clear both the Brits and the Americans respect the Taliban. As for what happened after the operation, read the article and see if it doesn't remind you of another war taking place right now.

• We were astonished to learn that if unarmed Taliban come on to the field to recover their dead and wounded the Brits will not fire. We wonder if the Taliban show a similar adherence to Marquis of Queensbury's Rules.

0230 GMT February 13, 2007

• Teacher Goes First The editor is a school teacher by day. He was getting fed up with his students clustering around the door and waiting anxiously for the bell to signal the end of the period. The rule is that the teacher dismisses the students and not the bell.

• It was clear the students wanted to get the heck out ASAP because they were bored mindless. Can't beat them, join them. So the editor carefully explained he was bored even more mindless than the students - true, because he's been given pre-Algebra to teach - and made a new rule: teacher leaves first.

• So the editor has been strapping on his backpack the minute he sense a rush for the door is about to begin, gets to the door first, and every 10 seconds exclaims loudly "when is this boring class going to end?!!".

• Needless to say, the rush to the door has abated, because if it's one thing students hate, it's the teacher behaving in even more immature fashion than them. By the way, you cannot fake immaturity: you really have to be more immature than your students. The editor can confidently say that in matters of maturity, its a no contest. He is a 10-1 winner over his 14-year olds any time of the day.

• Well, the news has become so boring that your editor has to institute a new rule. He knows readers are bored out of their mind. But he is MORE bored than they are. So in the metaphorical rush to the exits, he gets to go first simply because he is the editor.

• That out of the way, let's get to the news.

• US Is Shocked, Shocked, Iran Is Arming Shia Militias who in turn are killing American soldiers. Someone please give us a break. The whole world and his kid brother has known about this since 2003, except then the Shias weren't killing Americans. But people like al-Sadr began to do so from 2004 onward - as everyone and his brother knows. So Washington, please give us a break.

• Iran Feels Sad At Any Loss Of Life In Iraq Iran responds by saying US has a long history of fabricating evidence. Iran is not arming anyone. Iran wants peace and love everywhere. It feels sad that anyone is dying in Iraq. [We kid you not - we heard that on National Public Radio.] Give us another break, people. Even the sanctimonious fascists who rule the country must be having a hard time keeping a straight face when they say such things.

• NATO Is Shocked, Shocked Pakistan Harbors The Taliban and is not doing enough to stop the insurgents. 700 Taliban insurgents coming from Pakistan are massing to attack a dam that is critical to the Afghan economy. Pardon us while we make another trip to the puke barrel outside. Everyone and his kid sister knows that not only is Pakistan doing NOTHING to stop the Taliban,  the Taliban is simply another arm of the Pakistan military.

• Pakistan Denies Allegation, Says It Has 80,000 Troops On The Border trying to stop the insurgents - who aren't based in Pakistan in the first place. Quite a feat, eh? 80,000 troops on Pakistan's side of the border stopping insurgents based in Afghanistan from crossing the border from Pakistan into Afghanistan. The mind reels - we need another trip to the puke barrel.

• Incidentally, if anyone is interested, the number of Pakistani troops actually guarding the border is a few thousand "manning" border posts. They "man" so well that the insurgents drive truck convoys through the posts - this is not a metaphor, they really do travel in convoys and are waved through. The rest of the troops are on internal security duty in Balochistan and North West Frontier Province, and lately, they aren't even doing internal security in the NWFP, which has been gifted to the Taliban and other nasty pieces of work.

• Obama Is Shocked, Shocked That Australian PM Criticized Him The good Senator believes that when Mr. Howard attacked him for wanting him expeditiously pull out of Iraq, Mr. Howard is interfering in US's internal affairs. Yet another trip is needed to the puke barrel, which is by now overflowing. When the Australian opposition attacks Mr. Bush, we don't see Senator Obama saying they are interfering in US's internal affairs.

• Israelis Successfully Test Arrow ABM Get ready for yet another trip to the puke barrel. It's just a matter of hours - if it hasn't happened already - before the Israelis tell us just how much better Arrow is compared to Patriot. It doesn't seem to bother Israeli boosters of Arrow that the missile is in completely a different category, or that it is 50% American. Incidentally, we believe that's the funding ratio, technology wise the missile is more than 50% American.

• And That Is Today's News - Remember, The Editor Gets To Leave First

0230 GMT February 12, 2007

• This is criminal and someone has to pay Buhritz is a small town 80 km north of Baghdad. CNN reports that on Sunday US/Iraq forces were engaged in a "fierce fight" to take the town from Al-Qaeda, which has claimed control since December.

• All to the good, you will say: we're hitting back at Al-Qaeda.

• The reality is that the US has seized control of Buhritz several times in the last 4 years. Each time the US has withdrawn and Sunni insurgents have retaken the town, says CNN.

• The Sunday fighting cost the lives of 1 US and 1 Iraqi soldier in exchange for 7 insurgents killed and 20 suspects detained. It took 8 hours of combat to clear 800-meters of road: the insurgents had prepared well, planting large numbers of real and fake explosive devices.

• Recently there has been an increase of AQ in the town. The men are coming from Anbar province, where increased US activity is squeezing them.

• So once again, the US clears an area, only to force the insurgents somewhere else, and when it leaves, the insurgents come back.

• People, its time to face facts. The government of the United States has been systematically lying to its people about progress in Iraq. Just as there has been no progress for 4 years in the British-controlled south, there has been no progress anywhere else. When the US goes on the offensive, there is peace for a while. Then when the US departs, things fall apart once again.

• This process, incidentally, has begun in the formerly peaceful north, and it is no coincidence that US forces in that area have been reduced to support the recently failed Baghdad offensive that was staged prior to the current offensive.

• By all rights, someone needs to be held responsible for these mind-boggling failures. This is not a matter of some well-thought out policy that didn't work. This is a matter of the government hiding the truth and as its new policy, following exactly the same policy.

• If readers don't believe us read the Washington Post of yesterday. A battalion commander who learned his CI from the legendary Col. MacMasters and Lt. General Petraeus details how in the previous Baghdad push, he did everything that is proposed for the new offensive. He makes clear that the mission  failed even though US troops have remained in the area he cleared. This is because sectarian hatred runs so deep that despite every effort made by the Americans, the locals simply wanted to kill each other.

• We beg the US administration not to make us laugh because frankly, we have laughed so much at its Iraq strategy that our sides hurt. But the administration insists on playing to Saturday Night Live with Jay Leno. In Buhritz, for example, this is what is supposed to be different this time: the US is clearing the town so that the Iraqis can hold it themselves.

• Hello, isn't this what was supposed to happen last time? Did it happen? It did not. Why is this time different? The administration will have no response. It is evident that Buhritz is a predominantly Sunni area, else AQ could not have gotten a foothold. Even if one ingests a vast quantity of controlled substances and believes the Iraqi Army, which is dominant Shia, is capable of standing up to AQ, the minute the US withdraws from Buhritz the Iraqi Army/police will do what they have done everywhere else: kill the Sunnis.

• Why is it we were so skeptical of Vietnam claims but so readily accept Iraq claims? After the 1968 Tet Offensive, Americans increasingly refused to believe US government pronouncements about Vietnam. This was ironical, because every year substantial progress was made so that by 1972, when North Vietnam invaded the south in force, most of the country was actually pacified. But it was becoming harder and harder to find anyone who believed that.

• In Iraq, on the other hand, the government has failed repeatedly and continues to fail. Yet we citizens keep buying the administration's putrid theories about how this time it will all come together.

• Why is this happening?

• Our theory is that the government has so successfully spun the news out of Iraq that an illusion has been created and sustained. In Vietnam, journalists went everywhere regardless of the risks, and provided they could arrange their own attachment to a unit, they were free to go where they went. In Iraq, under the pretext of risk, journalists go nowhere, and even if they do go, the government carefully controls their access to units.

• An informed citizen is the bedrock of democracy. A generation ago, citizens were informed. Today they are being duped.

• But there is no sense in blaming anyone but ourselves The Founding Fathers worked with a few elegant but fundamental premises about human beings. Absolute power corrupts absolutely was one. So they set up a system of checks and balances. We have noted earlier the system has failed. But the founding fathers was clear that we, the citizens, had to accept our responsibilities as well. Our responsibility is to throw the bums out.

• The practical problem is that the people waiting to come into power when we throw the bums out are equally a bunch of bums. So this is going to take some thinking.  But domestic politics is hardly an area in which we know much, leave alone have expertise. So really our readers will have to come up with the ideas.

0230 GMT February 11, 2007

• US Baghdad Operation Some details from an independent source, the London Times, are available at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1364760.ece Personally we find the whole thing too hideously boring and are unable to devote any energy to reporting/analyzing the drive.

• Among new details to emerge is that the US has set up 10 mini-forts inside Baghdad, and will build up to 10, perhaps even to 30. Conditions inside the forts are primitive; in one, for example, troops are using barrels as toilets. The very high level of discomfort US troops routinely tolerate is quite (in)famous; even troops from many 3rd world armies wouldn't accept the disgusting conditions in which US troops are expected to function.

• US Could Generate 363-GW Offshore Wind Power in the northern part of the Atlantic coastline alone, says Business Week. This would enable Northeast/Coastal states to cut carbon emissions by 57% for the approximately 1/5th of the US population which lives in those states.

• Ethanol Contradictions Commentators are noting the US plan to cut gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years by producing alternate fuels such as ethanol is rife with contradictions. US is using corn to produce ethanol and this is already starting to push up US food prices. Brazil uses sugarcane, which is a much more efficient source, but US imposes 54-cent/gallon tax on Brazilian ethanol to protect the local industry.

• Our point in bringing this up is simply that there are technical solutions in plenty, but illogic, politics and entrenched financial interests can be counted on to mess up the prospect of US energy independence. For example, the US could easily, within 10 years, produce several hundred gigawatts of N-power from new generation reactors that are inherently fail-safe and are much simpler to build than the old reactors. But Americans have such a phobia about N-power that any expansion of this source is unacceptable, beyond a few plants that may be built in the next decade. No one in the US is the least concerned about the tens of thousands of people that die every year in the extraction industries and from carbon pollution, as opposed to the less than 20 or so that die from N-power production.

• People talk of the expense of N-power. We'd like to note that between 2003-2010 the US is likely to spent $750-billion on the Iraq War alone, without counting State Department, intelligence, and other costs.  Add those costs, and add the true costs of securing the oil lanes, you are probably looking at $2-trillion over 10 years.  As a back of envelope calculation, assume the US will import 25-billion barrels over 10 years from outside the western hemisphere. That's $80/bbl in addition to the trade price, which right now is $60. No one seems to blanch at $140/bbl oil. Because they do not understand the true cost of their oil, Americans don't see how urgent it is to break the dependence on imported oil.

0230 GMT February 10, 2007

• UN Peacekeepers Attack Port-au-Price Gang Since 2004 the UN peacekeeping force in Haiti has been engaged in periodic operations to quell gangs in the capital. This operation involved 700 troops. We have no good idea about what these operations are achieving or not achieving.

• David Hicks Now a Person Of Interest To India There has been a lot of weeping and wailing in Australia about its citizen who is incarcerated at Guantanamo. He was captured in Afghanistan. Now the Indian government wants to "talk" to him because it has been given information that Mr. Hicks went also to Kashmir - he says so in letters - received training from a particularly vicious  anti-India armed group known for murdering civilians and ethnic minorities, and fired "hundreds" of rounds at Indian troops. Australia has an extradition treaty with India, and as far as we know, so does the US. So it is likely Mr. Hicks will at some point land up in India.

• First, let us be clear that we completely oppose the US government's taking 5 years to bring charges against Mr. Hicks. It doesn't matter whether he is entitled to rights or not entitled to rights. Holding a man without charges for 5 years is not the American way.

• This does not mean we hold any brief for Mr. Hicks. It seems fairly clear to us he fought against US forces without protection of a uniform or of a country. As far as we are concerned, he should have been tried and executed years ago, or better yet, simply not taken prisoner.

• Second, let us also make clear that if/when Mr. Hicks arrives in India, he will very soon wish he was back getting tender loving care at the hands of his American jailors. At the best of times Indian law enforcement authorities tend to be very rough, and terrorists, proved or alleged, tend to get handled even more roughly. But there is a certain kinship between Indians and Pakistanis that survives to this day: ethnically they are the same people.

• Mr. Hicks, on the other hand, will be seen by the Indians as a person with no legitimate justification to be fighting against its army. He is white and from a developed country towards which India has only admiration and respect. His likely claim as a Muslim he must engage in jihad will cut no ice with the Indians.

• They will go after him in the worst possible way. If the Indian Army claims and gets custody of him, all we can say for certain is that it will keep him alive, but only to make him regret, each day, that he is not dead.

• Evo of Bolivia Seizes Smelter Without Compensation, sending troops to occupy the largest privately owned tin smelter in the country. This is right after he had to back down from his effort to tax independent miners who incidentally tend to be poor and work under very dangerous conditions. It seems Mr. Morales is quite selective in his choice of who is poor in Bolivia.

• Meanwhile, Hugo Nationalizes Venezuela's Largest Power Company 84% owned by American AES. Mr. Chavez, however, for all his hot rhetoric is paying AES market price for its shares. True the shares are worth half of what AES paid, and the drop has been mainly on account of the threat of nationalization. Nonetheless, there is a world of difference between the smelter case and the power plant.

• Now all we have to do is sit back and watch international capital leave Venezuela and Bolivia. The privileged will hardly suffer; it will be the poor that will pay the consequences. 

• We Condemn The Attack On Elie Wieisel He is the famous author and Holocaust survivor. He was accosted in an elevator by a man on the pretext of an interview, and then dragged off with the intent, says the attacker, of getting Mr. Wieisel alone and making him confess that his memoirs are fiction. It is beyond belief that a man would not only attack the 78-year old author, but then boast about it on an Australian website, giving his name.

• We hope this man is tracked down and brought to justice. We need to be clear that as far as we are concerned his crime is not denial of the Holocaust. He is entitled to his views, however historically wrong. What is wrong is the idea of attacking an old man with the idea of holding him hostage and using whatever means are neccessary to get him to say he has faked his horrific experiences.

0230 GMT February 9, 2007

• We are getting quite bored with the lack-of-news situation and we suspect so our readers. It's the same-old same-old every day. The news that the Baghdad crackdown has begun caused us a few yawns because everyone knows how it will turn out. The Iraqis will mostly not fight, leaving the Americans to do the job. The Americans will do the job the best they can within their limited resources. Violence will drop. But the Shias and Sunnis will continue to kill each other, albeit at a reduced pace because they have to be cautious not to run into the Americans. Then at some point the Americans will be withdrawn, and it will be business as usual. So what exactly is the point of reporting/analyzing the crackdown? The same applies to most of the other news stories.

• Kirkuk Becoming Next Iraqi Flashpoint Reader marcopetroni has been sending us articles regularly warning that Kirkuk, an urban area of about 1-million is simply waiting to explode into multi-faceted sectarian violence.

• The situation is dismally simple. Right now Kirkuk is a multi-ethnic cit, with four main groups: Kurds, Turkemans, Iraqi Shias, and Iraqi Sunnis. The autonomous Kurd Republic claims Kirkuk for its own based on historical claims. This is a big oil-producing region, and the Kurds need it for economic viability.

• The Kurds have been busy running the Arabs out of town - i.e., the Iraqi Shias and Sunnis. They say the Sunnis were sent by Saddam from 1968 to change the ethnic balance of the region as a means of giving him control, and they went the immigrants to go. Saddam gave their houses and land to the Sunnis, and they want both back. They have been giving Sunni families $15,000 to relocate elsewhere. The problem now is that the Sunnis see no future in Iraq, and are becoming increasingly resistant to being told to leave.

• Next, the Turkemans are a problem for the Kurds. Ethnically Turkish, this group has been living in the region for centuries, but the Kurds feel they will create problems for an independent Kurdistan because their loyalties will be with Turkey, not with the Kurds. Fair enough, but the Turkemans say they belong where they are and they are not going to leave their ancestral lands.

• Across the border you have Turkey, which has quite openly said it will invade if Kurdistan declares independence. Syria, Turkey, and Iran have significant Kurd populations, and no one wants a new, large, unified Kurd state carved out of their territories. The Iraqis are the only ones that do not care about the Kurds anymore: the Shias, who are the only Iraqis who matter at this point, have said the Kurds are welcome to say goodbye to Iraq.

• The US is playing a double game, and a rather unprincipled one. They were all for the Kurds when it suited, mainly because the Kurds weakened Saddam. But the US is in thrall to Turkey - we have never understood why because the usual reasons given make no sense to us. Also, the Sunni Arab states have warned the US against breaking up Iraq. So right now the US is getting ready to sell the Kurds down the river, as they did to the Shias after the immediate aftermath of Gulf I. We've commented how according to the US is legitimate for provinces of former Yugoslavia as small as Kosovo to have independence, but its not okay for anyone in Iraq.

• Now, the Kurds have called for a referendum on the status of Kirkuk for the end of the year. This will prove the causus belli that could plunge Iraq into yet another civil war, with the neighboring states jumping in. The Kurds are determined to win the referendum, everyone else is determined they will fail. Problem: somewhere between 80,000 and 100,000 Kurd fighters, once backed by the US. This is the largest cohesive combat force in Iraq, and good luck to the US, Iranians, Syrians, and Turks if they are going to take on the Kurds.

• Meanwhile, a regional conference was held in Turkey on the future of Kirkuk. Kirkuk must remain an ethnically mixed city, said the conference. Nice, except for a little things: no one invited the main Kurdish parties to the conference. The conference will be used to legitimize Turkish and other foreign intervention in Kurdistan - protecting the minorities, that sort of thing.

• By now, we are getting seriously - very seriously - tired of the mess after mess the US has been getting itself into. You have the Sunni versus Shia civil war, you have a Shia versus Shia civil war waiting to happen when the US leaves, and now we are looking at a multi-sided civil war about to happen in Kurdistan. We'd like to know what the bright lads in Washington plan to do about the Kirkuk situation given they are clean out of options for the rest of Iraq. Do not, even for one minute, think the UN or the EU will come in. The UN is already seriously overstretched and has absolutely no intention of helping the US clean up the messes that the US, like a destructive ADHD child, persists in creating for itself. The EU cant fund 6000 troops for Afghanistan, where are they going to find anyone for Kirkuk, even assuming they want to.

• The solution to the problem is quite simple, which is why we can be 100% sure Washington will not buy it. Help Kurdistan to declare independence, and tell the Turks and everyone else they will get hammered if they attack. Aside from being morally the right thing to do, and aside from the majority of Iraqis have said they do not want to live in one country, supporting an independent Kurdistan will create endless complications for Iran - its oil fields are in Kurds majority areas, just for starters. Kurdistan will drive a wedge between Shia Iran and Shia Iraq, for another.

• We see no hope for a logical US policy in Kurdistan. This has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats, when push comes to shove, the US power elite comes up with one basic play, regardless of political positions. You will see a Democratic president in 2008, but you will not see anything resembling sense on Kurdistan.

• A last point: all of us in the West are supposed to be ultra-sensitive to the rights of Muslims. Does the West care to see what the Muslims have been doing, and are doing, to the Christians of the Mideast? Even in Saddam's time, the Christians of Iraq were getting squeezed. Now the situation has become very bad for them. Kirku was an area of relative peace. But the one thing the various ethnic groups in Kirkuk seems to agree on is "let's gang up on the Christians." As for the Christians of other Mideast countries, including those in Egypt, our close ally, they have had no future since these countries achieved independence, and they have less of a future with every day that passes.

• In the editor's humble opinion: a civilization that bends over backward to appease a religion whose extremists are determined to destroy that civilization, while doing nothing to defend its co-religionists because they happen to be of a different color, is a degenerate civilization that does not deserve to last. Odd that the editor and the Islamic extremists should agree on anything, but there it is.

0230 GMT February 8, 2007

• Minor Israel-Lebanon Clash broke out when Israeli troops crossed a border fence looking for explosives. They had earlier found 4 bombs presumably planted by Hezbollah. The Lebanese Army called on the Israelis to stop, when the latter did not, there was an exchange of fire.

• The Israelis say they did not cross the border. Well, unless you want to believe the Lebanese Army has nothing better to do than provoke clashes with an adversary that is far more powerful, it's simpler to accept the Lebanese version.

• Which leaves unanswered a point the Israelis will surely raise: when the Lebanese cannot stop Hezbollah from mining a road the Israelis use, don't the Israelis have a right to search for additional explosives that might be planted nearby and that could be detonated remotely?

• Of course, the issue is not whether Israel crossed the border fence. The issue is that Hezbollah seems to back in business.

• The 61st Amendment To The US Constitution requires anyone standing for Congress to be a certified moron. At least that's the impression we frequently get. This time Congress wants to know who in his right mind would send 360 tons of cash to Iraq in 2003-04. The recipient of this question was Paul Bremer, the failed US administrator for Iraq.

• Our readers know that as far as we are concerned, Mr. Bremer should be doing hard labor for life without parole for the mess he made in Iraq. So we are hardly fans of his. But the reason he asked for and received $9-billion dollars in cash is so simple that even the tiny minds of Congresspersons should understand.

• Mr. Bremer used the money to pay Iraqi salaries. There was no banking system - and largely still isn't. Iraqis relied on the state to give them subsidized food and salaries for jobs that required little or no work. When the state collapsed, there was neither subsidized food nor salaries. So there was no alternative to cash.

• Mr. Bremer's mistake was in not extending cash payments to Iraqi soldiers, and his next mistake was not to pay everyone a sum sufficient to survive, regardless of their political affiliation. This would have kept the vast majority of people quiet, even among the Sunnis, and would have been far cheaper than fighting the insurgency.

• You can blame the man for a whole lot of things. You can't blame him for one of the few sensible things he did. You can blame Congress for an excess of stupidity in even bringing up the matter. Surely some of the money went astray. surely some was paid to people who were already insurgents, or became insurgents. But the need was urgent, and we've seen from Katrina that even in the US, when no cash was being handed out, considerable sums of money seem to have gone - ahem - astray. That's with a working banking system.

• UK Letter Bomb Attacks look unlikely to have anything to do with the GWOT. In the past few weeks 7 letter bombs have gone off. The explosive material in each is insufficient to kill or seriously injure the recipient and appear designed for shock. Speculation is someone who is unhappy about the traffic cameras in UK is behind the attack because of some of the targets. Since, however, no one has claimed responsibility, no one knows for a fact.

• Letter On Friendly Fire Incidents From Walter E. Wallis Our FAC commented one day he sure appreciated how we infantrymen took care of him, always checking his welfare after an attack. I didn't have the heart to tell him we were just waiting to salvage his fur-lined flight boots in case he got hit.

• Friendly fire is a fact of life. If air support isn't close it is of little use since the enemy knows to hold your belt buckle. If you can't call in napalm real close you might get dead.  
• I despair of any Feather Merchant ever comprehending war, and I resent Feather Merchant evaluation of tactical combat acts.
   

0230 GMT February 7, 2007

• UK-UK Friendly Fire Incident Appears FAC Error CNN says US has finally released tape of the friendly fire incident in which US fighters attacked British armor in Iraq in 2003, killing one British soldier. The UK MOD says the tape should not have been leaked as it was classified.

• British news reports about the inquest said that the British were told that "rouge" US fighters were operating with their radios off and that attempts to communicate were unsuccessful.

• A CNN transcript of the tape is available at http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/06/video.transcript/index.html

• It shows clearly that there were no rouge pilots: two A-10s are in constant communication with their Marine FAC(s). The A-10s observed what they thought were 4 missile launchers. Actually they were 4 British light tanks with  orange panels displayed to indicate they were friendlies. The FAC tells the A-10s there are no friendlies in the area; the A-10s attack. The tape provides vivid proof of the great upset the pilots undergo when they are told they have attacked friendlies; one succinctly says "We're in jail, dude." The other says "I'm going to be sick" and is recorded weeping.

• Now, obviously the FAC was in error. Why this was so remains to be seen, but from where we are sitting, this incident is just another unfortunate example of mistakes that happen even with the best FACs and the best communications. We wonder whether the unfamiliar AFVs, Scimitars, were part of the reason things got mixed up.

• If there is a lesson here, it's that the US should have been more open about the incident and handed over the tapes when requested by the British coroner. The coroner is not a judge, s/he is simply investigating the death of a British soldier, and it is on the coroner's determination that a case goes or does not go to trial. The long delay in handing over the tape has led to the worst kind of suspicions on the British side.

• We are not saying the US should automatically hand over all evidence in cases such as these. We believe, for example, the US was absolutely correct not to cooperate with the Italian judge investigating the death of an undercover officer as his car approached Baghdad airport. The Italians seemed to have no wish to determine the truth, which was their man should not have operated as he did. Their clear intent was to nail the Americans and therefore hide their own mistakes. Cooperating with the Italians would have futile and very unfair to the American soldiers involved.

• The US-UK incident, on the other hands, appears to have been a genuine accident. We've seen figures suggesting in World War 2 up to 15% of US combat casualties might have been caused by friendly fire. The more firepower you deploy, the more likely mistakes are to be made, and this is particularly true of modern fighters. The US does its level best to reduce friendly fire incidents. But it is the nature of war that no system is perfect.

• For what is, in our opinion, a very balanced article on the incident and the fog of war factor, we suggest readers click http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6337137.stm

• US Africa Command In principle we have no objection to the new US Africa Command. The old arrangement, with 3 commands sharing responsibility for Africa, was cumbersome. Not only will the US get an increasing amount of oil from Africa - currently 10% says BBC - but the continent is of vital interest to the US, both for the GWOT and for its size and diversity.

• Nonetheless, we don't like the immensely top-heavy US command arrangement. It's nice the Pentagon is getting another command, but hows about beefing up the troop strength, folks? Otherwise it's a case of all chiefs and no Indians.

• Iran Diplomat Seized In Baghdad Iran says he was seized by people in Iraqi uniforms driving American vehicles, and blames the US. The US, says Iran, is responsible for the safety of diplomats in Iraq.

• Well, not really. That was true when the US was the occupying power. But Iraq now has its own government, own police, own laws and so on. Just because the US holds the military balance of power in Iraq doesn't make it an occupying power.

0230 GMT February 6, 2007

No real news today

• We Agree With Senator John McCain... He has blasted those Congresspersons who oppose President Bush's plan and weep fat tears for the troops caught in a losing war, but then refuse to take responsibility for cutting funding for the war. He says this is hypocrisy, and we agree entirely.

• By the way, we should clarify that "blast" in the American context does not connote fire and brimstone. In America you have to speak slowly, clearly, and in a moderate tone, or else people don't take you seriously. You cannot verbally demonstrate real outrage unless you want to be dismissed as a whacko. To hear the Senator, you'd have thought he was talking to a class of raucous Kindergarten boys: he was calm, soothing, pained and so on. This we found funny because anyone familiar with Senator McCain knows that from his youth he has been a very angry man, and the only time he is capable of being calm is when he is bashing in your face.

• ...But He Is Also Being Hypocritical He has been urging even more troops be sent to Iraq, whatever it takes to win. But he knows there are no more troops to send. So he gets to maintain his standing as an ultra-nationalist without suffering any of the consequences. No one can accuse him of being soft on the Iraq War; at the same time, he too is indulging in the "It's Only Words" game. [Note to young readers: BeeGees song.]

• If the good Senator had been calling for a mobilization of the entire Guard and all reserves,  a draft to start activating replacement divisions, and an increase in taxes to pay for the war, we'd be with him 100%. Needless to say, if he called for these measures, his political future would be deader than a doornail because all of America has become hypocritical. We want the glory of being Number 1 without paying the price, which may - just may - require us all to drink a little less beer and watch a little less football.

• So we are easily seduced by people like President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and former Secretary Rumsfeld, because they promise us glory on the cheap.

• So what's the point of blaming our leaders? We elected them. And there is no chance we'd elect leaders who told us we have to sacrifice, or else we have to let go of our pretensions to glory.

• British Won't Let Go Of Softly, Softly They are hugely upset because they were made to fight in Helmand Province by the Americans, and are hugely alarmed because an American general (in)famous for a "kill the blighters" strategy. They are worried about having to fight some more. Their excuse is: "You can't win unless the people are with you, and the people won't be with you if you are aggressive." One British sources says the Americans "just don't get it."

• Well, our position is quite clear. It's the Brits who don't get it. Softly softly has twice failed. Incidentally the situation in Basra, their HQ, is so bad that their posts are attacked every single day. One post was hit by 28 mortar shells the other day. They had to abandon their positions in Amarah because they were under such sustained attack they couldn't function. So their battalion there traded its MBTs in for 4 x 4s, and the battalion went off to play Boy Scouts in the desert. They didn't call it that, of course, they said it was to check infiltration and police the border.

• Attacks on American posts are far and few in between, because the insurgents know they Americans will come after them with a vengeance. In Baghdad, al-Sadr is backing down totally and completely because he knows the Americans don't play silly buggers. We've noted unfortunately this does not mean the Americans will win Baghdad because when they leave, he'll come back, but that is another matter.

• The Americans want to be loved, but when they are not going to be loved, this being Iraq, they want to be feared. And they are feared. The Brits by contrast are neither loved nor feared. So what is there for the Americans to get?

• Nonetheless, the British Have A Point Three points, actually. First, they were promised they would get to do Helmand Province their way - Qila Musa is in Helmand (see below). We do not believe their approach would have worked, and we think the overrunning of Qila Musa is proof enough the strategy failed. But still, the Americans did not keep their promise: they did force the British to go on the offensive, and now instead of blaming their failed tactics, the British can blame the Americans. Not very smart, Yanks.

• Second, the Brits are absolutely not equipped for the kind of offensive warfare the Americans want them to engage in. They are lightly equipped and are very light on firepower of all sorts. Yes, American firepower does fill part of the gap. But its not the same thing at all for a number of reasons too boring to discuss. If the Brits stuck to this point and didn't go around saying the Americans don't get it, we'd have no quarrel with them.

• Third, the Brits are absolutely right when they say the locals should not be alienated. But the Americans know this full well. There have been times when individual American units have no understood this and have acted as if they are on a bad police TV show. At the same time, the majority of American units understand CI quite well, and have been retrained to avoid gratuitous aggressiveness. Just the posting of General Petraeus to Iraq shows the Americans do get it. At the same time, there is nothing in his doctrine that says you just stand while being attacked from all directions every day, with every deal you've brokered going down the tubes, with no one scared of you so that no one listens to you.

• When the Fallujah operations were underway, the British troops attached were very vocal in saying they didn't want to be anywhere near the Marines because the latter made a point of attracting fire. Well, the reason you attract fire is that then you know where the enemy is and then you go get him. Mind you, we personally think the Marines make such a fetish of this they suffer unnecessary losses - we saw that in Vietnam and we are seeing that in Anbar.

• Our point is, however, that when you have Fallujah, you can't do Softly, softly. There is a point where you simply have to go in and blast everything to bits. The Americans sensibly gave everyone who wanted to leave Fallujah the chance to get away - a whole month's worth of chances. Then they killed everyone who remained. So no one claims the residents of Fallujah love the Americans. Part of the reason is the way Fallujah was not rebuilt after the battle - we agree the Americans are good at blowing things up, but not at reconstructing. But while the residents of Fallujah may not love the Americans, Fallujah is in American control and largely peaceful. Basra is not in British control and is not peaceful.

• We rest our case. And we thank the Brits for being willing to fight the good fight in Afghanistan. As for Iraq, we don't blame them a bit for wanting to get out. It isn't their war.

0230 GMT February 5, 2007

• Iraq/Afghanistan To Cost $750-Billion Through October 2008 and the administration warns it may be asking for even more money than requested in 2007 and 2008. In 1990s money, the Vietnam War cost $350-billion 1964-1972 [http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm ]. At a very rough estimate, if not in 2007, by 2008 we will exceed the Vietnam total.

• We don't know how the Vietnam War costs are computed, but the Iraq/Afghanistan exceeds the $750-billion: some fraction of the regular defense budget is also going to pay for the 2 current wars.

• For example, the 2008 budget requests a 10% increase, or about $50-billion, and a lot of that money has to be on account of equipment replacement costs.

• In both the Vietnam and the current cases, pension costs are not counted. But insofar as the current wars have been sustained on a minimal manpower increase, they at least cannot be costing much more than what pension costs would have been in any case.

• As far as we know, the current totals do not count the almost $50-billion spent on development/reconstruction aid for the 2 current wars. We do not know what the Vietnam figure was for the same heading.

• As for how the US can spend about as much money on Afghanistan/Iraq with about 160,000 troops in the field as on Vietnam with about 500,000 troops deployed, there are two explanations.

• First, the current wars involve a huge number of security and other contractors which in the case of Iraq, at least, double the troop numbers. We really have the equivalent of 250,000 troops in Iraq, excluding the current surge.

• Second, military goods and services cost more in constant dollars today than a generation ago. For example, a UH-1 cost $400,000, but a UH-60, its replacement, costs in the vicinity of $6-million. Adjust for now-year dollars, the UH-1 would be $2.5 million.

• Recent Iraq Loss of 4 US Helicopters Attributed To Ground Fire The total includes 2 attack helicopters, a UH-60, and a security forces helicopter.

• This is an unpleasant development as till now US helicopters have not been at serious risk. While the US is adjusting its tactics, we need to remember two things.

• First, the enemy adjusts to US tactics as well. Two, what role does Iran play in the changed insurgent tactics?

• Unprecedented Iraq Casualties In the last week 1000 Iraqis died as a result of bombings, sectarian killings, and other insurgent action. Is the total accurate? Only if you are inclined to believe the Iraqi government, which consistently plays down Iraqi casualties.

• By itself the figure is not of much significance: we already knew the Iraqis are in a civil war that seems to get more intense by the day.

• The real significance is that this high comes as the US reinforces Baghdad, which has seen the worst of the violence as usual. The toll includes 135 dead in a single truck bombing, where 1-ton of explosives was used to target a mainly Shia neighborhood. It doesn't matter what the US does, the Shias will take their revenge for this and the other bombings that occur routinely. It is fantastic to assume the predominantly Shia police/army will listen to its US advisors and foreswear revenge, or take action against militias such as al-Sadrs when the latter are killing Sunnis.

0230 GMT February 4, 2007

• Goodbye, Softly, Softly  Last Thursday the Taliban overran the town of Musa Qila in Afghanistan's Helmand Province and effectively killed the British "Softly, softly" approach to counterinsurgency in the GWOT.

• Softly, softly failed first in southern Iraq, the British sector. Americans are generally uninterested in what is happening where they are not present, so in the US, at least, the failure has received minimal attention.

• Essentially, the British argued that in CI, less is more. No massive sweeps, no overwhelming shows of force, no banging down doors in the wee hours of the morning. Listen to everyone, give respect to everyone, and work slowly but quietly behind the scenes to advance the good guys and to neutralize the bad guys.

• Softly, softly was not a prescription for wimpiness, indecisiveness, or the avoidance of combat. Force was to be used, but sparingly and only when all other avenues were exhausted.

• Softly, softly was best epitomized for the public in visuals of smiling British troops wearing soft caps and sans body armor, walking the beat exchanging warm pleasantries with the populace, playing soccer with the kids, and gravely listening to complaints.

• When the British took over southern Afghanistan, it was a no-go region for NATO/Afghan government. The US's Afghan strategy has been to start from the center, Kabul, and then spread out over the country in systematic fashion. Central authority had not yet reached the southern provinces.

• The south is the Taliban's stronghold and is also the major opium production region, so a combination of Taliban and criminals ran the area. Mostly it was hard to distinguish who were the Taliban and who the criminals, as it was all one and the same. No one was under any illusions about the difficulty of securing this vast, wild area with the handful of troops allocated, but the British did not flinch from the task and went into the south all fired up.

• So far so good. But the move into the south coincided with the resurgence of the Taliban which had been licking its wounds and rebuilding thanks to Pakistan. British-led forces and the Taliban collided in a series of small-scale, but very sharp clashes all over the area and the British - as is usual with them - found themselves seriously short of everything: rifle companies, air support, and helicopters being the most prominent.

• So after an astonishingly lengthy engagement at Qila Musa - Musa's Fort, whoever Musa was - the British decided to implement Softly, softly for the town. We must, incidentally, note that the British conducted themselves with the nonchalance for which they are famous when a small number of troops get involved in a fight against the heaviest odds. All that was missing in this engagement is the pithy quips one associates with the British.

• Under the Softly, softly negotiated for Musa Qila, the British and the Taliban were to keep 5-kilometers away from the town center. The locals were to run the town, with only the Afghan government and police permitted inside the circle.

• The US went ballistic when the deal was made. To them it was the worst kind of capitulation and a pathetic attempt to cover up British failure. You see, before Qila Musa, southern Iraq had spun completely out of control. The British had evacuated large areas because they could not hold them due to an acute shortage of troops, British troops never went anywhere without the full battlegear and high-speed armored convoys one associates with the Americans, the locals were joyfully slaughtering each other, vicious criminal gangs ran rampant in Basra and other towns/cities, the Iraqi police/Army were completely corrupt and useless, and so on.

• If it had been the Americans who produced this result, the Americans themselves and the world at large would gleefully have been hammering away at what was - not to mince words - a complete and utter failure. In this war, however, America is the heavy and the British have gotten away with little criticism. Very few at home are committed to Iraq anyway, and with the British saying they are going home this year, no one in the UK is concerned overmuch with the failure.

• Well the Americans were very upset about southern Iraq but they recognized the British didn't have the resources to bring order of any kind, and the Americans themselves had no troops to send. Plus in the south it has been Shia-on-Shia violence, and the US is less inclined to see that as an alarming problem than the sectarian killings in its areas of responsibility.

• Upset as they were about Qila Musa, they didn't say much, not wanting to offending a loyal ally.

• Once the British surrendered control of Qila Musa - after having done their best to keep control, we must note in all fairness, an impossible job because they did not have the troops - in short order the Taliban overran the town.

• To us this clearly indicates Softly, softly is dead, if it ever was a real option. Defenders of the approach are busy making excuses - as they were when the evacuation of the town was announced. The chief excuse is the British were not negotiating with the right people. To us this sound terribly like the excuses generated by the Americans at the rate of one a minute for their failure in Iraq.

• The truth of the matter is that in warfare the Americans generally have the right idea: kill the ones who shoot at you, preferably before they shoot at you. Contrary to the popular belief that the Americans are blundering idiots, the Americans can show any number of cases in Iraq where they did their best to follow the American version of Softly, softly, as elucidated by the formidably intellectual General David Petraeus, now taking command of all US forces in Iraq. The Americans have at all times been acutely aware that Iraq needs a political solution, not a military one. But time and again, time and again till the repetition becomes nauseating, the Americans have found the only solution is their preferred-by-instinct solution: kill the bad guys.

• We went through the same thing with the gallant Australians in Vietnam. The Australians were hugely disdainful of the American search-and-destroy strategy, and indeed, there probably were better strategies. But when you came up against the PAVN's 324th Division, there was no question of subtleties: you had better be prepared to fight to kill and fight to win, or you'd be dead. The Ozzies learned as much.

• Vietnam was two wars: the counter-insurgency and the conventional. The US should have paid more attention to the CI; nonetheless, with two types of war no simplistic prescriptions would have worked.

• Afghanistan and Iraq are CI wars, albeit Iraq is a very complicated one. The bitter truth, the real lesson of both wars, is nonetheless being missed. There are no short cuts in war. You either commit the resources to win, or you don't fight. There is no cheap victory. Given the circumstances, there is absolutely nothing wrong with American military strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq. What is wrong is that the Americans are trying to fight both wars with one-third of the troops that are needed.

• What is clear, however, is that the British Softly, softly or anyone's version of that strategy is not going to work if you don't have enough troops. It worked for Britain in Northern Ireland - and it took them 30 years, uncounted billions of dollars, and a troop/police versus insurgent ratio of 30+ to one or more depending on how you count it to win. Not to mention that this was a CI against their own people, so there was no problem whatsoever of language, culture, history and so on.

• One small victory in Qila Musa: a US precision airstrike killed a top Taliban commander - he may have been the head of the Taliban in the province - within the 5-kilometer no-enter zone.

0230 GMT February 3, 2007

Really no major news events yesterday

• Strategy Failing, So Let's Lie We are angry at the President today, for all that we have in the past avoided unnecessary criticism. This is because the President and his administration have started to lie about Iraq. It is no longer possible to make excuses for the President himself: the surge strategy is one he has thoroughly vetted and approved. It is his strategy, and his alone.

• Lie Number One: the cost. The administration says the surge will cost $6 billion over a year; the actual cost, according to a government estimate, is $24 billion.

• Lie Number Two: the troop numbers. The surge is not 21,500 troops, but closer to 48,000. In the matter of numbers, we must acknowledge our own responsibility for having touted the figure of 21,500. We were misled as America has been misled, but then we're supposed to be a bit smarter than the average bear, and in the matter of numbers, we have proved not to be so.

• The announced surge counts only combat brigades and battalion landing teams. For every brigade of 3-3500 in Iraq, the US has an equal number of support troops, and there are additional support troops in-theatre but outside Iraq.

• Now, we'd assumed there was sufficient logistic infrastructure and sufficient logistic units in theatre to support the additional combat brigades. We assumed that since, in any case, the surge would be short-lived, the extra support needed could come from within theatre resources. This was our mistake.

• First, our information is the surge is NOT short-term. It has been rumored for some days that the President has no intention of pulling troops out in 2008; we learn this is indeed the case.

• Second - and this follows from the first - the in theatre logistic support forces cannot handle a surge of the magnitude and duration envisaged. so more support troops will have to be sent as well as the combat troops.

• Those Who Could Not/Can Not Stand Mr. Bush will greet our dismay with indulgent smiles. What's the big deal, Moe? they will ask. The man has been lying from Day 1 and NOW you get it? Tsk tsk tsk. How much more naive can you get?

• This discussion is one we will have to defer for another day. We are not copping out, it's just that within the time we have to do our updates and the time our readers have to read them, we can't do everything at once.

• But Won't The Real Strategy Help Us Win In Iraq? We have often criticized the surge by saying that since once US forces stabilize Baghdad, they will pull out and redeploy to tackle Anbar, the insurgents will return to Baghdad. Then when the US leaves Anbar, they will return to Anbar.

• Doesn't the revelation that this is not a short-term surge undercut our criticism?

• Unfortunately, no. Because if you are going to stabilize Iraq, you need five extra brigades in Baghdad, five more in Anbar, five more in the north/center, and five more in the south - that's being conservative. Iraq has so totally gone to heck in the proverbial handbasket that Baghdad and Anbar are no longer the sole issues.

• If five brigades is all you have, you can shift them around till the cows come home and die of old age, and the insurgents will return when you shift.

• Next, Americans have by and large accepted the surge: "It doesn't look like its going to work, but we can't undercut the troops. Let the surge go, and maybe things will work out. If they don't work out, well, we gave the President the chance he wanted and then we'll insist on the troops coming home." In other words, the President has support - if you can call it that - for a very short term surge of 4-6 months.

• But once Americans find out that the President intends an open-ended commitment of two more years at least, there is going to be a major freakout. We don't care what the President thinks, if the drawdowns don't begin in earnest starting large fall 2007, he is not going to be in Iraq, no matter what he thinks his power may be. The Great Deciders are the people, not the President and his advisors and staff.

• Last - see below February 2, 2007. It doesn't matter how much time and how many troops you send to Iraq, since the Iraqis don't want to live together, there is no way the US is going to make them live together.

• Why Yugoslavia and Why Not Iraq? The US is preparing the way for Kosovo's independence, thus completing the dismantling of the old Yugoslavia. Readers might think it odd that the US says its okay for Yugoslavia to break up into seven countries, but Iraq must be kept together at enormous cost in US lives and treasure. Where's the logic?

• Sorry to tell you folks, there is no logic. You want logic, don't come to Washington. You want perverted logic, then you're fine. The US was happy to break up Yugoslavia because (a) Russia got well and truly whacked, and (b) it was obvious you can't keep people together when they don't want to be together.

• In Iraq, however, we're saying the will of the people doesn't matter. The Kurds can't be allowed independence because the Turks won't like it, and the Shias cannot be allowed independence because Iran will gain, and the Sunnis can't be reduced to a poor rump state because our Sunni allies won't like it. Unfortunately this "logic" comes from dishonest political expediency, not from principle. And the US will get its just reward: its Iraq policy will not work.

• The American people, who have been sold a bill of goods but have not received any goods, will bleed and pay for this dishonesty. When it is obvious even to the most craven of fools Iraq is lost, the craven fools will merely go back to the rat-sewers that are euphemistically called "think tanks" in Washington. They will return to their law firms and their corporations. They will get even bigger money this time because their resumes will look more impressive. They will wait patiently for the next time the President calls them, and with great sighs and martyred looks they will tell us how much they sacrifice for public service, when all that the public service does is enable them to get ever more money on the job and after the job.

• Meanwhile, the country these vermin are sworn to serve can simply lump it.

0230 GMT February 2, 2007

President Bush's Iraq Strategy Working; US Will 100% Lose War

• The Washington Post reports that senior al-Sadr militia leaders are leaving Baghdad ahead of the arrival of 17000 more US troops - a brigade of 82nd Division has already reinforced. Militiamen have been told to hide their weapons and must not carry even a pistol. They must, at all costs, avoid provoking the Americans no matter how badly the Americans provoke them.]

• So President Bush's Iraq surge strategy is working, and this guarantees the US is going to lose the Iraq war.

• The one chance for victory of sorts - admittedly it was a slim chance because it assumed al-Sadr would made a strategic error by confronting US troops - was if al-Sadr decided to fight it out. He would have been hammered, though of course no one can say at what cost to the US. This might have broken his power - his previous defeats at US hands strengthened him, but one could hope.

• But now that al-Sadr is adopting a low profile, when the US leaves Baghdad for Anbar, al-Sadr will return in full force.

• But won't any breathing space help build up Iraqi forces so they can better face threats such as al-Sadr?

• The fundamental error that President Bush is making - and it is so colossal that we wonder what's going on with him - is to assume the Shias want to live in peace with the Sunnis. How many times does this have to be said? They do not want to live with the Sunnis. By default the Iraqi military/police forces have to be largely Shia. Strengthening them means strengthening their ability to kill Sunnis. So not just will al-Sadr return, but the US will have thoughtfully strengthened the Shias so they can continue their ethnic cleansing.

• Has President Bush spent any time wondering why the Iraq PM did not, does not want more US troops, and asks only for more weapons? all the better to kill Sunnis, my dear, and frankly, the US has been getting in his way.

• Well, incredible as this may sound to skeptics, President Bush and company understand this very well, which is why Iraq is being reinforced against the will of the government and its majority.

• President Bush hopes another Shia leader will rise to replace the present one and this leader will be committed to equal rights for every ethnic group. Here is where things get freaky: there is no such Shia leader and there will never be such a Shia leader. President Bush has been courting the SICRI/Badr lot, but they are just as committed to killing Sunnis as al-Sadr, and it appears their ties with Iran are even stronger than his.

• SICRI/Badr have a simple strategy: let the Americans kill the Sunni insurgents and destroy al-Sadr, they'll come to power, and that much more easily finish off what remains of the Sunni and al-Sadr.

• The "stay in Iraq" lot in Washington is in such desperate straits that its prescription is for the US to stay in Iraq for as long as is neccessary to defeat insurgents and renegades of every stripe. Stay how long? 5 years? We'll stay 5. Ten years? Sure, if need be. Twenty years? Hope not, but we'll do it if we have to.

• The difficulty is that Iraq - inconveniently for Washington - belongs to the Iraqis. So it's Washington that will blink first, even if the American people agree that our troops should stay in Iraq indefinitely - and they most definitely do not.

• The other difficulty is that so far every Iraqi has assumed the Americans are going home any day now. So - incredible as this may seem - most Iraqis have avoided tangling with the Americans, even most Sunnis. But if there is any situation in which the US does not withdraw, probably by 2008, everyone in Iraq bar the Kurds is going to start attacking the Americans.

• And why should it be otherwise? If in 1861-65 Great Britain had intervened in the US Civil War and told both sides they had to live together in peace, and that British troops would stay as long as needed to achieve that, what would the reaction of Americans been? Union or Rebel, they would have started to kill the British. Just because the Iraqis look and talk like cartoon characters doesn't mean their aspirations are any different from that of any nationalist.

• The war is lost, Iraq is lost, and we have been saying for some time now: get out and reorganize and replan the GWOT. There is nothing America can do to undo this blunder of historical and gigantic proportions.

Is There Really Nothing That Can Be Done To Win?

• Actually, there is something very simple that can be done to save the situation. It can be said in two words.

• Embrace Iran. For two reasons.

• One, it is Sunni Islam that is America's enemy. Two, by deposing Saddam, the US removed the major block to a Shia surgence of millennial proportions. Like it or not, the Shias are going to predominate in the Middle East now that Saddam is gone, and it makes better sense to ally with the Shias than keep up the old alliances with the Sunnis - the most important of whom in any case want to whack America.

• The big problem with our logical suggestion is that the US has been driven by ideology rather than by its self-interest. Vietnam is the archetypical example of this in our times, the Iraq intervention is a close second.

• We don't like the Iranians because they overthrew their Shah who we liked - why, aside from that he was handsome, glamorous, and spoke English, is not clear. Then the Iranians took our diplomats hostage, and we haven't gotten over that humiliation.

• But consider. No Iranians killed Americans before the current Iraq war, even though by supporting the despotic Shah we indirectly helped him kill many, many Iranians. The Chinese were directly responsible for the deaths of 33,000 Americans in Korea. But we made up with China, we sidelined ideology for the sake of the national interest.

• So why can't we make up with Iran?

• We'd have preferred, muchly, that America took down Iran. Our preference arises entirely from the same ideological motivations we decry. But facts must be faced. By messing up in Iraq, the US has destroyed its chance to take down Iran. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

• Isn't that a quintessential Americanism?

0230 GMT February 1, 2007

Really no major news events yesterday

• Iraq PM Says He will Not Allow His Country To Become Battlefield between the US and Iran.

• Our unasked for advice? Go home, little boy, and play with your toys. Neither the US nor Iran has the least interest in what you want.

• Somalia Government Continues To Extend Martial Law which has now been extended to Baidoa. A 5th attack of no consequence has  been made on Ethiopian troops. If the attacks have been mounted by the Islamic Courts, the ICU is showing itself to be singularly inept.

• Our Favorite Despot Advances President Hugo Chavez is now officially half-way at least to becoming a dictator. He has been given powers by his national assembly to rule by decree for 18 months in 11 areas.

• We aren't going to hold our breath waiting for him to give back power after the time is up. His announced new project is to make himself - almost - president for life.

• If that's what the people of Venezuela want, that's fine with us. Just don't come crying to the US, UN, the world when you find the dictatorship isn't to your liking.

• The Norks Are At It Again DPRK says it is impatient with the rate of progress in the N-talks and if delays persist it will be forced to have a second test.

• Sorry, let's reword that in more practical terms. DPRK says the 5 powers are not expeditiously giving in its its blackmail and if they don't capitulate very soon, more blackmail will occur.

• The US should simply tell DPRK to go to the Downstairs Place, and it should simply bomb DPRK's N-program.

• Oooooh the world won't like that, people will say. Like the world likes the US now? Get a grip folks. The US has reached depths of unpopularity that may be equaling, if not exceeding, that of the Vietnam years. The US may as well go for broke against a realizable objective. Eliminating DPRK's N-program is relatively simple compared to eliminating Iran's, and frankly, everyone involved will privately thank America. That includes the PRC, Japan, and Russia.

• As for ROK, it's time the US told Seoul the DPRK N-program is a problem that far extends beyond the Korean peninsula. ROK doesn't own US policy on DPRK. By appeasing DPRK, ROK is doing what it thinks it has to do. By wiping out the DPRK program, the US is doing what it needs to do. That should be the end of the discussion.

• British Inquest Told Of Attack By "Rouge" US Pilots who twice bombed a British armor column on reconnaissance in the Basra area during Gulf II. The tanks identified themselves as friendlies and tried "frantically" to get the attackers to cease fire. The tanks were told by a British forward air controller that the aircraft had switched off their communications and could not be contacted. Tanks were set on fire and one British soldier killed, along with villagers. The villagers were 100 meters away and waving white flags.

• The US needs to investigate this incident itself and if the allegations before the inquest are true, the pilots need to be dealt with most severely.

• Till we hear otherwise, we'd prefer to give the pilots the benefit of the doubt. The Americans have gone very far indeed in coordinating air and ground forces, but even then mistakes happen. we'd also like to hear how the British FAC knew the Americans were switched off and how he figured they had done so deliberately.