0230 GMT March 14, 2006

0230 September 30, 2007

US ABM Now Batting 0.600 ...

...with the seventh successful interception test. The US counts this as the sixth success because one launch was designed to test various systems and not to intercept a warhead.
So no sooner than the test is announced, the chest-beating and wailing starts. This was a staged test, say critics, because it was conducted under the simplest circumstances and because the enemy would likely employ dummy warheads and decoys and so on and so forth.
Let us say this about that. Have the critics heard the adage "crawling before walking, walking before running, running before flying?". If a system has to demonstrate optimum performance against its maximum threat from Day 1, you may as well not build anything. You get an operational system by taking incremental steps.
The adversary does not at this time have the capability for dummy warheads and MRVs and MIRVs and what not. It does not have a capacity to attack the US, either. What the US has deployed is an elementary defense against a future threat, and it includes several elements that are far more developed than the one critics are carping about, the long-range interceptor. The sea-based and terminal interceptors are much further along.
If the critics were to say that testing is proceeding too slowly, and that the US is not testing enough missile rounds, they'd be doing something very useful in our opinion. We feel this business of tests every 6-8 months which aim to do too much in a single shot is a grave hindrance to ABM development. The US needs to step up to 4 shots a year immediately and work its way to 12 shots a year within 3-4 years at the maximum. This allows each shot to incrementally test one or two improvements.
The sooner the US gets to 100 shots, the better. We are not ABM defense specialists, but we absolutely do not want to hear any specialist say "oh, but we don't need that many and think of the expense." The more shots, the lower the unit cost. The less modeling on computers in lieu of tests, the better.
Meanwhile, the US should continue as it is doing: deploying individual elements as they develop. As for the long-range interceptor, continue with this direct hit nonsense if you want, but work on a N-warhead that will maximize damage to warheads and minimize collateral damage. If this N-warhead work is not already going on - and we suspect it is - then by all means model away because you dont want to break the test-ban unless its absolutely neccessary to stage a breakout.
And at all times keep in mind: whatever collateral damage a series of blasts in space is going to do to the US on earth, it's less than the damage a warhead or many will do if it/they get through.
We congratulate the ABM program people for their success.
To refuse to defend your people because it might destabilize the balance of terror is immoral. We still say those who came up with this theory and left the US vulnerable for decades need to arrested and tried and held responsible for the grossest of negligence. That the balance of terror lot was tacitly supported by those who couldn't deal with the nuclear threat and pretended if we avoided "provoking" the adversary we'd all be fine makes things even worse.
By this theory we should have no air defenses either - we're stopping the adversary's bombers from getting through and destabilizing the balance. But somehow no one was bothered when the US/USSR built air defenses. Similarly, by this logic the US shouldn't have built up its conventional defenses in Europe. After all, those defensive forces could equally be used for attack and so have destabilized conventional deterrence - on which, by the way, many times more money was spent than on N-deterrence.
Anyone remember the west has had this debate before? Like in the late 1930s? Do we need to remind people of what happened after that?
In fact, if we follow the theory that defending oneself is provocative to its logical conclusion, the theory's proponents should be arguing that best we have no military, no defense, no protection of any sort. That way the adversary would see we are absolutely no threat to him.
And then the adversary could simply walk in and finish us off, including the proponents of the "no-provocation" theory.

0230 September 29, 2007

Pakistan Supreme Court Rules 9-6 For President Musharraf saying he can run for president while still serving as army chief. Government lawyers have told the Supreme Court President Musharraf will resign his army post should he win. The court's ruling has not yet been released.
Presidential elections are on October 3rd, not on October 6th as we thought.
Leading Democratic Presidential Candidates Refuse To Commit To Iraq Withdrawal says US media. The three front-runners, including Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, refuse to commit to a complete US withdrawal from Iraq during their first term if elected. That means 2013.
Some non-Americans have a theory that the differences between Democrats and Republicans run to shades of gray, meaning that from an outsider's perspective there isn't much difference. We find it interesting that despite overwhelming public demand for an Iraq withdrawal as evidenced by the opinion polls, the Democratic candidates, who have hammered President Bush on Iraq, want to keep option of staying in Iraq for at least 4 years after a new administration arrives.
In which case, why demonize the president? Y'all just arguing about detail, boys and girls. And y'all just plain wrong as you will find out. US needs to get out totally.
2500 Al-Qaeda Killed/Captured In Iraq War says the US, plus 100 senior leaders. Lets first look at this business of "senior". Is a platoon commander a senior leader? Right, that answers the question. Our guess is about 25 senior leaders have been killed. This is semantics, but we get bothered when people inflate their successes.
Next, can we agree that with 2600 AQI killed/captured, there are that many seriously wounded? The way the US calculates wounded you get 5+ wounded per killed; the way the Indians do it gives you 2+ wounded per killed. Since many of the wounded return to service, we think its reasonable to assume for every man killed, one wounded does not not return to service.
If our reasoning is right, 5000 AQI have been taken out of action.
Since AQIs strength has run about 1000, this means AQI has suffered 500% casualties and is still running around. Undoubtedly it is suffering because of aggressive US action which has been helped by the surge and because of the Anbar Sunnis. Though we are unclear if the US is counting casualties inflicted by that lot. If it is not, then the ratio may be more than 500%.
Right. Now if in four years a fighting organization has taken 500% casualties and is still around, what does this suggest? To us it suggests that this is a darned persistent bunch. One can admire an enemy even if one urgently wants him dead because he is evil.
One more question. US has been officially saying AQI are mostly foreigners. But we know people who have as much knowledge of AQI as the US government - because they work for the US government - who say AQI is mostly Iraqi.
Does anyone see the problem if this is the case?
Burma Protests Ebb We have to explain something to those who think that peaceful or even violent protests will overthrow the military regime. This junta has been in power for 45 years. In the pantheon of recent and current authoritarian regimes it is not particularly repressive or brutal. but when threatened, it protects itself efficiently and crushes dissent.
Outside of Rangoon, the old capital, no one knows what goes on and its not particularly clear anyone cares. Inside Rangoon the regime follows a tried and true crowd control strategy of blocking roads, forcing demonstrators into small sectors. Once corralled, the demonstrators are either baton-charges/tear gassed, or shot if they still don't quit. Large scale arrests of demonstrators take place to help quell the ardor of those demanding freedom. The leaders of demonstrations may or may not be seen again depending on the government's mood.
Now this time around perhaps people were hoping that cell phones and the Internet would permit news to spread and leaders to coordinate. But all the government has had to do is shut down the telephone, Internet, and cell phone systems and that is that. No one knows what is going on. There is going to be no velvet revolution or whatever.
Still further Rangoon is no longer the center of power. The government has spent years building a new capital, and moved there last year. It is in the center of the country. The government can now blockade, starve, punish as it wants in Rangoon without any particular inconvenience to itself. Demonstrators have no hope of getting to the new capital.
Instead of crying and weeping about Burma, we'd be happier if the west in general and the US in particular put pressure on Saudi and Egypt to democratize. Its all very well to moan and condemn Burma, we'd like to ask what would happen if tens of thousands of demonstrators started marching through Riyadh and Jeddah demanding an end to the monarchy and a free vote for every adult. Bet you there wouldn't be just 11 killed as happened the other day in Rangoon at the height of the protests. We already know what happens in Teheran when the the people demonstrate for freedom.
So please, dear west: spare us your moralizing and get after bigger culprits. Oh, and a little question: how come Zimbabwe officials get to travel where they want overseas and the US sanctions Burma officials?
By the way: we are told a SIM card for a cell phone costs $1500 in Burma. So how many people do you think have cell phones there?

0230 September 28, 2007

The West Weeps Crocodile Tears Over Burma Another disgusting spectacle by a hypocritical west is unfolding as its nations seek to outdo each other in weeping fake tears for Burma. Frankly, we could care less about this except that some commentators have had the temerity to lump India with PRC and Russia, who are said to be the main enablers of the Burma regime.
First, if anyone thinks that Russia and PRC - for whom we hold no brief - are enabling Burma's junta, they display only their massive ignorance. The military would remain just as repressive if these two countries stopped all dealings with the regime. The regime does not depend on any external actor to stay in power, and no country has any leverage with the junta in the matter of regime change.
Second, there is the matter of India. It is being said India is going kissy-faces with the regime because Delhi wants access to Burma's hydrocarbon resources.
Well! The nerve of the Indians! Its OK for us Americans to deal with some of the most repressive regimes on earth such as Saudi and Angola because we need oil, but its not OK for the Indians to deal with Burma for oil!
Lets back off a minute. In case the American analysts who masquerade as educated have not noticed, there are a whole bunch of insurgencies going on in the Indian northeast. Because many insurgent groups use Burma as a sanctuary, Burma's cooperation is critical for India.
Now, people, question time. What regime is a bum-chum of the United States in the GWOT, said regime having a military dictator with a civilian facade, who is busy rigging yet another election by various unpleasant means, and who has recently finished off yet another bunch of people who simply wanted their rights?
Need another clue? US has given this ally $10-billion in aid since 2001 so that said regime can better support a major insurgent group which is killing American and allied troops in Afghanistan. Said regime also rules a country which produces the largest number of terrorists in the world. American president often avers how valuable as an ally is the dictator of said regime.
OK, folks. We completely understand why the US is dealing with said regime and helping keep it in power - please spare us all the hypocrisy about wanting democracy in said country, the people of that country don't believe America and nor should they. When you are in a war, you have to do what you have to do.
So, genius American analysts, allow India the same rights you arrogate for your country. India too is at war, and it is a far more serious war than America's GWOT. The Indians too need to do what they need to do, OK?
Speculation That British Troops May Have To Return To Basra because the peace deal between three warring Shia factions that permitted a reduction in violence and the British withdrawal appears to be breaking down.
Fancy that! What a stunning surprise! Yet another Iraq development that no one foresaw! Actually, everyone foresaw the return of Basra to chaos, including the British. But their country, their army, and the government simply want to get the heck out of Iraq, for which no one can blame them. The British need political cover, and the bad, bad, bad Shias - give them 10 smacks each with limp noodles - didn't even have the decency to wait till the British reduced their contingent to half, making a return to Basra impossible, before acting up.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2998939.ece
Also please note that further evidence has emerged that Mr. Tony Blair followed his Great Leader Mr. George Bush in lying about why the invasion of Iraq was imperative. We have no interest in these stories for reasons of our own, but suffice it to say that this increases the foul stench the British voters smell around the Iraq venture. Suffice it to say the Americans have to accept that they cannot coerce the Brits any longer on Iraq. The British PM answers to his voters, not to the US administration.
Italian Trial In Calipari Shooting Italy is absolutely the best country in the world according to your editor. Which is why he has been more indulgent toward the Government of Italy and its total farce of a "trial" to "punish" the "American killers" of their hostage rescuer Mr. Calipari that he might be otherwise.
Yes folks, the Italians plough forward manfully in this trial, and have - in the self-deluding manner that makes Italians so attractive and charming - managed to absolutely keep the facts out of the picture. If the Italians were also showing their customary self-deprecating cynicism about the activity, we really would have nothing to say. But the Italians have gone all American on us - high moral dudgeon is the style for this trial. That makes the matter sordid.
We wish we knew more about internal Italian politics, because that is what is driving this trial. You have two parties without scruple or moral responsibility. One is the Italian media - Mr. Calipari was killed after "rescuing" a left-wing journalist. The other is the Italian leftists, who have as much integrity when America is involved as a heroin addict trying to get his daily fix. Oooops! Our bad! we just insulted heroin addicts. Sorry about that, people.
Mr. Calipari arrived in Italy to escort the released hostage back home. She was released on payment of a ransom, and while we don't blame Italy for doing what it had to do, we'd like the Government of Italy to come clean and acknowledge that it did not keep the Americans informed and the death of their gallant policeman was a direct consequence.
The Italians had very good reason not to inform the Americans because the latter, who have said time and again they will not entertain ransom requests, would likely have put a spanner in the works. The Italians also need to come clean on the issue of Mr. Calipari's dramatic grandstanding, which is is why he did not ask for an American escort to the airport. He wanted all the credit. The Americans would have been tres unhappy had he approached them after the fact of the rescue, but they would have cooperated. And last, they need to accept their responsibility because their crew panicked when they encountered the American roadblock and tried to drive through instead of stopping. They had good reason to panic: as far as they were concerned, they were running into a terrorist/militant ambush and were at risk of being made captive.
It was not the responsibility of the Americans to run their roadblock in a manner that took into account furtive movement along the road by unknown parties. Legitimate parties would have been escorted and there would have been no problem.
We previous analyzed the lies that the rescued reporter told about the encounter; there is no point in going over them again. But we did think the following letter, forwarded from a blog by reader Marcopetroni, does contain new angles on the incident and as such is worth reprinting.
Blog Post By Michael Shirley In "The Lidless Eye" If Calipari hadn't been playing the Cowboy, there wouldn't be any incident to argue a case over. That failure to notify and coordinate, got him killed. As it is, if he'd played the game according to Hoyle, he and that dingbat reporter could have rode safely in a UH-60 Blackhawk to the airport.
I think part of the problem is that he was a civilian cop before
he went to military intelligence work. There are a whole bunch of things
that you can do as a civilian policeman in a more or less civilized place,
that you can't do in the middle of an urban guerilla war. And when you have
a whole bunch of scared nineteen year olds with guns and lousy
communications, (and because of the bureaucracy involved, the technology never achieves it's potential) that is a situation where you dot every I and cross every T.
That is, you do this if you want to live.
Calipari apparently didn't understand that the rules are different in
a war zone, and that got him killed. I think that DoD is right to assume
that Lozano (the American soldier who was team leader at the roadblock and for whose extradition to Italy the court has requested) is a political football in Italian internal politics and if he were under my command, I wouldn't let him anywhere near that trial either.
Mr. Caliperi Was By all Accounts A Brave Policeman who served his nation faithfully. But if the Italians want to honor him, they would do it best by acknowledging their mistakes that led to his death. That way at least his family can gain closure.

0230 GMT September 27, 2007

"Bait" Contrary to our hope that Washington Post had got it wrong and that no such ridiculous - and 100% illegal under the laws of war - program exists, a further story in the Washington Post yesterday clearly shows there is such a program.
We state the program violates the laws of war because clearly there is no manner in which a sniper team can differentiate between a scavenger or just a curious passerby picking up the bait and an actual terrorist who will use the material for IEDs. The assumptions behind the bail program become even more absurd when one considers that IED making is the specialty of a few bomb-makers, and pardon us for refusing to believe these elite terrorists go around picking up materials for their bombs on the streets.
Israel Kills 11 Palestinians, Threatens Major Gaza Offensive Israel attacked a jeep it says was on its way to launch rockets, killing its five occupants. An Israeli tank shell killed 4 civilians.
Militants launched 10 rockets yesterday, damaging one house in Israel. No Israelis were injured.
Israel says it is preparing a major offensive into Gaza. It gave no reason why this long-expected offensive has not yet been launched.
Senate Passes Non-Binding Iraq Partition Vote This is the first vote contrary to the administration's plans/wishes/strategy that has actually passed, and that too by a big margin, 75-23.
We haven't seen the details of the motion yet, but the vote's sponsors apparently say they are merely going by Iraq's own federal constitution, which calls for three semi-autonomous regions. Presumably the sponsors believe that Iraq is going to be partitioned anyway, contrary to the administration plan to keep it as one country.
As has been pointed out numerous times, Iraqis are engaged in the process of ethnic cleansing regardless of what the US wants, and whether the US likes it or not, partition is becoming increasingly defacto.
World's 4th Richest Person An Indian Based on valuations yesterday, Press Trust of India reports that Mukesh Ambani of Reliance Industries is worth more than $50-billion and is now in 4th place. Laxmi Mittal, the steel magnate, is worth $48-billion. Whereas Mr. Mittal, though of Indian origin, is UK-based, and whereas his companies span the globe, Mr. Ambani lives in India and his companies are there.
Worth keeping in mind is that Mr. Ambani and his brother divided their father's inheritance after deciding to go their separate ways. Mr. Mittal has announced investments of $35-billion over the next five years; Reliance seems to come up with a mega project every few months. It is likely that soon one or the other will surpass Mr. Bill Gates as the richest. Current Number 2 is Mr., Warren Buffett, and Number 3 is the Mexican magnate Mr. Carlos Slim.
It's also worth noting that Misters Ambani, Mittal, and Slim actually make physical things.

0230 GMT September 26, 2007

"Bait": Why The US Is Not Winning In Iraq The Washington Post says that the US Army has a sniper operation where "bait" in the form of materials that are used to make IEDs are scattered about. The material includes stuff like detonator wire. Whoever picks up the material is shot.
Now, first let's assume the WashPo is right. We realize that after 4 1/2 years of a completely pointless war some military commanders may be losing their marbles, but one hates to think that is so. We found a bit odd that, according to the WashPo, two snipers who were disciplined for falling asleep at their posts retaliated by blowing the cover of this program. Is this program secret? Or is it something that some renegade commander thought up and tried to keep secret?
So: assuming the WashPo is correct, here's our point. If you have spent any time at all in a country with many poor, you will have noticed the prevalence of scavengers. Poor people will pick up anything to check if it is useable or can be sold/exchanged.
So: whoever developed this program had better also have developed a fool-proof way of telling if the person picking up, say, detonator wire is a terrorist or a scavenger, otherwise this person is heading for an extended stay at a top class Army resort like Leavenworth. That's because without that fool-proof method, what is happening is not terrorists being shot, but civilians being murdered in cold blood.
So: if such a program exists, the implication is inescapable: some American commanders think that terrorists scrounge their IED materials from stuff they find on the road. We hear a lot of clocks going "cuckoo!", to put it politely.
Now look, people: we have said a hundred times if we've said it once that the US military has not been given the means for victory in this war, and for that the administration and politicians are to blame.
At the same time, if you study the way the military has fought the war with the resources given, you will have ample reason to suspect that the military too has a share of the responsibility for the way things are.
For example, the repeated failure of training programs for local forces is squarely a military responsibility. We know many of our readers will not agree with us, but we will be remiss if we do not say that a great many non-American military men we've talked to think that the US Army has no CI strategy worth the name to begin with. For example, how much of the US effort is on force protection and how much is left over for CI?
Winning a war with inadequate resources and with incompetent civilians giving the orders is a bad situation, but it's still possible to win to some extent. But if you're going to add military incompetence to the already bad hand that has been dealt, honestly, its more productive to pull the US military out of Iraq and put the senior commanders on KP: at least they won't be creating more problems and at least they'll be doing something useful.
Meanwhile, we honestly hope the WashPo has the "Bait" story wrong. We have a lot of respect for the American military, and we'd hate to have to face our foreign expert friends and readers and tell them: "when you said the US military is incompetent at CI, you were right and we were wrong."
Because though by itself the "Bait" thing is not a big deal, its symptomatic of a lot of other things that do add up to big deals.
President/General Musharraf's Army Term Of Service Jang of Pakistan says that when the government lawyer arguing against petitions in the Supreme Court to bar him from standing for president was asked by the learned judges as to the President's plans in case he was NOT elected president, the government lawyer said he would merely return to his military job. There was no rule regarding retirement of the Pakistan Army Chief of Army Staff, said the lawyer.
This has us scratching our heads. If there is no retirement age for the Chief, who decides when he retires? Does he assemble the Praetorian commanders for tea and biscuits and do they vote? What happens at times when Pakistan has a civilian government? Does the Army Chief get to tell everyone: "I am now Chief, so I can serve as long as I want?" Then why would any chief retire until he dropped dead?
Or is this just another rule that the good President had passed for his benefit after staging his coup?
Respectfully, Mr. President/General Sir, we have news for you. If you aren't reelected, if you go back to the Army it will be for one purpose only: to pack your bags and hand in your resignation. If you don't, your generals will retire you. And if they don't, the new President will retire you.
Of course, There Is No Danger President Musharraf Will Not Be Reelected He has an actual majority of the presidential electors, which is why he wants the current assemblies/parliament to elect him as their last act before national elections are called - the assembly/parliament terms are giving over.
Jang of Pakistan says the Baluchistan Assembly has already pledged to him a majority of its votes. Wait a minute, you're going to say. Isn't Baluchistan in revolt against the center? Ah, naive you, and naive us too. Baluchistan was in revolt. The Pakistan government finished off this revolt will less effort than required to take away a quadriplegic drunk's suspenders. Those who would oppose the state have been taught a lesson. Moreover the opposition, such as it is, knows it doesn't have a majority and is resigning or will abstain from voting as a protest.
But doesn't that mean that the assemblies/parliament will not have the neccessary quorum to vote? Silly you and silly us also. The President's party has put forward a new theory - if we have it right in all details, and we will be happy to correct ourselves if not. The theory is that a majority of sitting legislators suffices to elect the President.
You're getting the idea: the sun will rise in the East; the President will get reelected.
Wait a minute, you will ask: didn't Orbat.com swear of Pakistan internal politics? You're right. We did. So we'll drop the subject.
Senators With Children In The Military Reader T-Square corrects us by saying in addition to Sen. James Webb, Senators Kit Bond and John McCain have sons in the Marines. We should have known that, we have definite recollection that it has been mentioned from time to time in the press.

0230 GMT September 25, 2007

What Does "Supporting The Troops" Mean? As far as Orbat.com is concerned, "supporting the troops" is a bogus reason for continuing failed policies in Iraq. The military is a tool of the state; the state is not a tool of the military. The state gives the military objectives; the military does not give objectives to the state. When the state's war objectives are faulty, or when the state does not provide the military resources adequate to win the war, saying we must continue the war to "support the troops" is fallacious reasoning.
When General Eisenhower stopped Patton's 3rd Army from advancing on Berlin, no one protested by saying "we must support the troops". Eisenhower was simply executing orders given to him by his state.
When the US decided to accept a status quo ceasefire in Korea, by the logic of today's "support the troops" brigade, the state abandoned the troops and gravely diminished the sacrifice of the 30,000+ troops killed in combat, to say nothing of the wounded, or those who served there. But the state's objectives were to end what was perceived as unwinable within the cost parameters set by the state, so a ceasefire was accepted as the best possible outcome.
When the US decided to abandon Indochina in 1975, thus rendering completely pointless the ultimate sacrifice of 58,000 US troops, plus a quarter-million wounded, plus the several millions who served in the theatre, the last thing on anyone's mind was that we must continue the war to "support the troops". The sole question was whether the state's objectives were furthered by staying or by leaving. It was clearly understood the troops were simply a tool of the state. and indeed a substantial segment of the American public believed ending the war was supporting the troops.
When the US decided not to cross the Euphrates and advance on Baghdad in 1991, your editor at least does not recall anyone saying we had failed to "support the troops". Instead the decision is seen as a wise one because the US understood it could neither manage, nor control, nor transform Iraq in any manner that furthered US state interests.
To "support the troops" by continuing the war is a most peculiar argument because it is not as if the troops decided to go to Iraq and are pleading with the American people to let them stay there. The troops are volunteers, but they did not decide on their own to go to Iraq. They did not go to Iraq because after all the pros and cons were put to them, and after lengthy and comprehensive debate, they decided Iraq was where they should be. They went to Iraq because the state ordered them there. Since neither the state nor the people were interested in the opinion of the troops when embarking on the mission, how can we now claim that to "support the troops" we must keep them there?
The sole question when deciding if the Iraq war should continue or not is whether the state's objectives are being met or not. Since this is not a war where the survival of the state is at stake, the question must be further refined to: "does the war best further the state's objectives within the cost we are willing to pay?"
And Now To The Hypocrisy Of The US Senate We put forward the above arguments for two reasons. The general one is to bring attention to the fallacy of saying we must continue in Iraq to "support the troops". But the specific one is a letter to the Washington Post from the parent of a soldier in Iraq. The parent notes that the Senate overwhelmingly voted to condemn the moveon.org ad vilifying General David Petraeus. But this same Senate voted against a bill that would allow the troops at least as much time at home as they spend in Iraq.
Is that supporting the troops? The parent does not think so, and we agree. We think the Senate - and the President - are exploiting the troops, not supporting them.
As far as we know, a single member of the Senate, James Webb, Democrat of Virginia and himself a veteran, has a child in the combat arms. Senator Webb's son has served in Iraq, and presumably will return there. By no means are we the first to note the irony of a Senate and a President that seem heckbent on continuing a war, in part to "support the troops" when they personally don't have a soldier or Marine and are in no danger of losing a child in Iraq.
In closing, we note an odd circumstance. The US Army has more than half its brigades at war. The US Marines have a third of their infantry regiments at war. So the Marines can deploy for 7-months at a time, but the President and the Senate are not just forcing 12-month deployments on the Army, they won't allow allow Army troops 12-months at home bases after each deployment.
Now, of course, our argument has to be modified because the Marines usually have the equivalent of another regiment deployed with their amphibious ready groups at sea. Nonetheless, these deployments are not the same thing as being in Iraq.

0230 GMT September 24, 2007

Arrests Of Pakistan Opposition Members Continued into Sunday night, says Jang of Pakistan.
Iraq Says Blackwater Needed Well. That was fast. We'd predicted a change of heart on the part of the Iraq government after requisite people were paid off. Blackwater's mistake, we'd said, was in not paying off people because it operates under US government protection. Just yesterday Washington Post detailed how angry the Iraqis have been at BW for a long time because of several incidents.
And right up to yesterday Iraq was vowing BW would be investigated and people put on trial.
But according to Reuters, the Iraq government has decided that BW is doing valuable work and that there will be a security vacuum if BW is immediately expelled. So how come Iraq government didn't figure that out before launching its campaign to expel the company?
We have to admit that even we did not predict such a rapid resolution. A new motto for BW comes to mind: "Fast to pull the trigger, faster to pull the wallet".
We do want to make clear that in no way do we condemn any American company for paying bribes in Iraq. You pay, or you don't get the work. BW's luck - or from the Iraqi viewpoint arrogance - in not paying ran out, and the company has done what needed to be done at warp speed.
Israeli Roadblocks In West Bank We'd carried the news the other day that to reward President Abbas of the West Bank (though he's still styled as President of Palestine) by eliminating 24 roadblocks.
Turns out its not much of a reward. According to the Jerusalem Post, a UN office says that 40 new roadblocks have been set up in the last month alone. There are now 572. Two years ago there were 59. so with 24 to be eliminated, even if Israel puts up no news ones, the west Bank is worse off than it was a month ago.
Phew. Thank goodness. For a while we were worried the Israelis were going all soft and cuddly.
The story shows how anyone can fall for propaganda. But for the UN report, since we don't follow the Mideast closely, we wouldn't have known the 24 roadblock removal story was just propaganda.
American Military Roadblocks In Iraq: A British View This story from the BBC is understanding of the problems American soldiers manning roadblocks face. But it is also critical of the way Americans set up their roadblocks. It notes that when the British Army first went into Northern Ireland it used the same aggressive tactics at roadblocks as the Americans. But it had to change when it realized how much it was antagonizing the locals.
Indian Foreign Exchange Reserves Rise Again and as of central bank figures September 21, 2007, have touched $234-billion. Indian GDP has crossed the $1-trillion mark and is probably understated by up to 20%.
None of this is cause for complacency. India has come a very long way in the last 20 years, but it has a very long way to go. For example, in a food surplus country there is no reason for anyone to go hungry. India needs a massive program to ensure food security, clean water, and minimal health and education for its poorest 20%. This assistance is not throw-money-down-the-drain socialism. It is needed to help the poorest to contribute productively to Indian GDP growth.
India can easily grow at 10%, even faster, if it looks after its poor, invests in infrastructure, and accelerates structural economic reforms.
But morally, the government also has a duty to help those who have been by globalization - for example, sari weavers - to transition to new jobs. India is not America where those losing jobs to globalization can be treated simply as detritus. If the government would do more for the poor and for those displaced by globalization, the Left, which is holding up reforms, would be more accommodating. And the internal security situation will also improve.
Letter on Mrs. Clinton From "T-Square" While Hillary Rodham Clinton just might become the 44^th President in the election of 2008, this outcome is by no means assured. She has several serious problems to overcome, and ‘head to head’ polling shows this.
Many people don’t like her. She has huge unfavorable ratings… in the high forties This number goes up with the more media exposure she gets. This means to get elected she will be forced to ‘run the table’ of those who are now undecided. Lastly, I think that this country might elect a women… but it would have to be one that is liked. Mrs. Clintony just might be the Martha Stewart of politics… perfect but unloved… even hated.
She more than any other candidate is responsible for the very early campaign this year. Her plan was to start early and then ‘suck all the air out of the room’ to avoid exactly what she has right now… a primary fight. She wanted to get to June 2008, untouched and with money in hand. Now she has to not only win, but do so w/o, somehow reminding people why they don’t like her. For the next 8 months.
While trying to run left to make MoveOn happy, so she can get the nomination… while not moving to far left, so that she isn’t making too many TV commercials for her GOP opponent. How many times are we going to see her, asking Petraeus hard questions against cuts to the MoveOn ad?. Might had worked too, but for Obama.
Fatigue... hers for running for close to two years by the time we get to November 2008, as well as that of the electorate will come into play.
Obama… to secure the Democratic nomination, she will do everything that she will need to do… no limits. She will gleefully destroy Obama. This will not set well with many Obama supporters, many of them being ‘true believers’ in Obama. Further, she will not pick him as VP, enflaming the rage.
The Iraq War What if the war isn’t on the front page this time next year? If some progress can be reported into 2008, the war could lose it’s drag.

Unable to win in the Senate to force us out of Iraq the left will continue to scream like crazy people, scaring heck out of the middle 10% that Hillary must get to win. This is still a 45/45/10 country.

The Democrats took several House districts in '06 based on running 'moderates' in swing districts. Making those guys 'tow the party line' too often and you are virtually making TV spots for the GOP in those races. And if they don't vote anti-war, MoveOn runs someone against them in the Democratic primary. All this anti-war focus will not help them in 2008. It can't... demographics will not allow it. They got the 'low fruit' the swing districts in '06. To get the more 'red' GOP leaning districts they will have to move even more right. Can't do that well if they are holding vote, after losing vote, pandering to their leftist base.

Leading to polling… with “everyone’ “hating” George Bush, why isn’t Hillary out in front by 10, 20, 25 points? She is dead even or within the margin of error in all the national polls and in most state polls. California is a noted exception.
The Electoral College Can Mrs. Clinton win without Ohio? Maybe. But no Republican, at least, has won the Presidency w/o Ohio since 1884. However, Ohio runs fairly GOP with one noted exception: trade. On trade Hillary’s position is almost Republican… offering her no help. Not much else left on the map for Mrs. Clinton to swing to her side.
Can Mrs. Clinton win? Sure… Will she? Not a sure thing.

0230 GMT September 23, 2007

Mrs. Clinton And The Petraeus Ad Of all the many crimes of omission and commission committed by Mr. George Bush, the one he will be remembered for will not be Iraq, but Mrs. Clinton.
Single-handedly, Mr. Bush has destroyed his party and made sure not just that Mrs. Clinton is the next US president, but that her party will have control of both houses of Congress.
Reportedly, he is quite at peace with the idea and even thinks Mrs. Clinton will make a good president. We hate to be sarcastic toward a man we like, but compared to Mr. Bush anyone, even your editor, would make a good president. Anyways, the current president is losing no sleep over a second Clinton presidency, but then the man loses sleep over nothing.
Like it or not, barring some monumental chain of unforeseen events, Mrs. Clinton will take office on 1.21.2009 or whenever. So its pertinent to note that she did not join her Democratic colleagues in voting for a resolution that condemned the inflammatory advert attack on General Petraeus.
The reason, we are told, is that moveon.org, the group that placed the advert, has 3-million members and that means 3-million potential Mrs. Clinton voters.
Now we'd like to ask the good Senator a question. Given her anti-Iraq-war stance, and given she is the most likely of any candidate to win both her party's nomination and the presidency, does she honestly believe moveon.org members would vote against her if she had something like: "I oppose the Iraq war but this personal attack against a uniformed military man who was simply doing as he was required by his government is unwarranted"?
Her failure to vote for the motion, or to abstain - she voted against it - shows a side of Mrs. Clinton that the world is quite familiar with, and which was one reason even many who admire her husband breathed a sigh of relief when the power duo left Washington after Mr. Clinton stepped down.
She is utterly, completely, and wholly without moral scruple. She voted for the war because it was the popular thing to do. She is now against it, but not so much against it that Democrats who are uneasy with the thought of a rapid, complete withdrawal will vote against her. She is against it because it's the popular thing. Mrs. Clinton loves to talk of the "politics of personal destruction" when criticized, but actually she should talk about her politics as the politics of expediency. She seemingly has no personal feelings about any issue or any person, as opposed to her husband who, whatever you might say about him, really identified with ordinary human beings.
Now that we've said that, let is preempt the likely counterstroke some of our readers may employ. So on the other side we have a president who has strong moral positions on everything, indeed, so strong that he never lets mere facts interfere with his moral position. We are not criticizing Mrs. Clinton because we hold any brief for Mr. Bush or the Republicans.
We are saying only that we hope there is a functioning America left after 8 years of moral Mr. Bush and 8 years of amoral Mrs. Clinton.
Pakistan Begins Arrests Of Opposition Leaders says Jang of Pakistan, reporting that 35 have been arrested or are wanted for threats to the Public Order. It looks like there will be no need for opposition leaders who don't want President Musharraf returned to power as president to vote against him or to resign in protest, as anyone who says s/he protests or will protest will be in detention.
Meanwhile, the opposition is saying Pakistan needs a genuine democracy and President Musharraf is opposing this. So are we to conclude that the opposition represents genuine democracy? Please do not make us laugh. President Musharraf and his military cohorts are corrupt, yes. But their corruption is a tiny fraction of what the civilian politicians of Pakistan, of all parties, have shown when they were in power.
Yes, democracy in Pakistan does not need President Musharraf. But it needs the opposition to him even less.
Pakistan Army Likely To Withdraw Extra Troops Sent To Tribal Zones according to a report we saw yesterday morning in the Daily Jang, but could not find tonight. We apologize for not providing the URL. The Governor of the NWFP, a retired general, is quoted as the source of the Jang report.
In truth, Pakistan has no choice but to withdraw the extra troops and to confine the ones normally stationed in the tribal zone to defensive operations. Few in Pakistan support the "crackdown" on the tribals - in reality there is no crackdown - because it is seen as giving in to the US. The army does not want to get involved. And the tribals have been busy kidnapping Army and paramilitary troops just to make sure the government signs non-interference agreements before the hostages are released.
The alleged crackdown has been the biggest farce in the GWOT.
An article on the complexities of tribal politics, if you are interested: http://www.dawn.com/2007/09/22/top9.htm
Iceland To Convert From Oil To Hydrogen Petrol in Iceland costs - gulp! - $8/gallon. Already leaders in alternative energy thanks to their geothermal resources, the Icelanders are working toward converting their vehicles and fishing vessels to hydrogen. One source estimates they will need a 4% rise on power generation for the conversion.
Iceland has 300,000 people; we assume that means it has about 150,000 vehicles of all sorts.
Afghanistan In case you've been wondering what's happening there, read http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2990173.ece

0230 GMT September 22, 2007

After saying we didn't see the point in covering Pakistan politics, here is an update devote entirely to - Pakistani politics. In complete accordance with American spin principles, we cunningly keep our word while not keeping our word by letting other people cover Pakistan politics. True, these people are members of our editorial team. But don't they too have a right to write? [We amaze ourselves with our genius.]

President General Musharraf Reshuffles Pakistan's Senior Generals according to London Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2507932.ece.
Mandeep Singh Bajwa, South Asia correspondent writes: Inside information is that Kiyani, a Gakhar from the traditional recruiting area of Rawalpindi District is going to be the next COAS. Reason: his liberal views which have endeared him to the Americans who're backing him. Musharraf considers him a loyalist which is of course a significant factor to be considered.
Kiyani has also been negotiating with Benazir which softens her to his candidature. The X Corps Commander, Tariq Majeed will be elevated to the ceremonial post of Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee.

Musharraf is of course taking a calculated risk in shedding his uniform. In the past he has shown formidable political skills weaving circles around not only domestic politicians but also outwitting the more experienced Indian ones.

However his power lies ultimately in the Army which he heads. Quitting the COAS' job will mean that he will be ultimately at the mercy of the new COAS. In Pakistan's history only General Mohammed Musa showed any signs of loyalty to his mentor, dictator and self-styled Field Marshal Ayub Khan.

With that exception, ambitions and self-interest have always proved bigger motivators than loyalty.

Meanwhile, Daily Jang of Pakistan says opposition parliamentarians will resign on September 29, which will have the effect of assuring the president's reelection because that many fewer anti-Musharraf votes will be cast.

Analysis By Major A.H. Amin who writes occasionally for Orbat.com. First, details of the Pakistan army reshuffle, for which Major Amin cites the ISPR, the Pakistan Army's media office:

Major General Nadeem Taj, the incumbent Military Intelligence Chief was promoted Friday to the rank of Lieutenant General and appointed as the new head of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). He will replace Lieutenant General Pervez Ashfaq Kiyani.

Lieutenant General Tariq Majeed, commander of the army's 10th corps was replaced by newly promoted Lieutenant General Mohsin Kamal.

Major Amin then cites media analysis: President General Musharraf on Friday appointed a new ISI chief and made a number of other key military appointments in a move seen as the reflection of his desire to retain influence even after quitting the army chief slot. which strengthened the speculations that the outgoing ISI chief may be considered for promotion as full General and appointed either as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff committee of the armed forces or chief of army staff after President Musharraf doff his uniform. General Kiyani has been active in recent past as a key negotiator on the front of power sharing agreement with former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on General Musharraf's behest. General Taj, the new ISI chief served as General Musharraf's military secretary at the time of the coup that brought him to power in October 1999.

In another important move, General Majeed is also being tipped as another strong contender for the army chief's slot.
In 1999, as a Major General based in Lahore, General Majeed reportedly ordered his troops to seize the family estate of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif.

According to a defense analyst, who did not want to be named General Kiyani and General Majeed are reputed to be pro-western commanders of Pakistan army who will continue to support Islamabad's contribution to the war on terror.

Major Amin's Analysis The above was an analysis from a person who does not know the Pakistan Army. Pakistan at this stage needs a very strong as well as able man to steer it out of the storm. The above mentioned hardly have the capability to do so.

What is needed is a general who knows when to use force and when to exercise restrain. General Majeed or General Kiani may be good at staff but may not be able to command in crisis situation that Pakistan will face in 2007 and 2008.The crisis will be internal and external. Internal as the ongoing insurgency , full fledged in the NWFP and low key in Balochistan. External challenge may come from a US ultimatum to Pakistan to denuclearise or to be destroyed. This would not be as simple as being a military secretary or to negotiate with Benazir.

As far as I understand and have seen the army , the only man who can lead the Pakistan Army in this situation is Lieutenant General Sajjad Akram the 1 Corps Commander. He has the fire as well as the insight to lead. Specially in a situation where an unforeseen unnatural death removes General Musharraf from the scene altogether.

The other contenders if they can be called lack that rare military talent required to lead Pakistan in 2007 and 2008 which fatefully would be the most crucial grave and possibly most fatal years of Pakistan. To lead in crisis is not as simple as running an intelligence agency or dealing with the drab details of protocol.

War is not about being a good sycophant or a good staff officer. It is hell and few in the highest positions have ever distinguished themselves for decisiveness.

The question is not to select a man who is pro West or otherwise. The question is to select a man who can perform the balancing act in face of allegations that a Punjabi army is invading Pashtun villages and yet deal with the crisis. Even the West needs a great general to lead Pakistan Army otherwise the Bagran Airbase may be a good target for the Pakistani nuclear device in wrong hands. Fear makes men believe in the worst. But in this case even the worst will be more worst than any worst. Sometimes we fail to see the looming crisis.

OBL And 9/11 Reader Pushkar Ranade asked for specific references concerning our statement that OBL claimed responsibility for 9/11 much after the event.

OBL first denied any part in the terrorist act: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/ . Then 3 years later he said he did it: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html.

0230 GMT September 21, 2007

Should We Care About Pakistan's Internal Politics? We learn from the Pakistani media that President/General Musharraf plans to get reelected president in October, and if he wins, resign his army commission. The presidential electors will be the existing national/provincial assemblies where the President may still have sufficient support. The opposition who are saying they will boycott the presidential vote are happily playing into his hands.
There are all these complicated variables about the legality of the President standing for political office while still in the army, and about if the existing legislators can reelect him or are new elections mandatory, and what will the Supreme Court rule about this that and the other, and so on till everyone goes to sleep from the boredom of it all.
Our question to the world at large is: should we be care about all this? Pakistan has reached a stage in its existence where everyone is being carried along before a tide that no one can control. It really doesn't matter how/when/if the President is reelected, and it doesn't really matter if someone else is elected. Events will have to play out and some resolution arrived at, one way or the other.
It seems to us that we'd better serve our readers if we focused on describing/discussing the flow of events rather than worrying about the president and his election, or the US and what Washington wants because if the situation continues gaining momentum along its present vector, both the President and Washington are going to become irrelevant.
Osama Bin Laden Declares War On President Musharraf One thing you have to admit about OBL: when it comes to big ideas, he is a follower and not a leader. People have been trying to kill the Pakistan President for years. It's only now that OBL has decided to jump on the bandwagon and add President Musharraf to his Must Not Invite For Tea List.
This effort seems to us a pathetic attempt by OBL to stay relevant in a world that has forgotten him. There may be a few wet-behind-the-ears terrorists who look up to him and want to take orders from him or from any sixth-hand party that claims OBL wants this or that. But no serious terrorist has anything to do with him.
Indeed, irrelevant as the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury are to the western nations who have decided to fight Muslim fundamentalists, OBL is even more irrelevant to the Muslim fundamentalists.
We know that many experts, both American and foreign, have advised the US administration not to give OBL any publicity or any credence as this is the best way to show him up for the impotent fake he is. We also know the chances of the administration doing this are less than zero, because in order to keep itself relevant the administration has to keep OBL relevant. If people figured OBL is irrelevant, they might seriously start questioning the administration's premises/operations regarding the GWOT.
So the administration and OBL need each other. The world has to decide if the people of the world need OBL or the administration, and the answer to that is too obvious to state.
By the way, pardon us if we have said this before. OBL did NOT plan 9/11. He had only a peripheral role - if that - in the matter. The US had to declaim from every hilltop higher than 10-meters, again and again, that he was responsible before he got through his fat head the pleasant idea: "hey, they keep saying I was behind it, it gives me much status to say I was behind it, so let me claim I was behind it. As we said before, the man is very, very slow."
We do recall we have said many times that Al Qaeda in Iraq has nothing to do with OBL or anyone associated with him. But our "insight" here is no big deal, just about everyone knows AQI has nothing to do with OBL.
Must be frustrating for him as a businessman - he was a businessman before he became the head of the Church of Terrorism - thanks to the US's hard work. Here everyone is claiming they are his franchisees, and he doesn't get a cent.

0230 GMT September 20, 2007

Bad Palestinian/Good Palestinian Israel has declared the Gaza Strip as an "enemy entity" and is prepared to squash its residents yet further. Power and fuel supplies will be cut, and other measures are under consideration.
Meanwhile, 24 checkpoints in the West Bank are to be removed to ease life for the "good" Palestinians, the ones who have agreed to be the mongrel pets of the Israelis.
We find the matter quite humorous. The people of Gaza are so beaten down that no amount of pressure can get them to kick out Hamas. All Israel will achieve is to drive more Gazans to desperation and provide more Hamas recruits. Meanwhile, just because Fatah rules the West Bank doesn't mean of a sudden the residents of the west Bank have come to love Israel. Its just a matter of time before West Bank resistors attack Israel and it's bye-bye honeymoon. Another possibility is an Arab state giving Fatah money to stop sleeping with the Israelis, or an internal coup which brings hard-liners back to power.
Of course, Israelis of all persuasions understand all this. But just as the Americans are out of Iraq options, and must chose among the least bad, the Israelis also have no choices.
We are 100% against the Israeli occupation of Palestine in any form. Nonetheless, we are inclined to agree with those Israeli hardliners who say that concessions to the West Bank are pointless. The argument is: give the West Bank scraps from the master's table, and the more they will want and the less tolerable they will find the very oppressive Israeli occupation. Whereas the Gazans will spend so much of their time just trying to exist, they wont have time for rebellion.
Sometimes it seems ironical that the Jews, who have suffered so much for millennia, should now be imposing so much suffering on others. But the Jews are Arabs too, and this is the Middle East. People in the Mideast are not big on pity or human dignity. And the west is so full of guilt about what happened to the Jews during World War II that they are quite willing to see a few million squalid, worthless Palestinians suffer at Israeli hands.
After all, racism is not unique to Israelis.
Syria: Someone Please Give Us A Break....One of the things that attracted us to President Bush before the Iraq fiasco is that he was willing to call a shovel a shovel regarding Syria. Its government is an evil one, and the manner in which it has acted to suppress democracy in Lebanon over the past decades is sufficient reason to topple this government. We are not even talking about the suppression of democracy in Syria itself. Nor are we talking of its interference in Iraq and the alliance with Iran: after all, if America had not occupied Iraq and threatened Syria, then perhaps it would not be doing the bad things it is doing.
So if anyone says: "Let's whack Syria", we are the first to agree.
Having said that, we are taken aback by the shamelessness of the Israelis and the American administration in the way they are making their case to attack Syria should war come with Iran.
The same people who bought us Iraqi WMDs - the Israelis among others and the US administration, are now trying to tell us Syria is involved with trying to get N-weapons with DPRK's help. That DPRK has no help to give, and that were it to make any such move the fantastic deal it has gotten out of the US will go down the tubes so fast Pyongyang wont know what hit it, seems not to bother the Untruth Makers.
Like children who find their lies work once, this lot is lying to us once again and on even flimsier evidence.
What we'd like to ask is: why are these people compelled to lie when the truth by itself is quite sufficient as a provocation to attack Syria? Just yesterday the world witnessed yet another murder of a Lebanese anti-Syria politician, a crude attempt to stir sectarian tensions in Lebanon and prevent the formation of a stable government. If the Israelis and this confused administration simply put before the American people the true bill of Syria's interventions in Lebanon, we don't doubt the American people will understand what's to be done.
Our theory on why the Israelis/US administration won't simply tell the truth is that a congenital liar cannot tell the truth. We don't think its any more complicated than that. Whether this tendency in the parties concerned has progressed from neurosis to psychosis is for the psychologists to say.
What we can say is that both the Israelis and certain US elements are getting frustrated that Syria wont react to their provocations and give them the excuse to attack Syria. The Israeli raid two weeks ago was a huge provocation but the Syrians kept calm, because they know what the Israeli/US game is.
But the provokers keep hoping that sooner or later the Syrians make a mistake, and that Syria can be taken out before a war with Iran, simplifying matters.
In our opinion, Syria is doomed if the US attacks Iran. The Israelis will claim Syria has started a war with them, and then the US and Israel will let loose on Syria.
Americans have taken to calling themselves "warriors". The Israelis, of course, believe they own the word "warrior". Let us explain something to these "warriors". A warrior is not just one who fights. A warrior is one who is truthful and fights cleanly. A warrior does not lie. He does not fake reasons to go to war. Honor matters to a warrior. It doesn't matter to liars.
We need to go to war with Syria. But we should so honorably, not by lying.

0230 GMT September 19, 2007

US Wants New British Role In Iraq The US wants UK forces in Iraq - currently UK 1st Mechanized Brigade - to assume a new role in Iraq, that of patrolling the Iran border to help stop infiltration from that country. UK has shifted 250 troops to the new role.
UK is not happy at the US request. It wants to pull put its 5,000 troops and focus on Afghanistan, having said it cannot simultaneously maintain two brigade groups in two different combat zones. At this time, UK troops have left Basra City and South Iraq generally, and are concentrated at an airbase near the Kuwait border. 2500 troops are scheduled for withdrawal, leaving behind a residual force that will train Iraqis and provide quick reaction muscle to assist the Iraqis.
The British are saying that acceding to the US request will risk getting their troops involved in war with Iran. There is a strong feeling of loyalty to the US, but also a strong feeling that Britain has done what it could in Iraq and that it must also look to its own interests.
What the British are not saying is that its suspicious in the extreme that the Americans have suddenly "discovered" Iranian infiltration, which has been openly going on for at least 3 years. They are prepared to do their bit if it becomes neccessary to attack Iran. That bit includes Royal Navy warships for the Persian Gulf, RAF strike aircraft for the bombing campaign, and Marine commandos/SF troops to attack Iranian coastal targets. It does not include putting several thousand troops at risk a few kilometers from the Iran border.
Security Deteriorates In South Iraq With the departure of the Petraeus/Crocker Road Show from Washington, and confident that it now has the consensus to keep 130,000 troops in Iraq through the November 2008 elections, the administration can afford to let on what everyone else knew.
Security in Baghdad and Anbar, as defined by certain selected measures, has without doubt improved.
But everywhere else the situation has gotten worse.
South Iraq is in a state of anarchy - our word, not the administration's; North Iraq, previously reasonably safe is becoming progressively unsafe, and Central Iraq bar Baghdad City, previously a violent place and then pacified by the US in 2005-06, is again becoming violent.
The reasons for the growing violence? One is no surprise, it was anticipated by many critics of the surge: the Sunni insurgents and AQI have left Baghdad for other regions rather than face the Americans directly. A reasonable strategy.
But a second reason does cause us to raise an eyebrow. Apparently al-Sadr's militia, the Mahadi Army, is rapidly gaining recruits and strength. Also forced out of Baghdad by the Americans, the Mahadi Army has jumped full-on the war in the south.
We knew the Mahadi lot would lay low when the surge began. But considering the US has been systematically targeting them, we did not know they were exactly growing stronger. Iran has to be thanked for much of this.
Incidentally, look how the Iranians operate. They fully back the Badr militia (old-line Shia, Najaf/Karabla, and they fully back the Mahadi army (new-line Shia, Sadr City). But these militias are enemies of each other and are spending more and more energy fighting each other. Doesn't bother Iran, it wins whoever wins. Of course, Iran has not been able to turn the Badr militia against the US; Mahadi army from the very first was virulently anti-American.
And as if that wasn't enough to occupy Iran, it also backs selected Kurdish elements - even as it is at war against the Kurds; and it backs selected Sunni groups.
All these wonderful ideas the US has for licking Iran out of Iraq, by the way, suffer from a fatal defect. Iran is part of the 'hood. The US isn't.
Blackwater Yesterday we hesitated to tell the story behind Blackwater getting kicked out of Iraq, which of course it hasn't and will not be. Our source in this matter is not the most reliable. But we have the same material from another source today, so here goes.
Blackwater operates under a charter granted not by the Iraq government, but by the US government. That is one reason you find BW employees are much more aggressive in dealing with Iraqis than other groups. Because of the publicity BW gets, the public has the impression American security contractors are like BW, but that isn't the case. Most Americans - like most other contractors of an nationality - are cautious and focus on getting the job done with minimum friction.
Okay. So all other groups have to pay bribes to the Iraqis to get clearance. Since BW deals directly with God, it does not pay bribes to the Iraqis. You musn't think this means no bribes at all. Graft is the order of the day in Iraq and if you dont pay anyone, your work becomes that much more difficult. So lets just say BW does not pay Those Who Matter.
Complicating things, Those Who Matter keep changing. So you bribe Deputy Minister X, well tomorrow you find you have to bribe Deputy Minister Y. The Brits and the French are remarkably skillful at this game and plus they play well to fragile native egos. To begin with the Americans are not comfortable bribing, and bribing Iraqis to permit Americans to do the Iraqis jobs for them, and to die for the Iraqis instead of the Iraqis dying for Iraqis, makes the Americans see thirty-six different shades of red. On top of that, when the Americans bribe Iraqis, they sneer and make no attempt to hide their contempt for the scum.
Still with us? So important elements in the Iraqi government have it in for BW. The Baghdad thing gave them another excuse to go after BW.
So of course BW will not have to fork over some of its ill-gotten profits, and perhaps there will be cosmetic changes to fool the Iraqi public. Yes, people, Iraq does have a public that does express its unhappiness and does have to be taken into account. The changes will be of the order of calling Blackwater Cleanwater or Bluewater or The Purple Thing Water or whatever. The Iraqi public will grumble - it's not easily taken in, by the way, but life will go on.
Not to rain on anyone's parade: giving bribes overseas is against domestic American law. We're wondering at what point do the US Department of Justice and State attorney generals start going after American companies operating in Iraq.

Letters

Afan Khan On SSG Bombing I was a bit surprised at your critique of the official version of the SSG blast considering how knowledgeable you are about South Asian affairs generally. Some salient points.
1) The explosion did not occur in a mess or a langar, it occurred during a "Buraa Khana", (the Big Meal) which Pakistan Army units hold periodically.
2) These are held in open fields not some mini bunker as you seem to imply (correctly incidentally, S Asian military construction is v sturdy for some reason). There you have a tent held up with bamboo sticks (the Shamayahna), I would be rather surprised if an explosion did not rip the roof off.
3) I am no expert, but I have lived in Army installations all my life. Cantonments and Camps in the Pakistan Army are peacetime bases, civilians come and go at will, infact troops are to be in civilian clothes after duty hours.
4) Giving food (and other services) to the local community is part routine for the army, the left over food at a Burra Khana, is usually distributed to the poor. This would be especially true on the day of the blast, the 1st day of Ramazan.
5) There is no "Karrar Coy" but there is a "Zarrar Coy", the anti terrorist battalion of SSG (there units are all called companys for some reason), which took part in the Lal Masjid siege, and was the unit who was attacked.
Yes the Government messed up, not tightening security in military installations generally considering the situation. But your critique was way off.
Walter E. Wallis On Private Contractors In Iraq The idea of returning security to the armed services is attractive to me, especially since I have hopes that my grandson will get a hitch in that duty. It does, however, require different training than infantry combat, and that training does not come quick. I have never been fond of the monster embassy in Baghdad.
Editor Mr. Wallis's grandson is in the US Marine Corps.
James Fremon On Mr. Greenspan And Oil Prices Orbat.com said: "He has said a shortfall of 3-4 million bbl/day due to a Mideast crisis would push oil prices to $120-barrel. Because of who he is, the figure has to be taken seriously."

Its common to have little news on weekends, but surprisingly there's little news this mid-week. We went through a number of media sites and it does not seem General Petraeus's testimony can be blamed for hogging the headlines.