0230 GMT September 30, 2008
Second US Destroyer, 1 Cruiser Join Blockade Of Hijacked Ship Additionally, one Russian ship and an unidentified ship are also on the scene; the hijacked ship is now surrounded. The pirates say they are not concerned, they have plenty of food to ride out a siege.
We admire their talk, probably fuelled by the ubiquitous khat, a narcotic leaf that is popular in the Horn. But talk is all it is. The tactic at this time seems to be play on the pirates' nerves, and while they may ample food - from the hijacked freighter, they are likely to soon run out of leaf. They may then assess their chance more soberly. At some point US may lose patience and simply hole the ship. If the pirates kill the hostages, they are dead men. And by the way, if they surrender to the Americans, they may well decide they should have fought it out. US military is not noted for its kindness to captured out-of-uniform prisoners.
Interestingly, while Kenya says the 33 tanks were for its army, US says it believes the cargo was for the Sudan Liberation Army, which is in an uneasy truce with Khartoum.
Western Tourists To Egypt Rescued Eleven tourists and eight guides were rescued in a joint operation between Sudan, Egypt, Italy, and Germany. The latter three sent special forces for the operation. The hostages are unharmed. The Egyptians tantalizing say half the kidnappers were killed and the others captured, without providing any details. So far the other countries have been mum. The kidnappers had taken the hostages to the Chad border; the Sudanese say they tracked them the kidnappers all the way.
US Bail-Out Bill Fails Twelve Republicans used the excuse of an inflammatory speech by the House Speaker, Congressperson Nancy Pelosi, to vote "no" whereas previously they had indicated a "yes". We heard parts of the speech, and inflammatory it was; though all the facts were correct as to how President Bush had wrecked the US budget over 8 years. But if she sought to blame the mess on President Bush, that would definitely be a no-no: this nonsense started during President Clinton's time, and strange as it may seem, there are Democratic Wall Street people as much as Republican Wall Street people.
The Democrats are acting shocked: obviously the Republicans put their ego ahead of the interests of the American people, they say.
Actually, while its fine for the Democrats to seek political advantage from the fiasco, the Republican representatives ego has little to do with things. The problem with the bailout bill is that it is wildly unpopular with Main Street. US House representatives face election every two years. The twelve Republicans likely had their arms twisted badly by the President, but were uneasy about their constituents, who they face in almost six weeks time. Our reading is they used Ms. Pelosi's speech as an excuse to escape their promises to Mr. Bush and other powerful Republicans.
It is exceedingly stupid of of the government's Big Cheeses to have crafted a bill that offers very little to ordinary folks - Main Street - and everything to Wall Street. Telling the proletariat that you are helping them because without the bill Wall Street's credit markets will shut down and they, the proletariat, will be out of jobs is plain idiotic. What reason do the ordinary folks have to believe the Government bigwigs? Like, no one knew this crisis was coming? People have been screaming about it for a year, and the Treasury and Federal Reserve did fatootie all. Plus, plenty of experts feel this bill is not going to work. Plus putting people to work through government programs generates jobs and injects cash into the economy, which also is a way to meet the crisis.
It just may be a good idea to wait on the bailout, let market forces annihilate the greedy fools who put us in this mess, and then start pumping money into the economy. The rate at which big banks are disappearing or being nationalized in Europe and the US shows that everything was rotten not just in the kingdom of Denmark. but everywhere else.
The Japanese, of course, are sitting very pretty. They sacrificed growth for caution; they have several tons and halves of cash. Our guess is they feel the market has not bottomed. When truly it can fall no farther, we suspects the Japanese and the sovereign wealth funds will come buying.
Anyway, what's so bad if America is owned by foreigners? Surely they wont treat ordinary workers any worse than American capitalists have done. And who knows, maybe they will treat them better.
0230 GMT September 29, 2008
US Destroyer Closes On Hijacked Ukraine Ship The USS Howard is now within 2-kilometers of the ship, which is anchored off Puntland, Somalia. The ship carries 33 T-72 tanks for Kenya, plus a large quantity of artillery and infantry weapons ammunition. The pirates cannot unload the tanks as docks and cranes are required, but the ammunition can be offloaded and fall into wrong hands. HQ US 5th Fleet refuses to say what the destroyer intends. The pirates say they are ready to die to the last man, and obviously that is going to be the case. The issue any rescuer faces is the safety of the crew. Initially the pirates demanded $35-million, then dropped to $20-million after they realized the ship was from Eastern Europe and the crew were Russians and Ukrainians. Russia has dispatched a patrol vessel; we haven't quite figured out where is the vessel.
Top-Ranking Afghan Woman Police Officer Killed as she was leaving for work. The Taliban claimed responsibility. She headed the Kandahar police's crime against women unit. she joined the force in 1982 and was not allowed by the Taliban to work during their regime. BBC says 700 police personnel have died in Afghanistan this year.
Swiss Jetman Crosses Channel, French Balloon Pedal Pusher Aborts The Swiss pilot known as Jetman safely crossed the 35-km wide Channel on September 26, using his own design jetpack. The entire flight took 10 minutes. Meanwhile, a French amateur flier had to abort his run across the Channel in a pedal-powered airship because of adverse wind conditions.
World's Top Speeding Scofflaw Caught This Brazilian gentleman racked up near 1000 speeding violations in seven years. since he did not bother to register his car, he never received a ticket. He was pulled over by the Sao Paulo police, who discovered they had caught the infamous scofflaw. His combined fines total US$2-million.
US Deploys Advanced Radar to Negev says the US newsletter Defense Daily. The anti-missile radar will be manned, at least initially, by US service personnel. It will help both Israel and the US because it will provide early warning against Iranian ballistic missiles
0230 GMT September 28, 2008
NATO Revamps Afghan Strategy It will convert Afghanistan's "fighting season" into a 365/24 effort to allow the Taliban no respite; it will focus on providing locals security and the infrastructure they need; and it will be very, very careful with air strikes because killing civilians is no way to endear Afghanis.
All to the good, we say. But hang on a minute. The Afghanistan "War" is two completely separate wars, one conducted by NATO, and in which the US is the major component, and the other conducted by the US under sovereign command. NATO has already been doing infrastructure development, has done what it can about local security, has been extremely careful with air strikes, and has been campaigning in the winter.
So the best one can say is that NATO plans to do the right things it has already been doing with greater intensity.
That's good too, except for one problem. NATO lacks the troop resources to implement its strategy. Its plan to keep increasing the strength of the Afghan Army to compensate for NATO's inadequate resources is essential for success. The problem here is you can double the size of the Afghan Army to 250,000 in five years and it will still remain inadequate. You need to quadruple to 500,000 troops, and that is simply out of the question. Also, lots of bad things are going to happen in that five years: you must prepare for the enemy's counter to your planned increase, and that counter is going to come as surely as Granny's Green Galoshes. The figures NATO believes are adequate now will not be adequate in 2013.
Last, the United States is not going to stop fighting its war, and for every good action of NATO/US, there will be one action of US that will alienate civilians because the US war is highly aggressive.
There is even a bigger problem, one we confess to not properly understanding earlier. We've talked of how the Taliban uses intimidation and murder to force the locals into line. The Taliban are there in your village already, whereas the allied troops may or may not show up, and if they do only one thing is certain: they will leave in a few days.
We've ignored what may be the core issue, and this is epidemic corruption among the Afghan government machinery and local police. No doubt under the Taliban life was harsh, but the Taliban never engaged in graft and they absolutely did not tolerate crime. So the people had security even while they had no freedom. Now they have freedom, but no security from predators, be they government or private criminals. Add to that the economic hardship that continues, imposed in part because of inadequate infrastructure development and in part because of government corruption, and its easy to see that in many cases the locals welcome the Taliban.
This is a problem the allies can do nothing about unless they colonize Afghanistan and start shooting corrupt officials and criminals, i.e., become as the Taliban themselves. Obviously that is not going to work.
So it may be that the Afghan war cannot be won within a reasonable time-frame, say by 2011, which makes is ten years since the American invasion. Now, NATO and US are not deceiving themselves on Afghanistan the way US did over Iraq and Second Indochina. Its remarkable, really, how much the allies bring to the Afghan situation. They understand this is going to be a long, drawn-out process that may well require 20 years or even more.
This creates a paradox. To fight a 20-30-40 year war, you need to limit the amount of troops and money you commit to the war. You cannot spend $100-billion/year on military operations alone, and accept several hundred killed each year. You have to follow a different strategy, which is to control the five major cities while patrolling/raiding the countryside. Within the major cities you focus on local security, clean government, and infrastructure, and on building the Afghan Army. With the example of the successful cities to show the people, you start spreading out as the Afghan Army expands. You can afford to expand because the Afghans themselves will have reason and the means to defend themselves.
This means conceding control of much of Afghan territory to the Taliban, with the exception of disruption operations. This may enable the Taliban to to become much stronger and make it harder to expand the areas under control. And it means the US has to adapt to a completely different style of combat where all the traditional axioms of warfare are cast aside, the so-called doing more with less strategy. Of all the conditions needed to win in Afghanistan, we think this one will be hardest to bring about. Currently we think the chances are zero.
0230 GMT September 27, 2008
US Financial "Crisis" We've been very uneasy about the financial crisis and the suggested remedies, i.e, the $700-billion bailout. Something does not smell right.
The stated reason given for the bailout is that since several big financial institutions used borrowed money to lend to others or to buy now-worthless securities, these institutions have no more money to lend and worse, are imploding because lenders are calling their money back.
So its a liquidity crisis because no one will give these financial institutions money so they can lend it out, and business comes to a halt and so on.
But look at this: Washington Post Business Section, September 26, 2008, Page D1 ("Smaller Banks Thrive Out Of The Fray Of Crisis: People shift money from Wall Street to Main Street" by Binyamin Applebaum) reports that Main Street Banks - i.e., local banks, have ample money to lend. Indeed, they are gaining deposits as people flee Wall Street for the safety of local banks. The local banks use deposits to make money, not borrowed money, and they make few mortgage loans. Mortgage loans being at the center of the financial meltdown. So no liquidity concerns are hampering local banks
Now, you'll be tempted to say that the 9000 local banks together lend as much or less than the money that Wall Street lends, so turning off Wall Street lending will gravely imperil the economy.
But when local banks have been responsible in their lending and have prospered, whereas the Wall Street institutions have been criminally profligate - Wall Street paid out $35-billion in bonuses last year, and it was already quite clear that the mortgage market was in deep trouble - why are we burdening Jane Citizen with an additional $3000 or so national debt per capita (counting the money US Government has already laid out). Sure, letting Wall Street go under will hurt America. But what about the national debt which just seems to keep growing, and is already hurting the average Jane and Joe?
From what we can see, canny investors like the Japanese and Warren Buffet, who have hoards of cash due to prudent business operations, are stepping in to buy failing institution at bargain prices. These buyers are saving jobs and injecting fresh capital into Wall Street.
So can someone quantify what exactly America will lose by way of jobs and growth if the corrupt Wall Street lot go under? If you say 5-million jobs will be lost due to the multiplier effect, then why are we not giving taxpayer money to those who will lose their job through no fault of their own? Why wont the government create new jobs by investing in the long-deferred modernization of US infrastructure and by extending jobless benefits.
Why is the Government not nationalizing the companies it wants to lend money to, cap executive compensation at $1-million, which is more than 20 times the US's per capita income? Then at least there is a reasonable chance that the taxpayers will get their money back, perhaps even make a profit?
In the middle of this unbelievable display of venality and incompetence, Wall Street still argues that putting drastic pay caps on executive salaries will prevent firms from hiring the best talent. Huh? And who is this best talent: the idiots that got us into the mess in the first place? Somehow the US Government manages to function at a reasonable level of efficiency while paying its top managers less than $200,000 a year, and somehow it manages to keep attracting new recruits to offset retirees. Okay, so government managers are not Masters of the Universe. Our point is, maybe its time to strip every dime owned by the Masters of the Universe and throw them into the street to work at Burger King and live in tenements like America's poor.
It is argued that confiscating the $35-billion paid in bonuses on Wall Street will give a piffling amount of money. But who says the Government should confiscate just the bonuses? What about the bloated salaries for years, what about all the assets these robbers who steal from the poor to give to themselves have amassed?
And even if it all covers just $100-$150 billion, reducing the super-rich to paupers will have a huge effect on the public: seeing the guilty truly punished will encourage Americans to tighten their belts, and pitch in to make the sacrifices needed to put right the American people. Take that money by Government fiat - after all, if you and I commit a crime or are suspected of a crime, the Government steps in to freeze our assets and if we are found guilty, confiscates them - and then ask for bail-out money.
Right now just about everyone we talk to or read about in the media is going mad with frustration and anger that no penalty is being imposed on the big-scale robbers while the ordinary citizens, particularly those who were responsible and lived within their means, are being penalized. As their children will be penalized for two generations to come.
The Editor has made this point before: if one of his students holds up a bank or robs an ATM machine, the law throws the book at him. When the Wall Streeters rob us, we're supposed to give them a free pass?
BTW, this is what goes on in the Wall Street world. Hours before Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy, the Wall Street HQ told the UK operation to transfer $8-billion to head office. Thus, there was no money to pay the custodial staff, secretaries, junior clerks etc in the UK. Why has the US government not frozen the accounts of all 200 top Lehman executives while it determines where this money went? It certainly did not go to operations, because Lehman HQ knew it was going belly up and there would be no further operations.
0230 GMT September 26, 2008
Shoes found, dastardly plot foiled. When Mrs. R visited Friday, she brought a rug she wanted to get rid of. So she told the editor it was a beautiful rug, worth a fortune (actual, its a cheap IKEA) and it was so much more suitable for the living room than the tatty rug the editor has. (Okay, its tatty, but its his). The editor was in his "yes dear, no dear" mode) and failed to notice Mrs. R had wrapped his shoes in the rug before telling him to take the tatty rug to the basement for storage. How much more vicious can an ex get? There seems no end to the cruelty humans inflict on other hapless humans. why she wants to dispose of the editor's sole pair of work/going out shoes is beyond comprehension. After all, she bought the pair for him not 10 years ago. They're good for at least another five.
Other, Unimportant News
Pakistan Fires On US Helicopters, Troops The US story is that a pair of Kiowas were covering a ground patrol a good one mile from the Pakistan border when for no reason the Pakistanis fired on the helicopters. US then returned fire, not to harm the Pakistani post, "The suppressive fire was aimed in front of the border post, not at it" says a US defense source Pakistanis than returned fire. US then delivered direct fire and the Pakistanis stopped shooting.
Pakistan says the helicopters intruded on its territory; all it did was to fire flares to warn off the Americans, the helicopters went off.
Now, folks, for years we have been sounding-off against Pakistan's support of the Taliban. But for Pakistan there would be no Taliban to begin with. But readers also know we insist on being as fair as we can. The American story stinks to wherever.
First, the Americans know full well - and acknowledge - that the Afghan-Pakistan border is not demarcated. So how can the Americans be sure they were over Afghanistan? You can't expect Pakistan to meekly accept the American version of the border.
Second, given the above, the Americans knew they were provoking the Pakistanis. One mile is 1500-meters, and you have to be plain crazy to think the Pakistanis would not see this as part of their policy to attack the Taliban inside Pakistan.
Third, while we are willing to admit the Americans are capable of extraordinary things, but we'd like to know how even the Americans can suppress fire directed at them by firing to the front of Pakistani positions. Firing over the post we can see, that's logical if you want to warn the other side to cease and desist. Yes, you can fire to the front but not at the Pakistanis as a warning. You cannot, repeat cannot, fire in front of Pakistani positions to suppress Pakistani fire.
To add to the indignity, the Americans are saying "this shows the need for better coordination by all parties", and "Pakistanis have to explain how this happened".
Does Washington seriously believe it will intimidate the Pakistanis into operating within a US-Afghan framework? We explained the other day that unless the US is setting up Pakistan by saying "look, they are rejecting our sensible ideas", there is just no point to making these stupid proposals.
Why we have to warn the Americans of the obvious is impossible for us to understand, but here we go again: every action you take against Pakistan not just alienates the Pakistani people at a time they just about hate America, it generates new Taliban jihadis, and worst, it undercuts the very weak civil government that America has worked so hard to install.
Yes, the Pakistan Army does not want to get into a shooting match with the US Army, simply for self-preservation. But if you think you can go on poking the Pakistan Army in the eye, please think again. The Pakistanis have not fought well against the militants. But that is the Pakistan Frontier Corps, which probably has less training and firepower than US major city SWAT teams.
The Pakistan Army is quite different. It has repeatedly shown it is willing to take heavy casualties against the Indians. In Kargil, for example, the Indians deployed 16 artillery regiments (battalions) against Pakistani positions, and most were medium regiments. The Pakistani quasi-regular Northern Light Infantry - as with the Frontier Corps, the officers are regulars, the men are locals, was hammered on a scale never seen in South Asia, they were wiped out, but they did not surrender.
You push them enough and they will accept serious casualties just to kill a few Americans. Any pretence that the US and Pakistan are allies will disappear. And we absolutely guarantee that before the Americans can blink, there will 10 "Taliban" brigades which will have magically acquired SAMs and artillery, and which will start attacking/infiltrating across the entire border.
If America wants this,
that's fine with us. But first, just think: America has no troops to
spare and for political reasons cannot federalize the National Guard to
provide the needed troops. And second, by all means, do what you have
to, but can we kindly just think this out a little bit more deeply?
0230 GMT September 25, 2008
Further the Editor's shoes. He has three pairs, exactly: one general purpose for work and going out, one trainers, and one muckabout garden shoes, formerly the GP shoes. He invariably takes off the GP pair once back from work, in the tiny lobby. Well, he has searched the house 4 times top-bottom, with no sign of the shoes. The only person to visit Friday was Mrs. Rikhye, for a short time. No one has visited since, and editor had his shoes on when he returned to the house after school. Only one conclusion:
Mrs. Rikhye pronounced a serious voodoo curse, and did it wrong, so instead
of editor vanishing the shoes did. Mrs. Rikhye denies knowledge of what
happened to the shoes.
Nothing Much Happening In The World
The Trillion Dollar Wall Street Bailout would have provided jobs for 2-years for 5-million unemployed ($30,000/year). That's $300-billion. It would also have provided a year's worth of mortgage relief to 5-million poor homeowners $15,000 each. That's $225-billion. With that much money injected into the economy and so many new consumers, its likely the economy would have been imparted a solid impetus. The balance could be spent on materials and equipment to refurbish America's crumbling infrastructure. Instead its going to save the fat, ugly behinds of the richie-riches.
DNA As A Tracking Clue? The Editor wandered into a conference on how the US intelligence agencies are engaged in PR to improve their image and other things. The four speakers and 3 of 4 guests were bursting with self-importance and it seemed every one was making statements like: "I'd like to tell you more but cannot."
US intel community jokes. 1. President Reagan is invited to NSA HQ to give him and senators a better idea of what NSA does. So NSA Fort Meade is very high security. So the folks at the base were briefed about this visit, and the briefer explained that Mr. Reagan would arrive in the first helicopter and then the second would come in. Ft. Meade is shocked and startled: "Second helicopter? Who's in that?" The folks arranging the visit said "the Press". Audience erupts in laughter. Except the editor, who is going: "Huh? What's the joke?".
2. Some bright spark rings up the First Lady's office to enquire what classification Mrs. Reagan holds. More wild laugher erupts. Editor still doesn't get it: of course NSA should check her security clearance. First Lady is so miffed she tell Prez "WE are not going there." More wild laughter. Then NSA kisses and makes up with First Lady. More laughter. Why is this funny? Sixteen intelligence agencies and this is the best in jokes they can come up with for public consumption? There is no hope at all for all 16.
Anyhows, the only thing useful editor learned is that US intel is developing and has already deployed to some extent a system to identify and track people of interest around the world. No clue how this will work.
The editor's preference is for nanodust. Release it keyed to the DNA of the wanted person. Get it onto someone who has a remote association with wanted person. Dust transfers itself from person to person till it hits the right one. Then it forms itself into a tiny earpiece, jumps into wanted person's ear, and proceeds to tell US intel community jokes. The wanted person, who has survived waterboarding, having all nails and teeth pulled out, and every bone broken, and lectures by Mrs. Rikhye goes completely berserk by the tenth joke and kills himself by holding his breath.
Letter On The Surge From Aaron T: I agree with you that The Surge has all the appearances of a success. But what level of success? Was this strategic, or simply tactical? All the successes you list are successes in the truest sense of the word, but are they all not as reversible as a windbreaker? My (limited) experience with Arab and Mideastern methods of strategic warfare is that the disposition of forces and colored flags on maps marking "ours and theirs" does not explain the picture as clearly one would hope from a NATO vs Pact map. Shifting alliances, purchasable loyalties, secret agreements and all that good Sun Tzu stuff seems more the flavor of it. Now maybe what the Surge did was give us buy-in to that part of the game, rather than all this brutish door-kicking, bomb-dropping business. Maybe we got savvy.
As you have guessed, Mrs. R does not read this blog. It is the only place the editor can express his opinions about the Sainted Lady. Otherwise he is all "Yes, Dear", "No, Dear", "Three bags full dear" when Mrs. R is around, complete with groveling and "did I put the right number of sugar molecules in you tea?" Pathetic.
0230 GMT September 24, 2008
US To Send Additional 3 Combat Brigades To Afghanistan by mid-2009. This is additional to the one brigade to be sent by year end. The long period before deployment is because only when the US pulls out Iraq brigades can it send more troops to Afghanistan.
While four extra brigades will be very welcome, US runs a real danger of Too Little, Too Late. Taliban is gaining ground by the day. Further, it would be wise to count on the deployment of a brigade worth's of allied troops.
A Joint Afghan-Pakistan-US Command to combat militants inside Pakistan is mooted by the Afghans. either the Afghans are craftily putting up a proposal they know Pakistan will reject, or someone has been smoking too much opium. The Karzai Government is anathema to Islamabad, and the idea of letting US troops into Pakistan is nothing short of ludicrous.
Even more absurd is the assumption behind such a force: that Pakistan can fight its own militants by itself. This is so absurd as to be beyond laughing. The Pakistan Army is one of the largest in the world, with 30+ division equivalents. It can fight the militants any time it wants. But it does not want for reason of state interests.
The Afghans could be mooting the proposal because Pakistan has wept and whined that it is doing everything it can to stop the insurgents. So the Afghans could be saying: "you look like you need help," and when the Pakistanis refuse, the Afghans will say: "We've been telling you all the Pakistanis don't want to control their insurgents."
Mbeki Of South Africa Resigns The former South African president is a good man and has done much to help his country. But he has two major blind spots. One is the matter of treating AIDs sufferers. Mbeki has rejected western explanations of AIDs and the treatments. And he has too much in love with President Mubage of Zimbabwe. On both counts millions of innocent people have suffered.
0230 GMT September 23, 2008
The editor lost his shoes and 24 hours of earth time. He never goes out without his shoes and has no reason to take them off except when visiting people's houses. He hasnt visited anyone, and in any case, the lack of shoes would be noticed the moment one gets into the car or walks back. For several days the editor has been working one day behind. His students are used to his eccentricities so it was only yesterday a student mentioned the editor has been off one day for many days. The two events have to be connected but how?
Sorry, But It Was The Surge That Stabilized Iraq
I write this in first person because I have rude things to say about American analysts and commentators. A bigger bunch of half-wit, half-educated people is hard to find.
The new revisionist theory of Iraq is that the Surge was not responsible for the decline of violence in Iraq because in Baghdad the Sunnis had already been ethnically cleansed from mixed areas.
Before we stomp on these analysts, please be reminded Orbat.com did not support the surge: we were certain it would work, but we thought it was a mistake, and events in Afghanistan have borne out our production.
Okay, analysts, lets go back to Kindergarten. How many wars were underway in Iraq in 2006? You seem to think it was just one war, between Shia and Sunni in Baghdad. Sorry to burst your hallucinogen-induced bubbles, but there were other wars: Shia vs Shia (Najaf vs Baghdad), Anbar Sunnis against the US, criminals vs Iraq government (south Iraq, for example), the wars sponsored by Iran, and Al Qaeda against everyone.
You seem to forget that once the Sunnis were expelled from Baghdad, al-Sadr would have turned his attention to fighting Najaf, as this Thug Number One wanted to rule Iraq. You also seem to to forget that while mixed neighborhoods with Sunni minorities were cleansed, a substantial number of Sunnis were left in Baghdad in their own districts (we will have to check which ones). Al-Sadr would also have gone after these Sunnis too.
The Surge stopped Al-Sadr dead in his tracks, and he is so not a factor anymore - the Iraq Government is now strong enough to finish him off should he raise his head. That's two wars stopped, to begin with.
The US support to Iraq in the south, which destroyed the criminal militias, would not have been possible without the Surge.
The Surge also made apparent to Sunnis they were not going to prevail against America, so the Anbar Sunnis made their peace, and were followed by Sunni tribal groups in many other areas.
The Surge may not have materially affected Al-Qaeda overall, as that war is fought by America's special units, but it did help in gutting AQI in Baghdad. The Surge also created a sense of inevitability all over Iraq that the AQI was not going to win. Alliances changed and AQI was clobbered to the extent it is reforming in Afghanistan and Sudan, among other places.
Last, we cannot prove a direct connection, but surely the Surge preempted a potential war: that is the war related to Kurdistan. Its reasonable to assume the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Turkamans in the north decided this was not the time to settle issues.
There is also another effect: the Surge hugely improved the morale of the pro-Government political and economic elements in Iraq. Again we cannot prove this, but believe a reasonable case can be made that the pro-government elements would not have cohered and gotten their act together but for the Surge. The Surge in Baghdad, BTW, had a barely-noticed effect: the criminal gangs causing general mayhem in Baghdad were eliminated. Also the Baghdad Sunnis gave up fighting the Americans.
So what exactly are the analysts that say the Surge cannot be credited for the huge improvement in Iraq's political, economic, and military coming from? From positions of great ignorance, compounded by an absolute inability to do anything resembling a complex analysis.
The problem, first and last, has been a shortage of troops in Iraq. Yes there have been very bad political decisions made. But in any war, mistakes galore are the norm. But if you have enough troops, you can ride out many, many mistakes, military and economic.
What the Surge did was to provide Iraq at the point it was about to fall apart a small increase in the number of troops. The small number made the Surge a great risk in the of most - with exceptions like us because we know better than most what the US military can achieve. It was a risk that paid off, and it should not matter what political party you belong to to see that it paid off.
The Republicans have made so many unbelievable mistakes in their 8 years in power that even the least partisan person has more than s/he needs to solidly bash them. Bash away, my friends. But bash with facts, not with ignorance.
0230 GMT September 21, 2008
Euro Press Also Has High Giggle Factor We periodically slam the American press for its imbecility, so we are overjoyed to find the Euro press can match the Americans fair and square in this respect.
Background The German Chancellor is alleged to have won his 2002 September electoral victory by telling the people he opposed potential war in Iraq. But, says Stern magazine, two German intelligence agents were in Baghdad for 18 days between March 20 and April 7, 2003, and they provided information via their agency, the BND, to the Americans. So, say some German politicians, the Chancellor lied when he said he was opposed to the war.
Analysis Let's take this step by step. Two German agents sent reports to BND HQ for 18 days and BND forwarded the reports to the Americans. This constitutes help to the Americans and vitiates the Chancellor's position he was opposed to the war.
Has it occurred to these bright geniuses that Germany was the European logistics hub for the US invasion of Iraq, to say nothing of the American units that went from their permanent German stations to Iraq? So this tremendous assistance, which was provided in full view of the world, does not constitute helping the Americans but reports from two agents in Baghdad are so much a help that the Chancellor was lying about his opposition to the war?
Germany's refusal to ally with the Americans over Iraq causes a huge rupture in its 60-year alliance with the US. The Germans paid a heavy price for their refusal because the US did not, and still does not, forgive them for their neutrality. This is one of many reasons for Germany's willingness to contribute to the Afghan war, to say: "America, you are our ally but even allies can disagree over specific issues. We are helping you in Afghanistan to show you our alliance is strong and we are responsible partners."
Now, the bright sparks could argue: "Germany had no basis on which to oppose its use as a base for Gulf II because of treaties signed with the US, whereas the help in Baghdad was voluntary."
Hmmmm. So Germany, a US ally within NATO - which certainly had no mandate to fight in Iraq - has to support the US by allowing war use of its territory including, among other things, using German fuel for the non-stop air movements and fighter movements that were underway because of a treaty which never foresaw Iraq, but intelligence cooperation was a German option.
Really? How about intelligence cooperation required by US-German-NATO treaties? That thought ever occur to the bright sparks? Ever occur to them that even Russia was providing information to the US, so does this mean the Russians were lying when they said they opposed the US invasion? Good grief.
Now as to the information provided We warn readers you need a high tolerance for the absurd to read further. The German agents, says Stern "toured Baghdad during those 18 days, and "that as the Americans had no trained agents of their own on the ground, the two Germans "became the eyes and ears of the American superpower's war machine". After each US air raid, the Germans apparently toured the city reporting back to the Americans about the accuracy of their bombing." Thus, says Stern, the Germans provided the Americans "with target information supplied by German agents in Iraq which cleared a path for the US invasion."
And further, says a German politician according to stern, " it was "beyond doubt" that the agents had supplied the Americans with map co-ordinates revealing the whereabouts of locations used by the Iraqi Republican Guard , Saddam Hussein and the positions of Iraqi army heavy machine-gun units."
Are we making up this stuff? Cross our heart and hope to die etc. - its all in the URL we've provided above.
So, we are told, the US had to rely on information from two German agents before they had a clear path for the invasion. The Germans aided the Americans by sending map-coordinates of targets, and providing bomb-damage assessment. So the Americans could not do BDA and acquire targets without German help.
Okay, now that you've stopped laughing, let's look at this another way. The Iraqis were giving two Germans free run of Baghdad before and during the invasion? How were the Germans determining map coordinates? With survey equipment? With GPS gear?
So picture this. Two German agents leave their hotel with a bunch of instruments and other gear, hop into a taxi, and tell Ali, the driver, "kindly take us on a tour of the city. From time to time at our request please stop. We will exit the taxi and set up special equipment that we need to keep in touch with aliens who are actually our God. Actually we are simple two monks of a deeply religious order." Or whatever, and off everyone goes.
What complete rubbish. No foreigner could move anywhere in Baghdad without complete and very obvious surveillance. Your hotel room would be bugged, the hotel staff would be from Iraqi counter-intelligence, and there is a high probability your taxi driver is himself an undercover agent. Please remember that everyone including Saddam knew war was imminent. The already very tight controls on foreigners would have been even tighter. Can you imagine two German agents wandering around Moscow circa 1980 sussing out defense installations and obtaining map coordinates? It was much worse in Baghdad.
Does this mean that the US did not welcome any information the Germans could send? Of course not. It doesn't matter how many times over you verify a piece of information, information from a different source is always welcome. But our point is that the Germans could not have conducted reconnaissance and BDA outside of the very narrow area they would have been allowed to move around, and even then they would been fully covered by Iraqi counter-intelligence.
There is only one rational possibility. The Germans were in town for some other intelligence purpose entirely, and it is quite likely they were working in concert with the Americans and/or other NATO spies. What that purpose is we cannot say because we have no clue.
And in any case, no help they provided means that the German Chancellor lied in September 2002 by saying he opposed the war and then helped the Americans with information six months later. Germany provided help to the Americans that was magnitudes greater than anything two spies could have done. You want to go after your former Chancellor, why not take up that issue? And if you say he was treaty bound to let the US use German bases, why not accept the treaties also include intelligence?
And we want the bright lads to put this in their pipes and smoke it: Turkey is a US-NATO ally as much as Germany. The Turks refused outright to let the US send a mechanized division through their territory into the north, something that cost very heavily because it allowed Saddam to organize his insurgent resistance. So if the Turks could refuse the US, why couldn't Germany?
0
0230 GMT September 20, 2008
Update missed on Friday thanks to the usual bi-weekly Mrs. Rikhye drama. Family/friends warn that even after divorce is finalized, the drama will continue. Editor appeals to space aliens to abduct him and free him from this misery.
Why Oil Will Not Reach $200-$300/bbl If Iran Closes Hormuz We have frequently said that if an oil emergency happens, the US government at least will ban oil futures trading, and in probability all governments will follow.
To those who scoffed at us: the US Government has banned short sales in financial institutions so that speculators cannot attack one institution after another, reducing all to ruins, and making handsome profits as a consequence.
So does anyone still thinks the government will let free markets operate for oil in case of emergency?
US Bailout Costs Reach $1000-billion including guarantees, but there is no reason for the taxpayer to particularly worry. We read taxpayer has generally made a modest profit on past government bailouts.
US Government now owns 80% of AIG, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Pardon us for thinking US was a capitalist country.
How did we get in this mess? Here's our little story. Goldman Sachs went before a Congressional hearing and solemnly swore that oil prices were purely consequent on supply/demand. Simultaneously, it was telling its customers that considerable speculation was in play. A Congressperson is upset and wants to know how Goldman can say two completely different things to two different audiences. Goldman replies that different units came up with the different answers; and that the units are completely insulated from each other, so its okay.
Okay, so our question is: is it just a coinkydinky that the unit that said supply/demand ended up testifying to Congress, which wanted to impose controls on speculation, and the unit that said speculation ended up selling speculation to investors as a way of making money?
So, there is a good reason not to tell lies. The reason has nothing to do with God or ethics. Its just that once you start lying, pretty soon you get confused as to what is true/untrue. Then you end up shafting yourself.
The UK and The Bailout London Times says government will have to borrow ~$180-billion to cover its part of the global bail-out - this includes making up lost taxes due to the slow-down induced by the financial meltdown.
If the government does not raise taxes across the board by 5% - on top of a 3% "stealth" increase imposed on the British by their new Prime Minister. if taxes are not increased, there will be a 6% budget deficit and there will be a run on the pound.
Meantime, the world learns that Lehman Brother UK transferred $8-billion to head office just before the firm went belly up. Some significant fraction will apparently go for bonuses. On top of that, Barclays Bank UK, which has purchased part of Lehman's business including its office building in New York says it will guarantee $2.5-billion in bonuses to retain Lehman staff. The bank says it cant run the business without experienced staff. So the top six executives and 200 senior staff will get multi-million dollar bonuses to reward their performance for the past nine months (huh?) and thousands of the 8000 odd US workers will also get something to encourage them to stay. But the 5000 Lehman staff in UK will get nothing because that unit has not been bought by anyway.
The UK prime minister has asked US to return that $8-billion so that the UK workers can get some compensation.
We want to remind readers that UK has a very strong streak of anti-capitalist sentiment, no doubt because till the last three decades, the benefits of industrialization for the better part of 150 years went mainly to the capitalists at the expense of labor. Our bet is that when the implications of the Lehman Brothers thing hits the public fan, there is going to be an incredibly negative reaction. The British are not the Americans, who have been drugged into believing they too can become billionaires and who remain staunchly pro-capitalist despite the recent setbacks. (It wasn't always so - see US economic history before and during the Great Depression.)
The UK situation is one to watch as it develops.
Japan and China Have No Choice but to grin and bear it because they own over a trillion US dollars in US bonds etc. If they dumped the bonds they would lose huge amounts because there are no buyers and the financial system would be further stressed, with the tsunami spreading well beyond financial instruments. Japan is actually cooperating with US to bring order to the markets.
We've said that the Chinese are more of a hostage to the US for having bought US securities than the US is hostage to the Chinese.
But the Chinese have put the US on notice: US is going to have to sell significant parts of its economy to the Chinese or the Chinese will have no incentive to keep lending money to the US.
So we ordinary folks first have to learn Spanish because by 2050 or whatever this will be a Hispanic majority nation; now we'll also have to learn Chinese and learn to properly kiss the behinds of our Chinese owners.
Bother. The editor is language-challenged - 394 on his French SAT after 7-years of studying French in school. Ah - there is hope: at the editor's advanced age there is every chance he will drop dead of old age before these things come to pass.
And we were hoping this century would see the consolidation of the American World Empire as precursor to one world under the Pax Americana.
Russia Defense Budget 2009 Will be $50-billion in 2009 up from $40-billion in 2008. That is serious money and we highly approve, because we want the west shaken out of its catatonic state.
Point to note: Russian personnel costs will be less than half of developed economies, particularly since Russia still drafts and because the per capita is much lower than for the developed nations. Depending on how the government is dealing with its weapons factories, prices would be the same as for western equipment, but could be less if the government - for example - mandates a steel plant will deliver materials to a shipyard at a non-market price.
That's how the Soviets built the world's largest military machine despite being economic pygmies. Yes, by setting prices by government mandate instead by supply/demand, vital economic resources were misallocated and in the long term economic growth was stunted. But in the short term - 50 years, as an example the Soviets got 40,000 tanks - more than the rest of the world put together.
0230 GMT September 19, 2008
Pakistan Did Not Give Permission For Latest Missile Strike why is it so hard to get any straight information out of the Americans and Pakistanis? Turns out Pakistanis did not give permission for the latest strike in South Waziristan which killed six insurgents and destroyed a container load worth of arms/ammunition. By saying the strike developed as a result of Pakistan-US information sharing, US was implying - to our mind, at least - that all was on the up and proper. Moreover, Pakistan intelligence sources said they had been notified of the strike. But now it turns out the Pakistan government was not in the loop, and the Pakistani intel lot are refusing to say if the information was received after the strike.
So if the Americans and the Pakistanis want to play games till the cows come home, we at Orbat.com say: "please be our guests". All we are saying is: (a) isn't it time the US dropped the fiction it and Pakistan are on the same side in this particular war; (b) who does the US think it is fooling by pretending its unilateral strikes - which we feel are justified - are collaborative operations; (c) we trust the US has fully thought out the effect of its unilateral strikes on the Pakistani people? They are already in a very ugly mood and its going to get worse the more strikes take place; (d) we trust the US is not confusing Pakistani intelligence - which BTW is a sworn enemy of the Americans - is the same thing as the Pakistan government.
In reality, what Pakistan intelligence and the military say goes, no one gives a hoot about the Pakistan Government. But US cannot have it both ways: pretending it has the cooperation of the government and the people, when all it has is the cooperation of Pakistani intel double-gamers who are helping to kill American troops in Afghanistan with one hand, while with the other hand they accept handsome payments courtesy of the US taxpayers to help the Americans.
Orbat.com warns the US Government: one day the full story of Pakistani intelligence's double deals and how US has gone along with the double-dealing is going to come out. The US people are not going to be happy. Heads are going to roll, careers and reputations will end, and US intelligence plus US military will be discredited in the eyes of its own people.
You cannot knowingly deal with a double-gamer who delivers one insurgent to you while helping other insurgents kill 10 Americans/NATO/Afghans, and then come before the American people and say your hands are clean. And that too, the insurgent is one who threatens Pakistani intel/military control of the insurgent groups, i.e., the one person who actually honestly believes in his cause, however inimical the cause may be to US security.
This is getting to the point Americans are as morally and legally guilty of causing American/Allied deaths as America's sworn enemies.
Also BTW: whoever embarks on an investigation of this sordid game can save themselves much time by not coming to the Editor to ask/demand what information he has. He will say he has pretended to be in the know to inflate his own ego, and he knows nothing. It is not his job to do the Americans' job.
And last BTW: Please no one say that the Editor is basing his allegations on what he is told by the Indians. Such very few Indians in positions of authority as may still know who the Editor share one characteristic with the Editor: both despise the other as traitors to India and have nothing but complete contempt for the other. So don't insult the Editor by saying these are rumors the Indians are planting.
UK To Send 1500 More Troops To Afghanistan after other NATO members refuse to commit even one extra combat battalion. The troops will arrive toward the end of the year/beginning of next year. The deployment will be possible because UK will withdraw 1600 troops from Iraq and 600 from the Balkans. UK will send HQ 6th Division to Afghanistan, it is a reserve HQ.
0230 GMT September 18, 2008
Tzipi Livni Likely Next Israel PM after winning her party's primary. She will succeed Ehud Olmert, who has had to step down because of corruption charges. By Israeli standards she has to be reckoned a moderate.
Americans might want to ponder this: Israel looks sets to get its second woman prime minister; the redoubtable Golda Meir, fourth PM 1969-74 was the first. Meanwhile the US has yet to have a woman as presidential candidate, let alone as a president.
Another US Strike Against Islamic Insurgents In Pakistan but this one appears to be a joint Pakistan-US operation. A US drone fired four missiles at a container of arms/ammunition at a South Waziristan camp. Five were killed including three Arabs.
Possibly Earth's Oldest Inhabitant Found by German biologists in the Amazon, and it is 3--millimeter ant that has possibly been around for 120-million years.
This Is All We Need: Sun May Wander Around Galaxy So you thought the one thing you can count on to stay in the same place is the Sun. Well, apparently the Sun and other stars may be wandering around the galaxy, presumably taking in the local sights just like any human turitstas.
And five billion years from now our galaxy will collide with Andromeda, to make a new galaxy. The night sky will look completely different, not least because billions of new stars will be born out of the collision.
What's the point of going to work and saving for the future, then?
0230 GMT September 17, 2008
Zimbabwe Power Sharing Agreement Reached President Mugabe is to remain president with control of the Army; Morgan Tsvangarai the opposition leader is to be prime minister, head of the cabinet, and in charge of the police.
Seeing is believing, and few are convinced that the Old Crocodile has changed his spots. A previous peace deal with a fellow and rival freedom fighter unraveled when Mr. Mugabe had the rival murdered and then launched his troops on a killing spree in the rival's home territory. Mr. Mugabe has repeatedly shown his unreliability.
In Our Humble Opinion, this time the Old Croc may have no choice but to keep his word. The reason is called Old Age. Crocky may nave not lost his bite, but he's older, and surely even he understands the time will soon be here for that one-way trip to the church. He may figure he's better off with the deal than in breaking it, and risk losing everything including his freedom and his life.
Pakistan Border Shooting Now even the Pakistan army says firing took place, but said its men were not responsible. So who said the Pakistan Army did the firing? It was the Frontier Corps which operates under an Army chain-of-command but is not part of the army.
Seven Apaches and two Chinooks landed just outside Pakistan and the Chinooks began disembarking troops when a Frontier Corps border post fired in the air - not at the Americans as has been loosely reported in earlier dispatches. The Americans decided not to try conclusions with the Pakistani troops, and left.
Evo Arrests Governor Of Pando Province for insurrection, even as talks continue for a compromise with the 4 pro-autonomy Bolivian states. The governor did not resist arrest. Nine South American nations have backed Bolivia, which makes it a Latin American majority that are pro-Evo; it appears no one wants individual Latin nations to unravel, regardless of what they may think about Evo and the Evo-Hugo nexus.
Congratulations, France French marine special forces rescued a 60-year French couple from their yacht which had been hijacked by pirates off Somalia. The pirates wanted 1-million Euros and release of six pirates captured earlier by the French and now awaiting trial in France. The ransom was paid, presumably to buy time; the special forces troops were dropped by helicopter into the water 50-meters from the yacht; they boarded at 04:30 undetected except by one pirate who opened fire and was killed. In a separate operation on land, the ransom money was recovered. Presumably other pirates are in custody from the land operation.
Nicely done, France.
0230 GMT September 16, 2008
Pakistani Security Officials Say US Helicopters Fired On while attempting a landing near the village US/Afghan forces intruded into the other day. Two CH-47s were attacked by men from Border Post-27 - we assume these were paramilitary Frontier Corps as they were about to land. The fire alerted insurgents, who joined in; the CH-47s departed. Local villagers confirm the security forces's account.
Perhaps it didn't. But it's a bit puzzling, is it not, that its Pakistani security sources saying it did so happen and also giving the number of the border post involved in the incident?
0230 GMT September 15, 2008
Why The British Are Different From You And Me A successful young London lawyer returns home from work, has several stiff ones, and proceeds to blast away with his shotgun through a window. Police evacuate the neighborhood, reason with the man, spend 5 hours trying to get him to surrender, and when that fails, fire several shots that kill the man.
Case closed, you'd think. What's more straightforward than this case? Well, apparently case is not closed. A former soldier writes in the UK Independent that had soldiers in Northern Ireland or Iraq killed a man in this manner, they would be put on trial and likely sent to prison for murder.
The foundation of the argument is this: "Britain does not endorse premeditated use of lethal force in situations other than war. The only arguable exception is Operation Kratos – the use of lethal force to neutralise suspected suicide bombers, which was in force when Jean Charles de Menezes was killed."
The writers argument is this. Once the area had been evacuated, there was no threat to anyone except by the lawyer to himself. Yes, police were in the area. But the lawyer had a shotgun with a 40-meter range, capable of firing two shots at a time; he was not shooting at anyone; he had not fired a shot for the 20 minutes before he was killed; and the police shot him after just 10 seconds talk on his cell phone.
The writer blames not the police, but the superior officers who sent armed police to confront the lawyer in a direct manner when clearly he was no threat. An enquiry is underway.
Folks, we havta admit to uttering a great many "Whoa!" as we read this article. Used as we are to the United States, where merely making a wrong move like refusing to lift your hands into the air fast enough even if you are unarmed can lead to your death at police hands and no one particularly worries about the matter, even though we are reasonably familiar with the way the Brits do things we had to spend time wrapping our minds around the concept that in Britain even soldiers and police cannot shoot to kill unless there is a demonstrated clear and present danger to their lives, and the standard of what constitutes a danger seems to be pretty darn strict.
Of Major Newspapers Using Sex To Sell In one area at least, major American newspapers still uphold standard that British newspapers don't, and that is in the matter of using sex stories to attract readers. You do not find the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and so on with sex stories on their lead website pages. Not so the London Times, UK Independent and so on.
So the other day, London Times did a story about Georgia and the Russians, and 4 people wrote in with comments. It also did a front-page first-person story by a lady academic who has slept with her real brother (not step-brother) more or less regularly since she was sixteen. This story had 441 reader comments attached, and had we visited the story again the next day, we're sure the number would have substantially increased.
Okay, we're not blaming or judging anyone here. People gotta do what they gotta do.
But what we're saying is: 4 for Georgia versus 441 for incest? Having sex with your sibling is hardly about to affect the the modern world, but Georgia does.
0230 GMT September 14, 2008
Russia Withdraws From Poti the Georgia port it has been occupying. But Russia repeats that its withdrawals from undisputed Georgia have been made on the agreement that the EU will prevent Georgia from taking action against S. Ossetia and Abkhazia and that a 200-person EU mission will monitor a buffer zone. The monitors will not be permitted inside the two breakaway regions, and Russia will keep 7600 troops there, twice as many as before the Georgia war.
Evo Declares Martial Law In Bolivian State This is in Pando, one of the states that want autonomy and reject Evo's "socialist" revolution. Pro-autonomy demonstrators had paralyzed the government's working. The government sent in the army to take control after more than a dozen people were killed.
Evo was talking compromise and negotiation with other states, which make up most of the eastern part of the country and are populated by settlers, as opposed to the western part, populated by the indigenous people. The east has the wealth, which Evo wants to redistribute, and the easterners are having none of this. The eastern states have had referendums and called for autonomy, the government rejects the legality of the referendums and says it will not recognize the results. But yesterday Evo threw away the soft talk and delivered a hard speech telling the eastern provinces to fall in line or else.
[Readers may get a bit confused because Pando lies to the north, but it is is a lowland province and one of the group of 4 that include Tarija, Santa Cruz, and Beni that want autonomy. Bolivia has five other states which mainly cover the western highlands. Santa Cruz is the biggest and richest of the Bolivia states.]
Though we heartily dislike Evo and his Best Friends Forever, we do recognize that Bolivia has very serious problems involving land and income distribution. The Indians have good reason to believe they have exploited by the settlers. So we request readers not to read our anti-Evo comments as anti-indigenous-people comments. We just don't agree with Evo's centralization of power, nationalization of industries, and unleashing of class warfare. People who talk and act like him almost always are more concerned with accreting personal power using the people as an excuse rather than in helping the people.
Kurds Seize Territory Equal To 70% Of Their Domain We learn this from the Washington Post, which writes one of its very occasional research articles that are informative, fair, and not pushing some weird agenda.
The Kurdistan Autonomous Region of Iraq covers 10% of the country's land. Now by pushing west with border checkpoints, peshmerga units, settlers, and Kurdish government structures, the KAR has picked up another 7% of the territory. In one case the defacto Kurdistan border is 125+ km west of where it should be.
Now, we have complete sympathy for the Kurds and support their aspirations for an independent nation. But this kind of land grab is not helpful to anyone. It will lead to much trouble, particularly as the US starts drawing down and ceases to be a buffer between the Kurds and other competing ethnic factions.
As far as we understand - and this is our analysis, not the Post's - the Kurds have three motivations for the grab. First, they will use seized territory to trade-off for Kirkuk, a multi-ethnic region they claim as theirs, with considerable justification. Second, they are grabbing land under which lie valuable hydrocarbon reserves, likely very extensive and definitely barely explored. Third, they are positioning themselves for a conflict with the Sunnis if/when Baghdad lets its three major ethnic groups go their own way. A lot of the area seized is Sunni territory, and right now the Sunnis have zero power in Iraq. Baghdad, if it allows partition, will have absolutely no interest in what happens to the Sunnis and will not help them in any way, particularly if it means fighting the Kurds.
The problem with being opportunistic is that if you back the other guy into a corner, he has no choice but to fight. If Iraq is to have peace, each of the three groups must respect the others' rights and aspirations, and no one should seek to impose a unilateral outcome in advance.
It is not as if the Kurds don't understand this, its that they don't care what the Sunnis think or want. If the Sunnis act up, the Kurds are quite ready to get rid of the Sunnis within their autonomous region and newly claimed areas. If the Kurds are right and the Sunnis cannot fight back, then of course you will have stability. But if the Sunnis do fight back and the Kurds cannot so easily suppress them, there will be instability.
0230 GMT September 13, 2008
South American Diplomatic Games Step 1: Evo of Bolivia kicks out US Ambassador because latter supposedly was Up To No Good against Evo's Revolution. Step 2: US kicks out Bolivia's ambassador. Step 3: now starts the comedy, Hugo of Venezuela kicks out US ambassador in "solidarity" with Evo. We expect both will soon be wearing matching Mutt and Jeff undies to show solidarity. Hugo recalls his ambassador to US, anticipating US will retaliate and wanting to leave the US gnashing its teeffies and foaming at the mouth. Step 4: Problemo - US gets to the Venezuela ambassador first, before he can leave, and expels him. Definitely score one for the Dastardly Yanqis. US also sanctions three close Hugo aides for involvement in the drug trade and with FARC. Step 5: Honduras refuses to accept new US ambassador in solidarity with Bolivia. Step 6: Nicaragua says its stands with Bolivia but hasn't announced any action as yet. Oh yes, Nicaragua supported Russia's invasion of Georgia.
You Cant Go To Heck 100 Times, Hugo Hugo said the US can go to Heck 100 times. He didn't actually say Heck, but used the Bad Word for the Hot Place where the host is a gent dressed in red satin who has horns on his head and a forked tail, and a pitchfork.
Hugo does not know his theology very well, we are sorry to say. You can go to Heck only once. Sorry about that.
Oil will be $200/Barrel If I Stop US Sales: Hugo And Venezuela will be broke, since no one else can refine Venezuela crude. In a few years China will, as it is a building the needed refineries. But that's in the future, and as they say in Iowa, the future is the future. Also Hugo is a bad economist. There is no way oil will, or would have, go/gone to $200 if he stopped exports to US. He's getting himself confused with the Iranian prime minister.
So should we we taking all this seriously? Don't bother is our advice to readers. The Latins have genuine problems with the US, and they have every right to express themselves as they feel fit, but this Confederation of The Four Dunces is not a problem for anyone but itself and the "sophistication" of their expression would embarrass the Pre-K crowd.
Yet Another US Strike Against A Pakistan Terror Target This is hit number five this month. Local reports say seven militants died in one building, and five women and children in another. A drone fired two missiles.
When you get information saying "Militants in Building 1 and 2", many things can go wrong. Militants seen entering Building 2 may leave by the time the strike arrives. Even US cannot tell in advance who else might happen to be in a designated target building at the time of the strike. The civilian losses are regrettable, particularly because in traditional societies the women and children have to submit to what their menfolk decide. It is not as if the families of the insurgents have the choice of being somewhere else. But by employing precision weapons that truly limit collateral damage, in this case presumably Hellfire or similar missiles, the US retains its moral high ground despite the civilian deaths.
We should mention that if the US is using something like the Hellfire N, which has a thermobaric warhead, the warhead lethality is substantially more than the 25-lb regular warhead.
0230 GMT September 12, 2008
US Bomber surge: Truly Inspiring - Not So Anderson AFB surged six B-52s for one sorties the other day and called it the biggest launch since Linebacker II.
Okay, a little history. Linebacker II was an 11 day operation combining B-52s and USAF/USN tactical airpower that eradicated North Vietnam's transport infrastructure in December 1972 and cut its ability for imports by a fifth, to 30,000 tons/month. Ten B-52s were lost over the North; 5 more crashed in Laos/Thailand. 20,000 tons of bombs were dropped. NVA fired 1000 SAM-2s
We have always believed that the offensive caused the North Vietnamese enough pain that they decided to negotiate seriously, Hanoi's defenders say it was ready to negotiate anyway. And apropos civilian casualties, even North Vietnam could not come up with more than 1700 civil dead, and this is before the era of super-accurate bombs touted as reducing collateral damage. (The Thanh Hoa Bridge was destroyed with guided bombs in 1972 during Linebacker, predecessor of Linebacker II, but the B-52s still flew with the traditional iron bombs.
So, on one day 120 B-52s were launched from Anderson and U-Tapao, 78 from Anderson.
So saying six aircraft is the biggest launch Linebacker II is a bit pathetic - why make a deal of publicity.
As for surges, General Curtis Le May of SAC once surged 1000 B-47s on a single days - if we recall right. That was a surge. Anderson has done a baby dribble.
Iraq Cancels Its six No-Bid Oil Contracts two of which had been awarded to US companies. The contracts were for technical assistance rather than oil production, but naturally caused the usual anti-American uproar by "proving" the US had invaded Iraq for its oil. So far it seems the US hasn't even got a decent consultancy out of the war. The first production contract has gone to China.
Iraq said the cancellations were neccessary because the negotiations had dragged on too long. We are unclear why Senator Chuck Schumer of New York thinks the Iraqis cancelled the deal because of his criticism and why he now claims credit. As far as we know, Baghdad and the Iraq Oil Ministry could care less than one hoot for what American senators think about how the Iraqis award contracts. Of course, not so long ago humans though the Sun revolved around the earth.
Okay General Petraeus, Cut The Drama The good general says he will never declare victory in Iraq because things could deteriorate and fall apart at any movement.
Our comment: enough already. The US did what it came to do long before General Petraeus arrived on the scene as a senior commander. The war was won in 2003 itself. That the US kept raising the bar for defining victory has nothing to do with the reality all initial objectives were met: Saddam was overthrown, Iraq was disarmed, and it became a democratic state.
So whether the good general ever declares victory is of no concern to anyone, since the US won. Sure, you can win a war and then lose it again. That happened in 1945: the west defeated Hitler, and then had to face Stalin, and this time around the dictator had N-weapons. So then should we say 1945 was a false victory? Obviously not. Neither victory nor defeat are permanent. Indeed, nothing is permanent, except taxes. (Gosh, we are such deep thinkers, we amaze ourselves.)
0230 GMT September 11, 2008
Two Russia Tu-160s In Venezuela for exercises. They will conduct training over "neutral areas" whatever that means.
Thank you, Russia, for staging this exercise so quickly just when the US is mildly freaked at the Georgia thing.
The Russian Navy task force planned for later-in-the-year exercises will include the CGN Peter the Great, one of two of a class of 4 19,000-ton cruisers built before the collapse of the Soviet ships. As with most Soviet warships the CGN has an impressive armament, and we presume because of its size it is heavily armored. This would permit it to participate in more robust surface engagements than most Soviet ships which were optimized for an all-or-nothing first strike against the US Navy. Of course, as with all Soviet equipment the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and certainly the editor, who has been out of touch with the Soviet Navy for exactly 30 years today, has no details worth anything about how the weapons, electronics, propulsion, survivability etc. actually play out.
Though sometimes build as a strike cruiser, its very heavy defensive armament is an obvious attempt to protect surface task forces against the enormous gamut of strike aircraft NATO used to deploy, including probably protection of the Soviet carriers.
The offensive armament consists of 20 SSN-19s; the defensive armament is built around 12 launchers each with 8 x S-300 SAM type missiles, and a secondary battery of 2 x 2 rail launchers for 40 SAN-4, plus a back up of 30mm/SAN-19 Tungushka type gun/missiles systems for last-ditch defense (192 missiles, 24,000 shells). There are also 16 ASW missiles and 3 KA-28 helicopters. Each of the four ships differ in armament detail, we've given just a generic description).
For the duration of the exercise Russia will base ASW patrol aircraft in Venezuela.
Russia Agrees Withdraw From Georgia Proper, But Will Double Troops in South Ossetia and Abkhazia to ~7000. which is about two complete brigades plus some support troops. Russia says it expects the EU observer force planned with 200 personnel to ensure Georgia knows its place and keeps the peace, and rumor is EU has promised just that.
But again, we don't see any clear definition of what "withdraw" means. Will it include all troops including reconnaissance/intelligence/signals troops? We'll see when we see.
Pakistan Says No More Permissions For Foreign Troops To Intrude on its territory. We aren't sure what this means. Is Pakistan saying earlier excursions such as the recent US/Afghan attack against a Pakistan village in the NWFP/Tribal Zones was permitted under prevailing rules? If so, why make such a big fuss now? In these cases its hard to tell who is playing the double game, the Pakistanis or the Americans. I.e., Pakistanis have given US permission but piously tell their people they have not; or have they given some limited permission which the US keeps pushing to enlarge post de facto? Confusing.
Third PRC Manned Mission In 3 Weeks The Shenzhou 7 mission will fly earth orbit with a three-person crew for 3-5 days and feature PRC's first EVA.
Shenzhou 1-4 were unmanned; 5 carried one astronaut, 6 carried two. 8 will be an 8-ton spacelab component and 9 will dock with 8. Both 8 and 9 are slated for 2010. Both will be unmanned. 10 will carry three astronauts to the spacelab; they will return in 9. Shenzhou 11 will replace the 10 crew, who will return in 10.
Future PRC plans are a moon landing in 2040 and a series of manned Mars missions in 2040-2060.
We heartily approved of space exploration missions, carried out by friends or foes. We wish PRC good luck in its manned space program.
0230 September 10, 2008
A US Strike Of Which We Approve Two US drones launched six missiles (eye-witnesses) at a religious school where a "key Taliban commander" was reported. He and his son were not there, but 4 Al Qaeda leaders were, including the newly appointed Pakistan chief, and they were killed. The Taliban leader lost four relatives in the attack: a sister, two wives, and another son. The death toll, according to a wounded bodyguard who was captured, was 25.
So we know that at least 8 of the dead are AQ or relatives, and this strike - in our minds - is completely justified. The Hellfire that drones launch is a nasty little fellow, but its collateral damage is much restricted because the warhead is small.
US Orders Reinvestigation Of Afghan Strike in view of new evidence. Excellent decision.
Incidentally, NATO sources off-the-record say the problem is coming not from strikes requested by NATO or combined-nation ops. Its coming from US SF teams who operate independently of everyone but their own chain. Under NATO rules, there has to be a proven threat to the troops. SF are authorized to order preemptive strikes if there could be a threat. This is a very big difference.
In case readers don't know: US forces operate under two sets of command in Afghanistan, allied/coalition and independent.
US sources say NATO forces don't understand how to fight the Taliban, meaning that NATO forces go out of their way to avoid fighting. This is not because NATO forces are cowards, but because they understand in CI the shots that DONT fire are more important than the ones you do. You want to add recruits to the Taliban, by all means, kill everyone and let God sort them out. You want to win the war, maybe the independent command people should listen to the joint command people.
Which is not to say we don't understand the fears and difficulties of SF troops They are usually in small teams, hours away from any reinforcement, and aggressively/stealthily deployed deep into enemy-controlled territory. You start taking fire and there you are in the middle of Indian Country in the middle of the night, and you have no clue: are you facing a dozen men or two hundred? Even as the frontal fire has you pinned down, are others positioning themselves to surround you?
It doesnt matter how darn good you are, if the other side has the numbers, its Goodbye SF. You simply have to study the history of SF ops in Vietnam, where entire teams of 10-12 men would disappear, not to be heard from again, or with a couple of survivors walking back home. It was also not a Good Thing to be captured: if you were lucky your captors would execute you on the spot, but many SF troops were not lucky and suffered severe torture and deprivation - before being shot.
To be an SF team under fire is a nerve-wracking to a degree ordinary soldiers - and even less so ordinary people - cannot imagine. It is 100% natural that if you have the option of calling in a nice, comfy B-52 or B-1 lurking overhead at 15 minutes notice, if you even suspect you're going to get into trouble you call a strike.
The solution is not for the SF teams to show more restraint before calling in a strike. The solution is to not get them into a potential hole in the first place. If they are trailing someone, for example, let them call in reinforcements. Okay, so a helicopter assault takes 6 hours to plan and all kinds of things can go wrong, and the suspects can get away. But there will be another time. For the civilians you kill, there is never going to be another time.
With Oil Likely To Fall Below $100/barrel given OPEC has decided not to cut production at this time, the talk is of the price hitting $90 before starting back up to perhaps $120 next year. Naturally there is worry that the price drops will reduce the incentive for oil alternates. But several people in industry, research, policy, politics etc say the price drops will make no difference. People now understand how vulnerable they are by depending on oil, and global warming is so deeply imbedded in our consciousness that even Joe and Jane Six Pack understand the need for non-polluting alternatives.
One nice idea now being floated as a solution to the unreliability of wind power is to link farms in different areas because low winds in one place can be made up by high winds in another. Also, of course, there's the old-fashioned way: use excess or erratic wind power to lift water to behind dams, and then use hydropower to get reliable power. It's likely that right now people are working on inexpensive storage schemes to "bank" wind- and solar-electricity.
0230 September 9, 2008
Multiple Sources Refute US Air Strike Figure Okay, folks, this is getting out of hand. International Herald Tribune carries an article tallying evidence from multiple sources that the US air strike at Azizabad in Afghanistan did indeed kill dozens of civilians including women and children. Most of the sources appear to be pro-NATO/allies including the district chief who works closely with the western forces and has helped bring stability to the area.
Somehow this has to be sorted out: the discrepancy between the US's 5 killed including Taliban and just about everyone else is just too wide to be simply ignored.
When after the start of the 2003 War the USAF on April 9 dropped 4 x 2000-lb guided bombs on a building in which Saddam was thought to be hiding, the result was a big mess on the ground: most of the city block seemed to have been wiped out. Saddam, of course, had left a bit earlier and escaped. Did Orbat.com have any regret at the loss of civilian life for no military gain? Not a bit. The US was at war against Iraq, Saddam was the leader, and if 100, 1000 or even 10,000 civilians had to die to get him, well that's just too bad for the civilians.
But in Afghanistan we are not at war with the country. The Afghans are our allies, and we are fighting an insurgency. Much as the US wants to believe, insurgencies are not fought by hurried information from the ground backed by air strikes.
Look at the manner in which the US fought AQI and Iran's "special" cells in Iraq. Yes, airpower was a part of the overall force structure, but most of the work was done by ground troops. We have read first-hand accounts where US troops have said they have not killed known insurgents because the latter were unarmed and running away, and their orders did not permit them to engage for fear of gunning down civilians.
The US has made many civilian death errors in Iraq. But what's remarkable is that given the ferocity of the combat, the size of the US force and the enemy, and the length of the war - 3 1/2 years of high-intensity insurgency - how few civilians have been killed at US hands, and how rare are incidents where scores of civilians are killed.
The US has to show the same restraint in Afghanistan, perhaps even greater because its very clear that the great majority of Afghans do not support the Taliban, and the great majority who do, do so because they are afraid of being killed by the ruthless insurgents. It does not help the US cause to kill 10, 20, 50, 100 civilians while pursuing a wanted minor insurgent leader.
And attacking houses in the middle of a town or a village just because an insurgent is reported to be inside is plain immoral because in Afghanistan, people live right on top of each other and the houses are made of mud. You drop a single bomb on a single house, you are going to kill many, many civilians, in the house and in surrounding houses.
The key to the situation is in understanding that in Iraq the US uses 250-lb bombs in such strikes; in Afghanistan it uses 1000-lb and 2000-lb bombs - and it makes many times more air strikes in Afghanistan than in Iraq.
Here is a description of what a 2000-lb JDAM does to its target: "Dropped from a plane and hurtling toward its target at 300 mph, the 14-foot steel bomb uses small gears in its fins to pinpoint its path based on satellite data received by a small antenna and fed into a computer.
Just before impact, a fusing device triggers a chemical reaction causing the 14-inch-wide weapon to swell to twice its size. The steel casing shatters, shooting forth 1,000 pounds of white-hot fragments traveling at speeds of 6,000 feet per second.
The explosion creates a shock wave exerting thousands of pounds of pressure per square inch. By comparison, a shock wave of 12 psi will knock a person down; and the injury threshold is 15 pounds psi.
The pressure from the explosion of a device such as the Mark-84 JDAM can rupture lungs, burst sinus cavities and tear off limbs hundreds of feet from the blast site, according to trauma physicians.
When it hits, the JDAM generates an 8,500-degree fireball, gouges a 20-foot crater as it displaces 10,000 pounds of dirt and rock and generates enough wind to knock down walls blocks away and hurl metal fragments a mile or more.
"There is a very great concussive effect. Damage to any human beings in the vicinity would be pretty nasty," said Rob Hewson of Jane's. "A 2,000-pound bomb has an effective damage radius of at least 800 meters (about 2,600 feet)."
Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030321-jdam01.htm
You can see here why modern bombs are so much more destructive than their counterparts in WW2 or even Vietnam. Bombs have always caused damage from the casing as well as the high explosive, but modern bombs turn the casings into highly lethal weapons that extend damage far more than the several hundred pounds of HE in the bomb. And of course, the HE is itself much more powerful than was the case one and two generations ago.
A radius of 800-meters equates to 200-hectares, or almost 500-acres. If you drop these things on a village, you are going to wipe out the village, particularly if you drop 2 or 4.
You can also see why these babies are so lethal against hardened targets: the effect, particularly of the penetrating bombs, is like that of a mini-nuke. The same thing happens against unprotected infantry on the ground, especially when the types uses are cluster bombs.
We are not trying to traumatize our readers a la some peace group. Any and all instruments of modern warfare cause horrific injuries: you simply have to see one person hit by multiple M-16 rounds and you will get the point. We are simply saying use of the 1000- and 2000-pounders against urban/built-up CI targets is indiscriminate killing.
By the way, we've seen videos of a single B-52 dropping 8 x 2000-lb bombs one-at-a-time against Taliban targets on a mountain ridge, and even we were amazed at the unleashed destructive power: the mountain ridge was just ripped apart.
So please: We don't want to sound like Jewish or Italian moms or like American moms-in-law. We've brought up the matter repeatedly, and this particular strike we've discussed thrice. Unless the US dropped those bombs on an isolated house a good distance from the village, there is no way, absolutely no way, that five people were killed. US honestly needs to review its policy, particularly in an environment where informers deliberately give wrong information to get rid of rivals.
0230 September 8, 2008
Russia, Venezuela Navies To Exercise in Caribbean Four Russian warships are to join the Venezuela Navy in exercises. Is it a coinkydinky this exercise comes after the activation of US 4th Fleet precisely to deal with Super Bugs like our favorite dictator Hugo, and right after the Georgia War followed by a good deal of western naval activity in the Black Sea? No, it is not.
Our position: (a) Russia and Venezuela have every right to do what they want in the Caribbean. If that area is a US zone-of-exclusive interest, then the US has to avoid Black Sea areas that are Russian zone-of-exclusive interest. (b) we are thrilled the Russians have again upped the ante in their confrontation with the US.
According to Edward Hooten's General's Spyglass US is considering permanently a Marine Expeditionary Brigade at Guantanamo Bay. A nice, bold move which we back 100% and the unit will have to come from one of the two new regiments USMC is slated to add. Talk about counter-escalation in the face of increasing Latin anti-Americanism. This is a move the Russians will find it hard to top, though they will acquire - when they need - refueling facilities for warships, bombers, and long-range patrol aircraft, which will greatly enhance their ability to intrude into the US's backyard.
Re. the 4th Fleet. We confess to concern that the US Navy is expanding its HQs even as the number of major ships continues to sink toward 300, less than half at the peak of the Reagan buildup 20 years ago. We are against paper HQs like US Africa Command, which by the way seems to be having difficulty finding a country in which to base itself.
Yes, yes, we know that these commands will each have just have a couple of thousand staff and be assigned units as needed. So why not make that two HQs with a staff of 60 each and the rest to deploy at need? Surely there are better ways to employ 3-5000 military personnel in these times of reduced manpower.
As a footnote: General's Spyglass notes the activation of 4th Battalion, 5th Special Forces Group, at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. 5th SFG now consists of 4 combat and one support battalions. Four more SF battalions and three more Ranger companies are to be activated by 2013 as part of the sanctioned SF increase by 13,000. We are assuming that 1st, 2nd, 3rd Battalions will get a fourth company.
Zimbabwe Deadlock, to no one's surprise. President Mugabe and the Opposition cannot agree on power sharing and the President threatens to rule without the Opposition. Opposition says it wants new elections which is just not going to happen until the old dictator is removed or dies in office.
US Makes Third Strike Against Pakistan in as many days says BBC. Two drones launched three missiles at a target on South Waziristan, killing five - the number is unconfirmed by the US or the Pakistan government. Some of the five might have been civilians.
We've said before: we don't see what choice the US has in this matter, but unilateral strikes or even joint ones will only get the tribals more angry at the US and Islamabad. Of course, a case can be made that the tribals hate US no matter what it does, so it doesn't matter what the US does. But alienating Pakistanis in general is unhelpful, particularly now that they have a fragile, factionalized democratic government.
We want the US to seal the border from its side, an eschew attacks inside Pakistan. This goes against all American doctrines and habits, but in a limited war you often have to accept limitations on yourself.
The doubling of the Afghanistan Army, now approved and likely complete by 2013, will help. This should give each of Afghanistan's five corps three more combat brigades for a total of six, which suggests division HQs will have to be activated. Of course, even if all the new troops are deployed against the Pakistan border, that is still way too few for effective interdiction.
Letter From Anon, Responding To Reader Jonathan Coldspring's Comments On Islam I was appalled by the remarks Jonathon Coldspring made
about religion A number of countries that have tried to implement measures
against religion similar to the ones Mr. Coldspring described. The most
prominent of those was the Soviet Union, and few would make the argument
that their society became more just or peaceful for it.
Going beyond that point, Mr. Coldspring's attempt to compare Islam with the other
major religions in the world today is an insult. It sounds like he knows very little
about these religions and the values they instill in their followers.
You only have to read through the New Testament and the Koran and compare the
words written in them to see the difference in values between Christianity
and Islam, and why fundamental Christians are not going around spreading
terror compared to their Muslim counterparts.
Humanistic ideas do not automatically equate to just ideas. In the west we
have freedom of religion here, and that includes if one wishes the freedom to have
no religion at all.
But Mr. Coldspring would have everyone free of religion altogether, and not give
anyone else a choice in the matter. That, Sir, is tyranny in its most
terrible and oppressive form.
0230 September 7, 2008
US Afghan Investigation Denies 90 Civilians Killed An Afghani investigation followed by a UN investigation corroborated locals' claims that 90 civilians were killed when Afghan/US forces, acting on information they did not know what wrong, attacked three houses to kill/capture Taliban, then had to call in air strikes leveling several houses.
The US from the start staunchly denied the allegations. It has conducted its own investigation and says - as nearly as we understand - that at most 5 civilians may have been killed.
We are at a loss to explain this discrepancy in the two accounts, but since we published the story about 90 dead civilians, are obligated to carry the US version.
Pakistan Elects Zaradari As President South Asia is no stranger to the sight of powerful criminals sitting in state/national assemblies, and others with criminal links running states. As far as we know, however, there has never been a case where an accused criminal has been elected President, and that after charges against him were dropped as part of a US-brokered deal to return Mrs. Bhutto to Pakistan to become its Prime Minister.
The US has no hesitation - mostly correctly, we feel - in hunting down the high and low who have wronged America and to bring them back to face justice.
So we were casually wondering: do Pakistanis have the right now to petition American courts to arrest and try those American officials complicit in seeing a criminal placed as head of Pakistan? We say "criminal" and not "accused" because as far as we remember, President Zaradari was found guilty in several cases. Pooh Pah, will say his supporters, those were politically motivated cases. Fair enough, so maybe the Pakistani petitioners can ask that a US court review those cases as well?
We Think Its Better Our
Readers See This News Report Themselves Ibrahim Shinwari,
Dawn of
Karachi "Fuel supply to Nato forces
‘suspended’"
The government is reported to have decided to stop fuel supplies to
Nato forces in Afghanistan via the Torkham highway with effect from
Saturday. “An order to this effect has come from Islamabad and the Frontier Corps
has been asked to stop oil supplies to Nato forces forthwith,” a senior
government official said. Sources said the federal government did not cite any reason for the
move, but the decision was apparently taken in the wake of the US ground
and missile attacks in North and South Waziristan tribal regions. The US-led forces have intensified assaults in the tribal region over
the past few days and five attacks, including the ground assault in
Angoor Adda, have been launched, killing over 50 people, including
foreign and local militants and civilians. The Torkham highway, linking Peshawar with Kabul and northern parts of
Afghanistan and Central Asian states, is a major supply route for the
International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in the war-ravaged
country. Over 20 heavily-loaded vehicles, including oil tankers, were stranded at
the border town of Torkham following the government’s decision. However, an official told Dawn in Peshawar that the supplies had been
suspended only temporarily because of the law and order situation in the
Khyber tribal region. “Why would Pakistan suspend oil supplies due to increased US attacks in
the region? It goes against conventional wisdom,” the official said. “Torkham highway has become extremely dangerous due to militancy in
Jamrud and Landi Kotal. The administration needs to beef up security of
the highway. When we have enough troops on the ground to ensure safety
of oil tankers, the supplies would be allowed to go through,” he added. He denied that the decision to suspend oil supplies had come from
Islamabad and said it was taken at the local level in view of the
security situation. The sources said that militants had increased their activities in the
Khyber region after the military operation in Bajaur. The Next
Israel-Palestine Crisis This came as a total surprise to us.
President Abbas of Palestine is soon to return to civilian life on the
expiry of his term. His legal successors seem to be Hamas men.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1220526712899&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
0230 September 6, 2008
Pentagon Recommends Iraq Reduction Of - Don't Hold Your Breath - 8000 Troops
Before we blast the Pentagon's pathetic non-reduction - which involves one combat brigade and 4500 support troops and wouldn't take effect till late Spring 2009 anyway - let us say we completely understand the Pentagon's rationale. We just don't agree with that rationale.
If you look at it from the Pentagon's point, progress in Iraq is still very fragile. We agree that is the case. Pentagon says any number of factors could lead to a relapse and - though the Pentagon does not use the same words - an implosion of security achievements. Each factor is valid.
So how come we agree 100% with the Pentagon's reasoning but we don't accept the rationale? Because we don't accept the Pentagon's starting point, which is the US has a continuing responsibility for Iraq.
Let's step back a moment. Iraq says it wants US troops to start major reductions in 2009 with a complete pull-out by 2011 except for some troops Iraq designates.
In 2011, precisely the same objective factors that concern the Pentagon will still be present. US knows this, and hopes to somehow fudge its stay so that a major presence exists into the mid 2010s.
Our advice to the Pentagon: you are very much mistaken if you can fudge those deadlines. Every day the sentiment for US withdrawal grows. It has already grown to the point that the US will have to pull out of urban centers by mid-2009 - less than a year from now. Also, the factors that could wreck Iraq will still very much exist in 2015
It is far, far better to accede to Iraqi demands and let the Iraqis decide if they've made an error in "hastening" US withdrawal, and reversing it if they decide. The Austin Powers' quotes are needed because the US was supposed to have withdrawn in 2004-5.
Now, what are the factors that worry the Pentagon re a 2011 pullout? (a) Iraq security forces may STILL not be sufficiently ready to combat a major insurgency. (b) Iraq will unlikely be capable of withstanding a major external attack. (c) Sectarian violence will likely erupt on the heels of a US withdrawal. (d) Iraq Government will (no maybes here) still be unable to deliver the basic services needed to keep people from fighting each other and the government, such as jobs, health, power, roads, schools, local law and order etc. (e) The future role of Sunnis in Iraq is still very much in the air. (f) The future of the north is still very much in the air. You can expand this list; suffice it to say the Pentagon has much to worry about.
We'd like the Pentagon to understand that all these factors have existed in more or less similar form since the fall of the Ottoman Empire because modern Iraq is structurally unstable. The way it has been kept together has been by ruthless application of force. Why does US think by staying on in Iraq for two or four or six or right or ten years it can force its vision on Iraq, get the Iraqis to change their fundamental nature, and solve their problems?
Look for a minute at the Balkans. It suited US to break up FRY. But the rationalization was: these people dont WANT to live together; nothing we do will make them coexist peacefully in one nation, lets therefore engineer a peaceful disintegration and keep coming down to smaller and smaller units till people are separated sufficiently from each other they will leave each alone. Thus Kosovo, a ridiculous excuse for a country with its 2.1-million people.
So how come what was sauce for the goose in FRY isn't sauce for the gander in Iraq? There is a case for letting Iraq break into not three countries, but at least five: the two major Shia factions, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and the northern non-Kurds, and you can see if/when that happens, the north could split further.
US plans for Iraq are wholly unrealistic and based on inhaling too much of the good stuff. You cannot build a nation when they nation you are trying to build is an artificial construct to begin with, and your intervention has destroyed the very factors that kept it together.
No one is interested one little wooden penny what the US wants for Iraq. It is what the Iraqis want for themselves.
US can either go with the flow of history or it can oppose. Right from 1946 till the fall of Saigon 1975 US went against the tide of world history and we don't need to detail what happened. After 1975 the US decided that its greatest strength, the best way to defeat its enemies, was to truly be what it professed, a democracy intent on seeing the world become a democracy. US succeeded beyond its wildest imagination. But then in 2003 US reversed course. It is standing in the way of nationalism, sub-nationalism, and the flow of the world post-Cold War. Look, people, even the Euros are starting to fall into smaller units: UK, Belgium, Spain being the most obvious examples; the end of the Soviet Empire being the most obvious example before that.
Please, please, US academics: don't bore us with learned theses about "disintegration is okay if conducted peacefully by mature societies, not okay if conducted violently; our job is to manage change peacefully."
First: and who appointed you Galactic Overlord? Second: US can manage didley squat and it should worrying about managing itself first and the world second, else it will end up managing zip, zero. Third: if its stability you want, if its blocking Iran's rise you want, you have just made the Mother of All Foul Ups by deposing the tyrant. He ruled as tyrant because his nation could never be stable in a democratic environment, and now having bring democracy to Iraq you are thwarting the growth of faultlines. You want to manage peaceful change? Let Iraq breakup peacefully, but recognize your limits: there is no way in which anyone can breakup the north peacefully. There Will Be Blood and all that.
Last, just as the US military kept defining its mission in Iraq upwards, US is defining its global mission upward. We can call the new mission: No State Will Fail Unless We Wish It To.
US security mission from 1776 to 1946 was: Keep Potential Threats Penned Across The Ocean. (Incidentally, a lot of Americans didn't agree with what now seems a ridiculously limited mission. Then it became: Push Forward To Keep Threats Penned Far Inland - viz., the Inner German Border and the line of defenses in Asia against future Chinese expansion. Now it has become: Manage The Whole Ruddy World So That Islamic Fundamentalism Does Not Get a Foothold Anywhere.
So forget about penning Russia inside Europe, we are now as concerned with events inside Russia and inside its former vassals. So what's it going to be next? Managing the 1-billion homes in which the world lives? Then after that going into each room to make sure no Islamic Fundamentalism lurks inside the bathroom of each house?
The thing is, if this expansion were rational and had been well thought it, that would be one thing. But the US has fallen into this role with as much foresight as the editor has repeatedly married. Which is to say with Zero Thought.
US has swallowed entire a great fantasy that it can control everything. ALL successful empire builders know their limits. They use minimum force to protect critical interests. Thus the Brits: they controlled South Asia, they did their best to change social, economic, cultural ways of life in directions they considered positive, but otherwise they left their subjects alone. To the British colonial, the notion that schools in subject territories need military protection would have been ridiculous because it is ridiculous. Okay, this is an extreme example, but you get what we mean.
And this degree of control over the world would be feasible - even if we could debate it is desirable - only if the US had unlimited power.
By focusing on Iraq, it has gravely jeopardized its Afghan mission. US cannot even deploy 10 divisions to these two countries to give some reasonable chance of outcomes the US deems neccessary. Meanwhile everywhere else is falling apart. Looked at the Philippines lately? Pakistan? Sudan? Somalia? Indonesia? Yemen? Islamic threat to India? Bangladesh? Nepal? Do we really need to go on and on?
The US does not have unlimited power. Sorry About That.
0230 September 5, 2008
Correction on Pakistan Story we said yesterday the village attacked by US/Afghan troops was on the border. The report we used was wrong, it is on the border of NWFP and Baluchistan Provinces, but is a way from the Afghan border. We still don't see why the raid was a big deal, but then, it's not our territory being invaded. Can't blame the Pakistanis for getting upset.
South Africa Electricity Readers are likely familiar with the very serious power supply situation in South Africa these last two years. BBC reports that the Government says over the next 18 years an investment of $150-billion will be needed to install 40-Gigawatts to meet needs. But only two new stations (capacity unclear) are slated to come on stream in 2012-2013.
We normally don't comment on South Africa, but must admit to be being depressed about the mess the country is experiencing. South Africa is one of the richest resource countries in the world, and if this Africa nation, which had everything going for it in the post-colonial era cannot pull it together then what chance do the poor countries of Africa have? And if Africa doesn't succeed, well, the already expanding Islamic fundamentalist base in the continent will get a whole lot bigger. Readers need to keep an eye on Africa as a fulll-fledged theatre for the GWOT in the period 2010 onnward.
From Reader Jonathon Coldspring "The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughtered Judeo-Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers." (From September 4 update.)
You are right that fanatics are behind these shooting wars, persecution of the weak and genocide of those who believe differently. The problem though is that your premise assumes that violent fanaticism is an Islamic problem. Do you really think that if we engage in a war on Islam that a whole generation of violent fanatical Christians and Jews won't be born out of it? Fundamentally the problem is not Islam, but the tendencies of a number of corrupt and dangerous organizations to subvert the natural reason innate to humans and to fight against the elevation man kind through science.
Religion is a beast, and Islam is but one of its violent, racist, sexist, regressive oppressive heads. If we cut off Islam it will only make Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism stronger. Faith and religion are the problems. Rhetorically we should not discriminate against Islam as doing so would only serve to legitimize the other fanatics. Lets get the language straight- religion and faith are the enemy of reason and science and Islam the best example of that. They need to be fought first, and restricted to a minor role in society, without influence on governments and international relations. The goal should be to relegate all religions to a minor role in society, not just Islam.
South America: Two Developments One, Brazil has refused an invite to join OPEC. This indicates that Brazil will move with all speed to exploit its new - and increasing - oil resources. A new field off-shore may contain 33-billion barrels, and the Tupi field now under exploitation may contain between 5- and 8-billion barrels of light oil. More finds are likely to come, Brazil's offshore exploration program has barely begun. The refusal to join OPEC has many implications which we'll look at another day.
Two, Ecuador has terminated an agreement with the US to base AWACS and other aircraft in that country for monitoring drug air smuggling. Before this is seen as an anti-American move, we should keep in mind that as far as Ecuador is concerned, it has given up too much of its sovereignty in return for too little from the US. Ecuador is also serving notice that its perspective on drug production and smuggling is different from the US, i.e., enforcement conducted at US behest is creating more problems for Ecuador than it is resolving.
0230 September 4, 2008
Georgia Seeks To Rebuild Military Its plans range from reequiping its four combat brigades (a fifth is a reserve brigade and the sixth is an SF unit that is more an HQ than a full-fledged brigade base) to 8 brigades and an advanced integrated air defense system. The high-end option will cost $8- to $9-billion, and it is unclear to us how much of that Georgia expects to get from the US by way of aid.
International Herald Tribune has a good article analyzing the failures of the Georgian Army in the August war http://iht.com/articles/2008/09/03/europe/03georgia.php.
We have only one point of disagreement with the article. It says that though Georgia alleges it attacked only when the Russians began to invade S. Ossetia, there is no evidence that the Russians were on the move.
This needs to be looked at in context. First, the Russians/S. Ossetians did their utmost to provoke the Georgians into attacking by initiating repeat incidents of heavy firing on Georgia positions and skirmishes. Second, the Russians reinforced S. Ossetia with a paratroop battalion, ostensibly for "peacekeeping" in view of the Georgia "provocations", and sent railway troops to Abkhazia to repair the main railroad line there. This is advance preparation. Last, the Soviets deployed a considerable force to Georgia, perhaps 25,000+ troops. To suggest that this force is regularly maintained on hair trigger alert is plain absurd and wrong. The Russians made sure the Georgians would attack, and then rolled in. That is quite a different situation from what IHT would have us believe.
NATO Troops Raid Pakistan Border Village This is causing a considerable uproar in Pakistan, but we'd suggest to our readers the action is no big deal. The village is just on the border; Taliban forces attacked Afghan positions and were chased back by Afghan/NATO forces which included two helicopter loads worth of troops (type unidentified; if they were UH-60s, then we're talking 20 men, if CH-47s we are talking a maximum of 80 men). The troops did their thing and left. This is hardly either a major escalation or provocation.
Pakistani sources claim 7 people were killed, mostly civilians, or that 15 were killed, or that 20 were killed. Pakistan sources on background say the Taliban escaped capture or attack.
Its Official: The Editor Has Reached Old Age James Freemon sent the editor his comments on Senator McCain's choice of Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate as follows: (a) She 's the only candidate who can take down and field dress a moose; (b) she's a better shot than Mr. Cheney; and (c) she looks better than Hillary in a flight suit.
The flight suit part is a foto of Ms. Palin with a substantial rifle with sights, dressed in a revealing bikini with a Stars and Stripes theme. Now, Ms. Palin was a beauty queen among her other accomplishments (and yes, by all means accuse us of being sexist because we like her looks, we all know women NEVER consider a man's looks when deciding if to vote for him - NOT). And we freely admit that at age 44, Ms. Palin, while making no effort to play down her age, looks excellent in a bikini.
Okay. So the editor examined the foto, and his reaction was "Yes, Baby Girl, you're very cute, now get clothes on before you catch a cold."
The editor was appalled at his reaction. So this is it: life is over for the editor. Nothing to do except while away the time till one drops dead.
"A German's View On Islam" By Emanual Tanay MD, forwarded by reader James Daley
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
Very few people were true Nazis," he said, "but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.
We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.
Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughtered Judeo-Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the "silent majority," is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the >murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million peopleThe average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
- Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
-Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
0230 September 3, 2008
Vice President Sarah Palin? Your editor doesn't get to vote, as he is not a citizen. His preference would be for Senator McCain, simply because the editor's parents knew Senator McCain's parents, and because of the senator's POW experience. This said, the editor can't understand why people cannot be logical about assessing candidates and then vote pro or con. Why does plain dumb analysis take precedence over logic?
The greatest analytical error that critics of Governor Palin are making is what the editor calls "mirror analysis". You look at yourself in the mirror, and assume Senator McCain choose Ms. Palin to appeal to you. If you are a liberal, of course you are going to conclude that Mr. McCain has blown it.
For example, a letter to the WashPost yesterday along the lines of "this choice is an insult to women because Palin has no experience, and this Clinton supporter will never vote for a woman just because she is a woman." Dear lady, Senator McCain understands that. He did not choose Ms. Palin to appeal to disaffected Hilary supporters, and if even the editor, who has very little interest in politics can see that, he doesn't understand why people who were not going to vote for Mr. McCain don't. The senator had many considerations, and if at all Mrs. Clinton was one, he chose Ms. Palin because she is the anti-Hillary. Why does your editor have to explain that all-too-blindingly obvious point?
Take experience. If someone says they will vote for Senator Obama but not for a ticket on which Ms. Palin appears because she has no experience, they might want to consider: Ms. Palin ran a town and now runs a state. Both are small. But she has far more executive experience than Mr. Obama. And its executive experience that counts.
A comment overheard on the radio: "Alaska votes Republican anyway. What was McCain thinking?" The criticism being that Mr. McCain should have chosen a running mate from a state that would not otherwise have voted Republican. Well, is it clear to begin with that Republicans disinclined to vote for Mr. McCain would vote for McCain had he chosen - say Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, who is a woman and a governor? We don't see the link. But second, Mr. McCain did not chose Ms. Palin to get Alaskan votes: he/his advisors are quite capable of figuring out that Alaska is going to go Republican anyway.
See, Senator McCain chose Ms. Palin because he wanted to (a) buttress his conservative credentials; he himself is a flaming maverick and the right wing of his party hates him so much they will do anything to stop him - some may even go as far as to vote Obama to spite McCain, the same argument that some make about the Hillary Democrats, and (b) she is a woman. Without the (a) there would be no (b), and if he was to pick someone a woman who looks good as a woman, he'd have asked Ms. Condoleezza Rice to be his running mate. At that point he'd have lost the election before it began, but that's another story.
Commentators who are saying: "What is McCain thinking? Palin's 17-year old daughter is pregnant, he must have known that, so his vetting is criminally negligent."
Gentlemen, gentlemen. Take a deep breath. If you have any familiarity with US evangelicals, said to constitute 1 in 4 US voters, you will see that Palin's daughter's being preggers is worth several million votes! People seem to think that evangelicals are some kind of super-up-tight moralists who will say "Oh My Granny's Green Galoshes, the Palin's kid is preggers and I will not vote McCain-Palin". If people bothered to actually talk to evangelicals instead of labeling them as IQ retards, they would find that the Palin family's firm support of their daughter and their determination they will help her through this difficult time and if neccessary help her bring up the child in the event the father shirks his responsibilities is something that will put the great majority of evangelicals over the moon. Yes, of course they don't approve of unwed moms. But gentlemen, this is America in the year of our Lord 2008. Everyone but everyone no matter what their political opinions has babies without getting married. The real sin, the absolutely unforgivable sin from an evangelical's view is if the Palin girl had had an abortion. Mr. McCain would have not just dead in the water the minute people found that out, he would be sinking without time to send an SOS.
Add to this that Ms. Palin - or should we say Mrs. Palin - chose to have her fifth child knowing he had Down's, and thus commit her family to a lifetime of caring for the child, when she could have quietly had an abortion, is something the evangelicals - and liberals who oppose abortion, look very fondly at the Governor. "Liberals who oppose abortion" - got you on that, didn't we? You thought all liberals support unrestricted abortion? No they don't! These people may oppose the banning of abortion, but they know what a horrible choice it is for the parents, and it's likely they will respect someone who could have had an abortion but chose not to.
Now think again: the lady has impeccable, impeccable right wing credentials. She is a bona fide supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and people, please don't make the mistake of underestimating the damage the NRA can do to your candidate if s/he is against gun rights. She opposes abortion, and on this she leads by example: she has five kids. She thinks of herself first as a mom and a wife, then of herself as Madam Governor or whatever. And, people, here is the icing on the cake: in an election where everyone speaks of standing up for the common man, she is blue collar! And the icing on the icing: she is a woman!
Oh yes: she is pro-drilling! But: presumably as a consequence of her blue collar background, she is perceived as anti-big-business! Got you there, didn't we: you assumed all Republicans are pro-big-business? No, silly, blue-collar Republican hate big-biz as much as blue-collar Dems, because when the Man exploits you, he doesn't give one feather if you are Dem or Rep, white or black, man or woman, the Man exploits you and shafts you with complete impartiality. The Governor has socked it to the big oil companies who get oil from Alaska, to the point at least two say they wont invest any more money in the State. Where does the money she has beaten out of Big Oil go? Why, to the people, to the ordinary folks, be the Dem or Rep! A hard core republican who is also a populist? Gosh people, it just doesn't get any better
Of course we don't know if Senator McCain will win. We do know whoever came up with Ms. Palin has given Mr. McCain the best chance of winning the old boy will ever have.
We keep saying when we talk foreign policy and military affairs: do not mirror image. Do not think because you think X is logical, the enemy must also think X is logical. That is the way to lose. Always look at what the enemy is doing by looking at HIS context, not yours. And if you see that Ms. Palin is there not to appeal to Hiliarycrats but to the Republican right wing, you will look at Senator McCain with new eyes - even if you hate him.
0230 September 2, 2008
Anbar Province Now In Iraqi Hands and this leaves just 7 of 18 provinces under US/western control.
The reversal of fortune is remarkable considering in 2006 a respected US Marine intelligence analyst reported that the province was lost. We are still very unhappy with the entire venture, particularly the time it took for the US to get its act together. But at least the US did eventually do what it needed to win; often such wars end with the occupying power simply chucking in the towel. Admittedly the very low US death toll and unlimited resources had much to do with the US deciding to stick it out till it got things right. In Second Indochina the US couldn't run away fast enough.
Iraq is a dubious victory because all the reasons now given for the war are false or irrelevant. All said and done, however, better to leave winning than to be kicked out losing.
Iraq Government Says US Troop Withdrawal Agreed but US says the two parties are still discussing the draft of a proposed agreement. Iraqis say US will vacate cities by mid-2009, and withdraw all combat troops except trainers and specialized units by 2011.
Pakistan We'd like to be able to say with a straight face that we are appalled by the reasons for Pakistan's Ramadan ceasefire in the tribal NWFP, but we've reached the stage nothing about Pakistan surprises us much. The editor never paid any attention to Pakistan's internal politics till last year, when alarm bells went off at the Taliban's steady advance inside Pakistan. The editor's unconcern may seem odd given that in 1996 he forecast precisely what is happening today, but the US invasion of Afghanistan - so he thought - had thrown off the Taliban timetable and these fanatics were no longer immediately an issue.
Times London says the Pakistan Army has ceased fire to help a tribal political alliance that agreed to vote for Mrs. Bhutto's husband as the next President if a ceasefire was declared. Obviously the deal has to be for longer than one month, otherwise, what does a 4-week delay buy the Taliban? Not much.
The official reason for the ceasefire is that the locals now have a chance to observe Ramadan, which as reasons go is a complete crock. Islam has all kinds of exceptions from religious observances based on prevailing circumstance. For example, a soldier in the field is not expected to fast.
We'd hoped that General Kiyani, the new Army Chief, would stay out of politics, and reserve to himself the traditional Army Chief role of arbiter of Pakistan's political fortunes only ion extreme emergency. It's possible, however, to argue that General Kiyani sees the matter of the next president as an extreme emergency, because the Pakistan polity is already fractured and approaching dysfunctionality even though the military rule ended only a few months ago.
General Kiyani was close to Mrs. Benazir Bhutto - at the order of President Musharraf - and now that Musharraf is gone Kiyani may well believe the route to stability is Mrs. Bhutto's husband.
Be that as it may, Orbat.com certainly does not consider the political bickering to be an extreme emergency. Under the parliamentary system, this behavior is quite normal. It happens every day in India, which is one of the most stable democracies anywhere.
To us it appears the General is micromanaging, and this is not a good way to regain the trust of the long-alienated Pakistani people who used to have the greatest regard for their Army but, under Musharraf's rule, came to see the military as just another cynical, exploitive political party.
Is General Kiyani serious about his offensive or is this a massive drama to impress the US? All indications reaching us are that while Kiyani is educated, broadminded, and even pro-western to a great extent, he is a nationalist first. Pakistan's interests are NOT served by fighting the Taliban and smooching Uncle's large behind.
Meanwhile, This Is What Americans Are Paying For In Baluchistan, five women including three teenagers refused to marry the men their families designated. For this they were punished by the tribes. They were first shot, and while still alive were thrown into a ditch which was then filled in with rocks and soil, burying the five alive.
The parliamentary member from the area told Parliament to spare him their outrage; these were the ancient laws and they would be followed regardless.
Americans are justifiably hopping mad at Russia's oppression of Georgia. Why are Americans not equally hopping made at Islamic countries' repression of their own people. It's good that the Serb Karadijic has been captured and sent for trial before an international jury. Why are the fundamentalist rulers of Islamic countries not captured and sent for trial? Is it a matter of degree? Well, Karadijic and Company killed 100,000 Muslims - not 300,000 which is the popular figure thrown about, according to a complete count of Muslims known killed or missing presumed killed. Why doesn't the US add up the number of people killed by fundamentalists in places like Indonesia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia?
NWFP Operations A Pakistan Army source says more like 200 insurgents have been killed, not 400 as claimed by a Frontier Corps source. The three-week gloves-off bombardment with artillery, fighters, and helicopters has displaced 200,000 tribals.
0230 September 1, 2008
NASA Studies Extending Shuttles to 2015 instead of phasing them out in 2010 on the existing plan. The phase out would leave the US dependent on Russia for civilian heavy space lift till the new American launcher Ares becomes operational in 2015.
Accordingly, NASA is undertaking planning to study the feasibility of using the shuttles for ~2 missions a year, primarily to resupply the International Space Station, in the event Russia pulls out of its agreement to let the US use Soviet Soyez after the shuttles retire or in the event US Congress refuses to extend the Russian cooperation beyond 2011.
We are glad someone is thinking in advance, though we are compelled to say the idea of leaving the US civilian space program dependent on Russia for five years was an incredibly stupid idea, even if Georgia hadn't happened. Both NASA and US Congress are to blame. NASA wanted to channel its resources to new programs, and Congress did not want to sanction money to simultaneously keep the shuttles flying till Ares come on line.
The new US Space program operates under the rubric Constellation and is formed of three programs: Ares I and V launchers, Orion crew vehicle, and Altair lunar lander.
The Ares I will fly its first test in 2009 and first mission in 2014 and can carry 25-tons to near-earth orbit, a bit less than the Shuttle's theoretical 30-ton payload. Ares I is largely based on the tried and true Saturn space launcher, but using considerably updated technology.
Ares V will fly on test in 2018, and will lift an incredible 188-tons to near-earth orbit or 71-tons to the moon. The Shuttle was supposed to provide space transportation for $10/pound when it was conceived in the 1960s but, depending on how you allocate costs, ended up at $10,000/pound. We don't know yet what Ares V will cost, but our guess is about $500-$1000/pound. Ares V also uses tried/true rockets, based on the US Air Force's Delta heavy lifter and the Saturn-derived rockets for the Ares I.
Orion will take 6 crew to the Space Station or Mars. On moon missions it will take four because the lunar lander has 4 crew.
Altair will land and return 4 crew from/to the moon, in concert with Orion.
See http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html for more details.
Some general comments on the Constellation program The US will return to the moon in 2020, fifty years after Apollo. Compare with the original plan to reach Mars by 1980. It is conceivable missions to Jupiter and Saturn might have been possible by 1990 or later, and also possible that the first mission to Alpha Centuri could have been been mounted in 2000. But the United States lost its way after Second Indochina, and even the revived program is terribly timid.
No doubt NASA has thought out/researched thoroughly the matter of a minimum Mars crew, but in our humble opinion, 6 is too few for a voyage of 2 - 2 1/2 years. Twelve would be better from the psychological angle alone. Either that or NASA should consider more fuel for the Mars missions so that transit times can be reduced.
Americans are prurient voyeurs in the matter of other people's sex lives, and the Mars program will provide the most wonderful opportunities for Americans and their media to exercise their sick imaginations. Obviously the crews will have to mixed, if for no other reason that it is no longer politically possible to deny women their rights, but also for a healthier atmosphere for a long. close-quarter voyage. So look at some of the opportunities for speculation. Will the mixed crews be required to be married? You can see the Supreme Court challenges right away. What about gay/lesbian couples? What if two crew get married just to ensure a spot on the mission and then once in space change their minds about each other? What about infidelity? Orgies? Will NASA feed hormones to the crew to eliminate sexual urges? What if birth control fails?
Talk about a real Reality Show. In our humble opinion, the global syndication rights for covering the fun and games should be worth several tens of billions of dollars, which NASA can use to fund extras that US Congress might refuse to add to the program, like more volume to the living quarters.
With this modest proposal to speed the Mars mission on its way, we now retire from the debate and hope only the editor lives long enough to see the first Mars landings.