1) The will to win is essential.  A nation that lacks the will to win, won't.  It's that simple and requires no discussion.

2) Counter-insurgencies last 10-15 years.  This is a re-iteration of the lesson of the Malay Rebellion and the Philippine Insurrection.  Insurgencies are worn down by being constantly defeated.  Allow them no toe-hold (inkspot) and they will wither as the newly established government gains legitimacy and civil society is nourished.

Okay, I'm home for a couple days--the bulk of which I get to spend doing taxes and packing bags--but I thought I'd check in to let you know that I'm still kicking.

Random asides:
Sen Edwards withdrew: did anyone know he was running?
Gov Romney withdrew: the only time I've wanted to see NR with egg on its face.
Hon Guilliani withdrew: maybe he should have competed in more than one state.  Just a thought.
Sen Thompson withdrew: same deal as Sen Edwards--and I liked Sen Thompson.

The M9 is a piece of crap.
GoJo is a great weapons cleaner--especially if it's a training weapon and you won't have to use it again.
Related to the previous: few things are as worthless as a bolt action M16.

If I had more patience--and more than three days--I'd itemize my taxes, but I don't, so I owe Uncle Sam $900.  That's right--no interest free loan for Uncle Sam this year.

I spent the last month (and more) MOSQing as an MP--good times.  Now I get to do the train-up bit required of all National Guard units. 

I may be able to check in once more prior to leaving the U.S., but if not, I'll try to send updates to a friend who'll post them.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the intelligence community, in its recent NIE key judgments, has accurately judged Iran's nuclear program.  Several judgments can be made from this.

Firstly, as pointed out by an Iranian spokesman, that if Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003, it had a nuclear weapons program prior to 2003.  As has been pointed out countless times, Iran continues to operate its "civilian" nuclear program.  Seeings as no one is permitted to see Iran's "civilian" program, Iran can be continuing to produce nuclear material necessary for the production of nuclear weapons.  Failing that, Iran could produce a radiological device, with the by-products of its "civilian" program.

Secondly, we've heard this before--can anyone say "Democratic People's Republic of Korea?--and it is virtually meaningless.  After years of failing to hold the NorKs to their "deals", what standing do we have to pressure a nation to behave responsibly?  If Iran did cease its weapons program in 2003, it seems to have been on the heels of a U.S. led invasion of another regional power--Iraq.  If you'll recall, Libya voluntarily (claimed) to give up its previously unknown WMD programs in 2003--actions have consequences and whatnot.  That said, causality is difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate, as we do not know the workings of the mullahcracy.

Lastly, a nuclear weapons program can be re-started.  (Again, the DPRK, also known as the Kim Family Regime).  Iran, apparently, is still on track to produce nuclear weapons by 2015.  "In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision is inherently reversible."

Of further concern is the concern for the regional standing of Iran: "...along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways".  The Islamic Republic ought to be marginalized and ostracized.  It is hard to see why the U.S. would be concerned with pursuing the national interests of Iran.  How is giving Iran another way to dominate the region reasonably likely to cause Iran to cease its nuclear weapons program? 

It is not in the U.S. interest that Iran dominate the region.  Iran is not a U.S. ally--by Iran's choice.  Iran committed an act of war against the U.S. at the inception of the Islamic Republic, and continues with its war to the present by supplying insurgents in Iraq with weaponry, as well as actions against U.S. regional allies.

Ahmadinejad is not the power behind the reins of power in Iraq, but he is permitted to remain a figurehead.  Why is this?  Perhaps because by comparison with him, the mullahs seem positively statesmanlike and responsible.  Rasfajani and Khatami are no more moderate than Ahmadinejad--they are merely more urbane.  Butchers, yes, but at least they'd have the decency to use the proper knife to do the job.

I heard Sen Obama the other day claim that the U.S. needs to exit Iraq and turn Iraq over to an international force.

There are so many things wrong with this bit of idiocy, one has difficulty acknowledging that Sen Obama (one term senator from Illinois) is a legitimate, major party, Presidential candidate.

Firstly, what international body? 

The UN, who has run away from Iraq, opposed the second Gulf War from the start, and was complicit in Saddam's bribery scheme? 

Perhaps NATO, who attempted to refuse Turkey missile defense prior to the war and who now has one member, Turkey, standing on the edge of invading Iraq?

The Arab League, with it's dedication to terrorism and tyranny?

The war in Iraq was at its most international at the start.  The war effort is gradually becoming more limited--the U.S. and Iraq will prove to be the last men standing by the end of next year.  Other nations do not have the same interests at stake in Iraq as the U.S., and therefore, naturally, do not feel responsible for the outcome in Iraq.  Certainly, every nation has an interest in the safety that a responsible Iraq would provide--as opposed to a vacuum into which non-state actors can swarm--but most European nations are focusing on short-term attempts to placate their growing Muslim populations.

Secondly, what responsible international force is not largely made up of U.S. military?

None.  Nothing against the Dutch or the Poles, but they lack the political will, personnel, logistical capability, training, and experience necessary to lead such a force. 

Nations, such as the PRC, which have the personnel, are not responsible actors and could not be trusted to act in accord with U.S. interests--and why would they, they've got to act in their own interests. 

The Brits and the Aussies--while having the trained and experienced troops necessary to lead--currently lack the political will. 

Essentially, a call for an international force to take over in Iraq is a call for U.S. military personnel to be led by non-U.S. military personnel.  In other words--like the British Tommies of the First World War--lions led by jackasses.

I realize that Sen Obama needs to sound statesmanlike--and calls for international peacekeeping forces is what passes for hard-headed realism on the left--but he comes off like the foreign policy neophyte that he is.

Ran across some notes I'd written myself a couple years ago.  I was cleaning up prior to a move and found some of my thoughts on terrorism.  I haven't discussed terrorism in a while, so (for an easy post) I post them here:

Lack of economic opportunity is a contingent factor and not a precipitating cause of terrorism. 

It [lack of economic opportunity] provides a ready pool of potential operatives, but does not cause the motivation (ideological) behind the terrorist act.

These aren't profound thoughts, but I found them interesting.  Interesting in that I felt the need to write them down--what was I drinking?

I've touched on this theme before, but once more unto the breach...

Too many people view the war in Iraq (or battle, as the case may be) in terms of number of deaths, or money spent, or even in terms of whether or not we're winning or losing.  These, however, are secondary issues.

The battle for Iraq must be viewed in light of, and argued from the perspective of, the national interest. 

American foreign policy must be a means of advancing the national interest.  The American military is a tool to advance the national interest (defined in terms of protecting the American people and the nation of the United States). 

Issues such as cost, and the like, may inform the national interest--it is certainly not in the national interest for vast swaths of the best and brightest of the population to be killed needlessly, for example--but such issues are necessarily narrower than the national interest.

What is, exactly, the national interest?

The American interest is to continue to be the most economically and militarily powerful nation in the world.  This enables the high standard of living we enjoy, as well as enables the high degree of charity voluntarily provided by private citizens.  American (in general, Anglo-Saxon) moralism and commitment to the rule of law exhibited in world affairs provides a guarantee of fair dealing that would not exist in the absence of the Anglo-sphere.  The economic might of the U.S. raises the standard of living all across the world—this is because the U.S. is a benevolent power; an ascendant PRC or New Russia would follow the exploitation model blazed by the Spaniards in the 16th Century, indeed this can already be seen in the PRC’s treatment of Africa and the New Russia’s dealings with Venezuela and the Islamic Republic.

How to maintain this is, I suppose, the question that naturally follows.  I can see no circumstances in which these causes would be advanced by retreat before 10 thousand 7th Century primitives.

Is the U.S. in danger of going bankrupt because of the battle for Iraq?  The percentage of GDP spent on Defense is minute in comparison to other times in American history.  The American economy, despite housing slow-downs and pressure from energy prices continues to exhibit resilience and adaptability.  The U.S. will not spend itself into insolvency in order to achieve victory in Iraq.  (Also interesting).

Is the U.S. in danger of running out of servicemen and women?  While enlistments are down in the National Guard and Reserve, the Regular Army and Marine Corps continue to meet enlistment goals.  (Random, but interesting).  Re-enlistments in-theater occur at a high rate.  Then, when one considers the relative costs compared to other American conflicts, Iraq has seen far lower casualty rates.  Certainly, every death is bad, but they are not without cause (as my knot-head future landlord claims).  Deaths in Iraq, at a minimum, serve to protect the people of Iraq, but they also serve to kill experienced terrorists and terrorist cadre.  From a heartless perspective, they also demonstrate American resolve in the face of a brutal enemy.

While it is certainly a good thing that Iraq citizens may, one day, have a responsible and representative government: that is not the "thing".  The "thing" is that America, by achieving victory, will demonstrate her fortitude and military expertise. 

A democracy in Mesopotamia is certainly a lovely goal, but what matters is that a terrorist sponsoring, supporting, subsidizing, and training dictator is no longer supporting, sponsoring, subsidizing, training, or sitting in power over one of the largest oil fields in the world (which helps with the supporting, etc).

Iran, the PRC, New Russia and assorted dingle-berries (Syria, North Korea, and Venezuela) all stand to pose threats to the security of the United States and her allies (to say nothing of the powder-keg in the sub-continent).  In circumstances such as these the U.S. must be able to project force, which the U.S. cannot do if it has just fled from 10 thousand primitives.  If war, as von Clausewitz claimed, is politics by other means, the U.S. cannot afford to cut itself off from this political maneuver. 

(Rule one: never make a threat you aren’t willing to carry out).  A defeated America could not be trusted to carry out threats because the U.S. has proven unwilling to demonstrate the resilience necessary to achieve victory. 

Defeat in Iraq would embolden America’s enemies and make American less likely to use force in the future.  That would further embolden our enemies and alienate our allies.  For all the damage that President Bush has allegedly done to our relationships with allies, Germany, France, and Canada have all recently elected pro-American leaders (and Australia remains America’s most steady ally, with the UK a close second).  These new leaders would be tarred with the same brush as the U.S. for tacking to a failing America: bad for the U.S. and bad for Germany, Canada, and France.

The American interest demands that we achieve victory. 

Successful counter-insurgencies take between 10 and 15 years (Philippine Insurrection and Malay Rebellion, and even the Viet Nam War, if one considers that if American air support had not been withdrawn South Viet Name could have held on almost indefinitely). 

We’ve only been at it for roughly five years.

Does anyone else find it odd that the DNC cannot find any major candidates other than one-term Senators?

The RNC has a mayor, a governor, a senator who has been in the Senate for ages (and was a naval officer), and a one-term Senator (plus Gov Huckabee, if he is to be considered a possible).

Interesting executive experience gap.

This is, apparently, what happens when elections are taken as "democracy".

Cannot remember where I've read it, but a question concerning democratic behavior can arise: is democratic behavior behavior which democracies like, or behavior which preserves democracies.  I'm sure I've read a discussion on this topic by VDH or some other academic, so I won't try to go too far in depth (and embarrass myself).

Palestine suffers from problems foisted on them by the "international community": elections equal democracy; as a former colony, Palestine cannot be expected to behave responsibly; further, the "occupied" territories are oppressed by Israel and therefore ought not be expected to behave responsibly.  These problems mean that nothing is the fault of the Palestinian people--from a non-existent economy, to a kleptocratic government, a lack of respect for people or property; essentially a state of nature--and that they have a democratic government worthy of the respect of the "international community".

Both fictions are dangerous.

Firstly, elections held without the benefit of democratic institutions are, at best, a surface solution.  People in the West Bank and Gaza cannot speak against Fatah or HAMAS without expecting the "knock on the door in the middle of the night" prevalent in dictatorships (and under a certain Attorney General who shall remain nameless).  There is no real freedom of association.  One's property, shops, or stores can be destroyed, without compensation by terrorist in-fighting in the government, so there is no real incentive to develop an economy and the respect for property required for a modern economy.

Bomb throwers, of the right and left, in America throw verbal barbs, not real bombs,  This is not so, obviously, in the West Bank and Gaza.  There is a respect in America for the rule of law that does not exist in the West Bank or Gaza because those charged with enforcing the law in those territories are corrupt and complacent in the face of crime.  This leads to actual political bomb-throwing.

America, obviously, had the benefit of centuries of British tradition, so a rapid transition in a many times conquered area with a tradition of autocracy is unlikely, to put it mildly.  Pretending a rapid transition has occurred (by giving Palestine a seat in the useless General Assembly, for example, or by asking the opinion of the present "government", for another) is dangerous and is not consistent with reality.  The West Bank and Gaza show no signs of progressing (that's right, democracy is an improvement over anarchy) toward a democratic system of governance, or even a responsible government.  Pretending otherwise disincentivizes such a transition.

Secondly, the good people of the West Bank and Gaza may have been dealt a raw deal, but blowing up women and children is not a responsible reaction to a raw deal.  It is a childish reaction.  As is the culture of victimhood that pervades the discussion of the West Bank and Gaza in the "international community".  Until Palestinian people take responsibility for their own fates, they will continue to be mired in a swamp of dependency, corruption, terrorism, and crime.  Encouraging the victim culture allows people to shirk responsibilities.  Shirked responsibilities metastasize into a failed culture, society, and nation.

I'm sorry, but the amount of foreign aid that flows into the West Bank and Gaza (and Egypt, for that matter) gives no excuse for the continued failed state that exists (of course, money is a variable in need of greater discussion in terms of effectiveness at producing desired results).

In any case, behavior in the West Bank and Gaza is neither that which preserves democracies (as no such thing exists there), nor that which democracies like (at least in their own cultures--I'd imagine even Rep Pelosi would be a bit upset about RPG attacks on shopping centers [excepting Wal-mart, no doubt]).

I'll inflict on everyone a wee today.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through fatih--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no man may boast" Eph 2:8,9 (NIV).

Continued.

Shall we discuss whether or not a nuclear Iran would be in the national interest?

Where to begin? 

With Iranian nuclear blackmail? 

Or perhaps with Iranian hegemony over a region supplying a vast amount of a natural resource necessary to America’s economy?

Perhaps the fact that the Islamic Republic was founded on an act of terrorism against the U.S. and continues its support, sponsorship, subsidization of terrorism to the present day?

Perhaps the Iran-Syria-Venezuela-North Korea-Russia-PRC-etc axis ought to be hindered?

I’m not calling for an invasion of Iran (not at the moment at any rate).  I’m merely pointing out that America’s national interest is not served by permitting a nuclear Iran, as Iran is presently governed.  Permitting a nuclear Iran will diminish the U.S. and engorge the power and prestige of a terrorist state.

We’re all familiar with fair-weather fans: those miserable creatures that will follow whatever team is leading the pack.  The same thing happens in terms of nations.  To permit an Iranian victory will not only place American allies in danger, but also place American and American allies at heightened risk of terrorist attack.  Permitting an Iranian victory will virtually guarantee the capitulation of the Emirates, while encouraging further Saudi support for terrorism.  Iraq will be under siege from Iran and Syria—its likelihood of collapse is increased exponentially in light of an Iranian bomb and the Iranian hegemony likely to follow.

To permit a nuclear Iran is to permit the collapse of any gains we’ve made over the last six years—in Lebanon, Lybia, Tunisia, Morocco, the Emirates—a weakening of American position in the world at the very time when the U.S. needs to be vigorous, and the growth of an anti-capitalist, illiberal axis of powers stretching from Latin America to the Korean peninsula. 

I was listening to a local sports guy today—he also does politics and culture from a middle-left perspective.  Considering this is Minnesota, that’s about the best I can hope for.  Anyway, he and his sidekick were panicking about a potential invasion of Iran.  Apparently Der Spiegel published an article to the effect that the U.S. had invasion plans vis a vis Iran.

Well, I don’t listen to this guy for his political or foreign policy insight; let me tell you (mostly he’s down on my miserable Vikes and perpetual also-ran Twinkies).

Anyway, so he’s panicking about an invasion of Iran.  The Pentagon likely has war plans concerning all 200+ nations in the world—just in case.  Radio guy is apparently unaware of this.  Even if he were, he commits a fatal error when discussing foreign policy: he fails to take national interest into account.

His entire bit was that the current administration mucked up Iraq so badly that we cannot even consider invading Iran (despite the fact that Pres. Sarkozy-FR has said that war is a real possibility).  While it may be true that the post invasion stage of Iraq was mucked up, that is irrelevant to whether or not keeping Iran from going nuclear is in our national interest (he also ignores mounting evidence that the U.S. military is learning from its mistakes—imagine that: training is changing to meet new challenges and the force structure is being changed to meet new demands, etc.).

The question of whether or not permitting a nuclear Iran is in the national interest is pushed to the side in favor of meaningless fallacious appeals to popular opinion or pathos.  It is no longer whether U.S. interests are advanced or impeded by any particular course of action, but rather how a certain course of action polls, or its impact on the “children”.  I hate to sound callous… no wait, I don’t, but the fact remains that the purpose of the national government is to pursue the national interest in foreign affairs.

To be continued.

President “Bob” Mugabe has launched an intelligence academy named after Senator Byrd.

Never mind, he named it after himself, in the tradition of Sen. Byrd.

Ol’ Bob Mugabe sees Zimbabwe (his personal fief) as under siege from militaristic Western nations working to overthrow him.  Which is mildly interesting because he wouldn’t even be in power if Western nations hadn’t stood by as he intimidated his way to power over a legitimate transitional, elected government  (thanks to America’s worst President… no wait, worst ex-President… no wait, Pres Carter was and is both).

One interesting bit in the article, where the author apparently misses something, is: “Critics say [Bob] has increasingly relied on security forces to keep opponents in check…”  That’d be a common autocratic tendency.  And look, the U.S. and Britain provide a lovely external (non-threatening) enemy for Bob to rail against.  What a cardboard cutout tyrant.

Anyhow, Bob aims to train army, police, and intelligence operatives in order to maintain his tyrannical grip on the nation he’s destroyed.  That’s not really what the article says, but it’s certainly implied.

"The prime suspect at the moment appears to be the United Nations peacekeeping force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, which has ships at sea, just north of Israel."

At least they're only interfering with Israeli satellite television.

With the competence and efficiency of the UN, they're likely trying to interfere with Israeli military satellites but failing.

The other prime suspect, Russia, could be trying to protect it's client state, Syria, and attempt to prevent any Israeli air response to Iran's nuclear programs.

The Dems won't be campaigning during primaries on this story.