Say Anything Blog

Of all the geographical oddities (*) in Iraq, Ramadi must stand out as a most peculiar one.

From one’s balcony in the Green Zone, we find in an 11/27 WaPo story focusing on Ramadi that the Anbar pictures grows clearer and bleaker.

On the other hand, if we perform the novel experiment of actually, you know, visiting Ramadi, we find in a 12/08 WaPo that the extended occupation helps [the] US in Ramadi.

Snark aside, this is a good illustration of the problems with seeing the entirety of Iraq through the filter provided by Baghdad.  (H/T see Michael Fumento’s excellent pieces Will the real Ramadi please stand up? and The Real Ramadi has stood up. Via Instapundit).

(*) From O’Brother Where Art Thou?  “Well ain’t this place a geographical oddity?  Two weeks from everywhere.”

There is an assumption by many, including those in the press, that the continuing violence we see reported on from Baghdad is representative of the entire country.  This couldn’t be further from the truth.

The reality is that Baghdad is the epicenter of the conflict. It has been from almost the start of the war, the center of the struggle for power by the many groups that are involved in perpetrating violence.

For the insurgents, Baghdad represents “center stage” where any act of violence against civilians gets immediately broadcast world-wide.  If the insurgents lose the power to kill civilians in Baghdad, they know they have lost.  Thus, they will invest as many resources they can in ensuring that violence on Baghdad’s streets remains a staple of evening news broadcasts.  When they lose the ability to project violence into Baghdad, they will have lost, and they know this.

Regionalized control of Baghdad remains an overarching goal of many militias, including Muqtada al-Sadr and his struggle to maintain control of Sadr City.  Of course, much of the horrific violence seen in recent months is the result of attacks by the various sectarian groups on each other, with much of this violence necessarily focusing on Baghdad, the Crown Jewel of all the competing forces.

The fact that Baghdad plays a separate role in the ongoing conflict from the rest of Iraq, can be easily seen by simply looking at causality rates of Baghdad, compared to the rest of Iraq:



These numbers are from IraqBodyCount, which are based on media accounts.  While the absolute rates are probably not accurate (there are arguments going both ways that some deaths may not be reported, and that other incidents may be over-inflated due to questionable media sources), the point made is clear.

The reality is that for much of Iraq, the conflict has not changed dramatically in character since the start of the insurgency in 2004, with the exception of the nationwide increase in violence, post the February 2006 mosque bombing.  There are regions in Iraq that are as safe as any comparable region in the United States (particularly Kurdistan and some of the southern provinces).

This is not, by the way, a dismissal of the recurring tragedies in Baghdad.  But it is certainly the case that the over-focus on Baghdad by the press has in any case intensified the conflict there and led to greater casualty rates than otherwise would have been there.  And it is a fact that the over-focus on Baghdad has led to very unrealistic images worldwide of what life is like for the average Iraqi citizen.

In a previous comment thread, some discussion came up over whether the New York Times is liberally biased.  One reader (cough *Mike Adamson* cough) went so far as to suggest that

If you look at liberal blogs such as firedoglake or Eschaton you will find post after post detailing examples of the media supposedly showing anti-liberal bias.

To clarify my original comments, I am singling out the New York TImes for criticism, not the media in general.  And this is why the title to this commentary is “Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” and not “Are the media liberally biased?”

I felt my response was off-topic enough to deserve a new comment thread.  And really there are two issues here:  Is the paper biased liberally?  And what exactly does “liberal bias” (or another other type of bias) really mean? (more...)

This time about the Rumsfeld memo.

As we get a chance to examine the details of the leaked Rumsfeld memo, we find that that New York Times characterizations amount to deliberate lies meant to cater to their readers on the left.  (In my opinion, it is this lack of honesty that is leading to their plummeting readership, as only 1/5 readers are dumb enough or partisan enough not to notice the deliberate distortions.)

A much more honest characterization of the memo, whose content may be found here, is up on Powerlineblog, and is worth a read through.

In reality, Rumsfeld is offering a series of alternatives to the current strategy, while accepting that changes to the strategy are needed:

The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence. In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough. Following is a range of options:

In my opinion, this is one element of a winning strategy:

Significantly increase U.S. trainers and embeds, and transfer more U.S. equipment to Iraqi Security forces (ISF), to further accelerate their capabilities by refocusing the assignment of some significant portion of the U.S. troops currently in Iraq.

There are others, but the chief problem with the militias is they are there because of a power vacuum:  The Iraq security forces play a role that can’t be played by US troops, and until the security forces can stand up, there is no way we’ll be able to convince the militias to stand down.  The reality is that the current strife is not politically solvable without stronger Iraq security forces.

In my opinion, we need to increase the number of advisors to train the Iraqi forces, and to make sure they have decent modernized equipment.  In my opinion, that includes light tanks, APCs, attack and transport helicopters.  This additional equipment has been estimated to cost about $2 billion dollars, which of course is a drop in the budget compared to our currently financial commitment level.

Is they feel very uncomfortable with the US being a superpower.  And we know how important feelings are for the Left, don’t we?

This sentiment echoed by Paul Mirengoff on Powerline, in the context of incontrovertible evidence that Iran is aiding the insurgency in Iraq:

Yesterday, in response to reports that there is now incontrovertible evidence that Iran is arming Shiite militias in Iraq, I wrote “so this means war, right?” I was attempting to commit irony. A properly functioning world power might well treat this sort of intervention, that so clearly undermines its military interests, by a lesser power as an act of war, and respond accordingly. Such a properly functioning power would be particularly inclined to do so given further incontrovertible evidence that the lesser power is developing nuclear weapons and has said that it favors the destruction of a major ally of the world power.

But the U.S. is not a properly functioning world power, primarily because many members of one of its two political parties don’t want it to be a world power at all. Thus, the most that “news” of Iran’s intervention in Iraq might do is cause us not to enlist Iran as our partner in the process of withdrawing from Iraq.

It’s unfortunate that one half of the political spectrum in this country is unable to come to terms with the fact that we are in the middle of a struggle of civilizations.  If we were to accede to their demands that we withdraw from Iraq, the war will certainly follow us back to the US.  I cannot say they’ve forgotten the lessons of 9/11, as I’m certain that they never learned them to start with.

We are paralyzed as a nation right now.  None of the right steps are being taken to win this War on Terror, and the left is primarily to blame for this.  Because they refuse to admit that there is even a war, and because they see every challenge facing the US on the world stage as yet another opportunity to try and “stick it to the Republicans”.  When they’re not self-flagillating to atone for being a superpower that is.

Contemplate this genius!  Kill the whities:

Next time you’re planning on killing us off, don’t broadcast it on national television, OK?

I know it’s scary, but it’s almost like there was a camera on you when you made those asshat remarks.

H/T Q&O

As a general statement, society shouldn’t make laws that protect people from themselves.  It should make laws that protect society, but not the individual from their own choices, except as those invidual choices negatively impact society.

Objectively, it’s pretty hard to argue that a law prohibiting use of certain drugs has stopped the undesired behavior, and in fact the prohition of that drug can lead to greater organized crime involvement, which often has much worse side effects than the misuse of the drug ever did.

The problem with an individuals behavior is when that behavior impacts on others.  So prohibition of smoking in public places (because of the deleterious effects of second hand smoke) actually makes sense, but prohibition of the smoking of weed in ones home just stupid.  Similarly, nanny-state nonsense like trying to make other people responsible for an individuals choice, such as going after a gun manufacturer because somebody misused a hand gun, is just BS. 

Laws that limit individual behavior should be tested using the following criteria, thereby maximizing an individual’s freedom while minimizing the potential negative impact of that persons choice on society:

• Can the behavior lead to harm to others?
• Would a law prohibiting the behavior be effective in stopping the undesired behavior?
• Does the new law cause less net harm to society through unintended consequences than benefit through its intended or unintended consequences (e.g., will the new law provide a net benefit to society?)

This doesn’t mean that we should ignore the plight of the individual who is occasionally harmed by their own poor choices.  However, it’s simply a fact that many more people are affected by alcohol abuse or from cigarette usage than from any illegal substance abuse.  So the laws on the books don’t work, and in my mind, this form of societal intervention on an individuals behavior aren’t even addressing why a person is exhibiting addictive behavior.

It has been my experience that the vast majority of people who have addictive behavior and have problems with substance abuse are doing so as a form of self-medication for a psychological disorder such as depression, bipolar disorder and other mood disorders.

The solution is then, to not ban ineffective forms of treatment for the root disorder that is causing the self destructive behavior, but to help get the individual treated using effective forms of treatment. Seems to me that this is just simple logic. 

Society can aid in this by providing funds to educate people about the root causes of addictive behavior and to provide more resources for treatment.  Think of this in analogy to providing tractors and seeds to farmers in famine stricken regions.  You provide the means to self cure, but require that the individual still take responsibility for his own welfare.

In my philosophical viewpoint, the society does this because it is in society’s interests to have more productive individuals. Thus just we provide general educational resources that maximize their intellectual potential, we should provide resources that help people with their emotional state as well.

While this may seem like a cold-hearted way of approaching it, in my mind, this is infinitely superior to having society act as a nanny state, and trying to dictate to us as individuals, what is an appropriate behavior for each individual and what isn’t. 

That smacks of society trying to play the role of the parent, which is something it is frankly not cut out for.

When you act to aid somebody when they are down, you are sending a signal that they can’t help themselves, and simultaneously providing a disincentive for them to raise themselves up on their own.

That point is dramatically illustrated by this story:

Like a patient addicted to pain killers, Ethiopia seems hooked on aid.

For most of the past three decades, it has survived on millions tonnes of donated food and millions of dollars in cash.

It has received more emergency support than any other African nation in that time.

Its population is increasing by 2m every year, yet over the past 10 years, its net agricultural production has steadily declined.

...

Why, with so much international support, have things gotten worse and not better?

Woldu Menameno, a farmer in the Tigre region of northern Ethiopia, believes he knows at least part of the answer.

“For years things were very bad. There was plenty of aid, but people were lazy. They just had the food and sat in their places,” he says.

“They didn’t participate in anything, but just counted the days. They sat in their houses, dreaming of how to get more food.”

Of course, in a much less dramatic fashion, many of the lower class in the United States and other industrialized nation are locked into poverty by the social-economic consequences of this sort of farcical self-perpetuating aid.

[Edit: Left out link!]

Orson Scott Card has an incredibly well written article up on the only issue of the day—the War on Terror.  Here’s the opening:

There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that’s the War on Terror.

And the success of the War on Terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.

If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.

Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case—if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.

But at least there will be a chance.

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America’s role as a light among nations.

But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it—and in the most damaging possible way—I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

To all intents and purposes, when the Democratic Party jettisoned Joseph Lieberman over the issue of his support of this war, they kicked me out as well. The party of Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan—the party I joined back in the 1970s—is dead. Of suicide.

Orson is definitely one of the best and the brightest of the liberal thinkers.  And this screed was a tour de force.

H/T to Jay Tea of Wizbangblog.

Cnn has an interesting “front page” article up this evening: Bush lonely this election. And here’s the image that they pair with it:

I suppose it wouldn’t surprise anybody here to learn that this simply isn’t true.  Conveniently, the AP has an article up Bush Works to Save GOP in Last Campaign which makes it easy to make mincemeat pie of the CNN fantasy story.  Here’s an excerpt:

[Bush] is doing what he can to help make that happen and certainly has more impact on the race than any other politician.

Bush has raised more than $193 million at about 90 events this election season. He has posed with dozens of smiling candidates on the steps of Air Force One. He has eaten ice cream with a candidate who admitted to marital infidelity.

Note exactly a lonely cowboy, do you think?

Hunting ‘has conservation role’

Who knew?

Much has been made of the 2006 elections being a referendum on the Republican Party & especially on the Iraq War.  In fact, if you listen to liberals, you will hear the claim that anti-war, pro-life and other liberal values are sweeping their candidates into office. Such a claim, which is typically based on generic Senate and House polling data, do not look at the realities that drive individual voters’ decisions in local races.

It would be very interesting to do a complete survey, but if you look at some of the US Senate races where Republicans are in trouble, or strongly challenged, you find a picture very much at odds with this “liberal rising tide” pushed by the left & the main stream media.  What is really happening, I think, is that Republican candidates are being simply being challenged by conservative Democratic opponents.

Take for example, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania:  pro-life, anti-abortion, probably favors the war in Iraq but has to play a balancing game to keep his radical liberal base on board. In this example, Santorum is also a very weak candidate running against a much more competent politician.  Santorum’s big problem is that this election is a referendum on him, with no “distracting factors” of an opposing ideology or an inept opponent to keep moderate voters on board.

Then we can consider the case of the Whistler’s favorite author, James Webb of Virginia.  Not exactly a leftie, as he is pro-military, served as a Republican under Ronald Reagan, running on a very conservative (for a DNC candidate) platform.

In Tennessee we have another social conservative, Harold Ford, and a consummate politician.

In races where ultraliberal strongly anti-war challengers are running against more conservative or pro-war incumbants, such as Ned Lamout in Connecticut, it does appear to be the case that the challenger is getting pounded.

In the end, it is probably safe to conclude that the real problem that the Republicans in many key elections are facing is one of competence and stronger opponents who are frankly not that different in ideology from their Republican counterparts.

One of my favorite war historians, John Keegan has an interesting analysis published in the Torygraph. He is responding to press reports of the President admitting a comparison between ‘nam and Iraq.

It’s a great read, but this is my favorite part:

Vietnam was one of the largest and costliest wars in history. The insurgency in Iraq resembles one of the colonial disturbances of imperial history.

There is a good reason for the difference. The Vietnamese communists had organised and operated a countryside politico-military organisation with branches in almost every village. The North Vietnamese People’s Army resembled that of an organised Western state. It conscripted recruits throughout the country, trained, organised and equipped them.

The Iraqi insurgency, by contrast, is an informal undertaking by a coalition of religious and ex-Ba’athist groups. It has no high command or bureaucracy resembling the disciplined Marxist structures of North Vietnam. It has some support from like-minded groups in neighbouring countries, but nothing to compare with the North Vietnamese international network, which was supported by China and the Soviet Union and imported arms and munitions from both those countries on a large scale.

North Vietnam was, moreover, a sovereign state, supported explicitly by all other communist countries and by many sympathetic regimes in the Third World. The Iraqi insurgency has sympathisers, but they enjoy no organised system of support and are actively opposed by many of their neighbours and Muslim co-religionists.

The recent upsurge of violence in Iraq in no way resembles the Tet offensive. At Tet, the Vietnamese new year, the North Vietnamese People’s Army simultaneously attacked 40 cities and towns in South Vietnam, using 84,000 troops. Of those, the communists lost 45,000 killed. No such losses have been recorded in Iraq at any place or any time. The Tet offensive proved to be a military disaster for the Vietnamese communists. It left them scarcely able to keep up their long-running, low-level war against the South Vietnamese government and the American army.

The Beeb is reporting that US now claims to have measured radiation from the apparent failed nuclear test performed by North Korea.

If this is confirmed, we can say with confidence that stone age countries need not apply for membership in the exclusive World Nuclear Club.

More seriously, since North Korea had at maximum 24 kg weapons-grade plutonium, and the critical mass needed for a standard test is at least 6 kg, this leaves them with at most enough plutonium for three more bombs, and possibly only two. 

Let’s hope for one more dude dud, and absent a successful (and also technically demanding) uranium enrichment program, they will have managed to successfully make themselves both laughingstocks and render themselves impotent at the same time.  (Fuel for one bomb, absent a successful demonstration, does not make much of a deterrent.)

CNN confirms that the North Korean nuclear bomb test was a failure.  According to government sources, the design goal was 4 kT, but the actual yield was less than 0.5kT.  If this is a plutonium bomb as reported, then I would speculate the problem was an excess of isotope P240 (which causes pre-detonation and a marginal yield).  See this Wiki article for more details on that.

This probably explains why little or no radioactive emissions have been detected (the energetics of a full-throttled nuclear explosion makes the complete containment of radioactive gases highly problematic!)

I’ll also point out that building a weapon that can be detonated in a tunnel is a much easier job than building one that is payload compatible for an intercontinental missile.  This is good news to counter reports that North Korea may have enough fissile material for ten bombs.

Maybe we’ll get lucky and they use up their reserves trying to make a bomb that works.  Really, haven’t they learned anything from the United States?  They should outsource for the nuclear technology, just like Iran did.

Update: Thanks to Rob for pointing out my typo! I can now say with confidence that the problem of transvestite nuclear bombs in the North Korean Navy is relatively under control.