There's an excellent article in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle regarding a subject I tried to write about here. The subject is "fourth generation warfare."

The question I asked, and which the Chronicle article addresses, is this: How does a state fight against a non-state in a new era of warfare in which non-states seem to have the advantage?

Look at Hezbollah. It used to be that the side with the most casualties was the loser. It used to be that the side who was forced to give up ground to an opponent was the loser. But as we've seen in the Israeli-Hezbollah war, the world has entered a new era of warfare in which every casualty suffered on the side of the non-state combatant becomes a weapon to be used against the state combatant.

In this new type of warfare, it behooves Hezbollah (and those particular Iraqi insurgents whose goal it is to end the U.S. "occupation") to maximize casualties on their own side of the fence. What we have is a war of attrition in which one side sacrifices its own citizens in order to obtain a strategic goal by non-military means, i.e. by propaganda.

Chronicle staff writer Matthew Stannard provides a more detailed description of "fourth generation warfare:"

A use of all available networks -- political, economic, social and military -- to convince enemy political leaders that their strategic goals are either unachievable or too costly to achieve.

A lack of clearly defined conditions, including beginning and end, victory or defeat, peace or war, civilian and combatant. Modern wars of this type tend to last for years as conflict surges and ebbs and moves between political, military and other battlegrounds.

Antagonists are organized more as sprawling, "leaderless" networks than as tight-knit hierarchies.

At least one side is something other than a military force organized and operating under the control of a national government -- a force that appears widely dispersed and largely undefined, lacking bases, centers of power and other traditional points of assault. These groups tend to seek to use their opponents' size, power and legitimacy against them.

An emphasis on high technology that allows small organizations to asymmetrically attack larger ones -- for example, availability of weapons of mass destruction, tools of electronic warfare or easy access to global media for purposes of propaganda.

What we've seen with "fourth dimensional warfare" is a completely new way for weak opponents to attack and beat strong opponents. I would say this is one of the lessons of Vietnam, and like the "minie" ball revolution, military planners are slow to recognize that the rug has been pulled out from under them. It is especially important that we get a handle on this problem now, because the Cold War is over and we are going to be fighting Hezbollahs and al Qaedas for the forseeable future.

What concerns me is that, in the battle of civilizations called the "War On Terror," the thing that makes us civilized is the thing that makes us weak -- our compassion. When your enemy is uncivilized, and has no concept of compassion, it's hard to win if you're swayed by world opinion.

My thesis is that we cannot win under these new rules. Only a return to the more brutal methods of World War II can beat these non-state actors and their principals (Iran, Syria). But we can't resort to those older methods unless we abandon our aversion to civilian casualties. And I don't see that happening absent a horrific über-9-11 as a catalyst.

Which is why I ended my last post on the subject with that cryptic and ominous final sentence.

h/t Belmont Club

Posted by: annika at 02:20 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 677 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I was all ready to beotchslap u, until you reached your conclusion. Well done grasshopper. It's gonna be ugly when we take the gloves off, and that day be a'commin.

Posted by: Casca at August 09, 2006 02:42 PM (2gORp)

2 You are right, Annika. Unfortunately, 50% of America and more than 50% of Europe live in Fantasy Land, where if you just "talk," or "negotiate," or "understand" the enemy, all will be good. This idiocy is going to get a lot of civilized people killed while the barbarians continue to storm the gates. Today is the 61st Anniversary of the bombing Nagasaki. Lives were saved and a way of life ensured because we had the courage necessary to make the price too high for our enemies. I hope we don't have to lose another 3,000 citizens before we understand the reality of today and our enemy.

Posted by: Blu at August 09, 2006 02:54 PM (j8oa6)

3 The Chronicle and you forget one important element, Annika. That warfare cannot work without the cooperation, collusion and encouragement of Western media, No one stages a propaganda event unless the media is willing to cover it the way the propagandist desires. If the media ignores the event or critically reports on the event, the events soon disappear. The way to end this type of warfare is to convince the media to develop some ethics and put an end to their bloodlust.

Posted by: Jake at August 09, 2006 03:28 PM (r/5D/)

4 Jake, Excellent point. Thanks for bringing it up. Michelle Malkin has done an amazing job of late cataloging examples of MSM distortion (e.g. Reuters photo manipulation). It is tough to win a war when your own media is clearly cheerleading for the jihadists.

Posted by: Blu at August 09, 2006 03:44 PM (LXOfu)

5 Jake, that's not going to happen. We have to assume that the mainstream media is lost for the forseeable future.

Posted by: annika at August 09, 2006 03:45 PM (zAOEU)

6 Annika: I guess I agree with you. Media ethics is an oxymoron.

Posted by: Jake at August 09, 2006 04:47 PM (r/5D/)

7 You are right, we have to get savage to win this type of war. In fact I believe the following; War should be "nasty, Brutish, and short." Immigrants should be "safe, legal, and rare" and Liberals should be "Stopped, dropped, and rolled".

Posted by: kyle8 at August 09, 2006 05:12 PM (bYW7A)

8 lol, Kyle

Posted by: annika at August 09, 2006 06:00 PM (qQD4Q)

9 Ain't it a shame that while we drop th e bomb on Iran (OK, Israel will do it for us) and level Iran and Syria to parking lots, we can't assemble the entire maintream media to cover it, and send them a love package as well? Casca, the gloves are coming off, and soon. The next attack by the IslamoFascists will turn the tide, and the Bushies will use it to clean house. Hell, they've got my vote now. Why wait?

Posted by: shelly at August 10, 2006 01:11 AM (BJYNn)

10 We're just waiting for the baptism of Carlo & Connie's baby.

Posted by: Casca at August 10, 2006 06:17 AM (rEC2k)

11 Do you guys really think another terror-attack like 9/11 will wake up the Liberals, the MSM, the rest of the free-world? I think they're committed to their warped view of the world where the U.S. and President Bush are to blame for everything, and the solution to all of the world's ills are negotiations, cease-fires, and humanitarian aid. You underestimate just how stupid liberals are, like they underestimate just how dangerous Islamofacism is.

Posted by: Rob at August 10, 2006 07:08 AM (9DumO)

12 Maybe the word "stupid" was too harsh. Let me change that to "misguided."

Posted by: Rob at August 10, 2006 07:10 AM (9DumO)

13 Annie - Don't buy into this 4GW theory. First, there is a substantial difference between a theory of wafare (like 4GW) and tactics in conducting warfare. The generational model is an ineffective way to depict changes in warfare. Simple displacement rarely takes place and significant developments typically occur in parallel. 4GW type tactics as a way of waging war dates back to ancient history, and thus predates the so-called 2d and 3rd generations as described by 4GW theorists. Insurgents, guerrillas, and resistance fighters (pick your term du jour) figured large in many of the wars fought during the age of classical warfare. (The author briefly acknowledges this point and then lets all the other people in the article speak as if somehow today is different) Increased dispersion and availability of technology, information, and finance brought about by globalization has given terrorist groups greater range of capabilities and access worldwide. Globalization seems to aid the nonstate actor more than the state, but states still play a central role in the support or defeat of terrorist groups or insurgencies. Could AQ have grown without protection and support from the Taliban government? How effective is Hezbollah without a weak Lebanese government and Syrian/Iranian support? Hamas without a variety of Arab states? Hamas, Hezbollah, and (to a lesser extent) Al Qaeda actually have integrated themselves into the social and political fabric of mainly Muslim societies worldwide. Hamas and Hezbollah have addressed the every day problems of the people because the existing State has not. Each has also become a powerful political party within their respective governments. Hamas and Hezbollah have turned their constituencies into effective weapons by creating strong social, political, and religious ties with them; in short, they have become communal activists for their constituencies, which have, in turn, facilitated the construction and maintenance of substantial financial and logistical networks and safe houses. This support then aids in the regeneration of the terrorist groups and allows states to network with them. The one point Hammes has right is these conflicts are proxy wars due to larger state issues. Credible threats to take out the Syrian and Iranian regimes and credible assurances to bolster the Lebanese government would do far more to reduce Hezbollah than unfortunately what Israel can do at the moment.

Posted by: Col Steve at August 10, 2006 09:00 AM (pj2h7)

14 Seen in that light, Col. Steve, then one of the most criticized statements of President Bush "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists" becomes one of the wisest things he's ever said.

Posted by: annika at August 10, 2006 02:14 PM (zAOEU)

15 "Credible threats to take out the Syrian and Iranian regimes and credible assurances to bolster the Lebanese government would do far more to reduce Hezbollah than unfortunately what Israel can do at the moment." Yeah, what Col Steve said!

Posted by: Blu at August 16, 2006 11:15 AM (j8oa6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Blu sent me the following. It's a commentary by Israeli journalist Ben Caspit for the newspaper Ma'ariv, written in the voice of Ehud Olmert. So far as I can tell, it is not an actual speech by Olmert, just something Caspit wishes Olmert had the guts to say.

I thought it was so good, I'm reprinting it in its entirety. more...

Posted by: annika at 06:46 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1323 words, total size 7 kb.

In the aftermath of the Reuters photo meltdown, wherein photographs taken by a freelancer were doctored for political effect, it might be a good time to note that the most compelling independent evidence of the alleged Haditha atrocities are .... photographs taken by a freelancer.

Posted by: annika at 01:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

You may have been following the Reuters doctored photo controversy. If not, Beth has a great rundown.

Of course, my sources here at annika's journal came through for me again. Now we know why Reuters photographer Adnan Hajj felt the need to doctor the original photograph. Open the extended entry to view the original. more...

Posted by: annika at 11:42 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

Wikipedia has a list of ongoing wars:

Basque Terrorism in Spain; Colombian Civil War; Islamic Insurgency in the Philippines; Somalian Civil War; Tamil conflict in Sri Lanka; Shining Path Insurgency in Peru; Papua New Guinea Civil War in Indonesia; Turkish-Kurdish conflict; LRA rebellion in Uganda; Casamance Conflict in Senegal; Somali Civil War; Myanmar Civil War; India-Pakistan Kashmir conflict; Georgian Civil War; Algerian Civil War; Ethnic conflict in Nagaland, India; Zapatista Rebellion in Mexico; Nepalese Civil War; Second Congo War; Ituri Conflict; Second Chechen War; al-Aqsa Intifada in Israel and the Palestinian Territories; Laotian-Hmong Civil War; Taliban Insurgency in Afghanistan; Côte d'Ivoire Civil War; South Thailand insurgency; Iraqi Insurgency; Balochistan conflict in Pakistan; Waziristan War between Pakistan and al Qaeda; Darfur conflict; Chadian-Sudanese conflict; Western Sahara Independence Intifada; and the Israel-Lebanon crisis.

I made some changes to Wikipedia's list, which was overinclusive. Obviously, the wars that are most relevant to us are the Iraqi Insurgency, the Taliban Insurgency, the so-called Waziristan War, and the Israel-Lebanon crisis. But the main thing one gets from looking at the 33 conflicts listed is that the majority of them involve nation states fighting against irregular armies or guerrillas.

In armed conflict between nations and guerillas, the advantages of a nation state are easy to name. They are usually better equipped and better trained. They have professional leadership. They can form alliances with other nation states to obtain resources such as weapons and intelligence, if not actual military assistance. Their status as a recognized state confers a measure of legitimacy to their actions that guerillas do not have, at least initially.

The weakness of guerrilla forces are similarly obvious. In comparison to national armed forces, guerrillas are usually outnumbered. Their access to advanced weaponry is limited or non-existent. They usually lack formal training and professional leadership. They must operate in secret, which hampers their ability to communicate among themselves and their allies, and to obtain and store weapons and supplies.

However, guerrilla forces have distinct advantages over national armed forces. They usually do not wear uniforms, and when not in actual combat can remain in close proximity to their opponent, safely disguised as civilians. Guerrillas are by definition committed to their goal, and thus have the luxury of time. They do not have to answer to indifferent political forces back home, which can be a great advantage in a war of attrition. As Mao once said: The enemy advances, we retreat. The enemy camps, we harass. The enemy tires, we attack. The enemy retreats, we pursue.

And now, the latest Israeli-Lebanon conflict has thrown the weakness of nation states vis-a-vis guerrilla forces into sharp relief. Hezbollah's strategy has been to exploit the political weakness of Israel and its ally the United States. That weakness has been an unwillingness to suffer the opprobrium of world opinion, and that weakness has to date proved decisive.

The war in Lebanon is not over, but it looks like a cease fire is inevitable. If it comes to pass, no one should have any doubts about the permanency of the cease fire. It will not be permanent. How can it be when one side remains committed to the complete destruction of its opponent and the other side is committed to its own survival?

I have always said that there are two sure-fire solutions to the decades long Middle East Conflict. The first would be for all the various Palestinian groups to lay down their arms and adopt non-violent protest as their philosophy. That's a subject for another entire post, but I truly believe that a Gandhi style rebellion in the Palestinian territories would result in a fully independent Palestinian state within probably five years, maybe less. It will never happen because the Palestinian terrorist leadership doesn't really care about independence; they only care about killing Jews.

The second sure-fire solution recognizes the fact that the Palestinian leadership wants the conflict to continue because that enables them to keep killing Jews, which is their reason for existence. The second solution is to allow both sides to fight each other until one side wins. That means no cease fire, no brokered agreement, no cessation of hostilities, no UN peacekeeping force. Fight until one side surrenders.

We all know that if Israel were allowed to engage in Clausewitzian total war against its enemies, Israel would win. The Palestinian terrorists know this too. That's why Hezbollah and Hamas try to walk a fine line. They goad Israel into attacking, then cry foul when Israel responds. A cease fire is imposed and the terrorists bide their time until the next intifada. The enemy advances, we retreat. The enemy camps, we harass. The enemy tires, we attack. The enemy retreats, we pursue.

The trouble with the total war solution is its ugliness. Since World War II, the civilized world has not had the stomach for civilian casualties on a large scale. Every civilian death is now "regrettable," which is a new phenomenon in the history of the world.

Civilians have always died in war. Before the modern era, civilians were targeted directly. The ancients knew that pillaging was part of war. Victors from Genghis Khan to Napoleon put whole villages to the sword, simply for the crime of having been on the other side of a line on a map.

Did people protest these atrocities? Sure. Its not that people didn't think this type of warfare was unfair to the innocent. They did, but people had different expectations than we do nowadays. If Napoleon burned your town and his troops raped your wife and killed your kids, you didn't complain to Napoleon. You complained to your king, and then he went over there and kicked Napoleon's ass.

It was all about tribalism in the old days. You belonged to a tribe, and the other guy belonged to his tribe. If the other guy did something bad to your tribe, you expected and demanded that your tribe would retaliate by doing something bad to his tribe. That was understood as justice.*

In more recent times, our rationale for killing civilians moderated a bit, even if the number of dead civilians seemed to go up. During World War II, while the Japanese, Germans and Russians were committing acts of barbarism against civilians on the ground, we held ourselves to a different standard. We killed civilians too, but we did it from afar. And we killed a lot of them. Almost a million German civilians died from strategic bombing, and a similar number of Japanese with them. That was total war, and along with all those corpses it produced a clear victor, and a lasting peace.

I started out by remarking how many of the conflicts going on in the world are between guerilla movements and nation states. I'm trying to understand why, in an age when B-2 bombers from Missouri can attack an unseen enemy 7000 miles away in Afghanistan, yet we're not able to defeat a bunch of punks armed with homemade bombs in Baghdad. One fine morning in 1967, the Israeli Air Force destroyed the entire combined air forces of three sovereign nations. Yet here we are in 2006, about to watch a band of criminals shooting glorified bottle rockets claim victory over the vaunted IDF.

I'm sure there's lots of guys working in thinktanks and war colleges whose job it is to figure these things out, but so far I haven't seen nor heard of any effective way to fight guerrillas other than by total unrestricted warfare — which we won't do. How do you counter the weighty advantage they've claimed for themselves by co-opting the machinery of world public opinion? How do you beat an enemy that has perfected the use of civilian deaths both offensively and defensively, if your one achilles heel is the fear of civilian deaths?

America has fought against guerrilla forces in the past. We did it successfully during the Plains Indians Wars and the Philippine Insurrection. We were unsuccessful during Vietnam, although the ugliness of our methods was similar in all three wars. And that's the point. We can't fight and win against a guerrilla enemy unless we do so in a brutal manner. And even then, the outcome is not certain.

To win, the enemy needs to know that violence begets violence. They need to know that if they mess with our tribe, we will mess with theirs and we won't be deterred if things get ugly and innocent civilians die. But the reality is something completely different, because in fact we are deterred by civilian casualties. In fact, we are fighting two wars and a nominal war on terror with the express handicap that we will do everything to avoid harming civilians as much as possible.

That's the situation, and that's why we're still in Iraq. The administration's policy is not to become more brutal, which could win victory but would turn the world against us. (Even more than they already have, that is.) Instead the administration's ultimate goal is to prepare an Iraqi security force to fight the guerrilla war. In truth, our plan is to pass the buck to the Iraqis. It's the only solution, if one recognizes the fact that the world is not in a place where it will accept brutality by a nation state in a small-scale war like Iraq.

I suppose that is understandable. I'm not arguing here for total war, indiscriminate killing of civilians, collective punishment, or the adoption of brutality in Iraq. I'm merely trying to point out the reality of our dilemma. We can't do what needs to be done, so we won't do it. The enemy knows this and is smart enough to recognize it as our greatest weakness. They will keep fighting us, and using our weakness against us. We advance, they retreat. We camp, they harass. We tire, they attack. We retreat, they pursue. Follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion and you'll realize something even scarier.

We may end up with total war, whether we like it or not.
_______________

* Nowadays the "world" has a different, some would say more enlightened, definition of justice. Today's justice revolves around preventing the innocent from getting killed. That's fine and dandy, except we don't apply that ideal evenly across the board. There's plenty of dead innocent people around the world who might have argued that our new definition of "justice" didn't do them a whole lot of good.

Posted by: annika at 12:29 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1755 words, total size 11 kb.

1 If a Democrat had been President, the Iraqi war would have been over in 2004. The MSM, the academic world and the entertainment industry would have supported the war no matter what. That meant that the terrorists would have received no encouragement from the US to continue their slaughter. The terrorists would have given up within a year.

Posted by: Jake at August 05, 2006 04:16 PM (r/5D/)

2 Excellent post, Annika. In the end, I don't know what is going to happen in Iraq. I hope the administration's Iraqi-fication policies work. If we're lucky, we won't have to partition the country into 3 new ethnic/sectarian nations. Strategy Page surmises that the "civil war" won't last very long at this rate if the Sunni Arabs are the only problem. http://tinyurl.com/oqxqh The Sunni Arab headhackers used to be the ones that wanted us to get out of Iraq the most, but now they want us to stick around to protect them from their formerly oppressed victims in the majority. If the ethnic cleansing of Sunni Arabs and a Kurdistan mini-apartheid against Arabs will bring stability to that country, we shouldn't stop it.

Posted by: reagan80 at August 05, 2006 07:06 PM (dFOlH)

3 There is one way, just short of scorched earth to fight insurgent/guerilla forces. But it takes time and money. You build up your own insurgent force as secretly as possible and send them out to spy and infiltrate the enemy. At the same time you try to make it as uncomfortable as possible for the local population to harbor the insurgents. Obviously that approach works best when the terrorists are of the same ethnicity as the nation state. It would be more difficult for Israel for instance to do the same although it might be worth a try.

Posted by: kyle8 at August 06, 2006 05:58 AM (pkyh4)

4 I think Peru was successful by using counter insurgent militias against the communist Shining Path guerrillas. Of course that wouldn't work in Iraq, since militias are part of the problem.

Posted by: annika at August 06, 2006 09:30 AM (qQD4Q)

5 Unfortunately, our lack of troops combined with wishful thinking made short shrift of our nonexistent counterinsurgency strategy in the latter part of 2003. First, there are ways to win counterinsurgencies and it's done all the time. The key is to make life very difficult for the insurgents and life comparatively better for those loyal the governmet. This comes from things like fortified hamlets, generous aid to turncoats, saturation patrolling, educating the populace on benefits of working with government, collective punishment and mass dispersal of areas that support terrorists, public executions of captured terrorists, domination of cities with heavy troop presence, a census with draconian punishments for unregistered inhabitants of country, etc. This has worked in Algeria, Malaya, Latin America, etc. We have done almost none of these things, intead buttoning up in bases, occasional presence patrols (combined with mutual fear and misunderstanding with populace), half-assed training of indigenous forces, complete nonconsequence to most regions that support terrorists, hair-brained hearts and minds gestures, and, most important, a lack of understanding that security is the first among equals in things that the replacement regime provided by us needs to provide for commerce and other goals to be achieved. But we never governed Iraq and we never stood up a functioning government. Instead we handed off a nonfunctioning governme to the Iraqis. Instead of providing security as the keystone of any hearts and minds strategy, we thought giving this nonfunctioning government a democratic imprimatur would make the Iraqis rally to it. This did not work; instead our actions have discredited democracy, by combining the defects of the current Iraqi regime with the Iraqi and Arab appraisal of democracy genreally. In their minds, "democracy" is reasonably equated with the chaos now in Iraq. Finally, even if we defeated the first crew of insurgents on the battlefield, we never set the conditions in which the replacement Iraqi regime could rally support from the whole country. And why? Because Iraq was not much of a country to begin with, but instaed and armed camp with lots of constituencies who are mutually hostile. There never was an idea or concept of "Iraq" and the new regime's goals that would unify the country. People don't fight for "democracy." Democracy is a procedure of how one picks his rulers. What the Iraqi government actually is supposed to do has always been up in the air from day one. We of course want it to do our bidding, but this is kind of hard to reconcile with democrayc when most of the people follow an illiberal religion and have other sources of alienation from the US, e.g., anti-colonialist viewpoint, history, sympathy with Palestinians etc. So we've screwed this up tactically (not enough linguists, weak investment in Iraqi forces, all too frequent "collateral damage" that flows from lack of linguists and intel), strategically (aiming for democracy, "light footprint strategy), and politically (no coherent concept of Iraqi agnenda, aiming for democracy at all, handing off nonfunctioning government). More and more it's obvious we must withdraw before our army is destroyed, hopefully after some brutal retaliation on areas of the country that have aimed themselves at our forces, e.g., Sadr City, Fallujah, Ramadi.

Posted by: Roach at August 06, 2006 04:48 PM (TY/gr)

6 Interesting post, and interesting comments. We are not fighting with the primary intention of creating stability in the Mideast. Instead, we are actually roiling the area - intentionally. Our primary purpose is to inject Western ideas into the Mideast - like a virus. We hope the democratic virus will defeat jihadi ideology. Now, God forbid the democratic Iraqi government should either fall, or become irrelevant - like the Lebanese government. However, even if one of these unpleasant results occurs, the democratic virus has already been injected into the Mideast more deeply than ever before - and that is the strategy we believe will make America safer in the long run. OIF has achieved it's primary goal. Therefore, OIF is a strategic success. The only question is how big a success it will be.

Posted by: gcotharn at August 06, 2006 09:10 PM (kHrXu)

7 It had multiple goals, and it's only achieved one, ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein. The "instability" of our presence in Iraq was not supposed to be in the form of an awful civil war that daily shows our impotence vis a vis both the insurgency and brutal elements in the Shiite government. The instability was supposed to come from the Ptoemkin Village that Iraq was to become, a model regime of law, order, democracy, and social peace. It is none of those things; so, instead of showing American client regimes can be well governed, liberal, and rewarded, we created a client regime taht is poorly governed, illberal, hard to control in a way that furthers our interests, and, because of the undeniable hell that Iraq is today, a daily argument against democacy to the rest of the Middle East. The fact that so many Iraqi refugees, chiefly professionals, are headed to Jordan and Syria is quite telling as for what kind of government they think is best, even with the narrow goal of simply being able to work, turn on the lights, and not worry about waking up to a death squad coming to kill one's entire family. It is profoundly dishonest and mistaken to call this a strategic success. We've emboldened Jihadis, emboldened Iran, provided a de facto argument every day of why democracy is NOT a good road for the middle east. This whole stupid and ideologically motivated quest for democacy is wrong on so many levels. First, it misapprehends the genius of our own system as "democracy" rather than our well balanced constitution. Two, it forgets to ask what kind of policies these democracies will pursue. Three, it ignores the benefits of stability from regimes such as King Abdullah's or Hosni Mubarak's. Four, it is too ambitious, the neoconservative equivalent of the liberal war on crime, going after "root causes" that likely won't change for a 1,000 years rather than just finding the bad guys and killing them. These Trotskyites are endangering our country, our military, and empowering our enemies.

Posted by: Roach at August 07, 2006 08:57 AM (1BjlW)

8 Ptoemkin Village refers to a plywood/cardboard/Hollywood set type of fake village. I agree with "multiple goals". You lose me when you fail to include the injection of democracy/western ideas as one of those goals. This indicates a zealous mindset on your part, and an unwillingness to fairly characterize the situation. Pres. Bush has clearly stated, over and over, that we intend to inject democratic ideas into Iraq. The Iraqis themselves must make the ideas real. We did not write and impose a constitution upon Iraq. We will all be dead before it is known if that was the best course of action. You say the Iraq insurgency exposes our impotence. I say, where we are impotent, let it be known. I say that is a good thing: let the light shine in. It's time to get some things defined and declared - for their benefit, and for our own. Let the players show their cards. Old joke: Dr. tells man he is impotent. Man buys a new hat. Man says: "If I'm gonna be impotent, I'm gonna look impotent!" It might or might not be fair to say Baghdad is an undeniable hell. I reject(deny?! that characterization vis a vis the entire nation. I reject this opinion: Iraq is a daily argument against democracy. I don't believe this is happening in numbers which are significant: so many Iraqi refugees, chiefly professionals, are headed to Jordan and Syria, and I reject your stated conclusion: is quite telling as for what kind of government they think is best. You write: We've emboldened Jihadis, emboldened Iran. This would be a problem, if our main goal was status quo stability. It was not. Status quo stability is what was going to get us killed. If Jihadis are emboldened, great. Makes em easier to kill. If Iran is emboldened, great. Wakes the world up, and makes the Iran problem easier to resolve. ideologically motivated quest for democacy is wrong on so many levels As opposed to, what? Ideologically motivated quest for tyranny, oppression, and backwardness? misapprehends the genius of our own system as "democracy" rather than our well balanced constitution "Democracy" is shorthand. No one says "democracy" and means "oppressive, inadequate constitution." The whole argument of "if you inject democracy, they will elect terrorists President" is strawman, strawman, strawman. "Democracy" is shorthand for "injecting democratic, civilized, humane ideas into a backwards, 6th century, stagnant hovel of humanity." You want that written out every time? it ignores the benefits of stability from regimes such as King Abdullah's or Hosni Mubarak's Bullshit. We can inject ideas, roil the region, and still appreciate a proper amount of stability. No one is denying the existence of complexity. going after "root causes" that likely won't change for a 1,000 years rather than just finding the bad guys and killing them. It is your masturbatory dream that we can just find the bad guys and kill them. Just finding the bad guys and killing them entails taking out untold scads of civilians. This is why our strategy is to convert the populace to our side, then have the converted populace take out the bad guys. If you reject, out of hand, the possibility of this strategy working, then you are advocating that we undertake a bloodbath. Things may, God forbid, get to the bloodbath stage. But first, we are trying the conversion strategy. These Trotskyites are endangering our country, our military, and empowering our enemies. Looking at this sentence, I can see I have wasted my time in replying to you. Shit. I guess I'll post this anyway. But it's a close call.

Posted by: gcotharn at August 07, 2006 10:20 AM (kHrXu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Great news! It looks like they've arrested two suspects in the Arizona Serial Shooter case. Supposedly the shooter and his driver. That means the Baseline Killer is still out there. I hope they get him soon.

Posted by: annika at 07:00 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

One part of me thinks that there's a real opportunity for peace in the middle east if the international community would only do one thing: Nothing.

The reason I've been hearing the phrase "Mid-East Peace Process" all my life is mainly because there has been a Mid-East Peace Process. If the world would just let both sides go at it, winner take all, I think we might see an end to this decades long circle-jerk.

After victory comes peace. So I want to advise Israel: don't bow to international pressure. No cease fires. No negotiations. No more bullshit. Roll up Hezbollah like Stonewall at Chancellorsville. Crush Hamas like Sherman on his way to the sea.

But another part of me senses danger.

The two Palestinian terrorist organizations want to see Israel destroyed. There's no chance in hell that they could accomplish that militarily, so they're trying to provoke this confrontation into a full on Arab Israeli war. Iran wants to see this happen too. They want Israel to attack Syria, so that Iran can jump in. Then, they hope Israel strikes Iran's nuclear research plants, which would be real bad.

For the last few months I've been casually researching whether Israel could successfully attack Iran's nuclear sites. I am now convinced that they have the technical capability to pull it off. They have the right planes, and Iran's air defenses would be no match for the Israeli Air Force. They also have an aerial refueling capability and they recently acquired the BLU-113, which is the most bad-ass of all the bunker buster warheads.

On the downside, Israel really has no good route to Iran. Any way they go would cause political problems that I don't like. The route that makes the most sense would be straight through Iraq, but that would completely fuck up what we're trying to accomplish there by inflaming the Shia. If the Israelis went south through Saudi Arabia, there would be refueling issues, and they could not avoid pissing off the Saudis. Going north might piss off the Turks. I don't like any of those choices, which is why I've always believed that we should be the ones to knock out the Iranian facilities, if it has to be done.

And if we get involved in this thing, well... I don't like to think about it. You all remember where the plains of Armageddon are, don't you? I'm serious, this is scary.

Today Hezbollah's leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah went Scarface on the Israelis: "You want a wahh, you got a wahh." One might wonder how he intends to actually win it. Without an army or air force, he's either an idiot, or he knows something I don't. Maybe he's rolling the dice, or maybe he knows big brother Ahmadi-Nejad is his ace in the hole.

With Korea and India and now the Middle East burning up, I think this is the most dangerous global situation to exist in my lifetime. And of course I picked this time to go travelling. And to Denmark no less!

Posted by: annika at 08:46 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 3 kb.

It's so frustrating watching this slow dance between Iran and the G-6. You just want to sceam at them: "cut to the chase!" However, as I said before, the delaying game benefits us as well as Iran - but only if we use the time well. And to date I have seen no sign that we are doing anything other than playing patsy to a tin-pot third world dictatorship. Damn it, Bush and Condi. Wake the fuck up!

From AP:

World powers agreed Wednesday to send Iran back to the United Nations Security Council for possible punishment, saying the clerical regime has given no sign it means to negotiate seriously over its disputed nuclear program.

The United States and other permanent members of the powerful U.N. body said Iran has had long enough to say whether it will meet the world's terms to open bargaining that would give Tehran economic and energy incentives in exchange for giving up suspicious activities.

"The Iranians have given no indication at all that they are ready to engage seriously on the substance of our proposals," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said.

. . .

Any real punishment or coercion at the Security Council is a long way off, but the group said it will seek an initial resolution requiring Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment. Debate could begin as soon as next week.

If Iran does not comply, the group said it would then seek harsher action. The group's short statement did not give any specifics, but it cited a section of the world body's charter that could open the door to economic or other sanctions.

. . .

The group said it could stop the Security Council actions at any time should Iran cooperate.

There's always the possibility that the administration is following my advice about supporting Iranian dissidents, and that we just don't hear about it because things are happening behind the scenes. However, by this time in Reagan's second term, the Solidarnosc movement in Poland was in full swing and everybody knew it. I see nothing similar happening in Iran, although I keep hearing that the country is ripe for it.

Posted by: annika at 02:16 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 2 kb.

MUMBAI (AJN) - A coordinated series of seven exposions ripped through several commuter trains in Mumbai, India yesterday, killing at least 160 people and injuring more than 400. And now the repercussions of this latest apparent terror attack have begun to affect the once revered Mainstream Media.

One day after the attacks, which appear to bear the signature of Islamic terrorists, many observers are asking why the Mainstream Media did not act to prevent these deaths beforehand.

"It is horrible," said one man who asked not to be identified. "I ask myself why? Why did not the New York Times do something about this? Why did they not stop these bad men? Do they not care about the lives of innocent Indians?"

News analyst and terror expert Annika, of the blog Annika's Journal, told AJN that questions are being raised about the Mainstream Media's failure to detect and prevent the Mumbai terror plot.

"A lot of people are scratching their heads today," said Annika. "They wonder how the MSM could have fucked this one up so badly. They have more than adequate resources to detect a plot like this [the Mumbai bombings]. They're always patting themselves on the back about their investigative reporting, yet they couldn't stop these terrorists. And now hundreds of people are dead."

The Mainstream Media has recently come under attack from far right conservative groups for releasing information about secretive American anti-terrorism programs, which some say are designed to uncover information about future terrorist plans.

"When the New York Times spends all it's time investigating the programs that are meant to stop terrorists from killing, you got to ask why they can't spare just a little effort trying to investigate the terrorists," said Annika. "It couldn't hurt, and it might just save lives."

Media representatives responded to Annika's criticisms, on condition of anonymity. "It's not our job to be law enforcement," said one television news executive. "That's the government's job, to stop terrorists. We're just there to report news, not make it."

Yet Annika and other media watchers argue that the Mainstream Press has unique capabilities that the government does not possess, which could be used to unearth terror plots before they occur.

"For instance, covert government investigations can always be revealed by members of the press, often destroying months of hard work," said Annika. "But if the same investigation were conducted by reporters, who's going to rat on them? We all know reporters would rather rot in jail than give up one inch of their precious First Amendment rights."

A former New York Times reporter recently served 85 days in jail rather than reveal the identity of one of her journalistic sources.

"The New York Times, The Washington Post... These guys are so proud of how they brought down Nixon, and he didn't even kill anybody," Annika continued. "The L.A. Times didn't have any problem finding every chick Arnold groped back in the seventies. How come they can't find Osama? Bill Keller seems to think he's got better judgment on national security issues than the freakin' Department of Homeland Security. Let him put that superior judgment to use... fighting terrorists instead of helping them."

Bill Keller is the executive editor of the New York Times, which has come under fire by far right wing extremist groups such as the Republican Party for allegedly revealing details of secret U.S. government anti-terror programs. He could not immediately be reached for comment.

"And CNN? Don't get me started," Annika concluded. "It's unconscionable for CNN to wash their hands of these continued terrorist attacks. They consider themselves 'citizens of the world.' What a fucking joke. They're such hypocrites. The people in Madrid and Bali and London and Baghdad and now Mumbai are all citizens of the world too. The MSM is a disgrace."

AJN's Annika Becker contributed to this report.

Posted by: annika at 08:29 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 653 words, total size 4 kb.

American Princess, and apparently Jonah Goldberg have heard rumors. Nothing on Drudge yet. E.M. says she heard it from a Wall Street friend, as does Jonah. I checked the stock market and it did rally around 12:00.

Update: Still nothing from any reputable news source. Or from Drudge for that matter.

If it turns out to be true, I for one will question the timing. Is Castro's death simply the Bush administration's attempt to deflect attention away from their failure to unh...

Oh I got it. It's the Bush administration's attempt to deflect attention away from the impending indictment of Barry Bonds, who I hear, is a Republican.

Culture of corruption! Culture of corruption! Halliburton! Halliburton! Sis-boom-ba!

Posted by: annika at 12:25 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

From the Houston Chronicle:

[A] man with a Middle Eastern name and a ticket for a Delta Airlines flight to Atlanta shook his head when screeners asked if he had a laptop computer in his baggage, but an X-ray machine operator detected a laptop.

A search of the man's baggage revealed a clock with a 9-volt battery taped to it and a copy of the Quran, the report said. A screener examined the man's shoes and determined that the "entire soles of both shoes were gutted out."

No explosive material was detected, the report states. A police officer was summoned and questioned the man, examined his identification, shoes and the clock, then cleared him for travel, according to the report.

A TSA screener disagreed with the officer, saying "the shoes had been tampered with and there were all the components of (a bomb) except the explosive itself," the report says.

The officer retorted, "I thought y'all were trained in this stuff," TSA officials reported.

The report says the TSA screener notified Delta Airlines and talked again with the officer, who said he had been unable to check the passenger's criminal background because of computer problems.

Now of course, since the plane didn't blow up we can assume one of three things: a) that it was a test run; b) that the plan involved hiding the explosive somewhere else on the plane, or with an accomplice who aborted the mission; or c) that this poor innocent man with the middle eastern name was unfairly hassled while scores of evil grannies were allowed to board the plane unmolested.

I tend to think that it was just a test of our defenses, since a clock and battery do not seem to be necessary components of a shoe bomb. In any case, I hope someone is raising holy hell over this incident.

Posted by: annika at 08:12 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

From the Wall Street Journal, a sensible Danish liberal:

Bjorn Lomborg busted--and that is the only word for it--onto the world scene in 2001 with the publication of his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist." A one-time Greenpeace enthusiast, he'd originally planned to disprove those who said the environment was getting better. He failed. And to his credit, his book said so, supplying a damning critique of today's environmental pessimism. Carefully researched, it offered endless statistics--from official sources such as the U.N.--showing that from biodiversity to global warming, there simply were no apocalypses in the offing. "Our history shows that we solve more problems than we create," he tells me. For his efforts, Mr. Lomborg was labeled a heretic by environmental groups--whose fundraising depends on scaring the jeepers out of the public--and became more hated by these alarmists than even (if possible) President Bush.

via Shelly.

Posted by: annika at 11:57 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

A victory in the little known case of Annemette Hommel, the Danish officer accused of "torture" at the Danish Contingent's Camp Eden in Southern Iraq.

Apparently Eden was no paradise for the detainees under interrogation by Hommel and four MPs. They had been subjected to the heinous torture of:

• having to sit down for a long time


• getting yelled at


• not getting a second glass of water when they asked for one

She was tried here in Denmark in the full glare of the press and with indignant left-wing politicians screaming for an example to be made. 'War crimes!' they screamed. And it gave a perfect setting for a left-wing outcry against our participation in the 'invasion and occupation' of Iraq.
Though being found technically guilty of abusing prisoners, Annette Hommel was not handed any sentence, merely left to live with the findings of the court and a ruined career. She was not content with that and appealled the courts decision. And in my opinion, quite rightly so.

Annemette Hommel and four other military police have been acquitted of breaking Geneva Conventions by the High Court of Eastern Denmark.

Hommel and the four others had been previously been found guilty by a lower court. Due to mitigating circumstances, however, none of them are facing jail time.

Hommel appealed the decision handed down by a Copenhagen court that convicted her of calling detained Iraqis names and expletives while forcing them to sit in stressful positions during questioning.

Following the first trial in January 2006, Hommel said she was pleased and satisfied with being acquitted on some of the charges but felt that the court has laid down an unnecessarily hard line on the other points.

'I can't live with that,' Hommel said after the first trial, adding that she had been convicted of something that was against her principles.

Hommel has yet to comment on the new, not-guilty verdict by the Eastern High Court.

No hooking their genitals up to car batteries then? No beatings with clubs or heavy duty electrical cable? No tools or other impliments of torture? No pulling of teeth or fingernails? No poking out of eyes? No beheadings?

No, none of that. That is what she went there to put an end to.

Posted by: annika at 11:01 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.

I don't know why, but this story makes me laugh. Some choice excerpts:

"I had a shotgun or AK (semi-automatic weapon) pointed at my chest. (The officers) kept saying, 'We're going to shoot your (expletive) dog.' They made this woman cry - she was shaking," said Lobo, a Rainbow Family member.

"They tried to trample us with their horses, and all we did was have our arms up in peace," he said. "I even pulled my pants down - which was probably indecent exposure - to show them I didn't have anything on me."

"I've been here since Saturday, and I've already received three (citations). Look, I'm sick of being harassed. Just because I'm in the middle of the woods with a group of people doesn't mean I don't have a job, that I don't have a family and that I don't contribute to society,"

"All they had to do was get a bullhorn and say 'We've got guns.' They shouldn't have pulled out their guns, that's not kosher, man,"

h/t DPGI v.2

Posted by: annika at 12:28 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

It's not unusual that I find myself disagreeing with a democrat. But this time it's really ironic.

Former Vice President Walter Mondale says he supports a pre-emptive U.S. strike against a North Korean missile that is raising nuclear fears around the globe.

. . .

Mondale said on WCCO-AM Friday that the United States should tell North Korea "defuel that missile. It has three boosters. Dismantle it and put it back in the sheds. Because if you're getting ready to fire this, we'll take it out."

. . .

Mondale and other former top Democrats are convinced apparently that action is the key to ending the standoff.

"This is such a legitimate thing for the United States to do," Mondale said. "The nature of the threat is so serious that I think we should knock it out right there if they won't stop."

I'm against shooting down the missile. Firing a test missile, assuming they aim it at international waters, is provocative as Condoleezza Rice said. But it is not an act of war. Shooting a test missile down is an act of war. We don't need to escalate this latest confrontation with North Korea into a hot war.

I'm not sure whether Mondale thinks we can shoot the missile out of the sky or whether he thinks we should hit it before it launches. In the audio, he said that

. . . one missile like the one that took out Zarqawi could take out this [the North Korean] missile.

Now if we were to blow up the test missile on the ground, we would ignite a shit storm of unimaginable proportions. North Korea would be able to claim justification for some kind of retaliation, and the world might start calling us the rogue state. I would not be surprised if the UN Security Council met to discuss sanctions against the US.

If we were to shoot the missile out of the sky, we'd run the risk that our anti-missile missile might miss. That would be worse than doing nothing. Our anti-missile technology is far from perfect. The task has often been described as "hitting a bullet with a bullet." If we were to try for the Korean missile, we could not afford to miss. And I don't care for the odds.

However, if we let the North Koreans shoot their wad, we can monitor its performance much better than even they can. We'll gain important intelligence on their capabilities, both in missile technology and in electronic missile tracking. (Since they'll be watching the missile, we'll be able to watch their radars.) Diplomatically, we can use their "provocative act" against them if and when we need international support for action in the future.

I say, complain about it, but if they're determined to test their missile, don't stop them.

h/t to Larry at Beth's.

Posted by: annika at 08:48 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.

Update: More great photoshopping on this subject at Beth's and Darleen's Place. And of course at Michelle Malkin's, whose idea it was.

Posted by: annika at 04:25 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

This has got to be a muhfukkin joke right?

Saudis Offered Scholarships for Aviation Courses in US

JEDDAH, 20 June 2006 — The Ministry of Higher Education and the General Authority of Civil Aviation are offering scholarships to Saudi men and women to study various majors related to civil aviation in the United States.

The forms are available online at the ministryÂ’s website until July 12 for both bachelorÂ’s and post-graduate studies. Nominations will be announced on July 31. Interviews will take place in August and final scholarship winners will be announced on Sept. 2.

The scholarships are available in majors such as communications, electrical and computer engineering, computer science, systems analysis, air traffic control, flight safety, and other majors related to the airline transport industry.

Applicants for the bachelorÂ’s program must have a minimum score of 85 percent in the science section and 90 percent in other sections, such as QurÂ’an memorizing, administrative and commercial sciences. [emphases mine]

Oh, I guess I shouldn't be xenophobic. Because Saudi universities are so well known for their pro-western curriculum. Student visas for everybody!

hat tip: Free Thoughts.

Posted by: annika at 06:39 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 2 kb.

Very interesting discussion going on in the comments section of my poll on Hillary vs. Rudy for New York's electoral votes. You didn't disappoint me.

I think Rudy wins New York, running against Hillary. But it would be a squeaker.

Now let's throw a monkey wrench into the debate.

New York is 31 electoral votes. Assume Rudy gets the nomination, and wins New York. Look at this map of the '04 results. I say Rudy also wins "barely Kerry" Pennsylvania and New Jersey too. That's a 67 point switch!

I've never heard of a Republican "northern strategy," but with sixty seven points, Rudy could lose most of the Southern states and still come out ahead. (I also believe Rudy could win Florida, which was "weak Bush" last time only because of the northeastern transplants in south Florida. Add FL and you get a 94 point switch.) Hillary still wins the other Kerry states, but who cares?

Debunk my theory.

Posted by: annika at 03:44 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

From the Times of London:

Taleban fighters used women and children as human shields as they tried to escape into the mountains of Afghanistan, British troops claimed yesterday.

The tactics were revealed in the first account by those who fought in one of the main battles faced by the men of 3 Para and the Royal Gurkha Rifles in Helmand province, where 3,300 British troops are stationed.

The TalebanÂ’s use of human shields happened during a six-hour battle that began when British troops arrived in a remote area to flush out a suspected Taleban hideout.

They came under attack seven times and fired 2,000 rounds as the rebels set ambushes and opened fire with rocket-propelled grenades. About 21 Taleban were killed.

“It happened twice where they pushed women and children in front of them. The first time they ran into a compound and pushed them out the front to stop the assault,” said Corporal Quintin Poll, 29, from Norfolk.

“The second time they were firing through a building with women and children inside. My guys had to go around the left and right to get them.”

The fighting was so intense that rounds set fire to nearby wheat fields. At one stage Private Bash Ali, 20, from London, was hit by a bullet from a Kalashnikov assault rifle. It lodged in the spare magazine of his SA80 rifle, around his waist, setting fire to a tracer round.

“I was going around a corner hearing fire and didn’t know where it was coming from. The next thing I knew I fell to the ground. I thought I’d been hit by an RPG. I was dazed and was pulled into cover by a comrade,” he said.

Apache helicopters and A-10 tankbusters were called in to provide air support and at one stage raked a compound housing militants with their 30-millimetre canons.

“The guys were superb. I left the day with a huge amount of pride,” said Major Will Pike, 36, who has been in the Army for 14 years and said that this was the fiercest day of fighting he had ever seen.

Posted by: annika at 09:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 2 kb.

Half of the reason I write this blog is to sample opinions from a wide variety of really smart people, that's you.

So here's a question I was thinking about today, which I haven't seen addressed anywhere.

What do you think?

Posted by: annika at 08:57 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.