There's a reason why I haven't written whether I think the Surge Strategy will work or whether it's a good idea. I'm not an expert in any of the disciplines necessary for my opinion to have any value. In fact, most of my knowledge regarding the Iraq War comes from secondary sources, written by other people who are similarly ignorant, i.e. the press.

The vast majority of reporters and columnists who write about Iraq and pretend to know what they're talking about are completely incompetent to do so. Not only is their journalism degree inadequate for the task (it's a glorified general ed degree) but their undisguised bias robs their output of any credibility. Yet, from my desk chair, I'm forced to rely on these people almost exclusively for my information. So, as a result, my opinions are just about as worthless.

That's why I'm taking a wait and see approach. I do consider myself an expert on another thing, though: I'm an expert on the domestic battlefield. This is why I have said over and over again that we must achieve success in Iraq quickly, because if Americans don't see progress soon, our next president will pull the plug on the whole noble enterprise.

So I was very encouraged when the President yanked the most recent generals in charge, good men though they might be, and replaced them with guys who understand the need for a change in strategy. Today is General Petraeus's first day on the job. His resume is impressive.* He's had success before.** I wish him and his new strategy well.

Australian Lt. Col. David Kilcullen is an advisor to Gen. Petraeus and an expert on counter-insurgency strategy. He's also a Duntroon grad and a veteran of East Timor. In this post at Small Wars Journal, Kilcullen outlines the two schools of thought regarding counter-insurgency.***

An illustrative anecdote:

In Timor in 1999 I worked closely with village elders in the border districts. I sat down with several of them one afternoon to discuss their perception of how the campaign was progressing, and they complained that the Australians weren't securing them in the fields and villages, that they felt unsafe because of the militia (the local term for cross-border guerrillas) and that we needed to do more to protect them. In actual fact, we were out in large numbers, securing the border against infiltration, patrolling by night, conducting 14 to 21-day patrols in the jungle to deny the militias a chance to build sanctuaries, and working in close in the villages to maintain popular support. There had not been a single successful attack by the insurgents on the population for more than two months. So, "objectively", they were secure. But -- and this is the critical point -- because our troops were sneaking around in the jungle and at night, staying out of the villagers' way and focusing on defeating enemy attempts to target the population, they did not see us about, and hence did not feel “subjectively” secure. This was exacerbated by the fact that they had just experienced a major psychological trauma (occupation, insurgency, mass destruction and international intervention) and as a society they needed time and support for a degree of "mental reconstruction". Based on their feedback (and that of lots of other meetings and observations) we changed our operational approach, became a bit more visible to the population and focused on giving them the feeling, as well as the reality, of safety. Once we did that, it was fine.

In other words, we had to shift from a more enemy-centric approach to a more population-centric approach to adjust to the developing situation. My personal lesson from this experience was that the correct approach is situation-dependent, and the situation changes over time. Therefore the key is to develop mechanisms that allow you to read the environment, to be agile and to adapt . . .

You can see how the above example illustrates the need for more troops and contact with the population. It's more than just switching to a zone defense from man-to-man. At least in the short run, our new strategy will provide the enemy with more opportunities to kill Americans. We're not going to like that here at home, and I have no illusions that the media will understand what's happening or that a different strategy is at work. The commanders in theater, and the President must realize that the home front will not cut them any slack and they have to get it right this time.
_______________

* But so was McClellan's.

** But so did Hooker.

*** The comments are especially interesting.

Posted by: annika at 11:41 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 793 words, total size 5 kb.

Posted by: annika at 12:47 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I thought Peter and Glowee broke up...so I just went back and pretty much read all the past PPTSP. There's some funny shit in there, annika.

Posted by: Victor at February 09, 2007 02:09 PM (1oGDT)

2 Get a life loser. I hear that Ballentine Has got him five to nine, And the Farmer's brother's A Friend of mine.

Posted by: Casca at February 09, 2007 06:30 PM (2gORp)

3 OK, for youse guys what never hoid of Guys and Dolls, this here's the original lyrics to "Fugue for Tinhorns". NICELY-NICELY I got the horse right here The name is Paul Revere And here's a guy that says that the weather's clear Can do, can do, this guy says the horse can do If he says the horse can do, can do, can do. (Benny starts singing his part at this time, while Nicely continues Can do - can do - this guy says the horse can do If he says the horse can do - can do, can do. (Rusty starts singing his part as the time, while Nicely and Benny continue For Paul Revere I'll bite I hear his foot's all right Of course it all depends if it rained last night Likes mud, likes mud, this X means the horse likes mud If that means the horse likes mud, likes mud Likes mud. I tell you Paul Revere Now this is no bum steer It's from a handicapper that's real sincere Can do, can do, this guy says the horse can do. If he says the horse can do - can do - can do. Paul Revere. I got the horse right here. BENNY I'm pickin' Valentine, 'cause on the morning line A guy has got him figured at five to nine Has chance, has chance, this guy says the horse has chance if he says the horse has chance, has chance, has chance I know it's Valentine, the morning work looks fine Besides the jockey's brother's a friend of mine Needs race, needs race, this guy says the horse needs race If he says the horse needs race, needs race, needs race. I go for Valentine, 'Cause on the morning line, The guy has got him figured at five to nine Has chance, has chance, this guy says the horse has chance Valentine! I got the horse right here. RUSTY CHARLIE But look at Epitaph. he wins it by a half According to this here in the Telegraph "Big Threat" - "Big Threat" This guy calls the horse "Big Threat" If he calls the horse "Big Threat", Big Threat, Big Threat. And just a minute, boys. I've got the feed box noise It says the great-grandfather was Equipoise Shows class, shows class. This guy says the horse shows class If he says the horse shows class Shows class, show's class. So make it Epitaph, he wins it by a half According to this here in the Telegraph. Epitaph! Valentine! Paul Revere! I got the horse right here! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: shelly at February 09, 2007 07:53 PM (SLFj+)

4 All in all you're just a dick with no balls, casca.

Posted by: Victor at February 09, 2007 08:11 PM (l+W8Z)

5 Tsk, tsk, Victor. When one is reduced to name calling, certainly one has reached the bottom of the barrel; I'd say about three fathoms lower than whaleshit.

Posted by: shelly at February 10, 2007 03:23 AM (SLFj+)

6 Glass houses, Shelly...unless "mental midget" is a term of endearment to you.

Posted by: Victor at February 10, 2007 05:44 AM (l+W8Z)

7 I don't know why the word "gourd" is so funny--but it is. This reminds me of Freshman year at Princeton High School in New Jersey. I had a huge crush on the senior who was playing Nicely Nicely Johnson, Jon Tenney. I never spoke to him--just worshiped him from afar. He was an awesome performer. Fast forward 20-some years and he's a Broadway, t.v. and movie actor who used to be married to Teri Hatcher. One day in the late 90's I turned on the t.v. and realized that the guy playing the lead on a new (short-lived) cop show was that guy I liked in 9th grade.

Posted by: Joules at February 10, 2007 05:49 AM (u4CYb)

8 Alright, there are two bloggers at Annika's Journal: Annika and Victor. From now on, I'm declaring a moratorium on all unprovoked attacks on the management. Up to now, I've allowed things to be pretty rough and tumble in the comments, but this schoolyard bully shit is getting on my nerves, so cool it.

Posted by: annika at February 10, 2007 09:52 AM (JBltT)

9 Thank you!

Posted by: Brad at February 10, 2007 10:03 AM (9ADYb)

10 Annie: How'd you do in Con Law? Did you get to the 1st Amendment yet?

Posted by: shelly at February 10, 2007 11:24 AM (SLFj+)

11 Ah, now I understand the IM conversation. To tell the truth, I'd completely forgotten the comment, and it had nothing to do with our resident cell-block-punk, Victor being the author. ANYONE who'd go back and reread the Peter Pumpkin chronicle is by definition not engaged in a productive life.

Posted by: Casca at February 11, 2007 07:50 AM (2gORp)

12 Now you've got me wondering... has the management synchronized menstrual cycles yet?

Posted by: Casca at February 11, 2007 08:05 AM (2gORp)

13 LOL. So, here's a good law school final exam question: Was that "unprovoked"? For extra credit: What difference does it make? Alternate question for extra credit: Outside of a crowded theatre, where can one yell "Bullshit" without being censored? (Knowledge of the existence of the 1st Amendment is required for this option)

Posted by: shelly at February 11, 2007 09:40 AM (SLFj+)

14 Was that unprovoked? Not by your definition. Hell, it's obvious your and Casca's petty jealousy is such that if I were to open a window on a hot summer day, you'd consider that sufficient provocation to start slinging insults around. As for what difference it makes--not much, I concede, because your definition of provocation gives you the right to attack if I so much as blink. It does, however, demonstrate a total lack of respect for annika and for the spirit of her rules (if not the letter, for reasons discussed above). As for your last question--C'mon, Shelly. People give up their right to total "Freedom of Speech" all the time (court orders, non-disclosure agreements, being asked, "Does this dress make me look fat?") under threat of a sanction of some sort. If that isn't censorship, I don't know what is.

Posted by: Victor at February 11, 2007 11:03 AM (l+W8Z)

15 You don't know what is. Like all liberals, the rules don't apply to you, since right is on your side. Me, I stopped hiding behind skirts a long time ago.

Posted by: shelly at February 11, 2007 11:26 AM (SLFj+)

16 OUCH! LMAO! Dammit Shelly, I was saving that one for later. Since some here have been likened to "Bullies", to continue the analogy, maybe others wouldn't get their ass beat if they didn't have their mommy walk them to school? I'd suggest moving to a new neighborhood where the big boys aren't so mean. lmao

Posted by: Casca at February 11, 2007 02:29 PM (2gORp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Have you seen those commercials for Apple lately? This spoof is pretty dang funny.

Posted by: annika at 08:29 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: annika at 12:59 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm telling you, the secret's getting out. The latest Gallup poll reveals:

In a head-to-head matchup against McCain in a Gallup poll of Republicans and Republican "leaners" taken Jan. 25-28, Giuliani beat the Arizona senator handily in most categories: better public speaker, more likable, better chance of beating the Democratic nominee, would run a more positive campaign, would perform better in debates, would do more to unite the country, would manage the country more effectively, would be better in a crisis, better understands the problems faced by ordinary Americans, and strength of leadership.

The Monitor article from which I pulled that quote also says that Giuliani's approval ratings are at 62%. Sixty-two percent! That will change as the attack machine heats up. But I ask you, can anyone name another public figure with numbers over 60%? I can't think of one. That's unheard of in this age of hyper-negativity.

On the other hand, some analysts say that McCain's recent dip in polling is due to his more vocal support of the President's Surge plan. It's possible that not a lot of poll respondents knew Giuliani's position on the Iraq War is identical to McCain's. Or maybe they do, but they just trust Giuliani more.

That's my take. Even if I liked McCain, I would always favor a guy with executive experience over legislative experience. Theoretically, executives must work in the real world where results are expected. Therefore, they should be more results oriented. Legislators on the other hand, work in a world of theoretical projections, possibilities and imaginary outcomes. When they fuck up, they're rarely held to account because they simply blame the other party, the executive, or both.

[How can I quit blogging this summer when Campaign '08 is already so interesting?]

Posted by: annika at 02:36 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

1 For me it's a matter of trust. I know all of Rudy's warts. They have been on the front pages repeatedly. Ditto McCain's. I trust Mr. Mayor to be able to lead in a more honest manner than McCain. McCain has done too many things (campaign finance, gang of 14, Keating 5, for and against social security reform, etc). I would vote for him against Hillary or Obama or any other dem (except Lieberman) but in Rudy vs McCain it's not even close for me and I'm a rabid right wing nut.

Posted by: chris at February 07, 2007 04:51 PM (QZTLy)

2 Just wait till the straight talk express starts flinging mud. Nobody does mean like the Senator from Arizona.

Posted by: kyle8 at February 07, 2007 06:57 PM (yB636)

3 Don't count in it, Kyle. The R's are down to their last bastion right now; they need a win, and they know it. If BOTH are on the ticket, what happens then? Well, there's your answer. I think they'll make nice in the end. Think Kennedy-Johnson. Go back in time (I assume most of you don't remember, but can read about it)to 1960. Both Kennedy and Johnson appeared at a joint caucus of the Texas and Massachusetts delegations and Johnson vowed that he would NEVER accept the Vice Presidental nomination. Twelve hours later, Bobby offered it, then withdrew the offer. Johnson was then begging for it and threatening what he'd do if he didn't get it. One heartbeat away from the presidency, in this era ain't bad. Gore and Cheney changed that.

Posted by: shelly at February 08, 2007 04:21 AM (SLFj+)

4 I'm completely anti-Rudy and anti-McCain. Rudy, while talking a good game, still comes out looking like a Chicago liberal when it comes to many of the rights of the people. His stance on personal ownership of firearms keeps tracking back to "display a need," "register," etc. If the (R) throw up Rudy/McCain against Hillary, we will have the floor wiped with us. It will either result in a heavy (D) win, or an independent is going to end up capturing much of the south and mountain states, but not winning the election, giving us Hillary in the end. Rudy seems to resemble British conservatives; he's all for surveillance, authoritarian law and order, etc. McCain is a no-go for a ton of reasons; he's like the (R) version of Clinton. He will say whatever, to whomever, to ensure that MTV likes him and the MSM calls him a "loose cannon," a "rebel," etc.

Posted by: Jmarsh at February 08, 2007 07:40 AM (J0G4s)

5 Rudy's got a lot of skeletons in his closet and much of them aren't known nationally. His negatives will start going up when they talk about his personal life, corruption and cronyism in the mayor's office, and his mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11.

Posted by: PoliticalCritic at February 08, 2007 09:29 AM (B9HSl)

6 "his mistakes" after 9/11." That stuff is already starting: I saw a wire story on the so-called "mistakes" yesterday. They also mentioned a book taking the same position. Koch was interviewed in the wire story and said that Rudy deserved all the positives he got after 9/11, but that NYC was over him on 9/10. In other words, 9/11 rejuvinated him as a politician. So far, he hasn't taken many hits. You are right to say that it will start soon. We'll see if he can handle it. JMarsh, Please explain how the candidate with the highest negatives from either pary is going to "wipe the floor" with either McCain or Rudy, both of whom are fairly articulate and experienced men with solid GWOT credentials? I'm not saying either is the perfect Rep choice, but that Hillary has a ton of political problems to overcome. Suggesting she is going to wipe the floor with these two in a general election makes no political sense to me. Now if you were talking about somebody like Brownback, I'd probably agree.

Posted by: blu at February 08, 2007 09:57 AM (duPNB)

7 Agree with Koch (and Blu). If September 11 hadn't occurred, Giuliani wouldn't even be running for dogcatcher today. I'm starting to hope for a Tancredo - Kucinich election; perhaps we'd have some discussion of issues.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 08, 2007 10:08 AM (YWsCw)

8 I agree w/Blu on Rudy, NYers & 9/10. As for a positive 60+ rating, only Obama & Rudy have them right now. However, Rudy's stuffed closet will eventually be opened. The dems are saving the salvos for when they can do the most damage. A private poll that will be released this weekend, shows that in a contest between Obama & Hillary, it's Hillary that would win by a large margin. So a Hillary/Obama might be a possibility. However on the Rep's side its still too early to tell. A lot can happen in 18 months

Posted by: michele at February 08, 2007 10:43 AM (Po6a+)

9 Blu, I have been editing this to try to make this less gun-centric, but it's not working . I'm not trying to get into a 2A debate, and hopefully what I'm getting at will be apparent. There are a fair number of folks like me that have litmus tests for firearms. I think they're reasonable and simple: 1) No registration (other than the defacto form already in place with BATFE's form 4473) and 2) You don't need to display a need for a firearm, you can buy one just because, as guaranteed by the 2A. They're articulate, and at least Rudy seems to generally believe he's doing the right thing, and he's got some convictions. No problems there, or with GWOT stances. But, there is something that looms larger, and that's freedom, as enumerated by the Constitution. Hillary wants to pillage my economic freedom, while Rudy would have no problems plastering millions of cameras throughout the US, a la the UK. Rudy seems very wedded to the anti-crime track, but there isn't a higher power (ie, the 2A) that he feels is important to respect. *That* is the problem. (McCain has issues with the 1A, among other things). The basic problem we are faced with is, for instance, Hillary vs. Guiliani, maybe with a libertarian on the ballot. We've got Clinton/Dole/Perot all over again. I, and others, cannot vote for someone that is (insert your conservative litmus test of choice here) hostile to gun ownership as Rudy, even if it's to keep the human apocalypse that is Hillary out of office. Some surely will as the "lesser of two evils" strategy, of course. When a democrat (Richardson) has a friendlier approach to gun ownership than a republican, there is a serious problem. Rudy and McCain have created negative groundswells throughout people that are pretty solidly (R) otherwise, via past documented action. How many of them will apply my version of the litmus test in 08? Don't know. But, there's not a lot of wiggle room to soften one's stance on gun control, for instance, when you've been quoted throughout your entire political career of note as solidly in one direction as he is. Expanding a bit past gun control, I think the problem that many (R) will have is that they've taken what are traditionally democratic stances on too many issues recently. Supported medicare drug benefit? Got those. Supported McCain-Feingold? Check. Support amnesty for illegals? Yep. Trashed the GWOT/Iraq/WMD/etc? Yeah, those are (R) too. Agree with CEO pay "adjustment?" Check. Complained about oil profits? Those too. Supported continued ban of offshore drilling? You see where I'm going? They're pretty indistinguishable from each other on "current events," which brings things like the support of second amendment that much more into the forefront. Frankly, Rudy, good virtuous man that he is, forces me to campaign against him (which I'm already actively doing).

Posted by: Jmarsh at February 08, 2007 04:08 PM (J0G4s)

10 JMarsh, Fair enough. Well articulated position. Thanks for taking the time to put it out there. In the end, we just have different priorities, which is why you have the primary and put those priorities out there for people to debate. My priorities are free market economics and the GWOT. The Reps are not always good on either, but generally they are much better than the Dems.

Posted by: blu at February 08, 2007 05:30 PM (duPNB)

11 JMarsh gets at what I think the purpose of Libertarians and true Conservatives should be, which is anchoring the right flank of the political spectrum. Meaning there should be a solid anchor to our viewpoints and policies, which is well known and unchanging. There may be people who vary from that conservative position depending on the issue, but once "Conservatism" becomes a sliding scale, all is lost because there's nowhere to go but left. Ronald Reagan understood this when he proposed that we get rid of the Energy and Education Departments. George W. Bush does not understand this when he proposed and got DHS and Prescription Drug Entitlements. What the Libertarians get right (and thank God for them, because these days they're the only ones making the case) is that there is such a thing as a slippery slope and somebody has to put the brakes on. Of course, you might ask, so how can you support Rudy. First, I didn't say I'd vote for him in a primary. I feel free to vote my conscience in all primaries, which is why I never vote for a pro-choice candidate in primaries. But when the general comes, It's always a lesser of two evils thing. I know enough about the political situation nowadays that I'm a realist. I want a Republican in the White House, and so I will vote for whoever gets the nomination, unless it's McCain. I like Rudy because he can win. In a perfect world, we could tolerate a moderate Republican president if he is counterbalanced by solid conservatives in Congress. Unfortunately, that is not the case today. But the alternative is a phony centrist Democrat like Clinton/Bomber and a bunch of whacked out communist political appointees sneaking into the beauracracy who'll take years to ferret out, and only after doing incredible damage (e.g. Jamie Gorelick). That's what really scares me about a Democrat in office. There are a million Amanda Marcottes chomping at the bit for a low level appointment and if/when the next Democrat administration comes along they are going to flock to D.C. and someone is going to find a spot for them.

Posted by: annika at February 08, 2007 07:24 PM (JBltT)

12 Well said JM. The jist of Reagan's charisma was his willingness to differentiate between who we are, and who THEY are. We wandered in the wilderness from the Depression until 1980 because the accomodationists ran the party. Rudy and the McCainiac are a return to the wilderness years. There is only one heir to Ronaldus Magnus, and we all know who he is, and whatever the CW is about him, they said worse things about Ronnie.

Posted by: Casca at February 08, 2007 07:54 PM (2gORp)

13 I'm beginning to believe that none of the current Republican candidates can go the distance. The true heir (according to Casca) has to be Newt. He says he'll run if his ideas are not being carried by some other candidate; a sure thing that he gets in when the others falter. He led us to the biggest victories we've experienced since Reagan, and he can do it again, provided they get him a suit with no zipper. But, what the Hell, it never affected Bubba, so let's all wait for Newt to come to the game.

Posted by: shelly at February 10, 2007 09:42 AM (SLFj+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The judge released the Astronut chick on bail because he didn't consider her a flight risk! In what universe is she not a flight risk?!?! Hellooooo!?!? She's a pilot. She can fly! By definition that makes her a flight risk.

And not only that, she's an astronaut. What's to stop her from getting into her spaceship and flying off to another planet tomorrow? Then the only way we could catch her is by sending a team of astronauts after her. And I doubt we have many astronauts trained in law enforcement.

This is a bad situation just waiting to happen. What if, for instance, she escapes to the moon? Would the cops/astronauts have jurisdiction there? Maybe at Tranquility Base, since that's U.S. territory. But what if she hides out in some other crater with a jug of water, some Tang and a box of Depends? We might never find her. I don't think her GPS bracelet is going to be much help on the moon.

Or what if she made it all the way to Mars? I'm sure there's no extradition treaty with the Martians, and they hate us anyway. Oh those Martians would jump at the chance to grant asylum for an ex-astronaut simply to embarrass us, like the French do with Roman Polanski. Those Martians think they're so superior, just because their orbit is bigger than ours.

Posted by: annika at 08:53 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Another Boat School grad does us proud. Let's review: (1) Jimmy Fuckin' Carter. Nuff sed. (2) John "What First Amendment?" McCain. (3) Lisa "Crazy Bitch" Nowak. Fan-freakin'-tastic. On the plus side of the ledger, at least Bobby Heinlein was one of ours.

Posted by: Matt at February 07, 2007 09:20 AM (10G2T)

2 the moon is a harsh mistress indeed

Posted by: annika at February 07, 2007 09:28 AM (JBltT)

3 and are there any astronauts who would want to go near her to capture her? they might all be a little frightened. i would ask for hazard pay.

Posted by: sarahk at February 07, 2007 09:33 AM (DJfGe)

4 She's an "astronut."

Posted by: Mark at February 07, 2007 10:04 AM (2MrBP)

5 Thanks Mark. Matt, you forgot Jim Webb. I bet we could come up with at least a couple hundred before the end of the day. The Naval Academy is fucked up. West Point on the other hand tends to produce uniformly good leaders.

Posted by: Casca at February 07, 2007 10:35 AM (Y7t14)

6 Dunno 'bout West Point. Custer, for instance. And on the plus side for the squids, I'd like to add Adm. Fluckey. Betcha if a statistical analysis was done, the flake/hero ratio would be about the same.

Posted by: Victor at February 07, 2007 11:19 AM (1oGDT)

7 sorry Casca, can't concur with you on the Point. two words: Wes Clark "ring knockers" bleh. give me a 2ndLT from Texas A&M or another state school any day...

Posted by: jcrue at February 07, 2007 11:23 AM (ZDQoM)

8 Girl, you just ain't right

Posted by: Swamp Rabbit at February 07, 2007 12:49 PM (chQH7)

9 Not really buying that either, Casca. I've known a few woops in my day. They're about the same. Get past all the PR bullshit and the service academies aren't really much different. (Nor are A&M, VMI, the Citadel or Virginia Tech immune from the problem. My battery commander -- the one who got sent to be the 2nd MarDiv urinalysis coordinator after we returned from a float that he royally fucked up -- was an A&M grad. What an idiot.) The Point has produced its share of freaks, too. MacArthur, just to name one. (A history prof of mine had spent a lot of time studying MacArthur and interviewing people who knew him well -- family members, former aides, etc. The guy really was a freak.)

Posted by: Matt at February 07, 2007 12:51 PM (10G2T)

10 She likes the moon! I hope they keep her away from any dirigibles or zeppelins. Or lightbulbs.

Posted by: The Law Fairy at February 07, 2007 01:50 PM (XUsiG)

11 Jeez, I'm talking about recent history, not sixty years ago, and one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch. Peacetime generals are the product of politics. Take it for what it's worth. There are most definitely differences between the academies. For producing combat leaders, give me a West Pointer or VMI grad. That's not to depricate the product of state schools, but everyone knows that the aggies are famous fuckups, too much bullshit between their ears. I base my observations on direct personal contact. I spent a month as a peer at Ft Benning with 100 USMA cadets, and six months with the cream of the USNA at basic school, along with a dozen USAFA grads. I know these guys pretty well. My early impressions were only reinforced by the contact I had during my career. The Navy and Air Force acadamies should be closed. They're social clubs that foster their own particularly perverse cultures. I would never trust a boat schooler, on the other hand a USMA grad's word tends to be good.

Posted by: Casca at February 07, 2007 04:30 PM (2gORp)

12 This incident precludes women from being sent into space ever again. The cosmic radiation in space affects their brains and turns them into sex maniacs. No telling what would happen if all the women in space became sex maniacs. OH..........never mind

Posted by: Jake at February 07, 2007 04:52 PM (V6rxT)

13 LawFairy, I totally forgot how much I loved those guys!

Posted by: annika at February 07, 2007 09:19 PM (JBltT)

14 Annie, how'd you do in Crim Law? As a guy who set a lot of bails (Including Patty Hearst, The Griffith Park Sniper, etc.) you have to know that bail is not to hold someone because you think they are going to do something horrible. It is to ASSURE RETURN to face the charges. The thing is, she isn't going anywhere. She's got three kids, a house and an ankle bracelet that they can track her with. If she takes it off, it beeps and they are on her. They beep her and she has to call them back right away or they know it's off and they swoop in. And be sure, they are tracking her with survelliance on a 24/7 basis, maybe with the cooperation of her shipmates. No way to hold her the way the prosecuters wanted; they just wanted to have her in so they could keep building their case with her. It is that need to win them all that pervades every prosecutor's office in the world. Except Aruba.

Posted by: shelly at February 08, 2007 04:33 AM (SLFj+)

15 Enjoyed Casca's Osmond Brothers reference, even if it was unintentional. Pro for West Point - Ulysses S. Grant. Anti for West Point - Ulysses S. Grant. The good thing about...um...EXTREMELY MOTIVATED people such as Lisa Marie Nowak (why is the news dropping the "Marie"?) is that they're only motivated to do one thing. At least until she starts sending love letters to Brit Hume.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 08, 2007 10:13 AM (YWsCw)

16 hey, I got dibs on Brit

Posted by: annika at February 08, 2007 10:16 AM (zAOEU)

17 Let's see, didn't Ollie go to Boat U?

Posted by: shelly at February 08, 2007 12:05 PM (SLFj+)

18 I base my observations on close personal contact, too, being that I'm a Canoe U grad and spent five months at Ft. Sill, plus six at TBS (and four years living with various exchange cadets). But of course my observations are no more unbiased than yours.

Posted by: Matt at February 08, 2007 02:49 PM (10G2T)

19 Now your shit is in the street. I'm from a different generation. They weren't coed then.

Posted by: Casca at February 08, 2007 08:20 PM (2gORp)

20 My dad would have have said to you, "you talk like a girl with a paper ass! He was a man with a very limited sense of humor.

Posted by: mike at February 08, 2007 09:20 PM (UNYWb)

21 They're social clubs that foster their own particularly perverse cultures. I would never trust a boat schooler, on the other hand a USMA grad's word tends to be good. I like the way you think Casca (not that I'm unbiased on the subject).. Ross Perot..I digress.. Although generalizing, one factor that reinforces these cultural differences is the community sub-cultures in the Navy (Surface Warfare, Submariner, Aviators, etc) and to a lesser degree in the USAF (pilots versus well, everyone else).

Posted by: Col Steve at February 09, 2007 09:09 AM (pj2h7)

22 It looks like NASA administrator Mike Griffin gave Karl Rove a call and asked for something to draw attention away from this story. You know, a hurricane or something. But the truthers are on to the hurricane generator in the White House basement, so Rove had to try something different. So he had Anna Nicole Smith whacked. It worked like a charm since this astro-nuttiness is now below the fold on page 19. Just hope that a bunch of the male astronauts don't start claiming to be the real father of Anna's baby ... --HH

Posted by: Go 4 TLI at February 10, 2007 06:31 PM (TmKwU)

23 Fuck. Too late.

Posted by: Matt at February 12, 2007 03:16 PM (10G2T)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

My beloved Caps are in a slump. Tonight they were listless and slow, and lost in a shootout to a shitty team...again. Clearly, they need some poetry to stir their blood, and who better to do it than Robert Burns?

Besides, annika and I both missed his birthday last month...January 25.

Robert Bruce's March To Bannockburn (1793)

Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled,
Scots, wham Bruce has aften led,
Welcome to your gory bed,
Or to Victorie!

Now's the day, and now's the hour;
See the front o' battle lour;
See approach proud Edward's power-
Chains and Slaverie!

Wha will be a traitor knave?
Wha can fill a coward's grave?
Wha sae base as be a Slave?
Let him turn and flee!

Wha, for Scotland's King and Law,
Freedom's sword will strongly draw,
Free-man stand, or Free-man fa',
Let him on wi' me!

By Oppression's woes and pains!
By your Sons in servile chains!
We will drain our dearest veins,
But they shall be free!

Lay the proud Usurpers low!
Tyrants fall in every foe!
Liberty's in every blow!-
Let us Do or Die!

Posted by: Victor at 12:00 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

As promised, we begin our tour of Elizabeth Taylor in the 60s. I might just as easily have called it Elizabeth Taylor, the Richard Burton years. She and Richard were the Brangelina of their day, and they made nine movies together during that decade.

Taylor and Burton began their affair during the filming of Cleopatra, while they were both married to someone else. Today we'll take a look at their second movie together, released the same year as Cleopatra.

The V.I.P.s, 1963

A movie poster for The V.I.P.s promises:

ELIZABETH TAYLOR... and RICHARD BURTON... in a story about... that exciting chemistry: man and woman! The emotions... are measured... in megatons!

Despite its dream-team cast, the movie is not another Ishtar. There are some really good performances, most notably Louis Jourdan's as Elizabeth Taylor's paramour.

Taylor does what she can with a script that assigned her the least interesting character. Her performance is subtle, and as usual she conveys as much with her eyes and a tilt of the head as she does with her lines. But Jourdan's character is the one we get to know best. It's a love triangle story. Jourdan is the playboy gambler who has stolen Elizabeth Taylor away from her rich husband, Richard Burton. Interestingly, at that time, Burton was in the process of stealing Taylor away from Eddie Fisher.

The other plot lines involve Rod Taylor as a charming but unlucky Australian businessman and Maggie Smith plays his girl Friday, who's secretly in love with him. Orson Welles plays a characature of a film director, who tries various schemes in order to dodge the onerous British tax system. Welles's storyline is intended to be comic relief, but ends up being totally forgettable. Welles was in the middle of his second European exile, and perhaps he needed the money.

Since the movie centers loosely around a transatlantic airline flight, it's fun to see a romanticized version of passenger air service, Fifties style. In the movie, BOAC assigns a special guy just to take care of the first class passengers. When the flight is delayed, they all get luxury suites in the BOAC hotel, and a car to pick them up in the morning. Nice.

But even back then, there were nasty flight attendants. Here's how Margaret Rutherford as a disheveled, pill popping duchess dealt with one impudent stewardess:

Duchess: Conductress... Conductress!

Stewardess: (coolly) Did someone call something?

Duchess: Yes dear, I did. Will you please put this thing in the hold.

Stewardess: In the hold?

Duchess: Well, wherever you do put luggage that isn't wanted on the voyage.

Stewardess: If you had wanted this with your other luggage, you should've thought of that earlier, shouldn't you've?

Duchess: (regally) If that is a question to me personally, yes. If it is a general comment on human behaviour, it is an extremely unoriginal one, and hardly worth making. Kindly dispose of this hatbox.

Stewardess: But I have no room.

Duchess: Well then, you must make room, mustn't you dear.

Maggie Smith, whom I love, and whom you probably know best as Professor McGonagall of Gryffindor House, is wasted in The V.I.P.s. If you want to see how wonderful an actress she is, do rent The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie right away.

I gave The V.I.P.s a 3 out of 5 on the Neflix scale: "liked it." Put it on your movie watching queue only if you're a serious ET/RB fan, which I hope you will be by the end of this film festival. But before I leave you, I want you to look at the chair in this next screencap closely.

Strawman is probably the only one who may recognize it as a Poul Kjærholm design (at least a knockoff). When I was in Denmark last summer, I had the pleasure of seeing a Kjærholm exhibit at the Louisiana museum on the east coast of Sjælland. I totally want that chair.

Posted by: annika at 11:23 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 752 words, total size 5 kb.

Don't forget today is the birthday of my great hero, Ronald Reagan.

He was also Maggie's hero.

via Good Lt at Jawa

Posted by: annika at 01:40 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

This is some pretty wild shit.

An astronaut drove 900 miles and donned a disguise to confront a woman she believed was her rival for the affections of a space shuttle pilot, police said. She was arrested Monday and charged with attempted kidnapping and other counts.

U.S. Navy Capt. Lisa Nowak, 43, who flew last July on a shuttle mission to the international space station, was also charged with attempted vehicle burglary with battery, destruction of evidence and battery. She was denied bail.

. . .

Police said Nowak drove from her home in Houston to the Orlando International Airport to confront Colleen Shipman.

Nowak believed Shipman was romantically involved with Navy Cmdr. William Oefelein, a pilot during space shuttle Discovery's trip to the space station last December, police said.

Nowak told police that her relationship with Oefelein was "more than a working relationship but less than a romantic relationship," according to an arrest affidavit. Police officers recovered a love letter to Oefelein in her car.

. . .

When she found out that Shipman was flying to Orlando from Houston, Nowak decided to confront her, according to the arrest affidavit. Nowak raced from Houston to Orlando wearing diapers so she wouldn't have to stop to urinate, authorities said.

Astronauts wear diapers during launch and re-entry.

Dressed in a wig and a trench coat, Nowak boarded an airport bus that Shipman took to her car in an airport parking lot. Shipman told police she noticed someone following her, hurried inside the car and locked the doors, according to the arrest affidavit.

Nowak rapped on the window, tried to open the car door and asked for a ride. Shipman refused but rolled down the car window a few inches when Nowak started crying. Nowak then sprayed a chemical into Shipman's car, the affidavit said.

Shipman drove to the parking lot booth, and the police were called.

During a check of the parking lot, an officer followed Nowak and watched her throw away a bag containing the wig and BB gun. They also found a steel mallet, a 4-inch folding knife, rubber tubing, $600 and garbage bags inside a bag Nowak was carrying when she was arrested, authorities said.

Inside Nowak's vehicle, which was parked at a nearby motel, authorities uncovered a pepper spray package, an unused BB-gun cartridge, latex gloves and e-mails between Shipman and Oefelein. They also found a letter "that indicated how much Mrs. Nowak loved Mr. Oefelein," an opened package for a buck knife, Shipman's home address and hand written directions to the address, the arrest affidavit said.

Police said Nowak told them that she only wanted to scare Shipman into talking to her about her relationship with Oefelein and didn't want to harm her physically.

"If you were just going to talk to someone, I don't know that you would need a wig, a trench coat, an air cartridge BB gun and pepper spray," said Sgt. Barbara Jones, a spokeswoman for the Orlando Police Department. "It's just really a very sad case. ... Now she ends up finding herself on the other side of the law with some very serious charges."

If convicted of attempted kidnapping, Nowak could face a maximum of life in prison.

Posted by: annika at 10:11 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 562 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I tried to track back this one, but kept getting "Error 500, Bugger." Clearly that "alien life form" has more power than I realized.

Posted by: NOTR at February 05, 2007 10:29 PM (GCLgj)

2 The government, and military is riddled with these crazy bitches. Bizarre behavior, but sounds like she walks with a simple assault plea, don'tcha think?

Posted by: Casca at February 05, 2007 10:54 PM (2gORp)

3 How would you like to be in a tight situation with this one at the controls?

Posted by: Leonard at February 06, 2007 08:58 AM (0Co69)

4 I saw this articlel today and heard about it to. I guess some people do a lot with diapers! I am not sure whether this report incident goes in my blog but might qualify because she might have ruined the rest of her astronaut flight career.

Posted by: dreric1kansas at February 06, 2007 09:21 AM (QEc94)

5 Damn, there goes her star.

Posted by: shelly at February 06, 2007 09:35 AM (SLFj+)

6 Wow...what a slammin' hottie! I'd like a photo of the other chick to see what this astronaut had to choose from. Then perhaps the two could "space joust" for his affections. The first one to knock the other into outer space wins his love. That would be cool...

Posted by: Billy at February 06, 2007 09:59 AM (SLFj+)

7 A girl like this, when she's not putting your cat in the microwave, is a total blast: passionate, excited, totally into you, generally makes life exciting, and totally experimental in bed. Unfortunately, even very bright and passionate people, can have a totally obsessive side that comes out when, as here, they get dumped, cheated on, or see things coming to a close. I confess, I have a slight preference for these slightly nutty drama queens; they make life interesting, and if you're lucking you get in the news and your "social value" will rise tremendously when her emails about missing your "talented fingers" or whatnot gets known to the public.

Posted by: Roach at February 06, 2007 10:01 AM (1BjlW)

8 Thanks for sharing Roach. Billy, you need to get out more. She's a skankly affirmative action manling. From the mugshot, it appears that she didn't use the diaper to go number 2. This story is getting even better. Turns out she is married to someone else. This is the byproduct of sexual repression in the military. It turned the Navy into a bunch of hypocrits.

Posted by: Casca at February 06, 2007 10:19 AM (Y7t14)

9 The spaceworms made her do it.

Posted by: The Law Fairy at February 06, 2007 01:14 PM (XUsiG)

10 Many jokes with "open the pod bay doors, Hal" as the punch line are floating through my mind.

Posted by: annika at February 06, 2007 01:29 PM (zAOEU)

11 you should hear the Talk radio stations here in Houston. Its all they can talk about. So many people calling in to say "I know her, she seemed normal to me" Well, duh! thats what you always hear about serial killers too.

Posted by: kyle8 at February 07, 2007 05:02 AM (lw6jc)

12 Dammit, it just came to me... Astronut. Soon it will be ubiquitous.

Posted by: Casca at February 07, 2007 07:36 AM (Y7t14)

13 sorry Casca. i heard Medved use it yesterday.

Posted by: annika at February 07, 2007 08:24 AM (0VTwC)

14 Believe me, I thought of it as soon as I heard the story. Medved is reading my mind again.

Posted by: Casca at February 07, 2007 10:37 AM (Y7t14)

15 Casca, Uh...that was sarcasm on my part. Sorry for the subtlety of wit...

Posted by: Billy at February 07, 2007 09:16 PM (SLFj+)

16 I work for one of the prime contractors and can tell you these are some of the nuttiest bastards I have ever met! Nothing that Nowak did..nothing in the slightest surprised me..but then, NASA is trying to hold onto it's GLORY DAYS....they are all pissed because I had the balls to tell them robotic missions were much less expensive.....wonder if I'll get mine!.....Frankie

Posted by: Frankie at February 08, 2007 03:13 AM (vPggd)

17 crazzzzzzzy moon bat bitch

Posted by: sau at February 08, 2007 04:04 PM (3WYb1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

You may have sensed that I am a fan of Rudy Giuliani. While I haven't yet decided who I'm going to support, Rudy definitely makes the short list. And it's a very short list. I've already done the math on him, and nobody has yet debunked my theory. In fact, I'm the only one I've ever heard talking about the New York factor.

In a nutshell, my theory is this: People say Rudy is vulnerable on social issues, meaning he won't win the Red States. But people forget that he has a serious shot at winning New York, even against Hillary. And if Rudy wins NY's 31 electoral votes, he can pretty much thumb his nose at the South and still win the presidency. And I say, if he wins NY, he'll probably get NJ, and possibly PA and CT, too. Let me tell you, that's a scenario that scares the hell out of a lot of people. That's why no one's talking about it.

Now that Rudy's all but announced, you're going to hear a lot of people repeating the same mantra: "He's too liberal to win the nomination." Don't you believe it. The media wants you to believe it, because they know how formidable he really is. They've seen the polling. The "three-G"* conservatives want you to believe it too, because Rudy gives them nightmares.

But before you give in to the anti-hype, read this article in City Journal, entitled "Yes, Rudy Giuliani Is a Conservative". You may not come away completely convinced, but at least you'll know he's not the antichrist, as some want you to believe.

He cleaned up New York when the rest of the world had written it off. Ask any New Yorker. Pre-Giuliani, you took your life into your hands walking in the park after dark, or just riding the subway. Broadway was a shithole. There used to be certain neighborhoods where nobody wanted to live, that are now impossible to afford. New York had a genuine Renaissance in the 1990's and it was thanks to Rudy Giuliani. New Yorkers won't forget this.

Of course Rudy led that Renaissance in the face of withering criticism from the left. He made enemies, and as his tenure was winding down, his enemies seemed to have gotten to him. The Diallo shooting didn't help, either. But then came 9/11, and people saw again that this man was a courageous, principled and born leader. Flawed yes, but that's only a reminder that he's human like all of us. Rudy's personal problems are not going to dissuade New Yorkers from supporting him. They voted overwhelmingly for Clinton too.

Don't forget also that Giuliani is an amazing speaker. He gave the best speech at the 2004 Republican Convention. His style is spontaneous, populist, and deceptively effective. While Zell Miller fired up the base and Schwarzenegger won over the pundits, Rudy's speech was the most articulate defense of the War on Terror that has ever been given to a national audience.

Giuliani has also positioned himself well, by staying out of the administration. To move forward, he will need to come up with an approach to the Iraq mess that navigates the gulf between his unequivocal support for the War and the subsequent truth that Bush and Company have fucked it all up. On that issue he may lose ground to McCain, who has also been unwavering in his belief the Iraq was the right thing to do, while at the same time he's never thought we were doing it right.

In a sense, all Republican candidates except for Hagel are hamstrung by the success or failure of the President's Surge plan. No pro-war Republican will be elected on a victory platform if victory isn't within sight. Mark my words, if the Surge fails to show progress within the next 12 months, we will have a Democratic president in 2009. I think McCain and Giuliani have the best chance of convincing independent voters to stay the course in Iraq, but ultimately I think they'd lose to a cut-and-run Democrat if we don't start winning soon.

Finally, back to Giuliani's social liberal weaknesses. To those who don't like Rudy because he's pro gay marriage, I say where have you been? Gay marriage is here. It's a reality. The only way to put that genie back in the bottle is by a Constitutional Amendment, and good luck with that one. Same goes for abortion, and I'm about as far to the right on the abortion issue as it is possible to be. Rudy does worry me about gun rights, but he made a good first step at winning my confidence two days ago when he said:

I think those are the kinds of justices I would appoint - Scalia, Alito and Roberts. If you can find anybody as good as that, you are very, very fortunate.

* Guns, gays and God.

Posted by: annika at 08:11 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 880 words, total size 5 kb.

The words "Global" and "Warming" were conspicuously absent from tonight's NBC Nightly News, I'm here to tell you.

The good news, if there is any, about what's being called the Midwest Cold Blast, or alternately, the Cold Snap, is that we won't be lectured about Global Warming again for at least another week.

Posted by: annika at 07:48 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

phil says early spring
biden says obama's clean
long live barbaro

Posted by: annika at 08:40 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

I live in the Soviet Union.

For the record, I stopped using incandescent bulbs years ago. In my case, the free market worked. But what about photographers, who can't use flourescent bulbs? Does every single thing in the universe need to be legislated?

Posted by: annika at 11:29 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

An original composition, by Fly Guy. Freak y'all, into the beat y'all.

A hat tip to some blonde chick.

Posted by: Victor at 06:06 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

I got Google TV, and they're paying me 40 large just to watch it.

Here's a screencap:

The only program available is some weird show with two aliens stacking boxes. It hurts my eyes a little, but it is kind of addicting. And anyways who cares, I'm getting paid 40 big ones to watch.

[I realize that by combining two extremely obscure references in the same post, the population of readers who will get it is basically nil.]

Posted by: annika at 10:16 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

While campaigning in Iowa today, Hillary said:

The president has said [the Iraq War] is going to be left to his successor. . . . I think it's the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it. . . . This was his decision to go to war, he went with an ill-conceived plan, an incompetently executed strategy and we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office.

But in a way, I do agree with Hillary's statement, at least as far as the poorly executed strategy goes. We should expect President Bush to extricate our country from the Iraq War before he leaves office. My only qualification is that we should leave through the "victory" door, not the "abandonment" door the Democrats keep pushing us towards.

Finally, despite all the talk about the new "Rules of Engagement," I'm sick and tired of hearing about shit like this. Keep your ears open for more stories about the ROE's and whether or not they really have changed (I'm skeptical). That will tell you whether our leaders are serious about winning or whether they're just playing out the clock for Hillary.

Posted by: annika at 03:35 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

It doesn't seem like a year since I completed the First Annual Annika's Journal Film Festival, but it has been. If you recall, last year the honoree was Oscar winner Goldie Hawn, who has yet to send me a thank you note. I had a lot of fun watching and writing about those movies, even if I only got three comments the whole month.

I racked my brain to figure out whom to honor during this year's festival. It's quite an investment of my time: ordering the movies on Netflix, setting up my archaic screen capture procedure (don't ask, it involves lots of cable, 3½ inch floppies, my early '90's crappy laptop, and lots of running back and forth), finding and editing the pictures and then figuring out what to say about each movie.

Under consideration were fellow blonde favorites Steve McQueen and Ryan O'Neal. However, since the Oscars inspired this whole boondoggle in the first place, I decided that I should limit my choices to Oscar winners. I also wanted to pick someone whom I'm not that familiar with, because I really had a lot of fun discovering new movies during last year's Goldie Hawn event.

I reviewed eight movies last year, and so I've picked eight again for this year. That's two a week, if I want to get it done before the Oscars on February 25th; a tall order so if any of you want to help me out, let me know.

And this year's Second Annual Annika's Journal Film Festival honoree is: Elizabeth Taylor, the Sixties movies.

Posted by: annika at 11:44 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

What the stars will look like when they get old.

Especially check out Tom Cruise, George Clooney and Angelina. David Schwimmer is hilariously grotesque.

And I think somebody mistakenly included a picture of Nick Cage as he looks today.

Posted by: annika at 06:27 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

You may have heard recently that the United States is the world's unfriendliest nation for international travellers. I'm calling bullshit on this bogus study.

The United States is the world's most unfriendly country for international travellers, a survey suggests.

The global survey showed the US was ranked "the worst" because of rude immigration officials and long delays in processing visas.

More than half of the travellers surveyed said US immigration officials were rude and two-thirds said they feared they would be detained on arriving in the US for a simple mistake in their paper work or for saying the wrong thing to an immigration official.

Twice the percentage of travellers nominated the US as unfriendly, compared with the Middle East and the Asian subcontinent.

The survey, of 2,011 international travellers in 16 countries, was conducted by the polling firm RT Strategies for the Discover America Partnership, a business-backed group launched in September to promote travel to the US and improve the country's image abroad.

"The entry process has created a climate of fear and frustration that is keeping foreign visitors away," said Geoff Freeman, executive director of the Discover America Partnership.

"The survey shows there is more fear of our immigration officials than of terrorism or crime."

Complete bullshit.

Just look at the U.S. State Department's travel advisory for Saudi Arabia, just to pull one example of a worse country from the many that come to mind.

American citizens who choose to visit or remain in Saudi Arabia despite this Travel Warning are strongly urged to avoid staying in hotels or housing compounds that do not apply stringent security measures including, but not limited to, the presence of an armed guard force . . .

. . . inspection of all vehicles, and a hardened security perimeter to prevent unauthorized vehicles from approaching the facility. American citizens are further advised to exercise caution and maintain good situational awareness when visiting commercial establishments frequented by Westerners or in primarily Western environments. Keep a low profile, varying times and routes for all required travel, and ensure that travel documents and visas are valid. American citizens are also advised to exercise caution while driving, entering or exiting vehicles.

Important Instructions:

If a woman is arriving in the Kingdom alone, the sponsor or her husband must receive her at the airport.

Every woman must have confirmed accommodation for the duration of her stay in the Kingdom.

A woman is not allowed to drive a car and can therefore travel by car only if she is accompanied by her husband, a male relative, or a driver.

All visitors to the Kingdom must have a return ticket.

There are NO visitor visas. It's not even possible to have a Saudi sponsor apply for the visa on my behalf. Visitors can ONLY visit to work, or for a religious visit.

Speaking of religious visits, people who do this who are muslims, can ONLY visit Mecca and Medina, and that's it. Travel to other Saudi cities is not allowed.
Anon, Canada (Mar 03)

Back to the Lonely Planet:

WOMEN: We wear the abeyya so we get left alone. But even this doesn't work. We get stared at constantly and sometimes things are said. More so now after the September 11 disaster. I have never been barred from any establishment or had to leave because of prayer. Stealing wallets or purses out of expats handbags or backpacks as they walk around is common. We are not allowed to use the public transport.

PHOTOGRAPHY: Sure, film and cameras are everywhere. But, go and try to do a shoot around Jeddah. You will stop traffic, draw untold attention to yourself and if you are really lucky, the police will stop you and then the Matawwa [Saudi religious police] maybe will turn up which is what happened to me. You cannot take photos of people, any Palace or any government building. Now, as all three are everywhere, photography is difficult and not a delight.

. . .

MATAWWA: If they are around, they will ask all women to cover their hair and generally have the police with them, so this is enforced. I have friends who did not have their scarf with them one night in Balad and the Matawwa made them go to a shop, buy one and put it on while they waited outside until the girls did. Jeddah is not as strict as Riyadh.
Alanna Lee, Saudi Arabia (Jan 02)

Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country in which Islamic law is strictly enforced.

The public practice of any form of religion other than Islam, or proselytising, is not permitted.

Islamic codes of behaviour and dress are also enforced rigorously. You should respect them fully.

Homosexual behaviour and adultery are illegal and can carry the death penalty.

The penalties for the possession of, or trade in, alcohol are severe. Both result in prison sentences. The punishment for importing drugs includes the death penalty. You should not arrive in Saudi Arabia under the influence of alcohol: the consequences could be serious. You should carry with you a doctorÂ’s prescription for any medication you have with you. The importation of pork products is also forbidden.

While the Saudi authorities say they accept the private practice of religious other than Islam, religious books (apart from the QuÂ’ran) and artefacts imported for personal use may be confiscated. Also, importing larger quantities can carry severe penalties as it will be viewed that it is your intention to convert (proselytise) others.

The possession of pornographic material, or of illustrations of scantily dressed people, especially women, is prohibited.

The Saudi legal system differs in many ways from the UK. Suspects can be held without charge and those detained have in the past not been allowed legal representation. The Saudi authorities have detained witnesses and victims of crimes. If you require consular assistance our staff will seek to visit you as soon as they are aware of the case. However, in some instances they have not been permitted to do so immediately or have had limits applied to access once granted. We have raised our concern about reports of mistreatment of some suspects during their detention.

Photography of government buildings, military installations and palaces is not allowed. You should avoid photographing local people. It is illegal for women to drive.

Anyone involved in a commercial dispute with a Saudi company or individual may be prevented from leaving the country pending resolution of the dispute.

Passports are often retained by sponsors or government bodies for official purposes. You should carry a photocopy of your passport. Make sure you have included in your passport details of those who should be contacted in an emergency.

It is illegal to hold two passports in Saudi Arabia: second passports will be confiscated by the immigration authorities if they are discovered.

. . .

On occasion, Saudi visas have been refused when passports have reflected travel to Israel or indicated an Israeli birthplace.

Women visitors and residents are required to be met by their sponsor upon arrival. Women travelling alone, who are not met by sponsors, have experienced delays before being allowed to enter the country or to continue on other flights.

Single parents or other adults travelling alone with children should be aware that some countries require documentary evidence of parental responsibility before allowing lone parents to enter the country, or in some cases, before permitting the children to leave the country. . . .

Foreign women married to Saudi nationals require permission from their husbands for themselves and their children to leave Saudi Arabia.

So how did the Discover America Partnership get it so wrong, when they decided that the United States is the most unfriendly nation for tourism? Simple, they didn't survey any visitors to Saudi Arabia.

Here's the list of Middle Eastern countries their survey compared to the United States:

1. United Arab Emirates

Posted by: annika at 05:01 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1605 words, total size 11 kb.