TigerHawk

John Burns of the New York Times has published an article this morning - "Freedom from fear lifts Sunnis" - that so departs from the established mainstream narrative that I am surprised he was able to sneak it past his editors. Especially this bit:

Another thing many Sunnis seemed to agree on was the possibility of a reconciliation between the Americans and the Sunnis, and a distancing of the Sunnis from some of the Al Qaeda-linked insurgent groups. Many were critical of American troops, saying, as Mr. Saleh did, that "they came as liberators, but stayed on as occupiers." But pressed on the question of an American troop withdrawal, most seemed cautious, favoring a gradual drawdown.

"Let's have stability, and then the Americans can go home," said Mr. Sattar, the store owner. Told that this sounded similar to President Bush's formula for a troop withdrawal, he replied: "Then Bush has said it correctly".

You don't hear that every day.

We should be especially heartened by the mounting evidence that the broadening legitimacy of the Iraqi government and the growing competence of the Iraqi army is cleaving the Sunni resistance -- which has been using violence to negotiate a better deal -- from al Qaeda. Western defeatists have resisted the idea that this was happening at all -- less than three months ago, Juan Cole (there I go again) quoted from an email he received from an anonymous "observer" in Iraq. From a post titled "Security situation in Baghdad sinking like the Titanic":

Notwithstanding Al-Hayat's claim that Zarqawi and the Sunni resistance are not together, my street listeners claim otherwise. My folks are convinced that the two groups, broadly defined, are together, "100 percent" is the claim of certainty.

Whether or not Cole's correspondant was ingenuous, the situation is obviously very different today. And not just today, the day after a national election, but last week. For some reason, news organizations saw fit to re-broadcast an old tape from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, including a previously unpublicized segment in which he called upon insurgency groups "to unite." When did he make that tape? Back in September, when Cole's "observer" was reporting that the insurgents were "100 percent" together.

Iraq will come through the Sunni insurgency, even if it takes many years. If wisdom prevails over sectarian, ethnic and tribal divisions in the coming months -- admittedly, a huge "if" -- the Sunni insurgency might shrink to "background noise" quite quickly. Even if that optimistic scenario unfolds, however, we must not retreat from Iraq before we have humiliated al Qaeda (an essential victory condition for the United States) and extinguished any possibility that Arab Muslims will perceive our withdrawal as a defeat. When Sunni Arab insurgents understand that the United States cannot withdraw until it has disgraced al Qaeda (a point they may now grasp), there will be the basis for a deal with the United States and the government of Iraq. Once Iraq's Sunni Arabs conclude that al Qaeda is an obstacle to their ambitions rather than a useful tool, there will be many fewer places in Mesopotamia for al Qaeda to hide, and we will be on the verge of a significant victory in the wider war.

Via Juan Cole, we see this story from CNN about how the Iraqis may have blown an opportunity to nab Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. CNN reports it so:

Iraqi security forces caught the most wanted man in the country last year, but released him because they didn't know who he was, the Iraqi deputy minister of interior said Thursday....

Professor Cole adds additional facts that are not in the link, presumably because CNN wrote the story through over night:

CNN is reporting that Iraqi authorities had arrested Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist, in Ramadi, but mistakenly released him. Nic Roberts reported that Zarqawi had put on weight, grown a beard, removed a tattoo, and was using a Kurdish passport, making him unrecognizable to Iraqi security forces.

Why this bit was written through is anybody's guess, except that at least some of it seems asinine on its face: prior to the American invasion, Zarqawi lived in Kurdistan, which was the base of Ansar al-Islam, a largely Kurdish coven of Islamist terrorists. Of course he has Kurdish travel documents (among many others, I'm sure) -- how else would he have avoided arrest in Kurdistan? It is hard to believe that that it was the Kurdish travel documents that bamboozled the police who questioned him.

In any case, Professor Cole draws a huge conclusion from this incident (bold in the original):

What I take away from this report is that if the Iraqis cannot recognize a Jordanian master terrorist, the American military has zero chance of fighting the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement in Iraq, because most of them don't even know enough Arabic to distinguish an Iraqi from a Jordanian accent. And if all it takes is putting on weight and growing a beard to disguise oneself, then we're in deep trouble.

It is statements like this that force me to wonder whether Juan Cole is deploying his considerable knowledge in the service of reason. By Professor Cole's logic, if a fugitive drug dealer uses forged papers to talk his way through a traffic stop on the New Jersey Turnpike, the cops might as well just give up. I mean, if the New Jersey State Police can't recognize a wanted drug dealer, local police have zero chance of fighting entire gangs.

See what I mean? Professor Cole was so eager to get to the punch line -- "then we're in deep trouble" -- that he stitched together a chain of reasoning that, er, wasn't actually a chain. One guy gets away and he absurdly concludes that they're all going to get away. I'm sure that insurgents "get away" or even slip through checkpoints virtually every day. I am also sure that we -- meaning the counterinsurgency writ large -- are killing and capturing them virtually every day. This condition will undoubtedly prevail right up until Iraq has reduced the insurgency to background noise.

Now, defenders of Juan Cole might argue -- correctly -- that I have trapped myself by my own analogy: that counterinsurgency includes a large element of basic police work, and that it is therefore a very difficult type of war for a foreign power to fight. I couldn't agree more. Everybody understands that this is a war that we Americans cannot win on our own. That is why we have been moving heaven and earth to train an Iraqi army and police force, because we know that it will be much more effective than foreigners. That is also why we have been pushing so hard for Iraq to broaden the legitimacy of its government, as it did yesterday. More Iraqis, both in uniform and out, will shoulder the considerable risks of a counterinsurgency campaign if they have a government, and a system of government, that they actually want to defend.

Victor Davis Hanson:

Similar despair could be recalled from the winter of 1776, the Imperial German offensive of March 1918 or the early months of 1942 after Pearl Harbor and the Allies' loss of the Philippines and Singapore.

America has not fought a war when at some point the news from the battlefield did not evoke a frenzy of recriminations both abroad and at home.

After the carnage of the Wilderness, Cold Harbor and Petersburg in 1864, the conventional wisdom about the Civil War was that the bumbling Abraham Lincoln could never win re-election. Instead, all summer the veteran Gen. George McClellan assured the Northern populace that there was no hope of military victory.

In November 1950, after Americans were sent scurrying southward by the Chinese, most pundits wrote off Korea as lost -- before the unexpected counteroffensives of Gen. Matthew Ridgeway saved the Seoul government by the next spring.

And the lessons, according to Hanson?

First, hysteria arises at home in almost all our wars....

Second, there is also no necessary connection between occasionally terrible news and the final outcome of the war....

Third, American history is far kinder to those who persevered than those who alleged that their country's victory was impossible. Most today revere Lincoln and Marshall, along with Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, who weathered unimaginable slurs.

If the arguments of the home front have taught us anything these last few years, we need for many more Americans -- especially in the chattering classes -- to know much more history than they apparently do.

The NYT can occasionally offer objective coverage of developments in Iraq.

The New York Times' Dexter Filkins covers today's Iraqi vote in a remarkably objective, even positive light.

He must have been shocked by the extraordinary developments of the day. It is impressive.

Let's see if they can continue to appreciate this spectacular progress in the post war political maturation of Iraq.

As long as I'm wallowing in shameless triumphalism, CardinalPark prompted me to look for this OpEd, which I thought confined to the subscription-only section of the WSJ:

...living in China also shows you what a nondemocratic country can do to its citizens. I've seen protesters tackled and beaten by plainclothes police in Tiananmen Square, and I've been videotaped by government agents while I was talking to a source. I've been arrested and forced to flush my notes down a toilet to keep the police from getting them, and I've been punched in the face in a Beijing Starbucks by a government goon who was trying to keep me from investigating a Chinese company's sale of nuclear fuel to other countries.

When you live abroad long enough, you come to understand that governments that behave this way are not the exception, but the rule. They feel alien to us, but from the viewpoint of the world's population, we are the aliens, not them. That makes you think about protecting your country no matter who you are or what you're doing. What impresses you most, when you don't have them day to day, are the institutions that distinguish the U.S.: the separation of powers, a free press, the right to vote, and a culture that values civic duty and service, to name but a few...

But why the Marines?

A year ago, I was at my sister's house using her husband's laptop when I came across a video of an American in Iraq being beheaded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The details are beyond description here; let's just say it was obscene. At first I admit I felt a touch of the terror they wanted me to feel, but then I felt the anger they didn't. We often talk about how our policies are radicalizing young men in the Middle East to become our enemies, but rarely do we talk about how their actions are radicalizing us. In a brief moment of revulsion, sitting there in that living room, I became their blowback.

Read the whole thing, if you can, for two reasons. First, I thought it an excellent piece on what prompts young men to join the Marines. I have known my husband since I was seventeen and can testify that he was galvanized, in large part, by the hostage crisis in Tehran. I hear a lot of talk about how we're "imposing" democracy on the Iraqis.

Rubbish. Condoleeza Rice said it best last Sunday in a remarkable essay. In the years since September 11th I have heard more than enough about "Why they hate us". I don't hear nearly enough about "Why we should resist them" - what we believe in. Have we become ashamed of our values? Are they no longer worth the candle?

The "freedom deficit" in the broader Middle East provides fertile ground for the growth of an ideology of hatred so vicious and virulent that it leads people to strap suicide bombs to their bodies and fly airplanes into buildings. When the citizens of this region cannot advance their interests and redress their grievances through an open political process, they retreat hopelessly into the shadows to be preyed upon by evil men with violent designs. In these societies, it is illusory to encourage economic reform by itself and hope that the freedom deficit will work itself out over time.

Though the broader Middle East has no history of democracy, this is not an excuse for doing nothing. If every action required a precedent, there would be no firsts. We are confident that democracy will succeed in this region not simply because we have faith in our principles but because the basic human longing for liberty and democratic rights has transformed our world. Dogmatic cynics and cultural determinists were once certain that "Asian values," or Latin culture, or Slavic despotism, or African tribalism would each render democracy impossible. But they were wrong, and our statecraft must now be guided by the undeniable truth that democracy is the only assurance of lasting peace and security between states, because it is the only guarantee of freedom and justice within states.

Implicit within the goals of our statecraft are the limits of our power and the reasons for our humility. Unlike tyranny, democracy by its very nature is never imposed. Citizens of conviction must choose it -- and not just in one election. The work of democracy is a daily process to build the institutions of democracy: the rule of law, an independent judiciary, free media and property rights, among others. The United States cannot manufacture these outcomes, but we can and must create opportunities for individuals to assume ownership of their own lives and nations. Our power gains its greatest legitimacy when we support the natural right of all people, even those who disagree with us, to govern themselves in liberty.

Yes, yes, and again, a resounding yes. This is the answer to those who say, "But what if the Iraqis 'misuse' democracy?". That is the nature of freedom. We cannot control what use they will make of it, but that is the glorious nature of the power they will, for the first time in decades, possess: the freedom to choose their own destiny. That is why we are not "imposing" democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that is why the "insurgents" fight so hard against us: because they, too realize they cannot control the outcome, and so they seek to gain through fear and intimidation what they cannot win at the ballot box. That is why they want us to leave. One wonders why Representative Murtha is so eager to accede to their demands?

Shortly before our own Independence Day, I wrote about democracy: the glorious dream. Do we still believe in it?

We would like certainty. We would like painless progress. We would like closure. We will not get any of those things.

On July 4th we must ask ourselves, what do we believe? Our military - brand new immigrants who enlist before the ink is dry on their visas - believe in those words so strongly that they will lay down their lives to spread the fire of democracy. They also believe (as I do) that their purpose is to serve American foreign policy aims, no matter how abstract and long-term they may seem. No matter how difficult to explain to the American people. No matter how frustrating in the short term.

What kind of world will we bequeath to our grandchildren? It may be that long before we know. But our actions today will have an incalculable effect on that far-off tomorrow. And if our policy is not firmly grounded in the spread of those long-ago words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

...then I wonder if we shall not be the first Americans who fail to pass the blessings of liberty on to the next generation?

We take so many things for granted. I hope the blessings of liberty will never be among them. And I trust we will never forget that those blessings did not come without great cost. A tremendous price was paid for the freedom we take as our birthright today, by the kind of men who, at 31, find themselves giving up a comfortable life and joining the Marine Corps to defend uniquely American values. America is hardly a perfect vessel: no institution composed of men and women with human failings can ever be. But what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq and Afghanistan is truly majestic in its scale, and it is worth a few tears. We are trying to bring the blessings of freedom to a people who have never known them before. And this woman, for one, gets it.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, though it sounds a bit corny: a fire has been lit in the hearts of men. May it ever be so.

As a follow up to my previous post on General Yaalon, I would direct you to an article in today's New York Sun (ht: Powerline). Apparently, in a meeting with the Sun reporter, Yaalon asserted Saddam Hussein transferred his chemical weapons inventory to Syria in advance of the American invasion.

Given Yaalon's position in the IDF and his Intelligence access and leadership, I view this as powerful evidence of the existence of an Iraqi WMD program prior to the war.

Furthermore, it implies a much more serious problem is dealing with Assad's hideous, tyrannical regime. He can threaten to arm Hezbollah with military grade chemical weaponry -- a powerful bargaining chip.

'... when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom the gentler gamester is the soonest winner' - Henry V

I admit it. The half-vast punditocracy is right: the whole thing is a hopeless quagmire. A traveshamockery.

Oh, not the war . We're winning that hands down. It's the endless bloviation about the war that's messier than the La Brea tar pits.

Everywhere I turn, another toffee-nosed policy wonk informs me the U.S. has always been a ruthless global hegemon. Witness the endless stream of Third World nations we've bent to our Imperial Will: it's a virtual pax Americana! I'm afraid to open the local fishwrap for fear of being assaulted by some member of Congress who just learned to his horror that the Army is fishing leftover Happy Meals out of garbage cans to feed the troops.

None of this - none of it - squares with what I hear every day from my husband, or from the people who are actually fighting this war. But why on earth would anyone listen to them? Far better to get the truly objective viewpoint from that NYT reporter emeritus currently occupying the Jayson Blair chair at the bar of the Hotel Baghdad. After all, the way we really know things are going to hell in a handbasket is that he finds it far too dangerous to venture out and get the opinion of your average Man-on-the-Wadi.

Strangely enough, my husband isn't the ooh-rah type. He's rather an odd duck for a Marine: very much a pessimist by policy and not at all given to bouts of irrational exuberance. He's the type of guy who can tell you everything that will go wrong with a plan well in advance. But he's also the kind of person who can take a flawed plan and find a way to make it work anyway. This is what the military do all the time: adapt and overcome. It is what they excel at.

It's an old wartime adage that no plan survives contact with the enemy. I often wish this little bon mot were chiseled in stone on Capitol Hill where certain pontificating members of Congress would have to confront it each day before opening their stately blowholes to blast the White House with their latest blindingly obvious hindsight. If I had a dime for every pundit who suddenly flashed on the stunning insight that we aren't really controlling events in Iraq: that we are, in effect, running alongside a bicycle from which the training wheels have just been removed, I'd rich far beyond the dreams of avarice.

The control freaks in Congress don't seem to understand that if we do all the steering, the Iraqis will never learn to ride. And if we let go too soon, they will fall. And judging just when to let go is not an easy process: there is some give and take involved, especially when there is a gang of big, mean kids throwing rocks onto the path.

Why are we still so conflicted over the war? Why, in the face of all the progress that has been made, are we still having arguments about whether we are winning, or whether our military is up to the task? Have we learned nothing from history? It is pretty much admitted wisdom even among the press and academia that the war in Vietnam was all but won on the battlefield when we withdrew in the 1970's. The political will was not there, and so when public opinion turned against the war we withdrew and 55,000 Americans lost their lives for a mission that was abandoned. They died for no reason.

The final indignity, as Melvin Laird wrote so eloquently, is that the South Vietnamese were holding their own militarily after we withdrew our troops. But they couldn't survive a faithless Congress that reneged on its commitments and withdrew funding in 1975. Given the shiftiness and inconstancy we've seen recently on Capitol Hill, it requires little imagination to see how Iraq could truly become another Vietnam if Rep. Murtha gets his way and we "redeploy" our troops safely to the rear.

Why are we having so much trouble gauging our progress? Some say it's the relentless rain of negative press coverage, and there is some truth to that theory. But I think there is another aspect that is often ignored, and that is that we're fighting a different kind of war here. A limited war. It is oft said that war is just politics by other means, and nowhere is this more apparent than in modern warfare, which more than ever is clean, precise, almost surgical and balances warfighting with nation-building, politics, and humanitarian relief. It is entirely a different beast from the wars of yesteryear; and because of its complex nature, declaring victory is far more difficult than it once was. We're not in Kansas anymore.

Gone is the "It's the job of the military to kill people and break things" mentality; at least to a large extent. The outrage over General Mattis' innocuous remarks a few months ago proved that beyond all doubt. More attention was focused on a few words spoken in jest than on the man's stated command philosophy, or on a phrase I've heard him use on more than one occasion: the need "to balance ferocity and chivalry". The Department of Defense issued a directive recently that seems to be getting little attention:

"Stability operations are a core U.S. military mission that the Department of Defense shall be prepared to conduct and support. They shall be given priority comparable to combat operations and be explicitly addressed and integrated across all DoD activities including doctrine, organizations, training, education, exercises, materiel, leadership, personnel, facilities, and planning."

The directive is titled "Military Support for Stability, Security, Transition and Reconstruction Operations."

Jeffrey Nadaner, deputy assistant secretary of defense for stability operations, said the policy draws lessons from many military operations, not just Iraq. It is required, he said, because a major Bush-administration goal is to prevent al Qaeda and other terrorist groups from setting up shop in so-called ungoverned areas, or failing states, around the world.

Mr. Nadaner said planners rejected the idea of dedicating specific military units to stability missions. He said the Pentagon wants all deployed forces trained in nation-building to make a smoother transition from major combat to humanitarian work.

"They need to rapidly be able to jump back and forth," Mr. Nadaner said.

This will undoubtedly be hailed as some new shift in policy, but it really reflects what the military has already been doing for some time. Several years ago, my husband's command was sending volunteers to Iraq and Afghanistan to augment civil affairs units already in theater - this was clearly already a priority to DoD.

But the more important aspect of this directive is that it makes official what many in the military have known for some time: that what they are being asked to do is quite different from what the general public imagines they do on a daily basis. And the American public is very ill-educated and ill-informed about the nature of exactly what it is we are doing in the MiddleEast. It's not an easy task - not a cut-and-dried job with well-defined wickets one can neatly check off with a mechanical pencil or tick off in some spreadsheet. It may not even be what we were set up to do. But the fact remains that in an age of embedded reporters, 24/7 news coverage, and global critiquing of every move we make, the very nature of warfare has changed irrevocably. What we break, we must now mend. When we fight, we can no longer fight without regard for so-called 'collateral damage'. In a very real sense, we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs while our enemy fights with both hands free.

This conflict is by no means limited to the military. My son is a police officer. I've had several discussions with my daughter in law about this topic. We're both bemused by the sensitivity training my son undergoes with great regularity. He has been taught how to 'share his feelings'. They have to go to the country to practice weapons training... with paintballs. And most telling of all, his department are no longer allowed to pursue fleeing criminals: apparently it traumatizes the good citizenry to see the police actually attempting to apprehend and arrest perpetrators. She and I often wonder how officers are supposed to cope with stress when they are constantly urged to "share their feelings". Tried and true coping techniques such as a stiff upper lip or even compartmentalizing are no longer in vogue in this kindler, gentler force, but I often wonder how long the officer who is encouraged to break down and cry at the office will last?

The remarkable thing is that even with all the restraints we put on them, both our modern police and our modern military manage to rise to the occasion. I am still safe in my bed each night when I turn out the light. And despite the constant stream of negative news stories, progress is being made in Iraq. A Marine Major writes:

Sixty-four percent of us know that we have a good shot at preventing this outcome if we are allowed to continue our mission. We quietly hope that common sense will return to the dialogue on Iraq. Although we hate leaving our families behind, many of us would rather go back to Iraq a hundred times than abandon the Iraqi people.

A fellow Marine and close friend epitomizes this sentiment. Sean has served two tours in Iraq as a reserve officer. During his last tour, he was informed of the birth of his baby girl by e-mail, learned his father was dying of cancer, and was wounded in the same blast of an improvised explosive that killed his first sergeant on a dirt road in the middle of the western desert. Sean loves his family and his job, but he has made it clear that he would rather go back to Iraq than see us withdraw.

Everyone in uniform does not share this sentiment. Thirty-six percent of military officers are less confident in the mission. But these officers will continue to work as hard as the rest of us toward success because they, too, are professionals. With men and women such as this, the United States has an excellent chance of success in Iraq. We can fail only if the false imagery of quagmire takes hold and our national political will is broken.

This is the Marine Corps I have known and loved for almost a quarter of a century. They will never falter, and they will never give in to the likes of John Murtha. Another Marine writes lyrically of the bravery of the Iraqi army, and of his men:

...there are many signs of success here. One of the most notable is the Iraqi Army. I have operated with them and argue that the issues of administration and discipline they face are not fatal but merely endemic as in other Third World militaries I have trained beside. Not that our own military history has always enjoyed the same spirit of volunteerism, high morale, low desertion, rigid discipline and extraordinary combat efficacy as now. The Iraqi Army battalions here are very brave, almost to recklessness. They are always eager to tangle with insurgents and bring an enthusiasm for combat rivaling that of my Marines. The most valuable capability they bring though is their understanding of the cultural context of the people. Where we might search a home for hours or interact with a village for several days before we comprehend the inner workings of the village, an Iraqi Army patrol, as Iraqis, already know where to look for hidden weapons, they can quickly sift out the wheat from the chaff of information, the "head man" from the "loud mouth" and the "poor illiterate farmer" from the "local man of esteem."

I leave you with a uniquely Marine portrait - one that may surprise some of you who tend to see warriors as uncomplicated souls. During the brouhaha over General Mattis' remarks, I was fortunate enough to have just heard him give a talk, during which he casually referenced Pindar. As I heard General Mattis reviled as a brute and a monster, I remember thinking to myself, "How many of his critics even know who Pindar was?". This is from that same gentleman who wrote (above) of the courage of the Iraqi army. He has time to reflect right now, as he received a wound to the right thigh last week after his vehicle was ambushed inside Fallujah. He seems resigned to being on crutches for "about a week" until he can "finally return to duty"... an eternity!

An example of the impact and heroism that these NCOs have is Sergeant Isaac Luna of Kansas. Sgt Luna is a vehicle commander in another platoon in the Company. In the last month we have had sniper attacks on stationary units. Several have been killed and injured by this threat. A few weeks ago while operating in the city, Sergeant Luna's crew came under fire from a sniper. Private First Class Kimungu of New Hampshire was wounded across from his vehicle, the round penetrating his helmet. Though the shot was followed with a burst of small-arms fire, without a moment hesitation and with complete disregard for his own safety, Sgt Luna rushed into the open street, administering a pressure bandage to PFC Luna. Though completely exposed, Sgt Luna did not abandon his position until relieved by the platoon corpsman, HM3 Cruze from the Bronx. Throughout, Sgt Luna remained in the street, securing the wounded Marine. This courage under fire is what NCOs bring to the fight.

Examples like Sgt Luna's are important to me because they defy the alleged norm of human conduct. A recent essay I read contrasted the artwork of Mary Cassatt, glorying in simple beauty, with the more aesthetically erratic work of Joan Miro. The author sought to disprove the theory of critic Theordo Adorno that the horrors of modern war, exemplified by the Second World War, had forever thwarted the ability of art to convey the wonder of everyday human existence. This argument, carried to its logical conclusion, would point that in the face of brutality, the triumph of the human spirit over evil is now rendered impossible; that no action or expression can ever again convey humanity's finest qualities. I bring this relatively obscure argument to light because I think it is emblematic of the mindset that no good could come of what we do here. I will not lie, there are days where the things I see, the things I do, infest my heart with doubt.

No one said war was a pleasant thing. Time and time again though, it is Marines like Sgt Luna who cleanse my soul. They have seen death at its ugliest, in the face of the wrecked body of a child. They have seen their brother in arms carried away in their final moments. They have faced fatigue, fear, boredom, complacency, a lack of personal space and home-sickness. Yet for all their adolescence of years, they continue to soldier on as "warriors for the working day" with the dark humor of combat infantry. I don't know whether they understand or care about the politics of this war. I have never asked them. All I do know is that I have seen them at their best and worst, as they have me. As much as they would rather be home, enjoying Holidays with their family (for most of us this is our third Holiday season away in three years), they seem demigods when they can see the difference they make. Whether it is fighting the enemy, protecting the innocent, aiding the weak or defending one another, they are at their highest when most directly challenged. While I cannot paint, I wish I could because in those often unheralded moments, I see something approaching the sublime, despite what all the naysayers, cynics and critics might claim.

If we find it difficult to judge our progress in Iraq, perhaps it is because the nature of the task is so grand and the goal posts so distant. But consider the mettle of the participants in this grand contest. Think of the dedication they, and their families, bring to this task. This is, truly, a different kind of warfare. But war has always been an ugly thing. If we must fight, and it seems that as long as there are men like Saddam Hussein in the world, we must, is it not fitting that we try to do so in a way that limits that damage?

And if we fight limited wars, we must of necessity rely on politics and nation-building - reversing the old adage that 'war is politics by other means' to, in effect, win the war by effecting and employing political solutions as an adjunct to warfighting. It is a far more sophisticated method of warfare, requiring far more skill and craft.

And it will require from us far more patience and willpower if we are to see it to a successful conclusion. But we must adapt and overcome.

Or retire from the world stage in disgrace, and take our ball, and go home.

UPDATED: Moved to the top by TigerHawk.

It's your last day to vote for TigerHawk!

According to Juan Cole, Iraq is stillborn:

The LA Times probably reflects the thinking of a lot of Americans in hoping that these elections are a milestone on the way to withdrawing US troops from Iraq. I cannot imagine why anyone thinks that. The Iraqi "government" is a failed state. Virtually no order it gives has any likelihood of being implemented. It has no army to speak of and cannot control the country. Its parliamentarians are attacked and sometimes killed with impunity. Its oil pipelines are routinely bombed, depriving it of desperately needed income. It faces a powerful guerrilla movement that is wholly uninterested in the results of elections and just wants to overthrow the new order. Elections are unlikely to change any of this.

Cole, who is obviously a smart and knowledgeable scholar, would be a lot more persuasive if he did not constantly give the impression that he hopes that American policy in Iraq fails. While one might quarrel with every line of this pessimistic paragraph, I will confine myself to three.

Cole cannot imagine why anybody hopes "that these elections are a milestone on the way to withdrawing US troops from Iraq." Well, of course they are. If they result in the first broadly legitimate government in Iraq in more than a generation (if not ever), more Iraqis will defend it against the insurgency. Even if they want American troops out of the country -- and who, in the abstract, would not? -- victory will come when it becomes too dangerous to join the insurgency. That will happen when there are enough Iraqis who will risk themselves to turn the insurgents in. So, yes, these elections are a milestone even if they do not mean that most American troops will come home as quickly as the Los Angeles Times, the American people, the average American soldier and, yes, the typical Iraqi wishes.

Does Iraq have "no army to speak of," as Cole claims? Well, it certainly includes thousands of soldiers willing to die for the new Iraq. And who can forget this picture from the January elections? The caption reads, "[a]n Iraqi soldier crawls towards a polling station in an act of respect during his country's national elections in eastern Baghdad January 30, 2005." Whatever its poor showing prior to January, the new army of Iraq has not cut and run from a fight since that historic election. Now, when the new Iraqi army takes over an area from Americans, security improves. Is it so surprising that soldiers who crawl to the precinct out of respect are willing to fight in defense of the franchise? Is there any doubt that we and the increasingly legitimate government of Iraq are building a fighting force that, in the forseeable future (meaning a couple of years) will be able to secure those parts of the country that are not secure already? Will they need air support, supplies and advice? Yes. Will we need tens of thousands of Marines to patrol restive city streets? No.

The most annoying claim that Cole makes, though, is that Iraq is a "failed state." He uses this term because it is evocative and damning. But has the new government of Iraq even had the chance to fail? Isn't this a bit like declaring the United States a "failed state" in 1778, when it was still in a death struggle with the British? Yes, there is violence and corruption in Iraq, but are there not also a great many people who will risk themselves and their families in defense of it? Cole claims that its "parliamentarians are attacked and sometimes killed with impunity." Yet new parliamentarians keep stepping forward notwithstanding the mortal risks in doing so. Why? To defend a "failed state"? Of course not. Iraqis keep stepping up at enormous personal cost so that they can give birth to a new government. Having paid with their blood, they will be extremely reluctant to let it fail.

Does this man, who risked his own life and that of his daughter to vote (at least, according to the argument that the insurgency can kill Iraqis democrats "with impunity"), think that Iraq is a failed state? Cole -- or at least Nancy Pelosi -- would probably argue that he had to take her to the polls because Iraq lacks "affordable child care." But why, then, did he feel he had to go to the polls at all?

"Hanoi Jane" Fonda is claiming that ever since Vietnam, U.S. troops have been trained to commit atrocities against innocent civilians as a matter of military policy.

"Starting with the Vietnam War we began training soldiers differently," the anti-American actress says in an email to the Washington Post.

Fonda claims she learned of the policy switch in "secret meetings" she had with military psychologists "who were really worried about what was happening to our combat personnel."

One doctor, she insists, told her U.S. troops had been deliberately trained to be "killing machines."

Link.

It pains me to say it, because the TigerHawk Mom was a prep school friend of Jane, but Mom, I have to do it anyway: Jane Fonda really is a stupid bi---, er broad.

Yes, we have changed military training since Vietnam. By all accounts -- I am obviously no expert -- some of those changes have been designed to overcome a young soldier's natural tendency to freeze up and fail to pull the trigger when trigger pullin' is called for. That better training saves the lives of our soldiers. But, no, U.S. troops have in no way, shape or form "been trained to commit atrocities against innocent civilians as a matter of military policy." Whether one thinks that 30,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the beginning of the war, or 100,000 (recognizing that these casualty estimates include huge percentages that died in attacks by terrorists against civilians or in the crossfire after un-uniformed insurgents used civilians as a shield), far fewer civilians have died in this war than in any comparable fight in history. Click here for estimates of civilian casualties in major 20th century conflicts. The average estimate for South Vietnam alone is 1,500,000. (The title of my undergraduate thesis, written more than 20 years ago, was The Possibilities for Clean Counterinsurgency. Suffice it to say that from the perspective of 1983 they were few. Operation Iraqi Freedom -- which did not begin as a counterinsurgency -- has morphed into the cleanest counterinsurgency ever fought by an occupying power.)

Jihad Jane not only does not know what she is talking about, but she is deliberately ignoring evidence that substantially contradicts her assertion. She is not a principled critic of military training or doctrine, but is distorting the facts to make a political point that dishonors our soldiers and undermines our foreign policy. Since there is no chance she will be ashamed, she should be condemned.

Michelle Malkin, of course, has a round-up here.

Iraq whipped Syria on the soccer field the other day. Major K. reports on the celebration.

The problem is that what goes up must come down. Soon after the shooting began, the 7.62mm rain began. A total of 46 people went to local hospitals over the next 24 hours for treatment of their wounds from the falling bullets. No Americans were hurt, but I can't think of a more useless and preventable way to get shot. This happens all too frequently.... Would somebody please send something safer like bottle-rockets or firecrackers...??

With all their native explosives expertise and propensity for loud celebration, perhaps some enterprising Iraqi should start competing with China for the fireworks trade.

Workers carry wheat flour to an U.S. Army Chinook helicopter in Muzaffarabad, Pakistan, Wednesday, Dec. 14, 2005. As the harsh Himalayan winter approaches helicopters are delivering tents and food to villagers who have decided to stay on their land rather than go to refugee camps in lower areas. (AP Photo/Tomas Munita)

Americans and al Qaeda have something in common: we both have enemies that claim we are trying to dominate the world. But only one of these two imperial powers not only delivers food to Muslims in times of calamity, but airlifts it to people who decide to stay on their own land in the disaster area rather than avail themselves of local relief efforts. We Americans are great believers in both choice and the defense of private property, and are apparently willing to send our Army to accomodate that choice even in the relief of a natural disaster.

Will anybody notice?

New dollar coins featuring all 37 of the nation's dead presidents will begin rolling out of the U.S. Mint in 2007 under a bill Congress is sending to President Bush.

I have previously inveighed against the lamentable 96 year-old tradition of putting dead presidents on our coins. Ugly old white guys are tough to render into beautiful coins, and if Theodore Roosevelt and I agree on one thing, it's that our coins should be beautiful. But I still think this bill is a good idea. Too few Americans read their own history. If coins in the pocket will provoke questions and engender interest where it did not exist before, that is a wonderful thing.

The bill is not entirely free from stupidity:

As of now, there would be 38 coins issued for the 37 presidents -- Grover Cleveland served two nonconsecutive terms and would be on two coins.

Huh? Because Cleveland's terms were not consecutive we have to suffer through him twice?

The presidential dollar coin legislation will also, it appears, give us a chance to education our children about the reasoning capacity of our lawmakers.

I had an opportunity to attend an event at New York's Princeton Club last night sponsored by the Washington Institute for Near East Studies. The Board of Advisors is an interesting mix of State Department leaders across parties -- so it includes Warren Christopher, for instance, and George Schultz. Net net, it felt like a more conservative bunch though than a liberal bunch. In any event, it was the speaker who mattered more than the sponsor.

General Yaalon recently retired after 37 years in the Israeli Defense Forces. For the last 5 years he was the IDF's Chief of Staff and Head of IDF Intelligence, and was primarily responsible for fighting the Intifada II.

I will summarize his remarks:

1) The recent American involvement in the Middle East by the Bush Administration has launched "an earthquake" in the region.

2) There is a fundamental "clash of values" at stake. Western, Judeo-Christian values focus on finding happiness during one's time here on Earth. There is a war within Islam at the moment to determine its future, but the dominant articulated version seeks happiness in death. This is a fundamental difference that is as it stands irreconcileable. This can only be resolved over a very long period of time, through education and prosperity.

3) The American insistence on a democratization path for Iraq and other Arab nations is itself an earthquake, and without it the region cannot be made healthy and integrated into the world. He spoke at length about accountability -- and that Arab national leadership has NEVER been accountable to its people. As a result, they must instead blame outsiders for their misery, and that invariably leads to blaming the US and Israel for everything. By creating representative and constitutional government in Iraq, Arab voters are taking a first step in taking responsibility for their own welfare. He said the same extraordinary thing is now happening peacefully in Lebanon. And he observed specifically about Lebanon that their elections have been free of anti-Zionist rhetoric, focusing instead on economic priorities and disarming Hezbollah. That is, people are demanding that elected leaders deliver the goods rather than blaming Israel. On this he seemed remarkably optimistic.

4) He referred to military action as "cutting the grass" versus "getting at the roots." His point was that, while the region requires a reasonable amount of grass cutting, education is the only treatment that will get at the roots of the values clash. And this will take at least one generation.

5) On the issue of peace between Israel and Palestine, he was very pessimistic in the short term. He said the current Palestinian leadership, like Arafat before him, does not recognize Israel's right to exist. The reason Arafat ultimately rejected a partition plan is that they continue to harbor a dream of a single, Arab Palestine. He observed that this should come as no surprise, as the Palestinian Arabs have now rejected three partition plans - 1937, 1947 and 1991. The answer is they don't want partition. They don't want to coexist with Israel.

Yaalon believes that following Palestinian election on Jauary 25th, Hamas will end its cease fire and step up attacks again. Other Palestinian gangs continue attacks currently. Furthermore, he observed that, in order to have a peaceful and stable two-state solution, Palestine needs "one leadership, one law and one 'gun' (army)". Today it has "one leader, no law, and many gangs." No peace is possible undeer those circumstances.

He is pessimistic about Gaza. They are receiving freely and openly arms and financing into Gaza today as the border is not patrolled by Iarael. And they are working to infiltrate the West Bank as well.

6) On Israeli conventional military capability - "we have never been in a better position in our history than we are today." As a result of the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union, Israel's adversaries have outmoded conventional military. And no money. It is this massive overwhelming conventional superiority which has given rise to the emphasis on terrorism and WMD on the part of their regional adversaries.

7) On Iran - the current Iranian leadership "is doing Israel a favor." Ahmadenijad is simply "telling the truth." Whereas Arafat and other opponents of Israeli existence would seek to dissemble on their core objectives - for instance Arafat would say completely different things is Arabic versus English - the President of Iran is taking a public position which forces the UN, Europe and even Russia to condemn him and isolate Iran. Israel and the US could never do that on their own. In effect, by publicly embracing the concept of the elimination of Israel, Iran helps to give Israel the moral high ground which the UN, elements in Europe and certainly Russia would otherwise deny. As before 1967, it again puts Israel in the public "right."

8) Iran is within months of attaining a nuclear weapon. It could be two months, it could be 12 or 18 months -- this depends on their own competence rather than receipt of new implements. They have produced material for 4 bombs and are seeking material for 4 more. They are not years away.

9) Israel is prepared to take military action, and can reach every single target they know about. They would prefer negotiations, led by Europe, to succeed. He referred to a local expression -- sometimes you don't just talk, you "explain." Explain is code for the use of "the stick."

10) On dealing with terror as a military tactic:

a) The best defense is a good offense -- Intifada II was successful against Israel until the April 2002 Passover bombing. At that moment, Israel went on offense, and Intifada II ultimately failed, at a high cost to the Palestinians. In addition to a good offense, you should have a perimeter fence and a defense.

b) "We prefer to arrest than kill" -- it gives us intelligence and mitigates resentment. But we kill if we must, without remorse. This is war.

c) To achieve long run success, you must have effective human intelligence, signal intelligence and visual intelligence, and you must have integration of these disciplines. You must have real-time information dominance from the top to the field, and you must have operational flexibility and creativity in the field. The challenge is to be able to capture or kill low profile, transient targets, as opposed to high profile fixed targets (he was comparing to conventional combat).

In all, he projected tremendous capability and confidence, impressive intellect and a high sense of morality. His discourse was full of moral reflection and moral thinking. He was politically correct only insofar as he would not either criticize or laud American action. He was unafraid of criticism -- in this sense, you felt like you were hearing from somebody who had heard it all. He was ultimately a realist -- he has been in every Israeli conflict since 1968 -- so he's used to it.

In our family, we all have purple index fingers, today and tomorrow (the business and school day tomorrow is virtually after the fact, given the timezone change). I'd put up a photo of our forest of purple digits, but I crushed my digital camera yesterday (DOH!), so I'm running low on imagery. Look here, instead.

It is both a show of solidarity with the Iraqi people, who need all the solidarity they can get, and an excellent opportunity for a civics for children desperately in need of one. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a synergy.

On the subject of the Iraqi elections, take a look at this article by the BBC. It is just so... BBC.

Days before Iraq's general election, workers at the Iraqi Islamic Party stream out of their headquarters with armfuls of banners and posters. They have even persuaded footballing hero Ahmed Radhi to endorse them.

Inside the party offices there's a "war room", where party workers sit at a bank of computers exchanging the latest intelligence.

It could almost be a normal election. Except, of course, this is Iraq. So there is always the danger you might get killed.

We shall soon see whether anybody will be.

Still, the article is very interesting, for it confirms that split between the rejectionists and al Qaeda that we and others have been writing about for months (but which has been denied by the likes of Juan Cole):

In fact, even the insurgents are split over whether or not to take part.

In a statement posted on an Islamist website on Monday, the group led by Abu Musab Zarqawi and four other militant groups said the "so-called political process" was forbidden by God's laws and against the Koran. But this time they did not threaten to disrupt the elections.

Meanwhile, some other insurgent leaders in the trouble spots of Falluja and Ramadi have urged their followers to vote, and even pledged to protect polling stations.

Abu Abdullah, an insurgent from Ramadi, warned al-Qaeda not to target polling stations.

"We will defeat them if they dare to attack the polling centres," he said. "Frankly speaking, if they resort to attacking us or polling centres, we will react."

...

It is just possible that this could be the beginning of the process of driving a wedge between hardline insurgents, who will never compromise, and Sunni Muslims who might be brought into the political process.

This is the realist case for the democratization strategy in action.

Of course, the BBC doesn't want too many letters to the editor: "But if it happens at all, it is going to take a very long time."

... you must be the president of a country with an illegal nuclear weapons program.

Iran represents a crucial test of European resolve and statecraft, the subtlety of the Bush administration's strategic thinking and Israel's tactical stealth. Since the West does not stand a chance in this confrontation if it is not united, it is extremely helpful that president Ahmadinejad is so intent on uniting it.

For anywhere other than Antarctica and a few sparsely inhabited islands, the first condition for a healthy environment is a strong economy. In the past third of a century, the American economy has swollen by 150 per cent, automobile traffic has increased by 143 per cent, and energy consumption has grown 45 per cent. During this same period, air pollutants have declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent. Despite signing on to Kyoto, European greenhouse gas emissions have increased since 2001, whereas America's emissions have fallen by nearly one per cent, despite the Toxic Texan's best efforts to destroy the planet.

Who else?

CWCID: Hispanic Pundit, via The Emirates Economist.

To vote for TigerHawk...

We were somewhat misclassified. The Weblog Awards put us in the "top 250" blogs category because they took the snapshot during our most trafficky week ever. As a result, we are competing here with blogs that have many more daily readers than we do. Still, our own loyal following has voted often enough to uphold our honor. Thank you very much!

Princeton just shipped around this year's annual giving slideshow, "Orange Moon." It has some very nice past and present photographs of Old Nassau, and is well worth watching if you went to Princeton or hope to go there some day. Turn the volume up, unless you hate the Tigertones (which is more than possible).

Anger would not be my reaction if I were caught doing this. At least, I don't think it would be.

For all those in a twist over payments by the American military to Iraqi journalists, and (on the other side) the obvious anti-war and even anti-American bias in most mainstream media coverage of the war, The Boston Globe has published a must-read op-ed by Michael Socolow, a professor of journalism at the University of Maine. Socolow supplies essential historical perspective:

SIXTY-FOUR years ago, the governments of Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. Congress replied in kind later that same afternoon. The government had been quietly preparing for modern war, but once it arrived few understood the demands it would make on American society.

At some point on that day, President Roosevelt told press adviser Stephen Early that the government needed to acquire one of the national radio networks. Now that America was at war, the government's requirement for unmediated and direct communication was essential. Early telephoned Federal Communications Commission chairman James L. Fly and ordered him to speak to David Sarnoff, NBC's chairman. Fly and Sarnoff were ''to work out, confidentially for the time being, ways and means by which the government can utilize the [NBC] Blue Network for the period of the war." Roosevelt, Early told Fly, suggested that the government could ''rent the Blue Network facilities for the duration of the war and for the use of such time as the government needs in order to disseminate its own information."

Ultimately, the government did not assume control over NBC Blue, or any other private commercial radio network, during the war. Fly convinced Early that the networks would work closely with the Office of War Information to ensure access to the airwaves.

Can we imagine such accomodation today? Socolow also counsels balance:

Too often we in the United States forget the radical, even revolutionary implications of our media system. It trusts an essentially indefinable group of people (''the press") to serve the public interest by interposing itself between political authority and the citizenry. The concept of a government pledged to protect independent reporting on its own behavior remains subversive to most authorities around the globe.

The conversations held in Roosevelt's White House are clearly relevant to today's climate of press-government tension. Just as Roosevelt, in a 1942 fireside chat, inveighed against ''the typewriter strategists who expound their views in the press or on the radio," the Bush administration fumes over reporting it considers inaccurate, unrepresentative of reality, and antagonistic. The current administration continues to develop multiple strategies to connect directly with people -- whether in the United States, Iraq, or elsewhere. The recent furor over payments to Iraqi journalists in exchange for publication of US government-authorized news accounts attests to a level of desperation. This administration's recurrent attempts at direct communication demonstrate an intention to subvert the purpose of the First Amendment.

But the government is not acting in a vacuum. It is reacting to a media environment marked by enormous hostility. Skepticism is healthy, but too many journalists practice reporting informed by a pessimistic cynicism. This corrosive attitude is damaging the news industry; newspaper circulation and TV news viewership continue to decline.

The tension between the press and the government has hypertrophied to the point that neither is acting in the public interest. It is time for these two adversaries to discuss the patterns of behavior creating such rancor and frustration. Both sides must be willing to exchange and recognize legitimate criticism in an open forum. Grievances may not be easily resolved. But discussion in the spirit of inquiry rather than recrimination will initiate a more constuctive relationship.

While I do not agree that the government's "attempts at direct communication" demonstrate in any way, shape or form "an intention to subvert the purpose of the First Amendment" -- Socolow misapprehends both the plain words and the deeper purpose of that constitutional right -- there is no question that he is correct in his broader assessment. There is no trust left between the government and the press, and that is not entirely the fault of the government. It also derives from the political ideology of modern journalists -- that they owe no duty of citizenship or patriotism in the practice of their craft, an idea that would have been alien to the great reporters of World War II. While Socolow's wish that journalists and government would approach each other in a "spirit of inquiry rather than recrimination" is salutory, it will not happen until American journalists remember that they are Americans.

James Wolcott laments the execution of "Tookie" Williams, or at least the law that authorized it. I myself am not a huge fan of capital punishment -- I support it for only three specific offenses¹ -- but I am at least a little confused by Wolcott's reasoning, at least as reflected in this post:

The death penalty must be abolished. No former movie action hero--or Yale cheerleader with enough psychological baggage to sink the African Queen--should be entrusted with the power of life and death over his fellow citizens. These are essentially frivolous, uninformed men playacting blue-suited roles of grave responsibility. And, no, I don't think Bill Clinton should have executed Ricky Ray Rector either. Capital punishment must be de-politicized, and as long as politicians make the final decision, depoliticization is impossible. So abolish it.

Well, when you put it that way...

Of course, no "Yale cheerleader" or "former movie action hero" or, for that matter, "office-purchasing union-girlfriend-loan-forgiving centi-millionaire investment banker"² can order the execution of anybody in any state. All they can do is overrule the theoretically non-politicized branch of government and prevent the execution. Indeed, since the President and governors can also commute non-capital sentences, Wolcott's argument indicts the legitimacy of the entire criminal justice system.

Now, the obvious way to overcome Wolcott's objection is to eliminate the power of elected officials to commute sentences, capital or otherwise. There is merit in the idea -- Marc Rich would still be on the lam had Wolcott's proposal been in force five years ago. But does Wolcott really want to eliminate the power of office-purchasing union-girlfriend-loan-forgiving centi-millionaire investment bankers to show mercy, however unprincipled their rationale?

I do not support capital punishment for crimes such as those for which Tookie Williams was convicted (although he was accused of plotting to kill a cop). But it is absurd to argue (as others, not Wolcott, have) that the admitted leader of the Crips, duly convicted of murder (notwithstanding 11th hour claims that he was framed), is somehow redeemed because he wrote children's books. If we apply the left's broad conception of managerial culpability to street gangs, Williams is no doubt responsible for the destruction of many hundreds of lives. That he should make some small contribution in recompense for that -- oh, wow, books for children with "anti-gang themes" -- is not even slightly redemptive.

The anti-death penalty movement has some useful arguments to make. That it chose to make them in the Tookie Williams case exposes the anti-death folks as poor tacticians. James Wolcott's argument that the clemency power undermines the legitimacy of capital punishment is absurd.
___________________________
1. I support the death penalty for murder for the murder of hostages and law enforcement officers (including corrections guards and officials), and in the case of insurrection, including terrorism. Why? In the first case, you have to give hostage negotiators something to bargain with. In the second case, you have to give prisoners and other cornered criminals a reason not to kill the guards and cops. In the third case, because we should always deal with violent threats to our democracy ruthlessly, and with no regrets.

2. True, New Jersey has not executed anybody since the return of the death penalty in 1976, but there are 14 prisoners on death row and Jon Corzine may yet have the opportunity to commute a sentence.

Caption:

Two school girls look at statues representing victims of famine at an anti-World Trade Organization educational booth set up in Hong Kong's Victoria Park Monday, Dec. 12, 2005.

Presumably, the asinine idea that trade causes starvation, rather than alleviating it, is unlikely to gain traction in Hong Kong.

Atlas Shrugs has the goods.

'Hicks may get UK passport' -- headline, The Australian.

Looking for today's Note, I finally read Friday's Note. Therein resides a well-framed question:

Which hand would you rather play in 2006: the Republicans (with the facts on the Iraq ground) or the Democrats (with the Pelosi-Dean-Kerry-Murtha-Lieberman-blog-donor-Clinton-Edwards-Kerrey-Reid-Nelson-Nelson split)?

Please spew your thoughts into the comments. Try to be as analytical as possible. As entertaining as rabid frothing may be, it gets in the way of the inquiry.

The suffering inflicted by the mad dictator Bush on those damned Iraqis has obviously made them completely delusional:

Notably, a plurality of Iraqis (61%) expressed confidence in their new government, saying it had done either a "very good" or "quite a good" job.

An opinion poll suggests Iraqis are generally optimistic about their lives, in spite of the violence that has plagued Iraq since the US-led invasion. But the survey, carried out for the BBC and other media, found security fears still dominate most Iraqis' thoughts.

Their priority for the coming year would be the restoration of security and the withdrawal of foreign troops. Interviewers found that 71% of those questioned said things were currently very or quite good in their personal lives, while 29% found their lives very or quite bad.

When asked whether their lives would improve in the coming year, 64% said things would be better and 12% said they expected things to be worse.

However, Iraqis appear to have a more negative view of the overall situation in their country, with 53% answering that the situation is bad, and 44% saying it is good.

More than 2/3 of Iraqis remain optimistic about the future of their country, saying Iraq will be better off in a year. The central region was the least positive, though small sample sizes may have affected the survey results.

This news is most alarming, following as it does on the heels of another poll showing Afghanis displaying similar unfounded feelings of hope:

Four years after the fall of the Taliban, Afghans express both vast support for the changes that have shaken their country and remarkable optimism for the future, despite the deep challenges they face in economic opportunity, security and basic services alike.

Poverty is deep, medical care and other basic services lacking, and infrastructure minimal. Nearly six in 10 have no electricity in their homes, and just 3 percent have it around the clock. Seven in 10 Afghan adults have no more than an elementary education; half have no schooling whatsoever. Half have household incomes under $500 a year.

Yet despite these and other deprivations, 77 percent of Afghans say their country is headed in the right direction — compared with 30 percent in the vastly better-off United States. Ninety-one percent prefer the current Afghan government to the Taliban regime, and 87 percent call the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban good for their country. Osama bin Laden, for his part, is as unpopular as the Taliban; nine in 10 view him unfavorably.

Progress fuels these views: Despite the country's continued problems, 85 percent of Afghans say living conditions there are better now than they were under the Taliban. Eighty percent cite improved freedom to express political views. And 75 percent say their security from crime and violence has improved as well. After decades of oppression and war, many Afghans see a better life.

This really is most distressing. If things don't improve, we may have to send an emergency delegation to the region to restore a proper sense of perspective.

CWCID: Newsbusters

The New York Times is running an editorial this morning calling for corporations to reduce dividends and instead reinvest the money "in the future health of those same businesses." Specifically,

Even as consumers are driving the economy and spending money they do not have in this holiday season, American businesses are sitting on hoards of cash. The best idea the corporate chieftains can come up with is to write dividend checks and buy up their own shares in record quantities. That's money in the pockets of wealthy investors. It's also more of the kind of short-term thinking this country can ill afford in an era of global competition. Instead, more should be invested in the future health of those same businesses.

This is perhaps the most economically ignorant point ever made on the pages of the New York Times, which is saying a lot. If, as you read this (perhaps in a Princeton lecture hall), Paul Krugman is in your field of view, please ask him whether he subscribes to this stupidity.

As everybody knows, "corporate chieftains" are, generally speaking, builders of business empires. Size matters. A lot. That's how they got to be "corporate chieftains." Indeed, they often prefer to increase the size of their companies even at some cost to share price appreciation. Why? Because bigger is better, more fun, and more lucrative for the management. By and large, "corporate chieftains" do not return cash to stockholders unless they are absolutely convinced that a dividend (or share repurchase, which is economically the same thing) will generate a significantly higher return than investing "in the future health" of their business. When does that condition obtain? When a business is shrinking, or inherently slow growing and in need of no new incremental capital.

In theory, dividends are paid when they will, in the opinion of management and the board, earn a higher return in the hands of the stockholders than invested "in the future health" of the business. In practice, they are only paid when they will earn a significantly higher return in the hands of the stockholders, because "corporate chieftains" tend to have a high regard for their own ability to earn a high rate of return.

Many businesses, including many large corporations, are fundamentally shrinking. Do the editors really want grocery store companies to build a zillion new stores, just to sustain their growth rates? Do they think Altria needs to "invest in the future health" of its tobacco business? Any oil company that does not replace its reserves with new discoveries or acquired assets is shrinking. Should it invest surplus cash in probable dry holes, or should it return the extra money to stockholders who will invest it in an entirely different industry?

We should rejoice when a large corporation returns profits to its stockholders. It is a sign that its management has humbly concluded that its owners would be better off investing money elsewhere. That means more and cheaper capital for existing and start-up businesses that need the money more and can prove it by paying a higher rate of return. Sure, some companies will shrink and eventually die. Good. They should die. Indeed, the critical insight of American capitalism is that the destruction of businesses, including large corporations, is usually a good thing in the long run. It liberates human, physical and financial capital to a higher use. The slow liquidation, break-up or quick slaughter of a large company clears away the forest canopy so that new businesses can sprout and grow big in its stead. The cone of the jack pine only opens and drops its seeds in the aftermath of a forest fire. The same is true for many of the new businesses that will create opportunities for Americans in the next generation.

Do the editors of the New York Times really mean what they say? If so, they reveal an attraction to big corporate stability that is almost European in tone and manifestly bad for the American economy.

From the Times o' London:

Israel's armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.

Not only has this order leaked, but so have the details:

If a military operation is approved, Israel will use air and ground forces against several nuclear targets in the hope of stalling Tehran’s nuclear programme for years, according to Israeli military sources.

It is believed Israel would call on its top special forces brigade, Unit 262 — the equivalent of the SAS — and the F-15I strategic 69 Squadron, which can strike Iran and return to Israel without refuelling.

How likely is it that the most successfully secretive military in the world -- the institutional descendants of the military that destroyed Egyptian air power on the ground in an hour -- has unintentionally spilled the chick peas? If Israel were serious about sneaking up on Iran by March, we would not have read the story in the newspapers. So why are we? (And, no, this pro-forma "angry" denial does not mean a damned thing.)

The Times suggests that Sharon might be wagging the dog:

The date set for possible Israeli strikes on Iran also coincides with Israel’s general election on March 28, prompting speculation that Sharon may be sabre-rattling for votes.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the frontrunner to lead Likud into the elections, said that if Sharon did not act against Iran, “then when I form the new Israeli government, we’ll do what we did in the past against Saddam’s reactor, which gave us 20 years of tranquillity”.

I don't think so. Ariel Sharon is a practical politician, but there is no way that he would leak the details of an Israeli military operation, or undermine Israel's security by gratuitously escalating the crisis with Iran.

No. Israel is quite intentionally signalling various external actors.

Obviously, Israel is sending a signal to Iran, but not to President Ahmadinejad. In all likelihood, Israel hopes to split the Iranian elites and weaken support for Ahmadinejad within the regime. There is some whispered evidence that his position is weakening. If Ahmadinejad's absurd saber-rattling is seen to increase the risk of war, the regime may constrain him.

Apart from probing Iran's domestic politics, Israel is also sending Tehran a more basic message: "Do not screw with us." Or words to that effect. Why? The Iranians have been stirring up trouble among the Palestinian Arabs, and Israel needs to do something about it:

Iran’s foreign minister met leading figures from three Islamic militant groups to co-ordinate a united front against Israel days before a recent escalation of attacks against Israeli targets shattered fragile ceasefires with Lebanon and the Palestinians, writes Hugh Macleod in Damascus.

The minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, held talks with leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah in Damascus on November 15.

Among those who attended the meeting were Khaled Meshaal, the Hamas leader, and a deputy leader of Islamic Jihad, which claimed responsibility for last Monday’s suicide bombing of a shopping mall in Netanya that killed five Israeli citizens.

Today's "leak" may be a brush-back pitch intended to send the simple message, "back off."

The Iranians are not the only audience, however. Israel is also sending a signal to Europe about Russia, which last week signed a contract to sell advanced weapons to Iran, including anti-aircraft missle systems. The Israeli leak is calculated to characterize the Russian weapons sale as having created a crisis:

Russia last week signed an estimated $1 billion contract — its largest since 2000 — to sell Iran advanced Tor-M1 systems capable of destroying guided missiles and laser-guided bombs from aircraft.

“Once the Iranians get the Tor-M1, it will make our life much more difficult,” said an Israeli air force source. “The installation of this system can be relatively quick and we can’t waste time on this one.”

Israel is in effect saying that the Russian weapons sale is forcing Israel's hand and thereby truncating the time available for Europe's Big Three to negotiate a solution. The British are undoubtedly asking the French to use whatever stroke they have with Mother Russia to buy time -- if Paris has any clout at all, expect "delays" in the delivery of the contracted weapons. (Indeed, what are the chances that the Times story was leaked through the British intelligence community for precisely this purpose?)

The Times article is also interesting for its revelation that Israel has intelligence operations in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Cross-border operations and signal intelligence from a base established by the Israelis in northern Iraq are said to have identified a number of Iranian uranium enrichment sites unknown to the the IAEA.

One would think that the Kurds would not be happy that Israel has opened the kimono on this operation in the teeth of Iraq's election campaign. Still, the Iraqi Kurds know that the destabilization of Iran is their last, best hope to secure a reasonable future for ethnic Kurds on the far side of the border. If they have to work with the Israelis and the United States to keep that dream alive, so be it.

N.B.: If the Kurds prove to be the decisive allies in the containment of Iran, it will be because the United States and the United Kingdom have sheltered them for the last fourteen years. After Operation Iraqi Freedom, Israel and the United States have listening posts on Iran's western border, and allies inside the country who have every incentive to bring down the mullahs of Tehran. It remains to be seen whether this palpable strategic asset is worth the cost, but do not discount the possibility that it will be.

CWCID: LGF.

Normally I don't respond to comments, but this one set me off because I see it repeated all the time and as far as I'm concerned it's a crock:

"...when you go to war under shady circumstances..."

The persistence of this tired meme is testimony to the heroic efforts of men like Kedwards, who never met an idea that they weren't wholeheartedly foregainst. Who else but the Fab Hair Duo could, in what David Brooks once called an astonishing display of Post-Cartesian Multivariate Co-directionality, number themselves amongst the only 4 Senators who voted for the Congressional Resolution to authorize the use of force, but against the $87 Billion Appropriations Bill to equip the troops. That Kerry followed up this amazing volte-face by accusing the President of not supplying the troops adequately during the campaign only made his behavior more despicable.

Sadly, neither yoga classes, nor liberal quantities of the admirable fume blanc the Spousal Unit generally tries to anaesthatize me with, have managed to inure me to the steady stream of Rampant DimWittery emanating from my TV screen as this, that, and the other Democratic Senator or Representative takes a page out of Sally Jessy Raphael and comes clean on national television with a hand-wringing declaration of how they were tragically led down the primrose path to war. But there is no morning-after pill for regrettable votes taken in the heat of passion and repented in the unforgiving light of dawn, when Dick Cheney doesn't return your phone calls and the cold-hearted putz doesn't even have the grace to send you flowers.

Since it's been about six months since I ranted on this issue, it's about time for another round. Let's take another look at the reasons Congress found sufficient for authorizing the use of force. In light of the statements by all too many Democrats saying that the adminstration's case relied too heavily on the "imminent threat" of WMDs, on faulty or even intentionally manipulated intelligence (a charge, by the way, that is contradicted by the Senate's own investigation into this very question), or that the administration failed to make other arguments for going to war, I think you might find this little document extremely enlightening:

Congressional Resolution on Iraq (Passed by House and Senate October 2002)
Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations' (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material an unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled

Congressional Democrats who regret their votes and claim they were "misled" into voting to use force should be confronted with what they actually voted on: Saddam Hussein's damning 12-year history of willful defiance of UN resolutions, repeated aggression against his neighbors, two-time use of weapons of mass destruction against Iran and Halabja, repeated firing on planes enforcing the no-fly zone, ejection of UN weapons inspectors, and refusal to confirm that he had, in fact, disarmed as required under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement.

How long was the world required to wait? How many times was Saddam allowed to fire on American planes? How many terrorists was Saddam allowed to fund and harbor, for men like John Kerry to conclude that the threat he posed was "contained"?

I suppose, if you are John Kerry (who voted against the resolution to defend Kuwait in 1991) or John Edwards, your infinitely flexible moral compass finds the prospect of mass graves, so long as they do not spill across Iraq's borders, to be a threat which is sufficiently "contained". We know this because they now tell us they regret their votes.

I believe they think most of the American public is too apathetic to read the Congressional Resolution and find out that the vast majority of the reasoning in it had more to do with Iraq's past human rights violations, aggression against its neighbors, documented use of WMDs, and continuing defiance of the 1991 cease fire and multiple UN resolutions than it did with the issue of WMDs.

Given the comments I keep seeing on this and other forums, I believe they are correct in that assessment. And that says a lot about us as a nation.

[UPDATE by TigerHawk: Moved to the top for Sunday]