The MEMRI TV project translation of UBL's latest tape threatens individual states with terror attacks if they vote for the President. Yigal Carmon on Osama bin Laden & Election 2004 on National Review Online
This, coupled with the N.Y. Post's publication of additional material not shown on Arab TV that contains more threats, attacks on the President, and complaints about the effectiveness of the coalition's efforts against Al Qaeda, remove any question that UBL wants to affect the U. S. election.
Sunday, October 31, 2004
The Kerry campaign doesn't want you to see the "director's cut" of the UBL tape. New York Post Online Edition: Full Tape an Osama A Woe Show
Saturday, October 30, 2004
After finishing my post on the the war on terror and the election below, along comes Cliff May in National Review Online's The Corner to make some very important points of his own that I agree with. The Corner on National Review Online
JustOneMinute has an excellent recap of NYTrogate here.
After listening to the evolution of NYTrogate all week, including Mr. Kerry's willingness to jump aboard and echo the criticisms that the NYT and CBS have leveled in their coverage, while continuing to hear the Kerry campaign's insistence that UBL was allowed to escape in Tora Bora despite General Franks insistent declaration that UBL wasn't even necessarily there at the time, I'm convinced that Kerry and perhaps Democrats in general don't know or have forgotten what the job of Commander in Chief entails. It's as though Kerry is running to be "Major in Chief", or to channel LBJ's failed Napoleonic attempts to run the Vietnam war from his sandbox in the White House.
I believe that the President has won the hearts of our soldiers precisely because he does not second guess tactical decisions in the theater of operations, and supports those who've made them. The administration has undertaken investigations into mistakes in handling prisoners and Halliburton, and those responsible have been held to account. While war is the ultimate political act, it is never a winning strategy to politicize the acts of the soldiers on the ground. It has been said, and rightly so, that all of the second guessing that has taken place about Iraq and Afghanistan would have rendered us powerless had the same press and pundit "coverage" happened during WWII. Terrible "mistakes" were made, at the cost of many more dead and injured than we have suffered in Iraq. Those mistakes could not have been avoided by more oversight by a man whose combat experience was as a Lt. (Jg.) aboard a river boat full of enlisted men and probably at least one petty officer more experienced than the Lieutenant who kept him from his most egregious mistakes--leaving aside the charges made by the Swift Boat Vets.
Mr. Kerry and his followers in and out of the MSM refuse to acknowledge any of the good that is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, even when it is easily found in the pages of, say, the Wall Street Journal, the blogs of Iraqis who are living their country's transformation or here. They somehow believe that they can overcome the lack of trust that most Americans have for Mr. Kerry's pacifist vacillations by alternately talking tough and criticizing decisions that are far below the Presidential or Cabinet levels. Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld have spoken their discovery of the atrophy of operational practice and protocols in the Defense Department upon their arrival in 2001. Secretary Rumsfeld has embarked upon a transformation effort that is designed to recast our forces, moving the active duty head count around so that more troops--more fighting troops, not REMFs--would be available for deployment, and so that their skills would better match the mission requirements at different stages of a conflict. Mr. Kerry does not speak to this with his Lt. (Jg.) credentials. Instead, he promises 40,000 more troops, and a doubling of our Special Forces. The former may or may not be the right thing to do, but it does not address the problem that the Secretary describes and that we see on TV daily: we are in a civil affairs/government infrastructure rebuilding and pacification/reconstruction effort in much of the country while at the same time using traditional forces to defeat the insurgency in a small region around Fallujah. A new group of 40,000 troops would relieve the latter, perhaps, but not the former. As for the doubling of Special Forces, the former SEAL at Froggy Ruminations has written knowledgeably and eloquently about how difficult that can be. These are special people; of all applicants for SEAL slots, typically only 3% succeed in graduating and joining that most elite of Special Forces. The other Special Forces groups are equally challenging in their mental and physical tests, and selective. It might require 600,000 male applicants over the course of a decade to raise the total number of Special Forces war fighters to 40,000 from ~20,000 today--assuming that we can retain most of the forces that we have now.
If the War on Terror and Iraq are the most important issues in this election as the polls say, then voters have but one choice to make. They must re-elect the President. Mr. Kerry has shown nothing in his record and nothing in his pronouncements in his campaign that establishes that he is in fact competent to lead without attempting to micro-manage the military as well as vacillating in his decisions. A Senator can afford to be deliberative and blow with the wind; his is but one voice and one vote among one hundred. A Mayor of a large city or a Governor must make decisions that affect thousands by his hand alone, and must hire, manage and lead a staff across a broad expanse of disciplines and crises. A sitting President has seen a far broader set of challenges than any Governor ever has. I believe that neither political party can afford to nominate candidates with such a breathtaking lack of operational experience and management ability in the future. More than any of Mr. Kerry's failings, I believe that those skills are his greatest weaknesses. The country cannot afford to attempt to train Mr. Kerry; to convert him from a man for all sides of an issue to a man driven to succeed in an approach he communicates in the same way every day. After 9/11, the world is once again a very dangerous place. UBL's appearance on video this week shows that he believes that Mr. Kerry may just be the man to give Al Qaeda the break it wants to regroup and reform. Mr. Bush will continue to press forward, relentlessly, implacably, just as those brave souls who endured hardships in the founding of our nation, throughout its many trials in war and peace. Mr. Bush is a real American, not a polished patrician. He is just what we need our President to be, right now.
After listening to the evolution of NYTrogate all week, including Mr. Kerry's willingness to jump aboard and echo the criticisms that the NYT and CBS have leveled in their coverage, while continuing to hear the Kerry campaign's insistence that UBL was allowed to escape in Tora Bora despite General Franks insistent declaration that UBL wasn't even necessarily there at the time, I'm convinced that Kerry and perhaps Democrats in general don't know or have forgotten what the job of Commander in Chief entails. It's as though Kerry is running to be "Major in Chief", or to channel LBJ's failed Napoleonic attempts to run the Vietnam war from his sandbox in the White House.
I believe that the President has won the hearts of our soldiers precisely because he does not second guess tactical decisions in the theater of operations, and supports those who've made them. The administration has undertaken investigations into mistakes in handling prisoners and Halliburton, and those responsible have been held to account. While war is the ultimate political act, it is never a winning strategy to politicize the acts of the soldiers on the ground. It has been said, and rightly so, that all of the second guessing that has taken place about Iraq and Afghanistan would have rendered us powerless had the same press and pundit "coverage" happened during WWII. Terrible "mistakes" were made, at the cost of many more dead and injured than we have suffered in Iraq. Those mistakes could not have been avoided by more oversight by a man whose combat experience was as a Lt. (Jg.) aboard a river boat full of enlisted men and probably at least one petty officer more experienced than the Lieutenant who kept him from his most egregious mistakes--leaving aside the charges made by the Swift Boat Vets.
Mr. Kerry and his followers in and out of the MSM refuse to acknowledge any of the good that is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, even when it is easily found in the pages of, say, the Wall Street Journal, the blogs of Iraqis who are living their country's transformation or here. They somehow believe that they can overcome the lack of trust that most Americans have for Mr. Kerry's pacifist vacillations by alternately talking tough and criticizing decisions that are far below the Presidential or Cabinet levels. Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld have spoken their discovery of the atrophy of operational practice and protocols in the Defense Department upon their arrival in 2001. Secretary Rumsfeld has embarked upon a transformation effort that is designed to recast our forces, moving the active duty head count around so that more troops--more fighting troops, not REMFs--would be available for deployment, and so that their skills would better match the mission requirements at different stages of a conflict. Mr. Kerry does not speak to this with his Lt. (Jg.) credentials. Instead, he promises 40,000 more troops, and a doubling of our Special Forces. The former may or may not be the right thing to do, but it does not address the problem that the Secretary describes and that we see on TV daily: we are in a civil affairs/government infrastructure rebuilding and pacification/reconstruction effort in much of the country while at the same time using traditional forces to defeat the insurgency in a small region around Fallujah. A new group of 40,000 troops would relieve the latter, perhaps, but not the former. As for the doubling of Special Forces, the former SEAL at Froggy Ruminations has written knowledgeably and eloquently about how difficult that can be. These are special people; of all applicants for SEAL slots, typically only 3% succeed in graduating and joining that most elite of Special Forces. The other Special Forces groups are equally challenging in their mental and physical tests, and selective. It might require 600,000 male applicants over the course of a decade to raise the total number of Special Forces war fighters to 40,000 from ~20,000 today--assuming that we can retain most of the forces that we have now.
If the War on Terror and Iraq are the most important issues in this election as the polls say, then voters have but one choice to make. They must re-elect the President. Mr. Kerry has shown nothing in his record and nothing in his pronouncements in his campaign that establishes that he is in fact competent to lead without attempting to micro-manage the military as well as vacillating in his decisions. A Senator can afford to be deliberative and blow with the wind; his is but one voice and one vote among one hundred. A Mayor of a large city or a Governor must make decisions that affect thousands by his hand alone, and must hire, manage and lead a staff across a broad expanse of disciplines and crises. A sitting President has seen a far broader set of challenges than any Governor ever has. I believe that neither political party can afford to nominate candidates with such a breathtaking lack of operational experience and management ability in the future. More than any of Mr. Kerry's failings, I believe that those skills are his greatest weaknesses. The country cannot afford to attempt to train Mr. Kerry; to convert him from a man for all sides of an issue to a man driven to succeed in an approach he communicates in the same way every day. After 9/11, the world is once again a very dangerous place. UBL's appearance on video this week shows that he believes that Mr. Kerry may just be the man to give Al Qaeda the break it wants to regroup and reform. Mr. Bush will continue to press forward, relentlessly, implacably, just as those brave souls who endured hardships in the founding of our nation, throughout its many trials in war and peace. Mr. Bush is a real American, not a polished patrician. He is just what we need our President to be, right now.
Friday, October 29, 2004
My thoughts and prayers are with the Hendrick family and their many friends in and out of NASCAR. I hope that the Hendrick stable of cars does well in the remaining races this season as a tribute to those who lost their lives so tragically. ESPN.com - Grieving Gordon's 'never been so inspired' to win
Instapundit points to a very scary set of creatures indeed. Korla Pundit: Infamous Monsters of Filmland
Bin Laden apparently appears, and speaks of contemporaneous events, albeit bizarrely. Towers in Lebanon? I look forward to reading a full translation without the "presenter's" comments on Memri.org at some point. DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2004?
Update: I haven't seen a transcript on Memri.org yet, but here's a slightly more complete version.
A couple of thoughts:
1) It's interesting to see some of the references to woolly thinking from Michael Moore; e.g., the President reading "My Pet Goat" to FL school children after the attack began.
2) As others have noted, this is the second tape from Al Qaeda this week. This could either be a very bad sign--an indication of an upcoming attack--or a sign that they wish to influence the election through rhetoric since they've been unable to attack us directly since 9/11.
3) It can't be good for Kerry to see UBL adopt leftist tenets in his speech.
Update: I haven't seen a transcript on Memri.org yet, but here's a slightly more complete version.
A couple of thoughts:
1) It's interesting to see some of the references to woolly thinking from Michael Moore; e.g., the President reading "My Pet Goat" to FL school children after the attack began.
2) As others have noted, this is the second tape from Al Qaeda this week. This could either be a very bad sign--an indication of an upcoming attack--or a sign that they wish to influence the election through rhetoric since they've been unable to attack us directly since 9/11.
3) It can't be good for Kerry to see UBL adopt leftist tenets in his speech.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Or, aspiring but unsuccessful logician speaks out on playground diplomacy. ThePittsburghChannel.com - News - Heinz Kerry Criticizes 'Neanderthal' Attacks On Husband
INDC Journal has another excellent roundup of the latest news as well as some from the past that collectively add context to the tale of NYTrogate.
Update: Wizbang has some very useful additional information here.
Update: Wizbang has some very useful additional information here.
Well, hmmmpf, if you're going to believe THEM! They're the Pentagon! What do they know?! DefenseLINK News: Officials Say Chances of Enemy Ordnance Move Nearly Nil
An amazing article, well researched, and well sourced. Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror - by Deroy Murdock
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
And on a night when we could clearly see "the dark side of the moon", too. ESPN.com - MLB/FALLCLASSIC - Caple: 86'd forever
National Review Online's excellent blog, The Corner, reminds us of this story. CNN.com - Russian convoy fired on in Iraq - Apr. 6, 2003
Here's the full version of the Washington Times story on Iraqi arms smuggling aided by Russian special operators referenced below.
Another reason why Kerry should switch from the New York Times for his inspiration to this: 
ABC News: Discrepancy Found in Explosives Amounts
ABC News: Discrepancy Found in Explosives Amounts
This story is interesting (text shown below because the original site is very busy).
I like the quote in this article "Achalov wouldn't say why Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Akhmed decorated the two, telling the Russian Internet newspaper Gazeta.ru, which ran a photograph of the two in the Iraqi capital, only: 'We didn't fly to Baghdad to drink coffee.' "
Here's a related article in the Russian paper with photos of the Russians and Iraqis.
Apparently, among the topics that the Generals were able to advise the Iraqis on is a technique called maskirovska, or "smoke screen"/deception/camouflage.
They were confident in the plan that they helped Saddam develop, but Iraq's quick defeat unsettled Russia and made them doubt their standard military doctrine could stand up to America.
The AP gets around to admitting that the Iraqi Survey Group didn't find any IAEA seals at the site when they searched in May, 2003 in the final paragraph of the AP story here.
_________________________________________________________________
Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein’s weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.
John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.
"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."
Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloguing the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.
Most of Saddam’s most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.
The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam’s weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said.
I like the quote in this article "Achalov wouldn't say why Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Akhmed decorated the two, telling the Russian Internet newspaper Gazeta.ru, which ran a photograph of the two in the Iraqi capital, only: 'We didn't fly to Baghdad to drink coffee.' "
Here's a related article in the Russian paper with photos of the Russians and Iraqis.
Apparently, among the topics that the Generals were able to advise the Iraqis on is a technique called maskirovska, or "smoke screen"/deception/camouflage.
They were confident in the plan that they helped Saddam develop, but Iraq's quick defeat unsettled Russia and made them doubt their standard military doctrine could stand up to America.
The AP gets around to admitting that the Iraqi Survey Group didn't find any IAEA seals at the site when they searched in May, 2003 in the final paragraph of the AP story here.
_________________________________________________________________
Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein’s weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.
John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.
"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."
Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloguing the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.
Most of Saddam’s most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.
The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam’s weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said.
The rowback on NYTrogate begins, albeit slowly. The New York Times: Missing Explosives: No Check of Bunker, Unit Commander Says
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
The Questing Cat
If you ever thought about giving Kerry a pass for "voting for the $87 billion before voting against it", remember this. The Questing Cat: The Combat Life Saver 10.21.04
Monday, October 25, 2004
NYTrogate, a scandal with three players: the NYT, CBS "60 Minutes" (not them again!), and the Kerry campaign. Excellent posts here Say Anything: The Iraq Explosives Non-Story and here Captains Quarters as well as in The Drudge Report.
Update: to see some cool pictures of ordinance destruction in Iraq, click here and for a little more info from the Washington Times, click here.
Update: to see some cool pictures of ordinance destruction in Iraq, click here and for a little more info from the Washington Times, click here.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Wow! Curt Schilling may have absorbed some of Ted Williams' spirit, courage and determination. Actually, I think that it was in Curt all along. FOXSports.com - Schilling makes medical history for Game 2
The Drudge Report points to a fascinating non-interview with John Kerry--why didn't he show? Was he worried that his canned answers wouldn't fit the script? Bob Woodward attempted to ask Kerry these questions about Iraq (washingtonpost.com)
What in the world is going on in my home town? Let the record show that if my Mom had been called to a classroom, and a ruckus erupted with her and a teacher, they'd still be wiping the walls with the teacher's sorry stain. And when my Dad arrived...well, you wouldn't like my Dad when he got angry...Yahoo! News - Teacher Jailed After Brawl With Parent
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Who says Kerry has settled on a position. Once a flipper, always a flopper. Now he's in favor of the Patriot Act, but says it needs to be tougher!Yahoo! News: Kerry Supports Anti-Terror Act, Shifting Stance
As Ter-RAY-sa has shown today, having money doesn't mean you have anything to say that's worth listening to. Dinesh D'Souza on George Soros on National Review Online
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Without John Heinz, she'd have made an excellent waitress at Denny's. Wacky Ter-RAY-sa opens mouth and inserts pedicured foot again. USATODAY.com: The real running mates
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Arafat, the former Malaysian Prime Minister, Iranian terrorists, readers of the UK-based Guardian, and now this. Kerry was right; he has lots of support from foreigners. ABC News: Cubans Push for Kerry Win in Florida
Monday, October 18, 2004
Many, including myself, have debunked the left's insistence that Depleted Uranium is inherently dangerous--other than when fired from a weapon. A just-published Pentagon study confirms the position I and many others hold. This article in the New York Times reports on the Pentagon study, but mistakenly states that "Depleted uranium is a byproduct of nuclear weapons production." Depleted uranium is a byproduct of the enrichment of uranium, irrespective of the purpose for the enrichment. See this article from the USGS site.
This says it all, and says it very well to boot. GeorgeWBush.com: President Bush Committed to Fighting Terrorist Threat
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Kerry's legislative record is, shall we say, modest. The Volokh Conspiracy quotes FactCheck.org on Kerry's record
Tom Friedman warns of a trifecta of baby boomers whose approach cannot be ignored forever. The New York Times: 'Oops. I Told the Truth.'
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Qualities' by David Freddoso
The latest swift boat and POW vets ad shows a very large group of decorated vets who oppose Kerry. The most decorated living vet of all is among them; the one with the big blue ribbon that only Congress can issue. This is his story. HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE: America's Most Highly Decorated Living Veteran Calls Kerry 'a Man of Benedict Arnold Qualities'
Victor Davis Hanson on Election 2004 on National Review Online
One of Victor Davis Hanson's best columns takes a look at the world through sharply focused, clear lensed glasses. Victor Davis Hanson on Election 2004 on National Review Online
This post makes an interesting case that Hillary Clinton had a role in the decline of U.S. vaccine development and manufacturing. Let's Fly Under the Bridge: Hillary Make You Sick?
Those unintended consequences get you every time, especially when you don't understand economics and the rational behavior of businesses (those that want to survive, that is).
Update: The Weekly Standard places blame at the feet of trial lawyers without mentioning Hillary.
Those unintended consequences get you every time, especially when you don't understand economics and the rational behavior of businesses (those that want to survive, that is).
Update: The Weekly Standard places blame at the feet of trial lawyers without mentioning Hillary.
Ann Althouse points to an explanation on the guaranteed failure of a policy that calls for nationwide re-importation of Canadian drugs that should be obvious to anyone without an agenda. Althouse: NYT confesses that Canada is no panacea for high drug prices
PoliPundit points to a great David Brooks column in the Times. The New York Times: Debate, Declaim, Debacle
Friday, October 15, 2004
Nine gin-soaked white raisins a day keeps arthritis away? Well, after 8 days, you'll have eaten 72. Some interpretations of the Koran say that the reward in heaven is not 72 virgins, but 72 white raisins. Probably not gin-soaked, though. Heinz Kerry pitches health care
Daniel Drezner's angst over his vote leads one of his readers to provide an excellent unmasking of a Kerry foreign policy. danieldrezner.com: About that p-value
NightLine catches river fever after trying to find credible Vietnamese witnesses to corroborate Kerry's Silver Star saga. JustOneMinute: Nightline Goes To Vietnam
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Our domestic papers haven't covered the UN Oil-for-Food scandal that thoroughly, but others are doing a good job of searching for nuggets from the Duelfer report. Scotsman.com: Saddam bankrolled Palestinian terrorists
Hat tip: Captain's Quarters
Hat tip: Captain's Quarters
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
This fascinating article may shed some light on why Kerry received a third citation for at least one of his medals. Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge, says The New York Sun
Hat tip: Instapundit
Hat tip: Instapundit
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Now that John Edwards has demagogued stem cell research into a panacea that will make the crippled walk again, it's useful to understand exactly what the state of the art in stem cell research is.
The following is a brief article from the AMA that answers much of the common FAQ.
This AMA article contains a much more detailed review.
Here are two good resources on stem cell research and activities underway today here and here from the NIH.
Update: Forget all that techy stuff. Just check out Lileks' take. Money quote: "I could talk about John Edwards’ comments on stem-cell research, but really it’s very simple. Stem cells will be injected into the bloodstream, where they will act like Star Wars Midichloridans, and help the quadrapalegic to use the Force and stand erect."
The following is a brief article from the AMA that answers much of the common FAQ.
This AMA article contains a much more detailed review.
Here are two good resources on stem cell research and activities underway today here and here from the NIH.
Update: Forget all that techy stuff. Just check out Lileks' take. Money quote: "I could talk about John Edwards’ comments on stem-cell research, but really it’s very simple. Stem cells will be injected into the bloodstream, where they will act like Star Wars Midichloridans, and help the quadrapalegic to use the Force and stand erect."
Hey, the Germans offer a glimmer of hope to Kerry after all. FT.com: Germany in rethink on Iraq force deployment
Monday, October 11, 2004
Redstate.org points to an article on an attack on two electrical transmission towers over the weekend. JS Online: Bolts taken from towers, police say
The always interesting Lileks combines parenting with an excellent screed on Kerry's mindset. LILEKS (James) The Bleat
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Kerry's comments in a New York Times Magazine article out today are ridiculous, and as such are ridiculed far and wide in the blogosphere. No one points out the silliness of Kerry's comments any better than Hugh Hewitt. Hugh Hewitt: terror as a nuisance?
The man from Macon, Mississippi who escaped from Iraqi terrorists found a renewed faith and love for life. The Clarion-Ledger: Thomas Hamill's new book and renewed life
Saturday, October 09, 2004
WMD stockpile found? Well, not according to the ever higher bar set by the MSM. NewsMax.com: Saddam's 500 tons of Uranium
Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!
Now that John Major has been handily returned to office, Kerry's sister can go find some other people to annoy.
Now that John Major has been handily returned to office, Kerry's sister can go find some other people to annoy.
Friday, October 08, 2004
This was by far the best of the two debates. President Bush showed up, and did very well. Kerry did well, but not as well as in the first debate. The pundits are divided as to who won.
Some conservative pundits moan that the President let some softballs hit the glove, instead of knocking them out of the park. That may be, but that doesn’t mean that the facts aren’t there for everyone to see.
Kerry voted against Gulf War I. He voted against a war during the run up to which the UN authorized the use of force, the sitting President assembled a coalition of Arabs and others to either fight, provide basing, allowed military over flight rights or other support, or just financial contributions. In Gulf War II, Kerry knew that Saddam had done what it had done in Kuwait, to the Kurds, to the Marsh Arabs. He had violated over a dozen UN resolutions. He fired missiles at coalition aircraft almost every day. He gave speeches (that can be read on Memri.org) in praise of his scientists who worked on weapons of mass destruction. His government mislead the UN weapons inspectors, providing old, misleading information to them, and no proof of the final disposition of the weapons of mass destruction that we know that he had because of inspections earlier in the ‘90s.
After the war, Kerry now knows that Saddam acted as a “weapon of mass corruption” to the UN and some of our traditional allies (thanks to the Duelfer report). His efforts lead to the loosening of the sanctions and restrictions on his conduct. He kept scientists and engineers who worked on his WMD program hidden, and on his payroll, so that they could resume their work in full some day. He murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. He paid bounties to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He provided sites for terrorist training camps, and safe haven to some of the leaders of terrorist organizations. His government met with Al Qaeda representatives on numerous occasions. He commissioned paintings of his grinning visage against images of the burning Twin Towers, associating himself with their destruction. He attempted to buy an entire missile assembly line from North Korea. He bought weapons and spare parts from many countries (see the CIA report) that were proscribed. French Roland missiles shot down an A-10 in Iraq in ’03. Some of those missiles were sold to Iraq just months before the war began. Two M1 A1 tanks—almost indestructible—were knocked out by Russian Katyusha rockets. In the addition to the UN and the intelligence agencies of nearly every major nation, Saddam had the Presidents of Egypt and Jordan convinced that he had WMD—even his own generals believed it.
In Seattle, we’ve seen incidents where policemen have shot suspects who were believed to be armed and dangerous, but may not have been after the fact. No policeman can allow someone to brandish a weapon without taking steps to disarm him, one way or another. Saddam did everything he could to convince his enemies that he had such weapons to act as a deterrent and as a means of feeding his egomaniacal desire for preeminence in the region, especially vis a vis Iran. In the end, Saddam relied on his bribes of UN staff and Security Council members to protect him from the coalition. His calculation failed.
After 9/11, no reasonable leader would allow an enemy nation-state to threaten the US or its national interests. Since the end of Gulf War 1, Iraq has been at a state of war with the US and the coalition. The onus was on Saddam to prove that Iraq had complied with the terms of surrender that ended Gulf War 1. Saddam saw Al Qaeda treat the US as a paper tiger throughout the 90s (see Somalia, the Cole, and World Trade Center 1), and saw that the West could be bought off. The Iraqi limits on Oil-for-Food exports increased from under $500 million annually to over $2.5 billion within the decade of the ‘90s. The press continued to collaborate by showing images of malnourished Iraqi families living in squalor. Iraqi sympathizers called on the UN to end the sanctions so that this “outrage” could be ended. Saddam gambled that his supporters among the bribed and useful fools would be able to restrain the US and its coalition. He was wrong.
Kerry tries to paint a different picture. His comments on David Letterman's show indicate that Saddam might now be running Iraq today if Kerry had been elected President in 2000. He tries to move to the President’s right on Tora Bora, on adding two new divisions to the Army, on doubling our Special Forces, while not dismissing a whispering campaign about a new draft, a “back door draft” that affects Reservists, and strain on the National Guard that he claims are mistakes by the President. The President has firmly disavowed a new draft, but hasn’t put down Kerry’s charges on Tora Bora as firmly as he could. Perhaps that is because there is more to the story than we know today. Perhaps the collection of teeth, bones and fingernails that the Special Forces found in the Tora Bora caves contain some that were once UBL’s. Perhaps our leaders believe that we should not give the terrorists a martyr to avenge. Someday, we shall see.
Kerry’s record as a Lt. (jg.) is not enough to mark him as a great military strategist. No one has shown that the President has overruled his Pentagon officers like President Johnson did to affect the conduct of the war. Kerry seems to say that he would do just that.
I think that the President gave as good as he got on the domestic portion of the debate. On the foreign policy portion, he has ammo that he hasn’t used yet. I sincerely hope that he hasn’t waited too long.
Update: read this and this to see how consistent the President has been on Iraq. The second link contains the five (5) demands that the President made of Iraq in order to comply with the world and avoid going to war.
Some conservative pundits moan that the President let some softballs hit the glove, instead of knocking them out of the park. That may be, but that doesn’t mean that the facts aren’t there for everyone to see.
Kerry voted against Gulf War I. He voted against a war during the run up to which the UN authorized the use of force, the sitting President assembled a coalition of Arabs and others to either fight, provide basing, allowed military over flight rights or other support, or just financial contributions. In Gulf War II, Kerry knew that Saddam had done what it had done in Kuwait, to the Kurds, to the Marsh Arabs. He had violated over a dozen UN resolutions. He fired missiles at coalition aircraft almost every day. He gave speeches (that can be read on Memri.org) in praise of his scientists who worked on weapons of mass destruction. His government mislead the UN weapons inspectors, providing old, misleading information to them, and no proof of the final disposition of the weapons of mass destruction that we know that he had because of inspections earlier in the ‘90s.
After the war, Kerry now knows that Saddam acted as a “weapon of mass corruption” to the UN and some of our traditional allies (thanks to the Duelfer report). His efforts lead to the loosening of the sanctions and restrictions on his conduct. He kept scientists and engineers who worked on his WMD program hidden, and on his payroll, so that they could resume their work in full some day. He murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. He paid bounties to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He provided sites for terrorist training camps, and safe haven to some of the leaders of terrorist organizations. His government met with Al Qaeda representatives on numerous occasions. He commissioned paintings of his grinning visage against images of the burning Twin Towers, associating himself with their destruction. He attempted to buy an entire missile assembly line from North Korea. He bought weapons and spare parts from many countries (see the CIA report) that were proscribed. French Roland missiles shot down an A-10 in Iraq in ’03. Some of those missiles were sold to Iraq just months before the war began. Two M1 A1 tanks—almost indestructible—were knocked out by Russian Katyusha rockets. In the addition to the UN and the intelligence agencies of nearly every major nation, Saddam had the Presidents of Egypt and Jordan convinced that he had WMD—even his own generals believed it.
In Seattle, we’ve seen incidents where policemen have shot suspects who were believed to be armed and dangerous, but may not have been after the fact. No policeman can allow someone to brandish a weapon without taking steps to disarm him, one way or another. Saddam did everything he could to convince his enemies that he had such weapons to act as a deterrent and as a means of feeding his egomaniacal desire for preeminence in the region, especially vis a vis Iran. In the end, Saddam relied on his bribes of UN staff and Security Council members to protect him from the coalition. His calculation failed.
After 9/11, no reasonable leader would allow an enemy nation-state to threaten the US or its national interests. Since the end of Gulf War 1, Iraq has been at a state of war with the US and the coalition. The onus was on Saddam to prove that Iraq had complied with the terms of surrender that ended Gulf War 1. Saddam saw Al Qaeda treat the US as a paper tiger throughout the 90s (see Somalia, the Cole, and World Trade Center 1), and saw that the West could be bought off. The Iraqi limits on Oil-for-Food exports increased from under $500 million annually to over $2.5 billion within the decade of the ‘90s. The press continued to collaborate by showing images of malnourished Iraqi families living in squalor. Iraqi sympathizers called on the UN to end the sanctions so that this “outrage” could be ended. Saddam gambled that his supporters among the bribed and useful fools would be able to restrain the US and its coalition. He was wrong.
Kerry tries to paint a different picture. His comments on David Letterman's show indicate that Saddam might now be running Iraq today if Kerry had been elected President in 2000. He tries to move to the President’s right on Tora Bora, on adding two new divisions to the Army, on doubling our Special Forces, while not dismissing a whispering campaign about a new draft, a “back door draft” that affects Reservists, and strain on the National Guard that he claims are mistakes by the President. The President has firmly disavowed a new draft, but hasn’t put down Kerry’s charges on Tora Bora as firmly as he could. Perhaps that is because there is more to the story than we know today. Perhaps the collection of teeth, bones and fingernails that the Special Forces found in the Tora Bora caves contain some that were once UBL’s. Perhaps our leaders believe that we should not give the terrorists a martyr to avenge. Someday, we shall see.
Kerry’s record as a Lt. (jg.) is not enough to mark him as a great military strategist. No one has shown that the President has overruled his Pentagon officers like President Johnson did to affect the conduct of the war. Kerry seems to say that he would do just that.
I think that the President gave as good as he got on the domestic portion of the debate. On the foreign policy portion, he has ammo that he hasn’t used yet. I sincerely hope that he hasn’t waited too long.
Update: read this and this to see how consistent the President has been on Iraq. The second link contains the five (5) demands that the President made of Iraq in order to comply with the world and avoid going to war.
A man with a penchant for understatement says, "They're (the sanctions are) often better than nothing," said Joshua Muravchik, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who is writing a book on the United Nations. The New York Times: U.S. Report Says Hussein Bought Arms With Ease
George Gilder has taken his lumps after the stock market bubble burst, but he shows that he still has an acute understanding of national economic policy--good and bad--in this editorial on the WSJ Online.WSJ.com - America's New Jingoes
Money quote: "The U.S. today stands at a crossroads. The key economic issue confronting the next president is whether to embrace the policies of decline and sclerosis that afflict old Europe and have left generations of young people unemployed; or whether to enlist with Asia in the supply-side policies of dynamism and growth that have brought more human beings out of poverty than any other regimes in world history.
It should be an easy choice. The American left once displayed a real concern for poor people, but today they exhibit merely a morbid envy of the rich. Once they supported American engagement in the world. Today, they retreat to a timorous parochialism. Now it is President Bush who shows compassion for the world's poor and confidence rather than timidity before the forces of global capitalism. It is Mr. Bush who is embracing Asian dynamism rather than Eurosclerosis. For America, that is the winning side."
Money quote: "The U.S. today stands at a crossroads. The key economic issue confronting the next president is whether to embrace the policies of decline and sclerosis that afflict old Europe and have left generations of young people unemployed; or whether to enlist with Asia in the supply-side policies of dynamism and growth that have brought more human beings out of poverty than any other regimes in world history.
It should be an easy choice. The American left once displayed a real concern for poor people, but today they exhibit merely a morbid envy of the rich. Once they supported American engagement in the world. Today, they retreat to a timorous parochialism. Now it is President Bush who shows compassion for the world's poor and confidence rather than timidity before the forces of global capitalism. It is Mr. Bush who is embracing Asian dynamism rather than Eurosclerosis. For America, that is the winning side."
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Paul Bremer sets the record straight in the New York Times. The New York Times: What I Really Said About Iraq
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker must feel like he's being used to make a bunch of crooks look good. His "investigation" appears to be going nowhere. Meanwhile, the newly released Duelfer report has already blown the lid off of U.N. corruption and complicity with Saddam's schemes. Congress is calling on the U.N. to release its records. We shall see how the rest of the media covers this aspect of the story, or whether they repeat the "no WMD stockpile" story from the days of the release of the Kay report. Claudia Rosett on Duelfer Report on National Review Online
This post at the excellent Kerry Spot at National Review Online was extremely illuminating for me. We now know that Kerry is a failure at rallying allies to a cause. He failed because his disrespects the contributions and sacrifices of the members of the coalition countries supporting us in Iraq. He failed because he does not see that French and German national interests and internal politics are aligned against the US' national interests.
Glenn Reynolds says it best.
Glenn Reynolds says it best.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Ace of Spades points to an excellent article that points out how a past President was once criticized by a General on the conduct of warfare. Davids Medienkritik: Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time?
Gee...mobile balloon inflation? Maybe a mobile brewery? Nah, couldn't be one of those mobile bioweapon labs that Secretary Powell described in '03? Could it? WorldNetDaily: Is this one of Saddam's mobile bio-weapons labs?
The coalition of the coerced and the bribed won't contain Kerry's favorite parts of "the world". Kerry says Franco-German troops unlikely - The Washington Times
Since it was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time", I guess that he doesn't have an answer to his own question, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" for the French and Germans.
I wonder if Kerry will begin to say that he'll bring in members of the Arab League to take over for us. Riiiiight. The Iraqis would love that...sure they would.
Since it was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time", I guess that he doesn't have an answer to his own question, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" for the French and Germans.
I wonder if Kerry will begin to say that he'll bring in members of the Arab League to take over for us. Riiiiight. The Iraqis would love that...sure they would.
Here's a link to a transcript of last night's smackdown. FOXNews.com - You Decide 2004 - Transcript & Video: VP Debate
"You hear all that and you can understand why somebody would make a face." President Bush gives a fantastic speech this morning. washingtonpost.com: Text: Bush's Speech in Pennsylvania
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
The star of "Caddyshack", one of the funniest sports movies of all time, gets all the respects he's due at last. ESPN.com - GEN - Last respect: Rodney Dangerfield dead at 82
One of the best roundups of tonight's smackdown that I've seen. Pejmanesque: THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
Some say that the President doesn't speak about the UN Oil-for-Food scandal because we need to maintain a relationship with France, Germany and Russia. It's important to learn about the scandal so that we can understand the motivations of these countries in the run up to the war. Roger Simon has done an excellent job following developments in this scandal. Roger L. Simon: The Subject About Which Kerry Dare Not Ever Speak
The very good Captain's Quarters blog points to a disturbing story on Iran's work on long range missile to complement its nuclear arsenal. Yahoo! News: Iran Says Its Missiles Can Now Reach 1,250 Miles
Iran's efforts to obtain long range missile technology and nuclear weapons are a gathering threat to the stability of the Middle East and the world economy. Kerry's proposals--echoing the approach taken by the Clinton Administration to attempt to appease North Korea--have been treated as reasonable by the MSM, when in fact the Iranians appear to be laughing at them.
As I said here, Iran has ample natural gas and oil reserves for power production. Iran's pretense that its nuclear program is aimed at satisfying its domestic electricity needs fools only those willing to be fooled, those who profoundly wish for a return to a September 10 world. While no one wants to see the escalation of dangerous tensions in the world, we cannot pretend to solve problems by papering over them.
The Democrats and their MSM allies want the public to believe that the Bush Doctrine has been shelved. In fact, the recent developments in Iran and North Korea make it clear that the Bush Doctrine is more important than ever.
Update: Read WindsofChange for an excellent take on Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Iran's efforts to obtain long range missile technology and nuclear weapons are a gathering threat to the stability of the Middle East and the world economy. Kerry's proposals--echoing the approach taken by the Clinton Administration to attempt to appease North Korea--have been treated as reasonable by the MSM, when in fact the Iranians appear to be laughing at them.
As I said here, Iran has ample natural gas and oil reserves for power production. Iran's pretense that its nuclear program is aimed at satisfying its domestic electricity needs fools only those willing to be fooled, those who profoundly wish for a return to a September 10 world. While no one wants to see the escalation of dangerous tensions in the world, we cannot pretend to solve problems by papering over them.
The Democrats and their MSM allies want the public to believe that the Bush Doctrine has been shelved. In fact, the recent developments in Iran and North Korea make it clear that the Bush Doctrine is more important than ever.
Update: Read WindsofChange for an excellent take on Iran's nuclear ambitions.
He may still be the greatest pilot that there ever was. Godspeed. Blogs of War: Astronaut Gordon Cooper 1927-2004
Monday, October 04, 2004
I was up way too early--or way too late--this morning and caught part of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's appearance on Fox & Friends. The Governor responded to a question from E. D. Hill (I think) about French rebuffs of proposals made by candidate Kerry (Senator in name only).
The Governor said that we could entice France and Germany to help in Iraq by restoring oil contracts that were in place with the Saddam regime. I can't recall any further comments he may have made, but I think that this one is enough to cause concern.
Kerry has spoken about the "levers" he could use to engage more of our "allies". He calls the President's coalition in Iraq the "coerced and the bribed". I guess that we know see that bribery is a lever that Kerry is willing to use.
Saddam's Iraq was involved in a massive oil-for-food scandal that was a weapon of mass corruption--the UN, France, Russia and others were all tainted by the scandal. Kerry wants to overrule the fledgling government of Iraq's ability to make new contracts based on its own national interest by forcing it to re-enter oil deals it had made with supporters of the repressive regime. And this is a good thing?
Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said two weeks ago that France, which has tense relations with interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to send troops "either now or later". Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview, "I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president."
What other levers does Kerry think that he has to entice the French and Germans? More appeals to their commercial interests--their oil interests in other countries? Here's another example of the kinds of levers France responds to and makes use of in its own interests.
No more blood for oil, Monsieur Chirac!
The Governor said that we could entice France and Germany to help in Iraq by restoring oil contracts that were in place with the Saddam regime. I can't recall any further comments he may have made, but I think that this one is enough to cause concern.
Kerry has spoken about the "levers" he could use to engage more of our "allies". He calls the President's coalition in Iraq the "coerced and the bribed". I guess that we know see that bribery is a lever that Kerry is willing to use.
Saddam's Iraq was involved in a massive oil-for-food scandal that was a weapon of mass corruption--the UN, France, Russia and others were all tainted by the scandal. Kerry wants to overrule the fledgling government of Iraq's ability to make new contracts based on its own national interest by forcing it to re-enter oil deals it had made with supporters of the repressive regime. And this is a good thing?
Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said two weeks ago that France, which has tense relations with interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to send troops "either now or later". Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview, "I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president."
What other levers does Kerry think that he has to entice the French and Germans? More appeals to their commercial interests--their oil interests in other countries? Here's another example of the kinds of levers France responds to and makes use of in its own interests.
No more blood for oil, Monsieur Chirac!
Sunday, October 03, 2004
The two articles immediately below remind me of how much Johnson and Kerry seem to approach warfare alike. Vietnam was the first conflict that offered near real-time communication with the field. Johnson could obtain very fresh information, and with it, issue orders that never would have been possible in Roosevelt's or Truman's day. Johnson thought by starting and halting bombing operations the North Vietnamese understood that he was sending messages. It is apparent today that the North Vietnamese saw his moves as signs of weakness to be exploited, and opportunities to rearm, to propagandize the population of North and South Vietnam alike to hearten the former and demoralize the latter.
When Kerry talks about how he would have managed Tora Bora, he sounds Johnsonian. He sounds like a man who, based on his vast experience as a Lieutenant (Junior Grade), he would make tactical decisions on the conduct of war on the ground. General Franks, meet General Kerry.
I believe that our Afghanistan campaign was successful precisely because we learned from the mistakes that the British and the Soviets made. We did not commit hundreds of thousands of troops and aircraft to the theater. We did not have to support a huge supply line across thousands of miles of terrain to reach the unforgiving land-locked terrain of eastern Afghanistan. We followed successful Special Forces doctrine and trained the indigenous population to fight for themselves. We used our technological advantages in conjunction with air power to provide close air support, often using B-52 and B-1B bombers as effective as massed artillery.
I believe that these things were possible because President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld demanded unconventional thinking, but left the execution of the war plan to the officers and men on the ground. I worry that Kerry would try to over manage Iraq--as well as the next challenge--and make manners worse as Johnson did.
When Kerry talks about how he would have managed Tora Bora, he sounds Johnsonian. He sounds like a man who, based on his vast experience as a Lieutenant (Junior Grade), he would make tactical decisions on the conduct of war on the ground. General Franks, meet General Kerry.
I believe that our Afghanistan campaign was successful precisely because we learned from the mistakes that the British and the Soviets made. We did not commit hundreds of thousands of troops and aircraft to the theater. We did not have to support a huge supply line across thousands of miles of terrain to reach the unforgiving land-locked terrain of eastern Afghanistan. We followed successful Special Forces doctrine and trained the indigenous population to fight for themselves. We used our technological advantages in conjunction with air power to provide close air support, often using B-52 and B-1B bombers as effective as massed artillery.
I believe that these things were possible because President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld demanded unconventional thinking, but left the execution of the war plan to the officers and men on the ground. I worry that Kerry would try to over manage Iraq--as well as the next challenge--and make manners worse as Johnson did.
Here's another article on the Vietnam War that takes the US government to task for many mistakes before, during and after the war. The Lessons of Vietnam: "The Christmas bombings of 1972 should have taken place in 1965, before we had filled the Hanoi Hilton with aviators shot down while carrying out the absurd strategy of giving signals..."
This article on the USAF's operation Linebacker II, written in 1997, is as true today as it was then. Here's a quote from the article: "In December 1972, 25 years ago next month, the intransigence of the tough and resilient North Vietnamese foe finally exposed the total failure of gradualist war policies set in motion years before by President Lyndon B. Johnson."
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Unilateral disarmament
Kerry is trying to have it both ways.
He says that he is committed to winning in Iraq (during the debate)--except when he doesn't (the big speech on a Monday shortly before the debate).
He says that the President's DOE is wrong to do research on smaller nuclear weapons designed to be bunker busters. He says he'll cancel the program immediately because it sends the wrong message to countries that are trying to produce nuclear weapons--Iran and North Korea. Apparently we are in violation of the "do as I say, do as I do" rule.
Kerry also claimed that the program costs "hundreds of millions of dollars." The actual costs are less than forty million--much of our research is done on supercomputers that simulate the detonation without ever actually building and testing a bomb.
The President's program is right. The mullahs of Iran and the pot-bellied dictator of North Korea have shown that they aren't deterred by words. They apparently believed that the US was a paper tiger during the Clinton Administration, just as Iran showed the world that the Carter Administration foreign policy was. They thought that the US was physically incapable of and politically unwilling to use conventional force to act on its national interests, preferring to intercede in symbolic fashion without risking casualties.
That changed after 9/11. The victory in Afghanistan was shocking: sudden, overwhelming defeat where the British and the Soviets had failed in Afghanistan, using Special Forces, airpower, and indigenous troops with help from Pakistan and other non-traditional US allies. In Iraq, victory seemed certain, but the warnings that Saddam had and would use WMD were ominously issued by Arab leaders in Egypt and Jordan to General Franks beforehand. Chattering class "experts" cautioned against massive US casualties and civilian deaths. Many believed Saddam's propaganda that his army could rival the west's best, and that his troops were loyal. All those pre-war predictions and more were disproven.
Libya looked at the President's determination, and unilaterally surrendered its WMD program, allowing us to display it in Tennessee. Pakistan cooperated with our proliferation investigation, and the A. Q. Khan network that supplied nuclear weapons technology to third world states was rolled up. Initially, the Iranian mullahs and North Korea appeared willing to negotiate the demolition of their programs.
That has changed now. US political news reaches Pyongyang and Tehran. Instead of dismantling their programs, the political calculus in these capitals appears to be that their programs are symbols of strength against the uncertainty of the UN and the west, and that the existence of these programs weakens the President's chance for reelection. They see that Kerry will be bound to pass a "global test" before taking military action. They also believe that the US conventional force structure would not allow another invasion like Iraq.
Both North Korea and Iran have missile programs that, depending on the heat of the rhetoric of the day, may one day carry nuclear weapons, and may one day reach US allies and even the US Pacific coast. See http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTICBM.HTM Iran is a customer of North Korea's, and apparently is attempting to obtain long range missile technology from Russia if it can get it.
Attacking the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea will be difficult. Iran has placed its nuclear program in populated centers, at least in some cases. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm and http://cns.miis.edu/research/iran/nucsites.htm North Korea has also attempted to disperse and hide its nuclear facilities. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htm and http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/dprk/nuc/fac/research/NKN_F_ynrcen_GO.html
Both have also seen the effects of US airpower on Saddam's ability to control his army, and are designing their own command and control emplacements to reduce their vulnerability to an aerial attack. See http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/facility/c3i.htm for an overview of Korea's approach, and http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm. Note that Iran's facility at Natanz may be buried deep enough and hardened enough to resist almost any conventional bunker buster weapon.
That brings us back to the question of bunker buster weapons. The US has a program to evaluate the capabilities and usage of several approaches to the use of nuclear weapons for this purpose against those of conventional weapons to produce something called the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator" http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rnep.htm Although Senators Fienstein and Kennedy opposed the program on the Senate floor, it was successfully defended http://domenici.senate.gov/legislation/record.cfm?id=224732 and passed.
No one can say that the "RNEP" can be used without causing fallout and unacceptable collateral damage. One fact is certain: if concepts like the RNEP are not studied, we are almost certain to be "self-deterred". Our existing nuclear arsenal is made up of weapons that are frankly too big to be used, and probably doesn't intimidate either North Korea or Iran from continuing their research into and possible construction of a small quantity of nuclear weapons. It may be possible for one or both of those members of the Axis of Evil to reconstitute the equivalent of the A. Q. Khan network--perhaps with the addition of actual complete weapons for sale.
Diplomacy is by far the preferred way to deal with North Korea and Iran. However, there must be a credible threat of force that the US can make to protect its vital interests. The range of options should not be arbitrarily limited, although the political opposition to a nuclear first strike would be extremely difficult to overcome without a far higher burden of proof than existed for Iraq or Afghanistan. Still, most Americans do not wish to see us sit by and allow the tools of nuclear blackmail to fall into the wrong hands without having the tools in hand to oppose them. The President can argue that a conventional attack on one or both Axis members could be met with a nuclear response from the Axis simply because they could repel a US attack conventionally, and that a nuclear showdown with the US over our national interests may happen sooner than later. Perhaps demands for the withdrawal of all coalition forces from Iraq, or demands for the removal of US forces from Japan and South Korea.
The RNEP or an effective conventional equivalent that would work as a "surgical strike tool" to remove North Korean or Iranian nuclear weapons, missiles, manufacturing sites, and command & control facilities without a full-scale invasion would be a major deterrent to the Axis. Having that option may serve as a stabilizing influence on negotiations--the Axis would know that the US and its allies could attack to remove their nuclear and missile infrastructure successfully should the Axis attempt to use such weapons or blackmail the US with their us.
We should not unilaterally disarm and remove the President's--or a future President's--ability to counter threats from the Axis. Such a move would be reckless, and would ignore the proven effectiveness of the so-called "MAD" deterrence that served to keep the Cold War from turning hot for decades. Only one who advocated a "Nuclear Freeze" in the 1980s would advocate a self-defeating move before the fact, in effect destabilizing the balance of power between the Axis and the free world.
He says that he is committed to winning in Iraq (during the debate)--except when he doesn't (the big speech on a Monday shortly before the debate).
He says that the President's DOE is wrong to do research on smaller nuclear weapons designed to be bunker busters. He says he'll cancel the program immediately because it sends the wrong message to countries that are trying to produce nuclear weapons--Iran and North Korea. Apparently we are in violation of the "do as I say, do as I do" rule.
Kerry also claimed that the program costs "hundreds of millions of dollars." The actual costs are less than forty million--much of our research is done on supercomputers that simulate the detonation without ever actually building and testing a bomb.
The President's program is right. The mullahs of Iran and the pot-bellied dictator of North Korea have shown that they aren't deterred by words. They apparently believed that the US was a paper tiger during the Clinton Administration, just as Iran showed the world that the Carter Administration foreign policy was. They thought that the US was physically incapable of and politically unwilling to use conventional force to act on its national interests, preferring to intercede in symbolic fashion without risking casualties.
That changed after 9/11. The victory in Afghanistan was shocking: sudden, overwhelming defeat where the British and the Soviets had failed in Afghanistan, using Special Forces, airpower, and indigenous troops with help from Pakistan and other non-traditional US allies. In Iraq, victory seemed certain, but the warnings that Saddam had and would use WMD were ominously issued by Arab leaders in Egypt and Jordan to General Franks beforehand. Chattering class "experts" cautioned against massive US casualties and civilian deaths. Many believed Saddam's propaganda that his army could rival the west's best, and that his troops were loyal. All those pre-war predictions and more were disproven.
Libya looked at the President's determination, and unilaterally surrendered its WMD program, allowing us to display it in Tennessee. Pakistan cooperated with our proliferation investigation, and the A. Q. Khan network that supplied nuclear weapons technology to third world states was rolled up. Initially, the Iranian mullahs and North Korea appeared willing to negotiate the demolition of their programs.
That has changed now. US political news reaches Pyongyang and Tehran. Instead of dismantling their programs, the political calculus in these capitals appears to be that their programs are symbols of strength against the uncertainty of the UN and the west, and that the existence of these programs weakens the President's chance for reelection. They see that Kerry will be bound to pass a "global test" before taking military action. They also believe that the US conventional force structure would not allow another invasion like Iraq.
Both North Korea and Iran have missile programs that, depending on the heat of the rhetoric of the day, may one day carry nuclear weapons, and may one day reach US allies and even the US Pacific coast. See http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTICBM.HTM Iran is a customer of North Korea's, and apparently is attempting to obtain long range missile technology from Russia if it can get it.
Attacking the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea will be difficult. Iran has placed its nuclear program in populated centers, at least in some cases. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm and http://cns.miis.edu/research/iran/nucsites.htm North Korea has also attempted to disperse and hide its nuclear facilities. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htm and http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/dprk/nuc/fac/research/NKN_F_ynrcen_GO.html
Both have also seen the effects of US airpower on Saddam's ability to control his army, and are designing their own command and control emplacements to reduce their vulnerability to an aerial attack. See http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/facility/c3i.htm for an overview of Korea's approach, and http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm. Note that Iran's facility at Natanz may be buried deep enough and hardened enough to resist almost any conventional bunker buster weapon.
That brings us back to the question of bunker buster weapons. The US has a program to evaluate the capabilities and usage of several approaches to the use of nuclear weapons for this purpose against those of conventional weapons to produce something called the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator" http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rnep.htm Although Senators Fienstein and Kennedy opposed the program on the Senate floor, it was successfully defended http://domenici.senate.gov/legislation/record.cfm?id=224732 and passed.
No one can say that the "RNEP" can be used without causing fallout and unacceptable collateral damage. One fact is certain: if concepts like the RNEP are not studied, we are almost certain to be "self-deterred". Our existing nuclear arsenal is made up of weapons that are frankly too big to be used, and probably doesn't intimidate either North Korea or Iran from continuing their research into and possible construction of a small quantity of nuclear weapons. It may be possible for one or both of those members of the Axis of Evil to reconstitute the equivalent of the A. Q. Khan network--perhaps with the addition of actual complete weapons for sale.
Diplomacy is by far the preferred way to deal with North Korea and Iran. However, there must be a credible threat of force that the US can make to protect its vital interests. The range of options should not be arbitrarily limited, although the political opposition to a nuclear first strike would be extremely difficult to overcome without a far higher burden of proof than existed for Iraq or Afghanistan. Still, most Americans do not wish to see us sit by and allow the tools of nuclear blackmail to fall into the wrong hands without having the tools in hand to oppose them. The President can argue that a conventional attack on one or both Axis members could be met with a nuclear response from the Axis simply because they could repel a US attack conventionally, and that a nuclear showdown with the US over our national interests may happen sooner than later. Perhaps demands for the withdrawal of all coalition forces from Iraq, or demands for the removal of US forces from Japan and South Korea.
The RNEP or an effective conventional equivalent that would work as a "surgical strike tool" to remove North Korean or Iranian nuclear weapons, missiles, manufacturing sites, and command & control facilities without a full-scale invasion would be a major deterrent to the Axis. Having that option may serve as a stabilizing influence on negotiations--the Axis would know that the US and its allies could attack to remove their nuclear and missile infrastructure successfully should the Axis attempt to use such weapons or blackmail the US with their us.
We should not unilaterally disarm and remove the President's--or a future President's--ability to counter threats from the Axis. Such a move would be reckless, and would ignore the proven effectiveness of the so-called "MAD" deterrence that served to keep the Cold War from turning hot for decades. Only one who advocated a "Nuclear Freeze" in the 1980s would advocate a self-defeating move before the fact, in effect destabilizing the balance of power between the Axis and the free world.
Nice to see one of my favorite warplanes all Photoshopped up and ready to drop some 30mm DU candy on Islamofascists everywhere. Evil pundit of doom!: Top Bun
I draw the line at changing the key line in the Air Force hymn to "Nothing can stop the US Hare Force"!
I draw the line at changing the key line in the Air Force hymn to "Nothing can stop the US Hare Force"!
Fox News has done some fine reporting on the UN Oil-for-Food scandal. The UN has taken exception to parts of its latest report. Here's a response from Fox News with links to the original reports and the UN's response to them. FOX News Responds to U.N. Comments
Friday, October 01, 2004
Scroll down about 1/4 of the page to read the Department of Energy's report on Iran's natural gas reserves. Essentially, Iran's reserves are second only to Russia's in the world.
Why would any sane person believe that Iran needs nuclear reactors to produce electricity? Natural gas-fired power plants are nearly as clean, and certainly safe to operate.
The Kerry-Edwards proposal for dealing with Iran seems very similar to the "agreed framework" that the Clinton Administration signed with North Korea.
Why on earth would we ever enter into an agreement with Iran to provide nuclear reactor fuel?
Why would any sane person believe that Iran needs nuclear reactors to produce electricity? Natural gas-fired power plants are nearly as clean, and certainly safe to operate.
The Kerry-Edwards proposal for dealing with Iran seems very similar to the "agreed framework" that the Clinton Administration signed with North Korea.
Why on earth would we ever enter into an agreement with Iran to provide nuclear reactor fuel?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
