Can it really be true? Over at the American Enterprise Institute site, Reuel Marc Gerecht explains Why the Worst Is Probably Over in Iraq.

Big Lizards describes the nihilistic malaise infecting Japan, and to a greater extent, Europe, in an excellent post that IMO applies equally to the elites in the U.S. If a nation outsources its national defenses because you don't think that anything is worth fighting for, sooner or later, those who do your fighting for you might change their minds.

Powerline reports on a Medal of Honor ceremony at the White House for a remarkable SEAL who is survived by remarkable parents and a comrade in arms turned publicist for his memory.

Lt. Murphy's story is amazing, but in a way, typically American. We are all called upon to be worthy of his sacrifice in the defense of our nation, and our way of life.

The President gave an excellent speech on the situation in Iraq and the characteristics of the enemy that we are fighting there. An excellent analysis coupled with the text of the speech is posted here: The Belmont Club: The Charleston AFB Speech

One of the great mass murderers of the twentieth century has paid the ultimate price for his crimes against humanity. Saddam Hussein was executed by the Iraqi government after a trial that by all credible accounts was much fairer than any that took place under his regime.

Reactions of all sorts are coming in. Many Iraqis, including Iraqi-Americans, are rejoicing. Extra security and higher alert status are in place to guard against Sunni/Baathist violence from any "Saddam dead-enders", or those who would use his death as a pretext for violence.

There has been an apparent car bombing at an airport parking garage in Madrid, Spain. As I type this at 1:02 AM Pacific time, CNN International reported the bombing, but did not report any claim of responsibility. It could have been done by Basque separatists, or another terrorist group.

The hope, slim though it may be, is that Saddam's death will remove some of the initiative for Sunnis to oppose peaceful progress in Iraq. The coming days will tell whether those hopes were pipe dreams or whether they may come to fruition someday.

Lileks points to two interesting posts. I'm not sure I believe that the dots connect in the first, but the second makes a great deal of sense.

Even more reasons for the bad guys to fear the Warthog: now with extra prickle.

On the one hand, it's encouraging to read that the US intelligence community is considering using Wiki and blog technology and techniques to improve the quality and speed of its analysis. On the other hand, it's discouraging that it hasn't already been a well established practice.

The full research paper is available here.

Betsy Newmark links to and expertly fisks a column in the Washington Post by Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska who seems to have lost his will. I commented beneath the article; I repeat my comments below for those who don't care to visit the WaPo.

Mr. Hagel, Mr. Hagel. I can't understand how members of Congress who supposedly understand American interests and geopolitics can spout this drivel over and over again.

1) "They will decide their fate and form of government." Mr. Hagel, the Iraqis have voted in election after election, with overwhelming support and in numbers greater per capita than our republic.

2) "Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost. It is part of the ongoing global struggle against instability, brutality, intolerance, extremism and terrorism." This is the only true statement in the article.

3) Apparently Mr. Hagel depends on the NYT headline writer for in-depth analysis of the news. Here are Dr. Kissinger's most recent and celebrated comments on Iraq in full,

"If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible....A dramatic collapse of Iraq - whatever we think about how the situation was created - would have disastrous consequences for which we would pay for many years and which would bring us back, one way or another, into the region." It appears that Mr. Hagel and his allies would have argued against the occupation of Japan and Germany and against the many efforts in the Cold War that cost lives--including the Korean War--to restrain the Soviet Union. There were many setbacks during that period, and peaceniks and "know nothings" argued for rapprochement since the West could not defeat the Soviets and the ChiComs. Truman understood US national interests, as did Kennedy. Why can't today's Democrats?

3) "We are destroying our force structure, which took 30 years to build." This is high comedy. During the 90's, the "Clinton peace dividend" was used to shrink the number of troops, ships, air squadrons, etc. I think that counts as more deliberate destruction of force structure in my book.

4) While the cost of the war is high, and the loss of any member of the armed forces is one too many, the cost and losses compared to WWII is insignificant on a per capita basis. The bulk of our population carries on virtually untouched by the war. There are no war bond drives, no rubber drives, no gas rationing, no draft. The strongest argument against our policy in Iraq is that we are not fighting hard enough. We are lawyered up and in a politically correct straitjacket. During WWII, Patton's third army would bypass tough opposition and use artillery and air power to neutralize it. "Rubble causes no trouble."

If Mr. Hagel believes that validating OBL's assertion that America lacks the will to defend its interests over the long term, as Europe has shown, then he must be willing to spend fantastic sums at home to attempt to defend every possible avenue for attack and strengthen every possible vulnerability. If Mr. Hagel spent time listening to the speeches given by Islamofascist leaders and reading and watching their media, he would understand how badly that they want to follow us home. Utter defeat is the only lesson these people understand. We owe future generations of free peoples everywhere to defend liberty at all costs. We cannot defend it by running from the hot point of the conflict of ideas and ideals.

Glenn compiles a list of interesting articles about outgoing Secretary of State Rumsfeld and the U.S. military's loss rate during the current war on terror versus historical loss rates since the beginning of the republic.

Here's an excerpt from a TCS daily article that Glenn includes in his post:

In the full sweep of U.S history, from the commencement of the Revolution on Lexington Green in April 1775, until the sunny morning of September 11, 2001, our average daily sacrifice has been between 14 and 15 military fatalities (1,217,000 fatalities/83,461 days = 14.6/day). Since 9/11, the average daily sacrifice has been 1.7 per day (3200/1900=1.68).

From the Revolutionary War until the American entry into World War I, the average daily rate was about 11 per day (578,000/52,231=11.07). From World War I through the break up of the Soviet Union, the rate was over 16 per day (636,000/38,811=16.39). Or in our long running confrontation with Soviet communism following World War II until the collapse of the Soviet empire, the rate was over between 6 and 7 per day (112,400/16,892=6.65).

As things stand, the conflict with Islamic radicalism involves the lowest average daily military fatality rate of any long run national security era. It may worsen, it may improve. If Congress had been asked on September 12, 2001, to endorse a national defense posture against Islamic radicalism that traded up to 2 military fatalities per day over the subsequent five years in return for no additional homeland attacks, the deposing of terror friendly regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, the ending of Libya's nuclear program, what would they have done? Would Congress accept that bargain today?

As the man says, read the whole thing

An amazing story of a wake held for a Green Beret.

Excerpt:

On Nov. 3, a string of Blackhawk helicopters had been roaring across the desert on a nighttime counterinsurgency raid, carrying Special Forces soldiers to hunt high-value targets who had been making improvised explosive devices.

Flying over the desert at night is disorienting. Toz apparently believed the helicopter had touched down. He stepped out. It was more than 100 feet off the ground and thundering ahead at 100 mph.

His mother was impressed with the professionalism of the Army's presentation and took comfort in learning that the mission had been a success. Her son's e-mail precluded any resentment.

"Don't ever think that you are defending me by slamming the Global War on Terrorism or the U.S. goals in that war," Jeffrey Toczylowski wrote. "As far as I am concerned, we can send guys like me to go after them or we can wait for them to come back to us again. I died doing something I believed in and have no regrets except that I couldn't do more."

Toczylowski had gone through the Reserve Officers' Training Corps at Pennsylvania's Valley Forge Military College and then turned his Texas A&M criminal-justice degree into an assignment as platoon leader with the military police. He had completed the Special Forces training course in 2003.

After a sergeant in his company died of a heart attack, Toczylowski got serious about his mortality, fellow soldiers said. He earmarked money from his savings and insurance policies to assist friends and help cousins with college tuition and to fund a scholarship at Valley Forge, his mother said.

Honoring his wishes

The party was the challenge for the family. But Peggy and Pam say Toczylowski was wise, and they're convinced he knew that assigning them planning duties would keep their minds off losing a son and brother.