Thursday, October 07, 2004
Glenn Reynolds says it best.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
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.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
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.
Monday, October 04, 2004
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
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.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Unilateral disarmament
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.
I draw the line at changing the key line in the Air Force hymn to "Nothing can stop the US Hare Force"!
Friday, October 01, 2004
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?
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Monday, September 27, 2004
I'm not in favor of a poll tax or anything like it. I do believe that the country deserves to have its future decided by citizens who know how to vote, at least. BBC NEWS: Carter fears Florida vote trouble
Update: the invaluable Michelle fisks the story and the Kerry campaign thoroughly.
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Dolly Parton recreates her pose on the new nose art decorating a KC-135E air refueling tanker Friday at McGhee Tyson Air Base as base commander Col. Timothy Dearing looks on. Photo by Wes Hope, but Col. Dearing is undoubtedly a lot happier.
More here.
Friday, September 24, 2004
Ramanna: the Indian Saddam wanted so badly - The Times of India
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
One of the best parts deals with nuclear waste disposal policy:
"Bush, though, is the complex one on Nevada's Yucca Mountain. That's where the federal government has agreed to deposit nuclear waste.
Kerry wants to drop Yucca. He says transporting the waste from nuclear plants to the site could be dangerous and that the site might not be absolutely safe. Has he considered that nuclear wastes have been safely and carefully transported in this nation for decades without incident? Does he realize that wherever the wastes are sent, they will have to be transported? Is he aware that the wastes pose many times the danger in the 39 states where they now reside than they would in an underground site that has been studied for 20 years, and that it might well take another 20 years to find another site that comes close to being as sound?"
And as Drudge reports, it's going to involve a court on some level, if only on a libel charge.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
"I think it is safe to say that the overwhelming feeling among correspondents and producers on the Sunday program is that we would not have made the same mistakes," correspondent Steve Kroft said. He added: "It's hard to know at this point exactly what went wrong, because the Wednesday show is an entirely separate broadcast with entirely different people, and brand-new management. But something clearly went wrong with the process."
Monday, September 20, 2004
Well, well, well.
Yahoo! News - Kerry Aide Talked to Retired Guard Officer
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Drudge goes on to say that "After days of expressing confidence about the documents used in a 60 MINUTES report that raised new questions about President Bush's National Guard service, CBS News officials have grave doubts about the authenticity of the material, network officials said last night, the NEW YORK TIMES is reporting in Monday runs. Developing... "
Dandy Don, clear your throat and get ready to sing.
Beretta92fs. You're good. Almost as good as a Sig
but are cheaper. Thats why the US military
chose you. You're kinda scary.
What handgun are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
Saturday, September 18, 2004
I'd say that CBS' "story" resembles the plot of a Bugs Bunny cartoon except that I believe it would insult Bugs Bunny. Why, it's shocking, shocking I say to learn that REPUBLICANS post comments on REPUBLICAN WEBSITES. Oh, what a scandal!
CBS forgets to mention that experts it hired--but did not listen to--raised questions about the documents before the story aired. http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/09/hey-hey-hey-goodbye.html
The invaluable Charles Johnson's Little Green Footballs passes along the judgment of a former IBM Selectric Composer expert on the capability and facility of that machine for the task of producing the forged documents. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12694_Composer_Theory_in_Advanced_State_of_Decomposition
CBS' chief remaining "document expert", Mrs. Knox, said that she used an Olivetti machine. I'm still waiting for a news organization to establish the types of machines in use by the TexANG during that period and their capabilities. We can already guess that the answer won't make Dan Rather very happy.
Friday, September 17, 2004
From Corante, we have a very good summary and timeline of the scandal that takes us up to today's insignificant document release and the interesting connection between Burkett, the DNC and Max Cleland.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Apparently we have a "new journalism"
The documents and CBS' own pathetic efforts to line up "experts" to defend their authenticity have been so thoroughly destroyed that they could be referred to in an imaginary headline as "CBS' offer of news division for MOAB testing deemed success". Now we are told, paraphrasing the report that Brit Hume just gave on Fox News' Special Report, that CBS has interviewed Killian's 81-year old former secretary, an admitted partisan for Kerry, and found that she, too, is willing to put words in the mouth of a man who died 20 years ago and say that while the documents are obvious forgeries, somehow the spirit of them is true.
Well, at least CBS has found an "expert" that it will put on the air to debunk the documents.
However, instead of drawing back to report on itself, and how it was mislead and why, CBS plows on. It takes the word of partisans who have been disavowed--the secretary by Killian's family and some of his fellow Guardsmen--and Barnes who has been outed by his deposition in a Texas Gtech trial and his own daughter. No admission that the family was right--as were the blogosphere and some of the MSM elements who saw through the forgeries.
The comparisons to CBS reporting on the "flawed" WMD intelligence and CBS' stonewalling on the forged documents are enough to make one double over with laughter. I love Scrappleface's headline quoting Tenet as telling Rather that the documents are a "slam dunk".
If this stonewalling continues--in the face of overwhelming fact and the founding tenets of journalism after the days of the "yellow sheets"--after the evening news and 60 Minutes II tonight, we'll have a new nickname for Dan: Richard Milhouse Rather.
Update: Instapundit found this excellent take on CBS' public statements on the scandal.