Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

We placated it with B-17's and B-24's Rand.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 25, 2007 06:47 PM

Bomb Saudi Arabia?

Alternatively, use the two C's: Colonize and Convert.

Posted by Offside at June 25, 2007 06:50 PM

I call Godwin on Rand. :)

A more apt analogy, methinks would be the Communist one. Communism is/was as much an agressive religion as Islam, just secular and more concerned with materialistic issues. You can imagine what would have happened if Stalin sat on the majority of the world's energy supply AND had the west rush to develop it into a huge and efficient resource that he could turn on or off at will.

Clearly, what's needed at this point is to move the developed world away from dependence on such resources and economically isolate the aggressors, ala the policy of containment in the cold war. First thing on the agenda is to decouple oil resources from defacto control over our economy and second is to decouple them from defacto control of anyone else's economy as well.

Perhaps we could dream up some half way plausible global environmental disaster looming on the horizon due to oil and use that as an excuse. Stranger things have happened.

Posted by K at June 25, 2007 07:17 PM

I call Godwin on Rand. :)

Well, if this were Usenet, you might have a point. ;-)

But I don't disavow my brief comment.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 25, 2007 07:32 PM

This paragraph is utter rubbish:

We are incessantly told that the removal of the Saddam Hussein despotism has inflamed the world's Muslims against us and made Iraq hospitable to terrorism, for all the world as if Baathism had not been pumping out jihadist rhetoric for the past decade (as it still does from Damascus, allied to Tehran).

(1) NO ONE is saying this except folks on the Right trying to lay astro-turf: We are incessantly told that the removal of the Saddam Hussein despotism has inflamed the world's Muslims against us

I cannot recall ANYONE saying that except people on the Right saying people on the Left are saying it. The removal of Saddam Hussein was more like giving Prozac to a depressed psychopath. Saddam's secret police did a very good job of killing radical Islamicists inside Iraq.

Including Mookie Sadr's father.

The Islamicists HATED Saddam. As did the Iranians. A better complaint is that AQ and Tehran goaded us into doing their dirty work.

Also Saddam removal did not make "Iraq hospitable to terrorism" rather OUR failure to deploy sufficient troops to maintain security did that.

(2) The Baath and Iran allies? Not hardly except in the minds of those who desire to trump up a monolithic threat.

(3) Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are the locus of the most virulent strains of Islamism. Do confront Iran but give the Saudis and the Pakistanis a pass is INEFFECTUAL strategery.

(4) For MANY years, I have posted comments at this blog saying that if we are serious about winning against radical Islam, we need to end petroleum dependence as JOB #1.

If we do not do that, then rantings such as those made by Hutch are mere sound and fury for a domestic audience and will do nothing to win the underlying struggle.

I assert the RIGHT is not serious about radical Islam to the extent it refuses to confront OUR need to escape petroleum dependence.

(5) We need better strategies that the South Park military strategy:

-- JDAM Iran
-- ???????
-- Declare victory over the jihadis

-- Lock arms and sing "Stand by Your Man"
-- ???????
-- Declare victory over the jihadis

Posted by Bill White at June 25, 2007 07:35 PM

But K, that would mean we would have to convert half our populace!! You know which half.

That's much too difficult if not impossible. Bombing from the gut, though illogical, is more satisfying, like Mike says.

Posted by Offside at June 25, 2007 07:37 PM

PS -- Lest anyone accuse me of "appeasement" recall my distress that the IDF failed to "go Okinawa" on Hezbollah in southern Lebanon last summer.

Posted by Bill White at June 25, 2007 07:43 PM

BW "(1) NO ONE is saying this except folks on the Right trying to lay astro-turf: We are incessantly told that the removal of the Saddam Hussein despotism has inflamed the world's Muslims against us

I cannot recall ANYONE saying that except people on the Right saying people on the Left are saying it."

Here's a link from democrats.com saying this exact thing in 2004 no less.
http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Iraq+War

Must be those evil Republicans masquerading as Democrats. I have more if you want to see them.

Posted by Bill Maron at June 25, 2007 10:51 PM

For MANY years, I have posted comments at this blog saying that if we are serious about winning against radical Islam, we need to end petroleum dependence as JOB #1.

The oil we refine is heavy crude from the Americas. The oil the Middle East exports is light sweet crude. We don't use that very much at all.

I did read an article about fruit sugars being used as better energy releasers than ethanol and the refining process is nearly the same as refining oil.

Posted by Mac at June 26, 2007 05:19 AM

Apparently there's enough information in the blockquote to form an opinion, but since the link points back to TTM, I can't really read the article to say for sure.

Posted by John Breen III at June 26, 2007 06:07 AM

Fixed now, John. But I've now busted all the other commenters. As I've long suspected, a lot of people comment without bothering to follow the link.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 26, 2007 06:12 AM

Christopher Hitchens always writes the same article, anyway.

"Muslims are bad, liberals are bad, and I haven't a clue what to do about it except rant. So pour me another, bartender."

Hitchens in a nutshell.

Posted by Bill White at June 26, 2007 07:25 AM

Christopher Hitchens always writes the same article, anyway.

I'd say that's much more true of your comments, than of Hitchens' writing. If you really believe that, you haven't read him much. And I'm still amused that I caught you not reading him this time, yet you had to comment regardless.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 26, 2007 07:29 AM

The facts stand that the quoted passage is rubbish.

Removing Saddam did not open Iraq for AQ to enter, our failing to deploy adequate forces did.

And, the Arrowhead Ripper post-operation analysis appears to be that the results were far less than were hoped for.

And, noted Moonbat Senator Dick Lugar now seems to agree that our Iraq policy is accomplishing little.

Posted by Bill White at June 26, 2007 08:28 AM

Removing Saddam did not open Iraq for AQ to enter, our failing to deploy adequate forces did.

Al Qaeda was in Iraq and training before 2003, Bill.

And I can't recall when I've ever cared what Richard Lugar had to say on...any topic at all.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 26, 2007 08:30 AM

I say this is rubbish:

Al Qaeda was in Iraq and training before 2003, Bill.

Posted by Bill White at June 26, 2007 08:31 AM

Obviously the link wasn't working but there was enough in the post to warrant a comment. In future I guess it is a good idea to let the host know even if the content is very clear from the quote. After all, it could be Rand trying a trick on you.

But exactly what does the supine West have to do in Hitchens opinion? Seems like he isn't actively promoting any position, only seeking retroactive justification for his position on Iraq.

K has the best idea in my opinion. But it is impossible to ask the right wing to have a mammoth paradigm shift. Especially when it is under Talk Radio Control.

Posted by Offside at June 26, 2007 08:45 AM

You can say whatever you want, Bill. It doesn't alter reality.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 26, 2007 08:52 AM

I agree 100%, Rand. You too can say say whatever you want . . .

Posted by Bill White at June 26, 2007 09:46 AM

I would just point out, Bill, that you have a far greater burden in attempting to prove a negative. It's that pesky logic thing again.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 26, 2007 09:54 AM

economically isolate the aggressors … winning against radical Islam, we need to end petroleum dependence as JOB #1.

No it isn’t. We need to increase foreign direct investment and influence.

Substituting oil imports or otherwise disconnecting the Muslim world from the global economy will not stop Islamic radicalism. East Asia and Europe depend more on the Middle East for their oil anyway. The Muslim world is already largely undeveloped and impoverished. The stagnant hereditary elites and national oil companies are the ones sitting on the oil wealth, not guys strapping bombs to their chest. Pushing these nations farther back in to the Stone Age isn’t a solution.

Afghanistan was the quintessential economically isolated failed state. No oil, just poppies. The more disconnected these places are from the global economy the GREATER the chance that Islamic radicals will find a safe haven.

By contrast, stimulating economic development, as the United Arab Emirates and Singapore have done, increases prosperity and reduces radicalism.

Posted by John Kavanagh at June 26, 2007 10:20 AM

O/T (though "rage boy" is a suitable term for emotionally-stunted, socially limited, sexually frustrated males in the ME and elsewhere)...

In warfare, telegraphing punches ~= soldier deaths (tactical) and mission failure (strategic).

The little-mentioned consequences of the past four years include:

1. The Army leaving behind the Cold War intellectual infrastructure in which it arrived in Iraq. This has translated into a revivified COIN capability. Why was COIN doctrine set aside? I suspect that during the 15 years after Vietnam, the Army had its plate full, and plenty of excuses to ignore it.

2. The Persian Empire unmasked. In the West, we tend to think of political states in a way that probably doesn't translate well in the ME. Most of the political boundaries were drawn by Europeans, not locals. The mechanisms of influence and control are much clearer now than they were (say) 4 years ago. Why? A better positioned intel collection capacity. Spacecraft-based SIGINT only gets one so far. HUMINT is far better.

3. A refocusing of the Arab leadership's mind on solving their real problems, rather than distracting their populace by blaming Israel and America. The Persian leadership? Still trying the same game of blaming outsiders for their failures of governance.

4. Unmasking Democrats as the "who do we surrender to?" party. Their open undercutting of our war effort started in the summer of 2003, and has accelerated since. In a war where we have to show grit, they have been waving the white panties of surrender to anyone who would look.

Mr. Simberg, thanks for your indulgence.

Posted by MG at June 26, 2007 12:34 PM

MG, I respectfully submit to you that we,

Didn't need 3500 dead and 25,000 injured , $1 trillion in expenses to realize that (1) was needed !

Same point with (2).

If (3) has happened, I've not seen the evidence. If it has, it's not correlated to the events you allude to. Why should it be?

As more Republics join the Democrats, one by one, Lugar today, Warner tomorrow, who cares about the so-called expose of (4)? The only thing exposed is the stupidity of trying to mediate an intra-Islamic confrontation, based on some glorious democratizing colonizer narrative.

Posted by Offside at June 26, 2007 12:54 PM

Offside,

It really doesn't matter whether you or I saw that #1 was needed. What matters is whether or not the bureaucracy (including uniformed leadership) and Congress saw the need. Throughout the 1990's, the federal budget got balanced at the cost of revamping the Army to face the post-Cold War era. The digitization of the Army was essential, but so was the need for threat and doctrinal update. True Story (TM): In 1993, my Combined Arms Services Staff School (CAS3) instructional block on "threat" still used Soviet doctrine, formations, and equipment. In 1995, the command post exercises in which I participated included repeats of Desert Storm, only against a competent, capable Red Force. WTF?

Like it or don't, warfare establishes the need for doctrinal change, and accelerates the change. Historians will eventually (25 years?) get a look at the classified message traffic that illuminate the decision-making process. It will likely be a fascinating read.

2. Khobar Towers wasn't sufficient to unmask the Persian Empire. Neither was the Beirut Barracks Bombing. Ahmadinejad's chest-beating about a world without America hasn't, either. EFP's killing Americans in Iraq does a somewhat better job -- it focuses the attention of the "fourth estate", for at least a couple news cycles.

3. The Arab Street(TM) isn't barking. Israel bombs the sh*t out of southern Lebanon. Where was the Arab Uprising(TM)? Israel kills thugs in Hamastan. Where is the Arab Uprising(TM)? Saudi interior minister reads the "riot act" to Wahabi clerics, telling them to cool it. The reality of Arab culture is that you are unlikely to get the kind of cathartic, public repentance that one can see in the West. Change, when it occurs, occurs out of sight of the West, and without comment.

4. "an intra-Islamic confrontation" is NOT what we face, though it can look it. We face a confrontation between the totalitarian, magical-thinking neck-slicers, and modern, rationality-based women-befrienders. I prefer to relate to women as friends and peers, not as chattel. I prefer that the totalitarian impulse (ever present in humans) get channeled away from neck-slicing. These preferences are an ethical core, and worth killing for.

Thanks for the reply.

I am yours respectfully, and etc.,

Posted by MG at June 26, 2007 01:20 PM

By contrast, stimulating economic development, as the United Arab Emirates and Singapore have done, increases prosperity and reduces radicalism.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/poverty.html

The only thing exposed is the stupidity of trying to mediate an intra-Islamic confrontation, based on some glorious democratizing colonizer narrative.

You're trying to expose something that doesn't exist. All the major spectacular news covered bombings in Iraq were AQ, not a civil war Sunni vs Shiite thing.

Posted by Mac at June 26, 2007 01:54 PM

1. Is war the only way to get Defense to rethink its strategy? Strange justification for a war.

2. Is placing Americans as close to the Qods brigade the best way to ascertain what the RevGuards would like to do with us? er, rather expensive, often irreversible test, right?

3. Unrelated, unprovable, irrelevant. The Arab countries around Iraq are facing two million Iraqi refugees. That's certainly a change, but not in the way you intended.

4. What makes you think the neck-slicers are affected negatively and not positively by our actions? Sure it may be worth going to war if engaging the war is directly related to a reduction in Lesbian Hating Otherworld Virgin seeking Polygamous thugs, especially if you were named Rosie. Any real evidence that you aren't breeding more and more of them?

Respectfully, etc.

Posted by Offside at June 26, 2007 01:58 PM

You're trying to expose something that doesn't exist. All the major spectacular news covered bombings in Iraq were AQ, not a civil war Sunni vs Shiite thing.

er,..Al-Qaeda isn't Sunni? Complicated isn't it?

Let's try again. Sunni vs. Shia with subgroups and us as referee. How's that?

Posted by Offside at June 26, 2007 02:14 PM

Offside,

Sadly, history shows that wartime is the principal driver of reform. In the US Army (my area of knowledge), only measurable things get measured. In wartime, combat effectiveness is the gold standard. In peacetime, one can't really measure combat effectiveness, certainly not as readily as (say) DUI rates, environmental protection in training areas, equipment readiness, etc.

The point of putting our warriors where the Qods operates is to understand better their organization, methods, and chain of command. SIGINT won't do it alone. Eyes on the ground will. Irreversible? For an individual casualty. For a learning organization? Not at all. In wartime, enhancing the capability of the organization to fight effectively is what matters.

Actually, the Sunni refugees are a consequence of Sunni support from the very region from which they got material support to attempt the resurrection of the Baathists. It is unfortunate that Baathist thugs and the tribes believed their fantasies, but such are the consequences of war. From an American POV, helping the Arab fantasists to come to grips with reality is very relevant.

My point remains that the neck-slicers are slicing Muslim necks now, and that destroys whatever political support they get. Ruling by fear means that if there are other options, the locals will turn on the fear-dealers. Anbar Rising, Diyala Rising, etc. suggest the rural-based tribes have had enough irhabi BS, and are throwing in (at least for now) with the Americans and the Shia / Kurd central government.

A couple folks on the ground in Iraq (Bill Roggio, Michael Yon) provide quite good insight in their blogs. AFP, UPI, Reuters, CNN, BBC, et al? Not so much.

Posted by MG at June 26, 2007 02:30 PM

MG, Thank you for your comments. I agree with many of your individual points taken separately but collectively I think we have screwed ourselves into a long term pregnancy with doubtful progeny forthcoming.

Anyways, appreciate your efforts at keeping hope alive. ;-)

Posted by Offside at June 26, 2007 02:46 PM

Bill White :"And, the Arrowhead Ripper post-operation analysis appears to be that the results were far less than were hoped for."

Post operation analysis? How can you have post op analysis on an op that is ONGOING?

Maybe it is just that you are sooo eager to declare defeat Bill, that you can't wait until it is over to do so??

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 26, 2007 04:40 PM

Let's try again. Sunni vs. Shia with subgroups and us as referee. How's that?

Its not that complicated, AQ insurgents from OUTSIDE Iraq coming in to establish cells and try to CAUSE a civil war. And you lefties want to give them the victory without a fight.

Posted by Mac at June 26, 2007 05:59 PM

Offside,

Thanks for your comments.

"keeping hope alive." is essential. If we give in to despair (or "realism"), we devalue our liberty, and accept whatever the predators offer us.

Posted by at June 26, 2007 06:13 PM

"er,..Al-Qaeda isn't Sunni?"

IIRC bin Laden is Wahabi, so I infer that AQ is Wahabi, not Shiite or Sunni.

Posted by Ed Minchau at June 26, 2007 06:58 PM

Wahhabi is a form of Sunni, not Shia. Bin Laden is (was?) a Saud, and Wahhabism is promoted by the Saudis, who are Sunni.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 26, 2007 07:11 PM

Concerning Arrowhead Ripper, I offer this passage from an interview with a US officer:

BAQOUBA, Iraq » The Schofield-based commander of a new offensive against al-Qaida militants north of Baghdad said yesterday his Iraqi partners might be too weak to hold onto the gains.
The Iraqis do not even have enough ammunition, said Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, the 25th Infantry Division's deputy commander for operations.

Bednarek's counterpart south of Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, seemed to agree, saying U.S. troops are too few to garrison the districts newly rid of insurgents.

For the record, "clear and hold" is the proper way to do counterinsurgency. And, US forces are the very best in the world meaning we will "clear" with little difficulty. We will win that aspect rather easily and decisively

But unless we "hold" its like shoveling the ocean with a seive. The fact that we do as well as we do is clear proof of the superior quality of the US servicemen and women.

But in the long run, its the same old story -- NOT ENOUGH TROOPS TO SECURE THE WIN.

Posted by Bill White at June 26, 2007 08:33 PM

Wahhabism is specifically part of the Hambali school of Islam; as opposed to the Sufi and other
schools. The fact that one doesn't know that throws out the value of the claim. Sen. Lugar's
(hard to imagine he was an aide to CNO Arleigh Burke, who urged that we directly intervene in the
Bay of Pigs) seeming about face, along with Voinivich (he still hasn't lived down that crying
jag over Bolton, does he) to be pulling a George
Aitken in the middle of Operation A. R. is irresponsible in the least. On another point, which units haven't been committed to Iraq, the
10th Mth, 101st, 82nd, 1st 2nd, 3rd, 4thID, similar ACR. Without abandoning Afghanistan or
other deployments

Posted by narciso at June 27, 2007 10:36 AM

Hanbali (not ham) is part of sunni islam. Wahhabism (a sunni reform movement) and hanbali (one of several sunni schools of thought pertaining to religious law) share some influences but they're both directions/subdivions within sunni islam and as such don't compare directly with sufism (mysticism) which transcends and intermingles with both sunni and shia.

Posted by Habiat Hermit at June 27, 2007 06:49 PM

Post a comment