Apparently the Dixie Chicks made some comments the other day in London about being ashamed to share a home state with the President.

“I feel the president is ignoring the opinions of many in the U.S. and alienating the rest of the world,” Maines said in the statement. “My comments were made in frustration and one of the privileges of being an American is you are free to voice your own point of view.” And while Maines maintains her beef with Bush, she’s much more supportive of the United States troops.

“While we support our troops, there is nothing more frightening than the notion of going to war with Iraq and the prospect of all the innocent lives that will be lost,” Maines said.

It wasn’t reported whether or not she had any fright, or even mild concern, about all the innocent lives that are currently being lost under Saddam’s brutal regime.

I can’t imagine that this will be helpful to their record sales. It seems to me that few people will go out and buy an album because they hear an artist say something with which they feel political sympathy, but I’m sure that there are many, particularly among their audience, who will boycott them over stupid statements.

In a few days, or weeks, or months, depending on the vagaries of international diplomacy, we will be “carpet bombing” Iraq, and killing many thousands of innocent civilians, if the opponents of the next major battle in the war are to be believed.

Of course, that’s nonsense.

Those who make such claims are not just ignorant of military history, but current military technology.

“Carpet bombing” is a specific phrase, to be applied to a specific tactic, which is to bombard an area with bombs, indiscriminately, to ensure that whatever target is…well…a target, is to be utterly obliterated.

It is not just a phrase, but a concept, from the past.

We did it in World War II, when we bombed Dresden and Tokyo, and created huge firestorms in those cities, which destroyed them and killed many thousands of their civilian inhabitants. Whether or not they were innocent depends, of course, on your view of the culpability of the populace for their bloodthirsty leadership. We also did it in North Vietnam.

Fortunately, and contrary to those who think that we are invading Iraq for oil, or global hegemony, and are willing to kill thousands, even hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians to do carry out our evil designs, modern space-based weaponry will allow us to accomplish our actual goals of liberation of the Iraqi people, and increased US security, without having do to so.

In past wars, decades ago, our technology was limited. We had crude propeller-driven bombers, with passive bombs constrained by laws of physics going back to Galileo. Yes, yes, we had Norden bombsights that could “drop a bomb into a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet.”

But the “pickle barrel” claims were exaggerated. In fact, while the firestorms of Dresden and Tokyo were actually worse than the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in terms of destruction and loss of life, it was partly because our capability of delivering weapons was unfathomably crude by today’s standards.

Today, we have precision-guided munitions, with the ability to accurately hit an individual target within a dozen yards, and our ability to do so is driven largely by space technology.

Millions of Americans today drive, hunt, fish and hike with now-ubiquitous personal Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers. They’ve become so much a part of daily life that many have forgotten, or perhaps never knew, that the system was originally designed and built by the Pentagon to aid our military. The investment in that reliable constellation of satellites high overhead paid off hugely in the first Gulf War, allowing our troops to move across roadless and moonless deserts, taking the Iraqi army totally by surprise from an unexpected direction.

The other thing that awed the enemy in that war was our cruise missiles and guided bombs, that almost literally could be dropped into the proverbial pickle barrel, but such weaponry was actually used to only a limited extent, being new technology and very expensive at the time. In the dozen years of armistice in that conflict, about to be renewed, such weapons have gotten much cheaper, and proved their value in the liberation of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001. One of the reasons for the delay (not “rush”) to renewed fighting in Iraq was to allow time to rebuild our inventories of them.

We have restocked now, and such munitions will be a major component of the war, allowing us to selectively destroy military targets while leaving totally unharmed civilians in adjacent buildings.

But as we grow ever more dependent on our large array of satellites to serve as our military’s eyes and ears, and more nations develop space launch capability, we will face a new vulnerability and threat–anti-satellite weapons. With our new doctrines and tactics, the loss of even a fraction of our orbital assets would be militarily disastrous, and right now, we have neither the means to defend them, or the ability to quickly replace them, because our launch infrastructure remains expensive and unresponsive.

It would take years and many billions of dollars to replace the dozens of satellites in the GPS constellation. And the satellites themselves are expensive largely because of the difficulty and cost of getting them to their place of business. If launch were cheap and routine, satellites could be also, because they wouldn’t have such a need for high reliability, and the costly process of extreme weight minimization could be dispensed with.

I expect that the upcoming liberation of Iraq will demonstrate far beyond any remaining doubts how essential space has become to our ability to protect our nation, with minimal loss of life of both our own troops and innocent civilians. It is time to start thinking seriously about developing routine access to orbit, both to ensure our continued ability to utilize this new high ground, and to expand such utility in new ways. This won’t necessarily require fleets of military launch systems, however.

Much of our equipment and troops were delivered to the Middle East on commercial aircraft, via a program called the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF). Airlines and cargo companies (such as Federal Express) are provided with subsidies by the Pentagon, in return for the use of their aircraft in times of need. This allows the Department of Defense to maintain a large airlift capacity without having to maintain its own dedicated fleet of transports.

CRAF is a program that was applied to an existing industry, but consider the possibility of something similar–a Civil Reserve Space Fleet–that could be used to encourage the creation of a new space transportation industry, using reusable space transports.

We have a confluence of requirements for safe, low-cost launch. NASA can no longer rely on the Shuttle, there is growing interest in public space travel and tourism, and the military needs reliable and affordable access to defend and replace its increasingly-critical space assets.

On the eve of a battle that will once again demonstrate the criticality of space in defending freedom and saving lives, surely we can come up with sensible yet innovative policy that can allow these needs to be served by incentivizing a new and vital private industry. Such a foresighted and enlightened policy would finally make us a truly space-faring nation, and allow the life-saving potential of space technology to continue to flower far beyond the impressive strides that it’s made to date.

I found a nifty explanation (written for scientists and engineers) of the proper use of the restrictive versus the non-restrictive clause. It uses (naturally) set theory.

The confusion between “that” and “which” is very common, even among professional writers and journalists, and many otherwise superlative bloggers (I’m looking at you, Mr. Den Beste…). Read it, and improve your writing almost instantly.

This really isn’t a nitpick, like dangling participles and split infinitives. The words really do mean different things, and wrong usage actually changes the meaning of the sentence, though it’s usually possible to figure out what the writer meant. The author of the link above has another page in which she explains why it’s so important.

Anyway, the use of “which” for “that” is always jarring to my eyes, particularly because I generally expect the former to be accompanied by a comma, and it never is when used incorrectly.

The New Mexico state assemblyman from Roswell wants to have a state holiday to honor space aliens.

Extraterrestrial Culture Day would be held the second Thursday of February and would honor space travelers from other worlds and even give a nod to creatures made famous in movies, such as E.T. in Steven Spielberg’s 1982 blockbuster film.

In July of each year, thousands of earthly visitors descend on Roswell, the self- appointed alien capital of the world, where many UFO buffs believe an alien craft crash-landed in 1947, based on claims that alien bodies were discovered there.

The town’s population of 45,000 doubles and even triples during the week long festival that includes speakers on extraterrestrial life, UFOs and other anomalies such as crop circles.

Foley feels the same excitement — and economic benefit– can be spread to the rest of the state by adding a state-sanctioned day of alien celebration.

“If we can capitalize on something that did or did not happen in 1947 then it can help the entire state,” Foley said.

Way to put your state on the map, Assemblyman Foley…

Too bad we can’t get them interested in Roswell for something that we know happened there–it was the site of much of Robert Goddard’s pioneering work on rocketry.

Some scientists are now theorizing that the dinosaurs weren’t wiped out by a single asteroid strike, but by a barrage of them. Others are skeptical.

It wouldn’t necessarily surprise me. Sometimes asteroids, and particularly large comets, are more of a cloud of bodies than a discrete single one. Recall the multiple impacts on Jupiter a few years ago when it crossed the path of Shoemaker-Levy.

Punditwatch notes that on Fox News Sunday, Juan Williams blathered:

“I?m worried about the fact that that some people are willing to demonize anybody who questions this war effort as if they?re stupid.?

Gee, and here I thought that to “demonize” someone was to make them like, well, a demon. You know, a devil. An evil-type person.

Of course, I guess there’s nothing to prevent them being both evil and stupid.

Just kidding, and given that it was spoken rather than written, maybe I’m being a little too hard on him here.

But still, Juan is worried about “some people.” Which people? It might help his cause if he’d admit that many who oppose the war actually are stupid, or at least their arguments for doing so are (particularly the pearls of wisdom handed down from the sages of Sunset Boulevard).

What he should really be worried about is that, while there are reasoned cases to be made against the war (though I disagree with them), they’re very rarely articulated, and the stupid ones seem to dominate mind share, even in reportage and editorials in the Paper Formerly Known as the Paper of Record. Most of the “anti-war” sentiment seems to be motivated mostly by anti-Bush sentiment and, in extreme cases, anti-American sentiment.

And of course (as an aside) the notion that the fiasco in the UN is of our making is ridiculous. If a country believes that it’s in its national interest to support a dictator, then no amount of diplomacy, or acceptance of Kyoto Treaties, will change its mind. That’s the fundamental flaw of those believe that all differences can be reconciled by simply talking it out, and that creatures like Saddam can be persuaded to give up his weapons, if only we give him enough time.

One other comment on the most recent proposals to, instead of deposing Saddam, “simply” increase the inspections regime: I heard a debate between Richard Perle and former Congressman Tom Andrews on Blitzer’s show yesterday. When Perle challenged Andrews about how insensitive he was to the plight to the Iraqi people, it clearly stung. I wish that more people would do this. Let’s look at the rush transcript:

PERLE: I see no sensitivity in your argument to the plight of the Iraqi people, none whatsoever. And it’s tragic, because Iraqis are (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

BLITZER: Go ahead and respond.

ANDREWS: We feel very strongly that Saddam Hussein has to be contained, disarmed and that the people of Iraq must be protected. You don’t have to invade and occupy to protect innocent men, women and children. We have seen this time and again.

We’re calling for…

PERLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

ANDREWS: Please, if you will. Some of our members have stood up just two days ago and said “We’d like to have Saddam Hussein indicted as a war criminal.” We’re talking about placing human rights monitors throughout Iraq so that he can’t continue to create the havoc inside of Iraq.

There are whole series of things, Wolf, that we can…

BLITZER: We’re almost out of time. Richard, go ahead and respond to that.

PERLE: Well, I think it’s just hopelessly impractical. I don’t think this is a serious approach to the protection of the people of Iraq who have been murdered in substantial numbers by Saddam Hussein and who will continue to be murdered by him as long as he’s in power.

This sounds to me like a desperate off-the-cuff comment to defend himself against the (apparently unexpected) charge of being insufficiently solicitous of the welfare of the Iraqi people.

Let me amplify on Mr. Perl’s comment, because Wolfie can’t cut me off.

Let’s repeat: “You don’t have to invade and occupy to protect innocent men, women and children. We have seen this time and again.”

Note that there are no examples of any case in which women and children have been protected without “invading and occupying”–it’s just stated as though everyone has seen it, time and time again.

“Some of our members have stood up just two days ago and said ‘We’d like to have Saddam Hussein indicted as a war criminal.'”

Fine, indict him. Who will deliver the indictment? As Lileks once said, knock real loud on the palace door. Sometimes they’re down in the basement biowarfare lab gassing bunnies, and don’t hear you the first time.

OK, so you’ve indicted him. Now what? Will there be a trial? Will it be in absentia? If so, and he’s convicted, how will he be punished? Will that be in absentia, too? Will he get a severe long-distance frowning?

Oh, you mean you’d like him to show up and actually be in the dock, and be able to actually punish him if convicted?

How will that occur, Tom and friends? Will we simply invite him, and hope he shows? Do you have an actual plan for getting him to accept the invitation, that doesn’t involve “invading and occupying”? If so, what is it?

“We’re talking about placing human rights monitors throughout Iraq so that he can’t continue to create the havoc inside of Iraq.”

You’re “talking about placing human rights monitors throughout Iraq”?

You’re pretty good at “talking about” stuff, Tom and friends.

I know this will seem like a silly question, but suppose Saddam doesn’t want “human rights monitors throughout Iraq”? Have you “talked about it” with him? What if, after a pleasant conversation over tea, and a group hug, Saddam says, “no, thank you anyway, my noble friends, but the Iraqi people have no need or interest in human rights monitors, though we’ll be happy to accept some human shields to protect our palaces and oil refineries.”

Now what, Tom and friends? Do you have a plan for putting in the “human rights monitors” that doesn’t involve “invading and occupying” or at least maintaining an imminent (as in “on almost a moment’s notice”) threat of one?

If the latter, who will pay to maintain the force we’ve built up there indefinitely? Who will pay for the additional forces that we’ll have to build up to deal with other problems (like Korea) to compensate for the fact that we have so many tied down in the Middle East indefinitely?

Can we charge Saddam for that? If so, how do we get him to pay? What if he doesn’t want to?

Should we charge the French? Will they pay?

Really?

How about the families of the servicemen who will be separated from them for months or years, with no end in sight? How about the morale of men and women who have trained to do a job, and now have to sit there, waiting, their training edge deteriorating weekly, and then daily, afraid that they will have to go in and fight in chem suits in the sweltering heat of August, while Saddam continues to build up weapons in hidden places because even though we know that you’d really really like for the “weapons inspectors” to be a combination of the great Kreskin and Sherlock Holmes, let’s face it, they’re not?

But let’s ignore all that, and continue to play along.

Suppose that, by some miracle, after sufficient “talking about” things, the human rights monitors are actually placed in Iraq? How many will there be? Will they be on every street corner? The abuses are widespread enough that it’s difficult to see how anything else will do, if you want to actually prevent them.

And how much force will they be allowed to carry to do so? From what I hear, Saddam’s goons are pretty brutal. I don’t think they’ll desist from abducting and raping or torturing someone, or dousing them with gasoline and setting them ablaze, simply because a “human rights monitor” asks them nicely, or even if they frown while making a stern request, or even (heaven forfend) a demand.

Oh, you mean that the monitors aren’t there to prevent abuses, but only to “monitor” them (i.e. observe and report them to somebody)?

I guess that makes sense, given their name. I just kind of figured or hoped that, you know, as “inspectors” really apparently means “detectives” or “mind-readers” to you folks, that maybe “monitors” meant something else. As in, something that might actually be helpful to the long-suffering Iraqi people.

But then, how will the Iraqi people actually be protected, rather than have their “civil rights monitored”? Will there be armed blue helmets on the ground, to whom the monitors can report, and if necessary, actually prevent abuses? How many of those will there be? Remember that there would have to be at least as many as Saddam’s minions, which if you count the army, number many tens of thousands.

So now we have a Saddam with no control over his ability to develop weapons, no control over his army, no ability to enforce his whimsical and cruel dictates. Just what is his job, and how will he carry it out? What is the point in leaving him “in power,” if he’s to be granted none? And why would he agree to it?

Moreover, in what way does this situation differ from an “occupation”?

As far as I can see, (assuming that it’s effective at all, and not merely more pretending to solve the problem with “inspectors” and “monitors”) the only difference is that it’s an occupation by UN forces instead of US coalition forces, and that it’s somehow magically accomplished, by some inspecified means, without an “invasion.” And of course, if Tom and friends don’t mean to actually be able to prevent human rights abuses, but only to “monitor” them, then it’s simply a cynical ploy to pretend that they actually give a damn about the Iraqi people, when called on it on news shows.

So, stupid, naive, or something else, Juan? I report, you decide.

[Update at 7 PM PST]

Vegard Valberg agrees that the notion of leaving the troops in place to enforce continued “inspections” is a leftist scam, with the cost accruing to the Anglosphere and the benefits accruing to the socialists and apparent lovers of fascist dictators (though what’s most important, of course, is hatred of Amerikkka, globalism, and capitalism).

Though the Professor beat me to it (it helps to be in a time zone three hours ahead…), I’d like to note that, as we are about to embark on the next phase in the war against the poisonous ideology that fueled them, it is a year and a half since the atrocities of September 11, 2001.

I guess we only make a big deal of it on integer anniversaries.

I’m out of town for the weekend. Nothing new before Tuesday…

Jack Straw really put it to the French at the UN today.

The Anglosphere solidifies further.

North Korea is making new threats.

Once again, I want to extend my eternal gratitude to those people who have been determined to prevent us from having a missile defense for the past two decades.