The U.S. isn't the only nation asked to be a world policeman, and then criticized when it does so.

Australia is attacked for its alleged "overzealous" conduct in East Timor.

An Indonesian foreign policy advisor, Ali Alatas, states that a letter from PM Howard was instrumental in Indonesia's about-face concerning the East Timor independence vote.  Alatas criticizes Australia's overzealousness in deploying troops to East Timor.

Alatas seems to have been unaware of the slaughter of East Timorese carried out by the Indonesian military. 

Pakistan continues its struggle with the scourge of terrorism.

A train bombing in India, on the so-called "India-Pakistan peace train", killed over sixty people.

The terrorism did not interfere with Pakistan's Foreign Minister's trip to India today (20 Feb 2007). 

Most of the victims of the attack were Pakistanis returning to Pakistan, many after visiting relatives in India, according to the story.  A Pakistani government spokesman stated that India has responsibility for ensuring security for the train when the train is on Indian territory.

Perhaps Pakistan should stop supporting terrorists in India.

My take on the motive: a rapprochement between India and Pakistan is not desirable for the terrorists.  Any such final negotiations between India and Pakistan would result in the Kashmir issue, which could rob the terrorists of their Pakistani government sponsorship.  Attacking Pakistanis was likely hoped to discourage continued Pakistani-India peace talks, especially on the "friendship" train.  Setting India and Pakistan against each other ensures the state of affairs which allows these terrorists to become shahid, whatever the plural is.  Making India the responsible party, by failing to provide proper security, may, in the eyes of the terrorists be sufficient to make Pakistan break off peace talks.

The terrorists need the Kashmir issue.  Resolving the issue would rob them of their reality. 

The attack also demonstrates, yet again, that other Muslims are disposable to the terrorists. 

Senator Coleman, the only Republican senator I can remember having (Senators Young and Andrews were in the Senate when I was not in the first grade yet), was one of seven allegedly Republican senators who voted for cloture.  I sent the following letter to him:

Sen Coleman, I recently received a request from your office to be a part of re-election campaign in 2008.  Despite the fact that you have been very stand-up concerning the UN, UN corruption, and UN accountability, your vote for cloture on the anti-surge resolution makes it impossible to support you in 2008 (even if your opponent is Al Franken--I'll support primary opposition to you).

Senator, Gen. Petreus, recently confirmed, states that he needs the troops to execute his plan.  Why would the Congress vote to confirm a man who is a driving force behind the surge, and then cut him off at the knees?  It bespeaks an unseemly political cowardice.

Blowback from deserting Afghanistan after the Soviets fled resulted in more than 3,000 dead on American soil, to say nothing of those killed in Bali, Manilla, Casablanca, London, and Madrid, and elsewhere.  Allowing Iraq to descend into anarchy will result in similar chaos, into which void terrorists and al-Sadr's ilk can move.  We would permit Iraq to become an appendage of the mullahs.  We would invite the humanitarian crises that were predicted upon our invasion.

We would once again demonstrate that America is a dangerous ally and a harmless enemy.  Is this really the message we want to send, when we are trying to bring Iran to heel over its nuclear program, as well as get the DPRK to actually stand by its promises?

It takes years to build an effective, professional army.  Iraq's prior army was either tainted by the Ba'athist regime, or it was conscripted.  Iraq does not have a tradition of a professional military.  It must be built from scratch.  Building effective NCO and commissioned Officer corps takes years of training and experience, and only then can the Iraqi army begin training its troops.

When my unit was mobilized Feb 2003, the minimum duration expected to be necessary to invade and stabilize Iraq was a decade--and this prior to the idea of building a democracy.  15 years was a much more common expectation.

The U.S. began establishing a functioning government long before Iraq was stabilized and democratic institutions could be established.  The U.S. built some of its case for war on WMD--roughly three of the paragraphs (of 23) on the Iraq war resolution--no serviceable WMD have been found.  Mistakes have been made--but only in hindsight.  The U.S. runs the risk of committing its gravest error--one that cannot be corrected for--by abandoning Iraq to terrorists and Iranian-backed thugs.  This we cannot do.  This we must not do.

If the General in charge of Iraq feels that he needs more troops, and the Senate knew this before confirming him without a "no vote", the Senate cannot actually consider cutting him off at the knees without demonstrating unspeakable cowardice.

There are a great many strands of thought running through the letter.  That's likely not the best way to make a positive impression.  He's not going to change his mind or be shamed by the letter, anyway.

Iran's ruling regime faces upheavals among the students, as evidenced by student protests.  Iran faces labor strife, as evidenced by unauthorized strikes, especially the transportation strike of last year.  Iran also faces religious strife.

The Iranian regime maintains power through its secret police and religious police.  They also use that tool of all brutal tyrannies: the fear of the "other".

Iran's legal code, which provides for varying levels of recompense according to the religion and gender of the victim, enshrines in-group/out-group competition.  This hinders the ability of the mullah regime to unite their citizens against a defined "other".  "Death to America" chants will only take you so far.

Hence, the nuclear program.  The mullahs are using the nuclear program to create a sense of victimhood and of oppression by the outside world. 

If the mullahs were only seeking nuclear energy, they could have it without generating the current response of the West, but they seek more than energy.  They seek a means to tie their people together against a common enemy, and unite them around a cultural accomplishment.

Confronting the mullahs without recognizing their desire to consolidate their hold on power through the nuclear program is a recipe for failure.

Iran cannot continue its exporting of terrorism and the Iranian revolution if Iran does not exist.  Iran must therefore tie its people together.  Iran is successfully doing so by playing an ineffectual West for fools.  A feckless, capricious West is allegedly standing in the way of Iranian cultural and scientific progress.  This provides an "other" able to play the part of an enemy of all the Iranian people, regardless of religion or ethnicity. 

It's not working especially well, in terms of limiting strife and tying the people together against a common enemy, but this is through very little help of the West.  The West's inability to demonstrate a spine makes the West appear laughable.  The West's indecisiveness allows the regime to play for time, in the hope that a nuclear bomb will prove a better means to tie the nation together, than a nuclear program and a failed ideology do.

I don't know how many times I can say it.  I don't know how many different ways I can say it.  I'll say it again, anyway.

Those who advocate retreat from Iraq are fools, d*** fools, or cowards.

The same people who preached on the effect of blowback, as regards Afghanistan, now cannot comprehend a similar effect today, in Iraq.  The short-sightedness of it is incomprehensible unless one considers that those who advocate retreat (re-deployment) are fools.

The price of ignoring Afghanistan and leaving it to anarchy was more than 3,000 dead.  That was just the price from 11 Sept 01.  It ignores the price paid in Bali, Casablanca, London, and Madrid, so many other places.

Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.  A corollary--those who learn the wrong lessons from the mistakes of history are doomed make new and spectacular mistakes--is relevant today. 

The study of history is important.  The desire to learn from the mistakes of history is evident on both the left and right.  From parallels drawn to WWII to analogies to Viet Nam, people are determined to learn.  The problem is that too many people take their analogies out of meaningful context and draw parallels with intersecting lines.

I am not a historian.  While I've read von Clauswitz, I am not a tactician of any repute (for good reason).  VDH is able to draw parallels to Peloponnesian war.  Frederick Kagan can draw positive parallels to Viet Nam.

All I've got is a rudimentary understanding of logic.

It seems violently counterintuitive that a bunch of unarmed, unorganized, untrained ragtag butchers could have any possibility of defeating the most well-trained, well-armed, well-organized fighting force in the history of humanity.  The fact that it "seems" so should be reason enough to examine why it seems so.

The insurgents cannot hold territory against a determined assault.  Their tactics isolate them from the milieu in which they attempt to move.

The Tupamoros provide an instructive example.  The Tupamoros followed Marighella's doctrine of urban "guerrilla" warfare, discussed in the "Mini-Manual of the Urban Guerrilla".  (Marighella was a Brazilian doctor and legislator).  Marighella believed that small, autonomous groups engaging in urban terrorism would provoke the non-communist regime to show its true fascist colors and violently crack down on all citizens.  This crackdown would then, theoretically, open the eyes of the people, who would rise up to form traditional guerrilla armies to overthrow the oppressive regime.  The focus had to be in urban areas so as to get the most attention.

It didn't work that way in Uruguay.  The Tupamoros followed Marighella, to the letter.  They engaged in expropriation--robbing banks--to gain funds to finance their terrorism.  They kidnapped and held civilians for ransom.  The government of Uruguay responded as Marighella predicted.  The citizens of Uruguay did not.  The citizens of Uruguay, for a large part, supported the government crackdown.  Uruguay is still recovering 40 years later from the effects of the campaign of terrorism, and the resulting crackdown.  Uruguay never reached the point of Argentina, but it still lost much of itself.

The insurgents' inability to cause a religious and ethnic conflagration, despite years of trying and numerous heinous provocations demonstrates their limited constituency.  The millions who risked their lives to vote provides another demonstration of their limited constituency.  With the insurgents' limited constituency, it is possible to starve the insurgency and attrit the insurgency.

Merely because the U.S. is fighting a counter-insurgency, in a foreign land, in the midst of a "civil war", does not make the present situation Viet Nam.  The terrain, the weather, the immediate political history, and so many other things are so violently different as to make any such basic analogy meaningless.  Too many people don't recognize this.  (Both in this, and the following example, I am simplifying some of the arguments from analogy.  But, only just).

Just because the U.S. is in a long term fight against fascists does not make the present situation WWII.  Our enemies are un-uniformed and do not follow a command structure.  They do not use traditional, legitimate military tactics.  The American attitude toward sacrifice has shifted (to put it mildly).

We are not fighting the Viet Nam war, or WWII (or the Peloponnesian war).  We are fighting the Iraq war, or battle, if you will.  There are lessons to be learned from Viet Nam, as well as from WWII, and the Peloponnesian war.  Everything, however, must be viewed in context.

The lessons must be taken from similar contexts.

The withdrawal of the Soviets from Afghanistan left a weak and ineffectual government behind.  A civil war ensued.  An outside power (Pakistan) introduced a stabilizing influence, the Taliban,  into Afghanistan.  Members of the Taliban were ethnically and religiously allied with Pakistan.  The Taliban was overtly supported and sponsored by Pakistan until 11 Sept 01.  Parts of the Pakistani government continue to support the Taliban to date.

This is an analogy of more recent vintage.  Iran plays the part of Pakistan.  Ethnic strife (Uzbek, Tajik, and Pushtun) is replaced with religious and ethnic strife (Sunni, Shi'a, Kurd, minority religions).  I expect the analogy to extend further in tragic ways if retreat is forced.

If they are not fools, perhaps they are merely cowards.  They cannot face the difficult decisions that are made by a nation at war.  They are unwilling to accept the sacrifices that often must be made, in the face of intractable enemies.  Because they are unwilling to do so, they impute their unwillingness to do so on to everyone else. 

People don't like war.  People shouldn't like war.  War, however, if I may paraphrase, sometimes wants us. 

Perhaps there are valid reasons for a withdrawal from Iraq.  Perhaps I've been to harsh.  I have yet, however, to hear any such arguments and I cannot fathom any such arguments.  I am more than willing to entertain such arguments, but the burden of proof lies on those who seek to convince me of the rightness and wisdom of withdrawal. 

Let's hope that the plan to close the Iraqi borders with Iran and Syria is effective.  Starving the insurgents of men and materiel is vital to isolating and destroying the insurgents.

Speaking of insurgents, al-Sadr is being followed to Iran by some of his followers.  Provided the border is successfully shut, they can stay there and rant.

"...because there is no future".

Chavez is destroying his country.  HugoChavezWatch details many of the ways that Chavez is destroying the Venezuelan economy.  He's forming alliances with Iran, Syria, and other irresponsible regimes.  He continues to prop up the communist he11-hole of Cuba.  He's on a weaopns buying spree (and our "friend" Russia is more than happy to sell).

What's the point of this?

None, really.  Just thought a reminder of what Chavez is doing in Venezuela would be welcome.

What was that about the Monroe Doctrine?  The Roosevelt Corrollary?

I don't know how much is being done to support democrats in Venezuela, but I dearly hope that something is being done.

Only because it's too easy.

The New York Times reports al-Sadr may be in Iran:

"...it was unclear why he had chosen to leave Iraq at this time".

Surely you jest NYT.  The reason he left is that he doesn't want to be captured, killed, or in some other way marginalized.  Fleeing to another country worked for Ayatollah Khomeini.  He was able to return in triumph and be the figurehead of the Islamic Revolution, a revolution that was as communist as it was Islamist (what with all the Soviets running around).  Perhaps al-Sadr sees himself in Khomeini's mold.  Or maybe he doesn't want to catch a 5.56 round.  Either way, it's pretty clear that he left to avoid the infidels moving into the neighborhood.

"If Mr. Sadr had indeed fled, his absence would create a vacuum that could allow even more radical elements of the Shiite group to take power".

The idea is to create a power vacuum...into which the Iraqi Army can move in to fill.  That's kind of how "counterinsurgency" works: drive out the insurgent elements and replace their presence with a government presence.  Al-Sadr's Mahdi army is not a legitimate arm of the Iraqi government.  Ergo, it cannot be allowed to operate.  If more "radical" elements--and we're talking shades of gray here, anyway--attempt to fill the vacuum, the U.S. Army will be there to "discourage" them.

h/t Corner.

Anyway, the flight of al-Sadr should give al-Maliki the "freedom" to actually act as though he were the leader of Iraq.

Provided the U.S. does not abandon al-Maliki as it once did the Shah (admittedly not a nice guy, but next to the mullahs he was Thomas Jefferson, and he was a friend of Israel), al-Sadr should be free to rant and rave in Iran, without having the opportunity to return at the head of a conquering Mahdi army which will launch Iraq's Islamic Revolution.

Oh, and by the way, johnkerry invites everyone to assist in bringing about the Iraqi Islamic Revolution, with all its attendant humanitarian crises, diminishment of American ability to project power, and recruiting boon to AQ and like ilk, by inviting people to become "citizen" co-sponsors of his childish demand to surrender.  And I don't think anyone actually reads emails sent there.  The one I sent was rather derogatory toward his plan, but he sent me an invitation anyway.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Roughly 8,732 people have written about the NorK deal.  Is that going to stop me?  Heck no.

Let us posit, for the sake of argument that Kim can be trusted to keep his side of the deal (basically the same deal that disgraceful ex-President jimmacarter brokered in 1994).  What then?

The people of North Korea will continue to starve and be oppressed by an autocratic regime.  North Korea will continue to be a supporter and sponsor of terrorism.  North Korea will continue to be a humanitarian disaster.  North Korea will continue to be a destabilizing force.  North Korea will continue to be a criminal enterprise whose major exports are counterfeit U.S. currency, missile technology, and non-nuclear WMD information.

Why?

The "man" at the top of the hill. 

Any deal that leaves Kim at the top of the heap should be rejected by the clear thinking.  Leaving aside the fact that he cannot be trusted to keep a deal, he is a brutal tyrant who kidnaps the citizens of an American ally (Japan), and acts irresponsibly (landing saboteurs in neighboring nations).  (Yes, I'm calling for regime change.  I think I've been unclear on that point over the last several months.  That is to be corrected now.  Mr. Kim must go.  I don't care how.  I don't care where.  He is a menace to his people and a destabilizing force in East Asia, who gives the PRC the cover to brutally oppress their own people and provides a degree of prominance it, as a tyrannical regime, does not deserve.)

Add to this the fact that our good friend al-Baradei speaks of "freezing" the NorK nuclear program, not dismantling.  He'll be in charge of the compliance inspections.  Two guesses how effective he'll be.  The first one doesn't count.  Any takers?

Let us now return to a point I was willing to stipulate to initially: Mr. Kim can keep his word.  In short, he can't be trusted to keep his word.  Neither can the PRC.  Neither can Russia.  And quite frankly, neither can South Korea.  Mr. Kim's past history gives no reason to believe that he can be trusted.  Same for the PRC and Russia.  South Korea appears to have an even worse death wish than that afflicting American "leadership".

The U.S., Japan, and the like are supposed to represent the forces of international order, so why did the U.S. et al have to make concessions, and in effect, bribe North Korea to behave responsibly?  (What kind of negotiations start with a demand for what you believe you can get, rather than more that what you can get, so as to have something to bargain away?) 

The U.S. cannot continue to act as weakly, as though the U.S. is not a superpower. 

U.S. effectively concedes Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons.

The WH has definitively ruled out an invasion of Iran.

Nobody likes war.  Taking it off the table, however, provides Iran no incentive to stop interfering in Iraq, no incentive to stop its nuclear program, no incentive to stop supporting, sponsoring, sheltering, and arming terrorists.

Iran has ignored the threats of sanctions.  August 22 passed to no effect.  Countless other deadlines have shown to be entirely ephemeral.

The UN, the EU, and Russia have proven to have no real desire to stop, or even hinder, Iran's eventual production of nuclear weapons.  The likely consequences for the region, and also for the future effectiveness of transnational organizations, are dire.  Shi'a Persians with nuclear weapons will lead to an arms race for Sunni Arab nations to develop their own weapons, if only for defensive purposes.  Egypt has previously started down the path, before turning away prior to reaching the goal.  They won't stop short next time. 

Further consequences need not be elucidated: just imagine the worst possible world, and you've likely considered the likely consequences.

Von Clauswitz taught that war is but politics by other means (maybe this is what congresscritters mean when they say there is only a political solution to Iraq).  To unilaterally take it off the table when confronting a dangerous rogue regime is to make oneself a eunuch prior to entering a cathouse: you can talk, but you're not going to accomplish anything.

From the expert in destabilization, Czar Putin: U.S. militarism is destabilizing the world.

If only the U.S. were providing nuclear advice and technology to irresponsible Iran, then perhaps we could be a "stabilizing" force in the world.  Or if the U.S. were selling weapons to Chavez.  Or if the U.S. were starving its neighbors of energy to influence the internal politics of those nations.  Or if the U.S. were murdering reporters who disagreed with the Administration.  Or if the U.S. were assasinating ex-pats critical of the present Administration.

It's just too easy.

The U.S. is not perfect, but we're a d*** sight better than we're given credit for.

Putin claims that no nation is safe from the American hegemon.

C'mon.  A little imagination please.

What nations face a realistic threat from the U.S.?  Iran, Syria, and North Korea.  Does anyone seriously think that these nations are representative of the nations of the world?  These are all irresponsible totalitarian states, who brutally oppress their people, sponsor and support terrorism, meddle in the affairs of sovereign states, and are attempting to develop WMD, so as to better meddle, murder, and oppress.

The "holy war" in Somalia, just like the ones in Iraq and Israel, features random rocket fire which advances no military purpose.

Guerilla warfare is differentiated from mere terrorism by its targets and its tactics.  Guerillas attack legitimate military targets: not markets, hotels, schools, or municipal buses.  Guerillas utilize legitimate military tactics: ambush, assault, mortar, and firefights, not suicide bombings, car bombs, or hiding in the civilian populace without uniforms or a command structure.  Guerillas have an possibility of success with each action, whereas the only goal of terrorism is to inflict terror on the population and success is measured by that metric, not in terms of territory gained or lost.

These are butchers and murderers of the worst kind.

Why was the UN still providing technical assistance to the regime in Tehran, after the alleged drop dead date of 22 August 2006?

Well, whatever the reason, they've stopped (almost half), thereby demonstrating the teeth on the UN and Mohamed al-Baradei.  Maybe they'll put in their dentures one of these days.

Iran is believe to be building 30,000 centrifuges at an underground area of its uranium enrichment facility.  How much do you want to bet that Iran can just as easily have multiple sites that the UN knows nothing about?

Saudi Arabia has made a move to establishing a council to chosse the successor to the king.

I'm not planning on holding my breath until SA becomes a constitutional monarchy. 

SA continues to export its radical ideology and its unemployed future jihadists.  SA's economy continues to be dependant, solely, on petroleum.  SA has a massive payout scheme, for its vast royal family, which discourages work and innovation.  Half of SA's population is kept hidden and deprived of its ability to contribute economically. 

Townhall's Resident Military Expert has brought Us an interesting game of "Tag."  Apparently Jimmy Carter has tagged me it.  As did Sheila of One Eighty.  This better not mean I've got to come up 12 weird things about myself.

The rules are:
"Each player of this game starts with the 6 weird things about you. People who get tagged need to write a blog of their own 6 weird things as well as state this rule clearly. In the end, you need to choose 6 people to be tagged and list their names. Don't forget to leave a comment that says you are tagged in their comments and tell them to read your blog."

Most of the preceding was blatantly stolen from Jimmy Carter.

I had a wee of a difficult time trying to come up with a post topic on this one.

I have odd internal monologues (the "best" of which end up posted here).  Granted, not all of the monologues are strictly internal.  I only go Hamlet when I'm alone, though.

When listening to the radio, or reading National Review, I've been known to launch into debates wherein every other external stimuli is ignored so that I can debate whatever chosen issue peacefully.  Ideally, these debates enable me to strengthen my arguments and identify weaknesses in those arguments.  Or, they demonstrate my shallow grasp on sanity.

Lloyd Alexander wrote a series of books, loosely based on Welsh myth: The Black Cauldron, The High King, etc.  There are five rather short books.  They are children's books, but I like to tell myself that there are deeper truths (or something) contained in them.  I certainly hope so because I read them annually around Christmas time and have done so for many years.

Like Jimmy Carter, I leave the lid on the "throne" down, when it is not in use (it'd be awfully nasty to leave it down while in use).  It looks cleaner. 

Intermission:
I'm also chasing a goal of watching every movie Mel Brooks ever made.  I'm pretty sure that that is not weird though.  Is anyone else humming the final song from History of the World: Part I...?

Continued:
I have a tendency to "quote" Far Side comics.  It's kind of tough to quote a comic.  I've got to set up the scene and then deliver the one liner.  I'm not gifted with a great sense of comic timing though.

I've seen Braveheart several dozen times.  I quote movies and the like randomly.  The title of the last post ...And the [French] comes from the Austin Powers movie where his father is discussing the two things in this life that he can't stand: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures...and the Dutch.  That's always funny.

That's got to be close enough to six.

Now I've got to come up with six people:
Random guy at Young Conservative has been away a while (likely b/c he's busy with school)
Eric Jay at Neophyte Pundit
Josh Todd at theDaytonian
Sunny at Vicarious Sunshine
Husker Jeff at A Critique of Pure Unreason
and High Minded Lunacy.