Friday, March 30, 2007

Where would you 'engage' them?

Pete Hoekstra has a question for the folks who want us out of Iraq.

'If you won't engage radical Islam in Iraq, where will you engage it?'

Uh, Afghanistan?

The question is so stupid it easily meets the Dawkins criterion for ridicule. Why does he say "engage" when he means "fight"? "Oh, I think Antarctica would be a fine place to engage radical Islam, only a few penguins to bother." "Oh us anti war people are just wimps, we don't want to fight anyone anywhere, we are not real men like that buff Pete Hoekstra." "Let's fight em in Indonesia, there's more Muslims there than anywhere else."

It is quite clear that there is no better place for a war than Iraq. Of course, Iraq is also a really bad place to have a war.

If we take his comment seriously, it implies that we have to fight 'radical Islam' somewhere, be it Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Algeria, etc. I suspect that comment will not make any friends in the Islamic world.

It is worth remembering also that the Congress did not vote to authorize a war against radical Islam in Iraq. (a)
AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have to say that on rereading the authorization, I do not see how it applies to the current situation. Iraq poses no continuing threat to the U.S. (never did, of course.) I haven't gone throught the laundry list of relevant UNSC resolutions, but common suggests that none are still relevant.

What Hoekstra really wants to say is if we don't fight them there we will have to fight them here, that favorite idiocy of the pro-death pro-war faction in this country, but he has somehow acquired a gram of shame.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Flush the Lottery

From michigan.gov:

The Michigan Lottery reported annual sales of $2.2 billion in fiscal 2006, and generated $688 million in net revenue for the state School Aid Fund, which supports public education programs throughout the state. Retailers received annual commissions of $165.3 million, while Michigan Lottery players collected prizes worth $1.3 billion.

$2.2 billion is about $220 per resident of Michigan. But the revenue generated is only about $69 per resident. Retailers received $16 per resident, almost a 25% commission on revenue generated. One could generate that amount of revenue with a normal everyday tax with a lot less than 25% overhead.

That is not even getting into the fact that most lottery players don't receive winnings anywhere near 60% of what they spend.

Friday, March 23, 2007

Lind says

William S. Lind's latest article on good news from Iraq includes a devasting critique of the U.S. strategy.

He argues that we are fighting the Sunnis on behalf of the Shiites, in apparent contradiction to our enmity with the Shiites Iranian allies. Thus every tactical success makes us strategically weaker.

Hey, I know how to fix it, Beaver. Let's fight the Shiites too!

Such a policy would be less contradictory, but not less stupid. Lind says that the Shiites would be able to cut off supply lines and communication, leading to operational defeat.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

We are looking for a few bad apples

I just heard about this murder by Marines in Iraq. Do Marines not know how much actions like these inspire hatred and revenge by Iraqis? Do they not care? Do they realize how counterproductive it is to our stated goals in Iraq? Or are those goals, "benchmarks", "plan for victory" just bullshit and its all about the oil?

Monday, March 19, 2007

A country worth fighting for

Patrick Cockburn writes:

Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not going to be the main problem when the US and Britain invaded four years ago. His army would fall apart, as it had done in 1991 when he was expelled from Kuwait, because Iraqis simply would not fight for him.

We have freed Iraqis and made their country worth fighting for, and lo and behold, they are fighting for it. Smart move.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Sgt. Wuterich on 60 Minutes

Sgt. Wuterich of Haditha infamy was on 60 Minutes tonight. It wasn't pretty.

Early on, Wuterich gives the rules of engagement for using deadly force: positive ID, hostile act, hostile intent. The interviewer, Scott Pelley, then takes him through the events of the day. One of the men in his squad was killed when an IED hit his vehicle. Essentially, Wuterich shot and killed the first Iraqis he saw after that happened. There was no positive ID, and likely no hostile act by this group of Iraqis.

Wuterich and his men then decided to 'clear' two nearby houses. Again, the criteria for using deadly force were not followed. Part of clearing was to roll a grenade into a neigboring room through a crack in a door, although they had no idea who was present. This is how a bunch of children got killed. Wuterich first says he did not fire his weapon, they Pelley reminds him that six of the bodies had bullets from his gun.

Apologetics for atrocities such as Haditha often include the story about how the people committing the atrocities had been getting shot at , their friends got killed, etc. This is no excuse, but I am not sure who it is not an excuse for. It's not an excuse for those committing atrocites, since plenty of their comrades do not commit atrocities in the same circumstances.

But it is also not an excuse for the commanders to scapegoat Wuterich. When they start a war or send people into battle, they know some people will snap, although they may not know who or when. I do not know to what extent Marine training tries to prevent this from happening, but it is clear from human nature that it will be far short of 100% successful.

Trials of people like Wuterich are show trials. They are trying to score a PR point that "we are not cold blooded killers," for both domestic and internation consumption. People who snap and commit atrocities are tried for their personal failings alone, although the commanders know full well that if you subject a large group of people to the stress of combat, a certain percentage are likely to commit atrocities. Because they recognize that it is unfair to try individuals like Wuterich alone, defense attorneys are allowed to present a lot of evidence concering the particular stresses the defendent was subject to, thus influencing courts to give light sentences.

The same forces at work in the Haditha case were also at work in the My Lai and other atrocities from the Vietnam war.

In his interview, Wuterich does not come across as someone who was really well trained. This could be an ominous sign for the troops being sent to Iraq for the current surge without full training.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Petraeus says no military solution in Iraq.

Quote from General Petraeus: ""There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq. ... There needs to be a political aspect."

Bush is having none of that. “The goal of the enemies in Iraq is power, and they're willing to kill themselves and innocent men, women and children to achieve that goal,” he said. “People like these can't be satisfied by negotiations or diplomatic concessions.”

The U.S. did have some negotiations with the resistance in early 2006, according to the article http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=9336 by Gareth Porter. Its unclear whether Khalizad was freelancing, or whether the U.S. was just not serious.

More extensive quoting of Petraeus and Bush might give the impression that they are on the same page and agree on a particular mix of military and diplomatic approaches. I disagree with that. I think there is a serious disagreement between Petraeus and Bush, and they are trying to be a little bit nuanced and respectful of the other side in their public statements. (Bush "nuanced"? I swear, I don't do drugs.)

My prediction: at some point in early to mid 2008, the armed forces will tell Bush that they do not have the resources to maintain their efforts. Bush will start negotiation with the insurgents, but not negotiate seriously. The war will grind on. The next president will reach an agreement with the insurgency, but not a very good one. Petraeus will retire at the beginning of 2008, if he doesn't get fired sooner.

Sunday, March 04, 2007

Murtha in Haditha

So why is it that when a veteran like McCain says "wasted", everyone cuts him slack like "he's a great supporter of the troops." But when a veteran and hawk like Murtha says we have to redeploy, he is smeared with all sorts of crap?

It is because in U.S society, if you speak up for war and killing, you are hailed as a hero by the establishment, no matter whether you are a chickenhawk like Cheney, a recovering cokehead like you know who, or a former POW like McCain.

If you speak out for peace, you are called a traitor, accused of trying to bring the country down, of not supporting the troops, and many other sorts of lies. This is true even if you are a veteran who has shown great courage.

Also, if you are pro-war, but not sufficiently hawkish for real men like Sean Hannity (cough), you get the same sort of attacks. Just ask John Kerry. (On second thought, don't.)

Just stop it. Stop the war, stop attacking and smearing anyone who has a different view of what's good for the country, stop the snide asides like "validating Al-Qaeda's strategy", stop the financial corruption and privitization of killing, stop making our kids killers in a strange land.

Friday, March 02, 2007

Wasted

When a democrat says troops lives are wasted, they are criticized for undermining the troops, hating america, smoking weed with osama, etc. When a republican says it, the response is "he didn't really mean it," or "we know no one supports the troops more than John McCain"; that's why he supports surging more of them to Iraq to get wasted.

What I don't get is why people feel that for someone to die in a war has to have meaning. No one tries to put meaning into the facts surrounding the death of someone who dies in a car crash, or of cancer, or even who dies in their sleep of old age. We can all speculate about why this is so. I think one aspect of it is that dying in a war is so stupid and avoidable, that survivors do not want to admit that their loved one may have died not just for no reason, but voluntarily for no reason.

Another aspect, of course, is recruiting new soldiers by pumping up a mystique of sacrifice. The whole football macho bullshit stuff about proving you are tough gets kids 90% of the way to signing up, and the idea that if they die it will be meaningful gets them the rest of the way. Well, it is bullshit. To paraphrase Heller, no one person dying is going to make any difference, and if everyone thought that way, you would be a fool to feel any different.

I know this is not comforting to those who have lost loved ones in war. My only suggestion to them is to find meaning in their loved ones lives, not in their deaths, just like those who lose loved ones to accidents, cancer, and so on.