The Promise Fulfilled

Luke 2:16-20--16So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

The Promise

Isaiah 9:2-7--2 The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned. 3 You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy; they rejoice before you as people rejoice at the harvest, as men rejoice when dividing the plunder. 4 For as in the day of Midian's defeat, you have shattered the yoke that burdens them, the bar across their shoulders, the rod of their oppressor.
5 Every warrior's boot used in battle and every garment rolled in blood will be destined for burning, will be fuel for the fire.
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.

Christmas' a Comin'!

How angry must you be?

A California man set himself afire yesterday in protest of the local school board's decision to rename winter and spring breaks Christmas and Easter vacation, respectively:

A man used flammable liquid to light himself on fire, apparently to protest a San Joaquin Valley school district's decision to change the names of winter and spring breaks to Christmas and Easter vacation.

The man, who was not immediately identified, on Friday also set fire to a Christmas tree, an American flag and a revolutionary flag replica, said Fire Captain Garth Milam.

Kern County Sheriff's Deputy John Leyendecker said the man had a sign that read: "(expletive) the religious establishment and KHSD."

What a sad, confused and angry man to do such a foolish thing.

Dead Drop

As details about Sandy Berger's pilfering of documents from the National Archives in 2003 came out yesterday, the image morphed from bumbling boob to intentional thievery. Mike McLellan at the Arizona Republic had an interesting commentary:

Well, the truth came out recently about what he actually did, which was closer to Inspector Clousseau than James Bond. The Archives staff was suspicious of him because of his behavior and kept track of his movements while there. What happened was this: he stole the documents, took them outside and put them under a construction trailer, came back later, tore them into little pieces, and threw them away.

Which begs the question, still: Why did Berger risk his reputation (and possibly very serious charges) to get those documents? They related to security issues at the turn of the century. What was in them that Berger went to such great lengths to hide?

Well, okay maybe bumbling boob still works. Regardless, what's unbelievable is that the press so cavalierly ignores what happened here.

Here's a thought...

Let's negotiate with Iran...while they're destabilizing efforts in two theatres of operation:

Irrespective of the outcome of the James case, the mere suggestion that Iran should be seeking to recruit someone with access to the innermost counsels of Nato's high command is indicative both of Teheran's intense interest in Nato's activities in Afghanistan, and its determination to ensure that the West is not allowed to succeed in transforming the country from Islamic dictatorship into stable democracy.

It also makes a mockery of the recent suggestion, advanced in both Washington and London, that the only way to resolve the region's difficulties is by engaging in a constructive dialogue with Teheran. Whether it be in Iraq or Afghanistan, the over-riding priority of the regime of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is to ensure the coalition's efforts at nation-building end in failure.

Maybe that will start to clue people in on just how utterly fatuous an idea this is.

11:13 PM UPDATE--The Cluephone Always Rings Twice:


The Iranian government is partly to blame for a 1996 terrorist attack that killed 19 Americans in Saudi Arabia, a federal judge ruled Friday. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth allows the families of the victims of the Khobar Towers bombing to seek $254 million in compensation from the conservative Islamic regime in Tehran.

Though intelligence officials have suspected a link between the Tehran government and the Saudi wing of Hezbollah, which the FBI has accused of carrying out the bombing, Friday's ruling is the first time a branch of the U.S. government has officially blamed Iran for the deaths of Americans in the bombings. "This court takes note of plaintiffs' courage and steadfastness in pursuing this litigation and their efforts to take action to deter more tragic suffering of innocent Americans at the hands of terrorists," Lamberth wrote. "Their efforts are to be commended."

Lamberth relied heavily on testimony by former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who investigated the bombings. Two Iranian government security agencies and senior members of the Iranian government itself provided funding, training and logistical help to terrorists who carried out the attack on a dormitory that housed U.S. Air Force pilots and staff in Saudi Arabia, Freeh testified.

Lamberth had previously ruled that a survivor of the blast could seek compensation from Iran but Friday's ruling is the first time a court has said Iran was to blame for the deaths. The lawsuit was brought by the families of 17 of the 19 people killed in the attack.

Andy McCarthy makes clear that the AP claim of "the first time a branch of the U.S. government has officially blamed Iran for the deaths of Americans," is less than accurate. That's interesting and all, but hardly the point.

Still waiting, anxiously hoping somebody can make the argument about how and why we ought to be talking to the government in Iran instead of dealing with it in no uncertain terms.

"One ringy dingy..."

Happy Birthday to Me!

Impersonating Sim

Haven't got a durn thing to say...

Tales from Moronica: A Hollywood Story

Ah, the glitter of Hollywood...the bright lights..the money...the adulation...the addled brains.

Matt Damon on Hardball last night put on a display for the ages, in one interview capturing the essence of the inane rantings and ravings that characterize the most ridiculous of e-arguments:

MATTHEWS: Do you think the war was fought because the region--was it about WMD? Was it about Mideast politics? Was it about ideology?

DAMON: It kept changing when their excuses would change. They'd go, wait, actually they don't have any of that stuff. They'd go, oh, oh, well then it's actually about democracy. Well democracy is not going to work. We're just going to settle for--as long as it's secure. I mean, it just keeps changing.

MATTHEWS: Do you think guys like Cheney--I love to pronounce his name correctly, by the way. Do you think guys like--it's like a Dickensian name, Cheney. Do you think he knew he was saying stuff that wouldn't turn out to be true, or was he just mad dogged to fight the war?

DAMON: I'd like to see him under oath.

MATTHEWS: I would, too. I'd like to see him with you.

(APPLAUSE)

MATTHEWS: Do you think if you waterboarded Cheney, like in the movie, that you'd get a different truth out of him?

DAMON: Well, there's two answers to that question. One is he doesn't strike me as the kind of person who has any real personal courage. When it was his turn to go, he didn't go. He deferred six times.

MATTHEWS: He said he had other priorities.

DAMON: Yes, he had other priorities. And he doesn't seem to have other priorities about sending other kids there and other peoples kids.

(APPLAUSE)

MATTHEWS: We'll be back...

DAMON: ... The second part to the answer is that I believe that if you waterboard anybody, they'll tell you anything and that torture is completely impractical, on top of being dishonorable. It's completely impractical because you can--I mean, if you torture a normal person, if you torture anybody, they're going to tell you whatever you want them to tell you. So if you're getting information that you're going to then use and you get it by torturing them...

MATTHEWS: ... Why is man at his worst throughout history used it then if it doesn't work? Why has it always been part of--going to the Middle Ages, back to ancient times. People were so cruel to each other, they get what they want out of them. Why do they do it if it doesn't work?

DAMON: I don't know. I don't do it.

This is the kind of top-of-your-head, off-the-cuff ranting that passes for deep thinking at places like Democratic Underground and Daily Kos. Damon's criticism of Cheney's deferments ignores the fact that thousands of other men in similar life circumstances and of similar age were likewise granted the same kind of deferments.

As Hugh points out, it ignores even a basic understanding of Cheney's time in public service or the roles he's played over most of the last 30 years. Damon's criticism of the pro-war arguments fare no better.

As Hugh also notes, there were multiple arguments made for toppling Sadaam in 2002-2003. Tacit among them the humanitarian as well as transformative: The Administration's main public proponent of this view is Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, who often speaks about the possibility that war in Iraq could help bring democracy to the Arab Middle East. President Bush appeared to be making the same point in the State of the Union address when he remarked that "all people have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny-- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom."

Even those suffering from justification fatigue ought to pay special attention to this one, because it goes beyond the category of reasons offered in support of a course of action that has already been decided upon and set in motion. Unlike the other justifications, it is both a reason for war and a plan for the future.

Hugh is correct in this statement of the obvious about Nick Lemann's 2003 piece in the New Yorker: The complex arguments made for the invasion of Iraq were detailed by a liberal writer for a liberal magazine before the invasion and they haven't changed.

Damon was against the invasion. Fine. He has valid criticisms to make, fine. But he doesn't get to make stuff up and the charge of "changing justifications" is utterly ridiculous.

Matt Damon is a fine actor. To that he should stick. Like his early collaborative partner Ben Affleck, when extemporaneously discussing things political, he tends to look less like even an actor and more like a poser. And not a very good one.

Where I get off

According to the Washington Times this morning, the President is considering some deal-making in the interest of Legacy building over the next two years:

The Bush administration has sent signals since last month's elections that the president is prepared to accept some tax increases on upper-income families, worrying congressional Republicans and fiscal conservative watchdogs who say he will compromise with Democrats to win a legacy accomplishment.

Meanwhile, the House's top Republican on tax cuts, outgoing Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, warned last week that the White House has hinted that it will accept a tax increase on higher-income families in order to win accommodations from Democrats.

"I wish I were a bit more comfortable in listening to some of the noises that are currently being made," Mr. Thomas, California Republican, told the American Enterprise Institute, saying he is seeing signs that the administration may be "moving away from hard-fought policies to salvage what you thought you weren't going to get."

"Based upon some statements made by people in prominent positions who deal with money within the administration, comments about the individual top tax rate make me a little nervous," he said.

The White House-congressional split highlights a problem that Mr. Bush is likely to face for the next two years: the increasing division between Mr. Bush and his party as he works to find common ground with Democrats and Republicans work to hold the line on tax cuts and other gains they made on the Republican agenda.

Social Security could be the first test. Since November, Mr. Bush has said everything should be on the table in the effort to fix the program's finances -- a statement in sharp contrast to his declaration after the 2004 elections that "We will not raise payroll taxes to solve this problem."
Asked twice in recent weeks about the president's plans, White House press secretary Tony Snow wouldn't rule tax increases out.

Where do I start...

As one who has defended the President's policies in Iraq, his effort to deal with Social Security two years ago and both the SWIFT and NSA surveillance programs; as one who has endured name-calling, condescension and outright hostility for my trouble, this is infuriating.

I've defended Iraq because, despite the incompetent execution and poor judgments along the way, I thought the overall policy was right. Deep down I believe the President "gets it" when it comes to fighting Islamists in the WOT.

I certainly believed in 2001 that he "gets it" on tax policy, like many wishing he'd go even farther. But this is absurd.

After 5+ years of being called a sycophant, shill and apologist I've about had all I can take and now I see the man I've stuck out my neck--figuratively speaking--to defend potentially caving on a core conservative principal in search of a "legacy."

Well, sir...Iraq is your legacy whether you want it or not. You want a legacy, fix that and do it right while you still can.

As for this tax nonsense, if it goes down like this report suggests, I'm done. This is where I get off.

And Rightly So

The DNA lab that agreed to withhold evidence in the Duke University rape case is coming under investigation:

Despite this revelation, there has been no sign that the North Carolina State Bar has abandoned its passive approach regarding Nifong’s misconduct. Meehan, however, might face a different fate.

His lab is accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB). I emailed the board to ask if it planned to investigate Meehan’s accreditation status in light of Friday’s testimony. Executive Director Ralph Keaton responded,

As the accrediting body for the laboratory in question, ASCLD/LAB will conduct a review of the issue in question. ASCLD/LAB is aware of the ongoing legal process and will take that into consideration in determining the appropriate time to review the circumstances.

Suffice to say that Brian Meehan's reputation, and that of his lab, is shot. How much longer before this all lands--rightfully--back on the head of DA Mike Nifong?

What a disgrace...

One-Trick Pony

Retire already, Helen. You're a shadow of your former self...people aren't taking you, your commentaies or your ridiculous questions all that seriously anymore:

MR. SNOW: Let me just repeat again, none of these things are simple. And in life, anytime somebody is looking for a new way forward — and we've all been in businesses where people look for new ways forward — those take a lot of time. And the most important thing for the President is to do it thoroughly and do it right. And when he is satisfied that all the pieces are put together in a way that he thinks is comprehensive and will, in fact, help us move toward the goal of an Iraq that stands up on its own, then he'll present it to the American people and to the world.

Q Has the President factored in any of how many people will die?

MR. SNOW: Helen, you ask that question every day, and I don't know how I can —

Q It's a very valid question.

MR. SNOW: And it's a question he thinks about every day.

Q And does he care about it? Does it matter how many die?

MR. SNOW: Yes, it does. Absolutely.

Q Well, you have a benchmark now — this fall has been so lethal.

MR. SNOW: And the people who have been killing will kill even more if we walk away. I would turn you to The New York Times op-ed page today, where a Marine Major talks about —

Q Written by a Marine.

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, does that make it suspect that he's on the ground trying to save lives?

Q No, that doesn't. But, I mean, he has to take the military attitude.

MR. SNOW: Well, you might want to read it, because the military — the military attitude is, warriors don't like to be engaged in war if you can have peace, and generals don't like to send people into battle unless they have to. The people who are instigating the violence in Iraq are ones who are determined to kill.

Q You don't think our occupation is a factor?

MR. SNOW: I think the biggest factor right now — if you take a look at what's going on, who are they killing? They're killing Iraqis, aren't they? They are primarily killing Iraqis. And what they're trying to do is to destroy hope and peace and democracy.

Q How do you know all that? I mean, why do you think people would want to do that? In the first place, they don't like an occupation.

MR. SNOW: Could it be they're suffused with hatred? Could it be that people, in fact, who are in unoccupied lands, who have been slaughtering, also do so because they hate people? The question is —

Q Do we hate them? Are we killing any of them?

MR. SNOW: Yes, we are.

It's sad to watch what she's become.

Underreported?

Not quite fitting the Iraq-is-Vietnam, end of the world hysteria is this piece in the current issue of Newsweek:

Even so, there's a vibrancy at the grass roots that is invisible in most international coverage of Iraq. Partly it's the trickle-down effect. However it's spent, whether on security or something else, money circulates. Nor are ordinary Iraqis themselves short on cash. After so many years of living under sanctions, with little to consume, many built up considerable nest eggs—which they are now spending. That's boosted economic activity, particularly in retail. Imported goods have grown increasingly affordable, thanks to the elimination of tariffs and trade barriers. Salaries have gone up more than 100 percent since the fall of Saddam, and income-tax cuts (from 45 percent to just 15 percent) have put more cash in Iraqi pockets. "The U.S. wanted to create the conditions in which small-scale private enterprise could blossom," says Jan Randolph, head of sovereign risk at Global Insight. "In a sense, they've succeeded."

Meanwhile, Iraq's official economic institutions are making progress, improbable as that might sound in the context of savage sectarian violence and a seemingly complete breakdown of leadership and law. Yet it's a fact. A government often accused of being no government at all has somehow managed to take its first steps to liberalize the highly centralized economy of the Saddam era. Iraq has a debt-relief deal with the IMF that requires Baghdad to end subsidies and open up its gas-import market. Earlier this year the government made the first hesitant steps, axing fuel subsidies—and sending prices from a few cents a liter to around 14. "This has become one important way of institutionally engaging with Iraq," says economist Colin Rowat at the University of Birmingham. "If you lose that engagement, then that means a lot more people have given up on Iraq."

Do countries in the middle of a civil war have functioning economies? Just wondering...

Not your Father's cafeteria!

Lompoc High School has a Food Court. What is the world coming to?:

Nor is there debate about the cavernous room once known as the cafeteria. That old-school label still appears in raised block letters outside the building, but inside it has been transformed. It is now "Braves Bistro Food Court," a hip cafe.

The long green institutional tables with attached benches are gone. So are the frozen burritos packaged during the Reagan administration and the depressing atmosphere of chow hall at the prison. Nobody used to come here.

"I never set foot in this room as a student nor as a teacher," said a smiling Bree Jansen, the sunny and locally reared LHS activities director. "Until this year."

At 11:30 a.m. on a recent Friday a bell sounds. Milliseconds later the first Brave flashes through the Bistro door and vaults a cord demarking The Main Event serving line from four others. The second arrival slides under the rope (Where were these guys during football season?). An eyeblink later a double column extends 25 feet before disappearing out the door.

Today's marquee attraction? Teriyaki chicken rice bowl.

"You used to see 100 students here, max," teacher Jim Steffey said as he gathered up lunch to take back to his room. "Now you can't get in without bumping into people. I'm seeing kids eating lunch who didn't eat before."

When I was in HS I don't think I ate a single mcafeteriae cafateria. Not one.

Of course back then "thinking outside the box" meant finding something else to throw in with the mystery meat in order to come up with some new amazing meal. It didn't mean re-thinking the way you feed your students.

We should be so Lucky

Dreaming at the DC Examiner:

Carter would do himself and his countrymen a favor by permanently resisting the urge to offer any further commentary on world affairs.

The worst President of my lifetime still working hard to be the worst ex-President of my lifetime.

Yes, he did

I could swear Ted Kennedy said this morning on Fox News Sunday that some 36 million Americans go to bed hungry every night and 12 million of them are children (I'm quoting from memory). He insisted that the numbers were on his side. I'm sorry, but does anyone think that's even remotely true? That systemic hunger is a chief symptom and problem of poverty in America? Come on.

Yes Jonah, he did. And he insisted that Chris Wallace's use of numbers from the Brookings Institute were woefully wrong.

Here's a study based on both "client" and agency data that states the numbers above somewhat differently:

--The A2H system served an estimated 24 to 27 million unduplicated people annually, with a midpoint of 25.3 million.

--36.4% of the members of households served by the A2H National Network are children under 18 years old (Table 5.3.2).

--8% of the members of households are children age 0 to 5 years (Table 5.3.2).

Of course this is but one study and without taking the time to dissect the methodology there's not much to say about whether or not it is providing accurate numbers. But the numbers here most certainly don't tell the same story the good Senator wove for us yesterday.

It's the Rules of Engagement, Stupid!

A first on FNS today as Senator Ted Kennedy appeared with Chris Wallace discussing Iraq and the far-too-early beginnings of the 2008 Presidential campaign. In the early part of the interview, the Senator preened for us all about how right he was on the question of Iraq in 2003:

WALLACE: But, Senator, let me follow up on that. Last March you said the following, and let's put it up on the screen: "The administration has been dangerously incompetent, and its Iraq policy is not worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform."

If you truly believe that, don't you and your fellow Democrats have an obligation, now that you are going to be in control of Congress, to try to stop this president from fighting the war?

KENNEDY: Well, first of all, I was opposed to the war. It was the best vote that I ever had in the United States Senate. And in January of 2005, I laid out a pathway toward what I think would have been reconciliation and success in Iraq, two years ago, that called for the reduction of troops, the redeployment of troops, talked about the Iraqis moving ahead in terms of the reconciliation and talked about the regional kinds of diplomacy. That was two years ago.

Now, one thing about the Democrats is we will support our troops, but we also can support our troops so they are not in harm's way. And I think that's a very important...

Pressed to clarify, the Senator responded with this:

KENNEDY: Well, wait and see. That offers all kinds of options. Our commitment is to the troops, so they're not getting caught in a crossfire and a civil war, which they are.

What are their rules of engagement between the Shia and the Sunni today? You can't tell us, and neither can we hear that in the Armed Services Committee. We are involved in that civil war.

And we are not going to pull the line, in terms of the troops. But we are also leaving open options to protect those troops in whatever way that that would come up...

Wallace's line of questioning followed on from his discussions last week about the "Surge option" currently under consideration by the WH. Kennedy is staunchly opposed to adding troops on the ground (having suddenly had a death-bed conversion as to the rightness of US commanders in Iraq). His clarifying statement, it seems to me, represents the Senator's frustration and consternation with the entire situation as he tells Chris that no one knows what the soldiers' role is, not even the Congressional committee charged with oversight of the Armed Forces.

It seems though that the good Senator isn't reading. There are plenty of discussions and contemplations about the current Rules of Engagement in Iraq.

A first hint of what's wrong with the current ROE can be found in this post at Captain's Journal from early this month:

As discussed in Newsweek's expose on Marine Captain Rob Secher, Captain Secher wrote home that "any time an American fires a weapon there has to be an investigation into why there was an escalation of force."

In my article Unleash the Snipers!, I noted that Marines in Ramadi have noted the hindrance the rules of engagement have become to themissionson:

The military has also tightened rules of engagement as the war has progressed, toughening the requirements before a sniper may shoot an Iraqi. Potential targets must be engaged in a hostile act, or show clear hostile intent.

The marines say insurgents know the rules, and now rarely carry weapons in the open. Instead, they pose as civilians and keep their weapons concealed in cars or buildings until just before they need them. Later, when they are done shooting, they put them swiftly out of sight and mingle with civilians.

In my article Racoon Hunting and the Battle for Anbar, I noted that Marines from Fallujah report that:

"A lot of us feel like we have our hands tied behind our back," says Cpl. Peter Mattice, of Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment. "In Fallujah, [insurgents] know our [rules of engagement] - they know when to stop, just before we engage."

Most recently, from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel who interviewed PGA golf professionals on a tour of Iraq to entertain the troops, we have this sobering report directly from the front:
"One guy told me, 'I'm hesitant to do the job I was trained for. I don't want to return fire because I might be on CNN the next day.' That's sad. That's a guy risking his life for us. He doesn't want his family to see him on CNN being portrayed the way those guys are being portrayed."

"He said, 'The hardest thing for a soldier to do, despite all his training, is to return fire when he is fired upon,' Kelly said. "It shows the smallness of the position I'm in, comparably speaking. Fear of failure (in golf) and fear of death, come on, there's no comparison."

For those who know about the confused ROE, this should not be surprising.

A week later the same blogger continues the discussion and zeroes in: So there is an argument that the existing ROE is in place due to legalities as discussed above, but there are also true believers in the small footprint and soft glove to "win the hearts and minds of the people." This issue is made more complicated by the involvement and importance of ROE not just at the tactical level, but the strategic and even doctrinal level as well.

In the end, the most compelling witness to the success or failure of a strategy is the effect on the ground. Rules of engagement have a strategic import in that the lack of proper ROE will always cause doctrine to become mute and tactics to fail. The testimony of three respected NCOs is that the current ROE are not only not helpful, but that they are a hindrance and impediment to accomplishment of mission objectives. Thus, the strategic importance of ROE. ROE cannot cause us to win, but they can sure cause us to lose.

...

There will be those who say that the NCOs are not privy to things necessary to understand ROE, or who say that they exaggerated, or any of a host of other things. These things may be said by institutional military, and may even be said from the safety and warmth of an office or living room while typing on a computer. But wishing it doesn't make it so. The NCOs have weighed in, and they have done so without equivocation.

When self-defense is considered to be a subset of unit self defense, and when the commanding officer can restrict the right of individual self defense, the ROE are in need of revision. But the argument at Blackfive is salient. Were it not for media pressure on the war in Iraq, there might be no need for the current ROE. The public has yet to realize that immaculate warfare does not exist.

The problem has many ingredients. One part media pressure, one part ROE in need of revision, one part military brass seeking protection, and one part public expectations for modern warfare combined with waning support for the war, and the result is a witch's brew of problems for U.S. troops.

The take-away is simple and obvious: the current ROE (whatever the specifics) are restrictive and put US soldiers at great risk and even at the extreme, curb their effectiveness. Kennedy is right, we don't know necessarily what the specifics are but we are certainly able to measure the effect. Part of that effect is higher casualty rates over time than we'd seen in years.

The Senator is entitled to his position on the war but I find his support of General's Abizaid and Casey's "light footprint" position somewhastaunchEspecially given his stuanch opposition from the beginning of the President's approach to war-fighting which has always been based on--what else--what the General's on the ground were telling him.

The irony of such was not lost on FNS panel member Bill Kristol who commented on it later in the broadcast. But back to the ROE, we see what they are but what should they be?

Again, I wonder if the Senator is reading. The best argument for what they ought to be that I've seen comes again from Victor Davis Hanson, just two days ago:

If we add another 30,000 or so troops to Iraq, in a final effort to win the war, then we must change (widen) the rules of engagement. Only that way can America ensure that it simply does not create more targets for the insurgents, add a larger logistical trail, and ensure more Iraqi dependency on our soldiers.

What would that entail?

Putting Iran and Syria on notice that we will bomb terrorists flocking across their borders.
Give an ultimatum to militia heads, especially Moqtadar Sadr, to disband or face annihilation from the United States.

Expand the rules of engagement in all matters dealing with IEDs, with a shoot on sight rule concerning anyone found implanting or aiding such efforts.

Enlarge the planned Iraqi security forces to near 400,000, and embed far more Americans in those units.

Recalibrate the ratio of support to combat troops, so that we don't simply create bigger compounds to facilitate larger troop levels to end up with more stationary and more numerous targets--and ever more enclaves of Americans behind thousands of acres of bermed reserves.

So spell out the mission, the new rules of engagement, and then, and only then, surge--if need be--more troops.

Any additional troops need to do what they are trained and best-suited for: military missions, not police work. The first natural target for such is Moqtada Al-Sadr, the thug dressed up in sheik's clothing.

I was of the mind two years ago that we should have more forcefully and directly dealt with him then and my mind remains unchanged. His is the poster child for armed Shiite militia's and the Maliki government, either by choice or circumstance is unwilling and/or unable to deal with him. The US marines will not have the same difficulty finding and defeating his forces and doing so will send strong messages about the seriousness of efforts at finally bringing security to the capitol.

One Good Option?

Critics of the Bush administration have maintained for sometime both that the President is intent on taking direct military action against Iran and that such an act is ill-advised at best and potentially disastrous at worst. For critics on the left, such action would be essentially par for the course--yet another bad choice in a long line of bad choices and poorly run adventures. For some of us on the right, such action represents, not a first-and-best option but rather something potentially required out of necessity.

Author and history professor Arthur Herman examines this situation from a slightly different angle than most in his current piece at Commentary. While most other assessments of the situation in the Gulf pertaining to Iran's behavior focus near-solely on the race for nuclear weapons, Herman points out that Iran is already a formidable force in the region in conventional terms. From there he points to one military option that is limited, very precise in it's targeting and perhaps one of the only good options available to the US, Europe and even Asian nations with vital interests in the Persian Gulf.

The key to the whole operation is the point that isn't but should be obvious to all: for all Tehran's bluster about shutting off the flow of Oil, that spigot runs both ways and if oil isn't flowing out of Iran, gasoline and most importantly, currency, isn't flowing into the country and it's economy is in mortal danger:

Every country in Western Europe and Asia, including those that complain most bitterly about American policy in the Middle East, depends on the steady maintenance of the global economic order that runs on Middle Eastern oil.

But--and herein lies a fruitful irony--so does Iran itself. Almost 90 percent of the mullahs' oil assets are located either in or near the Gulf. So is the nuclear reactor that Russia is building for Iran at Bushehr. Virtually every Iranian well or production platform depends on access to the Gulf if Iran's oil is to reach buyers. Hence, the same Straits by means of which Iran intends to lever itself into a position of global power present the West with its own point of leverage to reduce Iran's power--and to keep it reduced for at least as long as the country's political institutions remain unprepared to enter the modern world.

And there it is that the stage is set for a conventional operation that, hypothetically successful, threatens the current regime with removal from inside:

The first step would be to make it clear that the United States will tolerate no action by any state that endangers the international flow of commerce in the Straits of Hormuz. Signaling our determination to back up this statement with force would be a deployment in the Gulf of Oman of minesweepers, a carrier strike group's guided-missile destroyers, an Aegis-class cruiser, and anti-submarine assets, with the rest of the carrier group remaining in the Indian Ocean. The U.S. Navy could also deploy UAV's (unmanned air vehicles) and submarines to keep watch above and below against any Iranian missile threat to our flotilla.

Our next step would be to declare a halt to all shipments of Iranian oil while guaranteeing the safety of tankers carrying non-Iranian oil and the platforms of other Gulf states. We would then guarantee this guarantee by launching a comprehensive air campaign aimed at destroying Iran's air-defense system, its air-force bases and communications systems, and finally its missile sites along the Gulf coast. At that point the attack could move to include Iran's nuclear facilities' not only the "hard" sites but also infrastructure like bridges and tunnels in order to prevent the shifting of critical materials from one to site to another.

Above all, the air attack would concentrate on Iran's gasoline refineries. It is still insufficiently appreciated that Iran, a huge oil exporter, imports nearly 40 percent of its gasoline from foreign sources, including the Gulf states. With its refineries gone and its storage facilities destroyed, Iran's cars, trucks, buses, planes, tanks, and other military hardware would run dry in a matter of weeks or even days. This alone would render impossible any major countermoves by the Iranian army. (For its part, the Iranian navy is aging and decrepit, and its biggest asset, three Russian-made Kilo-class submarines, should and could be destroyed before leaving port.)

The scenario would not end here. With the systematic reduction of Iran's capacity to respond, an amphibious force of Marines and special-operations forces could seize key Iranian oil assets in the Gulf, the most important of which is a series of 100 offshore wells and platforms built on Iran's continental shelf. North and South Pars offshore fields, which represent the future of Iran's oil and natural-gas industry, could also be seized, while Kargh Island at the far western edge of the Persian Gulf, whose terminus pumps the oil from Iran's most mature and copiously producing fields (Ahwaz, Marun, and Gachsaran, among others), could be rendered virtually useless. By the time the campaign was over, the United States military would be in a position to control the flow of Iranian oil at the flick of a switch.

I can hear the critics now--"Cmon, we were told Iraq would be easy too." Well, while extreme skepticism I suppose is warranted, Herman supports the premise with one important historical example involving the same nations in the same region:

An operational fantasy? Not in the least. The United States did all this once before, in the incident I have already alluded to. In 1986-88, as the Iran-Iraq war threatened to spill over into the Gulf and interrupt vital oil traffic, the United States Navy stepped in, organizing convoys and re-flagging ships to protect them against vengeful Iranian attacks. When the Iranians tried to seize the offensive, U.S. vessels sank one Iranian frigate, crippled another, and destroyed several patrol boats. Teams of SEALS also shelled and seized Iranian oil platforms. The entire operation, the largest naval engagement since World War II, not only secured the Gulf; it also compelled Iraq and Iran to wind down their almost decade-long war. Although we made mistakes, including most grievously the accidental shooting-down of a civilian Iranian airliner, killing everyone on board, the world economic order was saved--the most important international obligation the United States faced then and faces today.

As I said, many of us on the right aren't exactly dreaming about such a scenario. We do though, depending on who you're talking to, think it perhaps is unavoidable. If and when the time comes, something like what Herman proposes here might be the best approach.

The beauty of the proposal is it's precision. By focusing exclusively on Iran's largest strategic vulnerability, it assures with success a forced change. Could the mullahs truly withstand the ramifications of Iran's oil operations choking on their crude and the economic ripples it caused throughout the country? Given recent events and just Thursday's news of hardliner's clashes with reformers is it so outlandish to believe the answer to the question is, No?

Herman presses the point in closing: That the regime in Tehran is indeed hated, and also radically unstable, is a point on which both advocates and opponents of American action can agree. In this connection, it is important to bear in mind that Iran is rent by ethnic divisions and rivalries almost as fierce as those that divide Iraq or such former Soviet republics as Georgia and Russia itself. Almost half of Iran's population is made up of Kurds, Baluchis, Azeris, Arabs, and Turkomans. Unlike the Persians, who are Shiites, most of these minorities are Sunni. Thus, Iran is a country ripe for constitutional overhaul, if not re-federation. Unless the current regime and its backers are willing to change course, decisive military action could open the way for an entirely new Iran.

The key word is "decisive." What has cost us prestige in the Middle East and around the world is not our 2003 invasion of Iraq but our lack of a clear record of success in its aftermath. Governments in and around the Persian Gulf region are waiting for someone to deal effectively and summarily with the Iranian menace. Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, and others--all feel the pinch of an encroaching power. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to stop the Iranian advance.

Is this the best military option for Iran? I don't know and if I had to wager I'd guess even the Pentagon isn't sold on there being a 'best' option. Is it a good option? Herman's approach gives a good chance at fulfilling the objective of hurting Iran's multi-faceted efforts in the Middle East with a decent likelihood of success while minimizing the potential for greater damage and escalation into something nobody wants.

Stick it on a list of already not-so-great options and it begins to look pretty good.

Beneath the Surface

Political machinations in Iraq? IraqPundit doesn't come out and say it but a reading between the lines seems to point in that direction:

But while there's violence in the streets of Baghdad everyday, there may be more to this attack than the brief news dispatches suggest.

Adel Abdul Mahdi could soon replace the ineffectual Nouri Al Maliki as Iraq's prime minister, and if he does, it will be with the happy agreement of every political player in Iraq except himself and Moktada Al Sadr. Thus, if Abdul Mahdi does become PM, then Al Sadr, who is regularly touted by a pernicious Western press as "the most powerful man in Iraq," would be reduced to a back-bencher thug, heading a minority bloc in parliament as well as leading a bloodthirsty militia that, he claims, he no longer controls.

Here's the background.

Finish it and you find that political levers are moving.

Friday Night Frivolity