Sunny SoCal

This morning the far reaches of North Santa Barbara County and most of San Luis Obispo County were under a severe weather watch. As I turned on the morning news with breakfast in-hand, the first thing I caught was a sentence ending in "black ice."

This is California, isn't it?

Meanwhile, later in the day it snowed on LA's west-side:

NBC4 forecaster Fritz Coleman said the mixture of precipitation in West Los Angeles at about 3 p.m. included a dusting of snow. Residents in West Los Angeles said the snow accumulated in parking lots, on cars and around palm trees near Wilshire and Santa Monica boulevards and other areas.

Most of the snow fell south of Sunset Boulevard and just east of the 405 Freeway. Residents told NBC4 that several inches of snow fell in their yards.

The last snowfall recorded at Los Angeles International Airport was in January 1962, according to the National Weather Service. Trace amounts -- less than 0.5 inches -- were reported, according to the NWS.

Snow fell earlier Wednesday in Malibu and caused traffic problems on the area's winding and narrow roads. Sleet made driving treacherous on Kanan Dume Road, a steep route through the Santa Monica Mountains where it's more typical to see beach-bound cars loaded with surfboards than a snowplow.

In the 30-ought years I lived in and around Thousand Oaks, we saw light and quick-disappearing dustings of snow at least twice that I recall, occuring roughly about 15 years or so apart. Which makes this winter a prime candidate.

Don't let the Rose Parade fool you. We occasionally 'do weather' here in Sunny SoCal.

Already working

Heh.

"Run Away!!!!!"

But in all seriousness: The apparent evacuation of Baghdad by al Qaeda forces comes from direct orders issued by al-Masri, the former soldier who took control of the Iraqi wing of al Qaeda following the June 2006 bombing death of Zarqawi.

Initially, the intelligence officer informed Pajamas, the Baghdad-based AQ fighters did not want to leave. Al-Masri had to send unequivocal orders for their retreat, adding that one of the lessons from the Fallujah campaign was that Americans have learned how to prevail in house-to-house fighting. Masri said that remaining in Baghdad was a ‘no-win situation’ for the terrorists.

“In more than ten years of reading al Qaeda intercepts, I’ve never seen language like this,” the intelligence officer said. Usually, al Qaeda communications are full of bravado and false confidence, he added.

One stop shop

Tom Maguire is and always has been a one-stop shop for information on Plamegate. Now that the Libby trial has begun, he's even more of a must-read. Here are his thoughts on Day-one.

Bad analysis

On Sunday, the LA Times published a story detailing the 'historic' proportions of US spending on Iraq, Afghanistan and 'other fronts' in the WOT. The piece was picked up over the wire by other publications as well. More notable than it's widespread distribution is it's just plain bad analysis.

The Iraq war is far smaller and narrower than those conflicts, and it has not extended beyond the tenure of a single president. But its price tag is beginning to reach historic proportions, and the budgetary "burn rate" for Iraq may be greater than in some periods in past wars.

If U.S. involvement continues on the current scale, the funding for the Iraq war — combined with the conflict in Afghanistan and other foreign fronts in the war on terrorism — is projected to surpass this country's Vietnam spending next year.

Yes, it's all about Vietnam. Only it's not really. As you read the piece in it's entirety, author Joel Havemann makes valid points about funding for the global WOT. Sadly however, the graphs quoted here coupled with the headlines make it about Vietnam. But the comparison just doesn't work.

Point #1: Different times, different war. Havemann compares Iraq/Afghanistan and the rest of the current 'Shadow War' with the more conventional conflicts of the past:

By the time the Vietnam war ended in 1975, it had become America's longest war, shadowed the legacies of four presidents, killed 58,000 Americans along with many thousands more Vietnamese, and cost the U.S. more than $660 billion in today's dollars.

By the time the bill for World War II passed the $600-billion mark, in mid-1943, the United States had driven German forces out of North Africa, devastated the Japanese fleet in the Battle of Midway, and launched the vast offensives that would liberate Europe and the South Pacific.

While there are similarities in some respects, the current conflict in Iraq is not a mirror-image of World War II or Korea or Vietnam. This is a point that many critics of the conflict often make in rebuttal to supporter's protestations to the contrary. The critics are right and Havemann's comparison of Iraq or the WOT to these more traditional conflicts don't work.

Point #2: The Time Value of Money. What is it? Why does it matter?

It's one of the prime concepts in Finance and tells us basically that money now is worth more than the same amount of money received in the future. In the context of this article, the key notion is that, because money is worth more now, buying the same level of goods or services in the future will cost more money.

So when Havemann talks about our spending in the course of roughly four years what it took the US to spend in more than a decade during Vietnam, it's supposed to be some sort of financial bombshell. Only it's not.

It's a simple expression of the fact that it cost's much more now than it did 40-years ago to do comparable things. In addition, the comparison doesn't take into account the bang we get for the bucks now relative to our purchases in Vietnam.

We currently field a far better trained force and far more sophisticated weapons systems now than we did in the 1960's and 70's. The price tag on weapons systems alone is not at all comparable.

It's just another surface analysis that doesn't account for pesky details. But hey, splashing Vietnam in headlines is always fun.

Not much of a surprise

It's not really surprising, now is it?

On the Strength of multiple Witnesses

This blurb from Reliable Sources touches on a subject discussed with WH Press Secretary Tony Snow last week and paints a picture of media-at-large starting (or at least trying) to play catch-up. From the CNN snippet:


KURTZ: Pam Hess, has the sending of 20,000 additional troops gotten a fair hearing in the media or has it gotten caught up in this wrenching, emotional debate about whether the war itself was a mistake?

PAM HESS: I think it's gotten caught up about it, and the debate about it is actually all wrong. What reporters know and what Martha says is that 20,000 really isn't that big -- isn't that big a jump. We're at 132,000 right now. It's going to put us even less that we had going in going across the line.

What we're not asking is actually the central question. We're getting distracted by the shiny political knife fight. What we need to be asking is, what happens if we lose? And no one will answer that question. If we lose, how are we going to mitigate the consequences of this?

It's so much easier for us to cover this as a political horse race. It's on the cover of "The New York Times" today, what this means for the '08 election. But we're not asking the central national security question, because it seems that if as a reporter you do ask the national security question, all of a sudden you're carrying Bush's water. There are national security questions at stake, and we're ignoring them and the country is getting screwed.

Instapundit's comments are pure snark, but given the overall performance of Big Media on the issue, can you really blame him?

Meanwhile, last week in a radio interview Tony Snow touched on this as well:

HH: Have you seen even one MSM’er of stature walk a war opponent through the consequences in a prolonged and serious fashion?

TS: No, but I think we have seen a number of them starting to ask questions. And I think, you know, you begin with baby steps, Hugh, and the first thing is important to start laying this out for people, because everybody says well, we’ve got to succeed in Iraq, and it’s vital to succeed, it’s vital to our future, but nobody explains why. The President started that last night, you and I get opportunities to do it, but I think what we’re on the verge of here, I think, is a pretty interesting public debate where people are going to look thoughtfully at the President’s proposal, and they’re also going to ask opponents okay, if you don’t like it, what do you have that’s better? And that is also a critical question that maybe in the past would not have been pushed as aggressively, but a combination of new media, old media, and really interested Americans, I think are going to compel everybody to put their cards on the table.

Jules Crittenden had a great line about it in his post yesterday. Like Instapundit's, if you're squeamish around snark, beware: Pamela Hess of UPI just pointed out the[sic] the Imperial media is naked.

Credit where credit is due; I'm glad to see at least selected members of Big Media waking up and trying to get in the game but is anyone going to have the guts to ask them why they've waited to engage this thoroughly 'til now?

Well, in another say-it-here, it-happens-there moment, follow the links for more questions and few answers.

The Hump

Marty just can't get over it. Multiple opportunities to put the game away and his team couldn't get it done.

I'm sure the resident fan will share his thoughts on it all later, and I look forward to hearing them.

Lame 80's Political Commentary

Pushback

The President yesterday:

"We recognize that many members of Congress are skeptical," Bush said in his radio address yesterday, adding: "Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible."

For the better part of 3 years, Democrats have derided the war effort, they've insulted and impuned the President's intelligence and judgment and insisted that his chosen strategies for fighting in Iraq were an abject failure. Through that entire time they've never once offered a plan aimed at fixing what didn't work and accomplishing the United States' stated goals for it's efforts in Iraq.

Contrary to what opponents and the Post might think, withdrawing troops is not a 'strategy':

Many Democrats, in fact, have proposed alternatives centered around pulling out troops, an idea Bush flatly rejects.

If it were, someone could and would I imagine argue how that makes the situation better. They don't. Instead we're treated to rehashed arguments about the failures of the President's policy.

Well--and our good friend and co-blogger argued for this (not here, but elsewhere)--now the Democrats have won back a seat at the table of power. It is time for stating solutions not regurgitating criticisms.

The President and members of his Administration are right to call them on all the preening and posturing. Bring something constructive to the table; help win the fight.

A Wrong Reading

The Times' editorial board published an editorial yesterday about the 'Surge'. As is their prerogative, they've in the last year become more and more critical of the President in general and the war specifically.

I would say that in this effort there are some serious mis-readings and misunderstandings. From the piece:

Which brings us to that second showdown, the one now on display in the nation's capital, as the Bush administration promotes its strategy of sending 21,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq, at the same time the Democrat majority in Congress - and more than a few members of Bush's own Republican Party - insist our government needs to begin pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, not sending more in.

The president's “surge” strategy is a capitulation to the administration's hawks, chief among them Vice President Cheney and former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, who was the first Cabinet member to go after Democrats swept the November elections.

That's just not correct. Rumsfeld, from day one, was a proponent of light-and-fast. As was revealed recently, his initial strategy for the invasion of Iraq called for the setting up of a Provisional Government and quick withdrawal of US troops. That view was trumped and eventually lost out to the Powell-Tenet view:

Few know that in early 2003 - a month or more before the Iraq invasion - President Bush was presented with two plans for post-war Iraq. The first, written by CIA Director George Tenet and Secretary of State Colin Powell, provided for a long occupation of Iraq and the nation-building that the president renounced in his 2000 campaign. The second, a Pentagon plan authored by Rumsfeld's team, provided for the establishment of a provisional government before the invasion and American withdrawal within months of Saddam's overthrow. The president, convinced by Powell that "if you break it, you own it", chose the Powell-Tenet plan and ordered Rumsfeld to carry it out.

Furthermore the strategy that now--in a true Through-the-Looking-Glass moment--finds Democrats all for it, has proven a failure. The very one that both Generals Abizaid and Casey continued to argue for right through the announcements that they would be replaced in Iraq:

His light-footprint theory—that U.S. troops foster the violence—is reasonable in theory, but isn't borne out on the ground. When our troops go into neighborhoods, they do tamp down the violence. It's when they leave that the violence flares up again.

And it was Rumsfeld's chosen approach.

Continuing on, the editorial takes umbrage, it seems, at the very idea of winning anything in this fight:

In reviewing the president's newest strategy, one administration official asked this question: “Is this a war or is it not a war? If it is, you have to be willing to sacrifice ... Americans are willing to do that, as long as we have a clear strategy that offers a chance of success.”

The premise of his question and answer is that adding troops is the only way to have a chance of winning.

Winning what? That's the question this administration has consistently failed to answer. If U.S. forces prevail, and the civil strife in that country is ended, what's in it for America? Oil? The ideal of a democracy in the heart of Islam? Freedom for the Iraqi people?Please, spare us the rhetoric the Bush administration has repeatedly used to define our purpose in this conflict. Whatever lines have been drawn have been hopelessly blurred by events over the past three-plus years.

In concluding, they say: Iraq has only been a country, in its present form, since the British attempted 90 years ago to consolidate various tribes in order to preserve and protect oil fields.

Yes, Americans are tough and resilient. We will make sacrifices in support of a just and valid cause. We've done that time after time, from the battlefields of Europe to the killing fields of Southeast Asia.

What we will not do, and should not do, is continue a formless, baseless war whose only outcome will be an even longer list of American casualties.

Putting more troops into Iraq may satisfy a war president's ego, but it serves no other useful purpose. Extreme pressure must be brought on Iraqi leaders to solve their own problems. One way to do that is to start bringing American soldiers home.

To claim that the only possible outcome is simply more casualties is a simple dismissal. More than just a casual reading of the President's plan reveals that it provides an opportunity to accomplish something we've been unwilling and therefore unable to accomplish to date--stopping the violence.

It's something that they've argued for on other occasions and I fail to see how or why they would object to something designed to accomplish the very thing they want.

Bitter. Really Bitter.

This is what is keeping me from flying to San Diego to attend what could be an epic playoff match between the Chargers and Patriots.

Are you freaking kidding me?

I can't even believe that there is less than an inch of ice/snow on the ground and flights have been cancelled for 2-3 days.

No justice, no peace.

Catch Up

Had the opportunity this morning--finally!--of listening to the podcast of the first of eight scheduled discussions of Thomas P.M. Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map.

Good stuff, Maynard!

The lack of Decorum

On Thursday, my Senator (Lord, but how I hate saying that) from the great state of California, Barbara Boxer, made a statement to Secretary of State Condi Rice that exemplifies something that has been ongoing in American politics for the better part of 20 years. From Thursday's hearing:

Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush's tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."

Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

On the surface it might appear unimportant and just a nifty way to score political points. However, it was a wholly unnecessary personal swipe at the Secretary, almost the Chickenhawk argument for Women.

The NY Post had much to say about it yesterday:

We scarcely know where to begin.

The junior senator from California apparently believes that an accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman.

It's hard to imagine the firestorm that similar comments would have ignited, coming from a Republican to a Democrat, or from a man to a woman, in the United States Senate. (Surely the Associated Press would have put the observation a bit higher than the 18th paragraph of a routine dispatch from Washington.)

...

It would take a truly hard heart not to be touched, deeply, by the sacrifices made by the young men and women now wearing their country's uniform.

And one can only imagine the pain felt by the families of those killed and cruelly wounded in service to America. Just as it was hard to imagine the agony of the loved ones left behind on 9/11.

But even to suggest that Condoleezza Rice is not fit to serve her country because she is childless is beyond bizarre.

It is perverse.

There was the usual chorus of criticisms on the Right and the usual indifference on the Left. The additional day between this post and the writings linked in it has cooled my opinion.

I'm not a fan of Barbara Boxer. I was not one when she was elected in 1992 and I have not become one at any point in her 14 years in the Senate. Quite frankly, I don't think she exhibits the intellectual firepower necessary to be successful there (in that she is not alone, unfortunately).

This incident simply confirms two things for me. As Robert George's post stated, Babs is not particularly politically savvy. Her seeming reluctance to apologize only underscores that point for me.

Moreso however, it points yet again to the ongoing bleed-out of civility and decorum in American politics that has been going on for years but accelerated in the past six. It's what allows sitting Senators and Congressmen to call a sitting President a liar in veiled and not-so-veiled terms. It's whats helped create the kind of partisan bottleknecking that leads to a 23% approval rating for Congress, a body that has become more interested in fighting with each other than accomplishing anything.

Boxer's comments were better suited for message-board grandstanding than the hallowed halls of the United States Senate. And that's just sad.

Lightening the mood

Jonah lets some of the air out with this bit of commentary on the Surge, er...Surge.

I'm with Dean

On the question of whether the President's announced increase of troops to Baghdad is a good idea, disaster or not enough to get the job done, Dean Barnett today responded in his as-usual, inimitable fashion:

The surge strength number comes from Dave Petraeus' estimate of what will be necessary to win Baghdad. Petraeus is breaking Baghdad into nine neighborhoods. Each neighborhood will get a contingent of 2500 Iraqi soldiers (probably ones trained by Petraeus) supported by 600 American troops. This number, the plan figures, will be sufficient to clear the neighborhoods and then hold them. In previous encounters, we would clear and retreat. This is a very significant difference. The total surge into Baghdad, counting Iraqi troops, will be well over 40,000.

Coupled with the changing Rules of Engagement (It's the militia's, stupid!), the increased number of troops provides an opportunity to address security in a way that we have not even begun to approach in the entire time the US has been in Iraq. How people are arguing against this, when it has been a constant criticism for more than 2 years, escapes me.

On the one hand, you've got Democrats arguing against themselves. Instapundit puts it nicely:

I have to say, though, that it's been amusing to see the same people who were recently demanding that Bush send more troops suddenly reverse and criticize him for . . . sending more troops. The question of troop numbers is one where reasonable people can and do differ, but that doesn't mean that lame political oppositionalism isn't recognizable as such.

Of course, it's hardly surprising (or at least shouldn't be) considering these are the same people who lambasted the President's "I'm listening to my General's" approach for two years now only to support the "stay the course" strategy that clearly hasn't worked under Abizaid and Casey. It's enough to make your head spin.

On the other hand meanwhile, I've not yet figured out the likes of Brownback and Hagel: President Bush's decision to deploy 21,500 additional troops to Iraq drew fierce opposition Thursday from congressional Democrats and some Republicans-- among them Sen. Chuck Hagel, who called it "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam."

In what seemed a testy hearing at times, Secretary of State Rice before the Senate today defended the plan and stood her ground against the likes of Senators Hagel, Biden & Voinovich. Which is of course her job.

As I read the objections voiced in that hearing, I couldn't help but hear Dean's words echoing in the background:

On its face adding 20,000 troops to the 140,000 already there does admittedly seem to be, as my dear old Uncle Willie said this morning, a "band-aid." The problem is most of our congressmen don't look beyond the surface.

They're so convinced they're conclusions are right they can't conceive of a way to win this fight. Thankfully, it's the President who gets to wage war and not the Congress.

After the Speech

Some interesting headlines this morning following the President's speech last night. Keep it coming!:

US forces storm Iranian consulate--US forces have stormed an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized five members of staff.

The troops raided the building at about 0300 (0001GMT), taking away computers and papers, according to Kurdish media and senior local officials.

The US military had no immediate comment on the raid, which comes amid high tension between Iran and the US.

The Bush administration accuses Iran of helping fuel violence in Iraq, as well as trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran strenuously denies both charges, countering that US military involvement in the Middle East endangers the whole region.

A local TV station said Kurdish security forces had taken over the building after the Americans had left.

Al-Maliki gives Mahdi Army blunt choice: disarm or face American onslaught--

Iraq's prime minister has told Mahdi Army militiamen they must surrender their arms or face an all-out assault by U.S.-backed Iraqi forces, senior Iraqi officials said Wednesday, revealing a pledge Washington wanted to hear as American and Iraqi troops prepared a fresh operation to end the bloody sectarian war gripping Baghdad.

Initial Reaction

Here's some initial thoughts on the President's speech:

--Hugh liked it, but then he is generally of one-mind with the President on matters of war:

President Bush was at his best tonight: serious, detailed, and above all, resolute. He spoke to many audiences.

--Glenn Reynolds: A bit late, but perhaps not quite too late. That goes for most of the speech (we're doing something about Iran and Syria? About freaking time.) But why did he wait so long to do these things that lots of people -- bloggers, too -- have been calling for for years? "Compassionate warmaking?"

--Everybody's favorite lefties. That place always reads more like a message board than any kind of collection of coherent thought and discussion.

Myself...I'm amazed more isn't being made of the President's acknowledgement that the mistakes of the last 2 1/2 years lay at his desk. After the way Democrats and the left begged him to acknowledge mistakes in the '04 campaign, you'd think they'd be happy as kids at Christmas.

I'm encouraged by the rhetoric addressing Iran and Syria. Hugh is right; it's veiled just enough to be unobjectionable yet clear: we know what you're doing and we will stop it.

If the previews were correct in their description of the details of this strategy, I think we have a shot at turning this around. It will still require patience and endurance and a political will that hasn't been much on display of recent.

Good News

If the preview is accurate, this is very good news. Again, hopefully not too little, too late:


Tony Snow conferred by telephone with conservative bloggers this afternoon to preview what President Bush will say tonight. Essentially, the president plans to send an additional 20,000 troops or so troops to Baghdad and about 4,000 additional troops to Anbar province. Baghdad will be divided into nine districts. We will station one batallion (about 600 troops) in each district. The Iraqis will station one brigade (a larger unit) in each. We will have a presence in the neighborhoods on a 24/7 basis. This is a switch from the approach we've been using, under which we roll our folks into the neighborhoods in the morning and return them to their barracks at night.

The rules of engagement will allow us to go after everyone we need to go after. The Mahdi army, for example, will not be off limits. Snow pointed to statements from Iraq's president confirming that the Iraqi government is on board with this.

In Anbar, our additional forces will try to consolidate recent gains. According to Snow, tribal leaders there have turned strongly against al Qaeda, and want us to send in more forces with which to rout them. President Bush will oblige.

Revitalized Rules of Engagement will go a long way to helping out, additional troops aside. The gloves have needed to come off for some time. It's the only way to truly secure the city's troubled areas.

Wishful Thinking

It's a good idea...a very good idea. But I must assume, sadly, that it won't go down that way. Nowhere near that way:

My suggestion:

No Oval Office, no big desk. Have the president stand in the Map Room, the room on the ground floor of White House in which Franklin Roosevelt reviewed strategy with his generals.
(Over the mantel hangs the last map FDR ever saw. It is a monument to faulty intelligence: a map drawn in March 1945 of the final German positions of the war. It shows a "redoubt" of German divisions hunkered in south Germany. To defend against these divisions, the US Army paused in its drive eastward toward Berlin, allowing the Soviets to reach the city first. The "redoubt" later proved to be a total fiction, one the army accepted in part because it offered an excellent excuse to avoid the lethal street fighting that claimed the lives of perhaps as many as 25,000 Soviet troops.)

Hang a map of Baghdad on one wall. A map of Iraq on another. Have the president stand between them with a laser pointer. Let him show where the sectarian fighting in the city is occurring, let him detail where US troops are currently deployed. Then he can explain the new plan: Where the extra troops would go, what they would do, where the new checkpoints would be placed, how the city would be cleared, how it would be held.

No flowery language, no hazy generalities. Detail, detail, detail - to assure the American people that their commander-in-chief has thought this plan through and has reason to believe that it can and will work.

This President can't, it seems, get that far outside the box.

The Great American Time-Waster

Meetings. Nothing will suck the time away from a professional employee like meetings. Nothing else ensures that important primary and day-to-day functions go unfinished. The nature of the meeting has nothing to do with it's ability for keeping it's victims from work.

A standing meeting, a hastily-called follow-up, an unexpected problem-solver...it doesn't matter. Nothing will more gloriously disrupt the flow of work and keep one from their appointed rounds than another meeting.

Jonah Goldberg is a strong proponent of the office time-waster. My suggestion, if he truly is as dedicated to the notion of time-wasting as he lets on, is simply this: Encourage more meetings. Productivity will plummet and untold man-hours will be frittered away!