Following Up on Letters to Senators

Key Democrats Call for Iraq Withdrawal
By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer

"In a letter to Bush released Monday, the Democrats backed a plan for the "phased redeployment" of troops. "U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces and force protection of U.S. personnel," the Democrats wrote.... The recent letter is dated July 30 and signed by every top Democrat on committees with oversight of military, intelligence and international affairs. It is significant because it solidifies the Democrats' position and presents a unified front as members head into election season." (access entire story above)

Tu Quo Que, Karl

Rove Blasts Journalists' Role in Politics
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

""It's odd to me that most of these critics are journalists and columnists," he said. "Perhaps they don't like sharing the field of play. Perhaps they want to draw attention away from the corrosive role their coverage has played focusing attention on process and not substance."" (access story above)

Karl Rove might focus on politics rather than journalism to avoid being hypocritical. There is such a thing as op-ed reporting where journalists focus both on process and substance. As long as consumers appreciate oppinion, there will remain op-ed reporting. Does Rove have something against what Americans appreciate? Before he next attacks baseball and apple pie, he might either comment on what he knows best or keep his comments to himself.

The cavalier Karl might then determine that there is something wrong with what Americans appreciate. For instance, he might fashion himself the modern Socrates, who determines that if there is a thing that is inherently unjust in that it is a source of harm, then that thing must be avoided. Although Americans appreciate it, Op-ed reporting, Karl might determine, is inherently unjust. Therefore, op-ed reporting must be avoided. Op-ed reporting, however, is not itself a source of harm and is not, then inherently unjust. Consequently, Americans can appreciate op-ed reporting in spite of Rove.

Others See What the Bush Administration Does Not

USATODAY.com reported today: "Al-Hakim, the former commander of the feared Badr Brigade militia, has long complained the Americans have interfered with Iraqi forces' efforts to crack down on Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda in Iraq terrorists. He said the surging violence was due to "being lax in hunting down terrorists and upholding the wrong policies in dealing with them." Al-Hakim said Sunni extremists and Saddam Hussein loyalists were to blame for the violence. Al-Hakim's speech marked the third anniversary of the death of his elder brother, Ayatollah Mohammed Baqr al-Hakim, who was killed by an al-Qaeda-linked car bomb attack in Najaf." (access story above)

It is simply amazing how a former insurgent commander, but not the Bush Administration, is able to determine that the Iraq war is a failure because the United States lacks any couterterrorism and couterinsurgency strategy. Even al-Hakim determines that al-Qaeda and insurgent factions are the root of sectarian violence and not ordinary Iraqi Sunna and Shia. Still, the United States fails to use the right tools to fight terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. Wake up, Mr. President. Wake up, Secretary Rumsfeld.

Oddly, according to CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/29/afghan.alqaeda/index.html?section=cnn_world),
U.S. forces have captured four al-Qaeda fighters, which seems to indicate that the very strategy the U.S. is implementing in Afghanistan is the strategy needed in Iraq. In other words, if the Bush Administration understands that large units in Afghanistan are ineffective in fighting terrorists and insurgents, then it must realize the same thing regarding Iraq if it wants to achieve similar results in Iraq as in Afghanistan.

What are the People in the White House Thinking?!

Unless the Bush Administration is pulling our proverbial chains about our sole mission in Iraq being involving ourselves in "religious clashes" (access story above), our efforts in Iraq hang perilously close to doom's edge. What the hell?! I mean...what the hell?! The year is not 1988, Iraq is not south-central Los Angeles, and the United States armed forces are not the LAPD trying to contain the Crips and the Bloods from killing each other. It is an insurgency and a terrorist encampment that the Bush Administration has allowed to grow out of control by not properly treating the problems. It is an unconventional war that requires unconventional soldiers and means to wage it. The Bush Administration is on the verge of permanently turning Iraq and the Middle East into the vast sprawling nightmare one might only see in a post-nuclear holocaust.

World War One Revisited in Israel and Lebanon

Syrian minister: We will join conflict if IDF approaches Syria
By News Agencies. Report in Haaretz. (access story above)

“MADRID - Syria will enter the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah if Israel Defense Forces ground troops enter Lebanon and approach Syria, Syrian Information Minister Mohsen Bilal said in an interview published on Sunday.”

In 1914, a member of the Serbian anarchist group, the “Black Hand,” killed Austro-Hungarian Emperor Franz Ferdinand. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and Russia joined the fight against Austria-Hungary. The French, the British, and eventually the United States, then joined the Russians in the fray in what became the First World War. Now, members of a Syrian and Iranian-backed terrorist organization, Hezbollah, have culled Israel’s full military wrath by killing Israeli civilians and attacking the state’s military. Syria threatens to join the fight against Israel, which is a U.S. ally. If Syria enters the fight against Israel, then the United States and Britain will join Israel. Iran will then join Syria in what will become the Third World War.

Letter to Senator Dodd

Senator Dodd,

It is probably true that a politician’s position concerning the Iraq war, regardless of how complex, is the position that will ultimately define that politician. The American public has yet heard a great idea concerning changing the Administration’s Iraq policy. A timetable to withdraw is obviously not an option, but there are options. One that has not been debated, if explored, is the possibility of focusing on the counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency aspects of the war. We know the Administration has not focused on this option as a solution in Iraq because it has relied, without fail, on conventional forces to be poster boards for the enemy’s target practice. Furthermore, if the Administration were determined to win a war against terrorists and insurgents in Iraq, then it would use the appropriate resources to do so. Special Operations, including the Special Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency, have extensive knowledge and experience implementing specialized warfare techniques needed to gain the overwhelming advantage over terrorists and insurgents. When civilian casualties in Iraq are above one hundred a day, it is clear that the Administration’s current Iraq policy is reprehensible. We must learn the counter-insurgency lessons of places like Vietnam and Algeria and use the right forces, that thoroughly know these lessons, to fight the Iraq war. Thank you for your time and patience, Senator Dodd.

In Support of an Iraq War Waged by Special Operations

To succeed in Iraq, our leaders have both forgotten and are not willing to remember the counter-insurgency lessons the French and the U.S. learned in places like Vietnam and Algeria. Access Thomas E. Ricks' Washington Post article above to read the story in its entirety.

Letter to Senators McCain, Collins, Hagel, Reid, Biden, Levin, Leahy, and Obama

Senator,

There recently has been vocalized in our government a false dichotomy that now appears to be gaining wider circulation. Some have said that conventional U.S. forces in Iraq either must ineffectively remain involved in the budding civil war or must unceremoniously depart and leave Iraq in an ever-degrading shambles. This is a currently dangerous false dichotomy since Kim Jong-Il’s violating international sovereignty, Syria’s and Iran’s supporting terrorism and proliferating nuclear weapons, and Israel’s widening campaign against terrorists. It is dangerous because the United States has an obligation to protect its allies and interests, and U.S. conventional forces must be free to face that obligation. Such a dichotomy asserts that the United States is incapable of facing that obligation; because, it asserts that U.S. forces are not at all able to be involved in Iraq and also to be free to face other crises. However, the dichotomy is false because it fails to consider other and more effective ways in which warfare is waged. Recently, Senators Kerry, Feingold, and Boxer suggested in a resolution that the Iraq war can be one exclusively waged by Special Operations and indigenous troops led by Special Operations. It is a sound suggestion. Such a war is entirely one of counter-terrorism/counter-insurgency that does not readily expose soldiers to IED’s. Further, the speed and stealth involved in specialized warfare keeps the enemy off balance so that he is less inclined to move from his perceived comfort zone where he is most vulnerable. An unbalanced enemy is one that is far less harmful to troops and to civilians than one who knows the location and strength of conventional forces. Finally, Special Operations can acutely accomplish its counter-terrorism/counter-insurgency task with little or no help from conventional U.S. forces. Hence, as these specialized operators (not the Iraqi army or police) increasingly assume more responsibility in Iraq, conventional U.S. forces can withdraw. In closing, we must avoid false dichotomies like the above, and address the bigger picture with a finer solution. Thank you for your time and patience, Senator.

Tolerability versus Desirability in Warfare

War fighters are not like pizza where the more one eats pizza, the more one grows tired of it. There is a law of diminishing return, but that law in warfare is not two dimensional. An American presence in Iraq for some sects never has been desirable, has always been desirable for others, or becomes desirable when circumstances require a continuing American presence. Khalid al-Ansary and Ali Adeeb reported this Sunday in the New York Times, "As sectarian violence soars, many Sunni Arab political and religious leaders once staunchly opposed to the American presence here are now saying they need American troops to protect them from the rampages of Shiite militias and Shiite-run government forces." (see story above) They reported that such Iraqis reasoned that while American forces recently committed violent crime against civilians, there was no comparison at all with the scale and frequency of terrorist and insurgent crime and violence against Iraqi civilians. There is a dimension, then, of what is tolerable relative to what is desirable. American forces in Iraq may not be desirable, but recurrent terrorist and insurgent violence is intolerable. Therefore, it is better to continue to maintain an American presence than to allow ongoing crime and violence. Instead of the law being one of diminishing return, then, one might say that it is a law of tolerability versus desirability.

Like the Americans, the Israelis face difficult challenges at home, around the world, and with their enemy. It is equally the case that their presence in any given wartime situation is one of tolerability versus desirability. Even if the Israeli campaign is not desirable to the ordinary Lebanese that never thinks about Hezbollah or Hamas, the Israelis will demonstrate to him how such a campaign is more tolerable than recurring terrorist and insurgent violence against anyone. Consequently, the Lebanese, despite his feelings toward Israelis or their presence, will not grow weary of that presence over time.

The Instability that Hinders Order

Policing Iraq: Protecting Iraqis from Criminal Violence
By Robert Perito June 2006
http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2006/0629_policing_iraq.html

“Reducing criminal violence would advance stability in Iraq, increase popular support for Iraq's new government, and improve police-community relations. This would require focusing the Iraqi Police Service (the street cops) on fighting crime and protecting Iraqi citizens. It would involve improved training in conducting investigations and community-oriented policing, and new equipment to give the Iraqi Police Service (IPS) the ability to fight crime and to improve relations with Iraqi citizens. Doing this would pay dividends in the war against the insurgency, because citizens would be more likely to assist the police in tracking down insurgents. At the same time, the United States must make a concerted effort to reform the Shiite-dominated units in the Iraqi National Police. This can best be done by pressing the new Minister of Interior to reform his ministry through an effective program of U.S.-supported institutional development, something that was done by the United States in previous peace operations, but not, thus far, in Iraq.”

The problem with Perito’s analysis, as Hobbes and Locke long ago identified, is that the people must first agree to stability for there to viably exist institutions for maintaining order. Without that stability, none of these institutions can exist. It might be the case that the average Iraqi desires stability more than anything. Desire alone is not enough for there to viably exist such institutions, though. Only real stability provides the foundation for order. If law, police, and courts are the institutions for maintaining order, and no order exists in parts of Iraq, then in those parts there cannot exist law, police, or courts. Furthermore, if terrorism and insurgency prevents that order from existing, then terrorism and insurgency must be first rooted out for there to exist law, police, and courts. As long as terrorism and insurgency continues in areas of Iraq, no law, no police force, and no court will succeed in those areas. Perito's premise is, therefore, backward in that it suggest there must be order for there to exist stability when there must first exist stability for there to be order.

Welcome to Iraq, General: Now Let's Get Down to Serious Special Operations Business

US Military Names Terrorism Commander for Iraq

The Associated Press, July 13, 2006

FORT BRAGG, North Carolina


"The deputy commander of the Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg will take on a counterterrorism post in Iraq, the Pentagon said Thursday.

Brig. Gen. Mark V. Phelan was named the commanding general for the Iraq National Counter-Terror Force Transition Team by the Army's chief of staff."

Murderers and criminals in Iraq will soon be too scared for their own lives to threaten others--even while conventional troops are drawing down. Let's just call it our version of Smack Down.

What Does Disproportionate Action Have To Do With Israel?

Some may find disproportionate Israel’s response to terrorists’ recent mortar and rocket attacks and kidnappings. Terrorists and criminals, however, have been slaughtering Israeli civilians with impunity for decades. The Israeli government’s response has always been proportional to action against the state, but rooting out the ongoing slaughter has proven problematic. One can reason, then, that Israel’s response to recent events perpetrated against the state is not disproportionate because the recursive slaughtering of Israeli civilians has brought Israel to this position. Now, the state is overwhelmingly moving to cut the problem out at the root. Whether Israel has been its own worst enemy in the way it has dealt with its Arab residents and neighbors over time has overarching meaning, but has no immediate relevance. What is relevant is whether the state’s actions are disproportionate. The answer is clearly that they are not.

Why Increased Violence in Iraq Hurts al-Qaeda

Special Operations is well suited to the urban theater where the attrocities of civil war occur. If al-Qaeda thinks it best operates in places like Somalia, where disorder reigns, it has no idea that the people hunting them work even better under the same conditions. There is no better cover than chaos; and, the more chaos, the more cover. The increased violence in Iraq will not, therefore, bog down United States forces, but will liberate its warriors to bring peace to the Iraqi people--to liberate the oppressed. Conventional coalition forces will continue to draw down. This is not an opportunity for terrorists and criminals. Moments will arise when such murderers and criminals feel secure, when they contemplate terrorist acts, and meet their own demise by U.S. Special Operations. Consequently, increased violence in Iraq is not in al-Qaeda's interest. Instead it is better for them and their affiliates to altogether leave Iraq.

Faulty Utilitarian Ideation Concerning North Korea

It is amusing when people assert that events like Kim Jong-Il’s violating international sovereignty play any role in improving life. It is true that the United States must draw down conventional forces in Iraq so that such forces can be prepared to handle threats like North Korea, but it is utilitarian to believe that conventional forces would remain in Iraq if it were not for Kim Jong-Il’s antics. Such an assertion is similar to saying that if Al-Qaeda’s committing terrorist acts were to stop the ceaseless Arab-Israeli conflict in Israel and Gaza, then such terrorist acts would be worth committing. No terrorist act is worth committing for any reason, though. Consequently, terrorist acts would still be worthless even if the Arab-Israeli conflict stopped when Al-Qaeda committed them. The reason is clear: if evil is acceptable to justify the result of some good, then evil is good. However, evil is not good, therefore, evil is not acceptable to justify the result of some good. Whatever good comes from the situation concerning Kim Jong-Il, then, does not and cannot justify his lawlessness.

Foreign Policy and Illegal Immigration

Foreign policy does not develop in a vacuum. It must use other resources to properly work. If a nation has problems with illegal foreign immigrants infiltrating its borders, then there is a problem whose solution comes not from treating the symptom but from finding a remedy for the belying cause. A foreign nation might be so impoverished and its government so ineffective that the solution is international in scope and requires private investment. For instance, local and foreign corporations that build their businesses abroad have foreign workers that might then be less inclined to illegally find work in another country. Revenue circulates in proportion to investor activity and increased employment, thereby enriching impoverished local and regional government. Corporations must build entire infrastructures abroad to most productively employ the most people. The concerned government must articulate this global undertaking so that the willing corporation receives all necessary incentives. When a problem's root goes ineffectually managed or continually unmanaged, the symptoms only spread and worsen. Foreign policy has to be adaptive, it has to be international in scope, and it has to be flexible enough to use private investment.

Order in an Apparently Mad World

When society manipulates logic to serve its own purposes, there is no absolute truth that governs that society. There are no first principles like, equality and fairness, which can maintain order. When truth goes only so far as a persons desire to be right, there can be no objectivity by which to equally measure all things. All things then are a matter of ego. As a result, the Israelis and the Palestinians fight to no end, the Sunna and Shia kill each other to no end, Kim Jong-Il creates global trouble and allows his own people to starve to death, and the President of the United States treads on 230 years of his nation's liberties. It is not necessarily the case that all societies must be rooted in objectivity. It is not necessarily the case that logic must be the ruling principle of all societies. It is the case, though, that an objective-minded person dealing with such societies—dealing with such people—will not be able to clearly define reasons for whatever happens. A person that is working to change dynamics in such societies amidst such people only does so if he becomes part of the apparent madness, without judging it, but using it to his advantage. For this adaptable person, there is hope that the bigger picture will improve even if the apparent madness along the way stays the same.

Why Iraq Must Be A Covert War

A war in Iraq fought by Special Operations is a war fought outside the public purview. Such a war is one that is limited only by the stealth and ability of the war fighters and not by debate, not by time, and not by public opinion. Democracy must be preserved in the United States, but there is no democracy on the battlefield except the freedom that a small unit has to use every asset at its disposal to efficiently and effectively accomplish its mission. In the United States, however, when the expression of democracy becomes imminently harmful to the very nation’s democracy, then that expression should not be prevented but redirected. Public opinion in the United States has the ability to confound the American effort in Iraq. The Iraq theater is too important in the effort to maintain global stability so that there will be no imminent threat posed against American democracy. Public opinion about the American presence in Iraq must not confound the effort or there is the potential that that opinion will enable such an imminent threat. So it is that public opinion has to be refocused. Bringing home conventional troops will redirect that focus.

Iraq, The Covert War

Assuming that conventional coalition forces in Iraq can redeploy to more pressing world regions as Iraqi forces acquire more of their responsibilities, one cannot as readily assume that Iraq’s importance to coalition nations has in any way diminished. The war in Iraq can remain primarily important but addressed in a different way that is equally, if not more, efficient and effective. The air-land battle concept of which every infantry soldier becomes familiar is a concept in which every resource synergistically comes together to accomplish a mission. It is not enough to deploy a battalion of infantry to defeat a company sized enemy. That battalion must have coordinated air, artillery, and armor assets as needed, along with communications and intelligence, to accomplish that mission. The type of mission, however, dictates the assets required to accomplish it. The mission in Iraq does not require conventional forces and so does not need an air-land battle concept of the kind that supports large units. Rather, the concept must be adjusted to support small, specialized units, which can exclusively focus on counter-insurgency and on supporting Iraqi forces. The amount of soldiers in a given area can mean the difference between failure and success. American-led indigenous soldiers, like those that bravely fought in the Vietnamese jungles, can meet Iraq’s challenges. Our military is entirely capable of specifically adjusting an air-land battle concept to suit their war fighting needs. By doing so, Iraq’s importance will not be lost on the withdrawal of conventional coalition forces.

Rantings of an Immature Child

North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il is like the bad sportsman that always cries fowl although he doesn't want to play the game right. He is like the spoiled child that knocks over other people and makes a lot of noise when someone bumps into him. Now he is pouting because there are nations that want to sanction his bad behavior. According to Reuters, the official North Korean daily Rodong Sinmun included an editorial that said, "Our forces and people will definitely show our belief and power with a cruel, annihilating strike if enemies touch our dignified socialist system, even slightly," The editorial was quoted by Seoul's Yonhap news agency. (access story above) Like with the bad sportsman and the spoiled child, bad behavior must go unrewarded. Such behavior is counterproductive to smooth social interaction. Threats from a child amidst a tantrum are nothing more than the rantings of someone who does not know how to express himself in a manner that is both thoughtful and mature. Kim Jong Il is no different than that child. Now, if that child wants to gain the attention of a rational minded audience, then he must first prove himself rational. There is no audience to otherwise take him seriously.

Taepodong Means "Starting Trouble" in Korean

A nuclear threat from North Korea did not immediately follow serious U.S. rhetoric about striking first against a ready-to-test Taepodong II missile. Only today has the Associated Press reported on North Korea's willingness to fight a nuclear war if the U.S. strikes the North Korean missile on the launch pad. It appears that if the U.S. had any plan to launch a first strike against the North Korean missile, its hesitation has given its enemy time to devise a strategy for preventing it. While it is easy to say that the U.S. should have immediately struck the missile to keep the North Koreans off guard, it is difficult to say that they would not have launched a nuclear attack then as they are threatening that they would do now if the U.S. attacks. What is absolutely clear is that stakes are at their highest. The U.S. cannot allow North Korea to launch the missile without allowing that there is an influential North Korean military pre-eminence in the region. However, if the U.S. is prepared to strike, then it must be prepared to strike multiple targets to prevent North Korea from lashing out at its neighbors. If the U.S. does that, then the intention is clear: the truce is broken and anything is possible.

The Concern that Wins Elections and Preserves Liberty

In a world where terrorists watch C-SPAN, C-SPAN2, CNN, Fox News, and read and post internet blogs, we might consider showing that we Americans are smarter than they. They know that mid-term elections are this November and that American politicians use frivolous issues to woo voters. When Americans want to know why we are not proceeding into Pakistan to hunt terrorists, and our government inadequately replies or does not reply at all, terrorists get an impression that they are outwitting us. They have access to places that we do not. We might consider, then, avoiding frivolous issues approaching these mid-term elections and look deeply into concerns like this; because, this kind of concern not only wins elections but also wins the peace and preserves liberty.