<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Sunday, January 30, 2005

Election 

Overall I have a pretty positive assessment of the Iraqi election. Voter turnout is reported to have exceeded 70%, and there were "only" nine terrorist bombings. As expected, Shiites and Kurds hit the polls in droves.

The key figure will be the turnout in Sunni Arab cities. Early reports say that it was good in Baquoba but poor in Tikrit, Samarra, and Ramadi. The Sunni Arab leaders like Adnan Pachachi have done their people a huge disservice by caving into terrorist violence and telling their people to boycott their first chance to participate in Iraq's future.

The violence will remain high as the results are tabulated, the 275-member assembly forms, and the new prime minister, president, and vice presidents are chosen. We must remain vigilant. We should have always expected Iraqi democracy to be difficult, as our Islamic militant foes view any government that isn't based on the Sharia to be illegitimate. Even if the democratic republic can take hold in Iraq, that nation will remain isolated in its freedom for quite some time.

The amount of aircraft mishaps has also been high as of late. First there was the Marine CH-53 that went down with all 31 souls on board. Friday, an OH-58 Kiowa helicopter crashed, claiming the lives of its two pilots. Today the Brits lost a C-130 Hercules transport; the results from this crash will be equally difficult to accept.

Yet amidst the chaos we are reminded that, with a little luck, we will perservere.

Friday, January 28, 2005

A poigniant reminder 

I found this post linked at NASA Watch and found it to be the most appropriate post for this grim anniversary.

All of the intuitive harbingers of disaster were there. The suspicion that the cold weather wasn't safe, the belief that the mission should have been scrubbed. Then we get the pressure, from none other than Dan "Blabber" Rather, that may have contributed to disaster:

One of the memories I have of that time is a CBS Evening News broadcast with Dan Rather on January 27th, who in a snide voice wondered if NASA would ever be able to launch a space mission on time? He then proceeded to go down a long list of Shuttle missions that had been delayed. I remember being annoyed at the time because of the unspoken expectation by Mr. Rather that launching a complex space vehicle like the Shuttle was a simple thing.

I believe that Rather's description of the scene on January 27, 1986 was "high-tech low comedy." I wonder how hard that bastard was laughing the next day.

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Pushing too hard 

My heart was heavy all day with the news that 31 Marine personnel, including a Navy corpsman, were killed in the crash of a Super Stallion helicopter in western Iraq.

In this age of miracle and wonder, helicopter travel seems routine. Yet helicopter travel is far more dangerous than flying on a fixed-wing aircraft. The systems that keep those whirly birds in flight are mind-bogglingly complex.

Operational accidents are more common in helicopters than in jets. The accident rate seems like it grows under wartime conditions. This also seems true for the vehicle accidents that are claiming the lives of our beloved warriors, like a recent M2 Bradley roll-over that killed five soldiers. When you push the machine too hard, it will inevitably break.

The Super Stallion that crashed was supposedly downed in the middle of a fierce sandstorm. Were the Marines pushing so hard that they deemed it necessary to fly in such formidable weather? Was the "sharqi" totally unexpected? If the Marine chopper pilots that Oliver North shadowed in March and April 2003 represented typical Marine chopper pilots, the former looks more likely.

When Mary, my boss, asked me to redecorate her office, one of the pictures I hung was of an Air Force Super Stallion, the "Jolly Green Giants" that pushed so hard to recover downed aviators in the jungles of Southeast Asia. I don't know what she thinks when she sees it, but it always reminds me of the para-rescue jumper's credo: "First there, so that others may live."

When life calls for us to give our all, we will rise to the occasion and triumph if our spirits are willing. Today, the Marines gave that last full measure as they pushed on with their mission.

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

A Blog's Birthday 

Impossible Scissors turns one year old today. That would be an impressive statistic, if anybody actually read the blog...

Monday, January 24, 2005

A Frigid Half-Birthday 

Today was my uneventful half-birthday. It also happens to be the half-birthday for Squatter, as well as Benoit (one of the few people I knew in high school who didn't turn into a burnout.)

The weather was quite ball-freezing all day. Still, it could not compare to my half birthday two years ago. On January 24, 2003, I actually witnessed snowflakes in Daytona. It had to be about eighteen degrees outside. The following day we took a fitness test, and nobody did as well as they wanted due to the un-Florida-like weather. Rossman found a frozen lizard and resuscitated it by holding it lovingly in his warm palm.

In the spirit of this unprecedented cold spell, I'm posting pictures of the snowman I built on January 6, 2005 while I was at home. We had gotten a "mere" eight inches of snow the day before. My parents told me Saturday they had recently gotten twelve inches. I guess Florida's weather isn't so bad after all.





Sunday, January 23, 2005

Inshallah 

This is a good example of the in-depth reporting we should be seeing from Iraq.

In one week, I hope that Iraq will have an election that will appoint a government of the people that will motivate the Shiite majority and unify the country against the insurgency, Inshallah.

Friday, January 21, 2005

Closing the outposts of tyranny 

It appears that the president is preparing to act on his inaugural vow to support democracy worldwide and back up Condoleeza Rice's rhetoric about outposts of tyranny. Perhaps as a sign of this, Paul Wolfowitz is openly talking about the Greater Middle East Initiative.

Mr. Wolfowitz said the president was "fairly frank and critical about our failure to do that in the past and our too willingness to accept dictatorships in Arab countries as somehow serving American interests or this was the best that Arabs can do."
"I believe strongly it doesn't serve American interests, and I think Arabs can do much better than that," he said. "And that if you want to demonstrate a better alternative to what the radicals are offering, I think the real alternative is freedom and democracy. I think the president believes that."

The greatest failing of the president's plan for fighting militant Islam (granted, I think the plan has been a great success in the short term) is that it has focused too heavily on military solutions. The use of force is the only way to remove the threat from hardened terrorists, but the root causes of terrorism also have to be addressed.

Middle eastern society is in a bad way. There are so many unhealthy elements, including Wahhabism, totalitarianism, tribalism, an abundance of third-country nationals, and an economy that is founded solely on the export of petroleum. Call me a right-wing idealist, but I firmly believe that the solutions lie in representative government, public education, and free enterprise. President Bush's vision for the middle east includes all of these elements, although the means for implementing them are uncertain and will remain a challenge.

I can't think of an instance in history when two democracies (although some would argue that the American Civil War was an exception) have gone to war with each other. It is not in the nature of free people to go to war with each other. Free people go to war so that others may be free. Greater freedom must reign in the middle east if real, lasting peace is to take root.

Thursday, January 20, 2005

The Next Terrorist Attack 

What do Islamic militants have in mind for the United States?

As a nation, we are fortunate that we have not been attacked in the three years and four months since 911. Invading Afghanistan certainly took its toll on al Qaeda by scrambling its leadership, killing its foot soldiers, and denying it access to its primary sanctuary. Increased security at home, from the TSA to the Patriot Act to the general changing of our security consciousness, has undoubtedly prevented or deterred attacks.

Yet there are undoubtedly cells of Islamic militants living in this country right now, poised to strike. Suicide bombings remain a simple but effective way of spreading fear. But America's enemies have thus far avoided this crude tactic. al Qaeda seems to prefer large-scale attacks against high-profile targets that will have a huge psychological, symbolic impact on the nation.

The threat of al Qaeda is less pronounced than the threat of "al Qaeda-ism." The enemies of America need not formally pledge allegience to Osama bin Laden. They only need to espouse his philosophy that promotes a rigid, repressive version of Islam and believes that the deaths of Americans will bring them closer to their ideal version of society.

The weapons of choice for the next attack will likely be car bombs and truck bombs. Wheeled vehicles are the most effective means of transporting and concealing a large explosive device. Another possibility is that terrorists will use crude chemical weapons. Abu Musab al Zarqawi planned on using "chemical bombs" against the US embassy in Jordan back in spring 2004. These weapons would not use sophisticated chemicals like mustard gas or sarin. Instead, they would rely on large quantities of industrial chemicals (like sulfuric acid) and pack them in a truck bomb.

If the previous determination of our enemies is any indication, Washington DC will be the next target. Back in 1993, Ramzi Yousef hatched a plan to destroy the World Trade Center with a truck bomb. He failed back then, but his uncle Khalid Sheik Mohammed composed the 911 plot in 1999-2000 to finish the job. On 911, our enemies failed to destroy the Pentagon, and entirely missed the fourth jet's target (either the White House or the Capitol.) It is certain that they will try again.

The terror wars are far from over, but they are certain to end with a whimper rather than a bang. Complacency is bin Laden's ally. We must never forget 911 and always remain eternally vigilant.

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Outposts of Tyranny 

The Axis of Evil has given way to the "Outposts of Tyranny," the six totalitarian states acknowledged by Condoleeza Rice during her confirmation hearing. The charter membership is as follows:

1. Cuba
2. Burma
3. North Korea
4. Iran
5. Belarus
6. Zimbabwe

I have to agree with her assessment, although I suspect that the Democrats will be up in arms about her pronouncement. (Think back to the "axis of evil" speech. "You're not supposed to tell evil countries that they're evil!" the Democrats exclaimed. The reaction was much the same for Ronald Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech.) Of the six mentioned countries, the country cares least about Burma (are they still calling themselves "Myanmar"?) and Belarus (who allegedly offered exile to Saddam Hussein.) Castro's Cuba has always made a good saber-rattler, yet we will soon have to deal with the aftermath when Castro inevitably dies. Zimbabwe is a human rights nightmare but is not directly tied to the security of the US. Iran and North Korea reprise their role as charter members of the Axis of Evil.

Yet the list seems woefully incomplete. I submit, for you approval, three more entries for the "outposts of tyranny."

7. Egypt
8. Saudi Arabia
9. Pakistan

It should be noted that the nations with the biggest terrorist problems, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are also the nations with the most despotic regimes in the region. Hosni Mubarak is a bastard and the princes of Saudi Arabia are sons-of-bitches; under normal circumstances we should not support them. Yet the only alternative to their reign of terror is a regime of Islamic militants. We need to start sponsoring some democracy movements in those countries very quickly. Pakistan's dictator is less of a problem because he's on our side; yet we still need to pressure him so he will relinquish control of his military and create some democratic institutions.


Monday, January 17, 2005

Papa's Got a Brand New Bag 

Today I went to K-Mart to buy a new messenger bag, replacing the one that was stolen during the Christmas break. On the way to the store I was approached by a persistent homeless person who wanted me to "do him a favor." I don't want to know what the favor was, and I think I might be scared if I had asked. I avoided eye contact and kept on moving.

I still miss my graphing calculator and my stapler (cue Office Space.) My roommate still misses his $700 worth of DVD's. The guys below us still miss their laptop.

Robbery sucks, folks.

Sunday, January 16, 2005

January 16 

Two years ago from this morning, Columbia took its final flight into the ether. It was a chilly Thursday morning, and I was standing by the Lehman building as it bored a hole in the sky. My eyes could not have seen the wad of foam, less than two pounds in weight, that mortally wounded the majestic albatross during its final climb.

Fourteen years ago from this evening, Operation Desert Storm began. The war was a watershed event, as it marked the point where the U.S. would militarily engage the middle east, and it set the stage for the most significant events to follow.

Sometimes I think that we would have been better off not going to war back then, and sticking with sanctions instead. Would we have fought for Kuwait if they didn't trade with us? Clinton was prepared to do so for Kosovo, but I doubt Bush senior would have gone to war for such a tiny country on the sole basis of human rights. Because our trade with Kuwait is based almost exclusively on oil, there is truth to the argument that it was a war for oil.

If we did not stop Saddam in 1991, what would have happened? Maybe he'd have gotten nukes, and maybe he'd have fought the Saudis. Maybe Osama bin Laden would have defended "the land of Islam" from Saddam. The Saudis are not our friends, and they certainly aren't worth fighting for. 40% of them are Wahhabi bastards. If we lost Saudi Arabia's oil, America could survive. We are a resourceful nation and we have always risen to the challenge when national need demanded it.

Operation Desert Storm was a half measure. We would free Kuwait, but not commit to rebuilding Iraq and eliminating the social conditions that produced a megalomaniac like Saddam Hussein. Containment of Saddam simply lead to the oil-for-food fiasco and placed a strain on both our military and our relations with the Persian Gulf states. Our presence in Saudi Arabia created a lot of ill will and may have contributed to 9/11 (although the genesis for the attack dates back to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, according to Osama bin Laden.)

The danger of January 16 is that of half-measures. If NASA asked the astronauts to inspect the damage to Columbia, maybe a rescue mission could have been ordered. If the US had gone all the way to Baghdad and toppled Saddam Hussein, we could have rebuilt Iraq in 1991, before we abandoned the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings, and before Saddam had a chance to plan an insurgency. Maybe 9/11 could have even been prevented.

If something is worth doing, it must be done right, or it should not be attempted at all. We must have the will to take every measure, to accomplish our mission.

Let us never forget the importance of Will.
--General Tommy Franks

The Baathist-Jihadist Marriage 

Here's a good article, ostensibly about the Iraqi election's security, explaining the nature of the insurgency. The Baathist leaders fled to Syria with money and weapons during early 2003, and have been funneling them to terrorist cells in Iraq ever since. Some of these cells are made of Baathist officials and Iraq's special forces and military officers. Others are staffed by foreign jihadists. My sense on Zarqawi is that he acts as a recruiter, drawing in the jihadists and convincing them to die for Allah. The suicide bombings are directed by Baathists but executed by foreign militants.

We should have seen this coming when we cleared out Salman Pak and Baghdad in April 2003. Many of the enemy fighters we found there were Syrians, Egyptians, Sudanese, and from other countries in the region. Read Thunder Run by David Zucchino and War Stories by Oliver North to gather more info on this under-reported detail.

Compare this version of events with the theories espoused by Scott Ritter on Jihad TV outlets like al Jazeera. He thinks that the insurgency is all-Baathist, and that Abu Musab al Zarqawi is simply a boogeyman created by them to convince Iraqis that the US can't provide security. Of course, Ritter thinks that the insurgency is unstoppable and that we need to get out now. He believes that we need to give Iraq back to the Baathists, because he fears that Islamic militants will only gain in strength the longer we stay in Iraq. I seem to think that he's developed a serious hard-on for Saddam and his cronies.

I pray daily that we can prevent widespread violence during this election, and I hope that the Shiites will be more motivated to rebuild Iraq if they choose their own leaders. A proposal to ban all vehicle traffic in the days leading up to the election seems like the only way to halt car bombings, although suicide bombers will still be a concern.

Sy Hersh & (Un)Ethical Reporting 

Sy Hersh is reporting in The New Yorker that the US is conducting secret missions in Iran.

Do journalists have an ethical duty to report everything? Or are there times when a story should be suppressed? I draw the line at the point where Amercan soldiers could be killed because of the information reported in a news story.

When considering the ethics of Sy Hersh, we have to take a look of where he's been and where he is now. Hersh won renown for exposing the My Lai massacre in 1970, two years after the event had taken place. The story won exceptional praise for Hersh, and it expedited the military process of punishing Lieutenant Calley and other individuals who were behind this reprehensible incident. Since then, Hersh has been a military watchdog, for better or worse. He exposed the Glomar Explorer incident in 1974, where the CIA raised a portion of a sunken Soviet sub from the ocean floor. By 1998 he was accusing Gen. Barry McCaffrey and his men of war crimes during Operation Desert Storm, and he spearheaded the Abu Ghuraib story in April 2004.

Some media critics viewed Abu Ghuraib as Hersh's attempt to reclaim the glory of his My Lai days. The incident did result in the public excoriation of the soldiers and officers responsible for the abuses, and even created a Capitol Hill firestorm that pressured Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to resign. The last event appeared to be one of Hersh's goals. While some media channels reported theabuses as the work of a few sadistic and frustrated soldiers who were given vague orders and poor supervision from their officers, Hersh took a more conspiratorial view. In his version of events, President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld ordered the abuses. He also used the occasion of Abu Ghuraib to paint the armed forces as being in open rebellion against Rumsfeld.

Not only did Hersh fail to unseat Rumsfeld, but he succeeded in prolonging the insurgency and motivating them to capture and execute western hostages. Abu Ghuraib was specifically cited by the insurgents as they sliced off Nick Berg's head. If the media hadn't run the images from Abu Ghuraib, the foreign jihadists would not have the effective recruiting propaganda that they now enjoy. If the extent of Abu Ghuraib was buried by the press, would Private First Class Matt Maupin or Kenneth Bigley still be alive today? I tend to think so.

Of course, there's also the possibility that Hersh has it wrong on the secret missions in Iran. Savvy readers should always be suspicious of anonymous sources. There is no doubt that the Pentagon has strategically used anonymous sources to plant misinformation in the press. The Pentagon reporters have also gained notoriety for drawing false conclusions based on insufficient evidence. Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough of The Washington Times has probably written false stories on both accounts. Sy Hersh, who is probably Gertz's left-wing doppleganger, can be no different.

Saturday, January 15, 2005

Eating contests 

I thought it was a slow day when AIM news (as poor as it is) used this as one of today's headline stories. Still, I'm impressed.

I've always been drawn to eating competitions and feats of gluttony. I've occasionally impressed myself; for being a little man, I can eat a lot of food when I want to. Davis is even more impressive. He's not very big either but he can eat his weight at the Old Country Buffet or Red Lobster.

Perhaps one day I will distinguish myself by eating a massive hamburger of at least three pounds weight (before cooking.) Until then I can have heroes like Davis and Kate Stelnick.

Voices on high 

Embry-Riddle hosted James Fallows, an author for The Atlantic Monthly and a Carter speechwriter. The topic of his speech was the future of Iraq and Iran, although he had a pronounced focus on Iraq. Whoever puts together these presentations for the honors college likes to go with deceptive titles.

I enjoyed Mr. Fallows, despite his distinct difference in opinion regarding Iraq and the way things have gone thus far. I mostly appreciated the way he explained the motivation for war. It dealt with nation-building and pre-emption rather than some oil-related conspiracy from the pages of Michael "Dude, Where's My Penis" Moore. Of course, this didn't prevent a long-haired guy in the front of the auditorium from asking a question about oil.

Fallows used to be close to Paul Wolfowitz, and he had the discussion with James Woolsey right after 9/11 where Woolsey basically stated, "We don't know who did this, but we will have to take out Iraq." The Woolsey-Wolfowitz line of reasoning is that the middle east has been spoiled by dictators and weaponry; Saddam Hussein was the worst dictator in the region, and at the time we believed he had the worst weapons. Therefore, he was the first target.

Fallows seemed pretty smug; then again, he has good reason to be. His article "The 51s State" fron summer 2002 predicted many of the problems we have faced in Iraq. He refused to speculate on the medium-term future of Iraq or even what the elections would bring; he only said that the elections would be a transitional event more significant than some of the other milestones like the transfer of sovereignty.

I was miffed that Fallows cited Richard Clarke as a voice recognizing the counter-productive effect that invading Iraq would have on our fight with militant Islam. According to the characterization in American Soldier, Clarke talks a lot but has little of substance to say; he's very pedantic and takes it personally if somebody corrects him.

The best part was his focus on the "info war," America's quest to convince Muslims that we are a force for good. We did it effectively during the cold war but are not doing such a good job now. al Jazeera plays no small role in that, as Mr. Fallows acknowledged. I still had to ridicule his suggestion that tsunami relief will rebuild our image abroad; the good that nations do is interred wih their bones, to sample from Julius Caesar. Most Muslims would rather blame us for perceived Israeli injustices than acknowledge the charity we have shown for Muslims in Kuwait or Bosnia or Somalia or Kosovo or Indonesia.

Parts of his speech have been said before by other speakers. Fallows claimed that inspections, rather than war, was the way to contain Iraq (a solution advocated by Scott Ritter.) He also repeated the line that the military (from the Brigadier Generals downwards) is at war with Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon leadership. Sy Hersch has been beating this drum since Abu Ghuraib broke, and it may be true to some extent, but it's not a full-scale mutiny.

The only time I felt offended was when he characterized the president's performance as "a calamity" since January 2002. I would say that the president did an outstanding job handling the Global War on Terrorism all the way through May 2002, when he gave the preemption speech at West Point that signaled our willingness to disarm, and perhaps invade, Iraq. Our mission in Afghanistan has been a shining success, and that must not be lost amid the travails of Iraq.

Thursday, January 13, 2005

Jobless 

Apparently they don't have an AFSC code for me. A snafu in the computer saw to that. By the time everything is straightened out, I will probably be assigned to communications or info. That generally bites, but at least I get to be deployed overseas.

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

It was a very good year (for space) 

Astronautix.com has an article poo-pooing 2004 as a bleak year for space exploration. The piece, apparently written by webmaster Mark Wade, points to declning launch rates as its major reason. Other reasons include the continued grounding of the space shuttle, excessive costs for the Gallileo system of Euro-GPS, the 'impending death' of nuclear space propulsion, the lack of funds for Russia's Kliper, and NASA's hostility to the Delta IV rocket. The article takes a very cynical view of the Vision for Space Exploration and feels that it will soon fall from favor.

The perspective from my segment of the industry is that 2004 was the beginning of the REAL space age, rather than the age from 1957 through 2003, where space access was viewed as a stunt rather than routine.

Private sector access to space got a major shot in the arm with three successful spaceflights of Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne. Richard Branson sweetened the deal by establishing a spac tourism company that would offer commercial space flights by 2007. The earth-bound Zero-G company began offering weightless flights in the lower atmosphere for astronaut-wannabes. Even the DaVinci Wildfire spacecraft got ready for its first flight, expected in early 2005. The Falcon I and upcoming Falcon V rockets also took huge steps towards reality in 2004.

Mars got a little bit closer in 2004. Two rovers and an orbiter probed the red planet, completely shaking the foundations of conventional theories about Mars. The engineering challenge of putting a spacecraft on Mars, while still significant, has been diminished. The great galactic ghoul will be busted.

I am not so cynical about the VSE. The wise decision to retire the shuttle by the decade's end leaves us with no choice other than building a Crew Exploration Vehicle. Now tht the ship is burned, we will have to find a way to survive (according to the old analogy about the Spanish explorers.) VSE will have to adopt nuclear propulsion and power, and the public is more open to that now than they were during the dark ages of Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl. Even if there is public opposition, the government may press on anyway. Tony Blair, Jose Maria Aznar, and Silvio Berlusconi took that tack when committing their nations to the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq. The leaders of our space program may have to make the decision to press on with nuclear power despite public idiocy.

The new rockets keep coming down the pipeline. The Atlas II, Atlas III, and Titan IV are on the way out, while new versions of the Atlas V and Delta IV are hurtling down the pipeline. NASA may eventually overcome its "not invented here" syndrome regarding the Deltas and Atlases because it will not have the money to develop a new launcher under the projected VSE budget. Seeing as how the old Atlas rockets launched our first manned spacecraft into orbit, NASA is historically able to swallow its pride and adopt military rockets.

If we go back ten years, we've come a long way. We have Atlas V's, SpaceShipOnes, Mars rovers, and we're openly talking about nuclear power and human missions to the moon and Mars. It's a good time to be a rocket geek.

The Iraqi Army Dies Another Day 

Paul Bremer is using the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal to defend his decisions to disband the Iraqi Army and Baath Party. The thrust of his argument is that the Baath and the Army were impediments to peace and had to be dispensed with.

The examples from World War II show that disbanding the defeated nation's army is not always a bad thing. The Japanese military was disbanded and rebuilt from the ground up. Of course, this left Japan totally emasculated; the nation was unable and unwilling to wage war outside of its borders. In Germany, former Nazi officials were retained, to the point where Gen. Patton was punished for using ex-Nazi officers in his postwar administration.

The Baath party as a whole needed to be disbanded, but its members should not have been totally disenfranchised from Iraqi society. Much like Hitler's Nazi party and the Soviet Communist party, party membership was a requirement for career and social advancement. The true believers in the sick ideologies of the Baathists, Nazis, and Commies were outnumbered by those who wanted the benefits gained through party affiliation. In hindsight, Iraq's infrastructure and government institutions could have benefitted by retaining ex-Baathists. The difficulty with doing so was that each person to be retained would need to be thoroughly vetted. Bremer simplified the process by simply letting the Baathists go and hiring new personnel. The result is an inexperienced corps of civil servants, but one that better resembles Iraq's ethnic mixture.

Interestingly, Bremer claims that his policies were 'an acknowledgement of the situation on the ground.' This charge is correct in regards to the former army. Unlike the Nazis, the Iraqi army units rarely surrendered intact. As General Tommy Franks recalls in his book American Soldier, the army largely "melted away." The soldiers merely discarded their uniforms and returned to the villages. For the conscripts (many of whom were Shiites,) this meant they could return to a normal life. Yet the Sunni volunteers who were from tribes loyal to Saddam decided they would live to fight another day.

The phrase "disbanding the army" is somewhat misleading, because the army largely disbanded itself over a month before Bremer stepped foot in Iraq. The former soldiers have caused much strife in occupied Iraq, but keeping the army united is not the only solution to this. General Franks wanted to pump massive amounts of cash into Iraq to retain these former soldiers in non-military jobs. The money never came, and these trained, armed soldiers were recruited by terrorists, Baathists, tribal sheiks, and imams to fight the Americans.

It also appears that the Iraqi insurgents are turning against their foreign jihadi comrades. Foreign fighters were in Iraq long before this war started; Zarqawi and a small band from Afghanistan entered the country in early 2002, while Saddam courted Syrians, Sudanese, Egyptians and other foreign jihadists and trained them in camps like Salman Pak. My guess is that Saddam had planned on using these zealous jihadists to boost the strength of his under-equipped and under-paid army. Yet Saddam always viewed the jihadists as expendible after they had accomplished their mission. A third category of insurgent, the Iraqi jihadist, has also emerged.

If the United States were to leave Iraq in insurgent hands, a three-way battle would erupt between foreign jihadists, Iraqi jihadists, and Iraqi nationalists for control of the country. Nationalism is incredibly divisive in the middle east, almost as divisive as religion.

The only good way for the US to leave Iraq is if we have a large, competent Iraqi army to take our place. The largely-Sunni army that served Saddam can hopefully be replaced by an etnically-diverse army that reflects the Shiite majority of Iraq. Paul Bremer believes that the de-Baathification policies solidified Kurdish support. That is the most tangible benefit of his policies from May and June 2003. We have lost the 20% of the population representing the Sunnis but gained the 20% Kurdish segment. This may turn out to be a good trade, as the Kurds make up the fiercest and best-trained units of the new Iraqi army.

Monday, January 10, 2005

Ransacked 

It appears that my dorm room was ransacked and my calculator and satchel were stolen. More details to follow.

Little Nibbler 

We finally got a new lizard on Saturday to keep Marge company. I want to call the new lizard "Little Nibbler," after the character on Futurama, but that will be up to sister to decide. I suspect Nibbler is a female, but it's hard to tell. I was correct in thinking Marge was female, so maybe we will have two female lizards living together.

Friday, January 07, 2005

Bias from space! 

If you regularly read The Space Review, please take the time to fill out this survey.

I had this to say in my comments box. Hopefully TSR will be rant-free in 2005.

Regarding the bias question:
I find that while no author is unbiased, there seems to be an assortment of conservative and liberal voices that balance each other out. Taylor Dinerman comes across as being the conservative of the group, with Greg Zsidisn and Sam Dinkin as the liberals.


It's perfectly fine for an author to have political leanings and present them if they are pertinent to the topic, as long as their arguments are well-thought-out and have to do with space. Some of the pieces on this site have not met the test. Sam Dinkin's piece about colonization (Babylon, Wolfowitz, etc) was a thinly-veiled rant against US policy in Iraq that had very little to do with space. I could say the same about Greg's "Faith-sats" article (I can't remember if it was on TSR; I definitely saw it on Space Daily.)

Band of Brothers 

I spent the past week watching "Band of Brothers" with my dad. It was a very good miniseries, among the best war films ever. I can begin to understand what the brave men of Easy Company felt; my own "band of brothers" helped me get through field training.

The Bastogne episode helped me understand the supply problems our soldiers always face. The armoring of vehicles in Iraq is just the tip of the iceberg. The 101st Airborne was sent into frigid Bastogne without cold-weather gear and with insufficient ammo. They were lucky to receive ammo from soldiers who were retreating as the Ardennes Offensive stretched the American lines.

I enjoyed the final episodes dealing with the American takeover and occupation of Germany. Much like Iraq, Germany was very chaotic as it transitioned to Allied occupation. As we became an occupying force, many people said, "You are worse than the Nazis" to our soldiers, much as many Iraqis say "the Americans are worse than Saddam." The key to occupation is not getting the people to like you, but getting them to tolerate you.

In Germany, the country's will to fight had been broken through years of total warfare, and there was a formal surrender. Iraq's will to fight had not been sapped during the month-long invasion, and the enemy leadership never formally surrendered. In Germany we weren't afraid to do house-by-house searches for weapons. We treated the Iraqis with kid gloves during the early months of occupation, and we now have a well-armed insurgency to face. It's no wonder that the German insurgents (the Waffen SS who were holed up in the Bavarian mountains) surrendered while the Iraqi insurgents have conducted a sustained, well-coordinated, and resourceful insurgency.

That OTHER election 

While the eyes of the world are on the Iraqi election, the upcoming Palestinian election is equally important towards the building of a new Middle East.

Iraq's election will have to take place on January 30. If it doesn't, the insurgents will get the message that the political process will cave in if they give a violent response. More violence will be rewarded with continual delays. The election will be a success if it energizes Iraq's Shiite Arabs to take action in the reconstruction of Iraq.

The Palestinian election will decide the direction of the Palestinian independence movement. If the Palestinians elect Mahmoud Abbas, the stage will be set for future negotiations and a two-state solution (as long as Abbas is willing to compromise on a West Bank pullout and right-of-return.) If the Palestinians elect a terrorist, the west should write off the Palestinian cause as lost. The election of a terrorist who cannot recognize Israel's basic right of existence is a sign that the Palestinians really want a one-state solution that does not include the Jews.

It has been said again and again that peace will not exist in the Middle East until the Palestinian problem is solved. The reprocussions of this unrest are being felt in Iraq. The world has been given a great opportunity with the death of Yasser Arafat; let's hope this opportunity is used to the fullest extent for a fair peace.

America the Great White Satan 

Some of the pundits are trying to peddle the notion that the U.S. can build good will throughout the Muslim world by giving generously to the tsunami relief effort. I hope that these people will wake up from their fantasies.

Our relations with the tsunami-affected countries varies from place to place. The U.S. has alwaus enjoyed strong relations with Thailand. Our relations are improving with India despite the strain imposed by the Cold War. Relations with Sri Lanka are a bit chillier; after all, this is the country that refused aid from Israel.

Indonesian relations are the chilliest of all. This is the largest Muslim nation on earth, and it expressed solidarity with Iraq during the spring 2003 invasion. Indonesia would be as good a place as any to build good relations with Muslim countries, but it's still unrealistic to think that it will happen.

I like to say "Nobody loves America but everybody loves America's money." This was the case with Iran after the Bam earthquake, and this is the case with Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, and all of the other middle eastern governments that we support in the Islamic world. We should not expect Indonesia to be any different.

Right now our government has committed over $350 million and 13,000 military personnel to the tsunami relief effort. Think about that for a second. We have less than 18,000 military personnel in Afghanistan right now. Private donations from Amerrican citizens were at $80 million and rising at last count. The US is making quite an effort for which we will receive little thanks.

Interestingly, NBC Nightly News did a good piece on their Jan. 3rd broadcast, examining the reaction to the tsunami in the Islamic world. One allegation is that "the infidels," meaning either the U.S., Israel, or India, were responsible for the tsunami. The adherents of this theory claim that only a nuclear weapons test by the infidels could have set off the earthquake and the subsequent tsunami. Other crackpot theories circulating in the middle east hold that the tsunami was Allah's retribution for the sinfulness of mankind in general, or punishment for celebrating the "infidel" holiday of Christmas.

The bottom line is that if you plan on donating to the tsunami relief efforts, don't do it in the vain belief that Muslims will like us. Islamic militants will hate us no matter what we do, because their hate is irrational and self-sustaining. Donate only if you feel the slightest shred of compassion for people in need, regardless of their faith or national origin.

Tuesday, January 04, 2005

Riddle County (Four Years Hence) 

I remedied the brain damage from watching "Anchorman" by seeing a much better movie: "Orange County."

I never saw the movie when it first came out in early 2002. I wish it was out a year earlier, when I was just a round-headed kid who thought he could get into the Air Force Academy. Perhaps I could have taken its lessons to heart. Yes, it's supposed to be a comedy starring that hairy oaf Jack Black, but it's ultimately a movie about handling rejection and appreciating what you have.

Four years ago, the world was simple and cool and the towers were still standing. I was still an idealistic high schooler with a bad case of senior-itis. I was sitting for my family photo and my senior class photo while still not aware of the rejection I was about to face.

Today I am far more of a pragmatist but the senior-itis remains. I'm trying to get into grad school but if I get shot down, I will move on and not dwell on it. I just took another family photo, my first in four years. I still use my high school photo (where I still have fairly long hair) on my Riddle ID. It's been a year and a half since I got over the fact that the Air Force Academy gave me the big "hell no" and I went crawling to Riddle instead.

Embry-Riddle is often criticized but it has plenty of charms and it has greatly enriched me. Riddle is the place I call home and the place that formed me. William Faulkner had his South and Shawn Brumder had his Orange County. I have Embry-Riddle to call my own.

Bias by omission 

One of Saturday's news stories was the revelation that "Mrs. Anthrax," one of the Iraqi Most Wanted, is dying from cancer. The original story on the AP news wires quotes a U.S. official as saying that she had cancer for a long tie and that the U.S. was providing adequate treatment. Yet the version of the story in the Chicago Tribune omits this. It only has the bit from Tariq Aziz saying that Mrs. Anthrax was dying, and it's all America's fault. Tariq's knowledge of this, if true, is surprising. He's being kept in prison at Baghdad Int'l Airport, while Mrs. Anthrax is imprisoned in the southern port of Umm Qasr.

Un-Bear-able 

Mercifully, the Chicago Bears' season ended. Whenever I see beleaguered quarterback Chad Hutchinson, he has this expression on his face that looks like he's saying, "God, what did I do to deserve this?"

There's not too much good to comment on this season. Thomas Jones showed some sparks of brilliance as the running back, but he's got to be more consistent. Otherwise he will be the next Neal Anderson. I like coach Lovie Smith, and I think that he can put together a playoff team if the management will let him get some good players, and if the fates allow Brian Urlacher and Rex Grossman to stay healthy.

The Bears' worst move this season was trading receiver Marty Booker for Adewale Ogunlye. Ogunlye was decent but didn't make a big impact on the Bears' defense. Booker, on the other hand, was the team's best receiver. Who else could catch passes for the Bears? Certainly not the overrated prima donna, David Terrell.

Maybe the team is wrong to make Rex Grossman the centerpiece of their offense. He's got a good arm but he isn't too bright. Even if he is Lovie's man for the QB spot, the team still needs a good backup if (or when) he goes down.

My Resolutions for 2005 

1) Stop referring to people as "bitch" or "son of a bitch"
2) Read more books
3) Be more proactive and quit slacking
4) Spend less time surfing the web
5) Stop taking pride in my flatulence
6) Make running part of my regular routine

Saturday, January 01, 2005

Flight of the Raptor 

After the crash of an F/A-22 Raptor at Nellis Air Force Base on Dec. 20, the opponents of the program are gaining momentum. In the past, critics like Sen. McCain have called for the jet's cancellation so we can pay for the war in Iraq. Now it looks like Secretary Rumsfeld is seriously weighing the question, as he is prepared to slash the Pentagon's weapons acquisition budget to counteract the growing federal defeceit.

Jihad Joe does not have an Air Force. The logic of the F/A-22's opponents is that an air dominance fighter is totally unnecessary. Yet the danger in this logic is that it plans on fighting the last war. In a future war, we have no guarantee of air superiority. The F/A-22 is the only plane that combines speed, stealth, endurance, and precision into a potent combination that can destroy enemy aircraft and enemy air defenses. Ruling the skies is the only way that land forces can operate successfully. The four-day ground war for Kuwait would not be possible without 38 days of destroying the Iraqi Air Force and softening up their army from the air.

In a recent war game with the Indian Air Force, American F-15 pilots were defeated by Indian Su-30 Flankers. While the F-15 pilots operated under restrictive rules of engagement, such rules are not rare in modern air combat, where flight rules often require sight confirmation of bogeys before pilots engage in combat. The Flanker is a great fighter, and a lot of air forces fly it. The Flanker is only going to get better as the Russians work on various upgrades like thrust vectoring.

The Air Force needs the F/A-22. It's a very expensive plane, but it's what we need to retain our air superiority. The cost of the plane's avionics has a lot to do with that cost, and maybe the program could be rescoped to dispense with some of the unneeded features. Maybe a separate "F-22" fighter and "A-22" bomber could be built to keep the unit cost down. But the Raptor's wings must not be clipped.

Brain Death (Again) 

Last night I was guilty of wasting an hour and a half of my life in the worst way possible: watching "Anchorman."

If you enjoy intelligent comedy, please AVOID THIS MOVIE! The plot is merely a vehicle for Will Ferrel to act like an idiot for an hour and a half. And lots of other comedians get cameos. Will Ferrel's idiot routine works for the short sketches on "Saturday Night Live" or when he is a supporting character in movies like "Old School." It does not work here.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?