Impossible Scissors

It was with great sadness that the world learned of the euthanization of champion racehorse Barbaro. It had been last spring when Barbaro broke his leg in a way that would have led to instant euthanasia for most horses. Yet Barbaro battled back, going through ups and downs and giving race fans and animal lovers a reason to hope. Over the past few days, he hit an unexpected low which led his owners to end his suffering.

For many equestrian experts, they were critical of the ordeal and felt that Barbaro should have been euthanized long ago. While they have their point, it's also true that Barbaro's owners loved him to the point that they held out hope when there was little hope to be had. I should probably be surprised by the depth of human compassion for animals in general. People go to great lengths to feed and shelter and medicate their pets, almost to the point that they sacrifice a great deal of themselves for their beloved animals. If I were in the same position as Barbaro's owners, I would have held out hope for as long as possible, too. At that point, I too would go to great lengths and expenses to help beloved Barbaro. They held firm until it was clear that even if Barbaro recovered, his quality of life would be miserable.

Gallop off to that peaceful pasture in the sky, o mighty steed...

Hillary Clinton believes that it would be "irresponsible" for President Bush to leave any American forces in Iraq by January 2009. This goes well beyond the Baker Commission's recommendation that American combat forces leave by March 2008. It also gives insurgents hope that Hillary Clinton will be elected, so they need only wait out the clock until an arbitary deadline for withdrawal.

America's weakness, in the eyes of our enemies, is that our strength as a nation is determined by election cycles. Every two years, they have a chance to see a more favorable congress voted into office. Every four years there's a chance that an administration sympathetic to withdrawal can be elected. Militant clerics and "presidents for life" need not have the same worry, and America cannot affect their leadership structure so easily.

Hillary believes that this is "George Bush's War" and doesn't believe that a future administration (hers, or so she hopes,) has to deal with it. She didn't have a problem with leaving American troops in the Balkans when she and Bill left the White House. Iraq has become more than George Bush's war; it has become America's war, which she voted to authorize, and America will pay a terrible toll if Iraq descends into further chaos. If she doesn't believe that the mission is achievable or worthwhile (as her arbitrary withdrawal date implies,) why doesn't she have the balls to join Senator Feingold in calling for zeroing out the war budget?

Is this a person we really want to be our commander-in-chief? Hillary Clinton is an opportunist, not a leader. All she cares about is making sure that Iraq will be out of mind by the time she becomes "Madam President." I'm pretty certain that there will be a "Madam President" in my lifetime, but I will give my all to ensure that it's not Hillary Clinton.

I signed this petition chastizing Republican senators who want a nonbinding resolution which opposes the troop surge in Baghdad. In my view, this is becoming a petition against hypocrisy.

When Democrats were elected to congress, their leaders claimed that they had been given a mandate to change the situation in Iraq. Then we have Harry Reid saying that the onus to change the course lies on the President's shoulders, as the constitution intended. Except that the president has proposed a new course, his top general in Iraq (who was just confirmed by the Senate) endorses it, but the Senate is prepared to pass a nonbinding resolution against it.

I see the Democrtic leadership trying to set a trap here, with the unwitting aid of several Republican senators. The idea is to undermine the president's plan and force the president to admit defeat in Iraq. God forbid that the Democrats be blamed for losing Iraq.

Personally, I have reservations about the troop surge in Baghdad. Without a change in tactics, a troop surge would be an unnecessary waste of American lives. But General Petraeus is changing tactics to an approach that worked for his largely successful approach to Mosul, which relies on winning the public's trust, encouraging small business and job creation, and making them feel secure. Mosul hasn't seen ethnic strife like the sectarian violence in Baghdad, in spite of the fact that Saddam had ethnically cleansed the city of its Kurdish population during the 80's. If this war is worth fighting, the troop surge plan deserves a chance before congress dismisses it.

At the same time, if congress believes the war is no longer worth the sacrifice, they should exercise their constitutional duty and zero out the funding for the war. Wasting American lives in a gradual drawdown is immoral; demoralizing the troops and emboldening their enemies with nonbinding resolutions is cowardly and treasonous. If Vietnam taught us any lessons, one of them should be that its naive to hope for a happy outcome with a gradual, congressionally-mandated withdrawal. "Peace With Honor" leads only to years of continued warfare and a dishonorable conclusion.

The Left says that there's no linkage between Iraq and terrorism. The argument certainly had merit before we invaded (in hindsight, the linkages represented a containable threat that was only exacerbated by war,) but it's a fantasy to distance Iraq and terrorism in post-Saddam Iraq. Nowhere is that more clear, or more frightening, than a recent plot by al Qaeda in Iraq to launch attacks in the US.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq gave angry young Muslims a great motivation to fight America. With American forces in the center of the middle east and insufficient forces to keep them from crossing the border into Iraq, the stage has been set for an Iraqi Taliban to emerge in western Iraq if the US leaves before a stable government and competent Iraqi Army are established. It will be a repeat of post-Soviet Afghanistan.

It's time for America's leaders to end the farce that Iraq and the greater "War on Terror" are distinct. It started that way, but our intercession has drawn them together. It's also naive to believe that the problem will be resolved if we just left Iraq. After all, our jihadist enemies in Iraq are the same jihadists who still carry a grudge about the Crusades in the 11th Century. There's no forgiveness or relenting for these assholes. American defeat will only embolden them into making more attempts to attack the United States until they have rebuilt their caliphate. And where will that caliphate end? In Spain? The Phillipines? East Timor? Will they succeed in central Europe, in the absence of Charles Martel?

On the other hand, the plot also exhibits the limits of the Bush preemption doctrine. Yes, we are fighting them in their backyard so we won't have to fight them in our backyard. And the majority of the Jihadist effort is being spent fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it's quite easy for a small, elite team (the "special forces" of al Qaeda's global insurgency) to penetrate America's open society, gain our trust, and hit us when we least expect it. For that matter, al Qaeda could succeed in turning American citizens towards a life of jihad. Vigilance on the homefront, and tighter controls on immigration, are the most vital part of the formula for defeating terrorism.

America and its leaders must show unity and continuing resolve in fighting terrorism, and Iraq is no exception. We have to allow time for Iraq's army to come up to speed, and if our military commanders don't believe it can be done on Jim Baker's or Nancy Pelosi's arbitrary timetable, then our armed forces will be needed to buy more time to protect the Iraqi republic. If we are counting on the Iraqi government to stabilize Iraq under the rule of law, then Hillary Clinton and others shouldn't be going to Baghdad and publicly saying that they don't believe it's possible. Most of all, the American people must frame this fight as vital to America's security and hope for the best outcome. While we cannot guarantee victory, we can guarantee that failure in Iraq will mean greater death and destruction in both Iraq and in the American homeland.

Life is starting to get harder for Moqtada al Sadr's militia. Hopefully it stems from a realization on the part of the Iraqi government that the US will not support them unless the militias and the sectarian violence are brought under control. The US strategy seems to prevent the Mahdi Army from operating in the open, which will hopefully erode their credibility (which was built on appearing to provide humanitarian functions for the people of Sadr City) and their ability to conduct sectarian murders.

At the same time, Iraq's Sunni neighbors are growing increasingly impatient with the runaway Shiite militias. The Saudis recently threatened to send their own military to intervene in a potential civil war if the US were to withdraw prematurely. It appears to be an act of posturing on the part of Saudi Arabia, encouraging the US to stay in Iraq until the threat of all-out civil war is quelled. At the same time, I have to question the Saudis' commitment to peace. If they are so willing to intervene in a civil war, why aren't they willing to commit troops to preventing the civil war from spreading in the first place? A nominal "ally" reveals its true colors yet again.

Watching the "24" premiere tonight, I noticed that Kal Penn (perhaps best known for playing "Kumar" in the hilarious Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle) had a cameo as the son of a terrorist. However, here's another case of Hollywood using an Indian-American actor in an Arab role. The same thing happened with Ajay Naidu in Office Space.

I generally feel that the confusion of ethnicities is an example of how Hollywood doesn't think much of the average American's intelligence. I felt the same level of insult when non-Russian characters were tapped to play Russians in cold-war-themed movies (with the casting of Harrison Ford in K-19 being a questionable exception, as Ford does have some Russian ancestry.)

Then again, the art of acting is to make the unreal seem real. If the makeup people can do a convincing job and if the actor nails the part, there's no reason why we can't go swapping ethnicities. Just look at Dave Chappelle's "white pixie" character. Now that was comedy!

When President Bush won re-election in 2004, he told the world that he had earned political capital, and he planned on spending it. With this newfound capital, which he assumed the voters gave him, he squandered it on a social security reform package that went nowhere and caused his approval ratings to tank. Hurricane Katrina and setbacks in Iraq also savaged the president, but by that time it was clear he was already on the defensive due to overplaying his hand.

Fast forward by two years, and you'll see the Democratic congress making the same mistakes and embodying the same hubris. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have said that they view last November's elections as a mandate for change. They've used the election result to justify an increased minimum wage, federal stem cell funding, price negotiations with drug companies, changes to the 2005 energy bill, and a phased withdrawal from Iraq beginning in 4-6 months.

What was the 2006 election really about? It wasn't a mandate on Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco liberalism, as much as she might like to think so. Instead, it was a vote of no confidence on a Republican congress that had grown complacent and corrupt after 12 years in power. It was also a vote for centrist bipartisanship, when one looks at the centrist Democrats who were recruited by Rahm Emmanuel to compete for vulnerable Republican seats (or the defeat of Ned Lamont by Joe Lieberman.)

A word of wisdom to congressional Democratic leaders: seek a centrist, bipartisan way ahead on your core issues instead of trying to ram through your legislation. If you overplay your hand, you'll end up with Bush-like popularity numbers.

I wanted to make a few predictions for the new year. They come not from any psychic ability, but merely from an extrapolation of trends from the past year. In many cases I hope I am wrong. Hopefully I will be able to look upon the past year's predictions and laugh at how off-base they were.

NFL
The Chicago Bears will be eliminated in the divisional playoff round. New Orleans will make it to the Super Bowl, only to get dropped by the AFC team (probably the Chargers, but don't count out the Ravens.)

Politics
The race for the presidency begins in full swing. Citing his inexperience, Barack Obama will decline a run for president but leave the possibility of vice presidency open. Hillary Clinton will announce her candidacy but find the political climate has cooled towards her. Al Gore will appear to announce his candidacy reluctantly after a "draft Al" movement. He will also become the Democratic frontrunner. On the Republican side, there will be several candidates announcing that they'll run, but John McCain and Rudy Giuliani will emerge as the only two realistic candidates.

In congressional news, I feel that congressional Democrats will initially try to be conciliatory towards the White House and try to find common ground. The Democratic base will quickly grow tired of that tactic, and congress's approval ratings will drop. Congressional Democrats will respond by becoming adversarial towards the White House and launching multiple investigations. This will further alienate independent voters, and the president will see some increase in approval (perhaps in the 40-45% range) as a result.

Iraq
A murky situation will grow murkier. The anticipated US troop surge will be seen as a mistake, while sectarian violence will stabilize at a very high level of daily casualties. Moqtada al Sadr will continue gaining in popularity, to the point where he has more legitimacy than the elected government. He will moderate the message he delivers in public as he consolidates his power. Civil War evolves into a one-sided bloodbath, as Sunnis are slaughtered or forced into exile by an empowered Shiite majority. Every province except for Anbar will see a decline in its Sunni Arab population. The White House will largely accept the Baker Commission's recommendations around June, but only after attempting to stabilize Baghdad with a troop surge.

Terrorism
After years on the run, Ayman al Zawahiri will finally be blown to Hell in a US airstrike in Pakistan. The incident will be used as a way for the Pakistanis to declare "Mission Accomplished" and end their cooperation with the US. Islamists will continue to gain power in Afghanistan, civil war amongst the Palestinians will spread, and Hezbollah will gain power in Lebanon. A major plot against the United States will reach a critical phase where it will either be exposed (as the liquid explosive plot was this past summer) or executed.

Manned Spaceflight
The Space Shuttle will fly five more missions in 2007, bringing the International Space Station closer to completion. But NASA's human lunar plans will run into serious troubles. The plan as currently written will face fundamental technical problems. Congress will also wrangle over the future of NASA in its budget deliberations. Liberals will push for a future where NASA has no manned spaceflight program, only robotic probes, after the shuttle is retired. Other voices will try to restore funding for the current moon plans, or a more sensible moon plan known as "Direct Launcher." A final option is an unambitious manned spaceflight program aimed at sustaining the Space Station into the indefinite future.

Media
The end of the half-hour evening national newscast is fast approaching. All of the national, network news programs will see a decline in ratings. Internet news sites, blogs, and YouTube will gain further legitimacy as a source of news and opinion.

President Bush is strongly favoring a surge in US troop levels in Iraq, against the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A troop surge should not be inherently viewed as either good or bad, but the way the added troops are used will make a huge difference between success and failure.

Over the past six months, the US has already boosted its troop levels within Baghdad, in hopes of stemming the sectarian violence. The result has been increased American casualties and rising sectarian violence. We should not be so naive as to believe that more American forces in Baghdad will help things. More Iraqi forces in Baghdad might, as might a political settlement.

Senator Bill Nelson suggested that a troop surge in Anbar province would be far more effective than a surge in Baghdad, and I think he's onto something. In Anbar, the US has always suffered from a troop shortage (since the earliest days of the invasion, when Anbar was referred to as an "economy of force" operation.) The local governments are under constant attack from al Qaeda, and the Islamist "shadow governments" have had more longevity than the US-backed governments. The local police forces have taken incredible casualties, but they remain our best hope in an area where the Shiite-dominated national army has no credibility. Perhaps a troop surge would be useful in cities like Ramadi, where American forces are trying to rebuild shattered towns and gain the trust of tribal leaders in order to secure a lasting peace and keep al Qaeda fighters out.

Another possible target for a troop surge would be a Sadr City offensive in the same style as Fallujah in November 2004. While such an operation would be ugly, the only thing more ugly is the growing Moqtada al Sadr problem which we have been ignoring since early 2004. We should not charge into Sadr City half-cocked and recklessly; instead, the US and its Iraqi allies have to wage an info warfare campaign to portray Moqtada al Sadr as the epicenter of sectarian violence in Iraq (while the size of his share is unknown, his involvement is clear.) The city would be isolated, then cleared on a block-by-block basis. Special care must be taken so that Moqtada al Sadr will be quietly killed early in the offensive, before he can seek shelter in a holy site like the Imam Ali mosque in Najaf.

If President Bush wants to boost the US force levels in Iraq, I ask only that he do so in a smart way that will enhance the stability of Iraq without an undue increase in American casulaties. But I suspect that the troop surge will be aimed at Baghdad; that option is downright dumb and flat-out irresponsible.

The American role in Saddam Hussein's execution reminds me much of the role Pontius Pilate played in the biblical accounts of Jesus's crucifixion. Pilate did not believe that Jesus should be executed, but he caved to the will of the mob and handed Jesus over, washing his hands of the incident.

I don't think a single American policymaker favored executing Saddam at the particular moment that the Iraqi tribunal went through with it. Then again, we had legitimized the tribunal in hopes that they would establish the primacy of the rule of law, and we were not in a position to overrule them now. If America had its way, Saddam could be used as a bargaining chip. Keeping Saddam alive would have allowed us to reach a political agreement with the Ba'athists, and the fear of a restored Saddam might be used to convince Iraqis to knock off the sectarian violence. Moreover, Saddam's execution is now being viewed not as an act of Iraqi justice, but a crime by the Sadrists against the Sunnis. While the execution of truly wicked individuals can often bring catharsis to the victims, in this case the execution of Saddam Hussein only widens the sectarian divide that is destroying Iraq.