Sic Semper Tyrannis

Habakkuk on reality in the ME

 mo,

thank you for that most interesting explanation of why Hizballah may indeed, as Nicolas Noe suggested in Asia Times last month 'believe that the next war can and should be the last one between Israel and its enemies.' 

What you write, however, has the effect of further inflaming a suspicion which has been growing steadily stronger in me over the past weeks -- that the situation in the Middle East is rather like a smouldering volcano.  It may not erupt, but could well do so, and if it did, the eruption might come suddenly and unexpectedly, generating a conflict which could escalate out of control, possibly with totally catastrophic results. 

And the likelihood of catastrophe is, I think, greatly increased by the fact that many people are living in a fool's paradise, and do not grasp quite how dangerous the situation

Afghanistan is harder than we thought...

 "There are currently about 87,000 U.S. forces in Afghanistan, a number expected to rise to 98,000 by the end of August.

Military officials expect insurgents to try and further step up the use of roadside bombs to increase NATO casualties in 2010. Following the announcement of the U.S. troop surge, insurgent leaders shifted from direct attacks to roadside bombs and other indirect assaults.

The insurgency has easy access to fighters, small arms and explosives for roadside bombs, the report notes, giving fighters a "robust means" to sustain military operations.

"A ready supply of recruits is drawn from the frustrated population, where insurgents exploit poverty, tribal friction, and lack of governance to grow their ranks," the report said.

The report also notes that insurgents' tactics are increasing in sophistication and the militants have also become more able to achieve broader strategic effects with successful attacks. The Taliban continue to use threats and targeted killings to intimidate the Afghan population.

At the same time, Taliban shadow governments, which can include courts and basic social services, have strengthened, undermining the authority of the Afghan government, according to the report."  LA Times

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm tired of bitching about this.  Just read this article in conjunction with the thing I posted about SF in Afghanistan.  pl 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-0429-us-afghan-20100429,0,3038681,full.story

"U.S. training Afghan villagers to fight the Taliban"

 "... beginning in late February, a small detachment of U.S. Special Forces soldiers organized nearly two dozen villagers into an armed Afghan-style neighborhood watch group.

These days, the bazaar is thriving. The schoolhouse has reopened. People in the area have become confident enough to report Taliban activity to the village defense force and the police. As a consequence, insurgent attacks have nearly ceased and U.S. soldiers have not hit a single roadside bomb in the area in two months, according to the detachment.

"Everyone feels safer now," said Nasarullah, one of two gray-bearded tribal elders in charge of the village force. "Nobody worries about getting killed anymore."

The rapid and profound changes have generated excitement among top U.S. military officials in Afghanistan, fueling hope that such groups could reverse insurgent gains by providing the population a degree of protection that the police, the Afghan army and even international military forces have been unable to deliver.

But plans to expand the program have been stymied by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who fears the teams could turn into offensive militias, the kind that wreaked havoc on the country in the 1990s and prompted the rise of the Taliban. "This is playing with fire," an Afghan government official said. "These groups may bring us security today, but what happens tomorrow?"

Citing Karzai's objections, Karl W. Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, has blocked the release of money needed to broaden the initiative. He also has instructed State Department personnel in the country not to assist the effort until the Afghan government endorses it."  Chandrasekaran

--------------------------------------------------------------

The "big army" still hates the Green Berets.  Given a chance, this kind of strategy, backed by a smallish number of conventional troops as a mobile reserve could neuter the true Taliban, the irreducible hard core of that movement.  The rest of the fighters now sloppily lumped in with the true Taliban could either be won over or made to see that continuing to fight is useless.  But, no, the conventional generals would rather play COIN with a hundred thousands troops than let SF carry the day. There is something about Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets, not Delta counter-terrorist commandos) that is deeply threatening to the brass hats.  

Eickenberry sides with Karzai? What a surprise!  He is yet another conventional brass hat.

Karzai fears a countryside filled with villages armed and ready to fight to defend themselves against predatory Taliban or government.  What a surprise that is as well.

Someone will argue that this technique did not work in VN.  Observations: there are no NVA in Afghanistan, nor is there a Taliban "lobby" in the States.   pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042604215.html

Mike Ware gone from CNN - what a shame!

 "Ware discussed his PTSD in a disturbing December 2008 Men's Journal piece. “I am not the same f**king person," reads the lead.

It's unclear exactly how long he's been on leave, but the last update on his personal website was on Dec. 18, 2009.

Ware is a successful and well-loved correspondent, and fans have been getting curious about his absence.

Indeed, All Things CNN writes:

His work for CNN over the past four years has been an astonishing and brutally honest look at the causes and results of war. Not easy subject matter to watch… but he made us care. His urgency and passion burst through our television sets and made us pay attention, made us want to understand.

You'd think that given CNN's ratings troubles it would be doing anything it can to give the viewers what they want."  Business Insider

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ware is "not the same f**king person."  Of course not; how could he be?  Some memories are burned on the soul, forever.  His reporting was always the best rivaled only by that of Richard Engel.  CNN seems to have lost its way, converted into a vehicle for propaganda.  I guess Mike's unblinking, profane and fearless reporting was just too much for them.  pl 

http://www.businessinsider.com/cnns-guy-in-iraq-michael-ware-has-left-the-network-2010-4#ixzz0mTuDA1Q6

The Rules of Engagement. - Time

 
 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1982093-3,00.html#ixzz0mCl0TfON

The Rules of Engagement

Senjaray is a warren of mud walls and unpaved streets, dust and more dust, shaped like a hornet's nest hanging from the branch of a tree. The branch is the Afghan Ring Road, a two-lane paved highway. The U.S. fort is located just north of the highway; the Taliban control the land to the south, a lush farming area, irrigated by water from the Arghandab River. The dividing line is a canal that runs along the southern border of the town; the Pir Mohammed School sits on the banks of both that canal and one other, which runs along the eastern edge of the hornet's nest. "It's a crucial strategic position," Ellis says. "My plan was to build a strongpoint next to the school that would later be converted into an Afghan police station. It was necessary to protect the teachers and students, but it was also necessary to protect the town. That intersection was the Taliban's way in, and as soon as the enemy found out that we wanted to reopen the school, they began to concentrate their forces on the area as well." Indeed, sources up the chain of command told me that the Taliban were moving forces into the Arghandab Valley, in anticipation of the summer fighting season.

Iraqi election Aftermath: Sectarian Bombings - Silverman

 Adam L. Silverman PhD[1][1]

On Friday 23 April four car bombs (vehicular born improvised explosive devices/VBIEDs) went off around Baghdad.  All four targeted Shi’a sites: two exploded in the Zafaraniyah area close to the Sadrist stronghold in Sadr City and one each at the Hadi al Chalabi Mosque and the Muhsin al Hakim Mosque.  The latter two targets are mosques named for/founded by the father and grandfather, respectively, of Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, and Ammar al Hakim, who succeeded his father as head of the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq (ISCI).  While the Iraqi leadership had already come forward to blame the violence on al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) as retaliation for the recent Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) killings of two AQI leaders, the targeting pattern seems to provide a different insight.  All four sites targeted have some relationship to one of the two large Shi’a religious party lists, the Iraqi National Alliance (INA), led primarily by now returned Iranian supported Iraqi ex-patriots: the Chalabi and al Hakim Mosques.  Additionally, Moqtada al Sadr, currently residing at the Iranian Holy City of Qom in an attempt to become an ayatullah, has his strongest base of support in the Shi’a areas in and around Sadr City – areas like Zafaraniyah.  Had this been simply been a case of AQI retaliation one would expect the targets to have been ISF facilities and bases, governmental sites and ministries, and/or anything specifically associated with PM Maliki and his special counter-terrorism unit. 

Iraqis are high context communicators.  Rather than come in and directly state what the problem they are upset about is and laying out an expected resolution, they instead try to indirectly demonstrate their discomfort.  While this oblique way of communicating has been, and still most likely is, frustrating for US military and civilian personnel it makes sense to keep it in mind when trying to determine what the Iraqis are communicating in their targeting.  While it certainly makes no sense for simple targeting, such as a buried, crush wire IED that is going to go off when any sufficiently heavy vehicle goes off and therefore has an element of randomness, it does make sense to step back from the immediate hyperbole and try to discern the messages from a well coordinated and specifically timed and placed attack.  It would seem just as likely, if not more so, that the targeting of sites linked to the leadership and supporters of the INA was not AQI retribution, rather it was intended to send a message of displeasure about INA leaders behavior.  The offending behavior, the context, is the very close results for the largest plurality in the recent election, the dispute of the results by PM Maliki and his State of Law List, especially the attempts by members of the Iraqi National Alliance to play kingmaker two weeks ago at a conference in Iran.  This meeting excluded Iyad Allawi, the leader of the Iraqqiya List, made up of an interesting combination of secular Sunnis and Shi’a, as well as the more tribal/traditionally oriented Sunni and some Shi’a as well, and seemed to focus on forming a State of Law and INA coalition; a coalition that would only require a handful of other elected members of parliamentary to reach the magic number of 163 seats in parliament to form a government and which would lock out the Iraqqiya Party List – which won the right to have the first attempt to form the next Iraqi government.  Given the disputed election it is probable that the bombings last Friday were an attempt to deliver a message of displeasure about the elections, not about the killings of the two AQI leaders.

---

[1][1] Adam L. Silverman, PhD was the Socio-cultural Advisor assigned to the 2BCT/1AD from OCT 2007 to OCT 2008 and was deployed in Iraq in 2008.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the 2BCT/1AD.

---------------------------------------------------------------

And on the 27th this in the NY Times pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/middleeast/27iraq.html?src=un&feedurl=http://json8.nytimes.com/pages/world/index.jsonp

More propaganda from the Washington Post

 ""If these reports turn out to be true, we are going to have to review the full range of tools that are available to us in order to make Syria reverse what would be an incendiary, provocative action," Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman told the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week, moments after making a strong pitch for the first U.S. ambassador in Damascus since 2005. Administration officials have suggested that the Scuds may not have reached Hezbollah in Lebanon; in that case the strong statements may be preventative. What is known for sure is that Syria has facilitated the transfer of thousands of rockets and missiles to Hezbollah since 2006 in blatant violation of the U.N. resolution that ended that summer's war in Lebanon. So why persist with the "engagement" policy? "President Assad is . . . making decisions that could send the region into war," was Mr. Feltman's answer. "He's listening to Ahmadinejad. He's listening to Hassan Nasrallah. He needs to listen to us, too.""

---------------------------------------------------------------

"If these reports turn out to be true..."

Well, are they or aren't they?  Israel asserts that Syria has transferred some of these old, liquid fueled ballistic missiles to Hizbullah to drag around in the hills, fiddling with the dangerous fuel and oxidizers.  What would be the point?  Hizbullah is already in possession of a large and effective collection of short and long range rocketry. 

Israel is an interested party in this matter.  Are we to take their word for it?  What does US intelligence say of this?  

This Hiatt editorial quoted Jeffrey Feltman a lot.  Feltman's bias is clear.  Why is he still at the State Department as Assistant Secretary for the Near East?  Don't we need a new ambassador in Iceland?  pl 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/25/AR2010042503106.html

"British family tells US hotel they 'do not want to deal with black staff'" Telegraph

 ""On or about February 28, 2010, the Rodney Morgan family arrives as guests of (the) Ritz and specified… their preference to not be served by 'people of colour' or with 'foreign accents'," said the claim lodged at the Florida District Court.

"This preference was entered into the computer system of (the) Ritz at the direction of the (the hotel's managing director Edward Staros) with the further notation '… as per Mr Staros this couple is very very prejudice [sic] and do like like [sic] ppl of colour or foreign accents'."

Michael McDonnell, the waiter's lawyer, said that nine other staff members at the hotel have said they were told the British family did not want to be served by blacks or anyone with an accent.

His lawyers have cited the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was passed a year after blacks were freed from slavery following the end of the American civil war, which makes it illegal to discriminate in jobs and housing on the basis of race."  Telegraph

-----------------------------------------------

Well, the Telegraph is a British newspaper.  So, I suppose this can not be dismissed as mere "Brit Bashing."  English hotels are full of "colored" and "foreign sounding" help, except perhaps for the Connaught.  Where did this family come from, somewhere in the wilds of "Wuthering Heights" Yorkshire, or wherever it was? Nouveau riches boors?  Gadzooks!  This sounds like a mirror image of the cartoon like Americans that I often see on British television.  You know, the fat, ignorant, ill mannered, crass characters that provide such a satisfying contrast to the noble, wise, worldly and moderate British in these productions.

I watch a lot of British television.  My wife is addicted to the stuff.  My actual favorite British TV production is the cop show, "Waking the Dead" which I do consider the best thing of its kind, ever.  pl 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7620781/British-family-tells-US-hotel-they-do-not-want-to-deal-with-black-staff.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waking_the_Dead_(TV_series)

Arizona immigration bill - CS Monitor

 "Mr. Obama, speaking at a White House Rose Garden naturalization ceremony for 24 foreign-born members of the US military, said that continued inaction on federal immigration reform would "open the door to irresponsibility by others." The Arizona bill to which he referred would require police to check the residence status of those they suspect of being in the country illegally, something Obama said "threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans."

In signing the bill Friday afternoon, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) called it "another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis that we did not create, and which the federal government has refused to address," adding that the people of her state had been "more than patient in waiting for the federal government to act" on immigration reform."  CS Monitor

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am on record here with a couple of unlikely but heartfelt ideas about the border/immigration/illegals problems:

1.  De-couple residence and economic activities from citizenship between the US and Mexico.  In other words we/they can live anywhere we want in the two countries, can own anything we want and take our money wherever we want.  You would pay taxes in the country(s) in which you made it or lived.  This would have nothing to do with citizenship.  In this plan if you wanted to become a voting citizen, you would have to go through whatever process the receiving country prescribed.  I suspect that few Mexicans would want US citizenship.  they just want the money.

2.  Merge the two countries; one flag, one constitution, one set of police forces, one set of armed forces, one IRS...  No?  I thought not..  Same thing - the money is what is wanted.

So, what are the objections to the Arizona law?

Federal legal supremacy in immigration policy and border control?  I suspect that the argument on the part of Arizona will be that this is not "immigration law."  It is enforcement of the legal status of individuals within Arizona. 

The advocates of "comprehensive immigration reform" say that they want justice for the poor people in the United States who are not properly "documented."  They become quiet when asked what should be done about stopping the continuing flow of undocumented migrants across the borders.  Congressmen, lawyers, activists and clergymen of this type (I am thinking of Mahoney) should be asked if they think the US has the right to control movement across its borders  Put another way, do Mexicans have an inherent and natural right to move to the US simply because they wish to do so?

"Profiling?"  OK.  Reluctantly  I have come to think that the time has come for national ID cards.   pl

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0423/Arizona-immigration-bill-just-the-latest-among-state-measures

A Muslim threat to free speech in the US?

 "On April 14 Comedy Central broadcast the 200th episode of “South Park,” a cartoon that Trey Parker and Matt Stonehave produced for that channel since 1997. In honor of the occasion, Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone populated the episode with nearly all the famous people their show has lampooned in its history, including celebrities like Tom Cruise and Barbra Streisand, as well as major religious figures, like Moses, Jesus and Buddha.

Cognizant that Islam forbids the depiction of its holiest prophet, Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker showed their “South Park” characters agonizing over how to bring Muhammad to their fictional Colorado town. At first the character said to be Muhammad is confined to a U-Haul trailer, and is heard speaking but is not shown. Later in the episode the character is let out of the trailer, dressed in a bear costume.

The next day the “South Park” episode was criticized by the group Revolution Muslim in a post at its Web site,revolutionmuslim.com. The post, written by a member named Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, said the episode “outright insulted” the prophet, adding: “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid, and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”

Mr. van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker and a critic of religions including Islam, was killed by an Islamic militant in Amsterdam in 2004 after he made a film that discussed the abuse of Muslim women in some Islamic societies."  NY Times

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not a Muslim, but I have been a student of the religion and the civilization influenced by it for many years.  I often lecture on these subjects.  I lecture from the point of view of a respectful but skeptical outsider.  I would expect a Muslim lecturer to take the same approach to speaking of Christianity or any other religion.  Prince Hassan of Jordan's excellent book, "Christianity in the Arab World" would be a good example.

Having said that, I, nevertheless, think that "Revolution Muslim's" posting of Talhah al-Amrikee's statement is a thinly disguised death threat intended to intimidate free speech.  The sub-text here is that some speech should be freer than other speech and that speech with regard to Islam should not be free at all, but, rather, should be limited by the opinion of Muslims as to what Islam really is and its applicability to all people.

I think "South Park" is  sophomoric and vulgar.  John Stewart and Colbrt are true political satirists.  Stewart's show is gradually divesting itself of some of the gross thematic material and language of the past.  I have not heard him cry out "NAMBLA" for a while.  Colbert is a formidable adversary for anyone who wants to debate.  The only time I have seen him flustered was the occasion when Jane Fonda sashayed to his side of the table, sat in his lap and nibbled on his ear.

In short, "South Park" is a "dog's breakfast," but in a secular, religion neutral society that believes that speech must be free if people are to be free, threats like this should be taken seriously by prosecutors and police.  If this kind of thing is tolerated, how long will it be before some zealot stands up in an audience to threaten me for describing Islam as I understand it?

"Crying fire in a crowded theater" is outside the limits of free speech but this is not that.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/arts/television/23park.html