Barney Frank, House Financial Services Chairman, has recently shown his utter lack of concern for the American military person in Iraq. That is the only conclusion you could possibly come to with his announcement that he will defund the Iraq war under a Democratic president.

“I will move to cut funding immediately,” said Frank. “I have already done that. I voted against the war and voted to cut the funding. I would hope a Democratic president would put in place a plan that would begin a total withdrawal.”

Irrespective of the complete geopolitical disaster this would cause in the Middle East in general, and the chaos that would ensue in Iraq with Frank’s “immediate withdrawal”, the impact on the American military would be catastrophic. Any cuts in funding, prior to the intended consequence of forcing the generals to withdraw forces, would impact the ability of our military folks in Iraq to protect themselves as units become forced to do more with less. Money currently used to make life bearable - movies, phone calls, the occasional fast food  run, computer services, etc.  - those things would disappear first. The ability to spread goodwill in the neighborhoods through the use of toys, soccer balls, candy, books, shoes, and other community project items will remove the potential for our soldiers to be anything other than armed occupiers. Today, they can also help build community.

Barney Frank sits in Washington and looks down from Mt Olympus at Iraq and makes decisions without any thought to how those decisions impact anything except his sense of how things should be. This elitist moron needs to find something else to occupy his mind. I suggest he take up crochet and leave the serious business of war and peace to the professionals.

I don’t do book reviews.  I leave that to smart people.  However, I do spend a lot of time trying to figure out what is going on in the world around us. 

This week we have seen another phase of the war in Iraq.  The Iraqi military is attempting to assert its influence and regain control of the country.  We are going to be able to see pretty soon if the training and equipping we have done were enough and whether there is the political will by the Iraqi government to enforce its sovereignty over its territory.  Our forces are still there in a supporting role but it appears that a decision has been made to try to allow the Iraqis to take the lead.  When they are able to do this, we can realistically start talking about our forces coming home. 

While I was in law school I did not have much time to read about how we got to the position we are in with regard to Afghanistan and Iraq.  I think it is important to understand this because we are on the verge of electing a new president and new members of Congress.  Much of the political debate this year will concern what mistakes were made and what we should do in the future.  Much, if not all, of the commentary will be politically biased.  A great deal of the discourse will come from people who don’t know what they are talking about and who don’t think you are smart enough to find out for yourself; the old “Trust me, I will solve the problem” approach to politics.

It is interesting that histories of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are being written so soon.  In past wars we had reporter accounts created during the war but it generally took twenty years or so before the substantive histories were written.  Thankfully, that is no longer the case.  Now it seems that everyone has at least one personal computer, a good word processor program and we have the Internet to spread the word. 

I think it is great that we can understand how our national policies are formed in such a current fashion so that we can actively engage our political leadership to reflect the views of the American citizens.  However, it puts the responsibility on each of us to be accurately informed and not depend on the media commentators and various news sources to digest our history for us and only give us the information they want us to have.

I recently had the opportunity to read several books which provide a lot of insight and useful information to help me better understand what happened in the decision making process at the national level in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11.  If you are as concerned about our national security as I am, you might want to spend a little time gathering facts about what really happened.

If you decide to read these books, please remember that each of the authors and editors writes and publishes these books from their own perspective; they were participants and they have a story they want to tell.  Historians apply the filters of history to produce their works.  The products are different.  Don’t take any single source of information as the gospel.  However, these three books serve as a good basis for understanding much of what has happened in the last six years with regard to our national response to the September 11 attacks.  I am sure there are many others and you might choose to enlighten me about what you have read as well.  I will take a look at whatever you recommend.

I have included links to reviews that present contrasting views of the books.  This clearly shows that there are widely varying opinions on what the “facts” really are.  Also one more note:  Don’t read Cobra II if you are not ready to admit that George Bush’s administration and our military leadership have made mistakes in the conduct of the war.  Cobra II is the best of the three books but you will probably be disappointed, frustrated or outraged that many of the mistakes described in the book were allowed to happen.

 Here are links to reviews on three books I think are important to understanding how we got to where we are in Iraq and Afghanistan:

1.      American Soldier, by Tommy Franks, HarperCollins/Regan Books, 2004. $27.95. 

Review located at:

·        http://www.strategypage.com/bookreviews/229.asp and

·        http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews2/0060731583.asp and

·        http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/franks1.html

2.      At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the C.I.A. By George Tenet with Bill Harlow, HarperCollins, 2007. $30.

Review located at:

·        http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/books/28kaku.html?_r=1&ref=books/oAn%20Ex-C.I.A.%20Chief%20on%20Iraq%20and%20the%20Slam%20Dunk%20That%20Wasn%92t/t_blank&oref=slogin

·        http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWVjNjgyOGZiYzBlMzFlYTM3YTg4OGQ3NTBhYjc4NjQ=

·        http://www.dougfeith.com/coverage_6.html

3.      Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, by Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor, Random House, 2006. $27.95

Review located at:

·        http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200604170810.asp

·        http://www.powells.com/review/2006_04_20.html

·        http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/books/review/30heilbrun.html?ex=1304049600&en=ffc80747ae84f966&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss.

Benny

The war effort news from Afghanistan has been backgrounded by - well - just about everything. However, there are a few of us keeping an eye on things over there. In the Intelligence Community (IC), people make a lot out of “chatter”. We might not know what they are talking about, but there are changes in the volume of talking that might point to something happening.

My view is that the news is not really so different. Taking all of the “story of the moment” aspect out of the picture, you can look over the landscape of the news and get an idea of changes in the world. To my way of thinking, there are changes which have been going on in Afghanistan for some time - things we really need to jump on now.

A couple of years ago, the Taliban was decimated and the survivors were deep underground. They dared not show their faces, 72 virgins or no. Now, you see Taliban strikes on a very regular basis. They are gaining confidence with every bomb or ambush they succeed in carrying off. I am not saying this change in the battle space dynamic is because of the change from US to NATO prosecution of war against the Taliban, but the coincidence (or Ko-inki-dink as we used to say) is certainly there. I am also not saying we need a “surge” in Afghanistan. This is not an attempt to REMF Quarterback the operation. I would not know any more what to do to “redouble the effort” than I would know how to groom a llama. I am speaking of this completely holistically.

My feeling is we need to stop talking about our efforts to bring and/or retain other countries in the “war on terror” and get back to taking the fight to the bad guys.

I just want to say thank you. I believe in you and I believe in your mission.

God Bless you and keep you safe.

I know I have said this 1000 times in the last 7 years, but if you take the leftist message on any given topic to its furthest logical conclusion, you end up in a circle.

Robert Scheer writes in the San Francisco Chronicle,

Are the media dumb or just out to lunch? Sorry to be intemperate, but how else can one explain the meager attention paid to the truly historic visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Iraq? Not only is he the first Mideast head of state to visit the country since its alleged liberation, but the very warm official welcome offered by the Iraqi government to the most vociferous critic of the United States speaks volumes to the abject failure of the Bush doctrine.

In that the “Bush doctrine” has been to have to beg the Democrats in congress to pass spending legislation that supports increased military activity in Iraq. Or that generals have to sit before one hostile congressional committee after another and listen to Democrats rail against the every effort to create stability in Iraq. Maybe it’s the way the Democrats have increased the ability of Ahmedinajad to show his face, not only in Iraq, but in the United States by allowing a highly political NIE to deter a hard-line diplomatic tone against ” the most vociferous critic of the United States”. Maybe it is all of those calls for the United States to take a “wait and see” attitude toward those who want to kill us - even those sponsored by Iran.

If we fail in Iraq it won’t be because we have not been dynamic enough. It won’t be because we have not learned how to handle situations which crop up from an invasion of a hostile nation and applied those as lessons-learned with a resultant success. If we fail, it won’t be because we didn’t recognize mistakes and take necessary action to resolve them. If we fail, it is not because we did not employ the very best strategists and tacticians this country has at its disposal.

The failure, sir, is not George W Bush’s. It is the failure of the leftists in this country to identify who the true enemies of the United States are. It is the failure of the leftists in this country to understand that we cannot simply talk our enemies into submission. It is the failure of the leftists in this country to support the destruction of those who will turn the clock back 13 centuries, while also spewing forth about how “progressive” they are. Those same leftists believe we can talk to anyone and get them to see things our way because they have just never heard the arguments made in the intelligent manner that only an elitist left-winger can convey things. If we fail, it will be because leftists in this country will do anything to ensure that America is always seen as the “culprit” in anything that happens in the world.

You leftists bought the duration of this war by your resistance to doing what is necessary. If we fail in Iraq, you’ll own that too and for the same reason.

The next generation of Islamists is trained to hate. Once they have been taught to hate, they are taught how to resolve their hate.

[youtube s70KlZwb9RE nolink]

[youtube TLrQzhqYM1k nolink]

Imagine.

Israel is justifiably concerned about Egypt opening a border crossing from Gaza to allow pilgrimages to Muslim religious sites.

Israel has protested to Egypt over the opening of a border crossing to allow Muslim pilgrims from Gaza to make their way through Egypt to Saudi Arabia.

The Israelis say they are concerned that militants may leave Gaza and go for training in Iran.

Gaza has been largely sealed off since June, when Hamas took control in Gaza. Some 2,000 Palestinians are said to have left Gaza via Rafah since Monday.

The Rafah crossing is the only exit from Gaza that bypasses Israel.

Training in Iran is one reason, but this is another:

Egyptian police confiscated 500 kg (1,100 lb) of explosives in northern Sinai on Wednesday which were probably destined for Gaza, a security official said.

Police found the TNT in 12 plastic bags hidden in mountains near to Rafah on Egypt’s borders with the Gaza Strip. They said smugglers were likely trying to move the explosives across the nearby border.

Twenty-one rockets were fired into Israel today by Palestinian armed forces in the Gaze Strip today, injuring thre. Five others were treated for shock.

The two Palestinians killed belonged to the Islamic Jihad group, which said in a statement to reporters in Gaza that it launched most of the rockets. The IDF took responsibility for one death, saying troops shot an armed man, while saying the second victim may have been killed by a stray rocket.

Negotiators for Israel and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas held talks in Jerusalem today aimed at a peace agreement and creating a Palestinian state. Gaza is controlled by the Hamas movement, Abbas’s rival, which opposes talks and calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.

An industrial freight service between Kunsan, South Korea and Keasong, North Korea has been restored after 50 years. This is a big deal in a place that has been in a state of war since 1951. They are a far cry from reunification, but perhaps they can learn to be friends for a while.
Here’s the story.

I recently wrote about changes in data driving changes in opinion or policy. Here is another example - although there is a slight difference in this instance.

The intelligence community in the Unites States rarely has indisputable evidence to present to our leaders. They operate in a world of indications that are “confidenced” based upon the quality and quantity of intelligence sources. From the NIE document, I took the major differences between the old data and the new.

In 2005, the intelligence community reported:

• Assess with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure, but we do not assess that Iran is immovable.
• We have moderate confidence in projecting when Iran is likely to make a nuclear weapon; we assess that it is unlikely before early-to-mid next decade.
• Iran could produce enough fissile material for a weapon by the end of this decade if it were to make more rapid and successful progress than we have seen to date.

Combine that with tough talk from a nation becoming increasingly theocratic and supportive of terrorist organizations, and you have a basis for a foreign policy concern about the Middle East becoming even more unstable than it already appears.

A recently published National Intelligence Estimate, based upon information gathered between 2005 and mid-2007, draws a different picture:

• Judge with high confidence that in fall 2003,Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (DOE and the NIC have moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.) Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. Judge with high confidence that the halt was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work. Assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.
• We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely. We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges that Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.)
• We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.

Notice the differences in language between the 2005 and 2007 estimates. The confidence of the judgment suggests a great deal more intelligence resources were able to contribute to the NIE. By no means does the NIE present proof that Iran is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. This is an estimate based upon the US intelligence communities ability to detect through technology and human sources the presence of uranium enrichment activities and activity connected with securing nuclear material. However, unless a smoking gun emerges, the assessment is strong enough to warrant a different tack in working with Iran.

In any case, Iran benefits from the ability of not having a nuclear weapon, yet having everyone think they are close to being capable of producing one. What this gives Iran’s Ayatollahs is bargaining power and an elevated influence in the region. This also does not remove the fact that Iran is led by an extreme theocracy which hates the west and supports terrorism in the region to undermine peace between Israel and Palestinians - in the best case. Diplomacy itself seems woefully inadequate, but there is no case for pursuing a change from Iran by a threat of military force.

Here is a good question: Why did Iran halt its nuclear weapons program in 2003?