Austin Bay Blog

Here’s the link. Phil and I will be discussing several military and foreign policy related issues throughout the week.

I was reviewing this document (published last year) and thought I’d post the link.

Here’s the enemy:

The enemy is a transnational movement of extremist organizations, networks, and
individuals — and their state and non-state supporters — which have in common that
they exploit Islam and use terrorism for ideological ends. The Al Qa’ida Associated
Movement (AQAM), comprised of al Qa’ida and affiliated extremists, is the most
dangerous present manifestation of such extremism. Certain other violent extremist
groups also pose a serious and continuing threat. There is a direct relationship between
the enemies’ motivations and the willingness to use terror tactics. The enemies of the United States and its partners are motivated by extremist ideologies antagonistic to freedom,
tolerance, and moderation. These ideologies have given rise to an enemy network of extremist organizations and their state sponsors and non-state supporters. Extremists use terrorism — the purposeful targeting of ordinary people — to produce fear to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of political, religious, or ideological goals. Extremists use
terrorism to impede and undermine political progress, economic prosperity, the security
and stability of the international state system, and the future of civil society.

For those familiar with Lykke’s “three-legged stool” explanation of strategy (Ends, Ways, Means):

Ends. The national strategic aims are to defeat violent extremism as a threat to our way of life as a free and open society; and create a global environment inhospitable to violent extremists and all who support them.

Ways. The U.S. Government strategy for GWOT is to continue to lead an international effort to deny violent extremist networks the components they need to operate and survive. Once we deny them what they need to survive, we will have won. In the mean time, we must deny them what they need to operate.

…

Means. Success in this war will rely heavily on the close cooperation among U.S. Government agencies and partner nations to integrate all instruments of U.S. and partner national power — diplomatic, information, military, economic, financial, intelligence, and law enforcement(DIMEFIL). The clandestine nature of terrorist organizations, their support by some populations and governments, and the trend toward decentralized control and integration into diverse communities worldwide complicate the employment of military power.

The US, however, has failed to integrate its “instruments of national power” (ie, to achieve unified action).

The report argues that Al Qaeda’s strategic “center of gravity” is its ideology. That’s right.

Centers of gravity exist at the strategic, operational and tactical levels, and differ for each extremist network or organization. At the strategic level, the AQAM’s center of gravity is its extremist ideology. This ideology motivates anger and resentment and justifies, in the extremists’ eyes, the use of violence to achieve strategic goals and objectives. A principal focus of this strategic plan is to support other U.S. Government agency efforts to counter the extremist ideologies that fuel terrorist networks.

AQAM stands for “Al Qa’ida Associated Movement.”

Form Iraq the Model. An assessment of the Congress’ war fund vote.

Key quote:

To the Democrats my life and the lives of twenty-five other million Iraqis are evidently not worth trying for. They shouldn’t expect us to be grateful for this.

For four years everybody made mistakes. The administration made mistakes and admitted them. My people and leaders made mistakes as well and we regret them.

But now, in the last two months, we have had a fresh start; a new strategy with new ideas and tactics. These were reached after studying previous mistakes and were designed to reverse the setbacks we witnessed in the course of this war.

This strategy, although its tools are not yet even fully deployed, is showing promising signs of progress.

General Petraeus said yesterday that things will get tougher before they get easier in Iraq. This is the sort of of fact-based, realistic assessment of the situation which politicians should listen to when they discuss the war thousands of miles away.

We must give this effort the chance it deserves. We should provide all the support necessary. We should heed constructive critique, not the empty rhetoric that the ‘war is lost.’

It is not lost. Quitting is not an option we can afford—not in America and definitely not in Iraq.

I said it before and I say it again; this war must be won. If it is not the world as you in the United States know it today (and as we here in Iraq dream for it to become) will exist only in books of history. The forces of extremism that we confront today are more determined, more resourceful, and more barbaric than the Nazi or the communists of the past. Add to that the weapons they can improvise or acquire through their unholy alliance with rogue regimes, combined with their fluid structure and mobility… well, they can be more deadly than any forces we have faced in the past. Much more.

Read the entire post.

Jeff Jacoby essays the defeatist strategy.

His conclusion:

Senator John McCain, adamantly supporting the current “surge” in Iraq, says he would rather lose a presidential campaign than a war. Democrats, all smiles, prefer to lose the war and win the campaign. They’re not alone. In Iraq, Al Qaeda is smiling, too.

It looks like Deborah Jean Palfrey has grabbed the Beltway by the buckle, so to speak..

The NY Times article provides this detail on the madame’s business:

For about $300, she promised 90 minutes of what she has described as a discreet “legal high-end erotic fantasy service.” But the discreet part is over, after federal authorities charged her with operating a prostitution ring…

Call Mike Niufong–turns out there’s a Duke University angle to the first casualty. The Times article says Dick Morris (former Clinton administration adviser) has been mentioned in the scandal but Morris denies the charge. Stay tuned.

A fascinating post at StrategyPage.

That’s the report.

“Sodium lithium boron silicate hydroxide.” The same composition as Superman’s kryptonite. A mining company found it in Serbia.

Key graf:

“Towards the end of my research I searched the Web using the mineral’s chemical formula, sodium lithium boron silicate hydroxide, and was amazed to discover that same scientific name written on a case of rock containing kryptonite stolen by Lex Luthor from a museum in the film Superman Returns,” Stanley said.

THe spokesman works at the British Museum.

My Creators column for the week.

The suit claims Yahoo helped the Chinese government identify democratic dissidents.

The lede:

In a precedent-setting suit against Yahoo, a Chinese political prisoner and his wife are accusing the Internet company of assisting Chinese authorities identify political dissidents who were later tortured and jailed, reports the New York Times.

The defendants, Wang Xiaoning, who is serving a 10-year prison sentence for distributing articles on Democratic reform, and his wife, Yu Ling - along with other defendants - are attempting to seek an injunction barring Yahoo from identifying dissidents to Chinese authorities.

The London Times reports (and read some of the reader comments).

Here’s the NY Times article mentioned in the ZDNet post.

The Times says:

The suit, filed under the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victims Protection Act, is believed to be the first of its kind against an Internet company for its activities in China.

And:

Several American Internet companies, including Cisco Systems, Google and Microsoft, have come under fire, with some politicians and human rights groups accusing them of helping the government monitor and censor the Internet in China.

But Yahoo has come under particularly sharp criticism. Human rights groups say that Yahoo has helped identify at least four people, including the journalist Shi Tao in 2004, who have since been imprisoned for voicing dissent in cyberspace.

“Our concern is that Yahoo, as far as we know, is continuing this practice,” said Morton Sklar, executive director of the World Organization for Human Rights USA and a lawyer for the plaintiffs.

According to the suit, Mr. Wang distributed online several journal articles calling for democratic reform and a multiparty system in China. He did so anonymously by posting the articles in a Yahoo Group in 2000 and 2001. The suit contends that Yahoo HK, a wholly owned Yahoo subsidiary based in Hong Kong, provided police with information linking Mr. Wang to the postings.

From Neo-Neocon.

Key graf:

Originally, Reid voiced his “failure” viewpoint to the President at a White House meeting. I have no problem with that. But to make such a declaration publicly shows a narrow focus on politics as usual that is almost breathtaking in its self-absorption and its ignorance (or dismissal) of the consequences of his words.

So now it appears that the enemy can win a war simply by killing enough civilians to demoralize the Democrats. Their own civilians, that is; not ours.

That may seem like an odd definition of victory—I certainly find it so—but it’s the inescapable conclusion to draw. As such, I think it not only odd but unique in the annals of warfare.

Read her entire post.

Tamiflu works, steroids may do more harm than good.

The WHO reaffirmed that early treatment with Tamiflu, made by Swiss-based Roche and known generically as oseltamivir, was useful in reducing death from the H5N1 virus. Giving it to people with advanced symptoms was also “warranted”.

“Data presented gave strong support that early treatment makes a difference,” Hayden said, citing data from Egypt where 20 of 34 bird flu patients have survived to date…

Bush Derangement Syndrome — yeah, it’s bad.

But get a load of Baldwin Derangement Syndrome, as in Alec Baldwin, actor, liberal activist, etc.

Frankly, Alex Baldwin’s verbal violence directed toward his 11 year old daughter is reprehensible and despicable.

Fine, label Kim Basinger slimey for releasing it to the media, but Baldwin is a classic liberal hypocrite and is ripe for this kind of revelation. I’m sure he has a side in the custody battle, but the names he calls his child— talk about damage.

What’s telling about his tirade is it’s all about him –self-absorbed, narcissistic him.

He is in damage control mode, and should be. Of course he claims he has been “driven to the edge.” That sounds a bit like a victim card being dropped on the table. Sheesh.

This street video catches Baldwin on the phone — and it’s supposed to have been shot today.

Imagine the outrage if Baldwin were a conservative; as a lefty activist he’ll get a pass.

Will Hillary help protect the child? Will Marian Wright Edleman (founder of the Children’s Defense Fund) denounce Baldwin? Stay tuned.

Check its archive– StrategyPage began covering Darfur in February 2003. This latest update includes the fiasco of fake UN planes (Sudan Air Force planes painted to look like UN planes). It also discusses China’s role.

This week’s Creators Syndicate column addressed the proposed “Euro-ABM” system — a “thin shield” that would place ground based interceptors in Poland. The reason? To provide some protection against Iranian ballistic missiles, which the Pentagon thinks we could see by 2015.

Interestingly enough, Thursday was a big ABM news day. The EUObserver reports:

US plans to build a shield against intercontinental missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic received tacit approval from the 26 NATO member countries at a meeting on Thursday (19 April), despite opposition to the plan inside the EU and from Russia.

“There were no critical comments on the US system,” NATO spokesman James Appathurai said after the first meeting of high-level NATO political representatives on the US plan, held at NATO headquarters just a few kilometres outside the EU capital, Brussels.

Out of the 26 NATO members, 22 countries are also EU member states, including Germany (which previously said the US should consult Russia more) as well as Greece and Italy (parts of which are reportedly to be excluded from the US shield coverage for technical reasons).

“There was an agreement that there is a threat to Europe from missiles…Iran was named,” Mr Appathurai added, after a presentation by US general, Henry Obering, using Pentagon battle management software to detail European defence scenarios with and without the shield.

My column included these thoughts about Euro-ABM politics:

The current bout of “Euro-ABM” diplomacy vaguely echoes the 1990s’ diplomacy of NATO expansion. In the 1990s, former Soviet satellites like Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic demanded immediate entrance into NATO. The Kremlin objected, describing NATO expansion as a dire threat. Kremlin politicians claimed expansion was a slow invasion by the West — an appeal to Russian historical fears. Marxism may have been discredited, but Marxist rhetoric provided another propaganda ploy. NATO expansion was also called a cloak for U.S. imperialism.

NATO expansion proved to be no threat to Russia. For better and for worse, the Russia of 2007 isn’t the resigned and deflated Russia of 1995. On the plus side, the Russian economy is meshing with the rest of Europe’s, for the benefit of all. The rest of Europe needs Russia’s resources, and Russia needs the European market. A stable, confident, economically productive Eastern Europe has proved to be a boon to Russia. NATO’s role in creating political confidence in Eastern Europe may not have been pivotal, but it certainly bolstered that confidence.

On the down side, Russia’s government acts with increasing authoritarianism, jailing political opponents and bullying dissidents. Charges of involvement in the assassination of journalists and dissidents tag Putin’s Kremlin.

As for the Euro-ABM issue, at the moment key Eastern European nations support the ABM, while a deeply suspicious Russia vacillates between belligerent rejection and tentative cooperation…

The column then details Russia’s record of nays and maybes.

This Blog Week program was recorded last week — but how appropriate, given Harry Reid’s latest.

Neo-neocon and Jeff Goldstein are the guests, Ed Driscoll produces, yours truly hosts. Brought to you by Volvo.

Yup. He sure did. Harry Reid unequivocally called the war lost.

His headline, directed at readers of The DailyKos:

“Now I believe myself . . . that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday,” said Reid, of Nevada.

But then he carefully squiggles, weaves, and pedals:

“The (Iraq) war can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically, and the president needs to come to that realization,” Reid said.

What a slickee boy. It’s lost, but can only be won, if…Hmmm.

There are (and have been) four lines of operation in Iraq: security (military ops,building Iraqi defense capabilities), governmental (political participation and structure building), information (intel, media, and political perception), and economic (economic development, infrastructure creation).

No, the War on Terror and its Iraq phase are not lost. They certainly haven’t been lost militarily, and Reid knows it. Since mid-April 2003 the economic and governmental components have been the decisive dimensions. Check Iraq’s GDP — it’s growing. Its elected a democratic government. The Saddamists, Al Qaeda, and Iranian-influenced Shia militias have had enormous information successes. Senator Reid and I might discuss why that’s the case. One reason is that they are not penalized by the conventional media and the Left for a campaign of mass murder overwhelmingly directed against Iraqi civilians. You want to help end the terror in Iraq? Condemn the terrorists as the Cho-like psychopaths they are. Deny them the false celebrity they gain when dubbed “insurgents.”

It would be refreshing if Reid even had the courage of his defeatist convictions.

Thing is, his “convictions” aren’t convictions. They are political postures, and this statement is an example of his political game. He tosses a line to the Dems’ defeatist nuts then edges toward reality with an oily pirouette.

UPDATE: I am now listening to the tv (not reading a wireservice report) and it appears Reid added his caveat later. So he doesn’t even score clever points. It’s still an example of his political game. As soon as the going gets tough, Reid and his constituents waver. Pathetic. No, not merely pathetic, dangerous and demoralizing.

Via The Houston Chronicle. The shooting took place on Tuesday, April 17. It may have involved an immigrant smuggling ring.

The lede:

More than 24 hours after a chaotic, noontime shooting that killed a Salvadoran man off the Southwest Freeway, Houston Police Department detectives said they are still investigating whether the slaying was connected to immigrant smuggling.

Detectives were interviewing at least two witnesses Wednesday afternoon who were in a silver, Ford pickup, ambushed by gunmen on the inbound Southwest Freeway ramp near Bissonnet, said Lt. Humberto Lopez, with the department’s homicide division. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said they were assisting in the investigation, but also released little information about a possible motive in Tuesday’s shooting.

Authorities asked for more witnesses to come forward and for any information on the suspects’ Chevrolet truck, with Texas license plate 26R JS2.

“They need to tell us what they saw. They need to step forward,” said Sgt. C.E. Elliott, with HPD’s homicide division. “It’s still going to take some eyewitness testimony to make a conviction in this case.”

When the shooting started, at least eight people were in the Ford, many lying in the bed of the truck, police said. Police would not say whether the people were in the process of being smuggled illegally into the country.

Two men with pistols walked up to the truck and started shooting.

Read the entire report.

A lot of sites have linked to this post by Hugh Hewitt – with good reason.

From US News and World Report. Sidestepping political hype, James Pethokoukis compares Bushonomics with Clintonomics and finds it’s “pick’em.”

…one way to statistically compare the two economic records is by looking at the Bush expansion vs. the Clinton expansion. And 21 quarters into each, the economy has grown 16.6 percent under Bush vs. 19.9 percent under Clinton–advantage No. 42. And the unemployment rate 22 quarters into each expansion–jobs numbers come out more frequently – show that the current unemployment rate is 4.4 percent vs. 4.5 percent under Clinton. Slight edge to No. 43. Now, when you add in–or subtract out–the effects of the stock market (for Clinton) and housing bubbles (for Bush) and where each president began, I think this ends up as a “pick ‘em” situation at this point.

The real stroke in this comparison of Bush v. Clinton come at the end:

But my bottom line is that neither Clinton nor Bush was or has been a game changer…FDR was a game changer. Reagan was a game changer. I think to be a game changer today you have to 1) revamp America’s social insurance program for the 21st-century challenges of globalization and changing demographics, and 2) reform America’s creaky and complex tax system to better allow the nation to innovate and compete.

‘The death of it, the Niall Stanage article’s headline claims.

But note the steep trade-offs to “the death of enlightened interventionism.” An alternative title would be “The Price of Denial and Defeatism.”

Key graf:

Back in the 1990s, American indifference seemed to breed greater perils than action. The horrors of Rwanda unfolded without impediment from Washington. By contrast, Bosnia and Kosovo provided a different template, one in which the concept of a humanitarian war did not seem like a contradiction in terms. Since the invasion of Iraq turned sour, public support for forceful American involvement in world affairs has hemorrhaged.

And:

Three weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Prime Minister Tony Blair, a more articulate advocate of Western intervention than anyone in the Bush administration, addressed the British Labor Party’s national conference. In his speech, he urged his listeners not to turn from the idea of engagement with the world, but to push harder for change: “The starving, the wretched, the dispossessed, the ignorant, those living in want and squalor from the deserts of Northern Africa to the slums of Gaza, to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan: They too are our cause,” Mr. Blair said. “This is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us.” The pieces have settled now. Mr. Blair is expected to announce his resignation next month, his legacy wrecked by Iraq. Mr. Bush has fared little better…

Well, indifference and, moreoever, denial continue to allow greater peril to breed. Niall Stanage bemoans Iraq. Okay, stick it out and win it, for the greater good. But no, the Left would rather talk a good talk than walk the tough walk implementing good talk requires. Unfortunately, there is no choice but to walk the tough walk in this long 21st century war for modernity. “Technological compression” supplies the pressure. 747s put us in the same global disease pool. Weapons of mass destruction give the marginal the power of mega-murder –which means we must encourage societies which police terrorists and don’t promote them (yes, help build those societies if necessary). The Internet places us jaw to jaw in terms of information– retreat is no option, not for anyone who genuinely believes in liberal, democratic values. Stanage sees the battlefields –oh does he ever, from Rwanda to Afghanistan–but he and his cohorts can’t (or won’t) persevere. Credit Stanage with at least acknowledging consequences.