perfidy

And you euro-weenies better pray we don't have to do it again.  Because, you know, we might not want to.  We're tired, and we'd miss The Soup on E!. 

Now, I am hardly hintermost in claiming that Al-Qaida and its affiliates, franchisees and fellow travelers are a pretty sick bunch. Beheadings, anti-semitism, autocombustion, and random terror are just your average islamofascist's way of saying, "Cheerio, old chap!" But this latest development in the praxis of suicide bombing gives new, and really sick meaning to the phrase, "splodeydope."

It seems that Al Qaida has resorted to using mentally retarded women as a crude sort of guided weapons platform. Once the victim gets close to a sufficiently large number of other victims, the Islamic heroes press the button and the poor woman explodes, along with - in two cases in Baghdad - in excess of seventy more innocents.

Depraved. And hopefully, evidence that Al Qaida Iraq is now as close to the end of its logistical and personnel ropes as it has always been to the end of its moral rope.

Yet, and I shudder to think at what this says about me, the very first thing that popped into my head when my mom read me the headline was this.

At worst, “global guerrillas” are like an especially vicious twist on Clevon Little’s Sheriff Bart early in Blazing Saddles, pointing the pistol at his own head and warning his assailants to “Stop! Or the n*gg*r gets it!” except the global guerrillas actually pull the trigger.

For a little bit of context, go here. Link from Megan McArdle, which I ran across while reading this article on the Atlantic, to which I was led by a link at Daring Fireballs. I loves me the internets.

From Saturday's WSJ: (still subscription, for now)

Burns's Exit Complicates Nuclear Negotiations

Picture located, curiously enough, at the Republicans' Energy & Commerce Committee web site, so perhaps I'm not the first guy to have made this connection.

Burns's Exit Complicates
Nuclear Negotiations
By JAY SOLOMON
January 19, 2008; Page A4

WASHINGTON -- The surprise resignation of the Bush administration's point man on Iran and India, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, injects more uncertainty into U.S. efforts to contain the spread of nuclear technologies.

In the coming weeks, Washington aims to cinch key objectives concerning both countries: a new round of United Nations sanctions against Tehran and a nuclear-cooperation pact with New Delhi. But those policy initiatives, particularly in the case of Iran, haven't generated international consensus, and U.S. and European diplomats say both initiatives, which were spearheaded by Mr. Burns, the undersecretary for political affairs, might ultimately falter.

President Bush named William Burns, U.S. ambassador to Moscow, to succeed Nicholas Burns beginning in April. (The two men aren't related.)

Nicholas Burns, who plans to leave the department at the end of March, is a career diplomat. Since Ms. Rice took the reins of the State Department in early 2005, Mr. Burns, 51 years old, has become one of her must trusted advisers.

In recent months, there have been increasing signs that Washington's strategies toward Iran and India aren't working. Mr. Burns has been particularly focused in recent weeks on pushing the U.N. Security Council to pass a third round of economic sanctions against Tehran aimed at forcing it to suspend its nuclear-development work. But many European and U.S. diplomats said it is increasingly unlikely that sanctions will be approved with any real bite -- especially since a recent U.S. intelligence report found that Tehran had scrapped its nuclear-weapons program in 2003.

The India issue has also tested Mr. Burns in recent months. Washington and New Delhi have agreed to allow the U.S. to share nuclear fuel and technologies with India in return for greater oversight of India's nuclear programs by the International Atomic Energy Agency and other international bodies. But communist and socialist parties, wary of a close alignment with Washington, are threatening to topple Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government if he ratifies the agreement.

New Delhi is negotiating a new safeguards agreement with the IAEA, which, once passed, could allow Mr. Singh to formally sign the nuclear pact in the next two to three months. But U.S. officials said they remain uncertain as to whether Mr. Singh will challenge his government's political partners.

Write to Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com

There you are, minding your own business. Sitting on the La-Z-Boy, drinking a gin and tonic, watching the news channel most suited to your ideological preferences. Bamf! you are magically transported into the past. It’s 1939. What do you do?

That’s pretty much a no-brainer, really. Western Democracies v. Genocidal Nazis? You sign up for the duration, you pitch in for the big win. You convince someone or other in the government or military that yes, you are from the future, and no, you’re not a loonytoon. There’s lots of contributions you could make. You could tell the Navy that their torpedoes don’t work, and that somewhere in early December ’41, Pearl is going to get shellacked. You could tell the Army that the Sherman tank needs something bigger than a 75mm gun if it’s going to go up against the best that Germany has to offer. Warnings about the invasions of Poland, France, Crete, the USSR.

Lots you could do to make a positive impact. Of course, we won the war anyway, so no big deal if you take a nap, either.

What if you went back further? Its 1861, and again, pretty much a no-brainer. The Great Emancipator v. Slavery. Same deal – things turned out pretty well in the long run. The Union was preserved, and the rednecks and peckerwoods got their slaves freed. You could shorten the war though, if you could convince Lincoln that Little Mac was a poncy coward, and you need a hard-fightin’ general like Sherman in charge.

And what if you went back still further? Your barcalounger appears in a field south of Alexandria and it’s 1774. Which side do you pick? Heavy-handed and arrogant British colonial masters, or whiny, prickly, sensitive proto-rebels? I was pondering this the other day in the car, and I find that this isn't a no-brainer.

I’m an American, and I like being an American, and I think my nation is kick-ass. Well and good. But I am aware that the British weren’t being that unreasonable in asking the colonists to pitch in some of the costs for their own defense. But the American colonists were a prickly bunch, and jealous of their rights. And so, while the British demands were not in themselves unreasonable – let’s just say that the British didn’t exactly go out of their way to accommodate American opinion on the matter.

And that’s the nub of it right there. The Americans said, no taxation without representation. The British King and government said, stop being children. It was very much like Dad telling his teenage son he doesn’t get a vote on where the family goes for vacation, and the son goes off and sulks for eight years when the fam doesn’t go to Cancun or wherever Brooke Burke went on Wild On; and instead goes someplace sensible and boring like Disney World. Except instead of a good, thorough sulk under black lights, it was eight years of war.

Once things had more or less gone past the point of no return, things naturally got a little heated. The Declaration of Independence makes Great Britain and King George sound like what a Berkeley professor thinks of the United States and our current president. And both are occasionally technically accurate, but really missing the point. In 1776, Great Britain was one of (being generous) three nations in the entire world that had some form of representative government. So, like the patchouli-dipped Berkeley Prof, the colonists were ripping on the one nation in the world that was least tyrannical, least despotic, and least arbitrary in its governance.

We know what happens. In the end, it turned out all right. The sulky, black clad teen moves out of the house, and into slum housing on campus. He becomes friends with everyone his dad warned him about. Like France. He continues to have desultory fights with Dad, but distance makes it a little less painful. Eventually, the teen grows up, gets a job, and with some indirect help from Dad (maybe Mom slipped him some cash now and then) finds himself prosperous and much less pissed off at Dad. After a century or so, Dad and Son are best friends, present a united front to the rest of the world, and really can’t remember why they hated each other once.

While not exactly a new thought, what if it didn’t happen that way?

What might happen if the American colonies stayed inside the Empire? First, there would have to be changes in the Empire. By the 1770s, the Americans were probably a little too pissed off to make things easy. Yet, there were those in Parliament who were sympathetic to the American position – Fox, Burke, and others. Sadly, Pitt was to ill to be of much help. And none of them were in power. Franklin spent most of the immediate pre-war period in London, and spent most of that time trying to reconcile the two sides. All of these efforts were wasted on the stubborn intransigence of the British administration.

What could change that? I don’t know. The incompetence of the British Leadership more or less guaranteed that the war would happen, and then that the British would lose. And lord, was the British Leadership incompetent. A demonstration of the immediate effects of his frankly idiotic policies might have had an effect on King George – early on, the colonists felt that George was their ally against the corrupt Parliament, when nothing could have been farther from the truth. The king had absolutely no sympathy for the Americans. But he was taught and surrounded by idiots. Up to the last minute though, efforts at reconciliation were proceeding on both sides – with the advantage of hindsight, these could certainly have been strengthened.

The result? The American colonists considered themselves to be true British subjects – with the same rights and duties as their kin on that island off France. What if the Americans got representation in Parliament? That would have kicked the legs out from under the biggest complaint the colonists had. The travel time between the colonies and the metropolis would have been a problem, sure, but not an insurmountable one. And travel times were reduced quickly over the next half century anyway.

Later on, Britain considered several proposals for federalizing the empire, and some might actually have worked. An early solution, integrating colonies directly, would have laid a precedent for future colonies – Canada, Australia, New Zealeand, South Africa would have been the most obvious beneficiaries. But the benefits might have spread to other less likely candidates like East Africa, China, India and even Ireland.

There was a window of opportunity there, in the late eighteenth century. Thumb-fingered leadership combined with an anomalous decline in the relative strength of the Royal Navy and the absence of a credible threat to the lives of the Americans happened just that once. Would the Americans have been able to bail in 1805, with Napoleon sending troops to the new world and Britain at risk? And by the end of the Napoleonic wars, the economies on both sides of the pond would have been well integrated. American troops would have fought in Wellington’s battles.

The only big question is that of slavery. Thing is, though, that the compromises embedded in the US constitution probably prolonged slavery long enough for the Civil War to happen – that, and the fact that for the first half of the Nineteenth Century, the North and the South were more or less evenly matched. Britain ended slavery earlier. And the South would not have been in a position to resist the entire rest of the Empire. Also, there would likely have been a more equitable solution – a phase out, buy out, or something. The Civil War might just be avoided altogether.

A federal empire might have been a more stable structure than the patchwork empire that Britain created over the Nineteenth century. And I don’t think that continued Union with Great Britain would have retarded, much, the eventual development of the industrial power of America. With that engine of production in their back pocket, England would have been able to bear the costs of Empire rather more easily.

Americans came late to the idea of Empire (aside from that whole manifest destiny thing) but that was because it didn’t suit our unique idiom. We were on the outside of Empire. On the inside, though – think of how the Scots helped, enthusiastically, create the British Empire. Would Americans have been different? Likely not. American missionaries, industrialists and soldiers of fortune working from inside the British Empire would be a substantial additional push.

With America on board, the Empire would have likely grown even more than it did over the course of the 19th century. Whereas American interventions in Central America and the Caribbean tended to be temporary, as a part of the British Empire, they might have been permanent. British interests in the Western Hemisphere would have been vastly greater. There might have been a Panama canal decades earlier. Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, Cuba, and others could have fallen to the pink stain on the map. British presence in the Pacific would also likely have been greater.

On the flip side, those parts of the American Southwest that were taken from Mexico might not have – except for Texas. Though Texas might have remained independent. The Louisiana purchase wouldn’t have happened, but that territory would have been taken from the French over the course of the Napoleonic wars.

It would have been an interesting world at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. If I remember correctly, the United States and Britain had the two largest economies, with Germany a close third. If not, then something very similar to that. So, the combined Empire would be likely be on the order of twice as strong economically as its nearest competitor. A vast interior free trade market would encompass all of North America and Oceana, the Subcontinent, East and South Africa, the good bits of China, and of course the British Isles and a myriad tiny little places here and there.

WWI might have been a little different. Even more so if the Empire stayed on the sidelines while all the other powers wasted themselves.

On the pro-independence side, there is clearly much good, especially in the long term. The United States has been a powerful force for good in the world (yes, yes, despite many flaws – shut up) and it’s absence from the world scene over the last two centuries would lead to very large differences in the course of history. What would we miss? I think the most important would be the ideas in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – and even more to the point, the very thought that documents like these matter. A written constitution, with enumerated rights for people and restrictions for government is a very powerful, and very good idea. The United States, with its ideal of tolerance and assimilation to an ideal rather than an ethnicity is another huge plus. Would North America as a British colony still be a melting pot? Probably not so much.

Still and all, just imagining Hamilton, Jefferson, Franklin, and the rest of the Founding Fathers throwing down in Parliament with Burke, Fox and Pitt is just delicious. I still don’t know which side I’d want to help – but I think if the easy chair landed in 1760, I’d have tried to make sure there weren’t two sides.

Confounding us with their "words". To western ears it sounds like gibberish, but it must be the language of maskirovka, multi-layered and nefarious.

Never mind the science at stake; the ineffectiveness of the proposed American program against not just weapons currently fielded by the commies, but the ones they could quickly manufacture; or the weakness in Russia that American moves like the missile shield spotlight.

If someone could just square this headline:

Putin warns of new Cuban missile crisis

With the last paragraph:

Mr Putin added: "Thank God, we do not have any Cuban missile crisis now..."

I'll say spassiba.

There is no form of life lower than the barracks thief.

Doesn't matter what it's for, how much money it was, or what the stolen item was; stealing from comrades who trust you with their lives is beyond the pale. If you are a barracks thief, you can only pray to someday be preferable company to an intestinal fluke. After, one would hope, you got the beatdown you richly deserved.

At least this one got nailed.

Just reading the quotes for “Red Dawn” on the IMDB makes me want to punch a commie in the face. I don’t think I could be trusted to keep things playful at the event in question.

I can’t make it, but I hope anyone who is dresses appopriately.

Flyer below the fold:

Ok, sorry- the image was too big to re-size nicely here. Here’s the link instead to the kickass flyer.

Now this is my idea of a summer camp.

[wik] I wonder if they get to play with these:

Dave Kilcullen is one of the top commanders in Iraq. He's written a short piece describing current operations. It rings so much truer than the punditry we are almost forced to endure (but then we turn the TV off). I hope he's right -- it sounds like he knows what he's doing.

In the comments of the Pseudo-Linkzookery post, the conversation turned to wargaming - which was a bit of a surprise since if a thread drifts off topic here at Perfidy, the destination is usually zombies. One of the many games mentioned was Axis and Allies, one of my personal favorites, and a game I have not had the opportunity to play (due entirely to Mrs. Buckethead's bullheaded unwillingness to devote several hours to a boardgame.) It turns out that the Maximum Leader is a fan of the game as well, and so I propose that we set aside Bastille day as the first annual Perfidy Axis and Allies day. It seems particularly appropriate given that the French had no part in WWII, and will also have no part in the game.

Anyone who is local to the metro DC area who might be interested in playing a round of A&A, let me know.

My latest post over at Murdoc Online

As I expected, in the comments for my last post someone recommended that the battleships be brought back from retirement. We all love the battleships. Armored to the point of (near) invulnerability, graceful, powerful, and loaded with 16” guns. A battleship broadside delivers a mind numbing amount of shells on target. We dig that. It’s a spectacle. And of course, naval support of Marine landings is an important role. But how useful is it?

Step back a bit. There is a reason that battleships were relegated to a subsidiary role. And that reason is air power. The primary consideration is not that the airplane can deliver more firepower more accurately, because until very recently the accuracy bit was sorely lacking, and there is no way that a teeny, tiny airplane – or even many teeny, tiny airplanes – can deliver the weight of fire that a battleship can. I imagine that a single gun from a battleship weighs as much as a plane.

The reason that the carriers and their air wings achieved primacy in battle is the range and speed of the aircraft. Airplanes are faster than boats. Now, much faster. That is what allows a carrier to control a bubble hundreds of miles in diameter, while a battleship is limited to, essentially, line of sight.

Here Over at MO, the commenting-American community is often attacking the esteemed air arms of our military for their addiction to air power as a means of conducting warfare. I have seen many complaints that the battleship – and artillery for the Army – are slighted in favor of highly expensive fragile airplanes that deliver itsy little bombs. And it is true that the more, uh, “focused” among air power advocates seem to believe that air power is the cure for all ills.

Yet, while we (and especially Dfens and James) might legitimately and with the certain conviction that we are in the right argue that the way that the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and even the Post Office procure, design, screw up and eventually buy combat aircraft that are tragically expensive and often not really suited to the roles that they need to fill; the fact remains that an aircraft will always be more flexible, faster, and cover a greater range than any battleship or Crusader self-propelled gun.

The flexibility of air power is a gift from the almighty – load the bombs or missiles you need, and any target within a thousand miles is doomed in a space of hours, or less. Doesn’t matter if it’s a building, a bunker, a bridge, a boat or a tank column. Artillery, no matter how puissant (talking guns here, not rockets) is not hitting beyond a couple dozen miles, and neither is a battleship. And both move at 40 mph or less.

With the coming of precision guided bombs, the effectiveness of our planes has drastically increased. Once it took a thousand bomber raid using tactics of questionable morality to get an even chance at taking out military targets. (Combat air support was usually a bit more effective than strategic bombing, but still had limitations.) Now, with the wonders of modern technology at our service, we can actually take out that bridge. Or that building. To the point that the primary limiting factor on the employment of air power is not the accuracy of our weapons, but of our intelligence. (In more ways than one.)

A plane can move at speeds of hundreds of miles an hour over a range in the thousands of miles and destroy anything we can detect, with near perfect reliability. The constraints are the ability to detect targets, and the bomb loads of the planes in question.

The fault, then, is not that we have foolishly mothballed battleships or canceled artillery programs. It’s that we are buying airplanes foolishly. It is natural for the Air Force and Naval, Marine and Army Aviation to go for the biggest, most expensive and technologically sophisticated aircraft they can build. We can sort of forgive them for that. We want the coolest toys, and our contractors love the money they get for designing and mismanaging high technology weapons programs. It’s also completely wrong.

Where we’ve screwed up is in buying two dozen billion dollar stealth bombers instead of a hundred less capable, higher capacity bombers. Look at the service we’re getting out of the B-52, still. The F-22 is ridiculously expensive, and seriously flawed as many have pointed out in the comments here. It’s invisible to radar. It can kill any other plane that dares to leave the ground. Bats can’t detect it. Yet, it can only carry one medium sized bomb and it’s gun has less rounds than a police revolver. It’s utility is therefore limited by the small number of credible enemy fighters for it to destroy.

The fact that the air heads are always pushing for multi-role aircraft as a “savings measure” is frankly retarded. The planes end up costing more than twice as much and aren’t as effective in either role. What we need is ground support, in quantity, to make up for two things: the fact that artillery delivers a heavy weight of fire, and the fact that my kid’s scooter is faster than most artillery.

Let’s buy a couple squadrons of F-22s, we can use them for the really tricky stuff when we go to war with China. Same with the B-2. Fine, the Air Force can be happy with that. I’m sure the naval version of the F-35 will be an adequate interceptor. Stealthy-ish and fast, it is probably more than a match for any potential air threat. Let us buy a few. Keep the research fires burning so that we can take advantage of any new tech that comes down the pike. But let’s not buy a thousand planes at a hundred mil a pop for no damn reason.

As much as I love and covet advanced technology, we need to back off just a bit. The capabilities of our potential enemies just don’t require it, and in pursuing it, we deny ourselves capabilities that we know we need, and that can be used against any enemy, large or small. A relatively small force of very high technology planes will serve to assert and maintain air superiority. Likewise, stealth bombers of various types are the kind of doorknockers we need to take out air defenses and hit high-value targets deep inside enemy territory. But using an F-22 for CAS, or relying on a billion dollar stealth bomber to loiter over an insurgency is not an optimal solution. Instead, let’s build airplanes that suit our needs.

Like that new version of the A-10 that coolhand77 suggested in the comments. Something tough, simple, and capable of carrying a double buttload of very, very smart bombs. And, of course, the modern avionics to make best use of those bombs. And why don’t we give it to the Army while we’re at it. Forcing the Army to use helicopters regardless of whether they are fit for the task is slightly daft. Modern bombs are very effective indeed – clustered munitions, smart bombs, precision guided munitions of all kinds – delivered in quantity by cheap, high-payload attack bombers will be what we need to provide support for infantry on the ground.

And let’s build a naval version. What we need – to make restoring and then crewing vastly expensive battleships unnecessary – is a replacement for the A-6. A carrier air wing that has, say, a navalized, new model A-10 capable of carrying a substantial amount of ordinance could perform the role of naval support for amphibious landings that an Superbugs and F-35’s simply cannot thanks to their limited payload capacity.

For the Air Force, a B-52 replacement based on a commercial or military cargo plane would be a cost effective way to deliver, when needed, large amounts of ordinance in a environment where control of airspace is more or less a given. The advent of stand-off weapons like the J-SOW even means that targets can be serviced from a distance even when control of the air is not complete.

For the price of one $200mil F-22, we could have twenty or so A-10s, each capable of delivering many times the weight of bombs. The A-10s we have in service have been or are being modified to better use smart weapons, but we need more, not less of this type of plane. The naval need for this sort of aircraft is even greater. Likewise, the $2bil cost of a B-2 bomber would likely give us eight B-767 bombers, each with about three times the bomb capacity of the stealth bomber.

Air power is useful, cool, and lethal. Our addiction to buying the state of the art prevents us from actually employing air power to maximum advantage.

Patton has accused me of being overly concerned about wasting a scarce natural resource. The category tag. In this, of course, he is completely wrong. Naturally, I could have argued that over-categorizing a post dilutes the utility of tags. And I would have been right. But that wasn't the point. I was attacking him on aesthetic grounds, and just to stick a stick in his eye.

Just to prove that I am not some sort of homo-tree-hugging-enviro-commie, this post, which really is about everything, is tagged with every category we have. And, when I have a free moment, I'll add some new categories, and add them to this post.

So there.

What do these two suits have in common?

"Couple sue Wal-Mart over slip in vomit" 
(AP/Nashville Tennessean)

and 

"ACLU: Boeing offshoot helped CIA" 
(AP/Houston Chronicle) Simple:

• They each have a distinct odor associated with them
• They're both based on slippery circumstances
• They're both as baseless as the day is long

Only one of them, however, appears to have been categorized by the Associated Press as an "Odd Story". So let's look at that one first:

Couple sue Wal-Mart over slip in vomit DAVENPORT, Iowa (AP) -- A woman's fall in a puddle of vomit has resulted in a lawsuit against Wal-Mart. June Medema, slipped in the vomit at a Davenport Wal-Mart on June 13, 2005, according to the lawsuit, filed by Medema and her husband, James, in Scott County District Court earlier this month.

Medema claims that she was seriously injured in the fall.

The lawsuit alleges that Wal-Mart's negligence led to Medema's fall, but it does not specifically say how the store was negligent.

John Simley, a Wal-Mart spokesman, decline comment saying he hadn't seen the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that Medema suffered serious neck and upper back injuries in the fall and has undergone several surgeries and is unable to work.

It's a mercifully short story, so it's included here in its entirety. All you need to know is in that third paragraph - "...but it does not specifically say how the store was negligent." In order to prove negligence, of course, the Medemas will have to prove that Wal-Mart knew the vomit was puddled on the floor. Which will be rather difficult - if they didn't see it, why should Wal-Mart have done so?

As to the second story, I can completely understand the ACLU going after a Boeing subsidiary - They can't sue the US government or the CIA on a classified matter, so they simply picked someone else in the transaction chain to sue.

NEW YORK — A Boeing Co. subsidiary that may have provided secret CIA flight services was sued Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of three terrorism suspects who claim they were tortured by the U.S. government. The lawsuit charges that flight services provided by Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. enabled the clandestine transportation of the suspects to secret overseas locations, where they were tortured and subjected to other "forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment."

The ACLU, of course, has been known to provide valuable legal services. They've also been known to tilt at windmills in pursuit of an agenda that tends to be decidedly leftist. Not "liberal" - leftist. As I said, I can understand their grasping at straws to find someone to sue, because money-grubbers have to go where the money is, even if they expect to get no money out of the matter.

I just can't understand why they think their suit will survive a summary judgment request. Jeppesen Dataplan didn't man the flight, didn't own the plane, and didn't load or unload alleged passengers from the alleged extraordinary alleged rendition alleged mission. Jeppesen provides flight planning services. Logistics.

Undaunted by this bit of reality, the ACLU soldiers on:

The ACLU said the company "either knew or reasonably should have known" that they were facilitating the torture of terrorism suspects by providing flight services for the CIA.

That's one of the ten most absurd things I've read in the last 48 hours. Having been on flights which used the services of flight planning companies like Jeppesen, and having occasionally been with the pilot when he was planning the flight, I'm comfortable asserting that in no case did a flight services vendor demand to know, let alone show even the slightest interest in, what the purpose of the flight was. Which is just as well - it would have been none of their business, and they'd have been told as much.

It occurs to me that there are two other things these two suits have in common - they're both weakly disguised fundraising attempts, and neither one will be successful at anything other than garnering publicity for its plaintiff.

Also posted at issuesblog.com

Ministry friend and loyal minion Murdoc is discussing a turn of phrase that he and, apparently, Norman Podhoretz find applicable: World War IV. Used to describe the current war on terror, it is a bit of language that has enough history that it can engender discussion for years. And surely will. But another term being used, not just in that discussion but across the media, is "bomb(ing) Iran."

People of every stripe will, and have, demonstrated against bombing Iran. Talking heads have advocated for or against bombing Iran. Breathy media outlets report on the "secret" Pentagon plans to bomb Iran, while pilots somewhere are surely training to bomb Iran.

Unfortunately, what is not widely understood is that the verb in this context is really just a shorthand for a planned and carefully executed operation. Without understanding that context and shorthand, the broader public allows "bomb Iran" to mean "terrorize from the air", ie, dropping ordnance indiscriminately amongst the orphanages, baby milk factories, nuns, and puppies liberally scattered across the Iranian landscape.

What is not well understood beyond the chain of command is that it is the mission that comes first, and the assets to achieve come after. Yes, capability influences the mission, but the thinking doesn't start with "This is what we have, what can we do with it?", but, "This is what we want to do- how can we achieve it?" Air power, in all its forms, is just another set of tools to apply toward getting the job done. And despite the kook fringe's acceptance that the President might conclude that muslims are responsible for water flouridation, scream "Cry Havoc!", and order the Air Force to kill them all, that's just not how strategy and the application of martial power work.

My point is that it's not a terrific idea to use this turn of phrase when you really mean "use of military force against Iran", against specific targets and for specific ends. I think it's ok to spell it out, especially when it becomes time to convince others of why you think it's a good idea.

[wik] Almost forgot- obligatory image of the aforementioned general below the fold:

Over the last week, I've been spending some time looking over the blogs of people I met at the milblogger conference. Of course, all of them are chock full of brilliant writing, penetrating insight, late-breaking news and scintilating wit. But one thing I saw yesterday really caught my eye over at Michael Fumento's blog:

The guy with the tat was saved by Navy SEAL Michael Monsoor, who later died saving the lives of three of his fellow SEALs, and is now being considered for the Medal of Honor. You can read the Monsoor's story here or here.

I googled "Archangel Michael's Prayer" to see if I could get the text of it, and google and wikipedia again came through:

Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host —
by the Divine Power of God —
cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Amen.

It turns out that there is an interesting story or legend behind this prayer, which was once said in every Catholic Mass. Back in the late 1800s, Pope Leo XIII had this experience:

"I do not remember the exact year. One morning the great Pope Leo XIII had celebrated a Mass and, as usual, was attending a Mass of thanksgiving. Suddenly, we saw him raise his head and stare at something above the celebrant's head. He was staring motionlessly, without batting an eye. His expression was one of horror and awe; the color and look on his face changing rapidly. Something unusual and grave was happening in him.

"Finally, as though coming to his senses, he lightly but firmly tapped his hand and rose to his feet. He headed for his private office. His retinue followed anxiously and solicitously, whispering: 'Holy Father, are you not feeling well? Do you need anything?' He answered: 'Nothing, nothing.' About half an hour later, he called for the Secretary of the Congregation of Rites and, handing him a sheet of paper, requested that it be printed and sent to all the ordinaries around the world. What was that paper? It was the prayer that we recite with the people at the end of every Mass. It is the plea to Mary and the passionate request to the Prince of the heavenly host, [St. Michael: Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle] beseeching God to send Satan back to hell."

Others have spun that into a legend that Pope Leo overheard a conversation between Christ and Satan, where Satan claims the 20th Century to try to destroy the church. That would certainly explain some things, but I don't think that Satan actually, you know, stopped on 1 Jan 2001.

"Those who roam the world seeking the ruin of souls"

That could describe all too many in this world.
 

This last weekend, I was privileged to attend the second annual milblogging conference. (Shouldn't it be a milblogger conference? After all, it isn't a gathering of milbloggings) As was the case last time, I had a fantastic time indulging my need to talk at great length about nearly anything. My wife, who has heard everything I have to say about most things, no longer sees the value in listening anymore; and so a captive audience of people who also feel the need to talk at length about nearly anything is Buckethead heaven. Which is proof, I guess, of the old saying about one man’s heaven being another one’s hell.

And this time, there was plenty to talk about, and, of course, much beer to be drunk. The festivities started with what Blackfive referred to as the “Pre-Cock.” We gathered at Arlington’s legendary Car Pool before the official Cocktail hour and reception. I was greatly pleased that Steve Schippert of Threatswatch was able to attend, despite needing to return home on Saturday for personal reasons. Steve is a fantastic guy, and only a little silly when inebriated. Many others were there as well – the aforementioned Blackfive, Princess Cat, Mike of USAA, Kevin, Noah Shachtman (now at Wired) and a few others who, while significant and entertaining individuals in their own right, have slipped through the cracks of my memory.

Moving over to the Cocktail Festivities, I hooked up with Murdoc and his wife, down from Michigan, and met his longtime companion commenter AW1 Tim. Jon of Aaaarrggghhh was there handing out prizes (though none for me) and various and sundry other bloggers. Rob the fast squirrel was there, and good company.

After attempting to eat fajitas in a room with no tables, and spending $7 for Heineken, we went back to Carpool. At this point, we lost a few people, but Noonan from Op-For, Threatswatch Steve, me, Cat, Rachelle, Scott (great guy, but he likes sleep more than beer – can we trust him?) Blackfive, Murdoc and a couple others kept going. While I did not drink as much as I did on the Friday before the last conference, I did put down a few and a nice glass of the Macallan, and things got kinda hazy.

Went back and crashed at Cat’s and slept on the couch while she and Rachelle slept together. Is that hospitality? I think not.

Bright and early the next morning, we got to the conference just in time to miss the President address the conference. I have to say that I missed a lot of the panels – if I sat down I started getting sleepy no matter how interesting the speakers – and there were some interesting speakers indeed. But I had been short on sleep Thursday night, and only got a couple hours the night before. Adapting my strategy, I generally spent most of the day outside the conference room, talking to the other attendees in smaller groups.

Had a fascinating conversation with the Armed Liberal of Winds of Change and Bill Roggio from the Fourth Rail, and at one point Bill turned to me after I said something and allowed that, “You’re awfully smart for a guy named Buckethead.” I still don’t know quite how to take that, but the sentence had the word ‘smart’ in it so I’ll count that a compliment. And Noonan is not the spare. Or so I have been told.

A big topic of discussion both in and out of the panels was of course the recent Army directive that all military bloggers must get all posts approved by chain of command. It seems that there are two currents in the Army – one which wants to use the milbloggers to aid it in getting information out into the world, “winning the information war” and another group that is operating not on a Web 2.0 basis, but rather a 50s era corporate Web -.5 basis. You can’t win, really, in keeping information contained. It’s damn near impossible in this new world we’ve created. What you can do is compete in an information ecosystem, and attempt to get your ideas, and your points of view respected. That seems to be the consensus, and milbloggers (and I am truly not really one of them, except in spirit) feel that they have a key part to play in that effort. I believe they are right. Bill Roggio, for example, is a one man counterexample to the idea that only major media outlets can provide comprehensive coverage of the war – this guy doesn’t just comment on the news, he is an active producer of it.

Noah Shachtman offered himself up for sacrifice in his panel, by defending the MSM. This was not an audience predisposed to think kindly of the “regular” media. You should have seen people rushing to the microphones to argue. Noah was right, though, there isn’t a conspiracy. But there is ignorance – and though Noah said that milblogs are a perfect resource for mainstream media, I don’t really see a lot of evidence that they are making use of it.

That was one of the things that I was talking about later with several people – in any instance where you have seen reporting on a topic with which you are intimately familiar, have you ever seen them get it right? Ever? And what makes you think that they get anything else right?

In the course of some of those conversations I also met American Soldier and Army Girl – active duty soldiers who are also active bloggers. They are approaching the problems of blogging while on active duty differently – AS is anonymous, while Army Girl must deal with her chain of command. Fascinating discussions, and both were great people to talk to. of Soldier’s Angels (and Vivienne) were both charming. Vivienne kept wanting me to pick up toys, which I was happy to do on a part time basis, but my Jocelyn has a prior claim.

At lunch, we had a presentation from Soldier’s Angels, a truly fantastic group that works with injured soldiers coming back from Iraq and elsewhere. If you are looking for a good cause to donate to, or really even if you aren’t – throw some money their way. They do incredible work. The highlight of the lunch was Chuck Ziegenfuss, a soldier who was wounded severely in Iraq. The guy is an amazing speaker – he told the story of how, after he was wounded, Soldier’s Angels helped him by (among many other kindnesses) getting him a laptop, and how that grew into Project Valour IT, which has now raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase laptops for other injured servicemen and women. Besides being a hero and orator, Chuck is wonderfully profane and wicked funny. I was honored to meet him. Second best quote of the weekend came from him:

"Chuck, did you watch the DNC debates?"

"No, If I want to watch retards fight, I'll throw a bag of candy under the short bus"

After all the official events wound down, we retired to the lounge. There, I met McQ and Jon Henke; current and former members of Q and O. I had a blast talking to both over the course of the rest of the evening as we wended our way though the hotel bar, to PFChangs, and back to the hotel. Also met Lex, who does an excellent Irish accent while drunk. For all I know he may do an excellent sober Irish accent, but I never saw him sober. And no one has seen the Irish sober. Spent some quality time talking to (and smoking with) Jacki, who is not a blogger though she probably should be. (Remember, it’s not about fractals…)

Who else? Tammi, Chuck’s wife Carren, Laurie from Soldier’s Angels, Homefront Six all the way from Hawaii – we had a great time talking early Sunday morning while Lex sobered up, that’s all that comes to mind at the moment. I’ll have to call Cat and start asking, “Who was the one guy…” to fill in the rest.

Last weekend was one of the best weekends I’ve had in a long time. Spending two days in the presence of a crapload of highly intelligent, motivated and articulate people is inspiring. For those who, unlike myself, are inspirable anyway. Thanks to Andi for putting it all together.

And despite my description, it was not all about drinking. People who have done incredible work – the Soldier’s Angels, and everyone who has helped them – were honored. There was a lot of good discussion amongst the bloggers of course, but there were non bloggers there who, I think, got an earful – hopefully a useful one. And making new friends is never wasted.

Can’t wait for next year.

Company officers in Iraq are keeping gainfully employed by dreaming up names for their unit's operations; personal fave above.

Since they mention they're getting a little dry on new thoughts, particularly as they strive to incorporate the sentiment or actual word "Polar" in there somewhere, I might recommend Nordic themes:

Operation Ragnarok
Operation Fimbulvintr
Operation Niflheim
Operation Jotun
Operation Asgard
Operation Witch's Tit

And allow me to make a submission on Johno's behalf: Operation Penguin Patrol

Full article at today's Stars n Stripes here.

[wik] Also, if they tacked "Operation Polar" in front of most song titles by Amon Amarth, the young captains would be in good shape.

[alsø wik] Matter of fact, it might be cool to use Amon Amarth as their unofficial polar soundtrack, what with the vikings and blood and the relentless snow and ice. Just sayin'.

So says Romanian Air Force Major Cristian Popovici, commenting on exercises between his MiG-21s and USAF F-15s on the former commie's home turf.

Yes, in terms of machine vs machine the Romanians would be hard pressed to come out on top; factoring in pilot experience tips the scales against them further. But what would be the training value of proving that? Instead, by running various scenarios Eagle drivers got a taste of quick, agile fighters that, as Major Popovici described, can't be counted out if they get the drop on you. Which, come to think of it, is probably true about most any adversary.

Left unsaid is the fact that such training against those particular jets might be doubly valuable; China fields about a million MiG-21s.

Well, OK, 999,999 since our formidable recon aircraft took one out in '01.

Full article at Stars n Stripes here.

Should we need to invade Canada, we have at least one plan. Back in the interwar period, the United States maintained a series of color coded plans for wars with various potential enemies. Most well discussed of these was Plan Orange, which actually ended up being a big part of our actual war plans against Japan in the Second World War. Less well known is Plan Red, the plan for war with British Empire.

In the plan, the war was assumed to be continental. I imagine that this is because it was an Army plan rather than a Navy plan, and as such, it focused on "Crimson" which is Canada. The plan in its entirety can be found here, but the essentials are simple:

Step One, a joint Army/Navy assault on Halifax and the Maritime provinces to cut off Canada from reinforcements from Britain. Step Two, land assaults from New York and Vermont toward Montreal and Quebec City, with Quebec being the primary target. This would cut Eastern Canada off from the rest. Step Three, assaults from Niagara and Detroit into Ontario. Seizing these areas would deny the enemy their industrial facilities, staging areas for air attack, and secure control of the Great Lakes. Step Four, a thrust towards Winnipeg to cut the Trans-Canadian railway and communications between the far west and Eastern Canada. Finally, Step Five, an assault on Vancouver which would lead eventually to the occupation of British Columbia and deny Canada access to the Pacific.

This seems like a good plan, decisive strikes to disable communication, followed by occupation. Seeing as 90% of the Canadian population is within a three-day march of the American border, Canada is not exactly easy to defend. This plan, suitably updated to incorporate changes in the geo-political and military worlds, would likely have an even greater chance of success than it did in 1935. Alongside the phenomenal American military advancements over the last few decades, Canadian military strength has greatly diminished. Did you know that Canada once had the third largest Navy in the world? Canada's one real hope in '35 would have been to slow down an American offensive long enough for Britain to come to her aid. Now, Britain would find it nearly impossible to come to the aid of her former colony in the face of opposition from the US Navy.

The initial invasion would almost certainly be successful. But the idea of 33 million pissed off Canucks no longer across an international frontier is not exactly heartening.