perfidy

Or at least I do. In between inane-but-cleverly-crafted spam pushing the latest pump and dump stock (It's on the Pink Sheets now, but Honest! It could be the next Exxon!), I get the occasional email message that doesn't intend to offend, but still does, all the same.

Like this nugget, peristaltically placed in my inbox within the last hour, from Grassfire.org:

Despite a truce to end the current fighting, lasting peace in the Middle East will never take hold so long as anti-Semitic Islamic leaders continue calling for the elimination of Israel.

But that isn't the only battle front facing Israel. They are also battling the liberal media who seems to accept the spin that this latest battle is about some ancient claim to land--when in reality the fighting is based on a hatred of Christians and Jews.

A look at the media coverage during the incursion underscores that fact. Doctored photos and misleading reports have all found their way into mainstream
reporting.

That is why Grassfire, along with our partner the Media Research Center launched a national petition supporting Israel against these anti-Semitic attacks.
Over the next 30 days, we want to rally 75,000 "Friends of Israel" petitions to present to the Israel Embassy. Click here to sign:(link expunged)

It's not clear to me whom Grassfire is accusing of "anti-Semitic attacks" - I know it's either the various Muslims, Islamic leaders, the press, all three, or someone else entirely.

And when I saw the note, I got mildly irked, possibly at the imprecision of their rationale for requesting an electronic "signature" on a truly meaningless "document".

First off, as strange as it sounds, even as I type it, nobody is attacking Jews, per se. They might be attacking Zionists, and are definitely attacking Israelis, but I'm quite comfortable asserting that neither the press, the more murderous and adventuresome of the Islamists, nor the area's governments, is attacking "Semites".

The actions of the aggressors in the current unpleasantness are distinctly terroristic, distinctly anti-Israel, and reek of "please, kick my ass", but they're not anti-Semitic, because if they were, then there's a chance they'd be killing some of themselves, too. Neither, then, are the noticeably biased (against Israel and, by extension, the US) reports in the popular press. There's anti-American and anti-Israeli froth in full flower, but to call it anti-Semitic is both lazy and unhelpful.

The world's made up of two types of people: Those who believe the world's made up of two types of people and... No, scratch that.

If the world could be said to truly be made of two types, one possible classification would be those who dislike anything Israel or the US does to protect itself and those who don't. Another possibility would be a preference for "the little guy", no matter how cynical and childishly lame his protestations of correctness. Reflexively being against the US or Israel is not a new phenomenon, and neither is a preference for David (ironic, that) over Goliath.

But an email trying to get my knickers in a twist by playing on some silly-ass claim of anti-Semitism shows a lack of intellectual seriousness on Grassfire's part, and on the part of those who share their lazy methods of eliciting support.

• I prefer that the attacked be allowed to defend themselves, vigorously, and that if they happen to be in the right, they prevail.
• I prefer that opportunistic militants who play with fire get burned, preferably badly enough that they stop playing with fire.
• I prefer that the weaker-constitutioned nations of the world desist in their (successful, it would seem) shaming of Israel into a cease fire whose purpose is solely to allow Hizb'allah to rearm, in the manner dictated by the prophet himself (piss be upon him), who thought truces were good ways to lick one's wounds and live to fight the same fight another day, or later on the same day.
• I prefer the simple, unvarnished truth in the reporting that I read, rather than being told, obliquely or not, what I should think of a given situation. If I care what someone thinks, rather than what they saw, I'll read the op-ed page (and I do)
• I'd prefer that "we" could stop pretending to be shocked when propaganda is used as a tool of war, and that instead, when a non-party to such a war intentionally spreads propaganda, they should be punished in the marketplace of reputation, ideas, or business

And I'd prefer that those allegedly well-intentioned souls who seem to think that 75,000 imaginary signatures on an imaginary document will do fuck-all for the Israeli people go find some better use of their time and my mailbox. Such an imaginary signature has no effect on any of the things about which they've gotten their bowels in an uproar.

I'm perhaps overly sensitive to the inanity of the supposed security at our nation's airports, having seen too many instances of Barney Fife syndrome on the part of puffed up losers at various airports. While I'm sure there are many competent screeners, they all seem to work shifts that keep us coming in contact. My typical encounter with the breed makes me certain that they had three choices: TSA, some form of work requiring a white paper hat and a name tag, or one or another variety of animal husbandry. Sadly, in each case, they didn't read past the first item.

Watching these folks, in fits of mild sadism, drag uniformed pilots (to say nothing of blue-haired grandmothers and crying 6 year olds) through baseless subjugation has always struck me as misguided and fruitless.

But, on a recent trip through this month's opinings from Bruce Schneier, I saw another of his recent essays (in addition to the item I've added as an update to the drug-related post below). This one is entitled "Focus on terrorists, not tactics". I found it an interesting read, and commend it to your attention.

Key points include:

• Everything you know about airport security, you can pretty much ignore as a device to keep you safe
• No fly lists, secondary screening, prohibition of fingernail clippers, Richard Reid inspired shoe-checks, and the rest, had nothing to do with foiling the plot at Heathrow
• Neither did banning box-cutters
• Old-fashioned intelligence work, however, did
• The resulting intensified security measures are prudent
• But will cease to be, shortly

His point, well and succinctly articulated, is that strategy is more important than tactics. Standard fare, really, but he expounds:

It's easy to defend against what the terrorists planned last time, but it's shortsighted. If we spend billions fielding liquid-analysis machines in airports and the terrorists use solid explosives, we've wasted our money. If they target shopping malls, we've wasted our money. Focusing on tactics simply forces the terrorists to make a minor modification in their plans. There are too many targets -- stadiums, schools, theaters, churches, the long line of densely packed people before airport security -- and too many ways to kill people.

Security measures that require us to guess correctly don't work, because invariably we will guess wrong. It's not security, it's security theater: measures designed to make us feel safer but not actually safer.

Airport security is the last line of defense, and not a very good one at that. Sure, it'll catch the sloppy and the stupid -- and that's a good enough reason not to do away with it entirely -- but it won't catch a well-planned plot. We can't keep weapons out of prisons; we can't possibly keep them off airplanes.

(emphasis mine)

Given the choices of capitulation, constant and counterproductive "pretend" security measures, or applying a bit of brainpower and shoe leather to the problem while still treating it like a life-or-death chess game, I'd choose the latter. And not just because I have a fondness for cheesy spy thrillers.

Red Sox ace pitcher Kurt Schilling founded a wargames company to keep Advanced Squad Leader in print.

The other night I finished up a game of Axis and Allies on the old computer. This I do more for relaxation and nostalgia than for any sort of challenge, because the PC version of A&A is rather pathetic. The AI opponent couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper sack with a chainsaw. Once, I started with just the Eastern United States, two armor, two infantry and a fighter. I conquered the whole world.

But anyway, this was the final order of battle as I attacked the last stronghold of my tenacious, canny and ultraviolent opponent:

I won, in case you were curious

You don't step on Superman's cape.

You don't spit into the wind.

You don't pull the mask off the ol' Lone Ranger.

And you don't pop unaimed mortar rounds on howitzer batteries.

Stars and Stripes discusses life for a Paladin gun crew in Ramadi here. Great primer for how the crews operate, how seriously they take their counterbattery role, and their relief that they can quit operating as the Queen of Battle and get back to being the Kings. Good stuff.

If you think that Murdoc skims FBI wound ballistics data for light bedtime reading, or takes his Jane's materials on vacation, you are correct.

But he is also abreast of current events, and particularly skilled at being where the present meets the past. Read his coverage and linkage regarding the recent discovery, by Polish divers, of the Nazi aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin. Originally designed in the '30s, construction began and halted (and began and halted and...) but never joined the fleet. Strictly speaking, then, I guess it could not rightly be called an "aircraft carrier" since it doesn't seem it ever carried any. Due to the vagaries of war and the inescapable fact that the Nazis were rather losing it, the Graf Zeppelin never put to sea and never saw action. Well, until the Commies sank it.

Born to be the lynchpin of a mighty Teutonic warfleet, the Graf Zeppelin wound up consigned to the briny deep by the very Untermenschen the Nazis made all the fuss about in the first place. In the immortal words of Nelson (from the Simpsons, not Trafalgar), "HA-ha!"

Anyway, read MO. As if you didn't already.

As in "What the hell we supposed to do, ya mo-ron..."

I have friends in Beirut, and after the first runway at Rafic Hariri International Airport was bombed, I dropped a note to them to ask how they were doing. Since they're residents of the hills northeast of Beirut, the response last Saturday was somewhat reassuring:

First, let me start off by saying that we are all fine.
{...} Though Lebanon is tiny, it has very distinct areas that are variably affected. We live in the mountains in the Christian area of Lebanon and are less likely to be in danger than the Moslem areas in the South, especially those areas with Hizballah presence, which have been mainly affected.

We hope this cluster fuck started by Hizballah resolves soon so that we can get back normal life.

Mazen

By this past Friday, as the effects of this latest war had ground northward, he'd been reduced to wondering whether CNN, NYT, or anyone else was covering the action, and just in case they weren't, quoting Robert Fisk articles in the Independent. Among the snippets of the two articles he sent ("Paradise Lost: Robert Fisk's Elegy for Beirut", July 19, and "The Child Lies Like a Rag Doll: A symbol of the latest Lebanon war", July 20), Fisk complains:

And then, most disgraceful of all, we leave the Lebanese to their fate like a diseased people and spend our time evacuating our precious foreigners while tut-tutting about Israel's "disproportionate" response to the capture of its soldiers by Hizbollah.

and then (in the latter article), "reports":

How soon must we use the words "war crime"? How many children must be scattered in the rubble of Israeli air attacks before we reject the obscene phrase "collateral damage" and start talking about prosecution for crimes against humanity?

The child whose dead body lies like a rag doll beside the cars which were supposedly taking her and her family to safety is a symbol of the latest Lebanon war; she was hurled from the vehicle in which she and her family were traveling in southern Lebanon as they fled their village - on Israel's own instructions. Because her parents were apparently killed in the same Israeli air attack, her name is still unknown. Not an unknown warrior, but an unknown child.

...(includes details of a gut-wrenching set of circumstances leading to the girl's death, along with others, after Israel had warned citizens to leave)

The Israelis constantly boast of their "pin-point" or "surgical" precision in air attacks. If this is true, then there are far too many civilians being killed in the Lebanese bloodbath to make every one of them an accident. And since Israel's target list now includes obviously civilian targets - deliberately bombed to punish the civilian population - the evidence is mounting that these air raids are intended to kill the innocent as well as the Hizbollah guerrillas whom Israel claims to be fighting.

True, the Hizbollah are killing civilians in Israel, but their missiles are inaccurate and the West, which has done no more than mildly disapprove of Israel's retaliatory onslaught, must surely expect higher standards of the Israeli armed forces than of the men whom both Israel and President George Bush describe as "terrorists".

A couple of things occur to me here - because Hizb'allah are less-well-armed, we should just pass on the fact that they're killing Israeli citizens? Because any such killings are just lucky, given the presumed shittiness of the Hizb'allah arms? And not only that, we're supposed to reserve all ire for Israel, instead?

I don't know who this "we" is that Fisk refers to, but those tut-tutting about proportionality are either ignorant or, worse, wilfully ignorant of how it is that wars actually end. Lebanon is taking it in the ass, again, and that's truly something to regret. The loss of life, livelihood, and living quarters is both sad and intensely depressing.

But Lebanon has a problem that's a precursor to the present tragedy, namely the Hizb'allah "state within a state" that felt free to take action of its own, presumably without the consent of the elected government of the country. Lebanon claims not to have a militia capable of challenging the Party of God's militia, and after this latest provocation, someone had to. Israel was the only candidate - the UN sure couldn't be counted upon, and think of the howls of indignation should the US have offered to do the job, gratis, in response to the 1983 Beirut bombing which killed 241 Marines.

The sixty rockets that have rained down on northern Israel today (so far, at least, at the time I'm typing this) can't simply be ignored, and the fact that Israel has been able to effectively blockade Lebanon is an example of how proportionality must be ignored if the fighting with Hizb'allah is ever expected to end. It sucks that there's no valid way to blockade just the Shiite south of Lebanon, and in any event, that wouldn't achieve the desired effect. It sucks that such blockades include the need to damage infrastructure, such as the largest milk-producing facility in the country, in order to grind down the ability, if not the will, of the Hizb'allah aggressors. It also sucks that anyone outside the Hizb'allah militia has died, is dying, or will die.

And that suckage includes the damage to the lives of the Shiites in the south - they can't go against Hizb'allah, for several reasons. First and least important, they're all Shia. Of more importance is the fact that Hizb'allah takes good care (in a "Chicago ombudsman" sort of way) of it's civilians. Hizb'allah isn't just a terrorist organization and, in fact, may not now even be best classified as one, though they certainly were in the 1980s and 1990s, and they have terrorist adherents, still, today. They make up roughly 25% of the elected Parliament of Lebanon, and during the Cedar Revolution Mazen's brother Ziad referred to Nasrallah, the head of Hizb'allah, as among the least corrupt and most admired politicians in all of the body politic. Which says a lot, given the strict sectarianism of Lebanon, and the fact that Z & M are from a Christian family.

But, back to Fisk's "we": What are "we" supposed to do here? If "we" is the United States, are "we" supposed to shrug off their "Jew rays" and reign in "our" oft-claimed Zionist overlords from Israel? If "we" is Europe, are "we" supposed to increase the volume of "our" tut-tutting, attempting to shame Israel into accepting constant bombardment from a non-state actor? If "we" is the UN, are "we" supposed to suddenly become much less corrupt and vastly more competent, or would it be OK for "us" to just reduce the volume of piddle running down "our" legs at the thought of having to, for once, justify "our" continued existence?

Damn, I don't know the answer, but I, along with an apparent majority of my countrymen, think that, for now, it's just fine to state the obvious: Israel has a right to defend itself, and I wish there were a way to do so without such grievous damage to the Lebanese infrastructure. Short of a full-blown occupation, I don't see what alternative exists. Oh, wait - I guess Nasrallah could stop bombing Haifa and return the two kidnapped soldiers. But that seems unlikely, at least for now. Vaunted Arab ego, and all that.

Oh, and the latest dispatch from Mazen, this afternoon?

Dear Friends,

I am leaving Lebanon this Monday morning by road to Syria and then on to Jordan. From there I will fly to Egypt where I will be based for a while on a new project.

{His employer} is taking care of all travel arrangements, etc. My parents and brother are still in Lebanon and awaiting being contacted by the Canadian embassy for evacuation.

I appreciate all of your concern and if you do say a prayer or two, throw a little something my way for a safe journey and for the safety of my family in Lebanon through these difficult times.

Much love to you all.

Mazen

No tut-tutting here. Just a sense of resignation that, again, good people from a country that deserves much better have been horribly affected by forces seemingly beyond their control.

[wik]: Oops. Looks like there's a chance, according to Allah @ Hot Air, that some of Lebanon's leaders at least tacitly approved Nasrallah's adventurism. Bummer, that.

Uber-blogger Murdoc, whose scrotal heft is such that the airlines try and make him check his nuts whenever he flies, discusses Army and USMC helmet technologies and fielding programs here.

This is an interesting snippet, from the '03 article he cites:

"...replacing the old “Kevlar” as it’s commonly called, which has been around since the early 1980s."

Which is factual, inasmuch as they existed and were fielded to certain units in time for Grenada (camo BDUs too, for that matter). But I tell you that I went to basic training in 1989 and finished AIT in Jun 1990, and was issued a steel pot at both, as were all trainees. Training cadre and other permanent-party folks all had k-pots though. I didn't get a Kevlar brainbucket til I got to my first unit.

I'm not sharp-shooting here, honest. Just pointing out that there's a difference between a piece of equipment "existing" and having it issued across the force that I think alot of folks might overlook.

Thankfully absent from Murdoc's discussion was his analysis of the Army's Purple-Helmet Warrior Concept.

A while back, I linked to a speculative piece by author Dan Simmons. Simmons is, in my opinion, one of the best writers going. He effortlessly flits from grand scope sf to hardboiled detective novel to horror, leaving his distinctive mark on each. He's the real deal. In April, he imagined a time traveler from the future returning from a hindred years hence to inform the narrator of what nastiness awaits us, in the form of the century war, the 21st century's long war between the West and Islam.

He has posted a clueless-plus length expansion on the ideas he touched fictionally, thanks to the response (mostly negative, and nonsensical) that he recieved for the first one. It is very much worth reading. If you for some reason failed to read the fiction, that's here, and the essay can be found here. It'll be a while, but I'll wait. Read them. We'll discuss tomorrow.

Murdoc is on vacation and people have hardly noticed. His substitute bloggers are doing such a bang up job, Murdoc might not even be invited back. One example of the newfound puissance of the Murdoc Online, or rather three, is the series on America's lesser known allies in the war on terror. Most conscious citizens are aware that Great Britain has been there with us in proportionally large numbers from the start. Those who are more conscious are aware that there are more nations with troops fighting along side, but are often hazy on the details, or only become aware of it when, say, a terrorist bombing causes a whole nation to chicken out. Like, say, Spain.

Nicholas, who very occasionally blogs on his own blog, the Smell of Freedom, has done a bang-up job in gathering the details on these other troops. In three installments, he has illuminated the contributions of Romania, Italy, and Japan; Poland, South Korea, and Georgia; and Australia, Denmark, and El Salvador. Nicholas is himself an Australian, you can almost hear him choking up when he discusses the Aussies.

I think this is important. While some have been pleased to ridicule the comparatively small contributions that some nations have made - I remember that one island nation sent two soldiers (out of a population of a few thousand, probably) - these countries are actively helping. Which is certainly more than we can say for allies in name France, Germany, Spain (hey, weren't they all fascist within living memory?) or for China and Russia, our strategic partners. We have allies. Countries like Poland and Romania understand what we stand for - because they were oppressed for decades by what we stood against. Britain and Australia get it, but then, they are us, for reasonable values of "us." I'm glad these nations are our allies. I can't say I'm really sorry to see France on the outside.

Over the last almost five years, there have been many comparisons between the current War on Terror and the Second World War. (Along with many comparisons to other wars, to be sure.) One manifestation of this has been the recurrent - at least within the blog world - recasting of media coverage of WWII events in the style and with the biases of our current media. Most of these are rather blunt, though often amusing. Jay Tea of Wizbang has come up with, I think, a masterwork of this genre. Lest he get a big head, this is a very, very small genre. Read the whole thing.

I have not read all the details yet regarding the intelligence program that was revealed by the Times. But it strikes me that while freedom of the press is important - and there weren't, to my knowledge, any threats of censorship - discretion is also something that we used to admire. It seems that the program was legal. Disclosing the nature of the program could only help our enemies. What possible purpose could publishing this article have save doing exactly that? Why do they hate our freedom?

Our US Navy and other Pacific forces have been on a tear lately.

That's "tear", like what our stuff does to our enemies' asses, and not "tear", which is what falls from hippies' eyes when we do it.

Following on the heels of recent Ministry coverage of exciting and dangerous Pacific developments here and here, not to mention massive training exercises covered here and here, comes news that the Navy is more determined than ever to show how deep a bench it brings to the game.

Sure the Navy already brings the great big warships and a muscular aviation branch. But it goes without saying that all those pilots and sailors are at least human. The Navy's so bad, it has other species working for it. Some might argue that the Navy already had another species working closely with it, the Marines. But for all their evident and obvious badassitude, Marines are mostly human. And while the Air Force sends in the big bombers and the nukes and the orbital death rays, those too are piloted or directed by people. (With the notable exception of previous experiments) .

Included in recent Pacific exercises were America's battle mammals, the Navy's Marine Mammal Program. Dolphins. Sea Lions. Perhaps, someday, even ambitious otters. They work in teams to find mines- dolphin locates the mine through its echolocation; sealion swims down to attach a marker or retrieval line. They are also trained at finding enemy swimmers, sitting on and drowning them, or stoving in their ribcages with their armored battlesnouts.

Not surprisingly, hippies had something to say to rain on everyone's parade:

"These animals are highly sensitive, deeply intelligent creatures, and to use them for warfare is to abuse them," said Wayne Johnson, who is on the board of Animal Rights Hawaii. "These animals need to swim free."

But they ARE swimming freely- they freely swim 100 fathoms into the briny deep to find mines, or freely swim as they patrol a harbor. And I'll tell you something else, just because a species is intelligent it doesn't follow that it then must be averse to war. Humans invented war, and prosecute it enthusiastically. And I'd love to know how he knows that our interspecies allies are "highly sensitive". Because I don't think he means sensitive by virtue of super-attenuated senses; I think he means in the sense of prefering Emily Dickinson to Too $hort. And that's just goofy, because he obviously has not spent much time with them.

All of the ministers have worked to some extent with our dolphin allies. Johno and Buckethead have written on cetacean history, and I was a minor functionary in the first Inter-Species Defense Council so many years ago. Between meetings and plenty of fresh mackerel, I found dolphins to have not only a compelling sense of duty, but a very grim sense of humor. Sure they seem to laugh and enjoy themselves at Sea World, but that's only because they know that a quick flip of their tail could break any human neck, or a short burst of speed can turn their whole body into a torpedo. They laugh at us, not with us, and think that drowning an enemy combat swimmer is really quite hilarious. As a matter of fact, dolphins are probably among the least sensitive of the swimming species, at least regarding the fate of homo sapiens. They assist us out of their own self interest.

Nevertheless, they still train with our forces as we continue to refine inter-species doctrine and planning.

The US Navy scored another direct hit in a missile defense test.

The mock warhead was launched over the Pacific atop a medium range missile and destroyed in a direct hit six minutes later with an SM-3 missile fired by the Aegis cruiser USS Shiloh, the agency said.

"The missile successfully intercepted the target warhead outside the earths atmosphere more than 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean and 250 miles northwest of Kauai," the agency said in a statement.

"We are continuing to see great success with the very challenging technology of hit-to-kill, a technology that is used for all of our missile defense ground- and sea-based interceptor missiles," Lieutenant General Trey Obering, the agency chief, said in the statement.

That was the seventh successful test out of eight. Call me optimistic, but a .875 batting average is pretty damn good. Twice as good as Ted Williams. And that's good. Looks like we have something like an operational missile defense system. 'Cause remember, we don't have to launch just one.

Also of note, for the first time, allied military forces participated in the test. The Imperial Japanese Navy sent the Kongo Class Aegis Destroyer Kirishima to help with tracking and stuff. Japan is noticeably spooked by the most recent wackiness of the North Koreans, and has signed on for a bigger role in the larger US missile defense effort. There has been some talk about us shooting down, or at least trying to shoot down, the planned NK launch of a long range missile. The new missile, the Taepodong-2, has a suspected range of 9300 miles, which puts a goodly chunk of the United States in range. I'm of mixed mind about the idea.

If it worked, and we shot down their test, we'd have the warm happy feeling you get after administering an effective bitchslap. On the other hand, it would increase, rather than decrease tensions. On the gripping hand, that might be a good thing because the North Koreans seem to respond well to force, and not so much to the smooth insinuations of qualified diplomats. So, that's a wash, maybe, but leaning toward good. The downside of course is that if we miss, we look like jackasses. Pathetic, incompetant jackasses. "Hey look at all the technology and money spent, and they can't even hit one missile fired by perpetual loser North Korea." And that's the last thing we need. Still, if we have a 99% chance of hitting the damn thing, on balance I say go for it.

[wik] I wonder what the Brangelina thinks of a naval vessel sharing their spawn's name. But hey, its disarmament, one missile at a time.

[alsø wik] Here's a nifty page with tons of info on the North Korean launch site, and other goodies.

[alsø alsø wik] Looking at the map, it seems that with another 1000 miles or so on the range, they'd be able to hit just about anywhere in the world except for South America. All the important places, anyway.

[wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?] While looking at some stuff for this post, I ran across this wikipedia article about Batting Averages. Interesting.

[see the løveli lakes...] Geeklethal point out in the comments that I was not entirely clear about which naval vessel Brangelina's offspring was named for. The child is named Shiloh, after the USN ship that fired the missile that hit the other missile, and after the bloodiest battle in the Civil War. A rather decisive battle, as it led indirectly both to the Union successes in the Western theater, and to Sherman and Grant achieving high command in the Union Army.

On this day in 1941, Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, thus ensuring the survival of western civilization in a bloodbath of red-on-red totalitarian fratricide.

For more details on this happy day, visit your friendly neighborhood wikipedia.

But here's the basic idea:

The Old World's last great raging conflagration is extinguished at last. After 100 years the deep mistrust, racism, and martial animosity are at an end.

The war is over.

Japan and Montenegro are finally at peace.

Dale Franks over QandO notes that media perception of the importance of Zarqawi seems to have evolved a bit since his fortunate demise. I noticed a bit of this myself, as CNN concluded that his death would have little effect on the insurgency. I heard things like, "The insurgency is a hydra, cut off one head and two grow back" and more of the same. I can't but believe, though, that the loss of Zarqawi is a major blow to them, not us. Go team.

I don't have in depth, new insight into Zarqawi having been blown up last night.

I cannot bring fresh ideas to the GWoT, or upstage pointy headed policy people. (Not only do they have PhDs, and are therefore certified smart, there are also more analysts and policy wankers -whoops, policy wonks- in the media than zombies in a Romero flick.)

I can't end-run commentators and talking heads on the scene. Or at least within 100 miles of the scene, which is more often the case.

I will simply share my appreciation for the event: the media darling of Iraqi terrorism, with blood on his own hands, was brought down not in a hail of gunfire as he heroically stormed the barricades, or as he held the line against certian death while his loyal minions escaped.

He ended under a pile of dusty rubble, sold out by someone close to him.

I like that.

Murdoc, whose omnipresence and coverage of matters martial forces my corporeal energies to choose between crying with joy or popping a boner, brings this story on a protest at a recruiting office. As Murdoc points out, the argument seems to go: protest-->no recruits-->no recruiters-->no soldiers-->no one to fight war-->end of war-->world peace. Which might be nice, if so many people weren't trying so desperately to kill us. Except that they ARE trying desperately to kill us, so this sort of activity is basically stupid.

This line of his though made me snort: with no soldiers, "just think of all the extra people available to grow apple trees and honey bees and snow-white turtle doves".

You know, in the wake of 9-11, I thought, if nothing else, the America-hating hippie military-bashing filth would finally have to face that there are people on this Earth who want to kill us all- Christian, Jew, hippie, stud, etc- ALL of us, and that we can at least work together from that starting point. Whatever our fundamental differences politically and culturally, right, left, up, down, Federalist and Communist can move forward providing for the common defense. Within about a week I was disgusted by my own naivete.

Well, what military-haters don't comprehend is that recruiters are professionals. Anything that grabastic, screechy children do, say, or attempt matters pretty close to zero on their Important Shit-o-Meter. You don't matter to them in any meaningful way. I like that.

Nevertheless, I have felt that some gesture ought to be made to counter the drum-circle set. No, professionals don't need such gestures, but I do. One thing I've done is to buy lunch for the local recruiters. It's a little thing, I know, but it's just some way to show that not everyone in the community is against them. Nothing fancy; send over some good takeout or something.

Try it.

At the Milblog conference a little while back, I met Deborah and Mike from the War Tapes. Deborah had the idea of giving cameras to soldiers, and Mike was one of the soldiers of the New Hampshire Guard who took one to Iraq. I had a great time sitting with Mike at Finn's waiting on his food (for over an hour) and talking old cars and motorcycles. I've watched some of the clips they've released as teasers, and it looks like its going to be a remarkable film. Their movie premiered at the Tibeca film festival to acclaim, and now it will be opening around the country. New York will get it on the 2nd of June, and Washington, Boston and SF on the 30th. You can believe that I will be at the opening here in DC. (Johno, I recommend you see it as well up there in beantown.)

But apparently some people don't get it. Andi of Andi's world reports that some in the mainstream media are less than enthusiastic where the film grates up against their ideological filters.

[wik] On a completely other and rather inconsequential note, I am pleased to finally have a reason to use the "War" and "Entertainment" categories at the same time.

No, it falleth as a gentle rain from twelve honest men and women. Or something like that. I haven't read The Merchant of Venice in, well, ever.

I'm sure that everyone has heard by now that Zacarias Moussaoui will not be put to death by the state for his alleged role in 9/11/2001. Now, you didn't ask for my opinion, you don't care about my opinion, but you've read this far so why not further? I think this was a good decision. To begin with, I'm not a big fan of the death penalty in most circumstances. It often reeks too much of vengeance, and justice and vengeance are mutually exclusive concepts. But moreover, Moussaoui asked for the chair, arguing that he wants to be a martyr, and also arguing, in essence, "f*ck you, America." (Is that an argument?) So what better than to extend him mercy?

I'm not much of a Christian, but I still organize my life around the ethical priniciples of Jesus, y'know, the red words in the old familiy bible. They're the best thing going, bar none. And mercy is one of the fundamental precepts of that ethical system. (Leaving aside the moral dimension, of course. I'm not qualified to talk about that.) Turn the other cheek. Exercise forbearance. Restrain from vengeance, no matter how incredibly good it might feel, because down that road is barbarity, chaos, and anarchy. Mercy is one of the precepts that has smoothed Western civilization's road to greatness over the years (though it sure can be discarded at the drop of a hat, I tell you what, whenever it's time to kill a few of the guys in the neighboring city).

But a funny thing about Christian mercy is that it can also amount to a big old "f*ck you." Killing Zacarias Moussaoui wouldn't make much difference in the larger scheme of things; some people would feel vindicated, others downright happy. And though it's probable that were he put to death, the glorious shining martyrdom he seeks would actually work out, and we'd have to see his ugly mug again and again and again on posters, banners, and painted bedsheets every time Hizbollah staged a damn rally, it's far more likely that the Legend of Zac would die with him.

But in not putting him to death, in choosing not to martyr him, we have taken the opportunity to reaffirm the core values of our society, to exercise patience and forbearance against crimes which are done and cannot be undone, to avail ourselves of the better angels of our nature, to reaffirm the fundamental difference between us and him, and best of all, to say to Zacarias Moussaoui, "Fuck you. We grant you our mercy."