2011 09 11

Tragic Loss in Afghanistan

Tragic loss, 25 US seals, 6 helicopter crews, 7 Afghan special forces, and one combat dog was lost when their helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan today.

My condolences for all the families, and both our nations.

Osama, Obama, and Pakistan

1. Osama bin Laden is dead. Certainty of the offered "proof" is good for most, but i am certain a few will remain skeptical regardless of the evidence available. I doubt much will change from the islamofascist perspective. Any loss of OBL active leadership will likely be offset by his new role as a martyr.

2. Congratulation of all parties involved. GW Bush who started the ball rolling. The intelligence service for finding and tracking him down. The soldiers and operatives who were the boots on the ground. Obama for giving the final mission go ahead.

3. Most troubling is the role Pakistan had and did not have in this operation. If they have protected him, it was because elements of the Pakistani government wanted to do so. Possibly it was for economic reasons to get continued financial aid from the the US, but more likely for ideological reasons. The ideologically inclined elements will not be happy at OBL's death, and the islamofascists in Pakistan may make an issue with the current Pakistani government for allowing it to happen. They will suspect and claim active Pakistani government involvement regardless of what the governments (the US and Pakisan) denies. Either the Pakistani government was inadequate to protect OBL from foreign infidels within Pakistan itself, or that they were a party to a betrayal. That the government harbored him at all for so long will be a condemnation from some Pakistanis. Pakistan has been a powder keg for a while. I worry this even may be a tipping point, the lighting of the fuse, for Pakistan becoming a fail state. Perhaps even civil war. Either way, the West cannot allow a nuclear Pakistan to degenerate or deteriorates much more. And we certainly cannot walk away given Iran is a direct neighbor and a failed Pakistan will be a boon to Iran. OBL's death may be the first lightning spark of an oncoming storm.

9 11

Right vs Left: US Government

There certainly is a difference in expectations between the left and the right regarding the role of the US government. I have noticed that there are still plenty of bumper stickers decrying the war on terror. Yet, waging war is well within the purview of what a government, any government, does. In my opinion the primary goal of any government should be protecting its citizens against foreign power whether it be another national government, band of corsairs, or terrorists. I empathize with the pacifist sentiments of the left regarding war in general, and I also acknowledge their disagreement whether it was a just war or not in Iraq. I happened to think we should do more than retaliate against the perpetrators of 9/11 and if Iraq succeeds as a democratic state, I believe this will move Arab jihadists just a little away from terrorism. South Asians are another matter completely and deserves its own post. I bring this up because my abhorrence of the Obamacare must feel similar to the left regarding the WoT/Iraq. Yet I just do not see how Obamacare is within the purview of the US government at least as laid out in the US Constitution. That the discussion of Obamacare even occurred and considered at all is astounding. Not to mention how it came to pass seems very undemocratic.

The WoT/Iraq was about whether the US government should or should not wage war.
Obamacare was about whether the US government could or could not be in the business of providing healthcare. There is just no constitutional basis for this discussion to even get to a disagreement.

One might argue that Obamacare is not about US governement healthcare ... until you realize that the regulations imposed will increase the cost of providing private insurance, thus herding more and more people toward government care.

By Any Other Name

Great article by Joe Queenan at the WSJ today. Here is the start:

The Obama administration has come under intense criticism for replacing the term "war on terror" with the emaciated euphemism "overseas contingency operations," and for referring to individual acts of terror as "man-caused disasters."

This semi-official attempt to disassociate the administration from the fierce rhetoric favored by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney has enraged Americans on both the right and left. Many feel that such vaporous bureaucratese is a self-emasculating action that plunges us into an Orwellian world where words have no emotional connection with the horrors they purport to describe.

Yet, if the intention of the Obama administration is to tone down the confrontational rhetoric being used by our enemies, the effort is already reaping results. This week, in a pronounced shift from its usual theatrical style, the Taliban announced that it will no longer refer to its favorite method of murder as "beheadings," but will henceforth employ the expression "cephalic attrition." "Flayings" -- a barbarously exotic style of execution that has been popular in this part of the world since before the time of Alexander -- will now be described as "unsolicited epidermal reconfigurations." In a similar vein, lopping off captives' arms will now be referred to as "appendage furloughing," while public floggings of teenaged girls will from here on out be spoken of as "metajudicial interfacing."

A Taliban spokesman reached in Pakistan said that the new phrasing was being implemented as a way of eliminating the negative associations triggered by more graphic terminology. "The term 'beheading' has a quasi-medieval undertone that we're trying to get away from," he explained. "The term 'cephalic attrition' brings the Taliban into the 21st century. It's not that we disapprove of beheadings; it's just that the word no longer meshes with the zeitgeist of the era. This is the same reason we have replaced the term 'jihad' with 'booka-bonga-bippo,' which has a more zesty, urban, youthful, 'now' feel. When you're recruiting teenagers to your movement, you don't want them to feel that going on jihad won't leave any time for youthful hijinks."

Central Asia is not the only place where the coarse terminology of the past is being phased out. In Darfur, the words "ethnic cleansing" are no longer in use, either by rebels nor by the government itself. Instead, the practice of targeting a particular tribe or sect or ethnic group for extinction is being called "unconditional demographic redeployment." In much the same spirit, the archaic term "genocide" -- so broad and vague as to be meaningless -- has now been supplanted by "maximum-intensity racial profiling."

WoT: Mumbai 08

The events in Mumbai are winding down. Bill Roggio has an excellent analysis of the tactical aspect of the terrorist attacks.

What is unclear to me is what was the goal of the attack? Possibilities:

1. The attack was to force India to withdraw from Kashmir. I am skeptical of this one for several reasons. Firstly India has suffered several terrorist attacks before over Kashmir without a change to the status of Kashmir, why would the terrorists expect a different outcome this time? Secondly, the tactical play of this attack appears different. While possible, I do not believe it is probable that this is about Kashmir.

2. The attack was to distrupt and weaken India's center of commerce. This certainly will be a result to some degree but what exactly would be the gain for the terrorists? Only if this would benefit one political party over another. I am skeptical that one political party in India would stoop to such low to gain political power. There was also a possibility that the attack was meant to influence the US election 3 weeks earlier but was post phoned for one reason or another. This one seems least plausible.

3. The attack was to sabotage the warming relationship between India and Pakistan. The Kashmirs would have the most to gain if relationship between India and Pakistan remain contentious. The Pakistani intelligence agency remains implicated in training the Mumbai terrorists. I think this is the most plausible.

4. One step further than thought #3 is that rogue elements of the Pakistani intelligence service are trying to push India and Pakistan toward actual war. Win or lose, and especially a likely stalemate, these elements would then take the opportunity to seize Pakistan, supported by Taliban elements in the Northwest territories of Pakistan and disgruntled elements of the Pakistani army. I would think that even rogue Pakistani intelligence elements would think this is too risky.

5. Conspiracy ideation might run along the line that the entire Mumbai attack was a red-herring. That not even the participating terrorists knew what the real plan was. The real plan could have been to grab something or someone else in Mumbai proper, or even elsewhere in India. By grab it could be grab to take or grab to kill. If the true target was that sensitive, I am uncertain that we would know anytime soon. Since this is already conspiracy laced thoughts, there is no need to further delve deeper into what the true target may have been. Intriguing never the less.

Update
6. A Powerline post suggests another possibility in direct opposition to #3 and #4. That is, the Pakistani intelligence agency is acting in full accordance with the Pakistani government to weaken India, perhaps in continued desire to gain territory like Kashmir, or to see the down fall of India in general. Why are they then also seeking rapproachment with India? To obtain cover for their true goal. Could Pakistan approach be like the Palestinians, that is negotiation with Israel continues while bombing to destroy Israel continues?

Victory in Iraq

In the days leading up to the Iraq invasion in 2003, I was against the invasion. I was against it because I could not understand what would have been the gain for the US. Like most others, I thought we should first finish our effort in Afghanistan.

But instead of believing the MSM, or even the Bush administration, I sought to figure it out for myself. These were still times when 911 felt fresh. I started out asking why we were attacked. Did US involvement (our purchase of Middle Eastern oil) not bring wealth to an area not seen good times since the fall of the Ottoman Empire? Many ideas were proposed. I quickly rejected the idea that as victim we were responsible or deserved to be attacked. I also rejected the premise that poverty and ignorance led the terrorists to attack us. No, they were mostly middle class or higher, and for the most part college educated. Why then did these men not made a success of themselves in their own town and nations? As I looked deeper, it became clear that despite the veneer of civility, the people of the Middle East, Arabs in particular, were an oppressed bunch. Politically, all the nation states of the Middle East were authoritarian.

At the same time, the few voices opposing the war suggested that the Iraqis could not possibly govern themselves should we liberated them, that we cannot and should not "impose" democracy on Iraqis. I was struck by how elitist and even racists these Western voices were. Were the Germans not similarly disposed as unfit for democracy as evidence by their actions during WW2? Same with Japan? And are these not among the stalwarts of Democracy in the 21st century?

Sometimes an idea is so obvious and commonplace that it is taken for granted, and not even register or appreciated. That idea is that all men crave self-determination once the basic securities of food and shelter are obtained. That like the Germans, the Japanese, and even the Vietnamese, when given the opportunity and freedom for self-determination over their lives, most will gladly do so. A people's political voices cannot be suppressed for long. This came to me like an epiphany.

The Arab voices had been muffled in the Middle East for a long time. It is one thing to speak up in dissent and ask for change away from oppression, taking great personal risk of liberty and life to do so, it is another to do the same and take great risk of liberty and life of your family and friend. When people cannot speak out directly at home, in one's community, one's nation, then people finds alternative outlet. For most Arabs, it became easier to accept the harsh reality of the present and work toward a better afterlife as promised in Islam. For small few, having moved through Islam, the choice was to strike back at their own government. It isn't Islam per se, but politics in the name of Islam. For these Arabs, these would be terrorists, they sought change not for greater liberty, they sought change to empower their own politicalization of Islam. They are Islamofascists.

How would the Islamofascist strike back at their own government, weaken their government and empower themselves while keeping friends and family relatively safe? By only indirectly attacking their own government, and do it away from their own nations. How would these few act against their government indirectly? By attacking what keep their government going and in power. And thus it became obvious to me that when the terrorists attacked us on 911, it was to force us to reconfigure our support for Middle Eastern regimes, perhaps even withdraw from the region entirely.

Given our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, nay, given the whole world's economy reliance on Middle Eastern oil, the US cannot withdraw from the Middle East. Could we then reconfigure our relationship with these authoritarian regimes and push for greater liberty and democracy? We have been for quite some times without much success. Never the less, this could never be the solution because no nation state ever want to be told how to be by a foreign power. But there was an alternative. Iraq was technically in a state of war, with a ceasefire intermittently broken.

Iraq was an opportunity to directly transform a political process of a nation toward democracy. There is hopeful reason to believe that a free and democratic Iraq could transform the entirety of the Middle East, just as a democratic Japan has done for the Far East and Germany had done for Central Europe. It was a huge gambit that would take years to accomplish and decades to take effect. Victory in Iraq and transformation of the Middle East certainly not guaranteed. I saw the Iraq war as an opportunity of great transformational and historical power. A gambit that earned my awe and respect for the strategic thinking involved.

I understood that the hunt for Osama bin Laden would be a dead end. As soon as we kill him, another would rise in his place, declare bin Laden a Martyr, and continue their Islamofascist plans without him. Only through culture and political transformation can we eliminate their raison d'etre and limit their appeal and recruitment power (financially or manpower wise). I also understood immediately that Iraq as the transforming nidus of the Middle East policy could never openly be declared as our reason, motive, or goal in resuming military action against Sadam Hussein's regime. The world will not tolerate the arrogance of the US stepping into the Middle East with the strategic goal of transforming the regional governments. They did not even want the US to remove the homicidal dictator of Iraq!

I thus tolerated the pretext of weapons of mass destruction on Iraq's part to nullify the ceasefire. I also tolerated the apparent meme of war for oil, because it really wasn't for oil but about oil. Such fine but important difference would not be appreciated.

After the Iraq invasion started March of 2003, I understood that the success or failure of the endeavor to transform the Middle East via democratization of Iraq cannot be known until at least five years have passed. A few months over the five-year mark, I believe Iraq should now be seen as a success for Democracy. Today, November 22, 2008 is Victory in Iraq. Does this mean that a Democratic Iraq will transform the region? I hope so, but I doubt we will understand whether this happen or not for at least a decade.

VP comments: Biden & Palin

Today Biden commented on Obama's readiness to be president.

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Not only will the next administration have to deal with foreign affairs issues, Biden warned, but also with the current economic crisis.

"Gird your loins," Biden told the crowd. "We're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It's like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy."

The Delaware lawmaker managed to rake in an estimated $1 million total from his two money hauls at the downtown Sheraton, the same hotel where four years ago Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., clinched the Democratic nomination. Despite warning about the difficulties the next administration will face, Biden said the Democratic ticket is equipped to meet the challenges head on.

"I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I'm not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it," the Senate Foreign Relations chairman said of Obama. "This guy has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."

"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."

Basically get ready if Obama gets elected because our enemies will feel emboldened to test him for his inexperience.
and

If Obama becomes President his popularity will sag and he will make unpopular decisions widely viewed as unsound.

Nice!



Meanwhile, some are asking whether Palin is advocating a federal marriage amendment based on this quote:

She says: "[I]n my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage."

Commenting on Roe v. Wade, Palin said, “I’m, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas.”

By being a "federalist" it seems to me she supports state right to make the decision rather than the federal government.

from wikipedia for "federalist":

In contemporary usage, as articulated by president Bush's New Federalism, federalists advocate the principle of greater regional autonomy within the United States—usually by allowing individual states to set their own agendas and determine the handling of issues, rather than trying to impose a nationally uniform solution.

When she says "I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage" i do not read this as suggesting she wants a US federal marriage amendment.

Palin in NYC

Palin fields some questions from reporters.

“I agree with the Bush administration that we take the fight to them,” she said. “We never again let them come onto our soil and try to destroy not only our democracy but communities like the community of New York. Never again. So yes, I do agree with taking the fight to the terrorists and stopping them over there.”

She deflected a follow-up question about whether she felt the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan has inflamed Islamic extremists.

“I think our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan will lead to further security of our nation, again, because the mission is to take the fight over there. Do not let them come over here and attempt again what they accomplished here, and that was some destruction, terrible destruction on that day. But since Sept. 11, Americans are uniting and rebuilding and committing to never letting that happen again.

In response to a question about the bailout package before Congress, she said, “I don't support that until the provisions that Sen. McCain has offered are implemented in Paulson's proposals.

Palin broke her campaign trail media silence after touring several Sept. 11-related sites and delivering a brief statement on the lessons of Sept. 11 in front of a fire house that lost many of its firefighters in the World Trade Center disaster.

“Every American student needs to come through this area so that, especially this younger generation of Americans, to be in a position of never forgetting what happened here and never repeating, never allowing a repeat of what happened here. I wish every American would come through here. I wish every world leader would come through here, and understand what it is that took place here and, more importantly, how America came together and united to commit to never allowing this to happen again. And just to hear from and see these good New Yorkers who are rebuilding not just this but are helping to rebuild America has been very, very inspiring and encouraging. These are the good Americans who are committed to peace and security, and it's been an absolute honor getting to meet these folks today.””

Btw, i don't think she did terribly well with Couric in what has been released so far. I don't think she should be limited to being McCain's cheerleader. She should instead be speaking about what is wrong that needs to be fixed and let McCain declare himself how he is to fix it. She does much better outside his shadow.

Palin & Head of States

Today Palin met two head of states, Karzai of Afghanistan and Uribe of Colombia. While I recognize that this in no way make her a foreign policy expert, what i find interesting are those she is scheduled to meet:

Palin is also seeing six other world leaders — Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, Ukrainian President Viktor Yuschenko, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh — as well as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in New York this week.

None of these are old alliance leaders. These head of states are all on the forefront of the US global diplomatic engagement efforts.
Karzai from Afghanistan is now the front line confronting Al Qaeda in the War on Terror.
Uribe from Colombia is the US closest ally as we confront Chavez and Venezuela in Latin America. Colombia is also awaiting Congressional approval of a free trade agreement.
Saakashvili from Georgia is on the frontline against a militarily resurgent Russia. Georgia also is a central player in the oil pipeline from Central Asia, something I am sure Palin has a great deal of experience and understanding.
Yushenko from Ukraine is where the next confrontation against Russia would likely occur (most likely political confrontation and influence rather than outright war).
Talabani from Iraq is where the Bush doctrine promoting democracy as a counter to islamofascism is currently playing out successfully.
Zardari from Pakistan is where the islamofascist is currently working to destabilize. It is also where the war in Afghanistan will be won.
and Singh from India, the up and coming economic power that is the world's most populous democracy, a likely counterweight to China's growing influence in Asia, and also a nation under attack from islamofascists.

All of these leaders and their nations are who the US will have to influence and must build stronger relationship with. These things are on the “to do list” for the next administration. Establishing personal rapports with these leaders will serve Palin much better than meeting Harper of Canada, Gordon of UK, Sarkozy of France, Merkel of Germany, or Rudd of Australia. These nations are really already in the "with us" column. Japan and Israel are both currently in political flux but regardless of the outcome, will also remain in the "with us" column. Despite what the press may say, relationship with these nations under Bush has never been stronger.

Whoever chose these head of states for Palin to meet was thinking about her as the Vice President rather than Palin as a Vice President candidate needing to buff up her foreign experience resume. I am impressed with this selection. I am also impressed that these leaders are risking some potential backlash should Obama wins. Perhaps they recognize that even if McCain lose in 08, Palin will likely be an important US player in the years to come.

What is funny is that these are all more essential head of states than Obama has met.

Crimson Tide

It is now nearly uniformly accepted we have turned the tide in Iraq. From the changing emphasis of the New Iraqi Army as noted by DJ Elliot to the reconsidering the great achievement made possible by the steadfastness of GW Bush as noted at the Belmont Club.
But every time i see this video i feel even more for the unheralded sentiment expressed for our men and women in uniform who made this victory possible.

Withdraw

My question in light of what the Obama man is shifting toward of late, is how serious was he when he put forth his plans for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Was it all for political expediency to appease the left?

Jihadists and AL Qaeda

Within a few minutes of Noman Benotman's arrival at the Kandahar guest house, Osama bin Laden came to welcome him. The journey from Kabul had been hard, 17 hours in a Toyota pickup truck bumping along what passed as the main highway to southern Afghanistan. It was the summer of 2000, and Benotman, then a leader of a group trying to overthrow the Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, had been invited by bin Laden to a conference of jihadists from around the Arab world, the first of its kind since Al Qaeda had moved to Afghanistan in 1996. Benotman, the scion of an aristocratic family marginalized by Qaddafi, had known bin Laden from their days fighting the Afghan communist government in the early '90s, a period when Benotman established himself as a leader of the militant Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

The night of Benotman's arrival, bin Laden threw a lavish banquet in the main hall of his compound, an unusual extravagance for the frugal Al Qaeda leader. As bin Laden circulated, making small talk, large dishes of rice and platters of whole roasted lamb were served to some 200 jihadists, many of whom had come from around the Middle East. "It was one big reunification," Benotman recalls. "The leaders of most of the jihadist groups in the Arab world were there and almost everybody within Al Qaeda."

Bin Laden was trying to win over other militant groups to the global jihad he had announced against the United States in 1998. Over the next five days, bin Laden and his top aides, including Ayman Al Zawahiri, met with a dozen or so jihadist leaders. They sat on the floor in a circle with large cushions arrayed around them to discuss the future of their movement. "This was a big strategy meeting," Benotman told one of us late last year, in his first account of the meeting to a reporter. "We talked about everything, where are we going, what are the lessons of the past twenty years."

Despite the warm welcome, Benotman surprised his hosts with a bleak assessment of their prospects. "I told them that the jihadist movement had failed. That we had gone from one disaster to another, like in Algeria, because we had not mobilized the people," recalls Benotman, referring to the Algerian civil war launched by jihadists in the '90s that left more than 100,000 dead and destroyed whatever local support the militants had once enjoyed. Benotman also told bin Laden that the Al Qaeda leader's decision to target the United States would only sabotage attempts by groups like Benotman's to overthrow the secular dictatorships in the Arab world. "We made a clear-cut request for him to stop his campaign against the United States because it was going to lead to nowhere," Benotman recalls, "but they laughed when I told them that America would attack the whole region if they launched another attack against it."

* * * * *

Unsurprisingly, Al Qaeda's leaders have been thrown on the defensive. In December, bin Laden released a tape that stressed that "the Muslim victims who fall during the operations against the infidel Crusaders ... are not the intended targets." Bin Laden warned the former mujahedin now turning on Al Qaeda that, whatever their track records as jihadists, they had now committed one of the "nullifiers of Islam," which is helping the "infidels against the Muslims."

Kamal El Helbawy, the Muslim Brotherhood leader who helped bring in moderates at the Finsbury Park mosque in London, believes that Al Qaeda's days may be numbered: "No government, no police force, is achieving what these [religious] scholars are achieving. To defeat terrorism, to convince the radicals ... you have to persuade them that theirs is not the path to paradise."

Read it all!

911: more conspiracies

from the WSJ:

CAIRO, Egypt -- Osama bin Laden's chief deputy in an audiotape Tuesday accused Shiite Iran of trying to discredit the Sunni al Qaeda terror network by spreading the conspiracy theory that Israel was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

As seen below, the ONN has it dead on regarding AlQaeda's response to it being discredited for 911.

911 Debate on ONN

9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says

Negative U.S. media reports on Iraq linked to increased insurgent attacks

Somewhat obvious but I am glad that a reputable institution has studied this

Researchers at Harvard say that publicly voiced doubts about the U.S. occupation of Iraq have a measurable "emboldenment effect" on insurgents there.

Periods of intense news media coverage in the United States of criticism about the war, or of polling about public opinion on the conflict, are followed by a small but quantifiable increases in the number of attacks on civilians and U.S. forces in Iraq, according to a study by Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

The increase in attacks is more pronounced in areas of Iraq that have better access to international news media, the authors conclude in a report titled "Is There an 'Emboldenment' Effect? Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq."

The researchers studied data about insurgent attacks and U.S. media coverage up to November, tracking what they called "anti-resolve statements" by U.S. politicians and reports about American public opinion on the war.

"We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases," says the study, published earlier this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a leading U.S. nonprofit economic research organization.

Iraq: lets not squander the progress

My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis.

Today's humanitarian crisis in Iraq -- and the potential consequences for our national security -- are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?

What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance. UNHCR has appealed for $261 million this year to provide for refugees and internally displaced persons. That is not a small amount of money -- but it is less than the U.S. spends each day to fight the war in Iraq. I would like to call on each of the presidential candidates and congressional leaders to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy.

As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.

It seems to me that now is the moment to address the humanitarian side of this situation. Without the right support, we could miss an opportunity to do some of the good we always stated we intended to do.

Who is this by? Surprisingly, it is Angelina Jolie
Sounds so much more real and earnest than Obama and Billary. It is amazing to me how someone hard to consider serious, can be more practical than those so many are seriously considering for President.
I guess when you are pandering to your base, you debase yourself.

Iraq Body Count Trend

From the Long War Journal:

The above phrase in Arabic is “lan astaslem.” It means “I will not surrender/I will not submit.”