Cancer survival without universal health coverage in the US

As i have always believed, patients in the US have access to some of the best care in the world, regardless of their insurance status.

Last month, the largest ever international survey of cancer survival rates showed that in the U.S., women have a 63% chance of living at least five years after diagnosis, and men have a 66% chance -- the highest survival rates in the world. These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage. In Great Britain, which has had a government-run universal health-care system for half a century, the figures were 53% for women and 45% for men, near the bottom of the 23 countries surveyed.

A 2006 study in the journal Respiratory Medicine showed that lung cancer patients in the U.S. have the best chance of surviving five years -- about 16%. Patients in Austria and France fare almost as well, and patients in the United Kingdom do much worse with only 5% living five years. A report released in May from the Commonwealth Fund showed that women in the U.S. are more likely to get a PAP test every two years than women in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the U.K., where health insurance is guaranteed by the government. In the U.S. 85% of women ages 25-64 have regular PAP smears, compared with 58% in the U.K.

The same is true for mammograms. In the U.S., 84% of women ages 50-64 get them regularly, a higher percentage than in Australia, Canada or New Zealand, and far higher than the 63% of women in the U.K. The high rate of screening in the U.S. reflects access as well as educational efforts by the American Cancer Society and others.

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

Senator John Warner of Virginia

Senator John Warner recently announced that the US should start withdrawing troops from Iraq in order to stimulate the government of Iraq to undergo political reconciliation. This is just plain ignorant. Firstly, he spoke out of turn, as President Bush had already declared no decision would be made until General Petraeus gives his report. What could possibly possessed Warner to think that whatever he has to pontificate on will trump Petraeus' report? Secondly, the current Iraqi government is not in touch with the current situation on the ground. The current Iraqi government is Shia dominated resulting from the Sunni's foolish decision to boycott their national election 3 years ago. The biggest contributions to the stability of Iraq, in order are: the US forces, the various Sunni Salvation councils (having turned against Al Qaeda in Iraq) and our steady allies the Kurds. The greatest internal threats to Iraq’s stability in order are: al Qaeda in Iraq closely followed by the various Shia militias, many of whom have representatives in the current Iraqi government. It goes without saying that the greatest external threat to stability in Iraq is Iran. Thirdly, there are significant portion of the current Iraqi government interested in ethnic cleansing of the Sunni. The proposed statement by Warner with a troop withdrawal is a go ahead for the ethnic cleansing to start.

Thus it pleases me greatly that Warner has decided not to run for re-election. Good riddance!


Regarding stability in Iraq, we need to continue our effort to firstly provide for security and equally work to turn more Sunni and Shia toward national reconciliation from the ground up rather than rely on the current government. We should keep up the effort at least until the next national election in Iraq.

Surge

All who wants to give up on the Surge only after it just begun are political opportunists and cowards. Those who argue you cannot impose democracy but are not willing to walk away from an elected government at a time when their own citizens are turning away from terrorism are hypocrits. From the Times Online:

“Al-Qaeda’s days are numbered and right now he is scrambling,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Stephen Michael, who commands a battalion of 700 troops in Doura.

A key factor is that local people and members of al-Qaeda itself have become sickened by the violence and are starting to rebel, Lieutenant-Colonel Michael said. “The people have got to deny them sanctuary and that is exactly what is happening.”

Al-Qaeda informants comprise largely members of the Doura network who found themselves either working with the group after the US-led invasion in March 2003, or signed up to earn extra cash because there were no other jobs going. Disgusted at the attacks and intimidation techniques used on friends, neighbours and even relatives, they are now increasingly looking for a way out, US officers say.

“It is only after al-Qaeda has become truly barbaric and done things like, to teach lessons to people, cut their face off with piano wire in front of their family and then murdered everybody except one child who told the tale afterwards . . . that people realise how much of a mess they are in,” Lieutenant James Danly, 31, who works on military intelligence in Doura, said.

It is impossible to corroborate the claims, but he said that scores of junior al-Qaeda in Iraq members there had become informants since May, including one low-level cell leader who gave vital information after his arrest.

“He gave us dates, places and names and who did what,” Lieutenant Danly said. When asked why he was being so forthcoming, the man said: “Because I am sick of it and I hate them, and I am done.”

Working with insurgents – even those who claim to have switched sides – is a leap of faith for both sides. Every informant who visits Forward Operating Base Falcon, a vast military camp on the southern outskirts of Baghdad, is blindfolded when brought in and out to avoid gleaning any information about his surroundings.

The risk sometimes pays off. A recent tip-off led to the fatal shooting of Abu Kaldoun, one of three senior al-Qaeda leaders in Doura, during a US raid last week. “He was turned in by one of his own,” Colonel Michael said.

Progress with making contacts and gathering actionable information is slow because al-Qaeda has persuasive methods of keeping people quiet. This month it beheaded two men in the street and pinned a note on to their corpses giving warning that anyone who cooperated with US troops would meet the same fate.

The increased presence of US forces in Doura, however, is encouraging insiders to overcome their fear and divulge what they know. Convoys of US soldiers are working the rubble-strewn streets day and night, knocking on doors, speaking to locals and following up leads on possible insurgent hideouts.

“People in al-Qaeda come to us and give us information,” said Lieutenant Scott Flanigan, as he drove past a line of fruit and vegetable stalls near a shabby shopping street in Doura, where people were buying bread and other groceries.

Tribe America

The lastest dispatch from Miachel Yon:

The big news on the streets today is that the people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic, although many hold in reserve a serious concern that we will abandon them again. For many Iraqis, we have morphed from being invaders to occupiers to members of a tribe. I call it the “al Ameriki tribe,” or “tribe America.”

I’ve seen this kind of progression in Mosul, out in Anbar and other places, and when I ask our military leaders if they have sensed any shift, many have said, yes, they too sense that Iraqis view us differently. In the context of sectarian and tribal strife, we are the tribe that people can—more or less and with giant caveats—rely on.

Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth.

Now that all those realizations and more have settled in, the dynamics here are changing in palpable ways.

Warning: the whole post is worth reading but there is a horrific recounting within his post about what al Qaeda might have done there.

Happy 4th of July

Loose Lips: BBC

From the Telegraph in England.

Politicians reacted in disbelief to the revelation that for over two hours yesterday, the BBC News website carried a request for people in Iraq to report on troop movements.

At least this reveal the stupidity of the BBC. At most, it reveals their willingness to aid and abet the enemy.

Be Not Afraid

Be Not Afraid

You shall cross the barren desert, but you shall not die of thirst.
You shall wander far in safety though you do not know the way.
You shall speak your words in foreign lands and all will understand.
You shall see the face of God and live.

Be not afraid.
I go before you always;
Come follow me, and I will give you rest.

[From a prayer card I found on a base in Anbar Province, Iraq.]

a must read from Michael Yon

Thoughts flow on the eve of a great battle. By the time these words are released, we will be in combat. Few ears have heard even rumors of this battle, and fewer still are the eyes that will see its full scope. Even now—the battle has already begun for some—practically no news about it is flowing home. I’ve known of the secret plans for about a month, but have remained silent.

And the crowd roars ...

Iraq and Syria

More and more i wonder how successful our endeavors in Iraq will be if we continue to wage a 4 front war. The first front is for political stability in Iraq. Stability, not control. The second front is the destabilizing interference from Iran. While a lot of attentions of late have suggested a military action is imminent against Iran, I believe this is unlikely. The third is the home front, and here I believe the Bush administration has done fairly poorly convincing the American public of the need to take the fight to the enemy and of winning in Iraq. The fourth front is Syria. Like its patron Iran Syria is actively trying to destabilize Iraq. In addition, Syria, also funded by Iran, is also trying to destabilize Lebanon and Israel.

Given that Iraq is surrounded on two fronts with hostile forces, Iran and Syria, success in Iraq cannot be had until either Syria or Iran is confronted. I believe Syria to be a better target than Iran. Firstly, Syria is surrounded by friendly forces: Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan. Secondly allied military forces are available to assault Syria in terms of Israel. Syria should thus be tempted to tip its hands militarily either against Lebanon or Israel. Israel should be allowed and encouraged to counter militarily. It is also conceivable that French forces could be sent to secure Lebanon. Thirdly, the size and terrain of Syria is more amenable to military action. Fourthly the military lessons learned from the Iraq invasion and occupation could be better applied to Syria than Iran. Iran also has oil, unlike Syria, and more negative publicity will result in "another" war for oil.

The Assad regime needs to go. Only once Syria is removed as a hostile force can and should Iran be confronted. Only once Iraq is more stable can Iran be confronted, and this won't happen as long as both Syria and Iran are hostile. Syria is an easier and better target. Iran is also a more difficult target in its own right. Iran is a much larger territory and has more difficult terrain. Iran's population is larger. And its military forces more fanatical. In addition, Pakistan is currently too unstable for there to be instability and turmoil in Iran as well.

Once Syria is removed, stability and democracy can encompass the entire Mediterranean part of the Middle East.

Subversion: Demoralization

HT: Belmont Club:

Former KGB agent and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov explains how the KGB worked from within American universities to demoralize our society in a generation. (Pajamas Media)

I do believe that continued influx of immigrants and refugees from former communist country slows down the demoralization subversion of America. It is interesting to me how, as one such immigrant, i view the foolish ideologies of some Americans as an selfish and ignorant result of too much freedom. Yet this suggests that this outcome was by designed by America's enemies.

Thought for the Weekend

Since the start of the war in Iraq, 170,000 people have died in car accidents in America. Remember to buckle up.

Source: WSJ

G8: Bush & Global Warming

Previously I have reported on Bush's green home. I find this article from WSJ fairly amusing in how credit is rarely given where it is due when it comes to Bush.

There's been a capitulation on global warming, but it hasn't happened in the Oval Office. The Kyoto cheerleaders at the United Nations and the European Union are realizing their government-run experiment in climate control is a mess, one that's incidentally failed to reduce carbon emissions. They've also understood that if they want the biggest players on board--the U.S., China, India--they need an approach that balances economic growth with feel-good environmentalism. Yesterday's G-8 agreement acknowledged those realities and tolled Kyoto's death knell. Mr. Bush, 1; sanctimonious greens, 0.


Not that the president's handling of the climate issue has been stellar. The science of global warming is still unsettled, yet Mr. Bush in 2002 caved and laid out a voluntary emissions-reduction program. Instead of getting credit, he's spent the ensuing years getting shellacked for not doing more. This has laid the groundwork for today's calls for mandatory curbs that would harm the economy. It's also given Washington an excuse to re-micromanage the energy sector. Think ethanol.

But compared with Kyoto, Mr. Bush's vision has been sublime. The basic Kyoto philosophy is this: Set ever lower mandatory targets, ratcheting down energy use, and by extension economic growth. The program was viewed by environmentalists and politicians as a convenient excuse for getting rid of unpopular fossil fuels, such as coal. In Kyoto-world, governments exist to create draconian rules, even if those dictates are disguised by "market" mechanisms such as cap-and-trade.

President Bush's approach is opposite: Allow economies to grow, along the way inspiring new technologies and new forms of energy that lower C02 emissions. Implicit is that C02-control technologies should focus on energy sources we use today, including fossil fuels. In Bush-world, the government is there to incentivize industry, coordinate with it, and set broad goals.

Take your pick. Under the vaunted Kyoto, from 2000 to 2004, Europe managed to increase its emissions by 2.3 percentage points over 1995 to 2000. Only two countries are on track to meet targets. There's rampant cheating, and endless stories of how select players are self-enriching off the government "market" in C02 credits. Meanwhile, in the U.S., under the president's oh-so-unserious plan, U.S. emissions from 2000 to 2004 were eight percentage points lower than in the prior period.

Europeans may be slow, but they aren't silly, and they've quietly come around to some of Mr. Bush's views. Tony Blair has been a leader here, and give him credit for caring enough about his signature issue to evolve. He began picking up Mr. Bush's pro-tech themes years ago, as it became clear just how much damage a Kyoto would do to his country's competitiveness. By the end of 2005, he admitted at a conference in New York that Kyoto was a problem. "I would say probably I'm changing my thinking about this in the past two or three years," he said. "The truth is, no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem." He doubted there would be successor to Kyoto, which expires in 2012, and said an alternative might be "incentives" for businesses. Mr. Bush couldn't have said it better.

Or consider nuclear plants. President Bush has pushed hard for more nuclear, with its bountiful energy at zero C02 cost. This was long anathema to British and German politicians, whose populations are virulently anti-nuke and who balked at any official recognition of nuclear benefits. As Kyoto has ratcheted down other energy sources, nuclear has looked better. By 2005, the G-8 document out of Gleneagles contained an explicit acknowledgment that nuclear energy mattered. The EU's energy pact, signed earlier this year, also contained a nod to nuclear. Europe has also gone from trying to banish coal, to using tech to make it cleaner.

Then there's Mr. Bush's insistence that any "global" program must include big emitters such as China and India (Kyoto doesn't). Though it received little press, the U.S. in 2005 started the Asia-Pacific Partnership, a voluntary climate pact between it and Australia, Japan, South Korea, China and India. Unlike Kyoto--in which a government sets a national target for emissions, and then forces a few unlucky industries to make cuts--the Partnership gets industry execs from every sector across the table from relevant government ministers, and devises practical approaches to reductions. This parallel diplomatic approach has proved far more acceptable to countries like China, and played a role in that country's own recently released climate plan.

Lebanon 6: Lebanon

Last summer the Lebanese government had the opportunity to reassert its territorial integrity when Israel invaded. Back then I suggested that the Lebanese crush Hezbollah by providing an anvil to the Israeli hammer. Afterward, arrangement could have been made with Israel to make it appear that it was the Lebanese army that was driving south that led the Israeli army to withdraw. The Lebanese government either chose not to act, or was unable to act (more likely). All the more pity in that unfinished business will always reassert it self as new business. The "insurrection" by the Palestinian refugee and terrorist are clear example of this. At least the Lebanese government is now acting. I hope not too late.

Previous posts:
Lebanon
Lebanon 2
Lebanon 3
Lebanon 4
Lebanon 5

Memorial Day

It has been over three weeks, almost four, since i have posted. Personal life has been hectic. But not so much as to forgo a post to honor those who have served, served and die and serving still, to safeguard this nation.

Global Warming: Mars

Someone should tell the Martians:

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena..

Personal Defense 2

I went with the PX4 this weekend but has yet to fire it. But i did take it apart and put it back together, which i believe important to do prior to shooting a gun. One of the reason i went with the PX4 was the fact that it was easier to take down and field strip than the S&W MP, as well as for its aesthetics. However, it is a full size pistol so i intend to keep it for home defense. Thus for personal defense i am contemplating this FNP-9M:

VT

So far the popular focus has been on the obvious tragedy of so much senseless slaughter of innocents and on the insanity of the perpetrator. When we move on from here it will be about whether it could have been prevented and how a repeat can be prevented.
That there will continue to be those who are and or pursue insane acts is a given.
That these offenders will access items to magnify their actions is also a given, whether it be using a car on a crowded sidewalk, a gun in a lecture hall, a blaze in a cafeteria, or a bomb in a crowded market.
Neither of these can be prevented regardless of rules, laws, and regulation. This does not even touch upon the impact of these rules, laws, and regulation will more likely impact and restrict sane and law abiding citizens than the criminal and insane.

But rather than accept futility and victimization there remain possible actions for consideration. Given the opportunity to defend ourselves when faced with imminent threat of death, certainly we all would take steps to defend ourselves. We just need the means to equalize the force threatening us. I am not suggesting that everyone be armed. But I do believe that those with the knowledge and familiarity of firearms, and having been deem safe from sound mind and lawful enough to have a license to carry firearm, be allowed to do so in public places deemed reasonable by each state legislature.

I wish someone at VT had been armed and willing to stop the masacre. That there were those who willingly risked their lives so others could escape demonstrate the "willing to stop the masacre" was not the limiting step. It was the absence of arms except in the hands of a madman.

Personal Defense

If anyone has personal comparisons between these two, let me know. The first is a Beretta PX4, the second is a Smith & Wesson MP.






























The smaller version of the Smith & Wesson MP is below (Obviously pics are not to scale)

Every Day

Links

The first is just too amusing not to pass on:

Nancy Pelosi Wins British Sailors their Freedom AND Peace in the Middle East

"Your emminence," Nancy purred with a slight genuflect. "I bring word from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel is ready to --"

"Die?" exclaimed Assad, his long, llama-like neck undulating with excitement. "Committ mass suicide and burn in hell like the Jewish pig dogs they are? Nancy, you red hot monkey woman, you!! I KNEW you could do it!"

"Actually," the saucy Speaker continued, "I was going to say that they are ready to talk peace."

"Oh," he sighed. "That's good, too...I guess. So will this "peace" you speak of result in more dead Jews?"

"Doesn't it always?" Nancy replied with a wink.

"Right-o!" The President chirped. "And you actually got Olmert to sign on to this peace thing?"

"It was his idea," Nancy answered. "But he'd like something in return. Perhaps a gesture to the West that the road to Damascus truly is paved with - "

"Dead jews?" Assad interrupted, his tiny, tick-like head suddenly poking through the dark clouds of gloom.

Nancy smiled diminutively. "I was going to say 'peace' again, Señor Presidente."

"Say no more, snookums!" Assad sprang out of bed and grabbed his special hotline to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "Moo Moo, Baby! It's me, Bashar! I got Nancy over here and - yes, she still likes to hog all the blankets! Anyway, about those guests of yours..."

Hours later, the 15 British guests of the Iranian People bid a fond adieu to their gracious hosts - no worse for the wear, but perhaps a little fatter, a tad bit tanner, and greatly indebted to the diplomacy skills of our very own Nancy Pelosi.

The second is just to ponder:

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

- Ronald Reagan

Captured Alive

From Bill Roggio:

Al Qaeda in Iraq and their network of suicide and car bomb cells have been the greatest threat to security in Baghdad, particularly since the implementation of the Baghdad Security Plan. Suicide attacks are aimed at Shia neighborhoods and markets in an attempt to reignite the sectarian murders, as well as at security forces in an attempt to break the will of the Iraqi police and soldiers. Over the past five days, Iraqi and U.S. forces have put a big dent in the leadership of a suicide and car bomb cell in Adhamiyah, as well as an al Qaeda leader in Abu Ghraib.

It always fascinates me that the leaders of the "insurgents" would allow themselves to be captured alive rather than going out with a "bang" like the suicide/martyr attacks they've ordered of others.

Journey from the Fall

I saw this trailer this morning. From the movie's web page:

"The Americans have broken their promise. They have left us."
(Long Nguyen, South Vietnamese resistance fighter)

Inspired by the true stories of Vietnamese refugees who fled their land after the fall of Saigon—and those who were forced to stay behind, Journey From The Fall follows one family’s struggle for freedom.

April 30, 1975 marked the end of Vietnam's two-decade-old civil war and the start of the exodus of hundreds of thousands of refugees. Despite his allegiance to the toppled South Vietnamese government, Long Nguyen (as Long Nguyen) decides to remain in Vietnam. Imprisoned in a Communist re-education camp, he urges his family to make the escape by boat without him. His wife Mai (Diem Lien), son Lai (Nguyen Thai Nguyen) and mother Ba Noi (Kieu Chinh) then embark on the arduous ocean voyage in the hope of reaching the U.S. and freedom.

Back in Vietnam, Long suffers years of solitary confinement and hard labor, and finally despairs that his family has perished. But news of their successful resettlement in America inspires him to make one last desperate attempt to join them.

As the comparison between Vietnam and Iraq are so common now a day, and that history seems to be repeating itself with the Democrats trying to force a withdrawal of US Troops by both legislative means and funding cuts, this seems particularly pertinent as no one has really talked much about what happens once the US leaves.

Cut and Run

. . . as the Khmer Rouge closed in on the capital city of Phnom Penh in early April 1975, the United States offered a number of Cambodian officials a chance to escape. The reply addressed to the U.S. ambassador by Sirik Matak, a former Cambodian prime minister, and reprinted by Kissinger in full, is one of the more important documents of the entire Vietnam-war era.

Dear Excellency and Friend:
I thank you very sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it.

You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is no matter, because we are all born and must die. I have only committed this mistake of believing in you [the Americans].

Please accept, Excellency and dear friend, my faithful and friendly sentiments.

Immediately after the Khmer Rouge took Phnom Penh, writes Kissinger, Sirik Matak was shot in the stomach and left to die over the course of three days from his untreated wounds.

From Powerline

Anti-War is not Pro-Defeat

In a related follow-up to my previous post regarding the American public attitude comes this article from the WSJ's Opinion Journal:

In mid-January an Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that public support for President Bush's troop surge increased to 35%, up from 26% a few weeks earlier. The same poll found that a slim majority of Americans were against the war in Iraq, but 68% said they opposed shutting off funds to fight it, and 60% said they would oppose Congress's withholding funds necessary to send additional troops.

The American public is aware that sacrifices are occasionally necessary to achieve costly goals. I do not believe the American public is shying from the War in Iraq because of the human toll it is exacting. I believe the American public is shying from the War in Iraq because of the lack of apparent progress. In 2004 G W Bush was re-elected because there was visible sign of progress as demonstrated by the then recent elections. What the American public wants is Victory.
To confuse the current American public anti-Iraq sentiment as a go ahead for withdrawal is a mistake and for politicians not to appreciate the American desire for victory can be politically costly:

Arguably, waffling on the war is what is costly for Republicans. In June Rep. Gil Gutknecht, a Minnesota Republican, cautioned other Republicans not to go wobbly. A month later he went wobbly himself. After returning from Iraq, he declared that the U.S. lacked "strategic control" of the country and called for a limited troop withdrawal to "send a message" to Iraq's government. In November the six-term congressman watched independent voters abandon him as he lost by more than 5% to Democrat Tim Waltz. Meanwhile, in a neighboring congressional district, Rep. John Kline, another Republican facing a stiff challenge for his seat, didn't waver. He ended winning enough support from independents to defeat FBI "whistleblower" Colleen Rowley by 16%.

Over in the Senate, Joe Lieberman recently warned that a showdown on the war between the executive and legislative branches risked creating a "constitutional crisis." But perhaps his most powerful political statement is still being in the Senate after losing a Democratic primary last year to antiwar activist Ned Lamont. The antiwar left is powerful enough to prevail in a Democratic primary, but even in deeply blue Connecticut, it wasn't capable of winning a statewide general election.

Counter Counter Insurgency

A fascinating article from the Belmont Club suggesting that the current Iraqi Surge is more than just troops on the ground.

If so then the US has truly achieved a subtlety and lethality beyond anything available in the days when firing hundreds of cruise missiles at a target was the only available response; back when it had a walnut-sized brain full of options. But then the recent destruction of a Qods bus in Iran by representatives of al-Qaeda may be another example of the changed "rules of engagement" made possible by new capabilities. Although this is speculative, various commentators like Bill Roggio have expressed the opinion that just maybe the US was behind the carbomb attack on the Iranian special forces. All of this raises the tantalizing possibility that a qualitative change in US warfighting has arrived in theater -- much like the arrival of Hellcats, VT fuzes, computing sights and radar -- silently transformed the Pacific in 1944. To a casual observer the ships looked the same as they did in 1942 but they were radically different. Who knows?

Essentially it is about fighting fire with fire, against both the insurgency in Iraq and their supporter Iran. Unfortunately, the US can never publicly claim responsibility for any of these successes, which still leaves an image problem at home. And at home the image of Iraq remains one of quagmire as presented by the Democrats and the MSM. All this despite the shifting desire of the American public for Victory rather than "redeployment." From the Investor Business Daily:

Democracy: Right and Left

I recently had a conversation that helped to clarify the conflict between the Right/conservatives and the Left/liberals. I believe that in a free democracy such as that of the US, the Left will always maintain an edge. This is because they are strong advocates of the individual in terms of freedoms and benefits. What individual would not find more personal freedom, more personal benefits more appealing, especially if someone else pays for it? The gist of the Left's appeal is undeniable and difficult to counter; I do not know if the Right has the right stuff. The Right/conservatives have consistently place their emphasis external to the individual in either principles of morality or the needs of the community (both of which are entwined of course.) How much appeal can these ideals carry unless an individual comes to appreciate sacrifice and selflessness (traits typically only manifesting with parenthood, at best). That as individual we must also act with some consideration of our community.

Where the Left proposes freedom, the Right proposes responsibility. In a free democracy both qualities are essential. Perhaps we are in a natural ebb of responsibility but it sure seems our popular culture appear to be gushing with personal freedom and a bit short on responsibility.

Ex-President Carter Shameful Activities

A must read from Commentary Magazine. Here is sample:

When the scramble for the Democratic nomination began, Carter was widely seen as a long shot. But by the time the primary season was half over, he had left the other, better-known Democratic contenders in the dust. That he was able to compete with them at all—that is, to raise money and enlist volunteers—owed to the national exposure he had received for his inaugural address as governor of Georgia in 1971. At that time, with much of the South still clinging to Jim Crow and resisting the nation’s new civil-rights laws, Carter had boldly declared that “the time for segregation is over.”

Yet the path that led him to that dramatic moment was a tortuous one, known to few outside of Georgia, and it shed light on the man who five years later would be promising voters across the country: “I will never lie to you.”

Carter ran for governor of Georgia against Carl Sanders, who had served in the post previously, earning a reputation as one of the early “Southern moderates.” (Georgia law prohibited serving two terms consecutively.) In the campaign, Carter presented himself as, in his words, “a local Georgia conservative Democrat . . . basically a redneck.” This formulation was calculated to convey a message about his stand on racial issues: a message of resistance to racial integration, if not of out-and-out racism. He reinforced the same message by making a campaign stop at a whites-only private school, and by promising to invite Alabama Governor George Wallace, the champion of segregation, to address the state legislature.

Topping it off was Carter’s reaction when, as a result of the Democratic gubernatorial primary, Lester Maddox emerged as his running mate. Maddox, a restaurateur and Sanders’s successor as governor, had gained notoriety by distributing to the customers of his whites-only establishment ax handles with which to batter any blacks who might seek to be served there. Carter took the pairing in stride, characterizing Maddox as “the essence of the Democratic party.”

But no sooner had he won office than he executed his remarkable shift on race, a move that landed him on the cover of Time as the apotheosis of the “new South” and made him a nationally recognized figure. The cause of this about-face is still a matter of conjecture. Since he was barred from running for re-election, it is possible that he was already weighing a presidential run and thinking in terms of a national audience. Or he may have long harbored liberal views that he had deliberately concealed. In any event, one of his associates later explained that it was Carter’s way to “run conservative and govern liberal.” He was soon to put that formula to use again.

California Health

Newly re-elected California Governor Schwartzenegger is proposing universal health care for all Californians,laudable aim. However, he proposes to fund this by levying a 2% tax of doctors and 4% tax on hospitals. This is ludicrous, akin to demanding shop keepers and owners to give away items to their customers.

Once indigent care was the norm for all practicing physicians. But when third party payers became prevalent in the healthcare economic scene, this flow of free care started drying up. With this new tax it will only hurt those who are already currently provide for indigent care. Physicians who do so already make less income than those who do not. This is an ilconceived and idiotic plan, and will cause more harm than good.

See also Terminatorcare

Insomnia in the New Year

Too much tea i guess.

I'll just take the opportunity to take my blog into 2007 and wish everyone a happy new year!

Regulating CO2 gas

As the nearby chart shows, CO2 emissions growth in the U.S. far outpaced that of the 15 "old" members of the European Union from 1990-95 and especially from 1995-2000, when Mr. Climate Change himself, Al Gore, was the second-most powerful man in America. But, lo, the U.S. has outperformed the EU-15 since 2000, according to the latest U.N. data. America's rate of growth in CO2 emissions from 2000-04 was eight percentage points lower than from 1995-2000.


By comparison, the EU-15 saw an increase of 2.3 points. Only two EU states, Britain and Sweden, are on track to meet their Kyoto emissions commitments by 2010. Six more might meet their targets if they approve and implement new, as yet unspecified, policies to restrict carbon output, while seven of the 15 will miss their goals.

Cynics play down America's improvement, noting that its economy cooled from the earlier years to 2000-04. True, but the EU-15 also had lower economic growth in the latest period and still saw its emissions growth rate double. What's more, the U.S. economy expanded 38% faster than the EU-15 in 2000-04, and its population twice as fast. So the trend lines, for now, are reversing. That may frustrate the green lobby because so much of its fund raising depends on vilifying the U.S. But facts are facts, no matter how underreported they are.

Europe's dismal record is explained by its approach to reducing emissions. The centerpiece of the Continent's plan is a carbon-trading scheme in which companies in CO2-heavy industries receive tradable permits for a certain amount of emissions. If they emit more CO2, they must buy credits from firms that are under quota. The idea is to force companies to emit less CO2 by making it prohibitively expensive to keep the status quo.

All this scheme has done so far is provide further proof that government cannot replicate the wisdom of markets. A red-faced European Commission recently admitted that it allowed more permits than there were emissions in 2005-07, keeping permit prices low and undermining the entire system. When Brussels tried to make amends by ordering several member states to cut carbon permits by 7% more than expected for 2008-2012, industry and national capitals squealed. The market hadn't priced in such a dramatic reduction. With carbon permits trading relatively cheaply, firms have been able to get by with minimal changes to the way they do business. That has minimized Kyoto's economic impact.

From the WSJ. There is the hype that by not being a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol the US is un-enlightened compared to our EU counterpart. I guess this is just another example of being practical is superior to "being enlightened" or reality over ideal.

Court Gone Wild

From today's WSJ

In Robert Louis Stevenson's day, body snatchers dug up corpses in the dead of night. Modern body snatchers take tissue from the living, and they do it in daylight. This week in St. Louis, the Eighth Circuit heard an appeal in the case of William Catalona, a famous prostate-cancer surgeon and the man who developed the PSA test to screen for prostate cancer. Over the years Dr. Catalona collected thousands of tissue samples from his patients to help him research this dreaded disease. The tissues were all from individuals who had family histories of prostate cancer, indicating a genetic cause. When Dr. Catalona left Washington University for Northwestern, he wanted to take these tissues with him. Six thousand patients notified the university that they wished their tissues to go with him.

Ignoring the requests of patients, Washington University claimed the tissue collection as its own, and sued Dr. Catalona. In March of this year the district court ruled the collection belonged to the university. Judge Stephen Limbaugh found that the patients had given their tissues to WU as a gift, and therefore the university owned the tissues outright.

The decision surprised many. As a recipient of federal funds, Washington University was required to follow the federal regulations on informed consent for tissues received from patients. This included acknowledging in writing that the tissues would be used only for prostate research, that patients had the right to withdraw from the study at any time, and to have their tissue samples destroyed upon request.

However, Judge Limbaugh ruled that patients had no such rights. In his view, the right to withdraw merely meant the right not to contribute more tissues. The right to have the tissues destroyed meant only that the samples would be used anonymously. The guarantee that tissues would only be used for prostate research could be ignored, and WU was free to use the tissues for any purpose whatever.

This contradicted prior tissue cases in which courts have ruled that written documents do indeed afford patients ongoing rights to tissues after they had left their bodies. The fact that Judge Limbaugh's decision also abrogated federal guidelines left many observers uneasy. In addition there was the awkward legal matter that any donation with these restrictions could not be termed a gift. And the ethical issue was plain. Patients had donated their tissues with a written promise of control. Now that written promise was deemed worthless by a judge.

Research universities around the country greeted the ruling with unseemly enthusiasm, and hastily joined forces to prevent a successful legal appeal. Although the National Institutes of Health and other federal centers conduct research under the federal guidelines, universities now claim that these rules are impossibly onerous and impede research. Unless researchers are allowed to do whatever they want, they warn patients, the flow of life-saving miracles will dry up. This kind of high-handed attitude toward patients went out of style in the 1970s, after the first waves of malpractice litigation brought a bruising new reality to medicine.

Similarly harsh legal actions are likely to follow in the aftermath of the Catalona case. Patients have serious and legitimate interests -- practical, legal and religious -- in their tissues and how they are used in research. If the documents signed for WU are not sufficient to stand up in court, universities will soon face more restrictive language, this time drawn up by patients' rights groups. Major donors may be pressured to bypass universities that refuse to follow federal guidelines; alumni groups may be mobilized to protest university policies. Such tactics are known to be waiting in the wings, pending the Catalona appeal.

For universities, perhaps the most damaging outcome may be the loss of confidence that patients feel in major centers of research and healing. There was a time when physicians were ranked just below Supreme Court justices. Those days are long gone. Our university hospitals and major medical centers still command respect. But the perception that they are businesses like any other is growing stronger every day. Except, they're not -- they're non-profits, exempt from most of the rules and disclosures that are required of American businesses. In short, caveat patiens, keep copies of everything you sign, bring a lawyer to every medical appointment, and always, always watch your back.

This decision is very wrong and in the wrong run hurt biomedical research. If the patients do not have a right to withdraw consent and participation, then less will likely participate.

Flight Club

Very amusing and sadly disturbingly true.

the Iraq Civil War

This is a brilliantly insightful post at the Belmont Club regarding the "civil war" in Iraq. A must read in total but i will just quote the key analysis here:

The first and fatal miscalculation by the Sunnis was to think they could drive the US Armed Forces from Iraq, a gamble which they lost. Encouraged by the absence of a crushing campaign in northern Iraq, itself possibly caused by the absence of the 4ID from the OIF order of battle, and alienated by the American decision to "de-Baathize" Iraq, many former military Sunnis chose to continue resistance using guerilla tactics. By March, 2004 they were ready. The insurgent uprising of early 2004 that culminated in the abortive First Battle of Fallujah, which still saw the Shi'ites in as militarily inferiors. Moqtada al-Sadr's men were as yet limited to their bailiwicks and relatively weak. But doomed attempts to stand and fight against US forces eventually imposed crippling human and material losses on the Sunnis. The border with Syria was more closely patrolled. The US embarked on the what the Belmont Club called the River War to break up the logistical trail up and down the Euphrates. Sunni attempts to keep Mosul within the Sunni orbit also failed. But these were more than tactical defeats: they fatally undermined the strategic basis of Sunni power even as their ethnic rivals gained in strength.

The Sunni insurgency compounded its military failures by ruthlessly suppressing any attempts by their ethnic leaders to participate in political process sponsored by the Coalition and by murdering any Sunni who came forward to join the new Army and Police. The result was that Sunnis were underrepresented in both the Constitutional convention and in the elections of 2005. It was a double-whammy. Not only were Sunni military resources depleted, but they self-selected themselves out of the American sponsored Iraqi government. In my personal view, the Sunnis were encouraged along this path to disaster, not only by the mixed signals sent by the US, which alternately seemed to conciliate and confront them, but also by the coverage of the MSM which trumpeted the view that the Insurgency was growing more potent. Not only did the MSM penchant for listening to Sunni insurgent spokesmen undermine the US effort, it did even greater damage to the insurgents, who believed their own lies and reached for a brass ring fundamentally beyond their grasp.

What news stories missed until very recently was that the insurgent determination to fight increasingly sprang from despair rather than confidence in a Sunni restoration. The recent press release announcing the establishment of a rump Sunni "Caliphate" consisting largely of desert and absurd claims to oilfields beyond their grasp should have signalld how low their ambitions had fallen. But one person who understood how badly things stood for the Sunnis was Abu Musab Zarqawi. In the last months of his life, Zarqawi viewed with mounting alarm the American program to rebuild the Iraqi Army, largely from Kurds and Shi'ites -- since the Sunni insurgents did their level best to blow up any lines of Sunnis who applied for Iraqi Army or Police jobs -- and understood that unless he could drive America out of Iraq by other means all was lost. His solution was to unleash chaos upon everything. Whether or not Zarqawi was truly behind the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra it suited his book. Zarqawi's only thought was to unleash Civil War to politically drive America from Iraq. It was the ultimate Scorched Earth tactic and one welcomed by neighboring countries eager to carve up what carcass would remain. What Zarqawi did not face, or could not face, is what would happen afterward.

Westhawk observes that American officers believe that "Iraq’s Sunni Arabs will continue to fight because they believe they face either extermination or banishment if they do not." With the Sunni military struggle essentially hopeless, efforts to redress the balance within the Iraqi political process arrived too late. The door had been barred by Shi'ite extremism fueled by Moqtada al-Sadr and separately, the agents of Iran. In a remarkable display of nonstatesmanship, the Shi'ite parties headed by Iraqi PM Maliki and goaded by al-Sadr proved less interested in building an Iraq than upon obtaining revenge upon their former masters. They failed to rein in their now powerful militias, increasingly able to harry the Sunnis at will. Then, having slammed two doors in their own faces: that of military victory and that of parliamentary viability, the Sunnis proceeded to bang yet another on their battered visage: the chance of protection under the Americans. After a sequence of failures, the gamble unleashed by Zarqawi ironically began to work all too well. The US electorate, disgusted by the internal slaughter, signalled in the mid-term elections of 2006 that it would consider withdrawal. And that, to the Sunnis spelled D-E-A-T-H. Without America to hold them back, the Shi'ite forces -- which the Sunni resistance and defeat ironically brought into ascendance -- would have no compunctions about slaughtering them. In the beginning the Shi'ite militias were only capable of attacking poor, isolated Sunnis. They are increasingly able to penetrate Sunni neighborhoods and to kidnap and kill former high-ranking Baathists.

Civil war or no civil war, whatever label is placed on the violence in Iraq is largely irrelevant. What is true is that the US presence is not making things worse but better. A US pull out will only escalate the violence to the point that neighboring power will be drawn in. Seeing that the regional powers constitute Saudi Arabia (global oil provider), Iran (wannabe nuclear power), and Syria (regional meddler also in Lebanon), a regional conflict in the heart of the Middle East will make the Iraq problem a global problem.

see also Crossroad Arabia on Saudi Arabia plans for Iraq.

Iraq Violence

As everyone knows, sectarian violence has been at an all time high in the past months. The latest in Bagdad today:

The radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, whose Mehdi Army is held responsible for much of the sectarian killings, threatens his party’s six ministers and 30 lawmakers will boycott the government if prime minister Nouri Maliki meets US president George W. Bush in Amman next week. At least 30 Sunnis were butchered - 6 burned alive - and four mosques torched in the Sunni Hurriyah district Friday by rampaging Shiites seeking vengeance for five massive bombings that left at least 240 dead in Sadr City Thursday, Nov. 23.

As grim as things are, I believe these are unfortunately necessary occurrences if Iraq is to make it. The people on both sides must come to a point when they come to tire of the killing and dying, that violence is an unacceptable mean to settle political differences. Then and only then can the Iraqi government exert it self and be welcomed to it.

We have seen this sort of process before, whether it be Kampuchea or Afghanistan. In IRaq itself the majority of the Sunni tribes having grown weary of Al Qaeda actions in Anbar, have banded together against Al Qaeda.

The Anbar tribes' turn against al-Qaeda has developed significantly since the end of the Anbar Campaign late last year, which swept al-Qaeda and the insurgency from the major towns and cities west of Ramadi. Over the past year, the majority of the tribes have denounced al-Qaeda and formed alliances with the Iraqi government and U.S. forces operating in the region. Numerous 'foreign fighters' have been killed or captured by the tribes. The tribes are working to restore order, and are providing recruits for the police and Army, despite horrific suicide attacks on recruiting centers. These attacks have not deterred the recruiting, but in fact have motivated the tribes to fight al-Qaeda.

More US troops can impose a peace, but it is the sort of imposed peace that only delays violence, as was the imposed peace in the Balkans by Tito.

Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving!

the Fall of Civilization

This article is both disurbing and sad in unbearable ways: Jihadis and Whores

Wars are won by destroying the enemy's will to fight. A nation is never really beaten until it sells its women.

HT: Roger L Simon

the Iraq Solution

There is much talk from the newly victorious Democrats about the solution to the ongoing violence in Iraq. One premise is that as long as the US commitment is open ended, there is little urgency for the Iraqi to come to a political solution to resolve the violence. While superficially, the US presence may have prolonged the resolution of the current sectarian violence, our departure will not usher in a peaceful solution. Without the tempering presence of US troops, violence will likely escalate. The solution then will come when the majority Shia suppresses the minority Sunni by force, while the Kurds will likely withdraw under such "solution." The result is more violence and oppression by arms, not the “political” solution the cut and run crowd think or want to happen.

This was the "political" solution the North Vietnamese chose as well.


I wonder what the "(International Realist) Iraqi Study Group" will recommend.



Related:
The Americans Have Served Their Purpose, And It's Time For Them To Go
Rumsfeld and the Realist

Election 2006 v. 2004: The Losers

Hopefully, this will be my last post on the recent election result, but i do want to make a few observations.

1. I am glad that no one is proclaiming the need to migrate to Canada.
2. I am glad that there isn't any claim of stolen election.

I conclude that some are more mature than others when things don't go their way.

Veterans Day

Respectfully honoring the service of all veterans who have fought for freedom and justice.

Rumsfeld and the 06 Post Mortem

I am disappointed that Rumsfeld is the fall guy for the 2006 election losses for the Republicans. Clearly this was something discussed before last night as evidenced by the announcement within hours of electoral defeat and the immediate nomination of his replacement. I surmise that his resignation prior to today would have been seen as a political move to strengthen the Republican electoral chances, thereby weaken the morale of our troops and strengthened the nay saying hordes on the left. His resignation was an appeasement offering to the Republican Party who viewed that Bush's unpopularity as contributing to their electoral defeat. I do not believe he was forced out. I believed it was freely given, as it was before. Rumsfeld did what he could to transform the military, and I believe he served honorably and contributed significant improvement to our arms forces. His departure is our nations lost.

I am also disappointed because his resignation will not help the Republican cause. I am fairly certain the Republican defeat was in no way related to Bush. Bush's approval rating has consistently been higher than that of Republican controlled Congress. While the Iraq war may have been a factor, it was not the deciding factor. The deciding factor was the failure of the Republicans to deliver to the American people.

What have been wrought?
A drug prescription plan that was needed but birthed with unnecessary complicated rules for an elderly population that needed simplicity.
And little else comes to mind.
Where is the social security reform?
Where is the tax reform?
Where is the immigration reform?
Where is any meaningful legislation to make America better?
Note that G.W. Bush led the campaigns for all of these things, as well as the War on Terror.

Unfortunately, and fortunately, I do not foresee and significant programs or changes in the next two years either.

My advice to the Republican Party:
Start preparing now for 2006 by cleaning out all taint of corruptions now. And that may include forcing corrupt members to resign their seats. As there is no longer a Republican majority, their temporary absence would not be lost. Their replacement should be chosen with an eye toward 08. And on the way to 08, make it about an "ownership society" and about "personal responsibility."


Related on Rumsfeld's resignation:
Austin Bay
Former Spook
On the post mortem:
Former Spook
Roger L Simon

Election 2006: Outcome

As a firm supporter of the war on terror, including the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq, I am rather disappointed by yesterday's election result. I fear that just like when Congress cut fundings for South Vietnam 30+ years ago, they will do so again and abandon the all the millions of Iraqis interested in freedom and democracy. I sincerely hope that with the slew of moderate and conservative new Democrats, this will not happen.

I do believe that the move of the Democratic party toward the center is a good thing both for the Democratic party and the nation as a whole. This nation needs both political parties to be vibrant and reasonable.

I am intrigued by the situation in the Senate. There is an opportunity for the two independent senators, the most prominent being Joe Lieberman (who i liked for 2004), to make a difference as powerbroker between the Democrats and Republicans.

Election 2006

I voted.
I voted to keep the nuts from running this asylum.

2006 Election: National Referendum

The media is presenting this year's mid term election as a referendum on Bush and the Iraq war. Yet, if we believe the polls, the popular sentiment is much more one of displeasure of Congress than of the President. Approval to Disapproval polling for the President is 38%: 56% and for Congress is 27%: 65%. While national politics and issue always are considered, I believe that come Tuesday, the vote will remain a local issue driven election.

Iraq and Iran

What would happen if Iraq descends into chaos. How would the current players respond?

The US would likely retreat into Kurdistan and back into Kuwait.
The Shia and the Sunni will continue to duke it out in the remaining Iraq.

What would Iran do? Would Iran be drawn into Iraq? And could this then either ignite a regional war? If a regional war does not develop could Iran be drawn into an Iraq turmoil, now perpetuated by US and allies, and subsequently destabilize Iran itself?

Interesting.

Pakistan

While the world reacts to North Korea's recent nuclear test, and wait with baited breath as to what will happen next with Iran, I fear that the greatest nuclear danger will be overlooked. Pakistan, a nuclear state, is on the verge of becoming a failed state.

Firstly, Pakistan recently lost its western territory of Waziristan to the Taliban through a "peace" accord. Not only will this provide a haven for the Taliban to continue its activities in Afghanistan, it will allow the Islamofascists to continue to act against Pakistan. Already their influence in the Pakistan secret service continues to destabilize the region through support and planning of the terrorist attack in Mumbai on 711 against neighboring India, they are complicit in the recent bombing attack on Musharraf and the coup attempt against Pakistani president Musharraf. If the Islamofascist succeeds in winning control of Pakistan, they will have won in one stroke a nuclear Islamic state.

A nuclear North Korea can be contained and destabilized with China's help. Probably best done by opening up the border and allow North Koreans to leave. But actual military strike will be unacceptably risky for both South Korea and Japan; at least until an effective missile defense can be fielded.

A nuclear Iran is still a way off. Once there, a pre-empted strike will remain a viable option given the global failure of Diplomacy against North Korea. In addition, access to Iranians to destabilize the current regime in Tehran remains substantial.

But an Islamofascist control of Pakistan can happen over night. The only way this disaster can be averted is for Musharraf to stop appeasing the islamofascist elements of his government and clamp down and cleanse the radical elements, followed by a joint operation with NATO and Afghanistan and reclaim Waziristan.

Washington Scandals

By now we all have heard about the Mark Foley scandal. Nothing further needs to be mentioned here and in truth, it all seems just another example of inappropriate behavior from the politicians of Washington DC.

But I am struck by contrast between the host of allegations of wrong doing leveled against the Bush administration and the paucity of any actual and factual evidence of such. Lots of noise and blusters, very little substance. Sure there was the Plame affair but after all that time and effort, to say nothing of the money spent, the only finding was possible perjury by Scooter Libby. That is it.

This leads me to conclude that the source of allegations against Bush are predicated on political agendas rather than and legal or even moral substance. The Democratic party: lots of sounds and fury, signifying nothing.

Global War on Terror

This weekend saw the report that since 911, Islamic Terrorism has gotten worse globally. Aside from the poor reporting containing only hearsay which not much more need to be said of, if it was meant to be some sort of indictment of the GWoT I think they got it all wrong.

1. In a long war such as this war, if our actions do not anger those trying to destroy us, we are not doing enough.

2. If in being angered they reveal themselves as the Islamofascist that they are wanting to be, then even better and easier for us to kill them.


I do not understand why in waging a war so many still want us to play nice. Wars should be brutal enough to want to win rapidly lest any on either side think to drag it out longer than necessary, and enough so the peace afterward last a bit longer till the next war.


see also:
Roger L Simon's comment
In From the Cold additional snips from the same NIE analysis not reported by NYT or WaPo

Interrogation

Several activities are currently encircling what may or may not happen during interrogation of suspected terrorists.

The president is seeking clarification from the US congress on what is and what is not permissible. This is important to do to maintain legal support for our effort on the war on terror. Whatever is decided, it should not be less permissible than what we could do to arrested criminals.

Whatever policy we adopt will in no way increase or decrease the chances of our captured soldiers from being tortured. We cannot dictate the actions of our enemies. And we cannot hold them accountable. What Geneva Convention signatory nation have been fined or punished for torture? And what of non-signatories like terrorist organization? Will they care that we treat their prisoners nicely and thus not behead ours?

And what are the consequences of an overly strict policy regarding interrogation? Consider this perspective from the WSJ:

Opponents of interrogating al Qaeda detainees keep slandering the Bush Administration by equating all aggressive questioning techniques with "torture." What's more, they seem unable to draw the obvious lessons from our experience handling terror suspects thus far.

Take the case of Maher Arar, an apparently innocent Canadian citizen who was arrested at JFK airport in September 2002 and turned over to Syria -- a process known as "rendition" -- where he actually appears to have been tortured. According to some of our media colleagues, this shows that CIA officials can't be trusted with the authority they're seeking under the proposed new Detainee Act to use a number of "stress techniques" against high level al Qaeda detainees.

But Mr. Arar's case proves exactly the opposite. For starters, it was the Canadian government that supplied what appears to have been bad information about Mr. Arar's alleged al Qaeda ties. More to the point, the temptation to get vital information by "rendering" such suspects for interrogation by governments that have little respect for human rights will only increase if the CIA's own al Qaeda interrogation program is shut down. This may make some in Congress feel better about themselves, but it won't do much for the "rights" of those interrogated.

The White House has been negotiating over the issue with Senator John McCain so U.S. interrogators aren't left in legal limbo because Congress refuses to define our obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It's precisely such legal clarity that will limit potential abuses, rather than leaving Article 3 open to interpretation by individuals -- or by the likes of Syria, since as it stands every country in the world interprets Article 3 in its own way now.

Crucial to any compromise is that the new rules not only protect CIA interrogators under relevant U.S. law (the 1996 War Crimes Act), but also assert our understanding of our obligations under Geneva. This is not about "rewriting" Geneva, as Mr. McCain and others have previously suggested; it is about the necessity of fleshing out what vague Article 3 prohibitions against "humiliating" treatment and the like actually mean.

President Bush has been very strong on this issue so far. We trust he won't endorse anything now that falls short of the comprehensive legal clarity he's been right to demand.

911 Afterward

Our greatest mistake since 911 is that we as a nation have not unified for total war against our enemy.

In waging this war, we should show no mercy to those who have not have not shown mercy to the innocent.

And those who impede out effort should be treated as collaborators and facilitator of our enemies.

Vegetative thoughts

From the WSJ Science section:

In a startling new report in today's issue of the journal Science, however, scientists describe how the young accident victim in a vegetative state shows brain activity consistent with conscious awareness.

When the scientists spoke to her, advanced imaging showed, her brain registered activity in regions responsible for decoding language, just as the brains of normal volunteers do. When they used sentences with homonyms, which require more complicated semantic processing, the appropriate parts of her brain lit up, again just like healthy brains.

Either response might be dismissed as automatic and therefore unconscious. After all, some people in a vegetative state retain "islands" of preserved neural function, Nicholas Schiff of New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center and colleagues found in a 2002 study, but not in areas involved in higher mental function. Similarly, studies have shown that some people who are asleep, under general anesthesia or in a vegetative state show brain activity consistent with perceiving speech and responding to emotion-laden words and their name.

That's why simply responding to speech, admits neuroscientist Adrian Owens of the Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge, who led the new study, is "not unequivocal evidence that [the woman] is consciously aware."

So they asked her to imagine playing tennis. Remarkably, this made neurons fire in the premotor cortex, a region that hums with activity when you mentally practice sophisticated movement, from a jump shot to a backhand. Then they asked her to imagine walking through each room of her house. This time her parahippocampal gyrus, which generates spatial maps, became active, again just as in healthy volunteers.

"We know from extensive research that brain responses of this type do not occur automatically," says Prof. Owens, but "require the willed, intentional action of the participant."

He cautions that the results apply only to this patient, and that others in a vegetative state aren't this responsive. Indeed, 60 previous patients in a vegetative state show no such brain activity, says Steven Laureys of the University of Liege, Belgium. "But she was different," he says. "Her brain activity shows a clear act of intention. The activity in her higher-order cognitive areas means, to me, that she was consciously aware of herself and her surroundings."

Lionel Naccache of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research in Orsay, France, calls the woman's response to the tennis and home tasks "quite spectacular" and evidence of "a rich mental life." But he notes that consciousness, according to neuroscience, requires engaging "in intentional actions or interactions" with the outside world. If she is conscious, why does she show no spontaneous intentional behavior, especially since there is no damage to parts of the brain that control moving or speaking?

Although the woman fits the diagnosis of being in a vegetative state, her brain activity raises the intriguing (or disturbing) possibility that there is a fully conscious being locked in that unresponsive body after all. The scientists doubt this, pointing out that there is nothing wrong with her motor function, so if there really were a conscious being in there she would purposefully move at least her eyes. Cornell's Dr. Schiff suspects that she may at least be moving into "a minimally conscious state."

Stifling Free Speech

It appears that elements of the US government is trying to pressure and influence a broadcast media company. It appears that leadership of the Democratic party is threatening ABC/Disney. Curious:

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events. [...]

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,


Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin

Senator Debbie Stabenow

Senator Charles Schumer

Senator Byron Dorgan

Postwar Germany

Germany lost about 5 million soldiers in World War 2. Survivors were typically those that surrendered. These same survivors would return to rebuild the new Germany. I wonder if the same mindset that led soldiers to surrender has contributed to the current political mentality in Germany and perhaps all of continental Europe, the mindset of appeasement rather than risking one's life for a cause. Interesting.

Lebanon 5: France

Can France be any worse on the world's diplomatic stage? She fights the US for leadership to resolve the Lebanon crisis. She assumes authorship of the ceasefire resolution, UN SCR1701. She talks up leading the UN peacekeeping contingency. And once everything is agreed to upon, France backs out. Words such as fop and cowards spring to mind.

True no one was happy with the ceasefire resolution, but then why craft a resolution that you yourself are unhappy with enough not to want to participate in it? And despite its flaws, there were actual opportunity for France to shine.

I guess if you try to shine France to get a luster, all you get are crumbs.

Lebanon 4: the Players and the Ceasefire

After two days, the ceasefire in southern Lebanon appears to be holding. Here is my break down of how the various players fared.

Hezbollah has claimed a strategic victory over Israel in this latest conflict. This victory claim is partly true. Unlike all the previous Arab opponent of Israel, Hezbollah did not fold and this in itself is a feat, at least in Middle Eastern Arab context. But I suspect this strategic victory will be hollow. Firstly, they did not get widespread Arab state support that they had hoped for beyond their backers in Syria and Iran. As most Arab states are Sunni oriented, they and their Iranian handlers will now be seen as a greater threat to the region rather than an asset. How much of a threat will determine how much the Arab governments will take to counter them regionally. Secondly, their ability to manipulate western media has been degraded to some degree. An organization like Hezbollah requires sympathy from Western "progressive" to limit and minimize actions from Western "neocons." Losing both widespread Arab support and Western sympathy would be catastrophic. Thirdly, if the ceasefire does hold, Southern Lebanon remains devastated. If Hezbollah cannot deliver on its public service arena with humanitarian relief, they will be held accountable for the failure to rebuild as well as at fault for starting the war. Fourthly, surviving a military invasion that was limited in scale is not true military victory, and it could lead to hubris overconfidence. Already Hezbollah supporters and their family are streaming back into Southern Lebanon. I suspect this is partly to clog the roads south and delay deployment of the Lebanese army and UN "peace keepers" until they have replenished personnel losses in the south and partly to present a tougher resistance to any attempts at disarmament. However, if the ceasefire does not hold, this will only place more Hezbollah in vulnerable positions for elimination by Israel. Finally, there is no doubt Hezbollah as a military power has been significantly degraded. And unlike Israel, their military re-armament will be even tougher than before. Their claim to victory thus rest solely on survival, a survival that remain significantly threatened in peace ever more than before.

How Israel fared depends on what its true intention was in going into Lebanon and this remains unclear. I believe it is unlikely that Israel entered Lebanon in order to destroy Hezbollah, as this was simply not possible without an invasion of all of Lebanon and likely Syria as well. By the limited expressed goals and limited commitment of military resources, Israel was intentionally limiting its response to minimize the chances of a regional war. I believe Israel's true intent was to surprise Hezbollah with a disproportionate military response to degrade Hezbollah military capability, goad Hezbollah into revealing its missile capability and subsequently destroy them, and uncover international and Middle Eastern governments involvement and response. Certainly Hezbollah was caught off guard by the extent of Israel's response and though they survived it, they will certainly have to consider whether the capture of 2 IDF soldiers and claims of victory based on survival will be worth the price paid. Though thousands of missiles were launched into northern Israel, actual damage was minimal and thus their launch was essentially useless. The longer ranged missiles capable of greater damage were also exposed and likely more were destroyed than launch. Their destruction was likely, as they require a larger launch platform, and thus easier to spot for destruction. Unclear is how much Hezbollah was goaded into using their longer range missile rather than hiding them, but the surprise of Israel's disproportionate response would certainly lead Hezbollah to do as much as they can to strike back. In addition, two useful bits of information was also obtained by Israel, that Hezbollah did possess guided ordnances in the form of unmanned aerial vehicles but not possess weapons of mass destruction. On the international front, I believe Israel had to feel pleasantly surprised by the tepid support from regional Arab governments at the outset of the war. This support waned only when Israel failed to deliver a decisive blow quick enough. But Israel's limited military commitment was a calculated act as evidenced by gradual escalation and commitment of forces, especially the intentional call up of reservists as a ceasefire was being negotiated. Certainly Israel must feel some confidence that should Hezbollah violate the ceasefire, they have room to act decisively against Hezbollah. Over all, Israel did not lose with the current ceasefire. In essence, Israel's incursion into Lebanon was essentially a reconnaissance in force. Victory remains within Israel's reach should the Hezbollah violate the ceasefire.

The Lebanese government continues to be paralyzed. While the ceasefire affords them the opportunity to retake southern Lebanon, Hezbollah has not been sufficiently degraded to be disarmed by the Lebanese army. The paralysis comes from both the lack of capability and ability to confront and disarm Hezbollah, as well as continued lack of political will to do so. Hezbollah continues to hold too much political influence within the Lebanese government. Despite what claims of victory Hezbollah claim, now that the ceasefire has taken effect, the general Lebanese ill will toward Hezbollah for reckless adventurism will once again reasserts itself as the devastation will be compared to no gain whatsoever beyond boasting. In addition, any violation of the ceasefire by Hezbollah will be widely perceived even more so as HezbollahÂ’s problem with adventurism. It is also interesting to note that Hezbollah may realize this and thus have proclaimed victory for Lebanon instead of victory for Hezbollah alone. Objectively Lebanon lost, its southern infrastructures devastated, Hezbollah remains armed, and the ceasefire will end sooner or later.

The clear winner thus far is Syria. Firstly, it retains considerable influence in Lebanese politics and continues to perpetuatepoliticall division in Lebanon. This influence for division is the surest way to crush the Cedar revolution and keep Lebanon dependent on Syria. Secondly, as Hezbollah will need to be re-armed by Iran, Syria will continue to profit economically in the transfer ofmaterialss to Hezbollah, paid by Iran, as well as entrench its role as facilitator for Iran. Likely, we can expect greater muscle flexing by Syria in Iraq as well. Thirdly, even with the UN forces in Lebanon, Syria can be certain that in any direct conflict with Israel that a fair amount of Israel's military resources will be pinned toward Lebanon.

There is mixed result for Iran. In the short term, Iran has demonstrated that it can wield military power beyond its border in the form of Hezbollah. In addition, it can take some credit in Hezbollah's performance against Israel. However, substantial resources in arming Hezbollah has been squandered by Israel's disproportionate response. Years went into supplying Hezbollah and Iran certainly would have preferred to deploy them at a time of its own choosing. In addition, Iran's hand has been revealed to all and this will have consequences. At the United Nations, a tougher response can be expected to Iran's nuclear ambition. In addition, of the powers at work in the Middle East -- Arabs, Persian, Turks, Western, and Islamofascists -- to the Arabs, Iran has just declared itself as the biggest threat. The Turks have been dormant and will likely remain so in the next decade or two, the Western powers have been engaged as partners while kept at arms length, and the Islamofascists are already being hunted down andexterminatedd throughout Arab states. Iran has little to gain from being in such a position.

Another winner from this conflict is France. France has demonstrated its international power and influence by authoring the ceasefire resolution. Her stature has been elevated from her low of not being able to prevent the invasion of Iraq. France will also have direct influence in Lebanon when her troops are deployed as part of the UN force. The last time France was in Lebanon, her paratroopers were killed en masse by Hezbollah's suicide bombing along with the US marine barracks. While the risk of a repeat incidence exists, France's likely reaction wouldn't be withdrawal as before. Whether France can stomach military action in Lebanon against Hezbollah, or Israel, will depends on whether France thinks she can wrestle control of Lebanon from Syria.

I suspect the main reason why the United States supported the ceasefire was because of Iran, the perceived greatest threat to US interests in the region. By endorsing the ceasefire resolution in Lebanon, the US can maintain public and diplomatic scrutiny on Iran. Certainly the US can appease its ally Israel by resuppling Israel forces, assist with some reconstruction, and still be reassured that Israel will survive and be in a better state for the next (or re-newed) actions in Lebanon. For the US, the ceasefire was a regional delay action, as well as provide basis for more aggressive action, possibly including direct military action or via Israel, against Iran. Whether the US come out as the winner or the loser will depend on what happens with Iran. Only then can the ceasefire be deemed worthwhile for the US. However, I believe Iran is beyond negotiating with and the Western allies will lack the resolve to act.

Like France, the United Nations appears to have won. Diplomacy has worked again to keep the peace. But there can be no peace until one side is defeated. There were no defeats in the latest Lebanon war. Hezbollah's declaration of victory is not the same as Israel's declaration of defeat, and there was no such belief in Israel. In fact, Israel's grumbling is that more was not done in the war. This is a recipe for re-newed violence.

Also worth reading:
Counterterrorism blog's analysis of winners and losers.
Willisms' comment on victory and defeat.
Debka for current behind the scene machinations.

Fake but Real 2

Or how the MSM lap up staged propaganda pieces and present it as news. Here we see the "behind the scene" directing and display of object deaths:

From the Middle East to the World

HT to Crossoads Arabia.

Firstly, an arab background article on Hezbolla and Iran. No wonder then that most Sunni arab governments less than ardent support for Hezbolla against Israel. Once again, this only serve to remind us that the whole War on Terror is really a regional Middle East war between moderate and radical muslims, secular and islamist, as well as between Shia and Sunni, for domination in the Middle East. The west was caught in the crossfire for inadvertantly supporting the status quo of the region trying to evolve.

During the student uprising in July 1999 and the violent confrontations that followed between Arab residents of the Iranian city of Ahvaz and the security services, many student leaders and Arab officials in the city spoke about the presence of hundreds of Arab troops within the ranks of the Iranian security forces and the Revolutionary Guards units quelled the protests.

At the time, it was thought these Arab troops were members of the Badr Brigade, the military wing of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq . Yet, many who encountered these foreign soldiers commented on their Lebanese and Syrian accents.

The issue remained a mystery until this week, when Ali Akbar Mohatashemi, the former Iranian ambassador to Syria and the founding father of Hezbollah, revealed that members of the Party of God participated in the Iran-Iraq war side by side with the Revolutionary Guards. He described the relationship between Hezbollah and the Iranian regime as much more than the one linking a revolutionary regime with a foreign organization. Hezbollah, he indicated, is one of the institutions of the ruling regime in Tehran and a main element of its military.

Secondly is this piece on how the Muslims, like their secular "neocons" polars in the west, have come to see the uselessness of the UN.

Last week Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi spoke of growing Muslim contempt for the UN because of its failure to condemn Israel for the attack on Qana or the killing of UN observers at Khiam. At that time, little did he or anyone else realize how fast that contempt would spread. The way the UN draft resolution on Lebanon has been handled has all but finished the UN in the eyes of Arabs, Muslims and many other fair-minded individuals who belong to neither of those two groups. There should have been — could have been — a UN cease-fire resolution at least a week ago. There still isn’t one. Hundreds of Lebanese have died, victims as much of UN dithering as of Israeli bombs or Hezbollah missiles.

* * *

The UN’s political impotence has tainted it in Arab eyes. For 58 years it has been unable to protect the Palestinians; it failed the Iraqis and now it has failed the Lebanese. US vetoes to protect Israel along with the Jewish state’s unpunished refusals to comply with resolutions as well as Washington’s unpunished illegal invasion of Iraq have robbed the Arabs of any enthusiasm for, or faith in, the world body. This belated and crafty resolution — good only in that it may stop the killing — changes nothing.

Fake but real

This is an amazing expose by LittleGreenFootballs:

What was published by Reuters for July 26:

What was published by Reuters for August 5:

Note the Reuters modification of the lower left corner, and how miraculously new duplicate buildings have sprung up in the past 2 weeks, not to mention the fake photoshoped smoke.

I for one am glad that there are blogs like LGF that watch the MSM.
Funny and sad that one of the old role of the MSM was to watch the original watchmen, the government.


Background of the MSM gullibility if not culpability in broadcasting propaganda:

The Opposition

The essential problem of the left is moral and cultural relativism. Thus they seek equality for the sake of equality without consideration for morality or justice. Those that have only have because they took from those who do not have. The haves must be made to give back to those who don't have. This is the crux of the left domestic policy. Those that are strong must be oppressing those that are weak. The strong must be made weak. This is the crux of the left foreign policy.

Note that the ideology is to bring down the system rather than to actually help those who need help. Take from the rich rather than to make the poor richer. Weaken the strong rather than strengthen the weak. Currently the West (and the Israeli as pertains to the Middle East) are both prosperous and strong, thus they must be opposed with each breath.

Moral and cultural relativism is a rotten core belief yet it can perpetuate as long as there are those who have more and those who are stronger.