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.