Target Centermass

Month: February 2006

  • Dems May Unite on Plan to Pull Troops

    Apparently, the Democrat party is gelling around the idea that strategic redeployment is a double-plus good strategy for Iraq. To translate from their window-dressing newspeak, the accurate phrasing they’re looking for is, in a word, retreat.

    After months of trying unsuccessfully to develop a common message on the war in Iraq, Democratic Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.

    The concept, dubbed ”strategic redeployment,” is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall. It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007, although many Democrats disagree on whether troop draw-downs should be tied to a timeline.

    Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee chairman, has endorsed Korb’s paper and begun mentioning it in meetings with local Democratic groups. In addition, the study’s concepts have been touted by the senator assigned to bring Democrats together on Iraq — Jack Reed of Rhode Island — and the report has been circulated among all senators by Senator Dianne Feinstein, an influential moderate Democrat from California.

    The party remains divided on some points, including how much detail to include in a party-produced document, fearful of giving too much fodder for attacks by Republicans.

    The concern for campaign accusations of defeatism and retreat are well placed, as those are the actual features of the plan.

    ”We’re not going to cut and run — that’s just Republican propaganda,” Dean said in a speech Feb. 10 in Boston. ”But we are going to redeploy our troops so they don’t have targets on their backs, and they’re not breaking down doors and putting themselves in the line of fire all the time. . . . It’s a sensible plan. It’s a thoughtful plan. I think Democrats can coalesce around it.”

    Reed, an Army veteran and former paratrooper who has been charged with developing a party strategy on the war, said the plan is attractive to many Democrats because it rejects what he calls the ”false dichotomy” suggested by President Bush: that the only options in Iraq are ”stay the course” or ”cut and run.”

    ”It’s important to note that it’s not withdrawal — it’s redeployment,” Reed said. ”We need to pursue a strategy that is going to accomplish the reasonable objectives, and allow us to have strategic flexibility. Not only is it a message, but it’s a method to improve the security there and around the globe.”

    Withdrawal is redeployment. Black is white. Up is down. Running away from hardship is strengthening security. Granted, there are times the latter may be true; however, this is not one of those times, as radical Islamists will immediately declare it a victory so great that the Somalia tail-tucking will pale in comparison.

    Under Korb’s outline, all reservists and National Guard members would come home this year. Most of the other troops would be redeployed to other key areas — Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, and the Horn of Africa — with large, quick-strike forces placed in Kuwait, where they could respond to crises in neighboring Iraq.

    Yes, let’s immediately declare that our military’s reserve components, long held as a key portion for our national security plans, are now to be kept safely under glass — only break in the event of a hurricane.

    Korb said in an interview that setting dates for troop withdrawal would send a message to the Iraqi people that the United States does not intend to set up permanent military bases in Iraq. Starting the redeployment quickly will ensure that the Army does not wear out before the insurgents do, he said.

    Trust me, the message would also be sent to our Islamist enemies — bleed us and we will flee, and we’ll set a date that you merely have to hold out to that you can enter into your Defeat-America project plan.

    But some strategists say the goal of a near-total withdrawal within two years is overly optimistic. US troops that are a plane ride away won’t be an effective deterrent, and Iraqi security forces appear unlikely to be able to handle the violence on their own in the near future, said Michael O’Hanlon, a centrist defense specialist who is a lecturer at Princeton University.

    ”You’re demanding that the political system produces a miracle,” O’Hanlon said. ”Any plan that envisions complete American withdrawal in such a period of time is still a prescription for strategic defeat.”

    Quite freakin’ right.

    In November, Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, shook much of Washington with his call for an immediate withdrawal of troops, and his estimate that all troops could be out of Iraq within six months. The generally hawkish Vietnam veteran also called for quick strike forces to remain close to Iraq — similar to the Korb plan — but that was largely overlooked in the barrage from Republicans.

    White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the Murtha plan amounted to ”surrender to the terrorists.”

    Yes, the Democrats seem to be on the verge of rallying around an only-slightly modified version of the Murtha plan for retreat, a plan that lacks substance in the areas of actually maintaining an abililty to respond quickly enough to in-region actions and a threshold at which such re-engagement would be justified. In short, the plan offers the Iraqi government the same hollow promise we gave the South Vietnamese in 1973: we’ll be there if needed. The only problem is the Islamist terrorrists, the Iraqi people and the whole world know that we failed on that earlier promise.

    Hat tip to Charlie Munn of the Officers’ Club, who points out some key contradictions in the so-called strategy in the following:

    Next, what other key areas do we need 130,000+/- troops deployed to? (I would answer “Iran”) Afghanistan is being effectively handled by SF and light units, putting power in the hands of the locals and backing them up with a small US footprint. Does this new strategy suggest that we’ve been bungling OEF, and we need to put mech and armor units on the ground? Same with the Horn of Africa- if our footprint is the problem in Iraq, why is it the solution in other places?

    Further, the logic for this “strategic re-deployment” seems to be that US forces are causing terrorist attacks simply by being there (echoes of Osama). Following that logic, anywhere we deploy we will be attacked, so we might as well not do any military operations anywhere, ever. Also, if the threat is currently in Iraq, and we “strategically re-deploy” to where the threat is not, it is rather easy to label this strategy as a “cut and run.”

    Yes, it does seem to be a strategy of being where we ain’t targets. Well, it doesn’t take much to figure the counter-strategy for the radical Islamist bastards — hit the American military wherever they are and watch them flee all they can flee.

    Damn, but I do hope the American public sees this for the defeatist retreat that it is.

  • Chavez Says He may Seek to Stay in Power

    I’m posting this so that those decrying the Bush presidency as a fascist regime can get a glimpse at how a true despotic dictator really begins to take root.

    Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, whom the US calls a destabilizing force in the region, warned on Sunday he might seek constitutional change to be allowed to seek re-election several times.

    Chavez, a leftist closely allied with communist Cuban President Fidel Castro, is seeking the one re-election allowed by the Constitution, in an election scheduled for Dec. 3.

    “If there is no opposition candidate … I would consider signing a decree to hold a referendum asking `Do you agree Chavez should be allowed to seek a new term in 2013?’ and let’s let the people decide,” Chavez said on his weekly radio and TV program.

    Venezuela approved a new Constitution in 1999 under which Chavez is able to stand for another six-year term.

    Political opponents long have accused him of plotting to extend his government in the manner of his ally Castro.

    “Maybe I won’t be leaving the presidency in 2013, but in 2019, and then six more years would be 2025; six more would be 2031,” Chavez said.

    The thought, he explained, “is just an idea that I am working on.”

    And thus, our hemisphere has its next Castro. This one, however, is betting on oil instead of cigars.

    Any news of similar notions coming forth from the supposed Bushitler regime? Umm … no.

  • Reid: More Understanding for Troops Needed

    ‘Tis sad that things have come to a point where a British official must almost beg for his nation to not rush to judgement of its men in uniform.

    Defence Secretary John Reid has called for more understanding of the difficult tasks British troops face in conflicts around the world.

    He asked politicians, pundits and the public to be “a little slower to condemn and a lot quicker to understand” what life is like on the battlefield.

    Advances in technology meant soldiers “have never been under greater scrutiny”, which he said created an uneven playing field for British troops.

    […]

    “We ask an enormous amount of our troops; that the most junior faces risks, dangers, threats unimaginable to most of us; that our officers take calculated risks, and make immediate life and death decisions upon which literally thousands of lives may depend,” Mr Reid said.

    His remarks come in the wake of an international outcry over a video of soldiers beating unarmed Iraqi youths.

    The footage has reportedly lead to regional Iraqi councils in Maysan and Basra ending all co-operation with the British Army.

    Three soldiers have already been arrested in connection with the incident while military police have interviewed four youths about the attack.

    Any abuses by British forces had to be condemned but involved less than 0.05% of the 100,000 troops sent to Iraq and should be kept in perspective, he added.

    And just what did I omit from the above selection? What did my “[…]” skip over? Just the following:

    Just hours after his keynote speech in London, hundreds of mourners gathered for the funeral of Corporal Gordon Pritchard who last month became the 100th British forces member to die since hostilities started in Iraq. He was killed when the Land Rover he was travelling in was hit by a roadside bomb.

    Ah, the ever-present reminder of casualties. Nothing about how Gordon Pritchard lived, but just the fact that he died, thrust into a barely-related story. However, I’m sure the British media do a better job than their American counterparts at covering the abuse stories and accomplishments of their own troops. Well, maybe not, as a Brit veteran is, like Reid, also all but begging for the media to reel itself in on its coverage.

    A former soldier who served in Iraq has urged the media to exercise great care in coverage of the conflict.

    Iain McMenemy was speaking after Defence Secretary John Reid called for more understanding to be shown towards British troops serving in Iraq.

    Mr McMenemy said it was right that abuses by troops were dealt with.

    However, he warned against a focus on “snapshot” incidents and said there should be a greater emphasis on the pressures troops face.

    […]

    Mr McMenemy, from Larbert, near Stirling, was a Territorial Army soldier who served with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

    Recalling his reaction on seeing the controversial video footage, Mr McMenemy said: “It comes as a punch in the guts really that the soldiers have carried these actions out because it is going to be used, no matter what the circumstances, to stir up further tensions.

    “But I have to be honest and say I also do get a little bit annoyed that you never hear it from the soldier’s side, you only see the effect, we never actually see the cause.

    “We don’t know what happened to lead to what we’ve seen in the videos or the photographs. We only get that very, very small snapshot.”

    Mr McMenemy said that there was “no excuse” for soldiers acting irresponsibly.

    […]

    Mr McMenemy, a business consultant, said the defence secretary was right to raise concerns that the public were only seeing a “snapshot” of what goes on in Iraq.

    There are similar pleas on this side of the pond, as the conservative group Progress For America has published a couple of videos of veterans and families of our fallen trying to rouse support by espousing our under-reported progress and the nature of our enemies. Unsurprisingly, they have come under attack from the left.

    It has long been the popular notion that Hitler’s 1940 invasion of the Soviet Union was the blunder that cost Nazi Germany the Second World War. Often cited are the mistakes of opening a second front or being unprepared for the Russian winter or incapable of dealing with the eventual accumulation of Soviet resources. Today’s stories led me to think of another reason to consider Operation Barbarossa a mistake — the move depleted the desire for the leftists among the Commonwealth and its soon-to-be-official Yank allies to undermine their own countries’ war efforts, as Allied victory also became intertwined with the salvation of the then-gem of the socialist dream, the U.S.S.R. Bad move, Adolf, some of them might’ve helped ya, if only for deluded reasons. After all, that’s how the term useful idiots came to be.

  • Quote of the Week, 20 FEB 06

    Nothing is worse than that the soldier feels himself neglected in this respect, and to believe himself subject, without his own fault, to an effect to which he is powerless. Defeat would thus appear excusable, and success cannot have a worse enemy than this feeling.

    —General Kolmar von Der Goltz, on morale

  • Looks Like Nothing Tonight

    PWN3D!!!!!!111 again by the oncall pager. I highly doubt there will be any other posting tonight, though I do hope to get the chance to reply to a couple of comments, especially Vash’s latest.

    Might I suggest a visit to some of the fine blogs on my blogroll?

  • Defunct French Warship Ordered Home after India Shunning

    Jacques Chirac has acquired another political black eye as France once again signals retreat.

    After a two-month voyage bound for India’s shipwrecking yards, France’s defunct aircraft carrier Clemenceau is returning home after experts concluded it carries far more asbestos than French authorities originally claimed. The saga of the Clemenceau was an embarrassment for the French government.

    Once the pride of France, the decommissioned warship is now the country’s shame. After weeks of uncertainty over the Clemenceau’s fate, French President Jacques Chirac ordered late Wednesday that the ship return home. Mr. Chirac’s decision comes on the eve of a visit to India, where opposition has been growing against the ships planned dismantlement in the Alang shipwrecking yards.

    Ever since the Clemenceau steamed out of the port of Toulon on December 31, it has been the object of a growing international dispute. Greenpeace and several environmental groups argue it carries far more asbestos on board than the 45 or so tons French officials first claimed. Egyptian authorities originally blocked the Clemenceau from entering the Suez Canal en route for India, for fears of its toxic cargo.

    When Egypt finally gave the green light, the Clemenceau received another setback: India’s supreme court barred the ship from entering Indian waters pending a determination whether the ship was too hazardous to be dismantled. That decision was expected Monday. But the court said it would tap a new committee of experts, and make a final ruling scheduled for Friday.

    Greenpeace hails Mr. Chirac’s announcement as a victory.

    Yannick Jadot, head of Greenpeace’s campaign in France, told French radio that he hoped Paris will assume a leadership role to ensure other toxic European ships are dismantled safely. He said safeguards were needed so poisonous materials could be removed from such vessels without harming the environment or workers’ health.

    As much as I relish an international embarrassment for Chirac, I am loathe to grant any encouragement to Greenpeace.

    The Clemenceau is now returning to France. For the time being, its unclear just where it will finally be dismantled.

    Likewise, I will not be celebrating such an ignominous demise for what was certainly once a proud vessel. Those who served upon her should step forth and demand an honorable resolution for the carrier.

  • Prosecutors to Introduce Alleged Terror Camp Photos

    Details of the prosecution case against a father-son pair of would-be domestic Islamist terrorists are surfacing, including satellite photos purported to show an al Queda training camp in Pakistan.

    The government has satellite images of a suspected al-Qaida training camp that federal prosecutors claim was attended by a man on trial for terrorism-related charges, according to a prosecution brief.

    Prosecutors had previously said they would seek to introduce images from Pakistan but had not publicly disclosed the nature of those photographs. The evidence is expected to be a key part of the government’s case against 23-year-old Hamid Hayat and his father, Umer Hayat, 48.

    On Wednesday, a jury of six men and six women was seated for the trial of Hamid Hayat, who is charged with supporting terrorists by attending the camp in 2003 and 2004 and then lying about it to the FBI. Opening statements are scheduled to begin Thursday.

    The government also claims the son planned to attack hospitals and supermarkets after he returned to the U.S.

    Umer Hayat is charged with lying to the FBI about his son’s attending the camp. His portion of the trial is to begin next week before a separate jury that was seated Tuesday.

    Both deny the son attended the camp. In their brief, prosecutors did not offer any direct evidence that he did, such as photographs or witness accounts that place him there. Rather, their case centers on statements the men made to a confidential government informant in the U.S., the men’s purported videotaped confessions and the photographs they say show the actual camp.

    The Pakistani government denied any of the camps exist. Prosecutors, however, said they have satellite images “of a location consistent in appearance with the militant training camp that Hamid Hayat ultimately confessed that he attended,” according to the 60-page trial brief filed Tuesday night.

    The document outlines the government’s case against the father and son from Lodi, an agricultural community about 35 miles south of Sacramento. Both have been in custody since their arrests last June and have pleaded not guilty.

    […]

    Umer Hayat is charged with two counts of making false statements to FBI agents and faces eight years in prison if convicted. His son is charged with three counts of making false statements to the FBI about attending the camp and with providing material support to terrorists. If convicted, he faces up to 31 years in prison.

    Meanwhile, the defense has concocted a stunning argument.

    Defense attorneys have not offered an alibi to show that Hamid Hayat was anywhere other than where prosecutors say he was. But they contend the informant asked leading questions and that the FBI pressured the father and son to confess without a lawyer or interpreter present.

    Damn those leading questions.

    Mark my words — Islamist terror will assuredly come to our shores again. Thankfully, I’m pretty sure these two bastards won’t be involved.

  • Brrreeeport on Love-child Rape Trial

    The Brrreeeport visits South Africa, where a strange courtroom tale is unfolding.

    An unexpected family link between South African ex-Deputy President Jacob Zuma and a judge has left questions over the future of his rape trial.

    South African media have revealed that Mr Zuma has a son whose uncle is a judge who was to have heard the case.

    The 29-year-old man’s mother is the sister of Judge Jeremiah Shongwe.

    Judge Shongwe was due to judge the case after Bernard Ngoepe stood down at the defence’s request, and Phineas Mojapelo stood down for “personal” reasons.

    Mr Zuma’s defence team would have raised the issue of the blood connection in court if Judge Shongwe had not stood down from the case, the Star newspaper reports.

    The recusal of the three most senior judges of the Transvaal region – Judge President Ngoepe and his two deputies, Judge Mojapelo and Judge Shongwe – has left uncertainty over who will preside over the Zuma trial when it resumes in the Johannesburg High Court on 6 March.

    The Brrreeeport suggestion? Let Judge Judy have it.

    Oh yeah, and just what is the Brrreeeport? Just a little blogosphere jacking with the search engines, courtesy of Scobleizer (hat tip to Llama Butcher Steve).

  • A Tale of Two Duh! Headlines

    Please be so kind as to file them both under the “well, I should freakin’ hope so” category.

    Poll: Americans fear Iran will develop, use nukes

    Americans are deeply worried about the possibility that Iran will develop nuclear weapons and use them against the USA, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds, but they also fear that the Bush administration will be “too quick” to order military action against Iran.

    […]

    There is little doubt among Americans about Iran’s intentions. Eight of 10 predict Iran would provide a nuclear weapon to terrorists who would use it against the USA or Israel, and almost as many say the Iranian government itself would use nuclear weapons against Israel. Six of 10 say the Iranian government would deploy nuclear weapons against the USA.

    I’ll admit, I’m editing quite selectively, but the story really did try to hide the meat of the poll behind the numbers based upon a so-far successful undermining of the Bush administration and piss-poor reporting of our successes in Iraq.

    US and Israel ‘trying to destabilise Hamas’

    Hamas has accused the US and Israel of refusing to accept the result of a democratic election, after a report that the two countries are discussing means to destabilise and bring down a Hamas-led Palestinian administration.

    The New York Times, citing diplomatic sources in Jerusalem, said Washington and Israel intend to block funding for the Palestinian Authority in an attempt to ensure that Hamas cabinet ministers fail and new elections are called.

    After Hamas’s election victory, the US and EU warned the Islamist group that unless it renounced violence and recognised Israel’s right to exist they would cut funding for the Palestinian Authority.

    Let’s see … a terrorist organization is rightfully elected the run the Palestinian state-or-whatever. The two governments that have previously shouldered a lion’s share of the funding for the state-or-state-of-anarchy balk. Is this undermining or just a shade of common-sense diplomacy? I’m voting for the latter, and I would really like to see a little hardball played here — the Palestinians made a choice and Hamas must find a way to function as a true government or fail upon their promises. After all, they have a rather sizable role to play in the violent anarchy over which they now supposedly govern. That Hamas would decry a withholding of funding from those they’ve deemed enemies is a truly special brand of weak victimization for a state-or-state-of-bloodletting that has already banked for years upon its claims of victimhood.

  • 2006 Milblog Conference in the Works

    Thanks to Andi’s World, the first-ever Milblog conference has been scheduled for 22 APR 06 in Washington, D.C.

    The conference is designed to bring milbloggers together for one full day of interesting discussion on topics associated with milblogging. We will explore the history of milblogs, as well as what the future may hold for this medium which the military community is using to tell their stories.

    The milblog community is diverse, and we intend to showcase the full spectrum of milblogs, including those who have blogged from theater, veteran members of the armed forces, spouses and parents.

    Registration for the conference is free of charge. Due to seating limitations, there are only 300 seats available for this event. Milbloggers and/or members of the military community will be allowed to pre-register. There are 150 seats reserved for the military community.

    Pre-registration will begin on February 8 and continue through midnight February 15. Any slots not filled by milbloggers will be given to the general public. Registration for the public will begin on February 16. All registrations are first-come, first-serve.

    The list of panelists is quite impressive, including several members of my blogroll. The Gunn Nutt (Aut Pax Aut Bellum, babe), a planned live-blogger of the conference, is justifiably star-struck by Blackfive’s listing of blogs that have already signed up for the event. Note to self: go over list again and update blogroll.

    As for myself, I would love to attend although, to be honest, I sometimes question my credentials as a real Milblogger with my ’90s era National Guard time. Also — and this is a pretty damned big “also”– it is slated for a mere two weeks before my wedding, so I’d really have to check some scheduling issues. I wouldn’t mind checking out some of my old haunts in D.C. again. Hmmm … tempting, very freakin’ tempting.