Here is an optimistic article about incoming Secretary of Defense, by Michael Barone:

I've just finished reading Robert Gates's memoir, From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War. It's a well-written, thoughtful book, leavened by occasional injections of nerdy humor.

........................................................................................

The picture I get of Robert Gates from his book is that of a careful analyst, one who sees American foreign policy as generally and rightly characterized by continuity but one who sees the need for bold changes in response to rapid changes in the world — and doesn't look for answers from the government bureaucracies. He is very much aware that we have dangerous enemies in the world, and he was willing over many years to confront them and try to check their advance.

Basically, Michel Barone thinks that Robert Gates is a competent leader, not afraid to act and defend his point of view, without regard to political correctness.  Let's hope he is right.

Link to Michael Barone's article

America is the world's hyperpower. No other nation or group of nations can challenge us militarily or economically. Unlike sickly Europe, we are growing, not contracting. But we are about to be defeated in Iraq by a few thousand cutthroats.
    How did this happen? It's simple: The only thing powerful enough to defeat us is ourselves, and we've done it.

 

........................................................................................

 

The president's people continue to insist he will settle for nothing less than victory in Iraq. But look at the Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton Commission), from whom the president so looks forward to hearing recommendations. As the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Rubin notes, the commission has claimed to be taking a fresh look but has already stacked its four subordinate expert working groups with committed opponents of the war.
    Mr. Rubin writes: "Raad Alkadiri, for example, has repeatedly defined U.S. motivation for Iraq's liberation as a grab for oil. Raymond Close, listed on the Iraq Study Group's Web site as a 'freelance analyst,' is actually a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which, in July 2003, called for Vice President Dick Cheney's resignation for an alleged conspiracy to distort intelligence, which they said had been uncovered by none other than Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The following summer, Close posited that 'Bush and the neocons' had fabricated the charge 'that the evil Iranian mullahs inspired and instigated the radical Shia Islamist insurgency.' To Close, the problem was not Iranian training and supply of money and sophisticated explosives to terrorists, but rather neoconservatism."
    The rumors about the commission's report, due next month, suggest co-chairs James Baker III and former Rep. Lee Hamilton will recommend a "grand bargain" among the warring factions in Iraq and enlist cooperation of Iraq's neighbors in pacifying the country.
    Iraq's neighbors? Iran and Syria? The nations bankrolling and supplying the internecine violence? The nations that are the world's top sponsors of terror? Iran: the nation that boasts of its genocidal ambitions toward Israel and the United States even as it races -- against the express wishes of the entire civilized world -- to obtain nuclear weapons? The nations that have the most to gain from our failure?

 

........................................................................................

 

The only alternative to the surrenders on offer by the Democrats and by the "realist" Republicans is a renewed determination to win. The assassins in Iraq pursue their dirty war despite the cost because it is succeeding. They know they are on the cusp of driving us out. But if, just to fantasize for a moment, we were to redouble our efforts, send more troops, kill the insurgents and convey our unflinching determination to win, the psychological effect would be enormous. And all wars are, to one degree or another, psychological.
    A few months ago, the Weekly Standard magazine asked, "Will We Choose to Win in Iraq?" Tragically, I think we have our answer.

A Washington watchdog group is trying to make sure Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings does not rise to the chairmanship of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence without the public knowing the full record surrounding his 1989 impeachment as a federal judge, including condemnation from a fellow black lawmaker and leading member of his party.

The non-profit CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, has posted records of the congressional impeachment proceedings of Rep. Alcee Hastings, who was convicted by the Senate after the House impeached him on bribery and perjury charges.

The House transcript shows Rep. John Conyers of Michigan disputed allegations Hastings was a victim of discrimination because he is black.

Conyers said that while some suggested the House's decision might be affected by racism, "I do not believe that to be the case."

"A black public official must be held to the same standard as every other public official," Conyers said. "A lower standard would be patronizing. A higher standard would be racist. Just as race should never disqualify a person from office, race should never insulate a person from the consequences of wrongful conduct."

Hastings released a letter Wednesday to Democratic members of the House saying he deserves the job despite his conviction, the Los Angeles Times reported. The congressman lashed out at his critics, saying they were bent on "denying me a position I have certainly earned and am completely competent to perform."

Hastings argues he was acquitted in a 1983 criminal trial based on allegations he conspired to accept a $150,000 bribe for granting a lenient sentence to two defendants convicted in his court of racketeering.

Hastings, nevertheless, was impeached by the House by a 69-26 vote and convicted in the Senate on eight of 17 articles of impeachment. He has been in Congress since 1992.

If this is a representative of the "most ethical Congress", then we are in deep trouble.

Well, I finally got around to write a Thanksgiving post.  Thanksgiving is a quintessentially American holiday.  So, what am I thankful for?  I am thankful for my family, for my wonderful wife and 2 beautiful girls.  I am also thankful for the generally pretty good life I have.  But who should thank for all this?  The religious people thank G-d for all their blessings.  But I am not religious enough in order to do that.  And then it dawned on me.  I should thank this wonderful country called United States of America and its wonderful people.

So, thank you, America, for existing, for being a beacon of freedom in the world where freedom is far from being commonplace.  Thank you for making freedom your "national idea", if you will.

Thank you, America, for accepting me as your own.  You welcomed me, my family and friends and made us all Americans, part of your great people.  You accept anybody who is willing to be accepted.  You made acceptance and tolerance part of your ideology too.

Finally, thank you, America, for defending "liberty and justice for all" all over the world.  Your young people volunteer to go and fight for what's right and moral.  If I were 20 years younger I would have joined them (lame excuse really, but that's the only one I have).  Winston Churchill once said: "The Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they had exhausted all other possibilities".  He knew what he was talking about.  It is only natural to try "all other possibilities": people always look for easy solutions.  But in the end Americans do the right thing, no matter the cost, for doing the right thing is a part of American ideology too.

Thank you, America.

This is the modified WW2 poster.  The modern American soldiers in Iraq were added to the original by the San Diego Chapter of Protest Warrior.

MOSCOW —  Russia has begun delivery of Tor-M1 air defense missile systems to Iran, a Defense Ministry official said Friday, confirming that Moscow would proceed with arms deals with Tehran in spite of Western criticism.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue, declined to specify when the deliveries had been made and how many systems had been delivered.

Ministry officials have previously said Moscow would supply 29 of the sophisticated missile systems to Iran under a $700 million contract signed in December, according to Russian media reports.

The United States called on all countries last spring to stop all arms exports to Iran, as well as ending all nuclear cooperation with it to put pressure on Tehran to halt uranium enrichment activities. Israel, too, has severely criticized arms deals with Iran.

........................................................................................

Russian media have reported previously that Moscow had conducted talks on selling even more powerful long-range S-300 air defense missiles, but Russian officials have denied that.

Moscow already has a lucrative, $800 million contract to build Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant, which is nearly complete. Interfax reported Friday that the head of Russia's atomic energy program, Sergei Kiriyenko, was due to travel to Tehran on Dec. 11 for a meeting of the Russian-Iranian commission for trade and economic cooperation, which he co-chairs with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.

This has happened before:

This of course led to this:

Has anything changed since then?

Link to FOXNews.com - Russia Sending Air Defense Missile System to Iran - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

This should give you pause:

Tehran, 20 November 2006 (CHN Foreign Desk) -- Iran and Mexico will sign cooperation agreement for developing cultural heritage and tourism interactions between the two countries.

The agreement will be signed in the Mexican capital during the visit of Esfandiar Rahim Mashayi, president of Iran’s Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization (ICHTO) to Mexico. During his visit, Rahim Mashayi will meet with Mexico’s ministers of tourism and culture to discuss the terms of cooperation in detail.

Announcing this news, Mohammad-Kazem Kholdi-Nasab, director of ICHTO’s International Department said: “The protocol of cooperation has already been submitted to the Mexican cultural heritage authorities and Mashayi’s visit to Mexico aims at expanding mutual cooperation between the two countries in different fields related to cultural heritage and tourism industry.”

So, what kind of tourists should we expect to see south of the border?  Not that Northern border in any better shape.

Link to CHN | News

No, not really.  But they might just as well (again, thanks to LGF):

French soldiers in Lebanon who feel threatened by aggressive Israeli overflights are permitted to shoot at IAF fighter jets, a high-ranking French military officer told The Jerusalem Post.

Wednesday, several days after meeting with an IDF general in Paris to discuss what he said was a "blatant violation of the cease-fire."

Last weekend, Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan, head of the IDF Planning Directorate, traveled to Paris and met with military officials to explain why the IAF flies over Lebanon despite the UN-brokered cease-fire.

Nehushtan, new to his post and previously deputy commander of the air force, told his French counterparts that Israel was conducting the flights to collect intelligence on Hizbullah positions in southern Lebanon.

........................................................................................

The French told Nehushtan they would view further aggressive flyovers as a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

So, basically the IAF is attempting to at least do part of what the useless UNIFIL is supposed to do in order to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1701, and the French call it a violation of the said resolution.  But wait, there is more:

France's furor at the overflights was not divorced from French domestic political considerations, government officials in Jerusalem said Wednesday.

France is scheduled to hold the first round of presidential elections in April, and one of those reportedly considering tossing her hat into the ring is Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie.

According to these officials, taking a tough stance toward Israel on the issue - a position that grabs headlines in France - helps her raise her profile.

The officials said it didn't hurt Alliot-Marie politically to be seen as someone who needed to be "held back" from responding forcefully to the overflights.

So, there you have it.  During World War 2 the Nazis had a bunch of allies who were either indifferent or outright hostile to the Nazi persecution of the Jews.  Italian Jews were relatively safe under Mussolini, until Italy switched sides, and the Germans occupied the northern part of the country.  Bulgarian tsar Boris protected his Jewish subjects.  Jews even served in Finnish Armed Forces.  Hungarian Government resisted the Nazi policies toward the Jews.  In Romania majority of the Jews also survived the Holocaust.  Basically, in the instances when all these Nazi allies instituted anti-Semitic policies, they did so only to the minimum in order to satisfy the Germans.  Their main reason for joining the Germans in the first place was their fear (well founded, I might add) of Stalin's Soviet Union.  And only Vichy Government actively collaborated with Nazi policies and ran its own concentration camp in Drancy.  What has changed?

 What did your grandma do?  Or, perhaps, still does?  My grandma baked yummy pies and cookies, occasionally stayed with me when I was little, so my parents could go out, and generally spoiled me, the only grandkid growing up close to her.  Most grandmothers do that.  But not all.  Here is what I found via Little Green Footballs:

JABALIYA, Gaza Strip (AFP) - A Palestinian grandmother blew herself up in the Gaza Strip, lightly wounding three Israeli soldiers, in the first suicide attack claimed by Hamas in almost two years.

The mother of nine and grandmother of 41 became the oldest Palestinian suicide bomber at the age of 57, selecting as her target troops operating near her northern Gaza home in Jabaliya, seeking to curb near-daily rocket attacks on Israel.

"Troops saw a woman approaching them in a suspicious manner and identified her carrying an explosive device," an army spokeswoman said.

"They then threw a stun grenade in her direction but she managed to blow herself up," she added, adding that three soldiers were lightly hurt.

Within minutes the armed wing of the Hamas claimed the bombing. This was the Islamist group's first suicide attack since January 2005, when a bomber wounded seven Israeli soldiers in Gaza.

"The Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades claims the martyr operation carried out by Fatima Omar Mahmud al-Najar, aged 57, in the middle of a group of Zionist soldiers," an online statement said.

This death cult granny did not think that raising her grandchildren was a worthy cause.  Instead, she proclaimed this:

"I am the martyr Fatima Najar from the town of Jabaliya. I work for the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades and I sacrifice myself for God, the nation, the Al-Aqsa."

Just for the record, it was not the first attack in two years.  It was the first attack that succeeded in getting far enough along to actually be carried out.  Thank G-d, nobody was killed.  Yes, I do mean "nobody": crazy old lady monster bent on genocide does not count.

One more thing.  For all intents and purposes Palestinians already have a state with its own government (Hamas) and the government military organizations (Hamas military wing being one them).  Thus, any attack on a neighboring country (Israel) constitutes an act of war, and should be treated as such.

Link to Exploding granny - Yahoo! News

 by Tony Blankley

Here is an important article by Tony Blankley of Jewish World Review:

We have the most profound obligation to attempt to calculate the consequences of the impending American decision to wash our hands of the Iraq unpleasantness. In that regard, the words of President Kennedy come to mind: "There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction."

If we, the most powerful force on the planet, in a fit of disappointment and anger at our bungling policies to date, decide to shrug off our responsibilities to the future — we will soon receive, and deserve, the furious contempt of a terrified world. In fact, even those Americans who today can't wait to end our involvement in the "hopeless" war in Iraq will — when the consequences of our irresponsibility becomes manifest — join the chorus of outrage.

Expedient Washington politicians, take note: Your public is fickle. They may cheer your decision today to get out of Iraq but vote you out of office tomorrow when they don't like the results.

Much of the world (and a fair portion of the American public) may hate us today for our alleged arrogance. But they will spit out our name with contempt through time if we permit to be released the whirlwind that will follow our exit.

........................................................................................

We have only two choices: Get out and let the ensuing Middle East firestorm enflame the wider world; or, stay and with shrewder policies and growing material strength manage and contain the danger.

Those who call themselves realists are the least realistic. Their great unreality is that they can't imagine that the passions of the people — for good or ill — are to be reckoned with. Thus it was they who for half a century supported and exploited the Middle East dictators who caused the Islamist pathologies that threaten the world today. It is they who will do business with the corrupt dictators to the very minute that they are overthrown by the Islamist mobs. They will keep the cash register humming until it is flooded with blood. The "realists'" unjustified conceit is, today, the most dangerous pathology facing America.

As in all struggles, each side will make mistakes. We have certainly made several. But as the last century's great chess master Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower once famously observed: "Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake." Retreating from Iraq would be the last mistake.

Read the whole thing.

Link to Making the last mistake in Iraq

 Thanks to Little Green Footballs, I found this:

Priest, nun from Michigan join dozens of Palestinians gathered at Gaza houses in effort to prevent bombing, say ‘If Israel claims family member involved in violence, arrest them, don’t’ destroy home populated by entire family’

........................................................................................

Sister Mary Ellen told Ynet, “We are here to find out the truth and to be with the family and these people, who are trying to prevent the demolition of a home where an entire family lives.”

The Sister continued, “We are against any type of violence, whether from the Palestinian side or the Israeli side, by we are here to be with a family that may have their house bombed and demolished because of the claim that one or two members are involved in violence.”

She explained, “We are against any type of collective punishment and feel this punishment is wrong, a complete mistake. If the Israelis claim a family member is involved in violence, then they can arrest them, but not destroy a home populated by an entire family.”

Meanwhile, here is a related story from World Net Daily:

TEL AVIV – The only way to stop the regular rocket fire on Sderot, an Israeli city of about 20,000 nearly three miles from the Gaza Strip border, is for the Jewish state to evacuate the entire city, Hamas announced in a statement today.

"Only the departure of residents from Sderot will stop the rocket fire," Abu Abaida, spokesman for Hamas' so-called military wing, said in a statement to reporters.

"There are no limits on our rocket attacks and we will prove that in coming days. We advise residents of Sderot to evacuate," the Hamas spokesman said.

Asked by WND if his statement was rhetoric or whether the Hamas leadership actually sanctioned a call for Israeli residents to evacuate, Abu Abaida replied, "We are very, very serious. The evacuation can be done in the next days or even up to several weeks, but it must be done. And after that, we will stop all rocket fire unless the Zionists continue more military operations in Gaza".

So far, no human shields came to Sderot.  As Charles of LGF noted, if they did, they could actually get killed: Palestinians will not have any problem killing them.  They routinely deliberately murder civilians anyway.

Link to New in Gaza: Priest, nun human shields - News from Israel, Ynetnews

and to Terrorists give order: Jews must evacuate from FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU

This is a very scary scenario: 

"Russia is going through a religious transformation that will be of even greater consequence for the international community than the collapse of the Soviet Union," said Paul Goble, a specialist on Islam in Russia and research associate at the University of Tartu in Estonia. 

Two decades ago, the Sobornaya Mosque was the only Islamic house of worship allowed in the Soviet Union. It stood largely empty, filling only with the occasional large foreign delegation from an Islamic country. 

Today, it is one of four mosques in Moscow serving a Muslim population of about 2.5 million. On Fridays and holy days, it overflows with worshippers, leaving many to kneel on newspapers outside, their foreheads pressed against the concrete.

........................................................................................

Russia's overall population is dropping at a rate of 700,000 people a year, largely because of the short life spans and low birthrates of ethnic Russians. According to the CIA World Factbook, the national fertility rate is 1.28 children per woman, far below what is needed to maintain the country's population of nearly 143 million. The rate in Moscow is even lower, at 1.1 children per woman. 

Russia's Muslims, however, are bucking that trend. The fertility rate for Tatars living in Moscow is six children per woman, Mr. Goble said, while the Chechen and Ingush communities are averaging 10 children per woman. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of Muslims from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have been flocking to Russia in search of work. 

Russia's Muslim population has increased by 40 percent since 1989, to about 25 million. By 2015, Muslims will make up a majority of Russia's conscript army and by 2020 one-fifth of the population. 

"If nothing changes, in 30 years, people of Muslim descent will definitely outnumber ethnic Russians," Mr. Goble said.

I've heard from some Evangelicals believing in "end of days" that during the last conflict of the mankind Israel will be attacked from some country in the North, which, as they explained, is Russia.  I always dismissed it.  Besides the fact that I am not religious at all, I always thought that an attack from Iran is much more likely (I believe that, theology aside, that is what's going to happen).  But if Russia gets taken over by Islamists, this "end of days" scenario all of a sudden doesn't seem so unlikely.  Also, if something like this happens, America will come to the rescue of those in Russia who refuse to submit to Islamo-Fascist rule.  There are many people in Russia who keep blaming US for all the trouble in the world.  So, perhaps it is time to remind to those people an old Russian saying: "Don't spit into a well: you might have to drink from it".

Link to FrontPage magazine.com :: Islamic Russia by Michael Mainville

This is another great article by Victor Davis Hanson:

Will the West Stumble?

By Victor Davis Hanson

What a stupid question. By any benchmark of economic prosperity, military power, and political stability, Western civilization--in the United States, Europe, and the former British Commonwealth--has never been stronger. Globalization has become a euphemism for Westernization, an apparent unstoppable juggernaut.

So how could the lingua franca of English, uniform international travel, or worldwide commerce ever falter--given that American-style material bounty is spreading among billions the world over?

But the global sale of PlayStation 3 or a world in Levis is only the glitzy veneer of civilization. That shared taste almost unnoticeably hinges on a powerful and liberal United States that keeps the peace and remains the spiritual and intellectual fountainhead of an entire global system--one ultimately dependent on American core ideas like freedom and tolerance. What pressures China to liberalize, protects the creativity of Japan, assures Europeans they can be postmodernists in safety, and guarantees that the world commerce is protected from both old and new piracy is a confident and strong United States.

In contrast, grant a jihadist his 7th-century dream world, and within months even he wouldn't have a cell phone signal to call in an IED explosion.

........................................................................................

There is a sick ingenuity of a sort that can disguise terrorists as state policemen in Baghdad to kidnap and torture the innocent, and outwit Humvees with land mines. The improvised explosive device, with help from Iran, gets ever more complex. And there is a great deal of mental energy, time, and money that went into making rockets and suicide belts or even the graphics on a bin Laden infomercial.

How odd that Iranians cannot design a car or computer, but can with the proper instruction manual spend millions of hours putting together Western-designed centrifuges, like the stamped lettered-parts of a build-it-your-self intricate model toy.

This is just a teaser.  Read the whole thing.

Link to RealClearPolitics - Articles - Will the West Stumble?

This almost sounds like a joke, yet it makes perfect sense:

One of the strangest, and most useful, bombs employed in Iraq has been the concrete filled JDAM. Why deliver a 500 pound bomb filled with concrete instead of explosives? You do that if you want to do some damage, but not a lot. Concrete JDAMs were first used in the 1990s to destroy anti-aircraft guns, radars and missiles that Saddam Hussein placed in residential areas. He believed that the Americans would not attack these weapons, for fear of hurting nearby civilians. But it turned out that a laser, or satellite (JDAM) guided concrete smart bomb could take out the air-defense weapons without hurting nearby civilians. The concrete bombs come in various sizes (500, 1,000 and 2,000 pounds), but the new 500 pound JDAM has become a favorite when a concrete version is required. Recently, for example, two small bridges near the Syrian border were seen being used by terrorists to bring in people and weapons. There was no need to completely destroy the bridges (which might take months, or longer, to replace), because the terrorists were slowly being chased from the area. But a concrete bomb on each bridge damaged the structures enough so that they could not be used, but not so much that they could not be repaired in a week or two. Concrete bombs are still used against terrorist targets in residential areas, where the bomb can reach the terrorists before police or ground troops can. It’s all a case of a seemingly off-the-wall weapon idea being, not a joke, but actually quite useful.

Link to Why Concrete Filled Bombs are So Damn Useful

Here is an interesting article from World Net Daily:

Wafa Sultan, a native of Syria, seized attention worldwide in February when her electrifying interview on Al-Jazeera television spread across the Internet through a video clip produced by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Named this year to Time Magazine's list of 100 influential people in the world, Sultan spoke with WND after addressing a symposium on radical Islam and terrorism in Las Vegas hosted by America's Truth Forum. She understands Bush's position as president and believes he is only trying to be diplomatic, but insists, nevertheless, his words are "empowering" Muslim leaders whose ultimate aim is for Islamic law to govern the world.

"I believe he undermines our credibility by saying that," said Sultan. "We came from Islam, and we know what kind of religion Islam is.

........................................................................................

Sultan, who identifies herself as a secular ex-Muslim, told WND she would urge Bush to take a closer look at Islamic culture and its general embrace of violence as a means of establishment and expansion.

There isn't really much to add.  I am going to post a reminder of this courageous lady said on Al-Jazeera:

Sultan: "The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations," she said. "It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete."

Al-Qasim: "I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?"

Sultan: "Yes, that is what I mean."

Al-Qasim: "Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind. ..."

Sultan: "The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: 'I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger.' When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to stop this war, they must re-examine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels."

Link to WorldNetDaily: Bush empowering terrorists, charges vocal Islam critic

While we are on the subject of PC War, here is an article I wrote during last summer for the Old War Dogs, after a long conversation with my college friend in Israel:

A PC War?

My conversation with a friend in Naharia.

Alex and I went to college together back in Leningrad, now St.-Petersburg, Russia. He now lives in Naharia, a little town on the North of Israeli Mediterranean Coast. Majority of Americans probably have never heard the name of this town until a little over a week ago, when Hezbollah rockets started raining on it. Knowing that he and another college friend were living in Naharia, I naturally got a little worried when Hezbollah started shooting at their town, so I e-mailed them, asking how they were doing. The other guy went to Tiberias with his family, to stay with yet another college friend. Alex chose to stay in Naharia, and on Wednesday I finally got a reply from him. It was my first vacation day, and I was still at home. So we established a connection via MSN Messenger and had a lengthy conversation about how things were in Naharia and in Israel in general. Below is the summary of what he told me.

1. The damage:

According to Alex, those Katushas do very little damage. They are pretty old and not very powerful, not to mention their inaccuracy. Of course, if one of those rockets hits your apartment, it will destroy it, but the rest of the building would remain pretty much intact.

2. The reaction of the population:

My friend was actually pretty disgusted with the fact that the whole North of Israel was effectively shut down. That was also the cause of his general pessimism about our overall perspective in the current global conflict (I obviously do not separate the Israel’s war for survival from the wars we are fighting: we are fighting common enemies). After talking with Alex I actually came to appreciate seemingly useless calls for business as usual, including shopping, after 9/11: the life should not stop because of the enemy action. We should look at Londoners during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz for an example: they kept their bombed out shops and cafes open for business. In contrast, Naharia, according to Alex, turned into ghost town, even though many apartments, especially the newer ones, have their own bomb shelter rooms. This does not reflect well on the residents of Northern Israel. On the other hand, there is no reason to keep people not needed for defense in harms way unnecessarily. I would like to think that, when it becomes necessary, the Israelis will stand and fight. Otherwise we are all doomed: Israelis are very similar to Americans, and what applies to them, applies to us.

3. The military action:

That is where the term “PC War”, as in “politically correct”, comes into play. According to my friend, the Israelis keep bombing and shooting at empty buildings, a la Clinton, in order to minimize Lebanese civilian casualties. They even go as far as notifying when they are about to bomb some building where they suspect Hezbollah might be, so that the civilians would evacuate. As a result, they damage the Lebanese infrastructure much more than Hezbollah’s capabilities. The only real way to deal with Hezbollah is to conduct a ground operation with full force, but they don’t do that because they don’t want to look as invaders and, most importantly, they don’t want to suffer casualties. As a side note, I saw the news this morning, and they said that the Israelis are preparing for the ground offensive. But that was CNN: my hotel does not have FOX. They also said that the Lebanese Army is going to fight the Israelis, which is totally beyond me: they should be joining the Israelis.

4. The competency of the government:

Alex is very unhappy with their Defense Minister. He says that the guy is basically a high school dropout who just rose through the ranks of government bureaucracy and is just a political appointee without any experience in defense matters (he is not a career military guy). He probably served in the military, since it is mandatory, but a private can hardly be a Minister of Defense.

5. The media:

The Israeli media is just as idiotic as ours. They just blabber their collective mouth without thinking of the consequences. For almost a week they reported every rocket hit with accuracy down to a street corner, in real time, both on TV and on the web. People who have even rudimentary understanding of military operations, let alone a real combat experience will immediately understand the meaning of this. If you are a Hezbollah terrorist launching rockets at Israel, you don’t need any forward observers: having a local news channel on along with something like Google Maps next to your rocket launcher will do just fine for your fire correction. It took a week for the Israeli government to stop the news media from being forward observers for Hezbollah. Can you imagine an ACLU lawsuit claiming a violation of the freedom of the press? The moonbats in this country would immediately scream: “Censorship!” At least, after a week the Israeli government stopped the craziness.

6. Why it has started and how it should end:

This is something that probably we all would agree with. Alex said that the whole mess started because Israel is no longer feared by its enemies. If any Hamas rocket attack would have been treated as an act of war that it was, and triggered a massive retaliation in response, if the original Hamas kidnapping of a soldier triggered an immediate full force invasion of Gaza, none of it would have happened. But the Israelis have waited too long, while just pumping their chests. My own comment is that they failed to follow a Teddy Roosvelt’s doctrine: “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. This kind of mess happens if you do just the opposite: speak loudly and carry a small stick. As for how this all will end, Alex was very pessimistic. He thinks that the most likely scenario is that the UN will impose the ceasefire, Hezbollah and Hamas will return the bodies of the soldiers, and the periodic attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas will continue, slowly chipping away at Israel’s dignity, will and long term chance for survival. That, by the way, applies to the rest of the Western World. I am not ready yet to share my friend’s pessimism, but he does make good points. The right way to deal with Hezbollah is, of course, a massive ground invasion, not just by Israel, but by an international force, including the Lebanese Army, in order to clear out Hezbollah. But of course, there is no international force capable or willing to do the job. UN forces in Lebanon routinely just drink tea with Hezbollah terrorists. The only force capable of defeating Hezbollah, other than fully committed Israeli Army, is US military. I don’t see that happening at this time. So, if Israel does invade, it will be condemned as an aggressor. The Lebanese Army will actually fight against IDF, even though the IDF will be doing their job for them, just because it is Israel. IDF should go in and clear out Hezbollah anyway. We’ll see if they will really do it.

There you have it. My friend is there, in the thick of it. While we were talking, he said that there was an explosion somewhere in the area. It probably wasn’t too close, since I did not hear it. I am still much more optimistic than my friend. But if we lose our will to fight, Robert Ferigno’s Islamic States of America will become a reality. I hope it does not happen.

In case you follow the link to the original Old War Dogs publication, let me clarify a little misunderstanding.  My friend George Mellinger, a. k. a. Rurik, noted that any international force would be counter-productive.  He is right, of course, but that is not what I meant.  When I talked about international force, I was day-dreaming about a coalition similar to the Allies of World War 2.  That is, after all, exactly what is necessary in order to fight this new kind of Fascism.  There is always hope.

Yesterday, thanks to Little Green Footballs, I found this story:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - Hundreds of Palestinians formed a human shield around the home of a militant in the northern Gaza Strip late Saturday to prevent an Israeli air strike on the building, residents said.

People flocked to the home of Mohammedweil Baroud after he received a warning from the army late Saturday giving him 30 minutes to leave the house.

Barhoud is a commander in the Popular Resistance Committees in the northern town of Beit Lahiya and said to be in charge of firing homemade rockets at Israel. Crowds of people stood on the rooftop and in the yard of the home.

LGF did not comment on this story, other than emphasize the AP bias.  I, however want to turn attention to the insanity of warning your enemy to evacuate the targeted location before it is hit.  For comparison, imagine warning the Nazis before the Allied airstrike on the V2 rocket factory in Peenemünde.  Or, just imagine warning the Nazis before any Allied airstrike on V2 rocket launchers.  But as bad as this was, today it has gotten even worse (again, thanks to LGF):

BEIT LAHIYA, Gaza Strip - Hundreds of Palestinians serving as human shields guarded the homes of two top militants Sunday, a new tactic that forced Israel to call off missile strikes on the buildings and re-evaluate a mainstay of its aerial campaign in Gaza.

In recent months, the Israeli air force has repeatedly struck the homes of militants after warning residents by phone to clear out. Israeli security officials said they did not know how to respond to the human shield tactic, but pressed ahead with other airstrikes Sunday.

........................................................................................

The army said it called off the nighttime airstrikes because of the crowds. It condemned what it said was a cynical exploitation "by the terrorists of uninvolved people as human shields."

Israeli military officials acknowledged they had no solution for the standoff. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

I have a "solution for the standoff": bomb them anyway.  There will be no "standoff" the next time.  If the Allies would have conducted World War 2 this way, we would be speaking German and Japanese.  No, let me correct this: you, my fellow Americans, would be speaking German and Japanese.  As for me and my family, we simply would not be around to speak anything.

 Thanks to Old War Dogs satellite blog, Bill's Bites, I found these 2 proposals on how to achieve victory in Iraq.

The first one is by Major Eric England, published in the Weekly Standard:

Failure in Iraq is not an option, because it would spell disaster for U.S. national security and foreign policy credibility, not to mention military morale. Our mission in Iraq continues to move forward, and U.S. forces have successfully defeated the insurgents in several areas, yet the enemy has proven resilient and effective. Thus, we must succeed in Iraq by changing the status quo.

The plans for victory so far have fallen short. They have come, top-down, from the Pentagon or the palaces-turned-coalition headquarters in Baghdad. Now, American leaders, especially the nominee for secretary of defense, should consider a bottom-up plan to win that taps the collective grass-roots wisdom of successful battlefield innovators. In particular, there are six course corrections that can be taken almost immediately.

1. Encourage innovation by emphasizing small-scale technological solutions and rejecting peacetime bureaucracy.

........................................................................................

Deploying unit commanders, most of whom have already served at least one tour in Iraq, must have direct input into how supplemental funds are invested in new technologies. Technology providers should conduct road shows to earn at least some funding approval and priority from ground commanders.

In Washington, there remains too much focus on massive technological efforts that cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take years to develop, test, and field. Meanwhile, low-cost programs like remote handheld cameras, biometrically-capable, Wi-Fi enabled PDAs, and tethered blimps with mounted cameras are put on the back burner. To inspect suspicious objects that could be roadside bombs, troops have resorted to spending their own money to buy remote-controlled cars with jerry-rigged mounted cameras because the thousands of remotely controlled robots in Iraq are held by specialized bomb disposal units.

........................................................................................

2. Improve pre-deployment training realism and abandon Cold War-era checklists.

When troops were first preparing to deploy to Iraq, they followed the same checklists that had been used in the Cold War and Gulf War that focused on the conventional military's core mission: "high-intensity conflict." Once the invasion was successful, though, the threat facing our troops changed as the insurgency started using ambush tactics, but the training and preparation that our troops receive has not kept pace.

"Train how we fight" is a mantra in the military, and for good reason. Training intensity and realism is the number one predictor for combat success, especially when facing a thinking, adaptive enemy who observes our patterns and exploits perceived vulnerabilities.

........................................................................................

3. Allow local commanders to buy what they need and nationalize the war effort by connecting the American public with the troops and their mission.

The troops need more support, from both the military and the American people, and the ground commanders must be empowered to lead our national effort to support them. The localized insurgency, coupled with an adaptive, resilient enemy means the troops on the ground best understand how to win. Our support should fulfill their stated needs, not what Congress, the Pentagon--or even the generals in Baghdad--think they ought to need.

We need to expand "commander discretionary funds" to give each battalion commander a large budget, on the order of $3 million, to spend as they see fit both before they deploy and while in country, with appropriate accountability. This would allow commanders to take action that will help the mission, but which bureaucratic practices currently prevent. For example, they could buy video cameras and phones to give to locals so that they can film and report insurgent activity; or hire military-aged males to clean roads and dig trenches that improve security while providing jobs to men who would otherwise be recruited as insurgents. It would also allow ground forces to reward a neighborhood chief with a few electric generators for his support of our mission, or to hand a $20 bill to a local who identifies a bomb that could have killed several soldiers.

........................................................................................

4. Strengthen intelligence sharing between tactical and national levels, and develop a national insurgent database.

We must have better intelligence on the enemy, especially human intelligence. Our existing intelligence technologies were designed during the Cold War to spy on conventional armies that use bases, have tanks and aircraft, and communicate on identifiable radio frequencies. In Iraq, however, the enemy lives in civilian neighborhoods, drives civilian cars, uses weapons composed of readily available materials, and communicates via civilian mobile phones and the internet.

In a Cold War scenario, the U.S. intelligence community would collect intelligence about enemy activity that would subsequently filter "down" to the maneuver units. Today, however, the case is often reversed. Ground units get the first information about an enemy, often by going on a raid and learning about the individual's ties to other insurgents. As that intelligence is sent "up," the national organizations focus collection efforts accordingly.

There are success stories in Iraq where units have provided tactical intelligence to a national organization, then national came back with amplified intelligence that led the unit in a successful operation against more insurgents. This model can and should be applied more broadly.

........................................................................................

5. Take the offensive by reducing predictable patterns on the ground while conducting operations that hunt, rather than chase, the enemy.

U.S. forces need to reduce the predictability of their movements. To do this, generals in Baghdad should stop requiring units to report the number of patrols conducted, and instead focus on effective offensive operations. The current emphasis on gauging unit effectiveness by the quantity of patrols conducted keeps the troops too busy to conduct quality operations that offensively hunt the enemy.

Accordingly, the generals should forbid a common practice that needlessly endangers our troops. "Presence patrols" are a legacy from Bosnia, where many of today's lieutenant colonel battalion commanders conducted peacekeeping operations as junior officers. Presence patrols involve troops simply driving around to show a military presence that ostensibly deters one side from attacking another.

The problem is that Bosnia is not Iraq, where the enemy just wants to attack U.S. forces, so we end up needlessly giving them opportunities to do so. While some units have stopped using the phrase "presence patrol," the emphasis on quantity of patrols still results in U.S. forces going out on the roads without a meaningful offensive purpose in mind.

........................................................................................

6. Accept the realities of warfare in the media age by decentralizing the sharing of information with both the Iraqi and the American public.

The government and military must better communicate its message--to both Iraqis and the American public. The hurdles posed by political correctness and self-imposed bureaucratic constraints must be cleared in order to balance the insurgents' current control of the airwaves. Their "flaming car bomb-a-day" television propaganda campaign has dominated the media debate since late 2004, negating or neutralizing any reports of positive news.

........................................................................................

Thus, the Pentagon should abandon its reflexive instinct toward control of information that has led it to seek to ban personal cameras and blogs. Instead, a "unit blogger" approach should be applied across Iraq, with appropriate guidance and training to preserve operational security. Tactical units should each have two members who are trained in public relations and equipped with high-quality cameras and laptops with video editing software, and offered incentives and rewards for effective reporting. They should record unit activities in writing and video, and share them with the American people via sites modeled on wildly successful pro-military websites, such as Blackfive.net and MoveAmericaForward.org.

........................................................................................

THE U.S. MUST win in Iraq. This can be achieved sooner by making these six key course corrections. The top U.S. Army general recently announced plans to have the same number of troops in Iraq until at least 2010, so there is time to change regardless of what happens in the next congress, and change is urgently needed as public figures show October was the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Iraq.

The second one is some unnamed officer's proposal, published in Time Magazine:

1) The Jawbone: Convene a meeting with the most senior members of the U.S. and Iraqi governments to explain that the U.S. is prepared to commit greater forces and resources for a period of one year, ONLY if Iraqis commit to decisive action to quell the insurgency and the civil war (which includes immediately starting to disarm the militias). It will be made crystal clear to Baghdad that without the Iraqi commitment — which will be measured monthly to ensure adherence — U.S. forces would immediately begin their withdrawal. Gen. John Abizaid started to do just that during his meetings in Baghdad this week, speaking more directly to the Iraqi government and asking for a timeline.

2) The Strong Arm: In the short term, have the four military services, the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force, prepare plans for a one-year surge in Iraq. Commit to destruction of the insurgent forces in Ramadi, Hit and the other Anbar strongholds... whatever it takes. Reinforce key cities like Baghdad and Basra. The best guess is that this will require 20,000 more U.S. troops on the ground. The U.S. military should rapidly increase the number of U.S. advisors for the Iraqi Security Forces — to some 15,000, up from about 7,000. It should also maintain the covert special operations forces to track, capture and kill high value insurgent targets.

3) The Swagger: President Bush should give a speech to the U.N. in which he calls on other nations to either support the new Iraq or stop providing support and weapons to insurgents and militias; declares that most fundamental goals in Iraq were achieved, but the hope of democracy in Iraq is in the balance and only the Iraqis can determine that outcome; reminds the U.N. that lack of support for the peaceful option — smart sanctions — was doomed to failure when they were undermined by many in the audience; implicitly threatens that if nations contribute to instability and violence in Iraq, they would be considered enemies of the U.S.; warns not to mistake U.S. withdrawal for defeat, stating that any nation that exports violence and terrorism from its borders will find an resolute foe in the U.S., and may have to suffer consequences; and asks for separate meetings with Iranian and Syrian leaders. And while making the above points forcefully, the President should also offer a significant carrot like increased diplomatic and economic contacts with countries like Syria.

4) Send In The Striped-Pants-and Money Set: In the short term, flood Iraq with seasoned U.S. diplomats in a new initiative to work with the Iraqi government and various factions to discover ways to ameliorate the dire conditions and heightened tension. The diplomats who refuse to go would be forced to leave government — three years into the war the State Department has managed to staff only 52% of its positions dealing with Iraq. Recruit and deploy economic managerial expertise from the U.S. government and private sector to find ways to employ Iraqis. In the short term, find ways to increase the availability of dependable power, clean water, fuel, etc. Give the tribal leaders cash incentives to protect Iraq's oil facilities and pipelines or suffer the consequences.

5) The PR Op: In the short term, overwhelm Iraq with an information campaign that declares that the U.S. will establish no permanent bases in Iraq, and will be out in a year. And make clear that the issue of sustained aid to Iraq will be dependent on their willingness to reconcile differences and quell the insurgency.

There are similarities between these two plans.  One thing I disagree with in the second plan is the suggestion not to keep any bases in Iraq.  We still have our bases in Germany and Japan.  Why should Iraq be different?  In fact, in my opinion, one of the unspoken reasons to go to war in Iraq in the first place was the necessity to establish American military presence in a strategic location in the Middle East.  That became necessary after 9/11.  Now there is trouble brewing in Iran.  We absolutely need bases in Iraq in order to deal with Iran.  Perhaps, if we said that we are going to keep our presence in Iraq in order to deal with Iran, and if we would seal the Iraqi borders, we would reduce the danger out of Iran significantly.

Link to Six Steps to Victory and to One Military Officer's Aggressive New Plan for Iraq

I was reading an article on the web, and there was a link to this interesting story on the side: 

US authorities have uncovered a plot to set up a flight training school in the Pacific nation of Kiribati and suspect the man behind it may have had links to September 11 mastermind Mohammed Atta.

Since the plot emerged, Kiribati had asked for Australia's help to fight terrorism, ABC radio reported today.

The US'  Federal Bureau of Investigations said Wolfgang Bohringer was considered a "person of interest".

It said Bohringer had close connections with a US flight school used by Atta, who masterminded the plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into key targets in the United States five years ago, the ABC said.

The scary part of this story seems to overlooked by the original author.  Judging by the name of the suspect, he is a German national.  And by that I don't just mean someone with a German passport, although that would be bad enough.  But this guy also ethnically German.  That means that, in addition to having a European passport, he also looks European.  His passport allows him to travel pretty much anywhere in the world without any visas, and he will never arouse any suspicion.  We heard for a while that Al Qaeda was trying to recruit non-Middle Eastern operatives.  It looks like they might be succeeding.  It would not take too many of those guys to do a lot of damage.

Link to Man with Sept 11 links set up flight school | Herald Sun

Today I found this lovely story through Little Green Footballs:

Bruce Gilmour filed the complaint after a cab driver from North Shore Taxi refused to let his guide dog into the cab in January of this year. Gilmour, who says it's not the first time he's been refused service by a taxicab, is complaining that North Shore taxi discriminated against him on the basis of physical disability.

But the taxi driver, Behzad Saidy, is arguing his Muslim religious beliefs will not allow him to take dogs in his taxi, because Muslims can't associate with dogs.

There is a chance that in this case political correctness will be used agaimst islamists.

I have cousins in Vancouver.  I am sure they will be "thrilled" to hear about this.

Link to lgf: Vancouver Shari'a Watch

This is one of the few Muslim voices that does not hide behind the usual excuses:

The leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, recently issued a decree to its supporters: Kill at least one American in the next two weeks "using a sniper rifle, explosive or whatever the battle may require."

Well, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, I am an American too. Count me as the one of those you have asked your supporters to kill.

I am not alone. There are thousands of Muslims with me in Las Vegas, and many more millions in America, who are proud Americans and who are ready to face your challenge. You hide in your caves and behind the faces of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't show your faces and you have no guts to face Muslims. You thrive on the misery of thousands of Muslim youth and children who are victims of despotism, poverty and ignorance.

I think I heard him on Dennis Prager show.

Link to We're Muslim-Americans - kill us, too | Jerusalem Post