Alternate Universe

Ok, it won't ever happen, but it is really fun to think about. What if Nancy Polos was more concerned with the security of the United States and the lives of the Iraqis who will assuredly die in very hideous ways if the US pulls out of Iraq?  What if the Speaker of the House was in favor of victory instead of in favor of partisan hackery? Because if she was, she could kick serious butt politically. Billy Hollis at QandO has this quantum radio address:

Today, we’re happy to take notice that President Bush has changed course. He has announced a “surge” intended to pacify Iraq, and will send at least 20,000 additional troops. I’d like to point out that some Democrats have proposed a similar plan in the recent past, including Congressman Sylvestre Reyes, who recommended in December that we send 20,000 to 30,000 additional troops to quell the miltias.

There are still many uncertainties regarding Iraq. The surge might not work. It might only work temporarily. No doubt we’ll be revisiting the subject in a few months when we know more.

However, given that President Bush has changed course, following the election results, our advice, and the will of the American people, we want to work with him to give this opportunity the best possible chance to work.

There are those in the Democratic Party who believe that no possible strategy can work. I sympathize with them, and in fact have my own doubts. However, the stakes are huge, and the consequences for failure are very high.

Succeeding at stabilization of the Middle East could conceivably prevent a nuclear terrorist attack on an American city. While I think that probability is extremely low, I recognize that any significant probability of such an event is to be taken very, very seriously.

Therefore, I would like to state to the American people that we are trying to do what you elected us to do – change course in Iraq. Since President Bush has chosen to abandon his “stay the course” strategy in favor of a new strategy, we will support him in that effort. If this new strategy shows signs of significant failure, we will, of course vigorously criticize it. However, give all the unknowns concerning the Iraq conflict, no one can confidently predict exactly what the results will be, so we are prepared to give this new strategy a chance.

Read the whole thing. It actually is a tutorial, one that, sadly, will not be heeded by Pelosi and her faithful winged monkey John "Un-Indicted and Clueless" Murtha.

Enemy Actions

A report from the New York Times says that al Qaeda has a master plan to shoot down American helicopters. Captured documents explain the strategy in detail.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 — Documents captured from Iraqi insurgents indicate that some of the recent fatal attacks against American helicopters are a result of a carefully planned strategy to focus on downing coalition aircraft, one that American officials say has been carried out by mounting coordinated assaults with machine guns, rockets and surface-to-air missiles.

The documents, said to have been drafted by Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, show that the militants were preparing to “concentrate on the air force.” The contents of the documents are described in an American intelligence report that was reviewed by The New York Times.

Seized near Baghdad, the documents reflect the insurgents’ military preparations from late last year, including plans for attacking aircraft using a variety of weapons.

Officials say they are a fresh indication that the United States is facing an array of “adaptive” adversaries in Iraq, enemies who are likely to step up their attacks as American forces expand their efforts to secure Baghdad, the Iraqi capital.

“Attacks on coalition aircraft probably will increase if helicopter missions expand during the latest phase of the Baghdad Security Plan or if insurgents seek to emulate their recent successes,” notes the intelligence report, which analyzes the recent helicopter crashes.

The American military has said that seven helicopters have been downed since Jan. 20, a figure that exceeds the total number of coalition aircraft shot down in 2006.

Inquiring minds want to know exactly where they are getting the weapons. Someone is facilitating these attacks and supplying the weaponry.

The Fairy Tale Of Barack Obama

Niall Ferguson, who is not in any way, shape or form, a fan of the war in Iraq, has a devastating column in the Telegraph about Barack Obama's "stance" on the war. It is blistering.

Obama's anti-war stance is widely seen as his trump card as he goes head to head with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Despite her best efforts, Sen Clinton finds herself in John Kerry territory, having originally voted for the war, but now opposing it. Should Obama win this contest, his supporters reason, he would also be well placed to beat any of the Republican front-runners. John McCain is seen as particularly vulnerable on Iraq. Not only did he support the war; he has also backed President Bush's latest attempt to salvage the situation with a "surge" of extra troops.

Yet conventional wisdom on presidential races at this early stage nearly always turns out to be wrong. Obama's stance on Iraq may yet prove to be his biggest vulnerability -just as McCain's consistency, based on years of hard-won military and political experience, might just be his biggest strength.

Take a look at Obama's arguments for a speedy US withdrawal. Speaking on the Senate floor on January 30, he asserted that "redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve\u2026 political settlement between its warring factions".

The key is "to give Iraqis their country back", since "no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war". He repeated these words when he announced that he was running for the presidency last weekend.

But Obama's claim that an American withdrawal would somehow "pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace" is a fraud.

On the contrary, an American withdrawal is much more likely to lead to an escalation of the conflict that is tearing Iraq apart. In a devastating paper for the Brookings Institution, Daniel L Byman and Kenneth M Pollack have pointed out that, given the vast potential for violence that exists in the Middle East, we ain't seen nothin' yet.

"The only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into a Lebanon- or Bosnia-like maelstrom," they argue, "is 135,000 American troops." I would go further. Iraq has already matched the level of violence witnessed in the Lebanese and Bosnian civil wars. And it could get much, much worse. If the US pulls out, as Obama recommends, Byman and Pollack predict "a humanitarian nightmare" in which we should expect "hundreds of thousands (conceivably even millions) of people to die". There could also be huge economic fallout, with oil prices surging above $100 a barrel as the war spilled into neighbouring countries.

It is past time to make the current crop of politicians face the results of their current posturing. It will be a flat out genocide that results from a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. So if a politician is arguing for that withdrawal, they should acknowledge that their personal policies will result in many thousands of people dying. They should admit that the genocide will occur and that they are perfectly ok with that.

Otherwise, they are pandering and poll-chasing.

Obama calls for urgent intervention in Darfur but an even more urgent withdrawal from Iraq. He's decided, apparently, which genocide he's ok with. Ferguson calls him out on it. So should every American. Call your Representatives and ask if they are ok with genocide in Iraq. Ask them how they stand on that issue. Because it matter. A lot.

Balancing Act

American troops in Baghdad are doing a balancing act, trying to show adequate threat of force while not alienating the populace. It is tricky work, but General Petraeus wrote the manual they are following. And an Associated Press reporter - it reads as if he is an embed, although I cannot confirm that - writes a fairly straight article about the tightrope the troops are walking.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - First, American soldiers scoured the home for weapons as four veiled Iraqi women cowered on a dusty rug. Then a platoon sergeant politely wiped his muddy boots, came in and talked to the family about the violence suffocating their city.

Staff Sgt. Michael James of the Army's 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment came with his platoon on a search-and-seizure mission. But he was careful to follow up with expressions of respect and concern.

"Tell them, 'Thank you,' for their hospitality," James asked his translator.

U.S. troops are working hard to strike a tricky balance between force and friendship in the opening days of a push to bring order to Iraq's capital.

They storm into neighborhoods with tons of U.S. armor, kicking through doors. They later return quietly on foot offering stickers and soccer balls decorated with doves and olive branches. During so-called "walk and talks," they meet Iraqis face to face to assure them peace is coming — although past promises have turned out to be mirages.

"This mission is as much about information operations as it is anything else," said Sgt. 1st Class Jeff Olsen, 32, of Moab, Utah, who has spent hours designing pamphlets and stickers for Iraqis. "A vital part of it is to let them know why we're there."

Soldiers describe the approach as the "Mosul Model" — named for the northern Iraqi city where U.S. forces became a kind of philanthropic foundation involved in everything from rebuilding political councils to fixing playgrounds. One of its pioneers three years ago, Gen. David Petraeus, is now the commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq.

"Winning the hearts and minds — that's what it's all about," said James, 32, of Chillicothe, Mo.

But swaying sentiments and calming anger is not always as simple as handing out gifts.

Some children have seen troops burst into their homes and haul away their fathers and brothers. In Ramadi, about 70 miles west of Baghdad, soldiers have been pelted with the same candy they tossed out as presents.

This is not going to be easy for the troops, but they deserve our support. The alternative is a bloodbath of monumental proportions. Politicians who are voting against this effort need to stand up and face the consequences of what their votes will mean to the Iraqi people and to the American people. This is not a Republican war - the authorization for the war was passed by a bipartisan majority. This is an American war and there are real consequences to real people for allowing ourselves to be defeated.

Baghdad Quieting

This is still very early, but it a very hopeful report from Baghdad.

Later reports in the local media indicate that the total number of families that returned home is as high as 130 families across the city, including several families in the, until recently, hopelessly violent district of Hay al-Adl.

The report adds that Maliki ordered that the Bab al-Muadam and al-Shuhada bridges on the Tigris be reopened to traffic next week. This decision came in response to the “notable increase in traffic activity which in turn is a result of the growing feeling of safety”.

Confirming what we said earlier about the recovery of civilian activity, the spokesman said “most stores in the Alawi al-Hilla districts have reopened after times when this area was a scene for repeated terrorist attacks”.

As the effort continues in Baghdad, four other provinces are launching simultaneous plans to support operation ‘Imposing the Law’. Officials in the provinces of Diwaniya, Salahaddin, Wasit and Babil announced that the security forces are implementing a security plan to support and empower the ongoing operation in Baghdad, and to deal with the threat of possible infiltration by terrorists coming from Baghdad.

The progress made so far invites hope and optimism, but it’s still too early to celebrate. Terrorists will keep trying to carry out attacks similar to those in Sadriya or Shorja. They want sow as much death and destruction as they can in order to shake the people’s confidence in the security plan. Such criminals attacks are still quite possible in Baghdad, but even if happen we must not let that stop us from pursuing the objectives of our efforts to stop the death and deterioration, to turn the tide and make progress.

The politicians who bet everything on defeat should, rightfully, be getting a bit nervous. One assumes they will do so if opinion polls start registering this improving news from Iraq.

Cloture Vote Fails

The vote to try and force a vote on the Reid sponsored Senate bill failed to get enough votes to end debate. The vote was closer than the last one but still fell six short. I will post the names as soon as available.

WASHINGTON - The Senate gridlocked on the Iraq war in a sharply worded showdown on Saturday as Republicans foiled a Democratic attempt to rebuke President Bush over his deployment of 21,500 additional combat troops.

The vote was 56-34. That was six short of the 60 needed to advance the measure, which is identical to a nonbinding resolution that Democrats pushed through the House on Friday. (Ed. Note: Wouldn't that be four short?)

Again, this was a vote to try to invoke cloture and end debate. The press continues to spin this as the "blocking of debate". It is precisely the opposite. An explanation can be found here.

UPDATE: AllahPundit has the list of Republicans who crossed the aisle.

Update: The only Republicans to vote with the Dems last time were (Norm) Coleman and Susan Collins. Joining them today: John Warner, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Chuck Hagel, and Gordon Smith. Not voting: McCain, who was out campaigning, Lisa Murkowski, Bob Bennett, Thad Cochran, Bob Corker, Kit Bond, John Ensign, Jon Kyl, Orrin Hatch, and of course Tim Johnson, who’s still recuperating from his stroke. All are Republicans except Johnson. Reid was hoping to get Lamar Alexander and Larry Craig to cross the aisle, since both are up for reelection in two years and were rumored to be wavering, but he couldn’t pull it off.

Update: Of the seven Republicans who voted for cloture, only Snowe and Specter aren’t facing reelection in 2008.

UPDATE: This from Fox News. The mega spin headline now from AP:

Senate GOP foils debate on Iraq surge

The report is authored by one David Espo, "Special Correspondent". I'd recommend that anyone interested search that name and the articles it pulls up. Pay attention to the language used.

The Dreadful News

We are sorry to report that the Animal Uprising™ has reached another grim milestone in their genetic engineering campaign. We told readers about the four wheel drive chickens and dolphins and the dreaded seven wheel drive deer. But now the even the ducks are in the program. That's right, four wheel drive ducks are making their debut.

LONDON (AP) — Webbed feet run in Stumpy's family, but he's the first to have four of them.

A rare mutation has left the eight-day-old duckling with two nearly full-sized legs behind the two he runs on. Nicky Janaway, a duck farmer in New Forest, Hampshire, 95 miles southwest of London, unveiled the duckling to reporters on Saturday.

"It was absolutely bizarre. I was thinking 'he's got too many legs' and I kept counting 'one, two, three, four,'" Janaway said.

Be thankful the counting stopped at four. Can you imagine how fast these things will be able to swim? These are more amphibious shock troops. Not as large as the cows, but much faster.

Bad Intentions, Badly Handled

John Murtha's incredibly inept political maneuvering, telegraphing his real intent by baldly stating his intentions in an interview instead of trying to reframe it has backfired. When the Washington Post refuses to carry water for the Murtha "slow bleed" plan, that plan is simply not going to work. At least it isn't going to work the way Murtha planned it. Instead, it is going to inflict massive political damage on the Democrats. No cover, Jacko, you are sitting in the wide open on this one.

Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill — an action Congress is clearly empowered to take — rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.

Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?

That Murtha, the corrupt, unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam sting, is ignorant in general goes without saying. He is the one who suggested redeploying American forces to Okinawa, after all. But his completely ham-handed way of handling the entire matter is amazingly stupid. And he single-handedly has exposed the Democrats to serious political danger as a result. He wanted to brag to the anti-war people thinking nobody would notice, apparently.

Bad bet, Johnny, bad bet. Maybe your fellow Democrats who will pay for your plotting should pitch in and get you a little something.

UPDATE: Others commenting on the sleazy maneuvering of John Murtha: QandO, Decision '08, Redstate, Neptunus Lex, Right Wing Nut House, Riehl World View, Let Freedom Ring, "7.62mm Justice" ™, TigerHawk, UrbanGrounds, Macsmind,

Jon Frum

The Island of Tanna in the Island nation of Vanuatu (once known as the New Hebrides) is the home to an historical oddity. A genuine "Cargo Cult" that you may have heard of at various times. They arose after the Second World War after the US forces (who had brought in so very much cargo, hence the name) left. The members of the Jon Frum cult believe Americans will return - with a lot of cargo for the believers.

The Jon Frum movement celebrated the 50th anniversary of its founding yesterday with a lavish feast in which village men dressed up as US soldiers and marched in front of a giant Stars and Stripes flag on a bamboo pole.

Miniature American flags festooned trees lining the black sand parade ground which forms the focus of Lamakara village, the headquarters of the cult, on the jungle island of Tanna.

Older men dressed as officers marshalled the crowd of several thousand cult devotees, while 50 young men shouldered their bamboo rifles and came to attention in a perfectly orchestrated drill.

The letters USA were daubed across their chests and backs in red paint as they paraded beneath a relentless tropical sun, a drill sergeant barking orders in Bislama, Vanuatu pidgin English.

A tin band and small boys with bamboo flutes played The Star Spangled Banner against a background of roars from nearby Mount Yasur, a live volcano in which the spirit of Jon Frum is said to live. "For us, America is very good," said village chief Isaac Wan, 67, the leader of the cargo cult, barefoot but dressed in a smart American naval officer's uniform and sitting under a large US flag.

Not everyone in the world is anti-American, it seems. Here's a wonderful article from the Smithsonian Magazine where I first read about the Jon Frum cult.

More Bad Bets

Ed Morrisey raises a very, very good point today. Harry Reid has called an unusual Saturday session of the Senate to try to invoke cloture on debate over a non-binding resolution. Republicans are vowing to stand firm unless and until Reid allows an alternative bill to be considered. That alternative bill would pledge that the Congress will not cut off funds for the troops. Reid is very afraid of that bill because it will likely split the Democrats.

The AP's Anne Flaherty reports that "several" GOP Senators will support the legislation, but that will probably only happen if the bill passes cloture. Reid once again will not allow competing amendments to come to the floor, especially not the Gregg bill, which pledges no unilateral Congressional decrease in funding for the Iraq war during this session. That bill splits the Democrats more than it does the Republicans, which is why Reid fears it. The Majority Leader said yesterday that even a failed cloture vote will put Senators on record. However, that's exactly why he won't allow a vote on the Gregg bill; it will put Democrats on record as supporting the war and reveal the split between the anti-war activists and the moderates, and it will put at least two Democratic presidential contenders in a tight spot, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Watch Lieberman carefully. He has no love for Harry Reid's leadership after the last election, and he has made clear that the Democrats have angered him with their political grandstanding. He threatened to bolt the Democratic caucus if they started pressing for a cutoff of funds, but he may tire of his peers well before that stage, especially with this Saturday session.

Lieberman could withdraw from the Democratic caucus if pushed too far. There is a lot going on right now. Trying to cut funding for the troops in combat may well destroy the Democratic majority in the Senate. And no matter how the members of Congress try to dress that "slow bleed" strategy up as a readiness issue, the fact is that troops in combat will pay the price for these cheap, partisan political stunts.

If You Bet Wrong….

……Your political careers are over. A little message for the members of the House of Representatives who voted in favor of defeat in Iraq. You bet everything on a defeat.

It may have been a very, very bad bet.

If you do not want to see the US defeated, if you prefer victory in the war on terror to the alternative that some members of Congress are voting for, please join the Victory Caucus. Make your voice heard.

UPDATE: Greetings visitors from Hot Air. Please do take a look around while you're here.

UPDATE: This is the photoshop I made for the Victory Caucus contest, incidentally. (It still wasn't posted there the last I checked). It riffs off the fact that Ric Keller has bragging photos up on his Congressional website showing him on Air Force One a few years back.

A Followup Column

I linked to a powerful column by Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Robert L. Jamieson, Jr., earlier this month. That column asked who was the real hero, Ehren Watada who shirked his sworn duty or Sgt. Mickel David Garrigus who was killed in Iraq. Today, Jamieson has a followup column to the first one. He points out the kind of letters or emails he got from people who objected to his column and the simplistic view of the situation and the soldiers that they have.

Praise and pans, cheers and jeers, more than a thousand people called, e-mailed or penned letters after I wrote this month about whether 1st Lt. Ehren Watada is a hero.

The Fort Lewis army officer is in the spotlight for refusing to take part in the Iraq war because he believes it is immoral and illegal. He has guts to follow his convictions. He is willing to stand up to a military machine that he thinks is killing for all the wrong reasons.

I still believe he is wrong for breaking ranks and not following orders.

People either admire Watada for following what they see as a higher moral law or deem him a coward for letting his fellow soldiers go to war while he stays home.

What struck me was the pervasive and troubling tone in the majority of the pro-Watada messages: a sense that U.S. soldiers in Iraq are unthinking cannon fodder with little understanding of why they're fighting — or who they're helping.

This perception nagged at me until the other day, when I came across a MySpace page of a U.S. soldier.

His name is Mark Daily.

Please read the whole thing. I excerpted a bit of this column, unlike the first. But there is much more.

Best Intentions And Unintended Consequences

Environmentalists had all the best intentions when they pushed for it. State governments got behind the effort enthusiastically. Industry helped as well. It looked like a win-win-win for the environment, wildlife and people. But after more than thirty years of trying, the world is faced with a difficult and costly cleanup. Artificial reefs made of used automobile tires are a disaster.

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - A mile offshore from this city's high-rise condos and spring-break bars lie as many as 2 million old tires, strewn across the ocean floor — a white-walled, steel-belted monument to good intentions gone awry.

The tires were unloaded there in 1972 to create an artificial reef that could attract a rich variety of marine life, and to free up space in clogged landfills. But decades later, the idea has proved a huge ecological blunder.

Little sea life has formed on the tires. Some of the tires that were bundled together with nylon and steel have broken loose and are scouring the ocean floor across a swath the size of 31 football fields. Tires are washing up on beaches. Thousands have wedged up against a nearby natural reef, blocking coral growth and devastating marine life.

"The really good idea was to provide habitat for marine critters so we could double or triple marine life in the area. It just didn't work that way," said Ray McAllister, a professor of ocean engineering at Florida Atlantic University who was instrumental in organizing the project. "I look back now and see it was a bad idea."

In fact, similar problems have been reported at tire reefs worldwide.

Tires are washing up all over the world. The reef project in Florida alone is projected to cost $3.4 million to clean up. Sometimes - in fact often times - quick fix ideas turn out to have a raft of unintended consequences.

Still More Fun With Paragliding

Eagles see paragliders as snack food, other paragliders spend the day just hanging out - for nine hours or so - other participants in the sport get guided tours of minefields. Yet people keep right on doing it. For the thrill of never knowing just what will kill you and when, apparently. From Australia comes the tale of the paraglider who took a tour of a thunderstorm. All 32,000 feet of it.

Paragliding 2005 World Cup winner Ewa Wisnierska, 35, was lifted to 32,612 feet by a storm that apparently killed a Chinese paraglider in eastern Australia on Wednesday. The pilots were preparing for the 10th FAI World Paragliding Championships next week, event organizer Godfrey Wenness said.

He Zhongpin, 42, died during the same weather system, apparently from a lack of oxygen and extreme cold, Wenness said. His body was found 47 miles from his launch site.

Wisnierska described Friday how she attempted to skirt the thunderstorm and when that failed, repeatedly attempted to spiral against its powerful lift.

She said she could see lightning around her and decided her chances of survival were "almost zero."

She said she radioed her team leader at 13,123 feet.

"I said, 'I can't do anything,'" she told reporters at a news conference. "'It's raining and hailing and I'm still climbing — I'm lost.'"

Officials and Wisnierska's ground team used global positioning and radio equipment to track her altitude as she soared well beyond the 29,000-foot plus height of Everest, the world's tallest peak. Wenness said she went from 2,500 feet to the maximum in about 15 minutes.

She was unconscious for more than half an hour, apparently but managed to regain her senses and land safely. On a related note, there's this guy:

Makes you want to run out and sign up, doesn't it?

Amphibious Invasion Of England Commences

A seaborne assault on the North Sea coast of England has begun and authorities are unable to to stop it. After hours of battling rough weather searching for the invaders, the coast guard had to send a second boat out to rescue the first one. Neither one located the invasion fleet.

The cow slipped past them.

A wayward cow's dip in the North Sea ended up launching a full-scale search and rescue operation.

Lifeboat crews from Amble, Northumberland, set sail in three metre swells and near gale-force conditions after the animal was seen battling waves further up the coast, north of Boulmer, late on Thursday afternoon.

It was spotted by a member of the public, who alerted Humber Coastguard at around 5.20pm. The rigid inflatable inshore lifeboat Rosemary Palmer was first sent to try to locate the seaborne bovine and attempt to herd it back towards the beach.

But with darkness coming down and conditions rapidly worsening, it was decided that the all-weather lifeboat The Four Boys should also be sent out to escort the smaller rescue vessel.

Under directions from local Coastguard teams, both boats searched the area in breaking seas for over an hour with no success until they were stood down by controllers on Humberside.

The terrifying amphibious cows of the Animal Uprising™ strike.