900 ft Jesus Not Quite Big Enough

Indiana defeated Oral Roberts University tonight 69 - 68 to improve their record against schools founded by televangelists to 1 - 0. Freshman D.J. White, who continues to improve with each game, scored a game high 23 points, including a 7-footer over a 6-9 white dude that put Indiana on top for good.

This may be one of the most intesting seasons as an IU basketball fan. Indiana sits at a pitiful 4-6, however, they are playing much better with each game. Indiana starts three freshman on any given night, so some growing pains are expected (especially when three of those six losses came against teams ranked in the top ten).

My prediction: Indiana will fight it out with Michigan for fourth place in the Big 10. If they can do this, they'll sneak into the tournament as a bubble team and Davis will keep his job.

Putin's Shell Game

Penraker very nicely sums up in two sentences what I was alluding to earlier regarding Putin's warning to the West:

This is interesting, because it shows Putin may be solidifiying power now in part by raising the specter of a western world devoted to dismembering Russia and diminishing her influence. To retain power, he wants to Retreat into a shell instead of coming out of one.

I think the solution here is managerial in nature. A good manager finds creative ways to empower their employees to own their work in order to achieve strategic goals. Empowerment is not only great for morale, it optimally ensures the success of achieving future goals. From a strategic policy standpoint, we need to provide incentives that allow Russia to enter a partnership with America on their own terms versus a heavy-handed, "do-it-or-else" attitude. This is why Condi Rice is such a important pick for Secretary of State--she may be one who best understands the sensitive and prideful nature of Russia and how to diplomatically get Putin to "come out of his shell."

This has to be a major focus of our foreign policy. The reality of a rapidly decaying country sitting on all those nukes is just plain frightening.

"Phunkdified"

With the exception of posting a video showing Eddie Van Halen destroy a $2,000 guitar, I've seriously neglected posting about one of my favorite passions. Ten Fingers 6 Strings wants to give praise to guitar players that best utilize their ten fingers across their 6 strings instruments in the most creative ways possible. Well, "utilize" would be such trite word to describe what Justin King does to his guitar in this short video. After you watch the video linked below, please avoid your first impulse to throw your instrument out of the window. If you don't have an instrument, don't compensate by throwing small pets or yourself out of the window either. In fact, lock your windows before you click.

VIDEO: Justin King - "phunkdified" (requires Windows Media Player)

Revealing Putin and Russia

Anthony Perez-Miller has rounded up several posts about the Ukrainian election, which resulted in a Yuschenko victory. Of particular note is the last BBC article that contained Putin's latest tantrum. First, he pooh-poohs the elections in countries where the United States' actions contradicted Russian foreign policy:

He also poured scorn on the elections in Afghanistan, Kosovo and Iraq.

Speaking at a news conference in Moscow, Mr Putin said: "Now there's an election in Iraq but the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe) has said they will be verified from Jordan - isn't that a farce?"

However, in the next paragraph, he criticizes America of having being two-faced in their intentions:

Mr Putin expressed anger at Western "double standards" over Kosovo and Latvia, saying the democratic rights of Serbs and Russians were being ignored.

Putin's contradictory comments give us a clear look into the mind of the Russian psyche. Many pundits have rightly seen Putin as an enigma, however, this article gives the West a gold nugget into what Russia, and Putin in particular, thinks. The question of Russian democracy is off the table. Putin doesn't have any intention of liberalizing; his intention is to bring Russia back into the world stage as a dominant player. This tantrum is a reminder to America that Russia will not stand by and let it execute policy around the world without their say-so.

The key to this puzzle, was his pot-shot at Poland:

Mr Putin said Mr Kwasniewski, who had mediated in the Ukraine election crisis, was talking like a person looking for a new job.

"If we interpret this [statement by Kwasniewski] as striving to limit Russia's ability to develop relations with its neighbours, then it means a desire to isolate the Russian Federation," he said.

He said he hoped isolating Russia was not the goal of US policy.

"If it's indeed so, then the position on Chechnya is becoming more understandable. That means that there, as well, a policy aimed at creating elements that would destabilise the Russian Federation is being conducted," he added.

The Soviet Union was built on the hopes of leading the world in communist revolution. After World War II, they became one of the world's two superpowers. Their post-WWII ideal of cementing communist revolution was not so much an ideal for its own sake as it was a Machiavellian way of gaining power, with Moscow in the center calling the shots.

Once the Soviet Union fell, the only ideal that remained within the Russian Federation was one of power for its own sake. Long gone are the days where Russia has an ideology to promote as a counter-balance to the West. However, the United States, along with the rest of the world, cannot take Russia lightly since it houses the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Because of this, Russia can still make its presence felt, yet the forces of democracy are gaining momentum that is out of the control of Russia and the West. Russia does not understand this; they falsely see countries embracing Western models of democracy as a result of dubious Western intentions that are rooted in eventual goal of "crushing" Russia.

This is somewhat true--many in the West, not all, desire not an end to Russia itself, but the end to Russia as a totalitarian state. They want the Russian people to decide their government and to pull their country up from the canvus. The rest of the world is liberalizing and embracing democracy, and Russia is becoming isolated as a result, not as an endgame to a grand Western scheme.

We will continue to be in a dangerous position with Russia in the future. Russian society is completely falling apart from within, and they may not have enough left in them to go through another revolution. Each generation has promised hope to future generations, yet they have only seen corruption, mass death and embarrassment in the world. At this point, we are left only with questions. Will Russia peacefully reconsider democracy? Is there a way for Russia to liberalize and change without losing face? These questions must be addressed soon, because Russia will eventually snap if they feel like they are being cornered.

Iraq War Analysis

Disclaimer: This is an extremely long essay about our leadership's decisions in running the war in Iraq. I think some valid questions have been raised in with the war effort, however the questions being asked deserve a more thought out and supported essay than smarmy, ad hominem, one paragraph-at-a-time pot shots.

(Via Beautiful Atrocities) Andrew Sullivan, again, wanders into the big boy's poker game. This time he is biting at the heels of distinguished military historian, Victor Davis Hanson. (A little background to my extensive, highly educated and non-blogging readership: Sullivan believes that the problems we are seeing in Iraq today are the result of too few troops in theatre, and that Rumsfeld is the stubborn architect of this "disasterous policy," which has failed to seal the borders, provide security and prevent terrorist attacks; while Hanson sees, not with rose colored glasses, a war that has its share of mistakes, but has been tremendously successful). Amid the growing chorus of pundits that have demanded Rumsfeld's head, with Sullivan leading the charge, Hanson wrote an article in defense of the Secretary:

The blame with this war falls not with Donald Rumsfeld. We are more often the problem — our mercurial mood swings and demands for instant perfection devoid of historical perspective about the tragic nature of god-awful war. Our military has waged two brilliant campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. There has been an even more inspired postwar success in Afghanistan where elections were held in a country deemed a hopeless Dark-Age relic. A thousand brave Americans gave their lives in combat to ensure that the most wicked nation in the Middle East might soon be the best, and the odds are that those remarkable dead, not the columnists in New York, will be proven right — no thanks to post-facto harping from thousands of American academics and insiders in chorus with that continent of appeasement Europe.

Andrew criticizes this notion:

Victor Davis Hanson's defense of Donald Rumsfeld is, as usual, full of his usual insights and perspective. But he ducks the main complaints. The most important is that the war immediately after the fall of Baghdad was seriously under-manned, and that this was obvious from the beginning. Hanson's defense is that the humber of troops is not as important as their successful deployment. But surely, the lack of troops did a couple of terribly damaging things: it prevented the occupying forces from getting a monopoly of violence across the country, emboldened the Baathist/Jihadist resistance, and alienated many Iraqis who could not understand why the greatest super-power's main achievement in Iraq was the initiation of chaos and insecurity. Both these undermined our objectives, were pointed out in time, and could have been rectified. Rummy refused to do anything, and, indeed, minimized with criminal glibness the disaster brewing. Secondly, Hanson suggests that there's no evidence that it was Rumsfeld's dcision to disband the Iraqi army. But that's irrelevant. Rumsfeld is ultimately responsible for the war. If Bremer called for the disbandment of the Baathist army and Rumsfeld objected, that army would still be intact. Bremer, remember, worked for Rumsfeld. If Rumsfeld had been over-ruled on such a critical matter, he should have quit. He didn't. He remains responsible. The Bush people can look the word "responsible" up in the dictionary if they need to.

World War II Examples

I want to present two historical events that occurred during World War II to put this argument in historical perspective--do note that I operate under the assumption that war plans can never be perfect, they are always limited on resources and success is most often a result of the execution of tactical goals that align with strategic/political goals, innovative uses of limited resources and, ultimately, are carried out by leaders that have the guts to see it through.

One of the major American failures of World War II centered around Japan's attack of the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. Shortly after the attack, a Congressional investigation was launched into why this surprise occurred and who was responsible for our lack of preparedness of a potential Japanese attack. The commission determined that General George C. Marshall and the War Department were responsible for the following: failure to notify the Pacific Fleet of the deteriorating U.S.- Japanese diplomatic situation; failure to guard the air fleet against air attack, as planes, because of War Department policy to guard against ground sabotage, were bunched together wingtip-to-wingtip; failure to provide Admiral Short, Pacific Fleet Commander, of intelligence gained from broken code on December 6th of a possible Japanese attack.

General Marshall was censured after the war as a result of this investigation. There were other fingers pointed at parties ranging from various commanders in theatre all the way to President Roosevelt. Pearl Harbor was a severe black-eye for America politically and militarily. But, did anyone deserve to lose their job over it?

My second example points to the Battle of the Bulge. There were two major failures of note here: the failure to recognize and prepare for the oncoming German offensive and the failure to provide U.S. troops with adequate gear to fight through the winter.

Like our operations in Iraq, success breeds other logistical problems. After the D-Day invasion in August, Allied forces stormed through France so feverishly, they extended past their supply lines. The rate of attack in combination with the lack of ports to receive shipments from England presented huge problems. Patton’s 3rd Army pushed so hard, his tanks often ran out of gas. In spite of these logistical problems, the Allied armies continued to push the German Army back into Germany from the west, the Soviets pushed the Germans back in the east, and the Luftwaffe had been completely destroyed allowing Allied bombers to hit targets in Germany with impunity. The situation looked very good, and in October 1944, Allied commanders (Eisenhower in particular) were optimistic that the war in Europe would be over before Christmas.

Unfortunately, Hitler would remind the allies that in war planning, the enemy gets an equal vote. On December 16, the Germans launched a 200,000 man counteroffensive that broke through the Allied lines. The failure to see this offensive was a major failure as the Germans concentrated troop positions within several hundred feet of Allied front lines. The German offensive hit hard and drove a wedge deep into Allied lines. American soldiers were stunned by this surprise and were soon running, demoralized and scared as the Germans hit them harder than anything they had experienced in the war to date. The Allies hastily moved to counter this unseen, and unplanned for, German offensive. The 101st Airborne was sent to occupy and defend Bastone, a crossroads town of enormous logistical importance. However, the 101st was not fit to fight through the winter, and were placed into the Ardennes Forest in subzero temperatures with no winter clothes, meager ammunition and no logistical support. Allied air supremacy was neutralized by bad weather, forcing the Allies to fight without adequate supplies and it allowed the Germans to surround the town without fear of being hit by bombers.

In the end, the 101st army held the town and Patton’s 3rd Army broke through the German lines in relief. The counteroffensive was successfully repealed, but the Allies would pay an enormous cost: 8,600 Americans and 200 British troops killed, 21,000 captured or missing and 47,000 wounded. The Germans suffered nearly 68,000 casualties, including 17,000 dead. The 101st would account for almost 5,000 of those casualties and trench foot and exhaustion pulled more men from the front lines that winter than enemy fire. Failure to plan for the counteroffensive and for winter battle in the end cost many more lives than necessary to ensure the eventual German defeat.

By the standards that Sullivan has set for Rumsfeld, General Marshall, General Eisenhower and War Secretary Stimson should have resigned or been fired, with President Roosevelt issuing an apology to the hysteric public for their failures listed above. Roosevelt did not do this, as he saw their performance in context with the successes achieved in the creation and mobilization of a modern army, the planning and execution of the largest amphibious land assault in history, and the suprise defeat of the Japanese at the Battle of Midway. Roosevelt, correctly, knew that he had the right men in the right places to ensure eventual and total victory over Germany and Japan. History would vindicate his decision to keep faith in his commanders.

Iraq War Planning

Some basic assumptions: war planning does not exist in a vacuum. Every war plan must factor in everything from logistics, to enemy responses, to the geopolitical situation, to geographical issues. The situation in the run-up to the war developed as follows:

• Kuwait was the only border country that would allow Allied ground forces to base an attack into Iraq. Saudi Arabia would not allow troops to attack from their soil; Iran, Jordan and Syria were out of the question.

• Turkey would eventually bow to European pressures and not allow the 4th Infantry to attack from the north.

• The limitations of Kuwait's deep water ports would require some tough decisions to be made. Logistics expert General Pagonis said, "The bottlenecks will be at the ports, so you're going to have to be extremely efficient in shipping the stuff. The lesson we learned [in Desert Storm] is to only ship what you need. We took over 400,000 short tons of ammunition and brought home 370,000. But in those days, we didn't know how big the [Iraqi] force was or how good they were. They know all that stuff now, so the Pentagon is not likely to flood the places with all kinds of resources."

• Intelligence was reporting that Saddam had given his commanders the order to attack the coalition forces with WMDs. Egypt and Jordan had both personally warned Franks that a WMD attack was inevitable.

General Franks, after Operation Desert Storm, began to develop his theory of true joint warfare. His belief was that troop strength is multiplied, as in in physics, where force is multiplied by velocity. With a combination of air and ground forces in joint operations, coalition forces could hit the Iraqis harder than if troop strength is numerically increase, but logistically unsupported.

The weapons of mass destruction threat was of utmost importance in the build-up. Franks was concerned that a concentration of 300,000 - 400,000 troops packed into a country that, in square miles is actually smaller than New Jersey, would leave them vulnerable to a successful WMD attack. Franks did the right thing in preparing for them against a WMD strik. A large, Desert Storm-like buildup in such a small geographic area would have been criminally negligent with the intelligence that they had then.

So, Franks was given the orders to attack and he did so with 170,000 men. He had the 4th Infantry in reserve, sitting off the coast of Turkey. Why didn't he use these troops that he would so desperately need in peacekeeping after the initial invasion?

Franks used them as a diversion. As Turkey publicly proclaimed that the U.S. would be prevented from attacking across their border, the CIA and special ops successfully implemented a disinformation campaign, through informants and spies, and convinced Saddam that Turkey was bluffing--they would "at the last minute" allow the 4ID to attack Iraq from their Northern border. As the attack began from the south, Saddam had kept a large portion of his Republican Guard north, knowing that the 4ID was waiting offshore. This allowed the 170,000 man army, barreling from south to north at unprecedented speed, to plow through and capture Bagdad before he could regroup. The time it would have taken for the 4ID to arrive in Kuwait and catch-up with the main strike force, Saddam would have repositioned his northern Republican Guard divisions and eliminated the U.S. advantage.

Again, Franks was proven right. Bagdad fell without a siege, the Baathists went into hiding and the Iraqi Army dissolved (even before Paul Bremmer stepped onto Iraqi soil). No one can truly account for how many lives, Iraqi and American, were saved because a siege wasn't needed. This was an unheralded success as he took advantage of an Iraqi army that didn't show-up to fight because they were so badly outmaneuvered. In three weeks, the coalition had defeated a battered, but numerically superior army, and had occupied most of the country. Clean-up operations were about to begin.

Here lies the conundrum--more troops would have lead to a bloodier initial stage to the operations. When the media was calling the war a quagmire after 2 weeks, imagine how they would have reacted had the two armies, in larger quantity, slugged it out in full force south of Bagdad. General Sullivan doesn't provide us any solutions or back-up to the contingency problems of his "more troops" argument. I think Sullivan wants to have his cake and eat it too. He is assuming that Iraq would have fallen in 3 weeks with 170,000 or 300,000 troops (which we didn't even have available). I disagree. If we had waited to build up to a larger force, Saddam would have had more time to prepare for an attack, and he would know when and where it was coming from. There would have been a lot more blood along with abundant international and leftist outrage as a result.

So, Andrew, while you were looking up the word "responsible" in the dictionary; Rumsfeld, Franks and Bush were reading their history books. They knew it was going to take an enormous effort, with a lot of sacrifice, to succeed in Iraq and that there would be unknowns that they could never plan for. There was an American Presidential election on the horizon that would try and spin some of their imperfect plans as "failures," yet they pushed on and did a hell of job. I recommend that you put your dictionary aside for a moment and instead, opt for the more useful history books to get some context. Then, after you read those, pick the dictionary back up and look up the word "courage." You may still not understand it, as courage is much less understood as a definition than it is just a way of being.

Yuschenko Projected Winner in the Ukraine

Exit polls are pointing towards a victory for Viktor Yuschenko and his democratic supporters:

All three exit polls tracking Sunday's presidential rematch in Ukraine projected opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko as the winner by a large margin over Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.

The vote is momentous for Ukraine, a nation of 48 million people caught between an eastward-expanding European Union and NATO, and an increasingly assertive Russia, its former imperial and Soviet-era master.

Opposition candidate Yushchenko, a former Central Bank chief and prime minister, wants to bring Ukraine closer to the West, while the Kremlin-backed Yanukovych, the current prime minister, emphasizes tightening the Slavic country's ties with Russia as a means to maintaining stability.

I'm still dubious about exit polling. As we saw in the U.S. election, the exit polls, which showed a substantial lead for John Kerry, didn't even come close to predicting what actually happened. The Ukraine's situation is even more complicated as its election system contained copious amounts of fraud last month, so one cannot get an accurate view of things until all the votes are counted. So far this is good news, but it isn't over yet.

Ukrainain Election - Part II

Here is a great story I pulled off a Yahoo giving us a colorful picture of the atmosphere in the Ukraine:

Jubilant Ukraine opposition supporters massed once again in Kiev's central Independence Square as their hero Viktor Yushchenko claimed victory in a landmark presidential vote rerun and proclaimed that their country was now both independent and free.

"This is a unique, clean political victory," the 50-year-old Yushchenko said as he addressed the crowd from a stage on the square.

"It is an elegant victory, where the people have demonstrated their might. The people stood up to what may be the most cynical regime in eastern Europe. And today the Ukrainian nation, the Ukrainian people, have won," Yushchenko told the cheering crowd.

"For 14 years we have been independent but not free," he said, adding that today Ukraine was both.

The square, the main rendez-vous point where hundreds of thousands of pro-Yushchenko protesters massed for weeks to proclaim their rejection of a November 21 election officially won by his opponent but riddled with fraud and later thrown out, began filling up soon after polls closed in the repeat election on Sunday.

In his address there in the early hours of Monday, Yushchenko again called on his supporters to remain in the square until he was officially certified as the winner of the election.

Fireworks erupted over some 50,000 people who had massed in the square late Sunday under a huge Christmas tree festooned in blinking lights, and although the size of the crowd fluctuated the sounds of car horns, music and fireworks could be heard in central Kiev through the night.

"I came here to celebrate our victory," said Andrei, who said he had come from the central city of Krivyi Rig to help make the revolution a reality and wanted to be present in the square.

The square itself has come to be known as "maidan" (pronounced MY-Don), a Ukrainian word that literally means "square" but that has become synonymous with the opposition "orange revolution" that has shaken this nation to the core 13 years after its independence from the Soviet Union.

Waving orange opposition flags and Ukraine's blue and yellow standard, the crowd danced and frequently broke out into the "Yu-shchen-ko!" chants that have become as common in Kiev as the orange color of his campaign.

Cars filled with Yushchenko supporters drove around Kiev, with people hanging out the windows, holding up orange flags and screaming "Yu-shchen-ko!" as the vehicles beeped the three honks to the rhythm of the chant.

My correspondant in Russia has informed me that there hasn't been any official Russian comment on the celebrations in Independence Square, however it remains freakin' freezing and the vodka is running like water.

Yuschenko Projected Winner in the Ukraine

Exit polls are pointing towards a victory for Viktor Yuschenko and his democratic supporters:

All three exit polls tracking Sunday's presidential rematch in Ukraine projected opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko as the winner by a large margin over Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.

The vote is momentous for Ukraine, a nation of 48 million people caught between an eastward-expanding European Union and NATO, and an increasingly assertive Russia, its former imperial and Soviet-era master.

Opposition candidate Yushchenko, a former Central Bank chief and prime minister, wants to bring Ukraine closer to the West, while the Kremlin-backed Yanukovych, the current prime minister, emphasizes tightening the Slavic country's ties with Russia as a means to maintaining stability.

I'm still dubious about exit polling. As we saw in the U.S. election, the exit polls, which showed a substantial lead for John Kerry, didn't even come close to predicting what actually happened. The Ukraine's situation is even more complicated as its election system contained copious amounts of fraud last month, so one cannot get an accurate view of things until all the votes are counted. So far this is good news, but it isn't over yet.

UPDATE:

The NY Times is reporting that with 70% of the vote in, Yuschenko is leading 55% to 40% over Yanukovich. This is oustanding news! Yuschenko addressed his supporters:

"It has happened," said Mr. Yushchenko, his face still disfigured from dioxin poisoning this fall for which he has blamed his adversaries in the government. "Today we are turning a page of lies, censorship and violence." Ahead, he said, lay a "new epoch of a new great democracy."

That's right sir, you exposed corruption with truth an your path to democracy has begun. Here is a word of advice to you as you set out to reshape your country--do not put Kofi Annan on speed dial. He is not your friend. He will only try and convince you to get back together with your old girlfriend, Russia. Don't Poland and the Czech Republic look much hotter in their new digs anyway?

UPDATE II:

Looks like Ace got to the above picture before I did. Dammit! Ace, you have feverishly honed your skills in trying to keep up with Instapundit.

Democracy - 2004

Ralf Peters reflects on a year frought with frustration, struggle and anxiety within the world's democratic movement. However, he sees the silver lining:

The "experts" assured us that elections couldn't, wouldn't and shouldn't work in Afghanistan. Afghans had no tradition of democracy. They were illiterate, tribal fundamentalists resistant to foreign ideas. Grass-roots support for the Taliban, widespread violence and fear were going to frustrate the American folly of believing that Afghans cared about elections.

What happened? In cities and remote villages the people of Afghanistan ignored grave dangers and turned out to vote by the millions. Desperate to find fault, international critics could cite only minor flaws. And the Afghans elected a rule-of-law president, not a tribal warlord.

Afghanistan still faces daunting problems, but little more than three years ago it suffered under one of the world's most oppressive regimes, harbored thousands of terrorists and, according to the same experts, could never be subdued by American troops. Now it has a freely elected government — and hope.

Democracy is about the little guy having a voice. Afghanistan's little guys — and gals — took a stand to have their voices heard.

TODAY, the people of Ukraine are turning out to vote in massive num bers. After a dozen years of post-Soviet corruption and stasis, average citizens decided they'd had enough. They took to the streets in masses last month, protesting a stolen election. Defying homegrown thugs and Russia's president, they demanded freedom and real democracy.

Romania's reform-minded voters got little attention from a press that craves bad news, while Australia's common-sense support for Prime Minister John Howard repulsed the international literati. Spaniards didn't vote the way we would have liked, but they voted fervently as they continued to master the power of representative government after a single generation of democracy.

Democracy doesn't bring tranquility; only dictators are capable of that. Michael Moore was able to film children flying kites in Iraq because anyone with an opposing voice found their way into a mass grave along with their family. The Taliban routinely shot dissenters in public arenas. The alternative in democracy, however, is the loss of this tranquility due the increase in dissent from many different angles. The little guy gets his voice and, shocking to the elites, tends to moderate extremist movements. Peters explains:

Around the world, electoral trends over the past few years upset the doomster predictions of the pundits. Despite solemn warnings that Indonesia or even Malaysia might "go fundamentalist" at the polls, elections in both of these crucial Muslim states resulted in resounding defeats for parties seeking to wield Islam as a weapon.

Again and again, "uneducated" and "unsophisticated" voters chose decency, progress and opportunity over the pleasures of hatred and blame.

Peters then correctly points out that we do not need to look a world away to see the fruits to democracy. The little guys scored a victory at home too:

ON-LINE commissars, network anchors, faculty-lounge commandos and the infernally self-righteous George Soros rallied behind Michael Moore to denounce George W. Bush for liberating tens of millions of human beings, for taking the War on Terror to the terrorists and for speaking like an average guy, not in the smarmy tones of Harvard Yard.

The result? The American people turned out in record numbers to re-elect a man who respects their labor and faith, who believes that freedom is worth fighting for and who knows that our country is a force for good.

No wonder campus lefties hate democracy. It gives the high-school graduate the same power as the guy with the Ph.D. It offers an identical vote to those who work with their hands and those who never broke a sweat in their trust-funded lives. And it grants the same Election Day authority to the clerk behind the counter as it does to the customer waving the platinum credit card.

Democracy is the ultimate weapon of social justice.

Indeed, it is "the ultimate weapon of social justice," but also a painful process. I almost went insane with the banter that surrounded the 2004 election. The media, the pundits, the mudslinging, the campaign ads, etc., all screaming at the unassuming public about why our vote should go to their guy. Yet for me, it was privilege going to the polls to vote for the guy who I thought should lead the country, while then meeting a friend, who voted for the other guy, for beers afterwards. We debated, shook hands and then ordered another Guiness. Mmmm, Guiness, the great moderator...

Iraq is next on the democracy watchlist. Read the rest of Peter's article to get his take on the Iraqi elections. I only want to add one thing: the same peanut gallery that had shouted at us for the past year about the grave consequences of election George Bush, is now providing their collective Chicken Little commentary on the upcoming Iraqi elections. However, the world's latest examples show us that when people have the will to stick with it, democracy is powerful, liberating and suprisingly moderate.

Strangely, for all the talk of not going into Iraq with a plan, this is precisely what we had set out to do.

Un-Friggin-Believable

Tonight, the Hoosiers found another way to lose--even with someone that dines on liver with fava beans running the point. Things looked bright for Indiana after Patrick Ewing Jr. tipped in his 13th point to go 73-71 against unranked Charlotte, but Brenden Plavich heaved, and sunk, a shot from half-court at the buzzer to extend my torment Indiana's losing streak to 6. When things are bad for a team, they keep getting worse. It is one thing to get blownout, which the Hoosiers did repeatedly last year, it is another to get beat on a prayer at the buzzer. Mike Davis, I'm routing for ya buddy, but you aren't making it easy going into the Big 10 season. Here are the current standings in the Big 10:

Illinois 11 0
Iowa 10 1
Ohio State 9 2
Michigan State 7 2
Wisconsin 6 2
Minnesota 7 3
Michigan 6 5
Northwestern 5 5
Penn State 5 5
Purdue 3 5
Indiana 2 6

*Gulp

Granted, IU has played the hardest schedule in the nation, but the plaque for the alternates is in the ladies room.

If we lose to Oral Roberts next week, I swear on a 900 ft Jesus I'm going to hurt someone.

Historical Perspective

I found "Astonished Head" a while back, but stopped reading after he took an extended hiatus from blogging as the election was kicking off. Great religious men once told me that there were two types of sins; ones of omission and ones of commission. Well, call me guilty of the former, as Astonished Head has been writing hysterical stuff that has been milk-shooting-out-of-the-nose funny (note: this is why I don't drink milk...well, that and it makes my ass look fat). Here is his December 7th post:

"[...] become ungovernable
and the world [will]
beat your ass
with [an unidentified garden implement]."

Immediately I thought of the Garden Weasel, which doesn't mean a damn thing other than to point out that the only gardening references I am capable of involve late-night infomercials.

Don't let my goofiness bely the real content of this post. Yesterday, Astonished Head wrote a fascinating post that puts our world in perspective. He argues that Americans have been sheltered from all that has happened in rest of the world over the last 100 years. To paraphrase from "Spaceballs" as we stand in the desert with our massive, collective hairpick combing the desert, "We ain't (seen) shit." To set the stage, he lists the brutality that has occurred outside of our borders this century:

But we here in the midst of the American experiment have been ambling along into unprecedented prosperity in the midst of unprecedented violence. Eight million dead in Congo by 1908. A million in the Mexican revolution by 1920. A million and a half in Armenia by 1923. Eight hundred thousand in China by 1928, and another three million by 1937. Almost three million in Korea by '53. Seven hundred thousand in Algeria by 1962. One and a quarter million in Rwanda and Burundi between 1959 and 1995. Three and a half million in Indochina between 1960 and 1975. Almost a million and a half in Ethiopia between 1962 and 1992. A million in Nigeria between '66 and '70. One and a quarter million in Bangladesh in 1971 alone. Over one and a half million in Cambodia between 1966 and 1970. A million in Mozambique between '75 and '93. Almost two million in Afghanistan between 1979 and 2001. Another million in Iran and Iraq in the Eighties. Two million in Sudan the following decade. And, neatly bookending the century, over three million in Congo between 1998 and now. Add to all of that that seven million in the First World War, and, if you're not too numb, toss in another forty million or so for the Second, plus another ten million for Uncle Joe.

Spot on. I'd argue that there were about 20-22 million victims in Uncle Joe's budding utopia excluding WWII, but Uncle Joe would agree that it is just a statistical error.

The post continues, arguing that historical ignorance has given many, mostly pointing to the Left, an unreasonable, and false view of history:

In 1994, while we debated the right to bear arms in great detail, as if that would somehow keep us all safe, Hutus armed mostly with machetes and rocks managed to kill over five hundred thousand Tutsis.

In 1999, we were shocked that an eighteen-year old and a seventeen-year old would march into a school and kill a dozen students and a teacher. Meanwhile, eight to ten thousand children fifteen years old or younger were serving on both sides of the simmering conflict in Burundi. 10,000 children between the ages of seven and fourteen were rounded up and brought to the front in Rwanda. And, that same year, the Ugandan army executed five teenage boys between the ages of 14 and 17 as suspected rebel soldiers.

And so, when I hear various "progressives" blathering about America's "culture of violence," I stand amazed at their ignorance. Here, most of us watch movies where the blood goes pshhhh! in slow motion, or play video games where we can make peoples' heads explode. Elsewhere, people kill each other as a matter of course over the same issues that they've been killing each other over for millennia. I should note that they actually kill each other. No popcorn in the dark or health packs to charge you up when the shooting stops.

Please allow me to pile-on--Americans express outrage over ratings assigned to movies due to their violent content, while many millions of non-Americans are murdered because of their political and religious backgrounds. Currently, there are concentration camps in North Korea, "gulags" in China, children publicly hung for "fornication" in Iran, mass graves filled with children and adults dug up in Iraq, political challengers shot in Venezuala, religious minorities systematically murdered in the Sudan, etc, etc, etc.

September 11th scared me for more reasons that just the obvious. I worked for a brief time in the 61st floor of the second tower of the WTC and while I wasn't there that horrible day, I knew some people who, fortunately, made it out alive. What really scared me about that day was more long-term in nature--that while America's theofascist enemies would do whatever they possibly could to kill us, too many would look the other way in hopes that it would go away. As time progresses and the chances of an American city going up in a nuclear fireball approaches one, we have to meddle with Michael Moore's "argument" that depicts a Third Reich-like regime, lead by a privileged, village idiot, who attempts to turn America from the land of the free into an imperialist superpower bent on world domination. Saudi Arabia, playing the roll of co-conspirator, would aid in the modern Hilter's effort to rid the world of kite-flying, Iraqi children in the name of oil, greed and a hate for all things European. Usually, the lowest common denominator is best ignored, but it is hard to elevate the debate when Leni Riefenstahl's protégé is sitting next to a former U.S. President at his party's national convention. I'm not calling Moore a Nazi; I am calling him a first-rate propaganda master. He is someone who has disguised invective and conspiratorial drivel into "issues" and "facts that need to be talked about."

What are the chances that, on our own soil, we see a state-sponsored terrorist hollocaust, which finally awakens America to the real world where people kill each other for completely illogical reasons that have nothing to do with poverty or globalization? I am not in the prediction business, so I don't know the answer, however, whether it happens or not will not be because of a lack of trying the part of the Islamofascists. It will take a little luck and the sacrifice of good people to ensure our survival, yet I am confident that civilization will endure and democracy and freedom will continue to reign. What is unknown, is the price we will have to pay to protect it.

Hope Springs Eternal

This remarkable picture shows us the present and the future of Iraq. In the immediate-term, this soldier and his new friend take a much-desired break from the hotbed of Falluja. Much has happened in this area and I'm sure this little girl has experience more in her short life than any of us will ever see.

However, long-term I hope this little girl finds this picture as a 30 year-old woman and understands what so many good men wearing that uniform brought them. I don't know how many Iraqis of my generation will get it (a lot do), but ideally our hopes in a free Iraq rest with the generation represented in this picture.

Mission Statement (Long Winded Version)

There really is no audience or theme for this blog that will remain consistent. I don't have a strategy for developing readership, because most of the things that I write will be in conflict with one another.

I started this blog since I am a politically moderate, libertarianish, pro-war on Islamic Fundamentalism living in the most liberal city in the world. In the blog world, life is a little more two-dimensional in that people from opposite sides of the political spectrum don't tend to get along very well. In real life, I'm stuck in the position that some of best friends are on the way left, along with a large number of my co-workers and acquantances, so when discussing the war, or politics, I have to pick my battles very carefully. This blog provides me an opportunity to get my ideas together, so that when I do engage my friends, or other San Franciscians, in debate, I have a well-developed argument. Also, it is nice to connect with some folks I wouldn't normally meet out here that have common ground with me.

Unfortunately, I love a lot of other things too. As you can see from this site, I dig playing the guitar and I hope to write about and provide some guitar-oriented content. I am still developing as a musician and this blog gives me an opportunity to workout a lot of my struggles and lessons learned.

Climbing will be another issue frequently talked about. Part of the reason that I love California so much is because of its proximity to some of the best mountaineering and face-climbing in the world. As an intermediate in both areas, I have a lot to learn. I found that the best mountaineers and face-climbers maintain extensive journals about their past experiences. I've noticed that writing logs of my past trips has helped me to avoid repeating past mistakes and to improve my thinking process when solving problems. Most of all, it helps me to develop leadership skills which are essential to mountaineering.

Lastly, business cases will be discussed here. Not only do I love business and solving business problems for the shear thrill of it, it is also my job. Yet, I know that my writing skills need improvement and I want to practice on this site instead of live in the business world.

So, I am mixing a deadly potion. I am taking a blog where I write about my passions and I am throwing the toxic ingredients of politics and current events opinions in with it. People directed to this site for the non-political content may be put off by some of my political views since they are completely unrelated. I'm sure they will be getting mixed messages from me.

Looking at this blog from a business case point of view, I have a serious "branding" issue. The purpose of this blog will conflict with groups of potential readership as I cannot streamline and focus my content towards any "target market." Unlike Lileks, I am not a gifted enough writer to have anyone be interested my jaunts to Target or Friday pizza nights. The only thing I can offer are a few nuggets here and there as I stumble through the subject matter described above.

Appendix: I debated creating two blogs: one political and one hobby oriented. I decided against it for two reasons: one practical and one "teleological." Practically, I am lazy and I want to minimize any technical maintenance. Teleologically, I didn't want to create two distinct personalities. I am who I am as one person, not two, so take it or leave it as it is. Sadly, I am not married to the teleological argument and would probably "sell-out" if I can find a viable and easy practical alternative. Whoever said I was an idealist?

Contact Info

I need to put my contact info up on the site, but for now, if you want to send me an email, send it to tenfingers6strings(-at-)gmail.com.

Oh Please Let It Be So

Rich Lowery speculates that since the left and the press don't have Ashcroft to kick around anymore, they are going to narrow their sites on Rumsfeld:

If the last couple of days have made anything clear it is that Rumsfeld has replaced Ashcroft as the media/left's favorite hate figure in the Bush cabinet. The Humvee controversy is more legit than many of the Ashcroft controversies--this is NRO's take--but it still demonstrated how eager Bush critics are to beat up on their newest most-hated Bushie.

Oh man, would that be a serious tactical mistake on the part of the media/left. Where Ashcroft was a passive and uncharasmatic whipping boy who never fought back, Rumsfeld has built an entire career out of eating reporters for breakfast. I'm sure if Rumsfeld is aware of this, he would quote his boss by saying, "Bring 'em on!"

Middle Palisade

Here is Middle Palisade for your weekend enjoyment. It is located in the Eastern Sierras and it tops out at 14,012 ft. This was the hardest 14er I ever did and I will post other pictures and stories later. Rest assured, my pictures will not reveal weather this friendly.

Middle Palisade is the peak that is actually the zenith that you see on the left. The "taller peak" from the camera view is Norman Clyde Peak (just under 14,000 ft). Below each mountain is a seperate and distinct glacier bearing the name of the peak below which it rests. Enjoy:

Vanity Fair

I posted this post on Saturday morning when, at the time, I had written a grand total of 3 posts! In case you didn't click, here is what I said:

Good Morning

It's a clear and cold morning here in San Francisco. The coffee is brewing and I'll have some thoughts on a few of Bush's 2008 Cabinet members shortly.

Don't you love how I posted this as if someone was actually reading it; as if someone was constantly hitting the refresh button waiting for "Girl Gone Bad" to actually play out in literary form? Good thing they, my fan base, got a quick update from me because they probably would have found other things to do. Like play tennis, or ski, or fish, or play checkers...well, no one will ever be faulted from clicking the "x" off of this site to play checkers. I want a sophisticated readership that understands the nuances of one-on-one, red versus black battle of the wits.

So, I promise my readers beforehand; you will not be left in the cold. You will know about my breakfast, usually in liquid form, and about the great thoughts I have about our insane world and how we all fit into it. We're in this together, so send me email about yourself and your breakfast choices.

:::cricket chirping::::

Blue-State - Red-State Fight: Take One

What in the hell does this have to do with George Bush?

Last month, Williams filed suit in federal court in Oakland claiming that administrators were "systematically rejecting" any reference to God or Christianity in his handouts. Williams said his speech and academic freedom had been restricted "because of its religious content and viewpoint."

The debate over Williams' methods has electrified the evangelical and conservative network that helped return Bush to the White House last month.

One result: The normally placid school district, in a town where Bush got only 33 percent of the vote Nov. 2, has been bombarded by 3,000 e-mails and 350 phone calls. At least one police officer has been patrolling Stevens Creek School in recent days.

With many critics saying they heard that the school district is "banning the Declaration of Independence," and a few choice e-mails suggesting that "all of you in the school district can burn in hell," Cupertino's spokesman, Jeffrey Nishihara, somewhat exasperated, said, "The district has not stopped teaching about the Declaration of Independence."

When I read the whole article, it seemed odd that Bush's name came up as a source of the discontent in this small, peaceful, South-Bay town. At no point does this teacher make any reference to George Bush in his class other than a simple quote from National Prayer Day, however, it does sound like this teacher got a little zany in preaching the Christian background of America's Founders. When the school investigated some parental complaints, there were a handful of evangelical nutballs that called the school administrators to tell them to burn in hell. Yet somehow the writer of this article found a way to trace their foolish behavior back to George Bush.

Well, I'm sure he has a point somewhere, just as I'm sure Bush is to blame for the behavior of these peace-loving San Francisco protestors as well:

Win-Win in Iraq

Wretchard, at the "Belmont Club," gives us some perspective of how the Iraqi elections are shaping up. In reading this Financial Times article that he links to, I was impressed by an extremely politically shrewd, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

A black-turbaned Shia cleric drove through the streets of the southern Baghdad district of al-Amel on Saturday, carrying a loudspeaker and mocking the insurgents who scrawled anti-election slogans on the neighbourhood's walls.

"Let those who wrote this show their faces, if they are men," residents quoted him as saying, as two dozen armed supporters followed his motorcade on foot, painting over graffiti that threatened to "cut off the heads" of voters.

"Come and vote," the cleric said to passersby. "We will protect you."

It was a rare display of militancy by one of the pro-establishment Shia clerics, who have so far strongly discouraged any action by their followers against predominantly Sunni insurgents, lest it trigger a civil war.

However, with attacks against the Shia on the increase, and the strong likelihood that the Shia parties will dominate Iraq's first elected postwar government, clerical resistance against direct anti-insurgent action may be wavering.

In the past, Shia-dominated parties and a few mosque-centred networks co-operated quietly with the US military in the gathering of intelligence, but the clergy kept its distance from the US military in the name of national unity.

When bombers - accused of being Sunni insurgents - struck at Shia holy sites in August 2003 and February 2004, many Shia clerics saved their strongest criticism for the coalition authorities, who they said had failed to protect them from attack. However, insurgent threats against forthcoming elections, which have been strongly endorsed by senior Shia scholars such as Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, may be breaking down the clergy's resolve to stay aloof.

Residents of al-Amel say the anti-election graffiti marked the first time that insurgents had directly threatened them personally as Iraqi citizens exercising their rights - as opposed to threats against "collabor-ators" with the US military or the government.

Religious Shia had already been split over violence in Latifiya, a Sunni enclave that lies on the main highway south of Baghdad leading to the Shia holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. Dozens of Shia, from clergy to army and National Guard recruits, have been killed by Sunni ultra-puritans while driving through Latifiya.

Given that Shia Muslims dominate the population in Iraq, the cleric could benefit greatly from an election. On one side, by supporting and participating in the elections driven by the Coalition and the Iraqi Interim Government, he can lead with their full support and backing. On the other side, with the fear of looking like a United States puppet, he is reaching out to war weary Iraqis claiming that a vote for him is the quickest way for Iraqis to get their country back:

Shiite empowerment is just one facet of the clerical campaign, and it is usually couched in coded language. More common are visceral appeals to an electorate that has grown fatigued and disillusioned with the carnage of war.

...At one end of the road, banners promised a new era of stability with the vote. At the other, they cast the election as the surest way to end an occupation that has grown increasingly unpopular.

"Brother Iraqis, the future of Iraq is in your hands. Elections are the ideal way to expel the occupier from Iraq," one white banner proclaimed. "Brother Iraqi, your vote in the elections is better than a bullet in battle," an adjacent sign read.

..."Not voting is a reward for terrorism," one read. "If you don't consider it a religious duty, then your national duty calls on you to vote," another intoned. More bluntly, one read: "Voting honors the blood of martyrs."

At times, the slogans insist on blind loyalty to Sistani. "Everyone is with you," a banner in the sacred city of Najaf proclaimed.

"The clergy are advocating elections 100 percent," said Sami Shamousi, the prayer leader of a Shiite community center in downtown Baghdad. "It has become a religious responsibility for us to encourage participation in the elections."

These statements should be an encouragement to all who supported Coalition efforts in Iraq. There is a strong leader within the most populous group in Iraq who understands that this can be a win-win situation. The United States gets what they were after since the strategic planning of the invasion: a free and democratic Iraq that will finish the job of cleansing Iraq of foreign terrorists and Saddam's henchmen. Most importantly though, the Iraqis get their country back sooner rather than later.

Adopt a Seal

The mainstream media had a field day with all the attention they were getting with Abu Ghraib and have been looking for their next scandal ever since. They thought they had one when a young Marine, in the heat of battle, shoots a terrorist insurgent who was playing possum and, fortunately, the public didn't bite. So, they keep digging and find some pictures "exposing" Navy Seals "abusing" prisoners. These pictures are completely lame and I won't link to them because I don't want to broadcast or give publicity to this nonsense, but they show Navy Seals sitting on hooded prisoners, some of who are bleeding (these things happen in war). So, if sitting on a prisoner and taking pictures of them is a war crime, then my two older cousins who used to wrap me up in my sleeping bag and lay on my chest as a kid deserve to stand in front of the Hague.

This isn't funny, nor is it harmless. The mainstream media, in their quest to find the scandal that will bring down the United States, have put these men in greater danger by willingly and irresponsibly broadcasted the faces of active duty special operation forces who heavily rely on secrecy. These soldiers are the best we have, but where the terrorists can't keep them from achieving their objectives, the very least the mainstream media accomplished was to take them out of the field and putting them into court. Bravo fellas, admirable job as always. In the end, the mainstream media puts their scandal seeking ahead of the lives of our soldiers, whom they endlessly claim to "support."

So, over at Froggy Ruminations, Matthew Heidt is trying to start up "Adopt a Seal." He's brainstorming ideas to see how we can help some of Americas best, so if you are interested, send him your suggestions to get this thing rolling. Support the Navy Seals! Count me in.

Ukrainian Revolution in the Midst

Stephen Green writes an excellent post on the real solution to the Ukraine's problems - revolution:

In other words: An election, fair or foul, might not pull Ukraine out of its post-Soviet sinkhole. What would? Revolution, baby.

Elections didn't bring down the Berlin Wall. Elections didn't put the Ceaucescus up against a wall. Elections work in countries where freedom has already been won.

The Ukraine voted for independence from Russia in December of 1991. At the time of the fall of the Soviet Union, the Ukraine held 2/3 of Russia's coal reserves, about a quarter of its iron and steel output and accounted for around a third of its agricultural production.

Three years after their independence, the Ukraine's economic and political reforms were in shambles. Political infighting and a resurgence of neo-Communism left the efforts of privatization frozen and doomed to failure. Political groups previously aligned and committed to democracy split apart. The new leadership had no framework to operate from as the only constitution they had was an outdated Soviet-era model. Most in the Ukraine wanted "independent statehood" versus democracy.

Then Leonid Kuchma was elected president. This shrewd Russian-speaking politician was able to gain power by working both sides of the iron curtain for money and political stability. He froze all privatization efforts and turned to Russia for agricultural, industrial and natural development. Russia got their much-needed resources and reestablished their strong hand within the Ukraine, while the Ukraine fed its starving economy with Russian money. With his eastern flank secured, Kuchma then turned to the United States for help in securing IMF funds and foreign aid in return for dismantling their nuclear weapons. This money flowing into the Ukraine allowed the economy to "stabilize" in the short-run and he increased their political capital in the west by disarming their nukes. However, in return the Ukraine sold its soul at the crossroads to a wounded and authoritarian-leaning Russia.

Pro-democracy Ukrainians weren't quite ready in 1991, but the protests in Independence Square demonstrate an outright rejection not just of Putin's recent meddling, but more so of Russia's dysfunctional influence over the Ukraine overall. If a vote is held and Yuschenko wins, he must lead Ukrainian democrats into the temple to turn over the tables of authoritarian and post-Soviet ways and replace them with democracy. It could get ugly, as there are many oligarchs with much to lose. So it will take great courage, tenacity and resolve to achieve this objective.

The world watches and Democrats hope for the sake of the Ukrainian people, and the greater cause of democracy itself, that they succeed.

Iran Official Waxes Ironic Over Film

In an upcoming summit between Iran and the EU, Iran has decided it can't let Europe get away with its blantant violation of human rights. Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi explains:

“The issue of human rights is on the agenda of Iran-EU talks and this is not something one-sided, and we have also some criticism about their (human rights) situation,” Asefi told reporters at his weekly press briefing.

“We have serious concerns about human rights violations in Europe, especially the rise in anti-Islamic sentiments in some European states, most notably in the Netherlands where a filmmaker insulted the sensitivities of Muslims by making a very unpleasant movie,” he added.

Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, widely known for his criticism of Islam, caused uproar with his film "Submission" that links domestic abuse with the perceived subservient position of Muslim women.

Specifically, Van Gogh's "unpleasant movie" is a fictional story revealing the underlying truths of Fundamentalist Islam's treatment of women. It portrays a woman who is forced into a violent marriage, raped by a relative and almost killed while being punished for adultery. The uproar from the Muslim community was great and it culminated in the ultimate insult to Van Gogh's sensitivies when he was murdered by a 26-year old Dutch/Moroccan man.

Just another revealing example of the rot and decay within Fundamentalist Islam and the theocratic, fascist regimes that continue to apologize for and support it.

* via Ace

Whack-a-Mole

Here's a link to a video clip of Edward Van Halen playing Whack-a-Mole on stage in Tucson at the last Valen Halen show of the year. Unfortunately, he chose to do so with his beautiful, transparent, green-flametop Wolfgang.

Watching Edward do this gives me the same feeling I had when I watched Nicholas Cage crash that Ferrari in "The Rock."

Christmas Time

If you are looking for a little religous/historical substance during this Christmas season, go check out "From the Still". My good friend Kyle has put down his La Bamba and put on his pastor's robe. His first post involves a powerful, sexually confused world leader, a small resistance that defeated a superior and brutal foe and the birth of a King.

"Barbara Lee Speaks for Me"

Jeff at "Beautiful Atrocities" thoughfully broadcasts the latest People's Cause from our beloved nutjob, Barbara Lee. Actually Jeff, I blame Barbara Lee for President Bush. Without her the contrast tends to be a bit grayer. Wait, nevermind, we still have the other Babs.

"From the Still" Gives Props

Well, I don't know if I am at level of "Girl Gone Bad" yet. Maybe more like, "Girl You Know It's True."

Rummy To Stay On

Donald Rumsfeld has received a second term:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, whose future has been in doubt amid spreading violence and U.S. deaths in Iraq, was asked by President Bush on Friday to remain at the Pentagon in the administration’s second term, a senior official said.

I'm sure the press will continue to have their "doubts" and maintain their astonishment that war and terrorts are violent. The majority of Americans know that there is a price to pay in the lives of good people, but our will, determination and embrace of a free Iraq are worth every drop. Donald Rumsfeld values these people and knows that their sacrifices will not be in vain. That is why he will remain Defense Secretary.

Bernard Kerik and Iraq

Bernard Kerik was appointed to head up the new and often ridiculed Homeland Security Department. One of the recent and more prominent bullet points on his resume was as Interim Interior Minister in Iraq. His responsibility was to set up and train the new Iraqi police force. Those jeering Kerik have focused on his time in Iraq. Fred Kaplin leads the way:

Whatever Kerik did, it wasn't much. The Iraqi police forces were—and still are—notoriously ill-trained and ill-equipped for the gigantic challenges they face. It's not clear why Kerik left earlier than scheduled. By all accounts, he was a wash-out. One Pentagon official who was in Baghdad at the time calls Kerik's tenure "notably unspectacular." His tenure did produce some grist for scandal. Members of Iraq's interim governing council expressed loud dismay that Kerik spent $1.2 billion to train 35,000 Iraqi police in Jordan. More annoying still was his decision to buy from Jordan 20,000 Kalashnikov rifles, 50,000 revolvers, and 10 million rounds of ammunition, when he could have rounded up all those weapons far more cheaply—if not for free—from the disbanded Iraqi army.

The regular refrain coming from the "Iraq is a disaster" crowd often points to the security problem with a zero defects expectation. Kaplan says Kerik didn't accomplish much and quotes some anonymous Pentagon source as validation of this view. Color me unconvinced. I think a little background and perspective is required to properly asses Kerik's job.

The Iraqi police force that existed prior to the invasion was one filled by Baath Party members loyal to Saddam Hussein. The primary function of enforcing the police state fell to Saddam's secret police, the Mukhabarat. Mukhabarat members infiltrated all Iraqi organizations, from the army to local government positions, in order to monitor and weed out any groups or individuals disloyal to Saddam.

Then the U.S. invaded this tranquil scene. The operation was swift and decisive and in three short weeks Saddam's army and government had completely collapsed. A police force that normally had functioned as a proxy for Saddam had melted back into the population to avoid detection by coalition forces and vengeful Iraqis. The famous images of rampant looting demonstrate this complete loss of security.

Naturally, the United States entered Iraq with both military and political objectives. The military objective of defeating the Iraqi army and removing Saddam and his government was achieved, however the political objective of building a government with the support of the Iraqi people was to be a long and continuous process. From a capability standpoint, the U.S has shown a remarkable ability to swiftly and asymmetrically eliminate any threats they face. However, from the beginning of U.S. occupation until the last soldier leaves Iraqi soil, U.S. forces will face the delicate balance between how much force to apply to eliminate threats without losing the support of the Iraqi people in the process. The necessity of demonstrating our good intentions to the Iraqi people will always be our soft underbelly.

For eight months after the invasion, Saddam Hussein was still at large and his security forces had been tasked with disrupting and infiltrating the coalition efforts to rebuild the country. Kerik's monumental task was to rebuild an Iraqi police force from the ground-up, free of Baath members and any of Saddam's henchmen that hoped to return Saddam to power.

In Kerik's own words, when asked about what Iraq's security and police force existed at his arrival:

(T)here wasn't much of anything. We basically started from scratch. The police department, as the military did, sort of dismantled. The looting that went on in the early days, eliminated the police stations, the cars, the infrastructure, the communications. And, you know, I hear people on a daily basis criticize the president, you're not moving fast enough. In four months we brought back 40,000 police officers, 400 cars in Baghdad, 35 stations, communications all over the country just about to the police; we've ordered equipment, we've put together a 2003 budget, we did it in four months. I couldn't have done that in New York City as the police commissioner in five years. So I'm not really sure what the critics are talking about when they're saying it's taking too long.

In four months, Kerik created and trained a police force of 40,000 Iraqis. This process is ongoing and will continually be tested. In such a short time, it is understandable that a few insurgents were able to infiltrate their ranks. But, the 90% of Iraq not inhabited by Sunnis has been remarkably secure, while the unsecured Sunni areas, where the insurgents are exploiting our soft underbelly, continue to improve through a combination of recent U.S. operations to clean out insurgent strongholds, like in Falluja and Najaf, and better training of Iraqi security officers.

Kerik was given a thankless and historically unprecedented task with the eyes of the world on him. Under no reasonable circumstances could anyone have trained a strong police force free of Baathists and insurgents while maintaining the goodwill of the Iraqi people with the acceptance of the worldwide opinion. With his experience of performing and thankless and unprecedented tasks, I can't think of a better person to head-up the thankless and unprecedented Homeland Security Department.

Good Morning

It's a clear and cold morning here in San Francisco. The coffee is brewing and I'll have some thoughts on a few of Bush's 2008 Cabinet members shortly.