Eastwood to Make Two Films About Iwo Jima

Via Ace, Clint Eastwood is in the process of making a movie about Iwo Jima. Seems that there is some concern by him that Eastwood might be waxing PC over this attempt:

Eastwood says he wants to tell the story from "both sides" and apparently views the battle largely through the prism of tragedy. Well, certainly, all those American deaths were tragic (as were those of the Japanese); but again, it seems that this will largely be an anti-war war movie.

That's not really all that surprising, even from Clint Eastwood. Maybe Eastwood is just saying all this because he wants to shoot on location and needs to appease the island's anti-American governor; and of course it's hard to do a movie about a battle which took the lives of 7000 Marines and not sound a mournful note. You really make a movie about the violent deaths of 7000 Marines the feel-good roller-coaster ride of the summer.

I don't know.

Actually, Clint Eastwood is making two films:

"You're probably already a bit familiar with master filmmaker Clint Eastwood's upcoming project, "Flags of Our Fathers," but Time Magazine brings us a fascinating new wrinkle on the story. Seems that Mr. Eastwood is not content with helming just one movie; he now plans to direct "Lamps Before the Wind," which will tell the WWII story from the Japanese point of view, while "Flags" will deal focus on the American perspective.

A rather excellent article by longtime Eastwood colleague Richard Schickel begins like so:

"Sometime this month in Chicago, Clint Eastwood will complete principal photography on his latest movie, Flags of Our Fathers. It's the 26th feature film he has directed since he made Play Misty for Me in 1971. And just as he has done before ("The Bridges of Madison County," "Mystic River"), he is basing it on a best-selling book. But this movie is different from all the others that he or anyone else has directed, for Flags is only half the story he wants to tell.

The book, by James Bradley and Ron Powers, recounts the ultimately tragic tale of six young U.S. Marines who happened to raise a huge American flag atop Mount Suribachi in the midst of the great battle for Iwo Jima during World War II, of how an Associated Press photographer squeezed off what he thought was a routine shot of them doing so that became an iconic image, of what happened to some of those kids (only three survived the next few days of battle) when they were hustled home to be heedlessly exploited by the U.S. government to raise civilian morale and, incidentally, sell billions of dollars' worth of war bonds. That story, rich in darkly ambiguous nuance, would have been more than enough to preoccupy Eastwood's attention for a couple of years.

But when Eastwood tried to buy the rights, he discovered that Steven Spielberg already had them, and so he moved on instead to "Million Dollar Baby." Then, backstage at the 2004 Academy Awards (at which his "Mystic River" was a multiple nominee), Eastwood encountered Spielberg, and before the evening was out, they agreed to a "Flags" co-production, with Eastwood directing. Shortly thereafter, the project began to elicit an uncommon, almost obsessive, interest from its director. He has not often attempted fact-based movies, and he had never undertaken one that contained such huge combat scenes. He began to read more widely and deeply on the subject. And he began talking to both American and Japanese veterans of Iwo Jima, which remains the bloodiest engagement in Marine Corps history and the one for which the most Congressional Medals of Honor were awarded (27). As for the Japanese, only about 200 out of 22,000 defending soldiers survived. At some point in his research, Eastwood realized that he had to find a way to tell both sides of the story--"not in the "Tora! Tora! Tora!" way, where you cut back and forth between the two sides," he says, "but as separate films.""

For the rest of the article (which is definitely worthy of a read), head on over to Time Magazine's website and bask in the warm glow of Clint Eastwood's unstoppable commitment to quality filmmaking. (Hey, I'm a fan.)"

Sounds like Eastwood is doing anything but making a series of PC films.

So why the second film from the Japanese perspective? I'm not sure we know specifically yet, but I think that a movie told from the perspective of the side which only had 200 survivors out of 22,000 is an incredibily interesting story, and if done correctly, could produce an unbelievable film.

Naturally I'd rather Clint do this film than Oliver Stone, who would show the American invaders as the butchers versus the innocent primitives.

But, the first film Flags of Our Fathers, looks to be a Band of Brothers type angle towards the Battle of Iwo Jima, in that it is a narrative told through the perspective of a handful of men.

Astonished Head Does America

Prepare yourselves everyone. This summer, Ian Wood of Astonished Head, is going bring the adventure of a lifetime right into our very homes:

Anway, here are the procedural elements of said Crazy Stunt:

1. Sell house.
2. Put worldly possessions in storage.
3. Stash Bob the Cat in friend's apartment.
4. Pedal tricycle across America.

No, really. I'm serious. I put a down payment on the trike on Saturday.

"Astonished Head Does America!" That's right, Ian is tricycling from Coast to Coast across America and he will be blogging it. Fortunately for us, this isn't going to be just any tricycle. Ian will be carrying enough energy to power the Las Vegas strip for about, .000000001 seconds:

I will be carrying two folding 32-watt solar panels, designed and built by Connecticut Solar. When in use, these panels will deploy across the top of the Burley trailer, and will provide power and charging capacity for the following devices:

* Dell Inspiron 700m laptop
* iRiver iFP-799 MP3 player/recorder
* Apple 60GB iPod
* Samsung SPH-i700 cellphone/PDA
* A yet-to-be-purchased digital camera
* A similarly unpurchased GPS unit

While I am crossing the country, I will be updating this site on a regular basis. My laptop is equipped with a Kyocera KPC650 cellular EVDO modem that will provide at least a 14.4 kbps connection across large swatches of the United States, and when I can't get a cell signal, the laptop has an ordinary 56K modem.

I will be creating and uploading podcasts using the iRiver recorder and Giant Squid Audio Lab's omnidirectional stereo microphone. I'll edit and produce the podcasts on the laptop using Audacity.

Visitors will be able to find out where I am by clicking a link on the site and opening a Google Map populated with my latest GPS data.

I've taken this descripton, and through the use of CAD, if I have come up with a model of what his vehicle could look like:

I'm sure there will be a few modifications, as the original vehicle had numerous design flaws that were later revealed when it was far too late. I'm only speculating, but I am assuming that Ian will opt to replace the Artifical Intelligence based HAL 2000 computer system, for a more manual system that relies on human innovation, brainpower and rigorous physical endurance.

It isn't even May yet, and I'm excited about virtually joining Ian in support of his trip. Tune in often to the link above for updates on what is happening in preperation for his trip. Like everything Ian does, it is certain to make you laugh, cry, or dance with midgets in a biker bar.

Enjoy!

Whose the Enemy?

Wretchard points to a reporter from the Courier-Journal in Iraq who delivers some very revealing information as to the nature of the press in the 21st Century:

Just the process of working on that story has revealed many things to me about my own country. I'd like to share some of them with you:

* Lesson One: Many journalists in Iraq could not, or would not, check their nationality or their own perspective at the door.

* Lesson Two: Our behavior as journalists has taught us very little. Just as in the lead up to the war in Iraq, questioning our government's decisions and claims and what it seeks to achieve is criticized as unpatriotic.

* Lesson Three: To seek to understand and represent to an American audience the reasons behind the Iraqi opposition is practically treasonous. ... "Dexter Filkins, who writes for The New York Times, related a conversation he had in Iraq with an American military commander just before we left. Dexter and the commander had gotten quite friendly, meeting up sporadically for a beer and a chat. Towards the end of one of their conversations, Dexter declined an invitation for the next day by explaining that he'd lined up a meeting with a "resistance guy." The commander's face went stony cold and he said, "We have a position on that." For Dexter the message was clear. He cancelled the appointment."

* Lesson Four: The gatekeepers -- by which I mean the editors, publishers and business sides of the media -- don't want their paper or their outlet to reveal that compelling narrative of why anyone would oppose the presence of American troops on their soil.

* Lesson Five: What it's like to be afraid of your own country. ... "Once the story was finished and set to come out on the street, I was rushing back to the States -- mostly because we could no longer work once the story was published -- and I found I was scared returning to my own country. And that was an amazingly strange and awful feeling to have. Again, you could call me paranoid, but the questions about what might happen to me once in America -- where at least I would have more rights -- kept racing through my brain."

Read the rest of Wretchard's post which seeks to examine how the military has had to adapt for the press who, over the course of the war, has consistently misrepresented the American-side of the story.

My post, however, is more general in response to this journalist's "lessons" in Iraq. Ian Wood describes the obsurdity of the neutral observer here:

There are other sources - a certain Mr. Rather springs to mind - who still labor under the misapprehension that they are objective members of an information priesthood. I've written about that priesthood before. There are also those on either end of the political spectrum who, implicitly or explicitly, believe that bias in reporting is something that must be stamped out, and that it can be stamped out.

This is nonsense, and it breeds weak minds.

To begin with, true objectivity is value - neutral. It assigns no moral superiority to one fact over another. A polling day free of violence in Basra is a fact, and so are seven dead Marines in the crater left by a roadside IED outside of Falluja. Mr. Fisk repeatedly sets up the straw man that journalistic objectivity means that "everyone has to have 50% of each story," but facts don't take sides. They just are.

Second, I'm not value neutral. Neither are you. And if you can find me a newspaper, network, or reporter who's truly value - neutral, I'll give you a big amoral cookie. Part of the process - the work - of being as a critical thinker in an information society is recognizing the fact that value neutrality, and therefore objectivity, is a myth.

Regardless of the intentions of the press, they do have a story to tell, and it is one that hasn't been very favorable to the country that, ironically, protects their free speech. But, this story is a repeat of an older story they are so fond of reliving: Vietnam. In Part One of an article I transcribed by Robert Elegant, he said this about the roll of the press in Vietnam:

In the Early 1960s, when the Viet Nam War became a big story, most foreign correspondents assigned to cover the story wrote primarily to win the approbation of the crowd, above all their own crowd. As a result, in my view, the self-approving system of reporting they created became even further detached from political and military realities because it instinctively concentrated on its own self-justification. The American press, naturally dominant in an “American war”, somehow felt obliged to be less objective than partisan, to take sides, for it was inspired by the engage “investigative” reporting that burgeoned in the US in these impassioned years. The press was instinctively ”agin the Governmnent”—and, at least reflexively, for Saigon’s enemies.

During the latter half of the 15-year American involvement in Viet Nam the media became the primary battlefield. Illusory events reported by the press as well as real events within the press corps were more decisive than the clash of arms or the contention of ideologies. For the first time in modern history, the outcome of a war was determined not on the battlefield, but on the printed page and, above all, on the television screen. Looking back coolly, I believe it can be said (surprising as it may still sound) that South Vietnamese and American forces actually won the limited military struggle. They virtually crushed the Viet Cong in the South, the “native” guerrillas who were directed, reinforced, and equipped from Hanoi; and thereafter they threw back the invasion by regular North Vietnamese divisions. None the less, the War was finally lost to the invaders after the US disengagement cause the political pressures built up by the media had made it quite impossible for Washington to maintain even the minimal material and moral support that would have enabled the Saigon regime to continue effective resistance.

Since I am considering causes rather than effects, the demoralization of the West, particularly the United States, that preceded and followed the fall of South Viet Nam is beyond the scope of this article. It is, however, interesting to wonder whether Angoloa, Afghanistan, and Iran would have occurred if Saigon had not fallen amid nearly universal odium—that is to say, if the “Viet Nam Syndrome”, for which the press (in my view) was largely responsible, had not afflicted the Carter Administration and paralyzed American will. On the credit side, largely despite the press, the People’s Republic of China would almost certainly not have purged itself of the Maoist doctrine of “worldwide liberation through people’s war” and, later, would not have come to blows with Hanoi if the defense of South Viet Nam had not been maintained for so long.

Elegant describes many events during his time as a war correspondant, where the American press editorialized either by ommission or by commission. Sometimes events were fabricated that put Saigon and Washington in a negative light, other times successes by American and South Vietnamese forces were unreported. The picture the American people were getting about Viet Nam was not "objective" or "reality." It was a narrative developed within a collective group that had control of the mouthpiece, and was able to whittle the patience of the American population down to nothing. No one knows when that point was reached, but it is clear that by the time the protests were gathering momentum, America had no chance of winning in Viet Nam.

Most importantly, Elegant points out another danger caused by the press: American policy in the aftermath of Viet Nam was flacid due to it's failure in Viet Nam. Resolve gave way to compromise and timidity, and compromise in a world filled with nefarious characters, leads to people taking advantage of you.

Elegant's hypothosis sounds a truism with regards to Iraq. The consistently negative reporting of how America is losing the war has effectively neutralized American policy towards dealing with other terror supporting regimes in region. Syria and Iran have each been given another life as the United States cannot act against either country unless blatantly provoked. Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power and Syria has assassignated leaders opposing their occupation of Lebannon. Both countries have actively harbored and supported terrorists who have directly attacked and killed our own people. Yet, the resolve of American politics, which in the long-run is ultimately driven by popular support, is apparently requiring a more blatant provocation than these examples before being spurred into action again.

Getting back to the press, I do not have any problem what-so-ever with the press reporting "bad news." There is plenty of bad news in Iraq that is legitimately bad news, and it should be reported. There are a number of people in Iraq who don't like us being there, and there are times where insurgents score some big hits. Corruption is rampant in Iraqi society and warlords still rule.

But, it is completely different story to say, either implicity or explicitly, that America is losing the war. In my discussions with many politically well-informed people, I get nothing but blank stares when I ask what they know about the Anbar Campaign in Western Iraq. We've been engaged since the summer in one of the most important and specacularly successful campaigns the U.S. Military has ever engaged in, and the stories only seem to hit the front page when something bad happens. The Anbar Campaign was the foundation that made the December 15th election such a widely particated in event for all of Iraq.

Our military is engaged in Iraq, they are winning (not without casualties or setbacks), and our leadership has committed to seeing it through. But, we are only able to do this because we are already committed. The wider war on Islamic fascism still needs to be waged, but Americans as a whole do not have the confidence to deal with two countries that have openly, yet shrewdly, killed some of our very own without having to face any consequences.

My thesis is that our press, not the Islamic fascists, has been the instrumental force in depleting any will the American people once had by reporting a narrative in Iraq that is false. So, my open-ended questions are thus:

• With Islamic Fascism (secular and religous) being defeated in Iraq, yet still holding strong in Syria and Iran, what are the chances of another attack on American soil at or greater than September 11th?

• How many more innocent people are going to die in order for us to shun this fifth column, and turn and fight this plague on humanity to the finish?

I'm not hopeful. Long-term, we will win this fight, but when we come face to face with hell again, I hope the more than 50% of the population will be willing to drop the gloves and finally finish what we are capable of finishing if we'd just fully commit to it. If that is the case, than not only will Islamic Fascism be defeated, but we'll also see the downfall of an elitist press that has, regardless of intention, been responsible for giving too much power to America's enemies.

Observations and Narratives from Vegas

How the individual responds to the Las Vegas-styled nuances of rolling the dice/cutting the deck/going all in, what-have-you, can be studied to the point where we can make generalizations, or groupings, based on the behaviors of a large block of people sharing some the same characteristics.

So in my experiment, when I mean group, I really mean me representing men: logical, thinking, but impulsive, thrill-seeking and hard-headed (maybe I should just represent Germans), and Penelope Pitstop will represent women: illogical (by classical standards of reasoning by the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning), feeling, emotional, sensitive, and @&^@ng lucky as hell.

The experiment began as us two good-looking people, dressed to kill, walked onto the casino floor to pick our poison.

Penelope Pitstop says, "Let's play BlackJack. I'm getting you to play with me if it is the last thing I do."

"Ok, so you need a friend. Why do we have to play BlackJack? BlackJack has horrible odds. The million dollar monstrosity of a pool at this casino was built solely on the profits gained from BlackJack."

"But, I always win at BlackJack. I can turn $20 into $200. I've got a system guaranteed to win."

"Really, how many times have you done that?"

"Once."

"Not bad, how many times have you played?"

"Once."

You're kidding, right? "You've built an entire system around one lucky run in Reno a few years ago."

"Are you going to play or what?"

We walked over to the high stakes $5 minimum table and found two seats. I turned my hard earned money into chips that I feared would soon leak from my side of the table onto the gigantic pile of chips on the other side of the table occupied by the dealer. "Drew," our host of the evening, shuffled the cards and asked Penelope to cut the deck with a green card. Thus, our fate was sealed, the cards were flopping on the table.

Me: 10-H

Her: Ace-S (BlackJack)

"So, this is your system?"

I only heard cackling.

We played several more hands, with the dealer going on a run whose duration would impress even the lankiest of Kenyans.

"If we were playing 15, instead of 21, I'd be the champion of the night," I curmudgeonly commented to a few snickers around the table from others who displayed genuine empathy.

Even Penelope was hemoraging, and only because I cashed in a few more dollars than her, I played loan shark and gave her a couple more chips to stay in the game. As that happened, the deck was finished, and we needed a new one.

The dealer began to shuffle the next deck.

Penelope smiled big and said, "The red decks are better. I always win with the red ones."

I scoffed inside, but nodded, "Really? The red ones, huh?"

"Uh, huh," she enthusiastically replied. She was clearly not kidding.

Time for a little dose of reality.

Our replacement dealer put the deck in the card holder, and said, "Ok, whose ready for another round?"

Me! Take my money faster, faster, faster!

The cards were flopping across the table.

Me: 4-S

Her: King-D (BlackJack)

"See, red deck."

She's paying for drinks tonight.

"You know, this game sucks."

"It only sucks because you are losing. Now tell me why you stayed with only 13."

"Because the dealer had a 5 showing and the probability of...how, in-the-hell, are you beating me?"

The waitress came by with my Jack on the rocks.

"Thanks, can you get me another one?"

Somehow over the course of the next 25-minutes, I was able to get back up the break even.

"Ok, we have to go to eat dinner."

"Good, I'm up anway."

After Penelope's sixth BlackJack, we walked away from the table. Oh yeah, I had zero.

"That was fun!" She exclaimed after winning all her money back, plus some more.

Grumble.

"What?"

"Yes, that was grrrreat fun! At least I still have my shirt." I double-checked by looking down to see if my shirt was still there. It was.

So, in conclusion, women cheat. That is the only logical explanation.

Not-so-Live-Blogging the IU/Bulter Game

Indiana is hoping to give Butler and early Christmas present.

They've turned the ball over 13 times and have decided that they will not play defense.

They are only up five with six-and-a-half left.

Bulter is controlling the tempo of the game, but Indiana is dominating statistically.

Polk is eating them up. Killingsworth is going to have to step it up on defense.

Vadan is stepping it up and keeping Indiana ahead, but he's turning the ball over a lot too.

Man, someone get this team a point guard....

UPDATE: Indiana is up 12, but this is a horrible game. The officiating is inconsistent, but not benefiting either team. It is really hard to get a rhythm offensively, or defensively for that matter, when the threshold goes from touch to borderline anal-rape.

Indiana is having a very bad night defensively. I don't know why Davis hasn't had White and Killingsworth on the floor at the same time.

Then again, what do I know? Indiana is shooting very well, when they aren't turning the ball over.

FINAL UPDATE: Indiana hung tight with Robert Vaden and Marco Killingsworth dominating the game offensively. Marco shot 90% from the stripe and kept Indiana on top in the second half.

Indiana plays very, very tough and they are going to give opposing teams fits with the amount of depth they have. In Indiana's seven wins, they've been able to go to their bench and get a solid game from someone.

Their point guard play is a weakness, though. I don't think that they are hopeless, but Lewis Monroe has to be more aggressive in looking for shots. I love his unselfishness, and he doesn't suffer from a lack of confidence, so I think we have the ability to improve throughout the year there.

A Bachelor's Christmas

So...

What are you up to for Christmas? Egg nog, stuffing stockings, yuletide greetings, putting cookies out for Santa, listening to Bring Crosby and Frank Sinatra?

Well, I'm going to celebrate the birth of Jesus in proper bachelor style.

I'm going to Vegas!!!

:::Visions of sugar plums, dancing in my head:::

I also expect to be up five-hunny by midnight.

We were planning a weekend of snowboarding in Tahoe, but although it has been raining here at sea level everyday, it has still been too bloody warm up in Tahoe for any snow. Since the snow conditions SUCK, we had to do some last minute planning.

Vegas = $84 plane tickets.

Sold. If anyone wants to join, we'll be there Sunday through Tuesday.

I'm serious. Get your butt on a plane and come play a few hands. After all, what am I going to do with three of them?

Sold.

Iraq's Future

Steven Den Beste wrote a post predicting what the next year will look like in Iraq. He's not entirely optimistic that we'll see a reduction in terrorism over the next year:

...The native Sunni terrorist campaign will increase in intensity during the next six months or so, possibly as long as a year.

The Sunnis clearly have acknowledged that their decision to boycott the January election was a massive blunder. As a result, the first parliament had a relatively small number of Sunni members, mostly appointed. In the runup to the ratification of the constitution in October, some Sunnis opposed ratification, but others finally gained what was probably the best they could get, an agreement from others in the parliament that when the new one was seated in January that it would consider significant amendments.

What they're hoping to do is to reopen questions which probably were permanently settled in October, most notably regarding federalism. By refusing to participate in the January election, they did not have the influence they really needed during the period in which the details of the constitution were settled, and what they're going to try to do is to replay the game, starting in January.

But they'll still be a minority, both in the parliament (where amendments will have to be approved) and in the country as a whole (where they'd have to be approved by voters). Some of the provisions in the constitution that they want to change are broadly popular. Federalism, in particular, is especially popular with the Kurds.

So what you're going to see is something like the bifurcation of the IRA into an "activist wing" and a "political wing", where those in the political wing disavow any knowledge of the activists and deny any ability to influence them, even though everyone knew they were one and the same.

Sunni members of parliament will begin to make demands for constitutional changes, and as they encounter resistance, there will be a rise of terrorist attacks by the Sunni insurgency. The MPs will regretfully announce that there's nothing they can do about it, but you know, if you just give us ground on these amendments, maybe the attacks will slow or stop.

War is violence intended to accomplish a political goal. The Sunnis have now given up on the idea of preventing a democratic government being formed; it's pretty much now fait accompli. The best they can hope for now is to try to influence the structure and policy of that government to their own benefit.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm not entirely sure this is right.

The reason I think the Sunnis have entered the political process is because they are getting absolutely mauled at their own game. The United States has led an effort that has been one giant, collective demonstration in resolve. Not only have we shown that they are no match for us on the battlefield, they are now having to deal with an increasingly strong Kurdish and Shiite Security Force.

The terrorists biggest wins have been when they hit soft targets. Every once and a while they'll take a lucky swipe at a military target with an IED, but increasingly it is having less of an effect as Iraq is moving in the complete opposite direction from their goals. For the Sunnis to continue their guerrilla war, they are going to need targets and increasingly, these targets are soft (non-military). As the last two years have shown, the insurgency's willingness to hit soft-targets have backfired and public opinion has dramatically shifted from either tacit support or ambivilance, to outright hostility. I think one of the reasons that we have been so quick to gain political traction in Iraq in such a short time, has to do with how quickly Iraqis learned that siding with these murderous bastards is not in their best interests.

The compelling argument that Steven makes is that the Sunnis will do what the IRA and most of the Palestinian movements have done: form bifurcated organization with an "activist" and "militant" wing. The reason I think this is going to be less likely than Steven thinks, is because of how ruthless our efforts in fighting an all out war against them has been. In the case of the IRA, their opponent never dropped the gloves and hunted them down in their own nests. The Palestinian movements have been given broad support locally and internationally, so their violence against their enemy has given them political gains.

The Sunnis are caught. They are jumping on the bandwagon now, because they are isolated and the alternative is annihilation. Their insurgency began with the hope that a prolonged violent campaign (at least in perception), would cause the paper tiger to retreat. They are staring at their worst fears right now: an emboldened population that has now experienced two elections, a strengthening homegrown security force made up of their traditional rivals, and an ally (al-Qaeda) that has been badly beaten both physically and in reputation.

But, I do agree with his last point, which is this:

I think the real make-or-break issue will be a broad amnesty for Sunnis who worked for Saddam. If Parliament is willing to make significant concessions on this -- and I think they will, as long as a few top people are not given amnesty -- then the entire problem could be averted. That's much more important than federalism and it would not require any changes to the constitution.

Bringing peace in Iraq right now lies entirely with the willingness of the Shiites and Kurds to forgive and move on. They have the power to wipe Iraq clean of their Sunni rivals if they chose to do so. The only hope for Sunni survival is through a merciful act that allows them to join. The Sunnis have been drug into the politcal process kicking and screaming, but they are there because they know there is no other way. If the Sunnis continue to chose violence, they are going to be wiped off the map.

"Intelligent" Look at the Decision to Invade Iraq

In all the political posturing over intelligence failures, the core reality of the world that we live in gets completely lost. This post isn't arguing that our intelligence agencies from the CIA, DIA, FBI or NSA are free from criticism, but the central argument of "President Bush defends war, in spite of intelligence failures," is a rhetorical curveball thrown to demonstrate that the President, although there have been three elections with each more successful that its predecessor and an insurgency that is increasingly being alienated from the general Iraqi population, still cheated and lied about taking us to war. And because of that, the war has to be declared an "illegal" sham.

Intelligence as a field is not an exact science. By its very nature it is required to work in the gray areas, trying to link certain elements (which normally do NOT want to be found) to fit together to help decision makers make either military or political decisions. The elements could be anything from information gained through a wire tap, evidence found in a former "safe house", satellite imagery, HUMINT (Human Intelligence: "spies"), or information gained from interrogation.

Those who are involved in these operations uncover a world that is extremely dangerous. They see characters and state-actors that are trying to either extend or solidify power through some rather dubious means.

Case in point, Strategypage reports on the frightening results of an audit that the new Ukrainian government recently found:

Ukraine has discovered that $32 billion worth of weapons and military equipment is missing. Throughout the 1990s, Eastern Europe was a prime source of cheap, Cold War surplus weapons. When the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991, it was agreed that each of the 14 new countries would keep whatever weapons and equipment were on their territory. In the early 1990s, the new Ukrainian government was taken over (via elections) by former Soviet bureaucrats. These guys were finally deposed last year (by by massive demonstrations, and an election), and the new, rather less corrupt government, has been checking the books. They have found that between 1992 and 1996, $32 billion worth of weapons and military equipment disappeared. Apparently this gear was transferred to companies which then either sold the stuff for scrap, or to arms dealers who shipped the stuff all over the world. Government officials, at the time, apparently received substantial bribes to facilitate all this. It appears that the Ukrainians are valuing the lost equipment using the purchase price. The actual value is much less, but still worth a few billion bucks. The bribes paid probably exceeded $100 million. Most of the guilty dealers and officials have apparently left the country.

This is just a look into the underworld that our intelligence agencies operate in. Arms are being sold to people, and no one really knows where, but you have to assume that if someone is buying weapons, they intend to use them. Another frightening situation for the United States was revealed by Representative Curt Weldon, that there are several unaccounted-for suitcase nukes that penetrated U.S. borders during the Cold War.

The general proliferation of weapons is terrifying given their increasing lethality and destructive capabilities. Taken in context of September 11th, the United States could no longer tolerate belligerents that directly threaten the United States. After Afghanistan was quickly handled, the next man on the list was obvious: Saddam Hussein.

Here is Harold Hutchison on what we knew and what we didn't know before the invasion of Iraq:

These charges, however, were themselves a case of overstatement. Reports by David Kay and Charles Duelfer showed that Iraq was maintaining the ability to produce chemical weapons and long-range missiles. General Tommy Franks described the Iraqi programs as being the equivalent of a disassembled pistol. This is hardly a severe intelligence failure- it is more a case of intelligence agencies taking the worst-case scenario (a prudent measure in the wake of a terrorist attack that had killed nearly 3,000 people and the underestimation of Iraq’s progress towards nuclear weapons after Desert Storm in 1991), and discovering that their assessments had been a little too pessimistic. In May of 2004, a sarin shell was used in a roadside bomb. American forces have also found at least one shell carrying mustard gas.

The other charge centers on the claims that the Administration has linked Saddam Hussein’s regime to the September 11 attacks. This is an outright misrepresentation of what the Administration has said about the rationale for liberating Iraq. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein was reassessed within the context of the attacks. This is not to say that there are no signs of a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. One document recovered by a Toronto Star reporter in April, 2003, discussed bringing an envoy from bin Laden to Baghdad to “discuss the future of our relationship” with Osama bin Laden. There were reports of contacts as well. Two of the most intriguing are Mohammed Atta’s reported meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April, 2001 and the actions of Ahmed Hikmat Shakir in Malaysia in January, 2000 (Shakir got a job as a greeter at Kuala Lampur’s international airport via the Iraqi embassy in Malaysia (which controlled his work schedule, attended an al Qaeda summit, then left Malaysia). An evidence summary for one al Qaeda detainee indicated that he traveled to Pakistan with an Iraqi intelligence officer for the purposes of carrying out an attack on the American and British embassies in August, 1998. Another document recovered by the Department of Defense during Operation Iraqi Freedom is an al Qaeda training manual for chemical warfare that contained papers concerning Iraqi officials, training, equipment prices, and manuals for setting up a chemical weapons plant. These documents were dated February, 2002.

These bits of information all put together on a table do not lead to a "smoking gun." They lead to a situation where a prudent actor needed to take pre-emptive action in order to prevent a "smoking gun" (i.e. another attack on the level or greater than September 11th). The fact that we didn't find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction is actually an extremely positive thing for us. As we see from the black market of stolen weapons in the Ukraine, there are numerous and well-funded people out there interested in purchasing weapons.

Now, did these weapons end up in al-Qaeda's hands? I can't be for certain, but they have a lot of money, and the weapons that we encountering in Afghanistan and Iraq are distinctly Soviet-era weapons. At some point, al-Qaeda has invested substantial money into the black market to build the murderous "armies" they have today. If Saddam actually had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, it isn't too much of a stretch to think that al-Qaeda wouldn't have gotten its hands on a few.

Taking all this into context, would you have let Saddam Hussein continue to sit on his belligerent throne giving the West the finger? If so, you are either a much bigger risk taker than me, more trusting of human nature, or a damn fool.

Christmas Wish List

For those that are wondering, "Hmmm, what should I get TF6S for Christmas this year?"

The stock version right off the floor will do just fine. If you love me, you'll indulge me.

Nothing says love more than a Bugati.

::Flash::: Baaa---Booom!*

We are getting quite the storm in San Francisco (and I imagine in the rest of the Bay) this morning.

One of the many places I lived as a kid was Tucson, AZ, and the Sonoran desert thunderstorms were spectacular. So, I love thunderstorms, and a thunderstorm in San Francisco is about as rare as a competent idea from a city supervisor.

Well, this morning, we got a few, bright flashes, followed by the ridiculously powerful claps, booms and bangs. It's raining so hard, water is actually collecting on the sides of the hills.

Storms are cool...

How's the snow and ice almost everywhere else? (hee, hee)

*The title of the post is an homage to a fictive series from my good friend Ian.

Random Thoughts on Vietnam, Iraq and The Ramification of a Pull-Out

The debates about America's role in the world are widespread, and regardless of geography or culture, almost everyone has an opinion on what it should be. Indeed, this site has been an advocate for offensive operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and although my site didn't exist at the time of invasion, I believed the strategic necessity of going to war didn't need international approval if we weren't to get it.

But, this is where many who argued against invasion often make a false assumption in regards to my support. Because I advocate for war does not mean that I think America is blemish-free. Now, what those mistakes are, is a long discussion that should be taken on a case-by-case basis and beyond the scope of this post, but the primary argument that I am going to make, is that the historical alternatives to American influence have been much, much worse.

Each time American intervention is put at center-stage, the spectre of Vietnam comes back to haunt us. So let's visit and analyze the consequences of the Vietnam War. The backdrop of the Vietnam War is one where the United States, operating under it's policy for containment, picked up where French colonialism failed, and tried to hold Ho Chi Mihn's communist forces from infiltrating non-communist, but not democratic South Vietnam.

At first, the United States operated in an advisory role, slowly "escalating" its involvement. For all the myths about the Viet Mihn in the North, they were a very unsophisticated fighting force. Although they had beaten the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, they had not exactly beaten the most elite of forces. As the United States replaced France in defending the South against communist revolution, and tactically, they introduced the helicopter into battle. The North Vietnamese had never seen anything like it, and their mere presence overhead would cause them to run like hell. For almost a decade, South Vietnamese forces in combination with American backed airpower was able to decisively defeat the Vietcong in almost every engagement.

But, like all military engagements, the North Vietnamese would learn how to counter superior firepower, if unsuccesful at first. An anecdote related to me by a professor at college, recalled an American pilot sitting on a small helo platform close to the North Vietnamese boarder. A Viet Cong guerrilla came out of the jungle, and aimed his rifle at the helecopter. Before he fired, he would move his rifle and shoot 10-20 feet in front of the helicopter. He repeatedly did this as the helicopter crew sat in amazement, until they had enough and shot him dead. This incident should have resonated--the Vietcong and Viet Mihn were learning and training to shoot down a moving target. In this case, however, the young man didn't understand that the target had to first be moving in order to time his shot. The counter-measures they developed became more sophisticated, and eventually resulted in successfully shooting down several helicopters in the Battle of Ap Bac. Their tactics, which involved digging deep holes in heavily fortified jungle terrain, neutralized the fire power from the air, while firing back and hitting the vunerable helicopter's underbelly as they passed overhead.

This story is just an anecdote to show that in all military engagements, the enemy will learn how to fight back in the way they are able. In WWII, the Germans sent Panzer tanks, paratroopers and artillery thrusting into Allied front lines, but in Vietnam, they utilized hit-and-run, guerrilla tactics mostly with small arms. Their style of battle, and their unrelenting endurance, exposed the major political problems Washington had in running the war. Many of the political issues were self-inflicted, some were as a result of our nuclear, communist allies adequately countering our presence there with the possible threat of nuclear retaliation if we were to full-on invade the North. Militarily, the United States generally fought well, as in far better than the Northern backed forces, but the North Vietnamese were able to prolong the war to the point where the American people tired of body-counts. The United States ultimately pulled out.

So, for all the mistakes the United States made in Vietnam, those that advocated for a pull-out, or at least, wouldn't allow the United States to take the gloves off and opt instead for a full-war versus limited engagement, the consequences of failure paled in comparison to ongoing American presence in the region. Those who saw the U.S. pull-out as a good thing, say they were justified by history because "the dominoes that the United States said would fall, didn't."

Well, here is one of the direct results of the U.S. pullout in South Vietnam:

Millions of South Vietnamese were forced onto rickety boats to flee "re-education," or more aptly, concentration camps, run by their communist oppressors. Many did not find asylum, meeting their ends by drowning or by pirates. The U.S. pull-out, contrary to those who say dominoes didn't fall, allowed the Khmer Rouge, or Communist Party of Cambodia, to gain and solidy their power. The Khmer Rouge would eventually murder 1.7 million Cambodians as part of their "People's Revolution."

The reality of these images solidifies my pragmatic view of America's foreign policy. While the United States' intervention in Vietnam is filled with images of nepalm and villages being burned down (I would argue that these images far less common than is generally accepted as fact), the indirect and direct results of the U.S. pull-out in Southeast Asia were FAR worse.

Now, some who see evil on both sides of the fence might be looking for a third way. In the case in Vietnam, what would the third way have been? Areas of the world were Communists were victorious have resulted in millions dead. American victory in other regions away from Southeast Asia, such as Germany and Korea, show that after a brutal, all-out war, the United States invests incredible amounts of money and man-power to rebuild and stabilize the area where their footprints lies. This contrast is not done in order to put a halo over the head of the United States, as war by its very nature is bloody, frickin' nasty. My contrast shows that when the U.S. projects its power, it turns its lethal and deadly war machine after victory into a more positive force than any alternative history has yet to provide.

Utopian fantasies of a third way don't have much of a real-world application. Those who are the most powerful are going to fill in the vaccums where others walk away. Those who advocate for a third-way need an engine that is powerful and capable enough to fill that vaccum. So the question is, what is the engine driving their alternative? "Purified" Communism, Fundamentalist Islam, scientology, drum circles? In the Cold War, there was no third way that was at all able to fill in the blanks.

In my opinion, the morality of equivocating between a victor who implements a society that has "McDonalds" and "Starbucks" as being equally repressive as one that sends people to re-education camps or murders them in the millions is utterly absurd. Only those in the West, who have never lived a day under a severely oppresive regime, would put forth such ridiculous arguments from afar. But they are there, and they are numerous.

This example is also relevent post-Cold War. C.S. Scott writes an excellent post about the how al-Qaeda and warlords have turned Somalia into a den of vipers since the U.S. pulled out. In this war on terror, I wouldn't be suprised if Somalia ends up back on the radar as a strategic objective at some point. Our lack of resolve there is not only effecting a suffering population and their neighbors, but might become another refuge for an enemy who has sworn to defeat us.

So, the examples listed above were intended to strengthen my point in advocating victory in Iraq, and to remind those detractors of the potential consequences should the U.S. fail in its goals and pull out early. History (real history, not the pretend history that lies within the revisionists' minds) is littered with the carcasses of people who have died because the United States pulled out short of victory. After September 11th, it should be all the more real that someday those carcasses won't be littering foreign lands, but also our own.

Interesting Exit Poll

Here is some exit polling that was done in Najaf (via Instapundit):

We have also conducted a little survey near one of the polling centers; we distributed 70 forms and asked 70 voters to fill them out. Our questions were:

Who did you vote for? The results were:
46 for the UIA, 14 for Allawi, 8 for list#541 and one vote for each of the lists 696 and 835.

What made you vote for this list? The answers were:
47 for “they can improve security”, 11 for “ending the presence of foreign troops”, 6 for “social and religious values” and 6 for “improving security and reconstruction”.

What is the biggest problem facing Iraqis?

Almost all the answers mentioned security concerns.

What affected your vote?
The answers included personal opinion and religious beliefs.

70 people participated in the survey (46 males and 24 females) and their ages ranged from 18 to 75 and their education ranged from elementary school to master degrees.

Take this data with a grain of salt, as the sketchiness and unreliability of exit polling data is well known. But I find it interesting that in Najaf, the city that radical Shiite Cleric, al-Sadr's militia once held before U.S. troops utterly smashed them, had such a low percentage of people who's main priority was "ending the presence of foreign troops." Actually, the U.S. might have anihilated them completely if they hadn't sought refuge in a religious shrine.

Granted, al-Sadr's guys aren't part of a massive popular movement, but I thought the poll was interesting nonetheless.

Contrasting Images of Freedom with Useful Idiots

This was an image from last January's election, but still important. A man votes for the first time is overcome with emotion.

Meanwhile, these bitches rally in support of a consequence that would not only strip this man the right to vote, but would quite literally put a knife to his neck.

Code Pink is like a collective catfish. All mouth and no brains.

Iraqis Go to the Polls

Tomorrow is today in Iraq. Iraqis are heading to the polls as we speak for their third election. Omar at Iraq the Model is there and is blogging it live. I recommend popping in on him a few times a day to see what's happening.

If you are dubious about Iraq's future, I think you'll have a hard time reading Omar and feeling negative. The man positively is one of the most optimistic and real people I have read or known. So, please give him a read if you haven't, and remember, this is a real Iraqi who is voting for only the third time in his entire life. Wonderful stuff.

Godspeed Omar!!!

Al-Qaeda Is Expired Milk

How come no one mentions al-Qaeda's illegal, unilateral invasion of Iraq?

Al-Qaeda invaded and teamed up with Saddam's supporters to repel the American invasion. But, as I've noted here for the past few months, Iraqis are getting fed up with al-Qaeda. Strategypage reports on this break-up, which for us geo-political junkies, is a little more important than Brad and Jennifer's split:

Sunni Arab-oriented insurgent groups opposed the January elections that chose an interim parliament and, as a result, found their constituencies and views were not represented during the writing of the new Iraqi constitution. Although they continue to resist the new Iraqi regime, there is evidence that some of these insurgent groups have declared a “cease fire” for the December 15th parliamentary elections. As many “accomadationist” Sunni leaders have already endorsed participation in the election, this may insure a strong Sunni turn out, which would be good for the ultimate development of a reasonably representative government in the country.

Two armed anti-government groups are known to have called for a cease fire during the elections. These include Jaysh Al Mujahidin, which is also rumored to be engaged in quiet talks with representatives of the Iraqi government, and the “1920 Revolutionary Brigade.” The cease fire may also be motivated by other factors, in addition to the desire to seek some degree of power and influence in the new government. Reportedly leaders of several Sunni and Baathist resistance groups have been threatened, and possibly even attacked, by Al-Qaeda in Iraq for not toeing an ultra-religious line. Al Qaeda considers democracy and voting “un-Islamic.” But al Qaeda is not only the most hated organization in Iraq, but also banged up pretty badly after months of attacks by American and Iraqi troops. As the number, and quality, of Iraqi security forces grows, the effectiveness of the investigations and raids against al Qaeda become more effective.

Al Qaeda, and the fanatical leader of “Al Qaeda in Iraq”, Jordanian Abu Musab al Zarqawi, have slaughtered thousands of Iraqis in over a hundred spectacular suicide bombings. Zarqawi had to depend on foreigners for most of these attacks, as Iraqis are reluctant to kill other Iraqis like this, particularly since women and children tend to be among the victims. What really hurt Zarqawi was several attacks that killed large numbers of children. This is a no-no, even among bloody minded Iraqis. The improved counter-terror efforts, including those along the Syrian, Jordanian and Saudi borders, has cut down on the number of foreign volunteers for al Qaeda. Moreover, the word has gotten out that al Qaeda in Iraq is not popular with Iraqis, and subject to constant attack by American troops and Iraqi police. Many potential foreign terrorist volunteers are staying away. So Zarqawi is now recruiting mostly Iraqis, and not having much success at that. One of the major losers in the December 15th elections will be al Qaeda, as many pro-terror Iraqis switch to less violent methods. This has led to violence between al Qaeda and Sunni Arab groups that were formerly supporters of Islamic terrorism.

Al-Qaeda truly is a murderous ideology and they aren't just a threat to Americans or the West. This is a group, where each time they try and gain power or exert any influence, they resort to murdering and terrorizing their opponents. Al-Qaeda's fantasy is that their jihad is all blessed by Allah, and if they confront the infidel, which apparently is defined more broadly than just Americans and Jews now, Allah will deliver their heads on a platter.

Unfortunately for them, the sign from the sky that al-Qaeda is searching for happens to be in the form of a JDAM. Now, as their ranks are being depleted, those who allied with them have realized their only hope for survival is to enter the political world. Al-Qaeda has, well quite the opposite of shrewdly, responded the only way they know how: killing and terrorizing.

Someone needs to send the Z-man Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influece People." If we order it now, he might just get it in time for Christmas.

Vote You Fools!

By the way, for every person that came to my site and didn't vote for Garfield Ridge, I shall kill you.

With wet spaghetti lashes, over and over.

Go vote every day, or it could get ugly.

Iraqi Woman Gives Directions - Metaphysically

Via my good friend Rick, the Political Teen has a clip of a delightful young Iraqi woman that has a helpful suggestion for Iraq's detractors.

Something incredible about a woman who speaks truth to power, isn't it?

Vote for Pedro Dave

I am bumping this up, so that you can vote again. It is becoming a bit of a close race, so if you haven't done so, go vote for Garfield Ridge for best of the 3501-5000 blogs (link below).

Seriously, I think these awards are complete crap, as how can one explain a world were Dave, who has consistently provided interesting content (even if he does root for the Redskins), would lose to a blog that whose content consists of pictures of the author's pregnant stomach...and that is the good part.

Remember, you can vote once per day, so go do it. Go make your co-workers do it. Go make anyone you know who doesn't have a pregnant woman porn fetish vote. If they don't like it, break their fingers, click the link and vote for them Saddam Hussein style.

-----------

Previous Post

I only have one endorsement for the Blog Awards...

Go vote here for Dave at Garfield Ridge for BEST OF THE 3501-5000 BLOGS.

For those of you non-blog people, 3501-5000 is a ranking that Dave happens to fall in.

The fact that Dave's blog is ranked lower than 3,500 other blogs shows just how stupid the damn thing is anyway.

Get going now.

Iraqis Voting in The Bay Area

Iraqis are already getting into the swing of things in the Bay Area:

Jawad al-Mamori plans to travel with about a dozen friends from Sunnyvale to Pleasanton today to cast his vote in the Iraq election.

They will be among some 3,000 Iraqis in Northern California and as far away as Seattle expected to come to Pleasanton during the next three days and, under tight security, cast ballots to select the government of their homeland.

Al-Mamori, a 38-year-old gas station manager who lives with his wife and four children in Sunnyvale, says the United States has made "a lot of mistakes" in his native country, and could have removed Saddam Hussein -- whose forces, he said, killed his father 20 years ago -- without an occupation.

But that doesn't dampen his enthusiasm to cast a ballot

"We don't have a choice. We have to do something to make a better life for the Iraqi people," al-Mamori said. "We have an opportunity to work for our government. Even if we only have 10 percent (influence), we have to do it. If we don't, it's going to be a minus -- less than zero."

In January, al-Mamori and fellow Bay Area Iraqis had to go to Orange County -- twice -- to vote for a transitional parliament, registering during one trip and returning to cast ballots.

Pleasanton was chosen this time because it is easily accessible from San Jose, San Francisco and the Central Valley, which have substantial Iraqi communities, according to the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, which is managing so-called out-of-country voting.

The group estimates that 25,000 Iraqis live in Northern California, although the number is difficult to pin down because the community is so fractured.

SF City Supervisor, Tom Ammiano, was rumored to be organizing a protest of this election on the grounds of "brown people voting because of something George Bush did is, in its very nature, fascist. Plus he's not offering any of them health care."

In all seriousness, it is interesting that the Chronicle happened to find the one voter in 25,000 that was against the occupation. But, even if all 25,000 felt the same way, it doesn't matter. What Mr. al-Mamori and his countrymen need to realize is that this invasion wasn't purely benevolent. We aren't in the business of knocking off dictators for charity. The reason that American blood is being spilled in Iraq is because after September 11th, the Islamic world needed a push towards reform. No longer could we sit by and wait for aggressors like Saddam sit by and continually taunt us with their insolence.

The result of the invasion has been a flood of foreign terrorists joining up with members of Iraq's former ruling party and criminal elements to stop Iraq from becoming a country ruled as a single nation by its own people. They know that this will have a disasterous effect on their ability to regain the power and control they desire in the region. Al-Qaeda wants the worldwide jihad, while the Baathists would just settle for controlling the places in the Middle East with a crap-load of oil. If they cannot regain control of Iraq, their ultimate aims are shattered.

Most Iraqis do understand that if we were to leave, they'd be completely exposed to these blood-thirsty murders. This reality is reflected in yesterday's poll:

When asked what would be the worst thing that could happen to Iraq in the next 12 months, only 8.9% chose "occupation not leaving Iraq."

When asked what would be the best thing that could happen to Iraq in the next 12 months, only 5.7% chose American forces leaving Iraq.

The Who has some pertinent words for those contemplating the nature of the occupation:

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss...

Won't Get Fooled Again..

Iraq is the place where American interests and the freedom of oppressed people interesect. We are NOT purely benevolent in our intentions, but this is a win-win for us and the Iraqi people. Sometimes our objectives will criss-cross a bit and some toes will get stepped on, but ultimately, the Iraqi people and the United States will be better off with an Iraq that is mostly free of the cancer which is theocratic fascism enforced by a violent ideology.

Iraqis Getting Ready to Vote...Again

We are three days away from the third election in Iraq. With this in mind, the media has been surveying and polling the Iraqi population in attempts to predict the results, and also to gauge the general psychology of Iraqi voters. This story by ABC, which discusses the poll results, is fascinating in not only its raw results, but also in the way a mainstream U.S. media outlet interprets them:

Surprising levels of optimism prevail in Iraq with living conditions improved, security more a national worry than a local one, and expectations for the future high. But views of the country's situation overall are far less positive, and there are vast differences in views among Iraqi groups — a study in contrasts between increasingly disaffected Sunni areas and vastly more positive Shiite and Kurdish provinces.

An ABC News poll in Iraq, conducted with Time magazine and other media partners, includes some remarkable results: Despite the daily violence there, most living conditions are rated positively, seven in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead.

Surprisingly, given the insurgents' attacks on Iraqi civilians, more than six in 10 Iraqis feel very safe in their own neighborhoods, up sharply from just 40 percent in a poll in June 2004. And 61 percent say local security is good — up from 49 percent in the first ABC News poll in Iraq in February 2004.

Nonetheless, nationally, security is seen as the most pressing problem by far; 57 percent identify it as the country's top priority. Economic improvements are helping the public mood.

ABC News is truly shocked (I won't accuse them of dismay) that the Iraqi people are positive about their overall hope for the future. The media has fallen victim to their own meme. Their constant coverage for the last few years has done nothing but view the strategic situation in Iraq through the IED and the suicide bomber. The violence is mostly regionalized (although, the violence is pretty major where it lies), and the large part of the population that hasn't opened their doors to violent extremists and Baathist reminants, have enjoyed relative stability.

Secondly, they do not understand the survival-mode psychology of the average Iraqi who has decades of oppression from a bloody tyrant at the fore-front of their minds. During the initial invasion, we were greeted as liberators, then the planned insurgency picked up, and Iraqis weren't sure who was going to win. The luke-warm, or flat out dismissal of our efforts then were seized upon by the media as being indicative of a population that really saw us the enemy. That wasn't true at all. Reality was, Iraqis want to side with the winner regardless of their long-term interest. When it seemed like there was a possibility that the United States wasn't able to stick it out or win, Iraqis went into survival mode.

This is why I think that the Battle of Mosul will be looked at by historians as a turning point against the insurgency. If you have been reading and following events in Iraq, and you haven't read Michael Yon's dispatches on the battle for Mosul, you MUST read these following stories:

The Battle For Mosul: Reality Check
Battle For Mosul: Progress Report
Battle For Mosul III: Prelude
Battle For Mosul IV

Michael returned to Mosul after the division he was embedded with was sent back to the U.S. There he covered the election on the Constitution. What he saw was very positive. First hand he witnessed, in action, American policy for victory. Jump into the middle of the baddest places in Iraq, beat the piss out of the insurgents in front of the local population, then hold the ground with the new Iraqi Security Forces. Michael describes how the American's did this in Mosul, and how the population positively responded and are now actively aiding in their efforts. Now, those living in Mosul are hopeful about their future.

However, Michael's influence, for the time being, is minimal. He is not writing for the NY Times, or ABC News. He is an independent reporter in Iraq on his own dime. News junkies like me that scour the internet looking for any reporting that doesn't orginate out of the Green Zone in Bagdad don't exactly fit into the nation as a whole.

So, ABC news is now surprised to find that Iraqis are hopeful about the future. If they had Michael Yon working for them, maybe they wouldn't be as shocked.

Ok, so now the bad news. The United States is apparently losing the popularity contest that is so important to Western ears:

Other views, moreover, are more negative: Fewer than half, 46 percent, say the country is better off now than it was before the war. And half of Iraqis now say it was wrong for U.S.-led forces to invade in spring 2003, up from 39 percent in 2004.

The number of Iraqis who say things are going well in their country overall is just 44 percent, far fewer than the 71 percent who say their own lives are going well. Fifty-two percent instead say the country is doing badly.

There's other evidence of the United States' increasing unpopularity: Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most of them disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon.

Specifically, 26 percent of Iraqis say U.S. and other coalition forces should "leave now" and another 19 percent say they should go after the government chosen in this week's election takes office; that adds to 45 percent. Roughly the other half says coalition forces should remain until security is restored (31 percent), until Iraqi security forces can operate independently (16 percent), or longer (5 percent).

The poll does not include how Iraqis feel about al-Qaeda. The United States is not there to give everyone warm and fuzzy feelings, they are there to eliminate and discourage extremists that have been able to operate with relative autonomy for far too long. Baathists, members of al-Qaeda, criminals, whatever. We are there to show them that they can't beat us, and that the Iraqi population will soon be able to rely upon a Security Force, made up of their own people.

So, who is winning this war? The American objectives are winning in the polls that really matter: how willing Iraqis are to join the political process, their feelings towards violence as a means to their ends, their support for a Federal Constitution, and their willingness to keep Iraq as a unified country. The Sunnis are turning their backs on the murderous extremists to join the political process, and 70% of the people are hoping to vote in a few days. I'd say that whether or not the Iraqis are ready to start playing the Star Spangled Banner in conjuntion with their National Anthem at soccer games is irrelevant. Our objectives are slowly being accomplished, yet I can't blame Iraqis for wanting this all to be over with. They've endured a lot, and are going to have to stick it out for a little longer, but I think history is going look rather fondly on our efforts in Iraq.

Evidence of confidence in their security is growing strongly:

Despite the growing gap between Sunni and Shiite provinces, confidence in some institutions has risen overall, particularly confidence in the Iraqi Army, up from 39 percent in November 2003 to 67 percent now; and in the police, up from 45 percent to 68 percent (but stable since last year).

This metric is strategically more important than how Iraqis feel about Americans. We aren't going to be there in the long-term, and somebody needs to ensure that al-Qaeda and the extremists won't come back to murder on the scale seen during their reign of terror. People are feeling more confident in this, and this number will grow as they get better and better. This was a Herculean task that the U.S. military engaged in, and the results are starting to materialize in the field and in the minds of those whose lives are dependent on it.

Popularity Isn't the Be-All/End-All

Remember, the United States isn't exactly "popular" in formerly occupied Germany right now. Would we call our efforts to rebuild that country a failure? Last time I checked, the Czechs and the French aren't worrying about legions of German troops overrunning their countries again.

Sometimes, especially in geopolitics, popularity and getting people to do what you need them to do are mutually exclusive. Which would you choose?

* By the way, as an FYI, here are the news organizations that were behind the polling data:

This survey was sponsored by ABC News with partners Time, the BBC, the Japanese network NHK and the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, with fieldwork by Oxford Research International. It consists of in-person interviews with a random national sample of 1,711 Iraqis from early October through mid-November.

These organizations have, for the most part, reported with a negative view towards the United States since the war began, so even though I don't think they have "lied" or "fudged" any of these published numbers, I think it is worth it to keep that nugget of information in mind when reading the poll results in terms of which questions weren't asked, and into what context they ultimately need to be put into.

UPDATE: C.S. Scott expresses his view on how Iraqis are using demonstrating new found freedoms:

It's important that we retain sight of ultimate goal, the standing up of Iraq as a democratic nation and productive member of the international community. When 80 percent of Iraqi's say that want U.S. forces out of Iraq, I welcome that view. Never in the past would they have been free to express those type of sentiments against the Hussein regime.

Good stuff.

Victory!

Indiana 79 - Kentucky 53

Ahhh, we finally beat these guys, and in the end, we almost did beat Kentucky by 30 (26). Time to celebrate! Cheers everyone!

IU - Kentucky

I'm sorta liveblogging the IU-Kentucky game. It is 35-19 at the break and Indiana's is stifeling Kentucky allowing them only 28% from the field in the first half. UK is 0-12 from behind the arc.

Indiana had a chance to be up in this game by 30. They've had a couple of throw-aways, but they are playing with intensity.

Here's to the 2nd half. We have to beat these guys this year!

UPDATE: Indiana cannot hit a shot to start the second half, but Kentucky is helping things by constantly fouling and playing with equal futility.

UPDATE 2: This is an awfully sloppy game offensively. Neither of these teams are shooting the ball well. Indiana is remaining patient and running their offense though. Indiana's shots will start to fall towards the end of the game if they can control the tempo and run their offense.

UPDATE 3: At the 12:45 mark, Indiana has only one field goal.

Yuck.

Yet, somehow they are still up 12.

UPDATE 4: How quickly things change. A.J. Ratliff has just gone insane this half. Indiana is up 19! Pour it on 'em boys!

UPDATE 5: AJ again! IU up 20!

UPDATE 6: Slop. Indiana pulls their starters and UK pulls within 15.

UPDATE 7: Indiana is not able to put this game away. UK is killing them right now. They just keep fouling UK and playing DUMB.

Indiana has 4 turnovers in the last 20 seconds.

UPDATE 8: Indiana is having a meltdown. Kentucky is within 12.

Indiana is absolutely falling apart with Kentucky's full court press.

This is disgusting.

UPDATE 9: Indiana is going to pull this game off, but they should have won it by 30.

Very, very sloppy against the press.

Don Fischer, "This game has slowed to a turtle's pace."

UPDATE 10: IU is finishing this with free-throws.

UPDATE 11: SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!

NFL Lamentations

The Sports Guy had a quote on Raiders' coach Norv Turner today that made me giggle like a nine year old after watching "The Film" for the first time:

After another of Norv Turner's team quit on him, it raises the question: Does this spread to other aspects of his life? For instance, if Turner is walking his dog, does the dog simply stop walking two blocks from the house? If his family is playing Scrabble during the Thanksgiving break, does the game break up when there are still 15 tiles left in the bag? How does this work? Anyway, add the Raiders to Suck Central.

Then Simmons goes for extra credit:

Funniest fantasy dynamic of the season: Any fantasy league where one guy took Priest Holmes and another guy took Larry Johnson. If the Larry Johnson Guy acts even remotely smug to the Priest Holmes Guy, it's almost like acting smug after you've hooked up with somebody's sister -- you can do it, but you might get punched in the face.

For the record, I have Larry Johnson.

Anyway, if you are an NFL fan, read all of it. The theme is perpetual putridity in the Not Fun League. I have to agree, the overall quality of professional football sucks.

I am a huge Giants fan, and watched this team play in one of the toughest divisions football ever produced in the 80's and 90's. There were some unbelievably good teams in the NFC East during that time. Any of those Eagles teams that just couldn't find a way to get past the Giants, Redskins or Cowboys then would go 16 - 0 in today's watered down league.

This year's Giants team is a pretty decent team with some future potential, but if they put this team into the NFC East in 1989, they'd be slugging it out with the Cardinals for last place. And the Giants are in FIRST place in what might be the "best" division in the NFC.

When you systematically set up any system to acheive equality of results, all you end up with is mediocrity. The NFL is a real experiment that demonstrates the logical conclusions of a progressive's ideology.

UPDATE: Speaking of "Not Fun," why is it that I couldn't resist taking a shot at progressives when all I wanted to do what chat about football? Do I have some kind of sick obsession? When did I turn into Barbara Streisand with slightly fewer typos?

Mandatory Health Care in San Francisco

San Francisco Supervisor, Tom "Watch Out, I'm Coming to Get You" Ammiano, has introduced a resolution to the Board of Supervisors that would require all businesses in San Francisco over 20 employees to provide at least $345 dollars a month per employee for health care. He calls it Universal Health Care for everyone.

Of course someone will have to pay for this, and it will lie squarely on the shoulders of small businesses. Strangely, progressive values are "in theory" supposed to protect the little guy from the big corporate bastards that are trying to suck all the fresh blood from their veins. All the big businesses in San Francisco are giving benefits to their employees, and this effort, in reality, specifically targets businesses that operate under razor thin margins. Tom is effectively making them less able to compete against the "big guy." But fortunately, businesses can pick up and move out of the city where this progressive law cannot touch them. Here is what Tom had to say about that:

Ammiano doesn't buy the argument. "As to businesses moving, I haven't seen them move," he said. "They're not going to move."

Businesses that offer health care for their workers have higher productivity, he said, and do better in the marketplace.

Tom's has the faith of a mustard seed. Some day he'll grow up to be a big tree.

Chalk this up as another classic San Francisco intiative of "feels good, but dumber than a sack of hammers."

Reform is the "Word of the Day" in....Mecca?

The Organization of Islamic Conference was, appropriately, held in Mecca and Saudi Arabian King Abdullah and Pakistani President Musharraff made the big splashes. The Christian Science Monitor has this great round-up. Interesting how most Islamic leaders put reform at the center of their speeches.

And most leaders are upset at al-Qaeda for what they have done to the "image" of Muslims around the world.

Whether they like it or not, change is in the offering for the Islamic world.

Murtha Lays Out a Plan

The Colossus offers some geography and map reading lessons to a confused John Murtha.

For the record, I don't really get the latest Democratic meme that says, "pull the troops out to a friendly country near Iraq, so we can go BACK in case something happens."

This armchair General frowns on such absurdity. What they are saying is, we should have a farther reach, thus necessitating a longer response time "in case there's more terrorist activity." I might understand nonsense like this from Pelosi or Dean, but Murtha was a Marine for Pete's-sake, and here he is demonstrating the operational acumen of a demented jelly-fish.

Secondly, why do they have to leave the country? If you believed the Democrats, all of Iraq is going to hell, when 90% of it is completely calm and getting stronger every day. Arabs are vacationing in the Kurdish north, and the Shia south has some issues with some hardliners down there, but they more resemble the Klu Klux Klan than the organized mass-murderers in al-Qaeda.

The United States has purposely put itself into the middle of the worst insurgent strongholds in Iraq to demonstrate to them that they cannot beat us, and to prove to the Iraqi people that we will not allow them to terrorize the Iraqi people anymore.

The PLAN that they keep claiming isn't there, is to replace our guys with Iraqis. Right now, the Americans have the offensive capabilities to hunt down and kill terrorists in their "safe-houses", while the new Iraqi security forces hold and secure ground that is gained from these offensive operations. Demonstrating sound offensive capabilities against guerrillas is NOT easy, and even Russians have demonstrated ineptitude in this area against the Islamists in Chechnya.

I'd be willing to bet that those who say we are losing the war haven't read one after action report of the combined Iraqi-U.S. operations making up the Anbar campaign. Town after town is being liberated from the terrorists' grip. This stuff takes time, but in relative terms, I think even Patton would be envious as to the success the U.S./Iraqi coalition has had in this effort.

I do give Murtha credit though, for the last few years, I have been pounding the Dems for not having a plan. Now at least they offering alternative solutions. Granted, their solution is "Retreat!", but now I can argue with its substance, versus engaging in more shadow boxing.

Guitar 101

So, looking at the "theme" of this site, you probably can guess that I like the guitar. The quantity (or quality) of the content related to guitar stuff on this site belies this fact, but take my word for it, my axe is really just an extension of my....

...self.

Get your bloody mind out of the gutter.

Anyway, one aspect that I think is very important in developing as a player is understanding your music's history. Learn about those who came before you and paved the road to where music is at today. Classical, or traditional musicians don't have a problem with this, as there is no way to understand what is being composed today unless you understand the extensive history and theories that preceded you.

Rock 'n Roll is a little different. These are the guys (gender neutral for today's 21st century culture of course) that told everyone to go to hell, we're going to turn it up, sing about doing whatever we want, sleeping with whomever we want and partake in any chemicals needed. The accidental goal was to give the world the collective finger.

I'm sure the world deserved it, but Rock 'n Roll was a bit blustery and myopic by not realizing that someday they too would have a history to answer to. Before I go and get all serious, thus breaking the immortal spirit of Rock 'n Roll that I'll quote from one of the Holy Books of Guitar, or Holy Movies, Spinal Tap:

"What wuold you do if there was no Rock n' Roll?"

"Well, there's still the sex and drugs, right?"

At it's core, at the end of the day, Rock 'n Roll isn't serious. It's supposed to be fun, but undeniably it does have a history. It has produced music that changed culture forever and there were very influential people responsible for it. Some of these people were good, some bad, some deaf, some child molesters, some overdosed....well, a lot overdosed, some genius, some so stuck on themselves they should have renamed themselves "The Artist I Formerly Cared About."

Back on point. The era I learned guitar in (late 80's, early 90's), Steve Vai was the pinnicle of guitar playing. I listened to Passion and Warfare and said, "Ok, how in the hell...am I going to learn that?" So I read every interview, and learned that Steve Vai was a young guy one day that listened to people and eventually got to where he was by copying and learning from those who rocked his world growing up.

Then, in 1991, I picked a magazine off the shelf that would change my musical life forever. It was the first, special edition Guitar Legends magazine that was solely dedicated to one guitar player. That player was Eddie Van Halen. The picture on the cover was of Eddie doing a flying leap with his black, white and black Frankenstein, smiling ear to ear. I thought there is no way that anyone could possibly be cooler.

The content inside convinced me that there was no way in my life I would ever put this instrument down again. Cover to cover was Ed sharing about how fun and mindblowing it could be to play the guitar. In his world, there was nothing that couldn't be done when you played. He spoke extensively about the guys that he learned from growing up, but his main guy was Eric Clapton. For 10 hours a day he learned every note that Eric Clapton ever played. He reminisced about of his brother, Alex, leaving to go to parties while he would stay at home and play guitar. Alex would come home and Eddie would be at the edge of his bed, playing away in the same spot that Alex had left him.

Passion has no equal to Edward.

For the next few years, as Clapton was to Van Halen, Van Halen was to me. I sat at home and learned every note that man played. Dave or Sammy made absolutely no difference to me, as long as Eddie had his hands around the neck, Uncle Freddie who lives under the sink could be singing.

With this in mind, it should be understandable that my emotions hit Andrew Sullivan levels when people disrespect someone that turned playing the guitar on its ear for me. I'm completely beyond reason on this subject.