"Operation Swarmer" And The First Strike War Doctrine

Salvador DALI "Prémonition de la guerre civile" [Premonition of Civil War ], 1936, Musée d'Art de Philadelphie

 

TO BE UPDATED WITH LINKS THROUGHOUT THE DAY, WATCH THIS SPACE AND SCROLL DOWN TO VII UPDATES

I posted late this morning as I have been watching the Breaking News, just in:

Baghdad, Iraq - The United States on Thursday launched what was termed the largest air assault since the U.S.-led invasion, targeting insurgent strongholds north of the capital, the military said. The U.S. military said Iraqi troops also were involved in the operation aimed at clearing a "suspected insurgent operating area northeast of Samarra."

Coalition forces have dubbed the assault "Operation Swarmer," which is an operation consisting of about 1,500 soldiers in all, including the Iraqi Army's 1st Brigade, 4th Division, the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade Combat Team and the 101st Combat Aviation Brigade. The assault is a combination of air and ground operations involving more than 200 tactical vehicles and more than 50 aircraft also participated in the operation.

According to the Coalition Press Information Center, initial reports indicate that a number of enemy weapons caches have been captured, containing artillery shells, explosives, IED-making materials, and military uniforms. A show of strength was a very much needed move by the coalition forces at this time:

Adnan Pachachi, the senior politician who administered the oath to Iraqi legislators in the absence of a speaker, spoke of a country in crisis.

"We have to prove to the world that a civil war is not and will not take place among our people," Pachachi told lawmakers. "The danger is still looming and the enemies are ready for us because they do not like to see a united, strong, stable Iraq." ⋯

Somehow I think the President is trying to tell us something, launching the largest air attack on Iraq in three years, on the same day and almost simultaneously giving the zero tolerance message in the national security report, following along the lines of Israel, against terrorism. Obviously undaunted by the difficult war in Iraq, he reaffirmed today his strike-first policy against terrorists and enemy nations saying that Iran may pose the biggest challenge for America.

In a 49-page national security report, the first in three years, the President said diplomacy is the U.S. preference in halting the spread of nuclear and other heinous weapons.

"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur -- even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," Bush wrote.
The report also says:

"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran. For almost 20 years, the Iranian regime hid many of its key nuclear efforts from the international community. Yet the regime continues to claim that it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime's true intentions are clearly revealed by the regime's refusal to negotiate in good faith; its refusal to come into compliance with its international obligations by providing the [International Atomic Energy Agency] access to nuclear sites and resolving troubling questions; and the aggressive statements of its President calling for Israel to 'be wiped off the face of the earth.'

"The United States has joined with our EU partners and Russia to pressure Iran to meet its international obligations and provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided."

Titled "National Security Strategy," the report summarizes Bush's plan for protecting America and directing U.S. relations with other nations. It is an updated version of a report Bush issued in 2002.

Here is the PDF of the entire document, as I would not have too much trust in the MSM to tell you accurately the contents of it.

My liberal friend Michael van der Galien is not happy with the first strike doctrine, and agrees with the theory held by some like Helen Thomas, that it is in violation of international law. Well I am sure as far as the left is concerned it will be simply an extension of the President's "breaking the domestic law" pattern expected of a dictator in his position. Ahem.

SCROLL DOWN TO VII IMPORTANT UPDATES BY CLICKING BELOW

UPDATE I: Greg @ The Political Pitbull has the video of the grumpy fossil Helen Thomas socking it to McClellan.

Confederate Yankee, sets the record straight on the equipment with some photos.

Washington relays my sentiments: "These operations are exactly what those of us who spent part of our lives in the military have been expecting for the last year and a half. It is also safe to assume that this demonstration of an insertion via air serves as a reminder to Iran that the capability is present to launch and land these forces if the need arises."

UPDATE II: Over @ the liberal Digby corner they are pleased to announce that Iran is the new Iraq according to the newly released document.

UPDATE III: Speculations are rife on CNN that the air raid today could have involved a high level target, presumably al-Zarqawi, which makes a lot of sense. Interesting article about him tightening the grip in Iraq here:

Al-Zarqawi -- who is from the largest tribe in Jordan -- has used his knowledge of tribal loyalties to bind him to the local population. He's also killed any sheiks who dare disagree, including several who recently agreed to negotiate with the Americans.

"I do know people, tribal people, who did negotiate. But they all got killed. Anyone who is talking to the Americans got killed," Zeidan says.

Ali Shukri, a retired Jordanian general and former adviser to the late King Hussein, agrees.

"Those tribal leaders who are in Iraq are definitely living in fear," he said.

Those who are not in Iraq and happen to be in the region are afraid of what Zarqawi could do to their immediate families. It seems he could reach them and he did reach them.[...]"The failure of America to win in Iraq means victory for Iran. And our real enemy is not America, it is Iran," he said.

Memeorandum features my post here and Real Clear Politics here.

IMPORTANT UPDATE IV: It all starts making sense: from The Counterterrorism Blog via The Anchoress:

The level of “chatter” by al Qaeda operatives is currently as high or higher than in the months prior to 9-11, and the question in many parts of the U.S. and European intelligence communities is not if al Qaeda will strike again, but when. Much of the thinking centers on the near-term. This is also reflected in current corporate security alerts being circulated among elite business establishments.

There are several factors that point to al Qaeda at least having a plan for an imminent attack. The first is the January appearance of Osama bin Laden himself after months of silence. The second is the repeated warnings and boasts from bin Laden, Zawahiri and on al Qaeda web sites of impending action.

Several analysts I have spoken with believe the leadership of the historic al Qaeda would not raise expectations of an attack, especially at a time of intense competition with Zarqawi’s operation for the mantle of carrying out international jihad, without something important afoot. The risk of losing credibility is too high. Zawahiri is already viewed as the person carrying out action, while bin Laden and Zawahiri have been left in the roles of elder statesmen, respected but no longer operational in the field of battle.

One corporate risk analysis group reported something else of interest: A March 10 posting on al-Hesbah website, known for posting al Qaeda messages, carried a message from the Global Islamic Media Front. The message gives a final warning to the United States before carrying out what it said would be two devastating attacks. The second attack would not be launched until after Washington had time to respond to the first one, the message said. The full blog is here.

This major attack was already foiled two days ago. Make sure you check out Joe Katzman @ The Winds Of Change for the most comprehensive power packed briefing update on the global situation thus far. The ongoing post is called Winds Of War. I love that site it's brilliant.

IMPORTANT UPDATE V: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has created a website where it will post documents captured in postwar Afghanistan and Iraq. The website is hosted by the Foreign Military Studies Office Joint Reserve Intelligence Center at Fort Leavenworth and will be updated continuously with new documents. Thank you to Hugh Hewitt, who also points to John Hinderaker's analysis.

Michelle Malkin gives us a flashback with Pajamas Media documentarian Andrew Marcus who interviews Rep. Hoekstra Feb. 16 about the docs: "They ought to be put on the Internet...unleash the power of the 'net on these 55,000 boxes of documents to see exactly what went on...Let the blogosphere go!"

These documents are "the final nail in the coffin of the liberal fantasy about al-Qaeda ties to Iraq."

Bloggers on this: The Anchoress, Captain's Quarters, Wizbang, Protein Wisdom, MVRWC, Sister Toldjah, Barcepundit, The Strata-Sphere, The Corner on National, The Astute Blogger, The Politburo Diktat,  Weekly Standard, The Dread Pundit Bluto, The Jawa Report, The Moderate Voice, Decision '08, Martin's Musings,

UPDATE VI: The Anchoress in my comment section, on my own thoughts above about the synchronized timing of everything that happened today: "Yes, that's pretty much what I've been thinking all day.

1) release Iraqi documents
2) reiterate commitment
3) air assault on insurgents

My prediction: we'll be out of Iraq sooner than anyone thinks, and the press has been sort of rope-a-doped today. Instead of reporting on Iraqi documents, his commitment and the air assault, they are fixating on...polls. He's making the press look very, very bad."

And of course there is Iran, and the increased chatter of al-Qaeda, and the fact that rumor has it that they were after a high value target in the raid today, which we can only assume to be al-Zarqawi.

Out of Iraq and into Iran. Ahem. Iran expresses their wish TODAY to hold face to face talks with the
US on Iraq. The master manipulators are preparing to make their next move.

UPDATE VII: From Gateway Pundit:

In a directive issued today (Friday), obtained by ABC News, the FBI says a posting on an extremist message board "advocated suicide attacks against sporting events as a cost-effective means of killing thousands of Americans."
The FBI says the Internet posting said the suicide attacks would be justified because the United States refused a truce offered by Osama bin Laden in his last videotaped statement, Jan. 19, 2006.
According to the FBI bulletin, the author of the posting recommended using "three to five blond or black American Muslim suicide bombers."
And, the Taliban announced their summer terror plans today.

From Bill Roggio on the unmasking of insurgents in Iraq.

CONSTANTLY UPDATED LINKS: More @ Drudge, American Digest, Outside The Beltway California Conservative, Stop The ACLU, Andrew Sullivan, JAWA, The Moderate Voice, Iraq The Model, The Belmont Club,  Flopping Aces, The Heretik, Decision '08, YARGB, Peakah Provocations (says "It's about time!") Unpartisan, Mudville Gazette, GOP Bloggers, The Dread Pundit, Church and State, Elephants in Academia, Big Dog.

Comments

[DavidByron]

So what I am reading is that the general concensus is that Swarmer was a big Photo Op. More political theatre from "all hat no cattle", George. A Psy-Op against the American people. Operation Rescue George Bush's Poll numbers. No actual fighting, just politics.

This propaganda doesn't appear to be aimed at independents and the left. Did it have the effect of securing Bush's base? You guys seemed happy with it at the time. How about now?

[Huan]

David,

I am comfortable with my grasp of the English language. I am well versed in the language of legal documents. It is you who has demonstrated wishful thinking, trying to fit reality into a more desirable perception.
As I said, your entire argument (that Bush violated international law or that Republicans wish him to violate laws) rests upon a misrepresentation of the word "refrain." You certainly can do better as a sophist. A mature adult of reasonable comprehension should not attempt to wiggle so much when wrong. Your attempt to extract yourself rather than admit your error speaks volume of your character.

[DavidByron]

Huan? The UN charter is translated into many languages I suggest you check out the text in a language you are more familiar with. If you insist on bringing this up again I suggest you ask someone whose answer you might actually believe.

Washington, if you love America then why are you making America out to be a country that has no honour --- a lawless country that doesn't honour the promises it makes to other countries?

Do you applaud Saddam Hussein's decision to invade Kuwait in violation of the UN charter? America condemned him for protecting national interests. Therefore you hold the US congress and Bush's father in contempt for finding fault in Saddam's actions.

Do you accept the implications of your own words?

[Washington]

The entire UN arguement is a waste of space. Any head of state in a democratic government who allows a body like the UN to dictate what measures he/she will take to protect national interests is beyond contempt. I state that regardless of whether Bush, Clinton, or anyone else is in office.

People love making this a "Bush" issue. For some that may be the case but my philosophy is that I am an American-I love America. I do not worship any political leader though I like some more than others. Call me selfish but I want what's best for America and our allies. We have it good. If others wish to share in that they become our allies. If you seek the destruction of our way of life we are not going to wait around on an impotent body to act - no democracy should. Worrying about offending the sensibilities of a group of nations has led to far more suffering than need have happened.

[Huan]

David, I hope English is your fourth language. It is my third and i seem to have a better grasp of it than you do.
"Refrain" does not mean "do not do." The latter is a command, an imperative. The former is a request for restaint and control, not a prohibition. The writers of the UN charter certainly know better than to use "refrain" instead of "shall not."

If all your argument is predicated on "refrain" means "don't do" to demonstrate that Bush broke the law, or that Republicans want Bush to break the law, you really are a sophist. And a poor one at that.

[DavidByron]

I assume that the denial about the fact that Bush violated the UN charter repeatedly is the vestiges of some sort of capacity for embarassment over supporting a criminal.

Huan your argument can be cleared up by consulting any good dictionary as to the meaning of the word "refrain". If I refrain from X it means I don't do it. Darrell your argument is plain daft. Darrell argued that the US could claim to be being attacked by Iraq in 2003 because Iraq attacked a completely different country in the previous century. No.

You two should just deal with it and agree that Bush is a criminal whom you support regardless -- like other Republicans have come to terms with this. By arguing very weakly for his innocence you inevitably make everyone else look bad, and yourselves look insincere when it becomes clear that Bush is guilty regardless of your objections and despite this you would still support him.

[Joseph Marshall]

Well, N by NW, I think I've fairly well addressed the issues of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in the post which follows this, but, to recap: Hamas is in no position to do anything nastier than they already have been doing without controlling the Palestinian parliament.

In fact, they are much more exposed now to Israeli retaliation by doing so. Sharon's retrenchment and separating wall merely needs to be fully implemented. After that Hamas will be on a perfectly pullable choke chain called keeping money from them.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been around for fifty years. Support the nation states already in place, even the bad ones, just like we did throughout the 20th Century, and they will be around for another 50 years without making much headway. Start knocking over some more nation states indiscriminately, without being prepared to put anything in their place, and you just might advance their cause.

As far as Buddhism goes, I'll repeat what I said on another post down the roll: Buddhism is not about "making nice". Buddhism is about "getting real". My commentary here is tart and thorny because I think many here have a lot of catching up to do in the getting real department.

This post started with a great and overarching fantasy about George Bush being "finally gonna show 'em" with a grand Operation Smasher that was going to strike to the heart of the Iraqi insurgency and magically make all the other nation building problems disappear.

He was also "finally gonna show 'em" with a re-affirmed declaration that we will make war any where we want and any time we want, particularly in that pesky Iran if they didn't watch out.

Furthermore, he was "finally gonna show 'em" by dragging out tons of Saddam's archives to justify the three years and nearly $250 billion dollars he's spent failing the straighten out the mess he made in Iraq.

All of this is a fantasy. Period. It is also a dangerous fantasy in a world where virtually all our available ground troops are committed to rotating through Iraq and failing to straighten out the mess. Sabre rattling under those conditions is ill-advised.

If the President finally finishes the fight he started exactly three years ago, then we can look at "first strikes". But right now waving them around as some prophylactic without the troops to back them up is senseless.

We have a world of real dangers to face but dangers are best met by fact rather than fantasy. Operation Smasher was mere theater and no one who gave the matter serious and considered judgment would have expected much more. I certainly didn't, and for exactly the reasons I gave in the comments above.

As a Buddhist who has made certain explicit religious vows, I have an obligation to treat all beings with compassion and loving kindness. But my teachers are very clear about the difference between real compassion and "idiot compassion" [this is precisely the words they use] which consists of not stepping forward to disperse dangerous nonsense merely because in doing so you might fail to look properly "buddhist" and "compassionate".

It is not particularly compassionate to let your fellow citizens wallow in fantasy when we must all face real dangers.

And sometimes the most compassionate course of action starts with a good, rude, Bronx cheer.

[Saunders]

North by Northwest...

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm puzzled by what Mr. Marshall means when he claims a person can "talk" himself into a "psychotic and paranoid space"? The image of someone in such a state is, at least for me, that of Anthony Perkins in the movie "Psycho." I'm skeptical, however, that Mr. Bates "talked himself" into this "space," as I thought it was brought about by the sudden shock he experienced walking in upon his mother engaged in (what General Ripper characterized in "Dr. Strangelove") "the physical act of love." Perhaps Mr. Marshall knows someone who has "talked himself" into such a state, and can enlighten us to its circumstances and particulars.

And btw, what is "total arrogance." Is that worse than "partial arrogance"? Perhaps he can explain.

[North by Northwest]

Saunders,

You make some very interesting observations relating to the 9 Buddhist objectives, which I took from one of their main websites. Joseph Marshall is a practicing Buddhist (I'm a Christian) and has been commenting here for some time. He's clearly very disillusioned and writes on his blog, "For the Republican faithful have simply talked themselves into a psychotic and paranoid space of total arrogance where no amount of feedback from anyone else or anything else can reach them.". So, let's hear from him and how he would like to deal with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood from the Buddhist point of view.

[Saunders]

North by Northwest...

I mean no offense if you are a practicing Buddhist, but...

I'm troubled by your list. Some of the words it employs are...elastic, to say the least. For instance, what comprises the "wisdom of humanity"? What is meant by "blissful culture"?

One word in particular gives me pause, and that is "purify." This is a word fraught with negative connotations, and has been employed as a justification for mass murder frequently through the ages. Isn't a suicide bomber "purifying" humanity when he presses his fatal button while standing in a pizza parlor or shopping mall?

Certainly the terms "beautiful world" and "supreme enlightment" are ambiguous. I suspect many will disagree on the meaning of the first phase, and others will look askance at those claiming to possess the second.

Frankly, some of those sentences are downright creepy if interpreted within a certain context.

But...be that as it may, I agree with Washington regarding Mr. Marshall. He doesn't need meditative touchstones open to wide interpretation. What he desperately are facts, the supply of which is meager within his numerous comments in this thread.

[North by Northwest]

Joseph,

You have now taken to long, tedious and sarcastic rants, which are more akin to a competitive shootout for guest blogger of the week at Scrappleface. You upped your effort to belitele what Alexandra does and the intensity of your catty, dismissing remarks about her and other blogs you frequent. I know it seems to you that you are sowing your pearls of wisdom, but I am afraid all that you achieve is painting a picture of a bitter, frustrated individual who has resorted to sowing poisonous sarcasm instead.

But as a Buddhist, you strive to "...cultivate your own blessings, wisdom, graciousness, and to live a meaningful, bright and blissful life"; sadly I couldn't detect any of that in your comments of late;-)

Which is why I invite you to help us understand how in principal you propose to deal with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and their declared goals. We've had Memri's President Yigal Carmon recommendations, now let's have yours--and please refrain from dismissing these goals but for the sake of a serious contribution, extend these fanatics the courtesy of acknowledging their deep commitment. After all, they are the ones who manage to persuade regularly young men and women to press a small button amidst innocent women and children, thus ending their life in the full belief that they'll be crowned with eternal glory. When have you convinced a fellow human being to lay down his/her life for the cause... let alone to kill harmless fellow human beings? All rhetoric aside, I can assure you, it's no easy feat.

So, let's not have any more of the cheap digs and snides, when addressing our genuinely held opinions, but share with us how you would consolidate the Buddhist objectives with those of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood--we've had an extensive debate how Christian teachings should be applied, so having an insight into the Buddhist's approach would teach all of us something new. Here are some key Buddhist objectives to start you off:

1. To unfold the wisdom of humanity
2. To promote a blissful culture for humanity
3. To purify the mind of humanity
4. To manifest compassion and loving-kindness
5. To benefit society in deeds
6. To help establish a pure world
7. To advance world peace
8. To create a beautiful world
9. To cultivate supreme enlightenment

[Ghost Dansing]

Wow. A true study in wishful thinking...that somehow the abject incompetence of this Republican administration is going to be vindicated.

Dubya and this Republican administration have created a foreign policy pandora's box that is going to take decades to correct...and that's assuming that Dubya and his neocons are rooted out of government and the Republican Party.

As far as military operations are concerned, stand by for grand-stand maneuvers that deliver little tactical or strategic success, increased rhetoric about progress that will allow the administration to "declare victory" and bring the troops home...while disengaging the forces from hot areas as much as possible to minimize casualties.

Meanwhile what Dubya has delivered is chaos in Iraq, civil war, Shia-dominated-Iran aligned government, and a probably distabilized Middle East in general...not to mention damage to our National reputation, revelation of the true limitations of our forces, and strained relations with our tradional allies.

[Huan]

Joseph

the enemy of good is perfect. that seems to be a common problem with those who always complain about how things are not good enough, expecting perfection.

[Washington]

Mr. Marshall:

You are wrong on several counts. This is not the end to Swarmer for it serves several purposes, all of which I have outlined previously. Warfare is not aspetic and it moves at it's own pace. Operation Swarmer is proactive rather than a reactive. I will admit that I was at a loss as to why we didn't start this over a year and a half ago.

You mock the number of people reportedly picked up. One insurgent can equal 5 or 10 dead Americans or Iraqi's if that insurgent uses an IED or worse. As a veteran I find your attitude toward the health and safety of our troops troubling. I don't argue about your right to that attitude but to mock an operation that removed even one insurgent is playing politics with the lives of the men and women in uniform. As someone who communicates with these men and women frequently I think they would be most interested in your opinion-thus I shall forward it.

[Joseph Marshall]

And, just for the record, here we have the end to this whole ridiculous episode:

Time.com

On Scene: How Operation Swarmer Fizzled

Posted Friday, Mar. 17, 2006
Four Black Hawk helicopters landed in a wheat field and dropped off a television crew, three photographers, three print reporters and three Iraqi government officials right into the middle of Operation Swarmer....

U.S. troops on the ground had netted 48 suspected insurgents, 17 of which had already been cleared and released. The area, explained the officials, has long been suspected of being used as a base for insurgents operating in and around Samarra, the city north of Baghdad where the bombing of a sacred shrine recently sparked a wave of sectarian violence....

In fact, there were no airstrikes and no leading insurgents were nabbed in an operation that some skeptical military analysts described as little more than a photo op. What’s more, there were no shots fired at all and the units had met no resistance, said the U.S. and Iraqi commanders.

The operation, which doubled the population of the flat farmland in one single airlift, [i.e., there were only 1500 people there in the first place!] was initiated by intelligence from Iraq security forces.

Here's the link: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1174448,00.html

Can you imagine anything more idotic? When I said "not trust the author of the above passage to have the least clue about who he should be shooting at" I meant what I said. And what I can add to it is that the entire command of CENTCOM can't even tell if there is anybody to shoot at in the Sunni Triangle at all.

Unfortunately, I can imagine something more idiotic. A bunch of bloggers taken in by this nonsense and arguing about the United Nations Charter, while our beautiful hostess promises constant updates on this whole new phase of our glorious war.

Thank you Captain Bunnypants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington. And best wishes to the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, particularly my good friend and sometime correspondent Joe Katzman, who always has such mature and considered military views, combined this time with such gallant courtesy toward our fine hostess:

Thanks, Alexa, we think a lot of your site, too. The fusion of posts with art is more than aesthetic, it's a reminder every day of the civilization that some of us seek to defend....

There is no argument that will ever convince such people. But it is worthwhile to respond. Not for people like David, on whom such words are ever and always wasted. We do it for ourselves, as we remind ourselves of the things we stand for.

And as often, we also receive an education in the intrinsic nature of those we stand against.

Yeah, Joe, you bet it reminds me of the civilization we seek to defend, if only from itself.

[Darrell]

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, David, because frankly you don't matter. Plus I know that you aren't interested in debating this or any matter. No matter what I say, your answer will be nonresponsive. Here are a few points--just for fun. The armed attack that you can not find was the armed attack on Kuwait. Once Iraq violated its 1991 peace agreement(UNSCR 687), the US was free to pursue all other options, including invasion. But you already know that. And you already know that all International Law must be taken account in its totality, including reasonable interpretations. The US had a legal right to invade Iraq. Period. There are dozens of way to make the case. Picking a single line out of the UN Charter and saying that Bush did not do what the line says, is not presenting your case. The UN Charter does not abrogate all other International Law, by the way. A hint for you: A few Socialists declaring that the war was illegal doesn't make it so. Even if they say it a lot of times. Even if a thousand Socialists say it. Even if you hold a big gathering where you all wear very important looking hats, and act all somber and solemn. Iraq's attempt to assassinate George H.W. Bush(April 1993) was an Act of War in itself. So was the 1993 World Trade Center bombing(Iraqi intelligence operatives were involved)--according to International Law. The act of delaring war on the US is an Act of War in itself, so you better be careful about what Fatwas you declare. But I am aware that Law is all a matter of interpretation and rulings, and it is quite possible that a future international court or courts will, in the future, rule that the invasion was not legal. If that happens, we'll appeal. Now explain to me, David, why every intelligence service in the world thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction-- including Russia, China, Syria and Iran. And make your case as to why that consensus doesn't constitute a reasonable motive/justification for pre-emptive or anticipatory self-defense, or delaration of a material violation of UNSCR 687. Data gathered after-the-fact doesn't count....Proceed.
****
1991 March 3 - Iraq accepts the terms of a ceasefire. The primary ceasefire resolution is UNSCR 687 (April 3) requiring Iraq to end its weapons of mass destruction programs, recognize Kuwait, account for missing Kuwaitis, return Kuwaiti property and end support for international terrorism. Iraq is required to end repression of its people. http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive_Index/Timeline_of_Iraq_19322003.html

[brian]

DavidByron's argument is hollow and useless. The U.N. itself violates it's own charter on an hourly basis. They have no credibility in interational security, they have become an international mafia family extorting the poor of the world.

What has the U.N. done for the safety and freedom of the world? The General Assembly welcomed the terrorist Yassir Arafat and let him wave a pistol around at the lecturn, looking like the thug he was. Blue helmets in Africa make sex slaves of children in exchange for food and medicine. The Oil for Food program desrtoyed children but allowed the tyrant to enrich and arm his regime, and some U.N. lackeys to boot. Did the U.N. handle Rwanda? no. Kosovo? not yet. Darfur? that's not quite genocide, so not yet. Sudan is on the Human Rights commission.

A.Q. Kahn? wait, the U.S. and UK handled that OUTSIDE the U.N., because it was important. It's become clear to democratic governments that to do anything of substance in the international community, you need to form a bilateral or multilateral organization to go around the U.N., or waste time and get scammed. There is so much more, someone should write a book about it. Wait someone did:

Tower of Babble : How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos

Inside the Asylum: Why the United Nations and Old Europe Are Worse Than You Think

You should read those books DavidByron and learn something about the world as it is, instead of how you think it should be.

[Washington]

Scott:

How much did you pay for freedom?

[Huan]

Scott

How much would you pay to prevent another 911?
Do you realize how much 911 cost the US not just in lives but also its impact on the economy?

[scott]

So how much did it cost us to capture 40 insurgents? How much per insurgent?

[Huan]

David

wiggle as much as you want. you have failed to support your continued assertion that Bush has violated international law.
your bias is blindingly sad
and naivite to international politics even more so
do you really think the writer of the charter did not know or understand the word "prohibit" to use "refrain" instead?

the UN secretary general is not only a fool, he is a corrupt fool exploiting for personal gains the iraqi oil-for food program and is no arbitrator of what is legal

as i said before, do not mistake political blustering for legal arguments.
or think sounds bite substitute for moral arguments.
don't be a victim of the MSM

[Washington]

I, for one, believe that the UN is impotent. If anyone has read any of the comments I have made they will certainly understand my point of view.

The Head of State should not, under any circumstance, allow our interests to be dictated by the UN. Insofar as it is possible I am for diplomacy. Peace is a worthy goal but not at the price of freedom. The UN is proof that any notion of world government is a bad idea.

[DavidByron]

So Darrell, your position is that Iraq had already assaulted the United States, presumably in secret? And presumably you also believe that Iran has assaulted the US, again, without any report in the nmedia or by either government?

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter states, "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations..."

It's apparent that Bush violated the UN charter and that he violated it again by making that speech the other day (a threat of the use of force). Do you approve?

Why are you guys so dishonest about your own opinions? If you dislike the UN charter why can't you just come clean? Why do Republicans so often skank around hiding their true opinions? Why are you so embarassed to stand up and say what you really think?

If you think the UN charter is a bad idea then say so. Don't pretend Bush supports the UN charter the day after he just violated it and stated he will carry on doing so as US policy.

Quit pretending you think Saddam was in the wrong because he breached the UN charter or ignored some resolutions. You don't think any of that is an issue so why pretend? Is it because it's what you think people want you to say?

Say what you mean and mean what you say. Quit skanking around. Quit being embarassed by your own views. Quit saying what you think others want to hear. You come across as double minded and insincere.

---------------------------------------
As I said before I'm off for a couple of days. Please try to take the above criticism constructively, as is the intent. I went ahead and assumed you were against the UN charter because that appears to be the general view here.

If by chance you really do support the UN charter you should read that bolded part you quoted again. It's quite clear that Bush violated the charter on numerous occassions, just as the Secretary General has said. I have never seen any legal view that concludes otherwise. The wording is simple it is always a criminal offense to initiate a war. There are no exceptions within the UN charter. In particular there is no exception for the breach of a non-agrerssion pact, nor is there an exception for where one country has allegedly breached a UN resolution. That's nonsense. Garbage. I suggest you look up the text of the UN charter and read it if you doubt that such "loop holes" are simply fictitious.

[Darrell]

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter states, "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations..." That right to self-defense also incorporates the centuries-old principle of "anticipatory self-defense" in the face of an imminent threat to national security. In the 16th century, the British applied that principle when they attacked Spanish and Portuguese ports in anticipation of an attack by the Spanish Armada. The United States used it more recently in placing an embargo on Cuba to prevent Soviet deployment of nuclear missiles there.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the authority to determine when it is appropriate for the United States to invoke and exercise its right to use military force in its own defense is vested in the President, as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and Congress, which has authority to raise and support armies and to declare war. No treaty, including the U.N. Charter, can redistribute this authority or give an international organization a veto over U.S. actions otherwise lawful and fully in accordance with the Constitution.

The UN Security Council had passed nearly 60 resolutions on Iraq and Kuwait since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The most relevant to this issue is Resolution 678, passed on November 29, 1990. It authorizes "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means" to (1) implement Security Council Resolution 660 and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and (2) "restore international peace and security in the area." Resolution 678 had not been rescinded or nullified by succeeding resolutions. Its authorization of the use of force against and in Iraq remained in effect during the invasion. Further, Iraq's refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to fulfill their mandate was a violation of its 1991 cease-fire agreement--a clear indication that peace had never been achieved.

Article 1 of the U.N. Charter states that the paramount purposes of the organization are to "maintain international peace and security," "take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace," and suppress "acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace."

Ans so on....and so on...

Sounds like George W. Bush takes these words seriously. Too bad few others do...

[Huan]

David

1. You surely cannot be so ignorant of recent history.
In 1991 the UN issued a call for nations to take up arms against Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait. The UN did not declare war on Iraq. The US, along with others, took up the call and expelled Saddam from Kuwait. A ceasefire, mediated by the UN and to be monitored by the UN, was decided between Saddam and the US as coalition leader. That ceasefire was violated. Hostility resumed. No international law was violated.

2. You surely cannot be so superficial in understanding the English language.

Article 2 section 4:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

This specifies that member states "shall refrain " but it clearly does not prohibits. Considering that the Iraq war occurred after 12 years of diplomatic efforts, I think significant "refrain" has already occurred. In addition, the latest declaration of pre-emption declares it to be a last resort after a failure of diplomacy, again stressing refrain.

3. Do try again.

[brian]

The fear that is so glibly spoken of here, should be felt by terrorists the world over. Who could be afraid of some guys with boxcutters? What's the big deal? What an idiot you are for saying that. I am not cowering in fear. I demand from my "king" justice, and yes, VENGANCE. BLOODY FIERY VENGANCE. Those who are so ignorant as David should be forced to choose between death by 1000 degree jet fuel fire, or leap to your death from the 102nd floor. Would that be a big deal to you, David? Perhaps if it was a choice for your mother? Your child? The bastards will pay. There is nothing someone so insignificant as you can do to stop it. Keep your empty equivilance to yourself on this topic for you know not of what you speak. I am angry, pissed off David. For my country, and all those who were murdered on 9-11. To the ends of the earth we will hunt them down and vengance will be ours and it will feel good. There is the emotional reaction you wanted. Are you happy? At least it's honest.

[Washington]

Mr. Byron (sophist) again proves that his concept of world affairs is severely limited. He is fixated on the UN charter to the exclusion of any understanding of a democracy's national interests.

My opinion is seperate from Alexandra's, a luxury which those of us on the right share. The left has to follow a party line.

[DavidByron]

He fails to understand that governments worldwide hold the UN in contempt, thus, if a Head of State feels that security is an issue, for that nation or her "interests" he/she will act because the UN fails in it's core mission.

So why was Saddam wrong to invade Kuwait? Alexandra just posted another diary that affirms the value of the UN charter. Do you agree or disagree? As with most here you seem all over the map. Fear leads you to accept any stance proposed by your king.

Where is principle?

[Washington]

Mr. Byron brings up the UN charter. He fails to understand that governments worldwide hold the UN in contempt, thus, if a Head of State feels that security is an issue, for that nation or her "interests" he/she will act because the UN fails in it's core mission.

Further he states that he is more conservative than most here. That is another nebulous statement that cannot be proven. Whether one is a conservative, tory, classical liberal (Europe), or any other party that is to the right of center there is an overwhelming body of work that declares national interests above any international treaty - see my previous comment as to why people urge us to abide by these treaties.

[gringoman]

Special Update from Intel (Open Source) Shortly after the beginning of Operation Swarmer, Iran asked for something that has not happened since 1980: face-to-face meeting with US. The likely subject: Iraq. Exclusively Iraq. Two possibilities. (A) Iran will back off from Iraq activities (B)Iran will threaten escalation. Some think (B) is more likely.

[Annoy Mouse]

Strange seeing this today. I haven't seen or thought of Savador Dali for a very long time but brought his work up in the course of a conversation that explained how true experts had classical training but, having mastered traditional sciences, made the creative leap from ordinary to extraordinary. It is true of all creative people from artists, musicians, scientists, and writers.

It is the expression of something both excruciating and sublime and at once startling in its familiarity.

[gringoman]

When the admittedly clueless propose to judge cluelessness, it's tempting to present someone who in fact served in the Sunni Triangle, like Captain Danjel Bout of the U.S. Army. Maybe further judgments can be made on the extent of Captain Bout's clueless nature......

January 09, 2006
Last Days at the FOB

Every goodbye is the birth of a memory

Dutch Proverb

What was to be our last day at the FOB started with pregnant drops of rain sizzling through the predawn darkness. They fell in a tumbling cascade, slowly gathering strength until the air was thick with water. The first few drops of rain splattered into the dust like micro meteorites, sending tiny puffs of dust into the air from their sudden impact. For the first few minutes the air was filled with a strange elemental alchemy – the elements of water, earth, and air all defending their respective domains. Eventually the rain turned into a torrent, and the fallow dust yielded, transforming into tarry pools of mud. Just like a year ago.

The mud is the same, the high walls still grope for the sky, even the wind tastes the same as when we arrived. But I am not earth, nor stone, nor air. I am creature of blood and bone… and I have changed. I am leaving this FOB a different man then the one who arrived at these chill gates those many months ago. I’ve sipped from the poison chalice of loss. Felt my veins run with chill blood and my face streak with hot tears. And I’ve watched as the reaper’s scythe whistled through the desert air. Mortal things cannot brush shoulders with eternity without bearing the psychic scars of their meeting. And so I am changed... both inside and out.

I have aged and weathered under the sun’s fierce glare, my face creased with worn lines as faulted as the sun splintered fields. They remind me of the fearsome toll every one of us paid. I don’t mourn their arrival, they are the outward manifestation of those ethereal scars the crease my soul. It seems somehow fitting and proper that I be left with a physical reminder of what was lost… and what was gained.

Do not mistake my words. I am not broken, nor am I damaged. The story of our mission is not a tragedy, despite our losses. The deepest etchings on my soul, the ones that will remain in both this life and the next, were the incandescent examples of valor, courage, and brotherhood I witnessed each and every day. The men who served at my side were bound to me, and I to them, with tidal forces that have no equivalent in the sterile formality of the living world. Back home the concept of "self" is a rigid construct, a domain mapped with the formality of a land agreement. But here on the bleeding edge we became more something greater than our individual parts. We became a family.

Our time in Iraq is drawing to a close. Our bags are packed. The sun is about to set on our 18 month deployment. And now that we aren’t in daily contact I’ve found my feelings centered on the fierce and solemn pride at having served alongside so many bright souls.

Posted by thunder6 at 15:59 | Permalink | Comments (78) | TrackBack (3)
January 04, 2 http://thunder6.typepad.com/365_arabian_nights/

[DavidByron]

Can we take it as accepted then that Republicans accept Bush breaking the UN charter, a US law passed by a US senate 2/3rds majority and signed by a US president?

What other laws will Republicans accept Bush breaking? Who agrees for example that he can issue "signing statements" that abrogate what Congress says when signing a bill, as he did recently in insisting he would continue to use torture?

This is not "conservative". It's not christian. It's not moral. This is the reaction of a terrified populace abandoning their rights and their consciences in their rush for a "king".

I tell you what: I'm more a conservative than most here.

[Joseph Marshall]

Well, I won't go into the issue of exactly what posture CENTCOM is displaying in the above quotation, but it is one that I think would be well-nigh impossible even for an accomplished Hatha Yogi, but which perfectly ordinary Americans are capable of assuming with astonishing ease.

I see a lot of posturing just like this in my travels on blogs.

Music would be banned, women ostracized, basic liberties banished, and soccer stadiums used for public executions. The people of the region do not want the future these extremists desire. The more we talk about this enemy, the more its bankrupt ideology will become known.

I hardly think it likely than anyone in the Islamic world is unaware of the program proposed by radical Islamics or would be surprised by what a traditional application of Islamic Law would mean. The notion that talking to CENTCOM [maybe down at the BX when off duty] would enlighten them further is charmingly naive.

Even more charmingly naive is CENTCOM's blanket assertion of absolute knowledge of popular desires everywhere [I presume] from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Indo-Pakistani border.

Much of what they do would be charmingly naive were they not in control of lethal weaponry. As it is, I would not trust the author of the above passage to have the least clue about who he should be shooting at, should fate plop him down into the middle of the Sunni Triangle.

But in that matter I really have nothing on him, except for the fact that I know I would be clueless, and he doesn't.

But, then, I'm stiff in the joints and exaggerated postures are hard for me.

[Raimondo]

Washington...Thank you for your service..and may I add that you are absolutely right!

My knowledge of history is certainly not scholarly, however common sense does not elude me.

My experience of war is from the perspective of a civilian who at one point in his life lost very much, luckily not his life...1990 Somalia East Africa. I will never put it behind me, but I also owe to it the incredible feeling I feel every day when I wake up in the morning! I am lucky, happy and rich with life! My wife and chidren are wonderful and as long as the bad is kept at bay we can live to be happy and prosper another day!

Sophists and many others are lucky that people like you have participated in the dirty work that allows them to survive. The world is comprised of two types of people: Those who give and those who take. Thank you again.

[Joe Katzman]

Thanks, Alexa, we think a lot of your site, too. The fusion of posts with art is more than aesthetic, it's a reminder every day of the civilization that some of us seek to defend.

As for David, who seems to think the European approach is so superior... I give you the 20th Century. Maybe if the Europeans had shown the slightest bit of competence in this area and not nochlantly walked themselves in huge wars on a regular basis because they didn't (and still don't) like to face reality, Americans might be more inclined to listen to their recommendations for continuing that nonchalance tradition. Good job in Serbia there, too, guys. Very impressive how you handled a third-rate country all together without any help from the Americans... oh, wait...

Nor is David actualy concerned with international law - as witness his unconcern over, for example, Saddam's activities in this area.

No, the dirty little secret of a lot of guys like David is that dead Americans aren't a side effect for them, but a goal. Seeing the giant wounded makes them feel less inadequate. Their reasons will change at the drop of a hat, but the end results never do.

And at every step, spoken in soft undertones with occasional slips into open voice, comes the real subtext: You asked for it. Defending yourselves is criminal. The real solution is for you to go away.

It's a familiar pattern.

You know, before the meal the bigot sneers that the Jews will never tip his waiter friend, and when they leave a huge tip afterward it's "whaddaya expect, they've got all the money." As soon as you hear that, you know the specific complaints aren't really relevant. They're just vehicles for something deeper, and far uglier.

I read guys like David, and all I hear in my head is "whaddaya expect, they got all the money."

There is no argument that will ever convince such people. But it is worthwhile to respond. Not for people like David, on whom such words are ever and always wasted. We do it for ourselves, as we remind ourselves of the things we stand for.

And as often, we also receive an education in the intrinsic nature of those we stand against.

[Washington]

To continue from my previous...

It is also a common theme, expressed here by American liberals and European socialists, that the US should abide by all treaties, et al, while they defend other countries that violate the same.

Point of fact; in the US the great majority of the people could care less about International Law - because those nations who push it constantly are those who are becoming less able to project force abroad. The US, when it promotes International Law, is doing so for political reasons or to protect democracies like Israel. Old Europe dislikes this approach although they were loathe to follow any international agreements in centuries past.

[Raimondo]

My hat goes off to gringoman!

[Washington]

Raimondo:

As a US Military veteran and military historian I value the contributions the US made, the sacrifices that were made to defend Great Britain and our allies. However, it is shortsighted and factually incorrect to state that the sole reason Europe is free is because of the US. We fought and tipped the balance...but many others fought and died in the fight against Nazi/Japanese tyranny. This DavidByron say's these things simply to incite a response that is emotionally charged.

What is galling to people like Mr. Byron is the fact that the United States, much like the UK in centuries past, has the capability to reach across the oceans and effect change. Further, by citing international law, something that no Head of State considers to be an impediment to ANY action taken to protect that nation...or nations interests, he proves that he picks up on a story, uses it as any sophist would, and moves on to the next subject, never fully stating an arguement because he lacks the requisite deep understanding.

Mr. Byron is a sophist and nothing more.

[gringoman]

Attention all Islamo-Fascisti, neo-coms, progressives, lawyerly ACLU-niks, subscribers to BBC and Canadian Broadcasting Company, socialistas, subjects of Eurabia and all other members of the World Anti-Us. Imperialista Front: Here is an extract from CENTCOM's "posture statement for 2006."...............

...Al Qaida and ideologically-linked groups such as Ansar al Islam, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, al Ittihad al Islami, Jemaah Islamiyah, and Ansar al Sunna represent the main enemy to long-term peace and stability in the CENTCOM AOR, promoting and thriving on instability and violence. They challenge our partners in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. They attack our friends in Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Morocco, Madrid, and London. Although we have not experienced another attack on our homeland, the enemy that brought us 9/11 continues to represent a clear and unambiguous threat to our country.

This enemy seeks to topple local governments, establish a repressive and intolerant regional theocracy, and then extend its violence to the rest of the world. To effect such change, this enemy believes it must evict the United States and our Coalition allies from the region. Masking their true intentions with propaganda, rhetoric, and a sophisticated use of the mass media and the internet, this enemy exploits regional tensions and popular grievances. Al Qaida and its associated movements exhibit strategic patience and are willing to wait decades to achieve their goals.

These extremists defame the religion of Islam by glorifying suicide bombing, by taking and beheading hostages, and by the wanton use of explosive devices that kill innocent people by the score. Their false jihad kills indiscriminately and runs contrary to any standard of moral conduct and behavior. The enemy’s vision of the future would create a region-wide zone that would look like Afghanistan under the Taliban. Music would be banned, women ostracized, basic liberties banished, and soccer stadiums used for public executions. The people of the region do not want the future these extremists desire. The more we talk about this enemy, the more its bankrupt ideology will become known. But more important, the more that regional leaders talk about and act against this enemy, the less attractive it will be. Osama bin Laden and Musab al Zarqawi cannot represent the future of Islam...

[Raimondo]

Anyone who has as much as seen an average fight, or rumble amongst schoolboys...I'm not even advocating you participate in one...Although it may do you a bit of good. Even someone who has seen a fight at the movies will quickly conclude that the person who stikes the first blow posesses a great advantage over their opponent.

It's about time...my question is: What took us so long?

As far as "International Law"...It would not even exist without the courage put forth by the half a million US soldiers who lost their lives in WWII! All you self proclaimed lovers of liberty would be quoting Goebbels in German, because you had to, or maybe quoting Stalin in Russian for the same reason. You would not have even heard of the First Amendment!

( A trip to take, for those of you both European and American liberals is to visit the US Military cemeteries along the Atlantic French Coast in Brittany. If you really want to understand things deeply, follow it up with a visit to the Dachau concentration camp right outside of Munich Germany)

Enough with the nonsense! This offensive will further secure a region that needs to be secured. It comes a little late perhaps and it may be a little weak, but I'll take anything at this point.

Let's secure the area. Put Iran on guard. Get a democracy going and clean up this junk once and for all. And if any other tin horn dictatorship decides as much as to raise a finger let them stand guard. Enough is enough!

I would love to live long enough o witness the demise of all dictatorships, for now I'm elated that at least this one got it's butt kicked!

[DavidByron]

Oh good grief. How many other people are going to pretend to be ignorant of the most basic aspects of international law?

Here's the UN charter

But you already know it's against the law to attack other countries; after all that's why Saddam was supposed to be a "bad guy" for invading Kuwait, remember?

Article 2 section 4:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

So that statement is US law and Bush is in violation of it. Furthermore the Republican position (shared by many Democrats) is to endorse this law breaking. That much is very clear.

But president Bush has maintained for years now that he is above the law -- ALL laws. This has been his consistent position since 2001. There's even a name for his theory, "The Unitary Executive". Bush claims that as a "war time" president he is above the law (even while America isn't actual at war with any country, as now). Are you telling me you've never heard about any of this until just now?

[Huan]

David

list the laws Bush has broken. not what you think, but legal rulings.

read my post again. i have not advocated he should break any law. i advocate he should place americans interests first in the interpretation of international law. as far as i know, he has broken none, international (iraq? gc? nope) or domestic ("domestic surveilance"? congress approved and just wanted more informed involvement)

do not mistake political blustering for legal arguments.
or think sounds bite substitute for moral arguments.

[Ron Jon Bovi Jovi]

This may be one of the reasons Negroponte and half the Bush administration didn't want to release records and documents seized from Saddam Hussein's government during the invasion of Iraq:

Saddam 'suspected al-Qaia inside Iraq in 2002'
16/03/2006 - 16:55:48

Iraqi documents collected by US intelligence during the Iraq war and released by the Bush administration show Saddam Hussein’s regime was investigating “rumours” that 3,000 Iraqis and Saudis had travelled unofficially to Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks to fight US troops.

The documents, the first of thousands expected to be declassified over the next several months, were released last night via a Pentagon website at the direction of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

Many were in Arabic – with no English translation – including one the administration said showed that Iraqi intelligence officials suspected al Qaida members were inside Iraq in 2002.

However, one of the documents, a letter from an Iraqi intelligence official, dated August 17, 2002, asked agents in the country to be on the lookout for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and another unnamed man whose picture was attached.

So, Saddam had turned his agents loose looking for al-Zarqawi? Iraqi Intelligence officials "suspected al Qaida members were inside Iraq?" Doesn't really look like collaboration, aiding, or harboring yet, does it?

Link to article

[Joseph Marshall]

My prediction: we'll be out of Iraq sooner than anyone thinks, and the press has been sort of rope-a-doped today.

How often have we heard the same prediction? Did no one learn anything from the last "major offensive", in Fallujah, Operation "Big Thud", which was supposed to "break the back" of the insurgency?

Another few billion dollars will be wasted to destroy some real estate, make us a few more enemies in the neighborhood, and capture a few weapons caches, all of which will be replaced within weeks from Syria or Iran. A thin screen of insurgents will be shot at, and some killed, but the bulk of the "anti-Iraqi forces" will have moved somewhere else, because this thing has been telegraphed for weeks over there and for days over here. That's how an insurgency works. That's why an insurgency is possible.

The only way to really defeat it is to overwhelmingly control, all at once, all the possible places it can develop, and truly secure the international borders to inhibit the import of weapons.

We have never had this. We will never have this. We have mere 150,000 or so deployed soldiers trying to secure an area the size of New Jersey. And, under the current terms of military readiness with an all-volunteer army, we will never have more than about 200,000 soldiers deployable anywhere even if all the Americans in Iraq were magically withdrawn tomorrow.

Speculations are rife on CNN that the air raid today could have involved a high level target, presumably al-Zarqawi, which makes a lot of sense.

It is amazing how utterly porous to recent history minds can be. Virtually every week of the Iraq invasion there were air strikes to "take out" Saddam Hussein. In case you haven't noticed, he is still alive and blustering before the news cameras in his trial. And before that there were air strikes to "take out" Osama Bin Laden throughout the Afghan conflict. Great job, Jackson! You've cut him down to merely making videotapes and generating "chatter"!

We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran.

Well, at the very least, Iran is weak enough as a military power that we can actually consider attacking the nuclear facilities. But you notice you haven't heard a peep about the Bush Doctrine vis-a-vis North Korea. Or about "great challenge" mentioned in the same breath with China.

Does it violate International or Domestic Law? Maybe. But that's not truly important. The President has always had the capacity to pick a fight. He still retains this. The serious question is whether he has the capacity to finish the fights he starts.

He hasn't finished the one he started in 2003, and, despite the sanguinity of the Anchoress, I don't think he will finish it anytime soon. And, until he finishes that one, he really won't have much capacity to finish another one whether he can start it or no.

Hence this fan dance:

The United States has joined with our EU partners and Russia to pressure Iran to meet its international obligations and provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided.

[Peakah]

Great updates Alexandra and thanks for the link. Keep up the great work, I look forward to hanging out here more often.

As for DavidByron, Badger took the words right out of my mouth!

[Washington]

Why does anyone engage Mr. David Byron in debate? He simply wants you to get upset. "Debate" is the floor above where he resides. He throws out comments meant to incite emotional responses. Don't feed the pets.

[Badger]

Oh Davie,

You misunderstand us. Most of us are not afraid. We're pissed! Unlike the effete' Euroweenies, we don't think letting monsters kill Americans is just some small thing that we have to put up with. Bending over and taking it is more in the European tradition.

Americans are confidently going about their lives (New record highs for the stock market today.) while we trust the most powerful military in the world to kick terrorist ass. And they do.

While many conservatives are unhappy with many of Bush's programs (Bush is not a conservative.) I believe that part of the current low approval ratings (beside their unreliable sampling) is that a huge majority of Americans think he is being too PC in executing this war. We want him to go medieval on their ass. Cut loose the dogs of war. Americans don't do so well turning the other cheek. Your oh so superior attitude is a poor attempt to mask not only your unwillingness to fight, but your inability to do so. That's why we will be a democracy when Europe is under Sharia law. Sucks to be you.

[DavidByron]

Well I'd rather be called a bulldog than a pit bull, but other than no offense taken. I actually agree it was a rant. I normally present a more detailed case but it's usually in the form of a back and forth conversation that would tend to monopolise the space here.

To give an example the abortion debates I linked to the other week -- very detailed but they went on for ten pages of long comments. Is that appropriate here?

So I decided to go for a more rhetorical approach than I normally do. I'd like to answer one point though:

the American president must abide and function within the law

But then you go on to say:

did you mean international law? why so? he was not elected to obey international law above american law. he is responsible to American laws and American citizens first and foremost.

I don't want to put words in people's mouths here but it seems that you and the others do want the president to break the law -- at least some laws. And you give the reason for this as fear (security). Your fear of Al-Qaeda has led you to give up your rights and endorse an authoritarian executive (a king). That's what I'm seeing here.

The US constitution says that all treaties signed by the US are US law. So, yes he is breaking US law. But if you see these two things as separate cases that's interesting. My impression was (eg over the FISA scandal) that Republicans wanted Bush to break domestic laws too -- in the interests of "security" of course.

Are you saying that Bush should have abided by the text of FISA, but not the UN charter (a treaty the US mostly wrote incidentally).

Perhaps the division should be between laws that effect domestic matters (president should obey) and laws effecting foreign policy (president should ignore)? Regardless of whether the laws are treaties or domestic law?

My view is simple: the president should obey all laws. I have guessed at what I think is your view but your view is not as simple so it's easy for me to guess wrong. Perhaps you can say under what circumstances the president can ignore the law?

[gringoman]

Chief critique of "Swarmer" is that it should have happened two years ago, when they "celebrated" by stringing up those four American civilians. The Hate Americanos are so lucky that Bush is so pc and often media-incompetent. Otherwise the Marines and the rest of the U.S. military would have "disciplined" the Sunni Triangle AND Mooky---Tehran's favorite little Shia rabble rouser--long ago, rather than let the thugs fester and thrive so long. And then the Hate Americanos, instead of their glib mockery, could have had something to get really worked up about. From the limo circuit to the union dues collectors they could be frothing away at how "the imperialists are going Roman" instead of using "sensitivity training" in hopes of mollifying the "Arab Street" and the subsidized World Socialist Bund which are too crazy and malleable (in one case) and too crafty and subsidized(in the other) to be mollified anyway.

ps re the Cartoon Intifada. Another drawing. This one not by a Dane. At gringoman.com. 'Cartoon Syndrome.'