0230 GMT December 31, 2006
Somalia The government says it intends to start disarming Mogadishu militias in 3 weeks. Lets see.
Meanwhile, Ethiopian troops including armor and artillery, along with Somali troops, closed on Kisamayo, the ICU's last stronghold. From some news items we infer the US 5th Fleet is watching for ICU militia trying to escape by sea. Since now there is no place for it to go, we assume ICU will put up a fight, which it will of course lose. No deep analysis required here.
Correction: it was the interim prime minister, not president, who entered the capital yesterday. The mistake is ours.
Saddam's Execution We were struck by 2 matters. One, the hangman carefully explained the procedure to Saddam and was quite considerate: no unnecessary roughness, and he even provided a scarf for the ex-dictator's neck so as not to unnecessarily disfigure the body.
Two, as usual with Iraq, if you have 2 witnesses they will say two completely different things. One witness said Saddam showed no fear and was defiant to the end, arguing with his executioners. The other said he was a broken man who hardly knew what was going on. The video taken by an Arab news service supports the second witness.
We're not surprised by the condemnation by death penalty opponents of the execution: it is their right to say as they feel. But what we're a bit taken aback is the attacks on the US for having let the Iraqis execute Saddam.
Folks, this may come as a big surprise: Iraq is a sovereign nation. US even abolished Iraq's death penalty during the "regency" period - anyone remember that? Of course not, it's so much fun to attack America even if you display only your ignorance. Iraq restored the death penalty. What is the US supposed to do about it and how is America responsible? Grow up, people.
Saudi Arabia's Displeasure Riyadh says it is upset that Saddam was executed on a day of Muslim unity. Our note to Riyadh: please be upset. We are sure the families of all the Iraqis, Afghans, and other nationalities, that are dying in violence you pay for, and/or is committed by men you harbor, are upset every day about your disdain for Muslim unity.
Spain's ETA In Airport Bomb Explosion Warning calls were made to the authorities. Initially it was thought there were no casualties, but two people appear to be missing.
We're a bit confused by ETA's action, which was confirmed by the organization itself. This Basque separatist terror group has been in a ceasefire mode with the Spanish government for the last 9 months. Perhaps we don't understand the situation properly, but it seems to us there was no reason to break the ceasefire. A renegade group, perhaps?
Stupid Headline Prize Goes To Reuters for "Saddam Hanged But No Let-up In Iraq Violence". Huh? We don't recall anyone claiming that Saddam's death would reduce violence, so what's the deal here?
We have some headlines too: "Saddam Hanged But No Reduction In US Murder Rate"; "Saddam Hanged But No Reduction In pre-New Year Champagne Sales"; "Saddam Hanged But Orbat Editor Still Went Potty On Time".
Brainless people shouldn't try and be too clever: it draws attention to their brainlessness.
Letter From A Reader
About a
year ago I came across a CSPAN-2 BookTV lecture given by Ray Kurzweil on
his book "The Singularity is Near". More recently Mr. Kurzweil appeared
on In Depth on BookTV (
http://www.booktv.org/feature
Editor's Note Our reader's e-mail sigature reads: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The ugliest is the man who thinks nothing is worth fighting and dying for and lets men better and braver than himself protect him." - John Stuart Mill, 1859. Take heed, America. The Europeans are now a lost cause, but America is fast reaching what Mill warned against.
0230 GMT December 30, 2006
Another no-news day.
Somalia The interim president has entered the city. No news on if the last ICU stronghold, Kisamayo, a port south of Mogadishu, is still standing. AP reported yesterday that about 3000 militia, many foreigners, were headed for the port for a last stand. We assume ICU has better sense than to try and fight at this last post when they haven't been able to fight at any other point.
The Australian says US gave Ethiopia air surveillance data.
Fiji Coup Leaders Says There's Always PRC to give him love and cuddles should the west persist in isolating him. That's really going to improve his legitimacy in the world, allying with a country that doesn't seem to have know what the words "human rights" mean.
German Man Sells Dog For Beer He took his step-daughter's Beagle for a walk and ended up selling the dog to a bar owner for $50. he then spent the money on beer. The bar owner returned the dog to its rightful owner.
Okay, so what's the relevance of this to a defense affairs blog? Well, we often are struck by - and sometimes comment on - the idiotic things Americans do. We take this story as a sign of hope for America. The Yanks may do stupid things, but the Germans seem to be giving them tough competition.
PRC Scientists Develop Fluorescent Green Pigs These have genes that activate green colors when light is shone on the pigs. Something to do with medical research. Whatever.
0230 GMT December 29, 2006
Somalia The government says it will declare martial law for 3 months to prevent chaos in Mogadishu following the retreat of the ICU militia. The ICU now holds only Kisamayo, a port to the south, which is expected to be taken by the Ethiopians/government any moment.
We can now forget about Somalia where it will be business as usual, and focus on more important matters like Ms. Cindy Sheehan.
Ms. Sheehan Arrested Again outside the Presidential ranch in Crawford, Texas. She and 4 others refused to move from where they were blocking the road. Ms. Sheehan told the police they would have to arrest her if they wanted her out of the road, so they obliged. Very hospitable, these Texans.
In India a favored tactic for dealing with arrested demonstrators is to truck them to a remote spot after taking away their money, and abandoning them. No one gets hurt, a ferocious amount of paperwork is avoided, and courts/police have more time to focus on critical matters such as the Indian equivalent of the Doughnut Exchange.
Ms. Sheehan managed to delay the Vice President's motorcade. Finally this lady has done something useful, even though we are told the VP is completely oblivious to these kinds of slights. Water off the duck's back, sticks and stones, that sort of thing.
[1430 GMT] Somalia Government Forces Enter Mogadishu says Reuters. There is gunfire and looting as some residents welcome the Government and others hide. One ICU militiaman says their leaders have fled - two key leaders were already out of the country on Haj in Saudi Arabia when the fighting erupted and apparently did not return.
So much for the great battle for Mogadishu predicted by some experts.
Finally some details from Somalia, provided not by the media but by an Italian research organization. The article is thanks to reader Marcopetroni and is at http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.phpcat=Security&loid=8.0.371437496&par=0
In summary, we infer from the article that Ethiopia has at least 4 divisions inside Somalia, not the 4000 troops the Ethiopian government piously claims, though we need to keep in mind Ethiopian divisions range from 5-7000 soldiers as there is little by way of logistics tail.
12,000 troops, say 2 divisions, are at Baidoa; one division is in the north to prevent ICU militia/supplies from reaching Mogadishu; one division (we infer) is at Mogadishu. There are other forces headed for the southern port of Kisamayo and at other points, these may simply be brigades and battalions.
The Ethiopians suffered heavy casualties because they entered Somalia without armor and artillery, and have replaced the transitional government's generals, accusing them of underestimating the ICU's forces.
We still have no useful information on Somali Government forces, but suspect that large numbers of Puntland troops reinforced the government before the offensive. The interim president is the ruler of Puntland, and ICU had made it clear it was going for an offensive against Puntland after it secured southern Somalia. ICU had begun seizing positions on Puntland's southern border, but we assume that Puntland forces reached Baidoa and other places via Ethiopia.
In case readers have forgotten: Somalia is today a country of 3 parts: the northern Republic of Somaliland, quite independent; Puntland, in the center, ruling itself as as autonomous region of Somalia with no Somali government presence, and southern Somalia, which remained under the warlords, fell to the ICU, and now has fallen to the Ethiopians. Regardless of what happens in southern Somalia, Puntland and Somaliland will remain peaceful and well governed by the standards of the region. Incidentally Puntland and Somaliland have periodic goes at each other because of differing claims concerning their joint border.
0230 GMT December 28, 2006
Somalia It appears the government is in negotiations to try and get a peaceful surrender of Mogadishu. Already one major clan says it may reconsider its support to the ICU, whose militia are said to be doffing their uniforms in preference for civilian clothes.
Of course, how the government is going to provide security for the country without an army is another matter. If Mogadishu falls to the government, the Ethiopians will be under pressure to leave; in any case, they cannot assume responsibility for policing Somalia. The same clans who were creating problems and then jumped to the ICU when the latter's advance seemed irresistible, now look likely to jump to the government, after which they will again start creating problems. A UN force can do very little unless it is much larger than the 1993 force - unlikely to happen. It will be back to Square Zero.
The Australian reports that as the ICU militia vanishes into the woodwork, anarchy is already returning to the capital's streets.
Fiji An article in the Australian helps us catch up with Fiji sanctions. The Commonwealth has suspended the country, and a number of countries are imposing their own sanctions. France, for instance, has forbidden the travel of Fiji officials to its territories/country. We assume other EU countries will do the same.
The Danger Of Template Writing Because no one in the media thinks anymore, template writing is all the rage. By this term we mean that the reporter has a stock of standard phrases which s/he applies to every situation without bothering to think. Saves time and energy, and gives us the completely bland, uninformative news we now live on.
We were inspired to coin this phrase when we read a Reuters report on the killing of an al-Sadr bomb-maker in Najaf by an Iraqi army team supported by US advisors. The al-Sadr lot have been spewing forth their usual meaningless invective about revenge against the US and so on.
So the Reuters person casually uses a template phrase and says that trouble with the Sadrites could mean headaches for the US.
If the reporter knew anything about the situation, however, s/he would understand it does NOT mean headaches for the US simply because the US has been doing its best to provoke al-Sadr into a fight - and so far without success.
US correctly wants Iraqi government to move against al-Sadr; Iraqi government is beholden to this terrorist and so has no plans in that direction. In fact, it systematically gets in the US way when the latter tries to take care of this man. So if the US can force him to attack US troops, it has the perfect excuse to launch another round against him - and from what we hear, the military is fairly champing at the bit wanting to have a go.
So far from meaning headaches, trouble from al-Sadr suits US purposes.
The reporter needed to present the facts and stop. But in line with current journalistic practice, s/he has to editorialize rather than present news. Because s/he has no understanding of the situation, s/he gets it dead wrong and further damages the already sorry state of media credibility.
Somalia [1600 GMT December 27] Ethiopian forces overran Jowhar and then Balad north of Mogadishu and are now 30-km from the capital. So much for our theory that Jowhar would take time to reduce because the Islamic Courts was digging in. Better safe than sorry in these predictions, however, is what we say.
Ethiopia/Somalia government troops say they will not enter the capital but surround it till the ICU gives up. The aim they say is to avoid civilian casualties, but in our opinion no one gives a hang about civilians, its just too much work and too risky to fight in the capital.
Some analysts have been going wild with predictions about what will happen to the attackers once they get into Mogadishu, uniformly they point to the UN/US defeat in 1993 as an example about how difficult it is going to be for the Ethiopians/Somalis.
This is a typical mirror image mistake, as in "we couldn't do it, no one else can". As seems to be the case since 1945, US defeats come because the US loses the will, not because it cant win. The loss of 18 soldiers on the Aideed raid completely unnerved the US and it fled, whereas objectively the loss was minor.
The Ethiopian strategy makes sense because ICU is a rough-knit coalition composed of some true believers, and a lot of opportunists. With the capital surrounded, the ICU is going to expending its efforts battling the opportunists, who will turn against it.
To our mind the essential question is: can the government provide security for the people? The answer is alas, you may defeat the ICU, but the basic issues that have bedeviled Somalia for more than 20 years will not be touched. we will be back to Square One, with the rule of the clans and the warlords.
0230 GMT December 27, 2006
Somalia [1600 GMT] Ethiopian forces overran Jowhar and then Balad north of Mogadishu and are now 30-km from the capital. So much for our theory that Jowhar would take time to reduce because the Islamic Courts was digging in. Better safe than sorry in these predictions, however, is what we say.
Ethiopia/Somalia government troops say they will not enter the capital but surround it till the ICU gives up. The aim they say is to avoid civilian casualties, but in our opinion no one gives a hang about civilians, its just too much work and too risky to fight in the capital.
Some analysts have been going wild with predictions about what will happen to the attackers once they get into Mogadishu, uniformly they point to the UN/US defeat in 1993 as an example about how difficult it is going to be for the Ethiopians/Somalis.
This is a typical mirror image mistake, as in "we couldn't do it, no one else can". As seems to be the case since 1945, US defeats come because the US loses the will, not because it cant win. The loss of 18 soldiers on the Aideed raid completely unnerved the US and it fled, whereas objectively the loss was minor.
The Ethiopian strategy makes sense because ICU is a rough-knit coalition composed of some true believers, and a lot of opportunists. With the capital surrounded, the ICU is going to expending its efforts battling the opportunists, who will turn against it.
To our mind the essential question is: can the government provide security for the people? The answer is alas, you may defeat the ICU, but the basic issues that have bedeviled Somalia for more than 20 years will not be touched. we will be back to Square One, with the rule of the clans and the warlords.
Somalia The Ethiopian prime minister claims 1000 ICU militia have been killed including large numbers of foreigners. There is no verification, but AFP says its correspondents have seen a "huge" number of bodies. Is it too much to expect AFP to teach its reporters to make estimates? "Huge" conveys exactly nothing.
Ethiopian forces are within 24-48 hours of Mogadishu and are expected to reach the capital without serious opposition except at Jowar, north of the city. ICU is said to be digging in. There are, however, many routes to the city.
The Ethiopian PM also makes a claim his country has only 4000 troops inside Somalia. This is not credible given the scope of the fighting which has taken place along a 300-km front. Since he also claimed till just the other day he had only advisors inside Somalia, it's not particularly neccessary to accept his word for everything.
Appellate Court Confirms Saddam Death Sentence which now has to be carried out within 30 days. This being Iraq, we hesitate to bid Saddam adieu. We already see a wrinkle because apparently the troika of President and 2 vice-presidents has to ratify the decision. The President has said he will recuse himself as he opposes the death penalty. That leaves the two VPs. And the Kurd VP says he wants the execution frozen till the current trial on charges of genocide against the Kurds is over.
We have 3 comments. One: stupid. Two: stupid. Three: stupid.
Follow The Japanese is what we say. They hanged 4 people on Christmas Day, including two murderers in their seventies. The government did not want to close out the year without sending someone to the gallows. No political correctness here, we are happy to say.
Incidentally, the death penalty enjoys wide support in Japan. Something the Europeans don't understand is the death penalty also enjoys wide support in America, and particularly in states like Virginia and Texas, which execute large numbers of people. Europeans don't put anyone to death. We respect that as their decision. They need to respect the decisions of other democratic countries.
Senate Foreign Affairs Chairperson Wants Ms. Rice To Testify The new chairperson is Senator Joe Biden, a Democrat, and he says he will hold extensive hearings on Iraq. Ms. Rice has not yet responded, possibly she is waiting for the President to announce his plan in January.
The invitation is polite, non-confrontationist, and couched in language suggesting the Chairperson is seeking only to educate the Senate about Iraq. Don't be deceived. The Democrats smell blood in the water and they are going to move in for the kill.
Mr. Biden has already said he opposes the surge plan.
Hitler What If From Richard F. Thatcher (USAF Retd.) Mr. Wallis' take on the sub and jet tech is one of my favorites. And your comments on US production overrunning the German stuff is true. One other thing to consider is the the US had a larger pool of manpower to draw from as well and the losses of the Sherman tank crews could be absorbed where the Germans were more limited in their manpower. Add to this that the US production wasn't being bombed while the German stuff was.
My what if is a little different/odd. It's this. What if, after taking France Hitler quickly starts the "Atlantic Wall" and starts it on the French coast very close to England. But, this construction hides another thing happening. Hitler takes a page from Napoleon and is digging a tunnel under the Channel to England. While it might not be big enough to run a tank division through the intent is to get the other end in Britain, come up by surprise (Hopefully.) and take and area long enough to get an airfield for forward operation of aircraft and a beach area to land troops and gear on. Can continue to pour troops and light gear and supplies through the tunnel.
A bit of a fanciful idea but an interesting one to consider.
[1500 GMT December 26] Ethiopian Forces Advance On Mogadishu as Islamic Courts forces are pushed back across a wide swath of South and Central Somalia. Ethiopian troops are preparing to advance on Jowar, 55 km north of the capital before pushing on to the capital, which they say they will surround but not enter. Presumably Somali government forces backed by Ethiopian advisors and firepower will take the capital.
This reversal of fortune has come, in our opinion, with great suddenness. We had no doubt the Ethiopians would roll over the ICU and have said so in previous posts. But we expected the process would be much slower.
It appears that after just a week of fighting the ICU has decided it is better off regrouping entirely, and fighting a guerilla war including suicide bombings, two tactics the ICU explicitly threatens. It seems unlikely it would basically give up so quickly had it not suffered heavy losses - such as claimed by Ethiopia - and had its militia, composed in significant part of foreign fighters, refused to stand up to the Ethiopians. This last is speculation on our part.
It remains maddening that no details are available on events. Clearly, however, Ethiopia now has something approximating 10-15,000 troops in the conflict. This would equate to 2 Ethiopian divisions.
We continue to estimate government forces at <2,000 with a big caveat: if Puntland militia has reinforced the government - the Somali president is former president of Puntland, the autonomous central part of Somalia - then we could be way off. Based on the very scanty information at hand, we estimate ICU forces as <10,000 and, as opposed to the Ethiopians, much of the ICU militia is an armed rabble. The Ethiopians, of course, also have armor, artillery, and air available.
Early reports said that the ICU was using Hezbollah-style tactics against Ethiopian armor. We let the reports go, but while "Hezb-style tactics" has become a favorite cliché of the media and analysts, these tactics cannot be replicated in Somalia, with its wide open terrain. ICU has had neither time nor resources to fortify positions, and even if it did, they are easy to bypass. The ICU itself used light cavalry tactics to take southern Somalia - troop columns moving rapidly mounted in pickup trucks - and it seems that the Ethiopians have returned the favor. With the difference the Ethiopians have a regular army with long experience, and their columns are accompanied by artillery and armor.
Infantry without armor has to be extensively trained to resist/defeat armor. Ditto air attack. The ICU is composed mainly of ill-trained rabble, and it is no surprise it has fallen apart so quickly.
The Ethiopian success opens up different possibilities, and we'll look at them as the situation develops.
[
0230 GMT December 26, 2006
Ethiopian Air Force Strafes Mogadishu IAP, Air Base says Reuters as the Ethiopian-Islamic Courts clash continues for Day 7.
A single jet shot up the runway at Mogadishu International Air Port; no reports on aircraft being hit, but the ICU's allies have been using the airport to bring in supplies and fighters. Three jets attacked Somalia's biggest military airfield, again, it is a destination point for ICU's allies.
The Somali president says 8000 foreigners are fighting with the ICU. We are not sure about this figure, but do know there are several thousand foreigners around, include a large Eritrean contingent.
African Union Says Ethiopia Has Right Of Intervention in Somalia because the ICU advance threatens Ethiopia. Its Ogden region is ethnically Somali majority, and there have been conflicts before with Somalia. The ICU and its allies have been active in the Ogden.
US Detains 4 Iranians Visiting Iraq and the Iraqi president is unhappy, because they are official visitors. The US is unimpressed by Iraqi complaints. It says all 4 were detained on information they are involved in terrorist activity.
Two being diplomats had to be released, but the other two are being questioned.
British/Iraq Army Attack Basra Police Station Yes folks, you read that right. No, the British and Iraq Army have not joined hands with the insurgents. The Brits learned the police at the station were preparing to massacre 73 prisoners. 1000 troops attacked the station, freed 127 prisoners jammed into one small cell, and demolished the police station so that it cannot be used again.
The Iraqi police unit at the police station was the Serious Crime Unit. A British spokesperson demonstrated his nation's penchant for humorous understatement when he said that Serious Crime Unit about summed what the unit was about - it committed serious crimes.
No good deed goes unpunished in Iraq, and the local authorities are calling the operation illegal and have stopped cooperating with the British.
No big deal, folks. They weren't cooperating with the British anyway. As for the legality, the British got permission from Baghdad before they moved in. So presumably the Basra authorities say illegal because they didn't authorize the raid. Had the Brits gone to the locals, does anyone want to bet on the odds the prisoners would have been present when the raid took place?
Just to show what terrifically nice guys these Iraqis are: many of the prisoners had crushed hands and feet, and others had gunshot wounds to the knees.
So folks, Orbat.com asks again: it's to help a country where this behavior is routine that the US is sacrificing lives and money?
An Essay of No Relevance On The Pope, God, and Technology
Religion is not our business, but we were intrigued by a statement the Pope made that humankind should put its faith in God and not in technology.
We'd like to pose a question: what if God and technology are the same thing? We are being neither facetious nor disrespectful. To explain, consider that the Hindus have believed for millennia that the physical universe is a virtual construct emanating from God's mind, and we don't think Christians and Muslims should have a problem with this formulation: the physical world arose from the Word spoken by God.
Now fast-forward to 2007. Thanks to technology, people are now talking about creating virtual worlds and empowering the people in the virtual worlds to create their own virtual worlds. Our joy will lie in watching our creations create. Some of us will interfere with our creations and their creations. Some of us may decide to play the game in a completely hands-off manner and see what happens.
Well, doesn't God do this with her/his creation, our physical universe? Some believes s/he intervenes systematically (most religions), others believe s/he intervenes at random (pagans like the Greeks), and others believe s/he does not intervene at all.
Now, given the above, might it not make sense for us, God's creations, to worship her/him? No matter how distant the Old Boy/Girl is, no matter how hands off, might not s/he be sufficiently tickled to intervene on behalf of those who glorify her/him? And if the God that created our universe is a vengeful type, might not s/he punish us for failing to glorify her/him?
Step back once again. We humans create the technology that creates virtual worlds. The people in those virtual worlds don't know they were brought to life by Bill Gates and Michael Dell; as far as the creations are concerned, technology gave them life. Wouldn't it be natural for them to worship technology, and wouldn't it be right for them to so do?
Okay, we do understand the flaw in our reasoning. If our virtual creations realized they were created through the agency of Bill Gates, they would either (a) commit suicide en masse, or (b) break-out en masse and try to kill Bill Gates, because everyone knows Bill Gates is the devil and not God. So wouldn't it make sense for Bill Gates to keep this knowledge from our virtual creations and remain mysteriously unknown? Make his presence known as voices in our virtual people's heads? Perhaps perform the occasional miracle? We leave it to our readers to carry through to the end this hugely unpleasant line of reasoning: any discuss of Mr. Gates makes us nauseous. Talk about Crimes Against Humanity.
Why this riff in a blog on defense and strategic affairs? No reason, really, except my youngster, trapped in the car with me for a 3-hour journey and left with no choice except to talk, decided to do so on his terms and gave me a lecture on how Richard Dworkin, a New Atheist, has misunderstood the nature of religious ideas as they have developed over the last thousand years.
While listening to the youngster, the above thoughts on the Pope's statement came to mind. Also what came to mind is something I tell people again and again: I like to teach because I like to learn from my students. I spent an enormous amount of time from when the youngster was age 2 teaching him stuff. Now he is 20, and today for the very first time everything he said to me during his discourse on Dworkin was completely new stuff: I had absolutely no previous knowledge of anything in his lecture. My student was today my teacher.
Readers of Orbat.com know more than they probably want to know about the editor's angst about being poor, powerless, unsuccessful with money and women, and just plain disgustingly old. Today, for a brief period he felt that perhaps his life has not been as pointless as he is wont to believe.
0230 GMT December 25, 2006
What Role Does Saudi Play In Destabilizing Iraq? We know what role Iran and Syria are playing. They are terrified that if democracy takes hold in Iraq, they are going to be next.
But has anyone given any thought to what Saudi will lose if Iraq stabilizes? Forget the democracy part, though that alone is probably enough to give the House of Saud enough reason to visit the toilet 30 times a day.
Just look at oil. Iraq, if stable, will build up quickly to 6-million bbl/day and then, in the next decade, to 10-million bbl/day. Sounds fantastic? Its not, really. There is no debate but on the 6-million bbl/day target.
A little secret about Iraq and its oil is that most of Iraq is still unsurveyed. The place could have more oil than Saudi.
And even if it doesn't, it has a desperate need to pump as much as it can: Iraq is two decades behind in its development. First there were the UN sanctions, now there is the current situation.
Now, what happens if Iraq pumps 6 or more million bbl/day?
Saudi is on its way to being Kaput.
It stands to reason that Saudi will do everything - everything - to ruin Iraq. There's the democracy thing. There's the Shia thing - oh, did we mention that Saudi has to repress its Shias big time? Then there's the oil thing.
Cherchez La Femme the French used to say. Cherchez the Gloopy Stuff is what we say. To our mind, all fingers point to Saudi Arabia.
We've mentioned we supported the Iraq war because we - apparently all on our own - convinced ourselves that Saudi was the real target. Kill Saudi at one end, kill Pakistan at the other, and the GWOT becomes very much more manageable.
We are mortified and amazed at our naiveté. How could we possibly have imagined that the US leadership - and again, party has nothing to do with this, Dems and Reps are all together in this unholy alliance against the American people - would for a minute even think of taking down Saudi Arabia?
[In confidence: your editor neither smokes nor drinks. So it has to be the vast quantities of chocolate he ingests every day.]
But - and this is a big but: let's not forget that America is a democracy. There is nothing to stop us from rising up, smashing our SUVs, TVs, PlayStations, and Beer Coolers, and asserting ourselves. Hey, that's you we're talking about, don't look away. There is nothing to stop us from rising up and telling those in power: get out of Iraq. Reorganize. And then go after America's real enemies.
Somalia Fighting continues with no real details.
In an update at 1630 yesterday we said that CNN and AFP report the Ethiopians conducted air strikes against targets in 4 different towns. This is an escalation in the fighting.
Sudan Shia-Sunni Split Growing according to an article sent by reader Marcopetroni. In northern Sudan the Sunni hold is being challenged by Iran based Shias and the former don't like it. Southern Sudan, of course, is predominantly Christian.
It remains a question what, if anything, the US can do about the split to turn the situation to its advantage.
What Happened To Teddy Roosevelt's Axiom? Remember, he said to speak softly and carry a big stick. He did not say carry a sapling switch and turn up the megaphone rhetoric.
The new US Defense Secretary may do well to keep Teddy's axiom in mind as he boasts about the US sending a second carrier to the Gulf.
When the US had a force of 15 effective carriers it maintained 5 forward on a sustained basis, 3 in the Western Pacific and 2 in the Mediterranean. Today it has 10 effective carriers. Logic dictates it can sustain 3 forward. If the USN is to keep 2 carriers in the Gulf/North Arabian Sea, it has only one carrier left over for the rest of the world.
So logic further dictates that the Gulf reinforcement can only be a surge. The mighty Soviet Navy has disappeared. But US carriers were more focused on crisis response/presence than on the Soviet Navy. The need for crisis response has, if anything, grown. And to replace the Soviet Navy we have the rising PLAAN.
The US had better start thinking of restoring a 15 carrier force and then increasing to a 18 carrier force. Doubtless some bright Pentagon spark will tell us how carriers are no longer as important as they used to be. Till something demonstratably better comes along, however, we suggest the US stick with the tried and true.
Walter E. Wallis's Hitler What If Mr. Wallis comments in general on German developments like the submarine snorkel and its formidable stable of jet aircraft. German technology was way ahead of Allied, but there seemed to be no overall understanding of how this lead was to be used. Germany was not planning for a long war on September 1, 1939, and this undoubtedly was a major reason Germany did not field its advanced weapons sooner/in greater numbers.
The American answer to German technology was to drown the adversary in numbers. It didn't matter to the Americans that 10 Shermans were required to kill one German Tiger tank, they had enough Shermans to spare. Ironically, the history of US weapons development since 1945 has been to go for quality even if it means much smaller numbers. The Russians too went for quantity and continued to do so till the 1980s. It is important to note, however, that while Russian weapons were crude - though effective - American weapons were beautifully manufactured despite the huge numbers produced.
Still, returning to Mr. Wallis's point: Germany had 1900 advanced submarines in production or on order the day the war ended. About half were the Type 23s, which became the Russian Whiskeys, with a global reach. If the Germans had produced its advanced boats in significant numbers earlier in the war, things might have gone very differently in what would have been a 2nd Battle of the Atlantic.
0230 GMT December 24, 2006
[1630 GMT] Somalia CNN and AFP report the Ethiopians conducted air strikes against targets in 4 different towns. This is an escalation in the fighting.
Abandon These Knaves And Fools To Their Fate The Grand Ayatollah Sistani has declined to back a US plan to marginalize al-Sadr by forming a new government in which the current Prime Minister al-Malaki, is excluded. The current PM is not just in bed with al-Sadr, he is in al-Sadr's pajamas. Al-Sadr, the US has finally gotten around to saying - we said it months ago - is the greatest threat to Iraq.
Ayatollah Sistani is Iraq's senior cleric, and al-Sadr has worked systematically to undercut Sistani because he, al-Sadr, wants to rule Iraq as well as be the senior Shia cleric. So you'd think that Sistani would be glad to see the back of al-Sadr.
But no. Ayatollah Sistani doesn't want to break Shia unity, you see, so he will not speak up against al-Sadr. This is the same Sistani who is so pure that he has refused to date to meet a single American. That the Americans have made him free from the fear he lived under during Saddam's time is, of course, no reason to even say "thanks, pal" to the Americans.
It is beyond our comprehension why America is hanging around Iraq trying to help such knaves and fools. What Shia unity? It is just a matter of time before open warfare breaks out between the Shias, as it has between the Sunnis and Shias. So if Sistani doesn't want to break unity, why is America sticking its nose where it isn't wanted? Doesn't America have enough knaves and fools of its own to look after.
Your editor has a serious moral problem with having even one more American soldier die for people that are so dysfunctional, so corrupt, and users on a scale that beggars the imagination.
Give the country back to Saddam and get out. Saddam was a tyrant. But did he do to Iraq more than it deserved? As 2006 ends and 2007 dawns, we are starting to think that he did not.
UN Passes Iran Sanctions Woo-Hoo! We are so excited!
Not. Bah. The Russians and PRC forced the sanctions to be watered down to the point they are meaningless. The Europeans are a pathetic lot. You can say what you like against the Americans, but the Americans still have some guts, though may be the brain function is not up to snuff. The Euros have Great Big Brains but they have no guts.
Diplomacy has failed, which every living person from age 2 and up knew would be the case. Meanwhile, the Americans have shot themselves so the military option is out, and our Great Leader is simply making the possibility of a military option that much more remote by committing the ground forces to two more futile years in Iraq.
George Bernard Shaw was enthusiastically greeted by a beautiful socialite at a party. She suggested their love child would be formidable, born as it would be with his brains and her looks. GBS is said to have replied: "But, Madam, what if it has my looks and your brains?"
What we need are European Brains and American Brawn. What we have are American Brains and European Brawn. The world is doomed.
None of the sanctions mean anything. This topic is boring beyond endurance.
DPRK N-Talks Fail Orbat.com comment: "And did you enjoy the sandwiches made with cucumbers from your garden?"
Okay, so Orbat.com is not making sense. But is anyone saying "DPRK N-Talks fail" making any sense either? Hello, of course they failed. Dogs must bark, cats must hiss, babies must poop, and DPRK N-Talks must fail.
Talking about Brains the Japanese seem to be experiencing a serious lack thereof. A Japanese expedition finally found a live specimen of the fabled giant squid. So two men on the ship tried to land it, and killed it in the process.
Great going, you Most Superior Japanese Minds. Here we have a denizen of the real deep. You've enticed it to the surface, and you then try and get on board your ship, and the poor beast dies. Maybe you should have thought of trapping it and leaving it in the water to study before turning it loose?
Someone please do the world a favor and keep the Japanese from more discoveries.
0230 GMT December 23, 2006
Somalia: Both Sides Reinforce Front with thousands more Ethiopian troops and Islamic Courts militia entering the Baidoa region.
Fighting continues for a 5th day as Ethiopian troops reinforce several threatened positions. The government claims 500 Islamic militia killed, which seems quite high and does not conform in any way to an earlier agency report which said 19 bodies were lying in the street of one town and that 3 ICU men had been taken prisoner.
The government charges ICU with using children in the fighting, a very disturbing situation if true. We don't know if ICU has replied to the charge, but presume it will say child casualties are civilians killed by Ethiopian forces.
The ICU issues a statement asking why the Arab world has not condemned the Ethiopian invasion and says Somalis have a religious duty to fight the invader.
Personally, we are rather fed up of every petty Islamic cleric declaring jihad at the slightest excuse and ranting about religious duty. The Islamic extremists have nothing to teach the world concerning religious duty or jihads.
As for the Arabs not condemning Ethiopia, there could be two possible reasons. One, that the ICU leaders have bad breath and no one wants to get close to them. Two, Arabs don't like Al Qaeda/Taliban type theocracies any more than any one else.
US Says Taliban Leader Killed by an air strike as he was traveling in Helmand Province of Afghanistan. Mullah Osmani was mistakenly released from custody 4 years ago and was in charge of Taliban fighters in several provinces that are the center of the insurgency as well as being the finance chief of the Taliban.
The Taliban denies Osmani is dead. Given that the US is very cautious of making claims concerning top terrorists' deaths, we'd assume the US has confirmed information.
Iraq Insurgents Propose 1-Month Truce with US so latter can withdraw from Iraq and hand over its heavy weapons to the umbrella group.
So if our readers are waiting for a blast of ridicule for the insurgents from the editor, they must wait in vain. As is true for many people, the season is not a particularly cheery season for your editor, but it is the season for generosity of spirit if you can't be generous with money.
Given that the Iraq insurgents now definitively confirm what we have long suspected, that they are a bunch of morons who need to stop consulting so frequently with Professor Moonshine, Dr. Mary Jane, and Mr. Mother's Little Helper, we have decided to demonstrate our season's generosity with this thought: May you reach Paradise sooner than you wish.
Uncle Reako On His Hitler "What If": Heavy Bombers The Germans never had a legitimate heavy bomber throughout the war. Something comparable to the B17, B24, B29, Lancaster, Wellington, was never in their inventory.
Perhaps a bombing campaign similar to what the Allies unleashed on Germany in the 2nd half of the war could have changed things. German heavy bombers could also have ranged to the west of England to attack ship convoys if needed. Have to admit what they did throw against Britain early in the war almost did the trick.
As it was, the Allies were able to build up England with troops, materiel, and airfields full of fighters and bombers that never suffered much if any damage from the Luftwaffe prior to D-Day. Of course Goering persuaded Hitler that he didn't need heavy bombers to win.
Editor's Note: Also, countering the Combined Bomber Offensive passively tied up enormous resources. Had Hitler had his own heavy bombers, operating as he did from a central location capable of striking targets in a 360-degree arc, he would have forces the Allies to invest in defenses completely out of proportion to his investment.
0230 GMT December 22, 2006
Somalia Fighting We do not have much to add to our 1430 report of yesterday. Fighting seems to be taking at 3 points to the east and south of Baidoa, the interim government's capital. The ICU says it is at war with Ethiopia. Both the government and the ICU each claim to have killed 70 combatants from the opposing side.
Brief Break In Gaza Ceasefire But peace was restored after a 20-minute firefight outside President Abbas's house.
Syria Preparing For War With Israel says Jerusalem Post. Syria is building fortified villages along the Israel border, aiming to replicate Hezbollah's tactics.
Actually, if JPost doesn't mind us saying so, Hezb's tactics are quite standard for the weaker side: enmesh attacking armor in a network of fortified positions, and use those positions plus built-up areas to reduce the effectiveness of airpower. People seem to think that Hezb's anti-tank missile tactics were something new. Actually, those tactics have also been standard since the early days of World War II. Then guns were used; today the ATGM makes for a much cheaper and proliferate defense. And it was just a matter of time before someone had the opportunity to use Generation 3 and 4 ATGMs to show that Israel's vaunted Merkeva was vulnerable.
Also, if JPost doesn't mind, in our humble opinion Syria is not preparing for war. There is nothing to be gained from this option. Rather, we think Syria is (1) increasing pressure on Israel, forcing Tel Aviv to understand it has no good military options anymore and will have to negotiate; (2) diverting attention from internal pressures. These have been exacerbated by the US intervention in Iraq. We'll leave it to others more expert than us to discuss this matter.
President Bush Says Generals Will Not Be Last Word on Iraq reinforcements. This is a turnaround, because earlier President Bush has always maintained he will listen to his generals on appropriate force levels for Iraq. The generals are against the temporary surge, which is all that Mr. Bush has to offer them.
US Rankers Oppose Iraq Pull Out says Washington Post. Ordinary soldiers say they want the mission to continue and they can make things work.
We tend to be distrustful of these kinds of stories. We do see from the blogs there is indeed a high level of rank and file support for the war. But how impartial are the blogs and media surveys?
Are We Saying The President Must Be Guided Solely By His Generals? No. War is waged to support the political policies of a nation. The generals cannot decide the political policies. They can advise only on the military requirements to achieve the policies.
What we are saying is that having got the US military into one heck of a mess in Iraq, and having let pass the time for effective military options, the President should listen when his generals are saying his temporary surge will achieve no military victories. In which case the political objectives - aside from the major one of saving the President's face, something we do not consider a legitimate objective - will not be achieved.
If Mr. Bush were to give the military the tools to win, we don't doubt the generals would support him.
In Iraq, unfortunately, the situation has deteriorated to the point even a doubling of troops - assuming they are made available, and they cannot be made available in a reasonable timeframe - will not do the job. Meanwhile, the GWOT is in trouble because of resources committed to the futile Iraq mission.
GWOT Direct Cost Now $500-Billion and climbing. $350-billion has been spent in Iraq, the rest in Afghanistan and elsewhere. We are unsure of how these calculations have been made - do they represent only the off-budget supplementals the President has obtained from Congress? In any event, the cost is seriously underestimated: the Army/Guard alone need $100-Billion to get their equipment back into the shape it was pre-2003.
A Note On Hitler As a Military Expert Hitler is a fascinating example because there is no doubt that Germany won its amazing victories 1939-41 only because of him. The German generals - quite correctly - said their forces would reach the needed strength only by 1945. And that was before Hitler told them to finish off the USSR. But had Hitler agreed to wait, the west and the Soviet Union would have been much stronger, and in 1945 the generals would have concluded they needed till 1950 to win. Etc.
When the German armies in Russia were checked along the line Leningrad-Moscow-Stalingrad in late 1941, Hitler's overruling of his generals is more controversial. A majority of historians say Hitler's refusal to let the army withdraw westward for the winter, thereby shortening the line, allowing exhausted formations to rebuild, and permit German troops to spent the winter in garrisons, escaping the terrible suffering they endured in the field, unprepared for winter as they were, was the major reason for the debacles of 1942. His refusal to permit withdrawals in 1942, when the German Army began reeling under the Red Army's hammer strokes, may have irrevocably broken the German army.
Yet, we have heard it said that his "no withdrawal" policy at the time actually saved the German armies from a rout and possible annihilation.
But once we enter 1943, then his "last man, last round" policies became counterproductive, particularly when he began interfering in purely tactical matters.
There is a whole category of enthusiasts who refight World War 2 and do "what ifs" to examine ways the Germans might have won the war. There is an immense list of what ifs, but there is one your editor favors.
He thinks that Hitler could have made every mistake he made and could have still won had he not made this one: failing to treated the Ukrainians and other freed Soviet peoples as human beings, he could have easily added 3-5 million men to his forces in the period 1941-1943. This would have allowed Hitler to keep his troops as reserves and as breakthrough troops.
Instead of promising them their independent countries allied to German, he embarked on his policy of extermination and repression against these natural enemies of Russia. He thus lost not just enormous manpower and industrial resources, he had to use huge fractions of his forces in suppressing the territories.
Of course, we recognize our thesis is not a genuine "what if". Hitler was driven by his racist ideology; he could no more think of Ukrainians, Balts, and Beylorussians as humans than he could flap his arms and fly.
Incidentally, the consequences of Hitler's attempt to fight World War II on the cheap are well known. Germany was not fully mobilized till 1944, when it was too late. Hitler insisted German women should stay at home, and he did not want to turn his industrial might solely to war because he thought the lack of consumer goods would turn the German people against him.
Other famous "what ifs": Hitler should not have declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, he should have built more tanks in preference to U-Boats, if England was on his agenda, he should have built the needed amphibious force, he should have held off on Russia and sent four full armored divisions to the Middle East - he would have captured his much needed oil fields by another route.
Send us your favorite Hitler "what ifs".
0230 GMT December 21, 2006
[1430 GMT] Somalia Fighting BBC says fighting is taking place at a Somali government base close to Baidoa, the interim government's capital. The ICU says it is at war with Ethiopia. Both the government and the ICU each claim to have killed 70 combatants from the opposing side.
Heavy Fighting In Somalia: Or Not The situation is unclear, with reports of heavy fighting, but at least one source cites just one killed. Reports speak of Islamic Courts militia closing around Baidoa. BBC says its correspondent saw Ethiopian armor, artillery, and vehicles on his way to Baidoa airport. Other reports speak of Eritrea having sent, by now, thousands of troops to help Islamic Courts. US says ICU contains Al-Qaeda cells.
Contrary to the expected imminent outbreak of all-out fighting, there are also reports that both the interim government and the ICU have agreed to resume talks.
Strictly between us, our readers, and the wall, there is nothing to talk about. ICU has most of southern Somalia under its control. All it wants to discuss is how it can obtain international legitimacy by getting itself included in the interim government - which it expects to dominate, and from which it expects to eliminate anyone who refuses to come to terms with it.
Also on the hush, we have to say that the situation as exists today is a remarkable victory for Al-Qaeda. It is under very severe pressure in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it has managed to open a third new front. The first new front was Afghanistan, then came Iraq, and now Somalia.
We are saying these things sub voce because we don't want to appear unpatriotic by suggesting the US is losing the GWOT.
Meanwhile, We Are Relieved That Fools Rule Not Just In Washington Al-Qaeda's No. 2 says the US has to realize it must talk to AQ as it seeks to disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Dr. Zawahiri seems have been influenced by all the fine quality drugs available around his Pakistani habitat. Else he'd understand that as far as the US is concerned, whatever happens with other groups, there is only one way the AQ chapter is going to end, and that is with him and Mr. Bin Laden dead, however long that takes.
It is indeed interesting he brings up the possibility of negotiations in his case, but tells the Palestinians that negotiations will not work for them, only jihad will. Feeling the heat a bit, are we now, Dr. Z?
Moreover, where did you get the idea the US wants to disengage from Afghanistan? As for Iraq, it is not your lot that is causing the US problems, its the bloody-minded Iraqis.
So dream on. Nonetheless, objectively we have to congratulate you for seriously expanding your presence in the Horn of Africa. That is a triumph for you, and we are not so stupid as to pretend it is otherwise. You have been incredibly lucky in your enemies, i.e., Mr. Bush and Company, the US Congress, the Pentagon and so on. We are pessimistic things will improve much for you when the Democrats take complete power in 2008. But, Dr. Z., this really is a 100-year war. You made your point on 9/11/2001, you lost big time in Afghanistan and may never recover - we are not going to make the error of conflating you and the Taliban, who seem to be thriving, though you both are happy cooperating at this time, you struck back in Iraq and on the Horn, and you may well win further victories over the next 10 years.
So Big Deal. This war is barely 15 years old. The US has not yet begun to fight. Mr. Bush should not be conflated with the GWOT or with America: he is insignificant compared to the nation. Be it 2025 or 2050, the nation will prevail.
0230 GMT December 20, 2006
Phew: Military Opposes Iraq Surge There's hope yet this inane plan may be consigned to the garbage, and frankly, we think the garbage is much too good a place to put the plan.
Gasp: US Lawmaker Proposes Adding 80,000 Troops - over 4 years. Good thing we were sitting down when we heard the news, or else we'd have been compelled to thrash this lawmaker with a limp noodle. People in the US seem to have completely lost their nerve. 80,000 troops over 4 years will bring the army to 600,000, at which level it remains completely inadequate for the GWOT.
Orbat.com to US Congress: we need 80,000 additional troops a year for 4 years. That will require doubling the US training intake. But the US military can do the job. It retains the basic structure for mass mobilization if the need arises.
Was President Bush Also Afraid Of Rummy Rumster? No sooner than the previous defense secretary is history, President Bush is saying yes yes, we do need more troops for the GWOT and I am directing my new SecDef to work out the needful.
So what has happened that the President has suddenly seen the light? We think he was simply scared of Mr. Rumsfeld.
Re Sadr City BBC tells us something we did not know. We'd thought Sadr City was all for al-Sadr. But apparently the City is split between Badr Militia and al-Sadr Gang, though the latter seems to have the majority of the Shias on its side. Nonetheless, should US decide to fight al-Sadr - very unlikely - the matter would be simpler than we had assumed in our post of December 19.
Gaza Ceasefire Takes Hold says Jerusalem Post. The earlier declaration was met with big violations. Now a new ceasefire has been declared after fighting that has left 6 dead.
Moderates Said To Gain In Iranian Elections These elections are for a variety of bodies. Former president Rafsanjani has won election to a key clerical body and other moderates have made inroads.
0230 GMT December 19, 2006
Yesterday We Were Merely Worried about the reported US plan to send 50,000 reinforcements to Iraq. Today we are alarmed because Mr. Joe Stefula, who tracks the US Army for us, sends a link to the document he says is the basis for the plan Mr. Bush will announce http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25292/pub_detail.asp
Even the Baker report, inane as it was, had a firmer grip on reality than this report by a Washington think tank. We are left speechless by statements such as those saying the US pacified the Balkans, it is a country with $12 trillion GDP and 300-million people, it can pacify Iraq. We wonder what drugs AEI members are on when they speak calmly and off-handedly about disarming Shia militias. We could on, but best for our readers to examine the report for themselves.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Nowhere in our first reading of the report do we see any understanding that neither does the US have sufficient ground forces to win in Iraq, nor will the public accept the mobilization needed to produce those ground forces.
We have repeatedly said that of course the US can win in Iraq. But not with the current level of forces. Mr. Bush and his supporters have to know this. That they nonetheless talk of victory proves to us not that they are stupid - they are far from stupid. It proves to us they are cynically clever because the intention is to save Mr. Bush's face and let everything fall apart after he leaves office.
There is a good chance that neither Congress nor the American people are going to accept either the plan or the casualties it entails. But here is the criminal genius of AEI and its ilk: Mr. Bush will then have the perfect opportunity to say: "Anti-patriotic forces denied America victory in Iraq."
For now, lets wait and see how this plays out.
A Clarification On The Additional Troops We completely managed to overlook a basic fact yesterday when we asked where are the 50,000 troops to come from. Former US Secretary of State and JCS Chairman Mr/General Colin Powell makes the point that since there are no additional troops to send, the surge will come from extending deployments of in-country troops even as replacement units rotate into Iraq.
There are many permutations possible, but one is to send brigades that are not rated fully combat-ready, say 2-3, and extend brigades due to go home, say another 3-4. That will leave next to nothing in the US strategic reserve, but what the heck, the US is so politically weakened abroad that initiating action on another front is impossible. Should someone like DPRK decide to try conclusions with the US during this period, well, the US has plenty of airpower to blow any aggressor anywhere in the world into the next world.
Reader Ray Dawson Asks For An Explanation of our statement that the US used about 2 brigades to defeat al-Sadr when he had 8,000 militia, but now that he has 80,000, the US does not need 20 brigades.
We'll go back to Lanchester's Equations, the first attempt to mathematically model combat power for opposing forces, some 90 years ago. We are quite aware that serious objections have been raised to Lanchester's model, but for our basic purposes it is quite adequate.
Lanchester said that the capability of a unit is the square of its combat power and is not a linear relationship.
So assume that an al-Sadr militia "brigade" of 3,000 has a combat power of 1. The militia is not organized on conventional lines, so there are no real brigades, this is just an illustration. Let's say that in an urban warfare environment, a US brigade has a combat power of 3. Again, this is a gross simplification, but stay with us, folks. Two al-Sadr "brigades" will have a combat power of 22 = 4. But two US brigades will have a combat power of 62 = 36.
Further simplification: for an attack to succeed, you need a 3-1 superiority if both sides are equal in combat capability, but for rapid, decisive victory you need a 9-1 superiority. So when the US fought al-Sadr in Najaf it had the needed 9-1 margin. You are going to say there was nothing quick about that victory, it took several weeks of fighting. That was because for political reasons the US could not use its full-firepower. Najaf was, in fact, the direct opposite of Fallujah when it comes to urban warfare. Fallujah was declared a free-fire zone; in Najaf US troops operated under quite extraordinary restrictions.
We digress, as is our wont. So if al-Sadr now has 20 "brigades", his combat power is 400. For a 9-1 superiority, the US needs a combat power of 3600. Since the square root of 3600 is 60, you are going to say, "wait a minute, that's 20 US brigades, didn't you just say the US won't need 20 brigades?"
Correct. But since the US will be on the offensive, things work out quite differently.
Lets assume the US decides first to knock off al-Sadr's Baghdad base. It is going to cordon Sadr City just as it cordoned Fallujah, and it will allow militia to exit, but not to enter. After Fallujah and Najaf, al-Sadr can be under no illusions he can meet a US assault. His men will try and leave to fight another day, if they don't, they will die in the City. The US might need 7-8 brigades for such an operation - and remember, it will be helped in many tasks by the Badr militia because an assault against al-Sadr cannot take place unless a SICRI government replaces the al-Malaki government.
As it did in Fallujah, US will cut up Sadr City into sectors and knock off one sector after another with overwhelming force. Al-Sadr will neither be able to move his forces around in the City, nor will he be able to reinforce, nor will he be able to regroup. In a few weeks he will be eliminated in Sadr City.
Why 7-8 brigades? We need readers to understand we are simply making up an example. There is no precision to these figures which in reality would be decided by a number of factors. So say that al-Sadr foolishly leaves half his 20 brigades in Sadr City - he will never be that stupid, but lets take a worst case. Assume the US uses 3-4 brigades to cut Sadr City into four. Then 4 brigades are left against his 2 1/2 in each of the 4 sectors. The combat power will be 6.25 al-Sadr versus 144 US. You can play with these figures as you want.
Now, normally this kind of strategy means that his forces outside Sadr City would be free to initiate operations in other areas of the country. US Will not have enough troops to meet him everywhere. But: US is not trying to hold ground. It doesn't matter what he does elsewhere. He cannot attack US forces in their fortified bases because his attackers will be destroyed with minimal US losses. He cannot take over other towns because he either already controls those other towns or he will have to fight the Badr militia to extend his control. The US is not at risk in any manner.
Can't al-Sadr reinforce Sadr City by withdrawing militia from other towns and infiltrating them inside? Well, two problems. In Fallujah we saw the US cordons were pretty efficient. Insurgents did keep infiltrating out as their sectors were overrun, with the result they were mostly channeled into the final zone, the industrial sector, and destroyed. Many did escape, never to be heard of again in Fallujah. Second, if al-Sadr withdraws from a town he holds to reinforce Sadr City, Badr militia will take over, eliminating another base.
After Sadr City is cleaned out, the US can regroup for another offensive against the next stronghold. That's how come you don't need 20 brigades.
So, as we said before: this is simplistic in the extreme, but it should make our point. Just keep in mind the combat power of a US brigade is not really 3 compared to an al-Sadr brigade. Its considerably more to begin with, and can increase enormously depending on how freely firepower can be used.
0230 GMT December 18, 2006
We missed updating on December 17 as the editor was out of town due to a family emergency. Apologies.
BBC Says President Bush To Send 50,000 Extra Troops To Baghdad The plan is to stabilize Baghdad first, pacify Anbar next, and then talk political solutions. There are to be no diplomatic negotiations with Iran, Syria, or on a separate track, with the Palestinians.
We support the President's refusal to engage in negotiations.
We do not support his plan to surge additional troops to Baghdad. Our reason is that we believe Mr. Bush intends solely to win a short-term victory in Iraq to protect his reputation. We believe he understands full well there is no military solution possible any more, but he wants to end his term in office with a victory, however illusionary.
We also do not see how 50,000 troops can be sent. The military has said earlier it can surge 20-25,000 troops by completely depleting its reserves. For the balance, there will have to be a major Guard call-up. Since 6 months minimum is needed to prepare units for Iraq, the impact will be much less.
Further, the Army is already short of $50-$100 billion worth of equipment and has had to wreck the Guard's unit cohesiveness to find units for overseas deployment. We do not see that the additional troops will be properly equipped, though we are constrained to say that combat units can still achieve their missions with equipment shortfalls.
250,000 troops in 2003 would have inadequate, but likely would have sufficed to prevent the insurgency from taking hold in the North and Anbar. There would have been no out of control insurgency in Baghdad in that case. Buts lets assume the mistake was made, but that by 2005 the US accepted it needed to send more troops and built up to 250,000. It is likely that the situation, while not ideal, could have been recovered.
Instead the US was fighting through 2005 with 160,000 troops which dropped to about 130,000 and then was built up to 140,000 for most of 2006. Now the situation has deteriorated to the extent that even if the total was brought up to 250,000, the US cannot return to the status quo as existed as late as 2004.
For one thing, as anyone knows, al-Sadr's Mahadi Army has to be crushed - not suppressed as was done in 2004, but destroyed - before Iraq can begin to stabilize. In 2004 al-Sadr had 8,000 not-terribly-experienced fighters. Today he has 80,000, many of whom are veterans, and many more of whom have been inadvertently trained by the US.
Do the math, folks. In the Najaf battles the US used the equivalent of two brigades to suppress al-Sadr's forces - not destroy, as that would have required more troops and longer fighting, neither of which were politically viable options. Now, clearly the US doesn't need 20 brigades to defeat his present-level force as these things don't work in tandem proportionality for a whole bunch of reasons we can discuss if anyone cares. But the US does need somewhere between 9-12 brigades, committed for as long as it takes, to put down this mad dog and send him to his God.
The US, however, will initially be able to send - say - 3 brigades, and half a year later, another 3 brigades. The initial 3 may stabilize Baghdad - and may not, as likely, and the next 3 may help push the insurgents back in areas of Anbar. But al-Sadr will be intact: he will merely lie low, knowing the Americans have to leave soon. And he will build up to 100,000 militia.
Al-Sadr may be the biggest problem, but he is only one of many. And while six extra brigades may save Baghdad and Anbar from disaster, they are insufficient to do both jobs. Six brigades in Baghdad or Anbar would probably do the job.
So aside from the situation being hopeless, there is the problem that the minute the Americans start leaving, the insurgency in each area will rebound.
We've said we believe President Bush doesn't see that as his problem: the next president will have to deal with it.
But we do think his aims represent a betrayal of America's interests for the sake of his image. Americans have been so passive since 2001 and Congress Absent While On Duty to such a great extent, we predict that there will be no great uproar, only resignation. And, after all, the troops will start coming home in 2008, and possibly even be out by 2009.
At which point Iraq will do what Iraq has to do, and we will be back to 1975 Saigon again. The US was not defeated in Vietnam. It merely got tired of the war, decided to abandon the South Vietnamese to their fate. There was remarkably little agonizing about the decision, and there will be little agonizing about Iraq.
None of which makes it right to prolong this war - losing the GWOT in many other places because no troops are available for anywhere else - just to save the President's face. The President, much as he may not like the notion, is not America. He is merely America's leader. It is his duty to think not of his face, but of America's interests.
We must make clear we have no problem with Mr. Bush wanting victory in Iraq. But victory now will mean 3-400,000 troops to stay for as many years as neccessary. We leave aside valid questions that many have, such as won't increasing the number of American troops in the world's most xenophobic country only worsen things? Look at the force that has been committed to the Balkans for a decade, with no assurance they will not have to spend another 10 years there. The situation in Iraq is far, far worse, and we do not think our estimate of 3-400,000 troops is an exaggeration.
So is Mr. Bush prepared to declare a general mobilization? is he prepared to raise taxes so the war can be fought as needed? Obviously he is not, because both propositions are politically untenable. That is why we have a problem with Mr. Bush. When the GWOT began, we honestly believed he was the leader to take the US into battle. But he has done what Mr. Truman did in Korea and Mr. Johnson did in Vietnam: go to war without being prepared to make the sacrifices needed to win.
Mr. Truman ultimately accepted a division of Korea, after great loss of American and Korean life. If the US was to do that, why not have ended the war in early 1951 with a unilateral ceasefire after DPRK was pushed back over the 38th Parallel? The Vietnam War ended with a total defeat of the US. Then why have fought the war in the first place, or why not have conceded victory to the North in 1968 in the same manner it was conceded in 1972 and 1975.
The US is going to lose in Iraq because Mr. Bush was not prepared to make the neccessary sacrifices. Perhaps he is not doing so now because he believes Americans will not back him. But they would have backed him in 2003. Instead he chose to listen to Mr. Rumsfeld's siren call. He made a mistake. He should be man enough to acknowledge he made a mistake, and that the political support for victory in Iraq no longer exists. He then needs to leave. We believe his full acceptance of responsibility followed by withdrawal will restore his stature and his people's faith in him.
But then it all comes back to who Mr., Bush is, doesn't it? Everything said and done, he is a Boomer. And of all the generations, the Boomers seem the most loath to admit mistakes and to take responsibility. And of all the Boomers, Mr. Bush seems more loath than most.
We leave our readers with a thought. Americans don't do limited wars. It has to be total victory or they aren't interested. Because Mr. Bush has approached the GWOT as a limited war, and because his successors will also approach it as a limited war - even more limited than he did - the GWOT is going to go even more badly than it already is. Perhaps we are being dramatic, but we think America's success or failure in the GWOT will determine whether America will continue as the world's greatest nation through the 21st Century, or whether the American empire will, after 20, 30, or 50 years become just a topic of interest for historians, much as the Russian empire of the 20th century has become.
0230 GMT December 16, 2006
Japan Moves A Bit Closer To Rearming The Japanese are now to have a full-fledged defense ministry, raising the prestige both of senior military officers and civilian bureaucrats. Also, Japanese schools are now permitted to teach patriotic values.
A rearmed Japan is to be welcomed as China rises. In the 1930s and 1940s Japan was America's enemy, and while everyone knows it has been one of America's closest allies for the last sixty years, we forget that in the 1910s to 1920s Japan was aligned with the west.
China, of course, is a big factor in Japan's inching toward rearming. But the major culprit is the Child of Swans, aka the Great Leader, and his inane insistence on pretending he is an N-power, and doing everything he can to aggravate everyone in the 'hood. Thanks you, DPRK, for helping knocking some sense into the Japanese.
Will There Be Civil War In Palestine? Much of the media thinks so, but we remain cautious. We haven't covered Palestinian internal affairs in a long time. In short, the rise of Hamas to power at the expense of the old-line Fatah lot who think they own Palestine and the Palestinian struggle, created serious tensions.
The tensions have been coming to a head because the west has organized a boycott of Hamas and foreign aid, on which Palestine lives, has become increasing scarce. So the handouts that most of Palestine lives on and the graft its rulers thrive on have been severely crimped. The West, which hated Fatah till the rise of Hamas, has embraced Fatah as the lesser of two evils. So there are plenty of reasons the two sides don't like each other.
The two sides have built up rival forces and have been clashing without serious consequence.
That changed the other day when Hamas killed an influential Fatah-allied religious person, then followed up by killing the 3 children of a top Fatah security official as they returned from school. The Palestinians have a nice record of killing Israeli children in their suicide bombing, but so far have refrained from killing each other's children, no matter what the provocation. The murders have sent waves of shock, revulsion, and anger through much of Palestine - and not necessarily just Fatah-allied Palestine.
So retaliation was just a matter of time, and it came on early Friday. The Prime Minister, who is a Hamas man, was returning from abroad when his convoy was ambushed. He escaped injury, but one person was killed and the PM's son wounded.
Friday was spent in clashes between Fatah and Hamas - 32 injured says Jerusalem Post. This, however, is just the mask of the Noh play. Hamas is preparing its counter-hit, and both sides are pondering whether its best to simply go all out to swiftly decapitate the other leadership.
In analyzing the Palestine situation, think Mafia feud as your template, not civil war. Both Hamas and Fatah are simply a bunch of armed thugs fighting over turf.
The Israelis are doing their best not to giggle loudly and joyfully. After the terrible reverse at the hands of Hezbollah, they have been cut a major break, all without doing a thing, because the Arab hatred of each other takes precedence over their hatred of Israel.
Israel has always been fortunate in its enemies. The Arabs, however, need to understand one thing. It doesn't matter how much the common people are victimized by their ruling elites. No one can help the common Arab except himself. If the Arab world is ever to come into the 21st Century - having managed to miss the last half millennium of humanity's progress - it can do so only by taking religion out of politics, accepting that Israel and the west did not create the problems they face, and fighting for secular democracy. That's the way the rest of humanity has done it or is doing it because it is the only way that ultimately works.
0230 GMT December 15, 2006
US Army Asks For More Troops We gasped with shock and awe when we learned from one source that the requested expansion was all of - are you sitting down? - 5000 troops! An incredible number, almost impossible to comprehend - yes folks, you read right: its five thousand! [Think Dr. Evil in "Austin Powers" - ten million dollars!]
0230 GMT December 14, 2006
Saudi Needs To Get Out Of America's Face A few weeks ago a Saudi official wrote a piece in the Washington Post where he threatened the US not to withdraw from Iraq or else the Saudis would have to intervene to save their Sunni co-religionists.
The piece was repudiated by the Saudi government and the official removed from his job.
Yet yesterday the Washington Post ran a story where the Saudi king is quoted as repeating the same threat to Vice President Cheney. [The New York Times ran the story first, but we didn't see it.]
The Saudis added one of the most brazen provocations the US has been faced with in years: they recognized that if they began funneling money to Iraqi Sunnis some of the money would go to Al Qaeda, because in Iraq insurgent groups are mixed up in a shifting series of alliances of convenience.
We Expected That The US Would Give Saudi A Tough Ultimatum Get out of our business, get out of our face, and if we find you have given a dollar to AQ directly or indirectly, you are dead.
Instead, AP Says The US Administration Has Dismissed The Report The dismisser is President Bush's head lackey, one Tony Snow, whose main virtue seems to be the ability to deliver the most egregious lies with a straight face. If Mr. Snow had dismissed the report by saying it never happened or that the monarch was misquoted, that would be one thing. Instead, Mr. Snow informs AP that intervention in Iraq is not Saudi government policy,
Does Mr. Snow expect us to believe that what the Saudi king has said to Mr. Cheney does not represent official Saudi policy? Does Mr. Snow make Saudi policy that he is so sure the monarch spoke out of turn?
Our sole comment on Mr. Snow is that he is lucky he is in Washington when he insults the Saudi monarch in this fashion. Back in Saudi he would likely suddenly find himself 8 inches shorter.
Now, We Need To Separate Two Issues The first is the matter of US security policy. It is not for the Saudis to tell the American people, through their government, what are America's interests. If the Saudis are so concerned about their brethren, let them do what they need to do to protect Iraqi Sunnis - after the US has withdrawn.
We don't see Saudi Arabia offering a few brigades to help keep the peace in Anbar. Of course, we understand the debauches the House of Saud indulges in as its daily fare take time away from unimportant issues like Iraq. We also understand that from the Saudi viewpoint, if their American servants are willing to shed blood and expend treasure in doing Saudi's work in Iraq, why should the Saudis sully their hands?
So We Are Not Blaming The Saudis For Being Themselves We are blaming an American power elite that seems to be so compromised it cannot tell the Saudis to beggar off, chums, go do the unpleasant things with camels you do so well, and we don't take orders from anyone.
This has nothing to do with Republicans versus Democrats. It is at times like this the American people have rammed down their throats the unpleasant truth that the power elite - academics, press, politicians, senior bureaucrats, military officers and the like - are all part of a filthy cabal that makes it impossible for them to stand up to 4th rate tyrants who happen to have money.
The Second Issue Is The Saudis Are Already Intervening In Iraq and their money is already going to various nasty people like AQ. As regards the latter, their money has been going to terrorists for years before 9/11. Instead of taking down the House of Saud as the key to cutting off funding for terrorism worldwide, the US government continues to pander to a monarchy and power elite that by the most basic elements of its religion-based ideology is committed to bringing down everything the US holds as decent and good.
We Will Be Accused Of The Same Narrow Fundamentalism Of