0230 GMT July 31, 2007

• Sorry, Haveta Back The President On This One Robert Novak, an investigative journalist of many decades experience, informed readers of the Washington Post yesterday that President Bush had undertaken a venture of great risk, and suggested that the President had done so with such relaxed equanimity that we may question if he is connected with reality.

• The venture? Sending US special forces to work with the Turkish Army in decapitating the Turkish Kurd rebel group operating from Iraqi Kurd territory. By this means the President hopes to forestall a Turkish invasion of Iraq.

• With all deference to Mr. Novak, who has probably the best sources in Washington, we don't see what is risky in this operation, unless Mr. Novak means that any action against any terrorist group is risky. If so, we agree with him, but terrorists have to be fought, no matter where they are.

• This beings us to our next point. The US has long had a double standard on this particular Kurd terror group. The US hasn't aided the group in any way, but it has ignored the group, which is on the designated terror list. The US is occupier in Iraq, it has a responsibility to go after all terror groups, regardless of national origin or group aims. We think its a very good thing the US is finally taking action.

• Our sole reservation is that we hope the Administration does not think its cooperation with Turkey removes Turkey's need to invade Iraq. The issue for Turkey is not this particular terror group. It is that Iraqi Kurds insist on incorporating Kirkuk into their autonomous - and eventually independent state. This will hit Turkoman interests and an independent Kurdistan will give a huge impetus to Turkey's Kurds. The terror group is almost beside the point, as far as Turkey is concerned, something to provide a causus belli to justify invading Iraqi Kurdistan. The US's action helps reassure Turkey that the US is keeping its interests at heart, but does nothing to meet Turkey's basic strategic concerns. And nor should the US do so at the expense of Iraqi Kurds.

• As for President Bush being in a relaxed frame of mind while everything is falling apart around him, we remain uncertain that the US media is any more in touch with reality than the President on scores of major issues. and if he is in a good mood, it's at least easier on those around him.

• Taliban Hostages: Meet Like with Like So a bunch of idealistic South Koreans, men and women, arrive in Afghanistan, a far away land with a completely different culture, and set to doing good works. So the Taliban, who can't stand anyone doing good works, kidnap the South Koreans, who by reports seem to have taking an innocent view of their safety. We're here to help the people, who will hurt us?

• So first the Taliban murder one hostage, just to make a point: we're serious, you want your people back alive, release Taliban prisoners. The Afghan Government enters into negotiations. You're being too slow, says the Taliban, and murders a second hostage. It says the government got what it deserved, because it is not listening to the Taliban.

• We suggest the Afghan Government listen by taking 30 Taliban prisoners at random, executing them, and dumping their bodies on the roadside as the Taliban have done with the South Koreans. Who 30? Well, 10 for the first man murdered, and 20 for the second. For the third man murdered it should be 40. At some point the Taliban will get it.

• But wont this strategy lead the Taliban to kill all their hostages? Perhaps. The point is, are we going to take a short-term view or a long-term one? By giving in to Taliban to save the remaining 21, all the Afghan government will achieve is to encourage more hostage taking and more murders. The only way to stop this nonsense is to assure the Taliban - by deed, not word - that they're going to be the losers.

• This strategy needs to be implemented even if the Taliban do not ask for prisoner releases. They take someone hostage and demand a ransom, 10 Taliban in prison get hanged.

• As westerners, of course, we don't have the stomach for this strategy. We take shelter behind phrases like "we cannot give up our principles because then we become what we despise about the enemy". Funny, westerners don't have compunctions about killing people from 10,000-meters. In this respect, the Taliban - and AQ etc. are more honest than westerners. They do their killing by hand.

• President Hamid Karzai is by education and temperament a westerner. He is soft to the core.

• From George Fescos On Military Compensation  The 9-11 benefits were in exchange for not suing the US government, The Port Authority of NY/NJ, the politically well connected architects, builders, and others connected with the WTC, the airlines (although since they were bankrupt this was always bogus in my opinion), many other government agencies.  You
  could interpret the 9-11 payments not as 'benefits' but as an exchange,
  money in exchange for the right to sue.

• As to veterans benefits, like most government programs, they are numerous
  and complicated.  They include are wide range of monetary  and non monetary
  benefits like medical care and tuition payments.

• For example the $400,000 death benefit.  As the program is in theory
  insurance you could deduct premiums of all insureds.  Insurance is also
  subject to exemptions, claims investigations, and denials.  Like most
  government programs there are many complicated layers, for example the
  'extra' $6000 non insurance benefit you site.  I suspect the $6000 was
  originally intended as funeral benefit common in union contracts, and some
  workers compensation systems.

• http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2005/pr072805.html
  "The permanent extension of the life insurance would mean that families that
  have the federally-subsidized Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI)
  would receive $400,000 if a family member is killed in action.  Before
  Congress passed an amendment earlier this year increasing the amount to
  $400,000, families received $250,000 if they had SGLI. "

• From Arfan Khan On US And Counterinsurgency Great armies in history have shown their ability to adapt to their environment. The Romans and the British were of course the epitome of this, the former was able to fight and win in varied terrain such as deserts of Arabia, mountains of the Balkans, the plains and forests of Germania and Britannia, the latter in the multitude of different colonial wars.

• The US army will have to transform itself, right now the forces are optimized for high tech, mechanized warfare in relatively flat terrain, no one can touch them there, but its a truism that the enemy only plays to your strenghts once. Fact is that the US seems unable to adapt its units and formations to the type of war it is facing now, in Iraq which is flat and featureless and thus not exactly an insurgents dream, while in Afghanistan they are not even trying to fight the Taliban/warlords if Pakistani newspapers are to be believed (a stretch I know).

• The US could start by training its infantry battalions for varied missions, taking a leaf out of the South Asian practice. Both Indian and Pakistani battalions are trained to go from mountain warfare to plains warfare to desert warfare to CI within days. The US wastes too many resources in brigades and divisions, they are properly higher HQ's, not individual specialized units.

• In Sindh in 1990's Pakistan faced not an insurgency but a break down of law and order, the main army formation involved in restoring it was the 4 Air Defense Division and its units. And in Siachin 1984, Neelum Valley 1991 and Kargil-Drass 1999 a lot of the units sent as reinforcements were Armored Infantry (26 FF comes to mind) and regular plains units.

• The US needs more air assault units for CI. Perhaps a start could be made with 173rd Brigade?

0230 GMT July 30, 2007

• Don't Bet On It, Buster Reuters reports that Iran has told Germany the US is too stretched to attack. 170,000 US troops in Iraq can guarantee neither their own security nor the security of Iraq, he says.

• So maybe at one point in the distant past a ground invasion of Iran was an option. If you can convince yourself the Iraqis will greet you with rose, you can convince yourself of anything.

• But for a very long time no one is talking about a ground invasion. They are talking about an air offensive.

• In case Iran hasn't noticed, the US has 35 active and quickly-recalled fighter wings and a couple of hundred bombers, plus a few thousand cruise missiles, that are doing next to nothing. Quite enough to put Iran back into the early 20th century. It won't be quick - unless the US limits itself to N-weapon related facilities. Nor will it be pretty.

• And nor should Iran count on its oil. Sure, a disruption of oil will cost America. But a single ICBM getting through US defenses in - say 2020 - could cost the US between $100-billion and $1-trillion. do the math, Teheran.

• Col. HR McMaster On Iraq An excellent article in Times London, at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2158139.ece

• Unlike Times London, which wonders if the surge is the right strategy but too late, we remain clear the surge cannot succeed because of a lack of troops. To us the surge looks more like a gentle wave lapping at the shore of a lake.

• Pakistan: The Honeymoon Is Over Before It Started [all news from Jang of Pakistan]. The proposed Ms. Bhutto-President Musharraf deal has already run into serious trouble.

• First, the Supreme Court is likely to rule that President Musharraf cannot be reelected in uniform or out of it. Pakistan law bars a public servant, such as he is in his capacity as Army chief, from standing for election for two years after leaving office. That ends the prospect of getting elected after doffing the uniform. As for standing for election in uniform, the exception was permitted for one term. To do it again means amending the constitution, and Ms. Bhutto/President supporters need a 2/3rds majority to do that. In the fractious parliamentary polities of South Asia, a two-thirds majority for anything requires a miracle.

• Second, President says he will doff the uniform after the election. Not so fast, says Ms. Bhutto: doff first, my support for your election as President second. Problem: Ms. Bhutto can double-cross the President, and as we said yesterday, without his uniform he's dead.

• Third - and this we did not figure because we don't know enough about Pakistani politics: both Ms. Bhutto's political party and the President's political party are in shock at the opportunistic alliance. The President's party supports him because he refused to deal with people like Ms. Bhutto and another former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz-i-Sharif, in fact, he exiled them.

• As for Ms. Bhutto's party, they back her because she opposes the military dictator. Now she wants to get in bed with him.

• So have the two political parties suddenly been Born Again that they are adhering to principle? Hardly, folks, hardly.

• The parties are worried because their followers may adhere to principle. They may jettison the parties en masse at the polls to protest the unholy alliance. Then the legislators are not going to get elected.

• So in both parties they are thinking of jumping ship as a way of getting a better shot at relection from their constituencies. If they jump ship, the remains of the two parties will be insufficient to see Ms. Bhutto elected Prime Minister and the President relected as President.

• Tres interesting situation, no?

Our first composite on what the US needs to do to win Iraq type wars

Readers have been very patient while we have meandered along with our thoughts on why the US is going to lose the Iraq war. Actually, we're just being polite because we know readers have simply been ignoring us. Still, thanks to readers who have commented, we've been able to shape a few basic propositions.

I

• Criticism of the US strategy on Iraq has been focused on political issues. We believe that those issues aside, US military strategy/tactics are flawed and cannot succeed.

• General David Petraeus says that insurgencies last an average of 9 years. Someone else says Americans have never won a war that lasted more than 4 years. We're going to let these assertions go for now.

• The above domestic realities leave the US with two options: don't get into CI, or do it differently so that the average 9 year span is palatable to Americans.

• Since the first option is infeasible in the time of the new Hundred Years War, we need to look at the second.

II

• Americans fight their wars in the spirit of all-out, so they expect rapid results. They need to stop sprinting, and learn to pace themselves so they can hang in there for longer wars.

• To pace America, our leaders first need to explain to the public that CI wars are going to be long wars.

• They need to reduce the astonishingly high cost of operations. Think how much easier it is to sell a war costing $50-billion/year Instead of the $200-billion+ being spent on the present war.

• They need to reorganize their military to get maximum CI punch from the restricted numbers of people willing to become soldiers. This in turn means they should stop thinking the force multipliers designed to let them fight conventional wars with limited numbers will work for CI, which requires very large numbers of troops. They need a force design that gives a teeth-tail ratio of 1: 1 as opposed to current 1:19

• They also need to keep overseas tours down to 1 year of a soldier's 4 year enlistment.

III

• On a tactical level, they need to redesign the infantryman's load so that he hefts 40 lbs instead of 80-110 lbs. America happily spends billions to develop a new fighter. Why not billions to lighten the human's fighter's load?

• They need to deploy armies of academics all over the world to compile massive, impartial databases on the history, sociology, economics, politics etc of each country. This information will become the basis of the overall plan developed for each country. The plans have to be made before America goes in.

• They need to have two different types of troops: conventional war and CI.

• They need to apply the principles of judo in fighting their CIs. They should not start with some impossibly idealistic outcome and then try and bludgeon all actors to conform. Rather, they should see what is realistic and reduce their political/strategic goals accordingly.

We will continue the discussion after we get feedback on the above.

0230 GMT July 29, 2007

• Iran Purchasing 250 Su-30s? Debka.com says that it is, along with 20 Il-76s tankers  http://debka.com/headline.php?hid=4449

• We checked the Rospboronexport website - that's the agency Debka says is handling the sale - and saw no mention. http://www.roe.ru

• We're a bit baffled at the size of the deal. It would be the largest fighter deal to a single country in many, many years. This aircraft, usually compared to the F-15, is big, heavy, complicated and expensive. Back-of-envelope, this deal will cost at least $15-billion for a country that's quite tight for money. The training and maintenance load for the Ir.AF is going to be mindboggling.

• Be that as it may, we sincerely hope Debka is not exaggerating and this deal goes through. It will hugely alarm all of Iran's neighbors, who will react by buying several tens of billion dollars worth of fighters and air defense missiles. A big chunk of that money will go to the US - more jobs and all that. It will cement the sales to Israel and Saudi Arabia and Israel of the F-22 Raptor Lite, which will greatly help the USAF because unit costs will go down.

• Not to forget: the more aircraft Iran has, the more fun for US air arms because there's more targets to shoot down - if the cruise/B-2s down get them all on the ground first.

• Iran's Bushire Reactor Delayed? This story has been making the rounds for a few days, but Haartez of Israel says the Russian company involves confirms the delay. The company says it's a financing issue. Haaretz thinks President Putin is holding back because of concerns Iran will use the facility to make N-weapons.

• Well, we can reassure Haartez on that point. Aside from that Bushire will be fully safeguarded, it's a light water reactor for power generation and therefore unsuitable for weapons grade material. when slightly enriched U235 is burned for power, the plutonium isotopes produced include Pu 240, 241, 242. While Pu 239 is excellent for bombs, the 240 family makes it near impossible to build a bomb.

• Yes, yes, we know the non-proliferation lobby derides this claim, but there is a difference between theory and engineering practice. The US and Britain conducted at least one test each with high Pu-240 content material, but there is a huge difference between a test and a workable, deliverable weapon.

• DPRK may have used high Pu-240 material for its fizzle bomb, though from what we hear it was a complete fake: conventional explosives sprinkled with a bit of Pu so that air samples will lead people to believe a real bomb was exploded.

• Pakistan may have done a high Pu-240 test as part of its tests in 1998, though we have never been able to get a straight story out of our intel sources. There's evidence implication PRC in the tests and in the US you just do not say anything that makes PRC look bad.In any case Iran would have to break safeguards to get at the fuel rods, and talk about a casus belli.

• Haaretz notwithstanding, it's likely that money really is the problem at Bushire.

• Pakistan Elections: Musharraf-Bhutto Deal Chris Raggio brought our attention to this unsavory alliance. You can read the details at http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=9289

• Basically, assuming nothing goes wrong before election time in November, Mrs. Bhutto will become Prime Minister. With her support joined with President General Musharraf's support, he will be reelected President. Its being said he will give up his army post. As far as we are concerned, if he is really going to do that, he may as well just shoot himself right now because his chances of survival as President will be nil. We'd suggest readers treat reports of the President giving up his Chief of Army Staff position with skepticism till a clearer picture emerges.

• As for President Musharraf and a putative Prime Minister Bhutto getting along after the election, the chances are less than that of your editor winning today's PowerBall Lotto. [Hint: he hasn't purchased a ticket.]

• This is President Musharraf's thinking at this point - you don't have to be a psychic: "Once I'm legally elected, the first misstep she makes, I'll dissolve her government and order her arrested." Since Ms. Bhutto has a well-earned reputation for heavy-duty corruption, that misstep is going to take about a week to materialize.

• This is Ms. Bhutto's thinking at this point: "Once I'm legally elected, I'll use international pressure to marginalize him. I'm so cute and lovable, no democratically elected leader in the world can back this fascist jackbooted thug over me.

• In a showdown between Mushy Bhai and Bibi Benazir, our money is on Mushykins. That assumes he'll hold on to the Army Chief post. If he really is going to give that up, as we've said, better to shoot himself now and get it over with. 

• Rush Limbaugh On Compensation To US Military Families
  (Thanks to James Daley)

• I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the September 11 casualty and those who die serving our country in Uniform are profound. No one is really talking about it either, because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11. Well, I can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country. If you lost a family member in the September 11 attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million.

• If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable.

• Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.

• Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 milli on are complaining that it's not enough Their deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Soldiers put themselves in harms way FOR ALL OF US, and they and their families know the dangers.

• We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation a s well.

• You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad. Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent housing Make sense?

• However, our own US Congress voted themselves a raise. Many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month. And most are now equal to being millionaires plus. They do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn't have to pay into the system.  If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, they may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed them in harm's way receive a pension of $15,000 per month.
  
   

• US Kills 17 Al-Sadr Militia in Karbala Raid Even though we want the US to get out of Iraq ASAP, we admit its terribly satisfying to learn about raids such as this. For a change the US is not helplessly at effect of Al-Sadr's murderous goons who are planting IEDs all over the place to kill Americans. For a change the US is hitting back hard.

• The usual arguments with the Iraqis have started, they insist civilians were killed. Probably they were because Mahadi Army fights from amongst civilians. But just because a dead man is not wearing Al-Sadr's black does not make him a civilian.

• US captured a wanted militia leader, and presumably he is talking.

• But please notice one very important thing. This raid took place in Karbala, which is Badr militia territory. Badr has been at near war with Al-Sadr; the slimy al-Sadr protector, Mr. Prime Minister of Iraq, has no authority in Najaf. Its reasonable to assume Badr militia cooperated, and Mr. Al-Malaki can do nothing about it. When US hits Al-Sadr in Baghdad, Mr. Al-Maliki makes a huge hue and cry and does his best to get militiamen released.

• US Defense Secretary Says US Planning Iraq Exit The headlines on this were a bit misleading because (a) this is simply working on options, (b) it's being made quite clear that US withdrawal will take place at the same rate that the surge troops were inducted, one brigade a month, and (c) unlike ourselves, few in power are calling for a complete exit from Iraq. Even opponents of the war are resigned to leaving 60-70,000 troops behind, say 7-8 brigades, indefinitely.

• Jatropha: The New Miracle Biofuel? Biofuel from corn seems pretty much a bust: aside from taking more energy to produce than the fuel generates, there's the reduction of food crops. Of course, serious biofuel people don't talk about corn but about other plants such as switchgrass, and they note that biofuel technology is in its infancy, it is bound to get more efficient with time.

• Now comes the jatropha plant, about which you can read in London Times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2155351.ece

• One hectare yields about 18 barrels of oil PLUS biomass to produce about 2-kilowatts/year of electricity. The bush lives for 50 years, requires 23-inches of rain a year - not quite desert, but also not land where most other crops can grow, and can survive a drought for 3 years. It yields oil etc and seeds in its second year after planting.

• To replace 1-million barrels/day, approximately 5% of US requirement, would mean planting 20-million hectares and the biomass would give 40-gigawatts of power, replacing oil for perhaps 5% of the US's electricity requirement.

• 20-million hectares is about 48-million acres or 75,000-square-miles.

• Obviously the plant is not a complete solution just by itself - you'd have to put about 20% of the US (Including Alaska) under this plant to get 10-million bbl/day, leaving the US to important only from Canada/Mexico. Obviously that's not possible. At the same time, it's a very promising way to reduce oil imports. 5% here and 5% there with another technology, soon you're talking serious import savings. Several big jatropha plantation projects are underway.

• From Arthur Mosel Regarding Mr. Clinton's Impeachment Mr. Clinton was a lawyer and the Chief Executive officer of the United States government, and his offenses were not trival.  He lied under oath violating both the canons of his profession and his office, a major no-no if we are going to have a legal system that we can trust.  

• As to the trival reason why he lied, a sexual affair, he violated the civil service laws and military officers and government officials have paid heavily, if quietly, for doing so.  The Civil Service act prohibits exacting sexual favors as a factor in employment, promotion or pay.  Mr. Clinton did all of the above, he engaged with inappropriate sexual conduct with a subordinate, a firing offense; he or his office later, when the affair ended, gave her a better position in a different agency (trading sex for favorable treatment); she received a pay increase with the move (same issue).

• I have seen military officers have their careers ended effectively or actually immediately ended as a result of such conduct and am aware of government civilian employees have the same.  The Federal government even backs civil action against civilian employers for these violations under civil rights law.

• Mr. Clinton was a disgrace to his profession and office.  The biggest disgrace was that his plea deal for this (yes, there was one) was never fully implemented,  If Scooter Libby was to have gone to jail for perjury, how about Mr. C.

• P.S.  Check out what happened to the only witness who was willing to testify to the Whitewater Scheme, he died in a Federal prison in solitary confinement when everyone forgot to give him his heart medicine.  We didn't hear the media or Congress yell for an investigation of the situation leading to his death, which brought an end effectively to the Whitewater issue, since his testimony would have tied the Clintons to the paper trail that was available.

Why the US Will Lose Iraq: US Military Remains Organized For Conventional Combat Part II

• Reader Walter E. Wallis writes with some ideas about how the US can more effectively organize/equip its forces for Counter Insurgency.

• Hard for an old soldier to admit, but I think the new Amphibious Assault Ships are the wave of the future, and I think that hunkering down may go the way of the human wave/cannon fodder war. Imagine a floating base with all the comforts of home, going on a raid for a few days, then back to hot chow and baths and a cool bunk. It will require a bit more dismantling of structures and remote denial of access to territories, but the tail would be better protected.
• As for the infantryman, think Starship Trooper, except a fighting suit need not walk if it can roll. A diesel powered dirt bike could support a very heavy body armor, excellent weapons suite and perhaps even air conditioning.
• I might work on this.

• Editor's Note The Osprey would play well in this scenario as it could deliver the kind of rifle squad that Mr. Wallis had in mind, with several days of supplies, some hundreds of kilometers in land. The US is already working on exo-skeletons for its troops. But money will have to be spent on keeping everything very simple, very reliable under the worst field conditions, and repairable with a couple of hand tools if equipment still breaks down.

In the last part we noted the US has 18 supporters for every fighter (we include mechanized and armored units in the total). Iraqi insurgents have perhaps a 1 to 1 ratio. And the US is spending at least 1000 times more per fighter than the Iraqi insurgents. The point we are leading to is that fighting insurgents while organized as a conventional force is probably a losing idea. Here we give some reasons for our belief.

• Weapons and Tactics   Weapons drive tactics developments and tactics drive weapons development. In the case of the US in Iraq, weapons are driving the tactics. In other words, if you look at the US Army/Marine Corps as a weapon system, you will see the tactics the  US has chosen to fight the Iraq war is contingent not on the best way to fight the Iraq war, but on the available weapon.

• Normally there's nothing wrong with that because you don't have a choice: you base your tactics on what your weapons can do. In this case everything is wrong because you do have a choice of weapons, and the weapon that has been chosen is a US Army/Marine Corps optimized for modern conventional war.

• To illustrate our point, consider that the typical US infantryman (the Marines will hate us but its tedious to say "Army infantryman and Marine infantryman") carries into combat a load anywhere up to 120-lbs. The US infantryman is NOT mobile. How is he supposed to fight insurgents, then? Particularly insurgents that are carrying 30- to 40-pounds if that.

• We know some of our readers are going to say: "What on earth is the editor talking about?" So we're going to give two more examples of what we mean.

• There used to be an old saying of campaigning on India's North West Frontier - all counter-insurgency - that all a soldier should carry with him was a bag of beans and a bag of bullets. This was a metaphor for "walk light, walk agile". The US infantryman today walks neither light nor agile.

• Lets go back 140 years, to the Indian Wars in the United States. Your typical cavalryman had a longer tail than your typical Indian. We'll leave it to our expert readers to tell us what the ratio was. But it certainly wasn't more than 1 to 1. For discussion, we can assume the Indian had no tail. So you needed 2 soldiers for every Indian. Once mounted and ready for some days of campaigning, the US cavalryman was as mobile as the Indian, who was the ace insurgent of his day. Since he was as mobile, the US cavalryman could think and fight like an Indian.

• Now look at the US infrastructure in Iraq. Giant bases. Unbelievable quantities of supplies required to keep the giant bases going. Huge columns of vehicles. Phenomenal amount of planning needed just to send a company out of the perimeter for 12-hours. You have this organism that is devoting 95% of its energy into sustaining itself and leaving 5% of its energy to fight (simplification of the 1 to 18 teeth to tail ratio). This is not efficient because with the insurgents, 50% of their organism's energy is going into fighting (1 to 1 teeth-to-tail ratio).

• We are confident our readers can see why this is wrong, and we also know that just about every American reader is saying: "This analysis is so wrong. We have so much by way of force multipliers that our organism is not devoting 5% of its energy to fighting, its probably equal to the insurgents' 50%. Why, our helicopters alone give us a huge advantage, not to speak of our communications, our sensors, our air support, our fantastic logistics etc etc."

• At which point we sigh. Yes, people, US has amazing force multipliers. But they are not the type that are going to win this war. And that doesn't resolve the need to "walk light, walk agile". Those force multipliers were created to win conventional wars and the US is absolutely brilliant at that. We are not in a conventional war. We are in an insurgency. CI needs different tools from what American is deploying.

To be continued

0230 GMT July 27, 2007

Editorial

Impeach Mr. Bush? We Think Not

• The editor's city of residence, Takoma Park, Maryland, has passed a city council resolution calling for Mr. Bush's impeachment. Normally we'd just laugh fondly, because that's Takoma Park. "The Berkeley of the East" - though why anyone wants to compare themselves with Berkeley is beyond us. Red Takoma is what the city should rename itself. But what the heck: it's these absurd antics that make Takoma a charming place to live. But we're told hundreds of other US localities have also passed similar resolutions.

• So what is it we are supposed to impeach Mr. Bush for? The answer is writ large on Takoma Park lawns, where a popular placard says "Bush Lied, People Died."

• Reality check, folks. Mr. Bush did not lie. A whole bunch of folks, including the Saudis and Israelis believed Saddam was hiding WMDs. Yes, yes, we all know that Ambassador Joseph Wilson said Saddam did not buy uranium ore from Niger. This may come as an incredible surprise, but Ambassador Wilson was not the be-all and end-all of US intelligence and he had nothing to do with any other country's intelligence.

• Okay, so where are the WMDs? Not in Iraq, it seems. There is evidence from the UN that before the invasion Iraq did a lot of shuttling and moving from facilities that were supposed to be safeguarded but were not any more. There may be evidence the Russians and Syrians feverishly got material with their paw-prints all over it out of Iraq before the invasion.

• At worst, the Administration was wrong on WMD's - after the event.

• WMDs may have been a poor reason to go to war with Iraq. But nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that poor judgment is an impeachable offense.

• By the way, we'd like to ask the City of Takoma Park: would President FD Roosevelt have met the standard you are holding Mr. Bush to? FDR fudged facts left, right, center and then 10-times around again to get aid to the British in 1940-41. No one can dispute he did absolutely the right thing. No one can dispute America did NOT want to go to war and a whole lot of Americans would have gone quite nuts had they realized what the US was up to, for example, what US Navy destroyers were up to. There is no evidence as far as we know - and perhaps we only display our ignorance - that FDR in any way was determined to get the US into the war by any means neccessary. But he knew he had to help Britain by any means neccessary. The Germans showed considerable restraint, but suppose they had retaliated by attacking US merchantmen and convoy escorts - completely justified, by the way - and the US went to war against Germany. Would we be sitting around with "FDR Lied, People Died" placards?

• Please, please do not say "But everyone knows Hitler had to be defeated." Who is everyone, Kemo Saby? America was fiercely split over events in Europe. A whole lot of people did not think we should get involved. Its only when the full magnitude of Hitler's evil became apparent that "everyone" agreed he had to be defeated. FDR made an executive decision. He was right. Mr. Bush made an executive decision, and he was right too because aside from the WMDs, Saddam was one of the biggest tyrants of the post-WW2 world. Sure there are others - and Mr. Bush planned to deal with them one by one.

• Like it or not, President Bush genuinely believes America must help bring democracy to the world. You going to impeach a man for that?

• Let's turn this around. Suppose America had been greeted with roses and Iraq became an instant democracy. Would the City of Takoma Park called for Mr. Bush's impeachment because no WMDs were found? We don't think so.

• What it really comes down to is this: people want to impeach Mr. Bush because the Iraq war has gone all wrong.

• Now, if you want to impeach him for incompetence, your editor is right up there with you. Your editor is on record as saying he wants the incompetent fools that got us into this war and are keeping us in this war held accountable. Life in jail for those sort-of-responsible. Hang those who were primarily responsible. War tribunals and all that - your editor wants it all.

• But does the constitution say incompetence is an impeachable offense? We don't think it does.

• When you go around saying "impeach X and impeach Y", all you are doing is trivializing a very serious procedure, which as far as we know is the last resort of the republic against a corrupt president. And your editor defies those who say Mr. Bush is corrupt to prove it.

• Ah, you say, the Republicans trivialized the impeachment process re. Mr. Clinton. Yes they did. And your editor, who was absolutely no fan of Mr. Clinton. was completely in his corner on that one. But are you then saying "They did it, so we want to do it?"

• If so, how are the good people of Takoma Park any different from the Republicans they detest?

0230 GMT July 26, 2007

• Islamic World Increasingly Against Bin Laden Terror... says a research poll conducting by the Pew organization. The drops are huge - see the article at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2141391.ece

• ...But Conversely  Fear Of US Grows This poll provides large caliber ammo for those who say the war on terror cannot be won by the methods US espouses. It seems Muslims are turning against terror because they are fed up of what it is doing to them, not because they think America is right.

• Iran Says It Will Never Give Up Its "Peaceful" N-Program says Reuters. There you go, folks, from the mullah's maw. Since no one is in any way trying to suggest Iran should give up its civilian N-program, and since it believes mastering the N-fuel cycle is purely a civilian activity, Iran will not give up its uranium enrichment and plutonium production program. [You can use plutonium as fuel for power production, so if you really want to bloody-minded you can say your plutonium production is for civilian use. Iran has not said that because everyone is focusing in its uranium enrichment program, whereas production of weapons grade material is much easier if you plan to make plutonium. But should its plutonium program become an issue, we have no doubt Iran will say its for peaceful use too.

• When the man is saying he's not going to stop, can we ask the Europeans and all to accept him at his word? Why bother this useless charade of talk, when Iran is simply stalling for time?

• But one request, please: can we defer bombing Iran till the next administration? This one has shown itself so incompetent that it would be insane to trust it with anything more complicated than...more complicated than...more complicated than...help us, people, we're having a hard time coming up with an activity the administration cannot mess up. We were going to say "boiling an egg", but given this administration's track record, even that may be beyond its capabilities.

• AQ Leadership Probably Inaccessible Says US The official is Undersecretary for Intelligence at the Pentagon, and he spoke before before a congressional committee. The official does not see success within 3 years. He says success will depend on working with Pakistan to give it better surveillance gear etc, and on economically developing the area. http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2544153420070725

• Gosh, these Pentagon types are such Brains! We are in awe! So when the natives have better roads and schools and health care etc. they will turn in Bin Laden? Pardon us for our stupidity, but what's the connection between their state of development and their love for AQ? Are we back on the old shtick about poverty leads people to extremism?

• If that's what the Pentagon thinks, may be it needs to learn something about its enemies - if that's not asking too much. This point has been discussed a gazillion times, including by us. If poverty was the issue, why is Bin Laden the Head Extremist? He's the son of a multi-millionaire. His number 1 aide was a doctor. In just the latest terror attempt, darn nearly everyone involved were medical professionals including doctors.

• We've been noticing about Iraq/GWOT that the US government has become so desperate its officials and generals are simply shooting their mouths off, and each person seems determine to produce a better sound bite than the last. No one seems bothered to make sure they're talking sense.

• Yeh Hai Amreeka Mayri Jaan Another in our occasional series. The phrase in Hindustani means "This is America, My Heart", though it can equally be "My Love". We intend it in the sense of a wry "Love it or hate it, America is America, and you simply have to accept it the way it is." All items from Washington Post of July 25, 2007, concerning the region.

• A father jumps into the water to save his two sons who are drowning. Instead of helping him, the spectators are busy filming the scene. A boat goes to the rescue, too late: the father drowns. The boys are pulled by the current back up to the surface and survive. The man with the boat wants to know what kind of people are those who did not help. Our suggestion: using the videotapes, identify the people who were gawking, toss them into the water, and film them drowning.

• A power company announces it will put in a 600-MW gas-fired power plant to meet demand in a rapidly growing area. [In fact, the whole region is rapidly growing because of illegal immigration, legal immigration, and to a small extent because Americans tend to have more than the regulation 1.9 children or whatever it is that is required for zero population growth.] Natural gas is very clean, but the greens are upset. Why? Because with more power available, more people will move into the area. Our suggestion: to keep the greens happy, blow up all power plants, transmission facilities, gas stations, roads, bridges, water facilities, homes, buildings, hospitals, shopping malls, schools and so on. No one will want to move there. Of course, the greens will also leave, but come on people, we can't solve all the problems just by ourselves.

• A man is convicted of robbing a house, forcing the 3 residents into a bathroom, and shooting them in the head. Two die, one survives. He is acquitted of killing another man in an unrelated incident. While he is in jail, he threatens everyone he can think of, and tries to bash up everyone he can get near. One of these really nice people, just a few anger issues. The court - this is Virginia - has only two options, this being capital murder: execution or life without parole. His lawyers beg the court to show him mercy: sentence him to a 48 square foot cell for the rest of his life. [48 square feet is the size of a small bathroom, we assume that is the size of high-security cells in Virginia. Our suggestion: to kill this man would be a mercy. So go along with the lawyers' request, stick him in the cell, and let him go completely insane as his punishment. Execute him after he is certifiable, just to save the taxpayers the money - you cant make an insane person suffer by keeping him locked up.

0230 GMT July 25, 2007

• President Yesterday Says We Must Win In Iraq We agree. But what is doing to win?

• As far as we can see, nothing at all.

• From Day 1 he has refused to commit the troop resources needed to win. Now we are in Year 5 of this wretched war, and he still refuses to commit the resources.

• The surge was Plan 5 or Plan 6? The surge has barely got underway, and the President's  generals are already working on the next plan. we are told this is called "local security", i.e., security for Anbar and Baghdad.

• Have we now reached the stage where we don't even wait for a plan to fail before starting work on the new plan?

• We are being told an advisor to General David Petraeus, who helped come up with the surge thinks that the new plan might have a 1 in 10 chance of success. [Readers: in his favor is his stand that either we go deep in Iraq or we get out. Nothing else will work, he says.]

• Mr. Bush is the nation's first MBA president. Would he invest in a venture where he had a 90% chance of losing his money? Even though his degree is from Yale, we'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt.

• Since he won't send enough troops to win, how are we supposed to win? Bombard America's enemies with words till they are buried in words. Hasn't worked yet.

• While You and I Sit At Home And Debate Iraq this is the reality of the war: Times London writes about a US sergeant in a unit identified only as "Baker Company" (??) with 4th Brigade/1st Infantry Division in Doura, Baghdad. This man looks no older than some of my students. This year he has found 30+ IEDs - he has an uncanny instinct for locating the things. A brave man indeed.

• But: the article says almost everyone in his 130-man company has been caught in an IED explosion.

•  This unit faces death and crippling wounds each time it leaves base. We believe it is no different from any other unit in Baghdad. Some weeks ago Washington Post wrote of a unit that wanted to visit the site one of its members was killed to honor him. For tactical reasons, the commander decided it was safest to walk. The unit covered its 4 miles or so to the site and back without losing anyone. But there were at least 3 IEDs planted along the route, and the unit came under fire several times. In one case the bomber had even made himself comfortable nearby on a mattress, so that he could blow up any passing Americans. Luckily the Americans escaped this trap.

• The unit works in a Shia district, not a Sunni one. The Shia's are supposed to be on our side.

• We'd like to ask a question of the generals in Iraq. This is what you call progress? This is what you are talking about when you say we are winning?

• We have a simple suggestion to make of the generals. If you think we're winning, why don't you volunteer to go on patrol for a week? Please don't think you're too valuable to risk - America has tons of generals and even more tons of officers who once promoted will make excellent generals.

• Pakistanis Get A Most Wanted Insurgent This gent was released from Gitmo and then returned to his home country to become the most wanted fighter in Pakistan. The Pakistanis surrounded him at a house in Zhob, Balochistan, and he blew himself up rather than surrender. Sensible chap. Would have been more sensible to shoot him when he was captured, but then who listens to us.

• Before you start congratulating the Pakistanis: this gent made his career one of attacking the Pakistan security forces. That's why the Pakistanis went after him. If he'd been killing Americans or Afghanis, no problemo dude, here's a few thousand rupees, do you need another AK, and here's all the rounds you can carry, come see us when you return.

• Again, we repeat this is not a moral issue, Pakistan has sound strategic reasons to support the Taliban, but this is the reality. The Pakistanis can get people when the want to. That AQ and Taliban is running amok in Pakistan means they don't want to.

• The Greek Mastodon This gent was one impressive fellow: 6-tons, 3.5-meters at the shoulder, and tusks as long as 5-meters (that's 10 feet high and 16-foot tusks for our American readers).

• What's even more impressive is our pre-ancestors hunted the fellow for food. The Euro mammoth died out 2-3million years. We're safe to assume no helicopters with searchlights and high-powered .380s that many contemporary human scumbags use when "hunting".

• Frankly, were your editor to encounter one of these creatures and his cheery "G'day, Mate" didn't work, he'd quietly hand over his chocolate. Hunt one of these things? No, Sir. Better to eat grass.

• Letter from Aaron Kolste I'm not sure of your support-to-combat ratio, because
  it isn't clear if you're counting only "infantry on paper" as combat troops, or you are counting all combat troops (artillery, armor, etc) as combat troops... but since you say infantry platoons I will assume the former.

• I just wanted to mention that the Wisconsin National Guard unit in my area is B Battery of 121 Field Artillery.  This unit conducted extensive combat operations in Iraq that did not involve their howitzers.  They did convoy escort for certain, and a friend of mine has indicated search/seize house-to-house operations.

• If a NG Artillery unit is doing this, I believe they should count as "fighters" in your column.

• Does this adjust your support-to-combat troops ratio?

• Editor's reply. Indeed they should be counted for the patrols and searches etc. But not for convoy duty. We've had to leave out these cases even though there are quite a few artillery and MP batteries/companies pulling patrols because we don't have that detailed an orbat for Iraq. The ratio won't change because even in the infantry/mechanized/tank units a number of men are always tied up on static duty. The insurgents don't have to waste their manpower that way. Also, we haven't fully counted the US tail to keep that one soldier on patrol. Mr. Kolste should, nonetheless, look at the discussion as general one. If anyone is interested in greater precision, we can always revisit the discussion.

0230 GMT July 23, 2007

• Ayatollah Sistani Aide Murdered Despite all the security surrounding Ayatollah Sistani, Shia Iraq's most important cleric, an aide was murdered. A bodyguard might have aided the killers.

• The Ayatollah may have to flee Najaf for his safety.

• In our opinion, suspicion will fall on Al-Sadr, who is constantly in conflict with Najaf: this young whippersnapper fancies himself not just as the supreme religious leader of Iraq, but also as its temporal leader. His Mahadi Army is constantly clashing with the Badr Militia, which belongs to the Najaf faction of Iraqi Shias. Al-Sadr is an Ali-Come-Lately. His father built a power base in Sadr City, Baghdad, among the poorest of Shias, and was killed by Saddam. After the fall of Saddam Al-Sadr emerged from the rat-hole he had been hiding in and created the Mahadi Army with Iran's money, training, and advisors. He then proceeded to kill as many Sunnis as possible and as many Americans as possible. He has succeeded in ethnically cleansing Baghdad, forcing Sunnis from mixed and other neighborhoods into 4 ghettoes. The minute the US is out of the way, he will get rid of those Sunnis too, with the complete approval and support of the government and its security forces, large numbers of whom owe allegiance to Al-Sadr.

• We Love You, Hugo, Yes We Do After having disposed of any power center that opposes him, including members of parliament, our favorite dictator has taken his "revolution" to the next level.

• There will be a single political party in Venezuela, and in the first instance, six million have signed up.

• Just a short step from there to the usual communist/fascist scene where to get a job as latrine cleaner you have to be a party member.

• We again urge the US government to completely ignore this man. We urge the US to learn from its mistaken Castro policy: 46 years after the US started trying to get rid of Castro, he is still with us and the main reason is the US has opposed him, forcing Cubans - who are nationalists - to support their dictator. Washington, don't go through this again with Hugo. No plots, no "support democratic institutions", no propaganda broadcasts etc. The people will get rid of him in their own time.

• Japan's Baby Steps To Rearm Better our readers look at the New York Times articles http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/world/asia/23japan.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp You will find nothing dramatic happening, but that is the Japanese way. The policy changes are in the nuances - Japanese F-2 fighters travel to Guam for live-fire exercises, Japan has no live bombing range. The steps are baby steps - 4 B-767 tankers, two warships to carry helicopters, and built with the option to carry VTOL fighters, the launch of the first destroyer with an anti-missile system and so on.

• Still No Agreement On Oil-Sharing Law There is an orneriness in the Iraqis that forces them to give Washington the finger each time Washington touts progress. So Washington has been boasting how agreement on sharing oil revenues has been achieved. So obviously Iraqis have to contradict Washington by failing to agree yesterday.

• Also please note the continued offensive against the Anbar Alliance, the Sunnis who are fighting AQ. After the killing of 4 leaders in Baghdad, there has now been a truck bombing north of Baghdad aimed at the Alliance's leaders. No details yet about if anyone important was among the 5 dead.

• Frankly, folks, we don't understand why so many level-headed American analysts start gasping and panting with lust re the Anbar Alliance because even the American military knows this lot will turn on the Americans after settling scores with AQ. They joined with AQ despite their xenophobia because they wanted to kill Americans. Then AQ started killing its allies because they want to establish a pure Islamic state in Anbar. So the former enemies of the US became all kissy-face with the Americans, but that doesn't mean they will tolerate the Americans for an hour more than they need to use the US.

• And - we've said this before: if AQ changes tactics, repents and apologizes to the Anbar Sunnis, both groups will re-ally.

• Right now, luckily for America, good old AQ is solving its problems the good old AQ way: kill anyone who opposes it. AQ recently dressed up in Iraq security force uniforms, arrived at a village south of Baghdad in official vehicles, and proceeded to slaughter 30 men, women, and children.

• Why? Just to make a point: the village was seen as getting too pally with the Americans who are on the offensive in the zone.

• Don't wonder where they got the uniforms and vehicles from, please. The Iraqi security forces are hand-in-glove with terrorists of every stripe, why not with AQ.

• Read more about how AQ has turned many supporters in Baghdad against it with its brutality http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2121006.ece.

• But please, folks, don't make the mistake we at Orbat.com made all the time for four years of this miserable war. We'd read stuff like that and say: "Ah, progress, now the US military has won XYZ area and it can go on to the next area." Wrong-O, folks. Every time the US military leaves the area goes back to its bad old ways. So this time is supposed to be different because the US military is surging? Please dont make us laugh. Areas that the US thoroughly and completely cleared out after 1-2 years of presence relapsed once the Americans left. US does not have troops to cover all Iraq; right now, even if it did, the American people have turned against the government's policies.

• The government was very careful not to lie outright. But it lied by omission, by focusing on the good news and never on the bad, and now the government policies have lost credibility.

0230 GMT July 22, 2007

Normally when there is no news - usual over the weekend - we give an opinion piece. Today we're a bit confounded because we've been giving opinion pieces on the US/Iraq regularly. So we've given the British press more attention than we usually do, just for variety.

• Turkish PM Threatens North Iraq Invasion After Election on Friday unless something is done about Turkey's Kurd rebels operating from Iraq.

• Well, good buddy, no one is going to do a darn thing because US doesn't want another fight on its hands in Iraq, and you aren't going to do a darn thing either aside from Sturm und Drang. So just out a sock in it and spare us - this is getting really boring.

• People keep saying there's 200-250,000 Turkish troops near the border. Come on guys. Turkey's total army is 400,000; as far as we know there has been no reserves call-up; and in any case why does Turkey need that many troops when a fifth the number will get you to Kirkuk right quick. We estimated around 60,000 troops, and that's plenty. Of course, what happens after capturing Kirkuk is another matter. Turkey would need a whole lot more troops to fight the Kurds - assuming it got away with an invasion of Iraq. We don't see how Turkey can do that.

• Kurds refuse to postpone Kirkuk referendum slated for later this year. Turkey wants to stop Kirkuk from going to Kurdistan - which it will - and that is the real point of the Turkish drama. The Iraqi Kurds don't seem to paying attention to

• UN Confirms DPRK Shutdown Of 5 N-Facilities but North Korea is still not giving up documents concerning its N-program. Also, now DPRK says it must get Light Water Reactors in return for giving up the weapons program. It's deja vu all over again.

• Pakistan President Accepts Supreme Court Verdict says Jang of Pakistan regarding the reinstatement of the Chief Justice whom the President had dismissed.

• UK Program To Buy Taliban In Afghanistan is discussed in this fascinating article from Times London: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2115167.ece The articles says the $3-million program is a failure because although 4000 people have surrendered, they are mostly low level foot soldiers of whom there is an endless supply.

• Seems to us the program is a whacking success. Times London seems to be math challenged. Above works out to $800/person which even in Afghanistan is not a whole lot of money. So obviously if you're going to be that stingy you aren't going to get Big Fish. Plus Big Fish are more ideologically motivated and less interested in simoleans. We'd noted in one of our Iraq analyses that the US is spending ~$5-million to kill one Iraqi insurgent. Costs will be less for the British in Afghanistan. Assume $1-million per kill, getting 4000 insurgents however low-level out of the game for $3-million is an absolute bargain.

• More to the point, the article discusses British shortcomings in the Afghan War. Some of the criticism applies to the US too, particularly the insufficient troops.

• Rich In America JP Getty, the US's first billionaire in today's money, was worth $14-billion, less that the net worth of each of Sam Walton's 5 children. In 1985 US had 14 billionaires. Today it has 1000. Two million Americans are worth $10- to $100-million each. Ten million dollars is entry-level rich.

• You can read more at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2131974,00.html

• The British Experience With Concentrating Iraq Troops in giant bases: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2790976.ece

• We Were Soldiers Once - And Young Friday night your editor ate too much chocolate. Normally its lights out at 2300 US Eastern, but he was wide awake. So he decided to hie over to the Silver Spring Borders, a mile away, to see if he could score a copy of Harry Potter 7, scheduled for release at 0001 Saturday. Standing in line between 2330 and 0141 he got a chance to read almost the whole book about the epic battle at LZ X-Ray in the Iadrang Valley between 3 battalions of the Cav [1/7, 2/7, 2/5 Cavalry] against 3 first-rate PAVN regiments.

• This may seem strange, but your editor finds it very, very hard to read books about Vietnam and he had been avoiding this poignant, unvarnished, modest account of American soldiers at their very best. You may find odd considering  the editor's analysis of the battle is used every year at Leavenworth.

• Be that as it may, he came away with three thoughts, one of which he has had had before and is noted in his analysis.

• (a) The way these three battalions fought, you would just never guess that the majority of the troopers were draftees in their very first action. You also would not guess that the Cav was fighting its first battle in the airmobile mode. The troops behaved like veterans - despite every battalion being short of men before the battle began because of the months-long, non-stop stream of transfers of trained soldiers to other units. The US Army is famous for its reckless indifference to unit cohesion, so the Cav was not being singled out. Also, please note it takes 10 days of combat to get a green soldier into top form - he's either learned the game or he's dead, and the battle was much shorter. Your editor's impression is that the Cav was simply blessed with a number of extraordinary career soldiers, many veterans of WW2 and Korea, and this played a big part.

• (b) As always, one comes away amazed at how much punishment the human animal can take, and the sheer determination of men to survive. Of course, the ones who give up die, so there is evolutionary selection at work, but still.

• (c) Last - and most impressive - is Lt. Colonel Hal Moore's literary voice. He never raises his voice. He engages neither in emotionalism or hyperbole. Like the most skilled of authors, he simply recounts what the soldiers did in calm, even understated tones. He belongs to another generation, and that was the style then. Your editor much prefers that style than the overheated expositions common today.

• What struck the editor the most about LTC Moore is that writing 25 years after the event there is not one drop of bitterness in this narrative. There is none of the "we were sent to die in a futile war" business that one associates with Vietnam. LTC Moore fought this battle to the best of his capability. When it was over, what you get is his sense of sheer joy at being alive - this is a very common phenomenon that many soldiers say is the best part of war  "I made it".

• Fighting ferociously, sacrificing everything, facing death bravely, refusing to complain, and wasting no time at all in trying to find meaning in the battle - that, my friends is what being a warrior is about.

• The movie "300" encompasses some of these timeless themes, and consequently it was a huge commercial success. But you see, "300" is a movie. "We Were Soldiers Once - And Young" - what an astonishing title, just by itself, using just six mundane words to express the complete essence of the true soldier - really happened.

0230 GMT July 21, 2007

• Slay Them With Statistics Just a few days ago we were being told that Iraq violence has begun to abate. Yesterday Reuters said that according to data it obtained from DOD attacks in June 2007 reached their highest level since May 2003, and that they have been  increasing in the last 4 months, which corresponds to the surge.

• In Iraq the various sides are fighting it out with bullets and bombs.

• In the US, the carious sides are fighting it out with statistics. You don't end up dead, but you end up equally badly: your public loses confidence in anything you, the government, says.

• Pakistan Supreme Court Reinstates Ousted Chief Justice Something very odd is happening in Pakistan. First the Chief Justice defied the President, who is the real ruler of Pakistan thanks to a military court. Then the President fired the Chief Justice. Frankly, familiar as we are with the people of Pakistan, who have been repeatedly squashed by the military's jackboot, we though that was the end of it. People would protest a bit, and then shrug their shoulders philosophically, say "What can you do, yaar, the army is supreme anyway", end of the matter.

• Instead, the Supreme Court has in effect defied the President and therefore the Army by giving the Chief Justice his job back.

• This puts the President in a bad place. If he accepts the outcome, next step could be the Supreme Court disqualifies him from running - and winning  - the upcoming election. If he does not, he has to declare a state of emergency, suspend the court/parliament/press etc. US is going to get very upset.

• But say the Pakistan Army is in the middle of a civil war with AQ/Taliban insurgents. US is going to have to make some hard choices at that point about whether it will accept the state of emergency.

• US Offers Firepower, Intelligence For NW Pakistan Fight says Jang of Pakistan quoting US media sources.

• All choices are bad at this point, folks. As it is the tribals and extremists - and many moderates - in Pakistan are upset with the President for acting at US behest in the terror war. The US offer - and action on that offer - is going to incense a whole bunch more tribals and others. Fresh global recruits for the jihad and so on.

• But what is the US to do? It cannot accept the new AQ/Taliban sanctuaries in NW Pakistan. Pakistan Army cannot eliminate them. Doing nothing worsens the problem. Doing something worsens the problems.

• We're always ready to act the critic, but this time, frankly, we are thankful we don't have to make the decisions.

• Though we do have a solution, and we've said it before. US needs to pull back from the GWOT all over the world, regroup, reassess, and reattack. The way the US is going about things is not working.

Why the US Will Lose Iraq: Counter-Insurgency Is Not America's Thing

• Suppose I was to say to you: "America cannot win every gold at the 2008 Olympics." Would you get upset? No, because we have a world of 6-billion people, and Americans are just 5% of that world. So as long as America comes away with the most golds, we'll all be happy.

• Suppose I was to say: "America rates behind Cuba in standard measures of health care." Would you get upset? Well, you aren't going to be happy, because jeez being there with Cuba in anything is hardly a compliment. But you'd accept the fact because it happens to be, well, true.

• Suppose I was to say: "American school achievement vis-a-vis other industrial countries sucks". Would you be upset? Your pride would be hurt, but you wouldn't be upset, because America has the third largest population in the world and is the most diverse nation on earth, and tries to educate every child. There's reasons we're not tops, and you can take comfort in knowing that when you face-off our top students against their top students, we're pretty competitive.

• Okay folks, I don't want you get upset when I say: "America is not good at Counter Insurgency." First, I want you to see that America is darn good when it comes to every other kind of warfare, and it isn't a disgrace when you are good at a heck of lot of warfare and not good in just one.

• Now, the reason American is not good at CI is NOT the reason everyone gives It has nothing to do with America's supposed Attention Deficit Disorder. It has to do with the simple reality that America has never had to fight a CI on which it's life depended. America's life depended on winning the Cold War, America fought it for 45 years. Does that indicate ADD? Does anyone doubt that had the Soviet Union not collapsed America would still be 100% steadfast in fighting the Cold War, 61 years on?

• Ravi's First Axiom on CI  When your life is at stake, no sacrifice is too small. But when you are fighting a CI that does not put your life at stake, you have to fight it in a way that maximizes the cost-benefit ratio. This is particularly true when you are The Global Power and you are fighting not in one country, but in a hundred.

• Ravi's Second Axiom on CI Americans cannot fight CI because everything they do, they do the max. If the CI is not to keep your country together, you cannot fight it to the max, you have to fight it at a cost that is justified by the benefits.

• Let's hark back to our favorite CI folks, the Brits When Britain ruled the World Empire, it was in a situation identical to the US: it was fighting CIs all over the world. When the costs began seriously outweighing the benefits, the Brits folded their hands.

• Example 1: America. This one is so obvious we don't need to get into it.

• Example 2: Afghanistan. This one is also so obvious we don't need to get into it. Please note the Brits ruled India with its endless reserves of manpower. India had perhaps 200-million people at the end of the 19th Century. If need be, the Brits could have raised any number of troops to fight and win in Afghanistan. But the Brits were in Afghanistan for a reason: to counter the expansion of Russia. That was not a live or die situation, and when the game cost more than it was worth, the Brits left.

• Example 3: India. This was a war the Brits did not even think of fighting. When WW2 ended, it was obvious to the Brits that fighting for India was simply not worth the cost. It did not help, of course, that the Indians had been inspired by the Brits who educated them to demand liberty and control of their own destiny - very British ideals. You can't fight people who quote you at every stage as a justification for their rebellion. Be that as it may, the Brits packed up and went home.

• Since Americans Cannot Match Costs To Benefits, They Need To Avoid CI That's all there is to it. This is not a complicated argument, no one needs a triple doctorate to make it or understand it.

• If US Was To Match Costs To Benefits In Iraq they'd be fighting a very different kind of war. And what's more, they're compounding their error by mirror-imaging the Iraqi security forces to fight the way Americans fight when Iraq does not have a fraction of America's resources.

• We'll talk about this in the next installment

By the way, Errands/Tasks crossed out were accomplished on 7.20.07 - amazing how much real world stuff  one can do if one does not work on Orbat.com

0230 GMT July 20, 2007

• The Iraq Pull-Out Debate May Be Irrelevant This school of thought says the like it or not, US will have to start withdrawing troops from Iraqi by April 2008 because 15-month deployments will start getting over. The move by the Pentagon to increase deployments to 18-months is a bust, says this school of thought, and will not fly because of the gigantic morale/recruitment problems it will cause. Five brigades will have to come home by the summer. This withdrawal will buy President time to run out the clock - with US troops withdrawing, Congress is not going to vote to cut off funds or end the war.

• We have been saying for a long time Mr. Bush plans to run out the clock. We have been neutral on if Congress is going to act or not. From everything we hear, Republicans - defections from whose camp are required for Congressional success - are terrified of two equally unappealing alternatives. One, they are perfectly aware there is an overwhelming consensus among their constituents for pulling out. So they don't want to go to the polls in November 2008 without clearly showing they are listening to their constituents. At the same time, they are terrified of (a) being labeled as Bug-Outs by challengers for their seats, and (b) they are so ideologically committed that the very thought of working with Democrats on such an issue makes them acutely ill.

• But the twist that troop withdrawals will have to start in April 2008 is something new to us. We now see a possibility that everyone will be happy and absolutely nothing will be resolved because 15 US brigades will still be fighting a pointless war, but sufficient withdrawals will have taken place to appease the voters.

• Our own contribution to this debate concerns Mrs. Clinton If she becomes President, as seems likely, we are no longer taking it as a given that the troops will come home. You see, Mrs. Clinton is not just the wife of Bug-Out Bill, she has a huge leftie legacy that will hang over her head. She will have to look and act tough on national security, and she has so many enemies that even those who want the troops brought home will be waiting to jump on her and scream: "Aha! We told you she'd sell American down the river!" or whatever.

• Wait a minute, you're going to say. Do you mean to say that people will attack her for withdrawing even if previously they have been for withdrawal just because they want her to look bad? Surely principles will determine peoples' position?

• We've been in Washington DC for 17 years without a break now. The one thing we've noticed is that for this generation of politicians, of every stripe, there is no such thing as principle. It is all about short-term advantage gained by making the other person look bad. Democrats say the Republicans started this by gunning for the Clintons and culminating in the President's impeachment. Republicans say the Democrats started it with putting some of America's finest and most honest public servants on trial over Iran-Contra just because they wanted revenge on Republicans.

• Whoever started it, principle you can forget about. And if Mrs. Clinton has to choose between being named as Mrs. Leftie Bug-Out Hil and seen as tough on national security, which will she choose? Obviously being seen as being tough, so the troops will fight on to save her face.

• Which is why they're fighting now - to save Mr. Bush's face, because he cannot bring himself to admit he was wrong.

• Ms. Valerie Plame, Reprised An American technique of argument is to simply keep repeated your argument, no matter how many people prove it wrong. This is because Americans are no longer interested in getting as close to the truth as possible, they are interested in making a point that will help them sell whatever they are selling. So it is with Ms. Plame.

• Her lawsuit demanding damages because the Bush Administration blew her cover and ruined her covert career has been dismissed by the court - as nearly as we can tell, not being lawyers - is the court said it didn't have jurisdiction. It did not go into the merits of the case.

• Anyhows, we have said again and again that Ms. Plame's cover was already blown before she was pulled back to Head Office. Now, that doesn't mean that she wasn't still listed as covert - we don't know. If she was listed as covert, it doesn't matter under the law if she spent her time reading Manga comics and playing videogames, revealing her identity is against US law. We've been told she was no longer covert, but other people say she was. That's fine, whatever.

• But for Ms. Plame to claim the Administration blew her cover and ruined her career is Baby Cow Poop. It is so false a claim that it does not rise to the level of Cow Poop, leave alone Bull Manure. Her cover was blown by - among other people - Mr. Aldrich Ames.

• Moreover, apparently Ms. Plame thinks the intel services of other countries must be idiots. We've said this before: her cover wouldn't have lasted in Delhi two weeks, and we have no reason to believe it would have been much longer in many other places.

• Also responsible for blowing her cover was - Ms. Vale