re: "Another (Almost Completely) InstaPundit-Driven Assortment"

Francis W. Porretto at Liberty's Torch ("For Americans who still understand and love freedom") relied heavily on Prof. Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit, as should we all.

Money quote(s):

"It's difficult to imagine the blogging world without Professor Glenn Reynolds, a.k.a. InstaPundit. For my part, on those days when I find myself without inspiration, he's a reliable source of things about which to vent my spleen that I might have overlooked in the national news. And on those days when I have an inspiration, the way the rest of the DextroSphere employs him as an aggregator makes him a handy source for material to supplement whatever has already become the focus of my ire."

CAA often finds that Instapundit has wittily summarized blog posts and news items he's already read in the original, but far more often than not Prof. Reynolds has gotten there first.

"I shared the widespread fears that an arms trade treaty would be used as a tool by the Obama Administration to cut deeply into Americans' rights to keep and bear arms. It appears that, for the moment, those fears can be put to rest... But for the moment, only.

All governments, no matter how constituted, are implacably hostile to their subjects' possession of the means of resistance. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is words on a page. It is not self-enforcing...no more so than any of the other rights Americans cherish. The one and only way to keep our rights alive is to exercise them vigorously...and to stand ready at all times to punish the arrogance of men in positions of authority who presume to infringe upon them.

In other words, keep your powder dry."

Sometimes, despite the earnest efforts of American diplomats to negotiate a consensus agreement on one or another of many international issues, the best actual outcome for America and for Americans is no agreement at all.

"DaTechGuy notes a relationship many of us would be slow to recognize:

I have heard a lot of people on the left self righteously complain that conservatives are unwilling to agree to "common sense gun control" that we are unreasonable fanatics who would oppose restrictions on the ownership of Sherman tanks.

Most of all, we are totally wrong to believe that the left is after our guns just because of the proposed assault weapon ban.

Why would we have such a belief, how can the folks on the right even think we on the left are after their guns, all their guns?

The answer: Chick-Fil-A.

We in the Right know perfectly well about the Left's tactic of gradualism. DaTechGuy cites a number of interesting examples as reminders, and for the edification of those who might disbelieve in it. Please read the whole thing."

Read the whole thing. The DaTechGuy makes a lot of sense, he's speaking from where a lot of conservatives and even moderates are living these days. It's a realworld example of something you should have learned from watching Star Trek.

7/28

re: "AMERICA’S BERLIN WALL"

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit disapproved of a proposal to deny U.S. passports to tax delinquents.

Money quote(s):

"AMERICA’S BERLIN WALL: Owe The IRS? Bill Would Suspend Passport Rights For Delinquent Taxpayers. Tar. Feathers."

Some assembly required, as the joke goes.

Still, this is a logical enough extension of the restriction already applied to those reported to HHS as being delinquent in their payment of child support.

4/5

re: "Next: Drone Strikes on Pakistan's ISI?"

WALTER RUSSELL MEAD at The American Interest's Via Meadia ("Walter Russell Mead's Blog") really put his brain to work with this one.

Money quote(s):

"If you read recent statements by senior US officials on the relationship between Pakistan’s ISI and attacks on US and NATO interests, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that a state of war exists between an agency of the government of Pakistan and the United States of America." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Remember, it can still be a war when one side isn't fighting back.

"One should be clear about this; attacks on embassies and on military personnel and positions are acts of war. They are not college pranks, they are not “signals”, they are not robust statements of policy disagreement and they are not bargaining chips in an extended negotiation. They are acts of force in violation of international law and they can legitimately be met by acts of force and war in return." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

As I noted on Facebook yesterday (paraphrasing aeklus' "the phrase "act of war" is really a political, rather than legal distinction"):

"Casus belli denotes a political decision rather than a legal consequence. It's a reason to go to war only if we say it is."

"(R)etired senior officials of the ISI at different times, and they make no bones about their attitudes toward the United States. They are our enemies and they are not ashamed to say so. They believe they have grounds: the US in their view is a treacherous ally which has never fully backed Pakistan in what they believe to be an existential conflict with India, and that today the US is openly in India’s camp, supporting its nuclear program, its global ambitions, and pursuing an Afghan policy which increases Indian influence in direct opposition to Pakistan’s efforts to ensure a friendly government in Kabul when the Americans leave. Moreover they believe that America is a power that is fundamentally hostile to Islam, and that our invasion of Afghanistan was an act of wanton mayhem which threatens the sovereignty and security of Pakistan and which has cost Pakistan untold billions of dollars, far exceeding any US aid.

While these views are not universally held in the Pakistani military and government, they are prominent — perhaps central — in ISI strategy, and it is clear that the rest of the Pakistani government either cannot control the ISI or does not wish to." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Regardless of what they believe, from over here in the cheap seats it's obvious that the U.S. cares very little about Pakistan, certainly not enough to conspire against it with India, except insofar as Pakistan is necessary to our military efforts in Afghanistan. Period. Full stop.

(So just get over your bad selves.)

"The United States has generally also tried to run its Pakistan policy in ways that allow a split consciousness. On the one hand, we know much of what the ISI is up to while US forces seek to kill people that the ISI regards as colleagues and allies. On the other hand, we push the Pakistani military command to limit the space in which the ISI is permitted to operate and to collaborate with us on those areas where collaboration remains possible. There are, after all, some groups we both want to defeat. In a sense we try to exact the highest price possible for our willingness to turn a blind eye to ISI activities of which we disapprove.

This is the ugly logic of war." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Did no one ever tell you that war is an ugly thing?

Okay, you already know about the John Stuart Mills quote, right? Good. Moving right along....

"“Frenemies” are part of the international scene and have been for thousands of years.

But US-Pakistan relations seem to be moving past the “Bosom Buddy” stage to something sharper. When the nation’s most senior military official, a man who follows US-Pakistani relations closely and speaks frequently with the head of the Pakistani military, makes the kind of charges in a public forum that Admiral Mullen has done, it is no longer possible for either side to pretend that nothing is happening.

The United States is telling Pakistan that something must change. It is not, however, clear just how committed we are to this contest with the ISI. If the bottom line for the United States is that Pakistani cooperation is essential for our Afghan policy to work, the Pakistanis will play this card for all it is worth." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Y'know, when Adm. Mullins' made that statement I figured it was better than even odds that he'd was just about to retire in order to "spend more time with his family."

"The current tussle between the US and Pakistan involves an effort by the Americans to invoke the stated threat of a military aid cut off and the implied threat of a full-bore US realignment with India to force Pakistan to give up at least part of its fifth pillar: the links to terror and guerrilla groups and the use of these groups in Afghanistan.

There seems to be a genuine division in Pakistan about how to respond. There are some who see the present national strategy as suicidal (the Via Meadia view, by the way) and want to use the American threat as a way to force ISI hands off the levers of power and call a halt to activities in both India and Afghanistan that hurt rather than help Pakistan in their view. These are nice people, but there are not enough of them to swing the debate.

Then there are those who want to temporize: always in the past it has been possible to buy off the Americans with a few pretty gestures or even occasionally a real concession. Throw them a few more Al-Qaeda officials, give them a bit more help eradicating some rebel units you also don’t much like in the tribal areas, and guilt-trip the Americans into more aid.

There are those who think the Americans are bluffing: that America needs Pakistan so badly to get out of Afghanistan that Pakistan can safely defy the Americans at minimal cost.

And finally there are those who think that America is Pakistan’s enemy. Either for religious reasons (we are the leader of a global western and Christian assault against Islam as they see it) or national ones (we have decisively chosen to take India’s side) we are hostile to Pakistan and our cooperation and aid is intended to confuse Pakistanis, gain an intelligence edge and, quite probably, prepare ourselves for a strike to destroy or capture their nuclear weapons." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

America is only Pakistan's enemy if Pakistan makes us one. It's that simple. Afghanistan itself didn't become our enemy until it became the sanctuary state for those who attacked us on 9/11, and stopped being treated like an enemy as soon as a non-Taliban government was established.

"One must then ask what Admiral Mullen and his colleagues (who surely understand the basic facts of Pakistani national security policy better than a humble blogger) hope to achieve by ratcheting up the pressure in this public and official way. The most likely theory: they believe the last group of Pakistanis who think of America as a strategic enemy (presumably the ones responsible for supporting the recent attacks) are not yet strong enough to dominate Pakistani policy making. Forcing a showdown will lead the other groups in Pakistan to clip the wings of the ISI-types who might welcome an open breach. That won’t be enough to stop the ISI from playing games, but it may limit how far they dare to go.

One hopes this calculation is correct, but it would be unwise to underestimate the degree to which many Pakistanis think they have the US in a trap, how deeply a culture of brinkmanship has embedded itself into Pakistani security thinking, and how much contempt many Pakistani decision-makers feel for many of their US counterparts.

The ISI and its allies just might not back down. At that point, the US would face some extremely difficult choices — although there are plenty of people in the US armed forces and diplomatic corps who are angry enough with Pakistan at this point to make and to implement those choices." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.

9/23

re: "Voodoo Science; Praetorians; borrowing to pay bunny inspectors; missed opportunities; and more."

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog and Daybook.") dealt with several topics of interest.

Money quote(s):

"(T)the Iron Law of Bureaucracy applies to military and policy organizations, particularly in peace time; it’s not quite so visible or severe because the standards for admission to the organization can and often are kept high, and the Mamelukes and Janissaries and Praetorians do not admit fools and cowards to their brotherhood; but of course that may change in peace time.

We live in a Republic founded by political leaders who were very much aware of Roman history, who had read their Plutarch, who seriously debated the working of the Venetian Republic – in 1787 the longest surviving Republic in the history of mankind, not yet ended by Napoleon and the bayonets of the French Army – and who were quite familiar with the careers of Julius Caesar, Mark Anthony, Octavian, Marius, and Sulla, the Gracchi – most of whom are known to modern Americans from movies."

Iron Law of Bureaucracy?

Oh yeah, that.

Our military is an armed bureaucracy, at least some of the time.

"The French want us to sit on Fritz. The Germans like having Americans spend money in Germany, and not having to have a large Wehrmacht. The troops like it in Europe. The taxpayers have never read George Washington’s advice on entangling alliances and not being involved in overseas territorial disputes. So it goes."

The taxpayers (and their representatives) in the immediate post-WW2 period should, perhaps, be forgiven their understandable desire to not have to come back and settle the Jerries hash, so to speak, for a third time; the second time being perceived as the result of their disengagement after the first time.


"Europe could afford Socialism because they didn’t need to defend their territory against Russia during the Cold war. It’s a tradition."

Likewise, Russia harbors lingering fears about various of its neighbors to the west; that too is tradition and it informs their view of geopolitics even today.


"The Marines acted without thinking of the consequences and must be made to realize that; but I have always believed that far more serious acts take place in every combat action. War is Hell. A rational army would run away. Those men did not run away, and I’d far rather have troops who urinate on the enemy than troops who surrender to get their throats cut while in captivity."

That about sums it up.

_____

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.

1/15

re: "Iraq: the day after New Dawn"

Greyhawk at The Mudville Gazette ("the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him") shared this startling observation:

"Making Secretary Clinton one of the more powerful mercenary force commanders of recent history..."

Hmm. Falkenburg, Graeme, Bar-El, and Clinton.

____

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.

7/27

re: "PISSING ON THE TALIBAN"

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit also had a few things to say about disrespecting the enemy dead.

Money quote(s):

"I have to say I can’t seem to work up any outrage."

If anything, this is psychological warfare (as distinct from public diplomacy) on the cheap.

(We'd already killed them, after all. Sunken costs, just like UBL's funeral.)

"(I)t is easier for civilized men to act like barbarians than for barbarians to act like civilized men, and plenty of events in Afghanistan illustrate this."

A good bit of basic (and advanced) combat training is designed deliberately to sandblast off a bit of that highly civilized behavior, the part about not killing people to be precise.

"CAIR is a bunch of pro-terrorist stooges. Everyone knows that. Okay, maybe not “a bunch,” as their membership is minuscule and I’m pretty sure their money comes mostly from abroad."

1/12

re: "Is Pakistan At War With the United States?"

Walter Russell Mead at Via Meadia ("Walter Russell Mead's Blog") asked a tough question.

Money quote(s):

"Possibly, or at least part of its government may be.

The United States government believes it has evidence linking the Haqqani network, a terrorist organization which has repeatedly carried out attacks against US government personnel and positions, with the government of Pakistan."

Having evidence is one thing. Having major officials like Amb. Munter stand up and say so is a huge political step.

"Via Meadia supports a continued US-Pakistan relationship, but in our view the US has to be ready to walk away for the relationship to have a chance. As long as Pakistan thinks we have no option, it will continue to play gruesome games. In fact, we have a number of pretty good options, and it is high time we explored them in depth."

Mr. Mead raised a good point. In negotiations, if at some point you aren't willing to pick up your chips and walk away from the table, then at no point are you willing to walk away and the other side can get away, literally in this case, with murder.

_____

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.


9/17

re: "THIS MUST BE MORE OF THAT “SMART DIPLOMACY” WE WERE PROMISED"

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit noted some ill-considered remarks by a junior FSO.

This was not even a nine-day wonder at the time. What's tragic/ironic is that the JO clearly was trying, at the time, to express her fondness for India, based upon her earlier experiences there.

Aside: Why attempt to muzzle FS bloggers when there are so many dangerously open microphones out there?

8/14

re: "Are We Going to Do Anything to Those Who Kill Americans?"

Michael Ledeen at Faster, Please! looked at a decades-old problem (which the British will likely face very soon).

Money quote(s):

"At first, I thought all the statements — about Iranian support for terrorists (in both Iraq and Afghanistan) who kill Americans — were parting messages from government officials on their way out, and therefore free to say such things. They knew the facts all along, but repeatedly soft-pedaled them and on occasion even denied having such evidence. So when Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen (finally) said “the Iranians are killing our guys,” I wasn’t impressed. “NOW you tell us!” was my gut reaction. “So how come we didn’t hear about this many years ago?”

And that’s still my reaction, up to a certain point."

As it happens, I visited wounded milblogger Lumberjack In A Desert during his stay at Walter Reed. He was in no doubt as to whom he owed his injuries. And that was back in 2006.

"But then came a similar statement from Ambassador Jeffrey in Iraq, and I had to say “whoa!” And then Panetta said the same thing. Those are different, those come from officials who are there right now, and their words count for a lot more than those of guys entering retirement. Indeed, I think we must now read the Gates and Mullen statements as part of an administration campaign to raise public consciousness."

Would that it were so.

"It would be churlish to blame Obama and his minions for the ongoing Iranian-sponsored assault against Americans — it’s been going on for decades. And every president since Jimmy Carter has appeased the Islamic Republic, believing that a “grand bargain” was days away. But the other presidents’ search for rapprochement with Iran was, for the most part, conducted secretly, while Obama put himself in front of the appeasement bandwagon."

True enough. There's plenty of room at the bottom of this pile-on for presidents and prime ministers going back the past three decades.

"Does anyone remember the Iranian assault against our Tehran Embassy in 1979? When a mob attacked, the Marine Guards did not shoot. Indeed, they did not even have live ammunition in their weapons. The Embassy was overrun, hostages were taken, and the countdown for Jimmy Carter had begun.

The first rule is that self-defense is legitimate and important. Failure to actively defend Americans under assault will only multiply the number of assaults against Americans. Dithering encourages our enemies; we have to be decisive.

The second rule is that we must strike — politically in almost all cases, not militarily — directly at the heart of the regimes that organize the killing of Americans. We must support their enemies, who, in both Iran and Syria, constitute a clear majority of the Iranian and Syrian people.

The third rule is that those responsible for killing Americans must be held accountable. When the Quds Force killers appear in areas where we can operate, we should hunt them down. When their political leaders travel, we must demand that Interpol arrest them. And we should strike violently at the terrorist training camps from which the Iranian proxies emerge, as well as against the assembly points for the explosive devices and rockets that are used to kill and maim our men and women.

That means changing the intended recipient of the outstretched hand from the tyrants to the people, and brandishing a clenched fist at the tyrants." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Sounds like a plan to me.


______

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.


7/11

re: "CAYMAN ISLANDS UPDATE"

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit ("the intersection between advanced technologies and individual liberty") reports on the spillover of Jamaican criminality into the Caymans.

Money quote(s):

"(T)here’s no question that crime — once almost nonexistent — is worse. The Islands’ strict gun-control policy doesn’t seem to be keeping guns out of the hands of the criminal element, either, which should come as no surprise, of course. . . ."

Last I'd heard, people didn't even have locks on the doors of their homes on Grand Cayman. So even a slight increase in violent crime is going cause a more severe ripple effect there than it would elsewhere.

Prior to independence, the Caymans and Jamaica were a single colonial entity. The Caymans somehow managed to be retained as a British overseas territory (or whatever they call it) and Jamaica went right into decades of non-aligned socialist independence and decline.

re: "CHANGE: It's getting much more difficult to join, or stay in, the U.S. Army."

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit ("the intersection between advanced technologies and individual liberty") notes an unsurprising development.

The U.S. military is an "up or out" hierarchy. Has been for decades. The "Qualitative Retention Program" (i.e., how we decide who gets kicked out) has been on the books forever. It's how often that it actually gets exercised that varies.

re: "BLOG COMMENT OF THE DAY"

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit ("very little independent factual reportage") shares his selection, with commentary:

"The President gets to make these calls. Of course, when the President makes this sort of a call, in a war that never had any sort of Congressional approval, it’s pretty risky — or, if you prefer, “gutsy” — but that choice is the President’s to make, and the political risks are his to run."

re: "Sunday Reflection: From 'just-in-time' to 'just-in-case?' "

Glenn Harlan Reynolds of Instapundit ("the intersection between advanced technologies and individual liberty") gives us a new management principle in a Washington Examiner article.

re: "ANOTHER MASSIVE INTELLIGENCE FAILURE"

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit ("I can take vacations, etc., and not feel any gnawing need to be at the computer.") continues following the finger-pointing narrative.

Money quote(s):

"Considering what we spend, I don’t think we’re getting our money’s worth."

It's a point of view.

But it's a great big world out there, and U.S. interests stretch to pretty much all of it. Collecting, analyzing, disseminating, &tc., through all the means, covert and otherwise, is a non-trivial task, and one for which we are constantly re-assessing our ability and capabilities to accomplish.

And that's exactly the point, we're constantly evaluating how we do things and trying to come up with better ways to do it. That's how we learn from mistakes (when they're made) and improve.

re: "INTELLIGENCE FAILURE"

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit ("I can take vacations, etc., and not feel any gnawing need to be at the computer.") demonstrates that the finger-pointing has already begun.

-----

Remember always the following:

There are no operational failures. Never a failure of policy. Never a failure of decision-making or leadership.

These are always successes.

Failures are always intelligence failures.

-----

"It's because of you people that I cannot get outside!

It's always your fault. You are not capable of handling...

To take orders from me, who is..."

re: "None Dare Call It Treason"

Jay Tea at Wizbang ("a new media network focused on news, politics, sports, entertainment, and video") is echoing some of my own thinking about Wikileaks (the organization) and its collaborators and co-conspirators.

Money quote(s):

"The harm being caused is incalculable, and I've heard a lot of people using the term "treason" in relation to the whole mess.

Which is almost completely inaccurate, and a misuse of the term treason.

Oh, it's fair to describe the alleged actions of PFC Bradley Manning, who has admitted to turning over a large amount of the documents WikiLeaks has released. (It's questionable if he had access to all the ones he's claimed to have taken.) But beyond that, it's really not a matter of "treason."

That's because, beyond Manning, the principals behind the mess aren't Americans. "Treason" only applies when one betrays one's own nation.

No, what is going on here is espionage. Espionage during a time of war."

Too bad there aren't any penalties for that, such as in a certain 1917 statute.

"What we are seeing with WikiLeaks is very akin to what we are seeing with militant Islam and the War On Terror: a non-state entity taking on some of the powers and influence previously accorded only to nation states. WikiLeaks is acting like the intelligence agency of a nation hostile to (if not at war) with the United States. They, like the terrorists, have declared a modern form of war against us, and are waging it just like the KGB would. They are violating our secrets and publicizing them for their own ideological ends -- which are inimical to our own national security."

Just go read the whole thing, since every word of it is money.


_____

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.

re: "THOUGHTS ON THE POLITICS OF WIKILEAKS"

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit exhibits an admirable degree of suspicion.

Money quote(s):

"There’s not a lot of damage here to the country, but there’s a lot of damage to the bureaucratic establishment. If I were more suspicious, I would say that this is someone’s effort — perhaps someone burned by leaks in the past Administration — to teach the career bureaucrats who were behind those leaks that leaking may be a bad thing, and that a world in which any statement may be leaked to the press is not a world that’s good for them."

I'm not saying he's right (how would I know?), but Prof. Reynolds' suspicious streak is reaching professional strength.

re: "Just Admit It: The Surge Worked (Updated)"

Abu Muqawama at CNAS ("an independent and nonpartisan research institution") came to a reasonable conclusion.

Money quote(s):

"If you really move the goal posts, defining up "success" as the Surge having not only reduced levels of violence and addressed immediate drivers of conflict but having also managed to fix all the problems in Iraq's political process, then yeah, it failed. But I don't recall that ever being the aim of the operation in 2007, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect the U.S. military and its friends in the diplomatic corps to be able to settle the political affairs of a host nation."

&

"(T)here can be no denying that a space has indeed been created for a more or less peaceful political process to take place. Acts of heinous violence still take place in Baghdad, but so too does a relatively peaceful political process.

If you want to argue that getting involved in Iraq in the first place was a stupid decision, fine. I agree with you. But trying to argue that the Surge "failed" at this point -- even if Iraq someday descends anew into civil war -- simply isn't a credible option anymore."


Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit ("the intersection between advanced technologies and individual liberty").

re: "CLAIMS OF SPITTING ON CONGRESSMAN?"

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit ("I’m interested in everything, but my chief interest is in the intersection between advanced technologies and individual liberty.") asks an uncomfortable question:

"(I)f it had to pass by a referendum among American voters, would spitting on Congressmen even be a crime?"

Forty years ago (some) American voters were spitting on soldiers returning from Vietnam.

So I'm very loath to recommend that precedent be followed, particularly when I can see it easily spreading further.

Real Biblical Stuff

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit tells us what our wives should be reading.