Michael Fumento writes of his return to Ramadi, posted at his site, and also appearing in the latest Weekly Standard.

Not to take away anything from Fumento’s must read account, but here’s his take-away on the significance of Ramadi:

People always ask how the Iraqis feel about Americans and the war in general. I respond that they just tell you what they think will prove advantageous to them, a combination of complaints and praise for Ameriki (America). Non-embedded American reporters run into the same thing. I asked one of the north Ramadi farmers through the translator if he thinks Ramadi is getting safer. He starts out with a few complaints, such as lack of water from the Euphrates for his fields because of rationing, and then tells me: "But safety is 100 percent better now that the Americans have come along." Baloney. Things got a lot more dangerous when we first came along. They may or may not be safer now than a year ago, but this guy isn't going to tell me. None of them will tell me.

Soldiers also give different accounts of the extent of progress in Ramadi. A Cougar driver told me nothing had changed since his last deployment, yet the very fact that he was driving into Ramadi in a convoy of just four trucks indicated otherwise. Another told me Ramadi is now "a thousand times better." Ultimately each was simply another blind man feeling his part of the elephant. With my three embeds in Anbar, I'd like to believe I've felt quite a few parts of the elephant.

Ramadi is not Baghdad, with its roiling sectarian violence and militias. As we've come to learn, Iraq probably cannot find peace until those militias are disbanded and suppressed. But neither will it find peace if the insurgents and terrorists of the Sunni strongholds like Ramadi continue to ply their trade; and despite the media focus on sectarian killings in October, Sunni insurgents still accounted for more than 80 percent of American military deaths in Iraq that month.

Put it all together--the Forward Observation Bases, new Combat Operation Posts, new Observation Posts, tribal cooperation, ever more Iraqi army and police, better intelligence, and public works projects. There's no "stay the course" strategy here; the course changes as necessary and it's continually changed for the better. I believe we are winning the Battle of Ramadi. And if the enemy can be beaten here, he can be beaten anywhere.

Fumento’s impression bears stark contrast to the prevailing “conventional wisdom” reported by mainstream media (MSM): that Iraq is a “mess,” that we can’t possibly win, that we are making no progress, that things are getting worse all the time, or that our only recourse is to salvage symbolic accomplishment and organize our withdrawal.

The real story, the entirety of the elephant to which Fumento alludes, is far more complicated, and perhaps more hope-inspiring.

Iraqis may not like the presence or predominance of American forces, they may not like or trust their government, they may fall under the sway of factions or militias, but they darn well despise the bitter-enders and their foreign terrorist interlopers.

We need more reports like these, and more on-the-ground and in-the-action reporters like Fumento. Else, we stand little chance of ever seeing more than a few square inches of elephant hide, and may think it something else.

Steve Schippert at MILBLOGS and Blackfive both posted a call for spiritual warriors to intercede on behalf of Lieutenant Andrew Kinard, struggling for life at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Here are the particulars on Andrew Kenton Kinard, of the 2nd Marine Division’s 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion:

Three weeks ago, Marine Lieutenant Andrew Kinard was on patrol in Iraq and was hit by an IED (three other Marines were hit, too). Apparently, before shock set in, Kinard established security and asked about his men, then passed out. The damage to his body was extremely severe. I don't know who the hospital corpsman was who assisted Lt. Kinard, but I know that Kinard went into cardiac arrest twice and lost most of his blood - whoever that corpsman is, he is a miracle worker. Andrew was flown to Al Asad (by that time had used 67 units of blood), then Germany and now Bethesda. He has lost his right leg above the knee, the left leg at his pelvis, and he has lots of internal damage to his intestines, kidneys, etc. He's on a ventilator. He is fighting infections. He's been awake only a few times since his injury.

Once he recovers, he'll be moved to Walter Reed for rehabilitation.

So, if ever there was a case for your faith, prayers are needed for Lieutenant Kinard, especially that he may have strength in his kidneys and pulmonary system to survive long enough to have surgery to fix critical functions and survive a kidney transplant.

I pray that the God that created everything in heaven and on earth might extend his care and provision upon LT Kinard. May the good LT confound those who know of his injuries, and that his body might strengthen and repair itself in the care of his doctors.

The Telegraph reports on Iranian influence on Al Qaeda, based on leaked intelligence:

Iran is seeking to take control of Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terror network by encouraging it to promote officials known to be friendly to Teheran, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

According to recent reports received by Western intelligence agencies, the Iranians are training senior al-Qa'eda operatives in Teheran to take over the organisation when bin Laden is no longer leader.

Somehow I think this is more merger than hostile takeover. Bottom line – literally at the bottom of the article – up front:

Any increase in Iran's influence over al-Qa'eda could have potentially devastating consequences for international security. Al-Qa'eda has made no secret of its desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction — including "dirty" nuclear bombs.

Intelligence experts believe that Iran will soon have the capacity to develop its own nuclear weapons and Teheran is also known to have developed a highly effective chemical weapons programme.

"We are looking at a Doomsday scenario here where al-Qa'eda finally fulfills its ultimate goal of acquiring weapons of mass destruction," said a senior Western intelligence official. "And unlike other terror groups, al-Qa'eda is perfectly willing to use them."

You’d almost think there’s an Axis of Evil or something, that we’re in some kind of Global War on Terror. Must be a Rovian plot, damn those Republicans for making us so fearful!

Bad timing, all this, for wayward Tony Blair, who picks this auspicious moment to suggest diplomacy with diplomacy with Syria and Iran:

The  first cracks in the united front over Iraq between Tony Blair and President Bush appeared last night as the Prime Minister offered Iran and Syria the prospect of dialogue over the future of Iraq and the Middle East.

Mr Blair said there could be a new “partnership” with Iran if it stopped supporting terrorism in Iraq and gave up its nuclear ambitions. Syria and Iran could choose partnership or isolation, he said.

The Prime Minister tried to exploit moves in Washington to rethink strategy on Iraq by holding out the prospect of engagement with two countries once dubbed by President Bush as part of the “axis of evil”. For the first time he also explicitly ruled out military action against Iran.

And, in words clearly directed at Mr Bush as he prepares for his final two years in power, Mr Blair called for the United States to lead a new drive towards peace in the Middle East, including peace in Palestine and the Lebanon, arguing that ultimately it was the only way to defeat al-Qaeda.

The only way to defeat them is to ignore their duplicity and do what they want us to do. Ah, the ever so nuanced “make them think we’re surrendering” ploy.

In direct contrast to Tony Blair’s speech The Guardian runs a report about how British Intelligence believes Al Qaeda is planning a nuclear attack on Britain.

Why would anybody need to worry about a nuclear Iran, who happens to control Al Qaeda? As I said, bad timing for the wayward Blair.

Speaking of wayward in another sense, Gregory Djerejian at Belgravia Dispatch hopefully views the Baker-Hamilton Commission as the last best hope for an acceptable outcome in Iraq.

That Djerejian can even make this argument, I would think, represents a “brightening” of his opinion on Iraq. Unfortunately, Djerejian tends to mistake the primary sources for his optimism, as he has likewise mistook the sources for his prior and lingering pessimism.

Here’s his optimistic assessment:

All the above aside, however, I will stress again in these cyber-pages that a dramatic move to regionalize our approach to the Iraq issue is desperately needed. Not only will this signal to the American public that ‘stay the course’ is over and done with, it will also convince skeptical European capitals and chanceries that we are truly moving in a new direction, not merely providing a fig-leaf for a sequenced withdrawal that does not constitute a convincing new plan (offering Europeans and others non-discriminatory access to reconstruction bids is also advisable on this score). In my view, and as I’ve previously stated, we should convene a major Iraq Contact Group consisting of the Americans, British, Germans, French, Russians and Chinese—with full participation by each of Iraq’s neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait), as well as other critical Arab and/or Islamic countries as observers to the Contact Group (Egypt and Morocco, for instance). To represent the U.S. at the Six-Plus-Six Contact Group we should appoint some of the very best envoys the country has at its disposal.

One critical priority must be addressing directly the wider regional tensions Iraq has exacerbated so that the conflict does not spill over to other countries. There might well be surprising areas of common interest among many of the regional Contact Group members on this score. A variety of goals will need to be tackled, and the diplomatic might of the entire key “Big Six” of the Contact Group must be marshaled to 1) build on Syria’s (still not convincing enough) efforts to make the Iraqi-Syrian border less porous, 2) continue to assist Riyadh in minimizing insurgent flow from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, 3) bolstering via diplomatic and other efforts countries facing growing religious radicalism from within like Jordan and, less noticed, Syria, 4) engage Iran full-bore on the Iraq agenda (to include as necessary other issues of mutual concern on a discrete case by case basis) to assure that the most radical elements in Teheran are dissuaded from providing arms and materiel to the worst of the Shi’a militias (lately groups splintering away from Moktada-al-Sadr), 5) dialogue more closely with Turkey to assure that her vital interests are not being imperiled by Kurdish resurgence, and 6) get Arab countries more involved generally with the situation in Iraq (greater Arab influence, in terms of bolstering the Sunni position, might well help serve to contain some of Iran’s growing influence, while also perhaps reducing the appeal of the ‘alliance of convenience’ between Syria and Iran, the former 70% Sunni, the latter a predominately Shi’a country). This is an impartial list, but the point is clear: a massive, full-scale international effort comprising all the great powers and the key regional actors must be convened to, around the clock, tackle the Iraq crisis.

Djerejian anticipates and confronts some of the more immediate objections I’d have with his premise that Syria and Iran might be “good faith” partners, in helping us finding solutions for Iraq and the region (emphasis mine):

Many readers ask: what will we gain from direct discussions with Syria and Iran? I can think of several actions, without limitation, that the Syrians could take if we extended various carrots to them (such as facilitating a return to negotations with the Israelis over the Golan Heights issue), including: 1) making the Syrian-Iraqi border less porous, 2) reducing Iraqi Baath money floating about Syrian banks and thus ultimately getting to insurgents, 3) cutting down on former deviationist-type Iraqi Baath who fled to Syria during Saddam's regime trying to cut a non-Saddamite, neo-Baath resurgence in Iraq, and 4) inducing Damascus to be more cooperative with Maliki's government so as to help stabilize the national government in Baghdad. As for the Iranians, it's no secret they are hedging their bets and, not only supporting Shi'a militias, but also Sunni insurgents. Similar inducements (mixed with the specter of punitive actions) could get the Iranians to reduce support to some of the groups causing us the worst problems, whether Sunni or Shi'a. Neither Damascus nor Teheran want a total meltdown in Iraq--which would also involve large refugee flows to both their countries--countries with their own somewhat disgruntled minorities (Azeris in Iran) or indeed majorities (Sunnis in Syria). In diplomacy, as in life, you talk to your opponents on occasion to get results. Hope and 'they know what to do' isn't a plan.

No, it’s not. And if one has to measure a plan by any sense of feasibility, neither is what Djerejian proposes here, though I give him high marks for the effort. Ultimately, he was probably better off in gloom, as what’s here is an Ivory Tower of dizzying heights.

Who are our enemies? If Iran is actively building up proxy forces against us, plotting terrorism and other escalations against the US, UK, and our allies, if non-democratic governments are supporting and fueling the anti-US sentiments, how do we possibly gain by doing the diplomatic dance to their music?

There’s a kind of naiveté, or if not naiveté exactly, a pronounced inability to recognize that the Diplomatic game being proposed is markedly different than that played in previous geopolitical times and places.

In the Cold War, we often negotiated with our enemies, with the USSR, China, or even some of their proxies, because there were measurable, achievable gains both sides could make be dealing. As Djerejian observes, “In diplomacy, as in life, you talk to your opponents on occasion to get results.”

This is no doubt true, but whether you choose to talk to your opponents should be based on your best estimate of what you’re likely to achieve, what they want, and what you’re willing to give away.

When the opponent seeks some gain over you, and you over him, and the realm is politics, no harm no foul, perhaps compromise is the better part of virtue.

When a predator seeks to fool his prey into compliance, in exchange for freedom or some concession, he may in reality be seeking a more compliant victim. Go along to get along may work with neighborhood bullies, or political opponents, with the murderer who seeks to kill you or the rapist set on ravage, anything short of fighting back could be fatal.

Jury’s out on several of Djerejian’s first six of the six plus six party of talks, namely the Russians and the Chinese. They don’t actively seek confrontation or terror against us, but they have in the past and their interests are not ours.

Move to the second tier of six plus six, and we see several who are more enemy than friend: Iran and Syria surely, but some would add Saudi Arabia as well.

Our enemies, whether Al Qaeda, their Iranian masters, Syrian, or other Islamic sponsors and supporters, view our willingness to negotiate as complete fulfillment of these phase of their master plans. Their goal is to fool us into complacency and compromise, so as to better position themselves for wreaking greater harm upon us in future.

We’re being played for fools. I’m prepared to accept that Democrats and their mainstream media allies in the Media War aren’t traitors in playing along with our enemies’ PR Campaigns, but I’m not prepared to excuse them for their obliviousness. It will get many more people killed, and many more enslaved, before events overtake even the Diplomats, and we begin another type of conversation. Would that it were otherwise, but a true Realism starts with whose holding the knife behind their back.

(Links via Memeorandum)

Others commenting:

Omar at Iraq the Model

Counterterrorism Blog

Pajamas Media

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway

Right Wing News

Bill Roggio

Dave Schuler at Outside the Beltway

Blue Crab Boulevard

(Or, a tangled Webb)

Read a startling self-outing of Jim Webb, Marxist ideologue, and then this rebuttal from Dan Riehl.

First, a sample of Webb’s confession:

If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The "Wal-Marting" of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest.

Then contrast from Riehl:

Webb dismisses the possibility that perhaps our education system is failing - the reason so much tech-savvy talent ends up coming to America from abroad these days. And he mentions illegal immigrants at least three times without the slightest nod to facing that problem, seeing it perhaps as just a symptom of upper class oppression against his mythical back woods Scottish ancestors. Yes, this fellow seems more than just a bit myopic.

It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs.

Fairness? What a wonderful characterization for re-distribution of wealth. The problem is, where does one begin and end once you begin slipping away from a market philosophy for labor. Will the government decide who should be paid what so we all end up in some G 1-12 system like the one Webb first experienced in the military?

Man, did the voters of Virginia know they were sending a Marxist to the Senate?

I struggled for a long time about my views on illegal immigration, resident worker programs, amnesty, and so on. I don’t know what the policy solutions are, but I know one thing.

Income disparity is driven by exorbitant valuations on the upper end, not tied to financial (or other work related) performance, and downward pressures on the lower end due to illegal immigration.

The solution for the first is publicity and a call for stockholders and other stakeholders to punish those who pay in excess of value.

The solution for the second is to enforce lawful immigration completely and eliminate opportunities to hire or be hired illegally. Consider some kind of guest worker or amnesty based on some reasonable criteria, but only if the first part – enforcement – is implemented with Rudy Giuliani like determination and efficiency. (As in NYC, no broken windows, or doors.)

As to “jobs no American wants,” of course not, not at the prevailing minimum or sub-minimum wages paid. As workers grow scarce, employers – sometimes the ones making those obscene incomes, you know – have to raise wages.

The Job Market is a market, after all.

That our newest Senator from Virginia thinks this is an opportunity for government intervention would be cause for optimism, if he knew where government could wisely intervene. It isn’t in legislating wages, or punishing Walmart, but it could be in enforcing immigration law and eliminating the underground economy that drives the income disparities Webb so laments.

The local Fox affiliate, WXXA Channel 23, this morning graciously invited me on for a live on air interview for an Iraqi Veterans perspective on the recent midterm elections and current events in Iraq.

The interview is posted online at the Daybreak website.

I didn’t manage to squeeze in my speculation that yesterday’s kidnapping might represent a new and creative development in the ongoing Media War waged by Al Qaeda, their sponsors and supporters, in and out of Iraq. Daily car bombs become routine, and generate less and less media attention. (Especially now that near term political objectives have been achieved, look for more attention in advance of the 2008 Presidential elections.)

Unless insurgents can keep up a high enough level of violence directed at US forces to reach some “highest level since XXX,” US body counts fade into the background for public relations (PR) purposes.

But I did frame my response in terms of the Media War, which Al Qaeda and their sponsors think has gone rather well for them, in terms of manipulating western mainstream media (MSM). I view these kinds of appearances as offensive operations in the Media War; I’ll leave viewers to decide how effective they prove.

UPDATE: Carl, a commenter here, suggests Iraqi Interior Ministry and criminal origins that, frankly, sounds more plausible than my speculations.

There’s a new blog in town, Forward Movement, authored by Jules Crittenden.

Jules regularly “columnizes” (I like that) Sundays at The Boston Herald; I’ve linked to several of his columns. He writes aggressively, and knowledgeably on military matters and Iraq, having first hand experience via a tour as an embed in Iraq.

I recently posted on Jules review of the Alessandro Barbero’s The Battle, “A New History” of the Battle of Waterloo, review courtesy of Norm Geras. A great introduction to Crittenden’s writing, although his kickoff post Swimming with Anvils reads well too (aided by a highly effective metaphor).

The object of Jules post is Tony Blair’s recent foray into the “new direction for Iraq” debate. Yesterday I observed that “wayward Tony Blair” showed poor timing – or perhaps was intentionally sandbagged by several leaks, on Iranian influence on Al Qaeda, and AQ plans for a nuclear attack on the UK.

Jules’ objections with Blair’s plan run along the same lines as mine, and summarily dismisses Blair’s two key points: negotiating with Iran and Syria when these countries are primary sponsors of Iraqi violence; and tying the Israel-Palestinian problem to Iraq:

Peace between Israel and the Palestinians has nothing to do with Iraq. Its pursuit is a goodwill gesture that theoretically gets everyone else in the region on your side and puts pressure on the recalcitrants, but in fact is unlikely to bring over anyone who wasn't there, or headed there anyway. That conflict has long been a convenient cause of grumbling in the Arab world, a bloody shirt to wave, but peace in Israel tomorrow would have no effect whatsoever on the ambitions of Iran, Syria, or their proxies in Iraq. The Israeli-Palestinian war existed for decades before our present difficulties in Iraq, and the trouble there will no doubt continue long after. Pinning hopes for peace in Iraq with peace in Israel makes as much sense as using an anvil as a swimming aid. At a minimum it complicates matters, and it is more likely to drag you down than help you get to shore. On the other hand, Lebanon and Israel might be aided by peace in Iraq, if that peace is achieved by neutering Syria and Iran as regional meddlers. That will not be achieved by talks unless those talks occur in concert with forceful action in Iraq and a credible threat of action against the regimes themselves.

You’d almost think the guy’s a MILBLOGGER, no? Hey, it’s like he’s embedding as a MILBLOGGER! We’ll have to see how the rest of the MILBLOGGERS take to that.

(Since starting this intro on Jules, he’s since alerted me to a somewhat less serious introductory post.)

Best of luck to Jules, he’s as pro-Victory as the best of us, and a serious critic of the critics. Can’t have enough of those, as we have all too many first order critics, and too few second order ones.

I’m surprised to discover that Jules is the City Editor at The Herald. Few people know that I did a three day try-out at the Herald when I returned to the States, coming off Active Duty in 1987. Turns out, the entire direction my whole life since then changed because of a well-intentioned secretary, a hard nosed City Editor, and my own youthful ignorance.

When I first enlisted Active Army, I did so with six years of Russian language studies in Junior High and High School. Finishing college, needing a job, having some added responsibilities for others, I saw the Army as being an employer who might value Russian language studies. They certainly saw me as a valuable recruit, and pointed me at Defense Language Institute (DLI) and Military Intelligence.

After a year and a half of training, and in the middle of a 3 year assignment in Augsburg, Germany, I enjoyed my job, living in Bavaria, analysis and report writing well enough, but knew I’d never make a career of the Army. (Kids, whatta they know.)

I sent out over 50 resumes, went to Army-hosted job fairs, I only got one lead before my ETS: a letter from the Managing Editor of the Boston Herald. I wish I remembered his name. He wrote that, when I was stateside and ready to go to work, to call his office and set up a standard three day try-out.

I did, which was a big surprise when I turned up, as only the Managing Editor and his secretary were aware of the offer, and he was out of town the week of my try-out. I was handed off to an obviously perturbed City Editor, who grumbled a bit and remarked that it sure was convenient of the Managing Editor to saddle him with me while the City Editor was busy covering both their jobs.

It didn’t go too well, although I think I made some headway by day three. Day one was watching everybody else in the press room working, checking out the edition goijng to press. Day two was a jump in the car and run across town with a photographer to check out the annual Clam Chowderfest and interview the chef responsible for that year’s winner. No byline on the one paragraph accompanying the photo.

Day three was more exciting. This day’s beat covered an ongoing eviction of a disabled tenant for failure to maintain a minimum in hygiene or apartment upkeep.

The stench was opaque, the apartment an absolute shambles, the wife of primary occupant, a nurse, completely disinterested from engaging police, landlady or reporters, let alone helping her partner, and the tenant himself grossly obese, showing signs of mental illness.

I interviewed the tenant, the police, tried to interview the quickly departing spouse, and the landlady, who gave me a very difficult tour of the apartment, pointing out an appalling amount of health and resident building code violations in great detail. Insects and vermin everywhere in evidence, the sofa bearing a distinct, outlined impression of its former occupant, who went for days without getting up from it.

True to what has become my pattern in such things, I wrote a “gotcha” story with a lead something like this:

A poor, disabled tenant, struggling to make ends meet, tossed to the street by a greedy and uncaring landlord, who couldn’t care less who difficult life is for this poor unfortunate. A sad and familiar story, right?

Not quite.

What followed was a recounting of the incredibly long and frustrating effort by the landlady to work with her tenant, and eventually, have him evicted.

I figured it was the perfect dog bites man story, and perhaps it was. I think I saw a change in the City Editor’s demeanor and attitude, as he told me, “good, but we can’t use it.”

When I first arrived, the Managing Editor’s secretary mistook my invitation from him as more of a VIP invite, and put me up at a hotel the paper used for more distinguished visitors. It was in Copley Place I think, very nice.

Later, when I was trying to find out what was customary for expenses, the secretary asked me where I was staying, and when she heard, said, “Live it up! Get room service. Everything’s covered.” You’d think I’d have had more sense, but I had 6 years of college followed by 4 ½ years in the Army, so I was unaccustomed to the business world. She also told me that getting the try out was the hard part, 9 out of 10 of try outs get hired.

I did exactly what she suggested.

Months later, I still hadn’t received the 3 days of pay, and was still working out from under debts, though finally employed. I contacted the paper, and got put through to that same City Editor.

“I was figuring you’d call if I didn’t pay you.” He then proceeded to curse me out for charging meals and a movie to the paper. Chagrined, I apologized and tried to explain. He would hear none of it. I quickly calculated that, even minus the charges he refused to pay, he still owed me over half of the pay, and it was enough to mean something to me. He grudgingly agreed to approve it.

In the course of this conversation, he made very clear that my actions had meant there was no way I was going to be offered the job, which I think back then paid about $25,000 a year in Boston, which would have been tough, job too, but I was desperate and thought that I’d be a journalist.

The job I ended up with took me on a path I’ve never regretted, I am starting my 20^th year with my employer. If I found work in the Albany area, I never would have met Mrs. Manly, and I’d have missed all the blessings our marriage has borne.

If I’d been offered the job, I would have been in Boston, possibly found a career in journalism (!), who knows.

But it occurs to me, as I think back. Thanks, Mr. City Editor. I owe my life to you.

Michael Rubin, writing in the Journal Online, challenges those opposed to the Bush Administration’s efforts in Iraq, who would contrarily applaud the arrival of the Realists.

The subtext of Rubin’s piece could be stated as “be careful what you wish for,” or “beware the temptation to view your enemy’s enemy as your friend.” As much as some may call on neoconservatives to apologize, history is replete with the consequences of Realism.

The unexpected carnage of 9/11, being perhaps the most sensational. Rubin mentions another, in passing: “Saddam's career is a model of realist blowback.”

Rubin concludes with this rhetorical gem:

Both realism and progressivism have become misnomers. Realists deny reality, and embrace an ideology where talk is productive and governments are sincere. While 9/11 showed the consequences of chardonnay diplomacy, deal-cutting with dictators and a band-aid approach to national security, realists continue to discount the importance of adversaries' ideologies and the need for long-term strategies. And by embracing such realism, progressives sacrifice their core liberalism. Both may celebrate Mr. Rumsfeld's departure and the Baker-Hamilton recommendations, but at some point, it is fair to ask what are the lessons of history and what is the cost of abandoning principle.

That’s the world we now live in. Black is white, white is black, honor is dishonor and dishonor is honorable.

Abandoning principle may mean never having to say you’re sorry, but abandoning principles always involves a human cost, and not just for the souls of those who abandon.

Some dismiss such concerns as Vanity of vanities. If only politics, or politicians, suffered from the aftermath of such illogic. Tragically, the people of a Great and Noble nation, along with the hapless victims of prior Realisms, will pay the greater price in years ahead.

(Via Real Clear Politics)

Josh Manchester (who blogs at Adventures of Chester), writing today at Tech Central Station, reacts to the James Carroll piece from last week in the Boston Globe. This was the Editorial, readers may remember, in which Carroll suggested that Americans might best look upon failure and defeat in Iraq as a necessary prescription for what ails. We lost our honor in going into Iraq, and it’s too late to worry about losing any more by turning tail, Carroll concluded.

I responded last week with considerable anger, thinking Carroll’s question an easy one “for any fool in Boston to ask, since the lives of many brave men and women In Iraq would be the objects of his answer.”

Carroll went further, admonishing his fellow Americans that, “can we acknowledge that there is something proper in the way that hubristic American power has been thwarted?”

Carroll says we lost our honor in how we got to Iraq, and have no more to lose, now. I’ll say again:

We did not lose our honor by acting on behalf of the United Nations Security Council and their 17 resolutions against Saddam Hussein, and acting to remove a brutal tyrant who actively supported and sponsored terrorism, and sought weapons of mass destruction.
We did not lose our honor in helping the Iraqi people conduct three successful elections with majority participation that greatly exceeded participation rates in any US elections.
We certainly have not lost our honor in the face of dishonest, manipulated, propaganda media campaigns launched by our sworn enemies and willingly, knowingly, and enthusiastically supported by “journalists” such as Carroll.

I quite agree with Manchester’s suggestion that defeat is what many Democrats have in mind:

It is difficult not to conclude that there is a class of well-intentioned individuals in the United States like him who don't merely feel as they do upon witnessing a defeat, but instead think this way all the time. Like it or not, this mentality of permanent defeat plays a large part in the Democratic Party.

At least until the expected golden era when Democrats send us to “winnable war” under the Powell doctrine, when no lives are lost and killing is done without us having to see any of it first hand, and only second hand through the eyes of an adoring media.

(Via Instapundit)

The New York Times waits until after the midterm elections to observe that, so far, the Democrats have offered slogan and criticism and little else to help Iraq.

Well, sure, we wouldn’t want an editorial perspective to get in the way of accomplishing the mission, right?

At considerable expense to my nerves – and digestion – I sat through a couple of press outings by Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi this weekend.

Quite astonishing, watching them fumble their way through scripted attempts to sound knowledgeable and responsible about military planning for Iraq.

I can’t remember which interview, Rep. Pelosi I think stumbled through a bland and utterly familiar list combining military and diplomatic initiatives. Not one item on her list suggested one hair’s worth of deviation from what the US military and the Bush Administration have already been doing in Iraq, nigh on 3 years.

That will be one heck of a plan for Iraq, I should observe.

“Keep doing exactly what you’ve been doing, great job and all. Meanwhile, we’ll be busted our humps trying to get you out of there as soon as we can! Oh, and remember, this is all George Bush’s fault!”

Shame on us for thinking the Democrats had no plan. They have a plan, it’s called “Whatever, Get Out Now.”

With Democrats, it’s all about who’s and what’s in the closet. If Republican Gays are in, they want them out. If the military’s out, they want them safely tucked back in, where they can’t get hurt.

Welcome to the Mommy Party. It’s all about cleaning the closets!

Instapundit highlights more reports of military unhappiness with the removal of Secretary Rumsfeld, including this post from Out of the Race.

Blogger ExRat makes the following observation:

When all is said and done in connection with the Pentagon management shakeup, the Baker commission report and the Dems actively taking control of the legislative branch, I for one will be watching the reenlistment rate among the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I suspect many troops will opt to return to civilian life if they feel that they no longer have support from the policymakers, rather than be jerked around by people who think like John Kerry. And if the re-up rate goes down, original enlistments will probably decrease, too. Nobody wants to fight in a war that the movers and shakers don't want to win. That was true in Korea and Vietnam, and it's true now.
Any new trends should be apparent by March or so, if they are to happen. I guarantee you that any such change will be spun by the lamestream media as Bush's fault, probably accompanied by NYT and WaPo opinion pieces bemoaning what a dumb thing it was to get rid of Rumsfeld.

I agree with him, all except for that last bit. The NYT and WAPO will have comments about Rumsfeld alright, but along the lines of “too little, too late,” and how the former SecDef “demoralized” the troops.

I always check myself after I say it, because I really think I’ll continue to serve, but I have threatened to retire should the Democrats initiate any kind of impeachment hearings or action. My wife always looks at me with concern, when I say it.

The American people may indeed get the government they deserve, but I don’t think the military very often deserves either its government, or its people. Those who sacrifice most, will sacrifice often, and when the hard times come, many will come a’knockin’ for them, again.

If those of us who care about our country and the threats against it, really feel we must abandon those who abandon us, so be it.

But we ought to find every way possible to make sure the American people understand exactly who dishonored our trust, and the many ways they dishonored it. Else, we will add to the further destruction of the country we love.

Me, I’m seriously thinking about taking on a certain New York Congressman that ran virtually unopposed, and serves a Conservative district as a Democrat. I figure I have two years to prepare, which gives me a two year edge on him.

Most of my readers will have already seen news of the Army’s new Advertising, Publicity, and Recruitment Campaign, Army Strong. Here’s the Internet press kit.

The U.S. Army kicked off its new Army Strong advertising last night (November 9^th).

Three TV spots will define the unique brand of strength the U.S. Army finds and forges in its Soldiers. They are as follows:

"Army Strong," 30- and a 60-second spots, showcases powerful images from the life of U.S. Army Soldiers.

"Interview," a 30-second English-language spot and "Entrevista," a 30-second Spanish-language spot, feature the story and transformation of a U.S. Army Soldier through his and his parents' own words.

Here’s the press release:

NEW 'Army Strong' ADVERTISING BREAKS ON NETWORK TELEVISION
Ads offer Army Strong call to the next generation of U.S. Army Soldier
November 9, 2006
Today, the U.S. Army launched its new Army Strong advertising campaign on network television nationwide. The three television ads powerfully communicate the character of the U.S. Army Soldier and the unique and transformative power of the US Army.

"Army Strong advertising was inspired by the experiences and defining character of the U.S. Army Soldier," said Lt. Gen. Robert L. Van Antwerp, commander of U.S. Army Accessions Command. "These ads have been created with the singular aim of helping us succeed in our mission to recruit the next generation of Soldiers and build a highly capable force sufficient to meet the needs of the Nation."

The three ads will further define to the Nation the unique brand of strength the U.S. Army finds and forges in its Soldiers. "Army Strong," a 30- and 60-second spot, showcases powerful images from the lives of U.S. Army Soldiers. "Interview," a 30-second English-language spot and "Entrevista," a 30-second Spanish-language spot, feature the story and transformation of a U.S. Army Soldier through his and his parents' own words.

The Army Strong advertising campaign features actual U.S. Army Soldiers and actual parents of Soldiers. The ads will show that service in the Army makes young men and women stronger - mentally, emotionally and physically - a strength they carry into successful futures.

Additionally, the Army is working to expand its recruiting efforts by using Web-based technology. The Army will reach out to recruits through the Web, text messaging, an increased presence on popular search engines like Google and Yahoo and video partnership using YouTube.com. Further, the U.S. Army is taking "America's Army: The Official U.S. Army Game" into the Global Gaming League, an online gaming league and social network that sponsors and covers video game tournaments.

"While the U.S. Army met its recruiting goal of 80,000 in 2006, we must continue to make the Army message distinctive and powerful - and then deliver that message in ways that reach eligible recruits and those who care about them," added Van Antwerp. "That's exactly what we are doing with our new media recruiting efforts. We're reaching out to prospects and giving them the information they need where they are and on their terms."

The ads will debut today starting at 8 p.m. EST on The CW; CMT; Court TV; Discovery; Food; Fuse; G4; Hallmark; HGTV; History Channel; Lifetime; MTV; MTV2; MTVU; Sci Fi; Soap; Spike; TNT; TVLand; USA.

I have to say, the 30 and 60 second ads are powerful, engaging, compelling. Well done, although I think the 30 second is better for being more concise, which at 60 seconds seems to drag. (I wonder if the 30 second was done first, the 60 adding extra footage, speakovers.

I never liked the Army of One, which made no sense anyway. Be all that you can be as somewhat better, but never made a good or clear tie in to how that happened in relation to the Army.

Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters links to a piece in the UK Times Online about rank and file Army unease about the elections and the pending replacement of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The first few paragraphs of the Times report says it all, and echoes considerable anxiety on my part:

Half of America and the upper echelons of the US military may be cheering Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation from the post of Defence Secretary, but there was no rejoicing yesterday among those most directly affected by his decisions: the frontline soldiers in Iraq.

Troops expressed little pleasure at the departure of the man responsible for their protracted deployment to a hostile country where 2,839 of their comrades have died.

Indeed, some members of the 101st Airborne Division and other troops approached by The Times as they prepared to fly home from Baghdad airport yesterday expressed concern that Robert Gates, Mr Rumsfeld’s successor, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, might seek to wind down their mission before it was finished.

Mr Rumsfeld “made decisions, he stuck with them and he did what he thought was right, whether people agreed with it, liked it, or not”, Staff Sergeant Frank Notaro said. He insisted that Iraq was better off now than before the war.

Staff Sergeant Michael Howard said: “It’s a blow to the military. He was a good Secretary of Defence. He kept us focused. He kept the leaders focused. It’s going to be hard to fill his shoes.”

Quite telling that the Times then quotes an anonymous Army Colonel who sees things differently. Contrast this career officer’s preference for anonymity, versus the openly stated concerns of enlisted soldiers who didn’t mind taking personal responsibility for their opinions:

But one US army colonel, who did not want to be named, said that such positive views were uncommon in the higher ranks of the US military. “We are the ones closer to the problem. We are the ones who have the broader picture,” he said.

The colonel criticised Mr Rumsfeld for sending too few troops to Iraq, and for refusing to listen to the advice of his generals. He noted that General Eric Shinseki, the former US Army Chief of Staff, was dismissed for demanding more troops, while General John Abizaid, the commander of Central Command, was the sole general to have differed publicly with Mr Rumsfeld and survived.

The exalted Powell Doctrine. Only use overwhelming and mass amounts of military force in situations when a competent squad of US Marines would probably have sufficed. Surely the Powell Doctrine is supremely suited to the Democrats, as the logical and inescapable consequence of such a doctrine, is to always make any serious military response prohibitive: if there’s risk, or we can’t be certain of winning, we won’t fight. We’ll negotiate the cost of war avoidance, otherwise known as the terms of surrender.

If we responded to World War Two that way, Japan would have enslaved all of Asia, and Hitler would have completed his Final Solution with years to spare. (We wouldn’t have to worry about whop we sent to the United Nations, however.)

Earlier this week, or maybe last, I wish I could recall who, made the comment that saying that the US needs 500,000 troops on the ground for anything means, since that’s politically impossible except for a homeland invasion, that one never has to contemplate actually pursuing the course of action in question.

That best ensures that Career Officers will be able to advance, achieve lofty leadership positions, and never have to sully their uniforms nor experience the really tough weight of military leadership: the loss of the brave men and women who, throughout our history, we have called upon to sacrifice on our behalf. Do we really want to seriously consider the views of those with the most to gain from a return inaction, and the least to sacrifice when sacrifices are required?

Captain Ed observes a different kind of hypocrisy:

It seems to me that any effort to "support the troops" ought to at least involve their input. If they do not see Iraq as a lost cause, then they are right to wonder why so many Americans back home do. While the military will and should remain under civilian leadership, the fact is that the perspective of the soldiers and Marines on the lines have been woefully underreported in the American media, and it's somewhat embarrassing that we have to turn to a British newspaper to discover this unease at the change in Pentagon leadership.

Captain Ed contrasts the Times in the UK with their US counterpart, the New York Times, “which decided to go the full John Kerry and depict the Marines in Iraq as ignorant and intellectually lazy,” quoting a Marine who professed to not know who Rumsfeld was.

I’m absolutely sure that the Times, like Kerry, meant no such thing, but rather, that it was a poorly executed joke about how disliked Rumsfeld is within our military.

(Via Instapundit)

Michael Rubin at the The Corner relates a snippet of an interview with Brent Scowcroft, geopolitical Realist.

If Brent Scowcroft could find no better answer to these questions than this, he’s a doddering old fool, vindictive, or too clever by half:

Question: Hans Blix, the former weapons inspector in Iraq, says that country is worse off today than it was under Saddam Hussein. Do you agree?
Scowcroft: I don't know if it is worse, or better or what. I think it is different. If you are a Sunni you were probably better off before. If you are a Shiite you are probably better off now. Saddam maintained order by brutal suppression. Now the suppression is gone people are killing each other. So I don't know how to answer this.
Question: What went wrong? Didn't anyone tell this administration about the complex situation in that country with the Shiites, Kurds, etc.?
Scowcroft: I think the answer is obviously not.

No doubt Scowcroft’s confusion with the first question has to do with how he defines the word, “better.”

A geopolitical Realist, of course, knows that “better” can only be understood as how one selfishly considers and assesses what one wants, without reference to any “greater good,” whether moral, ethical, religious, or political. Therefore, in his example, Sunnis no doubt had it “better” under Saddam, who often lavished certain members of his own tribe and ethnic group (Sunnis) at the expense and extreme suffering of other Iraqis.

In reality, of course, Sunnis were just as terrorized as Shia or Kurds, if they caused any intended or unintended offense to Saddam, his sons, any of his extended family, or his servants. They then met the wood chippers, prisons, torture, and mass executions for merely a misspoken word or having an attractive female family member.

If Scowcroft can’t wade through a softball question like this without making an a$$ out of himself, does he really possess knowledge and understanding of “the complex situation” in Iraq, I mean superior to that of anyone in the Bush Administration?

They’ll all be coming out of the woodwork, now, no doubt.

All the State Department, CIA, and other Federally bloated bureaucrats who seethed through the dark years of Bush, when they were perceived as “out of touch” or bereft of any practical ideas for advancing US National Security interests via effective Foreign Policy. And rightly viewed as such.

Mark Steyn says all there is to say about Democrats and their National Security credentials in his recent piece in the Chicago Sun Times.

This portion is priceless, best of Steyn:

In fairness to Kerry, he didn't invent the Democrats' tortured relationship with the military. But ever since Eugene McCarthy ran against Lyndon Johnson and destroyed the most powerful Democrat of the last half-century, the Democratic Party has had a problematic relationship with the projection of power in the national interest. President Jimmy Carter confined himself to one screwed-up helicopter mission in Iran; Bill Clinton bombed more countries in a little more than six months than the Zionist neocon warmonger Bush has in six years but, unless you happened to be in that Sudanese aspirin factory, it was as desultory and uncommitted as his sex life and characterized by the same inability to reach (in Ken Starr's word) "completion." As for John Kerry, since he first slandered the American military three decades ago, he's been wrong on every foreign policy question and voted against every significant American weapons system.

To be sure, like Kerry in 2004 deciding that the murderers and rapists were now his brave "band of brothers," the left often discover a sudden enthusiasm for the previous war once a new one's come along. Since Iraq, they've been all in favor of Afghanistan, though back in the fall of 2001 they were convinced it was a quagmire, graveyard of empire, unwinnable, another Vietnam, etc. Oh, and they also discovered a belated enthusiasm for the first President Bush's shrewd conduct of the 1991 Gulf War, though at the time Kerry and most other Democrats voted against that one, too. In this tedious shell game, no matter how frantically the left shuffles the cups, you never find the one shriveled pea of The Military Intervention We're Willing To Support When it Matters.

A shriveled pea. How apt a description for Democratic plans in general, that not even committed liberals want us to read before voting.

Unserious, frivolous, partisan, and weak. No way to go through political life, I’d say.

The Opinion Journal frequently makes mention of the New York Times as “two papers in one, whereby the Editorial Board of the paper routinely make assertions that are contradicted by news reporting within the pages of the Times. This proves especially true for any good news dealing with Iraq.

However much that may be understandable, when the Times routinely buries real news in back pages or in non-news sections altogether. But one might reasonably expect the Editors to be somewhat more familiar with the entirety of the Times than their dwindling readership.

The Times latest demonstration of media schizophrenia could stand as the all-time archetype for such split personality disorders, placed (but of course) under the Middle East rather than the front page

Here’s how the Times introduces their November surprise:

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Note how the Times slants what will follow. Republicans pressured Bush to make captured Iraqi documents available on the Internet, in a desperate effort to buttress pre-war claims about Saddam Hussein. Sure enough, what gets posted, but a “cookbook” for atomic bomb building. Note especially, these documents include “detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war.”

The Times places this thought in their readers’ minds in the second paragraph, but look what they say later:

The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.

Stunning. Iraq had all the information required to build a nuclear weapon. But didn’t the Times say these document were all pre-1991?

Wait, they add more detail:

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

At the time? Which time? The 1990’s? Or in 2002? If they “experts” said Saddam Hussein was possibly within one year of developing a nuclear weapon, which would be worse: that he was a year away in 2002, or say in 1994? The Times leaves this vague, doesn’t connect the dots, in fact, deliberately rubs the ink out of whatever dots could be connected.

How dangerous were these documents? The Times provides several clues, the first:

European diplomats said this week that some of those nuclear documents on the Web site were identical to the ones presented to the United Nations Security Council in late 2002, as America got ready to invade Iraq. But unlike those on the Web site, the papers given to the Security Council had been extensively edited, to remove sensitive information on unconventional arms.

For those with longer memories than the Editors of the Times (and their foaming netroot allies), what was presented to the UNSC was enough for them to declare Saddam Hussein in violation of previous Resolutions to abandon his nuclear weapons program, and authorize UN member states to prepare responses, including military ones. So what we see now is evidence that the reality was even worse then the UN thought. So much for Colin Powell being deceived or George Bush lying: not according to the Times:

In Europe, a senior diplomat said atomic experts there had studied the nuclear documents on the Web site and judged their public release as potentially dangerous. “It’s a cookbook,” said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of his agency’s rules. “If you had this, it would short-circuit a lot of things.”

Wouldn’t that mean Iraq was even closer to developing nuclear weapons than believed on the eve of our invasion?

One last point, deep in the article, suggests these documents were something more than early, pre-1991 documents, as much as the Times tries to leave such an impression (without directly saying so, of course):

A senior American intelligence official who deals routinely with atomic issues said the documents showed “where the Iraqis failed and how to get around the failures.”

That sure sounds a lot like something that was pulled together sometime after the Gulf War.

The New York Times: two paper in one!

Jack Army describes a recent convoy.

He observes how a civilian driver reacts to a gunner’s “corrective action” when the driver was driving too close to the convoy. (The corrective action was to reorient the gun towards the driver.)

Those folks looking for a fight will get one. I'm not worried about that. It's the regular folks that are just going about they're daily lives that I worry about. Those are the folks that I'm here to protect and they are caught in the middle, as it were. So if they get too close to my big, heavy, dangerous trucks they could get hurt or their cars get damaged. If the enemy decides to attack us while civilians are near, they will get hurt... and they don't wear armor plates, helmets and drive around in armored vehicles. Their flimsy cars, motorcycles and donkey-carts will get ripped to shreds.
So, it is a little humorous to see the quick reaction of a local guy who realizes that US Army Gunner will not take "no" for an answer when he says, "slow down."
It is also a relief.

We dealt with this a lot, with some interesting variations between "in city" and rural, and between different communities.

We ran 4-5 convoys a week out of Tikrit. Most commonly, we did a 40 minute run between FOBs, half in city, half rural outskirts, but all within short distance of Tikrit.

Our guys (gunners and drivers) grew increasingly frustrated as the months went on. Iraqi drivers and pedestrians grew less and less concerned with US forces, less fearful, more reckless. On the one hand, that meant they felt safe. On the other hand, it meant they weren't as careful as they needed to be, and it was harder for us to spot potential trouble.

IED attacks were directed primarily against Iraqi police in our area, otherwise pretty quiet. We had no live combat, a couple of IED spottings with only two (ineffective) detonations, and they were on the less frequent trips to remote areas.

What that meant was, our drivers and gunners often felt like it was better when everybody was afraid. They'd get pissed off at some idiot. They almost wanted to chance to fire somebody up. They tried using stones -- something short of a burst or warning shot, especially in the city. Sometimes they needed to make a very obvious show of pointing the M2 directly at somebody, or operate the vehicle to get somebody's attention.

We kept reminding the crews about rules of engagement, latest threats, techniques, procedures. Calmed them down. Did After Action Reviews (AAR) after every convoy. Kept telling them, less fear means more trust.

In contrast to our local Iraqis, whenever we traveled around Baji, the situation was markedly different.

There, the troops stationed in that area had a much more hostile community. But they must have been having the desired effect.

Whereas in Tikrit, drivers would pass, cut you off, get in your way, ignore you. Near Baji, about 100 yards out they started going off the road in the requested fishbone formation. You might get angry looks as you passed by, but better an angry look from 200 feet than ambivalence at a couple feet away.

And much like Jack Army, we were always relieved when Iraqi responses didn’t require careful interpretation.

Perhaps you’ve seen the leaked classified slide, plastered Page 1 as part of the New York Times treasonous propaganda effort in support of Democratic candidates. I have to admire the efficiency of the Times declassification process: just clip the classification markings off the top and bottom of the slide, and voila! It takes the POTUS more time, and he has the authority.

More confirmation of the ongoing success of a pair of Public Relations (PR) Campaigns, as I reported earlier. (Not coordinated of course, they don’t need to be, they merely seek the same objectives.)

Not that the slide really says this, taken out of context without any explanation or supporting text, but it’s enough for the uninformed or those with bad intentions (yup, that would be the folks at the Times) to describe as the DoD saying Iraq is virtually in Civil War!

Luckily, we can find alternatives to the PR version of progress in Iraq. Gateway Pundit helpfully reports some unclassified news that the New York Times doesn’t see fit to print.

Here's Gateway's (unclassified) graphic.

And now, the informed context (likewise missing from the Times, also courtesy of Gateway Pundit:

This terrific news came out in this past week on the security developments in Iraq but failed to garner any attention from the mainstream media.
The Multi-National Forces reported:

Iraqi security forces continue to develop into a capable force and continue to take the lead. On Tuesday in Ramadi, the 3rd Battalion of the 1st Brigade of the 7th Iraqi Army Division assumed responsibility in its area of operations.

This now makes 90 Iraq army battalions in the lead. In total today, there are six of 10 Iraqi army divisions in the lead, 30 of 36 Iraqi brigades, and 90 of 112 Iraqi battalions in the lead. And we operate in support of them. All across Iraq, we continue to see an increasingly capable Iraqi security force continuing to take the lead.

What would we do without alternatives to the Nation’s leading print media? I fear, the same as what these same media PR operations are working studiously to give us, whether we want it or not.

Kerry’s recent behavior – in addition to suggesting he’d taken a long hot bath in radioactive Asinine-90 – led to responses, that themselves revealed something very important about unspoken realities of the liberal left, and thereby a large majority of Democrats.

Coincidentally, (as in happening at almost the same time), The McGill Daily quotes hippie era relic and admitted fellow traveler Seymour Hersh:

If Americans knew the full extent of U.S. criminal conduct, they would receive returning Iraqi veterans as they did Vietnam veterans, Hersh said.
“In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation,” he said. “It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you – there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.”

Shrinkwrapped has a great analysis of both these reactionaries, and suspects the timing of Kerry and Hersh’s public comments, something possibly more sinister than just residual A-90 radioactivity.

Makes one think about the Media War...

I found a link to the definitive Heritage Foundation Study that contradicts what John Kerry suggested – whether he intended to suggest it or not – and the many cranks and critics that have suggested, “he was right.”

Who Are the Recruits? The Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Enlistment, 2003–2005

by Tim Kane, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-09

October 27, 2006

Here’s an extended excerpt, a summary of its findings and conclusions. Of course, we on the right, and in the military, are quite certain that our opponents in these arguments will discredit or dismiss the source, ignore what’s said, and stubbornly refuse to accept that one of their core prejudices might actually be based on…lies. I equate this to the juvenile tactic of sticking your finger in your ears, and chanting “blah blah blah blah blah.” Needless to say, I expect nobody to admit they may be wrong, least of all John Kerry.

Note that what mainstream media (MSM) is trumpeting as “Kerry’s apology,” as reported ad nauseam, is nothing of the kind. “I’m sorry I botches a joke.” “I’m sorry my fellow Vets have no sense of humor.” “I’m sorry those b*stard Republicans, who really need to apologize, exploited my inarticulateness.” And, of course, “I’m sorry that it has to be all about…that damned Johnson.” [Ed., that last should read, “that damned George W. Bush.” I apologize for the misplaced alliteration; I was channeling a character from Forrest Gump.]

Sorry. Back to the excerpt:

A pillar of conventional wisdom about the U.S. military is that the quality of volunteers has been degraded after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Examples of the voices making this claim range from the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and New York Daily News [1] to Michael Moore’s pseudo-documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. Some insist that minorities and the underprivileged are over­represented in the military. Others accuse the U.S. Army of accepting unqualified enlistees in a futile attempt to meet its recruiting goals in the midst of an unpopular war.[2]

A report published by The Heritage Foundation in November 2005 examined the issue and could not substantiate any degradation in troop quality by comparing military enlistees in 1999 to those in 2003. It is possible that troop quality did not degrade until after the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003, when patriotism was high. A common assumption is that the Army experienced difficulty getting qualified enlistees in 2005 and was subse­quently forced to lower its standards. This report revisits the issue by examining the full recruiting classes for all branches of the U.S. military for every year from 2003 to 2005.

The current findings show that the demo­graphic characteristics of volunteers have contin­ued to show signs of higher, not lower, quality. Quality is a difficult concept to apply to soldiers, or to human beings in any context, and it should be understood here in context. Regardless of the standards used to screen applicants, the average quality of the people accepted into any organiza­tion can be assessed only by using measurable cri­teria, which surely fail to account for intangible characteristics. In the military, it is especially questionable to claim that measurable characteris­tics accurately reflect what really matters: cour­age, honor, integrity, loyalty, and leadership.

Those who have been so quick to suggest that today’s wartime recruits represent lesser quality, lower standards, or lower class should be expected make an airtight case. Instead, they have cited selective evidence, which is balanced by a much clearer set of evidence showing improving troop quality.

Indeed, in many criteria, each year shows advancement, not decline, in measurable qualities of new enlistees. For example, it is commonly claimed that the military relies on recruits from poorer neighborhoods because the wealthy will not risk death in war. This claim has been advanced without any rigorous evidence. Our review of Pen­tagon enlistee data shows that the only group that is lowering its participation in the military is the poor. The percentage of recruits from the poorest American neighborhoods (with one-fifth of the U.S. population) declined from 18 percent in 1999 to 14.6 percent in 2003, 14.1 percent in 2004, and 13.7 percent in 2005.

This report updates the previous Heritage Foun­dation report, with data on all U.S. recruits during 2004 and 2005. We introduce the term “wartime recruits” to identify volunteer enlistees in all branches during 2003, 2004, and 2005. Like the previous report,[3] the analysis considers the follow­ing characteristics:

Ø Household income,

Ø Level of education,

Ø Race/ethnicity, and

Ø Regional/rural origin.

In summary, the additional years of recruit data (2004–2005) sup­port the previous finding that U.S. military recruits are more similar than dissimilar to the American youth population. The slight dif­ferences are that wartime U.S. mil­itary enlistees are better educated, wealthier, and more rural on aver­age than their civilian peers.

Recruits have a higher percent­age of high school graduates and representation from Southern and rural areas. No evidence indicates exploitation of racial minorities (either by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). Finally, the distri­bution of household income of recruits is noticeably higher than that of the entire youth population.

Demographic evidence discredits the argument that a draft is necessary to enforce representation from racial and socioeconomic groups. Addition­ally, three of the four branches of the armed forces met their recruiting goals in fiscal year 2005, and Army reenlistments are the highest in the past five years. A draft is not necessary to increase the size of the active-duty forces. Our analysis using Pentagon data on wartime volunteers effectively shatters the case for reinstating the draft.

Thanks to the Heritage Foundation, and to anonymous commenters to the BBC Blog The Reporters.

Today’s John Kerry news. The man can’t help himself. He has to get body parts moving, one way or the other. Either he gets his foot caught in his mouth, or his hindquarters get a swift kick, or both at the same time. You have to wonder if he works for Karl Rove.

Here’s what he was on the record saying, courtesy of Captain Ed:

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Here’s his right this minute rebuttal:

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/releases/release.html?id=33

Key graf:

I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.

Okay, Senator Winter Soldier. I’m an Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) III Veteran, enlisted, smart as hell and twice as angry. I’ll lecture your sorry behind.

You are a disgrace. You offend the uniform you wore with such disdain, and you denigrate the service of your betters who have served in the military, without the dishonor you showed, during Vietnam, immediately thereafter, and in your complete dishonesty about your record then, and your votes as a US Senator related to Iraq.

We are not “stuck in Iraq.” Don’t want to take National Security seriously? That’s your prerogative, but don’t ask to represent me, in any fashion. Your party has chosen to abandon any responsibility for Iraq or the wider war on Terror, after voting time and again to approve of actions taken by this President you loath and insult.

You voted for it, before you voted against it. And now this. Even if you believe the idiocy that comes out of your mouth, do you have any idea what a moron you sound like? How much you manage to enrage your fellow veterans?

If you can’t buy a clue, keep your clueless hole shut. If not for our good, for your own.

Also responding:

The Anchoress: The CIC needs to give a swift kick to Kerry

Mike / Cold Fury: Another mask slip

Marc / USS Neverdock: Iraq - John Kerry calls US troops stupid

Matt Lewis / The Right Angle: Halloween With the Rightometer! — Here's another ghastly …

Hugh Hewitt / Hugh Hewitt's TownHall Blog: John Kerry's Contempt For The American Military

TigerHawk: The mask slips — Who says that the leadership of the Democratic Party …

Bill Faith / Old War Dogs: 2006 Project Valour-IT Competition Starts Today

Attention GOP: Spread this video; Attention readers: Help support the troops —

Bryan / Hot Air: Project Valour-IT — I'm a little late to post this …

Mark Finkelstein / NewsBusters.org: Kerry Slurs Military Again: 'People Who Don't Study and Try …

Taylor Marsh: Mangled Statement Caught on Tape

Greg Tinti / The Political Pit Bull: Kerry Says Troops Are Dumb, Uneducated

Dan / Riehl World View: Updated: Video - John Kerry Is A Disgrace

Randy / RightWinged.com: John Kerry Calls Military A Bunch Of Lazy And Uneducated Idiots. *UPDATES*

Pundit Review Radio / BLACKFIVE: JOHN FORBES KERRY - STILL AN ASSHAT

Karol / Alarming News: I support the troops, I just think they're stupid and lazy.

Justin Levine / Patterico's Pontifications: What John Kerry Really Thinks Of Our Troops In Iraq

Michelle Malkin: The Associated(w/t)Press to Kerry's rescue!

Dave Johnson / Seeing the Forest: Kerry Was Talking About BUSH

Confederate Yankee: John Kerry's Continuing Contempt For the Military

Gaius / Blue Crab Boulevard: Credibility Problem — Why the Democrats have a credibility problem …

Ace / Ace of Spades HQ: John F'n' Kerry: Military Only For Stupid, Uneducated Losers

Punditarian / THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS: Jean-Francois Kerry STILL Sliming the Heroes

Murdoc Online: This man was close to being our President

Tom Maguire / JustOneMinute: Kerry For President! (He Supports The Troops AND Served in Vietnam!)

McQ / QandO: (UPDATED) THANK GOODNESS HE LOST

(Via Memeorandum)

Don’t expect an apology, ever. Expect Kerry and all his crestfallen former friends to cry out, “See how the dirty tricks Republicans stole another one from us,” if the Dems don’t get what they’ve been counting on, control of at least one house of Congress.

I’m with Jonah at The Corner:

If you take Kerry's two statements — the written and unwritten — in their entirety, I really don't think he can apologize at this point. I really do think he could have defused this whole thing, maybe not entirely, by simply saying "I botched the joke and I'm really sorry it sounded like I was diminishing the talent and work of our troops, something I would never do. I take a back seat to no one in my respect for blah blah blah..." But now he's questioned the sanity, the integrity and the manliness of anybody who could have possibly taken him the wrong way. That means, in effect, that he's calling all these servicemen who understandably took offense at the plain meaning of his words, wusses and nutters. That makes Kerry a tool of the first order. And, if he apologizes now, with some Gilda Radneresque "never mind," it will once again reinforce his metaphysical toolishness. The guy thinks he can be president and he thinks he's doing what the "fighting Dem" base wants him to do. The problem is he has basically radiated himself with the isotope Asinine-90 and the only way the rest of his party can protect itself from radiation poisoning is to sequester the guy in some lime-pit for 10,000 years until his asininity half-life deteriorates to manageable levels.

That sounds about right for final take-aways.

Kerry is a tool of the first order, he’s been dosed with Asinine-90, and the half-life on the political fall-out should be about 10,000 years.

Hope Teresa wasn’t among those measuring for drapes.