Go visit Belmont Club and drink in some of Wretchard's wisdom on any number of topics.
Back in early 2004, it was reading Wretchard that first made me want to blog.
I, unfortunately, am still quite busy and might not get to posting today.
Or, what your kids are learning in school.
Go. Read. Now.
UPDATE: He has more -- including the 1978 Solzhenitsyn speech at Harvard. It is incredible how well Solzhenitsyn's words still resonate today.
Not a lot of people know this, but I first became interested in blogging through reading Wretchard's work; though my site is ultimately not much like his site, he is the person I claim as my blogfather.
Wretchard has the list.
And I think he's right.
Just as the ouster of Saddam by OIF touched off a wave of changes in Libya, Lebanon and the entire region, the impending defeat of the insurgency will paradoxically enhance the ability of diplomacy to address many of the remaining issues. Saddam's defeat confirmed what many military analysts knew from Desert Storm, that it was impossible for any conventional army to stand up against US forces. And that modified the behavior of many rogue states. Yet there remained the hope that the terrorist model of warfare, forged in Algeria and refined against Israel in Lebanon, would bring America to a halt: that rogue regimes acting discreetly could operate within that strategic shadow. Now, for the first time since Algeria, a terrorist force of the highest quality, supported by contributions from oil-rich countries, in the heart of the Arab world, with sanctuary in a friendly regime across the border and eulogized as "freedom fighters" by dozens of major international publications is on the verge of total and ignominious defeat. There are no more strategic shadows.
UPDATE: Bill Roggio has more.
I think that military action against Syria will become a necessity; i.e., that the DoD is ultimately right and the State Department is ultimately wrong. Yes, Bashir Assad is diplomatically isolated. But with his father having liquidated any potential opposition except the military, it is likely he can hold on for a very long time. Now having said that, I'm hoping that I'm wrong and Condoleezza Rice is right -- because a military strike against Syria, though perhaps a military necessity, would probably mean the end of Assad, because he is not insane or suicidal enough to go to war with us. He would therefore be replaced by someone who is -- or who would, at least, talk a better game. Rather than the quiet, passive-aggressive behavior of Assad, we'd get, in his place, someone who is much more blunt and outspoken against us. Someone more like Saddam Hussein.
Now that person, a Syrian general, most likely, would be a figure around whom all the crazies would rally. He'd demand the reconquest of Lebanon and would likely openly embrace Zarrqawi. He would ratchet up attacks on Israel. He would taunt us on the world stage. The international left would doubtless embrace him; George Galloway would have a new state sponsor, and the press would hail him, no matter how brutal, as some sort of folk hero.
In a sense, it would be good -- put all the cards on the table, and let all the crazies reveal (and discredit) themselves. But in a sense it would be bad -- it forces us into a conflict we may not want at this time. Do we want to mess with Syria when we know Iran is headed to the Security Council for nuclear violations?
Rice has doubtless looked at this, and her conclusion appears to be to let Assad stay in place for the time being. His weakness may be preferable to us than his replacement with a stronger successor. That argument I have an easier time accepting than the "he's diplomatically isolated, so he'll play nice" argument.
Bill Roggio has a PDF chart of the Iraqi insurgency leadership available here. Note the number of dead/captured. It's pretty significant.
Wretchard has maps and an excellent reference to where you can get old Russian topographic maps of Iraq.
It's all about the Euphrates, people. If the press coverage of this war weren't so appallingly bad, we might see some of this type of analysis in the newspaper. You look at the map, and see the towns being referenced, and you suddenly see what the operations are about. Arms flow from Syria into Iraq along the towns on the Euphrates. We're taking control of both ends of the Euphrates and then cleaning out the towns in the middle. The insurgency has been pushed from the largest towns into the smaller towns, and its base of operation has been pushed westward, away from Baghdad and towards the Syrian border. They are taking terrible casualties in their leadership as this happens.
Yet what do we get from the press? Burning cars.
You should bookmark Bill Roggio and Wretchard when you get there. Their sites are superb.
Yup.
The news coverage of Iraq frequently fails to convey the cumulative linkage of military events in that country. Operations are often reported in a disconnected fashion, as if some operations officer got up in the morning and asked 'what are we going to attack today?', and then troops rush out to do whatever just occurred to them. Worse, definite types of military operations on both sides, whether car bombing, cordon and search, precision strike, etc. are often described according to some political theme -- 'standing up for freedom', 'deepening quagmire', 'the body bags mount', 'reduced to high altitude bombing' -- and the reader gets no sense of the logic behind the events. Both the US Armed Forces and the enemy are led by experienced professionals schooled in the operational art; and if we can be sure of nothing else, we can be certain that their acts have a specific military intent which often does not correspond to the themes articulated by some talking heads. Whether one is on the Left or the Right, it should be abundantly clear that we are watching the battle for the Syrian border and for the control of the Euphrates and Tigris river lines. No matter whose side you're on, you should know what game you are in.
Of all the professions I've ever been in, the military was the most complicated and intellectually challenging of them. The media likes to think that war, and being a soldier, is easy -- just go somewhere, kill a bunch of people, and then do some pushups.
Professional military officers are among the smartest people I have ever met. This is not a job that -- forgive the expression -- some f*cking journalist could do. Most journalists would make lousy soldiers because they simply cannot shut up and follow instructions. They want to question everything.
Events in the military -- even in routine, garrison life -- move at a bewildering speed, which is why everything is honed down to discipline and standing operating procedures. Yet journalists, most of whose frail egos would not survive basic training and A.I.T., and whose sole experience of the military has often been limited to watching reruns of Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C., on Nickelodeon, think that they are somehow qualified to criticize or draw conclusions about military operations.
The military -- especially the United States military -- has a rich philosophy of warfare, honed over more than two centuries of experience. This body of lore can't be learned overnight -- it takes years. And even then -- if you spent years in the military, you'd only know your narrow slice. Between the active Army and the reserve components, I put in parts of seven years of my life in the military. There was not a day of it that was not spent humbly learning something. Occasionally I'd get something right, and I learned there were a few things I'm good at -- at plenty of things I'm not so good at. And this was all in the narrow realm of life in an infantry battalion. I know relatively nothing about artillery, armor, or air power. I know even less about the navy. I learned to function as a relatively competent junior officer in a rifle company. Nothing more. I don't assume that I could walk into General Abizaid's job and do anything better than he is, right now. In fact, I am absolutely certain that there are all kinds of things I would do far, far worse.
I'm not sure that journalists understand this. Why should they? Their only knowledge of warfare has been gained from old M*A*S*H reruns and by watching Platoon on DVD.
The military is a profession. There are competent professionals running the war in Iraq. This isn't a draftee army composed of Klingers, Radar O'Reillys, and Gomer Pyles, led by sadistic sergeants and incompetent officers. It is run by some of the brightest, toughest -- and most decent -- people I've ever met.
Have patience. The reasons things are taking "so long" over in Iraq is because what we are attempting is very difficult. Tough, well trained men are fighting, dying, and above all else -- winning. I've been following the operations in the Anbar province with some interest, and I can tell you, we are making steady inroads into the enemy's fighting capabilities. We must not throw it away because a few journalists are too stupid to understand what is going on.
Contrary to news stories, the deaths of the Marines in Iraq are not "random acts of unkindness" against which we are powerless victims, kneeling before an all-powerful insurgency.
There are mid-sized military operations going on, in areas where the U.S. has, in the past, not projected much force. This means that insurgent bases, safe houses, and weapons caches are being progressively destroyed.
Two posts at his place discuss it: A Briefing at the DOD, and The Battle for the Border.
One thing is becoming clear from reading Wretchard -- the insurgents view the areas near the Syrian border as being their rear areas. This would indicate that their line of supply flows out of Syria. John Bolton, now at the UN, used his first day there to warn Iran and Syria that their interference with Iraq must stop. While he made a blunt and candid statement, I think some serious rattling of Syrian cages needs to occur. They need to feel threatened. They've been feeding the Iraq insurgency for over a year; perhaps it's time that some cross border raids are initiated to show them that we are serious, or that the next group of Syrian intelligence officers captured in Iraq are revealed in public.
Featuring the usual fascinating detail, complexity of thought, and razor sharp analysis for which Wretchard is known.
Vanderleun and Wretchard have some thoughtful essays on this subject.
I think they are both right when they speak of true, ideological leftists. I do not ascribe the opinions of the fringe left to the vast body of people who still call themselves Democrats. I don't think many Democrats think of politics this way. I think they are Democrats as a matter of birth and habit, not out of fixed ideology. I don't think they think about what their leaders are saying much. I think they are going through life, doing their best.
I think an increasing number of these people vote Republican. There are a lot of 9/11 Democrats in Bush's coalition -- more than the Democratic party wishes to admit.
This is a case where the Democratic leadership is prepared to march off the cliff. It remains to be seen how much of the party follows. And it also remains to be seen whether different leadership will emerge that marches them away from the cliff. I think that there are some folks in the Democratic party who want Hillary Clinton to run because it is the only chance the party has of marginalizing the unhealthy people further to the left. Only she has the ability to position herself in the center without losing her base, and you can't tell me that she doesn't know that the center is where elections are won.
Now I don't believe Hillary Clinton is a centrist. Not at all. But I think that she has come to the conclusion that "Paris is worth a mass." You've got to win elections in order to be able to do anything.
Another memorable analysis from Wretchard.
Kennedy's speech is a monument to geopolitical irresponsibility and cowardice. He should be ashamed for uttering these words.
But what am I saying? Ted Kennedy? Shame? If he were capable of the sentiment, he would have resigned years ago.
A rather gloomy post here.
Money quote: This process of corruption has pulled a curtain of suspicion over all information products. No longer is it possible to rely on the assurance of a brand name. Each item of news must now be sniffed, examined, poked and weighed to determine its authenticity. Collateral confirmation, once the staple of skeptical intelligence analysts, is now the task of every sophisticated newsreader -- at least those who want to avoid being taken for a ride. Once the media itself became an informational battleground the most natural greeting in the dark became 'who goes there?'
Wretchard has a fascinating article on troop strength levels in various insurgencies, with many interesting downstream links. His usual diligent research and trenchant analysis.
I think, though, at some point, this becomes a philosophical discussion -- how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Each war is different. Each country is different. Each insurgency is different. I would depend on the "feel" of the professional soldiers no the ground -- if they feel they need more, they need more. But realize -- for each fighter you put on the ground, you need at least a half-dozen support folks there, too. I am of the school that says the smallest footprint you can win with is probably the correct one.
Still, as always, good reading.
Good Iraq summary from Wretchard.
I think the Syrians are playing a pretty dangerous game of chicken. We could destroy their economy simply by closing ther Mediterranean ports, and remove much of their military with air power. I think this would lead to a coup d'etat. The question is -- do we prefer Bashir Assad to the general who would replace him?
In two posts, Wretchard raises a disturbing issue -- disturbing because it is right out in front of us, yet no one seems willing to discuss it seriously.
To what extent is the media's coverage of the Iraqi insurgency actively, or passively, assisting it?
In The Odds Against, Wretchard details the story of a French photo crew who went out with a group of insurgents who were planning to shoot at a DHL cargo plane, as well as the story of an AP photographer who "happened to be" present when three election workers were killed. Kismet? Wretchard doesn't think so.
In "The Lidless Eye", he discusses how the Iraqi insurgents in Mosul waited for medical teams to arrive at the scene so that they could mortar them. Not covered in the mainstream press, so far.
How the stories are covered affects the public's reaction to these things. If they are covered fairly, sometimes a different picture emerges than what we see each day in the newspaper.
The media is so determined to play its coverage "down the middle" that it is missing the most obvious truths. The other side will not hesitate to commit war crimes to advance its cause. It will not hesitate to shoot at civilians. Yet somehow in the press, this too is our fault.
People like Andrew Sullivan (gratuitous cheap shot at Sullivan) like to talk about putting more troops on the ground in Iraq as if this is as simple as Yul Brenner bringing his fist to his chest and saying "So it is written, so it is done."
Armor up the Humvees? So it is written, so it is done. By the way, after you armor up those Humvees, can you still transport the same number of them on a C-130? How much fuel do they eat? Does the drive train still work the same way with all the extra weight? How about the tires?
It really ain't that simple, folks. Logistics and force structure dictate tactics. Always have, always will.
Wretchard examines the problem of divisions versus brigades, and concludes that this is difficult stuff.
I know this, somewhat first hand. I have a brother who worked on these things in the army, who has an IQ of something like 170 and a photographic memory. He's up for promotion to bird colonel this month, which is probably going to happen, but in the manner of all these things, is best not to expect. He is moving into the senior ranks of the Army's middle management. He's by no means the foremost guy to have worked on this problem. He tells me that there are some really smart people working on this -- and when he says "really smart", he means people smarter than him by an order of magnitude, which is something like 3 orders of magnitude of smartness beyond where I am -- a guy who can barely debug Movable Type, fer chrissakes. He tells me that changing force structure is difficult. I believe him.
The Army faces a lot of challenges. First and foremost is that your force structure for taking out the Republican Guard looks somewhat different than your force structure for taking out terrorist cells. Rummy is trying to build the latter while not breaking the former. All the while, you need to put the former in the field, and tell them to do their best while they're getting shot at.
Armchair generals can blithely say "the Humvees should be armored" or "We should have anticipated this". Indeed, Rumsfeld is guilty of many sins. Among them are his lack of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. And from the point of view of absolute foreknowledge of the future, well, he frankly sucks.
You can always tell an armchair general, because they routinely expect perfection worthy of John Calvin's God. Sullivan (gratuitous cheap shot at Sullivan) expects not only military and logistical perfection, but he also expects moral perfection. A person with military experience looks at Abu Ghraib ("Abu Ghraib!" wails Sullivan) and says "Looks like a few reservists got out of hand. Court martial the lot of 'em and relieve the chain of command." Practical solution to a real world problem. Archair generals look at Abu Ghraib and either wail about Rummy's lack of omniscience, or assume that his omniscience makes him complicit in the crime.
People who have served in the military are a little more practical. They do not expect perfection. They are pleased with simple competence. They understand that anything short of Fredericksburg probably means that you're moving forward in a positive way.
The situation in Iraq is difficult. It's a nasty little war. But we can at least thank Tommy Franks for fighting a good conventional campaign, because if we had lost the blitzkrieg, we wouldn't have the luxury of fighting against a mere insurgency.
Stop wailing, people. Persistence.
If I ever need to ride into Hell to do battle with the Dark Lord himself, and I needed two essay writers to ride shotgun, no question in my mind who they would be.
Gerard Vanderleun at American Digest -- consider this remarkable piece.
Wretchard the Cat at Belmont Club. I mean, this essay isn't even in his top twenty, and it combines more scholarship, research, knowledge, and skillful writing than I have ever accomplished.
UPDATE: And I think Mr. Chrenkoff would probably be choice #3. Consider these 2 gems.
Belmont Club, a.k.a., Wretchard the Cat, has more on the theme Mark Steyn's been writing about lately. Namely, how Britain has surrendered to criminals, who can now kill you in your home without fear of retribution.
Get a load of this advice from Dr. Ian Stephen (got his PhD from the same place Dr. Rusty Shackleford did, no doubt) on how to respond to burglars:
When individuals are confronted by intruders there are some actions they should follow. Direct contact should be avoided whenever possible. If unavoidable, the victim should adopt a state of active passivity. In most cases the best form of defence is always avoidance. If this isn’t possible, act passively, be careful what you say or do and give up valuables without a struggle. This allows the victim to take charge of the situation, without the intruder’s awareness, through subtle and non-confrontational means. People can cooperate but initiate nothing. By doing nothing there is no chance of inadvertently initiating violence by saying something such as "Please don’t hurt me".
Wow, don't even beg for your life, because that might provoke violence. I've got some better advice.
NESS: I have sworn to capture this man with all legal powers at my disposal and I will do so.
JIMMY: You wanna know how you do it? Here's how: they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?
I think Britain ought to open hunting season on home invaders. Parliament should pass new legislation making it clear that anyone who defends their home will not face prosecution. They should also embrace right to carry laws. You invade a home and get shot dead? Tough luck.
Wretchard examines the UN here. As always, worth reading.