Month: April 2003

Some of you have asked how exactly the BBC enforces its mandatory license fee so that it can broadcast far-left propaganda to the British people. Here’s the official website that explains:

Using television receiving equipment to receive or record broadcast television programmes without the correct licence is a criminal offence. You could therefore face prosecution and a hefty fine of up to $1,000 ($1600). You may be asking yourself ‘how will they know if I’m using a TV without a licence?’ The answer is through a number of different methods. At the heart of our operation is the TV Licensing database. It has details of over 26 million UK addresses. Our officers have access to this computer system and a fleet of detector vans and hand-held detectors to track down and prosecute people who use a television without a licence. To find out how effective our methods are click here. Each year it becomes easier to find and prosecute people breaking the law in this way.

That’s what the BBC means by “publicly funded.” You pay up or they fine you. And they can spy on anyone with a television, backed up by the law and the force of government. No wonder that George Orwell used his experience at the BBC to model the Ministry of Truth in “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” On a related question, the BBC World Service is paid for directly out of government funds, i.e. general taxation. The BBC has, of course, produced much excellent television and radio over the decades. But it isn’t clear that that excellence couldn’t have been produced without this kind of 1940s socialist-style organization. And now that the Beeb has been hijacked by left-wing propagandists, the damage is getting greater.

THE FRENCH BEGIN TO WORRY: From my reader who monitors the French media:

This afternoon’s-signed editorial on French-government-owned Radio France International shockingly compared public attitudes in France today to those of the Vichy regime.-(www.rfi.fr – streaming video editorial today at 12:10-p.m. Eastern time-from Alain Genestare; archived recording should be posted soon). The Coalition forces in Iraq, said the editorial, are frequently referred to in France today as the “Anglo-American forces,” an expression apparently not widely-heard-since the-days of the collaborationist-Vichy-government over a half century ago.-As some of your readers may already know, comparing anyone or anything to the Vichy regime is, in the language of contemporary French politics,-like dropping a nuclear bomb.-Vichy is not something the French have really come to terms with, even today.-(Remember the éclat several years ago when Mitterrand’s Vichy ties came to light?)- Well, somebody in the French government must be getting worried.-It’s about time.-The radio editorial then went on to cite the Le Monde poll you posted about several days ago, and expressed shock that some one third of-the French should be hoping for-a Saddamite victory, a victory by a “criminal against humanity.”

Vichy, huh? Not far off, I’d say. But some over there are beginning to see sense.

BAGHDAD BROADCASTING CORPORATION: Suggesting more civilian casualties than the Iraqis.

An exquisite eulogy.

“What a hysterical notion. The British public ‘own’ the BBC. We have no control over what they broadcast. We cannot watch any other channel without having first paid them their state-agreed and legally enforced dues. The fact that the collection of this is at arms-length from the state does not disguise the fact that they only exist (and expand) because every house, flat and student digs that wishes to receive ANY TV broadcast has to pay the BBC a hefty bounty first AT THE BEHEST OF THE STATE. And, to make matters worse, the whole of British broadcasting is hamstrung by “impartiality” rules that prevent the likes of SKY News and other independents from saying what they really should (want to be?) be saying. I very much hope that one of the “casualties” of war will be the BBC.
Yours, a very fed-up Londoner.”

A reminder of the evil we’re about to defeat:

A grisly discovery reported by British military officials today of what were said to be the remains of hundreds of people at an abandoned military compound on the outskirts of Zubayr, in southern Iraq, served to remind allied forces and the world of other aspects of Mr. Hussein’s rule. The remains were packed in bundles that contained shreds of military uniforms, the British officials said, but it could not be determined how old they were, or how they got there … The British soldiers who investigated the Zubayr military base found 200 makeshift coffins bearing seriously decayed corpses, perhaps a year or a number of years old. Soldiers of the Royal Horse Artillery also found Arabic documents and photographs of men bearing head wounds and showing signs of torture or disfigurement in the warehouse. “I wouldn’t want to speculate, but the bones inside are obviously years old,” Capt. Jack Kemp told British reporters at the scene.

More of this, no doubt, to come.

We’re now in the center of Baghdad. The headquarters of the Republican Guard is now occupied. Could this be over sooner than we can even hope?

How do you write a defense of John Kerry’s comments calling for “regime change” in the U.S. without dealing with the language Kerry used. No one can or should object to Kerry arguing that we need a change of administration in this country. He’s running for president, for goodness’ sake. And it’s completely defensible – if spectacularly stupid – for Kerry to say so during a war. The issue is his use of the term “regime change,” as if the democratically elected president of this country represents an identical type of government as that which exists (at the time of writing) in Iraq. That’s what’s offensive. To say, as Josh does, that this terminology is irrelevant is preposterous. Here is how Josh deals with that obvious issue:

For the purposes of our present discussion, the particulars of Kerry’s remark are almost beside the point.

Nope. They’re the entire point. If Kerry’s defenders are going to give the guy this kind of bad advice, he’s toast. (N. Z. Bear has more to say on this.)

The head of the BBC has taken a pot-shot at andrewsullivan.com. Woohoo. He claims in a letter to the Washington Post today that

The BBC is not state-funded. We are publicly funded through a license fee paid by every household in the United Kingdom. The British public, not the government of the day, owns the BBC, and it is to the British public we are accountable.

Get the difference? That’s like the old canard that government-owned industries are actually owned not by the government but by the ‘people.’ The fact is the BBC is funded through a mandatory, repeat mandatory, license fee. If you have a television, you have to pay the BBC tax. Whom do you pay that tax, sorry, “license fee,” to? The government. How this can be spun as not state-funded is beyond me. The head of the BBC, Mr Dyke, is appointed by the prime minister. Government-run? Compared to any truly independent media service, I’d say so. That’s why the non-government-run alternative – Independent Television News – is called “independent.” No, the government doesn’t dictate coverage. But it pays for it through a mandatory tax, appoints the people who run the BBC, and decisions on future funding are made in parliament not at shareholder meetings. Yes, the BBC sometimes tries to proclaim its independence. For the first couple of years of BBC coverage under Blair, it was so supportive of the government, it was dubbed the Blair Broadcasting Corporation. Now it is expressing its editorial independence by attacking Blair from the left. But it’s all funded by those poor British tax-payers. Dyke is full of it. But then we knew that already, didn’t we?
CORRECTION: The director-general of the BBC is not directly appointed by the government. He’s appointed by the board of management. The non-executive chairman of the BBC is appointed by the government.

Johnny Apple – barely drawing breath after declaring absolute military disaster – now proclaims stunning political and military success, “taking the heat off” president Bush for his conduct of the war. Ta-da! Only on 43rd Street, of course, could anyone believe president Bush was in political trouble at any point in the last couple of weeks because of his conduct of the war. But there you have it. This is the newspaper, remember, that once declared the Enron scandal would have more historical salience than 9/11. On second paranoid Kausian 2am thought, of course, this Apple piece cannot but ne very bad news. The general rule in American journalism is that R. W. Apple (bested only by Arthur Schlesinger Jr.) is always, always wrong. God help the armed services in the next few days. Couldn’t Howell have restrained Johnny until we’d actually won?

MUST READS: Bill Keller brings closure, to my mind, to the debate over the war-plan. The first half of his piece reads awfully similar to the arguments in this blog over the past week. The second is really smart. And Ken Ringle’s appreciation of Mike Kelly in the Post also told me things I’d forgotten or didn’t know.

TOUGH ENOUGH: “I’m not tough. I thank God everyday that there are tough men and women out there who are willing and able to protect the way of life I enjoy so much. I’m 26 and kids my age right now are living in the desert with the realities of war all around them, so that I can go home tonight, kiss my wife, throw the tennis ball for my dog, and fall asleep … free. Free from fear, free from tyranny, free to enjoy my life and pursue my happiness. They are all heroes and patriots in the truest sense of the word and I just wish that I could express my gratitude to each and every one of them.
But I can’t, so I did the only thing I could think of to really help. I found a blood donation center that is sending blood to the military and I gave what could arguably be the most precious thing I have — my blood. It was not a fun experience (note the first sentence of this letter), but as I walked to my car, for the first time since this whole debate started, I felt good. Sure, it could have just been the lightheadedness from being a couple pints down; but more likely it’s because on the off-chance that my blood ends up saving the life of someone fighting to protect my country, well, that would just fucking rule.” – more reader comment on the Letters Page.

An appreciation from the bottom of my heart. The sadness swells.

Here’s an email worth running in full. It makes some excellent points about the war so far:

I will admit to being a bit of an Army partisan. I’m also the first to acknowledge the brilliant work the Air Force has done in close air support (bombing of tanks, troops, etc). It looks like the strategic work (Baghdad, communications networks, etc) has been more mixed, but even there the jury will be out until the war is over. But with “it looks as if this war will be won primarily by the amazing work of the special forces, and the airforce” you’re off base. I think a full reading of the available reporting from both the embeds and those covering the larger view will bear that out. But I’ll highlight a few points –

-The 3rd Infantry Division has been in one giant knife fight for much of its charge north (a charge praised by the British, see London Times). The 3rd Squadron of the 7th Cavalry Regiment (the lead element for the 3rd ID) has been in some brutal battles. In those battles the Army has lost M-1 tanks on the battlefield for the first time EVER. Both the Marines and Army have been fighting house to house. We’re hearing anecdotal stories of streets covered with dead Iraqi troops. This has been a brutal fight. John Ringo (www.johnringo.com), a Fox contributer and former paratrooper might be a good guy to talk to if you’re interested. He’s pretty accessible (though I don’t know him) and well informed on the 7th Cavalry’s recent battles.

-You say “Rummy” was right. Rummy also said we didn’t need the Brits. Imagine where we would be if the Brits weren’t bottling up Basra with a couple of brigades. Keep in mind the Brits have one division in country, and we only have a little more than two. That he would even consider writing off that contribution should tell you a little about what he thought this war was going to be like.

-Everyone talks about the plan for a “rolling start”. Why? It’s BS to suggest that this was Frank’s ideal plan. Vernon Loeb’s reporting in the Washington Post makes that clear. Rumsfeld tore up plan after plan until he got a small enough force that he could live with. But WHY? It’s one thing if you have to make decisions about what to do when you don’t have time to build forces. But this war has been likely, if not certain, for months. What was the downside in having another division in the desert? Were the political, economic, logistic, and troop issues so overwhelming that it couldn’t be done? I actually think the costs were pretty minimal.

-I hope that we don’t need to fight house to house in Baghdad or Tikrit. I will be thrilled if this all ends tonight. But what if we do have to join that fight? Do we have enough troops?
Someone needs to show me where, because I don’t see it, until the 4th ID gets there. If then.

-At least some of the rapid success has to do with Iraqi failures. Not blowing bridges, for example. Did spec ops and the AF contribute to this? Probably. Should it be something that we count on? Of course not. Is Barry McCaffery (or anyone else) wrong to worry about what could go wrong? Again, of course not. Should we count on this in whatever’s next? No.

-You’re putting an awful lot of weight on the musings of one infantry company XO (probably about 25 years old) with the Post article that you cite. In any case, “Air Force jets, Army AH-64 Apache helicopters and multiple-rocket launchers” – two of the three are Army. And the multiple-rocket launchers (MLRS) are Army artillery – “the dominant tactical weapon on the battlefield” – so says General McCaffery (Kudlow and Cramer, a couple of nights ago).

-Sometimes military officers need a kick in the pants to make needed change. But in not giving them what they ask for (and again, there is no way CENTCOM and V Corps got what they would have preferred), you assume a massive responsibility. Again, it’s one thing if you face a political decision to fight and you don’t have time to get them what they would like in a perfect world. But it’s a different animal if you have the time and you’re taking the opportunity to test a new theory.

-Even if this does end tomorrow, I don’t think anyone looking at this in a year would say that we had the appropriate amount of ground forces in the south. Turkey’s surprise not withstanding, there was no margin for error. One company out of place, one Iraqi tank company sneaking past into our supply convoys, and we would have been facing a disaster, because we had no significant reserves, and no troops with which to secure the areas in the south.

I don’t mean to beat a point to death, but I think the reporting on this point is out there. Do not sell short what these people (Army and Marines) have had to do.

I have a feeling this debate is going to go on fo quite some time.